Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Barack Hussein Obama

2008-11-22T00:18:33Z

Konstanty: Undo revision 565663 by LiamG (Talk) I know you libs. want Obama to be good, but he isnt

{{Controversial}}

Archives:
[[/archive1|1]]
[[/archive2|2]]
[[/archive3|3]]
[[/archive4|4]]
[[/archive5|5]]

== Lenin Poster ==

The statement about the Lenin-like poster is informative. We don't censor informative information here. Let the reader decide.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:22, 10 November 2008 (EST)
:Andy, did you happen to take a look at the reference? The article claims that "Obama also ''revealed'' his ''deep Marxist/Leninist roots''" and that "clear parallels between the poster design and Lenin's earlier poster was ''obviously a deliberate yet hidden hint'' to his European, socialistic audience as to his political roots and beliefs" (emphasis mine). The citation, which was a blog, by the way, and not in any way a trustworthy source of informative information, gives no evidence to back up these statements. It shows a poster of Lenin and a poster of Obama, both of which show profiles of the figures. Assuming these pictures weren't entirely made up, do you really think that this slight similarity is Obama's way of confessing closet Marxism? Not to mention the fact that Obama likely didn't make the posters anyway -- maybe we should accuse his (very expensive!!) marketing designer of being a Marxist/Leninist. 15:45, 11 November 2008 (EST)

== Obama and beer ==

There are several stories (with photos) of Obama drinking beer, which as an intoxicant is banned by Muslim sharia. <ref> http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://media.mcclatchydc.com/smedia/2008/05/06/20/125-6web-Obama_Beer-minor.standalone.prod_affiliate.91.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.mcclatchydc.com/100/story/36055.html&h=325&w=485&sz=47&hl=en&start=28&um=1&usg=__ShpWdieNIwhr4Rp3jHtLe7U9MB8=&tbnid=Se90xFLBo6rNQM:&tbnh=86&tbnw=129&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dobama%2Bdrinks%26start%3D18%26ndsp%3D18%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26safe%3Doff%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-US:official%26sa%3DN </ref> <ref> http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.nancarrow-webdesk.com/warehouse/storage2/2008-w18/img.211156_t.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.nancarrow-webdesk.com/warehouse/storage2/2008-w18/img.211156.html&h=332&w=400&sz=16&hl=en&start=15&um=1&usg=__Yubc0nmus36Cf4Rrf7BL7-33-0g=&tbnid=xuWGKQ1Sl8_bQM:&tbnh=103&tbnw=124&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dobama%2Bbeer%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26safe%3Doff%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-US:official%26sa%3DG</ref> No rational person can say that a practicing Muslim wouldn't violate the law in such a blatant, repeated manner. Another strike against the goofy Muslim charge. And remember, we don't censor here. Godspeed. [[User:Thecount|Thecount]] 12:52, 11 November 2008 (EST)

: I think many American Muslims drink beer. Nice try, though.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:57, 11 November 2008 (EST)

::And how many "dangerous" American Muslims are there that have loose enough morals to blatantly disrespect their own religious law, but are still a threat to Americans? (Of course this is all granted that he IS a secret Muslim, which I have given up trying to discuss) So I see nothing wrong if Obama turns out to be a secret Muslim. Nice try, though. [[User:anonymous123|anonymous123]] 23:54, 17 November 2008 (EST)

::He also smokes cigarettes, to complete his subterfuge. [[User:Human|Human]] 17:42, 11 November 2008 (EST)

== Hussein reference ==

It's factual and it's informative. If there is reasoned basis for deleting it, let's see it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:03, 11 November 2008 (EST)

: Again, no reason has been given for deleting the Hussein reference, and there is none.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 07:49, 12 November 2008 (EST)
:: Andy, this is false. Reasons have been given on this talk page numerous times before. I just had a quick look, and found reasons being given in all archives except the first, as well as other places on this talk page. So you are wrong to say that no reason has been given, and wrong to say that there is no reason. And, as I have pointed out in the edit comments, five senior administrators have said that they disagree with it being there. Is your view on this somehow superior to those five put together? Do you want this to be a collaborative encyclopaedia or your blog? The former demands that you not impose your opinion regardless of who is disagreeing. Imposing your opinion regardless suggests that this is your blog. I know you don't consider it to be the latter, but that's the way it's looking. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:21, 12 November 2008 (EST)

:::Not a blog but an encylopedia. If it were a blog, your opinion would carry as much weight as anyone else's. Let's put this one in [[Conservapedia:Debate Topics]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 08:24, 12 November 2008 (EST)
:::: If it were a blog, the blog owner's opinion would carry the most weight. Almost all blogs are the opinions of an ''individual'', not a group of people. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:58, 12 November 2008 (EST)

::: Philip, the truth is not dependent on consensus, and 5 out of several dozen is not a consensus anyway. Give your best reason for deleting this information here. Since the beginning we have had a policy not to delete factual, informative material, particularly when it is liberal ideology that motivates the demand for censorship of it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:29, 12 November 2008 (EST)
:::: I said five of the ''senior'' administrators, which numbers about eleven. So that's five out of eleven, not dozens. Further, that's five against and one (yourself) for, as the remainder have not offered an opinion that I'm aware of. (One perhaps did support you, but because they wanted to support you, not because they considered it a valid argument.)
:::: My reason is relevance, not (primarily) accuracy. I'm not disputing that his middle name is Hussein. The claim that "most Christians would not retain" their (former/Muslim/Arabic?; it's not clear) name is not supported by the references, and even if it is true, means little in individual cases. That is, even if 99% changed their name, Obama not changing his name might mean no more than him being in the other 1%.
:::: And this is just one of the points in that section. The entire argument that Obama is a Muslim is built on very circumstantial evidence, selective evidence, and logical fallacy, and is rejected by other conservatives.
:::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:58, 12 November 2008 (EST)

::::: Philip, it obviously is relevant, which you say is your primary objection. We don't censor information here based on liberal dislike for it. Wikipedia does that. We provide the information and let the reader decide. If some readers want to conclude that someone with a Muslim name is actually a Christian, even though less than 1% of those raised as Muslims convert, so be it. We're not going to censor this factual information.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:37, 12 November 2008 (EST)

::::::: "''...it obviously is relevant...''": Because ''you'' say so? If it was so "obvious", then you wouldn't have five senior administrators disagreeing with you. No, it's not obviously relevant at all, and you've not demonstrated the relevance.
::::::: "''We don't censor information here based on liberal dislike for it. Wikipedia does that.''": Given that I and the other senior administrators are not "liberals", and the rejection is based on relevance, not "dislike", why are you introducing red herrings like this? Has your argument got no more substance than irrelevancies like that?
::::::: "'' We provide the information and let the reader decide.''": Only if it's relevant. Otherwise we are just introducing padding for readers to wade through and discourage them getting to the relevant stuff.
::::::: "''We're not going to censor this factual information.''": It is not censorship to remove irrelevant information, and I'd appreciate you not implying that I'm trying to censor anything.
::::::: In summary, you have failed to produce any reasons substance as to why it should be retained.
::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:26, 17 November 2008 (EST)

:::::: Exactly. The point of Conservapedia is ''not'' to censor information, but to leave it to our readers to decide. The MSM has tried to push this under the rug, so the least we can do is offer these arguments to the intelligent public. [[User:RodWeathers|RodWeathers]] 11:27, 12 November 2008 (EST)

::::::: The problem is that these points are fallacious and lead to a conclusion based on specious arguments. That is neither "trustworthy" nor encyclopedic. Obama may not be your brand of xian, but he's certianly no brand of muslim. Your inability to accept that this is incorrect despite repeated arguments wherein you have shown nothing but fallacious arguments drawing poor conclusions hurts the credibility of all Conservapedia. [[User:EternalCritic|EternalCritic]] 11:49, 12 November 2008 (EST)

:Did anyone notice how ASchlafly posited the question at or near closing time Tuesday night and declared that he recieved no answer at or near opening time on Wednesday? --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 08:49, 14 November 2008 (EST)

:Keep the reference, but 2 examples of people having changed their names for religious reasons does not mean "most" people would change their names as stated in the article. A good reference on this topic would list a percentage (presumably greater than 50%) of people who have switched religions also changing their names.
::I am sure we could come up with a very long list, but this article would not be the place for it. A sample of a couple of names to illustrate the point being made is surely adequate for all except those who wish to undermine the accuracy of the piece. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 13:21, 14 November 2008 (EST)

==Debate On Obama's Religion==

The debate is continuing at [[Debate:Is Obama a Muslim?‎]] It may be best to continue arguing the point there with the aim of reaching a conclusion which can then be utilised in the article, and leave this talk page for discussing other improvements. [[User:NormanS|NormanS]] 22:22, 11 November 2008 (EST)
:Get the section about him being a "Muslim" there have already been to debates concluding that this should be removed. http://www.conservapedia.com/Debate:Is_Obama_a_Muslim%3F http://www.conservapedia.com/Debate:_What_is_sufficient_proof_that_Obama_is_a_Muslim%3F-[[User:Vcelloho|Vcelloho]] 00:09, 12 November 2008 (EST)

== Reference ==

<references/>

Get the section about him being a "Muslim" there have already been to debates concluding that this should be removed. http://www.conservapedia.com/Debate:Is_Obama_a_Muslim%3F http://www.conservapedia.com/Debate:_What_is_sufficient_proof_that_Obama_is_a_Muslim%3F-[[User:Vcelloho|Vcelloho]] 00:08, 12 November 2008 (EST)

== He has no clear personal achievement that cannot be explained as the likely result of affirmative action? Untrue. ==

I am no fan of Obama. I do plan on respectfully opposing him via various channels on the internet. However, I believe I should state my opposition to this sentence of the article: "He has no clear personal achievement that cannot be explained as the likely result of affirmative action."

I have not read the rest of the article because I believed months ago and for good reasons that Obama was going to win this election. For example, the unpopular war and poor economy that was partly caused by a guns and lots of butter spending strategy (Bush should have learned from LBJ committing us to a war and the Great Society programs at the same time). I also thought that it would have been easy for the Republicans to win 12 years in a row given the low quality of the Democratic party. I think the Republicans snatched defeat out of the jaws of victory. I also think Americans have too much debt (last time I heard the average American had lots of credit card debt). One of the reasons for the great depression is that American's had too much debt at the time. I think Bush's call for Americans to do to do more shopping mall spending was a joke. If anything, Americans need to increase their skills to be more productive (The libraries are open but you might have to watch less TV. Last time I checked the average American watches 3 hours of television a day) and work harder to pay off their debt. American's are going to get out of the hole by increasing their productivity. It seems as if Bush did not want to learn from economic history and was only looking out for short term fixes. Well sooner or later, common sense says you have to pay the piper.

Getting back to Obama, obviously, Obama's marital success in terms of not getting divorced compared to Ronald Reagan is not the result of affirmative action. I am sure I could come up with others. I have not read the article for the most part because this sentence turned me off to the whole article. Judging from the ""He has no clear personal achievement that cannot be explained as the likely result of affirmative action." sentence, I believe a lot of time is probably being spent to defend an article rather than improve it where obvious improvements could be made. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 06:04, 12 November 2008 (EST)

: Staying married is laudable but in this context it would not be considered a "clear personal achievement." If you would like to add a footnote exception to the remark along the lines of, "he has been married for x years," I'm not opposed but I would expect that to caveat to seem off-topic, or even sarcastic, for most readers.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 07:52, 12 November 2008 (EST)

::One CP writer told me he equates divorce with adultery, and he accused Reagan of adultery on this basis. Is this the consensus view of Conservatives? Or just his own idea? Or what?

::We ought to be clear on the standards by which we judge public figures. And consistent, too. I mean, which is worse, committing actual adultery (JFK, Clinton) or getting divorced and then remarrying? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 08:06, 12 November 2008 (EST)

::: Biblically, divorce is not adultery. However, divorce is wrong unless the spouse has been unfaithful. Remarriage after a legitimate divorce is okay. The question is whether remarriage after a wrong divorce is okay. Many believe, I think that although the act of divorce may be wrong, that is a forgivable sin like any other sin, and remarriage is not a further sin. And I'd tend to agree that committing "actual" adultery is worse than divorce and remarriage. However, the point that Conservative was raising was not between those two cases, but between divorce and remarriage compared to marriage without divorce.
::: I'm not convinced that Obama's marriage does not constitute a "clear personal achievement". Given the divorce rate these days, especially among prominent people, I would think that it ''was'' a clear personal achievement. In fact I'd consider staying marriage a "clear personal achievement" for anybody these days, given all the pressures on marriage, including the peer pressure that divorce is okay.
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:35, 12 November 2008 (EST)
::::I rarely disagree with you, Philip, as I find your comments to be some of the more considered on this board, but here I would have to disagree. Jesus makes it quite clear that divorce *is* adultery, not *like* adultery. More then any other text, especially OT text, I take Jesus's words to heart. Mark 10
::::2 Some Pharisees came and tested him by asking, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?"
::::3 "What did Moses command you?" he replied.
::::4 They said, "Moses permitted a man to write a certificate of divorce and send her away."
::::5 "It was because your hearts were hard that Moses wrote you this law," Jesus replied.
::::6 "But at the beginning of creation God `made them male and female.'
::::7 `For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife,
::::8 and the two will become one flesh.' So they are no longer two, but one.
::::9 Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."
::::10 When they were in the house again, the disciples asked Jesus about this.
::::11 He answered, "Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her.
::::12 And if she divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery." --[[User:JeanJacques|JeanJacques]] 09:41, 12 November 2008 (EST)
::::: I didn't say that divorce is "like" adultery. I said that it's ''not'' adultery. And the evidence you've offered to refute that doesn't refute that. The Bible says that someone who divorces ''and remarries'' commits adultery, not that someone who ''divorces'' commits adultery. You can't have adultery without sexual intercourse, which would be taken as given with someone remarrying, but not a given with someone just divorcing. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:33, 17 November 2008 (EST)

== Obama spiruality interview ==
http://blog.beliefnet.com/stevenwaldman/2008/11/obamas-interview-with-cathleen.html a interview from a pretty religous website about Obama. Should it be mentioned? Or since it kinda contradicts abit of the article should it be ommitted? --[[User:Vmember|Vmember]] 13:06, 12 November 2008 (EST)
:What one might say in an interview really means very little, Vmember, particularly if one is seeking to achieve a position by hiding one's essential nature or beliefs. So really what he says when seeking to impress is irrelevant. It is what he does and has done, and what he says in unguarded moments, that matters. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 13:16, 12 November 2008 (EST)
*um then shouldn't it atleast be mentioned somewhere in the article about this interview maybe as a response to questions about his faith section? And why is him maybe being a muslim all the way at the top of the article? Shouldn't be be somewhere towards the middle? I've never seen in all my time part of a article pushed into the intro section. Also the article contradicts itself by stating that Obama is most likely a muslim while at the same time pointing at that he was a member of a radical Christian church. That doesn't make any sense. You can't have it both ways.--[[User:Vmember|Vmember]] 13:25, 12 November 2008 (EST)
::You can if you're a sleeper for radical Islam. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 13:27, 12 November 2008 (EST)
**Wait you seriously think that? Hmm fringe ideas and theories on any subject is detrimental to a discussion let alone a encyclopedia. It's dangerous thinking like that is why us conservatives lost the election and alienated so many moderates and weak liberals. Would there be any objection if I were to move the muslim part to the middle and add a section with his response to questions of his faith?--[[User:Vmember|Vmember]] 13:34, 12 November 2008 (EST)
***Does this look better? http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Help:Practice_Page&oldid=555527 Hmm I kinda think instead of giving facts supporting the theory Obama is a muslim editors are trying to push it off as straight fact even though theres been evidence against it. Isn't that a tactic only liberals use and a form of deceit?--[[User:Vmember|Vmember]] 13:45, 12 November 2008 (EST)

== Poster ==

Don't delete the insight about the poster. I learned from the insight, and I'm sure others have also. We don't censor here. We let the readers decide.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:39, 12 November 2008 (EST)
:I already explained (above) why the "insight" is not actually an insight, is not supported by the source, and is likely false. Believe me, I would love it if Obama really did intentionally model his posters after those of Lenin in a subliminal message to Europeans, but there's simply no evidence of that.

:You reverted both of my edits. Do you have problems with both of them, or just the first one? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 18:42, 12 November 2008 (EST)

:: Sorry, I just have a problem with the deletion of the poster edit. Your other edit looked fine, but it came right after the controversial one and there was no easy way to separate the too.

:: The similarities between Obama's poster and the famous Lenin image is too obvious for words. We don't need a citation for observing, for example, that 2+2=4. If a reader wants to reject the obvious similarity between the images, then the reader is welcome to do so. Censorship is not a preferred approach.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:52, 12 November 2008 (EST)

:::I'm not denying that they are similar, I'm denying that their similarity "[reveals] his deep Marxist/Leninist roots" and "was obviously a deliberate yet hidden hint to his European, socialistic audience as to his political roots and belief". Can I change the text to reflect that, while the two posters are similar, there's no way to know that it's a confession? (I pointed out before that if anyone is imitating Lenin here, it's probably the over-priced poster designer). [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 18:59, 12 November 2008 (EST)

:::: I'm fine with rewording, as long as it doesn't inject liberal spin or make it look like Obama didn't approve it with the similarity.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:12, 12 November 2008 (EST)

:::::I'll try my best. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 19:40, 12 November 2008 (EST)

:::::: Your revised wording is great. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:05, 12 November 2008 (EST)

:Is anyone else put off by the fact that the Germans really hated Lennin? --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 08:25, 14 November 2008 (EST)

:Fun poster [http://img.skitch.com/20080723-pbt7dkk5ksgbystrri5px6s9fr.jpg] --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 13:44, 14 November 2008 (EST) The imagery is more common that you might expect. Nothing new under the sun as they say --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 13:44, 14 November 2008 (EST)

==Disgusted==

Mr Schlafly this page is absolutely disgusting. I am totally against Obama as you know, this is the most sorry excuse for an encyclopedia entry I have ever seen. We should leave this page as information about him as a individual, not about why we hate him and you should too. 90% of the page is opinion, and is totally innapropriate. I suggest making it into two pages. One about Obama with just simple facts about him and his backround, and you can make another about everything we hate about him. Pages like this are why we are losing our trustworthyness.
Thanks, --[[User:ChrisS|Chris]]

:Here here. At times I find this article amusing as an ironic hate piece, but at best it degrades this site and conservatives in general. Liberal or conservative, poor logic is poor logic. Because Obama and Lenin each had monochromatic posters featuring a pose directed toward the right it is evidence of Marxist intentions. Because Obama said the words "my muslim faith", irregardless of any context, it used as evidence of being a muslim. I don't even know what to say about the mind control thing, it's really amazing to me because as a religious person it reminds of the feelings I had when I discovered the truth of Jesus Christ: "a light will shine down from somewhere, it will light upon you, you will experience an epiphany" [[User:Mike770781|Mike770781]] 19:31, 13 November 2008 (EST)

==Disgusted Conservative too==

I did not vote for Senator Obama for political reasons, but I believe he is a good man; this article is simple character assassination; you do not go into his views and show how those are disagreeable (his views on abortion, and his want to make a hasty withdrawal from Iraq) and instead you simply accuse him of being a Muslim, and anti-American etc. also a blog is not a credible source; a blog is someone's opinion. Anyway the accusations levied upon him are for the most part completely inaccurate. He was born in The United States, he wrote his autobiography, he is not a Muslim, he is not anti-American. Please keep the disagreements political.--[[user:Rpond|Rpond]]

I don't know who wrote this, but it shouldn't have been deleted. --[[User:ChrisS|Chris]]

: The odds are less than 1% that "Rpond's" posting is genuine, in light of his misspelling of "conservative" and his other rants. It is appropriate to delete insincere or deceptive postings.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:53, 13 November 2008 (EST)

:: It is an interesting experience living life each day getting verbally attacked for being a conservative then coming here and getting persecuted (justified edits to factual and encyclopedic wording) for being a liberal. You seem to be very fond of the less than 1% statistic, and have used it many times in many places, but I've never seen any solid reasoning or studies behind it (although in this case your gut instinct does seem to be credited implicitly) I think perhaps you live in a highly conservative eco chamber and aren't getting out enough to notice how little resonance this sort of thing has out in the real world. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 18:58, 13 November 2008 (EST)
::: Way to show your liberal stripes, BrendanW. Ad hominem attacks are not appreciated here, so please keep it civil. [[User:RodWeathers|RodWeathers]] 19:01, 13 November 2008 (EST)

:::: Would that be an ad hominem attack like calling someone a liberal? --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 19:24, 13 November 2008 (EST)

::::: Are you insulted by being described as a "liberal"? Or are you angry that you're not fooling anyone?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:39, 13 November 2008 (EST)

:::::: Either Way its still an Ad Hominem. However I am a little "l" libertarian, and strict constitutionalist (excluding the racist portions that is) which makes me pleanty conservative, I'm also an objectivist in the Ayn Rand model, highly capitalistic and against socialism. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 09:11, 16 November 2008 (EST)

:::::::Liberal is not an ad hominem, it's a statement of your political views (whether accurate or not), which is completely valid to make in a political arena such as this. Calling someone sarcastic, or making sarcastic remarks about how they live is certainly ad hominem. My two cents--[[User:TruthOfChrist|TruthOfChrist]] 09:27, 19 November 2008 (EST)
:::::::: "Liberal" ''is'' an ''ad hominem'', for two reasons:
::::::::* "''ad hominem''" refers to an argument about the ''person'' rather than about the ''issue''. So even if it is accurate and descriptive, it's still about the ''person'' rather than the ''issue''.
::::::::* An '''''abusive''' ad hominem'' is when you say something ''nasty'' about the person. If "liberal" is an accurate description, or even if it's not but it's said in the reasonable belief that it is, then it's not an '''''abusive''' ad hominem''. But when it's said without any grounds other than disagreeing with a single point of view, then I'd classify as abusive.
:::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:16, 19 November 2008 (EST)

==Cool it==

I've protected this page; only admins can edit it for the moment. Many of us have strong feelings, and we have used this page to express them.

But I would hope that we all confine our comments here to specific suggestions on how to improve the article. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 17:45, 13 November 2008 (EST)

== Did you read that reference? ==

The claim is that OBama might be a Muslim and that he might swear in on a koran. The reference -ref- Obama hoped to become President when he was sworn in as U.S. Senator in 2004, and did not use a Koran at that time. Subsequently Democratic House member Keith Ellison established the precedent for being sworn in using the Koran, and there is no guarantee that Obama would not do likewise if sworn in as President. [http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/sliming_obama.html FactCheck.org, Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania, ''Sliming Obama'', January 10, 2008, retrieved on 10/16/2008]-/ref- is about how Obamma is not a Muslim and did not use the Koran to be sworn in as a senator. I simply do not see how it belongs. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 08:21, 14 November 2008 (EST)

:Welcome to Conservapedia. Truth is relative to Andy. -[[User:Mike770781|Mike770781]] 15:04, 15 November 2008 (EST)

== Code name ==

The article plainly says that Obama did have a role in picking it. Hence the reversion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:01, 14 November 2008 (EST)
:My article clearly says that the White House Communications Agency chose the name for him. Hence the original edit.
:I tried to find a source directly fromt he Secret Service or the White House Communications Agency, but neither of their search functions were working. I'll keep looking. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 15:06, 14 November 2008 (EST)

::"President-Elect Barack Obama – 'Renegade' – had a say in choosing the code name that his guards use when they are whispering into their microphones." From the article cited on our Main Page.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:11, 14 November 2008 (EST)

:::''These not-so-secret names are chosen by officials at the White House Communications Agency, which was not inclined to comment on the selection process. In a previous news report, an agency spokesman said the names are assigned by "sheer whim."'' -- From my (stateside) source. You can see why I was confused.
:::I did further research (hence my half-hour long absence) According to [http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2008/11/13/pssst_renegade_and_renaissance_are_in_the_house/ this] source, the WHCA chooses a list of names, and the President decides which one he likes best. So we were both right! [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 15:40, 14 November 2008 (EST)

::::Everybody wins! Yay! -[[User:CSGuy|CSGuy]] 22:41, 17 November 2008 (EST)

== For the love of God!! ==
HE IS NOT A MUSLIM. I donated 500$ to support McCain and voted for him but this beyond retarded. Please remove that info, because right now nobody in their right mind can take this seriously. Also take out the Koran thing he used the bible in the senate. [[User:Nig89|Nig89]] 20:17, 15 November 2008 (EST)

: Your comment is long on your dubious assertion of a credential, but short on substance. Give us your reason.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:28, 15 November 2008 (EST)

Why does Obama's religion matter so much? 18:57, 15 November 2008 {{unsigned|JamesZ}}

: Good question. I hope your fellow liberals will answer it for you. They are the ones having unexplained hysteria about a simple observation.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:15, 15 November 2008 (EST)

::The word you are looking for is "accusation" not "observation". An observation would be stating that he has some traits similar to Muslims. An accusation is claiming that he is a Muslim, regardless of his own protests. On the accusation note, great job assuming anyone who doesn't believe you is a liberal Aschfly. [[User:anonymous123|anonymous123]] 00:01, 17 November 2008 (EST)

== Was Barack Obama truly raised a Muslim or is he a Muslim? ==

Previously I wrote the following: Here is a well written and scholarly piece that examines Obama's religious views and it was written by the National Clergy Council: http://nationalclergycouncil.org/010807BarackObama.htm The evidence does not support Obama being a muslim. The evidence also does not support Obama embracing biblical Christianity.[[User:Conservative|conservative]] 09:19, 10 November 2008 (EST) Mr. Schlafly wrote the following: " I skimmed it and don't see where it concludes that Obama is not a Muslim. The article fails to recognize that less than 1% of people raised Muslim (as Obama was) ever leave the religion. The article says Obama is a member of a Christian church, but he left that many months ago.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:24, 10 November 2008 (EST)"

Here is my response to Mr. Schlafly's reply to my previous post on the Obama/Muslim issue:

I am not a fan of "Liberal Christianity" as I believe it often fails to fall into the realm of biblical/orthodox Christianity and when it does so it is not Christianity at all. With that being said, the article does give compelling evidence that Obama is a member of the camp of "liberal Christianity" and not biblical Christianity. If Obama is a "liberal Christian" he is not a Muslim. There are two logical fallacies called the [http://www.pnl-nlp.org/download/propaganda/page2.htm#sloth slothful inductive fallacy] and [http://www.goodart.org/exclus.htm fallacy of exclusion] whereby "Relevant evidence which would undermine an inductive argument is excluded from consideration. The requirement that all relevant information be included is called the "principle of total evidence"."[http://www.goodart.org/exclus.htm] '''Andy, I believe you are committing these two logical fallacies as can be seen by the material in the above cited work by the National Clergy Council. I would strongly suggest not skimming the material as it gives compelling evidence that Obama is a "liberal Christian" and therefore not a Muslim.'''

'''Next, was Obama truly raised a Muslim and therefore does the less than 1% of people raised Muslim ever leave the religion statistic apply. I don't think a compelling case can be made for the 1% argument being applied to Obama. I cite the following:
'''

"Barack Hussein Obama was born in 1961 in Honolulu, Hawaii, to a Kenyan Muslim father of the same name and an American secular humanist mother named Ann Dunham. While Obama’s father was raised in Islamic culture, he had become a functional atheist by the time he reached college. Despite his parents’ lack of religion, young Obama received his early education in both Catholic and Muslim schools.

Obama’s parents divorced when he was only two years old. Henceforth, the senior Obama was “almost entirely absent”[i] from his son’s life. Four years later, Ann Dunham relocated to Indonesia with her son to join her new husband Lolo Soetoro. A daughter, Maya, was born to the couple before their divorce. She returned to Hawaii where she went on to earn her MA in anthropology from the University of Hawaii. In his first book, Dreams from My Father, Barack Obama wrote of his mother, “She was a lonely witness for secular humanism, a soldier for New Deal, Peace Corps, position paper liberalism.”[ii]

Obama’s mother was a huge influence in his life. In an interview with Oprah Winfrey in October 2006, he said, “My mother—when I think about the values I hold most dear, they came from her.”[iii] In a speech given at a Moms Rising event in 2006, he said, “Everything that I think is good about me, I got from her.”[http://nationalclergycouncil.org/010807BarackObama.htm]

'''I will end this post by respectfully asking Mr. Schlafly a few reasonable questions''':

1. How many Muslim men are you aware of that go to a "liberal Christian church" for 20 years, get married in a "liberal Christian' church, and have their children baptized in a "liberal Christian" church, and call a Reverend of "liberal Christianity "my pastor" while living in a relatively free and democratic country like the United States? I ask this question because it appears as if all these apply to Obama.[http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2008/04/29/2008-04-29_obama_expresses_outrage_over_former_past.html][http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=58954][http://volokh.com/posts/1209531850.shtml] Accordingly, '''How many similar historical examples can you give of Muslim men who did these type of things when they lived in a relatively free and democratic society like the United States?
'''

2. According to the press, Obama has visited churches and synagogues but has not visited a mosque while running for president.[http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/06/25/opinion/edcohen.php] Can you show me a single instance of Obama ever visiting a mosque while he has been an adult?

3. '''Is the case for Obama being a "liberal Christian" stronger or is the case of Obama being a Muslim stronger when the principle of total evidence being weighed is applied?''' If you state the case is stronger for Obama being a Muslim, please defend your position by truly negating the strong evidence that he is a member of "liberal Christianity" and giving compelling evidence that he is a Muslim. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 10:45, 16 November 2008 (EST)

:I thought the two of you might enjoy reading [http://blog.beliefnet.com/stevenwaldman/2008/11/obamas-interview-with-cathleen.html this 2004 interview with Obama], where he discusses his faith, his baptism, and so forth. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 14:04, 16 November 2008 (EST)
::Both of you miss the point. It's not what Obama '''says''' - that has no relevance whatsoever. It's what he '''is''' and what he '''will do'''. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 15:11, 16 November 2008 (EST)
::::: If what he ''says'' has no relevance, why is one of the supposed evidences for him being a Muslim something he ''said'' (the bit about "my Muslim faith")? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:58, 17 November 2008 (EST)

::::Bugler, I know I mentioned what Obama did and said which certainly has bearing on what Obama "is". Therefore, you did not in any way provide a counter argument. I also suggest you answer the reasonable questions I posed to Mr. Schlafly. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 15:16, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:::::Conservative, the roots of Al Quaeda lie in the 1940s and 50s, if not before; radical terroristic Islamic fundamentalism is not a recent phenomenon. Much of its mindset and organisational apperatus was borrowed from Leninist Communism: the notion of cell, of enrtyism, of deep penetration. Now, how difficult is it to imagine that an intelligent child, of American parentage, schooled in the Islamic environment of 1960s Indonesia and vulnerable to the influences swirling around in that environment, might be schooled and indoctrinated as the sleeper to end all sleepers, given extreme dispensations to protect his cover, allowed to eat pork, drink alcohol, marry out, attend and indeed profess to be a Christian, even to publicly renounce (on the face of it) the Islamic faith? Surely the prize would merit the game. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 15:24, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:::::::So you're honestly speculating that Obama might be a member of Al Qaeda, and we're expected to believe that you're ''not'' a parodist? Riiiiiiight. [[User:MarkB|MarkB]] 09:09, 18 November 2008 (EST)
::::::::Oh, that old tune yet again. Can't you Liberals find a less boring stick to beat me with? [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 09:17, 18 November 2008 (EST)
:::::::::Oh, don't get me wrong, I think you're doing a great job. Keep it up. [[User:MarkB|MarkB]] 09:22, 18 November 2008 (EST)
::::::Bugler, in light of the evidence I gave above concerning Obama's supposedly being raised a Muslim '''and the lack of evidence to support it''' plus the evidence I gave above to support Obama being a member of "liberal Christianity" , your post is at best a Hail Mary pass. Secondly, I noticed you did not answer my questions or give any solid historical parallels for your far fetched speculation. If you could enlighten me where the Leninists were able to install a President of a Western country that had been a sleeper for two decades I would certainly be indebted to you if you could give it. But I would add, since you never gave any compelling evidence he was raised a Muslim, this Leninist parallel speculation is a non starter anyways. Thirdly, you refer to "the prize". What prize? If you going to embrace conjecture that is contra evidence certainly you should tell your audience what the supposed prize is supposedly going to be. Should I fear I am imminently going to be put under Sharia law? Lastly, I am not stating your a parodist, but I certainly believe it is more likely that you are a parodist than it is likely that Obama is a Muslim. Your somewhat eloquent but empty defense of the indefensible proposition that Obama is likely a Muslim, certainly provides a reasonable reader to suspect you are a parodist. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 17:41, 16 November 2008 (EST)

::::::::I've not heard the term 'hail Mary pass' before, despite being a good Catholic boy: please enlighten! ''If you could enlighten me where the Leninists were able to install a President of a Western country that had been a sleeper for two decades'' Not a president, but the private secretary of the West German Chancellor Willy Brandt was a Communist plant: how many were undetected? Certainly therer remain suspicions about the 1960s/70s UK Prime Minister Harold Wilson. ''What prize?'' Surely that is obvious. As to the objections you raise, I think it unlikely that he will use the ceremony on January 20 to declare a United states Caliphate. However, the prospect of an Islamic radical sleeper in the Oval Office raises any number of possibilities. And finally: your open suggestion that I am a parodist is welcome: a refreshing change from others here who smear me by innuendo without your honesty and openness. I assure you in all sincerity that I act with the best interests of God, Conservapedia, Freedom and Democracy always at heart. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:58, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:::Bugler, [http://www.wisegeek.com/in-football-what-is-a-hail-mary.htm Hail Mary pass]. Secondly, your Willy Brandt attempted historical parallel falls flat. I did a quick search on the internet and this is what CNN states about Brandt: "As a teen-ager Brandt first joined the Socialist Party of Germany (SPD) in 1930, but one year later switched to a more radical spin-off, the SAP."[http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/cold.war/kbank/profiles/brandt/] Brandt apparently was a socialist early on (teenager to be precise), but you have not give a compelling argument that Obama was raised as a Muslim and given the information I gave above regarding there being a lack of evidence for this proposition and evidence against it, your Leninism supposed historical parallel is still a non starter. You are certainly not applying the principle of using the total evidence. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 18:21, 16 November 2008 (EST)

Henry Wallace, FDR's Vice President, was a "sleeper" communist and replaced by FDR for that reason. Alger Hiss, a top aide to presidents, was a proven "sleeper" communist. A big lie is often easier to pull off than a little lie.

What's remarkable is how strenuously people deny that Obama is a Muslim. His fathers (real and stepfather) were Muslims. There's no denying that Obama was raised a Muslim, and his conduct as an adult underscores that he, like 99% of others raises as Muslims, did not leave that religion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:02, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:: What's remarkable is how strenuously you claim that Obama is a Muslim without any evidence of substance, and in opposition to other conservatives, including five of your own senior administrators, who disagree with you, despite being opposed to Obama. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:58, 17 November 2008 (EST)
:An interesting question is ''why'' people try so hard to deny it to ''themselves'' when the evidence is so clearly there. [[User:RodWeathers|RodWeathers]] 20:51, 16 November 2008 (EST)
::::Andy, Wallace appears to have had been a one time Republican who later had openly leftist views. [http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USARwallace.htm] Wallace cannot be counted as a long time "sleeper agent" who was a very high ranking public official through infiltration. Secondly, Alger Hiss never achieved a high ranking government official status like a president, Vice President, Secretary of State, etc.[http://homepages.nyu.edu/~th15/who.html] I do think that when someone goes for a very important government position, such as a President, Vice-President, Secretary of State, a higher degree of scrutiny often occurs. For this reason, I believe you are having trouble coming up with a historical instance of a very high ranked official in the Western World being a sleeper agent. Furthermore, by the time Hiss was charged who had been two years out of government and was working for the Carnegie Foundation. I believe it is invalid to use Hiss as an example of an ambitious sleeper agent who had gotten to the top of government when he had resigned from government 2 years before he was charged. Next, I do think my questions in my previous post were quite reasonable that you left unanswered. Also, and this is really at the heart of the issue, you never really countered this information which makes the idea of Obama being a sleeper agent a non-starter because it appears as if he was never truly raised a Muslim:

"Barack Hussein Obama was born in 1961 in Honolulu, Hawaii, to a Kenyan Muslim father of the same name and an American secular humanist mother named Ann Dunham. While Obama’s father was raised in Islamic culture, he had become a functional atheist by the time he reached college. Despite his parents’ lack of religion, young Obama received his early education in both Catholic and Muslim schools.

Obama’s parents divorced when he was only two years old. Henceforth, the senior Obama was “almost entirely absent”[i] from his son’s life. Four years later, Ann Dunham relocated to Indonesia with her son to join her new husband Lolo Soetoro. A daughter, Maya, was born to the couple before their divorce. She returned to Hawaii where she went on to earn her MA in anthropology from the University of Hawaii. In his first book, Dreams from My Father, Barack Obama wrote of his mother, “She was a lonely witness for '''secular humanism''', a soldier for New Deal, Peace Corps, position paper liberalism.”[ii]

Obama’s mother was a huge influence in his life. In an interview with Oprah Winfrey in October 2006, he said, “My mother—when I think about the values I hold most dear, they came from her.”[iii] In a speech given at a Moms Rising event in 2006, he said, “Everything that I think is good about me, I got from her.”[http://nationalclergycouncil.org/010807BarackObama.htm] [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 20:57, 16 November 2008 (EST)

: In response to your indented general comment above, there's nothing magical or divine about presidential politics that ensures honesty. Woodrow Wilson was paralyzed by a stroke for more than a year while president, and the public did not know. Your argument that it is impossible to keep such things from the public is simply wrong. Wallace was not widely known to be a communist or else Roosevelt would never have been elected with Wallace on the ticket. Roosevelt finally figured it out (or was tipped off), and without explanation replaced Wallace. The leftists were dumbfounded by this move, as they were on the verge of making Wallace president when Roosevelt died. Oh, and the sickness of Roosevelt was also kept from the public. He died from his illness within a mere weeks of becoming president for the fourth time. The public didn't expect that either.

: In response to your specific questions, you're quoting self-serving and implausible statements. Obama was raised by a Muslim stepfather. He learned to view the Muslim call to prayer as the most beautiful thing in the word. There is no real indication any change by Obama, and his keeping of the name "Hussein" illustrates that he did not have a rare adult conversion from Muslim to Christianity. All indications are that such conversion was politically motivated to persuade the public, and one might say that was obviously successful with some! But I doubt Obama will continue his charade indefinitely. Watch for aid to impose Islam on more foreign countries, and watch for inclusion of the Koran at official ceremonies, if not on Jan. 20th itself.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:18, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:: No, Andy, it is ''you'' who is "quoting self-serving and implausible statements". Even five of your own senior administrators disagree with you, but, like Wikipedia, you persist with imposing your own view on this article. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:58, 17 November 2008 (EST)
Andy, I don't think you can give me a single piece of evidence of Obama's mother being a Muslim and given there is evidence against this matter that is not surprising. It also appears as if Obama has a great influence in his life which is not surprising since she was his biological mother. In addition, Obama appeared to have received some Catholic education when he was young. Therefore, your supposed case that Obama was raised a Muslim is certainly not built on a bedrock of solid evidence. Accordingly, the Obama article should not state that Obama is likely a Muslim. Next, I never stated that it is impossible for someone to get to a top political office as a sleeper agent but merely improbable and historical determinations should be reached probabilistically. Also, while it may have not been known that Wallace was a communist (if indeed he was a communist which is a matter I have not investigated but which could certainly be true), there does appear to be indications that he had openly strong leftist views for even the Democrats.[http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USARwallace.htm] Therefore, you historical precedent argument in this case is certainly not a stronger one in terms of Wallace being a "sleeper agent". It does not sound plausible to me that a Communist sleeper agent would have openly strong leftist views that even the Democrats found distasteful. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 21:34, 16 November 2008 (EST)

: In Muslim families, like the one Obama was raised in, the father dictates the religious upbringing of the boys. Please learn more about the Muslim traditions. With so little awareness of it by Christians, it's no wonder Islam is trouncing Christianity around the world.

: Alger Hiss was later proved to be a communist and read up on how he was the TOP adviser to FDR at the key WWII conference carving up Europe. Not only was he a sleeper communist agent, but the liberals denied it for decades even after Hiss was convicted in court. Only in the last few years did one of his co-agents admit the truth. Please learn about this.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:43, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:::: Islam is "trouncing" Christianity? In what way? Greater population growth, perhaps, but that's not relevant here. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:58, 17 November 2008 (EST)
:::Andy, have you made the case that Obama's stepfather was a staunch Muslim? I know you have not because it appears as if Obama attended a Catholic school when he was young. Therefore, you still not have made the case that Obama was raised a Muslim. Next, Hiss may have been a top advisor at one point in his life, however, an advisor is not a very top government official (President, Vice-President, Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense, etc.) who certainly often faces much more scrutiny. Andy, given historical precedence and the greater scrutiny that is often given to people ascending to the very peaks of government power, I do think the case for a sleeper agent rising to the pinnacle of power in a government institution is very tenuous to say the least. I think this principle of sleeper agents not ascending to the pinnacles of large organizations is true of institutions outside of government as well. For example, people when being sarcastic in replying to a yes or no question, will sometimes say, "Is the Pope Jewish?" meaning that the pope is not likely an adherent of Judaism. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 21:34, 16 November 2008 (EST)

Andy, it appears as if there is strong evidence that Obama attended a Catholic school but there may not be evidence that he attended a school that truly could be called a Muslim school. Please read [http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/muslim.asp this article.]

Regardless of whether or not CNN or the AP did their work with diligence, there appears to be no controversy regarding that Obama did in fact attend a Catholic school. Therefore, I still maintain that the claim he was raised a Muslim does not have strong support. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 22:22, 16 November 2008 (EST)

: Catholic schools welcome Muslim students. They still do. The Muslim students virtually never convert.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:07, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:::Catholic schools may very welcome Muslim students but what staunchly Muslim father sends his son to a Catholic school? Andy, you still have not jumped over the evidential bar that Osama was raised a Muslim. The so called Muslim school was apparently not strongly Islamic or possibly not even Islamic at all ( [http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/muslim.asp read this article.] ) and the stepfather appears to not have had a strong Muslim faith as evidenced by the fact that he sent Obama to a Catholic school. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 23:56, 16 November 2008 (EST)

In the Unification Church, it is not unusual for parents to send their children to a Catholic grade school. So what if they come home, crossing themselves when they pray? Overall, the education is better there than in public schools, so if they can afford it the practice makes senses. I daresay mainstream Christians likewise don't mind the sectarian differences. Any way out of secular humanism is often fine with them.

It appears likely that as president, Obama will be more sympathetic to Islamic countries in his foreign policy. Maybe he'll even be able to get them to lighten up on their "destruction of Israel" goals, or allow [[religious freedom]] for Christians and Jews. Are [[Turkey]] and [[Indonesia]] good examples of this?

I see good in all religions, and I don't see Islam as irredeemably evil. So what if Obama is or was Muslim? There is [[no religious test for office]], and he can't be impeached for it. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:09, 18 November 2008 (EST)

==Another case for Obama being Muslim==
During a campaign rally, two Muslim women in Muslim garb, were removed from prominent camera view. The reason is A) Obama doesn't want his image assoc. with Muslims B) or doesn't like Muslims (we know the opposite is true). Now, he doesn't want images of Muslim assoc with him because he is A) secret Muslim or B) the American people will think he is a Muslim. (Which 27% already do). Did Obama try to hide his Muslim background and is that plan still in progress?--'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 17:52, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:::Are A and B the only choices on why Obama does not want himself associated with Islam? Is a false dilemma being proposed? For example, setting aside whether it was right or wrong which is a whole other discussion, did 9/11 drive up the American public's negative beliefs and/or attitudes regarding Islam? Would the American public look less favorably upon a candidate who received some Muslim religious education (Obama also received Catholic training in his youth. And there is certainly reason to believe that a certain degree of philosophical skepticism was imparted to Obama via his mother). In short, I think the above post fails to use the principle of using the total evidence (see my posts above) plus contains a false dilemma. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 18:09, 16 November 2008 (EST)

== “Less than 1% Muslims convert” – Prosecutor error? ==

OK, time for something new and I direct this particularly to Aschlafly. There is a logical fallacy called the “Prosecutor’s Error”. It is very subtle but real enough to send innocent people to the execution chamber. In fact, many lawyers and judges don’t understand it. It works like this. Please concentrate: this isn't all that easy.

Let us suppose that it is true that Barack Obama was at one time a Muslim, even if this was at an immature age when he really had no say in his faith. And let us grant that only 1% of Muslims convert to Christianity. The argument which Aschflafly uses time and again is to deduce that that this means that, notionally at least, that there is a 99% chance that Obama is a Muslim.

The fallacy of the argument is that it does not recognize that the IF Obama was in that 99% of Muslims who did not convert, there would be no practicable way he could have run for President. Therefore the chances that he is one of those who DID convert are raised far beyond the mathematically obvious one of 1%.

Let me give you a real-life example. A woman had three children and each expired early in infancy of “cot death”. The prosecutor did his math and advised the court that there was a “one in 70 million” chance of this happening by accident. Therefore, the jury was heavily disposed to assume that she was guilty of the serial murder of her children. But the fallacy of the case is that she was ONLY arrested because of the rareness of the 3 children dying of cot death in the one family. But even if this only happens one in 70 million families, in a large country such as the U.K or U.S.A, and over a period of decades, it is BOUND to occur, purely by accident. If we then tell a courtroom that there is only a 1 in 70 million chance that she is innocent, we are guilty of the “Prosecutor’s Error”. It is tantamount to arresting a man who comes into a lot of money suddenly and is arrested under suspicion of larceny. He explains that he won it on a lottery, but the Prosecutor says he has looked into the “Lottery” business, and there is only a 1 in 20 million chance of winning it, therefore there is only a 1 in 20 million chance the indicted man is telling the truth.

In Obama’s case, once again, EVEN if it is true that only 1% of Muslims convert, AND ALSO true that he was born into the Muslim faith, the fact that his circumstances allowed him to run for the Presidency argues that he was one of those Muslims who DID convert, and thus makes his chances of being a non-Muslim substantially greater that 1%. [[User:MylesP|MylesP]] 00:05, 17 November 2008 (EST)

:I understand your math, but your reasoning does not convince me. The lottery example was the most unfortunate attempt.

:Although in any given lottery, the chances may be 1 in 20 million for one person to win - the fact is that '''every''' lottery has a winner.

:The problem with Obama's religion is not so much ''Which is it?'' but, "How shall the electorate now regard its new president elect?" Will Obama be pro-Muslim (because he's Muslim or was raised Muslim)?

:A related question is, "Will Obama be pro-Black because he is black?"

:I get along equally well with black Christians as with white Christians, so this is not an issue for me. I've also found Muslims personally just as honest, reliable and hard-working as Christians. What's all the fuss about? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:18, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:: The lottery example was valid. Apart from the fact that not every lottery ''does'' have a winner (the prize then jackpots to the following draw), the point is that the 100% certainty (every lottery has a winner) applies to the lottery as a whole, whereas the 1 in 20 million odds applies to any ''given'' individual. The issue here is about a ''given'' individual, Barack Obama.
:: I hope that you are asking that last question ("What's all the fuss about") to Andy, as he is the one insisting on the claim against almost everybody else other than a few acolytes.
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:20, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:::I like maths and logic, so good section. This isn't arguing for the prosecution error, but just about statistical sampling. I suppose you could ask how many muslims convert, but it might be more accurate to ask how many American born muslims convert, or how many muslims that have had a Christian baptism have genuinely converted (I hope there's a special place in hell for those that were faking their baptism)--[[User:TruthOfChrist|TruthOfChrist]] 09:45, 19 November 2008 (EST)

::::In [[Dante's Inferno]], I don't think there is. Any kind of liar goes to the bottom of the eighth circle though. I wonder whether covert apostacy was known in Dante's time.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 09:51, 19 November 2008 (EST)

:::::MylesP, have you been reading [http://www.amazon.co.uk/Bad-Science-Ben-Goldacre/dp/0007240198/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1227138689&sr=8-1 Bad Science?]

== Awesome article ==
Just wanted to say, finally a good resource about obama. Fantastic research about the muslim piece, it really shows him as the closet muslim like he is. Shame the libs just don't get it !! [[happymoon|happymoon]]

== Great comedy article ==

It's a shame people don't get the jokes. Just wanted to pop in and say keep up the good work! Was referred here by a friend who also got a kick out of this article. [[User:Somebody21|Somebody21]] 11:08, 17 November 2008 (EST)

:Read the article properly before you start calling it a joke. You've been looking at Obama from a left wing viewpoint; try looking at him from a right wing viewpoint. It'll do you good.--[[User:WHurst|WHurst]]

==This will be a hit on stormfront==

America reaches a milestone in his history and all you guys can do is peddle false lies which have been repudiated by just about everyone in the political business. The comment about 'possibly been sworn in by the koran' is not only false, but a terrifying example of what racism and ignorance is capable of. You may not be white nationalists, but your inability to reasonably discuss this man's faith without resorting to the most despicable acts of scaremongering is typical of the tripe we see on racist websites.

Keep this crap up and you'll make sure to keep the black vote away from your party for the forseeable future. [[User:JCharlton|JCharlton]] 17:50, 17 November 2008 (EST)

::Race and religion are two different things. Why do liberals always resort to racism? Maybe its becaus you don't have any real arguments against the issues raised here? This isn't wikipedia, we deal in facts here. [[User:Patriot1505|Patriot1505]] 20:20, 17 November 2008 (EST)

"Facts" as in already repeatedly proven falsehoods such as Obama being a Muslim? This page is filled with outright lies. [[USER:AuthorNeubius|AuthorNeubius]], 19 November 2008

== Reply ==

Don't know where to start. Maybe someone else can explain why they get so enraged at the likelihood that Obama is a Muslim. What's it to someone who (1) is an atheist, (2) is an Australian, (3) is a Christian, or (4) would support him regardless? Frankly, the opposition by some is puzzling.

Regardless, some remarkable displays of lack of knowledge about Islam and Islamic education have been displayed here. Perhaps we can all agree that it's worth learning more about what many say has quickly become the world's largest religion, and the strongest religion in Europe today.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:49, 17 November 2008 (EST)

If you are going to repeat a proven lie, you shouldn't be surprised when people call you on it-[[USER:AuthorNeubius|AuthorNeubius]], 19 November 2008

:It really shouldn't be that puzzling Andy. They are calling out what they believe to be falsehood. When people made spurious, questionable claims about Bush, how did Conservapedia respond? Did you include the information or remove it? Its the exact same thing. You tried to keep the spurious information out of it. The name "Trustworthy Encyclopedia" implies intellectual honesty, and on this particular aspect most people here (myself included) find this pile of circumstantial evidence to be based on poor conclusions, false arguments, and illogical reasoning to be an absurdity without any solid claims that say he is a Muslim. The burden of proof is on you to -prove- that he is, not provide a loaded mountain of evidence that is obviously taylored to imply that he is with no proof whatsoever other than bad logic. I can't believe this topic is still going. [[User:EternalCritic|EternalCritic]] 22:17, 17 November 2008 (EST)

:: There is nothing "spurious" about it, and you lose credibility with your baseless claims of falsehood. Even Obama's biggest supporters would have to admit that there is a significant probability that he is a Muslim. Perhaps one can quibble whether that probability is 20% or 60% or 90%, but no one can insist with a straight face that it is 0%.

:: Given that, it's bizarre how some adamantly insist that the probability must be less than 50% rather than greater than 50%. Frankly, the demands to censor this information smacks of liberal bias.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:52, 17 November 2008 (EST)

:::When you promote someone over yourself here, the beef can be over censorship. Until then, it's just people saying they think you're wrong. [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 23:16, 17 November 2008 (EST) ''<-like me, for example...''

