Talk:Barack Hussein Obama/archive8

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Obama clueless about American history

In introducing Sotomayor, he flubs the constitution being the paper written over 200 years ago, mistakenly says 20 centuries ago. Maybe Totus was thinking the other paper written 20 centuries ago, the Bible! Video Obama: Constitution written "20 centuries" ago

A much as I hate to say this, I think taht was simply a slip of the tongue nothing more, also sign your comments please--IScott 21:02, 7 June 2009 (EDT)
This really says more about you than about Obama, you're willing to think that a person with a Harvard education is below the line of mental retardation when it comes to History - US history in particular. It was a slip of the tongue, nothing more. If everytime Obama made a slip of the tongue you overreacted like this then you wouldn't be able to see the actual substance and be unable critisize his legislation or his political way. Really, grow up and stop looking for mistakes like that as it makes conservatives and you in particular look stupid and petty.

Unlock article?

Can this article be unlocked? ConservativeCanuck 15:22, 10 June 2009 (EDT)

Specifically I want to delete this

"# Contrary to Christianity, the Islamic doctrine of taqiyya encourages adherents to deny they are Muslim if it advances the cause of Islam. "

This doesn't offer any evidence of Obama being a Muslim. ConservativeCanuck 15:52, 10 June 2009 (EDT)

Actually, it does. For example, if this practice didn't exist, somebody might say, "Obama can't be a practicing muslim because a practicing muslim wouldn't deny Islam." The existence of this practice makes all of Obama's claims to Christianity irrelevant, because it proves he would make those assertions regardless of his actual religion. JDBowen 00:05, 11 July 2009 (EDT)
Actually, ConservativeCanuck has a point, it makes the facts sound like conspiracy theory when they're mixed up with terms like that thrown around. Taqiyya is solely a shi'ia muslim doctrine. Indonesia is Sunni muslim (actually the people the doctrine was created to hide from) and its not part of their teachings. He doesn't need a magical doctrine to just lie outright. -JMaker 11:58, 7 October 2009 (EDT)
Are you Christian? If you say yes, then that means you aren't Christian! I'm not (not) NOT Christian, which means absolutely nothing! boyiloveboys 15:08, Yesterday (BDSM)

Obama Received Aid as Foreign Student?

I've seen this reported in several places. Apparently, Obama (under the name "Barry Soetoro") received financial aid as "a foreign student from Indonesia." The mainstream media seems to have basically ignored this; does anyone know more about it? This would lend quite a bit of credence to those who question his American citizenship. [1] [2]

The Muslim Section

The call to prayer is very beautiful, one need not be a muslim to appreciate it.

"Obama declared in prepared remarks, "The United States has been enriched by Muslim Americans. Many other Americans have Muslims in their families or have lived in a Muslim-majority country - I know, because I am one of them" Anyone with the slightest amount of reading comprehension could see that he was referring to having muslim in his family (he does) and lliving in a Muslim-majority country (he did) Neither of these prove him to be a muslim.

"He has said that "Islam can be compatible with the modern world." That proves him to be a muslim? So if you don't muslims have to either convert or live in the stone age, you're must be a muslim yourself?

"Obama used his Muslim middle name when sworn in as President" I believe there's some requirement for using your middle name in the oath.

"Obama botched his public oath of office in which he placed his hand on a Bible, then chose not to use the Bible for his real, private oath." Did he use a Koran, where is anything Islamic found there. Perhaps he's just not a very devout christian, is that a problem?

"On the campaign trail, Obama was reading "The Post-American World" by Fareed Zakaria,[34] which is written from a Muslim point-of-view" Yes, Fareed Zakaria is a muslim, if one day, I turn on CNN and watch his show am I now a muslim? All of these prove not that Obama is a muslim, but that he simply isn't a anti-muslim fanatic and is open to all beliefs.

"Renegade" conventionally describes someone who goes against normal conventions of behavior" It's absurd to think he was using the conventional use?

"Obama stated that the autobiography of Malcolm X, a Nation of Islam leader who became a Muslim, inspired him in his youth." Malcolm X has inspired millions for his activity in the civil rights movement. The Nation of Islam was a radical group, but I can understand radicalism in the face of what had been done to african-americans at the time. Malcolm X left the group because he disagreed with their radical views. I fail to see how seeing him as an inspiration makes someone a muslim. I'm jewish, I'm inspired by Martin Luther King, that makes me a christian?

I could go on on and on, but I won't. Aside from all of this, what if he is muslim? Are muslims not allowed to be president? Can a muslim child not dream to one day be president just like every other kid? --Redsox70707 16:04, 22 June 2009 (EDT)

Well, it is an open question, IMO, or should be. The open question about his place of birth is another. The Koran actually calls for the use of deceit and violence against those who do not accept it 100%. That, in and of itself gives one pause. --ṬK/Admin/Talk 19:13, 22 June 2009 (EDT)
I will add that since Israelis were prominent in U.S. politics circa '70's, from that time forward Muslim American's began to be heavily invested thanks to Middle East states such as Saudi Arabia, U.A.E., Kuwait. Their ultimate goal was to get Muslims into U.S. politics. Today are the fruits from that investment, Illinois's Barack Obama and Keith Ellis. Chicago has over 400 Mosques, some capacity over 1,000. Home to Muslim Farrakhan, U.S. Muslim Brotherhood ties, big Saudi charities, Fundraising for dead Palestine suicide bombers. Obama bows out of great thanks and respect for the King.--Jpatt 19:24, 22 June 2009 (EDT)
Keith Ellis is from Minnesota not Illinois. Neither Keith Ellis or Barack Obama received donations from Middle Eastern countries.--Redsox70707 00:19, 1 July 2009 (EDT)--Redsox70707 00:19, 1 July 2009 (EDT)
Then why is he keeping his campaign donations secret? Answer: they are coming from compromised foreign Muslim sources.MikeMike 15:15, 2 July 2009 (EDT)

I fail to see how it is relevant that President Obama may or may not be of the muslum faith. If he came out and said that he was muslum, then you could put that as his faith, but it is not important enough to have an entire section about

Article in disrepair

Please, we need to either unlock the article or the moderators need to be responsive to the talk page. The frequency of updates is embarrassing for such a high value article. Several sections need to be cleaned up, which is too tedious for just a handful of administrators. This man is destroying our country and we are not keeping up. If we do this right, we can become one of the best repositories of Obama scandals and transgressions, but we have to be at least current.

Now as far as specific content, I'd like to expand on the Ayres ghost writing Dreams From My Father. Jack Cashill updated his argument two days ago (, and frankly, I think is proven well enough to warrant sufficient detail in the article. I'd propose a paragraph here on the talk page, but I feel it may be ignored like my last suggestion. MikeMike 11:46, 30 June 2009 (EDT)

Here is the other proposal I had. I suggest the following paragraph be added to the end of the section "Obama and Elitism":
Obama clearly exhibited his elitism on his May 5, 2009 limousine trip to Ray's Hell Burger in Arlington, VA.<re.f></ref> Intended to showcase a connection to the ways of common Americans, Obama instead struggled to compose his order, finally settling on a cheeseburger with fancy Grey Poupon french mustard. This combination is rare among those who frequent burger joints in the United States, demonstrating Obama's lack of familiarity with U. S. culture and lack of American upbringing. Naturally, the liberal media abetted Obama by covering this up during their doting coverage <r.ef></ref>, in which he purchased burgers for liberal reporters.<r.ef></ref>
(I broke the ref tags so it would be easier to copy and paste.) There are a lot of ways to attack him, but roughly since the election, little is making its way into the article. The time for mourning is over; now we catalog! MikeMike 11:52, 30 June 2009 (EDT)
  • Fancy French mustard? Are you being serious? I have been to a place in Madison, Wisconsin that has a "Dijon Burger". And the area is known for its sausages, Brats, and most places routinely offer that kind of mustard. Granted Madison is a bastion of fuzzy liberal thinking, but still... And your statement about their being "lots of ways to attack him" is totally out of place here. We are an encyclopedia, and therefore do not "attack". If you, or anyone, want to think adding facts is the same as attacking, that is just clap-trap. Your Grey Poupon suggestion smacks of disingenuous mischief. --ṬK/Admin/Talk 14:35, 30 June 2009 (EDT)
The best criticism of Obama you can think of, is he isn't familiar with American burger joints? I personally find the average burger joint greasy and disgusting (and usually trayf), that doesn't mean I'm un-American.--Redsox70707 00:06, 1 July 2009 (EDT)

