Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Keynesian economics

2012-12-16T00:36:48Z

Nightsky: /* Keynes the incompetent fraud */ no evidence of pedophilia and removed opinion pretending to be fact

[[File:WhiteandKeynes.jpg|right|thumbnail|220px|John Maynard Keynes (right) with [[KGB]] agent and first head of the [[International Monetary Fund]], [[Harry Dexter White]] (left). White described himself as a devout [[New Deal]]er. ]]
'''Keynesian Economics''' was "the dominant economic paradigm from the 1940s to the 1970s."<ref>[http://www.thefreemanonline.org/featured/the-great-depression-according-to-milton-friedman/ The Great Depression According to Milton Friedman] </ref>
It is associated with the ideas of the incompetent [[British]] economist [[John Maynard Keynes]].<ref>
*[http://www.keynesatharvard.org/book/KeynesatHarvard-ch09.html KEYNES AT HARVARD Economic Deception as a Political Credo BY ZYGMUND DOBBS]
*[http://www.theatlantic.com/daily-dish/archive/2008/01/keyness-jew-boy-quickie/220620/ The Atlantic - Keynes' pederasty]
*[http://centurean2.wordpress.com/2011/03/20/fabian-john-maynard-keynes-the-stealthy-enemy-of-human-freedom/ John Maynard Keynes the stealthy enemy of human freedom]
*[http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-02-22/deathbed-of-keynesian-economics-will-be-in-u-k-matthew-lynn.html Deathbed of Keynesian Economics will be in the UK]
*[http://www.iwf.org/inkwell/show/23102.html Will the G8 Repudiate the Philosophy of Living Beyond Our Means?]
</ref> In 2010, his native land of Britain (which is deeply in debt) repudiated his economic folly of government deficit spending through the implementation of an austerity budget during a period of economic difficulty.<ref>[http://www.iwf.org/inkwell/show/23102.html Will the G8 Repudiate the Philosophy of Living Beyond Our Means?]</ref><ref>[http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-02-22/deathbed-of-keynesian-economics-will-be-in-u-k-matthew-lynn.html Deathbed of Keynesian Economics will be in the UK]</ref> Although government certainly is necessary, economic history demonstrates the more efficient private sector is better at creating economically productive jobs and other economic activity such as [[investment|investing.]]<ref>[http://voxday.blogspot.com/2011/08/overprepared.html Overprepared]</ref>

In August of 2011, the [[conservative]] author [[Vox Day]] wrote:
{{cquote|...in the 1930s, it was only the USA that attempted to fight the post-1929 economic contraction with Keynesian stimulus policies and only the USA suffered a [[Great Depression]]. In England, the contraction stopped in 1932, France never saw double-digit unemployment, and the Japanese economy was actually enjoying significant growth.(1) This time, Europe, China, and Japan all followed the US lead and applied their own stimulus plans in 2009, which we are already seeing is now in the process of backfiring on everyone.<ref>[http://voxday.blogspot.com/2011/08/overprepared.html Overprepared]</ref>}}

"Keynes thought there is no self-corrective mechanism (or [[invisible hand]]) in a [[free-market economy]]."<ref name=milton>[http://www.thefreemanonline.org/featured/the-great-depression-according-to-milton-friedman/ The Great Depression According to Milton Friedman] </ref>

"An unfettered [[market economy]] results in [[depression (economics)]]s, [so Keynes] recommended that the government engage in massive [[deficit spending]]."<ref name=milton />

It is ironic that [[liberal]]s such as [[Barack Obama]] advocate Keynesian economic concepts since they are violating one [[John Maynard Keynes]]' key principles. Keynes advocated having governments run [[budget surplus|budget surpluses]] during good economic times.<ref>EK Brown-Collie and Bruce E. Collier, What Keynes really said about deficit spending, Journal of Post Keynesian Economics, Vol. 17, No. 3, Spring, 1995</ref> In addition, Keynes advocated that governments should increase government spending during difficult times and even engage in [[deficit spending]]. Keynes was against large structural deficits because he believed they are a drag on the economy.<ref>http://money.cnn.com/2010/02/04/news/economy/meltzer_keynes.fortune/</ref> Liberals such as Barack Obama [[American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009|advocate massive U.S. government spending]] during a period when the federal government already has a [[Obama administration fiscal policy|massive amount of existing debt.]] Furthermore, Obama's colossal government spending was inefficient and [[American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009|did not pull the American economy out of its economic problems]], but merely [[Obama administration fiscal policy|buried the U.S. economy under more debt.]]
== Keynes the incompetent fraud ==
[[File:President Barack Obama.jpg|thumbnail|right|190px|[[Barack Obama]] advocates the use of Keynesian economics.<ref>
*[http://centurean2.wordpress.com/2011/03/20/fabian-john-maynard-keynes-the-stealthy-enemy-of-human-freedom/ John Maynard Keynes the stealthy enemy of human freedom]
*[http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-02-22/deathbed-of-keynesian-economics-will-be-in-u-k-matthew-lynn.html Deathbed of Keynesian Economics will be in the UK]
*[http://www.iwf.org/inkwell/show/23102.html Will the G8 Repudiate the Philosophy of Living Beyond Our Means?]
*[http://www.keynesatharvard.org/book/KeynesatHarvard-ch09.html KEYNES AT HARVARD Economic Deception as a Political Credo BY ZYGMUND DOBBS]
*[http://www.theatlantic.com/daily-dish/archive/2008/01/keyness-jew-boy-quickie/220620/ John Maynard Keynes - the pedophile, The Atlantic]
</ref> ]]
Murry Rothbard wrote in his work ''Keynes the man'':
{{cquote|The young Keynes displayed no interest whatsoever in economics; his dominant interest was philosophy. In fact, he completed an undergraduate degree at Cambridge without taking a single economics course. Not only did he never take a degree in the subject, but the only economics course Keynes ever took was a single-term graduate course under Alfred Marshall.

...Murray Rothbard says it all: Was Keynes, as Hayek maintained, a “brilliant scholar”? “Scholar” hardly, since Keynes was abysmally read in the economics literature: he was more of a buccaneer, taking a little bit of knowledge and using it to inflict his personality and fallacious ideas upon the world, with a drive continually fueled by an arrogance bordering on egomania. … He possessed the tactical wit to dress up ancient statist and inflationist fallacies with modern, pseudoscientific jargon, making them appear to be the latest findings of economic science. Keynes was thereby able to ride the tidal wave of statism and socialism, of managed and planning economies.<ref>http://centurean2.wordpress.com/2011/03/20/fabian-john-maynard-keynes-the-stealthy-enemy-of-human-freedom/</ref>}}

=== Dishonesty of Keynes ===

Concerning his dishonesty Rothbard wrote:
{{cquote|Keynes reviewed Ludwig von Mises’s German Treatise on Money and Credit in 1914, slandering it, but it later came out that he did not understand German! As Murray Rothbard notes, ‘This was Keynes to the hilt: to review a book in a language where he was incapable of grasping new ideas, and then to attack that book for not containing anything new, is the height of arrogance and irresponsibility.”<ref>http://centurean2.wordpress.com/2011/03/20/fabian-john-maynard-keynes-the-stealthy-enemy-of-human-freedom/</ref>}}

Rothbard also maintains Keynes purposefully misrepresented the work of English economist Arthur Cecil Pigou.<ref>http://centurean2.wordpress.com/2011/03/20/fabian-john-maynard-keynes-the-stealthy-enemy-of-human-freedom/</ref>

== Keynesian Economics and Stagflation ==
[[File:6a00d8341c60bf53ef011571a57670970b-500wi1.jpg|right|300px|thumb| [http://hotair.com/greenroom/archives/2009/07/19/the-anti-stimulus-in-pictures-any-questions/?print=1 ''Chart courtesy to Duane Lester''] ]]
In February of 2010 the ''[[Washington Times]]'' reported:
{{cquote|Prices rose 2.7 percent during 2009, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics' recent update of the Consumer Price Index (CPI). This is a worrisome fact because last year's unemployment rate averaged more than 9 percent. This trend may signal a return of "stagflation," a merger of stagnation and [[inflation]].

In the 1970s, stagflation shocked traditional [[Keynesian economics|Keynesian]] economists, whose models said the economy could not suffer from both high unemployment and rapid inflation at the same time. Unfortunately, the Keynesians were wrong, because an economy obviously can experience both evils simultaneously...

It seems every week the Obama administration announces some new tax or mandate that will further handicap businesses. Regardless of the official definitions of recession, the economy will remain sluggish for years to come. But if the [[Federal Reserve]] continues with its reckless policies, Americans will experience high inflation on top of high unemployment. As in the late 1970s, Americans will see that the pundits are wrong, because stagflation is very real.<ref>http://washingtontimes.com/news/2010/feb/19/setting-the-stage-for-stagflation/</ref>}}

On June 18, 2011 Business Insider declared:
{{cquote|There are millions upon millions of Americans that are sitting at home on their couches right now wondering why they lost their jobs and why nobody will hire them. Millions of others are wondering why the only jobs they can get are jobs that a high school student could do. Families all across America are wondering why it seems like their wages never go up but the price of food and the price of gas continue to skyrocket.<ref>http://www.businessinsider.com/collapse-of-the-economy-2011-5</ref>}}

On June 15, 2011 Fox News reported:
{{cquote|The government said consumer prices jumped 3.6% year-over-year, exceeding estimates for 3.4% and good for the largest increase since October 2008 when they climbed 3.7%. Core prices gained 1.5%, compared with forecasts for 1.4%.

The hotter-than-expected inflation data combined with a dreary report that showed manufacturing activity in New York State unexpectedly contracted in June to send U.S. stock futures tumbling more than 100 points into the red Wednesday morning.

The inflation report underscores the Fed's limited options in injecting new stimulus into a U.S. economic recovery that may have stalled out in recent months. That’s because further quantitative easing may only increase the pressure on inflation.

“Stagflation is now a growing reality and the 'flation' part ties the hands of the Fed to react with more easing,” Peter Boockvar, equity strategist at Miller Tabak, wrote in a note. “As many of us believe, though, the more easing has added to the 'flation' so maybe less will tame it.”
<ref>http://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/2011/06/15/core-inflation-posts-largest-increase-since-july-08</ref>}}

== Keynes speculations ==
According to Keynes, economic slumps are the result of too little [[demand]] (see also [[aggregate demand]]). The government can stimulate demand by cutting taxes and increasing spending even if this results in growing deficits. During times of economic boom the government can increase taxes and/or cut spending. This will reduce the risk of [[Inflation]] and also reduce government deficits. Keynesian economics influenced [[FDR]]'s [[New Deal]] programs during the [[Great Depression]].

Keynes also felt that [[inflation]] and [[unemployment]] were opposites. This was proven false by the "[[stagflation]]" of the 1970s.

While Keynes supported government intervention and government programs, he intended that they only be active during poor economic situations, unlike the modern [[welfare state]]. Many believe that FDR agreed, though FDR had died before these programs could be repealed.

Keynesian economics had much in common with [[Fascism]]. A leading Fascist propagandist<ref>James Strachey Barnes led a "major group" established "to promote ... fascism," and circulate "fascist propaganda," emphasizing "the positive nature of fascism." Roger Griffin with Matthew Feldman, eds., ''[http://books.google.com/books?id=xeHuSpHzqGUC Fascism: The 'Fascist Epoch']'' (Taylor & Francis, 2004) ISBN 0415290198, p. 255</ref> noted (in a book with a preface by [[Mussolini]]):<ref>Gaetano Salvemini, ''[http://books.google.com/books?id=CaONx1VLelsC Under the Axe of Fascism]'' (Read Books, 2008) ISBN 1443736708, p. 115</ref>
::"Fascism entirely agrees with Mr. Maynard Keynes, despite the latter’s prominent position as a Liberal. In fact, Mr. Keynes’ excellent little book, ''[http://books.google.com/books?id=pKBdAAAAIAAJ The End of Laissez-Faire]'' (l926) might, so far as it goes, serve as a useful introduction to fascist economics. There is scarcely anything to object to in it and there is much to applaud."<ref>James Strachey Barnes, ''[http://books.google.com/books?cd=1&id=N_jSAAAAMAAJ Universal Aspects of Fascism]'' (London: Williams and Norgate, 1929), pp. 113-114</ref>

While liberal in nature, Keynesian economics also had an influence on conservatives - the [[Laffer curve]], a key component of [[supply-side economics]] and the basis for the Reagan and Bush II tax cuts, was based on Keynesian concepts.

== See also ==
*[[Austrian economics]]
*[[Essay: Obamanomics - Voodoo pedophile influenced economics]] - [[satire]]

==Notes==
<references />

[[Category:United States Government]]

Solar System

2012-12-16T00:31:25Z

Nightsky: those scientists can be conservative or in the middle, evolution has nothing to do with the origin, it wasn't sheer chance but the common result of those clouds, and it hasn't been "shown"

According to the scientific consensus, the Solar System consists of the Sun and the astronomical objects gravitationally bound in orbit around it, all of which formed from the collapse of a giant molecular cloud approximately 4.6 billion years ago.
[[Young Earth Creationists]] reject this and believe it was made by a deity less than 10,000 years ago.

==Planets==
A [[planet]] is defined as an object that orbits the [[sun]], is massive enough that its own gravity pulls it into a nearly round shape, and is dominant enough to clear away objects in its neighborhood. <ref>http://www.nasa.gov/vision/universe/solarsystem/planetsf-20060824.html</ref> There are 8 planets in the solar system. They are, in order of increasing distance from the sun:<ref>The third grade</ref>
*[[Mercury]]
*[[Venus]]
*[[Earth]]
*[[Mars]]
*[[Jupiter]]
*[[Saturn]]
*[[Uranus]]
*[[Neptune]]

The first four planets are [[terrestrial planet]]s, the last 4 planets are jovian planets. Terrestrial planets are small in size, have high densities, and consist of rocky materials. Jovian planets are large in size, have low densities, and consist of gaseous materials.

==Dwarf Planets==
A [[dwarf planet]] is an object that orbits the sun and has a round shape. The crucial difference between a planet and a dwarf planet is that a dwarf planet is not large enough to clear the neighborhood of its orbit. Currently recognized dwarf planets are:<ref>http://www.answers.com/topic/dwarf-planet</ref>
*[[Pluto]][[#Note|[1]]]
*[[Eris]]
*[[Ceres]]
*[[Makemake]]
*[[Haumea]]

===Note===
[1]Pluto was considered a planet until 2006.<ref>http://www.thenewstribune.com/soundlife/story/261408.html</ref>

==Asteroids==
[[Asteroid]]s are irregularly shaped chunks of rocks in the solar system. They exist mostly in 2 places:

*The [[asteroid belt]], which is between the orbits of [[Mars]] and [[Jupiter]]
*The [[Kuiper belt]], which shares its orbit with [[Pluto]]

==Comets==
[[Comets]] are astral bodies composed of dust and ice. As they approach the sun the increased temperature causes them to heat and shoot off jets of material, forming a "tail" pointing straight towards the sun. Most comets are in circular orbits out in the Oort cloud beyond Pluto. Some are in an [[ellipse|elliptical]] orbit around the sun, meaning that they will repeatedly enter orbits near the sun until they have evaporated. Some are in a [[hyperbola|hyperbolic]] orbit around the sun, meaning that they will only come into the solar system once and will never return, moving on to other solar systems until they have evaporated or are captured in an elliptical orbit.
==Scientific dating==
The closest material we have to hand, rocks formed in Earth's crust, has been subject to chemical alteration over time from volcanic action, so for accurate dating scientists use meteorites which have been free flying for billions of years before entering our atmosphere. Mass spectrometers are used to accurately identify and measure the different atomic isotopes making up a core sample from a meteorite. Different [[radiometric dating]] techniques from the same sample are used as a guard against possible contamination. The isotopic ratios of the sample correspond to the degree of atomic decay, accurately measuring the sample's age.

== External links ==

*[http://www.solarviews.com/eng/terms.htm Glossary]

== See also ==

*[[Milky Way Galaxy]]
*[[Counterexamples to an Old Earth]]

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Astronomy]]
{{Solarsystem}}

Solar System

2012-12-15T21:48:49Z

Nightsky: More scientific and truthful

Ten Commandments

2012-12-15T21:35:15Z

Nightsky: Fix, as it's not a fact

{{Christianity}}
[[Image:Bdytey.jpg|right|thumb|[[Moses]] with the Ten Commandments by Rembrandt (1659)]]
The '''Ten Commandments,''' or the ''Decalogue,'' are a set of laws which the Bible claims were given to [[Moses]] by [[God]].

There are [[Alleged Bible contradictions|two versions]], generally similar but somewhat different in wording: [[Exodus]] 20:2-17<ref>[http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=exodus%2020:2-17&version=9 Exodus 20:2-17 (KJV)]</ref> and [[Deuteronomy]] 5:6-21.<ref>[http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=deuteronomy%205:6-21;&version=9; Deuteronomy 5:6-21 (KJV)]</ref> The version in Deuteronomy adds the detail of Moses saying that [[Yahweh|God]] "delivered unto me two tables of stone written with the finger of God." (KJV)

The Bible itself refers to there being "''ten'' commandments" in Exodus 34:28<ref>[http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=exodus%2034:10-28;&version=9; Exodus 34:10-28 (KJV)]</ref> and Deuteronomy 4:13,<ref>[http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=deuteronomy%204:13;&version=9; Deuteronomy 4:13 (KJV)]</ref> but it is not clear how to parcel out the fifteen or sixteen verses into ten commandments, and different religious groups have done this in different ways.

The Protestant Ten Commandments, stressing their opposition to statues, contain "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image" as the 2nd commandment. The Catholic Ten Commandments omit this, shifting the Commandments up while splitting "Thou shalt not covet" into "...thy neighbor's wife" (9th) and "...thy neighbor's goods" (10th).<ref>An atheistic website provides a comparison among faiths with respect to the Ten Commandments, and many sources: http://www.positiveatheism.org/crt/whichcom.htm</ref>

The Jewish Ten Commandments contain "I am the Lord thy God, who brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery" as the 1st commandment, with their 2nd commandment combining the first two Protestant commandments, and the remainder following the Protestant listing.<ref>Ibid. http://www.positiveatheism.org/crt/whichcom.htm</ref>

However, as Jewish people would also recognize, the ''[[Torah]]'', or [[Law]] (the first five books of the Old Testament) actually contains not ten, but [[Mosaic Law|613 positive and negative commandments]]. Thus, when [[Jesus]] is asked (at [[Matthew]] 22:34-36) which is the greatest commandment in the Law, he picks two of the other 603: 'You shall love the Lord thy God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength' (Deuteronomy 6:5) and 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself' ([[Leviticus]] 19:18).

== Text of the Ten Commandments (King James Version, KJV) ==

#I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
#Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.
#Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.
#Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.
#Honor thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee.
#Thou shalt not kill. <ref>(The Hebrew term, ''ratsach'', can mean to kill, slay or to murder)</ref>
#Thou shalt not commit [[adultery]].
#Thou shalt not steal.
#Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.
#Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbor's.

==The Ten Commandments in US law==

In several controversies over the legality of displaying the Ten Commandments on government property, and especially outside courthouses, the influence of the Ten Commandments on US law (and western law in general) becomes relevant as proponents of the displays argue that these commandments form part of the foundation of the US legal system.

# Some official U.S. documents accept the existence of God, although there is no specifics in U.S. law as to who this God is, and the [[First Amendment]] to the Constitution is interpreted as opposing any attempt to impose the belief or non-belief in God.
# Similarly, the First Amendment forbids any legal means of enforcing the commandment about not worshiping idols.
# Nothing in current state or federal law specifically prohibits the taking in vain of God's name in general, but it may be in violation of broadcast decency laws if shown on television or radio.
# Past state laws have enforced the [[sabbath]] by forbidding various activities, such as the sale of specific goods, on Sundays. These, however, are all almost now repealed or struck down. Closure of shops on Sundays is by convention, but not legally enforced. However, some states still restrict the sale of alcohol on Sundays. The seven-day week, however, is accepted world-wide, and most people observe at least one day free from work.
# No law enforces the commandment about honoring parents, and it is doubtful that it could be enforced. Liberals are currently attempting to undermine this commandment, by trying to make disciplining children illegal. In contrast, the Bible tells us the correct way to bring up a child and teach him to respect his parents: '''"He who spares the rod hates his son, but he who loves him is careful to discipline him."''' (Proverbs 13:24)
# The commandment against murder is enforced by U.S. law.
# Criminal laws against adultery<ref>[http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+18.2-365 Virginia Code § 18.2-365]</ref> are largely unenforced and of doubtful enforceability, but a showing of adultery will influence civil [[divorce]] proceedings and affect the distribution of assets. Jesus clarified the definition of adultery, for instance in Matthew 8:27-32, to include remarriage after divorce in most cases. Until recently, it was difficult to get a divorce in most states other than Nevada for this reason; previously one had to prove fault with one's spouse, but since the 1950s that has changed in every state except [[New York]]. Today all states and many Christian denominations define adultery by the modern English definition<ref>adultery, n.
Second edition, 1989; online version November 2010. <http://www.oed.com:80/Entry/2845>; accessed 21 December 2010. Earlier version first published in New English Dictionary, 1884.</ref> to allow remarriage after divorce. Many Christians believe that this commandment, which forbids adultery,<ref>"voluntary sexual intercourse by a married man with another than his wife or by a married woman with another than her husband"—Webster's New International Dictionary of the English Language, Second Edition, Unabridged, 1934</ref> also forbids fornication.<ref>"illicit sexual intercourse on the part of an unmarried person; the act of such illicit sexual intercourse between a man and a woman as does not by law amount to adultery" [op. cit.]</ref>
# The commandment against stealing is enforced by U.S. law.
# When used during litigation, or otherwise spoken under oath (see [[perjury]]), the commandment against bearing false witness is enforced by U.S. law. For someone to bear false witness against a neighbor in a less formal setting (e.g. lying to a third party about a neighbor in the course of private conversation) could, in some circumstances, be a [[tort]], but rarely a crime.
# As a prohibition on a form of thought, the commandment against coveting what belongs to another cannot be enforced by legal means.

==Controversies about displaying the Ten Commandments==
In recent years, [[liberal]] attorneys and judges have opposed the display of the Ten Commandments on public property by exploiting the judicial system.

In 2003, [[Alabama]] Supreme Court justice [[Roy Moore]] was removed from office because he refused to take down a copy of the Ten Commandments in his office.

==The movie==
''The Ten Commandments'' is also the title of a famous 1956 motion picture, produced and directed by [[Cecil B. DeMille]] and starring [[Charlton Heston]] as Moses. It tells the story of Moses essentially as told in the Book of Exodus, with a few changes.

As publicity for the film, and in conjunction with a project of the Fraternal Order of Eagles, Paramount helped finance the placement of hundreds of stone tablets engraved with the Ten Commandments. These were placed at courthouse squares, at city halls and in public parks, and became a controversy, particularly in recent years, as to whether they violate the separation of Church and State.<ref>''Ten Commandments Monoliths'', from the [March 2002 issue of ''Eagle Magazine'' http://www.foe.com/tencommandments/mar_2002_ten_commandments.html]</ref>

==See Also==
*[[Essay: Christians and the Law of Moses]]

==Notes==
<references/>

[[Category:Judaism]]
[[Category:Religion and Politics]]

Democratic Party

2012-12-15T21:33:10Z

Nightsky:

{{AmericanPoliticalParty
| party_name=Democratic Party
| party_articletitle = Democratic Party (United States)
| party_logo = [[Image:democraticpartyusalogo.png|200px]]
| website = [http://www.democrats.org www.democrats.org]
| headquarters = 430 South Capitol Street SE [[Washington, D.C.]] 20003
| chairman = [[Debbie Wasserman Schultz]]
| houseleader = [[Nancy Pelosi]]
| senateleader = [[Harry Reid]]
| foundation = 1832
| ideology = range from extreme [[leftist]] to [[moderate]]
| fiscalpolicy = [[Socialist]]/[[Liberal]]
| socialpolicy = center-liberal/[[Hollywood values]]
| colors = Blue (unofficial)
| footnotes =
}}
The '''Democratic Party''' is one of the two major political [[parties]] in the [[United States of America]]. In general it is [[pro-choice]] and anti-[[free enterprise]], supporting higher taxes, anti-gun policies, and a larger government, while the [[Republican Party]] is generally [[pro-life]] and pro-free enterprise, supporting lower taxes and small government. President [[Barack Obama]] and other Democrats are [[liberal]] / [[Progressive]] leftists. Many [[conservative]]s consider him to be the worst president to date.

Members of the Democratic Party are known as Democrats. In the 19th century the party was sometimes called "The Democracy." Today, there are Democrats who claim to be more [[conservative]] than typical liberals, called the "[[Blue Dogs]]" in [[Congress]], but they often behave like "lapdogs" for the [[liberal]] party leadership when there is a controversial vote.

In the doldrums after 2000, the party roared back with major gains in 2006, which it expanded in 2008 to sweep control of the national government, and leave the GOP in a state of confusion and decline. The GOP bounced back in 2009, with near-unanimous opposition to contentious Democratic policies, especially stimulus spending and health care reform. Polls show Obama's popularity began to sink in the summer of 2009.

The Democrats currently control the White House and hold a slim majority in the Senate, but in the 2010 midterm elections, the Republican party won decisive control of the House of Representatives; suburbs and rural areas are still more likely to be in Republican hands.<ref>[http://www.multistate.com/Site.nsf/Elections2006PostMaps?OpenPage Multistate.com] Post-Election 2006 Maps</ref> Polls show 50% of voters identify themselves with the Democratic Party as opposed to 35% for the Republican Party.<ref>[http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=312 Trends in Political Values and Core Attitudes: 1987-2007] Pew Research Center, 22 March 2007</ref> Surveys which address both the Republican House and the Democratic Senate currently has an average 78% negative approval rating, with only 13% expressing approval.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/congressional_job_approval-903.html|title=Congressional Job Approval|work=Real Clear Politics|accessdate=October 2, 2012}}</ref>

==Policies and criticism==
The views of individual Democrats sometimes diverge from the party's official stance as expressed in its national [[party platform]], however unlike the Republican party, the Democratic National Committee has not allowed dissenting opinions to share the podium on matters such as abortion at National Conventions.<ref>[http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2005_03/005787.php] , http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2005_03/005787.php, March 6, 2005</ref> The Democratic party also adopts policy positions and platforms at the state and Congressional district levels.

===Economic policy===
[[Image:Unemployment.jpg|thumb|241px|right|''Source: Bureau of Labor Statisitcs'' [http://astuteblogger.blogspot.com/2009/07/anti-stimulus-in-pictures-any-questions.html]]]
In the field of economic policy, Democrats tend to favor high progressive taxes, more regulation, and higher government spending.

The Democratic Party has historically had ties to [[labor union|organized labor]].<ref> http://weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/013/913wopoz.asp Paying Dues - The Democrats settle up with their union bosses, [[Weekly Standard]], July 25, 2007 </ref>

The [[National Education Association]],<ref>[http://www.nea.org/index.html National Education Association homepage]</ref> the largest union of public school teachers, is a backbone of the party, supplying the largest number of delegates to its national conventions.

Democrats typically state that they want to help low-income Americans, however they usually seek to accomplish this by increasing the tax burden on the wealthiest Americans.

Since passage of the Economic Recovery Act of 2009, [[unemployment]] has increased from below 7% to slightly under 10%.

===Foreign and military policy===
According to its platform, the Democratic Party has the objective of strengthening America. Democratic national leadership has been accused of being ambivalent about terrorism<ref>[http://www.news10.net/display_story.aspx?storyid=22045 "Democrats, ACLU Outraged Over Traveler Terrorism Screening Program"] C. Johnson, Associated Press</ref> and insufficiently patriotic.<ref>[http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0112/01/smn.19.html CNN Saturday Morning News]Transcript: December 1, 2001 </ref> A poll conducted by [[Fox News]] released in October 2007 found that 1 in 5 Democrats – nearly 10 million voters – think the world will be better off if the [[United States]] were to lose the [[War in Iraq]].<ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,299374,00.html Nearly 1 in 5 Democrats Say World Will Be Better Off if U.S. Loses War], FOX News Poll, October 04, 2007.</ref> The poll found this sentiment 3 to 4 times higher among Democrats than among moderate, centrist, and Republican voters.

===Education===
An organization affiliated with the [[Democratic Leadership Council]] called the [[Progressive Policy Institute]] claims a long-standing opposition to school vouchers.<ref>21st Century Schools Project Bulletin: Special Edition [http://www.ppionline.org/ppi_ci.cfm?knlgAreaID=110&subsecID=900001&contentID=250630 ''Putting Vouchers in Perspective''], PPI E-newsletter 2 July 2002</ref> Jonathan Alter of ''Newsweek'' warned that opposition to vouchers might alienate some traditional Democratic voting blocs:
:"Can wealthy white liberals - many of whom send their kids to private school - really say to poor parents: 'We can have choices, but you must not?'...This is a glaring hypocrisy sitting at the heart of the liberal opposition to targeted vouchers… Right now, Democrats are in a highly compromised position on education."<ref>[http://www.edreform.com/index.cfm?fuseAction=newsLetter&sectionID=29&NLissueID=4&articleID=11&altCol=2 Center For Education Reform, Monthly Letter to Friends No. 75], Back to School 2002.</ref>
Democrats favor expanded taxpayer funding of higher education, particularly for scientific research, land-grant colleges, community colleges and historically black colleges.<ref name=ed/> President Obama established a White House Initiative on Historically Black Colleges and Universities.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/executive-order-historically-black-colleges-and-universities|title=Executive Order 13532 -- Historically Black Colleges and Universities|date=February 26, 2010|accessdate=November 2, 2012}}</ref> Democrats cut the interest rate on Stafford student loans to 3.4% and eliminated private banks as middlemen in federal student loans.<ref name=ed>{{cite web|url=http://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/education/higher-education|title=Higher Education|accessdate=November 2, 2012}}</ref>

===Environment vs Labor===
Two other important coalition groups also find themselves in direct conflict with each other within the Democratic party coalition--[[Environmentalist]]s and Labor Unions. While environmentalists support efforts like clean air and alternative fuels, for example, this creates tension with the workers of American automobile manufactures whose jobs are threatened by environmental policies such as increasing regulations and high costs. Such policies can lead to cutbacks and layoffs. Balancing these issues is difficult because some sacrifices of interests must be made by both sides.

===Health care===
Democratic leaders have endorsed various [[Democratic Health Care Plans]]; the question in 2009 was whether a new trillion dollar plan could pass in a time of economic crisis. Many Democrats favor single-payer health insurance, but as a compromise supported a plan that preserves private health insurance with an individual mandate and government subsidy of premiums based on the health care plan adopted in Massachusetts. On March 21, 2010, [[ObamaCare]] was passed by Congress, and President Obama signed it into law on March 23, 2010.

Many argue that there may be some advantages to a universal health care system. Democrats generally regard [[universal health care]] coverage to be a priority because of the appeal to poorer voters without any kind of [[health insurance]]. Others argue that the United States must compete with foreign countries where governments cover all health care costs giving foreign companies an advantage over U.S. products. Another argument is that prior to ObamaCare, uninsured people would fail to get preventative care and would go to hospital emergency rooms for treatment, resulting in higher health care costs and large subsidies paid by people with health insurance.

===Gay Rights===
White Democratic leaders — but not blacks or Latinos — consistently favor measures such as the establishment of [[same-sex civil union]]s or marriage. On May 9, 2012, [[Barack Obama|President Obama]] announced that he supports same-sex marriage.<ref name="ABC News">{{cite web|url=http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/video/obama-sex-marriage-legal-16312904|title=Obama Affirms Support for Same-Sex Marriage|date=May 9, 2012|work=ABC News}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.cnn.com/2012/05/09/politics/obama-same-sex-marriage/index.html|title=Obama announces he supports same-sex marriage|last=Gast|first=Phil|date=May 9, 2012|publisher=CNN|accessdate=November 1, 2012}}</ref>

===Other Policies===
Democrats frequently support the minimum wage, workplace protections, the right of women to choose to have an [[abortion]], [[gun control]], gay marriage, and the separation of church and state.

==Religion==
In the United States, there is some correlation between religious and political affiliation, though people of all faiths and denominations can be found among the supporters of each of the main parties.

Historically, [[Roman Catholic Church|Catholic]] voters have had a tendency to identify with the Democratic Party; in recent decades there has been little difference. However, Catholic politicians are mostly Democrats, including Speaker of the House [[Nancy Pelosi]]. However, several general ideals of the Democratic Party's platform — most notably, the party's overall support for the legality of [[abortion]] and many methods of [[contraception]] — are contrary to the position of the [[Catholic Church]]. In 2012, there was a controversy regarding a national organization of religious women ("nuns") speaking out against House Republican budget proposals. This resulted in a national publicity tour and protests called "Nuns on the Bus".

With regard to Protestants, members of [[Evangelical]] churches in recent years have voted about 70-80% Republican. However, the large majority of Democratic Party members are Protestants. One unusual feature of the Democratic Party, however, is that it draws substantial support both from committed African-American Protestants (most of whom are Baptists) and from secular and atheist voters. The strong opposition to [[homosexuality]] found among many Black Protestants contrasts strikingly with the support frequently shown by other Democrats for the [[homosexual agenda]]. One reason for this contrast could be the Democrats' strong support for minority rights.

Democrats also generally believe that organized religion should be separate from public life, and as such are typically supported by the [[ACLU]]. For example, in 1999 the Congress took up a bill to protect the display of the [[Ten Commandments]]. In the House of Representatives, over 3/4ths of the Democratic party members voted to remove the display.<ref>http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/06/18/gun.rollcall/ten.commandments.html</ref>. The measure did not pass the Congress, and as a result when a member of the Alabama Supreme Court, [[Roy Moore]], posted a [[Ten Commandments]] display in his courthouse, the ACLU was able to have the display removed.

==History==
[[File:Dem-leaders.jpg|thumb|300px|Clockwise from far left: presidents Carter, Kennedy, Clinton, Wilson, Johnson, Truman, Jackson, Roosevelt]]
===First Party System===
Democrats claim the [[Thomas Jefferson]] founded their party in 1793 at the start of the [[First Party System]]. The [[Democratic-Republican Party]] was a political party established during the 1790's under the leadership of Thomas Jefferson and [[James Madison]]. It was generally called the Republican Party, but it had no relation to today's Republican Party, founded in 1854. By about 1816, the Federalist Party had broken up as a national organization. With its decline, the Democratic-Republican Party split into several groups. [[Andrew Jackson]] emerged as the candidate of one of these groups and was elected President in 1828.

===Origins===
Most historians regard Jackson's 1832 campaign organization as the beginning of today's Democratic Party. The Democratic Party itself traces its origin to Jefferson's Democratic-Republican Party.<ref>[[World Book]]</ref> A few Democratic-Republicans, such as [[John Quincy Adams]] and [[Henry Clay]], created the [[National Republican Party]]. Adams supporters called themselves National Republicans, antecedents of the Whig and later the Republican parties.<ref name="presidents">William DeGregorio, ''The Complete Book of U.S. Presidents'', Gramercy 1997</ref>

The modern Democratic party was formed during 1828-34, under the national leadership of Jackson and Van Buren, with organizations in all the states comprised of local political leaders. This became the era of [[Jacksonian Democracy]]. The Jacksonians resembled the [[Jeffersonian Democracy|Jeffersonians]] especially in terms of anti-elite rhetoric of opposition to "aristocracy" (that is, wealthy old families), distrust of banks (and paper money), and faith in "the people." By his extensive use of federal [[Spoils system|patronage]], President Jackson removed old office-holders to make way for party loyalists. With the emergence of the Whig Party, the nation now had a new party system, the [[Second Party System]], which lasted until 1854.

The party held its first national convention in 1832 to choose a new running mate for Jackson; it nominated Martin Van Buren for vice president and endorsed the reelection of Jackson. Jackson easily defeated Clay in 1832. In the political realignment of 1828-32, some of Jackson's supporters from the election of 1828, especially businessmen and bankers, switched to the opposition Whig Party as Jackson crusaded against the [[Second Bank of the United States]]. The name "Democratic Party" became common by the mid-1830s.

== Jacksonian Democracy: 1832-1854 ==
[[image:donk1837.jpg|thumb|300px|1837 cartoon shows Democratic Party as donkey ]]
The new party dominated the [[Second Party System]] (as political scientists call it; historians call it "Jacksonian Democracy", 1832-54. After 1832, the Democratic Party drew support from a cross section of the country; every group was represented. However the vast majority of rich merchants, bankers and plantation owners were Whigs, as were most evangelical Protestants. The party was strongest among traditionalistic farmers, frontiersmen, unskilled workers, Irish Catholics, and local or state political leaders. It was weakest in [[New England]], where industrialization turned most factory workers and white collar workers into Whigs, but was dominant in all other regions. The key issues it promoted were opposition to elites and aristocrats, popular democracy (in terms of voting rights and access to government patronage jobs) and opposition to the [[Bank of the United States]] (Jackson vetoed its charter renewal in 1832). The policies were known as [[Jacksonian Democracy]]. [[Image:Jackson1832.jpg|thumb|300px|left]]

Banking and tariffs were the central domestic policy issues from 1828 to 1852. The Democrats favored the [[Mexican-American War]]; Whigs opposed it. Democrats attracted Catholic Irish and German immigrants and denounced anti-immigrant nativism. Both the Democrats and Whigs were divided on the issue of slavery.

In the 1830s the [[Loco-Focos]] in New York City were radically democratic, anti-monopoly, and proponents of [[laissez-faire]]. Their chief spokesman was writer [[William Leggett]]. At this time labor unions were few; some were loosely affiliated with the party.

The economy went sour in the late 1830s with Van Buren getting the blame; he lost reelection as president in 1840 to the Whig [[William Henry Harrison]]. The Democrats gained the White House back in 1844 with [[James K. Polk]]. He had a successful term, then retired. The Democratic National Committee was created in 1848 at the convention that nominated General [[Lewis Cass]], who lost to General [[Zachary Taylor]] of the Whigs. In state after state the Democrats gained small but permanent advantages over the Whigs, until by 1852 the Whig Party was fatally weakened by divisions regarding the issue of slavery and they soon vanished.

The Democratic party dominated the North from the 1840s to 1854. Northern Democrats opposed banks, criticized corporate practices, and preached the ideals of a free society. They called for rapid territorial expansion of the United States, saying that in territorial expansion lay a means for thwarting the pretensions of the [[Slave Power]].

[[Franklin Pierce]] of New Hampshire was elected president in 1852, followed by [[James Buchanan]] of Pennsylvania in 1856. They proved poor presidents who lost control of the slavery issue, and the party, as the nation broke apart and fought the [[American Civil War]].

==Third Party System: Civil War, Gilded Age: 1854-1896==
During the [[Third Party System]] (1854-1896) the Democrats became the minority in the face of the newly formed Republican Party, which controlled nearly all northern states by 1860, bringing a solid majority in the Electoral College. A powerful Republican issue was the allegation that northern Democrats, including "Doughfaces" like Pierce and Buchanan, and advocates of popular sovereignty like [[Stephen A. Douglas]] and [[Lewis Cass]], were accomplices to the [[Slave Power]]. The Republicans meant by Slave Power the conspiracy of slaveholders to seize control of the federal government and block the progress of liberty.

