Difference between revisions of "Talk:Barack Hussein Obama"

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
(Law Professor)
(Question)
 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{unprotect|Ed Poor}}
+
{{articletalkheader|prefix=archive}}
 +
<br />
  
 +
==Obama's claim to being a Christian==
 +
The article briefly states Obama converted to Christianity as an adult. There is no indication Obama had any inclination to converting to Christianity ''prior'' to his marriage to Michelle Robinson Obama. It may be even his conversion was a concession, or matter of convenience in an agreement on child rearing. 
  
==Second Picture's caption==
+
This indeed, is a first: no American President in history ever attested to ''not'' having a Christian background in their youth, or converting in later life. More emphasis should be placed upon Obama's non-Christian, and possibly anti-Christian (be it secular atheist, Marxist, or Islamic) upbringing and early youth.
The caption on the second picture should read "...during the national anthem." Also, I believe the picture was taken from here: http://www.time.com/time/photogallery/0,29307,1662530_1446035,00.html. [[User:Shiritai|Shiritai]] 08:21, 7 November 2007 (EST)
+
  
People should also be aware that placing one's hand over their heart is required only for the pledge of allegiance, it is not required when one hears the star spangled banner (the national anthem).
+
2000 year old Christian communities are being exterminated, black Christian girls abducted, enslaved, and raped while Obama is more concerned about his golf swing. The time for speculation about Obama is over. He is now building his legacy.  [[User:OscarO|OscarO]] 17:28, 24 August 2014 (EDT)
  
== Who here would mind Obama as president?==
+
::He has been seen eating during daylight hours of ramadan (fourth pillar of Islam), ate pork at the White house Easter egg hunt, has not been on Hajj (Fifth pillar), has never been seen praying during salat times (Second pillar), has a pet dog (banned by Hadiths), has been seen consuming alcoholic beverages at state dinners, and said he is not a Muslim. (Violates first pillar:Shahadah. Muslims must give declaration of their faith and only of their faith. Saying "I'm not a Muslim" automatically makes on an apostate) He was sworn in on a Bible, not the Koran or Hadiths. If he is a Muslim he is probably the worlds worst Muslim.--[[User:IluvAviation|IluvAviation]] ([[User talk:IluvAviation|talk]]) 21:23, 1 March 2017 (EST)
I'll admit it, i am a moderate on the conservative slanted site. Be as my politcal views span both sides, i am hoping for Obama to win the election. I'm sure that some people here have criticisms of him, some of which may even be valid. So have at it people: Why not Obama, the man sent to lead America to greatness?--[[User:Fpresjh|Fpresjh]] 20:10, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
+
  
I must remind you, this is a conservative encyclopedia.  most conservatives can't handle the idea of a black man as superior to them!  [[User:GodlessLiberal|GodlessLiberal]] 21:09, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
+
I agree with [[User:IluvAviation|IluvAviation]]. Quite a few things he's done violate Islam's rules. [[User:Whiterose|Whiterose]] ([[User talk:Whiterose|talk]]) 18:21, 22 April 2017 (EDT)[[User:Whiterose|Whiterose]] ([[User talk:Whiterose|talk]]) 23:20, 22nd April 2017 (BST)
 +
:Just because he's not a very "good" Muslim doesn't make him anythnig elseOn a side note, the Liberals are all mad because Trump put a stop to the times of silence in the White house corresponding to the Muslim times or prayer.  I'm sure Obama just wanted the quite so he could focus on his work... (Of course, all the liberals strambled to cover it up and call it all a joke.) --[[User:DavidB4|<font color="ForestGreen">David B</font>]] <sup>([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]])</sup> 18:32, 22 April 2017 (EDT)
 +
:He's done things that violate God's commandments too, so saying he's a Christian because he has violated Islamic commands is a logical fallacy. [[User:DMorris|DMorris]] ([[User talk:DMorris|talk]]) 18:34, 22 April 2017 (EDT)
 +
::Technically, I'm not entirely sure if Reverend Wright's parish would truly be Christian. At most, it's Christian-in-name-only due to adhering to Liberation Theology. And I don't know about others, but I most certainly doubt Obama's Christian either (like I said about his "adherence" to Islam below, he most likely only used the label of Christian in a cynical manner to gain votes). [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 18:40, 22 April 2017 (EDT)
 +
:::Obama claimed to be a Christian and was sworn in a bible. You get to keep your healthcare plan, too. It doesn't mean anything. We are the ones who must suffer for eternity because of his lies. By their fruits ye shall know them. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''The coup plotters are going down'']]</sup> 18:51, 22 April 2017 (EDT)
 +
::::Yeah, and he also claimed to be a Muslim as well, and even a gay man. That's not going to mean much when he's willing to put on appearances in a cynical attempt to grab votes. I might as well also point out there have been plenty of Marxist infiltrators into the Church during the 1960s, and considering one of the requirements of Marxism is that one must be an atheist, it's pretty obvious those infiltrators do not even believe in God and were faking it. The exact same is to be said about Obama being sworn in via the Bible. [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 19:19, 22 April 2017 (EDT)
  
No right-thinking people could possible support having a black as President, let alone in their neighborhood. [[User:GodisGreat|GodisGreat]] 15:27, 21 March 2007 (PST).
+
== "Faith" ==
  
I think it would be great if he won, I can't stand Hilary...--[[User:Flax+|Flax+]] 21:32, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
+
I would content that Obama is more of an atheist with islamic tendancies than a muslim. He shows distinct islamic traights and atheistic traits which are ruining are great country . [[User:FFAF|FFAF]] 09:42, 15 January 2015 (EST)
 +
:I agree with that. Muslims dont support abortion or gay marriage like Obama does.--[[User:JoeyJ|JoeyJ]] 11:41, 15 January 2015 (EST)
 +
==Ironic Misspellings==
 +
It's rather ironic that the article mocks Obama for misspelling "Respect" and "Ohio" when it spells "consensus" incorrectly in the preceding paragraph.  [[User:BrodyJorgenson|BrodyJorgenson]] 18:31, 9 April 2015 (CST)
  
I'm one of the most liberal people I know... and I cannot stand the woman.  [[User:GodlessLiberal|GodlessLiberal]] 21:35, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
+
:Leftists are experts in spelling the word consensus given that they so often engage in groupthink! :)[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:47, 9 April 2015 (EDT)
  
In that case, get to those primaries and vote (especially if you live in Iowa or NH). I believe that there are worthy candidates on the Republicans as well, but i want to ensure the best man for the job gets the democratic nomination.--[[User:Fpresjh|Fpresjh]] 23:26, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
+
==Proposal==
 +
I propose all the material on his pre-Presidential careers, and the two election cycles, be spun off to other or new articles, and we focus the damage he's done and legacy in two broad subsections, Domestic and Foreign policy. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 22:25, 14 June 2015 (EDT)
  
To be honest... He would be better than that anti-video gaming [[fascist]]. No offense to anybody. --[[User:Eiyuu Kou|Eiyuu Kou]] 23:27, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
+
==Here's a problem...==
 +
This page took the "Obama is a Muslim" theme and went overboard. '''Now we know that line originated with [[Sidney Blumenthal]] and [[Hillary Clinton]].''' That's why Obama banned Blumenthal from working in the government. I suggest culling ''some'' of it out; while I've no doubt Obama was influneced by both his father and step-father's Islamic heritage and growing up in Indonesia, using what essentially was Blumenthal's trash now not only (1) is counterproductive, and (2) makes CP look foolish while Blumenthal & Hillary skate away unscathed. There is an important lesson here.  Comments? And trust me, if Hillary wins, Blumenthal will be her chief advisor ''for years to come''. Do want those idiots dictating anymore CP content?  [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''#NeverHillary'']]</sup> 14:42, 28 June 2016 (EDT)
  
Personally, I feel Obama may be too inexperienced for the job. However, I still would like to see him elected. In reality, the president doesn't need to be very smart or experienced to BE president. He has a Cabinet of advisors and a whole staff to make decisions for him. Ergo, Obama doesn't really NEED the experience. He's plenty smart enough, and he come off as highly educated and eloquent. Really though, what makes him a good candidate is that he is well liked. What we need right now is a president who is willing to go around to all the European countries we have angered and make kissy-face with them, thus patching up our foreign policy. Hillary isn't going to do that, and I doubt a Republican president would. If we don't get our foreign policy out of the toilet, I think we're going to be in a lot of trouble soon.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 23:32, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
+
:The line didn't originate with Blumenthal, although he contributed to it and passed on e-mails about it.  But anti-Obama people were spreading the "Obama is a Muslim" thing before Blumenthal got to it. Debbie Schlussel was blogging about it before Blumenthal got his hands on it, and she claimed her article was in response to "e-mail questions". It's sort of a perfect storm of a rumor...it mixes fear of Islam with the idea that Obama is somehow "foreign" or "un-American".  So I don't think it's going away. It's easier to slander somebody with made up rumors if you don't care about the facts than it is to criticize actual stuff that President Obama believes and does. So while it lowers the tone of the website, and honestly, is antithetical to what Conservapedia says it stands for, it's not going away any time soon, I don't think.--[[User:Whizkid|Whizkid]] ([[User talk:Whizkid|talk]]) 23:35, 28 June 2016 (EDT)
  
:That reminds me of Bush Jr... --[[User:Eiyuu Kou|Eiyuu Kou]] 23:34, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
+
::
 +
[[File:File:Dollard why believe Obama.png|400px]]
  
::I agree completely!
+
It's easy to conclude Obama is a Muslim by his name. Though the narrative to hit Obama with it is first and foremost propagated by the Clintons. Possibly taking a cue from talk radio.--Jpatt 07:01, 29 June 2016 (EDT)
No person with the name hussein will become president[[User:Albobsman|Albobsman]] 12:53, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
+
:Some of it ought to be culled; it makes CP look stupid to march to Blumenthal & Hillary talking points.  [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''#NeverHillary'']]</sup> 08:29, 29 June 2016 (EDT)
 +
::Please see: [[Counterexamples to Obama being a Muslim]] and http://www.conservapedia.com/Obama%27s_Religion#Counterexamples_to_Obama_being_a_Muslim
 +
:::By the way, many apostates (like his father) keep Muslim names out of tradition.  Obama told TIME that while his father was born a Muslim, his father left Islam before he met his mother.<ref name="spiritual journey">{{Cite news| author=Obama, Barack | title=My Spiritual Journey | url=http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,1546579,00.html | work=TIME | accessdate=September 26, 2008 | quote=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. | date=October 16, 2006}}</ref>Regardless, he has been seen eating during daylight hours of Ramadan (fourth pillar of Islam), ate pork at the White house Easter egg hunt, has not been on Hajj (Fifth pillar), has never been seen praying during Salat times (Second pillar), has a pet dog (banned by Hadiths), has been seen consuming alcoholic beverages at state dinners, and said he is not a Muslim. (Violates first pillar:Shahadah. Muslims must give declaration of their faith and only of their faith. Saying "I'm not a Muslim" automatically makes on an apostate) He was sworn in on a Bible, not the Koran or Hadiths. If he is a Muslim he is probably the worlds worst Muslim--[[User:IluvAviation|IluvAviation]] ([[User talk:IluvAviation|talk]]) 21:30, 1 March 2017 (EST)
  
I understand why American terrorists would want Hussein Obama to be President.  How obtuse can you be not to understand he is the Al-Qaeda candidate?  I will not surrender willingly to Barack Hussein Obama.  [[User:GettingItRight|GettingItRight]] 22:30, 7 November 2007 (EST)
 
::Exactly, because obviously an American sounding name makes a great president. Look at George Walker Bush. [[User:Kip|Kip]] 07:26, 7 March 2008 (EST)
 
  
== Sources ==
+
::I don't believe Obama is a Muslim. The evidence does not support it and there is evidence pointing to him not being a Muslim. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 09:42, 29 June 2016 (EDT)
 +
:::It doesn't matter, I'm saying the amount if space given to speculation and assertion is out of balance. More importantly, Conservapedia should be more careful about taking the bait dangled by Democrat talking points and making a fool of itself. Unless you're content spinning your wheels and marginalizing yourself as extremist.  [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''#NeverHillary'']]</sup> 13:44, 29 June 2016 (EDT)
 +
I don't agree with how Conservapedia handles the Obama/Muslim issue.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 13:50, 29 June 2016 (EDT)
  
Can't we get a better source for his voting record than an opinion piece? [[User:Myk|Myk]] 02:12, 28 March 2007 (EDT)
+
:What difference, at this point, does it make? A sizable chunk of the population believes, right or wrong, that Obama is a secret Muslim. So it trends toward conspiracy and doesn't look flattering to the beholder. The bonus, Conservapedia draws traffic. There is much here that would upset the senses of millions. Oh and Cons, ever since the ape was shot at the Cincinnati Zoo...Rush Limbaugh has been hitting [[Evolution]] on  a regular basis. Good stuff. --Jpatt 21:50, 29 June 2016 (EDT)
 +
::Jpatt, I was thinking the same thing. Obama is a lame duck.  I don't think Andy would be very upset if the "Obama is a Muslim" material is stripped out of the article. On the other hand, he is very sympathetic to Islam so that should remain in the article. He is also not a friend of Israel. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 22:19, 29 June 2016 (EDT)
  
*You can't turn a pigs ear into a silk purse dude......he doesn't have much of one. --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] <sup>[[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]]</sup> 05:27, 3 April 2007 (EDT)
+
:::Obama is a Muslim theme makes headlines on Drudge today [http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3678209/Bill-O-Reilly-reveals-pictures-young-Obama-Islamic-wedding-claims-emotional-attachment-Muslim-world-hurt-USA.html] Americans are interested in this stuff. --Jpatt 09:32, 7 July 2016 (EDT)
  
::I'm not saying how to judge his voting record, I'm saying that an opinion piece doesn't merit a good source. A good rule of thumb is that if there's a little picture next to an article, it's a column or an opinion piece, not an article. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 17:51, 3 April 2007 (EDT)
+
::::He has been seen eating during daylight hours of ramadan (fourth pillar of Islam), ate pork at the White house Easter egg hunt, has not been on Hajj (Fifth pillar), has never been seen praying during salat times (Second pillar), has a pet dog (banned by Hadiths), has been seen consuming alcoholic beverages at state dinners, and said he is not a Muslim. (Violates first pillar:Shahadah. Muslims must give declaration of their faith and only of their faith. Saying "I'm not a Muslim" automatically makes on an apostate) He was sworn in on a Bible, not the Koran or Hadiths. If he is a Muslim he is probably the worlds worst Muslim--[[User:IluvAviation|IluvAviation]] ([[User talk:IluvAviation|talk]]) 21:30, 1 March 2017 (EST)
  
Now that flew right over my head...I even heard the air noise! --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] <sup>[[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]]</sup> 19:50, 3 April 2007 (EDT)
+
== Frank Marshall Davis ==
  
 +
Barack Sr.'s papers were recently released. The letters cover 1958 to 1964, but "Barack Obama Sr. never mentioned his new wife and son, not even in his scholarship applications," as the ''[http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/19/nyregion/letters-by-and-about-barack-obamas-father.html?_r=1  New York Times]'' puts it. On Barack Sr's student loan application, the section concerning family was left blank. He already had a wife and children back in Kenya when he married Ann Dunham, so it's possible the marriage was a sham. [http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/kincaid/160623 This article] makes the case that communist writer Frank Marshall Davis was Obama's biological father. From the pictures given, the president certainly looks a whole lot more like Davis than he does like Barack Sr. None of the reasons for suspecting Davis actually nail the thing down, but it's the most plausible theory I am aware of. The article implies that it's a political cover up, but surely no one expected little Obama to go into politics when he was born. Davis was already married and single motherhood was a scandal. The sham marriage protected Barack Jr from bastard status. [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 21:51, 19 July 2016 (EDT)
  
# I asked for people who were going to discuss his voting record to use an actual source, not an opinion piece as it is now
+
== Birth location "reportedly" ==
# You made a joke about his lack of a voting record
+
# I said that wasn't what I was talking about, I was talking about sources.  Columns, op-eds, editorials are not sources. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 20:26, 3 April 2007 (EDT)
+
  
*Oh, okay, so my cracking a joke meant I didn't understand what you meant, and might have distracted the readers, so they wouldn't know either? Got it. --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] <sup>[[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]]</sup> 09:30, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
+
A suspicious Hawaii "Certificate of Live Birth" (''not'' the same as a birth certificate), with a ''Connecticut'' Social Security number (a SSN to my knowledge is always from the birth state) and airline records which seem to indicate Barry ("Barack") Obama's mother came to Hawaii three days ''after'' his birth all make the statement of his birth location suspicious at best.  I believe that it is being generous to Obama to say that he was "reportedly born" there, so I don't think this word should be removed. If there is proof that he surely was born here, then sure, take it out.  For now, let's not be arbitrary when it isn't clear.  I apprecate your contributions, but with controversial issues like this, please provide sufficient reliable proof when making such an edit.   Thanks! --[[User:DavidB4|<font color="ForestGreen">David B</font>]] <sup><small>([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]])</small></sup> 16:10, 26 July 2016 (EDT)
::From the ass' butt to it's mouth, http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/vote_menu_109_1.htm for last session. --[[User:Rob Pommer| Cracker]]<sub>[[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|talk]]</sub> 09:39, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
+
  
== Recommend ==
+
Long form birth certificate can be found here: https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/rss_viewer/birth-certificate-long-form.pdf. No social security number on it, because that is assigned from the SSA, not the hospital. I'm not sure where the information on the flights come from. What proof is required?
  
[[Conservapedia:Manual_of_Style/Politicians]] - [[User:Myk|Myk]] 02:18, 3 April 2007 (EDT)
+
:The process of concealing, concealing, concealing and then releasing something widely criticized as being inadequate creates enough doubt to let the readers decide.  A pattern of [[liberal denial]] on other issues, such as [[Obama's Religion]], undermines credibility of the [[liberal media]] as it cheerleads for Obama.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 09:24, 27 July 2016 (EDT)
  
==Breaking News!!!!==
+
::The cartoon image inserted in the upper right of this talk page is actually a pretty good checklist.  As far as the birth certificate issue goes, this is an certificate of live birth.  As [http://thelawdictionary.org/article/difference-between-birth-certificate-and-certificate-of-live-birth/ this article] explains, a certificate of live birth is largely unverified by the government.  It is simple a record which states a person is alive, and parent information.  In many cases, this document is enough for personal identification and passport application, but it is not really verified.  These can be registered after birth, so Mrs. Obama could have easily registered it after his birth in another country.  Additionally, there is still question as to whether his certificate of live birth is actually genuine. [http://www.infowars.com/new-obama-birth-certificate-is-a-forgery] [http://beforeitsnews.com/obama-birthplace-controversy/2015/01/obama-birth-certificate-a-forgery-mathematical-proof-2-2485352.html]  Some in fact believe that he was first an Indonesian citizen [http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2012/11/05/was-obama-once-an-indonesian-citizen-heres-what-we-found-when-we-went-there-looking] He has reported having been born in a hospital, which would have seen to getting him an official birth certificate, but yet this did not happen.  And actually, he can't make up his mind which hospital he was born in since he has named two different ones. [http://www.obamacrimes.com/p/obamas-birth-history.html]
 +
::As for the airline records, apparently someone reported this discrepancy, but when officials went to look, they found that the immigration records for that week [http://www.wnd.com/2012/03/immigration-records-missing-for-week-of-obamas-birth/ mysteriously vanished].
 +
::There are other factors worth considering, such as an article which Barack Hussein Obama published as U.S. Senate hopeful in 2004 in which he self-identified as having been born in Kenya. Newsmax has another list [http://www.newsmax.com/FastFeatures/Barack-Obama-Citizenship-Scandal-Birth-Certificate/2015/01/28/id/621307/ here], if you want to do a little further reading.
  
Barack has just raised 25 million dollars for his campaign making his in competiton with Hiliary Clinton!!  [http:// http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17946727/25 million!!!!]
+
::As for what proof I would like to see, I would say:
 +
::*An authenticated Birth Certificate
 +
::*The missing immigration records
 +
::*The hospital records
 +
::...and any other records available which would prove this claim.
  
== Controversial ? ==
+
::I'm not trying to attack you by saying all this, but I'm just saying that there is still significant question in this matter. --[[User:DavidB4|<font color="ForestGreen">David B</font>]] <sup><small>([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]])</small></sup> 09:38, 27 July 2016 (EDT)
  
Why is Barack Obama's biographical entry a "controversial" topic for Conservapedia, and locked out from editing?
+
::Also, there are sworn affidavits of [http://www.wethepeoplefoundation.org/PROJECTS/Obama/Evidence/AFFIDAVIT-Bishop.pdf Bishop Ron McRae] and [http://www.wethepeoplefoundation.org/PROJECTS/Obama/Evidence/AFFIDAVITexhibit2.pdf Kweli Shuhubia] which further indicate he was born in KenyaKweli Shuhubia's affidavit includes partial transcript of an audio recording of Obama's grandmother stating she attended Obama's birth in Kenya. --[[User:DavidB4|<font color="ForestGreen">David B</font>]] <sup><small>([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]])</small></sup> 09:46, 27 July 2016 (EDT)
:Because people who don't feel like contributing useful information see fit to compare his name to those of terrorists. [[User:GodlessLiberal|GodlessLiberal]] 20:42, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
+
::It was vandalized twice in 48 hoursI asked for it to be unlocked. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 20:43, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
+
:::OK.  It look presentable.  I left in the material about how liberal he is, though I doubt its value.  At least it looks nice. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 01:44, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
+
  
*The political leanings of any politician are the most important of allTheir stated goals mean nothing, their idealogy everything. --~ [[User:TK|Sysop-TerryK]] <sup>[[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]]</sup> 01:57, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
+
David, this birther stuff is just a big steaming pile of garbage.  No one believes it any more, except utter nutcases.  I know you are a smart and productive person.  If you have gotten caught up in this, you need to re-evaluate / recalibrate your mental processes of deciding what is true.
 +
''No one'', except total fruitcakes, believes any of this stuff.  Absolutely convincing evidence has been out there for years by now.
 +
If you want to investigate the issue on your own, I suggest that you start with:
 +
*The "Barry Soetoro" nonsense.  Do you see the absurdity underlying it?
 +
*The "E.F. Lavender" / "You've been punked" document.  If you have investigated the issue, you are no doubt familiar with this.
 +
*The forged picture of the sign "Welcome to Kenya, birthplace of Barack Obama", along with the picture of the actual sign(I don't remember the exact wording.)  These pictures were making the rounds of the internet a few years ago.  The forged one was actually uploaded to Conservapedia a few years ago, with no awareness of irony, and appeared in one of the articles. I was about to upload the correct sign, and put it next to the forged one, with a caption of "The issue of Obama's birth location inflames passions so much that people even forge pictures of signs, such as the one on the right."  But, alas, more sensible heads prevailed at Conservapedia, and the whole thing was taken down before I could get to it.
 +
*Sherrif Arpaio's investigation.  What became of that?  What did WND have to say about it?
 +
*The disposition of case 8-cv-04083, alluded to above.  It was dismissed "on the grounds that [plaintiff] lacks standing and failed to state a cognizable claim".
 +
*The well-financed investigation that a very wealthy person said he was conducting.  What became of that?  Over the last few years, this person ahs repeatedly said, when asked about it, the he doesn't want to talk about it.
 +
David, you can do better than getting caught up in an incredibly nonsensical conspiracy theory like this.
 +
[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 11:36, 30 July 2016 (EDT)
  
 +
:You're right, there is evidence against this as well as for.  It's not my intention to make a big deal about it, since it it irrelevant at this point, but there is still suspicion surrounding this.  I don't have much time, but wanted to post a brief response.  Since I haven't time to put my disjointed thoughts into paragraph form, here are my points:
 +
:*Not sure what you are referring to as the "E.F. Lavender" / "You've been punked" document
 +
:::I didn't expect you to know about it.  It's about the weird ways these "facts" make their way into the birthers' heads.  It was a photograph (cropped, but the originator didn't say that at first) that someone planted as evidence that BHO was born in Kenya.  It was obviously fraudulent&mdash;it listed the birth city as a place not in Kenya at the time.  (Mombassa?  I don't remember the details.)  It was signed by "E.F. Lavender", which was apparently an old brand of laundry detergent or something.  None of that stopped the birthers from latching onto it as "evidence".  The prankster then released an uncropped version of the same photograph&mdash;I believe it was laid out on a bed or something&mdash;with a sign below it saying "You've been punked!"
 +
:*I probably know about the case 8-cv-04083, but I don't know it by the number.
 +
:::It was the case involving the affidavit of a transcript of a statement from the grandmother or whatever.  You can Google the case number.
 +
:*Sherrif Arpaio's investigation ended when all the evidence became unavailable
 +
:::How convenient that he was able to end his "investigation" so cleanly.
 +
:*I hope that most people would realize that for Kenya to make a sign like that is...a stretch, at best
 +
:::Yes, it's utterly incredible.  But it was displayed here at Conservapedia for a while.
 +
:*The released birth certificate contains digital layers and frames, even though it is supposedly a scanned-in document.  That simply can't happen with a scanner alone. (This can be verified by view the officially published certificate, as linked to above)
 +
:::Have you downloaded the alleged document from the white house source and analyzed it, or are you willing to take the word of a birther?
 +
:*As I mentioned before, a S.S. number always comes from your birth state.  Some real monkey business would be required for someone to have a Certificate of Live Birth from one state, and a S.S. number from another.
 +
:::Do you know what BHO's social security number is?  I believe they are confidential, even when you are President.  Isn't it convenient that people can nevertheless claim that they know it and that it is fraudulent?
  
