Difference between revisions of "Talk:Barack Hussein Obama"

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
(How to collaborate)
(Question)
 
Line 1: Line 1:
Archives:
+
{{articletalkheader|prefix=archive}}
[[/archive1|1]]
+
[[/archive2|2]]
+
[[/archive3|3]]
+
[[/archive4|4]]
+
[[/archive5|5]]
+
 
+
 
+
== Lenin Poster ==
+
 
+
The statement about the Lenin-like poster is informative.  We don't censor informative information here.  Let the reader decide.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:22, 10 November 2008 (EST)
+
:Andy, did you happen to take a look at the reference? The article claims that "Obama also ''revealed'' his ''deep Marxist/Leninist roots''" and that "clear parallels between the poster design and Lenin's earlier poster was ''obviously a deliberate yet hidden hint'' to his European, socialistic audience as to his political roots and beliefs" (emphasis mine). The citation, which was a blog, by the way, and not in any way a trustworthy source of informative information, gives no evidence to back up these statements. It shows a poster of Lenin and a poster of Obama, both of which show profiles of the figures. Assuming these pictures weren't entirely made up, do you really think that this slight similarity is Obama's way of confessing closet Marxism? Not to mention the fact that Obama likely didn't make the posters anyway -- maybe we should accuse his (very expensive!!) marketing designer of being a Marxist/Leninist. 15:45, 11 November 2008 (EST)
+
 
+
== Obama and beer ==
+
 
+
There are several stories (with photos) of Obama drinking beer, which as an intoxicant is banned by Muslim sharia. <ref> http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://media.mcclatchydc.com/smedia/2008/05/06/20/125-6web-Obama_Beer-minor.standalone.prod_affiliate.91.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.mcclatchydc.com/100/story/36055.html&h=325&w=485&sz=47&hl=en&start=28&um=1&usg=__ShpWdieNIwhr4Rp3jHtLe7U9MB8=&tbnid=Se90xFLBo6rNQM:&tbnh=86&tbnw=129&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dobama%2Bdrinks%26start%3D18%26ndsp%3D18%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26safe%3Doff%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-US:official%26sa%3DN </ref> <ref> http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.nancarrow-webdesk.com/warehouse/storage2/2008-w18/img.211156_t.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.nancarrow-webdesk.com/warehouse/storage2/2008-w18/img.211156.html&h=332&w=400&sz=16&hl=en&start=15&um=1&usg=__Yubc0nmus36Cf4Rrf7BL7-33-0g=&tbnid=xuWGKQ1Sl8_bQM:&tbnh=103&tbnw=124&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dobama%2Bbeer%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26safe%3Doff%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-US:official%26sa%3DG</ref> No rational person can say that a practicing Muslim wouldn't violate the law in such a blatant, repeated manner. Another strike against the goofy Muslim charge. And remember, we don't censor here. Godspeed. [[User:Thecount|Thecount]] 12:52, 11 November 2008 (EST)
+
 
+
: I think many American Muslims drink beer.  Nice try, though.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:57, 11 November 2008 (EST)
+
 
+
::And how many "dangerous" American Muslims are there that have loose enough morals to blatantly disrespect their own religious law, but are still a threat to Americans? (Of course this is all granted that he IS a secret Muslim, which I have given up trying to discuss) So I see nothing wrong if Obama turns out to be a secret Muslim. Nice try, though. [[User:anonymous123|anonymous123]] 23:54, 17 November 2008 (EST)
+
 
+
::He also smokes cigarettes, to complete his subterfuge. [[User:Human|Human]] 17:42, 11 November 2008 (EST)
+
 
+
== Hussein reference ==
+
 
+
It's factual and it's informative.  If there is reasoned basis for deleting it, let's see it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:03, 11 November 2008 (EST)
+
 
+
: Again, no reason has been given for deleting the Hussein reference, and there is none.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 07:49, 12 November 2008 (EST)
+
:: Andy, this is false.  Reasons have been given on this talk page numerous times before.  I just had a quick look, and found reasons being given in all archives except the first, as well as other places on this talk page.  So you are wrong to say that no reason has been given, and wrong to say that there is no reason.  And, as I have pointed out in the edit comments, five senior administrators have said that they disagree with it being there.  Is your view on this somehow superior to those five put together?  Do you want this to be a collaborative encyclopaedia or your blog?  The former demands that you not impose your opinion regardless of who is disagreeing.  Imposing your opinion regardless suggests that this is your blog.  I know you don't consider it to be the latter, but that's the way it's looking.  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:21, 12 November 2008 (EST)
+
 
+
:::Not a blog but an encylopedia. If it were a blog, your opinion would carry as much weight as anyone else's. Let's put this one in [[Conservapedia:Debate Topics]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 08:24, 12 November 2008 (EST)
+
:::: If it were a blog, the blog owner's opinion would carry the most weight.  Almost all blogs are the opinions of an ''individual'', not a group of people.  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:58, 12 November 2008 (EST)
+
 
+
::: Philip, the truth is not dependent on consensus, and 5 out of several dozen is not a consensus anyway.  Give your best reason for deleting this information here.  Since the beginning we have had a policy not to delete factual, informative material, particularly when it is liberal ideology that motivates the demand for censorship of it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:29, 12 November 2008 (EST)
+
:::: I said five of the ''senior'' administrators, which numbers about eleven.  So that's five out of eleven, not dozens.  Further, that's five against and one (yourself) for, as the remainder have not offered an opinion that I'm aware of.  (One perhaps did support you, but because they wanted to support you, not because they considered it a valid argument.)
+
:::: My reason is relevance, not (primarily) accuracy.  I'm not disputing that his middle name is Hussein.  The claim that "most Christians would not retain" their (former/Muslim/Arabic?; it's not clear) name is not supported by the references, and even if it is true, means little in individual cases.  That is, even if 99% changed their name, Obama not changing his name might mean no more than him being in the other 1%.
+
:::: And this is just one of the points in that section.  The entire argument that Obama is a Muslim is built on very circumstantial evidence, selective evidence, and logical fallacy, and is rejected by other conservatives.
+
:::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:58, 12 November 2008 (EST)
+
 
+
::::: Philip, it obviously is relevant, which you say is your primary objection.  We don't censor information here based on liberal dislike for it.  Wikipedia does that.  We provide the information and let the reader decide.  If some readers want to conclude that someone with a Muslim name is actually a Christian, even though less than 1% of those raised as Muslims convert, so be it.  We're not going to censor this factual information.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:37, 12 November 2008 (EST)
+
 
+
::::::: "''...it obviously is relevant...''":  Because ''you'' say so?  If it was so "obvious", then you wouldn't have five senior administrators disagreeing with you.  No, it's not obviously relevant at all, and you've not demonstrated the relevance.
+
::::::: "''We don't censor information here based on liberal dislike for it.  Wikipedia does that.''":  Given that I and the other senior administrators are not "liberals", and the rejection is based on relevance, not "dislike", why are you introducing red herrings like this?  Has your argument got no more substance than irrelevancies like that?
+
::::::: "'' We provide the information and let the reader decide.''":  Only if it's relevant.  Otherwise we are just introducing padding for readers to wade through and discourage them getting to the relevant stuff.
+
::::::: "''We're not going to censor this factual information.''":  It is not censorship to remove irrelevant information, and I'd appreciate you not implying that I'm trying to censor anything.
+
::::::: In summary, you have failed to produce any reasons substance as to why it should be retained.
+
::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:26, 17 November 2008 (EST)
+
 
+
:::::: Exactly.  The point of Conservapedia is ''not'' to censor information, but to leave it to our readers to decide.  The MSM has tried to push this under the rug, so the least we can do is offer these arguments to the intelligent public. [[User:RodWeathers|RodWeathers]] 11:27, 12 November 2008 (EST)
+
 
+
::::::: The problem is that these points are fallacious and lead to a conclusion based on specious arguments. That is neither "trustworthy" nor encyclopedic. Obama may not be your brand of xian, but he's certianly no brand of muslim. Your inability to accept that this is incorrect despite repeated arguments wherein you have shown nothing but fallacious arguments drawing poor conclusions hurts the credibility of all Conservapedia. [[User:EternalCritic|EternalCritic]] 11:49, 12 November 2008 (EST)
+
 
+
:Did anyone notice how ASchlafly posited the question at or near closing time Tuesday night and declared that he recieved no answer at or near opening time on Wednesday? --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 08:49, 14 November 2008 (EST)
+
 
+
:Keep the reference, but 2 examples of people having changed their names for religious reasons does not mean "most" people would change their names as stated in the article.  A good reference on this topic would list a percentage (presumably greater than 50%) of people who have switched religions also changing their names.
+
::I am sure we could come up with a very long list, but this article would not be the place for it. A sample of a couple of names to illustrate the point being made is surely adequate for all except those who wish to undermine the accuracy of the piece. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 13:21, 14 November 2008 (EST)
+
 
+
==Debate On Obama's Religion==
+
 
+
The debate is continuing at [[Debate:Is Obama a Muslim?‎]] It may be best to continue arguing the point there with the aim of reaching a conclusion which can then be utilised in the article, and leave this talk page for discussing other improvements. [[User:NormanS|NormanS]] 22:22, 11 November 2008 (EST)
+
:Get the section about him being a "Muslim" there have already been to debates concluding that this should be removed. <br> http://www.conservapedia.com/Debate:Is_Obama_a_Muslim%3F <br> http://www.conservapedia.com/Debate:_What_is_sufficient_proof_that_Obama_is_a_Muslim%3F-[[User:Vcelloho|Vcelloho]] 00:09, 12 November 2008 (EST)
+
 
+
== Reference ==
+
 
+
<references/>
+
 
+
Get the section about him being a "Muslim" there have already been to debates concluding that this should be removed. <br> http://www.conservapedia.com/Debate:Is_Obama_a_Muslim%3F <br> http://www.conservapedia.com/Debate:_What_is_sufficient_proof_that_Obama_is_a_Muslim%3F-[[User:Vcelloho|Vcelloho]] 00:08, 12 November 2008 (EST)
+
 
+
== He has no clear personal achievement that cannot be explained as the likely result of affirmative action?  Untrue.  ==
+
 
+
I am no fan of Obama.  I do plan on respectfully opposing him via various channels on the internet.  However, I believe I should state my opposition to this sentence of the article: "He has no clear personal achievement that cannot be explained as the likely result of affirmative action."
+
 
+
I have not read the rest of the article because I believed months ago and for good reasons that Obama was going to win this election. For example, the unpopular war and  poor economy that was partly caused by a guns and lots of butter spending strategy (Bush should have learned from LBJ committing us to a war and the Great Society programs at the same time).  I also thought that it would have been easy for the Republicans to win 12 years in a row given the low quality of the Democratic party. I think the Republicans snatched defeat out of the jaws of victory.  I also think Americans have too much debt (last time I heard the average American had lots of credit card debt). One of the reasons for the great depression is that American's had too much debt at the time. I think Bush's call for Americans to do to do more shopping mall spending was a joke.  If anything, Americans need to increase their skills to be more productive (The libraries are open but you might have to watch less TV.  Last time I checked the average American watches 3 hours of television a day) and work harder to pay off their debt.  American's are going to get out of the hole by increasing their productivity.    It seems as if Bush did not want to learn from economic history and was only looking out for short term fixes.  Well sooner or later, common sense says you have to pay the piper.
+
 
+
Getting back to Obama, obviously, Obama's marital success in terms of not getting divorced compared to Ronald Reagan is not the result of affirmative action.  I am sure I could come up with others.  I have not read the article for the most part because this sentence turned me off to the whole article.  Judging from the ""He has no clear personal achievement that cannot be explained as the likely result of affirmative action." sentence, I  believe a lot of time is probably being spent to defend an article rather than improve it where obvious improvements could be made. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 06:04, 12 November 2008 (EST)
+
 
+
: Staying married is laudable but in this context it would not be considered a "clear personal achievement."  If you would like to add a footnote exception to the remark along the lines of, "he has been married for x years," I'm not opposed but I would expect that to caveat to seem off-topic, or even sarcastic, for most readers.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 07:52, 12 November 2008 (EST)
+
 
+
::One CP writer told me he equates divorce with adultery, and he accused Reagan of adultery on this basis. Is this the consensus view of Conservatives? Or just his own idea? Or what?
+
 
+
::We ought to be clear on the standards by which we judge public figures. And consistent, too. I mean, which is worse, committing actual adultery (JFK, Clinton) or getting divorced and then remarrying? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 08:06, 12 November 2008 (EST)
+
 
+
::: Biblically, divorce is not adultery.  However, divorce is wrong unless the spouse has been unfaithful.  Remarriage after a legitimate divorce is okay.  The question is whether remarriage after a wrong divorce is okay.  Many believe, I think that although the act of divorce may be wrong, that is a forgivable sin like any other sin, and remarriage is not a further sin.  And I'd tend to agree that committing "actual" adultery is worse than divorce and remarriage.  However, the point that Conservative was raising was not between those two cases, but between divorce and remarriage compared to marriage without divorce.
+
::: I'm not convinced that Obama's marriage does not constitute a "clear personal achievement".  Given the divorce rate these days, especially among prominent people, I would think that it ''was'' a clear personal achievement.  In fact I'd consider staying marriage a "clear personal achievement" for anybody these days, given all the pressures on marriage, including the peer pressure that divorce is okay.
+
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:35, 12 November 2008 (EST)
+
::::I rarely disagree with you, Philip, as I find your comments to be some of the more considered on this board, but here I would have to disagree.  Jesus makes it quite clear that divorce *is* adultery, not *like* adultery.  More then any other text, especially OT text, I take Jesus's words to heart. Mark 10
+
::::2 Some Pharisees came and tested him by asking, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?"
+
::::3 "What did Moses command you?" he replied.
+
::::4 They said, "Moses permitted a man to write a certificate of divorce and send her away."
+
::::5 "It was because your hearts were hard that Moses wrote you this law," Jesus replied.
+
::::6 "But at the beginning of creation God `made them male and female.'
+
::::7 `For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife,
+
::::8 and the two will become one flesh.' So they are no longer two, but one.
+
::::9 Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."
+
::::10 When they were in the house again, the disciples asked Jesus about this.
+
::::11 He answered, "Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her.
+
::::12 And if she divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery." --[[User:JeanJacques|JeanJacques]] 09:41, 12 November 2008 (EST)
+
::::: I didn't say that divorce is "like" adultery.  I said that it's ''not'' adultery.  And the evidence you've offered to refute that doesn't refute that.  The Bible says that someone who divorces ''and remarries'' commits adultery, not that someone who ''divorces'' commits adultery.  You can't have adultery without sexual intercourse, which would be taken as given with someone remarrying, but not a given with someone just divorcing.  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:33, 17 November 2008 (EST)
+
 