[[Image:DEM1860.JPG|200px|thumb|left|To vote for Douglas in Virginia, a man had to deposit the ticket in the official ballot box.]]
In 1860 the Democrats were unable to stop the election of Republican [[Abraham Lincoln]], even as they feared his election would lead to civil war. The party split in two. The northern wing nominated Douglas, and the southern wing nominated Vice President [[John C. Breckinridge]]. Douglas campaigned across the country and came in second in the popular vote, but carried only Missouri. Breckinridge carried 11 slave states.

The Republican Party was beginning a 50-year era of dominance (1858-1910). During the war, Northern Democrats divided into two factions, [[War Democrats]], who supported the military policies of President Lincoln, and [[Copperheads]], who strongly opposed them. Historian Kenneth Stampp has captured the Copperhead spirit in his depiction of Democratic Congressman [[Daniel W. Voorhees]] of Indiana:
<blockquote>There was an earthy quality in Voorhees, "the tall sycamore of the Wabash." On the stump his hot temper, passionate partisanship, and stirring eloquence made an irresistible appeal to the western Democracy. His bitter cries against protective tariffs and national banks, his intense race prejudice, his suspicion of the eastern Yankee, his devotion to personal liberty, his defense of the Constitution and state rights faithfully reflected the views of his constituents. Like other Jacksonian agrarians he resented the political and economic revolution then in progress. Voorhees idealized a way of life which he thought was being destroyed by the current rulers of his country. His bold protests against these dangerous trends made him the idol of the Democracy of the Wabash Valley.<ref>Stampp, 211.</ref></blockquote>

The Democrats lost consecutive presidential elections from 1860 through 1880 (but 1876 was in dispute); 1884 was their next victory. The Democrats were weakened by their record of opposition to the Civil War but nevertheless benefited from white Southerners' resentment of Reconstruction and consequent hostility to the Republican Party. The [[Redeemers]] gave the Democrats control of every Southern state; the disenfranchisement of black voters in most of the South took place 1890-1900. From 1880 to 1960 the "[[Solid South]]" voted Democratic in all presidential elections (except 1928). After 1900 the key election in southern states was the Democratic primary; victory in the that primary was "tantamount to election" because the GOP was so weak.

Though Republicans continued to control the White House until 1912 (except 1884 and 1892), the Democrats remained competitive in the states, especially in the mid-Atlantic and lower Midwest, and controlled the House of Representatives for most of that period. In the election of 1884, [[Grover Cleveland]], the conservative Democratic Governor of New York, won the presidency, a feat he repeated in 1892, having lost in the election of 1888.

[[Image:1893cleveland-typewriter.jpg|thumb|350px|Typewriters were new in 1893 and this Gillam cartoon from ''Puck'' shows that Cleveland can't get the Democratic "machine" to work as the keys (key politicians) won't respond to his efforts.]]

Cleveland was the leader of the [[Bourbon Democrats]], the conservative wing of the party. They represented business interests, supported banking and railroad goals, promoted capitalism, opposed imperialism and U.S. verseas expansion, opposed the annexation of [[Hawaii]], fought for the [[gold standard]], and opposed [[Bimetallism]]. They strongly supported reform movements such as [[Pendleton Civil Service Reform Act|Civil Service Reform]] and opposed corruption of city bosses, leading the fight against the [[Tweed Ring]]. The leading Bourbons included [[Samuel J. Tilden]], [[David Bennett Hill]] and [[William C. Whitney]] of New York, [[Arthur Pue Gorman]] of Maryland, [[Thomas F. Bayard]] of Delaware, [[William L. Wilson]] of West Virginia, [[John Griffin Carlisle]] of Kentucky, [[William F. Vilas]] of Wisconsin, [[J. Sterling Morton]] of Nebraska, [[John M. Palmer]] of Illinois, [[Horace Boies]] of Iowa, [[L.Q.C. Lamar]] of Mississippi, and railroad builder [[James J. Hill]] of Minnesota. A prominent intellectual was [[Woodrow Wilson]]. The Bourbons were in power when the [[Panic of 1893]] hit; it was a deep depression and they took the blame. A fierce struggle inside the party ensued, with catastrophic losses for both the Bourbon and agrarian factions in 1894, leading to the showdown in 1896.
[[Image:Dead-dem1880.jpg|thumb|550px|In 1880 when General Hancock (right) became the presidential nominee of the Democrats, Republican cartoonists showed the Democratic party history as a horror chamber featuring atrocities in the Civil War era; the donkey" shows the party as a coalition of the rear end of the South joned to the rear end of the North]]

===Ethnocultural voting: pietistic Republicans versus liturgical Democrats===
Religious lines were sharply drawn.<ref>Kleppner (1979).</ref> Methodists, Congregationalists, Presbyterians, Scandinavian Lutherans and other pietists and evangelicals in the North were tightly linked to the Republican Party. In sharp contrast, liturgical groups, especially the Catholics, Episcopalians, and German Lutherans, looked to the Democratic Party for protection from pietistic moralism, especially prohibition. Both parties cut across the class structure, with the Democrats more bottom-heavy.

Cultural issues, especially prohibition and foreign language schools became important because of the sharp religious divisions in the electorate. In the North, about 50% of the voters were pietistic or evangelical Protestants who believed the government should be used to reduce social sins, such as drinking. Liturgical churches (Roman Catholics, German Lutherans, Episcopalians) comprised over a quarter of the vote and wanted the government to stay out of the morality business. Prohibition debates and referenda heated up politics in most states over a period of decade, as national prohibition was finally passed in 1918 (and repealed in 1933), serving as a major issue in the North between the wet Democracy and the dry GOP.<ref>In the South the Democrats were mostly on the dry side. Kleppner (1979).</ref>

==The Bryan Movement==
[[Image:Mark Hanna 1896 election.jpg|thumb|290px|right|Democratic attack ad in 1896 against GOP National Chairman [[Mark Hanna]]; cartoon by Davenport depicts Hanna as a slave driver; from Hearst's ''New York Journal'']]
[[Grover Cleveland]] led the conservative, pro-business [[Bourbon Democrat]]s but as the [[Panic of 1893|depression of 1893]] deepened his enemies multiplied. The Panic of 1893 started in February 1893, a full month before Cleveland became president. Convinced that the [[Sherman Silver Purchase Act]], passed under the administration of [[Benjamin Harrison]], was largely responsible for the alarming drain on federal gold, President Cleveland called Congress into special session to urge its repeal. Congress consented, but only after bitter debate that divided the Democratic party into two hostile camps-the eastern "goldbugs" and the silver wing of the West and South that was to propel young [[William Jennings Bryan]] to the fore in 1896.<ref name="presidents" /> At the 1896 convention the silverite-agrarian faction repudiated the president, and nominated the crusading orator [[William Jennings Bryan]] on a platform of inflation through "free" silver. The idea was that minting huge numbers of silver dollars would flood the economy with cash and end the depression. Eastern Democrats, unable to accept the party's free-silver platform and unwilling to support McKinley for his tariff views, nominated their own candidate, John M. Palmer of Illinois and called themselves the National, or Gold, Democrats.<ref name="presidents" /> The [[Gold Democrats]] attracted politicians and intellectuals (including [[Woodrow Wilson]] and [[Frederick Jackson Turner]]) who refused to vote Republican.

Bryan, an overnight sensation because of his phenomenal "Cross of Gold" speech, crusaded against the gold standard. Crisscrossing the Midwest and East by special train, he gave over 500 speeches to audiences in the millions. In St. Louis he gave 36 speeches to workingmen's audiences all over the city, all in one day. Most Democratic newspapers were hostile (except [[William Randolph Hearst]]'s ''New York Journal'') but Bryan seized control of the media by making the news every day, as he hurled thunderbolts against Eastern monied interests. The rural folk in South and Midwest were ecstatic, showing an enthusiasm never before seen. Ethnic Democrats, especially Germans, however, were alarmed and frightened by Bryan. The middle classes, businessmen, newspaper editors, factory workers, railroad workers, and prosperous farmers generally rejected Bryan's crusade. Bryan was overwhelmed by [[William McKinley]] in the most exciting race in national history.<ref> Refuting Bryan's charges, historians have discovered there was little coercion of workers.</ref> McKinley promised a return to prosperity based on the gold standard, support for industry, railroads and banks, and pluralism that would enable every group to move ahead. Bryan did however, win the hearts and minds of a majority of Democrats. The election of 1896 was a political realignment. The victory of the Republican Party marked the start of the "Progressive Era," from 1896 to 1932, in which the GOP usually was dominant.

==Fourth Party System: Bryan, Wilson, Progressivism: 1896-1932 ==
The [[Fourth Party System]] began with the 1896 election, a realignment during which the GOP controlled the presidency for 28 of 36 years. The GOP dominated most of the Northeast and Midwest, and half the West. Bryan, with a base in the South and Plains states, was strong enough to get the nomination in 1900 (losing to McKinley) and 1908 (losing to Taft). [[Theodore Roosevelt]] dominated the first decade of the century—and to the annoyance of Democrats "stole" the trust issue by crusading against trusts.

[[Image:Steal~trust.JPG|thumb|250px|[[Theodore Roosevelt]] steals the anti-trust issue from the Democrats, 1904]]

Anti-Bryan conservatives controlled the convention in 1904, but they faced a [[Theodore Roosevelt]] landslide. Bryan dropped his free silver and anti-imperialism rhetoric and supported mainstream progressive issues, such as the income tax, anti-trust, and direct election of Senators. He backed [[Woodrow Wilson]] in 1912, was rewarded with the State Department, then resigned in protest against Wilson's non-pacifistic policies in 1916. Northern Democrats were progressive on most issues, but generally opposed prohibition, were lukewarm regarding woman's suffrage, and were reluctant to undercut the "boss system" in the big cities.

Taking advantage of a deep split in the GOP, the Democrats took control of the House in 1910, and elected the intellectual reformer [[Woodrow Wilson]] in 1912 and 1916. Wilson successfully led Congress to a series of Progressive laws, including a reduced tariff, stronger antitrust laws, the [[Federal Reserve System]], hours-and-pay benefits for railroad workers, and outlawing of child labor (which was reversed by the Supreme Court). Furthermore, constitutional amendments for prohibition and woman suffrage were passed in his second term. In effect, Wilson laid to rest the issues of tariffs, money and antitrust that had dominated politics for 40 years. Wilson led the U.S. to victory in the World War, and turned his attention to foreign affairs. He wrote parts of the [[Versailles Treaty]], especially the new [[League of Nations]]. But in 1919 Wilson's political skills faltered, and suddenly everything turned sour. The Senate rejected Versailles and the League, a nationwide wave of strikes and violence caused unrest, and Wilson's health collapsed. The GOP came roaring back in a landslide in 1920, as [[Warren G. Harding]] defeated a Democratic ticket memorable for having [[Franklin D. Roosevelt]] as the vice presidential nominee.

[[Image:D-Edge-Congress.JPG|thumb|300px|Before 1932 Republicans usually controlled Congress; after 1932 the Democrats usually were in control]]

At the 1924 Democratic National Convention, the big fight was over a resolution denouncing by name the [[Ku Klux Klan]]; it was pushed by New York governor [[Al Smith]] and Alabama Senator [[Oscar W. Underwood]] in order to embarrass the front-runner, [[William McAdoo]] of California. After furious debate, the resolution failed by just a single vote. The KKK faded away soon after, but the deep split in the party over cultural issues, especially Prohibition, facilitated Republican landslides in 1920, 1924 and 1928. However [[Al Smith]] did build a strong Catholic base in the big cities in 1928, and [[Franklin D. Roosevelt]]'s election as Governor of New York that year brought a new leader to center stage.

== Fifth Party System: The New Deal ==
[[Image:509px-FDR in 1933.jpg|thumb|left|180px|President [[Franklin Delano Roosevelt]] (1933-1945)]]
The [[Wall Street Crash 1929|stock market crash of 1929]] and the ensuing [[Great Depression]] set the stage for a more progressive government and [[Franklin D. Roosevelt]] won a [[landslide victory]] in the [[U.S. presidential election, 1932|election of 1932]], campaigning on a platform of "Relief, Recovery, and Reform." This came to be termed "[[New Deal|The New Deal]]" after a phrase in his acceptance speech. The Democrats also swept to large majorities in both houses of Congress, and among state Governors. Roosevelt altered the nature of the Party, away from laissez-faire capitalism, and towards an ideology of economic regulation and insurance against hardship. Conservative Democrats were outraged; led by [[Al Smith]] they formed the [[American Liberty League]] in 1934 and counterattacked. They failed and either retired from politics or joined the GOP. A few of them, such as [[Dean Acheson]] found their way back to the Democratic Party.

After making gains in Congress in 1934 Roosevelt moved left and embarked on an ambitious legislative program called "The Second New Deal." It was characterized by building up labor unions, nationalizing welfare by the [[WPA]] (which 2 million employed unemployed men), setting up [[Social Security]] and raising taxes on business profits.<ref> In general the New Deal, 1933-40, did not raise taxes, except for the Social Security tax that went into effect in 1937.</ref>

Roosevelt's [[New Deal]] programs focused on job creation through public works projects as well as Social Security. In the name of "reform" it imposed strong regulations on the banking and financial system, transportation, communications, stock markets and labor-management relations.

Roosevelt successfully built up the "[[New Deal Coalition]]", a powerful coalition of voters and interest groups that supported liberalism. Key components included big city machines and labor unions. Key voter groups included traditional Democrats, white Southerners, Catholics, Jews, and liberals, as well as many blacks. This united voter base allowed Democrats to be elected to Congress and the presidency for much of the next 30 years.

After a sweeping landslide reelection in 1936--losing only Maine and Vermont--Roosevelt stunned the nation, and his party, by calling for legislation to enlarge the Supreme Court by five new members. A firestorm of opposition erupted, led by his own vice president [[John Nance Garner]]. Roosevelt was defeated by an alliance of Republicans and conservative Democrats, who formed a [[Conservative coalition]] that managed to block nearly all liberal legislation. (Only a minimum wage law got through.) Angry with the conservative wing of his own party, Roosevelt tried to destroy it. In 1938, he actively campaigned against five incumbent conservative Democratic senators; all five senators won re-election.

Under FDR, the Democratic Party became identified closely with modern liberalism, which included the promotion of social welfare, unions and regulation of the economy. Civil rights were not on the party agenda at this time.

==Truman to Kennedy: 1945-1963==
Harry Truman took over unexpectedly in 1945, and the rifts inside the party that Roosevelt had papered over began to emerge. Former Vice President [[Henry A. Wallace]] denounced Truman as a war-monger for his anti-Soviet programs, the [[Truman Doctrine]], [[Marshall Plan]], and [[NATO]]. By cooperating with internationalist Republicans, Truman succeeded in defeating isolationists on the right and pro-Soviets on the left to establish a [[Cold War]] program that lasted until the fall of Communism in 1991. Wallace supporters and fellow travelers of the far left were pushed out of the party and the CIO in 1946-48 by young anti-Communists like [[Hubert Humphrey]], [[Walter Reuther]], and [[Arthur Schlesinger, Jr.]]. [[Hollywood]] emerged in the 1940s as an importance new base in the party, led by movie-star politicians such as [[Ronald Reagan]], who at this point in time strongly supported Roosevelt and Truman.<ref> Reagan became a conservative around 1960, saying the Democratic party had left him.</ref>

On the right the Republicans blasted Truman’s domestic policies. "Had Enough?" was the winning slogan as Republicans recaptured Congress in 1946. Many party leaders were ready to dump Truman, but they lacked an alternative. Truman counterattacked, pushing [[J. Strom Thurmond]] and his [[Dixiecrats]] out, and taking advantage of the splits inside the GOP. He was reelected in a stunning surprise. However all of Truman’s Fair Deal proposals, such as universal health care were defeated by the [[Conservative Coalition]] in Congress. His seizure of the steel industry was reversed by the Supreme Court.
In foreign policy, Europe was safe but troubles mounted in Asia. China fell to the Communists in 1949. Truman entered the [[Korean War]] without formal Congressional approval—the last time a president would ever do so. When the war turned to a stalemate in 1951 he fired General [[Douglas MacArthur]], a hero to conservatives. Republicans blasted Truman's failure to stop Communist gains in Asia. A series of petty scandals among friends and buddies of Truman further tarnished his image, allowing [[Dwight Eisenhower]] and the Republicans in 1952 to crusade against "Korea, Communism and Corruption." Truman dropped out of the presidential race early in 1952, leaving no obvious successor. The convention nominated [[Adlai Stevenson]] in 1952 and 1956, only to see him overwhelmed by two Eisenhower landslides.

[[Image:1952-32.jpg|thumb|480px|right|Stevenson and labor unions warn against a return of the Republican policies of Herbert Hoover in 1952 campaign poster]]

In Congress the powerful duo of House Speaker [[Sam Rayburn]] and Senate Majority leader [[Lyndon B. Johnson]] held the party together, often by compromising with Eisenhower. In 1958 the party made dramatic gains in the midterms and seemed to have a permanent lock on Congress. Indeed, Democrats had majorities in the House every election from 1930 to 1992 (except 1946 and 1952). Most southern Congressmen were conservative Democrats, however, and they usually worked with conservative Republicans. The result was a [[Conservative Coalition]] that blocked practically all liberal domestic legislation from 1937 to the 1970s, except for a brief spell 1964-65, when Johnson neutralized its power.

The nomination of [[John F. Kennedy]] in 1960 energized the Catholic population, which jammed motorcades and turned out in heavy numbers (over 80% voted for Kennedy), while also causing a backlash among white Protestants (over 70% of whom voted for Republican candidate [[Richard Nixon]]. Reaching beyond the traditional Irish, German, Italian and Polish Catholic ethnics, Viva Kennedy set out to mobilize the previously passive Latino vote, and it perhaps provided the margin of victory for Kennedy in Texas and New Mexico. Kennedy's victory reinvigorated the party. His youth, vigor and intelligence caught the popular imagination. In foreign policy he was strongly anti-Communist, and promptly launched an invasion of casto's Cuba; it failed badly. A few new programs like the Peace Corps harnessed idealism. In terms of legislation, Kennedy was stalemated by the [[Conservative Coalition]], and anyway his proposals were all cautious and incremental. In three years he was unable to pass any significant new legislation.

Kennedy's election did mark the coming of age of the Catholic component of the New Deal Coalition. After 1964 middle class Catholics started voting Republicans in the same proportion as their Protestant neighbors. Except for the Chicago of [[Richard J. Daley]], the last of the Democratic machines faded away. His involvement in Vietnam proved momentous, for his successor Lyndon Johnson decided to stay, and double the investment, and double the bet again and again until over 500,000 American soldiers were fighting in that small country.

==Civil Rights, Riots, War and collapse of the New Deal Coalition==
[[Image:LBJ-64.jpg|280px|left|thumb|President Lyndon Johnson ran for reelection in the shadow of Kennedy]]

The New Deal Coalition began to fracture as union and religious leaders demanded support for [[civil rights]], upsetting the party's traditional base of conservative Southern Democrats. After Harry Truman's platform showed support for civil rights and anti-segregation policies during the 1948 Democratic National Convention, many Southern Democratic delegates decided to split from the Party and formed the "[[Dixiecrats]]," led by [[South Carolina]] governor [[Strom Thurmond]] (who, as a Senator, would later join the Republican Party). Over the next few years, many conservative Democrats in the "[[Solid South]]" drifted away from the party. By 1940 most northern Blacks had shifted to the Democratic Party due to its New Deal relief programs and support for civil rights.

The party's dramatic reversal on civil rights issues culminated when Democratic President [[Lyndon B. Johnson]] signed into law the [[Civil Rights Act of 1964]]. The new laws ended segregation and also ended the main argument Democrats had used to block Republican gains in the South (that is, only the Democrats could protect segregation). The South became competitive in presidential politics in the 1970s and 1980s, giving strong support to Republican Ronald Reagan and rejecting the liberal northern candidates. The Democrats responded by nominating Southerners (Carter in 1976 and 1980, Clinton in 1992 and 1996, Gore in 2000). Few southern states were won by Democratic presidential candidates from the North (Humphrey in 1968, McGovern in 1972, Mondale in 1984, Dukakis in 1988, Kerry in 2004). At the state and local level the Republicans made slow, steady gains, especially among upscale middle class whites and migrants from the North. By the 1990s the GOP was competitive at the state and local level throughout the South. The Democrats made gains in the west, converting California to a Democratic stronghold and gaining in fast-growing Arizona and Nevada. The Northeast became more and more a Democratic enclave, especially after 2006 when numerous Republican moderates were defeated for reelection. the Midwest remained a battleground. The Democrats made strong gains in Illinois, but slipped a little in Minnesota.
[[Image:Demfight1968.jpg|thumb|290px|By 1968 Democrats were bitterly fighting over Vietnam and the failures of the Great Society]]

==1968 to 1999==
The Democratic party split five ways in 1968 and became a minority party in presidential elections for decades; after 1964 they won a national majority of the popular presidential vote only in 2008. However, the Democrats won a plurality of the popular vote in 1976, 1992, 1996 and 2000.

[[Image:Carter.jpg|thumb|right|180px|Jimmy Carter was elected in 1976 and defeated in 1980.]]
In 1972, the Democrats nominated Sen. [[George McGovern]] (SD) as the presidential candidate on a platform which advocated, among other things, U.S. withdrawal from Vietnam and a guaranteed minimum income for all Americans. McGovern's forces at the national convention ousted Mayor [[Richard J. Daley]] and the entire Chicago delegation, replacing them with insurgents led by [[Jesse Jackson]]. After it became know that McGovern's running mate, [[Thomas Eagleton]], had received electric shock therapy, McGovern said he supported Eagleton "1000%" but he was soon forced to drop him and find a new running mate. With his campaign stalled for several weeks McGovern finally selected [[Sargent Shriver]], a Kennedy-in-law who was close to Mayor Daley. On July 14, 1972, McGovern appointed his campaign manager, Jean Westwood as the first woman chair of the Democratic National Committee. McGovern was defeated in a landslide by incumbent [[Richard Nixon]], winning only Massachusetts and Washington, D.C. The [[Watergate affair]] of 1973-74 made corruption a central issue, especially after [[Gerald Ford]] pardoned Nixon in September 1974. The Democrats made major gains in the 1974 off-year elections.

In 1976, mistrust of the administration, complicated by a combination of economic recession and inflation, sometimes called ''[[stagflation]]'', led to Ford's narrow defeat in 1976 by [[Jimmy Carter]], a former governor of Georgia.

Carter represented the total outsider, who promised honesty in government. He had served as a naval officer, a farmer, a state senator, and a one-term governor. His only experience with federal politics was when he chaired the Democratic National Committee's congressional and gubernatorial elections in 1974. Some of Carter's major accomplishments consisted of the creation of a national energy policy and the consolidation of governmental agencies, resulting in two new cabinet departments, the [[United States Department of Energy]] and the [[United States Department of Education]]. Carter also successfully deregulated the trucking, airline, rail, finance, communications, and oil industries, bolstered the [[social security]] system, and appointed record numbers of women and minorities to significant government and judicial posts. He also enacted strong legislation on environmental protection, through the expansion of the [[National Park Service]] in [[Alaska]], adding 103 million acres of park land. In foreign affairs, Carter's accomplishments consisted of the [[Camp David Accords]], the [[Panama Canal Treaties]], the creation of full diplomatic relations with the [[People's Republic of China]], and the negotiation of the [[SALT II]] Treaty. In addition, he championed human rights throughout the world and used human rights as the center of his administration's foreign policy.

Even with all of these successes, Carter failed to implement a national health plan or to reform the tax system, as he had promised in his campaign. Inflation was also on the rise. Abroad, the Iranians held 52 Americans hostage for 444 days, and Carter's diplomatic and military rescue attempts failed. The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan later that year weakened the perception Americans had of Carter. Even though he had already been defeated for re-election, Carter fortunately was able to negotiate the release of every American hostage. They were lifted out of Iran minutes after Reagan was inaugurated and Carter served as Reagan's emissary to greet them when they arrived in Germany. In 1980, Carter defeated liberal champion [[Edward Kennedy]] to gain renomination, but lost to conservative [[Ronald Reagan]] by a landslide. The Democrats lost 12 Senate seats, and for the first time since 1954, the Republicans controlled the Senate. The House, however, remained in Democratic hands.

===1980s: Battling Reaganism===
Instrumental in the election of Republican [[Ronald Reagan]] in 1980, were Democrats who supported many conservative policies. Among legislators, one of the most prominent of these consevative Democrats was Georgia congressman and second chairman of the [[John Birch Society]], [[Larry McDonald]], who was a passenger on [[Korean Airlines Flight 007]] shot down by the Soviets near [[Moneron Island]] on Sept. 1, 1983. The "Reagan Democrats" were Democrats before the Reagan years, and afterward, but they voted for [[Ronald Reagan]] in 1980 and 1984 (and for [[George H. W. Bush]] in 1988), producing their landslide victories. They were mostly white ethnics in the Northeast who were attracted to Reagan's social conservatism on issues such as abortion, and to his strong foreign policy. They did not continue to vote Republican in 1992 or 1996, so the term fell into disuse except as a reference to the 1980s. The term is not used to describe southern whites who became permanent Republicans in presidential elections. Stanley Greenberg, a Democratic pollster analyzed white ethnic voters, largely unionized auto workers, in suburban Macomb County, Michigan, just north of Detroit. The county voted 63 percent for Kennedy in 1960 and 66 percent for Reagan in 1984. He concluded that Reagan Democrats no longer saw Democrats as champions of their middle class aspirations, but instead saw it as being a party working primarily for the benefit of others, especially African Americans and the very poor. Bill Clinton targeted the Reagan Democrats with considerable success in 1992 and 1996.

[[Image:Liberal1984.jpg|thumb|350px]] The failure to hold the Reagan Democrats and the white South led to the final collapse of the [[New Deal coalition]]. Reagan carried 49 states against former Vice President and Minnesota Senator [[Walter Mondale]], a New Deal stalwart, in 1984. Massachusetts Governor [[Michael Dukakis]], running not as a New Dealer but as an efficiency expert in public administration, lost by a landslide in 1988 to Vice President [[George H. W. Bush]], who had pledged "no new taxes."

In response to these landslide defeats, the [[Democratic Leadership Council]] was created. It worked to move the Party rightwards to the ideological center in order to recover some of the fundraising that had been lost to the Republicans due to corporate donors supporting Reagan. With the Party retaining left-of-center supporters as well as supporters holding moderate or conservative views on some issues, the Democrats became generally a "big tent" or "catch all party" with widespread appeal to most opponents of the Republicans.

===The South moves toward Republicans===
In the century after the end of [[Reconstruction]] in 1877, the white South identified with Democratic Party. The Democrats' lock on power was so strong, the region was called the [[Solid South]]. The Republicans only controlled parts of the Appalachian mountains, but they sometimes did compete for statewide office in the border states. Before 1964, the southern Democrats saw their party as the defender of the southern way of life, which included a respect for states' rights and an appreciation for traditional southern values. They repeatedly warned against the aggressive designs of Northern liberals and Republicans, as well as civil rights activists whom they denounced as "outside agitators."

However, between 1964 and 2004, the Democratic Party's lock on the South was broken. The long-term cause had to do with the South becoming more like the rest of the nation. It could not long stand apart in terms of racial segregation. Modernization had brought factories, national businesses, and larger, more cosmopolitan cities to the South, as well as millions of migrants from the North and more opportunities for higher education. Meanwhile, the cotton and tobacco economy of the traditional rural South faded away, as former farmers commuted to factory jobs.

Integration and the civil rights movement caused enormous controversy in the white South, with many attacking it as a violation of states' rights. When segregation was outlawed by court order and by the Civil Rights acts of 1964 and 1965, a die-hard element resisted integration, led by Democratic governors [[Orval Faubus]] of Arkansas, [[Lester Maddox]] of Georgia, and, especially [[George Wallace]] of Alabama. These populist governors appealed to a less-educated, blue-collar electorate that on economic grounds favored the Democratic Party, but opposed desegregation. After 1965 most Southerners accepted integration (with the exception of public schools). Believing themselves betrayed by the Democratic Party, traditional white southerners joined the new middle-class and the Northern transplants in moving toward the Republican Party. Meanwhile, newly enfranchised Black voters began supporting Democratic candidates at the 80-90-percent levels, producing Democratic leaders such as [[Julian Bond]] and [[John Lewis]] of Georgia, and [[Barbara Jordan]] of Texas. Just as Martin Luther King had promised, integration had brought about a new day in Southern politics, freeing both blacks and whites from old hatreds and fears.

Using issues of cultural conservatism, especially opposition to abortion and homosexuality and support for school prayer, Republicans attracted strong majorities among evangelical Christians. They were nationwide, but strongest in the South; before to the 1980s they were largely apolitical. Exit polls in 2004 showed that Bush led Kerry by 70-30% among Southern whites, who comprised 71% of the voters. Kerry had a 90-9 lead among the 18% of Southern voters who were black. One third of the Southern voters said they were white evangelicals; they voted for Bush by 80-20.<ref>See the exit polls at {{cite web|url=http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.3.html |date=2004-11-02\|accessdate=2006-11-18|title=U.S. PRESIDENT / REGION: SOUTH / EXIT POLL}}</ref>

===1990s===

In the 1990s the Democratic Party revived itself, in part by moving to the right on economic and social policy. President [[Bill Clinton]], who defeated the incumbent [[George H. W. Bush]] in 1992, implemented a balanced federal budget and [[welfare reform]] (cutting benefits and requiring many recipients to take jobs), traditionally conservative causes. Labor unions, which had been steadily losing membership since the 1960s, found they had also lost political clout inside the Democratic Party: Clinton enacted the [[NAFTA]] free trade agreement with Canada and Mexico over the strong objection of these labor unions, much to the disappointment of those on the left of the party. The [[Republican Party (United States)|Republican Party]] took control of both the House of Representatives and the United States Senate after the 1994 election. Clinton was impeached in 1998 and subsequently acquitted in 1999.

When the [[Democratic Leadership Council]] (DLC) attempted to move the Democratic agenda in favor of more centrist positions, prominent Democrats from both the centrist and conservative factions assumed leadership of the party and its direction. Some liberals and progressives felt alienated by the Democratic Party, which they felt had become unconcerned with the interests of the common people and left-wing issues in general. Some Democrats challenged the validity of such critiques, citing the Democratic role in pushing for progressive reforms.

==21st century==
===Election of 2000===
During the presidential election of 2000, the Democrats chose Vice President [[Al Gore]] to be the party's candidate for the presidency. Gore and [[George W. Bush]], the Republican candidate and son of former President George H.W. Bush, disagreed on a number of issues, including abortion, gun control, environmentalism, gay rights, tax cuts, foreign policy, public education, global warming, judicial appointments, and affirmative action. Nevertheless, Gore's affiliation with Clinton and the DLC caused critics—Green Party presidential candidate [[Ralph Nader]] in particular—to assert that Bush and Gore were too similar, especially on free trade, reductions in social welfare, and the death penalty. "We want to punish the Democrats, we want to hurt them, wound them," Nader's closest advisor said.<ref>Harry G. Levinem "Ralph Nader, Suicide Bomber." ''The Village Voice'' May 3, 2004 at [http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0418,levine,53179,1.html] </ref>

Gore won a popular plurality of over 500,000 votes over Bush, but lost in the electoral vote by four votes. In a close election anything can be decisive, but many angry Democrats blamed Nader's third-party spoiler role for Gore's defeat. Controversy plagued the election, and Gore largely dropped from politics for years; by 2005 however he was making speeches critical of Bush's foreign and environmental policies.

Despite Gore's close defeat, the Democrats gained five seats in the Senate (including the election of [[Hillary Clinton]] in New York), to turn a 55-45 Republican edge into a 50-50 split (with a Republican Vice President breaking a tie). However, when Republican Senator [[Jim Jeffords]] of Vermont decided in 2001 to become an independent and caucus with the Democrats, the majority status shifted along with the seat, including control of the floor (by the Majority Leader) and control of all committee chairmanships. However, the Republicans regained their Senate majority with gains in 2002 and 2004, leaving the Democrats with only 44 seats, the fewest since the 1920s.

===2001-2003===
In the aftermath of the [[9-11 Attacks]], the nation's focus was changed to issues of national security. All but one Democrat<ref> Representative [[Barbara Lee]] of Texas</ref> joined the Republicans to authorize President Bush to invade invasion of Afghanistan and overthrow the Taliban. House leader [[Richard Gephardt]] and Senate leader [[Thomas Daschle]] pushed Democrats to vote for the [[USA PATRIOT Act]] and the 2003 invasion of Iraq. The Democrats were split over entering Iraq in 2003 and increasingly expressed concerns about both the justification and progress of the [[War on Terrorism]], as well as the domestic effects, including supposed threats to civil rights and civil liberties from the PATRIOT Act. Senator [[Russ Feingold]] was the only Senator to vote against the act; it received more resistance when it came up for renewal, but was renewed in 2006.

In the wake of the financial fraud scandal of the [[Enron Corporation]] and other corporations, Congressional Democrats pushed for a legal overhaul of business accounting with the intention of preventing further accounting fraud. This led to the bipartisan [[Sarbanes-Oxley Act]] in 2002. Economic issues did not work well in 2002, as the Democrats lost a few seats in the U.S. House of Representatives. They lost three seats in the Senate. While Democrats gained governorships in New Mexico (where [[Bill Richardson]] was elected), Arizona ([[Janet Napolitano]]) and Wyoming ([[Dave Freudenthal]]), other Democrats lost governorships in South Carolina ([[Jim Hodges]]), Alabama ([[Don Siegelman]]) and, for the first time in more than a century, Georgia ([[Roy Barnes]]). The election led to another round of soul searching about the party's narrowing base. The party's miseries mounted in 2003, when a voter recall unseated their unpopular governor of California, [[Gray Davis]], and replaced him which a charismatic liberal Republican [[Arnold Schwarzenegger]]. By the end of 2003 the four largest states had Republican governors: California, Texas, New York and Florida.

===Election of 2004===
The 2004 campaign began in late 2002, when Gore said he would not run again. [[Howard Dean]], former Governor of Vermont, an opponent of the war and a critic of the Democratic establishment, was the front-runner leading into the Democratic primaries. Dean had immense grassroots support, especially from the left wing of the party. Massachusetts Senator [[John Kerry]], a more centrist figure with heavy support from the DLC, was nominated because he was seen as more "electable" than Dean. Democrats moved to populist anti-business positions that denounced free trade and the [[NAFTA]] agreement. The party rhetoric attacked the Bush administration rather than propose alternative programs.

In the end, Kerry lost both the popular vote (by 3 million out of over 120 million votes cast) and the [[Electoral College]]. Republicans also gained four seats in the Senate and three seats in the House of Representatives, and for the first time since 1952, the Democratic leader of the Senate lost re-election. In the end, there were 3,660 Democratic state legislators across the nation to the Republicans' 3,557. Democrats gained governorships in Louisiana, New Hampshire and Montana. However, they lost the governorship of Missouri and a legislative majority in Georgia, which had long been a Democratic stronghold.

There were many reasons for the defeat. After the election most analysts concluded that Kerry was a poor campaigner.<ref>Evan Thomas and Staff of Newsweek,''Election 2004: How Bush Won and What You Can Expect in the Future''(2005)</ref> A group of Vietnam veterans opposed to Kerry called the "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" undercut Kerry's use of his military past as a campaign strategy. Kerry was unable to reconcile his initial support of the [[Iraq War]] with his opposition to the war in 2004, or manage the deep split in the Democratic Party between those who favored and opposed the war. Republicans ran thousands of television commercials to argue that Kerry had flip-flopped on Iraq. When Kerry's home state of Massachusetts legalized same-sex marriage, the issue split liberal and conservative Democrats and independents (Kerry publicly stated throughout his campaign that he opposed same sex marriage, but favored civil unions). Republicans exploited the same-sex marriage issue by promoting ballot initiatives in 11 states that brought conservatives to the polls in large numbers; all 11 initiatives passed. Some Democrats argued that flaws in vote-counting systems may also have played a role in Kerry's defeat in Ohio. Other factors include a healthy job market, a rising stock market, strong home sales, and low unemployment.

After the 2004 election, prominent Democrats began to rethink the party's direction, and a variety of strategies for moving forward were voiced. Some Democrats proposed moving towards the right; others demanded that the party move more to the left and become a stronger opposition party. . Rethinking the party's position on gun control became a matter of discussion, brought up by [[Howard Dean]], [[Bill Richardson]], [[Brian Schweitzer]] and other Democrats who had won governorships in states where Second Amendment rights were important to many voters.

===2005 - 2007===
These debates were reflected in the 2005 campaign for Chairman of the [[Democratic National Committee]], which [[Howard Dean]] won. He sought to move the Democratic strategy away from the establishment, and bolster support for the party's state organizations, even in Red states.

When the 109th Congress convened in 2005, [[Harry Reid]], the new Senate Minority Leader, tried to convince the Democratic Senators to vote more as a bloc on important issues; he forced the Republicans to abandon their push for privatization of Social Security. In 2005, the Democrats retained their governorships in Virginia and New Jersey, electing [[Tim Kaine]] and [[Jon Corzine]], respectively. However, the party lost the mayoral race in New York City, a Democratic stronghold, for the fourth straight time.

In 2006, with scandals involving Republican lobbyist [[Jack Abramoff]], as well as GOP House leader [[Tom DeLay]], Ohio GOP governor [[Bob Taft]] and others, the Democrats used the slogan "Culture of corruption." Negative public opinion on the war in Iraq, along with widespread dissatisfaction among conservatives over government spending, dragged President Bush's job approval ratings down to the lowest levels of his presidency. To win control the Democrats had to add 15 seats in the House (they added 30), and 6 in the Senate (they added 6).

The Democratic Party's electoral success has been attributed to running relatively conservative Democrats in close seats, such as the Senate races in Virginia, Pennsylvania and Montana. <ref> Dewan Shaila and Anne E. Kornblut, "In Key House Races, Democrats Run to the Right," ''New York Times,'' 2006-10-30; but compare Rick Perlstein, "Who deserves credit for the Democratic comeback?" ''The New Republic'' 2006-11-08]] at [https://ssl.tnr.com/p/docsub.mhtml?i=w061106&s=perlstein110806] </ref> Exit polling suggested that corruption was a key issue for many voters.<ref>CNN, "Corruption named as key issue by voters in exit polls," 2006-11-08 at [http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/11/07/election.exitpolls/] </ref>

In 2006 Democrats gained a majority of governorships and made gains in many state legislatures. No Democratic incumbent was defeated in any major race.
===2007-2010===
[[File:Obama_approval_index_december_22_2009.jpg‎|thumb|250px]]
House Democrats chose Rep. [[Nancy Pelosi]] of California for Speaker, the first woman ever, but rejected her choice for House Majority Leader, electing Steny Hoyer instead of John Murtha. Senate Democrats promoted Harry Reid to Majority Leader. Neither have been very effective.

