https://conservapedia.com/api.php?action=feedcontributions&user=NormanS&feedformat=atomConservapedia - User contributions [en]2024-03-29T05:32:19ZUser contributionsMediaWiki 1.24.2https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Public_schools_in_the_United_States&diff=599398Public schools in the United States2009-01-02T03:16:44Z<p>NormanS: </p>
<hr />
<div>[[Public schools]] in the [[United States]] are [[liberal]] and [[atheistic]]<ref>[http://www.exodusmandate.org/art_exodus_from_public_schools_gets_helping_hand.htm Exodus from "public schools" gets a helping hand], Exodus Mandate, Sept 15, 1998</ref><ref>For example, "in 2005, officials at East Brunswick High School adopted a policy prohibiting representatives of the school district from participating in student-initiated prayer." [http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=61806]</ref><ref>From 2004 to 2006, a [[public school]] banned [[Bible]] study by children ... ''during recess''. A teacher complained about the use of the Bible and the principal then censored the study activity, according to a sworn statement by a teacher told to stop it. Principal "Summa, having learned of a complaint by a teacher and of the students' Bible study, told fourth-grade teacher Virginia Larue to nix the group's recess meeting. ... Larue later told one of Luke's Bible study colleagues the group could no longer meet at recess."[http://knoxnews.com/news/2008/jan/03/recess-bible-study-spurs-lawsuit/]</ref><ref>[[Atheists]] routinely impose their views on [[public schools]], though liberals deny it. For example, a court prohibited a moment of silence in [[Illinois]] "Township High School District 214 after atheist activist Rob Sherman challenged" it.[http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-moment_of_silence_bothmay30,0,7722271.story]</ref> <br />
government institutions that employ 3 million people and spend $411.5 billion annually at a cost of $10,770 per student.<ref>[http://www.edreform.com/index.cfm?fuseAction=section&pSectionID=15&cSectionID=97 Statistics about education]</ref> Spoken [[prayer]], the [[Ten Commandments]], and sharing of [[faith]] are expressly forbidden in public schools' classrooms during school hours, and teaching of [[morality]] is implicitly disfavored.<ref>''See, e.g.'', ''[[Stone v. Graham]]'' (1980) (excluding Ten Commandments from public school).</ref><ref>A public school banned [[Bible]] study by children ... ''during recess''. A teacher complained about the use of the Bible and the principle then censored the study activity, according to a sworn statement by a teacher told to stop it. [http://knoxnews.com/news/2008/jan/03/recess-bible-study-spurs-lawsuit/]</ref> Homosexual indoctrination is common as early as elementary school in more [[liberal]] states.<ref>http://www.massresistance.org/media/video/brainwashing.html</ref><br />
<br />
Public schools in America have these characteristics:<br />
<br />
*30% fail to graduate<ref name="graduate">"Only 70% of all students in public high schools graduate, and only 32% of all students leave high school qualified to attend four-year colleges."[http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/ewp_03.htm]</ref><br />
*Nearly 70% are unqualified to go onto college<ref name="graduate"/><br />
*77% do illegal drugs, and fatal overdoses are common but underreported; public schools are required to present drug "education" to kids<ref>"In 1991, 62 percent [of 8th through 12th graders] had used illicit drugs. In 2007, the number jumped to 77 percent."[http://www.battlecreekenquirer.com/article/20081207/NEWS08/812070305/1002] Fatal overdoses are common, although often underreported.[http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B01E5DB123EF932A25750C0A9629C8B63 Reporting of a heroin overdose by 16-year-old [[public school]] student was an exception to the underreporting].</ref><br />
*More than 60% of public school teenagers (in one regional study) watch more than 3 hours of television a day, compared with a national average of 35%<ref>http://www.commercialappeal.com/news/2008/dec/01/memphis-youth-make-progress-on-risky-behavior/ (study of Memphis students)</ref><br />
*About 10% of the girls become pregnant in a typical school; about half have [[abortion]]s, and about half give birth; public schools "educate" kids about sex<ref>"There is zero shame" to teenage pregnancy at public school, the school nurse observed.[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/12/12/AR2008121203507.html]</ref><br />
*About 160,000 students miss school daily because they [[fear]] being [[Bully|bullied]]," and in [[Hawaii]] students viciously fight each other and post videos of it on [[YouTube|Youtube.com]].<ref>One victim is now "being [[homeschooled]] at state expense."[http://starbulletin.com/2008/05/18/news/story01.html]</ref> <br />
*20% go on dangerous "binge drinking," and 50% drink illegally<ref name="Oregon">http://www.mlive.com/chronicle/news/index.ssf/2008/12/ottawa_co_youth_survey_surpris.html</ref><br />
*10-20% become addicted to cigarettes<ref name="Oregon"/><ref>http://www.commercialappeal.com/news/2008/dec/01/memphis-youth-make-progress-on-risky-behavior/</ref><br />
*35% are overweight<ref name="health">http://www.commercialappeal.com/news/2008/nov/29/students-health-needs-attention/</ref><br />
*Nearly 10% have mental health problems<ref name="health"/><br />
*More than 10% of public high schools have a pro-homosexual student club<br />
<br />
In response to the perception that public schools have stopped teaching morality, many state education departments have or are in the process of developing "morality" that avoid good and evil, right and wrong, and instead present under the heading of "character" education.<ref>[http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3971/is_199910/ai_n8866284]</ref> The lack of appreciation for right and wrong can surprise outsiders, and even school principals. When one public school student was charged with [[felony]] [[computer crime]] for altering the grades of 20 students, the principal said, we "want to teach them what's right and wrong, and it's tough for some kids to catch on to the idea that changing grades is the wrong thing to do."<ref>http://cw2.trb.com/news/kwgn-student-grade-felony,0,7871401.story</ref> The impact of the removal of morality from the [[public school]] curriculum (which is also used in private schools) is that "more than one in three boys (35 percent) and one-fourth of the girls (26 percent) — a total of 30 percent overall — admitted stealing from a store within the past year."<ref>http://charactercounts.org/programs/reportcard/index.html</ref><br />
<br />
== History and Terminology ==<br />
<br />
In 1647, [[Massachusetts]] [[Puritans]] enacted the second law, after Scotland in 1616,<ref>The Social, Economic & Political Reasons for the Decline of Gaelic in Scotland [http://www.scottishhistory.com/articles/highlands/gaelic/gaelic_page1.html]</ref> establishing universal public [[school]]s in the English-speaking world to block the attempts by "ould deluder Satan to keepe men from the whole knowledge of the Scriptures".<ref>''Family Encyclopedia of American History'' (Reader's Digest 1975)</ref> Each settlement larger than 50 families was required to pay a [[teacher|schoolmaster]] to teach reading, writing and religious doctrine to the [[children]] in the community. Beginning in 1670, Massachusetts provided [[taxation|tax]] funding for school maintenance. This model was then copied throughout the colonies, and even throughout the world.<br />
<br />
Many children did not attend public school for the first two centuries. It was not until 1852 that Massachusetts became the first state to require attendance by students aged 6 through 16, and it was not until 1918 that all states had [[compulsory attendance]] laws. High schools did not generally exist until after the [[Civil War]], and [[kindergarten]] did not exist until it was created in St. Louis in 1873.<br />
<br />
In the [[United Kingdom]], the term "public school" means the exact opposite of its American usage, and refers to the most expensive and prestigious ''private'' schools, such as [[Eton College]], [[Harrow]], and a few others.<br />
== Student Prayer in Public Schools ==<br />
<br />
The White House announced the release of Revised Religious Guidelines for America's Public Schools on May 29, 1998. Within this announcement, President Clinton stated, "Nothing in the First Amendment converts our public schools into religion-free zones, or requires all religious expression to be left behind at the school house door." --President Clinton, July 12, 1995<ref>http://www.ed.gov/PressReleases/05-1998/wh-0530.html</ref> <br />
<br />
In 2003, the Education Department released the following guidelines that clarified and added requirements to Public Schools to ensure the religious rights of students.<ref>http://www.freedomforum.org/templates/document.asp?documentID=17550</ref> <br />
<blockquote><br />
Schools that don’t allow students to pray outside the classroom or that prohibit teachers from holding religious meetings among themselves could lose federal money, the Education Department said late last week.<br /><br />
<br /><br />
The guidance reflects the Bush administration’s push to ensure that schools give teachers and students as much freedom to pray as the courts have allowed.<br /><br />
The department makes clear that teachers cannot pray with students or attempt to shape their religious views.<br />
The instructions, released by the department on Feb. 7, broadly follow the same direction given by the Clinton administration and the courts. Prayer is generally allowed provided it happens outside the class and is initiated by students, not by school officials.<br /><br />
<br /><br />
The department, however, also offered some significant additions, including more details on such contentious matters as moments of silence and prayer in student assemblies. And for the first time, federal funds are tied to compliance with the guidelines. The burden is on schools to prove compliance through a yearly report.<br />
</blockquote><br />
<br />
== Public schools and declining literacy ==<br />
Since the rapid expansion and liberalization of public schools after [[World War II]], students' [[literacy]] levels have dropped significantly. While the average 14-year-old had a vocabulary of 25,000 words in 1945, the equivalent student in 2000 had a vocabulary of only 10,000 words, a severe disadvantage in an increasingly textual world.<ref>''Utne Reader'' (July-August 2000), 28-9.</ref><br />
<br />
==Teaching the Bible in Public Schools ==<br />
The [[National Council on Bible Curriculum in Public Schools]]<ref>http://www.bibleinschools.net/</ref> (NCBCPS) provides a program for teaching the Bible in public schools. Currently, the NCBCPS's Bible curriculum has been voted into 462 school districts (over 1,900 high schools) in 38 states. Over 210,000 students have already taken this course nationwide, on the high school campus, during school hours, for credit.<br />
==Effect of liberal mindset on textbooks==<br />
Textbooks (K-12) have been systematically analyzed in a study funded by the U.S. government. The 1986 findings were that massive, systematic [[liberal]] bias exists, resulting in several information blackouts in four key areas of modern American life&mdash;marriage, religion, politics, and business. While an actual conspiracy was then ruled out, the cause was found to be a "a very widespread secular and liberal mindset" pervading "the leadership in the world of education [and textbook publishing]"<ref> ''Censorship: Evidence of Bias in Our Children's textbooks'', [[Paul C. Vitz]], Servant Books, 1986, ISBN 0-89283-305-X</ref>.<br />
<br />
==Pre-1962 Graduates ==<br />
Given that [[public schools]] educate about 90% of [[Americans]], it is astounding how few prominent Americans attended public school after the banning of school prayer in 1962. Nearly all the examples of prominent Americans who attended public school predate 1962 in their attendance:<br />
<br />
*[[Ronald Reagan]]<ref>http://www.dixonil.com/reagan/reagan2.htm</ref> graduated from Dixon High School, Illinois<br />
*[[Dwight D. Eisenhower]]<ref>http://www.eisenhower.archives.gov/press_releases/2007/PR07_11_August_02_2007_Eisenhower_Co_Sponsor_Little_Rock.pdf</ref> attended Abilene High School in Abilene, Kansas<br />
*[[Richard M. Nixon]]<ref>http://www.nndb.com/edu/836/000068632/</ref> attended Fullerton and Whittier High Schools, California<br />
*[[Gerald Ford]]<ref>http://www.visitgrandrapids.org/ford-facts.php</ref> attended Grand Rapids South High School, Michigan<br />
*[[Lyndon B. Johnson]]<ref>http://www.nndb.com/people/062/000023990/</ref> attended Johnson City High School, Texas<br />
*[[Harry S Truman]]<ref>http://www.nps.gov/nr/twhp/wwwlps/lessons/103truman/103visual1.htm</ref> attended Independence High School, Missouri<br />
*[[H. Ross Perot]]<ref>http://www.famoustexans.com/rossperot.htm</ref> attended public schools and Texarkana Junior College, Texas<br />
*[[Richard Cheney]]<ref>http://www.nndb.com/people/598/000022532/</ref> graduated from Natrona County High School in Casper, Wyoming.<br />
*[[Colin Powell]] graduated from Morris High School, NY in 1954 and received his B.A. in geology from the City College of New York in 1958 <ref>http://gale.cengage.com/free_resources/bhm/bio/powell_c.htm</ref><br />
*[[Billy Graham]] graduated from Sharon High School, NC in May 1936<ref>http://online-bibleconcordance.com/Ministers/BillyGraham.aspx</ref><br />
*[[Michael Medved]] graduated from Palisades High School, CA <ref>michaelmedved.townhall.com/About.aspx</ref><br />
*[[The Wright Brothers]] attended public schools in Richmond, India and Dayton OH but did not graduate <ref>http://www.kyrene.org/schools/brisas/sunda/inventor/wright/index.html</ref><br />
*[[Roy Jay Glauber]], Nobel laureate, graduated from Bronx High School of Science, Bronx, NY in 1941. <ref>http://www.nndb.com/people/738/000138324/</ref><br />
*[[Frederick Reines]], Nobel laureate, attended Union Hill High School, NJ, during the late 1930's. <ref>http://www.nndb.com/people/052/000099752/</ref><br />
*[[Oliver North]], US Army Officer, political commentator, graduated from Ockawamick High School in 1961. <ref>http://libraryoflibrary.com/E_n_c_p_d_Ollie_North.html</ref><br />
<br />
==Post-1962 Graduates==<br />
Celebrities, Businessmen, Astronauts, Nobel Laureates, Medal of Honor Recipients, and Candidates who attended public school after prayer was banned in 1962 include:<br />
<br />
*Pat Tillman, NFL football player and US Army soldier graduated from Leland High School CA <ref>http://www.biography.com/search/article.do?id=197041</ref><br />
*Jeff Bezos, founder of Amazon.com, attended Miami Palmetto Senior High School FL.<ref>http://www.achievement.org/autodoc/page/bez0bio-1<br />
</ref> <br />
*Jerry Yang, co-founder of Yahoo.com, graduated from Sierramont Middle School, and Piedmont Hills High School, CA. <ref>http://goldsea.com/Innovators/Yangjerry/yangjerry3.html</ref><br />
*David Filo, co-founder of Yahoo.com graduated from Sam Houston High School TX. <ref>http://www.nndb.com/people/301/000123929/</ref><br />
*Kathryn D. Sullivan, NASA astronaut and first American woman to walk in space, graduated from Taft High School, Woodland Hills, California, in 1969. <ref>http://www.jsc.nasa.gov/Bios/htmlbios/sullivan-kd.html</ref><br />
*S. Christa Mcauliffe, astronaut participant, graduated from Marian High School, Framingham, Massachusetts, in 1966. <ref>http://www.jsc.nasa.gov/Bios/htmlbios/mcauliffe.html<br />
</ref><br />
*Mae C. Jemison, NASA astronaut and first African-America woman in space, graduated from Morgan Park High School, Chicago, Illinois, in 1973. <ref>http://www.jsc.nasa.gov/Bios/htmlbios/jemison-mc.html<br />
</ref><br />
*Ellen Ochoa, NASA astronaut and the first Hispanic-American woman astronaut, graduated from Grossmont High School, La Mesa, California, in 1975. <ref>http://www.jsc.nasa.gov/Bios/htmlbios/ochoa.html</ref> <br />
*Jeana Yeager, aviator, graduated from Commerce High School GA in 1970.<ref>http://www.tamu-commerce.edu/mrp/pdf/today/12-07-05.pdf<br />
</ref> <br />
*[[Brad Pitt]], actor, graduated from Kickapoo High School in Springfield, Missouri, 1981. <ref>http://www.rolemodel.net/brad_pitt.cfm<br />
</ref><br />
*[[Tom Cruise]], actor, attended several public high schools including Glen Ridge High School, New Jersey during the 1970's. <ref>http://www.nndb.com/people/791/000022725/<br />
</ref><br />
*John Sununu, Senator, graduated from Salem High School in the 1970's. <ref>http://www.sununu.senate.gov/biography.html<br />
</ref><br />
*[[John Edwards]], politician, attended public school in Robbins, N.C. during the 1960's.<ref>http://www.pbs.org/newshour/vote2004/primaries/edwards_bio.html</ref> <br />
*Spike Lee, producer, actor, graduated from John Dewey High School, Brooklyn, NY.<ref>http://movies.nytimes.com/person/99175/Spike-Lee/biography</ref><br />
*[[Bill Gates]], founder of Microsoft, ''left'' public school after attending in Seattle until the age of twelve.<ref>http://www.thocp.net/biographies/gates_bill.htm</ref><br />
*[[Rush Limbaugh]] graduated from Central High School, MO in 1969 and attended Southeast Missouri State University for two semesters <ref>http://www.phillytalkradio.com/shows/show.php?show_id=limb</ref><br />
*Frank Wilczek, Nobel laureate, attended Martin Van Buren High School, Queens, NY, during the late 1960's. <ref>http://www.nndb.com/people/720/000140300/</ref><br />
*Sgt. 1st Class Randall Shughart, U.S. Army, Battle of Mogadishu hero, Medal of Honor recipient; graduated from Big Spring High School in Newville, PA in 1976. <ref> http://www.pbs.org/weta/americanvalor/stories/shughart.html\</ref><br />
*Sgt. 1st Class Paul Ray Smith, U.S. Army, Iraq War hero, Medal of Honor recipient; graduated from Tampa Bay Vocational Technical High School, FL in 1988. <ref>http://www.army.mil/medalofhonor/smith/profile/index.html</ref><br />
*Cpl. Jason Dunham, U.S. Marines, Iraq War hero, Medal of Honor recipient; graduated from Scio High School NY, in 2002.<ref> http://copthetruth.typepad.com/cop_the_truth/2007/03/uss_jason_dunha.html</ref><br />
*Lt. Michael Murphy, Navy SEAL, Afghanistan War hero, Medal of Honor recipient; graduated from Patchogue-Medford High School in 1994. <ref> http://www.pat-med.k12.ny.us/Schools/HS/articles/0708/murphy/index.html</ref><br />
*Laura Bush attended James Bowie Elementary School, San Jacinto Junior High School, and Midland Lee High School in Midland, Texas (Graduated 1964).{{fact}}<br />
*John Cromwell Mather, Nobel laureate, graduated from Newton High School, Newton, NJ in 1964. <ref>http://www.nndb.com/people/915/000137504/</ref><br />
*George Fitzgerald Smoot, Nobel laureate, graduated from Upper Arlington High School, Upper Arlington, OH in 1962. <ref>http://www.nndb.com/people/921/000137510/</ref><br />
*Hugh David Politzer, Nobel laureate, graduated from Bronx High School of Science, Bronx, NY in 1966. <ref>http://www.nndb.com/people/716/000140296/</ref><br />
*[[William J. Clinton]]<ref>http://www.hotsprings.org/things_to_do/historic_hotsprings/presidents_hometown.asp</ref> graduated from Hot Springs High School in Arkansas in 1964<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
{{reflist}}<br />
<br />
==See Also==<br />
<br />
*[[Public school culture]]<br />
*[[Teacher Pay]]<br />
<br />
[[category:education]]<br />
[[category:United States History]]</div>NormanShttps://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia:Desk/afd&diff=599313Conservapedia:Desk/afd2009-01-02T01:28:54Z<p>NormanS: Submitted to a Candid World - non notable topic, completely unsourced and containing parody, and is undermining "Wanted Pages"</p>
<hr />
<div>* [[Polyphymnia]] (test)<br />
* [[Ode on the Mammoth Cheese]]<br />
* [[:Category:Geological time periods]]<br />
* [[How Old is the Earth According to the Bible?]] ([[talk:How Old is the Earth According to the Bible%3f|Talk page]])<br />
* [[Examples of Absurdities in Wikipedia]] ([[talk:Examples of Absurdities in Wikipedia|talk page]])<br />
* [[Atheistic Style]] <br />
* [[Christian Style]]<br />
* [[Gerin Oil]]<br />
* [[Submitted to a Candid World]] - by creator's admission is an unnotable topic, contains many disputable statements which are completely unsourced, has several lines of parody "The blog owner is also reported to have flown over Muslim countries dropping leaflets", and contains a number of made up categories whose redlinks will screw up "Wanted Pages". None of these issues can be addressed or even raised on the talk page as the creator has locked everything for no apparant reason. Appears to be exploiting this encyclopedia to further a personal dispute, and creator should be disciplined for this.</div>NormanShttps://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Bugle_calls&diff=599291Bugle calls2009-01-02T01:14:31Z<p>NormanS: </p>
<hr />
<div>'''Bugle calls''' are used in a number of military institutions to coordinate a soldier's day. An example (used in the Civil War) is listed below:<br />
<br />
* 5:50am - first call<br />
* 6:00am - Reveille (signalling morning assembly)<br />
* 6:15am - stable call (calvary soldiers prepare horses)<br />
* 6:30am - breakfast call<br />
* 7:00am - sick call (ill and injured soldiers report to sick bay)<br />
* 7:30am - fatigue call (work parties report to duty)<br />
* 8:50am - assembly of trumpeteers (aka guard call - changing of the guard)<br />
* 8:55am - assembly of guard detail (assembly of guards)<br />
* 9:00am - adjuant's call (guard mounting ceremony)<br />
* 9:15am - water call (for horses)<br />
* 9:30am - drill, first call<br />
* 10:00am - drill, assembly<br />
* 11:00am - drill, recall<br />
* 11:30am - recall from fatigue (work parties cease)<br />
* 12:00pm - mess call<br />
* 1:00pm - fatigue call<br />
* 1:30pm - First Sergeant's call (morning reports due)<br />
* 2:00pm - mounted drill<br />
* 2:30pm - dismount drill<br />
* 3:30pm - drill, recall<br />
* 4:30pm - water and stable call<br />
* 5:00pm - recall from fatigue<br />
* 5:15pm - assembly of trumpteers for retreat (for final parade)<br />
* 5:30pm - assembly (retreat parade)<br />
* 5:45pm - adjuntant's call (captain marches [[buglers]] and other musicians to parade)<br />
* 6:00pm - retreat (flag lowering ceremony)<br />
* 8:55pm - assembly of trumpeteers for tatoo<br />
* 9:00pm - tatoo (prepare for bed)<br />
* 9:05pm - assembly (bed check and last roll call)<br />
* 9:15pm - taps (lights out)<br />
<br />
''Adopted from [http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/bugle.htm FAS Military Analysis Network]''<br />
<br />
==See Also==<br />
<br />
* [[Bugle]]<br />
* [[Bugler]]<br />
<br />
[[Category:Music]]<br />
[[Category:Military]]</div>NormanShttps://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Bugle_calls&diff=599279Bugle calls2009-01-02T01:07:51Z<p>NormanS: </p>
<hr />
<div>'''Bugle calls''' are used in a number of military institutions to coordinate a soldier's day. An example (used in the Civil War) is listed below:<br />
<br />
* 5:50am - first call<br />
* 6:00am - Reveille (signalling morning assembly)<br />
* 6:15am - stable call (calvary soldiers prepare horses)<br />
* 6:30am - breakfast call<br />
* 7:00am - sick call (ill and injured soldiers report to sick bay)<br />
* 7:30am - fatigue call (work parties report to duty)<br />
* 8:50am - assembly of trumpeteers (aka guard call - changing of the guard)<br />
* 8:55am - assembly of guard detail (assembly of guards)<br />
* 9:00am - adjuant's call (guard mounting ceremony)<br />
* 9:15am - water call (for horses)<br />
* 9:30am - drill, first call<br />
* 10:00am - drill, assembly<br />
* 11:00am - drill, recall<br />
* 11:30am - recall from fatigue (work parties cease)<br />
* 12:00pm - mess call<br />
* 1:00pm - fatigue call<br />
* 1:30pm - First Sergeant's call (morning reports due)<br />
* 2:00pm - mounted drill<br />
* 2:30pm - dismount drill<br />
* 3:30pm - drill, recall</div>NormanShttps://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Bugle_calls&diff=599276Bugle calls2009-01-02T00:59:06Z<p>NormanS: Continuing</p>
<hr />
<div>'''Bugle calls''' are used in a number of military institutions to coordinate a soldier's day. An example (used in the Civil War) is listed below:<br />
<br />
* 5:50am - first call<br />
* 6:00am - Reveille (signalling morning assembly)<br />
* 6:15am - stable call (calvary soldiers prepare horses)<br />
* 6:30am - breakfast call<br />
* 7:00am - sick call (ill and injured soldiers report to sick bay)<br />
* 7:30am - fatigue call (work parties report to duty)<br />
* 8:50am - assembly of trumpeteers (aka guard call - changing of the guard)<br />
* 8:55am - assembly of guard detail (assembly of guards)<br />
* 9:00am - adjuant's call (guard mounting ceremony)</div>NormanShttps://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Bugle_calls&diff=599274Bugle calls2009-01-02T00:55:28Z<p>NormanS: Create - saving so don't lose</p>
<hr />
<div>'''Bugle calls''' are used in a number of military institutions to coordinate a soldier's day. An example (used in the Civil War) is listed below:<br />
<br />
* 5:50am - first call<br />
* 6:00am - Reveille (signalling morning assembly)</div>NormanShttps://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Bugler&diff=599273Bugler2009-01-02T00:50:39Z<p>NormanS: Create</p>
<hr />
<div>A '''bugler''' is somebody who plays a [[bugle]], a brass instrument lacking valves. Buglers have had an important historic role in many military institutions, where they were responsible for coordinating a soldier's day with a series of [[bugle calls]] signalling assemblies, roll calls, the beginning and end of work patterns and lights out. For hundreds of years, buglers were also vital members of the French army, as they signalled retreats across the battlefield. <br />
<br />
Traditionally, buglers were more colourfully decorated than their counterparts. In modern times, most buglers have been replaced with electronic sound systems, however they still perform at important military ceremonies.<br />
<br />
==External Links==<br />
<br />
* [http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/bugle.htm Buglers and Bugle Calls - FAS Military Analysis Network]<br />
<br />
[[Category:Music]]</div>NormanShttps://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Great_Achievements_by_Teenagers&diff=597701Talk:Great Achievements by Teenagers2008-12-31T01:02:18Z<p>NormanS: Analogy</p>
<hr />
<div>==Clarification==<br />
Nearly all of those who accomplished great deeds while being teenagers made even greater contributions when they became adults. Especially, this list can't be used to bolster up the claim that ''most of the greatest works in history were accomplished by people who were teenagers''<br />
[[User:BRichtigen|BRichtigen]] 16:49, 26 December 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Heavenly voices ==<br />
<br />
Is hearing heavenly voices an acheivement? Is was it leading France to victory that was the acheivement? It rather reads as if the hearing of voices was the acheivement. --[[User:TCochrane|TCochrane]] 18:26, 26 December 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Reversion ==<br />
<br />
Obviously if someone produced a work ''before'' becoming a teenager it proves the same point; hence the reversion.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 21:34, 26 December 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:Then how about renaming the page to keep it accurate? "Great Achievements by Minors", maybe? [[User:DRussell|DRussell]] 21:40, 26 December 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Karl Benz ==<br />
<br />
I removed [[Karl Benz]]: Though he was a child prodigy, at the given age ('''15'''), he ''"only"'' passed the entrance exam of the University of [[Karlsruhe]]. His genius really flourished in his late thirties. --[[User:BRichtigen|BRichtigen]] 07:10, 27 December 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
<br />
==Later Achievments==<br />
* '''7''' - Yehudi Menuhin: made his last recording age 82<br />
* '''8''' - [[Pablo Picasso]] Cubism: age 30 <br />
* '''8''' - [[Frederic Chopin]] Piano Concert No. 1: age 20<br />
* '''12''' - [[Blaise Pascal]] "Traité du triangle arithmétique": age 30<br />
* '''13''' - [[John]] stays a mistery<br />
* '''13''' - [[Joan of Arc]] inspired and led [[France]] to victory in the [[Hundred Years War]]<br />
* '''13''' - [[Anne Frank]] began writing her diary, later published as "Anne Frank: The Diary of a Young Girl"<br />
* '''14''' - chess-player [[Bobby Fischer]] World Chess Champion: age 29<br />
* '''14''' - [[Mozart]]"Don Giovanni": age 32<br />
* '''15''' - [[Louis Braille]] invented the [[Braille]] system<br />
* '''15''' - [[Christopher Paolini]] writes the first draft of his [[Eragon]] trilogy which is published when he is 19.<br />
* '''16''' - Jean-François Champollion: deciphers the [[Rosetta Stone]] age 32<br />
* '''18''' - [[Mary Shelley]] writes Frankenstein (The Modern Prometheus) - it is only published when she is 21, however.<br />
* '''20''' - Carl Friedrich Gauss makes his first mathematical discoveries, which will lead to the completion of "Disquisitiones Arithmeticae", his magnum opus, at the age of 21.<br />
<br />
So, most of the persons in the list made contributions to their field works overshadowing there achievements as teenagers.<br />
<br />
[[User:BRichtigen|BRichtigen]] 08:57, 27 December 2008 (EST)<br />
:A corrosive attitude is not beneficial. If, as Andy suggested, you opened your mind you might find nmany more examples to support this case. Bear in mind: demolition is easy, to build takes effort! [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 08:59, 27 December 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
<br />
==Jesus==<br />
<br />
I'm not entirely certain I'm comfortable with including Jesus on a list of "teenagers." Part of that may just be a visceral reaction against applying the term to the Almighty, but setting that aside, I'm still not entirely sure he belongs on the list. After all, despite His physical age at the time he preached, He was still God, and therefore timeless and eternal. It's going to be a little hard for anyone, teenager or adult, to measure up to His list of accomplishments! --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 14:18, 28 December 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
==IQ Peak==<br />
<br />
Although it is a hotly debated subject, there is no concrete evidence to suggest that IQ peaks in the pre-teen/teenage years. The linked article provides evidence to support that the rate of brain development peaks at this time, but this is idependant of a person's IQ.<br />
<br />
To highlight the diparate viewpoints, it is possible to show an IQ peak at anywhere from 14-16yrs old, all the way up to 50yrs+ - depending on what you measure, how you measure and how you interpret your findings (as with many stats i suppose).<br />
<br />
More info: http://www.albion.edu/psychology/fac_psyc/jwilson/psy101/intell.htm<br />
<br />
Hope my edit is satisfactory --[[User:J00ni|J00ni]] 18:22, 28 December 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
==Mary as "17"==<br />
<br />
Can I suggest using the word "uncertain" for Mary's age instead of assuming that it's 17? That takes nothing away from the assumption that she was a teenager when she gave birth, but it doesn't seem right for CP to state a specific age as if it were a fact when the comment goes on to acknowledge that the actual age was unknown. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 09:20, 30 December 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
: The footnote is clear enough. No one doubts she was a teenager, and 17 was an average age of betrothal. The purpose of this list is plainly not to pinpoint precise ages, but merely to show the teenagers as a group.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 09:24, 30 December 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:: I don't disagree with that. I've added an asterisk after her age to highlight that it's an approximation, and leaving the rest as-is. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 10:03, 30 December 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:::It could be even earlier; in the middle ages it was not uncommon for girls to give birth at 14, so in this case I think it could be as young as 15 (but I think it's 16, personally). [[User:ETrundel|ETrundel]] 14:29, 30 December 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:::: I too was given to believe she was younger than 17 at the time. My maternal family line has a long tradition of Mary-derived names in firstborn daughters, (I'm Regina, yes, that's Mary Derived, have "Ave Regina") and my mother always told the story that she was around 15. When I was little that seemed quite grown up, but when I was 15 myself, it struck me just how very brave she was, and how young. I think the note of approximation is important for this reason, it is true she could have been as old as 17, but at that young age, two years is a world of difference in maturity and self assurance. If she was indeed younger than 17, bumping up her age underestimates the greatness of her faith. Best err on the side of caution and reverence. [[User:BirdieA|Birdie]] 13:25, 30 December 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
::::: I side with Birdie, I have always understood it as the age of 15. --Jpatt 14:27, 30 December 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
==Bill Gates==<br />
<br />
A 13-year-old programming is not a remarkable achievement, and Gates' significant accomplishments occurred as a young adult, not a teen. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 14:06, 30 December 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:I understand your point and I for one do not wish to glorify an atheist. By todays standards, that is not an achievement. At age thirteen in 1968, think about the computer he was working with? It is a bright child that succeeded, is it a great achievement? --Jpatt 14:24, 30 December 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
== remove some or move the page? ==<br />
<br />
If it is going to be Great achievements be teenagers, then we need to limit the list to teenagers only, not 8 and 10 year olds and 20 year olds. We need to remove the non-teenagers from the list, or else change it to something like "great achievements by young people" --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] <small>(CPAdmin1)</small><sup>[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]]</sup> 19:55, 30 December 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:12 year olds are also not teenagers. It sounds like we're getting technical, but saying that 8, 10, 12 and 20 year olds are teenagers is effectively the same as saying girls who wear pants are boys. [[User:NormanS|NormanS]] 20:02, 30 December 2008 (EST)</div>NormanShttps://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Great_Achievements_by_Teenagers&diff=597693Great Achievements by Teenagers2008-12-31T00:36:31Z<p>NormanS: This has nothing to do with censoring, it is keeping the information accurate for the current title, "Great Achievements by TEENAGERS"</p>
<hr />
<div>Teenagers throughout history have had many great achievements in the fields of art, culture, science and technology. This may be because they are able to think in new and innovative ways, or their thinking is not hidebound by discredited nostrums; it may be attributable to great teachers and great schooling - including homeschooling. It may simply be the emergence of God-given talent at an early age. Biologically the rate of brain development, and according to some studies [[IQ]], reportedly peak in smart individuals just prior to their teenage years.<ref>http://articles.latimes.com/2006/mar/30/science/sci-brain30</ref><br />
<br />
==Achievements, listed by age at which they were made==<br />
<br />
* '''13''' - [[John]] wrote the first draft of the [[Gospel of John]], the greatest written work of all time.<ref>[[Mystery:Was John a Child?]]</ref><br />
* '''13''' - [[Joan of Arc]] was inspired and led [[France]] five years later to victory over the English in the [[Hundred Years War]]; was martyred at age 19.<ref>http://www.discoverfrance.net/France/History/Joan_of_Arc.shtml</ref><br />
* '''13''' - [[Anne Frank]] began writing her diary, later published as "Anne Frank: The Diary of a Young Girl."<br />
* '''13''' - [[Bill Gates]] began programming computers. <ref>[http://inventors.about.com/od/gstartinventors/a/Bill_Gates.htm Bill Gates - Biography and History] About.com</ref><br />
* '''14''' - [[David]] slays [[Goliath]].<br />
* '''14''' - [[Bobby Fischer]] became an International [[Chess]] Grandmaster.<br />
* '''14''' - [[Mozart]] wrote the opera, "Mitridate Rè di Ponto."<br />
* '''14''' - [[Nadia Comaneci]] "achieved in her sport what no [[Olympian]], male or female, ever had before: perfection."<ref>http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/events/1996/olympics/daily/july25/flashback.html</ref><br />
* '''15''' - [[Louis Braille]] invented the [[Braille]] system.<br />
* '''15''' - [[Christopher Paolini]] writes the first draft of his [[Eragon]] trilogy which is published when he is 19.<br />
* '''16''' - Jean-François Champollion, can speak a dozen languages and delivers a paper on the Coptic language to the Grenoble Academy. By 20, he can speak another 13 languages and at 32 he deciphers the [[Rosetta Stone]].<br />
* '''16''' - Boy sailor Jack Cornwall, of HMS Chester, is awarded a [[posthumous]] [[VC]] for gallantry at the [[Battle of Jutland]].<br />
* '''17*''' - [[Mary]] accepts [[God]]'s will to conceive [[Jesus]] by the [[Holy Spirit]], and gives birth nine months later.<ref>Mary's exact age is not known, but she was old enough to marry under Jewish law and was almost certainly a teenager.[http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15464b.htm]</ref><br />
* '''17''' - Shawn Fanning develops the first large-scale peer-to-peer file sharing program, Napster<br />
* '''18''' - [[Mary Shelley]] writes Frankenstein (The Modern Prometheus), later published when she was 21.<br />
* '''18''' - [[Gary Kasparov]], considered the greatest [[chess]] player ever, won the [[U.S.S.R.]] championship.<br />
* '''19''' - Captain Albert Ball, [[VC]], MC, DSO & 2 bars, commences his career as a fighter pilot. By the time he is killed, aged 20, in 1917, he has become one of the [[First World War]]'s greatest air aces, accounting for at least 44 [[German]] aircraft.<br />
* '''19''' - was the average age of front-line [[US]] service personnel fighting to defend democracy in [[Indochina]] during the [[Vietnam War]].<br />
* '''19''' - [[Evariste Galois]] develops [[group theory]], and wrote it out completely on the eve of his death at age 20; it took old [[mathematicians]] a century to comprehend it.<br />
* '''19''' - [[John D. Rockefeller]] starts a new company, turning an enormous profit in its first year, and became the most influential businessman in history.<ref>http://www.notablebiographies.com/Pu-Ro/Rockefeller-John-D.html</ref><br />
* '''19''' - Mark Zuckerberg develops Facebook, the leading social networking system for young people on the [[internet]]<br />
<br />
(add more, sorted by age and then alphabetically)<br />
<br />
<br />
===References===<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
[[Category:Achievement]]<br />
<br />
==External Links==<br />
*[http://listverse.com/miscellaneous/top-10-child-prodigies/ Top 10 Child Prodigies]</div>NormanShttps://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Great_Achievements_by_Teenagers&diff=597683Great Achievements by Teenagers2008-12-31T00:12:19Z<p>NormanS: rmv achievements not actually by *teenagers*</p>
<hr />
<div>Teenagers throughout history have had many great achievements in the fields of art, culture, science and technology. This may be because they are able to think in new and innovative ways, or their thinking is not hidebound by discredited nostrums; it may be attributable to great teachers and great schooling - including homeschooling. It may simply be the emergence of God-given talent at an early age. Biologically the rate of brain development, and according to some studies [[IQ]], reportedly peak in smart individuals just prior to their teenage years.<ref>http://articles.latimes.com/2006/mar/30/science/sci-brain30</ref><br />
<br />
==Achievements, listed by age at which they were made==<br />
<br />
* '''12''' - [[Blaise Pascal]] had secretly worked out the first twenty-three propositions of Euclid by himself.<br />
* '''12''' - [[Jesus]] presents His wisdom in the temple in [[Jerusalem]].<br />
* '''13''' - [[John]] wrote the first draft of the [[Gospel of John]], the greatest written work of all time.<ref>[[Mystery:Was John a Child?]]</ref><br />
* '''13''' - [[Joan of Arc]] was inspired and led [[France]] five years later to victory over the English in the [[Hundred Years War]]; was martyred at age 19.<ref>http://www.discoverfrance.net/France/History/Joan_of_Arc.shtml</ref><br />
* '''13''' - [[Anne Frank]] began writing her diary, later published as "Anne Frank: The Diary of a Young Girl."<br />
* '''13''' - [[Bill Gates]] began programming computers. <ref>[http://inventors.about.com/od/gstartinventors/a/Bill_Gates.htm Bill Gates - Biography and History] About.com</ref><br />
* '''14''' - [[David]] slays [[Goliath]].<br />
* '''14''' - [[Bobby Fischer]] became an International [[Chess]] Grandmaster.<br />
* '''14''' - [[Mozart]] wrote the opera, "Mitridate Rè di Ponto."<br />
* '''14''' - [[Nadia Comaneci]] "achieved in her sport what no [[Olympian]], male or female, ever had before: perfection."<ref>http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/events/1996/olympics/daily/july25/flashback.html</ref><br />
* '''15''' - [[Louis Braille]] invented the [[Braille]] system.<br />
* '''15''' - [[Christopher Paolini]] writes the first draft of his [[Eragon]] trilogy which is published when he is 19.<br />
* '''16''' - Jean-François Champollion, can speak a dozen languages and delivers a paper on the Coptic language to the Grenoble Academy. By 20, he can speak another 13 languages and at 32 he deciphers the [[Rosetta Stone]].<br />
* '''16''' - Boy sailor Jack Cornwall, of HMS Chester, is awarded a [[posthumous]] [[VC]] for gallantry at the [[Battle of Jutland]].<br />
* '''17*''' - [[Mary]] accepts [[God]]'s will to conceive [[Jesus]] by the [[Holy Spirit]], and gives birth nine months later.<ref>Mary's exact age is not known, but she was old enough to marry under Jewish law and was almost certainly a teenager.[http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15464b.htm]</ref><br />
* '''17''' - Shawn Fanning develops the first large-scale peer-to-peer file sharing program, Napster<br />
* '''18''' - [[Mary Shelley]] writes Frankenstein (The Modern Prometheus), later published when she was 21.<br />
* '''18''' - [[Gary Kasparov]], considered the greatest [[chess]] player ever, won the [[U.S.S.R.]] championship.<br />
* '''19''' - Captain Albert Ball, [[VC]], MC, DSO & 2 bars, commences his career as a fighter pilot. By the time he is killed, aged 20, in 1917, he has become one of the [[First World War]]'s greatest air aces, accounting for at least 44 [[German]] aircraft.<br />
* '''19''' - was the average age of front-line [[US]] service personnel fighting to defend democracy in [[Indochina]] during the [[Vietnam War]].<br />
* '''19''' - [[Evariste Galois]] develops [[group theory]], and wrote it out completely on the eve of his death at age 20; it took old [[mathematicians]] a century to comprehend it.<br />
* '''19''' - [[John D. Rockefeller]] starts a new company, turning an enormous profit in its first year, and became the most influential businessman in history.<ref>http://www.notablebiographies.com/Pu-Ro/Rockefeller-John-D.html</ref><br />
* '''19''' - Mark Zuckerberg develops Facebook, the leading social networking system for young people on the [[internet]]<br />
<br />
(add more, sorted by age and then alphabetically)<br />
<br />
<br />
===References===<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
[[Category:Achievement]]<br />
<br />
==External Links==<br />
*[http://listverse.com/miscellaneous/top-10-child-prodigies/ Top 10 Child Prodigies]</div>NormanShttps://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Comedy_Central&diff=592008Comedy Central2008-12-22T01:49:36Z<p>NormanS: Combined two versions to reach balanced, more factual article</p>
<hr />
<div>'''Comedy Central''' is a cable and satellite television channel, whose following prominently features adolescents. It features cartoons, including [[South Park]], and [[liberal]] programs including [[The Daily Show]] with [[Jon Stewart]] and [[Colbert Report|The Colbert Report]] with [[Stephen Colbert]]. It airs from the west side of [[Manhattan]].<br />
<br />
==Shows==<br />
[[The Daily Show]]: A liberal-leaning parody news show hosted by [[Jon Stewart]].<br /><br />
[[The Colbert Report]]: The sister show of The Daily Show, hosted by [[Stephen Colbert]] who satirically portrays conservative commentators.<br /><br />
[[South Park]]: An cartoon based around the lives of 4 elementary school children in a Colorado Mountain Town and pokes fun at pop-culture and politics.<br /><br />
<br />
==Hypocritical Censorship==<br />
<br />
Comedy Central has been guilty of selective censorship, refusing to show an unoffensive clip featuring the Islamic prophet [[Muhammad]] in an episode of [[South Park]]. This is despite allowing ongoing obscenity and degradation of Christian beliefs in a number of its programs. This act of censorship was highly ironic, as it came at the end of a double episode dedicated to condemning [[Fox_Network|Fox]] for refusing to depict Muhammad. <br />
<br />
[[category:media]]</div>NormanShttps://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Dipole&diff=570602Dipole2008-11-27T13:27:24Z<p>NormanS: rmv vandalism that has been up for over a month</p>
<hr />
<div>A '''dipole''' is a molecule which has two [[Magnetism|magnetic]] poles, caused by a non-zero total magnetic charge. The poles are normally denoted ''north'' and ''south'', respectively. Common dipole molecules are [[water]], [[ozone]] (but not atmospheric [[oxygen]] O<sub>2</sub>), and [[benzene]]. As is well know oil and water don not mix. That is because most or all oil molecules have a different molecular polatity than water. <br />
<br />
[[Category:Chemistry]][[Category:Physics]]</div>NormanShttps://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Dead_white_males&diff=570594Dead white males2008-11-27T13:19:01Z<p>NormanS: Undo revision 570592 by Vittu (Talk) - according to commandments, everything must be verifiable, please add a source</p>
<hr />
<div>'''Dead white males''' are figures considered significant in Western civilization but despised in modern times by those who are ideologically opposed to their contributions<br />
<br />
==See Also==<br />
<br />
* [[Liberal bias]]<br />
* [[Liberal ideology]]</div>NormanShttps://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Dead_white_males&diff=570591Dead white males2008-11-27T13:15:47Z<p>NormanS: I'm going to bed, where on earth are the sysops?</p>
<hr />
<div>'''Dead white males''' are figures considered significant in Western civilization but despised in modern times by those who are ideologically opposed to their contributions<br />
<br />
==See Also==<br />
<br />
* [[Liberal bias]]<br />
* [[Liberal ideology]]</div>NormanShttps://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Dead_white_males&diff=570586Dead white males2008-11-27T13:10:31Z<p>NormanS: Undo revision 570584 by Vittu (Talk) - source it then</p>
<hr />
<div>'''Dead white males''' are figures considered significant in Western civilization but despised in modern times by those who are ideologically opposed to their contributions<br />
<br />
==See Also==<br />
<br />
* [[Liberal bias]]<br />
* [[Liberal ideology]]</div>NormanShttps://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Dead_white_males&diff=570582Dead white males2008-11-27T13:07:15Z<p>NormanS: Basic formatting</p>
<hr />
<div>'''Dead white males''' are figures considered significant in Western civilization but despised in modern times by those who are ideologically opposed to their contributions<br />
<br />
==See Also==<br />
<br />
* [[Liberal bias]]<br />
* [[Liberal ideology]]</div>NormanShttps://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Dead_white_males&diff=570580Dead white males2008-11-27T13:04:57Z<p>NormanS: Undo revision 570579 by Vittu (Talk)</p>
<hr />
<div>'''"Dead white males"''' are figures considered significant in Western civilization but despised in modern times by those who are ideologically opposed to their contributions (see [[liberal prejudice]], [[liberal bias]], [[liberal thought]], [[liberal ideology]]).</div>NormanShttps://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=University_of_Cambridge&diff=570577University of Cambridge2008-11-27T12:55:48Z<p>NormanS: No, that was actually a joke from Blackadder (Hull University is NOT one of the top universities in the UK). NeilEG should be unblocked immediately</p>
<hr />
<div>The '''[[University]] of Cambridge''' commonly referred to as '''Cambridge University''' or simply '''Cambridge''' is an institution of higher learning based in [[Cambridge]], [[England]], and the second-oldest university in the English-speaking world. Cambridge was established in 1209 [http://www.cam.ac.uk/cambuniv/pubs/history/records.html] by scholars fleeing the hostility of the townsmen in [[Oxford]], the historical reason for the competition between the two Universities and the origin of the traditional river "dunking" of Cambridge scholars visiting Oxford.<br />
<br />
Cambridge is a confederation of colleges, faculties, and institutions[http://www.cam.ac.uk/cambuniv/pubs/works/]. The University administration is relatively small compared to the size of the University. Many functions that are normally carried out by the central university bureaucracy in other universities are carried out by the colleges as at Oxford University. The functions of the colleges include teaching and research. Degrees are however conferred by the University. A person with a degree from Cambridge can put ''Cantab.'' after their name and degree, ''Cantab.'' being short for ''Cantabrigian'' (from the Latin name for the city, which is ''Cantabrigia''.)<br />
<br />
The Universities of Oxford and Cambridge collectively are often known as "Oxbridge". Historically, these two universities are regarded as the top English universities.<br />
<br />
==List of colleges==<br />
The following is a list of Cambridge colleges and halls as of 2008.[http://www.cam.ac.uk/colleges/]<br />
<br />
*Christ's College<br />
*Churchill College<br />
*Clare College<br />
*Clare Hall<br />
*Corpus Christi College<br />
*Darwin College<br />
*Downing College<br />
*Emmanuel College<br />
*Fitzwilliam College<br />
*Girton College<br />
*Gonville and Caius College<br />
*Homerton College<br />
*Hughes Hall<br />
*Jesus College<br />
*Lucy Cavendish College<br />
*King's College<br />
*Magdalene College<br />
*Murray Edwards College (formerly New Hall)<br />
*Newnham College<br />
*Pembroke College<br />
*Peterhouse College<br />
*Queens' College<br />
*Robinson College<br />
*St. Catherine's College<br />
*St. Edmund's College<br />
*St. John's College<br />
*Selwyn College<br />
*Sidney Sussex College<br />
*Trinity College<br />
*Trinity Hall<br />
*Wolfson College<br />
<br />
==External links==<br />
*[http://www.cam.ac.uk University of Cambridge]<br />
<br />
[[Category:British Universities]]</div>NormanShttps://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Homosexual_unions&diff=563239Homosexual unions2008-11-19T23:01:16Z<p>NormanS: </p>
<hr />
<div>Homosexual unions are not built around lifetime commitments, nor are they good environments in which to raise children. [http://www.familyresearchinst.org/Default.aspx?tabid=80]<br />
<br />
According to the Family Research Institute [http://www.familyresearchinst.org/LinkClick.aspx?link=80&tabid=36&mid=425]:<br />
{{cquote|Adding together the various studies of children of homosexuals published through 1999, at least 19% of 115 daughters and 16% of 120 sons said that they themselves engaged in homosexuality; that is, 17% of 235 offspring. In the comparison groups that were employed in these studies, only 2% of 66 children of heterosexuals said they practiced homosexuality.}}</div>NormanShttps://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Homosexual_unions&diff=563238Homosexual unions2008-11-19T22:59:24Z<p>NormanS: Please learn to attribute rather than plagarise</p>
<hr />
<div>Homosexual unions are not built around lifetime commitments, nor are they good environments in which to raise children. [http://www.familyresearchinst.org/Default.aspx?tabid=80]<br />
<br />
According to the Family Research Institute:<br />
<br />
{{cquote|Adding together the various studies of children of homosexuals published through 1999, at least 19% of 115 daughters and 16% of 120 sons said that they themselves engaged in homosexuality; that is, 17% of 235 offspring. In the comparison groups that were employed in these studies, only 2% of 66 children of heterosexuals said they practiced homosexuality.[www.familyresearchinst.org/LinkClick.aspx?link=80&tabid=36&mid=425]}}</div>NormanShttps://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Barack_Hussein_Obama&diff=562350Talk:Barack Hussein Obama2008-11-19T13:57:04Z<p>NormanS: If the readers are deciding then we should have a counter evidence section</p>
<hr />
<div>Archives:<br />
[[/archive1|1]]<br />
[[/archive2|2]]<br />
[[/archive3|3]]<br />
[[/archive4|4]]<br />
[[/archive5|5]]<br />
<br />
<br />
== Lenin Poster ==<br />
<br />
The statement about the Lenin-like poster is informative. We don't censor informative information here. Let the reader decide.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:22, 10 November 2008 (EST)<br />
:Andy, did you happen to take a look at the reference? The article claims that "Obama also ''revealed'' his ''deep Marxist/Leninist roots''" and that "clear parallels between the poster design and Lenin's earlier poster was ''obviously a deliberate yet hidden hint'' to his European, socialistic audience as to his political roots and beliefs" (emphasis mine). The citation, which was a blog, by the way, and not in any way a trustworthy source of informative information, gives no evidence to back up these statements. It shows a poster of Lenin and a poster of Obama, both of which show profiles of the figures. Assuming these pictures weren't entirely made up, do you really think that this slight similarity is Obama's way of confessing closet Marxism? Not to mention the fact that Obama likely didn't make the posters anyway -- maybe we should accuse his (very expensive!!) marketing designer of being a Marxist/Leninist. 15:45, 11 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Obama and beer ==<br />
<br />
There are several stories (with photos) of Obama drinking beer, which as an intoxicant is banned by Muslim sharia. <ref> http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://media.mcclatchydc.com/smedia/2008/05/06/20/125-6web-Obama_Beer-minor.standalone.prod_affiliate.91.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.mcclatchydc.com/100/story/36055.html&h=325&w=485&sz=47&hl=en&start=28&um=1&usg=__ShpWdieNIwhr4Rp3jHtLe7U9MB8=&tbnid=Se90xFLBo6rNQM:&tbnh=86&tbnw=129&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dobama%2Bdrinks%26start%3D18%26ndsp%3D18%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26safe%3Doff%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-US:official%26sa%3DN </ref> <ref> http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.nancarrow-webdesk.com/warehouse/storage2/2008-w18/img.211156_t.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.nancarrow-webdesk.com/warehouse/storage2/2008-w18/img.211156.html&h=332&w=400&sz=16&hl=en&start=15&um=1&usg=__Yubc0nmus36Cf4Rrf7BL7-33-0g=&tbnid=xuWGKQ1Sl8_bQM:&tbnh=103&tbnw=124&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dobama%2Bbeer%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26safe%3Doff%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-US:official%26sa%3DG</ref> No rational person can say that a practicing Muslim wouldn't violate the law in such a blatant, repeated manner. Another strike against the goofy Muslim charge. And remember, we don't censor here. Godspeed. [[User:Thecount|Thecount]] 12:52, 11 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
: I think many American Muslims drink beer. Nice try, though.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:57, 11 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
::And how many "dangerous" American Muslims are there that have loose enough morals to blatantly disrespect their own religious law, but are still a threat to Americans? (Of course this is all granted that he IS a secret Muslim, which I have given up trying to discuss) So I see nothing wrong if Obama turns out to be a secret Muslim. Nice try, though. [[User:anonymous123|anonymous123]] 23:54, 17 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
::He also smokes cigarettes, to complete his subterfuge. [[User:Human|Human]] 17:42, 11 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Hussein reference ==<br />
<br />
It's factual and it's informative. If there is reasoned basis for deleting it, let's see it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:03, 11 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
: Again, no reason has been given for deleting the Hussein reference, and there is none.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 07:49, 12 November 2008 (EST)<br />
:: Andy, this is false. Reasons have been given on this talk page numerous times before. I just had a quick look, and found reasons being given in all archives except the first, as well as other places on this talk page. So you are wrong to say that no reason has been given, and wrong to say that there is no reason. And, as I have pointed out in the edit comments, five senior administrators have said that they disagree with it being there. Is your view on this somehow superior to those five put together? Do you want this to be a collaborative encyclopaedia or your blog? The former demands that you not impose your opinion regardless of who is disagreeing. Imposing your opinion regardless suggests that this is your blog. I know you don't consider it to be the latter, but that's the way it's looking. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:21, 12 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:::Not a blog but an encylopedia. If it were a blog, your opinion would carry as much weight as anyone else's. Let's put this one in [[Conservapedia:Debate Topics]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 08:24, 12 November 2008 (EST)<br />
:::: If it were a blog, the blog owner's opinion would carry the most weight. Almost all blogs are the opinions of an ''individual'', not a group of people. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:58, 12 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
::: Philip, the truth is not dependent on consensus, and 5 out of several dozen is not a consensus anyway. Give your best reason for deleting this information here. Since the beginning we have had a policy not to delete factual, informative material, particularly when it is liberal ideology that motivates the demand for censorship of it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:29, 12 November 2008 (EST)<br />
:::: I said five of the ''senior'' administrators, which numbers about eleven. So that's five out of eleven, not dozens. Further, that's five against and one (yourself) for, as the remainder have not offered an opinion that I'm aware of. (One perhaps did support you, but because they wanted to support you, not because they considered it a valid argument.)<br />
:::: My reason is relevance, not (primarily) accuracy. I'm not disputing that his middle name is Hussein. The claim that "most Christians would not retain" their (former/Muslim/Arabic?; it's not clear) name is not supported by the references, and even if it is true, means little in individual cases. That is, even if 99% changed their name, Obama not changing his name might mean no more than him being in the other 1%.<br />
:::: And this is just one of the points in that section. The entire argument that Obama is a Muslim is built on very circumstantial evidence, selective evidence, and logical fallacy, and is rejected by other conservatives.<br />
:::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:58, 12 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
::::: Philip, it obviously is relevant, which you say is your primary objection. We don't censor information here based on liberal dislike for it. Wikipedia does that. We provide the information and let the reader decide. If some readers want to conclude that someone with a Muslim name is actually a Christian, even though less than 1% of those raised as Muslims convert, so be it. We're not going to censor this factual information.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:37, 12 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
::::::: "''...it obviously is relevant...''": Because ''you'' say so? If it was so "obvious", then you wouldn't have five senior administrators disagreeing with you. No, it's not obviously relevant at all, and you've not demonstrated the relevance.<br />
::::::: "''We don't censor information here based on liberal dislike for it. Wikipedia does that.''": Given that I and the other senior administrators are not "liberals", and the rejection is based on relevance, not "dislike", why are you introducing red herrings like this? Has your argument got no more substance than irrelevancies like that?<br />
::::::: "'' We provide the information and let the reader decide.''": Only if it's relevant. Otherwise we are just introducing padding for readers to wade through and discourage them getting to the relevant stuff.<br />
::::::: "''We're not going to censor this factual information.''": It is not censorship to remove irrelevant information, and I'd appreciate you not implying that I'm trying to censor anything.<br />
::::::: In summary, you have failed to produce any reasons substance as to why it should be retained.<br />
::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:26, 17 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:::::: Exactly. The point of Conservapedia is ''not'' to censor information, but to leave it to our readers to decide. The MSM has tried to push this under the rug, so the least we can do is offer these arguments to the intelligent public. [[User:RodWeathers|RodWeathers]] 11:27, 12 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
::::::: The problem is that these points are fallacious and lead to a conclusion based on specious arguments. That is neither "trustworthy" nor encyclopedic. Obama may not be your brand of xian, but he's certianly no brand of muslim. Your inability to accept that this is incorrect despite repeated arguments wherein you have shown nothing but fallacious arguments drawing poor conclusions hurts the credibility of all Conservapedia. [[User:EternalCritic|EternalCritic]] 11:49, 12 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:Did anyone notice how ASchlafly posited the question at or near closing time Tuesday night and declared that he recieved no answer at or near opening time on Wednesday? --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 08:49, 14 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:Keep the reference, but 2 examples of people having changed their names for religious reasons does not mean "most" people would change their names as stated in the article. A good reference on this topic would list a percentage (presumably greater than 50%) of people who have switched religions also changing their names.<br />
::I am sure we could come up with a very long list, but this article would not be the place for it. A sample of a couple of names to illustrate the point being made is surely adequate for all except those who wish to undermine the accuracy of the piece. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 13:21, 14 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
==Debate On Obama's Religion==<br />
<br />
The debate is continuing at [[Debate:Is Obama a Muslim?]] It may be best to continue arguing the point there with the aim of reaching a conclusion which can then be utilised in the article, and leave this talk page for discussing other improvements. [[User:NormanS|NormanS]] 22:22, 11 November 2008 (EST)<br />
:Get the section about him being a "Muslim" there have already been to debates concluding that this should be removed. <br> http://www.conservapedia.com/Debate:Is_Obama_a_Muslim%3F <br> http://www.conservapedia.com/Debate:_What_is_sufficient_proof_that_Obama_is_a_Muslim%3F-[[User:Vcelloho|Vcelloho]] 00:09, 12 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Reference ==<br />
<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
Get the section about him being a "Muslim" there have already been to debates concluding that this should be removed. <br> http://www.conservapedia.com/Debate:Is_Obama_a_Muslim%3F <br> http://www.conservapedia.com/Debate:_What_is_sufficient_proof_that_Obama_is_a_Muslim%3F-[[User:Vcelloho|Vcelloho]] 00:08, 12 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
== He has no clear personal achievement that cannot be explained as the likely result of affirmative action? Untrue. ==<br />
<br />
I am no fan of Obama. I do plan on respectfully opposing him via various channels on the internet. However, I believe I should state my opposition to this sentence of the article: "He has no clear personal achievement that cannot be explained as the likely result of affirmative action."<br />
<br />
I have not read the rest of the article because I believed months ago and for good reasons that Obama was going to win this election. For example, the unpopular war and poor economy that was partly caused by a guns and lots of butter spending strategy (Bush should have learned from LBJ committing us to a war and the Great Society programs at the same time). I also thought that it would have been easy for the Republicans to win 12 years in a row given the low quality of the Democratic party. I think the Republicans snatched defeat out of the jaws of victory. I also think Americans have too much debt (last time I heard the average American had lots of credit card debt). One of the reasons for the great depression is that American's had too much debt at the time. I think Bush's call for Americans to do to do more shopping mall spending was a joke. If anything, Americans need to increase their skills to be more productive (The libraries are open but you might have to watch less TV. Last time I checked the average American watches 3 hours of television a day) and work harder to pay off their debt. American's are going to get out of the hole by increasing their productivity. It seems as if Bush did not want to learn from economic history and was only looking out for short term fixes. Well sooner or later, common sense says you have to pay the piper.<br />
<br />
Getting back to Obama, obviously, Obama's marital success in terms of not getting divorced compared to Ronald Reagan is not the result of affirmative action. I am sure I could come up with others. I have not read the article for the most part because this sentence turned me off to the whole article. Judging from the ""He has no clear personal achievement that cannot be explained as the likely result of affirmative action." sentence, I believe a lot of time is probably being spent to defend an article rather than improve it where obvious improvements could be made. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 06:04, 12 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
: Staying married is laudable but in this context it would not be considered a "clear personal achievement." If you would like to add a footnote exception to the remark along the lines of, "he has been married for x years," I'm not opposed but I would expect that to caveat to seem off-topic, or even sarcastic, for most readers.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 07:52, 12 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
::One CP writer told me he equates divorce with adultery, and he accused Reagan of adultery on this basis. Is this the consensus view of Conservatives? Or just his own idea? Or what?<br />
<br />
::We ought to be clear on the standards by which we judge public figures. And consistent, too. I mean, which is worse, committing actual adultery (JFK, Clinton) or getting divorced and then remarrying? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 08:06, 12 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
::: Biblically, divorce is not adultery. However, divorce is wrong unless the spouse has been unfaithful. Remarriage after a legitimate divorce is okay. The question is whether remarriage after a wrong divorce is okay. Many believe, I think that although the act of divorce may be wrong, that is a forgivable sin like any other sin, and remarriage is not a further sin. And I'd tend to agree that committing "actual" adultery is worse than divorce and remarriage. However, the point that Conservative was raising was not between those two cases, but between divorce and remarriage compared to marriage without divorce.<br />
::: I'm not convinced that Obama's marriage does not constitute a "clear personal achievement". Given the divorce rate these days, especially among prominent people, I would think that it ''was'' a clear personal achievement. In fact I'd consider staying marriage a "clear personal achievement" for anybody these days, given all the pressures on marriage, including the peer pressure that divorce is okay.<br />
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:35, 12 November 2008 (EST)<br />
::::I rarely disagree with you, Philip, as I find your comments to be some of the more considered on this board, but here I would have to disagree. Jesus makes it quite clear that divorce *is* adultery, not *like* adultery. More then any other text, especially OT text, I take Jesus's words to heart. Mark 10<br />
::::2 Some Pharisees came and tested him by asking, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?"<br />
::::3 "What did Moses command you?" he replied.<br />
::::4 They said, "Moses permitted a man to write a certificate of divorce and send her away."<br />
::::5 "It was because your hearts were hard that Moses wrote you this law," Jesus replied.<br />
::::6 "But at the beginning of creation God `made them male and female.'<br />
::::7 `For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife,<br />
::::8 and the two will become one flesh.' So they are no longer two, but one.<br />
::::9 Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."<br />
::::10 When they were in the house again, the disciples asked Jesus about this.<br />
::::11 He answered, "Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her.<br />
::::12 And if she divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery." --[[User:JeanJacques|JeanJacques]] 09:41, 12 November 2008 (EST)<br />
::::: I didn't say that divorce is "like" adultery. I said that it's ''not'' adultery. And the evidence you've offered to refute that doesn't refute that. The Bible says that someone who divorces ''and remarries'' commits adultery, not that someone who ''divorces'' commits adultery. You can't have adultery without sexual intercourse, which would be taken as given with someone remarrying, but not a given with someone just divorcing. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:33, 17 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Obama spiruality interview ==<br />
http://blog.beliefnet.com/stevenwaldman/2008/11/obamas-interview-with-cathleen.html a interview from a pretty religous website about Obama. Should it be mentioned? Or since it kinda contradicts abit of the article should it be ommitted? --[[User:Vmember|Vmember]] 13:06, 12 November 2008 (EST)<br />
:What one might say in an interview really means very little, Vmember, particularly if one is seeking to achieve a position by hiding one's essential nature or beliefs. So really what he says when seeking to impress is irrelevant. It is what he does and has done, and what he says in unguarded moments, that matters. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 13:16, 12 November 2008 (EST)<br />
*um then shouldn't it atleast be mentioned somewhere in the article about this interview maybe as a response to questions about his faith section? And why is him maybe being a muslim all the way at the top of the article? Shouldn't be be somewhere towards the middle? I've never seen in all my time part of a article pushed into the intro section. Also the article contradicts itself by stating that Obama is most likely a muslim while at the same time pointing at that he was a member of a radical Christian church. That doesn't make any sense. You can't have it both ways.--[[User:Vmember|Vmember]] 13:25, 12 November 2008 (EST)<br />
::You can if you're a sleeper for radical Islam. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 13:27, 12 November 2008 (EST)<br />
**Wait you seriously think that? Hmm fringe ideas and theories on any subject is detrimental to a discussion let alone a encyclopedia. It's dangerous thinking like that is why us conservatives lost the election and alienated so many moderates and weak liberals. Would there be any objection if I were to move the muslim part to the middle and add a section with his response to questions of his faith?--[[User:Vmember|Vmember]] 13:34, 12 November 2008 (EST)<br />
***Does this look better? http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Help:Practice_Page&oldid=555527 Hmm I kinda think instead of giving facts supporting the theory Obama is a muslim editors are trying to push it off as straight fact even though theres been evidence against it. Isn't that a tactic only liberals use and a form of deceit?--[[User:Vmember|Vmember]] 13:45, 12 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Poster ==<br />
<br />
Don't delete the insight about the poster. I learned from the insight, and I'm sure others have also. We don't censor here. We let the readers decide.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:39, 12 November 2008 (EST)<br />
:I already explained (above) why the "insight" is not actually an insight, is not supported by the source, and is likely false. Believe me, I would love it if Obama really did intentionally model his posters after those of Lenin in a subliminal message to Europeans, but there's simply no evidence of that.<br />
<br />
:You reverted both of my edits. Do you have problems with both of them, or just the first one? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 18:42, 12 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:: Sorry, I just have a problem with the deletion of the poster edit. Your other edit looked fine, but it came right after the controversial one and there was no easy way to separate the too.<br />
<br />
:: The similarities between Obama's poster and the famous Lenin image is too obvious for words. We don't need a citation for observing, for example, that 2+2=4. If a reader wants to reject the obvious similarity between the images, then the reader is welcome to do so. Censorship is not a preferred approach.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:52, 12 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:::I'm not denying that they are similar, I'm denying that their similarity "[reveals] his deep Marxist/Leninist roots" and "was obviously a deliberate yet hidden hint to his European, socialistic audience as to his political roots and belief". Can I change the text to reflect that, while the two posters are similar, there's no way to know that it's a confession? (I pointed out before that if anyone is imitating Lenin here, it's probably the over-priced poster designer). [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 18:59, 12 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:::: I'm fine with rewording, as long as it doesn't inject liberal spin or make it look like Obama didn't approve it with the similarity.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:12, 12 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:::::I'll try my best. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 19:40, 12 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:::::: Your revised wording is great. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:05, 12 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:Is anyone else put off by the fact that the Germans really hated Lennin? --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 08:25, 14 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:Fun poster [http://img.skitch.com/20080723-pbt7dkk5ksgbystrri5px6s9fr.jpg] --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 13:44, 14 November 2008 (EST) The imagery is more common that you might expect. Nothing new under the sun as they say --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 13:44, 14 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
==Disgusted==<br />
<br />
Mr Schlafly this page is absolutely disgusting. I am totally against Obama as you know, this is the most sorry excuse for an encyclopedia entry I have ever seen. We should leave this page as information about him as a individual, not about why we hate him and you should too. 90% of the page is opinion, and is totally innapropriate. I suggest making it into two pages. One about Obama with just simple facts about him and his backround, and you can make another about everything we hate about him. Pages like this are why we are losing our trustworthyness. <br />
Thanks, --[[User:ChrisS|Chris]]<br />
<br />
:Here here. At times I find this article amusing as an ironic hate piece, but at best it degrades this site and conservatives in general. Liberal or conservative, poor logic is poor logic. Because Obama and Lenin each had monochromatic posters featuring a pose directed toward the right it is evidence of Marxist intentions. Because Obama said the words "my muslim faith", irregardless of any context, it used as evidence of being a muslim. I don't even know what to say about the mind control thing, it's really amazing to me because as a religious person it reminds of the feelings I had when I discovered the truth of Jesus Christ: "a light will shine down from somewhere, it will light upon you, you will experience an epiphany" [[User:Mike770781|Mike770781]] 19:31, 13 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
==Disgusted Conservative too== <br />
<br />
I did not vote for Senator Obama for political reasons, but I believe he is a good man; this article is simple character assassination; you do not go into his views and show how those are disagreeable (his views on abortion, and his want to make a hasty withdrawal from Iraq) and instead you simply accuse him of being a Muslim, and anti-American etc. also a blog is not a credible source; a blog is someone's opinion. Anyway the accusations levied upon him are for the most part completely inaccurate. He was born in The United States, he wrote his autobiography, he is not a Muslim, he is not anti-American. Please keep the disagreements political.--[[user:Rpond|Rpond]]<br />
<br />
I don't know who wrote this, but it shouldn't have been deleted. --[[User:ChrisS|Chris]]<br />
<br />
: The odds are less than 1% that "Rpond's" posting is genuine, in light of his misspelling of "conservative" and his other rants. It is appropriate to delete insincere or deceptive postings.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:53, 13 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:: It is an interesting experience living life each day getting verbally attacked for being a conservative then coming here and getting persecuted (justified edits to factual and encyclopedic wording) for being a liberal. You seem to be very fond of the less than 1% statistic, and have used it many times in many places, but I've never seen any solid reasoning or studies behind it (although in this case your gut instinct does seem to be credited implicitly) I think perhaps you live in a highly conservative eco chamber and aren't getting out enough to notice how little resonance this sort of thing has out in the real world. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 18:58, 13 November 2008 (EST)<br />
::: Way to show your liberal stripes, BrendanW. Ad hominem attacks are not appreciated here, so please keep it civil. [[User:RodWeathers|RodWeathers]] 19:01, 13 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:::: Would that be an ad hominem attack like calling someone a liberal? --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 19:24, 13 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
::::: Are you insulted by being described as a "liberal"? Or are you angry that you're not fooling anyone?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:39, 13 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:::::: Either Way its still an Ad Hominem. However I am a little "l" libertarian, and strict constitutionalist (excluding the racist portions that is) which makes me pleanty conservative, I'm also an objectivist in the Ayn Rand model, highly capitalistic and against socialism. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 09:11, 16 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
==Cool it==<br />
<br />
I've protected this page; only admins can edit it for the moment. Many of us have strong feelings, and we have used this page to express them.<br />
<br />
But I would hope that we all confine our comments here to specific suggestions on how to improve the article. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 17:45, 13 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Did you read that reference? ==<br />
<br />
The claim is that OBama might be a Muslim and that he might swear in on a koran. The reference -ref- Obama hoped to become President when he was sworn in as U.S. Senator in 2004, and did not use a Koran at that time. Subsequently Democratic House member Keith Ellison established the precedent for being sworn in using the Koran, and there is no guarantee that Obama would not do likewise if sworn in as President. [http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/sliming_obama.html FactCheck.org, Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania, ''Sliming Obama'', January 10, 2008, retrieved on 10/16/2008]-/ref- is about how Obamma is not a Muslim and did not use the Koran to be sworn in as a senator. I simply do not see how it belongs. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 08:21, 14 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:Welcome to Conservapedia. Truth is relative to Andy. -[[User:Mike770781|Mike770781]] 15:04, 15 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Code name ==<br />
<br />
The article plainly says that Obama did have a role in picking it. Hence the reversion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:01, 14 November 2008 (EST)<br />
:My article clearly says that the White House Communications Agency chose the name for him. Hence the original edit.<br />
:I tried to find a source directly fromt he Secret Service or the White House Communications Agency, but neither of their search functions were working. I'll keep looking. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 15:06, 14 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
::"President-Elect Barack Obama – 'Renegade' – had a say in choosing the code name that his guards use when they are whispering into their microphones." From the article cited on our Main Page.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:11, 14 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:::''These not-so-secret names are chosen by officials at the White House Communications Agency, which was not inclined to comment on the selection process. In a previous news report, an agency spokesman said the names are assigned by "sheer whim."'' -- From my (stateside) source. You can see why I was confused. <br />
:::I did further research (hence my half-hour long absence) According to [http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2008/11/13/pssst_renegade_and_renaissance_are_in_the_house/ this] source, the WHCA chooses a list of names, and the President decides which one he likes best. So we were both right! [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 15:40, 14 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
::::Everybody wins! Yay! -[[User:CSGuy|CSGuy]] 22:41, 17 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
== For the love of God!! ==<br />
HE IS NOT A MUSLIM. I donated 500$ to support McCain and voted for him but this beyond retarded. Please remove that info, because right now nobody in their right mind can take this seriously. Also take out the Koran thing he used the bible in the senate. [[User:Nig89|Nig89]] 20:17, 15 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
: Your comment is long on your dubious assertion of a credential, but short on substance. Give us your reason.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:28, 15 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
Why does Obama's religion matter so much? 18:57, 15 November 2008 {{unsigned|JamesZ}}<br />
<br />
: Good question. I hope your fellow liberals will answer it for you. They are the ones having unexplained hysteria about a simple observation.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:15, 15 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
::The word you are looking for is "accusation" not "observation". An observation would be stating that he has some traits similar to Muslims. An accusation is claiming that he is a Muslim, regardless of his own protests. On the accusation note, great job assuming anyone who doesn't believe you is a liberal Aschfly. [[User:anonymous123|anonymous123]] 00:01, 17 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Was Barack Obama truly raised a Muslim or is he a Muslim? ==<br />
<br />
Previously I wrote the following: Here is a well written and scholarly piece that examines Obama's religious views and it was written by the National Clergy Council: http://nationalclergycouncil.org/010807BarackObama.htm The evidence does not support Obama being a muslim. The evidence also does not support Obama embracing biblical Christianity.[[User:Conservative|conservative]] 09:19, 10 November 2008 (EST) Mr. Schlafly wrote the following: " I skimmed it and don't see where it concludes that Obama is not a Muslim. The article fails to recognize that less than 1% of people raised Muslim (as Obama was) ever leave the religion. The article says Obama is a member of a Christian church, but he left that many months ago.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:24, 10 November 2008 (EST)" <br />
<br />
Here is my response to Mr. Schlafly's reply to my previous post on the Obama/Muslim issue:<br />
<br />
I am not a fan of "Liberal Christianity" as I believe it often fails to fall into the realm of biblical/orthodox Christianity and when it does so it is not Christianity at all. With that being said, the article does give compelling evidence that Obama is a member of the camp of "liberal Christianity" and not biblical Christianity. If Obama is a "liberal Christian" he is not a Muslim. There are two logical fallacies called the [http://www.pnl-nlp.org/download/propaganda/page2.htm#sloth slothful inductive fallacy] and [http://www.goodart.org/exclus.htm fallacy of exclusion] whereby "Relevant evidence which would undermine an inductive argument is excluded from consideration. The requirement that all relevant information be included is called the "principle of total evidence"."[http://www.goodart.org/exclus.htm] '''Andy, I believe you are committing these two logical fallacies as can be seen by the material in the above cited work by the National Clergy Council. I would strongly suggest not skimming the material as it gives compelling evidence that Obama is a "liberal Christian" and therefore not a Muslim.'''<br />
<br />
'''Next, was Obama truly raised a Muslim and therefore does the less than 1% of people raised Muslim ever leave the religion statistic apply. I don't think a compelling case can be made for the 1% argument being applied to Obama. I cite the following:<br />
'''<br />
<br />
"Barack Hussein Obama was born in 1961 in Honolulu, Hawaii, to a Kenyan Muslim father of the same name and an American secular humanist mother named Ann Dunham. While Obama’s father was raised in Islamic culture, he had become a functional atheist by the time he reached college. Despite his parents’ lack of religion, young Obama received his early education in both Catholic and Muslim schools.<br />
<br />
Obama’s parents divorced when he was only two years old. Henceforth, the senior Obama was “almost entirely absent”[i] from his son’s life. Four years later, Ann Dunham relocated to Indonesia with her son to join her new husband Lolo Soetoro. A daughter, Maya, was born to the couple before their divorce. She returned to Hawaii where she went on to earn her MA in anthropology from the University of Hawaii. In his first book, Dreams from My Father, Barack Obama wrote of his mother, “She was a lonely witness for secular humanism, a soldier for New Deal, Peace Corps, position paper liberalism.”[ii]<br />
<br />
Obama’s mother was a huge influence in his life. In an interview with Oprah Winfrey in October 2006, he said, “My mother—when I think about the values I hold most dear, they came from her.”[iii] In a speech given at a Moms Rising event in 2006, he said, “Everything that I think is good about me, I got from her.”[http://nationalclergycouncil.org/010807BarackObama.htm]<br />
<br />
'''I will end this post by respectfully asking Mr. Schlafly a few reasonable questions''':<br />
<br />
1. How many Muslim men are you aware of that go to a "liberal Christian church" for 20 years, get married in a "liberal Christian' church, and have their children baptized in a "liberal Christian" church, and call a Reverend of "liberal Christianity "my pastor" while living in a relatively free and democratic country like the United States? I ask this question because it appears as if all these apply to Obama.[http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2008/04/29/2008-04-29_obama_expresses_outrage_over_former_past.html][http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=58954][http://volokh.com/posts/1209531850.shtml] Accordingly, '''How many similar historical examples can you give of Muslim men who did these type of things when they lived in a relatively free and democratic society like the United States? <br />
'''<br />
<br />
2. According to the press, Obama has visited churches and synagogues but has not visited a mosque while running for president.[http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/06/25/opinion/edcohen.php] Can you show me a single instance of Obama ever visiting a mosque while he has been an adult? <br />
<br />
3. '''Is the case for Obama being a "liberal Christian" stronger or is the case of Obama being a Muslim stronger when the principle of total evidence being weighed is applied?''' If you state the case is stronger for Obama being a Muslim, please defend your position by truly negating the strong evidence that he is a member of "liberal Christianity" and giving compelling evidence that he is a Muslim. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 10:45, 16 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:I thought the two of you might enjoy reading [http://blog.beliefnet.com/stevenwaldman/2008/11/obamas-interview-with-cathleen.html this 2004 interview with Obama], where he discusses his faith, his baptism, and so forth. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 14:04, 16 November 2008 (EST)<br />
::Both of you miss the point. It's not what Obama '''says''' - that has no relevance whatsoever. It's what he '''is''' and what he '''will do'''. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 15:11, 16 November 2008 (EST)<br />
::::: If what he ''says'' has no relevance, why is one of the supposed evidences for him being a Muslim something he ''said'' (the bit about "my Muslim faith")? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:58, 17 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
::::Bugler, I know I mentioned what Obama did and said which certainly has bearing on what Obama "is". Therefore, you did not in any way provide a counter argument. I also suggest you answer the reasonable questions I posed to Mr. Schlafly. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 15:16, 16 November 2008 (EST)<br />
:::::Conservative, the roots of Al Quaeda lie in the 1940s and 50s, if not before; radical terroristic Islamic fundamentalism is not a recent phenomenon. Much of its mindset and organisational apperatus was borrowed from Leninist Communism: the notion of cell, of enrtyism, of deep penetration. Now, how difficult is it to imagine that an intelligent child, of American parentage, schooled in the Islamic environment of 1960s Indonesia and vulnerable to the influences swirling around in that environment, might be schooled and indoctrinated as the sleeper to end all sleepers, given extreme dispensations to protect his cover, allowed to eat pork, drink alcohol, marry out, attend and indeed profess to be a Christian, even to publicly renounce (on the face of it) the Islamic faith? Surely the prize would merit the game. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 15:24, 16 November 2008 (EST)<br />
:::::::So you're honestly speculating that Obama might be a member of Al Qaeda, and we're expected to believe that you're ''not'' a parodist? Riiiiiiight. [[User:MarkB|MarkB]] 09:09, 18 November 2008 (EST)<br />
::::::::Oh, that old tune yet again. Can't you Liberals find a less boring stick to beat me with? [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 09:17, 18 November 2008 (EST)<br />
:::::::::Oh, don't get me wrong, I think you're doing a great job. Keep it up. [[User:MarkB|MarkB]] 09:22, 18 November 2008 (EST)<br />
::::::Bugler, in light of the evidence I gave above concerning Obama's supposedly being raised a Muslim '''and the lack of evidence to support it''' plus the evidence I gave above to support Obama being a member of "liberal Christianity" , your post is at best a Hail Mary pass. Secondly, I noticed you did not answer my questions or give any solid historical parallels for your far fetched speculation. If you could enlighten me where the Leninists were able to install a President of a Western country that had been a sleeper for two decades I would certainly be indebted to you if you could give it. But I would add, since you never gave any compelling evidence he was raised a Muslim, this Leninist parallel speculation is a non starter anyways. Thirdly, you refer to "the prize". What prize? If you going to embrace conjecture that is contra evidence certainly you should tell your audience what the supposed prize is supposedly going to be. Should I fear I am imminently going to be put under Sharia law? Lastly, I am not stating your a parodist, but I certainly believe it is more likely that you are a parodist than it is likely that Obama is a Muslim. Your somewhat eloquent but empty defense of the indefensible proposition that Obama is likely a Muslim, certainly provides a reasonable reader to suspect you are a parodist. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 17:41, 16 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
::::::::I've not heard the term 'hail Mary pass' before, despite being a good Catholic boy: please enlighten! ''If you could enlighten me where the Leninists were able to install a President of a Western country that had been a sleeper for two decades'' Not a president, but the private secretary of the West German Chancellor Willy Brandt was a Communist plant: how many were undetected? Certainly therer remain suspicions about the 1960s/70s UK Prime Minister Harold Wilson. ''What prize?'' Surely that is obvious. As to the objections you raise, I think it unlikely that he will use the ceremony on January 20 to declare a United states Caliphate. However, the prospect of an Islamic radical sleeper in the Oval Office raises any number of possibilities. And finally: your open suggestion that I am a parodist is welcome: a refreshing change from others here who smear me by innuendo without your honesty and openness. I assure you in all sincerity that I act with the best interests of God, Conservapedia, Freedom and Democracy always at heart. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:58, 16 November 2008 (EST)<br />
:::Bugler, [http://www.wisegeek.com/in-football-what-is-a-hail-mary.htm Hail Mary pass]. Secondly, your Willy Brandt attempted historical parallel falls flat. I did a quick search on the internet and this is what CNN states about Brandt: "As a teen-ager Brandt first joined the Socialist Party of Germany (SPD) in 1930, but one year later switched to a more radical spin-off, the SAP."[http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/cold.war/kbank/profiles/brandt/] Brandt apparently was a socialist early on (teenager to be precise), but you have not give a compelling argument that Obama was raised as a Muslim and given the information I gave above regarding there being a lack of evidence for this proposition and evidence against it, your Leninism supposed historical parallel is still a non starter. You are certainly not applying the principle of using the total evidence. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 18:21, 16 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
Henry Wallace, FDR's Vice President, was a "sleeper" communist and replaced by FDR for that reason. Alger Hiss, a top aide to presidents, was a proven "sleeper" communist. A big lie is often easier to pull off than a little lie.<br />