First, thanks for following up with me. The reason my proposal is not "disingenuous mischief" is that it is not my creation. As I linked, the criticism comes from reputable sources like Sean Hannity, as well as Ingraham, Limbaugh and many others I forget. Also, and very importantly, it is not merely about mustard but about the media fawning over him (see the legal insurrection link). It is popular conservative discussion. Thus, if we are to have a section on elitism, and given the solid sources, it merits discussion. If it then does not make it in, or we decide that the Elitism section for some reason is not justified (I would object), then I will accept. Another point I was to argue is about the attack. Conservapedia does not have to be the attacker, but it should help the reader to formulate an attack. The best niche for our 'pedia is to be where conservatives go to help develop an attack on a liberal or anti-American position. If someone wants to show Obama is an elitist, he can come to the Elitism section, follow the links and choose which arguments to make. And if he wants to prove Obama's a Muslim, he can ignore Elitism completely. On the other hand, if we just want to be a synopsis facts without direction, we are competing with Google and Wikipedia. It thus helps to include as many attacks as possible as long as they are vetted. Maybe I'm wrong or in the minority. And BTW, River Falls.MikeMike 15:07, 2 July 2009 (EDT)

Table of Contents

Seeing as so many people find the position to be a problem, and more importantly that moving the ToC up would bury important information on Obamas muslim faith, could we include the ToC into the muslim "faith" section, as a side colum perhaps? Just a suggestion --IScott 21:47, 1 July 2009 (EDT)

I like that. How about the following: Make "Religion: Described in the article" link to the relevant section(s), shorten the intro and integrate many of the details into the body or into new sections, then bring up the ToC. That way, the ToC is early, but the Muslim section is not push very far down. (Note that one of my criticisms tacitly in mind above is that the intro section rambles and the TOC is not first.) MikeMike 15:12, 2 July 2009 (EDT)
The article in general is ordered in a completely bizarre fashion. Regardless of how important the list of facts linking Obama to Islam is, it's way to long to preempt the table of contents, which is stuck around the end of page two as it is. Is isn't that the question of Obama's faith isn't an important one, because it is; it's just that the list of facts - many of which even I would admit are pretty tangential - don't constitute an important portion of Obama's brief bio, which is what normally goes above the TOC. Toss a reference to the controversy over his faith into the intro, then bury the list of facts (I might be biased against them because they're sort of ugly) somewhere in the article, parallel to where faith is talked about in the articles about other famous people. Perhaps, due to its contentious nature, spin it off into its own article, where it can grow into a more encyclopedic format. There's also a bunch of random criticisms and negative observations which, while appropriate for the article, are scattered sort of hodgepodge. The second most important biographical fact about Obama is not that his aunt is living in the United States illegally. Note that I'm -not- saying that it's not an important fact, it's just not a basic fact about Obama. Regardless of what he gets from the MSM, he doesn't deserve any sort of special treatment from CP. His article should be formatted in the same order as anybody else's, with random controversies and criticisms going into a controversies and criticisms section, in their own articles, or woven into sections of the biography where they are -directly- relevant. Given the number of sort of disconnected criticisms (like the "statements" section, which is great to read, but sort of unsituated), I really think a separate page for miscellaneous controversies and criticisms is warranted.DaveB7 16:16, 3 July 2009 (EDT)

Pakistani pronounciation

"Obama uses the Muslim Pakistani pronunciation for "Pakistan" rather than the common American one." I don't see this as relevant evidence of anything, you gonna call World War II veterans french because they correctly pronounce Bastogne?

Typical of liberal deflection, moral equivalence. Open your mind. It will indeed set you free. --ṬK/Admin/Talk 18:30, 8 July 2009 (EDT)
Set me free? Sounds more like it will make me angry and make me start hating everybody that doesn't think the same thing as me.
Seems to me you already are, posting anonymously, not owning what you post. Godspeed to you! --ṬK/Admin/Talk 20:05, 10 July 2009 (EDT)

I agree with the anonymous poster, using the correct pronunciation of a word is not evidence of someone's religion. Are foreign (non-Christian) leaders that know how to pronounce America like a native born American accused of being Christian? These kind of obviously biased statements were what Conservapedia was created to get rid of, isn't it?

Updating a link

Earlier tonight, somebody mentioned the reference link was broken, and suggested we remove that content. I snapped at him, for suggesting to remove that content, but it turns out the link actually is broken. I did a simple google search for the quote, and found hundreds of sources. Here's a few of the working links:

Can we replace the current reference 22 with this reference? JDBowen 17:21, 11 July 2009 (EDT)

I've unlocked it for you to update the link. Please edit in a constructive manner.--Andy Schlafly 10:20, 11 July 2009 (EDT)
I would like to point out that the user who pointed out the broken link was blocked infinitely for pointing it out. InnocenceIntent 11:19, 11 July 2009 (EDT)
The reason provided for the block does not support your comment, and the user name chosen by the blocked user was ridiculous. But you want to spend your time as an advocate for that blocked user who has not made a single substantive edit, then please take it up with TK. Thanks and Godspeed.--Andy Schlafly 11:23, 11 July 2009 (EDT)
I hate to disagree, and if the block was based on his name I am, but the only edits he made were to this page, about the broken link. InnocenceIntent 11:25, 11 July 2009 (EDT)

Godspeed to you. I see you were previously blocked, or at least I intended to, because I deleted your user page:

22:41, 12 April 2009 TK deleted "User:InnocenceIntent" ‎ (Troublemaker/Troll)

Obviously I judged your intent not too innocent before, and your past edits show obvious trolling, including reverting an Admin:

  1. 22:25, 12 April 2009 (hist) (diff) ACLU ‎ (Undo revision 652421 by Jpatt (Talk) My original revision was undone by patt due to a personal bias by the user.)
  2. 22:18, 12 April 2009 (hist) (diff) ACLU ‎ (adding information about how the ACLU has fought for Christians.)

And I can now see why, again, since you didn't do what Aschlafly said to, and posted here again, rather than contacting me. Such actions (the reason(s) for so doing) are immediately obvious to those of us who have been around here for a while. --ṬK/Admin/Talk 15:34, 11 July 2009 (EDT)

Andy, thank you for unlocking the page - I fixed the broken link, so if you'd like to re-lock, it should be fine now. I'm going to go ahead and check all the other links on the page, and if they're not working, find replacements. If I find anything, I'll post here. JDBowen 17:20, 11 July 2009 (EDT)

Many Broken Links

OK, this deserves its own section. There are many broken reference links, which I'm trying to find replacements for.

5, first link, doesn't seem to be working for me, but it might just be me. This link: would provide a reference for the same statement.

9 is broken, the page no longer exists. This link: would provide a reference for the same statement.

12 is broken, the page no longer exists. This link: would provie a reference for the same statement.

19 has the same link listed twice. Nothing wrong with that, but it seems kind of sloppy to me.

Reference (23) is broken, the page no longer exists. This is my fault, since I just added it, but (22) is just fine as a single reference. So we can eliminate this broken link without replacement, especially for a statement that returns as many google hits as this one does.

