<?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=Countryforchrist</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=Countryforchrist"/>
	<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Contributions/Countryforchrist"/>
	<updated>2026-11-08T11:53:53Z</updated>
	<subtitle>User contributions</subtitle>
	<generator>MediaWiki 1.35.14</generator>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:CE&amp;diff=456093</id>
		<title>Talk:CE</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:CE&amp;diff=456093"/>
		<updated>2008-05-18T22:28:43Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Countryforchrist: /* ISO 8601 */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;{{protect|Aschlafly}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Comments==&lt;br /&gt;
Since others have already commented about the tolerance issue among scholarly works, I'll pass over that issue except to say that they are correct and it would be an error to assume that it is an attempt to destroy Christianity.  However, the related point that I would like to address is the article statement that reads &amp;quot;While use of &amp;quot;Common Era&amp;quot; attempts to erase recognition for the Christian basis of the calendar, there are not similar attempts to erase non-Christian religious names from the calendar, such as the days of the week named after Norse gods.&amp;quot;  In fact, although it is not accepted by the &amp;quot;common culture&amp;quot; of the United States, the Religious Society of Friends (Quakers) did away with the names for the days and months centuries ago in order not to give creedance to other gods even in common speech.  They count the days or months instead of naming them.  For instance, January is called First Month and Sunday is called First Day.  In the last generation, many Quakers have discontinued this custom, but it survived for centuries and is still practiced by some of the older or most conservative Quakers.  Most of them still retain it where it has become part of the name of something.  For instance, Quaker children do not go to Sunday School but rather to First Day School.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In point of fact, all religions/ denominations/ societies reckon time by the significant dates in their religious history -- where they figure the start date from, what they call things, etc.  It makes as much sense for Christians to reckon time as the (approximate) birth of Jesus as it does for Jews or Confucians to reckon it from Creation or Muslims to reckon it from the Hajj.  By the same token, it makes sense for each of them to count time passed with reference to the things they consider holy -- the things of the life cycle, the yearly cycle, etc.  The names of the days and months are no different, so it's a wonder that the rest of the culture didn't do as the Quakers long ago in naming the days and months since most of the culture was at least nominally Christian. -- VJR&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Isn't the BCE/CE designed to be more inclusive of other cultures that do not believe in Christianity.  For non-Christians, having the birth and death of Christ as starting points to a calendar must seem rather arbitrary. --[[User:Truth is bipartisan|Truth is bipartisan]] 17:16, 14 March 2007 (EDT) &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Actually, on checking, I find that &amp;quot;common era&amp;quot; can be &lt;br /&gt;
*a generic term meaning ''any'' standardized system of numbering years based on any epoch, e.g. the Jewish year is in &amp;quot;the common era of the Jews.&amp;quot; &lt;br /&gt;
*a term used to distinguish the &amp;quot;ordinary&amp;quot; BC/AD epoch ''from others used by Christians.'' E.g. &amp;quot;puts his death in the seventh year of Trajan, i.e. in 104 of the common era.&amp;quot;[http://books.google.com/books?vid=OCLC04334900&amp;amp;id=qLfiIApQVDkC&amp;amp;pg=PA33&amp;amp;lpg=PA33&amp;amp;dq=%22common+era%22&amp;amp;as_brr=1]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
And the phrase has been in use for well over a century. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thus: &amp;quot;The common era of the Jews places the creation in B. C. 3760&amp;quot; (where B. C. here means &amp;quot;before the common era ''of the Jews.'') [http://books.google.com/books?vid=0HE_WUCP1d5BX8OJ&amp;amp;id=GMfyJ2PeD-cC&amp;amp;pg=RA12-PA207&amp;amp;lpg=RA12-PA207&amp;amp;as_brr=1 1874: The popular encyclopedia, volume V, p. 307]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;It was probably the original intention of Caefar to commence the new year with the fhorteft day, the winter folftice at Rome, in the year 46 B. C. (common era).&amp;quot; [http://books.google.com/books?vid=OCLC03079044&amp;amp;id=cS8EAAAAIAAJ&amp;amp;pg=RA2-PA4&amp;amp;lpg=RA2-PA4&amp;amp;&amp;amp;as_brr=1 1889: &amp;quot;Handy-book of Rules and Tables for Verifying Dates with the Christian Era&amp;quot;]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;Prior to the year A. D. 1865, the Jewish style, namely, the year of the world, was observed by Red Men in dating their documents. At the council held in G. S. 1526, this system was discontinued, and G. S. D. or Great Sun of the Discovery was adopted, the year 1492 being considered G. S. D. 1. To find the date of the old style, add to the common era 3760; e.g. 1877 + 3760 = 5637. To find the date by Red Men's style, subtract 1491 from the common era.&amp;quot; (&amp;quot;Red Men&amp;quot; here is a reference to a fraternal organization.) [http://books.google.com/books?vid=OCLC03825672&amp;amp;id=kZLbGv92SjUC&amp;amp;pg=RA16-PA495&amp;amp;lpg=RA16-PA495&amp;amp;as_brr=1 1893: Official History of the Improved Order of Red Men].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So it's not a ''new'' phrase. In fact, it seems to me that &amp;quot;Christian era&amp;quot; means &amp;quot;the system used by Christians,&amp;quot; whereas calling the AD/BC system the &amp;quot;common era&amp;quot; means &amp;quot;this system used by everyone&amp;quot; and thus emphasizes that Christian usage is '''the''' general usage of our society.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The story may be more complicated than that, but that's what I've found so far. Not sure when, how, by whom or for what reason the abbreviations BCE and CE were introduced. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 21:22, 20 December 2006 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:That's fascinating material.  Thanks.  Maybe I'm obsessed with this, but it does seem odd that a phrase recently pushed by schools, Wikipedia writers and tests has unknown origin.  It's not even in the 1972 dictionary!!!  In a current dictionary, it's defined as a substitute for BC/AD without any reference to Jewish people.  My quote from the online rabbi shows Judaism is not the source.&lt;br /&gt;
:I'll study your sources further. --[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:22, 20 December 2006 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Well, your quote from the rabbi shows that he doesn't know the source.  In Rabbi Raphall's &amp;quot;Post Biblical History of the Jews&amp;quot;, he uses BCE, and you start seeing &amp;quot;BCE&amp;quot; and either &amp;quot;ACE&amp;quot; or &amp;quot;CE&amp;quot; from 1890 on.--[[User:Epicurius|Epicurius]] 13:52, 26 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
888888888888888888888888888&lt;br /&gt;
What do you mean &amp;quot;It's not in the 1972 dictionary&amp;quot;? Is that the Complete Websters, the Oxford or some dog-eared little junior high book? Here's a current definition from a free on-line encyclopedia at http://www.reference.com/search?q=Common%20Era &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;The Common era (also known as the Christian era or the Current era, abbreviated to CE) is the period of measured time beginning with the year 1 on the Gregorian calendar. The notations CE and BCE (Before the Common Era) are alternative notations for AD (anno Domini, Latin for &amp;quot;in the year of (Our) Lord&amp;quot;) and BC (Before Christ), respectively. The CE/BCE system of notation is chronologically equivalent to dates in the AD/BC system, i.e. no change in numbering is used and neither includes a year zero. The abbreviations may also be written C.E. and B.C.E.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The term common era is preferred by some as an alternative to the more overtly religious AD and BC, since Common Era does not explicitly make use of religious titles for Jesus, such as Christ and Lord, which are used in the AD/BC notation. Some criticize Common Era notation as a euphemism that does not alter the pivotal year one still centering on the life of Jesus. Many others criticize the notation as an unnecessary attempt at political correctness.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This is the sort of clear and simple info, obtainable at the press of a button that the writer of this article has struggled for 25 years (in vain) to determine, receiving no help from a nameless &amp;quot;professor of European history&amp;quot; as quoted here:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;Now, 25 years and a number of common errors later, I assume that Common Era simply means &amp;quot;the date commonly accepted and used.&amp;quot; But the truth is that I don't know, so I asked your question to a professor of European history. He didn't know either. (Last two sentences bolded to emphasise the enormous irony of it all)&amp;quot; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We are indeed fortunate that someone so self-confessedly ignorant on a subject should not have been deterred from knocking off a piece on that very matter for a global encyclopedia.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Some brief points:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
1. I was taught that the BCE/CE dating convention was adopted primarily for works of an academic nature, typically in the fields of comparative religious studies and the like, where there is a focus on inter-faith dialogue, so as not to appear unnecessarily chauvinistic in asserting the tenets of Christian faith over those of others. In particular the Jews most expressly do NOT believe that Jesus “Was [their] Saviour” as is implied by the words behind the acronyms. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2. Call this a sop, or “caving in to the enemy” or whatever, but it was never intended to indicate that Christians were abandoning their faith, but merely as a gesture of tolerance within fields of study where respect for diversity (and OTHER PEOPLE'S faith) was essential. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
3. To foment an acrid dispute over suchlike sounds a lot like the battle of the Big Endians and Little Endians in Swift’s “Gulliver’s Travellers”. Or, more recently and far less fictiously, the kind of throat-cutting vendettas pursued by Balkans over how many fingers you should use when you cross yourself. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
4. Personally, if this upsets SOME conservatives so much - those who have divined in this practice a wholesale betrayal of the faith of their fathers - I would quite gladly recommend reversion to the earlier practice. Frankly, wise and well-intentioned man and women of all faiths would understand the nature of the predicament, more than many of you will begin to guess. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
5. This controversy, and the even more asinine one on “American spellings”, seems to have provided the requisite steam power for blow-hards to arouse themselves to elevated levels of indignation and over what most other folk would perceive to be trifling matters of custom, protocol and etiquette. Here too, I would recommend adhering to American spelling, which is invariably simpler and more logical. But where would Conservapedia be if the Liberals relented on such epochal issues? &lt;br /&gt;
88888888888888888888888888888888&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:One thing: how exactly is American spelling of English more logical or simple than any other spelling?  &amp;quot;Organize&amp;quot; vs. &amp;quot;Organise.&amp;quot;  I'm having trouble seeing how logic applies.  Bigotry, maybe.  You're a moron.  --[[User:Eatsilk|Eatsilk]] 19:48, 10 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::There's probably an interesting story there. I grant you that the spread of BCE and CE probably ''do'' have ''something'' to do with acknowledging diversity, or political correctness, or liberalism, or something. It's always hard to find out how and why things go in and out of fashion, though. I have a long list of puzzles of that kind. Why did the phrase &amp;quot;to fill the bill&amp;quot; rather suddenly get replaced with &amp;quot;to fit the bill&amp;quot; circa 1990 or so? Why did the phrase &amp;quot;to go missing&amp;quot; or &amp;quot;went missing,&amp;quot; which I'd always thought were British, suddenly become ubiquitous in the U. S. starting in, I don't know, the late 1990s? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 05:46, 21 December 2006 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I heard that there were originally inacuracies in determining the times of various events which resulted in Jesus having been born in the year 4 B.C. It seems that with this information available, it would be foolish to continue saying that the year of our lord began when He was 4 years old. [[User:Scienceisstupid|Scienceisstupid]] 15:17, 21 June 2007 (PST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Original Research ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Should original research be allowed in this article? Also, CE is not some conspiracy that is trying to destroy the foundations of Christianity. There are no citations in this article even attempting to show that this view is held outside of this web page. AD/BC where established by Christian scholars and prevailed because the &amp;quot;western&amp;quot; powers remained solidly Christian and happened to colonize most of the world. Now, the world might be 1/6th Christian, but the other 5/6ths are not. Science is a consensus of scientist from around the world and do not only include the U.S. So it would not be prudent to keep the current age as Anno Domini, since the &amp;quot;Lord&amp;quot; is no longer consisting of the majority of the world. The usage of AD is still valid, but CE is not trying to discredit or undermine in some way the   original dating method. So I'm going to try to make this article more neutral in the future, but if a majority of you guys think i'm vandalizing or something like that, I'll move on.&lt;br /&gt;
As a side note, the Roman Catholic Church (the universal church of Christ) was responsible for the dark ages.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:So CE isn't trying to destroy the foundations of Christianity, but what it is trying to do is remove the word &amp;quot;Lord&amp;quot; from the vocabulary of the general public.  I absolutely love Liberal Logic!  --[[User:David R|&amp;amp;lt;&amp;amp;lt;-David R-&amp;amp;gt;&amp;amp;gt;]] 23:29, 6 March 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:: Well if I may, there is a real concern here for Jews and Muslims - saying that is the year of the lord is inaccurate and indeed arguably idol worship to use the term. So for those religions at least use of the term &amp;quot;AD&amp;quot; is very problematic (BC less so for obvious reasons). [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 23:33, 6 March 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:: If the general public doesn't want the the word &amp;quot;LORD&amp;quot; in the vocabulary then it shouldn't be there. Unless Christianity suddenly implodes i don't think just because a shift in the secular world from AD/BC to CE/BCE is going to do anything. My main concern is if we are trying to counter bias with bias? Also, i'm going to get rid of the original research in this article unless someone adds some citations or something cause i'm not sure where that comes from. [[User:Pinion|Pinion]] 00:50, 7 March 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::: If this was A Jewish or Muslim site, you might have a point. But as this is a Christian/Conservative Site that does not strive to be politically correct, your point is not valid. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 23:47, 6 March 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