<br />
What's remarkable is how strenuously people deny that Obama is a Muslim. His fathers (real and stepfather) were Muslims. There's no denying that Obama was raised a Muslim, and his conduct as an adult underscores that he, like 99% of others raises as Muslims, did not leave that religion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:02, 16 November 2008 (EST)<br />
:: What's remarkable is how strenuously you claim that Obama is a Muslim without any evidence of substance, and in opposition to other conservatives, including five of your own senior administrators, who disagree with you, despite being opposed to Obama. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:58, 17 November 2008 (EST)<br />
:An interesting question is ''why'' people try so hard to deny it to ''themselves'' when the evidence is so clearly there. [[User:RodWeathers|RodWeathers]] 20:51, 16 November 2008 (EST)<br />
::::Andy, Wallace appears to have had been a one time Republican who later had openly leftist views. [http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USARwallace.htm] Wallace cannot be counted as a long time "sleeper agent" who was a very high ranking public official through infiltration. Secondly, Alger Hiss never achieved a high ranking government official status like a president, Vice President, Secretary of State, etc.[http://homepages.nyu.edu/~th15/who.html] I do think that when someone goes for a very important government position, such as a President, Vice-President, Secretary of State, a higher degree of scrutiny often occurs. For this reason, I believe you are having trouble coming up with a historical instance of a very high ranked official in the Western World being a sleeper agent. Furthermore, by the time Hiss was charged who had been two years out of government and was working for the Carnegie Foundation. I believe it is invalid to use Hiss as an example of an ambitious sleeper agent who had gotten to the top of government when he had resigned from government 2 years before he was charged. Next, I do think my questions in my previous post were quite reasonable that you left unanswered. Also, and this is really at the heart of the issue, you never really countered this information which makes the idea of Obama being a sleeper agent a non-starter because it appears as if he was never truly raised a Muslim: <br />
<br />
"Barack Hussein Obama was born in 1961 in Honolulu, Hawaii, to a Kenyan Muslim father of the same name and an American secular humanist mother named Ann Dunham. While Obama’s father was raised in Islamic culture, he had become a functional atheist by the time he reached college. Despite his parents’ lack of religion, young Obama received his early education in both Catholic and Muslim schools.<br />
<br />
Obama’s parents divorced when he was only two years old. Henceforth, the senior Obama was “almost entirely absent”[i] from his son’s life. Four years later, Ann Dunham relocated to Indonesia with her son to join her new husband Lolo Soetoro. A daughter, Maya, was born to the couple before their divorce. She returned to Hawaii where she went on to earn her MA in anthropology from the University of Hawaii. In his first book, Dreams from My Father, Barack Obama wrote of his mother, “She was a lonely witness for '''secular humanism''', a soldier for New Deal, Peace Corps, position paper liberalism.”[ii]<br />
<br />
Obama’s mother was a huge influence in his life. In an interview with Oprah Winfrey in October 2006, he said, “My mother—when I think about the values I hold most dear, they came from her.”[iii] In a speech given at a Moms Rising event in 2006, he said, “Everything that I think is good about me, I got from her.”[http://nationalclergycouncil.org/010807BarackObama.htm] [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 20:57, 16 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
: In response to your indented general comment above, there's nothing magical or divine about presidential politics that ensures honesty. Woodrow Wilson was paralyzed by a stroke for more than a year while president, and the public did not know. Your argument that it is impossible to keep such things from the public is simply wrong. Wallace was not widely known to be a communist or else Roosevelt would never have been elected with Wallace on the ticket. Roosevelt finally figured it out (or was tipped off), and without explanation replaced Wallace. The leftists were dumbfounded by this move, as they were on the verge of making Wallace president when Roosevelt died. Oh, and the sickness of Roosevelt was also kept from the public. He died from his illness within a mere weeks of becoming president for the fourth time. The public didn't expect that either.<br />
<br />
: In response to your specific questions, you're quoting self-serving and implausible statements. Obama was raised by a Muslim stepfather. He learned to view the Muslim call to prayer as the most beautiful thing in the word. There is no real indication any change by Obama, and his keeping of the name "Hussein" illustrates that he did not have a rare adult conversion from Muslim to Christianity. All indications are that such conversion was politically motivated to persuade the public, and one might say that was obviously successful with some! But I doubt Obama will continue his charade indefinitely. Watch for aid to impose Islam on more foreign countries, and watch for inclusion of the Koran at official ceremonies, if not on Jan. 20th itself.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:18, 16 November 2008 (EST)<br />
:: No, Andy, it is ''you'' who is "quoting self-serving and implausible statements". Even five of your own senior administrators disagree with you, but, like Wikipedia, you persist with imposing your own view on this article. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:58, 17 November 2008 (EST)<br />
Andy, I don't think you can give me a single piece of evidence of Obama's mother being a Muslim and given there is evidence against this matter that is not surprising. It also appears as if Obama has a great influence in his life which is not surprising since she was his biological mother. In addition, Obama appeared to have received some Catholic education when he was young. Therefore, your supposed case that Obama was raised a Muslim is certainly not built on a bedrock of solid evidence. Accordingly, the Obama article should not state that Obama is likely a Muslim. Next, I never stated that it is impossible for someone to get to a top political office as a sleeper agent but merely improbable and historical determinations should be reached probabilistically. Also, while it may have not been known that Wallace was a communist (if indeed he was a communist which is a matter I have not investigated but which could certainly be true), there does appear to be indications that he had openly strong leftist views for even the Democrats.[http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USARwallace.htm] Therefore, you historical precedent argument in this case is certainly not a stronger one in terms of Wallace being a "sleeper agent". It does not sound plausible to me that a Communist sleeper agent would have openly strong leftist views that even the Democrats found distasteful. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 21:34, 16 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
: In Muslim families, like the one Obama was raised in, the father dictates the religious upbringing of the boys. Please learn more about the Muslim traditions. With so little awareness of it by Christians, it's no wonder Islam is trouncing Christianity around the world.<br />
<br />
: Alger Hiss was later proved to be a communist and read up on how he was the TOP adviser to FDR at the key WWII conference carving up Europe. Not only was he a sleeper communist agent, but the liberals denied it for decades even after Hiss was convicted in court. Only in the last few years did one of his co-agents admit the truth. Please learn about this.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:43, 16 November 2008 (EST)<br />
:::: Islam is "trouncing" Christianity? In what way? Greater population growth, perhaps, but that's not relevant here. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:58, 17 November 2008 (EST)<br />
:::Andy, have you made the case that Obama's stepfather was a staunch Muslim? I know you have not because it appears as if Obama attended a Catholic school when he was young. Therefore, you still not have made the case that Obama was raised a Muslim. Next, Hiss may have been a top advisor at one point in his life, however, an advisor is not a very top government official (President, Vice-President, Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense, etc.) who certainly often faces much more scrutiny. Andy, given historical precedence and the greater scrutiny that is often given to people ascending to the very peaks of government power, I do think the case for a sleeper agent rising to the pinnacle of power in a government institution is very tenuous to say the least. I think this principle of sleeper agents not ascending to the pinnacles of large organizations is true of institutions outside of government as well. For example, people when being sarcastic in replying to a yes or no question, will sometimes say, "Is the Pope Jewish?" meaning that the pope is not likely an adherent of Judaism. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 21:34, 16 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
Andy, it appears as if there is strong evidence that Obama attended a Catholic school but there may not be evidence that he attended a school that truly could be called a Muslim school. Please read [http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/muslim.asp this article.] <br />
<br />
Regardless of whether or not CNN or the AP did their work with diligence, there appears to be no controversy regarding that Obama did in fact attend a Catholic school. Therefore, I still maintain that the claim he was raised a Muslim does not have strong support. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 22:22, 16 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
: Catholic schools welcome Muslim students. They still do. The Muslim students virtually never convert.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:07, 16 November 2008 (EST)<br />
:::Catholic schools may very welcome Muslim students but what staunchly Muslim father sends his son to a Catholic school? Andy, you still have not jumped over the evidential bar that Osama was raised a Muslim. The so called Muslim school was apparently not strongly Islamic or possibly not even Islamic at all ( [http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/muslim.asp read this article.] ) and the stepfather appears to not have had a strong Muslim faith as evidenced by the fact that he sent Obama to a Catholic school. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 23:56, 16 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
In the Unification Church, it is not unusual for parents to send their children to a Catholic grade school. So what if they come home, crossing themselves when they pray? Overall, the education is better there than in public schools, so if they can afford it the practice makes senses. I daresay mainstream Christians likewise don't mind the sectarian differences. Any way out of secular humanism is often fine with them.<br />
<br />
It appears likely that as president, Obama will be more sympathetic to Islamic countries in his foreign policy. Maybe he'll even be able to get them to lighten up on their "destruction of Israel" goals, or allow [[religious freedom]] for Christians and Jews. Are [[Turkey]] and [[Indonesia]] good examples of this?<br />
<br />
I see good in all religions, and I don't see Islam as irredeemably evil. So what if Obama is or was Muslim? There is [[no religious test for office]], and he can't be impeached for it. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 10:09, 18 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
==Another case for Obama being Muslim==<br />
During a campaign rally, two Muslim women in Muslim garb, were removed from prominent camera view. The reason is A) Obama doesn't want his image assoc. with Muslims B) or doesn't like Muslims (we know the opposite is true). Now, he doesn't want images of Muslim assoc with him because he is A) secret Muslim or B) the American people will think he is a Muslim. (Which 27% already do). Did Obama try to hide his Muslim background and is that plan still in progress?--'''<font color="#6698FF">J</font><font color="#E41B17">p</font><font color="#F88017">a</font><font color="#347C17">t</font><font color="#A74AC7">t</font>'''<sup>[[User:Jpatt| ]]</sup> 17:52, 16 November 2008 (EST)<br />
:::Are A and B the only choices on why Obama does not want himself associated with Islam? Is a false dilemma being proposed? For example, setting aside whether it was right or wrong which is a whole other discussion, did 9/11 drive up the American public's negative beliefs and/or attitudes regarding Islam? Would the American public look less favorably upon a candidate who received some Muslim religious education (Obama also received Catholic training in his youth. And there is certainly reason to believe that a certain degree of philosophical skepticism was imparted to Obama via his mother). In short, I think the above post fails to use the principle of using the total evidence (see my posts above) plus contains a false dilemma. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 18:09, 16 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
== “Less than 1% Muslims convert” – Prosecutor error? ==<br />
<br />
<br />
OK, time for something new and I direct this particularly to Aschlafly. There is a logical fallacy called the “Prosecutor’s Error”. It is very subtle but real enough to send innocent people to the execution chamber. In fact, many lawyers and judges don’t understand it. It works like this. Please concentrate: this isn't all that easy. <br />
<br />
Let us suppose that it is true that Barack Obama was at one time a Muslim, even if this was at an immature age when he really had no say in his faith. And let us grant that only 1% of Muslims convert to Christianity. The argument which Aschflafly uses time and again is to deduce that that this means that, notionally at least, that there is a 99% chance that Obama is a Muslim. <br />
<br />
The fallacy of the argument is that it does not recognize that the IF Obama was in that 99% of Muslims who did not convert, there would be no practicable way he could have run for President. Therefore the chances that he is one of those who DID convert are raised far beyond the mathematically obvious one of 1%. <br />
<br />
Let me give you a real-life example. A woman had three children and each expired early in infancy of “cot death”. The prosecutor did his math and advised the court that there was a “one in 70 million” chance of this happening by accident. Therefore, the jury was heavily disposed to assume that she was guilty of the serial murder of her children. But the fallacy of the case is that she was ONLY arrested because of the rareness of the 3 children dying of cot death in the one family. But even if this only happens one in 70 million families, in a large country such as the U.K or U.S.A, and over a period of decades, it is BOUND to occur, purely by accident. If we then tell a courtroom that there is only a 1 in 70 million chance that she is innocent, we are guilty of the “Prosecutor’s Error”. It is tantamount to arresting a man who comes into a lot of money suddenly and is arrested under suspicion of larceny. He explains that he won it on a lottery, but the Prosecutor says he has looked into the “Lottery” business, and there is only a 1 in 20 million chance of winning it, therefore there is only a 1 in 20 million chance the indicted man is telling the truth. <br />
<br />
In Obama’s case, once again, EVEN if it is true that only 1% of Muslims convert, AND ALSO true that he was born into the Muslim faith, the fact that his circumstances allowed him to run for the Presidency argues that he was one of those Muslims who DID convert, and thus makes his chances of being a non-Muslim substantially greater that 1%. [[User:MylesP|MylesP]] 00:05, 17 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:I understand your math, but your reasoning does not convince me. The lottery example was the most unfortunate attempt.<br />
<br />
:Although in any given lottery, the chances may be 1 in 20 million for one person to win - the fact is that '''every''' lottery has a winner.<br />
<br />
:The problem with Obama's religion is not so much ''Which is it?'' but, "How shall the electorate now regard its new president elect?" Will Obama be pro-Muslim (because he's Muslim or was raised Muslim)?<br />
<br />
:A related question is, "Will Obama be pro-Black because he is black?"<br />
<br />
:I get along equally well with black Christians as with white Christians, so this is not an issue for me. I've also found Muslims personally just as honest, reliable and hard-working as Christians. What's all the fuss about? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 10:18, 18 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:: The lottery example was valid. Apart from the fact that not every lottery ''does'' have a winner (the prize then jackpots to the following draw), the point is that the 100% certainty (every lottery has a winner) applies to the lottery as a whole, whereas the 1 in 20 million odds applies to any ''given'' individual. The issue here is about a ''given'' individual, Barack Obama.<br />
:: I hope that you are asking that last question ("What's all the fuss about") to Andy, as he is the one insisting on the claim against almost everybody else other than a few acolytes.<br />
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:20, 18 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Awesome article ==<br />
Just wanted to say, finally a good resource about obama. Fantastic research about the muslim piece, it really shows him as the closet muslim like he is. Shame the libs just don't get it !! [[happymoon|happymoon]]<br />
<br />
== Great comedy article ==<br />
<br />
It's a shame people don't get the jokes. Just wanted to pop in and say keep up the good work! Was referred here by a friend who also got a kick out of this article. [[User:Somebody21|Somebody21]] 11:08, 17 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:Read the article properly before you start calling it a joke. You've been looking at Obama from a left wing viewpoint; try looking at him from a right wing viewpoint. It'll do you good.--[[User:WHurst|WHurst]]<br />
<br />
==This will be a hit on stormfront==<br />
<br />
America reaches a milestone in his history and all you guys can do is peddle false lies which have been repudiated by just about everyone in the political business. The comment about 'possibly been sworn in by the koran' is not only false, but a terrifying example of what racism and ignorance is capable of. You may not be white nationalists, but your inability to reasonably discuss this man's faith without resorting to the most despicable acts of scaremongering is typical of the tripe we see on racist websites.<br />
<br />
Keep this crap up and you'll make sure to keep the black vote away from your party for the forseeable future. [[User:JCharlton|JCharlton]] 17:50, 17 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
::Race and religion are two different things. Why do liberals always resort to racism? Maybe its becaus you don't have any real arguments against the issues raised here? This isn't wikipedia, we deal in facts here. [[User:Patriot1505|Patriot1505]] 20:20, 17 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Reply ==<br />
<br />
Don't know where to start. Maybe someone else can explain why they get so enraged at the likelihood that Obama is a Muslim. What's it to someone who (1) is an atheist, (2) is an Australian, (3) is a Christian, or (4) would support him regardless? Frankly, the opposition by some is puzzling.<br />
<br />
Regardless, some remarkable displays of lack of knowledge about Islam and Islamic education have been displayed here. Perhaps we can all agree that it's worth learning more about what many say has quickly become the world's largest religion, and the strongest religion in Europe today.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:49, 17 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:It really shouldn't be that puzzling Andy. They are calling out what they believe to be falsehood. When people made spurious, questionable claims about Bush, how did Conservapedia respond? Did you include the information or remove it? Its the exact same thing. You tried to keep the spurious information out of it. The name "Trustworthy Encyclopedia" implies intellectual honesty, and on this particular aspect most people here (myself included) find this pile of circumstantial evidence to be based on poor conclusions, false arguments, and illogical reasoning to be an absurdity without any solid claims that say he is a Muslim. The burden of proof is on you to -prove- that he is, not provide a loaded mountain of evidence that is obviously taylored to imply that he is with no proof whatsoever other than bad logic. I can't believe this topic is still going. [[User:EternalCritic|EternalCritic]] 22:17, 17 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:: There is nothing "spurious" about it, and you lose credibility with your baseless claims of falsehood. Even Obama's biggest supporters would have to admit that there is a significant probability that he is a Muslim. Perhaps one can quibble whether that probability is 20% or 60% or 90%, but no one can insist with a straight face that it is 0%.<br />
<br />
:: Given that, it's bizarre how some adamantly insist that the probability must be less than 50% rather than greater than 50%. Frankly, the demands to censor this information smacks of liberal bias.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:52, 17 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:::When you promote someone over yourself here, the beef can be over censorship. Until then, it's just people saying they think you're wrong. [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 23:16, 17 November 2008 (EST) ''<-like me, for example...''<br />
<br />
Don't fall for the devil's tricks. These "conservatives" are not true Christians. [[User:Somebody21|Somebody21]] 23:33, 17 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
"''Maybe someone else can explain why they get so enraged at the likelihood that Obama is a Muslim.''": Yes, I would like you to explain that. Because ''you'' are the one enraged at that. I, on the other hand, am "enraged" that he is being accused of being a Muslim on the basis of logical fallacy, lousy arguments, and false claims.<br />
<br />
"''What's it to someone who ... is a Christian''": As a Christian, my concern is for the ''truth''. Why do you continually try and misrepresent this as censorship, liberal lies, or whatever?<br />
<br />
"''... some remarkable displays of lack of knowledge about Islam and Islamic education have been displayed here...''": That is not the issue I'm arguing. You are again raising red herrings. The issue is the claim that he is a Muslim, which claim is not supported by the evidence.<br />
<br />
"''There is nothing "spurious" about it, and you lose credibility with your baseless claims of falsehood.''": No, Andy, it '''is''' spurious, and ''you'' lose credibility with ''your'' baseless claims that he is a Muslim.<br />
<br />
"''Even Obama's biggest supporters would have to admit that there is a significant probability that he is a Muslim.''": On what grounds? Certainly not those in this article.<br />
<br />
"''Given that, it's bizarre how some adamantly insist that the probability must be less than 50% rather than greater than 50%.''": "That" is not given. Rather, it's bizarre how ''you'' adamantly insist that he ''is'' a Muslim given the lack of evidence.<br />
<br />
"''Frankly, the demands to censor this information smacks of liberal bias.''": I'm going to shout because you obviously didn't hear me before: "IT IS NOT CENSORSHIP TO REMOVE IRRELEVANT INFORMATION, AND I'D APPRECIATE YOU NOT IMPLYING THAT I'M TRYING TO CENSOR ANYTHING."<br />
<br />
I've pointed out a number of problems, and your response has been to slander the criticism as censorship and liberal, to introduce red herrings, and to assert your opinion as fact. What you have ''not'' done is actually address the issue.<br />
<br />
[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:57, 18 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:How dare you accuse Andy of slander. And what hypocricy. The only slanderer, Philip, is you. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 03:40, 18 November 2008 (EST)<br />
:: Yet you make no attempt to refute that it was slanderous, nor to substantiate your accusation against me. In other words, a substanceless response. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:53, 18 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
Andy, regarding "''(Islam being) the strongest religion in Europe today''": you never cease to amaze us with your wealth of knowledge of the world outside the USA, be it UK, the whole of Europe or Australia. Kudos to you! --[[User:Europeo|Europeo]] 07:37, 18 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
::''Regardless, some remarkable displays of lack of knowledge about Islam and Islamic education have been displayed here.'' I think that's a statement with which anyone would agree. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 10:55, 18 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
==Four Questions For The Trojan Candidate==<br />
{{QuoteBox|1=It has taken the better part of a year, and specifically the last six months of this election season, for committed citizen journalists at TexasDarlin and many other blogs to conduct the solid, investigative research that the media, the democratic national committee, agencies of the federal government, Barack Obama himself, and Congress should have done on the eligibility and qualifications of Barack Obama. The first serious look at Barack Obama ’s Constitutional eligibility began on this blog, with the exposure of the birth certificate mystery, Obama-Soetoro’s Indonesian citizenship, and analysis of the constitutional problems with Obama’s multiple citizenship status irrespective of birthplace.<br />
<br /><br /><br />
Although our collective knowledge of Barack Obama and the concerns of his candidacy came too late to change the outcome of the Democratic nomination and the election—especially in light of the MSM bias, the Obama campaign’s tactics, and DNC shenanigans– for all our hard work, we were successful in shedding some light on the content of his character: his associations, his deeds, his family relations, his friends, his lack of experience, stewardship, his patriotism, his potential agenda ([http://texasdarlin.wordpress.com/2008/09/21/the-trojan-candidate/] ) and the startling depth of his secrecy.<br />
<br /><br /><br />
Now that we have “un-muddied” the water…..we stand on the edge of a caldera* with no idea of the complexity, depth, explosiveness, or unpredictability of this phenomenon we have witnessed in the rise of Barack Obama ! We as a country have never actually been here before, standing at the edge of possible dissolution of our country, except perhaps in the election of 1860. One realizes at once the perils of both diving into that hot pool of water, or running away to avoid the explosion….either scenario leads to serious burns! <br />
<br /><br /><br />
While there seems to be little evidence that we will ever fully know Obama, nor avoid the explosive change he will bring, there is a way we can learn from this experience such that our Country will never again be faced with someone who is truly unknown, inexperienced, untested, and feels (to me anyway) uncommitted to America. We can use the 2008 experiences to also highlight and then design strategies to ensure that every political party is responsive to its constituents, and that our Constitution is really a living document.<br />
<br /><br /><br />
The Constitution is by and for “we the people”; therefore “we the people” must make it work and not rely on any political party to sell America to the highest bidder.<br />
<br /><br /><br />
'''Four Questions'''<br />
<br /><br /><br />
I bring forward four questions that get to the heart of our rights, as American citizens, to ensure that our government and its leaders are indeed qualified to lead our great country. By extension, these questions can be used as windows to other potential areas where we the people do not yet have redress.<br />
<br /><br /><br />
These questions are miraculously (given procedural errors and the existing lower court dismissal) before the Supreme Court with the requirement that President-elect Obama respond by December 1, 2008. It is also disturbing that these questions are before the U.S. Supreme Court when the candidate himself or the DNC could easily have dispelled any speculation by providing simple documentation.<br />
<br /><br /><br />
While I have not kept track of the Berg v. Obama case for many reasons, it truly is miraculous that Justice Souter required Obama to respond to Berg’s writ of certiorari. Even if, as some have said, Souter ’s action is not significant and procedural only, how Obama responds will reveal much about his view of the Constitution, and will determine if the full Supreme Court decides to hear the case. In responding, Obama will be essentially arguing why the writ of certiorari should not be granted.<br />
<br /><br /><br />
In my opinion, the questions raised by Berg in the lower Court should not have been thrown out entirely based on standing alone, or by the notion that the injury to a voter is “vague”. But some Judges do actually realize the question may be beyond their jurisdiction and ‘ask for help’ by clearly making appealable and reversible errors that a higher court can rule on. The Supreme Court Rules permit the grant of a writ of certiorari only under specific circumstances.<br />
<br /><br /><br />
The questions presented for review are:<br />
<br /><br /><br />
*1. Whether a citizen of the United States has standing to challenge the Constitutional qualifications of a Presidential nominee under the “natural born citizen clause” [Article II of the U.S. Constitution] when deprivation of the right to such a challenge would result in the infringement of a citizen’s Constitutional right to vote?<br />
*2. Isn’t it true that no one has the responsibility to ensure a United States Presidential candidate is eligible to serve as President of the United States?<br />
*3. Are there proper steps for a voter to ensure a Presidential Candidate is qualified and eligible to serve as President of the United States?<br />
*4. Isn’t it true that there are not any checks and balances to ensure the qualifications and eligibility of a Presidential Candidate to serve as President of the United States?<br />
<br /><br />
The “questions presented for review” in the writ require Obama’ response. Notice that answering these questions does not require Obama to produce a birth certificate, but instead to answer why he does not have to prove himself eligible.<br />
<br /><br /><br />
Although we cannot predict Obama’s answers, based on his past legal motions submitted in the lower court case, Obama may indeed respond that the writ should not be granted because (1) a citizen does not have standing, (2) that no one has responsibility to ensure eligibility, (3) that there are no proper steps for a citizen to ensure qualifications, and (4) that there are no checks and balances that exist today to ensure a candidate is qualified. Notice he is in a position of arguing technicalities here, and completely misses his own obligation to prove himself.<br />
<br /><br /><br />
Although doubtful, it is also possible Obama would try to argue that the 14th Amendment says that “naturalized citizens” and “dual citizens” are “American citizens”, thereby satisfying the requirements of Article II. I really can’t imagine he would bring this up, unless asked in a hearing, as the question of the 14th Amendment’s modification of Article II is a constitutional matter that only the Supreme Court can decide. Recall that on Obama’s own website he claims that he is a U.S. Citizen under the 14th amendment.<br />
<br /><br /><br />
I think these questions may have Obama boxed in. If he intends not to release his COLB, citizenship records, passport files, etc, Obama would then practically argue a big “FU” to the U.S. Supreme Court and say in effect “I don’t have to respond to this because there is no law, no avenue for citizens, and no checks and balances that require me to do so.” He will argue technicalities in how to disregard the Constitution, including, as above, that the 14th Amendment applies to Article II. I wonder how the Supreme Court might respond?<br />
<br /><br /><br />
If Obama responds in any other way, he could be forced to disclose and/or identify when, how, and what steps citizens can take, or what steps are taken, to assure the POTUS’ eligibility. Using the process he acknowledges—for example, the “DNC vetting process”–he may then be forced to prove his eligibility to serve as POTUS under Article II by showing the documentation he provided to the DNC, if he provided anything to the DNC. Alternatively he could concede that there are no procedures to ensure eligibility of a person for POTUS, and that “America has to take his word for it”. Would the Supreme Court then order him to produce his documentation according to the original suit filed by Berg?<br />
<br /><br /><br />
One item of interest is how Obama responds to Question 4, on the existence of checks and balances to assure the POTUS’ eligibility. “Checks and balances” can mean procedures, legislative processes, acts, bills, agencies, or resolutions. Here is where Obama could argue that the Senate Resolution promoted by Senators Leahy, Obama, and McCatskill on John McCain’s eligibility applies. In other words, Obama could argue that the checks and balances already exist and this resolution suffices (notice this is not a bill). The Senate resolution was developed in April, 2008 to “validate” John McCain ’s natural born citizen status when it was unnecessary, and in some ways the resolution’s language can be seen as an attempt by the three Senators to create a blanket provision for a naturalized citizen to be eligible to serve as POTUS. Looking at the text of the resolution and supporting statements, Senator Leahy has the following curious exchange with Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff (emphasis mine):<br />
<br /><br /><br />
Chairman Leahy. Let me just ask this: I believe–and we have had some question in this Committee to have a special law passed declaring that Senator McCain, who was born in the Panama Canal, that he meets the constitutional requirement to be President….You are a former Federal judge. You are the head of the agency that executes Federal immigration law. Do you have any doubt in your mind–I mean, I have none in mine. Do you have any doubt in your mind that he is constitutionally eligible to become President?<br />
<br /><br /><br />
Secretary Chertoff. My assumption and my understanding is that if you are born of American parents, you are naturally a natural-born American citizen.<br />
<br /><br /><br />
As Berg’s case has evolved, he refined the scope of defendants who now must also respond to the writ, including the DNC, the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration and its Chair, Senator Dianne Feinstein , the Federal Election Commission (FEC), and several Pennsylvania government officials.<br />
<br /><br /><br />
With the exception of the DNC, who also joined in Obama’s initial motion to dismiss the lower case on lack of standing, I think the other defendants’ responses might be decidedly different. The FEC could claim that it actually has no jurisdiction in the matter by way of its charter and organizing documents, and that even if it did, it is far too understaffed to perform investigatory functions, as cited by Senator Feinstein in testimony before the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration on May 28, 2008 (link to http://rules.senate..gov/hearings/2008/052108feinsteinopen.pdf). And will Senator Feinstein blame the Bush administration, or will she admit that she too just assumed the DNC vetted Obama and that he was eligible?<br />
<br /><br /><br />
After reviewing Obama’s legal argument against granting the writ of certiorari and the other defendants’ responses, Justice Souter will then review Berg’s response before deciding where the case goes next, including whether the full Supreme Court will hear the case. Remember that Souter’s clerks have all the lower court material and reviewed it before Souter required Obama to respond to the writ of certiorari. In my opinion, Justice Souter would not have granted this appeal from Berg if he thought the issues were irrelevant and not worthy of the Court’s attention.<br />
<br /><br /><br />
How does the Supreme Court react? Will it order the production of Obama’s documents? Will it order the lower Courts to resolve the matter expeditiously, requiring the release of documents? Will it order the FEC, Electoral College, or Congress to verify his eligibility, or develop verification procedures? Will they agree with Obama, if he mentions it, that the 14th Amendment really did modify Article II criteria? Will they dismiss the case?<br />
<br /><br /><br />
Although the Supreme Court will not want to be seen as determining the outcome of another election—even for the perception of “fairness”– the questions presented in the writ are completely different than presented in Bush v. Gore. Under Article III of the Constitution, the Supreme Court clearly has the jurisdiction to decide the matter. Legal scholars will point to Marbury v. Madison ( link to http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=true&doc=19) as precedent if the full Supreme Court accepts the writ, orders the lower Court in error, directs it to secure Obama’s documentation, and chastises the DNC, FEC, the PA state agencies, the Senate, and Senator Obama for not doing their job, and not forcing the production of documents itself, while still retaining jurisdiction.<br />
<br /><br /><br />
If this is the outcome, a motion could be made by Berg to stay the vote of the Electoral College pending the outcome of the case. If the Justices are concerned about the matter and integrity of the 2008 election, that motion could be granted. The expedited discovery of documents would proceed. Yes, I understand this is a long-shot and speculation on my part.<br />
<br /><br /><br />
And how, in the meantime, are we to ever know about Barack Obama? Is the burden of proof really on America (Berg), or on Barack Obama ? Is it up to your employer to find out who you are, or is it up to you as an employee to provide your documentation? Isn’t Obama supposed to be working for America? I believe that the burden of proof on eligibility rests solely and unconditionally on Barack Obama’s shoulders. I am not alone in this belief (link http://americamustknow.com/Documents/OBAMA%20LAWSUIT,%20Class%20Action.doc).<br />
<br /><br /><br />
Alinsky Returns?<br />
<br /><br /><br />
As I sit in disbelief and alarm even writing this article—that something as basic as citizenship status of the potential POTUS is in front of the Supreme Court at this late date—I am reminded of a framework set forth in an earlier article, The Trojan Candidate (link to http://texasdarlin.wordpress.com/2008/09/21/the-trojan-candidate/), and the use of Alinsky-style community organizing techniques to advance an agenda of revolutionary change. In this article I posited that Barack Obama has a hidden agenda and part of implementing his agenda involves the use of techniques developed by Saul Alinsky and discussed in such books as Rules for Radicals (http://www.semcosh.org/AlinskyTactics.htm).<br />
<br /><br /><br />
'''From the Trojan Candidate:'''<br />
<br /><br /><br />
Alinsky laid out a set of basic principles to guide the actions and decisions of radical organizers [community organizers] and the People’s Organizations they established. The organizer, he said, ‘must first rub raw the resentments of the people; fan the latent hostilities to the point of overt expression. He must search out controversy and issues, rather than avoid them, for unless there is controversy people are not concerned enough to act.’ The organizer’s function, he added, was ‘to agitate to the point of conflict ’and ‘to maneuver and bait the establishment so that it will publicly attack him as a “dangerous enemy.” ‘The word ‘enemy,’ said Alinsky, ‘is sufficient to put the organizer on the side of the people’; i.e., to convince members of the community that he is so eager to advocate on their behalf, that he has willingly opened himself up to condemnation and derision.<br />
<br /><br /><br />
What could be the reason for withholding his citizenship papers and birth status, especially if he has nothing to hide? Does he plan to use this in some way to “rub raw the resentments of the people” [and] “fan the latent hostilities to the point of over expression”? The concerns about Obama’s Constitutional eligibility will be met with accusations of “racism”; that the “system” wouldn’t do this to a white man, and that the republicans or others are trying to ‘take Obama out’ on a “technicality”. And worse.<br />
<br /><br /><br />
If Obama is ineligible, he could rightly be called a ‘dangerous enemy’ and forced to stand down. It is at this point that “the word ‘enemy’ is sufficient to put the organizer on the side of the people…” and the maneuvering and baiting of the establishment forces it to back down, with Obama prevailing whether having shown his documentation or not. As you contemplate this, think of all the money, the inevitability narrative, the shutting down of dissent, the timing of events, the threat of violence and insurrection, the establishment of the office of the president elect, and the simply overwhelming of America with all things Obama. This certainly pulls the light from shining on the real Barack Obama ’s Trojan candidacy.<br />
<br /><br /><br />
If Obama is proven ineligible, does not stand down or even if he does stand down, it is not unreasonable to expect some “in-your-face” hostile reactions and calls for immediate changes that permit Obama to stay. How ironic: in defense of liberty and the Constitution, we will be called ‘racists’.<br />
<br /><br /><br />
'''Implications for the Future'''<br />
<br /><br /><br />
The four questions presented to the U.S. Supreme Court in 2008 will have a lasting and enduring effect on the course of the American Constitution in the next decade or more and will continue to feed the growing doubts about Obama’s qualifications and intentions in the next four years.. Currently there are 17 different legal actions in various state and federal courts, which now challenge the validity of the electoral process across the country, regardless of outcome (see http://www.soundinvestments.us/files/final_writ_keyes_v_bowen.pdf) .<br />
<br /><br /><br />
Just my suspicion, but I am beginning to get a more complete picture of why Obama has sealed all of his records, including college financial aid applications, papers, and coursework. I believe his financial aid applications reveal his foreign status; and I now see that his Columbia and Harvard papers could reveal his examination of the “weaknesses” of the U.S. Constitution and ways to “remedy” them using “administrative procedures” as discussed in this 2001 radio interview. (link to http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3VctiYQplw8)<br />
<br /><br /><br />
As I look at the scope of research on the issue of eligibility during this election season, I note that nearly all have concluded that there are no checks and balances to assure the eligibility of a Presidential Candidate, that no one is responsible, that the DNC did not do its job, and that indeed citizens and voters have very little recourse to ask these questions. The Supreme Court has never been presented with this question before on Article II eligibility. I personally doubt that they will duck their responsibilities to protect the Constitution.<br />
<br /><br /><br />
Up until this time, it has been assumed that every candidate and POTUS has met Article II qualifications. We assume that in fact no one would dare to run for and claim the Presidency if he/she didn’t meet the qualifications of the Constitution. Looks like our age of innocence is over.<br />
<br /><br /><br />
It appears that we will have to craft legislation to assure eligibility criteria are met for the POTUS, and to assign appropriate responsibilities to assure so.. If the country wants to amend the Constitution to allow naturalized or dual citizens to serve as POTUS, then we have that mechanism, which ¾ of the states have to ratify. None of this can happen before the January 20th inauguration.<br />
<br /><br /><br />
The four questions to the Supreme Court also remind me of other areas in which we voters do not have redress when something goes wrong. Although I am now an “unaffiliated” voter, having left the democratic party after November 4th, it also appears that democrats do not have an avenue of redress when the DNC and RBC violate party rules as they did in this case to deny Hillary Clinton the nomination. In addition, we now know that caucuses can be gamed, and do not serve the interests of democracy nor do they provide a fair representation of the strength of our party’s candidates. Because of the DNC, RBC and Obama’s gaming of the system with caucus fraud, and the blatant use of race and misogyny to silence critics, we are witnessing the democrats begin the disintegration of the “democratic brand”. I am sure there are issues in the Republican party after GWB destroyed the “republican brand”. We all need a detox from our respective koolaid brands in order to really see clearly.<br />
<br /><br /><br />
What is next for our country? Well, if we don’t want to dive into that hot pool, and we’re not going to run away, then we’d better start creating an alternative vision. A line in one of my favorite movies, The Shawshank Redemption, sums it up for me:<br />
<br /><br /><br />
“…get busy livin’, or get busy dyin’…” [http://texasdarlin.wordpress.com/2008/11/16/four-questions-for-the-trojan-candidate/]}}<br />
{{unsigned|TK}}<br />
<br />
==Andy, if it can perhaps be quibbled that there is merely a 20% chance of Obama being a Muslim, then why is the Obama article stating that he is likely a Muslim? ==<br />
<br />
Dear Andy, <br />
<br />
You wrote above regarding the probability of Obama being a Muslim the following:<br />
<br />
"Perhaps one can quibble whether that probability is 20% or 60% or 90%, but no one can insist with a straight face that it is 0%."<br />
<br />
Andy, if it can be perhaps be quibbled that the likelihood of Obama being a Muslim is merely 20%, then why is the article still stating that Obama is likely a Muslim? Second, Andy do you think that a reference work should use scholarly caution and that scholarly caution helps make a reference work authoritative? [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 04:01, 18 November 2008 (EST)<br />
:In this case, what you describe as 'scholarly caution' means knuckling under to Liberal suppression of facts and discussion. The scholarly option is to seek out the truth, no matter how disturbing that truth or the process of uncovering it might be to those on the left. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 04:43, 18 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
Andy I also fear we are not doing our site any favors in this area. If Obama is a Muslim, he is certainly keeping that under wraps. There is no indication that he would suddenly take the oath of office on a Koran. Such a turnabout that he lied about his Christianity would destroy his ability to govern. It is more likely, if he is a Muslim, that he would support Muslim causes without making a profession of his own faith. We should also realize, based upon his policies, that if he does have Islamic ties that they would be akin to the type of ties that John Kerry has to Catholicism, very poor. His views on abortion alone would be considered extreme Western decadence within the greater Islamic world view. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 04:54, 18 November 2008 (EST)<br />
:::::Bugler, I purposely chose Andy's words that "perhaps one can quibble that the probability is 20%". Therefore, if Andy is correct about the 20% issue then the statement that Obama is likely a Muslim should be removed from the article. I am just following Andy's statement where the logic leads if his statement is true and no knuckling under is necessary. I do think it is fair to say that people come to an encyclopedia to read facts and not speculation. Speculation weighs down an encyclopedia by eroding its credibility. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 08:03, 18 November 2008 (EST)<br />
::::::Saying "One could argue that X is 20%" doesn't in any way mean accepting that that X '''is''' 20%. It merely allows the existence of theoretically possible grounds of debate. If I said there were grounds for arguing that the planet Jupiter was made of cheese, likewise it doesn't mean that I think it is reasonably possible that such is the case. Andy is (in my interpretation of his words) admitting grounds for debate; it does not mean that he (or anyone else who takes a rational view of the issue) accepts only a 20% likelihood. The whole point of the point at issue is that it disproves the blinkered dogmatism and naivety of Liberals who say "Oh, Obama has said he's a Christian so he '''can't possibly''' be a Moslem." Liberals cling to dogma like an unweaned child to its blanket; we conservatives prefer debate, rational discourse, and seeking truth from facts, not from wish-fulfillment fantasies. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 09:14, 18 November 2008 (EST)<br />
::::::: Admitting that 20% is ''possible'' means that you've destroyed your argument that it ''is'' more than 50%.<br />
::::::: And no, the whole point is ''not'' to support liberal views. That's a false claim. And if you as a conservative prefers debate, rational discourse, and seeking truth from facts, why are you reversing my edits without offering any rebuttal to my points?<br />
::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:38, 18 November 2008 (EST)<br />
''Admitting that 20% is ''possible'' means that you've destroyed your argument that it ''is'' more than 50%.'' You haven't read it, have you? Read it again, nice and slowly, take your time, and especially consider the Jupiter analogy. As for the vulgar abuse in your edit summary, I will let that speak for itself. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 09:42, 18 November 2008 (EST)<br />
: Bugler, I will concede that point. Instead I'll say that Andy's point that this was a response to was rather unclear as to its aim, and I was reading his comments differently.<br />
: However, I will add another response to your previous post. You say that "the whole point of the point at issue is that it disproves the blinkered dogmatism and naivety of Liberals who say "Oh, Obama has said he's a Christian so he can't possibly be a Moslem." The problem with this claim of yours is that it's ''not'' the way the argument is being used. That is, the arguments are not being used to ''oppose'' the claim that he couldn't possibly be a Muslim; the arguments are being used to ''support'' the claim that he ''is'' a Muslim. If they were being used the way that you say, then at least some of them would have some legitimacy. But being used the way they are is invalid.<br />
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:33, 18 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
It might be good to create a subarticle, with [[Barack Obama]] as the main article. We have templates for this; Philip is our template custodian and can place whatever we need.<br />
<br />
I protected the article, because edit wars don't serve our readers; and they don't help us contributors much either. <br />
<br />
I didn't look at Andy's last version. I just guessed it might make a good starting point. <br />
<br />
Let's discuss, rather than trying to "get our way". Wiki collaboration should result in stability. Let none of us rock the boat. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 09:47, 18 November 2008 (EST)<br />
:: The problem, Ed, is that these things have already been discussed at length. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:45, 18 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:Thanks, Ed. I agree that edit wars are undesirable. I don't consider that I was edit warring. I was trying to protect this article, which has been arrived at in its current form after much debate, from unilateral and ideologically-driven deletions bordering on vandalism. In the course of doing so I have yet again been accused of mendacity. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 09:51, 18 November 2008 (EST)<br />
:: They are ''not'' "unilateral and ideologically-driven deletions bordering on vandalism". When you stoop to misrepresenting the situation, it shows that your argument is shaky. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:45, 18 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
: Thanks, Ed, for bringing stability. As Bugler points out, there is nothing in my observation that "perhaps one" can quibble whether the likelihood Obama is a Muslim is 20%, 60% or 90% that justifies censoring the evidence and statement that he is likely a Muslim. Juries make such determinations based on the evidence all the time; so do encyclopedias. The evidence is compelling and will not be censored or downplayed here, despite some (for unknown reasons) disliking it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:52, 18 November 2008 (EST)<br />
::: Andy, I have repeatedly pointed out that it is ''not'' censorship. Why do you keep repeating that false claim? Also, I have explained ''why'' the claims are "disliked", why do you falsely say that the reasons are unknown? As I said to Bugler above, when you stoop to misrepresenting the situation, it shows that your argument is shaky. And the evidence is not only not compelling, some of it is false and some is logically fallacious. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:45, 18 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
::Yes, of course there is evidence. And being a Muslim is not a punishable in the US, so the jury need not use the standard of "[[beyond any reasonable doubt]]". It's more like a lawsuit, I guess, where you need only be 51% sure to vote one way or the other.<br />
<br />
::Personally, I'd like CP to make some indication that some conservatives are still in doubt about [[my Muslim faith|"his Muslim faith"]], but that desire does not outweigh the need for editorial harmony. <br />
<br />
::It is liberals - rather than conservatives - who insist on censoring all views contrary to theirs, in the US. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 10:03, 18 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
::: Ed, when the issue is the president of the United States, then even less than a 51% chance is often sufficient to be influential, just as less than 51% chance is enough to deny someone an important job.<br />
<br />
::: Someone is missing the the point about [[my Muslim faith]], which omits the telling phrase: "Muslim faith." No Christian would use that specific phrase so casually in reference to himself. How about someone saying "Allah the Creator"?! Christians don't use the phrase.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:10, 18 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Falsifiability & "My Muslim Faith" ==<br />
<br />
Aschlafly, Ed Poor, etc. - <br />
<br />
Is there any piece of evidence that, assuming it existed, would convince you that Barack Obama is NOT a Muslim? You've now admitted there's a chance he's not a Muslim, so what piece of evidence would convince you that he's not? As it stands, your argument seems unfalsifiable, and ridiculously conspiratorial: everytime someone offers evidence that Obama's not a Muslim, you just reply with, "oooh, he's a tricky one! He must have worked to cover that up!" That's not a respectable, logical argument: it's an inability to recognize fact when it's put before your eyes. What piece of evidence could convince you of that, if any?<br />
<br />
Further, if I go through the George W. Bush talk page I bet I'll find a million examples of you apologizing for Bush's rhetorical missteps, and arguing that when he says something incorrectly, it doesn't mean he's stupid. Why, then, are you not willing to take Obama's slip of the tongue as the same thing - unconscious error, not indicative of any deeper meaning?<br />
<br />
The fact is, you have no principled basis for the distinction. Nor are you going to accept any evidence that Obama's a Christian. You're just clinging to a pet theory when even your own administrative staff tells you you're wrong.-[[User:KiraN|KiraN]] 10:26, 18 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Towards stability via discussion ==<br />
<br />
:''unilateral and ideologically-driven deletions bordering on vandalism''<br />
<br />
Vandalism is replacing the page with "Stinky loves Myrtle". Unilateral editing is doing your own thing, even when you know someone else will just want to revert (see [[Editing etiquette]]).<br />
<br />
Let's come closer together, rather than battle it out on the page itself. Talk pages are for talking. Let's hear some more talk! --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 10:29, 18 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:The problem with that, is that if people talk about it, and say almost anything to disagree with the current state of the article, they are likely to get blocked for the "90/10 Rule against talk talk talk" or "liberal namecalling" or some other excuse. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] <small>(CPAdmin1)</small><sup>[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]]</sup> <sup>[[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]]</sup> 10:37, 18 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:: Tim, that's simply not true. The [[90/10 rule]] guards against nothing but talk. It's easy to make substantive contributions to comply with the rule, and it's easy to refrain from namecalling in discussions. In fact, both are essential to keep the level of discourse and learning here at a high level.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:42, 18 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:::The [[90/10 rule]] might guard against nothing but talk, but it sure seems to guard against some kinds of talk a lot more than others. [[User:RobNewberry|RobNewberry]] 10:47, 18 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
::::If so, there's nothing wrong with that. Jaywalking is not prosecuted as much as petty shoplifting either.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:55, 18 November 2008 (EST)<br />
:::::Aschlafly, you can tell yourself that all you want, but this much is clear; the 90/10 rule is a content-neutral rule applied in a manner that amounts to viewpoint discrimination. You only apply it against liberals. You've long since abandoned the stance that you "don't block ideologically."<br />
:::::This site has survived for two years ''only'' by ruthlessly persecuting anyone who disagrees with your worldview. Tim is right, but I'll take it one step farther: I think the reason you censor people who disagree with you is because you know you'll lose in a fair fight. The Barack Obama article is just one more example of that. Except now, even your own sysops disagree with you, so you devolve into insulting Philip and dodging the question.<br />
:::::Of course you can block me, and prove Tim right.-[[User:KiraN|KiraN]] 11:02, 18 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
::::@Aschlafly: I don't get your analogy. Jaywalking and petty shoplifting are different crimes. Excessive talk by a liberal and excessive talk by a conservative is the same "crime". So the "prosecution" ought to be applied equally against both, right? Otherwise it isn't a ''rule'', it's just an ''excuse'' to make people you don't agree with go away. [[User:RobNewberry|RobNewberry]] 11:04, 18 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
::::: Rob, within the same crimes prosecutorial patterns are different. It's called "prosecutorial discretion." It is used every day by law enforcement and it is obvious why it is needed. I'm not going to waste my morning spelling this out for you. Take a basic course on criminal justice, or simply follow the news.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:23, 18 November 2008 (EST)<br />
::::::Andy, you're misunderstanding "prosecutorial discretion." You're right that policemen have the right to decide which crimes to prosecute, but if they differentially allow white criminals to get away with murder, and seek the death penalty for black shoplifters, it would give rise to a disparate impact lawsuit and be illegitimate, racist, and wrong. We're arguing that your actions here are closer to abuse of prosecutorial discretion to kick out your enemies, than to the case of using prosecutorial discretion to preserve resources.<br />
::::::It strikes me that what you're missing is the difference between "content neutral" and "viewpoint discrimination." Take a course in the First Amendment, or read a book on it; it might help your understanding of the word "censorship," too.-[[User:KiraN|KiraN]] 13:38, 18 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
I would say you are partially correct, RobNewberry. Sometimes people need to be "invited" to leave, much like a dinner guest who overstays their welcome. If a person comes to Conservapedia knowing full well it is a conservative/Christian friendly wiki-encyclopedia, and is a liberal, the question is why? If the answer is they support Andy Schlafly's idea of an conservative alternative to the decidedly left-of-center editor dominated Wikipedia, that's great! All voices should be represented on the Net. But if their intentions are merely to argue and dispute conservative or Christian points of view, that becomes a subtle form of vandalism, inasmuch as it is a great time waster for those who genuinely want to contribute their conservative/Christian POV, and build this encyclopedia. My own opinion is that those who obsessively create new user names, only to argue against conservative values, and disrupt/time waste, are actually terrorists of the Internet kind. What other reason would they have to stick around? Any board or wiki does and should have the absolute right of association.<br />
<br />
This would hold true for a conservative joining a known liberal board or wiki, and spend all their time disputing the members, arguing without end, and seeking to put their conservative point of view into their discussions or articles. I am not for truncating free speech automatically, but after weeks and weeks of disputing everything, knowing you are not going to change CP into Wikipedia's more liberal world-view, or have CP adopt all of Wikipedia's member conventions, a person's efforts then cross over into something more, what I have taken to calling Internet Terrorism. CP has an owner, it is his right to have whatever viewpoint he wants. If people agree, with even a part, they stick around and help build this place. If they don't, what other reason, other than being obstinate or having malicious intent, could they have? Disagreement is fine, debate is good. But where does it end, and the ability of like-minded individuals to associate with those they agree with, without constant disagreement begin? --<font color="#1E90FF" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:TK|₮K]]</font><sup><font color="DC143C">[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]</font></sup> 11:41, 18 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:Please don't refer to anything that isn't terrorism as terrorism. It might be censorship or vandalism or disruption. But terrorism is something else entirely. There is no terror involved in what you describe above and associating the term with it helps to undermine fear of the real kind. Terrorism should not be taken lightly. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 11:48, 18 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
::TK, I agree with you completely that people probably need to be "invited" to leave. My only problem is that this is done under the guise of 90/10 rule. I think this is done so that Andy can still claim something like "We don't ask editors to leave because they have a certain viewpoint, only Wikipedia does that." Make too many liberal edits, though, and you'll find that you have somehow violated the 90/10 rule. I say drop the deceit and just ban people with the comment "We don't like your viewpoint. Goodbye." It's about being honest about what kind of place this wiki really is. [[User:RobNewberry|RobNewberry]] 11:49, 18 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:::Ajkgordon, one definition of "terrorism" is "intimidating gang activity". Regardless of your rather parochial idea of its meaning, kindly refrain from saying something I clearly labeled as my own opinion, invention, is wrong usage. Organized activity, like from ''certain groups'', to disrupt other boards or wiki's, no matter how loosely organized, if it is at all coordinated, is intimidation, ergo, "terrorism".<br />
<br />
:::RobNewberry, I know that when I was an administrator, I often followed Andy's lead in doing just that, block with the comment "Bye". As Schlafly often says, it isn't very hard to copy edit, add a source a few times a day, especially if one is spending hours and hours debating on talk pages. A person doing that, and not being obnoxious, they shouldn't be blocked. But I mostly see people with absolutely no contributions to CP, and looking at their history see only talk page posts, being blocked. Someone constantly reverting an article because of idealogical disagreement, and making no other contributions, should be blocked, or have the good grace to leave. There is more than one way to run a wiki. That's why they come with settings. Some wiki's require review of submissions before going live. Some require registration in order to edit, others do not. You sound fairly reasonable, obviously an informed person. Surely you can understand how people would grow tired of debating a topic without end. If you don't go to Wikipedia and try to insert something favorable about George W. Bush, Dick Cheney or Ann Coulter. Then when you are reverted, change it back. I don't think your experience will be a pleasant one. ;-) ----<font color="#1E90FF" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:TK|₮K]]</font><sup><font color="DC143C">[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]</font></sup> 12:12, 18 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
::::RobNewberry, your own comments are misleading and illustrate the problem, because now I have to waste my time correcting them. The [[90/10 rule]] applies to people who talk, talk, talk without redeeming value in the way of substantive contributions. Nothing could be simpler. Talk is a time-waster. Different viewpoints, if logical, are welcome here. Incessant talk as can be seen on countless other sites, is not. The talkers can rant elsewhere. We're here to learn.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:37, 18 November 2008 (EST)<br />
:::::Andy, you're being very dishonest about the application of the rule. Your explanation of it includes several value judgments - "different viewpoints, if logical" - all we're arguing is that your definition of "logical" is "that which agrees with you." That's where the discrimination we're talking about comes from.<br />
:::::Interestingly, while you spend some time characterizing anyone disagreeing with you as "liberal censorship," in a somewhat dishonest definition of "censorship," you seem unable to recognize that what you're doing is REAL censorship, the use of power (rather than argument & debate) to squelch uncomfortable beliefs. Open your mind.-[[User:KiraN|KiraN]] 12:54, 18 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
::::TK, if your definition is from Mirriam-Webster's, then it's '''''violent and''' intimidating gang activity''.<br />
::::My request was but a courteous plea for proper usage of the term for a current and dangerous phenomenon. Scattering the term around and using it to define childish, irreverent and irritating vandalism degrades the purity of the term and lessens its impact when correctly using it. If that's parochial, so be it. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 12:47, 18 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:::::TK and Andy, let me ask you a question. If you visited Wikipedia, and saw that, say, the Dick Cheney article contained an unreferenced assertion or an unfounded attack, you would initially try to edit and fix that problem, correct? Then, if another WP editor reverted your edit (which you believed was completely correct), you might either undo the reversion, or you might make a comment on the Talk Page, right? Now, here on CP, those of us who see something that ''we'' believe is incorrect or unfounded usually face a few problems. (Do not assume that all of us have evil intent against you - I'm entirely happy for you to have a conservative-leaning encyclopedia, and simply wish the information be factually correct and credibly referenced). First, the article may be locked, as this article is. In which case, there's nowhere to make the complaint except on the Talk Page. Second, if we can make them, our edits are often reverted, often with no supporting data provided (cf the Muslim debate here), so we usually have to make a comment on the Talk Page about that fact. It only takes one back and forth comment as we debate our position before a 90/10 block is usually enacted. Finally, those of us who frequent CP in an attempt to monitor the extreme forms of distortion that crop up now and again (as per any online community) may be shy of actually editing the articles, since bans are so often administered, so we instead first make our comments on the Talk Page. Frequently, a new user's single comment on a Talk Page is enough for a 90/10 ban. So it's pretty hard to believe that 90/10 is really about 90/10 when there are often no other options but Talk. And it's pretty hard to believe you're interested in establishing 'trustworthyness' if you aren't prepared to listen to evidence from other perspectives. [[User:FredX|FredX]] 12:49, 18 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:::::: FredX, users can talk all they want, as long as they contribute substance at the same time. It's easy to contribute substance. It's the reason we're here. No project can succeed if the participants do nothing but talk. Try it at work sometime if you don't believe me.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:53, 18 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:::::::Andy, consider this: "talk talk talk" is useful if it's being done to convince you, the only person with control over the article, that you're wrong. Talk towards the truth is not useless talk: it's incredibly substantive. As it stands now, it's you, Bugler, and TK versus everyone else on the site. It might be time to recognize that all this talk has the "substance" of proving your error.-[[User:KiraN|KiraN]] 13:08, 18 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
FredX, having a Conservative/Christian - friendly encyclopedia does not obligate CP to prostitute those beliefs by allowing people who are not Christians, who are not Conservatives, to alter articles or their tone, to fit their outlook. The truth is the truth, but truth is always in the eye of the beholder, no? You and I could argue 24/7, over the existence of God, to use an example. No matter how many "facts" you presented me with, it would not alter my ''knowing'' he exists. Political and religious thought is highly subjective. One mans "distortion" is another mans valid "truth". To repeatedly try to alter someone's beliefs is a form of bullying. Read what you are saying. No one has the obligation to appoint himself "Internet Monitor of Truth". Your conventions of how a wiki-encyclopedia come from where? It is totally lacking in logic to think the conventions of one place should be used at another. If I go to the Daily Kos or the Huffington Post, and appoint myself the "truth" monitor there, what would happen?<br />
<br />
If you have a complaint, you can always avail yourself the email links to other users. Or post your objection on the author's talk page. We aren't talking here about people objecting. We are talking about people who will not take "no" for an answer, and demand that their truth is better than another's. Once your point is made, posted, doing it again and again, without end, accomplishes what, other than you being able to vent? I don't spend time arguing with liberals at the Kos or HuffPo, because I know they do not agree with me, never will. I am not a YEC, yet I am here. What would be accomplished for me to argue, without end, with Philip Rayment (to use a known example of a YEC member here) over the age of the Earth? His "facts" as to Earth's age, are his. Mine are mine. In building an encyclopedia, or in any project, the trick is to focus on the areas we can agree on, and not let those we don't bog us down. --<font color="#1E90FF" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:TK|₮K]]</font><sup><font color="DC143C">[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]</font></sup> 13:18, 18 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:Actually, TK, I couldn't disagree with any of your comments, but for this one - "the truth is the truth, but truth is always in the eye of the beholder, no?". That's certainly true when it comes to matters of dogma or belief - it's true, we might never agree on what is "true". But there is much here on Conservapedia that is ''not'' dogma-related, and is simply factually untrue. To take this particular article as an example, might I ask if you believe the Muslim-related material might not be better presented if gathered into one section, entitled "Speculation on Obama's Muslim beliefs", instead of being scattershot throughout the article, unreferenced, misquoted, and asserted with no validity. That would actually HELP this debate, yet is certain to be disallowed under a threat of "we don't hide the truth here", yet who's truth is that? And my mere suggestion of disagreement with this thesis likely marks me as a candidate for a ban. Certainly it's likely that if I answer one more time in this reasonable debate with you, I will likely be blocked by ASchalfly, Bugler or others - simply for debating. But how else would I debate my suggestion - the article is locked? [[User:FredX|FredX]] 14:28, 18 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Talking with enemies ==<br />
<br />
In the section '''"statements"''' Obama is criticised for claiming Roosevelt spoke to our enemies. Now it is true that Roosevelt did not talk to Hitler, but he certainly ''did'' talk to Stalin, who most Americans consider (and hesitantly considered back then) an enemy, and it is Stalin that Obama is presumably referring to. Rather than letting Hitler conquer Russia while the United States kept to its own war effort, or letting Patton continue on to Warsaw and Moscow after victory against Germany, Roosevelt was willing to talk to the Communist Enemy to co-ordinate action and to ultimately permit the Bolshevik conquest of eastern Europe. Naturally there are divergent opinions over whether in this particular case compromise was the best course of action, but what Obama is obviously expressing when he refers to Roosevelt, Truman and Kennedy, all of whom negotiated with the Soviet enemy, is that it's better to come to talk with and possibly compromise with an opponent we may feel ideologically at polar opposites with instead of just blindly fighting whenever the oppurtunity presents itself. <br />
<br />
For that reason it is advisable that the section is removed as it relies on the assumption that Obama was referring exclusively to Truman and Roosevelt's relationship with Hitler rather than with Stalin. [[User:JHanson|JHanson]] 12:40, 18 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
<br />
:Your reasoning is confused, and your conclusion makes no sense at all.<br />
<br />
:Compromising with an enemy is often the wrong thing to do. Your [[all or nothing]] analysis doesn't support it: it's rarely a case of "give in or fight blindly". Perhaps you have assumed that America only '''felt''' it was ideologically at a polar opposite from atheism and totalitarianism. This is [[liberal dogma]], not CP editorial policy. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 12:52, 18 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
::You misunderstand completely. ''I'' didn't say anything about whether or not America should compromise - Obama did. Whether or not it should has absolutely nothing to do with the issue I was raising.<br />
<br />
::What I was saying was that the section is trying to make it seem that Obama has no grasp of history, that he was claiming that Roosevelt and Truman talked to our enemies (assumed to be Hitler, Mussolini and Hideki) when those Presidents didn't. However, Roosevelt and Truman did talk to our enemies, namely Stalin. Obama was referring to the talks Roosevelt and Truman had with ''Stalin'', not Hitler, and thus he was right to claim that Roosevelt, Truman and Kennedy talked to our enemies. Therefore the section is false, not because we should compromise with our enemies, but because Obama did not make a mistake as the section apparently claims. <br />
<br />
::Hopefully I have made myself more clear. But I will repeat to make sure: I am not saying anything about whether or not it is right to compromise with enemies. I am not saying that the communists were only apparently our enemies - in fact by suggesting that Roosevelt did not talk with enemies when he clearly talked with Stalin the section in the ''article'' implies that Stalin was not really an enemy. What I am saying is that Obama was perfectly justified in saying that Roosevelt and Truman talked and compromised with our enemies. This means exactly what it says, ''not'' that compromising with our enemies was perfectly justified. I apologise if I was not clear the first time, that's why I've rephrased the same point a second and third time.[[User:JHanson|JHanson]] 13:30, 18 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
== compared to wikipedia article ==<br />
<br />
It is interesting that the wikipedia articles on Obama does not mention Pakistan. In fact, his three week trip to Pakistan was documented in a New York Times article, but metion of it was removed at wikipedia with [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Early_life_and_career_of_Barack_Obama&diff=252397639&oldid=252397137 this edit]. It looks like some wiki contributors are running interferance at wikipedia. The conservapedia article is a nice balance to that article, though the part that he "may be sworn into office at his inauguration ... using the Koran" is dodgy, and sounds almost National Enquirer-ish. I think the wording could be improved, though I haven't looked into it. It would not surprise me if Barack Obama were a Muslim, and it would not surprise me if he were a liberal Christian with weakly held beliefs and a fondness for his early teachings. At wikipedia, I also didn't see any mention of Bill Ayers on Obama pages. That is very strange. The sad part is, if President Obama appointed Bill Ayers to be the head of the Department of Education, I don't think we would see much difference in the American education system--at least in the public schools--as people that think like him are already in control. Anyway, keep up the good work. [[User:BigMike|BigMike]] 12:58, 18 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:Good points, BigMike! --<font color="#1E90FF" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:TK|₮K]]</font><sup><font color="DC143C">[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]</font></sup> 13:24, 18 November 2008 (EST)<br />
::Thanks. Here is a quote "If there is an Arab American family being rounded up without benefit of an attorney or due process of law, that threatens my civil liberties."--Barack Obama, 2004 DNC speech. (Yes, it is what some would call a quote mine, but it is a direct quote of a complete sentence.) That being said, I agree with others that the article would be better if it were to document the fact that many people are speculating about whehter or not Barack Obama is a Muslim, including adding their reasoning. But trying to make a case that he is a Muslim in this article isn't turning out too well in my opinion. It's good to see some changes have been made. [[User:BigMike|BigMike]] 22:50, 18 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Suggestion for compromise ==<br />
<br />
Since it's clear that none of the editors involved are going to be able to agree, why don't we take Mr. Schlafly's advice [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Barack_Obama&diff=554261&oldid=554228 earlier on this talk page] where he says "We don't censor informative information here. Let the reader decide." How about, instead of going back and forth, back and forth, we instead allow the inclusion of evidence ''against'' Obama being a Muslim. The reader can read the evidence on both sides, and decide for themselves. Good idea? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 13:26, 18 November 2008 (EST)<br />
:Practically, I think that's a workable compromise. Theoretically, of course, it's problematic: neutrality towards an incorrect idea is not objectivity. The idea that Obama is a Muslim is objectively wrong, and should be excised. But, practically, I'm willing to go with that compromise. Great idea from a helpful sysop!-[[User:KiraN|KiraN]] 13:32, 18 November 2008 (EST)<br />
:::Not a sysop, but every now and then I have a good idea ;-) [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 13:49, 18 November 2008 (EST)<br />
::I think this is a very sensible idea. I don't agree with any of the arguments that Obama is a Muslim, but obviously a few people here are determined to cling to them, so including the counterarguments as well would be a good way to balance this part of the article & end the conflicts over this. [[User:Sideways|Sideways]] 13:42, 18 November 2008 (EST)<br />
:::Also, if the argument would take up a great deal of the article, it could be moved to a separate page. What's the policy on linking to debates from regular pages? I know there are two Obama/Muslim debates going, and I think linking to them from the article might not be a bad idea. [[User:ArnoldFriend|ArnoldFriend]] 13:45, 18 November 2008 (EST)<br />
::::(/signed) Totally agree, if all the arguments are presented then anyone who is open minded can make up their own mind. Those with closed minds won't be convinced either way, no matter what arguments are presented..--[[User:Ieuan|Ieuan]] 13:48, 18 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
Set forth your "evidence" here first, for consideration. Self-serving statements by politicians don't carry much weight here, obviously.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:53, 18 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:''"Set forth your "evidence" here first, for consideration. Self-serving statements by politicians don't carry much weight here, obviously.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:53, 18 November 2008 (EST)"''[http://www.myfoxkc.com/myfox/pages/News/Detail?contentId=7882247&version=1&locale=EN-US&layoutCode=TSTY&pageId=3.11.1 as required]. This was one source found in 5 minutes work and if anyone doubts the quality of the source [http://www.myfoxkc.com/myfox/pages/InsideFox/AboutUs?pageId=5.1 please look here]. This is just a single source found at 00:25am after being out all night doing charity work. As I find others I will post. I will also point out that I do not consider this, or subsequent evidence put forth, as 'talk' as I am responding to a direct request for information by the creator of this site--[[User:Ieuan|Ieuan]] 19:28, 18 November 2008 (EST)<br />
:Another, same conditions, contributor makes clear that he thinks that Obama is at best [http://foxforum.blogs.foxnews.com/2008/06/02/barack-obama-is-not-a-christian/ a deist], at worst an atheist, but at no point offers an argument for Obama being of an Islamic faith.--[[User:Ieuan|Ieuan]] 19:31, 18 November 2008 (EST)<br />
:As above, [http://www.jewsonfirst.org/08a/obama_religion_attacked.html 'Minnery, who served as Dobson's interlocutor on the program yesterday said during the broadcast that Obama was "deliberately distorting the traditional understanding of the bible to fit his own world view, his own confused theology."'] Again, at best the argument says that Obama is a deist, at worst is trying to set up his own sect of 'christianity', but no evidence to show that Obama is of Islamic faith.--[[User:Ieuan|Ieuan]] 19:38, 18 November 2008 (EST)<br />
:And again, [http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,317031,00.html "....to baseless e-mailed rumors that he is a Muslim and poses a threat to the security of the United States."]--[[User:Ieuan|Ieuan]] 19:41, 18 November 2008 (EST)<br />
:Logic argument: I believe it has been mentioned that Obama may be a Muslim because of his lack of dancing or dancing skills. If that belief is true then every man lives in the UK and is either i) not out of his head on 'e' or ii) over the age of 25 is muslim, as no man in the UK that does not fit the two previous definitions ''ever'' dances seriously with full use of his arms, at least, not outside of ballroom dancing. I admitted that is observational evidence, not just of myself but numerous others, but observational evidence is still evidence, and considerably better than suppostition and hearsay, two lower classes of 'evidence' ('that is which is seen').--[[User:Ieuan|Ieuan]] 19:49, 18 November 2008 (EST)<br />
:More. [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/22/AR2007012201322.html Washington Post, but hey, ''I'm'' not going to be the person who raises objections as to their factual accuracies], I'll leave that to the lawyers, my knowledge of libel laws just ain't that good. Of course, there are always those that will argue on the point of "Classes in Islam are offered to the predominantly Muslim students at the school....", but then that requires proving that Obama was a Muslim with a level of evidence above supposition and hearsay.--[[User:Ieuan|Ieuan]] 19:58, 18 November 2008 (EST)<br />
:And now it is 01:00 and I need my sleep. Page 2 of Google tomorrow.--[[User:Ieuan|Ieuan]] 20:00, 18 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
Since CP is the Conservative/Christian-friendly encyclopedia it is, while other points of view should be included, it is wrong to bully it into providing the equivalent of "equal time" to those who are not Christian and/or Conservative. Those who disagree should stop wasting time with this and move on to places that are more accommodating of [[liberal deceit]], Atheist [[deceit]]. --<font color="#1E90FF" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:TK|₮K]]</font><sup><font color="DC143C">[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]</font></sup> 13:56, 18 November 2008 (EST)<br />
:You are absolutely right. This is the Christian encyclopedia, at least one of the online ones. That means the Word is God, and God is truth. Let no argument be hidden, for that is the path of the Fallen, the jealous and the wicked. For those with God are armoured with Faith and armed with the Truth and are truly capable of determining the gleanings of Truth from argument and do not need protection, for the Word that is Truth guides their path--[[User:Ieuan|Ieuan]] 20:05, 18 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Accusations of Homosexuality ==<br />
<br />
The story is starting to spread that Obama is a homosexual or bisexual and may have been involved in the deaths of some of his past lovers<ref>http://chgocutie.blogspot.com/2007/12/nathaniel-nate-spencer-tucc-sanctuary.html</ref>. In shades of a Vince Foster type scandal I'm wondering if any mention of this development should go into the main page. Larry Sinclair<ref>http://larrysinclair0926.files.wordpress.com/2008/04/chicago-packet.pdf</ref> was the initial source, but evidence seems to be mounting<ref>http://redinktexas.blogspot.com/2008/07/larry-sinclair-obamas-bad-penny.html</ref> that Obama has a gay past he's been hiding.<br />
<br />
== A better approach to highlighting Obama's negatives - Highlight More Best Arguments against Obama vs. the throw a lot of spaghetti against the wall approach ==<br />
<br />
Instead of the article focusing more on claims that are certainly not undisputable (Obama being a Muslim) I think the article could do a better job of pointing out the negative things about Obama that have a much higher degree of certainty.<br />
<br />
Examples of things which could be highlighted more:<br />
<br />
1. Other than a footnote which few people will read, does the article highlight sufficiently '''his extremely liberal voting record''' as a Senator?[http://nj.nationaljournal.com/voteratings/] Perhaps, some of his more extreme votes could be highlighted. <br />
<br />
2. There is the '''Obama/infantcide''' issue which might be highlighted more if it is mentioned or mentioned if it is not currently mentioned: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYRpIf2F9NA and http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/obama_and_infanticide.html <br />
<br />
===Consequences of the current state of the article===<br />
<br />
It seems like the article takes a throw a lot of negative spaghetti against the wall and hopefully some sticks approach. That is not how you create a compelling article in terms of when it highlights some of the negative aspects about Obama. Dubious claims in the article make the valid claims less prominent. Also, it is not surprising that the Obama article is not ranked high by the search engines like the Conservapedia [[Bill Clinton]] article is (I have not read the Bill Clinton article but I suspect it is better than the Obama article. I do know that Conservapedia's Bill Clinton article is ranked #6 by Google). I think that is because it is difficult to get conservatives to link to the article and the article is easily dismissed by liberals and they do not see it as a threat. If you want the article to be informative and influential any dubious claims have to be weeded out and the legitimate matters have to be highlighted more. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 15:24, 18 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
== First Black President? ==<br />
<br />
Should we have an article on the [[First Black President]]? I had created one, but [[User_talk:Ed_Poor#First_Black_president|Ed said we should talk about it here first]].<br />
<br />
The citations I found that indicated Obama is not the first were [http://www.diversityinc.com/public/1461.cfm], [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Barack_Obama&curid=65751&diff=561761&oldid=561751], and [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Barack_Obama&diff=534592&oldid=534582]. [[User:BHarlan|BHarlan]] 16:11, 18 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
*I would suggest "Bi-Racial" as the most accurate term. --<font color="#1E90FF" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:TK|₮K]]</font><sup><font color="DC143C">[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]</font></sup> 16:13, 18 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
Please do create an entry. Thanks for the insight. Of course, the other reason for omitting the liberal claim that Obama is the first black president (aside from its likely inaccuracy) is the dubious significance of the assertion. By now our society is long past judging people by their race, and Obama's election illustrates how exaggerated the liberal claims about continued racism really are.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:25, 18 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:Gee, your right, I mean how do we know he is the first black president. I mean they didn't have photgraphs back then, so maybe John Adams was really a brother! For that matter, how do we know he is the first muslim president? Maybe Iran-contra was Reagan's way of helping his fellow Islamists! <br />
:Seriously though, is it really a liberal claim that he is the first black president? Other than you, who is claiming he isn't? [[User:TTerm|TTerm]] 18:38, 18 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
::TTerm, perhaps you don't know how to click on a link yet. BHarlan provided several of them above for you. Also, TTerm, this isn't a blog. Contribute substantively, or rant elsewhere.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:45, 18 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:::Two of those links just link back to conservapedia. The third references "research" by a man named Leroy Vaughn. The claims and evidence seem dubious to say the least. Whatever the veracity of these claims, it is wrong to call this a "liberal" claim since most conservatives believe him to be the first black president as well. [[User:TTerm|TTerm]] 20:59, 18 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:Great. Would you mind undeleting [[First Black president]], if the software allows it? [[User:BHarlan|BHarlan]] 18:28, 18 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:: Done, without yet reading it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:46, 18 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
==How to collaborate==<br />
<br />
If you'll notice, me last few edits to this article were sweepingly changed back by [[User:Aschlafly]]. However, neither my initial round of edits, nor his response, has resulted in animosity. On my part, at least, I have nothing but unbounded respect for my co-editor here. <br />
<br />
We are not against each other, although our approach is different. We are finding a synthesis which is (probably) better than each of us could do alone. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 16:15, 18 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
::The Declaration of Independence and Constitution of the United States are collabrative efforts that him withstood the test of time, among others! --<font color="#1E90FF" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:TK|₮K]]</font><sup><font color="DC143C">[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]</font></sup> 16:29, 18 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:Good for you, Ed (seriously - I wouldn't have been nearly as sanguine about it). The facts, however, remain that:<br />
:#'''DanH''' - a strong editor and respected sysop - '''quit this project in disgust''' at what he saw as an attempt to "smear" Obama as a Muslim.<br />
:#'''PJR''' - the most patient and eloquent defender of YEC I have ever encountered - '''categorically refutes''' the idea that there is any credible evidence that Obama is a Muslim.<br />
:#'''Conservative''' - principal author of several of Conservapedia's defining articles - remains '''wholly unconvinced''' of the strength of the Obama/Muslim case, and is concerned that its inclusion in the article could '''damage Conservapedia's credibility'''.<br />
:#'''Tim/CPAdmin1''' - one of the original members of this project - has '''repeatedly objected''' to its inclusion.<br />
:#And finally, '''ChrisS''' - again, one of the original Conservapedians - even felt moved to describe this article as '''the most sorry excuse for an encyclopedia entry I have ever seen'''. [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Barack_Obama&diff=prev&oldid=556523]<br />
:What kind of synthesis do you hope to achieve in the face of such ''demonstrably principled'' opposition? These are not lone, liberal voices. These are long-standing contributors who collectively insist that '''this is plain wrong and must be removed'''. <br />
<br />
:Good night (and good luck). --[[User:JohnZ|JohnZ]] 17:39, 18 November<br />
::: And that's not all of it. At least two other administrators have also made known their opposition, via e-mail (which Andy got copies of at the time). [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:12, 18 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
::We respect the views of a minority among us (and note that the minority you cite has displayed almost no experience with Islam and/or Islamic education). Regardless, obviously logic prevails over even the opinion of a majority.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:46, 18 November 2008 (EST)<br />
::: Andy, it is ''your'' view that is in the minority; JohnZ was citing the ''majority''. It seems that Ed (inadvertently) recognised that by his comment below. Hopefully logic would prevail, but unfortunately you are trying to make ''your'' minority and illogical view prevail.<br />
::: And this yet again highlights a major problem here. You are throwing around these personal opinions as though they are factual, denigrating the opposing view and the people that put them, but not actually engaging the arguments and providing a logical response.<br />
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:12, 18 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