:I don't disagree, but I doubt the veracity of saying X is Y more liberal than ZLiberalness is not a quanitfiable valueThere are better ways to describe his political agenda than by saying "look who he is more liberal than." [[User:Myk|Myk]] 01:59, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
+
:::The indented interleaved comments in the above paragraph were written by me, SamHBIt is a common practice on wikis to use this kind of indented reply format when replying to specific points in another person's postThat's really what wiki indentation is for, and wiki users know that. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 13:27, 31 July 2016 (EDT)
  
:*Well, Myk, it's your MSM who does it, the Liberal news organizations, lol. --~ [[User:TK|Sysop-TerryK]] <sup>[[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]]</sup> 02:01, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
+
:I'll concede in this case, but I can't agree with what the liberal media has declared about this. It is almost pointless though, since he has already gotten all he wants from the race card, and he's set for life. I will agree that the left tried to make his critics look like fools by withholding then releasing the certificate.  I wasn't going to fall for it then, but now that it is out, anyone with [[Photoshop]] or [[Paint.NET]] can see that something's fishy about the "document."--[[User:DavidB4|<font color="ForestGreen">David B</font>]] <sup><small>([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]])</small></sup> 13:42, 30 July 2016 (EDT)
 +
::Is it any surprise that SamHB (who actually agrees with what the liberal media says and condescends to anyone who doesn't agree with his POV - notably in calling those who legitimately question where Obama was born "birthers", "nutcases" and "fruitcakes" and calling the question itself a "nonsensical conspiracy theory" in [[Liberal Style#Debate and rhetorical tactics|typical liberal fashion]]) is yet again attempting to impose a liberal viewpoint on this website (and in this case, on both the main page and the talk page of this article) by pulling legit doubts about Obama's birthplace from the main article without justifiable reason, then also broke up the flow of DavidB4's previous post on the issue on the talk page by not only inserting his own liberal POV in between each of David's points (per [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Barack_Hussein_Obama&curid=9967&diff=1267762&oldid=1267703 this post]), but not even bothering to sign his post (both actions in poor form)? Such actions as those typically smack of desperation on the part of the Obama defenders to keep their "messiah" looking squeaky-clean when plenty of evidence provided over time (including Obama's own well-documented actions) says otherwise. [[User:Northwest|Northwest]] ([[User talk:Northwest|talk]]) 07:53, 31 July 2016 (EDT)
 +
::::Well, that was indeed one long sentence you've got there, 839 characters.  But it can't beat my 1054 character sentence in [[Talk:Rugby_School]].  AlanE and I were joking around.
 +
::::I was only commenting about the Obama birthplace issue, not about whether to keep a "messiah" looking squeaky-clean.  [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 13:27, 31 July 2016 (EDT)
 +
:::::Ridicule is a form of [[Saul Alinsky#The Alinsky Method|Alinskyism]] (a favorite fallback of liberals when they can't refute the truth or formulate rational arguments) and only makes the one doing the ridiculing look foolish. [[User:Northwest|Northwest]] ([[User talk:Northwest|talk]]) 22:21, 31 July 2016 (EDT)
  
::I don't know if I'd call the National Journal, a publication with an almost $2000 per year subscription rate, mainstreamI tend to avoid it when I hear it, just as I tend to avoid editorial commentaryA far better judge of whether or not a candidate fits your bill is to look issue by issueAnd it may be the "Main Stream Media" that started it, but it was the Rocky Mountain News which reported it (in a column) and Conservapedia who repeated it. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 02:21, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
+
:::Might as well add something to the bit. I remember there being a PDF of some documentation from Kenya that actually confirmed that Obama was born in Kenya. I'll try to dig it out. [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 11:01, 31 July 2016 (EDT)
 +
:::I haven't found the PDF yet, but I think I may have found an even bigger smoking gun, something not even SamHB could possibly deny: http://thepowerhour.com/news4/obama_kenyan_birth_certificate.htm [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 11:05, 31 July 2016 (EDT)
 +
::::YES!! You found it!  Congratulations.  It's as I remembered itLaid out on a towel or bedspread or whatever on a bed.  I had assumed that this bit of history was long gone.  But the internet is forever!  The writing in this picture is hard to read; a cleaner copy may be found at http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthers/kenyacert.aspThough that copy has Orly Taitz's (Remember her?  Probably the original birther) web site superimposed on it.  You can clearly see the "E.F. Lavender" name.
 +
::::Whatever you may think of the political views of the Snopes people, the article makes fascinating reading.  They even found the person (an Australian named David Jeffrey Bomford) whose birth certificate provided the basis for the forgery.  I believe the later "You've been punked" picture came out on the long-defunct ''Top 10 Conservative Idiots'' website.
 +
::::Ah, yes.  Orly Taitz.  Birthers.  The whole thing is entertaining.  That is, the fact that people still believe this stuff is entertaining.  But those intelligent and sensible people at Conservapedia (meaning DavidB4 and Pokeria1) should move on.  Donald Trump has.  [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 13:04, 31 July 2016 (EDT)
 +
:::::Wasn't Snopes.com filled with errors, though, at least, that's what this site's article stated when it said, and I quote, "Snopes.com is a website devoted to collecting and debunking urban legends. It was started in 1997, run by husband and wife team Barbara and David Mikkelson. '''It is filled with numerous, intentionally inaccurate information because the Mikkelson's have no formal background or experience in investigative research.'''"?
 +
:::::And honestly, why is a liberal like SamHB on a site like Conservapedia? Shouldn't there be some form of a vetting process for new members to make sure they aren't liberal? [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 13:57, 31 July 2016 (EDT)
 +
::::::To me, the test of being a "conservative" or a "liberal" is a philosophy of government and how it applies to economic and social issues.  The location of President Obama's birth is a fact that is proven with evidence.  Your conclusion on this issue has nothing to do with whether you can be labelled as a conservative or liberal.  To be fair, SamHB is not "a new member" of Conservapedia and has been around for many years. [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 14:25, 31 July 2016 (EDT)
 +
:::::::Maybe not, but if it walks, talks, and quacks like a duck - it's a duck. Same thing with liberals (which SamHB has shown himself to be time and again). [[User:Northwest|Northwest]] ([[User talk:Northwest|talk]]) 22:21, 31 July 2016 (EDT)
  
::How is this locked? I can still edit this. Maybe that's because i have proven myself in being able to see Obama for the wonderous person he really is. Or not (since i may get banned for a comment like that, him being a non-conservative)--[[User:Fpresjh|Fpresjh]] 01:13, 8 April 2007 (EDT)
+
I can't speak for the photo of a supposed birth certificate. It seems a little convenient, but I won't discount it.  Snopes is certainly wrong at times.  Just because they put a red circle with an "X" on it next to a claim doesn't make the claim false.  To unquestioningly accept this would be as much an error as to accept everything in the newspaper.<br />
 +
There are many reports which are hard to verify, and even more telling, the lack of many records which should exist. (For example, why does no school have a record of him attending much less graduating their institution, even though he claims he did?  There are liberal institutions, so they would not attempt to harm him by burying such records.)  I still maintain that the official birth certificate is its own poof of fraud.  Anyone with photo editing skills can see that it is composed of multiple image layers.  These layers are generated with modification of a digital image, and can never be created by scanning in a document.  The "scan," therefore, is clearly more than just a scan.<br />
 +
Pokeria1, Conservapedia does allow liberal members, as long as they do not undermine the conservative point of view of CP.  SamHB has made many helpful contributions, so I don't think it's entirely fair to question whether he should even be allowed to be here. Although I disagree with him on this, I think his suggestion still is worth listening to--move on.  He's already deceived the public, trashed the country, and proven that the system has become a joke.  Complaining about it now will not help, but we will need to be all the more vigilant in the future.  He's proved it can be done, so who will be the next to try? --[[User:DavidB4|<font color="ForestGreen">David B</font>]] <sup><small>([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]])</small></sup> 12:38, 29 September 2016 (EDT)
  
::Things change on a wiki, dudeIt got unlocked. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 09:47, 8 April 2007 (EDT)
+
==This one's in the can==
 +
I'm gonna start structuring this artic!e for posterity now that Obama's riding off to the rendering plant. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''#NeverHillary'']]</sup> 02:33, 22 November 2016 (EST)
 +
:Obama is a relatively young and healthy man who will probably do much more in his careerLook at Jimmy Carter's post-Presidency. [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 05:28, 22 November 2016 (EST)
 +
::Yep. He started with an apology tour and ended preaching American excrptionalism in Peru the other day. I guess he has grown. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''#NeverHillary'']]</sup> 08:19, 22 November 2016 (EST)
 +
As one pundit summed it up with a classic baby boomer idiom: ''"Obama was like a nine year bad trip on bad drugs."'' [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''#NeverHillary'']]</sup> 10:24, 10 January 2017 (EST)
  
== Goofy Article ==
+
== If he is a Muslim, he is not a very good one ==
  
I understand that B.O. hits a lot of people's hot buttons, but this article is a mess"half-African, half-Caucasian"? What's up with that?  Why not use the generally-accepted and perfectly accurate term "African-American"? Or ditch it altogether, unless we're going to start classifying all politicos by race/ethnicity ("Irish-Caucasoid Ted Kennedy", or "Texan-American George Bush")Better still, ignore the race issue until it is relevant to the article ("Obama is the the first African-American to...")
+
He has been seen eating during daylight hours of ramadan (fourth pillar of Islam), ate pork at the White house Easter egg hunt, has not been on Hajj (Fifth pillar), has never been seen praying during salat times (Second pillar), has a pet dog (banned by Hadiths), has been seen consuming alcoholic beverages at state dinners, and said he is not a Muslim. (Violates first pillar:ShahadahMuslims must give declaration of their faith and only of their faith. Saying "I'm not a Muslim" automatically makes on an apostate) He was sworn in on a Bible, not the Koran or HadithsIf he is a Muslim he is probably the worlds worst Muslim.--[[User:IluvAviation|IluvAviation]] ([[User talk:IluvAviation|talk]]) 21:19, 1 March 2017 (EST)
 +
:Obama's religion is self-worship. He once defined sin as, “Being out of alignment with my values.” To thine own hype be true. [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 21:39, 1 March 2017 (EST)
  
Too, do we really need three sentences establishing Obama's exact degree of liberlosity? Can't we just say "liberal Democrat", or just describe his positions ("show, don't tell").--[[User:WJThomas|WJThomas]] 11:36, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
+
::He is at the very least a sympathizer. Don't forget, though, that it is permitted to lie to infidels to further the cause. --[[User:DavidB4|<font color="ForestGreen">David B</font>]] <sup>([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]])</sup> 22:54, 1 March 2017 (EST)
  
*I took all that away once, have been overruled by another Sysop, evidentlyI changed it back once, to African-American, but some felt it important to note he was MulattoAn archaic term, if ever there was one.  Mixed-race would be acceptable today. --~ [[User:TK|Sysop-TerryK]] <sup>[[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]]</sup> 02:00, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
+
:::Eating bacon and having a pet dog aren't exactly acceptable to further the causeIf he was a true Muslim he wouldn't eat pork out of fear because it is considered uncleanThe Koran gives a short list of excuses for not fasting during Ramadan (Pregnant, menstruating...) but trying to prove one is not a Muslim is not on the list.--[[User:IluvAviation|IluvAviation]] ([[User talk:IluvAviation|talk]]) 16:46, 2 March 2017 (EST)
  
== Michael Richards and Jimmy the Greek ==
+
::::Yeah, and besides, considering his birth father was pretty blatantly a Marxist, it's extremely unlikely that either Barack Obama Sr. OR his son would have adhered to Islam. More likely than not, Barack Obama just cynically adopted the "religion" for votes. [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 17:27, 2 March 2017 (EST)
 +
:::::If we go by Obama's memoirs, he was brought up as a non-religious Marxist, a so called "red diaper baby," and was converted to Christianity by Jeremiah Wright. After Wright criticized Obama, Obama "threw him under the bus" and prosecuted the man's daughter.[http://www.nbcnews.com/news/crime-courts/daughter-jeremiah-wright-convicted-fraud-scheme-n47841] As I understand it, they worshiped together at the First Church of Getting Even.<br/>As for Obama's birth father, I assume that was married party member Frank Davis. Obama Sr. already had a family back in Kenya. [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 21:12, 2 March 2017 (EST)
 +
You don't have to be a church going Muslim to be a Muslim. All you have to do is reject the idea [https://www.al-islam.org/principles-shiite-creed-ayatullah-ibrahim-amini/lesson-6-god-one-and-has-no-partner God has partners] like Jesus, and reject the notion of [[national sovereignty]] as evil, Satanic, and blasphemy. That any law or government that purports to rule over you and your Christ-rejecting brethren, is an enemy of Allah and Allah has decreed to destroy using any means necessary, including lies, deciet, and fraudulent oaths to gain their confidence. These attitudes is all it takes to be a Muslim and do Allah's will. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|CIA vs Trump. Who's gonna win?]]</sup> 22:26, 3 March 2017 (EST)
 +
::::: "You don't have to be a church going Muslim to be a Muslim. All you have to do is reject the idea [https://www.al-islam.org/principles-shiite-creed-ayatullah-ibrahim-amini/lesson-6-god-one-and-has-no-partner God has partners]"  So what if somebody does not believe in a god or diety at all, would that make them a muslim?  No, Islam has a strict set of rules (Primarily declaring that the only god is Allah and Muhammed was his messenger)--[[User:IluvAviation|IluvAviation]] ([[User talk:IluvAviation|talk]]) 15:35, 4 March 2017 (EST)
 +
::::::One of those strict rules is the doctrine of ''takfirism'', or 'once a Muslim always a Muslim', with the threat of death hanging over would-be defectors. This is why so few, if any, alleged Muslim socialists and atheists publicly foreswear Islam. So yes, it is possible for a Muslim secularist, atheist, or socialist to still be considered or identified as a Muslim. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|CIA vs Trump. Who's gonna win?]]</sup> 18:17, 4 March 2017 (EST)
 +
:::::::I'm pretty sure that if you adhere to Atheism, you automatically cut off ties to your religion just for adhering to it, whether it be Christianity or Islam. That's why I'm not so sure about whether ''takfirism'' truly applies. I know if I were a Muslim and someone did become an atheist, I'd target them all the same even when they haven't openly renounced their faith precisely because I view even becoming an atheist as meaning you gave it up regardless if it isn't explicitly stated. [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 18:59, 4 March 2017 (EST)
 +
:::::::::No, they would not be automatically cutoff from the body of believers. First, the imams would have to investigate. Then, after being found in sin, the wayward Muslim is supposed to be admonished and given time to repent. Then finally, if they continue in sin, the execution is ordered.
 +
:::::::::However today, since bin Laden revolutionized things, the scholars and religious authorities can be by passed, and low level rank and file Muslims can expedite the whole process without consulting higher-up religious authorities. But as ever, if a Muslim socialist or atheist knows in the end he will be found guilty of sin and rejecting the truth of Islam, and knowing he's surrounded by 1.2 billion true believers, he has no interest in denying or rejecting his Muslim identity.
 +
:::::::::Furthermore, Muslims are granted license to lie and deceive non-Muslims, denying the faith to non-Muslims being an example.[[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|CIA vs Trump. Who's gonna win?]]</sup> 22:50, 4 March 2017 (EST)
 +
::::::::::Yeah, I know about taqqiya, but I'm pretty sure in this particular case, even being an atheist at all, even if you still lay claim publicly that you are a muslim, would be reason enough to get your head removed. I know if it were me, I'd been muslim, and someone became an atheist even in secret, I wouldn't even care if he's still publicly a muslim, I'd still kill him under the reason of him adhering to atheism at all. [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 16:30, 5 March 2017 (EST)
 +
:::::::::::Just because somebody had a Muslim father that was barely present doesn't make them a Muslim.  Remember, he was raised by his mother, who was not a Muslim.  And regardless of Islamic law, one can be an ex-Muslim without going through the ''takfirism'' process: one merely has to stop all praying, stop all fasting, and live a normal secular life.  Many people leave Islam without shouting from the rooftops that they are not a practicing Muslim anymore:  a gallup poll showed 5% of Saudis are atheists.  (Remember, prayer upon the call the prayer is mandatory in the KSA, apostacy is punishable by death.  It is a dishonor to 1,441,500 atheists in the KSA some have a habit of calling Muslims in ordinance of Islamic law, when they self-admit to being atheists.)  There are documented cases of Muslims converting to Christianity without going through the takfirism process.  Takfirism is for if you live in an Islamic nation with an Islamic criminal code.  The US does not on the preise of your argument that Obama was ever a Muslim; most American Muslims who become atheists just stop going to masjid, stop praying, stop fasting.  After all, if you are an atheist, why would you testify before the congregation of your masjid that you are an atheist an face humilitaion and worse when you could just cut of all contact and move?  Does the atheist who quietly leaves their masjid qualify as "still a Muslim" to you?--[[User:IluvAviation|IluvAviation]] ([[User talk:IluvAviation|talk]]) 19:45, 6 March 2017 (EST)
  
Why are we discussing Michael Richards (not Kramer by the way) and Jimmy the Greek (real name Jimmy Snyder) on Barack Obama's page?  The Boston Globe criticized him, black leaders criticized him... that's relevant.  Imus' career and the issues surround Richards and Snyder are not. I would change this myself but it was protected again. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 13:02, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
+
Muslims don't go to churches. They go to mosques. :) I think all the wrangling about Obama's religion will largely cease once the dust settles about the fate of ObamaCare. I think the public's interest in Obama will wane if large changes happen to ObamaCare or it its repealed and replaced.  
  
:And while it's still off topic here, it might be pertinent for the [[Don Imus]] article to note that CBS Radio suspended him for two weeks, not a few affiliates. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 13:07, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
+
But I could be wrong. Liberals are often more active in politics than conservatives and maybe Obama will still crave the power/spotlight since he is a egotist/narcissist and take actions to retain the spotlight. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 16:13, 4 March 2017 (EST)
  
::TK, please tell me where Obama's intellect vs. the intellect of civil rights leaders is mentioned in the source.  And please tell me why refering to the old civil rights era is not redundant as the civil rights era is generally considered to be the era of MLK, Malcolm X, and Rosa Parks.  That's already old, TK. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 16:47, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
+
==Footnotes==
 +
{{reflist}}
  
:::Perhaps to you, perhaps to me, but not necessarily to readers.  Our "job" is to make things clear for them, not us. I think my change to old-guard makes it much clearer. Your additions were borderline denigration, to Hill's advantage, I would say. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] <sup>[[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]]</sup> 16:50, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
+
== Title ==
  
::::So this is a wiki.  We create a link for Civil Rights Era and then we make the article. His disconnection from Civil Rights figures is well publicized, just google Sharpton AND Obama. Or Obama AND black AND enough.  Never is his intellect brought up. That's your opinion and is not sourcedI have no reason to want to support Hillary Clinton. Never been a fan. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 16:57, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
+
Why is the page title "Barack Hussein Obama" when even George W. Bush's page title is just "George W. Bush"
 +
:My best explanation is that his middle name is known or used, like how our page title for L. Frank Baum isn't Lyman F. Baum or L. F. Baum because that's what he was calledBy the way, please try to sign your comments with the signature tool above.--[[User:Abcqwe|Abcqwe]] ([[User talk:Abcqwe|talk]]) 20:05, 31 March 2017 (EDT)
 +
:: Same reason Hilary Rodham Clinton is named what it is - so CP doesn't have to compete with Wikipedia for results. I'm for Barack Hussein "Piece o' Crap" Obama as more befitting his legacy, however. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''CIA v Trump updated score'':CIA 3, Trump 2]]</sup> 20:48, 31 March 2017 (EDT)
  
*Someone reading his curriculum vitae cannot escape his intellect, no?  Since we currently have in place a "Civil Rights" leadership, it isn't necessairly old, is it?  Jackson and Sharpton (both bigots, IMO) are from the old-guard civil rights era, and that is germain, is it not, since Obama's age was brought into the argument?  Are you really incensed at that one word addition, which is sourced by the rest of the page, or that it was me adding to it?  I will be happy to add a cite for what you consider an assumption, later today.  --~ [[User:TK|TK]] <sup>[[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]]</sup> 17:02, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
+
== Yup, he's gay ==
  
:::::I just think it's redundant. His disconnect is with the era. He was too young to participate in it and as he is not a descendant of slaves, he is considered to not be a part of the CRE culture. As for the intellect thing, that has no part of his disconnection.  You are either saying Obama is smarter or stupider than Civil Rights Leaders, something of which you have no proof. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 17:09, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
+
Now that Obama is no longer president, we can finally say the obvious. This author is no birther or conspiracy theorist. He wrote a Pulitzer-prize winning MLK bio: "[http://dailycaller.com/2017/04/26/new-biography-young-obama-considered-gayness-amazon1/ New Biography: Young Obama ‘Considered Gayness’]." [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 10:19, 27 April 2017 (EDT)
 +
:Take a look at the picture of Obama and Branson and tell me they aren't gay:[http://cdn01.dailycaller.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/2017-02-07T153633Z_1_LYNXMPED160Y8_RTROPTP_4_PEOPLE-BRANSON-OBAMA-e1493240389754.jpg] [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 22:56, 27 April 2017 (EDT)
 +
::I suspect in coming months as we get more tell-books, more will come out. It's never been a secret in Chicago or Washington. What prevents both of them. <s>Michael</s> Michelle and Barack from coming out is how the public will react. No problem. Let's play along. Wait and see. If the two wish to continue being ashamed of themselves, leave them alone. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''The coup plotters won, for now'']]</sup> 01:10, 28 April 2017 (EDT)
 +
:::Cool story, Rob. Thanks to Trump, the Obamas' stock is so high with liberals, they could both come out as pan-galactic reptilian shapeshifters and still receive ticker tape parades in every major east coast and west coast city.
  
