Difference between revisions of "Talk:Barack Hussein Obama"

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
(Conservatism, not rasist xenophobia)
(Undo revision 646894 by Aureon (Talk) - remove liberal rant)
Line 1: Line 1:
<br />
<br />
== Blatant Predudice==
While I don't have a problem with a conservative viewpoint, as all citizens are entitled to their own opinions, the blatant racism, prejudice, and xenophobia in this page is utterly disgusting. As contributors to an online resource that represents American's and is accessible by children you have a responsibility, even given the conservative bias parameter, to be socially acceptable people and NOT ignorant. Novel Idea: You can be conservative and educated.
The unfounded and uneducated beliefs presented in this article and negative overtones directed at cultures and religions the majority of contributors have neither studied nor attempted to understand helps spread the rampant chronic misinformation. Read the Quran, or if you’ve some how diluted yourself into believing that learning about another torah-based monotheistic religion that shares your own God betrays your Christendom, at least try taking a course on Middle Eastern culture. While I do not endorse all parts of their society and disagree with many of their methods I acknowledge their origin and understand that many “Islamic” views circulated by the media are usually those of factioned extremist groups. In fact the Quran explicitly states that Islamic people are to respect all people of the book. All followers of modern day monotheism. Hell, the Quran even believes Jesus to be a prophet, with possible divine dissent, and gives him a little more weight than Judaism. Cultural ignorance is one of largest problems this country faces in this modern age because America hasn’t jumped on that bus. In fact 9/11 could have been avoided if a comprehensive cultural perspective had been taught during the Cold War in stead of government sanctioned “patriotic” propaganda and lies. Additionally, whether Barrack Obama is of the Islamic or Christian faith really doesn’t impact you. There are laws in place to prevent any theocratic state feared by radical right wing Christians and the majority of congress, the law making body, is Christian. Your beliefs are protected. Rather than fear this man’s origins and sighting other radical attacks as proof of his “un-American sentiments” see that he is a citizen who cares about this country, and while his views may differ from yours he is legitimately trying to improve it in ways that were supported and sanctioned by the majority of Americans. There is no conspiracy please stop making one. Also, if you still harbor these beliefs after understanding and respecting (not necessarily taking) an objective view, keep them to yourself. Allow those around you to educate themselves. If your children find themselves taking an alternate view, even as minors it is there declared human right to formulate their own opinion, and as a parent you have a responsibility to respect that. Oh, and so what if his middle name is Hussein and he didn’t change it. He didn’t pick his middle name, and changing it for publicity purposes is insulting to his family and his ancestry. Understand that on a human level and how you would feel if your liberal son or daughter changed their last name because you were conservative or if your potentially atheist child changed their biblically inspired name to distance themselves from your beliefs. Would you be insulted? Obama isn’t Sadam Hussein. Stop including his middle name to try to imply that comparison.
Aside from the xenophobia, the racist overtones in describing Obama were particularly disturbing and if this is allowed conservatives as a whole should be worried. This is a resource and unless you believe that all conservatives should be represented through this content I would strongly suggest revising it. If contributors personally harbor contempt towards other cultures that is between them and their own experiences and should not be impressed upon others or ingrained into a public educational resource. It’s 2009 and anyone portraying blatant racism really is the minority. Others do not share your views and by voicing them you are only misrepresenting your conservative cause and damaging the validity of your arguments. Argue against Barrack’s policies, do not tarnish this with your phobias based on his culture or his race or try to transfer this onto his patriotism. There are many African American conservatives and even more African American Christians and not only to you make a fool of yourself, but you also offend and distance your own supporters who share some of your views. Your racism infringes of the rights of the discriminated, the youth, and your own demographic. People have a right to exist and a right to freedom regardless of a few allosteric alleles that code for regional gene frequencies. Aside from these genetic differences (which collectively differ less than the frequency of human to carrot gene homogeneity) all people are the same and in actuality most people possess these genes they are just repressed. Obama is African American and culturally represents that. Get over it. It doesn’t mean he’s not American and it doesn’t mean that his possession of a biography of Malcom X makes him a socialist revolutionary or a terrorist.
Since when does conservative mean Christian or “fundamentally religious” anyway and what gives you the right to try do dictate what others do in their own homes. Conservative is defined by loose economic policies, not this misconception of white picket fence, 2.4 children, a moderate income and a regional distribution of southern baptism, Catholicism or an array of Lutheran, Mormon, and other protestant beliefs. You have the same right to your 2.4 children that others have to their first trimester abortion and body, loving relationship with adopted children, genetic frequency, culture, and non Christian religion. These rights are protected, just as your respective and equal rights, under the United States Constitution, The Bill of Rights, and the Universal Declaration of Rights. Until they infringe upon another’s rights you have a responsibility to respect their person. No one is saying that you have to agree with them, but you are expected to civilly acknowledge their humanity and permit them to exist. I am open to any form of civil and educated discussion regarding this post and as a clarification I am an Agnostic, Independently affiliated, American born citizen and although I do not agree with modern convervatism, I respect it. I expect you to give me that same respect. Any inquiries can be sent to Erosenchaine@aim.com 
== Trip to Canada ==
== Trip to Canada ==

Revision as of 09:33, 31 March 2009

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.
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9,
For article guidelines please see the Commandments and Guidelines

Trip to Canada

Obama's first foreign trip as President of the United States occured yesterday, to Canada.

Most telling, he declared "I love this country [Canada]" - has he ever even uttered such words about America?

*sigh* yes, yes he has --ShawnJ 17:40, 20 February 2009 (EST)

Demanding Major Change

I'm not well educated on Obama enough to write an article on him, and even if I did I would not know where to start, but come on! Someone step up to the plate and correct this article. We atleast need a rewrite that presents a case for him being a christian. It can include all the Rev. Wright stuff you want, but if Conservapedia wants to become "The trustworthy encyclopedia" it has to convey both sides.

As a conservapedian, I don't like where this site is going. When writing articles, we can have conservative viewpoints, just not conservative crusades.

It's remarkable how people who spell Christian with a small "c" want to insist that Obama is somehow a Christian.--Andy Schlafly 23:37, 5 January 2009 (EST)
Mr. Schlafly, how that makes someone less christian then somebody else is beyond me. Petty remarks like that does not help conservapedia's image at allSkwisgaar 11:52, 18 February 2009 (EST)
Reminiscent of those who assert the title of catholic with a small c, which in fact means something wholly other than a Catholic (i.e., a Roman Catholic) with a large C. (All Christians are in fact catholic with a small c if I understand it's fairly broad meaning.) --RickD 23:42, 5 January 2009 (EST)
I don't think you can "demand" anything here. This is not a place where you can get what you want with the well-worn liberal tactic of stamping your feet and throwing a tantrum.
If you have proof that Obama is a Christian, then let us see it. As far as I can tell, he is completely uninterested in Christian fellowship of any kind, which to me is very telling.
It is easy to talk the talk. As the Lord himself said:
Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!' (Matthew 7:22-23)
When and if Barack Hussein Obama shows some evidence of having been washed clean in the blood of Christ, then we can talk. I'm not holding my breath. --DavidS 08:34, 6 January 2009 (EST)
DeanS, you have proof, it's been shown to you multiple times. All the people seem to be interested here is raising a conspiracy theory. They are so set in their ways that arguing against them will yield no results. That's the whole thing about conspiracy theorists: it doesn't matter what proof you show or how complete it is, they will find some hole, real or imagined, and fill it in with whatever belief they hold to actually add strength to their theories. A quick review of the page reveals 3 telling conspiracy theories that are held in belief by the people who hold power on this website: 1) That Obama is a Muslim (he isn't) 2) That Obama wasn't born in Hawaii (He was), and 3) That the majority of Obama's campaign contributions came from anonymous donors (they didn't). That's why this page has been locked from editing, because it has become a war zone and is unlikely to change if it was unlocked. The only solution at this point is to try and gleam what facts you can from this article, and do your own independent research for more facts concerning Obama. ShawnJ 09:14, 6 January 2009 (EST)
First of all, I'm David, not Dean. Secondly, Obama certainly doesn't act like any sort of Christian I care to know: he supports abortion, he is a radical socialist (possibly a Communist), and he tells falsehoods. I don't know if he is a Muslim or not, but it seems quite likely, and the page has a lot of evidence showing that he is. --DavidS 11:44, 6 January 2009 (EST)
First, my apologies on the name. Secondly, I'm not claiming that Obama is a good Christian, just that he most certainly is not Muslim. The evidence on this page, many of which are blatant falsehoods, are hardly conclusive proof of anything. I have no doubt that if I held any user here under the same scrutiny that Obama has, I could gather enough "evidence" to make a case that they are any religion I choose them to be. Thirdly, just because he may not be the type of christian you want to know doesn't make him not christian. There are many Christians that I don't care to know. Does that make them not Christian?--ShawnJ 12:13, 6 January 2009 (EST)
Islam is a religion trained to not be noticed, it encourages Muslims to remain hidden, any evidence that Obama isn't Muslim is denied by the one fact that Islam is a religion designed to remain hidden until the moment is right to strike. Recent "negotiations" with the Middle East prove this! --User:Deadpool (EST)
Even if he is a muslim ,(which i am sure he is not), how does that change anything. Are you suggesting that everyone who is muslim is an amoral terrorist with an agenda to kill all christians and destroy our family values? Are you suggesting that every single muslim follows the tenets unfailingly? Even the most devoted christians i have met follow all of the tenets. A person is a person, religion may play a part in their every day life, but the amount of people willing to die or kill for it is very few. I met the now-president myself once. He was a good man who loved his family and his country, more so than many people I have met, liberals AND conservatives. Even though I voted for McCain, he seemed like a good candidate for president. Skwisgaar 11:51, 18 February 2009 (EST)

