<?xml version="1.0"?>
<feed xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xml:lang="en">
	<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/api.php?action=feedcontributions&amp;feedformat=atom&amp;user=CaptainSwing</id>
	<title>Conservapedia - User contributions [en]</title>
	<link rel="self" type="application/atom+xml" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/api.php?action=feedcontributions&amp;feedformat=atom&amp;user=CaptainSwing"/>
	<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Contributions/CaptainSwing"/>
	<updated>2026-10-10T21:20:43Z</updated>
	<subtitle>User contributions</subtitle>
	<generator>MediaWiki 1.35.14</generator>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Barack_Hussein_Obama&amp;diff=934895</id>
		<title>Talk:Barack Hussein Obama</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Barack_Hussein_Obama&amp;diff=934895"/>
		<updated>2011-11-08T17:27:24Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;CaptainSwing: /* Why is the birth certificate things still going? */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;[[File:Brainreboot20110429.jpg|400px|thumb|]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{articletalkheader|prefix=archive}}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Rense==&lt;br /&gt;
Jeff Rense may not be a such a good source.  The Anti-Defamation League accuses him of promoting anti-Semitic views and 9/11 Conspiracy theories.  OTOH, what is wrong with a Pravda article written in the post Soviet-censorship era when democratic Russia hungars to exercise a free press, open discussion and discernment of facts?  [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 22:39, 23 January 2010 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:See my talk page, Rob.  I never noticed who added the Pravda cite, so if you say so, it is of course fine with me, and please add it back if you haven't already! I now suspect it was yet another vandal site troll stirring the pot, so feel free to deal with him as well. --&amp;lt;big&amp;gt;[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]&amp;lt;/big&amp;gt;&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;/Admin&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 17:02, 24 January 2010 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Terror Attacks ==&lt;br /&gt;
I have an issue with a claim made in the second paragraph.  ''Since abandoning the &amp;quot;War on Terror&amp;quot; in Obama's first year, the United States has suffered more terrorist attacks with deadly intent on American soil than in the previous eight years combined.''   Since Obama replaced the 'Global War on Terror' with 'Overseas Contingency Operation', there have been only four domestic terrorist attacks, a far cry from the 19 that took place under Bush's tenure.  This sentence should be reworded or removed in its entirety; it only makes the article look embarrassing.  --[[User:MichaelJB|MichaelJB]] 15:46, 25 January 2010 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:More [[liberal]] poppycock, Michael?  Even the New York Times counts more, excluding 9/11, under Obama. Perhaps you should consider sources other than the Kos?  --&amp;lt;big&amp;gt;[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]&amp;lt;/big&amp;gt;&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;/Admin&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 19:29, 25 January 2010 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::A short time ago you gave me grief for making assumptions, yet here you are doing the same.  I didn't get any information from Kos, it all came from legitimate news sources.  Do you really believe that more terror attacks occurred on US soil from March 2009 to January 2010 than in the eight years of the Bush administration?  I would really like to see all your references for making such a bold claim.  And why would you want to exclude the WTC/Pentagon attacks?&lt;br /&gt;
::Some people have been making some really stupid claims lately about domestic terror.  Dana Perino and Rudy Guiliani both claimed there was not a terror attack on the US when Bush was in office.  The fact that these people could make such stupidly partisan claims is incredible. [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4kpfhGxJbLc] [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2tYoMoJHNDs] The claim made in this article reeks of the same idiocy of Perino and Guiliani, why not delete the sentence or at least make it factual?  --[[User:MichaelJB|MichaelJB]] 20:23, 25 January 2010 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::The facts are undeniable that America was totally unprepared to protect itself from terrorist homeland attacks as Bush entered office, due to the total lack of focus of the Clinton Administration and Congress on the issue.  Bush can in no way be blamed for the 9/11 attacks with any real credibility. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::As I have stated many times before, as Mr. Schlafly has stated many times before, as several other Admins have as well,  coming here to argue-without-end against our conservative point of view in all articles you come across, is silly. If you and others cannot bring yourselves to accept alternative points of view, so be it. If you want a place to argue against conservatism in general, make your own site or try the Kos or HuffPo; but CP isn't a debate forum, it is a conservative encyclopedia ''project''. Article talk pages are for suggesting ways to improve articles from a conservative point of view, not a liberal one. Is that a clear enough statement?  --&amp;lt;big&amp;gt;[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]&amp;lt;/big&amp;gt;&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;/Admin&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 21:29, 25 January 2010 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::TK: The change you made is completely unacceptable from a moral and ethical standpoint because instead of correcting an error, you are now highlighting a lie.  Three terror attacks occurred during Pres. Bush's last year in office.  I sent you links to all three events but you are willing to over look such trivial matters as the truth.  It's funny that a liberal who has been blocked twice for pointing out errors and outright falsehoods is vilified as a trouble-maker while the conservatives that knowingly mislead and lie are in charge of an alleged 'trustworthy encyclopedia'.  &lt;br /&gt;
::::I'm trying to make these changes because I don't want Americans to look stupid, even the conservative ones.  It's an uphill battle. &lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
::::Gunman killed two people in a church.  [http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-07-29-church-shooting_N.htm]&lt;br /&gt;
::::Suicide bomber attacked a Georgia law firm. [http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/ga_law_firm_explodes_causing_multiple_injuries/]&lt;br /&gt;
::::Two police officers were killed by a bomb placed in a bank.  [http://www.odmp.org/officer/19697-captain-thomas-paul-tennant]&lt;br /&gt;
::::--[[User:MichaelJB|MichaelJB]] 01:25, 29 January 2010 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
MichaelJB you cannot tell the difference between Muslim terrorists and someone with an ax to grind? Godspeed! --&amp;lt;big&amp;gt;[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]&amp;lt;/big&amp;gt;&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;/Admin&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 06:36, 29 January 2010 (EST)v&lt;br /&gt;
:So Michael's point is that progressive liberal leftwing commie socialist (or whatever the flavor of the week) Prof. [[Amy  Bishop]] conducted a domestic overseas contingency operation attack. It's beginning to make sense. How would we classify the guy who crashed the plane into the IRS building in Houston, a tax protester who railed against corporations. Dang, this is a tuff one.... [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 08:13, 12 March 2010 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Middle name in article title? ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::&amp;lt;big&amp;gt;'''Unless you have some brilliant new argument to add to this section, further discussion is unneeded.&amp;lt;/big&amp;gt;'''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It strikes to me odd that the title of the article is Barach Hussein Obama. While there is nothing wrong with that by itself, looking at the [[President_of_the_United_States_of_America#Presidents_list|list of all the U.S. presidents]], it seems that all the other presidents' articles are titled either without their middle name, or just a middle initial. Wouldn't it make sense to rename the article to either Barack Obama or Barack H. Obama to follow suit? [[User:Kayvan|Kayvan]] 18:19, 26 February 2010 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
:There is a big difference between Walker or Jefferson and Hussein.  My two cents. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 18:22, 26 February 2010 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
::What about [[Ronald Wilson Reagan]]? [[User:DMorris|DMorris]] 18:26, 26 February 2010 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
:::This topic had been discussed before. He decided to be inaugurated with his middle name after not using it during the campaign. He is not ashamed of it and we are not ashamed to include it.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 18:29, 26 February 2010 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
::::Ah, I see. Looking at some lists though ([http://www.ipl.org/div/potus/] and [http://www.apples4theteacher.com/holidays/presidents-day/past-presidents-of-usa.html]), it seems that many presidents were also inaugurated in a similar fashion. [[User:Kayvan|Kayvan]] 18:33, 26 February 2010 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::: I think that, as all encyclopedias and scholarly works try to do, we should try to decide on a particular set of rules and always follow it. In this case, these are the options:&lt;br /&gt;
:::1) Always cite the full name in the title, so &amp;quot;Barack Hussein Obama&amp;quot;, &amp;quot;George Herbert Walker Bush&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;Ronald Wilson Reagan&amp;quot;;&lt;br /&gt;
:::2) Always use initials for middle names, so &amp;quot;Barack H. Obama&amp;quot;, &amp;quot;George H.W. Bush&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;Ronald W. Reagan&amp;quot;;&lt;br /&gt;
:::3) Use the names in the way they most commonly used, using middle name initials only where they are necessary to distinguish one particular individual from another, therefore &amp;quot;Barack Obama&amp;quot;, &amp;quot;George H.W. Bush&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;Ronald Reagan&amp;quot;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::: We are talking about titles of articles; the full name should always be cited in the body of the article. Personally, I would vote for solution n.3. --[[User:Maquissar|Maquissar]] 18:34, 26 February 2010 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
::::I like the idea. Either 2 or 3 seem best in my opinion; full names seem a bit to long for article titles. The name that the president was inaugurated with isn't bad either, but it would seem less formal, as some have middle names and others don't. [[User:Kayvan|Kayvan]] 18:38, 26 February 2010 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::: I thought about that solution, but then I thought that we should better set very general rules; by this I mean that we should decide how to title page names referring to INDIVIDUALS, not to US PRESIDENTS. Deciding that &amp;quot;the name that the president was inaugurated with&amp;quot; is a rule that, naturally, can only be applied to presidents. --[[User:Maquissar|Maquissar]] 18:41, 26 February 2010 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::: Another good rule would be to use the name that is mostly used to refer to that individual; this has the disadvantage of not being objective, but it is also the most effective. So &amp;quot;Barack Obama&amp;quot;, &amp;quot;George H.W. Bush&amp;quot; (to distinguish him from his son), &amp;quot;Ronald Reagan&amp;quot;, &amp;quot;Eminem&amp;quot; instead of &amp;quot;Marshall Mathers&amp;quot;, &amp;quot;O.J. Simpson&amp;quot; instead of &amp;quot;Orenthal J. Simpson&amp;quot;...  --[[User:Maquissar|Maquissar]] 18:56, 26 February 2010 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There isn't any vote here, nor was one asked for.  Since Obama tries to soft-pedal his Muslim roots and associations, our editorial policy is to call attention to that ''fact''.  In addition you should note the [[Ronald Wilson Reagan|Reagan]] article, where well before anyone had an inkling Obama would run for President, Conservapedia used his full name, ''Ronald Wilson Reagan'' which Reagan himself preferred  for formal use. So I submit President Obama isn't being singled out, contrary to the insistence of silly-minded liberals. --&amp;lt;big&amp;gt;[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]&amp;lt;/big&amp;gt;&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;/Admin&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 19:06, 26 February 2010 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:But why call attention to that ''fact'' in the title of the article? The ''fact'' is never going to be denied. The introduction sentence would still say &amp;quot;Barack Hussein Obama&amp;quot;. Italicize his middle name in the introduction or change the font color to bring out the ''fact'' if you wish. What I am trying to point at is, why should his middle name be used in the article title? Reagan may have preferred it for formal use, but does Mr. Obama say that same? He is commonly known as Barack Obama; I haven't seen it used in any other way (except Obama, of course). If he is commonly known as that, it would make sense to title the article like that, as should every article on people. [[User:Kayvan|Kayvan]] 21:05, 26 February 2010 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
::Richard Milhous Nixon was commonly refered to as [[Milhous]] by his detracters.  Indeed, googling milhouse brings up hundreds of thousands of hits on Nixon that dwarf most all other uses of the name.  Now, googling [[Hussein]] presents a host of other problems.   The [[Heshamite Dynasty]] of [[Hussein bin Ali]] had been the Islamic Keeper of the Holy places for 700 years until Western British Imperialist interests unseated them and installed the Saudi ruling clan thier place (visualize Islamists dethroning the Pope and installing thier own choice as successor).  How does it look when Hussein bin Ali's namesake bows to tne Saudi puppet? Why not focus on how Obama ''is'' bringing real change to the whole planet, rather than argue about how things have traditionally been done?  [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 13:14, 27 February 2010 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
Drop it.  Further discussion is last-wordism. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 21:14, 26 February 2010 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:On the question of &amp;quot;''all the other presidents' articles are titled either without their middle name, or just a middle initial. Wouldn't it make sense ...to follow suit? ''&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
:You will recall Barack Hussein Obama is the transformational president of change.  Wouldn't it make sense to begin change right here, with his name? (assuming that is his name).  [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 23:54, 26 February 2010 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;:&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;D&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
--&amp;lt;big&amp;gt;[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]&amp;lt;/big&amp;gt;&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;/Admin&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 01:58, 27 February 2010 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Pretty slick conservative trap there TK. despite the fact that you neglected to answer some massive holes in the arguments above, you declare the debate &amp;quot;ended&amp;quot; (even though its not) then decry anything else as last wordism to stifle any further debate. well done--[[User:DerikJ|DerikJ]] 11:58, 27 February 2010 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
:What holes? We're implementing change. Let's find common ground and compromise. We've done just that.  [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 12:35, 27 February 2010 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
::I like your comment on change, Rob, it made me laugh :) Anyway, I don't see how an argument that Obama's slogan being &amp;quot;change&amp;quot; is any reason to title his article to what he is less commonly known as/less traditional. It's pushing it, in a sense. Besides, being a conservative, I would think that you wouldn't want to follow Obama's way of thinking ;) [[User:Kayvan|Kayvan]] 13:40, 27 February 2010 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
:::Conservatives are for change, both economic and social.  They want to change tax law and abortion rulings, for example.  Above all, change public education.  Being anti-change is just a vulgar stereotype held by closeminded and intolerant people.  [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 14:09, 27 February 2010 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
::::I can agree with that. But ''why'' &amp;quot;change&amp;quot; how Obama's article is titled when others are titled either without their middle name or with their middle name if they are commonly known and identified by the name, in some cases. Simply changing something doesn't necessarily mean it's a good thing, there has to be reason, and the reason has to be, well, reasonable. [[User:Kayvan|Kayvan]] 14:44, 27 February 2010 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
:::::Call it the price of progress.  [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 15:17, 27 February 2010 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
::::::In that case, would changing the titles of all the other peoples' articles to include their middle names sound all right to you? It would be progress, after all. [[User:Kayvan|Kayvan]] 17:29, 27 February 2010 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
I have always wondered why the Obamabots get so upset with the name Obama's parents chose.  Pretty silly. --&amp;lt;big&amp;gt;[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]&amp;lt;/big&amp;gt;&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;/Admin&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 16:40, 27 February 2010 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:I actually like the name, it has a nice ring to it. It's more of just keeping a solid style of titling pages, a format if you want to call it that. [[User:Kayvan|Kayvan]] 17:29, 27 February 2010 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
::Which brings us to the question of Barry Soetero.  If Obama went by this name, then he may have lied to the Illinois Supreme Court when asked to provide former names, according to this Attorney’s Registration Record. [http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2061988/posts]  I'm not the sure what the resolution of this issue ever was, and we don't have a word about it in this article.  [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 17:49, 27 February 2010 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I know I am new here but there really needs to be a consensus amongst all Presidential and Vice President articles, actually this should probably extend to all US politicians. I know there is a specified conservative bias, however the lack organization and consensus has nothing to do with liberal or conservative bias, it has to do with disorganization and lazyiness by the admins.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If you want to leave the middle, that is fine, however, there would need to be a quick modification of all or the majority of the US Politian article so as not to look so disorganized.[[User:Solarguy17|Solarguy17]] 01:01, 10 March 2010 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:You hit the nail on the head.  You are new here.  Don't come in criticizing and such off the bat. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 01:12, 10 March 2010 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My criticization is to help the article(s) to be better as a whole. None of the above discussion explains the reasoning for leaving it as is. Just people saying he used it in his inauguration so we use it here, however, almost every pres does this so why not have it that way for everyone????[[User:Solarguy17|Solarguy17]] 01:15, 10 March 2010 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Not really discussion just more of a question. I just recently found this site and was looking through the religious articles and for the most part they seemed pretty good. However, when I come to the political articles, some of them seem a little crazy. I know it is to call more attention to the things that are being overlooked by the media. But I have ask about the middle name thing. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I read all of the information above and I still am not sure why it was decided to leave it as is.  Can someone clarify this? &lt;br /&gt;
Please don't ban me, I noticed that basically everyone with discussion in this thread that isn't an admin now has banned accounts. I personally don't care, I am just confused. [[User:StevenS|StevenS]] 01:12, 12 March 2010 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: As it says up at the top of this section, &amp;quot;Unless you have some brilliant new argument to add to this section, further discussion is unneeded.&amp;quot;  If you do have one, let's have it.  But it sure seems like everyone who signs up to this site and immediately starts complaining has nothing new to say at all.  Why don't you spend some time reading here with an open mind first, and complain later?  [[User:DanielPulido|DanielPulido]] 01:20, 12 March 2010 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Now, why would a single individual come here under several different user names all in an effort to get the word &amp;quot;Hussein&amp;quot; removed from the title of this article?  It makes no sense at all unless that individual has a personal agenda to perform.  The article title stays as it is.  [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 01:42, 12 March 2010 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:My only concern is that the title seems to exist in its current state for no purpose other than to further a bias.  The arguments that &amp;quot;well he asked for it&amp;quot; seem to suggest that accuracy and fairness are non-valuable in this wiki.  I sincerely hope this is not the case and that I may not be banned and able to start a fun future in helping this wiki grow in the impressive way it has so far. [[User:Vidihawk|Vidihawk]] 07:47, 6 April 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::'''&amp;quot;Unless you have some brilliant new argument to add to this section, further discussion is unneeded.&amp;quot;'''&lt;br /&gt;
I guess you missed the bold title at the top of this section?  Also, see [[Ronald Wilson Reagan]] to see how silly your argument is. --&amp;lt;big&amp;gt;[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]&amp;lt;/big&amp;gt;&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;/Admin&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 08:16, 6 April 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:I guess it wasn't as bright an idea as I had hoped.  Heh... It still comes off as somewhat purposeful, though.  Okie, I'll back away! - [[User:Vidihawk|Vidihawk]] 08:24, 6 April 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::Purposeful, as in done with the same horribly malevolent intent as ''my'' adding Reagan's middle name several years ago?  You are giving away your intent in advance, good sir, by refusing to admit your already formed assumptions about us are wrong.  I hope you prove me wrong, and turn out to be that rare U.K. denizen that turns out to be open-minded and as fair to us as you wish us to be to you. There have been precious few. And please do check out our editors guide and all of that. We differ quite a bit from Wikipedia. --&amp;lt;big&amp;gt;[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]&amp;lt;/big&amp;gt;&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;/Admin&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 08:33, 6 April 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:::::I think we should keep the current title of the article.  Furthermore, I think we should replace the top picture, which is currently a picture of Obama,  with a picture of an oil drenched pelican (and a new caption) as a tribute to Obama's indifference, sloth and incompetence.  [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 20:36, 16 June 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== I moved the material dealing with the present to the top  ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I moved the material dealing with the present to the top as I thought readers would be more interested in how Obama is screwing up the present.  For example, I think Americans right now are very concerned about how Obama is screwing up the economy. Of course, he is also doing a poor job in other areas presently as well such as holding terrorists court cases in civilian courts, etc. etc. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 04:30, 15 March 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:That makes sense to me. I do appreciate letting me try the other timeline structure. However, I didn't really take into consideration the fact that because he is a high profile individual it may benefit readers to see more recent info before his earlier biography facts. At least while he's fulfilling his one failed term as president, your structure makes sense to me. [[User:DerekE|DerekE]] 12:42, 15 March 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::As the ==Maoism== section is being being built, we may eventually be able to free up space from the sections on the Ayers/Dohrn relationship by moving some of that material to Ayers own page, and/or creating a new separate page documenting Obama's rise with communist and terrorist assistance.  An acceptable title for that page would be needed.  [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 13:23, 15 March 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Citation==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;Any orders he gives to the American military are subject to being refused. Orders that Obama gives to America’s Joint Chiefs of Staff of the military can be refused.&amp;quot; --http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/columnists/19-01-2009/106972-Barry_Soetoro-0&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Do we really want to cite an article that makes this claim? Do any of us really support this opinion, or if we do, do we support the use of opinion articles as sources in addition to factual ones? --[[User:BenjaminS|Ben]] &amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;[[User Talk:BenjaminS|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; 08:42, 6 April 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Is the opinion piece backed by valid and factual citations from the United States Code, Ben, as opposed to a unsupported rant? --&amp;lt;big&amp;gt;[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]&amp;lt;/big&amp;gt;&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;/Admin&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 08:47, 6 April 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== pronunciation of &amp;quot;Pakistan&amp;quot; ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This is really considered evidence of anything? I've heard [[Mark Levin]] use the Spanish-inflected pronunciation of Sonia Sotomayor's name (''so tow my OR'' rather than ''so tow MY er''), but nobody would claim that proves he's Catholic or Hispanic. [[User:Golgaronok|Golgaronok]] 23:55, 9 April 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:Pronunciation shows an enormous amount about someone's views and history.  Obama doesn't use the American pronunciation, and this is telling, since ''no one else in the public sphere'' pronounces it in the muslim way ''but'' Obama. [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 00:15, 10 April 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
[[David Petraeus]] does [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vtCLp7siY7I]. [[User:Golgaronok|Golgaronok]] 00:50, 10 April 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
And [http://www.forvo.com/word/pakistan/ numerous other languages] use a pronunciation closer to the native form. [[User:Golgaronok|Golgaronok]] 00:57, 10 April 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::&amp;quot;Golgaronok&amp;quot; (if that is your name), your quibbles with the entry have already been argued ad nauseum, [http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Barack_Hussein_Obama/archive4#.22Pokiston.22.3F.3F.3F.3F.3F here], for instance.  If you've only come to argue on talk pages, you're wasting your own time.  Try making substantive contributions to the project; excessive talk is disfavored here.  [[User:DanielPulido|DanielPulido]] 01:04, 10 April 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
I don't see any responses to the points I raised. But it's y'all's funeral. [[User:Golgaronok|Golgaronok]] 01:13, 10 April 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:::Kind of interesting that Davis Petraeus was mentioned here.  When that general was ordered to command US forces in Afghanistan and Iraq, the liberal elites decided that his name should be pronounced &amp;quot;BETRAY US&amp;quot;.  [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 01:29, 10 April 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Barry Soetoro = birth name?==&lt;br /&gt;
This may have already been discussed, so forgive me if this has been settled.  I noticed that the article says ''&amp;quot;Barack Hussein Obama II (birth name Barry Soetoro...&amp;quot;'', however the articles cited do not support the idea that &amp;quot;Barry Soetoro&amp;quot; is Obama's birth name, in fact quite the opposite.  My understanding, from reading the Newsweek article, is that &amp;quot;Barack&amp;quot; is his birth name, although he went by &amp;quot;Barry&amp;quot; when he was younger.  His father's name, as I understand it, is Barack Hussein Obama, and he was named after his father.  &amp;quot;Seotoro&amp;quot;, if I remember right, was his stepfather's last name, so it is unlikely that it would have been part of Obama's birth name.  To be clear, I do realize that he spent his younger years being known as &amp;quot;Barry Soetoro&amp;quot;, and I think that should be included in the article, I just don't think it was actually his birth name.  &amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Please understand that I am not as knowledgeable in this kind of thing as many other contributors here, so I may have gotten it all wrong - that's why I didn't attempt to edit the article.  Please correct me if I have gotten it wrong - I won't be offended and I am curious as to the truth of the matter.  [[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 18:11, 1 May 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
According to the citation that shows the birth certificate, the birth name is, in fact, Barack Hussein Obama II, NOT Barry Soetoro.  Also, because there is an actual document, i.e. physical, demonstrable proof, the word &amp;quot;allegedly&amp;quot; should be removed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Remove name repetition? ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Would anyone mind if I removed some of the repetition of Obama's name in certain portions of the article? For example, in this paragraph:&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|&lt;br /&gt;
[[Barack Obama and uncharitableness|Barack Obama's recent pattern of charitable giving]] and [[Barack Obama and liberal elitism|Barack Obama's liberal elitism]] is consistent with Obama being a [[Narcissism|narcissist]] which is a charge that has often been made against Barack Obama.  However, it is also true that Barack Obama is an [[evolution|evolutionist]].  Barack Obama told the ''York Daily Record'' that &amp;quot;I believe in [[evolution]]...&amp;quot;.  Barack Obama's recent pattern of charitable giving and liberal elitism is also in accordance with someone who has a certain degree of [[Social Darwinism|social darwinistic]] thinking.  In addition to [[Liberals and uncharitableness|American liberals giving less to charity]], it is also true that [[Theory of evolution and liberalism|American liberals are also more likely to believe in evolution]].&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think I could alter it to make it more readable with &amp;quot;Obama's recent pattern of charitable giving and liberal elitism is consistent with that of a narcissist, a charge that has often been made against him.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
And so forth. In my linguistics class, we talked about semantic satiation, and I believe that paragraphs like these, along with the fact that it never seems to use pronouns, somewhat diminish the readability of the article. If I were to make this change, I would preserve every wikilink, reference, etc, but I believe it would become more readable. In Christ, [[User:Tzoran|Tyler Zoran]] &amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:Tzoran|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 09:09, 6 May 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Insults? ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Does the entire beginning of the article have to be so laden with insults? Couldnt it simply say what the article will be about, and THEN express views? As it is it appears very unprofessional. 19:11, 6 May 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:We believe in the truth here, and the fact that [[liberals]] like yourself feign offense at the display of it speaks volumes about you. If you insist on closing your mind, at least take ownership of your [[deceit]]!  Sign your comments with &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt; ~~~~ &amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt; next time. Godspeed! [[User:Tzoran|Tyler Zoran]] &amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:Tzoran|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 19:58, 6 May 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== &amp;quot;The first president who is biracial&amp;quot; ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There have been other presidents of more than one race. Bush Jr. is has some German and English ancestry. [[User:NP|NP]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:George W is German and English, is that two races according to our census? I think the readers will understand what biracial refers to.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::English and German are '''''not''''' races, and neither is Hispanic. --&amp;lt;big&amp;gt;[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]&amp;lt;/big&amp;gt;&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;/Admin&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 22:16, 17 May 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Reorganizing ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I'm glad to see the edit feature is enabled here once more.  I think this page needs a revamp to structure information better.  I've reorganized everything into a better structure, let me know what you think.  I am trying to put a summary of the presidency at the top, information about his life/career next, and then a political summary.  This should really improve the page's appearance, as it appears too disorganized right now.  --[[User:Jzyehoshua|Jzyehoshua]] 15:56, 20 May 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:What you're doing is burying important information so fewer users will find it.  That's unacceptable. [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 15:57, 20 May 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Obama is a Muslim theory and the alleged claim of Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Aboul Gheit  ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Here is what the American Thinker reported: &amp;quot;The American President told me in confidence that he is a Muslim.&amp;quot; That was the claim of Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Aboul Gheit, as reported in the May 2010 issue of Israel Today. According to journalist Avi Lipkin, Gheit appeared on Nile TV's &amp;quot;Round Table Show&amp;quot; in January, on which he said that &amp;quot;he had had a one-on-one meeting with Obama who swore to him that he was a Moslem, the son of a Moslem father and step-son of Moslem step-father, that his half-brothers in Kenya were Moslems, and that he was loyal to the Moslem agenda.&amp;quot;[http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/06/report_obama_said_i_am_a_musli.html]  Here is what Hot Air says: http://hotair.com/greenroom/archives/2010/06/14/obama-is-a-muslim-take-two/  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Personally,  I am beginning to think Obama is: not a Muslim, not a Christian, and not an atheist.  I think Obama is a narcissist who worships himself.  I can also see him telling one person he is a Christian and then later telling someone else he is a Muslim.  There are many examples of Obama being insincere such as all the substantive healthcare  discussions were going to be on C-Span, etc. etc. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 15:53, 16 June 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 2009 Nobel Peace Prize ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I find it strange that there is not a single mention of the president being awarded the Nobel peace prize in this article. Considering that other prominent award winners have it at least mentioned in their respective articles. The [[Mother Teresa]] article, for instance, prominently states her award in the introduction to the article, and even political figures like [[Al Gore]] and [[Henry Kissinger]] (both of whom won the peace prize) have their award at least mentioned in the article.&lt;br /&gt;
--[[User:DenisTR|DenisTR]] 16:04, 19 August 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:I agree with you, Denis.  It was there, once-upon-a-time, but apparently it was removed in the constant editing turmoil. CP does mention this in the [[Nobel Prize]] article. I will add it here, as it should be. --&amp;lt;big&amp;gt;[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]&amp;lt;/big&amp;gt;&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;/Admin&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 16:24, 19 August 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Faulty Logic==&lt;br /&gt;
I have a suspicion that Andy Schlafly is secretly a Muslim. Will you deny that, Andy? If you do deny it, then I accuse you of being a Muslim under the concept of Taqiyya.&lt;br /&gt;
It's like a terrible flow chart that always ends with &amp;quot;You're a Muslim.&amp;quot; I realize that you're kind of scraping the barrel with this whole &amp;quot;Obama is a Muslim&amp;quot; thing, but c'mon. [[User:Pete5383|Paul]] 18:57, 19 August 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: Paul, you seem to think all claims or facts are relative.  They aren't.  Truth is supported by logic and evidence.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:00, 19 August 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:: President Obama clearly has an Islamic background. As an adult, he joined a church and says he's a Christian. I'd say he's as much Muslim as I am Jewish; by Jewish law, my having a Jewish mother makes me Jewish by birth, but I became a Christian by choice as a teenager. Go figure. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] &amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 14:04, 3 September 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::Whether President Obama is Muslim or not is one question; however it is undeniable Obama misspoke or was deceptive while ramping up his ambitions back in 2005 when he told the ''Chicago Sun-Times'', &amp;quot;I am rooted in the Christian tradition.&amp;quot; Nowhere on his maternal side, grandma, gramps, or his natural father, or his stepfather, can any Christian rooting be found.  [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 14:37, 4 September 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Days in office==&lt;br /&gt;
[[Barack Obama]] was inaugurated {{days since|2009|1|20}} days ago  and will finish his term in {{#expr: -{{days since|2013|1|20}} }} days. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] &amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 14:00, 3 September 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Apparent sourcing errors==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While looking over this article, I noticed a number of problems - mostly unsourced claims or claims for which the source is no longer available. Since my suggestions will almost certainly be controversial, I will not actually make any further changes to this page.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*The quote &amp;quot;Rather than being a unifier, Mr. Obama has divided America on the basis of race, class and partisanship&amp;quot; under the heading &amp;quot;Presidency&amp;quot; is unattributed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*The claim that Obama represented ACORN in ''Buycks-Roberson v. Citibank Fed. Sav. Bank'' is unsupported. While court documents do list Obama among the Plaintiff's Attorneys, they do not reference ACORN in any way. [http://www.clearinghouse.net/detail.php?id=10112] This claim seems to have been added by bloggers after the fact. Similarly, the cited reference contains no source for the claim that Obama had anything to do with the CRA, only a completely unsourced allegation that was reprinted almost verbatim here. As far as I can tell, Obama represented ACORN exactly once, on a case involving motor voter laws. [http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2008/oct/17/john-mccain/he-represented-them-in-one-case-/]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*The statement &amp;quot;Obama website Fight The Smears has confirmed that Obama was once a Kenyan citizen until 1982&amp;quot; under the subheading &amp;quot;Birth Certificate Controversy&amp;quot; is unsourced and ambiguous.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*Much of the content under the subheading &amp;quot;Engineers defeat of Centrist Democrats&amp;quot; is dubious. Two of the cites [http://articles.latimes.com/1992-03-18/news/mn-3844_1_gus-savage][http://www.dkosopedia.com/wiki/Carol_Moseley_Braun#Political_career] are about Carol Moseley Braun and don't mention Obama at all. There is no indication in any of the sources that Obama was connected to the Braun campaign, so these cites are meaningless. Additionally, the section attributes an anti-Dixon intent to Obama (referring to Obama as &amp;quot;subverting&amp;quot; Dixon's reelection, defined by Conservapedia's own article as &amp;quot;lending of aid, comfort, and moral support to individuals, groups, or organizations that advocate the overthrow of incumbent governments by force and violence&amp;quot;). What he did was increase voter turnout among the black community, a far cry from what the text implies.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*&amp;lt;s&amp;gt;The statement &amp;quot;President Obama falsely claimed that the senior citizen group AARP endorsed his administration's health care plan when they never made such an endorsement&amp;quot; under the subheading &amp;quot;Obama Administration Health Care Plan and Its Advocacy Methods&amp;quot; is sourced to a YouTube video that no longer exists. Additionally, it appears that AARP has been supporting health care reform since at least August 2009. [http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/08/17/eveningnews/main5247916.shtml][http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/19/aarp-ama-announce-support_n_506060.html]&amp;lt;/s&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*Similarly, several cites link to YouTube videos that have been removed. Multiple cites under the subheading &amp;quot;Obama Administration Health Care Plan and Liberal Elitism&amp;quot; link to deleted videos, as does the cite for the statement &amp;quot;Barack Obama's &amp;quot;Disinformation Czar&amp;quot; (whose supposed job was to correct disinformation that others are spreading about the Obama administration's health care plan) was caught spreading misleading information.&amp;quot; The cite for the statement &amp;quot;Senior citizens are key Democratic party constituents that could kill Obama's socialistic health care plan&amp;quot; links to a private video.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
--[[User:DrewJ|DrewJ]] 15:50, 29 September 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Sorry, Drew, but one glaring misrepresentation really sticks out, and explains why liberals are often accused of playing fast and loose with the truth:  While AARP has long advocated health care reform, it specifically repudiated Obama's distortion of the truth, saying they were not endorsing any specific plan, at that time.  See how easy it is to distort fact, by omission, and make obviously good-intentioned souls like you doubt the real truth?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:You are obviously an editor here, and I would urge you, before making posts such as this one, to try and find substitute sources that back up what is in the story. At the very least, as is the case with the AARP, at least check the facts before stating something is incorrect. It was a very big story at the time, Obama's misstatement, and not at all hard to find....so easy and well-known in fact that some people might be tempted to accuse you of inserting a deliberate [[Red Herring]]. --&amp;lt;big&amp;gt;[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]&amp;lt;/big&amp;gt;&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;/Admin&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 17:29, 29 September 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Typo ==&lt;br /&gt;
The first sentence here has a typo: it presumably is meant to read &amp;quot;...said to have '''been''' born in...&amp;quot; I'd fix it myself, but the page is so informative (and therefore long) that my poor old computer can't load it to edit.  --[[User:LanceS|LanceS]] 21:49, 11 November 2010 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
:Thanks, JPatt got it. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] &amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 22:29, 11 November 2010 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Bryan Fischer: Obama wants to give America back to the Indians ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Is [http://www.afa.net/Blogs/BlogPost.aspx?id=2147501360 this site] some kind of liberal parody? Otherwise, this is so serious that is should be included. American Family Association would seem to me as a pretty trustworthy organization, and this Bryan Fischer is writing for them. Any thoughts? &amp;amp;ndash; [[User:Dstone|dstone]] 16:42, 1 January 2011 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Fact vs Opinion==&lt;br /&gt;
Okay...I thought maybe this article would be a good place to start.  I was introduced to Conservapedia recently, and have been waffling about joining and bcoming an editor, but can no longer refrain.  So, I'm extraordinarily new...and I fully expect the welcoming and flame-free arms of this community, as I support the overall efforts of what Conservapedia is trying to accomplish.  The road to becoming a &amp;quot;Trustworthy Encyclopedia&amp;quot; is long, and this site is just starting to make baby steps in that direction.  That being said, I will try to keep this short.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
FACT:  Opinions are not fact.  Even expert opinions are not fact.  They're just plain old opinions.  Despite being in the Commandments, and otherwise stated over and over again, folks seem to have trouble making this distinction.&lt;br /&gt;
OPINION: If you are unable to make cited references, or present the conservative viewpoint in a reasoned and intelligent manner, I would heavily suggest that you leave the site to those who can.  Your &amp;quot;help&amp;quot; is often unhelpful.  Especially in an article as...contentious...as this - and I imagine many others, I'll be looking shortly - the talk page is the place to present your opinions.  If you cannot site material, find sources that intelligently argue your viewpoint, or just want a second or third pair of eyes and ears, it would be addressed here.  Also, if haven't actually read the article that you are citing...do that first, before posting anything at all...&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There are several on this page, the most innocuous of which:  President Obama authorized offshore oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico[28].  The moratorium lapsed in 2008.  It says it right in the article, paragraph 4.  This statement is spruious and vague and will be reworded to say something like: Then-Senator Obama voted to re-authorize oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico.  This is just a small and harmless example, but, either research the issue before posting, or don't post.  If you wish to engage in historical revisionism, or just bottom-barrel opinion mongering, please roll on over to Wikipedia, and leave us be.  [[User:RyanDav|RyanDav]] 2 January 2011&lt;br /&gt;
:I moved this from the top of the page to its current location, to maintain threading. [[User:Tzoran|Tyler Zoran]] &amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:Tzoran|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 13:35, 2 January 2011 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Oil Drilling Moratorium, redux ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I did not realize that this would be as contentious as it was.  The statement is simply poorly worded, I assume unintentionally, and appears to place the blame squarely on one person's shoulders.  This is just factually innacurate, nothing more, nothing less.  We accept credit where credit is due, and take blame where blame is appropriate - and the blame belongs to the vast majority of the 110th Congress, both the liberal reps and ours - and to deny that is some kind of revisionism, which will not be tolerated.  I'm certainly more than willing to be corrected on this, but you can either site sources that support your viewpoint, or you cannot - it really is that easy.  In that case, the article would read something like, &amp;quot;then-Senator Obama lobbied heavily for the moratorium to lapse, and led a congressional coalition consisting of Senators Blah, Blah and Blah and Congressmen Such-and-such and So-and-so to further that end, etc...&amp;quot; accompanied by supporting references.  I am afraid, however, that a &amp;quot;nuh-uh,&amp;quot; or, &amp;quot;because I said so,&amp;quot; is simply Not Good Enough.  We're counteracting liberal bias, here, not populating the internet with more unfounded claptrap. [[User:RyanDav|RyanDav]] 19:26, 3 January 2011 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:If you please, write here your proposal for how this should be written, including the source links.  If Obama lobbied heavily for the moritorium to lapse, then the source evidence will say it; if he was a part of a coalition of people, then again the evidence will support that.  Since this article is about Obama, it should lean on what he has done while in office.  But as far as what the 110th Congress did or didn't do, oh yes, I am in total agreement with you...and so were the vast majority of voters back in November. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 20:00, 3 January 2011 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::He didn't, as far as I know, or have ever read.  I don't think any articles arguing that he soley was responsible, or even more responsible than any other rep, exist.  The text is already up there.  Pretty vanilla.  Mentions him by name, but also says, &amp;quot;hey, don't forget about all the other chair-jockeys, too!&amp;quot;  But the article is about him, so he gets a name drop for focus.  The article is about him as whole, so his Presidential and Senatorial terms would be seperate sections of the same article, so as not to confuse.  The 110th was the last Bush-era Congress.  In November, we voted out the 111th.  We are now in the 112th Congress.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Oh, I also replaced someone's citation from an OpEd piece in the NYTimes with an actual news reference that supported the same point (about the Obama administration's poor response to the Oil Spill).  If I didn't know better (and I probably don't), I would suspect that some of the citations here are purposefully planted just to make us look like simpletons.  [[User:RyanDav|RyanDav]] 21:39, 3 January 2011 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Birth Controversy ==&lt;br /&gt;
Could someone please explain to me something I've never quite followed: why does it matter where Obama was born?  As far as I can tell, no one is claiming his mother was not a US Citizen, which makes him a &amp;quot;natural born&amp;quot; US citizen even if he was born in Kenya, Moscow, or Riyadh.  If the issue is &amp;quot;without a birth certificate we can't be certain his mother is really his mother&amp;quot; then I get it, but this side of things seems to be ignored in favor of controversy over the actual location of the birth.  If we interpret &amp;quot;natural born citizen&amp;quot; as &amp;quot;born within the US&amp;quot;, then that would exclude the children of Armed Forces personnel stationed overseas with their families at the time their children were born from the presidency, which seems like something liberals would love to do. [[User:Ptorquemada|Ptorquemada]] 12:09, 5 April 2011 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:Well, John McCain whose father was an Admiral was born to two American parents in Panama Canal Zone. The media questioned his &amp;quot;natural born&amp;quot; citizen status and it seemingly was determined that since both his parents were American citizens who were living out of State because of the Admiral's duties that John McCain's birth status would be considered &amp;quot;natural born. The question concerning Barack Obama is that his father was not a US citizen but was in fact a British subject as Kenya was under British rule at the time. Some suggest that the original conception of &amp;quot;natural born&amp;quot; was that both parents are US citizens at the time of the birth of a child. So there is a question as to his &amp;quot;natural born&amp;quot; status even if he was, in fact, born in Hawaii. The fact that Obama has spent a couple of million dollars fighting any requests for proof of an original long form birth certificate and school records makes some people more convinced that a. he wasn't actually born in Hawaii and that his birth was only registered there or b. because his father was a British subject he had duel citizenship status which would make it doubtful that he would be considered a natural born citizen. There are many questions concerning Obama's &amp;quot;natural born&amp;quot; status because he also appears to have been a citizenship of Indonesia and is supposed to have traveled on an Indonesian passport as an adult. Of course, a lot of questions would be removed if the president just released the original birth certificate. The fact that he hasn't just adds fuel to the fire. [[User:Dwain|Dwain]] 12:09, 8 April 2011 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Birth Certificate Removal? ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Now that Obama has finally released his birth certificate, all this about Kenya and Barry Soetoro seems a bit silly. Should we remove it? [[User:JimAB|JimAB]] 11:24, 27 April 2011 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:Has the question of Mr. Obama traveling to Pakistan on an Indonesian passport under the name Barry Soetero in 1981 been resolved yet? As well as the statements regarding his application to join the Illinois State Bar Association wherein he answered no to the question of ever using any aliases? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 18:12, 28 April 2011 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Shortening the article length ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think we need to work on splitting this article; I recently revert a vandal's (mostly) blanking of the page, and my browser would freeze up when I tried to save the page (actually I'm currently trying to save it - and over and over again I'm having no luck). Currently this appears at the top of the edit screen:&lt;br /&gt;
:'''WARNING: This page is 144 kilobytes long; some browsers may have problems editing pages approaching or longer than 32kb. Please consider breaking the page into smaller sections or removing irrelevant information.'''&lt;br /&gt;
Thoughts?--&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;[[User:Iduan|&amp;lt;span style=&amp;quot;color: #FFCCCC; background: #660000&amp;quot;&amp;gt;I]][[User_talk:Iduan|&amp;lt;span style=&amp;quot;color:#CCCCFF; background:#000033&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Duan]]&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt; 00:34, 30 April 2011 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== First Socialist??? ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Obama is clearly a socialist, but is he the first to be president as the lead of the article states? The New deal democrats who created social security come to mind.[[User:BenDylan|BenD]] 09:03, 1 May 2011 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:That certainly may be true. But we are talking about one man who occupies the office of president, not underlings and appopintees.  [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 09:23, 1 May 2011 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::But couldn't the Presidents who hired them be considered socialists? I still don't know about saying he's the FIRST. [[User:KingHanksley|KingHanksley]] 12:31, 4 May 2011 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Obama the Socialist ==&lt;br /&gt;
I am counting all the capitalists that have hired self-proclaimed communists. I come up with zero. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 12:43, 2 May 2011 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Update of the article ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