The presidential campaign of 2008 featured a remarkable duel between Obama--the first major black candidate, and [[Hillary Clinton]], the first major woman contender. Obama won with his charismatic oratory and his highly efficient fund-raising and strong organization in the caucus states, while Clinton went downscale to pick up big majorities among poor whites and Hispanics. The contest between Obama and GOP nominee [[John McCain]] showed Obama being the clear favourite, with the vast majority of polls (with the exception of early September) depicting Obama as the clear favourite.

The [[Obama Administration]] got off to a fast start in 2009, especially in vigorous efforts to combat the [[Recession of 2008]] with heavy new stimulus spending, massive loans to banks, increased regulation, and deep intervention in the automobile industry. All those policies were begun by Bush, and had failed to reverse the decline of the economy in late 2008. Whether they will now succeed remains an open question, with the GOP now voting solidly against them and some conservatives like [[Rush Limbaugh]] hoping that the Democrats will fail badly and that the people will again turn to the Republican party. The Democratic Party is feeling the sting from the opposition and many Democrats are beginning to question their own leadership. Liberals are disenchanted with Obama's hawkish position on the [[Afghanistan War]]. The health care reform that consumed most of 2009 remains unsettled, as public opinion has turned against it. Environmentalists now seem resigned to the failure of a [[cap and trade]] program to reduce CO2 emissions. Most of all the recession drags on. The stimulus bill was passed quickly in Feb. 2009 over almost unanimous GOP opposition, but despite promises of "shovel ready" projects, most of the money has not been spent a year later and the economy remains in the doldrums.

The elections in Nov. 2009 in New Jersey and Virginia went badly for the Democrats, as the GOP gained both governorships and many local races, not to mention the Democrats' fifth straight loss for the mayoralty of New York City.

see [[2010 Midterm Elections]]

==Symbols==
The most common symbol for the party is the donkey, although the party itself never officially adopted this symbol.<ref>[http://www.democrats.org/a/2005/06/history_of_the.php History of the Democratic Donkey]. </ref> Some historians suggest the jackass was born 1828 when Jackson was sometimes called a jackass by his opponents as a play on his name. A political cartoon depicting Jackson riding and directing a donkey (representing the Democratic Party) was published in 1837. A political cartoon by [[Thomas Nast]] in an 1870 revived the donkey as a symbol for the Democratic Party. Cartoonists ever since have followed Nast and used the donkey to represent the Democrats, and the elephant to represent the Republicans.

In the early 20th century, the traditional symbol of the Democratic Party in many states was the rooster, as opposed to the Republican eagle.

There is no official color, but since election night 2000 blue has become the identification color of the Democratic Party for maps, while the red has become the color of the Republicans. Increasingly blue is used by Democrats for promotions (e.g BuyBlue, BlueFund) and by the party itself, which in 2006 unveiled the "Red to Blue Program" to support Democratic candidates running against Republican incumbents in the 2006 midterm election.

[[Jefferson-Jackson Day]] annual fundraising celebrations are held by local chapters of the Democratic Party.

The song "[[Happy Days Are Here Again]]" is the unofficial song of the Democratic Party. It was used prominently when Roosevelt was nominated for president at the 1932 Democratic National Convention and remains a sentimental favorite for Democrats today. During the [[Bill Clinton|Clinton]] era, the [[Fleetwood Mac]] song "Don't Stop Thinking About Tomorrow" became a popular song at Democratic events, reflecting the growing prominence of Baby Boomers in the party.

Some critics refer to the group as the [[Democrat Party]].

==Democratic Presidents==
* [[Andrew Jackson]] (1829-1837)
* [[Martin Van Buren]] (1837-1841)
* [[James K. Polk]] (1845-1849)
* [[Franklin Pierce]] (1853-1857)
* [[James Buchanan]] (1857-1861)
* [[Grover Cleveland]] (1885-1889) (1893-1897)
* [[Woodrow Wilson]] (1913-1921)
* [[Franklin Roosevelt]] (1933-1945)
* [[Harry S Truman]] (1945-1953)
* [[John F. Kennedy]] (1961-1963)
* [[Lyndon B. Johnson]] (1963-1969)
* [[Jimmy Carter]] (1977-1981)
* [[Bill Clinton]] (1993-2001)
* [[Barack Obama]] (2009 - Present)

==See also==
*[[Previous Breaking News/Democrats|Articles about '''Democrats''' from previous "Breaking News"]]
*[[Obamacare]]

==Bibliography==
===Current===
*Barone, Michael, and Grant Ujifusa, ''The Almanac of American Politics 2008: The Senators, the Representatives and the Governors: Their Records and Election Results, Their States and Districts'' (2007) covers all the live politicians with amazing detail. New edition every two years since 1975.
* Brownstein, Ronald. ''The Second Civil War: How Extreme Partisanship Has Paralyzed Washington and Polarized America''(2007)
* Crane, Michael. ''The Political Junkie Handbook: The Definitive Reference Books on Politics'' (2004) covers all the major issues explaining the parties' positions
*Sabato, Larry J. ''Divided States of America: The Slash and Burn Politics of the 2004 Presidential Election'' (2005).
*Sabato, Larry J. ed. ''The Sixth Year Itch: The Rise and Fall of the George W. Bush Presidency'' (1907), in-depth essays by scholars on key states in 2006
* Sabato, Larry J., and Howard R. Ernst eds. ''Political Parties and Elections'' (2007), 540pp; an encyclopedia with 450 entries by scholars; focus is 1945 to present
* Sabato, Larry J. and Bruce Larson. ''The Party's Just Begun: Shaping Political Parties for America's Future'' (2001) textbook.
* Shafer, Byron E. and Anthony J. Badger, eds. ''Contesting Democracy: Substance and Structure in American Political History, 1775-2000'' (2001), long essays by specialists on each time period
* Shafer, Byron and Richard Johnston. ''The End of Southern Exceptionalism'' (2006), uses statistical election data & polls to argue GOP growth was primarily a response to economic change
===Historical===
* ''American National Biography'' (20 volumes, 1999) covers all politicians no longer alive; online and paper copies at many academic libraries.
* Jensen, Richard. ''Grass Roots Politics: Parties, Issues, and Voters, 1854-1983'' (1983) [http://www.questia.com/library/book/grass-roots-politics-parties-issues-and-voters-1854-1983-by-christopher-c-gibbs-richard-j-jensen-steven-l-piott.jsp online edition]; survey by conservative scholar, with primary sources
* Kennedy, David M. ''Freedom from Fear: The American People in Depression and War, 1929-1945'' (2001), synthesis by leading scholar; Pulitzer prize [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=52284041 online edition]
* Kleppner, Paul et al. ''The Evolution of American Electoral Systems'' (1983), essays by scholars (some of them conservatives), 1790s to 1980s.
* Kleppner, Paul. ''The Third Electoral System 1853-1892: Parties, Voters, and Political Cultures'' (1979), analysis of voting behavior, with emphasis on region, ethnicity, religion and class. [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=24451028 online edition]
* Ling, Peter J. ''The Democratic Party: A Photographic History'' (2003).
* Patterson, James T. ''Grand Expectations: The United States, 1945-1974'' (1997) synthesis by leading scholar. [http://www.amazon.com/Grand-Expectations-United-1945-1974-History/dp/0195117972/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1211911625&sr=1-2 excerpt and text search]
* Patterson, James T. ''Restless Giant: The United States from Watergate to Bush vs. Gore'' (2005) synthesis by leading scholar. [http://www.amazon.com/Restless-Giant-United-Watergate-History/dp/0195305221/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1211911625&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]
* Ritchie, Donald A. ''Electing FDR: The New Deal Campaign of 1932'' (2007) [http://www.amazon.com/Electing-FDR-Campaign-Presidential-Elections/dp/0700615504/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1195784762&sr=8-2 excerpt and text search]
* Rutland, Robert Allen. ''The Democrats: From Jefferson to Clinton'' (1995).
* Shafer, Byron E. and Anthony J. Badger, eds. ''Contesting Democracy: Substance and Structure in American Political History, 1775-2000'' (2001), most recent collection of new essays by specialists on each time period:
**includes: "State Development in the Early Republic: 1775–1840" by Ronald P. Formisano; "The Nationalization and Racialization of American Politics: 1790–1840" by David Waldstreicher; "'To One or Another of These Parties Every Man Belongs;": 1820–1865 by Joel H. Silbey; "Change and Continuity in the Party Period: 1835–1885" by Michael F. Holt; "The Transformation of American Politics: 1865–1910" by Peter H. Argersinger; "Democracy, Republicanism, and Efficiency: 1885–1930" by Richard Jensen; "The Limits of Federal Power and Social Policy: 1910–1955" by Anthony J. Badger; "The Rise of Rights and Rights Consciousness: 1930–1980" by James T. Patterson, Brown University; and "Economic Growth, Issue Evolution, and Divided Government: 1955–2000" by Byron E. Shafer
* Schlisinger, Galbraith. ''Of the People: The 200 Year History of the Democratic Party'' (1992)
* Sundquist, James L. ''Dynamics of the Party System: Alignment and Realignment of Political Parties in the United States'', (1983) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=29223022 online edition
* Wilentz, Sean. ''The Rise of American Democracy: Jefferson to Lincoln'' (2005), detailed synthesis by a leading liberal scholar. [http://www.amazon.com/Rise-American-Democracy-Jefferson-Lincoln/dp/0393058204/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1195784940&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]
* Witcover, Jules. ''Party of the People: A History of the Democrats'' (2003)
* Schlesinger, Arthur Meier, Jr. ed. ''History of American Presidential Elections, 1789-2000'' (various multivolume editions, latest is 2001). For each election includes a short history by a leading scholar and a selection of primary documents.

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

==External links==
*[http://www.democrats.org/ Democratic Party Official Site]
*[http://www.demconvention.com/assets/downloads/2008-Democratic-Platform-final.pdf 2008 Democratic Platform (pdf download)]
*[http://bertschlossberg.blogspot.com/2012/11/lawrence-patton-mcdonald-b_15.html A Forgotten Man: Congressman Larry McDonald]

[[Category:United States Political Organizations]]
[[Category:United States Political Parties]]
[[Category:Democratic Party]]
[[Category:Progressive Era]]
[[Category:Gilded Age]]
[[Category:New Deal]]
[[Category:Reagan Era]]
[[Category:1960s]]
[[Category:Obama Presidency]]
[[Category:Liberals]]
[[category:Jacksonian Democracy]]
[[Category:111th United States Congress]]

Democratic Party

2012-12-15T21:32:39Z

Nightsky: Nothing to do with it's alternative name

{{AmericanPoliticalParty
| party_name=Democratic Party
| party_articletitle = Democratic Party (United States)
| party_logo = [[Image:democraticpartyusalogo.png|200px]]
| website = [http://www.democrats.org www.democrats.org]
| headquarters = 430 South Capitol Street SE [[Washington, D.C.]] 20003
| chairman = [[Debbie Wasserman Schultz]]
| houseleader = [[Nancy Pelosi]]
| senateleader = [[Harry Reid]]
| foundation = 1832
| ideology = range from extreme [[leftist]] to [[moderate]]
| fiscalpolicy = [[Socialist]]/[[Liberal]]
| socialpolicy = center-liberal/[[Hollywood values]]
| colors = Blue (unofficial)
| footnotes =
}}
The '''Democratic Party''' is one of the two major political [[parties]] in the [[United States of America]]. In general it is [[pro-choice]] and anti-[[free enterprise]], supporting higher taxes, anti-gun policies, and a larger government, while the [[Republican Party]] is generally [[pro-life]] and pro-free enterprise, supporting lower taxes and small government. President [[Barack Obama]] and other Democrats are [[liberal]] / [[Progressive]] leftists. Many [[conservative]]s consider him to be the worst president to date.

Members of the Democratic Party are known as Democrats. In the 19th century &mdash the party was sometimes called "The Democracy." Today, there are Democrats who claim to be more [[conservative]] than typical liberals, called the "[[Blue Dogs]]" in [[Congress]], but they often behave like "lapdogs" for the [[liberal]] party leadership when there is a controversial vote.

In the doldrums after 2000, the party roared back with major gains in 2006, which it expanded in 2008 to sweep control of the national government, and leave the GOP in a state of confusion and decline. The GOP bounced back in 2009, with near-unanimous opposition to contentious Democratic policies, especially stimulus spending and health care reform. Polls show Obama's popularity began to sink in the summer of 2009.

The Democrats currently control the White House and hold a slim majority in the Senate, but in the 2010 midterm elections, the Republican party won decisive control of the House of Representatives; suburbs and rural areas are still more likely to be in Republican hands.<ref>[http://www.multistate.com/Site.nsf/Elections2006PostMaps?OpenPage Multistate.com] Post-Election 2006 Maps</ref> Polls show 50% of voters identify themselves with the Democratic Party as opposed to 35% for the Republican Party.<ref>[http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=312 Trends in Political Values and Core Attitudes: 1987-2007] Pew Research Center, 22 March 2007</ref> Surveys which address both the Republican House and the Democratic Senate currently has an average 78% negative approval rating, with only 13% expressing approval.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/congressional_job_approval-903.html|title=Congressional Job Approval|work=Real Clear Politics|accessdate=October 2, 2012}}</ref>

==Policies and criticism==
The views of individual Democrats sometimes diverge from the party's official stance as expressed in its national [[party platform]], however unlike the Republican party, the Democratic National Committee has not allowed dissenting opinions to share the podium on matters such as abortion at National Conventions.<ref>[http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2005_03/005787.php] , http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2005_03/005787.php, March 6, 2005</ref> The Democratic party also adopts policy positions and platforms at the state and Congressional district levels.

===Economic policy===
[[Image:Unemployment.jpg|thumb|241px|right|''Source: Bureau of Labor Statisitcs'' [http://astuteblogger.blogspot.com/2009/07/anti-stimulus-in-pictures-any-questions.html]]]
In the field of economic policy, Democrats tend to favor high progressive taxes, more regulation, and higher government spending.

The Democratic Party has historically had ties to [[labor union|organized labor]].<ref> http://weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/013/913wopoz.asp Paying Dues - The Democrats settle up with their union bosses, [[Weekly Standard]], July 25, 2007 </ref>

The [[National Education Association]],<ref>[http://www.nea.org/index.html National Education Association homepage]</ref> the largest union of public school teachers, is a backbone of the party, supplying the largest number of delegates to its national conventions.

Democrats typically state that they want to help low-income Americans, however they usually seek to accomplish this by increasing the tax burden on the wealthiest Americans.

Since passage of the Economic Recovery Act of 2009, [[unemployment]] has increased from below 7% to slightly under 10%.

===Foreign and military policy===
According to its platform, the Democratic Party has the objective of strengthening America. Democratic national leadership has been accused of being ambivalent about terrorism<ref>[http://www.news10.net/display_story.aspx?storyid=22045 "Democrats, ACLU Outraged Over Traveler Terrorism Screening Program"] C. Johnson, Associated Press</ref> and insufficiently patriotic.<ref>[http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0112/01/smn.19.html CNN Saturday Morning News]Transcript: December 1, 2001 </ref> A poll conducted by [[Fox News]] released in October 2007 found that 1 in 5 Democrats – nearly 10 million voters – think the world will be better off if the [[United States]] were to lose the [[War in Iraq]].<ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,299374,00.html Nearly 1 in 5 Democrats Say World Will Be Better Off if U.S. Loses War], FOX News Poll, October 04, 2007.</ref> The poll found this sentiment 3 to 4 times higher among Democrats than among moderate, centrist, and Republican voters.

===Education===
An organization affiliated with the [[Democratic Leadership Council]] called the [[Progressive Policy Institute]] claims a long-standing opposition to school vouchers.<ref>21st Century Schools Project Bulletin: Special Edition [http://www.ppionline.org/ppi_ci.cfm?knlgAreaID=110&subsecID=900001&contentID=250630 ''Putting Vouchers in Perspective''], PPI E-newsletter 2 July 2002</ref> Jonathan Alter of ''Newsweek'' warned that opposition to vouchers might alienate some traditional Democratic voting blocs:
:"Can wealthy white liberals - many of whom send their kids to private school - really say to poor parents: 'We can have choices, but you must not?'...This is a glaring hypocrisy sitting at the heart of the liberal opposition to targeted vouchers… Right now, Democrats are in a highly compromised position on education."<ref>[http://www.edreform.com/index.cfm?fuseAction=newsLetter&sectionID=29&NLissueID=4&articleID=11&altCol=2 Center For Education Reform, Monthly Letter to Friends No. 75], Back to School 2002.</ref>
Democrats favor expanded taxpayer funding of higher education, particularly for scientific research, land-grant colleges, community colleges and historically black colleges.<ref name=ed/> President Obama established a White House Initiative on Historically Black Colleges and Universities.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/executive-order-historically-black-colleges-and-universities|title=Executive Order 13532 -- Historically Black Colleges and Universities|date=February 26, 2010|accessdate=November 2, 2012}}</ref> Democrats cut the interest rate on Stafford student loans to 3.4% and eliminated private banks as middlemen in federal student loans.<ref name=ed>{{cite web|url=http://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/education/higher-education|title=Higher Education|accessdate=November 2, 2012}}</ref>

===Environment vs Labor===
Two other important coalition groups also find themselves in direct conflict with each other within the Democratic party coalition--[[Environmentalist]]s and Labor Unions. While environmentalists support efforts like clean air and alternative fuels, for example, this creates tension with the workers of American automobile manufactures whose jobs are threatened by environmental policies such as increasing regulations and high costs. Such policies can lead to cutbacks and layoffs. Balancing these issues is difficult because some sacrifices of interests must be made by both sides.

===Health care===
Democratic leaders have endorsed various [[Democratic Health Care Plans]]; the question in 2009 was whether a new trillion dollar plan could pass in a time of economic crisis. Many Democrats favor single-payer health insurance, but as a compromise supported a plan that preserves private health insurance with an individual mandate and government subsidy of premiums based on the health care plan adopted in Massachusetts. On March 21, 2010, [[ObamaCare]] was passed by Congress, and President Obama signed it into law on March 23, 2010.

Many argue that there may be some advantages to a universal health care system. Democrats generally regard [[universal health care]] coverage to be a priority because of the appeal to poorer voters without any kind of [[health insurance]]. Others argue that the United States must compete with foreign countries where governments cover all health care costs giving foreign companies an advantage over U.S. products. Another argument is that prior to ObamaCare, uninsured people would fail to get preventative care and would go to hospital emergency rooms for treatment, resulting in higher health care costs and large subsidies paid by people with health insurance.

===Gay Rights===
White Democratic leaders — but not blacks or Latinos — consistently favor measures such as the establishment of [[same-sex civil union]]s or marriage. On May 9, 2012, [[Barack Obama|President Obama]] announced that he supports same-sex marriage.<ref name="ABC News">{{cite web|url=http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/video/obama-sex-marriage-legal-16312904|title=Obama Affirms Support for Same-Sex Marriage|date=May 9, 2012|work=ABC News}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.cnn.com/2012/05/09/politics/obama-same-sex-marriage/index.html|title=Obama announces he supports same-sex marriage|last=Gast|first=Phil|date=May 9, 2012|publisher=CNN|accessdate=November 1, 2012}}</ref>

===Other Policies===
Democrats frequently support the minimum wage, workplace protections, the right of women to choose to have an [[abortion]], [[gun control]], gay marriage, and the separation of church and state.

==Religion==
In the United States, there is some correlation between religious and political affiliation, though people of all faiths and denominations can be found among the supporters of each of the main parties.

Historically, [[Roman Catholic Church|Catholic]] voters have had a tendency to identify with the Democratic Party; in recent decades there has been little difference. However, Catholic politicians are mostly Democrats, including Speaker of the House [[Nancy Pelosi]]. However, several general ideals of the Democratic Party's platform — most notably, the party's overall support for the legality of [[abortion]] and many methods of [[contraception]] — are contrary to the position of the [[Catholic Church]]. In 2012, there was a controversy regarding a national organization of religious women ("nuns") speaking out against House Republican budget proposals. This resulted in a national publicity tour and protests called "Nuns on the Bus".

With regard to Protestants, members of [[Evangelical]] churches in recent years have voted about 70-80% Republican. However, the large majority of Democratic Party members are Protestants. One unusual feature of the Democratic Party, however, is that it draws substantial support both from committed African-American Protestants (most of whom are Baptists) and from secular and atheist voters. The strong opposition to [[homosexuality]] found among many Black Protestants contrasts strikingly with the support frequently shown by other Democrats for the [[homosexual agenda]]. One reason for this contrast could be the Democrats' strong support for minority rights.

Democrats also generally believe that organized religion should be separate from public life, and as such are typically supported by the [[ACLU]]. For example, in 1999 the Congress took up a bill to protect the display of the [[Ten Commandments]]. In the House of Representatives, over 3/4ths of the Democratic party members voted to remove the display.<ref>http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/06/18/gun.rollcall/ten.commandments.html</ref>. The measure did not pass the Congress, and as a result when a member of the Alabama Supreme Court, [[Roy Moore]], posted a [[Ten Commandments]] display in his courthouse, the ACLU was able to have the display removed.

==History==
[[File:Dem-leaders.jpg|thumb|300px|Clockwise from far left: presidents Carter, Kennedy, Clinton, Wilson, Johnson, Truman, Jackson, Roosevelt]]
===First Party System===
Democrats claim the [[Thomas Jefferson]] founded their party in 1793 at the start of the [[First Party System]]. The [[Democratic-Republican Party]] was a political party established during the 1790's under the leadership of Thomas Jefferson and [[James Madison]]. It was generally called the Republican Party, but it had no relation to today's Republican Party, founded in 1854. By about 1816, the Federalist Party had broken up as a national organization. With its decline, the Democratic-Republican Party split into several groups. [[Andrew Jackson]] emerged as the candidate of one of these groups and was elected President in 1828.

===Origins===
Most historians regard Jackson's 1832 campaign organization as the beginning of today's Democratic Party. The Democratic Party itself traces its origin to Jefferson's Democratic-Republican Party.<ref>[[World Book]]</ref> A few Democratic-Republicans, such as [[John Quincy Adams]] and [[Henry Clay]], created the [[National Republican Party]]. Adams supporters called themselves National Republicans, antecedents of the Whig and later the Republican parties.<ref name="presidents">William DeGregorio, ''The Complete Book of U.S. Presidents'', Gramercy 1997</ref>

The modern Democratic party was formed during 1828-34, under the national leadership of Jackson and Van Buren, with organizations in all the states comprised of local political leaders. This became the era of [[Jacksonian Democracy]]. The Jacksonians resembled the [[Jeffersonian Democracy|Jeffersonians]] especially in terms of anti-elite rhetoric of opposition to "aristocracy" (that is, wealthy old families), distrust of banks (and paper money), and faith in "the people." By his extensive use of federal [[Spoils system|patronage]], President Jackson removed old office-holders to make way for party loyalists. With the emergence of the Whig Party, the nation now had a new party system, the [[Second Party System]], which lasted until 1854.

The party held its first national convention in 1832 to choose a new running mate for Jackson; it nominated Martin Van Buren for vice president and endorsed the reelection of Jackson. Jackson easily defeated Clay in 1832. In the political realignment of 1828-32, some of Jackson's supporters from the election of 1828, especially businessmen and bankers, switched to the opposition Whig Party as Jackson crusaded against the [[Second Bank of the United States]]. The name "Democratic Party" became common by the mid-1830s.

== Jacksonian Democracy: 1832-1854 ==
[[image:donk1837.jpg|thumb|300px|1837 cartoon shows Democratic Party as donkey ]]
The new party dominated the [[Second Party System]] (as political scientists call it; historians call it "Jacksonian Democracy", 1832-54. After 1832, the Democratic Party drew support from a cross section of the country; every group was represented. However the vast majority of rich merchants, bankers and plantation owners were Whigs, as were most evangelical Protestants. The party was strongest among traditionalistic farmers, frontiersmen, unskilled workers, Irish Catholics, and local or state political leaders. It was weakest in [[New England]], where industrialization turned most factory workers and white collar workers into Whigs, but was dominant in all other regions. The key issues it promoted were opposition to elites and aristocrats, popular democracy (in terms of voting rights and access to government patronage jobs) and opposition to the [[Bank of the United States]] (Jackson vetoed its charter renewal in 1832). The policies were known as [[Jacksonian Democracy]]. [[Image:Jackson1832.jpg|thumb|300px|left]]

Banking and tariffs were the central domestic policy issues from 1828 to 1852. The Democrats favored the [[Mexican-American War]]; Whigs opposed it. Democrats attracted Catholic Irish and German immigrants and denounced anti-immigrant nativism. Both the Democrats and Whigs were divided on the issue of slavery.

In the 1830s the [[Loco-Focos]] in New York City were radically democratic, anti-monopoly, and proponents of [[laissez-faire]]. Their chief spokesman was writer [[William Leggett]]. At this time labor unions were few; some were loosely affiliated with the party.

The economy went sour in the late 1830s with Van Buren getting the blame; he lost reelection as president in 1840 to the Whig [[William Henry Harrison]]. The Democrats gained the White House back in 1844 with [[James K. Polk]]. He had a successful term, then retired. The Democratic National Committee was created in 1848 at the convention that nominated General [[Lewis Cass]], who lost to General [[Zachary Taylor]] of the Whigs. In state after state the Democrats gained small but permanent advantages over the Whigs, until by 1852 the Whig Party was fatally weakened by divisions regarding the issue of slavery and they soon vanished.

The Democratic party dominated the North from the 1840s to 1854. Northern Democrats opposed banks, criticized corporate practices, and preached the ideals of a free society. They called for rapid territorial expansion of the United States, saying that in territorial expansion lay a means for thwarting the pretensions of the [[Slave Power]].

[[Franklin Pierce]] of New Hampshire was elected president in 1852, followed by [[James Buchanan]] of Pennsylvania in 1856. They proved poor presidents who lost control of the slavery issue, and the party, as the nation broke apart and fought the [[American Civil War]].

==Third Party System: Civil War, Gilded Age: 1854-1896==
During the [[Third Party System]] (1854-1896) the Democrats became the minority in the face of the newly formed Republican Party, which controlled nearly all northern states by 1860, bringing a solid majority in the Electoral College. A powerful Republican issue was the allegation that northern Democrats, including "Doughfaces" like Pierce and Buchanan, and advocates of popular sovereignty like [[Stephen A. Douglas]] and [[Lewis Cass]], were accomplices to the [[Slave Power]]. The Republicans meant by Slave Power the conspiracy of slaveholders to seize control of the federal government and block the progress of liberty.

[[Image:DEM1860.JPG|200px|thumb|left|To vote for Douglas in Virginia, a man had to deposit the ticket in the official ballot box.]]
In 1860 the Democrats were unable to stop the election of Republican [[Abraham Lincoln]], even as they feared his election would lead to civil war. The party split in two. The northern wing nominated Douglas, and the southern wing nominated Vice President [[John C. Breckinridge]]. Douglas campaigned across the country and came in second in the popular vote, but carried only Missouri. Breckinridge carried 11 slave states.

The Republican Party was beginning a 50-year era of dominance (1858-1910). During the war, Northern Democrats divided into two factions, [[War Democrats]], who supported the military policies of President Lincoln, and [[Copperheads]], who strongly opposed them. Historian Kenneth Stampp has captured the Copperhead spirit in his depiction of Democratic Congressman [[Daniel W. Voorhees]] of Indiana:
<blockquote>There was an earthy quality in Voorhees, "the tall sycamore of the Wabash." On the stump his hot temper, passionate partisanship, and stirring eloquence made an irresistible appeal to the western Democracy. His bitter cries against protective tariffs and national banks, his intense race prejudice, his suspicion of the eastern Yankee, his devotion to personal liberty, his defense of the Constitution and state rights faithfully reflected the views of his constituents. Like other Jacksonian agrarians he resented the political and economic revolution then in progress. Voorhees idealized a way of life which he thought was being destroyed by the current rulers of his country. His bold protests against these dangerous trends made him the idol of the Democracy of the Wabash Valley.<ref>Stampp, 211.</ref></blockquote>

The Democrats lost consecutive presidential elections from 1860 through 1880 (but 1876 was in dispute); 1884 was their next victory. The Democrats were weakened by their record of opposition to the Civil War but nevertheless benefited from white Southerners' resentment of Reconstruction and consequent hostility to the Republican Party. The [[Redeemers]] gave the Democrats control of every Southern state; the disenfranchisement of black voters in most of the South took place 1890-1900. From 1880 to 1960 the "[[Solid South]]" voted Democratic in all presidential elections (except 1928). After 1900 the key election in southern states was the Democratic primary; victory in the that primary was "tantamount to election" because the GOP was so weak.

Though Republicans continued to control the White House until 1912 (except 1884 and 1892), the Democrats remained competitive in the states, especially in the mid-Atlantic and lower Midwest, and controlled the House of Representatives for most of that period. In the election of 1884, [[Grover Cleveland]], the conservative Democratic Governor of New York, won the presidency, a feat he repeated in 1892, having lost in the election of 1888.

[[Image:1893cleveland-typewriter.jpg|thumb|350px|Typewriters were new in 1893 and this Gillam cartoon from ''Puck'' shows that Cleveland can't get the Democratic "machine" to work as the keys (key politicians) won't respond to his efforts.]]

Cleveland was the leader of the [[Bourbon Democrats]], the conservative wing of the party. They represented business interests, supported banking and railroad goals, promoted capitalism, opposed imperialism and U.S. verseas expansion, opposed the annexation of [[Hawaii]], fought for the [[gold standard]], and opposed [[Bimetallism]]. They strongly supported reform movements such as [[Pendleton Civil Service Reform Act|Civil Service Reform]] and opposed corruption of city bosses, leading the fight against the [[Tweed Ring]]. The leading Bourbons included [[Samuel J. Tilden]], [[David Bennett Hill]] and [[William C. Whitney]] of New York, [[Arthur Pue Gorman]] of Maryland, [[Thomas F. Bayard]] of Delaware, [[William L. Wilson]] of West Virginia, [[John Griffin Carlisle]] of Kentucky, [[William F. Vilas]] of Wisconsin, [[J. Sterling Morton]] of Nebraska, [[John M. Palmer]] of Illinois, [[Horace Boies]] of Iowa, [[L.Q.C. Lamar]] of Mississippi, and railroad builder [[James J. Hill]] of Minnesota. A prominent intellectual was [[Woodrow Wilson]]. The Bourbons were in power when the [[Panic of 1893]] hit; it was a deep depression and they took the blame. A fierce struggle inside the party ensued, with catastrophic losses for both the Bourbon and agrarian factions in 1894, leading to the showdown in 1896.
[[Image:Dead-dem1880.jpg|thumb|550px|In 1880 when General Hancock (right) became the presidential nominee of the Democrats, Republican cartoonists showed the Democratic party history as a horror chamber featuring atrocities in the Civil War era; the donkey" shows the party as a coalition of the rear end of the South joned to the rear end of the North]]

===Ethnocultural voting: pietistic Republicans versus liturgical Democrats===
Religious lines were sharply drawn.<ref>Kleppner (1979).</ref> Methodists, Congregationalists, Presbyterians, Scandinavian Lutherans and other pietists and evangelicals in the North were tightly linked to the Republican Party. In sharp contrast, liturgical groups, especially the Catholics, Episcopalians, and German Lutherans, looked to the Democratic Party for protection from pietistic moralism, especially prohibition. Both parties cut across the class structure, with the Democrats more bottom-heavy.

Cultural issues, especially prohibition and foreign language schools became important because of the sharp religious divisions in the electorate. In the North, about 50% of the voters were pietistic or evangelical Protestants who believed the government should be used to reduce social sins, such as drinking. Liturgical churches (Roman Catholics, German Lutherans, Episcopalians) comprised over a quarter of the vote and wanted the government to stay out of the morality business. Prohibition debates and referenda heated up politics in most states over a period of decade, as national prohibition was finally passed in 1918 (and repealed in 1933), serving as a major issue in the North between the wet Democracy and the dry GOP.<ref>In the South the Democrats were mostly on the dry side. Kleppner (1979).</ref>

==The Bryan Movement==
[[Image:Mark Hanna 1896 election.jpg|thumb|290px|right|Democratic attack ad in 1896 against GOP National Chairman [[Mark Hanna]]; cartoon by Davenport depicts Hanna as a slave driver; from Hearst's ''New York Journal'']]
[[Grover Cleveland]] led the conservative, pro-business [[Bourbon Democrat]]s but as the [[Panic of 1893|depression of 1893]] deepened his enemies multiplied. The Panic of 1893 started in February 1893, a full month before Cleveland became president. Convinced that the [[Sherman Silver Purchase Act]], passed under the administration of [[Benjamin Harrison]], was largely responsible for the alarming drain on federal gold, President Cleveland called Congress into special session to urge its repeal. Congress consented, but only after bitter debate that divided the Democratic party into two hostile camps-the eastern "goldbugs" and the silver wing of the West and South that was to propel young [[William Jennings Bryan]] to the fore in 1896.<ref name="presidents" /> At the 1896 convention the silverite-agrarian faction repudiated the president, and nominated the crusading orator [[William Jennings Bryan]] on a platform of inflation through "free" silver. The idea was that minting huge numbers of silver dollars would flood the economy with cash and end the depression. Eastern Democrats, unable to accept the party's free-silver platform and unwilling to support McKinley for his tariff views, nominated their own candidate, John M. Palmer of Illinois and called themselves the National, or Gold, Democrats.<ref name="presidents" /> The [[Gold Democrats]] attracted politicians and intellectuals (including [[Woodrow Wilson]] and [[Frederick Jackson Turner]]) who refused to vote Republican.

Bryan, an overnight sensation because of his phenomenal "Cross of Gold" speech, crusaded against the gold standard. Crisscrossing the Midwest and East by special train, he gave over 500 speeches to audiences in the millions. In St. Louis he gave 36 speeches to workingmen's audiences all over the city, all in one day. Most Democratic newspapers were hostile (except [[William Randolph Hearst]]'s ''New York Journal'') but Bryan seized control of the media by making the news every day, as he hurled thunderbolts against Eastern monied interests. The rural folk in South and Midwest were ecstatic, showing an enthusiasm never before seen. Ethnic Democrats, especially Germans, however, were alarmed and frightened by Bryan. The middle classes, businessmen, newspaper editors, factory workers, railroad workers, and prosperous farmers generally rejected Bryan's crusade. Bryan was overwhelmed by [[William McKinley]] in the most exciting race in national history.<ref> Refuting Bryan's charges, historians have discovered there was little coercion of workers.</ref> McKinley promised a return to prosperity based on the gold standard, support for industry, railroads and banks, and pluralism that would enable every group to move ahead. Bryan did however, win the hearts and minds of a majority of Democrats. The election of 1896 was a political realignment. The victory of the Republican Party marked the start of the "Progressive Era," from 1896 to 1932, in which the GOP usually was dominant.

==Fourth Party System: Bryan, Wilson, Progressivism: 1896-1932 ==
The [[Fourth Party System]] began with the 1896 election, a realignment during which the GOP controlled the presidency for 28 of 36 years. The GOP dominated most of the Northeast and Midwest, and half the West. Bryan, with a base in the South and Plains states, was strong enough to get the nomination in 1900 (losing to McKinley) and 1908 (losing to Taft). [[Theodore Roosevelt]] dominated the first decade of the century—and to the annoyance of Democrats "stole" the trust issue by crusading against trusts.

[[Image:Steal~trust.JPG|thumb|250px|[[Theodore Roosevelt]] steals the anti-trust issue from the Democrats, 1904]]

Anti-Bryan conservatives controlled the convention in 1904, but they faced a [[Theodore Roosevelt]] landslide. Bryan dropped his free silver and anti-imperialism rhetoric and supported mainstream progressive issues, such as the income tax, anti-trust, and direct election of Senators. He backed [[Woodrow Wilson]] in 1912, was rewarded with the State Department, then resigned in protest against Wilson's non-pacifistic policies in 1916. Northern Democrats were progressive on most issues, but generally opposed prohibition, were lukewarm regarding woman's suffrage, and were reluctant to undercut the "boss system" in the big cities.

Taking advantage of a deep split in the GOP, the Democrats took control of the House in 1910, and elected the intellectual reformer [[Woodrow Wilson]] in 1912 and 1916. Wilson successfully led Congress to a series of Progressive laws, including a reduced tariff, stronger antitrust laws, the [[Federal Reserve System]], hours-and-pay benefits for railroad workers, and outlawing of child labor (which was reversed by the Supreme Court). Furthermore, constitutional amendments for prohibition and woman suffrage were passed in his second term. In effect, Wilson laid to rest the issues of tariffs, money and antitrust that had dominated politics for 40 years. Wilson led the U.S. to victory in the World War, and turned his attention to foreign affairs. He wrote parts of the [[Versailles Treaty]], especially the new [[League of Nations]]. But in 1919 Wilson's political skills faltered, and suddenly everything turned sour. The Senate rejected Versailles and the League, a nationwide wave of strikes and violence caused unrest, and Wilson's health collapsed. The GOP came roaring back in a landslide in 1920, as [[Warren G. Harding]] defeated a Democratic ticket memorable for having [[Franklin D. Roosevelt]] as the vice presidential nominee.

[[Image:D-Edge-Congress.JPG|thumb|300px|Before 1932 Republicans usually controlled Congress; after 1932 the Democrats usually were in control]]

At the 1924 Democratic National Convention, the big fight was over a resolution denouncing by name the [[Ku Klux Klan]]; it was pushed by New York governor [[Al Smith]] and Alabama Senator [[Oscar W. Underwood]] in order to embarrass the front-runner, [[William McAdoo]] of California. After furious debate, the resolution failed by just a single vote. The KKK faded away soon after, but the deep split in the party over cultural issues, especially Prohibition, facilitated Republican landslides in 1920, 1924 and 1928. However [[Al Smith]] did build a strong Catholic base in the big cities in 1928, and [[Franklin D. Roosevelt]]'s election as Governor of New York that year brought a new leader to center stage.

== Fifth Party System: The New Deal ==
[[Image:509px-FDR in 1933.jpg|thumb|left|180px|President [[Franklin Delano Roosevelt]] (1933-1945)]]
The [[Wall Street Crash 1929|stock market crash of 1929]] and the ensuing [[Great Depression]] set the stage for a more progressive government and [[Franklin D. Roosevelt]] won a [[landslide victory]] in the [[U.S. presidential election, 1932|election of 1932]], campaigning on a platform of "Relief, Recovery, and Reform." This came to be termed "[[New Deal|The New Deal]]" after a phrase in his acceptance speech. The Democrats also swept to large majorities in both houses of Congress, and among state Governors. Roosevelt altered the nature of the Party, away from laissez-faire capitalism, and towards an ideology of economic regulation and insurance against hardship. Conservative Democrats were outraged; led by [[Al Smith]] they formed the [[American Liberty League]] in 1934 and counterattacked. They failed and either retired from politics or joined the GOP. A few of them, such as [[Dean Acheson]] found their way back to the Democratic Party.