Reference (26) is broken. This is a toughie - most online references are copy-paste of the Wikipedia article, which itself sites these books:

A Brief History of The Fourteen Infallibles. Qum: Ansariyan Publications. 2004.
l-Qarashi, Baqir Shareef (2007). The life of Imam Husain. Qum: Ansariyan Publications.

I don't have these books, and I haven't read them, so I don't know if they back up the reference.

Reference (28) links to a video which, by the decription provided by the uploader, attempts to discredit the quote being referenced. A shorter video which arrives at the quote in question faster is

Reference (49) redirects to the blog's main page, and blog does not have a search feature. Regardless of whether link is broken or not, we should replace with which is more to the point.

References (56) and (57) are the same link, we can delete one for neatness.

Reference (61) isn't even a reference. Suggest instead using

References (72), (73), and (75) are all broken. Suggest replacing all three with

Reference (89) is broken, but we can just link to Conservapedia's own Atheism and Uncharitableness.

Reference (91) is broken, suggest replacement with

References (97), (98), and (100) are broken. These were the same as (72), (73), (75), so we should have a single reference and have all 6 of these citations be to this one article.

Reference (115) is broken, replace with

Reference (128) is broken, suggest replacement with and rewrite of sentence which cites this reference.

References (129) and (130) are identical, suggest we delete one for neatness.

Reference (132) is broken, but will be difficult to replace. Citation is a direct reference to the reference and the authors of the reference. I'll work on this.

Reference (140) is broken, replace with

(150) is broken, replace with

(152-154, 158) each have two identical links, delete one each for neatness.

(163) isn't a reference, but maybe Andy has the review procedures lying around so we can cite them?

(171) Access denied - we shouldn't cite references that require subscriptions. Suggest for same content, by Limbaugh.

(182) is broken, replace with

(184) is broken, replace with

Suggest rewrite of last two paragraphs of "Politcal Views" section, to reflect his election and change "current president" to "George W. Bush"

(187-189) are broken, I'm still working on replacements.

(190) is broken, replace with

(191) has two identical links, delete one for neatness

(201) is broken, replace with

(203) is broken, replace with,2933,370529,00.html?loomia_ow=t0:s0:a16:g12:r1:c0.487981:b25437592:z0

(209) is broken, replace with

(215) and (217) are broken, replace both with

JDBowen 18:20, 11 July 2009 (EDT)

That should be everything, though I might have missed something. Since it appears I can still edit the Obama page, I'm gonna go ahead and start this. JDBowen 18:45, 11 July 2009 (EDT)

We should lock this article again, it's being vandalized already. I'll just copy the source into a word document, make the necessary changes, and alert a sysop when it's ready to go up. JDBowen 18:51, 11 July 2009 (EDT)
Thanks for identifying the broken links, but why not simply fix it directly? The entry is unprotected.--Andy Schlafly 19:45, 11 July 2009 (EDT)
Great work! I wonder why you deleted this, however: "After one debate against Hillary Clinton in Philadelphia, the Obama campaign announced that the questions were too difficult and that Obama would not agree to future debates with her."--Andy Schlafly 21:52, 11 July 2009 (EDT)
The source for that was missing, and I found a new link which supported the relevant statement in the article, but not that addendum in the references. The new reference I found does not make that statement verbatim, although, it's basically implied - I'll continue to look for a reference for that sentence. JDBowen 21:59, 11 July 2009 (EDT)
I have been looking, and I can't find a source for this statement. I've re-added it with a citation needed. JDBowen 23:12, 11 July 2009 (EDT)

Can someone insert this?

My browser can't handle editing the page, can someone insert this under 'Election': In the weeks leading up to the election, Obama's staff worked to delay investigations by the Justice Department into allegations of voter fraud committed by ACORN, Obama's former employer. In this way, hundreds of thousands, if not many more, votes may have been overcounted. [1] --JDelaney 21:28, 12 July 2009 (EDT)

The link checks out, content's relevant, I added this material to the election section, but maybe it might be better placed in presidential campaign? Dunno. JDBowen 21:35, 12 July 2009 (EDT)
Thanks, Mr. JDBowen! It may be better there; but I think that, since more people look at this page, it may be okay here, too. Whatever you decide, I'm just happy it's out here! --JDelaney 21:45, 12 July 2009 (EDT)

liberal vandalism: mulatto

While an accurate statement, it may be a derogatory slang (mule-like). User remains blocked for disobeying sysop, lying. Remove--Jpatt 00:34, 14 July 2009 (EDT)

Um... yeah, it's extremely derogatory and it's still up. We might as well call him.. well, n******. I see you have the last edit, so I won't remove it - but is that an accident that it's still up? Can we please take that down? JacobB 09:40, 14 July 2009 (EDT)
It's obvious liberal vandalism, JacobB, and you could have fixed it directly yourself. Please do fix vandalism directly in the future as that is more efficient. Thanks and Godspeed.--Andy Schlafly 10:15, 14 July 2009 (EDT)
how is that liberal vandalism? obama's a democrat!

Animal rights

In an article entitled "Does President-Elect Obama Bring Hope for Animals?" PETA quotes Obama as saying,

"I think how we treat our animals reflects how we treat each other. And it's very important that we have a president who is mindful of the cruelty that is perpetrated on animals." [2]

Interesting. Wikipedia reports in its Animal Rights article,

"On November 24, 1933, the ...animal protection law, was introduced, with Adolf Hitler announcing an end to animal cruelty: ..."In the new Reich, no more animal cruelty will be allowed." [3]

Himmler likewise is famous for preaching kindness to animals p.2

Perhpas this area needs more study. Rob Smith 12:17, 23 July 2009 (EDT)

Great find! This is absolutely chilling. May God help us.Patriot1505 13:48, 23 July 2009 (EDT)

while this is chilling and ironic....... it doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. Saksjn 15:28, 28 October 2009 (EDT)


Now that he have absolute proof that Obama was born in Kenya, can we change his place of birth ot Kenya? An image of the REAL Kenyan certificate was posted on the mainpage! Thanks!--IScott 13:42, 3 August 2009 (EDT)

  • No. A news report, of such a certificate submitted to the U.S. District Court, is just that, a report, not a fact. Some of the other information, in the Main Page News section, about Obama's failure to disclose other information, if not already there, will be added. If and when the purported birth certificate is authenticated, we certainly will add that in! As for now, the article reads, as it always has, factually...his actual place of birth is open to question. --ṬK/Admin/Talk 14:00, 3 August 2009 (EDT)

George Obama article for upcoming content of CP Obama article

George Obama article for upcoming content of CP Obama article: conservative 13:42, 20 August 2009 (EDT)

Excellent work. And long overdue. Much of this material is available, it just need to consolidate in one place. ty Rob Smith 14:27, 20 August 2009 (EDT)


I applaud the men and women who have edited this article since the start of August! I cannot believe how much this evil man has done and tried to do in less than a month! Great job on revealing the lies and evil that surround this crook!--IScott 09:32, 24 August 2009 (EDT)

Soetoro citation flaws

The reference in the article's introduction to Obama's former/current(?) name of "Barry Soetoro" is sourced only to a short article on Pravda (RU). The first issue I take with this is the fact that the article itself does not concern Obama's/"Soetoro"'s true name, and doesn't seem to draw on any evidence regarding such, either. While, yes, the articles title is "Barry Soetoro aka Barack Obama vs World Leaders", the only mention within the article is that "no one knows his real name" - yet the article's title seems to assert that Pravda (possibly as part of a larger movement) does, in fact, know just that.

Secondly, the article's overall professionalism and coherence is in doubt. Note the claim that America is "a Nation under the control of mob rule." (Be aware of the false capitalization, also - a classic sign of non-intellect, mind you). Now, Conservapedia defines mob rule as "the rule by a group of people unrestrained by any meaningful principles". Now, this seems an odd thing for Conservapedia to grant audience to, as this Obama article makes it quite clear that Obama/"Soetoro" has principles, immoral and anti-American has they may be, they remain principles (much as one may say atrocious actions make the perpetrator inhuman, but this allegation does not affect their biological status as a human).