:::: I wasn't commetning on whether it should be used ''here'' I was commenting on how the general motivations of those who use it are not nearly as nefarious as some editors here seem to think. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 23:55, 6 March 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Common Sense, ppl ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I've heard some good evidence and argument in this talk page, but the idea that BCE and CE are a liberal agenda thing or one of &amp;quot;wikipedia's bias&amp;quot; signs is an absolutely baseless and, furthermore, stupid notion. Let me introduce a theory:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We don't know the year of Jesus's birth. We DO know that it is almost absolutely NOT 0 BC/AD. [http://www.religioustolerance.org/xmas_date.htm#year]. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So BCE/CE was created with this date (since people are just used to it, no need to change it. Pretty conservative of them, wouldn't you say?) as the reference. It's just a reference date with no meaning, so we can have an absolute origin point on a timeline. Say it with me. &amp;quot;Its just a reference date.&amp;quot; That felt good, huh?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Don't you think it's a positive thing for the Christian religion to remove an obvious error from it? Hell, they do us a favor by just separating the two topics. You should be thankful, not suspicious. [[User:Muchodelcrazy|Muchodelcrazy]] 00:18, 8 March 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Rabbi Dialogue ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This dialogue is pointless and makes this article seem fabricated and arbitrary. --[[User:Truth is bipartisan|Truth is bipartisan]] 17:19, 14 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What is the point of the dialogue between the rabbi and whoever?  What purpose does it serve to illuminate people as to what CE means?  Furthermore the &amp;quot;reference&amp;quot; doesn't have any other references, nor does it even say who the professor of European history was.  It also doesn't have a copy of the transcript between the rabbi and the supposed professor. --[[User:Trekie9001|trekie9001]] 02:36, 9 March 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
:This section is unecessary and has to much first person.  It doesn't sound encyclopaedic.  [[User:Bobtexas|Bobtexas]] 02:35, 14 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Anecdotal evidence is the most wonderfully personal evidence there is. Too bad personal isn't the same as important. Allow me to cite a conversation I heard once between an onion farmer and a prince. It seems there was this onion farmer, you see… --[[User:Prometheus|Prometheus]] 01:31, 17 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The dialogue also does nothing to demonstrate the point it tries to make (illustrating that the term &amp;quot;Common Era&amp;quot; did not come from Judaism). Just because one rabbi was taught to refer to CE as the &amp;quot;Common Error&amp;quot; doesn't mean that all Rabbis were taught that (certainly not mine, who uses CE and BCE).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Christian Era==&lt;br /&gt;
Where is the proof that CE stands for Common Era? I thought that it stood for Christian Era. As the article implies, the term CE was not in wide use 35 years ago. It has since caught on, but for what reason?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The term Christian Era appears to be much older, and it is listed in all the major dictionaries, including Merriam-Webster's, American Heritage, and Compact Oxford English Dictionary. It may be true that CE was promoted by people claiming that it was a non-Christian term, but maybe it only was accepted by people who took it to mean Christian Era. Does anyone know?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think that the article should be revised to say that CE stands for Christian Era. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 12:40, 9 March 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: Yeah, then we can refrain from using CE, 'cause ''clearly'' it shows bias. --[[User:Prometheus|Prometheus]] 01:32, 17 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I can't source this, I assumed it was common knowledge....&lt;br /&gt;
An obvious reason for not wishing to use the BC AD system is that many feel term 'In the year of our Lord&amp;quot; aggressively exclusive. In an increasingly global society, we see most countries adopting our calender, and yet there is a great proportion, indeed a majority, who are not in fact christian and do not feel that God is 'Our' (Their) Lord. The point is that a calender does not need to be religious but by using the idea of Christian Era, no-one is denying the ancestry of the term (which debunks a fair portion of the current argument about anti-christianity)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Perhaps a good compromise between the ambiguous &amp;quot;Common Era&amp;quot; and the patronizing &amp;quot;Year of our Lord&amp;quot; would be something along the lines of AJ for &amp;quot;Year of Jesus.&amp;quot; It doesn't ignore the original meaning of the term, but it also doesn't imply, as many feel &amp;quot;AD&amp;quot; does, that the user personally accepts Jesus of Nazareth as his &amp;quot;Lord.&amp;quot; --[[User:Anschelsc|Anschelsc]] 16:13, 20 January 2008 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== References ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There are no references to whatever Common Era means only to some irrelevant site with a quotation explaining about someone not knowing what CE means.  Dictionaries could be referenced at least.  A brief skimming of most dictionaries will also come up with &amp;quot;Christian Era&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;Current Era&amp;quot; as other meanings for &amp;quot;CE.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Lack of dictionary definition ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Forgive me if I'm wrong, but might the reason for the fact that a 1972 edition of a dictionary might not have the term be that it wasn't in common use in 1972? You might try looking in a more modern dictionary. It doesn't seem like the most credible piece of evidence. [[User:Alethiophile|Alethiophile]] 18:25, 13 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I couldn't agree more.  I just finished a History undergraduate degree and we used CE/BCE exclusively. --[[User:Truth is bipartisan|Truth is bipartisan]] 17:16, 14 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I'm also inclined to agree. Currently the Merriam-Webster's Website does indeed have a definition for &amp;quot;Common Era&amp;quot;, linking it to &amp;quot;Christian Era&amp;quot;, which is defined as &amp;quot;the period dating from the birth of Christ&amp;quot;. Other dictionaries such as The American Heritage Dictionary and WordNet also have similar definitions. Also of importance is that, while the 1972 edition was the seventh Merriam-Webster's edition, the most current is the eleventh. I would recommend a deletion regarding that particular piece of evidence.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== hahahahahahahahaha ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
are you freakin kidding me??? PLEASE tell me this is a joke...&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Unfortunate Truth ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Unfortunately, no. There are, sadly, a lot of ignorant people in the world who truly believe that what they call &amp;quot;Conservatism&amp;quot; is, in fact, unbiased. This 'encyclopaedia' as they so insultingly call it is little more than an entire website subtly advocating the perpetuation of many of the evils which have led the world to the state it is in now. Intolerance, misinformation and insufficient education are but three of the factors in this ever-deepening spiral of destruction held on to by the last dying grasp of 'conservatism', a 'movement' which seeks dominion by stasis- a sheer lack of progress for the world. They try to deny such obvious truths such as Global Warming and Evolution while putting forward theories and hypotheses completely unfounded in science such as 'young earth theory'... seriously, who can say that this website is anything it supposes to stand for? Educational? It looks to me more like religious indoctrination like the old Taliban regime which they so criticize- little better than 'Terrorists'.&lt;br /&gt;
The terrorists issue is another point of failure for the Conservapedia. The rules and regulations clearly state- &amp;quot;No Liberalist Bias&amp;quot; and state the example of &amp;quot;terrorists&amp;quot; as &amp;quot;calling a spade a spade&amp;quot; so to speak and not attempting to hide their &amp;quot;true nature&amp;quot;. But isn't the &amp;quot;terrorist&amp;quot; label just another way of dehumanizing people who are essentially the same as us? All these unfortunate victims of conservative government after conservative government have arms, legs, heads just like the governments themselves. The only difference, you could say, is the way they go about things.&lt;br /&gt;
I ask: how true is this for real? How does a terrorist make his point? by yelling something in arabic then blowing up a truck? How does the U.S. military (An admirably conservative organisation) make it's point? By yelling something in English then blowing up an oil derrick? Or some Iraqis? Really, whoever does it- the Terrorists or the oh-so-very-friendly US military the Iraqis kind of get in the behind, don't they?&lt;br /&gt;
Let's face it. Conservatives in positions of power have, over a period of less than 200 years, brought the world to a point of political and environmental destruction. How can they deny Global Warming when its effects are clearly visible in highly populated areas of the world. How can they continue chugging CO2 into the atmosphere, completely blind to the destruction they cause? It is little more than childish greed, greed for power, money and resources, childish because they care only for themselves- not even their children. Because, by the time the world is set on a path to complete destruction where not even the powerful conservatives can save it, all the living leaders today will be dead. And that is why the do not care. They do not care about the environment. They do not care about your lives. All they care about is their own prosperity and happiness and the continuation of the status quo- because this status quo, this conservative ideal, is the one where their lives are perfect, where they have what they want. It's not about religion. It's not even about political orientation. It is nothing more than an evil self-feeding cycle where only the Conservatives gain.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Conservatives ARE the Devil.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Last time I checked, [[Global warming]] was not protected. If you have scientific evidence of the bad effects of higher average atmospheric temperature, please add it to the article. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] &amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 14:21, 21 June 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
THANK YOU!! This makes soo much sense. [[User:Potatocakes|Potatocakes]] 05:43, 25 March 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Article Locked? ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Why has this article been locked?  Surely this is against the principles of a freely editable encyclopedia?  Also and encyclopedia should present both the evidence/views '''for and against''' the topic in question - this article does not do this.  --[[User:Tomt|Tomt]] 11:59, 25 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Your thinking that this place is committed to neutrality.  It's not.  It's committed to promoting a viewpoint, one that is (happily) on the decline in the United States, where its proponents think it has its greatest strength.  --[[User:Eatsilk|Eatsilk]] 19:45, 10 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== I've always heard something different ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I've always heard that CE and BCE are very old terms meaning &amp;quot;Christian Era&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;Before the Christian Era.&amp;quot;--[[User:Ollie Garkey|Ollie Garkey]] 18:25, 1 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Did you hear that from some Christians?  Anyway, you heard wrong.  --[[User:Eatsilk|Eatsilk]] 19:43, 10 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Rabbi dialogue revisited ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The person who added this to the article is, sadly, a moron.  What exactly does this prove?  Also, the term is &amp;quot;Common Era&amp;quot; not (chuckle) &amp;quot;Christian Era.&amp;quot;  The people who made the calendars were Christian.  Now, in a global climate that has ''progressed'' to be more tolerant of individuals of different religious and cultural backgrounds, it has been decided by reasonable individuals not to enforce the religion of some upon the time-telling of everyone.  So, rather than change what day it is and and change the dates of all of history, we simply change the suffix from something that blatantly promotes ''one'' of the world's major religions to something less, say, offensive.  What exactly is the problem with acknowledging that not everyone believes what you do?  --[[User:Eatsilk|Eatsilk]] 19:42, 10 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: Why do some feel the urge to censor references to Christ?  If a date is based on the birth of Christ, then the basis for that date should be expressed in terms of Christ.  Give credit where it is due, even if you don't agree.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:57, 26 June 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Wikipedia's bias regarding this term ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This term is not used consistently on Wikipedia and liberals have seemed to make sure it's used in articles where it will generate the most scandal: e.g. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus Jesus].  (Indeed, the clumsy and unencyclopedic &amp;quot;BC/BCE&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;AD/CE&amp;quot; are used there.)  Look at other articles about historic places and persons and you will rarely find &amp;quot;BCE/CE&amp;quot; used: e.g. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plato Plato], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socrates Socrates], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tutankhamun Tutankhamun], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persia Persia], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Empire the Roman Empire], etc. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 15:40, 26 June 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: Good point, but [[CE]] is used many thousands, and perhaps even millions, of times on Wikipedia.  See [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Whatlinkshere/Common_Era].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:57, 26 June 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::So why then do the major articles I cited still use only the AD/BC designation? (That's a rhetorical question.) Wikipedia has no policy whatsoever about the use of AD/BC and CE/BCE and they've left it up to the users - users who are overwhelmingly liberal. It's too bad that it's extremely difficult to tell which articles were first changed to replace AD/BC or include CE/BCE. If someone did find out, I wouldn't be surprised if the article about Jesus was one of the first ones to be changed. In any case, I did a search on the top online encyclopedias other than Wikipedia and none of them use CE/BCE in any way. Not a one. To me, all this just shows the liberal bias that exists on Wikipedia. The CE/BCE designation is not in use in any major encyclopedias. It's only in use by godless intellectuals who like to think they're avoiding paying lip service to Jesus Christ by using it even though it uses the same &amp;quot;starting point&amp;quot; as AD/BC: the birth of Jesus. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 17:08, 27 June 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::And this matters because...? [[User:ProserpinaFC|ProserpinaFC]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== more common ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;Christian Era has a longer history of usage and appears in more web pages today.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The latter is easily contradicted by a simple Google search. The former is unsupported by any evidence. [[User:John Brown|John Brown]] 00:15, 30 October 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:No it's not.  BC/AD are more common than what you refer to, and instead of depending on Google, I suggest you hit the books at your local library.  [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 15:35, 24 March 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== The word &amp;quot;erase&amp;quot; ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Two of the more egregious sentences on this page, of which there are many, are the following:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*The term &amp;quot;Common Era&amp;quot; is an attempt to '''erase''' the historical basis for the primary calendar dating system in the Western world.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The idea that the use of different dating nomenclature is an attempt to somehow rewrite history is absurd.  The concept of inter-faith dialogue has been discussed here at length, and I will not discuss it any further.  Moving along:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*Numerous texts, '''particularly schoolbooks''', have replaced &amp;quot;B.C./A.D.&amp;quot; with &amp;quot;Common Era&amp;quot; symbols over the past decade.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This claim is completely uncited.  As an academic, I find it insulting. --[[User:Telephuse|Telephuse]] 20:45, 18 November 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== British date format becoming more common in America! ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If you think the fall of AD is a problem, that's only part of the story on dates. In my sister's world history book this morning, published in Boston, it shows every date written in the British style! (the day before the month and no comma before the year.) Will September 11 become the 11 September attacks? I'm sure this problem may emerge in the future! A suggest as an amendment to the AD/CE commandment is to make sure all dates have the month before the day as well. It's creeping into many American websites as well!&lt;br /&gt;