*Myk, the "proof" that Obama is "smarter" is in the public record, IMO. Disconnect is a pejorative word, used by reporter and political scum to smear people without appearing to overtly do so. Did you not know that? --~ [[User:TK|TK]] <sup>[[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]]</sup> 17:12, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
+
:::Hell, even Dubya's looking good in comparison to the straw-thatched self-publicist you voted for in November. Buckle up for the mid-terms, my man. It's not going to be pretty. [[User:JohnZ|JohnZ]] ([[User talk:JohnZ|talk]]) 15:55, 28 April 2017 (EDT)
**I read the article to say Obama wants to be known as a "national leader", not a "Black leader", to paraphrase moreless. Hence a sort of parting of the ways with traditional well known "Black civil rights leaders", so to speak. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:24, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
+
::::An Obama speech is worth more than a Clinton speech-he's lucky she lost, he'd be picking up cans right now for a living. Midterms are a long long way off. Trump critics take what he say's literally but not seriously; Trump supporters take him seriously but not literally. Never mind tho, he's already a captive of the [[Deep State]]. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''The coup plotters won, for now'']]</sup> 17:42, 28 April 2017 (EDT)
 +
::::Yeah, JohnZ, it won't be pretty, alright - for the Democrats, as their supporters' (the liberal media, Hollywood celebs, Antifa, etc.) current antics end up losing them even more governorships, Congress and Senate seats, mayors' offices, etc. to the GOP. [[User:Northwest|Northwest]] ([[User talk:Northwest|talk]]) 18:48, 28 April 2017 (EDT)
 +
Obama is not some evil genius who is hiding being a homosexual. At best, he is a bisexual. Last time I checked, he is married with two children.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 18:46, 25 November 2017 (EST)
 +
:You need to check closer. The Obama's aren't just the first Black First Family, their the first gay married First Family and gay adopted First kids. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']]</sup> 04:36, 26 November 2017 (EST)
 +
:To be fair, Conservative, Elton John was married to a woman and had kids with her once, yet he most certainly was gay, so him being married and having children isn't necessarily something that would rule him out as being gay. [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 06:34, 26 November 2017 (EST)
 +
::Those kids aren't sisters. Look closely. Their skin tones don't match and the shape of their heads is entirely different. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']]</sup> 08:38, 26 November 2017 (EST)
 +
::::One of the many limitations of the internet is the difficulty in conveying sarcasm or satire unambiguously in text form; of course this is not a new problem, as Jonathan Swift well knew. So I'm not clear as to whether you consider this tale a lighthearted bit of satire that no one should take seriously, like the leftists who claim that Ted Cruz was the Zodiac Killer despite his being born after the murders, or whether this is a sincere belief of yours, or whether you believe that this is a narrative that is useful to promulgate in retaliation for narratives promulgated against others, e.g. "(y)ou backoff your scandalmongering nonsense and I'll backoff mine" as you said in the Pizzagate discussion. I realize that explaining a joke usually destroys it, and I wouldn't normally step on another person's joke, but it does seem that an admin here has taken your argument at face value and may suffer embarrassment as a result. On the other hand, it may be I who should be embarrassed, mistaking genuine sentiment for sarcasm or tactical scandalmongering nonsense.--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] ([[User talk:Brossa|talk]]) 15:34, 26 November 2017 (EST)
 +
:::These are the letters Obama wrote to his college girlfriend.[https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/10/20/letters-barack-obama-wrote-his-college-girlfriend/783438001/]
  
:::Agreed. He views things, seemingly, unlike the older leaders, as not just black and white issues.  Obviously due to his age, upbringing in a multi-cultural society, and his education....--~ [[User:TK|TK]] <sup>[[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]]</sup> 17:29, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
+
:::Obama is not an evil genius who cleverly covered up being a homosexual. See also: [[Fallacy of exclusion]] Obama's bio suggests someone who was arrogant, corrupt and lacked competence for the office of the presidency.  Not some evil genius.
  
::::Still, by referring to leadership in quotes, and comparing their intellect unfavorably to Obama's you are painting a whole bunch of folks with a wide pejorative brush.  Jackson and Sharpton are not representative of the whole of the CRE activists. And, of course, the Obama entry is not the appropriate place for a broadside against JJ, AS, and so forth.--[[User:WJThomas|WJThomas]] 17:38, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
+
:::If you read the Conservapedia's [[homosexuality]] article you will see that a person's sexual behavior is not caste in stone. Hence, the existence of bisexuals and [[ex-homosexuals]]. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 09:46, 26 November 2017 (EST)
  
*Agreed, WJT, however they are allowed/painted/claimed to be "the leaders" both in the press and educational circles. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] <sup>[[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]]</sup> 17:44, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
+
::::Okay, fair enough. Still... considering his radical left-leaning views, I'm doubtful he's going to be an ex-homosexual (IF he's gay anyways) in any case, being too far to the left to even consider renouncing it. [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 10:01, 26 November 2017 (EST)
**This is indeed an important point, Obama's greatest fear is being marginalized as just another "Black leader"; he's counting on what Republicans call the 'color blind society" to elevate him as an equal, respected national figure and leader. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:48, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
+
Elton John said he was a [[bisexual]] (Bisexual refers to a person with both heterosexual and homosexual desires.).[http://www.rollingstone.com/music/lists/the-25-boldest-career-moves-in-rock-history-20110318/elton-john-comes-out-of-the-closet-20110323] He did not say he was a [[homosexual]] who exclusively had sex with males.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]])
  
::Well he certainly has my attention and support in doing that, and ridding us at long last of the hobgoblins of the past, and wresting the power away from the merchants of fear and hate. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] <sup>[[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]]</sup> 17:50, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
+
== Sheila Miyoshi Jager ==
  
 +
Here's a picture of the live-in girlfriend Obama broke up with because a white gal would hold him back politically: [http://celebrityinsider.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Sheila-Miyoshi-Jager.jpg]. She's a bit on the manly side, as you might expect.<br/>Based on what Jager has to say, we can now nail down exactly when Obama got on the road to the White House: "I remember very clearly when this transformation happened, and I remember very specifically that by 1987, about a year into our relationship, he already had his sights on becoming president."[http://perezhilton.com/2017-05-02-barack-obama-first-lady-michelle-obama-sheila-miyoshi-jager-ex-girlfriend-biography-book#.WQyGJdKGPcs] This was when he was a community organizer in Chicago. It was also right around the time Obama joined Wright's church, which makes it less likely that he joined for religious reasons. He entered Harvard in 1988. ''Dreams from My Father'' came out in 1995 and is thus a campaign bio in this timeline. ''Dreams'' doesn't mention Jager or O's presidential ambitions. [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 20:58, 5 May 2017 (EDT)
  
== Off Page Discussion ==
+
== Suggesting addition of Arabic rendering  بارك حسین اوباما  per 2009 suggestion long forgotten ==
  
Regarding the published criticism of Barack Obama, don't you think the majority of that link would be better served in an article about Don Imus or about Racism in Broadcasting? It seems to me that the relevant bit is that the Boston Globe and some prominent black leaders question Obama's handling of the situation, not the digression towards Michael Richard and Jimmy the Greek. Myk 15:42, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
+
This idea was pitched by another editor in 2009, but they had an awkward GoogleTranslate attempt at a phonetic rendering. I know the script and also used the standardized Arabic spellings for the first two names, and the result is: بارك حسین اوباما
  
You convinced me. You wanna do it? RobS 15:43, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
+
So revisiting a 9 year old issue, but are folks interested in including the Arabic spelling of his name in the lead? [[User:DavidLReyes|DavidLReyes]] ([[User talk:DavidLReyes|talk]]) 22:12, 2 April 2018 (EDT)
It was locked last time I checked. Myk 15:50, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
+
Ok, I'll unprotect you so you can fix it; but i may have to reprotect quickly cause actually I don;t know what's going on on that page. RobS 16:09, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
+
That you'd have to take up with TK. He thinks the candidate pages are being excessively vandalized. I have been unable to persuade him otherwise. Myk 16:15, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
+
Done. Check it out to make sure it still fits with what you wanted to say. I am an Obama supporter so I tried to keep it to the source as much as possible. Searching for Obama AND Imus actually comes up with a lot of comments about Imus and McGuirk (sp?) making derogatory comments about Obama himself. Those weren't helpful. Myk 16:35, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
+
Real good. Couldn't have done better myself. Say, while I got you here, would you mind discussing why you support Obama just to answer some personal curiousity. I got two questions off the top (a) what age group do you fall into (18-24, 25-30, 30-45, 45+),and (b) when and/or where did you first hear of Obama? Thanks. RobS 16:39, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
+
I'm narrowly into the 30-45 category. And I first heard Obama at the 04 convention. Went out and got his first book and then Audacity when it came out. Myk 16:42, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
+
Question 3: Do you think he can (a) defeat Hillary in the primaries and go on to win the General election, and/or (b) is just running for the VP spot? RobS 16:48, 11 April 2007 (EDT)  
+
(Undent) I don't think people on the right fully appreciate how disenchanted a lot of Democrats are with Hillary. I think when the two of them are on the same stage in a debate the differences will become overwhelming. Obama is both charismatic and smart. As for the general... well, obviously he's going to be a polarizing figure just because of his race and his name... but far less polarizing than Clinton. I think Hillary is much more beatable in a general than Obama. Myk 16:53, 11 April 2007 (EDT)  
+
  
Good observations, and I agree with all of it. Hillary is the Newt Gingrich of the Democratic Party--42% will come out to vote for her, and 42% will come out to vote for whoever can beat her.
+
===Poll===
So as to the question of electability, Richardson & Obama got her beat. I just quickly reread Obama & Kerry's convention speeches, cause I recall at the time much of what Obama said was directly contradicted on successive nights by a host of successive speakers. Let's look at these two excisions:
+
====Yes====
Obama:tonight, there is not a liberal America and a conservative America -- there is the United States of America. There is not a Black America and a White America and Latino America and Asian America -- there’s the United States of America. [23]  
+
*[[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']]</sup> 00:07, 3 April 2018 (EDT)
Kerry:after September 11th all our people rallied to President Bush's call for unity to meet the danger. There were no Democrats. There were no Republicans. There were only Americans. And how we wish it had stayed that way. [24]
+
*[[User:DavidLReyes]]
Now, is this just meaningless election rhetoric on the part of both speakers, or is there some way to reconcile these divergent passages? RobS 17:12, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
+
A lot comes down to genuineness (I think I just made up a word). When Obama uses rhetoric, I believe it. At least in a way that I never do from Kerry or Clinton. The position of president entails a mix of issues, ability and inspiration. Issues are always going to be split based on ideology. Ability is where Obama's going to take a hit due to his lack of national / executive experience but he clearly has the intellect. If he can handle that question, which I think he can, then his ability to inspire will make him a daunting force. Think Bill Clinton without the smarm. And hopefully without the personal problems. As it stands now, Romney and Giuliani are the only GOP candidates I see capable of taking on Obama and then only if they don't prompt a more conservative third party candidate.
+
The fact that Obama chose to give a unifying speech at a historically polarizing venue took a lot of courage. Compare his keynote address to Zell Miller's. Regardless of your thoughts on the issues, Miller's speech was a heckuva lot more abrasive. Myk 17:27, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
+
Guilani doesn't have a prayer. GOP will not nominate an East Coast liberal in favor of abortion. The question is who can beat McCain? Richardson may, Hillary can't, and Obama probably can't either. (Incidentally, new item this morning says Fred Thompson has lymphoma, so that leaves Huckabee as the only other Bible-belt GOP candidate, and Bible-belt candidates, GOP or Dem, are the only ones who can win nowadays).
+
Let me give a gut instinct on Obama, he's probably running for VP, which is a mistake. His problem is, if he doesn't win the whole prize, which is a long shot right now, no one will ever take him serious again. He will not be viable in 2012 or ever after. (Just as Edwards doesn't have a prayer, or Gary Hart, etc. Candidates really have a short shelf life). You can't run on failure. I think he's in now for the following reason:
+
Both parties recognize a young person's poltical views are molded by parents & teachers, but not really hardened until they reach about age 25. So between 18-25 they are still approachable and winnable. Once they turn about 25, whatever party reaches them has a voter then for life--for the next 40 or 50 years. So there is always this sort of outreach to younger voters, to get their interest, enthusiasm, and commitment. I think Obama (a) knows he being used this way with the prospect of being a VP candidate for Hillary (b) doesn't mind the prospect that he will never get elected President in 2008 or ever after that by agreeing to this scheme. But he is getting rewarded. Ultimately in the end though, he will disappoint his followers by being a failure, which of course can always be blamed on Americans entrenched racist attitudes, and everyones's a victim.
+
This is how the game of politics is played. RobS 17:43, 11 April 2007 (EDT)  
+
Yes, that is how it is played, usually, like this, away from the article talk page, to the exclusion of those not specifically "watching" the page.  :p --~ TK MyTalk 17:46, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
+
OK, I'll cut and paste it over there. RobS 17:50, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
+
McCain has alienated both the left and the right. I don't think he has a shot for the nomination and the only thing that can save him in the general would be an abrupt upturn in the war. Myk 18:34, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
+
Retrieved from "http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:RobS"
+
  
==Another take==
+
====No====
Let me give a gut instinct on Obama, he's probably running for VP, which is a mistake. His problem is, if he doesn't win the whole prize, which is a long shot right now, no one will ever take him serious again.  He will not be viable in 2012 or ever after. (Just as Edwards doesn't have a prayer, or Gary Hart, etc.  Candidates really have a short shelf life).  You can't run on failure.  I think he's in now for the following reason:
+
*[[User:DavidB4]]
 +
*Not a very strong oppose, but an oppose nonetheless. --[[User:1990&#39;sguy|1990&#39;sguy]] ([[User talk:1990&#39;sguy|talk]]) 21:33, 6 April 2018 (EDT)
  
Both parties recognize a young person's poltical views are molded by parents & teachers, but not really hardened until they reach about age 25So between 18-25 they are still approachable and winnable. Once they turn about 25, whatever party reaches them has a voter then for life--for the next 40 or 50 years. So there is always this sort of outreach to younger voters, to get their interest, enthusiasm, and commitment. I think Obama (a) knows he being used this way with the prospect of being a VP candidate for Hillary (b) doesn't mind the prospect that he will never get elected President in 2008 or ever after that by agreeing to this scheme. But he is getting rewarded.  Ultimately in the end though, he will disappoint his followers by being a failure, which of course can always be blamed on America's entrenched racist attitudes, and everyones's a victim.
+
====Irrelevant stupid comments====
 +
Arabic Wikipedia gives "Barack Obama" as باراك أوباما and "Barack Hussein Obama, Jr." as باراك حسين أوباما الابن . See [https://ar.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D8%A8%D8%A7%D8%B1%D8%A7%D9%83_%D8%A3%D9%88%D8%A8%D8%A7%D9%85%D8%A7 here]. [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 01:59, 4 April 2018 (EDT)
 +
:Right, I'm just saying that for consistency our Arabic rendering should be identical to the English rendering of our title, so include the حسین (H-S-Y-N) that we render as Hussein in our current English title. Your points are totally valid and our spellings agree, I'm just saying if we have first-middle-last (no Jr) in the Englis title, Arabic rendering should be the same. [[User:DavidLReyes|DavidLReyes]] ([[User talk:DavidLReyes|talk]]) 02:20, 4 April 2018 (EDT)
 +
::Two days and two votes. Looks like we have an emerging consensus. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']]</sup> 09:54, 4 April 2018 (EDT)
  
This is how the game of politics is played.  [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:52, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
 
  
:I don't think he's running for VP. I think even being elected for VP would marginalize the accomplishment. And he's certainly not fundraising like a VP. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 17:53, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
+
I'm not going to vote "no" outright (yet), but what is the point of doing this?  It seems a little low to translate his Engl(ish) name into Arabic to prove a point.  Besides, aren't people saying that his name was originally "Barry Soetoro"? I agree that he probably was (by their definition, a bad) Muslim, but I don't really see the profit in doing this. --[[User:DavidB4|<font color="ForestGreen">David B</font>]] <sup>([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]])</sup> 11:59, 4 April 2018 (EDT)
 +
:Basically, we need to rekindle interest in this page before it dies on the vine. Stir the pot, so to speak. With 3.5 million hits, it's long been a marquis attraction to CP. We're not saying he's Arab or Muslim, only that he's well known and respected in that part of the world. If one did a poll, you'd probably discover more Arabs think he's Muslim than rednecks do. We could put Nixon's name in Chinese too, since he's the one who sold us out to China. But the Nixon page never had the interest, pro or con, that this page is known for. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']]</sup> 13:24, 4 April 2018 (EDT)
  
::*One doesn't ever "run" for Vice President.  However when Hillary is nominated, her asking him to take the job is pretty much a mandatory yes from him. Especially if he ever wants to run for President again. Refusing would term him out as a Senator, and strip him of any future party leadership. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] <sup>[[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]]</sup> 17:59, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
+
I was considering voting "no" when I first saw this, but I wanted to see what others thought. I like the fact that this page might get some publicity if we do this, but at the same time, I also don't see how this helps the article. It might look like trolling, and readers may choose not to read beyond the first paragraph after seeing it. Maybe I'm being too negative, but I'm not convinced it will help the article. --[[User:1990&#39;sguy|1990&#39;sguy]] ([[User talk:1990&#39;sguy|talk]]) 14:52, 4 April 2018 (EDT)
:::*Libby Dole did 2000.
+
  
:::*See, now we need to understand how the fundraising law operates (which can't be briefly explained right here)He's got $20+ million; as an  Illinois Senator, he's not up for another 5 years, and needs maybe 6-10 million by then. So this is one way he's being rewarded, he's basically got enough cash to hold that Senate seat for the next 24 years right now, in addition to being able to contribute to other candidates, i.e. build a politcal machine.  This is how the game of politics really operates, and if you look beneath the surface, follow events, and see where Obama ends up in the next 18 to 24 months (and several decades after), you really can get some insight on the inner workings that are often hazy and mysterious. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:01, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
+
::So it's a publicity stunt?  I appreciate the intent, but I'm going put my vote on "no." Let's just focus on offering good articles on everything we can, rather than trying to drum up attention for one good article. He may have been "one big awful mistake America," but he's gone now, and I think it better to focus on both current and timeless issues instead. --[[User:DavidB4|<font color="ForestGreen">David B</font>]] <sup>([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]])</sup> 15:50, 4 April 2018 (EDT)
  
*Obama isn't Senator Dole, with her political pedigree, it is indeed apples and oranges. I do have friends who are managing Obama, since its a very small world at that level of handling, and he has a decent shot. But in my opinon, and that of Dick Morris (albeit a Hillary hater, but most certainly a FOB.) he will possibly be offered the VP shot. If not too throughly destroyed by the Clintons long before the convention. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] <sup>[[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]]</sup> 18:08, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
+
:::The box clearly states he is said to have converted to Christianity. We simply need to add a section on how he has not been a friend to Israel and has facilitated a nuclear arms race in the Middle East. He's very popular in the Middle East with his support for the oxymoronic "moderate rebels". Between his " Austrian language" and "Polish death camp" comments there is no reason to hold to the kenard that Obama identifies as a Westerner or with Western civilization. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']]</sup> 16:30, 4 April 2018 (EDT)
**The name of the game is beat McCain.  Right now McCain beats all hands down (as he has for two years now).  McCain controls big donors, party apparatcheks, old Perot & Colin Powell middle of the roaders, and a few Democrats.  But the dirty little secret is <small>GOP rank and file core constituents, the tax cutters and the religious right, are not that enthusiastic about McCain.  His biggest problem is in his own party.  If Hillary is the nominee, then the core rank & file will come out to vote for McCain to stop Hillary. And a VP candidate such as Obama, as the record shows, adds nothing to the ticket.  This however, is where Bill Richardson can win.  If it’s McCain vs Richardson, and GOP rank & file stay home, Richardson could actually pull off the win, cause he doesn’t have the “high negatives”, as they are called, that candidates like Hillary & Gingrich have.  High negatives motive people to go out and vote against a candidate.  This is were the polling on McCain is deceptive, if it’s McCain vs Hillary, the Republicans will come out in force to stop Hillary; if it’s McCain vs Richardson, many Republicans will stay home rather than soil their conscience by voting for someone or something they detest.</small>  [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:39, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
+
  
:*I look forward to beating the pants off of McCain!  Newt has the hearts and minds of the GOP, and many, many Democratic voters, with his commmon-sense, almost Reagan-like approach. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] <sup>[[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]]</sup> 19:32, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
+
::::I agree, his claim at being Christian was just a ploy to get more votes.  He was an enemy of Israel, and a friend of all their enemies.  However, his legal name is just that.  Translating or transliterating it into Arabic doesn't really help anyone, nor will it be persuasive to critics. --[[User:DavidB4|<font color="ForestGreen">David B</font>]] <sup>([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]])</sup> 17:05, 4 April 2018 (EDT)
:**Right now, 2008 looks like a Democratic year; the only thing that could screw it up is--Hillary Clinton. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 20:46, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
+
:::::Given the subject, I think we'd be hard-pressed to even be capable of a "low blow" relative to the subject... That said, even if it is a bit of a "stunt", the people it would turn off are not our supporters anyway, so I don't mind tweaking the nose of liberal "tourists" who come here to gape. Plus it's a shout-out to our readership who have grave concerns about Obama's divided loyalties. I would ''also'' be in favor of including his earlier "Barry Soetero" name since it also highlights the suspicious malleability of his "marketing". [[User:DavidLReyes|DavidLReyes]] ([[User talk:DavidLReyes|talk]]) 21:33, 4 April 2018 (EDT)
 +
::::::That's right. Diversity is our strength. It's multicultural and inclusive. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']]</sup> 23:45, 4 April 2018 (EDT)
 +
:::::::If we want to imply that Obama is from Kenya, what about Swahili? Kenya uses English and Swahili, but both languages use the Latin alphabet. So a personal name like Obama is written the same way in Swahili. [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 13:18, 6 April 2018 (EDT)
 +
::::::::It's not an effort to rekindle the birther movement. It's more paying homage to the Muslim hordes he's unleashed on Europe and Western civilization. For example, we're not proposing to insert the Persian spelling of his name despite his efforts to aid a nuclearized Iran. Or a Pakistani or Indonesian spelling which he is more closely identified with. Or a Turkish spelling, which also is closely associated with his presidential legacy. An Arab spelling pays homage to his anti-Isreali constituent base. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']]</sup> 15:55, 6 April 2018 (EDT)
 +
:::::::::The problem is that nobody is going to know that it's an illustration of Obama's leftist immigration policy -- they're all going to think that we're promoting the "birther" theory. If we're going to do this, we should at least make our intentions clear, but I don't see how we can do that in a consise way and without distracting from the rest of the article. --[[User:1990&#39;sguy|1990&#39;sguy]] ([[User talk:1990&#39;sguy|talk]]) 21:33, 6 April 2018 (EDT)
 +
::::::::::On the face of it, yes. In context, no. No one ever alleged he's Arab. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']]</sup> 22:29, 6 April 2018 (EDT)
 +
:::::::::::True, but most ordinary people think of Arabs and the Arabic language as synonymous with Islam, so to them, seeing Arabic, they'll think "Islam." --[[User:1990&#39;sguy|1990&#39;sguy]] ([[User talk:1990&#39;sguy|talk]]) 22:31, 6 April 2018 (EDT)
 +
::::::::::::We are an educational resource, after all. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']]</sup> 22:38, 6 April 2018 (EDT)
  
I agree, again. However, have you looked at newt.org and some of the bipartisan initiatives he has launched? BTW I added some backgound on that scum reporter, some other interviews she gave and her own posts, discrediting her being bipartisan, or even fair, where Obama is concerned.  I smell one of Bill's cigars at work. ;-) --~ [[User:TK|TK]] <sup>[[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]]</sup> 21:48, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
+
:::::::::::::We ''are'' an educational resource, which is why I don't think this is appropriate. He is not Arab, so I see no good reason to translate his name into Arabic. I understand that this is an attempt to speak to his religion, and favoritism. I'm not opposed to that idea whatsoever. However, doing this serves no educational purpose.  Let the article speak for itself, and let the readers look at the facts. If you want to write out his name in his native African dialect, feel free.  However, you wouldn't find something like this Arabic translation in Britannica, and it doesn't belong here either.  I'm happy to have this article discussing his religious preferences--that's not that at all which I object to. --[[User:DavidB4|<font color="ForestGreen">David B</font>]] <sup>([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]])</sup> 00:30, 11 April 2018 (EDT)
 +
::::::::::::::Britannica? Britannica called Barack Obama an "organizer" of [[Louis Farrakhan]]'s Million Man March for a decade - up until June of 2008 when Obama won the primaries but before the election. This is a matter of record. Britannica is hardly a source on Obama's life. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']]</sup> 00:48, 11 April 2018 (EDT)
  
:I'd have Newt's baby if I were a women, but he's not going anywhere.  And I recently read somewhere he's not serious anyway.  The mold of modern Presidents is a Southern Governor, or at least a Southerner.  This has been true since Lyndon Johnson.  Nixon & Reagan were from California, but the demographics of California since the Dust Bowl era have been Southern (remember, Grapes of Wrath, the Okies headed west, etc).  So California is really much more like the South than it is the Midwest or the East.  Southerners do not vote by party, they vote for "one of their own", i.e. one who talks and sounds like them.  Easterners & Midwesterners don;t vote like this, they are more ideological of party driven the by the common culture and history that Southerners share.  Ironic, even thought the South lost the Civil War, they have come to dominate the Presidency since the 60s.  Bill Richardson fits this mold.  So do Huckabee & McCain.  Fred Thompson & the guy from Kansas also.  I suspect Hillary, cosmopolitan New Yorker that she has become, along with Pennsyvlania & Chicago roots, will really resurrect her Southern drawl she gave up nearly 15 years ago now in the next coming months.  This will be comical to watch, listening to her Eastern & Midwest accent when she's DC or NY, but pouring on the the good 'ol drawl when she's out on the trail, cause she smart enough to know how Presidential elections are won. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 22:18, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
+
==Pity the poor Democrats==
 +
They are now in the position of defending the most corrupt President before or since [[Richard Nixon]], or arguing he was too stupid and naive to see the criminal conduct of his underlings. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']]</sup> 21:36, 18 May 2018 (EDT)
  
::Rob, Newt is from Georgia. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] <sup>[[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]]</sup> 02:02, 12 April 2007 (EDT)
+
==This page is highly disorganized==
 +
Considering it's  one of the the top five most popular, it needs a makeover.[[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']]</sup> 01:00, 20 November 2018 (EST)
  
:::Gingrich and Hillary have the identical problem: "high negatives".  Both enjoy 42% over all support; both have 42% "unfavorable" ratings. In other words, it's a wash.  +42% - 42% = 0 net positive.  Neither can win.
+
== Obama's father ==
  
:::What "high negatives" do is motivate voters to get out an ''vote against'' a candidate. Typically, voters a motivated by a candidates ''charisma'' so to speak, like Clinton or Reagan, where voters are motivated to ''vote for'' the candidate; when candidates fail to inspire, like Dole, Dukakis, ''et al'', voters stay home.  But a candidate like Gingrich or Hillary with high negatives motivates voters to get out and defeat them by voting for whatever uninspiring, uncharismatic candidate stands the best chance to beat them. This is why uninspired Rebublicans ''will'' vote for McCain to defeat Hillary, with a high turnout, whereas in a McCain/Richardson contest, Republicans voters will stay home and a Democrat then can win[[User:RobS|RobS]] 10:11, 12 April 2007 (EDT)
+
Re this continuing controversy. A quick search of [https://www.google.ca/search?source=hp&ei=ASG7XI2vDKix5wKyh7XYDg&q=ancestry.com&oq=ancestry.com&gs_l=psy-ab.1.0.0i131j0i3j0l8.2117.8637..12614...0.0..0.216.1508.0j11j1......0....1..gws-wiz.....0.Ls5_OKxU5h0 ancestry.com] reveals that his father was indeed resident in Honolulu in 1961:
 +
   
 +
:Name: Barack H Obama
 +
:[Barack Hussein Obama Sr]
 +
:Residence Year: 1961
 +
:Street address: R625 11th Av
 +
:Residence Place: Honolulu , Hawaii
 +
:Occupation: Student
 +
:Publication Title: Polk's Directory of City and County of Honolulu, 1961
  
== Political Blog or an encyclopedia? ==
+
There must also be other documentation relating to Barack Obama senior's time in Hawaii as a student and the scholarship that he received from the Kenyan government.  In addition there is a mass of biographical  information readily available. [[User:Timber|Timber]] ([[User talk:Timber|talk]]) 09:45, 20 April 2019 (EDT)
 +
:Hah! ancestry.com also says Michelle Obama was born female. And what about when [[John Brennan]] hacked into [http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/22/passport.files/index.html Obama's passport files] at the State Department? [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']]</sup> 09:49, 20 April 2019 (EDT)
  
Would like to know if this is now officially an political blog, or are we still trying to make an encyclopedia? If the goal of the site hasn't changed, why are there entryes like: "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." ? Are we next going to collect President Bushes slips in his speeches and post them here under his article? Tell me if this is the new trend and ill go collect some. Would lenghten the article nicely. [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 21:10, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
+
::What [[User:RobSmith|RobS]] has this to do with anything: "ancestry.com also says Michelle Obama was born female"??? Can you please clarify. The point that I raise relates to Obama senior.  
  
