Difference between revisions of "Talk:Barack Hussein Obama"

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
(He's Gay Too: agree, similar to muslim issue (only a suggestion though))
(Question)
 
Line 1: Line 1:
Archives:
+
{{articletalkheader|prefix=archive}}
[[/archive1|1]]
+
<br />
[[/archive2|2]]
+
  
 +
==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. 
  
==False Citation==
+
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.
  
In the first paragraph of the article, it says "Obama falsely claimed that he was a constitutional law professor, when in actuality he merely held the title of "Senior Lecturer." when according to the source cited: "http://www.law.uchicago.edu/faculty/obama/cv.html" it says he is. When I edited it to say the truth according to the website, it was reverted. Why?
+
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)
  
I have edited it again. I understand that this website is supposed to have a conservative twist, but unless conservatism is about spreading lies, then it shouldn't do so.
+
::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)
  
==Religious Views==
+
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)
Is "reared a Baptist" accurate? Was he born and raised Baptist? Did he attend Christian church while going to Indonesian public schools? He talks of no religion and of finding religion in his book, I think (didn't read). reared?--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 11:22, 18 June 2008 (EDT)
+
: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.) --[[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 citation ==
+
== "Faith" ==
  
"after liberals obtained the release of confidential and personally embarrassing divorce records of his opponent"
+
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)
  
Where is the source that supports "liberals" obtained the release of any information? The reality is that both Ryan and his wife authorized the court to release the documents. They did so in response not only to requests by the news media but also by requests from his opponents in the GOP primary.
+
: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)
  
: No, the sensitive and highly confidential information was ordered to be released by a judge upon the request of a newspaper supporting [[Barack Obama]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:51, 26 May 2008 (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)
  
:: If you are accurate then you should have no problem finding a source to cite in order to back it up. Is this an encyclopedia or not?
+
==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)
  
== Why lead with the criticisms? ==
+
: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)
  
This article should certainly include the criticisms and his misrepresentations, but why are they at the top of the article? [[User:Yesaliberal|Yesaliberal]] 15:04, 4 June 2008 (EDT)
+
::
 +
[[File:File:Dollard why believe Obama.png|400px]]
  
Sad. No responses at all. The people conservapedia likes will get decent articles, those that it dislikes will lead with critcism. Hm, sounds like bias to me. Oh well. [[User:Yesaliberal|Yesaliberal]] 10:43, 13 June 2008 (EDT)
+
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. [[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)
  
: The response is obvious: good entries lead with the most informative material, just as newspaper articles and good encyclopedias do.  We don't fall for the Wikipedia trick of [[placement bias]], where it leads with [[liberal fluff]] and buries or omits informative truth.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:54, 13 June 2008 (EDT)
 
  
: LOL! [[User:Yesaliberal|Yesaliberal]] 07:41, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
+
::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)
::Yesaliberal indeed. Where reason fails, resort to infantile mockery. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 07:48, 16 June 2008 (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)
:: Point taken. As I said, the criticisms and his misrepresentations should be included by all means. I'm a firm believer in the "warts and all principle." It's the differences between the layouts of the articles of say Obama and G.W. Bush which introduce the bias that you accuse Wikipedia of. Wouldn't it be unbiased to include criticisms of Bush at the same relative position as Obama, such as the WMDs issue in Iraq? Surely war criticism must rank at least as highly as the "57" issue mentioned in Obama's article, particularly since this is perhaps a case of mis-speaking on Obama's part. Bush is almost legendary for his oratory stumbling. [[User:Yesaliberal|Yesaliberal]] 15:01, 16 June 2008 (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)
  
== Nomination timing ==
+
: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)
  
Obama hasn't won the nomination until Hillary concedes, or when the delegates vote.  The timing is not determined by the press.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:14, 4 June 2008 (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)
  
Then how is McCain the nominee when the delegates haven't been voted and Ron Paul hasn't conceded?  Technically both candidates are the presumptive nominee. And even the [http://www.democrats.org DNC's website] has him listed on the front page as the nominee. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 21:17, 4 June 2008 (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)
  
: That's a silly appeal to consistency.  Ron Paul is nowhere near John McCain in popular vote or delegate tallies.  In contrast, Hillary Clinton won the popular vote and is close in delegate count.
+
== Frank Marshall Davis ==
  
: The odds are overwhelming that Obama will win the nominationBut it's error to claim he's already won it when his close rival has not conceded.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:22, 4 June 2008 (EDT)
+
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)
  
:: Then it's an error that not only have all the major news organizations made, but the DNC website as well.  To mollify your criticisms, I have added the technicality that the nomination becomes official upon Clinton's concession or at the nominating convention.  Of course, the DNC website announcing he's the nominee makes the point a little less important, but facts are facts and have been noted accordingly on the entry. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 21:25, 4 June 2008 (EDT)
+
== Birth location "reportedly" ==
  
::: Jareddr, [[conservatives]] don't worship the media as liberals do.  The major news organizations have all been wrong about many things, and will continue to make errors or intentional mistakesThey don't decide the outcome of electionsYou might as well cite what all your classmates or co-workers think if you're going to cite the media as an authority.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:27, 4 June 2008 (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 bestI 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 removedIf 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)
  
:::: How about citing the official party website as the authority?  Because the DNC said he's the nominee and yet your response didn't touch on that part. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 21:40, 4 June 2008 (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?
  
::::: I left it in about the DNCYou're right to cite it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:47, 4 June 2008 (EDT)
+
:The process of concealing, concealing, concealing and then releasing something widely criticized as being inadequate creates enough doubt to let the readers decideA 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)
  
:::: Classmates and media as equal in authority - can we get that posted as an official policy somewhere? [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 21:36, 4 June 2008 (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 [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.
  
::::: Maybe I was too hasty in my remarks ... because that comparison gives the media too much credit!  The media is probably more biased, politically and for financial reasons, than classmates are.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:47, 4 June 2008 (EDT)
+
::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.
  
== Association with Black supremacists ==
+
::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)
  
I think Obama's documented association and, indeed support, of Black supremacists, such as Jeremiah Wright and Louis Farrakhan, is deserving of a section in his article.
+
::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 Kenya.  Kweli 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)
  
He refused, on TV, to denounce or reject Louis Farrakhan (a man who publically said "White people are potential humans, they haven't evolved yet".
+
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)
  
[[User:Alfred123|Alfred]]
+
: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 saw that debate, and I think he did "reject and denounce" Farrakhan's endorsement, but only after being badgered by Mrs. Bill Clinton. [[User:Darkknight|Darkknight]] 17:08, 5 June 2008 (EDT)
+
:::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. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 13:27, 31 July 2016 (EDT)
  
== Switching the two pictures' placement ==
+
: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)
  
Would'nt it be better to have the composite- type picture at the top of the article, as this article is about him and the current picture presents him with other people? I understand that the intention of this site is to showcase issues from a conservative point of view, but does it have to be done at the expense of being more encyclopedic?--[[User:Irockarolex|Irockarolex]] 11:08, 5 June 2008 (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 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.  [[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)
  
:Placing his official photo on top I believe would constitute [[photo bias]] according to previous attempts. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 11:09, 5 June 2008 (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)
  
:Hmmm.  It would appear that the current layout is a shinning example of the photo bias you speak of.  Perhaps you were being sarcastic, I am not caffeinated enough for my sarcasm detector to kick in.  Anyway, just my thoughts. I thought making the change would lend a bit more credibility to the article and make it look like less of an attack page.--[[User:Irockarolex|Irockarolex]] 20:56, 5 June 2008 (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)
  
::Just didn't want to see you get banned for credibility's sake. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 21:04, 5 June 2008 (EDT)
+
== If he is a Muslim, he is not a very good one ==
  
== Obama's personal achievements a result of affirmative action ==
+
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]]) 21:19, 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)
  
I must say, as a black man, I find it very encouraging that one can depend on affirmative action to rise to the distinctive position of presidential candidate. Here I am, with a modest job in sales and all this time I could have been riding the affirmative action train all the way to Washington!  Does every black person know this?  Holy jeez, man, we could hold every elected position in America if this news got out.  I'll see you suckers in 2012, vote for me.  Thanks affirmative action!--[[User:Carterlansford|Carterlansford]] 22:00, 5 June 2008 (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)
  
Yeah, I thought he actually had won his seat in the Senate because more people voted for himI had no idea that the other person had actually gotten more votes in the election, but because of Affirmative Action, they gave it to Obama anywayMakes me wonder why they even had an election to begin with. [Dingus]
+
:::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)
  
 +
::::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)
  
Well, look. Any black person who competes with any white person for anything in America has the benefit of white guilt and preferential treatmentThat's because the liberals run everything. This in turn means that any time you see a black person in a good job you can say, "That just proves black people are inferior, because he wouldn't be there without affirmative action." This seems to be the subtext here, anyway. And not to put too fine a point on it, it's as racist as a burning cross.
+
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.  
  
ASchlafly: Is it inconvenient to be so transparent?  Do people, like, see you digesting your breakfast and stuff?  [[User:Archer070]]
+
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)
  
==huh?==
+
==Footnotes==
whats with that punishment pic? His quote is fine I am sure but that is some drawing and isnt encyclopedic what so ever!
+
{{reflist}}
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 05:37, 7 June 2008 (EDT)
+
  
:A quick google search shows that it's on sex education, I've added an appropriate caption and will add context to the article. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 06:25, 7 June 2008 (EDT)
+
== Title ==
  
:: [[Liberals]] do not support funding for abstinence education, and we're not going to mislead people here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:30, 7 June 2008 (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 called.  By 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)
  
::: I definitely don't support funding for abstinence-only education, and I'm happy for you guys to not mislead anyone about that. But the image just makes you look like a bunch of jackasses. It's like having a LOLcat-type image of Obama saying "Evolution: I taught ur kidz it." It may be an accurate statement of the liberal position, but you still look stupid for putting it in an encyclopedia. [[User:Athuroglossos|Athuroglossos]]
+
== Yup, he's gay ==
  
That's because it doesn't work as well as sex education. There's no basis for supporting abstinence education other than an ideological one, but even that is shaky since it's associated with more problems. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 21:44, 7 June 2008 (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.
  