:The format you indicated (i.e. 11 September 2001) is also refered to as the military date format, and is used by the United States armed forces.  [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:27, 1 December 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It's also MLA format now and so is used in English classes as well. Personally I like the change, as moving from the smallest entity to the largest makes more sense. [[User:Rockthecasbah|Rockthecasbah]] 20:28, 14 April 2008 (EDT) (And it's the format that Conservapedia uses, as I noticed after posting with my four tildes.)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== ISO 8601 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This mentions ISO standard # 8601 as if it is contrary to &amp;quot;BCE&amp;quot; dating, but ISO 8601 it actually does not make any way for BC dates, it only starts at year &amp;quot;0000&amp;quot; which actually is 1 BC. In the software, one sees sometimes years -YYYY, but this is confusing because year &amp;quot;-100&amp;quot; is actually 101 BC, etcetera. ISO is anyway a globalist body, maybe thats why they dont give any way to represent Bible dates.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Étienne Léger&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: Yeah, I just checked ISO 8601 on the ISO website (http://www.iso.org/iso/catalogue_detail?csnumber=40874, access provided by my institute). ISO does not recognize CE/BCE, but it also does not recognize BC/AD. It mentions nothing about eras. I think this statement should be struck from the article, lest it divulge inaccurate information about the scope of ISO 8601 (which really just talks about visual parsing and formatting of date and time information). I'm sure there's an ISO relevant to this, but 8601 isn't it. --[[User:Countryforchrist|Countryforchrist]] 18:04, 17 May 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:: Update: I checked on the ISO's standards for BC/AD vs. BCE/CE. The ISO does not handle the issue of eras in dating. Maybe go with the [[APA]] standard or the [[MLA]] standard (though admittedly I don't know what those are)?&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Countryforchrist</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:CE&amp;diff=455505</id>
		<title>Talk:CE</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:CE&amp;diff=455505"/>
		<updated>2008-05-17T22:04:10Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Countryforchrist: /* ISO 8601 */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;{{protect|Aschlafly}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Comments==&lt;br /&gt;
Since others have already commented about the tolerance issue among scholarly works, I'll pass over that issue except to say that they are correct and it would be an error to assume that it is an attempt to destroy Christianity.  However, the related point that I would like to address is the article statement that reads &amp;quot;While use of &amp;quot;Common Era&amp;quot; attempts to erase recognition for the Christian basis of the calendar, there are not similar attempts to erase non-Christian religious names from the calendar, such as the days of the week named after Norse gods.&amp;quot;  In fact, although it is not accepted by the &amp;quot;common culture&amp;quot; of the United States, the Religious Society of Friends (Quakers) did away with the names for the days and months centuries ago in order not to give creedance to other gods even in common speech.  They count the days or months instead of naming them.  For instance, January is called First Month and Sunday is called First Day.  In the last generation, many Quakers have discontinued this custom, but it survived for centuries and is still practiced by some of the older or most conservative Quakers.  Most of them still retain it where it has become part of the name of something.  For instance, Quaker children do not go to Sunday School but rather to First Day School.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In point of fact, all religions/ denominations/ societies reckon time by the significant dates in their religious history -- where they figure the start date from, what they call things, etc.  It makes as much sense for Christians to reckon time as the (approximate) birth of Jesus as it does for Jews or Confucians to reckon it from Creation or Muslims to reckon it from the Hajj.  By the same token, it makes sense for each of them to count time passed with reference to the things they consider holy -- the things of the life cycle, the yearly cycle, etc.  The names of the days and months are no different, so it's a wonder that the rest of the culture didn't do as the Quakers long ago in naming the days and months since most of the culture was at least nominally Christian. -- VJR&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Isn't the BCE/CE designed to be more inclusive of other cultures that do not believe in Christianity.  For non-Christians, having the birth and death of Christ as starting points to a calendar must seem rather arbitrary. --[[User:Truth is bipartisan|Truth is bipartisan]] 17:16, 14 March 2007 (EDT) &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Actually, on checking, I find that &amp;quot;common era&amp;quot; can be &lt;br /&gt;
*a generic term meaning ''any'' standardized system of numbering years based on any epoch, e.g. the Jewish year is in &amp;quot;the common era of the Jews.&amp;quot; &lt;br /&gt;
*a term used to distinguish the &amp;quot;ordinary&amp;quot; BC/AD epoch ''from others used by Christians.'' E.g. &amp;quot;puts his death in the seventh year of Trajan, i.e. in 104 of the common era.&amp;quot;[http://books.google.com/books?vid=OCLC04334900&amp;amp;id=qLfiIApQVDkC&amp;amp;pg=PA33&amp;amp;lpg=PA33&amp;amp;dq=%22common+era%22&amp;amp;as_brr=1]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
And the phrase has been in use for well over a century. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thus: &amp;quot;The common era of the Jews places the creation in B. C. 3760&amp;quot; (where B. C. here means &amp;quot;before the common era ''of the Jews.'') [http://books.google.com/books?vid=0HE_WUCP1d5BX8OJ&amp;amp;id=GMfyJ2PeD-cC&amp;amp;pg=RA12-PA207&amp;amp;lpg=RA12-PA207&amp;amp;as_brr=1 1874: The popular encyclopedia, volume V, p. 307]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;It was probably the original intention of Caefar to commence the new year with the fhorteft day, the winter folftice at Rome, in the year 46 B. C. (common era).&amp;quot; [http://books.google.com/books?vid=OCLC03079044&amp;amp;id=cS8EAAAAIAAJ&amp;amp;pg=RA2-PA4&amp;amp;lpg=RA2-PA4&amp;amp;&amp;amp;as_brr=1 1889: &amp;quot;Handy-book of Rules and Tables for Verifying Dates with the Christian Era&amp;quot;]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;Prior to the year A. D. 1865, the Jewish style, namely, the year of the world, was observed by Red Men in dating their documents. At the council held in G. S. 1526, this system was discontinued, and G. S. D. or Great Sun of the Discovery was adopted, the year 1492 being considered G. S. D. 1. To find the date of the old style, add to the common era 3760; e.g. 1877 + 3760 = 5637. To find the date by Red Men's style, subtract 1491 from the common era.&amp;quot; (&amp;quot;Red Men&amp;quot; here is a reference to a fraternal organization.) [http://books.google.com/books?vid=OCLC03825672&amp;amp;id=kZLbGv92SjUC&amp;amp;pg=RA16-PA495&amp;amp;lpg=RA16-PA495&amp;amp;as_brr=1 1893: Official History of the Improved Order of Red Men].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So it's not a ''new'' phrase. In fact, it seems to me that &amp;quot;Christian era&amp;quot; means &amp;quot;the system used by Christians,&amp;quot; whereas calling the AD/BC system the &amp;quot;common era&amp;quot; means &amp;quot;this system used by everyone&amp;quot; and thus emphasizes that Christian usage is '''the''' general usage of our society.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The story may be more complicated than that, but that's what I've found so far. Not sure when, how, by whom or for what reason the abbreviations BCE and CE were introduced. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 21:22, 20 December 2006 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:That's fascinating material.  Thanks.  Maybe I'm obsessed with this, but it does seem odd that a phrase recently pushed by schools, Wikipedia writers and tests has unknown origin.  It's not even in the 1972 dictionary!!!  In a current dictionary, it's defined as a substitute for BC/AD without any reference to Jewish people.  My quote from the online rabbi shows Judaism is not the source.&lt;br /&gt;
:I'll study your sources further. --[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:22, 20 December 2006 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Well, your quote from the rabbi shows that he doesn't know the source.  In Rabbi Raphall's &amp;quot;Post Biblical History of the Jews&amp;quot;, he uses BCE, and you start seeing &amp;quot;BCE&amp;quot; and either &amp;quot;ACE&amp;quot; or &amp;quot;CE&amp;quot; from 1890 on.--[[User:Epicurius|Epicurius]] 13:52, 26 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
888888888888888888888888888&lt;br /&gt;
What do you mean &amp;quot;It's not in the 1972 dictionary&amp;quot;? Is that the Complete Websters, the Oxford or some dog-eared little junior high book? Here's a current definition from a free on-line encyclopedia at http://www.reference.com/search?q=Common%20Era &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;The Common era (also known as the Christian era or the Current era, abbreviated to CE) is the period of measured time beginning with the year 1 on the Gregorian calendar. The notations CE and BCE (Before the Common Era) are alternative notations for AD (anno Domini, Latin for &amp;quot;in the year of (Our) Lord&amp;quot;) and BC (Before Christ), respectively. The CE/BCE system of notation is chronologically equivalent to dates in the AD/BC system, i.e. no change in numbering is used and neither includes a year zero. The abbreviations may also be written C.E. and B.C.E.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The term common era is preferred by some as an alternative to the more overtly religious AD and BC, since Common Era does not explicitly make use of religious titles for Jesus, such as Christ and Lord, which are used in the AD/BC notation. Some criticize Common Era notation as a euphemism that does not alter the pivotal year one still centering on the life of Jesus. Many others criticize the notation as an unnecessary attempt at political correctness.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This is the sort of clear and simple info, obtainable at the press of a button that the writer of this article has struggled for 25 years (in vain) to determine, receiving no help from a nameless &amp;quot;professor of European history&amp;quot; as quoted here:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;Now, 25 years and a number of common errors later, I assume that Common Era simply means &amp;quot;the date commonly accepted and used.&amp;quot; But the truth is that I don't know, so I asked your question to a professor of European history. He didn't know either. (Last two sentences bolded to emphasise the enormous irony of it all)&amp;quot; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We are indeed fortunate that someone so self-confessedly ignorant on a subject should not have been deterred from knocking off a piece on that very matter for a global encyclopedia.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Some brief points:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
1. I was taught that the BCE/CE dating convention was adopted primarily for works of an academic nature, typically in the fields of comparative religious studies and the like, where there is a focus on inter-faith dialogue, so as not to appear unnecessarily chauvinistic in asserting the tenets of Christian faith over those of others. In particular the Jews most expressly do NOT believe that Jesus “Was [their] Saviour” as is implied by the words behind the acronyms. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2. Call this a sop, or “caving in to the enemy” or whatever, but it was never intended to indicate that Christians were abandoning their faith, but merely as a gesture of tolerance within fields of study where respect for diversity (and OTHER PEOPLE'S faith) was essential. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
3. To foment an acrid dispute over suchlike sounds a lot like the battle of the Big Endians and Little Endians in Swift’s “Gulliver’s Travellers”. Or, more recently and far less fictiously, the kind of throat-cutting vendettas pursued by Balkans over how many fingers you should use when you cross yourself. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
4. Personally, if this upsets SOME conservatives so much - those who have divined in this practice a wholesale betrayal of the faith of their fathers - I would quite gladly recommend reversion to the earlier practice. Frankly, wise and well-intentioned man and women of all faiths would understand the nature of the predicament, more than many of you will begin to guess. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
5. This controversy, and the even more asinine one on “American spellings”, seems to have provided the requisite steam power for blow-hards to arouse themselves to elevated levels of indignation and over what most other folk would perceive to be trifling matters of custom, protocol and etiquette. Here too, I would recommend adhering to American spelling, which is invariably simpler and more logical. But where would Conservapedia be if the Liberals relented on such epochal issues? &lt;br /&gt;
88888888888888888888888888888888&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:One thing: how exactly is American spelling of English more logical or simple than any other spelling?  &amp;quot;Organize&amp;quot; vs. &amp;quot;Organise.&amp;quot;  I'm having trouble seeing how logic applies.  Bigotry, maybe.  You're a moron.  --[[User:Eatsilk|Eatsilk]] 19:48, 10 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::There's probably an interesting story there. I grant you that the spread of BCE and CE probably ''do'' have ''something'' to do with acknowledging diversity, or political correctness, or liberalism, or something. It's always hard to find out how and why things go in and out of fashion, though. I have a long list of puzzles of that kind. Why did the phrase &amp;quot;to fill the bill&amp;quot; rather suddenly get replaced with &amp;quot;to fit the bill&amp;quot; circa 1990 or so? Why did the phrase &amp;quot;to go missing&amp;quot; or &amp;quot;went missing,&amp;quot; which I'd always thought were British, suddenly become ubiquitous in the U. S. starting in, I don't know, the late 1990s? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 05:46, 21 December 2006 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I heard that there were originally inacuracies in determining the times of various events which resulted in Jesus having been born in the year 4 B.C. It seems that with this information available, it would be foolish to continue saying that the year of our lord began when He was 4 years old. [[User:Scienceisstupid|Scienceisstupid]] 15:17, 21 June 2007 (PST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Original Research ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Should original research be allowed in this article? Also, CE is not some conspiracy that is trying to destroy the foundations of Christianity. There are no citations in this article even attempting to show that this view is held outside of this web page. AD/BC where established by Christian scholars and prevailed because the &amp;quot;western&amp;quot; powers remained solidly Christian and happened to colonize most of the world. Now, the world might be 1/6th Christian, but the other 5/6ths are not. Science is a consensus of scientist from around the world and do not only include the U.S. So it would not be prudent to keep the current age as Anno Domini, since the &amp;quot;Lord&amp;quot; is no longer consisting of the majority of the world. The usage of AD is still valid, but CE is not trying to discredit or undermine in some way the   original dating method. So I'm going to try to make this article more neutral in the future, but if a majority of you guys think i'm vandalizing or something like that, I'll move on.&lt;br /&gt;