After making gains in Congress in 1934 Roosevelt moved left and embarked on an ambitious legislative program called "The Second New Deal." It was characterized by building up labor unions, nationalizing welfare by the [[WPA]] (which 2 million employed unemployed men), setting up [[Social Security]] and raising taxes on business profits.<ref> In general the New Deal, 1933-40, did not raise taxes, except for the Social Security tax that went into effect in 1937.</ref>

Roosevelt's [[New Deal]] programs focused on job creation through public works projects as well as Social Security. In the name of "reform" it imposed strong regulations on the banking and financial system, transportation, communications, stock markets and labor-management relations.

Roosevelt successfully built up the "[[New Deal Coalition]]", a powerful coalition of voters and interest groups that supported liberalism. Key components included big city machines and labor unions. Key voter groups included traditional Democrats, white Southerners, Catholics, Jews, and liberals, as well as many blacks. This united voter base allowed Democrats to be elected to Congress and the presidency for much of the next 30 years.

After a sweeping landslide reelection in 1936--losing only Maine and Vermont--Roosevelt stunned the nation, and his party, by calling for legislation to enlarge the Supreme Court by five new members. A firestorm of opposition erupted, led by his own vice president [[John Nance Garner]]. Roosevelt was defeated by an alliance of Republicans and conservative Democrats, who formed a [[Conservative coalition]] that managed to block nearly all liberal legislation. (Only a minimum wage law got through.) Angry with the conservative wing of his own party, Roosevelt tried to destroy it. In 1938, he actively campaigned against five incumbent conservative Democratic senators; all five senators won re-election.

Under FDR, the Democratic Party became identified closely with modern liberalism, which included the promotion of social welfare, unions and regulation of the economy. Civil rights were not on the party agenda at this time.

==Truman to Kennedy: 1945-1963==
Harry Truman took over unexpectedly in 1945, and the rifts inside the party that Roosevelt had papered over began to emerge. Former Vice President [[Henry A. Wallace]] denounced Truman as a war-monger for his anti-Soviet programs, the [[Truman Doctrine]], [[Marshall Plan]], and [[NATO]]. By cooperating with internationalist Republicans, Truman succeeded in defeating isolationists on the right and pro-Soviets on the left to establish a [[Cold War]] program that lasted until the fall of Communism in 1991. Wallace supporters and fellow travelers of the far left were pushed out of the party and the CIO in 1946-48 by young anti-Communists like [[Hubert Humphrey]], [[Walter Reuther]], and [[Arthur Schlesinger, Jr.]]. [[Hollywood]] emerged in the 1940s as an importance new base in the party, led by movie-star politicians such as [[Ronald Reagan]], who at this point in time strongly supported Roosevelt and Truman.<ref> Reagan became a conservative around 1960, saying the Democratic party had left him.</ref>

On the right the Republicans blasted Truman’s domestic policies. "Had Enough?" was the winning slogan as Republicans recaptured Congress in 1946. Many party leaders were ready to dump Truman, but they lacked an alternative. Truman counterattacked, pushing [[J. Strom Thurmond]] and his [[Dixiecrats]] out, and taking advantage of the splits inside the GOP. He was reelected in a stunning surprise. However all of Truman’s Fair Deal proposals, such as universal health care were defeated by the [[Conservative Coalition]] in Congress. His seizure of the steel industry was reversed by the Supreme Court.
In foreign policy, Europe was safe but troubles mounted in Asia. China fell to the Communists in 1949. Truman entered the [[Korean War]] without formal Congressional approval—the last time a president would ever do so. When the war turned to a stalemate in 1951 he fired General [[Douglas MacArthur]], a hero to conservatives. Republicans blasted Truman's failure to stop Communist gains in Asia. A series of petty scandals among friends and buddies of Truman further tarnished his image, allowing [[Dwight Eisenhower]] and the Republicans in 1952 to crusade against "Korea, Communism and Corruption." Truman dropped out of the presidential race early in 1952, leaving no obvious successor. The convention nominated [[Adlai Stevenson]] in 1952 and 1956, only to see him overwhelmed by two Eisenhower landslides.

[[Image:1952-32.jpg|thumb|480px|right|Stevenson and labor unions warn against a return of the Republican policies of Herbert Hoover in 1952 campaign poster]]

In Congress the powerful duo of House Speaker [[Sam Rayburn]] and Senate Majority leader [[Lyndon B. Johnson]] held the party together, often by compromising with Eisenhower. In 1958 the party made dramatic gains in the midterms and seemed to have a permanent lock on Congress. Indeed, Democrats had majorities in the House every election from 1930 to 1992 (except 1946 and 1952). Most southern Congressmen were conservative Democrats, however, and they usually worked with conservative Republicans. The result was a [[Conservative Coalition]] that blocked practically all liberal domestic legislation from 1937 to the 1970s, except for a brief spell 1964-65, when Johnson neutralized its power.

The nomination of [[John F. Kennedy]] in 1960 energized the Catholic population, which jammed motorcades and turned out in heavy numbers (over 80% voted for Kennedy), while also causing a backlash among white Protestants (over 70% of whom voted for Republican candidate [[Richard Nixon]]. Reaching beyond the traditional Irish, German, Italian and Polish Catholic ethnics, Viva Kennedy set out to mobilize the previously passive Latino vote, and it perhaps provided the margin of victory for Kennedy in Texas and New Mexico. Kennedy's victory reinvigorated the party. His youth, vigor and intelligence caught the popular imagination. In foreign policy he was strongly anti-Communist, and promptly launched an invasion of casto's Cuba; it failed badly. A few new programs like the Peace Corps harnessed idealism. In terms of legislation, Kennedy was stalemated by the [[Conservative Coalition]], and anyway his proposals were all cautious and incremental. In three years he was unable to pass any significant new legislation.

Kennedy's election did mark the coming of age of the Catholic component of the New Deal Coalition. After 1964 middle class Catholics started voting Republicans in the same proportion as their Protestant neighbors. Except for the Chicago of [[Richard J. Daley]], the last of the Democratic machines faded away. His involvement in Vietnam proved momentous, for his successor Lyndon Johnson decided to stay, and double the investment, and double the bet again and again until over 500,000 American soldiers were fighting in that small country.

==Civil Rights, Riots, War and collapse of the New Deal Coalition==
[[Image:LBJ-64.jpg|280px|left|thumb|President Lyndon Johnson ran for reelection in the shadow of Kennedy]]

The New Deal Coalition began to fracture as union and religious leaders demanded support for [[civil rights]], upsetting the party's traditional base of conservative Southern Democrats. After Harry Truman's platform showed support for civil rights and anti-segregation policies during the 1948 Democratic National Convention, many Southern Democratic delegates decided to split from the Party and formed the "[[Dixiecrats]]," led by [[South Carolina]] governor [[Strom Thurmond]] (who, as a Senator, would later join the Republican Party). Over the next few years, many conservative Democrats in the "[[Solid South]]" drifted away from the party. By 1940 most northern Blacks had shifted to the Democratic Party due to its New Deal relief programs and support for civil rights.

The party's dramatic reversal on civil rights issues culminated when Democratic President [[Lyndon B. Johnson]] signed into law the [[Civil Rights Act of 1964]]. The new laws ended segregation and also ended the main argument Democrats had used to block Republican gains in the South (that is, only the Democrats could protect segregation). The South became competitive in presidential politics in the 1970s and 1980s, giving strong support to Republican Ronald Reagan and rejecting the liberal northern candidates. The Democrats responded by nominating Southerners (Carter in 1976 and 1980, Clinton in 1992 and 1996, Gore in 2000). Few southern states were won by Democratic presidential candidates from the North (Humphrey in 1968, McGovern in 1972, Mondale in 1984, Dukakis in 1988, Kerry in 2004). At the state and local level the Republicans made slow, steady gains, especially among upscale middle class whites and migrants from the North. By the 1990s the GOP was competitive at the state and local level throughout the South. The Democrats made gains in the west, converting California to a Democratic stronghold and gaining in fast-growing Arizona and Nevada. The Northeast became more and more a Democratic enclave, especially after 2006 when numerous Republican moderates were defeated for reelection. the Midwest remained a battleground. The Democrats made strong gains in Illinois, but slipped a little in Minnesota.
[[Image:Demfight1968.jpg|thumb|290px|By 1968 Democrats were bitterly fighting over Vietnam and the failures of the Great Society]]

==1968 to 1999==
The Democratic party split five ways in 1968 and became a minority party in presidential elections for decades; after 1964 they won a national majority of the popular presidential vote only in 2008. However, the Democrats won a plurality of the popular vote in 1976, 1992, 1996 and 2000.

[[Image:Carter.jpg|thumb|right|180px|Jimmy Carter was elected in 1976 and defeated in 1980.]]
In 1972, the Democrats nominated Sen. [[George McGovern]] (SD) as the presidential candidate on a platform which advocated, among other things, U.S. withdrawal from Vietnam and a guaranteed minimum income for all Americans. McGovern's forces at the national convention ousted Mayor [[Richard J. Daley]] and the entire Chicago delegation, replacing them with insurgents led by [[Jesse Jackson]]. After it became know that McGovern's running mate, [[Thomas Eagleton]], had received electric shock therapy, McGovern said he supported Eagleton "1000%" but he was soon forced to drop him and find a new running mate. With his campaign stalled for several weeks McGovern finally selected [[Sargent Shriver]], a Kennedy-in-law who was close to Mayor Daley. On July 14, 1972, McGovern appointed his campaign manager, Jean Westwood as the first woman chair of the Democratic National Committee. McGovern was defeated in a landslide by incumbent [[Richard Nixon]], winning only Massachusetts and Washington, D.C. The [[Watergate affair]] of 1973-74 made corruption a central issue, especially after [[Gerald Ford]] pardoned Nixon in September 1974. The Democrats made major gains in the 1974 off-year elections.

In 1976, mistrust of the administration, complicated by a combination of economic recession and inflation, sometimes called ''[[stagflation]]'', led to Ford's narrow defeat in 1976 by [[Jimmy Carter]], a former governor of Georgia.

Carter represented the total outsider, who promised honesty in government. He had served as a naval officer, a farmer, a state senator, and a one-term governor. His only experience with federal politics was when he chaired the Democratic National Committee's congressional and gubernatorial elections in 1974. Some of Carter's major accomplishments consisted of the creation of a national energy policy and the consolidation of governmental agencies, resulting in two new cabinet departments, the [[United States Department of Energy]] and the [[United States Department of Education]]. Carter also successfully deregulated the trucking, airline, rail, finance, communications, and oil industries, bolstered the [[social security]] system, and appointed record numbers of women and minorities to significant government and judicial posts. He also enacted strong legislation on environmental protection, through the expansion of the [[National Park Service]] in [[Alaska]], adding 103 million acres of park land. In foreign affairs, Carter's accomplishments consisted of the [[Camp David Accords]], the [[Panama Canal Treaties]], the creation of full diplomatic relations with the [[People's Republic of China]], and the negotiation of the [[SALT II]] Treaty. In addition, he championed human rights throughout the world and used human rights as the center of his administration's foreign policy.

Even with all of these successes, Carter failed to implement a national health plan or to reform the tax system, as he had promised in his campaign. Inflation was also on the rise. Abroad, the Iranians held 52 Americans hostage for 444 days, and Carter's diplomatic and military rescue attempts failed. The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan later that year weakened the perception Americans had of Carter. Even though he had already been defeated for re-election, Carter fortunately was able to negotiate the release of every American hostage. They were lifted out of Iran minutes after Reagan was inaugurated and Carter served as Reagan's emissary to greet them when they arrived in Germany. In 1980, Carter defeated liberal champion [[Edward Kennedy]] to gain renomination, but lost to conservative [[Ronald Reagan]] by a landslide. The Democrats lost 12 Senate seats, and for the first time since 1954, the Republicans controlled the Senate. The House, however, remained in Democratic hands.

===1980s: Battling Reaganism===
Instrumental in the election of Republican [[Ronald Reagan]] in 1980, were Democrats who supported many conservative policies. Among legislators, one of the most prominent of these consevative Democrats was Georgia congressman and second chairman of the [[John Birch Society]], [[Larry McDonald]], who was a passenger on [[Korean Airlines Flight 007]] shot down by the Soviets near [[Moneron Island]] on Sept. 1, 1983. The "Reagan Democrats" were Democrats before the Reagan years, and afterward, but they voted for [[Ronald Reagan]] in 1980 and 1984 (and for [[George H. W. Bush]] in 1988), producing their landslide victories. They were mostly white ethnics in the Northeast who were attracted to Reagan's social conservatism on issues such as abortion, and to his strong foreign policy. They did not continue to vote Republican in 1992 or 1996, so the term fell into disuse except as a reference to the 1980s. The term is not used to describe southern whites who became permanent Republicans in presidential elections. Stanley Greenberg, a Democratic pollster analyzed white ethnic voters, largely unionized auto workers, in suburban Macomb County, Michigan, just north of Detroit. The county voted 63 percent for Kennedy in 1960 and 66 percent for Reagan in 1984. He concluded that Reagan Democrats no longer saw Democrats as champions of their middle class aspirations, but instead saw it as being a party working primarily for the benefit of others, especially African Americans and the very poor. Bill Clinton targeted the Reagan Democrats with considerable success in 1992 and 1996.

[[Image:Liberal1984.jpg|thumb|350px]] The failure to hold the Reagan Democrats and the white South led to the final collapse of the [[New Deal coalition]]. Reagan carried 49 states against former Vice President and Minnesota Senator [[Walter Mondale]], a New Deal stalwart, in 1984. Massachusetts Governor [[Michael Dukakis]], running not as a New Dealer but as an efficiency expert in public administration, lost by a landslide in 1988 to Vice President [[George H. W. Bush]], who had pledged "no new taxes."

In response to these landslide defeats, the [[Democratic Leadership Council]] was created. It worked to move the Party rightwards to the ideological center in order to recover some of the fundraising that had been lost to the Republicans due to corporate donors supporting Reagan. With the Party retaining left-of-center supporters as well as supporters holding moderate or conservative views on some issues, the Democrats became generally a "big tent" or "catch all party" with widespread appeal to most opponents of the Republicans.

===The South moves toward Republicans===
In the century after the end of [[Reconstruction]] in 1877, the white South identified with Democratic Party. The Democrats' lock on power was so strong, the region was called the [[Solid South]]. The Republicans only controlled parts of the Appalachian mountains, but they sometimes did compete for statewide office in the border states. Before 1964, the southern Democrats saw their party as the defender of the southern way of life, which included a respect for states' rights and an appreciation for traditional southern values. They repeatedly warned against the aggressive designs of Northern liberals and Republicans, as well as civil rights activists whom they denounced as "outside agitators."

However, between 1964 and 2004, the Democratic Party's lock on the South was broken. The long-term cause had to do with the South becoming more like the rest of the nation. It could not long stand apart in terms of racial segregation. Modernization had brought factories, national businesses, and larger, more cosmopolitan cities to the South, as well as millions of migrants from the North and more opportunities for higher education. Meanwhile, the cotton and tobacco economy of the traditional rural South faded away, as former farmers commuted to factory jobs.

Integration and the civil rights movement caused enormous controversy in the white South, with many attacking it as a violation of states' rights. When segregation was outlawed by court order and by the Civil Rights acts of 1964 and 1965, a die-hard element resisted integration, led by Democratic governors [[Orval Faubus]] of Arkansas, [[Lester Maddox]] of Georgia, and, especially [[George Wallace]] of Alabama. These populist governors appealed to a less-educated, blue-collar electorate that on economic grounds favored the Democratic Party, but opposed desegregation. After 1965 most Southerners accepted integration (with the exception of public schools). Believing themselves betrayed by the Democratic Party, traditional white southerners joined the new middle-class and the Northern transplants in moving toward the Republican Party. Meanwhile, newly enfranchised Black voters began supporting Democratic candidates at the 80-90-percent levels, producing Democratic leaders such as [[Julian Bond]] and [[John Lewis]] of Georgia, and [[Barbara Jordan]] of Texas. Just as Martin Luther King had promised, integration had brought about a new day in Southern politics, freeing both blacks and whites from old hatreds and fears.

Using issues of cultural conservatism, especially opposition to abortion and homosexuality and support for school prayer, Republicans attracted strong majorities among evangelical Christians. They were nationwide, but strongest in the South; before to the 1980s they were largely apolitical. Exit polls in 2004 showed that Bush led Kerry by 70-30% among Southern whites, who comprised 71% of the voters. Kerry had a 90-9 lead among the 18% of Southern voters who were black. One third of the Southern voters said they were white evangelicals; they voted for Bush by 80-20.<ref>See the exit polls at {{cite web|url=http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.3.html |date=2004-11-02\|accessdate=2006-11-18|title=U.S. PRESIDENT / REGION: SOUTH / EXIT POLL}}</ref>

===1990s===

In the 1990s the Democratic Party revived itself, in part by moving to the right on economic and social policy. President [[Bill Clinton]], who defeated the incumbent [[George H. W. Bush]] in 1992, implemented a balanced federal budget and [[welfare reform]] (cutting benefits and requiring many recipients to take jobs), traditionally conservative causes. Labor unions, which had been steadily losing membership since the 1960s, found they had also lost political clout inside the Democratic Party: Clinton enacted the [[NAFTA]] free trade agreement with Canada and Mexico over the strong objection of these labor unions, much to the disappointment of those on the left of the party. The [[Republican Party (United States)|Republican Party]] took control of both the House of Representatives and the United States Senate after the 1994 election. Clinton was impeached in 1998 and subsequently acquitted in 1999.

When the [[Democratic Leadership Council]] (DLC) attempted to move the Democratic agenda in favor of more centrist positions, prominent Democrats from both the centrist and conservative factions assumed leadership of the party and its direction. Some liberals and progressives felt alienated by the Democratic Party, which they felt had become unconcerned with the interests of the common people and left-wing issues in general. Some Democrats challenged the validity of such critiques, citing the Democratic role in pushing for progressive reforms.

==21st century==
===Election of 2000===
During the presidential election of 2000, the Democrats chose Vice President [[Al Gore]] to be the party's candidate for the presidency. Gore and [[George W. Bush]], the Republican candidate and son of former President George H.W. Bush, disagreed on a number of issues, including abortion, gun control, environmentalism, gay rights, tax cuts, foreign policy, public education, global warming, judicial appointments, and affirmative action. Nevertheless, Gore's affiliation with Clinton and the DLC caused critics—Green Party presidential candidate [[Ralph Nader]] in particular—to assert that Bush and Gore were too similar, especially on free trade, reductions in social welfare, and the death penalty. "We want to punish the Democrats, we want to hurt them, wound them," Nader's closest advisor said.<ref>Harry G. Levinem "Ralph Nader, Suicide Bomber." ''The Village Voice'' May 3, 2004 at [http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0418,levine,53179,1.html] </ref>

Gore won a popular plurality of over 500,000 votes over Bush, but lost in the electoral vote by four votes. In a close election anything can be decisive, but many angry Democrats blamed Nader's third-party spoiler role for Gore's defeat. Controversy plagued the election, and Gore largely dropped from politics for years; by 2005 however he was making speeches critical of Bush's foreign and environmental policies.

Despite Gore's close defeat, the Democrats gained five seats in the Senate (including the election of [[Hillary Clinton]] in New York), to turn a 55-45 Republican edge into a 50-50 split (with a Republican Vice President breaking a tie). However, when Republican Senator [[Jim Jeffords]] of Vermont decided in 2001 to become an independent and caucus with the Democrats, the majority status shifted along with the seat, including control of the floor (by the Majority Leader) and control of all committee chairmanships. However, the Republicans regained their Senate majority with gains in 2002 and 2004, leaving the Democrats with only 44 seats, the fewest since the 1920s.

===2001-2003===
In the aftermath of the [[9-11 Attacks]], the nation's focus was changed to issues of national security. All but one Democrat<ref> Representative [[Barbara Lee]] of Texas</ref> joined the Republicans to authorize President Bush to invade invasion of Afghanistan and overthrow the Taliban. House leader [[Richard Gephardt]] and Senate leader [[Thomas Daschle]] pushed Democrats to vote for the [[USA PATRIOT Act]] and the 2003 invasion of Iraq. The Democrats were split over entering Iraq in 2003 and increasingly expressed concerns about both the justification and progress of the [[War on Terrorism]], as well as the domestic effects, including supposed threats to civil rights and civil liberties from the PATRIOT Act. Senator [[Russ Feingold]] was the only Senator to vote against the act; it received more resistance when it came up for renewal, but was renewed in 2006.

In the wake of the financial fraud scandal of the [[Enron Corporation]] and other corporations, Congressional Democrats pushed for a legal overhaul of business accounting with the intention of preventing further accounting fraud. This led to the bipartisan [[Sarbanes-Oxley Act]] in 2002. Economic issues did not work well in 2002, as the Democrats lost a few seats in the U.S. House of Representatives. They lost three seats in the Senate. While Democrats gained governorships in New Mexico (where [[Bill Richardson]] was elected), Arizona ([[Janet Napolitano]]) and Wyoming ([[Dave Freudenthal]]), other Democrats lost governorships in South Carolina ([[Jim Hodges]]), Alabama ([[Don Siegelman]]) and, for the first time in more than a century, Georgia ([[Roy Barnes]]). The election led to another round of soul searching about the party's narrowing base. The party's miseries mounted in 2003, when a voter recall unseated their unpopular governor of California, [[Gray Davis]], and replaced him which a charismatic liberal Republican [[Arnold Schwarzenegger]]. By the end of 2003 the four largest states had Republican governors: California, Texas, New York and Florida.

===Election of 2004===
The 2004 campaign began in late 2002, when Gore said he would not run again. [[Howard Dean]], former Governor of Vermont, an opponent of the war and a critic of the Democratic establishment, was the front-runner leading into the Democratic primaries. Dean had immense grassroots support, especially from the left wing of the party. Massachusetts Senator [[John Kerry]], a more centrist figure with heavy support from the DLC, was nominated because he was seen as more "electable" than Dean. Democrats moved to populist anti-business positions that denounced free trade and the [[NAFTA]] agreement. The party rhetoric attacked the Bush administration rather than propose alternative programs.

In the end, Kerry lost both the popular vote (by 3 million out of over 120 million votes cast) and the [[Electoral College]]. Republicans also gained four seats in the Senate and three seats in the House of Representatives, and for the first time since 1952, the Democratic leader of the Senate lost re-election. In the end, there were 3,660 Democratic state legislators across the nation to the Republicans' 3,557. Democrats gained governorships in Louisiana, New Hampshire and Montana. However, they lost the governorship of Missouri and a legislative majority in Georgia, which had long been a Democratic stronghold.

There were many reasons for the defeat. After the election most analysts concluded that Kerry was a poor campaigner.<ref>Evan Thomas and Staff of Newsweek,''Election 2004: How Bush Won and What You Can Expect in the Future''(2005)</ref> A group of Vietnam veterans opposed to Kerry called the "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" undercut Kerry's use of his military past as a campaign strategy. Kerry was unable to reconcile his initial support of the [[Iraq War]] with his opposition to the war in 2004, or manage the deep split in the Democratic Party between those who favored and opposed the war. Republicans ran thousands of television commercials to argue that Kerry had flip-flopped on Iraq. When Kerry's home state of Massachusetts legalized same-sex marriage, the issue split liberal and conservative Democrats and independents (Kerry publicly stated throughout his campaign that he opposed same sex marriage, but favored civil unions). Republicans exploited the same-sex marriage issue by promoting ballot initiatives in 11 states that brought conservatives to the polls in large numbers; all 11 initiatives passed. Some Democrats argued that flaws in vote-counting systems may also have played a role in Kerry's defeat in Ohio. Other factors include a healthy job market, a rising stock market, strong home sales, and low unemployment.

After the 2004 election, prominent Democrats began to rethink the party's direction, and a variety of strategies for moving forward were voiced. Some Democrats proposed moving towards the right; others demanded that the party move more to the left and become a stronger opposition party. . Rethinking the party's position on gun control became a matter of discussion, brought up by [[Howard Dean]], [[Bill Richardson]], [[Brian Schweitzer]] and other Democrats who had won governorships in states where Second Amendment rights were important to many voters.

===2005 - 2007===
These debates were reflected in the 2005 campaign for Chairman of the [[Democratic National Committee]], which [[Howard Dean]] won. He sought to move the Democratic strategy away from the establishment, and bolster support for the party's state organizations, even in Red states.

When the 109th Congress convened in 2005, [[Harry Reid]], the new Senate Minority Leader, tried to convince the Democratic Senators to vote more as a bloc on important issues; he forced the Republicans to abandon their push for privatization of Social Security. In 2005, the Democrats retained their governorships in Virginia and New Jersey, electing [[Tim Kaine]] and [[Jon Corzine]], respectively. However, the party lost the mayoral race in New York City, a Democratic stronghold, for the fourth straight time.

In 2006, with scandals involving Republican lobbyist [[Jack Abramoff]], as well as GOP House leader [[Tom DeLay]], Ohio GOP governor [[Bob Taft]] and others, the Democrats used the slogan "Culture of corruption." Negative public opinion on the war in Iraq, along with widespread dissatisfaction among conservatives over government spending, dragged President Bush's job approval ratings down to the lowest levels of his presidency. To win control the Democrats had to add 15 seats in the House (they added 30), and 6 in the Senate (they added 6).

The Democratic Party's electoral success has been attributed to running relatively conservative Democrats in close seats, such as the Senate races in Virginia, Pennsylvania and Montana. <ref> Dewan Shaila and Anne E. Kornblut, "In Key House Races, Democrats Run to the Right," ''New York Times,'' 2006-10-30; but compare Rick Perlstein, "Who deserves credit for the Democratic comeback?" ''The New Republic'' 2006-11-08]] at [https://ssl.tnr.com/p/docsub.mhtml?i=w061106&s=perlstein110806] </ref> Exit polling suggested that corruption was a key issue for many voters.<ref>CNN, "Corruption named as key issue by voters in exit polls," 2006-11-08 at [http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/11/07/election.exitpolls/] </ref>

In 2006 Democrats gained a majority of governorships and made gains in many state legislatures. No Democratic incumbent was defeated in any major race.
===2007-2010===
[[File:Obama_approval_index_december_22_2009.jpg‎|thumb|250px]]
House Democrats chose Rep. [[Nancy Pelosi]] of California for Speaker, the first woman ever, but rejected her choice for House Majority Leader, electing Steny Hoyer instead of John Murtha. Senate Democrats promoted Harry Reid to Majority Leader. Neither have been very effective.

The presidential campaign of 2008 featured a remarkable duel between Obama--the first major black candidate, and [[Hillary Clinton]], the first major woman contender. Obama won with his charismatic oratory and his highly efficient fund-raising and strong organization in the caucus states, while Clinton went downscale to pick up big majorities among poor whites and Hispanics. The contest between Obama and GOP nominee [[John McCain]] showed Obama being the clear favourite, with the vast majority of polls (with the exception of early September) depicting Obama as the clear favourite.

The [[Obama Administration]] got off to a fast start in 2009, especially in vigorous efforts to combat the [[Recession of 2008]] with heavy new stimulus spending, massive loans to banks, increased regulation, and deep intervention in the automobile industry. All those policies were begun by Bush, and had failed to reverse the decline of the economy in late 2008. Whether they will now succeed remains an open question, with the GOP now voting solidly against them and some conservatives like [[Rush Limbaugh]] hoping that the Democrats will fail badly and that the people will again turn to the Republican party. The Democratic Party is feeling the sting from the opposition and many Democrats are beginning to question their own leadership. Liberals are disenchanted with Obama's hawkish position on the [[Afghanistan War]]. The health care reform that consumed most of 2009 remains unsettled, as public opinion has turned against it. Environmentalists now seem resigned to the failure of a [[cap and trade]] program to reduce CO2 emissions. Most of all the recession drags on. The stimulus bill was passed quickly in Feb. 2009 over almost unanimous GOP opposition, but despite promises of "shovel ready" projects, most of the money has not been spent a year later and the economy remains in the doldrums.

The elections in Nov. 2009 in New Jersey and Virginia went badly for the Democrats, as the GOP gained both governorships and many local races, not to mention the Democrats' fifth straight loss for the mayoralty of New York City.

see [[2010 Midterm Elections]]

==Symbols==
The most common symbol for the party is the donkey, although the party itself never officially adopted this symbol.<ref>[http://www.democrats.org/a/2005/06/history_of_the.php History of the Democratic Donkey]. </ref> Some historians suggest the jackass was born 1828 when Jackson was sometimes called a jackass by his opponents as a play on his name. A political cartoon depicting Jackson riding and directing a donkey (representing the Democratic Party) was published in 1837. A political cartoon by [[Thomas Nast]] in an 1870 revived the donkey as a symbol for the Democratic Party. Cartoonists ever since have followed Nast and used the donkey to represent the Democrats, and the elephant to represent the Republicans.

In the early 20th century, the traditional symbol of the Democratic Party in many states was the rooster, as opposed to the Republican eagle.

There is no official color, but since election night 2000 blue has become the identification color of the Democratic Party for maps, while the red has become the color of the Republicans. Increasingly blue is used by Democrats for promotions (e.g BuyBlue, BlueFund) and by the party itself, which in 2006 unveiled the "Red to Blue Program" to support Democratic candidates running against Republican incumbents in the 2006 midterm election.

[[Jefferson-Jackson Day]] annual fundraising celebrations are held by local chapters of the Democratic Party.

The song "[[Happy Days Are Here Again]]" is the unofficial song of the Democratic Party. It was used prominently when Roosevelt was nominated for president at the 1932 Democratic National Convention and remains a sentimental favorite for Democrats today. During the [[Bill Clinton|Clinton]] era, the [[Fleetwood Mac]] song "Don't Stop Thinking About Tomorrow" became a popular song at Democratic events, reflecting the growing prominence of Baby Boomers in the party.

Some critics refer to the group as the [[Democrat Party]].

==Democratic Presidents==
* [[Andrew Jackson]] (1829-1837)
* [[Martin Van Buren]] (1837-1841)
* [[James K. Polk]] (1845-1849)
* [[Franklin Pierce]] (1853-1857)
* [[James Buchanan]] (1857-1861)
* [[Grover Cleveland]] (1885-1889) (1893-1897)
* [[Woodrow Wilson]] (1913-1921)
* [[Franklin Roosevelt]] (1933-1945)
* [[Harry S Truman]] (1945-1953)
* [[John F. Kennedy]] (1961-1963)
* [[Lyndon B. Johnson]] (1963-1969)
* [[Jimmy Carter]] (1977-1981)
* [[Bill Clinton]] (1993-2001)
* [[Barack Obama]] (2009 - Present)

==See also==
*[[Previous Breaking News/Democrats|Articles about '''Democrats''' from previous "Breaking News"]]
*[[Obamacare]]

==Bibliography==
===Current===
*Barone, Michael, and Grant Ujifusa, ''The Almanac of American Politics 2008: The Senators, the Representatives and the Governors: Their Records and Election Results, Their States and Districts'' (2007) covers all the live politicians with amazing detail. New edition every two years since 1975.
* Brownstein, Ronald. ''The Second Civil War: How Extreme Partisanship Has Paralyzed Washington and Polarized America''(2007)
* Crane, Michael. ''The Political Junkie Handbook: The Definitive Reference Books on Politics'' (2004) covers all the major issues explaining the parties' positions
*Sabato, Larry J. ''Divided States of America: The Slash and Burn Politics of the 2004 Presidential Election'' (2005).
*Sabato, Larry J. ed. ''The Sixth Year Itch: The Rise and Fall of the George W. Bush Presidency'' (1907), in-depth essays by scholars on key states in 2006
* Sabato, Larry J., and Howard R. Ernst eds. ''Political Parties and Elections'' (2007), 540pp; an encyclopedia with 450 entries by scholars; focus is 1945 to present
* Sabato, Larry J. and Bruce Larson. ''The Party's Just Begun: Shaping Political Parties for America's Future'' (2001) textbook.
* Shafer, Byron E. and Anthony J. Badger, eds. ''Contesting Democracy: Substance and Structure in American Political History, 1775-2000'' (2001), long essays by specialists on each time period
* Shafer, Byron and Richard Johnston. ''The End of Southern Exceptionalism'' (2006), uses statistical election data & polls to argue GOP growth was primarily a response to economic change
===Historical===
* ''American National Biography'' (20 volumes, 1999) covers all politicians no longer alive; online and paper copies at many academic libraries.
* Jensen, Richard. ''Grass Roots Politics: Parties, Issues, and Voters, 1854-1983'' (1983) [http://www.questia.com/library/book/grass-roots-politics-parties-issues-and-voters-1854-1983-by-christopher-c-gibbs-richard-j-jensen-steven-l-piott.jsp online edition]; survey by conservative scholar, with primary sources
* Kennedy, David M. ''Freedom from Fear: The American People in Depression and War, 1929-1945'' (2001), synthesis by leading scholar; Pulitzer prize [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=52284041 online edition]
* Kleppner, Paul et al. ''The Evolution of American Electoral Systems'' (1983), essays by scholars (some of them conservatives), 1790s to 1980s.
* Kleppner, Paul. ''The Third Electoral System 1853-1892: Parties, Voters, and Political Cultures'' (1979), analysis of voting behavior, with emphasis on region, ethnicity, religion and class. [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=24451028 online edition]
* Ling, Peter J. ''The Democratic Party: A Photographic History'' (2003).
* Patterson, James T. ''Grand Expectations: The United States, 1945-1974'' (1997) synthesis by leading scholar. [http://www.amazon.com/Grand-Expectations-United-1945-1974-History/dp/0195117972/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1211911625&sr=1-2 excerpt and text search]
* Patterson, James T. ''Restless Giant: The United States from Watergate to Bush vs. Gore'' (2005) synthesis by leading scholar. [http://www.amazon.com/Restless-Giant-United-Watergate-History/dp/0195305221/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1211911625&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]
* Ritchie, Donald A. ''Electing FDR: The New Deal Campaign of 1932'' (2007) [http://www.amazon.com/Electing-FDR-Campaign-Presidential-Elections/dp/0700615504/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1195784762&sr=8-2 excerpt and text search]
* Rutland, Robert Allen. ''The Democrats: From Jefferson to Clinton'' (1995).
* Shafer, Byron E. and Anthony J. Badger, eds. ''Contesting Democracy: Substance and Structure in American Political History, 1775-2000'' (2001), most recent collection of new essays by specialists on each time period:
**includes: "State Development in the Early Republic: 1775–1840" by Ronald P. Formisano; "The Nationalization and Racialization of American Politics: 1790–1840" by David Waldstreicher; "'To One or Another of These Parties Every Man Belongs;": 1820–1865 by Joel H. Silbey; "Change and Continuity in the Party Period: 1835–1885" by Michael F. Holt; "The Transformation of American Politics: 1865–1910" by Peter H. Argersinger; "Democracy, Republicanism, and Efficiency: 1885–1930" by Richard Jensen; "The Limits of Federal Power and Social Policy: 1910–1955" by Anthony J. Badger; "The Rise of Rights and Rights Consciousness: 1930–1980" by James T. Patterson, Brown University; and "Economic Growth, Issue Evolution, and Divided Government: 1955–2000" by Byron E. Shafer
* Schlisinger, Galbraith. ''Of the People: The 200 Year History of the Democratic Party'' (1992)
* Sundquist, James L. ''Dynamics of the Party System: Alignment and Realignment of Political Parties in the United States'', (1983) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=29223022 online edition
* Wilentz, Sean. ''The Rise of American Democracy: Jefferson to Lincoln'' (2005), detailed synthesis by a leading liberal scholar. [http://www.amazon.com/Rise-American-Democracy-Jefferson-Lincoln/dp/0393058204/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1195784940&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]
* Witcover, Jules. ''Party of the People: A History of the Democrats'' (2003)
* Schlesinger, Arthur Meier, Jr. ed. ''History of American Presidential Elections, 1789-2000'' (various multivolume editions, latest is 2001). For each election includes a short history by a leading scholar and a selection of primary documents.

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

==External links==
*[http://www.democrats.org/ Democratic Party Official Site]
*[http://www.demconvention.com/assets/downloads/2008-Democratic-Platform-final.pdf 2008 Democratic Platform (pdf download)]
*[http://bertschlossberg.blogspot.com/2012/11/lawrence-patton-mcdonald-b_15.html A Forgotten Man: Congressman Larry McDonald]

[[Category:United States Political Organizations]]
[[Category:United States Political Parties]]
[[Category:Democratic Party]]
[[Category:Progressive Era]]
[[Category:Gilded Age]]
[[Category:New Deal]]
[[Category:Reagan Era]]
[[Category:1960s]]
[[Category:Obama Presidency]]
[[Category:Liberals]]
[[category:Jacksonian Democracy]]
[[Category:111th United States Congress]]

Democratic Party

2012-12-15T21:31:06Z

Nightsky: The pro-life euphemism is given to the Republican Party, so I did the same for the Democrats

{{AmericanPoliticalParty
| party_name=Democratic Party
| party_articletitle = Democratic Party (United States)
| party_logo = [[Image:democraticpartyusalogo.png|200px]]
| website = [http://www.democrats.org www.democrats.org]
| headquarters = 430 South Capitol Street SE [[Washington, D.C.]] 20003
| chairman = [[Debbie Wasserman Schultz]]
| houseleader = [[Nancy Pelosi]]
| senateleader = [[Harry Reid]]
| foundation = 1832
| ideology = range from extreme [[leftist]] to [[moderate]]
| fiscalpolicy = [[Socialist]]/[[Liberal]]
| socialpolicy = center-liberal/[[Hollywood values]]
| colors = Blue (unofficial)
| footnotes =
}}
The '''Democratic Party''' is one of the two major political [[parties]] in the [[United States of America]]. In general it is [[pro-choice]] and anti-[[free enterprise]], supporting higher taxes, anti-gun policies, and a larger government, while the [[Republican Party]] is generally [[pro-life]] and pro-free enterprise, supporting lower taxes and small government. President [[Barack Obama]] and other Democrats are [[liberal]] / [[Progressive]] leftists. Many [[conservative]]s consider him to be the worst president to date.

Members of the Democratic Party are known as Democrats. In the 19th century — when it supported [[slavery]] — the party was sometimes called "The Democracy." Today, there are Democrats who claim to be more [[conservative]] than typical liberals, called the "[[Blue Dogs]]" in [[Congress]], but they often behave like "lapdogs" for the [[liberal]] party leadership when there is a controversial vote.

In the doldrums after 2000, the party roared back with major gains in 2006, which it expanded in 2008 to sweep control of the national government, and leave the GOP in a state of confusion and decline. The GOP bounced back in 2009, with near-unanimous opposition to contentious Democratic policies, especially stimulus spending and health care reform. Polls show Obama's popularity began to sink in the summer of 2009.