::: I advise strongly that you read the transcript of the interview before making blanket assumptions. I will leave out the bit on abstinence education but will readd the rest of the text, otherwise the picture makes absolutely no sense. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 08:51, 7 June 2008 (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)
 +
::::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/]
  
::::Also it was entirely possible to remove the bit about abstinence education (thus removing any implication that liberals support it) without reverting two edits and other information. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 09:00, 7 June 2008 (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.
  
Since some seem to believe it's about abortion, here's the full quote showing that it is about sex education:
+
:::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)
  
{{cquote|So, when it comes to -- when it comes specifically to HIV/AIDS, the most important prevention is education, which should include -- which should include abstinence only -- should include abstinence education and teaching that children -- teaching children, you know, that sex is not something casual. But it should also include -- it should also include other, you know, information about contraception because, look, I've got two daughters -- 9 years old and 6 years old. I'm going to teach them first of all about values and morals, but if they make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby. I don't want them punished with an STD at the age of 16.
+
::::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)
 +
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]])
  
You know, so, it doesn't make sense to not give them information. You still want to teach them the morals and the values to make good decisions. That will be important, number one. Then we're still going to have to provide better treatment for those who do have -- who do contract HIV/AIDS, because it's no longer a death sentence, if, in fact, you get the proper cocktails. It's expensive. That's why we want to prevent as much as possible.}}
+
== Sheila Miyoshi Jager ==
  
Since we're the trustworthy encyclopedia I see no reason to quote mine and suggest he was referring to abortion. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 21:10, 7 June 2008 (EDT)
+
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)
  
== Liberal Complaint ==
+
== Suggesting addition of Arabic rendering  بارك حسین اوباما  per 2009 suggestion long forgotten ==
  
''"Senator Obama began his anti-soldier candidacy for President of the United States on February 10, 2007"''
+
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
  
This is clearly a heavily biased statement.  After editing out the "anti-soldier" remark, it was replaced within 2 minutes.  This site never had a lot of credibility to begin with, but this whole article is just transparently biased.  Amazingly so for a site whose main claim against Wikipedia is that they slant to the left.
+
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)
  
Apparently insinuating that Barak Obama's candidacy is not based on being "anti-soldier" is "Liberal bias"
+
===Poll===
 +
====Yes====
 +
*[[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']]</sup> 00:07, 3 April 2018 (EDT)
 +
*[[User:DavidLReyes]]
  
''Warning: your introduction of liberal bias is getting tiresome and will lead to blocking of your account.--Aschlafly 11:23, 8 June 2008 (EDT)''
+
====No====
 +
*[[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)
  
This is simply amazing.
+
====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)
  
: Obama raised a ton of money for his campaign from anti-soldier, anti-military sources.  Obama catered to that support in key ways.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:43, 8 June 2008 (EDT)
 
  
Then why not call it "anti-war"?  It's quite a leap to say Obama himself or his campaign is anti-soldierIn fact I think you're using the terms anti-war and anti-soldier interchangeably when they should not be. One can be anti-military in convictions but that does not make him anti-soldier.  The argument is misleading and it seems purposefully so. With respect, it would speak a great deal to the creditability here if you allow the replacement of 'anti-soldier' with 'anti-war' because I believe there is a valid case for it.
+
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 pointBesides, 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)
  
: It's not primarily "anti-war," but rather is mostly "anti-soldier" or "anti-military". Many [[leftists]] hate soldiers.  They really do. They even insult and protest against them.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:07, 8 June 2008 (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)
  
 +
::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)
  
:: Don't you have to actually show that *Obama himself* hates soldiers and/or is anti-military before putting that in his entry?  Are there no standards whatsoever here except not being liberal? [Dingus]
+
:::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)
  
I don't appreciate you changing the title of my question to "liberal complaint"I am a conservativeThe problem here is that you have such a great opportunity to present conservative and liberal viewpoints free of the bias normally associated with themI believe that true conservative ideals do not need to be slanted or have their opposition omitted to be attractive. You are in fact using standard liberal practices of accepting only "convenient" facts and purposefully omitting opposing viewpoints. These practices, which are unfortunately present in abundance, are serving only to perpetuate a negative stereotype of conservatism. What you're doing is hurting our ideals when you have a tremendous opportunity to be helpful.
+
::::I agree, his claim at being Christian was just a ploy to get more votesHe was an enemy of Israel, and a friend of all their enemiesHowever, 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)
 +
:::::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)
  
::: Obama raised money, big money, from anti-military supportersMoveon.org actually endorsed Obama and raised a ton of money for him, and Moveon.org took out an ad in the NY Times mocking our top generalEnough said?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:56, 10 June 2008 (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 favoritismI'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 freeHowever, 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)
  
:::: So when racists endorse McCain, you'll edit McCain's entry to indicate that he's running a racist campaign?[Dingus]
+
==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)
  
::::: You speak in non sequiturs.  McCain does not welcome any racist donations. Obama welcomed tens of millions of dollars in largely anti-military donations.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:38, 10 June 2008 (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)
  
:: If you are trying to paint Obama as "anti-soldier," you might consider removing the following:
+
== Obama's father ==
  
::    ''* S.117 : A bill to amend titles 10 and 38, United States Code, to improve benefits and services for members of the Armed Forces, veterans of the Global War on Terrorism, and other veterans, to require reports on the effects of the Global War on Terrorism, and for other purposes.
+
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
  
::    ''* S.713 : A bill to ensure dignity in care for members of the Armed Forces recovering from injuries. [[User:SamSamson|SamSamson]] 17:32, 9 June 2008 (EDT)
+
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)
  
It gets even better. Apparently, if you add a '''citation needed'''{{fact}} to some [[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Barack_Obama&diff=469755&oldid=469754 unreferenced opinions]], then the changes are immediately reverted and your userid is temporarily blocked. Does Conservapedia believe that asking for facts and references is a liberal bias? --[[User:SamSamson|SamSamson]] 12:46, 9 June 2008 (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.
  
: Why, yes. Yes they do.--[[User:Irockarolex|Irockarolex]] 15:05, 10 June 2008 (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)
  
== Michelle Obama ==
+
:::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)
  
To add to Obama's biographical information, it would be helpful to have a picture of Michelle Obama uploaded. Perhaps this picture could be used: [http://obamaquotes.com/Squidoo-Xmas-Card-Portrait.jpg Obama Family Christmas Card]?
+
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)
  
== Curious about removal of "liberal bias" ==
+
:: [[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)
  
Why have various attempts to post about the University of Chicago's clarification [http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/03/28/832174.aspx] been deleted as "liberal bias"? Are they being worded incorrectly? [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 11:22, 9 June 2008 (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)
  
Aschlafly, can we get an answer to this? How can citing the official University of Chicago response regarding Obama's University of Chicago employment to answer the question of Obama's employment at University of Chicago be considered liberal bias? [[User:Pharaonic|Pharaonic]] 21:33, 9 June 2008 (EDT)
+
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)
::You're new here, aren't you? 21:37, 9 June 2008 (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)
:::Yes, but I was under the impression that Conservapedia is intended to be an encyclopedia that's free from liberal ''bias'', not one that censors facts that happen to be ''inconvenient'' to the conservative viewpoint. Doing so weakens the conservative argument and helps the liberals make their case. [[User:Pharaonic|Pharaonic]] 21:47, 9 June 2008 (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)
::::Well, you're wrong. Conservapedia is an encyclopedia that proudly wears its conservative bias on its sleeve. As for the methodology it takes to express that bias, and the ways in which that reflects upon conservatism writ large, well, the wiki belongs to one guy, and what he says goes.[[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 21:52, 9 June 2008 (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)
  
::::: Pharaonic, it you sincerely don't understand why a "Senior Lecturer" is not a "Professor," then please see the discussion [http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Aehlinger|here].  If you still don't get it, then I urge you never to work in a personnel or employee hiring department.
+
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)
  
::::: AliceBG, we don't have "conservative bias" here and your slurs and excessive talk are getting tiresomeLet's see some substantive edits or please "move on," as [[liberals]] are fond of saying.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:02, 9 June 2008 (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.  
  
:::::: Mr. Schlafly, can you actually read? The University of Chicago says he's a professor. If your employer says you're a professor, you're a professor. That's pretty much the definition of the way it works. I don't understand what the controversy is. [[User:Athuroglossos|Athuroglossos]]
+
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)
  
::::::: Athuroglossos, it appears that you didn't read what the public relations department at Chicago actually said (it did not say [[Obama]] that held the title of professor). Also, it's foolish for you to put so much emphasis on what a public relations said anyway, when the truth is so obviousDo you believe the press secretary for [[George W. Bush]] with such fervor also?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:59, 9 June 2008 (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. [[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)
  
:::::::: That's not the best analogy in that the press secretary works for the President and "serves at the pleasure of the President". U of Chicago Law School public relations dept. doesn't work for Obama. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 23:02, 9 June 2008 (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. [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 09:52, 21 April 2019 (EDT)
  
:::::::::If I may say without sounding rude Mr. Schlafly, you have many times stated that Conservapedia has a Conservative bias. It is called CONSERVapedia. --[[User:JMarks|JMarks]] 23:50, 9 June 2008 (EDT)
+
===Sources===
  
:The press release reads, "From 1992 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Barack Obama '''served as a professor''' in the Law School." Obama said, "I was a constitutional law professor," not "I held the title of professor." Your position is untenable, Mr. Schlafly; you might want to admit that you were wrong, and move on. Besides, the public relations arm of the University of Chicago—the world's leading school of conservative economics, I might add—is not a professional advocate for the Barack Obama campaign the way Dana Perino is a professional advocate for the President. [[User:Hindublog|Hindublog]] 17:18, 12 June 2008 (EDT)
+
@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)
  
If I could propose another track, the whole discussion about Obama's "professorship" is based on everyone's different idea of what a professor is. Some say a professor has to be the research/paper-publishing/tenured kind while others say it's up to the employer.  How about actually using Conservapedia's definition of [[professor]] to decide whether or not he is one? Given this is an encyclopedia after all, I would think that's the most logical (conservatively or liberally) definition to use.
+
::[[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}}
 +
:::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)
 +
:::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)
  