So the point must be made that either Obama/"Soetoro" is a dictator (the homepage often makes that viewpoint quite clear) or America is under the rule of the people. It can not be both, without delving into figurative speaking.

So I ask, given all these flaws in logic, argument, sentiment, and general intelligence on the subject, why is this article given what amounts to top-billing on this prominent Conservative site, when it does little, if anything, to back-up the point? I imagine other editors out there have brought this up before, and I'm curious what consensus or reasoning, if any, was reached on the issue. Thank you for your time. MICasey 07:29, 7 September 2009 (EDT)

Not only does Pravda state no one knows his real name, it also states no one knows where he's from. Then it raises the issue, if he is indeed barred from holding office of president, do foreign agreements and treaties he signs have the force of law? While this issue is being discussed elsewhere in the world, it hasn't been considered in the United States at all. Rob Smith 22:03, 8 September 2009 (EDT)
Perhaps I wasn't very clear there. I'm aware of the related cover-up regarding Obama/Soetoro's origin, but the problem lies with the citation itself (however, if you wish to improve the page by elaborating on the "origin" controversy as well, be my guest). I found it odd that such a scatter-shot, incoherent source article (from Pravda) was used to make this point.
Basically, if the Pravda article states that no one knows his real name, why is it used as a citation for the name of "Barry Soetoro"? Surely there is a source out there which details the methods by which the "Barry Soetoro" name was discovered in the first place. The only mention of it within the Pravda article is in the title.

MICasey 23:38, 10 September 2009 (EDT)

Interesting point. Can you suggest any other sources?
Oh, and this recalls the old Soviet era joke about censorship in the two soviet communist official daily publications, "there is no Pravda in Izvestia and no Izvestia in Pravda" (there is no Truth in the News and no News in the Truth). But that was when both were openly commie rags. Let's give Glasnost a chance. Rob Smith 01:18, 11 September 2009 (EDT)
Well, that's the problem. The only sources I can find are blogs - but even the most detailed ones only go so far as to say (and I'm paraphrasing here) "Barry Soetoro was Barack Obama's name in Indonesia", but again, these don't provide any documentation/interviews/quotes whatsoever. I'm afraid I tend to focus more on the man's policy than the controversies surrounding him - and I am, for the most part, willing to accept whatever good or bad comes along with such tunnel vision. So it's quite appalling that debates so rancorous turn out to be so hollow (perhaps the noise is product of the echo). Besides, if this "Soetoro" thing is true, I'd like to think that their was more discourse about how and why to include it in a biographical encyclopedia entry on BHO than someone doing a Google search and picking the first article with "Soetoro" in the title. MICasey 11:00, 11 September 2009 (EDT)
Pravda is not a blog, in fact, Pravda has quite a long history and reputation as a mouth piece abnd critic of the United States. We are simply reporting what traditional critics of U.S. political system, society, and culture are saying. Rob Smith 13:24, 11 September 2009 (EDT)
I wasn't referring to Pravda when I mentioned blogs. I was referring to the sources I was able to find which did deal with the Soetoro name in the actual text of the article, which, as I said, even then were merely mentions of it rather than proof. If you can provide a source which proves the name, rather than mentioning it, you will have made a happy editor out of me. MICasey 08:56, 12 September 2009 (EDT)
Ok, I see your reasoning now. If you can cite a source that proves George W. Bush lied about WMD rather than just mentioning it, you'd make a happy camper of me. too. Rob Smith 18:27, 12 September 2009 (EDT)
Oh, come on. I'm not trying to disprove the claim, and I know you're smart enough to have figured that out. I just want CP readers to have direct, streamlined access to the facts. And I wouldn't claim that Bush lied, anyway. MICasey 21:39, 12 September 2009 (EDT)

His Excellency the President of the United States and Her Majesty the Queen

I will propose that you revist this statement: "At the G20 summit in April 2009, Obama bowed deeply to Saudi King Abdullah, a Muslim who is also the Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques.[135] Never before in the history of the U.S. has a president displayed such shocking deference to a foreign official and Obama has not bowed to any other royal leaders. Obama later stated, "We have to change our behavior in showing the Muslim world greater respect."[136] Obama's spin doctors and left-wing apologists dismissed the obviousness of the bow. One anonymous aide stated, "It wasn't a bow. He grasped his hand with two hands, and he's taller than King Abdullah."[137] However, in video of the incident, Obama's left hand can clearly be seen staying at his side until after he had finished his bow.[138] Additionally, Obama also met with Queen Elizabeth, who is much shorter than King Abdullah, but he did not bow when he shook her hand and neither he nor the queen appeared to have any difficulty." and view this video: Here, you will see that His Excellency the Honourable Barack Obama bow twice to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second of the United Kingdom, and once to His Royal Highness the Prince Phillip.

Funds from undisclosed sources?

Near the very beginning of the article, it states that Obama's campaign spent $700 million dollars, most of which was came from undisclosed donors. This information is cited. The source that this information came from actually shows that most of his funds did come from disclosed donors. I corrected this error, but it was reverted, and the reverter says the edit and sources should be discussed. Can we agree that the source ( shows that over half of his money came from disclosed donors so that this bit of misinformation can be corrected? Chris3145 00:47, 23 September 2009 (EDT)

Your cite does not support your claim. If you have a cite that provides disclosure for the identity of most of Obama's contributions, then post a link to it. You haven't done that, so the entry stays as is.--Andy Schlafly 12:57, 23 September 2009 (EDT)
Check the above link again. My citation (which I got from the article, so it is Conservapedia's citation as well) very clearly shows that most of Obama's funds came from disclosed sources. Scroll down to where it says "How complete are this candidate's campaign finance reports?" to see that he gave full disclosure on $378,216,383 of funds, which amounts to 90.2% of funds from sources on which data is collected -- those that contribute $200 or more. Again, I got this source from Obama's article here on Conservapedia. Chris3145 16:17, 23 September 2009 (EDT)
I checked your cite again, and my conclusion remains the same. "Full disclosure" presumably means all that the law requires, which often is not the identity of the donor. The opinion that you rely on is unsupported. Conservapedia did not cite that source for the point you raise.
Nevertheless, in response to your point, I've improved the statement in the entry and added a quotation and citation to support it.--Andy Schlafly 16:50, 23 September 2009 (EDT)
Description of full disclosure from the website: "FULL DISCLOSURE: Includes full name and occupation / employer." This would be a statistic that is objective, observable, recordable, making it a fact. If the source is valid for some facts but not others that seems like some pretty strict cherry picking. Even in the source you provide there isn't even evidence that "much" of the funds came from undisclosed or fraudulent sources: the few examples provided would constitute an incredibly small portion of Obama's funds. I would guess most presidential candidates, with or without knowing it, have recieved money from sources that gave false names or addresses. While the statement in the article now still doesn't seem appropriately relevant or supported, it is an improvement over the blatant falsehood previously used. Others should investigate this to bring this article up to trustworthy standards. Chris3145 21:05, 23 September 2009 (EDT)

Liberals and Uncharitableness, Liberal Politicians and Uncharitableness sections

There are two sections in the Obama's article about Liberals and Uncharitableness and Liberal Politicians and Uncharitableness. While this information is worth reading, these two sections are not really about Obama at all, and don't seem appropriate to include in the article in this manner. Both of these sections are summaries of articles on the given topics here on Conservapedia, and link to those articles. The sections themselves do not refer to Obama at all (only liberals -- or liberal politicians -- in general), and shouldn't be included in Obama's article unless we plan on adding the same sections to every page about liberals. It seems the best way to include this would be as links to those articles at the end of the section about Obama's uncharitableness -- as in "See also: Liberals and Uncharitableness, Liberal Politicians and Uncharitableness" sentence at the end of the descriptions of Obama's uncharitableness. Chris3145 14:13, 2 October 2009 (EDT)