See [[Talk:Barack Hussein Obama/update]] if you'd like to contribute to an update of this article - we'll be keeping a lot of the information that's good, throwing out some information that's a little old, and adding new information - all while hopefully downsizing! All help is appreciated!--&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;[[User:Iduan|&amp;lt;span style=&amp;quot;color: #FFCCCC; background: #660000&amp;quot;&amp;gt;I]][[User_talk:Iduan|&amp;lt;span style=&amp;quot;color:#CCCCFF; background:#000033&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Duan]]&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt; 19:55, 2 May 2011 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Bin Laden ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Should we at least mention the Bin Laden capture? I feel that in fairness we should give him his one or two accomplishments. We should definitely mention that George W. Bush's policies played a big hand but still Obama could have gone entirely bleeding heart on us and we wouldn't have gotten OBL [[User:KingHanksley|KingHanksley]] 11:24, 4 May 2011 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But being fair and giving credit to a liberal muslim socialist for making the world even a little safer would undermine the integrity of a conservative encyclopedia. Now had he screwed up the capture then that would be worthy of mentioning because it would show how he endangered the country. We should only be fair and give credit where credit is due if Obama was a Christian conservative who shared our beliefs. ([[User:Bluebank|Bluebank]] 12:58, 7 July 2011 (EDT))&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree, it would only be worth mentioning if he had screwed up the capture because then we could hold his feet to the fire. ([[User:Jvclark2|Jvclark2]] 13:00, 7 July 2011 (EDT))&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::''&amp;quot;giving credit to a liberal muslim socialist for making the world even a little safer would undermine the integrity of a conservative encyclopedia.&amp;quot;'' Well that's not a biased statement or anything. It should fall under the article Obama presidency but because of its significance, put it on the BHO page. Rarely, but we have given Obama credit in the past. The rescue of a Captain from Somali pirates is a good example of the proper choice the Progressive fake Christian Marxist had made. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 14:58, 7 July 2011 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:::::I just don't see where ordering bin Laden's killing is a big accomplishment. What purpose did it serve other than a failed effort to turn around Obama's falling poll ratings while destroying the most important relationship the United States had in the war on terror. After Obama declared the war on terror over two years ago, dismantling the delicate relationship with the Pakistani ISS seems like phase two. Undermining Pakistan's secular regime, the way Obama did, only works to the advantage of Islamic extremists. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::Did killing bin Laden bring back the lives lost in the 9/11 attacks? No. Does making the war's in Iraq &amp;amp; Afghanistan about retribution rather than prevention, further American foreign policy interests or make the United States more secure? Hardly. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::Does creating the false sense among the American electorate that the objectives of the war in Afghanistan have now been accomplished, and we can abandon the fight? The height of folly -- and a repeat of what happened when the U.S. abandoned Afghanistan to the terrorists after 1991. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::Did killing bin Laden make America safe from reprisals? Or rather doies killing bin Laden expose innocent men, women, and children to the never ending threat of sudden, sensesless, and violent death?&lt;br /&gt;
:::::The cynical manipulation of American security and foreign policy interests for short term popularity and selfish career interests is appalling. I just don't agree this a &amp;quot;success&amp;quot; to boast of.  [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 23:15, 7 July 2011 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::::::While I think it's laughable to say that taking down the number one most wanted man in the world isn't an accomplishment, I think it's a decision that ''anyone'' would have made, therefore, it isn't special or particular that Obama happened to be the one to make it. [[User:BradB|BradB]] 23:57, 7 July 2011 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:::::::No. We've learned from our mistakes. In 1967 the the number one most wanted man in the world - Che Guevara - was similiarly hunted and executed, only to be resurrected by liberals, hate-mongers, and other assorted sociopaths and pro-mass murder advocates, made the mascot of the hate-America crowd, and sold to American college students as somethiong larger than life and a cult hero to be worshiped. It is not laughable at all.  [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 13:55, 8 July 2011 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::::::::The angst from the left goes back to Bush hatred. We shouldn't have interfered in Iraq and should have focused on OBL. Leftist sheep knew better than Bush. We knew all along that it is not one man but a movement, confront them there instead of here. At least we are no longer creating and recruiting terrorists, thanks to a Muslim-named president and his policies of peace in the Middle East.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 14:08, 8 July 2011 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:::::::::You will recall Senator [[Patty Murray]], who now heads the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee charged with candidate recruitment and doling out funds, praised bin Laden for his work with children buidling day care centers. He probably supported the Family-Leave Act and opposed No Child Left Behind, too. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 15:26, 8 July 2011 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::::::::::''&amp;quot; I just don't agree this a &amp;quot;success&amp;quot; to boast of. &amp;quot;'' Two points, 1) stating a fact is not boasting, it is just stating a fact. We list domestic policy, popular bills, economic plan, gulf oil spill, DADT... It's just another thing to list. 2) Had Bush done it I'm pretty sure it would be on his page.([[User:Jvclark2|Jvclark2]] 21:09, 8 July 2011 (EDT))&lt;br /&gt;
:::::::::::That is the point. Stating the fact that Obama's unnecessarily destroyed the most vital relationship the United States has in the War on Terror to score short term approval ratings.  [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 12:38, 9 July 2011 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
Jvclark - bin Laden's death is mentioned on this page. In the lead. What more do you want?--&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;[[User:Iduan|&amp;lt;span style=&amp;quot;color: #FFCCCC; background: #660000&amp;quot;&amp;gt;I]][[User_talk:Iduan|&amp;lt;span style=&amp;quot;color:#CCCCFF; background:#000033&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Duan]]&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt; 11:46, 9 July 2011 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==From the update - discussion==&lt;br /&gt;
===Structuring===&lt;br /&gt;
This is what I feel should be the general sectioning of the article - I think with an article that we have this much information on, what we mostly need to do is use &amp;quot;See also:&amp;quot; pages rather than go into major details.&lt;br /&gt;
{| style=&amp;quot;width:100%&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|valign=&amp;quot;top&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
*Early life&lt;br /&gt;
*U.S. Senate career (with a note on opposition to the Iraq War - which should be followed up on in the presidential primary race)&lt;br /&gt;
*U.S. Senate career&lt;br /&gt;
**Radical endorsements, support, and get out the vote efforts (better language?)&lt;br /&gt;
**'''Use of filibuster and obstructionism'''&lt;br /&gt;
**'''Voted agaist debt ceiling increase'''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*Presidential election (things to cover: experience question, jeremiah wright, PUMA)&lt;br /&gt;
**Primary race&lt;br /&gt;
**National election&lt;br /&gt;
|valign=&amp;quot;top&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
*Presidency&lt;br /&gt;
**Domestic policy&lt;br /&gt;
***Popular Bills (Zadroga, lilly ledbetter fair pay act)&lt;br /&gt;
***Economic plan&lt;br /&gt;
****Stimulus plan&lt;br /&gt;
***Health care&lt;br /&gt;
***The Gulf oil spill&lt;br /&gt;
**Foreign policy&lt;br /&gt;
***Commander-in-Chief&lt;br /&gt;
****Iraq&lt;br /&gt;
****Afghanistan&lt;br /&gt;
****Libya/The Obama Doctine&lt;br /&gt;
****Don't Ask Don't Tell&lt;br /&gt;
|valign=&amp;quot;top&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*Ideology (mentioning pro-abortion stance, other things not mentioned above)&lt;br /&gt;
*References&lt;br /&gt;
*See also&lt;br /&gt;
*External links&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Rob I've bolded two section that I wonder if they should be sections alone; I do 100% agree that they should be mentioned in the text; are you set on them being sections? If so I'll yield--&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;[[User:Iduan|&amp;lt;span style=&amp;quot;color: #FFCCCC; background: #660000&amp;quot;&amp;gt;I]][[User_talk:Iduan|&amp;lt;span style=&amp;quot;color:#CCCCFF; background:#000033&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Duan]]&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt; 00:58, 3 May 2011 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:Leave bold for now &amp;amp; let's see what develops; '''Recovery''' is ambiguous; while total output (GDP growth) has recovered, we've seen several polls just over the past week where 60-70% of respondents ''still'' think the US is in recession (despite the fact GDP growth has recovered over the past year and half). Likewise, it certainly has not been a &amp;quot;jobs recovery&amp;quot;. I'd suggest this needs a better name.  [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 01:15, 3 May 2011 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::I very much agree - that's a misleading section title - I think what I meant was &amp;quot;Proposed Recovery&amp;quot; - or &amp;quot;Recovery Plan&amp;quot;. The latter sounds a little better to my ears. I made a few edits below - I'm gonna hold off on doing anything else till you get a chance to take a look and add things.--&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;[[User:Iduan|&amp;lt;span style=&amp;quot;color: #FFCCCC; background: #660000&amp;quot;&amp;gt;I]][[User_talk:Iduan|&amp;lt;span style=&amp;quot;color:#CCCCFF; background:#000033&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Duan]]&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt;01:22, 3 May 2011 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:::I've replaced Recovery with Stimulus, perhaps &amp;quot;Stimulus and budget&amp;quot;. Also, Don't Ask Don't Tell seems a little wierd under &amp;quot;Wartime&amp;quot;; is it there solely cause it's a military subject? It could just as easily fit under Idealogy as well (I' not just trying to be argumentative....) [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 01:40, 3 May 2011 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::::Hmm. Very true. No I think it's definitely a legitimate question. I HAD been thinking that Ideology would just cover what wasn't addressed in the prior sections (since certainly we'd discuss his economic ideology in the &amp;quot;Economic plan&amp;quot; section) - so, yes, I had just placed it under wartime solely because its a military subject. But it is probably more apropos to homosexual rights. I am worried that Ideology will become a bucket of worms, so to speak, only in that it'd be weird to just have a section for DADT under it, so then we'd have to have a super-section for &amp;quot;Homosexual policy&amp;quot;, and then super-sections for everything else, making the article very long. I leave it up to you.--&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;[[User:Iduan|&amp;lt;span style=&amp;quot;color: #FFCCCC; background: #660000&amp;quot;&amp;gt;I]][[User_talk:Iduan|&amp;lt;span style=&amp;quot;color:#CCCCFF; background:#000033&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Duan]]&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt; 01:45, 3 May 2011 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:::::Alternatively, we can just leave it as is for now. I'm updating the [[Obama administration]] article right now, too. That one is structured , &amp;quot;Economic policy&amp;quot;, &amp;quot;Foreign policy&amp;quot;, etc. Wartime leader is something new. Perhaps, Commander-in-Chief? that would encompass DADT as well as ongoing military operations.  [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 02:08, 3 May 2011 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::::::I like that. It's broader and works well. Nice.--&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;[[User:Iduan|&amp;lt;span style=&amp;quot;color: #FFCCCC; background: #660000&amp;quot;&amp;gt;I]][[User_talk:Iduan|&amp;lt;span style=&amp;quot;color:#CCCCFF; background:#000033&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Duan]]&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt; 02:29, 3 May 2011 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
I took a look at the Wikipedia page on Obama - and I actually like how they organize his presidency - into Domestic policy and foreign policy. I'm going to make some changes to reflect that. I think in the long run it'll actually limit the number of sections we need--&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;[[User:Iduan|&amp;lt;span style=&amp;quot;color: #FFCCCC; background: #660000&amp;quot;&amp;gt;I]][[User_talk:Iduan|&amp;lt;span style=&amp;quot;color:#CCCCFF; background:#000033&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Duan]]&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt; 18:15, 4 May 2011 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Congratulations! ==&lt;br /&gt;
To the people who worked updating this article. It looks much better now.--[[User:AlejandroH|AlejandroH]] 00:43, 10 May 2011 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Speculation ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the spirit of accuracy, I think that all articles should refrain from speculative language (I thought this would be good article to start with). I understand that this is a conservative encyclopedia, but one should not overrule the other. We can still present the conservative view point that other encyclopedias overlook without veering off the path of facts. I think that President Obama has done enough to harm himself without adding inflammatory and opinion statements. This language degrades the reliability of the site. [[User:McTone|McTone]] 10:59, 23 May 2011 (EDT)McTone&lt;br /&gt;
:You're actually not making encyclopedic edits - for example how you're adding titles (&amp;quot;''President'' Obama&amp;quot;), which is traditionally not done. As you've now been reverted twice I think you should refrain from editing this article.--&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;[[User:Iduan|&amp;lt;span style=&amp;quot;color: #FFCCCC; background: #660000&amp;quot;&amp;gt;I]][[User_talk:Iduan|&amp;lt;span style=&amp;quot;color:#CCCCFF; background:#000033&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Duan]]&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt; 11:35, 23 May 2011 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:: That is encyclopaedic, as it is proper to use a person's title in reference material. However, that's not ththe only edits I've made. Most of them being removing speculative speech. Basically we should follow the rule of &amp;quot;if you can't cite it, don't say it.&amp;quot;[[User:McTone|McTone]] 13:01, 23 May 2011 (EDT)McTone&lt;br /&gt;
:::No it's generally not. See his Wikipedia page if you don't believe. We also don't say &amp;quot;Mr.&amp;quot; or &amp;quot;Ms.&amp;quot;--&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;[[User:Iduan|&amp;lt;span style=&amp;quot;color: #FFCCCC; background: #660000&amp;quot;&amp;gt;I]][[User_talk:Iduan|&amp;lt;span style=&amp;quot;color:#CCCCFF; background:#000033&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Duan]]&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt; 12:02, 23 May 2011 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::::Are we not better than Wikipedia? In any case, this is deferring the point I was making with this heading.[[User:McTone|McTone]] 13:01, 23 May 2011 (EDT)McTone&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Perhaps ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I have read two cases of the word perhaps in the opening section of this article. Shouldn't assumptions like these not belong in an encyclopedia like article, especially in the opening section?- AlexMason&lt;br /&gt;
:The first one is arguably a wording error ... I'll consider that - the second one is more appropriate; since the event just happened we're not sure what the consequences will be, but if a potential consequence is notable enough it's probably worth stating--&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;[[User:Iduan|&amp;lt;span style=&amp;quot;color: #FFCCCC; background: #660000&amp;quot;&amp;gt;I]][[User_talk:Iduan|&amp;lt;span style=&amp;quot;color:#CCCCFF; background:#000033&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Duan]]&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt; 16:30, 23 May 2011 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::I'm an underwriter at Fox News and I see stuff like this all the time. I think AlexMason is correct here (as well as the poster in the previous topic). Is this a web encyclopedia or is this an opinion site? Speculating on the outcome of events is tantamount to gossip (highly frowned upon and in fact forbidden by the standards of Conservapedia as I have read the rules and commandments). I really think this should be fixed. I noticed some edits in the history of this page and I've got to stick with Andy's last revision (reverting some of the edits of the previous editor) which kept to the less speculative nature of the article.[[User:PapaBear|PapaBear]] 21:32, 28 May 2011 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Obama Muslim Evidence? ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I was going to make a post on this talk page suggesting we move the long list of evidence that Obama may be a Muslim to its own article (or an article dealing with the Obama/Islam controversy) but when I got here I saw that section had been removed, as had any mention of the words &amp;quot;Islam&amp;quot; or &amp;quot;Muslim&amp;quot;. (I did a search on my browser). I could not find a reason for this on the talk page. Could someone explain why this was made? [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 22:13, 3 June 2011 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:I rescued the content from an old revision and put it here: [[Barack Obama's Muslim Heritage]] [[User:AndyJ|AndyJ]] 22:18, 21 June 2011 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Obama as President ==&lt;br /&gt;
With the long-standing controversy about Hussein's birth certificate and the recent evidence that the one that was released is forged, I feel that there is ample evidence to conclude that Obama was born in Kenya. Because of that, I propose that we list the current holder of the office of [[President]] as [[Joe Biden]], as he would take the office if Obama were found to be unable or ineligible to serve.  --[[User:AndyJ|AndyJ]] 22:29, 21 June 2011 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:You may be misreading the story; the &amp;quot;Obama was born in Kenya&amp;quot; conspiracy theory was promoted by the White House to hide the fact that, Barack Hussein Obama's father was a [[natural born citizen]] of Kenya, and not the United States. That is the constitutional question, being that a case can be made that the Constitutional framers defined &amp;quot;natural born citizen&amp;quot; as being a citizen of the country of ''your fathers'' birth. The birth certificate, or the location of Obama Jr. birth, that is to say, the birther conspircacy the White House promoted, never had anything to do with the constitutional issue in question.  [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 16:27, 22 June 2011 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::And two things, firstly, there is not ample evidence. Just conspiracy theories. Even assuming that the certificate/s released are forgeries, that alone isn't enough to prove he wasn't born in the US, it would just raise concerning questions. Secondly, Obama would remain the President. The Constitution doesn't mention what would happen if someone who was ineligible to be President became President. Hence, until impeachment or the 25th Amendment is invoked, Obama would remain President. (Presumably the 25th would be invoked, as impeachment would take a lot longer, and would require proving that Obama knew, which could be a little difficult.) - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 07:57, 18 October 2011 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Why is the birth certificate things still going? ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I read a while ago (and posted in the article) an article from the National Review where even they concede that Obama was probably born in the US. [[User:CaptainSwing|CaptainSwing]] 23:43, 7 November 2011 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Well as soon as it's verified than we can move past. Until then, we'll just pretend everything is a ok. For me, I'd still like to see every executive order, every law signed, every supreme court nominee from Obama overturned. It took three years the release of the long form certificate. I can wait another three years if need be for the proof.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 00:11, 8 November 2011 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
::I don't understand, the National Review, a magazine that I admit is quite conservative, viewed the birth certificate and said it was most likely valid. I'm not sure what you're waiting for, as I don't think anyone is going to prove that Obama wasn't born in the country. [[User:CaptainSwing|CaptainSwing]] 09:59, 8 November 2011 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
:::Because what they viewed was a Photoshoped work.  Until the American public sees for itself exactly what is - or is not - on file in Hawaii, there will always be this unanswered question.  [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 11:22, 8 November 2011 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
::::But it wasn't photo-shopped, that was the whole point the National Review was making: [http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/265767/pdf-layers-obamas-birth-certificate-nathan-goulding]. And honestly it makes sense, why on Earth would they go to the trouble of planting so much evidence that even the Mccain campaign declined to pursue it further, only to bungle the job on an elementary error in photoshop that any reasonable graphics designer would never make. [[User:CaptainSwing|CaptainSwing]] 12:03, 8 November 2011 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
:::::It was Photoshopped, and downloading the original White House copy of it reveals all of the layers when it's run under Photoshop.  Try reading all of these [http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&amp;amp;pageId=98546] by different reporters rather than a single National Review piece that's harping the beliefs of the &amp;quot;Yes We Can&amp;quot; crowd.  [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:21, 8 November 2011 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
::::::So wait, you're saying that because they agree with Obama we can dismiss them? Isn't that circular reasoning? The author of the national review article posted a guide of how the mistakes could have easily come up and has no reason to lie about it. And again, let's think about this logically, they have authentic birth announcements from the relevant papers, good enough to fool the Mccain campaign, why would they botch a photoshop job? [[User:CaptainSwing|CaptainSwing]] 12:27, 8 November 2011 (EST)&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>CaptainSwing</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Barack_Hussein_Obama&amp;diff=934890</id>
		<title>Talk:Barack Hussein Obama</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Barack_Hussein_Obama&amp;diff=934890"/>
		<updated>2011-11-08T17:03:43Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;CaptainSwing: /* Why is the birth certificate things still going? */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;[[File:Brainreboot20110429.jpg|400px|thumb|]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{articletalkheader|prefix=archive}}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Rense==&lt;br /&gt;
Jeff Rense may not be a such a good source.  The Anti-Defamation League accuses him of promoting anti-Semitic views and 9/11 Conspiracy theories.  OTOH, what is wrong with a Pravda article written in the post Soviet-censorship era when democratic Russia hungars to exercise a free press, open discussion and discernment of facts?  [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 22:39, 23 January 2010 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:See my talk page, Rob.  I never noticed who added the Pravda cite, so if you say so, it is of course fine with me, and please add it back if you haven't already! I now suspect it was yet another vandal site troll stirring the pot, so feel free to deal with him as well. --&amp;lt;big&amp;gt;[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]&amp;lt;/big&amp;gt;&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;/Admin&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 17:02, 24 January 2010 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Terror Attacks ==&lt;br /&gt;
I have an issue with a claim made in the second paragraph.  ''Since abandoning the &amp;quot;War on Terror&amp;quot; in Obama's first year, the United States has suffered more terrorist attacks with deadly intent on American soil than in the previous eight years combined.''   Since Obama replaced the 'Global War on Terror' with 'Overseas Contingency Operation', there have been only four domestic terrorist attacks, a far cry from the 19 that took place under Bush's tenure.  This sentence should be reworded or removed in its entirety; it only makes the article look embarrassing.  --[[User:MichaelJB|MichaelJB]] 15:46, 25 January 2010 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:More [[liberal]] poppycock, Michael?  Even the New York Times counts more, excluding 9/11, under Obama. Perhaps you should consider sources other than the Kos?  --&amp;lt;big&amp;gt;[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]&amp;lt;/big&amp;gt;&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;/Admin&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 19:29, 25 January 2010 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::A short time ago you gave me grief for making assumptions, yet here you are doing the same.  I didn't get any information from Kos, it all came from legitimate news sources.  Do you really believe that more terror attacks occurred on US soil from March 2009 to January 2010 than in the eight years of the Bush administration?  I would really like to see all your references for making such a bold claim.  And why would you want to exclude the WTC/Pentagon attacks?&lt;br /&gt;
::Some people have been making some really stupid claims lately about domestic terror.  Dana Perino and Rudy Guiliani both claimed there was not a terror attack on the US when Bush was in office.  The fact that these people could make such stupidly partisan claims is incredible. [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4kpfhGxJbLc] [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2tYoMoJHNDs] The claim made in this article reeks of the same idiocy of Perino and Guiliani, why not delete the sentence or at least make it factual?  --[[User:MichaelJB|MichaelJB]] 20:23, 25 January 2010 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::The facts are undeniable that America was totally unprepared to protect itself from terrorist homeland attacks as Bush entered office, due to the total lack of focus of the Clinton Administration and Congress on the issue.  Bush can in no way be blamed for the 9/11 attacks with any real credibility. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::As I have stated many times before, as Mr. Schlafly has stated many times before, as several other Admins have as well,  coming here to argue-without-end against our conservative point of view in all articles you come across, is silly. If you and others cannot bring yourselves to accept alternative points of view, so be it. If you want a place to argue against conservatism in general, make your own site or try the Kos or HuffPo; but CP isn't a debate forum, it is a conservative encyclopedia ''project''. Article talk pages are for suggesting ways to improve articles from a conservative point of view, not a liberal one. Is that a clear enough statement?  --&amp;lt;big&amp;gt;[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]&amp;lt;/big&amp;gt;&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;/Admin&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 21:29, 25 January 2010 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::TK: The change you made is completely unacceptable from a moral and ethical standpoint because instead of correcting an error, you are now highlighting a lie.  Three terror attacks occurred during Pres. Bush's last year in office.  I sent you links to all three events but you are willing to over look such trivial matters as the truth.  It's funny that a liberal who has been blocked twice for pointing out errors and outright falsehoods is vilified as a trouble-maker while the conservatives that knowingly mislead and lie are in charge of an alleged 'trustworthy encyclopedia'.  &lt;br /&gt;
::::I'm trying to make these changes because I don't want Americans to look stupid, even the conservative ones.  It's an uphill battle. &lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
::::Gunman killed two people in a church.  [http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-07-29-church-shooting_N.htm]&lt;br /&gt;
::::Suicide bomber attacked a Georgia law firm. [http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/ga_law_firm_explodes_causing_multiple_injuries/]&lt;br /&gt;
::::Two police officers were killed by a bomb placed in a bank.  [http://www.odmp.org/officer/19697-captain-thomas-paul-tennant]&lt;br /&gt;
::::--[[User:MichaelJB|MichaelJB]] 01:25, 29 January 2010 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
MichaelJB you cannot tell the difference between Muslim terrorists and someone with an ax to grind? Godspeed! --&amp;lt;big&amp;gt;[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]&amp;lt;/big&amp;gt;&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;/Admin&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 06:36, 29 January 2010 (EST)v&lt;br /&gt;
:So Michael's point is that progressive liberal leftwing commie socialist (or whatever the flavor of the week) Prof. [[Amy  Bishop]] conducted a domestic overseas contingency operation attack. It's beginning to make sense. How would we classify the guy who crashed the plane into the IRS building in Houston, a tax protester who railed against corporations. Dang, this is a tuff one.... [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 08:13, 12 March 2010 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Middle name in article title? ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::&amp;lt;big&amp;gt;'''Unless you have some brilliant new argument to add to this section, further discussion is unneeded.&amp;lt;/big&amp;gt;'''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It strikes to me odd that the title of the article is Barach Hussein Obama. While there is nothing wrong with that by itself, looking at the [[President_of_the_United_States_of_America#Presidents_list|list of all the U.S. presidents]], it seems that all the other presidents' articles are titled either without their middle name, or just a middle initial. Wouldn't it make sense to rename the article to either Barack Obama or Barack H. Obama to follow suit? [[User:Kayvan|Kayvan]] 18:19, 26 February 2010 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
:There is a big difference between Walker or Jefferson and Hussein.  My two cents. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 18:22, 26 February 2010 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
::What about [[Ronald Wilson Reagan]]? [[User:DMorris|DMorris]] 18:26, 26 February 2010 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
:::This topic had been discussed before. He decided to be inaugurated with his middle name after not using it during the campaign. He is not ashamed of it and we are not ashamed to include it.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 18:29, 26 February 2010 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
::::Ah, I see. Looking at some lists though ([http://www.ipl.org/div/potus/] and [http://www.apples4theteacher.com/holidays/presidents-day/past-presidents-of-usa.html]), it seems that many presidents were also inaugurated in a similar fashion. [[User:Kayvan|Kayvan]] 18:33, 26 February 2010 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::: I think that, as all encyclopedias and scholarly works try to do, we should try to decide on a particular set of rules and always follow it. In this case, these are the options:&lt;br /&gt;
:::1) Always cite the full name in the title, so &amp;quot;Barack Hussein Obama&amp;quot;, &amp;quot;George Herbert Walker Bush&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;Ronald Wilson Reagan&amp;quot;;&lt;br /&gt;
:::2) Always use initials for middle names, so &amp;quot;Barack H. Obama&amp;quot;, &amp;quot;George H.W. Bush&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;Ronald W. Reagan&amp;quot;;&lt;br /&gt;
:::3) Use the names in the way they most commonly used, using middle name initials only where they are necessary to distinguish one particular individual from another, therefore &amp;quot;Barack Obama&amp;quot;, &amp;quot;George H.W. Bush&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;Ronald Reagan&amp;quot;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::: We are talking about titles of articles; the full name should always be cited in the body of the article. Personally, I would vote for solution n.3. --[[User:Maquissar|Maquissar]] 18:34, 26 February 2010 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
::::I like the idea. Either 2 or 3 seem best in my opinion; full names seem a bit to long for article titles. The name that the president was inaugurated with isn't bad either, but it would seem less formal, as some have middle names and others don't. [[User:Kayvan|Kayvan]] 18:38, 26 February 2010 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::: I thought about that solution, but then I thought that we should better set very general rules; by this I mean that we should decide how to title page names referring to INDIVIDUALS, not to US PRESIDENTS. Deciding that &amp;quot;the name that the president was inaugurated with&amp;quot; is a rule that, naturally, can only be applied to presidents. --[[User:Maquissar|Maquissar]] 18:41, 26 February 2010 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::: Another good rule would be to use the name that is mostly used to refer to that individual; this has the disadvantage of not being objective, but it is also the most effective. So &amp;quot;Barack Obama&amp;quot;, &amp;quot;George H.W. Bush&amp;quot; (to distinguish him from his son), &amp;quot;Ronald Reagan&amp;quot;, &amp;quot;Eminem&amp;quot; instead of &amp;quot;Marshall Mathers&amp;quot;, &amp;quot;O.J. Simpson&amp;quot; instead of &amp;quot;Orenthal J. Simpson&amp;quot;...  --[[User:Maquissar|Maquissar]] 18:56, 26 February 2010 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There isn't any vote here, nor was one asked for.  Since Obama tries to soft-pedal his Muslim roots and associations, our editorial policy is to call attention to that ''fact''.  In addition you should note the [[Ronald Wilson Reagan|Reagan]] article, where well before anyone had an inkling Obama would run for President, Conservapedia used his full name, ''Ronald Wilson Reagan'' which Reagan himself preferred  for formal use. So I submit President Obama isn't being singled out, contrary to the insistence of silly-minded liberals. --&amp;lt;big&amp;gt;[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]&amp;lt;/big&amp;gt;&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;/Admin&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 19:06, 26 February 2010 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:But why call attention to that ''fact'' in the title of the article? The ''fact'' is never going to be denied. The introduction sentence would still say &amp;quot;Barack Hussein Obama&amp;quot;. Italicize his middle name in the introduction or change the font color to bring out the ''fact'' if you wish. What I am trying to point at is, why should his middle name be used in the article title? Reagan may have preferred it for formal use, but does Mr. Obama say that same? He is commonly known as Barack Obama; I haven't seen it used in any other way (except Obama, of course). If he is commonly known as that, it would make sense to title the article like that, as should every article on people. [[User:Kayvan|Kayvan]] 21:05, 26 February 2010 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
::Richard Milhous Nixon was commonly refered to as [[Milhous]] by his detracters.  Indeed, googling milhouse brings up hundreds of thousands of hits on Nixon that dwarf most all other uses of the name.  Now, googling [[Hussein]] presents a host of other problems.   The [[Heshamite Dynasty]] of [[Hussein bin Ali]] had been the Islamic Keeper of the Holy places for 700 years until Western British Imperialist interests unseated them and installed the Saudi ruling clan thier place (visualize Islamists dethroning the Pope and installing thier own choice as successor).  How does it look when Hussein bin Ali's namesake bows to tne Saudi puppet? Why not focus on how Obama ''is'' bringing real change to the whole planet, rather than argue about how things have traditionally been done?  [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 13:14, 27 February 2010 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
Drop it.  Further discussion is last-wordism. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 21:14, 26 February 2010 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:On the question of &amp;quot;''all the other presidents' articles are titled either without their middle name, or just a middle initial. Wouldn't it make sense ...to follow suit? ''&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
:You will recall Barack Hussein Obama is the transformational president of change.  Wouldn't it make sense to begin change right here, with his name? (assuming that is his name).  [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 23:54, 26 February 2010 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;:&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;D&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
--&amp;lt;big&amp;gt;[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]&amp;lt;/big&amp;gt;&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;/Admin&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 01:58, 27 February 2010 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Pretty slick conservative trap there TK. despite the fact that you neglected to answer some massive holes in the arguments above, you declare the debate &amp;quot;ended&amp;quot; (even though its not) then decry anything else as last wordism to stifle any further debate. well done--[[User:DerikJ|DerikJ]] 11:58, 27 February 2010 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
:What holes? We're implementing change. Let's find common ground and compromise. We've done just that.  [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 12:35, 27 February 2010 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
::I like your comment on change, Rob, it made me laugh :) Anyway, I don't see how an argument that Obama's slogan being &amp;quot;change&amp;quot; is any reason to title his article to what he is less commonly known as/less traditional. It's pushing it, in a sense. Besides, being a conservative, I would think that you wouldn't want to follow Obama's way of thinking ;) [[User:Kayvan|Kayvan]] 13:40, 27 February 2010 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
:::Conservatives are for change, both economic and social.  They want to change tax law and abortion rulings, for example.  Above all, change public education.  Being anti-change is just a vulgar stereotype held by closeminded and intolerant people.  [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 14:09, 27 February 2010 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
::::I can agree with that. But ''why'' &amp;quot;change&amp;quot; how Obama's article is titled when others are titled either without their middle name or with their middle name if they are commonly known and identified by the name, in some cases. Simply changing something doesn't necessarily mean it's a good thing, there has to be reason, and the reason has to be, well, reasonable. [[User:Kayvan|Kayvan]] 14:44, 27 February 2010 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
:::::Call it the price of progress.  [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 15:17, 27 February 2010 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
::::::In that case, would changing the titles of all the other peoples' articles to include their middle names sound all right to you? It would be progress, after all. [[User:Kayvan|Kayvan]] 17:29, 27 February 2010 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
I have always wondered why the Obamabots get so upset with the name Obama's parents chose.  Pretty silly. --&amp;lt;big&amp;gt;[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]&amp;lt;/big&amp;gt;&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;/Admin&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 16:40, 27 February 2010 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:I actually like the name, it has a nice ring to it. It's more of just keeping a solid style of titling pages, a format if you want to call it that. [[User:Kayvan|Kayvan]] 17:29, 27 February 2010 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
::Which brings us to the question of Barry Soetero.  If Obama went by this name, then he may have lied to the Illinois Supreme Court when asked to provide former names, according to this Attorney’s Registration Record. [http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2061988/posts]  I'm not the sure what the resolution of this issue ever was, and we don't have a word about it in this article.  [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 17:49, 27 February 2010 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I know I am new here but there really needs to be a consensus amongst all Presidential and Vice President articles, actually this should probably extend to all US politicians. I know there is a specified conservative bias, however the lack organization and consensus has nothing to do with liberal or conservative bias, it has to do with disorganization and lazyiness by the admins.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If you want to leave the middle, that is fine, however, there would need to be a quick modification of all or the majority of the US Politian article so as not to look so disorganized.[[User:Solarguy17|Solarguy17]] 01:01, 10 March 2010 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:You hit the nail on the head.  You are new here.  Don't come in criticizing and such off the bat. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 01:12, 10 March 2010 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My criticization is to help the article(s) to be better as a whole. None of the above discussion explains the reasoning for leaving it as is. Just people saying he used it in his inauguration so we use it here, however, almost every pres does this so why not have it that way for everyone????[[User:Solarguy17|Solarguy17]] 01:15, 10 March 2010 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Not really discussion just more of a question. I just recently found this site and was looking through the religious articles and for the most part they seemed pretty good. However, when I come to the political articles, some of them seem a little crazy. I know it is to call more attention to the things that are being overlooked by the media. But I have ask about the middle name thing. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I read all of the information above and I still am not sure why it was decided to leave it as is.  Can someone clarify this? &lt;br /&gt;
Please don't ban me, I noticed that basically everyone with discussion in this thread that isn't an admin now has banned accounts. I personally don't care, I am just confused. [[User:StevenS|StevenS]] 01:12, 12 March 2010 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: As it says up at the top of this section, &amp;quot;Unless you have some brilliant new argument to add to this section, further discussion is unneeded.&amp;quot;  If you do have one, let's have it.  But it sure seems like everyone who signs up to this site and immediately starts complaining has nothing new to say at all.  Why don't you spend some time reading here with an open mind first, and complain later?  [[User:DanielPulido|DanielPulido]] 01:20, 12 March 2010 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Now, why would a single individual come here under several different user names all in an effort to get the word &amp;quot;Hussein&amp;quot; removed from the title of this article?  It makes no sense at all unless that individual has a personal agenda to perform.  The article title stays as it is.  [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 01:42, 12 March 2010 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:My only concern is that the title seems to exist in its current state for no purpose other than to further a bias.  The arguments that &amp;quot;well he asked for it&amp;quot; seem to suggest that accuracy and fairness are non-valuable in this wiki.  I sincerely hope this is not the case and that I may not be banned and able to start a fun future in helping this wiki grow in the impressive way it has so far. [[User:Vidihawk|Vidihawk]] 07:47, 6 April 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::'''&amp;quot;Unless you have some brilliant new argument to add to this section, further discussion is unneeded.&amp;quot;'''&lt;br /&gt;
I guess you missed the bold title at the top of this section?  Also, see [[Ronald Wilson Reagan]] to see how silly your argument is. --&amp;lt;big&amp;gt;[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]&amp;lt;/big&amp;gt;&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;/Admin&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 08:16, 6 April 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:I guess it wasn't as bright an idea as I had hoped.  Heh... It still comes off as somewhat purposeful, though.  Okie, I'll back away! - [[User:Vidihawk|Vidihawk]] 08:24, 6 April 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::Purposeful, as in done with the same horribly malevolent intent as ''my'' adding Reagan's middle name several years ago?  You are giving away your intent in advance, good sir, by refusing to admit your already formed assumptions about us are wrong.  I hope you prove me wrong, and turn out to be that rare U.K. denizen that turns out to be open-minded and as fair to us as you wish us to be to you. There have been precious few. And please do check out our editors guide and all of that. We differ quite a bit from Wikipedia. --&amp;lt;big&amp;gt;[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]&amp;lt;/big&amp;gt;&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;/Admin&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 08:33, 6 April 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:::::I think we should keep the current title of the article.  Furthermore, I think we should replace the top picture, which is currently a picture of Obama,  with a picture of an oil drenched pelican (and a new caption) as a tribute to Obama's indifference, sloth and incompetence.  [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 20:36, 16 June 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== I moved the material dealing with the present to the top  ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I moved the material dealing with the present to the top as I thought readers would be more interested in how Obama is screwing up the present.  For example, I think Americans right now are very concerned about how Obama is screwing up the economy. Of course, he is also doing a poor job in other areas presently as well such as holding terrorists court cases in civilian courts, etc. etc. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 04:30, 15 March 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:That makes sense to me. I do appreciate letting me try the other timeline structure. However, I didn't really take into consideration the fact that because he is a high profile individual it may benefit readers to see more recent info before his earlier biography facts. At least while he's fulfilling his one failed term as president, your structure makes sense to me. [[User:DerekE|DerekE]] 12:42, 15 March 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::As the ==Maoism== section is being being built, we may eventually be able to free up space from the sections on the Ayers/Dohrn relationship by moving some of that material to Ayers own page, and/or creating a new separate page documenting Obama's rise with communist and terrorist assistance.  An acceptable title for that page would be needed.  [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 13:23, 15 March 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Citation==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;Any orders he gives to the American military are subject to being refused. Orders that Obama gives to America’s Joint Chiefs of Staff of the military can be refused.&amp;quot; --http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/columnists/19-01-2009/106972-Barry_Soetoro-0&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Do we really want to cite an article that makes this claim? Do any of us really support this opinion, or if we do, do we support the use of opinion articles as sources in addition to factual ones? --[[User:BenjaminS|Ben]] &amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;[[User Talk:BenjaminS|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; 08:42, 6 April 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Is the opinion piece backed by valid and factual citations from the United States Code, Ben, as opposed to a unsupported rant? --&amp;lt;big&amp;gt;[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]&amp;lt;/big&amp;gt;&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;/Admin&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 08:47, 6 April 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== pronunciation of &amp;quot;Pakistan&amp;quot; ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This is really considered evidence of anything? I've heard [[Mark Levin]] use the Spanish-inflected pronunciation of Sonia Sotomayor's name (''so tow my OR'' rather than ''so tow MY er''), but nobody would claim that proves he's Catholic or Hispanic. [[User:Golgaronok|Golgaronok]] 23:55, 9 April 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:Pronunciation shows an enormous amount about someone's views and history.  Obama doesn't use the American pronunciation, and this is telling, since ''no one else in the public sphere'' pronounces it in the muslim way ''but'' Obama. [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 00:15, 10 April 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
[[David Petraeus]] does [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vtCLp7siY7I]. [[User:Golgaronok|Golgaronok]] 00:50, 10 April 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
And [http://www.forvo.com/word/pakistan/ numerous other languages] use a pronunciation closer to the native form. [[User:Golgaronok|Golgaronok]] 00:57, 10 April 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::&amp;quot;Golgaronok&amp;quot; (if that is your name), your quibbles with the entry have already been argued ad nauseum, [http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Barack_Hussein_Obama/archive4#.22Pokiston.22.3F.3F.3F.3F.3F here], for instance.  If you've only come to argue on talk pages, you're wasting your own time.  Try making substantive contributions to the project; excessive talk is disfavored here.  [[User:DanielPulido|DanielPulido]] 01:04, 10 April 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
I don't see any responses to the points I raised. But it's y'all's funeral. [[User:Golgaronok|Golgaronok]] 01:13, 10 April 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:::Kind of interesting that Davis Petraeus was mentioned here.  When that general was ordered to command US forces in Afghanistan and Iraq, the liberal elites decided that his name should be pronounced &amp;quot;BETRAY US&amp;quot;.  [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 01:29, 10 April 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Barry Soetoro = birth name?==&lt;br /&gt;
This may have already been discussed, so forgive me if this has been settled.  I noticed that the article says ''&amp;quot;Barack Hussein Obama II (birth name Barry Soetoro...&amp;quot;'', however the articles cited do not support the idea that &amp;quot;Barry Soetoro&amp;quot; is Obama's birth name, in fact quite the opposite.  My understanding, from reading the Newsweek article, is that &amp;quot;Barack&amp;quot; is his birth name, although he went by &amp;quot;Barry&amp;quot; when he was younger.  His father's name, as I understand it, is Barack Hussein Obama, and he was named after his father.  &amp;quot;Seotoro&amp;quot;, if I remember right, was his stepfather's last name, so it is unlikely that it would have been part of Obama's birth name.  To be clear, I do realize that he spent his younger years being known as &amp;quot;Barry Soetoro&amp;quot;, and I think that should be included in the article, I just don't think it was actually his birth name.  &amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Please understand that I am not as knowledgeable in this kind of thing as many other contributors here, so I may have gotten it all wrong - that's why I didn't attempt to edit the article.  Please correct me if I have gotten it wrong - I won't be offended and I am curious as to the truth of the matter.  [[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 18:11, 1 May 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
According to the citation that shows the birth certificate, the birth name is, in fact, Barack Hussein Obama II, NOT Barry Soetoro.  Also, because there is an actual document, i.e. physical, demonstrable proof, the word &amp;quot;allegedly&amp;quot; should be removed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Remove name repetition? ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Would anyone mind if I removed some of the repetition of Obama's name in certain portions of the article? For example, in this paragraph:&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|&lt;br /&gt;
[[Barack Obama and uncharitableness|Barack Obama's recent pattern of charitable giving]] and [[Barack Obama and liberal elitism|Barack Obama's liberal elitism]] is consistent with Obama being a [[Narcissism|narcissist]] which is a charge that has often been made against Barack Obama.  However, it is also true that Barack Obama is an [[evolution|evolutionist]].  Barack Obama told the ''York Daily Record'' that &amp;quot;I believe in [[evolution]]...&amp;quot;.  Barack Obama's recent pattern of charitable giving and liberal elitism is also in accordance with someone who has a certain degree of [[Social Darwinism|social darwinistic]] thinking.  In addition to [[Liberals and uncharitableness|American liberals giving less to charity]], it is also true that [[Theory of evolution and liberalism|American liberals are also more likely to believe in evolution]].&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think I could alter it to make it more readable with &amp;quot;Obama's recent pattern of charitable giving and liberal elitism is consistent with that of a narcissist, a charge that has often been made against him.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
And so forth. In my linguistics class, we talked about semantic satiation, and I believe that paragraphs like these, along with the fact that it never seems to use pronouns, somewhat diminish the readability of the article. If I were to make this change, I would preserve every wikilink, reference, etc, but I believe it would become more readable. In Christ, [[User:Tzoran|Tyler Zoran]] &amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:Tzoran|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 09:09, 6 May 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Insults? ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Does the entire beginning of the article have to be so laden with insults? Couldnt it simply say what the article will be about, and THEN express views? As it is it appears very unprofessional. 19:11, 6 May 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:We believe in the truth here, and the fact that [[liberals]] like yourself feign offense at the display of it speaks volumes about you. If you insist on closing your mind, at least take ownership of your [[deceit]]!  Sign your comments with &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt; ~~~~ &amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt; next time. Godspeed! [[User:Tzoran|Tyler Zoran]] &amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:Tzoran|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 19:58, 6 May 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== &amp;quot;The first president who is biracial&amp;quot; ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There have been other presidents of more than one race. Bush Jr. is has some German and English ancestry. [[User:NP|NP]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:George W is German and English, is that two races according to our census? I think the readers will understand what biracial refers to.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::English and German are '''''not''''' races, and neither is Hispanic. --&amp;lt;big&amp;gt;[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]&amp;lt;/big&amp;gt;&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;/Admin&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 22:16, 17 May 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Reorganizing ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I'm glad to see the edit feature is enabled here once more.  I think this page needs a revamp to structure information better.  I've reorganized everything into a better structure, let me know what you think.  I am trying to put a summary of the presidency at the top, information about his life/career next, and then a political summary.  This should really improve the page's appearance, as it appears too disorganized right now.  --[[User:Jzyehoshua|Jzyehoshua]] 15:56, 20 May 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:What you're doing is burying important information so fewer users will find it.  That's unacceptable. [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 15:57, 20 May 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Obama is a Muslim theory and the alleged claim of Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Aboul Gheit  ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Here is what the American Thinker reported: &amp;quot;The American President told me in confidence that he is a Muslim.&amp;quot; That was the claim of Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Aboul Gheit, as reported in the May 2010 issue of Israel Today. According to journalist Avi Lipkin, Gheit appeared on Nile TV's &amp;quot;Round Table Show&amp;quot; in January, on which he said that &amp;quot;he had had a one-on-one meeting with Obama who swore to him that he was a Moslem, the son of a Moslem father and step-son of Moslem step-father, that his half-brothers in Kenya were Moslems, and that he was loyal to the Moslem agenda.&amp;quot;[http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/06/report_obama_said_i_am_a_musli.html]  Here is what Hot Air says: http://hotair.com/greenroom/archives/2010/06/14/obama-is-a-muslim-take-two/  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Personally,  I am beginning to think Obama is: not a Muslim, not a Christian, and not an atheist.  I think Obama is a narcissist who worships himself.  I can also see him telling one person he is a Christian and then later telling someone else he is a Muslim.  There are many examples of Obama being insincere such as all the substantive healthcare  discussions were going to be on C-Span, etc. etc. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 15:53, 16 June 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 2009 Nobel Peace Prize ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I find it strange that there is not a single mention of the president being awarded the Nobel peace prize in this article. Considering that other prominent award winners have it at least mentioned in their respective articles. The [[Mother Teresa]] article, for instance, prominently states her award in the introduction to the article, and even political figures like [[Al Gore]] and [[Henry Kissinger]] (both of whom won the peace prize) have their award at least mentioned in the article.&lt;br /&gt;