The current definition stands as ''"based on peer review of the scholar's work, and a process of election by his peers as specified by the rules of each college or university"''.  I suggest everyone base their arguments on this definition, or alternatively work to improve the rather skimpy Professor article instead of waging an edit war here.--[[User:Sentri|Sentri]] 22:19, 19 June 2008 (EDT)
 
  
== Punishment image ==
+
==Judgment very harsh==
'''Note to editors''' <br>
+
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)
If you remove the '''Image:Punishment.jpg''' from this article, you will be blocked for one day. --[[User:DeanS|DeanS<sup>formerly Crocoite</sup>]] 15:29, 9 June 2008 (EDT)
+
: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)
  
<u>Since the image has been removed several times and had to be reinserted, the '''blocks for removing the image''' will be '''increased to 3 days'''.</u> --[[User:DeanS|DeanS<sup>formerly Crocoite</sup>]] 21:36, 9 June 2008 (EDT)
+
==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]]? [[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)
  
This image is ridiculous. There's no reason to have an image with that quote. I could go to McCain's page, pull a quote of his out of context, apply a "witty" image, and I'd probably get banned. I'm removing it as a protest, it's worth the one day block. -- Aaronp
+
== Suggestion ==
  
:Wouldn't that be considered blocking because of ideology? --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 15:55, 9 June 2008 (EDT)
+
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)
:"Editors" not "Editor's" [[User:Dnotice|Dnotice]] 17:25, 9 June 2008 (EDT)
+
  
Obviously this page isn't fair or balanced, but this kind of thing is purely sensationalist. Removed, block me.[[User:Godlover|Godlover]] 17:36, 9 June 2008 (EDT)
+
== Edit warring and the vulgar picture of Michelle Obama ==
  
:That certainly does look like blocking for ideologyBesides, [[:Image:Punishment.jpg]] is clearly a propagandistic image, not an encyclopedic image.  If someone at the evil liberal Wikipedia took a quote from a politician and Photoshopped an image like that, then inserted that image into that politician's article, they'd get reverted and possibly blocked for it. At the very least, the evil liberal Wikipedia administrators wouldn't use admin tools to protect one revision of an article with a provocative image. If you're going to be a "trustworthy encyclopedia", then stick to an encyclopedic treatment of the facts, quotes, and opinions. --[[User:Elkman|Elkman]] 17:39, 9 June 2008 (EDT)
+
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 confused as to how the image is relevant at all.  It's just a picture of a baby, and doesn't provide any new information.  The purpose of images is usually to add context, and as an encyclopedia, I would think the goal here is to cut down on clutter.  And honestly the "motivational poster" style reminds me of 4chan. [[User:Fantasia|Fantasia]] 18:26, 9 June 2008 (EDT)
+
:::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)
  
Entirely unencyclopedic and unprofessional, more suitable for a set of conservative blog posts than a reference source.--[[user:TomMoore|<font color="#000066" >Tom Moore</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]]</sup> 19:24, 9 June 2008 (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. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|Let's Go Brandon!]]</sup> 15:14, April 18, 2022 (EDT)
  
I'd be surprised if any of you CP sysops have ever even glanced through an encyclopedia. Please stop calling this project an encyclopedia as you are taking that name in vain. [[User:TBarret|TBarret]] 21:22, 9 June 2008 (EDT)
+
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)
  
I think that the image is not appropriate for an encyclopedia entry.  Use the quote in the article, get rid of the image. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] <small>(CPAdmin1)</small><sup>[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]]</sup>  <sup>[[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]]</sup> 22:53, 9 June 2008 (EDT)
+
==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]:
Not only is the image accurate and acceptable, the fact that liberals are obsessed with removing it shows it makes a difference. Somebody removed it again. make sure you keep it up until the end of the year at the least.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 17:10, 10 June 2008 (EDT)
+
{{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)
The image is unrelated.  The quote is very applicable, but should be used separately from the image.  --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] <small>(CPAdmin1)</small><sup>[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]]</sup>  <sup>[[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]]</sup> 17:16, 10 June 2008 (EDT)
+
:Since it is such a contentious issue the image should stay and the question should be referred to Andy or senior sysops for decision. It is not for anyone to remove. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:18, 10 June 2008 (EDT)
+
::something being contentious is not reason enough for it to be in the article.  In order for an image to be part of an article it has to have some connection to the article itself.  The image in question, (a baby held in hands) has no connection to Barack Obama, and therefore deserves no place in the article. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] <small>(CPAdmin1)</small><sup>[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]]</sup>  <sup>[[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]]</sup> 17:27, 10 June 2008 (EDT)
+
:::It is contentious between sysops and therefore hasty action ought not to be taken. You can read what Dean has said at the head of this section. Why should sysop CPAdmin1 have more or less authority than sysop DeanS? Where there is such a clash, the answer is not to have an edit war, but to refer the matter upstairs. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:30, 10 June 2008 (EDT)
+
 
+
: If the image is unrelated, than consider taking down Obamas no hand over the heart during the national anthem. Obama says he is partiotic just not in a normal way. The guy has a 100% record on death to children in the womb. Abortion is a big issue and Obamas view of a mistake is a baby. He should be called out in any image. Is a baby a mistake? You decide if Obama is right by looking at the picture. The connection is clear. If not allowed to stand, then a picture of mutilated aborted child should take its place.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 22:26, 10 June 2008 (EDT)
+
 
+
::The quote can stand without the image.  People don't need a picture to know what a baby is. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] <small>(CPAdmin1)</small><sup>[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]]</sup>  <sup>[[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]]</sup> 15:33, 11 June 2008 (EDT)
+
 
+
: Where is DeanS? There is a picture of a child in womb on John McCains page. What is the difference between images? Remove Obama's quote and keep the Picture with the headline Punishment.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 15:20, 11 June 2008 (EDT)
+
 
+
::I also removed the picture from the McCain article.
+
I have protected this article because of disruptive edit-warring.  Wil the involved parties please seek consensus on this talk page instead of reverting? [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 21:57, 11 June 2008 (EDT)
+
:A great idea - perhaps someone should convene the Student Panel and get them to rule on this.[[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 22:24, 11 June 2008 (EDT)
+
::Why don't you do it? [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 22:27, 11 June 2008 (EDT)
+
:::I assume that is something a sysop/site administrator would do.[[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 22:31, 11 June 2008 (EDT)
+
::::Nope.  You can do it if you want.  But why not have the involved editors (or even the entire conservapedia community) come to consensus on this talk page? [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 22:35, 11 June 2008 (EDT)
+
:::::Are you talking about a true consensus - one editor one vote? or one sysop one vote? Or one senior admin one vote? Well, for my two cents' worth - the picture is silly, adds nothing to the article and makes Conservapedia look more like a blog than an encyclopedia. It does the whole project a disservice and robs the implied editorial position (a position which I disagree with but respect), that B.O. is an inferior candidate to J.M. of a lot (as in almost all) credibility. Oh, yeah - the U of C CLEARLY stated that B.O. held a title "equivalent to professor." Why is that such a problem? [[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 22:52, 11 June 2008 (EDT)
+
::::::Thank you for your opinion.  Now we are going to wait to see what other editors say.  [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 23:03, 11 June 2008 (EDT)
+
:::::::I would make the image smaller, and with a more detailed caption as to what it is, where it came from, and the source of the Obama quote within. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 23:08, 11 June 2008 (EDT)
+
::::::: There's no reason to have the image at all, as it has nothing to do with an encyclopedic entry on Obama. Alice is correct in saying that it makes CP look like a conservative blog. Like I said previously, I could go through and do the same thing to other pages, slapping on "witty" macros, but that wouldn't contribute anything to the encyclopedic goals of CP. The image should stay removed. -- [[User:Aaronp|Aaronp]]
+
::::::::Do you think this image would be better in an article about the campaign between Obama and McCain, as in a something about means and methods used to get a point across?  It may have an actual quote from Obama, but it's still a campaign poster.  [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 23:19, 11 June 2008 (EDT)
+
:::::::::Is that an article yet? It is fairly early. Does it still need to be written? [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 23:23, 11 June 2008 (EDT)
+
:::::::::Karajou - only if the poster came from somewhere with some sort of notability - the RNC, the McCain campaign, a large, nationwide right-to-life group, something of that nature. As far as I understand, this thing was put together on an open access website and published on Some Guy's Blog. I could run off a dozen similar things in an hour and put them on a blog somewhere - that hardly warrants their inclusion in an encyclopedia article.[[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 23:24, 11 June 2008 (EDT)
+
::::::::::True, but it doesn't automatically exclude it either. [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 23:26, 11 June 2008 (EDT)
+
::::::::::As a campaign image, it could go in an article about the current campaign, but I agree with Alice in that the image appears to have been created by a single individual not connected to anything beyond a personal blog.  If the image was created by a McCain staffer, than it could be included.
+
::::::::::The article should be titled "2008 Presidential Campaign", and have subtopics on all the participants and their outcomes.  [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 23:28, 11 June 2008 (EDT)
+
:::::::::::Page does exist: [http://www.conservapedia.com/2008_Presidential_Campaign].  Maybe make a subtopic on methods used by all sides to put their point across.  [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 23:38, 11 June 2008 (EDT)
+
::::::::::::Or we could not put any propaganda up on the encyclopedia at all until the issue is over with or unless it is highly influential (a la that ad with the atomic bomb and the young girl), as would seem more appropriate for a reference site.--[[user:TomMoore|<font color="#000066" >Tom Moore</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]]</sup> 23:41, 11 June 2008 (EDT)
+
:::::::::::::The image has no place in an encyclopedia article.  It does not relate to Obama or to the quote.  I think it should be deleted.  --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] <small>(CPAdmin1)</small><sup>[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]]</sup>  <sup>[[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]]</sup> 23:56, 11 June 2008 (EDT)
+
::::::::::::::Your removal of the image defeats the purpose of my locking the page in an dispute resolution attempt.  I am now entirely confused as to how to solve this, now the other users will cry foul and I will be forced to unlock commencing the revert war.  I personally thought that we were on our way to reaching consensus. *sigh* [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 00:00, 12 June 2008 (EDT)
+
:::::::::::::::I think that a consensus can be reached just as easily without the image in the article in the meantime.  I think that while debating and coming to a consensus it makes more sense to have the questionable image out of the article.  It is certainly not hurting the article, or the credibility of this site while it is not in the article.  The debate is over whether it does that while in the article.  Therefore, it makes more sense to keep it out of the article, and not in a position to be a problem.  --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] <small>(CPAdmin1)</small><sup>[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]]</sup>  <sup>[[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]]</sup> 00:12, 12 June 2008 (EDT)
+
If it is deleted from the article how can people reach an informed decision on whether it should be in the article or not? It appears to me that you are asserting ownership of this piece, and that is neither justified nor justifiable. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 05:54, 12 June 2008 (EDT)
+
 