Nobel Peace Prize

Maybe Obama being one of the few presidents to win the Nobel Peace Prize should be noted in the introduction of the article.--AFM 18:25, 14 October 2009 (EDT)

There is an existing category 'Nobel laureates in Peace', to which Obama should be added. ChrisFV 14:27, 3 November 2009 (EST)

Minor fix

Under the section "Obama is likely the first Muslim President," there is a wikilink to "Barack Obama," which redirects back to "Barack Hussein Obama." There is another wikilink to "Barack Obama" under the section "Primary election (2004)." These should both be delinked. -CSGuy 13:25, 18 October 2009 (EDT)

Also under Michelle Obama's 540 dollar shoes article, the word at the end of the quote is spelled "by" it should be "buy". -Mwagner24

really guys?

as much as i can't stand the man and thank he's a communist traitor to our country....... this article is a freaking hack job! its embarrassing. We're conservatives, we can do better than this! Saksjn 15:25, 28 October 2009 (EDT)

Have you read Wikiality's United Socialist States of America? Looks inspirational. Rob Smith 21:56, 28 October 2009 (EDT)

its called satire. let me ask you. are we an encyclopedia? or a political site? Saksjn 14:05, 29 October 2009 (EDT)

Your own contributions have not been particularly substantive or enlightening. How about doing some edits of value, as in something related to the Bible??--Andy Schlafly 17:04, 29 October 2009 (EDT)

Your point is? Because you've made more edits your somehow more enlightened and worthy enough to discount my opinions? I'm a conservative like all of you. I, like you, can't stand the man and is scared to death by what he could do to our great country... but unlike you, I have a desire to accurately and fairly represent the man. The truth, will be so much more damaging to Obama than any hack job out there. They'res a lot of truth here...... but also a lot of crap. Theres no need to attack each other here. By the way, I have done some rather constructive work on here. I've just been so busy lately I can't get on here much. Saksjn 21:44, 29 October 2009 (EDT)

Saksjn, your edits have been pathetic here. Talk, talk, talk, and you occasionally sprinkle in an edit about ... an obscure rock band. You say you like Wikipedia and it's easy to see why. That's why we're not trying to imitate Wikipedia. Try something of substance, if you're up to it: the Bible.--Andy Schlafly 23:12, 29 October 2009 (EDT)
Andy, must you really attack me as a person. I haven't edited the Bible's article because its a well written article that I haven't found places where I can add to it. Saksjn 19:43, 2 November 2009 (EST)
Saskjn, that's how he rolls. Accept it or go somewhere else. PeterF 19:47, 2 November 2009 (EST)
Saskjn, I didn't attack you "as a person"; I evaluated your edits. Surely you don't think that should be off-limits. Do you think every student should get an "A", that every politician should be reelected, that every business should be bailed out? Of course not; we should evaluate edits on a wiki, and be candid about their quality.
As to your other point, please take no offense (I'm being as gingerly as possible), how does one know if the Bible is well written if he doesn't read it regularly??? Food for thought for an open-minded.--Andy Schlafly 20:10, 2 November 2009 (EST)
On a side note—not addressing the argument at hand—the Bible article here is extremely well written and well cited. One of the best references on the internet, in my opinion. I think that's what Saskjn was referring to. --Jeffrey W. LauttamusDiscussion 20:20, 2 November 2009 (EST)

If your implying that I don't read the Bible on a regular basis you'd be wrong. And yes, I agree that my edits are not off limits. Realize I haven't edited the wikis in a good while and am just getting back on so you won't find much recent work. I have enough on my hands at wikipedia trying to defend conservative values there to get on here a lot. And just for the record, while my work on the Switchfoot is not substantial at all, (only one edit I believe) the band is a major band and isn't just some obscure rock band. Go to your church and ask any teenager or 20 year old who they are and they'll know. Ask anyone one 30 and up and they'll probably know. Ask anyone young person on the street thats unchurched and they'll probably know who they are too. But that's beyond the point, were here to write good articles right? (I know that last sentence was bad grammar) So lets discuss and write good articles. I spend a lot of time on talk pages because that's where most of the work really gets done. Major edits should never be made without discussion unless the article is a new article or is being expanded. I, as a conservative, want an accurate portrayal of this traitor. I feel that an accurate portrayal will be far more damaging to the man than the one we currently have on here right now. We're on the same team Andy. Jefferey's right, the reason I don't see anywhere to add to the Bible article is because it is already a well written article. Now if I was a Bible scholar I'm sure I'd find something to edit, but as it is I'm only a young missionary kid (18) that is currently going through his own missionary training school. While my knowledge of the Bible is definitely higher than most church goers, I'm not a scholar, so I won't act like one. Saksjn 21:39, 2 November 2009 (EST)

Wow, a lot of words there, Saksjn. How about this: let's do some substantive edits on a variety of entries, and go from there?--Andy Schlafly 22:09, 2 November 2009 (EST)
Your really not here to discuss anything are you? Glad to know you feel your a part of the elite aristocracy that only certain editors such as yourself can be apart of. Saksjn 13:40, 3 November 2009 (EST)


The stuff about charity in the "Barack Obama and Liberal Elitism" section on this page is exactly same as the entire contents of Barack Obama and uncharitableness which is linked to from the section. Can I suggest either deleting the separate article, or removing the stuff on charity from this article (or perhaps summarising it only) and providing a link to the more specific article? EJHall 19:06, 7 November 2009 (EST)

Slightly over the top perhaps?

I cannot help that feel that the content of this article is just a little over the top with the level of content devoted to criticizing President Obama, both personally and politically. Now I realise that, given the nature of this site there is of course going to be quite a large amount of criticizm towards Barack Obama, but the sheer bulk of this article being devoted to trashing him, undermining his policies and generally not being very nice to the man just makes it all seem rather petty.

Is it possible that the article, or at least parts of it, could be rewritten so that less of it is devoted to giving entirely negative information? I believe doing so would make the article more respectable and academic in nature. --Ryan McLaughlin 15:38, 8 November 2009 (EST)

This site strives to be factual, forthright, and free of liberal bias. Do you have a specific issue in mind?--Andy Schlafly 15:41, 8 November 2009 (EST)
A good example of a section which could be rewritten to provide a more NPOV is the information given on Barack Obama's presidency. The entirety of the content in this section is perhaps slightly too bias. I understand the need to provide accurate and honest information on the flaws of the Obama Administration, but reading this part of the article it just seems like disorganised critisizm. Only one part of this section is directly relevant to Obama's presidency, and that is information on the health care reform disinformation scandal.

This section could be devoted to far more important information than whether or not Barack Obama is a Muslim, or what enemies he has gained since becoming President. These could be included in other articles, or even elsewhere in the article, but surely changes to domestic and foreign policy, and how President Obama is managing the economic crisis should be present in this section, as they are directly relevant to his actions since coming to power.

Thoughts? --Ryan McLaughlin 16:03, 8 November 2009 (EST)

Middle name usage

There's an edit I'd like to make, but I suspect it will be quickly reverted, so I'm initiating a discussion first.

My issue is with putting Barack HUSSEIN Obama in the blue banner atop the article. It seems clear that this is done because of unsavoury associations with that name. I say this because the bulk of other articles on presidents (and the index - do not put their middle name in the top banner unless it was how they were generally known (William Henry Harrison, for example). I suggest that the Hussein be removed from the top banner, or every president's middle name should be displayed.