Don't fall for the devil's tricks. These "conservatives" are not true Christians. [[User:Somebody21|Somebody21]] 23:33, 17 November 2008 (EST)

"''Maybe someone else can explain why they get so enraged at the likelihood that Obama is a Muslim.''": Yes, I would like you to explain that. Because ''you'' are the one enraged at that. I, on the other hand, am "enraged" that he is being accused of being a Muslim on the basis of logical fallacy, lousy arguments, and false claims.

"''What's it to someone who ... is a Christian''": As a Christian, my concern is for the ''truth''. Why do you continually try and misrepresent this as censorship, liberal lies, or whatever?

"''... some remarkable displays of lack of knowledge about Islam and Islamic education have been displayed here...''": That is not the issue I'm arguing. You are again raising red herrings. The issue is the claim that he is a Muslim, which claim is not supported by the evidence.

"''There is nothing "spurious" about it, and you lose credibility with your baseless claims of falsehood.''": No, Andy, it '''is''' spurious, and ''you'' lose credibility with ''your'' baseless claims that he is a Muslim.

"''Even Obama's biggest supporters would have to admit that there is a significant probability that he is a Muslim.''": On what grounds? Certainly not those in this article.

"''Given that, it's bizarre how some adamantly insist that the probability must be less than 50% rather than greater than 50%.''": "That" is not given. Rather, it's bizarre how ''you'' adamantly insist that he ''is'' a Muslim given the lack of evidence.

"''Frankly, the demands to censor this information smacks of liberal bias.''": I'm going to shout because you obviously didn't hear me before: "IT IS NOT CENSORSHIP TO REMOVE IRRELEVANT INFORMATION, AND I'D APPRECIATE YOU NOT IMPLYING THAT I'M TRYING TO CENSOR ANYTHING."

I've pointed out a number of problems, and your response has been to slander the criticism as censorship and liberal, to introduce red herrings, and to assert your opinion as fact. What you have ''not'' done is actually address the issue.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:57, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:How dare you accuse Andy of slander. And what hypocricy. The only slanderer, Philip, is you. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 03:40, 18 November 2008 (EST)
:: Yet you make no attempt to refute that it was slanderous, nor to substantiate your accusation against me. In other words, a substanceless response. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:53, 18 November 2008 (EST)

Andy, regarding "''(Islam being) the strongest religion in Europe today''": you never cease to amaze us with your wealth of knowledge of the world outside the USA, be it UK, the whole of Europe or Australia. Kudos to you! --[[User:Europeo|Europeo]] 07:37, 18 November 2008 (EST)

::''Regardless, some remarkable displays of lack of knowledge about Islam and Islamic education have been displayed here.'' I think that's a statement with which anyone would agree. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 10:55, 18 November 2008 (EST)

==Four Questions For The Trojan Candidate==
{{QuoteBox|1=It has taken the better part of a year, and specifically the last six months of this election season, for committed citizen journalists at TexasDarlin and many other blogs to conduct the solid, investigative research that the media, the democratic national committee, agencies of the federal government, Barack Obama himself, and Congress should have done on the eligibility and qualifications of Barack Obama. The first serious look at Barack Obama ’s Constitutional eligibility began on this blog, with the exposure of the birth certificate mystery, Obama-Soetoro’s Indonesian citizenship, and analysis of the constitutional problems with Obama’s multiple citizenship status irrespective of birthplace.
 
Although our collective knowledge of Barack Obama and the concerns of his candidacy came too late to change the outcome of the Democratic nomination and the election—especially in light of the MSM bias, the Obama campaign’s tactics, and DNC shenanigans– for all our hard work, we were successful in shedding some light on the content of his character: his associations, his deeds, his family relations, his friends, his lack of experience, stewardship, his patriotism, his potential agenda ([http://texasdarlin.wordpress.com/2008/09/21/the-trojan-candidate/] ) and the startling depth of his secrecy.
 
Now that we have “un-muddied” the water…..we stand on the edge of a caldera* with no idea of the complexity, depth, explosiveness, or unpredictability of this phenomenon we have witnessed in the rise of Barack Obama ! We as a country have never actually been here before, standing at the edge of possible dissolution of our country, except perhaps in the election of 1860. One realizes at once the perils of both diving into that hot pool of water, or running away to avoid the explosion….either scenario leads to serious burns!
 
While there seems to be little evidence that we will ever fully know Obama, nor avoid the explosive change he will bring, there is a way we can learn from this experience such that our Country will never again be faced with someone who is truly unknown, inexperienced, untested, and feels (to me anyway) uncommitted to America. We can use the 2008 experiences to also highlight and then design strategies to ensure that every political party is responsive to its constituents, and that our Constitution is really a living document.
 
The Constitution is by and for “we the people”; therefore “we the people” must make it work and not rely on any political party to sell America to the highest bidder.
 
'''Four Questions'''
 
I bring forward four questions that get to the heart of our rights, as American citizens, to ensure that our government and its leaders are indeed qualified to lead our great country. By extension, these questions can be used as windows to other potential areas where we the people do not yet have redress.
 
These questions are miraculously (given procedural errors and the existing lower court dismissal) before the Supreme Court with the requirement that President-elect Obama respond by December 1, 2008. It is also disturbing that these questions are before the U.S. Supreme Court when the candidate himself or the DNC could easily have dispelled any speculation by providing simple documentation.
 
While I have not kept track of the Berg v. Obama case for many reasons, it truly is miraculous that Justice Souter required Obama to respond to Berg’s writ of certiorari. Even if, as some have said, Souter ’s action is not significant and procedural only, how Obama responds will reveal much about his view of the Constitution, and will determine if the full Supreme Court decides to hear the case. In responding, Obama will be essentially arguing why the writ of certiorari should not be granted.
 
In my opinion, the questions raised by Berg in the lower Court should not have been thrown out entirely based on standing alone, or by the notion that the injury to a voter is “vague”. But some Judges do actually realize the question may be beyond their jurisdiction and ‘ask for help’ by clearly making appealable and reversible errors that a higher court can rule on. The Supreme Court Rules permit the grant of a writ of certiorari only under specific circumstances.
 
The questions presented for review are:
 
*1. Whether a citizen of the United States has standing to challenge the Constitutional qualifications of a Presidential nominee under the “natural born citizen clause” [Article II of the U.S. Constitution] when deprivation of the right to such a challenge would result in the infringement of a citizen’s Constitutional right to vote?
*2. Isn’t it true that no one has the responsibility to ensure a United States Presidential candidate is eligible to serve as President of the United States?
*3. Are there proper steps for a voter to ensure a Presidential Candidate is qualified and eligible to serve as President of the United States?
*4. Isn’t it true that there are not any checks and balances to ensure the qualifications and eligibility of a Presidential Candidate to serve as President of the United States?
 
The “questions presented for review” in the writ require Obama’ response. Notice that answering these questions does not require Obama to produce a birth certificate, but instead to answer why he does not have to prove himself eligible.
 
Although we cannot predict Obama’s answers, based on his past legal motions submitted in the lower court case, Obama may indeed respond that the writ should not be granted because (1) a citizen does not have standing, (2) that no one has responsibility to ensure eligibility, (3) that there are no proper steps for a citizen to ensure qualifications, and (4) that there are no checks and balances that exist today to ensure a candidate is qualified. Notice he is in a position of arguing technicalities here, and completely misses his own obligation to prove himself.
 
Although doubtful, it is also possible Obama would try to argue that the 14th Amendment says that “naturalized citizens” and “dual citizens” are “American citizens”, thereby satisfying the requirements of Article II. I really can’t imagine he would bring this up, unless asked in a hearing, as the question of the 14th Amendment’s modification of Article II is a constitutional matter that only the Supreme Court can decide. Recall that on Obama’s own website he claims that he is a U.S. Citizen under the 14th amendment.
 
I think these questions may have Obama boxed in. If he intends not to release his COLB, citizenship records, passport files, etc, Obama would then practically argue a big “FU” to the U.S. Supreme Court and say in effect “I don’t have to respond to this because there is no law, no avenue for citizens, and no checks and balances that require me to do so.” He will argue technicalities in how to disregard the Constitution, including, as above, that the 14th Amendment applies to Article II. I wonder how the Supreme Court might respond?
 
If Obama responds in any other way, he could be forced to disclose and/or identify when, how, and what steps citizens can take, or what steps are taken, to assure the POTUS’ eligibility. Using the process he acknowledges—for example, the “DNC vetting process”–he may then be forced to prove his eligibility to serve as POTUS under Article II by showing the documentation he provided to the DNC, if he provided anything to the DNC. Alternatively he could concede that there are no procedures to ensure eligibility of a person for POTUS, and that “America has to take his word for it”. Would the Supreme Court then order him to produce his documentation according to the original suit filed by Berg?
 
One item of interest is how Obama responds to Question 4, on the existence of checks and balances to assure the POTUS’ eligibility. “Checks and balances” can mean procedures, legislative processes, acts, bills, agencies, or resolutions. Here is where Obama could argue that the Senate Resolution promoted by Senators Leahy, Obama, and McCatskill on John McCain’s eligibility applies. In other words, Obama could argue that the checks and balances already exist and this resolution suffices (notice this is not a bill). The Senate resolution was developed in April, 2008 to “validate” John McCain ’s natural born citizen status when it was unnecessary, and in some ways the resolution’s language can be seen as an attempt by the three Senators to create a blanket provision for a naturalized citizen to be eligible to serve as POTUS. Looking at the text of the resolution and supporting statements, Senator Leahy has the following curious exchange with Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff (emphasis mine):
 
Chairman Leahy. Let me just ask this: I believe–and we have had some question in this Committee to have a special law passed declaring that Senator McCain, who was born in the Panama Canal, that he meets the constitutional requirement to be President….You are a former Federal judge. You are the head of the agency that executes Federal immigration law. Do you have any doubt in your mind–I mean, I have none in mine. Do you have any doubt in your mind that he is constitutionally eligible to become President?
 
Secretary Chertoff. My assumption and my understanding is that if you are born of American parents, you are naturally a natural-born American citizen.
 
As Berg’s case has evolved, he refined the scope of defendants who now must also respond to the writ, including the DNC, the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration and its Chair, Senator Dianne Feinstein , the Federal Election Commission (FEC), and several Pennsylvania government officials.
 
With the exception of the DNC, who also joined in Obama’s initial motion to dismiss the lower case on lack of standing, I think the other defendants’ responses might be decidedly different. The FEC could claim that it actually has no jurisdiction in the matter by way of its charter and organizing documents, and that even if it did, it is far too understaffed to perform investigatory functions, as cited by Senator Feinstein in testimony before the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration on May 28, 2008 (link to http://rules.senate..gov/hearings/2008/052108feinsteinopen.pdf). And will Senator Feinstein blame the Bush administration, or will she admit that she too just assumed the DNC vetted Obama and that he was eligible?
 
After reviewing Obama’s legal argument against granting the writ of certiorari and the other defendants’ responses, Justice Souter will then review Berg’s response before deciding where the case goes next, including whether the full Supreme Court will hear the case. Remember that Souter’s clerks have all the lower court material and reviewed it before Souter required Obama to respond to the writ of certiorari. In my opinion, Justice Souter would not have granted this appeal from Berg if he thought the issues were irrelevant and not worthy of the Court’s attention.
 
How does the Supreme Court react? Will it order the production of Obama’s documents? Will it order the lower Courts to resolve the matter expeditiously, requiring the release of documents? Will it order the FEC, Electoral College, or Congress to verify his eligibility, or develop verification procedures? Will they agree with Obama, if he mentions it, that the 14th Amendment really did modify Article II criteria? Will they dismiss the case?
 
Although the Supreme Court will not want to be seen as determining the outcome of another election—even for the perception of “fairness”– the questions presented in the writ are completely different than presented in Bush v. Gore. Under Article III of the Constitution, the Supreme Court clearly has the jurisdiction to decide the matter. Legal scholars will point to Marbury v. Madison ( link to http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=true&doc=19) as precedent if the full Supreme Court accepts the writ, orders the lower Court in error, directs it to secure Obama’s documentation, and chastises the DNC, FEC, the PA state agencies, the Senate, and Senator Obama for not doing their job, and not forcing the production of documents itself, while still retaining jurisdiction.
 
If this is the outcome, a motion could be made by Berg to stay the vote of the Electoral College pending the outcome of the case. If the Justices are concerned about the matter and integrity of the 2008 election, that motion could be granted. The expedited discovery of documents would proceed. Yes, I understand this is a long-shot and speculation on my part.
 
And how, in the meantime, are we to ever know about Barack Obama? Is the burden of proof really on America (Berg), or on Barack Obama ? Is it up to your employer to find out who you are, or is it up to you as an employee to provide your documentation? Isn’t Obama supposed to be working for America? I believe that the burden of proof on eligibility rests solely and unconditionally on Barack Obama’s shoulders. I am not alone in this belief (link http://americamustknow.com/Documents/OBAMA%20LAWSUIT,%20Class%20Action.doc).
 
Alinsky Returns?
 
As I sit in disbelief and alarm even writing this article—that something as basic as citizenship status of the potential POTUS is in front of the Supreme Court at this late date—I am reminded of a framework set forth in an earlier article, The Trojan Candidate (link to http://texasdarlin.wordpress.com/2008/09/21/the-trojan-candidate/), and the use of Alinsky-style community organizing techniques to advance an agenda of revolutionary change. In this article I posited that Barack Obama has a hidden agenda and part of implementing his agenda involves the use of techniques developed by Saul Alinsky and discussed in such books as Rules for Radicals (http://www.semcosh.org/AlinskyTactics.htm).
 
'''From the Trojan Candidate:'''
 
Alinsky laid out a set of basic principles to guide the actions and decisions of radical organizers [community organizers] and the People’s Organizations they established. The organizer, he said, ‘must first rub raw the resentments of the people; fan the latent hostilities to the point of overt expression. He must search out controversy and issues, rather than avoid them, for unless there is controversy people are not concerned enough to act.’ The organizer’s function, he added, was ‘to agitate to the point of conflict ’and ‘to maneuver and bait the establishment so that it will publicly attack him as a “dangerous enemy.” ‘The word ‘enemy,’ said Alinsky, ‘is sufficient to put the organizer on the side of the people’; i.e., to convince members of the community that he is so eager to advocate on their behalf, that he has willingly opened himself up to condemnation and derision.
 
What could be the reason for withholding his citizenship papers and birth status, especially if he has nothing to hide? Does he plan to use this in some way to “rub raw the resentments of the people” [and] “fan the latent hostilities to the point of over expression”? The concerns about Obama’s Constitutional eligibility will be met with accusations of “racism”; that the “system” wouldn’t do this to a white man, and that the republicans or others are trying to ‘take Obama out’ on a “technicality”. And worse.
 
If Obama is ineligible, he could rightly be called a ‘dangerous enemy’ and forced to stand down. It is at this point that “the word ‘enemy’ is sufficient to put the organizer on the side of the people…” and the maneuvering and baiting of the establishment forces it to back down, with Obama prevailing whether having shown his documentation or not. As you contemplate this, think of all the money, the inevitability narrative, the shutting down of dissent, the timing of events, the threat of violence and insurrection, the establishment of the office of the president elect, and the simply overwhelming of America with all things Obama. This certainly pulls the light from shining on the real Barack Obama ’s Trojan candidacy.
 
If Obama is proven ineligible, does not stand down or even if he does stand down, it is not unreasonable to expect some “in-your-face” hostile reactions and calls for immediate changes that permit Obama to stay. How ironic: in defense of liberty and the Constitution, we will be called ‘racists’.
 
'''Implications for the Future'''
 
The four questions presented to the U.S. Supreme Court in 2008 will have a lasting and enduring effect on the course of the American Constitution in the next decade or more and will continue to feed the growing doubts about Obama’s qualifications and intentions in the next four years.. Currently there are 17 different legal actions in various state and federal courts, which now challenge the validity of the electoral process across the country, regardless of outcome (see http://www.soundinvestments.us/files/final_writ_keyes_v_bowen.pdf) .
 
Just my suspicion, but I am beginning to get a more complete picture of why Obama has sealed all of his records, including college financial aid applications, papers, and coursework. I believe his financial aid applications reveal his foreign status; and I now see that his Columbia and Harvard papers could reveal his examination of the “weaknesses” of the U.S. Constitution and ways to “remedy” them using “administrative procedures” as discussed in this 2001 radio interview. (link to http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3VctiYQplw8)
 
As I look at the scope of research on the issue of eligibility during this election season, I note that nearly all have concluded that there are no checks and balances to assure the eligibility of a Presidential Candidate, that no one is responsible, that the DNC did not do its job, and that indeed citizens and voters have very little recourse to ask these questions. The Supreme Court has never been presented with this question before on Article II eligibility. I personally doubt that they will duck their responsibilities to protect the Constitution.
 
Up until this time, it has been assumed that every candidate and POTUS has met Article II qualifications. We assume that in fact no one would dare to run for and claim the Presidency if he/she didn’t meet the qualifications of the Constitution. Looks like our age of innocence is over.
 
It appears that we will have to craft legislation to assure eligibility criteria are met for the POTUS, and to assign appropriate responsibilities to assure so.. If the country wants to amend the Constitution to allow naturalized or dual citizens to serve as POTUS, then we have that mechanism, which ¾ of the states have to ratify. None of this can happen before the January 20th inauguration.
 
The four questions to the Supreme Court also remind me of other areas in which we voters do not have redress when something goes wrong. Although I am now an “unaffiliated” voter, having left the democratic party after November 4th, it also appears that democrats do not have an avenue of redress when the DNC and RBC violate party rules as they did in this case to deny Hillary Clinton the nomination. In addition, we now know that caucuses can be gamed, and do not serve the interests of democracy nor do they provide a fair representation of the strength of our party’s candidates. Because of the DNC, RBC and Obama’s gaming of the system with caucus fraud, and the blatant use of race and misogyny to silence critics, we are witnessing the democrats begin the disintegration of the “democratic brand”. I am sure there are issues in the Republican party after GWB destroyed the “republican brand”. We all need a detox from our respective koolaid brands in order to really see clearly.
 
What is next for our country? Well, if we don’t want to dive into that hot pool, and we’re not going to run away, then we’d better start creating an alternative vision. A line in one of my favorite movies, The Shawshank Redemption, sums it up for me:
 
“…get busy livin’, or get busy dyin’…” [http://texasdarlin.wordpress.com/2008/11/16/four-questions-for-the-trojan-candidate/]}}
{{unsigned|TK}}

==Andy, if it can perhaps be quibbled that there is merely a 20% chance of Obama being a Muslim, then why is the Obama article stating that he is likely a Muslim? ==

Dear Andy,

You wrote above regarding the probability of Obama being a Muslim the following:

"Perhaps one can quibble whether that probability is 20% or 60% or 90%, but no one can insist with a straight face that it is 0%."

Andy, if it can be perhaps be quibbled that the likelihood of Obama being a Muslim is merely 20%, then why is the article still stating that Obama is likely a Muslim? Second, Andy do you think that a reference work should use scholarly caution and that scholarly caution helps make a reference work authoritative? [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 04:01, 18 November 2008 (EST)
:In this case, what you describe as 'scholarly caution' means knuckling under to Liberal suppression of facts and discussion. The scholarly option is to seek out the truth, no matter how disturbing that truth or the process of uncovering it might be to those on the left. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 04:43, 18 November 2008 (EST)

Andy I also fear we are not doing our site any favors in this area. If Obama is a Muslim, he is certainly keeping that under wraps. There is no indication that he would suddenly take the oath of office on a Koran. Such a turnabout that he lied about his Christianity would destroy his ability to govern. It is more likely, if he is a Muslim, that he would support Muslim causes without making a profession of his own faith. We should also realize, based upon his policies, that if he does have Islamic ties that they would be akin to the type of ties that John Kerry has to Catholicism, very poor. His views on abortion alone would be considered extreme Western decadence within the greater Islamic world view. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 04:54, 18 November 2008 (EST)
:::::Bugler, I purposely chose Andy's words that "perhaps one can quibble that the probability is 20%". Therefore, if Andy is correct about the 20% issue then the statement that Obama is likely a Muslim should be removed from the article. I am just following Andy's statement where the logic leads if his statement is true and no knuckling under is necessary. I do think it is fair to say that people come to an encyclopedia to read facts and not speculation. Speculation weighs down an encyclopedia by eroding its credibility. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 08:03, 18 November 2008 (EST)
::::::Saying "One could argue that X is 20%" doesn't in any way mean accepting that that X '''is''' 20%. It merely allows the existence of theoretically possible grounds of debate. If I said there were grounds for arguing that the planet Jupiter was made of cheese, likewise it doesn't mean that I think it is reasonably possible that such is the case. Andy is (in my interpretation of his words) admitting grounds for debate; it does not mean that he (or anyone else who takes a rational view of the issue) accepts only a 20% likelihood. The whole point of the point at issue is that it disproves the blinkered dogmatism and naivety of Liberals who say "Oh, Obama has said he's a Christian so he '''can't possibly''' be a Moslem." Liberals cling to dogma like an unweaned child to its blanket; we conservatives prefer debate, rational discourse, and seeking truth from facts, not from wish-fulfillment fantasies. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 09:14, 18 November 2008 (EST)
::::::: Admitting that 20% is ''possible'' means that you've destroyed your argument that it ''is'' more than 50%.
::::::: And no, the whole point is ''not'' to support liberal views. That's a false claim. And if you as a conservative prefers debate, rational discourse, and seeking truth from facts, why are you reversing my edits without offering any rebuttal to my points?
::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:38, 18 November 2008 (EST)
''Admitting that 20% is ''possible'' means that you've destroyed your argument that it ''is'' more than 50%.'' You haven't read it, have you? Read it again, nice and slowly, take your time, and especially consider the Jupiter analogy. As for the vulgar abuse in your edit summary, I will let that speak for itself. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 09:42, 18 November 2008 (EST)
: Bugler, I will concede that point. Instead I'll say that Andy's point that this was a response to was rather unclear as to its aim, and I was reading his comments differently.
: However, I will add another response to your previous post. You say that "the whole point of the point at issue is that it disproves the blinkered dogmatism and naivety of Liberals who say "Oh, Obama has said he's a Christian so he can't possibly be a Moslem." The problem with this claim of yours is that it's ''not'' the way the argument is being used. That is, the arguments are not being used to ''oppose'' the claim that he couldn't possibly be a Muslim; the arguments are being used to ''support'' the claim that he ''is'' a Muslim. If they were being used the way that you say, then at least some of them would have some legitimacy. But being used the way they are is invalid.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:33, 18 November 2008 (EST)

It might be good to create a subarticle, with [[Barack Obama]] as the main article. We have templates for this; Philip is our template custodian and can place whatever we need.

I protected the article, because edit wars don't serve our readers; and they don't help us contributors much either.

I didn't look at Andy's last version. I just guessed it might make a good starting point.

Let's discuss, rather than trying to "get our way". Wiki collaboration should result in stability. Let none of us rock the boat. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 09:47, 18 November 2008 (EST)
:: The problem, Ed, is that these things have already been discussed at length. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:45, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:Thanks, Ed. I agree that edit wars are undesirable. I don't consider that I was edit warring. I was trying to protect this article, which has been arrived at in its current form after much debate, from unilateral and ideologically-driven deletions bordering on vandalism. In the course of doing so I have yet again been accused of mendacity. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 09:51, 18 November 2008 (EST)
:: They are ''not'' "unilateral and ideologically-driven deletions bordering on vandalism". When you stoop to misrepresenting the situation, it shows that your argument is shaky. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:45, 18 November 2008 (EST)

: Thanks, Ed, for bringing stability. As Bugler points out, there is nothing in my observation that "perhaps one" can quibble whether the likelihood Obama is a Muslim is 20%, 60% or 90% that justifies censoring the evidence and statement that he is likely a Muslim. Juries make such determinations based on the evidence all the time; so do encyclopedias. The evidence is compelling and will not be censored or downplayed here, despite some (for unknown reasons) disliking it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:52, 18 November 2008 (EST)
::: Andy, I have repeatedly pointed out that it is ''not'' censorship. Why do you keep repeating that false claim? Also, I have explained ''why'' the claims are "disliked", why do you falsely say that the reasons are unknown? As I said to Bugler above, when you stoop to misrepresenting the situation, it shows that your argument is shaky. And the evidence is not only not compelling, some of it is false and some is logically fallacious. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:45, 18 November 2008 (EST)

::Yes, of course there is evidence. And being a Muslim is not a punishable in the US, so the jury need not use the standard of "[[beyond any reasonable doubt]]". It's more like a lawsuit, I guess, where you need only be 51% sure to vote one way or the other.

::Personally, I'd like CP to make some indication that some conservatives are still in doubt about [[my Muslim faith|"his Muslim faith"]], but that desire does not outweigh the need for editorial harmony.

::It is liberals - rather than conservatives - who insist on censoring all views contrary to theirs, in the US. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:03, 18 November 2008 (EST)

::: Ed, when the issue is the president of the United States, then even less than a 51% chance is often sufficient to be influential, just as less than 51% chance is enough to deny someone an important job.

::: Someone is missing the the point about [[my Muslim faith]], which omits the telling phrase: "Muslim faith." No Christian would use that specific phrase so casually in reference to himself. How about someone saying "Allah the Creator"?! Christians don't use the phrase.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:10, 18 November 2008 (EST)

== Falsifiability & "My Muslim Faith" ==

Aschlafly, Ed Poor, etc. -

Is there any piece of evidence that, assuming it existed, would convince you that Barack Obama is NOT a Muslim? You've now admitted there's a chance he's not a Muslim, so what piece of evidence would convince you that he's not? As it stands, your argument seems unfalsifiable, and ridiculously conspiratorial: everytime someone offers evidence that Obama's not a Muslim, you just reply with, "oooh, he's a tricky one! He must have worked to cover that up!" That's not a respectable, logical argument: it's an inability to recognize fact when it's put before your eyes. What piece of evidence could convince you of that, if any?

Further, if I go through the George W. Bush talk page I bet I'll find a million examples of you apologizing for Bush's rhetorical missteps, and arguing that when he says something incorrectly, it doesn't mean he's stupid. Why, then, are you not willing to take Obama's slip of the tongue as the same thing - unconscious error, not indicative of any deeper meaning?

The fact is, you have no principled basis for the distinction. Nor are you going to accept any evidence that Obama's a Christian. You're just clinging to a pet theory when even your own administrative staff tells you you're wrong.-[[User:KiraN|KiraN]] 10:26, 18 November 2008 (EST)

== Towards stability via discussion ==

:''unilateral and ideologically-driven deletions bordering on vandalism''

Vandalism is replacing the page with "Stinky loves Myrtle". Unilateral editing is doing your own thing, even when you know someone else will just want to revert (see [[Editing etiquette]]).

Let's come closer together, rather than battle it out on the page itself. Talk pages are for talking. Let's hear some more talk! --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:29, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:The problem with that, is that if people talk about it, and say almost anything to disagree with the current state of the article, they are likely to get blocked for the "90/10 Rule against talk talk talk" or "liberal namecalling" or some other excuse. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 10:37, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:: Tim, that's simply not true. The [[90/10 rule]] guards against nothing but talk. It's easy to make substantive contributions to comply with the rule, and it's easy to refrain from namecalling in discussions. In fact, both are essential to keep the level of discourse and learning here at a high level.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:42, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:::The [[90/10 rule]] might guard against nothing but talk, but it sure seems to guard against some kinds of talk a lot more than others. [[User:RobNewberry|RobNewberry]] 10:47, 18 November 2008 (EST)

::::If so, there's nothing wrong with that. Jaywalking is not prosecuted as much as petty shoplifting either.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:55, 18 November 2008 (EST)
:::::Aschlafly, you can tell yourself that all you want, but this much is clear; the 90/10 rule is a content-neutral rule applied in a manner that amounts to viewpoint discrimination. You only apply it against liberals. You've long since abandoned the stance that you "don't block ideologically."
:::::This site has survived for two years ''only'' by ruthlessly persecuting anyone who disagrees with your worldview. Tim is right, but I'll take it one step farther: I think the reason you censor people who disagree with you is because you know you'll lose in a fair fight. The Barack Obama article is just one more example of that. Except now, even your own sysops disagree with you, so you devolve into insulting Philip and dodging the question.
:::::Of course you can block me, and prove Tim right.-[[User:KiraN|KiraN]] 11:02, 18 November 2008 (EST)

::::@Aschlafly: I don't get your analogy. Jaywalking and petty shoplifting are different crimes. Excessive talk by a liberal and excessive talk by a conservative is the same "crime". So the "prosecution" ought to be applied equally against both, right? Otherwise it isn't a ''rule'', it's just an ''excuse'' to make people you don't agree with go away. [[User:RobNewberry|RobNewberry]] 11:04, 18 November 2008 (EST)

::::: Rob, within the same crimes prosecutorial patterns are different. It's called "prosecutorial discretion." It is used every day by law enforcement and it is obvious why it is needed. I'm not going to waste my morning spelling this out for you. Take a basic course on criminal justice, or simply follow the news.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:23, 18 November 2008 (EST)
::::::Andy, you're misunderstanding "prosecutorial discretion." You're right that policemen have the right to decide which crimes to prosecute, but if they differentially allow white criminals to get away with murder, and seek the death penalty for black shoplifters, it would give rise to a disparate impact lawsuit and be illegitimate, racist, and wrong. We're arguing that your actions here are closer to abuse of prosecutorial discretion to kick out your enemies, than to the case of using prosecutorial discretion to preserve resources.
::::::It strikes me that what you're missing is the difference between "content neutral" and "viewpoint discrimination." Take a course in the First Amendment, or read a book on it; it might help your understanding of the word "censorship," too.-[[User:KiraN|KiraN]] 13:38, 18 November 2008 (EST)

I would say you are partially correct, RobNewberry. Sometimes people need to be "invited" to leave, much like a dinner guest who overstays their welcome. If a person comes to Conservapedia knowing full well it is a conservative/Christian friendly wiki-encyclopedia, and is a liberal, the question is why? If the answer is they support Andy Schlafly's idea of an conservative alternative to the decidedly left-of-center editor dominated Wikipedia, that's great! All voices should be represented on the Net. But if their intentions are merely to argue and dispute conservative or Christian points of view, that becomes a subtle form of vandalism, inasmuch as it is a great time waster for those who genuinely want to contribute their conservative/Christian POV, and build this encyclopedia. My own opinion is that those who obsessively create new user names, only to argue against conservative values, and disrupt/time waste, are actually terrorists of the Internet kind. What other reason would they have to stick around? Any board or wiki does and should have the absolute right of association.

This would hold true for a conservative joining a known liberal board or wiki, and spend all their time disputing the members, arguing without end, and seeking to put their conservative point of view into their discussions or articles. I am not for truncating free speech automatically, but after weeks and weeks of disputing everything, knowing you are not going to change CP into Wikipedia's more liberal world-view, or have CP adopt all of Wikipedia's member conventions, a person's efforts then cross over into something more, what I have taken to calling Internet Terrorism. CP has an owner, it is his right to have whatever viewpoint he wants. If people agree, with even a part, they stick around and help build this place. If they don't, what other reason, other than being obstinate or having malicious intent, could they have? Disagreement is fine, debate is good. But where does it end, and the ability of like-minded individuals to associate with those they agree with, without constant disagreement begin? --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 11:41, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:Please don't refer to anything that isn't terrorism as terrorism. It might be censorship or vandalism or disruption. But terrorism is something else entirely. There is no terror involved in what you describe above and associating the term with it helps to undermine fear of the real kind. Terrorism should not be taken lightly. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 11:48, 18 November 2008 (EST)

::TK, I agree with you completely that people probably need to be "invited" to leave. My only problem is that this is done under the guise of 90/10 rule. I think this is done so that Andy can still claim something like "We don't ask editors to leave because they have a certain viewpoint, only Wikipedia does that." Make too many liberal edits, though, and you'll find that you have somehow violated the 90/10 rule. I say drop the deceit and just ban people with the comment "We don't like your viewpoint. Goodbye." It's about being honest about what kind of place this wiki really is. [[User:RobNewberry|RobNewberry]] 11:49, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:::Ajkgordon, one definition of "terrorism" is "intimidating gang activity". Regardless of your rather parochial idea of its meaning, kindly refrain from saying something I clearly labeled as my own opinion, invention, is wrong usage. Organized activity, like from ''certain groups'', to disrupt other boards or wiki's, no matter how loosely organized, if it is at all coordinated, is intimidation, ergo, "terrorism".

:::RobNewberry, I know that when I was an administrator, I often followed Andy's lead in doing just that, block with the comment "Bye". As Schlafly often says, it isn't very hard to copy edit, add a source a few times a day, especially if one is spending hours and hours debating on talk pages. A person doing that, and not being obnoxious, they shouldn't be blocked. But I mostly see people with absolutely no contributions to CP, and looking at their history see only talk page posts, being blocked. Someone constantly reverting an article because of idealogical disagreement, and making no other contributions, should be blocked, or have the good grace to leave. There is more than one way to run a wiki. That's why they come with settings. Some wiki's require review of submissions before going live. Some require registration in order to edit, others do not. You sound fairly reasonable, obviously an informed person. Surely you can understand how people would grow tired of debating a topic without end. If you don't go to Wikipedia and try to insert something favorable about George W. Bush, Dick Cheney or Ann Coulter. Then when you are reverted, change it back. I don't think your experience will be a pleasant one. ;-) ----[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 12:12, 18 November 2008 (EST)

::::RobNewberry, your own comments are misleading and illustrate the problem, because now I have to waste my time correcting them. The [[90/10 rule]] applies to people who talk, talk, talk without redeeming value in the way of substantive contributions. Nothing could be simpler. Talk is a time-waster. Different viewpoints, if logical, are welcome here. Incessant talk as can be seen on countless other sites, is not. The talkers can rant elsewhere. We're here to learn.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:37, 18 November 2008 (EST)
:::::Andy, you're being very dishonest about the application of the rule. Your explanation of it includes several value judgments - "different viewpoints, if logical" - all we're arguing is that your definition of "logical" is "that which agrees with you." That's where the discrimination we're talking about comes from.
:::::Interestingly, while you spend some time characterizing anyone disagreeing with you as "liberal censorship," in a somewhat dishonest definition of "censorship," you seem unable to recognize that what you're doing is REAL censorship, the use of power (rather than argument & debate) to squelch uncomfortable beliefs. Open your mind.-[[User:KiraN|KiraN]] 12:54, 18 November 2008 (EST)

::::TK, if your definition is from Mirriam-Webster's, then it's '''''violent and''' intimidating gang activity''.
::::My request was but a courteous plea for proper usage of the term for a current and dangerous phenomenon. Scattering the term around and using it to define childish, irreverent and irritating vandalism degrades the purity of the term and lessens its impact when correctly using it. If that's parochial, so be it. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 12:47, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:::::TK and Andy, let me ask you a question. If you visited Wikipedia, and saw that, say, the Dick Cheney article contained an unreferenced assertion or an unfounded attack, you would initially try to edit and fix that problem, correct? Then, if another WP editor reverted your edit (which you believed was completely correct), you might either undo the reversion, or you might make a comment on the Talk Page, right? Now, here on CP, those of us who see something that ''we'' believe is incorrect or unfounded usually face a few problems. (Do not assume that all of us have evil intent against you - I'm entirely happy for you to have a conservative-leaning encyclopedia, and simply wish the information be factually correct and credibly referenced). First, the article may be locked, as this article is. In which case, there's nowhere to make the complaint except on the Talk Page. Second, if we can make them, our edits are often reverted, often with no supporting data provided (cf the Muslim debate here), so we usually have to make a comment on the Talk Page about that fact. It only takes one back and forth comment as we debate our position before a 90/10 block is usually enacted. Finally, those of us who frequent CP in an attempt to monitor the extreme forms of distortion that crop up now and again (as per any online community) may be shy of actually editing the articles, since bans are so often administered, so we instead first make our comments on the Talk Page. Frequently, a new user's single comment on a Talk Page is enough for a 90/10 ban. So it's pretty hard to believe that 90/10 is really about 90/10 when there are often no other options but Talk. And it's pretty hard to believe you're interested in establishing 'trustworthyness' if you aren't prepared to listen to evidence from other perspectives. [[User:FredX|FredX]] 12:49, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:::::: FredX, users can talk all they want, as long as they contribute substance at the same time. It's easy to contribute substance. It's the reason we're here. No project can succeed if the participants do nothing but talk. Try it at work sometime if you don't believe me.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:53, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:::::::Andy, consider this: "talk talk talk" is useful if it's being done to convince you, the only person with control over the article, that you're wrong. Talk towards the truth is not useless talk: it's incredibly substantive. As it stands now, it's you, Bugler, and TK versus everyone else on the site. It might be time to recognize that all this talk has the "substance" of proving your error.-[[User:KiraN|KiraN]] 13:08, 18 November 2008 (EST)

FredX, having a Conservative/Christian - friendly encyclopedia does not obligate CP to prostitute those beliefs by allowing people who are not Christians, who are not Conservatives, to alter articles or their tone, to fit their outlook. The truth is the truth, but truth is always in the eye of the beholder, no? You and I could argue 24/7, over the existence of God, to use an example. No matter how many "facts" you presented me with, it would not alter my ''knowing'' he exists. Political and religious thought is highly subjective. One mans "distortion" is another mans valid "truth". To repeatedly try to alter someone's beliefs is a form of bullying. Read what you are saying. No one has the obligation to appoint himself "Internet Monitor of Truth". Your conventions of how a wiki-encyclopedia come from where? It is totally lacking in logic to think the conventions of one place should be used at another. If I go to the Daily Kos or the Huffington Post, and appoint myself the "truth" monitor there, what would happen?

If you have a complaint, you can always avail yourself the email links to other users. Or post your objection on the author's talk page. We aren't talking here about people objecting. We are talking about people who will not take "no" for an answer, and demand that their truth is better than another's. Once your point is made, posted, doing it again and again, without end, accomplishes what, other than you being able to vent? I don't spend time arguing with liberals at the Kos or HuffPo, because I know they do not agree with me, never will. I am not a YEC, yet I am here. What would be accomplished for me to argue, without end, with Philip Rayment (to use a known example of a YEC member here) over the age of the Earth? His "facts" as to Earth's age, are his. Mine are mine. In building an encyclopedia, or in any project, the trick is to focus on the areas we can agree on, and not let those we don't bog us down. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 13:18, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:Actually, TK, I couldn't disagree with any of your comments, but for this one - "the truth is the truth, but truth is always in the eye of the beholder, no?". That's certainly true when it comes to matters of dogma or belief - it's true, we might never agree on what is "true". But there is much here on Conservapedia that is ''not'' dogma-related, and is simply factually untrue. To take this particular article as an example, might I ask if you believe the Muslim-related material might not be better presented if gathered into one section, entitled "Speculation on Obama's Muslim beliefs", instead of being scattershot throughout the article, unreferenced, misquoted, and asserted with no validity. That would actually HELP this debate, yet is certain to be disallowed under a threat of "we don't hide the truth here", yet who's truth is that? And my mere suggestion of disagreement with this thesis likely marks me as a candidate for a ban. Certainly it's likely that if I answer one more time in this reasonable debate with you, I will likely be blocked by ASchalfly, Bugler or others - simply for debating. But how else would I debate my suggestion - the article is locked? [[User:FredX|FredX]] 14:28, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:: Perhaps worth pointing out here that FredX did indeed, as he had predicted, [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=&page=User%3AFredX&year=&month=-1 receive a 90/10 ban] while trying to debate the content of this article. I imagine he rests his case. [[User:Aggrieved|Aggrieved]] 16:25, 19 November 2008 (EST)

== Talking with enemies ==

In the section '''"statements"''' Obama is criticised for claiming Roosevelt spoke to our enemies. Now it is true that Roosevelt did not talk to Hitler, but he certainly ''did'' talk to Stalin, who most Americans consider (and hesitantly considered back then) an enemy, and it is Stalin that Obama is presumably referring to. Rather than letting Hitler conquer Russia while the United States kept to its own war effort, or letting Patton continue on to Warsaw and Moscow after victory against Germany, Roosevelt was willing to talk to the Communist Enemy to co-ordinate action and to ultimately permit the Bolshevik conquest of eastern Europe. Naturally there are divergent opinions over whether in this particular case compromise was the best course of action, but what Obama is obviously expressing when he refers to Roosevelt, Truman and Kennedy, all of whom negotiated with the Soviet enemy, is that it's better to come to talk with and possibly compromise with an opponent we may feel ideologically at polar opposites with instead of just blindly fighting whenever the oppurtunity presents itself.

For that reason it is advisable that the section is removed as it relies on the assumption that Obama was referring exclusively to Truman and Roosevelt's relationship with Hitler rather than with Stalin. [[User:JHanson|JHanson]] 12:40, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:Your reasoning is confused, and your conclusion makes no sense at all.

:Compromising with an enemy is often the wrong thing to do. Your [[all or nothing]] analysis doesn't support it: it's rarely a case of "give in or fight blindly". Perhaps you have assumed that America only '''felt''' it was ideologically at a polar opposite from atheism and totalitarianism. This is [[liberal dogma]], not CP editorial policy. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 12:52, 18 November 2008 (EST)

::You misunderstand completely. ''I'' didn't say anything about whether or not America should compromise - Obama did. Whether or not it should has absolutely nothing to do with the issue I was raising.

::What I was saying was that the section is trying to make it seem that Obama has no grasp of history, that he was claiming that Roosevelt and Truman talked to our enemies (assumed to be Hitler, Mussolini and Hideki) when those Presidents didn't. However, Roosevelt and Truman did talk to our enemies, namely Stalin. Obama was referring to the talks Roosevelt and Truman had with ''Stalin'', not Hitler, and thus he was right to claim that Roosevelt, Truman and Kennedy talked to our enemies. Therefore the section is false, not because we should compromise with our enemies, but because Obama did not make a mistake as the section apparently claims.

::Hopefully I have made myself more clear. But I will repeat to make sure: I am not saying anything about whether or not it is right to compromise with enemies. I am not saying that the communists were only apparently our enemies - in fact by suggesting that Roosevelt did not talk with enemies when he clearly talked with Stalin the section in the ''article'' implies that Stalin was not really an enemy. What I am saying is that Obama was perfectly justified in saying that Roosevelt and Truman talked and compromised with our enemies. This means exactly what it says, ''not'' that compromising with our enemies was perfectly justified. I apologise if I was not clear the first time, that's why I've rephrased the same point a second and third time.[[User:JHanson|JHanson]] 13:30, 18 November 2008 (EST)
Well? Am I understood now? Is the section going to be removed? [[User:JHanson|JHanson]] 18:56, 19 November 2008 (EST)

== compared to wikipedia article ==

It is interesting that the wikipedia articles on Obama does not mention Pakistan. In fact, his three week trip to Pakistan was documented in a New York Times article, but metion of it was removed at wikipedia with [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Early_life_and_career_of_Barack_Obama&diff=252397639&oldid=252397137 this edit]. It looks like some wiki contributors are running interferance at wikipedia. The conservapedia article is a nice balance to that article, though the part that he "may be sworn into office at his inauguration ... using the Koran" is dodgy, and sounds almost National Enquirer-ish. I think the wording could be improved, though I haven't looked into it. It would not surprise me if Barack Obama were a Muslim, and it would not surprise me if he were a liberal Christian with weakly held beliefs and a fondness for his early teachings. At wikipedia, I also didn't see any mention of Bill Ayers on Obama pages. That is very strange. The sad part is, if President Obama appointed Bill Ayers to be the head of the Department of Education, I don't think we would see much difference in the American education system--at least in the public schools--as people that think like him are already in control. Anyway, keep up the good work. [[User:BigMike|BigMike]] 12:58, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:Good points, BigMike! --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 13:24, 18 November 2008 (EST)
::Thanks. Here is a quote "If there is an Arab American family being rounded up without benefit of an attorney or due process of law, that threatens my civil liberties."--Barack Obama, 2004 DNC speech. (Yes, it is what some would call a quote mine, but it is a direct quote of a complete sentence.) That being said, I agree with others that the article would be better if it were to document the fact that many people are speculating about whehter or not Barack Obama is a Muslim, including adding their reasoning. But trying to make a case that he is a Muslim in this article isn't turning out too well in my opinion. It's good to see some changes have been made. [[User:BigMike|BigMike]] 22:50, 18 November 2008 (EST)

== Suggestion for compromise ==

Since it's clear that none of the editors involved are going to be able to agree, why don't we take Mr. Schlafly's advice [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Barack_Obama&diff=554261&oldid=554228 earlier on this talk page] where he says "We don't censor informative information here. Let the reader decide." How about, instead of going back and forth, back and forth, we instead allow the inclusion of evidence ''against'' Obama being a Muslim. The reader can read the evidence on both sides, and decide for themselves. Good idea? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 13:26, 18 November 2008 (EST)
:Practically, I think that's a workable compromise. Theoretically, of course, it's problematic: neutrality towards an incorrect idea is not objectivity. The idea that Obama is a Muslim is objectively wrong, and should be excised. But, practically, I'm willing to go with that compromise. Great idea from a helpful sysop!-[[User:KiraN|KiraN]] 13:32, 18 November 2008 (EST)
:::Not a sysop, but every now and then I have a good idea ;-) [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 13:49, 18 November 2008 (EST)
::I think this is a very sensible idea. I don't agree with any of the arguments that Obama is a Muslim, but obviously a few people here are determined to cling to them, so including the counterarguments as well would be a good way to balance this part of the article & end the conflicts over this. [[User:Sideways|Sideways]] 13:42, 18 November 2008 (EST)
:::Also, if the argument would take up a great deal of the article, it could be moved to a separate page. What's the policy on linking to debates from regular pages? I know there are two Obama/Muslim debates going, and I think linking to them from the article might not be a bad idea. [[User:ArnoldFriend|ArnoldFriend]] 13:45, 18 November 2008 (EST)
::::(/signed) Totally agree, if all the arguments are presented then anyone who is open minded can make up their own mind. Those with closed minds won't be convinced either way, no matter what arguments are presented..--[[User:Ieuan|Ieuan]] 13:48, 18 November 2008 (EST)

Set forth your "evidence" here first, for consideration. Self-serving statements by politicians don't carry much weight here, obviously.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:53, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:''"Set forth your "evidence" here first, for consideration. Self-serving statements by politicians don't carry much weight here, obviously.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:53, 18 November 2008 (EST)"''[http://www.myfoxkc.com/myfox/pages/News/Detail?contentId=7882247&version=1&locale=EN-US&layoutCode=TSTY&pageId=3.11.1 as required]. This was one source found in 5 minutes work and if anyone doubts the quality of the source [http://www.myfoxkc.com/myfox/pages/InsideFox/AboutUs?pageId=5.1 please look here]. This is just a single source found at 00:25am after being out all night doing charity work. As I find others I will post. I will also point out that I do not consider this, or subsequent evidence put forth, as 'talk' as I am responding to a direct request for information by the creator of this site--[[User:Ieuan|Ieuan]] 19:28, 18 November 2008 (EST)
:Another, same conditions, contributor makes clear that he thinks that Obama is at best [http://foxforum.blogs.foxnews.com/2008/06/02/barack-obama-is-not-a-christian/ a deist], at worst an atheist, but at no point offers an argument for Obama being of an Islamic faith.--[[User:Ieuan|Ieuan]] 19:31, 18 November 2008 (EST)
:As above, [http://www.jewsonfirst.org/08a/obama_religion_attacked.html 'Minnery, who served as Dobson's interlocutor on the program yesterday said during the broadcast that Obama was "deliberately distorting the traditional understanding of the bible to fit his own world view, his own confused theology."'] Again, at best the argument says that Obama is a deist, at worst is trying to set up his own sect of 'christianity', but no evidence to show that Obama is of Islamic faith.--[[User:Ieuan|Ieuan]] 19:38, 18 November 2008 (EST)
:And again, [http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,317031,00.html "....to baseless e-mailed rumors that he is a Muslim and poses a threat to the security of the United States."]--[[User:Ieuan|Ieuan]] 19:41, 18 November 2008 (EST)
:Logic argument: I believe it has been mentioned that Obama may be a Muslim because of his lack of dancing or dancing skills. If that belief is true then every man lives in the UK and is either i) not out of his head on 'e' or ii) over the age of 25 is muslim, as no man in the UK that does not fit the two previous definitions ''ever'' dances seriously with full use of his arms, at least, not outside of ballroom dancing. I admitted that is observational evidence, not just of myself but numerous others, but observational evidence is still evidence, and considerably better than suppostition and hearsay, two lower classes of 'evidence' ('that is which is seen').--[[User:Ieuan|Ieuan]] 19:49, 18 November 2008 (EST)
:More. [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/22/AR2007012201322.html Washington Post, but hey, ''I'm'' not going to be the person who raises objections as to their factual accuracies], I'll leave that to the lawyers, my knowledge of libel laws just ain't that good. Of course, there are always those that will argue on the point of "Classes in Islam are offered to the predominantly Muslim students at the school....", but then that requires proving that Obama was a Muslim with a level of evidence above supposition and hearsay.--[[User:Ieuan|Ieuan]] 19:58, 18 November 2008 (EST)
:And now it is 01:00 and I need my sleep. Page 2 of Google tomorrow.--[[User:Ieuan|Ieuan]] 20:00, 18 November 2008 (EST)

Since CP is the Conservative/Christian-friendly encyclopedia it is, while other points of view should be included, it is wrong to bully it into providing the equivalent of "equal time" to those who are not Christian and/or Conservative. Those who disagree should stop wasting time with this and move on to places that are more accommodating of [[liberal deceit]], Atheist [[deceit]]. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 13:56, 18 November 2008 (EST)
:You are absolutely right. This is the Christian encyclopedia, at least one of the online ones. That means the Word is God, and God is truth. Let no argument be hidden, for that is the path of the Fallen, the jealous and the wicked. For those with God are armoured with Faith and armed with the Truth and are truly capable of determining the gleanings of Truth from argument and do not need protection, for the Word that is Truth guides their path--[[User:Ieuan|Ieuan]] 20:05, 18 November 2008 (EST)

== Accusations of Homosexuality ==

The story is starting to spread that Obama is a homosexual or bisexual and may have been involved in the deaths of some of his past lovers<ref>http://chgocutie.blogspot.com/2007/12/nathaniel-nate-spencer-tucc-sanctuary.html</ref>. In shades of a Vince Foster type scandal I'm wondering if any mention of this development should go into the main page. Larry Sinclair<ref>http://larrysinclair0926.files.wordpress.com/2008/04/chicago-packet.pdf</ref> was the initial source, but evidence seems to be mounting<ref>http://redinktexas.blogspot.com/2008/07/larry-sinclair-obamas-bad-penny.html</ref> that Obama has a gay past he's been hiding.
::I really wish someone with authority to edit the article would add some mention of Obama's homosexual leanings. There's evidence of murder, harassment and extensive political corruption and the article makes no mention of it. Isn't it the responsibility of a reliable source to present all the facts, negative and positive, about the soon to be President?--[[User:AlexC|AlexC]] 11:46, 20 November 2008 (EST)

== A better approach to highlighting Obama's negatives - Highlight More Best Arguments against Obama vs. the throw a lot of spaghetti against the wall approach ==

Instead of the article focusing more on claims that are certainly not undisputable (Obama being a Muslim) I think the article could do a better job of pointing out the negative things about Obama that have a much higher degree of certainty.

Examples of things which could be highlighted more:

1. Other than a footnote which few people will read, does the article highlight sufficiently '''his extremely liberal voting record''' as a Senator?[http://nj.nationaljournal.com/voteratings/] Perhaps, some of his more extreme votes could be highlighted.