+
== Obama spiruality interview ==
+
http://blog.beliefnet.com/stevenwaldman/2008/11/obamas-interview-with-cathleen.html  a interview from a pretty religous website about Obama. Should it be mentioned? Or since it kinda contradicts abit of the article should it be ommitted? --[[User:Vmember|Vmember]] 13:06, 12 November 2008 (EST)
+
:What one might say in an interview really means very little, Vmember, particularly if one is seeking to achieve a position by hiding one's essential nature or beliefs. So really what he says when seeking to impress is irrelevant. It is what he does and has done, and what he says in unguarded moments, that matters. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 13:16, 12 November 2008 (EST)
+
*um then shouldn't it atleast be mentioned somewhere in the article about this interview maybe as a response to questions about his faith section? And why is him maybe being a muslim all the way at the top of the article? Shouldn't be be somewhere towards the middle? I've never seen in all my time part of a article pushed into the intro section. Also the article contradicts itself by stating that Obama is most likely a muslim while at the same time pointing at that he was a member of a radical Christian church. That doesn't make any sense. You can't have it both ways.--[[User:Vmember|Vmember]] 13:25, 12 November 2008 (EST)
+
::You can if you're a sleeper for radical Islam. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 13:27, 12 November 2008 (EST)
+
**Wait you seriously think that? Hmm fringe ideas and theories on any subject is detrimental to a discussion let alone a encyclopedia. It's dangerous thinking like that is why us conservatives lost the election and alienated so many moderates and weak liberals. Would there be any objection if I were to move the muslim part to the middle and add a section with his response to questions of his faith?--[[User:Vmember|Vmember]] 13:34, 12 November 2008 (EST)
+
***Does this look better? http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Help:Practice_Page&oldid=555527  Hmm I kinda think instead of giving facts supporting the theory Obama is a muslim editors are trying to push it off as straight fact even though theres been evidence against it. Isn't that a tactic only liberals use and a form of deceit?--[[User:Vmember|Vmember]] 13:45, 12 November 2008 (EST)
+
 
+
== Poster ==
+
 
+
Don't delete the insight about the poster.  I learned from the insight, and I'm sure others have also.  We don't censor here.  We let the readers decide.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:39, 12 November 2008 (EST)
+
:I already explained (above) why the "insight" is not actually an insight, is not supported by the source, and is likely false. Believe me, I would love it if Obama really did intentionally model his posters after those of Lenin in a subliminal message to Europeans, but there's simply no evidence of that.
+
 
+
:You reverted both of my edits. Do you have problems with both of them, or just the first one? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 18:42, 12 November 2008 (EST)
+
 
+
:: Sorry, I just have a problem with the deletion of the poster edit.  Your other edit looked fine, but it came right after the controversial one and there was no easy way to separate the too.
+
 
+
:: The similarities between Obama's poster and the famous Lenin image is too obvious for words.  We don't need a citation for observing, for example, that 2+2=4.  If a reader wants to reject the obvious similarity between the images, then the reader is welcome to do so.  Censorship is not a preferred approach.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:52, 12 November 2008 (EST)
+
 
+
:::I'm not denying that they are similar, I'm denying that their similarity "[reveals] his deep Marxist/Leninist roots" and "was obviously a deliberate yet hidden hint to his European, socialistic audience as to his political roots and belief". Can I change the text to reflect that, while the two posters are similar, there's no way to know that it's a confession? (I pointed out before that if anyone is imitating Lenin here, it's probably the over-priced poster designer). [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 18:59, 12 November 2008 (EST)
+
 
+
:::: I'm fine with rewording, as long as it doesn't inject liberal spin or make it look like Obama didn't approve it with the similarity.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:12, 12 November 2008 (EST)
+
 
+
:::::I'll try my best. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 19:40, 12 November 2008 (EST)
+
 
+
:::::: Your revised wording is great.  Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:05, 12 November 2008 (EST)
+
 
+
:Is anyone else put off by the fact that the Germans really hated Lennin? --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 08:25, 14 November 2008 (EST)
+
 
+
:Fun poster [http://img.skitch.com/20080723-pbt7dkk5ksgbystrri5px6s9fr.jpg] --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 13:44, 14 November 2008 (EST) The imagery is more common that you might expect. Nothing new under the sun as they say --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 13:44, 14 November 2008 (EST)
+
 
+
==Disgusted==
+
 
+
Mr Schlafly this page is absolutely disgusting. I am totally against Obama as you know, this is the most sorry excuse for an encyclopedia entry I have ever seen. We should leave this page as information about him as a individual, not about why we hate him and you should too. 90% of the page is opinion, and is totally innapropriate. I suggest making it into two pages. One about Obama with just simple facts about him and his backround, and you can make another about everything we hate about him. Pages like this are why we are losing our trustworthyness.
+
Thanks, --[[User:ChrisS|Chris]]
+
 
+
:Here here. At times I find this article amusing as an ironic hate piece, but at best it degrades this site and conservatives in general. Liberal or conservative, poor logic is poor logic. Because Obama and Lenin each had monochromatic posters featuring a pose directed toward the right it is evidence of Marxist intentions. Because Obama said the words "my muslim faith", irregardless of any context, it used as evidence of being a muslim.  I don't even know what to say about the mind control thing, it's really amazing to me because as a religious person it reminds of the feelings I had when I discovered the truth of Jesus Christ: "a light will shine down from somewhere, it will light upon you, you will experience an epiphany" [[User:Mike770781|Mike770781]] 19:31, 13 November 2008 (EST)
+
 
+
==Disgusted Conservative too== 
+
   
+
{{hide|- I did not vote for Senator Obama for political reasons, but I believe he is a good man; this article is simple character assassination; you do not go into his views and show how those are disagreeable (his views on abortion, and his want to make a hasty withdrawal from Iraq) and instead you simply accuse him of being a Muslim, and anti-American etc. also a blog is not a credible source; a blog is someone's opinion. Anyway the accusations levied upon him are for the most part completely inaccurate. He was born in The United States, he wrote his autobiography, he is not a Muslim, he is not anti-American. Please keep the disagreements political.}}{{unsigned|Rpond}}
+
 
+
I don't know who wrote this, but it shouldn't have been deleted. --[[User:ChrisS|Chris]]
+
 
+
: The odds are less than 1% that "Rpond's" posting is genuine, in light of his misspelling of "conservative" and his other rants.  It is appropriate to delete insincere or deceptive postings.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:53, 13 November 2008 (EST)
+
 
+
:: It is an interesting experience living life each day getting verbally attacked for being a conservative then coming here and getting persecuted (justified edits to factual and encyclopedic wording) for being a liberal. You seem to be very fond of the less than 1% statistic, and have used it many times in many places, but I've never seen any solid reasoning or studies behind it (although in this case your gut instinct does seem to be credited implicitly) I think perhaps you live in a highly conservative eco chamber and aren't getting out enough to notice how little resonance this sort of thing has out in the real world. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 18:58, 13 November 2008 (EST)
+
::: Way to show your liberal stripes, BrendanW.  Ad hominem attacks are not appreciated here, so please keep it civil. [[User:RodWeathers|RodWeathers]] 19:01, 13 November 2008 (EST)
+
 
+
:::: Would that be an ad hominem attack like calling someone a liberal? --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 19:24, 13 November 2008 (EST)
+
 
+
::::: Are you insulted by being described as a "liberal"?  Or are you angry that you're not fooling anyone?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:39, 13 November 2008 (EST)
+
 
+
:::::: Either Way its still an Ad Hominem. However I am a little "l" libertarian, and strict constitutionalist (excluding the racist portions that is) which makes me pleanty conservative, I'm also an objectivist in the Ayn Rand model, highly capitalistic and against socialism. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 09:11, 16 November 2008 (EST)
+
 
+
==Cool it==
+
 
+
I've protected this page; only admins can edit it for the moment. Many of us have strong feelings, and we have used this page to express them.
+
 
+
But I would hope that we all confine our comments here to specific suggestions on how to improve the article. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 17:45, 13 November 2008 (EST)
+
 
+
== Did you read that reference? ==
+
 
+
The claim is that OBama might be a Muslim and that he might swear in on a koran. The reference -ref- Obama hoped to become President when he was sworn in as U.S. Senator in 2004, and did not use a Koran at that time.  Subsequently Democratic House member Keith Ellison established the precedent for being sworn in using the Koran, and there is no guarantee that Obama would not do likewise if sworn in as President. [http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/sliming_obama.html FactCheck.org, Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania, ''Sliming Obama'', January 10, 2008, retrieved on 10/16/2008]-/ref- is about how Obamma is not a Muslim and did not use the Koran to be sworn in as a senator. I simply do not see how it belongs. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 08:21, 14 November 2008 (EST)
+
 
+
:Welcome to Conservapedia. Truth is relative to Andy. -[[User:Mike770781|Mike770781]] 15:04, 15 November 2008 (EST)
+
 
+
== Code name ==
+
 
+
The article plainly says that Obama did have a role in picking it.  Hence the reversion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:01, 14 November 2008 (EST)
+
:My article clearly says that the White House Communications Agency chose the name for him. Hence the original edit.
+
:I tried to find a source directly fromt he Secret Service or the White House Communications Agency, but neither of their search functions were working. I'll keep looking. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 15:06, 14 November 2008 (EST)
+
 
+
::"President-Elect Barack Obama – 'Renegade' – had a say in choosing the code name that his guards use when they are whispering into their microphones." From the article cited on our Main Page.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:11, 14 November 2008 (EST)
+
 
+
:::''These not-so-secret names are chosen by officials at the White House Communications Agency, which was not inclined to comment on the selection process. In a previous news report, an agency spokesman said the names are assigned by "sheer whim."'' -- From my (stateside) source.  You can see why I was confused. 
+
:::I did further research (hence my half-hour long absence) According to  [http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2008/11/13/pssst_renegade_and_renaissance_are_in_the_house/ this] source, the WHCA chooses a list of names, and the President decides which one he likes best. So we were both right! [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 15:40, 14 November 2008 (EST)
+
 
+
::::Everybody wins!  Yay! -[[User:CSGuy|CSGuy]] 22:41, 17 November 2008 (EST)
+
 
+
== For the love of God!! ==
+
HE IS NOT A MUSLIM. I donated 500$ to support McCain and voted for him but this beyond retarded. Please remove that info, because right now nobody in their right mind can take this seriously. Also take out the Koran thing he used the bible in the senate. [[User:Nig89|Nig89]] 20:17, 15 November 2008 (EST)
+
 
+
: Your comment is long on your dubious assertion of a credential, but short on substance.  Give us your reason.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:28, 15 November 2008 (EST)
+
 
+
Why does Obama's religion matter so much? 18:57, 15 November 2008 {{unsigned|JamesZ}}
+
 
+
: Good question.  I hope your fellow liberals will answer it for you.  They are the ones having unexplained hysteria about a simple observation.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:15, 15 November 2008 (EST)
+
 
+
::The word you are looking for is "accusation" not "observation". An observation would be stating that he has some traits similar to Muslims. An accusation is claiming that he is a Muslim, regardless of his own protests. On the accusation note, great job assuming anyone who doesn't believe you is a liberal Aschfly.  [[User:anonymous123|anonymous123]] 00:01, 17 November 2008 (EST)
+
 
+
== Was Barack Obama truly raised a Muslim or is he a Muslim? ==
+
 
+
Previously I wrote the following: Here is a well written and scholarly piece that examines Obama's religious views and it was written by the National Clergy Council:  http://nationalclergycouncil.org/010807BarackObama.htm  The evidence does not support Obama being a muslim.  The evidence also does not support Obama embracing biblical Christianity.[[User:Conservative|conservative]] 09:19, 10 November 2008 (EST)  Mr. Schlafly wrote the following: " I skimmed it and don't see where it concludes that Obama is not a Muslim.  The article fails to recognize that less than 1% of people raised Muslim (as Obama was) ever leave the religion.  The article says Obama is a member of a Christian church, but he left that many months ago.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:24, 10 November 2008 (EST)"
+
 
+
Here is my response to Mr. Schlafly's reply to my previous post on the Obama/Muslim issue:
+
 
+
I am not a fan of "Liberal Christianity" as I believe it often fails to fall into the realm of biblical/orthodox Christianity and when it does so it is not Christianity at all. With that being said, the article does give compelling evidence that Obama is a member of the camp of "liberal Christianity" and not biblical Christianity.  If Obama is a "liberal Christian" he is not a Muslim.  There are two logical fallacies called the [http://www.pnl-nlp.org/download/propaganda/page2.htm#sloth slothful inductive fallacy] and [http://www.goodart.org/exclus.htm fallacy of exclusion] whereby "Relevant evidence which would undermine an inductive argument is excluded from consideration. The requirement that all relevant information be included is called the "principle of total evidence"."[http://www.goodart.org/exclus.htm]  '''Andy, I believe you are committing these two logical fallacies as can be seen by the material in the above cited work by the National Clergy Council. I would strongly suggest not skimming the material as it gives compelling evidence that Obama is a "liberal Christian" and therefore not a Muslim.'''
+
 
+
'''Next, was Obama truly raised a Muslim and therefore does the less than 1% of people raised Muslim ever leave the religion statistic apply.  I don't think a compelling case can be made for the 1% argument being applied to Obama.  I cite the following:
+
'''
+
 
+
"Barack Hussein Obama was born in 1961 in Honolulu, Hawaii, to a Kenyan Muslim father of the same name and an American secular humanist mother named Ann Dunham. While Obama’s father was raised in Islamic culture, he had become a functional atheist by the time he reached college. Despite his parents’ lack of religion, young Obama received his early education in both Catholic and Muslim schools.
+
 
+
Obama’s parents divorced when he was only two years old. Henceforth, the senior Obama was “almost entirely absent”[i] from his son’s life. Four years later, Ann Dunham relocated to Indonesia with her son to join her new husband Lolo Soetoro. A daughter, Maya, was born to the couple before their divorce. She returned to Hawaii where she went on to earn her MA in anthropology from the University of Hawaii. In his first book, Dreams from My Father, Barack Obama wrote of his mother, “She was a lonely witness for secular humanism, a soldier for New Deal, Peace Corps, position paper liberalism.”[ii]
+
 
+
Obama’s mother was a huge influence in his life. In an interview with Oprah Winfrey in October 2006, he said, “My mother—when I think about the values I hold most dear, they came from her.”[iii] In a speech given at a Moms Rising event in 2006, he said, “Everything that I think is good about me, I got from her.”[http://nationalclergycouncil.org/010807BarackObama.htm]
+
 
+
'''I will end this post by respectfully asking Mr. Schlafly a few reasonable questions''':
+
 
+
1. How many Muslim men are you aware of that go to a "liberal Christian church" for 20 years, get married in a "liberal Christian' church, and have their children baptized in a "liberal Christian" church, and call a Reverend of "liberal Christianity "my pastor" while living in a relatively free and democratic country like the United States?  I ask this question because it appears as if all these apply to Obama.[http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2008/04/29/2008-04-29_obama_expresses_outrage_over_former_past.html][http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=58954][http://volokh.com/posts/1209531850.shtml]  Accordingly,  '''How many similar historical examples can you give of Muslim men who did these type of things when they lived in a relatively free and democratic society like the United States? 
+
'''
+
 
+
2. According to the press,  Obama has visited churches and synagogues but has not visited a mosque while running for president.[http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/06/25/opinion/edcohen.php]  Can you show me a single instance of Obama ever visiting a mosque while he has been an adult? 
+
 
+
3. '''Is the case for Obama being a "liberal Christian" stronger or is the case of Obama being a Muslim stronger when the principle of total evidence being weighed is applied?'''  If you state the case is stronger for Obama being a Muslim, please defend your position by truly negating the strong evidence that he is a member of "liberal Christianity" and giving compelling evidence that he is a Muslim.  [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 10:45, 16 November 2008 (EST)
+
 