*Someone so obviously discontent with Conservapedia, makes one wonder why they are here at all. I mean, I am not wanting you to leave, if you think you can do productive work, most certainly. However I can only judge from my own feelings, which would mean if I was that unhappy, I wouldn't waste my breath on it. You are an extraordinary man, being able to do productive editing and be so displeased. --[[User:TK|<small>Sysop-</small>TK]] <sub>[[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]]</sub> 07:06, 12 May 2007 (EDT)
+
::Obama junior's birth was announced in the local Honolulu newspapers. See, for example, [http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2008/Nov/09/ln/hawaii811090361.html "OBAMA'S BOYHOOD HOMES IN HAWAII: Obama's Hawaii boyhood homes drawing gawkers". ''Honolulu Advertiser''Posted on: Sunday, November 9, 2008]. [[User:Timber|Timber]] ([[User talk:Timber|talk]]) 10:32, 20 April 2019 (EDT)
  
::nevermind --'''''[[User:Andersmusician|Andersmusician]]''''' 23:13, 22 July 2007 (EDT)~
+
:::Technically, that article was dated on 2008, so it never actually reported on his birth. Maybe if you give an archived copy of the local newspapers dating back to the 1960s reporting on his birth, I MIGHT believe you there. [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 10:41, 20 April 2019 (EDT)
 +
::::Was the 2008 article before or after John Brennan hacked into the State department computer system to alter [http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/22/passport.files/index.html Obama's name and social security number?] [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']]</sup> 11:19, 20 April 2019 (EDT) '''An employee of Brennan.  This has nothing to with the topic. More red herrings. You might check the facts. ''' [[User:Timber|Timber]] ([[User talk:Timber|talk]]) 16:43, 20 April 2019 (EDT)
 +
:::::Obama's official government records were tampered with. That's a fact, according to CNN. Leaving aside CNN's credibility problems for the moment, Brennan was just referred for criminal investigation regarding other matters he may or may not have done on behalf of Barack Obama.
 +
:::::Frankly, I don't know what we are arguing about. You seem to have only three discredited sources for whatever it is you are trying to do: (1) Barack Obama; (2) John Brennan; and (3) mainstream media. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']]</sup> 17:08, 20 April 2019 (EDT)
 +
::::Thanks [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]]. There is an image on the page (a little hard to read) of the 1961 report–and the source is quoting from its own archive. See also [https://www.newspapers.com/image/?clipping_id=16284708&fcfToken=eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJmcmVlLXZpZXctaWQiOjI2MDM2ODQ1NCwiaWF0IjoxNTU1Nzc2OTcxLCJleHAiOjE1NTU4NjMzNzF9.crlksl6aUgKbZg3XxRYnYq6STC9w_zXb8oU9b7LkgyM for the ''Honolulu Advertiser''] and [https://www.newspapers.com/clip/11651167/honolulu_starbulletin_aug_14_1961/ ''Honolulu Star Bulletin'']. There are other sources confirming Obama Senior's residence in Hawaii in 1961 as a student, if this doesn't convince you. Finally there is the [http://health.hawaii.gov/vitalrecords/ Hawaii  Government site].  [[User:Timber|Timber]] ([[User talk:Timber|talk]]) 12:34, 20 April 2019 (EDT)
 +
:::::Duh, even if he was resident, doesn't mean he's Obama's father, duh. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']]</sup> 12:40, 20 April 2019 (EDT)
  
*Gosh, you waited all this time to respond, and had to make a sock to do it? :O --[[User:TK|<small>Sysop-</small>TK]] <sub>[[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]]</sub> 23:27, 22 July 2007 (EDT)
+
Evidence [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]? So try checking his mother's place of residence. Real research is preferable. [[User:Timber|Timber]] ([[User talk:Timber|talk]]) 12:56, 20 April 2019 (EDT)
 +
:It doesn't mean anything. Obama never held a passport until 2004 when he was elected to the Senate, yet he traveled to Pakistan in 1981 under an alias with a false Social Security number. ''Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus.'' [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']]</sup> 13:12, 20 April 2019 (EDT)
  
== GSmiley ==
+
:: [[User:RobSmith|RobS]] you constantly stray from the topic, which relates to the year 1961. This suggests to me that you are deliberately avoiding dealing with the facts. Did you look at the birth announcements and the evidence on the Government of Hawaii's web page? [[User:Timber|Timber]] ([[User talk:Timber|talk]]) 14:22, 20 April 2019 (EDT)
 +
:::So what about 1961? Frank Marshall Davis was in Honolulu in 1961. As to Ann Dunham and Obama Sr., we have a trail littered with doctored evidence. Obama's not alone; [https://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/18/books/chapters/stalin.html we'll never know who his idol] [[Joseph Stalin]]'s real father was as well. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']]</sup> 15:55, 20 April 2019 (EDT)
  
Great additions here today! Thanks for your effort. --[[User:TK|<small>Sysop-</small>TK]] <sub>[[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]]</sub> 07:09, 12 May 2007 (EDT)
+
:::Clearly  [[User:RobSmith|RobS]] you have a closed mind. [[User:Timber|Timber]] ([[User talk:Timber|talk]]) 16:02, 20 April 2019 (EDT)
 +
::::Not really; I got Obama's paternity narrowed down to two suspects. Davis & Obama Sr. Birthers tend to think Obama Sr. was his real father, whereas Frank Marshall Davis makes a stronger case for U.S. citizenship. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']]</sup> 16:12, 20 April 2019 (EDT)
  
==Gossip==
+
Clearly this article needs to be revised. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]] has not produced one piece of evidence to support his position. Perhaps he might try checking the Hawaiian newspapers, or the Hawaiian government web site.  [[User:Timber|Timber]] ([[User talk:Timber|talk]]) 16:43, 20 April 2019 (EDT)
 +
:No offense, but saying you should check the Hawaiian government web site for information is the same thing as claiming that official Vietcong press releases are to be counted to prove or disprove massacres as a student radical claimed back in the Vietnam War, so you really need to take its statements with a grain of salt. And besides, I definitely recall seeing a PDF once showing Barack Obama's birth certificate as Kenyan. [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 17:02, 20 April 2019 (EDT)
 +
:EDIT: Found this, it at least looks like the PDF I stumbled upon: http://www.infiniteunknown.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/barack-obama-kenyan-birth-certificate.jpg [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 17:20, 20 April 2019 (EDT)
 +
::These are all moot points. The real question is whether President and First Ladyboy Buttigieg will be the first gay married couple in the White House. Evidence suggests more DNC/liberal media fake news. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']]</sup> 17:26, 20 April 2019 (EDT)  Excellent parody. [[User:Timber|Timber]] ([[User talk:Timber|talk]]) 18:05, 20 April 2019 (EDT)
 +
:::What is the source of this second birth certificate? Personally I'd trust the State of Hawaii, Department of Health Vital Records before a dubious source like www.obamanotqualified.com.  What evidence is there that it's not a forgery? [[User:Timber|Timber]] ([[User talk:Timber|talk]]) 17:49, 20 April 2019 (EDT)
 +
::::What exactly are you arguing? That Obama's not gay? That Frank Marshall Daivis is not his real father? That Obama's records have not been tampered with?
 +
::::Stop. Answer directly. Is the CNN article that says Obama's official government records were tampered with by a company headed by John Brennan credible or not? We then can take it from there. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']]</sup> 18:10, 20 April 2019 (EDT)
 +
:::::Yeah, and besides, there's certainly less evidence that the Kenyan birth certificate is forged than the Hawaiian one was, especially when Sheriff Joe Arpaio [https://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/joe-arpaio-barack-obama-birth-certificate/2016/12/15/id/764243/ did an investigation that revealed that] the "scanned certificate of live birth" the latter represented had multiple layers, meaning it was digitally manufactured. [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 18:17, 20 April 2019 (EDT)
  
"Former House Majority leader Tom DeLay has described Obama's record in the Illinois Senate as that of a “Marxist leftist.”"
+
See [https://www.wnd.com/2017/03/malik-obamas-kenyan-birth-certificate-for-brother-is-fake/] and from President Trump [https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-us-canada-37389180/donald-trump-admits-president-obama-was-born-in-us] {{unsigned|Timber}}
 +
:Yeah, sorry, don't buy it. If his Hawaiian birth certificate were not fake, please explain why Sheriff Arpaio and his legal experts discovered many discrepencies [sp?] in the certificate that pointed to it being doctored, as shown [https://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/joe-arpaio-barack-obama-birth-certificate/2016/12/15/id/764243/ here]? And besides, that's not the same birth certificate as the one Malik posited. [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 19:17, 20 April 2019 (EDT)
  
I thought Conservapedia reached its recent page view goal without indulging in the gossip common on wikipedia? This is something I have seen on a number of political biographies here, but mainly on Democrats. [[User:Graham|Graham]] 18:40, 22 September 2007 (EDT)
+
[[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] didn't you not read the evidence? "Maybe if you give an archived copy of the local newspapers dating back to the 1960s reporting on his birth, I MIGHT believe you there".  Or looked carefully at the 2008 report, which is based on the paper's own archive.
  
== Drug Use ==
+
The Sheriff has a dubious reputation (was convicted for a crime); but more importantly, do you have any information about the forensic experts, from around the world, that the sheriff claimed to have consulted? [[User:Timber|Timber]] ([[User talk:Timber|talk]]) 08:15, 21 April 2019 (EDT) An encyclopaedia article should not be based on unsubstantiated gossip. [[User:Timber|Timber]] ([[User talk:Timber|talk]]) 08:21, 21 April 2019 (EDT)
 +
:First of all, we don't know if the "archived newspapers" were even real, especially not when John Brennan was established to have tampered with official government records. For all we know, the records were hacked and had the articles replaced indicating Obama was born there, similar to Stalin's use of photoshop for lack of a better term. Second of all, even if it actually were true that Obama was born in Hawaii, that does NOT confirm that Obama Sr. was his dad. There's also plenty of evidence to suggest that Frank Marshall Davis is his father as well. Third of all, you are aware that Joe Arpaio's "crime" was more like trumped up charges by the Obama administration in an attempt to silence him, right? He did the same thing with Dinesh D'Souza earlier. And as far as the forensic experts, there's [https://videos.usatoday.net/Brightcove2/29906170001/201612/2037/29906170001_5250884901001_5250882346001.mp4 actual video of him speaking about the discrepencies that his team discovered online], even showing exactly HOW it was forged. [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 08:50, 21 April 2019 (EDT)
  
I was shocked that Obama's admitted cocaine use [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/02/AR2007010201359_pf.html] isn't mentioned in this article. [[User:Physicsnut|Physicsnut]] 14:48, 17 December 2007 (EST)
+
:::The video doe not name these so-called experts and it sounds more like propaganda. One dubious source is not acceptable. As noted earlier it wasn't Brennan who was guilty of hacking. By supporting these lies you are helping the enemies of American democracy–especially Putin. [[User:Timber|Timber]] ([[User talk:Timber|talk]]) 09:17, 21 April 2019 (EDT) See also [https://www.conservapedia.com/Fake_news#Identifying_fake_news Fake News]. [[User:Timber|Timber]] ([[User talk:Timber|talk]]) 09:28, 21 April 2019 (EDT)
 +
:::::Of coarse Brennan wasn't found guilty, cause [https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/apr/19/key-witness-in-passport-fraud-case-fatally-shot/  a key witness and whistleblower was found dead] of a gunshot wound two weeks later. Are we suppose to sweep all this under the rug and go with DNC/MSM fake news, again? [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']]</sup> 13:09, 21 April 2019 (EDT)
  
: Our [[rules]] prohibit [[gossip]]. [[Gossip]] has zero educational value, for example.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:10, 17 December 2007 (EST)
+
::::The fact that they're even SHOWING the documents at ALL, and showcasing WHERE there are multiple layers (look at the blue bordered boxes, they're there for a reason) should be sufficient of a source as any (and besides, that video came from the liberal USA Today, so it's not like it's particularly conservative-based, meaning that if anything it's even MORE unbiased). Also, I'm not helping Putin at all. Actually, if anything, posting the lies about Obama's birth in Hawaii is helping Putin, as is posting lies about Hillary winning the election (what, you think that Putin elected Trump? Absolutely not! Actually, think critically: Why would Putin back Donald Trump when he's got an even bigger ally in taking down America with Hillary, especially with the Uranium stuff). And let's not forget that Obama was already selling out to Putin's Russia since 2012 with his infamous "one last election" claim. [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 09:52, 21 April 2019 (EDT)
  
:: How does one define gossip? He wrote about it himself - making it not private, no? [[User:Physicsnut|Physicsnut]] 15:19, 17 December 2007 (EST)
+
===Sources===
  
== Liberal Rankings Reference ==
+
@Timber: Once again, don't make massive changes like what you just did on this page without the agreement of long-standing editors. --[[User:1990&#39;sguy|1990&#39;sguy]] ([[User talk:1990&#39;sguy|talk]]) 11:31, 21 April 2019 (EDT)
 +
*Agreed. Sourced material was removed. It should at a minimum have gone into subpages, like Early Life of Barack Obama. We should give him a few hours to fix it before a mass revert. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']]</sup> 12:34, 21 April 2019 (EDT)
  
I would like to see the reference for Obama being the 10th most liberal senator changed to this
+
::[[User:1990&#39;sguy|1990&#39;sguy]],  "massive" is an exaggeration. What I removed was off topic and not consistent with Conservapedia's Commandments: "Everything you post must be true and verifiable". Some Conservapedia editors use  dubious sources and dismiss anything that they disagree with as forgery. The views of an obscure 85 year old sheriff is deemed, for example. more trustworthy than civil servants. What do the ''real'' forensic experts say?The reliance on gossip and gutter journalism is unbecoming–the idea that Michelle Obama is a man is lavatory wall graffiti. Again innuendo and gossip trumps the "true and verifiable".{{unsigned|Timber}}
http://nationaljournal.com/voteratings/sen/lib_cons.htm?o1=lib_composite&o2=desc
+
:::Is the ''[[Washington Post]]'' a dubious source? [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']]</sup> 14:42, 21 April 2019 (EDT)
because this is what the other reference refers to and because this site is very informative as it lists other senators scores and votes. Thanks! --[[User:PhineasBogg|PhineasBogg]] 18:30, 29 December 2007 (EST)
+
:::Let's continue this discussion on sourcing (rather than specific subject material). Timber, would you agree that there's is a difference in the reliability of source (say, WaPo, NYT, CNN, etc.) that omits information versus deliberate misreporting of facts? [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']]</sup> 14:47, 21 April 2019 (EDT)
  
:Unprotected, so do it yourself. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 18:31, 29 December 2007 (EST)
 
  
Done!  Reprotect again if you like. Thanks! --[[User:PhineasBogg|PhineasBogg]] 18:35, 29 December 2007 (EST)
+
==Judgment very harsh==
 +
The judgment of Barack Obama in this article is very harsh. It says he is "arguably the worst president in U.S. history" but does not refer to a website, connected with ABC news, that says that 31% of Americans said he was the greatest president in their lifetime. [[User:Carltonio|Carltonio]] ([[User talk:Carltonio|talk]]) 10:36, 9 December 2019 (EST)
 +
:Why would that be surprising? 100% of Americans thought George Washington was the greatest president in their lifetime in 1800; 50% of Americans thought Lincoln was the worst president in 1865; 60% though FDR was greatest president in 1945; 62% thougth Nixon was the greatest president in 1972; big deal. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 12:09, 9 December 2019 (EST)
  
== Rumours ==
+
==Know history better==
This article is somewhat sloppy in its attributions and quotes. The part about the allegations about Obama's childhood are a good case in point. Surely it should be made clear that the allegations that he attended a madrassa are lies? [[User:Darkmind1970|Darkmind1970]] 19:18, 2 January 2008 (EST)
+
I suggest who ever typed this article gets to know U.S. history better. It says that Obama is "arguably the worst president in U.S. history" but would one really rank him as worse than [[Lyndon Johnson]] or [[James Buchanan]]? [[User:Carltonio|Carltonio]] ([[User talk:Carltonio|talk]]) 11:52, 28 May 2020 (EDT)
 +
:Given what's known of [[Obamagate]], he ranks below [[Nixon]]. And he set back race relations for decades, not to mention that he destroyed the Democrat party. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|Live Free or Die]]</sup> 11:56, 28 May 2020 (EDT)
 +
:Oh, let's not forget he resurrected Black African slavery in Libya. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|Live Free or Die]]</sup> 11:57, 28 May 2020 (EDT)
 +
:Or his responsibility for the European immigrant rape crisis that is destroying feminism and women's rights in Europe. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|Live Free or Die]]</sup> 11:58, 28 May 2020 (EDT)
 +
::Don't forget the $200 billion he gave to the Iranians.[[User:Bytemsbu|Bytemsbu]] ([[User talk:Bytemsbu|talk]]) 12:31, 28 May 2020 (EDT)
 +
:::Let's be clear on that - the Iranian terrorist regime; Iranians ''per see'' are good people. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|Live Free or Die]]</sup> 13:02, 28 May 2020 (EDT)
  
== Suggest Protection ==
+
== Suggestion ==
  
There's a vandal who was blocked once today for targeting presidential candidate entries.  Since the primary is tonight (fingers crossed for Huck!) I expect vandalism to go up on these articles, before it goes down!  I would recommend protecting articles like this for a week, maybe?-[[User:MexMax|MexMax]] 18:11, 8 January 2008 (EST)
+
RobSmith suggests we add "Despite his personal involvement, Obama was not impeached for [[Spygate]] crimes after leaving office", though he can't access CP right now to recommend a good place to put it. Does anyone have any suggestions? [[User:Liberaltears|<code><span style="color:black; background:#FFABAB">'''LT'''</span></code>]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|<sup>May D.C., his mother, and I.S. be all well!</sup>]]''''' Saturday, 16:50, 13 February 2021 (EST)
  
: No need for protection.  We'll be watching.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:38, 8 January 2008 (EST)
+
== Edit warring and the vulgar picture of Michelle Obama ==
  
== Affirmative action in summary ==
+
I believe that at least three people have objected to this picture,  including [https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Michelle_Obama&diff=1851764&oldid=1850444 the founder of Conservapedia]. There has been no discussion of this here before the reverts. Posting it is against  Christian family values, and belongs to the world of teenage lavatory wall graffiti ([https://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Aschlafly#Obscenity:_Lewd_pictures_and_comments see also]). But perhaps I'm a prude? --[[User:Jackin the box|Jackin the box]] ([[User talk:Jackin the box|talk]]) 13:37, April 18, 2022 (EDT)
 +
:Pehaps you're a homophobe. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|Let's Go Brandon!]]</sup> 13:57, April 18, 2022 (EDT)
 +
::Don't be so coy, [[User talk:RobSmith]], the picture is making smutty fun of Michelle Obama. To visually suggest, with a doctored picture, that a woman has a penis is topical of the dirty minds of schoolboys. I accept all of God's creation, including those born into the wrong body. I clearly have a distorted picture of what is conservative, and Christian. --[[User:Jackin the box|Jackin the box]] ([[User talk:Jackin the box|talk]]) 15:03, April 18, 2022 (EDT)
  
I'm sorry about not discussing the recent change I made- I didn't see how it was major, as MexMax suggests, or even arguable.  Here's why I did it:
+
:::Do you dispute the there's consensus to remove the picture, including editor [[User talk:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]]? --[[User:Jackin the box|Jackin the box]] ([[User talk:Jackin the box|talk]]) 15:09, April 18, 2022 (EDT)
  
The summary contains an anti-Obama statement claiming he is nothing more than a black man, who gained his status due to affirmative action.  I removed the section because this very article states that he not only graduated Harvard Law, but did so magna cum laude  ("with highest honors").  I can understand someone having issue with the possibility of his getting accepted due to his race, but graduating at the top of his class is far from proven to be race-based.
+
::::The picture is from a Hollywood awards ceremony or something. Why don't you take up something useful, like debunking the fake J6 insurrection or Trump-Russia conspiracy theoryHonestly, I don't have time for kinda nonsense. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|Let's Go Brandon!]]</sup> 15:14, April 18, 2022 (EDT)
  
Regarding the paper he wrote, it's just fluffHis lack of a background in physics is unrelated since he was not authoring a paper in physics.  He was writing about law, using physics as an analogy of legal matters.  If the editor who put this text here actually bothered to read the reference, they would have seen that the context of the quote was actually a compliment Tribe: "...he was certainly the most all-around impressive student I had seen in decades."  Again, where is affirmative action in this?
+
Conservapedia continues to shoot itself in the foot, by undermining its own professed values and charter--[[User:Jackin the box|Jackin the box]] ([[User talk:Jackin the box|talk]]) 15:35, April 18, 2022 (EDT)
  
Conservapedia is about truth, not spreading propaganda (correct me if my impression is mistaken).  I understand that Obama does not share conservative values but lying is morally wrong as well and we should not tolerate it here.
+
==Question==
 