The late Michael Crichton said, "The Nazis got 200 German scientists to say that Einstein was wrong, and then somebody asked Einstein, 'How does it feel to have 200 scientists against you?' And he said, 'It takes only one to prove me wrong.' " [http://www.perc.org/articles/article894.php] We don't go by majority vote around here, because the majority are (as our [[Founding Fathers]] indicated) simply not trustworthy. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 17:54, 18 November 2008 (EST)<br />
:: So are you saying that the administrators who are in the majority on this issue are not trustworthy? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:12, 18 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:Hi Ed,<br />
<br />
:I'm not usually known for my poor reading comprehension, but I can't tell which side of this thing your statement above is supporting. Is Andy vs. the 5 listed sysops the minority, or are the five listed sysops the minority as described by Andy ("[w]e respect the views of a minority among us)...")? Merci, [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 18:02, 18 November 2008 (EST) ''<-honh honh...''<br />
<br />
:: Ed's comment seems clear enough to me. Logic is not the result of majority vote, and even less so the product of a consensus among the minority. Ed is opposing relying on the view of a minority.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:04, 18 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
Good grief, man, must I spell it out? I'm on the side of finding out what is true! As J.M. Keynes said, "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?" It is to the principle of truth-seeking which I express my devotion here, as well as to the collaborative process of its discovery. Stop trying to cover this story like a sportswriter trying to figure out which horse won the race. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 18:10, 18 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:And what do ''you'' see as being the facts here, Ed? How do you hope to achieve your synthesis? --[[User:JohnZ|JohnZ]] 18:18, 18 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
::Yes, Ed, I'm sorry but I need it spelled out for me. This isn't a vague question for late night dorm hall meanderings. It's pretty concrete: the Obama-is-Muslim material, as Andy wants it presented, belongs in the article, or it doesn't. I can paint those two statements on horses and run them around a track if an over-extended metaphor will help here - only one of those horses can win. [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 18:31, 18 November 2008 (EST) ''<- will, however, need to learn to play the bugle (if not the bugler)...''<br />
<br />
<br />
:Wow, Ed, that's extremely well put!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:21, 18 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:ASchalfly - you said, "We...note that the minority you cite has displayed almost no experience with Islam and/or Islamic education". Might I ask what your own qualifications are in this regard, since you are clearly 'over-ruling' their opinions? [[User:FredX|FredX]] 18:25, 18 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
I'm going to write an article about [[the real horse whisperer]]. I have no more time to entertain you here. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 18:33, 18 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:Amazing. A simple question, with only two possible answers, that could be answered in fewer characters than you just used to beg off. And if you think I'm entertained you probably do think those horses are talking to you. ''Anybody'' who sticks with the "this conversation is a dragged-out waste of time" is missing the point that the time is being wasted by the continued and false defenses presented. It's only a continuing waste of time because the people in the wrong unfortunately wield all the clout, so they are in fact allowed to say "nuh unh" and ''have it stick''. If SteveRandomperson had inserted this stuff, other regular users could remove it, and when Steve got into an edit war over it any of the five sysops listed above could simply end this thing. It's only dragging on because none of them can pull rank on the proponent of this material.<br />
<br />
:''That'' is the source of wasted time here. [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 18:48, 18 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:: Aziraphale, your long-winded comment is incoherent, and your list of contributions is a remarkable violation of the [[90/10 rule]] against talk, talk, talk.[[Special:Contributions/Aziraphale]]--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:42, 18 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
::: I'm afraid he can't respond Andy. He's been blocked. --[[User:WOwen|WOwen]] 19:45, 18 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
::: I had no problem understanding Aziraphale's comment, so it is quite coherent, and he makes a very good point. It would make more sense to take notice of the problem than to brush it aside and silence him with a block. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:12, 18 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
==You're All Missing the Point==<br />
<br />
Ok I've said this once before, but nobody seems to understand so I'll try to make it clearer.<br />
<br />
'''YOU ARE ALL MISSNIG THE POINT'''<br />
<br />
Sitting around debating whether or not Obama is a Muslim is doing nothing to discredit him, instead it just reflects badly on conservatives. If you stopped using circumstantial evidence to "prove" that he may have told one lie on the campaign trail (which inevitably does not affect his politics) then you would realise there are plenty of valid fronts you can criticise him on:<br />
<br />
*Abortion<br />
*Stem cell research<br />
*War on Terror<br />
*Criminal rights<br />
*Lack of substance in policy<br />
*Economic regulation<br />
<br />
and so on... If you examined these in detail and explained why they would be bad for America, rather than dedicating copious amounts of the article to a farfetched claim that he's a Muslim in disguise, then you would not only convince conservatives that he is the wrong candidate, but also show politically neutral parties why they should not have voted for him. Instead, the article at the moment reads like a cross between a parody and a far right-wing blog entry, and will do nothing to convince anyone other than the most conservative voter. One of your own sources in the article clearly demonstrates that these attacks actually made people vote FOR Obama, and I can definitely say that if I saw this as the ideology of McCain I would have changed sides for the election.<br />
<br />
In debating there is a argument known as an ad homenin attack, where you attack the debator and not his/her arguments. This is weak, because it demonstrates an inability to critically analyse the opposition's position. This is exactly what is happening here, you are ''trying'' to attack Obama's character rather than his politics. If you tried more of the latter, you'll find that you will convince many more people that Obama is not an appropriate president for the United States, and win much more credibility in the process. [[User:NormanS|NormanS]] 20:22, 18 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
== obama, Muslim or "liberal Christian" with a skeptical streak - The duck test ==<br />
<br />
Andy, you claim that you are better educated regarding Islam than the oppposing sysops and that gives you deeper understanding of the issue. In response, I will first say that you have not shown that Lolo Soetoro was a staunch Muslim and given that Obama was sent to a Catholic school at some point I don't think you can show that his father had a great influence in his life. Furthermore, it appears as if Obama's mother was not married to the stepfather Lolo Soetoro long. In addition, his skeptical mother appears to have had the most influence in his life. Given that I have spent sometime studying Islam and had a Muslim housemate when I was younger and lived in a area highly concentrated with Muslims in the past, I don't think it is fair to say that I have great ignorance about Islam. I am well aware that patriarchy is present in Islamic families, but I am also aware that Obama's fathers did not appear to have great influence in his life. <br />
<br />
I really think at this point that Obama's behavior is key in terms of the likelihood of him being a Muslim. <br />
<br />
Most American Muslims are not rabidly pro-abortion, have great antipathy to the homosexual agenda, and abstain from alcohol. On the other hand, most "liberal Christians" who have a philosophical skepticism streak favor the "pro-choice" position and most do not have great antipathy toward the homosexual lifestyle. In addition, most "liberal Christians" have no problem drinking alcohol. Also, there is the fact that Obama's daughters were baptised. <br />
<br />
Given the above, if Obama walks like a duck and talks like a duck, he is probably a duck. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 21:18, 18 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Reversion ==<br />
<br />
All three items of evidence that Philip deleted are fully supported and hardly deniable. I don't know why Philip wants to delete them. The entries are educational also.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:22, 18 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:I'm afraid not one of them is "supported" in any way and all are deniable. None of them are educational, and all are merely unfounded assertion and speculation. The first accusation (for that is what they are) about him not changing his name is dependent on him being Muslim to begin with. If he is not Muslim, then he has no need to change his name, and you haven't provided any evidence he's Muslim. The second accusation, about taqiyya, depends upon him being a Muslim, and you have not provided any evidence to that. The third, about the pronunciation of Pakistan, is irrelevant, as that is the correct pronunciation of that country's name. [[User:FredX|FredX]] 23:10, 18 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
: As FredX says, they are ''not'' supported, and they are most definitely deniable. Simply making those assertions is not a supporting argument. And how can you continue to claim that you don't know why I want to delete them when I've told you several times? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:18, 19 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:: Philip, you have to do better than that before deleting factual and informative material. All three points are enlightening and undeniable, and I doubt you knew any of them before reading them here. We let the readers decide here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:32, 19 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Unbelievable ==<br />
<br />
It's understandable that conservatives disapprove of Obama and much of this article reflects that. Smearing is nothing new to politics, but the poor logic shamelessly employed here is an embarrassment to American conservatives. As this site becomes a "de facto" conservative reference, more and more people will begin believing this is how conservatives reason and come up with their ideas. With great power comes great responsibility, and Conservapedia and Aschlafly fail disastrously as representatives of the conservative movement.<br />
<br />
Under the pretense of "not censoring" and "letting the readers decide" the article is allowed to introduce deceptive evidence toward building weak and ultimately unproven hypotheses. Simultaneously, the exact opposite policy is used when contradictory evidence is presented.<br />
<br />
This stunning hypocrisy can be best illustrated by how the "Obama is likely a Muslim" section is moderated. Several times myself and others have attempted to delete the statement "Obama recently referred to his "Muslim faith." Yes he said the words "My Muslim Faith" but this is utterly meaningless as no context for the statement is provided. I could say "I approve of the killing of babies coming to an end" and using the logic here I could be quoted as saying "I approve of the killing of babies" <br />
<br />
However, we cannot escape the fact he said the words "My Muslim Faith" and since Conservapedia doesn't censor information, it must remain in the article. Furthermore, it must remain in a section attempting to show secret Muslim faith, however misleading it may be.<br />
<br />
Where the hypocrisy comes in is that there is an overwhelming body of information that suggests Obama is not a Muslim and in fact a Christian. For example, he was sworn into the Senate using a bible in 2005, he attended a (albeit controversial) christian church for decades, no one has ever observed him performing Muslim rituals (ie, praying 5 times a day). Even the "My Muslim Faith" comment is evidence of him being a christian when viewed in full context, as it's more than clear he meant to say "My Christan Faith". Attempting to mention any of this in the article will result in an almost immediate undo and block. <br />
<br />
The intentions of this section are transparent: to pander to modern American distrust of Muslims to build distrust of Obama. The irony of this and the article as a whole is obvious and almost comedic, as even a semi-informed reader can see through the deception and will likely end up with a reduced opinion of Conservatives.<br />
<br />
I expect to immediately be labeled a liberal for posting this. I need to say for the record, I voted for McCain. I attend Church. I have an American flag outside my house. However I cannot stomach this article and quite frankly am ashamed that such cheap hate tactics are being used by people calling themselves conservative.<br />
<br />
[[User:Conservamike|Conservamike]] 23:14, 18 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
==Counter Evidence==<br />
<br />
If we are letting the readers decide (as written above) then in order to keep this article fair and balanced we should add a section detailing the evidence that Obama is not a Muslim (such as his positions on abortion and stem cell research, his religious history, his Catholic schooling etc). If the evidence is truly overwhelming that Obama is a Muslim then there should be no problem with adding such a section, as readers will quickly be able to see that it is insufficient to counter the claim. [[User:NormanS|NormanS]] 08:57, 19 November 2008 (EST)</div>NormanShttps://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=First_Black_president&diff=562223First Black president2008-11-19T04:48:25Z<p>NormanS: If you're going to put up nonsense such as this, at least format it properly</p>
<hr />
<div>It is not known for certain who America's '''first [[black]] president''' was. It could be [[Thomas Jefferson]] (1801-1809), described as the "son of a half-breed Indian squaw and a Virginia mulatto father." In fact, five earlier presidents may have had black ancestry.<ref name="five other black">[http://www.diversityinc.com/public/1461.cfm Hussain, Aysha. "Obama Won't Be First Black President".]</ref><br />
<br />
[[Barack Hussein Obama]], slated to be inaugurated on January 20, 2009, sought to be considered as a fellow black man by African American voters. For example, he awkwardly referred to black teenagers 30 years younger than him as "brothers", declaring that "brothers should pull up their pants."<ref>[http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/11/obama-to-mtv-br.html "Obama: 'Brothers Should Pull up Their Pants'".] Political Radar, ABC News Blogs</ref> <br />
<br />
Some have said Obama will be the first black president but without adequate proof.<ref name="five other black" /> He is also the first [[Affirmative Action President]].<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
[[category:politics]]</div>NormanShttps://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Teen_pregnancy&diff=562166Teen pregnancy2008-11-19T04:14:39Z<p>NormanS: as per talk</p>
<hr />
<div>'''Teen pregnancy''' refers to the unplanned [[Pregnancy|pregnancies]] of [[marriage|unmarried]] [[school]]-age [[girl]]s, some of whom conceived or gave birth below the age of consent. It is a major social problem as teen pregnancies most often either result in [[abortion]] or in the raising of [[children]] in unstable single-parent families. The increasing rate of teen pregnancies is a consequence of increasing atheistic and secular pressures in modern society. These include the influence of [[Hollywood values]] and other manifestations of materialistic culture which erode and undermine [[moral]] standards, the hostility of school boards to the exercise of religious [[faith]], and the bias of [[public school]] sex education against [[abstinence education]] programs, which are the only sure safeguard against teen pregnancy.<br />
<br />
Note: In [[America]], terms like ''teen pregnancy'' refer to unmarried teens. In other countries such as [[Australia]], it refers to all teenagers regardless of whether they are in a relationship or not. There is nothing wrong with married teenagers enjoying conjugal love and bringing new lives into the world.</div>NormanShttps://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Teen_pregnancy&diff=562164Talk:Teen pregnancy2008-11-19T04:14:09Z<p>NormanS: My bad, I'll change it</p>
<hr />
<div>I'm concerned about the "there is nothing wrong with..." line. I am uncomfortable with the suggestion that we advocate young teens getting marriage. Many statistics show that regardless of religion or background, few teen marriages survive, just do to 1) the immaturity of the two participants, and 2) the very real economic demands of today's society. Perhaps the line might be better with something "while teen marriage is defiantly better than having sex as an unmarried couple, it is wise to wait, if possible" or something.... I'm not good with the words, of course. --[[User:JeanJacques|JeanJacques]] 20:12, 18 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
Curious, in Australia 19 year-olds aren't teenagers? [[User:Human|Human]] 21:58, 18 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:They are, but when the tabloids run stories about them they usually list 13-18 as "teen mothers" and 18-25 as "young mothers". It's all to do with the whole adult/child thing (over 18 is legally an adult) and whether it makes any difference about the mother being 17 or 18 (it doesn't really). That said, 19 year olds are teenage mothers, so it was a flaw on my part.<br />
<br />
:I'm curious about why in the USA teenagers in a relationship are not considered teenagers :P [[User:NormanS|NormanS]] 23:14, 18 November 2008 (EST)</div>NormanShttps://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Comedy_Central&diff=562063Comedy Central2008-11-19T02:09:07Z<p>NormanS: </p>
<hr />
<div>'''Comedy Central''' is a cable and satellite television channel that has a cult following among [[liberals]], and particularly adolescents. It features cartoons, including [[South Park]], and [[liberal]] programs including [[The Daily Show]] with [[Jon Stewart]] and [[Colbert Report|The Colbert Report]] with [[Stephen Colbert]]. It airs from the west side of [[Manhattan]].<br />
<br />
==Hypocritical Censorship==<br />
<br />
Comedy Central has been guilty of selective censorship, refusing to show an unoffensive clip featuring the Islamic prophet [[Muhammad]] in an episode of [[South Park]]. This is despite allowing ongoing obscenity and degradation of Christian beliefs in a number of its programs. This act of censorship was highly ironic, as it came at the end of a double episode dedicated to condemning [[Fox_Network|Fox]] for refusing to depict Muhammad. <br />
<br />
[[category:media]]</div>NormanShttps://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Comedy_Central&diff=562061Comedy Central2008-11-19T02:08:06Z<p>NormanS: Hypocrtical censorship</p>
<hr />
<div>'''Comedy Central''' is a cable and satellite television channel that has a cult following among [[liberals]], and particularly adolescents. It features cartoons, including [[South Park]], and [[liberal]] programs including [[The Daily Show]] with [[Jon Stewart]] and [[Colbert Report|The Colbert Report]] with [[Stephen Colbert]]. It airs from the west side of [[Manhattan]].<br />
<br />
==Hypocritical Censorship==<br />
<br />
Comedy Central has been guilty of selective censorship, refusing to show an unoffensive clip featuring the Islamic prophet [[Muhammad]] in an episode of [[South Park]]. This is despite allowing ongoing obscenity and degradation of Christian beliefs in a number of its programs. This act of censorship was highly ironic, as it came at the end of a double episode dedicated to condemning [[Fox]] for refusing to depict Muhammad. <br />
<br />
[[category:media]]</div>NormanShttps://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Dance&diff=562047Talk:Dance2008-11-19T01:51:56Z<p>NormanS: Please explain</p>
<hr />
<div>==Pictures in External Links==<br />
<br />
Although nice the pictures do not belong in the external links section. The justification for this is threefold:<br />
* the external links section of an article is for external links, not pictures<br />
* as far as I can tell none of the external links even reference Japanese dancing<br />
* this article is on "Dance" not "Art relating to dance" or any like subject. The appropriate style of image for this article is photos, not paintings. These paintings may be more appropriate in [[Japanese Dance]], but not in this broader article<br />
<br />
If no one has any objections I'd like to see them removed. [[User:NormanS|NormanS]] 08:48, 18 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
: 3th time: the paintings are illustrating the whole article. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 19:39, 18 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
::No they are not. The paintings are of '''Japanese Dance''', which '''isn't even mentioned''' in the article (compared to Biblical dancing, Irish dancing etc). There is no possible way that they are "illustrating the whole article".<br />
<br />
::Furthermore, the external links section of a page is for LINKS, not images. At the moment they clutter the section and add nothing of value. <br />
<br />
::Finally, if you want to add something of '''educational benefit''' to this article, rather than just adding colour to make it look pretty, you'd add photos which actually show people dancing in real life, rather than requiring readers to use their imagination. <br />
<br />
::If you really want to use these pictures (which, I will point out, are very nice) then you should in "Paintings of Japan" or "Japanese Dance", not in an umbrella article which doesn't even mention Japanese dance, and especially not in the external links section. [[User:NormanS|NormanS]] 19:56, 18 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
::: I understand your point, but I don't agree. Sorry. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 20:44, 18 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
::::Could you please expand on that and address the three (3) points I made. A project like this is build only on collaboration. [[User:NormanS|NormanS]] 20:51, 18 November 2008 (EST)</div>NormanShttps://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Barack_Hussein_Obama&diff=562015Talk:Barack Hussein Obama2008-11-19T01:22:50Z<p>NormanS: You are all missing the point</p>
<hr />
<div>Archives:<br />
[[/archive1|1]]<br />
[[/archive2|2]]<br />
[[/archive3|3]]<br />
[[/archive4|4]]<br />
[[/archive5|5]]<br />
<br />
<br />
== Lenin Poster ==<br />
<br />
The statement about the Lenin-like poster is informative. We don't censor informative information here. Let the reader decide.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:22, 10 November 2008 (EST)<br />
:Andy, did you happen to take a look at the reference? The article claims that "Obama also ''revealed'' his ''deep Marxist/Leninist roots''" and that "clear parallels between the poster design and Lenin's earlier poster was ''obviously a deliberate yet hidden hint'' to his European, socialistic audience as to his political roots and beliefs" (emphasis mine). The citation, which was a blog, by the way, and not in any way a trustworthy source of informative information, gives no evidence to back up these statements. It shows a poster of Lenin and a poster of Obama, both of which show profiles of the figures. Assuming these pictures weren't entirely made up, do you really think that this slight similarity is Obama's way of confessing closet Marxism? Not to mention the fact that Obama likely didn't make the posters anyway -- maybe we should accuse his (very expensive!!) marketing designer of being a Marxist/Leninist. 15:45, 11 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Obama and beer ==<br />
<br />
There are several stories (with photos) of Obama drinking beer, which as an intoxicant is banned by Muslim sharia. <ref> http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://media.mcclatchydc.com/smedia/2008/05/06/20/125-6web-Obama_Beer-minor.standalone.prod_affiliate.91.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.mcclatchydc.com/100/story/36055.html&h=325&w=485&sz=47&hl=en&start=28&um=1&usg=__ShpWdieNIwhr4Rp3jHtLe7U9MB8=&tbnid=Se90xFLBo6rNQM:&tbnh=86&tbnw=129&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dobama%2Bdrinks%26start%3D18%26ndsp%3D18%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26safe%3Doff%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-US:official%26sa%3DN </ref> <ref> http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.nancarrow-webdesk.com/warehouse/storage2/2008-w18/img.211156_t.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.nancarrow-webdesk.com/warehouse/storage2/2008-w18/img.211156.html&h=332&w=400&sz=16&hl=en&start=15&um=1&usg=__Yubc0nmus36Cf4Rrf7BL7-33-0g=&tbnid=xuWGKQ1Sl8_bQM:&tbnh=103&tbnw=124&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dobama%2Bbeer%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26safe%3Doff%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-US:official%26sa%3DG</ref> No rational person can say that a practicing Muslim wouldn't violate the law in such a blatant, repeated manner. Another strike against the goofy Muslim charge. And remember, we don't censor here. Godspeed. [[User:Thecount|Thecount]] 12:52, 11 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
: I think many American Muslims drink beer. Nice try, though.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:57, 11 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
::And how many "dangerous" American Muslims are there that have loose enough morals to blatantly disrespect their own religious law, but are still a threat to Americans? (Of course this is all granted that he IS a secret Muslim, which I have given up trying to discuss) So I see nothing wrong if Obama turns out to be a secret Muslim. Nice try, though. [[User:anonymous123|anonymous123]] 23:54, 17 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
::He also smokes cigarettes, to complete his subterfuge. [[User:Human|Human]] 17:42, 11 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Hussein reference ==<br />
<br />
It's factual and it's informative. If there is reasoned basis for deleting it, let's see it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:03, 11 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
: Again, no reason has been given for deleting the Hussein reference, and there is none.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 07:49, 12 November 2008 (EST)<br />
:: Andy, this is false. Reasons have been given on this talk page numerous times before. I just had a quick look, and found reasons being given in all archives except the first, as well as other places on this talk page. So you are wrong to say that no reason has been given, and wrong to say that there is no reason. And, as I have pointed out in the edit comments, five senior administrators have said that they disagree with it being there. Is your view on this somehow superior to those five put together? Do you want this to be a collaborative encyclopaedia or your blog? The former demands that you not impose your opinion regardless of who is disagreeing. Imposing your opinion regardless suggests that this is your blog. I know you don't consider it to be the latter, but that's the way it's looking. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:21, 12 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:::Not a blog but an encylopedia. If it were a blog, your opinion would carry as much weight as anyone else's. Let's put this one in [[Conservapedia:Debate Topics]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 08:24, 12 November 2008 (EST)<br />
:::: If it were a blog, the blog owner's opinion would carry the most weight. Almost all blogs are the opinions of an ''individual'', not a group of people. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:58, 12 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
::: Philip, the truth is not dependent on consensus, and 5 out of several dozen is not a consensus anyway. Give your best reason for deleting this information here. Since the beginning we have had a policy not to delete factual, informative material, particularly when it is liberal ideology that motivates the demand for censorship of it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:29, 12 November 2008 (EST)<br />
:::: I said five of the ''senior'' administrators, which numbers about eleven. So that's five out of eleven, not dozens. Further, that's five against and one (yourself) for, as the remainder have not offered an opinion that I'm aware of. (One perhaps did support you, but because they wanted to support you, not because they considered it a valid argument.)<br />
:::: My reason is relevance, not (primarily) accuracy. I'm not disputing that his middle name is Hussein. The claim that "most Christians would not retain" their (former/Muslim/Arabic?; it's not clear) name is not supported by the references, and even if it is true, means little in individual cases. That is, even if 99% changed their name, Obama not changing his name might mean no more than him being in the other 1%.<br />
:::: And this is just one of the points in that section. The entire argument that Obama is a Muslim is built on very circumstantial evidence, selective evidence, and logical fallacy, and is rejected by other conservatives.<br />
:::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:58, 12 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
::::: Philip, it obviously is relevant, which you say is your primary objection. We don't censor information here based on liberal dislike for it. Wikipedia does that. We provide the information and let the reader decide. If some readers want to conclude that someone with a Muslim name is actually a Christian, even though less than 1% of those raised as Muslims convert, so be it. We're not going to censor this factual information.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:37, 12 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
::::::: "''...it obviously is relevant...''": Because ''you'' say so? If it was so "obvious", then you wouldn't have five senior administrators disagreeing with you. No, it's not obviously relevant at all, and you've not demonstrated the relevance.<br />
::::::: "''We don't censor information here based on liberal dislike for it. Wikipedia does that.''": Given that I and the other senior administrators are not "liberals", and the rejection is based on relevance, not "dislike", why are you introducing red herrings like this? Has your argument got no more substance than irrelevancies like that?<br />
::::::: "'' We provide the information and let the reader decide.''": Only if it's relevant. Otherwise we are just introducing padding for readers to wade through and discourage them getting to the relevant stuff.<br />
::::::: "''We're not going to censor this factual information.''": It is not censorship to remove irrelevant information, and I'd appreciate you not implying that I'm trying to censor anything.<br />
::::::: In summary, you have failed to produce any reasons substance as to why it should be retained.<br />
::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:26, 17 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:::::: Exactly. The point of Conservapedia is ''not'' to censor information, but to leave it to our readers to decide. The MSM has tried to push this under the rug, so the least we can do is offer these arguments to the intelligent public. [[User:RodWeathers|RodWeathers]] 11:27, 12 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
::::::: The problem is that these points are fallacious and lead to a conclusion based on specious arguments. That is neither "trustworthy" nor encyclopedic. Obama may not be your brand of xian, but he's certianly no brand of muslim. Your inability to accept that this is incorrect despite repeated arguments wherein you have shown nothing but fallacious arguments drawing poor conclusions hurts the credibility of all Conservapedia. [[User:EternalCritic|EternalCritic]] 11:49, 12 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:Did anyone notice how ASchlafly posited the question at or near closing time Tuesday night and declared that he recieved no answer at or near opening time on Wednesday? --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 08:49, 14 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:Keep the reference, but 2 examples of people having changed their names for religious reasons does not mean "most" people would change their names as stated in the article. A good reference on this topic would list a percentage (presumably greater than 50%) of people who have switched religions also changing their names.<br />
::I am sure we could come up with a very long list, but this article would not be the place for it. A sample of a couple of names to illustrate the point being made is surely adequate for all except those who wish to undermine the accuracy of the piece. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 13:21, 14 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
==Debate On Obama's Religion==<br />
<br />
The debate is continuing at [[Debate:Is Obama a Muslim?]] It may be best to continue arguing the point there with the aim of reaching a conclusion which can then be utilised in the article, and leave this talk page for discussing other improvements. [[User:NormanS|NormanS]] 22:22, 11 November 2008 (EST)<br />
:Get the section about him being a "Muslim" there have already been to debates concluding that this should be removed. <br> http://www.conservapedia.com/Debate:Is_Obama_a_Muslim%3F <br> http://www.conservapedia.com/Debate:_What_is_sufficient_proof_that_Obama_is_a_Muslim%3F-[[User:Vcelloho|Vcelloho]] 00:09, 12 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Reference ==<br />
<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
Get the section about him being a "Muslim" there have already been to debates concluding that this should be removed. <br> http://www.conservapedia.com/Debate:Is_Obama_a_Muslim%3F <br> http://www.conservapedia.com/Debate:_What_is_sufficient_proof_that_Obama_is_a_Muslim%3F-[[User:Vcelloho|Vcelloho]] 00:08, 12 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
== He has no clear personal achievement that cannot be explained as the likely result of affirmative action? Untrue. ==<br />
<br />
I am no fan of Obama. I do plan on respectfully opposing him via various channels on the internet. However, I believe I should state my opposition to this sentence of the article: "He has no clear personal achievement that cannot be explained as the likely result of affirmative action."<br />
<br />
I have not read the rest of the article because I believed months ago and for good reasons that Obama was going to win this election. For example, the unpopular war and poor economy that was partly caused by a guns and lots of butter spending strategy (Bush should have learned from LBJ committing us to a war and the Great Society programs at the same time). I also thought that it would have been easy for the Republicans to win 12 years in a row given the low quality of the Democratic party. I think the Republicans snatched defeat out of the jaws of victory. I also think Americans have too much debt (last time I heard the average American had lots of credit card debt). One of the reasons for the great depression is that American's had too much debt at the time. I think Bush's call for Americans to do to do more shopping mall spending was a joke. If anything, Americans need to increase their skills to be more productive (The libraries are open but you might have to watch less TV. Last time I checked the average American watches 3 hours of television a day) and work harder to pay off their debt. American's are going to get out of the hole by increasing their productivity. It seems as if Bush did not want to learn from economic history and was only looking out for short term fixes. Well sooner or later, common sense says you have to pay the piper.<br />
<br />
Getting back to Obama, obviously, Obama's marital success in terms of not getting divorced compared to Ronald Reagan is not the result of affirmative action. I am sure I could come up with others. I have not read the article for the most part because this sentence turned me off to the whole article. Judging from the ""He has no clear personal achievement that cannot be explained as the likely result of affirmative action." sentence, I believe a lot of time is probably being spent to defend an article rather than improve it where obvious improvements could be made. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 06:04, 12 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
: Staying married is laudable but in this context it would not be considered a "clear personal achievement." If you would like to add a footnote exception to the remark along the lines of, "he has been married for x years," I'm not opposed but I would expect that to caveat to seem off-topic, or even sarcastic, for most readers.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 07:52, 12 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
::One CP writer told me he equates divorce with adultery, and he accused Reagan of adultery on this basis. Is this the consensus view of Conservatives? Or just his own idea? Or what?<br />
<br />
::We ought to be clear on the standards by which we judge public figures. And consistent, too. I mean, which is worse, committing actual adultery (JFK, Clinton) or getting divorced and then remarrying? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 08:06, 12 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
::: Biblically, divorce is not adultery. However, divorce is wrong unless the spouse has been unfaithful. Remarriage after a legitimate divorce is okay. The question is whether remarriage after a wrong divorce is okay. Many believe, I think that although the act of divorce may be wrong, that is a forgivable sin like any other sin, and remarriage is not a further sin. And I'd tend to agree that committing "actual" adultery is worse than divorce and remarriage. However, the point that Conservative was raising was not between those two cases, but between divorce and remarriage compared to marriage without divorce.<br />
::: I'm not convinced that Obama's marriage does not constitute a "clear personal achievement". Given the divorce rate these days, especially among prominent people, I would think that it ''was'' a clear personal achievement. In fact I'd consider staying marriage a "clear personal achievement" for anybody these days, given all the pressures on marriage, including the peer pressure that divorce is okay.<br />
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:35, 12 November 2008 (EST)<br />
::::I rarely disagree with you, Philip, as I find your comments to be some of the more considered on this board, but here I would have to disagree. Jesus makes it quite clear that divorce *is* adultery, not *like* adultery. More then any other text, especially OT text, I take Jesus's words to heart. Mark 10<br />
::::2 Some Pharisees came and tested him by asking, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?"<br />
::::3 "What did Moses command you?" he replied.<br />
::::4 They said, "Moses permitted a man to write a certificate of divorce and send her away."<br />
::::5 "It was because your hearts were hard that Moses wrote you this law," Jesus replied.<br />
::::6 "But at the beginning of creation God `made them male and female.'<br />
::::7 `For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife,<br />
::::8 and the two will become one flesh.' So they are no longer two, but one.<br />
::::9 Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."<br />
::::10 When they were in the house again, the disciples asked Jesus about this.<br />
::::11 He answered, "Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her.<br />
::::12 And if she divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery." --[[User:JeanJacques|JeanJacques]] 09:41, 12 November 2008 (EST)<br />
::::: I didn't say that divorce is "like" adultery. I said that it's ''not'' adultery. And the evidence you've offered to refute that doesn't refute that. The Bible says that someone who divorces ''and remarries'' commits adultery, not that someone who ''divorces'' commits adultery. You can't have adultery without sexual intercourse, which would be taken as given with someone remarrying, but not a given with someone just divorcing. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:33, 17 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Obama spiruality interview ==<br />
http://blog.beliefnet.com/stevenwaldman/2008/11/obamas-interview-with-cathleen.html a interview from a pretty religous website about Obama. Should it be mentioned? Or since it kinda contradicts abit of the article should it be ommitted? --[[User:Vmember|Vmember]] 13:06, 12 November 2008 (EST)<br />
:What one might say in an interview really means very little, Vmember, particularly if one is seeking to achieve a position by hiding one's essential nature or beliefs. So really what he says when seeking to impress is irrelevant. It is what he does and has done, and what he says in unguarded moments, that matters. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 13:16, 12 November 2008 (EST)<br />
*um then shouldn't it atleast be mentioned somewhere in the article about this interview maybe as a response to questions about his faith section? And why is him maybe being a muslim all the way at the top of the article? Shouldn't be be somewhere towards the middle? I've never seen in all my time part of a article pushed into the intro section. Also the article contradicts itself by stating that Obama is most likely a muslim while at the same time pointing at that he was a member of a radical Christian church. That doesn't make any sense. You can't have it both ways.--[[User:Vmember|Vmember]] 13:25, 12 November 2008 (EST)<br />
::You can if you're a sleeper for radical Islam. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 13:27, 12 November 2008 (EST)<br />
**Wait you seriously think that? Hmm fringe ideas and theories on any subject is detrimental to a discussion let alone a encyclopedia. It's dangerous thinking like that is why us conservatives lost the election and alienated so many moderates and weak liberals. Would there be any objection if I were to move the muslim part to the middle and add a section with his response to questions of his faith?--[[User:Vmember|Vmember]] 13:34, 12 November 2008 (EST)<br />
***Does this look better? http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Help:Practice_Page&oldid=555527 Hmm I kinda think instead of giving facts supporting the theory Obama is a muslim editors are trying to push it off as straight fact even though theres been evidence against it. Isn't that a tactic only liberals use and a form of deceit?--[[User:Vmember|Vmember]] 13:45, 12 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Poster ==<br />
<br />
Don't delete the insight about the poster. I learned from the insight, and I'm sure others have also. We don't censor here. We let the readers decide.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:39, 12 November 2008 (EST)<br />
:I already explained (above) why the "insight" is not actually an insight, is not supported by the source, and is likely false. Believe me, I would love it if Obama really did intentionally model his posters after those of Lenin in a subliminal message to Europeans, but there's simply no evidence of that.<br />
<br />
:You reverted both of my edits. Do you have problems with both of them, or just the first one? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 18:42, 12 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:: Sorry, I just have a problem with the deletion of the poster edit. Your other edit looked fine, but it came right after the controversial one and there was no easy way to separate the too.<br />
<br />
:: The similarities between Obama's poster and the famous Lenin image is too obvious for words. We don't need a citation for observing, for example, that 2+2=4. If a reader wants to reject the obvious similarity between the images, then the reader is welcome to do so. Censorship is not a preferred approach.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:52, 12 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:::I'm not denying that they are similar, I'm denying that their similarity "[reveals] his deep Marxist/Leninist roots" and "was obviously a deliberate yet hidden hint to his European, socialistic audience as to his political roots and belief". Can I change the text to reflect that, while the two posters are similar, there's no way to know that it's a confession? (I pointed out before that if anyone is imitating Lenin here, it's probably the over-priced poster designer). [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 18:59, 12 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:::: I'm fine with rewording, as long as it doesn't inject liberal spin or make it look like Obama didn't approve it with the similarity.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:12, 12 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:::::I'll try my best. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 19:40, 12 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:::::: Your revised wording is great. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:05, 12 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:Is anyone else put off by the fact that the Germans really hated Lennin? --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 08:25, 14 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:Fun poster [http://img.skitch.com/20080723-pbt7dkk5ksgbystrri5px6s9fr.jpg] --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 13:44, 14 November 2008 (EST) The imagery is more common that you might expect. Nothing new under the sun as they say --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 13:44, 14 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
==Disgusted==<br />
<br />
Mr Schlafly this page is absolutely disgusting. I am totally against Obama as you know, this is the most sorry excuse for an encyclopedia entry I have ever seen. We should leave this page as information about him as a individual, not about why we hate him and you should too. 90% of the page is opinion, and is totally innapropriate. I suggest making it into two pages. One about Obama with just simple facts about him and his backround, and you can make another about everything we hate about him. Pages like this are why we are losing our trustworthyness. <br />
Thanks, --[[User:ChrisS|Chris]]<br />
<br />
:Here here. At times I find this article amusing as an ironic hate piece, but at best it degrades this site and conservatives in general. Liberal or conservative, poor logic is poor logic. Because Obama and Lenin each had monochromatic posters featuring a pose directed toward the right it is evidence of Marxist intentions. Because Obama said the words "my muslim faith", irregardless of any context, it used as evidence of being a muslim. I don't even know what to say about the mind control thing, it's really amazing to me because as a religious person it reminds of the feelings I had when I discovered the truth of Jesus Christ: "a light will shine down from somewhere, it will light upon you, you will experience an epiphany" [[User:Mike770781|Mike770781]] 19:31, 13 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
==Disgusted Conservative too== <br />
<br />
{{hide|- I did not vote for Senator Obama for political reasons, but I believe he is a good man; this article is simple character assassination; you do not go into his views and show how those are disagreeable (his views on abortion, and his want to make a hasty withdrawal from Iraq) and instead you simply accuse him of being a Muslim, and anti-American etc. also a blog is not a credible source; a blog is someone's opinion. Anyway the accusations levied upon him are for the most part completely inaccurate. He was born in The United States, he wrote his autobiography, he is not a Muslim, he is not anti-American. Please keep the disagreements political.}}{{unsigned|Rpond}}<br />
<br />
I don't know who wrote this, but it shouldn't have been deleted. --[[User:ChrisS|Chris]]<br />
<br />
: The odds are less than 1% that "Rpond's" posting is genuine, in light of his misspelling of "conservative" and his other rants. It is appropriate to delete insincere or deceptive postings.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:53, 13 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:: It is an interesting experience living life each day getting verbally attacked for being a conservative then coming here and getting persecuted (justified edits to factual and encyclopedic wording) for being a liberal. You seem to be very fond of the less than 1% statistic, and have used it many times in many places, but I've never seen any solid reasoning or studies behind it (although in this case your gut instinct does seem to be credited implicitly) I think perhaps you live in a highly conservative eco chamber and aren't getting out enough to notice how little resonance this sort of thing has out in the real world. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 18:58, 13 November 2008 (EST)<br />
::: Way to show your liberal stripes, BrendanW. Ad hominem attacks are not appreciated here, so please keep it civil. [[User:RodWeathers|RodWeathers]] 19:01, 13 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:::: Would that be an ad hominem attack like calling someone a liberal? --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 19:24, 13 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
::::: Are you insulted by being described as a "liberal"? Or are you angry that you're not fooling anyone?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:39, 13 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:::::: Either Way its still an Ad Hominem. However I am a little "l" libertarian, and strict constitutionalist (excluding the racist portions that is) which makes me pleanty conservative, I'm also an objectivist in the Ayn Rand model, highly capitalistic and against socialism. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 09:11, 16 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
==Cool it==<br />
<br />
I've protected this page; only admins can edit it for the moment. Many of us have strong feelings, and we have used this page to express them.<br />
<br />
But I would hope that we all confine our comments here to specific suggestions on how to improve the article. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 17:45, 13 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Did you read that reference? ==<br />
<br />
The claim is that OBama might be a Muslim and that he might swear in on a koran. The reference -ref- Obama hoped to become President when he was sworn in as U.S. Senator in 2004, and did not use a Koran at that time. Subsequently Democratic House member Keith Ellison established the precedent for being sworn in using the Koran, and there is no guarantee that Obama would not do likewise if sworn in as President. [http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/sliming_obama.html FactCheck.org, Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania, ''Sliming Obama'', January 10, 2008, retrieved on 10/16/2008]-/ref- is about how Obamma is not a Muslim and did not use the Koran to be sworn in as a senator. I simply do not see how it belongs. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 08:21, 14 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:Welcome to Conservapedia. Truth is relative to Andy. -[[User:Mike770781|Mike770781]] 15:04, 15 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Code name ==<br />
<br />
The article plainly says that Obama did have a role in picking it. Hence the reversion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:01, 14 November 2008 (EST)<br />
:My article clearly says that the White House Communications Agency chose the name for him. Hence the original edit.<br />
:I tried to find a source directly fromt he Secret Service or the White House Communications Agency, but neither of their search functions were working. I'll keep looking. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 15:06, 14 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
::"President-Elect Barack Obama – 'Renegade' – had a say in choosing the code name that his guards use when they are whispering into their microphones." From the article cited on our Main Page.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:11, 14 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:::''These not-so-secret names are chosen by officials at the White House Communications Agency, which was not inclined to comment on the selection process. In a previous news report, an agency spokesman said the names are assigned by "sheer whim."'' -- From my (stateside) source. You can see why I was confused. <br />
:::I did further research (hence my half-hour long absence) According to [http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2008/11/13/pssst_renegade_and_renaissance_are_in_the_house/ this] source, the WHCA chooses a list of names, and the President decides which one he likes best. So we were both right! [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 15:40, 14 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
::::Everybody wins! Yay! -[[User:CSGuy|CSGuy]] 22:41, 17 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
== For the love of God!! ==<br />
HE IS NOT A MUSLIM. I donated 500$ to support McCain and voted for him but this beyond retarded. Please remove that info, because right now nobody in their right mind can take this seriously. Also take out the Koran thing he used the bible in the senate. [[User:Nig89|Nig89]] 20:17, 15 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
: Your comment is long on your dubious assertion of a credential, but short on substance. Give us your reason.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:28, 15 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
Why does Obama's religion matter so much? 18:57, 15 November 2008 {{unsigned|JamesZ}}<br />
<br />
: Good question. I hope your fellow liberals will answer it for you. They are the ones having unexplained hysteria about a simple observation.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:15, 15 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
::The word you are looking for is "accusation" not "observation". An observation would be stating that he has some traits similar to Muslims. An accusation is claiming that he is a Muslim, regardless of his own protests. On the accusation note, great job assuming anyone who doesn't believe you is a liberal Aschfly. [[User:anonymous123|anonymous123]] 00:01, 17 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Was Barack Obama truly raised a Muslim or is he a Muslim? ==<br />
<br />
Previously I wrote the following: Here is a well written and scholarly piece that examines Obama's religious views and it was written by the National Clergy Council: http://nationalclergycouncil.org/010807BarackObama.htm The evidence does not support Obama being a muslim. The evidence also does not support Obama embracing biblical Christianity.[[User:Conservative|conservative]] 09:19, 10 November 2008 (EST) Mr. Schlafly wrote the following: " I skimmed it and don't see where it concludes that Obama is not a Muslim. The article fails to recognize that less than 1% of people raised Muslim (as Obama was) ever leave the religion. The article says Obama is a member of a Christian church, but he left that many months ago.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:24, 10 November 2008 (EST)" <br />
<br />
Here is my response to Mr. Schlafly's reply to my previous post on the Obama/Muslim issue:<br />
<br />
I am not a fan of "Liberal Christianity" as I believe it often fails to fall into the realm of biblical/orthodox Christianity and when it does so it is not Christianity at all. With that being said, the article does give compelling evidence that Obama is a member of the camp of "liberal Christianity" and not biblical Christianity. If Obama is a "liberal Christian" he is not a Muslim. There are two logical fallacies called the [http://www.pnl-nlp.org/download/propaganda/page2.htm#sloth slothful inductive fallacy] and [http://www.goodart.org/exclus.htm fallacy of exclusion] whereby "Relevant evidence which would undermine an inductive argument is excluded from consideration. The requirement that all relevant information be included is called the "principle of total evidence"."[http://www.goodart.org/exclus.htm] '''Andy, I believe you are committing these two logical fallacies as can be seen by the material in the above cited work by the National Clergy Council. I would strongly suggest not skimming the material as it gives compelling evidence that Obama is a "liberal Christian" and therefore not a Muslim.'''<br />
<br />
'''Next, was Obama truly raised a Muslim and therefore does the less than 1% of people raised Muslim ever leave the religion statistic apply. I don't think a compelling case can be made for the 1% argument being applied to Obama. I cite the following:<br />
'''<br />
<br />
"Barack Hussein Obama was born in 1961 in Honolulu, Hawaii, to a Kenyan Muslim father of the same name and an American secular humanist mother named Ann Dunham. While Obama’s father was raised in Islamic culture, he had become a functional atheist by the time he reached college. Despite his parents’ lack of religion, young Obama received his early education in both Catholic and Muslim schools.<br />
<br />
Obama’s parents divorced when he was only two years old. Henceforth, the senior Obama was “almost entirely absent”[i] from his son’s life. Four years later, Ann Dunham relocated to Indonesia with her son to join her new husband Lolo Soetoro. A daughter, Maya, was born to the couple before their divorce. She returned to Hawaii where she went on to earn her MA in anthropology from the University of Hawaii. In his first book, Dreams from My Father, Barack Obama wrote of his mother, “She was a lonely witness for secular humanism, a soldier for New Deal, Peace Corps, position paper liberalism.”[ii]<br />
<br />
Obama’s mother was a huge influence in his life. In an interview with Oprah Winfrey in October 2006, he said, “My mother—when I think about the values I hold most dear, they came from her.”[iii] In a speech given at a Moms Rising event in 2006, he said, “Everything that I think is good about me, I got from her.”[http://nationalclergycouncil.org/010807BarackObama.htm]<br />
<br />
'''I will end this post by respectfully asking Mr. Schlafly a few reasonable questions''':<br />
<br />
1. How many Muslim men are you aware of that go to a "liberal Christian church" for 20 years, get married in a "liberal Christian' church, and have their children baptized in a "liberal Christian" church, and call a Reverend of "liberal Christianity "my pastor" while living in a relatively free and democratic country like the United States? I ask this question because it appears as if all these apply to Obama.[http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2008/04/29/2008-04-29_obama_expresses_outrage_over_former_past.html][http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=58954][http://volokh.com/posts/1209531850.shtml] Accordingly, '''How many similar historical examples can you give of Muslim men who did these type of things when they lived in a relatively free and democratic society like the United States? <br />
'''<br />
<br />
2. According to the press, Obama has visited churches and synagogues but has not visited a mosque while running for president.[http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/06/25/opinion/edcohen.php] Can you show me a single instance of Obama ever visiting a mosque while he has been an adult? <br />
<br />
3. '''Is the case for Obama being a "liberal Christian" stronger or is the case of Obama being a Muslim stronger when the principle of total evidence being weighed is applied?''' If you state the case is stronger for Obama being a Muslim, please defend your position by truly negating the strong evidence that he is a member of "liberal Christianity" and giving compelling evidence that he is a Muslim. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 10:45, 16 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:I thought the two of you might enjoy reading [http://blog.beliefnet.com/stevenwaldman/2008/11/obamas-interview-with-cathleen.html this 2004 interview with Obama], where he discusses his faith, his baptism, and so forth. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 14:04, 16 November 2008 (EST)<br />
::Both of you miss the point. It's not what Obama '''says''' - that has no relevance whatsoever. It's what he '''is''' and what he '''will do'''. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 15:11, 16 November 2008 (EST)<br />
::::: If what he ''says'' has no relevance, why is one of the supposed evidences for him being a Muslim something he ''said'' (the bit about "my Muslim faith")? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:58, 17 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
::::Bugler, I know I mentioned what Obama did and said which certainly has bearing on what Obama "is". Therefore, you did not in any way provide a counter argument. I also suggest you answer the reasonable questions I posed to Mr. Schlafly. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 15:16, 16 November 2008 (EST)<br />
:::::Conservative, the roots of Al Quaeda lie in the 1940s and 50s, if not before; radical terroristic Islamic fundamentalism is not a recent phenomenon. Much of its mindset and organisational apperatus was borrowed from Leninist Communism: the notion of cell, of enrtyism, of deep penetration. Now, how difficult is it to imagine that an intelligent child, of American parentage, schooled in the Islamic environment of 1960s Indonesia and vulnerable to the influences swirling around in that environment, might be schooled and indoctrinated as the sleeper to end all sleepers, given extreme dispensations to protect his cover, allowed to eat pork, drink alcohol, marry out, attend and indeed profess to be a Christian, even to publicly renounce (on the face of it) the Islamic faith? Surely the prize would merit the game. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 15:24, 16 November 2008 (EST)<br />
:::::::So you're honestly speculating that Obama might be a member of Al Qaeda, and we're expected to believe that you're ''not'' a parodist? Riiiiiiight. [[User:MarkB|MarkB]] 09:09, 18 November 2008 (EST)<br />
::::::::Oh, that old tune yet again. Can't you Liberals find a less boring stick to beat me with? [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 09:17, 18 November 2008 (EST)<br />
:::::::::Oh, don't get me wrong, I think you're doing a great job. Keep it up. [[User:MarkB|MarkB]] 09:22, 18 November 2008 (EST)<br />
::::::Bugler, in light of the evidence I gave above concerning Obama's supposedly being raised a Muslim '''and the lack of evidence to support it''' plus the evidence I gave above to support Obama being a member of "liberal Christianity" , your post is at best a Hail Mary pass. Secondly, I noticed you did not answer my questions or give any solid historical parallels for your far fetched speculation. If you could enlighten me where the Leninists were able to install a President of a Western country that had been a sleeper for two decades I would certainly be indebted to you if you could give it. But I would add, since you never gave any compelling evidence he was raised a Muslim, this Leninist parallel speculation is a non starter anyways. Thirdly, you refer to "the prize". What prize? If you going to embrace conjecture that is contra evidence certainly you should tell your audience what the supposed prize is supposedly going to be. Should I fear I am imminently going to be put under Sharia law? Lastly, I am not stating your a parodist, but I certainly believe it is more likely that you are a parodist than it is likely that Obama is a Muslim. Your somewhat eloquent but empty defense of the indefensible proposition that Obama is likely a Muslim, certainly provides a reasonable reader to suspect you are a parodist. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 17:41, 16 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
::::::::I've not heard the term 'hail Mary pass' before, despite being a good Catholic boy: please enlighten! ''If you could enlighten me where the Leninists were able to install a President of a Western country that had been a sleeper for two decades'' Not a president, but the private secretary of the West German Chancellor Willy Brandt was a Communist plant: how many were undetected? Certainly therer remain suspicions about the 1960s/70s UK Prime Minister Harold Wilson. ''What prize?'' Surely that is obvious. As to the objections you raise, I think it unlikely that he will use the ceremony on January 20 to declare a United states Caliphate. However, the prospect of an Islamic radical sleeper in the Oval Office raises any number of possibilities. And finally: your open suggestion that I am a parodist is welcome: a refreshing change from others here who smear me by innuendo without your honesty and openness. I assure you in all sincerity that I act with the best interests of God, Conservapedia, Freedom and Democracy always at heart. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:58, 16 November 2008 (EST)<br />
:::Bugler, [http://www.wisegeek.com/in-football-what-is-a-hail-mary.htm Hail Mary pass]. Secondly, your Willy Brandt attempted historical parallel falls flat. I did a quick search on the internet and this is what CNN states about Brandt: "As a teen-ager Brandt first joined the Socialist Party of Germany (SPD) in 1930, but one year later switched to a more radical spin-off, the SAP."[http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/cold.war/kbank/profiles/brandt/] Brandt apparently was a socialist early on (teenager to be precise), but you have not give a compelling argument that Obama was raised as a Muslim and given the information I gave above regarding there being a lack of evidence for this proposition and evidence against it, your Leninism supposed historical parallel is still a non starter. You are certainly not applying the principle of using the total evidence. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 18:21, 16 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
Henry Wallace, FDR's Vice President, was a "sleeper" communist and replaced by FDR for that reason. Alger Hiss, a top aide to presidents, was a proven "sleeper" communist. A big lie is often easier to pull off than a little lie.<br />
<br />
What's remarkable is how strenuously people deny that Obama is a Muslim. His fathers (real and stepfather) were Muslims. There's no denying that Obama was raised a Muslim, and his conduct as an adult underscores that he, like 99% of others raises as Muslims, did not leave that religion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:02, 16 November 2008 (EST)<br />
:: What's remarkable is how strenuously you claim that Obama is a Muslim without any evidence of substance, and in opposition to other conservatives, including five of your own senior administrators, who disagree with you, despite being opposed to Obama. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:58, 17 November 2008 (EST)<br />
:An interesting question is ''why'' people try so hard to deny it to ''themselves'' when the evidence is so clearly there. [[User:RodWeathers|RodWeathers]] 20:51, 16 November 2008 (EST)<br />
::::Andy, Wallace appears to have had been a one time Republican who later had openly leftist views. [http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USARwallace.htm] Wallace cannot be counted as a long time "sleeper agent" who was a very high ranking public official through infiltration. Secondly, Alger Hiss never achieved a high ranking government official status like a president, Vice President, Secretary of State, etc.[http://homepages.nyu.edu/~th15/who.html] I do think that when someone goes for a very important government position, such as a President, Vice-President, Secretary of State, a higher degree of scrutiny often occurs. For this reason, I believe you are having trouble coming up with a historical instance of a very high ranked official in the Western World being a sleeper agent. Furthermore, by the time Hiss was charged who had been two years out of government and was working for the Carnegie Foundation. I believe it is invalid to use Hiss as an example of an ambitious sleeper agent who had gotten to the top of government when he had resigned from government 2 years before he was charged. Next, I do think my questions in my previous post were quite reasonable that you left unanswered. Also, and this is really at the heart of the issue, you never really countered this information which makes the idea of Obama being a sleeper agent a non-starter because it appears as if he was never truly raised a Muslim: <br />
<br />
"Barack Hussein Obama was born in 1961 in Honolulu, Hawaii, to a Kenyan Muslim father of the same name and an American secular humanist mother named Ann Dunham. While Obama’s father was raised in Islamic culture, he had become a functional atheist by the time he reached college. Despite his parents’ lack of religion, young Obama received his early education in both Catholic and Muslim schools.<br />
<br />
Obama’s parents divorced when he was only two years old. Henceforth, the senior Obama was “almost entirely absent”[i] from his son’s life. Four years later, Ann Dunham relocated to Indonesia with her son to join her new husband Lolo Soetoro. A daughter, Maya, was born to the couple before their divorce. She returned to Hawaii where she went on to earn her MA in anthropology from the University of Hawaii. In his first book, Dreams from My Father, Barack Obama wrote of his mother, “She was a lonely witness for '''secular humanism''', a soldier for New Deal, Peace Corps, position paper liberalism.”[ii]<br />
<br />
Obama’s mother was a huge influence in his life. In an interview with Oprah Winfrey in October 2006, he said, “My mother—when I think about the values I hold most dear, they came from her.”[iii] In a speech given at a Moms Rising event in 2006, he said, “Everything that I think is good about me, I got from her.”[http://nationalclergycouncil.org/010807BarackObama.htm] [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 20:57, 16 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
: In response to your indented general comment above, there's nothing magical or divine about presidential politics that ensures honesty. Woodrow Wilson was paralyzed by a stroke for more than a year while president, and the public did not know. Your argument that it is impossible to keep such things from the public is simply wrong. Wallace was not widely known to be a communist or else Roosevelt would never have been elected with Wallace on the ticket. Roosevelt finally figured it out (or was tipped off), and without explanation replaced Wallace. The leftists were dumbfounded by this move, as they were on the verge of making Wallace president when Roosevelt died. Oh, and the sickness of Roosevelt was also kept from the public. He died from his illness within a mere weeks of becoming president for the fourth time. The public didn't expect that either.<br />
<br />
: In response to your specific questions, you're quoting self-serving and implausible statements. Obama was raised by a Muslim stepfather. He learned to view the Muslim call to prayer as the most beautiful thing in the word. There is no real indication any change by Obama, and his keeping of the name "Hussein" illustrates that he did not have a rare adult conversion from Muslim to Christianity. All indications are that such conversion was politically motivated to persuade the public, and one might say that was obviously successful with some! But I doubt Obama will continue his charade indefinitely. Watch for aid to impose Islam on more foreign countries, and watch for inclusion of the Koran at official ceremonies, if not on Jan. 20th itself.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:18, 16 November 2008 (EST)<br />
:: No, Andy, it is ''you'' who is "quoting self-serving and implausible statements". Even five of your own senior administrators disagree with you, but, like Wikipedia, you persist with imposing your own view on this article. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:58, 17 November 2008 (EST)<br />
Andy, I don't think you can give me a single piece of evidence of Obama's mother being a Muslim and given there is evidence against this matter that is not surprising. It also appears as if Obama has a great influence in his life which is not surprising since she was his biological mother. In addition, Obama appeared to have received some Catholic education when he was young. Therefore, your supposed case that Obama was raised a Muslim is certainly not built on a bedrock of solid evidence. Accordingly, the Obama article should not state that Obama is likely a Muslim. Next, I never stated that it is impossible for someone to get to a top political office as a sleeper agent but merely improbable and historical determinations should be reached probabilistically. Also, while it may have not been known that Wallace was a communist (if indeed he was a communist which is a matter I have not investigated but which could certainly be true), there does appear to be indications that he had openly strong leftist views for even the Democrats.[http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USARwallace.htm] Therefore, you historical precedent argument in this case is certainly not a stronger one in terms of Wallace being a "sleeper agent". It does not sound plausible to me that a Communist sleeper agent would have openly strong leftist views that even the Democrats found distasteful. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 21:34, 16 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
: In Muslim families, like the one Obama was raised in, the father dictates the religious upbringing of the boys. Please learn more about the Muslim traditions. With so little awareness of it by Christians, it's no wonder Islam is trouncing Christianity around the world.<br />
<br />
: Alger Hiss was later proved to be a communist and read up on how he was the TOP adviser to FDR at the key WWII conference carving up Europe. Not only was he a sleeper communist agent, but the liberals denied it for decades even after Hiss was convicted in court. Only in the last few years did one of his co-agents admit the truth. Please learn about this.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:43, 16 November 2008 (EST)<br />
:::: Islam is "trouncing" Christianity? In what way? Greater population growth, perhaps, but that's not relevant here. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:58, 17 November 2008 (EST)<br />
:::Andy, have you made the case that Obama's stepfather was a staunch Muslim? I know you have not because it appears as if Obama attended a Catholic school when he was young. Therefore, you still not have made the case that Obama was raised a Muslim. Next, Hiss may have been a top advisor at one point in his life, however, an advisor is not a very top government official (President, Vice-President, Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense, etc.) who certainly often faces much more scrutiny. Andy, given historical precedence and the greater scrutiny that is often given to people ascending to the very peaks of government power, I do think the case for a sleeper agent rising to the pinnacle of power in a government institution is very tenuous to say the least. I think this principle of sleeper agents not ascending to the pinnacles of large organizations is true of institutions outside of government as well. For example, people when being sarcastic in replying to a yes or no question, will sometimes say, "Is the Pope Jewish?" meaning that the pope is not likely an adherent of Judaism. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 21:34, 16 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
Andy, it appears as if there is strong evidence that Obama attended a Catholic school but there may not be evidence that he attended a school that truly could be called a Muslim school. Please read [http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/muslim.asp this article.] <br />
<br />
Regardless of whether or not CNN or the AP did their work with diligence, there appears to be no controversy regarding that Obama did in fact attend a Catholic school. Therefore, I still maintain that the claim he was raised a Muslim does not have strong support. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 22:22, 16 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
: Catholic schools welcome Muslim students. They still do. The Muslim students virtually never convert.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:07, 16 November 2008 (EST)<br />
:::Catholic schools may very welcome Muslim students but what staunchly Muslim father sends his son to a Catholic school? Andy, you still have not jumped over the evidential bar that Osama was raised a Muslim. The so called Muslim school was apparently not strongly Islamic or possibly not even Islamic at all ( [http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/muslim.asp read this article.] ) and the stepfather appears to not have had a strong Muslim faith as evidenced by the fact that he sent Obama to a Catholic school. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 23:56, 16 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
In the Unification Church, it is not unusual for parents to send their children to a Catholic grade school. So what if they come home, crossing themselves when they pray? Overall, the education is better there than in public schools, so if they can afford it the practice makes senses. I daresay mainstream Christians likewise don't mind the sectarian differences. Any way out of secular humanism is often fine with them.<br />
<br />
It appears likely that as president, Obama will be more sympathetic to Islamic countries in his foreign policy. Maybe he'll even be able to get them to lighten up on their "destruction of Israel" goals, or allow [[religious freedom]] for Christians and Jews. Are [[Turkey]] and [[Indonesia]] good examples of this?<br />
<br />
I see good in all religions, and I don't see Islam as irredeemably evil. So what if Obama is or was Muslim? There is [[no religious test for office]], and he can't be impeached for it. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 10:09, 18 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
==Another case for Obama being Muslim==<br />
During a campaign rally, two Muslim women in Muslim garb, were removed from prominent camera view. The reason is A) Obama doesn't want his image assoc. with Muslims B) or doesn't like Muslims (we know the opposite is true). Now, he doesn't want images of Muslim assoc with him because he is A) secret Muslim or B) the American people will think he is a Muslim. (Which 27% already do). Did Obama try to hide his Muslim background and is that plan still in progress?--'''<font color="#6698FF">J</font><font color="#E41B17">p</font><font color="#F88017">a</font><font color="#347C17">t</font><font color="#A74AC7">t</font>'''<sup>[[User:Jpatt| ]]</sup> 17:52, 16 November 2008 (EST)<br />
:::Are A and B the only choices on why Obama does not want himself associated with Islam? Is a false dilemma being proposed? For example, setting aside whether it was right or wrong which is a whole other discussion, did 9/11 drive up the American public's negative beliefs and/or attitudes regarding Islam? Would the American public look less favorably upon a candidate who received some Muslim religious education (Obama also received Catholic training in his youth. And there is certainly reason to believe that a certain degree of philosophical skepticism was imparted to Obama via his mother). In short, I think the above post fails to use the principle of using the total evidence (see my posts above) plus contains a false dilemma. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 18:09, 16 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
== “Less than 1% Muslims convert” – Prosecutor error? ==<br />
<br />
<br />
OK, time for something new and I direct this particularly to Aschlafly. There is a logical fallacy called the “Prosecutor’s Error”. It is very subtle but real enough to send innocent people to the execution chamber. In fact, many lawyers and judges don’t understand it. It works like this. Please concentrate: this isn't all that easy. <br />
<br />
Let us suppose that it is true that Barack Obama was at one time a Muslim, even if this was at an immature age when he really had no say in his faith. And let us grant that only 1% of Muslims convert to Christianity. The argument which Aschflafly uses time and again is to deduce that that this means that, notionally at least, that there is a 99% chance that Obama is a Muslim. <br />
<br />
The fallacy of the argument is that it does not recognize that the IF Obama was in that 99% of Muslims who did not convert, there would be no practicable way he could have run for President. Therefore the chances that he is one of those who DID convert are raised far beyond the mathematically obvious one of 1%. <br />
<br />
Let me give you a real-life example. A woman had three children and each expired early in infancy of “cot death”. The prosecutor did his math and advised the court that there was a “one in 70 million” chance of this happening by accident. Therefore, the jury was heavily disposed to assume that she was guilty of the serial murder of her children. But the fallacy of the case is that she was ONLY arrested because of the rareness of the 3 children dying of cot death in the one family. But even if this only happens one in 70 million families, in a large country such as the U.K or U.S.A, and over a period of decades, it is BOUND to occur, purely by accident. If we then tell a courtroom that there is only a 1 in 70 million chance that she is innocent, we are guilty of the “Prosecutor’s Error”. It is tantamount to arresting a man who comes into a lot of money suddenly and is arrested under suspicion of larceny. He explains that he won it on a lottery, but the Prosecutor says he has looked into the “Lottery” business, and there is only a 1 in 20 million chance of winning it, therefore there is only a 1 in 20 million chance the indicted man is telling the truth. <br />
<br />
In Obama’s case, once again, EVEN if it is true that only 1% of Muslims convert, AND ALSO true that he was born into the Muslim faith, the fact that his circumstances allowed him to run for the Presidency argues that he was one of those Muslims who DID convert, and thus makes his chances of being a non-Muslim substantially greater that 1%. [[User:MylesP|MylesP]] 00:05, 17 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:I understand your math, but your reasoning does not convince me. The lottery example was the most unfortunate attempt.<br />
<br />
:Although in any given lottery, the chances may be 1 in 20 million for one person to win - the fact is that '''every''' lottery has a winner.<br />
<br />
:The problem with Obama's religion is not so much ''Which is it?'' but, "How shall the electorate now regard its new president elect?" Will Obama be pro-Muslim (because he's Muslim or was raised Muslim)?<br />
<br />
:A related question is, "Will Obama be pro-Black because he is black?"<br />
<br />
:I get along equally well with black Christians as with white Christians, so this is not an issue for me. I've also found Muslims personally just as honest, reliable and hard-working as Christians. What's all the fuss about? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 10:18, 18 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:: The lottery example was valid. Apart from the fact that not every lottery ''does'' have a winner (the prize then jackpots to the following draw), the point is that the 100% certainty (every lottery has a winner) applies to the lottery as a whole, whereas the 1 in 20 million odds applies to any ''given'' individual. The issue here is about a ''given'' individual, Barack Obama.<br />
:: I hope that you are asking that last question ("What's all the fuss about") to Andy, as he is the one insisting on the claim against almost everybody else other than a few acolytes.<br />
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:20, 18 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Awesome article ==<br />
Just wanted to say, finally a good resource about obama. Fantastic research about the muslim piece, it really shows him as the closet muslim like he is. Shame the libs just don't get it !! [[happymoon|happymoon]]<br />
<br />
== Great comedy article ==<br />
<br />
It's a shame people don't get the jokes. Just wanted to pop in and say keep up the good work! Was referred here by a friend who also got a kick out of this article. [[User:Somebody21|Somebody21]] 11:08, 17 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:Read the article properly before you start calling it a joke. You've been looking at Obama from a left wing viewpoint; try looking at him from a right wing viewpoint. It'll do you good.--[[User:WHurst|WHurst]]<br />
<br />
==This will be a hit on stormfront==<br />
<br />
America reaches a milestone in his history and all you guys can do is peddle false lies which have been repudiated by just about everyone in the political business. The comment about 'possibly been sworn in by the koran' is not only false, but a terrifying example of what racism and ignorance is capable of. You may not be white nationalists, but your inability to reasonably discuss this man's faith without resorting to the most despicable acts of scaremongering is typical of the tripe we see on racist websites.<br />
<br />
Keep this crap up and you'll make sure to keep the black vote away from your party for the forseeable future. [[User:JCharlton|JCharlton]] 17:50, 17 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
::Race and religion are two different things. Why do liberals always resort to racism? Maybe its becaus you don't have any real arguments against the issues raised here? This isn't wikipedia, we deal in facts here. [[User:Patriot1505|Patriot1505]] 20:20, 17 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Reply ==<br />
<br />
Don't know where to start. Maybe someone else can explain why they get so enraged at the likelihood that Obama is a Muslim. What's it to someone who (1) is an atheist, (2) is an Australian, (3) is a Christian, or (4) would support him regardless? Frankly, the opposition by some is puzzling.<br />
<br />
Regardless, some remarkable displays of lack of knowledge about Islam and Islamic education have been displayed here. Perhaps we can all agree that it's worth learning more about what many say has quickly become the world's largest religion, and the strongest religion in Europe today.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:49, 17 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:It really shouldn't be that puzzling Andy. They are calling out what they believe to be falsehood. When people made spurious, questionable claims about Bush, how did Conservapedia respond? Did you include the information or remove it? Its the exact same thing. You tried to keep the spurious information out of it. The name "Trustworthy Encyclopedia" implies intellectual honesty, and on this particular aspect most people here (myself included) find this pile of circumstantial evidence to be based on poor conclusions, false arguments, and illogical reasoning to be an absurdity without any solid claims that say he is a Muslim. The burden of proof is on you to -prove- that he is, not provide a loaded mountain of evidence that is obviously taylored to imply that he is with no proof whatsoever other than bad logic. I can't believe this topic is still going. [[User:EternalCritic|EternalCritic]] 22:17, 17 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:: There is nothing "spurious" about it, and you lose credibility with your baseless claims of falsehood. Even Obama's biggest supporters would have to admit that there is a significant probability that he is a Muslim. Perhaps one can quibble whether that probability is 20% or 60% or 90%, but no one can insist with a straight face that it is 0%.<br />
<br />
:: Given that, it's bizarre how some adamantly insist that the probability must be less than 50% rather than greater than 50%. Frankly, the demands to censor this information smacks of liberal bias.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:52, 17 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:::When you promote someone over yourself here, the beef can be over censorship. Until then, it's just people saying they think you're wrong. [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 23:16, 17 November 2008 (EST) ''<-like me, for example...''<br />
<br />
Don't fall for the devil's tricks. These "conservatives" are not true Christians. [[User:Somebody21|Somebody21]] 23:33, 17 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
"''Maybe someone else can explain why they get so enraged at the likelihood that Obama is a Muslim.''": Yes, I would like you to explain that. Because ''you'' are the one enraged at that. I, on the other hand, am "enraged" that he is being accused of being a Muslim on the basis of logical fallacy, lousy arguments, and false claims.<br />
<br />
"''What's it to someone who ... is a Christian''": As a Christian, my concern is for the ''truth''. Why do you continually try and misrepresent this as censorship, liberal lies, or whatever?<br />
<br />
"''... some remarkable displays of lack of knowledge about Islam and Islamic education have been displayed here...''": That is not the issue I'm arguing. You are again raising red herrings. The issue is the claim that he is a Muslim, which claim is not supported by the evidence.<br />
<br />
"''There is nothing "spurious" about it, and you lose credibility with your baseless claims of falsehood.''": No, Andy, it '''is''' spurious, and ''you'' lose credibility with ''your'' baseless claims that he is a Muslim.<br />
<br />
"''Even Obama's biggest supporters would have to admit that there is a significant probability that he is a Muslim.''": On what grounds? Certainly not those in this article.<br />
<br />
"''Given that, it's bizarre how some adamantly insist that the probability must be less than 50% rather than greater than 50%.''": "That" is not given. Rather, it's bizarre how ''you'' adamantly insist that he ''is'' a Muslim given the lack of evidence.<br />
<br />
"''Frankly, the demands to censor this information smacks of liberal bias.''": I'm going to shout because you obviously didn't hear me before: "IT IS NOT CENSORSHIP TO REMOVE IRRELEVANT INFORMATION, AND I'D APPRECIATE YOU NOT IMPLYING THAT I'M TRYING TO CENSOR ANYTHING."<br />
<br />
I've pointed out a number of problems, and your response has been to slander the criticism as censorship and liberal, to introduce red herrings, and to assert your opinion as fact. What you have ''not'' done is actually address the issue.<br />
<br />
[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:57, 18 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:How dare you accuse Andy of slander. And what hypocricy. The only slanderer, Philip, is you. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 03:40, 18 November 2008 (EST)<br />
:: Yet you make no attempt to refute that it was slanderous, nor to substantiate your accusation against me. In other words, a substanceless response. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:53, 18 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
Andy, regarding "''(Islam being) the strongest religion in Europe today''": you never cease to amaze us with your wealth of knowledge of the world outside the USA, be it UK, the whole of Europe or Australia. Kudos to you! --[[User:Europeo|Europeo]] 07:37, 18 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
::''Regardless, some remarkable displays of lack of knowledge about Islam and Islamic education have been displayed here.'' I think that's a statement with which anyone would agree. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 10:55, 18 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
==Four Questions For The Trojan Candidate==<br />
{{QuoteBox|1=It has taken the better part of a year, and specifically the last six months of this election season, for committed citizen journalists at TexasDarlin and many other blogs to conduct the solid, investigative research that the media, the democratic national committee, agencies of the federal government, Barack Obama himself, and Congress should have done on the eligibility and qualifications of Barack Obama. The first serious look at Barack Obama ’s Constitutional eligibility began on this blog, with the exposure of the birth certificate mystery, Obama-Soetoro’s Indonesian citizenship, and analysis of the constitutional problems with Obama’s multiple citizenship status irrespective of birthplace.<br />
<br /><br /><br />
Although our collective knowledge of Barack Obama and the concerns of his candidacy came too late to change the outcome of the Democratic nomination and the election—especially in light of the MSM bias, the Obama campaign’s tactics, and DNC shenanigans– for all our hard work, we were successful in shedding some light on the content of his character: his associations, his deeds, his family relations, his friends, his lack of experience, stewardship, his patriotism, his potential agenda ([http://texasdarlin.wordpress.com/2008/09/21/the-trojan-candidate/] ) and the startling depth of his secrecy.<br />
<br /><br /><br />
Now that we have “un-muddied” the water…..we stand on the edge of a caldera* with no idea of the complexity, depth, explosiveness, or unpredictability of this phenomenon we have witnessed in the rise of Barack Obama ! We as a country have never actually been here before, standing at the edge of possible dissolution of our country, except perhaps in the election of 1860. One realizes at once the perils of both diving into that hot pool of water, or running away to avoid the explosion….either scenario leads to serious burns! <br />
<br /><br /><br />
While there seems to be little evidence that we will ever fully know Obama, nor avoid the explosive change he will bring, there is a way we can learn from this experience such that our Country will never again be faced with someone who is truly unknown, inexperienced, untested, and feels (to me anyway) uncommitted to America. We can use the 2008 experiences to also highlight and then design strategies to ensure that every political party is responsive to its constituents, and that our Constitution is really a living document.<br />
<br /><br /><br />
The Constitution is by and for “we the people”; therefore “we the people” must make it work and not rely on any political party to sell America to the highest bidder.<br />
<br /><br /><br />
'''Four Questions'''<br />
<br /><br /><br />
I bring forward four questions that get to the heart of our rights, as American citizens, to ensure that our government and its leaders are indeed qualified to lead our great country. By extension, these questions can be used as windows to other potential areas where we the people do not yet have redress.<br />
<br /><br /><br />
These questions are miraculously (given procedural errors and the existing lower court dismissal) before the Supreme Court with the requirement that President-elect Obama respond by December 1, 2008. It is also disturbing that these questions are before the U.S. Supreme Court when the candidate himself or the DNC could easily have dispelled any speculation by providing simple documentation.<br />
<br /><br /><br />
While I have not kept track of the Berg v. Obama case for many reasons, it truly is miraculous that Justice Souter required Obama to respond to Berg’s writ of certiorari. Even if, as some have said, Souter ’s action is not significant and procedural only, how Obama responds will reveal much about his view of the Constitution, and will determine if the full Supreme Court decides to hear the case. In responding, Obama will be essentially arguing why the writ of certiorari should not be granted.<br />
<br /><br /><br />
In my opinion, the questions raised by Berg in the lower Court should not have been thrown out entirely based on standing alone, or by the notion that the injury to a voter is “vague”. But some Judges do actually realize the question may be beyond their jurisdiction and ‘ask for help’ by clearly making appealable and reversible errors that a higher court can rule on. The Supreme Court Rules permit the grant of a writ of certiorari only under specific circumstances.<br />