+
:I thought the two of you might enjoy reading [http://blog.beliefnet.com/stevenwaldman/2008/11/obamas-interview-with-cathleen.html this 2004 interview with Obama], where he discusses his faith, his baptism, and so forth.  --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 14:04, 16 November 2008 (EST)
+
::Both of you miss the point. It's not what Obama '''says''' - that has no relevance whatsoever. It's what he '''is''' and what he '''will do'''. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 15:11, 16 November 2008 (EST)
+
::::: If what he ''says'' has no relevance, why is one of the supposed evidences for him being a Muslim something he ''said'' (the bit about "my Muslim faith")?  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:58, 17 November 2008 (EST)
+
 
+
::::Bugler, I know I mentioned what Obama did and said which certainly has bearing on what Obama "is".  Therefore, you did not in any way provide a counter argument.  I also suggest you answer the reasonable questions I posed to Mr. Schlafly. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 15:16, 16 November 2008 (EST)
+
:::::Conservative, the roots of Al Quaeda lie in the 1940s and 50s, if not before; radical terroristic Islamic fundamentalism is not a recent phenomenon. Much of its mindset and organisational apperatus was borrowed from Leninist Communism: the notion of cell, of enrtyism, of deep penetration. Now, how difficult is it to imagine that an intelligent child, of American parentage, schooled in the Islamic environment of 1960s Indonesia and vulnerable to the influences swirling around in that environment, might be schooled and indoctrinated as the sleeper to end all sleepers, given extreme dispensations to protect his cover, allowed to eat pork, drink alcohol, marry out, attend and indeed profess to be a Christian, even to publicly renounce (on the face of it) the Islamic faith? Surely the prize would merit the game. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 15:24, 16 November 2008 (EST)
+
:::::::So you're honestly speculating that Obama might be a member of Al Qaeda, and we're expected to believe that you're ''not'' a parodist? Riiiiiiight. [[User:MarkB|MarkB]] 09:09, 18 November 2008 (EST)
+
::::::::Oh, that old tune yet again. Can't you Liberals find a less boring stick to beat me with? [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 09:17, 18 November 2008 (EST)
+
:::::::::Oh, don't get me wrong, I think you're doing a great job. Keep it up. [[User:MarkB|MarkB]] 09:22, 18 November 2008 (EST)
+
::::::Bugler, in light of the evidence I gave above concerning Obama's supposedly being raised a Muslim '''and the lack of evidence to support it''' plus the evidence I gave above to support Obama being a member of "liberal Christianity" , your post is at best a Hail Mary pass.  Secondly, I noticed you did not answer my questions or give any solid historical parallels for your far fetched speculation.  If you could enlighten me where the Leninists were able to install a President of a Western country that had been a sleeper for two decades I would certainly be indebted to you if you could give it. But I would add, since you never gave any compelling evidence he was raised a Muslim, this Leninist parallel speculation is a non starter anyways.  Thirdly, you refer to "the prize".  What prize?  If you going to embrace conjecture that is contra evidence certainly you should tell your audience what the supposed prize is supposedly going to be.  Should I fear I am imminently going to be put under Sharia law?  Lastly, I am not stating your a parodist, but I certainly believe it is more likely that you are a parodist than it is likely that Obama is a Muslim.  Your somewhat eloquent but empty defense of the indefensible proposition that Obama is likely a Muslim, certainly provides a reasonable reader to suspect you are a parodist. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 17:41, 16 November 2008 (EST)
+
 
+
::::::::I've not heard the term 'hail Mary pass' before, despite being a good Catholic boy: please enlighten! ''If you could enlighten me where the Leninists were able to install a President of a Western country that had been a sleeper for two decades'' Not a president, but the private secretary of the West German Chancellor Willy Brandt was a Communist plant: how many were undetected? Certainly therer remain suspicions about the 1960s/70s UK Prime Minister Harold Wilson. ''What prize?'' Surely that is obvious. As to the objections you raise, I think it unlikely that he will use the ceremony on January 20 to declare a United states Caliphate. However, the prospect of an Islamic radical sleeper in the Oval Office raises any number of possibilities. And finally: your open suggestion that I am a parodist is welcome: a refreshing change from others here who smear me by innuendo without your honesty and openness. I assure you in all sincerity that I act with the best interests of God, Conservapedia, Freedom and Democracy always at heart. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:58, 16 November 2008 (EST)
+
:::Bugler, [http://www.wisegeek.com/in-football-what-is-a-hail-mary.htm Hail Mary pass]. Secondly, your Willy Brandt attempted historical parallel falls flat.  I did a quick search on the internet and this is what CNN states about Brandt: "As a teen-ager Brandt first joined the Socialist Party of Germany (SPD) in 1930, but one year later switched to a more radical spin-off, the SAP."[http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/cold.war/kbank/profiles/brandt/]  Brandt apparently was a socialist early on (teenager to be precise), but you have not give a compelling argument that Obama was raised as a Muslim and given the information I gave above regarding there being a lack of evidence for this proposition and evidence against it, your Leninism supposed historical parallel is still a non starter.  You are certainly not applying the principle of using the total evidence.  [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 18:21, 16 November 2008 (EST)
+
 
+
Henry Wallace, FDR's Vice President, was a "sleeper" communist and replaced by FDR for that reason.  Alger Hiss, a top aide to presidents, was a proven "sleeper" communist.  A big lie is often easier to pull off than a little lie.
+
 
+
What's remarkable is how strenuously people deny that Obama is a Muslim.  His fathers (real and stepfather) were Muslims.  There's no denying that Obama was raised a Muslim, and his conduct as an adult underscores that he, like 99% of others raises as Muslims, did not leave that religion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:02, 16 November 2008 (EST)
+
:: What's remarkable is how strenuously you claim that Obama is a Muslim without any evidence of substance, and in opposition to other conservatives, including five of your own senior administrators, who disagree with you, despite being opposed to Obama.  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:58, 17 November 2008 (EST)
+
:An interesting question is ''why'' people try so hard to deny it to ''themselves'' when the evidence is so clearly there. [[User:RodWeathers|RodWeathers]] 20:51, 16 November 2008 (EST)
+
::::Andy, Wallace appears to have had been a one time Republican who later had openly leftist views. [http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USARwallace.htm]  Wallace cannot be counted as a long time "sleeper agent" who was a very high ranking public official through infiltration. Secondly, Alger Hiss never achieved a high ranking government official status like a president, Vice President, Secretary of State, etc.[http://homepages.nyu.edu/~th15/who.html]  I do think that when someone goes for a very important government position, such as a President, Vice-President, Secretary of State,  a higher degree of scrutiny often occurs.  For this reason, I believe you are having trouble coming up with a historical instance of a very high ranked official in the Western World being a sleeper agent. Furthermore, by the time Hiss was charged who had been two years out of government and was working for the Carnegie Foundation.  I believe it is invalid to use Hiss as an example of an ambitious sleeper agent who had gotten to the top of government when he had resigned from government 2 years before he was charged.  Next, I do think my questions in my previous post were quite reasonable that you left unanswered.  Also, and this is really at the heart of the issue, you never really countered this information which makes the idea of Obama being a sleeper agent a non-starter because it appears as if he was never truly raised a Muslim: 
+
 
+
"Barack Hussein Obama was born in 1961 in Honolulu, Hawaii, to a Kenyan Muslim father of the same name and an American secular humanist mother named Ann Dunham. While Obama’s father was raised in Islamic culture, he had become a functional atheist by the time he reached college. Despite his parents’ lack of religion, young Obama received his early education in both Catholic and Muslim schools.
+
 
+
Obama’s parents divorced when he was only two years old. Henceforth, the senior Obama was “almost entirely absent”[i] from his son’s life. Four years later, Ann Dunham relocated to Indonesia with her son to join her new husband Lolo Soetoro. A daughter, Maya, was born to the couple before their divorce. She returned to Hawaii where she went on to earn her MA in anthropology from the University of Hawaii. In his first book, Dreams from My Father, Barack Obama wrote of his mother, “She was a lonely witness for '''secular humanism''', a soldier for New Deal, Peace Corps, position paper liberalism.”[ii]
+
 
+
Obama’s mother was a huge influence in his life. In an interview with Oprah Winfrey in October 2006, he said, “My mother—when I think about the values I hold most dear, they came from her.”[iii] In a speech given at a Moms Rising event in 2006, he said, “Everything that I think is good about me, I got from her.”[http://nationalclergycouncil.org/010807BarackObama.htm]  [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 20:57, 16 November 2008 (EST)
+
 
+
: In response to your indented general comment above, there's nothing magical or divine about presidential politics that ensures honesty.  Woodrow Wilson was paralyzed by a stroke for more than a year while president, and the public did not know.  Your argument that it is impossible to keep such things from the public is simply wrong.  Wallace was not widely known to be a communist or else Roosevelt would never have been elected with Wallace on the ticket.  Roosevelt finally figured it out (or was tipped off), and without explanation replaced Wallace.  The leftists were dumbfounded by this move, as they were on the verge of making Wallace president when Roosevelt died.  Oh, and the sickness of Roosevelt was also kept from the public.  He died from his illness within a mere weeks of becoming president for the fourth time.  The public didn't expect that either.
+
 
+
: In response to your specific questions, you're quoting self-serving and implausible statements.  Obama was raised by a Muslim stepfather.  He learned to view the Muslim call to prayer as the most beautiful thing in the word.  There is no real indication any change by Obama, and his keeping of the name "Hussein" illustrates that he did not have a rare adult conversion from Muslim to Christianity.  All indications are that such conversion was politically motivated to persuade the public, and one might say that was obviously successful with some!  But I doubt Obama will continue his charade indefinitely.  Watch for aid to impose Islam on more foreign countries, and watch for inclusion of the Koran at official ceremonies, if not on Jan. 20th itself.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:18, 16 November 2008 (EST)
+
:: No, Andy, it is ''you'' who is "quoting self-serving and implausible statements".  Even five of your own senior administrators disagree with you, but, like Wikipedia, you persist with imposing your own view on this article.  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:58, 17 November 2008 (EST)
+
Andy, I don't think you can give me a single piece of evidence of Obama's mother being a Muslim and given there is evidence against this matter that is not surprising.  It also appears as if Obama has a great influence in his life which is not surprising since she was his biological mother. In addition, Obama appeared to have received some Catholic education when he was young. Therefore, your supposed case that Obama was raised a Muslim is certainly not built on a bedrock of solid evidence.  Accordingly, the Obama article should not state that Obama is likely a Muslim.  Next, I never stated that it is impossible for someone to get to a top political office as a sleeper agent but merely improbable and historical determinations should be reached probabilistically. Also, while it may have not been known that Wallace was a communist (if indeed he was a communist which is a matter I have not investigated but which could certainly be true), there does appear to be indications that he had openly strong leftist views for even the Democrats.[http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USARwallace.htm]  Therefore, you historical precedent argument in this case is certainly not a stronger one in terms of Wallace being a "sleeper agent".  It does not sound plausible to me that a Communist sleeper agent would have openly strong leftist views that even the Democrats found distasteful. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 21:34, 16 November 2008 (EST)
+
 
+
: In Muslim families, like the one Obama was raised in, the father dictates the religious upbringing of the boys.  Please learn more about the Muslim traditions.  With so little awareness of it by Christians, it's no wonder Islam is trouncing Christianity around the world.
+
 
+
: Alger Hiss was later proved to be a communist and read up on how he was the TOP adviser to FDR at the key WWII conference carving up Europe.  Not only was he a sleeper communist agent, but the liberals denied it for decades even after Hiss was convicted in court.  Only in the last few years did one of his co-agents admit the truth.  Please learn about this.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:43, 16 November 2008 (EST)
+
:::: Islam is "trouncing" Christianity?  In what way?  Greater population growth, perhaps, but that's not relevant here. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:58, 17 November 2008 (EST)
+
:::Andy, have you made the case that Obama's stepfather was a staunch Muslim?  I know you have not because it appears as if Obama attended a Catholic school when he was young.  Therefore, you still not have made the case that Obama was raised a Muslim. Next, Hiss may have been a top advisor at one point in his life, however, an advisor is not a very top government official (President, Vice-President, Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense, etc.) who certainly often faces much more scrutiny.  Andy, given historical precedence and the greater scrutiny that is often given to people ascending to the very peaks of government power, I do think the case for a sleeper agent rising to the pinnacle of power in a government institution is very tenuous to say the least.  I think this principle of sleeper agents not ascending to the pinnacles of large organizations is true of institutions outside of government as well.  For example, people when being sarcastic in replying to a yes or no question, will sometimes say, "Is the Pope Jewish?" meaning that the pope is not likely an adherent of Judaism.  [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 21:34, 16 November 2008 (EST)
+
 
+
Andy, it appears as if there is strong evidence that Obama attended a Catholic school but there may not be evidence that he attended a school that truly could be called a Muslim school.  Please read  [http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/muslim.asp this article.] 
+
 
+
Regardless of whether or not CNN or the AP did their work with diligence, there appears to be no controversy regarding that Obama did in fact attend a Catholic school.  Therefore, I still maintain that the claim he was raised a Muslim does not have strong support.  [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 22:22, 16 November 2008 (EST)
+
 
+
: Catholic schools welcome Muslim students.  They still do.  The Muslim students virtually never convert.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:07, 16 November 2008 (EST)
+
:::Catholic schools may very welcome Muslim students but what staunchly Muslim father sends his son to a Catholic school?  Andy, you still have not jumped over the evidential bar that Osama was raised a Muslim. The so called Muslim school was apparently not strongly Islamic or possibly not even Islamic at all  ( [http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/muslim.asp read this article.] )  and the stepfather appears to not have had a strong Muslim faith as evidenced by the fact that he sent Obama to a Catholic school. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 23:56, 16 November 2008 (EST)
+
 
+
In the Unification Church, it is not unusual for parents to send their children to a Catholic grade school. So what if they come home, crossing themselves when they pray? Overall, the education is better there than in public schools, so if they can afford it the practice makes senses. I daresay mainstream Christians likewise don't mind the sectarian differences. Any way out of secular humanism is often fine with them.
+
 
+
It appears likely that as president, Obama will be more sympathetic to Islamic countries in his foreign policy. Maybe he'll even be able to get them to lighten up on their "destruction of Israel" goals, or allow [[religious freedom]] for Christians and Jews. Are [[Turkey]] and [[Indonesia]] good examples of this?
+
 
+
I see good in all religions, and I don't see Islam as irredeemably evil. So what if Obama is or was Muslim? There is [[no religious test for office]], and he can't be impeached for it. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 10:09, 18 November 2008 (EST)
+
 
+
==Another case for Obama being Muslim==
+
During a campaign rally, two Muslim women in Muslim garb, were removed from prominent camera view. The reason is A) Obama doesn't want his image assoc. with Muslims B) or doesn't like Muslims (we know the opposite is true). Now, he doesn't want images of Muslim assoc with him because he is A) secret Muslim  or B) the American people will think he is a Muslim. (Which 27% already do). Did Obama try to hide his Muslim background and is that plan still in progress?--'''<font color="#6698FF">J</font><font color="#E41B17">p</font><font color="#F88017">a</font><font color="#347C17">t</font><font color="#A74AC7">t</font>'''<sup>[[User:Jpatt|  ]]</sup> 17:52, 16 November 2008 (EST)
+
:::Are A and B the only choices on why Obama does not want himself associated with Islam?  Is a false dilemma being proposed? For example, setting aside whether it was right or wrong which is a whole other discussion, did 9/11 drive up the American public's negative beliefs and/or attitudes regarding Islam?  Would the American public look less favorably upon a candidate who received some Muslim religious education (Obama also received Catholic training in his youth. And there is certainly reason to believe that a certain degree of philosophical skepticism was imparted to Obama via his mother). In short, I think the above post fails to use the principle of using the total evidence (see my posts above) plus contains a false dilemma. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 18:09, 16 November 2008 (EST)
+
 