2. There is the '''Obama/infantcide''' issue which might be highlighted more if it is mentioned or mentioned if it is not currently mentioned: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYRpIf2F9NA and http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/obama_and_infanticide.html

===Consequences of the current state of the article===

It seems like the article takes a throw a lot of negative spaghetti against the wall and hopefully some sticks approach. That is not how you create a compelling article in terms of when it highlights some of the negative aspects about Obama. Dubious claims in the article make the valid claims less prominent. Also, it is not surprising that the Obama article is not ranked high by the search engines like the Conservapedia [[Bill Clinton]] article is (I have not read the Bill Clinton article but I suspect it is better than the Obama article. I do know that Conservapedia's Bill Clinton article is ranked #6 by Google). I think that is because it is difficult to get conservatives to link to the article and the article is easily dismissed by liberals and they do not see it as a threat. If you want the article to be informative and influential any dubious claims have to be weeded out and the legitimate matters have to be highlighted more. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 15:24, 18 November 2008 (EST)

== First Black President? ==

Should we have an article on the [[First Black President]]? I had created one, but [[User_talk:Ed_Poor#First_Black_president|Ed said we should talk about it here first]].

The citations I found that indicated Obama is not the first were [http://www.diversityinc.com/public/1461.cfm], [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Barack_Obama&curid=65751&diff=561761&oldid=561751], and [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Barack_Obama&diff=534592&oldid=534582]. [[User:BHarlan|BHarlan]] 16:11, 18 November 2008 (EST)

*I would suggest "Bi-Racial" as the most accurate term. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 16:13, 18 November 2008 (EST)

Please do create an entry. Thanks for the insight. Of course, the other reason for omitting the liberal claim that Obama is the first black president (aside from its likely inaccuracy) is the dubious significance of the assertion. By now our society is long past judging people by their race, and Obama's election illustrates how exaggerated the liberal claims about continued racism really are.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:25, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:Gee, your right, I mean how do we know he is the first black president. I mean they didn't have photgraphs back then, so maybe John Adams was really a brother! For that matter, how do we know he is the first muslim president? Maybe Iran-contra was Reagan's way of helping his fellow Islamists!
:Seriously though, is it really a liberal claim that he is the first black president? Other than you, who is claiming he isn't? [[User:TTerm|TTerm]] 18:38, 18 November 2008 (EST)

::TTerm, perhaps you don't know how to click on a link yet. BHarlan provided several of them above for you. Also, TTerm, this isn't a blog. Contribute substantively, or rant elsewhere.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:45, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:::Two of those links just link back to conservapedia. The third references "research" by a man named Leroy Vaughn. The claims and evidence seem dubious to say the least. Whatever the veracity of these claims, it is wrong to call this a "liberal" claim since most conservatives believe him to be the first black president as well. [[User:TTerm|TTerm]] 20:59, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:Great. Would you mind undeleting [[First Black president]], if the software allows it? [[User:BHarlan|BHarlan]] 18:28, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:: Done, without yet reading it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:46, 18 November 2008 (EST)

I for one find it hard to believe that you would have agreed with that research two years ago Schlafly. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 23:49, 19 November 2008 (EST)

==How to collaborate==

If you'll notice, me last few edits to this article were sweepingly changed back by [[User:Aschlafly]]. However, neither my initial round of edits, nor his response, has resulted in animosity. On my part, at least, I have nothing but unbounded respect for my co-editor here.

We are not against each other, although our approach is different. We are finding a synthesis which is (probably) better than each of us could do alone. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 16:15, 18 November 2008 (EST)

::The Declaration of Independence and Constitution of the United States are collabrative efforts that him withstood the test of time, among others! --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 16:29, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:Good for you, Ed (seriously - I wouldn't have been nearly as sanguine about it). The facts, however, remain that:
:#'''DanH''' - a strong editor and respected sysop - '''quit this project in disgust''' at what he saw as an attempt to "smear" Obama as a Muslim.
:#'''PJR''' - the most patient and eloquent defender of YEC I have ever encountered - '''categorically refutes''' the idea that there is any credible evidence that Obama is a Muslim.
:#'''Conservative''' - principal author of several of Conservapedia's defining articles - remains '''wholly unconvinced''' of the strength of the Obama/Muslim case, and is concerned that its inclusion in the article could '''damage Conservapedia's credibility'''.
:#'''Tim/CPAdmin1''' - one of the original members of this project - has '''repeatedly objected''' to its inclusion.
:#And finally, '''ChrisS''' - again, one of the original Conservapedians - even felt moved to describe this article as '''the most sorry excuse for an encyclopedia entry I have ever seen'''. [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Barack_Obama&diff=prev&oldid=556523]
:What kind of synthesis do you hope to achieve in the face of such ''demonstrably principled'' opposition? These are not lone, liberal voices. These are long-standing contributors who collectively insist that '''this is plain wrong and must be removed'''.

:Good night (and good luck). --[[User:JohnZ|JohnZ]] 17:39, 18 November
::: And that's not all of it. At least two other administrators have also made known their opposition, via e-mail (which Andy got copies of at the time). [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:12, 18 November 2008 (EST)

::We respect the views of a minority among us (and note that the minority you cite has displayed almost no experience with Islam and/or Islamic education). Regardless, obviously logic prevails over even the opinion of a majority.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:46, 18 November 2008 (EST)
::: Andy, it is ''your'' view that is in the minority; JohnZ was citing the ''majority''. It seems that Ed (inadvertently) recognised that by his comment below. Hopefully logic would prevail, but unfortunately you are trying to make ''your'' minority and illogical view prevail.
::: And this yet again highlights a major problem here. You are throwing around these personal opinions as though they are factual, denigrating the opposing view and the people that put them, but not actually engaging the arguments and providing a logical response.
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:12, 18 November 2008 (EST)

The late Michael Crichton said, "The Nazis got 200 German scientists to say that Einstein was wrong, and then somebody asked Einstein, 'How does it feel to have 200 scientists against you?' And he said, 'It takes only one to prove me wrong.' " [http://www.perc.org/articles/article894.php] We don't go by majority vote around here, because the majority are (as our [[Founding Fathers]] indicated) simply not trustworthy. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 17:54, 18 November 2008 (EST)
:: So are you saying that the administrators who are in the majority on this issue are not trustworthy? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:12, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:Hi Ed,

:I'm not usually known for my poor reading comprehension, but I can't tell which side of this thing your statement above is supporting. Is Andy vs. the 5 listed sysops the minority, or are the five listed sysops the minority as described by Andy ("[w]e respect the views of a minority among us)...")? Merci, [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 18:02, 18 November 2008 (EST) ''<-honh honh...''

:: Ed's comment seems clear enough to me. Logic is not the result of majority vote, and even less so the product of a consensus among the minority. Ed is opposing relying on the view of a minority.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:04, 18 November 2008 (EST)

Good grief, man, must I spell it out? I'm on the side of finding out what is true! As J.M. Keynes said, "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?" It is to the principle of truth-seeking which I express my devotion here, as well as to the collaborative process of its discovery. Stop trying to cover this story like a sportswriter trying to figure out which horse won the race. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 18:10, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:And what do ''you'' see as being the facts here, Ed? How do you hope to achieve your synthesis? --[[User:JohnZ|JohnZ]] 18:18, 18 November 2008 (EST)

::Yes, Ed, I'm sorry but I need it spelled out for me. This isn't a vague question for late night dorm hall meanderings. It's pretty concrete: the Obama-is-Muslim material, as Andy wants it presented, belongs in the article, or it doesn't. I can paint those two statements on horses and run them around a track if an over-extended metaphor will help here - only one of those horses can win. [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 18:31, 18 November 2008 (EST) ''<- will, however, need to learn to play the bugle (if not the bugler)...''

:Wow, Ed, that's extremely well put!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:21, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:ASchalfly - you said, "We...note that the minority you cite has displayed almost no experience with Islam and/or Islamic education". Might I ask what your own qualifications are in this regard, since you are clearly 'over-ruling' their opinions? [[User:FredX|FredX]] 18:25, 18 November 2008 (EST)

I'm going to write an article about [[the real horse whisperer]]. I have no more time to entertain you here. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 18:33, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:Amazing. A simple question, with only two possible answers, that could be answered in fewer characters than you just used to beg off. And if you think I'm entertained you probably do think those horses are talking to you. ''Anybody'' who sticks with the "this conversation is a dragged-out waste of time" is missing the point that the time is being wasted by the continued and false defenses presented. It's only a continuing waste of time because the people in the wrong unfortunately wield all the clout, so they are in fact allowed to say "nuh unh" and ''have it stick''. If SteveRandomperson had inserted this stuff, other regular users could remove it, and when Steve got into an edit war over it any of the five sysops listed above could simply end this thing. It's only dragging on because none of them can pull rank on the proponent of this material.

:''That'' is the source of wasted time here. [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 18:48, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:: Aziraphale, your long-winded comment is incoherent, and your list of contributions is a remarkable violation of the [[90/10 rule]] against talk, talk, talk.[[Special:Contributions/Aziraphale]]--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:42, 18 November 2008 (EST)

::: I'm afraid he can't respond Andy. He's been blocked. --[[User:WOwen|WOwen]] 19:45, 18 November 2008 (EST)

::: I had no problem understanding Aziraphale's comment, so it is quite coherent, and he makes a very good point. It would make more sense to take notice of the problem than to brush it aside and silence him with a block. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:12, 18 November 2008 (EST)

==You're All Missing the Point==

Ok I've said this once before, but nobody seems to understand so I'll try to make it clearer.

'''YOU ARE ALL MISSNIG THE POINT'''

Sitting around debating whether or not Obama is a Muslim is doing nothing to discredit him, instead it just reflects badly on conservatives. If you stopped using circumstantial evidence to "prove" that he may have told one lie on the campaign trail (which inevitably does not affect his politics) then you would realise there are plenty of valid fronts you can criticise him on:

*Abortion
*Stem cell research
*War on Terror
*Criminal rights
*Lack of substance in policy
*Economic regulation

and so on... If you examined these in detail and explained why they would be bad for America, rather than dedicating copious amounts of the article to a farfetched claim that he's a Muslim in disguise, then you would not only convince conservatives that he is the wrong candidate, but also show politically neutral parties why they should not have voted for him. Instead, the article at the moment reads like a cross between a parody and a far right-wing blog entry, and will do nothing to convince anyone other than the most conservative voter. One of your own sources in the article clearly demonstrates that these attacks actually made people vote FOR Obama, and I can definitely say that if I saw this as the ideology of McCain I would have changed sides for the election.

In debating there is a argument known as an ad homenin attack, where you attack the debator and not his/her arguments. This is weak, because it demonstrates an inability to critically analyse the opposition's position. This is exactly what is happening here, you are ''trying'' to attack Obama's character rather than his politics. If you tried more of the latter, you'll find that you will convince many more people that Obama is not an appropriate president for the United States, and win much more credibility in the process. [[User:NormanS|NormanS]] 20:22, 18 November 2008 (EST)

== obama, Muslim or "liberal Christian" with a skeptical streak - The duck test ==

Andy, you claim that you are better educated regarding Islam than the oppposing sysops and that gives you deeper understanding of the issue. In response, I will first say that you have not shown that Lolo Soetoro was a staunch Muslim and given that Obama was sent to a Catholic school at some point I don't think you can show that his father had a great influence in his life. Furthermore, it appears as if Obama's mother was not married to the stepfather Lolo Soetoro long. In addition, his skeptical mother appears to have had the most influence in his life. Given that I have spent sometime studying Islam and had a Muslim housemate when I was younger and lived in a area highly concentrated with Muslims in the past, I don't think it is fair to say that I have great ignorance about Islam. I am well aware that patriarchy is present in Islamic families, but I am also aware that Obama's fathers did not appear to have great influence in his life.

I really think at this point that Obama's behavior is key in terms of the likelihood of him being a Muslim.

Most American Muslims are not rabidly pro-abortion, have great antipathy to the homosexual agenda, and abstain from alcohol. On the other hand, most "liberal Christians" who have a philosophical skepticism streak favor the "pro-choice" position and most do not have great antipathy toward the homosexual lifestyle. In addition, most "liberal Christians" have no problem drinking alcohol. Also, there is the fact that Obama's daughters were baptised.

Given the above, if Obama walks like a duck and talks like a duck, he is probably a duck. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 21:18, 18 November 2008 (EST)'

Obama's nominally Muslim father was not religious in the first place.[[USER:AuthorNeubius|AuthorNeubius]], 19 November 2008

== Reversion ==

All three items of evidence that Philip deleted are fully supported and hardly deniable. I don't know why Philip wants to delete them. The entries are educational also.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:22, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:I'm afraid not one of them is "supported" in any way and all are deniable. None of them are educational, and all are merely unfounded assertion and speculation. The first accusation (for that is what they are) about him not changing his name is dependent on him being Muslim to begin with. If he is not Muslim, then he has no need to change his name, and you haven't provided any evidence he's Muslim. The second accusation, about taqiyya, depends upon him being a Muslim, and you have not provided any evidence to that. The third, about the pronunciation of Pakistan, is irrelevant, as that is the correct pronunciation of that country's name. [[User:FredX|FredX]] 23:10, 18 November 2008 (EST)

: As FredX says, they are ''not'' supported, and they are most definitely deniable. Simply making those assertions is not a supporting argument. And how can you continue to claim that you don't know why I want to delete them when I've told you several times? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:18, 19 November 2008 (EST)

:: Philip, you have to do better than that before deleting factual and informative material. All three points are enlightening and undeniable, and I doubt you knew any of them before reading them here. We let the readers decide here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:32, 19 November 2008 (EST)

::: Okay Andy, I'll try and lay it out as simply as I can for you.
::: For something to be included in this (or any) article, it needs to be both ''factual'' and ''relevant''. We could put in the article that Obama eats breakfast every morning, and that would (presumably) be quite ''factual'', but it would not be ''relevant''. Agreed?
::: So when you say that I should not delete ''factual'' information, as long as it is ''relevant'', I agree.
::: The problem is, however, that the claim about Obama using a Muslim pronunciation of "Pakistan", for example is '''not factual'''. This is because there is no such thing as a Muslim pronunciation of "Pakistan". We thrashed this out ages ago on the Main Talk page, so it's not as though this is new information to you.
::: So when you keep repeating ad nauseam that "we don't delete factual information", '''you are avoiding the point that it is ''not factual'''''. That's why I keep deleting it—because it is ''not'' factual—and you repeatedly claiming that it is factual '''is not a valid argument''', because it is merely an assertion, not evidence or reason. If you want the claim kept, you have to show that it is ''factual''. That is the very thing that you avoid doing.
::: I don't know how this can be explained any more simply. It is beyond my comprehension that you cannot understand this, which leaves outright deceit on your part as the only other explanation. But then I can't comprehend that you would be outright deceitful either, so I'm at a loss to understand what's going through your mind.
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]]

"Letting the readers decide" would ring more true if you simply laid out the facts about Obama instead of riddling the article with unsubstantiated, repeatedly disproven falsehoods to skewer it toward your personal political viewpoint. Do you not realize that simply highlighting the positions he supports that conservatives are opposed to (his support of gay rights and abortion rights as just two examples) would do a better job turning conservatives against Obama than telling easily proven lies about him? The fact that you feel you have to resort to lies makes you look like you are guilty of the very thing you accuse liberals of: not having any actual factual argument to make. [[USER:AuthorNeubius|AuthorNeubius]], 19 November 2008

== Unbelievable ==

It's understandable that conservatives disapprove of Obama and much of this article reflects that. Smearing is nothing new to politics, but the poor logic shamelessly employed here is an embarrassment to American conservatives. As this site becomes a "de facto" conservative reference, more and more people will begin believing this is how conservatives reason and come up with their ideas. With great power comes great responsibility, and Conservapedia and Aschlafly fail disastrously as representatives of the conservative movement.

Under the pretense of "not censoring" and "letting the readers decide" the article is allowed to introduce deceptive evidence toward building weak and ultimately unproven hypotheses. Simultaneously, the exact opposite policy is used when contradictory evidence is presented.

This stunning hypocrisy can be best illustrated by how the "Obama is likely a Muslim" section is moderated. Several times myself and others have attempted to delete the statement "Obama recently referred to his "Muslim faith." Yes he said the words "My Muslim Faith" but this is utterly meaningless as no context for the statement is provided. I could say "I approve of the killing of babies coming to an end" and using the logic here I could be quoted as saying "I approve of the killing of babies"

However, we cannot escape the fact he said the words "My Muslim Faith" and since Conservapedia doesn't censor information, it must remain in the article. Furthermore, it must remain in a section attempting to show secret Muslim faith, however misleading it may be.

Where the hypocrisy comes in is that there is an overwhelming body of information that suggests Obama is not a Muslim and in fact a Christian. For example, he was sworn into the Senate using a bible in 2005, he attended a (albeit controversial) christian church for decades, no one has ever observed him performing Muslim rituals (ie, praying 5 times a day). Even the "My Muslim Faith" comment is evidence of him being a christian when viewed in full context, as it's more than clear he meant to say "My Christan Faith". Attempting to mention any of this in the article will result in an almost immediate undo and block.

The intentions of this section are transparent: to pander to modern American distrust of Muslims to build distrust of Obama. The irony of this and the article as a whole is obvious and almost comedic, as even a semi-informed reader can see through the deception and will likely end up with a reduced opinion of Conservatives.

I expect to immediately be labeled a liberal for posting this. I need to say for the record, I voted for McCain. I attend Church. I have an American flag outside my house. However I cannot stomach this article and quite frankly am ashamed that such cheap hate tactics are being used by people calling themselves conservative.

[[User:Conservamike|Conservamike]] 23:14, 18 November 2008 (EST)
::Your best arguments against Obama being Muslim amount to unsourced opinion on your part. You gave no evidence just expressed opinions. Personally, I would hope this encyclopedia would hold itself to a higher standard and demand sources. There is ample evidence that Obama is Muslim pretending to be a Christian. Arguing that he can't be Muslim because no one has seen him bowing to Mecca is an appeal to ignorance. The Koran permits Muslims to lie about being Muslim if it advances the Muslim faith.--[[User:AlexC|AlexC]] 11:42, 20 November 2008 (EST)

==Counter Evidence==

If we are letting the readers decide (as written above) then in order to keep this article fair and balanced we should add a section detailing the evidence that Obama is not a Muslim (such as his positions on abortion and stem cell research, his religious history, his Catholic schooling etc). If the evidence is truly overwhelming that Obama is a Muslim then there should be no problem with adding such a section, as readers will quickly be able to see that it is insufficient to counter the claim. [[User:NormanS|NormanS]] 08:57, 19 November 2008 (EST)

: Fine, post your best stuff here first. But claiming that Obama went to Catholic school is counter evidence is, of course, absurd. Stop by your local Catholic school and you'll see Muslims students who never convert.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:15, 19 November 2008 (EST)

:: And Jewish students. In many areas the public schools are pathetic. In the absence of a good Protestant school, many parents are forced to choose between overly liberal public schools with poor curriculum, home schooling or a Catholic school. Many choose Catholic schools. The Jesuits tend to be in charge of the Catholic schools and they're actually pretty even handed in their treatment of non-Christian students. Saying someone attended a Catholic school or sent their children to one as "evidence" of their being Christian is absurd and betrays a deep ignorance of how the schools are actually run.--[[User:AlexC|AlexC]] 11:54, 20 November 2008 (EST)

Dunno if this is counter evidence, but my two cents about the misguided motivations of Obama's Lenin poster.

Most Europeans, East and West, would be severely alienated by any hidden or subliminal message that Obama was Leninist. Eastern Europe suffered under the communist iron heel for 45 years after WW2, including East Berlin. And Western Europe feared invasion. West Berlin was nearly starved by the communist blockade of the late 40s. Eastern Europe's rush to join NATO and the EU to ensure their free economies and societies is testament to this hatred of Soviet Leninist domination. Of course none of this goes to whether the poster was Leninist, only that if it was it was a serious mistake on Obama's part.--[[User:TruthOfChrist|TruthOfChrist]] 09:54, 19 November 2008 (EST)

== My innocuous talk page contribution removed? ==

The Lenin poster one. Just wondered why.--[[User:TruthOfChrist|TruthOfChrist]] 09:49, 19 November 2008 (EST)

Oh figured it out now, sorry --[[User:TruthOfChrist|TruthOfChrist]] 09:51, 19 November 2008 (EST)

== About the Muslim allegations ==

Allow me to play devil's advocate. I am lost. As a conservative, bordering on a paleo-conservative, with a streak of classical liberal in the John Locke/Jeffersonian sense, who also fears the coming administration greatly (I keep thinking Jimmy Carter, stagflation, FDR, Civilian Conservation Corps, prolongation of the depression, and a world war), a man's religion is his own business.

This is the United States. Our forefathers fought and died for the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

In those rights are the freedom of speech and the freedom of religion.

The freedom of speech does give Conservapedia the right to impune the president elect for his supposed Muslim faith (backed by what looks to me to be evidence that is neither conclusive nor wholly circumstantial). But that doesn't mean Conservapedia should squander that right in an attempt to prove what is ultimately between him and God.

The first amendment also gives every man in this country the right to hold whatever spiritual beliefs he wants, and to share, or not share, those beliefs with others.

While I do think it is appropriate to mention speculation that President elect Barack Obama may be a Muslim, to the extent that such allegations exist and are notable, as I think they are, I do not think it is proper for this encyclopedia to attempt to make the case that he is a closet Muslim. The Muslim speculation should be relegated to later parts of the article, and reworked.

Juxtaposing a reference early on in the article, which, if you scroll to the references, indicates that Keith Ellison used a Koran in his swearing in ceremony, with the statement that Obama is an "apparent Muslim" is tawdry at best, and beneath a serious conservative encyclopedia.

Certainly, President elect Obama's political views deserve much more scrutiny from a conservative perspective, than whether or not he is a closet Muslim.

Senator Barack Obama was rated the most liberal senator, left of a self-declared socialist. I think we should focus on that.

President elect Barack Obama seems to hold political views that go against our Constitution. This raises the question about whether or not he can honestly affirm to protect and defend the Constitution.

President elect Barack Obama may institute nationalized health care, requiring children to be vaccinated in order to receive benefits, while bankrupting the private health care system for middle and lower class Americans. Where will this leave such children?

Barack Obama may very likely work to reduce or control home schooling and private schools.

Barack Obama may work to erode or eviscerate the second amendment.

There is plenty of political evidence for these other fears, and it is more appropriate to focus on these, and not his supposed secret Muslim belief system.

I recommend focusing on his easily provable liberal and possibly anti-American political views, and not waste too much time trying to prove he has some religious belief system. [[User:BigMike|BigMike]] 10:15, 19 November 2008 (EST)

:BigMike, I take it you're not an historian. People's beliefs matter greatly, and you can bet a real historian would not tolerate censorship of inquiry into someone's beliefs. Our other entries likewise provide information about the beliefs of other presidents, great scientists, and others. The insistence on censoring a similar inquiry about Obama's beliefs is misplaced and inappropriate.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:09, 19 November 2008 (EST)

::I didn't mean to censor it, I just suggested a shift in focus. I meant to focus on extreme liberal political views first, as they are, to me, the most important. Change the prominence within the article, and change the tone. But you're right, I am not a historian. [[User:BigMike|BigMike]] 11:12, 19 November 2008 (EST)

:::OK, your point is well-taken then. But the reality is that many of Obama's positions to date were posturing to win the presidency, and not necessarily indicative of his priorities as president. His beliefs matter more.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:16, 19 November 2008 (EST)

::::No problem. I know this site takes a lot of pointless flack, and it is hard to seperate the wheat from the chaf. [[User:BigMike|BigMike]] 11:20, 19 November 2008 (EST)

== Perhaps a template would help ==

The discussion on this page keeps covering the same ground over and over again. Aside from the wasted time and effort, a major problem is that new users often edit the page and become instantly embroiled in the controversy, sometimes leading to bad feeling and thus driving away potentially valuable contributors.

As a solution, I suggest a template is created and added to the top of the page and any others in this situation. The wording could be something like:

:''This article deals with a controversial topic and has already been the subject of lengthy discussion. Your input is welcome, but '''please check the talk page carefully''' to make sure that the issues you raise have not been dealt with already. New users in particular are advised to start by editing less controversial pages to get a feel for the site.''

Thoughts and suggestions very welcome.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 15:48, 19 November 2008 (EST)

*We do have such. Template "Controversial". But it has problems, and needs some fixing. use the {{ and type in Controversial, and see what I mean. I have read it noted several places it is broken. If you or anyone else knows what is needed, fix the template, and if it is locked, contact Philip Rayment or Ed Poor and let them know. Thanks, good suggestion. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 16:03, 19 November 2008 (EST)

::Thanks - I've asked Mr Rayment. If that template's ever going to be used, I think this article could do with it, though the wording could be more diplomatic in my opinion.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 16:36, 19 November 2008 (EST)

:::Perhaps it would be better slapped here, on this page? If anyone is going to change the article, hopefully they will look here first? Assuming this page is ever partially archived! :D --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 16:51, 19 November 2008 (EST)

I've fixed the bug, although I don't think putting the template on the article page is going to solve much. And by the way, it's designed for article pages, not talk pages; the link in it to the talk page won't work if placed on a talk page. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:56, 19 November 2008 (EST)

== "Captured the White House" ==

Is it just me, or does this memorable line conjure up images of Barry and Joe, the special forces operatives, sneaking across the White House lawn under cover of darkness before launching a daring assault, creating a beach head in the kitchen before ensnaring their ultimate goal: the Oval Office.

Would the phrase "won the presidential election" be more encyclopedic?

[[User:Ferret|-- Ferret]] [[User talk:Ferret|Nice old chat]] 16:32, 19 November 2008 (EST)

: Your phrase would be an improvement. Go ahead, and thanks--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:37, 19 November 2008 (EST)

::It would indeed be an improvement, but he cannot make it, as the article is locked. [[User:Aggrieved|Aggrieved]] 16:41, 19 November 2008 (EST)

== Religious Affiliation ==

OK, I do not want to get involved in the whole debate about whether Obama is a covert (or even overt) Muslim. (Although the statistically savvy amongst you can probably predict with 99.9999% certainty what my view is on that matter.)

However, the article currently has two sections dealing with religion. The first ("Obama will likely become the first Muslim President") comes as part of the introduction. It provides a list of evidence supporting the author's view that Obama is a Muslim. The second ("Religious Affiliation") describes various issues to do with Obama's connections in the Christian church, and provides some quotes about his history relating to the Islamic faith. Nobody reading just the second section would come away beleiving the author thinks Obama is a Muslim.

The two seem a little contradictory - either the article does take the view that he is a Muslim, in which case the second piece needs re-writing, or the article takes the view that he is not a Muslim, in which case the first piece needs re-writing, or the article presents the issue as unresolved, in which case both pieces need re-writing.

Given that the subject is so controversial, I do not want to volunteer to do the writing. It would appear that Ed Poor is Appeaser-in-Chief - maybe someone should ask him to have a go?

[[User:Ferret|-- Ferret]] [[User talk:Ferret|Nice old chat]] 17:01, 19 November 2008 (EST)

: So are you now saying both sides should not be presented??? The liberal opposition to the observation that Obama is likely a Muslim is as self-contradictory as it is unjustified.

: By the way, I don't think Obama has had any Christian affiliation for many months.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:16, 19 November 2008 (EST)
::::Andy, there is plenty of conservative opposition to the notion that Obama is a secret Muslim as evidenced by this talk page. Andy, what conservative news organizations are still wedded to the idea that Obama is a secret Muslim? I have not checked but I am guessing that [[Cybercast News Service]] which runs plenty of hard hitting and reasonable conservative pieces does not currently promote the idea that Obama is a secret Muslim. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 22:36, 19 November 2008 (EST)

:::::I think all I'm saying is the two bits are inconsistent, in that the first leaves no room for the possibility of the second being true and vice versa. I think it's fine to present both views if that's what the authors want to do - but it has to be done consistently. [[User:Ferret|-- Ferret]] [[User talk:Ferret|Nice old chat]] 06:37, 20 November 2008 (EST)

== Another shocked conservative here ==

I came to Conservapedia hoping to find a valuable resource on the internet for people like me but to tell the truth I have been shocked and disappointed by some of the content, and this article seems absurd to me. How can we be taken seriously if some of us are peddling nonsense like this? Any right thinking person knows Obama isn't a Muslim. I can't stand the guy but it's clear he's a family man and a Christian. This is just gutter politics, nothing more or less, and it reflects incredibly badly on us.

Most of the stuff in this article has been easily refuted on Snopes at http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/obama.asp. For instance, this shows pictures of Obama with his hand on his heart at the national anthem: http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/anthem.asp which makes that picture featured on this page, without his hand on his heart, just another smear.

This is the kind of reason folks didn't vote for McCain - because it's just ugly smear tactics. I despair. [[User:MrCoulter|MrCoulter]]

:The thing that scares me is that the tactics continue even after the election. I dislike them, but during an election, I can at least understand them; that's politics. But now, with the "Muslim" and the "not born in the US" charges (most likely among others I can't think right now), it's like people are trying to de-legitimize the election, declaring him a false president before he's even sworn in. In the eyes of people who believe those allegations, Barack Obama's election was no more legal than a military coup.--[[User:Frey|Frey]] 10:08, 20 November 2008 (EST)

:*The election officially lost its validity for many, with the ''fraud'' committed by the Obama campaign in the caucuses [http://texasdarlin.wordpress.com/2008/08/20/caucus-fraud-proof/] which stole the nomination from Hillary Clinton. That was months before this article appeared. There are many pictures, all real, that show Obama with his hand on his heart, and without, so this photo was not altered. I suggest you at least open your mind, do some proper research, and perhaps you will learn of some valid questions, and the total lack of vetting by the media of their favorite candidate. The media has special rights granted in the Constitution. The real question is if they should continue to have those special rights or not, given their continued[[deceit]] in helping with Obama's leftist agenda. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 14:31, 20 November 2008 (EST)

::Rather off topic, but what are these special rights constitutionally granted to the media? [[User:RodWeathers|RodWeathers]] 15:27, 20 November 2008 (EST)

Those rights are included within the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States:

<blockquote>
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of '''speech''', or of '''the press'''; or the right of the people '''peaceably to assemble''', and to '''petition the Government''' for a redress of grievances."
</blockquote>

You can read more about this [http://www.consource.org/index.asp?sid=28&taxlist=180 here.] --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 15:36, 20 November 2008 (EST)

== The Truth is not always popular ==

In response to all the "dismayed conservatives" upset about the muslim section. One of the stated goals of CP is to highlight facts and stories that are suppressed by the liberal media. Obama's muslim heritage is one of the best examples of this right now. The mainstream liberal media refuses to even broach the topic! I commend Mr. Schlafly and Conservapedia for not censoring these facts for the sake of political correctness (in the eyes of liberals). Try to have a more open mind. [[User:Patriot1505|Patriot1505]] 13:55, 20 November 2008 (EST)
:Here here. It saddens me to see how incredibly effective the deceit of the liberal media has been. Many upstanding, conservative contributors to this site have been thoroughly insulated from the facts of Obama's muslim heritage. As Aschlafly has repeatedly pointed out, the evidence for it is extremely strong and, even if you don't agree that he ''is'' a muslim, the evidence is strong enough and so thoroughly censored that it should be presented on Conservapedia. [[User:RodWeathers|RodWeathers]] 15:26, 20 November 2008 (EST)
:I don't suppose it's occured to you that a person could have an open mind, evaluate the evidence, and still come to a different conclusion than you?--[[User:Frey|Frey]] 15:30, 20 November 2008 (EST)
::Draw whatever conclusions you want, but don't expect the article to be changed or have facts removed to support the conclusion that you come to. The facts are the facts, they exist independant of popular opinion.[[User:Patriot1505|Patriot1505]] 16:39, 20 November 2008 (EST)
::: It ispossible that Obama is a Muslim, what is not possible is that this evidence that we have here on this page is worthy of an encyclopedia entry. It is not good enough. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 19:06, 20 November 2008 (EST)
:::: Correct. Andy and a few others here have repeatedly ''claimed'' that the evidence is strong. The problem is that they have yet to produce ''any'' strong evidence, and some of the evidence produced is actually either wrong or logically fallacious. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:28, 20 November 2008 (EST)

Not that it should make a difference in the first place to one's opinion of him, but the claim that Barack Obama is a Muslim has been repeatedly disproven. Not only is he a lifelong Christian, but his nominally Muslim father was in fact an atheist, and not a practicing Muslim himself. I find it unfortunate that people who call themselves Christians, conservatives, and patriots perpetuate repeatedly disproven falsehoods under the cover of truth, and blame any criticism of their lies on the "liberal media" and political correctness. It is not "liberal" or "conservative" to tell the truth. There are plenty of issues for conservatives to oppose Obama on without manufacturing information about him, and were you to do so, it would make mainstream America take you more seriously. This does not help the cause in the least.
[[User:AuthorNeubius|AuthorNeubius]] November 18 2008

==Mr.Schlafly, take heart!==

Mr. Schlafly,

I commend you on joining a long list of great minds who, despite all the superficial [[Liberal]] based evidence, managed to see the truth and purged his mind of all pernecious and evil [[Liberalism]]. It is undeniable that Obama is a Muslim, and thanks to you, millions of people around the world have embraced the truth of conservatism, and its spectacular ability to find the truth, even when the [[Liberal]] based evidence distorts and twists the truth. The only thing I can say to you Mr. Schlafly is to take heart! These [[Liberals]], who would take and twist our infallibable country and out impenatrable conservative hearts and minds will never allow their 'evidence' to supersede the truth! We shall win this culture war Mr. Schlafly, with great minds like yours! [[User:MarkBaley|MarkBaley]] 22:23, 20 November 2008 (EST)

== Video linking Obama to terrorist training camp. ==

I was, and still am, shocked at the content of the video below. It shows president elect [[Obama]] at a terrorist training camp in Kenya, observing the physical and mental training of suicide bombers, and him praying to Mecca. Why is this only coming out now? [http://idek.net/V7 Here is the shocking video] --[[User:Konstanty|Konstanty]] 18:18, 21 November 2008 (EST)

Talk:Barack Hussein Obama

2008-11-22T00:15:56Z

Konstanty: Undo revision 565659 by LiamG (Talk) Stop trying to censor the truth

Talk:Barack Hussein Obama

2008-11-22T00:13:04Z

Konstanty: Undo revision 565652 by LiamG (Talk)

Talk:Barack Hussein Obama

2008-11-22T00:09:55Z

Konstanty: Undo revision 565643 by LiamG (Talk)

Talk:Barack Hussein Obama

2008-11-21T23:20:42Z

Konstanty: /* Video linking Obama to terrorist training camp. */

Talk:Barack Hussein Obama

2008-11-21T23:18:51Z

Konstanty:

{{Controversial}}

Archives:
[[/archive1|1]]
[[/archive2|2]]
[[/archive3|3]]
[[/archive4|4]]
[[/archive5|5]]

== Lenin Poster ==

The statement about the Lenin-like poster is informative. We don't censor informative information here. Let the reader decide.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:22, 10 November 2008 (EST)
:Andy, did you happen to take a look at the reference? The article claims that "Obama also ''revealed'' his ''deep Marxist/Leninist roots''" and that "clear parallels between the poster design and Lenin's earlier poster was ''obviously a deliberate yet hidden hint'' to his European, socialistic audience as to his political roots and beliefs" (emphasis mine). The citation, which was a blog, by the way, and not in any way a trustworthy source of informative information, gives no evidence to back up these statements. It shows a poster of Lenin and a poster of Obama, both of which show profiles of the figures. Assuming these pictures weren't entirely made up, do you really think that this slight similarity is Obama's way of confessing closet Marxism? Not to mention the fact that Obama likely didn't make the posters anyway -- maybe we should accuse his (very expensive!!) marketing designer of being a Marxist/Leninist. 15:45, 11 November 2008 (EST)

== Obama and beer ==

There are several stories (with photos) of Obama drinking beer, which as an intoxicant is banned by Muslim sharia. <ref> http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://media.mcclatchydc.com/smedia/2008/05/06/20/125-6web-Obama_Beer-minor.standalone.prod_affiliate.91.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.mcclatchydc.com/100/story/36055.html&h=325&w=485&sz=47&hl=en&start=28&um=1&usg=__ShpWdieNIwhr4Rp3jHtLe7U9MB8=&tbnid=Se90xFLBo6rNQM:&tbnh=86&tbnw=129&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dobama%2Bdrinks%26start%3D18%26ndsp%3D18%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26safe%3Doff%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-US:official%26sa%3DN </ref> <ref> http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.nancarrow-webdesk.com/warehouse/storage2/2008-w18/img.211156_t.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.nancarrow-webdesk.com/warehouse/storage2/2008-w18/img.211156.html&h=332&w=400&sz=16&hl=en&start=15&um=1&usg=__Yubc0nmus36Cf4Rrf7BL7-33-0g=&tbnid=xuWGKQ1Sl8_bQM:&tbnh=103&tbnw=124&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dobama%2Bbeer%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26safe%3Doff%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-US:official%26sa%3DG</ref> No rational person can say that a practicing Muslim wouldn't violate the law in such a blatant, repeated manner. Another strike against the goofy Muslim charge. And remember, we don't censor here. Godspeed. [[User:Thecount|Thecount]] 12:52, 11 November 2008 (EST)

: I think many American Muslims drink beer. Nice try, though.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:57, 11 November 2008 (EST)

::And how many "dangerous" American Muslims are there that have loose enough morals to blatantly disrespect their own religious law, but are still a threat to Americans? (Of course this is all granted that he IS a secret Muslim, which I have given up trying to discuss) So I see nothing wrong if Obama turns out to be a secret Muslim. Nice try, though. [[User:anonymous123|anonymous123]] 23:54, 17 November 2008 (EST)

::He also smokes cigarettes, to complete his subterfuge. [[User:Human|Human]] 17:42, 11 November 2008 (EST)

== Hussein reference ==

It's factual and it's informative. If there is reasoned basis for deleting it, let's see it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:03, 11 November 2008 (EST)

: Again, no reason has been given for deleting the Hussein reference, and there is none.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 07:49, 12 November 2008 (EST)
:: Andy, this is false. Reasons have been given on this talk page numerous times before. I just had a quick look, and found reasons being given in all archives except the first, as well as other places on this talk page. So you are wrong to say that no reason has been given, and wrong to say that there is no reason. And, as I have pointed out in the edit comments, five senior administrators have said that they disagree with it being there. Is your view on this somehow superior to those five put together? Do you want this to be a collaborative encyclopaedia or your blog? The former demands that you not impose your opinion regardless of who is disagreeing. Imposing your opinion regardless suggests that this is your blog. I know you don't consider it to be the latter, but that's the way it's looking. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:21, 12 November 2008 (EST)

:::Not a blog but an encylopedia. If it were a blog, your opinion would carry as much weight as anyone else's. Let's put this one in [[Conservapedia:Debate Topics]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 08:24, 12 November 2008 (EST)
:::: If it were a blog, the blog owner's opinion would carry the most weight. Almost all blogs are the opinions of an ''individual'', not a group of people. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:58, 12 November 2008 (EST)

::: Philip, the truth is not dependent on consensus, and 5 out of several dozen is not a consensus anyway. Give your best reason for deleting this information here. Since the beginning we have had a policy not to delete factual, informative material, particularly when it is liberal ideology that motivates the demand for censorship of it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:29, 12 November 2008 (EST)
:::: I said five of the ''senior'' administrators, which numbers about eleven. So that's five out of eleven, not dozens. Further, that's five against and one (yourself) for, as the remainder have not offered an opinion that I'm aware of. (One perhaps did support you, but because they wanted to support you, not because they considered it a valid argument.)
:::: My reason is relevance, not (primarily) accuracy. I'm not disputing that his middle name is Hussein. The claim that "most Christians would not retain" their (former/Muslim/Arabic?; it's not clear) name is not supported by the references, and even if it is true, means little in individual cases. That is, even if 99% changed their name, Obama not changing his name might mean no more than him being in the other 1%.
:::: And this is just one of the points in that section. The entire argument that Obama is a Muslim is built on very circumstantial evidence, selective evidence, and logical fallacy, and is rejected by other conservatives.
:::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:58, 12 November 2008 (EST)

::::: Philip, it obviously is relevant, which you say is your primary objection. We don't censor information here based on liberal dislike for it. Wikipedia does that. We provide the information and let the reader decide. If some readers want to conclude that someone with a Muslim name is actually a Christian, even though less than 1% of those raised as Muslims convert, so be it. We're not going to censor this factual information.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:37, 12 November 2008 (EST)

::::::: "''...it obviously is relevant...''": Because ''you'' say so? If it was so "obvious", then you wouldn't have five senior administrators disagreeing with you. No, it's not obviously relevant at all, and you've not demonstrated the relevance.
::::::: "''We don't censor information here based on liberal dislike for it. Wikipedia does that.''": Given that I and the other senior administrators are not "liberals", and the rejection is based on relevance, not "dislike", why are you introducing red herrings like this? Has your argument got no more substance than irrelevancies like that?
::::::: "'' We provide the information and let the reader decide.''": Only if it's relevant. Otherwise we are just introducing padding for readers to wade through and discourage them getting to the relevant stuff.
::::::: "''We're not going to censor this factual information.''": It is not censorship to remove irrelevant information, and I'd appreciate you not implying that I'm trying to censor anything.
::::::: In summary, you have failed to produce any reasons substance as to why it should be retained.
::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:26, 17 November 2008 (EST)

:::::: Exactly. The point of Conservapedia is ''not'' to censor information, but to leave it to our readers to decide. The MSM has tried to push this under the rug, so the least we can do is offer these arguments to the intelligent public. [[User:RodWeathers|RodWeathers]] 11:27, 12 November 2008 (EST)

::::::: The problem is that these points are fallacious and lead to a conclusion based on specious arguments. That is neither "trustworthy" nor encyclopedic. Obama may not be your brand of xian, but he's certianly no brand of muslim. Your inability to accept that this is incorrect despite repeated arguments wherein you have shown nothing but fallacious arguments drawing poor conclusions hurts the credibility of all Conservapedia. [[User:EternalCritic|EternalCritic]] 11:49, 12 November 2008 (EST)

:Did anyone notice how ASchlafly posited the question at or near closing time Tuesday night and declared that he recieved no answer at or near opening time on Wednesday? --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 08:49, 14 November 2008 (EST)

:Keep the reference, but 2 examples of people having changed their names for religious reasons does not mean "most" people would change their names as stated in the article. A good reference on this topic would list a percentage (presumably greater than 50%) of people who have switched religions also changing their names.
::I am sure we could come up with a very long list, but this article would not be the place for it. A sample of a couple of names to illustrate the point being made is surely adequate for all except those who wish to undermine the accuracy of the piece. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 13:21, 14 November 2008 (EST)

==Debate On Obama's Religion==

The debate is continuing at [[Debate:Is Obama a Muslim?‎]] It may be best to continue arguing the point there with the aim of reaching a conclusion which can then be utilised in the article, and leave this talk page for discussing other improvements. [[User:NormanS|NormanS]] 22:22, 11 November 2008 (EST)
:Get the section about him being a "Muslim" there have already been to debates concluding that this should be removed. http://www.conservapedia.com/Debate:Is_Obama_a_Muslim%3F http://www.conservapedia.com/Debate:_What_is_sufficient_proof_that_Obama_is_a_Muslim%3F-[[User:Vcelloho|Vcelloho]] 00:09, 12 November 2008 (EST)

== Reference ==

<references/>

Get the section about him being a "Muslim" there have already been to debates concluding that this should be removed. http://www.conservapedia.com/Debate:Is_Obama_a_Muslim%3F http://www.conservapedia.com/Debate:_What_is_sufficient_proof_that_Obama_is_a_Muslim%3F-[[User:Vcelloho|Vcelloho]] 00:08, 12 November 2008 (EST)

== He has no clear personal achievement that cannot be explained as the likely result of affirmative action? Untrue. ==

I am no fan of Obama. I do plan on respectfully opposing him via various channels on the internet. However, I believe I should state my opposition to this sentence of the article: "He has no clear personal achievement that cannot be explained as the likely result of affirmative action."

I have not read the rest of the article because I believed months ago and for good reasons that Obama was going to win this election. For example, the unpopular war and poor economy that was partly caused by a guns and lots of butter spending strategy (Bush should have learned from LBJ committing us to a war and the Great Society programs at the same time). I also thought that it would have been easy for the Republicans to win 12 years in a row given the low quality of the Democratic party. I think the Republicans snatched defeat out of the jaws of victory. I also think Americans have too much debt (last time I heard the average American had lots of credit card debt). One of the reasons for the great depression is that American's had too much debt at the time. I think Bush's call for Americans to do to do more shopping mall spending was a joke. If anything, Americans need to increase their skills to be more productive (The libraries are open but you might have to watch less TV. Last time I checked the average American watches 3 hours of television a day) and work harder to pay off their debt. American's are going to get out of the hole by increasing their productivity. It seems as if Bush did not want to learn from economic history and was only looking out for short term fixes. Well sooner or later, common sense says you have to pay the piper.

Getting back to Obama, obviously, Obama's marital success in terms of not getting divorced compared to Ronald Reagan is not the result of affirmative action. I am sure I could come up with others. I have not read the article for the most part because this sentence turned me off to the whole article. Judging from the ""He has no clear personal achievement that cannot be explained as the likely result of affirmative action." sentence, I believe a lot of time is probably being spent to defend an article rather than improve it where obvious improvements could be made. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 06:04, 12 November 2008 (EST)

: Staying married is laudable but in this context it would not be considered a "clear personal achievement." If you would like to add a footnote exception to the remark along the lines of, "he has been married for x years," I'm not opposed but I would expect that to caveat to seem off-topic, or even sarcastic, for most readers.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 07:52, 12 November 2008 (EST)

::One CP writer told me he equates divorce with adultery, and he accused Reagan of adultery on this basis. Is this the consensus view of Conservatives? Or just his own idea? Or what?

::We ought to be clear on the standards by which we judge public figures. And consistent, too. I mean, which is worse, committing actual adultery (JFK, Clinton) or getting divorced and then remarrying? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 08:06, 12 November 2008 (EST)

::: Biblically, divorce is not adultery. However, divorce is wrong unless the spouse has been unfaithful. Remarriage after a legitimate divorce is okay. The question is whether remarriage after a wrong divorce is okay. Many believe, I think that although the act of divorce may be wrong, that is a forgivable sin like any other sin, and remarriage is not a further sin. And I'd tend to agree that committing "actual" adultery is worse than divorce and remarriage. However, the point that Conservative was raising was not between those two cases, but between divorce and remarriage compared to marriage without divorce.
::: I'm not convinced that Obama's marriage does not constitute a "clear personal achievement". Given the divorce rate these days, especially among prominent people, I would think that it ''was'' a clear personal achievement. In fact I'd consider staying marriage a "clear personal achievement" for anybody these days, given all the pressures on marriage, including the peer pressure that divorce is okay.
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:35, 12 November 2008 (EST)
::::I rarely disagree with you, Philip, as I find your comments to be some of the more considered on this board, but here I would have to disagree. Jesus makes it quite clear that divorce *is* adultery, not *like* adultery. More then any other text, especially OT text, I take Jesus's words to heart. Mark 10
::::2 Some Pharisees came and tested him by asking, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?"
::::3 "What did Moses command you?" he replied.
::::4 They said, "Moses permitted a man to write a certificate of divorce and send her away."
::::5 "It was because your hearts were hard that Moses wrote you this law," Jesus replied.
::::6 "But at the beginning of creation God `made them male and female.'
::::7 `For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife,
::::8 and the two will become one flesh.' So they are no longer two, but one.
::::9 Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."
::::10 When they were in the house again, the disciples asked Jesus about this.
::::11 He answered, "Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her.
::::12 And if she divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery." --[[User:JeanJacques|JeanJacques]] 09:41, 12 November 2008 (EST)
::::: I didn't say that divorce is "like" adultery. I said that it's ''not'' adultery. And the evidence you've offered to refute that doesn't refute that. The Bible says that someone who divorces ''and remarries'' commits adultery, not that someone who ''divorces'' commits adultery. You can't have adultery without sexual intercourse, which would be taken as given with someone remarrying, but not a given with someone just divorcing. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:33, 17 November 2008 (EST)

== Obama spiruality interview ==
http://blog.beliefnet.com/stevenwaldman/2008/11/obamas-interview-with-cathleen.html a interview from a pretty religous website about Obama. Should it be mentioned? Or since it kinda contradicts abit of the article should it be ommitted? --[[User:Vmember|Vmember]] 13:06, 12 November 2008 (EST)
:What one might say in an interview really means very little, Vmember, particularly if one is seeking to achieve a position by hiding one's essential nature or beliefs. So really what he says when seeking to impress is irrelevant. It is what he does and has done, and what he says in unguarded moments, that matters. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 13:16, 12 November 2008 (EST)
*um then shouldn't it atleast be mentioned somewhere in the article about this interview maybe as a response to questions about his faith section? And why is him maybe being a muslim all the way at the top of the article? Shouldn't be be somewhere towards the middle? I've never seen in all my time part of a article pushed into the intro section. Also the article contradicts itself by stating that Obama is most likely a muslim while at the same time pointing at that he was a member of a radical Christian church. That doesn't make any sense. You can't have it both ways.--[[User:Vmember|Vmember]] 13:25, 12 November 2008 (EST)
::You can if you're a sleeper for radical Islam. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 13:27, 12 November 2008 (EST)
**Wait you seriously think that? Hmm fringe ideas and theories on any subject is detrimental to a discussion let alone a encyclopedia. It's dangerous thinking like that is why us conservatives lost the election and alienated so many moderates and weak liberals. Would there be any objection if I were to move the muslim part to the middle and add a section with his response to questions of his faith?--[[User:Vmember|Vmember]] 13:34, 12 November 2008 (EST)
***Does this look better? http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Help:Practice_Page&oldid=555527 Hmm I kinda think instead of giving facts supporting the theory Obama is a muslim editors are trying to push it off as straight fact even though theres been evidence against it. Isn't that a tactic only liberals use and a form of deceit?--[[User:Vmember|Vmember]] 13:45, 12 November 2008 (EST)

== Poster ==

Don't delete the insight about the poster. I learned from the insight, and I'm sure others have also. We don't censor here. We let the readers decide.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:39, 12 November 2008 (EST)
:I already explained (above) why the "insight" is not actually an insight, is not supported by the source, and is likely false. Believe me, I would love it if Obama really did intentionally model his posters after those of Lenin in a subliminal message to Europeans, but there's simply no evidence of that.

:You reverted both of my edits. Do you have problems with both of them, or just the first one? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 18:42, 12 November 2008 (EST)

:: Sorry, I just have a problem with the deletion of the poster edit. Your other edit looked fine, but it came right after the controversial one and there was no easy way to separate the too.