I imagine this debate has occurred before though. Is there any editorial rationale for including Obama's middle name in the banner, but not other presidents? Montecristo 11:34, 9 November 2009 (EST)

It's difficult to prove anything when you're fighting a cover up created by the "President". Of course there's no total proof, but there is plenty of evidence. If you looked at the actual page, that would become quite evident to even a closed-minded liberal. But the original point made up top actually shows that we should keep the middle name, as "Hussein", like "Harrison" is generally known. MichaelZ 18:19, 13 November 2009 (EST)
Ronald Wilson Reagan. Nuff said. Jinx McHue 18:24, 13 November 2009 (EST)

Nobel Prize

Why is there no mention of his Nobel Prize here? It's a major news story and a divisive issue. EMorrissey 13:48, 13 November 2009 (EST)

It says more about the Nobel Prize than about Obama, so you can find info about it in Nobel Prize.--Andy Schlafly 13:53, 13 November 2009 (EST)
That's really just editorializing though. It's still relevant to the article. If you feel the prize was undeserved, you can cite sources who say so (there are plenty). But leaving it out altogether does take away from CP's "trustworthiness" - it makes CP editors appear behind the times and if information is left out, people will go to other sources for their information.EMorrissey 14:07, 13 November 2009 (EST)

Serious Problems with the Article

Hi there, I am a conservative who was delighted to find this website; I am quite of the opinion that the internet needs something like this to counteract Wikipedia's liberal bias! That said, I simply had to register and comment when I read this - this article on Barack Obama is downright embarrassing to our cause and is in need of major reorganization. When writing an article (particularly this one, which is likely to be the first page that someone just stumbling across Conservapedia looks at), it is important to think about how it looks from the perspective of an average person. They have perhaps not been exposed to many of the legitimate criticisms of Mr. Obama that this page highlights right now, and may be quite open to being enlightened. However, the article's organization, as it stands now, is simply not conducive to convincing someone in the middle of the road of our honesty and truthfulness. With section titles such as "Obamunism", "Health Care disinformation" and "Barack Obama and Liberal Elitism", the page absolutely screams 'biased' (as true as all the claims are) to a casual reader looking at the Table of Contents. Furthermore, the odd structure of the article ("ACORN" being the first section, "Obamnunism" being the second and "Early life and career" not appearing until more than halfway through the article) gives it the unfortunate feel of a disorganized screed by anti-Obama fanatics, tacking on new things they're upset about as they think of them.

I believe that conservatives need to look to Wikipedia to see how they effectively organize their article to camouflage their liberal bias. Firstly, the article is organized in a way that makes sense to someone looking for general information on Mr. Obama (starting with Early Life, leading into his time as a Senator, then into his Presidential Campaign, then into his Presidency.) Furthermore, all of the section titles are neutral, which allows Wikipedia to seem unbiased to the casual reader. For example, their section on his economic policy is simply titled "Economic management" rather than, say, "How Obama's making the economy better for everyone" - though from its content, it might as well be titled that. Similarly, Wikipedia has "Cultural and political image" instead of "Why Obama's better than you" - though again, it might as well be titled that. Conservapedia must take a page from this playbook - to the casual reader, section titles are incredibly important for framing how they see the content. The section on Obamunism would be much more effective if it were entitled "Economic policy", giving the impression of an unbiased look at his views, and THEN discussed the damage that Mr. Obama is doing to the United States' economy. Similarly, a section such as "Obama is likely the first Muslim President" simply gives off the impression that the author decided that this was what he was going to say about Obama and then set about searching for something, anything to substantiate his claim. On the other hand, were the section to be renamed "Religious views" or something similar, and THEN to introduce the reader to the evidence that Obama is a Muslim, it seems more that the author went looking for information on Obama’s religious views and that this is simply what he found; it thus becomes much more convincing and much more likely to not simply be written off as crazy by a moderate reader before they've even finished the Table of Contents.

I believe that all can agree that one goal of Conservapedia is to provide an accessible and credible counterpoint to liberal sites as Wikipedia. However, it's done a disservice when the authors of an article allow their (quite justifiable) outrage and doubt to color their writing to the point where the article is likely to be written off as the ranting of a nutjob by readers accustomed to the liberal-biased media. The simple, undeniable fact is that the average person is going to look at this article, see the organization and section titling, and dismiss it as archconservative raving - and that means that we've missed an opportunity to educate that person as to the other side of the story. In conclusion, the article must, to be effective, seem above all else encyclopedic - meaning that it, through its organization and structure, must seem to be a reliable, unbiased source in the eyes of the average reader. This article, regrettably, has a long way to go before reaching that standard; and we will continue to be squandering a great opportunity to educate those who've not had the opportunity to learn our side of the story until it does. Please comment, and let me know what you think, JacobG 14:51, 23 November 2009 (EST)

I think it was a nice try on your part, "JacobG", but no cigar. In other words you want CP to deny Conservative thought and soft-pedal the truth in order to make the facts more palatable to everyone. That isn't going to happen. Ever. And before trying your liberal deceit you might want to think about using anonymous proxies, more than one I might add, to attempt your subterfuge. Bye. --ṬK/Admin/Talk 16:11, 23 November 2009 (EST)

JacobG read liberal wordiness MikeR416 12:24, 24 November 2009 (EST)


"Obama spent far more per vote than McCain did: Obama spent $7.39 per vote, while McCain spent only $5.78 per vote.[10]"

Does this need to be in the first paragraph and in bold? It's not that much of a difference in spending. MikeR416 12:18, 24 November 2009 (EST)

Also, if McCain had won and outspent Obama, would it be mentioned so prominently in his bio? MikeR416 12:20, 24 November 2009 (EST)

First of all, MikeR416 (Why the 416? Have 415 MikeRs already registered here, or do you just like fanciful names?) that's an enormous difference in spending: 28%. What is your problem with mentioning this in bold in the first paragraph? Do you deny the truth of the statement, or do you just wish it wasn't true because you love Obama so much? We don't sugarcoat the truth here, MikeR416.
Regarding your second point: absolutely, we would, if McCain's campaign was financed through untraceable and fraudulent contributions. But they weren't - McCain used proper funding channels, he kept his honor, and it cost him the election. JacobB 12:29, 24 November 2009 (EST)
Mike, try to remember where you are. Conservapedia does not falsely claim, as does Wikipedia, that we aspire to NPOV. We proudly proclaim ourselves to be a Christian and Conservative-friendly encyclopedia. Thanks. --ṬK/Admin/Talk 16:56, 24 November 2009 (EST)

This entire article is Biased

This entire article is Biased. In it there are claims of Obama brainwashing people into voting for him. These are extremist views being displayed and is unsubstantiated.

reference - links "Stazi", "Gestapo Care" are inacceptable

Dear ladies and gentlemen,

The link "Stazi" refers to the "Stasi" article, so it should be spelled correctly. Furthermore, as a historian I can see no connection between the U.S. president and the East German secret police. Claiming parallels would not only be irrational and defaming the president but also audacious and disrespectful towards the Stasi's victims. The same applies regarding the claimed connection of the NS Gestapo and a health care initiative.

Since the positive political tradition of the conservative spectrum is to be found in rationalism and (hopefully) beyond religion and ideology, the aforementioned blurs of reason should be omitted.

However, a connection between broad public social systems (in Europe) and tendencies of antisemitism, collaboration with islamist movements and antimodernism may at least be supposed. Further scientific work regarding such a connection is yet to be done.

With best regards,


I have made the appropriate changes, thank you for noticing. --Ben Talk 13:34, 10 December 2009 (EST)

Extensive problems

This article is making us into a laughingstock. --TheTrustworthyEditor 13:32, 14 December 2009 (EST)

Care to elaborate (and contibute), or are you just trolling? Jinx McHue 14:48, 14 December 2009 (EST)
I will for him. Starting with the title. look up George Bush, Bill Clinton, and others. No other article seem to use middle names. Can we agree to a format at least? He doesn't go around and using his middle name. Next would be the use of Barry Soetoro. People don't call him that, in fact it was not him that changed it but instead his parent. Next is the the term "allegedly" is used for his birth. I have to ask do you believe that the US governments own fact checking wouldn't verify this? People were begging for his birth certificate and after he provided it people then said its not real. According to this article on USA today ( it states th"I, Dr. Chiyome Fu kino, director of the Hawaii State Department of Health, have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawaii State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii and is a natural-born American citizen. I have nothing further to add to this statement or my original statement issued in October 2008 over eight months ago...."