+
== “Less than 1% Muslims convert” – Prosecutor error? ==
+
 
+
 
+
OK, time for something new and I direct this particularly to Aschlafly. There is a logical fallacy called the “Prosecutor’s Error”. It is very subtle but real enough to send innocent people to the execution chamber. In fact, many lawyers and judges don’t understand it. It works like this. Please concentrate: this isn't all that easy.
+
 
+
Let us suppose that it is true that Barack Obama was at one time a Muslim, even if this was at an immature age when he really had no say in his faith. And let us grant that only 1% of Muslims convert to Christianity. The argument which Aschflafly uses time and again is to deduce that that this means that, notionally at least, that there is a 99% chance that Obama is a Muslim.
+
 
+
The fallacy of the argument is that it does not recognize that the IF Obama was in that 99% of Muslims who did not convert, there would be no practicable way he could have run for President. Therefore the chances that he is one of those who DID convert are raised far beyond the mathematically obvious one of 1%.
+
 
+
Let me give you a real-life example. A woman had three children and each expired early in infancy of “cot death”. The prosecutor did his math and advised the court that there was a “one in 70 million” chance of this happening by accident. Therefore, the jury was heavily disposed to assume that she was guilty of the serial murder of her children. But the fallacy of the case is that she was ONLY arrested because of the rareness of the 3 children dying of cot death in the one family. But even if this only happens one in 70 million families, in a large country such as the U.K or U.S.A, and over a period of decades, it is BOUND to occur, purely by accident. If we then tell a courtroom that there is only a 1 in 70 million chance that she is innocent, we are guilty of the “Prosecutor’s Error”. It is tantamount to arresting a man who comes into a lot of money suddenly and is arrested under suspicion of larceny. He explains that he won it on a lottery, but the Prosecutor says he has looked into the “Lottery” business, and there is only a 1 in 20 million chance of winning it, therefore there is only a 1 in 20 million chance the indicted man is telling the truth.
+
 
+
In Obama’s case, once again, EVEN if it is true that only 1% of Muslims convert, AND ALSO true that he was born into the Muslim faith, the fact that his circumstances allowed him to run for the Presidency argues that he was one of those Muslims who DID convert, and thus makes his chances of being a non-Muslim substantially greater that 1%. [[User:MylesP|MylesP]] 00:05, 17 November 2008 (EST)
+
 
+
:I understand your math, but your reasoning does not convince me. The lottery example was the most unfortunate attempt.
+
 
+
:Although in any given lottery, the chances may be 1 in 20 million for one person to win - the fact is that '''every''' lottery has a winner.
+
 
+
:The problem with Obama's religion is not so much ''Which is it?'' but, "How shall the electorate now regard its new president elect?" Will Obama be pro-Muslim (because he's Muslim or was raised Muslim)?
+
 
+
:A related question is, "Will Obama be pro-Black because he is black?"
+
 
+
:I get along equally well with black Christians as with white Christians, so this is not an issue for me. I've also found Muslims personally just as honest, reliable and hard-working as Christians. What's all the fuss about? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 10:18, 18 November 2008 (EST)
+
 
+
== Awesome article ==
+
Just wanted to say, finally a good resource about obama. Fantastic research about the muslim piece, it really shows him as the closet muslim like he is. Shame the libs just don't get it !! [[happymoon|happymoon]]
+
 
+
== Great comedy article ==
+
 
+
It's a shame people don't get the jokes. Just wanted to pop in and say keep up the good work! Was referred here by a friend who also got a kick out of this article. [[User:Somebody21|Somebody21]] 11:08, 17 November 2008 (EST)
+
 
+
:Read the article properly before you start calling it a joke. You've been looking at Obama from a left wing viewpoint; try looking at him from a right wing viewpoint. It'll do you good.--[[User:WHurst|WHurst]]
+
 
+
==This will be a hit on stormfront==
+
 
+
America reaches a milestone in his history and all you guys can do is peddle false lies which have been repudiated by just about everyone in the political business. The comment about 'possibly been sworn in by the koran' is not only false, but a terrifying example of what racism and ignorance is capable of. You may not be white nationalists, but your inability to reasonably discuss this man's faith without resorting to the most despicable acts of scaremongering is typical of the tripe we see on racist websites.
+
 
+
Keep this crap up and you'll make sure to keep the black vote away from your party for the forseeable future. [[User:JCharlton|JCharlton]] 17:50, 17 November 2008 (EST)
+
 
+
::Race and religion are two different things.  Why do liberals always resort to racism?  Maybe its becaus you don't have any real arguments against the issues raised here?  This isn't wikipedia, we deal in facts here. [[User:Patriot1505|Patriot1505]] 20:20, 17 November 2008 (EST)
+
 
+
== Reply ==
+
 
+
Don't know where to start.  Maybe someone else can explain why they get so enraged at the likelihood that Obama is a Muslim.  What's it to someone who (1) is an atheist, (2) is an Australian, (3) is a Christian, or (4) would support him regardless?  Frankly, the opposition by some is puzzling.
+
 
+
Regardless, some remarkable displays of lack of knowledge about Islam and Islamic education have been displayed here.  Perhaps we can all agree that it's worth learning more about what many say has quickly become the world's largest religion, and the strongest religion in Europe today.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:49, 17 November 2008 (EST)
+
 
+
:It really shouldn't be that puzzling Andy. They are calling out what they believe to be falsehood. When people made spurious, questionable claims about Bush, how did Conservapedia respond? Did you include the information or remove it? Its the exact same thing. You tried to keep the spurious information out of it. The name "Trustworthy Encyclopedia" implies intellectual honesty, and on this particular aspect most people here (myself included) find this pile of circumstantial evidence to be based on poor conclusions, false arguments, and illogical reasoning to be an absurdity without any solid claims that say he is a Muslim. The burden of proof is on you to -prove- that he is, not provide a loaded mountain of evidence that is obviously taylored to imply that he is with no proof whatsoever other than bad logic. I can't believe this topic is still going. [[User:EternalCritic|EternalCritic]] 22:17, 17 November 2008 (EST)
+
 
+
:: There is nothing "spurious" about it, and you lose credibility with your baseless claims of falsehood.  Even Obama's biggest supporters would have to admit that there is a significant probability that he is a Muslim.  Perhaps one can quibble whether that probability is 20% or 60% or 90%, but no one can insist with a straight face that it is 0%.
+
 
+
:: Given that, it's bizarre how some adamantly insist that the probability must be less than 50% rather than greater than 50%.  Frankly, the demands to censor this information smacks of liberal bias.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:52, 17 November 2008 (EST)
+
 
+
:::When you promote someone over yourself here, the beef can be over censorship. Until then, it's just people saying they think you're wrong. [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 23:16, 17 November 2008 (EST) ''<-like me, for example...''
+
 
+
Don't fall for the devil's tricks. These "conservatives" are not true Christians. [[User:Somebody21|Somebody21]] 23:33, 17 November 2008 (EST)
+
 
+
"''Maybe someone else can explain why they get so enraged at the likelihood that Obama is a Muslim.''":  Yes, I would like you to explain that.  Because ''you'' are the one enraged at that.  I, on the other hand, am "enraged" that he is being accused of being a Muslim on the basis of logical fallacy, lousy arguments, and false claims.
+
 
+
"''What's it to someone who ... is a Christian''":  As a Christian, my concern is for the ''truth''.  Why do you continually try and misrepresent this as censorship, liberal lies, or whatever?
+
 
+
"''... some remarkable displays of lack of knowledge about Islam and Islamic education have been displayed here...''":  That is not the issue I'm arguing.  You are again raising red herrings.  The issue is the claim that he is a Muslim, which claim is not supported by the evidence.
+
 
+
"''There is nothing "spurious" about it, and you lose credibility with your baseless claims of falsehood.''":  No, Andy, it '''is''' spurious, and ''you'' lose credibility with ''your'' baseless claims that he is a Muslim.
+
 
+
"''Even Obama's biggest supporters would have to admit that there is a significant probability that he is a Muslim.''":  On what grounds?  Certainly not those in this article.
+
 
+
"''Given that, it's bizarre how some adamantly insist that the probability must be less than 50% rather than greater than 50%.''":  "That" is not given.  Rather, it's bizarre how ''you'' adamantly insist that he ''is'' a Muslim given the lack of evidence.
+
 
+
"''Frankly, the demands to censor this information smacks of liberal bias.''":  I'm going to shout because you obviously didn't hear me before: "IT IS NOT CENSORSHIP TO REMOVE IRRELEVANT INFORMATION, AND I'D APPRECIATE YOU NOT IMPLYING THAT I'M TRYING TO CENSOR ANYTHING."
+
 
+
I've pointed out a number of problems, and your response has been to slander the criticism as censorship and liberal, to introduce red herrings, and to assert your opinion as fact.  What you have ''not'' done is actually address the issue.
+
 
+
[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:57, 18 November 2008 (EST)
+
 
+
:How dare you accuse Andy of slander. And what hypocricy. The only slanderer, Philip, is you. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 03:40, 18 November 2008 (EST)
+
:: Yet you make no attempt to refute that it was slanderous, nor to substantiate your accusation against me.  In other words, a substanceless response.  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:53, 18 November 2008 (EST)
+
 
+
Andy, regarding "''(Islam being) the strongest religion in Europe today''": you never cease to amaze us with your wealth of knowledge of the world outside the USA, be it UK, the whole of Europe or Australia. Kudos to you! --[[User:Europeo|Europeo]] 07:37, 18 November 2008 (EST)
+
 
+
::''Regardless, some remarkable displays of lack of knowledge about Islam and Islamic education have been displayed here.''  I think that's a statement with which anyone would agree.  [[User:Murray|Murray]] 10:55, 18 November 2008 (EST)
+
 
+
==Four Questions For The Trojan Candidate==
+
{{QuoteBox|1=It has taken the better part of a year, and specifically the last six months of this election season, for committed citizen journalists at TexasDarlin and many other blogs to conduct the solid, investigative research that the media, the democratic national committee, agencies of the federal government, Barack Obama himself, and Congress should have done on the eligibility and qualifications of Barack Obama.  The first serious look at Barack Obama ’s Constitutional eligibility began on this blog, with the exposure of the birth certificate mystery, Obama-Soetoro’s Indonesian citizenship, and analysis of the constitutional problems with Obama’s multiple citizenship status irrespective of birthplace.
+
<br /><br />
+
Although our collective knowledge of Barack Obama and the concerns of his candidacy came too late to change the outcome of the Democratic nomination and the election—especially in light of the MSM bias, the Obama campaign’s tactics, and DNC shenanigans–  for all our hard work, we were successful in shedding some light on the content of his character: his associations, his deeds, his family relations, his friends, his lack of experience, stewardship, his patriotism, his potential agenda ([http://texasdarlin.wordpress.com/2008/09/21/the-trojan-candidate/] ) and the startling depth of his secrecy.
+
<br /><br />
+
Now that we have “un-muddied” the water…..we stand on the edge of a caldera* with no idea of the complexity, depth, explosiveness, or unpredictability of this phenomenon we have witnessed in the rise of Barack Obama !  We as a country have never actually been here before, standing at the edge of possible dissolution of our country, except perhaps in the election of 1860. One realizes at once the perils of both diving into that hot pool of water, or running away to avoid the explosion….either scenario leads to serious burns!
+
<br /><br />
+
While there seems to be little evidence that we will ever fully know Obama, nor avoid the explosive change he will bring, there is a way we can learn from this experience such that our Country will never again be faced with someone who is truly unknown, inexperienced, untested, and feels (to me anyway) uncommitted to America.  We can use the  2008 experiences to also highlight and then design strategies to ensure that every political party is responsive to its constituents, and that our Constitution is really a living document.
+
<br /><br />
+
The Constitution is by and for “we the people”; therefore “we the people” must make it work and not rely on any political party to sell America to the highest bidder.
+
<br /><br />
+
'''Four Questions'''
+
<br /><br />
+
I bring forward four questions that get to the heart of our rights, as American citizens, to ensure that our government and its leaders are indeed qualified to lead our great country.  By extension, these questions can be used as windows to other potential areas where we the people do not yet have redress.
+
<br /><br />
+
These questions are miraculously (given procedural errors and the existing lower court dismissal) before the Supreme Court with the requirement that President-elect Obama respond by December 1, 2008.  It is also disturbing that these questions are before the U.S. Supreme Court when the candidate himself or the DNC could easily have dispelled any speculation by providing simple documentation.
+
<br /><br />
+
While I have not kept track of the Berg v. Obama case for many reasons, it truly is miraculous that Justice Souter required Obama to respond to Berg’s writ of certiorari.  Even if, as some have said, Souter ’s action is not significant and procedural only, how Obama responds will reveal much about his view of the Constitution, and will determine if the full Supreme Court decides to hear the case.  In responding, Obama will be essentially arguing why the writ of certiorari should not be granted.
+
<br /><br />
+
In my opinion, the questions raised by Berg in the lower Court should not have been thrown out entirely based on standing alone, or by the notion that the injury to a voter is “vague”. But some Judges do actually realize the question may be beyond their jurisdiction and ‘ask for help’ by clearly making appealable and reversible errors that a higher court can rule on. The Supreme Court Rules permit the grant of a writ of certiorari only under specific circumstances.
+
<br /><br />
+
The questions presented for review are:
+
<br /><br />
+
*1. Whether a citizen of the United States has standing to challenge the Constitutional qualifications of a Presidential nominee under the “natural born citizen clause” [Article II of the U.S. Constitution] when deprivation of the right to such a challenge would result in the infringement of a citizen’s Constitutional right to vote?
+
*2. Isn’t it true that no one has the responsibility to ensure a United States Presidential candidate is eligible to serve as President of the United States?
+
*3. Are there proper steps for a voter to ensure a Presidential Candidate is qualified and eligible to serve as President of the United States?
+
*4. Isn’t it true that there are not any checks and balances to ensure the qualifications and eligibility of a Presidential Candidate to serve as President of the United States?
+
 
<br />
 
<br />
The “questions presented for review” in the writ require Obama’ response. Notice that answering these questions does not require Obama to produce a birth certificate, but instead to answer why he does not have to prove himself eligible.
 
<br /><br />
 
Although we cannot predict Obama’s answers, based on his past legal motions submitted in the lower court case, Obama may indeed respond that the writ should not be granted because (1) a citizen does not have standing, (2) that no one has responsibility to ensure eligibility, (3) that there are no proper steps for a citizen to ensure qualifications, and (4) that there are no checks and balances that exist today to ensure a candidate is qualified.  Notice he is in a position of arguing technicalities here, and completely misses his own obligation to prove himself.
 
<br /><br />
 
Although doubtful, it is also possible Obama would try to argue that the 14th Amendment says that “naturalized citizens” and “dual citizens” are “American citizens”, thereby satisfying the requirements of Article II.  I really can’t imagine he would bring this up, unless asked in a hearing, as the question of the 14th Amendment’s modification of Article II is a constitutional matter that only the Supreme Court can decide.  Recall that on Obama’s own website he claims that he is a U.S. Citizen under the 14th amendment.
 