:: The similarities between Obama's poster and the famous Lenin image is too obvious for words. We don't need a citation for observing, for example, that 2+2=4. If a reader wants to reject the obvious similarity between the images, then the reader is welcome to do so. Censorship is not a preferred approach.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:52, 12 November 2008 (EST)

:::I'm not denying that they are similar, I'm denying that their similarity "[reveals] his deep Marxist/Leninist roots" and "was obviously a deliberate yet hidden hint to his European, socialistic audience as to his political roots and belief". Can I change the text to reflect that, while the two posters are similar, there's no way to know that it's a confession? (I pointed out before that if anyone is imitating Lenin here, it's probably the over-priced poster designer). [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 18:59, 12 November 2008 (EST)

:::: I'm fine with rewording, as long as it doesn't inject liberal spin or make it look like Obama didn't approve it with the similarity.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:12, 12 November 2008 (EST)

:::::I'll try my best. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 19:40, 12 November 2008 (EST)

:::::: Your revised wording is great. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:05, 12 November 2008 (EST)

:Is anyone else put off by the fact that the Germans really hated Lennin? --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 08:25, 14 November 2008 (EST)

:Fun poster [http://img.skitch.com/20080723-pbt7dkk5ksgbystrri5px6s9fr.jpg] --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 13:44, 14 November 2008 (EST) The imagery is more common that you might expect. Nothing new under the sun as they say --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 13:44, 14 November 2008 (EST)

==Disgusted==

Mr Schlafly this page is absolutely disgusting. I am totally against Obama as you know, this is the most sorry excuse for an encyclopedia entry I have ever seen. We should leave this page as information about him as a individual, not about why we hate him and you should too. 90% of the page is opinion, and is totally innapropriate. I suggest making it into two pages. One about Obama with just simple facts about him and his backround, and you can make another about everything we hate about him. Pages like this are why we are losing our trustworthyness.
Thanks, --[[User:ChrisS|Chris]]

:Here here. At times I find this article amusing as an ironic hate piece, but at best it degrades this site and conservatives in general. Liberal or conservative, poor logic is poor logic. Because Obama and Lenin each had monochromatic posters featuring a pose directed toward the right it is evidence of Marxist intentions. Because Obama said the words "my muslim faith", irregardless of any context, it used as evidence of being a muslim. I don't even know what to say about the mind control thing, it's really amazing to me because as a religious person it reminds of the feelings I had when I discovered the truth of Jesus Christ: "a light will shine down from somewhere, it will light upon you, you will experience an epiphany" [[User:Mike770781|Mike770781]] 19:31, 13 November 2008 (EST)

==Disgusted Conservative too==

I did not vote for Senator Obama for political reasons, but I believe he is a good man; this article is simple character assassination; you do not go into his views and show how those are disagreeable (his views on abortion, and his want to make a hasty withdrawal from Iraq) and instead you simply accuse him of being a Muslim, and anti-American etc. also a blog is not a credible source; a blog is someone's opinion. Anyway the accusations levied upon him are for the most part completely inaccurate. He was born in The United States, he wrote his autobiography, he is not a Muslim, he is not anti-American. Please keep the disagreements political.--[[user:Rpond|Rpond]]

I don't know who wrote this, but it shouldn't have been deleted. --[[User:ChrisS|Chris]]

: The odds are less than 1% that "Rpond's" posting is genuine, in light of his misspelling of "conservative" and his other rants. It is appropriate to delete insincere or deceptive postings.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:53, 13 November 2008 (EST)

:: It is an interesting experience living life each day getting verbally attacked for being a conservative then coming here and getting persecuted (justified edits to factual and encyclopedic wording) for being a liberal. You seem to be very fond of the less than 1% statistic, and have used it many times in many places, but I've never seen any solid reasoning or studies behind it (although in this case your gut instinct does seem to be credited implicitly) I think perhaps you live in a highly conservative eco chamber and aren't getting out enough to notice how little resonance this sort of thing has out in the real world. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 18:58, 13 November 2008 (EST)
::: Way to show your liberal stripes, BrendanW. Ad hominem attacks are not appreciated here, so please keep it civil. [[User:RodWeathers|RodWeathers]] 19:01, 13 November 2008 (EST)

:::: Would that be an ad hominem attack like calling someone a liberal? --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 19:24, 13 November 2008 (EST)

::::: Are you insulted by being described as a "liberal"? Or are you angry that you're not fooling anyone?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:39, 13 November 2008 (EST)

:::::: Either Way its still an Ad Hominem. However I am a little "l" libertarian, and strict constitutionalist (excluding the racist portions that is) which makes me pleanty conservative, I'm also an objectivist in the Ayn Rand model, highly capitalistic and against socialism. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 09:11, 16 November 2008 (EST)

:::::::Liberal is not an ad hominem, it's a statement of your political views (whether accurate or not), which is completely valid to make in a political arena such as this. Calling someone sarcastic, or making sarcastic remarks about how they live is certainly ad hominem. My two cents--[[User:TruthOfChrist|TruthOfChrist]] 09:27, 19 November 2008 (EST)
:::::::: "Liberal" ''is'' an ''ad hominem'', for two reasons:
::::::::* "''ad hominem''" refers to an argument about the ''person'' rather than about the ''issue''. So even if it is accurate and descriptive, it's still about the ''person'' rather than the ''issue''.
::::::::* An '''''abusive''' ad hominem'' is when you say something ''nasty'' about the person. If "liberal" is an accurate description, or even if it's not but it's said in the reasonable belief that it is, then it's not an '''''abusive''' ad hominem''. But when it's said without any grounds other than disagreeing with a single point of view, then I'd classify as abusive.
:::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:16, 19 November 2008 (EST)

==Cool it==

I've protected this page; only admins can edit it for the moment. Many of us have strong feelings, and we have used this page to express them.

But I would hope that we all confine our comments here to specific suggestions on how to improve the article. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 17:45, 13 November 2008 (EST)

== Did you read that reference? ==

The claim is that OBama might be a Muslim and that he might swear in on a koran. The reference -ref- Obama hoped to become President when he was sworn in as U.S. Senator in 2004, and did not use a Koran at that time. Subsequently Democratic House member Keith Ellison established the precedent for being sworn in using the Koran, and there is no guarantee that Obama would not do likewise if sworn in as President. [http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/sliming_obama.html FactCheck.org, Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania, ''Sliming Obama'', January 10, 2008, retrieved on 10/16/2008]-/ref- is about how Obamma is not a Muslim and did not use the Koran to be sworn in as a senator. I simply do not see how it belongs. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 08:21, 14 November 2008 (EST)

:Welcome to Conservapedia. Truth is relative to Andy. -[[User:Mike770781|Mike770781]] 15:04, 15 November 2008 (EST)

== Code name ==

The article plainly says that Obama did have a role in picking it. Hence the reversion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:01, 14 November 2008 (EST)
:My article clearly says that the White House Communications Agency chose the name for him. Hence the original edit.
:I tried to find a source directly fromt he Secret Service or the White House Communications Agency, but neither of their search functions were working. I'll keep looking. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 15:06, 14 November 2008 (EST)

::"President-Elect Barack Obama – 'Renegade' – had a say in choosing the code name that his guards use when they are whispering into their microphones." From the article cited on our Main Page.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:11, 14 November 2008 (EST)

:::''These not-so-secret names are chosen by officials at the White House Communications Agency, which was not inclined to comment on the selection process. In a previous news report, an agency spokesman said the names are assigned by "sheer whim."'' -- From my (stateside) source. You can see why I was confused.
:::I did further research (hence my half-hour long absence) According to [http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2008/11/13/pssst_renegade_and_renaissance_are_in_the_house/ this] source, the WHCA chooses a list of names, and the President decides which one he likes best. So we were both right! [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 15:40, 14 November 2008 (EST)

::::Everybody wins! Yay! -[[User:CSGuy|CSGuy]] 22:41, 17 November 2008 (EST)

== For the love of God!! ==
HE IS NOT A MUSLIM. I donated 500$ to support McCain and voted for him but this beyond retarded. Please remove that info, because right now nobody in their right mind can take this seriously. Also take out the Koran thing he used the bible in the senate. [[User:Nig89|Nig89]] 20:17, 15 November 2008 (EST)

: Your comment is long on your dubious assertion of a credential, but short on substance. Give us your reason.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:28, 15 November 2008 (EST)

Why does Obama's religion matter so much? 18:57, 15 November 2008 {{unsigned|JamesZ}}

: Good question. I hope your fellow liberals will answer it for you. They are the ones having unexplained hysteria about a simple observation.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:15, 15 November 2008 (EST)

::The word you are looking for is "accusation" not "observation". An observation would be stating that he has some traits similar to Muslims. An accusation is claiming that he is a Muslim, regardless of his own protests. On the accusation note, great job assuming anyone who doesn't believe you is a liberal Aschfly. [[User:anonymous123|anonymous123]] 00:01, 17 November 2008 (EST)

== Was Barack Obama truly raised a Muslim or is he a Muslim? ==

Previously I wrote the following: Here is a well written and scholarly piece that examines Obama's religious views and it was written by the National Clergy Council: http://nationalclergycouncil.org/010807BarackObama.htm The evidence does not support Obama being a muslim. The evidence also does not support Obama embracing biblical Christianity.[[User:Conservative|conservative]] 09:19, 10 November 2008 (EST) Mr. Schlafly wrote the following: " I skimmed it and don't see where it concludes that Obama is not a Muslim. The article fails to recognize that less than 1% of people raised Muslim (as Obama was) ever leave the religion. The article says Obama is a member of a Christian church, but he left that many months ago.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:24, 10 November 2008 (EST)"

Here is my response to Mr. Schlafly's reply to my previous post on the Obama/Muslim issue:

I am not a fan of "Liberal Christianity" as I believe it often fails to fall into the realm of biblical/orthodox Christianity and when it does so it is not Christianity at all. With that being said, the article does give compelling evidence that Obama is a member of the camp of "liberal Christianity" and not biblical Christianity. If Obama is a "liberal Christian" he is not a Muslim. There are two logical fallacies called the [http://www.pnl-nlp.org/download/propaganda/page2.htm#sloth slothful inductive fallacy] and [http://www.goodart.org/exclus.htm fallacy of exclusion] whereby "Relevant evidence which would undermine an inductive argument is excluded from consideration. The requirement that all relevant information be included is called the "principle of total evidence"."[http://www.goodart.org/exclus.htm] '''Andy, I believe you are committing these two logical fallacies as can be seen by the material in the above cited work by the National Clergy Council. I would strongly suggest not skimming the material as it gives compelling evidence that Obama is a "liberal Christian" and therefore not a Muslim.'''

'''Next, was Obama truly raised a Muslim and therefore does the less than 1% of people raised Muslim ever leave the religion statistic apply. I don't think a compelling case can be made for the 1% argument being applied to Obama. I cite the following:
'''

"Barack Hussein Obama was born in 1961 in Honolulu, Hawaii, to a Kenyan Muslim father of the same name and an American secular humanist mother named Ann Dunham. While Obama’s father was raised in Islamic culture, he had become a functional atheist by the time he reached college. Despite his parents’ lack of religion, young Obama received his early education in both Catholic and Muslim schools.

Obama’s parents divorced when he was only two years old. Henceforth, the senior Obama was “almost entirely absent”[i] from his son’s life. Four years later, Ann Dunham relocated to Indonesia with her son to join her new husband Lolo Soetoro. A daughter, Maya, was born to the couple before their divorce. She returned to Hawaii where she went on to earn her MA in anthropology from the University of Hawaii. In his first book, Dreams from My Father, Barack Obama wrote of his mother, “She was a lonely witness for secular humanism, a soldier for New Deal, Peace Corps, position paper liberalism.”[ii]

Obama’s mother was a huge influence in his life. In an interview with Oprah Winfrey in October 2006, he said, “My mother—when I think about the values I hold most dear, they came from her.”[iii] In a speech given at a Moms Rising event in 2006, he said, “Everything that I think is good about me, I got from her.”[http://nationalclergycouncil.org/010807BarackObama.htm]

'''I will end this post by respectfully asking Mr. Schlafly a few reasonable questions''':

1. How many Muslim men are you aware of that go to a "liberal Christian church" for 20 years, get married in a "liberal Christian' church, and have their children baptized in a "liberal Christian" church, and call a Reverend of "liberal Christianity "my pastor" while living in a relatively free and democratic country like the United States? I ask this question because it appears as if all these apply to Obama.[http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2008/04/29/2008-04-29_obama_expresses_outrage_over_former_past.html][http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=58954][http://volokh.com/posts/1209531850.shtml] Accordingly, '''How many similar historical examples can you give of Muslim men who did these type of things when they lived in a relatively free and democratic society like the United States?
'''

2. According to the press, Obama has visited churches and synagogues but has not visited a mosque while running for president.[http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/06/25/opinion/edcohen.php] Can you show me a single instance of Obama ever visiting a mosque while he has been an adult?

3. '''Is the case for Obama being a "liberal Christian" stronger or is the case of Obama being a Muslim stronger when the principle of total evidence being weighed is applied?''' If you state the case is stronger for Obama being a Muslim, please defend your position by truly negating the strong evidence that he is a member of "liberal Christianity" and giving compelling evidence that he is a Muslim. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 10:45, 16 November 2008 (EST)

:I thought the two of you might enjoy reading [http://blog.beliefnet.com/stevenwaldman/2008/11/obamas-interview-with-cathleen.html this 2004 interview with Obama], where he discusses his faith, his baptism, and so forth. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 14:04, 16 November 2008 (EST)
::Both of you miss the point. It's not what Obama '''says''' - that has no relevance whatsoever. It's what he '''is''' and what he '''will do'''. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 15:11, 16 November 2008 (EST)
::::: If what he ''says'' has no relevance, why is one of the supposed evidences for him being a Muslim something he ''said'' (the bit about "my Muslim faith")? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:58, 17 November 2008 (EST)

::::Bugler, I know I mentioned what Obama did and said which certainly has bearing on what Obama "is". Therefore, you did not in any way provide a counter argument. I also suggest you answer the reasonable questions I posed to Mr. Schlafly. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 15:16, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:::::Conservative, the roots of Al Quaeda lie in the 1940s and 50s, if not before; radical terroristic Islamic fundamentalism is not a recent phenomenon. Much of its mindset and organisational apperatus was borrowed from Leninist Communism: the notion of cell, of enrtyism, of deep penetration. Now, how difficult is it to imagine that an intelligent child, of American parentage, schooled in the Islamic environment of 1960s Indonesia and vulnerable to the influences swirling around in that environment, might be schooled and indoctrinated as the sleeper to end all sleepers, given extreme dispensations to protect his cover, allowed to eat pork, drink alcohol, marry out, attend and indeed profess to be a Christian, even to publicly renounce (on the face of it) the Islamic faith? Surely the prize would merit the game. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 15:24, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:::::::So you're honestly speculating that Obama might be a member of Al Qaeda, and we're expected to believe that you're ''not'' a parodist? Riiiiiiight. [[User:MarkB|MarkB]] 09:09, 18 November 2008 (EST)
::::::::Oh, that old tune yet again. Can't you Liberals find a less boring stick to beat me with? [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 09:17, 18 November 2008 (EST)
:::::::::Oh, don't get me wrong, I think you're doing a great job. Keep it up. [[User:MarkB|MarkB]] 09:22, 18 November 2008 (EST)
::::::Bugler, in light of the evidence I gave above concerning Obama's supposedly being raised a Muslim '''and the lack of evidence to support it''' plus the evidence I gave above to support Obama being a member of "liberal Christianity" , your post is at best a Hail Mary pass. Secondly, I noticed you did not answer my questions or give any solid historical parallels for your far fetched speculation. If you could enlighten me where the Leninists were able to install a President of a Western country that had been a sleeper for two decades I would certainly be indebted to you if you could give it. But I would add, since you never gave any compelling evidence he was raised a Muslim, this Leninist parallel speculation is a non starter anyways. Thirdly, you refer to "the prize". What prize? If you going to embrace conjecture that is contra evidence certainly you should tell your audience what the supposed prize is supposedly going to be. Should I fear I am imminently going to be put under Sharia law? Lastly, I am not stating your a parodist, but I certainly believe it is more likely that you are a parodist than it is likely that Obama is a Muslim. Your somewhat eloquent but empty defense of the indefensible proposition that Obama is likely a Muslim, certainly provides a reasonable reader to suspect you are a parodist. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 17:41, 16 November 2008 (EST)

::::::::I've not heard the term 'hail Mary pass' before, despite being a good Catholic boy: please enlighten! ''If you could enlighten me where the Leninists were able to install a President of a Western country that had been a sleeper for two decades'' Not a president, but the private secretary of the West German Chancellor Willy Brandt was a Communist plant: how many were undetected? Certainly therer remain suspicions about the 1960s/70s UK Prime Minister Harold Wilson. ''What prize?'' Surely that is obvious. As to the objections you raise, I think it unlikely that he will use the ceremony on January 20 to declare a United states Caliphate. However, the prospect of an Islamic radical sleeper in the Oval Office raises any number of possibilities. And finally: your open suggestion that I am a parodist is welcome: a refreshing change from others here who smear me by innuendo without your honesty and openness. I assure you in all sincerity that I act with the best interests of God, Conservapedia, Freedom and Democracy always at heart. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:58, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:::Bugler, [http://www.wisegeek.com/in-football-what-is-a-hail-mary.htm Hail Mary pass]. Secondly, your Willy Brandt attempted historical parallel falls flat. I did a quick search on the internet and this is what CNN states about Brandt: "As a teen-ager Brandt first joined the Socialist Party of Germany (SPD) in 1930, but one year later switched to a more radical spin-off, the SAP."[http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/cold.war/kbank/profiles/brandt/] Brandt apparently was a socialist early on (teenager to be precise), but you have not give a compelling argument that Obama was raised as a Muslim and given the information I gave above regarding there being a lack of evidence for this proposition and evidence against it, your Leninism supposed historical parallel is still a non starter. You are certainly not applying the principle of using the total evidence. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 18:21, 16 November 2008 (EST)

Henry Wallace, FDR's Vice President, was a "sleeper" communist and replaced by FDR for that reason. Alger Hiss, a top aide to presidents, was a proven "sleeper" communist. A big lie is often easier to pull off than a little lie.

What's remarkable is how strenuously people deny that Obama is a Muslim. His fathers (real and stepfather) were Muslims. There's no denying that Obama was raised a Muslim, and his conduct as an adult underscores that he, like 99% of others raises as Muslims, did not leave that religion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:02, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:: What's remarkable is how strenuously you claim that Obama is a Muslim without any evidence of substance, and in opposition to other conservatives, including five of your own senior administrators, who disagree with you, despite being opposed to Obama. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:58, 17 November 2008 (EST)
:An interesting question is ''why'' people try so hard to deny it to ''themselves'' when the evidence is so clearly there. [[User:RodWeathers|RodWeathers]] 20:51, 16 November 2008 (EST)
::::Andy, Wallace appears to have had been a one time Republican who later had openly leftist views. [http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USARwallace.htm] Wallace cannot be counted as a long time "sleeper agent" who was a very high ranking public official through infiltration. Secondly, Alger Hiss never achieved a high ranking government official status like a president, Vice President, Secretary of State, etc.[http://homepages.nyu.edu/~th15/who.html] I do think that when someone goes for a very important government position, such as a President, Vice-President, Secretary of State, a higher degree of scrutiny often occurs. For this reason, I believe you are having trouble coming up with a historical instance of a very high ranked official in the Western World being a sleeper agent. Furthermore, by the time Hiss was charged who had been two years out of government and was working for the Carnegie Foundation. I believe it is invalid to use Hiss as an example of an ambitious sleeper agent who had gotten to the top of government when he had resigned from government 2 years before he was charged. Next, I do think my questions in my previous post were quite reasonable that you left unanswered. Also, and this is really at the heart of the issue, you never really countered this information which makes the idea of Obama being a sleeper agent a non-starter because it appears as if he was never truly raised a Muslim:

"Barack Hussein Obama was born in 1961 in Honolulu, Hawaii, to a Kenyan Muslim father of the same name and an American secular humanist mother named Ann Dunham. While Obama’s father was raised in Islamic culture, he had become a functional atheist by the time he reached college. Despite his parents’ lack of religion, young Obama received his early education in both Catholic and Muslim schools.

Obama’s parents divorced when he was only two years old. Henceforth, the senior Obama was “almost entirely absent”[i] from his son’s life. Four years later, Ann Dunham relocated to Indonesia with her son to join her new husband Lolo Soetoro. A daughter, Maya, was born to the couple before their divorce. She returned to Hawaii where she went on to earn her MA in anthropology from the University of Hawaii. In his first book, Dreams from My Father, Barack Obama wrote of his mother, “She was a lonely witness for '''secular humanism''', a soldier for New Deal, Peace Corps, position paper liberalism.”[ii]

Obama’s mother was a huge influence in his life. In an interview with Oprah Winfrey in October 2006, he said, “My mother—when I think about the values I hold most dear, they came from her.”[iii] In a speech given at a Moms Rising event in 2006, he said, “Everything that I think is good about me, I got from her.”[http://nationalclergycouncil.org/010807BarackObama.htm] [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 20:57, 16 November 2008 (EST)

: In response to your indented general comment above, there's nothing magical or divine about presidential politics that ensures honesty. Woodrow Wilson was paralyzed by a stroke for more than a year while president, and the public did not know. Your argument that it is impossible to keep such things from the public is simply wrong. Wallace was not widely known to be a communist or else Roosevelt would never have been elected with Wallace on the ticket. Roosevelt finally figured it out (or was tipped off), and without explanation replaced Wallace. The leftists were dumbfounded by this move, as they were on the verge of making Wallace president when Roosevelt died. Oh, and the sickness of Roosevelt was also kept from the public. He died from his illness within a mere weeks of becoming president for the fourth time. The public didn't expect that either.

: In response to your specific questions, you're quoting self-serving and implausible statements. Obama was raised by a Muslim stepfather. He learned to view the Muslim call to prayer as the most beautiful thing in the word. There is no real indication any change by Obama, and his keeping of the name "Hussein" illustrates that he did not have a rare adult conversion from Muslim to Christianity. All indications are that such conversion was politically motivated to persuade the public, and one might say that was obviously successful with some! But I doubt Obama will continue his charade indefinitely. Watch for aid to impose Islam on more foreign countries, and watch for inclusion of the Koran at official ceremonies, if not on Jan. 20th itself.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:18, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:: No, Andy, it is ''you'' who is "quoting self-serving and implausible statements". Even five of your own senior administrators disagree with you, but, like Wikipedia, you persist with imposing your own view on this article. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:58, 17 November 2008 (EST)
Andy, I don't think you can give me a single piece of evidence of Obama's mother being a Muslim and given there is evidence against this matter that is not surprising. It also appears as if Obama has a great influence in his life which is not surprising since she was his biological mother. In addition, Obama appeared to have received some Catholic education when he was young. Therefore, your supposed case that Obama was raised a Muslim is certainly not built on a bedrock of solid evidence. Accordingly, the Obama article should not state that Obama is likely a Muslim. Next, I never stated that it is impossible for someone to get to a top political office as a sleeper agent but merely improbable and historical determinations should be reached probabilistically. Also, while it may have not been known that Wallace was a communist (if indeed he was a communist which is a matter I have not investigated but which could certainly be true), there does appear to be indications that he had openly strong leftist views for even the Democrats.[http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USARwallace.htm] Therefore, you historical precedent argument in this case is certainly not a stronger one in terms of Wallace being a "sleeper agent". It does not sound plausible to me that a Communist sleeper agent would have openly strong leftist views that even the Democrats found distasteful. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 21:34, 16 November 2008 (EST)

: In Muslim families, like the one Obama was raised in, the father dictates the religious upbringing of the boys. Please learn more about the Muslim traditions. With so little awareness of it by Christians, it's no wonder Islam is trouncing Christianity around the world.

: Alger Hiss was later proved to be a communist and read up on how he was the TOP adviser to FDR at the key WWII conference carving up Europe. Not only was he a sleeper communist agent, but the liberals denied it for decades even after Hiss was convicted in court. Only in the last few years did one of his co-agents admit the truth. Please learn about this.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:43, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:::: Islam is "trouncing" Christianity? In what way? Greater population growth, perhaps, but that's not relevant here. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:58, 17 November 2008 (EST)
:::Andy, have you made the case that Obama's stepfather was a staunch Muslim? I know you have not because it appears as if Obama attended a Catholic school when he was young. Therefore, you still not have made the case that Obama was raised a Muslim. Next, Hiss may have been a top advisor at one point in his life, however, an advisor is not a very top government official (President, Vice-President, Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense, etc.) who certainly often faces much more scrutiny. Andy, given historical precedence and the greater scrutiny that is often given to people ascending to the very peaks of government power, I do think the case for a sleeper agent rising to the pinnacle of power in a government institution is very tenuous to say the least. I think this principle of sleeper agents not ascending to the pinnacles of large organizations is true of institutions outside of government as well. For example, people when being sarcastic in replying to a yes or no question, will sometimes say, "Is the Pope Jewish?" meaning that the pope is not likely an adherent of Judaism. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 21:34, 16 November 2008 (EST)

Andy, it appears as if there is strong evidence that Obama attended a Catholic school but there may not be evidence that he attended a school that truly could be called a Muslim school. Please read [http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/muslim.asp this article.]

Regardless of whether or not CNN or the AP did their work with diligence, there appears to be no controversy regarding that Obama did in fact attend a Catholic school. Therefore, I still maintain that the claim he was raised a Muslim does not have strong support. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 22:22, 16 November 2008 (EST)

: Catholic schools welcome Muslim students. They still do. The Muslim students virtually never convert.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:07, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:::Catholic schools may very welcome Muslim students but what staunchly Muslim father sends his son to a Catholic school? Andy, you still have not jumped over the evidential bar that Osama was raised a Muslim. The so called Muslim school was apparently not strongly Islamic or possibly not even Islamic at all ( [http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/muslim.asp read this article.] ) and the stepfather appears to not have had a strong Muslim faith as evidenced by the fact that he sent Obama to a Catholic school. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 23:56, 16 November 2008 (EST)

In the Unification Church, it is not unusual for parents to send their children to a Catholic grade school. So what if they come home, crossing themselves when they pray? Overall, the education is better there than in public schools, so if they can afford it the practice makes senses. I daresay mainstream Christians likewise don't mind the sectarian differences. Any way out of secular humanism is often fine with them.

It appears likely that as president, Obama will be more sympathetic to Islamic countries in his foreign policy. Maybe he'll even be able to get them to lighten up on their "destruction of Israel" goals, or allow [[religious freedom]] for Christians and Jews. Are [[Turkey]] and [[Indonesia]] good examples of this?

I see good in all religions, and I don't see Islam as irredeemably evil. So what if Obama is or was Muslim? There is [[no religious test for office]], and he can't be impeached for it. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:09, 18 November 2008 (EST)

==Another case for Obama being Muslim==
During a campaign rally, two Muslim women in Muslim garb, were removed from prominent camera view. The reason is A) Obama doesn't want his image assoc. with Muslims B) or doesn't like Muslims (we know the opposite is true). Now, he doesn't want images of Muslim assoc with him because he is A) secret Muslim or B) the American people will think he is a Muslim. (Which 27% already do). Did Obama try to hide his Muslim background and is that plan still in progress?--'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 17:52, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:::Are A and B the only choices on why Obama does not want himself associated with Islam? Is a false dilemma being proposed? For example, setting aside whether it was right or wrong which is a whole other discussion, did 9/11 drive up the American public's negative beliefs and/or attitudes regarding Islam? Would the American public look less favorably upon a candidate who received some Muslim religious education (Obama also received Catholic training in his youth. And there is certainly reason to believe that a certain degree of philosophical skepticism was imparted to Obama via his mother). In short, I think the above post fails to use the principle of using the total evidence (see my posts above) plus contains a false dilemma. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 18:09, 16 November 2008 (EST)

== “Less than 1% Muslims convert” – Prosecutor error? ==

OK, time for something new and I direct this particularly to Aschlafly. There is a logical fallacy called the “Prosecutor’s Error”. It is very subtle but real enough to send innocent people to the execution chamber. In fact, many lawyers and judges don’t understand it. It works like this. Please concentrate: this isn't all that easy.

Let us suppose that it is true that Barack Obama was at one time a Muslim, even if this was at an immature age when he really had no say in his faith. And let us grant that only 1% of Muslims convert to Christianity. The argument which Aschflafly uses time and again is to deduce that that this means that, notionally at least, that there is a 99% chance that Obama is a Muslim.

The fallacy of the argument is that it does not recognize that the IF Obama was in that 99% of Muslims who did not convert, there would be no practicable way he could have run for President. Therefore the chances that he is one of those who DID convert are raised far beyond the mathematically obvious one of 1%.

Let me give you a real-life example. A woman had three children and each expired early in infancy of “cot death”. The prosecutor did his math and advised the court that there was a “one in 70 million” chance of this happening by accident. Therefore, the jury was heavily disposed to assume that she was guilty of the serial murder of her children. But the fallacy of the case is that she was ONLY arrested because of the rareness of the 3 children dying of cot death in the one family. But even if this only happens one in 70 million families, in a large country such as the U.K or U.S.A, and over a period of decades, it is BOUND to occur, purely by accident. If we then tell a courtroom that there is only a 1 in 70 million chance that she is innocent, we are guilty of the “Prosecutor’s Error”. It is tantamount to arresting a man who comes into a lot of money suddenly and is arrested under suspicion of larceny. He explains that he won it on a lottery, but the Prosecutor says he has looked into the “Lottery” business, and there is only a 1 in 20 million chance of winning it, therefore there is only a 1 in 20 million chance the indicted man is telling the truth.

In Obama’s case, once again, EVEN if it is true that only 1% of Muslims convert, AND ALSO true that he was born into the Muslim faith, the fact that his circumstances allowed him to run for the Presidency argues that he was one of those Muslims who DID convert, and thus makes his chances of being a non-Muslim substantially greater that 1%. [[User:MylesP|MylesP]] 00:05, 17 November 2008 (EST)

:I understand your math, but your reasoning does not convince me. The lottery example was the most unfortunate attempt.

:Although in any given lottery, the chances may be 1 in 20 million for one person to win - the fact is that '''every''' lottery has a winner.

:The problem with Obama's religion is not so much ''Which is it?'' but, "How shall the electorate now regard its new president elect?" Will Obama be pro-Muslim (because he's Muslim or was raised Muslim)?

:A related question is, "Will Obama be pro-Black because he is black?"

:I get along equally well with black Christians as with white Christians, so this is not an issue for me. I've also found Muslims personally just as honest, reliable and hard-working as Christians. What's all the fuss about? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:18, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:: The lottery example was valid. Apart from the fact that not every lottery ''does'' have a winner (the prize then jackpots to the following draw), the point is that the 100% certainty (every lottery has a winner) applies to the lottery as a whole, whereas the 1 in 20 million odds applies to any ''given'' individual. The issue here is about a ''given'' individual, Barack Obama.
:: I hope that you are asking that last question ("What's all the fuss about") to Andy, as he is the one insisting on the claim against almost everybody else other than a few acolytes.
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:20, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:::I like maths and logic, so good section. This isn't arguing for the prosecution error, but just about statistical sampling. I suppose you could ask how many muslims convert, but it might be more accurate to ask how many American born muslims convert, or how many muslims that have had a Christian baptism have genuinely converted (I hope there's a special place in hell for those that were faking their baptism)--[[User:TruthOfChrist|TruthOfChrist]] 09:45, 19 November 2008 (EST)

::::In [[Dante's Inferno]], I don't think there is. Any kind of liar goes to the bottom of the eighth circle though. I wonder whether covert apostacy was known in Dante's time.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 09:51, 19 November 2008 (EST)

:::::MylesP, have you been reading [http://www.amazon.co.uk/Bad-Science-Ben-Goldacre/dp/0007240198/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1227138689&sr=8-1 Bad Science?]

== Awesome article ==
Just wanted to say, finally a good resource about obama. Fantastic research about the muslim piece, it really shows him as the closet muslim like he is. Shame the libs just don't get it !! [[happymoon|happymoon]]

== Great comedy article ==

It's a shame people don't get the jokes. Just wanted to pop in and say keep up the good work! Was referred here by a friend who also got a kick out of this article. [[User:Somebody21|Somebody21]] 11:08, 17 November 2008 (EST)

:Read the article properly before you start calling it a joke. You've been looking at Obama from a left wing viewpoint; try looking at him from a right wing viewpoint. It'll do you good.--[[User:WHurst|WHurst]]

==This will be a hit on stormfront==

America reaches a milestone in his history and all you guys can do is peddle false lies which have been repudiated by just about everyone in the political business. The comment about 'possibly been sworn in by the koran' is not only false, but a terrifying example of what racism and ignorance is capable of. You may not be white nationalists, but your inability to reasonably discuss this man's faith without resorting to the most despicable acts of scaremongering is typical of the tripe we see on racist websites.

Keep this crap up and you'll make sure to keep the black vote away from your party for the forseeable future. [[User:JCharlton|JCharlton]] 17:50, 17 November 2008 (EST)

::Race and religion are two different things. Why do liberals always resort to racism? Maybe its becaus you don't have any real arguments against the issues raised here? This isn't wikipedia, we deal in facts here. [[User:Patriot1505|Patriot1505]] 20:20, 17 November 2008 (EST)

"Facts" as in already repeatedly proven falsehoods such as Obama being a Muslim? This page is filled with outright lies. [[USER:AuthorNeubius|AuthorNeubius]], 19 November 2008

== Reply ==

Don't know where to start. Maybe someone else can explain why they get so enraged at the likelihood that Obama is a Muslim. What's it to someone who (1) is an atheist, (2) is an Australian, (3) is a Christian, or (4) would support him regardless? Frankly, the opposition by some is puzzling.

Regardless, some remarkable displays of lack of knowledge about Islam and Islamic education have been displayed here. Perhaps we can all agree that it's worth learning more about what many say has quickly become the world's largest religion, and the strongest religion in Europe today.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:49, 17 November 2008 (EST)

If you are going to repeat a proven lie, you shouldn't be surprised when people call you on it-[[USER:AuthorNeubius|AuthorNeubius]], 19 November 2008

:It really shouldn't be that puzzling Andy. They are calling out what they believe to be falsehood. When people made spurious, questionable claims about Bush, how did Conservapedia respond? Did you include the information or remove it? Its the exact same thing. You tried to keep the spurious information out of it. The name "Trustworthy Encyclopedia" implies intellectual honesty, and on this particular aspect most people here (myself included) find this pile of circumstantial evidence to be based on poor conclusions, false arguments, and illogical reasoning to be an absurdity without any solid claims that say he is a Muslim. The burden of proof is on you to -prove- that he is, not provide a loaded mountain of evidence that is obviously taylored to imply that he is with no proof whatsoever other than bad logic. I can't believe this topic is still going. [[User:EternalCritic|EternalCritic]] 22:17, 17 November 2008 (EST)

:: There is nothing "spurious" about it, and you lose credibility with your baseless claims of falsehood. Even Obama's biggest supporters would have to admit that there is a significant probability that he is a Muslim. Perhaps one can quibble whether that probability is 20% or 60% or 90%, but no one can insist with a straight face that it is 0%.

:: Given that, it's bizarre how some adamantly insist that the probability must be less than 50% rather than greater than 50%. Frankly, the demands to censor this information smacks of liberal bias.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:52, 17 November 2008 (EST)

:::When you promote someone over yourself here, the beef can be over censorship. Until then, it's just people saying they think you're wrong. [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 23:16, 17 November 2008 (EST) ''<-like me, for example...''

Don't fall for the devil's tricks. These "conservatives" are not true Christians. [[User:Somebody21|Somebody21]] 23:33, 17 November 2008 (EST)

"''Maybe someone else can explain why they get so enraged at the likelihood that Obama is a Muslim.''": Yes, I would like you to explain that. Because ''you'' are the one enraged at that. I, on the other hand, am "enraged" that he is being accused of being a Muslim on the basis of logical fallacy, lousy arguments, and false claims.

"''What's it to someone who ... is a Christian''": As a Christian, my concern is for the ''truth''. Why do you continually try and misrepresent this as censorship, liberal lies, or whatever?

"''... some remarkable displays of lack of knowledge about Islam and Islamic education have been displayed here...''": That is not the issue I'm arguing. You are again raising red herrings. The issue is the claim that he is a Muslim, which claim is not supported by the evidence.

"''There is nothing "spurious" about it, and you lose credibility with your baseless claims of falsehood.''": No, Andy, it '''is''' spurious, and ''you'' lose credibility with ''your'' baseless claims that he is a Muslim.

"''Even Obama's biggest supporters would have to admit that there is a significant probability that he is a Muslim.''": On what grounds? Certainly not those in this article.

"''Given that, it's bizarre how some adamantly insist that the probability must be less than 50% rather than greater than 50%.''": "That" is not given. Rather, it's bizarre how ''you'' adamantly insist that he ''is'' a Muslim given the lack of evidence.

"''Frankly, the demands to censor this information smacks of liberal bias.''": I'm going to shout because you obviously didn't hear me before: "IT IS NOT CENSORSHIP TO REMOVE IRRELEVANT INFORMATION, AND I'D APPRECIATE YOU NOT IMPLYING THAT I'M TRYING TO CENSOR ANYTHING."

I've pointed out a number of problems, and your response has been to slander the criticism as censorship and liberal, to introduce red herrings, and to assert your opinion as fact. What you have ''not'' done is actually address the issue.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:57, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:How dare you accuse Andy of slander. And what hypocricy. The only slanderer, Philip, is you. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 03:40, 18 November 2008 (EST)
:: Yet you make no attempt to refute that it was slanderous, nor to substantiate your accusation against me. In other words, a substanceless response. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:53, 18 November 2008 (EST)

Andy, regarding "''(Islam being) the strongest religion in Europe today''": you never cease to amaze us with your wealth of knowledge of the world outside the USA, be it UK, the whole of Europe or Australia. Kudos to you! --[[User:Europeo|Europeo]] 07:37, 18 November 2008 (EST)

::''Regardless, some remarkable displays of lack of knowledge about Islam and Islamic education have been displayed here.'' I think that's a statement with which anyone would agree. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 10:55, 18 November 2008 (EST)

==Four Questions For The Trojan Candidate==
{{QuoteBox|1=It has taken the better part of a year, and specifically the last six months of this election season, for committed citizen journalists at TexasDarlin and many other blogs to conduct the solid, investigative research that the media, the democratic national committee, agencies of the federal government, Barack Obama himself, and Congress should have done on the eligibility and qualifications of Barack Obama. The first serious look at Barack Obama ’s Constitutional eligibility began on this blog, with the exposure of the birth certificate mystery, Obama-Soetoro’s Indonesian citizenship, and analysis of the constitutional problems with Obama’s multiple citizenship status irrespective of birthplace.
 
Although our collective knowledge of Barack Obama and the concerns of his candidacy came too late to change the outcome of the Democratic nomination and the election—especially in light of the MSM bias, the Obama campaign’s tactics, and DNC shenanigans– for all our hard work, we were successful in shedding some light on the content of his character: his associations, his deeds, his family relations, his friends, his lack of experience, stewardship, his patriotism, his potential agenda ([http://texasdarlin.wordpress.com/2008/09/21/the-trojan-candidate/] ) and the startling depth of his secrecy.
 
Now that we have “un-muddied” the water…..we stand on the edge of a caldera* with no idea of the complexity, depth, explosiveness, or unpredictability of this phenomenon we have witnessed in the rise of Barack Obama ! We as a country have never actually been here before, standing at the edge of possible dissolution of our country, except perhaps in the election of 1860. One realizes at once the perils of both diving into that hot pool of water, or running away to avoid the explosion….either scenario leads to serious burns!
 
While there seems to be little evidence that we will ever fully know Obama, nor avoid the explosive change he will bring, there is a way we can learn from this experience such that our Country will never again be faced with someone who is truly unknown, inexperienced, untested, and feels (to me anyway) uncommitted to America. We can use the 2008 experiences to also highlight and then design strategies to ensure that every political party is responsive to its constituents, and that our Constitution is really a living document.
 
The Constitution is by and for “we the people”; therefore “we the people” must make it work and not rely on any political party to sell America to the highest bidder.
 
'''Four Questions'''
 
I bring forward four questions that get to the heart of our rights, as American citizens, to ensure that our government and its leaders are indeed qualified to lead our great country. By extension, these questions can be used as windows to other potential areas where we the people do not yet have redress.
 
These questions are miraculously (given procedural errors and the existing lower court dismissal) before the Supreme Court with the requirement that President-elect Obama respond by December 1, 2008. It is also disturbing that these questions are before the U.S. Supreme Court when the candidate himself or the DNC could easily have dispelled any speculation by providing simple documentation.
 
While I have not kept track of the Berg v. Obama case for many reasons, it truly is miraculous that Justice Souter required Obama to respond to Berg’s writ of certiorari. Even if, as some have said, Souter ’s action is not significant and procedural only, how Obama responds will reveal much about his view of the Constitution, and will determine if the full Supreme Court decides to hear the case. In responding, Obama will be essentially arguing why the writ of certiorari should not be granted.
 
In my opinion, the questions raised by Berg in the lower Court should not have been thrown out entirely based on standing alone, or by the notion that the injury to a voter is “vague”. But some Judges do actually realize the question may be beyond their jurisdiction and ‘ask for help’ by clearly making appealable and reversible errors that a higher court can rule on. The Supreme Court Rules permit the grant of a writ of certiorari only under specific circumstances.
 
The questions presented for review are:
 
*1. Whether a citizen of the United States has standing to challenge the Constitutional qualifications of a Presidential nominee under the “natural born citizen clause” [Article II of the U.S. Constitution] when deprivation of the right to such a challenge would result in the infringement of a citizen’s Constitutional right to vote?
*2. Isn’t it true that no one has the responsibility to ensure a United States Presidential candidate is eligible to serve as President of the United States?
*3. Are there proper steps for a voter to ensure a Presidential Candidate is qualified and eligible to serve as President of the United States?
*4. Isn’t it true that there are not any checks and balances to ensure the qualifications and eligibility of a Presidential Candidate to serve as President of the United States?
 
The “questions presented for review” in the writ require Obama’ response. Notice that answering these questions does not require Obama to produce a birth certificate, but instead to answer why he does not have to prove himself eligible.
 
Although we cannot predict Obama’s answers, based on his past legal motions submitted in the lower court case, Obama may indeed respond that the writ should not be granted because (1) a citizen does not have standing, (2) that no one has responsibility to ensure eligibility, (3) that there are no proper steps for a citizen to ensure qualifications, and (4) that there are no checks and balances that exist today to ensure a candidate is qualified. Notice he is in a position of arguing technicalities here, and completely misses his own obligation to prove himself.
 
Although doubtful, it is also possible Obama would try to argue that the 14th Amendment says that “naturalized citizens” and “dual citizens” are “American citizens”, thereby satisfying the requirements of Article II. I really can’t imagine he would bring this up, unless asked in a hearing, as the question of the 14th Amendment’s modification of Article II is a constitutional matter that only the Supreme Court can decide. Recall that on Obama’s own website he claims that he is a U.S. Citizen under the 14th amendment.
 
I think these questions may have Obama boxed in. If he intends not to release his COLB, citizenship records, passport files, etc, Obama would then practically argue a big “FU” to the U.S. Supreme Court and say in effect “I don’t have to respond to this because there is no law, no avenue for citizens, and no checks and balances that require me to do so.” He will argue technicalities in how to disregard the Constitution, including, as above, that the 14th Amendment applies to Article II. I wonder how the Supreme Court might respond?
 
If Obama responds in any other way, he could be forced to disclose and/or identify when, how, and what steps citizens can take, or what steps are taken, to assure the POTUS’ eligibility. Using the process he acknowledges—for example, the “DNC vetting process”–he may then be forced to prove his eligibility to serve as POTUS under Article II by showing the documentation he provided to the DNC, if he provided anything to the DNC. Alternatively he could concede that there are no procedures to ensure eligibility of a person for POTUS, and that “America has to take his word for it”. Would the Supreme Court then order him to produce his documentation according to the original suit filed by Berg?
 
One item of interest is how Obama responds to Question 4, on the existence of checks and balances to assure the POTUS’ eligibility. “Checks and balances” can mean procedures, legislative processes, acts, bills, agencies, or resolutions. Here is where Obama could argue that the Senate Resolution promoted by Senators Leahy, Obama, and McCatskill on John McCain’s eligibility applies. In other words, Obama could argue that the checks and balances already exist and this resolution suffices (notice this is not a bill). The Senate resolution was developed in April, 2008 to “validate” John McCain ’s natural born citizen status when it was unnecessary, and in some ways the resolution’s language can be seen as an attempt by the three Senators to create a blanket provision for a naturalized citizen to be eligible to serve as POTUS. Looking at the text of the resolution and supporting statements, Senator Leahy has the following curious exchange with Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff (emphasis mine):
 
Chairman Leahy. Let me just ask this: I believe–and we have had some question in this Committee to have a special law passed declaring that Senator McCain, who was born in the Panama Canal, that he meets the constitutional requirement to be President….You are a former Federal judge. You are the head of the agency that executes Federal immigration law. Do you have any doubt in your mind–I mean, I have none in mine. Do you have any doubt in your mind that he is constitutionally eligible to become President?
 
Secretary Chertoff. My assumption and my understanding is that if you are born of American parents, you are naturally a natural-born American citizen.
 
As Berg’s case has evolved, he refined the scope of defendants who now must also respond to the writ, including the DNC, the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration and its Chair, Senator Dianne Feinstein , the Federal Election Commission (FEC), and several Pennsylvania government officials.
 
With the exception of the DNC, who also joined in Obama’s initial motion to dismiss the lower case on lack of standing, I think the other defendants’ responses might be decidedly different. The FEC could claim that it actually has no jurisdiction in the matter by way of its charter and organizing documents, and that even if it did, it is far too understaffed to perform investigatory functions, as cited by Senator Feinstein in testimony before the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration on May 28, 2008 (link to http://rules.senate..gov/hearings/2008/052108feinsteinopen.pdf). And will Senator Feinstein blame the Bush administration, or will she admit that she too just assumed the DNC vetted Obama and that he was eligible?
 
After reviewing Obama’s legal argument against granting the writ of certiorari and the other defendants’ responses, Justice Souter will then review Berg’s response before deciding where the case goes next, including whether the full Supreme Court will hear the case. Remember that Souter’s clerks have all the lower court material and reviewed it before Souter required Obama to respond to the writ of certiorari. In my opinion, Justice Souter would not have granted this appeal from Berg if he thought the issues were irrelevant and not worthy of the Court’s attention.
 
How does the Supreme Court react? Will it order the production of Obama’s documents? Will it order the lower Courts to resolve the matter expeditiously, requiring the release of documents? Will it order the FEC, Electoral College, or Congress to verify his eligibility, or develop verification procedures? Will they agree with Obama, if he mentions it, that the 14th Amendment really did modify Article II criteria? Will they dismiss the case?
 
Although the Supreme Court will not want to be seen as determining the outcome of another election—even for the perception of “fairness”– the questions presented in the writ are completely different than presented in Bush v. Gore. Under Article III of the Constitution, the Supreme Court clearly has the jurisdiction to decide the matter. Legal scholars will point to Marbury v. Madison ( link to http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=true&doc=19) as precedent if the full Supreme Court accepts the writ, orders the lower Court in error, directs it to secure Obama’s documentation, and chastises the DNC, FEC, the PA state agencies, the Senate, and Senator Obama for not doing their job, and not forcing the production of documents itself, while still retaining jurisdiction.
 
If this is the outcome, a motion could be made by Berg to stay the vote of the Electoral College pending the outcome of the case. If the Justices are concerned about the matter and integrity of the 2008 election, that motion could be granted. The expedited discovery of documents would proceed. Yes, I understand this is a long-shot and speculation on my part.
 
And how, in the meantime, are we to ever know about Barack Obama? Is the burden of proof really on America (Berg), or on Barack Obama ? Is it up to your employer to find out who you are, or is it up to you as an employee to provide your documentation? Isn’t Obama supposed to be working for America? I believe that the burden of proof on eligibility rests solely and unconditionally on Barack Obama’s shoulders. I am not alone in this belief (link http://americamustknow.com/Documents/OBAMA%20LAWSUIT,%20Class%20Action.doc).
 
Alinsky Returns?
 
As I sit in disbelief and alarm even writing this article—that something as basic as citizenship status of the potential POTUS is in front of the Supreme Court at this late date—I am reminded of a framework set forth in an earlier article, The Trojan Candidate (link to http://texasdarlin.wordpress.com/2008/09/21/the-trojan-candidate/), and the use of Alinsky-style community organizing techniques to advance an agenda of revolutionary change. In this article I posited that Barack Obama has a hidden agenda and part of implementing his agenda involves the use of techniques developed by Saul Alinsky and discussed in such books as Rules for Radicals (http://www.semcosh.org/AlinskyTactics.htm).
 
'''From the Trojan Candidate:'''
 
Alinsky laid out a set of basic principles to guide the actions and decisions of radical organizers [community organizers] and the People’s Organizations they established. The organizer, he said, ‘must first rub raw the resentments of the people; fan the latent hostilities to the point of overt expression. He must search out controversy and issues, rather than avoid them, for unless there is controversy people are not concerned enough to act.’ The organizer’s function, he added, was ‘to agitate to the point of conflict ’and ‘to maneuver and bait the establishment so that it will publicly attack him as a “dangerous enemy.” ‘The word ‘enemy,’ said Alinsky, ‘is sufficient to put the organizer on the side of the people’; i.e., to convince members of the community that he is so eager to advocate on their behalf, that he has willingly opened himself up to condemnation and derision.
 
What could be the reason for withholding his citizenship papers and birth status, especially if he has nothing to hide? Does he plan to use this in some way to “rub raw the resentments of the people” [and] “fan the latent hostilities to the point of over expression”? The concerns about Obama’s Constitutional eligibility will be met with accusations of “racism”; that the “system” wouldn’t do this to a white man, and that the republicans or others are trying to ‘take Obama out’ on a “technicality”. And worse.
 
If Obama is ineligible, he could rightly be called a ‘dangerous enemy’ and forced to stand down. It is at this point that “the word ‘enemy’ is sufficient to put the organizer on the side of the people…” and the maneuvering and baiting of the establishment forces it to back down, with Obama prevailing whether having shown his documentation or not. As you contemplate this, think of all the money, the inevitability narrative, the shutting down of dissent, the timing of events, the threat of violence and insurrection, the establishment of the office of the president elect, and the simply overwhelming of America with all things Obama. This certainly pulls the light from shining on the real Barack Obama ’s Trojan candidacy.
 
If Obama is proven ineligible, does not stand down or even if he does stand down, it is not unreasonable to expect some “in-your-face” hostile reactions and calls for immediate changes that permit Obama to stay. How ironic: in defense of liberty and the Constitution, we will be called ‘racists’.
 
'''Implications for the Future'''
 
The four questions presented to the U.S. Supreme Court in 2008 will have a lasting and enduring effect on the course of the American Constitution in the next decade or more and will continue to feed the growing doubts about Obama’s qualifications and intentions in the next four years.. Currently there are 17 different legal actions in various state and federal courts, which now challenge the validity of the electoral process across the country, regardless of outcome (see http://www.soundinvestments.us/files/final_writ_keyes_v_bowen.pdf) .
 
Just my suspicion, but I am beginning to get a more complete picture of why Obama has sealed all of his records, including college financial aid applications, papers, and coursework. I believe his financial aid applications reveal his foreign status; and I now see that his Columbia and Harvard papers could reveal his examination of the “weaknesses” of the U.S. Constitution and ways to “remedy” them using “administrative procedures” as discussed in this 2001 radio interview. (link to http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3VctiYQplw8)
 
As I look at the scope of research on the issue of eligibility during this election season, I note that nearly all have concluded that there are no checks and balances to assure the eligibility of a Presidential Candidate, that no one is responsible, that the DNC did not do its job, and that indeed citizens and voters have very little recourse to ask these questions. The Supreme Court has never been presented with this question before on Article II eligibility. I personally doubt that they will duck their responsibilities to protect the Constitution.
 
Up until this time, it has been assumed that every candidate and POTUS has met Article II qualifications. We assume that in fact no one would dare to run for and claim the Presidency if he/she didn’t meet the qualifications of the Constitution. Looks like our age of innocence is over.
 