--[[User:DenisTR|DenisTR]] 16:04, 19 August 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:I agree with you, Denis.  It was there, once-upon-a-time, but apparently it was removed in the constant editing turmoil. CP does mention this in the [[Nobel Prize]] article. I will add it here, as it should be. --&amp;lt;big&amp;gt;[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]&amp;lt;/big&amp;gt;&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;/Admin&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 16:24, 19 August 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Faulty Logic==&lt;br /&gt;
I have a suspicion that Andy Schlafly is secretly a Muslim. Will you deny that, Andy? If you do deny it, then I accuse you of being a Muslim under the concept of Taqiyya.&lt;br /&gt;
It's like a terrible flow chart that always ends with &amp;quot;You're a Muslim.&amp;quot; I realize that you're kind of scraping the barrel with this whole &amp;quot;Obama is a Muslim&amp;quot; thing, but c'mon. [[User:Pete5383|Paul]] 18:57, 19 August 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: Paul, you seem to think all claims or facts are relative.  They aren't.  Truth is supported by logic and evidence.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:00, 19 August 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:: President Obama clearly has an Islamic background. As an adult, he joined a church and says he's a Christian. I'd say he's as much Muslim as I am Jewish; by Jewish law, my having a Jewish mother makes me Jewish by birth, but I became a Christian by choice as a teenager. Go figure. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] &amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 14:04, 3 September 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::Whether President Obama is Muslim or not is one question; however it is undeniable Obama misspoke or was deceptive while ramping up his ambitions back in 2005 when he told the ''Chicago Sun-Times'', &amp;quot;I am rooted in the Christian tradition.&amp;quot; Nowhere on his maternal side, grandma, gramps, or his natural father, or his stepfather, can any Christian rooting be found.  [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 14:37, 4 September 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Days in office==&lt;br /&gt;
[[Barack Obama]] was inaugurated {{days since|2009|1|20}} days ago  and will finish his term in {{#expr: -{{days since|2013|1|20}} }} days. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] &amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 14:00, 3 September 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Apparent sourcing errors==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While looking over this article, I noticed a number of problems - mostly unsourced claims or claims for which the source is no longer available. Since my suggestions will almost certainly be controversial, I will not actually make any further changes to this page.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*The quote &amp;quot;Rather than being a unifier, Mr. Obama has divided America on the basis of race, class and partisanship&amp;quot; under the heading &amp;quot;Presidency&amp;quot; is unattributed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*The claim that Obama represented ACORN in ''Buycks-Roberson v. Citibank Fed. Sav. Bank'' is unsupported. While court documents do list Obama among the Plaintiff's Attorneys, they do not reference ACORN in any way. [http://www.clearinghouse.net/detail.php?id=10112] This claim seems to have been added by bloggers after the fact. Similarly, the cited reference contains no source for the claim that Obama had anything to do with the CRA, only a completely unsourced allegation that was reprinted almost verbatim here. As far as I can tell, Obama represented ACORN exactly once, on a case involving motor voter laws. [http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2008/oct/17/john-mccain/he-represented-them-in-one-case-/]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*The statement &amp;quot;Obama website Fight The Smears has confirmed that Obama was once a Kenyan citizen until 1982&amp;quot; under the subheading &amp;quot;Birth Certificate Controversy&amp;quot; is unsourced and ambiguous.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*Much of the content under the subheading &amp;quot;Engineers defeat of Centrist Democrats&amp;quot; is dubious. Two of the cites [http://articles.latimes.com/1992-03-18/news/mn-3844_1_gus-savage][http://www.dkosopedia.com/wiki/Carol_Moseley_Braun#Political_career] are about Carol Moseley Braun and don't mention Obama at all. There is no indication in any of the sources that Obama was connected to the Braun campaign, so these cites are meaningless. Additionally, the section attributes an anti-Dixon intent to Obama (referring to Obama as &amp;quot;subverting&amp;quot; Dixon's reelection, defined by Conservapedia's own article as &amp;quot;lending of aid, comfort, and moral support to individuals, groups, or organizations that advocate the overthrow of incumbent governments by force and violence&amp;quot;). What he did was increase voter turnout among the black community, a far cry from what the text implies.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*&amp;lt;s&amp;gt;The statement &amp;quot;President Obama falsely claimed that the senior citizen group AARP endorsed his administration's health care plan when they never made such an endorsement&amp;quot; under the subheading &amp;quot;Obama Administration Health Care Plan and Its Advocacy Methods&amp;quot; is sourced to a YouTube video that no longer exists. Additionally, it appears that AARP has been supporting health care reform since at least August 2009. [http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/08/17/eveningnews/main5247916.shtml][http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/19/aarp-ama-announce-support_n_506060.html]&amp;lt;/s&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*Similarly, several cites link to YouTube videos that have been removed. Multiple cites under the subheading &amp;quot;Obama Administration Health Care Plan and Liberal Elitism&amp;quot; link to deleted videos, as does the cite for the statement &amp;quot;Barack Obama's &amp;quot;Disinformation Czar&amp;quot; (whose supposed job was to correct disinformation that others are spreading about the Obama administration's health care plan) was caught spreading misleading information.&amp;quot; The cite for the statement &amp;quot;Senior citizens are key Democratic party constituents that could kill Obama's socialistic health care plan&amp;quot; links to a private video.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
--[[User:DrewJ|DrewJ]] 15:50, 29 September 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Sorry, Drew, but one glaring misrepresentation really sticks out, and explains why liberals are often accused of playing fast and loose with the truth:  While AARP has long advocated health care reform, it specifically repudiated Obama's distortion of the truth, saying they were not endorsing any specific plan, at that time.  See how easy it is to distort fact, by omission, and make obviously good-intentioned souls like you doubt the real truth?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:You are obviously an editor here, and I would urge you, before making posts such as this one, to try and find substitute sources that back up what is in the story. At the very least, as is the case with the AARP, at least check the facts before stating something is incorrect. It was a very big story at the time, Obama's misstatement, and not at all hard to find....so easy and well-known in fact that some people might be tempted to accuse you of inserting a deliberate [[Red Herring]]. --&amp;lt;big&amp;gt;[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]&amp;lt;/big&amp;gt;&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;/Admin&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 17:29, 29 September 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Typo ==&lt;br /&gt;
The first sentence here has a typo: it presumably is meant to read &amp;quot;...said to have '''been''' born in...&amp;quot; I'd fix it myself, but the page is so informative (and therefore long) that my poor old computer can't load it to edit.  --[[User:LanceS|LanceS]] 21:49, 11 November 2010 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
:Thanks, JPatt got it. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] &amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 22:29, 11 November 2010 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Bryan Fischer: Obama wants to give America back to the Indians ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Is [http://www.afa.net/Blogs/BlogPost.aspx?id=2147501360 this site] some kind of liberal parody? Otherwise, this is so serious that is should be included. American Family Association would seem to me as a pretty trustworthy organization, and this Bryan Fischer is writing for them. Any thoughts? &amp;amp;ndash; [[User:Dstone|dstone]] 16:42, 1 January 2011 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Fact vs Opinion==&lt;br /&gt;
Okay...I thought maybe this article would be a good place to start.  I was introduced to Conservapedia recently, and have been waffling about joining and bcoming an editor, but can no longer refrain.  So, I'm extraordinarily new...and I fully expect the welcoming and flame-free arms of this community, as I support the overall efforts of what Conservapedia is trying to accomplish.  The road to becoming a &amp;quot;Trustworthy Encyclopedia&amp;quot; is long, and this site is just starting to make baby steps in that direction.  That being said, I will try to keep this short.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
FACT:  Opinions are not fact.  Even expert opinions are not fact.  They're just plain old opinions.  Despite being in the Commandments, and otherwise stated over and over again, folks seem to have trouble making this distinction.&lt;br /&gt;
OPINION: If you are unable to make cited references, or present the conservative viewpoint in a reasoned and intelligent manner, I would heavily suggest that you leave the site to those who can.  Your &amp;quot;help&amp;quot; is often unhelpful.  Especially in an article as...contentious...as this - and I imagine many others, I'll be looking shortly - the talk page is the place to present your opinions.  If you cannot site material, find sources that intelligently argue your viewpoint, or just want a second or third pair of eyes and ears, it would be addressed here.  Also, if haven't actually read the article that you are citing...do that first, before posting anything at all...&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There are several on this page, the most innocuous of which:  President Obama authorized offshore oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico[28].  The moratorium lapsed in 2008.  It says it right in the article, paragraph 4.  This statement is spruious and vague and will be reworded to say something like: Then-Senator Obama voted to re-authorize oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico.  This is just a small and harmless example, but, either research the issue before posting, or don't post.  If you wish to engage in historical revisionism, or just bottom-barrel opinion mongering, please roll on over to Wikipedia, and leave us be.  [[User:RyanDav|RyanDav]] 2 January 2011&lt;br /&gt;
:I moved this from the top of the page to its current location, to maintain threading. [[User:Tzoran|Tyler Zoran]] &amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:Tzoran|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 13:35, 2 January 2011 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Oil Drilling Moratorium, redux ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I did not realize that this would be as contentious as it was.  The statement is simply poorly worded, I assume unintentionally, and appears to place the blame squarely on one person's shoulders.  This is just factually innacurate, nothing more, nothing less.  We accept credit where credit is due, and take blame where blame is appropriate - and the blame belongs to the vast majority of the 110th Congress, both the liberal reps and ours - and to deny that is some kind of revisionism, which will not be tolerated.  I'm certainly more than willing to be corrected on this, but you can either site sources that support your viewpoint, or you cannot - it really is that easy.  In that case, the article would read something like, &amp;quot;then-Senator Obama lobbied heavily for the moratorium to lapse, and led a congressional coalition consisting of Senators Blah, Blah and Blah and Congressmen Such-and-such and So-and-so to further that end, etc...&amp;quot; accompanied by supporting references.  I am afraid, however, that a &amp;quot;nuh-uh,&amp;quot; or, &amp;quot;because I said so,&amp;quot; is simply Not Good Enough.  We're counteracting liberal bias, here, not populating the internet with more unfounded claptrap. [[User:RyanDav|RyanDav]] 19:26, 3 January 2011 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:If you please, write here your proposal for how this should be written, including the source links.  If Obama lobbied heavily for the moritorium to lapse, then the source evidence will say it; if he was a part of a coalition of people, then again the evidence will support that.  Since this article is about Obama, it should lean on what he has done while in office.  But as far as what the 110th Congress did or didn't do, oh yes, I am in total agreement with you...and so were the vast majority of voters back in November. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 20:00, 3 January 2011 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::He didn't, as far as I know, or have ever read.  I don't think any articles arguing that he soley was responsible, or even more responsible than any other rep, exist.  The text is already up there.  Pretty vanilla.  Mentions him by name, but also says, &amp;quot;hey, don't forget about all the other chair-jockeys, too!&amp;quot;  But the article is about him, so he gets a name drop for focus.  The article is about him as whole, so his Presidential and Senatorial terms would be seperate sections of the same article, so as not to confuse.  The 110th was the last Bush-era Congress.  In November, we voted out the 111th.  We are now in the 112th Congress.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Oh, I also replaced someone's citation from an OpEd piece in the NYTimes with an actual news reference that supported the same point (about the Obama administration's poor response to the Oil Spill).  If I didn't know better (and I probably don't), I would suspect that some of the citations here are purposefully planted just to make us look like simpletons.  [[User:RyanDav|RyanDav]] 21:39, 3 January 2011 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Birth Controversy ==&lt;br /&gt;
Could someone please explain to me something I've never quite followed: why does it matter where Obama was born?  As far as I can tell, no one is claiming his mother was not a US Citizen, which makes him a &amp;quot;natural born&amp;quot; US citizen even if he was born in Kenya, Moscow, or Riyadh.  If the issue is &amp;quot;without a birth certificate we can't be certain his mother is really his mother&amp;quot; then I get it, but this side of things seems to be ignored in favor of controversy over the actual location of the birth.  If we interpret &amp;quot;natural born citizen&amp;quot; as &amp;quot;born within the US&amp;quot;, then that would exclude the children of Armed Forces personnel stationed overseas with their families at the time their children were born from the presidency, which seems like something liberals would love to do. [[User:Ptorquemada|Ptorquemada]] 12:09, 5 April 2011 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:Well, John McCain whose father was an Admiral was born to two American parents in Panama Canal Zone. The media questioned his &amp;quot;natural born&amp;quot; citizen status and it seemingly was determined that since both his parents were American citizens who were living out of State because of the Admiral's duties that John McCain's birth status would be considered &amp;quot;natural born. The question concerning Barack Obama is that his father was not a US citizen but was in fact a British subject as Kenya was under British rule at the time. Some suggest that the original conception of &amp;quot;natural born&amp;quot; was that both parents are US citizens at the time of the birth of a child. So there is a question as to his &amp;quot;natural born&amp;quot; status even if he was, in fact, born in Hawaii. The fact that Obama has spent a couple of million dollars fighting any requests for proof of an original long form birth certificate and school records makes some people more convinced that a. he wasn't actually born in Hawaii and that his birth was only registered there or b. because his father was a British subject he had duel citizenship status which would make it doubtful that he would be considered a natural born citizen. There are many questions concerning Obama's &amp;quot;natural born&amp;quot; status because he also appears to have been a citizenship of Indonesia and is supposed to have traveled on an Indonesian passport as an adult. Of course, a lot of questions would be removed if the president just released the original birth certificate. The fact that he hasn't just adds fuel to the fire. [[User:Dwain|Dwain]] 12:09, 8 April 2011 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Birth Certificate Removal? ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Now that Obama has finally released his birth certificate, all this about Kenya and Barry Soetoro seems a bit silly. Should we remove it? [[User:JimAB|JimAB]] 11:24, 27 April 2011 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:Has the question of Mr. Obama traveling to Pakistan on an Indonesian passport under the name Barry Soetero in 1981 been resolved yet? As well as the statements regarding his application to join the Illinois State Bar Association wherein he answered no to the question of ever using any aliases? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 18:12, 28 April 2011 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Shortening the article length ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think we need to work on splitting this article; I recently revert a vandal's (mostly) blanking of the page, and my browser would freeze up when I tried to save the page (actually I'm currently trying to save it - and over and over again I'm having no luck). Currently this appears at the top of the edit screen:&lt;br /&gt;
:'''WARNING: This page is 144 kilobytes long; some browsers may have problems editing pages approaching or longer than 32kb. Please consider breaking the page into smaller sections or removing irrelevant information.'''&lt;br /&gt;
Thoughts?--&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;[[User:Iduan|&amp;lt;span style=&amp;quot;color: #FFCCCC; background: #660000&amp;quot;&amp;gt;I]][[User_talk:Iduan|&amp;lt;span style=&amp;quot;color:#CCCCFF; background:#000033&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Duan]]&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt; 00:34, 30 April 2011 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== First Socialist??? ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Obama is clearly a socialist, but is he the first to be president as the lead of the article states? The New deal democrats who created social security come to mind.[[User:BenDylan|BenD]] 09:03, 1 May 2011 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:That certainly may be true. But we are talking about one man who occupies the office of president, not underlings and appopintees.  [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 09:23, 1 May 2011 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::But couldn't the Presidents who hired them be considered socialists? I still don't know about saying he's the FIRST. [[User:KingHanksley|KingHanksley]] 12:31, 4 May 2011 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Obama the Socialist ==&lt;br /&gt;
I am counting all the capitalists that have hired self-proclaimed communists. I come up with zero. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 12:43, 2 May 2011 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Update of the article ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
See [[Talk:Barack Hussein Obama/update]] if you'd like to contribute to an update of this article - we'll be keeping a lot of the information that's good, throwing out some information that's a little old, and adding new information - all while hopefully downsizing! All help is appreciated!--&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;[[User:Iduan|&amp;lt;span style=&amp;quot;color: #FFCCCC; background: #660000&amp;quot;&amp;gt;I]][[User_talk:Iduan|&amp;lt;span style=&amp;quot;color:#CCCCFF; background:#000033&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Duan]]&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt; 19:55, 2 May 2011 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Bin Laden ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Should we at least mention the Bin Laden capture? I feel that in fairness we should give him his one or two accomplishments. We should definitely mention that George W. Bush's policies played a big hand but still Obama could have gone entirely bleeding heart on us and we wouldn't have gotten OBL [[User:KingHanksley|KingHanksley]] 11:24, 4 May 2011 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But being fair and giving credit to a liberal muslim socialist for making the world even a little safer would undermine the integrity of a conservative encyclopedia. Now had he screwed up the capture then that would be worthy of mentioning because it would show how he endangered the country. We should only be fair and give credit where credit is due if Obama was a Christian conservative who shared our beliefs. ([[User:Bluebank|Bluebank]] 12:58, 7 July 2011 (EDT))&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree, it would only be worth mentioning if he had screwed up the capture because then we could hold his feet to the fire. ([[User:Jvclark2|Jvclark2]] 13:00, 7 July 2011 (EDT))&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::''&amp;quot;giving credit to a liberal muslim socialist for making the world even a little safer would undermine the integrity of a conservative encyclopedia.&amp;quot;'' Well that's not a biased statement or anything. It should fall under the article Obama presidency but because of its significance, put it on the BHO page. Rarely, but we have given Obama credit in the past. The rescue of a Captain from Somali pirates is a good example of the proper choice the Progressive fake Christian Marxist had made. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 14:58, 7 July 2011 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:::::I just don't see where ordering bin Laden's killing is a big accomplishment. What purpose did it serve other than a failed effort to turn around Obama's falling poll ratings while destroying the most important relationship the United States had in the war on terror. After Obama declared the war on terror over two years ago, dismantling the delicate relationship with the Pakistani ISS seems like phase two. Undermining Pakistan's secular regime, the way Obama did, only works to the advantage of Islamic extremists. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::Did killing bin Laden bring back the lives lost in the 9/11 attacks? No. Does making the war's in Iraq &amp;amp; Afghanistan about retribution rather than prevention, further American foreign policy interests or make the United States more secure? Hardly. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::Does creating the false sense among the American electorate that the objectives of the war in Afghanistan have now been accomplished, and we can abandon the fight? The height of folly -- and a repeat of what happened when the U.S. abandoned Afghanistan to the terrorists after 1991. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::Did killing bin Laden make America safe from reprisals? Or rather doies killing bin Laden expose innocent men, women, and children to the never ending threat of sudden, sensesless, and violent death?&lt;br /&gt;
:::::The cynical manipulation of American security and foreign policy interests for short term popularity and selfish career interests is appalling. I just don't agree this a &amp;quot;success&amp;quot; to boast of.  [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 23:15, 7 July 2011 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::::::While I think it's laughable to say that taking down the number one most wanted man in the world isn't an accomplishment, I think it's a decision that ''anyone'' would have made, therefore, it isn't special or particular that Obama happened to be the one to make it. [[User:BradB|BradB]] 23:57, 7 July 2011 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:::::::No. We've learned from our mistakes. In 1967 the the number one most wanted man in the world - Che Guevara - was similiarly hunted and executed, only to be resurrected by liberals, hate-mongers, and other assorted sociopaths and pro-mass murder advocates, made the mascot of the hate-America crowd, and sold to American college students as somethiong larger than life and a cult hero to be worshiped. It is not laughable at all.  [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 13:55, 8 July 2011 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::::::::The angst from the left goes back to Bush hatred. We shouldn't have interfered in Iraq and should have focused on OBL. Leftist sheep knew better than Bush. We knew all along that it is not one man but a movement, confront them there instead of here. At least we are no longer creating and recruiting terrorists, thanks to a Muslim-named president and his policies of peace in the Middle East.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 14:08, 8 July 2011 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:::::::::You will recall Senator [[Patty Murray]], who now heads the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee charged with candidate recruitment and doling out funds, praised bin Laden for his work with children buidling day care centers. He probably supported the Family-Leave Act and opposed No Child Left Behind, too. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 15:26, 8 July 2011 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::::::::::''&amp;quot; I just don't agree this a &amp;quot;success&amp;quot; to boast of. &amp;quot;'' Two points, 1) stating a fact is not boasting, it is just stating a fact. We list domestic policy, popular bills, economic plan, gulf oil spill, DADT... It's just another thing to list. 2) Had Bush done it I'm pretty sure it would be on his page.([[User:Jvclark2|Jvclark2]] 21:09, 8 July 2011 (EDT))&lt;br /&gt;
:::::::::::That is the point. Stating the fact that Obama's unnecessarily destroyed the most vital relationship the United States has in the War on Terror to score short term approval ratings.  [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 12:38, 9 July 2011 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
Jvclark - bin Laden's death is mentioned on this page. In the lead. What more do you want?--&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;[[User:Iduan|&amp;lt;span style=&amp;quot;color: #FFCCCC; background: #660000&amp;quot;&amp;gt;I]][[User_talk:Iduan|&amp;lt;span style=&amp;quot;color:#CCCCFF; background:#000033&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Duan]]&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt; 11:46, 9 July 2011 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==From the update - discussion==&lt;br /&gt;
===Structuring===&lt;br /&gt;
This is what I feel should be the general sectioning of the article - I think with an article that we have this much information on, what we mostly need to do is use &amp;quot;See also:&amp;quot; pages rather than go into major details.&lt;br /&gt;
{| style=&amp;quot;width:100%&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|valign=&amp;quot;top&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
*Early life&lt;br /&gt;
*U.S. Senate career (with a note on opposition to the Iraq War - which should be followed up on in the presidential primary race)&lt;br /&gt;
*U.S. Senate career&lt;br /&gt;
**Radical endorsements, support, and get out the vote efforts (better language?)&lt;br /&gt;
**'''Use of filibuster and obstructionism'''&lt;br /&gt;
**'''Voted agaist debt ceiling increase'''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*Presidential election (things to cover: experience question, jeremiah wright, PUMA)&lt;br /&gt;
**Primary race&lt;br /&gt;
**National election&lt;br /&gt;
|valign=&amp;quot;top&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
*Presidency&lt;br /&gt;
**Domestic policy&lt;br /&gt;
***Popular Bills (Zadroga, lilly ledbetter fair pay act)&lt;br /&gt;
***Economic plan&lt;br /&gt;
****Stimulus plan&lt;br /&gt;
***Health care&lt;br /&gt;
***The Gulf oil spill&lt;br /&gt;
**Foreign policy&lt;br /&gt;
***Commander-in-Chief&lt;br /&gt;
****Iraq&lt;br /&gt;
****Afghanistan&lt;br /&gt;
****Libya/The Obama Doctine&lt;br /&gt;
****Don't Ask Don't Tell&lt;br /&gt;
|valign=&amp;quot;top&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*Ideology (mentioning pro-abortion stance, other things not mentioned above)&lt;br /&gt;
*References&lt;br /&gt;
*See also&lt;br /&gt;
*External links&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Rob I've bolded two section that I wonder if they should be sections alone; I do 100% agree that they should be mentioned in the text; are you set on them being sections? If so I'll yield--&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;[[User:Iduan|&amp;lt;span style=&amp;quot;color: #FFCCCC; background: #660000&amp;quot;&amp;gt;I]][[User_talk:Iduan|&amp;lt;span style=&amp;quot;color:#CCCCFF; background:#000033&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Duan]]&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt; 00:58, 3 May 2011 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:Leave bold for now &amp;amp; let's see what develops; '''Recovery''' is ambiguous; while total output (GDP growth) has recovered, we've seen several polls just over the past week where 60-70% of respondents ''still'' think the US is in recession (despite the fact GDP growth has recovered over the past year and half). Likewise, it certainly has not been a &amp;quot;jobs recovery&amp;quot;. I'd suggest this needs a better name.  [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 01:15, 3 May 2011 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::I very much agree - that's a misleading section title - I think what I meant was &amp;quot;Proposed Recovery&amp;quot; - or &amp;quot;Recovery Plan&amp;quot;. The latter sounds a little better to my ears. I made a few edits below - I'm gonna hold off on doing anything else till you get a chance to take a look and add things.--&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;[[User:Iduan|&amp;lt;span style=&amp;quot;color: #FFCCCC; background: #660000&amp;quot;&amp;gt;I]][[User_talk:Iduan|&amp;lt;span style=&amp;quot;color:#CCCCFF; background:#000033&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Duan]]&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt;01:22, 3 May 2011 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:::I've replaced Recovery with Stimulus, perhaps &amp;quot;Stimulus and budget&amp;quot;. Also, Don't Ask Don't Tell seems a little wierd under &amp;quot;Wartime&amp;quot;; is it there solely cause it's a military subject? It could just as easily fit under Idealogy as well (I' not just trying to be argumentative....) [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 01:40, 3 May 2011 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::::Hmm. Very true. No I think it's definitely a legitimate question. I HAD been thinking that Ideology would just cover what wasn't addressed in the prior sections (since certainly we'd discuss his economic ideology in the &amp;quot;Economic plan&amp;quot; section) - so, yes, I had just placed it under wartime solely because its a military subject. But it is probably more apropos to homosexual rights. I am worried that Ideology will become a bucket of worms, so to speak, only in that it'd be weird to just have a section for DADT under it, so then we'd have to have a super-section for &amp;quot;Homosexual policy&amp;quot;, and then super-sections for everything else, making the article very long. I leave it up to you.--&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;[[User:Iduan|&amp;lt;span style=&amp;quot;color: #FFCCCC; background: #660000&amp;quot;&amp;gt;I]][[User_talk:Iduan|&amp;lt;span style=&amp;quot;color:#CCCCFF; background:#000033&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Duan]]&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt; 01:45, 3 May 2011 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:::::Alternatively, we can just leave it as is for now. I'm updating the [[Obama administration]] article right now, too. That one is structured , &amp;quot;Economic policy&amp;quot;, &amp;quot;Foreign policy&amp;quot;, etc. Wartime leader is something new. Perhaps, Commander-in-Chief? that would encompass DADT as well as ongoing military operations.  [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 02:08, 3 May 2011 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::::::I like that. It's broader and works well. Nice.--&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;[[User:Iduan|&amp;lt;span style=&amp;quot;color: #FFCCCC; background: #660000&amp;quot;&amp;gt;I]][[User_talk:Iduan|&amp;lt;span style=&amp;quot;color:#CCCCFF; background:#000033&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Duan]]&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt; 02:29, 3 May 2011 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
I took a look at the Wikipedia page on Obama - and I actually like how they organize his presidency - into Domestic policy and foreign policy. I'm going to make some changes to reflect that. I think in the long run it'll actually limit the number of sections we need--&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;[[User:Iduan|&amp;lt;span style=&amp;quot;color: #FFCCCC; background: #660000&amp;quot;&amp;gt;I]][[User_talk:Iduan|&amp;lt;span style=&amp;quot;color:#CCCCFF; background:#000033&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Duan]]&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt; 18:15, 4 May 2011 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Congratulations! ==&lt;br /&gt;
To the people who worked updating this article. It looks much better now.--[[User:AlejandroH|AlejandroH]] 00:43, 10 May 2011 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Speculation ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the spirit of accuracy, I think that all articles should refrain from speculative language (I thought this would be good article to start with). I understand that this is a conservative encyclopedia, but one should not overrule the other. We can still present the conservative view point that other encyclopedias overlook without veering off the path of facts. I think that President Obama has done enough to harm himself without adding inflammatory and opinion statements. This language degrades the reliability of the site. [[User:McTone|McTone]] 10:59, 23 May 2011 (EDT)McTone&lt;br /&gt;
:You're actually not making encyclopedic edits - for example how you're adding titles (&amp;quot;''President'' Obama&amp;quot;), which is traditionally not done. As you've now been reverted twice I think you should refrain from editing this article.--&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;[[User:Iduan|&amp;lt;span style=&amp;quot;color: #FFCCCC; background: #660000&amp;quot;&amp;gt;I]][[User_talk:Iduan|&amp;lt;span style=&amp;quot;color:#CCCCFF; background:#000033&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Duan]]&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt; 11:35, 23 May 2011 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:: That is encyclopaedic, as it is proper to use a person's title in reference material. However, that's not ththe only edits I've made. Most of them being removing speculative speech. Basically we should follow the rule of &amp;quot;if you can't cite it, don't say it.&amp;quot;[[User:McTone|McTone]] 13:01, 23 May 2011 (EDT)McTone&lt;br /&gt;
:::No it's generally not. See his Wikipedia page if you don't believe. We also don't say &amp;quot;Mr.&amp;quot; or &amp;quot;Ms.&amp;quot;--&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;[[User:Iduan|&amp;lt;span style=&amp;quot;color: #FFCCCC; background: #660000&amp;quot;&amp;gt;I]][[User_talk:Iduan|&amp;lt;span style=&amp;quot;color:#CCCCFF; background:#000033&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Duan]]&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt; 12:02, 23 May 2011 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::::Are we not better than Wikipedia? In any case, this is deferring the point I was making with this heading.[[User:McTone|McTone]] 13:01, 23 May 2011 (EDT)McTone&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Perhaps ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I have read two cases of the word perhaps in the opening section of this article. Shouldn't assumptions like these not belong in an encyclopedia like article, especially in the opening section?- AlexMason&lt;br /&gt;
:The first one is arguably a wording error ... I'll consider that - the second one is more appropriate; since the event just happened we're not sure what the consequences will be, but if a potential consequence is notable enough it's probably worth stating--&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;[[User:Iduan|&amp;lt;span style=&amp;quot;color: #FFCCCC; background: #660000&amp;quot;&amp;gt;I]][[User_talk:Iduan|&amp;lt;span style=&amp;quot;color:#CCCCFF; background:#000033&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Duan]]&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt; 16:30, 23 May 2011 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::I'm an underwriter at Fox News and I see stuff like this all the time. I think AlexMason is correct here (as well as the poster in the previous topic). Is this a web encyclopedia or is this an opinion site? Speculating on the outcome of events is tantamount to gossip (highly frowned upon and in fact forbidden by the standards of Conservapedia as I have read the rules and commandments). I really think this should be fixed. I noticed some edits in the history of this page and I've got to stick with Andy's last revision (reverting some of the edits of the previous editor) which kept to the less speculative nature of the article.[[User:PapaBear|PapaBear]] 21:32, 28 May 2011 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Obama Muslim Evidence? ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I was going to make a post on this talk page suggesting we move the long list of evidence that Obama may be a Muslim to its own article (or an article dealing with the Obama/Islam controversy) but when I got here I saw that section had been removed, as had any mention of the words &amp;quot;Islam&amp;quot; or &amp;quot;Muslim&amp;quot;. (I did a search on my browser). I could not find a reason for this on the talk page. Could someone explain why this was made? [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 22:13, 3 June 2011 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:I rescued the content from an old revision and put it here: [[Barack Obama's Muslim Heritage]] [[User:AndyJ|AndyJ]] 22:18, 21 June 2011 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Obama as President ==&lt;br /&gt;
With the long-standing controversy about Hussein's birth certificate and the recent evidence that the one that was released is forged, I feel that there is ample evidence to conclude that Obama was born in Kenya. Because of that, I propose that we list the current holder of the office of [[President]] as [[Joe Biden]], as he would take the office if Obama were found to be unable or ineligible to serve.  --[[User:AndyJ|AndyJ]] 22:29, 21 June 2011 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:You may be misreading the story; the &amp;quot;Obama was born in Kenya&amp;quot; conspiracy theory was promoted by the White House to hide the fact that, Barack Hussein Obama's father was a [[natural born citizen]] of Kenya, and not the United States. That is the constitutional question, being that a case can be made that the Constitutional framers defined &amp;quot;natural born citizen&amp;quot; as being a citizen of the country of ''your fathers'' birth. The birth certificate, or the location of Obama Jr. birth, that is to say, the birther conspircacy the White House promoted, never had anything to do with the constitutional issue in question.  [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 16:27, 22 June 2011 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::And two things, firstly, there is not ample evidence. Just conspiracy theories. Even assuming that the certificate/s released are forgeries, that alone isn't enough to prove he wasn't born in the US, it would just raise concerning questions. Secondly, Obama would remain the President. The Constitution doesn't mention what would happen if someone who was ineligible to be President became President. Hence, until impeachment or the 25th Amendment is invoked, Obama would remain President. (Presumably the 25th would be invoked, as impeachment would take a lot longer, and would require proving that Obama knew, which could be a little difficult.) - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 07:57, 18 October 2011 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Why is the birth certificate things still going? ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I read a while ago (and posted in the article) an article from the National Review where even they concede that Obama was probably born in the US. [[User:CaptainSwing|CaptainSwing]] 23:43, 7 November 2011 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Well as soon as it's verified than we can move past. Until then, we'll just pretend everything is a ok. For me, I'd still like to see every executive order, every law signed, every supreme court nominee from Obama overturned. It took three years the release of the long form certificate. I can wait another three years if need be for the proof.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 00:11, 8 November 2011 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
::I don't understand, the National Review, a magazine that I admit is quite conservative, viewed the birth certificate and said it was most likely valid. I'm not sure what you're waiting for, as I don't think anyone is going to prove that Obama wasn't born in the country. [[User:CaptainSwing|CaptainSwing]] 09:59, 8 November 2011 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
:::Because what they viewed was a Photoshoped work.  Until the American public sees for itself exactly what is - or is not - on file in Hawaii, there will always be this unanswered question.  [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 11:22, 8 November 2011 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
::::But it wasn't photo-shopped, that was the whole point the National Review was making: [http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/265767/pdf-layers-obamas-birth-certificate-nathan-goulding]. And honestly it makes sense, why on Earth would they go to the trouble of planting so much evidence that even the Mccain campaign declined to pursue it further, only to bungle the job on an elementary error in photoshop that any reasonable graphics designer would never make. [[User:CaptainSwing|CaptainSwing]] 12:03, 8 November 2011 (EST)&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>CaptainSwing</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Abortion&amp;diff=934889</id>
		<title>Abortion</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Abortion&amp;diff=934889"/>
		<updated>2011-11-08T16:59:49Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;CaptainSwing: /* Abortion and Breast Cancer */ Adding WHO, American Cancer, National Cancer...the people who study this for a living&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;[[Image:Baby.jpg|right|thumb|250px|A human fetus in the womb]]&lt;br /&gt;
'''Abortion''' is the induced termination of a [[pregnancy]],&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;American Heritage Dictionary definition, [http://www.bartleby.com/61/7/A0020700.html abortion]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; often causing [[fetal pain]].  Abortion is a billion-dollar industry&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://archives.cnn.com/2000/HEALTH/03/09/fetal.tissue/index.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.healthy.net/scr/news.asp?Id=8247&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;For example, Dr. George Tiller &amp;quot;estimated that he performed 250 to 300 late-term abortions in 2003, each costing an average of $6,000.&amp;quot;[http://apnews.myway.com/article/20090327/D976JVSG4.html]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; in the [[United States]]&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Over 52,000,000 babies have been aborted in the United States since 1973.[http://www.christianliferesources.com/?/library/view.php&amp;amp;articleid=1042]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; and Western Europe except for [[Ireland]], [[Malta]] and [[Poland]], where it has been abolished.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=50451&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;On April 10, 2007, Portugal legalized abortion up until the 10th week of pregnancy, with some conditions placed on the obtaining of consent for the abortion.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;God warns in His word that a nation that sheds innocent blood will not prosper. (Deuteronomy 19:11-13)&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  [[Abortion in Poland]] declined by 99% after [[communism]] was overthrown, and women's health has dramatically improved there due to fewer abortions.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/ab-poland.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''About 80% of women who see an ultrasound of their fetus (unborn child) decide not to abort'''.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.redorbit.com/news/health/145703/abortion_foes_use_ultrasound__focus_on_the_family_budgets/ .  Note, however, that other variables such as abortion-coercive settings may reduce this percentage.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Millions of women who had an abortion later suffer psychologically or physically from it, and support groups exist to help.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.post-gazette.com/regionstate/20020120abortion0120p3.asp&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  Many victims of abortion find healing by speaking out against, and discouraging, similar harm to other mothers and their children.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&amp;quot;I've noticed that everyone who is for abortion has already been born,&amp;quot; observed President [[Ronald Reagan]].  He also observed, &amp;quot;With me, abortion is not a problem of religion, it's a problem of the Constitution. I believe that until and unless someone can establish that the unborn child ''is not a living human being'', then that child is already protected by the Constitution, which guarantees life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness to all of us.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;'''Abortion doesn't solve your problems, it only creates different ones''',&amp;quot; warned a full-page ad by many women who had abortions.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.silentnomoreawareness.org/signaturead/ad.pdf&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; '''Many women begin regretting their abortion before they even leave the abortion clinic'''.  In some cases, women begin regretting their abortion just before it is performed,&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;In one case where a woman changed her mind from inside the abortion clinic, she &amp;quot;called her friend from inside the abortion clinic and arranged for her to come 'rescue' her.&amp;quot; [http://www.40daysforlife.com/southfield/index.cfm?load=page&amp;amp;page=30]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; but are told by abortionists that it is too late to change their mind because they already signed a consent form (which is a lie - it is never too late to withdraw consent for an abortion).  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Abortion always ends the life of the unborn child, typically by dismemberment.  Abortion increases the risk of breast cancer, future premature birth, mental illness, and other long-term health problems for the mother, as detailed below. Sometimes women die from abortion.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;See &amp;quot;Documented Incidents of 365 Women Who Have Been Killed by &amp;quot;Safe&amp;quot; and Legal Abortion.&amp;quot; [http://abortionviolence.com/DEATHS.HTM 365 women who have been killed by 'Legal' abortion]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Mental Health Risks From Abortion ==&lt;br /&gt;
A comprehensive review of literature, published in the ''British Journal of Psychiatry'' suggests that &amp;quot;there is a significant increase in mental health problems after abortion.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;BJP&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite web|url = http://bjp.rcpsych.org/content/199/3/A11.full#sec-3|title =Abortion, mental health and dental disease|publisher = [[British Journal of Psychiatry]]|quote=A comprehensive review of the literature suggests that there is a significant increase in mental health problems after abortion. Coleman (pp. 180–186) suggests that these risks need to be reflected in the delivery of abortion services, and raises the thorny issue that 90% of UK abortions are justified on the presumption that abortion actually reduces the risk to mental health associated with continuing the pregnancy. There is an increasing awareness of increased comorbid physical illness in patients with severe mental illness. Kisely and colleagues (pp. 187–193) found that the levels of advanced dental disease were increased threefold in patients with severe mental illness. The authors suggest that there needs to be improved recognition of this problem – reflected in a more proactive approach to dental hygiene in these patients.|accessdate = 01 September 2011}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;DavenportMD&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite web|url = http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2011/09/major_study_links_suicide_and_other_mental_health_problems_to_abortion.html|title =Major Study Links Suicide and Other Mental Health Problems to Abortion|publisher = [[American Thinker]]|quote=An important meta-analysis published today in the prestigious British Journal of Psychiatry demonstrates that nearly 10% of mental health problems in women are directly attributable to abortion.  &amp;quot;Abortion and mental health: quantitative synthesis and analysis of research published 1995-2009,&amp;quot; by Priscilla Coleman of Bowling Green University, shows that women with an abortion history have an 81% increased risk of mental health problems and 155% increased risk of suicide.  This meta-analysis combines 22 studies of 877,181 women, 163, 831 of whom have had abortions.  A meta-analysis is an especially powerful type of study because it includes a large number of subjects, and by combining studies is much more reliable than a single study.|author=Mary L. Davenport, MD|accessdate = 01 September 2011}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Abortion and Breast Cancer ==&lt;br /&gt;
The vast majority of scientific studies have shown that abortion does not cause an increase in breast cancer with the World Health Organization, the National Cancer Institute, the American Cancer Society, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists all stating that there is no link between the two. However, several prolife groups have advocated that this is not true citing 16 out of 17 statistically significant studies.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.jpands.org/vol8no2/malec.pdf&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &amp;quot;A new study coming from researchers in [[Sri Lanka]] finds women who had abortions ... [had a] 3.42 [increased risk] ... compared with those who kept their baby. ... The Sri Lankan study is the fourth epidemiological study in fourteen months to report an abortion-breast cancer link, including studies from the U.S., China and Turkey.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.lifenews.com/nat6451.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  LifeNews also reported in 2010 that a [[National Cancer Institute]] researcher admitted there was a link between abortion and breast cancer.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.lifenews.com/nat5850.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  Studies showing that abortion increases breast cancer predate the political controversy.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.bcpinstitute.org/brochure.htm&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; A study at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center published in 2009 confirmed a 40% increase in risk in breast cancer from abortion.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.chicagonow.com/blogs/dennis-byrne-barbershop/2010/01/breast-cancer-oral-contraceptives-abortion-and-lies.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;It is undisputed that childbirth protects against breast cancer, and thus early termination of pregnancy must increase the risk of cancer for the mother compared to carrying that same pregnancy to birth.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Yet the abortion industry conceals this increased risk, just as the tobacco industry concealed its cancer risk for decades.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.mindfully.org/Industry/Tobacco-ChronologyJul98.htm&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:Abortion Hurts Women.jpg|thumb|250px|right|Walk for Life rally]]&lt;br /&gt;