The Democrats currently control the White House and hold a slim majority in the Senate, but in the 2010 midterm elections, the Republican party won decisive control of the House of Representatives; suburbs and rural areas are still more likely to be in Republican hands.<ref>[http://www.multistate.com/Site.nsf/Elections2006PostMaps?OpenPage Multistate.com] Post-Election 2006 Maps</ref> Polls show 50% of voters identify themselves with the Democratic Party as opposed to 35% for the Republican Party.<ref>[http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=312 Trends in Political Values and Core Attitudes: 1987-2007] Pew Research Center, 22 March 2007</ref> Surveys which address both the Republican House and the Democratic Senate currently has an average 78% negative approval rating, with only 13% expressing approval.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/congressional_job_approval-903.html|title=Congressional Job Approval|work=Real Clear Politics|accessdate=October 2, 2012}}</ref>

==Policies and criticism==
The views of individual Democrats sometimes diverge from the party's official stance as expressed in its national [[party platform]], however unlike the Republican party, the Democratic National Committee has not allowed dissenting opinions to share the podium on matters such as abortion at National Conventions.<ref>[http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2005_03/005787.php] , http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2005_03/005787.php, March 6, 2005</ref> The Democratic party also adopts policy positions and platforms at the state and Congressional district levels.

===Economic policy===
[[Image:Unemployment.jpg|thumb|241px|right|''Source: Bureau of Labor Statisitcs'' [http://astuteblogger.blogspot.com/2009/07/anti-stimulus-in-pictures-any-questions.html]]]
In the field of economic policy, Democrats tend to favor high progressive taxes, more regulation, and higher government spending.

The Democratic Party has historically had ties to [[labor union|organized labor]].<ref> http://weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/013/913wopoz.asp Paying Dues - The Democrats settle up with their union bosses, [[Weekly Standard]], July 25, 2007 </ref>

The [[National Education Association]],<ref>[http://www.nea.org/index.html National Education Association homepage]</ref> the largest union of public school teachers, is a backbone of the party, supplying the largest number of delegates to its national conventions.

Democrats typically state that they want to help low-income Americans, however they usually seek to accomplish this by increasing the tax burden on the wealthiest Americans.

Since passage of the Economic Recovery Act of 2009, [[unemployment]] has increased from below 7% to slightly under 10%.

===Foreign and military policy===
According to its platform, the Democratic Party has the objective of strengthening America. Democratic national leadership has been accused of being ambivalent about terrorism<ref>[http://www.news10.net/display_story.aspx?storyid=22045 "Democrats, ACLU Outraged Over Traveler Terrorism Screening Program"] C. Johnson, Associated Press</ref> and insufficiently patriotic.<ref>[http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0112/01/smn.19.html CNN Saturday Morning News]Transcript: December 1, 2001 </ref> A poll conducted by [[Fox News]] released in October 2007 found that 1 in 5 Democrats – nearly 10 million voters – think the world will be better off if the [[United States]] were to lose the [[War in Iraq]].<ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,299374,00.html Nearly 1 in 5 Democrats Say World Will Be Better Off if U.S. Loses War], FOX News Poll, October 04, 2007.</ref> The poll found this sentiment 3 to 4 times higher among Democrats than among moderate, centrist, and Republican voters.

===Education===
An organization affiliated with the [[Democratic Leadership Council]] called the [[Progressive Policy Institute]] claims a long-standing opposition to school vouchers.<ref>21st Century Schools Project Bulletin: Special Edition [http://www.ppionline.org/ppi_ci.cfm?knlgAreaID=110&subsecID=900001&contentID=250630 ''Putting Vouchers in Perspective''], PPI E-newsletter 2 July 2002</ref> Jonathan Alter of ''Newsweek'' warned that opposition to vouchers might alienate some traditional Democratic voting blocs:
:"Can wealthy white liberals - many of whom send their kids to private school - really say to poor parents: 'We can have choices, but you must not?'...This is a glaring hypocrisy sitting at the heart of the liberal opposition to targeted vouchers… Right now, Democrats are in a highly compromised position on education."<ref>[http://www.edreform.com/index.cfm?fuseAction=newsLetter&sectionID=29&NLissueID=4&articleID=11&altCol=2 Center For Education Reform, Monthly Letter to Friends No. 75], Back to School 2002.</ref>
Democrats favor expanded taxpayer funding of higher education, particularly for scientific research, land-grant colleges, community colleges and historically black colleges.<ref name=ed/> President Obama established a White House Initiative on Historically Black Colleges and Universities.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/executive-order-historically-black-colleges-and-universities|title=Executive Order 13532 -- Historically Black Colleges and Universities|date=February 26, 2010|accessdate=November 2, 2012}}</ref> Democrats cut the interest rate on Stafford student loans to 3.4% and eliminated private banks as middlemen in federal student loans.<ref name=ed>{{cite web|url=http://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/education/higher-education|title=Higher Education|accessdate=November 2, 2012}}</ref>

===Environment vs Labor===
Two other important coalition groups also find themselves in direct conflict with each other within the Democratic party coalition--[[Environmentalist]]s and Labor Unions. While environmentalists support efforts like clean air and alternative fuels, for example, this creates tension with the workers of American automobile manufactures whose jobs are threatened by environmental policies such as increasing regulations and high costs. Such policies can lead to cutbacks and layoffs. Balancing these issues is difficult because some sacrifices of interests must be made by both sides.

===Health care===
Democratic leaders have endorsed various [[Democratic Health Care Plans]]; the question in 2009 was whether a new trillion dollar plan could pass in a time of economic crisis. Many Democrats favor single-payer health insurance, but as a compromise supported a plan that preserves private health insurance with an individual mandate and government subsidy of premiums based on the health care plan adopted in Massachusetts. On March 21, 2010, [[ObamaCare]] was passed by Congress, and President Obama signed it into law on March 23, 2010.

Many argue that there may be some advantages to a universal health care system. Democrats generally regard [[universal health care]] coverage to be a priority because of the appeal to poorer voters without any kind of [[health insurance]]. Others argue that the United States must compete with foreign countries where governments cover all health care costs giving foreign companies an advantage over U.S. products. Another argument is that prior to ObamaCare, uninsured people would fail to get preventative care and would go to hospital emergency rooms for treatment, resulting in higher health care costs and large subsidies paid by people with health insurance.

===Gay Rights===
White Democratic leaders — but not blacks or Latinos — consistently favor measures such as the establishment of [[same-sex civil union]]s or marriage. On May 9, 2012, [[Barack Obama|President Obama]] announced that he supports same-sex marriage.<ref name="ABC News">{{cite web|url=http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/video/obama-sex-marriage-legal-16312904|title=Obama Affirms Support for Same-Sex Marriage|date=May 9, 2012|work=ABC News}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.cnn.com/2012/05/09/politics/obama-same-sex-marriage/index.html|title=Obama announces he supports same-sex marriage|last=Gast|first=Phil|date=May 9, 2012|publisher=CNN|accessdate=November 1, 2012}}</ref>

===Other Policies===
Democrats frequently support the minimum wage, workplace protections, the right of women to choose to have an [[abortion]], [[gun control]], gay marriage, and the separation of church and state.

==Religion==
In the United States, there is some correlation between religious and political affiliation, though people of all faiths and denominations can be found among the supporters of each of the main parties.

Historically, [[Roman Catholic Church|Catholic]] voters have had a tendency to identify with the Democratic Party; in recent decades there has been little difference. However, Catholic politicians are mostly Democrats, including Speaker of the House [[Nancy Pelosi]]. However, several general ideals of the Democratic Party's platform — most notably, the party's overall support for the legality of [[abortion]] and many methods of [[contraception]] — are contrary to the position of the [[Catholic Church]]. In 2012, there was a controversy regarding a national organization of religious women ("nuns") speaking out against House Republican budget proposals. This resulted in a national publicity tour and protests called "Nuns on the Bus".

With regard to Protestants, members of [[Evangelical]] churches in recent years have voted about 70-80% Republican. However, the large majority of Democratic Party members are Protestants. One unusual feature of the Democratic Party, however, is that it draws substantial support both from committed African-American Protestants (most of whom are Baptists) and from secular and atheist voters. The strong opposition to [[homosexuality]] found among many Black Protestants contrasts strikingly with the support frequently shown by other Democrats for the [[homosexual agenda]]. One reason for this contrast could be the Democrats' strong support for minority rights.

Democrats also generally believe that organized religion should be separate from public life, and as such are typically supported by the [[ACLU]]. For example, in 1999 the Congress took up a bill to protect the display of the [[Ten Commandments]]. In the House of Representatives, over 3/4ths of the Democratic party members voted to remove the display.<ref>http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/06/18/gun.rollcall/ten.commandments.html</ref>. The measure did not pass the Congress, and as a result when a member of the Alabama Supreme Court, [[Roy Moore]], posted a [[Ten Commandments]] display in his courthouse, the ACLU was able to have the display removed.

==History==
[[File:Dem-leaders.jpg|thumb|300px|Clockwise from far left: presidents Carter, Kennedy, Clinton, Wilson, Johnson, Truman, Jackson, Roosevelt]]
===First Party System===
Democrats claim the [[Thomas Jefferson]] founded their party in 1793 at the start of the [[First Party System]]. The [[Democratic-Republican Party]] was a political party established during the 1790's under the leadership of Thomas Jefferson and [[James Madison]]. It was generally called the Republican Party, but it had no relation to today's Republican Party, founded in 1854. By about 1816, the Federalist Party had broken up as a national organization. With its decline, the Democratic-Republican Party split into several groups. [[Andrew Jackson]] emerged as the candidate of one of these groups and was elected President in 1828.

===Origins===
Most historians regard Jackson's 1832 campaign organization as the beginning of today's Democratic Party. The Democratic Party itself traces its origin to Jefferson's Democratic-Republican Party.<ref>[[World Book]]</ref> A few Democratic-Republicans, such as [[John Quincy Adams]] and [[Henry Clay]], created the [[National Republican Party]]. Adams supporters called themselves National Republicans, antecedents of the Whig and later the Republican parties.<ref name="presidents">William DeGregorio, ''The Complete Book of U.S. Presidents'', Gramercy 1997</ref>

The modern Democratic party was formed during 1828-34, under the national leadership of Jackson and Van Buren, with organizations in all the states comprised of local political leaders. This became the era of [[Jacksonian Democracy]]. The Jacksonians resembled the [[Jeffersonian Democracy|Jeffersonians]] especially in terms of anti-elite rhetoric of opposition to "aristocracy" (that is, wealthy old families), distrust of banks (and paper money), and faith in "the people." By his extensive use of federal [[Spoils system|patronage]], President Jackson removed old office-holders to make way for party loyalists. With the emergence of the Whig Party, the nation now had a new party system, the [[Second Party System]], which lasted until 1854.

The party held its first national convention in 1832 to choose a new running mate for Jackson; it nominated Martin Van Buren for vice president and endorsed the reelection of Jackson. Jackson easily defeated Clay in 1832. In the political realignment of 1828-32, some of Jackson's supporters from the election of 1828, especially businessmen and bankers, switched to the opposition Whig Party as Jackson crusaded against the [[Second Bank of the United States]]. The name "Democratic Party" became common by the mid-1830s.

== Jacksonian Democracy: 1832-1854 ==
[[image:donk1837.jpg|thumb|300px|1837 cartoon shows Democratic Party as donkey ]]
The new party dominated the [[Second Party System]] (as political scientists call it; historians call it "Jacksonian Democracy", 1832-54. After 1832, the Democratic Party drew support from a cross section of the country; every group was represented. However the vast majority of rich merchants, bankers and plantation owners were Whigs, as were most evangelical Protestants. The party was strongest among traditionalistic farmers, frontiersmen, unskilled workers, Irish Catholics, and local or state political leaders. It was weakest in [[New England]], where industrialization turned most factory workers and white collar workers into Whigs, but was dominant in all other regions. The key issues it promoted were opposition to elites and aristocrats, popular democracy (in terms of voting rights and access to government patronage jobs) and opposition to the [[Bank of the United States]] (Jackson vetoed its charter renewal in 1832). The policies were known as [[Jacksonian Democracy]]. [[Image:Jackson1832.jpg|thumb|300px|left]]

Banking and tariffs were the central domestic policy issues from 1828 to 1852. The Democrats favored the [[Mexican-American War]]; Whigs opposed it. Democrats attracted Catholic Irish and German immigrants and denounced anti-immigrant nativism. Both the Democrats and Whigs were divided on the issue of slavery.

In the 1830s the [[Loco-Focos]] in New York City were radically democratic, anti-monopoly, and proponents of [[laissez-faire]]. Their chief spokesman was writer [[William Leggett]]. At this time labor unions were few; some were loosely affiliated with the party.

The economy went sour in the late 1830s with Van Buren getting the blame; he lost reelection as president in 1840 to the Whig [[William Henry Harrison]]. The Democrats gained the White House back in 1844 with [[James K. Polk]]. He had a successful term, then retired. The Democratic National Committee was created in 1848 at the convention that nominated General [[Lewis Cass]], who lost to General [[Zachary Taylor]] of the Whigs. In state after state the Democrats gained small but permanent advantages over the Whigs, until by 1852 the Whig Party was fatally weakened by divisions regarding the issue of slavery and they soon vanished.

The Democratic party dominated the North from the 1840s to 1854. Northern Democrats opposed banks, criticized corporate practices, and preached the ideals of a free society. They called for rapid territorial expansion of the United States, saying that in territorial expansion lay a means for thwarting the pretensions of the [[Slave Power]].

[[Franklin Pierce]] of New Hampshire was elected president in 1852, followed by [[James Buchanan]] of Pennsylvania in 1856. They proved poor presidents who lost control of the slavery issue, and the party, as the nation broke apart and fought the [[American Civil War]].

==Third Party System: Civil War, Gilded Age: 1854-1896==
During the [[Third Party System]] (1854-1896) the Democrats became the minority in the face of the newly formed Republican Party, which controlled nearly all northern states by 1860, bringing a solid majority in the Electoral College. A powerful Republican issue was the allegation that northern Democrats, including "Doughfaces" like Pierce and Buchanan, and advocates of popular sovereignty like [[Stephen A. Douglas]] and [[Lewis Cass]], were accomplices to the [[Slave Power]]. The Republicans meant by Slave Power the conspiracy of slaveholders to seize control of the federal government and block the progress of liberty.

[[Image:DEM1860.JPG|200px|thumb|left|To vote for Douglas in Virginia, a man had to deposit the ticket in the official ballot box.]]
In 1860 the Democrats were unable to stop the election of Republican [[Abraham Lincoln]], even as they feared his election would lead to civil war. The party split in two. The northern wing nominated Douglas, and the southern wing nominated Vice President [[John C. Breckinridge]]. Douglas campaigned across the country and came in second in the popular vote, but carried only Missouri. Breckinridge carried 11 slave states.

The Republican Party was beginning a 50-year era of dominance (1858-1910). During the war, Northern Democrats divided into two factions, [[War Democrats]], who supported the military policies of President Lincoln, and [[Copperheads]], who strongly opposed them. Historian Kenneth Stampp has captured the Copperhead spirit in his depiction of Democratic Congressman [[Daniel W. Voorhees]] of Indiana:
<blockquote>There was an earthy quality in Voorhees, "the tall sycamore of the Wabash." On the stump his hot temper, passionate partisanship, and stirring eloquence made an irresistible appeal to the western Democracy. His bitter cries against protective tariffs and national banks, his intense race prejudice, his suspicion of the eastern Yankee, his devotion to personal liberty, his defense of the Constitution and state rights faithfully reflected the views of his constituents. Like other Jacksonian agrarians he resented the political and economic revolution then in progress. Voorhees idealized a way of life which he thought was being destroyed by the current rulers of his country. His bold protests against these dangerous trends made him the idol of the Democracy of the Wabash Valley.<ref>Stampp, 211.</ref></blockquote>

The Democrats lost consecutive presidential elections from 1860 through 1880 (but 1876 was in dispute); 1884 was their next victory. The Democrats were weakened by their record of opposition to the Civil War but nevertheless benefited from white Southerners' resentment of Reconstruction and consequent hostility to the Republican Party. The [[Redeemers]] gave the Democrats control of every Southern state; the disenfranchisement of black voters in most of the South took place 1890-1900. From 1880 to 1960 the "[[Solid South]]" voted Democratic in all presidential elections (except 1928). After 1900 the key election in southern states was the Democratic primary; victory in the that primary was "tantamount to election" because the GOP was so weak.

Though Republicans continued to control the White House until 1912 (except 1884 and 1892), the Democrats remained competitive in the states, especially in the mid-Atlantic and lower Midwest, and controlled the House of Representatives for most of that period. In the election of 1884, [[Grover Cleveland]], the conservative Democratic Governor of New York, won the presidency, a feat he repeated in 1892, having lost in the election of 1888.

[[Image:1893cleveland-typewriter.jpg|thumb|350px|Typewriters were new in 1893 and this Gillam cartoon from ''Puck'' shows that Cleveland can't get the Democratic "machine" to work as the keys (key politicians) won't respond to his efforts.]]

Cleveland was the leader of the [[Bourbon Democrats]], the conservative wing of the party. They represented business interests, supported banking and railroad goals, promoted capitalism, opposed imperialism and U.S. verseas expansion, opposed the annexation of [[Hawaii]], fought for the [[gold standard]], and opposed [[Bimetallism]]. They strongly supported reform movements such as [[Pendleton Civil Service Reform Act|Civil Service Reform]] and opposed corruption of city bosses, leading the fight against the [[Tweed Ring]]. The leading Bourbons included [[Samuel J. Tilden]], [[David Bennett Hill]] and [[William C. Whitney]] of New York, [[Arthur Pue Gorman]] of Maryland, [[Thomas F. Bayard]] of Delaware, [[William L. Wilson]] of West Virginia, [[John Griffin Carlisle]] of Kentucky, [[William F. Vilas]] of Wisconsin, [[J. Sterling Morton]] of Nebraska, [[John M. Palmer]] of Illinois, [[Horace Boies]] of Iowa, [[L.Q.C. Lamar]] of Mississippi, and railroad builder [[James J. Hill]] of Minnesota. A prominent intellectual was [[Woodrow Wilson]]. The Bourbons were in power when the [[Panic of 1893]] hit; it was a deep depression and they took the blame. A fierce struggle inside the party ensued, with catastrophic losses for both the Bourbon and agrarian factions in 1894, leading to the showdown in 1896.
[[Image:Dead-dem1880.jpg|thumb|550px|In 1880 when General Hancock (right) became the presidential nominee of the Democrats, Republican cartoonists showed the Democratic party history as a horror chamber featuring atrocities in the Civil War era; the donkey" shows the party as a coalition of the rear end of the South joned to the rear end of the North]]

===Ethnocultural voting: pietistic Republicans versus liturgical Democrats===
Religious lines were sharply drawn.<ref>Kleppner (1979).</ref> Methodists, Congregationalists, Presbyterians, Scandinavian Lutherans and other pietists and evangelicals in the North were tightly linked to the Republican Party. In sharp contrast, liturgical groups, especially the Catholics, Episcopalians, and German Lutherans, looked to the Democratic Party for protection from pietistic moralism, especially prohibition. Both parties cut across the class structure, with the Democrats more bottom-heavy.

Cultural issues, especially prohibition and foreign language schools became important because of the sharp religious divisions in the electorate. In the North, about 50% of the voters were pietistic or evangelical Protestants who believed the government should be used to reduce social sins, such as drinking. Liturgical churches (Roman Catholics, German Lutherans, Episcopalians) comprised over a quarter of the vote and wanted the government to stay out of the morality business. Prohibition debates and referenda heated up politics in most states over a period of decade, as national prohibition was finally passed in 1918 (and repealed in 1933), serving as a major issue in the North between the wet Democracy and the dry GOP.<ref>In the South the Democrats were mostly on the dry side. Kleppner (1979).</ref>

==The Bryan Movement==
[[Image:Mark Hanna 1896 election.jpg|thumb|290px|right|Democratic attack ad in 1896 against GOP National Chairman [[Mark Hanna]]; cartoon by Davenport depicts Hanna as a slave driver; from Hearst's ''New York Journal'']]
[[Grover Cleveland]] led the conservative, pro-business [[Bourbon Democrat]]s but as the [[Panic of 1893|depression of 1893]] deepened his enemies multiplied. The Panic of 1893 started in February 1893, a full month before Cleveland became president. Convinced that the [[Sherman Silver Purchase Act]], passed under the administration of [[Benjamin Harrison]], was largely responsible for the alarming drain on federal gold, President Cleveland called Congress into special session to urge its repeal. Congress consented, but only after bitter debate that divided the Democratic party into two hostile camps-the eastern "goldbugs" and the silver wing of the West and South that was to propel young [[William Jennings Bryan]] to the fore in 1896.<ref name="presidents" /> At the 1896 convention the silverite-agrarian faction repudiated the president, and nominated the crusading orator [[William Jennings Bryan]] on a platform of inflation through "free" silver. The idea was that minting huge numbers of silver dollars would flood the economy with cash and end the depression. Eastern Democrats, unable to accept the party's free-silver platform and unwilling to support McKinley for his tariff views, nominated their own candidate, John M. Palmer of Illinois and called themselves the National, or Gold, Democrats.<ref name="presidents" /> The [[Gold Democrats]] attracted politicians and intellectuals (including [[Woodrow Wilson]] and [[Frederick Jackson Turner]]) who refused to vote Republican.

Bryan, an overnight sensation because of his phenomenal "Cross of Gold" speech, crusaded against the gold standard. Crisscrossing the Midwest and East by special train, he gave over 500 speeches to audiences in the millions. In St. Louis he gave 36 speeches to workingmen's audiences all over the city, all in one day. Most Democratic newspapers were hostile (except [[William Randolph Hearst]]'s ''New York Journal'') but Bryan seized control of the media by making the news every day, as he hurled thunderbolts against Eastern monied interests. The rural folk in South and Midwest were ecstatic, showing an enthusiasm never before seen. Ethnic Democrats, especially Germans, however, were alarmed and frightened by Bryan. The middle classes, businessmen, newspaper editors, factory workers, railroad workers, and prosperous farmers generally rejected Bryan's crusade. Bryan was overwhelmed by [[William McKinley]] in the most exciting race in national history.<ref> Refuting Bryan's charges, historians have discovered there was little coercion of workers.</ref> McKinley promised a return to prosperity based on the gold standard, support for industry, railroads and banks, and pluralism that would enable every group to move ahead. Bryan did however, win the hearts and minds of a majority of Democrats. The election of 1896 was a political realignment. The victory of the Republican Party marked the start of the "Progressive Era," from 1896 to 1932, in which the GOP usually was dominant.

==Fourth Party System: Bryan, Wilson, Progressivism: 1896-1932 ==
The [[Fourth Party System]] began with the 1896 election, a realignment during which the GOP controlled the presidency for 28 of 36 years. The GOP dominated most of the Northeast and Midwest, and half the West. Bryan, with a base in the South and Plains states, was strong enough to get the nomination in 1900 (losing to McKinley) and 1908 (losing to Taft). [[Theodore Roosevelt]] dominated the first decade of the century—and to the annoyance of Democrats "stole" the trust issue by crusading against trusts.

[[Image:Steal~trust.JPG|thumb|250px|[[Theodore Roosevelt]] steals the anti-trust issue from the Democrats, 1904]]

Anti-Bryan conservatives controlled the convention in 1904, but they faced a [[Theodore Roosevelt]] landslide. Bryan dropped his free silver and anti-imperialism rhetoric and supported mainstream progressive issues, such as the income tax, anti-trust, and direct election of Senators. He backed [[Woodrow Wilson]] in 1912, was rewarded with the State Department, then resigned in protest against Wilson's non-pacifistic policies in 1916. Northern Democrats were progressive on most issues, but generally opposed prohibition, were lukewarm regarding woman's suffrage, and were reluctant to undercut the "boss system" in the big cities.

Taking advantage of a deep split in the GOP, the Democrats took control of the House in 1910, and elected the intellectual reformer [[Woodrow Wilson]] in 1912 and 1916. Wilson successfully led Congress to a series of Progressive laws, including a reduced tariff, stronger antitrust laws, the [[Federal Reserve System]], hours-and-pay benefits for railroad workers, and outlawing of child labor (which was reversed by the Supreme Court). Furthermore, constitutional amendments for prohibition and woman suffrage were passed in his second term. In effect, Wilson laid to rest the issues of tariffs, money and antitrust that had dominated politics for 40 years. Wilson led the U.S. to victory in the World War, and turned his attention to foreign affairs. He wrote parts of the [[Versailles Treaty]], especially the new [[League of Nations]]. But in 1919 Wilson's political skills faltered, and suddenly everything turned sour. The Senate rejected Versailles and the League, a nationwide wave of strikes and violence caused unrest, and Wilson's health collapsed. The GOP came roaring back in a landslide in 1920, as [[Warren G. Harding]] defeated a Democratic ticket memorable for having [[Franklin D. Roosevelt]] as the vice presidential nominee.

[[Image:D-Edge-Congress.JPG|thumb|300px|Before 1932 Republicans usually controlled Congress; after 1932 the Democrats usually were in control]]

At the 1924 Democratic National Convention, the big fight was over a resolution denouncing by name the [[Ku Klux Klan]]; it was pushed by New York governor [[Al Smith]] and Alabama Senator [[Oscar W. Underwood]] in order to embarrass the front-runner, [[William McAdoo]] of California. After furious debate, the resolution failed by just a single vote. The KKK faded away soon after, but the deep split in the party over cultural issues, especially Prohibition, facilitated Republican landslides in 1920, 1924 and 1928. However [[Al Smith]] did build a strong Catholic base in the big cities in 1928, and [[Franklin D. Roosevelt]]'s election as Governor of New York that year brought a new leader to center stage.

== Fifth Party System: The New Deal ==
[[Image:509px-FDR in 1933.jpg|thumb|left|180px|President [[Franklin Delano Roosevelt]] (1933-1945)]]
The [[Wall Street Crash 1929|stock market crash of 1929]] and the ensuing [[Great Depression]] set the stage for a more progressive government and [[Franklin D. Roosevelt]] won a [[landslide victory]] in the [[U.S. presidential election, 1932|election of 1932]], campaigning on a platform of "Relief, Recovery, and Reform." This came to be termed "[[New Deal|The New Deal]]" after a phrase in his acceptance speech. The Democrats also swept to large majorities in both houses of Congress, and among state Governors. Roosevelt altered the nature of the Party, away from laissez-faire capitalism, and towards an ideology of economic regulation and insurance against hardship. Conservative Democrats were outraged; led by [[Al Smith]] they formed the [[American Liberty League]] in 1934 and counterattacked. They failed and either retired from politics or joined the GOP. A few of them, such as [[Dean Acheson]] found their way back to the Democratic Party.

After making gains in Congress in 1934 Roosevelt moved left and embarked on an ambitious legislative program called "The Second New Deal." It was characterized by building up labor unions, nationalizing welfare by the [[WPA]] (which 2 million employed unemployed men), setting up [[Social Security]] and raising taxes on business profits.<ref> In general the New Deal, 1933-40, did not raise taxes, except for the Social Security tax that went into effect in 1937.</ref>

Roosevelt's [[New Deal]] programs focused on job creation through public works projects as well as Social Security. In the name of "reform" it imposed strong regulations on the banking and financial system, transportation, communications, stock markets and labor-management relations.

Roosevelt successfully built up the "[[New Deal Coalition]]", a powerful coalition of voters and interest groups that supported liberalism. Key components included big city machines and labor unions. Key voter groups included traditional Democrats, white Southerners, Catholics, Jews, and liberals, as well as many blacks. This united voter base allowed Democrats to be elected to Congress and the presidency for much of the next 30 years.

After a sweeping landslide reelection in 1936--losing only Maine and Vermont--Roosevelt stunned the nation, and his party, by calling for legislation to enlarge the Supreme Court by five new members. A firestorm of opposition erupted, led by his own vice president [[John Nance Garner]]. Roosevelt was defeated by an alliance of Republicans and conservative Democrats, who formed a [[Conservative coalition]] that managed to block nearly all liberal legislation. (Only a minimum wage law got through.) Angry with the conservative wing of his own party, Roosevelt tried to destroy it. In 1938, he actively campaigned against five incumbent conservative Democratic senators; all five senators won re-election.

Under FDR, the Democratic Party became identified closely with modern liberalism, which included the promotion of social welfare, unions and regulation of the economy. Civil rights were not on the party agenda at this time.

==Truman to Kennedy: 1945-1963==
Harry Truman took over unexpectedly in 1945, and the rifts inside the party that Roosevelt had papered over began to emerge. Former Vice President [[Henry A. Wallace]] denounced Truman as a war-monger for his anti-Soviet programs, the [[Truman Doctrine]], [[Marshall Plan]], and [[NATO]]. By cooperating with internationalist Republicans, Truman succeeded in defeating isolationists on the right and pro-Soviets on the left to establish a [[Cold War]] program that lasted until the fall of Communism in 1991. Wallace supporters and fellow travelers of the far left were pushed out of the party and the CIO in 1946-48 by young anti-Communists like [[Hubert Humphrey]], [[Walter Reuther]], and [[Arthur Schlesinger, Jr.]]. [[Hollywood]] emerged in the 1940s as an importance new base in the party, led by movie-star politicians such as [[Ronald Reagan]], who at this point in time strongly supported Roosevelt and Truman.<ref> Reagan became a conservative around 1960, saying the Democratic party had left him.</ref>

On the right the Republicans blasted Truman’s domestic policies. "Had Enough?" was the winning slogan as Republicans recaptured Congress in 1946. Many party leaders were ready to dump Truman, but they lacked an alternative. Truman counterattacked, pushing [[J. Strom Thurmond]] and his [[Dixiecrats]] out, and taking advantage of the splits inside the GOP. He was reelected in a stunning surprise. However all of Truman’s Fair Deal proposals, such as universal health care were defeated by the [[Conservative Coalition]] in Congress. His seizure of the steel industry was reversed by the Supreme Court.
In foreign policy, Europe was safe but troubles mounted in Asia. China fell to the Communists in 1949. Truman entered the [[Korean War]] without formal Congressional approval—the last time a president would ever do so. When the war turned to a stalemate in 1951 he fired General [[Douglas MacArthur]], a hero to conservatives. Republicans blasted Truman's failure to stop Communist gains in Asia. A series of petty scandals among friends and buddies of Truman further tarnished his image, allowing [[Dwight Eisenhower]] and the Republicans in 1952 to crusade against "Korea, Communism and Corruption." Truman dropped out of the presidential race early in 1952, leaving no obvious successor. The convention nominated [[Adlai Stevenson]] in 1952 and 1956, only to see him overwhelmed by two Eisenhower landslides.

[[Image:1952-32.jpg|thumb|480px|right|Stevenson and labor unions warn against a return of the Republican policies of Herbert Hoover in 1952 campaign poster]]

In Congress the powerful duo of House Speaker [[Sam Rayburn]] and Senate Majority leader [[Lyndon B. Johnson]] held the party together, often by compromising with Eisenhower. In 1958 the party made dramatic gains in the midterms and seemed to have a permanent lock on Congress. Indeed, Democrats had majorities in the House every election from 1930 to 1992 (except 1946 and 1952). Most southern Congressmen were conservative Democrats, however, and they usually worked with conservative Republicans. The result was a [[Conservative Coalition]] that blocked practically all liberal domestic legislation from 1937 to the 1970s, except for a brief spell 1964-65, when Johnson neutralized its power.

The nomination of [[John F. Kennedy]] in 1960 energized the Catholic population, which jammed motorcades and turned out in heavy numbers (over 80% voted for Kennedy), while also causing a backlash among white Protestants (over 70% of whom voted for Republican candidate [[Richard Nixon]]. Reaching beyond the traditional Irish, German, Italian and Polish Catholic ethnics, Viva Kennedy set out to mobilize the previously passive Latino vote, and it perhaps provided the margin of victory for Kennedy in Texas and New Mexico. Kennedy's victory reinvigorated the party. His youth, vigor and intelligence caught the popular imagination. In foreign policy he was strongly anti-Communist, and promptly launched an invasion of casto's Cuba; it failed badly. A few new programs like the Peace Corps harnessed idealism. In terms of legislation, Kennedy was stalemated by the [[Conservative Coalition]], and anyway his proposals were all cautious and incremental. In three years he was unable to pass any significant new legislation.

Kennedy's election did mark the coming of age of the Catholic component of the New Deal Coalition. After 1964 middle class Catholics started voting Republicans in the same proportion as their Protestant neighbors. Except for the Chicago of [[Richard J. Daley]], the last of the Democratic machines faded away. His involvement in Vietnam proved momentous, for his successor Lyndon Johnson decided to stay, and double the investment, and double the bet again and again until over 500,000 American soldiers were fighting in that small country.

==Civil Rights, Riots, War and collapse of the New Deal Coalition==
[[Image:LBJ-64.jpg|280px|left|thumb|President Lyndon Johnson ran for reelection in the shadow of Kennedy]]

The New Deal Coalition began to fracture as union and religious leaders demanded support for [[civil rights]], upsetting the party's traditional base of conservative Southern Democrats. After Harry Truman's platform showed support for civil rights and anti-segregation policies during the 1948 Democratic National Convention, many Southern Democratic delegates decided to split from the Party and formed the "[[Dixiecrats]]," led by [[South Carolina]] governor [[Strom Thurmond]] (who, as a Senator, would later join the Republican Party). Over the next few years, many conservative Democrats in the "[[Solid South]]" drifted away from the party. By 1940 most northern Blacks had shifted to the Democratic Party due to its New Deal relief programs and support for civil rights.

The party's dramatic reversal on civil rights issues culminated when Democratic President [[Lyndon B. Johnson]] signed into law the [[Civil Rights Act of 1964]]. The new laws ended segregation and also ended the main argument Democrats had used to block Republican gains in the South (that is, only the Democrats could protect segregation). The South became competitive in presidential politics in the 1970s and 1980s, giving strong support to Republican Ronald Reagan and rejecting the liberal northern candidates. The Democrats responded by nominating Southerners (Carter in 1976 and 1980, Clinton in 1992 and 1996, Gore in 2000). Few southern states were won by Democratic presidential candidates from the North (Humphrey in 1968, McGovern in 1972, Mondale in 1984, Dukakis in 1988, Kerry in 2004). At the state and local level the Republicans made slow, steady gains, especially among upscale middle class whites and migrants from the North. By the 1990s the GOP was competitive at the state and local level throughout the South. The Democrats made gains in the west, converting California to a Democratic stronghold and gaining in fast-growing Arizona and Nevada. The Northeast became more and more a Democratic enclave, especially after 2006 when numerous Republican moderates were defeated for reelection. the Midwest remained a battleground. The Democrats made strong gains in Illinois, but slipped a little in Minnesota.
[[Image:Demfight1968.jpg|thumb|290px|By 1968 Democrats were bitterly fighting over Vietnam and the failures of the Great Society]]

==1968 to 1999==
The Democratic party split five ways in 1968 and became a minority party in presidential elections for decades; after 1964 they won a national majority of the popular presidential vote only in 2008. However, the Democrats won a plurality of the popular vote in 1976, 1992, 1996 and 2000.

[[Image:Carter.jpg|thumb|right|180px|Jimmy Carter was elected in 1976 and defeated in 1980.]]
In 1972, the Democrats nominated Sen. [[George McGovern]] (SD) as the presidential candidate on a platform which advocated, among other things, U.S. withdrawal from Vietnam and a guaranteed minimum income for all Americans. McGovern's forces at the national convention ousted Mayor [[Richard J. Daley]] and the entire Chicago delegation, replacing them with insurgents led by [[Jesse Jackson]]. After it became know that McGovern's running mate, [[Thomas Eagleton]], had received electric shock therapy, McGovern said he supported Eagleton "1000%" but he was soon forced to drop him and find a new running mate. With his campaign stalled for several weeks McGovern finally selected [[Sargent Shriver]], a Kennedy-in-law who was close to Mayor Daley. On July 14, 1972, McGovern appointed his campaign manager, Jean Westwood as the first woman chair of the Democratic National Committee. McGovern was defeated in a landslide by incumbent [[Richard Nixon]], winning only Massachusetts and Washington, D.C. The [[Watergate affair]] of 1973-74 made corruption a central issue, especially after [[Gerald Ford]] pardoned Nixon in September 1974. The Democrats made major gains in the 1974 off-year elections.

In 1976, mistrust of the administration, complicated by a combination of economic recession and inflation, sometimes called ''[[stagflation]]'', led to Ford's narrow defeat in 1976 by [[Jimmy Carter]], a former governor of Georgia.

Carter represented the total outsider, who promised honesty in government. He had served as a naval officer, a farmer, a state senator, and a one-term governor. His only experience with federal politics was when he chaired the Democratic National Committee's congressional and gubernatorial elections in 1974. Some of Carter's major accomplishments consisted of the creation of a national energy policy and the consolidation of governmental agencies, resulting in two new cabinet departments, the [[United States Department of Energy]] and the [[United States Department of Education]]. Carter also successfully deregulated the trucking, airline, rail, finance, communications, and oil industries, bolstered the [[social security]] system, and appointed record numbers of women and minorities to significant government and judicial posts. He also enacted strong legislation on environmental protection, through the expansion of the [[National Park Service]] in [[Alaska]], adding 103 million acres of park land. In foreign affairs, Carter's accomplishments consisted of the [[Camp David Accords]], the [[Panama Canal Treaties]], the creation of full diplomatic relations with the [[People's Republic of China]], and the negotiation of the [[SALT II]] Treaty. In addition, he championed human rights throughout the world and used human rights as the center of his administration's foreign policy.

Even with all of these successes, Carter failed to implement a national health plan or to reform the tax system, as he had promised in his campaign. Inflation was also on the rise. Abroad, the Iranians held 52 Americans hostage for 444 days, and Carter's diplomatic and military rescue attempts failed. The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan later that year weakened the perception Americans had of Carter. Even though he had already been defeated for re-election, Carter fortunately was able to negotiate the release of every American hostage. They were lifted out of Iran minutes after Reagan was inaugurated and Carter served as Reagan's emissary to greet them when they arrived in Germany. In 1980, Carter defeated liberal champion [[Edward Kennedy]] to gain renomination, but lost to conservative [[Ronald Reagan]] by a landslide. The Democrats lost 12 Senate seats, and for the first time since 1954, the Republicans controlled the Senate. The House, however, remained in Democratic hands.

===1980s: Battling Reaganism===
Instrumental in the election of Republican [[Ronald Reagan]] in 1980, were Democrats who supported many conservative policies. Among legislators, one of the most prominent of these consevative Democrats was Georgia congressman and second chairman of the [[John Birch Society]], [[Larry McDonald]], who was a passenger on [[Korean Airlines Flight 007]] shot down by the Soviets near [[Moneron Island]] on Sept. 1, 1983. The "Reagan Democrats" were Democrats before the Reagan years, and afterward, but they voted for [[Ronald Reagan]] in 1980 and 1984 (and for [[George H. W. Bush]] in 1988), producing their landslide victories. They were mostly white ethnics in the Northeast who were attracted to Reagan's social conservatism on issues such as abortion, and to his strong foreign policy. They did not continue to vote Republican in 1992 or 1996, so the term fell into disuse except as a reference to the 1980s. The term is not used to describe southern whites who became permanent Republicans in presidential elections. Stanley Greenberg, a Democratic pollster analyzed white ethnic voters, largely unionized auto workers, in suburban Macomb County, Michigan, just north of Detroit. The county voted 63 percent for Kennedy in 1960 and 66 percent for Reagan in 1984. He concluded that Reagan Democrats no longer saw Democrats as champions of their middle class aspirations, but instead saw it as being a party working primarily for the benefit of others, especially African Americans and the very poor. Bill Clinton targeted the Reagan Democrats with considerable success in 1992 and 1996.