<br /><br /><br />
The questions presented for review are:<br />
<br /><br /><br />
*1. Whether a citizen of the United States has standing to challenge the Constitutional qualifications of a Presidential nominee under the “natural born citizen clause” [Article II of the U.S. Constitution] when deprivation of the right to such a challenge would result in the infringement of a citizen’s Constitutional right to vote?<br />
*2. Isn’t it true that no one has the responsibility to ensure a United States Presidential candidate is eligible to serve as President of the United States?<br />
*3. Are there proper steps for a voter to ensure a Presidential Candidate is qualified and eligible to serve as President of the United States?<br />
*4. Isn’t it true that there are not any checks and balances to ensure the qualifications and eligibility of a Presidential Candidate to serve as President of the United States?<br />
<br /><br />
The “questions presented for review” in the writ require Obama’ response. Notice that answering these questions does not require Obama to produce a birth certificate, but instead to answer why he does not have to prove himself eligible.<br />
<br /><br /><br />
Although we cannot predict Obama’s answers, based on his past legal motions submitted in the lower court case, Obama may indeed respond that the writ should not be granted because (1) a citizen does not have standing, (2) that no one has responsibility to ensure eligibility, (3) that there are no proper steps for a citizen to ensure qualifications, and (4) that there are no checks and balances that exist today to ensure a candidate is qualified. Notice he is in a position of arguing technicalities here, and completely misses his own obligation to prove himself.<br />
<br /><br /><br />
Although doubtful, it is also possible Obama would try to argue that the 14th Amendment says that “naturalized citizens” and “dual citizens” are “American citizens”, thereby satisfying the requirements of Article II. I really can’t imagine he would bring this up, unless asked in a hearing, as the question of the 14th Amendment’s modification of Article II is a constitutional matter that only the Supreme Court can decide. Recall that on Obama’s own website he claims that he is a U.S. Citizen under the 14th amendment.<br />
<br /><br /><br />
I think these questions may have Obama boxed in. If he intends not to release his COLB, citizenship records, passport files, etc, Obama would then practically argue a big “FU” to the U.S. Supreme Court and say in effect “I don’t have to respond to this because there is no law, no avenue for citizens, and no checks and balances that require me to do so.” He will argue technicalities in how to disregard the Constitution, including, as above, that the 14th Amendment applies to Article II. I wonder how the Supreme Court might respond?<br />
<br /><br /><br />
If Obama responds in any other way, he could be forced to disclose and/or identify when, how, and what steps citizens can take, or what steps are taken, to assure the POTUS’ eligibility. Using the process he acknowledges—for example, the “DNC vetting process”–he may then be forced to prove his eligibility to serve as POTUS under Article II by showing the documentation he provided to the DNC, if he provided anything to the DNC. Alternatively he could concede that there are no procedures to ensure eligibility of a person for POTUS, and that “America has to take his word for it”. Would the Supreme Court then order him to produce his documentation according to the original suit filed by Berg?<br />
<br /><br /><br />
One item of interest is how Obama responds to Question 4, on the existence of checks and balances to assure the POTUS’ eligibility. “Checks and balances” can mean procedures, legislative processes, acts, bills, agencies, or resolutions. Here is where Obama could argue that the Senate Resolution promoted by Senators Leahy, Obama, and McCatskill on John McCain’s eligibility applies. In other words, Obama could argue that the checks and balances already exist and this resolution suffices (notice this is not a bill). The Senate resolution was developed in April, 2008 to “validate” John McCain ’s natural born citizen status when it was unnecessary, and in some ways the resolution’s language can be seen as an attempt by the three Senators to create a blanket provision for a naturalized citizen to be eligible to serve as POTUS. Looking at the text of the resolution and supporting statements, Senator Leahy has the following curious exchange with Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff (emphasis mine):<br />
<br /><br /><br />
Chairman Leahy. Let me just ask this: I believe–and we have had some question in this Committee to have a special law passed declaring that Senator McCain, who was born in the Panama Canal, that he meets the constitutional requirement to be President….You are a former Federal judge. You are the head of the agency that executes Federal immigration law. Do you have any doubt in your mind–I mean, I have none in mine. Do you have any doubt in your mind that he is constitutionally eligible to become President?<br />
<br /><br /><br />
Secretary Chertoff. My assumption and my understanding is that if you are born of American parents, you are naturally a natural-born American citizen.<br />
<br /><br /><br />
As Berg’s case has evolved, he refined the scope of defendants who now must also respond to the writ, including the DNC, the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration and its Chair, Senator Dianne Feinstein , the Federal Election Commission (FEC), and several Pennsylvania government officials.<br />
<br /><br /><br />
With the exception of the DNC, who also joined in Obama’s initial motion to dismiss the lower case on lack of standing, I think the other defendants’ responses might be decidedly different. The FEC could claim that it actually has no jurisdiction in the matter by way of its charter and organizing documents, and that even if it did, it is far too understaffed to perform investigatory functions, as cited by Senator Feinstein in testimony before the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration on May 28, 2008 (link to http://rules.senate..gov/hearings/2008/052108feinsteinopen.pdf). And will Senator Feinstein blame the Bush administration, or will she admit that she too just assumed the DNC vetted Obama and that he was eligible?<br />
<br /><br /><br />
After reviewing Obama’s legal argument against granting the writ of certiorari and the other defendants’ responses, Justice Souter will then review Berg’s response before deciding where the case goes next, including whether the full Supreme Court will hear the case. Remember that Souter’s clerks have all the lower court material and reviewed it before Souter required Obama to respond to the writ of certiorari. In my opinion, Justice Souter would not have granted this appeal from Berg if he thought the issues were irrelevant and not worthy of the Court’s attention.<br />
<br /><br /><br />
How does the Supreme Court react? Will it order the production of Obama’s documents? Will it order the lower Courts to resolve the matter expeditiously, requiring the release of documents? Will it order the FEC, Electoral College, or Congress to verify his eligibility, or develop verification procedures? Will they agree with Obama, if he mentions it, that the 14th Amendment really did modify Article II criteria? Will they dismiss the case?<br />
<br /><br /><br />
Although the Supreme Court will not want to be seen as determining the outcome of another election—even for the perception of “fairness”– the questions presented in the writ are completely different than presented in Bush v. Gore. Under Article III of the Constitution, the Supreme Court clearly has the jurisdiction to decide the matter. Legal scholars will point to Marbury v. Madison ( link to http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=true&doc=19) as precedent if the full Supreme Court accepts the writ, orders the lower Court in error, directs it to secure Obama’s documentation, and chastises the DNC, FEC, the PA state agencies, the Senate, and Senator Obama for not doing their job, and not forcing the production of documents itself, while still retaining jurisdiction.<br />
<br /><br /><br />
If this is the outcome, a motion could be made by Berg to stay the vote of the Electoral College pending the outcome of the case. If the Justices are concerned about the matter and integrity of the 2008 election, that motion could be granted. The expedited discovery of documents would proceed. Yes, I understand this is a long-shot and speculation on my part.<br />
<br /><br /><br />
And how, in the meantime, are we to ever know about Barack Obama? Is the burden of proof really on America (Berg), or on Barack Obama ? Is it up to your employer to find out who you are, or is it up to you as an employee to provide your documentation? Isn’t Obama supposed to be working for America? I believe that the burden of proof on eligibility rests solely and unconditionally on Barack Obama’s shoulders. I am not alone in this belief (link http://americamustknow.com/Documents/OBAMA%20LAWSUIT,%20Class%20Action.doc).<br />
<br /><br /><br />
Alinsky Returns?<br />
<br /><br /><br />
As I sit in disbelief and alarm even writing this article—that something as basic as citizenship status of the potential POTUS is in front of the Supreme Court at this late date—I am reminded of a framework set forth in an earlier article, The Trojan Candidate (link to http://texasdarlin.wordpress.com/2008/09/21/the-trojan-candidate/), and the use of Alinsky-style community organizing techniques to advance an agenda of revolutionary change. In this article I posited that Barack Obama has a hidden agenda and part of implementing his agenda involves the use of techniques developed by Saul Alinsky and discussed in such books as Rules for Radicals (http://www.semcosh.org/AlinskyTactics.htm).<br />
<br /><br /><br />
'''From the Trojan Candidate:'''<br />
<br /><br /><br />
Alinsky laid out a set of basic principles to guide the actions and decisions of radical organizers [community organizers] and the People’s Organizations they established. The organizer, he said, ‘must first rub raw the resentments of the people; fan the latent hostilities to the point of overt expression. He must search out controversy and issues, rather than avoid them, for unless there is controversy people are not concerned enough to act.’ The organizer’s function, he added, was ‘to agitate to the point of conflict ’and ‘to maneuver and bait the establishment so that it will publicly attack him as a “dangerous enemy.” ‘The word ‘enemy,’ said Alinsky, ‘is sufficient to put the organizer on the side of the people’; i.e., to convince members of the community that he is so eager to advocate on their behalf, that he has willingly opened himself up to condemnation and derision.<br />
<br /><br /><br />
What could be the reason for withholding his citizenship papers and birth status, especially if he has nothing to hide? Does he plan to use this in some way to “rub raw the resentments of the people” [and] “fan the latent hostilities to the point of over expression”? The concerns about Obama’s Constitutional eligibility will be met with accusations of “racism”; that the “system” wouldn’t do this to a white man, and that the republicans or others are trying to ‘take Obama out’ on a “technicality”. And worse.<br />
<br /><br /><br />
If Obama is ineligible, he could rightly be called a ‘dangerous enemy’ and forced to stand down. It is at this point that “the word ‘enemy’ is sufficient to put the organizer on the side of the people…” and the maneuvering and baiting of the establishment forces it to back down, with Obama prevailing whether having shown his documentation or not. As you contemplate this, think of all the money, the inevitability narrative, the shutting down of dissent, the timing of events, the threat of violence and insurrection, the establishment of the office of the president elect, and the simply overwhelming of America with all things Obama. This certainly pulls the light from shining on the real Barack Obama ’s Trojan candidacy.<br />
<br /><br /><br />
If Obama is proven ineligible, does not stand down or even if he does stand down, it is not unreasonable to expect some “in-your-face” hostile reactions and calls for immediate changes that permit Obama to stay. How ironic: in defense of liberty and the Constitution, we will be called ‘racists’.<br />
<br /><br /><br />
'''Implications for the Future'''<br />
<br /><br /><br />
The four questions presented to the U.S. Supreme Court in 2008 will have a lasting and enduring effect on the course of the American Constitution in the next decade or more and will continue to feed the growing doubts about Obama’s qualifications and intentions in the next four years.. Currently there are 17 different legal actions in various state and federal courts, which now challenge the validity of the electoral process across the country, regardless of outcome (see http://www.soundinvestments.us/files/final_writ_keyes_v_bowen.pdf) .<br />
<br /><br /><br />
Just my suspicion, but I am beginning to get a more complete picture of why Obama has sealed all of his records, including college financial aid applications, papers, and coursework. I believe his financial aid applications reveal his foreign status; and I now see that his Columbia and Harvard papers could reveal his examination of the “weaknesses” of the U.S. Constitution and ways to “remedy” them using “administrative procedures” as discussed in this 2001 radio interview. (link to http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3VctiYQplw8)<br />
<br /><br /><br />
As I look at the scope of research on the issue of eligibility during this election season, I note that nearly all have concluded that there are no checks and balances to assure the eligibility of a Presidential Candidate, that no one is responsible, that the DNC did not do its job, and that indeed citizens and voters have very little recourse to ask these questions. The Supreme Court has never been presented with this question before on Article II eligibility. I personally doubt that they will duck their responsibilities to protect the Constitution.<br />
<br /><br /><br />
Up until this time, it has been assumed that every candidate and POTUS has met Article II qualifications. We assume that in fact no one would dare to run for and claim the Presidency if he/she didn’t meet the qualifications of the Constitution. Looks like our age of innocence is over.<br />
<br /><br /><br />
It appears that we will have to craft legislation to assure eligibility criteria are met for the POTUS, and to assign appropriate responsibilities to assure so.. If the country wants to amend the Constitution to allow naturalized or dual citizens to serve as POTUS, then we have that mechanism, which ¾ of the states have to ratify. None of this can happen before the January 20th inauguration.<br />
<br /><br /><br />
The four questions to the Supreme Court also remind me of other areas in which we voters do not have redress when something goes wrong. Although I am now an “unaffiliated” voter, having left the democratic party after November 4th, it also appears that democrats do not have an avenue of redress when the DNC and RBC violate party rules as they did in this case to deny Hillary Clinton the nomination. In addition, we now know that caucuses can be gamed, and do not serve the interests of democracy nor do they provide a fair representation of the strength of our party’s candidates. Because of the DNC, RBC and Obama’s gaming of the system with caucus fraud, and the blatant use of race and misogyny to silence critics, we are witnessing the democrats begin the disintegration of the “democratic brand”. I am sure there are issues in the Republican party after GWB destroyed the “republican brand”. We all need a detox from our respective koolaid brands in order to really see clearly.<br />
<br /><br /><br />
What is next for our country? Well, if we don’t want to dive into that hot pool, and we’re not going to run away, then we’d better start creating an alternative vision. A line in one of my favorite movies, The Shawshank Redemption, sums it up for me:<br />
<br /><br /><br />
“…get busy livin’, or get busy dyin’…” [http://texasdarlin.wordpress.com/2008/11/16/four-questions-for-the-trojan-candidate/]}}<br />
{{unsigned|TK}}<br />
<br />
==Andy, if it can perhaps be quibbled that there is merely a 20% chance of Obama being a Muslim, then why is the Obama article stating that he is likely a Muslim? ==<br />
<br />
Dear Andy, <br />
<br />
You wrote above regarding the probability of Obama being a Muslim the following:<br />
<br />
"Perhaps one can quibble whether that probability is 20% or 60% or 90%, but no one can insist with a straight face that it is 0%."<br />
<br />
Andy, if it can be perhaps be quibbled that the likelihood of Obama being a Muslim is merely 20%, then why is the article still stating that Obama is likely a Muslim? Second, Andy do you think that a reference work should use scholarly caution and that scholarly caution helps make a reference work authoritative? [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 04:01, 18 November 2008 (EST)<br />
:In this case, what you describe as 'scholarly caution' means knuckling under to Liberal suppression of facts and discussion. The scholarly option is to seek out the truth, no matter how disturbing that truth or the process of uncovering it might be to those on the left. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 04:43, 18 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
Andy I also fear we are not doing our site any favors in this area. If Obama is a Muslim, he is certainly keeping that under wraps. There is no indication that he would suddenly take the oath of office on a Koran. Such a turnabout that he lied about his Christianity would destroy his ability to govern. It is more likely, if he is a Muslim, that he would support Muslim causes without making a profession of his own faith. We should also realize, based upon his policies, that if he does have Islamic ties that they would be akin to the type of ties that John Kerry has to Catholicism, very poor. His views on abortion alone would be considered extreme Western decadence within the greater Islamic world view. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 04:54, 18 November 2008 (EST)<br />
:::::Bugler, I purposely chose Andy's words that "perhaps one can quibble that the probability is 20%". Therefore, if Andy is correct about the 20% issue then the statement that Obama is likely a Muslim should be removed from the article. I am just following Andy's statement where the logic leads if his statement is true and no knuckling under is necessary. I do think it is fair to say that people come to an encyclopedia to read facts and not speculation. Speculation weighs down an encyclopedia by eroding its credibility. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 08:03, 18 November 2008 (EST)<br />
::::::Saying "One could argue that X is 20%" doesn't in any way mean accepting that that X '''is''' 20%. It merely allows the existence of theoretically possible grounds of debate. If I said there were grounds for arguing that the planet Jupiter was made of cheese, likewise it doesn't mean that I think it is reasonably possible that such is the case. Andy is (in my interpretation of his words) admitting grounds for debate; it does not mean that he (or anyone else who takes a rational view of the issue) accepts only a 20% likelihood. The whole point of the point at issue is that it disproves the blinkered dogmatism and naivety of Liberals who say "Oh, Obama has said he's a Christian so he '''can't possibly''' be a Moslem." Liberals cling to dogma like an unweaned child to its blanket; we conservatives prefer debate, rational discourse, and seeking truth from facts, not from wish-fulfillment fantasies. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 09:14, 18 November 2008 (EST)<br />
::::::: Admitting that 20% is ''possible'' means that you've destroyed your argument that it ''is'' more than 50%.<br />
::::::: And no, the whole point is ''not'' to support liberal views. That's a false claim. And if you as a conservative prefers debate, rational discourse, and seeking truth from facts, why are you reversing my edits without offering any rebuttal to my points?<br />
::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:38, 18 November 2008 (EST)<br />
''Admitting that 20% is ''possible'' means that you've destroyed your argument that it ''is'' more than 50%.'' You haven't read it, have you? Read it again, nice and slowly, take your time, and especially consider the Jupiter analogy. As for the vulgar abuse in your edit summary, I will let that speak for itself. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 09:42, 18 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
It might be good to create a subarticle, with [[Barack Obama]] as the main article. We have templates for this; Philip is our template custodian and can place whatever we need.<br />
<br />
I protected the article, because edit wars don't serve our readers; and they don't help us contributors much either. <br />
<br />
I didn't look at Andy's last version. I just guessed it might make a good starting point. <br />
<br />
Let's discuss, rather than trying to "get our way". Wiki collaboration should result in stability. Let none of us rock the boat. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 09:47, 18 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:Thanks, Ed. I agree that edit wars are undesirable. I don't consider that I was edit warring. I was trying to protect this article, which has been arrived at in its current form after much debate, from unilateral and ideologically-driven deletions bordering on vandalism. In the course of doing so I have yet again been accused of mendacity. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 09:51, 18 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
: Thanks, Ed, for bringing stability. As Bugler points out, there is nothing in my observation that "perhaps one" can quibble whether the likelihood Obama is a Muslim is 20%, 60% or 90% that justifies censoring the evidence and statement that he is likely a Muslim. Juries make such determinations based on the evidence all the time; so do encyclopedias. The evidence is compelling and will not be censored or downplayed here, despite some (for unknown reasons) disliking it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:52, 18 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
::Yes, of course there is evidence. And being a Muslim is not a punishable in the US, so the jury need not use the standard of "[[beyond any reasonable doubt]]". It's more like a lawsuit, I guess, where you need only be 51% sure to vote one way or the other.<br />
<br />
::Personally, I'd like CP to make some indication that some conservatives are still in doubt about [[my Muslim faith|"his Muslim faith"]], but that desire does not outweigh the need for editorial harmony. <br />
<br />
::It is liberals - rather than conservatives - who insist on censoring all views contrary to theirs, in the US. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 10:03, 18 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
::: Ed, when the issue is the president of the United States, then even less than a 51% chance is often sufficient to be influential, just as less than 51% chance is enough to deny someone an important job.<br />
<br />
::: Someone is missing the the point about [[my Muslim faith]], which omits the telling phrase: "Muslim faith." No Christian would use that specific phrase so casually in reference to himself. How about someone saying "Allah the Creator"?! Christians don't use the phrase.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:10, 18 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Falsifiability & "My Muslim Faith" ==<br />
<br />
Aschlafly, Ed Poor, etc. - <br />
<br />
Is there any piece of evidence that, assuming it existed, would convince you that Barack Obama is NOT a Muslim? You've now admitted there's a chance he's not a Muslim, so what piece of evidence would convince you that he's not? As it stands, your argument seems unfalsifiable, and ridiculously conspiratorial: everytime someone offers evidence that Obama's not a Muslim, you just reply with, "oooh, he's a tricky one! He must have worked to cover that up!" That's not a respectable, logical argument: it's an inability to recognize fact when it's put before your eyes. What piece of evidence could convince you of that, if any?<br />
<br />
Further, if I go through the George W. Bush talk page I bet I'll find a million examples of you apologizing for Bush's rhetorical missteps, and arguing that when he says something incorrectly, it doesn't mean he's stupid. Why, then, are you not willing to take Obama's slip of the tongue as the same thing - unconscious error, not indicative of any deeper meaning?<br />
<br />
The fact is, you have no principled basis for the distinction. Nor are you going to accept any evidence that Obama's a Christian. You're just clinging to a pet theory when even your own administrative staff tells you you're wrong.-[[User:KiraN|KiraN]] 10:26, 18 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Towards stability via discussion ==<br />
<br />
:''unilateral and ideologically-driven deletions bordering on vandalism''<br />
<br />
Vandalism is replacing the page with "Stinky loves Myrtle". Unilateral editing is doing your own thing, even when you know someone else will just want to revert (see [[Editing etiquette]]).<br />
<br />
Let's come closer together, rather than battle it out on the page itself. Talk pages are for talking. Let's hear some more talk! --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 10:29, 18 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:The problem with that, is that if people talk about it, and say almost anything to disagree with the current state of the article, they are likely to get blocked for the "90/10 Rule against talk talk talk" or "liberal namecalling" or some other excuse. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] <small>(CPAdmin1)</small><sup>[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]]</sup> <sup>[[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]]</sup> 10:37, 18 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:: Tim, that's simply not true. The [[90/10 rule]] guards against nothing but talk. It's easy to make substantive contributions to comply with the rule, and it's easy to refrain from namecalling in discussions. In fact, both are essential to keep the level of discourse and learning here at a high level.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:42, 18 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:::The [[90/10 rule]] might guard against nothing but talk, but it sure seems to guard against some kinds of talk a lot more than others. [[User:RobNewberry|RobNewberry]] 10:47, 18 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
::::If so, there's nothing wrong with that. Jaywalking is not prosecuted as much as petty shoplifting either.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:55, 18 November 2008 (EST)<br />
:::::Aschlafly, you can tell yourself that all you want, but this much is clear; the 90/10 rule is a content-neutral rule applied in a manner that amounts to viewpoint discrimination. You only apply it against liberals. You've long since abandoned the stance that you "don't block ideologically."<br />
:::::This site has survived for two years ''only'' by ruthlessly persecuting anyone who disagrees with your worldview. Tim is right, but I'll take it one step farther: I think the reason you censor people who disagree with you is because you know you'll lose in a fair fight. The Barack Obama article is just one more example of that. Except now, even your own sysops disagree with you, so you devolve into insulting Philip and dodging the question.<br />
:::::Of course you can block me, and prove Tim right.-[[User:KiraN|KiraN]] 11:02, 18 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
::::@Aschlafly: I don't get your analogy. Jaywalking and petty shoplifting are different crimes. Excessive talk by a liberal and excessive talk by a conservative is the same "crime". So the "prosecution" ought to be applied equally against both, right? Otherwise it isn't a ''rule'', it's just an ''excuse'' to make people you don't agree with go away. [[User:RobNewberry|RobNewberry]] 11:04, 18 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
::::: Rob, within the same crimes prosecutorial patterns are different. It's called "prosecutorial discretion." It is used every day by law enforcement and it is obvious why it is needed. I'm not going to waste my morning spelling this out for you. Take a basic course on criminal justice, or simply follow the news.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:23, 18 November 2008 (EST)<br />
::::::Andy, you're misunderstanding "prosecutorial discretion." You're right that policemen have the right to decide which crimes to prosecute, but if they differentially allow white criminals to get away with murder, and seek the death penalty for black shoplifters, it would give rise to a disparate impact lawsuit and be illegitimate, racist, and wrong. We're arguing that your actions here are closer to abuse of prosecutorial discretion to kick out your enemies, than to the case of using prosecutorial discretion to preserve resources.<br />
::::::It strikes me that what you're missing is the difference between "content neutral" and "viewpoint discrimination." Take a course in the First Amendment, or read a book on it; it might help your understanding of the word "censorship," too.-[[User:KiraN|KiraN]] 13:38, 18 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
I would say you are partially correct, RobNewberry. Sometimes people need to be "invited" to leave, much like a dinner guest who overstays their welcome. If a person comes to Conservapedia knowing full well it is a conservative/Christian friendly wiki-encyclopedia, and is a liberal, the question is why? If the answer is they support Andy Schlafly's idea of an conservative alternative to the decidedly left-of-center editor dominated Wikipedia, that's great! All voices should be represented on the Net. But if their intentions are merely to argue and dispute conservative or Christian points of view, that becomes a subtle form of vandalism, inasmuch as it is a great time waster for those who genuinely want to contribute their conservative/Christian POV, and build this encyclopedia. My own opinion is that those who obsessively create new user names, only to argue against conservative values, and disrupt/time waste, are actually terrorists of the Internet kind. What other reason would they have to stick around? Any board or wiki does and should have the absolute right of association.<br />
<br />
This would hold true for a conservative joining a known liberal board or wiki, and spend all their time disputing the members, arguing without end, and seeking to put their conservative point of view into their discussions or articles. I am not for truncating free speech automatically, but after weeks and weeks of disputing everything, knowing you are not going to change CP into Wikipedia's more liberal world-view, or have CP adopt all of Wikipedia's member conventions, a person's efforts then cross over into something more, what I have taken to calling Internet Terrorism. CP has an owner, it is his right to have whatever viewpoint he wants. If people agree, with even a part, they stick around and help build this place. If they don't, what other reason, other than being obstinate or having malicious intent, could they have? Disagreement is fine, debate is good. But where does it end, and the ability of like-minded individuals to associate with those they agree with, without constant disagreement begin? --<font color="#1E90FF" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:TK|₮K]]</font><sup><font color="DC143C">[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]</font></sup> 11:41, 18 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:Please don't refer to anything that isn't terrorism as terrorism. It might be censorship or vandalism or disruption. But terrorism is something else entirely. There is no terror involved in what you describe above and associating the term with it helps to undermine fear of the real kind. Terrorism should not be taken lightly. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 11:48, 18 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
::TK, I agree with you completely that people probably need to be "invited" to leave. My only problem is that this is done under the guise of 90/10 rule. I think this is done so that Andy can still claim something like "We don't ask editors to leave because they have a certain viewpoint, only Wikipedia does that." Make too many liberal edits, though, and you'll find that you have somehow violated the 90/10 rule. I say drop the deceit and just ban people with the comment "We don't like your viewpoint. Goodbye." It's about being honest about what kind of place this wiki really is. [[User:RobNewberry|RobNewberry]] 11:49, 18 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:::Ajkgordon, one definition of "terrorism" is "intimidating gang activity". Regardless of your rather parochial idea of its meaning, kindly refrain from saying something I clearly labeled as my own opinion, invention, is wrong usage. Organized activity, like from ''certain groups'', to disrupt other boards or wiki's, no matter how loosely organized, if it is at all coordinated, is intimidation, ergo, "terrorism".<br />
<br />
:::RobNewberry, I know that when I was an administrator, I often followed Andy's lead in doing just that, block with the comment "Bye". As Schlafly often says, it isn't very hard to copy edit, add a source a few times a day, especially if one is spending hours and hours debating on talk pages. A person doing that, and not being obnoxious, they shouldn't be blocked. But I mostly see people with absolutely no contributions to CP, and looking at their history see only talk page posts, being blocked. Someone constantly reverting an article because of idealogical disagreement, and making no other contributions, should be blocked, or have the good grace to leave. There is more than one way to run a wiki. That's why they come with settings. Some wiki's require review of submissions before going live. Some require registration in order to edit, others do not. You sound fairly reasonable, obviously an informed person. Surely you can understand how people would grow tired of debating a topic without end. If you don't go to Wikipedia and try to insert something favorable about George W. Bush, Dick Cheney or Ann Coulter. Then when you are reverted, change it back. I don't think your experience will be a pleasant one. ;-) ----<font color="#1E90FF" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:TK|₮K]]</font><sup><font color="DC143C">[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]</font></sup> 12:12, 18 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
::::RobNewberry, your own comments are misleading and illustrate the problem, because now I have to waste my time correcting them. The [[90/10 rule]] applies to people who talk, talk, talk without redeeming value in the way of substantive contributions. Nothing could be simpler. Talk is a time-waster. Different viewpoints, if logical, are welcome here. Incessant talk as can be seen on countless other sites, is not. The talkers can rant elsewhere. We're here to learn.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:37, 18 November 2008 (EST)<br />
:::::Andy, you're being very dishonest about the application of the rule. Your explanation of it includes several value judgments - "different viewpoints, if logical" - all we're arguing is that your definition of "logical" is "that which agrees with you." That's where the discrimination we're talking about comes from.<br />
:::::Interestingly, while you spend some time characterizing anyone disagreeing with you as "liberal censorship," in a somewhat dishonest definition of "censorship," you seem unable to recognize that what you're doing is REAL censorship, the use of power (rather than argument & debate) to squelch uncomfortable beliefs. Open your mind.-[[User:KiraN|KiraN]] 12:54, 18 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
::::TK, if your definition is from Mirriam-Webster's, then it's '''''violent and''' intimidating gang activity''.<br />
::::My request was but a courteous plea for proper usage of the term for a current and dangerous phenomenon. Scattering the term around and using it to define childish, irreverent and irritating vandalism degrades the purity of the term and lessens its impact when correctly using it. If that's parochial, so be it. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 12:47, 18 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:::::TK and Andy, let me ask you a question. If you visited Wikipedia, and saw that, say, the Dick Cheney article contained an unreferenced assertion or an unfounded attack, you would initially try to edit and fix that problem, correct? Then, if another WP editor reverted your edit (which you believed was completely correct), you might either undo the reversion, or you might make a comment on the Talk Page, right? Now, here on CP, those of us who see something that ''we'' believe is incorrect or unfounded usually face a few problems. (Do not assume that all of us have evil intent against you - I'm entirely happy for you to have a conservative-leaning encyclopedia, and simply wish the information be factually correct and credibly referenced). First, the article may be locked, as this article is. In which case, there's nowhere to make the complaint except on the Talk Page. Second, if we can make them, our edits are often reverted, often with no supporting data provided (cf the Muslim debate here), so we usually have to make a comment on the Talk Page about that fact. It only takes one back and forth comment as we debate our position before a 90/10 block is usually enacted. Finally, those of us who frequent CP in an attempt to monitor the extreme forms of distortion that crop up now and again (as per any online community) may be shy of actually editing the articles, since bans are so often administered, so we instead first make our comments on the Talk Page. Frequently, a new user's single comment on a Talk Page is enough for a 90/10 ban. So it's pretty hard to believe that 90/10 is really about 90/10 when there are often no other options but Talk. And it's pretty hard to believe you're interested in establishing 'trustworthyness' if you aren't prepared to listen to evidence from other perspectives. [[User:FredX|FredX]] 12:49, 18 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:::::: FredX, users can talk all they want, as long as they contribute substance at the same time. It's easy to contribute substance. It's the reason we're here. No project can succeed if the participants do nothing but talk. Try it at work sometime if you don't believe me.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:53, 18 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:::::::Andy, consider this: "talk talk talk" is useful if it's being done to convince you, the only person with control over the article, that you're wrong. Talk towards the truth is not useless talk: it's incredibly substantive. As it stands now, it's you, Bugler, and TK versus everyone else on the site. It might be time to recognize that all this talk has the "substance" of proving your error.-[[User:KiraN|KiraN]] 13:08, 18 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
FredX, having a Conservative/Christian - friendly encyclopedia does not obligate CP to prostitute those beliefs by allowing people who are not Christians, who are not Conservatives, to alter articles or their tone, to fit their outlook. The truth is the truth, but truth is always in the eye of the beholder, no? You and I could argue 24/7, over the existence of God, to use an example. No matter how many "facts" you presented me with, it would not alter my ''knowing'' he exists. Political and religious thought is highly subjective. One mans "distortion" is another mans valid "truth". To repeatedly try to alter someone's beliefs is a form of bullying. Read what you are saying. No one has the obligation to appoint himself "Internet Monitor of Truth". Your conventions of how a wiki-encyclopedia come from where? It is totally lacking in logic to think the conventions of one place should be used at another. If I go to the Daily Kos or the Huffington Post, and appoint myself the "truth" monitor there, what would happen?<br />
<br />
If you have a complaint, you can always avail yourself the email links to other users. Or post your objection on the author's talk page. We aren't talking here about people objecting. We are talking about people who will not take "no" for an answer, and demand that their truth is better than another's. Once your point is made, posted, doing it again and again, without end, accomplishes what, other than you being able to vent? I don't spend time arguing with liberals at the Kos or HuffPo, because I know they do not agree with me, never will. I am not a YEC, yet I am here. What would be accomplished for me to argue, without end, with Philip Rayment (to use a known example of a YEC member here) over the age of the Earth? His "facts" as to Earth's age, are his. Mine are mine. In building an encyclopedia, or in any project, the trick is to focus on the areas we can agree on, and not let those we don't bog us down. --<font color="#1E90FF" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:TK|₮K]]</font><sup><font color="DC143C">[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]</font></sup> 13:18, 18 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:Actually, TK, I couldn't disagree with any of your comments, but for this one - "the truth is the truth, but truth is always in the eye of the beholder, no?". That's certainly true when it comes to matters of dogma or belief - it's true, we might never agree on what is "true". But there is much here on Conservapedia that is ''not'' dogma-related, and is simply factually untrue. To take this particular article as an example, might I ask if you believe the Muslim-related material might not be better presented if gathered into one section, entitled "Speculation on Obama's Muslim beliefs", instead of being scattershot throughout the article, unreferenced, misquoted, and asserted with no validity. That would actually HELP this debate, yet is certain to be disallowed under a threat of "we don't hide the truth here", yet who's truth is that? And my mere suggestion of disagreement with this thesis likely marks me as a candidate for a ban. Certainly it's likely that if I answer one more time in this reasonable debate with you, I will likely be blocked by ASchalfly, Bugler or others - simply for debating. But how else would I debate my suggestion - the article is locked? [[User:FredX|FredX]] 14:28, 18 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Talking with enemies ==<br />
<br />
In the section '''"statements"''' Obama is criticised for claiming Roosevelt spoke to our enemies. Now it is true that Roosevelt did not talk to Hitler, but he certainly ''did'' talk to Stalin, who most Americans consider (and hesitantly considered back then) an enemy, and it is Stalin that Obama is presumably referring to. Rather than letting Hitler conquer Russia while the United States kept to its own war effort, or letting Patton continue on to Warsaw and Moscow after victory against Germany, Roosevelt was willing to talk to the Communist Enemy to co-ordinate action and to ultimately permit the Bolshevik conquest of eastern Europe. Naturally there are divergent opinions over whether in this particular case compromise was the best course of action, but what Obama is obviously expressing when he refers to Roosevelt, Truman and Kennedy, all of whom negotiated with the Soviet enemy, is that it's better to come to talk with and possibly compromise with an opponent we may feel ideologically at polar opposites with instead of just blindly fighting whenever the oppurtunity presents itself. <br />
<br />
For that reason it is advisable that the section is removed as it relies on the assumption that Obama was referring exclusively to Truman and Roosevelt's relationship with Hitler rather than with Stalin. [[User:JHanson|JHanson]] 12:40, 18 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
<br />
:Your reasoning is confused, and your conclusion makes no sense at all.<br />
<br />
:Compromising with an enemy is often the wrong thing to do. Your [[all or nothing]] analysis doesn't support it: it's rarely a case of "give in or fight blindly". Perhaps you have assumed that America only '''felt''' it was ideologically at a polar opposite from atheism and totalitarianism. This is [[liberal dogma]], not CP editorial policy. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 12:52, 18 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
::You misunderstand completely. ''I'' didn't say anything about whether or not America should compromise - Obama did. Whether or not it should has absolutely nothing to do with the issue I was raising.<br />
<br />
::What I was saying was that the section is trying to make it seem that Obama has no grasp of history, that he was claiming that Roosevelt and Truman talked to our enemies (assumed to be Hitler, Mussolini and Hideki) when those Presidents didn't. However, Roosevelt and Truman did talk to our enemies, namely Stalin. Obama was referring to the talks Roosevelt and Truman had with ''Stalin'', not Hitler, and thus he was right to claim that Roosevelt, Truman and Kennedy talked to our enemies. Therefore the section is false, not because we should compromise with our enemies, but because Obama did not make a mistake as the section apparently claims. <br />
<br />
::Hopefully I have made myself more clear. But I will repeat to make sure: I am not saying anything about whether or not it is right to compromise with enemies. I am not saying that the communists were only apparently our enemies - in fact by suggesting that Roosevelt did not talk with enemies when he clearly talked with Stalin the section in the ''article'' implies that Stalin was not really an enemy. What I am saying is that Obama was perfectly justified in saying that Roosevelt and Truman talked and compromised with our enemies. This means exactly what it says, ''not'' that compromising with our enemies was perfectly justified. I apologise if I was not clear the first time, that's why I've rephrased the same point a second and third time.[[User:JHanson|JHanson]] 13:30, 18 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
== compared to wikipedia article ==<br />
<br />
It is interesting that the wikipedia articles on Obama does not mention Pakistan. In fact, his three week trip to Pakistan was documented in a New York Times article, but metion of it was removed at wikipedia with [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Early_life_and_career_of_Barack_Obama&diff=252397639&oldid=252397137 this edit]. It looks like some wiki contributors are running interferance at wikipedia. The conservapedia article is a nice balance to that article, though the part that he "may be sworn into office at his inauguration ... using the Koran" is dodgy, and sounds almost National Enquirer-ish. I think the wording could be improved, though I haven't looked into it. It would not surprise me if Barack Obama were a Muslim, and it would not surprise me if he were a liberal Christian with weakly held beliefs and a fondness for his early teachings. At wikipedia, I also didn't see any mention of Bill Ayers on Obama pages. That is very strange. The sad part is, if President Obama appointed Bill Ayers to be the head of the Department of Education, I don't think we would see much difference in the American education system--at least in the public schools--as people that think like him are already in control. Anyway, keep up the good work. [[User:BigMike|BigMike]] 12:58, 18 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:Good points, BigMike! --<font color="#1E90FF" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:TK|₮K]]</font><sup><font color="DC143C">[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]</font></sup> 13:24, 18 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Suggestion for compromise ==<br />
<br />
Since it's clear that none of the editors involved are going to be able to agree, why don't we take Mr. Schlafly's advice [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Barack_Obama&diff=554261&oldid=554228 earlier on this talk page] where he says "We don't censor informative information here. Let the reader decide." How about, instead of going back and forth, back and forth, we instead allow the inclusion of evidence ''against'' Obama being a Muslim. The reader can read the evidence on both sides, and decide for themselves. Good idea? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 13:26, 18 November 2008 (EST)<br />
:Practically, I think that's a workable compromise. Theoretically, of course, it's problematic: neutrality towards an incorrect idea is not objectivity. The idea that Obama is a Muslim is objectively wrong, and should be excised. But, practically, I'm willing to go with that compromise. Great idea from a helpful sysop!-[[User:KiraN|KiraN]] 13:32, 18 November 2008 (EST)<br />
:::Not a sysop, but every now and then I have a good idea ;-) [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 13:49, 18 November 2008 (EST)<br />
::I think this is a very sensible idea. I don't agree with any of the arguments that Obama is a Muslim, but obviously a few people here are determined to cling to them, so including the counterarguments as well would be a good way to balance this part of the article & end the conflicts over this. [[User:Sideways|Sideways]] 13:42, 18 November 2008 (EST)<br />
:::Also, if the argument would take up a great deal of the article, it could be moved to a separate page. What's the policy on linking to debates from regular pages? I know there are two Obama/Muslim debates going, and I think linking to them from the article might not be a bad idea. [[User:ArnoldFriend|ArnoldFriend]] 13:45, 18 November 2008 (EST)<br />
::::(/signed) Totally agree, if all the arguments are presented then anyone who is open minded can make up their own mind. Those with closed minds won't be convinced either way, no matter what arguments are presented..--[[User:Ieuan|Ieuan]] 13:48, 18 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
Set forth your "evidence" here first, for consideration. Self-serving statements by politicians don't carry much weight here, obviously.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:53, 18 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:''"Set forth your "evidence" here first, for consideration. Self-serving statements by politicians don't carry much weight here, obviously.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:53, 18 November 2008 (EST)"''[http://www.myfoxkc.com/myfox/pages/News/Detail?contentId=7882247&version=1&locale=EN-US&layoutCode=TSTY&pageId=3.11.1 as required]. This was one source found in 5 minutes work and if anyone doubts the quality of the source [http://www.myfoxkc.com/myfox/pages/InsideFox/AboutUs?pageId=5.1 please look here]. This is just a single source found at 00:25am after being out all night doing charity work. As I find others I will post. I will also point out that I do not consider this, or subsequent evidence put forth, as 'talk' as I am responding to a direct request for information by the creator of this site--[[User:Ieuan|Ieuan]] 19:28, 18 November 2008 (EST)<br />
:Another, same conditions, contributor makes clear that he thinks that Obama is at best [http://foxforum.blogs.foxnews.com/2008/06/02/barack-obama-is-not-a-christian/ a deist], at worst an atheist, but at no point offers an argument for Obama being of an Islamic faith.--[[User:Ieuan|Ieuan]] 19:31, 18 November 2008 (EST)<br />
:As above, [http://www.jewsonfirst.org/08a/obama_religion_attacked.html 'Minnery, who served as Dobson's interlocutor on the program yesterday said during the broadcast that Obama was "deliberately distorting the traditional understanding of the bible to fit his own world view, his own confused theology."'] Again, at best the argument says that Obama is a deist, at worst is trying to set up his own sect of 'christianity', but no evidence to show that Obama is of Islamic faith.--[[User:Ieuan|Ieuan]] 19:38, 18 November 2008 (EST)<br />
:And again, [http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,317031,00.html "....to baseless e-mailed rumors that he is a Muslim and poses a threat to the security of the United States."]--[[User:Ieuan|Ieuan]] 19:41, 18 November 2008 (EST)<br />
:Logic argument: I believe it has been mentioned that Obama may be a Muslim because of his lack of dancing or dancing skills. If that belief is true then every man lives in the UK and is either i) not out of his head on 'e' or ii) over the age of 25 is muslim, as no man in the UK that does not fit the two previous definitions ''ever'' dances seriously with full use of his arms, at least, not outside of ballroom dancing. I admitted that is observational evidence, not just of myself but numerous others, but observational evidence is still evidence, and considerably better than suppostition and hearsay, two lower classes of 'evidence' ('that is which is seen').--[[User:Ieuan|Ieuan]] 19:49, 18 November 2008 (EST)<br />
:More. [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/22/AR2007012201322.html Washington Post, but hey, ''I'm'' not going to be the person who raises objections as to their factual accuracies], I'll leave that to the lawyers, my knowledge of libel laws just ain't that good. Of course, there are always those that will argue on the point of "Classes in Islam are offered to the predominantly Muslim students at the school....", but then that requires proving that Obama was a Muslim with a level of evidence above supposition and hearsay.--[[User:Ieuan|Ieuan]] 19:58, 18 November 2008 (EST)<br />
:And now it is 01:00 and I need my sleep. Page 2 of Google tomorrow.--[[User:Ieuan|Ieuan]] 20:00, 18 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
Since CP is the Conservative/Christian-friendly encyclopedia it is, while other points of view should be included, it is wrong to bully it into providing the equivalent of "equal time" to those who are not Christian and/or Conservative. Those who disagree should stop wasting time with this and move on to places that are more accommodating of [[liberal deceit]], Atheist [[deceit]]. --<font color="#1E90FF" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:TK|₮K]]</font><sup><font color="DC143C">[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]</font></sup> 13:56, 18 November 2008 (EST)<br />
:You are absolutely right. This is the Christian encyclopedia, at least one of the online ones. That means the Word is God, and God is truth. Let no argument be hidden, for that is the path of the Fallen, the jealous and the wicked. For those with God are armoured with Faith and armed with the Truth and are truly capable of determining the gleanings of Truth from argument and do not need protection, for the Word that is Truth guides their path--[[User:Ieuan|Ieuan]] 20:05, 18 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Accusations of Homosexuality ==<br />
<br />
The story is starting to spread that Obama is a homosexual or bisexual and may have been involved in the deaths of some of his past lovers<ref>http://chgocutie.blogspot.com/2007/12/nathaniel-nate-spencer-tucc-sanctuary.html</ref>. In shades of a Vince Foster type scandal I'm wondering if any mention of this development should go into the main page. Larry Sinclair<ref>http://larrysinclair0926.files.wordpress.com/2008/04/chicago-packet.pdf</ref> was the initial source, but evidence seems to be mounting<ref>http://redinktexas.blogspot.com/2008/07/larry-sinclair-obamas-bad-penny.html</ref> that Obama has a gay past he's been hiding.<br />
<br />
== A better approach to highlighting Obama's negatives - Highlight More Best Arguments against Obama vs. the throw a lot of spaghetti against the wall approach ==<br />
<br />
Instead of the article focusing more on claims that are certainly not undisputable (Obama being a Muslim) I think the article could do a better job of pointing out the negative things about Obama that have a much higher degree of certainty.<br />
<br />
Examples of things which could be highlighted more:<br />
<br />
1. Other than a footnote which few people will read, does the article highlight sufficiently '''his extremely liberal voting record''' as a Senator?[http://nj.nationaljournal.com/voteratings/] Perhaps, some of his more extreme votes could be highlighted. <br />
<br />
2. There is the '''Obama/infantcide''' issue which might be highlighted more if it is mentioned or mentioned if it is not currently mentioned: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYRpIf2F9NA and http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/obama_and_infanticide.html <br />
<br />
===Consequences of the current state of the article===<br />
<br />
It seems like the article takes a throw a lot of negative spaghetti against the wall and hopefully some sticks approach. That is not how you create a compelling article in terms of when it highlights some of the negative aspects about Obama. Dubious claims in the article make the valid claims less prominent. Also, it is not surprising that the Obama article is not ranked high by the search engines like the Conservapedia [[Bill Clinton]] article is (I have not read the Bill Clinton article but I suspect it is better than the Obama article. I do know that Conservapedia's Bill Clinton article is ranked #6 by Google). I think that is because it is difficult to get conservatives to link to the article and the article is easily dismissed by liberals and they do not see it as a threat. If you want the article to be informative and influential any dubious claims have to be weeded out and the legitimate matters have to be highlighted more. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 15:24, 18 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
== First Black President? ==<br />
<br />
Should we have an article on the [[First Black President]]? I had created one, but [[User_talk:Ed_Poor#First_Black_president|Ed said we should talk about it here first]].<br />
<br />
The citations I found that indicated Obama is not the first were [http://www.diversityinc.com/public/1461.cfm], [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Barack_Obama&curid=65751&diff=561761&oldid=561751], and [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Barack_Obama&diff=534592&oldid=534582]. [[User:BHarlan|BHarlan]] 16:11, 18 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
*I would suggest "Bi-Racial" as the most accurate term. --<font color="#1E90FF" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:TK|₮K]]</font><sup><font color="DC143C">[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]</font></sup> 16:13, 18 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
Please do create an entry. Thanks for the insight. Of course, the other reason for omitting the liberal claim that Obama is the first black president (aside from its likely inaccuracy) is the dubious significance of the assertion. By now our society is long past judging people by their race, and Obama's election illustrates how exaggerated the liberal claims about continued racism really are.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:25, 18 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:Gee, your right, I mean how do we know he is the first black president. I mean they didn't have photgraphs back then, so maybe John Adams was really a brother! For that matter, how do we know he is the first muslim president? Maybe Iran-contra was Reagan's way of helping his fellow Islamists! <br />
:Seriously though, is it really a liberal claim that he is the first black president? Other than you, who is claiming he isn't? [[User:TTerm|TTerm]] 18:38, 18 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
::TTerm, perhaps you don't know how to click on a link yet. BHarlan provided several of them above for you. Also, TTerm, this isn't a blog. Contribute substantively, or rant elsewhere.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:45, 18 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:Great. Would you mind undeleting [[First Black president]], if the software allows it? [[User:BHarlan|BHarlan]] 18:28, 18 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:: Done, without yet reading it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:46, 18 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
==How to collaborate==<br />
<br />
If you'll notice, me last few edits to this article were sweepingly changed back by [[User:Aschlafly]]. However, neither my initial round of edits, nor his response, has resulted in animosity. On my part, at least, I have nothing but unbounded respect for my co-editor here. <br />
<br />
We are not against each other, although our approach is different. We are finding a synthesis which is (probably) better than each of us could do alone. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 16:15, 18 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
::The Declaration of Independence and Constitution of the United States are collabrative efforts that him withstood the test of time, among others! --<font color="#1E90FF" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:TK|₮K]]</font><sup><font color="DC143C">[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]</font></sup> 16:29, 18 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:Good for you, Ed (seriously - I wouldn't have been nearly as sanguine about it). The facts, however, remain that:<br />
:#'''DanH''' - a strong editor and respected sysop - '''quit this project in disgust''' at what he saw as an attempt to "smear" Obama as a Muslim.<br />
:#'''PJR''' - the most patient and eloquent defender of YEC I have ever encountered - '''categorically refutes''' the idea that there is any credible evidence that Obama is a Muslim.<br />
:#'''Conservative''' - principal author of several of Conservapedia's defining articles - remains '''wholly unconvinced''' of the strength of the Obama/Muslim case, and is concerned that its inclusion in the article could '''damage Conservapedia's credibility'''.<br />
:#'''Tim/CPAdmin1''' - one of the original members of this project - has '''repeatedly objected''' to its inclusion.<br />
:#And finally, '''ChrisS''' - again, one of the original Conservapedians - even felt moved to describe this article as '''the most sorry excuse for an encyclopedia entry I have ever seen'''. [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Barack_Obama&diff=prev&oldid=556523]<br />
:What kind of synthesis do you hope to achieve in the face of such ''demonstrably principled'' opposition? These are not lone, liberal voices. These are long-standing contributors who collectively insist that '''this is plain wrong and must be removed'''. <br />
<br />
:Good night (and good luck). --[[User:JohnZ|JohnZ]] 17:39, 18 November<br />
<br />
::We respect the views of a minority among us (and note that the minority you cite has displayed almost no experience with Islam and/or Islamic education). Regardless, obviously logic prevails over even the opinion of a majority.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:46, 18 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
The late Michael Crichton said, "The Nazis got 200 German scientists to say that Einstein was wrong, and then somebody asked Einstein, 'How does it feel to have 200 scientists against you?' And he said, 'It takes only one to prove me wrong.' " [http://www.perc.org/articles/article894.php] We don't go by majority vote around here, because the majority are (as our [[Founding Fathers]] indicated) simply not trustworthy. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 17:54, 18 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:Hi Ed,<br />
<br />
:I'm not usually known for my poor reading comprehension, but I can't tell which side of this thing your statement above is supporting. Is Andy vs. the 5 listed sysops the minority, or are the five listed sysops the minority as described by Andy ("[w]e respect the views of a minority among us)...")? Merci, [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 18:02, 18 November 2008 (EST) ''<-honh honh...''<br />
<br />
:: Ed's comment seems clear enough to me. Logic is not the result of majority vote, and even less so the product of a consensus among the minority. Ed is opposing relying on the view of a minority.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:04, 18 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
Good grief, man, must I spell it out? I'm on the side of finding out what is true! As J.M. Keynes said, "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?" It is to the principle of truth-seeking which I express my devotion here, as well as to the collaborative process of its discovery. Stop trying to cover this story like a sportswriter trying to figure out which horse won the race. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 18:10, 18 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:And what do ''you'' see as being the facts here, Ed? How do you hope to achieve your synthesis? --[[User:JohnZ|JohnZ]] 18:18, 18 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
::Yes, Ed, I'm sorry but I need it spelled out for me. This isn't a vague question for late night dorm hall meanderings. It's pretty concrete: the Obama-is-Muslim material, as Andy wants it presented, belongs in the article, or it doesn't. I can paint those two statements on horses and run them around a track if an over-extended metaphor will help here - only one of those horses can win. [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 18:31, 18 November 2008 (EST) ''<- will, however, need to learn to play the bugle (if not the bugler)...''<br />
<br />
<br />
:Wow, Ed, that's extremely well put!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:21, 18 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:ASchalfly - you said, "We...note that the minority you cite has displayed almost no experience with Islam and/or Islamic education". Might I ask what your own qualifications are in this regard, since you are clearly 'over-ruling' their opinions? [[User:FredX|FredX]] 18:25, 18 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
I'm going to write an article about [[the real horse whisperer]]. I have no more time to entertain you here. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 18:33, 18 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:Amazing. A simple question, with only two possible answers, that could be answered in fewer characters than you just used to beg off. And if you think I'm entertained you probably do think those horses are talking to you. ''Anybody'' who sticks with the "this conversation is a dragged-out waste of time" is missing the point that the time is being wasted by the continued and false defenses presented. It's only a continuing waste of time because the people in the wrong unfortunately wield all the clout, so they are in fact allowed to say "nuh unh" and ''have it stick''. If SteveRandomperson had inserted this stuff, other regular users could remove it, and when Steve got into an edit war over it any of the five sysops listed above could simply end this thing. It's only dragging on because none of them can pull rank on the proponent of this material.<br />
<br />
:''That'' is the source of wasted time here. [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 18:48, 18 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:: Aziraphale, your long-winded comment is incoherent, and your list of contributions is a remarkable violation of the [[90/10 rule]] against talk, talk, talk.[[Special:Contributions/Aziraphale]]--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:42, 18 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
::: I'm afraid he can't respond Andy. He's been blocked. --[[User:WOwen|WOwen]] 19:45, 18 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
==You're All Missing the Point==<br />
<br />
Ok I've said this once before, but nobody seems to understand so I'll try to make it clearer.<br />
<br />
'''YOU ARE ALL MISSNIG THE POINT'''<br />
<br />
Sitting around debating whether or not Obama is a Muslim is doing nothing to discredit him, instead it just reflects badly on conservatives. If you stopped using circumstantial evidence to "prove" that he may have told one lie on the campaign trail (which inevitably does not affect his politics) then you would realise there are plenty of valid fronts you can criticise him on:<br />
<br />
*Abortion<br />
*Stem cell research<br />
*War on Terror<br />
*Criminal rights<br />
*Lack of substance in policy<br />
*Economic regulation<br />
<br />
and so on... If you examined these in detail and explained why they would be bad for America, rather than dedicating copious amounts of the article to a farfetched claim that he's a Muslim in disguise, then you would not only convince conservatives that he is the wrong candidate, but also show politically neutral parties why they should not have voted for him. Instead, the article at the moment reads like a cross between a parody and a far right-wing blog entry, and will do nothing to convince anyone other than the most conservative voter. One of your own sources in the article clearly demonstrates that these attacks actually made people vote FOR Obama, and I can definitely say that if I saw this as the ideology of McCain I would have changed sides for the election.<br />
<br />
In debating there is a argument known as an ad homenin attack, where you attack the debator and not his/her arguments. This is weak, because it demonstrates an inability to critically analyse the opposition's position. This is exactly what is happening here, you are ''trying'' to attack Obama's character rather than his politics. If you tried more of the latter, you'll find that you will convince many more people that Obama is not an appropriate president for the United States, and win much more credibility in the process. [[User:NormanS|NormanS]] 20:22, 18 November 2008 (EST)</div>NormanShttps://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Dance&diff=562000Talk:Dance2008-11-19T00:56:19Z<p>NormanS: NO THEY ARE NOT</p>
<hr />
<div>==Pictures in External Links==<br />
<br />
Although nice the pictures do not belong in the external links section. The justification for this is threefold:<br />
* the external links section of an article is for external links, not pictures<br />
* as far as I can tell none of the external links even reference Japanese dancing<br />
* this article is on "Dance" not "Art relating to dance" or any like subject. The appropriate style of image for this article is photos, not paintings. These paintings may be more appropriate in [[Japanese Dance]], but not in this broader article<br />
<br />
If no one has any objections I'd like to see them removed. [[User:NormanS|NormanS]] 08:48, 18 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
: 3th time: the paintings are illustrating the whole article. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 19:39, 18 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
::No they are not. The paintings are of '''Japanese Dance''', which '''isn't even mentioned''' in the article (compared to Biblical dancing, Irish dancing etc). There is no possible way that they are "illustrating the whole article".<br />
<br />
::Furthermore, the external links section of a page is for LINKS, not images. At the moment they clutter the section and add nothing of value. <br />
<br />
::Finally, if you want to add something of '''educational benefit''' to this article, rather than just adding colour to make it look pretty, you'd add photos which actually show people dancing in real life, rather than requiring readers to use their imagination. <br />
<br />
::If you really want to use these pictures (which, I will point out, are very nice) then you should in "Paintings of Japan" or "Japanese Dance", not in an umbrella article which doesn't even mention Japanese dance, and especially not in the external links section. [[User:NormanS|NormanS]] 19:56, 18 November 2008 (EST)</div>NormanShttps://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Teen_pregnancy&diff=561981Teen pregnancy2008-11-19T00:19:20Z<p>NormanS: In America perhaps</p>
<hr />
<div>'''Teen pregnancy''' refers to the unplanned [[Pregnancy|pregnancies]] of unmarried school-age girls, and very often of girls who conceived or gave birth below the age of consent. It is a major social problem as teen pregnancies most often either result in [[abortion]] or in the raising of children in unstable single-parent families. The increasing rate of teen pregnancies is a consequence of increasing atheistic and secular pressures in modern society. These include the influence of [[Hollywood values]] and other manifestations of materialistic culture which erode and undermine moral standards, the hostility of school boards to the exercise of religious faith, and the bias of [[public school]] sex education against [[abstinence education]] programs, which are the only sure safeguard against teen pregnancy.<br />
<br />
Note: In America, terms like ''teen pregnancy'' refers to single teens. In other countries such as Australia, it refers to all teenagers (usually with an upper limit of 18), regardless of whether they are in a relationship or not. There is nothing wrong with married teenagers enjoying conjugal love or bringing new lives into the world.</div>NormanShttps://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Libertarian_censorship&diff=561978Talk:Libertarian censorship2008-11-19T00:14:37Z<p>NormanS: Then there's no censorship of school prayer</p>
<hr />
<div>==Homosexual beliefs?==<br />
<br />
Which homosexual beliefs would these be, then? Do homosexuals have some special scientific theories the general public is unaware of? --[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]] 22:50, 18 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: Sure, like the "gay gene" or the denial of shorter lifespans for homosexuals.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:03, 18 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Really? ==<br />
<br />
I hang around many libertarian circles, and in every one of them they would get offended at the thought of one of their members censoring others. Are there any examples of actual libertarians censoring? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 15:44, 9 October 2008 (EDT)<br />
:I think this should probably be deleted. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 13:47, 15 November 2008 (EST)<br />
::That's what I was thinking. The only thing I could find to be true in the article is that libertarians are known for favoring free speech. Which is kind of opposite to the point of the article. '''[[user:FernoKlump|<font color="#000066" >FernoKlump</font>]]'''<sup>[[User:FernoKlump/petition|<font color="#bd2433" >Look at this petition!]]</font></sup> 13:50, 15 November 2008 (EST)<br />
:::As a paleolibertarian who spends a great deal of time discussing conservative values within the libertarian framework with "liberal" libertarians, I know that while we argue a great deal about most of these issues, almost all of the true libertarians reject censorship in any form. The one possible exception is prayer in public school, and I think that should be left in the article. I am an advocate for private prayer time in public school (as long as the school doesn't force children to), but I know others who feel differently. We all agree that there should be no public school, and that private schools should be allowed to have any type of prayer or not as the school decides. But that really is an area of disagreement. Otherwise, libertarians may at times ridicule conservative values, but respect our right to express them. [[User:Sulli|Sulli]] 10:08, 17 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:::: Thanks for confirming the point about libertarian censorship of classroom prayer. The other points can hardly be disputed either. Simply visit libertarian websites (such as CATO, FEE, Von Mises, Ayn Rand, etc.) and you'll likely see the support (or evidence of the censorship) yourself.<br />
:::::Well, I guess I should clarify what I mean. Many "liberal" libertarians will support private censorship (although some protest any form of censorship whatsoever, no matter how silly). They think that suppressing conservative values will help their cause. But most will draw the line at government censorship. Some misguidedly argue for public schools to censor conservative ideals, but they would also argue for private schools to be allowed to teach conservative values if they choose to, and for homeschooling as well. The public school curriculum is a difficult area for libertarians, since we oppose its existence altogether.<br />
<br />
:::::On the other hand, if you are just saying that they support the liberal agenda in these areas, I would be hard-pressed to disagree. There are many liberal-leaning libertarians. Perhaps we could clarify the article to discuss private censorship and public school censorship instead of general censorship (which to many, implies government control). [[User:Sulli|Sulli]] 10:58, 17 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:::::: Libertarians support censorship of certain ideas in public school. The entry lists examples. It's irrelevant whether libertarians think public schools should exist or not. Privately, libertarians will demand the same type of censorship for any group in which they are members.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:05, 17 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
::::::: You are certainly right. Some, or most, do. I just think the article should reflect that they support censorship in public schools and internal censorship of private groups, but not, for example, the censorship of private groups by the government. If I were to buy a television advertisement or billboard arguing against evolution in favor of intelligent design, they would mock me, almost certainly, but would not try to have the government (such as the FCC) block my advertisement from showing. They might only work by asking the television company to remove it. I just want to specify the type of censorship, because it is weaker than the type of censorship most liberals would use to enforce their agenda. It is real, and bad, but of a different type. [[User:Sulli|Sulli]] 11:14, 17 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:::::::: No, I don't see any meaningful distinction between libertarians and liberals with respect to censorship of the items listed in the entry.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:19, 17 November 2008 (EST)<br />
::::::::: Okay, then I will drop it. You might have to be a libertarian (and be used to our constant disagreement about what some think are minor issues) to see a difference. For us, there is one, but I know most people might disagree. [[User:Sulli|Sulli]] 11:26, 17 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Cite tags ==<br />
First, I will make an admission - in this case I misread the title and thought it said "liberal censorship". An honest mistake after having reverted ideological fact tags on "liberal logic" and the words are similar. Now, in deference to that mistake, I've read the above talk to see if I may have reverted good edits by accident. But the above talk seems to miss the point of the article, which is that ''despite'' the open proclamations of libertarians to not censor free speech, they still manage to censor it in regard to certain topics. Andy didn't create this article on a hunch, and it's awfully presumptuous to want to *delete* the article just based on the personal experiences you've had with several libertarians. Don't you think you're being hasty? -[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 06:23, 16 November 2008 (EST)<br />
:I don't think anyone was hasty here. The fact that nobody can find any instances of this happening gives strong evidence that it just doesn't happen. Sure, it's an interesting theoretical concept -- what would happen if libertarians censored -- but should we have encyclopedia articles about things that aren't true? I'm fine with keeping the article if we can actually find some examples of this happening. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 13:08, 16 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:*Seems like some would be much happier at Wikipedia, or the hundred others that enjoy political correctness, make it their watchword. An article put up by the Owner should be a good indicator of its veracity, especially coming from one with such high public/academic standing as Andy Schafly. Talk about biting the hand that feeds you. Shame on all of you. --<font color="#1E90FF" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:TK|₮K]]</font><sup><font color="DC143C">[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]</font></sup> 23:10, 16 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
::What does this have to do with political correctness? And just because Andy says something is true makes it so? '''[[user:FernoKlump|<font color="#000066" >FernoKlump</font>]]'''<sup>[[User:FernoKlump/petition|<font color="#bd2433" >Look at this petition!]]</font></sup> 23:17, 16 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
I should really just put the following into AutoText: "It is not censorship for someone to say 'that's wrong and you shouldn't say it.' It's only censorship if somebody has the ability to keep you from presenting your speech in whatever forum. When people didn't buy Dixie Chicks albums and tickets, they weren't censoring the Dixie Chicks, they were using their own speech just as freely."<br />
<br />
What libertarian, in what position of power/authority to deny anybody their rights, has used that power/authority to censor any of the concepts listed in the article? And yes, 90/10 and all that, but it's not like I'm talking just to read my own voice; this is for the good of the project just as much as correcting the spelling mistakes in whatever article I randomly choose. [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 23:28, 16 November 2008 (EST) ''<-not that this is likely to stop anybody...''<br />
<br />
[http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=26415] is worth a look. It says libertarians and conservatives share similar values on school prayer [[User:Markr|Markr]] 23:45, 16 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
*And on drug laws, prostitution, sodomy and a whole host of other issues, they do not. --<font color="#1E90FF" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:TK|₮K]]</font><sup><font color="DC143C">[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]</font></sup> 23:49, 16 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
::Would both you gentlemen help me prepare a chart or table showing where conservatives, liberals and libertarians agree and disagree on the major U.S. issues? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 08:01, 17 November 2008 (EST)<br />
::: On school prayer - libertarians oppose censorship - believe government should NOT have any say in content or curriculum, parents decision - conservative viewpoint - By Steve Kubby - libertarian candidate for Governer of california - [http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=26415 | Here] ""No real Libertarian could endorse school prayer: forcing a Christian prayer down the throat of every schoolchild legally required to appear in school." [http://libertarianobama.blogspot.com/2008/03/two-more-points-against-barr.html | here] is slightly different , This does not endorse censorship, but will not support forced prayer, which is in keeping with concept of Personal choice. [[User:Markr|Markr]] 11:37, 17 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:::: No, that's misleading. Read your cite carefully: libertarians do not oppose censorship of school prayer. Hoping to pick up conservative support, libertarians seek the implausible end to public schools, which is very different. Libertarians are the most strident supporters of the phony separation of church and state.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:39, 17 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
== theory of evolution ==<br />
<br />
This piece says that the libertarian solution to the evolution controversy in schools is to simply end public schooling [http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/01/a-libertarian-s.html]. Sounds like the opposite of "libertarian censorship". '''[[user:FernoKlump|<font color="#000066" >FernoKlump</font>]]'''<sup>[[User:FernoKlump/petition|<font color="#bd2433" >Look at this petition!]]</font></sup> 10:20, 17 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
: FernoKlump, don't be clueless. Claiming that the "solution" is ending public schooling can be just a deceitful way of supporting continuation of the censorship. Apparently that far-fetched approach fools some. Not us.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:31, 17 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
::Fine, please add citations to the statements. I looked, but I only found evidence to the contrary. '''[[user:FernoKlump|<font color="#000066" >FernoKlump</font>]]'''<sup>[[User:FernoKlump/petition|<font color="#bd2433" >Look at this petition!]]</font></sup> 11:08, 17 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Giving up might be the solution here. ==<br />
<br />
Schlafly thinks that Libertarians are liberals, that mean that any attempt to make the not look like devil spawn will probably bereverted, hell he might block me for saying that. I'd like to see the article have some sort of backing at least, but no one can findthe evidence to support those claims because it doesn't exist because they are false and Andy will not let them be taken downs. His Ideological stand overrides and kind of factual needs. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 10:31, 17 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
: You're right, you are being blocked for that (for just a day). First, don't swear here. Second, don't engage in ad hominem attacks here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:34, 17 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
::That word is used in that way something like 58 times on conservapedia, Also since your likely response was the topic bringing up your behavior was appropriate and there for it does not constitute an Ad hominem attack, had I been discussing the validity of a theory and used your behavior against your side of the argument that would be an ad hominem. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 14:48, 18 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Counter examples ==<br />
Would counter examples help to change people's opinions here, or would I just be whistling in the dark? I have them for prayer and evolution, but stopped looking when I realized that they might not be welcome. [[User:ArnoldFriend|ArnoldFriend]] 22:28, 17 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
: I don't see how a counterexample to censorship helps lessen the wrongdoing of censorship. How about a counterexample to crime? The criminal obeyed the law today! That doesn't work.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:00, 17 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:: I was hoping that providing examples would help convince you that this argument is fallacious. The following examples from prominent libertarians say that each school should have its own mandate about state control of prayer in school: [http://www.theadvocates.org/ruwart/questions_maint.php?Category=2&id=171] [http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=26415] [http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Ron_Paul_Education.htm] <br />
<br />
:: I think what this might boil down to is that the ACLU is not and never was a libertarian organization. While these may be issues that the ACLU pushes, the ACLU ignores such things as the second amendment, the increases in government size due to their lawsuits, and the limitation on speech that their lawsuits end up causing. <br />
<br />
::All of the libertarians I know agree with the Norquist idea of shrinking the federal government down to the point where it can be drown in a bathtub. They want to create a world in which a parent can choose to send their child to a school that starts the day with a prayer. Or doesn't for that matter. They support the right of parents to homeschool their children and teach them what they feel children should learn. I'm not sure how else to state that. If you can find libertarian organizations that actually support restrictions on the prayers that students say, please tell me. [[User:ArnoldFriend|ArnoldFriend]] 23:37, 17 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Tim Wise On Racism & The Libertarian Deceit ==<br />
<br />
In my thirty-four years on this Earth, there are at least a few things I’ve learned. First, that it makes almost no sense whatsoever for a child to argue with his or her parents about bedtime. Secondly, that it makes almost as little sense to argue with a cop about a speeding ticket. ''And finally, that it makes even less sense to argue with a libertarian about anything.''<br />
<br />
This hearty band of market-worshipers so prominent on the Internet proffers a worldview that is not only ahistoric (after all, there has never been a free market, nor could there be one given the tendency of the powerful to seek and receive protection for their power), but is also irrelevant to the world in which we live. To believe that pure, unrestrained capitalism is a good idea requires first that one can actually imagine such a thing existing at all. But since such a scenario would require an end to subsidizing industries, an end to inflated management and executive salaries that are unrelated to performance, an end to limited liability protections and a likely return to strict torts for corporate misconduct, and an end to foreign military interventions to prop up private interests, we can safely say that such a utopian future is not in the cards. Simply put: capitalists can’t afford capitalism.<br />
<br />
That said, it is still necessary to understand why this particular libertarian logic is flawed on any number of issues. This is true not because it is particularly helpful in winning arguments with its adherents, but rather to fully understand the realities of power and privilege and the ways in which the current economic system perpetuates massive inequalities. It is also helpful as a preemptive antidote for those who may be vulnerable to the simplistic, almost-sounds-like-it-makes-sense worldview of free market fanatics.<br />
<br />
Examining the libertarian position on racism and racial discrimination is particularly fascinating, and makes clear the degree to which those who cleave to this ideology are living in a world completely divorced from reality.<br />
<br />
According to libertarians, racial discrimination in the workforce cannot occur to any real extent in a market economy, because it is fundamentally irrational and would cost employers money. Even though the current U.S. economy is not a pure free market, most libertarians likewise claim that racism in the labor market is rare today, and for this same reason: namely, that to discriminate against a more qualified worker of color just because of his or her race would result in that employer losing money, relative to their non-racist competitors who would presumably snatch up the passed over employees and reap the benefits of doing so. To the extent that there are large racial differences in income, wealth, or occupational status, libertarians assume this must be the result of people of color being objectively less qualified. Passing a person of color over for a certain job or promotion is therefore not evidence of racism, but merely a rational calculation of merit.<br />
<br />
Yet this argument assumes that racial discrimination only manifests in direct acts of overt bias (i.e., the racist employer who refuses to hire blacks). But much of the inequality in the labor market stems from factors other than overt bias. For example, 85-90% of all jobs are never advertised, according to the National Center for Career Strategies, but rather are filled through informal networks of associates, friends, family and assorted connections.<br />
<br />
As such, there is no free and open competition for most positions; employers aren’t even in a position to size up all the possible people they could hire, and then make an overtly biased decision on the basis of race. Rather, most hires are made without a broad, open competition, and since blacks and other people of color are disproportionately excluded from the best informal networks for jobs (the result of past and ongoing unequal opportunity in housing and education), many qualified people of color will never have a shot to be hired (or directly rejected for that matter), since the employers in question won’t even know about them.<br />
<br />
Similarly, since the employer can’t know about the possible employees who didn’t apply (because they were out of the word-of-mouth network), they can’t possibly realize, after the fact, that perhaps they lost out by not doing more to diversify their hiring. They wouldn’t be able to see that there were equally or more qualified people of color they might have hired, because they would have no awareness of such persons in the potential pool. Nor would their competitors be much better in this regard, since they too are likely to hire within networks and other informal mechanisms.<br />
<br />
In other words, the market in most cases is an insular one that fails to provide adequate information to employers that they would need to make true merit decisions, or to recognize the mistakes that come from maintaining discriminatory networks for jobs and opportunities.<br />
<br />
Read more here: [http://www.lipmagazine.org/articles/featwise_196.shtml]<br />
<br />
==The principle of tolerance==<br />
<br />
I think schoolchildren should be taught to maintain a respectful silence during public prayer. If their teacher prays at the beginning of class, the student might even bow his head. Or say Amen at the end. <br />
<br />
A visiting pastor, rabbi or imam (that's a Muslim religious leader) could be invited to pray.<br />
<br />
Only those students whose parents have provided a letter to the school, saying that they '''refuse''' to have their children exposed to public prayer, should be permitted to opt out. I doubt if the majority of classrooms would each have such a student. But accommodation could be made. "Okay, I'm going to say a prayer now. Billy and Mary, you may stand in the hallway for a minute."<br />
<br />
But why stop there? If parents object to the way human reproduction is taught, with graphic depictions of sexual actions presented (for example), shouldn't they also be able to opt out?<br />
<br />
Or are we to enforce "[[tolerance]]" of things liberals like while enforcing [[censorship]] of things liberals hate? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 08:39, 18 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:This is coming from someone who supports school prayer, so don't take it the wrong way. However I can see a strong flaw in your argument. Religious beliefs are personal, there is no objective way to prove their accuracy and each student is entitled to their own opinion. Once teacher initiated public prayer is allowed, it gives individual religious beliefs an authority that is above what is allowable in a multicultural society (even if you invited members of other religious orders in, you will never be able to accommodate for all students). Sending students out of class is entirely impractical, not only does it disrupt the flow of the lesson but it also isolates students and leaves them open to alienation and ridicule. <br />
<br />
:Descriptions of sex acts are entirely different matter. There is little doubt that using the powers of sexuality (a nice euphemism I learned in primary school :) can lead to pregnancy, and that there are ways to utilise these powers beyond basic intercourse. It is not a question of personal belief, rather of teaching what is undoubtedly true. As such, censoring sex education based on graphic content is entirely different to censoring school prayer, and comparing the two is a fallacy. That said, coming from a public school in Australia where sex ed is probably some of the most graphic in the world (send me an email if you want a description) it is relatively tame and I believe most parents wishing to shelter their children have either not experienced it themselves or have impractically high standards (they'd also have to censor the news and virtually all television shows).<br />
<br />
:Just jumping back to the school prayer issue, my two cents is that the Australian model has worked wonders. In it, students in public school are not subjected to communal prayer (appropriate, given the wide variety of beliefs), however have access to compulsory scripture classes where prayer is conducted, and can join various student groups which support prayer. Not only does this ensure that students can pray in the manner that suits them (or not pray entirely) rather than being subjected to a generalised prayer which may or may not suit their beliefs, but it also fosters spiritual growth within the groups, as students are able to identify and discuss their faith with their peers. It also circumnavigates the concept of authority discussed above. [[User:NormanS|NormanS]] 09:06, 18 November 2008 (EST)<br />