A new study on breast cancer in Turkey published in April 2009 in the peer-reviewed World Journal of Surgical Oncology found, through a surveying process, that induced abortion was a statistically significant cause of breast cancer risk. The study concludes, “Our findings suggest that age and induced abortion were found to be significantly associated with increased breast cancer risk….”&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://wjso.com/content/7/1/37&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Specifically, the study found that Turkish women who received one or more induced abortions had a 66% higher risk of breast cancer than women who never had an abortion.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/jul/09072903.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.abortionbreastcancer.com/press_releases/090728/index.htm&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Dr. Janet Daling, who considers herself supportive of a right to perform abortions, brought the abortion-breast cancer link into the mainstream with her federally funded research on the topic.  Her report, released in 1994, found a 50% increase in breast cancer risk due to induced abortion.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Janet R. Daling et al., &amp;quot;Risk of Breast Cancer Among Young Women: Relationship to Induced Abortion,&amp;quot; 86 Journal of the National Cancer Institute; (1994);1584&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.abortionbreastcancer.com/032801.htm&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  She said, &amp;quot;I have three sisters with breast cancer and I resent people messing with the scientific data to further their own agenda, be they pro-choice or pro-life.  I would have loved to have found no association between breast cancer and abortion, but our research is rock solid and our data is accurate.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;L.A. Daily News, Sept. 1997.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  Similarly, an early study published in Japan in 1957 showed that women who have abortions have a much higher risk of breast cancer than those who decide to keep their baby.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Segi M, et al. An epidemiological study on cancer in Japan. GANN. 1957; 48:1-63.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In a peer-reviewed medical journal, Karen Malec observed that:&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.jpands.org/vol8no2/malec.pdf&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Thirty-eight epidemiological studies exploring an independent link [between abortion and] breast cancer have been published.  Twenty-nine report risk elevations.  Thirteen out of 15 American studies found risk elevations.  Seventeen studies are statistically significant, 16 of which report increased risk.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Dr. Angela Lanfranchi, M.D., F.A.C.S., a specialist in breast cancer an a clinical assistant professor of surgery at the Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, has explained the physiology and epidemiology of the abortion-breast cancer link.  She made the following observation:&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Angela Lanfranchi, M.D., F.A.C.S, &amp;quot;The breast physiology and the epidemiology of the abortion breast cancer link,&amp;quot; 12 Imago Hominis, No. 3, 228 (2005) (emphasis added).&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:This past August in Minneapolis, Patrick Carroll, director of the Pension and Population Research Institute of London, presented a paper to the largest gathering of statisticians in North America.  '''He showed that abortion was the best predictor of breast cancer in Britain.'''  Breast cancer is the only cancer in Britain which has its highest incidence and mortality rate among the upper rather than lower social classes.  Abortion before a full term pregnancy and late pregnancy were the best explanations for this incidence.  He also found that there had been a 70% increase risk of breast cancer between 1971 and 2002 and that for women between 50 and 54 years of age incidence was highly correlated with abortion.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Demographic evidence of abortion causing breast cancer includes the following.  Breast cancer rates are far lower in Western countries that prohibited abortion than in those that promoted it.  Ireland, which virtually bans abortion, reportedly has a lifetime rate of breast cancer of only 1 in 13, nearly half the rate of 1 in 7.5 in the United States.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&amp;quot;Probability of breast cancer in American Women,&amp;quot; National Cancer Institute (Apr. 15, 2005);  K. O'Flaherty, R. Oakley, &amp;quot;Self-checks 'useless' in breast cancer fight,&amp;quot; Sunday Tribune (Ireland), at 8 (Oct. 6, 2002).&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  The rate of breast cancer increases steadily as one travels from Ireland, where abortion is illegal, to Northern Ireland, where abortion is legal but rare, to England, where abortion is common. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; R. O'Reilly, &amp;quot;New weapon in war against breast cancer,&amp;quot; The Press Association Limited (Dec. 17, 1998); &amp;quot;Portugal-abortion referendum,&amp;quot; Associated Press Worldstream (June 27, 1998).&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In Romania, abortion was illegal under two decades of rule by the dictator Nicolae Ceausescu, and the country enjoyed one of the lowest breast cancer rates in the entire world during that time, far lower than comparable Western countries. Romania's breast cancer rate was an astounding one-sixth the rate of the United States.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;A. Khan, &amp;quot;The role of fat in breast cancer,&amp;quot; The Independent (May 18, 1998).&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  But after the execution of Ceausescu on Christmas Day, 1989, Romania has taken the opposite approach, embracing abortion to the point that Romania now has one of the highest abortion rates in the world.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;N. Abdullaev, &amp;quot;Russians are quickest to marry and divorce,&amp;quot; Moscow Times (Dec 8, 2004).&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  One Romanian observer decried, &amp;quot;The liberalization of abortions in Romania in 1990, the significant increase of the number of abortions at relatively short intervals, determined a rise in the incidence of breast and uterine cervix cancer in my country.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Information packet, Women’s Environment and Development Organization (WEDO) World Conference on Breast Cancer (July 1997).&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Studies on rats, which are an accepted method for identifying causes of cancer in humans,  further confirm that abortion does indeed increase the risk of breast cancer.  As Dr. [[Joel Brind]] observed, &amp;quot;Researchers also widely admit to the biological plausibility of abortion as an independent cause of breast cancer, through the estrogen-mediated stimulation of breast growth in the absence of differentiation. This was demonstrated experimentally in rats in the landmark experiments of Russo and Russo.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[[Joel Brind]], &amp;quot;Induced Abortion as an Independent Risk Factor for Breast Cancer: A Critical Review of Recent Studies Based on Prospective Data,&amp;quot; J. of Am. Physicians &amp;amp; Surgeons 105 (Winter 2005) [http://www.jpands.org/vol10no4/brind.pdf] (citing Russo J, Russo IH. Susceptibility of the mammary gland to&lt;br /&gt;
carcinogenesis. 1980;100:497-512).&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Additional scientific information on the abortion-breast cancer link is available [http://www.bcpinstitute.org here].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
An expert (Dr. Lynn Rosenberg) hired to defend abortion felt compelled to admit, under cross-examination, that a woman increases her risk for breast cancer by having an abortion compared to carrying her pregnancy to childbirth:&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.abortionbreastcancer.com/rosenbergs_testimony.htm&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Question by the attorney: 'So in other words, a woman who finds herself pregnant at age 15 will have a higher breast cancer risk if she chooses to abort that pregnancy, than if she carries the pregnancy to term, [is that] correct?'&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Dr. Lynn Rosenberg: 'Probably, yes.'&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Question: 'Looking at that another way, let's compare two women. Let's say both got pregnant at age 15-- one terminates the pregnancy, but the other carries the pregnancy to term. And both women go on to get married and have two kids, say, at age 30 and age 35. Is the risk of breast cancer higher for the woman who had an abortion at age 15 or the woman who had a baby at age 15, all other things being equal?'&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Dr. Lynn Rosenberg: 'It's probably higher for the one who had an abortion at age 15.'&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Despite the overwhelming evidence -- and inescapable logic -- for abortion increasing breast cancer, promoters of abortion cite flawed articles in an attempt to deny the link.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;The flaws in these articles are exposed in [[Harvard abortion study]] and [http://www.jpands.org/vol10no1/aschlafly.pdf].&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As Dr. Lanfranchi has explained:&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.jpands.org/vol13no1/lanfranchi.pdf&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Well-documented breast physiology accounts for the fact that oral contraceptives and abortion are risk factors for breast cancer.  There is an effort to suppress this information by federal agencies and those in academic medicine.  Without this information, women cannot make a fully informed choice about their method of fertility control or about whether to maintain an unplanned pregnancy.  Medical ethics demands that they be informed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Pro-choice should include ''informed'' choice.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;The Archdiocese of St. Louis, for example, remarked about abortions and increased risk for breast cancer: &amp;quot;To dismiss that link is irresponsible.&amp;quot; [http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/tx/5620863.html]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  Yet efforts continue to suppress awareness that abortion increases breast cancer.  Pro-life scientists were almost entirely barred from the National Cancer Institute's &amp;quot;study&amp;quot; of the link, and its resulting statements were fatally flawed as explained in  [[National Cancer Institute on Abortion]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Just as organizations denied or failed to disclose the connection between smoking and lung cancer, many organizations aligned with [[liberal]] politicians deny the correlation between abortion and breast cancer despite numerous studies published in peer reviewed journals indicating a likely connection.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Smelliesdoublecrochet.jpg|right|thumb|250px| The Smellie's double crochet abortion tool was used to grab and forcibly remove the fetus from the womb.]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Abortion Causes Future Harm with Premature Births ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;At least 49 studies have demonstrated a statistically significant increase in premature births (PB) or low birth weight (LBW) risk in women with prior induced abortions (IAs).&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Brent Rooney and Byron C. Calhoun, &amp;quot;Induced Abortion and Risk of Later Premature Births,&amp;quot; 8 J. Am. Physicians &amp;amp; Surgeons 46 (Summer 2003). [http://www.jpands.org/vol8no2/rooney.pdf]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Premature birth tragically causes brain damage, and an array of other severe, lifelong injuries ranging from Cerebral Palsy to blindness, or even death, and few mothers would knowingly increase the risk of that happening.  &amp;quot;There are at least seventeen (17) studies that have found that previous induced abortions increase preterm birth risk” and thereby increase debilitating Cerebral Palsy in children.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Brent Rooney, Letter, 96 European Journal of Obstetrics &amp;amp; Gynecology and Reproductive Biology, 239 (2001) (citations omitted).&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 2008, the generally pro-abortion British medical journal, ''The Lancet'', admitted that a procedure often used in abortion increase the risk of premature birth:&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Dr, Jay D. Iams, Dr. Robert Romero, Jennifer F. Culhane (PhD), Dr. Robert L. Goldenberg.  Primary, secondary, and tertiary interventions to reduce the morbidity and mortality of preterm birth. Lancet   2008;371:164-175.  While the text of this article conceals the connection with abortion, it cites as support for its claims two studies showing how abortion increases risk of premature birth: the 2004 'Ancel' study of ten (10) European countries and the 2005 'Moreau' study that used French subjects.  Ancel P-Y,  Lelong  N,  Papiernik  E, Saurel-Cubizoilles M-J, Kaminski M.  History of induced abortion as a risk factor for preterm birth in European countries: results of the EUROPOP survey. Human Reproduction. 2004;112:734-740.  Moreau C, Kaminski M, Ancel PY et al.  Previous I induced abortions and the risk of very preterm delivery; Results of the EPIPAGE study.  British J Obstetrics Gynaecology 2005; 112:430-437.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;For example, greater public and professional awareness of evidence that repeated uterine instrumentation--eg, uterine curettage or endometrial biopsy--is associated with increased risk of subsequent preterm birth might over time influence decision-making about the procedure.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Researchers Rooney and Calhoun observed:&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;''Id.''&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Large studies have reported a doubling of [early premature birth] EPB risk from two prior IAs.  Women who had four or more IAs experienced, on average, nine times the risk of [extremely early premature births] XPB, an increase of 800 percent.  These results suggest that women contemplating IA should be informed of this potential risk to subsequent pregnancies, and that physicians should be aware of the potential liability and possible need for intensified prenatal care.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Demographic evidence of how abortion increases premature birth includes the following:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC): &amp;quot;[T]he abortion rate for black women has been approximately '''three times''' as high as that for white women (range: 2.6--3.1) since 1991&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5407a1.htm (emphasis added)&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:''Science Daily'''s report on a study by the Washington University School of Medicine: &amp;quot;African-American women are '''three times''' more likely to deliver babies three to 17 weeks prematurely than Caucasian women&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/02/070209074144.htm (emphasis added)&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 2002 an article entitled &amp;quot;Preterm Birth: A Continuing Challenge&amp;quot; noted that premature births are abnormally high in the United States, citing a study that observed that a previous abortion is a &amp;quot;risk factor[] for both infertility and preterm birth.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1595132/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The rate of premature birth is elevated by the same amount as the abortion rate, as expected if abortion increases the risk of premature birth.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Other Health Risks from Abortion ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The [[U.S. Supreme Court]] ruled in 2007 that:&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;''Gonzales v. Carhart'', 127 S. Ct. 1610, 1634 (2007).&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:While we find no reliable data to measure the phenomenon, it seems unexceptionable to conclude some women come to regret their choice to abort the infant life they once created and sustained. See Brief for Sandra Cano ''et al.'' as Amici Curiae in No. 05-380, pp 22-24. Severe depression and loss of esteem can follow. See ''ibid.''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A study published in the Southern Medical Journal observed that there are higher death rates association with women who have abortion, and that these higher death rates persist over time and across socioeconomic boundaries.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;D.C. Reardon, P.G. Ney, F.J. Scheuren, J.R. Cougle, P.K. Coleman, T. Strahan, &amp;quot;Deaths associated with pregnancy outcome: a record linkage study of low income women,&amp;quot; 95 Southern Medical Journal 8, at 834-41 (August 2002).&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In [[England]], the &amp;quot;Royal College of Psychiatrists says women should not be allowed to have an abortion until they are counselled on the possible risk to their mental health.&amp;quot;  The medical royal college warned that women who have abortions may be at risk of mental health problems.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/article3559486.ece&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  A New Zealand study found that abortion in young women may be associated with increased risks of mental health problems.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&amp;amp;db=pubmed&amp;amp;dopt=Abstract&amp;amp;list_uids=16405636&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  The researcher in this study, who was not pro-life, was shaken by the study and had to go to four journals before he could find one who would publish it. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.thinkingchristian.net/C1148465919/E20060224082323/index.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The study concludes with the following statement:&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|These findings are inconsistent with the current consensus on the psychological effects of abortion. In particular, in its 2005 statement on abortion, the American Psychological Association concluded that “well-designed studies of psychological responses following abortion have consistently shown that risk of psychological harm is low...the percentage of women who experience clinically relevant distress is small and appears to be no greater than in general samples of women of reproductive age” (American Psychological Association, 2005). This relatively strong conclusion about the absence of harm from abortion was based on a relatively small number of studies which had one or more of the following limitations: a) absence of comprehensive assessment of mental disorders; b) lack of comparison groups; and c) limited statistical controls. Furthermore, the statement appears to disregard the findings of a number of studies that had claimed to show negative effects for abortion (Cougle et al., 2003; Gissler et al., 1996; Reardon &amp;amp; Cougle, 2002). &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.thinkingchristian.net/C1148465919/E20060224082323/index.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Professor David Fergusson, lead author of the New Zealand study stated: &lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|It borders on scandalous that one of the most common surgical procedures performed on young women is so poorly researched and evaluated. If this were Prozac or Vioxx, reports of associated harm would be taken much more seriously with more careful research and monitoring procedures.&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.washtimes.com/commentary/20060120-091648-6456r.htm&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Another study published in the OB/GYN Survey detailed long-term physical and psychological health consequences of induced abortions.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;J.M. Thorp, Jr., K.E. Hartmann, and E.M. Shadigian, &amp;quot;Long-Term Physical &amp;amp; Psychological Health Consequences of Induced Abortion: Review of the Evidence,&amp;quot; 58 OB/GYN Survey 1, at 67-79 (2003)&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Suicide rates among women who had abortions are six times higher than women who gave birth in the prior year.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.abortionrecoverycounseling.com/Page8.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  Overall, deaths from suicide, homicide and accidents were 248% higher after an abortion, as found by a 13-year study in Finland of its entire population.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;''Id.''&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the United States, only one state (Missouri) requires that the abortionist have admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles of the abortion.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Mo. Rev. Stat. § 188.080 prohibits an abortion by a physician &amp;quot;who does not have clinical privileges at a hospital which offers obstetrical or gynecological care located within thirty miles of the location at which the abortion is performed or induced.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  In the other 49 states, an abortion patient can and often is left without prompt medical care by the treating physician.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One of the largest abortion providers in the United States, the Metropolitan Medical Associates of New Jersey, was shut down in 2007 by state health officials after one of its botched abortions left a 20-year-old woman in a coma for more than four weeks.  She &amp;quot;became severely ill following the abortion and was transferred to Newark Beth Israel Medical Center where she needed blood transfusions and had her uterus removed. She also suffered a stroke due to the serious blood loss and had one of her lungs collapse.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.lifenews.com/state2137.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  The State of New Jersey had shut down the same facility in 1993 also.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;''Id.''&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
__TOC__ &amp;lt;!--Do not remove this. We want to keep the insights on the first screen of viewing--&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Abortion Alternatives==&lt;br /&gt;
[[Optionline]] provides consultants that connects individuals to nearby pregnancy centers that offer the following services: free pregnancy tests and pregnancy information; Information about the risks of abortion and the morning after pill; medical services, including [[STD]] tests; early ultrasounds and pregnancy confirmation. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.pregnancycenters.org/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; In addition, some of these centers provide information regarding free housing to women who are facing housing concerns.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.pregnancycenters.org/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The primary alternative to abortion is adoption. [[Liberty Godparent Foundation]] is a [[Christian]] organization focused on improving the lives of unwed pregnant teens, babies and adoptive families by providing two alternatives, The Liberty Godparent Maternity Home and Family Life Services Adoption Agency.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.godparent.org/index.php?option=com_content&amp;amp;task=view&amp;amp;id=20&amp;amp;Itemid=59&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;. [[Catholic Social Services]] provides adoption assistance to people of all beliefs in addition to supporting families in need.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Abortion Industry and How It Targets Minority Communities ==&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:4287336112 d3f9126c99.jpg|right|thumb|325px|According to [[Cybercast News Service]]: &amp;quot;An analysis by the Cybercast News Service compared the location of [[Planned Parenthood]] abortion clinics with population data from the U.S. Census in 2000. The results appear to bolster the charge that the organization targets black communities.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewSpecialReports.asp?Page=%5CSpecialReports%5Carchive%5C200502%5CSPE20050207a.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;(photo obtained from [http://www.flickr.com/photos/muriel215/4287336112/ Flickr, see Creative commons license agreement)]&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt; ]]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;Each day '''1,786''' African American children are aborted.&amp;quot; According to the [[U.S.]] Census of 2006, African Americans are at 1.96 birth rate which is &amp;lt;u&amp;gt;beneath&amp;lt;/u&amp;gt; the replacement level of 2.1. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.christiannewswire.com/news/1685410938.html African American Pro-Life Group Holds Protest at NAACP] Christian News Network, July 13, 2009&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; At the continued rate, [[racism]] by abortion will decimate the black population of the U.S.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
According to writer George Grant, the author of ''Killing Angel'':&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;During the 1980s when [[Planned Parenthood]] shifted its focus from community-based clinics to school-based clinics, it again targeted inner-city minority neighborhoods...Of the more than 100 school-based clinics that have opened nationwide in the last decade [1980s], none has been at substantially all-white schools....None has been at suburban middle-class schools. All have been at black, minority or ethnic schools.” &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.citizenreviewonline.org/special_issues/population/the_negro_project.htm&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Planned Parenthood itself reported that its abortions on minorities in 1991 was 42.7% of its total abortions. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.ewtn.com/library/PROLIFE/PPRACISM.TXT&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;.  However, during that time period, minorities comprised only 19.7% of the U.S. population.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.ewtn.com/library/PROLIFE/PPRACISM.TXT&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
According to [[Cybercast News Service]]: &amp;quot;An analysis by the Cybercast News Service compared the location of Planned Parenthood abortion clinics with population data from the U.S. Census in 2000. The results appear to bolster the charge that the organization targets black communities.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewSpecialReports.asp?Page=%5CSpecialReports%5Carchive%5C200502%5CSPE20050207a.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Political Support of Abortion ==&lt;br /&gt;
The most powerful political action committee (PAC) is EMILY’s List.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.emilyslist.org/newsroom/releases/20070201.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; EMILY's List contributes money to Democratic candidates who support abortion-on-demand, including forced taxpayer funding of abortion.  EMILY's List candidates also oppose regulations such as:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:providing health information to abortion patients;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:requiring that the abortionist have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital in case there is a complication; and&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:providing parental notification if the patient is a teenager.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Due to the influence of the abortion industry and EMILY's List, nearly every Democratic presidential candidate and senatorial candidate supports abortion-on-demand.  &amp;quot;EMILY's List, the nation's largest political action committee, continues to be the dominant financial resource for Democratic candidates,&amp;quot; its above-referenced website declares.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There is no comparably funded organization opposing abortion, because there are no monetary rewards to defending human life.  Instead, candidates and supporters who oppose abortion are motivated by religious and ethical principles.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== History of Abortion ==&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:115523-004-FA619CA3.jpg|thumb|right|250px| The perverse and cruel [[atheism|atheist]] [[Marquis de Sade]] advocated induced abortion.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://jme.bmj.com/content/6/1/7.abstract&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;]]&lt;br /&gt;
''Please also see:'' [[History of abortion]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The father of [[medicine]], [[Hippocrates]], expressly prohibited abortion in his ethical [[Oath]] long before [[Christianity]].  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The ''Journal of Medical Ethics'' article declared concerning the [[atheism|atheist]] and [[sadism|sadist]] [[Marquis de Sade]]:&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|In 1795 the Marquis de Sade published his La Philosophic dans le boudoir, in which he proposed the use of induced abortion for social reasons and as a means of population control. It is from this time that medical and social acceptance of abortion can be dated, although previously the subject had not been discussed in public in modern times. It is suggested that it was largely due to de Sade's writing that induced abortion received the impetus which resulted in its subsequent spread in western society.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://jme.bmj.com/content/6/1/7.abstract&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}} &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Population control]] is based on [[pseudoscience]] and ill founded [[economics|economic]] assumptions.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/11/pz_myers_on_abortion040971.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Prior to 1973 abortion was illegal in most of the United States, though a few states (such as Hawaii and New York) allowed it with restrictions.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;''A Timeline of Reproductive Rights'' [http://ecampus.bentley.edu/org/wc/reproductiverights.html The Women's Center]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; The U.S. Supreme Court's 1973 [[Roe v. Wade]]&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Online text of [http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&amp;amp;court=US&amp;amp;vol=410&amp;amp;page=113 Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973)]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; decision ruled that abortions are lawful under the [[U.S. Constitution]] up to the point at which the fetus becomes able to survive outside the womb, and an accompanying decision issued the same day captioned [[Doe v. Bolton]] essentially legalized abortion in the unlimited discretion of the abortionist at any time during pregnancy, up to and including birth.  Conservatives immediately criticized these decisions as examples of [[Judicial Activism]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 2008, worldwide there were approximately 115,000 abortions done per day.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.abortionno.org/Resources/fastfacts.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; In 2008, approximately 83% of all abortions were performed in developing countries and 17% occurred in developed countries.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.abortionno.org/Resources/fastfacts.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
States may regulate abortion, such as requiring a 24-hour waiting period and parental consent for minors.  Abortion clinics often fail to comply with the health standards of surgical facilities, and States can require compliance (but often do not, resulting in discomfort and harm to the victims of abortion).  Many abortionists lack hospital admitting privileges at nearby facilities, so women having complications must go on their own to emergency rooms to see physicians unfamiliar with what actually happened.  For any other operation the cost of treating complications is included in the cost of the operation, but for abortions the abortion clinics take their money and typically do not pay for the care of complications.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The more pro-abortion the State regulations are, the larger the number of abortion clinics it will have.  [[Arizona]], though a pro-life State, has a regulatory system that results in twelve abortion clinics operating within its borders.  In contrast, [[Mississippi]] has only one abortion clinic, and [[Missouri]] has only two.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Adolf Hitler and Abortion ===&lt;br /&gt;
''For more information see:'' [[Abortion and Adolf Hitler]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:Hitlerspeech.jpg|thumb|290px|right|[[Adolf Hitler]]]]‎In 1942 [[Adolf Hitler]] declared:&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|In view of the large families of the Slav native population, it could only suit us if girls and women there had as many abortions as possible. We are not interested in seeing the non-[[German]] population multiply…We must use every means to instill in the population the idea that it is harmful to have several children, the expenses that they cause and the dangerous effect on woman's health… It will be necessary to open special institutions for abortions and doctors must be able to help out there in case there is any question of this being a breach of their professional ethics. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2007/sep/07090708.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After [[World War II]], the War Crimes Tribunal indicted ten [[Nazi]] leaders for &amp;quot;encouraging and compelling abortion,&amp;quot; which the tribunal considered a &amp;quot;crime against humanity.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.abortionfacts.com/online_books/love_them_both/why_cant_we_love_them_both_25.asp#But%20didn%E2%80%99t%20Hitler%20oppose%20abortion?&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Atheists and abortion ==&lt;br /&gt;
The [[Barna Group]] found concering [[Atheism and Morality|atheism and morality]] that those who hold to the worldviews of [[atheism]] or [[agnosticism]] in America were more likely, than theists in America, to look upon the following behaviors as morally acceptable: illegal drug use; excessive drinking; sexual relationships outside of marriage; abortion; cohabitating with someone of opposite sex outside of marriage; obscene language; gambling; pornography and obscene sexual behavior; and engaging in [[homosexuality]]/[[bisexuality]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.barna.org/barna-update/article/5-barna-update/58-practical-outcomes-replace-biblical-principles-as-the-moral-standard&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==American Liberals and Abortion==&lt;br /&gt;
According to the Pew Research Center, American [[liberal]]s are more likely to support pro-abortion views. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://people-press.org/report/283/pragmatic-americans-liberal-and-conservative-on-social-issues&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Evolutionary Thought and Abortion==&lt;br /&gt;
[[Theory of evolution and liberalism|Liberals are more likely to advocate the evolutionary paradigm than conservatives]].  [[Creation Ministries International]] has written that [[evolution|evolutionary]] thinking has contributed to the [[eugenics|eugenic]] idea of aborting babies with defects and has also contributed to erroneous and immoral justifications for abortion.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://creation.com/abortion-an-indispensable-right-or-violence-against-women-sex-selection-aborting-girls&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://creation.com/human-life-questions-and-answers-abortion-and-euthanasia&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==A Poll on Reasons for Abortions==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:AbortionReasons.jpg‎|thumb|400px| Primary reasons women reported for undergoing abortions]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Alan Guttmacher Institute, which is not a [[conservative]] or [[pro-life]] organization, conducted a poll of more than 1,200 patients undergoing induced abortions at 11 large-scale [[abortion facilities]] in the United States. The women were asked to identify reasons for seeking abortion, singling out the primary reason. An additional 38 women at four sites were interviewed in-depth.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;agiSurvey&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/psrh/full/3711005.pdf Lawrence Finer, et al., &amp;quot;Reasons U.S. Women Have Abortions: Quantitative and Qualitative Perspectives&amp;quot;, ''Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health'', September 2005]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The poll omitted any reference to whether the women were able to see an ultrasound of their unborn children before choosing to have an abortion.  For the vast majority of women who have abortion, the reason is a lack of knowledge about the unborn child as displayed by an ultrasound.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Among reasons provided to the women as part of the poll, the two most common selections were &amp;quot;Having a baby would dramatically change my life&amp;quot; (74%) and &amp;quot;I can't afford a baby now&amp;quot; (73%).&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;agiSurvey&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;  Concerns about their own health were mentioned by only 13% of the women, while only 12% mentioned concerns about the baby's health, though only 3% and 4% respectively gave those as their primary reason for seeking abortion.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;agiSurvey&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Interestingly, only 14% indicated &amp;quot;[[husband]] or partner wants me to have an abortion&amp;quot; as a reason, down from 24% in a previous survey in 1987.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;agiSurvey&amp;quot;/&amp;gt; This conflicts with research on women post-abortion, among whom 64% reported feeling pressured by others to abort.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;reardon&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[http://www.theunchoice.com/pdf/FactSheets/ForcedAbortionFactSheet.pdf David Reardon, &amp;quot;Forced Abortion in America&amp;quot;, April 2010]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What is often ignored in studies of why women submit to abortions is an ambivalence by some in early pregnancy. Such ambivalence typically resolves when the mother becomes more aware of her unborn child, as displayed by an [[ultrasound]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Lederman, ''Psychosocial Adaptation in Pregnancy'', 1984&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&amp;quot;The Unwanted Pregnancy,&amp;quot; ''Clinical Obstetrics and Gynecology'', 1970, Cited in Gardner, ''Abortion: The Personal Dilemma'', 1972&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Nichols and Humenick, ''Childbirth Education: Practice, Research, and Theory'', 1988&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Ultrasound images==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*http://www.ob-ultrasound.net/frames.htm&lt;br /&gt;
*http://www.flickr.com/photos/drakelelane/388759116/&lt;br /&gt;
*http://www.parentingweekly.com/pregnancy/pregnancy_information/ultrasound/13_weeks.htm&lt;br /&gt;
*http://www.parentingweekly.com/pregnancy/pregnancy_information/ultrasound/ultrasound_3d.htm&lt;br /&gt;
*http://www.parentingweekly.com/pregnancy/pregnancy_information/ultrasound/triple_jump.htm&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== See Also ==&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Conservapedia:Pro-life Project|Conservapedia Pro-life Project]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.conservapedia.com/Category:Abortion Directory of abortion related articles]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.investigatemagazine.com/mar3abrt.htm Abortion and breast cancer in New Zealand]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Abortion and the Bible]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Abortion and eugenics]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Abortion Facts]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Abortion funding]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Abortion genocide]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Abortion procedures]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Abortion rates by US state]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Abortionist]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Anti Abortion activism: a personal essay]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[More News/Abortion|Articles about '''Abortion''' from &amp;quot;More News&amp;quot;]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Culture of life]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Separate Life|Essay on abortion]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Eugenics]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Fetus]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Harvard abortion study]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Abortion breast cancer studies]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Homosexual activists and abortion]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Margaret Sanger]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.health.state.mn.us/divs/chs/abrpt/2006abrpt.pdf Minnesota official abortion statistics]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[National Right to Life Committee]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Partial birth abortion]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Planned Parenthood]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Right to life]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Right to life movement]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Sanctity of life]] &lt;br /&gt;
*[[Silent scream]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Taxpayer-funded abortion]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==External Links==&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.abortionfacts.com/ Abortion Facts]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.carm.org/abortion.htm Abortion] by [[Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.lifesitenews.com/ LifeSiteNews.com]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.ProLifeOnCampus.com/ Pro Life on Campus]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.aim.org/wls/category/abortion/ What Liberals Say - Category: Abortion], [[Accuracy In Media]]&lt;br /&gt;
{{Abortion}}&lt;br /&gt;
{{Liberalism}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==References==&lt;br /&gt;
{{reflist|2}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Abortion]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Sexuality]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Religion and Politics]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Liberals]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Featured articles]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>CaptainSwing</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Barack_Hussein_Obama&amp;diff=934870</id>
		<title>Talk:Barack Hussein Obama</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Barack_Hussein_Obama&amp;diff=934870"/>
		<updated>2011-11-08T14:59:38Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;CaptainSwing: /* Why is the birth certificate things still going? */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;[[File:Brainreboot20110429.jpg|400px|thumb|]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{articletalkheader|prefix=archive}}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Rense==&lt;br /&gt;
Jeff Rense may not be a such a good source.  The Anti-Defamation League accuses him of promoting anti-Semitic views and 9/11 Conspiracy theories.  OTOH, what is wrong with a Pravda article written in the post Soviet-censorship era when democratic Russia hungars to exercise a free press, open discussion and discernment of facts?  [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 22:39, 23 January 2010 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:See my talk page, Rob.  I never noticed who added the Pravda cite, so if you say so, it is of course fine with me, and please add it back if you haven't already! I now suspect it was yet another vandal site troll stirring the pot, so feel free to deal with him as well. --&amp;lt;big&amp;gt;[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]&amp;lt;/big&amp;gt;&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;/Admin&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 17:02, 24 January 2010 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Terror Attacks ==&lt;br /&gt;
I have an issue with a claim made in the second paragraph.  ''Since abandoning the &amp;quot;War on Terror&amp;quot; in Obama's first year, the United States has suffered more terrorist attacks with deadly intent on American soil than in the previous eight years combined.''   Since Obama replaced the 'Global War on Terror' with 'Overseas Contingency Operation', there have been only four domestic terrorist attacks, a far cry from the 19 that took place under Bush's tenure.  This sentence should be reworded or removed in its entirety; it only makes the article look embarrassing.  --[[User:MichaelJB|MichaelJB]] 15:46, 25 January 2010 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:More [[liberal]] poppycock, Michael?  Even the New York Times counts more, excluding 9/11, under Obama. Perhaps you should consider sources other than the Kos?  --&amp;lt;big&amp;gt;[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]&amp;lt;/big&amp;gt;&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;/Admin&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 19:29, 25 January 2010 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::A short time ago you gave me grief for making assumptions, yet here you are doing the same.  I didn't get any information from Kos, it all came from legitimate news sources.  Do you really believe that more terror attacks occurred on US soil from March 2009 to January 2010 than in the eight years of the Bush administration?  I would really like to see all your references for making such a bold claim.  And why would you want to exclude the WTC/Pentagon attacks?&lt;br /&gt;
::Some people have been making some really stupid claims lately about domestic terror.  Dana Perino and Rudy Guiliani both claimed there was not a terror attack on the US when Bush was in office.  The fact that these people could make such stupidly partisan claims is incredible. [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4kpfhGxJbLc] [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2tYoMoJHNDs] The claim made in this article reeks of the same idiocy of Perino and Guiliani, why not delete the sentence or at least make it factual?  --[[User:MichaelJB|MichaelJB]] 20:23, 25 January 2010 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::The facts are undeniable that America was totally unprepared to protect itself from terrorist homeland attacks as Bush entered office, due to the total lack of focus of the Clinton Administration and Congress on the issue.  Bush can in no way be blamed for the 9/11 attacks with any real credibility. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::As I have stated many times before, as Mr. Schlafly has stated many times before, as several other Admins have as well,  coming here to argue-without-end against our conservative point of view in all articles you come across, is silly. If you and others cannot bring yourselves to accept alternative points of view, so be it. If you want a place to argue against conservatism in general, make your own site or try the Kos or HuffPo; but CP isn't a debate forum, it is a conservative encyclopedia ''project''. Article talk pages are for suggesting ways to improve articles from a conservative point of view, not a liberal one. Is that a clear enough statement?  --&amp;lt;big&amp;gt;[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]&amp;lt;/big&amp;gt;&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;/Admin&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 21:29, 25 January 2010 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::TK: The change you made is completely unacceptable from a moral and ethical standpoint because instead of correcting an error, you are now highlighting a lie.  Three terror attacks occurred during Pres. Bush's last year in office.  I sent you links to all three events but you are willing to over look such trivial matters as the truth.  It's funny that a liberal who has been blocked twice for pointing out errors and outright falsehoods is vilified as a trouble-maker while the conservatives that knowingly mislead and lie are in charge of an alleged 'trustworthy encyclopedia'.  &lt;br /&gt;
::::I'm trying to make these changes because I don't want Americans to look stupid, even the conservative ones.  It's an uphill battle. &lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
::::Gunman killed two people in a church.  [http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-07-29-church-shooting_N.htm]&lt;br /&gt;
::::Suicide bomber attacked a Georgia law firm. [http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/ga_law_firm_explodes_causing_multiple_injuries/]&lt;br /&gt;
::::Two police officers were killed by a bomb placed in a bank.  [http://www.odmp.org/officer/19697-captain-thomas-paul-tennant]&lt;br /&gt;
::::--[[User:MichaelJB|MichaelJB]] 01:25, 29 January 2010 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
MichaelJB you cannot tell the difference between Muslim terrorists and someone with an ax to grind? Godspeed! --&amp;lt;big&amp;gt;[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]&amp;lt;/big&amp;gt;&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;/Admin&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 06:36, 29 January 2010 (EST)v&lt;br /&gt;
:So Michael's point is that progressive liberal leftwing commie socialist (or whatever the flavor of the week) Prof. [[Amy  Bishop]] conducted a domestic overseas contingency operation attack. It's beginning to make sense. How would we classify the guy who crashed the plane into the IRS building in Houston, a tax protester who railed against corporations. Dang, this is a tuff one.... [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 08:13, 12 March 2010 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Middle name in article title? ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::&amp;lt;big&amp;gt;'''Unless you have some brilliant new argument to add to this section, further discussion is unneeded.&amp;lt;/big&amp;gt;'''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It strikes to me odd that the title of the article is Barach Hussein Obama. While there is nothing wrong with that by itself, looking at the [[President_of_the_United_States_of_America#Presidents_list|list of all the U.S. presidents]], it seems that all the other presidents' articles are titled either without their middle name, or just a middle initial. Wouldn't it make sense to rename the article to either Barack Obama or Barack H. Obama to follow suit? [[User:Kayvan|Kayvan]] 18:19, 26 February 2010 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
:There is a big difference between Walker or Jefferson and Hussein.  My two cents. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 18:22, 26 February 2010 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
::What about [[Ronald Wilson Reagan]]? [[User:DMorris|DMorris]] 18:26, 26 February 2010 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
:::This topic had been discussed before. He decided to be inaugurated with his middle name after not using it during the campaign. He is not ashamed of it and we are not ashamed to include it.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 18:29, 26 February 2010 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
::::Ah, I see. Looking at some lists though ([http://www.ipl.org/div/potus/] and [http://www.apples4theteacher.com/holidays/presidents-day/past-presidents-of-usa.html]), it seems that many presidents were also inaugurated in a similar fashion. [[User:Kayvan|Kayvan]] 18:33, 26 February 2010 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::: I think that, as all encyclopedias and scholarly works try to do, we should try to decide on a particular set of rules and always follow it. In this case, these are the options:&lt;br /&gt;
:::1) Always cite the full name in the title, so &amp;quot;Barack Hussein Obama&amp;quot;, &amp;quot;George Herbert Walker Bush&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;Ronald Wilson Reagan&amp;quot;;&lt;br /&gt;
:::2) Always use initials for middle names, so &amp;quot;Barack H. Obama&amp;quot;, &amp;quot;George H.W. Bush&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;Ronald W. Reagan&amp;quot;;&lt;br /&gt;
:::3) Use the names in the way they most commonly used, using middle name initials only where they are necessary to distinguish one particular individual from another, therefore &amp;quot;Barack Obama&amp;quot;, &amp;quot;George H.W. Bush&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;Ronald Reagan&amp;quot;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::: We are talking about titles of articles; the full name should always be cited in the body of the article. Personally, I would vote for solution n.3. --[[User:Maquissar|Maquissar]] 18:34, 26 February 2010 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
::::I like the idea. Either 2 or 3 seem best in my opinion; full names seem a bit to long for article titles. The name that the president was inaugurated with isn't bad either, but it would seem less formal, as some have middle names and others don't. [[User:Kayvan|Kayvan]] 18:38, 26 February 2010 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::: I thought about that solution, but then I thought that we should better set very general rules; by this I mean that we should decide how to title page names referring to INDIVIDUALS, not to US PRESIDENTS. Deciding that &amp;quot;the name that the president was inaugurated with&amp;quot; is a rule that, naturally, can only be applied to presidents. --[[User:Maquissar|Maquissar]] 18:41, 26 February 2010 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::: Another good rule would be to use the name that is mostly used to refer to that individual; this has the disadvantage of not being objective, but it is also the most effective. So &amp;quot;Barack Obama&amp;quot;, &amp;quot;George H.W. Bush&amp;quot; (to distinguish him from his son), &amp;quot;Ronald Reagan&amp;quot;, &amp;quot;Eminem&amp;quot; instead of &amp;quot;Marshall Mathers&amp;quot;, &amp;quot;O.J. Simpson&amp;quot; instead of &amp;quot;Orenthal J. Simpson&amp;quot;...  --[[User:Maquissar|Maquissar]] 18:56, 26 February 2010 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There isn't any vote here, nor was one asked for.  Since Obama tries to soft-pedal his Muslim roots and associations, our editorial policy is to call attention to that ''fact''.  In addition you should note the [[Ronald Wilson Reagan|Reagan]] article, where well before anyone had an inkling Obama would run for President, Conservapedia used his full name, ''Ronald Wilson Reagan'' which Reagan himself preferred  for formal use. So I submit President Obama isn't being singled out, contrary to the insistence of silly-minded liberals. --&amp;lt;big&amp;gt;[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]&amp;lt;/big&amp;gt;&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;/Admin&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 19:06, 26 February 2010 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:But why call attention to that ''fact'' in the title of the article? The ''fact'' is never going to be denied. The introduction sentence would still say &amp;quot;Barack Hussein Obama&amp;quot;. Italicize his middle name in the introduction or change the font color to bring out the ''fact'' if you wish. What I am trying to point at is, why should his middle name be used in the article title? Reagan may have preferred it for formal use, but does Mr. Obama say that same? He is commonly known as Barack Obama; I haven't seen it used in any other way (except Obama, of course). If he is commonly known as that, it would make sense to title the article like that, as should every article on people. [[User:Kayvan|Kayvan]] 21:05, 26 February 2010 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
::Richard Milhous Nixon was commonly refered to as [[Milhous]] by his detracters.  Indeed, googling milhouse brings up hundreds of thousands of hits on Nixon that dwarf most all other uses of the name.  Now, googling [[Hussein]] presents a host of other problems.   The [[Heshamite Dynasty]] of [[Hussein bin Ali]] had been the Islamic Keeper of the Holy places for 700 years until Western British Imperialist interests unseated them and installed the Saudi ruling clan thier place (visualize Islamists dethroning the Pope and installing thier own choice as successor).  How does it look when Hussein bin Ali's namesake bows to tne Saudi puppet? Why not focus on how Obama ''is'' bringing real change to the whole planet, rather than argue about how things have traditionally been done?  [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 13:14, 27 February 2010 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
Drop it.  Further discussion is last-wordism. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 21:14, 26 February 2010 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:On the question of &amp;quot;''all the other presidents' articles are titled either without their middle name, or just a middle initial. Wouldn't it make sense ...to follow suit? ''&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
:You will recall Barack Hussein Obama is the transformational president of change.  Wouldn't it make sense to begin change right here, with his name? (assuming that is his name).  [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 23:54, 26 February 2010 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;:&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;D&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
--&amp;lt;big&amp;gt;[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]&amp;lt;/big&amp;gt;&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;/Admin&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 01:58, 27 February 2010 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Pretty slick conservative trap there TK. despite the fact that you neglected to answer some massive holes in the arguments above, you declare the debate &amp;quot;ended&amp;quot; (even though its not) then decry anything else as last wordism to stifle any further debate. well done--[[User:DerikJ|DerikJ]] 11:58, 27 February 2010 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
:What holes? We're implementing change. Let's find common ground and compromise. We've done just that.  [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 12:35, 27 February 2010 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
::I like your comment on change, Rob, it made me laugh :) Anyway, I don't see how an argument that Obama's slogan being &amp;quot;change&amp;quot; is any reason to title his article to what he is less commonly known as/less traditional. It's pushing it, in a sense. Besides, being a conservative, I would think that you wouldn't want to follow Obama's way of thinking ;) [[User:Kayvan|Kayvan]] 13:40, 27 February 2010 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
:::Conservatives are for change, both economic and social.  They want to change tax law and abortion rulings, for example.  Above all, change public education.  Being anti-change is just a vulgar stereotype held by closeminded and intolerant people.  [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 14:09, 27 February 2010 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
::::I can agree with that. But ''why'' &amp;quot;change&amp;quot; how Obama's article is titled when others are titled either without their middle name or with their middle name if they are commonly known and identified by the name, in some cases. Simply changing something doesn't necessarily mean it's a good thing, there has to be reason, and the reason has to be, well, reasonable. [[User:Kayvan|Kayvan]] 14:44, 27 February 2010 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
:::::Call it the price of progress.  [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 15:17, 27 February 2010 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