In the religion section it says "Described in this entry". If there is a general belief that he is Muslim then put it in there rather than make it a conspiracy theory.

I could go on but come in this article looks to be a total joke. ShawnMost 14:08, 23 December 2009 (EST)

No Shawn, you're the joke. In answer to your little statements...
Middle name; presidents have used their middle names before, so have many others, and if Obama can use his middle name - in public at his inauguration - then we can use it here.
Birth Certificate; the one we all have seen online is one that is typed up, on request, from any DVR in any state; it is not the original long form certificate. I couldn't care less if your esteemed Dr. Kimo saw it; the fact is that the rest of the public didn't see it.
Barry Soetoro; again, see his birth certificate. We want to know if this man is Constitutionally-eligible to be president.
His Muslim-ness. Yes, he was a practicing muslim, and we need to know if he still is. The question is, would he appeal to mainstream Islam, or would he appease radical Islam? His deep bowing to the king of Saudi Arabia didn't help matters.
You Shawn, need to hit the books bigtime. So far your bigotry and ignorance have affected your judgement. Karajou 14:42, 23 December 2009 (EST)
Perhaps you should have looked up the President ranked by most historians as one of the top ten in our nation's history, Ronald Wilson Reagan. See the middle name? --ṬK/Admin/Talk 14:46, 23 December 2009 (EST)
Or Franklin Delano Roosevelt; or John Fitzgerald Kennedy; or Lyndon Baines Johnson; or William Henry Harrison; or William Howard Taft... Karajou 14:50, 23 December 2009 (EST)
Is it possible there can be an agreement on some type of format on those. Some politician entries use just first, last and others use all three. As for his birth certificate. What level of proof is needed? Does one need to physically hold it, see a picture of it, or just know that someone else saw it and said it was valid? To me it is valid and it is for the state of Hawaii, and also the federal government. As for if I am a bigot or me being ignorant I have no idea what this is about. ShawnMost 18:05, 23 December 2009 (EST)

Shawn, to answer your question, you are a bigot for your hatred of anti-Obamunism (we are not racists simply because we oppose socialism, despite what the media would have you believe) and ignorant because you blindly accept what you have been told without questioning it. You're also a saboteur (intentional or not) by consuming the time of editors by engaging them in pointless debate. I strongly suggest you examine the archives of this page before bringing up points. Just about every conceivable form of liberal nonsense such as yours has been brought up and refuted. Stop trying to waste peoples time. JacobB 18:15, 23 December 2009 (EST)

Just like, Jacob, all of the nonsense that has been brought up about Obama? If you hadn't noticed, it's all been dealt with, or, if I may use your language, has been brought up and refuted. Now stop wasting peoples time. He's the president. He will be for another three years (at least). And it doesn't matter how many times Orly Taitz makes an idiot out of herself, your dream of an election reversal will not happen. --DrewDice 18:30, 23 December 2009 (EST)
Drew, you can be insulting and rude, and get blocked for it, or you can continue to edit constructively (as I notice you have, mostly, and I commend you for it). Don't insert yourself into discussions like this - I notice that your user page USED to say, "Hope I can just edit and not argue," but then you removed that. I hope it's not because you changed your mind about arguing. JacobB 02:39, 24 December 2009 (EST)
I'm going to have to agree with ShawnMost and TheTrustWorthyEditor. This article gives way too much weight to minority opinions. Look, I just came from a conversation on Wikipedia where the liberal bias achieved the same thing conservative bias is achieving here - an inability to objectively put in material that should be added, and to make necessary changes because of misconstruing the other person's viewpoint.[4]
I am as big a critic of Obama's as anyone - just google Obama Jzyehoshua if you don't believe me - my writing against his policy of live birth abortion as well of my mentions of his Chicago politics is all over the web. However, they are right. This article is putting in the introduction stuff about him using hypnosis techniques and a not particularly relevant quote about the military. That's hardly stuff that's well-sourced enough to be anything but a fringe opinion - sorry. At least by Wikipedia standards, and I'd assume you guys do it the same way here, the standard of prominence is sourcing, and I doubt you're going to find major news outlets discussing either of those.
On the other hand, there are major criticisms of Obama that have hit the news such as his associations, controversy with live birth abortion, and the fact that he knocked off his first 4 political opponents by challenging their ballot signatures, and asked the leading Democrat state senator, Emil Jones, to make him a U.S. Senator. Jones then appointed him head over numerous key pieces of legislation that he now points to as evidence of his competence. Anyway, I'll get into that in a separate section. Point is, there are major criticisms of him that have been addressed by major publications.
But if we give undue weight obviously to claims or material with little sourcing or press then Conservapedia will just be written off. People will never consider comparing it to Wikipedia except as a joke, and I don't think any of us here want that. If for nothing else than to see Conservapedia compete with Wikipedia as an objective possibility, I hope everyone here will listen to what I'm saying and try to objectify this article. Jz, --Jzyehoshua 08:14, 30 December 2009 (EST)

Most Important Controversy Not Mentioned - Partial Birth Abortion

It's noticeable the most prominent controversy during Obama's career is not mentioned here. If you haven't heard of it before it might sound surprising, but bear with me.

There was a major abortion bill passed in 2003 called the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act. It declared illegal the practice of Intact Dilation and Extraction, a form of late term abortion where birth is induced through drugs and the child is killed while being delivered, and partially outside the womb. Further making the issue controversial was the fact that some children who survived were allowed to die OUTSIDE THE WOMB. This was testified by key witnesses such as Allison Baker and Jill Stanek, and played a key part in the federal case.

Obama in Illinois as a state senator at the time was the only Illinois senate to speak out on the senate floor against the Illinois version of this federal bill that would go on to become the most major victory for the pro-life movement in its history, and the only major federal bill to successfully bar a form of abortion. The bill is now federal law, and in the Congressional findings as I will show, Congress differentiated between the practice of intact dilation and extraction, also known as live birth abortion, partial birth abortion, infanticide, and late-term abortion, and regular abortion. Indeed, Congressional findings even referred to the act of Intact Dilation and Extraction as both infanticide and partial birth abortion, and the fetus in question also as a child/infant. --Jzyehoshua 07:20, 30 December 2009 (EST)