It appears that we will have to craft legislation to assure eligibility criteria are met for the POTUS, and to assign appropriate responsibilities to assure so.. If the country wants to amend the Constitution to allow naturalized or dual citizens to serve as POTUS, then we have that mechanism, which ¾ of the states have to ratify. None of this can happen before the January 20th inauguration.
 
The four questions to the Supreme Court also remind me of other areas in which we voters do not have redress when something goes wrong. Although I am now an “unaffiliated” voter, having left the democratic party after November 4th, it also appears that democrats do not have an avenue of redress when the DNC and RBC violate party rules as they did in this case to deny Hillary Clinton the nomination. In addition, we now know that caucuses can be gamed, and do not serve the interests of democracy nor do they provide a fair representation of the strength of our party’s candidates. Because of the DNC, RBC and Obama’s gaming of the system with caucus fraud, and the blatant use of race and misogyny to silence critics, we are witnessing the democrats begin the disintegration of the “democratic brand”. I am sure there are issues in the Republican party after GWB destroyed the “republican brand”. We all need a detox from our respective koolaid brands in order to really see clearly.
 
What is next for our country? Well, if we don’t want to dive into that hot pool, and we’re not going to run away, then we’d better start creating an alternative vision. A line in one of my favorite movies, The Shawshank Redemption, sums it up for me:
 
“…get busy livin’, or get busy dyin’…” [http://texasdarlin.wordpress.com/2008/11/16/four-questions-for-the-trojan-candidate/]}}
{{unsigned|TK}}

==Andy, if it can perhaps be quibbled that there is merely a 20% chance of Obama being a Muslim, then why is the Obama article stating that he is likely a Muslim? ==

Dear Andy,

You wrote above regarding the probability of Obama being a Muslim the following:

"Perhaps one can quibble whether that probability is 20% or 60% or 90%, but no one can insist with a straight face that it is 0%."

Andy, if it can be perhaps be quibbled that the likelihood of Obama being a Muslim is merely 20%, then why is the article still stating that Obama is likely a Muslim? Second, Andy do you think that a reference work should use scholarly caution and that scholarly caution helps make a reference work authoritative? [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 04:01, 18 November 2008 (EST)
:In this case, what you describe as 'scholarly caution' means knuckling under to Liberal suppression of facts and discussion. The scholarly option is to seek out the truth, no matter how disturbing that truth or the process of uncovering it might be to those on the left. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 04:43, 18 November 2008 (EST)

Andy I also fear we are not doing our site any favors in this area. If Obama is a Muslim, he is certainly keeping that under wraps. There is no indication that he would suddenly take the oath of office on a Koran. Such a turnabout that he lied about his Christianity would destroy his ability to govern. It is more likely, if he is a Muslim, that he would support Muslim causes without making a profession of his own faith. We should also realize, based upon his policies, that if he does have Islamic ties that they would be akin to the type of ties that John Kerry has to Catholicism, very poor. His views on abortion alone would be considered extreme Western decadence within the greater Islamic world view. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 04:54, 18 November 2008 (EST)
:::::Bugler, I purposely chose Andy's words that "perhaps one can quibble that the probability is 20%". Therefore, if Andy is correct about the 20% issue then the statement that Obama is likely a Muslim should be removed from the article. I am just following Andy's statement where the logic leads if his statement is true and no knuckling under is necessary. I do think it is fair to say that people come to an encyclopedia to read facts and not speculation. Speculation weighs down an encyclopedia by eroding its credibility. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 08:03, 18 November 2008 (EST)
::::::Saying "One could argue that X is 20%" doesn't in any way mean accepting that that X '''is''' 20%. It merely allows the existence of theoretically possible grounds of debate. If I said there were grounds for arguing that the planet Jupiter was made of cheese, likewise it doesn't mean that I think it is reasonably possible that such is the case. Andy is (in my interpretation of his words) admitting grounds for debate; it does not mean that he (or anyone else who takes a rational view of the issue) accepts only a 20% likelihood. The whole point of the point at issue is that it disproves the blinkered dogmatism and naivety of Liberals who say "Oh, Obama has said he's a Christian so he '''can't possibly''' be a Moslem." Liberals cling to dogma like an unweaned child to its blanket; we conservatives prefer debate, rational discourse, and seeking truth from facts, not from wish-fulfillment fantasies. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 09:14, 18 November 2008 (EST)
::::::: Admitting that 20% is ''possible'' means that you've destroyed your argument that it ''is'' more than 50%.
::::::: And no, the whole point is ''not'' to support liberal views. That's a false claim. And if you as a conservative prefers debate, rational discourse, and seeking truth from facts, why are you reversing my edits without offering any rebuttal to my points?
::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:38, 18 November 2008 (EST)
''Admitting that 20% is ''possible'' means that you've destroyed your argument that it ''is'' more than 50%.'' You haven't read it, have you? Read it again, nice and slowly, take your time, and especially consider the Jupiter analogy. As for the vulgar abuse in your edit summary, I will let that speak for itself. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 09:42, 18 November 2008 (EST)
: Bugler, I will concede that point. Instead I'll say that Andy's point that this was a response to was rather unclear as to its aim, and I was reading his comments differently.
: However, I will add another response to your previous post. You say that "the whole point of the point at issue is that it disproves the blinkered dogmatism and naivety of Liberals who say "Oh, Obama has said he's a Christian so he can't possibly be a Moslem." The problem with this claim of yours is that it's ''not'' the way the argument is being used. That is, the arguments are not being used to ''oppose'' the claim that he couldn't possibly be a Muslim; the arguments are being used to ''support'' the claim that he ''is'' a Muslim. If they were being used the way that you say, then at least some of them would have some legitimacy. But being used the way they are is invalid.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:33, 18 November 2008 (EST)

It might be good to create a subarticle, with [[Barack Obama]] as the main article. We have templates for this; Philip is our template custodian and can place whatever we need.

I protected the article, because edit wars don't serve our readers; and they don't help us contributors much either.

I didn't look at Andy's last version. I just guessed it might make a good starting point.

Let's discuss, rather than trying to "get our way". Wiki collaboration should result in stability. Let none of us rock the boat. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 09:47, 18 November 2008 (EST)
:: The problem, Ed, is that these things have already been discussed at length. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:45, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:Thanks, Ed. I agree that edit wars are undesirable. I don't consider that I was edit warring. I was trying to protect this article, which has been arrived at in its current form after much debate, from unilateral and ideologically-driven deletions bordering on vandalism. In the course of doing so I have yet again been accused of mendacity. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 09:51, 18 November 2008 (EST)
:: They are ''not'' "unilateral and ideologically-driven deletions bordering on vandalism". When you stoop to misrepresenting the situation, it shows that your argument is shaky. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:45, 18 November 2008 (EST)

: Thanks, Ed, for bringing stability. As Bugler points out, there is nothing in my observation that "perhaps one" can quibble whether the likelihood Obama is a Muslim is 20%, 60% or 90% that justifies censoring the evidence and statement that he is likely a Muslim. Juries make such determinations based on the evidence all the time; so do encyclopedias. The evidence is compelling and will not be censored or downplayed here, despite some (for unknown reasons) disliking it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:52, 18 November 2008 (EST)
::: Andy, I have repeatedly pointed out that it is ''not'' censorship. Why do you keep repeating that false claim? Also, I have explained ''why'' the claims are "disliked", why do you falsely say that the reasons are unknown? As I said to Bugler above, when you stoop to misrepresenting the situation, it shows that your argument is shaky. And the evidence is not only not compelling, some of it is false and some is logically fallacious. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:45, 18 November 2008 (EST)

::Yes, of course there is evidence. And being a Muslim is not a punishable in the US, so the jury need not use the standard of "[[beyond any reasonable doubt]]". It's more like a lawsuit, I guess, where you need only be 51% sure to vote one way or the other.

::Personally, I'd like CP to make some indication that some conservatives are still in doubt about [[my Muslim faith|"his Muslim faith"]], but that desire does not outweigh the need for editorial harmony.

::It is liberals - rather than conservatives - who insist on censoring all views contrary to theirs, in the US. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:03, 18 November 2008 (EST)

::: Ed, when the issue is the president of the United States, then even less than a 51% chance is often sufficient to be influential, just as less than 51% chance is enough to deny someone an important job.

::: Someone is missing the the point about [[my Muslim faith]], which omits the telling phrase: "Muslim faith." No Christian would use that specific phrase so casually in reference to himself. How about someone saying "Allah the Creator"?! Christians don't use the phrase.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:10, 18 November 2008 (EST)

== Falsifiability & "My Muslim Faith" ==

Aschlafly, Ed Poor, etc. -

Is there any piece of evidence that, assuming it existed, would convince you that Barack Obama is NOT a Muslim? You've now admitted there's a chance he's not a Muslim, so what piece of evidence would convince you that he's not? As it stands, your argument seems unfalsifiable, and ridiculously conspiratorial: everytime someone offers evidence that Obama's not a Muslim, you just reply with, "oooh, he's a tricky one! He must have worked to cover that up!" That's not a respectable, logical argument: it's an inability to recognize fact when it's put before your eyes. What piece of evidence could convince you of that, if any?

Further, if I go through the George W. Bush talk page I bet I'll find a million examples of you apologizing for Bush's rhetorical missteps, and arguing that when he says something incorrectly, it doesn't mean he's stupid. Why, then, are you not willing to take Obama's slip of the tongue as the same thing - unconscious error, not indicative of any deeper meaning?

The fact is, you have no principled basis for the distinction. Nor are you going to accept any evidence that Obama's a Christian. You're just clinging to a pet theory when even your own administrative staff tells you you're wrong.-[[User:KiraN|KiraN]] 10:26, 18 November 2008 (EST)

== Towards stability via discussion ==

:''unilateral and ideologically-driven deletions bordering on vandalism''

Vandalism is replacing the page with "Stinky loves Myrtle". Unilateral editing is doing your own thing, even when you know someone else will just want to revert (see [[Editing etiquette]]).

Let's come closer together, rather than battle it out on the page itself. Talk pages are for talking. Let's hear some more talk! --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:29, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:The problem with that, is that if people talk about it, and say almost anything to disagree with the current state of the article, they are likely to get blocked for the "90/10 Rule against talk talk talk" or "liberal namecalling" or some other excuse. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 10:37, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:: Tim, that's simply not true. The [[90/10 rule]] guards against nothing but talk. It's easy to make substantive contributions to comply with the rule, and it's easy to refrain from namecalling in discussions. In fact, both are essential to keep the level of discourse and learning here at a high level.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:42, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:::The [[90/10 rule]] might guard against nothing but talk, but it sure seems to guard against some kinds of talk a lot more than others. [[User:RobNewberry|RobNewberry]] 10:47, 18 November 2008 (EST)

::::If so, there's nothing wrong with that. Jaywalking is not prosecuted as much as petty shoplifting either.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:55, 18 November 2008 (EST)
:::::Aschlafly, you can tell yourself that all you want, but this much is clear; the 90/10 rule is a content-neutral rule applied in a manner that amounts to viewpoint discrimination. You only apply it against liberals. You've long since abandoned the stance that you "don't block ideologically."
:::::This site has survived for two years ''only'' by ruthlessly persecuting anyone who disagrees with your worldview. Tim is right, but I'll take it one step farther: I think the reason you censor people who disagree with you is because you know you'll lose in a fair fight. The Barack Obama article is just one more example of that. Except now, even your own sysops disagree with you, so you devolve into insulting Philip and dodging the question.
:::::Of course you can block me, and prove Tim right.-[[User:KiraN|KiraN]] 11:02, 18 November 2008 (EST)

::::@Aschlafly: I don't get your analogy. Jaywalking and petty shoplifting are different crimes. Excessive talk by a liberal and excessive talk by a conservative is the same "crime". So the "prosecution" ought to be applied equally against both, right? Otherwise it isn't a ''rule'', it's just an ''excuse'' to make people you don't agree with go away. [[User:RobNewberry|RobNewberry]] 11:04, 18 November 2008 (EST)

::::: Rob, within the same crimes prosecutorial patterns are different. It's called "prosecutorial discretion." It is used every day by law enforcement and it is obvious why it is needed. I'm not going to waste my morning spelling this out for you. Take a basic course on criminal justice, or simply follow the news.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:23, 18 November 2008 (EST)
::::::Andy, you're misunderstanding "prosecutorial discretion." You're right that policemen have the right to decide which crimes to prosecute, but if they differentially allow white criminals to get away with murder, and seek the death penalty for black shoplifters, it would give rise to a disparate impact lawsuit and be illegitimate, racist, and wrong. We're arguing that your actions here are closer to abuse of prosecutorial discretion to kick out your enemies, than to the case of using prosecutorial discretion to preserve resources.
::::::It strikes me that what you're missing is the difference between "content neutral" and "viewpoint discrimination." Take a course in the First Amendment, or read a book on it; it might help your understanding of the word "censorship," too.-[[User:KiraN|KiraN]] 13:38, 18 November 2008 (EST)

I would say you are partially correct, RobNewberry. Sometimes people need to be "invited" to leave, much like a dinner guest who overstays their welcome. If a person comes to Conservapedia knowing full well it is a conservative/Christian friendly wiki-encyclopedia, and is a liberal, the question is why? If the answer is they support Andy Schlafly's idea of an conservative alternative to the decidedly left-of-center editor dominated Wikipedia, that's great! All voices should be represented on the Net. But if their intentions are merely to argue and dispute conservative or Christian points of view, that becomes a subtle form of vandalism, inasmuch as it is a great time waster for those who genuinely want to contribute their conservative/Christian POV, and build this encyclopedia. My own opinion is that those who obsessively create new user names, only to argue against conservative values, and disrupt/time waste, are actually terrorists of the Internet kind. What other reason would they have to stick around? Any board or wiki does and should have the absolute right of association.

This would hold true for a conservative joining a known liberal board or wiki, and spend all their time disputing the members, arguing without end, and seeking to put their conservative point of view into their discussions or articles. I am not for truncating free speech automatically, but after weeks and weeks of disputing everything, knowing you are not going to change CP into Wikipedia's more liberal world-view, or have CP adopt all of Wikipedia's member conventions, a person's efforts then cross over into something more, what I have taken to calling Internet Terrorism. CP has an owner, it is his right to have whatever viewpoint he wants. If people agree, with even a part, they stick around and help build this place. If they don't, what other reason, other than being obstinate or having malicious intent, could they have? Disagreement is fine, debate is good. But where does it end, and the ability of like-minded individuals to associate with those they agree with, without constant disagreement begin? --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 11:41, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:Please don't refer to anything that isn't terrorism as terrorism. It might be censorship or vandalism or disruption. But terrorism is something else entirely. There is no terror involved in what you describe above and associating the term with it helps to undermine fear of the real kind. Terrorism should not be taken lightly. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 11:48, 18 November 2008 (EST)

::TK, I agree with you completely that people probably need to be "invited" to leave. My only problem is that this is done under the guise of 90/10 rule. I think this is done so that Andy can still claim something like "We don't ask editors to leave because they have a certain viewpoint, only Wikipedia does that." Make too many liberal edits, though, and you'll find that you have somehow violated the 90/10 rule. I say drop the deceit and just ban people with the comment "We don't like your viewpoint. Goodbye." It's about being honest about what kind of place this wiki really is. [[User:RobNewberry|RobNewberry]] 11:49, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:::Ajkgordon, one definition of "terrorism" is "intimidating gang activity". Regardless of your rather parochial idea of its meaning, kindly refrain from saying something I clearly labeled as my own opinion, invention, is wrong usage. Organized activity, like from ''certain groups'', to disrupt other boards or wiki's, no matter how loosely organized, if it is at all coordinated, is intimidation, ergo, "terrorism".

:::RobNewberry, I know that when I was an administrator, I often followed Andy's lead in doing just that, block with the comment "Bye". As Schlafly often says, it isn't very hard to copy edit, add a source a few times a day, especially if one is spending hours and hours debating on talk pages. A person doing that, and not being obnoxious, they shouldn't be blocked. But I mostly see people with absolutely no contributions to CP, and looking at their history see only talk page posts, being blocked. Someone constantly reverting an article because of idealogical disagreement, and making no other contributions, should be blocked, or have the good grace to leave. There is more than one way to run a wiki. That's why they come with settings. Some wiki's require review of submissions before going live. Some require registration in order to edit, others do not. You sound fairly reasonable, obviously an informed person. Surely you can understand how people would grow tired of debating a topic without end. If you don't go to Wikipedia and try to insert something favorable about George W. Bush, Dick Cheney or Ann Coulter. Then when you are reverted, change it back. I don't think your experience will be a pleasant one. ;-) ----[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 12:12, 18 November 2008 (EST)

::::RobNewberry, your own comments are misleading and illustrate the problem, because now I have to waste my time correcting them. The [[90/10 rule]] applies to people who talk, talk, talk without redeeming value in the way of substantive contributions. Nothing could be simpler. Talk is a time-waster. Different viewpoints, if logical, are welcome here. Incessant talk as can be seen on countless other sites, is not. The talkers can rant elsewhere. We're here to learn.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:37, 18 November 2008 (EST)
:::::Andy, you're being very dishonest about the application of the rule. Your explanation of it includes several value judgments - "different viewpoints, if logical" - all we're arguing is that your definition of "logical" is "that which agrees with you." That's where the discrimination we're talking about comes from.
:::::Interestingly, while you spend some time characterizing anyone disagreeing with you as "liberal censorship," in a somewhat dishonest definition of "censorship," you seem unable to recognize that what you're doing is REAL censorship, the use of power (rather than argument & debate) to squelch uncomfortable beliefs. Open your mind.-[[User:KiraN|KiraN]] 12:54, 18 November 2008 (EST)

::::TK, if your definition is from Mirriam-Webster's, then it's '''''violent and''' intimidating gang activity''.
::::My request was but a courteous plea for proper usage of the term for a current and dangerous phenomenon. Scattering the term around and using it to define childish, irreverent and irritating vandalism degrades the purity of the term and lessens its impact when correctly using it. If that's parochial, so be it. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 12:47, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:::::TK and Andy, let me ask you a question. If you visited Wikipedia, and saw that, say, the Dick Cheney article contained an unreferenced assertion or an unfounded attack, you would initially try to edit and fix that problem, correct? Then, if another WP editor reverted your edit (which you believed was completely correct), you might either undo the reversion, or you might make a comment on the Talk Page, right? Now, here on CP, those of us who see something that ''we'' believe is incorrect or unfounded usually face a few problems. (Do not assume that all of us have evil intent against you - I'm entirely happy for you to have a conservative-leaning encyclopedia, and simply wish the information be factually correct and credibly referenced). First, the article may be locked, as this article is. In which case, there's nowhere to make the complaint except on the Talk Page. Second, if we can make them, our edits are often reverted, often with no supporting data provided (cf the Muslim debate here), so we usually have to make a comment on the Talk Page about that fact. It only takes one back and forth comment as we debate our position before a 90/10 block is usually enacted. Finally, those of us who frequent CP in an attempt to monitor the extreme forms of distortion that crop up now and again (as per any online community) may be shy of actually editing the articles, since bans are so often administered, so we instead first make our comments on the Talk Page. Frequently, a new user's single comment on a Talk Page is enough for a 90/10 ban. So it's pretty hard to believe that 90/10 is really about 90/10 when there are often no other options but Talk. And it's pretty hard to believe you're interested in establishing 'trustworthyness' if you aren't prepared to listen to evidence from other perspectives. [[User:FredX|FredX]] 12:49, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:::::: FredX, users can talk all they want, as long as they contribute substance at the same time. It's easy to contribute substance. It's the reason we're here. No project can succeed if the participants do nothing but talk. Try it at work sometime if you don't believe me.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:53, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:::::::Andy, consider this: "talk talk talk" is useful if it's being done to convince you, the only person with control over the article, that you're wrong. Talk towards the truth is not useless talk: it's incredibly substantive. As it stands now, it's you, Bugler, and TK versus everyone else on the site. It might be time to recognize that all this talk has the "substance" of proving your error.-[[User:KiraN|KiraN]] 13:08, 18 November 2008 (EST)

FredX, having a Conservative/Christian - friendly encyclopedia does not obligate CP to prostitute those beliefs by allowing people who are not Christians, who are not Conservatives, to alter articles or their tone, to fit their outlook. The truth is the truth, but truth is always in the eye of the beholder, no? You and I could argue 24/7, over the existence of God, to use an example. No matter how many "facts" you presented me with, it would not alter my ''knowing'' he exists. Political and religious thought is highly subjective. One mans "distortion" is another mans valid "truth". To repeatedly try to alter someone's beliefs is a form of bullying. Read what you are saying. No one has the obligation to appoint himself "Internet Monitor of Truth". Your conventions of how a wiki-encyclopedia come from where? It is totally lacking in logic to think the conventions of one place should be used at another. If I go to the Daily Kos or the Huffington Post, and appoint myself the "truth" monitor there, what would happen?

If you have a complaint, you can always avail yourself the email links to other users. Or post your objection on the author's talk page. We aren't talking here about people objecting. We are talking about people who will not take "no" for an answer, and demand that their truth is better than another's. Once your point is made, posted, doing it again and again, without end, accomplishes what, other than you being able to vent? I don't spend time arguing with liberals at the Kos or HuffPo, because I know they do not agree with me, never will. I am not a YEC, yet I am here. What would be accomplished for me to argue, without end, with Philip Rayment (to use a known example of a YEC member here) over the age of the Earth? His "facts" as to Earth's age, are his. Mine are mine. In building an encyclopedia, or in any project, the trick is to focus on the areas we can agree on, and not let those we don't bog us down. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 13:18, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:Actually, TK, I couldn't disagree with any of your comments, but for this one - "the truth is the truth, but truth is always in the eye of the beholder, no?". That's certainly true when it comes to matters of dogma or belief - it's true, we might never agree on what is "true". But there is much here on Conservapedia that is ''not'' dogma-related, and is simply factually untrue. To take this particular article as an example, might I ask if you believe the Muslim-related material might not be better presented if gathered into one section, entitled "Speculation on Obama's Muslim beliefs", instead of being scattershot throughout the article, unreferenced, misquoted, and asserted with no validity. That would actually HELP this debate, yet is certain to be disallowed under a threat of "we don't hide the truth here", yet who's truth is that? And my mere suggestion of disagreement with this thesis likely marks me as a candidate for a ban. Certainly it's likely that if I answer one more time in this reasonable debate with you, I will likely be blocked by ASchalfly, Bugler or others - simply for debating. But how else would I debate my suggestion - the article is locked? [[User:FredX|FredX]] 14:28, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:: Perhaps worth pointing out here that FredX did indeed, as he had predicted, [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=&page=User%3AFredX&year=&month=-1 receive a 90/10 ban] while trying to debate the content of this article. I imagine he rests his case. [[User:Aggrieved|Aggrieved]] 16:25, 19 November 2008 (EST)

== Talking with enemies ==

In the section '''"statements"''' Obama is criticised for claiming Roosevelt spoke to our enemies. Now it is true that Roosevelt did not talk to Hitler, but he certainly ''did'' talk to Stalin, who most Americans consider (and hesitantly considered back then) an enemy, and it is Stalin that Obama is presumably referring to. Rather than letting Hitler conquer Russia while the United States kept to its own war effort, or letting Patton continue on to Warsaw and Moscow after victory against Germany, Roosevelt was willing to talk to the Communist Enemy to co-ordinate action and to ultimately permit the Bolshevik conquest of eastern Europe. Naturally there are divergent opinions over whether in this particular case compromise was the best course of action, but what Obama is obviously expressing when he refers to Roosevelt, Truman and Kennedy, all of whom negotiated with the Soviet enemy, is that it's better to come to talk with and possibly compromise with an opponent we may feel ideologically at polar opposites with instead of just blindly fighting whenever the oppurtunity presents itself.

For that reason it is advisable that the section is removed as it relies on the assumption that Obama was referring exclusively to Truman and Roosevelt's relationship with Hitler rather than with Stalin. [[User:JHanson|JHanson]] 12:40, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:Your reasoning is confused, and your conclusion makes no sense at all.

:Compromising with an enemy is often the wrong thing to do. Your [[all or nothing]] analysis doesn't support it: it's rarely a case of "give in or fight blindly". Perhaps you have assumed that America only '''felt''' it was ideologically at a polar opposite from atheism and totalitarianism. This is [[liberal dogma]], not CP editorial policy. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 12:52, 18 November 2008 (EST)

::You misunderstand completely. ''I'' didn't say anything about whether or not America should compromise - Obama did. Whether or not it should has absolutely nothing to do with the issue I was raising.

::What I was saying was that the section is trying to make it seem that Obama has no grasp of history, that he was claiming that Roosevelt and Truman talked to our enemies (assumed to be Hitler, Mussolini and Hideki) when those Presidents didn't. However, Roosevelt and Truman did talk to our enemies, namely Stalin. Obama was referring to the talks Roosevelt and Truman had with ''Stalin'', not Hitler, and thus he was right to claim that Roosevelt, Truman and Kennedy talked to our enemies. Therefore the section is false, not because we should compromise with our enemies, but because Obama did not make a mistake as the section apparently claims.

::Hopefully I have made myself more clear. But I will repeat to make sure: I am not saying anything about whether or not it is right to compromise with enemies. I am not saying that the communists were only apparently our enemies - in fact by suggesting that Roosevelt did not talk with enemies when he clearly talked with Stalin the section in the ''article'' implies that Stalin was not really an enemy. What I am saying is that Obama was perfectly justified in saying that Roosevelt and Truman talked and compromised with our enemies. This means exactly what it says, ''not'' that compromising with our enemies was perfectly justified. I apologise if I was not clear the first time, that's why I've rephrased the same point a second and third time.[[User:JHanson|JHanson]] 13:30, 18 November 2008 (EST)
Well? Am I understood now? Is the section going to be removed? [[User:JHanson|JHanson]] 18:56, 19 November 2008 (EST)

== compared to wikipedia article ==

It is interesting that the wikipedia articles on Obama does not mention Pakistan. In fact, his three week trip to Pakistan was documented in a New York Times article, but metion of it was removed at wikipedia with [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Early_life_and_career_of_Barack_Obama&diff=252397639&oldid=252397137 this edit]. It looks like some wiki contributors are running interferance at wikipedia. The conservapedia article is a nice balance to that article, though the part that he "may be sworn into office at his inauguration ... using the Koran" is dodgy, and sounds almost National Enquirer-ish. I think the wording could be improved, though I haven't looked into it. It would not surprise me if Barack Obama were a Muslim, and it would not surprise me if he were a liberal Christian with weakly held beliefs and a fondness for his early teachings. At wikipedia, I also didn't see any mention of Bill Ayers on Obama pages. That is very strange. The sad part is, if President Obama appointed Bill Ayers to be the head of the Department of Education, I don't think we would see much difference in the American education system--at least in the public schools--as people that think like him are already in control. Anyway, keep up the good work. [[User:BigMike|BigMike]] 12:58, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:Good points, BigMike! --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 13:24, 18 November 2008 (EST)
::Thanks. Here is a quote "If there is an Arab American family being rounded up without benefit of an attorney or due process of law, that threatens my civil liberties."--Barack Obama, 2004 DNC speech. (Yes, it is what some would call a quote mine, but it is a direct quote of a complete sentence.) That being said, I agree with others that the article would be better if it were to document the fact that many people are speculating about whehter or not Barack Obama is a Muslim, including adding their reasoning. But trying to make a case that he is a Muslim in this article isn't turning out too well in my opinion. It's good to see some changes have been made. [[User:BigMike|BigMike]] 22:50, 18 November 2008 (EST)

== Suggestion for compromise ==

Since it's clear that none of the editors involved are going to be able to agree, why don't we take Mr. Schlafly's advice [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Barack_Obama&diff=554261&oldid=554228 earlier on this talk page] where he says "We don't censor informative information here. Let the reader decide." How about, instead of going back and forth, back and forth, we instead allow the inclusion of evidence ''against'' Obama being a Muslim. The reader can read the evidence on both sides, and decide for themselves. Good idea? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 13:26, 18 November 2008 (EST)
:Practically, I think that's a workable compromise. Theoretically, of course, it's problematic: neutrality towards an incorrect idea is not objectivity. The idea that Obama is a Muslim is objectively wrong, and should be excised. But, practically, I'm willing to go with that compromise. Great idea from a helpful sysop!-[[User:KiraN|KiraN]] 13:32, 18 November 2008 (EST)
:::Not a sysop, but every now and then I have a good idea ;-) [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 13:49, 18 November 2008 (EST)
::I think this is a very sensible idea. I don't agree with any of the arguments that Obama is a Muslim, but obviously a few people here are determined to cling to them, so including the counterarguments as well would be a good way to balance this part of the article & end the conflicts over this. [[User:Sideways|Sideways]] 13:42, 18 November 2008 (EST)
:::Also, if the argument would take up a great deal of the article, it could be moved to a separate page. What's the policy on linking to debates from regular pages? I know there are two Obama/Muslim debates going, and I think linking to them from the article might not be a bad idea. [[User:ArnoldFriend|ArnoldFriend]] 13:45, 18 November 2008 (EST)
::::(/signed) Totally agree, if all the arguments are presented then anyone who is open minded can make up their own mind. Those with closed minds won't be convinced either way, no matter what arguments are presented..--[[User:Ieuan|Ieuan]] 13:48, 18 November 2008 (EST)

Set forth your "evidence" here first, for consideration. Self-serving statements by politicians don't carry much weight here, obviously.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:53, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:''"Set forth your "evidence" here first, for consideration. Self-serving statements by politicians don't carry much weight here, obviously.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:53, 18 November 2008 (EST)"''[http://www.myfoxkc.com/myfox/pages/News/Detail?contentId=7882247&version=1&locale=EN-US&layoutCode=TSTY&pageId=3.11.1 as required]. This was one source found in 5 minutes work and if anyone doubts the quality of the source [http://www.myfoxkc.com/myfox/pages/InsideFox/AboutUs?pageId=5.1 please look here]. This is just a single source found at 00:25am after being out all night doing charity work. As I find others I will post. I will also point out that I do not consider this, or subsequent evidence put forth, as 'talk' as I am responding to a direct request for information by the creator of this site--[[User:Ieuan|Ieuan]] 19:28, 18 November 2008 (EST)
:Another, same conditions, contributor makes clear that he thinks that Obama is at best [http://foxforum.blogs.foxnews.com/2008/06/02/barack-obama-is-not-a-christian/ a deist], at worst an atheist, but at no point offers an argument for Obama being of an Islamic faith.--[[User:Ieuan|Ieuan]] 19:31, 18 November 2008 (EST)
:As above, [http://www.jewsonfirst.org/08a/obama_religion_attacked.html 'Minnery, who served as Dobson's interlocutor on the program yesterday said during the broadcast that Obama was "deliberately distorting the traditional understanding of the bible to fit his own world view, his own confused theology."'] Again, at best the argument says that Obama is a deist, at worst is trying to set up his own sect of 'christianity', but no evidence to show that Obama is of Islamic faith.--[[User:Ieuan|Ieuan]] 19:38, 18 November 2008 (EST)
:And again, [http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,317031,00.html "....to baseless e-mailed rumors that he is a Muslim and poses a threat to the security of the United States."]--[[User:Ieuan|Ieuan]] 19:41, 18 November 2008 (EST)
:Logic argument: I believe it has been mentioned that Obama may be a Muslim because of his lack of dancing or dancing skills. If that belief is true then every man lives in the UK and is either i) not out of his head on 'e' or ii) over the age of 25 is muslim, as no man in the UK that does not fit the two previous definitions ''ever'' dances seriously with full use of his arms, at least, not outside of ballroom dancing. I admitted that is observational evidence, not just of myself but numerous others, but observational evidence is still evidence, and considerably better than suppostition and hearsay, two lower classes of 'evidence' ('that is which is seen').--[[User:Ieuan|Ieuan]] 19:49, 18 November 2008 (EST)
:More. [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/22/AR2007012201322.html Washington Post, but hey, ''I'm'' not going to be the person who raises objections as to their factual accuracies], I'll leave that to the lawyers, my knowledge of libel laws just ain't that good. Of course, there are always those that will argue on the point of "Classes in Islam are offered to the predominantly Muslim students at the school....", but then that requires proving that Obama was a Muslim with a level of evidence above supposition and hearsay.--[[User:Ieuan|Ieuan]] 19:58, 18 November 2008 (EST)
:And now it is 01:00 and I need my sleep. Page 2 of Google tomorrow.--[[User:Ieuan|Ieuan]] 20:00, 18 November 2008 (EST)

Since CP is the Conservative/Christian-friendly encyclopedia it is, while other points of view should be included, it is wrong to bully it into providing the equivalent of "equal time" to those who are not Christian and/or Conservative. Those who disagree should stop wasting time with this and move on to places that are more accommodating of [[liberal deceit]], Atheist [[deceit]]. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 13:56, 18 November 2008 (EST)
:You are absolutely right. This is the Christian encyclopedia, at least one of the online ones. That means the Word is God, and God is truth. Let no argument be hidden, for that is the path of the Fallen, the jealous and the wicked. For those with God are armoured with Faith and armed with the Truth and are truly capable of determining the gleanings of Truth from argument and do not need protection, for the Word that is Truth guides their path--[[User:Ieuan|Ieuan]] 20:05, 18 November 2008 (EST)

== Accusations of Homosexuality ==

The story is starting to spread that Obama is a homosexual or bisexual and may have been involved in the deaths of some of his past lovers<ref>http://chgocutie.blogspot.com/2007/12/nathaniel-nate-spencer-tucc-sanctuary.html</ref>. In shades of a Vince Foster type scandal I'm wondering if any mention of this development should go into the main page. Larry Sinclair<ref>http://larrysinclair0926.files.wordpress.com/2008/04/chicago-packet.pdf</ref> was the initial source, but evidence seems to be mounting<ref>http://redinktexas.blogspot.com/2008/07/larry-sinclair-obamas-bad-penny.html</ref> that Obama has a gay past he's been hiding.
::I really wish someone with authority to edit the article would add some mention of Obama's homosexual leanings. There's evidence of murder, harassment and extensive political corruption and the article makes no mention of it. Isn't it the responsibility of a reliable source to present all the facts, negative and positive, about the soon to be President?--[[User:AlexC|AlexC]] 11:46, 20 November 2008 (EST)

== A better approach to highlighting Obama's negatives - Highlight More Best Arguments against Obama vs. the throw a lot of spaghetti against the wall approach ==

Instead of the article focusing more on claims that are certainly not undisputable (Obama being a Muslim) I think the article could do a better job of pointing out the negative things about Obama that have a much higher degree of certainty.

Examples of things which could be highlighted more:

1. Other than a footnote which few people will read, does the article highlight sufficiently '''his extremely liberal voting record''' as a Senator?[http://nj.nationaljournal.com/voteratings/] Perhaps, some of his more extreme votes could be highlighted.

2. There is the '''Obama/infantcide''' issue which might be highlighted more if it is mentioned or mentioned if it is not currently mentioned: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYRpIf2F9NA and http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/obama_and_infanticide.html

===Consequences of the current state of the article===

It seems like the article takes a throw a lot of negative spaghetti against the wall and hopefully some sticks approach. That is not how you create a compelling article in terms of when it highlights some of the negative aspects about Obama. Dubious claims in the article make the valid claims less prominent. Also, it is not surprising that the Obama article is not ranked high by the search engines like the Conservapedia [[Bill Clinton]] article is (I have not read the Bill Clinton article but I suspect it is better than the Obama article. I do know that Conservapedia's Bill Clinton article is ranked #6 by Google). I think that is because it is difficult to get conservatives to link to the article and the article is easily dismissed by liberals and they do not see it as a threat. If you want the article to be informative and influential any dubious claims have to be weeded out and the legitimate matters have to be highlighted more. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 15:24, 18 November 2008 (EST)

== First Black President? ==

Should we have an article on the [[First Black President]]? I had created one, but [[User_talk:Ed_Poor#First_Black_president|Ed said we should talk about it here first]].

The citations I found that indicated Obama is not the first were [http://www.diversityinc.com/public/1461.cfm], [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Barack_Obama&curid=65751&diff=561761&oldid=561751], and [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Barack_Obama&diff=534592&oldid=534582]. [[User:BHarlan|BHarlan]] 16:11, 18 November 2008 (EST)

*I would suggest "Bi-Racial" as the most accurate term. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 16:13, 18 November 2008 (EST)

Please do create an entry. Thanks for the insight. Of course, the other reason for omitting the liberal claim that Obama is the first black president (aside from its likely inaccuracy) is the dubious significance of the assertion. By now our society is long past judging people by their race, and Obama's election illustrates how exaggerated the liberal claims about continued racism really are.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:25, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:Gee, your right, I mean how do we know he is the first black president. I mean they didn't have photgraphs back then, so maybe John Adams was really a brother! For that matter, how do we know he is the first muslim president? Maybe Iran-contra was Reagan's way of helping his fellow Islamists!
:Seriously though, is it really a liberal claim that he is the first black president? Other than you, who is claiming he isn't? [[User:TTerm|TTerm]] 18:38, 18 November 2008 (EST)

::TTerm, perhaps you don't know how to click on a link yet. BHarlan provided several of them above for you. Also, TTerm, this isn't a blog. Contribute substantively, or rant elsewhere.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:45, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:::Two of those links just link back to conservapedia. The third references "research" by a man named Leroy Vaughn. The claims and evidence seem dubious to say the least. Whatever the veracity of these claims, it is wrong to call this a "liberal" claim since most conservatives believe him to be the first black president as well. [[User:TTerm|TTerm]] 20:59, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:Great. Would you mind undeleting [[First Black president]], if the software allows it? [[User:BHarlan|BHarlan]] 18:28, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:: Done, without yet reading it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:46, 18 November 2008 (EST)

I for one find it hard to believe that you would have agreed with that research two years ago Schlafly. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 23:49, 19 November 2008 (EST)

==How to collaborate==

If you'll notice, me last few edits to this article were sweepingly changed back by [[User:Aschlafly]]. However, neither my initial round of edits, nor his response, has resulted in animosity. On my part, at least, I have nothing but unbounded respect for my co-editor here.

We are not against each other, although our approach is different. We are finding a synthesis which is (probably) better than each of us could do alone. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 16:15, 18 November 2008 (EST)

::The Declaration of Independence and Constitution of the United States are collabrative efforts that him withstood the test of time, among others! --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 16:29, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:Good for you, Ed (seriously - I wouldn't have been nearly as sanguine about it). The facts, however, remain that:
:#'''DanH''' - a strong editor and respected sysop - '''quit this project in disgust''' at what he saw as an attempt to "smear" Obama as a Muslim.
:#'''PJR''' - the most patient and eloquent defender of YEC I have ever encountered - '''categorically refutes''' the idea that there is any credible evidence that Obama is a Muslim.
:#'''Conservative''' - principal author of several of Conservapedia's defining articles - remains '''wholly unconvinced''' of the strength of the Obama/Muslim case, and is concerned that its inclusion in the article could '''damage Conservapedia's credibility'''.
:#'''Tim/CPAdmin1''' - one of the original members of this project - has '''repeatedly objected''' to its inclusion.
:#And finally, '''ChrisS''' - again, one of the original Conservapedians - even felt moved to describe this article as '''the most sorry excuse for an encyclopedia entry I have ever seen'''. [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Barack_Obama&diff=prev&oldid=556523]
:What kind of synthesis do you hope to achieve in the face of such ''demonstrably principled'' opposition? These are not lone, liberal voices. These are long-standing contributors who collectively insist that '''this is plain wrong and must be removed'''.

:Good night (and good luck). --[[User:JohnZ|JohnZ]] 17:39, 18 November
::: And that's not all of it. At least two other administrators have also made known their opposition, via e-mail (which Andy got copies of at the time). [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:12, 18 November 2008 (EST)

::We respect the views of a minority among us (and note that the minority you cite has displayed almost no experience with Islam and/or Islamic education). Regardless, obviously logic prevails over even the opinion of a majority.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:46, 18 November 2008 (EST)
::: Andy, it is ''your'' view that is in the minority; JohnZ was citing the ''majority''. It seems that Ed (inadvertently) recognised that by his comment below. Hopefully logic would prevail, but unfortunately you are trying to make ''your'' minority and illogical view prevail.
::: And this yet again highlights a major problem here. You are throwing around these personal opinions as though they are factual, denigrating the opposing view and the people that put them, but not actually engaging the arguments and providing a logical response.
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:12, 18 November 2008 (EST)

The late Michael Crichton said, "The Nazis got 200 German scientists to say that Einstein was wrong, and then somebody asked Einstein, 'How does it feel to have 200 scientists against you?' And he said, 'It takes only one to prove me wrong.' " [http://www.perc.org/articles/article894.php] We don't go by majority vote around here, because the majority are (as our [[Founding Fathers]] indicated) simply not trustworthy. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 17:54, 18 November 2008 (EST)
:: So are you saying that the administrators who are in the majority on this issue are not trustworthy? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:12, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:Hi Ed,

:I'm not usually known for my poor reading comprehension, but I can't tell which side of this thing your statement above is supporting. Is Andy vs. the 5 listed sysops the minority, or are the five listed sysops the minority as described by Andy ("[w]e respect the views of a minority among us)...")? Merci, [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 18:02, 18 November 2008 (EST) ''<-honh honh...''

:: Ed's comment seems clear enough to me. Logic is not the result of majority vote, and even less so the product of a consensus among the minority. Ed is opposing relying on the view of a minority.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:04, 18 November 2008 (EST)

Good grief, man, must I spell it out? I'm on the side of finding out what is true! As J.M. Keynes said, "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?" It is to the principle of truth-seeking which I express my devotion here, as well as to the collaborative process of its discovery. Stop trying to cover this story like a sportswriter trying to figure out which horse won the race. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 18:10, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:And what do ''you'' see as being the facts here, Ed? How do you hope to achieve your synthesis? --[[User:JohnZ|JohnZ]] 18:18, 18 November 2008 (EST)

::Yes, Ed, I'm sorry but I need it spelled out for me. This isn't a vague question for late night dorm hall meanderings. It's pretty concrete: the Obama-is-Muslim material, as Andy wants it presented, belongs in the article, or it doesn't. I can paint those two statements on horses and run them around a track if an over-extended metaphor will help here - only one of those horses can win. [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 18:31, 18 November 2008 (EST) ''<- will, however, need to learn to play the bugle (if not the bugler)...''

:Wow, Ed, that's extremely well put!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:21, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:ASchalfly - you said, "We...note that the minority you cite has displayed almost no experience with Islam and/or Islamic education". Might I ask what your own qualifications are in this regard, since you are clearly 'over-ruling' their opinions? [[User:FredX|FredX]] 18:25, 18 November 2008 (EST)

I'm going to write an article about [[the real horse whisperer]]. I have no more time to entertain you here. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 18:33, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:Amazing. A simple question, with only two possible answers, that could be answered in fewer characters than you just used to beg off. And if you think I'm entertained you probably do think those horses are talking to you. ''Anybody'' who sticks with the "this conversation is a dragged-out waste of time" is missing the point that the time is being wasted by the continued and false defenses presented. It's only a continuing waste of time because the people in the wrong unfortunately wield all the clout, so they are in fact allowed to say "nuh unh" and ''have it stick''. If SteveRandomperson had inserted this stuff, other regular users could remove it, and when Steve got into an edit war over it any of the five sysops listed above could simply end this thing. It's only dragging on because none of them can pull rank on the proponent of this material.

:''That'' is the source of wasted time here. [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 18:48, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:: Aziraphale, your long-winded comment is incoherent, and your list of contributions is a remarkable violation of the [[90/10 rule]] against talk, talk, talk.[[Special:Contributions/Aziraphale]]--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:42, 18 November 2008 (EST)

::: I'm afraid he can't respond Andy. He's been blocked. --[[User:WOwen|WOwen]] 19:45, 18 November 2008 (EST)

::: I had no problem understanding Aziraphale's comment, so it is quite coherent, and he makes a very good point. It would make more sense to take notice of the problem than to brush it aside and silence him with a block. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:12, 18 November 2008 (EST)

==You're All Missing the Point==

Ok I've said this once before, but nobody seems to understand so I'll try to make it clearer.

'''YOU ARE ALL MISSNIG THE POINT'''

Sitting around debating whether or not Obama is a Muslim is doing nothing to discredit him, instead it just reflects badly on conservatives. If you stopped using circumstantial evidence to "prove" that he may have told one lie on the campaign trail (which inevitably does not affect his politics) then you would realise there are plenty of valid fronts you can criticise him on:

*Abortion
*Stem cell research
*War on Terror
*Criminal rights
*Lack of substance in policy
*Economic regulation

and so on... If you examined these in detail and explained why they would be bad for America, rather than dedicating copious amounts of the article to a farfetched claim that he's a Muslim in disguise, then you would not only convince conservatives that he is the wrong candidate, but also show politically neutral parties why they should not have voted for him. Instead, the article at the moment reads like a cross between a parody and a far right-wing blog entry, and will do nothing to convince anyone other than the most conservative voter. One of your own sources in the article clearly demonstrates that these attacks actually made people vote FOR Obama, and I can definitely say that if I saw this as the ideology of McCain I would have changed sides for the election.

In debating there is a argument known as an ad homenin attack, where you attack the debator and not his/her arguments. This is weak, because it demonstrates an inability to critically analyse the opposition's position. This is exactly what is happening here, you are ''trying'' to attack Obama's character rather than his politics. If you tried more of the latter, you'll find that you will convince many more people that Obama is not an appropriate president for the United States, and win much more credibility in the process. [[User:NormanS|NormanS]] 20:22, 18 November 2008 (EST)

== obama, Muslim or "liberal Christian" with a skeptical streak - The duck test ==

Andy, you claim that you are better educated regarding Islam than the oppposing sysops and that gives you deeper understanding of the issue. In response, I will first say that you have not shown that Lolo Soetoro was a staunch Muslim and given that Obama was sent to a Catholic school at some point I don't think you can show that his father had a great influence in his life. Furthermore, it appears as if Obama's mother was not married to the stepfather Lolo Soetoro long. In addition, his skeptical mother appears to have had the most influence in his life. Given that I have spent sometime studying Islam and had a Muslim housemate when I was younger and lived in a area highly concentrated with Muslims in the past, I don't think it is fair to say that I have great ignorance about Islam. I am well aware that patriarchy is present in Islamic families, but I am also aware that Obama's fathers did not appear to have great influence in his life.

I really think at this point that Obama's behavior is key in terms of the likelihood of him being a Muslim.

Most American Muslims are not rabidly pro-abortion, have great antipathy to the homosexual agenda, and abstain from alcohol. On the other hand, most "liberal Christians" who have a philosophical skepticism streak favor the "pro-choice" position and most do not have great antipathy toward the homosexual lifestyle. In addition, most "liberal Christians" have no problem drinking alcohol. Also, there is the fact that Obama's daughters were baptised.

Given the above, if Obama walks like a duck and talks like a duck, he is probably a duck. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 21:18, 18 November 2008 (EST)'

Obama's nominally Muslim father was not religious in the first place.[[USER:AuthorNeubius|AuthorNeubius]], 19 November 2008

== Reversion ==

All three items of evidence that Philip deleted are fully supported and hardly deniable. I don't know why Philip wants to delete them. The entries are educational also.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:22, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:I'm afraid not one of them is "supported" in any way and all are deniable. None of them are educational, and all are merely unfounded assertion and speculation. The first accusation (for that is what they are) about him not changing his name is dependent on him being Muslim to begin with. If he is not Muslim, then he has no need to change his name, and you haven't provided any evidence he's Muslim. The second accusation, about taqiyya, depends upon him being a Muslim, and you have not provided any evidence to that. The third, about the pronunciation of Pakistan, is irrelevant, as that is the correct pronunciation of that country's name. [[User:FredX|FredX]] 23:10, 18 November 2008 (EST)

: As FredX says, they are ''not'' supported, and they are most definitely deniable. Simply making those assertions is not a supporting argument. And how can you continue to claim that you don't know why I want to delete them when I've told you several times? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:18, 19 November 2008 (EST)

:: Philip, you have to do better than that before deleting factual and informative material. All three points are enlightening and undeniable, and I doubt you knew any of them before reading them here. We let the readers decide here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:32, 19 November 2008 (EST)

::: Okay Andy, I'll try and lay it out as simply as I can for you.
::: For something to be included in this (or any) article, it needs to be both ''factual'' and ''relevant''. We could put in the article that Obama eats breakfast every morning, and that would (presumably) be quite ''factual'', but it would not be ''relevant''. Agreed?
::: So when you say that I should not delete ''factual'' information, as long as it is ''relevant'', I agree.
::: The problem is, however, that the claim about Obama using a Muslim pronunciation of "Pakistan", for example is '''not factual'''. This is because there is no such thing as a Muslim pronunciation of "Pakistan". We thrashed this out ages ago on the Main Talk page, so it's not as though this is new information to you.
::: So when you keep repeating ad nauseam that "we don't delete factual information", '''you are avoiding the point that it is ''not factual'''''. That's why I keep deleting it—because it is ''not'' factual—and you repeatedly claiming that it is factual '''is not a valid argument''', because it is merely an assertion, not evidence or reason. If you want the claim kept, you have to show that it is ''factual''. That is the very thing that you avoid doing.
::: I don't know how this can be explained any more simply. It is beyond my comprehension that you cannot understand this, which leaves outright deceit on your part as the only other explanation. But then I can't comprehend that you would be outright deceitful either, so I'm at a loss to understand what's going through your mind.
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]]

"Letting the readers decide" would ring more true if you simply laid out the facts about Obama instead of riddling the article with unsubstantiated, repeatedly disproven falsehoods to skewer it toward your personal political viewpoint. Do you not realize that simply highlighting the positions he supports that conservatives are opposed to (his support of gay rights and abortion rights as just two examples) would do a better job turning conservatives against Obama than telling easily proven lies about him? The fact that you feel you have to resort to lies makes you look like you are guilty of the very thing you accuse liberals of: not having any actual factual argument to make. [[USER:AuthorNeubius|AuthorNeubius]], 19 November 2008

== Unbelievable ==

It's understandable that conservatives disapprove of Obama and much of this article reflects that. Smearing is nothing new to politics, but the poor logic shamelessly employed here is an embarrassment to American conservatives. As this site becomes a "de facto" conservative reference, more and more people will begin believing this is how conservatives reason and come up with their ideas. With great power comes great responsibility, and Conservapedia and Aschlafly fail disastrously as representatives of the conservative movement.

Under the pretense of "not censoring" and "letting the readers decide" the article is allowed to introduce deceptive evidence toward building weak and ultimately unproven hypotheses. Simultaneously, the exact opposite policy is used when contradictory evidence is presented.

This stunning hypocrisy can be best illustrated by how the "Obama is likely a Muslim" section is moderated. Several times myself and others have attempted to delete the statement "Obama recently referred to his "Muslim faith." Yes he said the words "My Muslim Faith" but this is utterly meaningless as no context for the statement is provided. I could say "I approve of the killing of babies coming to an end" and using the logic here I could be quoted as saying "I approve of the killing of babies"

However, we cannot escape the fact he said the words "My Muslim Faith" and since Conservapedia doesn't censor information, it must remain in the article. Furthermore, it must remain in a section attempting to show secret Muslim faith, however misleading it may be.

Where the hypocrisy comes in is that there is an overwhelming body of information that suggests Obama is not a Muslim and in fact a Christian. For example, he was sworn into the Senate using a bible in 2005, he attended a (albeit controversial) christian church for decades, no one has ever observed him performing Muslim rituals (ie, praying 5 times a day). Even the "My Muslim Faith" comment is evidence of him being a christian when viewed in full context, as it's more than clear he meant to say "My Christan Faith". Attempting to mention any of this in the article will result in an almost immediate undo and block.