::::::In that case, would changing the titles of all the other peoples' articles to include their middle names sound all right to you? It would be progress, after all. [[User:Kayvan|Kayvan]] 17:29, 27 February 2010 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
I have always wondered why the Obamabots get so upset with the name Obama's parents chose.  Pretty silly. --&amp;lt;big&amp;gt;[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]&amp;lt;/big&amp;gt;&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;/Admin&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 16:40, 27 February 2010 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:I actually like the name, it has a nice ring to it. It's more of just keeping a solid style of titling pages, a format if you want to call it that. [[User:Kayvan|Kayvan]] 17:29, 27 February 2010 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
::Which brings us to the question of Barry Soetero.  If Obama went by this name, then he may have lied to the Illinois Supreme Court when asked to provide former names, according to this Attorney’s Registration Record. [http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2061988/posts]  I'm not the sure what the resolution of this issue ever was, and we don't have a word about it in this article.  [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 17:49, 27 February 2010 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I know I am new here but there really needs to be a consensus amongst all Presidential and Vice President articles, actually this should probably extend to all US politicians. I know there is a specified conservative bias, however the lack organization and consensus has nothing to do with liberal or conservative bias, it has to do with disorganization and lazyiness by the admins.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If you want to leave the middle, that is fine, however, there would need to be a quick modification of all or the majority of the US Politian article so as not to look so disorganized.[[User:Solarguy17|Solarguy17]] 01:01, 10 March 2010 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:You hit the nail on the head.  You are new here.  Don't come in criticizing and such off the bat. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 01:12, 10 March 2010 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My criticization is to help the article(s) to be better as a whole. None of the above discussion explains the reasoning for leaving it as is. Just people saying he used it in his inauguration so we use it here, however, almost every pres does this so why not have it that way for everyone????[[User:Solarguy17|Solarguy17]] 01:15, 10 March 2010 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Not really discussion just more of a question. I just recently found this site and was looking through the religious articles and for the most part they seemed pretty good. However, when I come to the political articles, some of them seem a little crazy. I know it is to call more attention to the things that are being overlooked by the media. But I have ask about the middle name thing. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I read all of the information above and I still am not sure why it was decided to leave it as is.  Can someone clarify this? &lt;br /&gt;
Please don't ban me, I noticed that basically everyone with discussion in this thread that isn't an admin now has banned accounts. I personally don't care, I am just confused. [[User:StevenS|StevenS]] 01:12, 12 March 2010 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: As it says up at the top of this section, &amp;quot;Unless you have some brilliant new argument to add to this section, further discussion is unneeded.&amp;quot;  If you do have one, let's have it.  But it sure seems like everyone who signs up to this site and immediately starts complaining has nothing new to say at all.  Why don't you spend some time reading here with an open mind first, and complain later?  [[User:DanielPulido|DanielPulido]] 01:20, 12 March 2010 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Now, why would a single individual come here under several different user names all in an effort to get the word &amp;quot;Hussein&amp;quot; removed from the title of this article?  It makes no sense at all unless that individual has a personal agenda to perform.  The article title stays as it is.  [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 01:42, 12 March 2010 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:My only concern is that the title seems to exist in its current state for no purpose other than to further a bias.  The arguments that &amp;quot;well he asked for it&amp;quot; seem to suggest that accuracy and fairness are non-valuable in this wiki.  I sincerely hope this is not the case and that I may not be banned and able to start a fun future in helping this wiki grow in the impressive way it has so far. [[User:Vidihawk|Vidihawk]] 07:47, 6 April 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::'''&amp;quot;Unless you have some brilliant new argument to add to this section, further discussion is unneeded.&amp;quot;'''&lt;br /&gt;
I guess you missed the bold title at the top of this section?  Also, see [[Ronald Wilson Reagan]] to see how silly your argument is. --&amp;lt;big&amp;gt;[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]&amp;lt;/big&amp;gt;&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;/Admin&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 08:16, 6 April 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:I guess it wasn't as bright an idea as I had hoped.  Heh... It still comes off as somewhat purposeful, though.  Okie, I'll back away! - [[User:Vidihawk|Vidihawk]] 08:24, 6 April 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::Purposeful, as in done with the same horribly malevolent intent as ''my'' adding Reagan's middle name several years ago?  You are giving away your intent in advance, good sir, by refusing to admit your already formed assumptions about us are wrong.  I hope you prove me wrong, and turn out to be that rare U.K. denizen that turns out to be open-minded and as fair to us as you wish us to be to you. There have been precious few. And please do check out our editors guide and all of that. We differ quite a bit from Wikipedia. --&amp;lt;big&amp;gt;[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]&amp;lt;/big&amp;gt;&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;/Admin&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 08:33, 6 April 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:::::I think we should keep the current title of the article.  Furthermore, I think we should replace the top picture, which is currently a picture of Obama,  with a picture of an oil drenched pelican (and a new caption) as a tribute to Obama's indifference, sloth and incompetence.  [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 20:36, 16 June 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== I moved the material dealing with the present to the top  ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I moved the material dealing with the present to the top as I thought readers would be more interested in how Obama is screwing up the present.  For example, I think Americans right now are very concerned about how Obama is screwing up the economy. Of course, he is also doing a poor job in other areas presently as well such as holding terrorists court cases in civilian courts, etc. etc. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 04:30, 15 March 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:That makes sense to me. I do appreciate letting me try the other timeline structure. However, I didn't really take into consideration the fact that because he is a high profile individual it may benefit readers to see more recent info before his earlier biography facts. At least while he's fulfilling his one failed term as president, your structure makes sense to me. [[User:DerekE|DerekE]] 12:42, 15 March 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::As the ==Maoism== section is being being built, we may eventually be able to free up space from the sections on the Ayers/Dohrn relationship by moving some of that material to Ayers own page, and/or creating a new separate page documenting Obama's rise with communist and terrorist assistance.  An acceptable title for that page would be needed.  [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 13:23, 15 March 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Citation==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;Any orders he gives to the American military are subject to being refused. Orders that Obama gives to America’s Joint Chiefs of Staff of the military can be refused.&amp;quot; --http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/columnists/19-01-2009/106972-Barry_Soetoro-0&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Do we really want to cite an article that makes this claim? Do any of us really support this opinion, or if we do, do we support the use of opinion articles as sources in addition to factual ones? --[[User:BenjaminS|Ben]] &amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;[[User Talk:BenjaminS|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; 08:42, 6 April 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Is the opinion piece backed by valid and factual citations from the United States Code, Ben, as opposed to a unsupported rant? --&amp;lt;big&amp;gt;[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]&amp;lt;/big&amp;gt;&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;/Admin&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 08:47, 6 April 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== pronunciation of &amp;quot;Pakistan&amp;quot; ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This is really considered evidence of anything? I've heard [[Mark Levin]] use the Spanish-inflected pronunciation of Sonia Sotomayor's name (''so tow my OR'' rather than ''so tow MY er''), but nobody would claim that proves he's Catholic or Hispanic. [[User:Golgaronok|Golgaronok]] 23:55, 9 April 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:Pronunciation shows an enormous amount about someone's views and history.  Obama doesn't use the American pronunciation, and this is telling, since ''no one else in the public sphere'' pronounces it in the muslim way ''but'' Obama. [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 00:15, 10 April 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
[[David Petraeus]] does [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vtCLp7siY7I]. [[User:Golgaronok|Golgaronok]] 00:50, 10 April 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
And [http://www.forvo.com/word/pakistan/ numerous other languages] use a pronunciation closer to the native form. [[User:Golgaronok|Golgaronok]] 00:57, 10 April 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::&amp;quot;Golgaronok&amp;quot; (if that is your name), your quibbles with the entry have already been argued ad nauseum, [http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Barack_Hussein_Obama/archive4#.22Pokiston.22.3F.3F.3F.3F.3F here], for instance.  If you've only come to argue on talk pages, you're wasting your own time.  Try making substantive contributions to the project; excessive talk is disfavored here.  [[User:DanielPulido|DanielPulido]] 01:04, 10 April 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
I don't see any responses to the points I raised. But it's y'all's funeral. [[User:Golgaronok|Golgaronok]] 01:13, 10 April 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:::Kind of interesting that Davis Petraeus was mentioned here.  When that general was ordered to command US forces in Afghanistan and Iraq, the liberal elites decided that his name should be pronounced &amp;quot;BETRAY US&amp;quot;.  [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 01:29, 10 April 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Barry Soetoro = birth name?==&lt;br /&gt;
This may have already been discussed, so forgive me if this has been settled.  I noticed that the article says ''&amp;quot;Barack Hussein Obama II (birth name Barry Soetoro...&amp;quot;'', however the articles cited do not support the idea that &amp;quot;Barry Soetoro&amp;quot; is Obama's birth name, in fact quite the opposite.  My understanding, from reading the Newsweek article, is that &amp;quot;Barack&amp;quot; is his birth name, although he went by &amp;quot;Barry&amp;quot; when he was younger.  His father's name, as I understand it, is Barack Hussein Obama, and he was named after his father.  &amp;quot;Seotoro&amp;quot;, if I remember right, was his stepfather's last name, so it is unlikely that it would have been part of Obama's birth name.  To be clear, I do realize that he spent his younger years being known as &amp;quot;Barry Soetoro&amp;quot;, and I think that should be included in the article, I just don't think it was actually his birth name.  &amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Please understand that I am not as knowledgeable in this kind of thing as many other contributors here, so I may have gotten it all wrong - that's why I didn't attempt to edit the article.  Please correct me if I have gotten it wrong - I won't be offended and I am curious as to the truth of the matter.  [[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 18:11, 1 May 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
According to the citation that shows the birth certificate, the birth name is, in fact, Barack Hussein Obama II, NOT Barry Soetoro.  Also, because there is an actual document, i.e. physical, demonstrable proof, the word &amp;quot;allegedly&amp;quot; should be removed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Remove name repetition? ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Would anyone mind if I removed some of the repetition of Obama's name in certain portions of the article? For example, in this paragraph:&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|&lt;br /&gt;
[[Barack Obama and uncharitableness|Barack Obama's recent pattern of charitable giving]] and [[Barack Obama and liberal elitism|Barack Obama's liberal elitism]] is consistent with Obama being a [[Narcissism|narcissist]] which is a charge that has often been made against Barack Obama.  However, it is also true that Barack Obama is an [[evolution|evolutionist]].  Barack Obama told the ''York Daily Record'' that &amp;quot;I believe in [[evolution]]...&amp;quot;.  Barack Obama's recent pattern of charitable giving and liberal elitism is also in accordance with someone who has a certain degree of [[Social Darwinism|social darwinistic]] thinking.  In addition to [[Liberals and uncharitableness|American liberals giving less to charity]], it is also true that [[Theory of evolution and liberalism|American liberals are also more likely to believe in evolution]].&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think I could alter it to make it more readable with &amp;quot;Obama's recent pattern of charitable giving and liberal elitism is consistent with that of a narcissist, a charge that has often been made against him.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
And so forth. In my linguistics class, we talked about semantic satiation, and I believe that paragraphs like these, along with the fact that it never seems to use pronouns, somewhat diminish the readability of the article. If I were to make this change, I would preserve every wikilink, reference, etc, but I believe it would become more readable. In Christ, [[User:Tzoran|Tyler Zoran]] &amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:Tzoran|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 09:09, 6 May 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Insults? ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Does the entire beginning of the article have to be so laden with insults? Couldnt it simply say what the article will be about, and THEN express views? As it is it appears very unprofessional. 19:11, 6 May 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:We believe in the truth here, and the fact that [[liberals]] like yourself feign offense at the display of it speaks volumes about you. If you insist on closing your mind, at least take ownership of your [[deceit]]!  Sign your comments with &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt; ~~~~ &amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt; next time. Godspeed! [[User:Tzoran|Tyler Zoran]] &amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:Tzoran|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 19:58, 6 May 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== &amp;quot;The first president who is biracial&amp;quot; ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There have been other presidents of more than one race. Bush Jr. is has some German and English ancestry. [[User:NP|NP]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:George W is German and English, is that two races according to our census? I think the readers will understand what biracial refers to.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::English and German are '''''not''''' races, and neither is Hispanic. --&amp;lt;big&amp;gt;[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]&amp;lt;/big&amp;gt;&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;/Admin&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 22:16, 17 May 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Reorganizing ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I'm glad to see the edit feature is enabled here once more.  I think this page needs a revamp to structure information better.  I've reorganized everything into a better structure, let me know what you think.  I am trying to put a summary of the presidency at the top, information about his life/career next, and then a political summary.  This should really improve the page's appearance, as it appears too disorganized right now.  --[[User:Jzyehoshua|Jzyehoshua]] 15:56, 20 May 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:What you're doing is burying important information so fewer users will find it.  That's unacceptable. [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 15:57, 20 May 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Obama is a Muslim theory and the alleged claim of Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Aboul Gheit  ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Here is what the American Thinker reported: &amp;quot;The American President told me in confidence that he is a Muslim.&amp;quot; That was the claim of Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Aboul Gheit, as reported in the May 2010 issue of Israel Today. According to journalist Avi Lipkin, Gheit appeared on Nile TV's &amp;quot;Round Table Show&amp;quot; in January, on which he said that &amp;quot;he had had a one-on-one meeting with Obama who swore to him that he was a Moslem, the son of a Moslem father and step-son of Moslem step-father, that his half-brothers in Kenya were Moslems, and that he was loyal to the Moslem agenda.&amp;quot;[http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/06/report_obama_said_i_am_a_musli.html]  Here is what Hot Air says: http://hotair.com/greenroom/archives/2010/06/14/obama-is-a-muslim-take-two/  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Personally,  I am beginning to think Obama is: not a Muslim, not a Christian, and not an atheist.  I think Obama is a narcissist who worships himself.  I can also see him telling one person he is a Christian and then later telling someone else he is a Muslim.  There are many examples of Obama being insincere such as all the substantive healthcare  discussions were going to be on C-Span, etc. etc. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 15:53, 16 June 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 2009 Nobel Peace Prize ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I find it strange that there is not a single mention of the president being awarded the Nobel peace prize in this article. Considering that other prominent award winners have it at least mentioned in their respective articles. The [[Mother Teresa]] article, for instance, prominently states her award in the introduction to the article, and even political figures like [[Al Gore]] and [[Henry Kissinger]] (both of whom won the peace prize) have their award at least mentioned in the article.&lt;br /&gt;
--[[User:DenisTR|DenisTR]] 16:04, 19 August 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:I agree with you, Denis.  It was there, once-upon-a-time, but apparently it was removed in the constant editing turmoil. CP does mention this in the [[Nobel Prize]] article. I will add it here, as it should be. --&amp;lt;big&amp;gt;[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]&amp;lt;/big&amp;gt;&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;/Admin&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 16:24, 19 August 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Faulty Logic==&lt;br /&gt;
I have a suspicion that Andy Schlafly is secretly a Muslim. Will you deny that, Andy? If you do deny it, then I accuse you of being a Muslim under the concept of Taqiyya.&lt;br /&gt;
It's like a terrible flow chart that always ends with &amp;quot;You're a Muslim.&amp;quot; I realize that you're kind of scraping the barrel with this whole &amp;quot;Obama is a Muslim&amp;quot; thing, but c'mon. [[User:Pete5383|Paul]] 18:57, 19 August 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: Paul, you seem to think all claims or facts are relative.  They aren't.  Truth is supported by logic and evidence.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:00, 19 August 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:: President Obama clearly has an Islamic background. As an adult, he joined a church and says he's a Christian. I'd say he's as much Muslim as I am Jewish; by Jewish law, my having a Jewish mother makes me Jewish by birth, but I became a Christian by choice as a teenager. Go figure. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] &amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 14:04, 3 September 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::Whether President Obama is Muslim or not is one question; however it is undeniable Obama misspoke or was deceptive while ramping up his ambitions back in 2005 when he told the ''Chicago Sun-Times'', &amp;quot;I am rooted in the Christian tradition.&amp;quot; Nowhere on his maternal side, grandma, gramps, or his natural father, or his stepfather, can any Christian rooting be found.  [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 14:37, 4 September 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Days in office==&lt;br /&gt;
[[Barack Obama]] was inaugurated {{days since|2009|1|20}} days ago  and will finish his term in {{#expr: -{{days since|2013|1|20}} }} days. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] &amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 14:00, 3 September 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Apparent sourcing errors==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While looking over this article, I noticed a number of problems - mostly unsourced claims or claims for which the source is no longer available. Since my suggestions will almost certainly be controversial, I will not actually make any further changes to this page.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*The quote &amp;quot;Rather than being a unifier, Mr. Obama has divided America on the basis of race, class and partisanship&amp;quot; under the heading &amp;quot;Presidency&amp;quot; is unattributed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*The claim that Obama represented ACORN in ''Buycks-Roberson v. Citibank Fed. Sav. Bank'' is unsupported. While court documents do list Obama among the Plaintiff's Attorneys, they do not reference ACORN in any way. [http://www.clearinghouse.net/detail.php?id=10112] This claim seems to have been added by bloggers after the fact. Similarly, the cited reference contains no source for the claim that Obama had anything to do with the CRA, only a completely unsourced allegation that was reprinted almost verbatim here. As far as I can tell, Obama represented ACORN exactly once, on a case involving motor voter laws. [http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2008/oct/17/john-mccain/he-represented-them-in-one-case-/]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*The statement &amp;quot;Obama website Fight The Smears has confirmed that Obama was once a Kenyan citizen until 1982&amp;quot; under the subheading &amp;quot;Birth Certificate Controversy&amp;quot; is unsourced and ambiguous.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*Much of the content under the subheading &amp;quot;Engineers defeat of Centrist Democrats&amp;quot; is dubious. Two of the cites [http://articles.latimes.com/1992-03-18/news/mn-3844_1_gus-savage][http://www.dkosopedia.com/wiki/Carol_Moseley_Braun#Political_career] are about Carol Moseley Braun and don't mention Obama at all. There is no indication in any of the sources that Obama was connected to the Braun campaign, so these cites are meaningless. Additionally, the section attributes an anti-Dixon intent to Obama (referring to Obama as &amp;quot;subverting&amp;quot; Dixon's reelection, defined by Conservapedia's own article as &amp;quot;lending of aid, comfort, and moral support to individuals, groups, or organizations that advocate the overthrow of incumbent governments by force and violence&amp;quot;). What he did was increase voter turnout among the black community, a far cry from what the text implies.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*&amp;lt;s&amp;gt;The statement &amp;quot;President Obama falsely claimed that the senior citizen group AARP endorsed his administration's health care plan when they never made such an endorsement&amp;quot; under the subheading &amp;quot;Obama Administration Health Care Plan and Its Advocacy Methods&amp;quot; is sourced to a YouTube video that no longer exists. Additionally, it appears that AARP has been supporting health care reform since at least August 2009. [http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/08/17/eveningnews/main5247916.shtml][http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/19/aarp-ama-announce-support_n_506060.html]&amp;lt;/s&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*Similarly, several cites link to YouTube videos that have been removed. Multiple cites under the subheading &amp;quot;Obama Administration Health Care Plan and Liberal Elitism&amp;quot; link to deleted videos, as does the cite for the statement &amp;quot;Barack Obama's &amp;quot;Disinformation Czar&amp;quot; (whose supposed job was to correct disinformation that others are spreading about the Obama administration's health care plan) was caught spreading misleading information.&amp;quot; The cite for the statement &amp;quot;Senior citizens are key Democratic party constituents that could kill Obama's socialistic health care plan&amp;quot; links to a private video.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
--[[User:DrewJ|DrewJ]] 15:50, 29 September 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Sorry, Drew, but one glaring misrepresentation really sticks out, and explains why liberals are often accused of playing fast and loose with the truth:  While AARP has long advocated health care reform, it specifically repudiated Obama's distortion of the truth, saying they were not endorsing any specific plan, at that time.  See how easy it is to distort fact, by omission, and make obviously good-intentioned souls like you doubt the real truth?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:You are obviously an editor here, and I would urge you, before making posts such as this one, to try and find substitute sources that back up what is in the story. At the very least, as is the case with the AARP, at least check the facts before stating something is incorrect. It was a very big story at the time, Obama's misstatement, and not at all hard to find....so easy and well-known in fact that some people might be tempted to accuse you of inserting a deliberate [[Red Herring]]. --&amp;lt;big&amp;gt;[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]&amp;lt;/big&amp;gt;&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;/Admin&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 17:29, 29 September 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Typo ==&lt;br /&gt;
The first sentence here has a typo: it presumably is meant to read &amp;quot;...said to have '''been''' born in...&amp;quot; I'd fix it myself, but the page is so informative (and therefore long) that my poor old computer can't load it to edit.  --[[User:LanceS|LanceS]] 21:49, 11 November 2010 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
:Thanks, JPatt got it. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] &amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 22:29, 11 November 2010 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Bryan Fischer: Obama wants to give America back to the Indians ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Is [http://www.afa.net/Blogs/BlogPost.aspx?id=2147501360 this site] some kind of liberal parody? Otherwise, this is so serious that is should be included. American Family Association would seem to me as a pretty trustworthy organization, and this Bryan Fischer is writing for them. Any thoughts? &amp;amp;ndash; [[User:Dstone|dstone]] 16:42, 1 January 2011 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Fact vs Opinion==&lt;br /&gt;
Okay...I thought maybe this article would be a good place to start.  I was introduced to Conservapedia recently, and have been waffling about joining and bcoming an editor, but can no longer refrain.  So, I'm extraordinarily new...and I fully expect the welcoming and flame-free arms of this community, as I support the overall efforts of what Conservapedia is trying to accomplish.  The road to becoming a &amp;quot;Trustworthy Encyclopedia&amp;quot; is long, and this site is just starting to make baby steps in that direction.  That being said, I will try to keep this short.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
FACT:  Opinions are not fact.  Even expert opinions are not fact.  They're just plain old opinions.  Despite being in the Commandments, and otherwise stated over and over again, folks seem to have trouble making this distinction.&lt;br /&gt;
OPINION: If you are unable to make cited references, or present the conservative viewpoint in a reasoned and intelligent manner, I would heavily suggest that you leave the site to those who can.  Your &amp;quot;help&amp;quot; is often unhelpful.  Especially in an article as...contentious...as this - and I imagine many others, I'll be looking shortly - the talk page is the place to present your opinions.  If you cannot site material, find sources that intelligently argue your viewpoint, or just want a second or third pair of eyes and ears, it would be addressed here.  Also, if haven't actually read the article that you are citing...do that first, before posting anything at all...&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There are several on this page, the most innocuous of which:  President Obama authorized offshore oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico[28].  The moratorium lapsed in 2008.  It says it right in the article, paragraph 4.  This statement is spruious and vague and will be reworded to say something like: Then-Senator Obama voted to re-authorize oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico.  This is just a small and harmless example, but, either research the issue before posting, or don't post.  If you wish to engage in historical revisionism, or just bottom-barrel opinion mongering, please roll on over to Wikipedia, and leave us be.  [[User:RyanDav|RyanDav]] 2 January 2011&lt;br /&gt;
:I moved this from the top of the page to its current location, to maintain threading. [[User:Tzoran|Tyler Zoran]] &amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:Tzoran|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 13:35, 2 January 2011 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Oil Drilling Moratorium, redux ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I did not realize that this would be as contentious as it was.  The statement is simply poorly worded, I assume unintentionally, and appears to place the blame squarely on one person's shoulders.  This is just factually innacurate, nothing more, nothing less.  We accept credit where credit is due, and take blame where blame is appropriate - and the blame belongs to the vast majority of the 110th Congress, both the liberal reps and ours - and to deny that is some kind of revisionism, which will not be tolerated.  I'm certainly more than willing to be corrected on this, but you can either site sources that support your viewpoint, or you cannot - it really is that easy.  In that case, the article would read something like, &amp;quot;then-Senator Obama lobbied heavily for the moratorium to lapse, and led a congressional coalition consisting of Senators Blah, Blah and Blah and Congressmen Such-and-such and So-and-so to further that end, etc...&amp;quot; accompanied by supporting references.  I am afraid, however, that a &amp;quot;nuh-uh,&amp;quot; or, &amp;quot;because I said so,&amp;quot; is simply Not Good Enough.  We're counteracting liberal bias, here, not populating the internet with more unfounded claptrap. [[User:RyanDav|RyanDav]] 19:26, 3 January 2011 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:If you please, write here your proposal for how this should be written, including the source links.  If Obama lobbied heavily for the moritorium to lapse, then the source evidence will say it; if he was a part of a coalition of people, then again the evidence will support that.  Since this article is about Obama, it should lean on what he has done while in office.  But as far as what the 110th Congress did or didn't do, oh yes, I am in total agreement with you...and so were the vast majority of voters back in November. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 20:00, 3 January 2011 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::He didn't, as far as I know, or have ever read.  I don't think any articles arguing that he soley was responsible, or even more responsible than any other rep, exist.  The text is already up there.  Pretty vanilla.  Mentions him by name, but also says, &amp;quot;hey, don't forget about all the other chair-jockeys, too!&amp;quot;  But the article is about him, so he gets a name drop for focus.  The article is about him as whole, so his Presidential and Senatorial terms would be seperate sections of the same article, so as not to confuse.  The 110th was the last Bush-era Congress.  In November, we voted out the 111th.  We are now in the 112th Congress.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Oh, I also replaced someone's citation from an OpEd piece in the NYTimes with an actual news reference that supported the same point (about the Obama administration's poor response to the Oil Spill).  If I didn't know better (and I probably don't), I would suspect that some of the citations here are purposefully planted just to make us look like simpletons.  [[User:RyanDav|RyanDav]] 21:39, 3 January 2011 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Birth Controversy ==&lt;br /&gt;
Could someone please explain to me something I've never quite followed: why does it matter where Obama was born?  As far as I can tell, no one is claiming his mother was not a US Citizen, which makes him a &amp;quot;natural born&amp;quot; US citizen even if he was born in Kenya, Moscow, or Riyadh.  If the issue is &amp;quot;without a birth certificate we can't be certain his mother is really his mother&amp;quot; then I get it, but this side of things seems to be ignored in favor of controversy over the actual location of the birth.  If we interpret &amp;quot;natural born citizen&amp;quot; as &amp;quot;born within the US&amp;quot;, then that would exclude the children of Armed Forces personnel stationed overseas with their families at the time their children were born from the presidency, which seems like something liberals would love to do. [[User:Ptorquemada|Ptorquemada]] 12:09, 5 April 2011 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:Well, John McCain whose father was an Admiral was born to two American parents in Panama Canal Zone. The media questioned his &amp;quot;natural born&amp;quot; citizen status and it seemingly was determined that since both his parents were American citizens who were living out of State because of the Admiral's duties that John McCain's birth status would be considered &amp;quot;natural born. The question concerning Barack Obama is that his father was not a US citizen but was in fact a British subject as Kenya was under British rule at the time. Some suggest that the original conception of &amp;quot;natural born&amp;quot; was that both parents are US citizens at the time of the birth of a child. So there is a question as to his &amp;quot;natural born&amp;quot; status even if he was, in fact, born in Hawaii. The fact that Obama has spent a couple of million dollars fighting any requests for proof of an original long form birth certificate and school records makes some people more convinced that a. he wasn't actually born in Hawaii and that his birth was only registered there or b. because his father was a British subject he had duel citizenship status which would make it doubtful that he would be considered a natural born citizen. There are many questions concerning Obama's &amp;quot;natural born&amp;quot; status because he also appears to have been a citizenship of Indonesia and is supposed to have traveled on an Indonesian passport as an adult. Of course, a lot of questions would be removed if the president just released the original birth certificate. The fact that he hasn't just adds fuel to the fire. [[User:Dwain|Dwain]] 12:09, 8 April 2011 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Birth Certificate Removal? ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Now that Obama has finally released his birth certificate, all this about Kenya and Barry Soetoro seems a bit silly. Should we remove it? [[User:JimAB|JimAB]] 11:24, 27 April 2011 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:Has the question of Mr. Obama traveling to Pakistan on an Indonesian passport under the name Barry Soetero in 1981 been resolved yet? As well as the statements regarding his application to join the Illinois State Bar Association wherein he answered no to the question of ever using any aliases? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 18:12, 28 April 2011 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Shortening the article length ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think we need to work on splitting this article; I recently revert a vandal's (mostly) blanking of the page, and my browser would freeze up when I tried to save the page (actually I'm currently trying to save it - and over and over again I'm having no luck). Currently this appears at the top of the edit screen:&lt;br /&gt;
:'''WARNING: This page is 144 kilobytes long; some browsers may have problems editing pages approaching or longer than 32kb. Please consider breaking the page into smaller sections or removing irrelevant information.'''&lt;br /&gt;
Thoughts?--&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;[[User:Iduan|&amp;lt;span style=&amp;quot;color: #FFCCCC; background: #660000&amp;quot;&amp;gt;I]][[User_talk:Iduan|&amp;lt;span style=&amp;quot;color:#CCCCFF; background:#000033&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Duan]]&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt; 00:34, 30 April 2011 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== First Socialist??? ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Obama is clearly a socialist, but is he the first to be president as the lead of the article states? The New deal democrats who created social security come to mind.[[User:BenDylan|BenD]] 09:03, 1 May 2011 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:That certainly may be true. But we are talking about one man who occupies the office of president, not underlings and appopintees.  [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 09:23, 1 May 2011 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::But couldn't the Presidents who hired them be considered socialists? I still don't know about saying he's the FIRST. [[User:KingHanksley|KingHanksley]] 12:31, 4 May 2011 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Obama the Socialist ==&lt;br /&gt;
I am counting all the capitalists that have hired self-proclaimed communists. I come up with zero. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 12:43, 2 May 2011 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Update of the article ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
See [[Talk:Barack Hussein Obama/update]] if you'd like to contribute to an update of this article - we'll be keeping a lot of the information that's good, throwing out some information that's a little old, and adding new information - all while hopefully downsizing! All help is appreciated!--&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;[[User:Iduan|&amp;lt;span style=&amp;quot;color: #FFCCCC; background: #660000&amp;quot;&amp;gt;I]][[User_talk:Iduan|&amp;lt;span style=&amp;quot;color:#CCCCFF; background:#000033&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Duan]]&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt; 19:55, 2 May 2011 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Bin Laden ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Should we at least mention the Bin Laden capture? I feel that in fairness we should give him his one or two accomplishments. We should definitely mention that George W. Bush's policies played a big hand but still Obama could have gone entirely bleeding heart on us and we wouldn't have gotten OBL [[User:KingHanksley|KingHanksley]] 11:24, 4 May 2011 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But being fair and giving credit to a liberal muslim socialist for making the world even a little safer would undermine the integrity of a conservative encyclopedia. Now had he screwed up the capture then that would be worthy of mentioning because it would show how he endangered the country. We should only be fair and give credit where credit is due if Obama was a Christian conservative who shared our beliefs. ([[User:Bluebank|Bluebank]] 12:58, 7 July 2011 (EDT))&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree, it would only be worth mentioning if he had screwed up the capture because then we could hold his feet to the fire. ([[User:Jvclark2|Jvclark2]] 13:00, 7 July 2011 (EDT))&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::''&amp;quot;giving credit to a liberal muslim socialist for making the world even a little safer would undermine the integrity of a conservative encyclopedia.&amp;quot;'' Well that's not a biased statement or anything. It should fall under the article Obama presidency but because of its significance, put it on the BHO page. Rarely, but we have given Obama credit in the past. The rescue of a Captain from Somali pirates is a good example of the proper choice the Progressive fake Christian Marxist had made. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 14:58, 7 July 2011 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:::::I just don't see where ordering bin Laden's killing is a big accomplishment. What purpose did it serve other than a failed effort to turn around Obama's falling poll ratings while destroying the most important relationship the United States had in the war on terror. After Obama declared the war on terror over two years ago, dismantling the delicate relationship with the Pakistani ISS seems like phase two. Undermining Pakistan's secular regime, the way Obama did, only works to the advantage of Islamic extremists. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::Did killing bin Laden bring back the lives lost in the 9/11 attacks? No. Does making the war's in Iraq &amp;amp; Afghanistan about retribution rather than prevention, further American foreign policy interests or make the United States more secure? Hardly. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::Does creating the false sense among the American electorate that the objectives of the war in Afghanistan have now been accomplished, and we can abandon the fight? The height of folly -- and a repeat of what happened when the U.S. abandoned Afghanistan to the terrorists after 1991. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::Did killing bin Laden make America safe from reprisals? Or rather doies killing bin Laden expose innocent men, women, and children to the never ending threat of sudden, sensesless, and violent death?&lt;br /&gt;
:::::The cynical manipulation of American security and foreign policy interests for short term popularity and selfish career interests is appalling. I just don't agree this a &amp;quot;success&amp;quot; to boast of.  [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 23:15, 7 July 2011 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::::::While I think it's laughable to say that taking down the number one most wanted man in the world isn't an accomplishment, I think it's a decision that ''anyone'' would have made, therefore, it isn't special or particular that Obama happened to be the one to make it. [[User:BradB|BradB]] 23:57, 7 July 2011 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:::::::No. We've learned from our mistakes. In 1967 the the number one most wanted man in the world - Che Guevara - was similiarly hunted and executed, only to be resurrected by liberals, hate-mongers, and other assorted sociopaths and pro-mass murder advocates, made the mascot of the hate-America crowd, and sold to American college students as somethiong larger than life and a cult hero to be worshiped. It is not laughable at all.  [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 13:55, 8 July 2011 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::::::::The angst from the left goes back to Bush hatred. We shouldn't have interfered in Iraq and should have focused on OBL. Leftist sheep knew better than Bush. We knew all along that it is not one man but a movement, confront them there instead of here. At least we are no longer creating and recruiting terrorists, thanks to a Muslim-named president and his policies of peace in the Middle East.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 14:08, 8 July 2011 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:::::::::You will recall Senator [[Patty Murray]], who now heads the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee charged with candidate recruitment and doling out funds, praised bin Laden for his work with children buidling day care centers. He probably supported the Family-Leave Act and opposed No Child Left Behind, too. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 15:26, 8 July 2011 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::::::::::''&amp;quot; I just don't agree this a &amp;quot;success&amp;quot; to boast of. &amp;quot;'' Two points, 1) stating a fact is not boasting, it is just stating a fact. We list domestic policy, popular bills, economic plan, gulf oil spill, DADT... It's just another thing to list. 2) Had Bush done it I'm pretty sure it would be on his page.([[User:Jvclark2|Jvclark2]] 21:09, 8 July 2011 (EDT))&lt;br /&gt;
:::::::::::That is the point. Stating the fact that Obama's unnecessarily destroyed the most vital relationship the United States has in the War on Terror to score short term approval ratings.  [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 12:38, 9 July 2011 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
Jvclark - bin Laden's death is mentioned on this page. In the lead. What more do you want?--&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;[[User:Iduan|&amp;lt;span style=&amp;quot;color: #FFCCCC; background: #660000&amp;quot;&amp;gt;I]][[User_talk:Iduan|&amp;lt;span style=&amp;quot;color:#CCCCFF; background:#000033&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Duan]]&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt; 11:46, 9 July 2011 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==From the update - discussion==&lt;br /&gt;
===Structuring===&lt;br /&gt;
This is what I feel should be the general sectioning of the article - I think with an article that we have this much information on, what we mostly need to do is use &amp;quot;See also:&amp;quot; pages rather than go into major details.&lt;br /&gt;
{| style=&amp;quot;width:100%&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|valign=&amp;quot;top&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
*Early life&lt;br /&gt;
*U.S. Senate career (with a note on opposition to the Iraq War - which should be followed up on in the presidential primary race)&lt;br /&gt;
*U.S. Senate career&lt;br /&gt;
**Radical endorsements, support, and get out the vote efforts (better language?)&lt;br /&gt;
**'''Use of filibuster and obstructionism'''&lt;br /&gt;
**'''Voted agaist debt ceiling increase'''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*Presidential election (things to cover: experience question, jeremiah wright, PUMA)&lt;br /&gt;
**Primary race&lt;br /&gt;
**National election&lt;br /&gt;
|valign=&amp;quot;top&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
*Presidency&lt;br /&gt;
**Domestic policy&lt;br /&gt;
***Popular Bills (Zadroga, lilly ledbetter fair pay act)&lt;br /&gt;
***Economic plan&lt;br /&gt;
****Stimulus plan&lt;br /&gt;
***Health care&lt;br /&gt;
***The Gulf oil spill&lt;br /&gt;
**Foreign policy&lt;br /&gt;
***Commander-in-Chief&lt;br /&gt;
****Iraq&lt;br /&gt;
****Afghanistan&lt;br /&gt;
****Libya/The Obama Doctine&lt;br /&gt;
****Don't Ask Don't Tell&lt;br /&gt;
|valign=&amp;quot;top&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*Ideology (mentioning pro-abortion stance, other things not mentioned above)&lt;br /&gt;
*References&lt;br /&gt;
*See also&lt;br /&gt;
*External links&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Rob I've bolded two section that I wonder if they should be sections alone; I do 100% agree that they should be mentioned in the text; are you set on them being sections? If so I'll yield--&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;[[User:Iduan|&amp;lt;span style=&amp;quot;color: #FFCCCC; background: #660000&amp;quot;&amp;gt;I]][[User_talk:Iduan|&amp;lt;span style=&amp;quot;color:#CCCCFF; background:#000033&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Duan]]&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt; 00:58, 3 May 2011 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:Leave bold for now &amp;amp; let's see what develops; '''Recovery''' is ambiguous; while total output (GDP growth) has recovered, we've seen several polls just over the past week where 60-70% of respondents ''still'' think the US is in recession (despite the fact GDP growth has recovered over the past year and half). Likewise, it certainly has not been a &amp;quot;jobs recovery&amp;quot;. I'd suggest this needs a better name.  [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 01:15, 3 May 2011 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::I very much agree - that's a misleading section title - I think what I meant was &amp;quot;Proposed Recovery&amp;quot; - or &amp;quot;Recovery Plan&amp;quot;. The latter sounds a little better to my ears. I made a few edits below - I'm gonna hold off on doing anything else till you get a chance to take a look and add things.--&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;[[User:Iduan|&amp;lt;span style=&amp;quot;color: #FFCCCC; background: #660000&amp;quot;&amp;gt;I]][[User_talk:Iduan|&amp;lt;span style=&amp;quot;color:#CCCCFF; background:#000033&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Duan]]&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt;01:22, 3 May 2011 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:::I've replaced Recovery with Stimulus, perhaps &amp;quot;Stimulus and budget&amp;quot;. Also, Don't Ask Don't Tell seems a little wierd under &amp;quot;Wartime&amp;quot;; is it there solely cause it's a military subject? It could just as easily fit under Idealogy as well (I' not just trying to be argumentative....) [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 01:40, 3 May 2011 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::::Hmm. Very true. No I think it's definitely a legitimate question. I HAD been thinking that Ideology would just cover what wasn't addressed in the prior sections (since certainly we'd discuss his economic ideology in the &amp;quot;Economic plan&amp;quot; section) - so, yes, I had just placed it under wartime solely because its a military subject. But it is probably more apropos to homosexual rights. I am worried that Ideology will become a bucket of worms, so to speak, only in that it'd be weird to just have a section for DADT under it, so then we'd have to have a super-section for &amp;quot;Homosexual policy&amp;quot;, and then super-sections for everything else, making the article very long. I leave it up to you.--&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;[[User:Iduan|&amp;lt;span style=&amp;quot;color: #FFCCCC; background: #660000&amp;quot;&amp;gt;I]][[User_talk:Iduan|&amp;lt;span style=&amp;quot;color:#CCCCFF; background:#000033&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Duan]]&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt; 01:45, 3 May 2011 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:::::Alternatively, we can just leave it as is for now. I'm updating the [[Obama administration]] article right now, too. That one is structured , &amp;quot;Economic policy&amp;quot;, &amp;quot;Foreign policy&amp;quot;, etc. Wartime leader is something new. Perhaps, Commander-in-Chief? that would encompass DADT as well as ongoing military operations.  [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 02:08, 3 May 2011 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::::::I like that. It's broader and works well. Nice.--&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;[[User:Iduan|&amp;lt;span style=&amp;quot;color: #FFCCCC; background: #660000&amp;quot;&amp;gt;I]][[User_talk:Iduan|&amp;lt;span style=&amp;quot;color:#CCCCFF; background:#000033&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Duan]]&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt; 02:29, 3 May 2011 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
I took a look at the Wikipedia page on Obama - and I actually like how they organize his presidency - into Domestic policy and foreign policy. I'm going to make some changes to reflect that. I think in the long run it'll actually limit the number of sections we need--&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;[[User:Iduan|&amp;lt;span style=&amp;quot;color: #FFCCCC; background: #660000&amp;quot;&amp;gt;I]][[User_talk:Iduan|&amp;lt;span style=&amp;quot;color:#CCCCFF; background:#000033&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Duan]]&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt; 18:15, 4 May 2011 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Congratulations! ==&lt;br /&gt;
To the people who worked updating this article. It looks much better now.--[[User:AlejandroH|AlejandroH]] 00:43, 10 May 2011 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Speculation ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the spirit of accuracy, I think that all articles should refrain from speculative language (I thought this would be good article to start with). I understand that this is a conservative encyclopedia, but one should not overrule the other. We can still present the conservative view point that other encyclopedias overlook without veering off the path of facts. I think that President Obama has done enough to harm himself without adding inflammatory and opinion statements. This language degrades the reliability of the site. [[User:McTone|McTone]] 10:59, 23 May 2011 (EDT)McTone&lt;br /&gt;
:You're actually not making encyclopedic edits - for example how you're adding titles (&amp;quot;''President'' Obama&amp;quot;), which is traditionally not done. As you've now been reverted twice I think you should refrain from editing this article.--&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;[[User:Iduan|&amp;lt;span style=&amp;quot;color: #FFCCCC; background: #660000&amp;quot;&amp;gt;I]][[User_talk:Iduan|&amp;lt;span style=&amp;quot;color:#CCCCFF; background:#000033&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Duan]]&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt; 11:35, 23 May 2011 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:: That is encyclopaedic, as it is proper to use a person's title in reference material. However, that's not ththe only edits I've made. Most of them being removing speculative speech. Basically we should follow the rule of &amp;quot;if you can't cite it, don't say it.&amp;quot;[[User:McTone|McTone]] 13:01, 23 May 2011 (EDT)McTone&lt;br /&gt;
:::No it's generally not. See his Wikipedia page if you don't believe. We also don't say &amp;quot;Mr.&amp;quot; or &amp;quot;Ms.&amp;quot;--&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;[[User:Iduan|&amp;lt;span style=&amp;quot;color: #FFCCCC; background: #660000&amp;quot;&amp;gt;I]][[User_talk:Iduan|&amp;lt;span style=&amp;quot;color:#CCCCFF; background:#000033&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Duan]]&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt; 12:02, 23 May 2011 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::::Are we not better than Wikipedia? In any case, this is deferring the point I was making with this heading.[[User:McTone|McTone]] 13:01, 23 May 2011 (EDT)McTone&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Perhaps ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I have read two cases of the word perhaps in the opening section of this article. Shouldn't assumptions like these not belong in an encyclopedia like article, especially in the opening section?- AlexMason&lt;br /&gt;
:The first one is arguably a wording error ... I'll consider that - the second one is more appropriate; since the event just happened we're not sure what the consequences will be, but if a potential consequence is notable enough it's probably worth stating--&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;[[User:Iduan|&amp;lt;span style=&amp;quot;color: #FFCCCC; background: #660000&amp;quot;&amp;gt;I]][[User_talk:Iduan|&amp;lt;span style=&amp;quot;color:#CCCCFF; background:#000033&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Duan]]&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt; 16:30, 23 May 2011 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::I'm an underwriter at Fox News and I see stuff like this all the time. I think AlexMason is correct here (as well as the poster in the previous topic). Is this a web encyclopedia or is this an opinion site? Speculating on the outcome of events is tantamount to gossip (highly frowned upon and in fact forbidden by the standards of Conservapedia as I have read the rules and commandments). I really think this should be fixed. I noticed some edits in the history of this page and I've got to stick with Andy's last revision (reverting some of the edits of the previous editor) which kept to the less speculative nature of the article.[[User:PapaBear|PapaBear]] 21:32, 28 May 2011 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Obama Muslim Evidence? ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I was going to make a post on this talk page suggesting we move the long list of evidence that Obama may be a Muslim to its own article (or an article dealing with the Obama/Islam controversy) but when I got here I saw that section had been removed, as had any mention of the words &amp;quot;Islam&amp;quot; or &amp;quot;Muslim&amp;quot;. (I did a search on my browser). I could not find a reason for this on the talk page. Could someone explain why this was made? [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 22:13, 3 June 2011 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:I rescued the content from an old revision and put it here: [[Barack Obama's Muslim Heritage]] [[User:AndyJ|AndyJ]] 22:18, 21 June 2011 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Obama as President ==&lt;br /&gt;