Sourcing (this is NOT necessarily a proposed addition to the page, merely a pre-composed body of writing for sourcing purposes on the topic I created):
  • Background: Barack Obama beginning from his time in the Illinois Senate opposed numerous bills that would have stopped a practice where children surviving late-term abortions could be left to die. He considered them, though completely outside the womb and breathing, 'fetuses'.[5] (pp. 85-86) Bills included the 2001 Born Alive Infants Protection Act[6][7](pp. 85-88), the 2001 SB 1661 Induced Birth Infant Liability Act[8][9](pp. 88-89), the 2001 SB 1095 Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act[10][11][12] (pp. 50-66), and the 1997 SB 230 Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act[13][14]
  • Notability: Alan Keyes, Obama's general election opponent for the 2004 U.S. Senate, made the issue his primary talking point.[15]][[16] At the time, activists such as Jill Stanek[17] and Phyllis Schlafly[18] also opposed Obama on such grounds. Keyes to this day continues opposing Obama on what he calls 'infanticide'.[19][20] During the 2008 elections, both Sarah Palin[21] and John McCain[22][23] criticized Obama over the 'Born Alive' controversy as well. David Freddoso, who also covered the born alive issue in his best-selling book, 'The Case Against Barack Obama' in August 2008, wrote in an article for the National Review that Stanek and O'Malley (primary sponsor of the born alive legislation previously mentioned) had teamed up on legislation such as the 1095 bill, and notes that Obama was the only legislator to speak against it on the senate floor.[24]
  • Prominence: There has been no shortage of mainstream media coverage on this issue. During the 2008 Primary Election, Hillary Clinton and the National Organization for Women[25][26], as well as other Congressmen[27][28], accused Obama of voting 'Present' instead of 'No' on abortion bills. The Washington Post's "Fact Checker" also addressed the issue, noting his very lengthy voting history on the subject, but also pointing out that it was an agreed-upon strategy between pro-choice politicians and Planned Parenthood as a way to avoid public attention on controversial abortion bills.[29][30] Obama defended himself by saying it was an agreed-upon strategy with Planned Parenthood.[31] In 2007 ABC News[32] and the NY Times addressed this Planned Parenthood-Obama-present votes connection [33]][[34] and both FactCheck[35] and PolitiFact[36][37], as well as Time Magazine[38], Fox News[39], the Boston Globe[40],[41], the Huffington Post[42][43], and NPR[44], all chimed in referencing the connection as well. In August 2008 there was also a lengthy back and forth between Obama, David Brody of CBN[45], and the National Right to Life Committee[46][47] concerning his record on live birth abortion. Another exchange occurred between Obama's campaign, Jill Stanek, and Eric Zorn of the Chicago Tribune.[48] As covered by the NY Sun, Obama was facing attacks from all sides, and had first erroneously claimed he would have voted for the federal bill, but then upon confrontation with senate records dug up by the NRLC, his campaign admitted he'd voted against an Illinois bill with similar language.[49] FactCheck shortly thereafter supported this claim, and upon examination of the claims by both Obama's campaign and the NRLC wrote a widely covered[50] article called "Obama and 'Infanticide'" stating that Obama was misrepresenting his record on the issue, though it thought the term 'infanticide' open to interpretation.[51]
  • Other Notable Coverage: The Huffington Post in April of 2008 attacked Deal Hudson for criticizing Obama on the issue of infanticide.[52]

Additional Sourcing:


Planned Parenthood Strategy:

--Jzyehoshua (talk) 21:36, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
This controversy is established enough that at least 1 dozen different Wikipedia pages already reference it:
-Political positions of Barack Obama[53]
-Barack Obama social policy[54]
-United States Senate career of Barack Obama[55]
-The Case Against Barack Obama[56]
-Comparison of United States presidential candidates, 2008[57]
-Alan Keyes[58]
-William R. Haine[59]
-Jill Stanek[60]
-James Dobson[61]
-Nat Hentoff[62]
-Gianna Jessen[63]
-The Committee for Truth in Politics[64]
It should also be mentioned on the NRLC, Mike Huckabee, Fred Thompson, Deal Hudson, and Rush Limbaugh pages but is not. Ironically it is not mentioned on the main Barack Obama page and on Wikipedia there was extensive discussion about this[65] since so many other pages reference it but not the page of the politician it most concerns. It's because of that controversy I've chosen to come over here now, and I will mention more about that soon (unless admins would prefer I'd not talk about Wikipedia events, in which case I'd be fine with such mentions being deleted and the sourcing alone discussed). --Jzyehoshua 08:02, 30 December 2009 (EST)
As a result of the federal law, the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act, passed in 2003 but not upheld by the courts until 2007, the practice of 'intact dilation and extraction' is illegal here in the United States. A federal law uses the term "partial birth abortion" and it passed through Congress with what was not a particularly close vote either. [66][67]
Furthermore, in the findings of Congress concerning the Act when it was passed, both the terms 'child' and 'infant' were used.[68] Also, for those who are curious, in that same document relating Congress' findings on one of the most major laws relating to abortion in U.S. history, it states in section 2(13)(G), "In light of this overwhelming evidence, Congress and the States have a compelling interest in prohibiting partial-birth abortions. In addition to promoting maternal health, such a prohibition will draw a bright line that clearly distinguishes abortion and infanticide, that preserves the integrity of the medical profession, and promotes respect for human life."
As such, both partial birth abortion and infanticide are federally used terms by the U.S. Government to describe the practice of intact dilation and extraction, a practice which is considered separate from abortion. --Jzyehoshua 12:33, 31 December 2009 (EST)

Chicago Politics

Alright, there are 2 separate issues with Barack Obama's Chicago politics I'm going to address.

1. Early political career. Obama started his political career by defeating incumbent senator Alice Palmer. What is overlooked by both Conservapedia and Wikipedia is HOW he defeated her and 3 other challengers in that race. Obama, as reported on by the Chicago Tribune knocked off all 4 by challenging their petition signatures. Palmer had originally declared the young Obama her successor but that was before her Congressional bid failed. Seeking to run for her state senate seat once again, she asked Obama to step down. Not only did he refuse, he hired a team of lawyers to challenge his opponent's petition signatures after the filing deadline had passed. Palmer had been forced to hastily gather signatures over a 2 day period and Obama's team of lawyers, including a fellow law school classmate, were able to disqualify enough signatures to invalidate all opponents. As one of those knocked off, Gha-is Askia, stated at the time to the Chicago Tribune, "Why say you're for a new tomorrow, then do old-style Chicago politics to remove legitimate candidates? He talks about honor and democracy, but what honor is there in getting rid of every other candidate so you can run scot-free? Why not let the people decide?"


2. Hijacked Legislation

It's a well-recorded fact that Obama as a state senator had the following conversation with his political mentor and "godfather" (Obama's own term for Jones):

Obama: "You’re now the Senate president. You have a lot of power."

Jones: "I do?"

Obama: "Yes."

Jones: "Tell me what kind of power I have."

Obama: "You have the power to make a U.S. senator."

Jones: "I do?"

Obama: "You do."

Jones: "If I’ve got that kind of power, do you know of anyone that I can make?"

Obama: "Yeah. Me."

Jones afterwards appointed Obama head of numerous pieces of legislation formerly worked on by senators with more seniority, including the landmark racial profiling videotaped confessions bill original worked on by Senator Rickey Hendon, who said, "I took all the beatings and insults and endured all the racist comments over the years from nasty Republican committee chairmen, Barack didn't have to endure any of it, yet, in the end, he got all the credit. I don't consider it bill jacking, But no one wants to carry the ball 99 yards all the way to the one-yard line, and then give it to the halfback who gets all the credit and the stats in the record book."

As reported on by reporter Todd Spivak, who'd been reporting on Obama since 2000, Obama in 2003 sponsored an incredible 26 bills into law as a result of Jones' intervention, many of which he now points to as evidence of his legislative prowess. Some of which were formerly worked on originally by other senators, and still others which were crafted for him by Jones to meet prominent issues in the press as a way of boosting his political image and reputation for a future senate run.


No Objectivity

Look, there are valid criticisms of Obama that need to be covered, and Wikipedia doesn't cover, but this article doesn't make an attempt to be objective. It's just a collection of attacks on Obama. I mean, come on, the first section is on ACORN? Really? And how far down do you have to scroll to get to info on his life, career, and presidential campaigns? This article needs a top-down re-writing with an attempt to be objective - state details about his life and career, and determine the most major and well-sourced criticisms and include them. Maybe lump all the minor criticisms into a minor controversies section or something and give their best sources.

This though is absolutely ridiculous. I want to find an alternative to Wikipedia that will fairly cover the controversies surrounding Obama that Wikipedia won't, but at this point, anything I provide will simply be written off by anyone who's not a conservative because of how many questionable claims are being made in the article with poor sourcing! I am genuinely hoping others here will reform this article so it's written with at least some level of objectivity, because otherwise, nobody but conservatives, and probably not even all that many of them, will take it seriously. --Jzyehoshua 09:18, 30 December 2009 (EST)