Obama's Atheism

I know it is a popular view on this site that Obama is a Muslim, but has anyone considered the possibility that his apparent lack of religious devotion indicates instead that he is an atheist? In an article about Obama on mensvogue.com, it is noted that "Though Obama had long been skeptical of organized religion, he gradually came to embrace it "as a choice, not an epiphany."[1] It is frequently observed on Conservapedia that his claims of religious activity may be self-serving; could they not be an attempt to hide his atheism instead of his Islamic beliefs? After all, Ron Reagan, Jr. once remarked that nobody ever elects atheists.

In addition, Conservapedia has also pointed out on numerous occasions that atheists are strongly inclined to dislike America. Is it also not possible that Obama's pro-Islamic behavior is not a series of Freudian slips, but rather a manifestation of his liberal dislike for America?

Just some interesting points to consider. Perhaps we could open this up for discussion. --Economist 18:30, 6 January 2009 (EST)

Obama Arab-American

This article should, at some point, actually say that Obama is African-American, making him the first black president. If you really want to leave room for speculation about Warren G. Harding's ancestry, you could write "first openly black president" or something. But Obama's blackness is clearly a large part of his personal and political identity, and is probably going to be remembered as one of the most historically significant aspects of this election. An article on Barack Obama should contain a direct statement of this information, period.

The editors should also consider putting that information in the first paragraph. I understand that there is no established rule about the ordering of information in a Conservapedia article. However, an uneducated reader looking at this article would learn how long his campaign was before learning that he is the first black president, which doesn't make much sense to me. Cb201 16:20, 9 January 2009 (EST)

There is much distortion in the media about Obama being African-American. Obama is actually Arab-American, and I agree that this page should reflect his race.

Barack Hussein Obama is 50% Caucasian from his mother's side and 43.75% Arabic and 6.25% African Negro from his father's side. While Barack Hussein Obama's father was from Kenya, his father's family was mainly Arabs.. Barack Hussein Obama's father was only 12.5% African Negro and 87.5% Arab (his father's birth certificate even states he's Arab, not African Negro). --Cwcopela 14:11, 19 January 2009 (EST)

Does it really matter? It's not the technicalities that define what race Americans perceive Obama as - He looks more black, than white and arabic and that's how people will perceive him - They won't perceive him as another rich religious white guy or as an arab because of technicalities like that. --Atheuz
  • So, perceptions matter above facts? That is typical of liberal thinking, you know. --₮K/Admin/Talk 16:06, 19 January 2009 (EST)
Wait, by your own admission Obama is half-Caucasian. Shouldn't we say "first president with significantly ethnic roots" or something (not as politically correct, of course)? T2master 19:30, 31 January 2009 (EST)

Small comments

Hello. Would it be appropriate to create a "family" section in this biography, it seems rather lacking on this point? For the rest it seems very informative, but rather cluttered. Would it be more logical to use a chronological build-up for this biography, such as placing the parts relating to his presidency more to the end of the biography, and his earlier endeavors to the front? Perhaps it would help if the contents table was moved up, at least to end up higher than the first muslim president bit? Let's hope I'm not asking any all-too-stupid questions! ;-) Regards, AVanbeek 22:51, 12 January 2009 (EST)

I don't see any of your suggestions as an improvement. Obama's presidential ambition predates the other items you mention, and his personal beliefs are the most significant. Encylopedias, like newspapers, prioritize presentation based on significance.--Andy Schlafly 22:59, 12 January 2009 (EST)
Shall I go ahead then, and erase "Family" Sections on George W. Bush and McCain's articles? Their great accomplishments surely predate those insignificant sections. AMurdoc 13:29, 15 January 2009 (EST)
Why not go ahead and make some positive contributions to this encyclopaedia by creating wanted articles, rather than attempting to be satirical? MikeSalter 14:18, 15 January 2009 (EST)

I'd also note that Michelle is refered to by her maiden name in the info box. Checking the previous Presidents, their wives are referenced in First Last or First Maiden Last (Laura Bush and Hillary Rodham Clinton). Any reason not to have Michelle Obama or Michelle Robinson Obama? Is there some dispute about her legal name? As her name has changed in the popular view and the law, this information would appear to be just wrong.

Lincoln's Bible?

Fox News is reporting that Obama will use the Lincoln Bible to be sworn in [2]. I think it's fairly safe to say that it will not be a koran. I also think it is safe to say that this is exactly the kind of trickery a manchurian muslim would use. Is it worth a mention in the "likely muslim" section?

CWood 11:01, 15 January 2009 (EST)

I agree, it is safe to say it will not be a Koran. I think i'ts also safe to say this is exactly the kind of "trickery" a Christian would use. Is it worth a mention in the "likely Christian" section? oh wait... ShawnJ 11:59, 15 January 2009 (EST)
So Obama is damned if he does use a Bible, and damned if he doesn't. Seems a bit unreasonable. None of those other candidates were ever accused of being "Manchurian Muslims" just because they DID use a Bible to get sworn in. Then again, none of those other candidates had brown skin and a funny name, right? Cb201 12:55, 16 January 2009 (EST)
Typical liberal race baiting... How about you come up with evidence rather than allegations? CWood 16:47, 18 January 2009 (EST)
None of the other candidates hid from questions about their past, it's Obama's own fault. Nobody ever said his name was funny except Obama. The brown skin comment is over the top racist ploy. You know very well that there are more respected, patriotic, qualified 'brown skin' people that are deserving of presidency, Obama isn't one of them. FYI- slanderous allegations are deserving of a permanent block here. --Jpatt 13:03, 16 January 2009 (EST)
How about slanderous allegations that a man is lying to the country about his religion? Do those count?
I'm not accusing anyone of racism per se. I'm just pointing out that no other presidential candidate has ever had to prove to the country that he is not a Muslim. And let's be honest - that's because all the other presidential candidates have been white guys named George or Bill or Ron or Jimmy, and this one is a black guy named Barack. If people WANT to believe he's a Muslim (the authors of this article clearly do) it's easier to do so. If you can't see the connection between his race/name and the popularity of the belief that he is a Muslim, you're not looking hard enough.
Anyway, this is all a moot point. He's not a Muslim. As time goes by after Obama takes office, this page will look increasingly loony. I guess if Obama really turns out to be an Al-Qaeda sleeper agent poised to sabotage the United States in a plot straight out of a Tom Clancy novel, I will be the one looking loony. But I think I'll take that chance.Cb201 17:55, 16 January 2009 (EST)


Barack Hussein Obama (born in Honolulu,[1][2][3] August 4, 1961) served as a first-term Democratic Senator from Illinois (2004-2008) and then, along with his running mate Senator Joseph Biden, won the presidential election[4] after twenty-three months of campaigning, raising an unprecedented $750 million and spending over $700 million of it,[5]. Post-election, Obama indicated that he would make an unprecedented speech within his first 100 days from a Muslim capital.[6] (7][8]

Obama has espoused the idea of "spreading the wealth,"[10] in other words raising the tax rates on business and the wealthy in order to redistribute their income to low income individuals, many of whom don't currently pay income taxes.[11] His health care plan requires employers to purchase health care or pay a fine and will require many into a single payer system.[12] To announce his trip to Berlin in July 2008, Obama used posters which show a marked similarity to posters of others.[13] During Obama's youth in Hawaii, he developed a strong, almost Father/Son relationship with Frank Marshall Davis.14] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lucyjordan (talk) 11:00, 17 January 2009

The claim that Fareed Zakaria's book The Post-American World "is written from a Muslim point-of-view" is not supported by the reference, [35]. Dadsnagem2 15:41, 19 February 2009 (EST)

Ah yes, Fareed Zakaria is actually a Jewish name, written from a Juda perspective. Let's get serious ok? --jpatt 15:53, 19 February 2009 (EST)
The Village Voice article that was referenced describes Zakaria as a secular Muslim, but it doesn't mention the book at all. Do you not think it's possible for someone to write a book on a secular topic without injecting his religious point of view? Dadsnagem2 16:20, 19 February 2009 (EST)


File:AC776AB92D53D08B124F57F6B9B6C2.jpg Here's a picture of our plotting leader. Too sinister? --Ṣ₮ёVeN 09:41, 19 January 2009 (EST)

Interesting, Steven. But where did you get it from? The uploads should reflect the source and claim of ability to use it, unless before 1923 (in which everything is public domain).--Andy Schlafly 10:22, 19 January 2009 (EST)
Oh yes. sorry, i got it from the msn.com do i need promission to take photos from there? --Ṣ₮ёVeN 14:03, 19 January 2009 (EST)

Obama/Muslim Support

In the May be a Muslim section, it says that he had an increased support of Muslim voters. How does this prove he is Muslim? While this should be kept, It should be moved to another section.