With the long-standing controversy about Hussein's birth certificate and the recent evidence that the one that was released is forged, I feel that there is ample evidence to conclude that Obama was born in Kenya. Because of that, I propose that we list the current holder of the office of [[President]] as [[Joe Biden]], as he would take the office if Obama were found to be unable or ineligible to serve.  --[[User:AndyJ|AndyJ]] 22:29, 21 June 2011 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:You may be misreading the story; the &amp;quot;Obama was born in Kenya&amp;quot; conspiracy theory was promoted by the White House to hide the fact that, Barack Hussein Obama's father was a [[natural born citizen]] of Kenya, and not the United States. That is the constitutional question, being that a case can be made that the Constitutional framers defined &amp;quot;natural born citizen&amp;quot; as being a citizen of the country of ''your fathers'' birth. The birth certificate, or the location of Obama Jr. birth, that is to say, the birther conspircacy the White House promoted, never had anything to do with the constitutional issue in question.  [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 16:27, 22 June 2011 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::And two things, firstly, there is not ample evidence. Just conspiracy theories. Even assuming that the certificate/s released are forgeries, that alone isn't enough to prove he wasn't born in the US, it would just raise concerning questions. Secondly, Obama would remain the President. The Constitution doesn't mention what would happen if someone who was ineligible to be President became President. Hence, until impeachment or the 25th Amendment is invoked, Obama would remain President. (Presumably the 25th would be invoked, as impeachment would take a lot longer, and would require proving that Obama knew, which could be a little difficult.) - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 07:57, 18 October 2011 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Why is the birth certificate things still going? ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I read a while ago (and posted in the article) an article from the National Review where even they concede that Obama was probably born in the US. [[User:CaptainSwing|CaptainSwing]] 23:43, 7 November 2011 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Well as soon as it's verified than we can move past. Until then, we'll just pretend everything is a ok. For me, I'd still like to see every executive order, every law signed, every supreme court nominee from Obama overturned. It took three years the release of the long form certificate. I can wait another three years if need be for the proof.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 00:11, 8 November 2011 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
::I don't understand, the National Review, a magazine that I admit is quite conservative, viewed the birth certificate and said it was most likely valid. I'm not sure what you're waiting for, as I don't think anyone is going to prove that Obama wasn't born in the country. [[User:CaptainSwing|CaptainSwing]] 09:59, 8 November 2011 (EST)&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>CaptainSwing</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Barack_Hussein_Obama&amp;diff=934751</id>
		<title>Talk:Barack Hussein Obama</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Barack_Hussein_Obama&amp;diff=934751"/>
		<updated>2011-11-08T04:43:07Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;CaptainSwing: /* Why is the birth certificate things still going? */ new section&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;[[File:Brainreboot20110429.jpg|400px|thumb|]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{articletalkheader|prefix=archive}}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Rense==&lt;br /&gt;
Jeff Rense may not be a such a good source.  The Anti-Defamation League accuses him of promoting anti-Semitic views and 9/11 Conspiracy theories.  OTOH, what is wrong with a Pravda article written in the post Soviet-censorship era when democratic Russia hungars to exercise a free press, open discussion and discernment of facts?  [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 22:39, 23 January 2010 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:See my talk page, Rob.  I never noticed who added the Pravda cite, so if you say so, it is of course fine with me, and please add it back if you haven't already! I now suspect it was yet another vandal site troll stirring the pot, so feel free to deal with him as well. --&amp;lt;big&amp;gt;[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]&amp;lt;/big&amp;gt;&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;/Admin&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 17:02, 24 January 2010 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Terror Attacks ==&lt;br /&gt;
I have an issue with a claim made in the second paragraph.  ''Since abandoning the &amp;quot;War on Terror&amp;quot; in Obama's first year, the United States has suffered more terrorist attacks with deadly intent on American soil than in the previous eight years combined.''   Since Obama replaced the 'Global War on Terror' with 'Overseas Contingency Operation', there have been only four domestic terrorist attacks, a far cry from the 19 that took place under Bush's tenure.  This sentence should be reworded or removed in its entirety; it only makes the article look embarrassing.  --[[User:MichaelJB|MichaelJB]] 15:46, 25 January 2010 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:More [[liberal]] poppycock, Michael?  Even the New York Times counts more, excluding 9/11, under Obama. Perhaps you should consider sources other than the Kos?  --&amp;lt;big&amp;gt;[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]&amp;lt;/big&amp;gt;&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;/Admin&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 19:29, 25 January 2010 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::A short time ago you gave me grief for making assumptions, yet here you are doing the same.  I didn't get any information from Kos, it all came from legitimate news sources.  Do you really believe that more terror attacks occurred on US soil from March 2009 to January 2010 than in the eight years of the Bush administration?  I would really like to see all your references for making such a bold claim.  And why would you want to exclude the WTC/Pentagon attacks?&lt;br /&gt;
::Some people have been making some really stupid claims lately about domestic terror.  Dana Perino and Rudy Guiliani both claimed there was not a terror attack on the US when Bush was in office.  The fact that these people could make such stupidly partisan claims is incredible. [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4kpfhGxJbLc] [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2tYoMoJHNDs] The claim made in this article reeks of the same idiocy of Perino and Guiliani, why not delete the sentence or at least make it factual?  --[[User:MichaelJB|MichaelJB]] 20:23, 25 January 2010 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::The facts are undeniable that America was totally unprepared to protect itself from terrorist homeland attacks as Bush entered office, due to the total lack of focus of the Clinton Administration and Congress on the issue.  Bush can in no way be blamed for the 9/11 attacks with any real credibility. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::As I have stated many times before, as Mr. Schlafly has stated many times before, as several other Admins have as well,  coming here to argue-without-end against our conservative point of view in all articles you come across, is silly. If you and others cannot bring yourselves to accept alternative points of view, so be it. If you want a place to argue against conservatism in general, make your own site or try the Kos or HuffPo; but CP isn't a debate forum, it is a conservative encyclopedia ''project''. Article talk pages are for suggesting ways to improve articles from a conservative point of view, not a liberal one. Is that a clear enough statement?  --&amp;lt;big&amp;gt;[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]&amp;lt;/big&amp;gt;&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;/Admin&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 21:29, 25 January 2010 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::TK: The change you made is completely unacceptable from a moral and ethical standpoint because instead of correcting an error, you are now highlighting a lie.  Three terror attacks occurred during Pres. Bush's last year in office.  I sent you links to all three events but you are willing to over look such trivial matters as the truth.  It's funny that a liberal who has been blocked twice for pointing out errors and outright falsehoods is vilified as a trouble-maker while the conservatives that knowingly mislead and lie are in charge of an alleged 'trustworthy encyclopedia'.  &lt;br /&gt;
::::I'm trying to make these changes because I don't want Americans to look stupid, even the conservative ones.  It's an uphill battle. &lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
::::Gunman killed two people in a church.  [http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-07-29-church-shooting_N.htm]&lt;br /&gt;
::::Suicide bomber attacked a Georgia law firm. [http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/ga_law_firm_explodes_causing_multiple_injuries/]&lt;br /&gt;
::::Two police officers were killed by a bomb placed in a bank.  [http://www.odmp.org/officer/19697-captain-thomas-paul-tennant]&lt;br /&gt;
::::--[[User:MichaelJB|MichaelJB]] 01:25, 29 January 2010 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
MichaelJB you cannot tell the difference between Muslim terrorists and someone with an ax to grind? Godspeed! --&amp;lt;big&amp;gt;[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]&amp;lt;/big&amp;gt;&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;/Admin&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 06:36, 29 January 2010 (EST)v&lt;br /&gt;
:So Michael's point is that progressive liberal leftwing commie socialist (or whatever the flavor of the week) Prof. [[Amy  Bishop]] conducted a domestic overseas contingency operation attack. It's beginning to make sense. How would we classify the guy who crashed the plane into the IRS building in Houston, a tax protester who railed against corporations. Dang, this is a tuff one.... [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 08:13, 12 March 2010 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Middle name in article title? ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::&amp;lt;big&amp;gt;'''Unless you have some brilliant new argument to add to this section, further discussion is unneeded.&amp;lt;/big&amp;gt;'''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It strikes to me odd that the title of the article is Barach Hussein Obama. While there is nothing wrong with that by itself, looking at the [[President_of_the_United_States_of_America#Presidents_list|list of all the U.S. presidents]], it seems that all the other presidents' articles are titled either without their middle name, or just a middle initial. Wouldn't it make sense to rename the article to either Barack Obama or Barack H. Obama to follow suit? [[User:Kayvan|Kayvan]] 18:19, 26 February 2010 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
:There is a big difference between Walker or Jefferson and Hussein.  My two cents. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 18:22, 26 February 2010 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
::What about [[Ronald Wilson Reagan]]? [[User:DMorris|DMorris]] 18:26, 26 February 2010 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
:::This topic had been discussed before. He decided to be inaugurated with his middle name after not using it during the campaign. He is not ashamed of it and we are not ashamed to include it.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 18:29, 26 February 2010 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
::::Ah, I see. Looking at some lists though ([http://www.ipl.org/div/potus/] and [http://www.apples4theteacher.com/holidays/presidents-day/past-presidents-of-usa.html]), it seems that many presidents were also inaugurated in a similar fashion. [[User:Kayvan|Kayvan]] 18:33, 26 February 2010 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::: I think that, as all encyclopedias and scholarly works try to do, we should try to decide on a particular set of rules and always follow it. In this case, these are the options:&lt;br /&gt;
:::1) Always cite the full name in the title, so &amp;quot;Barack Hussein Obama&amp;quot;, &amp;quot;George Herbert Walker Bush&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;Ronald Wilson Reagan&amp;quot;;&lt;br /&gt;
:::2) Always use initials for middle names, so &amp;quot;Barack H. Obama&amp;quot;, &amp;quot;George H.W. Bush&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;Ronald W. Reagan&amp;quot;;&lt;br /&gt;
:::3) Use the names in the way they most commonly used, using middle name initials only where they are necessary to distinguish one particular individual from another, therefore &amp;quot;Barack Obama&amp;quot;, &amp;quot;George H.W. Bush&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;Ronald Reagan&amp;quot;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::: We are talking about titles of articles; the full name should always be cited in the body of the article. Personally, I would vote for solution n.3. --[[User:Maquissar|Maquissar]] 18:34, 26 February 2010 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
::::I like the idea. Either 2 or 3 seem best in my opinion; full names seem a bit to long for article titles. The name that the president was inaugurated with isn't bad either, but it would seem less formal, as some have middle names and others don't. [[User:Kayvan|Kayvan]] 18:38, 26 February 2010 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::: I thought about that solution, but then I thought that we should better set very general rules; by this I mean that we should decide how to title page names referring to INDIVIDUALS, not to US PRESIDENTS. Deciding that &amp;quot;the name that the president was inaugurated with&amp;quot; is a rule that, naturally, can only be applied to presidents. --[[User:Maquissar|Maquissar]] 18:41, 26 February 2010 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::: Another good rule would be to use the name that is mostly used to refer to that individual; this has the disadvantage of not being objective, but it is also the most effective. So &amp;quot;Barack Obama&amp;quot;, &amp;quot;George H.W. Bush&amp;quot; (to distinguish him from his son), &amp;quot;Ronald Reagan&amp;quot;, &amp;quot;Eminem&amp;quot; instead of &amp;quot;Marshall Mathers&amp;quot;, &amp;quot;O.J. Simpson&amp;quot; instead of &amp;quot;Orenthal J. Simpson&amp;quot;...  --[[User:Maquissar|Maquissar]] 18:56, 26 February 2010 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There isn't any vote here, nor was one asked for.  Since Obama tries to soft-pedal his Muslim roots and associations, our editorial policy is to call attention to that ''fact''.  In addition you should note the [[Ronald Wilson Reagan|Reagan]] article, where well before anyone had an inkling Obama would run for President, Conservapedia used his full name, ''Ronald Wilson Reagan'' which Reagan himself preferred  for formal use. So I submit President Obama isn't being singled out, contrary to the insistence of silly-minded liberals. --&amp;lt;big&amp;gt;[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]&amp;lt;/big&amp;gt;&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;/Admin&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 19:06, 26 February 2010 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:But why call attention to that ''fact'' in the title of the article? The ''fact'' is never going to be denied. The introduction sentence would still say &amp;quot;Barack Hussein Obama&amp;quot;. Italicize his middle name in the introduction or change the font color to bring out the ''fact'' if you wish. What I am trying to point at is, why should his middle name be used in the article title? Reagan may have preferred it for formal use, but does Mr. Obama say that same? He is commonly known as Barack Obama; I haven't seen it used in any other way (except Obama, of course). If he is commonly known as that, it would make sense to title the article like that, as should every article on people. [[User:Kayvan|Kayvan]] 21:05, 26 February 2010 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
::Richard Milhous Nixon was commonly refered to as [[Milhous]] by his detracters.  Indeed, googling milhouse brings up hundreds of thousands of hits on Nixon that dwarf most all other uses of the name.  Now, googling [[Hussein]] presents a host of other problems.   The [[Heshamite Dynasty]] of [[Hussein bin Ali]] had been the Islamic Keeper of the Holy places for 700 years until Western British Imperialist interests unseated them and installed the Saudi ruling clan thier place (visualize Islamists dethroning the Pope and installing thier own choice as successor).  How does it look when Hussein bin Ali's namesake bows to tne Saudi puppet? Why not focus on how Obama ''is'' bringing real change to the whole planet, rather than argue about how things have traditionally been done?  [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 13:14, 27 February 2010 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
Drop it.  Further discussion is last-wordism. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 21:14, 26 February 2010 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:On the question of &amp;quot;''all the other presidents' articles are titled either without their middle name, or just a middle initial. Wouldn't it make sense ...to follow suit? ''&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
:You will recall Barack Hussein Obama is the transformational president of change.  Wouldn't it make sense to begin change right here, with his name? (assuming that is his name).  [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 23:54, 26 February 2010 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt;:&amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt;D&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
--&amp;lt;big&amp;gt;[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]&amp;lt;/big&amp;gt;&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;/Admin&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 01:58, 27 February 2010 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Pretty slick conservative trap there TK. despite the fact that you neglected to answer some massive holes in the arguments above, you declare the debate &amp;quot;ended&amp;quot; (even though its not) then decry anything else as last wordism to stifle any further debate. well done--[[User:DerikJ|DerikJ]] 11:58, 27 February 2010 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
:What holes? We're implementing change. Let's find common ground and compromise. We've done just that.  [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 12:35, 27 February 2010 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
::I like your comment on change, Rob, it made me laugh :) Anyway, I don't see how an argument that Obama's slogan being &amp;quot;change&amp;quot; is any reason to title his article to what he is less commonly known as/less traditional. It's pushing it, in a sense. Besides, being a conservative, I would think that you wouldn't want to follow Obama's way of thinking ;) [[User:Kayvan|Kayvan]] 13:40, 27 February 2010 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
:::Conservatives are for change, both economic and social.  They want to change tax law and abortion rulings, for example.  Above all, change public education.  Being anti-change is just a vulgar stereotype held by closeminded and intolerant people.  [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 14:09, 27 February 2010 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
::::I can agree with that. But ''why'' &amp;quot;change&amp;quot; how Obama's article is titled when others are titled either without their middle name or with their middle name if they are commonly known and identified by the name, in some cases. Simply changing something doesn't necessarily mean it's a good thing, there has to be reason, and the reason has to be, well, reasonable. [[User:Kayvan|Kayvan]] 14:44, 27 February 2010 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
:::::Call it the price of progress.  [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 15:17, 27 February 2010 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
::::::In that case, would changing the titles of all the other peoples' articles to include their middle names sound all right to you? It would be progress, after all. [[User:Kayvan|Kayvan]] 17:29, 27 February 2010 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
I have always wondered why the Obamabots get so upset with the name Obama's parents chose.  Pretty silly. --&amp;lt;big&amp;gt;[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]&amp;lt;/big&amp;gt;&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;/Admin&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 16:40, 27 February 2010 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:I actually like the name, it has a nice ring to it. It's more of just keeping a solid style of titling pages, a format if you want to call it that. [[User:Kayvan|Kayvan]] 17:29, 27 February 2010 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
::Which brings us to the question of Barry Soetero.  If Obama went by this name, then he may have lied to the Illinois Supreme Court when asked to provide former names, according to this Attorney’s Registration Record. [http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2061988/posts]  I'm not the sure what the resolution of this issue ever was, and we don't have a word about it in this article.  [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 17:49, 27 February 2010 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I know I am new here but there really needs to be a consensus amongst all Presidential and Vice President articles, actually this should probably extend to all US politicians. I know there is a specified conservative bias, however the lack organization and consensus has nothing to do with liberal or conservative bias, it has to do with disorganization and lazyiness by the admins.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If you want to leave the middle, that is fine, however, there would need to be a quick modification of all or the majority of the US Politian article so as not to look so disorganized.[[User:Solarguy17|Solarguy17]] 01:01, 10 March 2010 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:You hit the nail on the head.  You are new here.  Don't come in criticizing and such off the bat. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 01:12, 10 March 2010 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My criticization is to help the article(s) to be better as a whole. None of the above discussion explains the reasoning for leaving it as is. Just people saying he used it in his inauguration so we use it here, however, almost every pres does this so why not have it that way for everyone????[[User:Solarguy17|Solarguy17]] 01:15, 10 March 2010 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Not really discussion just more of a question. I just recently found this site and was looking through the religious articles and for the most part they seemed pretty good. However, when I come to the political articles, some of them seem a little crazy. I know it is to call more attention to the things that are being overlooked by the media. But I have ask about the middle name thing. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I read all of the information above and I still am not sure why it was decided to leave it as is.  Can someone clarify this? &lt;br /&gt;
Please don't ban me, I noticed that basically everyone with discussion in this thread that isn't an admin now has banned accounts. I personally don't care, I am just confused. [[User:StevenS|StevenS]] 01:12, 12 March 2010 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: As it says up at the top of this section, &amp;quot;Unless you have some brilliant new argument to add to this section, further discussion is unneeded.&amp;quot;  If you do have one, let's have it.  But it sure seems like everyone who signs up to this site and immediately starts complaining has nothing new to say at all.  Why don't you spend some time reading here with an open mind first, and complain later?  [[User:DanielPulido|DanielPulido]] 01:20, 12 March 2010 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Now, why would a single individual come here under several different user names all in an effort to get the word &amp;quot;Hussein&amp;quot; removed from the title of this article?  It makes no sense at all unless that individual has a personal agenda to perform.  The article title stays as it is.  [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 01:42, 12 March 2010 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:My only concern is that the title seems to exist in its current state for no purpose other than to further a bias.  The arguments that &amp;quot;well he asked for it&amp;quot; seem to suggest that accuracy and fairness are non-valuable in this wiki.  I sincerely hope this is not the case and that I may not be banned and able to start a fun future in helping this wiki grow in the impressive way it has so far. [[User:Vidihawk|Vidihawk]] 07:47, 6 April 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::'''&amp;quot;Unless you have some brilliant new argument to add to this section, further discussion is unneeded.&amp;quot;'''&lt;br /&gt;
I guess you missed the bold title at the top of this section?  Also, see [[Ronald Wilson Reagan]] to see how silly your argument is. --&amp;lt;big&amp;gt;[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]&amp;lt;/big&amp;gt;&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;/Admin&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 08:16, 6 April 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:I guess it wasn't as bright an idea as I had hoped.  Heh... It still comes off as somewhat purposeful, though.  Okie, I'll back away! - [[User:Vidihawk|Vidihawk]] 08:24, 6 April 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::Purposeful, as in done with the same horribly malevolent intent as ''my'' adding Reagan's middle name several years ago?  You are giving away your intent in advance, good sir, by refusing to admit your already formed assumptions about us are wrong.  I hope you prove me wrong, and turn out to be that rare U.K. denizen that turns out to be open-minded and as fair to us as you wish us to be to you. There have been precious few. And please do check out our editors guide and all of that. We differ quite a bit from Wikipedia. --&amp;lt;big&amp;gt;[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]&amp;lt;/big&amp;gt;&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;/Admin&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 08:33, 6 April 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:::::I think we should keep the current title of the article.  Furthermore, I think we should replace the top picture, which is currently a picture of Obama,  with a picture of an oil drenched pelican (and a new caption) as a tribute to Obama's indifference, sloth and incompetence.  [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 20:36, 16 June 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== I moved the material dealing with the present to the top  ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I moved the material dealing with the present to the top as I thought readers would be more interested in how Obama is screwing up the present.  For example, I think Americans right now are very concerned about how Obama is screwing up the economy. Of course, he is also doing a poor job in other areas presently as well such as holding terrorists court cases in civilian courts, etc. etc. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 04:30, 15 March 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:That makes sense to me. I do appreciate letting me try the other timeline structure. However, I didn't really take into consideration the fact that because he is a high profile individual it may benefit readers to see more recent info before his earlier biography facts. At least while he's fulfilling his one failed term as president, your structure makes sense to me. [[User:DerekE|DerekE]] 12:42, 15 March 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::As the ==Maoism== section is being being built, we may eventually be able to free up space from the sections on the Ayers/Dohrn relationship by moving some of that material to Ayers own page, and/or creating a new separate page documenting Obama's rise with communist and terrorist assistance.  An acceptable title for that page would be needed.  [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 13:23, 15 March 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Citation==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;Any orders he gives to the American military are subject to being refused. Orders that Obama gives to America’s Joint Chiefs of Staff of the military can be refused.&amp;quot; --http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/columnists/19-01-2009/106972-Barry_Soetoro-0&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Do we really want to cite an article that makes this claim? Do any of us really support this opinion, or if we do, do we support the use of opinion articles as sources in addition to factual ones? --[[User:BenjaminS|Ben]] &amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;[[User Talk:BenjaminS|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; 08:42, 6 April 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Is the opinion piece backed by valid and factual citations from the United States Code, Ben, as opposed to a unsupported rant? --&amp;lt;big&amp;gt;[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]&amp;lt;/big&amp;gt;&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;/Admin&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 08:47, 6 April 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== pronunciation of &amp;quot;Pakistan&amp;quot; ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This is really considered evidence of anything? I've heard [[Mark Levin]] use the Spanish-inflected pronunciation of Sonia Sotomayor's name (''so tow my OR'' rather than ''so tow MY er''), but nobody would claim that proves he's Catholic or Hispanic. [[User:Golgaronok|Golgaronok]] 23:55, 9 April 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:Pronunciation shows an enormous amount about someone's views and history.  Obama doesn't use the American pronunciation, and this is telling, since ''no one else in the public sphere'' pronounces it in the muslim way ''but'' Obama. [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 00:15, 10 April 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
[[David Petraeus]] does [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vtCLp7siY7I]. [[User:Golgaronok|Golgaronok]] 00:50, 10 April 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
And [http://www.forvo.com/word/pakistan/ numerous other languages] use a pronunciation closer to the native form. [[User:Golgaronok|Golgaronok]] 00:57, 10 April 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::&amp;quot;Golgaronok&amp;quot; (if that is your name), your quibbles with the entry have already been argued ad nauseum, [http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Barack_Hussein_Obama/archive4#.22Pokiston.22.3F.3F.3F.3F.3F here], for instance.  If you've only come to argue on talk pages, you're wasting your own time.  Try making substantive contributions to the project; excessive talk is disfavored here.  [[User:DanielPulido|DanielPulido]] 01:04, 10 April 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
I don't see any responses to the points I raised. But it's y'all's funeral. [[User:Golgaronok|Golgaronok]] 01:13, 10 April 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:::Kind of interesting that Davis Petraeus was mentioned here.  When that general was ordered to command US forces in Afghanistan and Iraq, the liberal elites decided that his name should be pronounced &amp;quot;BETRAY US&amp;quot;.  [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 01:29, 10 April 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Barry Soetoro = birth name?==&lt;br /&gt;
This may have already been discussed, so forgive me if this has been settled.  I noticed that the article says ''&amp;quot;Barack Hussein Obama II (birth name Barry Soetoro...&amp;quot;'', however the articles cited do not support the idea that &amp;quot;Barry Soetoro&amp;quot; is Obama's birth name, in fact quite the opposite.  My understanding, from reading the Newsweek article, is that &amp;quot;Barack&amp;quot; is his birth name, although he went by &amp;quot;Barry&amp;quot; when he was younger.  His father's name, as I understand it, is Barack Hussein Obama, and he was named after his father.  &amp;quot;Seotoro&amp;quot;, if I remember right, was his stepfather's last name, so it is unlikely that it would have been part of Obama's birth name.  To be clear, I do realize that he spent his younger years being known as &amp;quot;Barry Soetoro&amp;quot;, and I think that should be included in the article, I just don't think it was actually his birth name.  &amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Please understand that I am not as knowledgeable in this kind of thing as many other contributors here, so I may have gotten it all wrong - that's why I didn't attempt to edit the article.  Please correct me if I have gotten it wrong - I won't be offended and I am curious as to the truth of the matter.  [[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 18:11, 1 May 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
According to the citation that shows the birth certificate, the birth name is, in fact, Barack Hussein Obama II, NOT Barry Soetoro.  Also, because there is an actual document, i.e. physical, demonstrable proof, the word &amp;quot;allegedly&amp;quot; should be removed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Remove name repetition? ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Would anyone mind if I removed some of the repetition of Obama's name in certain portions of the article? For example, in this paragraph:&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|&lt;br /&gt;
[[Barack Obama and uncharitableness|Barack Obama's recent pattern of charitable giving]] and [[Barack Obama and liberal elitism|Barack Obama's liberal elitism]] is consistent with Obama being a [[Narcissism|narcissist]] which is a charge that has often been made against Barack Obama.  However, it is also true that Barack Obama is an [[evolution|evolutionist]].  Barack Obama told the ''York Daily Record'' that &amp;quot;I believe in [[evolution]]...&amp;quot;.  Barack Obama's recent pattern of charitable giving and liberal elitism is also in accordance with someone who has a certain degree of [[Social Darwinism|social darwinistic]] thinking.  In addition to [[Liberals and uncharitableness|American liberals giving less to charity]], it is also true that [[Theory of evolution and liberalism|American liberals are also more likely to believe in evolution]].&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think I could alter it to make it more readable with &amp;quot;Obama's recent pattern of charitable giving and liberal elitism is consistent with that of a narcissist, a charge that has often been made against him.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
And so forth. In my linguistics class, we talked about semantic satiation, and I believe that paragraphs like these, along with the fact that it never seems to use pronouns, somewhat diminish the readability of the article. If I were to make this change, I would preserve every wikilink, reference, etc, but I believe it would become more readable. In Christ, [[User:Tzoran|Tyler Zoran]] &amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:Tzoran|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 09:09, 6 May 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Insults? ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Does the entire beginning of the article have to be so laden with insults? Couldnt it simply say what the article will be about, and THEN express views? As it is it appears very unprofessional. 19:11, 6 May 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:We believe in the truth here, and the fact that [[liberals]] like yourself feign offense at the display of it speaks volumes about you. If you insist on closing your mind, at least take ownership of your [[deceit]]!  Sign your comments with &amp;lt;nowiki&amp;gt; ~~~~ &amp;lt;/nowiki&amp;gt; next time. Godspeed! [[User:Tzoran|Tyler Zoran]] &amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:Tzoran|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 19:58, 6 May 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== &amp;quot;The first president who is biracial&amp;quot; ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There have been other presidents of more than one race. Bush Jr. is has some German and English ancestry. [[User:NP|NP]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:George W is German and English, is that two races according to our census? I think the readers will understand what biracial refers to.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::English and German are '''''not''''' races, and neither is Hispanic. --&amp;lt;big&amp;gt;[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]&amp;lt;/big&amp;gt;&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;/Admin&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 22:16, 17 May 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Reorganizing ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I'm glad to see the edit feature is enabled here once more.  I think this page needs a revamp to structure information better.  I've reorganized everything into a better structure, let me know what you think.  I am trying to put a summary of the presidency at the top, information about his life/career next, and then a political summary.  This should really improve the page's appearance, as it appears too disorganized right now.  --[[User:Jzyehoshua|Jzyehoshua]] 15:56, 20 May 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:What you're doing is burying important information so fewer users will find it.  That's unacceptable. [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 15:57, 20 May 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Obama is a Muslim theory and the alleged claim of Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Aboul Gheit  ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Here is what the American Thinker reported: &amp;quot;The American President told me in confidence that he is a Muslim.&amp;quot; That was the claim of Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Aboul Gheit, as reported in the May 2010 issue of Israel Today. According to journalist Avi Lipkin, Gheit appeared on Nile TV's &amp;quot;Round Table Show&amp;quot; in January, on which he said that &amp;quot;he had had a one-on-one meeting with Obama who swore to him that he was a Moslem, the son of a Moslem father and step-son of Moslem step-father, that his half-brothers in Kenya were Moslems, and that he was loyal to the Moslem agenda.&amp;quot;[http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/06/report_obama_said_i_am_a_musli.html]  Here is what Hot Air says: http://hotair.com/greenroom/archives/2010/06/14/obama-is-a-muslim-take-two/  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Personally,  I am beginning to think Obama is: not a Muslim, not a Christian, and not an atheist.  I think Obama is a narcissist who worships himself.  I can also see him telling one person he is a Christian and then later telling someone else he is a Muslim.  There are many examples of Obama being insincere such as all the substantive healthcare  discussions were going to be on C-Span, etc. etc. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 15:53, 16 June 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 2009 Nobel Peace Prize ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I find it strange that there is not a single mention of the president being awarded the Nobel peace prize in this article. Considering that other prominent award winners have it at least mentioned in their respective articles. The [[Mother Teresa]] article, for instance, prominently states her award in the introduction to the article, and even political figures like [[Al Gore]] and [[Henry Kissinger]] (both of whom won the peace prize) have their award at least mentioned in the article.&lt;br /&gt;
--[[User:DenisTR|DenisTR]] 16:04, 19 August 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:I agree with you, Denis.  It was there, once-upon-a-time, but apparently it was removed in the constant editing turmoil. CP does mention this in the [[Nobel Prize]] article. I will add it here, as it should be. --&amp;lt;big&amp;gt;[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]&amp;lt;/big&amp;gt;&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;/Admin&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 16:24, 19 August 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Faulty Logic==&lt;br /&gt;
I have a suspicion that Andy Schlafly is secretly a Muslim. Will you deny that, Andy? If you do deny it, then I accuse you of being a Muslim under the concept of Taqiyya.&lt;br /&gt;
It's like a terrible flow chart that always ends with &amp;quot;You're a Muslim.&amp;quot; I realize that you're kind of scraping the barrel with this whole &amp;quot;Obama is a Muslim&amp;quot; thing, but c'mon. [[User:Pete5383|Paul]] 18:57, 19 August 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: Paul, you seem to think all claims or facts are relative.  They aren't.  Truth is supported by logic and evidence.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:00, 19 August 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:: President Obama clearly has an Islamic background. As an adult, he joined a church and says he's a Christian. I'd say he's as much Muslim as I am Jewish; by Jewish law, my having a Jewish mother makes me Jewish by birth, but I became a Christian by choice as a teenager. Go figure. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] &amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 14:04, 3 September 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::Whether President Obama is Muslim or not is one question; however it is undeniable Obama misspoke or was deceptive while ramping up his ambitions back in 2005 when he told the ''Chicago Sun-Times'', &amp;quot;I am rooted in the Christian tradition.&amp;quot; Nowhere on his maternal side, grandma, gramps, or his natural father, or his stepfather, can any Christian rooting be found.  [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 14:37, 4 September 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Days in office==&lt;br /&gt;
[[Barack Obama]] was inaugurated {{days since|2009|1|20}} days ago  and will finish his term in {{#expr: -{{days since|2013|1|20}} }} days. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] &amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 14:00, 3 September 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Apparent sourcing errors==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While looking over this article, I noticed a number of problems - mostly unsourced claims or claims for which the source is no longer available. Since my suggestions will almost certainly be controversial, I will not actually make any further changes to this page.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*The quote &amp;quot;Rather than being a unifier, Mr. Obama has divided America on the basis of race, class and partisanship&amp;quot; under the heading &amp;quot;Presidency&amp;quot; is unattributed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*The claim that Obama represented ACORN in ''Buycks-Roberson v. Citibank Fed. Sav. Bank'' is unsupported. While court documents do list Obama among the Plaintiff's Attorneys, they do not reference ACORN in any way. [http://www.clearinghouse.net/detail.php?id=10112] This claim seems to have been added by bloggers after the fact. Similarly, the cited reference contains no source for the claim that Obama had anything to do with the CRA, only a completely unsourced allegation that was reprinted almost verbatim here. As far as I can tell, Obama represented ACORN exactly once, on a case involving motor voter laws. [http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2008/oct/17/john-mccain/he-represented-them-in-one-case-/]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*The statement &amp;quot;Obama website Fight The Smears has confirmed that Obama was once a Kenyan citizen until 1982&amp;quot; under the subheading &amp;quot;Birth Certificate Controversy&amp;quot; is unsourced and ambiguous.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*Much of the content under the subheading &amp;quot;Engineers defeat of Centrist Democrats&amp;quot; is dubious. Two of the cites [http://articles.latimes.com/1992-03-18/news/mn-3844_1_gus-savage][http://www.dkosopedia.com/wiki/Carol_Moseley_Braun#Political_career] are about Carol Moseley Braun and don't mention Obama at all. There is no indication in any of the sources that Obama was connected to the Braun campaign, so these cites are meaningless. Additionally, the section attributes an anti-Dixon intent to Obama (referring to Obama as &amp;quot;subverting&amp;quot; Dixon's reelection, defined by Conservapedia's own article as &amp;quot;lending of aid, comfort, and moral support to individuals, groups, or organizations that advocate the overthrow of incumbent governments by force and violence&amp;quot;). What he did was increase voter turnout among the black community, a far cry from what the text implies.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*&amp;lt;s&amp;gt;The statement &amp;quot;President Obama falsely claimed that the senior citizen group AARP endorsed his administration's health care plan when they never made such an endorsement&amp;quot; under the subheading &amp;quot;Obama Administration Health Care Plan and Its Advocacy Methods&amp;quot; is sourced to a YouTube video that no longer exists. Additionally, it appears that AARP has been supporting health care reform since at least August 2009. [http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/08/17/eveningnews/main5247916.shtml][http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/19/aarp-ama-announce-support_n_506060.html]&amp;lt;/s&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*Similarly, several cites link to YouTube videos that have been removed. Multiple cites under the subheading &amp;quot;Obama Administration Health Care Plan and Liberal Elitism&amp;quot; link to deleted videos, as does the cite for the statement &amp;quot;Barack Obama's &amp;quot;Disinformation Czar&amp;quot; (whose supposed job was to correct disinformation that others are spreading about the Obama administration's health care plan) was caught spreading misleading information.&amp;quot; The cite for the statement &amp;quot;Senior citizens are key Democratic party constituents that could kill Obama's socialistic health care plan&amp;quot; links to a private video.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
--[[User:DrewJ|DrewJ]] 15:50, 29 September 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Sorry, Drew, but one glaring misrepresentation really sticks out, and explains why liberals are often accused of playing fast and loose with the truth:  While AARP has long advocated health care reform, it specifically repudiated Obama's distortion of the truth, saying they were not endorsing any specific plan, at that time.  See how easy it is to distort fact, by omission, and make obviously good-intentioned souls like you doubt the real truth?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:You are obviously an editor here, and I would urge you, before making posts such as this one, to try and find substitute sources that back up what is in the story. At the very least, as is the case with the AARP, at least check the facts before stating something is incorrect. It was a very big story at the time, Obama's misstatement, and not at all hard to find....so easy and well-known in fact that some people might be tempted to accuse you of inserting a deliberate [[Red Herring]]. --&amp;lt;big&amp;gt;[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]&amp;lt;/big&amp;gt;&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;/Admin&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 17:29, 29 September 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Typo ==&lt;br /&gt;
The first sentence here has a typo: it presumably is meant to read &amp;quot;...said to have '''been''' born in...&amp;quot; I'd fix it myself, but the page is so informative (and therefore long) that my poor old computer can't load it to edit.  --[[User:LanceS|LanceS]] 21:49, 11 November 2010 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
:Thanks, JPatt got it. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] &amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 22:29, 11 November 2010 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Bryan Fischer: Obama wants to give America back to the Indians ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Is [http://www.afa.net/Blogs/BlogPost.aspx?id=2147501360 this site] some kind of liberal parody? Otherwise, this is so serious that is should be included. American Family Association would seem to me as a pretty trustworthy organization, and this Bryan Fischer is writing for them. Any thoughts? &amp;amp;ndash; [[User:Dstone|dstone]] 16:42, 1 January 2011 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Fact vs Opinion==&lt;br /&gt;
Okay...I thought maybe this article would be a good place to start.  I was introduced to Conservapedia recently, and have been waffling about joining and bcoming an editor, but can no longer refrain.  So, I'm extraordinarily new...and I fully expect the welcoming and flame-free arms of this community, as I support the overall efforts of what Conservapedia is trying to accomplish.  The road to becoming a &amp;quot;Trustworthy Encyclopedia&amp;quot; is long, and this site is just starting to make baby steps in that direction.  That being said, I will try to keep this short.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
FACT:  Opinions are not fact.  Even expert opinions are not fact.  They're just plain old opinions.  Despite being in the Commandments, and otherwise stated over and over again, folks seem to have trouble making this distinction.&lt;br /&gt;
OPINION: If you are unable to make cited references, or present the conservative viewpoint in a reasoned and intelligent manner, I would heavily suggest that you leave the site to those who can.  Your &amp;quot;help&amp;quot; is often unhelpful.  Especially in an article as...contentious...as this - and I imagine many others, I'll be looking shortly - the talk page is the place to present your opinions.  If you cannot site material, find sources that intelligently argue your viewpoint, or just want a second or third pair of eyes and ears, it would be addressed here.  Also, if haven't actually read the article that you are citing...do that first, before posting anything at all...&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There are several on this page, the most innocuous of which:  President Obama authorized offshore oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico[28].  The moratorium lapsed in 2008.  It says it right in the article, paragraph 4.  This statement is spruious and vague and will be reworded to say something like: Then-Senator Obama voted to re-authorize oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico.  This is just a small and harmless example, but, either research the issue before posting, or don't post.  If you wish to engage in historical revisionism, or just bottom-barrel opinion mongering, please roll on over to Wikipedia, and leave us be.  [[User:RyanDav|RyanDav]] 2 January 2011&lt;br /&gt;
:I moved this from the top of the page to its current location, to maintain threading. [[User:Tzoran|Tyler Zoran]] &amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:Tzoran|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 13:35, 2 January 2011 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Oil Drilling Moratorium, redux ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I did not realize that this would be as contentious as it was.  The statement is simply poorly worded, I assume unintentionally, and appears to place the blame squarely on one person's shoulders.  This is just factually innacurate, nothing more, nothing less.  We accept credit where credit is due, and take blame where blame is appropriate - and the blame belongs to the vast majority of the 110th Congress, both the liberal reps and ours - and to deny that is some kind of revisionism, which will not be tolerated.  I'm certainly more than willing to be corrected on this, but you can either site sources that support your viewpoint, or you cannot - it really is that easy.  In that case, the article would read something like, &amp;quot;then-Senator Obama lobbied heavily for the moratorium to lapse, and led a congressional coalition consisting of Senators Blah, Blah and Blah and Congressmen Such-and-such and So-and-so to further that end, etc...&amp;quot; accompanied by supporting references.  I am afraid, however, that a &amp;quot;nuh-uh,&amp;quot; or, &amp;quot;because I said so,&amp;quot; is simply Not Good Enough.  We're counteracting liberal bias, here, not populating the internet with more unfounded claptrap. [[User:RyanDav|RyanDav]] 19:26, 3 January 2011 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:If you please, write here your proposal for how this should be written, including the source links.  If Obama lobbied heavily for the moritorium to lapse, then the source evidence will say it; if he was a part of a coalition of people, then again the evidence will support that.  Since this article is about Obama, it should lean on what he has done while in office.  But as far as what the 110th Congress did or didn't do, oh yes, I am in total agreement with you...and so were the vast majority of voters back in November. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 20:00, 3 January 2011 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::He didn't, as far as I know, or have ever read.  I don't think any articles arguing that he soley was responsible, or even more responsible than any other rep, exist.  The text is already up there.  Pretty vanilla.  Mentions him by name, but also says, &amp;quot;hey, don't forget about all the other chair-jockeys, too!&amp;quot;  But the article is about him, so he gets a name drop for focus.  The article is about him as whole, so his Presidential and Senatorial terms would be seperate sections of the same article, so as not to confuse.  The 110th was the last Bush-era Congress.  In November, we voted out the 111th.  We are now in the 112th Congress.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Oh, I also replaced someone's citation from an OpEd piece in the NYTimes with an actual news reference that supported the same point (about the Obama administration's poor response to the Oil Spill).  If I didn't know better (and I probably don't), I would suspect that some of the citations here are purposefully planted just to make us look like simpletons.  [[User:RyanDav|RyanDav]] 21:39, 3 January 2011 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Birth Controversy ==&lt;br /&gt;
Could someone please explain to me something I've never quite followed: why does it matter where Obama was born?  As far as I can tell, no one is claiming his mother was not a US Citizen, which makes him a &amp;quot;natural born&amp;quot; US citizen even if he was born in Kenya, Moscow, or Riyadh.  If the issue is &amp;quot;without a birth certificate we can't be certain his mother is really his mother&amp;quot; then I get it, but this side of things seems to be ignored in favor of controversy over the actual location of the birth.  If we interpret &amp;quot;natural born citizen&amp;quot; as &amp;quot;born within the US&amp;quot;, then that would exclude the children of Armed Forces personnel stationed overseas with their families at the time their children were born from the presidency, which seems like something liberals would love to do. [[User:Ptorquemada|Ptorquemada]] 12:09, 5 April 2011 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:Well, John McCain whose father was an Admiral was born to two American parents in Panama Canal Zone. The media questioned his &amp;quot;natural born&amp;quot; citizen status and it seemingly was determined that since both his parents were American citizens who were living out of State because of the Admiral's duties that John McCain's birth status would be considered &amp;quot;natural born. The question concerning Barack Obama is that his father was not a US citizen but was in fact a British subject as Kenya was under British rule at the time. Some suggest that the original conception of &amp;quot;natural born&amp;quot; was that both parents are US citizens at the time of the birth of a child. So there is a question as to his &amp;quot;natural born&amp;quot; status even if he was, in fact, born in Hawaii. The fact that Obama has spent a couple of million dollars fighting any requests for proof of an original long form birth certificate and school records makes some people more convinced that a. he wasn't actually born in Hawaii and that his birth was only registered there or b. because his father was a British subject he had duel citizenship status which would make it doubtful that he would be considered a natural born citizen. There are many questions concerning Obama's &amp;quot;natural born&amp;quot; status because he also appears to have been a citizenship of Indonesia and is supposed to have traveled on an Indonesian passport as an adult. Of course, a lot of questions would be removed if the president just released the original birth certificate. The fact that he hasn't just adds fuel to the fire. [[User:Dwain|Dwain]] 12:09, 8 April 2011 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Birth Certificate Removal? ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Now that Obama has finally released his birth certificate, all this about Kenya and Barry Soetoro seems a bit silly. Should we remove it? [[User:JimAB|JimAB]] 11:24, 27 April 2011 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:Has the question of Mr. Obama traveling to Pakistan on an Indonesian passport under the name Barry Soetero in 1981 been resolved yet? As well as the statements regarding his application to join the Illinois State Bar Association wherein he answered no to the question of ever using any aliases? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 18:12, 28 April 2011 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Shortening the article length ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think we need to work on splitting this article; I recently revert a vandal's (mostly) blanking of the page, and my browser would freeze up when I tried to save the page (actually I'm currently trying to save it - and over and over again I'm having no luck). Currently this appears at the top of the edit screen:&lt;br /&gt;