As a side note, the Roman Catholic Church (the universal church of Christ) was responsible for the dark ages.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:So CE isn't trying to destroy the foundations of Christianity, but what it is trying to do is remove the word &amp;quot;Lord&amp;quot; from the vocabulary of the general public.  I absolutely love Liberal Logic!  --[[User:David R|&amp;amp;lt;&amp;amp;lt;-David R-&amp;amp;gt;&amp;amp;gt;]] 23:29, 6 March 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:: Well if I may, there is a real concern here for Jews and Muslims - saying that is the year of the lord is inaccurate and indeed arguably idol worship to use the term. So for those religions at least use of the term &amp;quot;AD&amp;quot; is very problematic (BC less so for obvious reasons). [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 23:33, 6 March 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:: If the general public doesn't want the the word &amp;quot;LORD&amp;quot; in the vocabulary then it shouldn't be there. Unless Christianity suddenly implodes i don't think just because a shift in the secular world from AD/BC to CE/BCE is going to do anything. My main concern is if we are trying to counter bias with bias? Also, i'm going to get rid of the original research in this article unless someone adds some citations or something cause i'm not sure where that comes from. [[User:Pinion|Pinion]] 00:50, 7 March 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::: If this was A Jewish or Muslim site, you might have a point. But as this is a Christian/Conservative Site that does not strive to be politically correct, your point is not valid. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 23:47, 6 March 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
:::: I wasn't commetning on whether it should be used ''here'' I was commenting on how the general motivations of those who use it are not nearly as nefarious as some editors here seem to think. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 23:55, 6 March 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Common Sense, ppl ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I've heard some good evidence and argument in this talk page, but the idea that BCE and CE are a liberal agenda thing or one of &amp;quot;wikipedia's bias&amp;quot; signs is an absolutely baseless and, furthermore, stupid notion. Let me introduce a theory:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We don't know the year of Jesus's birth. We DO know that it is almost absolutely NOT 0 BC/AD. [http://www.religioustolerance.org/xmas_date.htm#year]. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So BCE/CE was created with this date (since people are just used to it, no need to change it. Pretty conservative of them, wouldn't you say?) as the reference. It's just a reference date with no meaning, so we can have an absolute origin point on a timeline. Say it with me. &amp;quot;Its just a reference date.&amp;quot; That felt good, huh?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Don't you think it's a positive thing for the Christian religion to remove an obvious error from it? Hell, they do us a favor by just separating the two topics. You should be thankful, not suspicious. [[User:Muchodelcrazy|Muchodelcrazy]] 00:18, 8 March 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Rabbi Dialogue ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This dialogue is pointless and makes this article seem fabricated and arbitrary. --[[User:Truth is bipartisan|Truth is bipartisan]] 17:19, 14 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What is the point of the dialogue between the rabbi and whoever?  What purpose does it serve to illuminate people as to what CE means?  Furthermore the &amp;quot;reference&amp;quot; doesn't have any other references, nor does it even say who the professor of European history was.  It also doesn't have a copy of the transcript between the rabbi and the supposed professor. --[[User:Trekie9001|trekie9001]] 02:36, 9 March 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
:This section is unecessary and has to much first person.  It doesn't sound encyclopaedic.  [[User:Bobtexas|Bobtexas]] 02:35, 14 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Anecdotal evidence is the most wonderfully personal evidence there is. Too bad personal isn't the same as important. Allow me to cite a conversation I heard once between an onion farmer and a prince. It seems there was this onion farmer, you see… --[[User:Prometheus|Prometheus]] 01:31, 17 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The dialogue also does nothing to demonstrate the point it tries to make (illustrating that the term &amp;quot;Common Era&amp;quot; did not come from Judaism). Just because one rabbi was taught to refer to CE as the &amp;quot;Common Error&amp;quot; doesn't mean that all Rabbis were taught that (certainly not mine, who uses CE and BCE).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Christian Era==&lt;br /&gt;
Where is the proof that CE stands for Common Era? I thought that it stood for Christian Era. As the article implies, the term CE was not in wide use 35 years ago. It has since caught on, but for what reason?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The term Christian Era appears to be much older, and it is listed in all the major dictionaries, including Merriam-Webster's, American Heritage, and Compact Oxford English Dictionary. It may be true that CE was promoted by people claiming that it was a non-Christian term, but maybe it only was accepted by people who took it to mean Christian Era. Does anyone know?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think that the article should be revised to say that CE stands for Christian Era. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 12:40, 9 March 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: Yeah, then we can refrain from using CE, 'cause ''clearly'' it shows bias. --[[User:Prometheus|Prometheus]] 01:32, 17 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I can't source this, I assumed it was common knowledge....&lt;br /&gt;
An obvious reason for not wishing to use the BC AD system is that many feel term 'In the year of our Lord&amp;quot; aggressively exclusive. In an increasingly global society, we see most countries adopting our calender, and yet there is a great proportion, indeed a majority, who are not in fact christian and do not feel that God is 'Our' (Their) Lord. The point is that a calender does not need to be religious but by using the idea of Christian Era, no-one is denying the ancestry of the term (which debunks a fair portion of the current argument about anti-christianity)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Perhaps a good compromise between the ambiguous &amp;quot;Common Era&amp;quot; and the patronizing &amp;quot;Year of our Lord&amp;quot; would be something along the lines of AJ for &amp;quot;Year of Jesus.&amp;quot; It doesn't ignore the original meaning of the term, but it also doesn't imply, as many feel &amp;quot;AD&amp;quot; does, that the user personally accepts Jesus of Nazareth as his &amp;quot;Lord.&amp;quot; --[[User:Anschelsc|Anschelsc]] 16:13, 20 January 2008 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== References ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There are no references to whatever Common Era means only to some irrelevant site with a quotation explaining about someone not knowing what CE means.  Dictionaries could be referenced at least.  A brief skimming of most dictionaries will also come up with &amp;quot;Christian Era&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;Current Era&amp;quot; as other meanings for &amp;quot;CE.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Lack of dictionary definition ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Forgive me if I'm wrong, but might the reason for the fact that a 1972 edition of a dictionary might not have the term be that it wasn't in common use in 1972? You might try looking in a more modern dictionary. It doesn't seem like the most credible piece of evidence. [[User:Alethiophile|Alethiophile]] 18:25, 13 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I couldn't agree more.  I just finished a History undergraduate degree and we used CE/BCE exclusively. --[[User:Truth is bipartisan|Truth is bipartisan]] 17:16, 14 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I'm also inclined to agree. Currently the Merriam-Webster's Website does indeed have a definition for &amp;quot;Common Era&amp;quot;, linking it to &amp;quot;Christian Era&amp;quot;, which is defined as &amp;quot;the period dating from the birth of Christ&amp;quot;. Other dictionaries such as The American Heritage Dictionary and WordNet also have similar definitions. Also of importance is that, while the 1972 edition was the seventh Merriam-Webster's edition, the most current is the eleventh. I would recommend a deletion regarding that particular piece of evidence.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== hahahahahahahahaha ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
are you freakin kidding me??? PLEASE tell me this is a joke...&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Unfortunate Truth ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Unfortunately, no. There are, sadly, a lot of ignorant people in the world who truly believe that what they call &amp;quot;Conservatism&amp;quot; is, in fact, unbiased. This 'encyclopaedia' as they so insultingly call it is little more than an entire website subtly advocating the perpetuation of many of the evils which have led the world to the state it is in now. Intolerance, misinformation and insufficient education are but three of the factors in this ever-deepening spiral of destruction held on to by the last dying grasp of 'conservatism', a 'movement' which seeks dominion by stasis- a sheer lack of progress for the world. They try to deny such obvious truths such as Global Warming and Evolution while putting forward theories and hypotheses completely unfounded in science such as 'young earth theory'... seriously, who can say that this website is anything it supposes to stand for? Educational? It looks to me more like religious indoctrination like the old Taliban regime which they so criticize- little better than 'Terrorists'.&lt;br /&gt;
The terrorists issue is another point of failure for the Conservapedia. The rules and regulations clearly state- &amp;quot;No Liberalist Bias&amp;quot; and state the example of &amp;quot;terrorists&amp;quot; as &amp;quot;calling a spade a spade&amp;quot; so to speak and not attempting to hide their &amp;quot;true nature&amp;quot;. But isn't the &amp;quot;terrorist&amp;quot; label just another way of dehumanizing people who are essentially the same as us? All these unfortunate victims of conservative government after conservative government have arms, legs, heads just like the governments themselves. The only difference, you could say, is the way they go about things.&lt;br /&gt;
I ask: how true is this for real? How does a terrorist make his point? by yelling something in arabic then blowing up a truck? How does the U.S. military (An admirably conservative organisation) make it's point? By yelling something in English then blowing up an oil derrick? Or some Iraqis? Really, whoever does it- the Terrorists or the oh-so-very-friendly US military the Iraqis kind of get in the behind, don't they?&lt;br /&gt;
Let's face it. Conservatives in positions of power have, over a period of less than 200 years, brought the world to a point of political and environmental destruction. How can they deny Global Warming when its effects are clearly visible in highly populated areas of the world. How can they continue chugging CO2 into the atmosphere, completely blind to the destruction they cause? It is little more than childish greed, greed for power, money and resources, childish because they care only for themselves- not even their children. Because, by the time the world is set on a path to complete destruction where not even the powerful conservatives can save it, all the living leaders today will be dead. And that is why the do not care. They do not care about the environment. They do not care about your lives. All they care about is their own prosperity and happiness and the continuation of the status quo- because this status quo, this conservative ideal, is the one where their lives are perfect, where they have what they want. It's not about religion. It's not even about political orientation. It is nothing more than an evil self-feeding cycle where only the Conservatives gain.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Conservatives ARE the Devil.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Last time I checked, [[Global warming]] was not protected. If you have scientific evidence of the bad effects of higher average atmospheric temperature, please add it to the article. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] &amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 14:21, 21 June 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
THANK YOU!! This makes soo much sense. [[User:Potatocakes|Potatocakes]] 05:43, 25 March 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Article Locked? ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Why has this article been locked?  Surely this is against the principles of a freely editable encyclopedia?  Also and encyclopedia should present both the evidence/views '''for and against''' the topic in question - this article does not do this.  --[[User:Tomt|Tomt]] 11:59, 25 March 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Your thinking that this place is committed to neutrality.  It's not.  It's committed to promoting a viewpoint, one that is (happily) on the decline in the United States, where its proponents think it has its greatest strength.  --[[User:Eatsilk|Eatsilk]] 19:45, 10 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== I've always heard something different ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I've always heard that CE and BCE are very old terms meaning &amp;quot;Christian Era&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;Before the Christian Era.&amp;quot;--[[User:Ollie Garkey|Ollie Garkey]] 18:25, 1 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Did you hear that from some Christians?  Anyway, you heard wrong.  --[[User:Eatsilk|Eatsilk]] 19:43, 10 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Rabbi dialogue revisited ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The person who added this to the article is, sadly, a moron.  What exactly does this prove?  Also, the term is &amp;quot;Common Era&amp;quot; not (chuckle) &amp;quot;Christian Era.&amp;quot;  The people who made the calendars were Christian.  Now, in a global climate that has ''progressed'' to be more tolerant of individuals of different religious and cultural backgrounds, it has been decided by reasonable individuals not to enforce the religion of some upon the time-telling of everyone.  So, rather than change what day it is and and change the dates of all of history, we simply change the suffix from something that blatantly promotes ''one'' of the world's major religions to something less, say, offensive.  What exactly is the problem with acknowledging that not everyone believes what you do?  --[[User:Eatsilk|Eatsilk]] 19:42, 10 April 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: Why do some feel the urge to censor references to Christ?  If a date is based on the birth of Christ, then the basis for that date should be expressed in terms of Christ.  Give credit where it is due, even if you don't agree.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:57, 26 June 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Wikipedia's bias regarding this term ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This term is not used consistently on Wikipedia and liberals have seemed to make sure it's used in articles where it will generate the most scandal: e.g. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus Jesus].  (Indeed, the clumsy and unencyclopedic &amp;quot;BC/BCE&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;AD/CE&amp;quot; are used there.)  Look at other articles about historic places and persons and you will rarely find &amp;quot;BCE/CE&amp;quot; used: e.g. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plato Plato], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socrates Socrates], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tutankhamun Tutankhamun], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persia Persia], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Empire the Roman Empire], etc. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 15:40, 26 June 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: Good point, but [[CE]] is used many thousands, and perhaps even millions, of times on Wikipedia.  See [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Whatlinkshere/Common_Era].