Nation of Islam's annual convention in a Chicago suburb, a white T-shirt with an image of Obama between Malcolm X and Martin Luther King Jr. sold for $10.
The Muslim community supports their Muslims. MLK just thrown into the mix for his iconic black image. [1]

I know we lost a week...

But we can't stay in some alternate universe where G.W.Bush is still president forever, especially if this article is going to link to the front page. We need to update this article to show that Obama is now president. I would do so, but its locked. As it has been. For quite some time. --DReynolds 23:57, 27 January 2009 (EST)

Low Res Pic

Why is the leading picture of Obama such a low resolution version? It looks crappy when stretched NotALiberal 08:20, 28 January 2009 (EST)

That's the only picture we could get from the White House Web site. It certainly surprises me, because I would have thought that they would have a very high-resolution picture of..."Him." We might try the White House site again to see whether "He" has corrected this—er—oversight.--TerryHTalk 08:26, 28 January 2009 (EST)
Wikipedia found one (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e9/Official_portrait_of_Barack_Obama.jpg) NotALiberal 08:29, 28 January 2009 (EST)
(I could have sworn i edited this already, did we loose some more from the database?) The orginal high resolution image can be obtained from the change.gov site; http://change.gov/page/-/officialportrait.jpg . Updating to this version should fix all the scaling artefacts --SCarter 22:10, 28 January 2009 (EST)

Second swearing in ceremony?

I'm surprised that this isn't even mentioned in the article, but when Obama retook the Oath he DIDN'T USE A BIBLE. In fact, there was no video recording of the session and the picture taken only showed him from the chest up. This is profound evidence of being Unchristian at the very least. Since we can't see his left hand during the ceremony, it could be on anything ... dare I say, the Koran?? (source http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/01/21/obama-takes-oath-office/) NotALiberal 08:40, 28 January 2009 (EST)

I consider swearing on the Bible to be un-Christian, because of Matthew 5:34-37, where swearing on anything is expressly forbidden by Jesus.--CPalmer 08:48, 28 January 2009 (EST)

Additionally, the second swearing-in ceremony was hardly "private." There were a number of reporters present. Even if it were private, the first ceremony is the one that is constitutionally binding. In any case, the allegation in the main article needs a citation. There are plenty out there, so get to it!

Rejects ID, Pushes Evolution (Over Christianity!?)

This really needs to be a section in the mainspace. Someone unlock or please add a section mentioning the following:

Rejects ID From the responses to a Q&A sent out by Nature: Do you believe that evolution by means of natural selection is a sufficient explanation for the variety and complexity of life on Earth? Should intelligent design, or some derivative thereof, be taught in science class in public schools?

Obama: I believe in evolution, and I support the strong consensus of the scientific community that evolution is scientifically validated. I do not believe it is helpful to our students to cloud discussions of science with non-scientific theories like intelligent design that are not subject to experimental scrutiny. [3]

Pushes Evolution Over Christianity Remnick, who at this point could be considered the President of the United States of Magazines, forced Obama to address the topic of religion. "It's not 'faith' if you are absolutely certain," Obama said, noting that he didn't believe his lack of "faith" would hurt him a national election. "Evolution is more grounded in my experience than angels." [4]

Wow. CherylE 10:17, 28 January 2009 (EST)

Allegedly born in Honolulu

Why does it still say he was allegedly born in Honolulu? Later on in the page it says the it was proven his birth certificate is genuine. JohnKite 11:15, 28 January 2009 (EST)

We merely state that FactCheck.org believed the photo of the birth certificate was genuine.--IDuan 10:58, 28 January 2009 (EST)

Maybe it should be rewritten then since now it reads more like it states a fact that the birth certificate is indeed genuine. I'm guessing 99% of people never even check the reference.JohnKite 11:15, 28 January 2009 (EST)

Additionally, he's already been sworn in as president, so arguing over where he was born is a moot point. --FrankincenseMonster 23:57, 29 January 2009 (EST)

Why no family section?

The Obama article has no family section. Neither does Clinton's or Carter's. However, Reagan's, Bush the elder's and W.Bush's articles have them. Why none on the democratic presidents'? JohnKite 11:42, 28 January 2009 (EST)

There's a simple answer: Obama, Clinton, and Carter are Democrats. They belong to an anti-family party, therefore their family is irrelevant to their political existence. Family is central to Republican policy, and so it is impossible to understand President Bush without mentioning his family. User:LatinScholar 1:36, 30 January 2009 (EST)

He has a family though, doesn't he? JohnKite 13:47, 30 January 2009 (EST)

Yes, but a Democrat family, which is something entirely different. LatinScholar 2:22, 30 January 2009 (EST)

How about adding a family section now mentioning his half brother in Kenya who was arrested for drug possession? Shouldn't there be something about him on the page? JohnKite 08:02, 1 February 2009 (EST)
This argument doesn't make sense. If he's "anti-family," he wouldn't have a family. I suppose by "anti-family," you mean pro-abortion. That has nothing do to with whether to include his own family. A good encyclopedia doesn't leave out information for reasons like this. It's relevant and it should be here.Dantès 17:09, 2 March 2009 (EST)

Some Changes

Why is this locked? Obama has not been succeded by "incumbent" nor will he be. Obamas term in office might not go to 2013, it might go further, it might not go that far, unless you are psychic this should be changed. --Brendanw 11:58, 28 January 2009 (EST)

"Incumbent" means he is the current holder of the office. It's simply a term to indicate that he is the most recent. And while it is true that Obama could be elected to a second term and thus serve until 2017, he hasn't. His first term expires on 2013 regardless of what happens between now and then (barring impeachment or death, of course) so it's factual to list that date. Listing a second term when he's only a week and a half in his first one is speculative and inappropriate for an encyclopedia. --Ampersand 14:49, 28 January 2009 (EST)

It's the exact same thing we did with George W. Bush - there's nothing factually wrong about saying whoever replaces obama will be an incumbent. - saying incumbent merely confirms that he is the current president - no one has succeeded him yet.--IDuan 14:42, 29 January 2009 (EST)

Is he or isn't he President?

This article has a lot of wildly inaccurate and unsourced information in it. It also can't seem to decide whether BO is President or not - the picture on the right says he is, the text varies from claiming he's won the election, to him being Senator. I'd love to help clean this up, but can't seem to edit the page? Ready to help. FNNoonan 15:15, 28 January 2009 (EST)

Yes, it's pretty weird isn't it. One would have thought that if it was important enough to protect then it would be important enough to update. But the failure to update tells the casual reader what to expect in respect of the general accuracy of the article - so it's probably not a bad thing.--British_cons (talk) 11:12, 29 January 2009 (EST)
I notice the article has been updated to make it somewhat more reality-based. Good. However, I would expect - almost to the case of 'demand' - that the article on the current POTUS begin with the short and simple line "Barack Hussein Obama is the 44th and current President of the United States of America". Instead, the first sentence about this, arguably the world's most important person, is overlong, appallingly punctuated, begins immediately with unfounded gossip and wanders off into some other random irrelevant facts and utterly lacks focus. It says a lot about what the reader can expect from the entire article to follow. I wish I could help rewrite this article so as it would be more based on fact and reality - and particularly, better written - but as it's locked, that's impossible. So all we, the casual readers, can do is suggest things which need to be done to improve the article. I would begin by recommending the deletion of the entire monster and a total rewrite from scratch. There's nothing here of substance and nothing that will engender any respect for this supposed 'encyclopedia'. FNNoonan 13:33, 29 January 2009 (EST)
It's a shame we can't all be as learned and insightful as you, FNNoonan. However, I dare say all the hard-working editors here will jump up to obey your lofty commands. If you want a 'better' article, why not write one on your userpage/in a sandbox and submit it to the criticism of your peers? Or is this a case of 'those who can't, criticise'? MauriceB 14:19, 29 January 2009 (EST)
You must not have read my comment, in which I made a suggestion to improve the article's first sentence. What's yours? You might try contributing something to the debate rather than trying to shoot the messenger. The message is - the article's a disaster. Now, what are you doing about that? FNNoonan 16:24, 29 January 2009 (EST)
I don't think it a disaster, but a multi-layered and well-argued piece. Looking at the revision history and talk pages, I see that some of the best minds on Consercvapedia think so, too. Therefore I have no need to do anything. You, on the other hand, see faults, but do nothing except indulge yourself in corrosive criticism. MauriceB 17:10, 29 January 2009 (EST)
I would also point out that the article even fails to mention which country he's President of. I would again recommend the inclusion of my suggested opening sentence - "Barack Hussein Obama is the 44th and current President of the United States of America". Thank you for helping to improve this terrible article. FNNoonan 14:34, 30 January 2009 (EST)