:'''WARNING: This page is 144 kilobytes long; some browsers may have problems editing pages approaching or longer than 32kb. Please consider breaking the page into smaller sections or removing irrelevant information.'''&lt;br /&gt;
Thoughts?--&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;[[User:Iduan|&amp;lt;span style=&amp;quot;color: #FFCCCC; background: #660000&amp;quot;&amp;gt;I]][[User_talk:Iduan|&amp;lt;span style=&amp;quot;color:#CCCCFF; background:#000033&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Duan]]&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt; 00:34, 30 April 2011 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== First Socialist??? ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Obama is clearly a socialist, but is he the first to be president as the lead of the article states? The New deal democrats who created social security come to mind.[[User:BenDylan|BenD]] 09:03, 1 May 2011 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:That certainly may be true. But we are talking about one man who occupies the office of president, not underlings and appopintees.  [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 09:23, 1 May 2011 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::But couldn't the Presidents who hired them be considered socialists? I still don't know about saying he's the FIRST. [[User:KingHanksley|KingHanksley]] 12:31, 4 May 2011 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Obama the Socialist ==&lt;br /&gt;
I am counting all the capitalists that have hired self-proclaimed communists. I come up with zero. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 12:43, 2 May 2011 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Update of the article ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
See [[Talk:Barack Hussein Obama/update]] if you'd like to contribute to an update of this article - we'll be keeping a lot of the information that's good, throwing out some information that's a little old, and adding new information - all while hopefully downsizing! All help is appreciated!--&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;[[User:Iduan|&amp;lt;span style=&amp;quot;color: #FFCCCC; background: #660000&amp;quot;&amp;gt;I]][[User_talk:Iduan|&amp;lt;span style=&amp;quot;color:#CCCCFF; background:#000033&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Duan]]&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt; 19:55, 2 May 2011 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Bin Laden ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Should we at least mention the Bin Laden capture? I feel that in fairness we should give him his one or two accomplishments. We should definitely mention that George W. Bush's policies played a big hand but still Obama could have gone entirely bleeding heart on us and we wouldn't have gotten OBL [[User:KingHanksley|KingHanksley]] 11:24, 4 May 2011 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But being fair and giving credit to a liberal muslim socialist for making the world even a little safer would undermine the integrity of a conservative encyclopedia. Now had he screwed up the capture then that would be worthy of mentioning because it would show how he endangered the country. We should only be fair and give credit where credit is due if Obama was a Christian conservative who shared our beliefs. ([[User:Bluebank|Bluebank]] 12:58, 7 July 2011 (EDT))&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree, it would only be worth mentioning if he had screwed up the capture because then we could hold his feet to the fire. ([[User:Jvclark2|Jvclark2]] 13:00, 7 July 2011 (EDT))&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::''&amp;quot;giving credit to a liberal muslim socialist for making the world even a little safer would undermine the integrity of a conservative encyclopedia.&amp;quot;'' Well that's not a biased statement or anything. It should fall under the article Obama presidency but because of its significance, put it on the BHO page. Rarely, but we have given Obama credit in the past. The rescue of a Captain from Somali pirates is a good example of the proper choice the Progressive fake Christian Marxist had made. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 14:58, 7 July 2011 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:::::I just don't see where ordering bin Laden's killing is a big accomplishment. What purpose did it serve other than a failed effort to turn around Obama's falling poll ratings while destroying the most important relationship the United States had in the war on terror. After Obama declared the war on terror over two years ago, dismantling the delicate relationship with the Pakistani ISS seems like phase two. Undermining Pakistan's secular regime, the way Obama did, only works to the advantage of Islamic extremists. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::Did killing bin Laden bring back the lives lost in the 9/11 attacks? No. Does making the war's in Iraq &amp;amp; Afghanistan about retribution rather than prevention, further American foreign policy interests or make the United States more secure? Hardly. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::Does creating the false sense among the American electorate that the objectives of the war in Afghanistan have now been accomplished, and we can abandon the fight? The height of folly -- and a repeat of what happened when the U.S. abandoned Afghanistan to the terrorists after 1991. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::Did killing bin Laden make America safe from reprisals? Or rather doies killing bin Laden expose innocent men, women, and children to the never ending threat of sudden, sensesless, and violent death?&lt;br /&gt;
:::::The cynical manipulation of American security and foreign policy interests for short term popularity and selfish career interests is appalling. I just don't agree this a &amp;quot;success&amp;quot; to boast of.  [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 23:15, 7 July 2011 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::::::While I think it's laughable to say that taking down the number one most wanted man in the world isn't an accomplishment, I think it's a decision that ''anyone'' would have made, therefore, it isn't special or particular that Obama happened to be the one to make it. [[User:BradB|BradB]] 23:57, 7 July 2011 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:::::::No. We've learned from our mistakes. In 1967 the the number one most wanted man in the world - Che Guevara - was similiarly hunted and executed, only to be resurrected by liberals, hate-mongers, and other assorted sociopaths and pro-mass murder advocates, made the mascot of the hate-America crowd, and sold to American college students as somethiong larger than life and a cult hero to be worshiped. It is not laughable at all.  [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 13:55, 8 July 2011 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::::::::The angst from the left goes back to Bush hatred. We shouldn't have interfered in Iraq and should have focused on OBL. Leftist sheep knew better than Bush. We knew all along that it is not one man but a movement, confront them there instead of here. At least we are no longer creating and recruiting terrorists, thanks to a Muslim-named president and his policies of peace in the Middle East.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 14:08, 8 July 2011 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:::::::::You will recall Senator [[Patty Murray]], who now heads the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee charged with candidate recruitment and doling out funds, praised bin Laden for his work with children buidling day care centers. He probably supported the Family-Leave Act and opposed No Child Left Behind, too. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 15:26, 8 July 2011 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::::::::::''&amp;quot; I just don't agree this a &amp;quot;success&amp;quot; to boast of. &amp;quot;'' Two points, 1) stating a fact is not boasting, it is just stating a fact. We list domestic policy, popular bills, economic plan, gulf oil spill, DADT... It's just another thing to list. 2) Had Bush done it I'm pretty sure it would be on his page.([[User:Jvclark2|Jvclark2]] 21:09, 8 July 2011 (EDT))&lt;br /&gt;
:::::::::::That is the point. Stating the fact that Obama's unnecessarily destroyed the most vital relationship the United States has in the War on Terror to score short term approval ratings.  [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 12:38, 9 July 2011 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
Jvclark - bin Laden's death is mentioned on this page. In the lead. What more do you want?--&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;[[User:Iduan|&amp;lt;span style=&amp;quot;color: #FFCCCC; background: #660000&amp;quot;&amp;gt;I]][[User_talk:Iduan|&amp;lt;span style=&amp;quot;color:#CCCCFF; background:#000033&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Duan]]&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt; 11:46, 9 July 2011 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==From the update - discussion==&lt;br /&gt;
===Structuring===&lt;br /&gt;
This is what I feel should be the general sectioning of the article - I think with an article that we have this much information on, what we mostly need to do is use &amp;quot;See also:&amp;quot; pages rather than go into major details.&lt;br /&gt;
{| style=&amp;quot;width:100%&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|valign=&amp;quot;top&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
*Early life&lt;br /&gt;
*U.S. Senate career (with a note on opposition to the Iraq War - which should be followed up on in the presidential primary race)&lt;br /&gt;
*U.S. Senate career&lt;br /&gt;
**Radical endorsements, support, and get out the vote efforts (better language?)&lt;br /&gt;
**'''Use of filibuster and obstructionism'''&lt;br /&gt;
**'''Voted agaist debt ceiling increase'''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*Presidential election (things to cover: experience question, jeremiah wright, PUMA)&lt;br /&gt;
**Primary race&lt;br /&gt;
**National election&lt;br /&gt;
|valign=&amp;quot;top&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
*Presidency&lt;br /&gt;
**Domestic policy&lt;br /&gt;
***Popular Bills (Zadroga, lilly ledbetter fair pay act)&lt;br /&gt;
***Economic plan&lt;br /&gt;
****Stimulus plan&lt;br /&gt;
***Health care&lt;br /&gt;
***The Gulf oil spill&lt;br /&gt;
**Foreign policy&lt;br /&gt;
***Commander-in-Chief&lt;br /&gt;
****Iraq&lt;br /&gt;
****Afghanistan&lt;br /&gt;
****Libya/The Obama Doctine&lt;br /&gt;
****Don't Ask Don't Tell&lt;br /&gt;
|valign=&amp;quot;top&amp;quot;|&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*Ideology (mentioning pro-abortion stance, other things not mentioned above)&lt;br /&gt;
*References&lt;br /&gt;
*See also&lt;br /&gt;
*External links&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Rob I've bolded two section that I wonder if they should be sections alone; I do 100% agree that they should be mentioned in the text; are you set on them being sections? If so I'll yield--&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;[[User:Iduan|&amp;lt;span style=&amp;quot;color: #FFCCCC; background: #660000&amp;quot;&amp;gt;I]][[User_talk:Iduan|&amp;lt;span style=&amp;quot;color:#CCCCFF; background:#000033&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Duan]]&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt; 00:58, 3 May 2011 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:Leave bold for now &amp;amp; let's see what develops; '''Recovery''' is ambiguous; while total output (GDP growth) has recovered, we've seen several polls just over the past week where 60-70% of respondents ''still'' think the US is in recession (despite the fact GDP growth has recovered over the past year and half). Likewise, it certainly has not been a &amp;quot;jobs recovery&amp;quot;. I'd suggest this needs a better name.  [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 01:15, 3 May 2011 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::I very much agree - that's a misleading section title - I think what I meant was &amp;quot;Proposed Recovery&amp;quot; - or &amp;quot;Recovery Plan&amp;quot;. The latter sounds a little better to my ears. I made a few edits below - I'm gonna hold off on doing anything else till you get a chance to take a look and add things.--&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;[[User:Iduan|&amp;lt;span style=&amp;quot;color: #FFCCCC; background: #660000&amp;quot;&amp;gt;I]][[User_talk:Iduan|&amp;lt;span style=&amp;quot;color:#CCCCFF; background:#000033&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Duan]]&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt;01:22, 3 May 2011 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:::I've replaced Recovery with Stimulus, perhaps &amp;quot;Stimulus and budget&amp;quot;. Also, Don't Ask Don't Tell seems a little wierd under &amp;quot;Wartime&amp;quot;; is it there solely cause it's a military subject? It could just as easily fit under Idealogy as well (I' not just trying to be argumentative....) [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 01:40, 3 May 2011 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::::Hmm. Very true. No I think it's definitely a legitimate question. I HAD been thinking that Ideology would just cover what wasn't addressed in the prior sections (since certainly we'd discuss his economic ideology in the &amp;quot;Economic plan&amp;quot; section) - so, yes, I had just placed it under wartime solely because its a military subject. But it is probably more apropos to homosexual rights. I am worried that Ideology will become a bucket of worms, so to speak, only in that it'd be weird to just have a section for DADT under it, so then we'd have to have a super-section for &amp;quot;Homosexual policy&amp;quot;, and then super-sections for everything else, making the article very long. I leave it up to you.--&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;[[User:Iduan|&amp;lt;span style=&amp;quot;color: #FFCCCC; background: #660000&amp;quot;&amp;gt;I]][[User_talk:Iduan|&amp;lt;span style=&amp;quot;color:#CCCCFF; background:#000033&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Duan]]&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt; 01:45, 3 May 2011 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:::::Alternatively, we can just leave it as is for now. I'm updating the [[Obama administration]] article right now, too. That one is structured , &amp;quot;Economic policy&amp;quot;, &amp;quot;Foreign policy&amp;quot;, etc. Wartime leader is something new. Perhaps, Commander-in-Chief? that would encompass DADT as well as ongoing military operations.  [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 02:08, 3 May 2011 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::::::I like that. It's broader and works well. Nice.--&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;[[User:Iduan|&amp;lt;span style=&amp;quot;color: #FFCCCC; background: #660000&amp;quot;&amp;gt;I]][[User_talk:Iduan|&amp;lt;span style=&amp;quot;color:#CCCCFF; background:#000033&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Duan]]&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt; 02:29, 3 May 2011 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
I took a look at the Wikipedia page on Obama - and I actually like how they organize his presidency - into Domestic policy and foreign policy. I'm going to make some changes to reflect that. I think in the long run it'll actually limit the number of sections we need--&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;[[User:Iduan|&amp;lt;span style=&amp;quot;color: #FFCCCC; background: #660000&amp;quot;&amp;gt;I]][[User_talk:Iduan|&amp;lt;span style=&amp;quot;color:#CCCCFF; background:#000033&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Duan]]&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt; 18:15, 4 May 2011 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Congratulations! ==&lt;br /&gt;
To the people who worked updating this article. It looks much better now.--[[User:AlejandroH|AlejandroH]] 00:43, 10 May 2011 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Speculation ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the spirit of accuracy, I think that all articles should refrain from speculative language (I thought this would be good article to start with). I understand that this is a conservative encyclopedia, but one should not overrule the other. We can still present the conservative view point that other encyclopedias overlook without veering off the path of facts. I think that President Obama has done enough to harm himself without adding inflammatory and opinion statements. This language degrades the reliability of the site. [[User:McTone|McTone]] 10:59, 23 May 2011 (EDT)McTone&lt;br /&gt;
:You're actually not making encyclopedic edits - for example how you're adding titles (&amp;quot;''President'' Obama&amp;quot;), which is traditionally not done. As you've now been reverted twice I think you should refrain from editing this article.--&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;[[User:Iduan|&amp;lt;span style=&amp;quot;color: #FFCCCC; background: #660000&amp;quot;&amp;gt;I]][[User_talk:Iduan|&amp;lt;span style=&amp;quot;color:#CCCCFF; background:#000033&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Duan]]&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt; 11:35, 23 May 2011 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:: That is encyclopaedic, as it is proper to use a person's title in reference material. However, that's not ththe only edits I've made. Most of them being removing speculative speech. Basically we should follow the rule of &amp;quot;if you can't cite it, don't say it.&amp;quot;[[User:McTone|McTone]] 13:01, 23 May 2011 (EDT)McTone&lt;br /&gt;
:::No it's generally not. See his Wikipedia page if you don't believe. We also don't say &amp;quot;Mr.&amp;quot; or &amp;quot;Ms.&amp;quot;--&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;[[User:Iduan|&amp;lt;span style=&amp;quot;color: #FFCCCC; background: #660000&amp;quot;&amp;gt;I]][[User_talk:Iduan|&amp;lt;span style=&amp;quot;color:#CCCCFF; background:#000033&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Duan]]&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt; 12:02, 23 May 2011 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::::Are we not better than Wikipedia? In any case, this is deferring the point I was making with this heading.[[User:McTone|McTone]] 13:01, 23 May 2011 (EDT)McTone&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Perhaps ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I have read two cases of the word perhaps in the opening section of this article. Shouldn't assumptions like these not belong in an encyclopedia like article, especially in the opening section?- AlexMason&lt;br /&gt;
:The first one is arguably a wording error ... I'll consider that - the second one is more appropriate; since the event just happened we're not sure what the consequences will be, but if a potential consequence is notable enough it's probably worth stating--&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;[[User:Iduan|&amp;lt;span style=&amp;quot;color: #FFCCCC; background: #660000&amp;quot;&amp;gt;I]][[User_talk:Iduan|&amp;lt;span style=&amp;quot;color:#CCCCFF; background:#000033&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Duan]]&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/span&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt; 16:30, 23 May 2011 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::I'm an underwriter at Fox News and I see stuff like this all the time. I think AlexMason is correct here (as well as the poster in the previous topic). Is this a web encyclopedia or is this an opinion site? Speculating on the outcome of events is tantamount to gossip (highly frowned upon and in fact forbidden by the standards of Conservapedia as I have read the rules and commandments). I really think this should be fixed. I noticed some edits in the history of this page and I've got to stick with Andy's last revision (reverting some of the edits of the previous editor) which kept to the less speculative nature of the article.[[User:PapaBear|PapaBear]] 21:32, 28 May 2011 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Obama Muslim Evidence? ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I was going to make a post on this talk page suggesting we move the long list of evidence that Obama may be a Muslim to its own article (or an article dealing with the Obama/Islam controversy) but when I got here I saw that section had been removed, as had any mention of the words &amp;quot;Islam&amp;quot; or &amp;quot;Muslim&amp;quot;. (I did a search on my browser). I could not find a reason for this on the talk page. Could someone explain why this was made? [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 22:13, 3 June 2011 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:I rescued the content from an old revision and put it here: [[Barack Obama's Muslim Heritage]] [[User:AndyJ|AndyJ]] 22:18, 21 June 2011 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Obama as President ==&lt;br /&gt;
With the long-standing controversy about Hussein's birth certificate and the recent evidence that the one that was released is forged, I feel that there is ample evidence to conclude that Obama was born in Kenya. Because of that, I propose that we list the current holder of the office of [[President]] as [[Joe Biden]], as he would take the office if Obama were found to be unable or ineligible to serve.  --[[User:AndyJ|AndyJ]] 22:29, 21 June 2011 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:You may be misreading the story; the &amp;quot;Obama was born in Kenya&amp;quot; conspiracy theory was promoted by the White House to hide the fact that, Barack Hussein Obama's father was a [[natural born citizen]] of Kenya, and not the United States. That is the constitutional question, being that a case can be made that the Constitutional framers defined &amp;quot;natural born citizen&amp;quot; as being a citizen of the country of ''your fathers'' birth. The birth certificate, or the location of Obama Jr. birth, that is to say, the birther conspircacy the White House promoted, never had anything to do with the constitutional issue in question.  [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 16:27, 22 June 2011 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::And two things, firstly, there is not ample evidence. Just conspiracy theories. Even assuming that the certificate/s released are forgeries, that alone isn't enough to prove he wasn't born in the US, it would just raise concerning questions. Secondly, Obama would remain the President. The Constitution doesn't mention what would happen if someone who was ineligible to be President became President. Hence, until impeachment or the 25th Amendment is invoked, Obama would remain President. (Presumably the 25th would be invoked, as impeachment would take a lot longer, and would require proving that Obama knew, which could be a little difficult.) - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 07:57, 18 October 2011 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Why is the birth certificate things still going? ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I read a while ago (and posted in the article) an article from the National Review where even they concede that Obama was probably born in the US. [[User:CaptainSwing|CaptainSwing]] 23:43, 7 November 2011 (EST)&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>CaptainSwing</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Barack_Hussein_Obama&amp;diff=934750</id>
		<title>Barack Hussein Obama</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Barack_Hussein_Obama&amp;diff=934750"/>
		<updated>2011-11-08T04:41:17Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;CaptainSwing: /* Early life */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;{{Officeholder&lt;br /&gt;
|name=Barack Hussein Obama&lt;br /&gt;
|image=President Barack Obama.jpg&lt;br /&gt;
|party=[[Democrat]]&lt;br /&gt;
|spouse=[[Michelle LaVaughn Robinson Obama]]&lt;br /&gt;
|religion= [[Barack Obama's Muslim Heritage|Allegedly]] Christian&lt;br /&gt;
|offices=&lt;br /&gt;
	{{Officeholder/president&lt;br /&gt;
	|country=the United States&lt;br /&gt;
	|number=44th&lt;br /&gt;
	|terms=January 20, 2009-Present&lt;br /&gt;
	|vp=[[Joe Biden]]&lt;br /&gt;
	|preceded=[[George W. Bush]]&lt;br /&gt;
	|former=n&lt;br /&gt;
	|succeeded=&lt;br /&gt;
	}}&lt;br /&gt;
	{{Officeholder/senator&lt;br /&gt;
	|state=Illinois&lt;br /&gt;
	|terms=January 3, 2005 – November 16, 2008&lt;br /&gt;
	|preceded=Peter Fitzgerald&lt;br /&gt;
	|former=y&lt;br /&gt;
	|succeeded=[[Roland Burris]]&lt;br /&gt;
	}}&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''Barack Hussein Obama II''' also known by the alias '''Barry Soetoro''' during his time in Indonesia&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PQPXVJuT2vY Barry Soetoro the muslim - YouTube]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[[Barack Obama's Muslim Heritage]]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; (born August 4, 1961)  is the 44th President of the [[United States]] and the controversial recipient of the 2009 [[Nobel Prize|Nobel Peace Prize]]. Overcoming a short political career, Obama defeated [[Republican]] nominee [[John McCain]] for the presidency in 2008, campaigning on promises of &amp;quot;hope&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;change&amp;quot;. In effect, that change has been an embrace of [[socialism]], [[Marxism]], and [[liberal]] policies. Barack Obama has been widely criticized by the American [[business]] community and others for his anti-business policies that are killing American jobs during a period of high unemployment.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.usnews.com/opinion/mzuckerman/articles/2010/07/16/obamas-anti-business-policies-are-our-economic-katrina Obama's Anti-business Policies are our Economic Katrina]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/016/619dvjlm.asp An Anti-Business President]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2010/08/small-businesses-are-not-hiring-why.html Small Businesses are not hiring. Why should they?]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/02/dear_mr_president_why_we_are_n.html Dear Mr. President: Why we are not hiring]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Trend forecaster [[Gerald Celente]] indicates that [[Obama administration]]'s response to the the failed American economy is more war and the creation of misleading [[economics|economic]] statistics.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.opednews.com/articles/Washington-s-Response-to-a-by-paul-craig-roberts-110728-724.html Washington's response to the failed economy: More war]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Under President Obama's mismanagement of the economy, the United States Government's credit rating has, for the first time in it's history, been downgraded from AAA to AA+, and [[poverty]]&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/data/incpovhlth/2009/pov09fig04.pdf&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; has increased markedly. By and large his policies to combat the recession, unemployment, slow growth, the deficit, and expanding [[national debt]], have failed.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&amp;quot;The vast majority (73%) of respondents reported the fiscal stimulus enacted in February 2009 has had no impact on employment to date. While 68% also believe a jobs bill, such as the one recently enacted into law, will have no impact on payrolls, 30% do believe it will boost payrolls moderately&amp;quot;. ''Industry Survey'', National Association for Business Economics, April 2010, [http://www.nabe.com/press/ind1004.pdf p. 2 pdf].&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Also on the domestic front, Obama passed an expensive [[health care]] bill in 2009 with no [[bipartisan]] support and 34 Democrats dissenting. In foreign policy Obama has escalated the [[Afghanistan War]] and, against his own Defense Secretary's advice, [[Libyan uprising 2011|attacked Libya]] - a possible violation of the [[War Powers Act]]. After he announced the killing of [[September 11th]] mastermind and terrorist [[Osama bin Laden]], the [[U.S. State Department]] warned of the increased risk to the lives and safety of Americans around the world.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=news/national_world&amp;amp;id=8273909&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Bin Laden's death had negligible long term impact on Obama's approval ratings.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Early life==&lt;br /&gt;
:''Main article : [[Early life and career of Barack Hussein Obama]]''&lt;br /&gt;
:''See also : [[Barack Obama's Muslim Heritage]]''&lt;br /&gt;
Obama was born in Hawaii to Stanley Ann Dunham and [[Barack Obama Sr.]] - who had married just six months prior - on August 4, 1961 in [[Honolulu, Hawaii]]. The couple divorced in 1964. Barack Obama Sr. was not a [[Natural born citizen|citizen of the United States]]. Dunham remarried Lolo Soetoro, an [[Indonesia]]n student. When Obama was six, Soetoro returned to Indonesia, and Dunham and Obama followed.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;db mother&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite web|url=http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2011-05-03/a-singular-woman-by-janny-scott-review-by-stacy-schiff/#|work=The Daily Beast|format=HTML|language=English|title=Dreams of His Mother|author=Stacy Schiff}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; He spent four years in Indonesia before returning to Hawaii to be raised by his grandparents, Madelyn and WW2 veteran Stanley Armour Dunham. He would later attend Occidental College, [[Columbia University]] and then [[Harvard University]] for law school, where he would become the first black president of the Harvard Law Review. It has been disputed by some groups whether Obama was actually born in the United States; some people allege that he was born in Kenya. On April 27, 2011 Obama officially released his long form birth certificate, which the National Review confirmed as probably being genuine.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/265767/pdf-layers-obamas-birth-certificate-nathan-goulding&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Illinois State Senate career==&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:O-2002-antiwar-rally-davidson.jpg|right|thumb|250px| Obama speaking at the October 2002 rally in Chicago organized by [[Carl Davidson]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Davidson is a longtime [[Mao]]ist and champion of the ''Thought of Mao Tse Tung.'' Davidson's anti-Trotskyite polemic, [http://www.wengewang.org/read.php?tid=10925 ''Left in Form, Right in Essence''] defends Maoist doctrine.&amp;lt;br&amp;gt; Retrieved from 对当代托洛茨基主义的批判：英文论集百花齐放 - 中国文革研究网, March 15, 2010.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; ''&amp;quot;[H]e is a brutal man who butchers his own people,&amp;quot;'' nevertheless Obama opposed ''&amp;quot;dumb wars&amp;quot;.'']]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 1995 Obama openly sought and obtained the endorsement of the [[Marxist]] [[New Party]] in his quest to be elected to the Illinois State Senate.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=7434 NEW PARTY (NP)], discoverthenetwork.org.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Rick Moran. [http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/06/obamas_alliance_with_marxists.html Obama's Alliance with Marxists], ''American Thinker'', June 03, 2008.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; He became the [[Democrat]] nominee and ran unopposed to win the election. Obama entered the Illinois Senate promising change to a corrupt system. He mixed often radical votes with more pragmatic agreements. Possibly one of his most radical votes was against requiring medical care for aborted children who survive [[abortion|the procedure]] - in fact the Illinois Planned Parenthood Council ascribed him a 100% rating for his consistently pro-choice votes.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;cbs illinois&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite web|url=http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/01/17/politics/main2369157.shtml|title=Obama Record May Be Gold Mine For Critics|work=CBS|format=HTML|language=English|last=Clark|first=Amy S.|date=Jan. 17, 2007}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; He was criticized for using the statehouse as a stepping stone for a more illustrious career: Steven J. Rauschenberger, a [[Republican]], said prior to Obama's election as president: “He is a very bright but very ambitious person who has always had his eyes on the prize, and it wasn’t Springfield. If he deserves to be president, it is not because he was a great legislator.”&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;nyt illinois&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite web|work=The New York Times|title=In Illinois, Obama Proved Pragmatic and Shrewd|last=Scott|first=Janny|format=HTML|language=English|date=July 30, 2007|url=http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/30/us/politics/30obama.html}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The statehouse was majority Republican, so the Senator was sometimes forced to compromise. He formed allegiances across party lines to pass [[campaign finance]] reform that banned most gifts by lobbyists, prohibited spending campaign money for legislators’ personal use and required electronic filing of campaign disclosure reports.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;nyt illinois&amp;quot;/&amp;gt; Obama also helped pass  a so-called “driving-while-black bill”, which required the police to collect data on the race of drivers they stopped as a way to monitor [[racial profiling]].&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;nyt illinois&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Obama established himself as a chief spokesperson in opposition to the [[War on Terror]] during an October 2002 rally at Federal Plaza in Chicago&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;The rally was organized by Chicagoans Against War in Iraq (CAWI) later renamed Chicagoans Against War and Injustice. [http://www.noiraqwar-chicago.org/?page_id=2 About CAWI] by Carl Davidson, Nov 02 2006. Retrieved from Chicagoans Against War and Injustice, March 15, 2010.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; [[community organizing|organized]] by veteran [[Mao]]ist and webmaster of [[Progressives for Obama]],&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.linkedin.com/in/carldavidson Carl Davidson,] LinkedIn.com, retrieved March 13, 2010.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; [[Carl Davidson]]. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Radical foundation and connection to William Ayers===&lt;br /&gt;
{{main article|Radical roots of Barack Hussein Obama}}&lt;br /&gt;
In 1995 a cadre of like minded individuals gathered in the home of [[Weather Underground]] (WUO) [[terrorist]]s [[Bernardine Dohrn]] and [[William Ayers|William &amp;quot;Bill&amp;quot; Ayers]].  Dohrn,&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Georgie Anne Geyer and Keyes Beach &amp;quot;Cuba: School for U.S. Radicals&amp;quot;, ''Chicago Daily News/Chicago Sun-Times'' five part series October 1970, excerpted in [http://foia.fbi.gov/filelink.html?file=/weather/weath1c.pdf FBI file Weather Underground Organization (Weatherman),] Part 1c pp. 5-7 pdf (113-115 in original). [http://therealbarackobama.wordpress.com/2009/06/07/clandestine-agents-of-the-cuban-government-ayers-dohrn-myers/]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; along with Carl Davidson, are veterans of [[guerrilla warfare]] training in [[Cuba]] prior 1968 Democratic National Convention riots.  Ayers and Dohrn have taken credit for, and never denied, bombing the [[U.S. Capitol]], the [[Pentagon]] and the [[State Department]].    &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ayers and Dohrn used their celebrity status among [[leftist]]s to launch Obama's career. Ayers, Dohrn and [[Jeff Jones]]&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&amp;amp;pageId=106653 ''Obama's 'green jobs czar' worked with terror founder] Van Jones served on board of activist group where ex-Weatherman serves as top director'', By Aaron Klein, [[WorldNetDaily]], August 13, 2009.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; are authors of ''[[Bill_Ayers#Prairie_Fire_Organizing_Committee_and_Maoist_thought|Prairie Fire: The Politics of Revolutionary Anti-imperialism]],'' the title taken from ''The Sayings of Mao Zedong.''&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/works/red-book/]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; The book declares &amp;quot;we are [[communist]] men and women.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Harvey Klehr, ''Far Left of Center: The American Radical Left Today'' (Transaction Books, New Brunswick, 1988), 109.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Ayers later jokingly, publicly admitted to ghostwriting Obama's book, ''Dreams From My Father''&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2011/03/ayers_affirms_he_wrote_dreams.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; and Obama was to appoint several openly avowed Maoists to prominent White House and Executive Branch positions.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704597704574487431322664964.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==U.S. Senate career==&lt;br /&gt;
:''See also: [[Early_life_and_career_of_Barack_Hussein_Obama#U.S._Senate_.282004-2008.29|Barack Obama:U.S. Senate (2004-2008)]]''&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:obama.jpg|thumb|left|Senator Barack Obama]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Following a failed campaign for the U. S. House of Representatives, Obama ran for the open Senate seat from Illinois in 2004 against Republican candidate Jack Ryan. He won the seat after Chicago media outlets The Chicago Tribune newspaper and Chicago ABC affiliate WLS-TV; together with candidate Jack Ryan's Republican Primary opponents, sought and obtained the release of the confidential and personally embarrassing records in his California divorce from actress Jeri Ryan, forcing him to end his campaign. Ryan was replaced by the out-of-state candidate [[Alan Keyes]]. Obama won over Keyes 70% to 27% in the general election. Obama spent very little time in the Senate - &amp;quot;frustrated by his lack of influence and what he called the 'glacial pace' ... [he began] running for president even as he was still getting lost in the Capitol’s corridors.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;nyt senate&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite web|work=The New York Times|publisher=The New York Times, Inc.|format=HTML|language=English|title=Obama in Senate: Star Power, Minor Role|author=Kate Zernike and Jeff Zelleny|date=March 9, 2008|url=http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/09/us/politics/09obama.html}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Obama frequently used the [[filibuster]] to obstruct the operations of government,&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/03/AR2010020303801_pf.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; voted against the [[minimum wage]]&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://uspolitics.about.com/od/legislatio1/a/HR2206.htm HR 2206 - Emergency Appropriations], Kathy Gill, Your Guide to U.S. Politics: Current Events. May 26 2007.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://more.gov.mtopgroup.com/2007/05/votes-hr-2206-iraq-supplemental.html Votes - H.R. 2206: Iraq Supplemental], May 28, 2007. Retrieved from Deeper Inside the Mountain, June 4, 2007.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; and debt ceiling increases,&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/04/obama-once-opposed-debt-ceiling-hike/237129/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; and recieved more than $126,000 in campaign contributions from [[Fannie Mae]]. The ''[[National Journal]]'' ranked him the most liberal senator in 2007.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;ranked&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite web|url=http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-502163_162-3775451-502163.html|title=National Journal: Obama Most Liberal Senator In 2007|author=Brian Montopoli|date=January 31, 2008|work=CBS}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Presidential Election==&lt;br /&gt;
{{main article|Barack Hussein Obama 2008 Presidential campaign}}&lt;br /&gt;
Democrats began calling for an Obama candidacy after liberals lauded his 2004 [[Democratic National Convention]] speech.&lt;br /&gt;
===Campaign to be the Democratic nominee===&lt;br /&gt;
The race for the Democratic ticket originally seemed [[Hillary Clinton]]'s to lose, but was ultimately a close race between Clinton and Obama. Clinton would take a slim advantage in the popular vote, while Obama would carry significantly more states and territories. Obama's advantage with super-delegates over Clinton was about 2-to-1.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{Cite web|title=Superdelegate endorsements for Friday 6/6|work=Democratic Convention Watch|url=http://demconwatch.blogspot.com/2008/06/superdelegate-endorsements-for-friday.html}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Obama was able to attract the support of [[liberals]] by pointing out that he had come out against the [[Iraq War]] &amp;quot;from the beginning&amp;quot; whereas Clinton had voted in favor of the war in 2002.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite web|url=http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-01-31-democrats-debate_N.htm|title=Obama, Clinton stress differences on Iraq, issues|author=David Jackson|work=USA Today|format=HTML|language=English}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
===Campaign for the Presidency===&lt;br /&gt;
Obama campaigned against Senator [[John McCain]] in the general election. To the chagrin of Clinton supporters, he selected Senator [[Joe Biden]] to be his running mate, whereas McCain selected [[Governor]] of [[Alaska]] [[Sarah Palin]]. The Obama and Biden ticket would win the election, and Obama would become the nation's first [[African American]] president.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====Jeremiah Wright====&lt;br /&gt;
:''See also: [[Barack Obama and Liberation Theology]]''&lt;br /&gt;
One major dilemma that arose for Obama during his campaign was his connection to his preacher [[Jeremiah Wright]]. Obama and his wife (raised a Baptist) were members of the Trinity [[United Church of Christ]]&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1776246/posts&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; in Chicago, a chruch that embraced [[black liberation theology]] and its emphasis on empowering so-called &amp;quot;oppressed groups&amp;quot; against &amp;quot;establishment forces&amp;quot;. This denomination was the first in America to ordain gays as ministers.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/31079.html, Obama's church pushes controversial doctrines, March 20, 2008&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Church pastor Jeremiah Wright had been making inflammatory comments and posting his sermons online for sale. These include the statement &amp;quot;G-d damn America,&amp;quot; and in describing the September 11th attacks, &amp;quot;We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans, and now we are indignant because the stuff we have done overseas is now brought right back to our own front yards. America's chickens are coming home to roost.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/Story?id=4443788 Obama's Pastor: G-d Damn America, U.S. to Blame for 9/11]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; In addition, Rev. Wright blamed America saying &amp;quot;We supported Zionism shamelessly while ignoring the Palestinians and branding anybody who spoke out against it as being [[anti-Semitic]].&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In April 2008, after 20 years in the church, candidate Obama made public statements poised to set him at odds with the man who conducted his wedding and baptized his children. With the negative publicity persisting, a month later Obama ended the friendship, left Wright's church, and blamed the media.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/05/31/obama-resigns-church-membership-in-chicago/], Obama Drops Church Membership in Chicago, May 31, 2008&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  Obama claimed “It’s not fair to the other members of the church who seek to worship in peace...&amp;quot;, and distanced himself from  Wright's sermons  as &amp;quot;a bunch of rants that aren't grounded in the truth.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;USA TODAY, ''Obama breaks with former pastor, Candidate cites rants on U.S. role in terror, AIDS'', by Kathy Kiely and David Jackson [http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/news/20080430/1a_offlede30_dom.art.htm]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;''Obama Says He Is Outraged By Wright's &amp;quot;Rants&amp;quot;''[http://www.usnews.com/usnews/politics/bulletin/bulletin_080430.htm]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Presidential career==&lt;br /&gt;
{{main article|Obama administration}}&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Obama and George H. W. Bush.jpg|thumb|right|300px|President Barack Obama meets with former President George H. W. Bush in the Oval Office, Feb. 15, 2011. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza).]]&lt;br /&gt;
Under Obama's stewardship the United States has suffered the largest [[Federal budget deficit|deficit]]s&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/107xx/doc10708/11-06-mbr.htm&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/118xx/doc11873/NovemberMBR.pdf&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; in history and a credit downgrade from the rating agency Standard &amp;amp; Poor.  Most observers attribute the deficits to increasing benefits and welfare paid out on account of the Recession he inherited and has failed to end along with decreasing tax receipts.  Standard &amp;amp; Poor decided to downgrade U.S. government deby after the debt ceiling debate debacle, where Congressional leaders refused to pass a bill authorizing borrowing to pay for the budget they had passed with much debate and controversy earlier in the year.  Cynics have argued that rhetoric directed at the rating agencies about the issuance of AAA ratings to junk real estate bonds spurred the downgrade as a form of retribution.  Ironically, the investor scare led to the flocking of investors to the safe haven of the Treasury bonds which had been downgraded, resulting in lower interest rates.  As there are very few AAA bond markets, investors will likely continue to buy U.S. government debt for the foreseeable future.  &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2011/04/18/the-sp-outlook-and-obama/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  When his [[economic stimulus]] program was adopted unemployment rose and stagnated in the 10% range, &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704476104575439172480870774.html?mod=googlenews_wsj&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; leaving tens of millions without [[hope]] of finding a job.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet?data_tool=latest_numbers&amp;amp;series_id=LNS11300000&amp;amp;years_option=specific_years&amp;amp;include_graphs=true&amp;amp;to_month=1&amp;amp;from_month=2 United States Department of Labor], Bureau of Labor Statistics. Data extracted on: July 19, 2010 (4:31:11 PM).&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Patrick H. Caddell and Douglas E. Schoen, writing in the [[Wall Street Journal]], noted, &amp;quot;Rather than being a unifier, Mr. Obama has divided America on the basis of race, class and partisanship.&amp;quot; The commentators also note Obama's approach to governance has encouraged radical leftists to pursue a similar strategy on his behalf. Mary Frances Berry, former head of the U.S. Civil Rights Commission, acknowledged that the [[Obama administration]] has taken to polarizing America around the issue of race as a means of diverting attention from other issues, saying, &amp;quot;Having one's opponent [[race card|rebut charges of racism]] is far better than discussing [[Unemployment|joblessness]].&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.politico.com/arena/perm/Mary_Frances_Berry_91E3D9D5-C40D-440C-9D48-1C50CBC60C87.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Caddell and Schoen, who worked for President Carter and Clinton, respectively, further stated, &amp;quot;Mr. Obama has also cynically [[class warfare|divided the country on class lines]]. He has taken to playing the populist card time and time again. He bashes Wall Street and insurance companies whenever convenient to advance his programs, yet he has been eager to accept campaign contributions and negotiate with these very same banks and [[corporation]]s behind closed doors in order to advance his political agenda... President Obama's divisive approach to governance has weakened us as a people and paralyzed our political culture.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://online.wsj.com/article/NA_WSJ_PUB:SB10001424052748703700904575391553798363586.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Domestic policy===&lt;br /&gt;
====Popular bills====&lt;br /&gt;
Obama's first act of office was to sign the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act - effectively nullifying the [[Supreme Court]] case ''Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire &amp;amp; Rubber Co.'', which ruled that Ledbetter had to have filed a pay [[discrimination]] suit within 180 days of the first time Ledbetter was payed less than her male peers;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite web|url=http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/30/us/politics/30ledbetter-web.html|work=The New York Times|format=HTML|language=English|title=Obama Signs Equal-Pay Legislation|author=Sheryl Gay Stolberg|date=January 29, 2009}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; the law made corporations subject to suit within 180 days of each time the employee was unfairly paid.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite web|url=http://writ.news.findlaw.com/grossman/20090213.html?=features|work=FindLaw|author=Joanna L. Grossman|date=Feb. 13, 2009|format=HTML|language=English|title=The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On January 2, 2011, Obama signed the James Zadroga [[9/11]] Healthcare and Compensation Act.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite web|url=http://www.wnyc.org/articles/wnyc-news/2011/jan/02/obama-signs-zadroga-act-law/|publisher=New York Public Radio|title=Obama Signs Zadroga Act into Law|author=Fred Mogul|date=January 02, 2011|work=wNYC|format=HTML|language=English}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; The act, which afforded 9/11 first responders who were sickened by the dust from the collapse of the [[World Trade Center]] health care and compensation, passed [[Congress]] after its sponsored agreed to scale down the pricing from 7.4 to 4.2 billion dollars.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite web|url=http://www.wnyc.org/articles/wnyc-news/2010/dec/22/zadroga-911-bill-passes-senate/|publisher=New York Public Radio|work=wNYC|format=HTML|language=English|title=Congress Approves 9/11 Health Bill|date=December 22, 2010}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====Economic plan====&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Keynes.jpg|thumbnail|right|190px|[[Barack Obama]] advocates the use of [[Keynesian economics|Keynesian economic concepts]] despite the fact that [[John Maynard Keynes]] was incompetent and a fraud.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://centurean2.wordpress.com/2011/03/20/fabian-john-maynard-keynes-the-stealthy-enemy-of-human-freedom/ John Maynard Keynes the stealthy enemy of human freedom]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-02-22/deathbed-of-keynesian-economics-will-be-in-u-k-matthew-lynn.html Deathbed of Keynesian Economics will be in the UK]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.iwf.org/inkwell/show/23102.html Will the G8 Repudiate the Philosophy of Living Beyond Our Means?]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.keynesatharvard.org/book/KeynesatHarvard-ch09.html KEYNES AT HARVARD Economic Deception as a Political Credo BY ZYGMUND DOBBS]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  ]]&lt;br /&gt;
{{see also|Obamunism|American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009}}&lt;br /&gt;
Critics of the Obama administration have coined the word &amp;quot;[[Obamunism]]&amp;quot; to describe Barack Obama's [[socialism|socialistic]] and &amp;quot;[[fascism]] light&amp;quot; [[economic planning]] policies.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[[Benito Mussolini]] defined fascism as the wedding of state and corporate powers.  Accordingly, trend forecaster [[Gerald Celente]] labels [[Obama administration corporate bailouts|Obama's corporate bailouts]] as being &amp;quot;fascism light&amp;quot; in nature.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite web|url=http://www.thebigmoney.com/articles/daily-intel/2009/07/20/obamunism-inc|work=The Big Money|publisher=WashingtonPost.Newsweek Interactive Co. LLC|format=HTML|language=English|title=Obamunism, Inc.|author=David Sessions|date=July 20, 2009}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite web|url=http://www.smallbusinessadvocate.com/small-business-interviews/gerald-celente-6944|author=Jim Blasingame|title=Is the government creating a bailout bubble?}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  Obamunism can also refer to Obama's [[Obama administration fiscal policy|ruinous fiscal policies]] and [[Obama administration monetary policy|reckless monetary policies]].&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;gerard&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite web|url=http://seekingalpha.com/article/120883-monetary-policynot-obama-s-stimulusis-what-needs-watching|title=Monetary Policy-Not Obama's Stimulus-Is What Needs Watching|author=Gerard Jackson|date=February 16, 2009|work=Seeking Alpha}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;bam&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite web|work=New York Post|date=May 17, 2009|url=http://www.nypost.com/seven/05172009/postopinion/editorials/bams_wise_words_169731.htm|title=BAM'S WISE WORDS}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite web|url=http://blog.heritage.org/2009/03/24/bush-deficit-vs-obama-deficit-in-pictures/|title=Bush Deficit vs. Obama Deficit in Pictures|work=The Foundry|publisher=The Heritage Foundation|author=Conn Carroll|date=March 24th, 2009}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  As seen in his own actions, Barack Obama instructed his advisors to find loopholes that would enable the president to act as a [[dictator]] by pushing through legislation and increases in spending without congressional authority.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.theblaze.com/stories/executive-dictatorship-obama-instructs-advisers-to-push-through-stimulus-projects-without-pesky-congressional-authorization/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Wall Street]] firms and banks that were bailed out were among Obama's biggest campaign supporters.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.php?cycle=2008&amp;amp;cid=N00009638&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  Therefore, the Obama administration bailouts of corrupt, unproductive, and reckless Wall Street firms was hardly surprising, and many argue that it was not helpful in making the United States economy more productive and prosperous by encouraging more risk taking through letting banks off with a slap on the wrist.  Others argue that bailing out the banks kept credit flowing and prevented a much deeper recession and a total collapse of the financial system.  The government will recoup some though not all of its capital infusions over time.  A 2005 study found that government corporate bailouts are often done for mere political considerations and the economic resources allocated exhibit significantly worse economic performance than resources allocated using purely business considerations.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=676905&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  Proponents of [[free market]] capitalism said Bernanke should not have bailed out failing firms and instead should have allowed free market capitalism to quickly recover as it did in the depression of 1920 without government intervention (free market capitalists assert that government intervention drags out economic recessions and depressions).&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=czcUmnsprQI&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