The intentions of this section are transparent: to pander to modern American distrust of Muslims to build distrust of Obama. The irony of this and the article as a whole is obvious and almost comedic, as even a semi-informed reader can see through the deception and will likely end up with a reduced opinion of Conservatives.

I expect to immediately be labeled a liberal for posting this. I need to say for the record, I voted for McCain. I attend Church. I have an American flag outside my house. However I cannot stomach this article and quite frankly am ashamed that such cheap hate tactics are being used by people calling themselves conservative.

[[User:Conservamike|Conservamike]] 23:14, 18 November 2008 (EST)
::Your best arguments against Obama being Muslim amount to unsourced opinion on your part. You gave no evidence just expressed opinions. Personally, I would hope this encyclopedia would hold itself to a higher standard and demand sources. There is ample evidence that Obama is Muslim pretending to be a Christian. Arguing that he can't be Muslim because no one has seen him bowing to Mecca is an appeal to ignorance. The Koran permits Muslims to lie about being Muslim if it advances the Muslim faith.--[[User:AlexC|AlexC]] 11:42, 20 November 2008 (EST)

==Counter Evidence==

If we are letting the readers decide (as written above) then in order to keep this article fair and balanced we should add a section detailing the evidence that Obama is not a Muslim (such as his positions on abortion and stem cell research, his religious history, his Catholic schooling etc). If the evidence is truly overwhelming that Obama is a Muslim then there should be no problem with adding such a section, as readers will quickly be able to see that it is insufficient to counter the claim. [[User:NormanS|NormanS]] 08:57, 19 November 2008 (EST)

: Fine, post your best stuff here first. But claiming that Obama went to Catholic school is counter evidence is, of course, absurd. Stop by your local Catholic school and you'll see Muslims students who never convert.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:15, 19 November 2008 (EST)

:: And Jewish students. In many areas the public schools are pathetic. In the absence of a good Protestant school, many parents are forced to choose between overly liberal public schools with poor curriculum, home schooling or a Catholic school. Many choose Catholic schools. The Jesuits tend to be in charge of the Catholic schools and they're actually pretty even handed in their treatment of non-Christian students. Saying someone attended a Catholic school or sent their children to one as "evidence" of their being Christian is absurd and betrays a deep ignorance of how the schools are actually run.--[[User:AlexC|AlexC]] 11:54, 20 November 2008 (EST)

Dunno if this is counter evidence, but my two cents about the misguided motivations of Obama's Lenin poster.

Most Europeans, East and West, would be severely alienated by any hidden or subliminal message that Obama was Leninist. Eastern Europe suffered under the communist iron heel for 45 years after WW2, including East Berlin. And Western Europe feared invasion. West Berlin was nearly starved by the communist blockade of the late 40s. Eastern Europe's rush to join NATO and the EU to ensure their free economies and societies is testament to this hatred of Soviet Leninist domination. Of course none of this goes to whether the poster was Leninist, only that if it was it was a serious mistake on Obama's part.--[[User:TruthOfChrist|TruthOfChrist]] 09:54, 19 November 2008 (EST)

== My innocuous talk page contribution removed? ==

The Lenin poster one. Just wondered why.--[[User:TruthOfChrist|TruthOfChrist]] 09:49, 19 November 2008 (EST)

Oh figured it out now, sorry --[[User:TruthOfChrist|TruthOfChrist]] 09:51, 19 November 2008 (EST)

== About the Muslim allegations ==

Allow me to play devil's advocate. I am lost. As a conservative, bordering on a paleo-conservative, with a streak of classical liberal in the John Locke/Jeffersonian sense, who also fears the coming administration greatly (I keep thinking Jimmy Carter, stagflation, FDR, Civilian Conservation Corps, prolongation of the depression, and a world war), a man's religion is his own business.

This is the United States. Our forefathers fought and died for the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

In those rights are the freedom of speech and the freedom of religion.

The freedom of speech does give Conservapedia the right to impune the president elect for his supposed Muslim faith (backed by what looks to me to be evidence that is neither conclusive nor wholly circumstantial). But that doesn't mean Conservapedia should squander that right in an attempt to prove what is ultimately between him and God.

The first amendment also gives every man in this country the right to hold whatever spiritual beliefs he wants, and to share, or not share, those beliefs with others.

While I do think it is appropriate to mention speculation that President elect Barack Obama may be a Muslim, to the extent that such allegations exist and are notable, as I think they are, I do not think it is proper for this encyclopedia to attempt to make the case that he is a closet Muslim. The Muslim speculation should be relegated to later parts of the article, and reworked.

Juxtaposing a reference early on in the article, which, if you scroll to the references, indicates that Keith Ellison used a Koran in his swearing in ceremony, with the statement that Obama is an "apparent Muslim" is tawdry at best, and beneath a serious conservative encyclopedia.

Certainly, President elect Obama's political views deserve much more scrutiny from a conservative perspective, than whether or not he is a closet Muslim.

Senator Barack Obama was rated the most liberal senator, left of a self-declared socialist. I think we should focus on that.

President elect Barack Obama seems to hold political views that go against our Constitution. This raises the question about whether or not he can honestly affirm to protect and defend the Constitution.

President elect Barack Obama may institute nationalized health care, requiring children to be vaccinated in order to receive benefits, while bankrupting the private health care system for middle and lower class Americans. Where will this leave such children?

Barack Obama may very likely work to reduce or control home schooling and private schools.

Barack Obama may work to erode or eviscerate the second amendment.

There is plenty of political evidence for these other fears, and it is more appropriate to focus on these, and not his supposed secret Muslim belief system.

I recommend focusing on his easily provable liberal and possibly anti-American political views, and not waste too much time trying to prove he has some religious belief system. [[User:BigMike|BigMike]] 10:15, 19 November 2008 (EST)

:BigMike, I take it you're not an historian. People's beliefs matter greatly, and you can bet a real historian would not tolerate censorship of inquiry into someone's beliefs. Our other entries likewise provide information about the beliefs of other presidents, great scientists, and others. The insistence on censoring a similar inquiry about Obama's beliefs is misplaced and inappropriate.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:09, 19 November 2008 (EST)

::I didn't mean to censor it, I just suggested a shift in focus. I meant to focus on extreme liberal political views first, as they are, to me, the most important. Change the prominence within the article, and change the tone. But you're right, I am not a historian. [[User:BigMike|BigMike]] 11:12, 19 November 2008 (EST)

:::OK, your point is well-taken then. But the reality is that many of Obama's positions to date were posturing to win the presidency, and not necessarily indicative of his priorities as president. His beliefs matter more.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:16, 19 November 2008 (EST)

::::No problem. I know this site takes a lot of pointless flack, and it is hard to seperate the wheat from the chaf. [[User:BigMike|BigMike]] 11:20, 19 November 2008 (EST)

== Perhaps a template would help ==

The discussion on this page keeps covering the same ground over and over again. Aside from the wasted time and effort, a major problem is that new users often edit the page and become instantly embroiled in the controversy, sometimes leading to bad feeling and thus driving away potentially valuable contributors.

As a solution, I suggest a template is created and added to the top of the page and any others in this situation. The wording could be something like:

:''This article deals with a controversial topic and has already been the subject of lengthy discussion. Your input is welcome, but '''please check the talk page carefully''' to make sure that the issues you raise have not been dealt with already. New users in particular are advised to start by editing less controversial pages to get a feel for the site.''

Thoughts and suggestions very welcome.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 15:48, 19 November 2008 (EST)

*We do have such. Template "Controversial". But it has problems, and needs some fixing. use the {{ and type in Controversial, and see what I mean. I have read it noted several places it is broken. If you or anyone else knows what is needed, fix the template, and if it is locked, contact Philip Rayment or Ed Poor and let them know. Thanks, good suggestion. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 16:03, 19 November 2008 (EST)

::Thanks - I've asked Mr Rayment. If that template's ever going to be used, I think this article could do with it, though the wording could be more diplomatic in my opinion.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 16:36, 19 November 2008 (EST)

:::Perhaps it would be better slapped here, on this page? If anyone is going to change the article, hopefully they will look here first? Assuming this page is ever partially archived! :D --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 16:51, 19 November 2008 (EST)

I've fixed the bug, although I don't think putting the template on the article page is going to solve much. And by the way, it's designed for article pages, not talk pages; the link in it to the talk page won't work if placed on a talk page. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:56, 19 November 2008 (EST)

== "Captured the White House" ==

Is it just me, or does this memorable line conjure up images of Barry and Joe, the special forces operatives, sneaking across the White House lawn under cover of darkness before launching a daring assault, creating a beach head in the kitchen before ensnaring their ultimate goal: the Oval Office.

Would the phrase "won the presidential election" be more encyclopedic?

[[User:Ferret|-- Ferret]] [[User talk:Ferret|Nice old chat]] 16:32, 19 November 2008 (EST)

: Your phrase would be an improvement. Go ahead, and thanks--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:37, 19 November 2008 (EST)

::It would indeed be an improvement, but he cannot make it, as the article is locked. [[User:Aggrieved|Aggrieved]] 16:41, 19 November 2008 (EST)

== Religious Affiliation ==

OK, I do not want to get involved in the whole debate about whether Obama is a covert (or even overt) Muslim. (Although the statistically savvy amongst you can probably predict with 99.9999% certainty what my view is on that matter.)

However, the article currently has two sections dealing with religion. The first ("Obama will likely become the first Muslim President") comes as part of the introduction. It provides a list of evidence supporting the author's view that Obama is a Muslim. The second ("Religious Affiliation") describes various issues to do with Obama's connections in the Christian church, and provides some quotes about his history relating to the Islamic faith. Nobody reading just the second section would come away beleiving the author thinks Obama is a Muslim.

The two seem a little contradictory - either the article does take the view that he is a Muslim, in which case the second piece needs re-writing, or the article takes the view that he is not a Muslim, in which case the first piece needs re-writing, or the article presents the issue as unresolved, in which case both pieces need re-writing.

Given that the subject is so controversial, I do not want to volunteer to do the writing. It would appear that Ed Poor is Appeaser-in-Chief - maybe someone should ask him to have a go?

[[User:Ferret|-- Ferret]] [[User talk:Ferret|Nice old chat]] 17:01, 19 November 2008 (EST)

: So are you now saying both sides should not be presented??? The liberal opposition to the observation that Obama is likely a Muslim is as self-contradictory as it is unjustified.

: By the way, I don't think Obama has had any Christian affiliation for many months.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:16, 19 November 2008 (EST)
::::Andy, there is plenty of conservative opposition to the notion that Obama is a secret Muslim as evidenced by this talk page. Andy, what conservative news organizations are still wedded to the idea that Obama is a secret Muslim? I have not checked but I am guessing that [[Cybercast News Service]] which runs plenty of hard hitting and reasonable conservative pieces does not currently promote the idea that Obama is a secret Muslim. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 22:36, 19 November 2008 (EST)

:::::I think all I'm saying is the two bits are inconsistent, in that the first leaves no room for the possibility of the second being true and vice versa. I think it's fine to present both views if that's what the authors want to do - but it has to be done consistently. [[User:Ferret|-- Ferret]] [[User talk:Ferret|Nice old chat]] 06:37, 20 November 2008 (EST)

== Another shocked conservative here ==

I came to Conservapedia hoping to find a valuable resource on the internet for people like me but to tell the truth I have been shocked and disappointed by some of the content, and this article seems absurd to me. How can we be taken seriously if some of us are peddling nonsense like this? Any right thinking person knows Obama isn't a Muslim. I can't stand the guy but it's clear he's a family man and a Christian. This is just gutter politics, nothing more or less, and it reflects incredibly badly on us.

Most of the stuff in this article has been easily refuted on Snopes at http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/obama.asp. For instance, this shows pictures of Obama with his hand on his heart at the national anthem: http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/anthem.asp which makes that picture featured on this page, without his hand on his heart, just another smear.

This is the kind of reason folks didn't vote for McCain - because it's just ugly smear tactics. I despair. [[User:MrCoulter|MrCoulter]]

:The thing that scares me is that the tactics continue even after the election. I dislike them, but during an election, I can at least understand them; that's politics. But now, with the "Muslim" and the "not born in the US" charges (most likely among others I can't think right now), it's like people are trying to de-legitimize the election, declaring him a false president before he's even sworn in. In the eyes of people who believe those allegations, Barack Obama's election was no more legal than a military coup.--[[User:Frey|Frey]] 10:08, 20 November 2008 (EST)

:*The election officially lost its validity for many, with the ''fraud'' committed by the Obama campaign in the caucuses [http://texasdarlin.wordpress.com/2008/08/20/caucus-fraud-proof/] which stole the nomination from Hillary Clinton. That was months before this article appeared. There are many pictures, all real, that show Obama with his hand on his heart, and without, so this photo was not altered. I suggest you at least open your mind, do some proper research, and perhaps you will learn of some valid questions, and the total lack of vetting by the media of their favorite candidate. The media has special rights granted in the Constitution. The real question is if they should continue to have those special rights or not, given their continued[[deceit]] in helping with Obama's leftist agenda. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 14:31, 20 November 2008 (EST)

::Rather off topic, but what are these special rights constitutionally granted to the media? [[User:RodWeathers|RodWeathers]] 15:27, 20 November 2008 (EST)

Those rights are included within the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States:

<blockquote>
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of '''speech''', or of '''the press'''; or the right of the people '''peaceably to assemble''', and to '''petition the Government''' for a redress of grievances."
</blockquote>

You can read more about this [http://www.consource.org/index.asp?sid=28&taxlist=180 here.] --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 15:36, 20 November 2008 (EST)

== The Truth is not always popular ==

In response to all the "dismayed conservatives" upset about the muslim section. One of the stated goals of CP is to highlight facts and stories that are suppressed by the liberal media. Obama's muslim heritage is one of the best examples of this right now. The mainstream liberal media refuses to even broach the topic! I commend Mr. Schlafly and Conservapedia for not censoring these facts for the sake of political correctness (in the eyes of liberals). Try to have a more open mind. [[User:Patriot1505|Patriot1505]] 13:55, 20 November 2008 (EST)
:Here here. It saddens me to see how incredibly effective the deceit of the liberal media has been. Many upstanding, conservative contributors to this site have been thoroughly insulated from the facts of Obama's muslim heritage. As Aschlafly has repeatedly pointed out, the evidence for it is extremely strong and, even if you don't agree that he ''is'' a muslim, the evidence is strong enough and so thoroughly censored that it should be presented on Conservapedia. [[User:RodWeathers|RodWeathers]] 15:26, 20 November 2008 (EST)
:I don't suppose it's occured to you that a person could have an open mind, evaluate the evidence, and still come to a different conclusion than you?--[[User:Frey|Frey]] 15:30, 20 November 2008 (EST)
::Draw whatever conclusions you want, but don't expect the article to be changed or have facts removed to support the conclusion that you come to. The facts are the facts, they exist independant of popular opinion.[[User:Patriot1505|Patriot1505]] 16:39, 20 November 2008 (EST)
::: It ispossible that Obama is a Muslim, what is not possible is that this evidence that we have here on this page is worthy of an encyclopedia entry. It is not good enough. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 19:06, 20 November 2008 (EST)
:::: Correct. Andy and a few others here have repeatedly ''claimed'' that the evidence is strong. The problem is that they have yet to produce ''any'' strong evidence, and some of the evidence produced is actually either wrong or logically fallacious. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:28, 20 November 2008 (EST)

Not that it should make a difference in the first place to one's opinion of him, but the claim that Barack Obama is a Muslim has been repeatedly disproven. Not only is he a lifelong Christian, but his nominally Muslim father was in fact an atheist, and not a practicing Muslim himself. I find it unfortunate that people who call themselves Christians, conservatives, and patriots perpetuate repeatedly disproven falsehoods under the cover of truth, and blame any criticism of their lies on the "liberal media" and political correctness. It is not "liberal" or "conservative" to tell the truth. There are plenty of issues for conservatives to oppose Obama on without manufacturing information about him, and were you to do so, it would make mainstream America take you more seriously. This does not help the cause in the least.
[[User:AuthorNeubius|AuthorNeubius]] November 18 2008

==Mr.Schlafly, take heart!==

Mr. Schlafly,

I commend you on joining a long list of great minds who, despite all the superficial [[Liberal]] based evidence, managed to see the truth and purged his mind of all pernecious and evil [[Liberalism]]. It is undeniable that Obama is a Muslim, and thanks to you, millions of people around the world have embraced the truth of conservatism, and its spectacular ability to find the truth, even when the [[Liberal]] based evidence distorts and twists the truth. The only thing I can say to you Mr. Schlafly is to take heart! These [[Liberals]], who would take and twist our infallibable country and out impenatrable conservative hearts and minds will never allow their 'evidence' to supersede the truth! We shall win this culture war Mr. Schlafly, with great minds like yours! [[User:MarkBaley|MarkBaley]] 22:23, 20 November 2008 (EST)

== Video linking Obama to terrorist training camp. ==

I was, and still am, shocked at the content of the video below. It shows president elect [[Obama]] at a terrorist training camp in Kenya, observing the physical and mental training of suicide bombers, and him praying to Mecca. Why is this only coming out now? [http://idek.net/V5 Here is the shocking video] --[[User:Konstanty|Konstanty]] 18:18, 21 November 2008 (EST)

User talk:HSpalding

2008-11-15T21:50:10Z

Konstanty:

Your account will be blocked if you continue to push a liberal bias here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:37, 15 November 2008 (EST)

: What 'liberal bias'? I made factual corrections to a few articles. Your motto is "the truth shall set you free". Don't you want your home-schooled students to be taught the truth? [[User:HSpalding|HSpalding]] 14:46, 15 November 2008 (EST)

:: I had to revert your changes. For example, you said that "the description of the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq as a Crusade is one reason why many Muslim object so strongly to the actions of the United States." There is no evidence that is a real reason why Muslims object, and you provided none. As I recall you had other liberal edits that were even less plausible.

:: No, I don't want my students to be misled by liberal falsehoods.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:50, 15 November 2008 (EST)

::: President Bush's description of the wars as a Crusade is very often cited by Muslims as a reason for opposing them. See [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2732049.stm here] and [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2879853.stm here] and [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2898955.stm here] and [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/3714284.stm here], for a few examples. As for my other edits, you seem to be equating facts with liberalism, which I find very strange. How are you ever going to advance your argument if you start with incorrect information? [[User:HSpalding|HSpalding]] 16:20, 15 November 2008 (EST)

::::Just a little FYI, most people who get this far into a debate with Andy end up getting blocked for violating the 90/10 rule, especially when they present him with evidence contrary to his claims. --[[User:Konstanty|Konstanty]] 16:50, 15 November 2008 (EST)

Talk:Ubuntu

2008-11-09T15:56:59Z

Konstanty: Different screenshot

== Different screenshot ==

Would it not make more sense to put a screenshot of the core ubuntu OS in this article, rather than a smaller derivative, with a clearly different UI than the default gnome? --[[User:Konstanty|Konstanty]] 10:56, 9 November 2008 (EST)

Medical marijuana

2008-10-09T22:14:46Z

Konstanty:

'''Medical marijuana''' is [[marijuana]] used for its (supposed) analgesic or otherwise therapeutic effects (see [[Glaucoma]]).

Critics doubt that there are any medicinal effects of marijuana, other than an overall effect sought by drug addicts. However, some studies show that Cannabidiol, a chemical compound found in marijuana, inhibits cancer cell growth in lab animals<ref>Mechoulam R., Peters M., Murillo-Rodriguez E., Hanus L.O. '''Cannabidiol - recent advances'''. Chemistry & Biodiversity. August 2007. Vol. 4, Issue 8. Page 1678-92. pmid=17712814. doi=10.1002/cbdv.200790147</ref>. Recent studies have shown cannabidiol to be as effective as [[atypical antipsychotics]] in treating [[schizophrenia]].<ref>Zuardi A.W., Crippa J.A.S., Hallak J.E.C., Moreira F.A., Guimarães F.S. Brazilian Journal of Medical and Biological Research [http://www.scielo.br/pdf/bjmbr/v39n4/6164.pdf Cannabidiol as an antipsychotic drug] (PDF) 2006. Vol. 39. Page 421-9. ISSN 0100-879X</ref>, and [[marijuana]] is commonly viewed as a natural alternative to any otherwise synthetic pharmaceutical drugs. It has also been shown to increase brain cell growth <ref>[http://www.peak.sfu.ca/the-peak/2005-3/issue9/ne-mj.html science: Study shows marijuana increases brain cell growth ]</ref>

Opponents of [[drug abuse]] charge that efforts to legalize medical marijuana are intended to be a step towards complete decriminalization and generally decry marijuana as a "[[gateway drug]]". Many supporters of "medical marijuana" use marijuana recreationally.

==References==
{{reflist}}

[[category:law]]
[[category:medicine]]
[[category:health]]

Homophobia

2008-10-09T17:52:00Z

Konstanty: Red link

The term '''homophobia''' most directly means the "fear of homosexuality" but, as with terms such as xenophobia, also implies a hate or prejudice against homosexuals. The term is used to describe people who openly condemn gays and people who feel uncomfortable around them.

It is primarily used by people supportive of tolerance to homosexuality, to people who are against said tolerance. Some claim that "it is intended to sound like a form of [[mental illness]]", but this does not describe its popular use or the definition of the word. <ref> According to the National Association for Research & Therapy on Homosexuality (NARTH), gay-rights advocate Gregory M. Herek, Ph.D. wrote that the term "homophobia" was useful in pushing forward the gay agenda in our culture. [http://www.narth.com/docs/creates.html Gay Psychologist Creates New Terms for Use in the Social Debate]. "In his paper on homophobia, stigma, and sexual prejudice, Dr. Herek suggests that although the term "homophobia" was useful in pushing forward the gay agenda in our culture, the term may be too limited in its scope today."</ref>

For example, NARTH says,
:"The term "homophobia" is often used inaccurately to describe any person who objects to homosexual behavior on either moral, psychological or medical grounds. Technically, however, the terms actually denotes a person who has a phobia—or irrational fear—of homosexuality. Principled disagreement, therefore, cannot be labeled "homophobia." <ref>[http://www.narth.com/menus/positionstatements.html NARTH Position Statements]</ref>

Conservative Christians and other people who strongly object to homosexuality often take offense at this term.

===Etymology===
The word comes from combining the Greek prefix ''homo-'', meaning "same", and suffix ''-phobia'', meaning "fear of". In its early usage, the term described heterosexual fears that others might think they were homosexual <ref>http://www.narth.com/docs/creates.html</ref> The neologism was promoted by George Weinberg, a gay activist and psychologist, who attempted to define it in clinical literature shortly before the downgrading of homosexuality as a mental illness by the American Psychiatric Association in 1973. Weinberg claimed it was "the dread of being in close quarters with homosexuals -- and in the case of homosexuals themselves, selfloathing."<ref>Plummer, David, ''One of the Boys: Masculinity, Homophobia, and Modern Manhood'', [http://books.google.com/books?id=xHGz4f_2_7IC&pg=PA3&ots=U8ktZZgnAk&dq=George+Weinberg+homophobia&ie=ISO-8859-1&sig=d7hjCcZ1uuBlgdLyRjUJwEn51uA#PPA3,M1 pp. 3-4]: "'Homophobia was introduced into the clinical literature by George Weinberg in 1972, in ''Society and the Healthy Homosexual.'' </ref> The term then entered common usage beginning with pornographic publications. <ref>Gregory M. Herek, Ph.D., published ''Beyond 'Homophobia': Thinking About Sexual Prejudice and Stigma in the Twenty-First Century,'' in the April, 2004, issue of Sexuality Research & Social Policy. </ref>

The term's meaning has not been accepted or agreed upon within the psychological therapeutic community. William O'Donohue and Christine E. Caselles <ref>William O'Donohue and Christine E. Caselles, [http://www.springerlink.com/content/n0264m864t146585/ Homophobia: Conceptual, definitional, and value issues], Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, Volume 15, Number 3, Springer Netherlands, September, 1993. ISSN 0882-2689</ref> have concluded based upon research within the therapeutic community a clear understanding of the term has not been adequately evaluated and it is not clear whether the term can be accurately characterized. They have concluded, "the construct of homophobia, as it is usually used, makes an illegitimately pejorative evaluation of certain open and debatable value positions, much like the former disease construct of homosexuality."

==="Internalized homophobia"===
The therapeutic community is largely divided between proponents of [[gay gene]] theory who believe a person is born gay and will always be gay, and proponents of [[Reparative therapy]] who believe with sympathy and understanding a homosexual can be relieved of afflictions if they so desire. Gay gene advocates wish to inform homosexuals that their sexual orientation may be based in genetics, whereas restoration therapy advocates claim that it is to cruel to "brainwash" young people into believing there is no hope of ever leading a "heterosexual lifestyle".

Dr. Joseph Nicolosi reports homosexuality is a symptom of an underlying problem of [[gender identity]]. Nicolosi says,
:In the classic triadic family we have a sensitive boy who did not get the close, affirming relationship with his father that would have confirmed him in his gender identity, and a mother who is likely to be over-close and standing in the way between father and son. The father was not supportive enough in affirming, recognizing and reinforcing the boy's maleness. <ref name = "griefwork">[http://www.narth.com/docs/griefwork.html Clinical Issues: Grief Work], Interview: Joseph Nicolosi, Ph.D.</ref>

Nicolosi adds many gay men admit that no matter how liberated they are, they always struggle, on some deeper level, with a sense of inferiority or self-loathing. Some therapists refer to this as internalized homophobia. Nicolosi attributes this feeling to an internal process, unrelated to social stigma, which precedes same-sex attractions.<ref name = "griefwork"/>

=== Homophobia as an "Irrational Fear" ===
The suffix "phobia" <ref>Psychologists do not recognize it as a phobia in any generally recognized publication like the DSM IV.</ref> suggests an irrational fear, but it is most often used as a attack term by [[gay rights]] groups to suggest that opposition to [[homosexuality]] is irrational and hateful.<ref>Eg, this site [http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_phob.htm] first defines homophobia as a dread or fear, but says that it includes those who write their Congressmen to oppose same-sex marriage.</ref> Dr. Sander J. Breiner of NARTH has stated, "it would be very valuable for society in general, and therapists in particular, to have a clear picture of homophobia separated from all the other topics that have been lumped under that rubric." <ref>[http://www.narth.com/docs/coll-breiner.html HOMOPHOBIA: A Scientific Non-Political Definition], Dr. Sander J. Breiner, National Association for Research and Therapy on Homosexuality, 2003.</ref> Of the myriads of references to the term in popular and other sociologic publications Breiner observes, "There is no personal, internal, institutional, or cultural homophobia. The terms do not exist in the recognized scientific literature...There is only one homophobia, which has been properly defined," in the the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) <ref>[http://anxiety.psy.ohio-state.edu/phobia-d.htm Specific Phobia DSM-IV Criteria]</ref> developed by the American Psychiatric Association. Breiner, an advocate of [[Reparative therapy]], acknowledges "There is no doubt that homophobia exists" as an irrational fear among both homosexuals and heterosexuals. 2 Timothy 1:7 says, "For God hath not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind. <ref>[http://bible.cc/2_timothy/1-7.htm 2 Timothy 1:7]</ref>

=== Violence against gays ===

In 1990, Congress passed the Hate Crime Statistics Act, which required the Attorney General to collect data about crimes that manifest evidence of prejudice based on race, religion, sexual orientation, or ethnicity/national origin. In 1994, lawmakers amended the Hate Crime Statistics Act to include bias against persons with disabilities. <ref>Federal Bureau of Investigation Uniform Crime Reporting Program, Hate Crime Statistics 2005: About Hate Crime[http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2005/abouthc.htm]</ref>

In 2005, law enforcement agencies reported 1,171 hate crime offenses based on sexual-orientation bias, 348 of which are property crimes which includes theft and grafitti. <ref>U.S. Department of Justice — Federal Bureau of Investigation, [http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2005/table4.htm Uniform Crime Reports], Offense Type by Bias Motivation, 2005 Table 4. </ref> While the FBI reports statistics by victim class or bias motivation, race, religion, sexual orientation and disability, the FBI does not report the sexual orientation of known offenders. Thus a conclusion that all offenders are heterosexual is faulty, and the methodology does not measure gay-on-gay violence. In all of 2004, there was 1 anti-homosexual murder in the United States, and the FBI has reported none since. <ref>U.S. Department of Justice — Federal Bureau of Investigation, [http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2004/tables/HateCrime2004.pdf Uniform Crime Reports], Offense Type by Bias Motivation, 2004 Table 4. </ref> Of greater concern among homosexuals is the higher risk and more frequent incidence of [[Homosexuality#Homosexual_Couples_and_Violent_Behavior|Gay Domestic Abuse]] in same sex domestic partnerships than among the heterosexual population.

While 818 bias motivated crimes of persons against gays were reported nationwide in 2004, a earlier study found 5046 incidences of homosexual domestic violence in only nine cities, all of which are crimes of persons. The subject of homosexual domestic violence has not been researched with anything near the thoroughness afforded to heterosexual domestic violence, however the uniformity of conclusions based upon varying sample sizes all point to a prevalence ranging from 20%-35% of homsexual domestic partnerships. <ref>[http://ncavp.org/common/document_files/Reports/2001ncavpdvrpt.pdf Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Domestic Violence in 2001,] National Coalition of Anti-Violence Programs, 2002.</ref>

==See also==
*[[Homosexuality]]
*[[Opposition to homosexuality]]
*[[Gay agenda]]
*[[Gender identity disorder]]
*[[Political Correctness]]

== References ==
{{reflist|2}}

==External links==
*[http://www.adl.org/poisoning_web/homophobia.asp Homophobia Online: The Westboro Baptist Church], Anti-Defamation League (2001). Retrieved 05/23/07.

[[Category:Politics]]
[[Category:Homosexuality]]

ACLU

2008-10-07T02:33:27Z

Konstanty: I fail to see how either of there are related to this. The Phelps clan is ultra-conservative, and too much of a good thing is a bad thing, and NAMBLA? I fail to see ANY rational for that.

[[Image:Nghfuyr.png|right|thumb|Current logo of the ACLU.]]
The '''ACLU''' is the American Civil Liberties Union, a [[leftist]], [[secular]]-[[Progressivism|progressive]] organization. It was run for its first 30 years by an [[United States of America|American]] [[Socialism|socialist]] named [[Roger Baldwin]], who helped found it in 1920. This organization pursues a [[leftist]] agenda that includes [[censoring]] prayer and recognition of [[God]] from public institutions, such as [[public schools]].

[[Image:ACLU and Islam.jpg|right|400px|It All Depends On Whose Church Is Being Separated]]

==Illegal Immigration==

The [[ACLU]] demanded $2.3 million in fees for challenging a law against [[illegal immigration]]. This demand "illustrates the circus the ACLU brought to this case," the Mayor of Hazelton, Pennsylvania said. "They had 20 attorneys sitting in the courtroom at a time, 16 of them doing nothing but running up the bill."<ref>http://www.centredaily.com/news/state/story/194756.html]</ref>

In the Hazleton case the ACLU persuaded a [[federal]] [[court]] to declare a municipal ordinance to be unconstitutional, even though other federal courts have upheld similar laws since then. The Hazleton case is on appeal.

==Censoring God==
The ACLU often insists that the [[Establishment Clause]] of the [[Constitution of the United States|Constitution]] requires censorship of religious expression. In 2007, for example, the [[ACLU]] of [[Tennessee]] sought to stop prayer and prayer-related activities by the volunteer [[Praying Parents]]. ''Doe v. Wilson County Sch. Sys.'', 524 F. Supp. 2d 964 (M.D. Tenn. Nov. 9, 2007).

ACLU chapters frequently sue to compel removal displays of the [[Ten Commandments]] from public property. For example, in ''McCreary County v. ACLU'', 545 U.S. 844 (2005), the ACLU of Kentucky forced two counties to remove displays of the Ten Commandments from their courthouses. In another case ''Glassroth v. Moore'', 229 F. Supp. 2d 1290 (2002) the Alabama chapter sued [[Alabama]] [[Supreme Court]] [[Chief Justice]] Roy Moore to remove a Ten Commandments Monument, with Moore remarking "fearing that I would not obey his order, decided to threaten other state officials and force them to remove the monument if I did not do so". A threat of heavy fines was his way of coercing obedience to that order". In Utah, the ACLU even announced a scavenger hunt for anyone who could find a display of the Ten Commandments monument that the ACLU could demand be removed. The ACLU typically receives substantial legal fees from the government in each of these cases.

In 1994, the ACLU of New Jersey sued Jersey City, New Jersey to challenge a menorah and a Christmas tree at city hall. A federal district judge declared the display to be unconstitutional, but the appellate court, in a 2-1 opinion written by now-Justice [[Samuel Alito]], found a modified display to be constitutional. ''ACLU of New Jersey v. Schundler'' (1999). Then-Judge Alito wrote, "government may celebrate Christmas in some manner and form, but not in a way that endorses Christian doctrine."

In 2007, the ACLU Foundation of Texas filed an [[amicus brief]] for removal of a longstanding monument to William Mosher outside Harris County Civil Courthouse because the statute contained a depiction of an open Bible. ''Staley v. Harris County'', 2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 9296 (5th Cir. 2007). The court ruled that Harris County must pay attorneys fees to the [[Americans United For Separation of Church & State]], which often appears along with the ACLU in demanding removal of religious symbols from government property and censoring criticism of evolution in public school.

The ACLU demanded that Los Angeles County remove a tiny cross from the Los Angeles County seal, even though the seal contained nearly a dozen symbols including the Greek goddess Pomona standing on the shore of the Pacific Ocean -- about which the ACLU did not complain. The seal also displayed other California motifs, including the Spanish galleon San Salvador, a tuna fish, a cow, stars representing the movie and television industries, the Hollywood Bowl, oil derricks, and a pair of engineering instruments to represent Los Angeles' contributions to industrial construction and space exploration. The cross was a tiny part of the seal. But Los Angeles County gave into the ACLU's demands and spent $700,000 to censor the cross and replace it on all official government documents, publications and signage.

The ACLU of Louisiana demanded that a school board stop allowing an invocation to be said at the beginning of its meetings. In ''[[Doe v. Tangipahoa Parish School Bd.]]'' (2007), an [[en banc]] [[Fifth Circuit]] dismissed the claim for lack of proof that anyone had been injured or even offended by hearing these invocations.

==Censoring [[intelligent design|Intelligent Design]]==
In 2004, the ACLU filed [[Selman v. Cobb County School District]].<ref>ACLU: Parents Challenge Evolution Disclaimer In Georgia Textbooks [http://www.aclu.org/religion/schools/16381prs20041112.html]</ref> If the plaintiffs, five parents in the Georgia district, won the case, the school district would have to pay their lawyers. The ACLU argued <ref>ACLU Pretrial Brief in Selman et al v. Cobb County, 11/12/2004 [http://www.aclu.org/FilesPDFs/ACFB940.pdf]</ref> that the district had violated the [[Establishment clause]] of the [[U.S. Constitution]] by putting stickers in biology textbooks that said, "This textbook contains material on [[evolution]]. Evolution is a [[theory]], not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered."<ref>Judge's Decision, Selman v. Cobb County School District[http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/religion/selmancobb11305ord.pdf]</ref> The trial judge ruled in favor of the ACLU <ref>Judge's Decision, Selman v. Cobb County School District[http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/religion/selmancobb11305ord.pdf]</ref>, but his ruling was vacated on appeal.<ref>Appeal Decision, Selman v. Cobb County School District[http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200510341.pdf]</ref> The case was eventually settled. The school district agreed to remove the stickers, to avoid altering science textbooks or making "any disclaimers regarding evolution", and to teach the state Board of Education's core curriculum, which includes evolution, although that wasn't under dispute in the original suit. In addition, they paid $166,669.12 to Atlanta law firm Bondurant, Mixon & Elmore.<ref>"Agreement Ends Textbook Sticker Case", press release from Cobb County School District including settlement agreement [http://www.cobb.k12.ga.us/news/2006/20061219_StickerAgreement.pdf]</ref> <ref>ACLU: Georgia School Board Drops Defense of Anti-Evolution Stickers[http://www.aclu.org/religion/intelligentdesign/27745prs20061219.html]</ref>

Another example of ACLU litigation was ''[[Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District]].''<ref>Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District:
Decision of the Court, 400 F.Supp.2d 707 (M.D. Pa. 2005) [http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/kitzmiller_v_dover_decision.html]</ref>, also known as the [[intelligent design]] case. The ACLU prevailed in prohibiting administrators from reading a short statement that mentions [[intelligent design]] to students, and forbade the school board from issuing a warning that Darwin's theory has gaps.<ref>''Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District,'' 400 F.Supp.2d 707.</ref> In his opinion, Judge [[John E. Jones III]] heavily relied on the later-vacated ruling in ''[[Selman v. Cobb County School District]]'', and on ACLU briefs.<ref>90% of the section on intelligent design was from the ACLU's briefs. A Comparison of Judge Jones’ Opinion in Kitzmiller v. Dover with Plaintiffs’ Proposed “Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law”, by David DeWolf & John West, Discovery Institute, December 12, 2006
[http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=3829&program=CSC - Views and News]</ref> He also cited the [[Establishment test]], the [[Lemon test]], and the [[reasonable student standard]].<ref>''Kitzmiller,'' 400 F. Supp. 2d at 725 (coming to the conclusion reached in ''Selman'' by the Court's own reasoning), ''compare'' Selman v. Cobb County Sch. Dist, 2006 U.S. App. LEXIS 13005 (11th Cir. May 25, 2006) at *pincite needed*.</ref> The judge also ordered fees paid to the ACLU and its lawyers, totaling $2,067,000.<ref>''See'' 42 U.S.C. s 1988 (describing relief afforded victorious plaintiff of a 1983 action as including attorney fees).</ref>

==Harming the Boy Scouts==

The ACLU filed a lawsuit to prohibit the federal government from continuing to allow the [[Boy Scouts]], a charitable organization for teenagers, to use an Army base in Virginia for a quadrennial gathering known as the Boy Scout Jamboree; in 2005, more than 40,000 Boy Scouts attended this event.

Although the Boy Scouts have been conducting this Jamboree on government property for 70 years, this lawsuit was not filed until 1999, after the Boy Scouts enforced its policy against having openly homosexual Scout leaders. The theory of the lawsuit was that because Scouts swear an oath of "duty to God," it violates the Establishment Clause for the government to allow this joint project.

A federal district court ruled for the ACLU, but the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit overturned the lower court ruling that the plaintiffs lacked standing to bring the suit which will allow the government to continue to sponsor this event for the Boy Scouts.<ref>See [[Essay:Boy Scouts Rout ACLU]]</ref>

== Pornography ==

In [[Ashcroft v. ACLU]] (2004), the ACLU challenged and invalidated the [[Child Online Protection Act]], which would have required pornographers to take reasonable steps to restrict access by minors to porn on the Internet. The Act, which the Supreme Court struck down at the request of the ACLU, did not censor a single word or picture. It merely required the pornographers to screen their websites from minors, which can be done by credit card or other verification.

The ACLU often argues in favor of pornography before courts and administrative boards. Charles Rust-Tierney was an executive for the ACLU of Virginia who argued against the use of Internet filters on the computers at the Loudoun County Library Board:<ref>http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55983</ref>

:"The ACLU of Virginia urges the board to carefully consider a new Internet Use Policy that allows for maximum Internet access ...."

Rust-Tierney, who served as the Virginia ACLU president until 2005, was serving on its board of directors when he was arrested in February 2007 for possession of child pornography that a U.S. magistrate described as "the most perverted and nauseating and sickening type of child pornography" she ever had seen. The former Virginia ACLU president later entered a guilty plea and was sentenced to eight years in jail.<ref>''Ibid.''</ref>

The ACLU also recently forced a Nampa, Idaho public library to return two books to the shelves that many parents have found objectionable. ''The Joy of Sex'' and ''The Joy of Gay Sex'' were the subjects of a two-year legal battle to get them removed after a teenager found one in his home within reach of young children. "''The Joy of Gay Sex'' contains very graphic, leave[s] nothing to the imagination [with] depictions of every variety of homosexual sex imaginable", said Bryan Fischer, one of the litigants to get the books removed. "It even has a chapter in it entitled 'Daddy/Son Fantasies.'" Other chapter titles include "Exhibitionism and Voyeurism," "Fisting," "Sex with Animals," and "Tearooms and Back Rooms." Referring to the ACLU's bullying tactics against the library, Fischer said "It's an abysmal state of affairs when a single letter from cultural thugs can undo two years of patient and pain-staking work." [http://www.onenewsnow.com/Culture/Default.aspx?id=244332]

==Same-sex Marriage==
The ACLU of New Jersey filed an amicus curiae brief in favor of same-sex marriage in ''Lewis v. Harris'', 188 N.J. 415 (1006). The New Jersey Supreme Court ruled in favor of civil unions, but by a 4-3 margin did not require same-sex marriage.

The ACLU sues schools when a student alleges encountering "anti-gay peer harassment and bullying based on his perceived sexual orientation." <ref>http://www.aclu.org/lgbt/youth/28618prs20070221.html</ref> The ACLU holds the school (and hence the taxpayers) liable for actions based on conduct by some students towards others.

The ACLU of Minnesota sued to force the Osseo Area School District to grant equal access to the schools public address (PA) system, yearbook, fundraising and field trips by a pro-homosexual school club named the Straights and Gays for Equality (“SAGE”).<ref>''Straights & Gays for Equality v. Osseo Area Schs.'', 471 F.3d 908 (8th Cir. 2006).</ref> The school district already had a club entitled "Gays, Lesbians, Bisexuals, Trans-gender, Questioning and Allies," and already had a SAGE club, but SAGE was designated as non-curricular and wanted the additional rights of communication.

The ACLU invoked the Equal Access Act to argue that as long as the school district granted these rights to other clubs, such as cheerleading and synchronized swimming, it must grant these rights to SAGE also. No, the school district argued in defending its action, cheerleading is related to physical education while SAGE is not, and thus SAGE should not have the same rights. However, there were other non phys-ed sports that got funding.

The district court ruled in favor of the ACLU, and the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit unanimously affirmed. The Court ordered the school district to give SAGE the same rights as the cheerleading club. The ACLU will be able to demand substantial attorneys' fees at taxpayer expense.

Similarly, the ACLU of Florida sued the Okeechobee School Board to force it to allow a Gay-Straight Alliance club at Okeechobee High School. Though the school objected to this club as a "sex-based" club, the ACLU persuaded a federal judge to rule in its favor, and it will likely recover substantial attorneys fees at taxpayer expense. See ''Gay-Straight Alliance of Okeechobee High Sch. v. School Board of Okeechobee County'', 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25729 (S.D. Fla. Apr. 6, 2007).

==Abortion==
The ACLU is generally against laws that restrict access to [[abortion]], such as parental notification when a minor seeks an abortion and informed consent for the woman herself. ACLU attorneys have argued several cases in support of abortion. For example, the woman called "Jane Doe" in the [[abortion]] case of ''[[Doe v. Bolton]]'' (1973) says "she was pressured by ACLU attorneys to opt for [[abortion]] and that the case was based on fraud."<ref>http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=52210</ref>

==Polygamy==
The ACLU has defended [[polygamy|polygamists]].<ref>During a question-and-answer session after a speech at Yale University, ACLU president Nadine Strossen stated that her organization has "defended the right of individuals to engage in polygamy," [http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=44977 World Net Daily] June 25, 2005</ref><ref>
The ACLU views freedom of religion and the establishment clause as inseparable: In order for people to have religious freedom, their government must neither endorse nor prohibit any religious position.[http://www.aclu.org/religion/frb/16163prs19990716.html ACLU press release July 16 1999].</ref>

==Free Speech==

The ACLU is the single biggest legal advocate for pornography (see above), claiming that it is a form of [[free speech]]. Less significantly, the ACLU has also helped -- or not helped -- in the following cases:

*The ACLU rarely defends Christian speech, and virtually never defends speech that is critical of homosexuality. The ACLU was silent with respect to the widely publicized censorship of a T-shirt critical of homosexuality that was worn by student Tyler Chase Harper at his public school. "It's hard to explain the ACLU's apparent equanimity about the violation of Mr. Harper's First Amendment rights -- unless you consider the content of his speech. This case does not appear to be anomalous. Despite its professed commitment to religious liberty, for example, the ACLU tends to absent itself from cases on college campuses involving the associational rights of Christian student groups to discriminate against gay students, in accordance with their religious beliefs."<ref>Wendy Kaminer, "The American Liberal Liberties Union," Wall Street Journal (May 23, 2007).</ref> Months ''after'' that stinging criticism, the ACLU filed a carefully worded [[amicus curiae]] brief in subsequent litigation in this case that defended Harper because he "neither substantially disrupted the school nor invaded the rights of other students."<ref>http://www.aclusandiego.org/article_downloads/000293/HarperAmicusDistrictCourtFinal.pdf . Buried in the brief near the end of an argument is the statement that "and because "to allow a Day of Silence one day while banning Mr. Harper's shirt the next day may give rise to an inference of viewpoint discrimination rather than justified regulation of student speech regardless of viewpoint" -- but note that it does not argue that inference of viewpoint discrimination would be correct.</ref>

*In 1978, the ACLU defended the right of the National Socialist Party of America (neo-Nazi) to march through Skokie, Illinois, a suburb of Chicago that is a community of a large number of Jewish people and Holocaust survivors. The U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals ordered the village to issue a permit for demonstration to the Nazi Party, which was never used, that was later upheld by the Supreme Court. The ACLU experienced a severe backlash over this case when membership dropped by 25% and plunged the organization $500,000 in debt. <ref> http://openweb.tvnews.vanderbilt.edu/1978-2/1978-02-23-NBC-6.html </ref> <ref> http://www.acluprocon.org/ACLUHistory/HistoryTable.html</ref>

*On January 16, 2008, the ACLU issued a statement supporting Sen. Larry Craig(R-ID) to have his guilty plea to misdemeanor charges of disorderly conduct in a Minnesota airport restroom withdrawn on the basis that a closed bathroom stall is a private location. While not advocating sex in public bathrooms, the ACLU suggested the police have better means of enforcing laws instead of using entrapment. <ref>http://www.aclu.org/freespeech/gen/33697prs20080116.html</ref>

*In September 2000, the ACLU represented the North American Man/Boy Love Association when the parents of Jeffrey Curley, who was raped, tortured and murdered by two men, filed a $200 million federal lawsuit for wrongful death. John Roberts, the executive director of the Massachusetts ACLU stated, ''It's not a real popular case, but the First Amendment issues are clear.'' The case was dismissed on a technicality. A subsequent lawsuit filed against the murderers, who were not represented by the ACLU, was successful. Jeffrey Curley's father, Robert Curley, was sympathetic to the ACLU's opposition to his lawsuit. "I really do have a lot of respect for them, they are very consistent in who they defend. It takes a lot of nerve to defend the groups they have over the years. They have a lot of courage." <ref>http://sidesplitters.catastrophe.net/arch/2002/www.ageofconsent.com/comments/numberfortytwo.htm</ref> <ref>http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E0DE0D91530F932A3575AC0A9669C8B63</ref>

*The ACLU has been involved with lawsuits filed against Attorney Generals Reno, Ashcroft and Gonzales when fighting the enforcement of the Child Online Protection Act (COPA). Federal courts have consistently ruled COPA violates the constitutional protection of free speech and have forbidden enforcement by the federal government. The most current ruling on March 22, 2007 is being appealed.<ref> http://www.mediacoalition.org/legal/copa/index.htm </ref>

*In 1949, the ACLU defended Father Arthur Terminiello, an ex-Catholic priest, who gave a speech at a rally in Chicago that was laced with racist, anti-Semitic and anti-Communist comments. Father Terminiello was fined $100 for violating Chicago's breach of peace ordinance. This fine was later reversed by the Supreme Court. <ref> http://www.comm.unt.edu/faculty/terminiello_v.htm</ref> <ref> http://www.aclu.org/studentsrights/expression/12808pub19941231.html</ref>

*The ACLU of Nevada successfully defended the right of a street preacher, Jim Webber, to proselytize his pro-Jesus, anti-sin, and occasional anti-homosexual messages on the Las Vegas strip. The unsuccessful campaign conducted by the casinos failed and allowed Webber and others to stay. Webber is quoted as saying, "the ACLU has been my guardian angel. They have been the ones that have provided the ability for me to stand on the street and talk with people about Jesus Christ." <ref>http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=548951&page=1</ref> <ref>http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2006/Mar-05-Sun-2006/news/6197557.html</ref>

==Free Exercise Clause==
The ACLU at times defends the religious rights of American citizens and residents. See 'ACLU Defense of Freedom of Religious Practice and Expression' at the ACLU's website for 60 examples of Christians and 45 examples of non-Christians represented by the ACLU to protect their religious rights. <ref> http://www.aclu.org/religion/govtfunding/26526res20060824.html </ref>

On March 14, 2008, the ACLU sent a letter to the Tarek ibn Ziyad Academy of Inver Grove Heights Minnesota expressing their disapproval of alleged school sponsored prayer during school hours. Concerns were raised about alleged violations of the establishment clause and the 'Lemon Test' because '… the school is improperly involved in promoting and facilitating after-school religious studies conducted under the auspices of the Mosque that is housed in the same building as the school.' Further inquiries are on-going. <ref> http://www.aclu-mn.org/downloads/LettertoTarekAcademy.pdf </ref> <ref> http://www.aclu-mn.org/home/news/aclumnopensinvestigationof.htm </ref>

==Prisoner and student rights==

In the 2007 case ''Spratt v. Rhode Island Department of Corrections'', the ACLU brought suit against the Rhode Island Adult Correctional Institute following the prison's decision to bar Christian prisoner and lay minister Wesley Spratt from preaching to other inmates during weekly services. The ACLU won the case on appeal, securing the right for Spratt to hold religious services for other inmates so long as these do not conflict with prison security.<ref>ACLU: Appeals Court Overturns Ban on Christian Preacher in Rhode Island Prison (4/9/2007)[http://www.aclu.org/religion/frb/29578prs20070409.html]</ref>

In 2004, student Abbey Moler selected a bible verse to accompany her picture in a school yearbook. The school subsequently removed this text before publication. The ACLU filed suit against the Utica Community School District, on the grounds that this censorship violated Moler's first-amendment rights to free expression and freedom of religion. The case was settled out of court, with the school district agreeing to replace the verse in following prints of the yearbook and correct it by means of a sticker in copies still in its possession.<ref>ACLU: After ACLU Intervention on Behalf of Christian Valedictorian, Michigan High School Agrees to Stop Censoring Religious Yearbook Entries (5/11/2004)
[http://www.aclu.org/studentsrights/expression/12845prs20040511.html]</ref><ref> The settlement between the ALCU and the school district stated:
* The district will place a sticker with Moler's original entry in the copies of the yearbook on file with the school.
* The district has instructed the Stevenson High School yearbook staff not to censor students' yearbook entries solely because they contain religious or political speech that others might find offensive.
* The district recently provided and will continue to provide in-service training and advice to school staff on free speech and religious freedom issues that arise in school.
* The district will write a letter of regret to Moler apologizing for the failure to include her entry in the yearbook.</ref>

==Medical Records==

The ACLU filed a friend-of-the-court brief in favor of the privacy of Rush Limbaugh in his medical records when he was under investigation for 'doctor shopping.' The ACLU argued that the privacy rights of a patient were being violated.<ref>http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,108140,00.html</ref>

== Terrorism ==

The ACLU has challenged the authority of the President to authorize wireless wiretaps of overseas communications without submitting to judicial oversight. In ''[[ACLU v. NSA]]'', the Court of Appeals for the [[Sixth Circuit]] rejected the ACLU's challenge.

==Views of the ACLU Founder==

Roger Baldwin, a co-founder of the ACLU and its first leader, was born and raised in Massachusetts. He said that his "social work began in my mind in the Unitarian Church when I was ten or twelve years old, and I started to do things that I thought would help other people.”