::Norman, you just defined how American schools work, as well. 1) any parent is allowed the chance to "opt out' of sex ed classes. This is a Court defined right based on your constitutional right to practice your religion and raise your children in the manner you see fit. 2) Most schools have christian groups either before school or after school. These are open courses. The only legal requirement is that if a school allows one group to meet, it must allow all groups to meet. In some extreme cases, school districs afraid of PFLAG have decided they will have no after school groups, including Christian groups. 3) some highschools (i don't know if it's most or not) offer elective courses which include religious courses. But again, in teh US, the issue is discrimination. A Christian group cannot keep out a pagan or a gay student as long as he or she is not disruptive to the goals of the group.--[[User:JeanJacques|JeanJacques]] 11:40, 18 November 2008 (EST)<br />
:::Then what's everyone complaining about "censorship" of school prayer for? It seems to me that American students have sufficient rights to school prayer. That is unless you want to force a generalized prayer on students from all faiths (or lack thereof) with the justification that students who do not want to participate can alienate themselves from their peers and leave themselves open to ridicule. It's the same as a teacher trying to organize a class protest against the government, absolutely unacceptable given the multiple viewpoints within a neutral group. [[User:NormanS|NormanS]] 19:14, 18 November 2008 (EST)</div>NormanShttps://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Dance&diff=561328Dance2008-11-18T14:45:28Z<p>NormanS: For now, it's raised on talk page</p>
<hr />
<div>'''Dance''' is an [[The arts|art]] and is a form of movement, motions, and steps. Dance is also a way of communicating, and has been around since the beginning of time. Dance comes in many different forms and categories. Such as the [[Waltz]], Polka, Quadrille, Mazurka, Tango, Country Western Dancing, [[Irish Dance]], [[Jazz]], Charleston, Modern, [[Ballet]], Breakdancing, Rumba, [[Salsa]], Swing, Merengue, and many more. ''Ballet is a specific dance form and technique. Works of dance choreographed using this technique are called ballets, and may include dance, music, acting and mime.'' <ref> Can You Appreciate the Art of Ballet? by Jeffrey Meier - EzineArticles.com Expert Author http://ezinearticles .com/?Can-You-Appreciate-the-Art-of-Ballet?&id=294632&opt=print '''(Join address please)'''</ref> Ballet was first developed in the [[Renaissance]] in Italy and France, and later in Russia as a concert dance form. Classical ballet is the most formal of the different ballet styles. ''Ballet, as practised in Europe and the US, emphasizes the abstract geometry of bodily form exploring the heights and extensions the body can achieve both on the floor and in the air...''<br />
<br />
Dancing is mentioned nearly two dozen times in the Bible; the word indicates joyful, exuberant celebration either toward God (as worship) or toward a conquering hero (like David). In contrast, dancing is frowned upon in many Muslim cultures, where Sharia law forbids it.<br />
<br />
According to Mark 6:22-29 the dancing of Herodias' daughter before [[Herod]] and his companions was so pleasing to him that he offered the girl anything "up to half my kingdom". Coached by her mother, she asked for the head of [[John the Baptist]].<br />
<br />
<blockquote><br />
''Dance is a transient mode of expression, performed in a given form and style by the human body moving in space. Dance occurs through purposefully selected and controlled rhythmic movements; the resulting phenomenon is recognized as dance both by the performer and the observing members of a given group.'' Anthropologist Joann Kealiinohomoku. <ref>[http://www.answers.com/dance?cat=entertainment Dance] World of the Body. </ref><br />
</blockquote><br />
<br />
[[Choreography]] is the composition and arrangement of dances; the general art principles of design, like harmony, unity, variety, repetition, proportion, contrast, sequence, transition, balance and climax, must be used to create an aesthetic choreography. A ballet's choreography could be based on sources like: a story, a musical composition, or a painting.<br />
<br />
<br><br />
<br />
[[Image:Dance.jpg]]<br />
<br />
:: ''The scope of dance heritage is broad. Our heritage is the dance legacy that must be passed from generation to generation through educational dance.'' <ref> [http://books.google.com.mx/books?id=C0yjXGJ3EEoC&pg=PA139&lpg=PA139&dq=Dance+as+art+Ballet&source=web&ots=_mveYEOwUP&sig=z055Nvur-7h3HLiuYNeDvoX1GSA&hl=es#PPA140,M1 Teaching Dance as Art in Education] Autor Brenda Pugh McCutchen. </ref><br />
<br />
Professional dancers are both, athletes and artists. Music for dancing could be supplied by any kind of instrument, but generally each kind of instrumentation is associated with a particular type of dance.<br />
<br />
== External links ==<br />
*[http://www.danceartmuseum.com/home.html The Dance Art Museum of the Americas]<br />
*[http://www.abt.org/education/dictionary/terms/ballet_parts.html Ballet] Some terms.<br />
*[http://web.hep.uiuc.edu/home/g-gollin/dance/dance_physics.html#1 Physics and Dance]<br />
*[http://www.choreography.org.uk/instruct.htm Choreography]<br />
*[http://www.dance4it.com/dancehistory.htm The History of dance]<br />
*[http://www.artslynx.org/dance/history.htm Dance History Research and Scholarship]<br />
*[http://www.sdhs.org/ Society of Dance History Scholars]<br />
*[http://www.dance4it.com/greatdancers.htm Some Major Figures in Dance]<br />
<br />
{{Clear}}<br />
[[Category:Art]]<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
<br />
[[Category:Dancing]]</div>NormanShttps://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Peacebus&diff=561313Peacebus2008-11-18T14:33:12Z<p>NormanS: </p>
<hr />
<div>The '''Peacebus''' is a [[liberal]] organisation that seeks to oppose without question all authority in Australia. Their website describes in detail their illegal activities, ranging from resisting police and disobeying lawful instruction, to smoking marijuana and disrupting the peace. They advocate a number of causes, some borderline noble, others ridiculous. Remarkably they seem oblivious to their alienation from society, perceiving a lack of interest in their efforts to be some form of institutionalized "blindness to the truth".<br />
<br />
==External Links==<br />
<br />
* [http://www.peacebus.com.au Peacebus Website]</div>NormanShttps://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Peacebus&diff=561312Peacebus2008-11-18T14:32:14Z<p>NormanS: Start a page on these idiots</p>
<hr />
<div>The '''Peacebus''' is a [[liberal]] organisation that seeks to oppose without question all authority in Australia. Their website describes in detail their illegal activities, ranging from resisting police and disobeying lawful instruction, to smoking marijuana and disrupting the peace. They advocate a number of causes, some borderline noble, others ridiculous. Remarkably they seem oblivious to their alienation from society, perceiving a lack of interest in their efforts to be some form of institutionalized "blindness to the truth".<br />
<br />
==External Links==<br />
<br />
* [www.peacebus.com.au Peacebus Website]</div>NormanShttps://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Libertarian_censorship&diff=561295Talk:Libertarian censorship2008-11-18T14:06:14Z<p>NormanS: Philosophical flaw, only for advanced readers</p>
<hr />
<div>==Homosexual beliefs?==<br />
<br />
Which homosexual beliefs would these be, then? Do homosexuals have some special scientific theories the general public is unaware of? --[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]] 22:50, 18 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: Sure, like the "gay gene" or the denial of shorter lifespans for homosexuals.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:03, 18 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Really? ==<br />
<br />
I hang around many libertarian circles, and in every one of them they would get offended at the thought of one of their members censoring others. Are there any examples of actual libertarians censoring? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 15:44, 9 October 2008 (EDT)<br />
:I think this should probably be deleted. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 13:47, 15 November 2008 (EST)<br />
::That's what I was thinking. The only thing I could find to be true in the article is that libertarians are known for favoring free speech. Which is kind of opposite to the point of the article. '''[[user:FernoKlump|<font color="#000066" >FernoKlump</font>]]'''<sup>[[User:FernoKlump/petition|<font color="#bd2433" >Look at this petition!]]</font></sup> 13:50, 15 November 2008 (EST)<br />
:::As a paleolibertarian who spends a great deal of time discussing conservative values within the libertarian framework with "liberal" libertarians, I know that while we argue a great deal about most of these issues, almost all of the true libertarians reject censorship in any form. The one possible exception is prayer in public school, and I think that should be left in the article. I am an advocate for private prayer time in public school (as long as the school doesn't force children to), but I know others who feel differently. We all agree that there should be no public school, and that private schools should be allowed to have any type of prayer or not as the school decides. But that really is an area of disagreement. Otherwise, libertarians may at times ridicule conservative values, but respect our right to express them. [[User:Sulli|Sulli]] 10:08, 17 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:::: Thanks for confirming the point about libertarian censorship of classroom prayer. The other points can hardly be disputed either. Simply visit libertarian websites (such as CATO, FEE, Von Mises, Ayn Rand, etc.) and you'll likely see the support (or evidence of the censorship) yourself.<br />
:::::Well, I guess I should clarify what I mean. Many "liberal" libertarians will support private censorship (although some protest any form of censorship whatsoever, no matter how silly). They think that suppressing conservative values will help their cause. But most will draw the line at government censorship. Some misguidedly argue for public schools to censor conservative ideals, but they would also argue for private schools to be allowed to teach conservative values if they choose to, and for homeschooling as well. The public school curriculum is a difficult area for libertarians, since we oppose its existence altogether.<br />
<br />
:::::On the other hand, if you are just saying that they support the liberal agenda in these areas, I would be hard-pressed to disagree. There are many liberal-leaning libertarians. Perhaps we could clarify the article to discuss private censorship and public school censorship instead of general censorship (which to many, implies government control). [[User:Sulli|Sulli]] 10:58, 17 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:::::: Libertarians support censorship of certain ideas in public school. The entry lists examples. It's irrelevant whether libertarians think public schools should exist or not. Privately, libertarians will demand the same type of censorship for any group in which they are members.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:05, 17 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
::::::: You are certainly right. Some, or most, do. I just think the article should reflect that they support censorship in public schools and internal censorship of private groups, but not, for example, the censorship of private groups by the government. If I were to buy a television advertisement or billboard arguing against evolution in favor of intelligent design, they would mock me, almost certainly, but would not try to have the government (such as the FCC) block my advertisement from showing. They might only work by asking the television company to remove it. I just want to specify the type of censorship, because it is weaker than the type of censorship most liberals would use to enforce their agenda. It is real, and bad, but of a different type. [[User:Sulli|Sulli]] 11:14, 17 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:::::::: No, I don't see any meaningful distinction between libertarians and liberals with respect to censorship of the items listed in the entry.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:19, 17 November 2008 (EST)<br />
::::::::: Okay, then I will drop it. You might have to be a libertarian (and be used to our constant disagreement about what some think are minor issues) to see a difference. For us, there is one, but I know most people might disagree. [[User:Sulli|Sulli]] 11:26, 17 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Cite tags ==<br />
First, I will make an admission - in this case I misread the title and thought it said "liberal censorship". An honest mistake after having reverted ideological fact tags on "liberal logic" and the words are similar. Now, in deference to that mistake, I've read the above talk to see if I may have reverted good edits by accident. But the above talk seems to miss the point of the article, which is that ''despite'' the open proclamations of libertarians to not censor free speech, they still manage to censor it in regard to certain topics. Andy didn't create this article on a hunch, and it's awfully presumptuous to want to *delete* the article just based on the personal experiences you've had with several libertarians. Don't you think you're being hasty? -[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 06:23, 16 November 2008 (EST)<br />
:I don't think anyone was hasty here. The fact that nobody can find any instances of this happening gives strong evidence that it just doesn't happen. Sure, it's an interesting theoretical concept -- what would happen if libertarians censored -- but should we have encyclopedia articles about things that aren't true? I'm fine with keeping the article if we can actually find some examples of this happening. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 13:08, 16 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:*Seems like some would be much happier at Wikipedia, or the hundred others that enjoy political correctness, make it their watchword. An article put up by the Owner should be a good indicator of its veracity, especially coming from one with such high public/academic standing as Andy Schafly. Talk about biting the hand that feeds you. Shame on all of you. --<font color="#1E90FF" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:TK|₮K]]</font><sup><font color="DC143C">[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]</font></sup> 23:10, 16 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
::What does this have to do with political correctness? And just because Andy says something is true makes it so? '''[[user:FernoKlump|<font color="#000066" >FernoKlump</font>]]'''<sup>[[User:FernoKlump/petition|<font color="#bd2433" >Look at this petition!]]</font></sup> 23:17, 16 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
I should really just put the following into AutoText: "It is not censorship for someone to say 'that's wrong and you shouldn't say it.' It's only censorship if somebody has the ability to keep you from presenting your speech in whatever forum. When people didn't buy Dixie Chicks albums and tickets, they weren't censoring the Dixie Chicks, they were using their own speech just as freely."<br />
<br />
What libertarian, in what position of power/authority to deny anybody their rights, has used that power/authority to censor any of the concepts listed in the article? And yes, 90/10 and all that, but it's not like I'm talking just to read my own voice; this is for the good of the project just as much as correcting the spelling mistakes in whatever article I randomly choose. [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 23:28, 16 November 2008 (EST) ''<-not that this is likely to stop anybody...''<br />
<br />
[http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=26415] is worth a look. It says libertarians and conservatives share similar values on school prayer [[User:Markr|Markr]] 23:45, 16 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
*And on drug laws, prostitution, sodomy and a whole host of other issues, they do not. --<font color="#1E90FF" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:TK|₮K]]</font><sup><font color="DC143C">[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]</font></sup> 23:49, 16 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
::Would both you gentlemen help me prepare a chart or table showing where conservatives, liberals and libertarians agree and disagree on the major U.S. issues? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 08:01, 17 November 2008 (EST)<br />
::: On school prayer - libertarians oppose censorship - believe government should NOT have any say in content or curriculum, parents decision - conservative viewpoint - By Steve Kubby - libertarian candidate for Governer of california - [http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=26415 | Here] ""No real Libertarian could endorse school prayer: forcing a Christian prayer down the throat of every schoolchild legally required to appear in school." [http://libertarianobama.blogspot.com/2008/03/two-more-points-against-barr.html | here] is slightly different , This does not endorse censorship, but will not support forced prayer, which is in keeping with concept of Personal choice. [[User:Markr|Markr]] 11:37, 17 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:::: No, that's misleading. Read your cite carefully: libertarians do not oppose censorship of school prayer. Hoping to pick up conservative support, libertarians seek the implausible end to public schools, which is very different. Libertarians are the most strident supporters of the phony separation of church and state.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:39, 17 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
== theory of evolution ==<br />
<br />
This piece says that the libertarian solution to the evolution controversy in schools is to simply end public schooling [http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/01/a-libertarian-s.html]. Sounds like the opposite of "libertarian censorship". '''[[user:FernoKlump|<font color="#000066" >FernoKlump</font>]]'''<sup>[[User:FernoKlump/petition|<font color="#bd2433" >Look at this petition!]]</font></sup> 10:20, 17 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
: FernoKlump, don't be clueless. Claiming that the "solution" is ending public schooling can be just a deceitful way of supporting continuation of the censorship. Apparently that far-fetched approach fools some. Not us.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:31, 17 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
::Fine, please add citations to the statements. I looked, but I only found evidence to the contrary. '''[[user:FernoKlump|<font color="#000066" >FernoKlump</font>]]'''<sup>[[User:FernoKlump/petition|<font color="#bd2433" >Look at this petition!]]</font></sup> 11:08, 17 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Giving up might be the solution here. ==<br />
<br />
Schlafly thinks that Libertarians are liberals, that mean that any attempt to make the not look like devil spawn will probably bereverted, hell he might block me for saying that. I'd like to see the article have some sort of backing at least, but no one can findthe evidence to support those claims because it doesn't exist because they are false and Andy will not let them be taken downs. His Ideological stand overrides and kind of factual needs. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 10:31, 17 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
: You're right, you are being blocked for that (for just a day). First, don't swear here. Second, don't engage in ad hominem attacks here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:34, 17 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Counter examples ==<br />
Would counter examples help to change people's opinions here, or would I just be whistling in the dark? I have them for prayer and evolution, but stopped looking when I realized that they might not be welcome. [[User:ArnoldFriend|ArnoldFriend]] 22:28, 17 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
: I don't see how a counterexample to censorship helps lessen the wrongdoing of censorship. How about a counterexample to crime? The criminal obeyed the law today! That doesn't work.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:00, 17 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:: I was hoping that providing examples would help convince you that this argument is fallacious. The following examples from prominent libertarians say that each school should have its own mandate about state control of prayer in school: [http://www.theadvocates.org/ruwart/questions_maint.php?Category=2&id=171] [http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=26415] [http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Ron_Paul_Education.htm] <br />
<br />
:: I think what this might boil down to is that the ACLU is not and never was a libertarian organization. While these may be issues that the ACLU pushes, the ACLU ignores such things as the second amendment, the increases in government size due to their lawsuits, and the limitation on speech that their lawsuits end up causing. <br />
<br />
::All of the libertarians I know agree with the Norquist idea of shrinking the federal government down to the point where it can be drown in a bathtub. They want to create a world in which a parent can choose to send their child to a school that starts the day with a prayer. Or doesn't for that matter. They support the right of parents to homeschool their children and teach them what they feel children should learn. I'm not sure how else to state that. If you can find libertarian organizations that actually support restrictions on the prayers that students say, please tell me. [[User:ArnoldFriend|ArnoldFriend]] 23:37, 17 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Tim Wise On Racism & The Libertarian Deceit ==<br />
<br />
In my thirty-four years on this Earth, there are at least a few things I’ve learned. First, that it makes almost no sense whatsoever for a child to argue with his or her parents about bedtime. Secondly, that it makes almost as little sense to argue with a cop about a speeding ticket. ''And finally, that it makes even less sense to argue with a libertarian about anything.''<br />
<br />
This hearty band of market-worshipers so prominent on the Internet proffers a worldview that is not only ahistoric (after all, there has never been a free market, nor could there be one given the tendency of the powerful to seek and receive protection for their power), but is also irrelevant to the world in which we live. To believe that pure, unrestrained capitalism is a good idea requires first that one can actually imagine such a thing existing at all. But since such a scenario would require an end to subsidizing industries, an end to inflated management and executive salaries that are unrelated to performance, an end to limited liability protections and a likely return to strict torts for corporate misconduct, and an end to foreign military interventions to prop up private interests, we can safely say that such a utopian future is not in the cards. Simply put: capitalists can’t afford capitalism.<br />
<br />
That said, it is still necessary to understand why this particular libertarian logic is flawed on any number of issues. This is true not because it is particularly helpful in winning arguments with its adherents, but rather to fully understand the realities of power and privilege and the ways in which the current economic system perpetuates massive inequalities. It is also helpful as a preemptive antidote for those who may be vulnerable to the simplistic, almost-sounds-like-it-makes-sense worldview of free market fanatics.<br />
<br />
Examining the libertarian position on racism and racial discrimination is particularly fascinating, and makes clear the degree to which those who cleave to this ideology are living in a world completely divorced from reality.<br />
<br />
According to libertarians, racial discrimination in the workforce cannot occur to any real extent in a market economy, because it is fundamentally irrational and would cost employers money. Even though the current U.S. economy is not a pure free market, most libertarians likewise claim that racism in the labor market is rare today, and for this same reason: namely, that to discriminate against a more qualified worker of color just because of his or her race would result in that employer losing money, relative to their non-racist competitors who would presumably snatch up the passed over employees and reap the benefits of doing so. To the extent that there are large racial differences in income, wealth, or occupational status, libertarians assume this must be the result of people of color being objectively less qualified. Passing a person of color over for a certain job or promotion is therefore not evidence of racism, but merely a rational calculation of merit.<br />
<br />
Yet this argument assumes that racial discrimination only manifests in direct acts of overt bias (i.e., the racist employer who refuses to hire blacks). But much of the inequality in the labor market stems from factors other than overt bias. For example, 85-90% of all jobs are never advertised, according to the National Center for Career Strategies, but rather are filled through informal networks of associates, friends, family and assorted connections.<br />
<br />
As such, there is no free and open competition for most positions; employers aren’t even in a position to size up all the possible people they could hire, and then make an overtly biased decision on the basis of race. Rather, most hires are made without a broad, open competition, and since blacks and other people of color are disproportionately excluded from the best informal networks for jobs (the result of past and ongoing unequal opportunity in housing and education), many qualified people of color will never have a shot to be hired (or directly rejected for that matter), since the employers in question won’t even know about them.<br />
<br />
Similarly, since the employer can’t know about the possible employees who didn’t apply (because they were out of the word-of-mouth network), they can’t possibly realize, after the fact, that perhaps they lost out by not doing more to diversify their hiring. They wouldn’t be able to see that there were equally or more qualified people of color they might have hired, because they would have no awareness of such persons in the potential pool. Nor would their competitors be much better in this regard, since they too are likely to hire within networks and other informal mechanisms.<br />
<br />
In other words, the market in most cases is an insular one that fails to provide adequate information to employers that they would need to make true merit decisions, or to recognize the mistakes that come from maintaining discriminatory networks for jobs and opportunities.<br />
<br />
Read more here: [http://www.lipmagazine.org/articles/featwise_196.shtml]<br />
<br />
==The principle of tolerance==<br />
<br />
I think schoolchildren should be taught to maintain a respectful silence during public prayer. If their teacher prays at the beginning of class, the student might even bow his head. Or say Amen at the end. <br />
<br />
A visiting pastor, rabbi or imam (that's a Muslim religious leader) could be invited to pray.<br />
<br />
Only those students whose parents have provided a letter to the school, saying that they '''refuse''' to have their children exposed to public prayer, should be permitted to opt out. I doubt if the majority of classrooms would each have such a student. But accommodation could be made. "Okay, I'm going to say a prayer now. Billy and Mary, you may stand in the hallway for a minute."<br />
<br />
But why stop there? If parents object to the way human reproduction is taught, with graphic depictions of sexual actions presented (for example), shouldn't they also be able to opt out?<br />
<br />
Or are we to enforce "[[tolerance]]" of things liberals like while enforcing [[censorship]] of things liberals hate? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 08:39, 18 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:This is coming from someone who supports school prayer, so don't take it the wrong way. However I can see a strong flaw in your argument. Religious beliefs are personal, there is no objective way to prove their accuracy and each student is entitled to their own opinion. Once teacher initiated public prayer is allowed, it gives individual religious beliefs an authority that is above what is allowable in a multicultural society (even if you invited members of other religious orders in, you will never be able to accommodate for all students). Sending students out of class is entirely impractical, not only does it disrupt the flow of the lesson but it also isolates students and leaves them open to alienation and ridicule. <br />
<br />
:Descriptions of sex acts are entirely different matter. There is little doubt that using the powers of sexuality (a nice euphemism I learned in primary school :) can lead to pregnancy, and that there are ways to utilise these powers beyond basic intercourse. It is not a question of personal belief, rather of teaching what is undoubtedly true. As such, censoring sex education based on graphic content is entirely different to censoring school prayer, and comparing the two is a fallacy. That said, coming from a public school in Australia where sex ed is probably some of the most graphic in the world (send me an email if you want a description) it is relatively tame and I believe most parents wishing to shelter their children have either not experienced it themselves or have impractically high standards (they'd also have to censor the news and virtually all television shows).<br />
<br />
:Just jumping back to the school prayer issue, my two cents is that the Australian model has worked wonders. In it, students in public school are not subjected to communal prayer (appropriate, given the wide variety of beliefs), however have access to compulsory scripture classes where prayer is conducted, and can join various student groups which support prayer. Not only does this ensure that students can pray in the manner that suits them (or not pray entirely) rather than being subjected to a generalised prayer which may or may not suit their beliefs, but it also fosters spiritual growth within the groups, as students are able to identify and discuss their faith with their peers. It also circumnavigates the concept of authority discussed above. [[User:NormanS|NormanS]] 09:06, 18 November 2008 (EST)</div>NormanShttps://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Dance&diff=561279Talk:Dance2008-11-18T13:48:55Z<p>NormanS: Pictures in ext links</p>
<hr />
<div>==Pictures in External Links==<br />
<br />
Although nice the pictures do not belong in the external links section. The justification for this is threefold:<br />
* the external links section of an article is for external links, not pictures<br />
* as far as I can tell none of the external links even reference Japanese dancing<br />
* this article is on "Dance" not "Art relating to dance" or any like subject. The appropriate style of image for this article is photos, not paintings. These paintings may be more appropriate in [[Japanese Dance]], but not in this broader article<br />
<br />
If no one has any objections I'd like to see them removed. [[User:NormanS|NormanS]] 08:48, 18 November 2008 (EST)</div>NormanShttps://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Kurt_Vonnegut&diff=561259Kurt Vonnegut2008-11-18T13:10:22Z<p>NormanS: No reason given for removal of sourced quote, please discuss on talk page if there is</p>
<hr />
<div>'''Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.''' (1913 – 2007) was a prolific writer whose most prominent work, ''Slaughterhouse-Five'' (1969), is based on his personal experiences as a [[prisoner of war]] trapped in the [[Allied]] bombing of [[Dresden]] in [[World War II]]. He then wrote many more novels, of which ''Breakfast of Champions'' (1973) was the most commercially successful though not as acclaimed by critics.<br />
<br />
Vonnegut described himself as an [[atheist]],<ref>Some question whether Kurt Vonnegut was an atheist. He has described himself as a "[[secular humanist]]," and the majority of secular humanists are atheist or agnostic.</ref> and in 1992 won the "Humanist of the Year" award.<ref>http://www.celebatheists.com/index.php?title=Kurt_Vonnegut_Jr.</ref> He attributed his atheism to having studied anthropology, yet he has often been respectful of those with faith, such as observing that "there were no Atheists in foxholes."<ref>http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/quotes/quote-v.htm</ref> However, in later writings Vonnegut referred to conservative Christians as "not-so-closeted white supremacists, aka “Christians,” " <ref>http://www.inthesetimes.com/comments.php?id=38_0_4_0_C</ref><br />
<br />
Of German descent, Vonnegut was captured by the Germans during the [[Battle of the Bulge]] in World War II in 1944. Taken to Germany as a prisoner of war, Vonnegut was then stuck in an underground meat locker with his fellow prisoners during the firebombing of Dresden on February 13, 1945. 135,000 Germans died in that attack, the same number who perished when the [[atomic bomb]]s were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki ''combined''. Afterwards, Vonnegut and his fellow prisoners were left to dig corpses out of the ruins. <br />
<br />
Robert Scholes gave this review of the ''Slaughterhouse-Five'' in the New York Times Book Review:<ref>http://www.vonnegutweb.com/sh5/index.html</ref><br />
<br />
:Be kind. Don't hurt. Death is coming for all of us anyway, and it is better to be Lot's wife looking back through salty eyes than the Deity that destroyed those cities of the plain in order to save them. ... Slaughterhouse Five is an extraordinary success. It is a book we need to read, and to reread.<br />
<br />
Vonnegut's timing was perfect, as America in 1969 was struggling with the [[Vietnam War]] and other issues relevant to the book, such as [[ecology]], [[consumerism]] and claims of overpopulation.<br />
<br />
Vonnegut's last book, ''Man Without a Country'' is a scathing criticism of the Bush administration and current U.S. foreign policy.<br />
<br />
Vonnegut died on April 11, 2007 from brain injuries he received in a fall almost five weeks earlier.<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
[[Category:Authors|Vonnegut, Kurt]]</div>NormanShttps://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Richard_Lenski&diff=561252Richard Lenski2008-11-18T12:53:22Z<p>NormanS: No evidence of religion or lack thereof</p>
<hr />
<div>'''Richard Lenski''' is a professor of microbial [[ecology]] at Michigan State [[University]].<ref>Richard Lenski Biographical Sketch [http://myxo.css.msu.edu/BioSketch.html]</ref><ref>Richard Lenski Homepage [https://www.msu.edu/~lenski/]</ref> He holds a B.A. from Oberlin College (but does not disclose his field of study in his biographical sketch), and a [[doctorate]] in zoology<ref>Purpose in Evolution symposium Participants [http://www.templeton.org/humble_approach_initiative/Purpose_in_Evolution/part6.html]</ref> from the [[University of North Carolina]].<ref>[https://www.msu.edu/~lenski/]</ref> When Lenski started graduate school at UNC in 1977, his father, professor Gerhard Lenski, was the Chair of the Division of Social Sciences at the same school, suggesting he built a career on [[nepotism]] rather than ability. <ref>[http://hirr.hartsem.edu/ency/lenski.htm]</ref><br />
<br />
Richard Lenski is best known for his 20-year old E. coli experiment in which he claims to have captured evolution in progress, saying that bacteria made minor changes in the long-term laboratory study while insisting that it was not due to contamination. <br />
<br />
The 2008 paper he co-authored was [[peer review]]ed in 14 days, sparking obvious questions regarding potential problems <ref>See [[Conservapedia talk:Lenski dialog]].</ref> about the thoroughness of the review. The statistical analysis in Lenski's paper has been criticized for having serious flaws.<ref>See [[Flaws in Richard Lenski Study]].</ref><br />
<br />
When Richard Lenski received a public request for the [[data]] underlying for his published claims, he did not provide the actual data even though his study was taxpayer-funded and even though the request was made in part to enable review of the data by students of the requestor.<ref>[[Conservapedia:Lenski dialog]].</ref><br />
<br />
Undisclosed or obscured data for Lenski's 2008 paper are noted below (pp. 2-3 from paper, superscripts omitted):<ref>For those wishing to review the paper personally it may be found at [http://myxo.css.msu.edu/lenski/pdf/2008,%20PNAS,%20Blount%20et%20al.pdf this link] from Lenski's website.</ref><ref>A Lenski defender has asserted that this table format is copyrighted under [[GFDL]], which imposes overly complex rules for reuse.</ref><br />
<br />
<includeonly><br />
{{DEFAULTSORT:{{PAGENAME}}}}<br />
</includeonly><br />
__NOTOC__<br />
<TABLE width=100% cellspacing=2 cellpadding=2><br />
<TR><TD width=50% valign=top bgcolor=#003366 align=center><font color="#f6f7ff" size="+1">Undisclosed Data</font><br />
</TD><TD width=50% valign=top bgcolor=#000000 align=center><font color="#f6f7ff" size="+1">Some Questions about the missing data</font></TD></TR></table><br />
<br />
====Visual inspection====<br />
<TABLE width=100% cellspacing=10><br />
<TR><TD width=50% valign=top><br />
Evolution of Cit Function in Population Ara-3. The LTEE populations are transferred daily into fresh medium, and the turbidity of each is checked visually at that time. ...<br />
</TD><TD width=50% valign=top><br />
Data on these observations?<br />
<br />
</TD></TR></table><br />
<br />
====Turbidity==== <br />
<TABLE width=100% cellspacing=10><br />
<TR><TD width=50% valign=top><br />
...the cultures are only slightly turbid when transferred. Occasional contaminants that grow on citrate have been seen over the 20 years of this experiment.<br />
</TD><TD width=50% valign=top><br />
Data? When and how many?<br />
</TD></TR></table><br />
<br />
====Contaminants???==== <br />
<TABLE width=100% cellspacing=10><br />
<TR><TD width=50% valign=top><br />
These contaminated cultures reach much higher turbidity owing to the high concentration of [[citrate]] in the medium, which allows the contaminants to reach high density. (When contamination occurs, the affected population is restarted from the latest frozen sample.) <br />
</TD><TD width=50% valign=top><br />
Data for when that occurred, and how often?<br />
<br />
A Richard Lenski defender says, "If interested in a thorough review, contact the group directly, with a legitimate request for data. Otherwise, the disclaimer is a more than adequate description of the sample handling process."<br />
<br />
In fact, two requests were made directly to Lenski for data, without success. His [[Conservapedia:Lenski dialog#Second_Reply|second response]] was rude and insulting.<br />
</TD></TR></table><br />
<br />
====The Numbers Please?====<br />
<TABLE width=100% cellspacing=10><br />
<TR><TD width=50% valign=top><br />
After 33,127 generations, one population, designated Ara-3, displayed significantly elevated turbidity that continued to rise for several days (Fig. 1).<br />
</TD><TD width=50% valign=top><br />
Higher resolution data underlying figure not provided despite request.<br />
</TD></TR></table><br />
<br />
====More missing Numbers==== <br />
<TABLE width=100% cellspacing=10><br />
<TR><TD width=50% valign=top><br />
A number...<br />
</TD><TD width=50% valign=top><br />
Data? How many? Statistically significant?<br />
</TD></TR></table><br />
<br />
====Trust us====<br />
<TABLE width=100% cellspacing=10><br />
<TR><TD width=50% valign=top><br />
of Cit clones were isolated from the population and checked for phenotypic markers characteristic of the ancestral E. coli strain used to start the LTEE: all<br />
</TD><TD width=50% valign=top><br />
Data? How many? Statistically significant?<br />
</TD></TR></table><br />
<br />
====Missing Characteristics====<br />
<TABLE width=100% cellspacing=10><br />
<TR><TD width=50% valign=top><br />
...were Ara, T5-sensitive, and T6-resistant, as expected (2)<br />
</TD><TD width=50% valign=top><br />
Data about these and other characteristics?<br />
<br />
A Richard Lenski defender says, "Interested parties should consult the literature on these topics. It is not within the scope of this paper to address the significance of these markers."<br />
<br />
What is missing from disclosure are the data that the markers were actually observed in a reliable and conclusive manner in this study.<br />
</TD></TR></table><br />
<br />
====DNA====<br />
<TABLE width=100% cellspacing=10><br />
<TR><TD width=50% valign=top><br />
DNA sequencing also showed...<br />
</TD><TD width=50% valign=top><br />
DATA??<br />
<br />
A Richard Lenski defender says, "The inclusion of this data would be considerably more extensive than appropriate for the inclusion in this paper."<br />
<br />
No one asked for the data to be printed in the paper. What is missing is disclosure of the data on the website, or upon public request.<br />
</TD></TR></table><br />
<br />
====More missing data==== <br />
<TABLE width=100% cellspacing=10><br />
<TR><TD width=50% valign=top><br />
...that Cit clones have the same mutations in the pykF and nadR genes as do clones from earlier generations of the Ara-3 population, ... <br />
</TD><TD width=50% valign=top><br />
Data about these and other characteristics?<br />
<br />
A Lenski defender cites to general information unrelated to this study: Available in other publications,<br />
pykF <ref>[http://www.ihop-net.org/UniPub/iHOP/gs/519955.html "IHOP-pykF"]</ref> and<br />
nadR <ref>[http://www.ihop-net.org/UniPub/iHOP/mgi/447129.html "IHOP-nadR"]</ref>.<br />
<br />
A Richard Lenski supporter also cites an earlier claim (perhaps also unsupported by public release of the data) by Lenski's group: See also the reference for the sequence identification which Blount ''et al.'' list as reference #30 in their paper: Woods, R., D. Schneider, C. L. Winkworth, M. A. Riley, and R. E. Lenski. 2006. Tests of parallel molecular evolution in a long-term experiment with Escherichia coli. PNAS, USA 103:9107-9112.<ref>http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/0602917103v1</ref>.<br />
</TD></TR></table><br />
<br />
====More missing data==== <br />
<TABLE width=100% cellspacing=10><br />
<TR><TD width=50% valign=top><br />
...and each of these mutations distinguishes this population from all the others (30). <br />
</TD><TD width=50% valign=top><br />
Data distinguishing "This population from all the others"?<br />
</TD></TR></table><br />
<br />
====Fast Tracked====<br />
<TABLE width=100% cellspacing=10><br />
<TR><TD width=50% valign=top><br />
Therefore, the Cit variant arose within the LTEE and is not a contaminant.<br />
</TD><TD width=50% valign=top><br />
The astoundingly short 14-day [[peer review | PEER REVIEW]] period, measured from the day the paper was sent out for review to the day of formal contribution by Lenski after acceptance, raises questions as to whether there was any meaningful peer review of this at all.<br />
</TD></TR></table><br />
<br />
====Sample Sizes?====<br />
<TABLE width=100% cellspacing=10><br />
<TR><TD width=50% valign=top><br />
Cit<sup>+</sup> cells constituted [about] 0.5% of the population at generation 31,500, then 15% and 19% in the next two samples, but only [about] 1.1% at generation 33,000.<br />
</TD><TD width=50% valign=top><br />
What were the sample sizes and where are the actual data for this sampling?<br />
</TD></TR></table><br />
<br />
Lenski's paper was published in the Proceedings of the [[National Academy of Sciences]], a professional society of scientists with a strong bias towards [[atheism]] and [[evolutionism]]. <ref>http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html</ref> <ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/3506.asp</ref><br />
<br />
Lenski's work has been criticized in the past also. In a paper Lenski published in ''Nature'' in May 8, 2003 entitled "The Evolutionary Origin of Complex Features," he described a computer simulation that contained no actual biology. In fact, the discussion section of the paper stated:<br />
<br />
:"Some readers might suggest that we 'stacked the deck' by studying the evolution of a complex feature that could be built on simpler functions that were also useful. However, that is precisely what evolutionary theory requires ...." <br />
<br />
Dr. William Dembski explained, "In other words, the computer programmers built into the simulation what they thought evolution needed to make it work. The validity of this study therefore depends on whether the simulation faithfully models biological reality."<ref>http://www.designinference.com/documents/2003.09.UncDiss_Intro_Contribs.pdf</ref><br />
<br />
Others have commented on Lenski's work while taking it at face value.<ref>[[Michael Behe]] wrote, in ''[[The Edge of Evolution]]'', "I had argued that the extreme rarity of the development of chloroquine resistance in malaria was likely the result of the need for several mutations to occur before the trait appeared. Even though the evolutionary literature contains discussions of multiple mutations (5), Darwinian reviewers drew back in horror, acted as if I had blasphemed, and argued desperately that a series of single beneficial mutations certainly could do the trick. Now here we have Richard Lenski affirming that the evolution of some pretty simple cellular features likely requires multiple mutations." Behe also said, "If the development of many of the features of the cell required multiple mutations during the course of evolution, then the cell is beyond Darwinian explanation. I show in The Edge of Evolution that it is very reasonable to conclude they did."[http://www.amazon.com/gp/blog/post/PLNK3U696N278Z93O]</ref><br />
<br />
==See Also==<br />
<br />
*[[Conservapedia:Lenski dialog]] (letters requesting data, and Lenski's responses)<br />
*[[Conservapedia talk:Lenski dialog]] (discussion of Lenski controversy<ref>See [[Liberal style]] point 1</ref>)<br />
*[[Letter to PNAS]]<br />
[[Category:Biology]]<br />
[[Category:Scientists]]<br />
[[Category:Academics]]<br />
<br />
[[Category:Evolution]]<br />
[[Category:Deceit]]<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
{{DEFAULTSORT:Lenski, Richard}}</div>NormanShttps://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Freedom&diff=558509Freedom2008-11-15T13:56:02Z<p>NormanS: Examples given below</p>
<hr />
<div>'''Freedom''' is the state of being free or at liberty rather than in confinement or under physical restraint. More specifically, it can mean:<br />
<br />
*Ability to act freely: a state in which somebody is able to act and live as he or she chooses, without being subject to any undue restraints or restrictions.<br />
*Release from captivity or slavery: release or rescue from being physically bound, or from being confined, enslaved, captured, or imprisoned.<br />
*The condition of being free; the power to act or speak or think without externally imposed restraints. <br />
*Exemption: immunity from an obligation or duty.<br />
*Civil liberty, as opposed to subjection to an arbitrary or despotic government.<br />
*The right to enjoy all the privileges or special rights of citizenship, membership, etc., in a community or the like.<br />
<br />
The desire for freedom was one of the founding principles of the United States of America. Today, freedom still stands proudly at the top of a list of aspirations for Americans. All Americans, no matter their creed or the color of their skin agrees that: "we shall have an association in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all".<br />
<br />
<br />
== Freedom & the Book of Galatians ==<br />
<br />
John Hanneman wrote, "Inner freedom has to do with the very essence of our being." This "inner freedom" is the theme of the book of [[Galatians]].<br />
<br />
The [[Greek]] words for freedom appear 36 times in the [[New Testament]]. [[Paul]] uses them 28 times in his letters, 10 times alone in Galatians. The purpose of this book is clear: to get [[Christians]] out from under the law and into freedom in [[Christ]], to have the [[Holy Spirit|Spirit]] replace the [[Torah]] in our lives.<br />
<br />
Galatians reveals why we struggle so much with law. It identifies the key ingredient to becoming free, and how people can enjoy freedom in Christ day in and day out. The theme of the book is freedom.<br />
<br />
Paul writes, {{Bible quote|It is for freedom that Christ has set us free.|book=Galatians|chap=5|verses=1|version=NIV}}<br />
In his word of greeting in the introduction, {{Bible quote|Grace to you and peace from [[Father God|God our Father]], and the Lord Jesus Christ, who gave Himself for our sins, that He might deliver us out of this present evil age, according to the will of God the Father.|book=Galatians|chap=1|verses=3-4|version=NASB}} the [[apostle]] defines what he means by freedom. Following his wish for "grace and peace," he uses two phrases that capture for Christians the two ways they are free as a result of their relationship with God.<br />
<br />
The first phrase is that the Lord Jesus Christ "gave Himself for our sins." Here the apostle is describing our freedom from slavery to, and from, the power of [[sin]]. This is the great doctrine of [[justification]]. We are born into sin, separated from God, but God sent his Son Jesus to die on the cross for our sins. In the [[atonement]], all of our sins, past, present, and future, have been paid for." John Stott comments: "The death of Jesus Christ was primarily neither a display of love, nor an example of heroism, but a sacrifice for sin."<ref>http://www.speraindeo.org/julread.html</ref><ref>http://www.pbcc.org/sermons/hanneman/968.html</ref><br />
<br />
==References==<br />
{{reflist|2}}<br />
<br />
==External Links==<br />
*[http://www.aim.org/wls/category/freedom/ What Liberals Say - Category: Freedom], [[Accuracy In Media]]<br />
<br />
[[Category:Bible Study]]</div>NormanShttps://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Dance&diff=555022Dance2008-11-12T03:59:11Z<p>NormanS: Images not relevant to nor referenced in external links, also paintings where photos would be more appropriate</p>
<hr />
<div>'''Dance''' is an [[The arts|art]] and is a form of movement, motions, and steps. Dance is also a way of communicating, and has been around since the beginning of time. Dance comes in many different forms and categories. Such as the [[Waltz]], Polka, Quadrille, Mazurka, Tango, Country Western Dancing, [[Irish Dance]], [[Jazz]], Charleston, Modern, [[Ballet]], Breakdancing, Rumba, [[Salsa]], Swing, Merengue, and many more. ''Ballet is a specific dance form and technique. Works of dance choreographed using this technique are called ballets, and may include dance, music, acting and mime.'' <ref> Can You Appreciate the Art of Ballet? by Jeffrey Meier - EzineArticles.com Expert Author http://ezinearticles .com/?Can-You-Appreciate-the-Art-of-Ballet?&id=294632&opt=print '''(Join address please)'''</ref> Ballet was first developed in the [[Renaissance]] in Italy and France, and later in Russia as a concert dance form. Classical ballet is the most formal of the different ballet styles. ''Ballet, as practised in Europe and the US, emphasizes the abstract geometry of bodily form exploring the heights and extensions the body can achieve both on the floor and in the air...''<br />
<br />
Dancing is mentioned nearly two dozen times in the Bible; the word indicates joyful, exuberant celebration either toward God (as worship) or toward a conquering hero (like David). In contrast, dancing is frowned upon in many Muslim cultures, where Sharia law forbids it.<br />
<br />
According to Mark 6:22-29 the dancing of Herodias' daughter before [[Herod]] and his companions was so pleasing to him that he offered the girl anything "up to half my kingdom". Coached by her mother, she asked for the head of [[John the Baptist]].<br />
<br />
<blockquote><br />
''Dance is a transient mode of expression, performed in a given form and style by the human body moving in space. Dance occurs through purposefully selected and controlled rhythmic movements; the resulting phenomenon is recognized as dance both by the performer and the observing members of a given group.'' Anthropologist Joann Kealiinohomoku. <ref>[http://www.answers.com/dance?cat=entertainment Dance] World of the Body. </ref><br />
</blockquote><br />
<br />
[[Choreography]] is the composition and arrangement of dances; the general art principles of design, like harmony, unity, variety, repetition, proportion, contrast, sequence, transition, balance and climax, must be used to create an aesthetic choreography. A ballet's choreography could be based on sources like: a story, a musical composition, or a painting.<br />
<br />
<br><br />
<br />
[[Image:Dance.jpg]]<br />
<br />
:: ''The scope of dance heritage is broad. Our heritage is the dance legacy that must be passed from generation to generation through educational dance.'' <ref> [http://books.google.com.mx/books?id=C0yjXGJ3EEoC&pg=PA139&lpg=PA139&dq=Dance+as+art+Ballet&source=web&ots=_mveYEOwUP&sig=z055Nvur-7h3HLiuYNeDvoX1GSA&hl=es#PPA140,M1 Teaching Dance as Art in Education] Autor Brenda Pugh McCutchen. </ref><br />
<br />
Professional dancers are both, athletes and artists. Music for dancing could be supplied by any kind of instrument, but generally each kind of instrumentation is associated with a particular type of dance.<br />
<br />
== External links ==<br />
*[http://www.danceartmuseum.com/home.html The Dance Art Museum of the Americas]<br />
*[http://www.abt.org/education/dictionary/terms/ballet_parts.html Ballet] Some terms.<br />
*[http://web.hep.uiuc.edu/home/g-gollin/dance/dance_physics.html#1 Physics and Dance]<br />
*[http://www.choreography.org.uk/instruct.htm Choreography]<br />
*[http://www.dance4it.com/dancehistory.htm The History of dance]<br />
*[http://www.artslynx.org/dance/history.htm Dance History Research and Scholarship]<br />
*[http://www.sdhs.org/ Society of Dance History Scholars]<br />
*[http://www.dance4it.com/greatdancers.htm Some Major Figures in Dance]<br />
<br />
{{Clear}}<br />
[[Category:Art]]<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
<br />
[[Category:Dancing]]</div>NormanShttps://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Islam&diff=554999Islam2008-11-12T03:22:51Z<p>NormanS: Not prominent for being a Muslim, and in dispute</p>
<hr />
<div>'''Islam''' is a [[monotheism|monotheistic]] [[Abrahamic religion]] based on the teachings of [[Muhammad]], a seventh century [[Arab]] religious and [[politics|political]] figure. The word "Islam" means "submission [to Allah]" in [[Arabic language|Arabic]]. <br />
<br />
A follower of Islam is called a Muslim or Moslem, a term which means "one who submits (to God)". The older term [[Mohammedan]] means "follower of Muhammad", and has been used for centuries. Muslims do not use it today to avoid confusing worship of [[Muhammad]] with worship of [[Allah]]<ref>Schimmel, Annemarie. ''Islam: An Introduction''. State University of New York Press, 1992.</ref>. Muslims follow the teaching of Muhammad, whom they believe to be [[God]]'s last and greatest [[prophet]]. The faith teaches that the [[Archangel]] [[Gabriel]] appeared to him.<br />
<br />
Muslims believe that God ("Allah", '''الله''' in [[Arabic]]) revealed the [[Qur'an]] (or Koran) to Muhammad and, despite his illiteracy, caused him to transcribe it <ref>Proclaim! (or read!) in the name of thy Lord and Cherisher, Who created- Created man, out of a (mere) clot of congealed blood: Proclaim! And thy Lord is Most Bountiful,- He Who taught (the use of) the pen,- Taught man that which he knew not.(Surah 96:1-5)</ref>. The [[Qur'an]] is considered to be the pure and [[holy]] word of God. Like [[Christianity]] and [[Judaism]], Islam originated in the [[Middle East]]. Islam claims to trace its roots back to [[Abraham]]. Muslims do not believe that Muhammad was the founder of Islam, rather that he restored the original faith of Abraham and the prophets, which had been corrupted and/or misinterpreted over time. Based upon this belief, [[the Bible]], [[Old Testament|Old]] and [[New Testament]], is believed to have become corrupted as well. <br />
<br />
[[Image:Mecca.jpg|thumb|right|300px|[[Mecca]], the Islamic holy city.]]<br />
Islam is the second largest religion in the world, with over 1.4 billion followers, the number of Muslims is rapidly growing, mainly due to high birth rates, in both Muslim-majority and other countries . Conversions to Christianity (from ''any'' faith or lack thereof) outnumber those to Islam, but can not keep up with the birthrate discrepancy.<ref>[http://www.bible.ca/global-religion-statistics-world-christian-encyclopedia.htm World Christian Encyclopedia]</ref><br />
<ref>[http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles6/AlJazeerahAfrica.php Translation of AL-Jazeerah interview between Maher Abdallah and Shiekh Ahmed Katani]</ref><br />
<br />
==Historical Background==<br />
According to Islamic belief, in 610 A.D., [[Muhammad]], a 40-year-old merchant of the Quraysh tribe in [[Mecca]], in the Arabian desert (now eastern [[Saudi Arabia]]), was commanded by the angel [[Gabriel]] to "recite" the message of [[Allah]] (Arabic for God). Gabriel said mankind had lost sight of Allah's previous messages to earlier prophets, [[Adam]], [[Noah]], [[Abraham]], [[Moses]], [[Solomon]], and [[Jesus]], among others, and that Muhammad was to spread Allah's message to all people so that mankind would know how to live, how to show respect for Allah, and how to prepare for the judgement day. The message to Muhammad was to be God's last; Muhammad was the "seal of the prophets." Muhammad won some converts to Islam in his local area, but his [[monotheist]] preaching threatened to undermine the profitable [[polytheist]] pilgrim traffic supporting many Meccan merchants. In 622 A.D., the merchants drove Muhammad and his followers out of Mecca to the city of Yathrib (later renamed [[Medina]], or city - as in the city of the prophet). This flight (hijra) from Mecca to Medina marks the beginning of the Muslim lunar calendar, and is celebrated each year in the hajj, the pilgrimage to Mecca. Muhammad's forces starting attacking the trade caravans going in and out of Mecca, cutting off its economic lifeline. After a series of battles between the Meccans and Muhammad's forces, Mecca finally accepted Muhammad's ultimatum to succumb and convert to Islam. The city welcomed the prophet back in 630. Muhammad died in 632. It is believed that Muhammed is the last Prophet. Tribal elders elected [[Abu Bakr]] to be Muhammad's successor, or [[Caliph]] (Khalifa). Abu Bakr united the tribes of the Arabian peninsula during his two years as head of the new faith. Upon his death, the elders elected [[Umar ibn al-Khattab]] the next Caliph. During Umar's ten year reign, Islam invaded and spread through the sword into [[Egypt]], [[Syria]], [[Palestine]], [[Iraq]], and parts of [[Iran]]. Umar was assassinated by a Persian (modern day Iran) in 644, and was succeeded by [[Uthman ibn Affan]], who continued the invasions to spread Islam into [[North Africa]], [[Cyprus]], the rest of Iran, [[Afghanistan]], and parts of [[India]] and [[Pakistan]]. Over the next two centuries, Islamic armies continued to expanded Islam's empire into sub-Saharan Africa, [[Spain]], Southeast and Central Asia, and [[Turkey]].<br />
<br />
==Divisions Within Islam==<br />
Uthman was assassinated in 656 A.D. by soldiers who then installed Ali ibn Abu Talib, Muhammad's son-in-law, as [[Caliph]]. Ali's followers believed Muhammad had chosen Ali to be Muhammad's heir, and had disagreed with the selections of Abu Bakr, Umar, and Uthman as Caliphs. Ali's claim to the position was challenged by Muawiyah, a kinsman of the murdered Uthman. Five years later, Ali was assassinated by Kharjites, religious dissidents who broke away from the main body of Muslims because they rejected Ali's accepting arbitration to resolve his leadership dispute with Muawiyah. Ali's supporters, or the Shiah al-Ali (or Shiat Ali, partisans of Ali) believed that Ali was the true Caliph and was, in part, divinely inspired. Ali's sons, Hassan and Husayn followed as [[Shia]] Caliphs, Hassan dying in 669 or 670 A.D., possibly by poisoning, and Husayn slain by soldiers of his rival, the [[Sunni]] Caliph Yazid, in 680 A.D. <br />
<br />
The Shia Muslim community has divided further as followers coalesced around several of Ali's descendants or successors, called [[Imam]]s. The "twelvers," predominant in Iran, believe the twelfth Imam is in hiding and will reveal himself just before judgement day. Ismailis rejected the seventh Imam and practice a spirituality that seeks hidden meaning in scripture. Ismailis ruled much of [[North Africa]] as the [[Fatimid Dynasty]] of [[Egypt]] in the tenth through the twelfth centuries, and today are found primarily in [[Pakistan]], [[Afghanistan]], and [[India]]. The Sunni majority reject the premise that men can be divine, including Muhammad, Ali, or Jesus, and did not accept any of the Imams who followed Ali. Sunnis remain more committed to traditions and less inclined to accept Shia mysticism. Today, about 15% of the world's Muslims are Shia and 85% are orthodox Sunni. <br />
<br />
There are other factions within Islam. Sufis, a name apparently taken from the wool garments they wear, developed around mystical practices and trance-induced revelations. Sufis are found today in [[Turkey]], [[Syria]], and parts of [[Africa]]. Other movements have taken reform tracks, such as the Unitarians of [[Saudi Arabia]], also called [[Wahhabi]]s after their 18th century reformist founder Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab. The conservative Wahhabis are found today in Saudi Arabia and [[Qatar]]. Today the Wahhabi line has a tendency to produce extremists, such as [[Osama Bin Laden]]. Some critics would argue that the [[Taliban]] of Afghanistan took conservative reform to an extreme. Other sects or break-away groups include, among others, the Alawis found in Syria and Turkey, the [[Druze]] in Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, and Israel, the Ibadhis (Kharjites) in Oman and Africa, the Ahmadiya of Pakistan, and the Zaydis of Yemen. <br />
<br />
==Religious Guidance==<br />
During his lifetime, Muhammad's companions learned and later transcribed the verses (surrahs) of the Quran as Muhammad spoke them. In Islam, the teachings of Mohammed were believed to be direct divine revelation from God. Some utterances that Mohammed was unsure about, dubbed the Satanic verses, would later be incorporated in a novel in modern times by [[Salmon Rushdie]] who would then be subject to a death degree from the leader of Iran for his writing.<br />
<br />
The third Caliph, Uthman, collected and codified the various versions of the surrahs into one written [[Quran]] that became the standard Arabic text used by the world's Muslims today. The Quran is longer than the Bible and written in general order of longest chapters to shortest rather than in any order of when they were spoken, sometimes making the work appear to be confusing. In all there are 114 chapters. Most of the later recorded sayings of Mohammed, which were also more warlike, actually appear earlier in the text. Present-day Muslims look first to the Quran as a guide to life, then to the [[Sunnah]], or the way of the Prophet (his life as an example for others) as recorded by his early companions, and then to the [[Hadith]], a collection of the Prophet's sayings, comments, advice, and descriptions.<br />
<br />
Frequently, Muslims disagreed over how to interpret certain passages in the Quran, the Sunnah, or the Hadith in their search for the ideal life and perfect path to heaven. From these interpretations Sunni Muslims developed four schools of law, or interpretations of law, named after their founders or early leaders: the Hanbali, considered the most strict school and predominant today in Saudi Arabia; Shafi, the school of widest acceptance, found in Egypt, parts of Palestine-Syria, south Arabia, and the Far East; Maliki, prevalent in North Africa, Sudan, and Nigeria; and Hanafi, considered the most moderate school, predominant in Ottoman Turkey and today found primarily on the Levant and Indian subcontinent. Frequently, Muslim countries have two separate legal systems, one for civil, criminal, or commercial law, and a second, and separate, system for religious law. Religious courts and their judges (qadis) might handle issues dealing with marriage, divorce, child custody, inheritance, religious education, charitable or religious property (Waqf), or family matters. Among Middle Eastern countries, Iraq, Israel, Jordan, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Syria, the United Arab Amirates, and Yemen have Shariah courts serving alongside their secular courts or have adopted [[Sharia]]h (Islamic law) as the basis of their legal systems.<br />
<br />
====Clergy====<br />
Sunni Islam does not have a priesthood or clerical hierarchy to conduct religious services or interpret scripture, but it does have prayer leaders, called Imams, and religious scholars, called Ulama, who often are educated men familiar with the Quran and able to offer commentaries on Quranic verses. Sunni Muslims also respect the teachings and interpretations of scholars, judges, and academics who may interpret laws, write treatises on Sharia (religious law) or Hadith, and issue Fatwas, religious declarations intended to enlighten or guide Muslims. <br />
<br />
Shia Islam has a hierarchy that resembles a priesthood. Mullahs are prayer leaders, but usually do not interpret religious law. Mujtahids are religious scholars who may interpret law or passages from the Quran or Hadith. The lower order of Mujtahids are called Hojjatolislam. Ayat Allah (literally sign of God, also Ayatollah) is a higher order of Mujtahid who may issue Fatwas, or religious edicts, in addition to leading Islamic schools, interpreting religious law and the Quran, and offering sermons or discourses on proper Islamic behavior. <br />
<br />
===Five Pillars of Islam===<br />
*'''Shahadah (Profession of Faith)''' -The Shahadah is the Muslim profession of faith. 'ašhadu 'al-lā ilāha illā-llāhu wa 'ašhadu 'anna muħammadan rasūlu-llāh, a loose English translation reads "''There is none worthy of worship except God, and [[Muhammad]] is the messenger of God''" This testament can be seen as the foundation of all of the other tenets of Islam. <br />
<br />
*'''Salat (Ritual Prayer)''' -All Muslims are required to Pray to God five times each day while facing [[Mecca]]. <br />
<br />
*'''Zakat (Charity)''' Able Muslims must donate to the poor based on the wealth one has accumulated. In current usage it is interpreted as 2.5% of the value of most valuables and savings held for a full [[lunar year]]. <br />
<br />
*'''Sawm (Fasting)''' All able-bodied Muslims (children, the elderly, and the ill are exempt) must fast during daylight hours during the daylight hours of the entire month of [[Ramadan]]. According to Muslims, this purifies the body and soul. Some Muslim sects allow military, police and emergency services personnel to receive an exemption from fasting from an imam, on the grounds that their work supports the community or national good.<br />
<br />
*'''Hajj (Pilgrimage)''' All able-bodied Muslims must make a pilgrimage to Mecca at least once in their lives.<br />
<br />
==Other Aspects of Islam==<br />
[[Image:Quran.jpg|thumb|right|200px|Pages from the Qur'an, the holy book of the Islamic religion.]]<br />
====Jihad====<br />
Jihad is the "effort" or "struggle" each Muslim faces in the everyday trials of life, such as the effort to get better grades in school, or the striving to achieve better results from a job, or the struggle to avoid sinful temptations. Jihad also can be applied to warfare; participating in jihad in Allah's cause was the third most important good deed listed in the Hadith, after prayer and honoring one's parents. Jihad often was a rallying cry for the military spread of Islam in the seventh through tenth centuries against non-Muslims.<br />
<br />
====Osama bin Laden and Fundamentalists====<br />
[[Osama bin Laden]], a follower of a particular brand of Islam popular in Saudi Arabia, has stated that Islam is at war with the United States and its allies. Some observers maintain that the number of Muslims who believe as bin Laden does is growing, and others go further to suggest that all "fundamentalist" Muslims are enemies of the West. But other observers differentiate between conservative "fundamentalists" and the "extremists" who follow bin Laden or other terrorists. These observers suggest that the fundamentalists disagree with bin Laden as much as do Westerners. It is hard to know the truth. Many westerners are still haunted by the images of cheering crowds dancing in the streets when the 9/11 attacks were announced and were disappointed at the lack of prominent condemnation of the attack from Islamic circles worldwide.<br />
<br />
====People of the Book====<br />
Christians and Jews are called "people of the Book" in the Koran and are considered earlier forerunners to Islam and viewed as brothers as long as they pay an extra tax when under Islamic rule. Islam, tracing its roots back to Abraham through his son Ishmael instead of Isaac as the Jews did, believes that they are the descendants of God's promise. Islam believes that both the Old and New Testament were corrupted and corrected by the Koran, but there is still an earlier link between the three religions. The view of Jews and Christians varied within different parts of the Koran and Islamic history. Much of current Islamic culture, even in places that were once very tolerant such as Egypt, has seen an upsurge in persecution and violence against Christians and Jews.<br />
<br />
====Women in Islam====<br />
For the most part, the Quran treats men and [[woman|women]] equally, applies the same injunctions and prohibitions to men and women, and grants many of the same privileges and benefits. But women are treated separately in certain instances. For example, women are required to "... draw their outer garments around them ... that they may be known (to be Muslims) and not annoyed (by men)." (Quran 33:59) Covering the head and body in public (hijab) is viewed by many Muslim women as a protection of their modesty, a way to discourage men's covetous eyes. The principle of hijab is applied in different ways: a small scarf around the head and regular "street clothes" may be voluntary and acceptable in Cairo or Damascus but a full length opaque "Burqa" was enforced in Taliban Afghanistan. The treatment of women may depend upon rural or urban settings, educational level, society norms, tradition, or other factors. As of 2008, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are the only two Middle Eastern countries where the government requires women to wear some form of modest garb.<br />
<br />
Islamic dress is a regular grounds for conflict in multicultural education.<br />
<br />
Treatment of women varies widely by country. In the Islamic state of Saudi Arabia women are forbidden from driving a car, traveling in public without their husband or a male family member as an escort, leaving their home without wearing Islamic dress, working or voting. Though not formally forbidden from owning property, they have no way of obtaining this as work is forbidden and only males are permitted to inherit - should a man die, his brothers, sons and father will all inherit before his wife. These restrictions are part of the criminal law of the country, and enforced by the police and a special Islamic office. Pakistan has similar restrictions, but to a lesser extent. In contrast, Turkey has a majority Muslim population yet still grants women rights near-equal to those of men including property ownership, employment, and education to university level.<br />
<br />
Muslim apologists suggest the extremely repressive policies of countries such as Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are cultural rather than religious, and point to the more moderate Islam practiced in Turkey as a demonstration that Islam and womens' rights are compatible, and point to past Christian-dominated cultures such as medieval Europe as examples that other religions can be distorted to justify oppression.<br />
<br />
Muslim women's status is controversial. Some critics claim that Muslim men oppress Muslim women by compelling them to remain hidden behind the veil, sequestered in the home, and ignorant of the world by denying them access to education and worldly opportunities. Defenders of some practices suggest that many of them, such as the veil, are cultural traditions that pre-date Islam and are intended to protect, not constrict, women, or that many Muslim women adopt the life style of the veil voluntarily. There are Muslim women who agree and disagree with the critics.<br />
<br />
====Mecca, Medina, and Jerusalem====<br />
Muhammad's home city of Mecca was the site of his earliest preaching and conversions, and is the location of the Kaaba, traditionally held to be the foundation stone of the first mosque built by Adam and later restored by Abraham, and now the focus of the annual pilgrimage (hajj). Some historians suggest that the Kaaba, a black stone probably meteoric in origin, was venerated by pre-Islamic polytheistic religions. <br />
<br />
At first, Jerusalem was Islam's holy city and the focus of prayers, but Mecca became the center of Islam after Muhammad's return in 630. Medina, because of its early association with Muhammad and as the site of Muhammad's tomb, is second in importance to Mecca. Jerusalem is revered by Muslims as the site of Solomon's temple, Abraham's near sacrifice of his son Ishmael, and the scene of Muhammad's miraculous midnight journey, the latter two now enshrined in the Dome of the Rock mosque. According to the Quran (Surrah 17:1, Isra) and Hadith, Muhammad and Gabriel were taken on winged mules from Mecca to Jerusalem, where they ascended through the seven heavens to the presence of Allah. During the visit, Muhammad learned, among other points, that Muslims were to pray five times each day and to honor Abraham, Moses, Jesus, and the other prophets. <br />
<br />
====Restrictions====<br />
Observant Muslims are not supposed to eat pork and in general do not have dogs as pets; both swine and canines are considered unclean. Muslims are proscribed from drinking alcoholic beverages. Observant Muslims do not collect interest.<br />
<br />
====Non-Muslim Practices====<br />
Some practices have been associated with Islam because they occur in Islamic countries, but actually are not a part of Islam. For example, female circumcision is not mentioned in the Quran, but is mentioned in Hadith as an "honorable" but not obligatory condition. It is a pre-Islamic tradition in parts of sub-Saharan Africa and the Arab world, notably in Eritrea, Yemen, and Egypt. Another example of a practice that has been associated incorrectly with Islam is honor killing, in which a brother, father, or uncle "restores" or "defends" a family's honor by killing the sister, daughter, or niece that dishonored the family through unmarried pregnancy or promiscuous behavior. The "honor killing" is more ancient and possibly tribal in origin.<br />
<br />
==Islam and Christianity==<br />
While Muslims do not believe Jesus to be the Son of God or in the resurrection, they consider him and his mother to be of God's most important prophets (Marian and Isa) otherwise known as Mary and Jesus. However, the Qur'an warns against worshiping Jesus, Muhammad, and other humans for fear of [[idolatry]].<ref>[http://www.ccg.org/_domain/ccg.org/Islam/Islam.htm Christian Churches of God Articles on Islam], March 10, 2007</ref><br />
<br />
The Qur'an states that Christians will be punished, though the nature of the punishment is not specified: <br />
<br />
"Surely, disbelievers are those who said: <br />
'Allah is the third of the three (in a Trinity).' But there is no god but One, Allah. <br />
And if they cease not from what they say, verily, a painful torment will befall the disbelievers among them.<br />
<br />
Will they not repent to Allah and ask His Forgiveness? For Allah is Oft Forgiving, Most Merciful.<br />
<br />
The Messiah , son of Mary, was no more than a Messenger; many were the Messengers that passed away before him. His mother was a Siddiqah (i.e. she believed in the words of God and His Books ). <br />
They both used to eat food (as any other human eat). <br />
Look how We make the signs clear to them, yet look how they are deluded away (from the truth)."<br />
<br />
Qur'an 5:73-75<br />
<br />
However, Islam does recognize Christians and Jews as "people of the book" since both refer to one God only, and recognize Abraham (Ibrahim in [[Arabic]]) as a founding prophet.<br />
<br />
Islam and Christianity both recognize that the theory of [[intelligent design]] is correct, and that [[evolution]] is a perversion of science by [[atheist]]s attempting to undermine religion.<br />
<br />
==Islam and Paganism==<br />
<br />
Although Muslims profess belief in a single [[God]], some believe Islam has its roots in an earlier polytheistic system. By this thinking God is linked to an earlier moon deity, although it should be brought up that there is no mention of this in the Qur'an, where Allah is cited as the God of [[Abraham]].<ref>The Qur'an, Sura 37 [http://www.amazon.com/Holy-Quran-Allamah-Nooruddin/dp/0963206702]</ref><ref>Abramahov, "Islamic Theology". Edinburgh University Press: Edinburgh, 1988. [http://www.amazon.com/Islamic-Theology-Binyamin-Abrahamov/dp/0748611029/sr=8-4/qid=1172042917/ref=pd_bbs_sr_4/105-1837174-2630046?ie=UTF8&s=books]</ref> <br />
<br />
==Sharia==<br />
[[Image:StarCresent.png|thumb|right|220px|The Star and Crescent is a symbol of Islam. It is featured in the national flag of [[Algeria]], [[Azerbaijan]], [[Malaysia]], [[Tunisia]], [[Mauritania]], [[Pakistan]], and [[Turkey]].]]<br />
[[Sharia]] is the body of Islamic law. The term means "way" or "path"; it is the legal framework within which public and some private aspects of life are regulated for those living in a legal system based on Muslim principles of jurisprudence. It is not actually part of the canonical Qur'an; that is to say, it is not believed to be the direct word of God by Muslims, but rather the interpretation of it.<br />
<br />
Sharia deals with many aspects of day-to-day life, including politics, economics, banking, business law, contract law, sexuality, marriage, divorce, and social issues. Some Islamic scholars accept Sharia as the body of precedent and legal theory established before the 19th century, while other scholars view Sharia as a changing body, and include Islamic legal theory from the contemporary period.{{fact}}<br />
<br />
==Ex-Muslims==<br />
[[Michelle Malkin]] highlights a group of Ex-Muslims hoping to change the terms of debate about Islam in Europe. Maryam Namazie, the head of the British group said "Too many things in the media and government policies have been geared to pandering to the political Islamic movements and Islamic organizations." <ref> [http://michellemalkin.com/2007/06/20/ex-muslims-stand-up-in-britain/ Ex-Muslims stand up in Britain]</ref><br />
<br />
----<br />
''Some of the text for this article was taken from "Islam: A Primer", Congressional Research Service Report for Congress (2003), a work in the public domain'' [http://www.history.navy.mil/library/online/islam.htm#back] <br />
<br />
==Prominent Muslims==<br />
*[[Muhammad]]<br />
*[[Muhammad Ali]]<br />
*[[Ahmed Deedat]]<br />
*[[Yusef Islam]]<br />
*[[Prince Naseem Hamed]]<br />
*[[Rezazadeh Hossein]]<br />
*[[Ayatollah Khomeini]]<br />
*[[Ayatollah Khamenei]]<br />
*[[Mohammad Khatami]]<br />
*[[Osama Bin Laden]]<br />
<br />
== See also ==<br />
[[Image:Africa islam 87.jpg|thumb|Islam in Africa]]<br />
*[[Arab American]]<br />
*[[Islamic republic]]<br />
*[[Qur'an]]<br />
*[[Ramadan]]<br />
<br />
==External links==<br />
*[http://muslim-canada.org/islam_christianity.html Islam and Christianity] - excellent article comparing and contrasting the two.<br />
*[http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/ Quran online in English]<br />
*[http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/ Sahih Bukhari (Hadith collection) online in English]<br />
*[http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/muslim/ Sahih Muslim (Hadith collection) online in English]<br />
*[http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/abudawud/ Sunan Abu-Dawud (Hadith collection) online in English]<br />
*[http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/muwatta/ Malik's Muwatta (Hadith collection) online in English]<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
{{reflist|2}}<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Category:Islam]]<br />
[[Category:Worldviews]]</div>NormanShttps://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Barack_Hussein_Obama&diff=554998Talk:Barack Hussein Obama2008-11-12T03:22:11Z<p>NormanS: Link to debate</p>
<hr />
<div>Archives:<br />
[[/archive1|1]]<br />
[[/archive2|2]]<br />
[[/archive3|3]]<br />
[[/archive4|4]]<br />
<br />
<br />
== Disgusted Conservative ==<br />
<br />
I've voted Republican in every election since 1960, but I'm absolutely disgusted by this page.<br />
<br />
What happened to the dignity of our party under Goldwater and Reagan? This "encyclopedia" page is just one long rant. <br />
<br />
Are there any real conservatives out there willing to present objective, factual criticism of Obama? God knows there are enough valid arguments to make. Why are we channeling Michael Savage rather than William Buckley? Currently this page makes me cry for my party.<br />
<br />
:Sounds like disgusted conservative is voting for BO. I happen to think it is an accurate account of a man that is dishonest. Where will you get the real picture about about if not here? Are you disgusted by Wikipedias article? How about the coverage on MSNBC, ABC, CBS, CNN, PBS, LATimes, WaPo, NYT, Google, The Guardian. Why not be mad and except that the majority of America is being fooled? Why not be mad at someone as disgusting as BO, actually has a real chance to take the Presidency and doesn't deserve it IN THE LEAST? Reagan is rolling over in his grave and so all the Founders.--'''<font color="#6698FF">J</font><font color="#E41B17">p</font><font color="#F88017">a</font><font color="#347C17">t</font><font color="#A74AC7">t</font>'''<sup>[[User:Jpatt| ]]</sup> 09:54, 7 October 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Voting Republican again this year. I know you're mad about what's going on, but it shows throughout the page. An encyclopedia can't be written from an angry point of view. Let me be specific:<br />
<br />
1) "Obama and Elitism" plus "Obama and Islam" are not valid main introductory sections. Start with his early life.<br />
<br />
2) His birth certificate gets its own section but his healthcare and tax plans don't? Focus on what's really important.<br />
<br />
3) The "Insights" section is just a list of criticisms and belongs under a "Criticism" section. Categorize corectly.<br />
<br />
4) Off-topic side-swipes: "He became a member of the Harvard Law Review, which uses racial quotas, in 1989". Why is "which uses racial quotas" in there? If it was a reason that he was chosen, say that. If it wasn't leave it out.<br />
<br />
5) Unsubstantiated claims: "Obama's campaign has been financed largely by leftist donors opposed to the war and to the American military in general." Citation definitely needed.<br />
<br />
You have several good sections in here: "Senate career", "Foreign policy experience", "Published criticism", "Religious affiliations". These are high-quality and reflect well on Conservapedia. The others do not.<br />
<br />
See the reply from hsmom below as the kind of constructive, factual accuracy this page needs.<br />
<br />
::This sounds like you're standard liberal bellyaching. The fact is that no real conservative Christian can vote for this man.<br />
<br />
:::??!?! Trying to hold this article to some kind of standard is bellyaching? Would you like to address any of my points?<br />
<br />
::::Your points is liberal talking points. The fact is that Barack Hussein Obama wants to talk with Iran without predeterminations, flip flops, and is close friends to an unrepentive TERRORIST. What more can you know?<br />
:::::Trying to shift the focus on an ''encyclopedia page'' about a presidential candidate from hypothetical statements (his possible Islamic faith) and trivial matters (his birth certificate), to his actual stance on the issues is liberal bellyaching? If anything, we should be casting aside these trivial circumstances as beneath us and take the time to dissect each of his stances on the actual issues. That's what a real, dignified Conservative would do. Relying on ridiculous tactics such as these is asinine and cowardly. --[[User:FrankincenseMonster|FrankincenseMonster]] 16:21, 9 October 2008 (EDT)<br />
::::::I think this article doesn't go far enough. I think there should be a picture of Hitler as the top photo, just like the Evolution page.<br />
<br />
<br />
Disgusted Conservative, sadly you are only wasting your time.<br />
<br />
<br />
Why does it say he MAY be the first Muslim President (a horrible, false claim) and he MAY use the Koran to be sworn in<br />
<br />
==Nation of Islam==<br />
''Obama's pastor of twenty-years, Rev. Wright, was originally a member with the Nation of Islam (likely always has been, see [[taqiyya]])'' Let's be careful not to confuse the Nation of Islam with the traditional Muslim faith - they are two quite different things. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 10:10, 7 October 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: What differences do you find so compelling?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:15, 18 October 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::I don't know that I'd use the word "compelling"; I don't know a whole lot about either faith. I do know that they're quite different. The Nation of Islam was started in Detroit in the 1930's as something of a black empowerment/separatist movement - it's a very race-based group, from what I understand, and (in what I would consider a cult-like way) based largely on the teachings of two or three men, who are considered more-or-less prophets. It's been portrayed in the media as very racist and anti-Semitic, though I don't know enough about it to know how accurate that is. It's a uniquely American faith. Traditional Islam is quite a different thing - it's been around for thousands of years. Malcolm X, for example, became a member of NOI in prison, then, due to disillusionment brought on by NOI leader/prophet Elijah Mohamed's adultery, converted to traditional Islam. I have assumed that when you say that you believe that Barak Obama is a Muslim, you are referring to traditional Islam, right? --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 09:37, 20 October 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::: Perhaps you think Nation of Islam is a denomination of Islam that has slightly different motivations from other denominations, but it's still Islam. Are you saying that NOI adherents do not pray and submit to Allah? I'm sure they do.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:52, 20 October 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::::''Perhaps you think Nation of Islam is a denomination of Islam that has slightly different motivations from other denominations, but it's still Islam.'' No, I wouldn't put it that way. I wouldn't consider NOI to be Islam. As I understand it, I think they are two fundamentally different faiths, though NOI has some trappings borrowed from traditional Islam, as well as some borrowed from Christianity. NOI believes, among other things, "that Allah (God) appeared in the Person of Master W. Fard Muhammad, July, 1930; the long-awaited "Messiah" of the Christians and the "Mahdi" of the Muslims."[http://www.noi.org/muslim_program.htm] As I understand it, when NOI members pray to Allah, they mean (at least in part) W. Fard Muhammad (the founder of NOI). Wheras of course traditional Muslims don't include anything about W. Fard Muhammad in their beliefs, nor do they recognize NOI as a Muslim denomination. (Christians don't believe W. Fard Muhammad is the Messiah either, obviously.) NOI is a uniquely American black separatist movement. I believe it's quite a different faith from traditional Islam. Maybe I was wrong about assuming you think Barak Obama is a traditional Muslim? Do you think Barak Obama is a member of the NOI? That would lead to quite different concerns; as I understand it, the NOI wants, among other things, quite substantial reparations for slavery. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 10:40, 20 October 2008 (EDT)<br />
:::::The Nation of Islam's relationship to Christianity is similar to the relationship of Christianity to Judaism. They use the same texts (to some extent), and have practices that are shared with and developed out of the other - but such distortions take place that one is clearly no longer the other. It's not even about "not being mainstream", it's about that place and time when one religion truly ceases to be it's parent religion. You would be fully inaccurate to call a christian merely a "Jesus loving Jew". Christianity became its own religion in the year 30 (give or take) when our Lord died and rose for us. For the Nation of Islam, with the Prophet Elijah claiming to be the reincarnation of Mohammad, they cease to be merely "Muslim" and become their own religion.--[[User:JeanJacques|JeanJacques]] 11:08, 20 October 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==57 Islamic states==<br />
<br />
I attempted to make this article better by noting, as several other Conservapedia writers have, that "57 states" could be a reference to Heinz ketchup or simple a misstatement (Obama had visited 47 states), as well as the fact that there were not 57 Islamic states when Obama attended an Indonesian school. It was reverted. Why? Is this an encyclopedia, or a liberal hate blog? [[User:Egen|Egen]] 10:42, 8 October 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: Your edit was baseless, and probably politically motivated. The entry is factual and will remain that way. Obama has likely remained a Muslim long after attending grade school. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:52, 8 October 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:: On the subject, I think someone should add the following line to your page: "The odds against Aschlafly's claim to be named 'Andrew Schlafly' being truthful are less than 1 billion to one, as fewer than 6 people in the world are named Andrew Schlafly." Don't put malarkey like this on a serious encyclopedia page and defend it as being "factual". I remind you of Conservapedia Commandments 1, 2, and 5. [[User:Egen|Egen]] 11:04, 8 October 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:: In any case, I fail to see how it is "baseless" to note, as other Conservapedia writers have, that "57 states" cannot possibly be a reference to "57 Islamic states" and probably has a more benign origin. It does not to any good to assert that anyone who disagrees with you probably does so because they are "politically motivated" (read: liberal) when many conservatives have expressed disdain for this point. I doubt that the majority of Conservapedia editors would disagree with my edit. This encyclopedia is not a personal blog for you or for anyone else. Therefore, I am reinserting the edit. If anyone can provide proof that Obama was referring to the "57 Islamic states" which did not exist when he was growing up '''and''' provide proof that that is what he was referring to, I'll retract this. [[User:Egen|Egen]] 12:16, 8 October 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::: Egen - I entirely agree with you. A lot of people here think this is a redstate comments thread rather than, as it says in the top left corner, "the trustworthy encyclopedia". Snopes on this one: http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/57states.asp<br />
<br />
I removed the mention of the 57 states, since the article later refers to a source that says that it was probably a misstatement as he has in fact visited 47 states. <sub>unsigned JohnFA</sub><br />
<br />
This statement has been here for some time. It stays for now.--'''<font color="#6698FF">J</font><font color="#E41B17">p</font><font color="#F88017">a</font><font color="#347C17">t</font><font color="#A74AC7">t</font>'''<sup>[[User:Jpatt| ]]</sup> 09:44, 29 October 2008 (EDT)<br />
Jpatt - Why should it? It's repeated later on in the article where it is also explained. This statement is redundant since it doesn't even have a source.<br />
<br />
I added the fact that there were not 57 states when he went to school in indonesia, if we are going to mention that he went to an islamic school we are implying that that is where he learned about the 57 states, this is impossible and that should be noted. People will reference conservapedia and if they reference that he visited the 57 islamic states or that he learned about there being 57 islamic states in islamic school they will look like fools.--[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 13:06, 31 October 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::Right now, the implication made about Obama's gaff and "57 Islamic states" indicates the United States. If it's about Indonesia, then state Indonesia, as well as prove that Indonesia is divided into 57 states. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:12, 31 October 2008 (EDT)<br />
:::I double-checked the references provided, one of which has a video of Obama himself doing the gaff; it may have been a minor slip of the tounge or a minor mistake, but not once was there a reference to visiting Islamic states or countries. He specified visiting 57 ''U.S. states''. The article was changed to reflect that fact, and the speculation on Islamic states was removed. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:23, 31 October 2008 (EDT)<br />
::::I wanted to do that but I figured I would just get reverted. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 13:53, 31 October 2008 (EDT)<br />
:::::I'll let you take credit then for the fixing, or at least getting it started :) [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:57, 31 October 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==Biased==<br />
Isn't this site supposed to be unbaised?-[[User:Red4tribe|Red4tribe]] 16:46, 8 October 2008 (EDT)<br />
:Welcome to Conservapedia[[User:Pluto|Pluto]] 18:19, 8 October 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== "born, allegedly, in Honolulu" ==<br />
<br />
there's no doubt he was ''born''. that should read "allegedly born in Honolulu"<br />
<br />
God bless. [[User:JohnBarma|JohnBarma]] 13:30, 10 October 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:As the previous poster said, "(born, allegedly, in Honolulu,<ref>MSM Ignores Democrat Lawsuit Against Obama[http://newsbusters.org/blogs/p-j-gladnick/2008/08/22/msm-ignores-democrat-lawsuit-against-obama]</ref><ref>[http://www.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/birth_certificate_5.jpg Large, high-resolution picture of his birth certificate]</ref> August 4, 1961)", implies that he may not have been born, which I think is not what is intended. "Allegedly born in Honolulu" has the same problem. Putting aside whether or not the "allegedly" is silly (and frankly I think the factcheck.org folks debunked this one), if you want to convey the idea that he was born, but may have been born somewhere other than Hawaii, then it should read "(born, allegedly in Honolulu,<ref>MSM Ignores Democrat Lawsuit Against Obama[http://newsbusters.org/blogs/p-j-gladnick/2008/08/22/msm-ignores-democrat-lawsuit-against-obama]</ref><ref>[http://www.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/birth_certificate_5.jpg Large, high-resolution picture of his birth certificate]</ref> August 4, 1961)". Comma placement matters. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 20:58, 10 October 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Correct. Factcheck did take this one apart: http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html<br />
<br />
"Of course, it's distantly possible that Obama's grandparents may have planted the announcement just in case their grandson needed to prove his U.S. citizenship in order to run for president someday. We suggest that those who choose to go down that path should first equip themselves with a high-quality tinfoil hat. The evidence is clear: Barack Obama was born in the U.S.A."<br />
<br />
Snope also: http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthcertificate.asp<br />
::''Of course, it's distantly possible that Obama's grandparents may have planted the announcement just in case their grandson needed to prove his U.S. citizenship in order to run for president someday'' What foolishness! As if the ability to run for President is the sole benefit to be derived from US citizenship! That his grandparents planted the announcement is entirely credible. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 14:30, 17 October 2008 (EDT)<br />