<br /><br />
 
I think these questions may have Obama boxed in. If he intends not to release his COLB, citizenship records, passport files,  etc, Obama would then practically argue a big “FU” to the U.S. Supreme Court and say in effect “I don’t have to respond to this because there is no law, no avenue for citizens, and no checks and balances that require me to do so.”  He will argue technicalities in how to disregard the Constitution, including, as above, that the 14th Amendment applies to Article II. I wonder how the Supreme Court might respond?
 
<br /><br />
 
If Obama responds in any other way, he could be forced to disclose and/or identify when, how, and what steps citizens can take, or what steps are taken, to assure the POTUS’ eligibility.  Using the process he acknowledges—for example, the “DNC vetting process”–he may then be forced to prove his eligibility to serve as POTUS under Article II by showing the documentation he provided to the DNC, if he provided anything to the DNC. Alternatively he could concede that there are no procedures to ensure eligibility of a person for POTUS, and that “America has to take his word for it”.  Would the Supreme Court then order him to produce his documentation according to the original suit filed by Berg?
 
<br /><br />
 
One item of interest is how Obama responds to Question 4, on the existence of checks and balances to assure the POTUS’ eligibility.  “Checks and balances” can mean procedures, legislative processes, acts, bills, agencies, or resolutions.  Here is where Obama could argue that the Senate Resolution promoted by Senators Leahy, Obama, and McCatskill on John McCain’s eligibility applies.  In other words, Obama could argue that the checks and balances already exist and this resolution suffices (notice this is not a bill). The Senate resolution was developed in April, 2008 to “validate” John McCain ’s natural born citizen status when it was unnecessary, and in some ways the resolution’s language can be seen as an attempt by the three Senators to create a blanket provision for a naturalized citizen to be eligible to serve as POTUS. Looking at the text of the resolution and supporting statements, Senator Leahy has the following curious exchange with Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff (emphasis mine):
 
<br /><br />
 
Chairman Leahy.  Let me just ask this:  I believe–and we have had some question in this Committee to have a special law passed declaring that Senator McCain, who was born in the Panama Canal, that he meets the constitutional requirement to be President….You are a former Federal judge.  You are the head of the agency that executes Federal immigration law.  Do you have any doubt in your mind–I mean, I have none in mine.  Do you have any doubt in your mind that he is constitutionally eligible to become President?
 
<br /><br />
 
Secretary Chertoff.  My assumption and my understanding is that if you are born of American parents, you are naturally a natural-born American citizen.
 
<br /><br />
 
As Berg’s case has evolved, he refined the scope of defendants who now must also respond to the writ, including the DNC, the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration and its Chair, Senator Dianne Feinstein , the Federal Election Commission (FEC), and several Pennsylvania government officials.
 
<br /><br />
 
With the exception of the DNC, who also joined in Obama’s initial motion to dismiss the lower case on lack of standing, I think the other defendants’ responses might be decidedly different.  The FEC could claim that it actually has no jurisdiction in the matter by way of its charter and organizing documents, and that even if it did, it is far too understaffed to perform investigatory functions, as cited by Senator Feinstein in testimony before the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration on May 28, 2008 (link to http://rules.senate..gov/hearings/2008/052108feinsteinopen.pdf). And will Senator Feinstein blame the Bush administration, or will she admit that she too just assumed the DNC vetted Obama and that he was eligible?
 
<br /><br />
 
After reviewing Obama’s legal argument against granting the writ of certiorari and the other defendants’ responses, Justice Souter will then review Berg’s response before deciding where the case goes next, including whether the full Supreme Court will hear the case.  Remember that Souter’s clerks have all the lower court material and reviewed it before Souter required Obama to respond to the writ of certiorari.  In my opinion, Justice Souter would not have granted this appeal from Berg if he thought the issues were irrelevant and not worthy of the Court’s attention.
 
<br /><br />
 
How does the Supreme Court react?  Will it order the production of Obama’s documents? Will it order the lower Courts to resolve the matter expeditiously, requiring the release of documents? Will it order the FEC, Electoral College, or Congress to verify his eligibility, or develop verification procedures?  Will they agree with Obama, if he mentions it, that the 14th Amendment really did modify Article II criteria? Will they dismiss the case?
 
<br /><br />
 
Although the Supreme Court will not want to be seen as determining the outcome of another election—even for the perception of “fairness”– the questions presented in the writ are completely different than presented in Bush v. Gore.  Under Article III of the Constitution, the Supreme Court clearly has the jurisdiction to decide the matter. Legal scholars will point to Marbury v. Madison ( link to http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=true&doc=19) as precedent if the full Supreme Court accepts the writ, orders the lower Court in error, directs it to secure Obama’s documentation, and chastises the DNC,  FEC, the PA state agencies, the Senate, and Senator Obama for not doing their job, and not forcing the production of  documents itself, while still retaining jurisdiction.
 
<br /><br />
 
If this is the outcome, a motion could be made by Berg to stay the vote of the Electoral College pending the outcome of the case.  If the Justices are concerned about the matter and integrity of the 2008 election, that motion could be granted.  The expedited discovery of documents would proceed.  Yes, I understand this is a long-shot and speculation on my part.
 
<br /><br />
 
And how, in the meantime, are we to ever know about Barack Obama? Is the burden of proof really on America (Berg), or on Barack Obama ?  Is it up to your employer to find out who you are, or is it up to you as an employee to provide your documentation?  Isn’t Obama supposed to be working for America?  I believe that the burden of proof on eligibility rests solely and unconditionally on Barack Obama’s shoulders.  I am not alone in this belief (link  http://americamustknow.com/Documents/OBAMA%20LAWSUIT,%20Class%20Action.doc).
 
<br /><br />
 
Alinsky Returns?
 
<br /><br />
 
As I sit in disbelief and alarm even writing this article—that something as basic as citizenship status of the potential POTUS is in front of the Supreme Court at this late date—I am reminded of a framework set forth in an earlier article, The Trojan Candidate (link to http://texasdarlin.wordpress.com/2008/09/21/the-trojan-candidate/),  and the use of Alinsky-style community organizing techniques to advance an agenda of revolutionary change.  In this article I posited that Barack Obama has a hidden agenda and part of implementing his agenda involves the use of techniques developed by Saul Alinsky  and discussed in such books as Rules for Radicals (http://www.semcosh.org/AlinskyTactics.htm).
 
<br /><br />
 
'''From the Trojan Candidate:'''
 
<br /><br />
 
Alinsky laid out a set of basic principles to guide the actions and decisions of radical organizers [community organizers] and the People’s Organizations they established. The organizer, he said, ‘must first rub raw the resentments of the people; fan the latent hostilities to the point of overt expression. He must search out controversy and issues, rather than avoid them, for unless there is controversy people are not concerned enough to act.’ The organizer’s function, he added, was ‘to agitate to the point of conflict ’and ‘to maneuver and bait the establishment so that it will publicly attack him as a “dangerous enemy.” ‘The word ‘enemy,’ said Alinsky, ‘is sufficient to put the organizer on the side of the people’; i.e., to convince members of the community that he is so eager to advocate on their behalf, that he has willingly opened himself up to condemnation and derision.
 
<br /><br />
 
What could be the reason for withholding his citizenship papers and birth status, especially if he has nothing to hide? Does he plan to use this in some way to “rub raw the resentments of the people” [and] “fan the latent hostilities to the point of over expression”?  The concerns about Obama’s Constitutional eligibility will be met with accusations of “racism”; that the “system” wouldn’t do this to a white man, and that the republicans or others are trying to ‘take Obama out’ on a “technicality”.  And worse.
 
<br /><br />
 
If Obama is ineligible, he could rightly be called a ‘dangerous enemy’ and forced to stand down.  It is at this point that “the word ‘enemy’ is sufficient to put the organizer on the side of the people…” and the maneuvering  and baiting of the establishment forces it to back down, with Obama prevailing whether having shown his documentation or not.  As you contemplate this, think of all the money, the inevitability narrative, the shutting down of dissent, the timing of events, the threat of violence and insurrection,  the establishment of the office of the president elect,  and the simply overwhelming of America with all things Obama. This certainly pulls the light from shining on the real Barack Obama ’s Trojan candidacy.
 
<br /><br />
 
If Obama is proven ineligible, does not stand down or even if he does stand down,  it is not unreasonable to expect some “in-your-face” hostile reactions and calls for immediate changes that permit Obama to stay.  How ironic: in defense of liberty and the Constitution, we will be called ‘racists’.
 
<br /><br />
 
'''Implications for the Future'''
 
<br /><br />
 
The four questions presented to the U.S. Supreme Court in 2008 will have a lasting and enduring effect on the course of the American Constitution in the next decade or more and will continue to feed the growing doubts about Obama’s qualifications and intentions in the next four years..  Currently there are 17 different legal actions in various state and federal courts, which now challenge the validity of the electoral process across the country, regardless of outcome (see http://www.soundinvestments.us/files/final_writ_keyes_v_bowen.pdf) .
 
<br /><br />
 
Just my suspicion, but I am beginning to get a more complete picture of why Obama has sealed all of his records, including college financial aid applications, papers, and coursework.  I believe his financial aid applications reveal his foreign status; and I now see that his Columbia and Harvard papers could reveal his examination of the “weaknesses” of the U.S. Constitution and ways to “remedy” them using “administrative procedures” as discussed in this 2001 radio interview. (link to http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3VctiYQplw8)
 
<br /><br />
 
As I look at the scope of research on the issue of eligibility during this election season, I note that nearly all have concluded that there are no checks and balances to assure the eligibility of a Presidential Candidate, that no one is responsible, that the DNC did not do its job, and that indeed citizens and voters have very little recourse to ask these questions.  The Supreme Court has never been presented with this question before on Article II eligibility.  I personally doubt that they will duck their responsibilities to protect the Constitution.
 
<br /><br />
 
Up until this time, it has been assumed that every candidate and POTUS has met Article II qualifications.  We assume that in fact no one would dare to run for and claim the Presidency if he/she didn’t meet the qualifications of the Constitution. Looks like our age of innocence is over.
 
<br /><br />
 
It appears that we will have to craft legislation to assure eligibility criteria are met for the POTUS, and to assign appropriate responsibilities to assure so..  If the country wants to amend the Constitution to allow naturalized or dual citizens to serve as POTUS, then we have that mechanism, which  ¾ of the states have to ratify.  None of this can happen before the January 20th inauguration.
 
<br /><br />
 
The four questions to the Supreme Court also remind me of other areas in which we voters do not have redress when something goes wrong.  Although I am now an “unaffiliated” voter, having left the democratic party after November 4th, it also appears that democrats do not have an avenue of redress when the DNC and RBC violate party rules as they did in this case to deny Hillary Clinton the nomination. In addition, we now know that caucuses can be gamed, and do not serve the interests of democracy nor do they provide a fair representation of the strength of our party’s candidates.  Because of the DNC, RBC and Obama’s gaming of the system with caucus fraud,  and the blatant use of race and misogyny to silence critics, we are witnessing the democrats begin the disintegration of the “democratic brand”.  I am sure there are issues in the Republican party after GWB destroyed the “republican brand”.  We all need a detox from our respective koolaid brands in order to really see clearly.
 
<br /><br />
 
What is next for our country?  Well, if we don’t want to dive into that hot pool, and we’re not going to run away, then we’d better start creating an alternative vision.  A line in one of my favorite movies, The Shawshank Redemption, sums it up for me:
 
<br /><br />
 
“…get busy livin’, or get busy dyin’…” [http://texasdarlin.wordpress.com/2008/11/16/four-questions-for-the-trojan-candidate/]}}
 
{{unsigned|TK}}
 
 
==Andy, if it can perhaps be quibbled that there is merely a 20% chance of Obama being a Muslim, then why is the Obama article stating that he is likely a Muslim? ==
 
 
Dear Andy,
 
 
You wrote above regarding the probability of Obama being a Muslim the following:
 
 
"Perhaps one can quibble whether that probability is 20% or 60% or 90%, but no one can insist with a straight face that it is 0%."
 
 
Andy, if it can be perhaps be quibbled that the likelihood of Obama being a Muslim is merely 20%, then why is the article still stating that Obama is likely a Muslim?  Second,  Andy do you think that a reference work should use scholarly caution and that scholarly caution helps make a reference work authoritative? [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 04:01, 18 November 2008 (EST)
 
:In this case, what you describe as 'scholarly caution' means knuckling under to Liberal suppression of facts and discussion. The scholarly option is to seek out the truth, no matter how disturbing that truth or the process of uncovering it might be to those on the left. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 04:43, 18 November 2008 (EST)
 
 
Andy I also fear we are not doing our site any favors in this area.  If Obama is a Muslim, he is certainly keeping that under wraps.  There is no indication that he would suddenly take the oath of office on a Koran.  Such a turnabout that he lied about his Christianity would destroy his ability to govern.  It is more likely, if he is a Muslim, that he would support Muslim causes without making a profession of his own faith.  We should also realize, based upon his policies, that if he does have Islamic ties that they would be akin to the type of ties that John Kerry has to Catholicism, very poor.  His views on abortion alone would be considered extreme Western decadence within the greater Islamic world view. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 04:54, 18 November 2008 (EST)
 
:::::Bugler, I purposely chose Andy's words that "perhaps one can quibble that the probability is 20%".  Therefore, if Andy is correct about the 20% issue then the statement that Obama is likely a Muslim should be removed from the article. I am just following Andy's statement where the logic leads if his statement is true and no knuckling under is necessary.  I do think it is fair to say that people come to an encyclopedia to read facts and not speculation.  Speculation weighs down an encyclopedia by eroding its credibility.  [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 08:03, 18 November 2008 (EST)
 
::::::Saying "One could argue that X is 20%" doesn't in any way mean accepting that that X '''is''' 20%. It merely allows the existence of theoretically possible grounds of debate. If I said there were grounds for arguing that the planet Jupiter was made of cheese, likewise it doesn't mean that I think it is reasonably possible that such is the case. Andy is (in my interpretation of his words) admitting grounds for debate; it does not mean that he (or anyone else who takes a rational view of the issue) accepts only a 20% likelihood. The whole point of the point at issue is that it disproves the blinkered dogmatism and naivety of Liberals who say "Oh, Obama has said he's a Christian so he '''can't possibly''' be a Moslem." Liberals cling to dogma like an unweaned child to its blanket; we conservatives prefer debate, rational discourse, and seeking truth from facts, not from wish-fulfillment fantasies. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 09:14, 18 November 2008 (EST)
 
::::::: Admitting that 20% is ''possible'' means that you've destroyed your argument that it ''is'' more than 50%.
 
::::::: And no, the whole point is ''not'' to support liberal views.  That's a false claim.  And if you as a conservative prefers debate, rational discourse, and seeking truth from facts, why are you reversing my edits without offering any rebuttal to my points?
 
::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:38, 18 November 2008 (EST)
 
''Admitting that 20% is ''possible'' means that you've destroyed your argument that it ''is'' more than 50%.'' You haven't read it, have you? Read it again, nice and slowly, take your time, and especially consider the Jupiter analogy. As for the vulgar abuse in your edit summary, I will let that speak for itself. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 09:42, 18 November 2008 (EST)
 
  
It might be good to create a subarticle, with [[Barack Obama]] as the main article. We have templates for this; Philip is our template custodian and can place whatever we need.
+
==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.
  
I protected the article, because edit wars don't serve our readers; and they don't help us contributors much either.  
+
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.
  