The article should begin with "Barack Hussein Obama is currently the 44th President of the United States of America." Someone please make this change. Gadzodilo 23:22, 1 February 2009 (EST)

Thanks for improving the article's first few words - we now know what his job is and of what country he's President. But I would ask that someone PLEASE look at the grammar in that first sentence - it's absolutely atrocious. Again, since I cannot edit the page, I cannot help but instead can only point out the problems here. First, if you want to make the point about his birthplace, the correct place would be later - and then with an explanation of why this might be a problem (the Constitution states that President's must be born in the USA - there's no mention of this anywhere in the article). If you want to make the point where it is, despite that being a nonsequitor, simply add a period after 'States' and remove the word 'although'. Also please note that the word 'although' is a conditional - and what follows the word 'although' has nothing to do with the opening part of the sentence. You might as well write "He is the President of the USA, although he apparently doesn't like cheese". The two items have no connection. Subject-Object. Next, the entire first sentence is utterly malformed, with a punctuation that woulod shame a four year old, including a period in the middle of the sentence. There is what is presumably a birthdate just floating in the middle of the sentence, undescribed. This is followed by a close-parentheses, where there was no open-parentheses. The sentence then runs on with some gibberish about electoral donations. It also appears as if Joe Biden was his running mate while he was a Senator from Illinois. The first paragraph continues in what can barely be described as comprehensible English with a stream of random, unintroduced facts. Finally, it ends with a nonsensical reference to the absolutely normal practice of politicians referring to the practices of their nation, and addressing their nation as a collective body. I would love to help tidy up this amateur article, but the childish English throughout, combined with the fact that the article is locked, leave me to believe it is not possible, and this encyclopedia is anything but 'trustworthy'. Would you trust your children with this article? FNNoonan 14:16, 4 February 2009 (EST)

Real Bible NOT Koran

Below is the kind of post I’ve been looking forward to:

“Look, I wrote here and in the article that Obama would swear on the Koran, and now I’ve just got to eat humble pie. See, I was wwoo….wrooggga…woolooo..wopppaaa. wrong. There, I managed to say it, and I feel better for it.”

Yeah, I been waiting for that one, but I’m not holding my breath. But since Obama DID in fact swear on Lincoln’s Bible that means (check this one in archives) you clowns owe me $100. Each. (American notes thank you.) MylesP 18:31, 28 January 2009 (EST)

You're clueless, Myles. Obama's real oath was not on the Bible. I don't know if it was on the Koran. Do you?--Andy Schlafly 23:01, 28 January 2009 (EST)

OP Myles back. Right, let me see if I can sum up the state of play. Obama tries to take the Oath on the Lincoln Bible, which presumably has special powers not available to the usual Gideon’s Hotel edition. Anyways, Chief Justice Roberts manages to bellyflop his role in history. It’s like the guy who needs play only one note on a triangle during the symphony and manages to foul that up. Along with 90% of the world, I thought that Obama was completely blameless for this glitch, and actually quite gracious. His face and bearing said “Hey, you stuffed up, but I forgive you. Let’s try it again.” This was not what the foaming at the mouth crowd saw, and talk here was of how Obama was not properly inaugurated, and that somehow it was all his fault. Then, to satisfy the New Philistines, he takes the oath, again. This time, no one of the Born Again crowd who frequent these occasions thinks to bring a Bible, but it is Obama’s fault once more, because apparently he should have one in his back pocket at all times. He takes the oath again. Hey, that’s good enough for me, but apparently I’m clueless, according to Andy, who, in one of his regular 2 line missives from above believes there’s more to this than meets the eye.

Well, let me see. I suppose Obama could have paid Roberts off in the first instance to screw up the wording, so he would not have to put his hand on the Bible. (Because then he would wince with pain as the Word of God burnt his skin, or something.) This set up the SECOND inauguration at which everyone was paid to make sure no Bible was there, so Obama gets to be Prez while cunningly evading the Bible. You see, it all makes perfect sense, don’t it? Yeah, and I’M the one who’s clueless! Truly, what a man believes, he sees. Look, I’ve got an idea. Instead of hurling everything you got including the kitchen sink at Obama on a second by second basis, every time he so much as scratches his nose, let’s take the fair-minded, objective, dare I say American approach. It’s the customary 100 day honeymoon. Why don’t we all give him those 100 days, and THEN have a look at the plus and minus sheet? Sound like a sensible notion? Of course, that would mean putting your knee in some other crotch for that time, which is asking a hell of a lot I know. But then you would have some REAL grievances at the end instead of the kind of sort of all this relentless muck-raking on the basis of trivia. And just think of the size of the bonfire you could build then.

You know, where I come from conservatives are known as people with a sense of honour, with ethical standards, polite and cultivated, aware of etiquette, educated, and with a keen sense for fair play. You might be using a different dictionary. MylesP 00:42, 29 January 2009 (EST)

  • Myles, please read the box at the top of this page, and adhere to it. Thanks. --₮K/Admin/Talk 00:55, 29 January 2009 (EST)
Myles, one can tell you're a liberal just by observing how many words it takes you to say nothing. Your non-American spelling of "honor" is also a giveaway.--Andy Schlafly 22:43, 29 January 2009 (EST)
Somebody decides to spell 'honour' the way that it is spelt correctly in English (the mother-tongue of England) and you decide to try and be insulting about it. Classy.--Ieuan 12:47, 30 January 2009 (EST)
Despite Myles' tone, his post does have some merit: It's time to let go of this "swearing in on the Koran" business because it is purely insulting speculation.
And I have to ask... why is using non-American spelling a liberal trait? Our Prime Minister up here in Canada is as conservative as they come... SJames 13:37, 30 January 2009 (EST)
It doesn't show you're non-conservative. It shows you are not American, or an un-American person. T2master 19:30, 31 January 2009 (EST)


In the box to the right of the page it says that Obama will be succeeded by incumbent? Doesn't this imply that he will have two terms? I'm a bit confused. AndyJM 11:19, 29 January 2009 (EST)

I can understand the confusion, but all it implies is that he is the current President. It would probably be better if the whole line was removed until we actually know who he would be succeeded by. ShawnJ 13:09, 29 January 2009 (EST)
Well, I tried to fix it up, I really did. But it was hard what with the lock down. I tried dabbing liquid paper on my monitor but that didn’t work very well either. Normally, “Not known” or “To be announced” or “To be determined” are the accepted forms, but hey, what about "Sarah Palin"? Let’s be positive and proactive about this. That lady is gonna wipe the floor with this Obama ring in. I’m marching in her parade right now. “Palin ain’t for failin’ “
Whoo hooo!!” MylesP 21:42, 29 January 2009 (EST)

I fixed all this....what's the problem now, Myles? --₮K/Admin/Talk 22:46, 29 January 2009 (EST)

Stylistic matter

Technically, it is proper to simply list the day of Obama's inauguration followed by a dash, as, God forbid, he might be reelected in 2012. So we can't say until the election when his last day in office will be... --DReynolds 09:36, 30 January 2009 (EST)

  • I believe you are not correct. Technically he was elected to a four year term. The text for the info box says term of office, no? That would be four years from his inauguration, 20 January, 2009. One doesn't typically take into account the possibility of death, resignation or re-election. Perhaps you are saying what is "typical" for Wikipedia? --₮K/Admin/Talk 12:52, 30 January 2009 (EST)
This[2] seems like a reasonable template "typical" for Conservapedia. The Bush entry was changed from "present" to January 20, 2009 less than three weeks before the date that he was definitively leaving office.Mikek 14:51, 30 January 2009 (EST)
What he was elected to and his actual term in office can be different things. William Henry Harrison was elected for a four year term but his actual term was one month. As I recall Bushes article said 'present' until several days after his term was over. --Brendanw 15:11, 30 January 2009 (EST)