:What we need to see to settle this controversy is the actual birth certificate; not a copy of it, and not someone's written opinion. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:47, 17 October 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
It is my understanding from a recent article on Fox that the form presented lists him as "African". This was 1961. The concept of African-American or any reference to African in racial makeup, while very prevalent in the last 15+ years, was still more than 20 years off. Birth certificates in 1961 used "Negro". I'm surprised this isn't mentioned anywhere. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 17:19, 27 October 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Favorite black leader ==<br />
<br />
I've just finished reading Dreams from My Father. I don't recommend it. But one thing I missed was a reference to Malcolm X being Obama's "favorite black leader". He speaks highly of Malcolm X's autobiography, but doesn't like the "religious baggage" that the guy "discarded in later life". Is the reference here correct? [[User:Marcdaniels|Marcdaniels]] 17:10, 10 October 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: Search Google on {"Malcolm X" Obama favorite} and you'll find numerous credible confirmations of the statement about Malcolm X being Obama's favorite black leader. The entry need not be limited to the silly Dreams book.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:03, 10 October 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::Not really seeing it. Various claims Obama loves Malcolm X's autobiography (which, subject to the point above, seems correct), but the claims that he is Obama's "favorite black leader" all cite no reference, or cite Dreams - I think incorrectly. Is there a source for Obama having said or written this? If not, it should go. [[User:Marcdaniels|Marcdaniels]] 18:12, 10 October 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::I agree that it should be sourced, preferably with a quote from his book or one of his speeches, otherwise it could be mistaken for an untrue rumor. If he qualified the statement with something about X's religion, as Marcdaniels noted above, that should be included in the quote. I looked for a credible source, but couldn't find one. I have added a fact tag, which can be removed when a suitable citation is found. (Let's not forget that Malcolm X was involved with the Nation of Islam, which is quite a different thing than traditional Islam. He rejected the Nation of Islam later in life.)--[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 21:13, 10 October 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::: Examples supporting the statement are easy to find. I just added one. I don't think anyone seriously doubts the truth of the statement. Feel free to find and add other citations supporting it. The discomfort expressed above seems to be with the fact itself.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:54, 10 October 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::::: Your source goes back to the book, which I'd thought we'd both agreed wasn't on point. It's entirely plausible that Obama might regard Malcolm X as his favorite black leader, and that would discomfort me in the slightest, but I'm having real difficulty finding any evidence that he has said or written this. [[User:Marcdaniels|Marcdaniels]] 07:40, 11 October 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::::: No, you've misread me now. I did not agree that book wasn't on point. I did say there is further evidence beyond the book, which is easy to find on the internet.<br />
<br />
:::::: The quote from the book is convincing enough. If you won't accept it, then I doubt you would accept anything now.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:20, 11 October 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::::: I am now a little confused, and I'm not sure why you are getting personal. You suggested there were additional sources for the claim on the internet, other than those referring to the book, but I cannot find one. I may be missing something obvious - would be helpful if you could provide a link. The book shows Malcolm X's autobiography to have been Obama's favourite autobiography, and it would be accurate to say that, but anything further seems supposition rather than fact. [[User:Marcdaniels|Marcdaniels]] 11:35, 11 October 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== "if elected, Obama will become the first black, and possibly Muslim, President of the United States." ==<br />
<br />
What's the problem with this sentence in place of the one currently there? For starters, it isn't proven that he's Muslim, but it ''is'' proven that he's black, so certainly it should be mentioned over the hypothetical. --[[User:FrankincenseMonster|FrankincenseMonster]] 21:25, 11 October 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: The racial composition of all the past presidents is not completely known, so I doubt it's appropriate to insist that Obama would be the '''first''' black President. Also, the racial composition of a man is not as important as his beliefs. It is known that none of the prior presidents were Muslim.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:54, 11 October 2008 (EDT)<br />
::Well said, Aschlafly. It is the content of a person's character that should determine how we "judge" them. Although, who are we to judge? I suspect, however, looking at the photos, that Senator Obama would at least be the first President (if elected) with a clear [[African American]] heritage. Whether a few others may have had a lineage leading back to Africa in their family tree is another, albeit interesting, question. [[User:Human|Human]] 23:16, 11 October 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::That's an interesting argument. If we know so little about the former presidents that we cannot say whether any of them met society's contemporaneous definition of Black - the one-drop rule, for example - then how can we say than none of them were Muslim? If they could keep their African ancestry secret, why not their true religion? Is there evidence of political opponents accusing a candidate of being of mixed-blood ancestry?--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 23:21, 11 October 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::: When people vote, they are called to judge. So the liberal canard of "judge not" is a useless argument here. What will voters judge on? More important than race is the views and beliefs of the candidates.<br />
<br />
::: As to whether past presidents were Muslims, simply look at what they did and said ... including before they became politically ambitious.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:33, 11 October 2008 (EDT)<br />
::::Of course we "judge", or at least "decide" when we vote. However, when did "judge not... [lest ye be judged]" become a "liberal canard"? I thought it was a warning in the Bible not to overstep our bounds? Voting, of course, does not overstep them - we pencil in a space, or pull a lever. That is not "judgment", it is an expression of personal opinion or preference or ideas. Moving beyond that simple step, however, leads us into judgment territory, potentially. When we should be humble and add commentary on ourselves as well as those we judge is an issue of personal ethics - or morality. A good time to sit down with good words and contemplate. [[User:Human|Human]] 01:22, 12 October 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Main Picture ==<br />
<br />
I would like someone to please explain to me how this is unbais? At least with the article you can try to make something up saying how its unbais but the main picture is trying to show very obviouisly that Obama is unpatriotic... If you look at McCains page or Palins the picture of professionally done. Please someone give me a reasonable answer [[User talk:Horriblesite]]<br />
<br />
: Funny you should comment. Is it Conservapedia making Obama unpatriotic or is it Obama who IS unpatriotic? I will say the latter.--'''<font color="#6698FF">J</font><font color="#E41B17">p</font><font color="#F88017">a</font><font color="#347C17">t</font><font color="#A74AC7">t</font>'''<sup>[[User:Jpatt| ]]</sup> 21:56, 12 October 2008 (EDT)<br />
::Also, "unbais" and "professionally done" are Liberal canards. --[[User:FrankincenseMonster|FrankincenseMonster]] 21:56, 12 October 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
<br />
== Taqiyya ==<br />
<br />
The definition of Taqiyya in this article (''(allowed if) ... it advances the cause of Islam'') is incorrect for the Sunni Muslims. Taqiyya is only allowed when it will danger their lives otherwise. <br />
Also, even with this allowance, many chose instead a honorable death.<br />
<br />
Shi'ites (shia) is the one who practices this (taqiyya) in almost any situation that will cause discomfort to them otherwise. <br />
<br />
Sunni muslim and some branches of Shi'ite, because of their extreme stances, are pretty much a different religion. --[[User:Sufehmi|Sufehmi]] 11:23, 9 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Taqiyya & takeyya ==<br />
<br />
Are these the same thing? [[User:LiamG|LiamG]] 15:34, 16 October 2008 (EDT)<br />
:Yes. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 15:52, 16 October 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== wife opinions ==<br />
<br />
The thing that bothers me about Obama is the comments attributed to his wife. 1. That it was the first time she was proud of america and 2.That black children had no future in america. Both she and her husband are examples of how well a black child can do so its hard to understand why she has that view. [[User:Markr|Markr]] 16:38, 16 October 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::See similar comments from John McCain: http://www.americanconservativedaily.com/2008/06/mccain-it-can-be-%E2%80%9Ctough%E2%80%9D-to-be-proud-of-usa/ “I’ll admit to you … that it’s tough in some respects,” McCain said when asked by a questioner at a town hall meeting how to be proud of the country. “We have not always done things right and we mismanaged the war in Iraq very badly for nearly four years.”<br />
<br />
== Obvious fake photo (hand on heart) ==<br />
<br />
I suspect this very obvious fake photo (look at how small the two women are compared to the chairs behind them, check out the flag's edges itself and what exactly is holding it up) was placed here by people hoping to discredit Conservapedia. I understand a popular activity among liberals and vandals is to insert things seeming to support Conservative and Christian values, but that are either extreme or fake, and so undermine the encyclopedia as a whole.--[[User:TruthOfChrist|TruthOfChrist]] 11:11, 17 October 2008 (EDT)<br />
:It isn't fake. Many other photos of this occasion exist. Video, too. The goofy-looking perspective is an artifact of the angle and lens used. --[[User:XavierJ|XavierJ]] 12:29, 17 October 2008 (EDT)<br />
Answer: http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthcertificate.asp {{unsigned|Littleriverr}}<br />
<br />
The single photo lacked context, and the writer of this article, unfortunately, chose to translate it negatively. A more balanced discussion is available on Snopes : http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/anthem.asp --[[User:Sufehmi|Sufehmi]] 10:51, 9 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
==birth certificate lawsuit number 2==<br />
In a second lawsuit challenging Barack Obama's "natural born" citizenship, a Washington resident is demanding officials review original or certified birth documents for the Democratic Party presidential candidate.<br />
<br />
Steven Marquis of Fall City, Wash., filed suit Oct. 9 in Washington State Superior Court, calling for Secretary of State Sam Reed to determine whether Obama is a citizen before Election Day. Marquis released a statement saying the state has the authority to "prevent the wholesale disenfranchisement of voters" who might have otherwise had the opportunity to choose a qualified candidate should records show Obama is not a natural-born U.S. citizen. [http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=78111]<br />
<br />
:See my analysis of this on this Talk Page, point 58: "Barack raises the bar". [[User:MylesP|MylesP]] 00:25, 1 November 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==Errors and dubious claims==<br />
<br />
- The first sentence says Obama was born in Hawaii. At first I was under the impression that someone decided to act in a competent manner and remove the baseless innuendo about his place of birth. Alas I was mistaken because later in the article the word 'alleged' is still used. I thought all reasonable people would presume that a document from the State of Hawaii would suffice to prove one's citizenship instead of using the rants of the lunatic fringe.<br />
<br />
: A lawsuit has been filed by someone seeking the real birth certificate. Complain to him, and explain why it still apparently has not been produced.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:21, 20 October 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::The state of Hawaii is not just going to let anybody get a copy of Obama's birth certificate, let alone his original. I can't even get my hands on my own original birth certificate and I'll bet neither can you. A certified copy of Obama's birth certificate has been provided for anyone to look at. If this copy is good enough for our government officials that are not part of the lunatic fringe, then why isn't it good enough for Conservapedia? I'd like to think Conservapedia is not aligning itself with the likes of the people filing these nonsense lawsuits.--[[User:NormaN|NormaN]] 18:58, 20 October 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
- Obama only attended religious schools until he reached the age of ten (Islamic and Catholic). The rest of his education from Punahou School, Occidental College, Columbia University, and Harvard was nonsectarian. Clearly the vast majority of his education was non-religious. [[http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/01/22/obama.madrassa/]]<br />
<br />
: Obama's formative years were spend being indoctrinated in Islam. Less than 1% convert to Christianity after that experience. Enough said.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:21, 20 October 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::I was never under the impression that a person's formative years stopped at the age of ten. According to you, Obama shouldn't be a liberal because he attended conservative religious schools during his alleged formative years, 6 - 10. How is it that he is now a liberal after living another 35+ years and attending an ivy-league college? You are also ignoring his years in a Catholic school during his time in Indonesia. Why? If he spent two of his formative years at a Catholic school, shouldn't he be a Catholic?--[[User:NormaN|NormaN]] 18:58, 20 October 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
- Malcom X was not THE leader of the Nation of Islam, he was A leader. There is a distinct difference. [[http://www.finalcall.com/national/savioursday2k/hem_nation.htm]]<br />
<br />
: Nitpicking here. I'll change "the" to "a" for you.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:21, 20 October 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::Don't do it for me, do it for the reputation of Conservapedia.--[[User:NormaN|NormaN]] 18:58, 20 October 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
- Obama was baptized in 1988, the same year he started attending Harvard. If there is a reference stating he was baptized prior to his political ambitions, please post it. [[http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/04/30/america/30obama.php?page=2]]<br />
<br />
: 1988 makes no sense, as no one ever saw any Christian behavior or church attendance by Obama at law school from 1988 to 1991. Post his baptismal certificate. You can't and neither can Obama.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:21, 20 October 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::Why doesn't 1988 make any sense? Was there a problem with my reference? Are you able to provide reputable evidence that Obama's baptism didn't occur in 1988? Just because a person doesn't attend church on a regular basis or hardly at all is not a reason to deny someone's baptism. Elsewhere in this article is criticism directed at Obama's CHRISTIAN pastor of 20 years. Either Obama is a Christian that attended a Christian church for 20 years or he is not. If he is a Muslim, then why all the fuss about his Christian pastor of 20 years?--[[User:NormaN|NormaN]] 18:58, 20 October 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
- Just because someone reads a book allegedly 'from a Muslim point-of-view' does not mean they are actually a Muslim. I have read parts of the book and I am not a Muslim.<br />
<br />
: It adds to the evidence. If Obama were reading the Bible, then that would detract from the evidence.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:21, 20 October 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::Obama does read his Bible and has encouraged others to do so as well. Would like a reference?--[[User:NormaN|NormaN]] 18:58, 20 October 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
- Roosevelt communicated with America's enemies. After the outbreak of WW II, Roosevelt was negotiating with the Japanese. Things didn't go well and the Japanese were embargoed, thus losing most of their import capability including over 90% of their oil supplies. [[http://www.fff.org/freedom/1291c.asp]]<br />
<br />
: Your point is lacking here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:21, 20 October 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::In reference to Obama saying we should talk to our enemies, the following claim was made, "Roosevelt spoke with none of the Axis or Japanese leaders and the only communication that was sent to them was unconditional surrender." Roosevelt and members of his administration talked to our enemies, the reference provided by the article was written by a columnist with a distinct lack of historical credibility.--[[User:NormaN|NormaN]] 18:58, 20 October 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
- If Obama' likely benefited from special scholarships not available to most students', then which scholarships were they? Could a reference at least be provided?<br />
<br />
: You tell us. Obama won't disclose who paid for his education. He claimed he worked his way through school, but that was disproved.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:21, 20 October 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::Why should I tell you? The claim was made in the article without a shred of evidence to back it up. I do happen to know that the Obama's used college loans to pay for much of their schooling and they only just recently paid them off with the proceeds from his books. Since someone writing for Conservapedia is making the incredible claim that Obama was somehow able to acquire loans not available to most others, shouldn't a reference be provided so the claim will withstand scrutiny? --[[User:NormaN|NormaN]] 18:58, 20 October 2008 (EDT) <br />
<br />
- Any chance a reference could be provided for the claim concerning the flag pin? The way it reads now makes the entry look like partisan whining.<br />
<br />
: Be clearer. No one denies Obama avoided wearing a flag pin as he catered to the anti-war crowd.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:21, 20 October 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::The claim, ' Recently, he has begun wearing one again for reasons that are likely political pandering' was made without a reference. Any chance this opinion could be verified so the article doesn't sound like a smear?--[[User:NormaN|NormaN]] 18:58, 20 October 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
The general tone of the article makes it look like a partisan smear campaign, not the encyclopedic scholarly work Conservapedia alleges to produce.--[[User:NormaN|NormaN]] 17:08, 20 October 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: I think your conclusion applies more to your own comments.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:21, 20 October 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::Thanks for your response.--[[User:NormaN|NormaN]] 18:58, 20 October 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==Malcolm X and the Nation of Islam==<br />
''Obama has written that the autobiography of Malcolm X, a Nation of Islam leader, inspired him in his youth.'' I think this statement needs to be tweaked a bit. While it's true that Malcolm X was a leader in the Nation of Islam (a radical black separatist group, not to be confused with the traditional Islam faith), by the time he wrote his autobiography (as told to Alex Haley, of Roots fame), he had rejected the Nation of Islam and converted to traditional Islam. If Obama was inspired by the book to take up Malcolm's religion (which is a stretch, IMHO, as lots of people have read this book and not become Muslims), he would most likely have chosen traditional Islam like Malcolm did. I think it's important to make that distinction clear. (Unless this item is intended to suggest that Obama is a member of the Nation of Islam? If so, it should be in a different section, as it's quite a different claim.) FWIW, Malcolm X was assassinated in 1965, four years after Obama's birth. Also, the title of the book is ''The Autobiography of Malcolm X''. So I suggest this item be changed to something like:<br />
<br />
* Obama has written that reading ''The Autobiography of Malcolm X'' inspired him in his youth. Malcolm X converted to traditional Islam after leaving the radical Nation of Islam (a black separatist group).<br />
:Sounds considered and precise. Most black muslims are NOT NOI, they are in fact sunni Muslim.--[[User:JeanJacques|JeanJacques]] 20:11, 20 October 2008 <br />
<br />
<br />
== Obamas Grandmother==<br />
Breaking news, Americans still forbidden to speak with Obamas grandmother. Now, we may never. Democrat Barack Obama is canceling nearly all his campaign events Thursday and Friday to fly to Hawaii to visit his suddenly ill 86-year-old grandmother.<br />
Campaign spokesman Robert Gibbs told reporters Monday that Obama's grandmother, Madelyn Payne Dunham, who helped raise him, was released from the hospital late last week. But he says her health has deteriorated to the point where her situation is very serious.<br />
Gibbs said Obama would return to the campaign trail on Saturday, though he was unsure where.<br />
Obama events originally planned for Madison, Wis., and Des Moines, Iowa, on Thursday will be replaced with one in Indianapolis before he makes the long flight to Hawaii. --'''<font color="#6698FF">J</font><font color="#E41B17">p</font><font color="#F88017">a</font><font color="#347C17">t</font><font color="#A74AC7">t</font>'''<sup>[[User:Jpatt| ]]</sup> 21:16, 20 October 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Suggesting corrections to 'atom bomb' sentance ==<br />
<br />
Hello again,<br />
<br />
I think it should not say "atom bombs" because this is slang expression. It should be "atomic bombs" except since 1960s it usually is said "nuclear bombs" and even then there are other weapons from bombs (missles are not bombs, then there are torpedoes and so on) so it should say "nuclear weapons."<br />
<br />
Also my memory is fuzzy here but didn't Clinton have ties to other washed up sixties communist terrorists? Like former Black Panther Party people who were re-made into "moderate" democrat politicians.<br />
<br />
Finally and this is just style, I do not like the '''Bold text''', it makes look rather alarming, not that we are not alarmed about this, but I think it is best to say the raw facts directly and people will know to be alarmed, instead of trying to shock people with text formatting into coming to their sense. I heard Conservapedia wants to get away from "that other encyclopedia"'s use of sensationism and tabloid style, so, maybe take off the bold. [[User:ELeger|ELeger]] 21:28, 20 October 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
other than this a very good job in the article, maybe it is too late to change direction your country is going, but at least people will know who had the facts before things all went wrong! [[User:ELeger|ELeger]] 21:30, 20 October 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: I appreciate your comments but don't find them compelling. "Atom bombs" is a familiar term; whether Clinton did likewise concerning terrorists is irrelevant; and bolding is obviously helpful for emphasis. Thanks anyway and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:44, 20 October 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::While I plan to stick to the 90-10 ratio here, and this is the first comment I've made, I did want to note that I agree with Eleger about "Atomic Bombs" or "Nuclear Weapons" simply on the basis of the being more accurate terms. My person phrase of choice would be Nuclear arsenal though. Maybe nitpicking, but I think fair. -EternalCritic<br />
<br />
:I came to post that too; I also have a problem with "first" part of "If elected, Obama would become the first person having ties to a known terrorist to gain control over America's atom bombs". The most recent Democrat President was bad too. OTOH, something like "second person..." might distract from the point that Obama is a threat.[[User:MikeMike|MikeMike]]<br />
<br />
== How low can you go? ==<br />
<br />
Is this meant as an "How To" article on character assassination? Though I do find some of the 'links' in the Obama and Islam hilarious, I'd thought that the conservative parts of the US had a shred of dignity left. It appears not to be the case. But keep feeding the lies to your fellow yes-men, the rest of us are quite amused.<br />
<br />
:::We are not going low at all, You Who Did Not Leave Your Name. This entry is nothing about the truth about Barack Obama. Unfortunately, liberals like you will not find out until it is too late.--[[User:Saxplayer|Saxplayer]] 21:20, 22 October 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::: ''"the rest of us are quite amused."'' I am sure the leftwingers are quite amused of the nonstop Obama media lovefest. I am sure they are also amused at the whole disenfranchisement of voting in a Democracy thanks to ACORN. I am on a conservative website and I can't find a good Obama bio, shucks billybob, I need the Obama I can believe in, let's look at MSNBC... La La La, liberal fantasy land.--'''<font color="#6698FF">J</font><font color="#E41B17">p</font><font color="#F88017">a</font><font color="#347C17">t</font><font color="#A74AC7">t</font>'''<sup>[[User:Jpatt| ]]</sup> 21:48, 22 October 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::: In response to the first (unsigned) comment above, liberals enjoy deceit. But not everyone is fooled by it, and liberals get very irritable when they see that.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:57, 22 October 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==Berg Obama lawsuit==<br />
Philip J. Berg announced 10/21 that Obama and the DNC “ADMITTED”, by way of failure to timely respond to Requests for Admissions, all of the numerous specific requests in the Federal lawsuit. Obama is “NOT QUALIFIED” to be President and therefore Obama must immediately withdraw his candidacy for President. [http://obamacrimes.com/]--'''<font color="#6698FF">J</font><font color="#E41B17">p</font><font color="#F88017">a</font><font color="#347C17">t</font><font color="#A74AC7">t</font>'''<sup>[[User:Jpatt| ]]</sup> 10:26, 23 October 2008 (EDT)<br />
:The "admission" is nothing more than an acknowledgment that there was no response to his suit, so Berg is claiming that this qualifies as an admission that all his allegations are true. Berg's now positioning this as "Obama admits he's not a citizen", but that is legal spin, not reality, and I'd be hesitant to claim it as anything other than the latest round in a lawsuit. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 10:52, 23 October 2008 (EDT)<br />
::There's a legal principle that the silent are understood to consent. Obama's failure to deny Berg's request for admission means that he admits those items under the law. This definitely should be included, and should be reason enough to disqualify him from the election. [[User:QWest|QWest]] 16:03, 25 October 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::::The judge in the Berg-Obama case has tossed out the suit [http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jvhtmoNEnyP1Bu6Ol4zJsN94mlewD941NCJG0]--[[User:Saxplayer|Saxplayer]] 16:30, 25 October 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::::Just because an activist judge tossed out the suit doesn't mean that the admissions don't count. I'm sure Berg will appeal. [[User:QWest|QWest]] 16:54, 25 October 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::::Is the judge activist? Is there reason to believe he's an Obama partisan? [[User:Marcdaniels|Marcdaniels]] 11:38, 26 October 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::::Lefty DindaleP was right, though it shouldn't be hard to find a sympathetic judge in Democrat bastion of Philadelphia. If, if the bozo (obama) wins, this issue will not go away easily and will be justification for impeachment. Though, will be hard to impeach with super-majority liberal congress, God help us. --'''<font color="#6698FF">J</font><font color="#E41B17">p</font><font color="#F88017">a</font><font color="#347C17">t</font><font color="#A74AC7">t</font>'''<sup>[[User:Jpatt| ]]</sup> 12:35, 27 October 2008 (EDT)<br />
:::::::Actually, McCain has a similar issue, in that he was not born in the US, and arguably not on US territory. Most every single scholar I've read in the last few days on this has said McCain's case will be a compelling one, legally, because no court in the land would dare say a person born out of this country to two citizens, one of whom was SERVING HIS COUNTRY, would be denied the right to be president. As we become more and more of a mobile population, with people traveling and living overseas for extended periods of time (business, government, or travel) I think more children will be born of two natural citizens, but not on the US territory. I will be curious to watch how the term "Natural Born Citizen" is defined by the Court under any case, Obama or McCain, just for the historical precedent it will set. --[[User:JeanJacques|JeanJacques]] 12:41, 27 October 2008 (EDT)<br />
::::::::: By the way, Qwest, there is no legal principal that "silence is admittance". Until or unless a Judge posts an Order compelling you to provide a particular document or telling you to agree or deny, you are not obligated to. Some instances this might be used could include famous people being hit over and over again with frivolis lawsuits, just cause they have money or power.--[[User:JeanJacques|JeanJacques]] 12:52, 27 October 2008 (EDT)<br />
::::::::::McCain was born in United States territory, which the Panama Canal Zone was prior to 1978, when by treaty it was turned over to Panama. Anyone born in the United States, its territories, or its overseas military bases is an American citizen. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:18, 27 October 2008 (EDT)<br />
:::::::::::Yes, very much an American citizen. The interesting language is "Natural Born Citizen". That is what will be interesting to see how it's defined. I think it makes rational sense that anyone born to American parents should be "natural born", regardless of where they are born. But the Framers didn't explain the terms. (I'm not arguing, by the way, for any point. I'm simply saying scholars say this issue of an American Citizen not born on US land has not yet been addressed - or rather, what do the words "natural born" mean, in that context.) The lawsuit for McCain is totally irrelevant (even though the judge has not seen fit to toss it yet), since the Congress already said he is exempt per their own Resolution. --[[User:JeanJacques|JeanJacques]] 13:23, 27 October 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==Birthplace and Grammar Revisited==<br />
''Barack Hussein Obama, II (allegedly born in Honolulu,[1][2] August 4, 1961)'' Putting aside all issues about whether the "where Obama was born" issue is worth mentioning, given that it ''is'' going to be mentioned, let's get it right. The issue (as a previous poster mentioned somewhere above), is not ''whether'' he was born - we all agree on that. The issue is whether he was born ''in Honolulu''. Thus the phrase should read: ''Barack Hussein Obama, II (born, allegedly in Honolulu,[1][2] August 4, 1961)'' --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 21:06, 23 October 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==Request addition==<br />
I would like to add this external page and somehow link to this photo Democrat_Obama_during_the_Pledge.jpg [http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Obama_doesnt_put_hand_over_heart_1022.html No hand over heart from Obama during national anthem video]| Original footage ABC, now available through RawStory Media. [[Fair use]] --'''<font color="#6698FF">J</font><font color="#E41B17">p</font><font color="#F88017">a</font><font color="#347C17">t</font><font color="#A74AC7">t</font>'''<sup>[[User:Jpatt| ]]</sup> 14:07, 25 October 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: Will unlock for you now. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:13, 25 October 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== First Muslim President ==<br />
<br />
I found this claim quite amusing at first, especially with Snopes already had it debunked quite extensively : http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/muslim.asp<br />
<br />
Then I remember that we, Indonesian, also got the wrong information. We thought Obama is a muslim, and we rejoiced. <br />
We found out later that (1) clearly his parents are quite liberal on religions (2) the context at that time in Indonesia is that most Muslims were not religious. We were pretty laid back then. My parents drink alcohol and misses their obligatory religious duties.<br />
<br />
So even if (again, IF) Obama was a Muslim, there's no way he's enrolled in a "radical Wahabi school". It just didn't exist back then.<br />
<br />
Anyway, if we, Indonesians, were wrong about Obama at his time in Indonesia, it's quite understandable if others were also mistaken. --[[User:Sufehmi|Sufehmi]] 11:47, 9 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
"If elected, Obama would likely become the first Muslim President".<br />
The evidence pointing to Obama being a Muslim can be included, but Barack Obama has said he is a Christian, and is a member of the United Church of Christ. So is saying he is likely to become a Muslim president meant to imply that Obama is secretly a Muslim? Perhaps a better phrased version of this sentence would be "If elected, Obama would become the first president with a strong leaning toward Islam". This is concurrent list that follows it, and is much less hypothetical like a good resource should be. --[[User:anonymous123|anonymous123]] 21:52, 27 October 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:Obama's claims to be a Christian are meaningless for three reasons; first, his distinctly non-Christian stance on issues such as [[abortion]] and the [[homosexual agenda]]; second, the radical, [[Marxism|Marxist]] theology preached by his church; and third, the [[Muslim]] concept of [[taqiyya]] outlined in the article. All the of the evidence points away from his being a Christian. [[User:SMichaels|SMichaels]] 16:06, 28 October 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:: Using Taqiyya as a defense is a joke. I'm not doubting it's authenticity, but I could claim the same thing about you and you would have no defense. See Salem Witch Trials for more information. --[[User:Limbo|Limbo]] 09:42, 1 November 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::Obama's stances on [[abortion]] the [[homosexual agenda]] and [[marxism|Marxism]] do take credibility away from his Chrisitian stance, but Muslims are against [[abortion]], [[homosexual agena|homosexualiity]] and women's rights themselves. Furthermore, [[Marxism]] is against all religions, and if his church preaches Marxism, that makes him a Marxist Christian, not a Marxist Muslim. While I myself question his faith in Jesus, I sincerely doubt that he is a Muslim. And as for Taqiyya? Isn't that just an obscure segment of a doctrine practiced only by some Sunnis and considered hypocrisy by other muslims? [[user:justiceisblind|Justice Is Blind]]<br />
<br />
:The facts you gave are true, but you did not address my bringing up the idea of rewording the phrase. Having a set of words like "might be" or "could be" seem extremely unscholarly. Those facts you threw up also would correspond to him having a strong leaning toward Islam, minus the hypothetical thought he might be a Muslim. --[[User:anonymous123|anonymous123]] 23:03, 28 October 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::The truth is what it is, whether you find it "unscholarly" or not. We're not fooled here when politicians try to deceive the public about who they are and what they believe.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:00, 29 October 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::Why is it so hard to directly answer my question? First off, do not mix my words, I said the way the sentence is phrased is not scholarly, what is truth or not does not matter to me. I don't really care what you say is the truth, and what you are or are not fooled by. I am just bringing up the option that as long as Obama himself and no mosques claim he is a member, perhaps it should be reworded to "If elected, Obama would become the first president with a strong leaning toward Islam", which also corresponds to the list that follows it, and is all based on fact no conjecture. The reader should have the right to make up their own mind after reading the examples which are listed. --[[User:anonymous123|anonymous123]] 22:18, 29 October 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::::There are strong evidence that Obama is a muslim and it has been layed out again and again. He has never come out and said he's not a muslim among all the questions. There for if elected, he will be the first muslim president ever elected. It's as simple as that. --[[User:Patriot1505|Patriot1505]]<br />
<br />
:::::Sure he has. [http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=0GFKqOf8EHQ]--[[User:KathrynMonroe|KathrynMonroe]] 22:23, 31 October 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::::Yes, he has. [http://www.wired.com/politics/law/news/2008/01/obama_mail] --[[User:Limbo|Limbo]] 09:42, 1 November 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Barack raises the bar ==<br />
<br />
The snide accusation that Barack Obama insulted America because he refused to hold his hand over his heart is completely off-target. (See photo at top of article). The human heart is just a pump , medically speaking, but culturally it represents the finest, most vital and sensitive parts of our soul. Barack is indicating precisely how much he loves America by putting not one, but both hands over that part of his body which truly encompasses the most vital, potent and sincere components of his soul. Bill Clinton might not be his biggest fan, but he would be the first to applaud this magnificent gesture. [[User:MylesP|MylesP]] 23:37, 31 October 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: ??? --[[User:Limbo|Limbo]] 09:36, 1 November 2008 (EDT)<br />
::LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL [[User:Aperson41|Aperson41]] 01:50, 5 November 2008 (EST)<br />
: Wow. I have no idea of what to say to that.--[[User:JArneal|JArneal]] 19:07, 6 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
== A hypothetical article ==<br />
<br />
The vast majority of this article appears to be purely hypothetical and some of it seems to be fradulent, such as the pornographer donation and the speculation that Obama is a muslim. It is refreshing to see Obama in such a sober light, but I would encourage previous and future writers to be less interested in controversy, and to use legitimate information on the article instead.<br />
<br />
Also, the article lacks structure, and seems to dive in and out of his history, his policies, quotations in a manner which pleases the tone. It is all quite juvenile and sad; an encyclopedia is where questions are answered, not where additional questions are brought up.<br />
<br />
== Birth Certificate Controversy ==<br />
<br />
The whole section should be reworded or entirely deleted. According to [http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/20081031/BREAKING01/81031064/0/BREAKING04 this], there can be no more doubt about Obama's birthplace. The article also states, that Obama has no right to release his birth certificate, so all demands for him to do that can only be part of a smear campaign. --[[User:Ascat|Ascat]] 15:22, 1 November 2008 (EDT)<br />
:Agreed. For more confirmation see [http://www.kitv.com/politics/17860890/detail.html?rss=hon&psp=news KITV Honolulu] and [http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2008Nov01/0,4670,InternetPoliticalRumors,00.html Fox News' article about Web political rumors.] Having 'allegedly' made sense before all the facts were on the table, but now I'm removing the word because it lessens the strength of our true, verifiable criticisms if we leave it there. [[User:Jinkas|Jinkas]] 20:58, 1 November 2008 (EDT)<br />
:: What about the lawsuit against him about this? [http://www.rightpundits.com/?p=2313]--[[User:Limbo|Limbo]] 21:23, 1 November 2008 (EDT)<br />
:::The lawsuits all fell through, because anyone looking at the official documents could tell that they were real, it was a manufactured controversy thanks to Hillary (boy I wish expletives were allowed on conservapedia). --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 16:49, 3 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:::This issue remains valid even though rejected by the courts. Expect it to be revisited if he wins. Plus, allegiances owed to Keyna and Indonesia are part of the birth certificate controversy. Neither gossip nor the certificate proven true and Hawaii actions are unexplained, still. --'''<font color="#6698FF">J</font><font color="#E41B17">p</font><font color="#F88017">a</font><font color="#347C17">t</font><font color="#A74AC7">t</font>'''<sup>[[User:Jpatt| ]]</sup> 17:06, 3 November 2008 (EST)<br />
:::: My version doesn't violate comandments 1, 3, and 5 like the version that was removed. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 17:24, 3 November 2008 (EST)<br />
:::: I don't like the edit, but I will let it remain. It does violate CP with personal opinion, (costly time and money during busy election season). --'''<font color="#6698FF">J</font><font color="#E41B17">p</font><font color="#F88017">a</font><font color="#347C17">t</font><font color="#A74AC7">t</font>'''<sup>[[User:Jpatt| ]]</sup> 17:30, 3 November 2008 (EST)<br />
::::The tone is bad I will admit, but that is all fact and not opinion. Is it an opinion or a fact that it takes tie to sit in court for several days? Is it an opinion or a fact that it takes money to pay court costs and extra lawyers? Is it an opinion or a fact that he is in a campaign where the outcome depends largely on the tie and money he spends campaigning? --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 17:44, 3 November 2008 (EST)<br />
:::::JPatt, could you explain "allegiance to Kenya?" I don't understand this comment.--[[User:JeanJacques|JeanJacques]] 17:57, 3 November 2008 (EST)<br />
:: The original post on this page says "that Obama has no right to release his birth certificate." I do not believe this to be what the original article says. I think it means simply that no state official has the authority to release publicly a birth certificate, not that Obama himself is unable to do so. [[User:TGeary|TGeary]] 20:15, 3 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
==Mr. Obama's Grandmother just died==<br />
Without getting into politics, it would be nice to mention it respectfully on his page.--[[User:JeanJacques|JeanJacques]] 17:33, 3 November 2008 (EST)<br />
:Do we have any reputable sources for that? Given Obama's history of engaging in [[liberal deceit]], I wouldn't put it past him to fabricate a story like this to nullify attacks on Election Day. [[User:Neutronium|Neutronium]] 14:06, 4 November 2008 (EST)<br />
::May I say, comments like this are what hurt our republican party this year. His politics may be liberal, but he's still a human and making fun of a death of a loved one is beneath a good Christian. {{unsigned|JeanJacques}}<br />
:::Neutronium, keep the parody to a minimum, please. That is simply heartless.<br />
:::JeanJacques, yes, if it's relevant (do we have the mention of grandparents on anyone else's page? I don't know without looking) the we need it added in a respectful way. No matter what we think about Obama, he is a human and so is his grandmother. The was it is presented now, it almost seems as if we are implying that her death contributes to the controversy, when it clearly doesn't. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 18:54, 4 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
Neutronium, there is a difference between being a cautious & prudent person, and being a paranoid, heartless person (i use the word "person" only due to the website rules of proper conduct). You would do well to realize that...AndrewM<br />
<br />
<br />
Obama attending his Grandma's funeral? No mention from the O-MSM! --'''<font color="#6698FF">J</font><font color="#E41B17">p</font><font color="#F88017">a</font><font color="#347C17">t</font><font color="#A74AC7">t</font>'''<sup>[[User:Jpatt| ]]</sup> 01:03, 10 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
==This Is Why Obama Is Wining==<br />
Articles like this make me think that Conservapedia is run by liberals. Burying real facts like Obama's membership in a Black Liberation Theology church, with silly lies like he is a "muslim", only serve to discredit real objections to the Obama candidacy.<br />
<br />
Agreed. Congratulayions Andy, you did more for the Democrats than you can possibly know. Thoroughly discrediting this site with ridiculous partisan accusations based onm the flimsiest of evidence meant that anything that was a genuine talking point just got lost among the nonsense. That many on the left pointed to this page to discredit the entire conservapedia idea just goes to show that you can go too far. Congratulations for playing your part in losing the election and being successfully gamed by the left, who knew that you would leave tenuous ridiculous nonsense up.<br />
<br />
Let's not badmouth the side that lost. Andy, you did your best, and I appreciate that. However, you can see from my comments from way back, that the Obama article was way too extreme, and included a number of outright falsehoods. Not saying that this lost the race for McCain, but going too extreme eventually starts to hurt. Like in business - a good CEO is someone who is willing to go to the edge of what is legal, but not cross that line. Those CEO's who stay on the edge are winners, those who go over, go to jail. Same thing here...I think the whole Republican campaign was just too darn negative, and put off a lot of undecided voters. Anyway, here's looking forward to President Schwarzenegger in 2012...<br />
<br />
: Both sides were overly negative, but in reality that's a natural thing for long campaigns. The longer it runs the less fresh the ideas seem. It gets repetetive so after a while, in order to keep things fresh, mudslinging becomes common. I honestly wish we had a much shorter election time frame. Like six months max. [[User:EternalCritic|EternalCritic]] 13:41, 5 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
::I've just decided that this site's main contributors are probably liberals messing around with people. I bet there are some liberals somewhere getting a huge laugh at people who are seriously offended, or seriously believe half of these articles.<br />
<br />
::: I have decided the same thing, though maybe not to that extent.--[[User:JArneal|JArneal]] 19:11, 6 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
==Is going to be the next president==<br />
Barack Obama has won the election, and I think this should be added to the page. [[User:Arthur205|Arthur205]] 00:12, 5 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
Yes he is, sadly. I encourage all of us to PRAY for the FATE OF OUR COUNTRY. Unfortunately, this page must be updated. [[User:LuvinGodDP|LuvinGodDP]] 10:10, 5 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
I'm surprised no one has updated it yet, it's been over 12 hours since it's been announced. Honestly this sort of time lag on the internet is just sad. You would think that they would at least un-protect it in order for someone else to update it. --[[User:Rainedaye|Rainedaye]] 10:13, 5 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
==Barack Obama is the 44th President of the United States of America==<br />
Article should be updated accordingly<br />
: President-''Elect'', technically speaking. He won't be President until he's inaugurated, and we should hold off on explicitly saying he's the winner until the electoral college has voted (not that I'm pretending there's any real chance of 100+ faithless electors suddenly popping up to help McCain). Right now, he's just the likely winner of the presidential race. --[[User:JeremyDB|JeremyDB]] 12:24, 5 November 2008 (EST)<br />
:: Let's not disrespect McCain's gracious concession. We should put in that he's the President Elect and when he will be inaugurated. Let's at least be up to date. [[User:EternalCritic|EternalCritic]] 12:56, 5 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:::The first section of this article has been updated to reflect that Obama is now president-elect, but the rest needs to be updated also. For instance, the section entitled "Obama would be the first Muslim President" should now be "Obama will be the first Muslim President," "will use the Koran to be sworn in," etc. -[[User:Rfreeman|Rfreeman]] 18:04, 5 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
== What happening with the muslim section? ==<br />
<br />
I don't see why it needs to be above the TOC, The TOC lets people find what they are looking for, which may very well be proof that he is a Muslim, and really should be on the first page for formatting reasons.<br />
<br />
Also some points that really stand out to me, <br />
*''Obama's middle name (Hussein) references its namesake Husayn, who was the grandson of Muhammad, which most Christians would not retain.''<br />
In this case the reference should be after the word Muhammad, because it does not reference the notion that christians would have there name changed, also it is his fathers name, and if he changed it it could negatively impact his relationship with his family, I would not consider this strong evidence. Seems like Opinion to me<br />
*'' Obama recently referred to his "Muslim faith."'' You do know that the video cited as its source showed clearly that he was talking about a tactic that McCain could use, not his real faith (I strongly suspect Obama to be pretty apathetic to religion)<br />
*''On the campaign trail Obama has been reading "The Post-American World" by Fareed Zakaria, which is written from a Muslim point-of-view.'' If reading a book written in a muslim POV makes you a muslim than how do we know what is in this book, because we can't trust anyone who read it to not be a muslim. If he were seen praying out the the qran that would be another story entirely.<br />
*''Obama uses the Muslim Pakistani pronunciation for "Pakistan" rather than the common American one.'' Pakistan is an islamic nation, the american way of saying it is a bastardized version, he is using the name the nation calls its self.<br />
<br />
I really think that this should be reworded in to prose and that it needs to be below the TOC.--[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 13:46, 5 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Copyediting needed ==<br />
<br />
I know that updating things like this as the news changes is tough, but:<br />
<br />
"Barack Hussein Obama II (born in Honolulu,[1][2] August 4, 1961), Democratic Party member, junior senator of the state of Illinois, and president-elect of the United States, winning the 2008 Election over Arizona Senator John McCain [3]."<br />
<br />
is not a sentence... [[User:Human|Human]] 14:17, 5 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:I know they won't let me because I'm too new and can be a bit controversial, but I would love to rewrite the entire first paragraph. It has become such a muddled mess that it doesn't read well at all. [[User:EternalCritic|EternalCritic]] 14:27, 5 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Muslim? ==<br />
<br />
That section of the article looks like its attempting to proove that he is a muslim. Why not simply say "some prominent christian sites including X and Y have suggested that Obama may be a muslim". It currently looks like it's trying to make people think that he is a muslim, and that for some reason that's bad. What's wrong with muslims?--[[User:Newguy123|Newguy123]] 16:15, 5 November 2008 (EST)<br />
:I think the point is that - no there is nothing wrong with being a Muslim but lying about it for political gain is a problem. [[User:AdamBeyer|AdamBeyer]] 16:32, 5 November 2008 (EST)<br />
::Again, that makes the presupposition being that someone lies when all you have is superficial, rather strained evidence to say he isn't lying. Not very gracious on our part. There are plenty of legitimate issues with Mr. Obama. Living in gossip and innuendo and "he once made a mistake when talking" seems petty on our part. Isn't it more important to emphasis why he is a socialist? All we say is "he is", not what that means, and how it could effect the country, etc. It bothers me that this site emphasizes gossip.--[[User:JeanJacques|JeanJacques]] 16:42, 5 November 2008 (EST)<br />
:::Personally I dont think he is a Muslim however I am not going to kick up a fuss as I was already warned by Aschlafly (is he the boss?) for....something I did? Not sure what. [[User:AdamBeyer|AdamBeyer]] 16:45, 5 November 2008 (EST)<br />
I think it's funny how at the beginning of the article it claims he is a muslim, and then at the end discusses his previous church and pastor. It even lists 1988 as his year of baptism despite the beginning of the article stating he didn't have a date for baptism, which for everyone here in the conservapedia zone seems to take as undeniable proof he is a super secret muslim spy out for your children and pets.<br />
Seriously though, I've mentioned it above that having an article for the current president of the U.S. start out with a poor and unnecessary argument over his faith is ''unprofessional'' at best. The beginning makes no valid points, manages to insult Muslims as a whole, and also contains that stupid picture of Obama in a traditional Kenyan costume.--[[User:Rainedaye|Rainedaye]] 23:17, 5 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
== A Muslim President-elect! ==<br />
<br />
Since the article assures us the Barack is a secret Muslim and would if elected become the first Muslim President of the United States, for consistency's sake, it should now be updated by something like the following: <br />
<br />
<br />
"Now that the unthinkable has occurred and Obama has duped the American People and stolen the election, he will become the first [[Muslim]] [[President]], and will probably use the [[Koran]] to be sworn into office."<br />
<br />
and: <br />
<br />
<br />
"It is widely believed that now he is President-elect, Obama will drop the tiresome pretence of being a Christian and produce his other wives from hiding, don a turban and a scimitar, pray buns-up five times a day on a Persian carpet while facing Mecca, have a minaret built on top of the White House from which he will personally play the role of the muezzin and call the faithful to prayer, will establish policy recommending that “the Zionist entity be driven into the sea”, and put bin Laden’s face on the American dollar. The week after that will probably be even worse." If no one objects, I will make some such interpolations in the article proper. [[User:MylesP|MylesP]] 23:30, 5 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
== "70's terrorist" ==<br />
<br />
I object to Ayers being referred to as a "terrorist from the 70's"<br />
<br />
he is a "terrorist" end of story. once a terrorist, always a terrorist<br />
<br />
we won't call Bin Laden a "2000's terrorist" in 2050<br />
<br />
[[User:Mike770781|Mike770781]] 00:22, 6 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:Good point, [[User:Mike770781|Mike770781]]. Thanks for the edit. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 00:24, 6 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
The man is a functioning member of society, an educator, a family man, who has condemns his past actions, and has worked greatly towards improving the lives of others through charity work. He was a part of a group that destroyed ''property'', which doesn't make him a terrorist because that would imply he did random acts of terror on ''people''. Blowing up statues and parts of buildings was wrong but they did not go after people, and no one was hurt or killed. To compare him to Bin Laden is ''despicable''. And to put a section about this man at the top of the page of Presidential-elect Obama who worked with him in an organization to help reduce poverty levels is neither well thought out or ''tactful''. --[[User:Rainedaye|Rainedaye]] 08:46, 6 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:Except that the Weather Underground did in fact kill people - 3 of their own, in a bomb-making accident. Sometimes that happens when you set off bombs, even if it's not what you had in mind. I would put other property-destruction crimes such as cross burning in the terror category as well. I do agree that Obama's association with Ayres is minimal, at best, and I have huge issues with all the guilt-by-association tactics employed by the McCain campaign. I'm not taking a stand on the content of this article one way or another. I'm just trying to organize it and cite it as best I can. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 09:17, 6 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
::I don't believe an accidental death of their own people should be considered "terror" though. People could technically die while making signs for a normal type of protest, not as likely, but an accident is an accident. Although I do think that some property destruction like cross burning could be argued to be terroristic because it is done in order to terrify a group of people and incite violence against that group. However I still think that what the weather underground did does not quite carry that same connotations. They were protesting a war, and doing so by costing the government money and drawing attention to their cause, at no time was a group of people targeted in a way that would indicate that they were in danger directly from a hostile organization, unless you were an office desk or a public statue/monument. To use the word "terrorist", especially nowadays, in the case of Bill Ayers is misleading, and it is a word that should not be tossed around lightly. It seems that people believe that Ayers = Terrorist, so therefore he must have killed people or tried to kill people, and this article does little to correct this misconception. --[[User:Rainedaye|Rainedaye]] 10:41, 6 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
== MInd Control? Really now? ==<br />
<br />
The people who published this lost what little credibility they had when they published this. Repeating it on this page just makes you look bad. I mean an O looks like a crystal ball? First of all it also looks like an orange or a penny or anything else that is round and circular. Also, I think that crystal balls are the favorite of ''fortune tellers'' so unless Obama can predict the future (which I think might make him a ''better'' president) this doesn't mean much. --[[User:Rainedaye|Rainedaye]] 10:54, 6 November 2008 (EST)<br />
:I agree. I am a practicing stage hypnotist (practicing because I still need work :) and I can tell you that most hypnotists use nothing but their voices and physical presence, and those who do use props traditionally use a pencil. [[User:SamuelA|SamuelA]] 13:21, 6 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
<br />
== Absence of Dancing ==<br />
<br />
Dancing is a popular form of celebration and partying by all ethnicities. But why is [[Barack Obama]] rarely seen dancing, or even allowing and attending dancing. Perhaps I've missed it (please let me know if I have). I know, there was one highly staged politically correct dance with Ellen DeGeneris as Obama was catering to her audience. But where's the rest?<br />
<br />
One explanation is that the Islamic [[sharia]] disfavors dancing.[http://docstalk.blogspot.com/2008/10/islamic-scholars-denounce-dancing-say.html] --[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:08, 6 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:When's the last time you went dancing, Andy? [[User:HDCase|HDCase]] 11:23, 6 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
::um, lol?<br />
::[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IpxJQABkSsQ Dancing in Puerto Rico]<br />
::[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=axH9bhwI8os Dancing to Snoop Dogg]<br />
<br />
::so there it is... at least three different places where he's seen dancing. Here's my question: lets see you find videos of Mccain dancing! xP your Islamic assumption thingy holds no water since you can say the same for McCain! [[User:Ema|Ema]] 11:26, 6 November 2008 (EST)<br />
:::Ah! Ema, don't be fooled by this [[deceit]], he might secretly be a [http://www.dankphotos.com/whirling/ whirling dervish!] They're members of [[Sufi]] Islam, by the way. --[[User:Wikinterpreter|Wikinterpreter]]<br />
<br />
:::: I took a look at the Puerto Rico video. It proves my point. I've never seen anyone dance-without-dancing like that. Have you?<br />
<br />
:::: It will be fascinating to see how long it takes people to wake up to who Obama really is. Judging by the determined objections above, it may be quite a while for some of his supporters.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:06, 6 November 2008 (EST)<br />
:::::Your argument is that he is a bad dancer so he must be a Muslim? Seriously Andrew, take a deep breath and relax, proving him to be a Muslim is not going to get him impeached, he has the presidency and that is that. In four years it might matter, but that means you have poor years to find less circumstantial evidence. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 12:27, 6 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:::::: No, Brendanw, it is obviously not my argument that he is a "bad dancer." I think you understand my argument perfectly well and won't admit it. Suit yourself.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:31, 6 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
::::::: Brendan's right about one thing at least. All the evidence listed is either circumstantial or draws illogical conclusions. The one about him when he says he joins a church after a suggestion does not in any way imply him as a muslim, though it might imply him as a disingenuous Christian. The two are mutually exclusive. [[User:EternalCritic|EternalCritic]] 12:38, 6 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
::::::: Well please explain it to me differently, initially you said he didn't dance, and now that we have three videos of it you say that he "dances with out dancing" what does that mean if not bad dancer? --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 12:45, 6 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:::::::::Andy's saying that, in those three videos, Obama isn't really ''dancing'', in the sense of crossing a line of Muslim (im)morality. It's like being against swearing, but recognizing that words like "heck" and "geez" don't really cross that line. That said, however, I did run across a video where [http://splicd.com/wzyT9-9lUyE/31/52 Obama dances] by anyone's definition.--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 14:25, 6 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
::::::::::RossC, this video is obviously faked. [[User:BHarlan|BHarlan]] 14:32, 6 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
I wonder if he will dance at his inaugural ball, if it gets to that point. (see: Berg) [[User:BHarlan|BHarlan]] 13:47, 6 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
<br />
:In some Islamic traditions dancing is not allowed, in some christian traditions dancing is not allowed, some people regardless of religion just don't dance with enthusiasm (was he supposed to be [dancing inappropriately with] Ellen? While Barrack is a hottie I'm not sure she would let him do that) I was raised catholic and as a result I am a very quiet person who does not raise his arms in celebration. This is just such a far stretch that it doesn't mean anything. Heck if he were keeping his faith hidden and not praying to meca and not following the rules of Islam in order to complete the 35 year long mission that was trained in to him at a public school in indonesia at the age of 10 don't you think he would dance anyways? And his wife is a great dancer, in Islam men have a whole lot more freedom than women. this just doesn't add up to anything but crazy. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 15:30, 6 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
I love to dance. For what it's worth, I have seen an Obama campaign button with a picture of him dancing, and the words "Dance Yes We Can" on it. It caught my eye because I take dance lessons. See here [http://www.zazzle.com/obama_dance_button-145707809176961889] for a picture of the button. Over the years, I have met homeschooling moms of various faiths (Christian, Muslim, Jewish) who are careful about their children dancing for modesty reasons. Not everyone enjoys dancing, of course, particularly men. While it's an interesting facet of Obama, to be honest I don't see it as a strong indicator of his religious beliefs. When weaker arguments are included, it detracts from the stronger ones, I think. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 21:21, 6 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:I don't dance, and I can assure you that I'm not a Muslim. I'm a lousy dancer, and self-conscious about it. I also don't have a tinfoil hat, which might be why this whole conversation seems ludicrous to me. Godspeed.[[User:Thecount|Thecount]] 21:40, 6 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
::The very conservative former Prime Minister of Australia, John Howard, did not dance in public. This is despite the fact that his treasurer, Peter Costello, and his rival and current Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, both danced on national television. Is this evidence that John Howard is a Muslim? Certainly not. There is a much less sinister and blatantly obvious explanation for Obama's lack of dancing - he isn't good at it. Just have a look at the videos posted, he has clearly received minimal dance instruction and is evidently self conscious.<br />
<br />
And just out of curiosity, has anyone actually seen John McCain dance? How about Palin or Biden? If these three have not then why should the explanation for their lack of participation not be extended to Obama? [[User:NormanS|NormanS]] 22:05, 6 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
Not to mention the fact that Spectral Evidence was outlawed in America back in the 1600's after 19 people were murdered for being accused of witchcraft. Get with the times, Schlafly. [[User:DRuss|DRuss]] 08:51, 7 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:What is different about Obama that makes it unusual for him to not be much of a dancer? [[User:Corry|Corry]] 09:45, 7 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
Still waiting on an answer, Andy. When'd you last hit the dance floor? [[User:HDCase|HDCase]] 15:43, 7 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
: Though irrelevant to the issue, I dance in times of celebration, and have also arranged for the availability of dancing by attendees at such events. Pursue this irrelevancy further and your account will be blocked, per my comment on your talk page.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:41, 7 November 2008 (EST)<br />
:: He does somewhat have a point, even if his methods of conveying it are a little childish. He's pretty much pointing out that your accusation opens up a big can of worms. If I was to say that Obama's lack of dancing must mean he is Muslim due to Islamic Sharia, I could also say that if I saw you sitting on the floor you must be a Muslim who is kneeling to Mecca. [[User:St0dad|St0dad]] 09:09, 8 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Anti Americanism ==<br />
<br />
Many points in this article could be summarized into a section called "Anti Americanism"<br />
<br />
I'm surprised this hasn't been done already. Anti Americanism should be a given a very prominent place in this article.<br />
<br />
: I like this idea because I feel the article is too fragmented and not organized. People are adding self contained ideas in various points in the article, especially at the top, which disrupts the flow and readablity. I cleaned up the first paragraph, but I can't smooth up everything [[User:MikeMike|MikeMike]]<br />
<br />
If I make such an edit will I be banned? [[User:Mike770781|Mike770781]] 13:01, 6 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
== "Muslim Faith" comment ==<br />
<br />
I believe Barack Obama is a Muslim or at least more sympathetic to them than Christians, but the "Muslim Faith" statement is taken out of context. I removed it as part of the evidence of him being Muslim.<br />
<br />
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wpoAVAA1F30<br />
<br />
[[User:Mike770781|Mike770781]] 13:06, 6 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:I don't like that video btw, I only posted it to show the full context [[User:Mike770781|Mike770781]] 13:07, 6 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:: On a side note, the entire section, for accuracy's sake, should be called "Why Barack Obama is not a Christian" since the only parts that are not circumstantial are in regard to disingenuous Christianity. Beyond that the idea of him not changing his name making him muslim is ridiculous. He was named for his Father. Example from reality: my middle name is Paul. I received it fromt he name of my grandfather. I'm no longer Christian. But I don't change my middle name because I no longer believe Paul's words. I keep it because I love and respect my grandfather. [[User:EternalCritic|EternalCritic]] 13:14, 6 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
::: I partially agree. Maybe there should be two sections. One detailing Anti-Christian facts and one for Pro-Muslim [[User:Mike770781|Mike770781]] 13:17, 6 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
: Schlafly reverted my change ... Why? [[User:Mike770781|Mike770781]] 14:18, 6 November 2008 (EST)<br />
::Because you don't agree with him.[[User:EternalCritic|EternalCritic]] 15:14, 6 November 2008 (EST)<br />
:::So it's Schlaflypedia then? I had high hopes for Conservapedia [[User:Mike770781|Mike770781]] 15:17, 6 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:::: I reverted your change because you deleted factual information. That reason should be obvious.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:41, 6 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
==Socialistic==<br />
It is interesting to note that the MSM has buried the exact phrase and can only be found on blogs. The media will use the third person term, e.g. "Obama responds to McCains allegations of Socialistic." The quote itself is relevent. A play on words to blunt its' true impact. Actual charges of 'Socialism' or of being a 'Socialist'. Nobody uses "Socialistic"--'''<font color="#6698FF">J</font><font color="#E41B17">p</font><font color="#F88017">a</font><font color="#347C17">t</font><font color="#A74AC7">t</font>'''<sup>[[User:Jpatt| ]]</sup> 15:26, 6 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
==Wait==<br />
<br />
Can someone please explain to me how Barack Obama is a Muslim? Thanks. [[User:Rockthecasbah|Rockthecasbah]] 23:12, 6 November 2008 (EST)<br />
:Clearly someone's not paying attention. Not that I endorse the, uh, theory, but there's a whoooooole big section about it in the article. And several discussions on this talk page. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 23:15, 6 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
At this point the very thought that he's a Muslim is preposterous. No Muslim would willingly put Rahm Emmanuel, someone so notably Jewish and pro israel in such a powerful position (chief of staff). All in all though, a pretty good choice from the pool. [[User:EternalCritic|EternalCritic]] 23:27, 6 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
Obama isn't a muslim. He doesn't have the character we see on the trail to do so. I think Obama will be an awful President, is not a christian (it's too liberal), supports infanticide and sodomy, and won't do almost ''any'' of the thigs he has promised. That aside I don't think he's a muslim. Alot of the proof is probably just part of his warped view of multi-culturism, which includes the so-called ''peaceful'' religion of Allah and Muhammed. This should be placed on a different page and other more certain information placed on this page (e.g. a better photo should be placed on the top, not a picture of him which tries to accuse his patriotism.) He is going to be President, a bad one, but one nonetheless. Please, let us respect the authority of our time. [[User:Additioner|Additioner]] 07:34, 7 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
Think about this: If I had told you on September 12 2001, that in 6 years we'd ellect a liberal, socialist muslim named Barack Hussein Obama, who has terrorist friends, you call me crazy. But here we are. [[User:Patriot1505|Patriot1505]]<br />
<br />
==Connections with Irish Terrorists==<br />
<br />
I note that a liberal contributor has seen fit to add a line stating that The Republic of Ireland refused to extradite Rita O'Hare -- the IRA terrorist who Obama met last year -- for one of several alleged offences. Why is this of any interest? She served time in the Republic for smuggling explosives. So that country's legal authorities were in no doubt as to her status. Does Wikipedia regard shooting British soldiers in Northern Ireland as a "political offence"? If so, then should we regard killing American soldiers in Iraq the same way? I don't think so. --[[User:KeithJoseph|KeithJoseph]] 18:29, 7 November 2008 (GMT)<br />
:Well spoken Keith! I intend to contact the Irish Embassy in Washington and ask that they make a clear statement condemning our Marxist Terrorist President-Elect's meeting with these vile killers. I would encourage ASchlafly to perhaps make a television appearance about this? As a lawyer, I'm sure he can speak to the international law aspects of this very serious matter. What's next I wonder - how soon are Nobama's Shining Path, Khmer Rouge, Sandanista, and Red Brigade friends going to crawl their way from their terrorist swamps into the halls of Washington power?! Not long I'll bet! [[User:ArnieS|ArnieS]] 13:34, 7 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:Nodanca was was probably a member of the [[FLQ]], too! [[User:HDCase|HDCase]] 18:38, 7 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
Actually, it was the High Court in the Republic of Ireland that regarded her case as falling under the exemptions for 'political offences'. That is why they refused to extradite her to N. Ireland. Also, Arnie S., if you truly are indignant about the "vile killer" Rita O'Hare, why don't you call your members of Congress to condemn the fact that she is the duly appointed Sinn Fein Representative to the US. [[User:Tordenvaer|Tordenvaer]] 18:37, 7 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
::: I don't understand. I genuinely don't understand. My edit to the Obama page on this subject has been deleted as being "inappropriate and silly". What is the distinction between a link with the Weather Underground and a link with the IRA? Why are inverted commas placed around “terrorism” (like this) when discussing the latter organisation and not when deriding Bill Ayres's mob. I suppose it's different -- and less significant -- when Obama's pals are blowing up Irish folk rather than Americans. Would it be different if he were pictured grinning next to some PLO hoodlum? --[[User:KeithJoseph|KeithJoseph]] 02:42, 8 November 2008 (GMT)<br />
<br />
:::: Tordenvaer (if that is your real name), I already HAVE called my member of Congress about the matter - I don't mess around! The Sinn Feiners are a terrible organization with deep terrorist roots who killed many British soldiers and people over a hundred years in Ireland. I'm as surprised as Keith is about the removal of his well-referenced material. [[User:ArnieS|ArnieS]] 21:57, 7 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
Guys, grind your ax about Irish "terrorism" somewhere else. Obama has no plausible connection with it and I'm not going to waste any more time on this silliness.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:01, 7 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:Andy, why do you place quote marks around the word terrorism? [[User:Ferret|-- Ferret]] [[User talk:Ferret|<sub>Nice old chat</sub>]] 22:08, 7 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
<- I'm not going to get involved in any discussion here, but it appears a lot of you know a fair bit about [[Rita O'Hare]]. I have started her article, please contribute and spread your knowledge. [[User:NormanS|NormanS]] 22:13, 7 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
::: If the site administrator does not think this worthy of inclusion then there is no point arguing the case. But I must again ask -- the question is reiterated above by Ferret -- why this site puts inverted commas around terrorism when discussing the IRA, but not when discussing the Weather Underground. The slaughter of innocent Northern Irish people may seem "silly" to you. It does not to us. --[[User:KeithJoseph|KeithJoseph]] 12:36, 8 November 2008 (GMT)<br />
:::: Could be because Irish terrorism was largely funded by US "Irish" Catholics? [[User:GeorgeK|GeorgeK]] 07:48, 8 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Inciting hatred ==<br />
<br />
Wow, have you ever asked yourselves "What would Jesus do?". I hardly think He would write such a biased and bigoted "factual" article. Real Christians don't need this sort of tripe. People are worked up over fundamentalist muslims, but it is writing like this that brings hatred on Christians and Americans and makes you just as bad, if not worse, than them. This was the first article I have ever read on Conservapedia and it will be http://www.conservapedia.com/skins/common/images/button_sig.pngthe last. WWJD?<br />
<br />
: Jesus came to tell the truth, no one can deny that. And many people hated Him for it, obviously.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:02, 9 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
::"I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ." -Gandhi<br />
<br />
::Now who's the ONE? [[User:Wikified|Wikified]] 10:41, 9 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
::: Gandhi deserves much respect, but I've never heard Christians cite him as an authority on Christianity. I wouldn't expect a Christian to interpret Gandhi's religion for him either.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:10, 9 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
==Trust, but verify; then get an eight day block==<br />
<br />
Trust, but verify. Though he was not the originator of this quote, it was one of Ronald Reagan's favorites. He quoted it when signing treaties with the Soviet Union and it's a useful concept in today's society. It was in the spirit of this quote that I first read and edited at this encyclopedia. <br />
<br />
The commandments and guidelines appear to support Reagan's idiom, yet some of the people in charge feel they can rule with an iron fist and pick and choose which rules they want to follow. I experienced it first hand when I edited this article. I first made several comments about the shortcomings of this article on the talk page so anyone could give me their opinion of my thoughts. These comments highlighted various portions of the article that were factually incorrect, contained partisan sniping, unsupported assertions, gossip or deception by omission. The response I got from Aschlafly was not encouraging, yet he didn't say I was prohibited from making any changes. In fact, the pages that govern this encyclopedia say a lot about how articles must be sourced, placement of citation tags, how facts must to true and verifiable, etc. Based on reading the guidelines, I made several changes that I thought reflected well on conservatives and Conservapedia. Yet alas, I was blocked by Aschlafly for eight days. The reason given was for 'inappropriate edits', that's very vague but I was unable to get any more information because Aschlafly doesn't provide contact information for people that have questions about their block. This says a lot about a person's integrity if they refuse to follow the rules and then block other people because they made an 'inappropriate edit' that followed the spirit and intent of the commandments and guidelines.<br />
<br />
Since this encyclopedia is being used an educational resource for home-schooled children, I'd like to think the information contained within would be factual and verifiably true. I'd feel very embarrassed for my child if she read some of the inaccurate content of this encyclopedia and then repeated it to an informed person that was educated on the true and verifiable facts of Barack Obama or others. It is my honest opinion that this encyclopedia is a long way from earning respectability; and blocking editors for making true and verifiable edits is not going to help. The administrators should clean up their act because there are a lot of people out there that will follow Reagan's advice; trust, yet verify.<br />
<br />
In conclusion, I will continue to make the same edits proposed by the commandments and the guidelines. If an admin feels they can do without another conservative editing this encyclopedia in an ethical and trustworthy manner, it is their loss.--[[User:NormaN|NormaN]] 16:23, 9 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Reference 29 ==<br />
<br />
Under the "Obama is a Muslim" section there is a point about his name, and following that there is a reference. That reference includes a big chunk of argument and then a few references of its own and some examples and its just a mess. I am about to go through and trim the fat, that means I'm going to take off the examples, and I'm going tot take off the parts that say that it is common to change your name of conversion (Obama never claims to have converted from Islam, so it doesn't really stand out as an inconsistency in his story, some might even claim its a [[straw man]]) and I am going to move the reference to the fact with in the bullet point that it supports and put up a fact tag. I am not taking down the bullet point which I would dispute. I would encourage any one who has a problem with this to go out and find a real reference that shows that most christians would not maintain their fathers name if it were tied to another religion. Please don't block me for a good faith factual edit. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 19:12, 9 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Muslim, Koran, ''redux'' ==<br />
<br />
I removed the silly Muslim and Koran references in the first paragraph for two reasons - one, they are completely unfounded statements with no basis in reality, and two, they are repeated ''ad nauseum'' in the first "section", which is apparently intentionally placed above a TOC tag. Let's leave the panicky POV-pushing to sections, at least, in the desperate attempt for this site to resemble an encyclopedia. [[User:Human|Human]] 23:30, 9 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Obama is not a muslim nor a person who embraces biblical Christianity because the evidence contradicts this matter ==<br />
<br />
Here is a well written and scholarly piece that examines Obama's religious views and it was written by the National Clergy Council: http://nationalclergycouncil.org/010807BarackObama.htm The evidence does not support Obama being a muslim. The evidence also does not support Obama embracing biblical Christianity.[[User:Conservative|conservative]] 09:19, 10 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
: I skimmed it and don't see where it concludes that Obama is not a Muslim. The article fails to recognize that less than 1% of people raised Muslim (as Obama was) ever leave the religion. The article says Obama is a member of a Christian church, but he left that many months ago.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:24, 10 November 2008 (EST)<br />
:: Okay, a couple questions. 1) Where are you getting this 1% figure from? 2) How was he raised muslim? Countless acquaintances of mine who were 'raised catholic,' spending ample time learning about Catholicism in school are nothing of the sort. 3) Why would a 1% conversion rate even matter? A person's religion isn't probabilistically determined. By that logic, since 0% of previous Presidents were black, it's unlikely that Obama is president. I don't like this guy or his policy, but real criticism seems to be the way to go, not pointless claims about his religion. [[User:RodWeathers|RodWeathers]] 10:50, 10 November 2008 (EST)<br />
:::Also, as he is the president now, wouldn't it be far more constructive to work on things about his articulated agenda, and how it will affect Americans, write about how to influence our Congress people to stand up to agenda, and how to work with him to reflect what real Americans want - rather than report on unproven and unsupported claims? It would be beyond comprehension if something said by panicked conservatives (not specifically here, just in genera) caused someone to think the right answer is to assassinate him. Far better to focus on what we CAN do to remind our government who they serve - themselves or us.--[[User:JeanJacques|JeanJacques]] 11:26, 10 November 2008 (EST)<br />
::::There are several points wrong with youe assertion. 1) He is not the president now, George W. Bush is. 2) His muslim faith is not unsupported and is far from irrelivant. It will effect his leadership (shiria law anyone?) and his cabinet choices. It is a very big deal seeing as he is the first non-Christian president ever elected. Are we suppose to just stick our heads in the sand??[[User:Patriot1505|Patriot1505]] 12:43, 10 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:::::Andy, you say that less than one percent of people raised as Muslims convert to another religion and use that percentage as if it is not a significant number. It is. Let us assume that there are one billion Muslims in the world today- this is a conservative estimate, using numbers from [http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html www.adherents.com]. Let us then assume that, for the sake of a conservative estimate, that 0.1% of Muslims convert to other religions. That means that out of the one billion Muslims alive today, one million would convert. That's more than the population of San Jose, California. This is not an insignificant number of people.<br />
<br />
:::::My point here, Andy, is that your use of this statistic is not a good argument. Less than one percent is a far cry from none. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 12:46, 10 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:::::: Statistical evidence is relevant and compelling. But it does not stand alone here. There are at least a dozen other compelling evidentiary items, and the list is growing. Supporting a ruler who has an agreement to convert the country to Islam, for example, is persuasive evidence also.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:28, 10 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
::::Fist of all, I think you mean Sh'''a'''ria, but seeing as how you misspelled some English words, I can't really blame you for getting that wrong. To think that just because you believe he is a Muslim (and I emphasize ''believe'', but there are already multiple sections on this page saying why he is not) he would somehow be able to implement Sharia law in the U.S. is silly. The First Amendment prevents religious laws from being able to be made from ''any'' religion. So even if he was Muslim, that doesn't mean it would make pass some sort of Muslim laws, although I'm not exactly sure what ones you are worried about anyway, no intoxicants perhaps? You may be interested in hearing that the U.S. legal system may have been founded in part on ideas from Sharia law. And last but not least, what makes you think every president was Christian? The majority were to be sure, but as far as we know Jefferson was a deist whose ideas were closest to unitarianism, and Grant, Lincoln, Johnson, and Hayes had no religious affiliation and could have ranged from anything such as some sort of personal Christianity, simple theism, agnosticism, or even atheism. --[[User:Rainedaye|Rainedaye]] 15:43, 10 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:::::Maybe he wouldn't be able to push sharia law (although the liberals have a majority now), but that doesn't not mean that he wouldn't like to, or introduce pieces of it little by little using deceit. Liberals love to use "what if's" and draw conclusions using their "feelings" about someone or something, but to me it's a matter of facts: As Mr. Schlafly has pointed out, less than 1% of people raised as muslims ever leave the religion. In other words, 99% of those raised muslim stay that way for the rest of their lifes. Whether or not Obama is a muslim at this time is contested, but it is a fact that he was RAISED with muslim beliefs. Which means there is a 99% chance that he still holds those beliefs. Those are tough odds. The US is engaged in a war on terror against muslim extremeists, and there is a 99% chance that our soon to be commander and chief is himself a muslim. Now, no rational person believes that he shares the views of radical muslims or would wish harm on the country, but it is a connection that is difficult to ignore. Especially given his relationship with an unrepentive domestic terrorist. The issue is not that he has a religion other than Christianity, it's that his religion may lead him to sympathize with the very people trying to kill us. Just as if a presidential nominee had had fuzzy ties to the USSR during the cold war. People would, and should, look at those ties closely.[[User:Patriot1505|Patriot1505]] 16:54, 10 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
<br />
==Muslim Votes==<br />
Wondering if the following should be added to Why barack is a Muslim. "90 Percent of American Muslims Voted for Obama." [http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=39031] They voted in such numbers because he is Jewish? No, because he is Muslim. They voted for him because he is a convert to Christianity from Islam? Nope, they voted for a Muslim. --'''<font color="#6698FF">J</font><font color="#E41B17">p</font><font color="#F88017">a</font><font color="#347C17">t</font><font color="#A74AC7">t</font>'''<sup>[[User:Jpatt| ]]</sup> 15:33, 10 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:Correlation does not equal causation. A lot of other demographics were won over by Obama too, it doesn't make him an hispanic, a young white college student, a Native American, or a resident of California. I think a stronger reason why Muslims voted for Obama may be more of a problem with McCain's and Palin's treatment of certain minorities during the campaign such as the "he's not an Arab, he is a good family man" comment, as well as what other groups these Muslims belonged too such as their overall economic status. --[[User:Rainedaye|Rainedaye]] 15:48, 10 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
::Often correlation is indicative of causation. Can you cite any other voting pattern as high as 90% that is not based on religion or ethnicity? Not your other examples of Hispanic and young white college student, that's for sure.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:53, 10 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
::::With the greatest of respect, what an extraordinary thing to say! Are you suggesting that Muslim voters can somehow read Obama's mind and see that he is really a Muslim? The most that such a correlation could indicate is that Muslim voters might ''think'' that Obama is a Muslim. And frankly, it doesn't even show that because you cannot know what was in their minds when they voted (possibly any number of different things). Talk about clutching at straws! --[[User:HGridley|HGridley]] 16:48, 10 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:::78% of Jewish people voted for Obama, and I doubt they want to convert to either Christianity or Islam. 70% of people who live in urban areas > 500,000 voted for him. Just two examples, from the excellent [http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2008/11/09/weekinreview/20081109_CONNELLY_GRFK.html National Election Pool synopsis], [http://elections.nytimes.com/2008/results/president/national-exit-polls.html tables] and [http://elections.nytimes.com/2008/results/president/exit-polls.html data]. There's plenty of information there, so any trends should be visible. But one does need to be careful about correlation and causation, clearly. Famously, the population of penguins at the North Pole is supposed to correlate perfectly with the number of sitting MP's in the UK Labour Party. [[User:BenHur|BenHur]] 16:07, 10 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
::::So what? Big cities are notorious cesspools of subversion and licence - just the sort of people to be attracted by a chancer like Obama. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 16:17, 10 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:::::The point he was making before you blocked him is that while Obama received a high percentage of the Muslim votes, he also received high percentages from numerous other demographics. Clearly Obama does not belong to all of these demographics, and as such it is a misuse of the data to pick the one group you want to tie Obama to and declare him a part of it.<br />
<br />
:::::An interesting idea to consider is the possible circularity or self-fulfillment of this argument. Some people say that Obama is a Muslim, and hence a bad guy. Voting Muslims generally take offense and vote for Obama, giving him a high percentage of their vote. Some people then claim that receiving most of the Muslim vote further indicates that Obama is a Muslim. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 16:44, 10 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:Excellent find. This should help put to rest any doubts that remain about Obama's muslim faith. [[User:RodWeathers|RodWeathers]] 16:46, 10 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:Gays overwhelmingly voted for Obama, cleary this is because this married man is a flaming homosexual. If Obama is a socialist, why do you guys silence any mention that Americans VOTED FOR a socialist president?--[[User:MichaelMo|MichaelMo]] 16:53, 10 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
Deniers, you strike out. Nothing approaches the 90% statistic cited by Jpatt, and for obvious reasons. Go somewhere else to try to fool people. You're not fooling anyone here, particularly when you look at the even more compelling evidence.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:55, 10 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:It doesn't matter how strong the correlation is, it still doesn't prove causation. '''[[user:FernoKlump|<font color="#000066" >FernoKlump</font>]]'''<sup>[[User:FernoKlump/petition|<font color="#bd2433" >Look at this petition!]]</font></sup> 17:00, 10 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
::The real question should be: why are you arguing with facts on this website? We argue with feelings here. I ''feel'' that Obama is a Muslim, so it's true.--[[User:AshleyB|AshleyB]] 17:02, 10 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:::Andy, none of this evidence is compelling- it's all weak at best, and when strung together and passed off as proof it just doesn't work. 90% of Muslim votes. Less than 1% of Muslims convert. The list goes on. This "evidence" amounts to a wobbly house of cards, and I'm looking forward to it falling over and people discussing facts and positions, not resorting to religious persecution. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 17:04, 10 November 2008 (EST)<br />
::::Not persecution, Corry. Discussion. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:08, 10 November 2008 (EST)<br />