Top trend forecaster [[Gerald Celente]] predicts that the corrupt economic policies of the Obama administration will lead to a second [[Great Depression|great depression]] (Celente predicted the 1987 US stock market crash, the dot.com crash, the US 2008/2009 recession, and the collapse of the USSR in the early 1990s) and may lead to a &amp;quot;second [[American Revolution]]&amp;quot; (Celente predicted the [[Tea Party Movement|tax protests]] that are now occurring in America).&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;celente1&amp;quot;&amp;gt;http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8MMX3SKzrfU&amp;amp;feature=channel_page&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;celente2&amp;quot;&amp;gt;http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sy9bfw1ebgw&amp;amp;feature=response_watch&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  Celente also asserts that the costly and inefficient temporary short term methods that the Obama administration is using to alleviate economic problems in the short term (which is causing massive increases in [[Obama administration deficit spending]]) is only making matters worse and will not prevent the worse economic depression in United States history from occurring.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_C8K7rWkGGw&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1LBffdIW0XA&amp;amp;feature=response_watch&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Obama administration has been sharply criticized for [[Obama administration deficit spending|its massive deficit spending]] and [[Obama administration monetary policy|its reckless monetary policy]] via vast increases in the [[money supply]], although inflation under Bernanke has been below the historic mean.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;gerard&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;bam&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://blog.heritage.org/2009/03/24/bush-deficit-vs-obama-deficit-in-pictures/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Celente predicts that if a &amp;quot;second American Revolution&amp;quot; occurs in a peaceful and productive manner, it may include a [[Third Party System|third party movement]] of governance that will advocate a more [[free market]] [[capitalism]] approach to the American economy and a more strict interpretation of the [[United States Constitution|United States constitution]] as far as the authors' [[original intent]].&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;celente1&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;celente2&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
During what the [[White House]] billed as [[Recovery Summer]], one half million workers per week continued losing their jobs. His signature legislative achievement, [[ObamaCare]],has been found to be [[unconstitutional]]&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-12-13/u-s-health-care-law-requirement-thrown-out-by-judge.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; by several judges and constitutional by others, and is credited as a major cause of uncertainty, high [[unemployment]],&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=33220&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; lagging job creation,&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://blog.heritage.org/2010/08/05/it%E2%80%99s-official-medicare%E2%80%99s-finances-shadowed-by-uncertainty/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; and risk of a credit default crisis.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/28/AR2010032802353.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.thestreet.com/story/10703361/cramer-obamacare-will-topple-the-market.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
His 2012 Budget plan has been roundly criticized in the mainstream and liberal press as not a serious effort to deal with the nation's economic crisis.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://republican.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=blogs.view&amp;amp;blog_id=1551d6f5-2ac9-4b8d-97ab-74def354024e Newspapers Call Out White House: ‘What Would That Path Be, Mr. President?’]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=====Healthcare=====&lt;br /&gt;
{{main article|Obamacare}}&lt;br /&gt;
On March 23, 2010, Obama signed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA). The act had originated in the House of Representatives and passed September 17, 2009. The act was amended and passed the Senate prior to [[Democrat]] [[Ted Kennedy]]'s passing along party lines - just a filibuster-proof majority at 60-39. In what can be construed as a de facto rejection of the bill, [[Massachusetts]] voters elected a [[Republican]] candidate, [[Scott Brown]], who promised to vote against the bill,&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite web|url=http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/senate/scott-brown-wins-massachusetts-senate-race.html|work=The Washington Post|author=Chris Cillizza|date=January 19, 2010|title=Scott Brown wins Massachusetts Senate special election race|language=English|format=HTML}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; but another Senate vote would not occur.  Scott Brown was also an excellent campaigner and judged to be a better candidate than his rival, Martha Coakley.  He has since achieved one of the most moderate senate voting records, likely to avoid the anger of his mostly liberal constituency.  After Obama made a promise to issue an [[executive order]] that would ultimately prohibit the use of taxpayer subsidies to pay for [[abortion]] services,&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite web|url=http://articles.latimes.com/2010/mar/22/nation/la-na-healthcare-passage22-2010mar22/3|work=The Los Angeles Times|format=HTML|language=English|title=House passes historic healthcare overhaul|date=March 22, 2010|author=Noam N. Levey and Janet Hook}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; the [[House of Representatives]] would pass the bill as it left the Senate 219-212, with 34 Democrats and all other parties dissenting.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite web|url=http://articles.cnn.com/2010-03-21/politics/health.care.main_1_health-care-entire-house-democratic-caucus-pre-existing-conditions?_s=PM:POLITICS|date=March 21, 2010|author=Alan Silverleib|work=CNN|format=HTML|language=English|title=House passes health care bill on 219-212 vote}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Amongst other things, the act mandates that the population purchase health care coverage or face punitive tax measures, and on this basis has been constitutionally challenged in the federal courts, with mixed results (three courts have upheld the act, two have declared it unconstitutional); thus, the Act is likely destined for [[Supreme Court]] reviewal.  Plans originally proposed involved instituting a universal public insurance program, that is, extending Medicare to everyone.  The universal mandate included in the act was originally a conservative idea that was enacted in Massachusetts under Republican Mitt Romney.  Its supporters note that having health insurance results in reduced costs in paying for treatment of uninsured and forcing people to take responsibility for their healthcare.  Due to ethical constraints, doctors cannot deny care to poor patients, resulting in the hospital and the healthcare system at large bearing the cost.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====Gulf oil spill====&lt;br /&gt;
{{main article|Gulf of Mexico oil spill disaster}}&lt;br /&gt;
President Obama authorized offshore oil drilling in the [[Gulf of Mexico]]&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2010/0430/Gulf-of-Mexico-oil-spill-imperils-Obama-s-offshore-drilling-plan Gulf of Mexico oil spill imperils Obama's offshore drilling plan,] By Mark Clayton, ''Christian Science Monitor'', April 30, 2010.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; stating, &amp;quot;oil rigs today generally don’t cause spills&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;White House Press Release, [http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/remarks-president-a-discussion-jobs-and-economy-charlotte-north-carolina Remarks by the President in a Discussion on Jobs and the Economy in Charlotte, North Carolina,] Office of the Press Secretary, April 02, 2010. Retrieved from whitehouse.gov 3 May 2010.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; and was widely criticized for his mishandling of the &amp;quot;[[Gulf oil spill disaster|worst environmental disaster]] in US history.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.examiner.com/x-33986-Political-Spin-Examiner~y2010m4d29-Worst-environmental-disaster-in-US-history-Oil-slick-in-Gulf-of-Mexico-is-set-on-fire Worst environmental disaster in US history,] Maryann Tobin, ''Examiner'', April 29, 2010.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/04/30/the-oil-spill-is-obamas-fault/?src=twt&amp;amp;twt=NytimesKrugman Conscience of a Liberal: The Oil Spill Is Obama’s Fault,] Paul Krugman, ''New York Times'', April 30, 2010.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====Don't Ask Don't Tell====&lt;br /&gt;
{{main article|Don't Ask Don't Tell}}&lt;br /&gt;
Candidate Obama promised to repeal a policy that originated in the Clinton era that prohibited inquiries into military personnel's [[sexual orientation]] while also barring &amp;quot;out&amp;quot; [[homosexuals]] from serving in the military. [[Liberals]] expressed anger when time passed and no effort to repeal the law was seen;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite web|url=http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/nov/21/obama-to-delay-repeal-of-dont-ask-dont-tell/|work=The Washington Times|format=HTML|title=Obama to delay ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ repeal|language=English|author=Rowan Scarborough|date=November 21, 2008}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; in fact, Obama's [[justice department]], as part of their duty to defend all laws passed by any administration, filed a brief arguing against the [[Supreme Court]] granting a [[writ of certiorari]] to a gay soldier challenging the law (the writ was not granted). In response, the soldier, James Pietrangelo II, a former Army infantryman and lawyer, said, “[Obama's] a coward, a bigot and a pathological liar. This is a guy who spent more time picking out his dog, Bo, and playing with him on the White House lawn than he has working for equality for gay people.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite web|work=Time Magazine|publisher=Time Inc.|format=HTML|url=http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1903545,00.html?imw=Y|title=Dismay Over Obama's 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' Turnabout|author=Mark Thompson|date=Jun. 09, 2009}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On December 15th, 2010, a bill was introduced in the [[House of Representatives]] to repeal the law - it passed a day later by a vote of 250-175;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite web|url=http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2010/roll638.xml|title=FINAL VOTE RESULTS FOR ROLL CALL 638|format=HTML|work=Office of the Clerk of the U.S. House of Representatives}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; it passed the Senate three days later 65-31.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite web|url=http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=111&amp;amp;session=2&amp;amp;vote=00281|work=The U.S. Senate|title=U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 111th Congress - 2nd Session|format=HTML|language=English}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Obama signed the Don't Ask, Don't Tell Repeal Act of 2010 on December 22nd.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;g dadt&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite web|url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/dec/22/obama-repeals-dont-ask-dont-tell|work=The Guardian|format=HTML|language=English|title='Don't ask, don't tell' repealed as Obama signs landmark law|date=22 December 2010}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The [[Pentagon]] itself could not immediately implement the repeal and questioned whether it would hurt combat readiness.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;g dadt&amp;quot;/&amp;gt; Senator [[John McCain]], the senior Republican on the Armed Services Committee, opposed the bill, saying &amp;quot;It may be premature to make such a change at this time and in this manner, without further consideration of this report and further study of the issue by Congress – for of all the people we serve, one of our highest responsibilities is to the men and women of our armed services, especially those risking their lives in combat.”&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite web|url=http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/12/02/mccain-on-dont-ask-dont-tell-dont-rush/|title=McCain on ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’: Don’t Rush|date=December 2nd, 2010|format=HTML|author=David M. Herszenhorn|language=English|work=The New York Times}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Foreign policy===&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Western Wall Obama.jpg|thumb|left|320px|At [[Western Wall]], Jerusalem, 2008.]]&lt;br /&gt;
As Senator, Obama was highly critical of President Bush and promised change. As President, Obama has tripled down in Afghanistan, widened the war into Pakistan, multiplied drone attacks, bombed Yemen and Somalia, and started an undeclared NATO war in Libya. On presidential war powers, surveillance questions, Guantanamo, detention policy and habeas corpus, Obama has similarly stayed the course, or expanded Bush's precedents. In a speech on May 19, 2011 Obama fully embraced the [[Bush Doctrine]] of preventative war.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-news-in-obamas-speech/2011/05/19/AF4dFN7G_story.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
The New America Foundation, which tracks the strikes, has listed 23 raids since the beginning of April, 2011, all but one in Pakistan’s tribal regions of North and South Waziristan. A June 20 attack was reported in Kurram, an area north of North Waziristan along the Afghanistan border.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
The drone program has become increasingly controversial as the Obama administration has expanded its use beyond the Afghanistan and Iraq wars. Lethal missiles have been launched from unmanned aircraft in at least five countries in addition to Pakistan: Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Yemen, and, most recently, Somalia. The military’s Joint Special Operations Command used a drone last June to attack what officials said were two senior members of the Al Shabab militant group on the Somali coast. [http://www.boston.com/news/world/asia/articles/2011/07/04/cia_halts_drone_launches_from_pakistan_base/]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====Commander-in-chief====&lt;br /&gt;
By Obama's second year as Commander-in-Chief, 559 American troops died in Iraq and Afghanistan - significantly more than the 469 who died during Presisdent [[George W. Bush]]'s final year in office.  And growing numbers of civilian contractors also have fallen. In the first half of 2010, 250 contractors reportedly died in Iraq and Afghanistan - more than the 235 military personnel who fell during the same period.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/05/24/114662/what-price-war.html#ixzz1Nz07pg5O&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=====Afghanistan=====&lt;br /&gt;
{{main article|Afghanistan War}}&lt;br /&gt;
Obama escalated troop strength&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;pbs&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite web|url=http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/obamaswar/themes/strategy.html#ixzz1LhWNImZp|title=Obama's New Strategy (March '09)|author=George Packer, Seth Jones, David Kilcullen, Rory Stewart, Andrew Exum, Col. Andrew Bacevich (Ret.)|work=PBS|language=English|format=HTML}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; and defense costs in Afghanistan from $43.5 billion in George Bush's last year to $113.7 billion for 2011.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Congressional Research Service, quoted in Gregory Anthony, ''What price war?''&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Adviser to General [[Stanley McChrystal]] David Kilcullen wrote, &amp;quot;One of the big strategic shifts is the use of language now which talks about Pakistan and Afghanistan as the same theater. Now we talked about Af-Pak long before the Obama administration came about, but the public use of that term, and the description of it as the Afghanistan-Pakistan campaign, sends a new message to people about how the administration is going to think about Afghanistan and Pakistan.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;pbs&amp;quot;/&amp;gt; This became evident when, under the orders of Obama, a military SEALs team killed September 11th mastermind [[Osama bin Laden]] in Abottabad, Pakistan.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite web|url=http://www.newsweek.com/2011/05/05/commander-in-chief.html|title=Commander in Chief|author=Daniel Romano and Daniel Klaidman|date=May 05, 2011|work=Newsweek|publisher=The Newsweek/Daily Beast Company LLC|language=English|format=HTML}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=====Iraq=====&lt;br /&gt;
{{main article|Operation Iraqi Freedom}}&lt;br /&gt;
Obama campaigned on a promise to end the War in Iraq, however 50,000 U.S. troops remain in the country.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite web|url=http://articles.cnn.com/2010-08-31/politics/obama.oval.office.address_1_iraq-requests-united-states-and-iraq-troop-surge?_s=PM:POLITICS|work=CNN|title=Obama: 'Time to turn the page' as Iraq combat mission ends|date=August 31, 2010|language=English|format=HTML}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=====Guantanamo Bay=====&lt;br /&gt;
{{main article|Guantanamo Bay}}&lt;br /&gt;
One of Obama's campaign promises was that he would close the American detention center at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba - detainees would be flown to other countries while the ones awaiting trial would enter the American court system. Two days after taking office he signed an order directing the military to do so.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;salon&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite web|url=http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2011/04/25/obama_guantanamo_rhetoric|work=Salon|title=The Obama/Gitmo timeline|author=Natasha Lennard|format=HTML|language=English}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; But, in November 2009 Obama admitted that his self imposed deadline of January 2010 would be missed, and in March 2011 the president went back on his campaign promise, signing an executive order to create a formal system of indefinite detention for the prisoners.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;salon&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=====Libya=====&lt;br /&gt;
{{main article|Libyan uprising 2011}}&lt;br /&gt;
In February 2011, the political unrest that had spread through the Arab world showed up as protests in Libya. Colonel Muammar el-Qaddafi - dictator of Libya for 41 years - responded to the activism with a wave of violence.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;nyt libya&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite web|url=http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/international/countriesandterritories/libya/index.html|work=The New York Times|publisher=The New York Times Inc.|format=HTML|language=English|title=Libya — Protests and Revolt (2011)}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; The [[United Nations Security Council]] voted unanimously to impose [[sanctions]], and later authorized all members to take action to protect civilians. Obama, acting without approval from Congress and at the beckoning of the [[United Nations]], directed American forces to take out Libya's air defense system.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;nyt libya&amp;quot;/&amp;gt; Obama later said, &amp;quot;[I]f we waited one more day Benghazi, a city nearly the size of Charlotte, could suffer a massacre that would have reverberated across the region and stained the conscience of the world.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite web|author=Barack Obama|url=http://www.npr.org/2011/03/28/134935452/obamas-speech-on-libya-a-responsibility-to-act|title=Obama's Speech On Libya: 'A Responsibility To Act'|date=March 28, 2011|publisher=National Public Radio ([[NPR]])|language=English|format=HTML}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; [[Alan J. Kuperman]] - writing an editorial for the ''[[Boston Globe]]'' - suggested this statement was false, writing, &amp;quot;[I]ntervention did not prevent genocide, because no such bloodbath was in the offing. To the contrary, by emboldening rebellion, US interference has prolonged Libya’s civil war and the resultant suffering of innocents.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;kuperman&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite web|author=Alan J. Kuperman|work=The Boston Globe|url=http://articles.boston.com/2011-04-14/bostonglobe/29418371_1_rebel-stronghold-civilians-rebel-positions|title=False pretense for war in Libya?|date=April 14, 2011}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Kuperman, a professor of public affairs at the University of Texas who authored a book called ''The Limits of Humanitarian Intervention'', further stated that the rebels had tricked the world into thinking a bloodbath was at hand and that Obama had lied to the American people in order to act on this theory.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;kuperman&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Gaddafi [never] threaten civilian massacre in Benghazi, as Obama alleged. The “no mercy’’ warning, of March 17, targeted rebels only, as reported by The New York Times, which noted that Libya’s leader promised amnesty for those “who throw their weapons away.’’ Khadafy even offered the rebels an escape route and open border to Egypt, to avoid a fight “to the bitter end.’’ &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; [http://politicalcartel.org/2011/04/17/libya-and-the-obama-doctrine/ Libya and the “Obama Doctrine”.] &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
However Gaddafi wrote to Obama:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Gaddafi said he bore no ill will toward Obama. &amp;quot;We have been hurt more morally than physically because of what had happened against us in both deeds and words by you,&amp;quot; he wrote. &amp;quot;Despite all this you will always remain our son whatever happened. We still pray that you continue to be president of the USA. We endeavour and hope that you will gain victory in the new election campaign.&amp;quot; The letter, dated 5 April 2011 in Tripoli, is signed &amp;quot;Mu'aumer Qaddaffi, Leader of the Revolution&amp;quot;.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/apr/06/gaddafi-obama-nato-libya?INTCMP=ILCNETTXT3487]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Critics point out the only thing worse than starting a &amp;quot;stupid, unnecessary war&amp;quot; against a madman is losing it.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/271847/war-libya-dumb-and-dumber-victor-davis-hanson&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==See also==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Political positions of Barack Obama]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Barack Obama and uncharitableness]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.ontheissues.org/barack_obama.htm]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==References==&lt;br /&gt;
{{reflist|2}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{USPresidents}}&lt;br /&gt;
{{2008 presidential candidates}}&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category: Barack Hussein Obama]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Obama Presidency]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Obama Administration]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[category:Nobel laureates in Peace]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{DEFAULTSORT:Obama, Barack Hussein}}&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>CaptainSwing</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Essay:Greatest_Conservative_Songs&amp;diff=933179</id>
		<title>Essay:Greatest Conservative Songs</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Essay:Greatest_Conservative_Songs&amp;diff=933179"/>
		<updated>2011-11-02T12:46:20Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;CaptainSwing: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;There are many brilliant—and popular—conservative songs.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Here is our growing list:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable sortable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
!Song&lt;br /&gt;
!Artist&lt;br /&gt;
!Comments&lt;br /&gt;
!Billboard Rank&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|[http://www.sing365.com/music/lyric.nsf/Crying-in-the-Chapel-lyrics-Elvis-Presley/E547D833F0BBFADF48256874002B3358 ''Crying In The Chapel'']&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Elvis Presley]]&lt;br /&gt;
|Pro-marriage&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|[http://youtu.be/EgkBx8csEws ''Goodbye, Yellow Brick Road'']&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Elton John]]&lt;br /&gt;
|The same message as the [[Prodigal Son]]: look objectively at our own lives, and realize that &amp;quot;I should have listened to my old man.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|[http://www.cowboylyrics.com/lyrics/jones-george/gods-gonna-get-cha-for-that-6638.html ''God's Gonna Get 'Cha For That'']&lt;br /&gt;
|Tammy Wynette &amp;amp; George Jones&lt;br /&gt;
|You cannot escape God's gaze, no matter who you are&lt;br /&gt;
|25&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dl6yilkU1LI ''Fast Car'']&lt;br /&gt;
|Tracy Chapman&lt;br /&gt;
|Self-help, free market, division of labor, and a criticism of alcohol.  &amp;quot;I know things will get better/You'll find work and I'll get promoted/We'll move out of the shelter/Buy a bigger house and live in the suburbs&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|6&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|[http://youtu.be/lnk8SKD9zcA''You Light Up My Life'']&lt;br /&gt;
|Debby Boone&lt;br /&gt;
|One of the biggest hits ever, but [[liberals]] omit that this song is about [[Jesus]].&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-iYY2FQHFwE ''Okie From Muskogee'']&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Merle Haggard]]&lt;br /&gt;
|Anti-drug and anti-hippie; a song about praising the traditional American values in Mid-America. Was written in response to the Vietnam War protests and counter-culture movement.&lt;br /&gt;
|1 (Billboard Hot Country)&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yw5RkzbHb-w ''You Can't Hurry Love (You Just Have to Wait)'']&lt;br /&gt;
|The Supremes&lt;br /&gt;
|Abstinence for rock fans. Also performed by Phil Collins.&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lDK9QqIzhwk ''Livin' on a Prayer'']&lt;br /&gt;
|Bon Jovi&lt;br /&gt;
|Organized labor is harmful to the welfare of workers, who turn to prayer.&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|[http://youtu.be/o-z2D9lo9-8 ''Bush Was Right'']&lt;br /&gt;
|The Right Brothers&lt;br /&gt;
|Celebrating the Bush Administration's success and policies.&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T3S7mlRYL-8 America]&lt;br /&gt;
|Neil Diamond&lt;br /&gt;
|Freedom, Liberty, Patriotism&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|[http://youtu.be/BvPugOWeZiA ''Let It Be'']&lt;br /&gt;
|[[The Beatles]]&lt;br /&gt;
|Very popular in Russia under the Soviets&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3dHthaNNnds Keep On Loving You]&lt;br /&gt;
|REO Speedwagon&lt;br /&gt;
|Love overcomes infidelity &amp;quot;When I said that I love you I meant &lt;br /&gt;
That I love you forever.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Have You Forgotten?&lt;br /&gt;
|Darryl Worley&lt;br /&gt;
|Patriotic response to [[September 11, 2001 attacks]]&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.songfacts.com/detail.php?id=15568&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|1 (US Country)&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S5aMMRes2u4 ''Still the One'']&lt;br /&gt;
|Orleans&lt;br /&gt;
|A tribute to fidelity in relationships.&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|[http://youtu.be/oHg5SJYRHA0 ''Sweet Home Alabama'']&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Lynyrd Skynyrd]]&lt;br /&gt;
|A response to hippie culture. Defends Southerners from stereotyped attacks by [[liberal]], Canadian rocker Neil Young.  &amp;quot;Well, I hope Neil Young will remember/A Southern man don't need him around anyhow.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N-1_d6bbM1I ''My Love'']&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Petula Clark]]&lt;br /&gt;
|A Christian love in secular form.&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=16u0wwCfoJ4 ''I Fought the Law (and the Law Won)'']&lt;br /&gt;
|The Crickets&lt;br /&gt;
|Its title says it all. The version by ''The Clash'' has a particularly good tempo.&lt;br /&gt;
|9 (Bobby Fuller Four version)&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|[http://www.songmeanings.net/songs/view/3530822107858733660/ ''What's The Use Of Wond'rin?'']&lt;br /&gt;
|Amanda Palmer&lt;br /&gt;
|Celebrates the command: &amp;quot;Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.&amp;quot; -Ephesians 5:22&lt;br /&gt;
|NA&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|[http://youtu.be/cMfrLFirGWc ''Chapel of Love'']&lt;br /&gt;
|Dixie Cups&lt;br /&gt;
|Marriage in a church&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0heL2Czeraw ''I Am America'']&lt;br /&gt;
|Krista Branch&lt;br /&gt;
|American [[Tea Party Movement]] Song&lt;br /&gt;
|NA&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iT88jBAoVIM ''Amazing Grace'']&lt;br /&gt;
|[[John Newton]]&lt;br /&gt;
|A Christian hymn published in 1779.&lt;br /&gt;
|NA&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IStlBOX9F4o ''God's Gonna Cut You Down'']&lt;br /&gt;
|Traditional&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;quot;Go tell that long tongue liar, go and tell that midnight rider, tell the rambler, the gambler, the back biter, tell 'em that God's gonna cut 'em down&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|NA&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|[http://youtu.be/pEnLNWoln1c ''Anything Goes'']&lt;br /&gt;
|Guns N' Roses&lt;br /&gt;
|A blatant message about the dangers of premarital sex&lt;br /&gt;
|NA&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DwBirf4BWew ''Stand By Your Man'']&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Tammy Wynette]]&lt;br /&gt;
|Don't expect [[feminists]] to like that one! Or [[Hillary Clinton]]!&lt;br /&gt;
|1 (Hot Country Singles)&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|[http://youtu.be/r5Q8Xa0bPy8''Battle Hymn of the Republic'']&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Lee Greenwood]]&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;quot;As He died to make men holy, let us die to make men free.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|NA&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BIF4U_QFSxQ ''Chores'']&lt;br /&gt;
|Animal Collective&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;quot;Now I've got these chores / and I'm not gonna hurt no-one&amp;quot; -- Hard work is praised and violence is discouraged. A scary song for [[liberals]]!&lt;br /&gt;
|NA&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=np0solnL1XY ''Free Bird'']&lt;br /&gt;
|Lynyrd Skynyrd&lt;br /&gt;
|Because [[Conservatives]] want a free country, and [[liberals]] are in love with [[communism]].&lt;br /&gt;
|19&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|[http://www.ixlyrics.com/CLIVE-DUNN/GRANDAD.html ''Grandad'']&lt;br /&gt;
|Clive Dunn&lt;br /&gt;
|UK Number 1 hit, in praise of senior citizens and their values&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jeWZhuzFMM8 ''The Ascent of Stan'']&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Ben Folds]]&lt;br /&gt;
|Tells the story of a former &amp;quot;textbook hippie man&amp;quot; who realizes that he has become everything that he was protesting against.&lt;br /&gt;
|NA&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|''Starting All Over Again''&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Petula Clark]]&lt;br /&gt;
|Keep moving onward, even in the most difficult of times.&lt;br /&gt;
|NA&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|[http://youtu.be/bCFWyLwcR6E ''Thank You My Lord'']&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Petula Clark]]&lt;br /&gt;
|The title says it all.&lt;br /&gt;
|NA&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|[http://youtu.be/7NJMTmz7pkg ''Brick'']&lt;br /&gt;
|Ben Folds Five&lt;br /&gt;
|Shows the regret involved in abortion.&lt;br /&gt;
|6 (Modern Rock Tracks)&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|[http://youtu.be/Dw6qmYX1ny4 ''Alive'']&lt;br /&gt;
|P.O.D.&lt;br /&gt;
|About being thankful for the gift of life.&lt;br /&gt;
|2 (US Alternative)&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c_iNdbPvrYk ''Jesus Christ'']&lt;br /&gt;
|Brand New&lt;br /&gt;
|The singer turns to God for advice and assurance.&lt;br /&gt;
|30 (Hot Modern Rock Tracks)&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|[http://www.bobdylan.com/songs/serve.html ''Gotta Serve Somebody'']&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Bob Dylan]]&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;quot;It may be the devil or it may be the Lord.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|24&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lydBPm2KRaU ''Jesus, Take The Wheel'']&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Carrie Underwood]]&lt;br /&gt;
|A gospel-themed hit from the American Idol winner.&lt;br /&gt;
|1 (US Country)&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XPBwXKgDTdE ''Mine'']&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Taylor Swift]]&lt;br /&gt;
|Talks about how her parents stooped to [[liberal values]] and divorced, and how she doesn't want that to happen with the guy she meets, dates, and marries.&lt;br /&gt;
|1 (US Adult Contemporary)&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|[http://youtu.be/FAvQSkK8Z8U ''Red Barchetta'']&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Rush]]&lt;br /&gt;
|Tells the story of a future with excessive regulation, where even driving is illegal.&lt;br /&gt;
|NA&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|[http://youtu.be/K5N2WJ1szHE ''Father of Mine'']&lt;br /&gt;
|Everclear&lt;br /&gt;
|A reminder of the importance of good parenting. Everclear singer Art Alexakis wrote much of his material from his own perspective of a troubled childhood. At the end of the song, Alexakis promises to be a better father than his own had been.&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Maz9ddxEQnM ''Taxman'']&lt;br /&gt;
|[[The Beatles]]&lt;br /&gt;
|George Harrison said, &amp;quot;Taxman was when I first realized that even though we had started earning money, we were actually giving most of it away in taxes.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|NA&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V4eonyfRet8&amp;amp;feature=related ''Back in the U.S.A.'']&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Chuck Berry]]&lt;br /&gt;
|A patriotic song about missing life in the U.S.A.&lt;br /&gt;
|16&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZVPv9B-ZlM ''Government Cheese'']&lt;br /&gt;
|The Rainmakers&lt;br /&gt;
|Humorous spoof of welfare.&lt;br /&gt;
|NA&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ErPywgiMb4k ''Angry Young Man'']&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Billy Joel]]&lt;br /&gt;
|The doctrinaire leftist radical with &amp;quot;his fist in the air and his head in the sand&amp;quot; comes in for biting criticism.&lt;br /&gt;
|NA&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rzU2iJ9qfXg ''Gimme Back My Bullets'']&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Lynyrd Skynyrd]]&lt;br /&gt;
|The name says it all.&lt;br /&gt;
|NA&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WPPlGFh6OpQ ''Spirit In The Sky'']&lt;br /&gt;
|Norman Greenbaum&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=38oeBgvbMYA ''Don't Let 'Em Take Your Gun'']&lt;br /&gt;
|Grand Funk Railroad&lt;br /&gt;
|A father gives his son some sage advice.&lt;br /&gt;
|NA&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=096LhjGNNCk ''Something For Nothing'']&lt;br /&gt;
|Rush&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;quot;You can't get something for nothing, you can't have freedom for free.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|NA&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|[http://youtu.be/kD5M_i6JceU ''Neighborhood Bully'']&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Bob Dylan]]&lt;br /&gt;
|Israel's right to exist and defend itself.&lt;br /&gt;
|NA&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2duiu0W_TSA&amp;amp;feature=fvst ''New Divide'']&lt;br /&gt;
|Linkin Park&lt;br /&gt;
|Depicts a typical scenario of conservatives having to defend themselves from unreasonable liberal attacks and the ever-widening divide between the two ideologies.&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|[http://youtu.be/4ZEE8utquP8 ''Get it Right the First Time'']&lt;br /&gt;
|Louisiana's LeRoux&lt;br /&gt;
|Wealthy Georgia politician is placed in high office and turns out to be a puppet with no ideas of his own.  Released in 1980 when Jimmy Carter was up for re-election.&lt;br /&gt;
|NA&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o2UE5g72s0o ''Yours Is No Disgrace'']&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Yes]]&lt;br /&gt;
|Written to, and about, the troops headed for Vietnam.&lt;br /&gt;
|NA&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|[http://youtu.be/zapGC2PrWiU ''Fair Exchange''] and [http://youtu.be/cnijc9wNpV4 ''Sparks of the Tempest'']&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Kansas (band)|Kansas]]&lt;br /&gt;
|Warnings about totalitarian governments who want to take away your freedom in the name of utopia.  Also much of their early 80s material, which has Christian lyrics.&lt;br /&gt;
|NA&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|[http://youtu.be/OtZ5YsvREi4 ''In America'']&lt;br /&gt;
|The [[Charlie Daniels]] Band&lt;br /&gt;
|Patriotism makes a comeback in response to the Iran hostage crisis and Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.&lt;br /&gt;
|11&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|''Storm the Embassy''&lt;br /&gt;
|The Stray Cats&lt;br /&gt;
|Another conservative song about the Iran hostage crisis.  &amp;quot;Fifteen man taken captive in a hostile foreign land/Scorchin' sun beaming down onto miles and miles of sand...&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|NA&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|''We Must Take America Back''&lt;br /&gt;
|Steve Vaus&lt;br /&gt;
|Became an underground country music hit in 1992 after RCA dropped him and took the album out of print due to the political lyrics.&lt;br /&gt;
|NA&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|''Renegade''&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Steppenwolf]]&lt;br /&gt;
|[[John Kay]]'s childhood escape from Communist [[East Germany]].&lt;br /&gt;
|NA&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xqXAW2snGMI ''Capitalism'']&lt;br /&gt;
|Oingo Boingo&lt;br /&gt;
|There's nothing wrong with free enterprise.&lt;br /&gt;
|NA&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|[http://youtu.be/C68J1tJM6vU ''Unborn Child'']&lt;br /&gt;
|Seals and Crofts&lt;br /&gt;
|This pro-life song was a hit single in 1974, but for some reason gets left off the Seals and Crofts greatest hits albums.&lt;br /&gt;
|66&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|[http://youtu.be/bHpw6CzprNY ''Bad Rap (Who You Tryin' To Kid, Kid?)'']&lt;br /&gt;
|Steve Taylor&lt;br /&gt;
|Takes aim at LA and NY hipsters, the Village Voice, abortion, and &amp;quot;the left-wing band with their head in the sand&amp;quot;.&lt;br /&gt;
|NA&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|''Last Kiss''&lt;br /&gt;
|Wayne Cochran and the C.C. Riders&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;quot;Oh where oh where can my baby be; The Lord took her away from me; She's gone to heaven so I got to be good; So I can see my baby when.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|2 (J. Frank Wilson version)&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|''America USA''&lt;br /&gt;
|Joey Sudyka&lt;br /&gt;
|Not very well known, perhaps, but a good patriotic song.&lt;br /&gt;
|NA&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i6XZDb045xU ''Red White &amp;amp; Blue (Love It or Leave)'']&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Lynyrd Skynyrd]]&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|27&lt;br /&gt;
|-SCHLAFLY IM HATE WHAT YOU REPRESENT, YOU NEED TO STAY MORE TRUE TO GODS BIBLE, AS A GOD FEARING MAN IM ASHAMED OF YOU!!!! BEGONE! LEAVE THIS WORLD FOUL DEMON! I BANISH YOU!!!!!! YOU ARE A SCOURGE UPON THIS EARTH AND SO IS YOUR MOTHER AND YOU&amp;quot;RE NOT EVEN THAT GOOD LOOKING! AND BESIDES, I READ ON ANOTHER CONSERVATIVE SITE THAT YOU'RE SECRETLY A COMMUNIST!!!!&lt;br /&gt;
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XBohsCG8emk ''Simple Man'']&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Charlie Daniels]]&lt;br /&gt;
|A song about how drugs and poor politics are a result of people putting their bibles down. Also a strongly pro death penalty song.&lt;br /&gt;
|12&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|[http://youtu.be/p6q9nBusrq8 ''That Smell'']&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Lynyrd Skynyrd]]&lt;br /&gt;
|A very strong anti-drug use song by America's most well-known Southern rock band.&lt;br /&gt;
|NA&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|''Courtesy of the Red, White &amp;amp; Blue (The Angry American)''&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Toby Keith]]&lt;br /&gt;
|A patriotic response to the Sept. 11 attacks&lt;br /&gt;
|1 (Hot Country Songs)&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pldyz9VS2yY ''Under God'']&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Pat Boone]]&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|NA&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|[http://youtu.be/iq10bz3PxyY ''Christmas Shoes'']&lt;br /&gt;
|NewSong&lt;br /&gt;
|A Christmas song by a Christian band. &lt;br /&gt;
|1 (Adult Contemporary)&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|[http://www.scoutsongs.com/lyrics/proudtobeamerican.html ''God Bless the USA'']&lt;br /&gt;
|Lee Greenwood&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|7 (Hot Country)&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|''God Bless America''&lt;br /&gt;
|Irving Berlin&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|NA&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5kZ0pA9REyU ''No Opportunity Necessary, No Experience Needed'']&lt;br /&gt;
|Richie Havens (Covered by Yes)&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;quot;...I know your cross is heavier With every step Every step But I know a man who'd walk miles for you...&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|NA&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pCXiuqJ1E6g ''Supper's Ready'']&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Genesis (band)|Genesis]]&lt;br /&gt;
|''There's an angel standing in the sun, and he's crying with a loud voice, &amp;quot;This is the supper of the mighty one&amp;quot;, Lord of Lords, King of Kings, Has returned to lead his children home, To take them to the new Jerusalem.''&lt;br /&gt;
|NA&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoaH0I9UwLI ''Your Love Is Extravagant'']&lt;br /&gt;
|Casting Crowns&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|NA&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VnnhYE1DhC4 ''What If His People Prayed'']&lt;br /&gt;
|Casting Crowns&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|NA&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9EBiei21-C8 ''King Without a Crown'']&lt;br /&gt;
|Matisyahu&lt;br /&gt;
|A Hasidic Jew raps about God as the source of happiness and salvation from the things of this world: &amp;quot;If you're drowning in the waters and you can't stay afloat ask Hashem for mercy and He'll throw you a rope.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|7 (Hot Modern Rock Tracks)&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|''Take Me Home, Country Roads''&lt;br /&gt;
|John Denver&lt;br /&gt;
|Celebrates Southern country landscape and traditions.&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|[http://youtu.be/RCqxq6xqoXI ''Sin City'']&lt;br /&gt;
|The Flying Burrito Brothers&lt;br /&gt;
|Attacks modern decadence and predicts divine punishment for sin.&lt;br /&gt;
|NA&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|''I Saw The Light''&lt;br /&gt;
|Hank Williams&lt;br /&gt;
|Redemption of sin through faith.&lt;br /&gt;
|NA&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|''No Son of Mine''&lt;br /&gt;
|Genesis&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|12&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|[http://youtu.be/v9BtLRWbkmA ''Don't Stop (Thinking About Tomorrow)'']&lt;br /&gt;
|Fleetwood Mac&lt;br /&gt;
|Used by Bill Clinton as his campaign theme song in 1992, but liberals often try to appeal to conservative themes for elections.&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|[http://youtu.be/Ke-r2K0ymWc ''Lightning Crashes'']&lt;br /&gt;
|Live&lt;br /&gt;
|The joy and significance of childbirth.&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|''Takin' Care of Business''&lt;br /&gt;
|Bachman-Turner Overdrive&lt;br /&gt;
|The work ethic and promoting self-employment.&lt;br /&gt;
|12&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|''Cat's In The Cradle''&lt;br /&gt;
|Harry Chapin&lt;br /&gt;
|The importance of traditional families and responsible fatherhood.&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|[http://www.songfacts.com/detail.php?id=6547 ''The Devil Went Down To Georgia'']&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Charlie Daniels]]&lt;br /&gt;
|A deeper message here, as Daniels explains.&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|''The Big Money''&lt;br /&gt;
|Rush&lt;br /&gt;
|Pro-[[capitalism]]&lt;br /&gt;
|45&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|''Real American''&lt;br /&gt;
|Rick Derringer&lt;br /&gt;
|Patriotic anthem, known as [[Hulk Hogan]]'s pre-match song.&lt;br /&gt;
|NA&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SP5EfwBWgg0&amp;amp;feature=related ''Go Down Moses'']&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Louis Armstrong]]&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|NA&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I5zEP4kvfnc ''Walking Contradiction'']&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Green Day]]&lt;br /&gt;
|Though a vocal critic of the [[Bush Administration]], here [[Green Day]] mocks the often self-contradictory and inconsistent [[liberal]] ideologies, hence the term &amp;quot;walking contradiction&amp;quot;.&lt;br /&gt;
|21&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|''God and Guns''&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Lynyrd Skynyrd]]&lt;br /&gt;
|A powerful new song that elaborates on the song title.&lt;br /&gt;
|NA&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|''Stayin' Alive''&lt;br /&gt;
|[[The Bee Gees]]&lt;br /&gt;
|Pro-people and pro-staying alive, and this: &amp;quot;we can try to understand/the [[New York Times]]' effect on man.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|''Sympathy for the Devil''&lt;br /&gt;
|The Rolling Stones&lt;br /&gt;
|Reminds humanity that evil is present in the world and needs to be fought.&lt;br /&gt;
|NA&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XVsZap7WBm8 ''All In'']&lt;br /&gt;
|Lifehouse&lt;br /&gt;
|Describes a relationship with God as being full of commitment and without reservations.&lt;br /&gt;
|NA&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0y5GDvN9_OE ''The Ballad of the Green Berets'']&lt;br /&gt;
|Sergeant Barry Sadler&lt;br /&gt;
|Pro-American and pro-military.&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|''Iraq No Phobia''&lt;br /&gt;
|Pro-Pain&lt;br /&gt;
|It is a pro-American, pro-military heavy metal song about the first [[Gulf War]]: ''&amp;quot;Mohammed's no match for the great Uncle Sam.&amp;quot;''&lt;br /&gt;
|NA&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|''Bus Stop''&lt;br /&gt;
|The Hollies&lt;br /&gt;
|Pro-[[chivalry]], pro-romance and pro-marriage: &amp;quot;Someday my name and hers are going to be the same.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|''Stranger in Blue Suede Shoes''&lt;br /&gt;
|Kevin Ayers&lt;br /&gt;
|Defends the right of businessmen to choose their customers: &amp;quot;we don't serve strangers in blue suede shoes&amp;quot;.&lt;br /&gt;
|NA&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|''Union Sundown''&lt;br /&gt;
|Bob Dylan&lt;br /&gt;
|The title says it all.&lt;br /&gt;
|NA&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|''People Get Ready''&lt;br /&gt;
|Curtis Mayfield and the Impressions&lt;br /&gt;
|An all-time classic song about the glory of the [[Lord]].&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|''Get a Job''&lt;br /&gt;
|The Silhouettes&lt;br /&gt;
|Self-explanatory; a rebuke to lazy [[liberals]] who want to sit around and wait for government handouts.&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|''Pray''&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Justin Bieber]]&lt;br /&gt;
|A song about supporting your country.&lt;br /&gt;
|61&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|''Hypnotize''&lt;br /&gt;
|System of a Down&lt;br /&gt;
|SOAD is a rather left-ish band although this song is about liberals believing anything they see or hear in the media.&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|''Gematria (The Killing Name)''&lt;br /&gt;
|Slipknot&lt;br /&gt;
|This song is about what the liberals of America, who can get ''very'' annoying sometimes.&lt;br /&gt;
|NA&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|''Don't Tread On Me''&lt;br /&gt;
|Metallica&lt;br /&gt;
|Name says it all!&lt;br /&gt;
|21&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|''Welcome to the Family''&lt;br /&gt;
|Avenged Sevenfold&lt;br /&gt;
|A song about death row, although not anti-death penalty.&lt;br /&gt;
|8&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|[http://youtu.be/fHvf20Y6eoM ''Turn, Turn, Turn'']&lt;br /&gt;
|The Byrds&lt;br /&gt;
|An almost word-for-word direct quotation from the [[Bible]], specifically [[Ecclesiastes]], with the addition of the refrain &amp;quot;Turn, Turn, Turn&amp;quot;.&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|''Critical Acclaim''&lt;br /&gt;
|Avenged Sevenfold&lt;br /&gt;
|Pro-America and pro-Military.&lt;br /&gt;
|NA&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|''The Star Spangled Banner''&lt;br /&gt;
|Francis Scott Key&lt;br /&gt;
|The American national anthem.&lt;br /&gt;
|NA&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|[http://www.lyricsfreak.com/p/pearl+jam/dissident_20106414.html ''Dissident'']&lt;br /&gt;
|Pearl Jam&lt;br /&gt;
|About a woman who engages in [[liberal values]] by being impregnated out of wedlock and having an abortion, but immediately regrets doing so.&lt;br /&gt;
|3&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|[http://www.justsomelyrics.com/767663/McCarthy-Keep-an-Open-Mind-or-Else-Lyrics ''Keep an Open Mind or Else'']&lt;br /&gt;
|McCarthy&lt;br /&gt;
|About the conservative value of keeping an [[Essay:Quantifying Openmindedness|open mind]].&lt;br /&gt;
|NA&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|''Way Out Here''&lt;br /&gt;
|Josh Thompson&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;quot;Our house is all protected by the good Lord and a Gun&amp;quot;, and &amp;quot;We wont take a dime if we aint earned it, when it comes to weight, brother we pull our own&amp;quot;. It is pro gun ownership, the Lord, and hard work. Also preaches the morals and ethics that are known from small towns.&lt;br /&gt;
|15 (US Country)&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|''D-I-V-O-R-C-E''&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Tammy Wynette]]&lt;br /&gt;
|This sad song was a huge hit in 1968.&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|''Respect''&lt;br /&gt;
|Aretha Franklin&lt;br /&gt;
|This song is about respecting woman and their choices to be equal members in society.&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1cxwIWPJV0I ''A Better Tomorrow'']&lt;br /&gt;
|Wu-Tang Clan&lt;br /&gt;
|A rap song about staying away from liberal excess and illegal acts in order to be a positive influence for the next generation.&lt;br /&gt;
|NA&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|[http://youtu.be/5Jxnt-QY-j4 ''Game of Love'']&lt;br /&gt;
|Wayne Fontana and the Mindbenders&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;quot;The purpose of a man is to love a woman, and the purpose of a woman is to love a man...  It started long ago in the Garden of Eden when Adam said to Eve 'Baby, you're for me.'&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|''It's America''&lt;br /&gt;
|Rodney Atkins&lt;br /&gt;
|Celebrates the American spirit and all the good things about the United States.&lt;br /&gt;
|1 (US Country)&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eebfMFzJHNs&amp;amp;ob=av2e ''Warning'']&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Green Day]]&lt;br /&gt;
|Though a vocal critic of the [[Bush Administration]] and clearly supportive of [[liberal values]], here they once again challenge liberal values with this song that mocks the liberal Nanny-state.&lt;br /&gt;
|3 (US Alternative)&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZHAFmFsb9XM&amp;amp;feature=related ''The Fightin' Side of Me'']&lt;br /&gt;
|Merle Haggard&lt;br /&gt;
|A song about patriotism and standing up for [[America]].&lt;br /&gt;
|1 (Hot Country Singles)&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mA_H6C8iLPA ''Liberalism is a Mental Disorder'']&lt;br /&gt;
|The Infidel (Gregory Van Leer Jr.) with an opening from [[Michael Savage]]&lt;br /&gt;
|Clearly attacks [[liberal values]].&lt;br /&gt;
|NA&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|[http://www.robertchristgau.com/get_artist.php?name=sex+pistols''Bodies'']&lt;br /&gt;
|The Sex Pistols&lt;br /&gt;
|Profane but graphically anti-abortion.&lt;br /&gt;
|NA&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1h1oRP7FfBw ''Sunny Afternoon'']&lt;br /&gt;
|The Kinks&lt;br /&gt;
|About a rich man trying to enjoy the simple things in life because the Nanny-state has nearly bankrupted him.&lt;br /&gt;
|14&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|''2+2=5 (The Lukewarm)''&lt;br /&gt;
|Radiohead&lt;br /&gt;
|A song chastising people for accepting the mainstream medias version of events and not paying attention.&lt;br /&gt;
|NA&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|''No Children''&lt;br /&gt;
|The Mountain Goats&lt;br /&gt;
|A song about a marriage falling apart because the couple has no children to hold the family together.&lt;br /&gt;
|NA&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PuUmLIPSasI ''God Loves My Country'']&lt;br /&gt;
|Balthrop, Alabama&lt;br /&gt;
|A song that declares that God loves America most of all.&lt;br /&gt;
|NA&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RVOEoo1oXBs ''Declaration Day'']&lt;br /&gt;
|Iced Earth&lt;br /&gt;
|A song about the Revolutionary War.&lt;br /&gt;
|NA&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r1IpcvdF6jc ''Boulevard of Broken Dreams'']&lt;br /&gt;
|Green Day&lt;br /&gt;
|Though critical of the Bush Administration, they clearly depict what a liberal life is like.&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-zZE0SrkyNE&amp;amp;ob=av2n ''Where'd You Go'']&lt;br /&gt;
|Fort Minor&lt;br /&gt;
|Shows the hardship of divorce, liberal values, and the possible future of the families of our service men who could be forced to serve in Libya.&lt;br /&gt;
|2&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|''Patriotism''&lt;br /&gt;
|Company Flow&lt;br /&gt;
|While containing bad language it endorses the US as a super-power.&lt;br /&gt;
|NA&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ypkv0HeUvTc ''The Beautiful People'']&lt;br /&gt;
|Marilyn Manson&lt;br /&gt;
|Despite foul language, it endorses free thought and individuality while criticizing liberal hypocrisy and fascism.&lt;br /&gt;
|29&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|''Tribute''&lt;br /&gt;
|Tenacious D&lt;br /&gt;
|Comedy single, but it's also a very popular song about overcoming Satan and alludes to many other Christian themes such as heaven and hell.&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|''Country Trash''&lt;br /&gt;
|Johnny Cash&lt;br /&gt;
|In a comedic way, the song praises the small town conservative virtues of the people looked down upon by big city liberals as &amp;quot;Country trash&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B-pQBDE5Gbg ''Me Against The World'']&lt;br /&gt;
|Simple Plan&lt;br /&gt;
|As conservatives and Christians, [[liberal bias]] is all around us, in the media for example, trying to pressure us on a bandwagon to be like them and worship at the altar of liberalism and godlessness. It is up to us to stand up for what is right, even if we have to go up against the world.&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|''For Martha''&lt;br /&gt;
|The Smashing Pumpkins&lt;br /&gt;
|Being torn between the anguish of losing a lost one and the joy of knowing you will one day reunite them with in heaven&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|''Do You Hear the People Sing''&lt;br /&gt;
|Claude-Michel Schönberg&lt;br /&gt;
|Standing up to government in the name of freedom, from the musical ''Les Miserables''&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cDIGzzeQjaE ''Dethharmonic'']&lt;br /&gt;
|Dethklok&lt;br /&gt;
|Anti-tax&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|''Get Over It''&lt;br /&gt;
|The Eagles&lt;br /&gt;
|Written by Don Henley (who is a liberal) about his frustration of people blaming others for their own problems and believing the world owes them a favor ''&amp;quot;the big bad world doesn't owe you a thing,&amp;quot;''&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iR6oYX1D-0w &amp;quot;I Need A Dollar&amp;quot;]&lt;br /&gt;
|Aloe Blacc&lt;br /&gt;
|&amp;quot;Please Mr.Bossman I need this job more than you can know&amp;quot; - an excellent paean to the plights of unemployment&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-sEqzEgDZ0g &amp;quot;Ain't I Right&amp;quot;]&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Marty Robbins]]&lt;br /&gt;
|Song against communism and socialism.&lt;br /&gt;
|&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6yq8zn15EPE &amp;quot;Somebody Must Be Prayin' For Me]&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Tim McGraw]]&lt;br /&gt;
|Song about prayer and how it is a necessary part of everyday life.&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Please add your best conservative picks. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Debatable Whether Conservative ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The top five in a poll of the greatest songs in the 20th century, according to the Recording Industry Association of America and the [[NEA]]:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*''Over the Rainbow'' (Judy Garland)&lt;br /&gt;
*''White Christmas'' (Bing Crosby)&lt;br /&gt;
*''Respect'' (Aretha Franklin)&lt;br /&gt;
*''American Pie'' (Don McLean)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== References ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;references/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Essays]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[category:Music]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>CaptainSwing</name></author>
	</entry>
</feed>