Actually, that's almost universal. We don't know when his term will end. He could be re-elected in four years, or shot tomorrow. We can't say when his term will actually end. Wikipedia, by the way, doesn't even have a dash- just "assumed office," "incumbent" and "January 20, 2009." If accuracy is our goal, it's best to simply put a dash, or a dash followed by "present" or "incumbent." --DReynolds 15:34, 30 January 2009 (EST)

Article Naming

As the article for Barack Hussein Obama includes his full name, John McCain should redirect to John Sidney McCain III, Joe Biden to Joseph Robinette "Joe" Biden, Jr., etc. - LafinJack 17:05, 30 January 2009 (EST)

  • No. But you just keep on LafinJack. ;-) -- --₮K/Admin/Talk 18:05, 30 January 2009 (EST)
Can we ask why we will have the inconsistency TK? --WillB 18:15, 30 January 2009 (EST)

I fail to understand what LafinJack or WillB are complaining about. What inconsistency? LatinScholar 7:08, 30 January 2009

They are referring to the fact that only Barack Obama's middle name is included in the article name, while the others are not. They are wondering why that is.
The obvious answer: Hussein is a Muslim name. It helps when trying to portray the slant that President Obama is lying about being a Christian. "Sidney" and "Robinette" are regular Western middle names and serve no significant purpose. A similar line of reasoning can also explain why the Table of Contents is oddly out of view in President Obama's article. AdamSchaley 19:21, 30 January 2009 (EST)

Leave it to a liberal to reduce this discussion to nonsense, innuendo, and pointless name-calling. What's the use of even trying to have this discussion when you won't discuss things rationally? LatinScholar 19:42, 01/09

I should remind you that this is a Conservative Christian encyclopedia with an ADMITTED BIAS. The goal is obvious: To show readers that Obama is a Muslim, however this is in line with the principals of the encyclopedia, so there isn't anything really to complain about. Conservatives want everyone to understand Obama is a Muslim. There is no NPOV, get over it (my $.02) NotALiberal 21:56, 30 January 2009 (EST)
I'm pretty sure his religion should have no bearing in the first place. Then again, you're the type of moron who lets a candidate's religious faith influence your vote. "I AINT GON' VOTE FOR NO MUSLIMS OR JEWS." I'm quite sure the color of his skin also has a bearing on you. Let's not forget that there isn't any credible evidence that he's indeed a Muslim. --VictorT 17:45, 7 March 2009 (EST)

Change of wording?

I think "Obama will likely be the first Muslim President" would be better written as "Obama is likely the first Muslim President" ... just a thought NotALiberal 22:08, 30 January 2009 (EST)

Nah, let's not. --VictorT 17:47, 7 March 2009 (EST)

Update picture?

I'd just like to rerequest that the Obama main picture get updated with a higher resolution version. It looks very bad stretched. Here is a URL to an official version (http://change.gov/page/-/officialportrait.jpg) NotALiberal 10:58, 31 January 2009 (EST) NotALiberal 10:58, 31 January 2009 (EST)

Done. Thanks for the link. --DeanStalk 11:24, 31 January 2009 (EST)
Thanks. Looks a lot better NotALiberal 12:10, 31 January 2009 (EST)

Obama's religious outlook

Obama's "outlook is Muslim"? That is simply not true

The Obama article presently reads: "Obama's background, education, and outlook are Muslim, and fewer than 1% of Muslims convert to Christianity."

I don't think the above sentence is true and I will give two notable cases where it can be shown that Obama's outlook is not Muslim.

First, Obama heavily promotes the abortion ("pro-choice") ideology.[3] How many Muslim countries promote the abortion ideology? Not many at all. I cite the following: "The rules are also influenced by the role of religion; in most Muslim countries abortion is prohibited and it is also restricted in Catholic Latin America."[4]

One of the first things the Obama administration did was to put on the White House website that they were going to promote the homosexual agenda. I cite the following: "President Obama had not even finished his inaugural address today before his agenda was posted on the WhiteHouse website, where he promised to "overturn" the Supreme Court's precedents on discrimination claims and to demand new laws requiring employers to provide special protections for homosexuals and others with "gender" issues.[5] I do know for a fact that homosexuality is presently generally looked upon very unfavorably in Muslim countries. I cite the following: "Same-sex intercourse carries the death penalty in five officially Muslim nations: Saudi Arabia, Iran, Mauritania, Sudan, and Yemen. [3] It formerly carried the death penalty in Afghanistan under the Taliban, and in Iraq under a 2001 decree by Saddam Hussein. The legal situation in the United Arab Emirates is unclear. In many Muslim nations, such as Bahrain, Qatar, Algeria or the Maldives, homosexuality is punished with jail time, fines or corporal punishment. In some Muslim-majority nations, such as Turkey, Jordan, Egypt, or Mali, same-sex intercourse is not forbidden by law. However, in Egypt gays have been the victims of laws against "morality"."[6]

I think it is untrue to say that Obama's outlook is Muslim. conservative 04:06, 1 February 2009 (EST)

His background is Islamic, but I am unaware of his theological beliefs. Has he ever espoused a particular Christian or Muslim idea? If so, what? --Ed Poor Talk 17:43, 20 February 2009 (EST)

Obama's Historical Ignorance

The first statement in the Insights section claims that "Obama displayed ignorance about American history when he said, "Throughout our history, America's confronted constantly evolving danger, from the oppression of an empire, to the lawlessness of the frontier, from the bomb that fell on Pearl Harbor, to the threat of nuclear annihilation."

There are a few things wrong with what Obama said about Pearl Habor, but none of them constitute ignorance. The only things wrong with what he said are that he a) did no pluralize the phrase to "from the bombs that fell on Pearl Habor"; b) he wasn't accurate in the kind of weaponry used because they were actually torpedoes (which is hardly ignorance as it is a largely insignificant fact); or c) the fact that he failed to properly pluralize 'bomb' means that his phrase seems to reference a far more infamous bomb, the one on Hiroshima. This last point of course does not constitute ignorance. Even if he did mistaken Hiroshima for Pearl Habor I would see that as a gaff rather than evidence of impeded ignorance towards American history. But, given that, in the context of 'constantly evolving danger' and the other historical references contained within the whole statement, it is quite clear Obama did not mean Hiroshima, I would be inclined to either edit or remove this phrase entirely.

Politicians make gaffs all the time. If you want to find actual evidence of Obama's 'ignorance' towards American history look somewhere else.

Rearranged content

First, very little was removed or changed, but there was some there which was either repetative or in the wrong context. This I hope was corrected.

Second, the place of birth was changed to Hawaii. There has to be proof that he was not born in Hawaii, and we cannot allow someone else's opinion in the article which states that he was not. But, the birth controversy is still a relevent topic as far as his possible history and the campaign is concerned, and this feature has been preserved.

And third, there are minor corrections to be made to the article, which include writing and grammer, accuracy, and minor info that could be added as to his presidency. Karajou 01:50, 2 February 2009 (EST)

I think that Andrew Schafly was right to move the sections back into their previous order. LatinScholar

I think that speculation should come after factual information in an article. Why are we talking about what Obama "may be" before what he actually is? -- JArneal 18:29, 3 February 2009 (EST)
There you go again! "Actually is" ? I think first, JArneal, in the great tradition of liberals, you need to define what "is" -- is! Please find a new hobby, JArneal, as your present one of constantly arguing and disputing doesn't wear well. --₮K/Admin/Talk 18:59, 3 February 2009 (EST)
Why must liberals censor that Obama is likely a Muslim... get over it guys --PMichael 20:06, 3 February 2009 (EST)
Why can't conservatives accept the fact that he isn't...get over it guys --ShawnJ 20:37, 3 February 2009 (EST)
Sheesh, TK. I'm sorry if I offended you. Do you really want me to define "is"? I was just asking why we don't put factual information in front, and speculation in back. Is there a reason? -- JArneal 22:24, 3 February 2009 (EST)

Obama and Sexism

In the "Presidential Campaign" section of this article it states "Obama mocks Sen. McCain's for his age and Gov. Palin for being a woman and outsider." The evidence of Obama mocking Palin for being a woman is explained later: "Obama was caught for his quiet hiring of Winner & Associates to disseminate a sexist smear video against her." Are you talking about this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6eu9Z2hXky0&eurl=http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/194057.php ? How is this video a "sexist" smear? Not only that, but there is little evidence to support the claim that Obama hired Winner to make this video.

The article suggests that Obama was caught for hiring someone to make a sexist smear video. I am asking for definitive proof that Obama was behind the video, AND definitive proof that the video is a "sexist" smear. If there is no proof, I am at least requesting that the untrue statements about Obama mocking Palin for being a woman are removed. If I do not get a response from one of the editors of this article I will email the owners of Conservapedia directly. FairMan 19:25, 4 February 2009 (EST)

First, if you have correct information as to who was actually behind the video in question then it needs to be brought to our attention in a fair manner. Second, the way you brought this about, by making your statement here in the form of a DEMAND, is not going to be tolerated. Karajou 19:38, 4 February 2009 (EST)

First of all, if my tone sounded as though i was demanding something from you or seemed disrespectful in some way I apologize, that was not my intent. I am merely requesting that the article changes it's tone. It states: "Obama was caught..." we do not know for certain that Obama was behind the video at all. Are we as Americans not considered innocent until proven guilty?