I didn't look at Andy's last version. I just guessed it might make a good starting point.  
+
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)
  
Let's discuss, rather than trying to "get our way". Wiki collaboration should result in stability. Let none of us rock the boat. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 09:47, 18 November 2008 (EST)
+
::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)
  
:Thanks, Ed. I agree that edit wars are undesirable. I don't consider that I was edit warring. I was trying to protect this article, which has been arrived at in its current form after much debate, from unilateral and ideologically-driven deletions bordering on vandalism. In the course of doing so I have yet again been accused of mendacity. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 09:51, 18 November 2008 (EST)
+
I agree with [[User:IluvAviation|IluvAviation]]. Quite a few things he's done violate Islam's rules. [[User:Whiterose|Whiterose]] ([[User talk:Whiterose|talk]]) 18:21, 22 April 2017 (EDT)[[User:Whiterose|Whiterose]] ([[User talk:Whiterose|talk]]) 23:20, 22nd April 2017 (BST)
 +
:Just because he's not a very "good" Muslim doesn't make him anythnig 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)
  
: Thanks, Ed, for bringing stability.  As Bugler points out, there is nothing in my observation that "perhaps one" can quibble whether the likelihood Obama is a Muslim is 20%, 60% or 90% that justifies censoring the evidence and statement that he is likely a Muslim.  Juries make such determinations based on the evidence all the time; so do encyclopedias.  The evidence is compelling and will not be censored or downplayed here, despite some (for unknown reasons) disliking it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:52, 18 November 2008 (EST)
+
== "Faith" ==
  
::Yes, of course there is evidence. And being a Muslim is not a punishable in the US, so the jury need not use the standard of "[[beyond any reasonable doubt]]". It's more like a lawsuit, I guess, where you need only be 51% sure to vote one way or the other.
+
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)
  
::Personally, I'd like CP to make some indication that some conservatives are still in doubt about [[my Muslim faith|"his Muslim faith"]], but that desire does not outweigh the need for editorial harmony.
+
: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)
  
::It is liberals - rather than conservatives - who insist on censoring all views contrary to theirs, in the US. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 10:03, 18 November 2008 (EST)
+
==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)
  
::: Ed, when the issue is the president of the United States, then even less than a 51% chance is often sufficient to be influential, just as less than 51% chance is enough to deny someone an important job.
+
==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)
  
::: Someone is missing the the point about [[my Muslim faith]], which omits the telling phrase: "Muslim faith." No Christian would use that specific phrase so casually in reference to himselfHow about someone saying "Allah the Creator"?! Christians don't use the phrase.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:10, 18 November 2008 (EST)
+
: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 itDebbie 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)
  
== Falsifiability & "My Muslim Faith" ==
+
::
 +
[[File:File:Dollard why believe Obama.png|400px]]
  
Aschlafly, Ed Poor, etc. -  
+
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)
  
Is there any piece of evidence that, assuming it existed, would convince you that Barack Obama is NOT a Muslim? You've now admitted there's a chance he's not a Muslim, so what piece of evidence would convince you that he's not? As it stands, your argument seems unfalsifiable, and ridiculously conspiratorial: everytime someone offers evidence that Obama's not a Muslim, you just reply with, "oooh, he's a tricky one! He must have worked to cover that up!" That's not a respectable, logical argument: it's an inability to recognize fact when it's put before your eyes. What piece of evidence could convince you of that, if any?
 
  
Further, if I go through the George W. Bush talk page I bet I'll find a million examples of you apologizing for Bush's rhetorical missteps, and arguing that when he says something incorrectly, it doesn't mean he's stupid. Why, then, are you not willing to take Obama's slip of the tongue as the same thing - unconscious error, not indicative of any deeper meaning?
+
::I don't believe Obama is a Muslim. The evidence does not support it and there is evidence pointing to him not being a Muslim. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 09:42, 29 June 2016 (EDT)
 +
:::It doesn't matter, I'm saying the amount if space given to speculation and assertion is out of balance. More importantly, Conservapedia should be more careful about taking the bait dangled by Democrat talking points and making a fool of itself. Unless you're content spinning your wheels and marginalizing yourself as extremist.  [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''#NeverHillary'']]</sup> 13:44, 29 June 2016 (EDT)
 +
I don't agree with how Conservapedia handles the Obama/Muslim issue.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 13:50, 29 June 2016 (EDT)
  
The fact is, you have no principled basis for the distinction. Nor are you going to accept any evidence that Obama's a Christian. You're just clinging to a pet theory when even your own administrative staff tells you you're wrong.-[[User:KiraN|KiraN]] 10:26, 18 November 2008 (EST)
+
: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)
  
== Towards stability via discussion ==
+
:::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)
  
:''unilateral and ideologically-driven deletions bordering on vandalism''
+
::::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)
  
Vandalism is replacing the page with "Stinky loves Myrtle". Unilateral editing is doing your own thing, even when you know someone else will just want to revert (see [[Editing etiquette]]).
+
== Frank Marshall Davis ==
  
Let's come closer together, rather than battle it out on the page itself. Talk pages are for talking. Let's hear some more talk! --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 10:29, 18 November 2008 (EST)
+
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)
  
:The problem with that, is that if people talk about it, and say almost anything to disagree with the current state of the article, they are likely to get blocked for the "90/10 Rule against talk talk talk" or "liberal namecalling" or some other excuse.  --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] <small>(CPAdmin1)</small><sup>[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]]</sup>  <sup>[[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]]</sup> 10:37, 18 November 2008 (EST)
+
== Birth location "reportedly" ==
  
:: Tim, that's simply not true.  The [[90/10 rule]] guards against nothing but talk.  It's easy to make substantive contributions to comply with the rule, and it's easy to refrain from namecalling in discussionsIn fact, both are essential to keep the level of discourse and learning here at a high level.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:42, 18 November 2008 (EST)
+
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 clearI 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)
  
:::The [[90/10 rule]] might guard against nothing but talk, but it sure seems to guard against some kinds of talk a lot more than others. [[User:RobNewberry|RobNewberry]] 10:47, 18 November 2008 (EST)
+
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?
  
::::If so, there's nothing wrong with thatJaywalking is not prosecuted as much as petty shoplifting either.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:55, 18 November 2008 (EST)
+
: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)
:::::Aschlafly, you can tell yourself that all you want, but this much is clear; the 90/10 rule is a content-neutral rule applied in a manner that amounts to viewpoint discrimination. You only apply it against liberals. You've long since abandoned the stance that you "don't block ideologically."
+
:::::This site has survived for two years ''only'' by ruthlessly persecuting anyone who disagrees with your worldview. Tim is right, but I'll take it one step farther: I think the reason you censor people who disagree with you is because you know you'll lose in a fair fight. The Barack Obama article is just one more example of that. Except now, even your own sysops disagree with you, so you devolve into insulting Philip and dodging the question.
+
:::::Of course you can block me, and prove Tim right.-[[User:KiraN|KiraN]] 11:02, 18 November 2008 (EST)
+
  
::::@Aschlafly: I don't get your analogy. Jaywalking and petty shoplifting are different crimes. Excessive talk by a liberal and excessive talk by a conservative is the same "crime". So the "prosecution" ought to be applied equally against both, right? Otherwise it isn't a ''rule'', it's just an ''excuse'' to make people you don't agree with go away. [[User:RobNewberry|RobNewberry]] 11:04, 18 November 2008 (EST)
+
::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.
  
::::: Rob, within the same crimes prosecutorial patterns are different.  It's called "prosecutorial discretion."  It is used every day by law enforcement and it is obvious why it is needed.  I'm not going to waste my morning spelling this out for you.  Take a basic course on criminal justice, or simply follow the news.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:23, 18 November 2008 (EST)
+
::As for what proof I would like to see, I would say:
::::::Andy, you're misunderstanding "prosecutorial discretion." You're right that policemen have the right to decide which crimes to prosecute, but if they differentially allow white criminals to get away with murder, and seek the death penalty for black shoplifters, it would give rise to a disparate impact lawsuit and be illegitimate, racist, and wrong. We're arguing that your actions here are closer to abuse of prosecutorial discretion to kick out your enemies, than to the case of using prosecutorial discretion to preserve resources.
+
::*An authenticated Birth Certificate
::::::It strikes me that what you're missing is the difference between "content neutral" and "viewpoint discrimination." Take a course in the First Amendment, or read a book on it; it might help your understanding of the word "censorship," too.-[[User:KiraN|KiraN]] 13:38, 18 November 2008 (EST)
+
::*The missing immigration records
 +
::*The hospital records
 +
::...and any other records available which would prove this claim.
  
I would say you are partially correct, RobNewberry.  Sometimes people need to be "invited" to leave, much like a dinner guest who overstays their welcome.  If a person comes to Conservapedia knowing full well it is a conservative/Christian friendly wiki-encyclopedia, and is a liberal, the question is why?  If the answer is they support Andy Schlafly's idea of an conservative alternative to the decidedly left-of-center editor dominated Wikipedia, that's great!  All voices should be represented on the Net.  But if their intentions are merely to argue and dispute conservative or Christian points of view, that becomes a subtle form of vandalism, inasmuch as it is a great time waster for those who genuinely want to contribute their conservative/Christian POV, and build this encyclopedia. My own opinion is that those who obsessively create new user names, only to argue against conservative values, and disrupt/time waste, are actually terrorists of the Internet kind.  What other reason would they have to stick around?  Any board or wiki does and should have the absolute right of association.
+
::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)
  
This would hold true for a conservative joining a known liberal board or wiki, and spend all their time disputing the members, arguing without end, and seeking to put their conservative point of view into their discussions or articlesI am not for truncating free speech automatically, but after weeks and weeks of disputing everything, knowing you are not going to change CP into Wikipedia's more liberal world-view, or have CP adopt all of Wikipedia's member conventions, a person's efforts then cross over into something more, what I have taken to calling Internet Terrorism. CP has an owner, it is his right to have whatever viewpoint he wants.  If people agree, with even a part, they stick around and help build this place. If they don't, what other reason, other than being obstinate or having malicious intent, could they have? Disagreement is fine, debate is good. But where does it end, and the ability of like-minded individuals to associate with those they agree with, without constant disagreement begin? --<font color="#1E90FF" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:TK|₮K]]</font><sup><font color="DC143C">[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]</font></sup> 11:41, 18 November 2008 (EST)
+
::Also, there are sworn affidavits of [http://www.wethepeoplefoundation.org/PROJECTS/Obama/Evidence/AFFIDAVIT-Bishop.pdf Bishop Ron McRae] and [http://www.wethepeoplefoundation.org/PROJECTS/Obama/Evidence/AFFIDAVITexhibit2.pdf Kweli Shuhubia] which further indicate he was born in KenyaKweli Shuhubia's affidavit includes partial transcript of an audio recording of Obama's grandmother stating she attended Obama's birth in Kenya. --[[User:DavidB4|<font color="ForestGreen">David B</font>]] <sup><small>([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]])</small></sup> 09:46, 27 July 2016 (EDT)
  
:Please don't refer to anything that isn't terrorism as terrorism. It might be censorship or vandalism or disruption. But terrorism is something else entirely. There is no terror involved in what you describe above and associating the term with it helps to undermine fear of the real kind. Terrorism should not be taken lightly. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 11:48, 18 November 2008 (EST)
+
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)
  
::TK, I agree with you completely that people probably need to be "invited" to leave. My only problem is that this is done under the guise of 90/10 rule. I think this is done so that Andy can still claim something like "We don't ask editors to leave because they have a certain viewpoint, only Wikipedia does that." Make too many liberal edits, though, and you'll find that you have somehow violated the 90/10 rule. I say drop the deceit and just ban people with the comment "We don't like your viewpoint. Goodbye." It's about being honest about what kind of place this wiki really is. [[User:RobNewberry|RobNewberry]] 11:49, 18 November 2008 (EST)
+
: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?
  
:::Ajkgordon, one definition of "terrorism" is "intimidating gang activity". Regardless of your rather parochial idea of its meaning, kindly refrain from saying something I clearly labeled as my own opinion, invention, is wrong usageOrganized activity, like from ''certain groups'', to disrupt other boards or wiki's, no matter how loosely organized, if it is at all coordinated, is intimidation, ergo, "terrorism".
+
:::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 postThat's really what wiki indentation is for, and wiki users know that.  [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 13:27, 31 July 2016 (EDT)
  
:::RobNewberry, I know that when I was an administrator, I often followed Andy's lead in doing just that, block with the comment "Bye". As Schlafly often says, it isn't very hard to copy edit, add a source a few times a day, especially if one is spending hours and hours debating on talk pages. A person doing that, and not being obnoxious, they shouldn't be blocked. But I mostly see people with absolutely no contributions to CP, and looking at their history see only talk page posts, being blocked.  Someone constantly reverting an article because of idealogical disagreement, and making no other contributions, should be blocked, or have the good grace to leave. There is more than one way to run a wiki.  That's why they come with settings.  Some wiki's require review of submissions before going live. Some require registration in order to edit, others do not. You sound fairly reasonable, obviously an informed person. Surely you can understand how people would grow tired of debating a topic without endIf you don't go to Wikipedia and try to insert something favorable about George W. Bush, Dick Cheney or Ann Coulter. Then when you are reverted, change it backI don't think your experience will be a pleasant one. ;-) ----<font color="#1E90FF" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:TK|₮K]]</font><sup><font color="DC143C">[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]</font></sup> 12:12, 18 November 2008 (EST)
+
: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 charactersBut 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)
  
::::RobNewberry, your own comments are misleading and illustrate the problem, because now I have to waste my time correcting them. The [[90/10 rule]] applies to people who talk, talk, talk without redeeming value in the way of substantive contributionsNothing could be simplerTalk is a time-wasterDifferent viewpoints, if logical, are welcome hereIncessant talk as can be seen on countless other sites, is not.  The talkers can rant elsewhereWe're here to learn.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:37, 18 November 2008 (EST)
+
:::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)
:::::Andy, you're being very dishonest about the application of the rule. Your explanation of it includes several value judgments - "different viewpoints, if logical" - all we're arguing is that your definition of "logical" is "that which agrees with you." That's where the discrimination we're talking about comes from.
+
:::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)
:::::Interestingly, while you spend some time characterizing anyone disagreeing with you as "liberal censorship," in a somewhat dishonest definition of "censorship," you seem unable to recognize that what you're doing is REAL censorship, the use of power (rather than argument & debate) to squelch uncomfortable beliefs. Open your mind.-[[User:KiraN|KiraN]] 12:54, 18 November 2008 (EST)
+
::::YES!!  You found it!  CongratulationsIt's as I remembered itLaid out on a towel or bedspread or whatever on a bed.  I had assumed that this bit of history was long gone.  But the internet is forever!  The writing in this picture is hard to read; a cleaner copy may be found at http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthers/kenyacert.aspThough that copy has Orly Taitz's (Remember her?  Probably the original birther) web site superimposed on itYou 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 entertainingThat 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)
  
::::TK, if your definition is from Mirriam-Webster's, then it's '''''violent and''' intimidating gang activity''.
+
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 />
::::My request was but a courteous plea for proper usage of the term for a current and dangerous phenomenon. Scattering the term around and using it to define childish, irreverent and irritating vandalism degrades the purity of the term and lessens its impact when correctly using it. If that's parochial, so be it. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 12:47, 18 November 2008 (EST)
+
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)
  