+
Didn't [[User:Conservative]] add [https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Barack_Hussein_Obama&diff=prev&oldid=2116000#cite_note-230 this edit]:
-- [[User:NepotisMonachus|NepotisMonachus]] 12:00, 30 January 2008 (EST)
+
{{Cquote|[[Benito Mussolini]] defined [[fascism]] as the wedding of state and corporate powers. Accordingly, trend forecaster Gerald Celente labels Obama's corporate bailouts as being "fascism light" in nature.}}
 
+
Hasn't [[User:Conservative]] [[spammed]] [[ad hominem]] attacks against another editor for years for saying the same thing?[[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''Zelensky Must Go!'']]</sup> 19:35, March 17, 2025 (EDT)
: Obama's record and support is full of puffery, preferences, and advantages based on his race.  Your comments above only reinforce some of them, rather than rebut them.  He was credited with analyzing a paper on physics, without any background in the topic.  In fact, he apparently had no formal background in constitutional law at the time either!  We're going to tell the truth here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:08, 30 January 2008 (EST)
+
 
+
:: You should be a bit careful, though, Andy. You don't want to get hung out to dry like you did over Dawkins. A word to the wise! [[User:MatthewHopkins|MatthewHopkins]] 15:13, 30 January 2008 (EST)
+
 
+
:Removed the personal opinion on Tribe's remarks regarding Obama.  Tribe can state whatever he wants regarding Obama, and if it's going to be referenced, do so straight up.  CP isn't the place to debate Tribe's remark as he can't respond.  If we include his remark (or the reference) we shouldn't be expounding on it.  I didn't think an encyclopedia should contain personal opinion. --[[User:Jdellaro|Jdellaro]] 15:17, 30 January 2008 (EST)
+
 
+
:: Accounts will be blocked if they remove facts or quotes here, or in the Dawkins entry.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:26, 30 January 2008 (EST)
+
 
+
:::How is "absurdly insisted" a fact and not an opinion?  If it just said insisted, that's a fact because it was a direct quote.  But to add the adverb "absurdly", that makes it opinion.--[[User:Jdellaro|Jdellaro]] 15:27, 30 January 2008 (EST)
+
 
+
:::: You deleted the Tribe quotes also, which is unacceptable.  If you want to remove "absurdly" then insert "liberal" next to Tribe's name so that readers can see for themselves how ridiculous the quotes are.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:31, 30 January 2008 (EST)
+
 
+
::::Jdellaro's right, you know. [[User:MatthewHopkins|MatthewHopkins]] 15:29, 30 January 2008 (EST)
+
 
+
::::: "MatthewHopkins", you seem to love to talk, talk, talk.  I'm going to check your edits now to see if there is any substance there.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:31, 30 January 2008 (EST)
+
:::::: That's rich. Check away, old horse. You'll find good stuff there, and most of the talk is attempting to argue sense into [[Liberals]]. [[User:MatthewHopkins|MatthewHopkins]] 16:05, 30 January 2008 (EST)
+
 
+
::::: Aschalfly- First, we can't change things without talking, now Matt gets slammed because he tried to discuss the issue.  You claim this is a meritocracy, but you push people around just because you don't know them.  Your action here is that of a tyrant- threatening someone who is only trying to help the encyclopedia.  I know you are concerned about liberals defacing the encyclopedia, but I don't think you've found one in this case.  I've checked his edits without malice, and he seems to deserve good standing.  You should be ashamed when you finish your witch hunt and apologize.  [[User:NepotisMonachus|NepotisMonachus]] 07:44, 31 January 2008 (EST)
+
 
+
Mr. S, this is really weird.  I mean, Obama might be just left of Lenin, but I don't get the affirmative action thing.  Do we know his SATs, LSATs, etc?  Do we have any evidence that his "achievements" are based on AA?  If not, then this will look to any sane person like a racist piece of poo article.  I mean, c'mon, let's get this guy on the facts, not on bizarre assumptions.  Just cuz he's black doesn't mean he benefited from AA.  He may have, and if he did, where's the citation?  Otherwise, it's racist gossip.[[User:RobertK|RobertK]] 16:56, 1 February 2008 (EST)
+
 
+
: Agreed- this nonsense makes the article looks more like a smear campaign that a fact-based biography.  Due to the absence of any evidence, I will be removing much of the AA material later this week.  I am halfway through reading the law review article, and there's nothing wrong with it.  You may have a different opinion, but the essay is solid- liberal in its views perhaps, but certainly not absurd.  There is none of this alleged analysis of physics, only a well cited collection of the physics issues described so that a layman can understand the importance of their discovery and their effects on modern scientific thought.  Note that these effects are the key point and they have more to do with the history of science than science itself, and do not require the absurd call for a background in physics.  The credits cite Barack for being the last of five persons providing "analytic and research assistance", but do not specify his contribution, which could have been anywhere from analytic to gofering to the law library to make photocopies.  It also mentions a Harvard physics professor as a source of technical comments, so the physics are probably sound.  If Obama was a major contributor to this essay, he should be commended for a job well done, but the current evidence doesn't allow for either congratulations or condemnation.  Please provide comments and present supporting evidence.  If you want to comment on the article, try reading it first: Harvard Law Review- Volume 103 November 1989, Number 1.  [[User:NepotisMonachus|NepotisMonachus]] 13:28, 4 February 2008 (EST)
+
 
+
::  Some childish heavy-handed coward anonymously and secretly blocked my account instead of using discussion to come to a conclusion on this matter.  Whoever you are, you can't shut me up by clicking a check box.  Give me a fair trial for violating site policy or prove me wrong.  Keep blocking new accounts only proves your contempt for truth and free speech.  [[User:NepotisMonachusB|NepotisMonachusB]] 08:46, 14 February 2008 (EST)
+
 
+
Im sorry but that AA thing is complete bigotry, you can be black and still achieve. This is very offencive , only a racist would be happy with it, no wonder only moderates and liberals will stand a chance of winning the election, be it McCain, clinton or obama, the conservative voice will never again take prominance in politics. Maybe after seeing this im quite releaved. --[[User:Realist2|Realist2]] 12:02, 15 February 2008 (EST)
+
 
+
== Reversion explained ==
+
 
+
The total number of votes cast by Obama is meaningless, since the vast majority of them would be on non-controversial issues.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:08, 30 January 2008 (EST)
+
:Not a problem; I was just trying to add a bit of perspective to the point.  However, you might want to reconsider or reformulate the second part of the paragraph (which you also reverted).  It's unclear who exactly "opponent" refers to--I understand it means Jack Ryan, but Obama's main Dem primary rival came to a similar end (dropped out of the race when details of his divorce became public).  Further, readers might recall that Obama defeated Alan Keyes in the general election and wrongly believe the sexual allegations refer to him.  Hence, my phrasology of "initial Republican" and "dropped out".  Also, thanks for (re)clarifying the research citation.--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 17:12, 30 January 2008 (EST)
+
 
+
== "He has no clear personal achievement that cannot be explained as the likely result of affirmative action" ==
+
 
+
Seems a little harsh (and uncited). Could it maybe be reworded slightly? His race is perhaps one factor, but ''surely'' it's not implied that Obama's entire life has consisted of coasting on a combination of his ethnicity and [[liberal]] [[affirmative action]]. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 22:28, 30 January 2008 (EST)
+
:That's extremely harsh, I agree, and veering towards the biased. Of all the thousands of people who have voted for him, surely what he has to say, what he has written and what he has done have all had a bigger impact than affirmative action? If affirmative action was in place, then why isn't Alan Keyes the Republican front-runner? [[User:Darkmind1970|Darkmind1970]] 10:54, 1 February 2008 (EST)
+
 
+
:: Republican voters do not support [[affirmative action]], and do care about military and other experience in choosing a Commander in Chief.  Many (not all) Democratic voters care more about promoting [[racial quotas]].  Got it now?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:10, 1 February 2008 (EST)
+
 
+
::: Aschlafly- you've avoided the point with more anti-liberal statements.  While I'm happy to sling those around with you, bias is the question here.  I'll try to make Feebasfactor's point a little clearer for you:  Is there bias in the affirmative action statement, or is the accusation verifiable?  If proof cannot be provided, how are we better are than the liberals on Wikipedia, who we bash daily on their bias?  Do we even care anymore or have we abandoned Conservapedia's founding principles?  [[User:NepotisMonachus|NepotisMonachus]] 16:46, 1 February 2008 (EST)
+
 
+
:: Aschafly - If Republicans care about military experience, then why choose Reagan or G. W Bush, whose experience of warfare was minimal? And if I can point out something with my tongue firmly in my cheek, why are the current Republican candidates for the Oval Office all themselves from minorities - a Mormon, an Old Age Pensioner, an Evangelical, an African-American and a... a whatever the heck Ron Paul is? Isn't that affirmative action too? [[User:Darkmind1970|Darkmind1970]] 19:03, 1 February 2008 (EST)
+
 
+
:::Aschafly - Let's say all the Democratic candidates for President are black. (Bear with me here.) These are all people who graduated from a prestigious school with high honors, worked as a lawyer, and served as a Congressman, governor, or mayor. Would you then say that all of them got to where they were as a result of affirmative action and nothing else? That none of the things they accomplished came as a result of their talent, or perhaps their intelligence? That successful minorities must be viewed upon with suspicion?
+
 
+
:::Kinda stupid hypothetical situation, I know, but I hope it gets my point across, however stupid you think that point may be. [[User:Gillespie|Gillespie]] 20:29, 1 February 2008 (EST)
+
::::Let's say there's a young white guy, not bad-looking, but not all that original a thinker.  His parent is a famous theocrat and a founder of the new Religious Right in the late 70s/early 80s.  Despite his lack of original thinking and intelligence, he manages to get into an ivy league school, and despite that, his greatest accomplishment is a bizarre blogwiki hybrid on which he spreads hate and fear to children.  Isn't that affirmative action?
+
::::Never mind, it's too weird to contemplate.[[User:RobertK|RobertK]] 20:54, 1 February 2008 (EST)
+
 
+
Peggy Noonan, that well-known leftist, in the well-known leftist publication The Wall Street Journal:
+
 
+
"He is the brilliant young black man as American dream. No consultant, no matter how opportunistic and hungry, will think it easy--or professionally desirable--to take him down in a low manner. If anything, they've learned from the Clintons in South Carolina what that gets you.
+
(I add that yes, there are always freelance mental cases, who exist on both sides and are empowered by modern technology. They'll make their YouTubes. But the mad are ever with us, and this year their work will likely stay subterranean.)"
+
 
+
Possibly she means you guys.  I merely suggest. "He has no clear personal achievement that cannot be explained as the likely result of affirmative action" is at least good enough to have been written by David Duke.
+
Archer070
+
 
+
I'm removing that line until a citation of some kind is given. If there was an affirmative action program for congress in place I am sure that its Conservapedia entry would be even more popular than the one on Homosexuality. [[User:NoraReed|NoraReed]] 23:49, 26 February 2008 (EST)
+
 
+
== African american ==
+
 
+
In this article is says that:"He is, as of 2007, the only African American serving in the United States Senate"
+
but
+
"Obama was born on August 4, 1961 in Honolulu, Hawaii"
+
He is most certainly not african american.
+
 
+
He is not African American because he was born in Hawaii? You MUST be joking. O__O I mean, I have heard "He is not the descendant of African slaves, so he isn't really African American." and I have heard "Living all over the world, he surely isn't in touch with African American life." but I think you have taken the petty distinctions to a new low.[[User:ProserpinaFC|ProserpinaFC]] 12:31, 1 February 2008 (EST)
+
 
+
== Foreign Policy Experience ==
+
 
+
Found a great article while searching for W's foreign policy experience before the war.  The full article is here:
+
<ref>http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/06/24/president.2000/foreign.policy/</ref>
+
 
+
Here's the relevant portions:
+
 
+
<blockquote>
+
Just how much do new presidents need to know about international affairs?
+
 
+
Franklin Roosevelt had experience and led successfully during World War II. But when he died, the presidency passed to Harry Truman, who was so out of things Roosevelt had never even told him about the atomic bomb. But Truman had many foreign policy successes: the end of World War II; the Marshall Plan to rebuild Western Europe; the policy of containing the Soviet Union; the Berlin airlift when the Soviets tried to cut the city off; the United Nations; and so on.
+
 
+
He couldn't end the Korean War, but in foreign policy, he had many more pluses than minuses. Dwight Eisenhower had lots of experience. He was the allied commander in World War II; ended the Korean War; demanded, successfully that Britain, France and Israel abandon their seizure of the Suez Canal. Successes.
+
 
+
John Kennedy grew up on foreign policy. His father was ambassador to Britain. And JFK wrote a study of British policy between world wars called "While England Slept."
+
 
+
As president, he had one big failure: the botched Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba. But it was followed by a big success: resolving the Cuban missile crisis by getting Nikita Khrushchev to remove Soviet Missiles from Cuba in exchange for withdrawing U.S. missiles from Turkey.
+
 
+
Lyndon Johnson had no direct experience aside from Senate debates. His administration passed historic domestic legislation: the civil rights and voting rights acts. But the unresolved war in Vietnam destroyed his presidency.
+
 
+
Richard Nixon had experience as Eisenhower's vice president and had solid success: detente with the Soviet Union, opening relations with China after decades of silence.
+
Carter
+
Former President Jimmy Carter
+
 
+
Jimmy Carter had no experience, failed to free American hostages held in Iran, and said he was surprised when the Soviets invaded Afghanistan.
+
 
+
Ronald Reagan was completely inexperienced and had great success: negotiated arms reduction with the Soviets, urged Mikhail Gorbachev to tear down the Berlin wall, which actually happened during George Bush's presidency.
+
 
+
Does experience matter? Yes, if you look at Johnson or Carter; no, if you look at Truman or Reagan.
+
</blockquote>
+
 
+
Seems that Reagan and W had about as much experience as Obama.
+
 
+
 
+
 
+
==References==
+
{{reflist|2}}
+
 
+
== removed false information ==
+
 
+
While Obama is left of Stalin on some matters, the Affirmative Action statement is blatant racism without some example given.  Further, the Harvard law Review is hardly "liberal', as it counts among it's alum Supreme Court Justice Scalia, Chief Justice Roberts, and Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.  And IT DOES NOT HAVE A QUOTA!
+
 
+
We can disagree with his policies, but we are not going to lie about him.
+
 
+
Having the same issues as reported above this is the second time I've had to remove the affirmative action statement, which is completely unquantifiable. I've also made edits removing language which is somewhat misleading and gives the article a very bias anti-Obama slant. If this site is dedicated to eliminating bias, it should not turn a blind-eye to conservative bias or in this case blatant racial discrimination. I have also expanded upon the issue surrounding his voting "present" so often. As stated in the article, voting "present" is commonplace in the Illinois Senate on both sides of the aisle. I kindly ask that [[Aschlafly]] stops reverting the article back to its previous biased and misleading state. If you disagree with the edits I've made write on my talk page or respond on the article's talk page instead of simply eliminating my changes, all of which seek to further expand the information in the article and maintain neutrality as best as possible.--[[User:ElliottRosewater|ElliottRosewater]] 11:39, 17 February 2008 (EST)
+
 
+
: The Harvard Law review is extremely liberal, and it does have racial quotas in its admission.  Your false accusation of lying are not appreciated and will not be allowed.
+
 
+
: The statement about [[affirmative action]] is accurate and will remain in the entry.  Repeated attempts to remove it without justification will result in blocking.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:28, 17 February 2008 (EST)
+
 
+
Justified how? Saying that Obama's life amounts to nothing more than lucking out with affirmative action isn't a quantifiable statement...at all. It is nothing more than a completely biased statement and does in fact convey a sense of bigotry. The edits I've made to the article have not introduced some virile liberal bias, I've simply elaborated on contentious issues and removed language and phrasing which is decidedly opinionated. Just because someone disagrees with you [[Aschlafly]] does not make that person wrong. Stop using the power which you have been granted out of good faith by the rest of this site to act like the NKVD, censoring whatever you feel like, and threatening those who disagree with you through bans or some other reprimands when they have only sought to maintain neutrality and expand factuality.--[[User:ElliottRosewater|ElliottRosewater]] 15:45, 17 February 2008 (EST)
+
 
+
: Your racial bullying is not going to work here.  [[Affirmative action]] is a big part of Obama's career and his support.  Don't delete it from the entry and don't deny that the Harvard Law Review is a very liberal institution that uses [[racial quotas]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:51, 17 February 2008 (EST)
+
 
+
: Racial bullying? I'm sorry my defective leftist brain must not be able to comprehend your superior Divine logic. But I'm not the one throwing  baseless affirmative action rants into what should be a neutral and factual article. Even Clarence Thomas would tell you just how bigoted and perposturous such a claim is.--[[User:ElliottRosewater|ElliottRosewater]] 16:03, 17 February 2008 (EST)
+
 
+
== Aschlafly: Enforcer of <s>Truth</s> ==
+
 
+
So, after having edited the Obama article for the third time to remove some of the more opinionated wording, removing the baseless affirmative action claim, and expanding on the procedures of the Illinois Senate to give people a better understanding of why Obama voted "present" 129 times, Conservapedia Fuhrer [[Aschlafly]] has threatened to ban me if I edit the article again, despite the neutrality and factuality of my edits. Does anybody else think this is somewhat of an abuse of power as well as an attempt to enforce his own opinion on the rest of the site, and, is there someway that we could replace him with someone who is not a fanatical reactionary.--[[User:ElliottRosewater|ElliottRosewater]] 16:03, 17 February 2008 (EST)
+
:It's Andy's site. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 17:49, 17 February 2008 (EST)
+
: :Agree it's Andy's site. Of course Andy should be ashamed of himself; but it's still his site. Andy has no clear personal achievement that cannot be explained as the likely result of his mom's clout. ;-) [[User:Archer070]]
+
::: It's Andy's site?!?!?! I was under the opinion it was an encyclopedia![[User:ProserpinaFC|ProserpinaFC]] 09:57, 20 February 2008 (EST)
+
 
+
This is the reason liberals will win the whitehouse , people are tired of these attitudes , people need to move into the 21st century .... quickly. --[[User:Realist2|Realist2]] 18:46, 18 February 2008 (EST)
+
 
+
== It's ASTOUNDING! . . . Why? Don't you people know how Congress works? ==
+
 
+
"For example, as a state senator in Illinois, he voted "present" rather than "aye" or "nay" nearly an astounding 130 times."
+
 
+
Why is that astounding? That is an incredibly SMALL number. Congresspersons vote on thousands of issues each TERM. And for Barack Obama to have been a Senator for EIGHT YEARS and to only not vote 130 times... lol.[[User:ProserpinaFC|ProserpinaFC]]
+
 
+
:"As for his voting performance, Obama liked sitting on the fence. He is recalled for taking full advantage of an Illinois rule that lets you vote "present" if you don't want to commit yourself. Illinois State Senator Bill Brady recalled: "I learned very quickly that the 'present' vote, where the button you press is very appropriately coloured yellow, is the chicken's way out." ([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?''])[[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] <small>([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]])</small> 10:14, 20 February 2008 (EST)
+
 
+
: Voting "present" 130 times is NOT a small number.  It is an astounding large number of times to duck important issues, so large that even [[Hillary Clinton]] has ridiculed it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:02, 23 February 2008 (EST)
+
 
+
::It's a fair point, but I'd suggest that the article should nonetheless give some concept of scale. 130 "present" votes translates to about 3% of the votes cast, which quite frankly isn't a lot. [[User:PeterS|PeterS]] 19:06, 23 February 2008 (EST)
+
 
+
::: It is enormous.  A politician is serving only himself, and not his constituents, by ducking so many important issues.  You won't find any earnest politician voting "present" so many times and ducking so many important issues.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:10, 23 February 2008 (EST)
+
 
+
::: But those statements that you make, Andrew, are all opinions that aren't sourced from cited sources. I'm not trying to pick a fight here, merely trying to ensure that we have the most accurately cited article we can have; all I'm saying is that in order to support the claim that voting present 3% of the time - which purely quantitatively doesn't '''seem''' like much to the average obsever - you'd actually need to give '''a solid, cited example''' of an "earnest politician" who hasn't voted present on a comparable proportion of issues. [[User:PeterS|PeterS]] 06:34, 29 February 2008 (EST)
+
 
+
== Reversion explained ==
+
 
+
The reversion removed a silly, self-serving quote that only filled the entry with junk.  This is not Wikipedia.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:03, 23 February 2008 (EST)
+
 
+
The reversion this morning reinserted a liberal deletion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:38, 23 February 2008 (EST)
+
 
+
== Introduction to article ==
+
 
+
I don't disagree with the subject matter, but I think there's a problem with the introduction. Most of the information seems to relate to his ideological/political stances, and so would be better placed in the body of the article rather than posted up front. [[User:PeterS|PeterS]] 18:58, 23 February 2008 (EST)
+
 
+
: We put the important stuff first here.  But thanks for your comment.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:08, 23 February 2008 (EST)
+
 
+
Some things need altering like the affirmative action thing. --[[User:Realist2|Realist2]] 15:22, 26 February 2008 (EST)
+
 
+
: What's the problem?  No [[liberals]] have any problems in complaining about alleged special preferences for [[conservatives]].  When someone gets special treatment and then seeks to become president on that basis, it's fair game to criticize the special treatment.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:32, 26 February 2008 (EST)
+
 
+
:: Maybe he DID get SOME special treatment , but the article suggests that everything he`s achieved in life is a result of AA. Maybe it needs a little tinkering with, it comes across too strongly , there is no problem saying that AA helped him but to say thats the only reason he got anywhere in life is a big jump. If he becomes president (trust me there is a good chance of it) are you going to say he only became president as a result of AA? Thats just not possible, people voted for him because they liked him and his ideas not because they felt sorry for him for past racism towards black people.--[[User:Realist2|Realist2]] 06:58, 27 February 2008 (EST)
+
 
+
:: To be fair, "no clear personal achievement that cannot be explained ... [by] affirmative action" is a much stronger statement than, say, "he could not have achieved the heights he has in the absence of affirmative action." The former claims he has _no_ achievements of his own, which seems so exaggerated that I'd believe it was written by a troll if you weren't defending it yourself. I would never consider entering politics, and even I have what might reasonably called "personal achievements." I'm sure Obama has some too. The latter statement merely (rightly!) observes that his achievements would never have elevated him to the status he's achieved, if it were not for liberal affirmative action; isn't that more like what you mean? [[User:Coas|Coas]] 16:31, 27 February 2008 (EST)
+
 
+
== Needs a major overhaul... ==
+
 
+
On the whole, this article, I believe, needs a major overhaul. Firstly, too much of this, while true, is written in so many ways like gossip. A glaring error that any serious writer would immediatly reject is the phrase: "Obama is SO pro-abortion..." It sounds like some high-school kid exaggerating to a friend. While it may be true, to phrase it in such a way is very unprofessional, and degrades the credibility of the article.
+
 
+
Also, while I understand that many see this article as an outlet to vent frustration at an inexperienced, unproven candidate, to write the entire article in a highly critical light errodes the circumstantiated tone that I assume Conservapedia strives for. Those not well informed might see this article as bigoted and hateful, whith spurious and unsubstantiated claims. My advice is to write these facts in a neutral, detatched style, as is the case with most encyclopedias. To do otherwise detracts from Conservapedia as a whole.
+
 
+
A few suggestions just from the very beginning:
+
 
+
1. "Obama is so pro-abortion..." should be changed to something like: "Obama has a well-noted stance of pro-abortion, demostrated  in cases such as his blocking of the Illinois version of the Born Alive Infants protection act, which was unanimously supported by the U.S. Senate."
+
 
+
2. "Obama has absolutely no military..." needs to be reworked into something more or less as follows: "Obama has a distinct lack of military, executive, and foreign policy experience as evidenced by..." and include some example of how he simply has not been in a position where he could gain any of this experience.
+
 
+
3. "Throughout his career, he has repeatedly ducked..." has too much opinion attached to it, and the "...in an apparent attempt..." part reeks of unprofessionalism. A good alternative would be "Obama has many times abstained from taking a controversial stand on certain issues, voting 'present' instead of 'aye' or 'nay' a substantial 130 times during his career as an Illinois state senator."
+
 
+
Much, much more needs to be done for this to sound like an authoritative encyclopedic article instead of an opinionated rant.
+
--[[User:Churro|Churro]] 01:18, 27 February 2008 (EST)
+
 