And what about the charges of sexism? The article calls the video a "sexist" smear. Will someone please tell me what was sexist about it? FairMan 23:02, 4 February 2009 (EST)

Looking at the references, it is a documented fact that this video was made professionally; it is not an amateur attempt at all. It's also documented that Winner & Associates (including Ethan Winner) are die-hard Obama supporters who have given much to the campaign. While it is not proven from these pages that Obama supported such a video, it is also not proven that he didn't help out the creation of it in some way. I added Ethan Winner's alleged claim that he made the video alone. Karajou 22:17, 4 February 2009 (EST)

Well that is a start, thank you. I honestly didn't think I'd get anyone to change anything in the article. But there are still those sexism charges. Can you provide some explanation to those? The line reads: "Obama was caught for his quiet hiring of Winner & Associates to disseminate a sexist smear video against her." Do you think you might be able to take out that word sexist? And maybe reword it in a way that doesn't immediately imply that Obama is behind the video (Until damning evidence is brought forth)? And there is also the claim at the beginning stating: "Obama mocks Sen. McCain's for his age and Gov. Palin for being a woman and outsider." The only evidence supposedly supporting the claim that Obama mocked Palin for being "a woman and outsider" is this smear video. Am I just missing something here? How is Obama mocking her for being a woman in this video? How is the video itself at all sexist? FairMan 23:02, 4 February 2009 (EST)

  • FairMan, you are in danger of being blocked. There was a well-documented news story, during the campaign, showing women were getting paid less on his campaign staff and in his Senate offices, which was hugely embarassing to Obama. [7] Palin was mocked by Obama and Joe Biden, for her so-called "lack of experience" even though her own exceeded Obama's, in terms of executive/managerial experience. Please stop your liberal excuse making and time-wasting. Learn the truth, and it will set you free! --₮K/Admin/Talk 23:31, 4 February 2009 (EST)

Why exactly am I in danger of being blocked? I am aware of that news story, I will save that for another place and time (I don't want to stir up more trouble then I am already in). My main complaint is that the article claimed that Obama mocked Palin for being a woman. The only evidence that supports this claim in the article is the link to the smear video mentioned previously (If there is more evidence then please add it). It is claimed that the video is a sexist smear. Why is my questioning of the label "sexist" being ignored every time someone replies? Please tell me if I am missing something obvious here. It is not my intent to waste anyone's time. I am just looking for answers.

"Palin was mocked by Obama and Joe Biden, for her so-called "lack of experience" even though her own exceeded Obama's, in terms of executive/managerial experience. "

That is a great example! That is something you could add to the article to back up the claim of Obama mocking Palin for being an outsider. Currently there is nothing in the "Tone" section of the article backing that up.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by FairMan (talk)

  • Then that is what you should have said, is exactly my point! Everyone wants to be a critic, while offering nothing, as the box at the top of this page says, that will improve it. If one doesn't do that, how am I, or any editor to distinguish you from the dozens of trolls and disruptor's who sign up everyday? You know how long it took me to find that citation? Less then two minutes. I ask for your understanding, but do not apologize for my comments, simply because I have just pointed out why I would think what I did. "Assume good faith" is something attempted by lots of other places, but it rarely is achieved, and certainly not so often here, where even the most casual reader/editor knows we are constantly set-up by liberal trolls and parodists. Your last comments let all of us see your motivations are perhaps better than assumed, and I do thank you for that. This is how you will build your reputation here, and anywhere else in life. I look forward to other suggestions, offered in the same spirit, and in fact, if you want, put them on my talk to make sure I see them, if you want. Thanks. --₮K/Admin/Talk 02:24, 5 February 2009 (EST)


Could a sysop edit this page to add it to Category:Barack Obama? -CSGuy 14:20, 6 February 2009 (EST)

  • No, sly mis-naming of the object isn't it? --₮K/Admin/Talk 15:53, 6 February 2009 (EST)

Minor Edits

There is a missing parenthesis in his date of birth, and in the "Birth certificate controversy" section, the word "intelligible" should be "ineligible". Those are the only 2 I caught in a quick scan of the page. WesleySHello! 23:32, 7 February 2009 (EST)

Thanks! WesleySHello! 23:48, 7 February 2009 (EST)

Hi, I'm a new user. I was curious as to whether this talk page is actualy considered in the editing of this article. What i mean by that is, as this article is locked-down, does the editing administrator read this page and make changes to the article, or will the article always be left as it is? ( I don't mean to offend, as Imentioned, I am a new user, and I am honestly just curious)

Flag Pin "insights"

This section is badly written and requires major change. First, it says Obama didn't provide "adequate" explanation. "Adequate" is subjective. He either provided and explanation or he didn't. The citation indicates he explained. Second, the word "presumably." Encyclopedias aren't supposed to presume things. Third, the word "likely." Again, just an opinion. "Recently" is a vague term; be specific. The assumption about military donors is unsupported speculation. If anyone cares about making this into objective encyclopedic content, it should read as follows:

Obama wore an American flag lapel pin after 9/11, but later stopped wearing it, explaining he felt that "Patriotism to me, isn't what you wear on your lapel. "It's what you carry in your heart. I don't need a pin to certify my love for this country."[59] As of DATE, he has begun wearing a pin again.

I suspect that if I change this, it will be quickly overridden. Are any regular editors/sysop-types willing to change this part? Dantès 17:15, 2 March 2009 (EST)

  • Dantes, why are you here? If it is to talk, talk, talk, complain, complain, complain, argue, argue, argue, you chose the wrong place. Our tolerance of liberal/socialist Canadians is pretty low. --₮K/Admin/Talk 17:24, 2 March 2009 (EST)
Well, if you bother to read my entries, you'll see that I'm providing civil and rational suggestions for how to make this content more encyclopedic and objective. It's sad that you assume I'm a liberal/socialist just because I'm proposing corrections, and my country of residence is totally irrelevant. The better question would be why are YOU here? I'm here to propose corrections. Apparently you're here to try to insult me. Dantès 11:40, 3 March 2009 (EST)


Could we link to her? --Brendanw 15:14, 23 February 2009 (EST)


Correct me if I am wrong, but I'm pretty sure there is no requirement that one must be Christian to be President. Ah, I just checked the constitution and it mentions nothing about religion except once, in the first amendment. He's not a Muslim, which has been confirmed, and even if he were, what does it matter? Maybe this should be reconsidered?Heartbeat 16:37, 23 February 2009 (EST)

You're wrong on multiple points. How about learning first, and then preaching second?--Andy Schlafly 15:33, 23 February 2009 (EST)
Actually, I'm correct on multiple points as per the United States Constitution. And Hussein is not a 'Muslim' name. Muslim is the word used to denote a person whose religion is Islam. Hussein is an Arab derived name Mr. Schlafly. Heartbeat 16:37, 23 February 2009 (EST)
The Constitution also mentions religion in Article VI "but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." --Brendanw 16:46, 23 February 2009 (EST)
Whatever faith Obama is, he is not a Christian[5]. For he fails to acknowledge the Nicene creed. --RickD 18:58, 23 February 2009 (EST)
The Nicene creed only applies to Paulian Christians. --Brendanw 22:42, 24 February 2009 (EST)
"Pauline Christians" as opposed to .... Muslim Christians???? Got news for you: Paul had nothing to do with the Nicene Creed, which is accepted by all Christians.--Andy Schlafly 22:48, 24 February 2009 (EST)

Heartbeat, try to stick to the point; and don't be so pedantic. Many people use the terms Muslim and Islamic interchangeably. Such loose usage does not invalidate an argument. You are surely award that the Arab countries are within the Islamic cultural sphere, and that they almost all are places where the required religion is Islam. So having an Arabic name places one within the Islamic sphere and is a clue, anyway, to someone's religious heritage.

These discussions are long on finger-pointing and short on research. Let's have a little more information. Has Obama been attending a church? Is church attendance a better indicator of religious faith than one's father's last name? Was the church he attended Christian? If it doesn't adhere to the Nicene Creed, then is it some sort of heretical variant, or what?