+
I would like to lend my voice to this and say I oppose the picture, it offers no value. The quote might but the picture does not
+
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 06:10, 12 June 2008 (EDT)
+
 
+
I would like to lend my voice to this and say I support the picture, it offers enormous value. The left wins when it is removed. The left that supports abortion and the candidate who condones abortion wins. Silence opposition to abortion, go ahead, smart move that you will answer for one day.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 10:25, 12 June 2008 (EDT)
+
 
+
I oppose the picture's inclusion.  The quote is already in the article; the picture is unnecessary and does not belong in an encyclopædia. -[[User:CSGuy|CSGuy]] 10:53, 12 June 2008 (EDT)
+
 
+
:Don't get me wrong.  I hate abortion as much as anyone here.  That photo just is not related to Obama.  If you want to put the photo in the abortion article, go ahead.  as for making an informed decision, I'll put the photo here where people can look at it. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] <small>(CPAdmin1)</small><sup>[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]]</sup>  <sup>[[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]]</sup> 10:54, 12 June 2008 (EDT)
+
[[Image:Punishment.jpg|325px|thumb|right|]]
+
 
+
==  "but later stopped wearing it without adequate explanation." ==
+
 
+
Um, this is an encyclopedia. It's not our place to pass judgment on whether it was adequate or not, especially when the explanation given is not quoted. [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 18:27, 9 June 2008 (EDT)
+
 
+
:Hmmm There are a number of conservative politicians that aren't wearing flag pins.  Can we put up a picture of those politicians and make note that they didn't explain their removal? Perhaps I can get permission to add a recent picture of John McCain not wearing his pin?--[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 18:31, 9 June 2008 (EDT)
+
 
+
Ah yes, the flag pin malarky. Yes, I suppose the man who wants to take the troops home and provide them with a good education and good healthcare benefits and actually reward their service is anti-patriotic and anti-soldier. Are you sure you people aren't hinting at something more devious? That he can't be President because he's unpatriotic? Or that he can't be President because he's black? [[User:TBarret|TBarret]] 21:41, 9 June 2008 (EDT)
+
 
+
: Wow, now Obama supporters are going to imply that a criticism about his lack of lapel pin has something to do with his ethnicity?!  Obama supporters are hilarious.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:58, 10 June 2008 (EDT)
+
 
+
::Guess who does wear a flag pin.....[http://tingilinde.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/2007/08/29/craigmugshot.jpg Mr. Bathroom Knocker] himself. Lets automatically vote him for president, as he completes the only requirement to be a president, wearing the sacred flag pin. --[[User:JMarks|JMarks]] 15:38, 10 June 2008 (EDT)
+
 
+
:Right wingers are terrifying. You may think I'm hilarious, but the vast majority of African Americans think the flag pin controversy is simply a front by the right (As well as the constant use of his middle name, Hussein) to make the case that Obama is somehow 'unamerican' and 'unpatriotic'. Well, the American people are really sick of it this time Mr. Schlafly. We're not going to stand for this dinosour 'got ya' politics anymore. Come November, the American people will have spoken and your brand of smear, insult and pettiness will become nothing more than an internet phenonomon, where only the most disjointed will indulge in the politics of character destruction. I hope you enjoyed your twenty years under the sun, but finally, America is going to enter the 21st century. [[User:TBarret|TBarret]] 09:50, 11 June 2008 (EDT)
+
 
+
==The Introduction==
+
 
+
The introduction should give a passionless rundown of the man's life and times. Please consult a Britannica article for proper format. This 'swiftboating' that begins at the article is highly unacceptable for an academic project. [[User:TBarret|TBarret]] 21:41, 9 June 2008 (EDT)
+
 
+
Does anyone have any interest in discussing how to actually improve this article, or are we happy to allow the outline of an article be overwhelmingly critical? If you are serious about making an encyclopedia, then please, consider professional measures even about people you dislike. [[User:TBarret|TBarret]] 10:02, 11 June 2008 (EDT)
+
:TB - The site's administration has made it clear that the tone of this article is not up for negotiation: From the professor-not-a-professor question and the choice to ignore what the U of C has to say on the matter, to the baby image to the fact that while the McCain article excuses his voting absences due to the fact that JM is running for President while the Obama article makes no such excuse.... So while some editors may, as you put it, "have [an] interest in discussing how to actually improve this article," Conservapedia, as an institution, would prefer to "allow the outline of [the] article be overwhelmingly critical." You don't like it? Go edit at Wikipedia, or do as Aschafly did, and start your own wiki project.[[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 10:33, 11 June 2008 (EDT)
+
 
+
::Why the concern, though?  I too was annoyed at the coverage, and then came to a realization last night.  Who is CP's audience?  Homeschoolers?  Assuming this is their only political reference point---they're too young to vote anyway.  And any adult who uses CP as a primary source of information isn't likely to vote for Barack Obama regardless of whether CP acknowledges he served as a professor or not.  Anyone who sees this site and buys the information presented was never, and will never be, a Barack Obama voter.  So why waste the energy trying to correct the misinformation on the site for viewers that won't use it anyway? --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 10:37, 11 June 2008 (EDT)
+
 
+
==Structure==
+
 
+
I personally would like to see this page in the same format as McCain. Obviously, Obama has less of a history to compare apples with apples. However, I like McCains page structure. In Obamas structure, you have Positions and Qualifications. Also, Obamas page has Political Views which are essentially positions. McCain page lists -budget -education -healthcare. Obamas hasn't the layout and seems to be more piece meal with a scattering of viewpoints. I would change but I don't feel I have authority for signification structure changes.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 23:26, 9 June 2008 (EDT)
+
 
+
:I would like to see a standardized structure for articles on politicians. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] <small>(CPAdmin1)</small><sup>[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]]</sup>  <sup>[[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]]</sup> 16:29, 10 June 2008 (EDT)
+
 
+
== The Senior Lecturer Reference ==
+
 
+
The reference that CPadmin1 used says that Obama "served as a professor in the law school."  Since that information, quoted verbatim, was removed earlier, perhaps another reference should be used, lest that information leak out? --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 17:24, 10 June 2008 (EDT)
+
 
+
== "Presidential scrutiny sought more information on the Indonesia public school and it was determined not to be a Madrassa, teaching Islam." ==
+
 
+
"Presidential scrutiny" is vague - did the President scrutinize the school? I think "media scrutiny" is what you mean.[[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 10:26, 12 June 2008 (EDT)
+
 
+
: Great point.  Please change accordingly.  Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:32, 12 June 2008 (EDT)
+
: It's wrong to say he went to an Islamic school. He did not, and there is no evidence that there is. Conservatism is about a set of ideals, not fudging the truth.  {{unsigned|Impm}}
+
 
+
== 57 Islamic states... ==
+
 
+
1. "It has been observed" is passive voice and weak. 2. There are 57 states with Muslim majorities, but I don't think all of these are "Islamic states" in the way that say, Saudi Arabia and the UAE are. [[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 10:32, 12 June 2008 (EDT)
+
 
+
:In addition, make note of the mistake, by all means.  But that is the most far-fetched explanation for the number.  There are 57 states with Muslim majorities, so he must have been thinking that instead?  Come on, let's at least TRY to be realistic, if not encyclopedic.  This has gone past the line of conservative into fringe thinking. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 10:34, 12 June 2008 (EDT)
+
 
+
No one has come up with any other explanation.  Also, by the way, when there is a Muslim majority, it is common to consider it to be an Islamic state.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:49, 12 June 2008 (EDT)
+
 
+
:The other explanation is that it was a slip of the tongue.  Not every slip is Freudian and indicates he's actually a Muslim.  That's a pretty far-fetched conspiracy theory. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 10:58, 12 June 2008 (EDT)
+
 
+
Actually, here's the explanation, clear and simple.  If you listen to the entire remark, he states that he has one more to go, and Alaska and Hawaii as well.  Taking three states from the 50 total, gives you 47 states that he visited.  A slip between saying forty-(seven) and fifty-(seven) is more likely especially if he was going to say something about visiting all 50 states (putting fifty in his head).  It's more likely he slipped between the forty part and said fifty, as opposed to some outlandish theory of how many Islamic states there are. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 11:04, 12 June 2008 (EDT)
+
 
+
::here is the full quote.
+
::''"Over the last 15 months, we’ve traveled to every corner of the United States. I’ve now been in 57 states? I think one left to go. Alaska and Hawaii, I was not allowed to go to even though I really wanted to visit, but my staff would not justify it."''
+
::It is obvious where the number 57 comes from.  He accidentally added 10.  He excluded Alaska and Hawaii, because his staff "would not justify it" and he had been to all the other states except 1.  That leaves 47.  I simple mistake, "slip of the tounge" as Jareddr said is the only plausible explanation. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] <small>(CPAdmin1)</small><sup>[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]]</sup>  <sup>[[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]]</sup> 11:06, 12 June 2008 (EDT)
+
 
+
Here's another explanation - "57 states" is a figure of speech meaning "a whole lot of states". Why 57? Because of the well-known Heinz slogan "57 varieties". A far more likely explanation than some far-fetched attempt to link it to Islam, at least! [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 17:14, 12 June 2008 (EDT)
+
 
+
: Oh right.  And Obama learned about Heinz 57 in ... his Islamic grade school!
+
 
+
: Face it, guys.  Americans learned that we have 50 states in grade school and no one educated here would ever make a mistake about the number.  Obama was educated in an Islamic grade school, which is a very different experience.  Perhaps that's not a big deal, but let's be truthful and honest about it rather than pretending he's something he's not.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:40, 12 June 2008 (EDT)
+
 