:::::The argument is that if Obama were Muslim that would be a reason not to vote for him. I don't know what else to call that. Also, I would recommend you don't Google what AshleyB advised you to Google on your talk page. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 17:10, 10 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:::: This suggestion by ASchlafly is worse than weak, it's nonsensical. ASchlalfy talks about correlation being indicative of causation. How can there be any '''causation'''? In order for there to be causation the Muslim voters would have to have ''known'' that Obama was a Muslim. Is there some vast secret conspiracy going on? Have the Muslim voters been given contacted and given the secret "Obama is a Muslim" information by the Obama campaign? Are the rest of us being kept in the dark? How many Muslim voters are we talking about? This is just plain silly.--[[User:HGridley|HGridley]] 17:14, 10 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
Be aware, all commenters above, that your accounts will be blocked if you misrepresent what someone else says (as in Corry claiming that "[T]he argument is that if Obama were Muslim that would be a reason not to vote for him" or HGridley pretending this is about some "secret conspiracy.") You won't be warned again. Be respectful and truthful in this discussion, or you'll be ranting in the future on a different site.<br />
<br />
No one else can come up with anything close to a 90% voting correlation except where there is religious or ethnic identity. Scientifically and objectively, that is noteworthy. There are a dozen more compelling pieces of evidence, but that does not mean this data point is not suggestive also.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:26, 10 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:I have been utterly truthful in what I have said. You appear to have missed the point.<br />
<br />
:In order for there to have been causation (i.e. Obama's being a Muslim caused Muslims to vote for him) the Muslims would necessarily have to ''know'' (not just suspect) that Obama is a Muslim. In order for that to be the case there would need to be a vast conspiracy. <br />
<br />
:Pretty simple really. Can you tell us what you know about this secret conspiracy? --[[User:HGridley|HGridley]] 17:33, 10 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
::And how am I misrepresenting you, Andy? Are you trying to convince people that Obama is a Muslim for purely academic reasons? I stand by my statement. This article, in the collection of "evidence" that Obama may be a Muslim, reads that "Contrary to Christianity, the Islamic doctrine of taqiyya encourages adherents to deny they are Muslim if it advances the cause of Islam." So we have the premise that Muslims lie to advance Islam, and Obama is part of this. I would also like to point out you comment in a different section that "It will be fascinating to see how long it takes people to wake up to who Obama really is." That definitely sounds like it'd be a pretty bad thing if Obama was a Muslim. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 18:08, 10 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
[[Mystery:Why Do Black Americans Vote For Liberal Candidates?|Black Americans vote for the Democrat presidential candidate over 90% of the time]], even when that candidate is not Black. [[User:BHarlan|BHarlan]] 18:20, 10 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:Often correlation is indicative of causation. Those Democrat cantidates were probably secretly black. --[[User:HGridley|HGridley]] 18:23, 10 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
::We are trying to build an encyclopedia here. Either help out or get out of the way, HGridley. You might find more people who think you are funny on a liberalpedia, if one exists.<br />
::The only truly funny thing about your note is that you call them "cantidates", which is a true record of how liberals treat Black Americans -- telling them "You can't, so depend on the government to do so for you." [[User:BHarlan|BHarlan]] 18:29, 10 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
I have to confess to being very confused by everything that's being said here. None of it seems to quite line up. Wouldn't the Jewish community be LESS likely to vote for a Muslim candidate, particularly one with the alleged terrorist links? Yet 78% of them voted for him - in greater proportion than they have previously voted for a Democrat? That seems to be completely counter to the allegation? It just all seems very odd, and very confusing to a passing reader. [[User:HarryR|HarryR]] 22:46, 10 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
==Confusion==<br />
<br />
I'm just a little bit confused about one of the dot points claiming Obama is a Muslim, and was wondering if someone could explain it. It is the one about him leaving his Church without first finding a new one.<br />
<br />
Here in Australia, while many people are members of a Church, a majority of us Christians are not. There is often no official enrolment beyond donations or small groups, and most families simply attend the Church closest to them, some even attending a number of Churches. As such it is quite confusing to state that a person is not a Christian simply because they have not "joined" a Church, as this is not a reflection on whether or not they attend, let alone their individual faith. Perhaps this could be clarified for an international audience.<br />
<br />
Also the line "Many of Obama's statements about religion conflict with Christianity" is entirely conterproductive to the argument, as the statements made by Obama that are in opposition to Christianity (regarding homosexuality) are also in opposition to Islam. If anything this is proof that Obama is not a Muslim and is in fact an atheist, and should be removed asap! [[User:NormanS|NormanS]] 19:48, 10 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:Also Malcolm X did not become a Muslim after he was a National of Islam leader, it was before. The current wording needs to be fixed. [[User:NormanS|NormanS]] 19:51, 10 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Lenin Poster ==<br />
<br />
The statement about the Lenin-like poster is informative. We don't censor informative information here. Let the reader decide.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:22, 10 November 2008 (EST)<br />
:Andy, did you happen to take a look at the reference? The article claims that "Obama also ''revealed'' his ''deep Marxist/Leninist roots''" and that "clear parallels between the poster design and Lenin's earlier poster was ''obviously a deliberate yet hidden hint'' to his European, socialistic audience as to his political roots and beliefs" (emphasis mine). The citation, which was a blog, by the way, and not in any way a trustworthy source of informative information, gives no evidence to back up these statements. It shows a poster of Lenin and a poster of Obama, both of which show profiles of the figures. Assuming these pictures weren't entirely made up, do you really think that this slight similarity is Obama's way of confessing closet Marxism? Not to mention the fact that Obama likely didn't make the posters anyway -- maybe we should accuse his (very expensive!!) marketing designer of being a Marxist/Leninist. 15:45, 11 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Obama and beer ==<br />
<br />
There are several stories (with photos) of Obama drinking beer, which as an intoxicant is banned by Muslim sharia. <ref> http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://media.mcclatchydc.com/smedia/2008/05/06/20/125-6web-Obama_Beer-minor.standalone.prod_affiliate.91.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.mcclatchydc.com/100/story/36055.html&h=325&w=485&sz=47&hl=en&start=28&um=1&usg=__ShpWdieNIwhr4Rp3jHtLe7U9MB8=&tbnid=Se90xFLBo6rNQM:&tbnh=86&tbnw=129&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dobama%2Bdrinks%26start%3D18%26ndsp%3D18%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26safe%3Doff%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-US:official%26sa%3DN </ref> <ref> http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.nancarrow-webdesk.com/warehouse/storage2/2008-w18/img.211156_t.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.nancarrow-webdesk.com/warehouse/storage2/2008-w18/img.211156.html&h=332&w=400&sz=16&hl=en&start=15&um=1&usg=__Yubc0nmus36Cf4Rrf7BL7-33-0g=&tbnid=xuWGKQ1Sl8_bQM:&tbnh=103&tbnw=124&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dobama%2Bbeer%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26safe%3Doff%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-US:official%26sa%3DG</ref> No rational person can say that a practicing Muslim wouldn't violate the law in such a blatant, repeated manner. Another strike against the goofy Muslim charge. And remember, we don't censor here. Godspeed. [[User:Thecount|Thecount]] 12:52, 11 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
: I think many American Muslims drink beer. Nice try, though.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:57, 11 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Hussein reference ==<br />
<br />
It's factual and it's informative. If there is reasoned basis for deleting it, let's see it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:03, 11 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
==Debate On Obama's Religion==<br />
<br />
The debate is continuing at [[Debate:Is Obama a Muslim?]] It may be best to continue arguing the point there with the aim of reaching a conclusion which can then be utilised in the article, and leave this talk page for discussing other improvements. [[User:NormanS|NormanS]] 22:22, 11 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Reference ==<br />
<br />
<references/></div>NormanShttps://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Bill_Maher&diff=554968Bill Maher2008-11-12T02:58:23Z<p>NormanS: Ditto, until source provided</p>
<hr />
<div>'''Bill Maher''' is a [[Socialism|socialist]], an [[agnostic]], comedian, actor, writer, producer, and [[Democratic Party]] activist. He is most notable as the former host of ''Politically Incorrect'', which aired on the Comedy Central television network and later on the [[ABC|American Broadcasting Company]]. Maher is also currently the host of ''[[Real Time|Real Time with Bill Maher]]'' on [[HBO]].<br />
<br />
== Television shows & Other Media ==<br />
<br />
ABC decided not to renew Maher's contract for ''Politically Incorrect'' in 2002 after he agreed with a point posed by conservative commentator and guest [[Dinesh D'Souza]] that the terrorists in the September 11, 2001 attacks should not be called cowards. Maher expanded on his point, saying "''We have been the cowards lobbing cruise missiles from 2,000 miles away. That's cowardly. Staying in the airplane when it hits the building, say what you want about it, it's not cowardly.''" [http://www.freedomforum.org/templates/document.asp?documentID=14941]<br />
<br />
In the aftermath of the attacks, the remark made him too controversial for some of the show's most prominent advertisers. Companies including FedEx and Sears Roebuck pulled their advertisements from the show, causing it to become unprofitable. The show was subsequently canceled on June 16, 2002.<br />
<br />
Maher's comment accusing America of cowardice followed another controversial comment he made on ''Politically Incorrect'' where he compared mentally handicapped children to dogs:<br />
:"''But I've often said that if I had &mdash; I have two dogs &mdash; if I had two retarded children, I'd be a hero. And yet the dogs, which are pretty much the same thing. What? They're sweet. They're loving. They're kind, but they don't mentally advance at all ... Dogs are like retarded children.''"<br />
<br />
ABC was still dealing with the fallout from this statement when it decided not to renew Maher's contract.<br />
<br />
In 2003, Maher became the host of ''Real Time with Bill Maher'' on the HBO cable television network, a debate show somewhat similar to ''Politically Incorrect'', but with a narrower selection of guests.<br />
<br />
In 2008, along with Larry Charles ("''[[Borat]]''" director), Bill Maher will be releasing a documentary lampooning religion. Set for an October release the film is called ''[[Religulous]]''.<br />
<br />
== Political claims and statements ==<br />
<br />
Despite claims of being a [[Libertarianism|libertarian]], his views are more line with totalitarian-[[socialism]]. In fact, most of his views are in direct opposition to libertarian ideology, such as his strong support of government regulation of corporations, foreign aid, public schooling, a ban on homeschooling, campaign finance restrictions, radical environmental laws, affirmative action, minimum wage laws, absolute gun control, support for the [[United Nations]], income redistribution through higher taxation, government funding for abortion, and support for [[Ralph Nader]] in the 2000 U.S. presidential election. He has even praised Janet Reno and the ATF for its action in the massacre in Waco, Texas.<br />
<br />
Some of his other stances on issues related to personal pleasure such as legalizing drugs, gambling, and prostitution are however libertarian in outlook. Maher has been described in libertarian and [[conservative]] chatrooms as "a tax and spend politically correct liberal who's a-okay with the Leviathan state as long as he gets his Hustler, his hookers and his hash."{{fact}} <br />
<br />
Maher was formerly involved in a relationship with model Nancy Johnson a.k.a. "Coco Johnsen". However, Ms. Johnson ended it and in November of 2004 sued Maher for palimony amid allegations of verbal and physical abuse.[http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/1111041coco1.html] Maher said that he never promised to marry her and that the claims of abuse were a money making scam.[http://www.buzzle.com/editorials/12-1-2004-62384.asp]<br />
<br />
== External links ==<br />
* [http://dir.salon.com/ent/tv/feature/2001/08/01/maher/index.html Is Bill Maher a libertarian? by Dann Halem]<br />
*[http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=18224 Bill Maher Owes Another Apology] - A war veteran responds to Maher's anti-military comments<br />
*[http://www.aim.org/aim_column/A3735_0_3_0_C/ Is Bill Maher the Jane Fonda of the Iraq War?] - Another response to Maher's anti-military comments<br />
*[http://www.aim.org/wls/author/bill-maher/ What Liberals Say - Bill Maher], [[Accuracy In Media]]<br />
<br />
{{DEFAULTSORT:Maher, Bill}}<br />
[[Category:Liberal Activists|Maher, Bill]]<br />
[[Category:Comedians]]<br />
[[Category:Actors]]<br />
[[Category:Authors]]</div>NormanShttps://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Religulous&diff=554963Talk:Religulous2008-11-12T02:55:26Z<p>NormanS: Fair use</p>
<hr />
<div>Is Bill Maher really outspokenly socialist? I've never heard him talk about his socialism, but he's obviously pretty liberal. Outspokenly liberal, perhaps? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 20:51, 22 September 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
-Last time I checked, he was a libertarian. Not the same thing as a socialist, by a long shot. Bill Maher is outspoken in a lot of subjects. It doesn't make him a socialist. [[User:CodyH|CodyH]] 22:49, 26 September 2008 (EDT)<br />
:He claims to be a libertarian, which is what got me to watch his show a few times. However, he's pretty anti-corpratist and economically liberal. A libertarian who's economically liberal is just a liberal. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 23:21, 26 September 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::Well then we should remain consistent because Bill Maher is called a socialist on [[Bill Maher|his own article]]. Last I checked however, someone who favors gonverment interference in economic issues, to whatever degree, is a socialist. --[[User:Stirlatez|Stirlatez]] 18:23, 30 September 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::Yes, his article does say that... it probably needs changed as well. However, socialism is more than simply "favoring government interference in economic issues." [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 18:44, 30 September 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== That picture! ==<br />
<br />
It's really...erm...bad. Does anyone have a better photo of him? --[[User:St0dad|St0dad]] 21:43, 11 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:Don't you get it? It's not ''meant'' to make him look good, it's ''meant'' to make him look stupid! Which he is! Like all liberals are! [[User:DRussthegreat|DRussthegreat]] 21:49, 11 November 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
::Actually the picture is most likely a copyright violation. As far as I can tell fair use laws require the source of the image to be stated, which does not occur on the image page or within the article. Unless a source is given, or it is proven the picture is in the public domain, this picture must be removed from the article and deleted from the server. [[User:NormanS|NormanS]] 21:55, 11 November 2008 (EST)</div>NormanShttps://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Debate:Is_Obama_a_Muslim%3F&diff=554955Debate:Is Obama a Muslim?2008-11-12T02:45:15Z<p>NormanS: My view</p>
<hr />
<div>==See Also==<br />
* [[Debate: What is sufficient proof that Obama is a Muslim?]]<br />
==Arguments that Obama is a Muslim==<br />
''The following list of claims was originally from the [[Barack Obama]] page, but additional claims may be added.''<br />
<br />
* '''CLAIM''': Obama's background, education, and outlook are Muslim, and fewer than 1% of Muslims convert to Christianity.<br />
** '''RESPONSE''': This is actually two claims:<br />
*** '''CLAIM''': Obama's background, education, and outlook are Muslim.<br />
**** '''RESPONSE''': Based on what evidence? There is a rumor that he was educated in a [[Madrassa]] in Indonesia, but this is patently false; Obama did attend a local public school (not a madrassa) in Jakarta between the ages of 6 and 8, where he received some Muslim education as is standard in the Indonesian public school system; after that he was enrolled in a Roman Catholic school. He did not appear to take his religious studies seriously in either school, according to his own accounts (and possibly witnesses).<br />
*** '''CLAIM''': Fewer than 1% of Muslims convert to Christianity.<br />
**** '''RESPONSE''': Possibly true, but this is only relevant if Obama was at some point a Muslim. He was never a Muslim.<br />
* '''CLAIM''': Obama's middle name (Hussein) references Husayn, who was the grandson of Muhammad, which most Christians would not retain.<br />
** '''RESPONSE 1''': Most Christians also wouldn't run for president of the United States; does this prove that Obama also didn't do that?<br />
** '''RESPONSE 2''': What evidence do you have that most Christians would not retain the middle name they were given at birth just because it references a mythological figure from another religion?<br />
** '''RESPONSE 3''': Even if most Christians would decide to change their birth name as you claim, how does this prove that Obama is not a Christian because he did not? "Most" is not "all". Are you implying that any Christian who would ''not'' do such a thing isn't a "real Christian"?<br />
* '''CLAIM''': Obama recently referred to his "Muslim faith."<br />
** '''RESPONSE''': The description for the YouTube video linked to as support for that claim says " It is as clear as day that he's putting sarcastic quotes around "my Muslim faith" since the entire question is about his (actual) Christian faith."<br />
* '''CLAIM''': Obama said the Muslim call to prayer is "one of the prettiest sounds on Earth at sunset," and recited "with a first-class [Arabic] accent" the opening lines: "Allah is Supreme! ... I witness that there is no god but Allah ...."<br />
** '''RESPONSE 1''': How does this prove he's a Muslim? Probably many professors of Islamic studies would also be able to do these things, but that doesn't make them all Muslims. What it makes them (and Obama) is educated (and possibly gifted in the area of language) -- both excellent qualities in a world leader.<br />
** '''RESPONSE 2''': The only source for this allegation is apparently NYT columnist Nicholas Kristof (''NYT'', 2007-03-06, "[http://select.nytimes.com/2007/03/06/opinion/06kristof.html Obama: Man of the World]"), who (as I understand it) is generally rather positive about Obama. Perhaps this is being taken out of context?<br />
* '''CLAIM''': Obama stated that the autobiography of Malcolm X, a Nation of Islam leader who became a Muslim, inspired him in his youth.<br />
** '''RESPONSE 1''': Many black people were influenced by Malcolm X. You'll have to show a high degree of correlation between "being influenced by Malcom X" and "converting to Islam while denying it publicly".<br />
** '''RESPONSE 2''': "Nation of Islam" is not part of the Islamic religion but was founded in the US, presumably based loosely on Islamic ideals. Do you have any evidence that Obama is a NoI member? Wouldn't NoI be very interested in publicizing Obama's membership if he had joined, as a way of promoting themselves?<br />
* '''CLAIM''': 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.<br />
** '''RESPONSE 1''': Where is the evidence that Obama campaigned for Odinga?<br />
** '''RESPONSE 2''': While this might demonstrate that Obama was friendly to Islam, this does not prove that he is Muslim. The Eisenhower administration arranged a coup-d'etat in Iran in 1952, replacing the democratically-elected president with a monarchy. Does that make Eisenhower an anti-democratic royalist? Donald Rumsfeld shook hands with Saddam Hussein; does that make him a Muslim terrorist?<br />
* '''CLAIM''': Obama's claims of conversion to Christianity arose after he became politically ambitious, lacking a date of conversion or baptism.<br />
** '''RESPONSE''': Has anyone bothered to ask his church (or his office) to see if they have a record of this?<br />
* '''CLAIM''': On the campaign trail Obama has been reading "The Post-American World" by Fareed Zakaria, which is written from a Muslim point-of-view.<br />
** '''CLAIM''': So... everyone who reads that book is a Muslim?<br />
* '''CLAIM''': Contrary to Christianity, the Islamic doctrine of taqiyya encourages adherents to deny they are Muslim if it advances the cause of Islam.<br />
** '''RESPONSE''': Ah-HA! So every time he denies he's a Muslim, that PROVES he really IS! ...Hey, maybe you're a Muslim too! Go on, prove me wrong.<br />
* '''CLAIM''' Obama uses the Muslim Pakistani pronunciation for "Pakistan" rather than the common American one.<br />
** '''RESPONSE''': Right, and I bet he uses "C.E." instead of "A.D." in his dates, and maybe even the Metric System. He also pronounces "divisive" with a short "i" in the second syllable. What in the world does this have to do with anything?<br />
* '''CLAIM''': Many of Obama's statements about religion conflict with Christianity, leading one group to demonstrate with a 7-part video series, "Why Barack Obama is Not a Christian."<br />
** '''RESPONSE''': Christianity has a wide range of views on a lot of different subjects, and any one person's views are bound to be "un-Christian" by someone's lights. When I have time, I will review the linked videos and respond in more detail. ([http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t4cMB8ktCT8 Reason #1], [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OHlelAui5fs Reason #2], [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OHlelAui5fs Reason #3])<br />
* '''CLAIM''': 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 "churched" in a 2007 speech: "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.'"<br />
** '''RESPONSE''': Perhaps he is simply not very enthusiastic about Christianity. Many people who aren't Muslims feel the same way.<br />
* '''CLAIM''': Obama is mentioned as helping to organize the 1995 million man march led by black Muslim leader Louis Farrakhan from the Nation of Islam.<br />
** '''RESPONSE''': ...and therefore...? (This is basically the Malcolm X argument in a weaker form.)<br />
<br />
==NormanS's View==<br />
<br />
I agree with the above, there is little to no evidence that Obama is a Muslim. In fact the whole myth seems to have been started by Andy Martin, a colourful "lawyer" (he was rejected from the bar) who is known for his racist rants against Jews and other groups and his frivolous lawsuits. As an Australian based McCain supporter and a pretty Conservative Christian I was upset when Obama won. However, the reason I oppose him is because of his policies, not because of some misguided claim about his religion. If you really were interested in making personal attacks against him you'd be better off accepting his claim that he's a Christian and then pointing out how hypocritical he is. That said, there is no integrity in attacking a person's character over their policies, regardless of their political ideology.<br />
<br />
As one of the articles posted in the news section stated, the repeated claims that Obama was a Muslim made people vote for him, not against him. The article in its present state reads as a parody and does nothing to help the conservative cause. If this project is to have any credibility it must be rewritten to a balanced viewpoint which discusses his policies, rather than making ridiculous strawman arguments and personal attacks. [[User:NormanS|NormanS]] 21:45, 11 November 2008 (EST)</div>NormanShttps://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Barack_Hussein_Obama&diff=554931Barack Hussein Obama2008-11-12T01:49:54Z<p>NormanS: Undo revision 554927 by StephM (Talk) - contradicted by the sources presently in the article, you must verify your claims as per the Commandments</p>
<hr />
<div>'''Barack Hussein Obama II''' (born in Honolulu,<ref>[http://www.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/birth_certificate_5.jpg Large, high-resolution picture of his birth certificate]</ref><ref>[http://www.kitv.com/politics/17860890/detail.html?rss=hon&psp=news KITV Honolulu report]</ref> August 4, 1961) is the [[Democratic party|Democratic]] junior [[Senator]] from [[Illinois]] (2004 - present) and President-elect of the United States.<ref>[http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/obama_wins_presidency/2008/11/04/147788.html?utm_medium=RSS]</ref> On November 4, Obama and his running mate [[Senator Joseph Biden]] won the presidency after spending a record-shattering $650 million, most of which came from anonymous donors never disclosed by Obama. President-elect Obama will likely become the first [[Muslim]] [[President]], and may use the [[Koran]] to be sworn into office at his inauguration on [[January]] 20, 2009.<ref>Christian Science Monitor, ''At swearing in, congressman [Keith Ellison, D Minnesota, who is a Muslim] wants to carry Koran. Outrage ensues.'', by Jane Lampman, December 07, 2006, retrieved on 10/16/2008 [http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/1207/p01s03-uspo.html]"In Congress, newly elected representatives do not put their left hands on any book. They raise their right hands, and are sworn in together as the speaker of the House administers the oath of office. Some do carry a book, according to House historians, and some choose to photograph a private swearing-in afterward with their hand on the Bible."</ref><ref>Obama hoped to become President when he was sworn in as U.S. Senator in 2004, and did not use a Koran at that time. Subsequently Democratic House member Keith Ellison established the precedent for being sworn in using the Koran, and there is no guarantee that Obama would not do likewise if sworn in as President. [http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/sliming_obama.html FactCheck.org, Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania, ''Sliming Obama'', January 10, 2008, retrieved on 10/16/2008]</ref> <br />
<br />
Obama has espoused the socialist idea of "spreading the wealth" in other words raising the tax rates on business and the wealthy to a burdensome level in order to redistribute their income to low income individuals, many of whom don't currently pay taxes. From which John McCain replied "He's running for Redistributor In Chief, I'm running for Commander In Chief." <ref>[http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/10/31/mccain-hungry-upset-obama-eyes-landslide/ McCain Attacks Obama's Faith in Americans] Fox News, 10-31-2008</ref> The slogan "From each according to their ability to each according to their need" is an idea originally proposed by [[Karl Marx]] and is clearly the inspiration for the centrally planned economy Obama will introduce to the US in January 2009. In addition, his health care plan forces employers to purchase health care or pay a fine and will force many into a poorly run single payer system. The socialization of health care will force taxpayers to pay for healthcare for those who refuse to purchase it themselves. Obama also revealed his deep Marxist/Leninist roots in the design of the poster<ref>[http://andrightlyso.com/2008/07/24/obama-lenin-gaffe/ Obama's direct copy of a Lenin poster for his Berlin visit]</ref>for his 'visit' to Berlin in July 2008. The clear parallels between the poster design and Lenin's earlier poster was obviously a deliberate yet hidden hint to his European, socialistic audience as to his political roots and beliefs.<br />
<br />
[[Image:Democrat Obama during the Pledge.jpg|325px|thumb|right|Obama, on the campaign trail, stands with folded hands while [[Bill Richardson]] and [[Hillary Clinton]] honor the flag by placing their hands over their heart during the [[National Anthem]]. [http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Obama_doesnt_put_hand_over_heart_1022.html See Video] ]]<br />
<br />
The October 2008 crimes against Academy Award winner Jennifer Hudson's family highlight Obama's record against law and order, as he voted against making it a crime in Illinois "for convicts on probation or on bail to have contact with a street gang".<ref>[http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/obamas-crime-votes-are-fodder-for-rivals-2007-03-13.html]</ref> The person of interest in the murders of Hudson's mother, brother, and 7-year-old nephew is the estranged husband of Hudson's sister and a convicted felon who had violated his parole conditions. <ref>[http://www.chicagotribune.com/chi-julian-king-autopsy-1029,0,2752431.story]</ref> "'We've got 75,000 gang members - that's almost six gang members to one police officer.'"<ref>"More people have been murdered in Chicago this year than in New York - even though New York's population is three times greater. When Hudson's mother, brother and nephew were killed last month, they pushed the city's homicide total for the year to 436 and counting. New York has had 430 homicides." [http://www.nydailynews.com/news/us_world/2008/11/01/2008-11-01_chicago_buried_in_murders.html]</ref><br />
<br />
Obama is the first person having ties to a known former terrorist to gain control over America's nuclear weapons.<ref>http://www.clevelandleader.com/node/7127</ref><ref>http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/08/26/obama-associate-bill-ayers-unrepentant-for-acts-of-terror/</ref> Author and blogger Jack Cashill compared the writing style of Bill Ayers' 2001 memoir, ''Fugitive Days'', with Barack Obama's earlier 1995 book, ''Dreams From My Father'', and came to the conclusion that Ayres had ghostwritten Dreams.<ref>www.cashill.com, ''Who Wrote “Dreams From My Father"?'', by Jack Cashill, October 9, 2008, retrieved on 10/16/2008 [http://www.cashill.com/natl_general/who_wrote_dreams_from.htm] Jack Cashill compared the writing style of Bill Ayers' 2001 memoir, ''Fugitive Days'', with Barack Obama's earlier 1995 book, ''Dreams From My Father'', and came to the conclusion that Ayers had ghostwritten ''Dreams''. Cashill states that a computer comparison of Obama's so-called autobiography with that of the terrorist Bill Ayers, supports the theory that Ayers actually wrote parts of Obama's book. "In assessing the signature of sample passages from Dreams," the experienced analyst found "a very strong match to all of the Ayers samples" that he processed. He did not address the possibility that Ayers had plagiarized from Obama's earlier book.</ref> <ref>[http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=77815]</ref> Dr. Peter Millican, who was hired to do a computer analysis comparing the two works, called the charges "very implausible". <ref>[http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/11/02/report-professor-paid-g-prove-ayers-wrote-obamas-autobiography/comments/]"Dr. Peter Millican -- a distinguished philosophy professor at Hertford College in Oxford, England -- ... was reportedly paid to use a computer software program to find suspected similarities between Obama's best-selling 2004 autobiography "Dreams from My Father" and Ayers' memoir "Fugitive Days." But Millican called the charges "very implausible" after a preliminary review of the two works."</ref> Ayers admitted that he was "guilty as hell" in planting bombs in the 1970s, and that he has no regrets and felt he "should have done more."<ref>[http://www.clevelandleader.com/node/7127]</ref><br />
<br />
Catholic Archbishop Charles Chaput of Denver, where Obama received his Democratic Party nomination, recently criticized Obama as the "most committed" [[abortion]]-supporting candidate "since the ''[[Roe v. Wade]]'' abortion decision in 1973.<ref>http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=14088</ref> Obama said "the first thing I'd do as President is sign the Freedom of Choice Act."<ref>[http://christiannewswire.com/news/560716251.html]</ref> That bill "would invalidate virtually all state and federal limitations on abortion, and would make partial-birth abortion legal again."<ref>[http://www.lifenews.com/nat3961.html], http://www.lifenews.com/nat3961.html, Pro-Life Voters Must Work Overtime to Stop Pro-Abortion Barack Obama, June 4, 2008</ref> Indeed, Obama was upset with the decision of the [[United States Supreme Court|Supreme Court]] not to strike down the law passed by the [[United States Congress]] to prohibit partial-birth abortion, believing that partial-birth abortion is guaranteed right of the [[United States Constitution|Constitution]] and that there should be no ability to legislate against it. <br />
<br />
Doctors from the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons have stated that Obama uses techniques of mind control in his speeches and campaign symbols. For example, one speech declared, "a light will shine down from somewhere, it will light upon you, you will experience an epiphany, and you will say to yourself, 'I have to vote for Barack.'"<ref name="mind control">http://www.aapsonline.org/newsoftheday/0089 . The doctors observe that "Obama's logo is noteworthy. It is always there, a small one in the middle of the podium, providing a point of visual fixation ... [that] resembles a crystal ball, a favorite of hypnotists."</ref><br />
<br />
==Obama will likely be the first Muslim President==<br />
[[Image:OBAMA MUSULMAN.jpg|thumb|President Obama wearing traditional African garb, a gift from his hosts while visiting Kenya<ref>[http://sweetness-light.com/archive/obama-wore-muslim-gear-during-kenya-trip]</ref>]]<br />
The evidence that Obama is a Muslim includes:<br />
<br />
*Obama's background, education, and outlook are [[Muslim]], and fewer than 1% of Muslims convert to Christianity.<ref>http://www.religionnewsblog.com/17736/barack-obama-2</ref><ref>http://www.faithfreedom.org/oped/sina31103.htm. During the third and fourth grades, Obama learned about Islam for two hours each week in religion class, according to the LATimes. [http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/nation/bal-te.obama16mar16,0,1634059,print.story?coll=bal_news_nation_promo Campaign downplays his connection during boyhood in Indonesia, Baltimore Sun, March 16, 2007]</ref><br />
*Obama's middle name (Hussein) references '''Husayn''', who was the grandson of [[Muhammad]], which most Christians would not retain.<ref> Oxford Dictionary of First Names, 2nd edition (2007).[http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/277459/al-Husayn-ibn-Ali]. Only after Obama became politically ambitious did he declare himself to be a [[Christian]], yet he never replaced his [[Muslim]] name "Hussein" with a Christian one as most do when they undergo a religious conversion. For example, when Saul became a Christian, he changed his name to "Paul"; when the famous boxer Cassius Clay converted to [[Islam]], he took the Muslim name of [[Muhammad Ali]]. "It is common for those converting to a new religion to change their name on conversion"[http://www.ukdp.co.uk/pages/religiousconversion.php] or adopt a Christian name at [[baptism]].[http://www.answers.com/topic/christian-name]</ref><br />
*Obama recently referred to his "Muslim faith."<ref>Obama declared, "John McCain has not talked about my Muslim faith."[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iQqIpdBOg6I]</ref><br />
*Obama said the Muslim call to prayer is "one of the prettiest sounds on Earth at sunset," and recited "with a first-class [Arabic] accent" the opening lines: Allah is Supreme! ... I witness that there is no god but Allah ...."<ref>http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=78309</ref><br />
*Obama stated that the autobiography of Malcolm X, a Nation of Islam leader who became a Muslim, inspired him in his youth.<ref>For example, Obama writes in his own autobiography, "Only Malcolm X's autobiography seemed to offer something different. His repeated acts of self-creation spoke to me. The blunt poetry of his words, his unadorned insistence on respect, promised a new and uncompromising order, martial in its discipline, forged through sheer force of will. ... [E]ven as I imagine myself following Malcolm's call, one line in the book stayed with me. He spoke of a wish he'd once had, the wish that the white blood that ran through him, there by an act of violence, might somehow be expunged."[http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/04/does_obama_know_america.html]</ref><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.<ref> [http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=78324] Text of the agreement, as three images: [http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=78323]</ref><br />
*Obama's claims of conversion to Christianity arose after he became politically ambitious, lacking a date of conversion or baptism.<ref>In his book, Obama oddly claims to have been baptized without giving his age or date, and later gave a date that postdates his political ambition (1992).</ref><br />
*On the campaign trail Obama has been reading "The Post-American World" by Fareed Zakaria,<ref>http://www.canada.com/topics/news/world/story.html?id=fa8cf1bf-2cc8-4d6e-b72d-a07d406e19ff</ref> which is written from a Muslim point-of-view.<ref>http://www.villagevoice.com/2005-08-09/news/the-interpreter/</ref><br />
*Contrary to [[Christianity]], the Islamic doctrine of [[taqiyya]] encourages adherents to deny they are Muslim if it advances the cause of Islam.<br />
*Obama uses the Muslim Pakistani pronunciation for "Pakistan" rather than the common American one.<ref>Obama repeatedly pronounced "Pakistan" as "Pokiston" in the first presidential debate.</ref> <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 "churched" in a 2007 speech: "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.'"<ref>[http://www.speroforum.com/site/article.asp?id=15363 Obama, ACORN, and the churches] SperoNews, October 7, 2008</ref><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]]. <ref>[http://www.biography.com/search/article.do?id=9291850 Louis Farrakhan Biography] Biography.com</ref><br />
<br />
Obama tries to downplay his [[Islamic]] background by claiming that his [[Kenya|Kenyan]] [[Muslim]] father was a "confirmed [[atheist]]" before Obama was born, but in fact less than 1% of Kenyans are atheists, agnostics or non-religious.<ref>http://www.adherents.com/Na/Na_14.html</ref> 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.<br />
<br />
__TOC__ <!--Do not remove this. We want to keep the insights on the first screen of viewing--><br />
<br />
==Obama and Elitism==<br />
<br />
Obama has consistently shown himself to be an elitist who looks down on "ordinary" Americans. Asked to explain why working-class [[Democrats]] do not support him while campaigning for the [[Pennsylvania]] primary, Obama replied "it's not surprising, then, they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."<ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7344532.stm</ref> In response to outrage when his remarks were unexpectedly publicized, Obama did not recount his statement but instead replied, I "didn't say it as well as I should have."<ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7344532.stm</ref> Although many rural counties went for McCain, Obama carried the state with 54.6% of the vote, compared to 44.3% for John McCain.<ref>[http://www.electionreturns.state.pa.us/ElectionsInformation.aspx?FunctionID=13&ElectionID=28&OfficeID=1]</ref><br />
<br />
In an attempt counter the view by many that Obama is an elitist, he began running campaign ads claiming that he "worked his way through college and Harvard Law." This claim is at best an exaggeration, as Obama only held summer jobs while in college and law school<ref>http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/obamas_work_claim.html</ref>, and he would have likely benefited from special scholarships not available to most students.<br />
<br />
Obama almost always reads from prepared text on a [[teleprompter]] and rarely allows tough questions.<ref>After one debate against [[Hillary Clinton]] in Philadelphia, the Obama campaign announced that the questions were too difficult and that Obama would not agree to future debates with her.</ref><ref name="teleprompter">The Daily Standard, ''Obama Unplugged Lost without a Teleprompter'', by Dean Barnett, 02/12/2008[http://www.weeklystandard.com/content/public/articles/000/000/014/728ofzey.asp]</ref> Indeed, when unable to read from prepared text he often fails at articulating his positions and is caught tripping over his own feet.<ref>This was first displayed in the Saddleback Forum, and has occurred subsequently also.</ref> His most recent debate performances illustrate that he may have been extensively coached over the course of 2008, although he still repeatedly fumbles at moments where he moves off his memorized remarks.<br />
<br />
==Insights==<br />
<br />
Obama displayed ignorance about American history when he said, "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."<ref>http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2008/07/obama_ignorance_watch_1.asp</ref> <br />
<br />
Obama has described himself as a constitutional law professor at the University of Chicago.<ref>[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/03/30/politics/p132303D74.DTL&type=politics]</ref> He held the position of Lecturer, an adjunct position, from 1992 to 1996.<ref>[http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media/index.html]</ref> He held the position of Senior Lecturer from 1996 until his election to the senate in 2004.<ref>[http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media/index.html]</ref> Dan Ronayne, a spokesman for the Republican National Committee, has pointed that Obama was only a senior lecturer and not a full professor. <ref>[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/03/30/politics/p132303D74.DTL&type=politics]</ref>The University states that Senior Lecturers are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure track.<ref>[http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media/index.html]</ref><br />
<br />
In his 1995 memoir, ''Dreams from My Father'', Obama admitted using illegal drugs, including cocaine and marijuana, which he referred to as "blow" and "pot" respectively, in his high school years and into his college years, before claiming to choose a different path in life.<ref>http://www.nbc5.com/politics/3444371/detail.html</ref><ref>http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/02/26/obamas_senate_foreign_relations_work/</ref><br />
<br />
Obama wore an American flag lapel pin after [[9/11]], but later stopped wearing it without adequate explanation.<ref>http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2007/10/when_did_obama_stop_wearing_a.html</ref> Presumably it would have hurt him with anti-military campaign donors.<ref>In 2007, at critical moments in his campaign for the nomination, Obama had difficulties securing the support of anti-war activists. [http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/04/04/politics/main2645861.shtml]</ref> Recently, he has begun wearing one again for reasons that are likely political pandering.<br />
<br />
In his memoirs, Obama claimed a ''[[Life]]'' magazine article about a man who had become ill after trying to lighten his skin color by chemical means had a major impact on him. In fact, ''Life'' never published any such article.<ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/26/AR2007032601583.html</ref><ref>"Then there's the copy of Life magazine that Obama presents as his racial awakening at age 9. In it, he wrote, was an article and two accompanying photographs of an African-American man physically and mentally scarred by his efforts to lighten his skin. In fact, the Life article and the photographs don't exist, say the magazine's own historians." [http://newsbusters.org/node/11641]</ref><br />
<br />
Obama said that "[t]here was something stirring across the country because of what happened in Selma, [[Alabama]], because some folks are willing to march across a bridge. So they got together and Barack Obama Jr. was born." In fact, Obama was born in 1961 and the Selma march took place in 1965.<ref>http://michellemalkin.com/2008/05/21/barack-obama-gaffe-machine/</ref><br />
<br />
Obama states that he has consistently opposed the [[Iraq War]] since 2002, a claim and position that former President [[Bill Clinton]] criticized as "the biggest fairy tale I've ever seen."<ref>http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN1131516320080111</ref> In his famous 2002 speech<ref>http://www.barackobama.com/2002/10/02/remarks_of_illinois_state_sen.php</ref> at an anti-war rally, Obama said that he was against "dumb wars" and expressed some reservations about the Iraq War because he disagrees with the ideological agendas of the Bush administration, but he did not explicitly oppose the war. In his 2004 Democrat Convention speech, Obama said that he did not know how he would have voted on the Iraq War.<br />
<br />
Obama's campaign "is proud to be actively participating in over 60 local and state wide [[homosexual]] Pride events over the summer."<ref>http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/jcitron/gG5VLs</ref><br />
<br />
Obama claimed to have visited 57 states while campaigning for President of the United States.<ref> [http://www.mediaresearch.org/BozellColumns/newscolumn/2008/col20080528.asp Barack Potatoe Obama?]</ref> <ref>http://www.stoptheaclu.com/archives/2008/05/12/obamas-freudian-slip-there-are-57-islamic-states/</ref><br />
<br />
==Charitable Giving==<br />
<br />
In the years 2000 through 2004, before becoming a United States Senator and being in the public spotlight, Obama gave 1% of his earnings to charity even though he made $250,000 per year. Since becoming a national figure, that amount has jumped to 6%.<ref>http://patterico.com/2008/10/31/obama-and-bidens-charitable-giving-they-dont-want-to-spread-their-own-wealth-around/</ref>. Obama's small donations are consistent with atheism and were perhaps influenced by his nonbelieving mother. According to a study by the Barna Group, atheists give less per capita in donations than religious Americans <ref>http://www.barna.org/FlexPage.aspx?Page=BarnaUpdateNarrow&BarnaUpdateID=272 The Barna Update, 2007</ref>.<br />
<br />
==Aunt is in the United States Illegally==<br />
<br />
At the end of October 2008 it came to light that Obama's aunt is in the United States illegally and has been since 2004 when her request for asylum was turned down. She has been living in public tax payer funded housing in Boston. This may have some bearing on Obama's immigration policy given that a member of his own family is in violation of current US immigration law. There are also questions about how much Obama knew about this.<ref>[http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27481680 Obama's Aunt Living in US Illegally]</ref> The Obama campaign issued a statement to the effect that they had no knowledge of this situation and returned the donation she made to his campaign; in the United states it is illegal to accept campaign contributions from people who are not currently citizens or legal residents of the united states. <ref>http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/11/01/obama.aunt/index.html</ref><br />
<br />
==Statements==<br />
Obama has been noted by several independent sources as misquoting historical events and statements by famous persons. A notable example came after Obama's win in the [[North Carolina]] democratic primary. Obama was quoted as saying, "I trust the American people to understand that it is not weakness, but wisdom to talk not just to our friends, but to our enemies as Roosevelt did, and Kennedy did, and Truman did." (Franklin Delano) Roosevelt spoke with none of the [[Axis]] or [[Japanese]] leaders and the the only communication that was sent to them was unconditional surrender. (President) [[Harry Truman]] took over for FDR and continued his unconditional surrender philosophy as well as ending [[World War II]] with an atomic bomb.<ref>http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/05/obama_needs_to_study_history_b.html</ref><br />
<br />
==Early life and education==<br />
Barack Hussein Obama II is said to have been born in [[Honolulu]], [[Hawaii]] to Barack Sr. and Ann Dunham in 1961, but there is some evidence that he may have actually been born in Kenya. In 1967, he moved with his mother and new stepfather to Jakarta, [[Indonesia]]. He attended a [[Catholic]] elementary school for two years, followed by an Indonesian public school for two years. Media scrutiny in the light of Obama's campaign for President revealed that the Indonesia public school was not a madrassa, teaching Islam. His days off of school in observance of Islamic holidays were spent praying in a Mosque with his stepfather. <ref>[http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/pipes_obama_muslim/2008/10/09/138898.html Obama 'Lying' About Muslim Past, Expert Says] NewsMax, October 9, 2008</ref> After Indonesia, he returned to the United States with his mother where he attended the Punahou School, the leading private preparatory school in [[Hawaii]], until he graduated in 1979.<br />
<br />
For college, Obama initially attended Occidental College in Los Angeles, [[California]], before transferring to [[Columbia University]] in New York, [[New York]] and graduating without honors with a Bachelor of Arts degree, majoring in political science. Obama refuses to describe his academic performance at Columbia despite commenting about New York during this period and despite disclosures of the academic record for all other major-party presidential candidates since at least 2000.<ref>http://www.nysun.com/new-york/obamas-years-at-columbia-are-a-mystery/85015/</ref><br />
<br />
After working as a community organizer in New York City and Chicago, Illinois, Obama enrolled at [[Harvard]] Law School. He became a member of the ''Harvard Law Review'', which uses racial quotas, in 1989. He was then elected by popular vote as its first African American president in 1990, a story that was immediately promoted in the [[New York Times]].<ref>http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0CE2DC1631F935A35751C0A966958260&scp=3&sq=Obama%201990&st=cse</ref> He graduated ''magna cum laude'' with his J.D. in 1991, but did not serve in a clerkship. Federal clerkships are the typical post-graduate position for top law students.<br />
<br />
Obama has described himself as a constitutional law professor at the University of Chicago.<ref>[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/03/30/politics/p132303D74.DTL&type=politics]</ref> He held the position of Lecturer, an adjunct position, from 1992 to 1996.<ref>[http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media/index.html]</ref> He held the position of Senior Lecturer from 1996 until his election to the senate in 2004.<ref>[http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media/index.html]</ref> Dan Ronayne, a spokesman for the Republican National Committee, has pointed that Obama was only a senior lecturer and not a full professor. <ref>[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/03/30/politics/p132303D74.DTL&type=politics]</ref>The University states that Senior Lecturers are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure track.<ref>[http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media/index.html]</ref><br />
<br />
==Legal career==<br />
Following law school, Obama continued his work as a community organizer in Chicago as the director of Illinois Project Vote. In 1993 he was hired as an associate at the Chicago law firm Miner, Barnhill & Galland, P.C., and began lecturing in Constitutional Law at the University of Chicago Law School. He remains on the faculty on leave of absence through today. During this time he wrote his first book, ''Dreams from My Father'', detailing his background, his youth, and his education. ''Dreams'' was published in 1995.<br />
<br />
==Senate career==<br />
Obama was elected to the Illinois State Senate for the first time in 1996 and served there for the next eight years. Following a failed campaign for the House of Representatives, Obama ran for the open Senate seat from Illinois in 2004. Obama delivered the keynote address at the 2004 Democratic National Convention. He won a seat in the [[U.S. Senate]] after [[liberals]] obtained the release of confidential and personally embarrassing divorce records of his opponent, Jack Ryan, forcing him to resign from the race and be replaced by the out-of-state candidate [[Alan Keyes]].<br />
<br />
A March 16th, 2005 AP article puts Senator Obama on record to ban oil drilling in the Alaska frontier known as ANWR <ref>http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0316-13.htm</ref><br />
<br />
His 2007 voting record in the U.S. [[Senate]] makes him as its most [[liberal]] member. Among fellow Senate Democrats, he was further left than liberals like [[Ted Kennedy]], [[John Kerry]], [[Dianne Feinstein]], [[Charles Schumer]], [[Russ Feingold]], [[Carl Levin]], [[Joseph Biden]] and [[Harry Reid]].<ref>[http://nationaljournal.com/voteratings/sen/lib_cons.htm?o1=lib_composite&o2=desc]</ref> He has grown steadily more liberal since arriving at the Senate: the same analysis assessed him as 10th most liberal in 2006<ref>[http://www.nationaljournal.com/members/news/2007/voteratings/sen/lib_cons.htm?o1=lib_composite&o2=desc]</ref> and 16th most liberal in 2005.<ref>[http://www.nationaljournal.com/members/news/2007/voteratings/sen/lib_cons.htm?o1=lib_composite&o2=desc]</ref><br />
<br />
In late 2006, Obama's second book, ''The Audacity of Hope'', was published. Its title was supplied by the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr., a minister who has stated that "racism is how this country was founded and how this country was run .... We believe in white supremacy and black inferiority and believe it more than we believe in God."<ref>http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/03/14/obama_condemns_pastors_remarks.html</ref> The book contains more of Senator Obama's personal story including the roles of both family and politics. ''Audacity'' spent 30 weeks on the ''New York Times'' Nonfiction Best Sellers list.<ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/27/books/bestseller/0527besthardnonfiction.html?_r=1&oref=slogin New York Times Best Sellers Non Fiction]</ref><br />
<br />
Senator Obama is the chairman of an important subcommittee that has oversight of our efforts in Afghanistan. He has not held a single hearing on Afghanistan even though American forces are risking their lives in a theatre of war. Since joining Foreign Relations, Obama has missed three meetings on a "new strategy" in [[Afghanistan]], a country he only visited in 2008.<ref>[http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/obama-absent-at-afghanistan-hearings-2008-03-01.html</ref> Barack Obama clinched his party's nomination for President after 16 straight months of campaigning.<br />
<br />
In June 2008, Obama voted with the Democratic party to kill the sunset provision of the [[Bush]] tax cuts. By letting these tax cuts expire, single mothers with two kids will pay an additional $1,800 annually. Married couples with incomes of $50,000 will pay an additional $2,180 annually. Elderly couples will pay an additional $2,000 annually and a family of four will pay 191% more per year in taxes. Barack Obama often claims to be for taxing the rich their fair share. By voting to eliminate the Bush tax cuts, Obama is taxing most middle class and blue collar families.<br />
<br />
Obama and the Democratic-led Congress has voted for the upgraded GI Bill despite the opposition from the President, the Secretary of Defense, the Pentagon, the generals in combat zones and the GOP Presidential nominee. It was crafted to increase veteran benefits. Yet, the strain on our military is great.<ref>[http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/05/mccain_to_obama_dont_demagogue.php] http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/05/mccain_to_obama_dont_demagogue.php , McCain To Obama: Don't Demagogue The GI Bill, May 22, 2008</ref> The bill would cost $2.8 to $4 billion per month. Some argue that this bill depletes the US's volunteer military personnel by enticing them to leave service rather than be re-deployed.<br />
<br />
As senator, Obama has requested nearly $936 million in earmarks which averages to $500,000. per day over four years, <ref>[http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122108935141721343.html?mod=googlenews_wsj Obama Can't Win Against Palin] Wall Street Journal, September 11, 2008</ref> for which the Council for Citizens Against Government Waste has given him a rating of 10% in 2007 (18% lifetime).<ref>[http://councilfor.cagw.org/site/DocServer/2007_Senate_Ratings_Final.pdf?docID=3242 2007 Senate Scorecard]</ref> A score of 100% represents voting against all pork, and 0% represents voting ''for'' all pork. Democrats averaged 5% in 2007, whereas Republicans averaged 60%. <ref>[http://councilfor.cagw.org/site/News2?abbr=CCAGW_&page=NewsArticle&id=11590 CCAGW Releases ''2007 Congressional Ratings'']</ref><br />
<br />
According to a Fox News report on October 5th, Obama has taken more than $126,000. in campaign contribution from [[Fannie Mae]] in a little over three years. This ranks him second, only Chris Dodd has received more campaign contribution dollars from Fannie Mae.<br />
<br />
=== Bills co-sponsored ===<br />
Obama's principal legislation was S. 2433, which was an attempt to force the U.S. to increase its foreign aid by hundreds of billions of dollars under the guise of reducing global poverty, which was subsequently blocked by [[conservatives]].<ref>http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics.asp?Page=/Politics/archive/200802/POL20080225a.html</ref><br />
<br />
Obama did support and co-sponsor a bill championed by [[Tom Coburn]] and known as the Coburn-Obama Government Transparency Act of 2006, which was signed into law by President [[George W. Bush]] on Sept. 9, 2006. This law created a website that will list the federal government's grants and contracts.<ref> http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/09/20060926.html</ref> <br />
<br />
Between Jan 13, 2007 and March 13, 2008, Sen. Obama has sponsored 120 mostly [[liberal]] resolutions and bills in the Senate.<ref>http://thomas.loc.gov/</ref> His supporters cite the following less liberal examples, but this list is not representative:{{fact}}<br />
<br />
*S.117 : A bill to amend titles 10 and 38, United States Code, to improve benefits and services for members of the Armed Forces, veterans of the Global War on Terrorism, and other veterans, to require reports on the effects of the Global War on Terrorism, and for other purposes.<br />
<br />
*S.133 : A bill to promote the national security and stability of the economy of the United States by reducing the dependence of the United States on oil through the use of alternative fuels and new technology, and for other purposes.<br />
<br />
*S.453 : A bill to prohibit deceptive practices in Federal elections.<br />
<br />
*S.713 : A bill to ensure dignity in care for members of the Armed Forces recovering from injuries.<br />
<br />
=== Accomplishments while serving on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee ===<br />
<br />
In February 2008, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee approved Obama's proposal on a new strategy to reduce poverty throughout the world.<br />
<br />
Obama worked with Sen. Lugar writing legislation aimed at improving conventional and nuclear non-proliferation efforts. This legislation was signed by [[George W. Bush|President Bush]] in January 2008.<br />
<br />
In June 2007 the Senate passed his resolution condemning violence by the [[Zimbabwe]] government. It also passed legislation co-sponsored by Obama that financed a Special Court for Sierra Leone to prosecute former [[Liberia | Liberian]] President [[Charles Taylor]]. <ref> http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/02/26/obamas_senate_foreign_relations_work/ </ref><br />
<br />
Barack Obama continued to collect money for a 2010 Senate re-election campaign as late as June 2008, and has filed reports recently indicating that money is still pouring into this fund. This is especially notable because it is an efficient way of sidetracking donations from his Presidential race. The website<obamasenate2010.gov> is now defunct.<br />
<br />
==Presidential campaign==<br />
[[Image:obama.jpg|thumb|right|Senator Barack Obama]]<br />
Senator Obama began his candidacy for President of the United States on February 10, 2007, in Springfield, Illinois. His announcement speech largely avoided specific campaign issues and focused on his general political message of hope for the future. It also attempted to strongly invoke the memory of Abraham Lincoln and his "House Divided" speech.<ref>[http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/02/10/obama.president/index.html "Obama declares he's running for President"] 11 February 2007, www.CNN.com </ref><br />
<br />
Obama's campaign has been financed largely by [[leftist]] donors opposed to the war and to the [[American]] military in general. Obama has encouraged this by refusing to wear the customary flag on his lapel during appearances (asserting that he would prefer his patriotism to be represented through his actions rather than an arbitrary symbol) and by other less-than-patriotic gestures and symbols, such as declining to put his hand over his heart during a patriotic recitation. In an appearance on May 16 where he addressed President Bush's statements that some politicians would prefer appeasing terrorists through negotiations, Senator Obama once again wore the flag pin as he did following 9-11. <br />
<br />
By early April 2007, his campaign generated over $25 million from over 100,000 contributors. $23.5 million of that money will be available for the Democratic Primary.<ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/05/us/politics/05obama.html Obama Shows His Strength in a Fund-Raising Feat on Par With Clinton], 4 April 2007, Jeff Zeleny and Patrick Healy,'' The New York Times''</ref> After the first Democratic presidential debate in Columbia, South Carolina, Obama's image as an "articulate" spokesman came into question after his failure to state right away that he would retaliate in case of further terrorist strikes against the United States.<ref>[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/27/AR2007042702162.html?hpid=moreheadlines Clinton Campaign Tries to Keep Heat on Obama Over Debate Response], Dan Balz, ''Washington Post'' April 28, 2007.</ref><ref>Chicago Sun-Times, <br />
[http://www.suntimes.com/news/sweet/362269,CST-NWS-sweet29.article 'I was a little nervous' at debate'], Lynn Sweet, <br />
April 29, 2007,</ref><br />
<br />
During a fund raising event in Virginia in May 2007 Obama told donors,<br />
{{Cquote|This week there was a tragedy in Kansas. Ten thousand people died. An entire town destroyed.<ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,271357,00.html Transcript: 'Special Report with Brit Hume,' May 9, 2007], retrieved from ''FOX News'', 06/13/07.</ref>}}<br />
<br />
In reality, the tornado which touched down in Kansas cost the lives of nine people in the town of Greensburg, and twelve overall in Kansas.<br />
<br />
Speaking regarding his knowledge of the Afghanistan conflict, Obama points the finger at U.S. troops and American policy "...just airraiding villages and killing civilians, which is causing enormous problems there." <ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,293365,00.html Barack Obama Caught on Tape Accusing U.S. Troops of 'Killing Civilians'] Fox News, August 15, 2007</ref> [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wrW4fOGIMVY See Video]<br />
<br />
By August it appeared Obama was running to be left off the ticket completely rather than the much ballyhooed Hillary/Obama ticket the [[mainstream media]] was pushing. After a series of ill-advised foreign policy statements, Obama was openly criticized as a lightweight even by liberals, in much the same vein as [[John Edwards]] and [[Dan Quayle]] had been depicted. First, Obama said he would have face-to-face meetings with two of Florida's most feared enemies, [[Fidel Castro]] and [[Hugo Chavez]]. Florida is a key state to any presidential ambitions. Then Obama claimed that he would be willing to invade the sovereign territory of a U.S. ally without prior consultation. Finally, Obama broke the cardinal rule of declaring he would not use nuclear weapons, removing the element of bluff U.S. Presidents had vitally depended upon throughout the [[Cold War]] era. The incidents all added up to a picture of a candidate ill-prepared and ill-advised, lacking in a basic understanding of the office of the Presidency, and failing to surround himself with appointees able to make up for his deficiencies. However, Obama won the Iowa Democratic caucuses, pushing [[Hillary Clinton]] into third place, and went on to become the unofficial Democratic nominee.<br />
<br />
At a campaign event in Elkhart, Indiana, a seven-year-old girl asked Barack Obama why he wants to be President. He replies, <br />
'''"America is …, uh, is no longer, uh … what it could be, what it once was. And I say to myself, I don’t want that future for my children."''' <ref>[http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blumer/2008/08/09/mostly-mia-obamas-downer-america-delivered-7-year-old Media Mostly MIA on Obama's 'America No Longer What It Once Was' Downer Delivered to 7 Year-Old] Newsbusters.org, August 9, 2008</ref><br />
<br />
Obama became the presumptive Democratic nominee on June 3rd after receiving a majority of pledged delegates and superdelegates. His only remaining primary opponent, [[Hillary Clinton]], conceded the race on June 7th. On August 23, Joe Biden was announced as Obama's vice-presidential nominee. Obama became the official Democratic nominee on August 27 at the Democratic National Convention, when Hillary Clinton's motion to end the roll call vote of the states and select Obama by acclamation was passed.<br />
<br />
On June 5th, Obama spoke at Briston, Virginia- Healthcare Town Hall forum regarding Political Action Committees and his campaign. "Well, we’re here today because we know that if we’re going to make real progress, this time must be different. Throughout my career, in Illinois and the United States senate, I’ve worked to reduce the power of the special interests by leading the fight for ethics reform. I’ve sent a strong signal in this campaign by refusing the contributions of registered federal lobbyists and PACs. And today, I’m announcing that going forward, the Democratic National Committee will uphold the same standard and won’t take another dime from Washington lobbyists or special interest PACs. They do not fund my campaign. They will not fund our party. And they will not drown out the voices of the American people when I’m President of the United States." <br />
<br />
On June 6th, an [[AP]] article <ref>[http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/D/DEMOCRATS_MONEY?SITE=KING&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT Transcript: 'Democratic Party returns lobbyist, PAC money ,' June 6, 2008]</ref> presented the rules for lobbyist donations to the DNC and for the Presidential nominee. Obama does accept money from lobbyists who do not do business with the federal government and he also accepts money from spouses and family members of lobbyists. And the DNC ban is also not retroactive, which means the DNC will keep lobbyist and PAC contributions it received earlier in the election cycle. Retroactive period being the date Barack Obama started his campaign, February 10, 2007. The DNC possibly the day after the November 2006 Congressional elections until June 5th, 2008. In addition, Barack Obama's ban does not apply to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee nor to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. Unlike [[John McCain]], Barack Obama has not disclosed the lobbyists working in his campaign.<br />
<br />
Senator Obama visited U.S. troops in Iraq in 2006<ref>[http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section=news/local&id=3794382 Obama visits troops in Iraq]</ref> and in Afghanistan and Kuwait in 2008<ref>[http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section=news/local&id=3794382 Obama visits troops and officials in Afghanistan and Kuwait]</ref><br />
<br />
Obama's tax plan calls for increasing taxes on the wealthiest 1% of Americans, while cutting taxes for the middle class. According to the non-partisan [[Tax Policy Center]], most Americans would pay less taxes than under Senator McCain's plan.<ref>[http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/publications/url.cfm?ID=411749 An Updated Analysis of the 2008 Presidential Candidates' Tax Plans: Updated September 12, 2008]</ref> According to another non-partisan group, Americans for Tax Reform, tax-payers would clearly be burdened by an Obama Presidency.<ref>[http://www.atr.org/content/html/2008/june/0616-obama_mccaintaxes.html McCain vs. Obama on Taxes] Americans For Tax Reform, June 2008</ref><br />
<br />
===Campaign financing=== <br />
Obama is the first presidential candidate to reject public financing. He broke his promise to accept it in the hope that his powerful fund-raising machine would generate far more money than the $84.1 million McCain is getting in public funding. Indeed, on August 14th, the Obama campaign announced it had received donations from 2 million individuals, setting new records. Obama raised $272 million for the primaries and expects to raise $300 million for the general election. However the Republican National Committee has been raising much more than the Democratic National Committee and each candidate had about $100 million in cash on September 1. Each expects to spend about $300 million by November. However, Obama is obliged to devote much of his time to fund raising among supporters rather than campaigning among undecided voters.<ref> see [http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/stumper/archive/2008/09/09/was-obama-right-to-opt-out-of-public-financing.aspx Andrew Romano, "Was Obama Right to Opt Out of Public Financing?," ''Newsweek'' (Sept. 9, 2008) online]</ref> Among his backers is homosexual pornography baron [[Terrence Bean]].<br />
<br />
===Secrecy=== <br />
<br />
The Democratic party feels it necessary to keep all questions about Obama at a safe distance. It is an unprecedented move to keep secrets about a presidential candidate. The following questions remain sealed from the public. <ref>[http://obamawtf.blogspot.com/2008/08/who-sent-obama-why-has-he-refused-to.html Who sent Obama? Why has he refused to release these basic documents?] ObamaWTF.blogspot.com</ref> <br />
<br />
# Certified Copy of original Birth certificate(see certificate controversy below)<br />
# Columbia College records<br />
# Columbia Thesis paper<br />
# Campaign donor analysis requested by 7 major watchdog groups<br />
# [[Harvard]] College records<br />
# Illinois State Senate records<br />
# [[Illinois]] State Senate schedule<br />
# [[Law]] practice client list and billing records/summary<br />
# Locations and names of all half-siblings and step-mothers<br />
# Medical records (only the one page summary released so far)<br />
# Occidental College records<br />
# Parent's [[Marriage]] Certificate<br />
# Record of baptism<br />
# Selective Service Registration<br />
# Trips schedules for trips outside of the United States before 2007<br />
# Scholarly articles<br />
# Access to his Grandmother (Obama's Grandmother has since passed away from cancer [http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5g3m4YaeYwDHXS6hHdZJi8pm6cZdAD947RJKO0])<br />
# List of all campaign workers that are lobbyists<br />
<br />
Obama keeps donations secret by exploiting a loophole that allows campaigns to refuse to divulge donations under $200.00. This is useful to the candidate because many of his contributions are from dubious foreign or illegal sources. It is described as the "largest pool of unidentified money that has ever flooded into the U.S. election system, before or after the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reforms of 2002." <ref>http://www.newsmax.com/timmerman/Obama_fundraising_illegal/2008/09/29/135718.html</ref><br />
<br />
===Tone===<br />
<br />
Many observers have criticized Obama's campaign for its incivility. For instance, John McCain's wife Cindy noted that Obama is running "the dirtiest campaign in American history." <br />
<br />
Obama's smears usually fall into two categories: race-baiting and distortions. On October 10, 2008, Obama surrogate Rep. John Lewis (D-GA) typified the campaign by comparing Sen. McCain to racial segregationists and Klansmen. "Sen. McCain and Gov. Palin are sowing the seeds of hatred and division," Lewis exclaimed before comparing Sen. McCain to segregationist Democrat George Wallace, further noting that he, "...never fired a gun, but he created the climate and the conditions that encouraged [the attacks in which] four little girls were killed on Sunday morning when a church was bombed in Birmingham, Alabama." <ref>http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/11/mccain.lewis/index.html?eref=rss_politics</ref> This is particularly harsh to Sen. McCain because he fondly admires Lewis. <ref>http://www.rickwarrennews.com/transcript/civil_forum_transcript-04.txt</ref><br />
<br />
As for the distortions and personal attacks, Obama mocks Sen. McCain's for his age and Gov. Palin for being a woman and outsider. For instance, Obama responded with a subtle reference to Alzheimer's disease when Sen. McCain criticized his foreign policy in May 2008, alleging that Sen. McCain "lost his bearings" <ref>http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0508/Obama_McCain_offensive_losing_his_bearings.html</ref>. Senior Adviser Mark Salter noted, "He used the words 'losing his bearings' intentionally, a not particularly clever way of raising John McCain's age as an issue. This is typical of the Obama style of campaigning." <ref>http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/05/salter_obama_attacked_mccains.php</ref>. In reference to Gov. Palin, Obama was caught for his quiet hiring of Winner & Associates to disseminate a sexist smear video against her. <ref>http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/194057.php</ref> Some argue this is a FEC violation because it lacked obligatory label denoting it was sponsored by the Obama Campaign. <ref>http://eclipseweb.blogspot.com/2008/09/vicious-anti-sarah-palin-smear-campaign.html</ref> One of the biggest distortions by Obama is that 95% of all taxpayers will get a tax cut. <ref>[http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122385651698727257.html?mod=googlenews_wsj Obama's 95% Illusion] Wall Steet Journal, October 13, 2008</ref> Without the distortion, Obama is proposing income re-distribution because those families that pay no taxes, one-third, will get money from the wealthy top 5%.<br />
<br />
Another feature of the Obama campaign is the unruly audience. CNN reported in October of 2008 <ref>http://www.findinternettv.com/Video,item,3565842635.aspx</ref>, that people are calling John McCain a terrorist at these events. According to Sen. McCain, "I've heard the [label terrorist], unfortunately, at Senator Obama's rallies being said about me. There's always a fringe element." Other eyewitness reports are harsher <ref>http://theinvigilator.blogspot.com/2008/10/on-front-of-disgust.html</ref>.<br />
<br />
==Election==<br />
<br />
Senator Obama won the 2008 Presidential election, with over 52% of the popular vote. He carried every state that [[John Kerry]] won in 2004, in addition to Iowa, North Carolina, Ohio, Virginia, Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada, Florida, and Indiana. Of the 123 million votes cast, Obama beat John McCain by 9 million total votes. [http://images.newsmax.com/misc/2008_Election_Map.jpg See county breakdown map] <ref>[www.cnn.com/election]</ref><br />
<br />
== Positions and Qualifications ==<br />
Obama is [[pro-abortion]]. The leading abortion providers and PAC supporters have wholeheartedly endorsed Barack Obama. The National Abortion Rights Action League [[NARAL]] has given Barack a 100% rating for his efforts in Congress 2005, 2006 and 2007 <ref>http://www.prochoiceamerica.org/elections/statements/obama.html</ref>. EMILY's List, a political action committee that funds female candidates who support abortion rights backs Barack Obama<ref> [http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2008/06/emilys_list_bac.html],EMILY's List backs Obama, June 6,2008</ref> The nation's largest abortion business, Planned Parenthood has begun the process necessary to endorse pro-abortion presidential candidate Barack Obama. <ref>[http://www.lifenews.com/nat3971.html], http://www.lifenews.com/nat3971.html, Planned Parenthood Begins Process to Endorse Pro-Abortion Barack Obama, June 10,2008</ref>The board of directors of the pro-abortion group's political operation met on Friday June 6, 2008 and unanimously voted to recommend an endorsement for Obama. Obama has steadfastly advocated support for partial birth abortion as an Illinois legislator. Barack's wife, Michelle Obama, wrote a fundraising letter<ref>[http://www.prolifeblogs.com/articles/archives/2006/10/post_5.php], http://www.prolifeblogs.com/articles/archives/2006/10/post_5.php, February 17,2004</ref> in support of partial birth abortion and against the proposed ban. Barack voted against the Born Alive Infant Protection Act to give a child who survived an abortion procedure life support healthcare. Obama wanted the life terminated even if he or she survived outside the mother's womb.<ref>[http://www.citizenlink.org/content/A000007034.cfm], http://www.citizenlink.org/content/A000007034.cfm, Obama Blocked Born Alive Infant Protection Act</ref> With Obama no longer in the state Senate, the Born Alive legislation passed in 2005.<br />
<br />
In the context of sex, he quipped about his daughters, <ref>http://michellemalkin.com/2008/03/30/sunday-meditation-obama-and-the-punishment-of-unborn-life/</ref>{{QuoteBox|"If they make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby."}} Obama makes it clear if his daughters had an unplanned pregnancy, he would support terminating the life of his grandchild and it is undeniable that Michelle Obama agrees with that decision.<br />
[[Image:Features ayers1.jpg|175px|thumb|right|[[Weather Underground]] co-founder Bill Ayers<ref>http://foia.fbi.gov/weather/weath1a.pdf</ref> stomps on the American flag in this 2001 pose for Chicago Magazine.]]<br />
<br />
Obama, having been asked about his associations with [[William Ayers]], an unrepentant [[terrorist]],<ref>[http://www.chicagomag.com/Chicago-Magazine/August-2001/No-Regrets/]</ref> he explained that the views of his associates are not necessarily his own. Ayers and his wife, [[Bernardine Dohrn]], hosted a fundraiser for Obama in their home in 1995 at the start of Obama's political career. Obama compares his friendship with Ayers whose actions led to the loss of a life to his friendship with pro-life doctor and representative Tom Coburn<ref>[http://www.lifenews.com/nat3894.html]http://www.lifenews.com/nat3894.html, LifeNews.com, April 25,2008</ref><br />
Obama explained that his friendship with Ayers, shouldn't be construed as implying he endorsed the terrorist-like tactics Ayers used to drive home his political point. Barack Obama brought up the pro-life colleague to make the dubious comparison that he's friends with other people who take "extreme" positions or would use terrorist tactics.<br />
"The fact is, is that I'm also friendly with Tom Coburn, one of the most conservative Republicans in the United States Senate, who during his campaign once said that it might be appropriate to apply the death penalty to those who carried out abortions" <br />
<br />
Obama has no military or executive experience and little foreign policy experience.<ref>"Fresh doubts over Barack Obama's foreign policy credentials were expressed on both sides of the Atlantic last night, after it emerged that he had made only one brief official visit to London – and none elsewhere in Western Europe or Latin America. ... Mr. Obama had failed to convene a single policy meeting of the Senate European subcommittee, of which he is chairman."[http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article3080794.ece]</ref> Yet he is the favorite of the leftist attack site "MoveOn.org" for the [[Democratic]] nomination for [[President of the United States]] in the [[2008 Presidential Election|2008 election]],<ref>MoveOn.org reportedly favored Obama by 70-30% over Clinton. [http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2008/02/moveonorg_obama.html]</ref> campaigning to the left of [[Hillary Clinton]].<ref>For example, Obama promised not to use nuclear weapons against terrorists, a promise Hillary Clinton refused to make. [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/02/AR2007080202288.html]</ref> <br />
<br />
He has no clear personal achievement that cannot be explained as the likely result of [[affirmative action]]. Some examples border on the absurd: Obama has no background in [[physics]], yet it is claimed that "Obama analyzed and integrated [[Albert Einstein|Einstein]]'s [[theory of relativity]], the [[Heisenberg uncertainty principle]], as well as the concept of curved space as an alternative to [[gravity]], for a Law Review article that Tribe, for whom Obama worked as a research assistant, wrote titled, 'The Curvature of Constitutional Space'." <ref>http://cbs2chicago.com/politics/barack.obama.harvard.2.334825.html</ref> Obama's "research" for Constitutional Law Professor Tribe on this article also raises issues about preferences, as Obama had not yet even completed any law school courses<ref>Obama did not start his second year of law school until September 1989, the earliest he could have taken constitutional law, yet this article must have been written, submitted and accepted prior to that time to be published in the November 1989 issue of the Law Review.</ref> on the [[Constitution]].<ref>The liberal Professor Tribe saw the best law students for several decades, yet insisted that Obama was the "best student I ever had" and the "most exciting research assistant." [http://www.cmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071114/NEWS01/711140429/1217/NEWS98]</ref><br />
<br />
Throughout his career, Obama repeatedly ducked controversial stands in a transparent attempt to make it easier to be elected to higher office. In example, as a state senator in [[Illinois]], he voted "present" rather than "aye" or "nay" nearly an astounding 130 times.<ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/20/us/politics/20obama.html</ref> During that same period, he was planning to run for the [[House of Representatives]], which was unsuccessful, and then for [[U.S. Senate]], which was successful after his opponent Jack Ryan, a millionaire school teacher, was smeared with a court-ordered disclosure of confidential divorce records that both he and his ex-wife wanted to remain sealed. A newspaper that favored Obama took the unusual step of suing to force the confidential divorce information to become public, and a California judge opened the records at a pivotal time in the campaign.<ref>http://www.nbc5.com/politics/2898641/detail.html</ref><ref>http://www.nbc5.com/news/3289561/detail.html</ref><ref>http://www.nbc5.com/politics/3444371/detail.html</ref><br />
<br />
Barack Obama is often praised for his speeches, except when he is not able to read them from a [[teleprompter]]. "Shorn of his Teleprompter, we saw a different Obama. His delivery was halting and unsure. ... The prepared text for his remarks, as released on his website, sounded a lot like a typical Obama speech. ... [But with] no Teleprompter signaling the prepared text, Obama failed to deliver the speech in his characteristically flawless fashion."<ref name="teleprompter" /> The [[New York Times]] noted that "Mr. Obama excels at inspirational speeches read from a teleprompter before television cameras, critics have noted, but many of his other speeches on the campaign trail have failed to electrify."<ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/20/fashion/20speechwriter.html?_r=2&ex=1358485200&en=bb179297e5f61acb&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&oref=slogin&oref=slogin</ref> When Obama ridiculed [[Hillary Clinton]] for being like [[Annie Oakley]], it is apparent that he was not writing his own speeches.<ref>"Some Obama adviser probably earned his or her dollars for that cut," the USA Today wrote. [http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/columnist/raasch/2008-04-17-2008-04-17-raasch_N.htm]</ref><br />
<br />
Obama often makes reference to his "two decades of experience" in public service work. During most of that time he claims experience, he was either going to school, working for a law firm, writing a book, or organizing community events.<br />
<br />
== Political views ==<br />
Obama's political views have been subjected to controversy even before he put himself forward as a presidential candidate. Former House majority leader [[Tom DeLay]] has described Obama's record in the Illinois Senate as that of a [[Communism|“Marxist leftist".]]<ref>[http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_121306/content/stop_the_tape.guest.html|Sexy Rock Star Obama Whines About His Ears], RushLimbaugh.com, December 13 2006</ref> In May 2007, Obama (and Sen. Hillary Clinton) voted against funding the Iraq War for the first time.<ref>[http://uspolitics.about.com/od/legislatio1/a/HR2206.htm HR 2206 - Emergency Appropriations], Kathy Gill, Your Guide to U.S. Politics: Current Events. May 26 2007.</ref><ref>[http://more.gov.mtopgroup.com/2007/05/votes-hr-2206-iraq-supplemental.html Votes - H.R. 2206: Iraq Supplemental], May 28, 2007. Retrieved from Deeper Inside the Mountain, June 4, 2007.</ref> <br />
<br />
Obama's views on [[gun control]] is focused on an opinion article in the [[Wall Street Journal]]:<ref>David Kopel, "The Democrats and Gun Control," Wall St.J., Page A19, April 17, 2008 [http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB120839466717921537-lMyQjAxMDI4MDE4NzMxOTc0Wj.html]</ref><br />
<br />
:As a state senate candidate in 1996, Mr. Obama endorsed a complete ban on all handguns in a questionnaire. The Obama campaign has claimed he "never saw or approved the questionnaire," and that an aide filled it out incorrectly. But a few weeks ago, Politico.com found an amended version of the questionnaire. It included material added in Mr. Obama's handwriting.<br />
<br />
After [[D.C. v. Heller]], Obama claimed to support Second Amendment rights.<br />
<br />
Obama has said, "Doing the Lord's work is a thread that runs through our politics since the very beginning," and "it puts the lie to the notion that [[separation of church and state]] in America means somehow that faith should have no role in public life."<ref>[http://www.siouxcityjournal.com/articles/2007/06/17/news/iowa/8db7c1a17d2b51f9862572fd000fc9f4.txt Obama says religion has place in politics], By Todd Dorman, ''Sioux City Journal'', June 18, 2007.</ref><br />
<br />
He believes children should be taught sex education in kindergarten, although in what he refers to as "an age-appropriate manner".<ref>"Barack Obama reaffirmed to [[Planned Parenthood]] this week that he believes elements of sex education should begin in kindergarten." [http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=3395856 (ABC News)] July 20, 2007 </ref><br />
<br />
Obama spoke at the May 1, 2006, illegal immigration march in Chicago.<ref>http://nomoreblather.com/barack-obama-and-the-immigration-marches Immigration marches</ref><br />
<br />
::''We are hungry for change!'' S.C. January 26, 2008.<br />
<br />
Barack Obama, in his short stint as Senator of Illinois, has made clear his opposition to the [[U.S. Military]] in policy and in rhetoric. Obama has spent much energy to argue that the Iraq War should have never been waged and that we should not be there at all, in any way. In 2002, as an unknown Chicago representative to the state of Illinois, he declared his opposition to "dumb wars". At the time, America was united in the stance against terrorism and the prospects of a rogue enemy with WMD worried the United States. Obama, has said that he does not know whether he would have voted for or against the Iraq War. Since elected to Congress, he voted against the Emergency War Supplemental. Obama did not oppose his party debating the bill long past the timeframe requested. This action directly affects troop deployment in combat zones. Obama has repeatedly called for the return of troops in Iraq. Barack Obama has a no confidence vote for the 'Surge' before the measure was put forth by General Petraeus to Congress. Obama would not denounce MoveOn.org's slander NY Times advertising against the General.<br />
<br />
Senator Obama often refers to the office that he seeks, without the proper respect of those that came before him. When talking of the President, he frequently refuses to call him [[George W. Bush|President George Bush]] or even Mr. George Bush. Obama has also disrespectfully called him 'George Bush'. Oddly, when Bill Clinton spoke with Obama on September 11th, 2008 predicting he would win handily, Obama responded, "There you go, you can take it from the President of the United States."<ref>http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/11/campaign.wrap/index.html</ref> It appears Obama will use the term for a former President, but will not do the same for the actual President. Examples of Obama's treatment of our current President: <br />
* "I am happy to have a debate with John McCain and George Bush about foreign policy," Obama said <ref>[http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/05/16/obama.bush.mccain/], CNN Obama blasts Bush McCain, May 16, 2008</ref><br />
* "For all his talk about independence, the centerpiece of John McCain's economic plan amounts to a full-throated endorsement of George Bush's policies," <ref>[http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/06/10/obama_takes_the_offensive_vs_mccain/] Boston Globe Obama takes offensive vs. McCain, June 10, 2008</ref> <br />
* "George Bush knows that I have never supported engagement with terrorists." <ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7403386.stm], BBC Obama attacks Bush over Iran , May 15, 2008</ref><br />
* Obama called the U.S. economy a disaster thanks to "John McCain's President, George W. Bush" <ref>[http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/obama_mccain/2008/08/18/122924.html No More Hugs: Obama Tears Into McCain] AP, August 18, 2008</ref> Side note, George W. Bush is also Barack Obama's President.<br />
<br />
== Foreign policy experience ==<br />
In his presidential campaign, Obama stated<ref>http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mayhill-fowler/obama-says-no-to-foreign_b_95357.html</ref> that "foreign policy is the area where I am probably most confident" and then cited "having lived in Indonesia for four years, having family that is impoverished in small villages in Africa". He lived in Indonesia from age 6 to 10, and he later discovered that his father had some other children in Africa.<br />
<br />
While campaigning, he has visited several foreign countries. In [[Russia]] and the former Soviet republics, he met with representatives of the International Republican Institute and National Democratic Institute to discuss democracy in the former Soviet republics. He also met with Russian military officials and visited several nuclear and biological weapons destruction sites in Russia, [[Ukraine]], and [[Azerbaijan]] with Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Richard Lugar (R-IN). On the same tour, he visited London, UK, and met with [[Tony Blair]], sitting UK Prime Minister.<ref>http://obama.senate.gov/press/050823-obama_to_visit/</ref><br />
<br />
Obama visited South Africa, Kenya, Ethiopia, Djibouti, and Chad; he discussed his tour of Robben Island prison, met with U.S. troops, and visited refugee camps of the people fleeing Darfur. He also addressed Africa's growing [[AIDS]] epidemic. <ref>http://obama.senate.gov/podcast/060906-090606_africa_t/</ref> <br />
<br />
During a ten-day-long tour of the Middle East, he talked with government leaders in Qatar, Kuwait, Iraq, Jordan, and Israel. <ref> http://obama.senate.gov/news/060113-obama_wraps_up/</ref><br />
<br />
==Religious affiliations==<br />
<br />
Obama and his wife (reared a Baptist) have been active members since 1988 at the Trinity [[United Church of Christ]]<ref>http://www.tucc.org/about.htm</ref> in Chicago. The church embraces [[black liberation theology]] and its emphasis on empowering oppressed groups against establishment forces. This denomination was the first in America to ordain gays, women and blacks as ministers.<ref>[http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/31079.html], http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/31079.html, Obama's church pushes controversial doctrines, March 20, 2008</ref> According to his sister, Obama was baptized at this church the same year.<ref>[http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/04/30/america/30obama.php?page=2 http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/04/30/america/30obama.php?page=2]</ref> Obama describes his conversion in ''The Audacity of Hope''. The title of this book is taken from one of Pastor Wright's sermons. <br />
In April 2008, Obama disavowed Pastor Wright's views. In May 2008, Obama left his church. His response blames the media and not the rhetoric on display <ref>[http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/05/31/obama-resigns-church-membership-in-chicago/], Obama Drops Church Membership in Chicago, may 31, 2008</ref>{{QuoteBox|“It’s not fair to the other members of the church who seek to worship in peace..."}} Wright had been making inflammatory comments and posting his sermons online for sale. These include the statements "G-d damn America" and describing the September 11th attacks, he said "We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans, and now we are indignant because the stuff we have done overseas is now brought right back to our own front yards. America's chickens are coming home to roost."<ref>[ http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/Story?id=4443788 Obama's Pastor: G-d Damn America, U.S. to Blame for 9/11]</ref> In addition, Rev. Wright blamed America saying "We supported Zionism shamelessly while ignoring the Palestinians and branding anybody who spoke out against it as being anti-Semitic." <br />
<br />
[[Image:Barack Obama Jeremiah Wright.jpg|thumb|Barack Obama and Jeremiah Wright.]]<br />
<br />
[[Daniel Pipes]] claims that Obama was raised a [[Muslim]] because he attended classes on the Koran while attending a Muslim school.<ref>[http://www.danielpipes.org/article/5286 Was Barack Obama a Muslim</ref> Obama did attend a school administrated by Muslims but [[CNN]] reports that it was a non-religious public school attended by students of many faiths, not a [[madrassa]].<ref>http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/01/22/obama.madrassa/</ref><br />
<br />
{{QuoteBox|In Indonesia, I'd spent 2 years at a Muslim school, 2 years at a Catholic school. In the Muslim school, the teacher wrote to tell mother I made faces during Koranic studies. In the Catholic school, when it came time to pray, I'd pretend to close my eyes, then peek around the room. Nothing happened. No angels descended. Just a parched old nun and 30 brown children, muttering words. Sometimes the nun would catch me, and her stern look would force my lids back shut. But that didn't change how I felt inside."}}<ref>Dreams from My Father, by Barack Obama, p.142 Aug 1, 1996 </ref><br />
<br />
Obama has described his upbringing as occurring in a non-religious environment. <br />
<br />
{{QuoteBox|In sum, my mother viewed religion through the eyes of the anthropologist that she would become; it was a phenomenon to be treated with a suitable respect, but with a suitable detachment as well. Moreover, as a child I rarely came in contact with those who might offer a substantially different view of faith. My father was almost entirely absent from my childhood, having been divorced from my mother when I was 2 years old; in any event, although my father had been raised a Muslim, by the time he met my mother he was a confirmed atheist, thinking religion to be so much superstition.<br />