And why is it important what his religion is? Does anyone think he plans to violate the First Amendment by setting up a state religion (such as Islam)? Or that he plans to neglect the protection of Americans' religious freedom even more than President Bush did? --Ed Poor Talk 09:54, 25 February 2009 (EST)

Affirmative Action Question

If all of Obama's achievements are linked to affirmative action, how did he get around Harvard Law's anonymous grading procedures? Did he find a way to communicate his race to his professors on his exams? Is there evidence of this? I know that Andy Schlafly was at HLS at the same time as Obama. Maybe he could shed some light on how Obama accomplished that. Was this not official policy when you went to Harvard: http://www.law.harvard.edu/academics/handbook/rules-relating-to-law-school-studies/examinations.html AGoogins 19:15, 23 February 2009 (EST)

Law schools have almost always graded anonymously. Journals like the Harvard Law Review do, admittedly, have affirmative action policies in selecting their editors, but they do not use affirmative action in selecting board members. So at most Obama got onto HLR by affirmative action, but his grades and election as President were his own accomplishments. Great point RickD.-LuciusF 19:01, 23 February 2009 (EST)
I seem to recall reading that there was a vote in selecting Obama as the President of the Law Review and that a number of conservatives voted for him: http://daggatt.blogspot.com/2008/11/obamas-harvard-law-days.html
The block of conservatives on the Law Review my year I think was eager to avoid having any of the most political people on the left govern the Review. I mean, the first bedrock criterion, I think for almost all of the editors, was to have somebody with an absolutely first-rate legal mind who would be able to engage competently with the nation's top legal scholars on their scholarship and on these articles, and who would provide the intellectual leadership for the Review that it always needed. That was non-negotiable for almost everybody right or left . . . And ultimately, the conservatives on the Review supported Barack as president in the final rounds of balloting because he fit that bill far better than the other people who were running. We had all worked with him over the course of a year. And we had all spent countless hours in the presence of Barack, as well as others of our colleagues who were running, in Gannett House [the Law Review offices], and so you get a pretty good sense of people over the course of a year of late nights working on the Review. You know who the rabble-rousers are. You know who the people are who are blinded by their politics. And you know who the people are who, despite their politics, can reach across and be friendly to and make friends with folks who have different views. And Barack very much fell into the latter category.
-Bradford Berenson, #2 lawyer in George W. Bush’s White House, from a Frontline interview AGoogins 19:32, 23 February 2009 (EST)
Here is a link to the Frontline interview: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/choice2008/obama/harvard.html
This seems to call into question the statement in the article about Obama's success being entirely the result of affirmative action. The single citation currently used to support this point consists of one sentence pulled from an article that otherwise casts Obama in a very positive light. Does anyone have another citation in support of the existing language besides that one, or should we discuss the possibility of changing or removing that paragraph? SStaples 08:23, 24 February 2009 (EST)

At second glance, none of the citations say anything about Obama's HLS achievements being the result of affirmative action. Law students constantly publish articles on subjects that they haven't taken formal courses on. My school doesn't even offer courses dealing with election law, but my friend still published an article about it. The article is missing a logical step between "Obama published an article without taking a class on [science subject] and Constitutional Law" and "Obama's article was published because of his race." Has the writer done any research to justify that inference? AGoogins 00:20, 25 February 2009 (EST)

<1% Correction

The <1% statistic appears to be legitimate, but it is not presented correctly. According to the source currently used for this statistic (http://www.faithfreedom.org/oped/sina31103.htm), 'The Internet site aljazeera.net published an interview with Ahmad Al Qataani أحمد القطعاني An important Islamic cleric who said: “In every hour, 667 Muslims convert to Christianity. Everyday, 16,000 Muslims convert to Christianity. Ever year, 6 million Muslims convert to Christianity."'

This link puts those numbers into context and gives us the <1% figure: http://www.pbs.org/wnet/wideangle/episodes/young-muslim-and-french/info-graphic-muslim-populations/info-graphic-muslim-populations-worldwide-growth/2526/. However, that is <1% of Muslims worldwide per year, not <1% of all Muslims over their lifetime, as our current wording might lead some to believe.

We could fix this by changing the sentence in the article from its current form

Obama's background, education, and outlook are Muslim, and fewer than 1% of Muslims convert to Christianity.


Obama's background, education, and outlook are Muslim, and fewer than 1% of the the Muslim population converts to Christianity annually.

The link I provide my also be of use as an additional source for this. SStaples 08:59, 24 February 2009 (EST)

It also seems like a bad use of statistics. It's useful if you are trying to determine whether a random Muslim converted to Christianity, but is less useful when you're talking about a specific person where lots of other evidence makes a raw percentage meaningless. The percentage of Americans who become President is a lot lower than 1%, but that doesn't mean that Obama didn't become President.AGoogins 14:33, 24 February 2009 (EST)
When the inherent fallacy of weak induction is pointed out that is ignored, however the factual correction to the nature of the 1% number probably will not. --Brendanw 22:40, 24 February 2009 (EST)
There is nothing fallacious about the 1% statistic, or its use here.--Andy Schlafly 22:47, 24 February 2009 (EST)
But do you agree that the information I presented here, in so far as it relates to the proper wording of this part of the article, is also not false, but is in fact a more reasonable summary of the truth behind the 1% number? I'm not trying to make any statement about how applicable the figure may or may not be when talking about Obama's own religious status; that's clearly a broader debate for another time. --SStaples 08:49, 25 February 2009 (EST)
I know you're committed to this 1% argument and won't change it, but would you care to address my affirmative action question, above, regarding Harvard Law grading and law review editorial board policies?AGoogins 00:14, 25 February 2009 (EST)

Obama's name in Arabic?

Should we show his name in Arabic like Wikipedia does for Muslims? Google translator turned this up "باراك حسين أوباما"

Maybe we could change the opening sentence to be

"Barack Hussein Obama II (Arabic: باراك حسين أوباما)(allegedly born in Honolulu Aug. 4, 1961) " UnLiberal 15:46, 25 February 2009 (EST)

Wikipedia does that for Arabs, not Muslims. Also we should get someone who actually reads Arabic rather than a Google translation, anyone can punch something into an internet translator. --Brendanw 18:17, 26 February 2009 (EST)

"Islam can be compatible with the modern world."

Ed Poor’s recent addition to the list of points arguing that Obama is a Muslim is out of context.

He has said that "Islam can be compatible with the modern world."

Examining the cited work, one finds that the lead up to that quote goes as follows:

In Indonesia, Obama has said, he saw women with and without head coverings and Muslims living comfortably next to Christians. He has said that his life among Muslims in Indonesia showed him that “Islam can be compatible with the modern world.”

Retaining the full content of the second sentence would give readers a better grasp of the context in which he made this statement. Why did you choose to omit this information? And on what basis do you present this as proof that Obama is a Muslim?

Furthermore, knowing the context seems to weaken the point’s usefulness in revealing Obama’s religion, because it suggests that the quote was informed by his time living abroad rather than his own personal beliefs. If I spent several years living in Thailand and later commented that the experience showed me that Buddhism was compatible with the modern world, would you think I was a Buddhist?

If we insist on continuing to build the case for Obama’s religion, let’s please do so carefully so that we do not omit or obscure any relevant information. If the quote is to remain in the article, I propose that the line be altered to read

He has said that the experience of living among Muslims in Indonesia showed him that “Islam can be compatible with the modern world.”

NB - I would make this and other minor changes myself, but the article is locked. --SStaples 18:49, 25 February 2009 (EST)

The background adds nothing. Obama's promoting Islam with his statement itself, and there will be many more examples during his term.--Andy Schlafly 19:26, 26 February 2009 (EST)
While I understand your desire for brevity, I respectfully disagree. I think that a reader's interpretation of the quote could be made very different given the full context, especially considering the heading under which we provide it here. And though I do see how the statement itself could be seen as a promotion of Islam, there are many things which are "compatible" with the modern world that not everyone would want to endorse - homosexuality (even if you disagree with it, there's no question that it is becoming more and more accepted by society every day), war (just look at Africa), and drug use just to name a few. One could correctly state that they are thriving in these times without endorsing them. Lastly, how does the expectation of more examples of his support for Islam have any bearing on the inclusion or exclusion of information regarding this one? --SStaples 20:38, 26 February 2009 (EST)
Conservapedia has this to say about quotes taken out of context. --SStaples 09:02, 4 March 2009 (EST)

More religion

The intro states that Obama "chose not to use the Bible for his real, private oath." His first oath was also real. It was cited as being legally binding. It's misleading to call the second oath "real." Also, did he choose not to use a Bible, or did he just not use one? This is an important point. Anyone care to look into this and change it if necessary? Dantès 17:19, 2 March 2009 (EST)