[[Image:Liberal1984.jpg|thumb|350px]] The failure to hold the Reagan Democrats and the white South led to the final collapse of the [[New Deal coalition]]. Reagan carried 49 states against former Vice President and Minnesota Senator [[Walter Mondale]], a New Deal stalwart, in 1984. Massachusetts Governor [[Michael Dukakis]], running not as a New Dealer but as an efficiency expert in public administration, lost by a landslide in 1988 to Vice President [[George H. W. Bush]], who had pledged "no new taxes."

In response to these landslide defeats, the [[Democratic Leadership Council]] was created. It worked to move the Party rightwards to the ideological center in order to recover some of the fundraising that had been lost to the Republicans due to corporate donors supporting Reagan. With the Party retaining left-of-center supporters as well as supporters holding moderate or conservative views on some issues, the Democrats became generally a "big tent" or "catch all party" with widespread appeal to most opponents of the Republicans.

===The South moves toward Republicans===
In the century after the end of [[Reconstruction]] in 1877, the white South identified with Democratic Party. The Democrats' lock on power was so strong, the region was called the [[Solid South]]. The Republicans only controlled parts of the Appalachian mountains, but they sometimes did compete for statewide office in the border states. Before 1964, the southern Democrats saw their party as the defender of the southern way of life, which included a respect for states' rights and an appreciation for traditional southern values. They repeatedly warned against the aggressive designs of Northern liberals and Republicans, as well as civil rights activists whom they denounced as "outside agitators."

However, between 1964 and 2004, the Democratic Party's lock on the South was broken. The long-term cause had to do with the South becoming more like the rest of the nation. It could not long stand apart in terms of racial segregation. Modernization had brought factories, national businesses, and larger, more cosmopolitan cities to the South, as well as millions of migrants from the North and more opportunities for higher education. Meanwhile, the cotton and tobacco economy of the traditional rural South faded away, as former farmers commuted to factory jobs.

Integration and the civil rights movement caused enormous controversy in the white South, with many attacking it as a violation of states' rights. When segregation was outlawed by court order and by the Civil Rights acts of 1964 and 1965, a die-hard element resisted integration, led by Democratic governors [[Orval Faubus]] of Arkansas, [[Lester Maddox]] of Georgia, and, especially [[George Wallace]] of Alabama. These populist governors appealed to a less-educated, blue-collar electorate that on economic grounds favored the Democratic Party, but opposed desegregation. After 1965 most Southerners accepted integration (with the exception of public schools). Believing themselves betrayed by the Democratic Party, traditional white southerners joined the new middle-class and the Northern transplants in moving toward the Republican Party. Meanwhile, newly enfranchised Black voters began supporting Democratic candidates at the 80-90-percent levels, producing Democratic leaders such as [[Julian Bond]] and [[John Lewis]] of Georgia, and [[Barbara Jordan]] of Texas. Just as Martin Luther King had promised, integration had brought about a new day in Southern politics, freeing both blacks and whites from old hatreds and fears.

Using issues of cultural conservatism, especially opposition to abortion and homosexuality and support for school prayer, Republicans attracted strong majorities among evangelical Christians. They were nationwide, but strongest in the South; before to the 1980s they were largely apolitical. Exit polls in 2004 showed that Bush led Kerry by 70-30% among Southern whites, who comprised 71% of the voters. Kerry had a 90-9 lead among the 18% of Southern voters who were black. One third of the Southern voters said they were white evangelicals; they voted for Bush by 80-20.<ref>See the exit polls at {{cite web|url=http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.3.html |date=2004-11-02\|accessdate=2006-11-18|title=U.S. PRESIDENT / REGION: SOUTH / EXIT POLL}}</ref>

===1990s===

In the 1990s the Democratic Party revived itself, in part by moving to the right on economic and social policy. President [[Bill Clinton]], who defeated the incumbent [[George H. W. Bush]] in 1992, implemented a balanced federal budget and [[welfare reform]] (cutting benefits and requiring many recipients to take jobs), traditionally conservative causes. Labor unions, which had been steadily losing membership since the 1960s, found they had also lost political clout inside the Democratic Party: Clinton enacted the [[NAFTA]] free trade agreement with Canada and Mexico over the strong objection of these labor unions, much to the disappointment of those on the left of the party. The [[Republican Party (United States)|Republican Party]] took control of both the House of Representatives and the United States Senate after the 1994 election. Clinton was impeached in 1998 and subsequently acquitted in 1999.

When the [[Democratic Leadership Council]] (DLC) attempted to move the Democratic agenda in favor of more centrist positions, prominent Democrats from both the centrist and conservative factions assumed leadership of the party and its direction. Some liberals and progressives felt alienated by the Democratic Party, which they felt had become unconcerned with the interests of the common people and left-wing issues in general. Some Democrats challenged the validity of such critiques, citing the Democratic role in pushing for progressive reforms.

==21st century==
===Election of 2000===
During the presidential election of 2000, the Democrats chose Vice President [[Al Gore]] to be the party's candidate for the presidency. Gore and [[George W. Bush]], the Republican candidate and son of former President George H.W. Bush, disagreed on a number of issues, including abortion, gun control, environmentalism, gay rights, tax cuts, foreign policy, public education, global warming, judicial appointments, and affirmative action. Nevertheless, Gore's affiliation with Clinton and the DLC caused critics—Green Party presidential candidate [[Ralph Nader]] in particular—to assert that Bush and Gore were too similar, especially on free trade, reductions in social welfare, and the death penalty. "We want to punish the Democrats, we want to hurt them, wound them," Nader's closest advisor said.<ref>Harry G. Levinem "Ralph Nader, Suicide Bomber." ''The Village Voice'' May 3, 2004 at [http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0418,levine,53179,1.html] </ref>

Gore won a popular plurality of over 500,000 votes over Bush, but lost in the electoral vote by four votes. In a close election anything can be decisive, but many angry Democrats blamed Nader's third-party spoiler role for Gore's defeat. Controversy plagued the election, and Gore largely dropped from politics for years; by 2005 however he was making speeches critical of Bush's foreign and environmental policies.

Despite Gore's close defeat, the Democrats gained five seats in the Senate (including the election of [[Hillary Clinton]] in New York), to turn a 55-45 Republican edge into a 50-50 split (with a Republican Vice President breaking a tie). However, when Republican Senator [[Jim Jeffords]] of Vermont decided in 2001 to become an independent and caucus with the Democrats, the majority status shifted along with the seat, including control of the floor (by the Majority Leader) and control of all committee chairmanships. However, the Republicans regained their Senate majority with gains in 2002 and 2004, leaving the Democrats with only 44 seats, the fewest since the 1920s.

===2001-2003===
In the aftermath of the [[9-11 Attacks]], the nation's focus was changed to issues of national security. All but one Democrat<ref> Representative [[Barbara Lee]] of Texas</ref> joined the Republicans to authorize President Bush to invade invasion of Afghanistan and overthrow the Taliban. House leader [[Richard Gephardt]] and Senate leader [[Thomas Daschle]] pushed Democrats to vote for the [[USA PATRIOT Act]] and the 2003 invasion of Iraq. The Democrats were split over entering Iraq in 2003 and increasingly expressed concerns about both the justification and progress of the [[War on Terrorism]], as well as the domestic effects, including supposed threats to civil rights and civil liberties from the PATRIOT Act. Senator [[Russ Feingold]] was the only Senator to vote against the act; it received more resistance when it came up for renewal, but was renewed in 2006.

In the wake of the financial fraud scandal of the [[Enron Corporation]] and other corporations, Congressional Democrats pushed for a legal overhaul of business accounting with the intention of preventing further accounting fraud. This led to the bipartisan [[Sarbanes-Oxley Act]] in 2002. Economic issues did not work well in 2002, as the Democrats lost a few seats in the U.S. House of Representatives. They lost three seats in the Senate. While Democrats gained governorships in New Mexico (where [[Bill Richardson]] was elected), Arizona ([[Janet Napolitano]]) and Wyoming ([[Dave Freudenthal]]), other Democrats lost governorships in South Carolina ([[Jim Hodges]]), Alabama ([[Don Siegelman]]) and, for the first time in more than a century, Georgia ([[Roy Barnes]]). The election led to another round of soul searching about the party's narrowing base. The party's miseries mounted in 2003, when a voter recall unseated their unpopular governor of California, [[Gray Davis]], and replaced him which a charismatic liberal Republican [[Arnold Schwarzenegger]]. By the end of 2003 the four largest states had Republican governors: California, Texas, New York and Florida.

===Election of 2004===
The 2004 campaign began in late 2002, when Gore said he would not run again. [[Howard Dean]], former Governor of Vermont, an opponent of the war and a critic of the Democratic establishment, was the front-runner leading into the Democratic primaries. Dean had immense grassroots support, especially from the left wing of the party. Massachusetts Senator [[John Kerry]], a more centrist figure with heavy support from the DLC, was nominated because he was seen as more "electable" than Dean. Democrats moved to populist anti-business positions that denounced free trade and the [[NAFTA]] agreement. The party rhetoric attacked the Bush administration rather than propose alternative programs.

In the end, Kerry lost both the popular vote (by 3 million out of over 120 million votes cast) and the [[Electoral College]]. Republicans also gained four seats in the Senate and three seats in the House of Representatives, and for the first time since 1952, the Democratic leader of the Senate lost re-election. In the end, there were 3,660 Democratic state legislators across the nation to the Republicans' 3,557. Democrats gained governorships in Louisiana, New Hampshire and Montana. However, they lost the governorship of Missouri and a legislative majority in Georgia, which had long been a Democratic stronghold.

There were many reasons for the defeat. After the election most analysts concluded that Kerry was a poor campaigner.<ref>Evan Thomas and Staff of Newsweek,''Election 2004: How Bush Won and What You Can Expect in the Future''(2005)</ref> A group of Vietnam veterans opposed to Kerry called the "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" undercut Kerry's use of his military past as a campaign strategy. Kerry was unable to reconcile his initial support of the [[Iraq War]] with his opposition to the war in 2004, or manage the deep split in the Democratic Party between those who favored and opposed the war. Republicans ran thousands of television commercials to argue that Kerry had flip-flopped on Iraq. When Kerry's home state of Massachusetts legalized same-sex marriage, the issue split liberal and conservative Democrats and independents (Kerry publicly stated throughout his campaign that he opposed same sex marriage, but favored civil unions). Republicans exploited the same-sex marriage issue by promoting ballot initiatives in 11 states that brought conservatives to the polls in large numbers; all 11 initiatives passed. Some Democrats argued that flaws in vote-counting systems may also have played a role in Kerry's defeat in Ohio. Other factors include a healthy job market, a rising stock market, strong home sales, and low unemployment.

After the 2004 election, prominent Democrats began to rethink the party's direction, and a variety of strategies for moving forward were voiced. Some Democrats proposed moving towards the right; others demanded that the party move more to the left and become a stronger opposition party. . Rethinking the party's position on gun control became a matter of discussion, brought up by [[Howard Dean]], [[Bill Richardson]], [[Brian Schweitzer]] and other Democrats who had won governorships in states where Second Amendment rights were important to many voters.

===2005 - 2007===
These debates were reflected in the 2005 campaign for Chairman of the [[Democratic National Committee]], which [[Howard Dean]] won. He sought to move the Democratic strategy away from the establishment, and bolster support for the party's state organizations, even in Red states.

When the 109th Congress convened in 2005, [[Harry Reid]], the new Senate Minority Leader, tried to convince the Democratic Senators to vote more as a bloc on important issues; he forced the Republicans to abandon their push for privatization of Social Security. In 2005, the Democrats retained their governorships in Virginia and New Jersey, electing [[Tim Kaine]] and [[Jon Corzine]], respectively. However, the party lost the mayoral race in New York City, a Democratic stronghold, for the fourth straight time.

In 2006, with scandals involving Republican lobbyist [[Jack Abramoff]], as well as GOP House leader [[Tom DeLay]], Ohio GOP governor [[Bob Taft]] and others, the Democrats used the slogan "Culture of corruption." Negative public opinion on the war in Iraq, along with widespread dissatisfaction among conservatives over government spending, dragged President Bush's job approval ratings down to the lowest levels of his presidency. To win control the Democrats had to add 15 seats in the House (they added 30), and 6 in the Senate (they added 6).

The Democratic Party's electoral success has been attributed to running relatively conservative Democrats in close seats, such as the Senate races in Virginia, Pennsylvania and Montana. <ref> Dewan Shaila and Anne E. Kornblut, "In Key House Races, Democrats Run to the Right," ''New York Times,'' 2006-10-30; but compare Rick Perlstein, "Who deserves credit for the Democratic comeback?" ''The New Republic'' 2006-11-08]] at [https://ssl.tnr.com/p/docsub.mhtml?i=w061106&s=perlstein110806] </ref> Exit polling suggested that corruption was a key issue for many voters.<ref>CNN, "Corruption named as key issue by voters in exit polls," 2006-11-08 at [http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/11/07/election.exitpolls/] </ref>

In 2006 Democrats gained a majority of governorships and made gains in many state legislatures. No Democratic incumbent was defeated in any major race.
===2007-2010===
[[File:Obama_approval_index_december_22_2009.jpg‎|thumb|250px]]
House Democrats chose Rep. [[Nancy Pelosi]] of California for Speaker, the first woman ever, but rejected her choice for House Majority Leader, electing Steny Hoyer instead of John Murtha. Senate Democrats promoted Harry Reid to Majority Leader. Neither have been very effective.

The presidential campaign of 2008 featured a remarkable duel between Obama--the first major black candidate, and [[Hillary Clinton]], the first major woman contender. Obama won with his charismatic oratory and his highly efficient fund-raising and strong organization in the caucus states, while Clinton went downscale to pick up big majorities among poor whites and Hispanics. The contest between Obama and GOP nominee [[John McCain]] showed Obama being the clear favourite, with the vast majority of polls (with the exception of early September) depicting Obama as the clear favourite.

The [[Obama Administration]] got off to a fast start in 2009, especially in vigorous efforts to combat the [[Recession of 2008]] with heavy new stimulus spending, massive loans to banks, increased regulation, and deep intervention in the automobile industry. All those policies were begun by Bush, and had failed to reverse the decline of the economy in late 2008. Whether they will now succeed remains an open question, with the GOP now voting solidly against them and some conservatives like [[Rush Limbaugh]] hoping that the Democrats will fail badly and that the people will again turn to the Republican party. The Democratic Party is feeling the sting from the opposition and many Democrats are beginning to question their own leadership. Liberals are disenchanted with Obama's hawkish position on the [[Afghanistan War]]. The health care reform that consumed most of 2009 remains unsettled, as public opinion has turned against it. Environmentalists now seem resigned to the failure of a [[cap and trade]] program to reduce CO2 emissions. Most of all the recession drags on. The stimulus bill was passed quickly in Feb. 2009 over almost unanimous GOP opposition, but despite promises of "shovel ready" projects, most of the money has not been spent a year later and the economy remains in the doldrums.

The elections in Nov. 2009 in New Jersey and Virginia went badly for the Democrats, as the GOP gained both governorships and many local races, not to mention the Democrats' fifth straight loss for the mayoralty of New York City.

see [[2010 Midterm Elections]]

==Symbols==
The most common symbol for the party is the donkey, although the party itself never officially adopted this symbol.<ref>[http://www.democrats.org/a/2005/06/history_of_the.php History of the Democratic Donkey]. </ref> Some historians suggest the jackass was born 1828 when Jackson was sometimes called a jackass by his opponents as a play on his name. A political cartoon depicting Jackson riding and directing a donkey (representing the Democratic Party) was published in 1837. A political cartoon by [[Thomas Nast]] in an 1870 revived the donkey as a symbol for the Democratic Party. Cartoonists ever since have followed Nast and used the donkey to represent the Democrats, and the elephant to represent the Republicans.

In the early 20th century, the traditional symbol of the Democratic Party in many states was the rooster, as opposed to the Republican eagle.

There is no official color, but since election night 2000 blue has become the identification color of the Democratic Party for maps, while the red has become the color of the Republicans. Increasingly blue is used by Democrats for promotions (e.g BuyBlue, BlueFund) and by the party itself, which in 2006 unveiled the "Red to Blue Program" to support Democratic candidates running against Republican incumbents in the 2006 midterm election.

[[Jefferson-Jackson Day]] annual fundraising celebrations are held by local chapters of the Democratic Party.

The song "[[Happy Days Are Here Again]]" is the unofficial song of the Democratic Party. It was used prominently when Roosevelt was nominated for president at the 1932 Democratic National Convention and remains a sentimental favorite for Democrats today. During the [[Bill Clinton|Clinton]] era, the [[Fleetwood Mac]] song "Don't Stop Thinking About Tomorrow" became a popular song at Democratic events, reflecting the growing prominence of Baby Boomers in the party.

Some critics refer to the group as the [[Democrat Party]].

==Democratic Presidents==
* [[Andrew Jackson]] (1829-1837)
* [[Martin Van Buren]] (1837-1841)
* [[James K. Polk]] (1845-1849)
* [[Franklin Pierce]] (1853-1857)
* [[James Buchanan]] (1857-1861)
* [[Grover Cleveland]] (1885-1889) (1893-1897)
* [[Woodrow Wilson]] (1913-1921)
* [[Franklin Roosevelt]] (1933-1945)
* [[Harry S Truman]] (1945-1953)
* [[John F. Kennedy]] (1961-1963)
* [[Lyndon B. Johnson]] (1963-1969)
* [[Jimmy Carter]] (1977-1981)
* [[Bill Clinton]] (1993-2001)
* [[Barack Obama]] (2009 - Present)

==See also==
*[[Previous Breaking News/Democrats|Articles about '''Democrats''' from previous "Breaking News"]]
*[[Obamacare]]

==Bibliography==
===Current===
*Barone, Michael, and Grant Ujifusa, ''The Almanac of American Politics 2008: The Senators, the Representatives and the Governors: Their Records and Election Results, Their States and Districts'' (2007) covers all the live politicians with amazing detail. New edition every two years since 1975.
* Brownstein, Ronald. ''The Second Civil War: How Extreme Partisanship Has Paralyzed Washington and Polarized America''(2007)
* Crane, Michael. ''The Political Junkie Handbook: The Definitive Reference Books on Politics'' (2004) covers all the major issues explaining the parties' positions
*Sabato, Larry J. ''Divided States of America: The Slash and Burn Politics of the 2004 Presidential Election'' (2005).
*Sabato, Larry J. ed. ''The Sixth Year Itch: The Rise and Fall of the George W. Bush Presidency'' (1907), in-depth essays by scholars on key states in 2006
* Sabato, Larry J., and Howard R. Ernst eds. ''Political Parties and Elections'' (2007), 540pp; an encyclopedia with 450 entries by scholars; focus is 1945 to present
* Sabato, Larry J. and Bruce Larson. ''The Party's Just Begun: Shaping Political Parties for America's Future'' (2001) textbook.
* Shafer, Byron E. and Anthony J. Badger, eds. ''Contesting Democracy: Substance and Structure in American Political History, 1775-2000'' (2001), long essays by specialists on each time period
* Shafer, Byron and Richard Johnston. ''The End of Southern Exceptionalism'' (2006), uses statistical election data & polls to argue GOP growth was primarily a response to economic change
===Historical===
* ''American National Biography'' (20 volumes, 1999) covers all politicians no longer alive; online and paper copies at many academic libraries.
* Jensen, Richard. ''Grass Roots Politics: Parties, Issues, and Voters, 1854-1983'' (1983) [http://www.questia.com/library/book/grass-roots-politics-parties-issues-and-voters-1854-1983-by-christopher-c-gibbs-richard-j-jensen-steven-l-piott.jsp online edition]; survey by conservative scholar, with primary sources
* Kennedy, David M. ''Freedom from Fear: The American People in Depression and War, 1929-1945'' (2001), synthesis by leading scholar; Pulitzer prize [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=52284041 online edition]
* Kleppner, Paul et al. ''The Evolution of American Electoral Systems'' (1983), essays by scholars (some of them conservatives), 1790s to 1980s.
* Kleppner, Paul. ''The Third Electoral System 1853-1892: Parties, Voters, and Political Cultures'' (1979), analysis of voting behavior, with emphasis on region, ethnicity, religion and class. [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=24451028 online edition]
* Ling, Peter J. ''The Democratic Party: A Photographic History'' (2003).
* Patterson, James T. ''Grand Expectations: The United States, 1945-1974'' (1997) synthesis by leading scholar. [http://www.amazon.com/Grand-Expectations-United-1945-1974-History/dp/0195117972/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1211911625&sr=1-2 excerpt and text search]
* Patterson, James T. ''Restless Giant: The United States from Watergate to Bush vs. Gore'' (2005) synthesis by leading scholar. [http://www.amazon.com/Restless-Giant-United-Watergate-History/dp/0195305221/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1211911625&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]
* Ritchie, Donald A. ''Electing FDR: The New Deal Campaign of 1932'' (2007) [http://www.amazon.com/Electing-FDR-Campaign-Presidential-Elections/dp/0700615504/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1195784762&sr=8-2 excerpt and text search]
* Rutland, Robert Allen. ''The Democrats: From Jefferson to Clinton'' (1995).
* Shafer, Byron E. and Anthony J. Badger, eds. ''Contesting Democracy: Substance and Structure in American Political History, 1775-2000'' (2001), most recent collection of new essays by specialists on each time period:
**includes: "State Development in the Early Republic: 1775–1840" by Ronald P. Formisano; "The Nationalization and Racialization of American Politics: 1790–1840" by David Waldstreicher; "'To One or Another of These Parties Every Man Belongs;": 1820–1865 by Joel H. Silbey; "Change and Continuity in the Party Period: 1835–1885" by Michael F. Holt; "The Transformation of American Politics: 1865–1910" by Peter H. Argersinger; "Democracy, Republicanism, and Efficiency: 1885–1930" by Richard Jensen; "The Limits of Federal Power and Social Policy: 1910–1955" by Anthony J. Badger; "The Rise of Rights and Rights Consciousness: 1930–1980" by James T. Patterson, Brown University; and "Economic Growth, Issue Evolution, and Divided Government: 1955–2000" by Byron E. Shafer
* Schlisinger, Galbraith. ''Of the People: The 200 Year History of the Democratic Party'' (1992)
* Sundquist, James L. ''Dynamics of the Party System: Alignment and Realignment of Political Parties in the United States'', (1983) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=29223022 online edition
* Wilentz, Sean. ''The Rise of American Democracy: Jefferson to Lincoln'' (2005), detailed synthesis by a leading liberal scholar. [http://www.amazon.com/Rise-American-Democracy-Jefferson-Lincoln/dp/0393058204/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1195784940&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]
* Witcover, Jules. ''Party of the People: A History of the Democrats'' (2003)
* Schlesinger, Arthur Meier, Jr. ed. ''History of American Presidential Elections, 1789-2000'' (various multivolume editions, latest is 2001). For each election includes a short history by a leading scholar and a selection of primary documents.

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

==External links==
*[http://www.democrats.org/ Democratic Party Official Site]
*[http://www.demconvention.com/assets/downloads/2008-Democratic-Platform-final.pdf 2008 Democratic Platform (pdf download)]
*[http://bertschlossberg.blogspot.com/2012/11/lawrence-patton-mcdonald-b_15.html A Forgotten Man: Congressman Larry McDonald]

[[Category:United States Political Organizations]]
[[Category:United States Political Parties]]
[[Category:Democratic Party]]
[[Category:Progressive Era]]
[[Category:Gilded Age]]
[[Category:New Deal]]
[[Category:Reagan Era]]
[[Category:1960s]]
[[Category:Obama Presidency]]
[[Category:Liberals]]
[[category:Jacksonian Democracy]]
[[Category:111th United States Congress]]

Barack Hussein Obama

2012-10-27T23:50:36Z

Nightsky: no sources for prior marriage claim

{{Officeholder
|name=Barack Hussein Obama
|image=President Barack Obama.jpg
|party=[[Democratic Party]]
|spouse=[[Michelle LaVaughn Robinson Obama]].
|religion=see [[Obama's religion]]
|offices=
{{Officeholder/president
|country=the United States
|number=44th
|terms=January 20, 2009-Present
|vp=[[Joe Biden]]
|preceded=[[George W. Bush]]
|former=n
|succeeded=
}}
{{Officeholder/senator
|state=Illinois
|terms=January 3, 2005 – November 16, 2008
|preceded=Peter Fitzgerald
|former=y
|succeeded=[[Roland Burris]]
}}
}}

'''Barack Hussein Obama II''' (b. August 4, 1961, either in [[Kenya]] or [[Honolulu, Hawaii]]) was elected the 44th President. Promoted heavily by [[liberals]], as demonstrated by his unjustified receipt of the 2009 [[Nobel Prize|Nobel Peace Prize]], Obama won the presidency despite a short and unremarkable political career by outspending his opponent, [[John McCain]], by hundreds of millions of dollars in 2008.

The [[liberal claptrap]] that helped elect Obama as president seems silly today. It was claimed, for example, that Obama has millions of followers on Twitter, when allegedly some 70% of them are fake.<ref>http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2012/08/obama-has-millions-of-fake-twitter-followers/1#.UDfQVqA2et_</ref> And although the [[lamestream media]] promoted Obama as a great orator, in fact he relies almost entirely on teleprompters for his speeches and press conferences, and at one point even had teleprompters set up for him in a middle school classroom in order to speak to the media.

Obama is [[pro-abortion]]. During the 2008 election campaign Obama said that he intended to "[[Redistribution of wealth|spread the wealth around]]" - which conservatives have condemned for being [[Socialism|socialist]]. Barack Obama has been widely criticized by the American [[business]] community and others for his anti-business policies that are destroying American jobs during a period of high unemployment.<ref>Zuckerman, M.B. (2010, July 16). [http://www.usnews.com/opinion/mzuckerman/articles/2010/07/16/obamas-anti-business-policies-are-our-economic-katrina Obama's Anti-business Policies are our Economic Katrina]. ''U.S. News''. Barnes, F. (2009, July 22). [http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/016/619dvjlm.asp An Anti-Business President]. ''The Weekly Standard''. Vol. 14, No. 38 Shedlock, M. (2010, August 20). [http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2010/08/small-businesses-are-not-hiring-why.html Small Businesses are not hiring. Why should they?] Globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com. Wright, C.E. (2012, February 12). [http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/02/dear_mr_president_why_we_are_n.html Dear Mr. President: Why we are not hiring]. ''American Thinker''.</ref> On July 26, 2012, the [[Gallup Poll|Gallup organization]] reported that merely 35% of business owners approved of Barack Obama's job performance.<ref>[http://www.gallup.com/poll/156206/Business-Owners-Among-Least-Approving-Obama.aspx U.S. Business Owners Now Among Least Approving of Obama]</ref> Former [[Democrat]] Presidential candidate [[Joe Lieberman]] endorsed Obama's opponent in 2008 and has declined to endorse [[Obama]] for the [[Presidential Election 2012]].<ref>Lillis, M. (2012, April 22). [http://thehill.com/video/campaign/222929-lieberman-declines-to-endorse-in-presidential-race Sen. Lieberman declines to endorse in presidential race]. ''The Hill''.</ref>

Under President Obama's mismanagement of the economy, the United States Government's credit rating was, for the first time in its history, downgraded from AAA to AA+, and [[poverty]]<ref>[http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/data/incpovhlth/2009/pov09fig04.pdf Figure 4: Number in Poverty and Poverty Rate: 1959-2009]. ''U.S. Census Bureau''. Current Population Survey, 1960 to 2010 Annual Social and Economic Supplements.</ref> increased markedly. By and large his programs, said to combat the recession, unemployment, slow growth, and deficits, have failed<ref>"The vast majority (73%) of respondents reported the fiscal stimulus enacted in February 2009 has had no impact on employment to date. While 68% also believe a jobs bill, such as the one recently enacted into law, will have no impact on payrolls, 30% do believe it will boost payrolls moderately". [http://www.nabe.com/press/ind1004.pdf Industry Survey], ''National Association for Business Economics'', April 2010, p. 2.</ref> leaving the the country saddled with a $16 trillion [[national debt]].<ref>Under Obama the U.S. National Debt has tripled. Source: [https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/fredgraph.png?graph_id=86836 U.S. Treasury]; Federal Reserve Board.</ref> One of his most well known tactics is blaming someone else, such as George W. Bush, for all his failures instead of taking responsibility. Also on the domestic front, Obama passed an expensive [[health care]] bill in 2009 with no [[bipartisan]] support and 34 Democrats dissenting. Recently, the [[Congressional Budget Office]] wrote an open letter to [[John Boehner]], the Speaker of the House, outlining the effects of repealing [[Obamacare]] and explaining why net loss of over 100 billion dollars would occur from the repeal. [http://cbo.gov/publication/43471]

Fatalities in [[Afghanistan]] have more than doubled under Obama's leadership then in the preceding eight years combined, according to the Congressional Research Service <ref>Chesser, S.G. (2012, July 12). [http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/R41084.pdf Afghanistan Casualties: Military Forces and Civilians - CRS Report for Congress]. Pg. 3. ''Congressional Research Service''.</ref>. Against his own Defense Secretary's advice, Obama [[Libyan uprising 2011|attacked Libya]] - a possible violation of the [[War Powers Act]]. After he announced the killing of [[September 11th]] mastermind and terrorist [[Osama bin Laden]], the [[U.S. State Department]] warned of the increased risk to the lives and safety of Americans around the world.<ref>''KABC-TV/DT'' (2011, July 27). [http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=news/national_world&id=8273909 Risk of anti-US violence up after Osama bin Laden's death]. On ''ABC7 News''.</ref> Bin Laden's death had negligible long-term impact on Obama's approval ratings, as seen in Gallup's daily poll.<ref>''Gallup''. [http://www.gallup.com/poll/113980/gallup-daily-obama-job-approval.aspx Gallup Daily: Obama Job Approval].</ref>

Obama's bizarre gaffes are frequent and embarrassing, but typically unreported by the [[liberal media]]. Many hardworking American businessmen took offense to a 2012 campaign speech about the economy where he says "You didn't build that." Obama offended [[Poland]] by referring to the [[Nazi]] death camps there as "Polish death camps." Later Obama apologized.<ref>Sink, J. (2012, June 1). [http://thehill.com/blogs/global-affairs/europe/230419-obama-letter-says-he-regrets-polish-death-camp-gaffe Obama apologizes in writing for 'Polish death camp' verbal gaffe]. ''The Hill''.</ref>

==Biography==
===Birth===
{{TOC right}}
:''Main article : [[Early life and career of Barack Hussein Obama]]''
:''See also : [[Barack Obama's Muslim Heritage]]''
Obama claims to have been born in Hawaii to Stanley Ann Dunham and [[Barack Obama Sr.]] - who had married just six months prior - on August 4, 1961 in [[Honolulu, Hawaii]].<ref name=msnbc>''MSNBC'' (2008, February 20). "[http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23257295/ns/msnbc_tv-documentaries/t/obama-becomes-rising-star-among-democrats/ Obama Becomes Rising Star Among Democrats]."</ref> Some contend that this story is a complete fabrication. After many leading conservatives -- including the leadership of this site and [[Donald Trump]] -- called for Obama to release his birth certificate he produced a document that he claimed was his birth certificate on April 27 2011. Sheriff [[Joe Arpaio]] of Maricopa County in Arizona conducted an investigation of the Obama's eligibility and alleged that the alleged "birth certificate" was a fake; however, no charges have been filed. [[Obama]] was reportedly assigned a social security number whose area code was assigned to applications coming from zip codes in Connecticut.<ref>Beginning in 1972, all Social Security numbers were issued from a central office in Baltimore, Maryland.[http://www.ssa.gov/history/ssn/geocard.html]</ref>

Barack Obama Sr. was not a [[Natural born citizen|citizen of the United States]]. At the time of Obama's birth, Kenya was a British colony, meaning that not only was Obama Sr. a British subject, but he passed that status on to his son. When Kenya gained independence, Obama and his father both ceased to be British subjects and became Kenyan citizens. Barack Obama was a dual citizen of the United States and Kenya until his Kenyan citizenship automatically expired in 1984, as he had failed to renounce US nationality and swear loyalty to Kenya. Even if he had been born with US citizenship through his mother, it has been argued that as he was born with dual nationality, he is not a natural-born citizen of the United States, and thus constitutionally ineligible to become President. Despite this, no court that has considered such arguments has accepted the proposition that Obama is not a natural-born citizen.<ref>See [http://www.scribd.com/doc/88910250/Purpura-Moran-Initial-Decision-of-ALJ-Masin Initial Decision by Jeff S. Masin] in ''Purpura and Moran v. Obama'' at 7 ("Thus, accepting for the point of this issue that Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii, he is a “natural born Citizen” regardless of the status of his father."), Tisdale v. Obama (E.D.Va 2012) Order at 2 ("It is well settled that those born in the United States are considered natural born citizens." (citing ''United States v. Wong Kim Ark'', 169 U.S. 649)), ''aff'd per curiam'' by 4th Cir., ''Ankeny v. Governor of the State of Indiana'', 916 N.E.2d 678, 685 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) ("With regard to President Barack Obama, the Plaintiffs posit that because his father was a citizen of the United Kingdom, President Obama is constitutionally ineligible to assume the Office of the President....we hold that the Plaintiffs' arguments fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted")</ref>

===Early Life===
Obama's birth parents divorced in 1963 due to strain caused by Barack Obama Sr. leaving Hawaii to study economics at Harvard, when Obama was 2 years old, following which his mother married Lolo Soetoro, an [[Indonesian]] geologist. When Barack Obama was age 6 his mother and adoptive father took him to Jakarta, Indonesia for 4 years while his mother pursued a Ph.D. in Anthropology requiring fieldwork there.<ref name="db mother">{{cite web|url=http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2011-05-03/a-singular-woman-by-janny-scott-review-by-stacy-schiff/#|work=The Daily Beast|format=HTML|language=English|title=Dreams of His Mother|author=Stacy Schiff}}</ref> His mother then left him in Hawaii with his grandparents (Stanley and Madelyn Dunham, who had moved to Hawaii in 1959) so he could pursue American education.<ref name=revealed>Malveaux, Suzanne (2008, August 20). "[http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0808/20/se.02.html Barack Obama Revealed]." ''CNN''.</ref> Other siblings of Obama's include his half-sister Maya Soetoro-Ng and 7 other children born to his father by 4 different women.<ref name=raisingobama>Purdum, Todd (2008, March). "[http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/03/obama200803 Raising Obama]." ''Vanity Fair''.</ref> For much of his early life, prior to his transfer to Columbia University, he went by his nickname, "Barry." In the summer of 1988, before attending Harvard Law School (he'd just been accepted), he visited Kogelo, Kenya, to learn more about his father's family. When his mother died in 1995, he and his sister Maya scattered her ashes over Hawaii's south shore.<ref name=revealed />

===Personal Life===
[[Image:Michelle Obama.jpg|frame|right|Michelle (Robinson) Obama, wife of Barack Obama.]]
Barack Obama met and began dating his future wife, an attorney named Michelle Robinson, herself a recent Harvard Law School graduate, while he was working at Sidley Austin LLP, a prestigious corporate law firm.<ref name=msnbc /> The two continued dating long-distance while he finished law school, and on October 18, 1982, were married by Reverend [[Jeremiah Wright]] at Trinity United Church.<ref name=revealed /> In 1999, their first child was born, Malia, and in 2001, another daughter, Natasha (often called Sasha).<ref name=msnbc />

Obama attended Reverend Jeremiah Wright's Trinity United Church from 1984-1988 during his time as a community organizer (''See [[Barack_Obama#1984-1988.2C_Community_Organizer|1985-1988, Community Organizer]] section''). Obama credits Wright with his alleged conversion to Christianity, and had both his daughters, Sasha and Malia, baptized there.<ref name=revealed />

===Education===
At age 6, Obama attended schools in Indonesia, the first a Catholic School while he was in Kindergarten, and later a public school. While the public school had mostly Muslim students (since most Indonesians were Muslim), claims that it was a Muslim school or Madrassa are false. In 1971, at age 10, Barack Obama moved to Hawaii, and his grandparents helped him gain entrance to the prestigious Punahou Academy in Honolulu through a scholarship, while he was in 5th grade.<ref name=revealed /> At his elite high school with 1,200 students he was just 1 of 3 black students, and was on the second string of the state champion basketball team his senior year. During this time he also experimented briefly with marijuana and cocaine. He wrote a poem for the school's literary magazine, ''Ka Wai Ola''.<ref name=raisingobama />

In 1979, he began a 2-year stint at Occidental College college in Los Angeles<ref name=msnbc />, and then transferred to Columbia University in New York, which he graduated from in 1983.<ref name=pragmatic>Scott, Janny (2007, July 30). "[http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/30/us/politics/30obama.html?pagewanted=all In Illinois, Obama Proved Pragmatic and Shrewd]." ''New York Times''.</ref> During this time he allegedly spoke at an Anti-Apartheid rally on campus,<ref name=revealed /> although several prominent student leaders said they did not remember him there. Professor Michael L. Baron was impressed by Obama and wrote him a recommendation for Harvard Law School.<ref name=differs>Scott, J. (2007, October 30). "[http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/30/us/politics/30obama.html?pagewanted=all Obama's Account of New York Years Often Differs From What Others Say]." ''New York Times''.</ref> In the winter of 1988 Barack Obama decided to attend Harvard Law School, and left Chicago for Cambridge, Massachusetts. In his 2nd year he became the first black president of the ''Harvard Law Review'', following a "marathon voting session" in which he was elected on the 19th ballot.<ref name=raisingobama /> This led to national attention and numerous job offers, which Obama passed up, at age 30, to pursue a political career in Chicago.<ref name=msnbc /><ref name=revealed />
===Non-Political Employment===
====1983-1984, Financial Analyst and Writer====
In 1984 Obama worked as a writer and financial analyst for Business International Corporation to pay off his student loans. Business International Corporation was a small newsletter-publishing and research firm which aided multinational companies understand overseas markets. Obama served as a writer/researcher for a company reference service, Financing Foreign Operations, and wrote for their newsletter, ''Business International Money Report''. His supervisor was Cathy Lazere. <ref name=differs /><ref>Henig, J. (2008, June 21). "[http://www.factcheck.org/2008/06/obama-polishes-his-resume-2/ Obama Polishes His Resume]." ''FactCheck.org''.</ref>