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:57, 26 June 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::So why then do the major articles I cited still use only the AD/BC designation? (That's a rhetorical question.) Wikipedia has no policy whatsoever about the use of AD/BC and CE/BCE and they've left it up to the users - users who are overwhelmingly liberal. It's too bad that it's extremely difficult to tell which articles were first changed to replace AD/BC or include CE/BCE. If someone did find out, I wouldn't be surprised if the article about Jesus was one of the first ones to be changed. In any case, I did a search on the top online encyclopedias other than Wikipedia and none of them use CE/BCE in any way. Not a one. To me, all this just shows the liberal bias that exists on Wikipedia. The CE/BCE designation is not in use in any major encyclopedias. It's only in use by godless intellectuals who like to think they're avoiding paying lip service to Jesus Christ by using it even though it uses the same &amp;quot;starting point&amp;quot; as AD/BC: the birth of Jesus. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 17:08, 27 June 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::And this matters because...? [[User:ProserpinaFC|ProserpinaFC]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== more common ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;Christian Era has a longer history of usage and appears in more web pages today.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The latter is easily contradicted by a simple Google search. The former is unsupported by any evidence. [[User:John Brown|John Brown]] 00:15, 30 October 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:No it's not.  BC/AD are more common than what you refer to, and instead of depending on Google, I suggest you hit the books at your local library.  [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 15:35, 24 March 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== The word &amp;quot;erase&amp;quot; ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Two of the more egregious sentences on this page, of which there are many, are the following:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*The term &amp;quot;Common Era&amp;quot; is an attempt to '''erase''' the historical basis for the primary calendar dating system in the Western world.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The idea that the use of different dating nomenclature is an attempt to somehow rewrite history is absurd.  The concept of inter-faith dialogue has been discussed here at length, and I will not discuss it any further.  Moving along:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*Numerous texts, '''particularly schoolbooks''', have replaced &amp;quot;B.C./A.D.&amp;quot; with &amp;quot;Common Era&amp;quot; symbols over the past decade.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This claim is completely uncited.  As an academic, I find it insulting. --[[User:Telephuse|Telephuse]] 20:45, 18 November 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== British date format becoming more common in America! ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If you think the fall of AD is a problem, that's only part of the story on dates. In my sister's world history book this morning, published in Boston, it shows every date written in the British style! (the day before the month and no comma before the year.) Will September 11 become the 11 September attacks? I'm sure this problem may emerge in the future! A suggest as an amendment to the AD/CE commandment is to make sure all dates have the month before the day as well. It's creeping into many American websites as well!&lt;br /&gt;
:The format you indicated (i.e. 11 September 2001) is also refered to as the military date format, and is used by the United States armed forces.  [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:27, 1 December 2007 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It's also MLA format now and so is used in English classes as well. Personally I like the change, as moving from the smallest entity to the largest makes more sense. [[User:Rockthecasbah|Rockthecasbah]] 20:28, 14 April 2008 (EDT) (And it's the format that Conservapedia uses, as I noticed after posting with my four tildes.)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== ISO 8601 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This mentions ISO standard # 8601 as if it is contrary to &amp;quot;BCE&amp;quot; dating, but ISO 8601 it actually does not make any way for BC dates, it only starts at year &amp;quot;0000&amp;quot; which actually is 1 BC. In the software, one sees sometimes years -YYYY, but this is confusing because year &amp;quot;-100&amp;quot; is actually 101 BC, etcetera. ISO is anyway a globalist body, maybe thats why they dont give any way to represent Bible dates.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Étienne Léger&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: Yeah, I just checked ISO 8601 on the ISO website (http://www.iso.org/iso/catalogue_detail?csnumber=40874, access provided by my institute). ISO does not recognize CE/BCE, but it also does not recognize BC/AD. It mentions nothing about eras. I think this statement should be struck from the article, lest it divulge inaccurate information about the scope of ISO 8601 (which really just talks about visual parsing and formatting of date and time information). I'm sure there's an ISO relevant to this, but 8601 isn't it. --[[User:Countryforchrist|Countryforchrist]] 18:04, 17 May 2008 (EDT)&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Countryforchrist</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Barack_Hussein_Obama&amp;diff=454445</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=454445"/>
		<updated>2008-05-16T14:49:46Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Countryforchrist: Didn't see it had already been discussed. Reverting own edit, sorry!&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;'''Barack Hussein Obama, Jr.''' (b. August 4, 1961) is the current frontrunner of the 2008 Democrat presidential primary.  Obama is a member of the [[Democratic Party]] who was elected by the people of Illinois to the United States Senate in 2004.  Obama is currently the only [[African American]] serving in the [[United States Senate]]. &lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:Democrat Obama during the Pledge.jpg|325px|thumb|right|Democratic Presidential candidate Barack Obama on the campaign trail with [[Bill Richardson]] and [[Hillary Clinton]] during the [[National Anthem]].]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Criticism and controversy ==&lt;br /&gt;
Obama falsely claimed that he was a constitutional law professor when in actuality he only held the title of &amp;quot;Senior Lecturer.&amp;quot;   &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/03/30/politics/p132303D74.DTL&amp;amp;type=politics&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&amp;amp;address=132x4238307&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Obama states that he consistently opposed the [[Iraq War]] since 2002, a claim and position that former President [[Bill Clinton]] criticized as &amp;quot;the biggest fairy tale I've ever seen.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN1131516320080111&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Obama is [[pro-abortion]]. Obama said &amp;quot;the first thing I'd do as president is, is sign the Freedom of Choice Act&amp;quot; for the [[abortion]] industry.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://christiannewswire.com/news/560716251.html]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Obama has no military or executive experience and little foreign policy experience.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&amp;quot;Fresh doubts over Barack Obama's foreign policy credentials were expressed on both sides of the Atlantic last night, after it emerged that he had made only one brief official visit to London – and none elsewhere in Western Europe or Latin America. ...  Mr Obama had failed to convene a single policy meeting of the Senate European subcommittee, of which he is chairman.&amp;quot;[http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article3080794.ece]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Yet he is the favorite of the leftist attack site &amp;quot;MoveOn.org&amp;quot; for the [[Democratic]] nomination for [[President of the United States]] in the [[2008 Presidential Election|2008 election]],&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;MoveOn.org reportedly favored Obama by 70-30% over Clinton. [http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2008/02/moveonorg_obama.html]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; campaigning to the left of [[Hillary Clinton]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;For example, Obama promised not to use nuclear weapons against terrorists, a promise [[Hillary Clinton]] refused to make. [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/02/AR2007080202288.html]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;   &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
He has no clear personal achievement that cannot be explained as the likely result of [[affirmative action]].  Some examples border on the absurd: Obama has no background in [[physics]], yet it is claimed that &amp;quot;Obama analyzed and integrated [[Albert Einstein|Einstein]]'s [[theory of relativity]], the [[Heisenberg uncertainty principle]], as well as the concept of curved space as an alternative to [[gravity]], for a Law Review article that Tribe, for whom Obama worked as a research assistant, wrote titled, 'The Curvature of Constitutional Space'.&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://cbs2chicago.com/politics/barack.obama.harvard.2.334825.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  Obama's &amp;quot;research&amp;quot; for Constitutional Law Professor Tribe on this article also raises issues about preferences, as Obama had not yet even completed any law school courses&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Obama did not start his second year of law school until September 1989, the earliest he could have taken constitutional law, yet this article must have been written, submitted and accepted prior to that time to be published in the November 1989 issue of the Law Review.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; on the [[Constitution]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;The liberal Professor Tribe saw the best law students for several decades, yet insisted that Obama was the &amp;quot;best student I ever had&amp;quot; and the &amp;quot;most exciting research assistant.&amp;quot; [http://www.cmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071114/NEWS01/711140429/1217/NEWS98]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Throughout his career, Obama repeatedly ducked controversial stands in an apparent attempt to make it easier to be elected to higher office.  For example, as a state senator in [[Illinois]], he voted &amp;quot;present&amp;quot; rather than &amp;quot;aye&amp;quot; or &amp;quot;nay&amp;quot; nearly an astounding 130 times.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/20/us/politics/20obama.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  During that same period, he was planning to run for the [[House of Representatives]], which was unsuccessful, and then for [[U.S. Senate]], which was successful after his opponent was smeared with a court-ordered disclosure of confidential divorce records.{{fact}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Barack Obama is often praised for his speeches, except when he is not able to read them from a [[teleprompter]].  &amp;quot;Shorn of his Teleprompter, we saw a different Obama. His delivery was halting and unsure. ...  The prepared text for his remarks, as released on his website, sounded a lot like a typical Obama speech. ... [But with] no Teleprompter signaling the prepared text, Obama failed to deliver the speech in his characteristically flawless fashion.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.weeklystandard.com/content/public/articles/000/000/014/728ofzey.asp&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;mThe [[New York Times]] noted that &amp;quot;Mr. Obama excels at inspirational speeches read from a teleprompter before television cameras, critics have noted, but many of his other speeches on the campaign trail have failed to electrify.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/20/fashion/20speechwriter.html?_r=2&amp;amp;ex=1358485200&amp;amp;en=bb179297e5f61acb&amp;amp;ei=5090&amp;amp;partner=rssuserland&amp;amp;emc=rss&amp;amp;oref=slogin&amp;amp;oref=slogin&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; When Obama ridiculed [[Hillary Clinton]] for being like [[Annie Oakley]], it is apparent that he was not writing his own speeches.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&amp;quot;Some Obama adviser probably earned his or her dollars for that cut,&amp;quot; the USA Today wrote. [http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/columnist/raasch/2008-04-17-2008-04-17-raasch_N.htm]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Early life and education==&lt;br /&gt;
Barack Hussein Obama was born in Honolulu, [[Hawaii]] to Barack Sr., and Ann Dunham in 1961. In 1967 he moved with his mother and new stepfather to Jakarta, [[Indonesia]]. He attended a [[Catholic]] elementary school, followed by an Indonesian public school, until he returned with his mother to Hawaii. There he attended the Punahou School, the leading private preparatory school in [[Hawaii]], until he graduated in 1979.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Obama continued his education at the Occidental College in Los Angeles, [[California]], before graduating with his Bachelor of Arts from [[Columbia University]] in New York, [[New York]].  After working as a community organizer in New York City and Chicago, Illinois, Obama enrolled at [[Harvard]] Law School.  He became a member of the [[liberal]] ''Harvard Law Review'' in 1989,  which used racial [[quotas]] for membership, and was then elected by popular vote as its first African American president in 1990.  He graduated ''magna cum laude'' with his J.D. in 1991 and chose not to pursue a federal clerkship, which is the typical post-graduate position for top law students.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
He was &amp;quot;Senior Lecturer in the Law&amp;quot; -- not a professor-level position -- at the [[University of Chicago]] Law School as of 2004,&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www-news.uchicago.edu/releases/04/041103.obama.shtml&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  and is longer active at the school.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.law.uchicago.edu/faculty/obama&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Legal career==&lt;br /&gt;
Following law school, Obama continued his work as a community organizer in Chicago as Director of Illinois Project Vote. In 1993 he was hired as an associate at the Chicago law firm Miner, Barnhill &amp;amp; Galland, P.C., and began lecturing in Constitutional Law at the University of Chicago Law School. He remains on the faculty on leave of absence through today.  During this time he wrote his first book, ''Dreams from My Father'', detailing his background, his youth, and his education.  ''Dreams'' was published in 1995.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Senate career==&lt;br /&gt;
Obama was elected to the Illinois State Senate for the first time in 1996 and served there for the next eight years.  Following a failed campaign for the House of Representatives, Obama ran for the open Senate seat from Illinois in 2004.  Obama delivered the keynote address at the 2004 Democratic National Convention.  He won a seat in the [[U.S. Senate]] after [[liberals]] obtained the release of confidential and personally embarrassing divorce records of his opponent, Jack Ryan, forcing him to resign from the race and be replaced by an out-of-state candidate, [[Alan Keyes]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
His 2007 voting record in the U.S. [[Senate]] places him as its most [[liberal]] member. Among fellow Senate Democrats, he was further left than liberals like [[Ted Kennedy]], [[John Kerry]], [[Dianne Feinstein]], [[Charles Schumer]], [[Russ Feingold]], [[Carl Levin]], [[Joseph Biden]] and [[Harry Reid]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://nationaljournal.com/voteratings/sen/lib_cons.htm?o1=lib_composite&amp;amp;o2=desc]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; He has grown steadily more liberal since arriving at the Senate: the same analysis assessed him as 10th most liberal in 2006&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.nationaljournal.com/members/news/2007/voteratings/sen/lib_cons.htm?o1=lib_composite&amp;amp;o2=desc]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; and 16th most liberal in 2005.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.nationaljournal.com/members/news/2007/voteratings/sen/lib_cons.htm?o1=lib_composite&amp;amp;o2=desc]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In late 2006, Obama's second book, ''The Audacity of Hope'', was published.  Its title was supplied by the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr., a minister who has stated that &amp;quot;racism is how this country was founded and how this country was run ....  We believe in white supremacy and black inferiority and believe it more than we believe in God.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/03/14/obama_condemns_pastors_remarks.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  The book contains more of Senator Obama's personal story including the roles of both family and politics.  ''Audacity'' spent 30 weeks on the ''New York Times'' Nonfiction Best Sellers list.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/27/books/bestseller/0527besthardnonfiction.html?_r=1&amp;amp;oref=slogin New York Times Best Sellers Non Fiction]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Bills co-sponsored ===&lt;br /&gt;