+
::It was a slip of the tongue, not an actual mistake in knowledge.  No one who has lived in the united states any length of time, and served as a US senator would make a mistake about that.  If you read the entire quote which I posted above, he clearly goes through the math starting from 50 (all the states) subtracting Alaska and Hawaii, and one other state that he doesn't name.  This brings him to 47.  He accidentally said 57 (possibly because the number 50 was in his head because that is the number of states) instead of 47.  There is no reason for the number of islamic states to have anything to do with it.  --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] <small>(CPAdmin1)</small><sup>[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]]</sup>  <sup>[[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]]</sup> 11:31, 13 June 2008 (EDT)
+
 
+
:::Tim, that makes a lot of sense. I was puzzled when reviewing the YouTube speech, because he said "fifty ... seven" (where the ellipse indicates a kind of dragging out or pause, where he have begun to be aware of his verbal slip. It makes sense if he meant to say forty-seven because
+
:::#He went on to say that he was not going to visit Alaska or Hawaii (50 - 2 - 48)
+
:::#He said he had one state to go (48 - 1 - 47)
+
 
+
:::It might be good for us to contact his campaign HQ and ask for a clarification. Does he stand by fifty-seven, or did he mean forty-seven? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 17:56, 19 June 2008 (EDT)
+
 
+
According to this site http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/57states.asp the senator poked fun at himself for saying 57 when he meant 47.  It seems like just a verbal slip up to me. [[User:CraigC|CraigC]] 10:29, 20 June 2008 (EDT)
+
 
+
==Drug use==
+
Why is my statment about drug use being removed? It's an important thing. We all know drugs are dangerous and immoral. People need to be warned that a man who wants to be president used to be a drug addict. What sort of role model would he be? What does this say about his morals? What if he has a relapse while in office? Maybe the drugs have effected his brain. Do we want a president whos brain might be damaged from drug use? [[User:TonyT|TonyT]] 11:37, 13 June 2008 (EDT)
+
 
+
:Please provide a cite.  --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] <small>(CPAdmin1)</small><sup>[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]]</sup>  <sup>[[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]]</sup> 15:49, 13 June 2008 (EDT)
+
 
+
::He talks about it in his book. Even Wikipedia mentions it. Here is a cite they use [http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/11/21/obama_gets_blunt_with_nh_students/]. [[User:TonyT|TonyT]] 15:55, 13 June 2008 (EDT)
+
 
+
:::Ok, you can out it in, just put it somewhere further down the page because it is from a long time ago, and has little importance at this point. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] <small>(CPAdmin1)</small><sup>[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]]</sup>  <sup>[[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]]</sup> 16:01, 13 June 2008 (EDT)
+
:Do you have any proof he was an addict? Additionally, you put "has allegedly stopped doing them" - why? He is the source for both statements (taking drugs, stopped taking them). [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 16:05, 13 June 2008 (EDT)
+
::::It's not that difficult, Wandering. A harmful self-revelation ("I'm a drug user") is likely to be true. In the nature of things, a beneficial self-revelation ("I'm nice and clean now") is less likely to be true. It comes from an understanding of human nature, something in which Liberals are curiously deficient. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 16:14, 13 June 2008 (EDT)
+
:::::Well, if nothing else, I have to applaud your consistency and the efficiency of your early methods. [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 16:40, 13 June 2008 (EDT)
+
 
+
:I can't quite see how you're planning to use this against him. After all, the current president was also a cokehead and a pothead-- Oh. Nevermind, I see. [[User:DannyRedful|DannyRedful]] 16:08, 13 June 2008 (EDT)
+
 
+
::Are you trying to say drugs aren't addictive? Or it's OK if he didn't do them every day? As for George W. Bush do you have any proof to back up your slanderous attacks, or are you just going to smear him like all liberals do? Barack Hussein Obama admits he did illegal hard drugs. He has no reason to lie about that. He would have a reason to lie if he were still doing them. I don't know if he still does or not, but I wouldn't be surprised. Drug habits are very hard to break. Has he released the results of a drug test to the public? I don't think so. Do you wonder why he hasn't? [[User:TonyT|TonyT]] 16:15, 13 June 2008 (EDT)
+
 
+
:::Marijuana is not physically addictive, my parodist friend. I'm also not saying it's OK-- Please stop putting words in my mouth. Yes, yes I do: [http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6999665/ Bush makes sure you know he didn't deny it.] Furthermore, you called marijuana a hard drug, which is incorrect. [[User:DannyRedful|DannyRedful]] 16:22, 13 June 2008 (EDT)
+
 
+
::::"Marijuana is not physically addictive". Liberals love to pretend their favorite drugs aren't harmful. And did you not see that he did cocaine as well, or are you going to pretend that's not addictive either? He may say he only did it on occasion, but when it comes to drug use you have to take what a person admits they did and multiply it by 10, at least, if you want the truth. And Bush did not say what he did in his youth, so to say he did cocaine is speculation, and just making things up. [[User:TonyT|TonyT]] 16:34, 13 June 2008 (EDT)
+
 
+
:::::Good sir, do you have a source to prove that Marijuana is physically addictive? Furthermore, yes, I saw that he did cocaine-- And to say that someone did cocaine ten times doesn't make sense. At that point they'd be addicted. Your logic is flawed terribly. Furthermore, he made a specific effort to not deny he did cocaine. Your remarks that Obama might be doing cocaine in office are, however, pure speculation. Good day. [[User:DannyRedful|DannyRedful]] 16:41, 13 June 2008 (EDT)
+
 
+
::::::Whether or not it is "physically addictive" is not important. It is illegal, immoral, and dangerous. It is also a gateway drug to the hard drugs that are even more dangerous. In Obama's case it led to cocaine. You say someone is addicted to cocaine after doing it 10 times. I don't doubt it.  How many times has Obama done it? Did he get addicted? I don't know, and I didn't put that in the article. But it is something everyone should be concerned about. We don't say that he is secret a Muslim even though he might be because we can't prove it, but we do rightly mention that he went to an Islamic school, and the 57 Islamic states statement so people can decide for themselves. We should also prominently mention his drug use, so people know that he used to do drugs regularly, and they can decide for themselves if they think it did him any long term harm or if they think he still does and will continue to do so. It's a risk people need to know. It's much more important than his lies about his uncle. [[User:TonyT|TonyT]] 17:00, 13 June 2008 (EDT)
+
 
+
Tim, I agree with putting it further down the page.  Right now the lead looks bad with all these criticisms.  I agree that it belongs in the article but I think we should make a seperate section for all of this or include it in the relevant sections already there.  We had the same thing on the McCain page.  A lead section full of little criticisms of mistakes in speeches until I removed it.  What do you think? [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 16:12, 13 June 2008 (EDT)
+
 
+
 
+
::I agree.  I think the lead should only include major biographical information.  Everything else belongs further down. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] <small>(CPAdmin1)</small><sup>[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]]</sup>  <sup>[[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]]</sup> 16:16, 13 June 2008 (EDT)
+
 
+
:::If CP is going to be credible, then George W. Bush's admitted alcoholism needs to be added to that article, or the drug comments removed from this one.  Trustworthy means being consistent and fair. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 16:21, 13 June 2
+
::::No one ever went to prison for being an alcoholic (a word that people use to describe conservatives who drink but rarely liberals). Obama's looking to get into the white house when he should be in the big house. [[User:TonyT|TonyT]] 16:25, 13 June 2008 (EDT)
+
 
+
:::::Be careful what you say.  several of your comments have been thinly veiled claims that Obama is a drug addict.  You are very close to being blocked.  As for Bush, feel free to put anything in that you can find a reference for. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] <small>(CPAdmin1)</small><sup>[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]]</sup>  <sup>[[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]]</sup> 16:31, 13 June 2008 (EDT)
+
 
+
== Since you've decided... ==
+
 
+
Since the powers that be have decided to include every single verbal folly (that means word mess-up for all you fancy non-elitist spawns of NON-doctor crazy women who like rape) that Mr. Obama has made, I suggest we include in the page for George W. Bush, that he falsely claimed that OBGYN's all sleep with their patients, childrens are learning, that IRAQ was a good idea, that people in a hundred thousand years will look back and say "Gee, bombing the crap out of a country for no specific reason then sending thousands of troops to die because he liked war was the best idea ever. Lets give him a medal, and every other mess-up that Bush, Sir Quail Hunter, Dan Quayle, Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity and every other human being who has ever, ever in their life, made a mess mistake is speaking, then connect it to conspiracy theories. Like, for instance when Bush said "I know how hard it is for you to put food on your family"....HE’S A CANNIBAL!!!!!. And, when the over lord of all of Conservapedia once said "See if you can learn out to spell "superior"....He is a Satanist because the Satanists have a code word which replaces how with out in a condescending tone of voice which means "I hate Jesus". I tried to be a good boy. I tried to do something interesting, then I realized, you can't. Not here. Because the evil commie overlords will always keep you in the dark, tell you to shut up, and hypocrite their way to the top. Reagan did it, Bush I did it, Bush II did it.....and Andy did it. It is amazing that we don't go on merit in this world. We go on who gets up one morning and says, you know what....I don't like them. Sure they are peaceful and aren't bothering me, but they don't quite believe what I believe. I like Jesus, they like Mohammed Ali or some other boxer, so I'm gonna blow their heads up. And tell the people its for their own good, that those evil non Jesus fanatics hate us. Well guess what. Everybody hates americans, for good reason. We are a 231 year old country that thinks we own everything, know better than everybody and have the right to blow you up, all in the name of Jesus, Cash, and the third god, National Frickin Pride. Ban me, and remove the vile stench of idiocy and intolerance from me.
+
 
+
The (hopefully) Gone,
+
 
+
 
+
JMarks.
+
 
+
bravo
+
 
+
==Political Views==
+
 
+
My quote below keeps getting (citation needed) put after it. I am glad to site this except I think yellow belly liberals are messing with me. Since when do we need to citations for 'often refers' or 'frequently refuses'? Common, every week occurances don't need citations.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 20:53, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
+
 
+
quote
+
Senator Obama often refers to the office that he seeks, without the proper respect of those that came before him. When talking of the President, he frequently refuses to call him President Bush or even Mr. George Bush. Obama disrespectfully calls him just 'George Bush'.
+
 