====1984-1988, Community Organizer====
In 1984, Obama was hired by the New York Public Interest Research Group, a non-profit organization promoting environmental, consumer, and government reforms. He also was paid just under $10,000 annually as a full-time organizer for Harlem's City College to mobilize student volunteers.<ref name=differs /> From 1985-88, Obama worked as a community organizer on the South Side of Chicago, for which he was paid $1,000 a year, with $2,000 extra for a car. He helped Loretta Herron gain city approval for a local community job center. <ref name=revealed /><ref name=streetwise>Scott, Janny (2007, September 9). "[http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/09/us/politics/09obama.html?pagewanted=all In 2000, a Streetwise Veteran Schooled a Bold Young Obama]." ''New York Times''.</ref> During this time Obama joined Reverend Wright's Trinity United Church because in the words of Suzanne Malveaux of ''CNN'', "It was the church to join if you wanted to be one of Chicago's black movers and shakers." At the time, community organizing involved close affiliation with churches, which was how Obama met Wright. The slow progress in fighting asbestos contamination in the Altgeld Gardens housing project led to Obama's departure from Chicago, and enrollment at Harvard Law School in the winter of 1988.<ref name=revealed />
====1988-1996, Law Practice====
In 1988 Obama gained work as a Summer Associate at one of the most prestigious corporate law firms in the world, Sidley Austin LLP<ref name=austin>Lattman, P. (2007, May 11). "[http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2007/05/11/sidley-austin-when-barack-met-michelle/ When Barack Met Michelle]." ''Wall Street Journal''.</ref><ref name=revealed />, owned by Newton Minow, thanks to the recommendation of Minow's daughter Martha, a professor at Harvard Law School. It was at Minow's law firm that Obama would meet Michelle Robinson, his future wife.<ref name=raisingobama /> From 1993-96 he practiced civil rights law, after graduating from Harvard, at Miner, Barnhill, & Galland, a small politically-connected law firm.<ref name=austin /> It was at Miner, Barnhill, & Galland that he would meet influential real estate developer Tony Rezko.<ref name=revealed />
====1992-2004, Law Professor at University of Chicago====
Obama taught constitutional law part-time at the University of Chicago Law School<ref name=raisingobama /> from 1992-2004. He was a Lecturer from 1992-96, teaching 3 courses per year, and a Senior Lecturer from 1996-2004. Senior Lecturers are considered Law School faculty and regarded as professors but not full-time or tenured. Obama was invited to become a Senior Lecturer several times during this period but declined each time.<ref>"[http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media Media Inquiries: Statement Regarding Barack Obama]." ''University of Chicago Law School''.</ref>
====1995, Author====
In 1995 Obama published ''Dreams From My Father'' about his life and family background.<ref name=msnbc />

===Personal Awards===
====2009 Nobel Peace Prize====
On October 9, 2009 Barack H. Obama became the third sitting U.S. President<ref name=wilsons>Wilson, Scott (2009, October 10). "[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/09/AR2009100900914.html President Obama Wins Nobel Peace Prize]. ''Washington Post''.</ref> to be awarded the Nobel Peace Prize "''for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples''".<ref>NobelPrize.org (2009, October 9). "[http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/2009/press.html The Nobel Prize for 2009: Press Release]." Oslo, Norway. Accessed May 13, 2012.</ref> Obama stated that he was "surprised and deeply humbled" to receive the unexpected award,<ref>(2009, October 9). "[http://articles.cnn.com/2009-10-09/world/nobel.peace.prize_1_norwegian-nobel-committee-international-diplomacy-and-cooperation-nuclear-weapons?_s=PM:WORLD Obama: Nobel Peace Prize is 'Call to Action']." ''CNN''.</ref> and also said, "To be honest, I do not feel that I deserve to be in the company of so many of the transformative figures who've been honored by this prize -- men and women who have inspired me and inspired the entire world through their courageous pursuit of peace".<ref name=wilsons /> The award was widely criticized given Obama's then lack of accomplishments.<ref>Chazan, G. & MacDonald, A. (2009, October 11). "[http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125509603349176083.html Nobel Committee's Decision Courts Controversy]." ''Wall Street Journal''. (2009, October 9). "[http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/10/09/obamas-peace-prize-draws-criticism-liberals/ Obama's Peace Prize Draws Criticism, Even From Some Liberals]." ''Associated Press''.</ref>
==1991-1992, Project Vote==
In 1991 Obama was recruited by Sandy Newman to head the Chicago chapter of Project Vote!<ref name=revealed />, and in 1992 was the Executive Director, overseeing a voter registration drive which registered 125,000 black voters and was credited with helping elect U.S. Senator Carol Mosely Braun.<ref name=raisingobama /><ref name=pragmatic />
==1996-2003, Illinois State Senate==
===1996 Election===
[[File:O-2002-antiwar-rally-davidson.jpg|right|thumb|250px| Obama speaking at the October 2002 rally in Chicago organized by [[Carl Davidson]].<ref>Davidson is a longtime [[Mao]]ist and champion of the ''Thought of Mao Tse Tung.'' Davidson's anti-Trotskyite polemic, [http://www.wengewang.org/read.php?tid=10925 ''Left in Form, Right in Essence''] defends Maoist doctrine. </ref> ''"[H]e is a brutal man who butchers his own people,"'' nevertheless Obama opposed ''"dumb wars".'']]
====Knocking Candidates Off the Ballot====
Barack Obama ran for the Illinois state senate in 1996. He was initially supported by incumbent Alice Palmer, who declared she would run for the U.S. Congress. However, when her bid for Congress failed on November 28, 1995, she tried to run for her old seat in the March 1996 election. Her supporters asked Obama to step aside, although whether this was with her permission remains uncertain.<ref name=pragmatic /> Not only did Obama not step down, he gathered a team of high-priced lawyers, including fellow Harvard Law School graduate Thomas Johnson, to challenge his opponent's petition signatures on technicalities after the filing deadline had passed. Such tactics are legal and frequently used in Chicago; in 2006 they eliminated 67 of the 245 aldermanic candidates;<ref name=bareknuckle>Jackson, David & Long, Ray (2007, April 4). "[http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/obama/chi-0704030881apr04-archive,0,1523598,full.story Barack Obama: Showing His Bare Knuckles]." ''Chicago Tribune''.</ref> yet nevertheless led to the term "hardball" by the ''New York Times''<ref name=pragmatic /> and "cutthroat" by David Mendel as reported by both ''CNN''<ref name=revealed /> and ''MSNBC''.<ref name=msnbc /> The ''Chicago Tribune'' declared Obama had mastered "the bare-knuckle arts of Chicago electoral politics", noting "The man now running for president on a message of giving a voice to the voiceless first entered public office not by leveling the playing field, but by clearing it."<ref name=bareknuckle /> As one of Obama's four opponents, eliminated through his ballot challenges, would put it: {{cquote|"Why say you're for a new tomorrow, then do old-style Chicago politics to remove legitimate candidates? He talks about honor and democracy, but what honor is there in getting rid of every other candidate so you can run scot-free? Why not let the people decide?"
-Gha-is Askia, 1996 Illinois Senate candidate<ref>Jackson, David & Long, Ray (2007, April 3). "[http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/obama/chi-070403obama-ballot-archive,0,5297304,full.story Obama Knows His Way Around a Ballot]." ''Chicago Tribune''.</ref>}} Mark Ewell, another candidate, filed 1,286 signatures, and Obama's challenges left him 86 short of the minimum requirement (757<ref name=spivak>Spivak, Todd (2008, February 28). "[http://www.houstonpress.com/2008-02-28/news/barack-obama-screamed-at-me/ Barack Obama and Me]." ''Houston Press''.</ref>). Ewell filed a federal lawsuit contesting the election board's decision but Tom Johnson intervened, and Ewell's case was dismissed just a few days later. Ewell and other Obama opponents were using early 1995 polling sheets to verify signatures of registered voters, but city authorities had just purged 15,871 unqualified people from the 13th district list, and Obama's challenges used the more recent, updated list. Askia was left 69 signatures short of the requirement. If names were printed instead of signed in cursive, they were declared invalid. If they were good but the person registering the signatures wasn't a registered voter (e.g. underage) they were invalid.<ref name=hardball>Griffin, Drew & Johnston, Kathleen (2008, May 29). "[http://articles.cnn.com/2008-05-29/politics/obamas.first.campaign_1_obama-campaign-barack-obama-chicago-politics?_s=PM:POLITICS Obama Played Hardball in First Chicago Campaign]." ''CNN''.</ref> Palmer had according to Obama campaign consult Ronald Davis, used two children to help gather her petition signatures. To this day Palmer denies the challenges were valid, and maintains she could have overcome the objections with more time and resources.<ref name=bareknuckle /> Thanks to his lawyers, Obama would win the election without a single other candidate on the ballot.
===2000 Election===
: ''Main Article: [[Illinois 1st congressional district election, 2000]]''
In 2000, Obama lost his only political election when he chose to run against experienced incumbent and former Black Panther Bobby L. Rush for the U.S. Congress in a 65% black district. Rush's name recognition began at 90%, Obama's at 11%. As media consultant and former Rush campaign staffer Eric Adelstein noted, "Nobody said he’s ‘not black enough.’ They said he’s a professor, a Harvard elite who lives in Hyde Park." Todd Spivak would give voice to this impression of Obama, noting that{{cquote|"My view of Obama then wasn't all that different from the image he projects now. He was smart, confident, charismatic and liberal. One thing I can say is, I never heard him launch into the preacher-man voice he now employs during speeches. He sounded vanilla, and activists in his mostly black district often chided him for it."<ref name=spivak />}}Rush would go on to win the Primary with 61.02% of the vote; Obama received 30.36%.<ref name=streetwise /> The loss led to Obama considering dropping out of politics altogether, particularly after the September 11, 2001 attacks, since his name sounds similar to "Osama bin Laden".<ref name=msnbc />
===Voting Record===
Obama entered the Illinois Senate promising change to a corrupt system. He mixed often radical votes with more pragmatic agreements. Possibly one of his most radical votes was against requiring medical care for aborted children who survive [[abortion|the procedure]] - in fact the Illinois Planned Parenthood Council ascribed him a 100% rating for his consistently pro-choice votes.<ref name="cbs illinois">{{cite web|url=http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/01/17/politics/main2369157.shtml|title=Obama Record May Be Gold Mine For Critics|work=CBS|format=HTML|language=English|last=Clark|first=Amy S.|date=Jan. 17, 2007}}</ref> He was criticized for using the statehouse as a stepping stone for a more illustrious career: Steven J. Rauschenberger, a [[Republican]], said prior to Obama's election as president: “He is a very bright but very ambitious person who has always had his eyes on the prize, and it wasn’t Springfield. If he deserves to be president, it is not because he was a great legislator.”<ref name="nyt illinois">{{cite web|work=The New York Times|title=In Illinois, Obama Proved Pragmatic and Shrewd|last=Scott|first=Janny|format=HTML|language=English|date=July 30, 2007|url=http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/30/us/politics/30obama.html}}</ref>

The statehouse was majority Republican, so the Senator was sometimes forced to compromise. He formed allegiances across party lines to pass [[campaign finance]] reform that banned most gifts by lobbyists, prohibited spending campaign money for legislators’ personal use and required electronic filing of campaign disclosure reports.<ref name="nyt illinois"/> Obama also helped pass a so-called “driving-while-black bill”, which required the police to collect data on the race of drivers they stopped as a way to monitor [[racial profiling]].<ref name="nyt illinois"/>

Obama established himself as a chief spokesperson in opposition to the [[War on Terror]] during an October 2002 rally at Federal Plaza in Chicago<ref>The rally was organized by Chicagoans Against War in Iraq (CAWI) later renamed Chicagoans Against War and Injustice. [http://www.noiraqwar-chicago.org/?page_id=2 About CAWI] by Carl Davidson, Nov 02 2006. Retrieved from Chicagoans Against War and Injustice, March 15, 2010.</ref> [[community organizing|organized]] by veteran [[Mao]]ist and webmaster of [[Progressives for Obama]],<ref>[http://www.linkedin.com/in/carldavidson Carl Davidson,] LinkedIn.com, retrieved March 13, 2010.</ref> [[Carl Davidson]].
===Radical foundation and connection to William Ayers===
{{main article|Radical roots of Barack Hussein Obama}}
In 1995 a cadre of like minded individuals gathered in the home of [[Weather Underground]] (WUO) [[terrorist]]s [[Bernardine Dohrn]] and [[William Ayers|William "Bill" Ayers]]. Dohrn,<ref>Georgie Anne Geyer and Keyes Beach "Cuba: School for U.S. Radicals", ''Chicago Daily News/Chicago Sun-Times'' five part series October 1970, excerpted in [http://foia.fbi.gov/filelink.html?file=/weather/weath1c.pdf FBI file Weather Underground Organization (Weatherman),] Part 1c pp. 5-7 pdf (113-115 in original). [http://therealbarackobama.wordpress.com/2009/06/07/clandestine-agents-of-the-cuban-government-ayers-dohrn-myers/]</ref> along with Carl Davidson, are veterans of [[guerrilla warfare]] training in [[Cuba]] prior 1968 Democratic National Convention riots. Ayers and Dohrn have taken credit for, and never denied, bombing the [[U.S. Capitol]], the [[Pentagon]] and the [[State Department]].

Ayers and Dohrn used their celebrity status among [[leftist]]s to launch Obama's career. Ayers, Dohrn and [[Jeff Jones]]<ref>[http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=106653 ''Obama's 'green jobs czar' worked with terror founder] Van Jones served on board of activist group where ex-Weatherman serves as top director'', By Aaron Klein, [[WorldNetDaily]], August 13, 2009.</ref> are authors of ''[[Bill_Ayers#Prairie_Fire_Organizing_Committee_and_Maoist_thought|Prairie Fire: The Politics of Revolutionary Anti-imperialism]],'' the title taken from ''The Sayings of Mao Zedong.''<ref>[http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/works/red-book/]</ref> The book declares "we are [[communist]] men and women."<ref>Harvey Klehr, ''Far Left of Center: The American Radical Left Today'' (Transaction Books, New Brunswick, 1988), 109.</ref> Ayers later jokingly, publicly admitted to ghostwriting Obama's book, ''Dreams From My Father''<ref>Cashill, J. (2011, March 28). [http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2011/03/ayers_affirms_he_wrote_dreams.html Ayers Affirms He Wrote Dreams From My Father]. ''American Thinker''.</ref> and Obama was to appoint several openly avowed Maoists to prominent White House and Executive Branch positions.<ref>Fund, J. (2009, October 21). [http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704597704574487431322664964.html From Mao to Obama]. ''The Wall Street Journal''.</ref>

===2003 Emil Jones Deal===
: ''Main Article: [[2003 Barack Obama deal with Emil Jones]]''
When Illinois' U.S. Senator Peter Fitzgerald announced he would be retiring in April 2003, Obama jumped at the opportunity, declaring that he would be a candidate for the U.S. Senate in 2004.<ref name=msnbc /> To boost his chances at reaching the U.S. Congress in the 2004 elections, in 2003 Barack Obama approached the newly crowned head of the Illinois Senate, Emil Jones Jr., with a proposal. According to Jones, who Obama has since called his "godfather"<ref name=godfather>''Associated Press'' (2009, June 18). "[http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-250_162-3983147.html Obama's Political 'Godfather' In Illinois]."</ref> the conversation went as follows:
[
{{cquote|"After I was elected president, in 2003, he came to see me, a couple months later. And he said to me, he said, ‘You’re the senate president now, and with that, you have a lot of pow-er.’ And I told Barack, ‘You think I got a lot of pow-er now?,’ and he said, ‘Yeah, you got a lot of pow-er.’ And I said, ‘What kind of pow-er do I have?’ He said, ‘You have the pow-er to make a United States sen-a-tor!’ I said to Barack, I said, ‘That sounds good!’ I said, ‘I haven’t even thought of that.’ I said, ‘Do you have someone in mind you think I could make?,’ and he said, ‘Yeah. Me.’ "<ref name=raisingobama /><ref name=pragmatic />}}

Because of the deal, Obama's entire Illinois Senate legislative record was, as longtime Obama reporter Todd Spivak put it, built in a single year. During his 7th and final year in the Illinois Senate, Obama sponsored an incredible 26 bills into law, including many he now points to when criticized as inexperienced<ref name=spivak /> - as ''CNN's'' Suzanne Malveaux observed, "With help from on high, Obama got his name on hundreds of bills that he pushed through."<ref name=revealed /> Jones not only had Obama craft legislation addressing daily tragedies to raise his political profile<ref name=godfather />, he also appointed Obama head of almost all high-profile legislation in the Illinois Senate, angering other state legislators with more seniority who'd spent years supporting the bills.<ref name=spivak /> Illinois State Senator Rickey Hendon, the original sponsor of the famous racial profiling bill requiring videotaped confessions in police interrogations, complained bitterly about Jones' decision.<ref name=revealed /><ref name=intheblack>Spivak, Todd (2004, March 25). "[http://www.illinoistimes.com/Springfield/article-922-in-the-black.html In the Black]." ''Illinois Times''.</ref> Jones' influence had a major impact on Obama's chances in the 2004 elections, preventing major political players from backing Obama's opponents. To quote Emil Jones,{{cquote|"He knew if he had me in the run for the Senate, it would put a block on the current mayor. The current mayor and the father of the controller, which was Dan Hynes, they were roommates in Springfield when the mayor was a state senator, so they had a relationship. Another big financial backer for the governor was Blair Hull. Barack knew if he had me it would checkmate the governor, ’cause the governor couldn’t come out and go with Blair Hull, ’cause the governor needs me. Same with the mayor. So he had analyzed and figured all of that out. He knew I could help him with labor support. And I could put a checkmate on some of the local politicians that didn’t know him, but they couldn’t really go against me."
-Emil Jones<ref name=raisingobama />}}

==2004-2008, U.S. Senate==
:''See also: [[Early_life_and_career_of_Barack_Hussein_Obama#U.S._Senate_.282004-2008.29|Barack Obama:U.S. Senate (2004-2008)]], [[United States Senate election in Illinois, 2004]]''
[[Image:obama.jpg|thumb|left|Senator Barack Obama]]
===2004 Primary Election===
Despite initially trailing in the polls to frontrunner [[Blair Hull]]<ref name=intheblack />, Obama greatly benefited from what the ''Chicago Tribune'' called "the most inglorious campaign implosion in Illinois political history"<ref name=mendell>Mendell, David (2004, March 17). "[http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2004-03-17/news/0403170332_1_blair-hull-gery-chico-blacks-and-liberal-whites Obama Routs Democratic Foes]." ''Chicago Tribune''.</ref> when pressure from journalists and opposing candidates, just weeks before the election, forced the unsealing of Hull's messy divorce files.<ref name=blairhull>Voegeli, William (2004, March 19). "[http://www.claremont.org/publications/pubid.339/pub_detail.asp The Rise and Fall of Blair Hull]." ''The Claremont Institute''.</ref> The files revealed Hull's ex-wife's accusations of verbal and physical abuse.<ref name=spivak /> Hull would afterwards criticize the media, stating, "As for the press, I will never read the newspaper the same way again."<ref name=mendell /> Obama would go on to win the Primary with 53% of the vote.<ref name=blairhull /> Obama's unexpected victory led to him being termed a "rising star" by the media.<ref>Howlett, Debbie (2004, March 18). "[http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/2004-03-18-obama-usat_x.htm Dems See a Rising Star in Illinois Senate Candidate]." ''USA Today''.</ref>
===2004 General Election, Jack Ryan===
Once again Obama found himself trailing to popular frontrunner [[Jack Ryan]], and once again a candidate's campaign imploded thanks to media intervention. In an unprecedented move, the ''Chicago Tribune'' and local TV station WLS sued to force the unsealing of Ryan's divorce files, despite opposition from both Ryan and his wife, Jeri Ryan, who in the files accused Jack Ryan of trying to coerce her to perform sex acts in public. Though Ryan advisors told him he could still win if using a negative attack on Obama, Ryan refused to engage in what he considered dirty politics.<ref name=abandon>''Associated Press'' (2004, June 26). "[http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/state/2004-06-25-ryan_x.htm Jack Ryan Abandons Senate Bid]."</ref> Ryan then dropped out of the race (per request by the Illinois GOP<ref name=idealist>Sangwan, Rahul (2004, October 1). "[http://www.dartmouthindependent.com/archives/2004/10/jack_ryan_81_th.html Jack Ryan '81: The Conservative Idealist]." ''Dartmouth Independent''.</ref>), following which the Illinois GOP scrambled to find a replacement, leaving Obama uncontested for weeks to campaign and build up public support. On top of all this, Obama was selected to give the keynote speech at the 2004 Democratic National Convention (July 27<ref>''Washington Post'' (2004, June 26). "[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A19751-2004Jul27.html Illinois Senate Candidate Barack Obama]."</ref>), catapulting him into the national spotlight, and leading to further media publicity terming him a "rising star".<ref>Page, Susan & Despoignes, Peronet (2004, July 28). "[http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/2004-07-28-obama-speech_x.htm Rising Star Brings Democrats to Their Feet]." ''USA Today''.</ref>
===2004 General Election, Alan Keyes===
: ''Main Article: [[Obama born alive controversy]]''

After a number of candidates including former Chicago Bears coach Mike Ditka declined to run<ref>''CNN'' (2004, August 9). "[http://articles.cnn.com/2004-08-09/politics/il.keyes_1_senate-candidate-senate-race-illinois-senate?_s=PM:ALLPOLITICS Keyes Challenges Obama for Illinois Senate Seat]."</ref>, the Illinois GOP finally settled on fiery [[Alan Keyes]], a former Ambassador to the Economic and Social Counsel of the United Nations<ref name=spivak />, with less than 3 months left before the November 2004 election.<ref name=msnbc /> His sudden entrance into the state for the election was initially attacked in the press as "carpetbagging".<ref>''Chicago Tribune''. "[http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2004-08-06/news/0408060313_1_mr-keyes-judy-baar-topinka-alan-keyes The GOP's Rent-A-Senator]." ''Washington Post'' (2004, August 9). "[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A50885-2004Aug8.html Mr. Keyes the Carpetbagger].</ref><ref name=pearson>Pearson, Rick (2004, September 5). "[http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2004-09-05/news/0409050304_1_selfish-hedonist-alan-keyes-illinois-republican-party Keyes, State GOP Gearing Up Blame Campaign]." ''Chicago Tribune''.</ref> Keyes repeatedly claimed his primary motivation for entering a race he had seemingly no chance of winning was his disgust at Obama's votes on the popular [[Born Alive]] bills.<ref>Keyes, Alan (2004, August 18). "[http://www.mail-archive.com/newsandviews@chuckmuth.com/msg00699.html How You Can Help Alan Keyes for Senate!]." ''Keyes2004 Inc.''</ref> Keyes, from his first day of arriving in Illinois (August 9, 2004)<ref name=assails>''Associated Press'' (2004, August 9). "[http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5654128/ Keyes Assails Obama's Abortion Views]."</ref>, accused Obama of having voted against bills mandating medical care for newborn children, and supporting "infanticide" (the term twice used in the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act<ref>''United States Congress'' (2003, March 13). "[http://news.findlaw.com/wp/docs/abortion/2003s3.html S.3: Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003]."</ref>) where hospitals left newborn infants to die like garbage.<ref>Smiley, Tavis (2004, August 31). "[http://www.keyesarchives.com/transcript.php?id=341 Alan Keyes on the Tavis Smiley Show]." ''NPR''. ''CBS2 Chicago'' (2004, August 30). "[http://www.keyesarchives.com/transcript.php?id=337 Alan Keyes on CBS2 Chicago This Morning]." This Morning.</ref> Obama in a debate on October 13, 2004, defended himself against Keyes' accusations of infanticide by claiming that Illinois law was already sufficient.<ref>''Chicago Tribune'' (2004, October 13). "[http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2004-10-13/news/0410140004_1_alan-keyes-senate-race-first-of-three-debates Debate or Discussion?]"</ref>

However, Keyes' rhetoric, calling Obama's votes "the slaveholder's position"<ref name=assails /> and saying "Jesus Christ would not vote for Obama"<ref>Thomas, Scott (2004, September 7). "[http://www.keyesarchives.com/transcript.php?id=348 Alan Keyes on the Scott Thomas Show (AM1160 - WYLL)]." ''Scott Thomas Show''. Chicago, Illinois.</ref> was widely ridiculed by the press. Keyes' unabashed criticism of homosexuality as "selfish hedonism" was also targeted.<ref name=pearson /><ref>''Associated Press''. "[http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5897569/ Keyes: Cheney's Gay Daughter Practicing Selfish Hedonism]." Pallasch, Abdom M. (2004, September 2). "[http://web.archive.org/web/20071017122135/http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4155/is_20040902/ai_n12560727 Topinka Says He Should Apologize for 'Idiotic' Comment]." ''Chicago Sun-Times''.</ref> Obama would ultimately win the election, 70% to 27%.<ref>''CNN.com''. "[http://cnn.hu/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/IL/S/01/index.html Election Results: U.S. Senate/Illinois]." Election 2004.</ref>

===Voting Record===
Obama frequently used the [[filibuster]] to obstruct the operations of government,<ref>O'Keefe, E. (2010, February 4). [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/03/AR2010020303801_pf.html Obama criticizes Senate Republicans for delaying confirmation votes]. ''The Washington Post''.</ref> voted against the [[minimum wage]]<ref>[http://uspolitics.about.com/od/legislatio1/a/HR2206.htm HR 2206 - Emergency Appropriations], Kathy Gill, Your Guide to U.S. Politics: Current Events. May 26 2007. [http://more.gov.mtopgroup.com/2007/05/votes-hr-2206-iraq-supplemental.html Votes - H.R. 2206: Iraq Supplemental], May 28, 2007. Retrieved from Deeper Inside the Mountain, June 4, 2007.</ref> and debt ceiling increases,<ref>Kaplan, R. (2011, April 11). [http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/04/obama-once-opposed-debt-ceiling-hike/237129/ Obama Once Opposed Debt Ceiling Hike]. ''The Atlantic''.</ref> and recieved more than $126,000 in campaign contributions from [[Fannie Mae]]. The ''[[National Journal]]'' ranked him the most liberal senator in 2007.<ref name="ranked">{{cite web|url=http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-502163_162-3775451-502163.html|title=National Journal: Obama Most Liberal Senator In 2007|author=Brian Montopoli|date=January 31, 2008|work=CBS}}</ref>

==2008 Presidential Election==
{{main article|Barack Hussein Obama 2008 Presidential campaign}}
Democrats began calling for an Obama candidacy after liberals lauded his 2004 [[Democratic National Convention]] speech.
====Primary Election====
In 2007-08, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton competed for the Democratic nomination. Hillary Clinton cleverly resurrected the "Born Alive" controversy surrounding Obama that had lain largely dormant since 2004 (notwithstanding the continuing mentions by Jill Stanek), by accusing Obama of not being pro-choice for voting "Present" on a number of abortion-related bills<ref>Bettelheim, Adriel (2008, February 13). "[http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2008/feb/13/obamas-present-tension/ Obama's 'Present' Tension]." ''PolitiFact''.</ref> - including the Born Alive ones,<ref name=clinton>Berman, Russell (2008, January 17). "[http://www.nysun.com/national/clinton-obama-should-vote-no-on-abortion-issue/69700/ Clinton: Obama Should Vote 'No' On Abortion Issue She Backed]." ''New York Sun''. Hernandez, Raymond & Drew, Christopher (2007, December 20). "[http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/20/us/politics/20obama.html?pagewanted=all It's Not Just 'Ayes' and 'Nays': Obama's Votes in Illinois Echo]." ''New York Times''.</ref> and cowardly ducking the votes.<ref>''Politi-Fact''. "[http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2008/feb/13/hillary-clinton/yes-but-its-complicated/ Response to Hillary Clinton Comment for January 21st, 2008]." Truth-o-Meter. Dorning, Mike (2007, December 20). "[http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2007/12/criticism_of_obama_present_vot.html Clinton Camp Criticizes Obama 'Present' Votes]." The Swamp. ''Chicago Tribune''.</ref> This led to criticism of Obama by two pro-choice organizations, Emily's List, and the National Organization for Women.<ref>Dorning, Mike (2008, January 14). "[http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2008/01/obama_campaign_mounts_defense.html The Swamp: Obama Campaign Defends His Abortion-Rights Record]." ''Chicago Tribune''. Dorn, Michael (2008, February 6). "[http://voices.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/02/obamas_voting_record_on_aborti_1.html Obama's Voting Record on Abortion]." ''Washington Post''. Newton-Small, Jay (2008, January 14). "[http://swampland.time.com/2008/01/14/obama_campaign_defends_present/ Obama Campaign Defends 'Present' Abortion Votes]." ''Time Magazine''.</ref> However, Pam Sutherland, the long-time head of Illinois Planned Parenthood, came to Obama's aid, criticizing Clinton for making the attack, and stating repeatedly that Obama's present votes were part of a broader strategy used by Planned Parenthood to keep Illinois voters from knowing their state senators were voting against the controversial and popular bills.<ref>Hernandez, Raymond & Drew, Christopher (2007, December 20). "[http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/20/us/politics/20cnd-obama.html?_r=2&hp&oref=slogin Obama's Vote in Illinois Was Often Just 'Present']." ''New York Times''. Follmer, Max (2008, March 28). "[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/01/14/obama-emphasizes-prochoic_n_81460.html Obama Emphasizes Pro-Choice Voting Record as Clinton Questions 'Present' Votes]." ''Huffington Post''.</ref>
{{cquote|"He came to me and said: ‘My members are being attacked. We need to figure out a way to protect members and to protect women. A ‘present’ vote was hard to pigeonhole which is exactly what Obama wanted. What it did was give cover to moderate Democrats who wanted to vote with us but were afraid to do so" because of how their votes would be used against them electorally. A ‘present’ vote would protect them. Your senator voted ‘present.’ Most of the electorate is not going to know what that means."
-Pam Sutherland, President/CEO of Illinois Planned Parenthood Council, 1980-2012<ref>Davis, Teddy (2007, July 17). "[http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2007/07/obama-abortion/ Obama Abortion Dodges Blessed by Planned Parenthood], ''ABC News''.</ref>}}Clinton also made the claim repeatedly that while Obama was leading in Delegates she was winning the Popular Vote<ref>Koffler, Daniel (2008, May 28). "[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/daniel-koffler/hillary-clinton-and-the-p_b_103913.html Hillary Clinton and the Popular Vote: Not Wrong, but Meaningless]." ''Huffington Post''. Barone, Michael (2008, March 28). "[http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/barone/2008/03/28/projection-clinton-wins-popular-vote-obama-wins-delegate-count Projection: Clinton Wins Popular Vote, Obama Wins Delegate Vote]." ''U.S. News''.</ref>, though this was in part because Obama hadn't been registered in Michigan.<ref>Romano, Andrew (2008, August 2). "[http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/blogs/stumper/2008/06/02/clinton-s-popular-vote-claim-close-but-not-quite.html Clinton's Popular Vote Claim? Close--But Not Quite*]." ''Newsweek''. ''RealClearPolitics''. "[http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_vote_count.html 2008 Democratic Popular Vote]."</ref> Obama's advantage with super-delegates over Clinton was about 2-to-1.<ref>{{Cite web|title=Superdelegate endorsements for Friday 6/6|work=Democratic Convention Watch|url=http://demconwatch.blogspot.com/2008/06/superdelegate-endorsements-for-friday.html}}</ref> Obama was able to attract the support of [[liberals]] by pointing out that he had come out against the [[Iraq War]] "from the beginning" whereas Clinton had voted in favor of the war in 2002.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-01-31-democrats-debate_N.htm|title=Obama, Clinton stress differences on Iraq, issues|author=David Jackson|work=USA Today|format=HTML|language=English}}</ref> On June 7, 2008, Hillary Clinton withdrew from the Primaries, conceding the race and endorsing her opponent<ref>''Associated Press''. "[http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24993082/ns/politics-decision_08/t/clinton-ends-historic-bid-endorses-obama/ Clinton Ends Historic Bid, Endorses Obama]."</ref>, when Obama passed the 2,118 Delegates required; winning 2,201 delegates to Clinton's 1,896.<ref>''CNN''. "[http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/scorecard/#D Election Center 2008].</ref>
====Born Alive Record Resurfaces====
On June 30, 2008, Obama's voting record on the "Born Alive" bills came once more to the forefront when CNN gave voice to the growing controversy and revealed the defense Obama had been using since 2004-2008, that the Illinois bills he'd voted against were different from the federal bill, was false, since he'd brought up for a vote a bill word for word identical to the federal bill in the Health and Human Services Committee he chaired, and voted against it, defeating it.<ref>''CNN''. "[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPZCXcTwZPY How He Really Voted on Abortion: Obama's Record Under Attack]." ''The Situation Room''. Uploaded to ''YouTube'' by Jill Stanek. ''CNN''. "[http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0806/30/sitroom.02.html Transcripts: June 30, 2008]." The Situation Room.</ref> This led in August to a confrontation between Obama and the [[NRLC]].<ref>''National Right to Life Committee''. "[http://www.nrlc.org/news/2008/NRL08/ObamaCoverup.html Obama Cover-up Revealed on Born-Alive Abortion Survivor's Bill]." NRL News, Vol. 35, Issue 7-8, pg. 5.</ref> After Obama accused critics of 'lying'<ref>Brody, David (2008, August 16). "[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Skq5M1Ksp_c McCain/Obama Forum]." ''CNN''. Uploaded to ''YouTube'' by Jill Stanek. David Brody (August 16, 2008). "[http://blogs.cbn.com/thebrodyfile/archive/2008/08/16/obama-gets-heated-on-born-alive-infant-protection-act.aspx Obama Gets Heated on Born Alive Infant Protection Act]." ''CBN News''. The Brody File.</ref> the NRLC challenged the assertion, and the Obama campaign conceded he "misspoke" and had voted against an identical bill to the "federal bill that everybody supported" but focused on Obama's new claim, that Illinois law was already sufficient to protect newborn children.<ref>Berman, Russell (2008, August 18). "[http://www.nysun.com/national/obama-facing-attacks-from-all-sides-over-abortion/84059/ Obama Facing Attacks From All Sides Over Abortion Record]." ''New York Sun''.</ref> The NRLC promptly declared "Senator Barack Obama's four-year effort to cover up his full role in killing legislation to protect born-alive survivors of abortions continues to unravel."<ref>Johnson, Douglas (2008, August 18). "[http://www.nrlc.org/ObamaBAIPA/Obamacoveruponbornalive.htm Obama Cover-up on Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Continues to Unravel After Sen. Obama Says NRLC is 'Lying']." ''National Right to Life Committee''.</ref>
====Jeremiah Wright====
:''See also: [[Barack Obama and Liberation Theology]]''
One major dilemma that arose for Obama during his campaign was his connection to his preacher [[Jeremiah Wright]]. Obama and his wife (raised a Baptist) were members of the Trinity [[United Church of Christ]]<ref>http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1776246/posts</ref> in Chicago, a church that embraced [[black liberation theology]] and its emphasis on empowering so-called "oppressed groups" against "establishment forces". This denomination was the first in America to ordain gays as ministers.<ref>http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/31079.html, Obama's church pushes controversial doctrines, March 20, 2008</ref> Church pastor Jeremiah Wright had been making inflammatory comments and posting his sermons online for sale. These include the statement "G-d damn America," and in describing the September 11th attacks, "We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans, and now we are indignant because the stuff we have done overseas is now brought right back to our own front yards. America's chickens are coming home to roost."<ref>[http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/Story?id=4443788 Obama's Pastor: G-d Damn America, U.S. to Blame for 9/11]</ref> In addition, Rev. Wright blamed America saying "We supported Zionism shamelessly while ignoring the Palestinians and branding anybody who spoke out against it as being [[anti-Semitic]]."