:::::TK and Andy, let me ask you a question.  If you visited Wikipedia, and saw that, say, the Dick Cheney article contained an unreferenced assertion or an unfounded attack, you would initially try to edit and fix that problem, correct?  Then, if another WP editor reverted your edit (which you believed was completely correct), you might either undo the reversion, or you might make a comment on the Talk Page, right?  Now, here on CP, those of us who see something that ''we'' believe is incorrect or unfounded usually face a few problems.  (Do not assume that all of us have evil intent against you - I'm entirely happy for you to have a conservative-leaning encyclopedia, and simply wish the information be factually correct and credibly referenced).   First, the article may be locked, as this article is.  In which case, there's nowhere to make the complaint except on the Talk Page.   Second, if we can make them, our edits are often reverted, often with no supporting data provided (cf the Muslim debate here), so we usually have to make a comment on the Talk Page about that fact.   It only takes one back and forth comment as we debate our position before a 90/10 block is usually enacted.  Finally, those of us who frequent CP in an attempt to monitor the extreme forms of distortion that crop up now and again (as per any online community) may be shy of actually editing the articles, since bans are so often administered, so we instead first make our comments on the Talk Page.   Frequently, a new user's single comment on a Talk Page is enough for a 90/10 ban.   So it's pretty hard to believe that 90/10 is really about 90/10 when there are often no other options but Talk.  And it's pretty hard to believe you're interested in establishing 'trustworthyness' if you aren't prepared to listen to evidence from other perspectives.    [[User:FredX|FredX]] 12:49, 18 November 2008 (EST)
+
==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 career. Look 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)
  
:::::: FredX, users can talk all they want, as long as they contribute substance at the same time.  It's easy to contribute substance.  It's the reason we're here.  No project can succeed if the participants do nothing but talk.  Try it at work sometime if you don't believe me.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:53, 18 November 2008 (EST)
+
== If he is a Muslim, he is not a very good one ==
  
:::::::Andy, consider this: "talk talk talk" is useful if it's being done to convince you, the only person with control over the article, that you're wrong. Talk towards the truth is not useless talk: it's incredibly substantive. As it stands now, it's you, Bugler, and TK versus everyone else on the site. It might be time to recognize that all this talk has the "substance" of proving your error.-[[User:KiraN|KiraN]] 13:08, 18 November 2008 (EST)
+
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)
  
FredX, having a Conservative/Christian - friendly encyclopedia does not obligate CP to prostitute those beliefs by allowing people who are not Christians, who are not Conservatives, to alter articles or their tone, to fit their outlookThe truth is the truth, but truth is always in the eye of the beholder, no?  You and I could argue 24/7, over the existence of God, to use an example. No matter how many "facts" you presented me with, it would not alter my ''knowing'' he exists.  Political and religious thought is highly subjective. One mans "distortion" is another mans valid "truth". To repeatedly try to alter someone's beliefs is a form of bullying. Read what you are saying. No one has the obligation to appoint himself "Internet Monitor of Truth".  Your conventions of how a wiki-encyclopedia come from where?  It is totally lacking in logic to think the conventions of one place should be used at another. If I go to the Daily Kos or the Huffington Post, and appoint myself the "truth" monitor there, what would happen?
+
::He is at the very least a sympathizerDon'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)
  
If you have a complaint, you can always avail yourself the email links to other users.  Or post your objection on the author's talk page.  We aren't talking here about people objectingWe are talking about people who will not take "no" for an answer, and demand that their truth is better than another's. Once your point is made, posted, doing it again and again, without end, accomplishes what, other than you being able to vent? I don't spend time arguing with liberals at the Kos or HuffPo, because I know they do not agree with me, never willI am not a YEC, yet I am here. What would be accomplished for me to argue, without end, with Philip Rayment (to use a known example of a YEC member here) over the age of the Earth? His "facts" as to Earth's age, are his. Mine are mine. In building an encyclopedia, or in any project, the trick is to focus on the areas we can agree on, and not let those we don't bog us down. --<font color="#1E90FF" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:TK|₮K]]</font><sup><font color="DC143C">[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]</font></sup> 13:18, 18 November 2008 (EST)
+
:::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)
  
:Actually, TK, I couldn't disagree with any of your comments, but for this one - "the truth is the truth, but truth is always in the eye of the beholder, no?".   That's certainly true when it comes to matters of dogma or belief - it's true, we might never agree on what is "true".   But there is much here on Conservapedia that is ''not'' dogma-related, and is simply factually untrue.   To take this particular article as an example, might I ask if you believe the Muslim-related material might not be better presented if gathered into one section, entitled "Speculation on Obama's Muslim beliefs", instead of being scattershot throughout the article, unreferenced, misquoted, and asserted with no validity.   That would actually HELP this debate, yet is certain to be disallowed under a threat of "we don't hide the truth here", yet who's truth is that?   And my mere suggestion of disagreement with this thesis likely marks me as a candidate for a ban.   Certainly it's likely that if I answer one more time in this reasonable debate with you, I will likely be blocked by ASchalfly, Bugler or others - simply for debating.   But how else would I debate my suggestion - the article is locked?   [[User:FredX|FredX]] 14:28, 18 November 2008 (EST)
+
::::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)
  
== Talking with enemies ==
+
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.
  
In the section '''"statements"''' Obama is criticised for claiming Roosevelt spoke to our enemies. Now it is true that Roosevelt did not talk to Hitler, but he certainly ''did'' talk to Stalin, who most Americans consider (and hesitantly considered back then) an enemy, and it is Stalin that Obama is presumably referring to. Rather than letting Hitler conquer Russia while the United States kept to its own war effort, or letting Patton continue on to Warsaw and Moscow after victory against Germany, Roosevelt was willing to talk to the Communist Enemy to co-ordinate action and to ultimately permit the Bolshevik conquest of eastern Europe. Naturally there are divergent opinions over whether in this particular case compromise was the best course of action, but what Obama is obviously expressing when he refers to Roosevelt, Truman and Kennedy, all of whom negotiated with the Soviet enemy, is that it's better to come to talk with and possibly compromise with an opponent we may feel ideologically at polar opposites with instead of just blindly fighting whenever the oppurtunity presents itself.
+
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)
  
For that reason it is advisable that the section is removed as it relies on the assumption that Obama was referring exclusively to Truman and Roosevelt's relationship with Hitler rather than with Stalin. [[User:JHanson|JHanson]] 12:40, 18 November 2008 (EST)
+
==Footnotes==
 +
{{reflist}}
  
 +
== Title ==
  
:Your reasoning is confused, and your conclusion makes no sense at all.
+
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)
  
:Compromising with an enemy is often the wrong thing to do. Your [[all or nothing]] analysis doesn't support it: it's rarely a case of "give in or fight blindly". Perhaps you have assumed that America only '''felt''' it was ideologically at a polar opposite from atheism and totalitarianism. This is [[liberal dogma]], not CP editorial policy. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 12:52, 18 November 2008 (EST)
+
== Yup, he's gay ==
  
::You misunderstand completely. ''I'' didn't say anything about whether or not America should compromise - Obama did. Whether or not it should has absolutely nothing to do with the issue I was raising.
+
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.  
  
::What I was saying was that the section is trying to make it seem that Obama has no grasp of history, that he was claiming that Roosevelt and Truman talked to our enemies (assumed to be Hitler, Mussolini and Hideki) when those Presidents didn't. However, Roosevelt and Truman did talk to our enemies, namely Stalin. Obama was referring to the talks Roosevelt and Truman had with ''Stalin'', not Hitler, and thus he was right to claim that Roosevelt, Truman and Kennedy talked to our enemies. Therefore the section is false, not because we should compromise with our enemies, but because Obama did not make a mistake as the section apparently claims.  
+
:::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/]
  
::Hopefully I have made myself more clear. But I will repeat to make sure: I am not saying anything about whether or not it is right to compromise with enemies. I am not saying that the communists were only apparently our enemies - in fact by suggesting that Roosevelt did not talk with enemies when he clearly talked with Stalin the section in the ''article'' implies that Stalin was not really an enemy. What I am saying is that Obama was perfectly justified in saying that Roosevelt and Truman talked and compromised with our enemies. This means exactly what it says, ''not'' that compromising with our enemies was perfectly justified. I apologise if I was not clear the first time, that's why I've rephrased the same point a second and third time.[[User:JHanson|JHanson]] 13:30, 18 November 2008 (EST)
+
:::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.  
  
== compared to wikipedia article ==
+
:::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)
  
It is interesting that the wikipedia articles on Obama does not mention Pakistan.  In fact, his three week trip to Pakistan was documented in a New York Times article, but metion of it was removed at wikipedia with [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Early_life_and_career_of_Barack_Obama&diff=252397639&oldid=252397137 this edit]. It looks like some wiki contributors are running interferance at wikipedia. The conservapedia article is a nice balance to that article, though the part that he "may be sworn into office at his inauguration ... using the Koran" is dodgy, and sounds almost National Enquirer-ish.  I think the wording could be improved, though I haven't looked into it. It would not surprise me if Barack Obama were a Muslim, and it would not surprise me if he were a liberal Christian with weakly held beliefs and a fondness for his early teachings. At wikipedia, I also didn't see any mention of Bill Ayers on Obama pages. That is very strange. The sad part is, if President Obama appointed Bill Ayers to be the head of the Department of Education, I don't think we would see much difference in the American education system--at least in the public schools--as people that think like him are already in control. Anyway, keep up the good work.  [[User:BigMike|BigMike]] 12:58, 18 November 2008 (EST)
+
::::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]])
  
:Good points, BigMike! --<font color="#1E90FF" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:TK|₮K]]</font><sup><font color="DC143C">[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]</font></sup> 13:24, 18 November 2008 (EST)
+
== Sheila Miyoshi Jager ==
  
== Suggestion for compromise ==
+
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)
  
Since it's clear that none of the editors involved are going to be able to agree, why don't we take Mr. Schlafly's advice [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Barack_Obama&diff=554261&oldid=554228 earlier on this talk page] where he says "We don't censor informative information here.  Let the reader decide." How about, instead of going back and forth, back and forth, we instead allow the inclusion of evidence ''against'' Obama being a Muslim. The reader can read the evidence on both sides, and decide for themselves. Good idea? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 13:26, 18 November 2008 (EST)
+
== Suggesting addition of Arabic rendering بارك حسین اوباما per 2009 suggestion long forgotten ==
:Practically, I think that's a workable compromise. Theoretically, of course, it's problematic: neutrality towards an incorrect idea is not objectivity. The idea that Obama is a Muslim is objectively wrong, and should be excised. But, practically, I'm willing to go with that compromise. Great idea from a helpful sysop!-[[User:KiraN|KiraN]] 13:32, 18 November 2008 (EST)
+
:::Not a sysop, but every now and then I have a good idea ;-) [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 13:49, 18 November 2008 (EST)
+
::I think this is a very sensible idea. I don't agree with any of the arguments that Obama is a Muslim, but obviously a few people here are determined to cling to them, so including the counterarguments as well would be a good way to balance this part of the article & end the conflicts over this. [[User:Sideways|Sideways]] 13:42, 18 November 2008 (EST)
+
:::Also, if the argument would take up a great deal of the article, it could be moved to a separate page.  What's the policy on linking to debates from regular pages?  I know there are two Obama/Muslim debates going, and I think linking to them from the article might not be a bad idea. [[User:ArnoldFriend|ArnoldFriend]] 13:45, 18 November 2008 (EST)
+
::::(/signed)  Totally agree, if all the arguments are presented then anyone who is open minded can make up their own mind.  Those with closed minds won't be convinced either way, no matter what arguments are presented..--[[User:Ieuan|Ieuan]] 13:48, 18 November 2008 (EST)
+
  
Set forth your "evidence" here first, for consideration.  Self-serving statements by politicians don't carry much weight here, obviously.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:53, 18 November 2008 (EST)
+
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
  
:''"Set forth your "evidence" here first, for consideration.  Self-serving statements by politicians don't carry much weight here, obviously.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:53, 18 November 2008 (EST)"''[http://www.myfoxkc.com/myfox/pages/News/Detail?contentId=7882247&version=1&locale=EN-US&layoutCode=TSTY&pageId=3.11.1 as required].  This was one source found in 5 minutes work and if anyone doubts the quality of the source [http://www.myfoxkc.com/myfox/pages/InsideFox/AboutUs?pageId=5.1 please look here].  This is just a single source found at 00:25am after being out all night doing charity work.  As I find others I will post.  I will also point out that I do not consider this, or subsequent evidence put forth, as 'talk' as I am responding to a direct request for information by the creator of this site--[[User:Ieuan|Ieuan]] 19:28, 18 November 2008 (EST)
+
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)
:Another, same conditions, contributor makes clear that he thinks that Obama is at best [http://foxforum.blogs.foxnews.com/2008/06/02/barack-obama-is-not-a-christian/ a deist], at worst an atheist, but at no point offers an argument for Obama being of an Islamic faith.--[[User:Ieuan|Ieuan]] 19:31, 18 November 2008 (EST)
+
:As above, [http://www.jewsonfirst.org/08a/obama_religion_attacked.html 'Minnery, who served as Dobson's interlocutor on the program yesterday said during the broadcast that Obama was "deliberately distorting the traditional understanding of the bible to fit his own world view, his own confused theology."']  Again, at best the argument says that Obama is a deist, at worst is trying to set up his own sect of 'christianity', but no evidence to show that Obama is of Islamic faith.--[[User:Ieuan|Ieuan]] 19:38, 18 November 2008 (EST)
+
:And again, [http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,317031,00.html "....to baseless e-mailed rumors that he is a Muslim and poses a threat to the security of the United States."]--[[User:Ieuan|Ieuan]] 19:41, 18 November 2008 (EST)
+
  
Since CP is the Conservative/Christian-friendly encyclopedia it is, while other points of view should be included, it is wrong to bully it into providing the equivalent of "equal time" to those who are not Christian and/or Conservative.  Those who disagree should stop wasting time with this and move on to places that are more accommodating of [[liberal deceit]], Atheist [[deceit]]. --<font color="#1E90FF" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:TK|₮K]]</font><sup><font color="DC143C">[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]</font></sup> 13:56, 18 November 2008 (EST)
+
===Poll===
 +
====Yes====
 +
*[[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']]</sup> 00:07, 3 April 2018 (EDT)
 +
*[[User:DavidLReyes]]
  
== Accusations of Homosexuality ==
+
====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)
  
The story is starting to spread that Obama is a homosexual or bisexual and may have been involved in the deaths of some of his past lovers<ref>http://chgocutie.blogspot.com/2007/12/nathaniel-nate-spencer-tucc-sanctuary.html</ref>.  In shades of a Vince Foster type scandal I'm wondering if any mention of this development should go into the main page. Larry Sinclair<ref>http://larrysinclair0926.files.wordpress.com/2008/04/chicago-packet.pdf</ref> was the initial source, but evidence seems to be mounting<ref>http://redinktexas.blogspot.com/2008/07/larry-sinclair-obamas-bad-penny.html</ref> that Obama has a gay past he's been hiding.
+
====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)
  
== A better approach to highlighting Obama's negatives - Highlight More Best Arguments against Obama vs. the throw a lot of spaghetti against the wall approach ==
 