+
There needs to be a citation, because you can't just say that he does something without proof. Also, when the article says he has 'no executive experience', what does that refer to? Executive as in 'Presidential'? [[WillD]]
+
 
+
OK. I'll make the necessary citations--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 14:19, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
+
 
+
==Christians==
+
 
+
Any reason why he doesn't belong in this category? [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 07:44, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
+
 
+
: Obama has left his church, and there is substantial skepticism about what he really believes as opposed to merely posturing for political gain.  Most Christians do not take the political positions that Obama has taken, such as his support for [[abortion]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 07:48, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
+
 
+
::Not being affiliated with a Church does not mean a person is not a Christian, a majority of Christians (at least here in Australia) do not attend Church regularly and have no membership with a religious organisation. Same with the second point, just because Christians disagree with someone it does not remove their faith. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 07:50, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
+
 
+
::: As often occurs here, detractors like yourself insist on the possibility of an exception rather than accepting a general rule.  Obama doesn't simply disagree with "someone", he disagrees with the vast majority of Christians about [[abortion]].  Also, he never changed his Muslim name, while most Christians would upon any real conversion, just as Christians change to Muslim names when the conversion is in the opposite direction (e.g., Cassius Clay -> Muhammad Ali).  So numerous indications weight against insisting that Obama must be a Christian.  Conservapedia is not fooled by political expedience that can distort the truth.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:04, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
+
 
+
::::I would have no problem with Obama being excluded from this category if there were consistency in how it is used, but it seems there isn't. I believe we've never had a non-Christian president, yet several are not in that category (apparently more Democrats than Republicans, which isn't surprising, but excluding George W Bush and Reagan, which is). There are many liberal Christians, so I don't see political position being the deciding factor. As for his name, well, how many people change their name upon conversion to Christianity? (You mention Saul, but are there examples from the past 1900 years to back up your case?) In fact, changing one's name seems to be a Muslim trait (Muhammad Ali, Malcolm X, Yusef Islam aka Cat Stevens). And is his name a Muslim name, or just a foreign one? Is Fugimori a "Shinto Name"? What is the criteria for being Christian enough to be in the category? [[User:Jaguar|Jaguar]] 22:39, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
+
 
+
===Christians and Abortion===
+
[http://www.pollingreport.com/abortion.htm Here are some poll results about Americans and abortion]. [http://www.thebulletin.us/site/index.cfm?newsid=19771020&BRD=2737&PAG=461&dept_id=576361&rfi=8 Here are some poll results specific to Americans who self-identify as Christians]. [[User:Drochld|Drochld]] 17:59, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
+
 
+
===Why Wouldn't he Change his Name?===
+
If he were trying to fake his Christianity, he would certainly change his name '''unless the name "Barack Hussein Obama, Jr." had some meaning greater that his political ambition.''' How could we not conclude that the name is a reminder to him of his true loyalties? [[User:Drochld|Drochld]] 20:26, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
+
:Why would he change his name?  Hussein is not by any means a Muslim name, but rather than Arabic name.  You're confusing race with religion here...  [[User:Dchall1|Dchall1]] 20:29, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
+
 
+
==57 states, again==
+
 
+
Sorry to say, but that line just seems ignorant. At the time Obama left grade school in 1971, the OIC had 30 members. One of its members, Albania, was officially atheist, while Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Azerbaijan, Brunei, Mozambique and Suriname ''did not even exist'' as independent countries. (Bangladesh became independent in 1971, the year he left Indonesia, but in any case didn't join the OIC until 1974.) So the notion that he "learned in grade school" about "57 Islamic states" is absurd on its face. [[User:Btraven|Btraven]] 12:47, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
+
 
+
: The article doesn't claim Obama learned about "57 Islamic states" in grade school.  It does make clear why Obama did not learn about "50 states" in grade school.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:53, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
+
 
+
::1. He had from, say, 1965 to 1967, from 1971 to 2008, and for that matter from 1967 to 1971 to learn that the US has 50 states. In all likelihood we're talking about a slip of the tongue from someone who's made other gaffes (not unsurprising in a grueling primary fight with a loaded schedule and reporters recording his every word). Moreover, if you take the 50 states and add DC, the Virgin Islands, American Samoa, Guam, Puerto Rico and Democrats Abroad - all of which had nominating contests - you get to 56.
+
::2. Even if his remark has some significance (which it doesn't), a serious biography doesn't mention, in its lead section, a remark barely noticed by anyone. You talk about his background, his education, his accomplishments (such as they are), the campaign - but don't veer into speculation on the basis of what is most likely a verbal slip. I don't like the man myself, but some pretense of objectivity should be kept when discussing him. [[User:Btraven|Btraven]] 14:07, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
+
 
+
::: It may be a slip of a tongue, just as a racist or other offensive remark can be.  But slips of the tongue can cry out for explanation, as this "57 states" slip does.  You can bet if any Republican candidate had a "slip of the tongue" that was racial in nature, then liberals would run him out of the contest.
+
 
+
::: I've never heard any American say, as a slip of the tongue, that there are more than 50 states.  So Obama's remarks are significant and do cry out for explanation.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:12, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
+
 
+
::::Is it appropriate to list all the gaffes of George W. Bush or John McCain as well? He could've read the number fifty seven in something he read before the speech and just slipped up. Surely you've misspoke before? [[User:DannyRedful|DannyRedful]] 18:05, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
+
 
+
::::: Your explanation is implausible.  Yes, of course, we all make mistakes.  Dan Quayle made one once, and [[liberals]] hounded him out of politics for it.  The point is not that Obama made a mistake, but why.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:08, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
+
 
+
::::::"He read a piece of information" is a more implausible explanation for misspeaking than "He's a Muslim manchurian candidate who compromised his mission to take over the US and give it to the Muslims"? [[User:DannyRedful|DannyRedful]] 18:12, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
+
 
+
Thats true but G.W.Bush once said he never stopped thinking of ways to harm his country. We dont wonder why he slipped there.
+
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 18:10, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
+
 
+
:Karl Rove has advised conservatives not to imply that Obama is connected to Islam because it might do more damage to McCain than Obama. I wonder if he might have a point. Christians, after all, did not demand that David Livingstone change his name when he went on a mission trip to Africa. A name is something personal and I would not change my name if I went abroad. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 20:48, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
+
 
+
:: Does Conservapedia avoid telling the truth because it is politically incorrect? [[User:Drochld|Drochld]] 21:38, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
+
 
+
this conversation is pointless, the idea of whether or not Obama is Islamic has been debated and settled by the media, the conservatives, everyone, sometime ago. Lets do some work not debating about a moot point.
+
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 21:48, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
+
 
+
[http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/57states.asp Snopes takes apologist stance on Obama's ignorance of number of US states] [[User:Drochld|Drochld]] 10:56, 20 June 2008 (EDT)
+
 
+
== More on changing his name ==
+
 
+
I'm starting a new section because it's hard to know where to put this, given that this matter has been touched on a few places above.
+
 
+
AdenJ earned a month-long block for removing the part of the following text that I've italicised:
+
{{QuoteBox|Obama has declared himself to be a [[Christian]]'', yet never replaced his Muslim name with a Christian one as many do.<nowiki><ref></nowiki>For example, when Saul became a Christian, he changed his name to "Paul"; when the famous boxer Cassius Clay converted to [[Islam]], he took the Muslim name of [[Muhammad Ali]].<nowiki></ref></nowiki>''}}
+
I don't consider the lack of a name change to be of much significance, and the supporting reason in the <nowiki><ref></nowiki> tags don't hold up or support the point.
+
* The evidence seems to be that Saul ''didn't'' change his name to Paul when he became a Christian.[http://books.google.com.au/books?id=XOH_jfr5jSYC&pg=PA1&lpg=PA1&dq=how+saul+became+paul&source=web&ots=Sf3Ox9lJfT&sig=u4VhlygigMQPFiMnzPkuk5hd_mw&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=2&ct=result#PPA2,M1][http://www.thirdmill.org/answers/answer.asp/file/99746.qna/category/nt/page/questions/site/iiim][http://www.themystica.com/mystica/articles/p/paul.html].
+
** Rather, he already had both Jewish (Saul) and Roman (Paul) names
+
** Although it seems that he changed to favouring the Roman one, this was not done at conversion
+
** There's apparently no good evidence that it was because of his conversion.
+
** "Paul" being a ''Roman'' name, you can't argue that he changed his name to a ''Christian'' name anyway.
+
* The text says "as many do", which is an implicit admission that not all do, so an individual not doing so means little.
+
* Evidence of a "Christian" changing his name upon conversion to Islam is ''not'' evidence that people with Muslim names normally change their name to a Christian one.
+
So the supporting evidence doesn't support the claim, the claim is questionable, it's removal was justifiable, and AdenJ's block, to the extent that it was due to this edit, was not warranted.  And as for it being his ninth block, at least some of the earlier eight do not appear to have been warranted.
+
 
+
[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:37, 18 June 2008 (EDT)
+
 
+
: There were additional reasons for AdenJ's block, including numerous prior blocks by many other Sysops, [[last wordism]] on my talk page after being warned, and what I considered to be deception in his claims about partnerships/marriage in New Zealand ([[Talk:Essay:Marry a Conservative]]).
+
 
+
: AdenJ's outright deletion of the name issue without improving it was simply censorship.  Philip, you've identified some room for improvement in the entry and those are always welcome.  Censorship is not.  If someone keeps a Muslim name and, with obviously [[political benefits]], claims to be a Christian, or vice-versa, the name is plainly reason to be skeptical about the self-serving political claim.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:43, 18 June 2008 (EDT)
+
:: I've already answered the point about his other blocks, which were by ''three'' other sysops, hardly "''many'' other Sysops".  I see no sign of ''deception'' on that talk page.  The only fault I can see is in implying a generalisation based on anecdotal evidence.  As for his "last wordism", he had made a total of ''one'' prior post in that conversation, and his final post was merely trying to explain himself, not continue that particular discussion.  It's hardly a good case of "last wordism".  Sometimes outright deletion ''is'' improvement, and hardly constitutes censorship unless, perhaps, the deletion is enforced, which he was and is unable to do.  As for it being "plainly a reason", I've already provided reasons why, at the very least, it is not ''plain'', and likely not even a reason.  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:05, 18 June 2008 (EDT)
+
:::A small point here, as it's been brought up many times.  Muhammed Ali did ''not'' change his name because of his conversion to Islam.  He changed his name because Cassius Clay was a "slave name."  In other words, his name was a continuation of a name given to an ancestor when his family was enslaved.  His name changing was simply part of a larger trend going on in that time period.  I won't disagree that what he changed to wasn't religiously motivated, but the change itself was to free himself of what he considered to be a denigrating name, not because of his religious conversion. '''[[user:JDavidson|<font color="#000085" >JDavidson</font>]]'''[[User_talk:JDavidson|<font color="#660099"><sup>'''Leave a message ::BEEP::'''</sup></font>]] 15:28, 18 June 2008 (EDT)
+
 