Obama's principal legislation was S. 2433, which was an attempt to force the U.S. to increase its foreign aid by hundreds of billions of dollars under the guide of reducing global poverty, which was subsequently blocked by [[conservatives]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics.asp?Page=/Politics/archive/200802/POL20080225a.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Obama did support and co-sponsor a bill championed by [[Tom Coburn]] and known as the Coburn-Obama Government Transparency Act of 2006, which was signed into law by President [[George W. Bush]] on Sept. 9, 2006. This law created a website that will list the federal government's grants and contracts.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/09/20060926.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Between Jan 13, 2007 and March 13, 2008, Sen. Obama has sponsored 120 mostly [[liberal]] resolutions and bills in the Senate.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://thomas.loc.gov/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  His supporters cite the following less [[liberal]] examples, but this list is not representative:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*S.117 : A bill to amend titles 10 and 38, United States Code, to improve benefits and services for members of the Armed Forces, veterans of the Global War on Terrorism, and other veterans, to require reports on the effects of the Global War on Terrorism, and for other purposes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*S.133 : A bill to promote the national security and stability of the economy of the United States by reducing the dependence of the United States on oil through the use of alternative fuels and new technology, and for other purposes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*S.453 : A bill to prohibit deceptive practices in Federal elections.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*S.713 : A bill to ensure dignity in care for members of the Armed Forces recovering from injuries.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Accomplishments while serving on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In February 2008, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee approved Obama's proposal on a new strategy to reduce poverty throughout the world.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Obama worked with Sen. Lugar writing legislation aimed at improving conventional and nuclear non-proliferation efforts.  This legislation was signed by [[George W. Bush|President Bush]] in January 2008.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In June 2007 the Senate passed his resolution condemning violence by the Zimbabwe government. It also passed legislation co-sponsored by Obama that financed a Special Court for Sierra Leone to prosecute former Liberian President Charles Taylor. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/02/26/obamas_senate_foreign_relations_work/ &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Presidential campaign==&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:obama.jpg|thumb|right|Senator Barack Obama]]&lt;br /&gt;
Senator Obama began his anti-war candidacy for President of the United States on February 10, 2007, in Springfield, Illinois.  His announcement speech largely avoided specific campaign issues and focused on his general political message of hope for the future.  It also attempted to strongly invoke the memory of Abraham Lincoln and his &amp;quot;House Divided&amp;quot; speech.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/02/10/obama.president/index.html &amp;quot;Obama declares he's running for president&amp;quot;] 11 February 2007, www.CNN.com &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Obama's campaign has been financed largely by [[leftist]] donors opposed to the war and to the [[American]] military in general.  Obama has encouraged this by refusing to wear the customary flag on his lapel during appearances and by other less-than-patriotic gestures and symbols, such as declining to put his hand over his heart during a patriotic recitation.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
By early April 2007, his campaign generated over $25 million dollars from over 100,000 contributors.  $23.5 million of that money will be available for the Democratic Primary.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/05/us/politics/05obama.html Obama Shows His Strength in a Fund-Raising Feat on Par With Clinton], 4 April 2007, Jeff Zeleny and Patrick Healy,'' The New York Times''&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  After the first Democratic presidential debate in Columbia, South Carolina, Obama's image as an &amp;quot;articulate&amp;quot; spokesman came into question after his failure to state right away that he would retaliate in case of further terrorist strikes against the United States.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/27/AR2007042702162.html?hpid=moreheadlines Clinton Campaign Tries to Keep Heat on Obama Over Debate Response], Dan Balz, ''Washington Post'' April 28, 2007.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Chicago Sun-Times, &lt;br /&gt;
[http://www.suntimes.com/news/sweet/362269,CST-NWS-sweet29.article 'I was a little nervous' at debate'], Lynn Sweet, &lt;br /&gt;
April 29, 2007,&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
During a fund raising event in Virginia in May 2007 Obama told donors,&lt;br /&gt;
{{Cquote|This week there was a tragedy in Kansas. Ten thousand people died. An entire town destroyed.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,271357,00.html Transcript: 'Special Report with Brit Hume,' May 9, 2007], retrieved from ''FOX News'', 06/13/07.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Obama evidently was misinformed, whereas in reality the tornado which touched down in Kansas cost the lives of nine people in the town of Greensburg, and twelve overall in Kansas.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
By August it appeared Obama was running to be left off the ticket completely rather than the much ballyhooed Hillary/Obama ticket the [[mainstream media]] was pushing.  After a series of ill-advised foreign policy statements, Obama was openly criticized as a lightweight even by liberals, in much the same vein as [[John Edwards]] and [[Dan Quayle]] had been depicted.  First, Obama said he would have face to face meetings with two of Florida's most fearful enemies, [[Fidel Castro]] and [[Hugo Chavez]].  Florida is a key state to any presidential ambitions.  Then Obama advised he would be willing to invade the sovereign territory of a U.S. ally without prior consultation.  Finally, Obama broke the cardinal rule of declaring he would not use nuclear weapons, removing the element of bluff U.S. Presidents had vitally depended upon throughout the [[Cold War]] era.  The incidents all added up to a picture of a candidate ill-prepared and ill-advised, lacking in a basic understanding of the office of the presidency, and failing to surround himself with appointees able to make up for his deficiencies. However, Obama won the Iowa Democratic caucuses, pushing [[Hillary Clinton]] into third place, which gave him a serious chance of becoming the Democratic nominee.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Political views ==&lt;br /&gt;
Obama's political views have been subjected to controversy even before he put himself forward as a presidential candidate. Former House majority leader [[Tom DeLay]] has described Obama's record in the Illinois Senate as that of a [[Communism|“Marxist leftist&amp;quot;.]]&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_121306/content/stop_the_tape.guest.html|Sexy Rock Star Obama Whines About His Ears], RushLimbaugh.com, December 13 2006&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; While he is generally considered [[liberal]] by [[America]]n standards, he could be considered a moderate [[conservative]] on an international scale.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://politicalcompass.org/usprimaries2008&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; In May 2007, Obama (and Sen. Hillary Clinton) voted against funding the Iraq War for the first time.&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; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Obama's views on [[gun control]] is focused on an opinion article in the [[Wall Street Journal]]:&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;David Kopel, &amp;quot;The Democrats and Gun Control,&amp;quot; Wall St.J., Page A19, April 17, 2008 [http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB120839466717921537-lMyQjAxMDI4MDE4NzMxOTc0Wj.html]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:As a state senate candidate in 1996, Mr. Obama endorsed a complete ban on all handguns in a questionnaire. The Obama campaign has claimed he &amp;quot;never saw or approved the questionnaire,&amp;quot; and that an aide filled it out incorrectly. But a few weeks ago, Politico.com found an amended version of the questionnaire. It included material added in Mr. Obama's handwriting.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Obama has said, &amp;quot;Doing the Lord's work is a thread that runs through our politics since the very beginning,&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;it puts the lie to the notion that [[separation of church and state]] in America means somehow that faith should have no role in public life.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.siouxcityjournal.com/articles/2007/06/17/news/iowa/8db7c1a17d2b51f9862572fd000fc9f4.txt Obama says religion has place in politics], By Todd Dorman, ''Sioux City Journal'', June 18, 2007.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Nonetheless, he asserted that elements of [[sex education]] should be taught in kindergarten.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&amp;quot;Barack Obama reaffirmed to [[Planned Parenthood]] this week that he believes elements of sex education should begin in kindergarten.&amp;quot; [http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=3395856 (ABC News)] July 20, 2007 &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Obama spoke at the May 1, 2006, illegal immigration march in Chicago.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://nomoreblather.com/barack-obama-and-the-immigration-marches Immigration marches]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::''We are hungry for change!'' S.C. January 26, 2008.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Foreign policy experience ==&lt;br /&gt;
  &lt;br /&gt;
In Russia and the former Soviet republics, he met with representatives of the International Republican Institute and National Democratic Institute to discuss democracy in the former Soviet republics. He also met with Russian military officials and visited numerous nuclear/biological weapons destruction sites in Russia, Ukraine and Azerbaijan with Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Richard Lugar (R-IN).    On the same tour, he visited London, UK, and met with Tony Blair, sitting UK Prime Minister.[http://obama.senate.gov/press/050823-obama_to_visit/]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Obama visited South Africa, Kenya, Ethiopia, Djibouti and Chad; he discussed his tour of Robben Island prison, met with U.S. troops, and visited refugee camps of the people fleeing Darfur and addressed Africa's growing AIDS epidemic. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://obama.senate.gov/podcast/060906-090606_africa_t/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
During a ten day tour of the Middle East, he talked with government leaders in Qatar, Kuwait, Iraq, Jordan and Israel.  &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; http://obama.senate.gov/news/060113-obama_wraps_up/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Religious affiliations==&lt;br /&gt;
[[Daniel Pipes]] concludes that Obama was raised a Muslim, &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;In his autobiography, ''Dreams of My Father'', Obama relates how he got into trouble for making faces during Koranic studies, thereby revealing he was a Muslim, for Indonesian students in his day attended religious classes according to their faith.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
yet in ''The Audacity of Hope'' Obama is described as growing up in a non-religious environment. When he was a child in Indonesia, he attended a local Muslim school for two years and a local [[Catholic]] school for two years, according to his own books.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&amp;quot;Obama has noted in his two books, 'Dreams From My Father' and 'The Audacity of Hope,' that he spent two years in a Muslim school and another two years in a Catholic school while living in Indonesia from age 6 to 10.&amp;quot; [http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/01/22/obama.madrassa/]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; His father was a non-practicing [[Muslim]]. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Obama attended a Muslim school but [[CNN]] states that it was not a [[madrassa]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/01/22/obama.madrassa/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Obama and his his wife (reared a Baptist) have been active members since 1988 at the Trinity [[United Church of Christ]]&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.tucc.org/about.htm&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; in Chicago. Obama describes his conversion in ''The Audacity of Hope''. The title of this book is taken from one of Pastor Wright's sermons. In April 2008, to advance his presidential campaign, Obama disavowed Pastor Wright's views.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Books ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* ''Dreams from My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance.''&lt;br /&gt;
* ''The Audacity of Hope: Thoughts on Reclaiming the American Dream.''&lt;br /&gt;
* ''Barack Obama in His Own Words.'' (B. Obama and Lisa Rogak)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Published criticism==&lt;br /&gt;