In the 1920 and 1930s he was sympathetic to the social goals and aspirations of the emerging communist nations. In 1934, Balwin published his goals in Soviet Russia Today:<ref>The Volokh Conspiracy (blog entry), Eugene Volokh, September 7, 2005 [http://volokh.com/posts/1126138099.shtml]</ref>

:I believe in non-violent methods of struggle as most effective in the long run for building up successful working class power. Where they cannot be followed or where they are not even permitted by the ruling class, obviously only violent tactics remain. I champion civil liberty as the best of the non-violent means of building the power on which workers rule must be based. If I aid the reactionaries to get free speech now and then, if I go outside the class struggle to fight against censorship, it is only because those liberties help to create a more hospitable atmosphere for working class liberties. The class struggle is the central conflict of the world; all others are incidental.

:Proletarian Liberty in Practice

:When that power of the working class is once achieved, as it has been only in the Soviet Union, I am for maintaining it by any means whatever. Dictatorship is the obvious means in a world of enemies at home and abroad. I dislike it in principle as dangerous to its own objects. But the Soviet Union has already created liberties far greater than exist elsewhere in the world. They are liberties that most closely affect the lives of the people — power in the trade unions, in peasant organizations, in the cultural life of nationalities, freedom of women in public and private life, and a tremendous development of education for adults and children. . . .

In 1940 he successfully fought to revise the ACLU charter to prohibit those affiliated with totalitarian organizations from serving on the ACLU board. The immediate target was the former-Wobbly and present Communist Party member, Elizabeth Gurley Flynn.

In 1947 General Douglas MacArthur arranged for Baldwin to serve as a civil liberties consultant in Japan.

==See Also==

*[[Previous Breaking News/ACLU|Articles about the '''ACLU''' from previous "Breaking News" ]]
{{liberalism}}

==References==
{{reflist|2}}

==External Links==
*[http://www.law.ucla.edu/volokh/blog/baldwin.pdf Baldwin speaks in defense of communism from 1934]
*http://www.aclu.org
*Anti-ACLU sites:
**http://www.stoptheaclu.com/
**http://www.aclj.org

[[category:politics]]
[[Category:Liberal Organizations]]

Talk:National Aeronautics and Space Administration

2008-10-05T23:40:19Z

Konstanty: /* NASA logo */ new section

Good work Jimmy! [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 23:36, 31 May 2008 (EDT)

== NASA logo ==

I think the NASA logo would be more fitting for this page, rather than the Apollo 11 launch. If anyone disagrees, please tell me.
--[[User:Konstanty|Konstanty]] 19:40, 5 October 2008 (EDT)

Wikiproject:News/Wanted page

2008-10-05T22:55:17Z

Konstanty: /* Wanted Pages - Completed */

Some of the news articles posted on the Main page need new articles created on Conservapedia. If you create a wanted page for a news article, it will be wikilinked on the Main Page.

==Contributions==
This table is a count of ''completed'' wanted pages per contributor. 
'''The top three contributors will be mentioned on the Main Page on [[Conservapedia Day]] 2008.'''

{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Contributor
! Number of articles
|-
| [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]]
| <center>100</center>
|-
| [[User:Brossa|Brossa]]
| <center>1</center>
|-
| [[User:Bugler|Bugler]]
| <center>72</center>
|-
| [[User:Chippeterson|Chippeterson]]
| <center>200</center>
|-
| [[User:CMarius|CMarius]]
| <center>2</center>
|-
| [[User:DirkB|DirkB]]
| <center>18</center>
|-
| [[User:DRamon|DRamon]]
| <center>16</center>
|-
| [[User:DuncanB|DuncanB]]
| <center>2</center>
|-
| [[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]]
| <center>39</center>
|-
| [[User:Human|Human]]
| <center>7</center>
|-
| [[User:JLauttamus|JLauttamus]]
| <center>1</center>
|-
| [[User:Joaquín Martínez|Joaquín]]
| <center>1</center>
|-
| [[User:Jpatt|Jp]]
| <center>12</center>
|-
| [[User:LiamG|LiamG]]
| <center>1</center>
|-
| [[User:Markr|Markr]]
| <center>1</center>
|-
| [[User:MHayes|MHayes]]
| <center>1</center>
|-
| [[User:SarahFan|SarahFan]]
| <center>1</center>
|-
| [[User:Taj|Taj]]
| <center>1</center>
|-
| [[User:WinXpGeek|WinXpGeek]]
| <center>2</center>
|}

==Wanted Pages for "In the news" section - To be created==

*'''Additions to this list''' - Any member of this project may review articles from the Main page and if the wikilink is missing, they may add a wanted article to this list.
*'''Deletions from this list''' The process is:
:*Move the wikilink on this page from the ''To be created'' section to the bottom of the ''Completed'' section with the appropriate credit.
:*Update the number of articles under your name in the table.
:*Find the corresponding term on the Main page or news archives. (Admins)
:*Wikilink to the corresponding Conservapedia article. (Admins)

#[[government-sponsored enterprise]]
#[[non-embryonic]]
#[[Boomer Left]]
#[[politics of personal destruction]]
#[[National Unity]]
#[[guise]]
#[[suffer]]
#[[tour]]
#[[ordinary]]
#[[crisis]]
#[[moderator]]
#[[criticism]]
#[[X-Factor culture]]
#[[celebrity culture]]
#[[fad]]
#[[hostility]]
#[[embarrassment]]
#[[talent show]]
#[[PAC]]
#[[trigger]]
#[[purpose]]
#[[Repair]]
#[[suggest]]
#[[heal]]
#[[rescue]]
#[[shatter]]
#[[role]]
#[[ruse]]
#[[Abu Musab al-Zarqawi]]
#[[Masquerade]]
#[[bracelet]]
#[[botox]]
#[[lifestyle]]
#[[bizarre]]
#[[sedate]]
#[[dehydrate]]
#[[terminally ill]]
#[[Philip Berg]]
#[[R. Barclay Surrick]]
#[[original]]
#[[version]]
#[[certificate of citizenship]]
#[[oath of allegiance]]
#[[salary]]
#[[convict]]
#[[professionalism]]
#[[stability]]
#[[region]]
#[[scholar]]
#[[Rashid Khalidi]]
#[[Hannity's America]]
#[[ugly]]
#[[countenance]]
#[[malicious]]
#[[mask]]
#[[blogosphere]]
#[[slash-and-burn politics]]
#[[Unqualified]]
#[[buyer]]
#[[benefit]]
#[[effort]]
#[[deregulate]]
#[[partner]]
#[[forefront]]
#[[push]]
#[[relax]]
#[[lend]]
#[[restriction]]

==Conservapedia wanted articles==
These wanted articles were taken from the [[Special:Wantedpages|Conservapedia wanted articles]] list. Completing these wanted articles adds to your total count.

#[[Michael Ruse]] - This article has been deleted three times is it wanted?--[[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 16:19, 24 September 2008 (EDT) 
If this word is not wanted, the six links should be
[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:Whatlinkshere&target=Michael_Ruse removed]. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 10:53, 25 September 2008 (EDT)
#[[Epistle to the Romans]]
#[[Grand Junction]]
#[[Ainu (Middle-earth)]]
#[[Johanan]]
#[[Project Muse]]
#[[Railroad Retirement Board]]
#[[National Museum of Natural History]]
#[[Igor Gouzenko]]
#[[Ephesians]]
#[[Simon Marius]]
#[[Daniel (prophet)]]
#[[Jeremiah (Biblical book)]]
#[[Pope John XXIII]]
#[[Christian Democratic Party (Norway)]]
#[[Broadcast]]
#[[Meaning]]
#[[Duty]]
#[[PolitiFact]]
#[[Assemblies of God]]
#[[Castile]]
#[[Qin Shi Huang]]
#[[Edwin M. Stanton]]
#[[Microorganism]]
#[[Tros]]
#[[Thomas E. Dewey]]
#[[Leslie Orgel]]
#[[Fashion]]
#[[Plantation]]
#[[Nursing Clinics of North America]]
#[[Arthur Goldberg]]
#[[Gerard P. Kuiper]]
#[[Operation Crossroads]]
#[[Navajo]]

==Wanted Pages - Completed==
Whenever this section contains over 100 entries, the first one hundred entries are added to the [[Wikiproject:News/Wanted page/Completed|Wanted page - Completed archives]] page so this section doesn't get too large in relation to the page.

#[[Premise|premises]] redirect September 26, 2008 Foxtrot
#[[ban]] September 27, 2008 Bugler
#[[Province|provincial]] redirect September 26, 2008 Foxtrot
#[[Legislator|lawmaker]] redirect September 27, 2008 Bugler
#[[Inclusion|include]] redirect September 26, 2008 Foxtrot
#[[Wealth|rich]] redirect September 26, 2008 Foxtrot
#[[legislator]] September 27, 2008 Bugler
#[[agree]] redirect September 26, 2008 Foxtrot
#[[decompose]] redirect September 26, 2008 Foxtrot
#[[audit]] September 27, 2008 Jpatt
#[[CIO]] September 27, 2008 Jpatt
#[[Information technology]] September 27, 2008 Jpatt
#[[Unanimity|unanimous]] original September 27, 2008 Chippeterson, redirect September 27, 2008 Foxtrot
#[[power-sharing]] September 27, 2008 Bugler
#[[Nonprofit organization|nonprofit]] original September 27, 2008 Foxtrot, redirect September 27, 2008 Foxtrot
#[[present]] September 29, 2008 Chippeterson
#[[dispute]] September 28, 2008 Bugler
#[[approve]] September 29, 2008 Chippeterson
#[[deadlock]] September 29, 2008 Chippeterson
#[[review]] September 29, 2008 Chippeterson
#[[Kirkuk]] September 28, 2008 Bugler
#[[Whoopi Goldberg]] September 29, 2008 Chippeterson
#[[old-style]] September 28, 2008 Bugler
#[[pocket book]] September 28, 2008 Bugler
#[[Range]] September 27, 2008 Foxtrot
#[[Trans fat]] September 27, 2008 Foxtrot
#[[Coefficient]] September 27, 2008 Foxtrot
#[[Commercial]] September 28, 2008 Markr
#[[Viacom]] September 29, 2008 CMarius
#[[Strasbourg]] September 29, 2008 Bugler
#[[Pigment]] September 29, 2008 Bugler
#[[Samuel Huntington]] September 29, 2008 CMarius
#[[Tammany Hall]] September 29, 2008 Bugler
#[[East Indies]] September 29, 2008 Bugler
#[[Deadlock|Impasse]] redirect September 29, 2008 Bugler
#[[pilot study]] September 29, 2008 BrianCo
#[[Psychopath]] September 29, 2008 BrianCo
#[[follower]] September 29, 2008 BrianCo
#[[lifelong]] September 29, 2008 BrianCo
#[[sense]] September 29, 2008 BrianCo
#[[lament]] September 29, 2008 BrianCo
#[[fund]] October 1, 2008 BrianCo
#[[publisher]] October 1, 2008 BrianCo
#[[sub-prime mortgage]] October 1, 2008 BrianCo
#[[Columnist]] October 1, 2008 BrianCo
#[[stricken]] October 1, 2008 BrianCo
#[[overcome]] September 29, 2008 Chippeterson
#[[Protection|ProtectProtect]] original October 2, 2008 Chippeterson, redirect October 2, 2008 Foxtrot
#[[practice]] October 2, 2008 Chippeterson
#[[Manipulation|manipulate]] original October 2, 2008 Chippeterson, redirect October 2, 2008 Foxtrot
#[[handwritten]] October 1, 2008 Bugler
#[[Gwen Ifill]] October 1, 2008 Chippeterson
#[[Hideki Tojo]] September 30, 2008 Bugler
#[[AFRICOM]] October 4, 2008 Jpatt
#[[advisor]] October 4, 2008 BrianCo
#[[Cronyism]] October 4, 2008 BrianCo
#[[repeat]] October 4, 2008 BrianCo
#[[sully]] October 4, 2008 BrianCo
#[[Martin Rynja]] October 4, 2008 BrianCo
#[[Transformation|Transform]] redirect October 2, 2008 Foxtrot
#[[Barney Frank]] October 2, 2008 Foxtrot
#[[Non-believer]] October 3, 2008 Foxtrot
#[[Starvation|Starve]] redirect October 2, 2008 Foxtrot
#[[Organized crime]] October 4, 2008 SarahFan
#[[et alia|et al]] October 5, 2008 Foxtrot
#[[multiple]] October 5, 2008 Foxtrot
#[[shame|shameful]] redirect October 5, 2008 Foxtrot
#[[navigation|navigate]] redirect October 5, 2008 Foxtrot
#[[An American Carol]] October 5, 2008 Jpatt
#[[James A. Johnson]] October 5, 2008 Konstanty

==See also==
*[[Wikiproject:Religion#Requested_articles]]

Wikiproject:News/Wanted page

2008-10-05T22:54:49Z

Konstanty: /* Wanted Pages for "In the news" section - To be created */ Page made

Some of the news articles posted on the Main page need new articles created on Conservapedia. If you create a wanted page for a news article, it will be wikilinked on the Main Page.

==Contributions==
This table is a count of ''completed'' wanted pages per contributor. 
'''The top three contributors will be mentioned on the Main Page on [[Conservapedia Day]] 2008.'''

{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Contributor
! Number of articles
|-
| [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]]
| <center>100</center>
|-
| [[User:Brossa|Brossa]]
| <center>1</center>
|-
| [[User:Bugler|Bugler]]
| <center>72</center>
|-
| [[User:Chippeterson|Chippeterson]]
| <center>200</center>
|-
| [[User:CMarius|CMarius]]
| <center>2</center>
|-
| [[User:DirkB|DirkB]]
| <center>18</center>
|-
| [[User:DRamon|DRamon]]
| <center>16</center>
|-
| [[User:DuncanB|DuncanB]]
| <center>2</center>
|-
| [[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]]
| <center>39</center>
|-
| [[User:Human|Human]]
| <center>7</center>
|-
| [[User:JLauttamus|JLauttamus]]
| <center>1</center>
|-
| [[User:Joaquín Martínez|Joaquín]]
| <center>1</center>
|-
| [[User:Jpatt|Jp]]
| <center>12</center>
|-
| [[User:LiamG|LiamG]]
| <center>1</center>
|-
| [[User:Markr|Markr]]
| <center>1</center>
|-
| [[User:MHayes|MHayes]]
| <center>1</center>
|-
| [[User:SarahFan|SarahFan]]
| <center>1</center>
|-
| [[User:Taj|Taj]]
| <center>1</center>
|-
| [[User:WinXpGeek|WinXpGeek]]
| <center>2</center>
|}

==Wanted Pages for "In the news" section - To be created==

*'''Additions to this list''' - Any member of this project may review articles from the Main page and if the wikilink is missing, they may add a wanted article to this list.
*'''Deletions from this list''' The process is:
:*Move the wikilink on this page from the ''To be created'' section to the bottom of the ''Completed'' section with the appropriate credit.
:*Update the number of articles under your name in the table.
:*Find the corresponding term on the Main page or news archives. (Admins)
:*Wikilink to the corresponding Conservapedia article. (Admins)

#[[government-sponsored enterprise]]
#[[non-embryonic]]
#[[Boomer Left]]
#[[politics of personal destruction]]
#[[National Unity]]
#[[guise]]
#[[suffer]]
#[[tour]]
#[[ordinary]]
#[[crisis]]
#[[moderator]]
#[[criticism]]
#[[X-Factor culture]]
#[[celebrity culture]]
#[[fad]]
#[[hostility]]
#[[embarrassment]]
#[[talent show]]
#[[PAC]]
#[[trigger]]
#[[purpose]]
#[[Repair]]
#[[suggest]]
#[[heal]]
#[[rescue]]
#[[shatter]]
#[[role]]
#[[ruse]]
#[[Abu Musab al-Zarqawi]]
#[[Masquerade]]
#[[bracelet]]
#[[botox]]
#[[lifestyle]]
#[[bizarre]]
#[[sedate]]
#[[dehydrate]]
#[[terminally ill]]
#[[Philip Berg]]
#[[R. Barclay Surrick]]
#[[original]]
#[[version]]
#[[certificate of citizenship]]
#[[oath of allegiance]]
#[[salary]]
#[[convict]]
#[[professionalism]]
#[[stability]]
#[[region]]
#[[scholar]]
#[[Rashid Khalidi]]
#[[Hannity's America]]
#[[ugly]]
#[[countenance]]
#[[malicious]]
#[[mask]]
#[[blogosphere]]
#[[slash-and-burn politics]]
#[[Unqualified]]
#[[buyer]]
#[[benefit]]
#[[effort]]
#[[deregulate]]
#[[partner]]
#[[forefront]]
#[[push]]
#[[relax]]
#[[lend]]
#[[restriction]]

==Conservapedia wanted articles==
These wanted articles were taken from the [[Special:Wantedpages|Conservapedia wanted articles]] list. Completing these wanted articles adds to your total count.

#[[Michael Ruse]] - This article has been deleted three times is it wanted?--[[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 16:19, 24 September 2008 (EDT) 
If this word is not wanted, the six links should be
[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:Whatlinkshere&target=Michael_Ruse removed]. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 10:53, 25 September 2008 (EDT)
#[[Epistle to the Romans]]
#[[Grand Junction]]
#[[Ainu (Middle-earth)]]
#[[Johanan]]
#[[Project Muse]]
#[[Railroad Retirement Board]]
#[[National Museum of Natural History]]
#[[Igor Gouzenko]]
#[[Ephesians]]
#[[Simon Marius]]
#[[Daniel (prophet)]]
#[[Jeremiah (Biblical book)]]
#[[Pope John XXIII]]
#[[Christian Democratic Party (Norway)]]
#[[Broadcast]]
#[[Meaning]]
#[[Duty]]
#[[PolitiFact]]
#[[Assemblies of God]]
#[[Castile]]
#[[Qin Shi Huang]]
#[[Edwin M. Stanton]]
#[[Microorganism]]
#[[Tros]]
#[[Thomas E. Dewey]]
#[[Leslie Orgel]]
#[[Fashion]]
#[[Plantation]]
#[[Nursing Clinics of North America]]
#[[Arthur Goldberg]]
#[[Gerard P. Kuiper]]
#[[Operation Crossroads]]
#[[Navajo]]

==Wanted Pages - Completed==
Whenever this section contains over 100 entries, the first one hundred entries are added to the [[Wikiproject:News/Wanted page/Completed|Wanted page - Completed archives]] page so this section doesn't get too large in relation to the page.

#[[Premise|premises]] redirect September 26, 2008 Foxtrot
#[[ban]] September 27, 2008 Bugler
#[[Province|provincial]] redirect September 26, 2008 Foxtrot
#[[Legislator|lawmaker]] redirect September 27, 2008 Bugler
#[[Inclusion|include]] redirect September 26, 2008 Foxtrot
#[[Wealth|rich]] redirect September 26, 2008 Foxtrot
#[[legislator]] September 27, 2008 Bugler
#[[agree]] redirect September 26, 2008 Foxtrot
#[[decompose]] redirect September 26, 2008 Foxtrot
#[[audit]] September 27, 2008 Jpatt
#[[CIO]] September 27, 2008 Jpatt
#[[Information technology]] September 27, 2008 Jpatt
#[[Unanimity|unanimous]] original September 27, 2008 Chippeterson, redirect September 27, 2008 Foxtrot
#[[power-sharing]] September 27, 2008 Bugler
#[[Nonprofit organization|nonprofit]] original September 27, 2008 Foxtrot, redirect September 27, 2008 Foxtrot
#[[present]] September 29, 2008 Chippeterson
#[[dispute]] September 28, 2008 Bugler
#[[approve]] September 29, 2008 Chippeterson
#[[deadlock]] September 29, 2008 Chippeterson
#[[review]] September 29, 2008 Chippeterson
#[[Kirkuk]] September 28, 2008 Bugler
#[[Whoopi Goldberg]] September 29, 2008 Chippeterson
#[[old-style]] September 28, 2008 Bugler
#[[pocket book]] September 28, 2008 Bugler
#[[Range]] September 27, 2008 Foxtrot
#[[Trans fat]] September 27, 2008 Foxtrot
#[[Coefficient]] September 27, 2008 Foxtrot
#[[Commercial]] September 28, 2008 Markr
#[[Viacom]] September 29, 2008 CMarius
#[[Strasbourg]] September 29, 2008 Bugler
#[[Pigment]] September 29, 2008 Bugler
#[[Samuel Huntington]] September 29, 2008 CMarius
#[[Tammany Hall]] September 29, 2008 Bugler
#[[East Indies]] September 29, 2008 Bugler
#[[Deadlock|Impasse]] redirect September 29, 2008 Bugler
#[[pilot study]] September 29, 2008 BrianCo
#[[Psychopath]] September 29, 2008 BrianCo
#[[follower]] September 29, 2008 BrianCo
#[[lifelong]] September 29, 2008 BrianCo
#[[sense]] September 29, 2008 BrianCo
#[[lament]] September 29, 2008 BrianCo
#[[fund]] October 1, 2008 BrianCo
#[[publisher]] October 1, 2008 BrianCo
#[[sub-prime mortgage]] October 1, 2008 BrianCo
#[[Columnist]] October 1, 2008 BrianCo
#[[stricken]] October 1, 2008 BrianCo
#[[overcome]] September 29, 2008 Chippeterson
#[[Protection|ProtectProtect]] original October 2, 2008 Chippeterson, redirect October 2, 2008 Foxtrot
#[[practice]] October 2, 2008 Chippeterson
#[[Manipulation|manipulate]] original October 2, 2008 Chippeterson, redirect October 2, 2008 Foxtrot
#[[handwritten]] October 1, 2008 Bugler
#[[Gwen Ifill]] October 1, 2008 Chippeterson
#[[Hideki Tojo]] September 30, 2008 Bugler
#[[AFRICOM]] October 4, 2008 Jpatt
#[[advisor]] October 4, 2008 BrianCo
#[[Cronyism]] October 4, 2008 BrianCo
#[[repeat]] October 4, 2008 BrianCo
#[[sully]] October 4, 2008 BrianCo
#[[Martin Rynja]] October 4, 2008 BrianCo
#[[Transformation|Transform]] redirect October 2, 2008 Foxtrot
#[[Barney Frank]] October 2, 2008 Foxtrot
#[[Non-believer]] October 3, 2008 Foxtrot
#[[Starvation|Starve]] redirect October 2, 2008 Foxtrot
#[[Organized crime]] October 4, 2008 SarahFan
#[[et alia|et al]] October 5, 2008 Foxtrot
#[[multiple]] October 5, 2008 Foxtrot
#[[shame|shameful]] redirect October 5, 2008 Foxtrot
#[[navigation|navigate]] redirect October 5, 2008 Foxtrot
#[[An American Carol]] October 5, 2008 Jpatt

==See also==
*[[Wikiproject:Religion#Requested_articles]]

James A. Johnson

2008-10-05T22:53:52Z

Konstanty: I helped with conservapedia

'''James A. Johnson''' is a [[Democratic]] political figure in the [[United States]], and is most notable for being the campaign manager for [[Walter Mondale|Walter Mondale's]] failed bid for the [[Presidency]] in 1984, and being influential in the Vice-Presidential selection process for [[Democrats]] [[John Kerry]] and [[Barrack Obama]]
[[Category:Political People]]
[[Category:Democratic Party]]

F/A-18 Hornet

2008-09-23T11:55:30Z

Konstanty: proofing makes the wiki look better

The '''F/A-18 Hornet''' is the US [[United States Navy|Navy]]'s most versatile [[aircraft carrier|carrier]]-based [[aircraft]]. The official designation (F/A-18 Hornet, although often shortened to just F-18 Hornet or Super Hornet), stands for fighter/attack. It was the nation's first all-weather strike-fighter. <ref>[http://www.navy.mil/navydata/fact_display.asp?cid=1100&tid=1200&ct=1 Fact File] US Navy</ref> Other versions have been modified for air-to-air refueling, [[electronic countermeasures]], and anti-[[submarine]] warfare. It is now the Navy's primary fighter, after the retirement of the [[F-14 Tomcat]].

[[Image:Gw-vfa81-0429.jpg|thumb|right|300px|An F/A-18 prepares for launch onboard USS ''George Washington'' (CVN-73).]]

==Design==

In the 1970s, the Navy had an increasing need for a supersonic, lighter fighter that was more maneuverable than the [[F-14]] and the old [[F-4]]s. There was also a need for an attack aircraft which could replace the aging, slow [[A-7]]. Both of these replacements had to be cheap, with [[military]] funds fairly low. In 1973, the contract was announced. By 1975, the contract had been awarded to [[McDonnell Douglas]]. The first production aircraft was rolled out in 1980.

==Service==
[[Image:F-18_takeoff.jpg‎|thumb|200px|right|An F/A-18 launches in afterburner.]]
The first F/A-18 Hornet went into service with the [[Marine Corps]] in 1983 and with the Navy the same year. In 1986, the [[Blue Angels]] replaced the [[A-4 Skyhawk]] with the F-18. F-18s first saw service in the [[Gulf War]], being mostly used as ground attack aircraft. On one such mission, however, two Hornet pilots from the USS ''Saratoga'' shot down two [[Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-21]]s, scoring the first (and so far, only) air-to-air victories for the jet. After downing the Migs, the two pilots completed their attack mission, dropping their bombs on an Iraqi airfield.<ref>[http://www.mdc.com/defense-space/military/fa18/fa18_milestones.htm F/A-18 Hornet Milestones]</ref>

On the early morning of January 17,1991, another Hornet from the ''Saratoga'' became the first Allied loss of the war when it was shot down while attacking an airfield. The pilot, Lt. Commander Michael Speicher, went down with his plane, the first fatality of the Gulf War.<ref>''Desert Storm: Air War'', by Robert F. Dorr, Motorbooks International, 1991</ref> The cause was initially thought to have been anti-aircraft fire, but more recent sources suggest that the plane was downed by an Iraqi [[MiG-25]], which would make this the only air-to-air victory of the Iraqi air force during the war and the first time since the [[Vietnam War]] that America had lost an airplane in aerial combat.<ref>[http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9800E6DF1739F937A25751C1A963958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=1 A U.S. Team Seeks War Pilot’s Body]</ref><ref>[http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/01/14/gulf.war.pilot.01/ Missing U.S. Pilot Dead, Iraq Insists]</ref>

F-18s were also used in [[Kosovo]] in the 1990s and in [[Operation Iraqi Freedom]]. Early in the Iraqi campaign, one Hornet was lost in a [[friendly fire]] incident involving a [[MIM-104 Patriot|Patriot missile]] battery.<ref>[http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4176/is_20030422/ai_n14548094 Friendly fire toll raises concerns about Patriot]</ref> Two others, both Super Hornets, were lost in a mid-air collision over the Persian Gulf in January 2008.<ref>[http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/01/07/world/main3683082.shtml 2 Navy Fighter Jets Crash in Persian Gulf]</ref>

Currently, F/A-18 Hornets are operating in 37 tactical squadrons and from 10 aircraft carriers.

==Foreign Users==
Besides the US Navy and the USMC, the Hornet is in the service of a number of foreign air forces.<ref>''The Encyclopedia of Modern Military Aircraft'', ed. by Paul Eden, Aerospace Publishing, 2004</ref>

===Canada===
[[Image:Flag_of_Canada.svg|24px]]

[[Canada]] was the first export customer for the Hornet. Over 100 planes were ordered, and first delivery was in 1982. Canadian F-18s flew operational missions in the Gulf War and over [[Bosnia]] during Operation Deliberate Force.

===Australia===
[[Image:Flag_of_Australia.png|24px]]

[[Australia]] selected the Hornet to replace its Mirages in 1981, and first acquired the new plane in 1985. 75 were delivered in total, including 18 two-seat models.

===Spain===
[[Image:Flag_of_Spain.png|24px]]

[[Spain]] ordered 72 Hornets, and the first was delivered in 1986. Thirty more ex-Navy machines were acquired in 1996. Spanish Hornets saw action in operations over Bosnia and Kosovo.

===Kuwait===
[[Image:Flag_of_Kuwait.png|28px]]

[[Kuwait]] ordered Hornets before the Gulf War to replace its aging [[A-4 Skyhawk|Skyhawks]] and Mirages, but delivery was delayed due to the Iraqi occupation. The first ones arrived in early 1992, and Kuwait eventually bought 40 of them, which outfit one air defense and one attack squadron.

===Finland===
[[Image:Flag_of_Finland.png|28px]]

With its air force made up of older Swedish and Russian fighters, [[Finland]] sought a replacement. After an exhaustive evaluation, Finland settled on the Hornet, and first delivery was in 1995. Finland currently has over sixty Hornets, all serving in the air defense role.

===Switzerland===
[[Image:Flag_of_Switzerland.png|24px]]

Following a national referendum, [[Switzerland]] ordered the Hornet in mid-1993. Only 34 machines were ordered, but the procurement was drawn out, and final delivery wasn’t until 1999.

===Malaysia===
[[Image:Flag_of_Malaysia.png|24px]]

In the early 90s, the [[Malaysia]]n air force consisted mainly of outdated F-5s. Malaysia adopted an interesting two-tier approach, acquiring the Hornet for the attack role and its [[Cold War]] opposite, the [[Mig-29]], for air defense. Eight Hornets were delivered in total, in 1997. Further orders were planned, but the Asian economic crisis of 1997 intervened. Malaysia is considered a potential customer for the Super Hornet.

==Variants==
[[Image:f18_schem_01.JPG|Left]]
===F/A-18A/B===

The F/A-18A is the single seat version; the F/A-18B is the two seat version. The F/A-18B is primarily used as a training aircraft.

===F/A-18C/D===

The F/A-18C is single seat and the F/A-18D is double seat. Both versions have improved radar, avionics, and the capability to carry [[AGM-65 Maverick]] missiles and [[AGM-84 Harpoon]]s. These aircraft were upgraded in 1987. Some were upgraded to become night reconnaisance aircraft.

===F/A-18E/F Super Hornet===

The single seat F/A-18E and the two seat F/A-18F are very much redesigned aircraft, based on the original airframe. Both have more powerful engines and improved avionics, and will eventually equip 22 squadrons. The F/A-18F will be modified to make the [[EA-18 Growler]], which will eventually replace the [[EA-6 Prowler]].<ref>[http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/f-18g.htm EA-18G/F/A-18G "Growler"]</ref>

==Specifications==

{| class="wikitable"

|-
| '''Function'''
| Light fighter-bomber
|-
| '''Contractor'''
| McDonnell Douglas
|-
| '''Power plant'''
|Two [[General Electric]] F404-GE-402 turbofans with 11,000 pounds of thrust each
|-
| '''Length'''
|56 feet
|-
| '''Height'''
| 15 feet, 4 inches
|-
| '''Speed'''
| 1,190 miles per hour
|-
|-
| '''Wingspan'''
| 40 feet
|-
| '''Empty weight'''
| 24,700 pounds
|-
|'''Maximum Weight'''
|65,000 pounds
|-
| '''Crew'''
|(A, C, and E models):One. (B, D, and F models: Two.
|-
|'''Range'''
|Unrefueled 2,070 miles (with drop tanks)
|-
|'''Armament'''
|One Vulcan Gatling gun with 578 rounds; 13,790 pounds of assorted stores under the wings including [[AIM-7 Sparrow]], [[AIM-9 Sidewinder]], and [[AIM-120 AMRAAM]] air-to-air missiles, [[AGM-65 Maverick]], [[AGM-84 Harpoon]], and [[AGM-45 Shrike]] air-to-ground missiles.

|}

[[Image:Blue_Angels_F-18.jpg|thumb|450 px|The [[Blue Angels]] in F/A-18 Hornets.]]

==The F/A-18 in Popular Culture==
The Hornet is frequently seen in military-themed novels, including [[Tom Clancy]]'s ''Red Storm Rising''. The F-18 had a starring role in the blockbuster movie ''[[Independence Day (film)|Independence Day]]''.

==References==
<references/>
[[category:aircraft]]
[[category: United States Navy]]

Talk:Essay:Greatest Mysteries of American History

2008-08-14T13:43:19Z

Konstanty: /* Columbus */

== What scope are we using here? ==

Would the question of what happened to Jimmy Hoffa, Judge Crater, D. B. Cooper, and other similar famous, historic disappearances fit the article? [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 00:04, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

: Good suggestion. I'll add these. I'm not even aware of the Judge Crater mystery, and now you have my curiosity piqued!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:59, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

== Not really mysteries. ==

# What caused the USS Maine to explode?
The current theory is that there was an explosion on the ship.
# What caused the Great Depression?
An unregulated economy and the dust bowl.
# Did FDR have advance knowledge of the attack on Pearl Harbor?
No... Just no.
# Why did the U-2 spy plane crash-land in the Soviet Union?
A surface to air missile.

: You're entitled to your opinion, but it's clear you haven't solved these four mysteries. The first answer simply repeats the question; your second is obviously biased and silly; your third shows a lack of understanding of the facts; and your fails to address how high U-2's fly. Keep trying, and maybe you'll learn something in the process.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:58, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

:: While the U-2 does fly at a very high altitude (25,000 meters)<ref>h</ref>, the missiles in use at that time, S-75 Dvinas, have a higher max altitude, at 33,000 meters.<ref>ttp://www.pakdef.info/pakmilitary/army/sam/sa2guideline.html</ref> With the Maine, I should clarify, the current theory is that a spark in one of the coal shutes caused an explosion.

::: If a missile hit the U-2 as you claim, then how could it have landed intact with the pilot surviving? This mystery is not solved ... yet.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:43, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

:::: No one has ever said it landed intact, there was debris, but that is to be expected, and Powers bailed out after the first salvo. 01:19, 13 August 2008 (EDT)
==Columbus==
Not much of a mystery. He took note of the co-ordinates and used a compass. You might as well ask "How did columbus manage to find the exact port he left from".
[[User:PeterSK|PeterSK]] 00:48, 13 August 2008 (EDT)

Can maybe someone address this? Its not a mystery. Columbus was a gifted sailor and navigator. Its not a mystery all. Thanks!
[[User:PeterSK|PeterSK]] 21:50, 13 August 2008 (EDT)

: Wow, with your approach, I could teach American History in just a few minutes! George Washington was a "gifted" President, Douglas MacArthur was a "gifted" General, and Ronald Reagan was a "gifted" leader. Somehow I think there's more to the story than that. But thanks for your comment. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:51, 13 August 2008 (EDT)

::Ronald Reagan was a gifted leader who used the tools he had access to, to govern. Columbus was a gifted sailor and navigator who used a compass, took note of co-ordinates and used the stars. He used the same skills to get back to the exact same port he left from. No mystery!
[[User:PeterSK|PeterSK]] 22:55, 13 August 2008 (EDT)

::: You could "solve" any mystery with your approach: simply work backwards and declare the successful person to have been "gifted"! In fact, of course, Columbus may not have been any more gifted than the average person. He was more motivated and prayed more, but that is generally not considered to be within the meaning of being "gifted".--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:09, 13 August 2008 (EDT)

Fine, he may/or may not have been gifted but like all sailors of the time he used a compass, navigated using the stars and noted the co-ordinates. Thats how he got back to where he started also. He didnt just blindly sail. Not a mystery.
[[User:PeterSK|PeterSK]] 23:13, 13 August 2008 (EDT)

I retract the celestial navigation. He used a system called dead reckoning see [http://www.columbusnavigation.com/dr.shtml here]. [[User:PeterSK|PeterSK]] 23:18, 13 August 2008 (EDT)

Columbus was inspired by God.
*[http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=21bc9fbee98db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=e74d55faa5cab010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&hideNav=1 Christopher Columbus, Inspired Seaman]
*[http://www.restoredcovenant.org/Document.asp?CAT=Insights&DOC=Christopher+Columbus%3A+Part+II Christopher Columbus: Man of Vision and Faith II] --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 23:25, 13 August 2008 (EDT)

Inspired by God he was but he still had a compass and still kept logs of his progress and navigated using the Dead Reckoning system. I reiterate, he didnt just blindly sail. [[User:PeterSK|PeterSK]] 23:27, 13 August 2008 (EDT)

: I'm sure he did use a compass, and also his eyes. But I doubt your claim that he was "gifted" and that such was the reason for his extraordinary results.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:48, 13 August 2008 (EDT)

:: I think I must be misunderstanding you, Andrew, but are you saying that he was guided by God because he was able to return to the same port he had sailed from? [[User:Konstanty|Konstanty]]07:37, 14 August 2008 (EDT)

::: Do yourself a favor and learn some history first. I'm saying it is a mystery and it requires effort to try to understand it better. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:30, 14 August 2008 (EDT)

:::: I have studied enough world history to know that people were able to sail to distant ports, and return back to their home port using tools and methods still in use today in some parts of the world.
[[User:Konstanty|Konstanty]] [[User:Konstanty|Konstanty]] 09:43, 14 August 2008 (EDT)

==Pearl Harbour==

From what I remember from middle school history, the US knew an attack was coming after they picked up the words "east wind, south" (or something similar) in a broadcast to the Japanese embassy. Earlier interceptions confirmed that this would be a signal that negotiations (which had merely been a stalling tactic for some time, anyway) were to end and an attack was imminent. However, most felt the attack would be against British and Dutch territories in Malaysia. By then, however, the Imperial Navy carrier fleet was already in position to launch the attack on Pearl Harbour. This is also covered in some detail in "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich." --[[User:JessicaT|KotomiT]][[User talk:JessicaT|''Ohayo gozaimasu!'']] 07:24, 13 August 2008 (EDT)

: Could be that the warning signs were erroneously rejected without word getting to [[FDR]], but that seems a bit cavalier in dealing with an attack, doesn't it? Many doubt U.S. intelligence was really that weak. After all, the U.S. had clearly broken the Japanese code prior to the attack.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 07:35, 13 August 2008 (EDT)r

::It's possible - WW2 is littered with examples of good intelligence being ignored to the detriment of either side. Although now you have me thinking. First question is why? It would be deliberate treason to allow most of the fleet to be wiped out, giving the Japanese short-term superiority (once Renown and Prince of Wales were sunk too). What could the motivation for that be, besides enter the US into the War, which probably would have happened soon anyway. Then again, were some key ships not moved from harbour a short time before the attack (sorry, my knowledge of the history of the War tends to be more focussed on the Japanese home front, obviously). If they had been in port and destroyed too, the fleet may never have recovered. Why did they leave so soon before the attack (again, I am assuming they did) --[[User:JessicaT|KotomiT]][[User talk:JessicaT|''Ohayo gozaimasu!'']] 09:27, 13 August 2008 (EDT)

::: Two obvious reasons for allowing the attack would be (1) to ensure full American support for fighting the war in Europe, as [[FDR]] wanted to rescue England and (2) not reveal that Americans had broken Japan's codes. Churchill allowed attacks for the same reason as (2).--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:36, 13 August 2008 (EDT)

:::: That does make sense, but it seems to be a high price to pay for secrecy (with regards to 2). --[[User:JessicaT|KotomiT]][[User talk:JessicaT|''Ohayo gozaimasu!'']] 09:42, 13 August 2008 (EDT)

==President Reagan and SDI==
You ask the question - Where did President Ronald Reagan get the idea and impetus for proposing the Strategic Defense Initiative?

I found some interesting answers in this document:

[http://donovaneditorial.com/work/ISDcasestudy1.51130007.pdf CHANGING THE RULES: PRESIDENT RONALD REAGAN’S. STRATEGIC DEFENSE INITIATIVE (SDI) DECISION]

--[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 10:06, 13 August 2008 (EDT)

: Very, very interesting. I'm going to study that document further and ask some people who might know more. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:26, 13 August 2008 (EDT)

==USS Maine explosion==
You ask the question - What caused the USS Maine to explode?

While this article doesn't solve the mystery, it does provide an interesting analysis.
[http://www.spanamwar.com/Mainemo1.htm What Destroyed the USS MAINE - An opinion] --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 22:05, 13 August 2008 (EDT)

==Repeal of Prohibition==
You ask the question - What really caused the repeal of Prohibition?

This article provides an interesting analysis. According to the article, the problems Prohibition was supposed to solve, got worse. The public became disillusioned with the Prohibition, supporters turned into dissenters and many repeal organizations were formed. The Democrats won the presidential election and the rest is history. 
[http://www2.potsdam.edu/hansondj/controversies/1131637220.html Repeal of Prohibition in the U.S.] --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 22:28, 13 August 2008 (EDT)

: Very interesting. I wonder, though, how "disillusioned" the public really was, as opposed to simple politics here and the impact of the [[Great Depression]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:52, 13 August 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Essay:Greatest Mysteries of American History

2008-08-14T11:37:06Z

Konstanty: /* Columbus */

== What scope are we using here? ==

Would the question of what happened to Jimmy Hoffa, Judge Crater, D. B. Cooper, and other similar famous, historic disappearances fit the article? [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 00:04, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

: Good suggestion. I'll add these. I'm not even aware of the Judge Crater mystery, and now you have my curiosity piqued!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:59, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

== Not really mysteries. ==

# What caused the USS Maine to explode?
The current theory is that there was an explosion on the ship.
# What caused the Great Depression?
An unregulated economy and the dust bowl.
# Did FDR have advance knowledge of the attack on Pearl Harbor?
No... Just no.
# Why did the U-2 spy plane crash-land in the Soviet Union?
A surface to air missile.

: You're entitled to your opinion, but it's clear you haven't solved these four mysteries. The first answer simply repeats the question; your second is obviously biased and silly; your third shows a lack of understanding of the facts; and your fails to address how high U-2's fly. Keep trying, and maybe you'll learn something in the process.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:58, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

:: While the U-2 does fly at a very high altitude (25,000 meters)<ref>h</ref>, the missiles in use at that time, S-75 Dvinas, have a higher max altitude, at 33,000 meters.<ref>ttp://www.pakdef.info/pakmilitary/army/sam/sa2guideline.html</ref> With the Maine, I should clarify, the current theory is that a spark in one of the coal shutes caused an explosion.

::: If a missile hit the U-2 as you claim, then how could it have landed intact with the pilot surviving? This mystery is not solved ... yet.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:43, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

:::: No one has ever said it landed intact, there was debris, but that is to be expected, and Powers bailed out after the first salvo. 01:19, 13 August 2008 (EDT)
==Columbus==
Not much of a mystery. He took note of the co-ordinates and used a compass. You might as well ask "How did columbus manage to find the exact port he left from".
[[User:PeterSK|PeterSK]] 00:48, 13 August 2008 (EDT)

Can maybe someone address this? Its not a mystery. Columbus was a gifted sailor and navigator. Its not a mystery all. Thanks!
[[User:PeterSK|PeterSK]] 21:50, 13 August 2008 (EDT)

: Wow, with your approach, I could teach American History in just a few minutes! George Washington was a "gifted" President, Douglas MacArthur was a "gifted" General, and Ronald Reagan was a "gifted" leader. Somehow I think there's more to the story than that. But thanks for your comment. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:51, 13 August 2008 (EDT)

::Ronald Reagan was a gifted leader who used the tools he had access to, to govern. Columbus was a gifted sailor and navigator who used a compass, took note of co-ordinates and used the stars. He used the same skills to get back to the exact same port he left from. No mystery!
[[User:PeterSK|PeterSK]] 22:55, 13 August 2008 (EDT)

::: You could "solve" any mystery with your approach: simply work backwards and declare the successful person to have been "gifted"! In fact, of course, Columbus may not have been any more gifted than the average person. He was more motivated and prayed more, but that is generally not considered to be within the meaning of being "gifted".--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:09, 13 August 2008 (EDT)

Fine, he may/or may not have been gifted but like all sailors of the time he used a compass, navigated using the stars and noted the co-ordinates. Thats how he got back to where he started also. He didnt just blindly sail. Not a mystery.
[[User:PeterSK|PeterSK]] 23:13, 13 August 2008 (EDT)

I retract the celestial navigation. He used a system called dead reckoning see [http://www.columbusnavigation.com/dr.shtml here]. [[User:PeterSK|PeterSK]] 23:18, 13 August 2008 (EDT)

Columbus was inspired by God.
*[http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=21bc9fbee98db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=e74d55faa5cab010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&hideNav=1 Christopher Columbus, Inspired Seaman]
*[http://www.restoredcovenant.org/Document.asp?CAT=Insights&DOC=Christopher+Columbus%3A+Part+II Christopher Columbus: Man of Vision and Faith II] --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 23:25, 13 August 2008 (EDT)

Inspired by God he was but he still had a compass and still kept logs of his progress and navigated using the Dead Reckoning system. I reiterate, he didnt just blindly sail. [[User:PeterSK|PeterSK]] 23:27, 13 August 2008 (EDT)

: I'm sure he did use a compass, and also his eyes. But I doubt your claim that he was "gifted" and that such was the reason for his extraordinary results.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:48, 13 August 2008 (EDT)

:: I think I must be misunderstanding you, Andrew, but are you saying that he was guided by God because he was able to return to the same port he had sailed from? [[User:Konstanty|Konstanty]]07:37, 14 August 2008 (EDT)

==Pearl Harbour==

From what I remember from middle school history, the US knew an attack was coming after they picked up the words "east wind, south" (or something similar) in a broadcast to the Japanese embassy. Earlier interceptions confirmed that this would be a signal that negotiations (which had merely been a stalling tactic for some time, anyway) were to end and an attack was imminent. However, most felt the attack would be against British and Dutch territories in Malaysia. By then, however, the Imperial Navy carrier fleet was already in position to launch the attack on Pearl Harbour. This is also covered in some detail in "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich." --[[User:JessicaT|KotomiT]][[User talk:JessicaT|''Ohayo gozaimasu!'']] 07:24, 13 August 2008 (EDT)

: Could be that the warning signs were erroneously rejected without word getting to [[FDR]], but that seems a bit cavalier in dealing with an attack, doesn't it? Many doubt U.S. intelligence was really that weak. After all, the U.S. had clearly broken the Japanese code prior to the attack.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 07:35, 13 August 2008 (EDT)r

::It's possible - WW2 is littered with examples of good intelligence being ignored to the detriment of either side. Although now you have me thinking. First question is why? It would be deliberate treason to allow most of the fleet to be wiped out, giving the Japanese short-term superiority (once Renown and Prince of Wales were sunk too). What could the motivation for that be, besides enter the US into the War, which probably would have happened soon anyway. Then again, were some key ships not moved from harbour a short time before the attack (sorry, my knowledge of the history of the War tends to be more focussed on the Japanese home front, obviously). If they had been in port and destroyed too, the fleet may never have recovered. Why did they leave so soon before the attack (again, I am assuming they did) --[[User:JessicaT|KotomiT]][[User talk:JessicaT|''Ohayo gozaimasu!'']] 09:27, 13 August 2008 (EDT)

::: Two obvious reasons for allowing the attack would be (1) to ensure full American support for fighting the war in Europe, as [[FDR]] wanted to rescue England and (2) not reveal that Americans had broken Japan's codes. Churchill allowed attacks for the same reason as (2).--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:36, 13 August 2008 (EDT)

:::: That does make sense, but it seems to be a high price to pay for secrecy (with regards to 2). --[[User:JessicaT|KotomiT]][[User talk:JessicaT|''Ohayo gozaimasu!'']] 09:42, 13 August 2008 (EDT)

==President Reagan and SDI==
You ask the question - Where did President Ronald Reagan get the idea and impetus for proposing the Strategic Defense Initiative?

I found some interesting answers in this document:

[http://donovaneditorial.com/work/ISDcasestudy1.51130007.pdf CHANGING THE RULES: PRESIDENT RONALD REAGAN’S. STRATEGIC DEFENSE INITIATIVE (SDI) DECISION]

--[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 10:06, 13 August 2008 (EDT)

: Very, very interesting. I'm going to study that document further and ask some people who might know more. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:26, 13 August 2008 (EDT)

==USS Maine explosion==
You ask the question - What caused the USS Maine to explode?

While this article doesn't solve the mystery, it does provide an interesting analysis.
[http://www.spanamwar.com/Mainemo1.htm What Destroyed the USS MAINE - An opinion] --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 22:05, 13 August 2008 (EDT)

==Repeal of Prohibition==
You ask the question - What really caused the repeal of Prohibition?

This article provides an interesting analysis. According to the article, the problems Prohibition was supposed to solve, got worse. The public became disillusioned with the Prohibition, supporters turned into dissenters and many repeal organizations were formed. The Democrats won the presidential election and the rest is history. 
[http://www2.potsdam.edu/hansondj/controversies/1131637220.html Repeal of Prohibition in the U.S.] --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 22:28, 13 August 2008 (EDT)

: Very interesting. I wonder, though, how "disillusioned" the public really was, as opposed to simple politics here and the impact of the [[Great Depression]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:52, 13 August 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Essay:Greatest Mysteries of American History

2008-08-14T11:35:56Z

Konstanty: /* Columbus */

== What scope are we using here? ==

Would the question of what happened to Jimmy Hoffa, Judge Crater, D. B. Cooper, and other similar famous, historic disappearances fit the article? [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 00:04, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

: Good suggestion. I'll add these. I'm not even aware of the Judge Crater mystery, and now you have my curiosity piqued!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:59, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

== Not really mysteries. ==

# What caused the USS Maine to explode?
The current theory is that there was an explosion on the ship.
# What caused the Great Depression?
An unregulated economy and the dust bowl.
# Did FDR have advance knowledge of the attack on Pearl Harbor?
No... Just no.
# Why did the U-2 spy plane crash-land in the Soviet Union?
A surface to air missile.

: You're entitled to your opinion, but it's clear you haven't solved these four mysteries. The first answer simply repeats the question; your second is obviously biased and silly; your third shows a lack of understanding of the facts; and your fails to address how high U-2's fly. Keep trying, and maybe you'll learn something in the process.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:58, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

:: While the U-2 does fly at a very high altitude (25,000 meters)<ref>h</ref>, the missiles in use at that time, S-75 Dvinas, have a higher max altitude, at 33,000 meters.<ref>ttp://www.pakdef.info/pakmilitary/army/sam/sa2guideline.html</ref> With the Maine, I should clarify, the current theory is that a spark in one of the coal shutes caused an explosion.

::: If a missile hit the U-2 as you claim, then how could it have landed intact with the pilot surviving? This mystery is not solved ... yet.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:43, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

:::: No one has ever said it landed intact, there was debris, but that is to be expected, and Powers bailed out after the first salvo. 01:19, 13 August 2008 (EDT)
==Columbus==
Not much of a mystery. He took note of the co-ordinates and used a compass. You might as well ask "How did columbus manage to find the exact port he left from".
[[User:PeterSK|PeterSK]] 00:48, 13 August 2008 (EDT)

Can maybe someone address this? Its not a mystery. Columbus was a gifted sailor and navigator. Its not a mystery all. Thanks!
[[User:PeterSK|PeterSK]] 21:50, 13 August 2008 (EDT)

: Wow, with your approach, I could teach American History in just a few minutes! George Washington was a "gifted" President, Douglas MacArthur was a "gifted" General, and Ronald Reagan was a "gifted" leader. Somehow I think there's more to the story than that. But thanks for your comment. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:51, 13 August 2008 (EDT)

::Ronald Reagan was a gifted leader who used the tools he had access to, to govern. Columbus was a gifted sailor and navigator who used a compass, took note of co-ordinates and used the stars. He used the same skills to get back to the exact same port he left from. No mystery!
[[User:PeterSK|PeterSK]] 22:55, 13 August 2008 (EDT)

::: You could "solve" any mystery with your approach: simply work backwards and declare the successful person to have been "gifted"! In fact, of course, Columbus may not have been any more gifted than the average person. He was more motivated and prayed more, but that is generally not considered to be within the meaning of being "gifted".--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:09, 13 August 2008 (EDT)

Fine, he may/or may not have been gifted but like all sailors of the time he used a compass, navigated using the stars and noted the co-ordinates. Thats how he got back to where he started also. He didnt just blindly sail. Not a mystery.
[[User:PeterSK|PeterSK]] 23:13, 13 August 2008 (EDT)

I retract the celestial navigation. He used a system called dead reckoning see [http://www.columbusnavigation.com/dr.shtml here]. [[User:PeterSK|PeterSK]] 23:18, 13 August 2008 (EDT)

Columbus was inspired by God.
*[http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=21bc9fbee98db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=e74d55faa5cab010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&hideNav=1 Christopher Columbus, Inspired Seaman]
*[http://www.restoredcovenant.org/Document.asp?CAT=Insights&DOC=Christopher+Columbus%3A+Part+II Christopher Columbus: Man of Vision and Faith II] --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 23:25, 13 August 2008 (EDT)

Inspired by God he was but he still had a compass and still kept logs of his progress and navigated using the Dead Reckoning system. I reiterate, he didnt just blindly sail. [[User:PeterSK|PeterSK]] 23:27, 13 August 2008 (EDT)

: I'm sure he did use a compass, and also his eyes. But I doubt your claim that he was "gifted" and that such was the reason for his extraordinary results.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:48, 13 August 2008 (EDT)

:: I think I must be misunderstanding you, Andrew, but are you saying that he was guided by God because he was able to return to the same port he had sailed from?