+
 
+
== Foreign Policy Experience ==
+
I'd like to add a few paragraphs about Obama's foreign policy experience.  Any chance the article can be unprotected? --Jimmy 21:29, 4 March 2008 (EST)
+
 
+
: The article was unprotected for a long time, and endured repeated attempts at liberal bias.  How about suggesting your edits here first?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:43, 4 March 2008 (EST)
+
 
+
 
+
::== Foreign Policy Experience ==
+
::Sen. Obama has been a member of the U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations since his election to the Senate.  <ref>http://www.senate.gov/~foreign/about.html  </ref> 
+
 
+
::He has visited many countries in his capacity as a Senator.
+
 
+
::Russia and former Soviet republics:  Met with representatives of the International Republican Institute and National Democratic Institute to discuss democracy in the former Soviet republics.  Also met with Russian military officials and visited numerous nuclear/biological weapons destruction sites in Russia, Ukraine and Azerbaijan with Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Richard Lugar (R-IN).
+
::United Kingdom:  Met with Prime Minister Tony Blair during visit with Sen. Lugar. <ref>http://obama.senate.gov/press/050823-obama_to_visit  </ref>
+
 
+
::Visited South Africa, Kenya, Ethiopia, Djibouti and Chad:  Discussed his tour of Robben Island prison, met with U.S. troops, visited refugee camps of the people fleeing Darfur and addressed Africa's growing AIDS epidemic. <ref>http://obama.senate.gov/podcast/060906-090606_africa_t/ </ref>
+
 
+
::Ten day tour of the Middle East:  Talked with government leaders in Qatar, Kuwait, Iraq, Jordan and Israel.  <ref> http://obama.senate.gov/news/060113-obama_wraps_up/ </ref>--Jimmy 22:14, 4 March 2008 (EST)
+
 
+
==Completely incorrect information in Foreign Policy==
+
 
+
The information provided is completely incorrect.  Senator Obama has indeed visited Continental Europe on official business - he visited Eastern Europe in August 2005, taking in Russia, Ukraine, Azerbaijan and the UK[http://obama.senate.gov/press/050823-obama_to_visit/].  Please correct the article.
+
 
+
Not only is the article factually incorrect, but the suggestion is made that this 'lack of travel experience' would make him unsuitable for the Presidency.  To which I would point out that the current President George W. Bush, had NEVER visited Europe until a year '''after''' taking the Presidency.  [[User:MakeTime|MakeTime]] 13:32, 11 March 2008 (EDT)
+
 
+
== Political Views section ==
+
 
+
I don't know whether this is a valid criticism to make, but it occurred to me while reading the article that the "Political Views" seection is rather short and vague. Although it's great to make concise comments on issues such as illegal immigration etc., it doesn't really give us a good picture of exactly what he stands for (and no jokes about not standing for anything, please!). What I mean is: the second sentence claims that Obama has the record of a Marxist leftist, but nothing after that point under that section really justifies that statement. Indeed, much of it seems to be better placed under the next section "Faith and Values". It might be pertinent to have a more detailed analysis of individual parts of his policies and stances. [[User:PeterS|PeterS]] 18:39, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
+
 
+
: Obama's stances keep changing depending on which state is next in the primaries.  It's a waste of time to attach any significance to his stated positions, other than to recognize how [[liberal]] he is.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:43, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
+
 
+
:: Perhaps pointing out these changes would be a better idea, Andy. --[[User:Ampersand|Ampersand]] 20:34, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
+
 
+
::: I don't view this as a priority, as Obama's supporters only care about his positions against the war and for abortion and don't care about much else, and those positions are spelled out.  I'll unlock the entry for you if you'd like to add objective material that shows how he changes his position so often.  Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:41, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
+
 
+
I know nothing of Obama's war opinion (aside troop withdrawal) and nothing of him pro-abortion position. Yet, I am still an Obama supporter, despite being non-US, as he is the only one who is not part of the great Washington machinery. It is time for change and the old stalwarts like McCain and Clinton need to go. Change can be good, not always but why not give it a chance?
+
Also, Bush Jnr had waaaaaaay less experience than Obama.
+
[[User:MetcalfeM|MetcalfeM]] 21:23, 12 March 2008 (EDT)
+
 
+
== Can we un-lock, this artical needs to be updated ==
+
 
+
There is no information at all about how Obama was linked to the radical Afro-Centric "Church" in Chicago whose Pastor endorses crazy racialist theorys about Whites, the CIA did AIDS, Jews did 9/11, etcetera. ANd then of course he makes one silly speech that doesnt really say anything, and the liberal media fall over each other to praise him like the secnod coming of jesus. (btw, this isnt really my area of expertise, but I understand some American theologians have seriously considered whether he could be the anti-christ. i don't know if that's enough of a seriously taken theory but you folks should decide whether to mention it at least.
+
 
+
I dont understand why so many pages i try to edit are locked.
+
 
+
::  I think it is because reality has a well known liberal bias.  (I joke, I joke)  It just that liberals don't understand how to interpret reality but keep insisting that they do.  It isn't like this problem is going away either.--[[User:Jroyale|Jroyale]] 21:44, 24 March 2008 (EDT)
+
 
+
Étienne Léger
+
:Are you referring to Pastor Wright?  [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 08:16, 21 March 2008 (EDT)
+
::Yes Jeremiah Wright is his name, he is basically an "afro-centric" race bigot who openly associates with Louis "Hitler was a great man" Farrakhan, he was Obama's chief Spiritual Advisor for many years except now he tries to deny it.
+
 
+
::: Please propose an encyclopedic-like addition, with a citation.  Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:49, 21 March 2008 (EDT)
+
 
+
 
+
Agree: not sure why this article would be locked when it clearly needs to be updated to ensure the tone is encyclopedic and not simply derogatory. Otherwise, the reputation of this effort as a "trustworthy encyclopedia" will continue to be severely undermined.
+
 
+
: Im starting to think that it is too late to save this site. Its hard to take it seriously with articles like this . . . [[User:FernoKlump|FernoKlump]] 18:16, 25 March 2008 (EDT)
+
 
+
OK Heres my suggestion, probably the English she needs work :) but I found lots of references and I think it's encyclopedia like. It should go under section 9 on "Faith and Values."
+
 
+
Although media dismissed Obama's allege "madrassa" connection, in early 2008 reports emerged that his own Trinity Church and its pastor Jeremiah Wright, proclaimed "Afrocentrism," "non negotiable committment to Africa," and "God damn America." <ref>http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NjZkMmI1ODIwZTgxMWQzZDg3YTM4ODk0ZTEzMjhhOWQ=</ref>
+
 
+
Among other hateful statements, Rev. Wright claimed that America is "fostering a social system that encourages [African-Americans] to kill off one another, placing them in concentration camps,"<ref>http://www.tucc.org/scholarship_pdf/black%20value%20system.pdf</ref> that Jesus was a Palestinian Arab, referred to Israeli Jews as "dirty," imply that Israel was responsible for 9/11 terrorist attacks, <ref>http://videos.emule.com/play/barack-obamas-mentor-jeremiah-wright---anti-israel-sermon-%28FnI431s1r6s</ref> and accuse them of using radiation weapon against Arabs. <ref>http://tucc.org/upload/tuccbulletin_june10.pdf</ref>
+
 
+
Despite wide reporting of Wright's extreme and antisemitic statements, Obama was able to defuse much of the anger and earn praise from mainstream media by giving a general speech on race relations, while refusing to dis-associate with Wright personally.<ref>http://weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/014/894ztiry.asp?pg=2</ref> New York Times for example likened him to Avraham Lincoln and John F. Kennedy. <ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/19/opinion/19wed1.html?_r=2&ref=opinion&oref=slogin&oref=slogin</ref>
+
 
+
== This Article is Ridiculous ==
+
 
+
For God's sake, with articles like this Conservapedia is never going to be taken seriously. A “Marxist leftist"? This is just stupid, he's basically pro-life moderate conservative. [[User:FernoKlump|FernoKlump]] 23:19, 22 March 2008 (EDT)
+
 
+
: Wow, you really are in the wrong place if you think anyone here is going to be fooled by your comment.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:46, 22 March 2008 (EDT)
+
 
+
::Fooled? I don't even especially like Barack Obama. Can you honestly say that Obama is a communist? [[User:FernoKlump|FernoKlump]] 00:47, 23 March 2008 (EDT)
+
 
+
::: Oh I see, my bad, i meant pro-choice . . . Can i change it? [[User:FernoKlump|FernoKlump]] 00:49, 23 March 2008 (EDT)
+
 
+
Could someone with access add something like "According to the Political Compass, Barack Obama would be better described as a moderate conservative <ref>http://politicalcompass.org/usprimaries2008</ref>" after the Marxist comment? [[User:FernoKlump|FernoKlump]] 11:05, 24 March 2008 (EDT)
+
 
+
::I agree that in no way can Obama be described a Marxist leftist. I've met Marxist leftists and argued with them a great deal (they tend to have very fixed ideals and observe an astonishing range of fallacies about the very unlamented Soviet Union) and compared to them Obama's a solid centrist. [[User:Darkmind1970|Darkmind1970]] 07:53, 27 March 2008 (EDT)
+
:::Well, he's politically 'left' of Ann Coulter.  By Conservapedian standards, that makes him a bomb-throwing Bolshevik revolutionary fnord. --[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]] 12:08, 27 March 2008 (EDT)
+
 
+
They also tend to be communists and call each other "comrade" and call for collectivism lol. But really, that quote either needs to be removed or balanced with another. Otherwise its just libel. [[User:FernoKlump|FernoKlump]] 12:05, 27 March 2008 (EDT)
+
:It's not libel if it's a Liberal being lied about.  Didn't you get the memo?  That whole "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor" thing only applies if thy neighbor is a Conservative.  --[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]] 12:08, 27 March 2008 (EDT)
+
 
+
::Oh, he's a liberal? I didn't know that! I can't find on the page where it says that he is a radical Islamic terrorist<ref>Barack HUSSEIN Obama!</ref>. He also a lying homosexual right? why isn't that included? If you need a source I can start a webpage and write that for you. [[User:FernoKlump|FernoKlump]] 12:21, 27 March 2008 (EDT)
+
 
+
Oh, and Obama could hardly be called our neighbor. No blacks are allowed in conservapedia's neighborhood. [[User:FernoKlump|FernoKlump]] 12:29, 27 March 2008 (EDT)
+
 
+
== Voting "present" doesn't necessarily indicate a fence-sitter... ==
+
 
+
Oftentimes, a vote of present indicates that the candidate generally supports a proposal in principle, but is unable to support it in its current form. It's a way of saying "I'm here, I'm interested, but we can't do it this way." Say Congressman A is a strong fiscal conservative and hates deficits. A budget bill comes before the body which cuts taxes but also provides for incremental increases in government programs which Congressman A already believes are hopelessly bloated, and in so doing increases deficit spending. That Congressman might not be able to support the bill but voting "present" would put to the record that he did not outright reject the proposal, but rather that he might be open to supporting a similar, re-worked bill.
+
 
+
== Required Changes ==
+
 
+
This article needs a lot of work to bring it up to the standards of a 'trustworthy encyclopedia'.  Several claims don't pass muster.
+
 
+
- The claim "'''Obama has absolutely no military, executive or foreign policy experience'''" is laughingly false and makes this article look plain ignorant.  There are well documented details of Obama's foreign policy experience in the article, yet this sentence remains.  The reference for this claim is hopelessly incorrect.  While this reference is in compliance with the commandments, it was obviously written by someone that didn't do their homework as proof of Obama's foreign policy experience is readily available.  The same cannot be said of the next dubious claim.
+
 
+
:: You're clueless.  Obama has zero military or executive experience, and his foreign policy experience is in the lowest 10% of senators.  Has he made a trip to Western Europe yet???--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:06, 29 March 2008 (EDT)
+
 
+
- "'''He has no clear personal achievement that cannot be explained as the likely result of affirmative action'''."  This comment is the sort of gossip that does not belong in an encyclopedia.  Not only has this ridiculous claim been removed and reinserted many times, not a shred of evidence is presented to back up this basically idiotic nonsense.  I'd like to think the leadership of this encyclopedia would set a good example for others to follow when writing articles, but there are way too many articles like this one that prove otherwise.
+
 
+
:: The evidence is overwhelming, with examples provided in the entry.  All you have to do is cite some counterexamples.  You can't.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:06, 29 March 2008 (EDT)
+
::::Well, the article states that Obama graduated from Harvard Law with honors.  That strikes me as a "clear personal achievement".  Are you suggesting, therefore, that he didn't deserve said honors, that faculty gave him an easy ride because he's African-American? --[[User:RossC|RossC]] 17:54, 29 March 2008 (EDT)
+
 
+
- "'''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 an out-of-state candidate, Alan Keyes'''."  This claim is completely without merit.  According to Fox News, Ryan was not forced out and the National Republican Senatorial Committee encouraged him to remain.  The idea that '''liberals somehow obtained the release of the confidential and personally embarrassing divorce records''' is disingenuous at the least and most likely a lie.  According to Fox News, the records were released when the ''Chicago Tribune'' and Chicago TV station ''WLS'' sued.  Divorce proceedings are a matter of public record unless the there is a compelling interest to make them private.  According to the court, relevant portions of the divorce were kept private and the remaining portions were released.  Please note that I am not quoting a liberal source for this information. [http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,123716,00.html]
+
 
+
:: The records were confidential and the newspaper that sued for their relief was supportive of Obama.  Yes, Jack Ryan was forced out as a result of the disclosures and no one familiar with politics credibly argues otherwise.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:06, 29 March 2008 (EDT)
+
 
+
- This article was unlocked for a brief time a while ago until some vandals made their presence known.  Even though the article was vandalized, it actually showed some signs of improvement.  As it stands now, this article belongs on an Obama-hating lunatic fringe website, not part of a 'trustworthy encyclopedia'.
+
 
+
:: I don't expect this factual entry to persuade anyone who is a big supporter of [[affirmative action]], because they don't care what Obama stands for or what his experience is.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:06, 29 March 2008 (EDT)
+
 
+
The above seems to be someone's comments, debated by ASchlafly?  But there's no name attached to any of these comments?  Can you put back the signatures of whoever wrote those suggestions?
+
 
+
As to the actual comments ASchlafly, it seems you haven't actually read your own article.  You ask "Has he made a trip to Western Europe yet???", and the article clearly states that he has indeed been to London and met with Tony Blair.  In comparison with all other candidates for the US Presidency, this leaves him "about the same".  Most US Presidents do not come to the table with a huge amount of travel experience under their belts - witness the current President, who had never been out of the Continent before becoming President.  No matter what you think of the candidate, the suggestion that the only things he has achieved are because of affirmative action beggars belief and doesn't even deserve a response, it's so unutterably stupid.  Finally, referring to this article as a "factual entry" is revelatory.  [[User:Billabong|Billabong]] 17:23, 29 March 2008 (EDT)
+
 
+
: "Western Europe" should be "continental Europe," because Obama did play second chair for an insignificant visit by a more experienced senator (Lugar) to Tony Blair.  If that courtesy call is what you're hanging your hat on, then it merely underscores Obama's lack of experience.  But I doubt you'd care anyway, as most Obama supporters don't support him for his experience or even his ever-changing  or silent positions.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:32, 29 March 2008 (EDT)
+
 
+
::I'm delighted to see that you admit you were wrong, so thank you for that - it's good to keep the record straight.  Now, for comparison to the other candidates, perhaps you'd like to list the foreign travel and policy experience of your candidate of choice?  John McCain is off to Israel, London and Paris I see?  Obama indeed does not have the French capital in his past itineraries, but comparing his Conservapedia article to Obama's, it would seem he is FAR more widely travelled than McCain.  Finally, your suggestion about affirmative action might as well be directed at Clarence Thomas, since the only requirement you seem to need to make such a comment is the colour of these gentlemen's skin? 
+
 
+
::PS  Finally, could you please put back the sigs of whoever you were responding to?  it's impossible to know where these comments come from?  [[User:Billabong|Billabong]] 17:43, 29 March 2008 (EDT)
+
 
+
== Law Professor ==
+
 
+
The sentence about Obama "falsely claiming to be a constitutional law professor" should be changed.  According to the University of Chicago, he was considered to be a professor. http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media/index.html
+
 
+
[[User:Tordenvaer|Tordenvaer]] 19:14, 29 March 2008 (EST)
+

Latest revision as of 05:15, March 19, 2025

This Talk Page is for Discussion Focused on the Improvement of the Corresponding Article
  • Your post should not deviate from the aforementioned purpose; this is not a page for debate on the topic.
  • Please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~).
  • Please place new text under old text; click here to add a new section.
Archives:
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9,
10
For article guidelines please see the Commandments and Guidelines


Obama's claim to being a Christian

The article briefly states Obama converted to Christianity as an adult. There is no indication Obama had any inclination to converting to Christianity prior to his marriage to Michelle Robinson Obama. It may be even his conversion was a concession, or matter of convenience in an agreement on child rearing.

This indeed, is a first: no American President in history ever attested to not having a Christian background in their youth, or converting in later life. More emphasis should be placed upon Obama's non-Christian, and possibly anti-Christian (be it secular atheist, Marxist, or Islamic) upbringing and early youth.

2000 year old Christian communities are being exterminated, black Christian girls abducted, enslaved, and raped while Obama is more concerned about his golf swing. The time for speculation about Obama is over. He is now building his legacy. OscarO 17:28, 24 August 2014 (EDT)

He has been seen eating during daylight hours of ramadan (fourth pillar of Islam), ate pork at the White house Easter egg hunt, has not been on Hajj (Fifth pillar), has never been seen praying during salat times (Second pillar), has a pet dog (banned by Hadiths), has been seen consuming alcoholic beverages at state dinners, and said he is not a Muslim. (Violates first pillar:Shahadah. Muslims must give declaration of their faith and only of their faith. Saying "I'm not a Muslim" automatically makes on an apostate) He was sworn in on a Bible, not the Koran or Hadiths. If he is a Muslim he is probably the worlds worst Muslim.--IluvAviation (talk) 21:23, 1 March 2017 (EST)

I agree with IluvAviation. Quite a few things he's done violate Islam's rules. Whiterose (talk) 18:21, 22 April 2017 (EDT)Whiterose (talk) 23:20, 22nd April 2017 (BST)

Just because he's not a very "good" Muslim doesn't make him anythnig else. On a side note, the Liberals are all mad because Trump put a stop to the times of silence in the White house corresponding to the Muslim times or prayer. I'm sure Obama just wanted the quite so he could focus on his work... (Of course, all the liberals strambled to cover it up and call it all a joke.) --David B (TALK) 18:32, 22 April 2017 (EDT)
He's done things that violate God's commandments too, so saying he's a Christian because he has violated Islamic commands is a logical fallacy. DMorris (talk) 18:34, 22 April 2017 (EDT)
Technically, I'm not entirely sure if Reverend Wright's parish would truly be Christian. At most, it's Christian-in-name-only due to adhering to Liberation Theology. And I don't know about others, but I most certainly doubt Obama's Christian either (like I said about his "adherence" to Islam below, he most likely only used the label of Christian in a cynical manner to gain votes). Pokeria1 (talk) 18:40, 22 April 2017 (EDT)
Obama claimed to be a Christian and was sworn in a bible. You get to keep your healthcare plan, too. It doesn't mean anything. We are the ones who must suffer for eternity because of his lies. By their fruits ye shall know them. RobSThe coup plotters are going down 18:51, 22 April 2017 (EDT)
Yeah, and he also claimed to be a Muslim as well, and even a gay man. That's not going to mean much when he's willing to put on appearances in a cynical attempt to grab votes. I might as well also point out there have been plenty of Marxist infiltrators into the Church during the 1960s, and considering one of the requirements of Marxism is that one must be an atheist, it's pretty obvious those infiltrators do not even believe in God and were faking it. The exact same is to be said about Obama being sworn in via the Bible. Pokeria1 (talk) 19:19, 22 April 2017 (EDT)

"Faith"

I would content that Obama is more of an atheist with islamic tendancies than a muslim. He shows distinct islamic traights and atheistic traits which are ruining are great country . FFAF 09:42, 15 January 2015 (EST)

I agree with that. Muslims dont support abortion or gay marriage like Obama does.--JoeyJ 11:41, 15 January 2015 (EST)

Ironic Misspellings

It's rather ironic that the article mocks Obama for misspelling "Respect" and "Ohio" when it spells "consensus" incorrectly in the preceding paragraph. BrodyJorgenson 18:31, 9 April 2015 (CST)

Leftists are experts in spelling the word consensus given that they so often engage in groupthink! :)Conservative 19:47, 9 April 2015 (EDT)

Proposal

I propose all the material on his pre-Presidential careers, and the two election cycles, be spun off to other or new articles, and we focus the damage he's done and legacy in two broad subsections, Domestic and Foreign policy. Rob Smith 22:25, 14 June 2015 (EDT)

Here's a problem...

This page took the "Obama is a Muslim" theme and went overboard. Now we know that line originated with Sidney Blumenthal and Hillary Clinton. That's why Obama banned Blumenthal from working in the government. I suggest culling some of it out; while I've no doubt Obama was influneced by both his father and step-father's Islamic heritage and growing up in Indonesia, using what essentially was Blumenthal's trash now not only (1) is counterproductive, and (2) makes CP look foolish while Blumenthal & Hillary skate away unscathed. There is an important lesson here. Comments? And trust me, if Hillary wins, Blumenthal will be her chief advisor for years to come. Do want those idiots dictating anymore CP content? RobS#NeverHillary 14:42, 28 June 2016 (EDT)

The line didn't originate with Blumenthal, although he contributed to it and passed on e-mails about it. But anti-Obama people were spreading the "Obama is a Muslim" thing before Blumenthal got to it. Debbie Schlussel was blogging about it before Blumenthal got his hands on it, and she claimed her article was in response to "e-mail questions". It's sort of a perfect storm of a rumor...it mixes fear of Islam with the idea that Obama is somehow "foreign" or "un-American". So I don't think it's going away. It's easier to slander somebody with made up rumors if you don't care about the facts than it is to criticize actual stuff that President Obama believes and does. So while it lowers the tone of the website, and honestly, is antithetical to what Conservapedia says it stands for, it's not going away any time soon, I don't think.--Whizkid (talk) 23:35, 28 June 2016 (EDT)

400px

It's easy to conclude Obama is a Muslim by his name. Though the narrative to hit Obama with it is first and foremost propagated by the Clintons. Possibly taking a cue from talk radio.--Jpatt 07:01, 29 June 2016 (EDT)

Some of it ought to be culled; it makes CP look stupid to march to Blumenthal & Hillary talking points. RobS#NeverHillary 08:29, 29 June 2016 (EDT)
Please see: Counterexamples to Obama being a Muslim and http://www.conservapedia.com/Obama%27s_Religion#Counterexamples_to_Obama_being_a_Muslim
By the way, many apostates (like his father) keep Muslim names out of tradition. Obama told TIME that while his father was born a Muslim, his father left Islam before he met his mother.[1]Regardless, he has been seen eating during daylight hours of Ramadan (fourth pillar of Islam), ate pork at the White house Easter egg hunt, has not been on Hajj (Fifth pillar), has never been seen praying during Salat times (Second pillar), has a pet dog (banned by Hadiths), has been seen consuming alcoholic beverages at state dinners, and said he is not a Muslim. (Violates first pillar:Shahadah. Muslims must give declaration of their faith and only of their faith. Saying "I'm not a Muslim" automatically makes on an apostate) He was sworn in on a Bible, not the Koran or Hadiths. If he is a Muslim he is probably the worlds worst Muslim--IluvAviation (talk) 21:30, 1 March 2017 (EST)


I don't believe Obama is a Muslim. The evidence does not support it and there is evidence pointing to him not being a Muslim. Conservative (talk) 09:42, 29 June 2016 (EDT)
It doesn't matter, I'm saying the amount if space given to speculation and assertion is out of balance. More importantly, Conservapedia should be more careful about taking the bait dangled by Democrat talking points and making a fool of itself. Unless you're content spinning your wheels and marginalizing yourself as extremist. RobS#NeverHillary 13:44, 29 June 2016 (EDT)

I don't agree with how Conservapedia handles the Obama/Muslim issue.Conservative (talk) 13:50, 29 June 2016 (EDT)

What difference, at this point, does it make? A sizable chunk of the population believes, right or wrong, that Obama is a secret Muslim. So it trends toward conspiracy and doesn't look flattering to the beholder. The bonus, Conservapedia draws traffic. There is much here that would upset the senses of millions. Oh and Cons, ever since the ape was shot at the Cincinnati Zoo...Rush Limbaugh has been hitting Evolution on a regular basis. Good stuff. --Jpatt 21:50, 29 June 2016 (EDT)
Jpatt, I was thinking the same thing. Obama is a lame duck. I don't think Andy would be very upset if the "Obama is a Muslim" material is stripped out of the article. On the other hand, he is very sympathetic to Islam so that should remain in the article. He is also not a friend of Israel. Conservative (talk) 22:19, 29 June 2016 (EDT)
Obama is a Muslim theme makes headlines on Drudge today [1] Americans are interested in this stuff. --Jpatt 09:32, 7 July 2016 (EDT)
He has been seen eating during daylight hours of ramadan (fourth pillar of Islam), ate pork at the White house Easter egg hunt, has not been on Hajj (Fifth pillar), has never been seen praying during salat times (Second pillar), has a pet dog (banned by Hadiths), has been seen consuming alcoholic beverages at state dinners, and said he is not a Muslim. (Violates first pillar:Shahadah. Muslims must give declaration of their faith and only of their faith. Saying "I'm not a Muslim" automatically makes on an apostate) He was sworn in on a Bible, not the Koran or Hadiths. If he is a Muslim he is probably the worlds worst Muslim--IluvAviation (talk) 21:30, 1 March 2017 (EST)

Frank Marshall Davis

Barack Sr.'s papers were recently released. The letters cover 1958 to 1964, but "Barack Obama Sr. never mentioned his new wife and son, not even in his scholarship applications," as the New York Times puts it. On Barack Sr's student loan application, the section concerning family was left blank. He already had a wife and children back in Kenya when he married Ann Dunham, so it's possible the marriage was a sham. This article makes the case that communist writer Frank Marshall Davis was Obama's biological father. From the pictures given, the president certainly looks a whole lot more like Davis than he does like Barack Sr. None of the reasons for suspecting Davis actually nail the thing down, but it's the most plausible theory I am aware of. The article implies that it's a political cover up, but surely no one expected little Obama to go into politics when he was born. Davis was already married and single motherhood was a scandal. The sham marriage protected Barack Jr from bastard status. PeterKa (talk) 21:51, 19 July 2016 (EDT)

Birth location "reportedly"

A suspicious Hawaii "Certificate of Live Birth" (not the same as a birth certificate), with a Connecticut Social Security number (a SSN to my knowledge is always from the birth state) and airline records which seem to indicate Barry ("Barack") Obama's mother came to Hawaii three days after his birth all make the statement of his birth location suspicious at best. I believe that it is being generous to Obama to say that he was "reportedly born" there, so I don't think this word should be removed. If there is proof that he surely was born here, then sure, take it out. For now, let's not be arbitrary when it isn't clear. I apprecate your contributions, but with controversial issues like this, please provide sufficient reliable proof when making such an edit. Thanks! --David B (TALK) 16:10, 26 July 2016 (EDT)

Long form birth certificate can be found here: https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/rss_viewer/birth-certificate-long-form.pdf. No social security number on it, because that is assigned from the SSA, not the hospital. I'm not sure where the information on the flights come from. What proof is required?