On April 11, 2007, staff writers of ''The Boston Globe'' reported the criticisms of several black commentators regarding Obama's apparent hesitation to join the race to condemn acclaimed radio personality [[Don Imus]],&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/04/11/obamas_silence_on_imus_alarms_some_blacks/ Obama's silence on Imus alarms some blacks], Rick Klein and Joseph Williams, ''The Boston Globe'', April 11, 2007.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; who made a racially insensitive remark&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.reuters.com/article/industryNews/idUSN1237895620070412|title=Furor over Imus puts heat on other broadcasters], Daniel Trotta, Reuters, 2007-04-12.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; on the air during the April 4 broadcast. Obama did not comment on Imus's remarks until well after prominent civil rights leaders [[Al Sharpton]] and [[Jesse Jackson]] had called Imus to account and after Imus was suspended by MSNBC and CBS Radio. Obama later weighed in on April 10 by saying, &amp;quot;The comments of Don Imus were divisive, hurtful, and offensive to Americans of all backgrounds.&amp;quot; &amp;lt;br /&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The ''Globe'' reported that Obama's perceived delay in addressing Don Imus's remarks was described by Melissa Harris Lacewell, a professor of politics and African-American studies at Princeton University, as &amp;quot;miss[ing] an opportunity to prove himself to blacks and white liberals who would have wanted Obama take the lead in denouncing Imus.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/04/11/obamas_silence_on_imus_alarms_some_blacks/ Obama's silence on Imus alarms some blacks], Rick Klein and Joseph Williams, ''The Boston Globe'', April 11, 2007.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://time-blog.com/real_clear_politics/2007/04/obama_race_and_the_election.html Obama, Race, and The Election,] ''Real Clear Politics.com''&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In June 2007 the ''Chicago Sun-Times'' reported Obama had actually received nearly three times more campaign cash from indicted slum landlord Tony Rezko&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/353829,CST-NWS-rez23.article Barack Obama and his slumlord patron], Tim Novak, Chicago Sun-Times, April 23, 2007.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; and his associates than Obama has publicly acknowledged.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/432197,CST-NWS-obama18.article Rezko cash triple what Obama says], Chris Fusco and Tim Novak, ''Chicago Sun-Times'', June 18, 2007.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==See also==&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Previous Breaking News/Barack Obama|Articles about '''Barack Obama''' from previous &amp;quot;Breaking News&amp;quot;]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Further reading==&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Peter Hitchens|Hitchens, Peter]] [http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=511901&amp;amp;in_page_id=1811 ''The Black Kennedy: But does anyone know the real Barack Obama?''] [[Daily Mail]]. Accessed 4 February 2008.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Sources==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://obama.senate.gov/about/ Official Senate Website]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.opensecrets.org/pfds/pfd2005/N00009638_2005.pdf Barack Obama Personal Financial Disclosures Summary: 2005], retrieved from opensecrets.org 17 June 2007.&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=O000167 Biographical Directory of the United States Congress]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.law.uchicago.edu/faculty/obama/cv.html University of Chicago Law School] Faculty Listing&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.biography.com/search/article.do?id=12782369 Barack Obama Biography] from Biography.com&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/o/barack_obama/index.html?inline=nyt-per New York Times Topics, Barack Obama]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{liberalism}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==References==&lt;br /&gt;
{{reflist|2}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{DEFAULTSORT:Obama, Barrack}}&lt;br /&gt;
{{2008 presidential candidates}}&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:United States Senators]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Democratic Party]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Countryforchrist</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Barack_Hussein_Obama&amp;diff=454441</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=454441"/>
		<updated>2008-05-16T14:43:44Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Countryforchrist: Included note from university of Chicago regarding &amp;quot;professorship&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;'''Barack Hussein Obama, Jr.''' (b. August 4, 1961) is the current frontrunner of the 2008 Democrat presidential primary.  Obama is a member of the [[Democratic Party]] who was elected by the people of Illinois to the United States Senate in 2004.  Obama is currently the only [[African American]] serving in the [[United States Senate]]. &lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:Democrat Obama during the Pledge.jpg|325px|thumb|right|Democratic Presidential candidate Barack Obama on the campaign trail with [[Bill Richardson]] and [[Hillary Clinton]] during the [[National Anthem]].]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Criticism and controversy ==&lt;br /&gt;
Obama claimed that he was a constitutional law professor at the [[University of Chicago]] when in actuality he held the title of &amp;quot;Senior Lecturer.&amp;quot;   &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/03/30/politics/p132303D74.DTL&amp;amp;type=politics&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&amp;amp;address=132x4238307&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;. The [[University of Chicago]] released a press release stating that he served as a [[professor]] from 1992 to 2004, when he was elected in the [[Senate]]. In a prime example of [[academic]] [[bearucracy]], The University also claimed that the title Senior Lecturer distinguishes him from regular Lecturers, which are also regarded as professors. Neither Lecturers nor Senior Lecturers are full-time or on the [[tenure]] clock.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media/index.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Obama states that he consistently opposed the [[Iraq War]] since 2002, a claim and position that former President [[Bill Clinton]] criticized as &amp;quot;the biggest fairy tale I've ever seen.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN1131516320080111&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Obama is [[pro-abortion]]. Obama said &amp;quot;the first thing I'd do as president is, is sign the Freedom of Choice Act&amp;quot; for the [[abortion]] industry.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://christiannewswire.com/news/560716251.html]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Obama has no military or executive experience and little foreign policy experience.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&amp;quot;Fresh doubts over Barack Obama's foreign policy credentials were expressed on both sides of the Atlantic last night, after it emerged that he had made only one brief official visit to London – and none elsewhere in Western Europe or Latin America. ...  Mr Obama had failed to convene a single policy meeting of the Senate European subcommittee, of which he is chairman.&amp;quot;[http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article3080794.ece]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Yet he is the favorite of the leftist attack site &amp;quot;MoveOn.org&amp;quot; for the [[Democratic]] nomination for [[President of the United States]] in the [[2008 Presidential Election|2008 election]],&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;MoveOn.org reportedly favored Obama by 70-30% over Clinton. [http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2008/02/moveonorg_obama.html]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; campaigning to the left of [[Hillary Clinton]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;For example, Obama promised not to use nuclear weapons against terrorists, a promise [[Hillary Clinton]] refused to make. [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/02/AR2007080202288.html]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;   &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
He has no clear personal achievement that cannot be explained as the likely result of [[affirmative action]].  Some examples border on the absurd: Obama has no background in [[physics]], yet it is claimed that &amp;quot;Obama analyzed and integrated [[Albert Einstein|Einstein]]'s [[theory of relativity]], the [[Heisenberg uncertainty principle]], as well as the concept of curved space as an alternative to [[gravity]], for a Law Review article that Tribe, for whom Obama worked as a research assistant, wrote titled, 'The Curvature of Constitutional Space'.&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://cbs2chicago.com/politics/barack.obama.harvard.2.334825.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  Obama's &amp;quot;research&amp;quot; for Constitutional Law Professor Tribe on this article also raises issues about preferences, as Obama had not yet even completed any law school courses&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Obama did not start his second year of law school until September 1989, the earliest he could have taken constitutional law, yet this article must have been written, submitted and accepted prior to that time to be published in the November 1989 issue of the Law Review.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; on the [[Constitution]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;The liberal Professor Tribe saw the best law students for several decades, yet insisted that Obama was the &amp;quot;best student I ever had&amp;quot; and the &amp;quot;most exciting research assistant.&amp;quot; [http://www.cmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071114/NEWS01/711140429/1217/NEWS98]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Throughout his career, Obama repeatedly ducked controversial stands in an apparent attempt to make it easier to be elected to higher office.  For example, as a state senator in [[Illinois]], he voted &amp;quot;present&amp;quot; rather than &amp;quot;aye&amp;quot; or &amp;quot;nay&amp;quot; nearly an astounding 130 times.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/20/us/politics/20obama.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  During that same period, he was planning to run for the [[House of Representatives]], which was unsuccessful, and then for [[U.S. Senate]], which was successful after his opponent was smeared with a court-ordered disclosure of confidential divorce records.{{fact}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Barack Obama is often praised for his speeches, except when he is not able to read them from a [[teleprompter]].  &amp;quot;Shorn of his Teleprompter, we saw a different Obama. His delivery was halting and unsure. ...  The prepared text for his remarks, as released on his website, sounded a lot like a typical Obama speech. ... [But with] no Teleprompter signaling the prepared text, Obama failed to deliver the speech in his characteristically flawless fashion.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.weeklystandard.com/content/public/articles/000/000/014/728ofzey.asp&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;mThe [[New York Times]] noted that &amp;quot;Mr. Obama excels at inspirational speeches read from a teleprompter before television cameras, critics have noted, but many of his other speeches on the campaign trail have failed to electrify.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/20/fashion/20speechwriter.html?_r=2&amp;amp;ex=1358485200&amp;amp;en=bb179297e5f61acb&amp;amp;ei=5090&amp;amp;partner=rssuserland&amp;amp;emc=rss&amp;amp;oref=slogin&amp;amp;oref=slogin&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; When Obama ridiculed [[Hillary Clinton]] for being like [[Annie Oakley]], it is apparent that he was not writing his own speeches.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&amp;quot;Some Obama adviser probably earned his or her dollars for that cut,&amp;quot; the USA Today wrote. [http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/columnist/raasch/2008-04-17-2008-04-17-raasch_N.htm]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Early life and education==&lt;br /&gt;
Barack Hussein Obama was born in Honolulu, [[Hawaii]] to Barack Sr., and Ann Dunham in 1961. In 1967 he moved with his mother and new stepfather to Jakarta, [[Indonesia]]. He attended a [[Catholic]] elementary school, followed by an Indonesian public school, until he returned with his mother to Hawaii. There he attended the Punahou School, the leading private preparatory school in [[Hawaii]], until he graduated in 1979.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Obama continued his education at the Occidental College in Los Angeles, [[California]], before graduating with his Bachelor of Arts from [[Columbia University]] in New York, [[New York]].  After working as a community organizer in New York City and Chicago, Illinois, Obama enrolled at [[Harvard]] Law School.  He became a member of the [[liberal]] ''Harvard Law Review'' in 1989,  which used racial [[quotas]] for membership, and was then elected by popular vote as its first African American president in 1990.  He graduated ''magna cum laude'' with his J.D. in 1991 and chose not to pursue a federal clerkship, which is the typical post-graduate position for top law students.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
He was &amp;quot;Senior Lecturer in the Law&amp;quot; -- not a professor-level position -- at the [[University of Chicago]] Law School as of 2004,&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www-news.uchicago.edu/releases/04/041103.obama.shtml&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  and is longer active at the school.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.law.uchicago.edu/faculty/obama&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Legal career==&lt;br /&gt;
Following law school, Obama continued his work as a community organizer in Chicago as Director of Illinois Project Vote. In 1993 he was hired as an associate at the Chicago law firm Miner, Barnhill &amp;amp; Galland, P.C., and began lecturing in Constitutional Law at the University of Chicago Law School. He remains on the faculty on leave of absence through today.  During this time he wrote his first book, ''Dreams from My Father'', detailing his background, his youth, and his education.  ''Dreams'' was published in 1995.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Senate career==&lt;br /&gt;
Obama was elected to the Illinois State Senate for the first time in 1996 and served there for the next eight years.  Following a failed campaign for the House of Representatives, Obama ran for the open Senate seat from Illinois in 2004.  Obama delivered the keynote address at the 2004 Democratic National Convention.  He won a seat in the [[U.S. Senate]] after [[liberals]] obtained the release of confidential and personally embarrassing divorce records of his opponent, Jack Ryan, forcing him to resign from the race and be replaced by an out-of-state candidate, [[Alan Keyes]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
His 2007 voting record in the U.S. [[Senate]] places him as its most [[liberal]] member. Among fellow Senate Democrats, he was further left than liberals like [[Ted Kennedy]], [[John Kerry]], [[Dianne Feinstein]], [[Charles Schumer]], [[Russ Feingold]], [[Carl Levin]], [[Joseph Biden]] and [[Harry Reid]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://nationaljournal.com/voteratings/sen/lib_cons.htm?o1=lib_composite&amp;amp;o2=desc]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; He has grown steadily more liberal since arriving at the Senate: the same analysis assessed him as 10th most liberal in 2006&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.nationaljournal.com/members/news/2007/voteratings/sen/lib_cons.htm?o1=lib_composite&amp;amp;o2=desc]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; and 16th most liberal in 2005.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.nationaljournal.com/members/news/2007/voteratings/sen/lib_cons.htm?o1=lib_composite&amp;amp;o2=desc]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In late 2006, Obama's second book, ''The Audacity of Hope'', was published.  Its title was supplied by the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr., a minister who has stated that &amp;quot;racism is how this country was founded and how this country was run ....  We believe in white supremacy and black inferiority and believe it more than we believe in God.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/03/14/obama_condemns_pastors_remarks.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  The book contains more of Senator Obama's personal story including the roles of both family and politics.  ''Audacity'' spent 30 weeks on the ''New York Times'' Nonfiction Best Sellers list.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/27/books/bestseller/0527besthardnonfiction.html?_r=1&amp;amp;oref=slogin New York Times Best Sellers Non Fiction]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Bills co-sponsored ===&lt;br /&gt;
Obama's principal legislation was S. 2433, which was an attempt to force the U.S. to increase its foreign aid by hundreds of billions of dollars under the guide of reducing global poverty, which was subsequently blocked by [[conservatives]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics.asp?Page=/Politics/archive/200802/POL20080225a.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Obama did support and co-sponsor a bill championed by [[Tom Coburn]] and known as the Coburn-Obama Government Transparency Act of 2006, which was signed into law by President [[George W. Bush]] on Sept. 9, 2006. This law created a website that will list the federal government's grants and contracts.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/09/20060926.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Between Jan 13, 2007 and March 13, 2008, Sen. Obama has sponsored 120 mostly [[liberal]] resolutions and bills in the Senate.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://thomas.loc.gov/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  His supporters cite the following less [[liberal]] examples, but this list is not representative:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*S.117 : A bill to amend titles 10 and 38, United States Code, to improve benefits and services for members of the Armed Forces, veterans of the Global War on Terrorism, and other veterans, to require reports on the effects of the Global War on Terrorism, and for other purposes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*S.133 : A bill to promote the national security and stability of the economy of the United States by reducing the dependence of the United States on oil through the use of alternative fuels and new technology, and for other purposes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*S.453 : A bill to prohibit deceptive practices in Federal elections.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*S.713 : A bill to ensure dignity in care for members of the Armed Forces recovering from injuries.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Accomplishments while serving on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In February 2008, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee approved Obama's proposal on a new strategy to reduce poverty throughout the world.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Obama worked with Sen. Lugar writing legislation aimed at improving conventional and nuclear non-proliferation efforts.  This legislation was signed by [[George W. Bush|President Bush]] in January 2008.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In June 2007 the Senate passed his resolution condemning violence by the Zimbabwe government. It also passed legislation co-sponsored by Obama that financed a Special Court for Sierra Leone to prosecute former Liberian President Charles Taylor. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/02/26/obamas_senate_foreign_relations_work/ &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Presidential campaign==&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:obama.jpg|thumb|right|Senator Barack Obama]]&lt;br /&gt;