+
:::: You'll have to explain thousands, or millions, of similar name changes if you are unwilling to acknowledge that a fundamental change in belief does cause most to change their name away from what they reject.  To take another high-profile example, Robert Earl Moore changed his name to Ahmad Rashād.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:42, 18 June 2008 (EDT)
+
 
+
::::: Thousands or millions? [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 16:10, 18 June 2008 (EDT)
+
 
+
:Well, it is common when people convert ''to'' Islam (it might be a specific tenet of Islam), but is it to religions other than Islam, or is it just a requirement for Muslims? Does anybody with more knowledge of Islam know? It doesn't seem to be common when people convert to Christianity, so that might explain it. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 16:12, 18 June 2008 (EDT)
+
 
+
::It is a requirement for Muslims.  Christianity has no similar requirement. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 16:36, 18 June 2008 (EDT)
+
 
+
::: Some Christian churches do require it.  In fact, I think the largest does.  Moreover, nearly all evangelical Christians would be uncomfortable keeping a Muslim name.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:39, 18 June 2008 (EDT)
+
:::: What church are you referring to?  And is it a formal requirement, or just a convention?  If the former, can you point me to the requirement?  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:11, 19 June 2008 (EDT)
+
 
+
::::: I think most, perhaps all, churches that authorize [[baptism]] require a Christian name for it.  For example, I think the Catholic Church requires a Christian name for baptism.  I would expect the Anglican Church to require likewise, and expect that virtually all evangelicals reject continued use of a Muslim name at baptism.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:17, 19 June 2008 (EDT)
+
 
+
:::::An interesting point. However, that brings up some questions. Is this true of Obama's church? And what exactly is meant by a "Christian name"? In some usage it is a synonym for a first name, which he obviously has. "Barack" is a derivative of "Baruch" an apocryphal Biblical name preceding the foundation of Islam by over a thousand years. I admit I don't know much out baptismal names, but do they have to be "Christian" in the sense that they appear in the New Testament? When someone baptizes their child with one of those trendy new names like "Dakota" or "MacKenzie" do they have separate baptismal names, and if so, do they ever actually use them? If "Bruce" converts in his adulthood and is baptized, does he take a new more distictly Christian name that he then uses regularly? There has been a bit of a backlash recently against changing names, as a response to having "American" names forced upon  immigrants at Ellis Island in years past. And I'm still not sure his name is "Islamic" so much as foreign. It's not as if his name is "Barack Muhammad Allah Akbar Hijra Abu Bakr" or anything. [[User:Jaguar|Jaguar]] 11:42, 19 June 2008 (EDT)
+
 
+
Obama is not an evangelical, however, nor is he answerable to evangelical conventions. --[[User:IlTrovatore|IlTrovatore]] 16:43, 18 June 2008 (EDT)
+
 
+
: Your comment begs the question of what Obama really believes.  There's precious little objective evidence that he's a Christian, and much to suggest otherwise.  His politically self-serving claim that his Muslim father was a "confirmed atheist" has less than a 1% chance of being true, and that implausibility casts doubt over Obama's other religious claims.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:53, 18 June 2008 (EDT)
+
 
+
 
+
If you have trouble believing that he is actually a Christian, then why would you have trouble believing that he is not an evangelical? Also, what evidence are you referring to that he is not really a Christian? Does this have something to do with the "Freudian slip" that no "real" American could possibly have ever made regarding the number of states in the Union?
+
 
+
As for the prevalence of atheism in Kenya, is it not possible that many people deny being atheists because of anxieties regarding cultural perceptions of atheism? --[[User:IlTrovatore|IlTrovatore]] 16:57, 18 June 2008 (EDT)
+
 
+
Is it really surprising anyone that CP has hopped on the right-wing "Obama is a secret Muslim" bandwagon? --<sub>[[Special:Contributions/AutoFire|<font color= 'black' face= 'OCR A Extended'>trans</font>]]</sub>[[User:AutoFire|<font color= 'red' face= 'OCR A Extended'>Resident Transfan</font>]]<sup>[[User Talk:AutoFire|<font color= 'black' face= 'OCR A Extended'>form!</font>]]</sup> 16:59, 18 June 2008 (EDT)
+
 
+
::Well, I'm not so sure that it's a secret. The evidence may not be perfect, but it is evidence nonetheless. I think he protests too much. --[[User:AdmiralNelson|AdmiralNelson]] 17:12, 18 June 2008 (EDT)
+
 
+
:Is it really surprising that liberals believe Obama's implausible myth that he is a committed Christian? His own brother says he was a Muslim, and there is precious little evidence he ever gave it up. He's been caught in a blatant lie about his past beliefs, there's less than a 1% chance he's telling the truth about his father's beliefs, and less than 1% of Muslims convert to Christianity, so there's a less than .01% chance he's been telling the truth about him and his father. But, of course, for people who believe we evolved from monkeys when even if it were possible would be a trillions to one chance, .01% seems probable. People should go to Wikipedia if they want a glowing article on Obama that he could have written himself. We're interested in the ''truth'' here. [[User:TonyT|TonyT]] 17:15, 18 June 2008 (EDT)
+
 
+
::Response to an earlier post:Mr. Schlafly, My comment had nothing to do with debating whether or not all muslims change their names. I was simply stating that Ali's change was not for religious reasons, it was for slavery/cultural reasons '''[[user:JDavidson|<font color="#000085" >JDavidson</font>]]'''[[User_talk:JDavidson|<font color="#660099"><sup>'''Leave a message ::BEEP::'''</sup></font>]] 19:11, 18 June 2008 (EDT)
+
 
+
Ya know what? Now that I think of it, why should it matter what religion he follows? Do people think that there is something inherently wrong with Muslims that makes them unfit for public office? --<sub>[[Special:Contributions/AutoFire|<font color= 'black' face= 'OCR A Extended'>trans</font>]]</sub>[[User:AutoFire|<font color= 'red' face= 'OCR A Extended'>Resident Transfan</font>]]<sup>[[User Talk:AutoFire|<font color= 'black' face= 'OCR A Extended'>form!</font>]]</sup> 19:40, 18 June 2008 (EDT)
+
 
+
: Yes, there is a problem with the religion he follows. Christians don't kill people, but Muslims kill lots of people all the time. THAT is why it is important.--[[User:AdmiralNelson|AdmiralNelson]] 19:57, 18 June 2008 (EDT)
+
 
+
:: Actually, it goes like this: ''Moderate'' Christians and Muslims don't kill people. ''Radical'' Christians and Muslims do kill people. --<sub>[[Special:Contributions/AutoFire|<font color= 'black' face= 'OCR A Extended'>trans</font>]]</sub>[[User:AutoFire|<font color= 'red' face= 'OCR A Extended'>Resident Transfan</font>]]<sup>[[User Talk:AutoFire|<font color= 'black' face= 'OCR A Extended'>form!</font>]]</sup> 21:09, 18 June 2008 (EDT)
+
::: If that's true, then there must be relatively few radical Christians, and relatively many radical Muslims, as the latter do a lot more killing than the former.  But disagreeing with AdmiralNelson's specific reason, because it doesn't follow that a particular individual is going to be killing just because he's a Muslim, the reason that the religion of a president is important is because a worldview/religion is what shapes one's values and standards, and these ''will'' affect decisions that he will make.  So the religion of a president is a very relevant matter to voters.  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:11, 19 June 2008 (EDT)
+
::::"Christians don't kill people"? Last I checked, the military was full of Christians, often evangelical. Killing people is a big part of what they do, is it not? Sure you don't want to modify that statement? [[User:Jaguar|Jaguar]] 08:12, 20 June 2008 (EDT)
+
::::: The discussion was clearly about people doing it ''because they were Christian'' or Muslim, so we weren't talking about self-defence, wars, or legal executions.  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:51, 20 June 2008 (EDT)
+
:::::: If you're implying that radical Muslims kill more often than radical Christians, you're suffering from media/selection bias. Groups like the Army of God and the KKK pridefully kill in the name of Christianity.[[User:JPohl|JPohl]] 10:00, 20 June 2008 (EDT)
+
::::::: No, I'm suffering from truth bias.  The KKK is hardly Christian, and the Army of God is an exception to the rule.  Besides, how many have those groups killed compared to Muslim killings?  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:36, 20 June 2008 (EDT)
+
::::::: According to the [http://www.kukluxklan.bz/faq.html KKK FAQ] (on requirements to join):
+
:::::::#You must be be a free white male or female of European descent, at least 18 years of age.
+
:::::::#You must be able to profess faith in Jesus Christ as personal Savior.
+
:::::::It's unfortunate, but yes, they are Christian extremists.[[User:JPohl|JPohl]] 10:44, 20 June 2008 (EDT)
+
 
+
(unindent) For me, part of what I look into is what do the texts of the religion say, in this case the Bible and the Koran, with the Koran also having follow up material compiled in the same time period that is revered by Islam as well.  I've found it's not a coincidence that extremism is common to Islam as it is much easier to follow based on the writings themselves.  In Christianity, it is far more difficult, and so the 'extremists' generally have to bend reality.  Where in the Bible does it talk about the need to be a white European as if that is somehow associated with Jesus? [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 18:45, 20 June 2008 (EDT)
+
: Spot on, Learn together.  Anybody can ''call themselves'' "Christian", but that doesn't necessarily make it so.  Therefore you need to look at whether their actions and beliefs are consistent with what the Bible teaches.  The KKK doesn't qualify.  The KKK does not have the support of most of the Christian community.  In contrast, I've often noticed tacit if not explicit support for Muslim "extremists" by large sections of the Muslim population.  If the rest of the Muslim population condemned the actions of the "extremists", I'd be happy to say that Islam doesn't do much killing either (only people ''calling themselves'' "Muslim"), but that appears to not be the case  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:14, 20 June 2008 (EDT)
+
 