Perhaps you think Obama's aides wouldn't let him use the Bible for his real, private oath??? Please. Obama could have easily used a Bible ... if he wanted to.--Andy Schlafly 22:01, 4 March 2009 (EST)
You've ignored my first point, which is that the first oath was also real, valid and legally binding. It's misleading and inaccurate to distinguish the second oath as "real," when the first one was equally so. But as to my second point, it's this kind of thing that prevents Conservapedia from becoming truly encyclopedic; writers are choosing to rely on their own logical deductions instead of verifiable sources. The sentence says Obama "chose not use" a Bible. The point is you don't know he chose not to use one. Maybe Roberts said they didn't need one. Maybe Obama didn't want to use one. Maybe the only Bible available was a Klingon translation. Who knows? But this article confidently states that he "chose not to" use a Bible without anything to back up that statement. This will never be "The Trustworthy Encyclopedia" if this kind of content is permitted. Dantès 11:46, 6 March 2009 (EST)
"Dantes", your rant is incoherent. There's no disputing that Obama "chose not to use" a Bible for his real, private oath. Note, by the way, that if the first oath was "real, valid and legally binding," then there would not have been a second oath. No kidding.--Andy Schlafly 12:44, 6 March 2009 (EST)
I agree with ASchlafly, it's not as if a Bible would have been hard to find, or as if the second oath was so urgent that there was no time to find one. And why is a second oath needed if the first one was 'real, valid and legally binding'? I doubt he did it for his own amusement: "Hey guys, that was fun, let's do it again!" ETrundel 14:13, 6 March 2009 (EST)
But that isn't the point. And Aschlafly, I'm sorry you couldn't understand my suggestion. But the fact that you don't like it doesn't make it a rant. I'll explain again, in simpler terms:
1) Obama didn't use a bible for his second oath.
2) It is possible, even likely, that he "chose not to use" a bible.
3) However, there is nothing to support the view that he "chose not to." There's no extant source to back this up
4) Therefore, this article is making a logical deduction
5) Encyclopedias do not deduce, speculate, assume or opinionate. They state proven facts
It doesn't matter if that is the only logical explanation. Without any proof, it's just speculation, regardless of how likely it is. Unless someone can supply a reputable source that says Obama chose not to use a bible, this is an assumption. That makes it biased. Saying "there's no disputing" something isn't the same as proving it.
As to the "real" oath, basic research indicates it was done out of a "superabundance of caution," not because it was legally necessary. See this article: http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5iJKZrJDhy6g52PZNb7phfFmsQVow A "seeker of truth" would know this, or at least try to find out. Dantès 14:52, 12 March 2009 (EDT)

Obama is likely the first Muslim President

Found yet another example. Muslim helps Obama get into Harvard.
"It was former Malcom X lawyer and New York City mayoral candidate Percy Sutton who inadvertently revealed how Obama could even afford to get into Harvard. In a New York television show entitled “Inside City Hall”, Sutton admitted that orthodox Muslim, Black Nationalist, and Black Panther mentor Dr. Khalid al-Mansour personally asked Sutton to help Obama get into Harvard." Barack Obama Couldn't Pass a Background Investigation In His Own Administration --jpatt 23:49, 3 March 2009 (EST)

Blogs are nice. But if you're going to use one as a source for this article, I would prefer they disclose their own sources so that those sources can be checked. Unfortunately, there was not a single link in the entire post. Maybe an actual video clip of the interview, or a coverage of the story by a news organization? --SStaples 01:00, 4 March 2009 (EST)
Dear comrad, you have the peoples names, you have the name of the show, are you mad it is not sourced further for you?-jpatt 01:13, 4 March 2009 (EST)
I'm not mad, though I am a little disappointed that not everyone here seems interested in pushing for greater quality. We are an internet encyclopedia, and as such are expected to provide credible outside sources for all our material. In any case, I took your advice and went looking for additional sources and found this coverage as well as this post. Note that, although both of these are internet blogs, they both provide material in the form of outside links to back up their discussion; the latter even does this with a video of the interview. Yes, the first one is from Media Matters, but it contains some good follow-up. If you're really interested in presenting the truth, more information always helps, even if it means having to dig around and analyze all of it before you figure out what exactly what the truth is. I hope these prove useful. --SStaples 08:23, 4 March 2009 (EST)
SStaples, now that you've overcome your initial denial and confirmed the accuracy of the statement, do yourself a favor and open your own mind further. Start recognizing that over half of what you see on television and learned in school is liberal deceit.--Andy Schlafly 22:05, 4 March 2009 (EST)
Andy, with respect, I never denied the accuracy of Jpatt's quotation. I merely wanted a better source so that both it and this article as a whole would be better supported. --SStaples 08:32, 5 March 2009 (EST)

Obama's Tax Cut Claims During the Campaign

I would like to add this text right before the "Campaign financing" secion:

During the campaign Obama repeatedly claimed he would “cut taxes for no less than 95% of "working families."”. The Wall Street Journal asked, “how does he conjure this miracle, especially since more than a third of all Americans already pay no income taxes at all?” [6] In truth, Obama was calling government handouts “tax credits” and counting those as tax cuts. The WSJ wondered why McCain “allowed Mr. Obama's 95% illusion to go unanswered”. Sjay 19:32, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
Good point. I just unlocked the page for you to insert info as you think best.--Andy Schlafly 19:48, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
I added this text. Thanks. Sjay 20:42, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

Obama & Che Guevara / Fidel Castro etc

I was surprised this page had such little about all the connections out there. Thus I have added the fact that his poster is taken to resemble Jim Fitzpatricks Che poster. Also during the campaign his workers were found with Cuban flags bearing the face of Marxist "hero" (puke) Che Guevara. I added this fact as well with a ref. thanks and Cuba Libre ! (free Cuba from Commie-nism) PaulRevere 20:18, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

Can an admin possibly help me add some images to the page. I want to add This one of Obamas campaign HQ, with a Cuban Che flag. just google it for more info. Someone also needs to add this brilliant image to the article, showing all of Obamas Commie pals. Story behind it here. Lastly I want to add this image I made to his political view section. thanks and Viva Conservatism! PaulRevere 20:24, 9 March 2009 (EDT)


This article is starting to look like nothing more than an abandoned campaign ad. Everett3 00:05, 16 March 2009 (EDT)

please be more specific? PaulRevere 00:22, 16 March 2009 (EDT)

Page should be unlocked

Right now it seems that registered users can't edit the article. Why is that? How do we expect to compete with the Communists at Wikipedia, if we ham string some of our best talent. Things are happening everyday, and our nation irks closer to disaster and Marxist takeover. This article should be our best one, and our most updated. Come on fellas, this is a war of ideas. PaulRevere 00:30, 16 March 2009 (EDT)

  • The reason that it is locked is comments like yours. Communists at Wikipedia? That is so over the top, it rounds the bend and meets up with the liberals wacky comments, PaulRevere. I will be happy to unlock it for you, so long as you read what it says at the bottom of the edit screen: "If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly, then do not submit it here." --₮K/Admin/Talk 00:42, 16 March 2009 (EDT)
With all due respect TK, I disagree on Wikipedia being communist infiltrated in many ways. Just read their Obama article compared to the one here. As for sources and added info, there is tons of good info at this article that I wanted to add. Basically Obama should be described right off the bat as a MARXIST, no if ands or butts about it. PaulRevere 00:47, 16 March 2009 (EDT)
Remember encyclopedia's do not use speculation or conjecture. While you and I might agree as to the plausibility of of many of the items in the article, the author's opinion, absent facts, is just that; the opinion of the author. I have unlocked the article. --₮K/Admin/Talk 00:55, 16 March 2009 (EDT)

Age template

I mentally calculated his age wrong, which is embarrassing for a math tutor! Anyway, I added an {{age}} template, so on August 4th he'll age one year. And the year after that another, and so on. --Ed Poor Talk 15:50, 21 March 2009 (EDT)

Ha ha. You're a genius, Ed!--Andy Schlafly 15:54, 21 March 2009 (EDT)
Not to boast, but the Template:Age which I created over at Wikipedia is in over 50,000 articles. It's hard to find a bio there which doesn't use it. --Ed Poor Talk 16:00, 21 March 2009 (EDT)

Referring to America in 3rd person?

"We may not get there in one year or even one term, but America - I have never been more hopeful than I am tonight that we will get there."- this is 1st person plural, surely? Sorry to nit pick, but it is on the front page after all. WillD 17:27, 21 March 2009 (EDT)

Damned if you do, damned if you don't

On the subject of his American flag lapel pin, the "Insights" section says that he ceased wearing one because it "presumably" would have hurt his relations with anti-military campaign donors. Then he starts to wear it again, and this is explained as being "likely" to do with political pandering. It sounds as if the author is determined to view every action Obama takes in a negative light. --Eoinc 10:58, 27 March 2009 (EDT)
  1. http://www.mensvogue.com/business/politics/feature/articles/2006/09/11/barack_obama
  2. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2008/12/23/obama-sworn-using-lincoln-bible/
  3. http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/in-obamas-own-words/
  4. http://www.mediabistro.com/fishbowlny/magazines/barack_obama_i_inhaled_that_was_the_point_46068.asp
  6. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122385651698727257.html