<br />
And yet for all her professed secularism, my mother was in many ways the most spiritually awakened person that I've ever known. She had an unswerving instinct for kindness, charity, and love, and spent much of her life acting on that instinct, sometimes to her detriment. Without the help of religious texts or outside authorities, she worked mightily to instill in me the values that many Americans learn in Sunday school: honesty, empathy, discipline, delayed gratification, and hard work. She raged at poverty and injustice.}}<ref>[http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1546579-4,00.html My Spiritual Journey] Time Magazine, October 2006</ref><br />
<br />
== Books ==<br />
<br />
* ''Dreams from My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance.'' (B. Obama and, allegedly, William Ayers) ISBN 0307383415<br />
* ''The Audacity of Hope: Thoughts on Reclaiming the American Dream.'' (B. Obama) ISBN 0307455874<br />
* ''Barack Obama in His Own Words.'' (B. Obama and Lisa Rogak) ISBN 0786720573<br />
* ''Change We Can Believe In. Barack Obama's Plan to Renew America's Promise.'' (B. Obama)<br />
* ''The Case Against Barack Obama. The Unlikely Rise and Unexamined Agenda of the Media's Favorite Candidate. '' (David Freddso) ISBN 1596985666 <br />
* ''The Obama Nation. Leftist Politics and the Cult of Personality.'' (Jerome R. Corsi) ISBN 1416598065 <br />
* ''Obama Unmasked. Did Slick Hollywood Handlers Create the Perfect Candidate?'' (Floyd Brown and Lee Trexler) ISBN 0936783591 <br />
* ''Obama: The Man Behind The Mask.'' (Andy Martin) ISBN 0965781240 <br />
* ''The Audacity of Deceit. Barack Obama's War on American Values.'' (Brad O'Leary) ISBN 1935071025<br />
<br />
==Published criticism==<br />
On April 11, 2007, staff writers of ''The Boston Globe'' reported the criticisms of several black commentators regarding Obama's apparent hesitation to join the race to condemn acclaimed radio personality [[Don Imus]],<ref>[http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/04/11/obamas_silence_on_imus_alarms_some_blacks/ Obama's silence on Imus alarms some blacks], Rick Klein and Joseph Williams, ''The Boston Globe'', April 11, 2007.</ref> who made a racially insensitive remark<ref>[http://www.reuters.com/article/industryNews/idUSN1237895620070412|title=Furor over Imus puts heat on other broadcasters], Daniel Trotta, Reuters, 2007-04-12.</ref> on the air during the April 4 broadcast. Obama did not comment on Imus's remarks until well after prominent civil rights leaders [[Al Sharpton]] and [[Jesse Jackson]] had called Imus to account and after Imus was suspended by MSNBC and CBS Radio. Obama later weighed in on April 10 by saying, "The comments of Don Imus were divisive, hurtful, and offensive to Americans of all backgrounds." <br /> <br />
<br />
The ''Globe'' reported that Obama's perceived delay in addressing Don Imus's remarks was described by Melissa Harris Lacewell, a professor of politics and African-American studies at Princeton University, as "miss[ing] an opportunity to prove himself to blacks and white liberals who would have wanted Obama take the lead in denouncing Imus."<ref>[http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/04/11/obamas_silence_on_imus_alarms_some_blacks/ Obama's silence on Imus alarms some blacks], Rick Klein and Joseph Williams, ''The Boston Globe'', April 11, 2007.</ref><ref>[http://time-blog.com/real_clear_politics/2007/04/obama_race_and_the_election.html Obama, Race, and The Election,] ''Real Clear Politics.com''</ref><br />
<br />
In June 2007 the ''Chicago Sun-Times'' reported Obama had actually received nearly three times more campaign cash from indicted slum landlord Tony Rezko<ref>[http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/353829,CST-NWS-rez23.article Barack Obama and his slumlord patron], Tim Novak, Chicago Sun-Times, April 23, 2007.</ref> and his associates than Obama has publicly acknowledged.<ref>[http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/432197,CST-NWS-obama18.article Rezko cash triple what Obama says], Chris Fusco and Tim Novak, ''Chicago Sun-Times'', June 18, 2007.</ref><br />
<br />
Executive vice president Wayne LaPierre of the [[NRA]] accuses Barack Obama of "mouthing pro-Second amendment words and pandering to gun owners" on the campaign trail.<ref>[http://www.gopusa.com/news/2008/may/0514_nra_mccain.shtml], http://www.gopusa.com/news/2008/may/0514_nra_mccain.shtml, NRA chief stresses common ground with McCain, Associated Press, May 14, 2008</ref><br />
<br />
[[McCain]] Aide Says Obama Has Sept. 10 Mind-Set "an extremely dangerous and extremely naive approach toward terrorism" <ref>[http://www.newsmax.com/politics/mccain_obama/2008/06/17/105265.html], AP McCain Aide Says Obama Has Sept. 10 Mind-Set, June 17, 2008</ref><br />
<br />
===Birth Certificate Controversy===<br />
During the democratic primaries the Clinton Campaign lead a smear campaign against the validity of Barrack Obama's Hawaii Birth cirtificate, claiming that it is false and that he is intelligible for Presidency. <ref>[http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZTgxZmIwNTg0OWVhMWJkODNmZjI4ZjY4Mjg2OWRmNzI= http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZTgxZmIwNTg0OWVhMWJkODNmZjI4ZjY4Mjg2OWRmNzI=]</ref> After initially refusing to produce a birth certificate in response to such rumors, the Obama campaign eventually endorsed a document posted on the Daily Kos as <br />
authentic.<ref>[http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/6/12/11012/6168/320/534616 Obama's Birth Certificate]</ref> The response is split regarding the birth certificate. Some commentators, such as those at the National Review, are satisfied with the document.<ref>[http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NWVjN2I1MjlhM2ZjZjRjYzBkODAxZjZkZGQyYWNkMDk= http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NWVjN2I1MjlhM2ZjZjRjYzBkODAxZjZkZGQyYWNkMDk=]</ref> However, some analysts claim that the birth certificate is false.<ref>[http://web.israelinsider.com/Articles/Politics/12939.htm http://web.israelinsider.com/Articles/Politics/12939.htm]</ref><br />
<br />
On August 21st, 2008, Factcheck.org published an article regarding the controversy.<ref>[http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html Born in the U.S.A.]</ref> The site stated, "FactCheck.org staffers have now seen, touched, examined and photographed the original birth certificate. We conclude that it meets all of the requirements from the State Department for proving U.S. citizenship." In addition, the site posted high-resolution photographs of the birth certificate, which clearly showed the raised seal, stamp of Hawaii state registrar Alvin T. Onaka, and certificate number. The birth date corresponds to a birth announcement published in the ''Honolulu Advertiser '' on Sunday, August 13, 1961. <ref>http://texasdarlin.wordpress.com/2008/07/23/obama-was-born-in-hawaii-wrong-can-of-worms/</ref><br />
<br />
A Philadelphia attorney, Phillip Berg, has filed a lawsuit against the DNC and Barack Obama. Berg maintains that Sen. Obama is not a natural born U.S. citizen or that, if he ever was, he lost his citizenship when he was adopted in Indonesia. Berg also cites what he calls "dual loyalties" due to his citizenship and ties with Kenya and Indonesia. The "dual loyalties" which have not been shown to exist do not violate any constitutional or legal precedents and would make Sen. Obama a poor choice for President, not an invalid choice.<br />
<br />
Obama website Fight The Smears has confirmed that Obama was once a Kenyan citizen until 1982. Attorney Philips Berg's lawsuit is being challenged by the Obama Campaign. Instead of producing the original birth certificate in court and paying a number of legal fees and taking several days out of his busy campaigning schedule the Obama campaign had the case dropped on the grounds that it lacked any supporting evidence. <ref>http://neighbors.denverpost.com/viewtopic.php?t=10815605</ref> The fact that Mr. Berg's dual arguments were mutually contradictory may also have contributed.<br />
<br />
The state of Hawaii announced that the document is legitimate and official, Since the state of Hawaii is the issuing body they have ultimate authority with regards to the matter.<ref>http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/20081031/BREAKING01/81031064/0/BREAKING04</ref> If states are no longer regarded as a valid authority on citizenship of those born within them then no one is eligible for President because no one can prove that they are natural born citizens.<br />
<br />
==See also==<br />
*[[Previous Breaking News/Barack Obama|Articles about '''Barack Obama''' from previous "Breaking News"]]<br />
*[[Essay: The Special Interests Candidate]]<br />
*[[The Honorable James David Manning]]<br />
*[[Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN)]]<br />
*[[New Party]]<br />
<br />
==Further reading==<br />
*[[Peter Hitchens|Hitchens, Peter]] [http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=511901&in_page_id=1811 ''The Black Kennedy: But does anyone know the real Barack Obama?''] [[Daily Mail]]. Accessed 4 February 2008.<br />
<br />
==Sources==<br />
<br />
*[http://www.barackobama.com/ Offical Obama for President Website]<br />
*[http://obama.senate.gov/about/ Official Senate Website]<br />
*[http://www.opensecrets.org/pfds/pfd2005/N00009638_2005.pdf Barack Obama Personal Financial Disclosures Summary: 2005], retrieved from opensecrets.org 17 June 2007.<br />
*[http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=O000167 Biographical Directory of the United States Congress]<br />
*[http://www.law.uchicago.edu/faculty/obama/cv.html University of Chicago Law School] Faculty Listing<br />
*[http://www.biography.com/search/article.do?id=12782369 Barack Obama Biography] from Biography.com<br />
*[http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/o/barack_obama/index.html?inline=nyt-per New York Times Topics, Barack Obama]<br />
*[http://youtube.com/watch?v=zUdjhKbImwE Documentary on Barack Hussein Obama]<br />
*[http://www.votesmart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=9490 Voting Record of Barack Hussein Obama]<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
{{reflist}}<br />
<br />
{{DEFAULTSORT:Obama, Barrack}}<br />
<br />
{{2008 presidential candidates}}<br />
<br />
[[Category:United States Senators]]<br />
[[Category:Democratic Party]]<br />
[[Category:Liberals]]<br />
[[Category:Muslims]]</div>NormanShttps://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Barack_Hussein_Obama&diff=554909Barack Hussein Obama2008-11-12T01:25:42Z<p>NormanS: Undo revision 554904 by StephM (Talk) - makes no sense, unless you're implying he's a figment of your imagination</p>
<hr />
<div>'''Barack Hussein Obama II''' (born in Honolulu,<ref>[http://www.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/birth_certificate_5.jpg Large, high-resolution picture of his birth certificate]</ref><ref>[http://www.kitv.com/politics/17860890/detail.html?rss=hon&psp=news KITV Honolulu report]</ref> August 4, 1961) is the [[Democratic party|Democratic]] junior [[Senator]] from [[Illinois]] (2004 - present) and President-elect of the United States.<ref>[http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/obama_wins_presidency/2008/11/04/147788.html?utm_medium=RSS]</ref> On November 4, Obama and his running mate [[Senator Joseph Biden]] won the presidency after spending a record-shattering $650 million, most of which came from anonymous donors never disclosed by Obama. President-elect Obama will likely become the first [[Muslim]] [[President]], and may use the [[Koran]] to be sworn into office at his inauguration on [[January]] 20, 2009.<ref>Christian Science Monitor, ''At swearing in, congressman [Keith Ellison, D Minnesota, who is a Muslim] wants to carry Koran. Outrage ensues.'', by Jane Lampman, December 07, 2006, retrieved on 10/16/2008 [http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/1207/p01s03-uspo.html]"In Congress, newly elected representatives do not put their left hands on any book. They raise their right hands, and are sworn in together as the speaker of the House administers the oath of office. Some do carry a book, according to House historians, and some choose to photograph a private swearing-in afterward with their hand on the Bible."</ref><ref>Obama hoped to become President when he was sworn in as U.S. Senator in 2004, and did not use a Koran at that time. Subsequently Democratic House member Keith Ellison established the precedent for being sworn in using the Koran, and there is no guarantee that Obama would not do likewise if sworn in as President. [http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/sliming_obama.html FactCheck.org, Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania, ''Sliming Obama'', January 10, 2008, retrieved on 10/16/2008]</ref> <br />
<br />
Obama has espoused the socialist idea of "spreading the wealth" in other words raising the tax rates on business and the wealthy to a burdensome level in order to redistribute their income to low income individuals, many of whom don't currently pay taxes. From which John McCain replied "He's running for Redistributor In Chief, I'm running for Commander In Chief." <ref>[http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/10/31/mccain-hungry-upset-obama-eyes-landslide/ McCain Attacks Obama's Faith in Americans] Fox News, 10-31-2008</ref> The slogan "From each according to their ability to each according to their need" is an idea originally proposed by [[Karl Marx]] and is clearly the inspiration for the centrally planned economy Obama will introduce to the US in January 2009. In addition, his health care plan forces employers to purchase health care or pay a fine and will force many into a poorly run single payer system. The socialization of health care will force taxpayers to pay for healthcare for those who refuse to purchase it themselves. Obama also revealed his deep Marxist/Leninist roots in the design of the poster<ref>[http://andrightlyso.com/2008/07/24/obama-lenin-gaffe/ Obama's direct copy of a Lenin poster for his Berlin visit]</ref>for his 'visit' to Berlin in July 2008. The clear parallels between the poster design and Lenin's earlier poster was obviously a deliberate yet hidden hint to his European, socialistic audience as to his political roots and beliefs.<br />
<br />
[[Image:Democrat Obama during the Pledge.jpg|325px|thumb|right|Obama, on the campaign trail, stands with folded hands while [[Bill Richardson]] and [[Hillary Clinton]] honor the flag by placing their hands over their heart during the [[National Anthem]]. [http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Obama_doesnt_put_hand_over_heart_1022.html See Video] ]]<br />
<br />
The October 2008 crimes against Academy Award winner Jennifer Hudson's family highlight Obama's record against law and order, as he voted against making it a crime in Illinois "for convicts on probation or on bail to have contact with a street gang".<ref>[http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/obamas-crime-votes-are-fodder-for-rivals-2007-03-13.html]</ref> The person of interest in the murders of Hudson's mother, brother, and 7-year-old nephew is the estranged husband of Hudson's sister and a convicted felon who had violated his parole conditions. <ref>[http://www.chicagotribune.com/chi-julian-king-autopsy-1029,0,2752431.story]</ref> "'We've got 75,000 gang members - that's almost six gang members to one police officer.'"<ref>"More people have been murdered in Chicago this year than in New York - even though New York's population is three times greater. When Hudson's mother, brother and nephew were killed last month, they pushed the city's homicide total for the year to 436 and counting. New York has had 430 homicides." [http://www.nydailynews.com/news/us_world/2008/11/01/2008-11-01_chicago_buried_in_murders.html]</ref><br />
<br />
Obama is the first person having ties to a known former terrorist to gain control over America's nuclear weapons.<ref>http://www.clevelandleader.com/node/7127</ref><ref>http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/08/26/obama-associate-bill-ayers-unrepentant-for-acts-of-terror/</ref> Author and blogger Jack Cashill compared the writing style of Bill Ayers' 2001 memoir, ''Fugitive Days'', with Barack Obama's earlier 1995 book, ''Dreams From My Father'', and came to the conclusion that Ayres had ghostwritten Dreams.<ref>www.cashill.com, ''Who Wrote “Dreams From My Father"?'', by Jack Cashill, October 9, 2008, retrieved on 10/16/2008 [http://www.cashill.com/natl_general/who_wrote_dreams_from.htm] Jack Cashill compared the writing style of Bill Ayers' 2001 memoir, ''Fugitive Days'', with Barack Obama's earlier 1995 book, ''Dreams From My Father'', and came to the conclusion that Ayers had ghostwritten ''Dreams''. Cashill states that a computer comparison of Obama's so-called autobiography with that of the terrorist Bill Ayers, supports the theory that Ayers actually wrote parts of Obama's book. "In assessing the signature of sample passages from Dreams," the experienced analyst found "a very strong match to all of the Ayers samples" that he processed. He did not address the possibility that Ayers had plagiarized from Obama's earlier book.</ref> <ref>[http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=77815]</ref> Dr. Peter Millican, who was hired to do a computer analysis comparing the two works, called the charges "very implausible". <ref>[http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/11/02/report-professor-paid-g-prove-ayers-wrote-obamas-autobiography/comments/]"Dr. Peter Millican -- a distinguished philosophy professor at Hertford College in Oxford, England -- ... was reportedly paid to use a computer software program to find suspected similarities between Obama's best-selling 2004 autobiography "Dreams from My Father" and Ayers' memoir "Fugitive Days." But Millican called the charges "very implausible" after a preliminary review of the two works."</ref> Ayers admitted that he was "guilty as hell" in planting bombs in the 1970s, and that he has no regrets and felt he "should have done more."<ref>[http://www.clevelandleader.com/node/7127]</ref><br />
<br />
Catholic Archbishop Charles Chaput of Denver, where Obama received his Democratic Party nomination, recently criticized Obama as the "most committed" [[abortion]]-supporting candidate "since the ''[[Roe v. Wade]]'' abortion decision in 1973.<ref>http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=14088</ref> Obama said "the first thing I'd do as President is sign the Freedom of Choice Act."<ref>[http://christiannewswire.com/news/560716251.html]</ref> That bill "would invalidate virtually all state and federal limitations on abortion, and would make partial-birth abortion legal again."<ref>[http://www.lifenews.com/nat3961.html], http://www.lifenews.com/nat3961.html, Pro-Life Voters Must Work Overtime to Stop Pro-Abortion Barack Obama, June 4, 2008</ref> Indeed, Obama was upset with the decision of the [[United States Supreme Court|Supreme Court]] not to strike down the law passed by the [[United States Congress]] to prohibit partial-birth abortion, believing that partial-birth abortion is guaranteed right of the [[United States Constitution|Constitution]] and that there should be no ability to legislate against it. <br />
<br />
Doctors from the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons have stated that Obama uses techniques of mind control in his speeches and campaign symbols. For example, one speech declared, "a light will shine down from somewhere, it will light upon you, you will experience an epiphany, and you will say to yourself, 'I have to vote for Barack.'"<ref name="mind control">http://www.aapsonline.org/newsoftheday/0089 . The doctors observe that "Obama's logo is noteworthy. It is always there, a small one in the middle of the podium, providing a point of visual fixation ... [that] resembles a crystal ball, a favorite of hypnotists."</ref><br />
<br />
==Obama will likely be the first Muslim President==<br />
[[Image:OBAMA MUSULMAN.jpg|thumb|President Obama wearing traditional African garb, a gift from his hosts while visiting Kenya<ref>[http://sweetness-light.com/archive/obama-wore-muslim-gear-during-kenya-trip]</ref>]]<br />
The evidence that Obama is a Muslim includes:<br />
<br />
*Obama's background, education, and outlook are [[Muslim]], and fewer than 1% of Muslims convert to Christianity.<ref>http://www.religionnewsblog.com/17736/barack-obama-2</ref><ref>http://www.faithfreedom.org/oped/sina31103.htm. During the third and fourth grades, Obama learned about Islam for two hours each week in religion class, according to the LATimes. [http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/nation/bal-te.obama16mar16,0,1634059,print.story?coll=bal_news_nation_promo Campaign downplays his connection during boyhood in Indonesia, Baltimore Sun, March 16, 2007]</ref><br />
*Obama's middle name (Hussein) references '''Husayn''', who was the grandson of [[Muhammad]], which most Christians would not retain.<ref> Oxford Dictionary of First Names, 2nd edition (2007).[http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/277459/al-Husayn-ibn-Ali]. Only after Obama became politically ambitious did he declare himself to be a [[Christian]], yet he never replaced his [[Muslim]] name "Hussein" with a Christian one as most do when they undergo a religious conversion. For example, when Saul became a Christian, he changed his name to "Paul"; when the famous boxer Cassius Clay converted to [[Islam]], he took the Muslim name of [[Muhammad Ali]]. "It is common for those converting to a new religion to change their name on conversion"[http://www.ukdp.co.uk/pages/religiousconversion.php] or adopt a Christian name at [[baptism]].[http://www.answers.com/topic/christian-name]</ref><br />
*Obama recently referred to his "Muslim faith."<ref>Obama declared, "John McCain has not talked about my Muslim faith."[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iQqIpdBOg6I]</ref><br />
*Obama said the Muslim call to prayer is "one of the prettiest sounds on Earth at sunset," and recited "with a first-class [Arabic] accent" the opening lines: Allah is Supreme! ... I witness that there is no god but Allah ...."<ref>http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=78309</ref><br />
*Obama stated that the autobiography of Malcolm X, a Nation of Islam leader who became a Muslim, inspired him in his youth.<ref>For example, Obama writes in his own autobiography, "Only Malcolm X's autobiography seemed to offer something different. His repeated acts of self-creation spoke to me. The blunt poetry of his words, his unadorned insistence on respect, promised a new and uncompromising order, martial in its discipline, forged through sheer force of will. ... [E]ven as I imagine myself following Malcolm's call, one line in the book stayed with me. He spoke of a wish he'd once had, the wish that the white blood that ran through him, there by an act of violence, might somehow be expunged."[http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/04/does_obama_know_america.html]</ref><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.<ref> [http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=78324] Text of the agreement, as three images: [http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=78323]</ref><br />
*Obama's claims of conversion to Christianity arose after he became politically ambitious, lacking a date of conversion or baptism.<ref>In his book, Obama oddly claims to have been baptized without giving his age or date, and later gave a date that postdates his political ambition (1992).</ref><br />
*On the campaign trail Obama has been reading "The Post-American World" by Fareed Zakaria,<ref>http://www.canada.com/topics/news/world/story.html?id=fa8cf1bf-2cc8-4d6e-b72d-a07d406e19ff</ref> which is written from a Muslim point-of-view.<ref>http://www.villagevoice.com/2005-08-09/news/the-interpreter/</ref><br />
*Contrary to [[Christianity]], the Islamic doctrine of [[taqiyya]] encourages adherents to deny they are Muslim if it advances the cause of Islam.<br />
*Obama uses the Muslim Pakistani pronunciation for "Pakistan" rather than the common American one.<ref>Obama repeatedly pronounced "Pakistan" as "Pokiston" in the first presidential debate.</ref> <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 "churched" in a 2007 speech: "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.'"<ref>[http://www.speroforum.com/site/article.asp?id=15363 Obama, ACORN, and the churches] SperoNews, October 7, 2008</ref><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]]. <ref>[http://www.biography.com/search/article.do?id=9291850 Louis Farrakhan Biography] Biography.com</ref><br />
<br />
Obama tries to downplay his [[Islamic]] background by claiming that his [[Kenya|Kenyan]] [[Muslim]] father was a "confirmed [[atheist]]" before Obama was born, but in fact less than 1% of Kenyans are atheists, agnostics or non-religious.<ref>http://www.adherents.com/Na/Na_14.html</ref> 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.<br />
<br />
__TOC__ <!--Do not remove this. We want to keep the insights on the first screen of viewing--><br />
<br />
==Obama and Elitism==<br />
<br />
Obama has consistently shown himself to be an elitist who looks down on "ordinary" Americans. Asked to explain why working-class [[Democrats]] do not support him while campaigning for the [[Pennsylvania]] primary, Obama replied "it's not surprising, then, they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."<ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7344532.stm</ref> In response to outrage when his remarks were unexpectedly publicized, Obama did not recount his statement but instead replied, I "didn't say it as well as I should have."<ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7344532.stm</ref> Although many rural counties went for McCain, Obama carried the state with 54.6% of the vote, compared to 44.3% for John McCain.<ref>[http://www.electionreturns.state.pa.us/ElectionsInformation.aspx?FunctionID=13&ElectionID=28&OfficeID=1]</ref><br />
<br />
In an attempt counter the view by many that Obama is an elitist, he began running campaign ads claiming that he "worked his way through college and Harvard Law." This claim is at best an exaggeration, as Obama only held summer jobs while in college and law school<ref>http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/obamas_work_claim.html</ref>, and he would have likely benefited from special scholarships not available to most students.<br />
<br />
Obama almost always reads from prepared text on a [[teleprompter]] and rarely allows tough questions.<ref>After one debate against [[Hillary Clinton]] in Philadelphia, the Obama campaign announced that the questions were too difficult and that Obama would not agree to future debates with her.</ref><ref name="teleprompter">The Daily Standard, ''Obama Unplugged Lost without a Teleprompter'', by Dean Barnett, 02/12/2008[http://www.weeklystandard.com/content/public/articles/000/000/014/728ofzey.asp]</ref> Indeed, when unable to read from prepared text he often fails at articulating his positions and is caught tripping over his own feet.<ref>This was first displayed in the Saddleback Forum, and has occurred subsequently also.</ref> His most recent debate performances illustrate that he may have been extensively coached over the course of 2008, although he still repeatedly fumbles at moments where he moves off his memorized remarks.<br />
<br />
==Insights==<br />
<br />
Obama displayed ignorance about American history when he said, "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."<ref>http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2008/07/obama_ignorance_watch_1.asp</ref> <br />
<br />
Obama has described himself as a constitutional law professor at the University of Chicago.<ref>[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/03/30/politics/p132303D74.DTL&type=politics]</ref> He held the position of Lecturer, an adjunct position, from 1992 to 1996.<ref>[http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media/index.html]</ref> He held the position of Senior Lecturer from 1996 until his election to the senate in 2004.<ref>[http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media/index.html]</ref> Dan Ronayne, a spokesman for the Republican National Committee, has pointed that Obama was only a senior lecturer and not a full professor. <ref>[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/03/30/politics/p132303D74.DTL&type=politics]</ref>The University states that Senior Lecturers are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure track.<ref>[http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media/index.html]</ref><br />
<br />
In his 1995 memoir, ''Dreams from My Father'', Obama admitted using illegal drugs, including cocaine and marijuana, which he referred to as "blow" and "pot" respectively, in his high school years and into his college years, before claiming to choose a different path in life.<ref>http://www.nbc5.com/politics/3444371/detail.html</ref><ref>http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/02/26/obamas_senate_foreign_relations_work/</ref><br />
<br />
Obama wore an American flag lapel pin after [[9/11]], but later stopped wearing it without adequate explanation.<ref>http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2007/10/when_did_obama_stop_wearing_a.html</ref> Presumably it would have hurt him with anti-military campaign donors.<ref>In 2007, at critical moments in his campaign for the nomination, Obama had difficulties securing the support of anti-war activists. [http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/04/04/politics/main2645861.shtml]</ref> Recently, he has begun wearing one again for reasons that are likely political pandering.<br />
<br />
In his memoirs, Obama claimed a ''[[Life]]'' magazine article about a man who had become ill after trying to lighten his skin color by chemical means had a major impact on him. In fact, ''Life'' never published any such article.<ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/26/AR2007032601583.html</ref><ref>"Then there's the copy of Life magazine that Obama presents as his racial awakening at age 9. In it, he wrote, was an article and two accompanying photographs of an African-American man physically and mentally scarred by his efforts to lighten his skin. In fact, the Life article and the photographs don't exist, say the magazine's own historians." [http://newsbusters.org/node/11641]</ref><br />
<br />
Obama said that "[t]here was something stirring across the country because of what happened in Selma, [[Alabama]], because some folks are willing to march across a bridge. So they got together and Barack Obama Jr. was born." In fact, Obama was born in 1961 and the Selma march took place in 1965.<ref>http://michellemalkin.com/2008/05/21/barack-obama-gaffe-machine/</ref><br />
<br />
Obama states that he has consistently opposed the [[Iraq War]] since 2002, a claim and position that former President [[Bill Clinton]] criticized as "the biggest fairy tale I've ever seen."<ref>http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN1131516320080111</ref> In his famous 2002 speech<ref>http://www.barackobama.com/2002/10/02/remarks_of_illinois_state_sen.php</ref> at an anti-war rally, Obama said that he was against "dumb wars" and expressed some reservations about the Iraq War because he disagrees with the ideological agendas of the Bush administration, but he did not explicitly oppose the war. In his 2004 Democrat Convention speech, Obama said that he did not know how he would have voted on the Iraq War.<br />
<br />
Obama's campaign "is proud to be actively participating in over 60 local and state wide [[homosexual]] Pride events over the summer."<ref>http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/jcitron/gG5VLs</ref><br />
<br />
Obama claimed to have visited 57 states while campaigning for President of the United States.<ref> [http://www.mediaresearch.org/BozellColumns/newscolumn/2008/col20080528.asp Barack Potatoe Obama?]</ref> <ref>http://www.stoptheaclu.com/archives/2008/05/12/obamas-freudian-slip-there-are-57-islamic-states/</ref><br />
<br />
==Charitable Giving==<br />
<br />
In the years 2000 through 2004, before becoming a United States Senator and being in the public spotlight, Obama gave 1% of his earnings to charity even though he made $250,000 per year. Since becoming a national figure, that amount has jumped to 6%.<ref>http://patterico.com/2008/10/31/obama-and-bidens-charitable-giving-they-dont-want-to-spread-their-own-wealth-around/</ref>. Obama's small donations are consistent with atheism and were perhaps influenced by his nonbelieving mother. According to a study by the Barna Group, atheists give less per capita in donations than religious Americans <ref>http://www.barna.org/FlexPage.aspx?Page=BarnaUpdateNarrow&BarnaUpdateID=272 The Barna Update, 2007</ref>.<br />
<br />
==Aunt is in the United States Illegally==<br />
<br />
At the end of October 2008 it came to light that Obama's aunt is in the United States illegally and has been since 2004 when her request for asylum was turned down. She has been living in public tax payer funded housing in Boston. This may have some bearing on Obama's immigration policy given that a member of his own family is in violation of current US immigration law. There are also questions about how much Obama knew about this.<ref>[http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27481680 Obama's Aunt Living in US Illegally]</ref> The Obama campaign issued a statement to the effect that they had no knowledge of this situation and returned the donation she made to his campaign; in the United states it is illegal to accept campaign contributions from people who are not currently citizens or legal residents of the united states. <ref>http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/11/01/obama.aunt/index.html</ref><br />
<br />
==Statements==<br />
Obama has been noted by several independent sources as misquoting historical events and statements by famous persons. A notable example came after Obama's win in the [[North Carolina]] democratic primary. Obama was quoted as saying, "I trust the American people to understand that it is not weakness, but wisdom to talk not just to our friends, but to our enemies as Roosevelt did, and Kennedy did, and Truman did." (Franklin Delano) Roosevelt spoke with none of the [[Axis]] or [[Japanese]] leaders and the the only communication that was sent to them was unconditional surrender. (President) [[Harry Truman]] took over for FDR and continued his unconditional surrender philosophy as well as ending [[World War II]] with an atomic bomb.<ref>http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/05/obama_needs_to_study_history_b.html</ref><br />
<br />
==Early life and education==<br />
Barack Hussein Obama II is said to have been born in [[Honolulu]], [[Hawaii]] to Barack Sr. and Ann Dunham in 1961, but there is some evidence that he may have actually been born in Kenya. In 1967, he moved with his mother and new stepfather to Jakarta, [[Indonesia]]. He attended a [[Catholic]] elementary school for two years, followed by an Indonesian public school for two years. Media scrutiny in the light of Obama's campaign for President revealed that the Indonesia public school was not a madrassa, teaching Islam. His days off of school in observance of Islamic holidays were spent praying in a Mosque with his stepfather. <ref>[http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/pipes_obama_muslim/2008/10/09/138898.html Obama 'Lying' About Muslim Past, Expert Says] NewsMax, October 9, 2008</ref> After Indonesia, he returned to the United States with his mother where he attended the Punahou School, the leading private preparatory school in [[Hawaii]], until he graduated in 1979.<br />
<br />
For college, Obama initially attended Occidental College in Los Angeles, [[California]], before transferring to [[Columbia University]] in New York, [[New York]] and graduating without honors with a Bachelor of Arts degree, majoring in political science. Obama refuses to describe his academic performance at Columbia despite commenting about New York during this period and despite disclosures of the academic record for all other major-party presidential candidates since at least 2000.<ref>http://www.nysun.com/new-york/obamas-years-at-columbia-are-a-mystery/85015/</ref><br />
<br />
After working as a community organizer in New York City and Chicago, Illinois, Obama enrolled at [[Harvard]] Law School. He became a member of the ''Harvard Law Review'', which uses racial quotas, in 1989. He was then elected by popular vote as its first African American president in 1990, a story that was immediately promoted in the [[New York Times]].<ref>http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0CE2DC1631F935A35751C0A966958260&scp=3&sq=Obama%201990&st=cse</ref> He graduated ''magna cum laude'' with his J.D. in 1991, but did not serve in a clerkship. Federal clerkships are the typical post-graduate position for top law students.<br />
<br />
Obama has described himself as a constitutional law professor at the University of Chicago.<ref>[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/03/30/politics/p132303D74.DTL&type=politics]</ref> He held the position of Lecturer, an adjunct position, from 1992 to 1996.<ref>[http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media/index.html]</ref> He held the position of Senior Lecturer from 1996 until his election to the senate in 2004.<ref>[http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media/index.html]</ref> Dan Ronayne, a spokesman for the Republican National Committee, has pointed that Obama was only a senior lecturer and not a full professor. <ref>[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/03/30/politics/p132303D74.DTL&type=politics]</ref>The University states that Senior Lecturers are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure track.<ref>[http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media/index.html]</ref><br />
<br />
==Legal career==<br />
Following law school, Obama continued his work as a community organizer in Chicago as the director of Illinois Project Vote. In 1993 he was hired as an associate at the Chicago law firm Miner, Barnhill & Galland, P.C., and began lecturing in Constitutional Law at the University of Chicago Law School. He remains on the faculty on leave of absence through today. During this time he wrote his first book, ''Dreams from My Father'', detailing his background, his youth, and his education. ''Dreams'' was published in 1995.<br />
<br />
==Senate career==<br />
Obama was elected to the Illinois State Senate for the first time in 1996 and served there for the next eight years. Following a failed campaign for the House of Representatives, Obama ran for the open Senate seat from Illinois in 2004. Obama delivered the keynote address at the 2004 Democratic National Convention. He won a seat in the [[U.S. Senate]] after [[liberals]] obtained the release of confidential and personally embarrassing divorce records of his opponent, Jack Ryan, forcing him to resign from the race and be replaced by the out-of-state candidate [[Alan Keyes]].<br />
<br />
A March 16th, 2005 AP article puts Senator Obama on record to ban oil drilling in the Alaska frontier known as ANWR <ref>http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0316-13.htm</ref><br />
<br />
His 2007 voting record in the U.S. [[Senate]] makes him as its most [[liberal]] member. Among fellow Senate Democrats, he was further left than liberals like [[Ted Kennedy]], [[John Kerry]], [[Dianne Feinstein]], [[Charles Schumer]], [[Russ Feingold]], [[Carl Levin]], [[Joseph Biden]] and [[Harry Reid]].<ref>[http://nationaljournal.com/voteratings/sen/lib_cons.htm?o1=lib_composite&o2=desc]</ref> He has grown steadily more liberal since arriving at the Senate: the same analysis assessed him as 10th most liberal in 2006<ref>[http://www.nationaljournal.com/members/news/2007/voteratings/sen/lib_cons.htm?o1=lib_composite&o2=desc]</ref> and 16th most liberal in 2005.<ref>[http://www.nationaljournal.com/members/news/2007/voteratings/sen/lib_cons.htm?o1=lib_composite&o2=desc]</ref><br />
<br />
In late 2006, Obama's second book, ''The Audacity of Hope'', was published. Its title was supplied by the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr., a minister who has stated that "racism is how this country was founded and how this country was run .... We believe in white supremacy and black inferiority and believe it more than we believe in God."<ref>http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/03/14/obama_condemns_pastors_remarks.html</ref> The book contains more of Senator Obama's personal story including the roles of both family and politics. ''Audacity'' spent 30 weeks on the ''New York Times'' Nonfiction Best Sellers list.<ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/27/books/bestseller/0527besthardnonfiction.html?_r=1&oref=slogin New York Times Best Sellers Non Fiction]</ref><br />
<br />
Senator Obama is the chairman of an important subcommittee that has oversight of our efforts in Afghanistan. He has not held a single hearing on Afghanistan even though American forces are risking their lives in a theatre of war. Since joining Foreign Relations, Obama has missed three meetings on a "new strategy" in [[Afghanistan]], a country he only visited in 2008.<ref>[http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/obama-absent-at-afghanistan-hearings-2008-03-01.html</ref> Barack Obama clinched his party's nomination for President after 16 straight months of campaigning.<br />
<br />
In June 2008, Obama voted with the Democratic party to kill the sunset provision of the [[Bush]] tax cuts. By letting these tax cuts expire, single mothers with two kids will pay an additional $1,800 annually. Married couples with incomes of $50,000 will pay an additional $2,180 annually. Elderly couples will pay an additional $2,000 annually and a family of four will pay 191% more per year in taxes. Barack Obama often claims to be for taxing the rich their fair share. By voting to eliminate the Bush tax cuts, Obama is taxing most middle class and blue collar families.<br />
<br />
Obama and the Democratic-led Congress has voted for the upgraded GI Bill despite the opposition from the President, the Secretary of Defense, the Pentagon, the generals in combat zones and the GOP Presidential nominee. It was crafted to increase veteran benefits. Yet, the strain on our military is great.<ref>[http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/05/mccain_to_obama_dont_demagogue.php] http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/05/mccain_to_obama_dont_demagogue.php , McCain To Obama: Don't Demagogue The GI Bill, May 22, 2008</ref> The bill would cost $2.8 to $4 billion per month. Some argue that this bill depletes the US's volunteer military personnel by enticing them to leave service rather than be re-deployed.<br />
<br />
As senator, Obama has requested nearly $936 million in earmarks which averages to $500,000. per day over four years, <ref>[http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122108935141721343.html?mod=googlenews_wsj Obama Can't Win Against Palin] Wall Street Journal, September 11, 2008</ref> for which the Council for Citizens Against Government Waste has given him a rating of 10% in 2007 (18% lifetime).<ref>[http://councilfor.cagw.org/site/DocServer/2007_Senate_Ratings_Final.pdf?docID=3242 2007 Senate Scorecard]</ref> A score of 100% represents voting against all pork, and 0% represents voting ''for'' all pork. Democrats averaged 5% in 2007, whereas Republicans averaged 60%. <ref>[http://councilfor.cagw.org/site/News2?abbr=CCAGW_&page=NewsArticle&id=11590 CCAGW Releases ''2007 Congressional Ratings'']</ref><br />
<br />
According to a Fox News report on October 5th, Obama has taken more than $126,000. in campaign contribution from [[Fannie Mae]] in a little over three years. This ranks him second, only Chris Dodd has received more campaign contribution dollars from Fannie Mae.<br />
<br />
=== Bills co-sponsored ===<br />
Obama's principal legislation was S. 2433, which was an attempt to force the U.S. to increase its foreign aid by hundreds of billions of dollars under the guise of reducing global poverty, which was subsequently blocked by [[conservatives]].<ref>http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics.asp?Page=/Politics/archive/200802/POL20080225a.html</ref><br />
<br />
Obama did support and co-sponsor a bill championed by [[Tom Coburn]] and known as the Coburn-Obama Government Transparency Act of 2006, which was signed into law by President [[George W. Bush]] on Sept. 9, 2006. This law created a website that will list the federal government's grants and contracts.<ref> http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/09/20060926.html</ref> <br />
<br />
Between Jan 13, 2007 and March 13, 2008, Sen. Obama has sponsored 120 mostly [[liberal]] resolutions and bills in the Senate.<ref>http://thomas.loc.gov/</ref> His supporters cite the following less liberal examples, but this list is not representative:{{fact}}<br />
<br />
*S.117 : A bill to amend titles 10 and 38, United States Code, to improve benefits and services for members of the Armed Forces, veterans of the Global War on Terrorism, and other veterans, to require reports on the effects of the Global War on Terrorism, and for other purposes.<br />
<br />
*S.133 : A bill to promote the national security and stability of the economy of the United States by reducing the dependence of the United States on oil through the use of alternative fuels and new technology, and for other purposes.<br />
<br />
*S.453 : A bill to prohibit deceptive practices in Federal elections.<br />
<br />
*S.713 : A bill to ensure dignity in care for members of the Armed Forces recovering from injuries.<br />
<br />
=== Accomplishments while serving on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee ===<br />
<br />
In February 2008, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee approved Obama's proposal on a new strategy to reduce poverty throughout the world.<br />
<br />
Obama worked with Sen. Lugar writing legislation aimed at improving conventional and nuclear non-proliferation efforts. This legislation was signed by [[George W. Bush|President Bush]] in January 2008.<br />
<br />
In June 2007 the Senate passed his resolution condemning violence by the [[Zimbabwe]] government. It also passed legislation co-sponsored by Obama that financed a Special Court for Sierra Leone to prosecute former [[Liberia | Liberian]] President [[Charles Taylor]]. <ref> http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/02/26/obamas_senate_foreign_relations_work/ </ref><br />
<br />
Barack Obama continued to collect money for a 2010 Senate re-election campaign as late as June 2008, and has filed reports recently indicating that money is still pouring into this fund. This is especially notable because it is an efficient way of sidetracking donations from his Presidential race. The website<obamasenate2010.gov> is now defunct.<br />
<br />
==Presidential campaign==<br />
[[Image:obama.jpg|thumb|right|Senator Barack Obama]]<br />
Senator Obama began his candidacy for President of the United States on February 10, 2007, in Springfield, Illinois. His announcement speech largely avoided specific campaign issues and focused on his general political message of hope for the future. It also attempted to strongly invoke the memory of Abraham Lincoln and his "House Divided" speech.<ref>[http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/02/10/obama.president/index.html "Obama declares he's running for President"] 11 February 2007, www.CNN.com </ref><br />
<br />
Obama's campaign has been financed largely by [[leftist]] donors opposed to the war and to the [[American]] military in general. Obama has encouraged this by refusing to wear the customary flag on his lapel during appearances (asserting that he would prefer his patriotism to be represented through his actions rather than an arbitrary symbol) and by other less-than-patriotic gestures and symbols, such as declining to put his hand over his heart during a patriotic recitation. In an appearance on May 16 where he addressed President Bush's statements that some politicians would prefer appeasing terrorists through negotiations, Senator Obama once again wore the flag pin as he did following 9-11. <br />
<br />
By early April 2007, his campaign generated over $25 million from over 100,000 contributors. $23.5 million of that money will be available for the Democratic Primary.<ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/05/us/politics/05obama.html Obama Shows His Strength in a Fund-Raising Feat on Par With Clinton], 4 April 2007, Jeff Zeleny and Patrick Healy,'' The New York Times''</ref> After the first Democratic presidential debate in Columbia, South Carolina, Obama's image as an "articulate" spokesman came into question after his failure to state right away that he would retaliate in case of further terrorist strikes against the United States.<ref>[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/27/AR2007042702162.html?hpid=moreheadlines Clinton Campaign Tries to Keep Heat on Obama Over Debate Response], Dan Balz, ''Washington Post'' April 28, 2007.</ref><ref>Chicago Sun-Times, <br />
[http://www.suntimes.com/news/sweet/362269,CST-NWS-sweet29.article 'I was a little nervous' at debate'], Lynn Sweet, <br />
April 29, 2007,</ref><br />
<br />
During a fund raising event in Virginia in May 2007 Obama told donors,<br />
{{Cquote|This week there was a tragedy in Kansas. Ten thousand people died. An entire town destroyed.<ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,271357,00.html Transcript: 'Special Report with Brit Hume,' May 9, 2007], retrieved from ''FOX News'', 06/13/07.</ref>}}<br />
<br />
In reality, the tornado which touched down in Kansas cost the lives of nine people in the town of Greensburg, and twelve overall in Kansas.<br />
<br />
Speaking regarding his knowledge of the Afghanistan conflict, Obama points the finger at U.S. troops and American policy "...just airraiding villages and killing civilians, which is causing enormous problems there." <ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,293365,00.html Barack Obama Caught on Tape Accusing U.S. Troops of 'Killing Civilians'] Fox News, August 15, 2007</ref> [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wrW4fOGIMVY See Video]<br />
<br />
By August it appeared Obama was running to be left off the ticket completely rather than the much ballyhooed Hillary/Obama ticket the [[mainstream media]] was pushing. After a series of ill-advised foreign policy statements, Obama was openly criticized as a lightweight even by liberals, in much the same vein as [[John Edwards]] and [[Dan Quayle]] had been depicted. First, Obama said he would have face-to-face meetings with two of Florida's most feared enemies, [[Fidel Castro]] and [[Hugo Chavez]]. Florida is a key state to any presidential ambitions. Then Obama claimed that he would be willing to invade the sovereign territory of a U.S. ally without prior consultation. Finally, Obama broke the cardinal rule of declaring he would not use nuclear weapons, removing the element of bluff U.S. Presidents had vitally depended upon throughout the [[Cold War]] era. The incidents all added up to a picture of a candidate ill-prepared and ill-advised, lacking in a basic understanding of the office of the Presidency, and failing to surround himself with appointees able to make up for his deficiencies. However, Obama won the Iowa Democratic caucuses, pushing [[Hillary Clinton]] into third place, and went on to become the unofficial Democratic nominee.<br />
<br />
At a campaign event in Elkhart, Indiana, a seven-year-old girl asked Barack Obama why he wants to be President. He replies, <br />
'''"America is …, uh, is no longer, uh … what it could be, what it once was. And I say to myself, I don’t want that future for my children."''' <ref>[http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blumer/2008/08/09/mostly-mia-obamas-downer-america-delivered-7-year-old Media Mostly MIA on Obama's 'America No Longer What It Once Was' Downer Delivered to 7 Year-Old] Newsbusters.org, August 9, 2008</ref><br />
<br />
Obama became the presumptive Democratic nominee on June 3rd after receiving a majority of pledged delegates and superdelegates. His only remaining primary opponent, [[Hillary Clinton]], conceded the race on June 7th. On August 23, Joe Biden was announced as Obama's vice-presidential nominee. Obama became the official Democratic nominee on August 27 at the Democratic National Convention, when Hillary Clinton's motion to end the roll call vote of the states and select Obama by acclamation was passed.<br />
<br />
On June 5th, Obama spoke at Briston, Virginia- Healthcare Town Hall forum regarding Political Action Committees and his campaign. "Well, we’re here today because we know that if we’re going to make real progress, this time must be different. Throughout my career, in Illinois and the United States senate, I’ve worked to reduce the power of the special interests by leading the fight for ethics reform. I’ve sent a strong signal in this campaign by refusing the contributions of registered federal lobbyists and PACs. And today, I’m announcing that going forward, the Democratic National Committee will uphold the same standard and won’t take another dime from Washington lobbyists or special interest PACs. They do not fund my campaign. They will not fund our party. And they will not drown out the voices of the American people when I’m President of the United States." <br />
<br />
On June 6th, an [[AP]] article <ref>[http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/D/DEMOCRATS_MONEY?SITE=KING&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT Transcript: 'Democratic Party returns lobbyist, PAC money ,' June 6, 2008]</ref> presented the rules for lobbyist donations to the DNC and for the Presidential nominee. Obama does accept money from lobbyists who do not do business with the federal government and he also accepts money from spouses and family members of lobbyists. And the DNC ban is also not retroactive, which means the DNC will keep lobbyist and PAC contributions it received earlier in the election cycle. Retroactive period being the date Barack Obama started his campaign, February 10, 2007. The DNC possibly the day after the November 2006 Congressional elections until June 5th, 2008. In addition, Barack Obama's ban does not apply to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee nor to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. Unlike [[John McCain]], Barack Obama has not disclosed the lobbyists working in his campaign.<br />
<br />
Senator Obama visited U.S. troops in Iraq in 2006<ref>[http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section=news/local&id=3794382 Obama visits troops in Iraq]</ref> and in Afghanistan and Kuwait in 2008<ref>[http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section=news/local&id=3794382 Obama visits troops and officials in Afghanistan and Kuwait]</ref><br />
<br />
Obama's tax plan calls for increasing taxes on the wealthiest 1% of Americans, while cutting taxes for the middle class. According to the non-partisan [[Tax Policy Center]], most Americans would pay less taxes than under Senator McCain's plan.<ref>[http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/publications/url.cfm?ID=411749 An Updated Analysis of the 2008 Presidential Candidates' Tax Plans: Updated September 12, 2008]</ref> According to another non-partisan group, Americans for Tax Reform, tax-payers would clearly be burdened by an Obama Presidency.<ref>[http://www.atr.org/content/html/2008/june/0616-obama_mccaintaxes.html McCain vs. Obama on Taxes] Americans For Tax Reform, June 2008</ref><br />
<br />
===Campaign financing=== <br />
Obama is the first presidential candidate to reject public financing. He broke his promise to accept it in the hope that his powerful fund-raising machine would generate far more money than the $84.1 million McCain is getting in public funding. Indeed, on August 14th, the Obama campaign announced it had received donations from 2 million individuals, setting new records. Obama raised $272 million for the primaries and expects to raise $300 million for the general election. However the Republican National Committee has been raising much more than the Democratic National Committee and each candidate had about $100 million in cash on September 1. Each expects to spend about $300 million by November. However, Obama is obliged to devote much of his time to fund raising among supporters rather than campaigning among undecided voters.<ref> see [http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/stumper/archive/2008/09/09/was-obama-right-to-opt-out-of-public-financing.aspx Andrew Romano, "Was Obama Right to Opt Out of Public Financing?," ''Newsweek'' (Sept. 9, 2008) online]</ref> Among his backers is homosexual pornography baron [[Terrence Bean]].<br />
<br />
===Secrecy=== <br />
<br />
The Democratic party feels it necessary to keep all questions about Obama at a safe distance. It is an unprecedented move to keep secrets about a presidential candidate. The following questions remain sealed from the public. <ref>[http://obamawtf.blogspot.com/2008/08/who-sent-obama-why-has-he-refused-to.html Who sent Obama? Why has he refused to release these basic documents?] ObamaWTF.blogspot.com</ref> <br />
<br />
# Certified Copy of original Birth certificate(see certificate controversy below)<br />
# Columbia College records<br />
# Columbia Thesis paper<br />
# Campaign donor analysis requested by 7 major watchdog groups<br />
# [[Harvard]] College records<br />
# Illinois State Senate records<br />
# [[Illinois]] State Senate schedule<br />
# [[Law]] practice client list and billing records/summary<br />
# Locations and names of all half-siblings and step-mothers<br />
# Medical records (only the one page summary released so far)<br />
# Occidental College records<br />
# Parent's [[Marriage]] Certificate<br />
# Record of baptism<br />
# Selective Service Registration<br />
# Trips schedules for trips outside of the United States before 2007<br />
# Scholarly articles<br />
# Access to his Grandmother (Obama's Grandmother has since passed away from cancer [http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5g3m4YaeYwDHXS6hHdZJi8pm6cZdAD947RJKO0])<br />
# List of all campaign workers that are lobbyists<br />
<br />
Obama keeps donations secret by exploiting a loophole that allows campaigns to refuse to divulge donations under $200.00. This is useful to the candidate because many of his contributions are from dubious foreign or illegal sources. It is described as the "largest pool of unidentified money that has ever flooded into the U.S. election system, before or after the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reforms of 2002." <ref>http://www.newsmax.com/timmerman/Obama_fundraising_illegal/2008/09/29/135718.html</ref><br />
<br />
===Tone===<br />
<br />
Many observers have criticized Obama's campaign for its incivility. For instance, John McCain's wife Cindy noted that Obama is running "the dirtiest campaign in American history." <br />
<br />
Obama's smears usually fall into two categories: race-baiting and distortions. On October 10, 2008, Obama surrogate Rep. John Lewis (D-GA) typified the campaign by comparing Sen. McCain to racial segregationists and Klansmen. "Sen. McCain and Gov. Palin are sowing the seeds of hatred and division," Lewis exclaimed before comparing Sen. McCain to segregationist Democrat George Wallace, further noting that he, "...never fired a gun, but he created the climate and the conditions that encouraged [the attacks in which] four little girls were killed on Sunday morning when a church was bombed in Birmingham, Alabama." <ref>http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/11/mccain.lewis/index.html?eref=rss_politics</ref> This is particularly harsh to Sen. McCain because he fondly admires Lewis. <ref>http://www.rickwarrennews.com/transcript/civil_forum_transcript-04.txt</ref><br />
<br />
As for the distortions and personal attacks, Obama mocks Sen. McCain's for his age and Gov. Palin for being a woman and outsider. For instance, Obama responded with a subtle reference to Alzheimer's disease when Sen. McCain criticized his foreign policy in May 2008, alleging that Sen. McCain "lost his bearings" <ref>http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0508/Obama_McCain_offensive_losing_his_bearings.html</ref>. Senior Adviser Mark Salter noted, "He used the words 'losing his bearings' intentionally, a not particularly clever way of raising John McCain's age as an issue. This is typical of the Obama style of campaigning." <ref>http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/05/salter_obama_attacked_mccains.php</ref>. In reference to Gov. Palin, Obama was caught for his quiet hiring of Winner & Associates to disseminate a sexist smear video against her. <ref>http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/194057.php</ref> Some argue this is a FEC violation because it lacked obligatory label denoting it was sponsored by the Obama Campaign. <ref>http://eclipseweb.blogspot.com/2008/09/vicious-anti-sarah-palin-smear-campaign.html</ref> One of the biggest distortions by Obama is that 95% of all taxpayers will get a tax cut. <ref>[http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122385651698727257.html?mod=googlenews_wsj Obama's 95% Illusion] Wall Steet Journal, October 13, 2008</ref> Without the distortion, Obama is proposing income re-distribution because those families that pay no taxes, one-third, will get money from the wealthy top 5%.<br />
<br />
Another feature of the Obama campaign is the unruly audience. CNN reported in October of 2008 <ref>http://www.findinternettv.com/Video,item,3565842635.aspx</ref>, that people are calling John McCain a terrorist at these events. According to Sen. McCain, "I've heard the [label terrorist], unfortunately, at Senator Obama's rallies being said about me. There's always a fringe element." Other eyewitness reports are harsher <ref>http://theinvigilator.blogspot.com/2008/10/on-front-of-disgust.html</ref>.<br />
<br />
==Election==<br />
<br />
Senator Obama won the 2008 Presidential election, with over 52% of the popular vote. He carried every state that [[John Kerry]] won in 2004, in addition to Iowa, North Carolina, Ohio, Virginia, Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada, Florida, and Indiana. Of the 123 million votes cast, Obama beat John McCain by 9 million total votes. [http://images.newsmax.com/misc/2008_Election_Map.jpg See county breakdown map] <ref>[www.cnn.com/election]</ref><br />
<br />
== Positions and Qualifications ==<br />
Obama is [[pro-abortion]]. The leading abortion providers and PAC supporters have wholeheartedly endorsed Barack Obama. The National Abortion Rights Action League [[NARAL]] has given Barack a 100% rating for his efforts in Congress 2005, 2006 and 2007 <ref>http://www.prochoiceamerica.org/elections/statements/obama.html</ref>. EMILY's List, a political action committee that funds female candidates who support abortion rights backs Barack Obama<ref> [http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2008/06/emilys_list_bac.html],EMILY's List backs Obama, June 6,2008</ref> The nation's largest abortion business, Planned Parenthood has begun the process necessary to endorse pro-abortion presidential candidate Barack Obama. <ref>[http://www.lifenews.com/nat3971.html], http://www.lifenews.com/nat3971.html, Planned Parenthood Begins Process to Endorse Pro-Abortion Barack Obama, June 10,2008</ref>The board of directors of the pro-abortion group's political operation met on Friday June 6, 2008 and unanimously voted to recommend an endorsement for Obama. Obama has steadfastly advocated support for partial birth abortion as an Illinois legislator. Barack's wife, Michelle Obama, wrote a fundraising letter<ref>[http://www.prolifeblogs.com/articles/archives/2006/10/post_5.php], http://www.prolifeblogs.com/articles/archives/2006/10/post_5.php, February 17,2004</ref> in support of partial birth abortion and against the proposed ban. Barack voted against the Born Alive Infant Protection Act to give a child who survived an abortion procedure life support healthcare. Obama wanted the life terminated even if he or she survived outside the mother's womb.<ref>[http://www.citizenlink.org/content/A000007034.cfm], http://www.citizenlink.org/content/A000007034.cfm, Obama Blocked Born Alive Infant Protection Act</ref> With Obama no longer in the state Senate, the Born Alive legislation passed in 2005.<br />
<br />
In the context of sex, he quipped about his daughters, <ref>http://michellemalkin.com/2008/03/30/sunday-meditation-obama-and-the-punishment-of-unborn-life/</ref>{{QuoteBox|"If they make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby."}} Obama makes it clear if his daughters had an unplanned pregnancy, he would support terminating the life of his grandchild and it is undeniable that Michelle Obama agrees with that decision.<br />
[[Image:Features ayers1.jpg|175px|thumb|right|[[Weather Underground]] co-founder Bill Ayers<ref>http://foia.fbi.gov/weather/weath1a.pdf</ref> stomps on the American flag in this 2001 pose for Chicago Magazine.]]<br />
<br />
Obama, having been asked about his associations with [[William Ayers]], an unrepentant [[terrorist]],<ref>[http://www.chicagomag.com/Chicago-Magazine/August-2001/No-Regrets/]</ref> he explained that the views of his associates are not necessarily his own. Ayers and his wife, [[Bernardine Dohrn]], hosted a fundraiser for Obama in their home in 1995 at the start of Obama's political career. Obama compares his friendship with Ayers whose actions led to the loss of a life to his friendship with pro-life doctor and representative Tom Coburn<ref>[http://www.lifenews.com/nat3894.html]http://www.lifenews.com/nat3894.html, LifeNews.com, April 25,2008</ref><br />
Obama explained that his friendship with Ayers, shouldn't be construed as implying he endorsed the terrorist-like tactics Ayers used to drive home his political point. Barack Obama brought up the pro-life colleague to make the dubious comparison that he's friends with other people who take "extreme" positions or would use terrorist tactics.<br />
"The fact is, is that I'm also friendly with Tom Coburn, one of the most conservative Republicans in the United States Senate, who during his campaign once said that it might be appropriate to apply the death penalty to those who carried out abortions" <br />
<br />
Obama has no military or executive experience and little foreign policy experience.<ref>"Fresh doubts over Barack Obama's foreign policy credentials were expressed on both sides of the Atlantic last night, after it emerged that he had made only one brief official visit to London – and none elsewhere in Western Europe or Latin America. ... Mr. Obama had failed to convene a single policy meeting of the Senate European subcommittee, of which he is chairman."[http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article3080794.ece]</ref> Yet he is the favorite of the leftist attack site "MoveOn.org" for the [[Democratic]] nomination for [[President of the United States]] in the [[2008 Presidential Election|2008 election]],<ref>MoveOn.org reportedly favored Obama by 70-30% over Clinton. [http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2008/02/moveonorg_obama.html]</ref> campaigning to the left of [[Hillary Clinton]].<ref>For example, Obama promised not to use nuclear weapons against terrorists, a promise Hillary Clinton refused to make. [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/02/AR2007080202288.html]</ref> <br />
<br />
He has no clear personal achievement that cannot be explained as the likely result of [[affirmative action]]. Some examples border on the absurd: Obama has no background in [[physics]], yet it is claimed that "Obama analyzed and integrated [[Albert Einstein|Einstein]]'s [[theory of relativity]], the [[Heisenberg uncertainty principle]], as well as the concept of curved space as an alternative to [[gravity]], for a Law Review article that Tribe, for whom Obama worked as a research assistant, wrote titled, 'The Curvature of Constitutional Space'." <ref>http://cbs2chicago.com/politics/barack.obama.harvard.2.334825.html</ref> Obama's "research" for Constitutional Law Professor Tribe on this article also raises issues about preferences, as Obama had not yet even completed any law school courses<ref>Obama did not start his second year of law school until September 1989, the earliest he could have taken constitutional law, yet this article must have been written, submitted and accepted prior to that time to be published in the November 1989 issue of the Law Review.</ref> on the [[Constitution]].<ref>The liberal Professor Tribe saw the best law students for several decades, yet insisted that Obama was the "best student I ever had" and the "most exciting research assistant." [http://www.cmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071114/NEWS01/711140429/1217/NEWS98]</ref><br />
<br />
Throughout his career, Obama repeatedly ducked controversial stands in a transparent attempt to make it easier to be elected to higher office. In example, as a state senator in [[Illinois]], he voted "present" rather than "aye" or "nay" nearly an astounding 130 times.<ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/20/us/politics/20obama.html</ref> During that same period, he was planning to run for the [[House of Representatives]], which was unsuccessful, and then for [[U.S. Senate]], which was successful after his opponent Jack Ryan, a millionaire school teacher, was smeared with a court-ordered disclosure of confidential divorce records that both he and his ex-wife wanted to remain sealed. A newspaper that favored Obama took the unusual step of suing to force the confidential divorce information to become public, and a California judge opened the records at a pivotal time in the campaign.<ref>http://www.nbc5.com/politics/2898641/detail.html</ref><ref>http://www.nbc5.com/news/3289561/detail.html</ref><ref>http://www.nbc5.com/politics/3444371/detail.html</ref><br />
<br />
Barack Obama is often praised for his speeches, except when he is not able to read them from a [[teleprompter]]. "Shorn of his Teleprompter, we saw a different Obama. His delivery was halting and unsure. ... The prepared text for his remarks, as released on his website, sounded a lot like a typical Obama speech. ... [But with] no Teleprompter signaling the prepared text, Obama failed to deliver the speech in his characteristically flawless fashion."<ref name="teleprompter" /> The [[New York Times]] noted that "Mr. Obama excels at inspirational speeches read from a teleprompter before television cameras, critics have noted, but many of his other speeches on the campaign trail have failed to electrify."<ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/20/fashion/20speechwriter.html?_r=2&ex=1358485200&en=bb179297e5f61acb&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&oref=slogin&oref=slogin</ref> When Obama ridiculed [[Hillary Clinton]] for being like [[Annie Oakley]], it is apparent that he was not writing his own speeches.<ref>"Some Obama adviser probably earned his or her dollars for that cut," the USA Today wrote. [http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/columnist/raasch/2008-04-17-2008-04-17-raasch_N.htm]</ref><br />
<br />
Obama often makes reference to his "two decades of experience" in public service work. During most of that time he claims experience, he was either going to school, working for a law firm, writing a book, or organizing community events.<br />
<br />
== Political views ==<br />
Obama's political views have been subjected to controversy even before he put himself forward as a presidential candidate. Former House majority leader [[Tom DeLay]] has described Obama's record in the Illinois Senate as that of a [[Communism|“Marxist leftist".]]<ref>[http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_121306/content/stop_the_tape.guest.html|Sexy Rock Star Obama Whines About His Ears], RushLimbaugh.com, December 13 2006</ref> In May 2007, Obama (and Sen. Hillary Clinton) voted against funding the Iraq War for the first time.<ref>[http://uspolitics.about.com/od/legislatio1/a/HR2206.htm HR 2206 - Emergency Appropriations], Kathy Gill, Your Guide to U.S. Politics: Current Events. May 26 2007.</ref><ref>[http://more.gov.mtopgroup.com/2007/05/votes-hr-2206-iraq-supplemental.html Votes - H.R. 2206: Iraq Supplemental], May 28, 2007. Retrieved from Deeper Inside the Mountain, June 4, 2007.</ref> <br />
<br />
Obama's views on [[gun control]] is focused on an opinion article in the [[Wall Street Journal]]:<ref>David Kopel, "The Democrats and Gun Control," Wall St.J., Page A19, April 17, 2008 [http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB120839466717921537-lMyQjAxMDI4MDE4NzMxOTc0Wj.html]</ref><br />
<br />
:As a state senate candidate in 1996, Mr. Obama endorsed a complete ban on all handguns in a questionnaire. The Obama campaign has claimed he "never saw or approved the questionnaire," and that an aide filled it out incorrectly. But a few weeks ago, Politico.com found an amended version of the questionnaire. It included material added in Mr. Obama's handwriting.<br />
<br />
After [[D.C. v. Heller]], Obama claimed to support Second Amendment rights.<br />
<br />
Obama has said, "Doing the Lord's work is a thread that runs through our politics since the very beginning," and "it puts the lie to the notion that [[separation of church and state]] in America means somehow that faith should have no role in public life."<ref>[http://www.siouxcityjournal.com/articles/2007/06/17/news/iowa/8db7c1a17d2b51f9862572fd000fc9f4.txt Obama says religion has place in politics], By Todd Dorman, ''Sioux City Journal'', June 18, 2007.</ref><br />
<br />
He believes children should be taught sex education in kindergarten, although in what he refers to as "an age-appropriate manner".<ref>"Barack Obama reaffirmed to [[Planned Parenthood]] this week that he believes elements of sex education should begin in kindergarten." [http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=3395856 (ABC News)] July 20, 2007 </ref><br />
<br />
Obama spoke at the May 1, 2006, illegal immigration march in Chicago.<ref>http://nomoreblather.com/barack-obama-and-the-immigration-marches Immigration marches</ref><br />
<br />
::''We are hungry for change!'' S.C. January 26, 2008.<br />
<br />
Barack Obama, in his short stint as Senator of Illinois, has made clear his opposition to the [[U.S. Military]] in policy and in rhetoric. Obama has spent much energy to argue that the Iraq War should have never been waged and that we should not be there at all, in any way. In 2002, as an unknown Chicago representative to the state of Illinois, he declared his opposition to "dumb wars". At the time, America was united in the stance against terrorism and the prospects of a rogue enemy with WMD worried the United States. Obama, has said that he does not know whether he would have voted for or against the Iraq War. Since elected to Congress, he voted against the Emergency War Supplemental. Obama did not oppose his party debating the bill long past the timeframe requested. This action directly affects troop deployment in combat zones. Obama has repeatedly called for the return of troops in Iraq. Barack Obama has a no confidence vote for the 'Surge' before the measure was put forth by General Petraeus to Congress. Obama would not denounce MoveOn.org's slander NY Times advertising against the General.<br />
<br />
Senator Obama often refers to the office that he seeks, without the proper respect of those that came before him. When talking of the President, he frequently refuses to call him [[George W. Bush|President George Bush]] or even Mr. George Bush. Obama has also disrespectfully called him 'George Bush'. Oddly, when Bill Clinton spoke with Obama on September 11th, 2008 predicting he would win handily, Obama responded, "There you go, you can take it from the President of the United States."<ref>http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/11/campaign.wrap/index.html</ref> It appears Obama will use the term for a former President, but will not do the same for the actual President. Examples of Obama's treatment of our current President: <br />
* "I am happy to have a debate with John McCain and George Bush about foreign policy," Obama said <ref>[http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/05/16/obama.bush.mccain/], CNN Obama blasts Bush McCain, May 16, 2008</ref><br />
* "For all his talk about independence, the centerpiece of John McCain's economic plan amounts to a full-throated endorsement of George Bush's policies," <ref>[http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/06/10/obama_takes_the_offensive_vs_mccain/] Boston Globe Obama takes offensive vs. McCain, June 10, 2008</ref> <br />
* "George Bush knows that I have never supported engagement with terrorists." <ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7403386.stm], BBC Obama attacks Bush over Iran , May 15, 2008</ref><br />
* Obama called the U.S. economy a disaster thanks to "John McCain's President, George W. Bush" <ref>[http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/obama_mccain/2008/08/18/122924.html No More Hugs: Obama Tears Into McCain] AP, August 18, 2008</ref> Side note, George W. Bush is also Barack Obama's President.<br />
<br />
== Foreign policy experience ==<br />
In his presidential campaign, Obama stated<ref>http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mayhill-fowler/obama-says-no-to-foreign_b_95357.html</ref> that "foreign policy is the area where I am probably most confident" and then cited "having lived in Indonesia for four years, having family that is impoverished in small villages in Africa". He lived in Indonesia from age 6 to 10, and he later discovered that his father had some other children in Africa.<br />
<br />
While campaigning, he has visited several foreign countries. In [[Russia]] and the former Soviet republics, he met with representatives of the International Republican Institute and National Democratic Institute to discuss democracy in the former Soviet republics. He also met with Russian military officials and visited several nuclear and biological weapons destruction sites in Russia, [[Ukraine]], and [[Azerbaijan]] with Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Richard Lugar (R-IN). On the same tour, he visited London, UK, and met with [[Tony Blair]], sitting UK Prime Minister.<ref>http://obama.senate.gov/press/050823-obama_to_visit/</ref><br />
<br />
Obama visited South Africa, Kenya, Ethiopia, Djibouti, and Chad; he discussed his tour of Robben Island prison, met with U.S. troops, and visited refugee camps of the people fleeing Darfur. He also addressed Africa's growing [[AIDS]] epidemic. <ref>http://obama.senate.gov/podcast/060906-090606_africa_t/</ref> <br />
<br />
During a ten-day-long tour of the Middle East, he talked with government leaders in Qatar, Kuwait, Iraq, Jordan, and Israel. <ref> http://obama.senate.gov/news/060113-obama_wraps_up/</ref><br />
<br />
==Religious affiliations==<br />
<br />
Obama and his wife (reared a Baptist) have been active members since 1988 at the Trinity [[United Church of Christ]]<ref>http://www.tucc.org/about.htm</ref> in Chicago. The church embraces [[black liberation theology]] and its emphasis on empowering oppressed groups against establishment forces. This denomination was the first in America to ordain gays, women and blacks as ministers.<ref>[http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/31079.html], http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/31079.html, Obama's church pushes controversial doctrines, March 20, 2008</ref> According to his sister, Obama was baptized at this church the same year.<ref>[http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/04/30/america/30obama.php?page=2 http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/04/30/america/30obama.php?page=2]</ref> Obama describes his conversion in ''The Audacity of Hope''. The title of this book is taken from one of Pastor Wright's sermons. <br />
In April 2008, Obama disavowed Pastor Wright's views. In May 2008, Obama left his church. His response blames the media and not the rhetoric on display <ref>[http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/05/31/obama-resigns-church-membership-in-chicago/], Obama Drops Church Membership in Chicago, may 31, 2008</ref>{{QuoteBox|“It’s not fair to the other members of the church who seek to worship in peace..."}} Wright had been making inflammatory comments and posting his sermons online for sale. These include the statements "G-d damn America" and describing the September 11th attacks, he said "We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans, and now we are indignant because the stuff we have done overseas is now brought right back to our own front yards. America's chickens are coming home to roost."<ref>[ http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/Story?id=4443788 Obama's Pastor: G-d Damn America, U.S. to Blame for 9/11]</ref> In addition, Rev. Wright blamed America saying "We supported Zionism shamelessly while ignoring the Palestinians and branding anybody who spoke out against it as being anti-Semitic." <br />
<br />
[[Image:Barack Obama Jeremiah Wright.jpg|thumb|Barack Obama and Jeremiah Wright.]]<br />
<br />
[[Daniel Pipes]] claims that Obama was raised a [[Muslim]] because he attended classes on the Koran while attending a Muslim school.<ref>[http://www.danielpipes.org/article/5286 Was Barack Obama a Muslim</ref> Obama did attend a school administrated by Muslims but [[CNN]] reports that it was a non-religious public school attended by students of many faiths, not a [[madrassa]].<ref>http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/01/22/obama.madrassa/</ref><br />
<br />
{{QuoteBox|In Indonesia, I'd spent 2 years at a Muslim school, 2 years at a Catholic school. In the Muslim school, the teacher wrote to tell mother I made faces during Koranic studies. In the Catholic school, when it came time to pray, I'd pretend to close my eyes, then peek around the room. Nothing happened. No angels descended. Just a parched old nun and 30 brown children, muttering words. Sometimes the nun would catch me, and her stern look would force my lids back shut. But that didn't change how I felt inside."}}<ref>Dreams from My Father, by Barack Obama, p.142 Aug 1, 1996 </ref><br />
<br />
Obama has described his upbringing as occurring in a non-religious environment. <br />
<br />
{{QuoteBox|In sum, my mother viewed religion through the eyes of the anthropologist that she would become; it was a phenomenon to be treated with a suitable respect, but with a suitable detachment as well. Moreover, as a child I rarely came in contact with those who might offer a substantially different view of faith. My father was almost entirely absent from my childhood, having been divorced from my mother when I was 2 years old; in any event, although my father had been raised a Muslim, by the time he met my mother he was a confirmed atheist, thinking religion to be so much superstition.<br />
<br />
And yet for all her professed secularism, my mother was in many ways the most spiritually awakened person that I've ever known. She had an unswerving instinct for kindness, charity, and love, and spent much of her life acting on that instinct, sometimes to her detriment. Without the help of religious texts or outside authorities, she worked mightily to instill in me the values that many Americans learn in Sunday school: honesty, empathy, discipline, delayed gratification, and hard work. She raged at poverty and injustice.}}<ref>[http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1546579-4,00.html My Spiritual Journey] Time Magazine, October 2006</ref><br />
<br />
== Books ==<br />
<br />
* ''Dreams from My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance.'' (B. Obama and, allegedly, William Ayers) ISBN 0307383415<br />
* ''The Audacity of Hope: Thoughts on Reclaiming the American Dream.'' (B. Obama) ISBN 0307455874<br />
* ''Barack Obama in His Own Words.'' (B. Obama and Lisa Rogak) ISBN 0786720573<br />
* ''Change We Can Believe In. Barack Obama's Plan to Renew America's Promise.'' (B. Obama)<br />
* ''The Case Against Barack Obama. The Unlikely Rise and Unexamined Agenda of the Media's Favorite Candidate. '' (David Freddso) ISBN 1596985666 <br />
* ''The Obama Nation. Leftist Politics and the Cult of Personality.'' (Jerome R. Corsi) ISBN 1416598065 <br />
* ''Obama Unmasked. Did Slick Hollywood Handlers Create the Perfect Candidate?'' (Floyd Brown and Lee Trexler) ISBN 0936783591 <br />
* ''Obama: The Man Behind The Mask.'' (Andy Martin) ISBN 0965781240 <br />
* ''The Audacity of Deceit. Barack Obama's War on American Values.'' (Brad O'Leary) ISBN 1935071025<br />
<br />
==Published criticism==<br />
On April 11, 2007, staff writers of ''The Boston Globe'' reported the criticisms of several black commentators regarding Obama's apparent hesitation to join the race to condemn acclaimed radio personality [[Don Imus]],<ref>[http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/04/11/obamas_silence_on_imus_alarms_some_blacks/ Obama's silence on Imus alarms some blacks], Rick Klein and Joseph Williams, ''The Boston Globe'', April 11, 2007.</ref> who made a racially insensitive remark<ref>[http://www.reuters.com/article/industryNews/idUSN1237895620070412|title=Furor over Imus puts heat on other broadcasters], Daniel Trotta, Reuters, 2007-04-12.</ref> on the air during the April 4 broadcast. Obama did not comment on Imus's remarks until well after prominent civil rights leaders [[Al Sharpton]] and [[Jesse Jackson]] had called Imus to account and after Imus was suspended by MSNBC and CBS Radio. Obama later weighed in on April 10 by saying, "The comments of Don Imus were divisive, hurtful, and offensive to Americans of all backgrounds." <br /> <br />
<br />
The ''Globe'' reported that Obama's perceived delay in addressing Don Imus's remarks was described by Melissa Harris Lacewell, a professor of politics and African-American studies at Princeton University, as "miss[ing] an opportunity to prove himself to blacks and white liberals who would have wanted Obama take the lead in denouncing Imus."<ref>[http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/04/11/obamas_silence_on_imus_alarms_some_blacks/ Obama's silence on Imus alarms some blacks], Rick Klein and Joseph Williams, ''The Boston Globe'', April 11, 2007.</ref><ref>[http://time-blog.com/real_clear_politics/2007/04/obama_race_and_the_election.html Obama, Race, and The Election,] ''Real Clear Politics.com''</ref><br />
<br />
In June 2007 the ''Chicago Sun-Times'' reported Obama had actually received nearly three times more campaign cash from indicted slum landlord Tony Rezko<ref>[http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/353829,CST-NWS-rez23.article Barack Obama and his slumlord patron], Tim Novak, Chicago Sun-Times, April 23, 2007.</ref> and his associates than Obama has publicly acknowledged.<ref>[http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/432197,CST-NWS-obama18.article Rezko cash triple what Obama says], Chris Fusco and Tim Novak, ''Chicago Sun-Times'', June 18, 2007.</ref><br />
<br />
Executive vice president Wayne LaPierre of the [[NRA]] accuses Barack Obama of "mouthing pro-Second amendment words and pandering to gun owners" on the campaign trail.<ref>[http://www.gopusa.com/news/2008/may/0514_nra_mccain.shtml], http://www.gopusa.com/news/2008/may/0514_nra_mccain.shtml, NRA chief stresses common ground with McCain, Associated Press, May 14, 2008</ref><br />
<br />
[[McCain]] Aide Says Obama Has Sept. 10 Mind-Set "an extremely dangerous and extremely naive approach toward terrorism" <ref>[http://www.newsmax.com/politics/mccain_obama/2008/06/17/105265.html], AP McCain Aide Says Obama Has Sept. 10 Mind-Set, June 17, 2008</ref><br />
<br />
===Birth Certificate Controversy===<br />
During the democratic primaries the Clinton Campaign lead a smear campaign against the validity of Barrack Obama's Hawaii Birth cirtificate, claiming that it is false and that he is intelligible for Presidency. <ref>[http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZTgxZmIwNTg0OWVhMWJkODNmZjI4ZjY4Mjg2OWRmNzI= http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZTgxZmIwNTg0OWVhMWJkODNmZjI4ZjY4Mjg2OWRmNzI=]</ref> After initially refusing to produce a birth certificate in response to such rumors, the Obama campaign eventually endorsed a document posted on the Daily Kos as <br />
authentic.<ref>[http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/6/12/11012/6168/320/534616 Obama's Birth Certificate]</ref> The response is split regarding the birth certificate. Some commentators, such as those at the National Review, are satisfied with the document.<ref>[http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NWVjN2I1MjlhM2ZjZjRjYzBkODAxZjZkZGQyYWNkMDk= http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NWVjN2I1MjlhM2ZjZjRjYzBkODAxZjZkZGQyYWNkMDk=]</ref> However, some analysts claim that the birth certificate is false.<ref>[http://web.israelinsider.com/Articles/Politics/12939.htm http://web.israelinsider.com/Articles/Politics/12939.htm]</ref><br />
<br />
On August 21st, 2008, Factcheck.org published an article regarding the controversy.<ref>[http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html Born in the U.S.A.]</ref> The site stated, "FactCheck.org staffers have now seen, touched, examined and photographed the original birth certificate. We conclude that it meets all of the requirements from the State Department for proving U.S. citizenship." In addition, the site posted high-resolution photographs of the birth certificate, which clearly showed the raised seal, stamp of Hawaii state registrar Alvin T. Onaka, and certificate number. The birth date corresponds to a birth announcement published in the ''Honolulu Advertiser '' on Sunday, August 13, 1961. <ref>http://texasdarlin.wordpress.com/2008/07/23/obama-was-born-in-hawaii-wrong-can-of-worms/</ref><br />
<br />
A Philadelphia attorney, Phillip Berg, has filed a lawsuit against the DNC and Barack Obama. Berg maintains that Sen. Obama is not a natural born U.S. citizen or that, if he ever was, he lost his citizenship when he was adopted in Indonesia. Berg also cites what he calls "dual loyalties" due to his citizenship and ties with Kenya and Indonesia. The "dual loyalties" which have not been shown to exist do not violate any constitutional or legal precedents and would make Sen. Obama a poor choice for President, not an invalid choice.<br />
<br />
Obama website Fight The Smears has confirmed that Obama was once a Kenyan citizen until 1982. Attorney Philips Berg's lawsuit is being challenged by the Obama Campaign. Instead of producing the original birth certificate in court and paying a number of legal fees and taking several days out of his busy campaigning schedule the Obama campaign had the case dropped on the grounds that it lacked any supporting evidence. <ref>http://neighbors.denverpost.com/viewtopic.php?t=10815605</ref> The fact that Mr. Berg's dual arguments were mutually contradictory may also have contributed.<br />
<br />
The state of Hawaii announced that the document is legitimate and official, Since the state of Hawaii is the issuing body they have ultimate authority with regards to the matter.<ref>http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/20081031/BREAKING01/81031064/0/BREAKING04</ref> If states are no longer regarded as a valid authority on citizenship of those born within them then no one is eligible for President because no one can prove that they are natural born citizens.<br />
<br />
==See also==<br />
*[[Previous Breaking News/Barack Obama|Articles about '''Barack Obama''' from previous "Breaking News"]]<br />
*[[Essay: The Special Interests Candidate]]<br />
*[[The Honorable James David Manning]]<br />
*[[Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN)]]<br />
*[[New Party]]<br />
<br />
==Further reading==<br />
*[[Peter Hitchens|Hitchens, Peter]] [http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=511901&in_page_id=1811 ''The Black Kennedy: But does anyone know the real Barack Obama?''] [[Daily Mail]]. Accessed 4 February 2008.<br />
<br />
==Sources==<br />
<br />
*[http://www.barackobama.com/ Offical Obama for President Website]<br />
*[http://obama.senate.gov/about/ Official Senate Website]<br />
*[http://www.opensecrets.org/pfds/pfd2005/N00009638_2005.pdf Barack Obama Personal Financial Disclosures Summary: 2005], retrieved from opensecrets.org 17 June 2007.<br />
*[http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=O000167 Biographical Directory of the United States Congress]<br />
*[http://www.law.uchicago.edu/faculty/obama/cv.html University of Chicago Law School] Faculty Listing<br />
*[http://www.biography.com/search/article.do?id=12782369 Barack Obama Biography] from Biography.com<br />
*[http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/o/barack_obama/index.html?inline=nyt-per New York Times Topics, Barack Obama]<br />
*[http://youtube.com/watch?v=zUdjhKbImwE Documentary on Barack Hussein Obama]<br />
*[http://www.votesmart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=9490 Voting Record of Barack Hussein Obama]<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
{{reflist}}<br />
<br />
{{DEFAULTSORT:Obama, Barrack}}<br />
<br />
{{2008 presidential candidates}}<br />
<br />
[[Category:United States Senators]]<br />
[[Category:Democratic Party]]<br />
[[Category:Liberals]]<br />
[[Category:Muslims]]</div>NormanShttps://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=The_Shadow_Party&diff=554858The Shadow Party2008-11-12T00:16:24Z<p>NormanS: Redirecting to Shadow Party</p>
<hr />
<div>#REDIRECT [[Shadow Party]]</div>NormanShttps://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Shadow_Party&diff=554857Shadow Party2008-11-12T00:15:33Z<p>NormanS: Wrong party</p>
<hr />
<div>According to Discoverthenetworks.org:<br />
{{cquote|[The] '''Shadow Party''' is a nationwide network of more than five-dozen unions, non-profit activist groups, and think tanks whose agendas are ideologically to the left, which are engaged in campaigning for the Democrats. Its activities include fundraising, get-out-the-vote drives, political advertising, opposition research, and media manipulation. The Shadow Party was conceived and organized principally by George Soros, Hillary Clinton and Harold McEwan Ickes<ref name="discover">[http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=6706 Shadow Party] Discover The Networks</ref>.}}<br />
<br />
Soros and his wife, Susan, contributed $13 million to the Shadow party cause in 2004<ref name="discover"></ref>. <br />
<br />
<br />
According to Frontpagemag.com:<br />
{{cquote|The Shadow Party emerged from the dense thicket of campaign finance reforms engineered by Senators [[John McCain]] and [[Russ Feingold]]... This created an imperative that found its inevitable loophole [in soft money]... McCain-Feingold deprived the Democrats of their soft money, but the Shadow Party has provided an alternate channel for collecting unlimited contributions... under McCain-Feingold, they may no longer pass that money along to the [[Democratic]] Party, at least not directly. The solution? They give it to the Shadow Party instead<ref>[http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=1C995DDB-9F7D-4EB7-83A2-5304F950EB41 The Shadow Party: Part I] Front Page Magazine, October 6, 20004</ref>}}<br />
<br />
==Books==<br />
* [http://www.shadowparty.com/ The Shadow Party]<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references/><br />
[[Category:Politics]]<br />
[[Category:Liberals]]<br />
'''Bold text'''</div>NormanShttps://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Shadow_Party&diff=554856Shadow Party2008-11-12T00:14:21Z<p>NormanS: More stuff simply copied and pasted, needs to be attributed</p>
<hr />
<div>According to Discoverthenetworks.org:<br />
{{cquote|[The] '''Shadow Party''' is a nationwide network of more than five-dozen unions, non-profit activist groups, and think tanks whose agendas are ideologically to the left, which are engaged in campaigning for the Democrats. Its activities include fundraising, get-out-the-vote drives, political advertising, opposition research, and media manipulation. The Shadow Party was conceived and organized principally by George Soros, Hillary Clinton and Harold McEwan Ickes<ref name="discover">[http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=6706 Shadow Party] Discover The Networks</ref>.}}<br />
<br />
Soros and his wife, Susan, contributed $13 million to the Shadow party cause in 2004<ref name="discover"></ref>. <br />
<br />
<br />
According to Free Republic:<br />
{{cquote|The Shadow Party emerged from the dense thicket of campaign finance reforms engineered by Senators [[John McCain]] and [[Russ Feingold]]... This created an imperative that found its inevitable loophole [in soft money]... McCain-Feingold deprived the Democrats of their soft money, but the Shadow Party has provided an alternate channel for collecting unlimited contributions... under McCain-Feingold, they may no longer pass that money along to the [[Democratic]] Party, at least not directly. The solution? They give it to the Shadow Party instead<ref>[http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1236609/posts The Shadow Party: Part I] Front Page Magazine, October 6, 20004</ref>}}<br />
<br />
==Books==<br />
* [http://www.shadowparty.com/ The Shadow Party]<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references/><br />
[[Category:Politics]]<br />
[[Category:Liberals]]<br />
'''Bold text'''</div>NormanS