The process of concealing, concealing, concealing and then releasing something widely criticized as being inadequate creates enough doubt to let the readers decide. A pattern of liberal denial on other issues, such as Obama's Religion, undermines credibility of the liberal media as it cheerleads for Obama.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 09:24, 27 July 2016 (EDT)
The cartoon image inserted in the upper right of this talk page is actually a pretty good checklist. As far as the birth certificate issue goes, this is an certificate of live birth. As this article explains, a certificate of live birth is largely unverified by the government. It is simple a record which states a person is alive, and parent information. In many cases, this document is enough for personal identification and passport application, but it is not really verified. These can be registered after birth, so Mrs. Obama could have easily registered it after his birth in another country. Additionally, there is still question as to whether his certificate of live birth is actually genuine. [2] [3] Some in fact believe that he was first an Indonesian citizen [4] He has reported having been born in a hospital, which would have seen to getting him an official birth certificate, but yet this did not happen. And actually, he can't make up his mind which hospital he was born in since he has named two different ones. [5]
As for the airline records, apparently someone reported this discrepancy, but when officials went to look, they found that the immigration records for that week mysteriously vanished.
There are other factors worth considering, such as an article which Barack Hussein Obama published as U.S. Senate hopeful in 2004 in which he self-identified as having been born in Kenya. Newsmax has another list here, if you want to do a little further reading.
As for what proof I would like to see, I would say:
  • An authenticated Birth Certificate
  • The missing immigration records
  • The hospital records
...and any other records available which would prove this claim.
I'm not trying to attack you by saying all this, but I'm just saying that there is still significant question in this matter. --David B (TALK) 09:38, 27 July 2016 (EDT)
Also, there are sworn affidavits of Bishop Ron McRae and Kweli Shuhubia which further indicate he was born in Kenya. Kweli Shuhubia's affidavit includes partial transcript of an audio recording of Obama's grandmother stating she attended Obama's birth in Kenya. --David B (TALK) 09:46, 27 July 2016 (EDT)

David, this birther stuff is just a big steaming pile of garbage. No one believes it any more, except utter nutcases. I know you are a smart and productive person. If you have gotten caught up in this, you need to re-evaluate / recalibrate your mental processes of deciding what is true. No one, except total fruitcakes, believes any of this stuff. Absolutely convincing evidence has been out there for years by now. If you want to investigate the issue on your own, I suggest that you start with:

  • The "Barry Soetoro" nonsense. Do you see the absurdity underlying it?
  • The "E.F. Lavender" / "You've been punked" document. If you have investigated the issue, you are no doubt familiar with this.
  • The forged picture of the sign "Welcome to Kenya, birthplace of Barack Obama", along with the picture of the actual sign. (I don't remember the exact wording.) These pictures were making the rounds of the internet a few years ago. The forged one was actually uploaded to Conservapedia a few years ago, with no awareness of irony, and appeared in one of the articles. I was about to upload the correct sign, and put it next to the forged one, with a caption of "The issue of Obama's birth location inflames passions so much that people even forge pictures of signs, such as the one on the right." But, alas, more sensible heads prevailed at Conservapedia, and the whole thing was taken down before I could get to it.
  • Sherrif Arpaio's investigation. What became of that? What did WND have to say about it?
  • The disposition of case 8-cv-04083, alluded to above. It was dismissed "on the grounds that [plaintiff] lacks standing and failed to state a cognizable claim".
  • The well-financed investigation that a very wealthy person said he was conducting. What became of that? Over the last few years, this person ahs repeatedly said, when asked about it, the he doesn't want to talk about it.

David, you can do better than getting caught up in an incredibly nonsensical conspiracy theory like this. SamHB (talk) 11:36, 30 July 2016 (EDT)

You're right, there is evidence against this as well as for. It's not my intention to make a big deal about it, since it it irrelevant at this point, but there is still suspicion surrounding this. I don't have much time, but wanted to post a brief response. Since I haven't time to put my disjointed thoughts into paragraph form, here are my points:
  • Not sure what you are referring to as the "E.F. Lavender" / "You've been punked" document
I didn't expect you to know about it. It's about the weird ways these "facts" make their way into the birthers' heads. It was a photograph (cropped, but the originator didn't say that at first) that someone planted as evidence that BHO was born in Kenya. It was obviously fraudulent—it listed the birth city as a place not in Kenya at the time. (Mombassa? I don't remember the details.) It was signed by "E.F. Lavender", which was apparently an old brand of laundry detergent or something. None of that stopped the birthers from latching onto it as "evidence". The prankster then released an uncropped version of the same photograph—I believe it was laid out on a bed or something—with a sign below it saying "You've been punked!"
  • I probably know about the case 8-cv-04083, but I don't know it by the number.
It was the case involving the affidavit of a transcript of a statement from the grandmother or whatever. You can Google the case number.
  • Sherrif Arpaio's investigation ended when all the evidence became unavailable
How convenient that he was able to end his "investigation" so cleanly.
  • I hope that most people would realize that for Kenya to make a sign like that is...a stretch, at best
Yes, it's utterly incredible. But it was displayed here at Conservapedia for a while.
  • The released birth certificate contains digital layers and frames, even though it is supposedly a scanned-in document. That simply can't happen with a scanner alone. (This can be verified by view the officially published certificate, as linked to above)
Have you downloaded the alleged document from the white house source and analyzed it, or are you willing to take the word of a birther?
  • As I mentioned before, a S.S. number always comes from your birth state. Some real monkey business would be required for someone to have a Certificate of Live Birth from one state, and a S.S. number from another.
Do you know what BHO's social security number is? I believe they are confidential, even when you are President. Isn't it convenient that people can nevertheless claim that they know it and that it is fraudulent?
The indented interleaved comments in the above paragraph were written by me, SamHB. It is a common practice on wikis to use this kind of indented reply format when replying to specific points in another person's post. That's really what wiki indentation is for, and wiki users know that. SamHB (talk) 13:27, 31 July 2016 (EDT)
I'll concede in this case, but I can't agree with what the liberal media has declared about this. It is almost pointless though, since he has already gotten all he wants from the race card, and he's set for life. I will agree that the left tried to make his critics look like fools by withholding then releasing the certificate. I wasn't going to fall for it then, but now that it is out, anyone with Photoshop or Paint.NET can see that something's fishy about the "document."--David B (TALK) 13:42, 30 July 2016 (EDT)
Is it any surprise that SamHB (who actually agrees with what the liberal media says and condescends to anyone who doesn't agree with his POV - notably in calling those who legitimately question where Obama was born "birthers", "nutcases" and "fruitcakes" and calling the question itself a "nonsensical conspiracy theory" in typical liberal fashion) is yet again attempting to impose a liberal viewpoint on this website (and in this case, on both the main page and the talk page of this article) by pulling legit doubts about Obama's birthplace from the main article without justifiable reason, then also broke up the flow of DavidB4's previous post on the issue on the talk page by not only inserting his own liberal POV in between each of David's points (per this post), but not even bothering to sign his post (both actions in poor form)? Such actions as those typically smack of desperation on the part of the Obama defenders to keep their "messiah" looking squeaky-clean when plenty of evidence provided over time (including Obama's own well-documented actions) says otherwise. Northwest (talk) 07:53, 31 July 2016 (EDT)
Well, that was indeed one long sentence you've got there, 839 characters. But it can't beat my 1054 character sentence in Talk:Rugby_School. AlanE and I were joking around.
I was only commenting about the Obama birthplace issue, not about whether to keep a "messiah" looking squeaky-clean. SamHB (talk) 13:27, 31 July 2016 (EDT)
Ridicule is a form of Alinskyism (a favorite fallback of liberals when they can't refute the truth or formulate rational arguments) and only makes the one doing the ridiculing look foolish. Northwest (talk) 22:21, 31 July 2016 (EDT)
Might as well add something to the bit. I remember there being a PDF of some documentation from Kenya that actually confirmed that Obama was born in Kenya. I'll try to dig it out. Pokeria1 (talk) 11:01, 31 July 2016 (EDT)
I haven't found the PDF yet, but I think I may have found an even bigger smoking gun, something not even SamHB could possibly deny: http://thepowerhour.com/news4/obama_kenyan_birth_certificate.htm Pokeria1 (talk) 11:05, 31 July 2016 (EDT)
YES!! You found it! Congratulations. It's as I remembered it. Laid out on a towel or bedspread or whatever on a bed. I had assumed that this bit of history was long gone. But the internet is forever! The writing in this picture is hard to read; a cleaner copy may be found at http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthers/kenyacert.asp. Though that copy has Orly Taitz's (Remember her? Probably the original birther) web site superimposed on it. You can clearly see the "E.F. Lavender" name.
Whatever you may think of the political views of the Snopes people, the article makes fascinating reading. They even found the person (an Australian named David Jeffrey Bomford) whose birth certificate provided the basis for the forgery. I believe the later "You've been punked" picture came out on the long-defunct Top 10 Conservative Idiots website.
Ah, yes. Orly Taitz. Birthers. The whole thing is entertaining. That is, the fact that people still believe this stuff is entertaining. But those intelligent and sensible people at Conservapedia (meaning DavidB4 and Pokeria1) should move on. Donald Trump has. SamHB (talk) 13:04, 31 July 2016 (EDT)
Wasn't Snopes.com filled with errors, though, at least, that's what this site's article stated when it said, and I quote, "Snopes.com is a website devoted to collecting and debunking urban legends. It was started in 1997, run by husband and wife team Barbara and David Mikkelson. It is filled with numerous, intentionally inaccurate information because the Mikkelson's have no formal background or experience in investigative research."?
And honestly, why is a liberal like SamHB on a site like Conservapedia? Shouldn't there be some form of a vetting process for new members to make sure they aren't liberal? Pokeria1 (talk) 13:57, 31 July 2016 (EDT)
To me, the test of being a "conservative" or a "liberal" is a philosophy of government and how it applies to economic and social issues. The location of President Obama's birth is a fact that is proven with evidence. Your conclusion on this issue has nothing to do with whether you can be labelled as a conservative or liberal. To be fair, SamHB is not "a new member" of Conservapedia and has been around for many years. JDano (talk) 14:25, 31 July 2016 (EDT)
Maybe not, but if it walks, talks, and quacks like a duck - it's a duck. Same thing with liberals (which SamHB has shown himself to be time and again). Northwest (talk) 22:21, 31 July 2016 (EDT)

I can't speak for the photo of a supposed birth certificate. It seems a little convenient, but I won't discount it. Snopes is certainly wrong at times. Just because they put a red circle with an "X" on it next to a claim doesn't make the claim false. To unquestioningly accept this would be as much an error as to accept everything in the newspaper.
There are many reports which are hard to verify, and even more telling, the lack of many records which should exist. (For example, why does no school have a record of him attending much less graduating their institution, even though he claims he did? There are liberal institutions, so they would not attempt to harm him by burying such records.) I still maintain that the official birth certificate is its own poof of fraud. Anyone with photo editing skills can see that it is composed of multiple image layers. These layers are generated with modification of a digital image, and can never be created by scanning in a document. The "scan," therefore, is clearly more than just a scan.
Pokeria1, Conservapedia does allow liberal members, as long as they do not undermine the conservative point of view of CP. SamHB has made many helpful contributions, so I don't think it's entirely fair to question whether he should even be allowed to be here. Although I disagree with him on this, I think his suggestion still is worth listening to--move on. He's already deceived the public, trashed the country, and proven that the system has become a joke. Complaining about it now will not help, but we will need to be all the more vigilant in the future. He's proved it can be done, so who will be the next to try? --David B (TALK) 12:38, 29 September 2016 (EDT)

This one's in the can

I'm gonna start structuring this artic!e for posterity now that Obama's riding off to the rendering plant. RobS#NeverHillary 02:33, 22 November 2016 (EST)

Obama is a relatively young and healthy man who will probably do much more in his career. Look at Jimmy Carter's post-Presidency. JDano (talk) 05:28, 22 November 2016 (EST)
Yep. He started with an apology tour and ended preaching American excrptionalism in Peru the other day. I guess he has grown. RobS#NeverHillary 08:19, 22 November 2016 (EST)

As one pundit summed it up with a classic baby boomer idiom: "Obama was like a nine year bad trip on bad drugs." RobS#NeverHillary 10:24, 10 January 2017 (EST)

If he is a Muslim, he is not a very good one

He has been seen eating during daylight hours of ramadan (fourth pillar of Islam), ate pork at the White house Easter egg hunt, has not been on Hajj (Fifth pillar), has never been seen praying during salat times (Second pillar), has a pet dog (banned by Hadiths), has been seen consuming alcoholic beverages at state dinners, and said he is not a Muslim. (Violates first pillar:Shahadah. Muslims must give declaration of their faith and only of their faith. Saying "I'm not a Muslim" automatically makes on an apostate) He was sworn in on a Bible, not the Koran or Hadiths. If he is a Muslim he is probably the worlds worst Muslim.--IluvAviation (talk) 21:19, 1 March 2017 (EST)

Obama's religion is self-worship. He once defined sin as, “Being out of alignment with my values.” To thine own hype be true. PeterKa (talk) 21:39, 1 March 2017 (EST)
He is at the very least a sympathizer. Don't forget, though, that it is permitted to lie to infidels to further the cause. --David B (TALK) 22:54, 1 March 2017 (EST)
Eating bacon and having a pet dog aren't exactly acceptable to further the cause. If he was a true Muslim he wouldn't eat pork out of fear because it is considered unclean. The Koran gives a short list of excuses for not fasting during Ramadan (Pregnant, menstruating...) but trying to prove one is not a Muslim is not on the list.--IluvAviation (talk) 16:46, 2 March 2017 (EST)
Yeah, and besides, considering his birth father was pretty blatantly a Marxist, it's extremely unlikely that either Barack Obama Sr. OR his son would have adhered to Islam. More likely than not, Barack Obama just cynically adopted the "religion" for votes. Pokeria1 (talk) 17:27, 2 March 2017 (EST)
If we go by Obama's memoirs, he was brought up as a non-religious Marxist, a so called "red diaper baby," and was converted to Christianity by Jeremiah Wright. After Wright criticized Obama, Obama "threw him under the bus" and prosecuted the man's daughter.[6] As I understand it, they worshiped together at the First Church of Getting Even.
As for Obama's birth father, I assume that was married party member Frank Davis. Obama Sr. already had a family back in Kenya. PeterKa (talk) 21:12, 2 March 2017 (EST)

You don't have to be a church going Muslim to be a Muslim. All you have to do is reject the idea God has partners like Jesus, and reject the notion of national sovereignty as evil, Satanic, and blasphemy. That any law or government that purports to rule over you and your Christ-rejecting brethren, is an enemy of Allah and Allah has decreed to destroy using any means necessary, including lies, deciet, and fraudulent oaths to gain their confidence. These attitudes is all it takes to be a Muslim and do Allah's will. RobSCIA vs Trump. Who's gonna win? 22:26, 3 March 2017 (EST)

"You don't have to be a church going Muslim to be a Muslim. All you have to do is reject the idea God has partners" So what if somebody does not believe in a god or diety at all, would that make them a muslim? No, Islam has a strict set of rules (Primarily declaring that the only god is Allah and Muhammed was his messenger)--IluvAviation (talk) 15:35, 4 March 2017 (EST)
One of those strict rules is the doctrine of takfirism, or 'once a Muslim always a Muslim', with the threat of death hanging over would-be defectors. This is why so few, if any, alleged Muslim socialists and atheists publicly foreswear Islam. So yes, it is possible for a Muslim secularist, atheist, or socialist to still be considered or identified as a Muslim. RobSCIA vs Trump. Who's gonna win? 18:17, 4 March 2017 (EST)
I'm pretty sure that if you adhere to Atheism, you automatically cut off ties to your religion just for adhering to it, whether it be Christianity or Islam. That's why I'm not so sure about whether takfirism truly applies. I know if I were a Muslim and someone did become an atheist, I'd target them all the same even when they haven't openly renounced their faith precisely because I view even becoming an atheist as meaning you gave it up regardless if it isn't explicitly stated. Pokeria1 (talk) 18:59, 4 March 2017 (EST)
No, they would not be automatically cutoff from the body of believers. First, the imams would have to investigate. Then, after being found in sin, the wayward Muslim is supposed to be admonished and given time to repent. Then finally, if they continue in sin, the execution is ordered.
However today, since bin Laden revolutionized things, the scholars and religious authorities can be by passed, and low level rank and file Muslims can expedite the whole process without consulting higher-up religious authorities. But as ever, if a Muslim socialist or atheist knows in the end he will be found guilty of sin and rejecting the truth of Islam, and knowing he's surrounded by 1.2 billion true believers, he has no interest in denying or rejecting his Muslim identity.
Furthermore, Muslims are granted license to lie and deceive non-Muslims, denying the faith to non-Muslims being an example.RobSCIA vs Trump. Who's gonna win? 22:50, 4 March 2017 (EST)
Yeah, I know about taqqiya, but I'm pretty sure in this particular case, even being an atheist at all, even if you still lay claim publicly that you are a muslim, would be reason enough to get your head removed. I know if it were me, I'd been muslim, and someone became an atheist even in secret, I wouldn't even care if he's still publicly a muslim, I'd still kill him under the reason of him adhering to atheism at all. Pokeria1 (talk) 16:30, 5 March 2017 (EST)
Just because somebody had a Muslim father that was barely present doesn't make them a Muslim. Remember, he was raised by his mother, who was not a Muslim. And regardless of Islamic law, one can be an ex-Muslim without going through the takfirism process: one merely has to stop all praying, stop all fasting, and live a normal secular life. Many people leave Islam without shouting from the rooftops that they are not a practicing Muslim anymore: a gallup poll showed 5% of Saudis are atheists. (Remember, prayer upon the call the prayer is mandatory in the KSA, apostacy is punishable by death. It is a dishonor to 1,441,500 atheists in the KSA some have a habit of calling Muslims in ordinance of Islamic law, when they self-admit to being atheists.) There are documented cases of Muslims converting to Christianity without going through the takfirism process. Takfirism is for if you live in an Islamic nation with an Islamic criminal code. The US does not on the preise of your argument that Obama was ever a Muslim; most American Muslims who become atheists just stop going to masjid, stop praying, stop fasting. After all, if you are an atheist, why would you testify before the congregation of your masjid that you are an atheist an face humilitaion and worse when you could just cut of all contact and move? Does the atheist who quietly leaves their masjid qualify as "still a Muslim" to you?--IluvAviation (talk) 19:45, 6 March 2017 (EST)

Muslims don't go to churches. They go to mosques. :) I think all the wrangling about Obama's religion will largely cease once the dust settles about the fate of ObamaCare. I think the public's interest in Obama will wane if large changes happen to ObamaCare or it its repealed and replaced.

But I could be wrong. Liberals are often more active in politics than conservatives and maybe Obama will still crave the power/spotlight since he is a egotist/narcissist and take actions to retain the spotlight. Conservative (talk) 16:13, 4 March 2017 (EST)

Footnotes

  1. Obama, Barack. "My Spiritual Journey", TIME, October 16, 2006. Retrieved on September 26, 2008. “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.” 