  
Instead of the article focusing more on claims that are certainly not undisputable (Obama being a Muslim) I think the article could do a better job of pointing out the negative things about Obama that have a much higher degree of certainty.
+
I'm not going to vote "no" outright (yet), but what is the point of doing this?  It seems a little low to translate his Engl(ish) name into Arabic to prove a point.  Besides, aren't people saying that his name was originally "Barry Soetoro"? I agree that he probably was (by their definition, a bad) Muslim, but I don't really see the profit in doing this. --[[User:DavidB4|<font color="ForestGreen">David B</font>]] <sup>([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]])</sup> 11:59, 4 April 2018 (EDT)
 +
:Basically, we need to rekindle interest in this page before it dies on the vine. Stir the pot, so to speak. With 3.5 million hits, it's long been a marquis attraction to CP. We're not saying he's Arab or Muslim, only that he's well known and respected in that part of the world. If one did a poll, you'd probably discover more Arabs think he's Muslim than rednecks do. We could put Nixon's name in Chinese too, since he's the one who sold us out to China. But the Nixon page never had the interest, pro or con, that this page is known for. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']]</sup> 13:24, 4 April 2018 (EDT)
  
Examples of things which could be highlighted more:
+
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)
  
1. Other than a footnote which few people will read, does the article highlight sufficiently '''his extremely liberal voting record''' as a Senator?[http://nj.nationaljournal.com/voteratings/] Perhaps, some of his more extreme votes could be highlighted.
+
::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)
  
2. There is the '''Obama/infantcide''' issue which might be highlighted more if it is mentioned or mentioned if it is not currently mentioned: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYRpIf2F9NA and http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/obama_and_infanticide.html
+
:::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)
  
===Consequences of the current state of the article===
+
::::I agree, his claim at being Christian was just a ploy to get more votes.  He was an enemy of Israel, and a friend of all their enemies.  However, his legal name is just that.  Translating or transliterating it into Arabic doesn't really help anyone, nor will it be persuasive to critics. --[[User:DavidB4|<font color="ForestGreen">David B</font>]] <sup>([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]])</sup> 17:05, 4 April 2018 (EDT)
 +
:::::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)
  
It seems like the article takes a throw a lot of negative spaghetti against the wall and hopefully some sticks approach.  That is not how you create a compelling article in terms of when it highlights some of the negative aspects about Obama.  Dubious claims in the article make the valid claims less prominent.  Also, it is not surprising that the Obama article is not ranked high by the search engines like the Conservapedia [[Bill Clinton]] article is (I have not read the Bill Clinton article but I suspect it is better than the Obama article. I do know that Conservapedia's Bill Clinton article is ranked #6 by Google).  I think that is because it is difficult to get conservatives to link to the article and the article is easily dismissed by liberals and they do not see it as a threat. If you want the article to be informative and influential any dubious claims have to be weeded out and the legitimate matters have to be highlighted more. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 15:24, 18 November 2008 (EST)
+
:::::::::::::We ''are'' an educational resource, which is why I don't think this is appropriate. He is not Arab, so I see no good reason to translate his name into Arabic. I understand that this is an attempt to speak to his religion, and favoritism.  I'm not opposed to that idea whatsoever. However, doing this serves no educational purpose.  Let the article speak for itself, and let the readers look at the facts. If you want to write out his name in his native African dialect, feel free.  However, you wouldn't find something like this Arabic translation in Britannica, and it doesn't belong here either.  I'm happy to have this article discussing his religious preferences--that's not that at all which I object to. --[[User:DavidB4|<font color="ForestGreen">David B</font>]] <sup>([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]])</sup> 00:30, 11 April 2018 (EDT)
 +
::::::::::::::Britannica? Britannica called Barack Obama an "organizer" of [[Louis Farrakhan]]'s Million Man March for a decade - up until June of 2008 when Obama won the primaries but before the election. This is a matter of record. Britannica is hardly a source on Obama's life. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']]</sup> 00:48, 11 April 2018 (EDT)
  
== First Black President? ==
+
==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)
  
Should we have an article on the [[First Black President]]? I had created one, but [[User_talk:Ed_Poor#First_Black_president|Ed said we should talk about it here first]].
+
==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)
  
The citations I found that indicated Obama is not the first were [http://www.diversityinc.com/public/1461.cfm], [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Barack_Obama&curid=65751&diff=561761&oldid=561751], and [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Barack_Obama&diff=534592&oldid=534582]. [[User:BHarlan|BHarlan]] 16:11, 18 November 2008 (EST)
+
== Obama's father ==
  
*I would suggest "Bi-Racial" as the most accurate term. --<font color="#1E90FF" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:TK|₮K]]</font><sup><font color="DC143C">[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]</font></sup> 16:13, 18 November 2008 (EST)
+
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
  
Please do create an entry.  Thanks for the insight.  Of course, the other reason for omitting the liberal claim that Obama is the first black president (aside from its likely inaccuracy) is the dubious significance of the assertionBy now our society is long past judging people by their race, and Obama's election illustrates how exaggerated the liberal claims about continued racism really are.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:25, 18 November 2008 (EST)
+
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 governmentIn 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)
  
:Gee, your right, I mean how do we know he is the first black president. I mean they didn't have photgraphs back then, so maybe John Adams was really a brother! For that matter, how do we know he is the first muslim president? Maybe Iran-contra was Reagan's way of helping his fellow Islamists!
+
::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.
:Seriously though, is it really a liberal claim that he is the first black president? Other than you, who is claiming he isn't? [[User:TTerm|TTerm]] 18:38, 18 November 2008 (EST)
+
  
::TTerm, perhaps you don't know how to click on a link yet. BHarlan provided several of them above for you.  Also, TTerm, this isn't a blog. Contribute substantively, or rant elsewhere.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:45, 18 November 2008 (EST)
+
::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)
  
:Great. Would you mind undeleting [[First Black president]], if the software allows it? [[User:BHarlan|BHarlan]] 18:28, 18 November 2008 (EST)
+
:::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)
  
:: Done, without yet reading it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:46, 18 November 2008 (EST)
+
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)
  
==How to collaborate==
+
:: [[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)
  
If you'll notice, me last few edits to this article were sweepingly changed back by [[User:Aschlafly]]. However, neither my initial round of edits, nor his response, has resulted in animosity. On my part, at least, I have nothing but unbounded respect for my co-editor here.  
+
:::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)
  
We are not against each other, although our approach is different. We are finding a synthesis which is (probably) better than each of us could do alone. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 16:15, 18 November 2008 (EST)
+
Clearly this article needs to be revised. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]] has not produced one piece of evidence to support his position. Perhaps he might try checking the Hawaiian newspapers, or the Hawaiian government web site. [[User:Timber|Timber]] ([[User talk:Timber|talk]]) 16:43, 20 April 2019 (EDT)
 +
:No offense, but saying you should check the Hawaiian government web site for information is the same thing as claiming that official Vietcong press releases are to be counted to prove or disprove massacres as a student radical claimed back in the Vietnam War, so you really need to take its statements with a grain of salt. And besides, I definitely recall seeing a PDF once showing Barack Obama's birth certificate as Kenyan. [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 17:02, 20 April 2019 (EDT)
 +
:EDIT: Found this, it at least looks like the PDF I stumbled upon: http://www.infiniteunknown.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/barack-obama-kenyan-birth-certificate.jpg [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 17:20, 20 April 2019 (EDT)
 +
::These are all moot points. The real question is whether President and First Ladyboy Buttigieg will be the first gay married couple in the White House. Evidence suggests more DNC/liberal media fake news. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']]</sup> 17:26, 20 April 2019 (EDT)  Excellent parody. [[User:Timber|Timber]] ([[User talk:Timber|talk]]) 18:05, 20 April 2019 (EDT)
 +
:::What is the source of this second birth certificate? Personally I'd trust the State of Hawaii, Department of Health Vital Records before a dubious source like www.obamanotqualified.com.  What evidence is there that it's not a forgery? [[User:Timber|Timber]] ([[User talk:Timber|talk]]) 17:49, 20 April 2019 (EDT)
 +
::::What exactly are you arguing? That Obama's not gay? That Frank Marshall Daivis is not his real father? That Obama's records have not been tampered with?
 +
::::Stop. Answer directly. Is the CNN article that says Obama's official government records were tampered with by a company headed by John Brennan credible or not? We then can take it from there. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']]</sup> 18:10, 20 April 2019 (EDT)
 +
:::::Yeah, and besides, there's certainly less evidence that the Kenyan birth certificate is forged than the Hawaiian one was, especially when Sheriff Joe Arpaio [https://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/joe-arpaio-barack-obama-birth-certificate/2016/12/15/id/764243/ did an investigation that revealed that] the "scanned certificate of live birth" the latter represented had multiple layers, meaning it was digitally manufactured. [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 18:17, 20 April 2019 (EDT)
  
::The Declaration of Independence and Constitution of the United States are collabrative efforts that him withstood the test of time, among others! --<font color="#1E90FF" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:TK|₮K]]</font><sup><font color="DC143C">[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]</font></sup> 16:29, 18 November 2008 (EST)
+
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)
  
:Good for you, Ed (seriously - I wouldn't have been nearly as sanguine about it). The facts, however, remain that:
+
[[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.  
:#'''DanH''' - a strong editor and respected sysop - '''quit this project in disgust''' at what he saw as an attempt to "smear" Obama as a Muslim.
+
:#'''PJR''' - the most patient and eloquent defender of YEC I have ever encountered - '''categorically refutes''' the idea that there is any credible evidence that Obama is a Muslim.
+
:#'''Conservative''' - principal author of several of Conservapedia's defining articles - remains '''wholly unconvinced''' of the strength of the Obama/Muslim case, and is concerned that its inclusion in the article could '''damage Conservapedia's credibility'''.
+
:#'''Tim/CPAdmin1''' - one of the original members of this project - has '''repeatedly objected''' to its inclusion.
+
:#And finally, '''ChrisS''' - again, one of the original Conservapedians - even felt moved to describe this article as '''the most sorry excuse for an encyclopedia entry I have ever seen'''. [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Barack_Obama&diff=prev&oldid=556523]
+
:What kind of synthesis do you hope to achieve in the face of such ''demonstrably principled'' opposition? These are not lone, liberal voices. These are long-standing contributors who collectively insist that '''this is plain wrong and must be removed'''.  
+
  
:Good night (and good luck). --[[User:JohnZ|JohnZ]] 17:39, 18 November
+
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)
  
::We respect the views of a minority among us (and note that the minority you cite has displayed almost no experience with Islam and/or Islamic education).  Regardless, obviously logic prevails over even the opinion of a majority.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:46, 18 November 2008 (EST)
+
:::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)
  
The late Michael Crichton said, "The Nazis got 200 German scientists to say that Einstein was wrong, and then somebody asked Einstein, 'How does it feel to have 200 scientists against you?' And he said, 'It takes only one to prove me wrong.' " [http://www.perc.org/articles/article894.php] We don't go by majority vote around here, because the majority are (as our [[Founding Fathers]] indicated) simply not trustworthy. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 17:54, 18 November 2008 (EST)
+
::::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)
  
:Hi Ed,
+
===Sources===
  
:I'm not usually known for my poor reading comprehension, but I can't tell which side of this thing your statement above is supporting. Is Andy vs. the 5 listed sysops the minority, or are the five listed sysops the minority as described by Andy ("[w]e respect the views of a minority among us)...")? Merci, [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 18:02, 18 November 2008 (EST) ''<-honh honh...''
+
@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)
  
:: Ed's comment seems clear enough to meLogic is not the result of majority vote, and even less so the product of a consensus among the minority. Ed is opposing relying on the view of a minority.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:04, 18 November 2008 (EST)
+
::[[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)
  
Good grief, man, must I spell it out? I'm on the side of finding out what is true! As J.M. Keynes said, "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?" It is to the principle of truth-seeking which I express my devotion here, as well as to the collaborative process of its discovery. Stop trying to cover this story like a sportswriter trying to figure out which horse won the race. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 18:10, 18 November 2008 (EST)
 
  
:And what do ''you'' see as being the facts here, Ed? How do you hope to achieve your synthesis? --[[User:JohnZ|JohnZ]] 18:18, 18 November 2008 (EST)
+
==Judgment very harsh==
 +
The judgment of Barack Obama in this article is very harsh. It says he is "arguably the worst president in U.S. history" but does not refer to a website, connected with ABC news, that says that 31% of Americans said he was the greatest president in their lifetime. [[User:Carltonio|Carltonio]] ([[User talk:Carltonio|talk]]) 10:36, 9 December 2019 (EST)
 +
:Why would that be surprising? 100% of Americans thought George Washington was the greatest president in their lifetime in 1800; 50% of Americans thought Lincoln was the worst president in 1865; 60% though FDR was greatest president in 1945; 62% thougth Nixon was the greatest president in 1972; big deal. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]</sup> 12:09, 9 December 2019 (EST)
  
::Yes, Ed, I'm sorry but I need it spelled out for me. This isn't a vague question for late night dorm hall meanderings. It's pretty concrete: the Obama-is-Muslim material, as Andy wants it presented, belongs in the article, or it doesn't. I can paint those two statements on horses and run them around a track if an over-extended metaphor will help here - only one of those horses can win. [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 18:31, 18 November 2008 (EST) ''<- will, however, need to learn to play the bugle (if not the bugler)...''
+
==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)
  
 +
== Suggestion ==
  
:Wow, Ed, that's extremely well put!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:21, 18 November 2008 (EST)
+
RobSmith suggests we add "Despite his personal involvement, Obama was not impeached for [[Spygate]] crimes after leaving office", though he can't access CP right now to recommend a good place to put it. Does anyone have any suggestions? —[[User:Liberaltears|<code><span style="color:black; background:#FFABAB">'''LT'''</span></code>]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|<sup>May D.C., his mother, and I.S. be all well!</sup>]]''''' Saturday, 16:50, 13 February 2021 (EST)
  
:ASchalfly - you said, "We...note that the minority you cite has displayed almost no experience with Islam and/or Islamic education".  Might I ask what your own qualifications are in this regard, since you are clearly 'over-ruling' their opinions?  [[User:FredX|FredX]] 18:25, 18 November 2008 (EST)
+
== Edit warring and the vulgar picture of Michelle Obama ==
  
I'm going to write an article about [[the real horse whisperer]]. I have no more time to entertain you here. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 18:33, 18 November 2008 (EST)
+
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)
  
:Amazing. A simple question, with only two possible answers, that could be answered in fewer characters than you just used to beg off. And if you think I'm entertained you probably do think those horses are talking to you. ''Anybody'' who sticks with the "this conversation is a dragged-out waste of time" is missing the point that the time is being wasted by the continued and false defenses presented. It's only a continuing waste of time because the people in the wrong unfortunately wield all the clout, so they are in fact allowed to say "nuh unh" and ''have it stick''. If SteveRandomperson had inserted this stuff, other regular users could remove it, and when Steve got into an edit war over it any of the five sysops listed above could simply end this thing. It's only dragging on because none of them can pull rank on the proponent of this material.
+
:::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)
  
:''That'' is the source of wasted time here. [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 18:48, 18 November 2008 (EST)
+
::::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)
  
:: Aziraphale, your long-winded comment is incoherent, and your list of contributions is a remarkable violation of the [[90/10 rule]] against talk, talk, talk.[[Special:Contributions/Aziraphale]]--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:42, 18 November 2008 (EST)
+
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'm afraid he can't respond Andy. He's been blocked. --[[User:WOwen|WOwen]] 19:45, 18 November 2008 (EST)
+
==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]:
 +
{{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)

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)