Senator Obama began his anti-war candidacy for President of the United States on February 10, 2007, in Springfield, Illinois.  His announcement speech largely avoided specific campaign issues and focused on his general political message of hope for the future.  It also attempted to strongly invoke the memory of Abraham Lincoln and his &amp;quot;House Divided&amp;quot; speech.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/02/10/obama.president/index.html &amp;quot;Obama declares he's running for president&amp;quot;] 11 February 2007, www.CNN.com &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Obama's campaign has been financed largely by [[leftist]] donors opposed to the war and to the [[American]] military in general.  Obama has encouraged this by refusing to wear the customary flag on his lapel during appearances and by other less-than-patriotic gestures and symbols, such as declining to put his hand over his heart during a patriotic recitation.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
By early April 2007, his campaign generated over $25 million dollars from over 100,000 contributors.  $23.5 million of that money will be available for the Democratic Primary.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/05/us/politics/05obama.html Obama Shows His Strength in a Fund-Raising Feat on Par With Clinton], 4 April 2007, Jeff Zeleny and Patrick Healy,'' The New York Times''&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  After the first Democratic presidential debate in Columbia, South Carolina, Obama's image as an &amp;quot;articulate&amp;quot; spokesman came into question after his failure to state right away that he would retaliate in case of further terrorist strikes against the United States.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/27/AR2007042702162.html?hpid=moreheadlines Clinton Campaign Tries to Keep Heat on Obama Over Debate Response], Dan Balz, ''Washington Post'' April 28, 2007.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Chicago Sun-Times, &lt;br /&gt;
[http://www.suntimes.com/news/sweet/362269,CST-NWS-sweet29.article 'I was a little nervous' at debate'], Lynn Sweet, &lt;br /&gt;
April 29, 2007,&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
During a fund raising event in Virginia in May 2007 Obama told donors,&lt;br /&gt;
{{Cquote|This week there was a tragedy in Kansas. Ten thousand people died. An entire town destroyed.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,271357,00.html Transcript: 'Special Report with Brit Hume,' May 9, 2007], retrieved from ''FOX News'', 06/13/07.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Obama evidently was misinformed, whereas in reality the tornado which touched down in Kansas cost the lives of nine people in the town of Greensburg, and twelve overall in Kansas.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
By August it appeared Obama was running to be left off the ticket completely rather than the much ballyhooed Hillary/Obama ticket the [[mainstream media]] was pushing.  After a series of ill-advised foreign policy statements, Obama was openly criticized as a lightweight even by liberals, in much the same vein as [[John Edwards]] and [[Dan Quayle]] had been depicted.  First, Obama said he would have face to face meetings with two of Florida's most fearful enemies, [[Fidel Castro]] and [[Hugo Chavez]].  Florida is a key state to any presidential ambitions.  Then Obama advised he would be willing to invade the sovereign territory of a U.S. ally without prior consultation.  Finally, Obama broke the cardinal rule of declaring he would not use nuclear weapons, removing the element of bluff U.S. Presidents had vitally depended upon throughout the [[Cold War]] era.  The incidents all added up to a picture of a candidate ill-prepared and ill-advised, lacking in a basic understanding of the office of the presidency, and failing to surround himself with appointees able to make up for his deficiencies. However, Obama won the Iowa Democratic caucuses, pushing [[Hillary Clinton]] into third place, which gave him a serious chance of becoming the Democratic nominee.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Political views ==&lt;br /&gt;
Obama's political views have been subjected to controversy even before he put himself forward as a presidential candidate. Former House majority leader [[Tom DeLay]] has described Obama's record in the Illinois Senate as that of a [[Communism|“Marxist leftist&amp;quot;.]]&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_121306/content/stop_the_tape.guest.html|Sexy Rock Star Obama Whines About His Ears], RushLimbaugh.com, December 13 2006&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; While he is generally considered [[liberal]] by [[America]]n standards, he could be considered a moderate [[conservative]] on an international scale.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://politicalcompass.org/usprimaries2008&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; In May 2007, Obama (and Sen. Hillary Clinton) voted against funding the Iraq War for the first time.&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; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Obama's views on [[gun control]] is focused on an opinion article in the [[Wall Street Journal]]:&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;David Kopel, &amp;quot;The Democrats and Gun Control,&amp;quot; Wall St.J., Page A19, April 17, 2008 [http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB120839466717921537-lMyQjAxMDI4MDE4NzMxOTc0Wj.html]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:As a state senate candidate in 1996, Mr. Obama endorsed a complete ban on all handguns in a questionnaire. The Obama campaign has claimed he &amp;quot;never saw or approved the questionnaire,&amp;quot; and that an aide filled it out incorrectly. But a few weeks ago, Politico.com found an amended version of the questionnaire. It included material added in Mr. Obama's handwriting.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Obama has said, &amp;quot;Doing the Lord's work is a thread that runs through our politics since the very beginning,&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;it puts the lie to the notion that [[separation of church and state]] in America means somehow that faith should have no role in public life.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.siouxcityjournal.com/articles/2007/06/17/news/iowa/8db7c1a17d2b51f9862572fd000fc9f4.txt Obama says religion has place in politics], By Todd Dorman, ''Sioux City Journal'', June 18, 2007.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Nonetheless, he asserted that elements of [[sex education]] should be taught in kindergarten.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&amp;quot;Barack Obama reaffirmed to [[Planned Parenthood]] this week that he believes elements of sex education should begin in kindergarten.&amp;quot; [http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=3395856 (ABC News)] July 20, 2007 &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Obama spoke at the May 1, 2006, illegal immigration march in Chicago.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://nomoreblather.com/barack-obama-and-the-immigration-marches Immigration marches]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::''We are hungry for change!'' S.C. January 26, 2008.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Foreign policy experience ==&lt;br /&gt;
  &lt;br /&gt;
In Russia and the former Soviet republics, he met with representatives of the International Republican Institute and National Democratic Institute to discuss democracy in the former Soviet republics. He also met with Russian military officials and visited numerous nuclear/biological weapons destruction sites in Russia, Ukraine and Azerbaijan with Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Richard Lugar (R-IN).    On the same tour, he visited London, UK, and met with Tony Blair, sitting UK Prime Minister.[http://obama.senate.gov/press/050823-obama_to_visit/]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Obama visited South Africa, Kenya, Ethiopia, Djibouti and Chad; he discussed his tour of Robben Island prison, met with U.S. troops, and visited refugee camps of the people fleeing Darfur and addressed Africa's growing AIDS epidemic. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://obama.senate.gov/podcast/060906-090606_africa_t/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
During a ten day tour of the Middle East, he talked with government leaders in Qatar, Kuwait, Iraq, Jordan and Israel.  &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; http://obama.senate.gov/news/060113-obama_wraps_up/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Religious affiliations==&lt;br /&gt;
[[Daniel Pipes]] concludes that Obama was raised a Muslim, &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;In his autobiography, ''Dreams of My Father'', Obama relates how he got into trouble for making faces during Koranic studies, thereby revealing he was a Muslim, for Indonesian students in his day attended religious classes according to their faith.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
yet in ''The Audacity of Hope'' Obama is described as growing up in a non-religious environment. When he was a child in Indonesia, he attended a local Muslim school for two years and a local [[Catholic]] school for two years, according to his own books.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&amp;quot;Obama has noted in his two books, 'Dreams From My Father' and 'The Audacity of Hope,' that he spent two years in a Muslim school and another two years in a Catholic school while living in Indonesia from age 6 to 10.&amp;quot; [http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/01/22/obama.madrassa/]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; His father was a non-practicing [[Muslim]]. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Obama attended a Muslim school but [[CNN]] states that it was not a [[madrassa]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/01/22/obama.madrassa/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Obama and his his wife (reared a Baptist) have been active members since 1988 at the Trinity [[United Church of Christ]]&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.tucc.org/about.htm&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; in Chicago. Obama describes his conversion in ''The Audacity of Hope''. The title of this book is taken from one of Pastor Wright's sermons. In April 2008, to advance his presidential campaign, Obama disavowed Pastor Wright's views.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Books ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* ''Dreams from My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance.''&lt;br /&gt;
* ''The Audacity of Hope: Thoughts on Reclaiming the American Dream.''&lt;br /&gt;
* ''Barack Obama in His Own Words.'' (B. Obama and Lisa Rogak)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Published criticism==&lt;br /&gt;
On April 11, 2007, staff writers of ''The Boston Globe'' reported the criticisms of several black commentators regarding Obama's apparent hesitation to join the race to condemn acclaimed radio personality [[Don Imus]],&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/04/11/obamas_silence_on_imus_alarms_some_blacks/ Obama's silence on Imus alarms some blacks], Rick Klein and Joseph Williams, ''The Boston Globe'', April 11, 2007.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; who made a racially insensitive remark&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.reuters.com/article/industryNews/idUSN1237895620070412|title=Furor over Imus puts heat on other broadcasters], Daniel Trotta, Reuters, 2007-04-12.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; on the air during the April 4 broadcast. Obama did not comment on Imus's remarks until well after prominent civil rights leaders [[Al Sharpton]] and [[Jesse Jackson]] had called Imus to account and after Imus was suspended by MSNBC and CBS Radio. Obama later weighed in on April 10 by saying, &amp;quot;The comments of Don Imus were divisive, hurtful, and offensive to Americans of all backgrounds.&amp;quot; &amp;lt;br /&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The ''Globe'' reported that Obama's perceived delay in addressing Don Imus's remarks was described by Melissa Harris Lacewell, a professor of politics and African-American studies at Princeton University, as &amp;quot;miss[ing] an opportunity to prove himself to blacks and white liberals who would have wanted Obama take the lead in denouncing Imus.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/04/11/obamas_silence_on_imus_alarms_some_blacks/ Obama's silence on Imus alarms some blacks], Rick Klein and Joseph Williams, ''The Boston Globe'', April 11, 2007.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://time-blog.com/real_clear_politics/2007/04/obama_race_and_the_election.html Obama, Race, and The Election,] ''Real Clear Politics.com''&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In June 2007 the ''Chicago Sun-Times'' reported Obama had actually received nearly three times more campaign cash from indicted slum landlord Tony Rezko&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/353829,CST-NWS-rez23.article Barack Obama and his slumlord patron], Tim Novak, Chicago Sun-Times, April 23, 2007.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; and his associates than Obama has publicly acknowledged.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/432197,CST-NWS-obama18.article Rezko cash triple what Obama says], Chris Fusco and Tim Novak, ''Chicago Sun-Times'', June 18, 2007.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==See also==&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Previous Breaking News/Barack Obama|Articles about '''Barack Obama''' from previous &amp;quot;Breaking News&amp;quot;]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Further reading==&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Peter Hitchens|Hitchens, Peter]] [http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=511901&amp;amp;in_page_id=1811 ''The Black Kennedy: But does anyone know the real Barack Obama?''] [[Daily Mail]]. Accessed 4 February 2008.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Sources==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://obama.senate.gov/about/ Official Senate Website]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.opensecrets.org/pfds/pfd2005/N00009638_2005.pdf Barack Obama Personal Financial Disclosures Summary: 2005], retrieved from opensecrets.org 17 June 2007.&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=O000167 Biographical Directory of the United States Congress]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.law.uchicago.edu/faculty/obama/cv.html University of Chicago Law School] Faculty Listing&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.biography.com/search/article.do?id=12782369 Barack Obama Biography] from Biography.com&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/o/barack_obama/index.html?inline=nyt-per New York Times Topics, Barack Obama]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{liberalism}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==References==&lt;br /&gt;
{{reflist|2}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{DEFAULTSORT:Obama, Barrack}}&lt;br /&gt;
{{2008 presidential candidates}}&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:United States Senators]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Democratic Party]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Countryforchrist</name></author>
	</entry>
</feed>