Title

Why is the page title "Barack Hussein Obama" when even George W. Bush's page title is just "George W. Bush"

My best explanation is that his middle name is known or used, like how our page title for L. Frank Baum isn't Lyman F. Baum or L. F. Baum because that's what he was called. By the way, please try to sign your comments with the signature tool above.--Abcqwe (talk) 20:05, 31 March 2017 (EDT)
Same reason Hilary Rodham Clinton is named what it is - so CP doesn't have to compete with Wikipedia for results. I'm for Barack Hussein "Piece o' Crap" Obama as more befitting his legacy, however. RobSCIA v Trump updated score:CIA 3, Trump 2 20:48, 31 March 2017 (EDT)

Yup, he's gay

Now that Obama is no longer president, we can finally say the obvious. This author is no birther or conspiracy theorist. He wrote a Pulitzer-prize winning MLK bio: "New Biography: Young Obama ‘Considered Gayness’." PeterKa (talk) 10:19, 27 April 2017 (EDT)

Take a look at the picture of Obama and Branson and tell me they aren't gay:[7] PeterKa (talk) 22:56, 27 April 2017 (EDT)
I suspect in coming months as we get more tell-books, more will come out. It's never been a secret in Chicago or Washington. What prevents both of them. Michael Michelle and Barack from coming out is how the public will react. No problem. Let's play along. Wait and see. If the two wish to continue being ashamed of themselves, leave them alone. RobSThe coup plotters won, for now 01:10, 28 April 2017 (EDT)
Cool story, Rob. Thanks to Trump, the Obamas' stock is so high with liberals, they could both come out as pan-galactic reptilian shapeshifters and still receive ticker tape parades in every major east coast and west coast city.
Hell, even Dubya's looking good in comparison to the straw-thatched self-publicist you voted for in November. Buckle up for the mid-terms, my man. It's not going to be pretty. JohnZ (talk) 15:55, 28 April 2017 (EDT)
An Obama speech is worth more than a Clinton speech-he's lucky she lost, he'd be picking up cans right now for a living. Midterms are a long long way off. Trump critics take what he say's literally but not seriously; Trump supporters take him seriously but not literally. Never mind tho, he's already a captive of the Deep State. RobSThe coup plotters won, for now 17:42, 28 April 2017 (EDT)
Yeah, JohnZ, it won't be pretty, alright - for the Democrats, as their supporters' (the liberal media, Hollywood celebs, Antifa, etc.) current antics end up losing them even more governorships, Congress and Senate seats, mayors' offices, etc. to the GOP. Northwest (talk) 18:48, 28 April 2017 (EDT)

Obama is not some evil genius who is hiding being a homosexual. At best, he is a bisexual. Last time I checked, he is married with two children.Conservative (talk) 18:46, 25 November 2017 (EST)

You need to check closer. The Obama's aren't just the first Black First Family, their the first gay married First Family and gay adopted First kids. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 04:36, 26 November 2017 (EST)
To be fair, Conservative, Elton John was married to a woman and had kids with her once, yet he most certainly was gay, so him being married and having children isn't necessarily something that would rule him out as being gay. Pokeria1 (talk) 06:34, 26 November 2017 (EST)
Those kids aren't sisters. Look closely. Their skin tones don't match and the shape of their heads is entirely different. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 08:38, 26 November 2017 (EST)
One of the many limitations of the internet is the difficulty in conveying sarcasm or satire unambiguously in text form; of course this is not a new problem, as Jonathan Swift well knew. So I'm not clear as to whether you consider this tale a lighthearted bit of satire that no one should take seriously, like the leftists who claim that Ted Cruz was the Zodiac Killer despite his being born after the murders, or whether this is a sincere belief of yours, or whether you believe that this is a narrative that is useful to promulgate in retaliation for narratives promulgated against others, e.g. "(y)ou backoff your scandalmongering nonsense and I'll backoff mine" as you said in the Pizzagate discussion. I realize that explaining a joke usually destroys it, and I wouldn't normally step on another person's joke, but it does seem that an admin here has taken your argument at face value and may suffer embarrassment as a result. On the other hand, it may be I who should be embarrassed, mistaking genuine sentiment for sarcasm or tactical scandalmongering nonsense.--Brossa (talk) 15:34, 26 November 2017 (EST)
These are the letters Obama wrote to his college girlfriend.[8]
Obama is not an evil genius who cleverly covered up being a homosexual. See also: Fallacy of exclusion Obama's bio suggests someone who was arrogant, corrupt and lacked competence for the office of the presidency. Not some evil genius.
If you read the Conservapedia's homosexuality article you will see that a person's sexual behavior is not caste in stone. Hence, the existence of bisexuals and ex-homosexuals. Conservative (talk) 09:46, 26 November 2017 (EST)
Okay, fair enough. Still... considering his radical left-leaning views, I'm doubtful he's going to be an ex-homosexual (IF he's gay anyways) in any case, being too far to the left to even consider renouncing it. Pokeria1 (talk) 10:01, 26 November 2017 (EST)

Elton John said he was a bisexual (Bisexual refers to a person with both heterosexual and homosexual desires.).[9] He did not say he was a homosexual who exclusively had sex with males.Conservative (talk)

Sheila Miyoshi Jager

Here's a picture of the live-in girlfriend Obama broke up with because a white gal would hold him back politically: [10]. She's a bit on the manly side, as you might expect.
Based on what Jager has to say, we can now nail down exactly when Obama got on the road to the White House: "I remember very clearly when this transformation happened, and I remember very specifically that by 1987, about a year into our relationship, he already had his sights on becoming president."[11] This was when he was a community organizer in Chicago. It was also right around the time Obama joined Wright's church, which makes it less likely that he joined for religious reasons. He entered Harvard in 1988. Dreams from My Father came out in 1995 and is thus a campaign bio in this timeline. Dreams doesn't mention Jager or O's presidential ambitions. PeterKa (talk) 20:58, 5 May 2017 (EDT)

Suggesting addition of Arabic rendering بارك حسین اوباما per 2009 suggestion long forgotten

This idea was pitched by another editor in 2009, but they had an awkward GoogleTranslate attempt at a phonetic rendering. I know the script and also used the standardized Arabic spellings for the first two names, and the result is: بارك حسین اوباما

So revisiting a 9 year old issue, but are folks interested in including the Arabic spelling of his name in the lead? DavidLReyes (talk) 22:12, 2 April 2018 (EDT)

Poll

Yes

No

Irrelevant stupid comments

Arabic Wikipedia gives "Barack Obama" as باراك أوباما and "Barack Hussein Obama, Jr." as باراك حسين أوباما الابن . See here. PeterKa (talk) 01:59, 4 April 2018 (EDT)

Right, I'm just saying that for consistency our Arabic rendering should be identical to the English rendering of our title, so include the حسین (H-S-Y-N) that we render as Hussein in our current English title. Your points are totally valid and our spellings agree, I'm just saying if we have first-middle-last (no Jr) in the Englis title, Arabic rendering should be the same. DavidLReyes (talk) 02:20, 4 April 2018 (EDT)
Two days and two votes. Looks like we have an emerging consensus. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 09:54, 4 April 2018 (EDT)


I'm not going to vote "no" outright (yet), but what is the point of doing this? It seems a little low to translate his Engl(ish) name into Arabic to prove a point. Besides, aren't people saying that his name was originally "Barry Soetoro"? I agree that he probably was (by their definition, a bad) Muslim, but I don't really see the profit in doing this. --David B (TALK) 11:59, 4 April 2018 (EDT)

Basically, we need to rekindle interest in this page before it dies on the vine. Stir the pot, so to speak. With 3.5 million hits, it's long been a marquis attraction to CP. We're not saying he's Arab or Muslim, only that he's well known and respected in that part of the world. If one did a poll, you'd probably discover more Arabs think he's Muslim than rednecks do. We could put Nixon's name in Chinese too, since he's the one who sold us out to China. But the Nixon page never had the interest, pro or con, that this page is known for. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 13:24, 4 April 2018 (EDT)

I was considering voting "no" when I first saw this, but I wanted to see what others thought. I like the fact that this page might get some publicity if we do this, but at the same time, I also don't see how this helps the article. It might look like trolling, and readers may choose not to read beyond the first paragraph after seeing it. Maybe I'm being too negative, but I'm not convinced it will help the article. --1990'sguy (talk) 14:52, 4 April 2018 (EDT)

So it's a publicity stunt? I appreciate the intent, but I'm going put my vote on "no." Let's just focus on offering good articles on everything we can, rather than trying to drum up attention for one good article. He may have been "one big awful mistake America," but he's gone now, and I think it better to focus on both current and timeless issues instead. --David B (TALK) 15:50, 4 April 2018 (EDT)
The box clearly states he is said to have converted to Christianity. We simply need to add a section on how he has not been a friend to Israel and has facilitated a nuclear arms race in the Middle East. He's very popular in the Middle East with his support for the oxymoronic "moderate rebels". Between his " Austrian language" and "Polish death camp" comments there is no reason to hold to the kenard that Obama identifies as a Westerner or with Western civilization. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 16:30, 4 April 2018 (EDT)
I agree, his claim at being Christian was just a ploy to get more votes. He was an enemy of Israel, and a friend of all their enemies. However, his legal name is just that. Translating or transliterating it into Arabic doesn't really help anyone, nor will it be persuasive to critics. --David B (TALK) 17:05, 4 April 2018 (EDT)
Given the subject, I think we'd be hard-pressed to even be capable of a "low blow" relative to the subject... That said, even if it is a bit of a "stunt", the people it would turn off are not our supporters anyway, so I don't mind tweaking the nose of liberal "tourists" who come here to gape. Plus it's a shout-out to our readership who have grave concerns about Obama's divided loyalties. I would also be in favor of including his earlier "Barry Soetero" name since it also highlights the suspicious malleability of his "marketing". DavidLReyes (talk) 21:33, 4 April 2018 (EDT)
That's right. Diversity is our strength. It's multicultural and inclusive. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 23:45, 4 April 2018 (EDT)
If we want to imply that Obama is from Kenya, what about Swahili? Kenya uses English and Swahili, but both languages use the Latin alphabet. So a personal name like Obama is written the same way in Swahili. PeterKa (talk) 13:18, 6 April 2018 (EDT)
It's not an effort to rekindle the birther movement. It's more paying homage to the Muslim hordes he's unleashed on Europe and Western civilization. For example, we're not proposing to insert the Persian spelling of his name despite his efforts to aid a nuclearized Iran. Or a Pakistani or Indonesian spelling which he is more closely identified with. Or a Turkish spelling, which also is closely associated with his presidential legacy. An Arab spelling pays homage to his anti-Isreali constituent base. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 15:55, 6 April 2018 (EDT)
The problem is that nobody is going to know that it's an illustration of Obama's leftist immigration policy -- they're all going to think that we're promoting the "birther" theory. If we're going to do this, we should at least make our intentions clear, but I don't see how we can do that in a consise way and without distracting from the rest of the article. --1990'sguy (talk) 21:33, 6 April 2018 (EDT)
On the face of it, yes. In context, no. No one ever alleged he's Arab. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 22:29, 6 April 2018 (EDT)
True, but most ordinary people think of Arabs and the Arabic language as synonymous with Islam, so to them, seeing Arabic, they'll think "Islam." --1990'sguy (talk) 22:31, 6 April 2018 (EDT)
We are an educational resource, after all. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 22:38, 6 April 2018 (EDT)
We are an educational resource, which is why I don't think this is appropriate. He is not Arab, so I see no good reason to translate his name into Arabic. I understand that this is an attempt to speak to his religion, and favoritism. I'm not opposed to that idea whatsoever. However, doing this serves no educational purpose. Let the article speak for itself, and let the readers look at the facts. If you want to write out his name in his native African dialect, feel free. However, you wouldn't find something like this Arabic translation in Britannica, and it doesn't belong here either. I'm happy to have this article discussing his religious preferences--that's not that at all which I object to. --David B (TALK) 00:30, 11 April 2018 (EDT)
Britannica? Britannica called Barack Obama an "organizer" of Louis Farrakhan's Million Man March for a decade - up until June of 2008 when Obama won the primaries but before the election. This is a matter of record. Britannica is hardly a source on Obama's life. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 00:48, 11 April 2018 (EDT)

Pity the poor Democrats

They are now in the position of defending the most corrupt President before or since Richard Nixon, or arguing he was too stupid and naive to see the criminal conduct of his underlings. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 21:36, 18 May 2018 (EDT)

This page is highly disorganized

Considering it's one of the the top five most popular, it needs a makeover.RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 01:00, 20 November 2018 (EST)

Obama's father

Re this continuing controversy. A quick search of ancestry.com reveals that his father was indeed resident in Honolulu in 1961:

Name: Barack H Obama
[Barack Hussein Obama Sr]
Residence Year: 1961
Street address: R625 11th Av
Residence Place: Honolulu , Hawaii
Occupation: Student
Publication Title: Polk's Directory of City and County of Honolulu, 1961

There must also be other documentation relating to Barack Obama senior's time in Hawaii as a student and the scholarship that he received from the Kenyan government. In addition there is a mass of biographical information readily available. Timber (talk) 09:45, 20 April 2019 (EDT)

Hah! ancestry.com also says Michelle Obama was born female. And what about when John Brennan hacked into Obama's passport files at the State Department? RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 09:49, 20 April 2019 (EDT)
What RobS has this to do with anything: "ancestry.com also says Michelle Obama was born female"??? Can you please clarify. The point that I raise relates to Obama senior.
Obama junior's birth was announced in the local Honolulu newspapers. See, for example, "OBAMA'S BOYHOOD HOMES IN HAWAII: Obama's Hawaii boyhood homes drawing gawkers". Honolulu AdvertiserPosted on: Sunday, November 9, 2008. Timber (talk) 10:32, 20 April 2019 (EDT)
Technically, that article was dated on 2008, so it never actually reported on his birth. Maybe if you give an archived copy of the local newspapers dating back to the 1960s reporting on his birth, I MIGHT believe you there. Pokeria1 (talk) 10:41, 20 April 2019 (EDT)
Was the 2008 article before or after John Brennan hacked into the State department computer system to alter Obama's name and social security number? RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 11:19, 20 April 2019 (EDT) An employee of Brennan. This has nothing to with the topic. More red herrings. You might check the facts. Timber (talk) 16:43, 20 April 2019 (EDT)
Obama's official government records were tampered with. That's a fact, according to CNN. Leaving aside CNN's credibility problems for the moment, Brennan was just referred for criminal investigation regarding other matters he may or may not have done on behalf of Barack Obama.
Frankly, I don't know what we are arguing about. You seem to have only three discredited sources for whatever it is you are trying to do: (1) Barack Obama; (2) John Brennan; and (3) mainstream media. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 17:08, 20 April 2019 (EDT)
Thanks Pokeria1. There is an image on the page (a little hard to read) of the 1961 report–and the source is quoting from its own archive. See also for the Honolulu Advertiser and Honolulu Star Bulletin. There are other sources confirming Obama Senior's residence in Hawaii in 1961 as a student, if this doesn't convince you. Finally there is the Hawaii Government site. Timber (talk) 12:34, 20 April 2019 (EDT)
Duh, even if he was resident, doesn't mean he's Obama's father, duh. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 12:40, 20 April 2019 (EDT)

Evidence RobS? So try checking his mother's place of residence. Real research is preferable. Timber (talk) 12:56, 20 April 2019 (EDT)

It doesn't mean anything. Obama never held a passport until 2004 when he was elected to the Senate, yet he traveled to Pakistan in 1981 under an alias with a false Social Security number. Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 13:12, 20 April 2019 (EDT)
RobS you constantly stray from the topic, which relates to the year 1961. This suggests to me that you are deliberately avoiding dealing with the facts. Did you look at the birth announcements and the evidence on the Government of Hawaii's web page? Timber (talk) 14:22, 20 April 2019 (EDT)
So what about 1961? Frank Marshall Davis was in Honolulu in 1961. As to Ann Dunham and Obama Sr., we have a trail littered with doctored evidence. Obama's not alone; we'll never know who his idol Joseph Stalin's real father was as well. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 15:55, 20 April 2019 (EDT)
Clearly RobS you have a closed mind. Timber (talk) 16:02, 20 April 2019 (EDT)
Not really; I got Obama's paternity narrowed down to two suspects. Davis & Obama Sr. Birthers tend to think Obama Sr. was his real father, whereas Frank Marshall Davis makes a stronger case for U.S. citizenship. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 16:12, 20 April 2019 (EDT)

Clearly this article needs to be revised. RobS has not produced one piece of evidence to support his position. Perhaps he might try checking the Hawaiian newspapers, or the Hawaiian government web site. Timber (talk) 16:43, 20 April 2019 (EDT)

No offense, but saying you should check the Hawaiian government web site for information is the same thing as claiming that official Vietcong press releases are to be counted to prove or disprove massacres as a student radical claimed back in the Vietnam War, so you really need to take its statements with a grain of salt. And besides, I definitely recall seeing a PDF once showing Barack Obama's birth certificate as Kenyan. Pokeria1 (talk) 17:02, 20 April 2019 (EDT)
EDIT: Found this, it at least looks like the PDF I stumbled upon: http://www.infiniteunknown.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/barack-obama-kenyan-birth-certificate.jpg Pokeria1 (talk) 17:20, 20 April 2019 (EDT)
These are all moot points. The real question is whether President and First Ladyboy Buttigieg will be the first gay married couple in the White House. Evidence suggests more DNC/liberal media fake news. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 17:26, 20 April 2019 (EDT) Excellent parody. Timber (talk) 18:05, 20 April 2019 (EDT)
What is the source of this second birth certificate? Personally I'd trust the State of Hawaii, Department of Health Vital Records before a dubious source like www.obamanotqualified.com. What evidence is there that it's not a forgery? Timber (talk) 17:49, 20 April 2019 (EDT)
What exactly are you arguing? That Obama's not gay? That Frank Marshall Daivis is not his real father? That Obama's records have not been tampered with?
Stop. Answer directly. Is the CNN article that says Obama's official government records were tampered with by a company headed by John Brennan credible or not? We then can take it from there. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 18:10, 20 April 2019 (EDT)
Yeah, and besides, there's certainly less evidence that the Kenyan birth certificate is forged than the Hawaiian one was, especially when Sheriff Joe Arpaio did an investigation that revealed that the "scanned certificate of live birth" the latter represented had multiple layers, meaning it was digitally manufactured. Pokeria1 (talk) 18:17, 20 April 2019 (EDT)

See [12] and from President Trump [13] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Timber (talk)

Yeah, sorry, don't buy it. If his Hawaiian birth certificate were not fake, please explain why Sheriff Arpaio and his legal experts discovered many discrepencies [sp?] in the certificate that pointed to it being doctored, as shown here? And besides, that's not the same birth certificate as the one Malik posited. Pokeria1 (talk) 19:17, 20 April 2019 (EDT)

Pokeria1 didn't you not read the evidence? "Maybe if you give an archived copy of the local newspapers dating back to the 1960s reporting on his birth, I MIGHT believe you there". Or looked carefully at the 2008 report, which is based on the paper's own archive.

The Sheriff has a dubious reputation (was convicted for a crime); but more importantly, do you have any information about the forensic experts, from around the world, that the sheriff claimed to have consulted? Timber (talk) 08:15, 21 April 2019 (EDT) An encyclopaedia article should not be based on unsubstantiated gossip. Timber (talk) 08:21, 21 April 2019 (EDT)

First of all, we don't know if the "archived newspapers" were even real, especially not when John Brennan was established to have tampered with official government records. For all we know, the records were hacked and had the articles replaced indicating Obama was born there, similar to Stalin's use of photoshop for lack of a better term. Second of all, even if it actually were true that Obama was born in Hawaii, that does NOT confirm that Obama Sr. was his dad. There's also plenty of evidence to suggest that Frank Marshall Davis is his father as well. Third of all, you are aware that Joe Arpaio's "crime" was more like trumped up charges by the Obama administration in an attempt to silence him, right? He did the same thing with Dinesh D'Souza earlier. And as far as the forensic experts, there's actual video of him speaking about the discrepencies that his team discovered online, even showing exactly HOW it was forged. Pokeria1 (talk) 08:50, 21 April 2019 (EDT)
The video doe not name these so-called experts and it sounds more like propaganda. One dubious source is not acceptable. As noted earlier it wasn't Brennan who was guilty of hacking. By supporting these lies you are helping the enemies of American democracy–especially Putin. Timber (talk) 09:17, 21 April 2019 (EDT) See also Fake News. Timber (talk) 09:28, 21 April 2019 (EDT)
Of coarse Brennan wasn't found guilty, cause a key witness and whistleblower was found dead of a gunshot wound two weeks later. Are we suppose to sweep all this under the rug and go with DNC/MSM fake news, again? RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 13:09, 21 April 2019 (EDT)
The fact that they're even SHOWING the documents at ALL, and showcasing WHERE there are multiple layers (look at the blue bordered boxes, they're there for a reason) should be sufficient of a source as any (and besides, that video came from the liberal USA Today, so it's not like it's particularly conservative-based, meaning that if anything it's even MORE unbiased). Also, I'm not helping Putin at all. Actually, if anything, posting the lies about Obama's birth in Hawaii is helping Putin, as is posting lies about Hillary winning the election (what, you think that Putin elected Trump? Absolutely not! Actually, think critically: Why would Putin back Donald Trump when he's got an even bigger ally in taking down America with Hillary, especially with the Uranium stuff). And let's not forget that Obama was already selling out to Putin's Russia since 2012 with his infamous "one last election" claim. Pokeria1 (talk) 09:52, 21 April 2019 (EDT)

Sources

@Timber: Once again, don't make massive changes like what you just did on this page without the agreement of long-standing editors. --1990'sguy (talk) 11:31, 21 April 2019 (EDT)

  • Agreed. Sourced material was removed. It should at a minimum have gone into subpages, like Early Life of Barack Obama. We should give him a few hours to fix it before a mass revert. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 12:34, 21 April 2019 (EDT)
1990'sguy, "massive" is an exaggeration. What I removed was off topic and not consistent with Conservapedia's Commandments: "Everything you post must be true and verifiable". Some Conservapedia editors use dubious sources and dismiss anything that they disagree with as forgery. The views of an obscure 85 year old sheriff is deemed, for example. more trustworthy than civil servants. What do the real forensic experts say?The reliance on gossip and gutter journalism is unbecoming–the idea that Michelle Obama is a man is lavatory wall graffiti. Again innuendo and gossip trumps the "true and verifiable".—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Timber (talk)
Is the Washington Post a dubious source? RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 14:42, 21 April 2019 (EDT)
Let's continue this discussion on sourcing (rather than specific subject material). Timber, would you agree that there's is a difference in the reliability of source (say, WaPo, NYT, CNN, etc.) that omits information versus deliberate misreporting of facts? RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 14:47, 21 April 2019 (EDT)


Judgment very harsh

The judgment of Barack Obama in this article is very harsh. It says he is "arguably the worst president in U.S. history" but does not refer to a website, connected with ABC news, that says that 31% of Americans said he was the greatest president in their lifetime. Carltonio (talk) 10:36, 9 December 2019 (EST)

Why would that be surprising? 100% of Americans thought George Washington was the greatest president in their lifetime in 1800; 50% of Americans thought Lincoln was the worst president in 1865; 60% though FDR was greatest president in 1945; 62% thougth Nixon was the greatest president in 1972; big deal. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 12:09, 9 December 2019 (EST)

Know history better

I suggest who ever typed this article gets to know U.S. history better. It says that Obama is "arguably the worst president in U.S. history" but would one really rank him as worse than Lyndon Johnson or James Buchanan? Carltonio (talk) 11:52, 28 May 2020 (EDT)

Given what's known of Obamagate, he ranks below Nixon. And he set back race relations for decades, not to mention that he destroyed the Democrat party. RobSLive Free or Die 11:56, 28 May 2020 (EDT)
Oh, let's not forget he resurrected Black African slavery in Libya. RobSLive Free or Die 11:57, 28 May 2020 (EDT)
Or his responsibility for the European immigrant rape crisis that is destroying feminism and women's rights in Europe. RobSLive Free or Die 11:58, 28 May 2020 (EDT)
Don't forget the $200 billion he gave to the Iranians.Bytemsbu (talk) 12:31, 28 May 2020 (EDT)
Let's be clear on that - the Iranian terrorist regime; Iranians per see are good people. RobSLive Free or Die 13:02, 28 May 2020 (EDT)

Suggestion

RobSmith suggests we add "Despite his personal involvement, Obama was not impeached for Spygate crimes after leaving office", though he can't access CP right now to recommend a good place to put it. Does anyone have any suggestions? —LTMay D.C., his mother, and I.S. be all well! Saturday, 16:50, 13 February 2021 (EST)

Edit warring and the vulgar picture of Michelle Obama

I believe that at least three people have objected to this picture, including the founder of Conservapedia. There has been no discussion of this here before the reverts. Posting it is against Christian family values, and belongs to the world of teenage lavatory wall graffiti (see also). But perhaps I'm a prude? --Jackin the box (talk) 13:37, April 18, 2022 (EDT)

Pehaps you're a homophobe. RobSLet's Go Brandon! 13:57, April 18, 2022 (EDT)
Don't be so coy, User talk:RobSmith, the picture is making smutty fun of Michelle Obama. To visually suggest, with a doctored picture, that a woman has a penis is topical of the dirty minds of schoolboys. I accept all of God's creation, including those born into the wrong body. I clearly have a distorted picture of what is conservative, and Christian. --Jackin the box (talk) 15:03, April 18, 2022 (EDT)
Do you dispute the there's consensus to remove the picture, including editor Aschlafly? --Jackin the box (talk) 15:09, April 18, 2022 (EDT)
The picture is from a Hollywood awards ceremony or something. Why don't you take up something useful, like debunking the fake J6 insurrection or Trump-Russia conspiracy theory. Honestly, I don't have time for kinda nonsense. RobSLet's Go Brandon! 15:14, April 18, 2022 (EDT)

Conservapedia continues to shoot itself in the foot, by undermining its own professed values and charter. --Jackin the box (talk) 15:35, April 18, 2022 (EDT)

Question

Didn't User:Conservative add this edit:

Benito Mussolini defined fascism as the wedding of state and corporate powers. Accordingly, trend forecaster Gerald Celente labels Obama's corporate bailouts as being "fascism light" in nature.

Hasn't User:Conservative spammed ad hominem attacks against another editor for years for saying the same thing?RobSZelensky Must Go! 19:35, March 17, 2025 (EDT)