==Pearl Harbour==

From what I remember from middle school history, the US knew an attack was coming after they picked up the words "east wind, south" (or something similar) in a broadcast to the Japanese embassy. Earlier interceptions confirmed that this would be a signal that negotiations (which had merely been a stalling tactic for some time, anyway) were to end and an attack was imminent. However, most felt the attack would be against British and Dutch territories in Malaysia. By then, however, the Imperial Navy carrier fleet was already in position to launch the attack on Pearl Harbour. This is also covered in some detail in "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich." --[[User:JessicaT|KotomiT]][[User talk:JessicaT|''Ohayo gozaimasu!'']] 07:24, 13 August 2008 (EDT)

: Could be that the warning signs were erroneously rejected without word getting to [[FDR]], but that seems a bit cavalier in dealing with an attack, doesn't it? Many doubt U.S. intelligence was really that weak. After all, the U.S. had clearly broken the Japanese code prior to the attack.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 07:35, 13 August 2008 (EDT)r

::It's possible - WW2 is littered with examples of good intelligence being ignored to the detriment of either side. Although now you have me thinking. First question is why? It would be deliberate treason to allow most of the fleet to be wiped out, giving the Japanese short-term superiority (once Renown and Prince of Wales were sunk too). What could the motivation for that be, besides enter the US into the War, which probably would have happened soon anyway. Then again, were some key ships not moved from harbour a short time before the attack (sorry, my knowledge of the history of the War tends to be more focussed on the Japanese home front, obviously). If they had been in port and destroyed too, the fleet may never have recovered. Why did they leave so soon before the attack (again, I am assuming they did) --[[User:JessicaT|KotomiT]][[User talk:JessicaT|''Ohayo gozaimasu!'']] 09:27, 13 August 2008 (EDT)

::: Two obvious reasons for allowing the attack would be (1) to ensure full American support for fighting the war in Europe, as [[FDR]] wanted to rescue England and (2) not reveal that Americans had broken Japan's codes. Churchill allowed attacks for the same reason as (2).--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:36, 13 August 2008 (EDT)

:::: That does make sense, but it seems to be a high price to pay for secrecy (with regards to 2). --[[User:JessicaT|KotomiT]][[User talk:JessicaT|''Ohayo gozaimasu!'']] 09:42, 13 August 2008 (EDT)

==President Reagan and SDI==
You ask the question - Where did President Ronald Reagan get the idea and impetus for proposing the Strategic Defense Initiative?

I found some interesting answers in this document:

[http://donovaneditorial.com/work/ISDcasestudy1.51130007.pdf CHANGING THE RULES: PRESIDENT RONALD REAGAN’S. STRATEGIC DEFENSE INITIATIVE (SDI) DECISION]

--[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 10:06, 13 August 2008 (EDT)

: Very, very interesting. I'm going to study that document further and ask some people who might know more. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:26, 13 August 2008 (EDT)

==USS Maine explosion==
You ask the question - What caused the USS Maine to explode?

While this article doesn't solve the mystery, it does provide an interesting analysis.
[http://www.spanamwar.com/Mainemo1.htm What Destroyed the USS MAINE - An opinion] --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 22:05, 13 August 2008 (EDT)

==Repeal of Prohibition==
You ask the question - What really caused the repeal of Prohibition?

This article provides an interesting analysis. According to the article, the problems Prohibition was supposed to solve, got worse. The public became disillusioned with the Prohibition, supporters turned into dissenters and many repeal organizations were formed. The Democrats won the presidential election and the rest is history. 
[http://www2.potsdam.edu/hansondj/controversies/1131637220.html Repeal of Prohibition in the U.S.] --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 22:28, 13 August 2008 (EDT)

: Very interesting. I wonder, though, how "disillusioned" the public really was, as opposed to simple politics here and the impact of the [[Great Depression]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:52, 13 August 2008 (EDT)

New age movement

2008-08-13T22:42:13Z

Konstanty: what

The '''New age movement''' is a large collection of differing beliefs and practices, which all share a theme of promised [[spiritual]] growth and personal development. Practices seldom include [[Christ]] and often include [[astrology]], [[reincarnation]], [[tarot card]] reading, [[crystal ball]] gazing, [[acupuncture]], [[meditation]], [[Eastern mysticism]], and many others. An early influence on the growth of the New Age movement was the founding of the [[Theosophical Society]] by [[Madame Blavatsky]] in 1875, but it gained most popularity in the 1960s, when its followers looked forward to the dawning of the [[Age of Aquarius]].

Often vague, and undefined, the New Age Movement shuns strict dogmatic teachings. Jonathan Adolph says that the New Age Movement "has no religious doctrine or teachings of its own."<ref>Jonathan Adolph, "What is New Age?" ''New Age Journal'' (Winter 1988)</ref> A notable characteristic of New Age is it's drawing of cross-religion and cross-culture elements - a typical New Age believer can comfortably mix Christian crosses and angels with ancient egyptian, wiccan, satanic, native american, greek or celtic symbols making no distinction between them.

The [[Stanford Research Institute]] estimates than as much as 5 or 10% of the population identified themselves as New Agers.<ref>Jonathan Adolph,"What is New Age?" ''New Age Journal'' (Winter 1988)</ref>

==References==

<references/>

[[category:sociology]]
[[Category:Worldviews]]

Talk:Essay:Greatest Mysteries of American History

2008-08-13T05:19:03Z

Konstanty:

Talk:Essay:Greatest Mysteries of American History

2008-08-13T03:32:29Z

Konstanty:

Talk:Essay:Greatest Mysteries of American History

2008-08-13T03:31:18Z

Konstanty:

Helicopter

2008-08-12T22:51:20Z

Konstanty: the V-2 had nothing to do with helocopters, at all.

[[Image:Sea_King.jpg|right|thumb|300px|Westland ''Sea King'' helicopter of 845 Naval Air Squadron, [[Royal Navy]] ([[Serbia]], 1997)]]
A '''helicopter''' is a rotary wing [[aircraft]]. The first practical helicopter was developed in 1939 by [[Russian]]-born [[Igor Sikorsky]] (1889–1972).

Helicopter flight was the first flight envisioned by man. In fact, the ancient [[Chinese]] were playing with a hand-spun toy that rose upward when revolved rapidly and as early as the mid 1500's, the great [[Italian]] inventor [[Leonardo da Vinci]] had used his fertile mind to make drawings of a machine that we now know as the helicopter.<ref> [http://www.helis.com/ Helicopter History Site]
</ref>

Each blade in a helicopter rotor is an [[airfoil]], a [[wing]] with a curved top and a straight bottom. As the blade spins around, air travels faster over the top surface than under the bottom. This reduces air pressure above the blade and produces an upward force called lift. The pitch of the blades (the angle they make to the incoming airflow) controls the amount of lift. During takeoff, the pilot increases the pitch with a control called the collective pitch stick. The lift produced is greater than the helicopter's weight and this makes the helicopter rise upward. If the lift exactly equals the weight, the helicopter hovers. If the weight is greater than the lift, the helicopter descends to Earth. <ref>[http://www.explainthatstuff.com/helicopter.html How helicopters work]</ref>

Bell Helicopter Textron, is a producer of commercial and military helicopters, and the pioneer of the revolutionary tiltrotor aircraft.

== See also ==

*[[British Army]]
*[[Bell Aircraft]]
*[[United States Navy]]

== External links ==

*[http://www.bellhelicopter.textron.com/en/index.cfm Bellhelicopter-Textron] Welcome to Bell Helicopter.
*[http://www.thaitechnics.com/helicopter/heli_intro.html How can helicopter fly] Thai Technics.Com.

== References ==
<references/>

[[Category:Technology]]

[[Category:Military]]

Talk:Essay:Greatest Mysteries of American History

2008-08-12T22:33:28Z

Konstanty: /* Not really mysteries. */ new section

== What scope are we using here? ==

Would the question of what happened to Jimmy Hoffa, Judge Crater, D. B. Cooper, and other similar famous, historic disappearances fit the article? [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 00:04, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

== Not really mysteries. ==

# What caused the USS Maine to explode?
The current theory is that there was an explosion on the ship.
# What caused the Great Depression?
An unregulated economy and the dust bowl.
# Did FDR have advance knowledge of the attack on Pearl Harbor?
No... Just no.
# Why did the U-2 spy plane crash-land in the Soviet Union?
A surface to air missile.

Vietcong

2008-08-09T18:16:13Z

Konstanty: That doesn

The '''Viet Cong''' were communist guerrillas in [[South Vietnam]].
They began fighting for the reunification of [[North Vietnam|North]] and South Vietnam under [[communist]] rule in the 1960s. They were organized into three levels: regular forces operating under the command of the southern communist leadership, full time guerrillas organized into companies serving under provincial leadership and finally, a part time self-defense militia, composed of units organized into squads and platoons used primarily for village defense.{{fact}}
[[Category:Vietnam War]]

United States dollar coins

2008-08-08T22:07:20Z

Konstanty: /* Current Issues */

==Early Dollars==

The first "dollar" was designed in 15th century as a replacement for the gold florin. At the time, the most productive silver mine in Europe was in Joachimsthal. The new coin was called a ''thaler'' in German, and many languages adapted the word for their own use. The Spanish milled dollar, or piece-of-eight, was familiar to the English American colonists. A silver dollar-sized coin was minted as Continental Currency in 1776, and the dollar was formally adopted as the monetary unit of the United States in 1785.<ref>Yeoman 2001, 176</ref>

==Large Dollars==

===Silver===

The earliest US dollar coins weighed 420 grains and contained .8924 fine silver. The obverse depicted a bust of Liberty and the reverse depicted an eagle surrounded by olive branches. In 1798, the eagle was replaced with a larger heraldic eagle. Minting of silver dollars began in 1794 and continued, with one brief interruption, until 1803. (An "1804" dollar was struck as a presentation piece in 1834-1835; it is very rare.)<ref>Yeoman 2001, 176-180</ref>

The suspension of silver coinage was lifted in 1831, and the first new silver dollars appeared in 1836. The weight of the coin was reduced in 412.5 grains, 0.900 silver. The earliest examples of these dollars depicted a seated liberty on the obverse and an eagle in flight on the reverse. The eagle was replaced with a heraldic eagle when minting of the silver dollar was greatly expanded for circulation in 1840. By 1853, the silver in the coin was worth more than the face value, and the coin was used mostly for international trade. In 1866, the motto "In God We Trust" was added to the dollar coin for the first time. The "Liberty Seated - Heraldic Eagle" dollar was minted until 1873.<ref>Yeoman 2001, 181-183</ref>

Silver dollar production resumed in 1878. The Morgan dollar -- so named for its designer -- depicted Liberty's head on the obverse and a heraldic eagle on the reverse. Coinage continued until the Treasury's silver bullion was depleted in 1904. A number of silver dollars were melted to replenish the bullion in 1918, and one last run of Morgan dollars were issued in 1921.<ref>Yeoman 2001, 186</ref>

In 1921, the Peace dollar was issued to commemorate the end of World War I. The obverse depicted Liberty's head, looking not unlike the Statue of Liberty. The reverse depicted an eagle watching a rising sun. Circulating coins were minted continuously until 1928, and a final run of circulating Peace dollars was minted in 1935. Examples of this coin were struck in 1965, but all were melted.<ref>Yeoman 2001, 189-90</ref>

===Eisenhower===

A copper-nickel dollar coin with the same size as previous silver dollars was minted from 1971-1978. Some specimens were silver-clad. President [[Eisenhower]]'s head was on the obverse, and the reverse showed an eagle carrying an olive branch over the moon. The bicentennial coinage (1975-1976, but dated "1776-1976") showed the Liberty Bell and the moon.<ref>Yeoman 2001, 191-2</ref>

==Small Dollars==

===Susan B. Anthony===

The Susan B Anthony dollar was minted from 1979 to 1981, and for an additional year in 1999. The obverse features [[Susan B. Anthony]] and the reverse features an American [[bald eagle]] flying over the [[Moon]]. The coin is a silver colored copper-nickel alloy and has a reeded edge.

===Sacagawea===

The Sacagawea dollar was minted from 2000 to present. The obverse features Sacagawea and her infant son Jean Baptiste and the reverse features an American [[bald eagle]] in flight. The coin is a gold colored manganese brass with an unreeded edge.

===Presidential===

The [http://www.usmint.gov/mint_programs/$1coin/index.cfm Presidential $1 Coin Act of 2005], signed into law by [[George W. Bush]], introduced new dollar coins depicting the images of [[Presidents Of The United States]]. The first coin in this series was issued in 2007 and shows the image of [[George Washington]], the first President of the United States of America. The obverse shows the Statue of Liberty. The coin is a gold color with a smooth edge that is struck with an inscription using a special machine.

==Gold Dollars==

A gold dollar, weighing 25.8 grams with a fineness of 0.900, was authorized in 1849. The obverse depicted Liberty's head and the reverse bore the phrase "1 DOLLAR ''YEAR OF ISSUE''." In 1854, the figure on the obverse was changed to a woman in a feather headdress, giving these coins the common name "Indian Head type." Unlike silver dollars and some of the larger gold coins, the motto "In God We Trust" did not appear on this coin. Between 1873 and 1878 the gold dollar was the only dollar coin minted for domestic use in the United States. US citizens were prohibited from holding monetary gold in the United States in 1934; this was extended to monetary gold abroad in 1961. These restrictions were lifted in 1975.<ref>Yeoman 2001, 186, 196</ref>

==Trade Dollars==

The Trade dollar was minted from 1873-1875 for trade with the Orient. It contained more silver than the regular dollar, and until 1876 was legal tender in the United States for up to $5.00. The law authorizing Trade dollars was repealed in 1887 and the Treasury was authorized to redeem all unmutilated Trade dollars.<ref>Yeoman 2001, 184</ref>

==American Eagles==

The Mint began producing silver American Eagles with a face value of $1 in 1986. The obverse is a reproduction of Weinman's Walking Liberty half dollar, and the reverse shows a simple heraldic eagle surmounted by thirteen stars. The coin contains one ounce of silver. Although it is legal tender, the silver American Eagle is not made for circulation; it is a bullion coin, intended for those who wish to hold silver or who desire the coin as a collector's piece.<ref>Yeoman 2001, 333</ref>

==Current Issues==

The Presidential series differs from all current U.S. coinage in this essential respect: there is no "In God We Trust" on the front or back of the coin. Instead, the motto "In God We Trust" is engraved on the tiny ''edge'' of the coin (approximately 1/16th of an inch high) where it is barely visible. The [http://www.usmint.gov/mint_programs/$1coin/index.cfm?flash=yes&action=EdgeIncused enlarged drawing] of the edge inscription from the U.S. Mint makes it look more readable than it actually is:

[[Image:dollarcoin2007god.jpg|"GOD" from "IN GOD WE TRUST" written on the edge of the 2007 Washington dollar coin (taken with microscope). Brand new coin, already showing wear.]]

In comparison the lettering "In God We Trust" was printed clearly on the face of the last two dollar coins, the [http://edge.i-hacked.com/wp-content/sacagaweacoin.jpg Sacagawea] and the Susan B. Anthony:

[[Image:dollarcoins.jpg|Comparison of the 2000 Sacagawea, 2007 Washington, and 1979 Susan B. Anthony dollar coins.]]

In March of 2007, an unknown number of the coins produced at the Philadelphia mint were misstruck, and lack the edge inscription. . Coin collectors speculate that of the 300 million produced, about 50,000 may have been misstruck. As with all misstruck coins, these have become collectors' items and are currently selling for about $50 each online.<ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/08/us/08coins.html?_r=1&oref=slogin Flaw Is Found in Some Coins of New Dollar], March 8, 2007, The New York Times (Associated Press story)</ref>

==Notes==
<references/>

==Bibliography==
*Yeoman, R. S. ''A Guide Book of United States Coins,'' 54th ed (2001). New York: St. Martin's Press, 2000.

Secularism

2008-08-01T00:55:11Z

Konstanty: Redirecting to Secular

#Redirect [[Secular]]

Conservative insights

2008-07-31T20:58:22Z

Konstanty: All the studies say other wise.

'''Conservative insights''' are truths discovered or ideas implemented, for the benefit of all, as a result of the [[conservative]] movement:

* that [[Reagan]]'s public exhortation to "tear down this wall" would result, merely a few years later, in tearing down the Berlin Wall<ref>Not only did [[liberals]] oppose Reagan's statement, but they felt it was foolish and senselessly provocative.</ref>
* that decreasing taxes would increase government revenue<ref>See, e.g., the [[Laffer Curve]]</ref><ref>As it helps the economy extensively, ask any economist, thus even with lower tax rates, more people will be in the upper tax bracket</ref>
* that more guns leads to less crime<ref>This is because if you ban guns this will only prevent good people from having access to guns, which is the main reason why people buy guns in the first place, criminals will still get access to guns, for example the only place in the USA that has banned guns, D.C., has the highest murder rate in the country, because criminals do not have to worry about being hurt by a victim, studies have shown criminals are more scared of civilians than police officers, because there is so many restrictions placed on them concerning when they can use a gun</ref><ref>See [[John Lott]]</ref>
* that "[[Choose Life]]" license plates would be popular and productive
* that requiring [[abortionists]] to have hospital privileges within 30 miles of the operation to handle complications would reduce victimizing [[abortions]]<ref>This is known as the [[30-mile rule]]</ref>
* that [[Hollywood Values]] leads to [[Mystery:Young_Hollywood_Breast_Cancer_Victims|higher incidence of breast cancer]] at younger ages, and early death from addiction and depression

(add more)

== References ==

<references/>

Herd immunity

2008-07-31T15:54:14Z

Konstanty: It just redirects to here

[[Community immunity]] is having a large percentage of the population [[vaccine|vaccinated]] in order to prevent the spread of certain infectious diseases. Even individuals not vaccinated (such as newborns and those with chronic illnesses) are offered some protection because the disease has little opportunity to spread within the community. This is also known as herd immunity.<ref>http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/about/terms/glossary.htm#c</ref>

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Medicine]]

Secular

2008-07-31T15:47:23Z

Konstanty: Not according to webster's

The term '''secular''' is generally used to mean "worldly, as differentiated from ecclesiastical." The term has changed meaning dramatically over time. Its original definition preserved its Latin meaning - "of an age" - as evinced in the [[Secular Games]], or the [[Carmen Secularae]] ("Song of the Augustan Age") by Horace.

The term is misused by [[atheists]] who do not want to admit how they impose their belief system in public institutions.
[[Category:Religious terms]]

Public schools in the United States

2008-07-31T15:45:46Z

Konstanty:

[[Public schools]] in the [[United States]] are [[secular]]<ref>[http://www.exodusmandate.org/art_exodus_from_public_schools_gets_helping_hand.htm Exodus from "public schools" gets a helping hand], Exodus Mandate, Sept 15, 1998</ref><ref>For example, "in 2005, officials at East Brunswick High School adopted a policy prohibiting representatives of the school district from participating in student-initiated prayer." [http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=61806]</ref><ref>From 2004 to 2006, a [[public school]] banned [[Bible]] study by children ... ''during recess''. A teacher complained about the use of the Bible and the principal then censored the study activity, according to a sworn statement by a teacher told to stop it. Principal "Summa, having learned of a complaint by a teacher and of the students' Bible study, told fourth-grade teacher Virginia Larue to nix the group's recess meeting. ... Larue later told one of Luke's Bible study colleagues the group could no longer meet at recess."[http://knoxnews.com/news/2008/jan/03/recess-bible-study-spurs-lawsuit/]</ref><ref>[[Atheists]] routine impose their views on [[public schools]]. For example, a court prohibited a moment of silence in [[Illinois]] "Township High School District 214 after atheist activist Rob Sherman challenged" it.[http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-moment_of_silence_bothmay30,0,7722271.story]</ref>
government institutions that employ 3 million workers, train 50 million students, and offer diplomas to the students who complete the 12th grade and meet the requirements of the school and state in which they reside. Spoken [[prayer]] and display of the [[Ten Commandments]] are expressly forbidden in public schools' classrooms during school hours, and teaching of [[morality]] is implicitly disfavored.<ref>''See, e.g.'', ''[[Stone v. Graham]]'' (1980) (excluding Ten Commandments from public school).</ref><ref>A public school banned [[Bible]] study by children ... ''during recess''. A teacher complained about the use of the Bible and the principle then censored the study activity, according to a sworn statement by a teacher told to stop it. [http://knoxnews.com/news/2008/jan/03/recess-bible-study-spurs-lawsuit/]</ref> In the [[United Kingdom]], however, the term "public school" means the exact opposite of its American usage, and refers to the most expensive and prestigious ''private'' schools, such as [[Eton College]], [[Harrow]], and a few others.

Among [[public school]] students in the [[United States]], 30% fail to graduate and nearly 70% are unqualified to go onto college. "Only 70% of all students in public high schools graduate, and only 32% of all students leave high school qualified to attend four-year colleges."<ref>http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/ewp_03.htm</ref> "Nationally, about 160,000 [[student]]s miss [[Public schools|school]] daily because they [[fear]] being [[Bully|bullied]]," and in [[Hawaii]] students viciously fight each other and post videos of it on [[YouTube|Youtube.com]]. One victim is now "being [[homeschooled]] at state expense."[http://starbulletin.com/2008/05/18/news/story01.html]

In response to the perception that schools have stopped teaching morality, many state education departments have or are in the process of developing "morality" that avoid good and evil, right and wrong, and instead present under the heading of "character" education.<ref>[http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3971/is_199910/ai_n8866284]</ref> The lack of appreciation for right and wrong can surprise outsiders, and even school principals. When one public school student was charged with [[felony]] [[computer crime]] for altering the grades of 20 students, the principal said, we "want to teach them what's right and wrong, and it's tough for some kids to catch on to the idea that changing grades is the wrong thing to do." [http://cw2.trb.com/news/kwgn-student-grade-felony,0,7871401.story]

== History ==

In 1647, [[Massachusetts]] [[Puritans]] enacted the second law, after Scotland in 1616,<ref>The Social, Economic & Political Reasons for the Decline of Gaelic in Scotland [http://www.scottishhistory.com/articles/highlands/gaelic/gaelic_page1.html]</ref> establishing universal public [[school]]s in the English-speaking world to block the attempts by "ould deluder Satan to keepe men from the whole knowledge of the Scriptures".<ref>''Family Encyclopedia of American History'' (Reader's Digest 1975)</ref> Each settlement larger than 50 families was required to pay a [[teacher|schoolmaster]] to teach reading, writing and religious doctrine to the [[children]] in the community. Beginning in 1670, Massachusetts provided [[taxation|tax]] funding for school maintenance. This model was then copied throughout the colonies, and even throughout the world.

Many children did not attend public school for the first two centuries. It was not until 1852 that Massachusetts became the first state to require attendance by students aged 6 through 16, and it was not until 1918 that all states had [[compulsory attendance]] laws. High schools did not generally exist until after the [[Civil War]], and [[kindergarten]] did not exist until it was created in St. Louis in 1873.

== Student Prayer in Public Schools ==

The White House announced the release of Revised Religious Guidelines for America's Public Schools on May 29, 1998. Within this announcement, President Clinton stated, "Nothing in the First Amendment converts our public schools into religion-free zones, or requires all religious expression to be left behind at the school house door." --President Clinton, July 12, 1995<ref>http://www.ed.gov/PressReleases/05-1998/wh-0530.html</ref>

In 2003, the Education Department released the following guidelines that clarified and added requirements to Public Schools to ensure the religious rights of students.<ref>http://www.freedomforum.org/templates/document.asp?documentID=17550</ref>
<blockquote>
Schools that don’t allow students to pray outside the classroom or that prohibit teachers from holding religious meetings among themselves could lose federal money, the Education Department said late last week. 
 
The guidance reflects the Bush administration’s push to ensure that schools give teachers and students as much freedom to pray as the courts have allowed. 
The department makes clear that teachers cannot pray with students or attempt to shape their religious views.
The instructions, released by the department on Feb. 7, broadly follow the same direction given by the Clinton administration and the courts. Prayer is generally allowed provided it happens outside the class and is initiated by students, not by school officials. 
 
The department, however, also offered some significant additions, including more details on such contentious matters as moments of silence and prayer in student assemblies. And for the first time, federal funds are tied to compliance with the guidelines. The burden is on schools to prove compliance through a yearly report.
</blockquote>

==Pre-1962 Graduates ==
Given that [[public schools]] educate about 90% of [[Americans]], it is astounding how few prominent Americans attended public school after the banning of school prayer in 1962. Nearly all the examples of prominent Americans who attended public school predate 1962 in their attendance:

*[[Ronald Reagan]]<ref>http://www.dixonil.com/reagan/reagan2.htm</ref> graduated from Dixon High School, Illinois
*[[Dwight D. Eisenhower]]<ref>http://www.eisenhower.archives.gov/press_releases/2007/PR07_11_August_02_2007_Eisenhower_Co_Sponsor_Little_Rock.pdf</ref> attended Abilene High School in Abilene, Kansas
*[[Richard M. Nixon]]<ref>http://www.nndb.com/edu/836/000068632/</ref> attended Fullerton and Whittier High Schools, California
*[[William J. Clinton]]<ref>http://www.hotsprings.org/things_to_do/historic_hotsprings/presidents_hometown.asp</ref> attended Hot Springs High School, Arkansas
*[[Gerald Ford]]<ref>http://www.visitgrandrapids.org/ford-facts.php</ref> attended Grand Rapids South High School, Michigan
*[[Lyndon B. Johnson]]<ref>http://www.nndb.com/people/062/000023990/</ref> attended Johnson City High School, Texas
*[[Harry S Truman]]<ref>http://www.nps.gov/nr/twhp/wwwlps/lessons/103truman/103visual1.htm</ref> attended Independence High School, Missouri
*[[H. Ross Perot]]<ref>http://www.famoustexans.com/rossperot.htm</ref> attended public schools and Texarkana Junior College, Texas
*[[Richard Cheney]]<ref>http://www.nndb.com/people/598/000022532/</ref> graduated from Natrona County High School in Casper, Wyoming.
*[[Colin Powell]] graduated from Morris High School, NY in 1954 and received his B.A. in geology from the City College of New York in 1958 <ref>http://gale.cengage.com/free_resources/bhm/bio/powell_c.htm</ref>
*[[Billy Graham]] graduated from Sharon High School, NC in May 1936<ref>http://online-bibleconcordance.com/Ministers/BillyGraham.aspx</ref>
*[[Michael Medved]] graduated from Palisades High School, CA <ref>michaelmedved.townhall.com/About.aspx</ref>
*[[The Wright Brothers]] attended public schools in Richmond, India and Dayton OH but did not graduate <ref>http://www.kyrene.org/schools/brisas/sunda/inventor/wright/index.html</ref>
*[[Roy Jay Glauber]], Nobel laureate, graduated from Bronx High School of Science, Bronx, NY in 1941. <ref>http://www.nndb.com/people/738/000138324/</ref>
*[[Frederick Reines]], Nobel laureate, attended Union Hill High School, NJ, during the late 1930's. <ref>http://www.nndb.com/people/052/000099752/</ref>
*[[Oliver North]], US Army Officer, political commentator, graduated from Ockawamick High School in 1961. <ref>http://libraryoflibrary.com/E_n_c_p_d_Ollie_North.html</ref>
*Laura Bush attended James Bowie Elementary School, San Jacinto Junior High School, and Midland Lee High School in Midland, Texas (Graduated 1964).{{fact}}
*John Cromwell Mather, Nobel laureate, graduated from Newton High School, Newton, NJ in 1964. <ref>http://www.nndb.com/people/915/000137504/</ref>
*George Fitzgerald Smoot, Nobel laureate, graduated from Upper Arlington High School, Upper Arlington, OH in 1962. <ref>http://www.nndb.com/people/921/000137510/</ref>
*Hugh David Politzer, Nobel laureate, graduated from Bronx High School of Science, Bronx, NY in 1966. <ref>http://www.nndb.com/people/716/000140296/</ref>

==Post-1962 Graduates==
Celebrities, Businessmen, Astronauts, Nobel Laureates, Medal of Honor Recipients, and Candidates who attended public school after prayer was banned in 1962 include:

*Pat Tillman, NFL football player and US Army soldier graduated from Leland High School CA <ref>http://www.biography.com/search/article.do?id=197041</ref>
*Jeff Bezos, founder of Amazon.com, attended Miami Palmetto Senior High School FL.<ref>http://www.achievement.org/autodoc/page/bez0bio-1
</ref>
*Jerry Yang, co-founder of Yahoo.com, graduated from Sierramont Middle School, and Piedmont Hills High School, CA. <ref>http://goldsea.com/Innovators/Yangjerry/yangjerry3.html</ref>
*David Filo, co-founder of Yahoo.com graduated from Sam Houston High School TX. <ref>http://www.nndb.com/people/301/000123929/</ref>
*Kathryn D. Sullivan, NASA astronaut and first American woman to walk in space, graduated from Taft High School, Woodland Hills, California, in 1969. <ref>http://www.jsc.nasa.gov/Bios/htmlbios/sullivan-kd.html</ref>
*S. Christa Mcauliffe, astronaut participant, graduated from Marian High School, Framingham, Massachusetts, in 1966. <ref>http://www.jsc.nasa.gov/Bios/htmlbios/mcauliffe.html
</ref>
*Mae C. Jemison, NASA astronaut and first African-America woman in space, graduated from Morgan Park High School, Chicago, Illinois, in 1973. <ref>http://www.jsc.nasa.gov/Bios/htmlbios/jemison-mc.html
</ref>
*Ellen Ochoa, NASA astronaut and the first Hispanic-American woman astronaut, graduated from Grossmont High School, La Mesa, California, in 1975. <ref>http://www.jsc.nasa.gov/Bios/htmlbios/ochoa.html</ref>
*Jeana Yeager, aviator, graduated from Commerce High School GA in 1970.<ref>http://www.tamu-commerce.edu/mrp/pdf/today/12-07-05.pdf
</ref>
*[[Brad Pitt]], actor, graduated from Kickapoo High School in Springfield, Missouri, 1981. <ref>http://www.rolemodel.net/brad_pitt.cfm
</ref>
*[[Tom Cruise]], actor, attended several public high schools including Glen Ridge High School, New Jersey during the 1970's. <ref>http://www.nndb.com/people/791/000022725/
</ref>
*John Sununu, Senator, graduated from Salem High School in the 1970's. <ref>http://www.sununu.senate.gov/biography.html
</ref>
*[[John Edwards]], politician, attended public school in Robbins, N.C. during the 1960's.<ref>http://www.pbs.org/newshour/vote2004/primaries/edwards_bio.html</ref>
*Spike Lee, producer, actor, graduated from John Dewey High School, Brooklyn, NY.<ref>http://movies.nytimes.com/person/99175/Spike-Lee/biography</ref>
*[[Bill Gates]], founder of Microsoft, ''left'' public school after attending in Seattle until the age of twelve.<ref>http://www.thocp.net/biographies/gates_bill.htm</ref>
*Rush Limbaugh graduated from Central High School, MO in 1969 and attended Southeast Missouri State University for two semesters <ref>http://www.phillytalkradio.com/shows/show.php?show_id=limb</ref>
*Frank Wilczek, Nobel laureate, attended Martin Van Buren High School, Queens, NY, during the late 1960's. <ref>http://www.nndb.com/people/720/000140300/</ref>
*Sgt. 1st Class Randall Shughart, U.S. Army, Battle of Mogadishu hero, Medal of Honor recipient; graduated from Big Spring High School in Newville, PA in 1976. <ref> http://www.pbs.org/weta/americanvalor/stories/shughart.html\</ref>
*Sgt. 1st Class Paul Ray Smith, U.S. Army, Iraq War hero, Medal of Honor recipient; graduated from Tampa Bay Vocational Technical High School, FL in 1988. <ref>http://www.army.mil/medalofhonor/smith/profile/index.html</ref>
*Cpl. Jason Dunham, U.S. Marines, Iraq War hero, Medal of Honor recipient; graduated from Scio High School NY, in 2002.<ref> http://copthetruth.typepad.com/cop_the_truth/2007/03/uss_jason_dunha.html</ref>
*Lt. Michael Murphy, Navy SEAL, Afghanistan War hero, Medal of Honor recipient; graduated from Patchogue-Medford High School in 1994. <ref> http://www.pat-med.k12.ny.us/Schools/HS/articles/0708/murphy/index.html</ref>

==References==
{{reflist}}

==See Also==

*[[Public school culture]]
*[[Teacher Pay]]

[[category:education]]
[[category:United States History]]

Young mass murderers

2008-07-31T15:44:28Z

Konstanty: For an educational website, you should really proof read stuff before you post it.

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Year
!Name(s)
!Education
!Killed
!Wounded
!Beliefs
![[Liberal]] response
|-
|2008
|Stephen Kazmierczak
|[[Northern Illinois University]]
|5 + himself
|16
|Fan of [[Nietzsche]]'s "The Antichrist," obsessed with self-injury, was a "cutter" in [[public high school]], wore all black to carry out his massacre, and was still a [[public school]] student at age 27
|Shock at the fact that the gunman didn't "fit" the typical mold of a killer, when in fact the gunman wore all black and was taught at a [[public school]].
|-
|2007
|Robert Hawkins
|Papillion-La Vista public high school
|8 + himself
|5
|Targeted [[Christmas]] shoppers; wore black; "I can't take this meaningless existence anymore"<ref>[http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/nation/bal-te.omaha08dec08,0,6053469.story Baltimore Sun]</ref> Told a therapist that "he is not sure if there is a God or life after death and that when he dies, he'll probably go to hell." Told social workers he was satanic and acknowledged that he often acted before thinking of the consequences. <ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,318506,00.html Mall Gunman Admitted He was Satanic, Attempted Suicide], [[Associated Press]], [[Fox News Channel]], December 27, 2007</ref>
|Avoided suggesting [[gun control]] lest [[Democrats]] lose [[West Virginia]] and [[Wisconsin]] in [[2008 presidential election]]
|-
|2007
|Pekka-Eric Auvinen
|Jokela High School public high school (Finland)
|8 + himself
|About 12
|[[Atheist]], "I, as a natural selector, will eliminate all who I see unfit."
|[[Finland]] already had [[gun control]]
|-
|2007
|[[Seung-Hui Cho]]
|Westfield public high school (VA), then Virgina Tech public university
|32 + himself
|25
|"Ismail Ax" suggested [[Muslim]] beliefs, felt "Jesus was crucifying me."
|Poem comparing it to environmental harm<ref>"We are Virginia Tech. ... We do not understand this tragedy. ... Neither does the baby elephant watching his community be devastated for ivory; neither does the Appalachian infant killed in the middle of the night in his crib in the home his father built with his own hands being run over by a boulder because the land was destabilized. ..."[http://americaabroad.tpmcafe.com/blog/oldengoldendecoy/2007/apr/17/nikki_giovanni_we_are_virginia_tech]</ref>
|-
|2007
|Asa Coon
|SuccessTech public school Academy (Cleveland)
|Himself
|4
|Said he didn't believe in [[God]] and didn't respect [[God]], killed after classmate disagreed; wore black<ref>[http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/cuyahoga/1192092117230670.xml&coll=2]</ref>
|Under-publicized because of his anti-[[God]] statements
|-
|2006
|Kimveer Gill
|Rosemere High School (Quebec)
|1 + himself
|20
|"I hate God" and "I hate religious zealots"
|[[Canada]] already had [[gun control]]
|-
|2002
|Robert Steinhäuser
|Erfurt public school (Germany)
|16 + himself
|
|Wore black entirely, literally from head to toe; stopped only when a teacher pulled off his black mask
|[[German]] [[gun control]] already strict, demands for limitations on computer games
|-
|1999
|Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold
|[[Columbine public high school]] (CO)
|13 + themselves
|23
|[[Atheistic]], singled out a victim who believed in God.
|Demand [[gun control]], causing [[Al Gore]] to lose [[West Virginia]], [[Tennessee]] and [[Arkansas]] in 2000 presidential election
|-
|1998
|Mitchell Johnson and Andrew Golden
|Westside Middle School
|5
|10
|Mitchell Johnson, the older of the two, was obsessed with rap lyrics like "coming to school and killing all the kids."<ref>http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/1998/06/16/entertainment/main11983.shtml</ref>
|Liberals blame the guns rather than the killer's obsession with rap music. Johnson is released at age 21 but is later arrested for new crimes.
|-
|1997
|Michael Carneal
|Heath public high school (KY)
|3
|5
|Murdered girls as they prayed in a [[prayer]] group
|Under-publicized due to anti-[[Christian]] nature
|-
|1989
|Marc Lépine
|Collège d'enseignement général et professionnel, (''College of General and Vocational Education'')
|14 + himself
|10
|Detested feminism and believed that feminists were an ill of society
|Improve police training (which helped in the [[Dawson College Shooting]]). Stricter gun control. Raised knowledge of violence against women. Founded the [[National Day of Remembrance and Action on Violence Against Women]]
|-
|}
|}

== References ==
{{reflist}}
[[category:crime]]

Kitzmiller vs. Dover Area School District

2008-07-31T01:34:03Z

Konstanty: It is still relevant as it was an import revelation from the case.

<div style="float:right; width:50%"><center>'''The text of the statement'''<ref name="Memo">[http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/kitzmiller/kitzmiller_342.pdf Memorandum Opinion] 20th December, 2005.</ref></center>{{QuoteBox|The Pennsylvania Academic Standards require students to learn about Darwin's Theory of Evolution and eventually to take a standardized test of which evolution is a part.
Because Darwin's Theory is a theory, it continues to be tested as new evidence is discovered. The Theory is not a fact. Gaps in the Theory exist for which there is no evidence. A theory is defined as a well-tested explanation that unifies a broad range of observations.
Intelligent Design is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin's view. The reference book, Of Pandas and People, is available for students who might be interested in gaining an understanding of what Intelligent Design actually involves.
With respect to any theory, students are encouraged to keep an open mind. The school leaves the discussion of the Origins of Life to individual students and their families. As a Standards-driven district, class instruction focuses upon preparing students to achieve proficiency on Standards-based assessments.}}</div>

'''Tammy Kitzmiller, et al. v. Dover Area School District, et al'''., 400 F. Supp. 2d 707 (M.D. Pa. 2005), Case No. 04cv2688, was a lawsuit filed by the [[ACLU]] and the [[Americans United for Separation of Church and State]] against the Dover ([[Pennsylvania]]) Area School District to censor any mention of [[intelligent design]] (ID) in [[public school]].

The court completely and permanently censored the reading of the proposed statement on [[Intelligent Design]],<ref name="Memo" /> and approved an award of over $2 million in legal fees to the [[ACLU]] and other plaintiffs' attorneys.<ref>http://www.docstoc.com/docs/530239/2006-02-22_stipulation</ref> The court also denied an attempt to intervene in the case by parents who wanted the ID statement,<ref>http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/opinions/jones/04v2688.pdf</ref> and completely excluded ("stricken in its entirety") an [[amicus brief]] submitted by the Discovery Institute which included information from Drs. [[Stephen Meyer]] and [[William Dembski]]. The court's final order was based on a stipulation about attorney's fees which also foreclosed any appeal of the ruling.<ref>http://www2.ncseweb.org/kvd/all_legal/2006-02-24_Judgment.pdf</ref> Taxpayers in the district paid $1,000,011 of the massive legal fee award to the [[ACLU]] and other plaintiffs' attorneys.<ref name="Note">[http://www.umt.edu/mlr/editors'%20note.pdf ''Montana Law Review'' Editor's Notes]</ref>

The court's decision relied heavily on a district court decision from another jurisdiction, quoting from it nearly a dozen times, but that decision was subsequently reversed on appeal.<ref>''Selman v. Cobb County Sch. Dist.'', 390 F. Supp. 2d 1286 at 1306 (N.D. Ga. 2005), ''vacated on appeal'', 449 F.3d 1320 (11th Cir. 2006).</ref> A final judgment and dismissal with prejudice was entered on December 19, 2006 in which the school board in question was prohibited from taking any action that would "prevent or hinder the teaching of evolution in the school district."<ref> http://www.cobbk12.org/news/2006/20061219_EvolutionCase.htm</ref>
== Criticism==
Immediately after the ruling in favor of the plaintiffs, Judge Jones, who had been recommended for the bench by [[liberal]] [[Republican]] [[Pennsylvania]] governor [[Tom Ridge]] and appointed by Pres. [[George W. Bush]], was criticized for [[judicial activism]] by the [[Discovery Institute]].<ref name="Activ">[http://www.evolutionnews.org/2007/11/judge_jones_admits_the_activis.html Judge Jones Admits the Activist Nature of Kitzmiller Ruling on Lehrer Newshour] (Discovery Institute).</ref>
{{QuoteBox|Judge Jones's Kitzmiller decision was based upon faulty reasoning, non-existent evidence, and a serious misrepresentation of the scientific theory of intelligent design. Despite Judge Jones's protestations to the contrary, his attempt to use the federal bench to declare evolution a sacred cow turns out to be a textbook case of good-old-American judicial activism. [http://www.discovery.org/csc/traipsing/]}}

The [[Discovery Institute]] found that in his decision Jones has copied verbatim from the [[ACLU]]'s proposed findings of fact. Casey Luskin, a scholar of [[intelligent design]] at the Discovery Institute, has shown that the decision amounts to judicial activism, although Judge Jones has denied this.<ref name="Activ" />

Judge Jones gave many public statements and speeches after his ruling. In the conclusion of his ruling, he answered his expected critics by stating, "Those who disagree with our holding will likely mark it as the product of an activist judge. If so, they will have erred as this is manifestly not an activist Court. Rather, this case came to us as the result of the activism of an ill-informed faction on a school board, aided by a national public interest law firm eager to find a constitutional test case on ID, who in combination drove the Board to adopt an imprudent and ultimately unconstitutional policy. The breathtaking inanity of the Board’s decision is evident when considered against the factual backdrop which has now been fully revealed through this trial. The students, parents, and teachers of the Dover Area School District deserved better than to be dragged into this legal maelstrom, with its resulting utter waste of monetary and personal resources."<ref name="Memo" /><ref>http://www.adl.org/Civil_Rights/speech_judge_jones.asp</ref>

== Details of the case ==

The case was filed in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania.

=== Plaintiffs ===

The plaintiffs were a group of eleven parents that brought the case on behalf of their children that attended the Dover Area School District. Dover resident Tammy Kitzmiller learned of the school board's revised policy during November 2004 and filed suit with the other parents on December 14, 2004. They were represented by [[American Civil Liberties Union]], [[Americans United for Separation of Church and State]], and Pepper Hamilton LLP. Pepper Hamilton LLP accepted the lead role of presenting the plaintiffs case.<ref name="Memo" /><ref>http://www.pepperlaw.com/pepper/pracarea/doverID/doverID.cfm</ref>

=== Defendants ===
The defendants were the Dover Area School District and the Dover Area School District Board of Directors. The Board presided over schools in the Dover area that taught approximately 3700 students. About 1000 students attended Dover High School, the school where the ID policy was to be implemented (in fact, the statement never was read to students by teachers). The Defendants retained the services of the Thomas Moore Law Center on a pro bono basis.<ref name="Memo" /><ref name="NYD">http://yorkdispatch.inyork.com/searchresults/ci_3535139</ref>

=== Endorsement and Lemon Tests ===

Based on the "Consideration of the Applicability of the Endorsement and [[Lemon Test]]s to Assess the Constitutionality of the ID Policy", the court determined that both the "endorsement test and the Lemon Test should be employed in the case to analyze the constitutionality of the ID policy under the [[Establishment Clause]]." The court determined this course of action based on the opinions of Justice Sandra Day O'Conner and previous court cases involving the establishment clause, the Lemon Test, and other cases involving the teaching of creationism and evolution in public schools. <ref name="Memo" />

=== Verdict ===

On December 20, 2005, Judge [[John E. Jones III]] rendered his verdict and ruled the Dover ID policy violated the Establishment Clause of the [[First Amendment]] of the [[Constitution of the United States]] and the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The court summarized in stating, "The proper application of both the endorsement and Lemon tests to the facts of this case makes it abundantly clear that the Board’s ID Policy violates the Establishment Clause. In making this determination, we have addressed the seminal question of whether ID is science. We have concluded that it is not, and moreover that ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents." Judge Jones held that "the disclaimer singles out the theory of evolution for special treatment, misrepresents its status in the scientific community, causes students to doubt its validity without scientific justification, presents students with a religious alternative masquerading as a scientific theory, directs them to consult a creationist text as though it were a science resource, and instructs students to forego scientific inquiry in the public school classroom and instead to seek out religious instruction elsewhere." The defendants were permanently enjoined from maintaining the ID policy in any school within the Dover Area School District. <ref name="Memo" />

==Cdesign Proponentsists==
The term "'''cdesign proponentsists'''" came into vogue use by evolutionists during and after the [[Kitzmiller vs. Dover Area School District]] trial in [[Pennsylvania]] over the legitimacy of intelligent design as a science. A crucial piece of the defense (Pro-intelligent design) was a book called [[Of Pandas and People]], a science textbook for middle and high school children. During the trial, previous copies of the book were subpoenaed for review. It was discovered that previous versions of the book had the words "creationist," "creationism" and other similar words and phrases in place of every use of the words "intelligent design" and similar words and phrases in later editions. In a single, isolated case, it was shown that the word "creationists" oddly had been only partially replaced with "design proponents," strangely resulting in "cdesign proponentsists," which evolutionists quickly touted as "the missing link between creationism and intelligent design."<ref>[http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/transcripts/3416_id.html Nova transcript, "Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial", PBS.org]</ref> None of this, however, was ever mentioned in Judge Jones in his 139-page verdict.

==References==
<references/>

== See also ==
* [[Intelligent design and creationism]]
* [[Suppression of alternatives to evolution]]

[[category:United States Law]][[category:Judicial activism]][[category:Intelligent Design]]

Young mass murderers

2008-07-30T23:23:12Z

Konstanty: there was one account of a student being asked if they believed in God, and God is not a strictly christian belief.

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Year
!Name(s)
!Education
!Killed
!Wounded
!Beliefs
![[Liberal]] response
|-
|2008
|Stephen Kazmierczak
|[[Northern Illinois University]]
|5 + himself
|16
|Fan of [[Nietzsche]]'s "The Antichrist," obsessed with self-injury, was a "cutter" in [[public high school]], wore all black to carry out his massacre, and was still a [[public school]] student at age 27
|Shock at the fact that the gunman didn't "fit" the typical mold of a killer, when in fact the gunman wore all black and was taught at a [[public school]].
|-
|2007
|Robert Hawkins
|Papillion-La Vista public high school
|8 + himself
|5
|Targeted [[Christmas]] shoppers; wore black; "I can't take this meaningless existence anymore"<ref>[http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/nation/bal-te.omaha08dec08,0,6053469.story Baltimore Sun]</ref> Told a therapist that "he is not sure if there is a God or life after death and that when he dies, he'll probably go to hell." Told social workers he was satanic and acknowledged that he often acted before thinking of the consequences. <ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,318506,00.html Mall Gunman Admitted He was Satanic, Attempted Suicide], [[Associated Press]], [[Fox News Channel]], December 27, 2007</ref>
|Avoid suggesting [[gun control]] lest [[Democrats]] lose [[West Virginia]] and [[Wisconsin]] in [[2008 presidential election]]
|-
|2007
|Pekka-Eric Auvinen
|Jokela High School public high school (Finland)
|8 + himself
|About 12
|[[Atheist]], "I, as a natural selector, will eliminate all who I see unfit."
|[[Finland]] already had [[gun control]]
|-
|2007
|[[Seung-Hui Cho]]
|Westfield public high school (VA), then Virgina Tech public university
|32 + himself
|25
|"Ismail Ax" suggested [[Muslim]] beliefs, felt "Jesus was crucifying me."
|Poem comparing it to environmental harm<ref>"We are Virginia Tech. ... We do not understand this tragedy. ... Neither does the baby elephant watching his community be devastated for ivory; neither does the Appalachian infant killed in the middle of the night in his crib in the home his father built with his own hands being run over by a boulder because the land was destabilized. ..."[http://americaabroad.tpmcafe.com/blog/oldengoldendecoy/2007/apr/17/nikki_giovanni_we_are_virginia_tech]</ref>
|-
|2007
|Asa Coon
|SuccessTech public school Academy (Cleveland)
|Himself
|4
|Said he didn't believe in [[God]] and didn't respect [[God]], killed after classmate disagreed; wore black<ref>[http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/cuyahoga/1192092117230670.xml&coll=2]</ref>
|Under-publicized because of his anti-[[God]] statements
|-
|2006
|Kimveer Gill
|Rosemere High School (Quebec)
|1 + himself
|20
|"I hate God" and "I hate religious zealots"
|[[Canada]] already had [[gun control]]
|-
|2002
|Robert Steinhäuser
|Erfurt public school (Germany)
|16 + himself
|
|Wore black entirely, literally from head to toe; stopped only when a teacher pulled off his black mask
|[[German]] [[gun control]] already strict, demands for limitations on computer games
|-
|1999
|Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold
|[[Columbine public high school]] (CO)
|13 + themselves
|23
|[[Atheistic]], singled out a victim who believed in God.
|Demand [[gun control]], causing [[Al Gore]] to lose [[West Virginia]] and [[Tennessee]] in 2000 presidential election
|-
|1998
|Mitchell Johnson and Andrew Golden
|Westside Middle School
|5
|10
|Mitchell Johnson, was obsessed with rap lyrics like "coming to school and killing all the kids."<ref>http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/1998/06/16/entertainment/main11983.shtml</ref>
|Liberals blame the guns rather than the killer's obsession with rap music. Johnson is released at age 21 but is later arrested for new crimes.
|-
|1997
|Michael Carneal
|Heath public high school (KY)
|3
|5
|Murdered girls as they prayed in a [[prayer]] group
|Under-publicized due to anti-[[Christian]] nature
|-
|1989
|Marc Lépine
|Collège d'enseignement général et professionnel, (''College of General and Vocational Education'')
|14 + himself
|10
|Detested feminism and believed that feminists were an ill of society
|Improve police training (which helped in the [[Dawson College Shooting]]). Stricter gun control. Raised knowledge of violence against women. Founded the [[National Day of Remembrance and Action on Violence Against Women]]
|-
|}

== References ==
{{reflist}}
[[category:crime]]