+
== Muslims that kept Semitic or Islamic names ==
+
 
+
[http://www.hesavedme.com/story.htm Hussain Andaryas] kept his semitic name, as did [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obituaries/1918728/The-Rt-Rev-Hassan-Dehqani-Tafti.html the Rt Rev Hassan Dehqani-Tafti], [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-CExvHJxJnY this convert (who kept the name "Mohammed")], and [http://www.farsinet.com/dibaj/ the Christian martyr Mehdi Dibaj]. [[User:Drochld|Drochld]] 19:09, 18 June 2008 (EDT)
+
 
+
Is it possible these people were baptized with Christian names, but chose not to use them as their everyday names? I know Jews often do something similar. [[User:Drochld|Drochld]] 10:06, 19 June 2008 (EDT)
+
 
+
==Islam==
+
Please upload the picture at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:ObamaDrudge.jpg --<span style="margin-top: -3px;">&nbsp;[[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]]</span><span style="position:relative; overflow:hidden; width:88px; height:15px; z-index:2;"> [[User:Deborah|Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|<font color="gray">(contributions)</font>]] [[User_talk:Deborah|<font color="darkslategray">(talk)</font>]]</span> 15:52, 19 June 2008 (EDT)
+
 
+
==He's Gay Too==
+
 
+
Since we're largely using the interview of one person to show that Obama is Islamic, perhaps we should add that [http://www.smh.com.au/news/us-election/i-had-sex-with-obama/2008/06/19/1213770824274.html he's gay] as well. I'm sure there are some slips of the tongue that will support it as well. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 20:48, 19 June 2008 (EDT)
+
 
+
:A couple of our usual sources agree, the evidence is mounting: [http://www.townhall.com/columnists/KevinMcCullough/2008/03/02/obama_americas_first_gay_president][http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ian-gurvitz/rnc-obama-busted-in-gay_b_87221.html] [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 21:33, 19 June 2008 (EDT)
+
::From what I read, it's nothing beyond an allegation.  Until absolute, irrefutable proof shows up, we cannot state that he is gay...because if he is not, then it's libel.  [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 21:54, 19 June 2008 (EDT)
+
:::Then report on the allegation, there is more than enough evidence to warrant its inclusion in the article, and opens the possibility of an alterior motive behind Obama's support for gay marriage. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 22:03, 19 June 2008 (EDT)
+
 
+
::: So, Karajou, on that basis we should also not claim that he's not a Christian, until "absolute, irrefutable proof shows up"?  I'm glad you agree.  So would you mind removing that part that questions his Christianity?  Thanks.  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:56, 20 June 2008 (EDT)
+
::::My statement here had to do with allegations that he was gay, '''NOT''' about his Christianity.  Don't you ever put words in my mouth again.  [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 10:33, 20 June 2008 (EDT)
+
::::: I know that your statement was about homosexuality.  But you were rejecting putting that in the article on the basis of a ''principle'', so I merely applied ''your <s>principal</s>principle'' to a different case.  Or is there some reason that different principles apply in the different cases?  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:39, 20 June 2008 (EDT)
+
::::::That's ''your conversation'' and ''your principle''.  Deal with it.  [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 10:43, 20 June 2008 (EDT)
+
::::::: Apart from the typo, that was ''your'' principle (although I basically agree with it).  You didn't explain why the same principle doesn't apply in the other case.  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:05, 20 June 2008 (EDT)
+
::::::::These accusations should be in the article. We won't say he is gay, just that a credible source has publicly accused him of it, and he makes a convincing case. People deserve to know that if they vote for Obama, there is a chance they are voting for a homo. We're not making anything up here. It's reliably sourced. [[User:TonyT|TonyT]] 08:44, 21 June 2008 (EDT)
+
:::::::::Tony, "sourced" and "reliably sourced" are not the same thing.  I can put up a webpage that says John McCain is gay, and then post it here and say it's "sourced".  Does that mean it is reliable or in any way accurate?  Absolutely not.  The Townhall article states that he would be the first "gay" president, and compare it to Clinton being the first "black" president.  They're not saying he's gay, but rather that he will fight for gay rights.  The second article, from Huffington Post, repeats conservative smears that a picture showing Obama greeting another male is a sign that he's "gay".  I've greeted many friends and co-workers in the same manner as the photo portrays, and I'm sure many on this site have made the same greeting as well, without being labeled gay.  It's the most flimsy accusation I've ever seen.  Just because it's on the Internet doesn't make it true.  --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 10:20, 21 June 2008 (EDT)
+
::::::::::Read the ''first'' article: "Larry Sinclair, a gay man from Minnesota who alleges he snorted cocaine and had sex with the Democratic nominee." This is a man giving a first hand account of a homosexual experience with Obama. We have absolutely no reason to believe that he is making it up. The liberal media is eager to smear Larry Craig as gay merely because an overzealous cop decided tapping his foot was the same as propositioning someone for sex. But someone, damaging his own reputation, admits he had a sexual relationship with Obama and there's a huge whitewash. We don't have to say the accusation is true (though it would explain a lot) but it is a disservice to ignore it. [[User:TonyT|TonyT]] 12:33, 21 June 2008 (EDT)
+
 
+
The Huffington Post was a piece of satire!  The RNC never said that at all, the picture is actually of Barack Obama giving a hug to John Edwards, and it was made grainy on purpose as part of the joke.  --[[User:Tordenvaer|Tordenvaer]] 10:30, 21 June 2008 (EDT)
+
 
+
:Thanks!  It looked so ridiculous, but couldn't see someplace where they stated it was just a joke.  I wouldn't put it past the RNC to stoop that low, though, so I had to at least consider that it may be real.  --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 10:44, 21 June 2008 (EDT)
+
 
+
Actually Tony, there are some good reasons to seriously doubt Larry Sinclair's story.  Starting with him failing the polygraph test and his '27-year criminal career which includes convictions for fraud, forging cheques, and stealing credit card numbers'. Then add in his arrest for an outstanding warrant after his press conference and he does not come across as the most credible of sources. There are enough actual problems with Obama that the American people should be focusing on and not getting side tracked by gossip.  --[[User:Tordenvaer|Tordenvaer]] 12:54, 21 June 2008 (EDT)
+
 
+
:Like the problem of him quite possibly being Muslim or strongly influenced by Islam? That would certainly be an actual problem - hence its inclusion in this article. Do you not think Obama being gay would be an actual problem as well, and lead to a strong pro-homosexuality bias? Anyway, I basically agree with StatsMsn on this matter - and as with the Muslim issue, tthere are sources, and we're not making statements, only relaying the words of others on this controversy. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 15:24, 21 June 2008 (EDT)
+
 
+
==Unlock For Update==
+
In Senate section, this needs to be included in the GI Bill or the following sentence needs removed. ''"Taxes of those earning... for ten years."''
+
 
+
''Add-'' Democrats dropped a provision to pay for the GI college benefits by imposing a half-percentage point income tax surcharge on incomes exceeding $500,000 for singles and incomes over $1 million earned by married couples<ref>[http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hj7bLU_VVjrxBnHiIQbBEZqK4FhAD91CQGPO1], http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hj7bLU_VVjrxBnHiIQbBEZqK4FhAD91CQGPO1 , AP Bipartisan accord reached on war funding bill, June 19, 2008</ref>--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 14:01, 20 June 2008 (EDT)
+
 
+
==Religious affiliations==
+
 
+
These include the statements "God ....". I am starting to have seconds thoughts about seeing this posted here. It is just such an outlandish amount of disrespect to God, that maybe it shouldn't be repeated, thoughts(name in Vein)?--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 14:01, 20 June 2008 (EDT)
+
 
+
 
+
== Examples of "non-charisma" ==
+
 
+
I saw this in the encyclopedia page ("Barack Obama is often praised for his speeches, except when he is not able to read them from a teleprompter. 'Shorn of his Teleprompter, we saw a different Obama. His delivery was halting and unsure. ... The prepared text for his remarks, as released on his website, sounded a lot like a typical Obama speech. ... [But with] no Teleprompter signaling the prepared text, Obama failed to deliver the speech in his characteristically flawless fashion.'[62] The New York Times noted that 'Mr. Obama excels at inspirational speeches read from a teleprompter before television cameras, critics have noted, but many of his other speeches on the campaign trail have failed to electrify.'[63] When Obama ridiculed Hillary Clinton for being like Annie Oakley, it is apparent that he was not writing his own speeches.[64]") and was wonderng if someone could direct me to a audio file or website that has an example of one of his bad speeches
+
 
+
== Speculation vs Fact ==
+
 
+
I'm still relatively new here but would like to clarify something (at the risk of beating a dead horse).  For the paragraph "Obama wore an American flag lapel pin after 9/11, but later stopped wearing it without adequate explanation. Presumably it would have hurt him with anti-military campaign donors." should "presumably" be allowed in the article?  It seems that the statement becomes speculation rather than an established fact.  Also the citation attached to it does not make that claim either.
+
 
+
I don't have the rights to do an edit to the main article so I'm writing it here.  Hope it doesn't count against my 90/10 thing.--[[User:Sentri|Sentri]] 11:41, 21 June 2008 (EDT)
+
 
+
Oh and on an unrelated note, there's a space missing in "thePennsylvania".--[[User:Sentri|Sentri]] 11:43, 21 June 2008 (EDT)
+
 
+
I'm being anal here but the following need minor corrections<br />
+
"president of the United States" - Capitalization<br />
+
"office of the presidency" - should be "Office of the President"<br />
+
"Obama often makes reference to his "two decades of experience" in public service work. During most of that time he claims experience, he was either going to school, working for a law firm, writing a book <s>and</s> ''or'' community organizing."--[[User:Sentri|Sentri]] 11:56, 21 June 2008 (EDT)
+

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)