In April 2008, after 20 years in the church, candidate Obama made public statements poised to set him at odds with the man who conducted his wedding and baptized his children. With the negative publicity persisting, a month later Obama ended the friendship, left Wright's church, and blamed the media.<ref>[http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/05/31/obama-resigns-church-membership-in-chicago/], Obama Drops Church Membership in Chicago, May 31, 2008</ref> Obama claimed “It’s not fair to the other members of the church who seek to worship in peace...", and distanced himself from Wright's sermons as "a bunch of rants that aren't grounded in the truth."<ref>USA TODAY, ''Obama breaks with former pastor, Candidate cites rants on U.S. role in terror, AIDS'', by Kathy Kiely and David Jackson [http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/news/20080430/1a_offlede30_dom.art.htm]</ref><ref>''Obama Says He Is Outraged By Wright's "Rants"''[http://www.usnews.com/usnews/politics/bulletin/bulletin_080430.htm]</ref>

====Result====
Obama made an effort to portray John McCain as similar to George W. Bush, drawing attention to McCain's refusal to criticize the unpopular president. McCain was particularly criticized for saying of how many years we should be willing to stay in Iraq, "Make it a hundred."<ref>Dobbs, Michael (2008, April 2). "[http://voices.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/04/mccains_100year_war.html FactChecker: McCain's '100-Year War']." ''Washington Post''.</ref>{{cquote|"John McCain went on television and said that there has been great progress economically over the last seven-and-a-half years. John McCain thinks our economy has made great progress under George W. Bush? How could somebody who has been traveling across this country, somebody who came to Erie, Pennsylvania, say we’ve made great progress?"
-Barack Obama<ref>Zeleny, Jeff (2008, April 18). "[http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/04/18/obama-criticizes-mccain-on-economic-stance/ Obama Criticizes McCain on Economic Stance]." ''New York Times''.</ref>}} On August 22nd, Obama selected [[Joe Biden]] as his running mate for the vice presidency<ref>''CNN'' (2008, August 23). "[http://articles.cnn.com/2008-08-23/politics/biden.democrat.vp.candidate_1_biden-john-mccain-barack-obama?_s=PM:POLITICS Obama Introduces Biden as Running Mate]."</ref>, which would be contrasted one week later with John McCain's selection of [[Sarah Palin]].<ref>Cooper, Michael & Bumiller, Elisabeth (2008, August 29). "[http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/30/us/politics/29palin.html?pagewanted=all Alaskan is McCain's Choice; First Woman on G.O.P. Ticket]. ''New York Times''.</ref>

On November 2, 2008, Barack Obama won the presidential election with 365 electoral votes to John McCain's 173.<ref>(2008, November 14). "[http://elections.nytimes.com/2008/results/president/explorer.html Electoral Explorer]." Election Results 2008. ''New York Times''.</ref> Obama received 53% of the popular vote to John McCain's 46%.<ref>(2008, November 17). "[http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/president/ President]." Election Center 2008. ''CNN''.</ref>

==2009-2012, U.S. Presidency==
{{main article|Obama administration}}
[[File:Obama and George H. W. Bush.jpg|thumb|right|300px|President Barack Obama meets with former President George H. W. Bush in the Oval Office, Feb. 15, 2011. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza).]]
Under Obama's stewardship the United States has suffered the largest [[Federal budget deficit|deficit]]s<ref>Edwards, B. et. al. (2009, November 6). [http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/107xx/doc10708/11-06-mbr.htm Monthly Budget Review: Fiscal Year 2009]. ''Congressional Budget Office''. Delisle, E.C. et. al. (2010, November 5). [http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/118xx/doc11873/NovemberMBR.pdf Monthly Budget Review: Fiscal Year 2010]. ''Congressional Budget Office''.</ref> in history and a credit downgrade from the rating agency Standard & Poor. However, during the Obama Administration the national deficit has increased at a much lower rate than during the Bush Administration. Most observers attribute the deficits to increasing benefits and welfare paid out on account of the Recession he inherited and has failed to end along with decreasing tax receipts. Standard & Poor decided to downgrade U.S. government deby after the debt ceiling debate debacle, where Congressional leaders refused to pass a bill authorizing borrowing to pay for the budget they had passed with much debate and controversy earlier in the year. Cynics have argued that rhetoric directed at the rating agencies about the issuance of AAA ratings to junk real estate bonds spurred the downgrade as a form of retribution. Ironically, the investor scare led to the flocking of investors to the safe haven of the Treasury bonds which had been downgraded, resulting in lower interest rates. As there are very few AAA bond markets, investors will likely continue to buy U.S. government debt for the foreseeable future. <ref>Greenwald, A. (2011, April 18). [http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2011/04/18/the-sp-outlook-and-obama/ The S&P Outlook and Obama]. ''Commentary Magazine''.</ref> When his [[economic stimulus]] program was adopted unemployment rose and stagnated in the 10% range, <ref>Di Leo, L & Lynch, S.N. (2010, August 20). [http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704476104575439172480870774.html Jobless Claims Jump in New Sign Recovery is Sputtering]. ''The Wall Street Journal''.</ref> leaving tens of millions without [[hope]] of finding a job.<ref>Bureau of Labor Statistics. [http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet?data_tool=latest_numbers&series_id=LNS11300000&years_option=specific_years&include_graphs=true&to_month=1&from_month=2 Databases, Tables & Calculators by Subject: Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey]. ''United States Department of Labor''. Data extracted on: July 19, 2010 (4:31:11 PM).</ref>

Patrick H. Caddell and Douglas E. Schoen, writing in the [[Wall Street Journal]], noted, "Rather than being a unifier, Mr. Obama has divided America on the basis of race, class and partisanship." The commentators also note Obama's approach to governance has encouraged radical leftists to pursue a similar strategy on his behalf. Mary Frances Berry, former head of the U.S. Civil Rights Commission, acknowledged that the [[Obama administration]] has taken to polarizing America around the issue of race as a means of diverting attention from other issues, saying, "Having one's opponent [[race card|rebut charges of racism]] is far better than discussing [[Unemployment|joblessness]]."<ref>Berry, M.F. (2010, July 20). [http://www.politico.com/arena/perm/Mary_Frances_Berry_91E3D9D5-C40D-440C-9D48-1C50CBC60C87.html Energy Arena, Driving the Conversation: Contracting Out U.S. Security? And will Branding Tea Party Racist Work?] ''Politico''.</ref> Caddell and Schoen, who worked for President Carter and Clinton, respectively, further stated, "Mr. Obama has also cynically [[class warfare|divided the country on class lines]]. He has taken to playing the populist card time and time again. He bashes Wall Street and insurance companies whenever convenient to advance his programs, yet he has been eager to accept campaign contributions and negotiate with these very same banks and [[corporation]]s behind closed doors in order to advance his political agenda... President Obama's divisive approach to governance has weakened us as a people and paralyzed our political culture."<ref>Caddell, P.H. & Schoen, D.E. (2010, July 28). [http://online.wsj.com/article/NA_WSJ_PUB:SB10001424052748703700904575391553798363586.html Our Divisive President]. ''The Wall Street Journal''.</ref>
===Domestic policy===
====Popular bills====
Obama's first act of office was to sign the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act - effectively nullifying the [[Supreme Court]] case ''Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.'', which ruled that Ledbetter had to have filed a pay [[discrimination]] suit within 180 days of the first time Ledbetter was paid less than her male peers;<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/30/us/politics/30ledbetter-web.html|work=The New York Times|format=HTML|language=English|title=Obama Signs Equal-Pay Legislation|author=Sheryl Gay Stolberg|date=January 29, 2009}}</ref> the law made corporations subject to suit within 180 days of each time the employee was unfairly paid.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://writ.news.findlaw.com/grossman/20090213.html?=features|work=FindLaw|author=Joanna L. Grossman|date=Feb. 13, 2009|format=HTML|language=English|title=The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009}}</ref>

On January 2, 2011, Obama signed the James Zadroga [[9/11]] Healthcare and Compensation Act.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.wnyc.org/articles/wnyc-news/2011/jan/02/obama-signs-zadroga-act-law/|publisher=New York Public Radio|title=Obama Signs Zadroga Act into Law|author=Fred Mogul|date=January 02, 2011|work=wNYC|format=HTML|language=English}}</ref> The act, which afforded 9/11 first responders who were sickened by the dust from the collapse of the [[World Trade Center]] health care and compensation, passed [[Congress]] after its sponsored agreed to scale down the pricing from 7.4 to 4.2 billion dollars.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.wnyc.org/articles/wnyc-news/2010/dec/22/zadroga-911-bill-passes-senate/|publisher=New York Public Radio|work=wNYC|format=HTML|language=English|title=Congress Approves 9/11 Health Bill|date=December 22, 2010}}</ref>

====Economic policy====
[[File:Keynes.jpg|thumbnail|right|190px|[[Barack Obama]] advocates the use of discredited [[Keynesian economics|Keynesian economic concepts]]<ref>
*[http://centurean2.wordpress.com/2011/03/20/fabian-john-maynard-keynes-the-stealthy-enemy-of-human-freedom/ John Maynard Keynes the stealthy enemy of human freedom]
*[http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-02-22/deathbed-of-keynesian-economics-will-be-in-u-k-matthew-lynn.html Deathbed of Keynesian Economics will be in the UK]
*[http://www.iwf.org/inkwell/show/23102.html Will the G8 Repudiate the Philosophy of Living Beyond Our Means?]
*[http://www.keynesatharvard.org/book/KeynesatHarvard-ch09.html KEYNES AT HARVARD Economic Deception as a Political Credo BY ZYGMUND DOBBS]
</ref> ]]
{{see also|Obamunism|American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009}}
Critics of the Obama administration have coined the word "[[Obamunism]]" to describe Barack Obama's [[socialism|socialistic]] and "[[fascism]] light" [[economic planning]] policies.<ref>[[Benito Mussolini]] defined fascism as the wedding of state and corporate powers. Accordingly, trend forecaster [[Gerald Celente]] labels [[Obama administration corporate bailouts|Obama's corporate bailouts]] as being "fascism light" in nature.</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.thebigmoney.com/articles/daily-intel/2009/07/20/obamunism-inc|work=The Big Money|publisher=WashingtonPost.Newsweek Interactive Co. LLC|format=HTML|language=English|title=Obamunism, Inc.|author=David Sessions|date=July 20, 2009}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.smallbusinessadvocate.com/small-business-interviews/gerald-celente-6944|author=Jim Blasingame|title=Is the government creating a bailout bubble?}}</ref> Obamunism can also refer to Obama's [[Obama administration fiscal policy|ruinous fiscal policies]] and [[Obama administration monetary policy|reckless monetary policies]].<ref name="gerard">{{cite web|url=http://seekingalpha.com/article/120883-monetary-policynot-obama-s-stimulusis-what-needs-watching|title=Monetary Policy-Not Obama's Stimulus-Is What Needs Watching|author=Gerard Jackson|date=February 16, 2009|work=Seeking Alpha}}</ref><ref name="bam">{{cite web|work=New York Post|date=May 17, 2009|url=http://www.nypost.com/seven/05172009/postopinion/editorials/bams_wise_words_169731.htm|title=BAM'S WISE WORDS}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://blog.heritage.org/2009/03/24/bush-deficit-vs-obama-deficit-in-pictures/|title=Bush Deficit vs. Obama Deficit in Pictures|work=The Foundry|publisher=The Heritage Foundation|author=Conn Carroll|date=March 24th, 2009}}</ref> As seen in his own actions, Barack Obama instructed his advisors to find loopholes that would enable the president to act as a [[dictator]] by pushing through legislation and increases in spending without congressional authority.<ref>Naked Emperor News (2011, October 12). [http://www.theblaze.com/stories/executive-dictatorship-obama-instructs-advisers-to-push-through-stimulus-projects-without-pesky-congressional-authorization/ Exclusive Dictatorship: Obama Instructs Advisors to Push Through Stimulus Projects Without Pesky 'Congressional Authorization']. ''The Blaze''.</ref>

Nevertheless, budgets passed under President Obama have included the smallest average annualized growth of federal spending (1.4%) since before President Reagan. Federal spending grew an average of 8.7% per year during Reagan's first term and an average of 8.1% per year during George W. Bush's second term.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2012/05/24/who-is-the-smallest-government-spender-since-eisenhower-would-you-believe-its-barack-obama/|title=Who Is The Smallest Government Spender Since Eisenhower? Would You Believe It's Barack Obama?|publisher=Forbes|author=Rick Ungar|date=May 24th, 2012}}</ref>

[[Wall Street]] firms and banks that were bailed out were among Obama's biggest campaign supporters.<ref>''OpenSecrets.org''. [http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.php?cycle=2008&cid=N00009638 Barack Obama: Top Contributors]. The Center for Responsive Politics.</ref> Therefore, the Obama administration bailouts of corrupt, unproductive, and reckless Wall Street firms was hardly surprising, and many argue that it was not helpful in making the United States economy more productive and prosperous by encouraging more risk taking through letting banks off with a slap on the wrist. Others argue that bailing out the banks kept credit flowing and prevented a much deeper recession and a total collapse of the financial system. The government will recoup some though not all of its capital infusions over time. A 2005 study found that government corporate bailouts are often done for mere political considerations and the economic resources allocated exhibit significantly worse economic performance than resources allocated using purely business considerations.<ref>Faccio, M. et. al. (2005, March 1). [http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=676905 Political Connections and Corporate Bailouts]. ''Social Science Research Network''.</ref> Proponents of [[free market]] capitalism said Bernanke should not have bailed out failing firms and instead should have allowed free market capitalism to quickly recover as it did in the depression of 1920 without government intervention (free market capitalists assert that government intervention drags out economic recessions and depressions).<ref>Woods, T.E. (2009, April 10). [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=czcUmnsprQI Why You've Never Heard of the Great Depression of 1920]. ''Ludwig Von Mises Institute''. Hosted on ''YouTube''.</ref>

Top trend forecaster [[Gerald Celente]] predicts that the corrupt economic policies of the Obama administration will lead to a second [[Great Depression|great depression]] (Celente predicted the 1987 US stock market crash, the dot.com crash, the US 2008/2009 recession, and the collapse of the USSR in the early 1990s) and may lead to a "second [[American Revolution]]" (Celente predicted the [[Tea Party Movement|tax protests]] that are now occurring in America).<ref name="celente1">Celente, G. (2009, August 1). [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8MMX3SKzrfU&feature=channel_page pt 2/2 Gerald Celente on Financial Sense Newshour Aug 1st 2009]. ''Financial Sense Newshour''. Hosted on ''YouTube''.</ref><ref name="celente2">Celente, G. (2009, August 2). [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sy9bfw1ebgw&feature=response_watch ]. ''Financial Sense Newshour''. Hosted on ''YouTube''.</ref> Celente also asserts that the costly and inefficient temporary short term methods that the Obama administration is using to alleviate economic problems in the short term (which is causing massive increases in [[Obama administration deficit spending]]) is only making matters worse and will not prevent the worse economic depression in United States history from occurring.<ref>Celente, G. (2009, August 11). [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_C8K7rWkGGw pt 1/2 Gerald Celente on Howestreet.com 11 Aug 2009]. ''HoweStreet.com''. Hosted on ''YouTube''.</ref><ref>Celente, G. (2009, August 11). [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1LBffdIW0XA&feature=response_watch pt 2/2 Gerald Celente on Howestreet.com 11 Aug 2009]. ''HoweStreet.com''. Hosted on ''YouTube''.</ref>

The Obama administration has been sharply criticized for [[Obama administration deficit spending|its massive deficit spending]] and [[Obama administration monetary policy|its reckless monetary policy]] via vast increases in the [[money supply]], although inflation under Bernanke has been below the historic mean.<ref name="gerard"/><ref name="bam"/><ref>Carroll, C. (2009, March 24). [http://blog.heritage.org/2009/03/24/bush-deficit-vs-obama-deficit-in-pictures/ Bush Deficit vs. Obama Deficit in Pictures]. ''The Foundry''. The Heritage Network.</ref> Celente predicts that if a "second American Revolution" occurs in a peaceful and productive manner, it may include a [[Third Party System|third party movement]] of governance that will advocate a more [[free market]] [[capitalism]] approach to the American economy and a more strict interpretation of the [[United States Constitution|United States constitution]] as far as the authors' [[original intent]].<ref name="celente1"/><ref name="celente2"/>

During what the [[White House]] billed as [[Recovery Summer]], one half million workers per week continued losing their jobs. His signature legislative achievement, [[ObamaCare]],has been found to be [[unconstitutional]]<ref>Schoenberg, T. & Fisk, M.T. (2010, December 13). [http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-12-13/u-s-health-care-law-requirement-thrown-out-by-judge.html Obama's Health-Care Law Ruled Unconstitutional Over Insurance Requirement]. ''Bloomberg''.</ref> by several judges and constitutional by others, and is credited as a major cause of uncertainty, high [[unemployment]],<ref>http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=33220</ref> lagging job creation,<ref>Foster, J.D. (2010, August 5). [http://blog.heritage.org/2010/08/05/it%E2%80%99s-official-medicare%E2%80%99s-finances-shadowed-by-uncertainty/ It’s Official: Medicare’s Finances Shadowed by Uncertainty]. ''The Foundry''. The Heritage Network.</ref> and risk of a credit default crisis.<ref>Samuelson, R.J. (2010, March 29). [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/28/AR2010032802353.html With health bill, Obama has sown the seeds of a budget crisis]. ''The Washington Post''.</ref><ref>Cramer, J. (2010, March 16). [http://www.thestreet.com/story/10703361/cramer-obamacare-will-topple-the-market.html Cramer: Obamacare Will Topple the Market]. ''The Street''.</ref>

His 2012 Budget plan has been roundly criticized in the mainstream and liberal press as not a serious effort to deal with the nation's economic crisis.<ref>[http://republican.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=blogs.view&blog_id=1551d6f5-2ac9-4b8d-97ab-74def354024e Newspapers Call Out White House: ‘What Would That Path Be, Mr. President?’]</ref>

[[Jeffrey Tucker]] wrote, "President Obama's economic policy has been catastrophic for liberty, enterprise, and the American dream—the very archetype of what not to do to end recession." [http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1118186176/ref=as_li_tf_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=anncoulter-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=1118186176]

====2009 Stimulus====
In early 2009, Obama lobbied Congress and the public to pass sweeping Stimulus legislation for the ailing economy<ref>(2009, January 3). "[http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28479998/ns/politics-white_house/t/obama-urges-congress-pass-stimulus-plan/ Obama Urges Congress to Pass Stimulus Plan]." ''Associated Press''. Parsons, C. & Nicholas, P. (2009, February 10). "[http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28479998/ns/politics-white_house/t/obama-urges-congress-pass-stimulus-plan/ Barack Obama Sternly Urges Congress to Pass Economic Stimulus]." ''Chicago Tribune''.</ref> known as ''The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009'' (H.R. 1)<ref>"[http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.1: Bill Text Versions: H.R. 1]." 111th Congress (2009-2010). ''Library of Congress''. "[http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,id=204335,00.html The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009: Information Center]." ''IRS''.</ref>, ignoring a report by the Congressional Budget Office that the legislation would ultimately harm the economy.<ref>Dinan, S. (2009, February 4). "[http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/feb/04/cbo-obama-stimulus-harmful-over-long-haul/ CBO: Obama Stimulus Harmful Over Long Haul]." ''U.S. News''.</ref> Contrary to his earlier promises of bipartisanship<ref>Dinan, S. (2009, March 28). "[http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/mar/28/mccain-obama-breaks-campaign-promises-shuns-bipart/?page=all McCain: Obama Breaks Promise of Bipartisanship]." ''Washington Times''.</ref>, the bill passed the House 244-188 without a single Republican vote on January 28, 2009,<ref>Calmes, J. (2009, January 28). "[http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/29/us/politics/29obama.html House Passes Stimulus Plan With No G.O.P. Votes]." ''New York Times''.</ref> and received just 3 Republican votes when passing the Senate 61-37.<ref>Herszenhorn, D.M. (2009, February 10). "[http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/11/washington/11web-stim.html Senate Approves Stimulus Plan]." ''New York Times''.</ref> One third of the massive $838 billion bill consisted of tax cuts<ref>(2009, February 11). "Senate Passes $838 Billion Stimulus Bill]." ''Associated Press''.</ref> and the rest spending on "just about every pent-up Democratic proposal of the last 40 years."<ref>(2009, January 28). "[http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123310466514522309.html A 40-Year Wish List]." ''Wall Street Journal''.</ref> In responding to criticism of the broken bipartisanship promise at the time, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi famously quipped, "We won the election. We wrote the bill."<ref>Kane, P. (2009, January 23). "[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/22/AR2009012203961.html Stimulus Plan Meets More GOP Resistance]." ''Washington Post''.</ref> On February 18, 2009, the Stimulus was signed into law by Obama.<ref>(2009, February 17). "[http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29231790/ns/politics-white_house/t/obama-stimulus-lets-americans-claim-destiny/ Obama: Stimulus Lets Americans Claim Destiny]." ''Associated Press''.</ref> In August 2009, Republicans and Democratic Senator David Obey drew attention to mistakes on the Recovery.gov site claiming Stimulus jobs created that didn't exist. Obama responded by saying the errors just indicate the accounting is an "inexact science".<ref>(2009, November 18). "[http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/11/18/obama-calls-stimulus-data-errors-issue-says-focus-job-growth/ Obama Calls Stimulus Data Errors 'Side Issue,' Says Focus Is on Job Growth]." ''FOX News''.</ref>
====Healthcare====
{{main article|Obamacare}}
On March 23, 2010, Obama signed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA). The act had originated in the House of Representatives and passed September 17, 2009. The act was amended and passed the Senate prior to [[Democrat]] [[Ted Kennedy]]'s passing along party lines - just a filibuster-proof majority at 60-39. In what can be construed as a de facto rejection of the bill, [[Massachusetts]] voters elected a [[Republican]] candidate, [[Scott Brown]], who promised to vote against the bill,<ref>{{cite web|url=http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/senate/scott-brown-wins-massachusetts-senate-race.html|work=The Washington Post|author=Chris Cillizza|date=January 19, 2010|title=Scott Brown wins Massachusetts Senate special election race|language=English|format=HTML}}</ref> but another Senate vote would not occur. Scott Brown was also an excellent campaigner and judged to be a better candidate than his rival, Martha Coakley. He has since achieved one of the most moderate senate voting records, likely to avoid the anger of his mostly liberal constituency. After Obama made a promise to issue an [[executive order]] that would ultimately prohibit the use of taxpayer subsidies to pay for [[abortion]] services,<ref>{{cite web|url=http://articles.latimes.com/2010/mar/22/nation/la-na-healthcare-passage22-2010mar22/3|work=The Los Angeles Times|format=HTML|language=English|title=House passes historic healthcare overhaul|date=March 22, 2010|author=Noam N. Levey and Janet Hook}}</ref> the [[House of Representatives]] would pass the bill as it left the Senate 219-212, with 34 Democrats and all other parties dissenting.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://articles.cnn.com/2010-03-21/politics/health.care.main_1_health-care-entire-house-democratic-caucus-pre-existing-conditions?_s=PM:POLITICS|date=March 21, 2010|author=Alan Silverleib|work=CNN|format=HTML|language=English|title=House passes health care bill on 219-212 vote}}</ref>

Amongst other things, the act mandates that the population purchase health care coverage or face punitive tax measures, and on this basis has been constitutionally challenged in the federal courts, with mixed results (three courts have upheld the act, two have declared it unconstitutional); thus, the Act is likely destined for [[Supreme Court]] reviewal. Plans originally proposed involved instituting a universal public insurance program, that is, extending Medicare to everyone. The universal mandate included in the act was originally a conservative idea that was enacted in Massachusetts under Republican Mitt Romney. Its supporters note that having health insurance results in reduced costs in paying for treatment of uninsured and forcing people to take responsibility for their healthcare. Due to ethical constraints, doctors cannot deny care to poor patients, resulting in the hospital and the healthcare system at large bearing the cost.

====Gulf oil spill====
{{main article|Gulf of Mexico oil spill disaster}}
President Obama authorized offshore oil drilling in the [[Gulf of Mexico]]<ref>[http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2010/0430/Gulf-of-Mexico-oil-spill-imperils-Obama-s-offshore-drilling-plan Gulf of Mexico oil spill imperils Obama's offshore drilling plan,] By Mark Clayton, ''Christian Science Monitor'', April 30, 2010.</ref> stating, "oil rigs today generally don’t cause spills"<ref>White House Press Release, [http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/remarks-president-a-discussion-jobs-and-economy-charlotte-north-carolina Remarks by the President in a Discussion on Jobs and the Economy in Charlotte, North Carolina,] Office of the Press Secretary, April 02, 2010. Retrieved from whitehouse.gov 3 May 2010.</ref> and was widely criticized for his mishandling of the "[[Gulf oil spill disaster|worst environmental disaster]] in US history."<ref>[http://www.examiner.com/x-33986-Political-Spin-Examiner~y2010m4d29-Worst-environmental-disaster-in-US-history-Oil-slick-in-Gulf-of-Mexico-is-set-on-fire Worst environmental disaster in US history,] Maryann Tobin, ''Examiner'', April 29, 2010.</ref><ref>[http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/04/30/the-oil-spill-is-obamas-fault/?src=twt&twt=NytimesKrugman Conscience of a Liberal: The Oil Spill Is Obama’s Fault,] Paul Krugman, ''New York Times'', April 30, 2010.</ref>
====Don't Ask Don't Tell====
{{main article|Don't Ask Don't Tell}}
Candidate Obama promised to repeal a policy that originated in the Clinton era that prohibited inquiries into military personnel's [[sexual orientation]] while also barring "out" [[homosexuals]] from serving in the military. [[Liberals]] expressed anger when time passed and no effort to repeal the law was seen;<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/nov/21/obama-to-delay-repeal-of-dont-ask-dont-tell/|work=The Washington Times|format=HTML|title=Obama to delay ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ repeal|language=English|author=Rowan Scarborough|date=November 21, 2008}}</ref> in fact, Obama's [[justice department]], as part of their duty to defend all laws passed by any administration, filed a brief arguing against the [[Supreme Court]] granting a [[writ of certiorari]] to a gay soldier challenging the law (the writ was not granted). In response, the soldier, James Pietrangelo II, a former Army infantryman and lawyer, said, “[Obama's] a coward, a bigot and a pathological liar. This is a guy who spent more time picking out his dog, Bo, and playing with him on the White House lawn than he has working for equality for gay people."<ref>{{cite web|work=Time Magazine|publisher=Time Inc.|format=HTML|url=http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1903545,00.html?imw=Y|title=Dismay Over Obama's 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' Turnabout|author=Mark Thompson|date=Jun. 09, 2009}}</ref>

On December 15th, 2010, a bill was introduced in the [[House of Representatives]] to repeal the law - it passed a day later by a vote of 250-175;<ref>{{cite web|url=http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2010/roll638.xml|title=FINAL VOTE RESULTS FOR ROLL CALL 638|format=HTML|work=Office of the Clerk of the U.S. House of Representatives}}</ref> it passed the Senate three days later 65-31.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=111&session=2&vote=00281|work=The U.S. Senate|title=U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 111th Congress - 2nd Session|format=HTML|language=English}}</ref> Obama signed the Don't Ask, Don't Tell Repeal Act of 2010 on December 22nd.<ref name="g dadt">{{cite web|url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/dec/22/obama-repeals-dont-ask-dont-tell|work=The Guardian|format=HTML|language=English|title='Don't ask, don't tell' repealed as Obama signs landmark law|date=22 December 2010}}</ref>

The [[Pentagon]] itself could not immediately implement the repeal and questioned whether it would hurt combat readiness.<ref name="g dadt"/> Senator [[John McCain]], the senior Republican on the Armed Services Committee, opposed the bill, saying "It may be premature to make such a change at this time and in this manner, without further consideration of this report and further study of the issue by Congress – for of all the people we serve, one of our highest responsibilities is to the men and women of our armed services, especially those risking their lives in combat.”<ref>{{cite web|url=http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/12/02/mccain-on-dont-ask-dont-tell-dont-rush/|title=McCain on ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’: Don’t Rush|date=December 2nd, 2010|format=HTML|author=David M. Herszenhorn|language=English|work=The New York Times}}</ref>
===Foreign policy===
[[File:Western Wall Obama.jpg|thumb|left|320px|At [[Western Wall]], Jerusalem, 2008.]]
As Senator, Obama was highly critical of President Bush and promised change. As President, Obama has tripled down in Afghanistan, widened the war into Pakistan, multiplied drone attacks, bombed Yemen and Somalia, and started an undeclared NATO war in Libya. On presidential war powers, surveillance questions, Guantanamo, detention policy and habeas corpus, Obama has similarly stayed the course, or expanded Bush's precedents. In a speech on May 19, 2011 Obama fully embraced the [[Bush Doctrine]] of preventative war.<ref>Krauthammer, C. (April 19). [http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-news-in-obamas-speech/2011/05/19/AF4dFN7G_story.html The News in Obama's Speech]. ''The Washington Post''.</ref>

From the Boston Globe:
<blockquote>
'The New America Foundation, which tracks the strikes, has listed 23 raids since the beginning of April, 2011, all but one in Pakistan’s tribal regions of North and South Waziristan. A June 20 attack was reported in Kurram, an area north of North Waziristan along the Afghanistan border.'
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
'The drone program has become increasingly controversial as the Obama administration has expanded its use beyond the Afghanistan and Iraq wars. Lethal missiles have been launched from unmanned aircraft in at least five countries in addition to Pakistan: Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Yemen, and, most recently, Somalia. The military’s Joint Special Operations Command used a drone last June to attack what officials said were two senior members of the Al Shabab militant group on the Somali coast.' <ref>DeYoung, K. (2011, July 4). [http://www.boston.com/news/world/asia/articles/2011/07/04/cia_halts_drone_launches_from_pakistan_base/ CIA Halts Drone Launches From Pakistan Base]. ''The Boston Globe''. </ref>
</blockquote>

A commentator says:
<blockquote>
'Obama is commendable when he says he wants to avoid war. His policies, however, favor war by destabilizing the Middle East making it extremely hostile and favoring radical Islam over America’s ally, Israel, and American interests in the region... The president has chosen a very dangerous path for every American and one that promises great difficulty for Israel.' <ref> [http://www.thejerusalemconnection.us/blog/2012/03/14/obamas-words-disguise-his-israel-foreign-policy-actions.html Obama's words disguise his Israel foreign policy actions.] </ref>
</blockquote>
====Commander-in-chief====
By Obama's third year as Commander-in-Chief, over 1200 American troops died in Iraq and Afghanistan - significantly more than the number who died during President [[George W. Bush]]'s term of office. And growing numbers of civilian contractors also have fallen. In the first half of 2010, 250 contractors reportedly died in Iraq and Afghanistan - more than the 235 military personnel who fell during the same period.<ref>http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/05/24/114662/what-price-war.html#ixzz1Nz07pg5O</ref>
=====National Defense=====
President Obama signed into U.S. law the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), only after his administration successfully lobbied to remove language from the bill that would have protected American citizens from being detained indefinitely without trial.<ref>Aaron Dykes. [http://www.infowars.com/president-obamas-ndaa-signing-statement-i-have-the-power-to-detain-americans-but-i-wont/ Obama’s Signing Statement on NDAA: I have the power to detain Americans… but I won’t], Infowars.com, January 1, 2012. </ref> After the legislation cleared Congress, the ACLU commented that if President Obama signed the bill it "will damage both his legacy and American’s reputation for upholding the rule of law," while executive director of the ''Human Rights Watch'' blasted the President for being ‘on the wrong side of history,’ noting that "Obama will go down in history as the president who enshrined indefinite detention without trial in US law."<ref>President Decides to Sign Ill-Conceived National Defense Authorization Act. [http://www.hrw.org/news/2011/12/14/us-refusal-veto-detainee-bill-historic-tragedy-rights US: Refusal to Veto Detainee Bill A Historic Tragedy for Rights], ''Human Rights Watch'', December 14, 2011. [http://www.aclu.org/national-security/white-house-backs-away-defense-bill-veto-threat White House Backs Away from Defense Bill Veto Threat], ''[[ACLU]]'', December 14, 2011.</ref>

Section 1031 of the NDAA bill, which itself defines the entirety of the United States as a “battlefield,” allows American citizens to be snatched from the streets, carted off to a foreign detention camp and held indefinitely without trial. As reported by Infowars.com, the bill states that “any person who has committed a belligerent act” faces indefinite detention, but no trial or evidence has to be presented, the White House merely needs to make the accusation.<ref>Paul Joseph Watson. [http://www.infowars.com/obama-administration-demanded-power-to-indefinitely-detain-u-s-citizens/ Obama Administration Demanded Power To Indefinitely Detain U.S. Citizens], Infowars.com, December 12, 2011. S.1867 [http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c112:2:./temp/~c1122VN0Iv:e548990: National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Engrossed in Senate [Passed Senate] - ES)], ''The Library of Congress'' THOMAS, 112th Congress (2011-2011), Accessed January 25, 2012. Text of S.1867 - National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012. [http://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-s1867/text?version=es&nid=t0:es:281 Sec. 1031. Affirmation of authority of the Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered persons pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force.], [[U.S. Congress]], ''OpenCongress.org'', (Accessed January 25, 2012).</ref>

=====2009-2011 Iraq Troop Withdrawal=====
{{main article|Operation Iraqi Freedom}}
On February 10, 2007, Barack Obama announced his campaign for the U.S. presidency while stating he had a "''plan that will bring our combat troops home by March of 2008.''"<ref name=announcement>(2007, February 10). "[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/10/AR2007021000879.html Illinois Sen. Barack Obama's Announcement Speech]." ''Associated Press''.</ref> Later, Obama campaigned on having troops entirely out of Iraq within 16 months, but in February 2009 revised this promise to withdrawing all but 35-50 thousand troops by December 2011.<ref>Barry, J. (2009, February 25). "[http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2009/02/25/reality-on-the-ground.html Reality on the Ground]." ''Newsweek''.</ref> However, some of the newly withdrawn troops were simply redirected from Iraq to Afghanistan - Obama in Summer 2009 ordered 21,000 troops to Afghanistan.<ref name=amanpour>Amanpour, C. (2009, April 29). "[http://articles.cnn.com/2009-04-29/politics/amanpour.obama.foreign.policy_1_president-obama-obama-administration-iraq?_s=PM:POLITICS Amanpour: Obama's 100 Days of Foreign Affairs]." ''CNN Politics''.</ref>{{cquote|"But all of this cannot come to pass until we bring an end to this war in Iraq. Most of you know I opposed this war from the start. I thought it was a tragic mistake. Today we grieve for the families who have lost loved ones, the hearts that have been broken, and the young lives that could have been. America, it's time to start bringing our troops home. It's time to admit that no amount of American lives can resolve the political disagreement that lies at the heart of someone else's civil war. That's why I have a plan that will bring our combat troops home by March of 2008. Letting the Iraqis know that we will not be there forever is our last, best hope to pressure the Sunni and Shia to come to the table and find peace."
-Barack Obama, February 10, 2007 Presidential Campaign Announcement Speech<ref name=announcement />}}Ultimately, it was the Status of Forces Agreement signed by George W. Bush on November 17, 2008 which forced U.S. combat troops to withdraw from Iraq's cities, villages, and localities by June 30, 2009, and from Iraq entirely by December 31st 2011.<ref>(2008, November 17). "[http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/world/20081119_SOFA_FINAL_AGREED_TEXT.pdf Agreement Between the United States of America and the Republic of Iraq On the Withdrawal of United States from Iraq and the Organization of Their Activities during Their Temporary Presence in Iraq]." Article 24. Withdrawal of the United States Forces from Iraq. Hosted by ''The New York Times''. Office of the Press Secretary (2008, November 27). "[http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2008/11/20081127-1.html Statement by the President on Agreements with Iraq]." ''The White House''.</ref> Obama privately contacted the Iraq government in an attempt to persuade them to let 10,000 troops stay, but was rejected.<ref>Froomkin, D. (2011, October 26). "[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/26/obama-iraq_n_1032507.html Ending the War in Iraq: How Obama's Own Rhetoric - And George Bush's Pact - Boxed in the President]." ''Huffington Post''.</ref> Newsweek's Michael Ware accused Obama of a "War Crime" for "''falsely taking credit for finally bringing Iraq to a close—a war actually ended by the Bush administration back in 2008''" and stated, "''The U.S. troops who fought and died in that war, the Iraqis who perished, and the American people deserve far better.''"<ref>Ware, M. (2011, October 24). "[http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/10/24/obamas-war-crime-taking-credit-from-bush-adminsitration-for-ending-the-iraq-war.html Obama's War Crime]." ''Newsweek''. U.S. Politics.</ref> The last of Iraq's combat troops have now been withdrawn because of Bush's Status of Forces Agreement which Obama took credit for.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://articles.cnn.com/2011-12-17/middleeast/world_meast_iraq-troops-leave_1_1st-cavalry-division-camp-adder-troop-movements?_s=PM:MIDDLEEAST|work=CNN|title=Obama: Last U.S. troops leave Iraq|date=December 17, 2011|language=English|format=HTML}}</ref>
=====Afghanistan=====
{{main article|Afghanistan War}}
Obama escalated troop strength<ref name="pbs">{{cite web|url=http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/obamaswar/themes/strategy.html#ixzz1LhWNImZp|title=Obama's New Strategy (March '09)|author=George Packer, Seth Jones, David Kilcullen, Rory Stewart, Andrew Exum, Col. Andrew Bacevich (Ret.)|work=PBS|language=English|format=HTML}}</ref> and defense costs in Afghanistan from $43.5 billion in George Bush's last year to $113.7 billion for 2011.<ref>Congressional Research Service, quoted in Gregory Anthony, ''What price war?''</ref> Adviser to General [[Stanley McChrystal]] David Kilcullen wrote, "One of the big strategic shifts is the use of language now which talks about Pakistan and Afghanistan as the same theater. Now we talked about Af-Pak long before the Obama administration came about, but the public use of that term, and the description of it as the Afghanistan-Pakistan campaign, sends a new message to people about how the administration is going to think about Afghanistan and Pakistan."<ref name="pbs"/> This became evident when, under the orders of Obama, a military SEALs team killed September 11th mastermind [[Osama bin Laden]] in Abottabad, Pakistan.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.newsweek.com/2011/05/05/commander-in-chief.html|title=Commander in Chief|author=Daniel Romano and Daniel Klaidman|date=May 05, 2011|work=Newsweek|publisher=The Newsweek/Daily Beast Company LLC|language=English|format=HTML}}</ref>
=====Guantanamo Bay=====
{{main article|Guantanamo Bay}}
One of Obama's campaign promises was that he would close the American detention center at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba - detainees would be flown to other countries while the ones awaiting trial would enter the American court system. Two days after taking office he signed an order directing the military to do so.<ref name="salon">{{cite web|url=http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2011/04/25/obama_guantanamo_rhetoric|work=Salon|title=The Obama/Gitmo timeline|author=Natasha Lennard|format=HTML|language=English}}</ref> But, in November 2009 Obama admitted that his self imposed deadline of January 2010 would be missed, and in March 2011 the president went back on his campaign promise, signing an executive order to create a formal system of indefinite detention for the prisoners.<ref name="salon"/>
=====Mexico=====
In May 2012, President Obama promised Mexican President [[Felipe Calderon]] that his administration would assist Mexico in curbing drug cartel violence, which has led to 30,000 deaths in Mexico. "President Calderon and I . . . stand together against the drug cartels that have unleashed horrific violence in so many communities," Obama said on May 19. "Mexico can count on the United States as a full partner in this effort."

The ''[[Washington Post]]'' has reported however that White House officials stopped a requirement for gun dealers to report bulk sales of high-powered semiautomatic rifles commonly used by illegal drug cartels. [[Justice Department]] officials had asked for White House approval to require thousands of gun dealers along the border to report the purchases to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms and Explosives. ATF investigators expected to get leads on suspected arms traffickers. Senior law enforcement sources said the proposal from the ATF was held up by then White House chief of staff [[Rahm Emanuel]].<ref>Horwitz, S. & Grimaldi, J.V. (2010, December 17). [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/17/AR2010121706598.html White House Delayed Rule Meant to Stop Gun Flow to Mexico]. ''The Washington Post''.</ref> Gun dealers have been required for decades to report the sales of multiple handguns to the ATF.

=====Libya=====
{{main article|Libyan uprising 2011}}
In February 2011, the political unrest that had spread through the Arab world showed up as protests in Libya. Colonel Muammar el-Qaddafi - leader of Libya for 41 years - responded to the violent activism<ref>http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article28376.htm</ref> with legible steps.<ref name="nyt libya">{{cite web|url=http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/international/countriesandterritories/libya/index.html|work=The New York Times|publisher=The New York Times Inc.|format=HTML|language=English|title=Libya — Protests and Revolt (2011)}}</ref> The [[United Nations Security Council]] voted unanimously to impose [[sanctions]], and later authorized all members to take action to protect civilians. Obama, acting without approval from Congress and at the beckoning of the [[United Nations]], directed American forces to take out Libya's air defense system.<ref name="nyt libya"/> Obama later said, "[I]f we waited one more day Benghazi, a city nearly the size of Charlotte, could suffer a massacre that would have reverberated across the region and stained the conscience of the world."<ref>{{cite web|author=Barack Obama|url=http://www.npr.org/2011/03/28/134935452/obamas-speech-on-libya-a-responsibility-to-act|title=Obama's Speech On Libya: 'A Responsibility To Act'|date=March 28, 2011|publisher=National Public Radio ([[NPR]])|language=English|format=HTML}}</ref> [[Alan J. Kuperman]] - writing an editorial for the ''[[Boston Globe]]'' - suggested this statement was false, writing, "[I]ntervention did not prevent genocide, because no such bloodbath was in the offing. To the contrary, by emboldening rebellion, US interference has prolonged Libya’s civil war and the resultant suffering of innocents."<ref name="kuperman">{{cite web|author=Alan J. Kuperman|work=The Boston Globe|url=http://articles.boston.com/2011-04-14/bostonglobe/29418371_1_rebel-stronghold-civilians-rebel-positions|title=False pretense for war in Libya?|date=April 14, 2011}}</ref> Kuperman, a professor of public affairs at the University of Texas who authored a book called ''The Limits of Humanitarian Intervention'', further stated that the rebels had tricked the world into thinking a bloodbath was at hand and that Obama had lied to the American people in order to act on this theory.<ref name="kuperman"/>
<blockquote>
Gaddafi [never] threaten civilian massacre in Benghazi, as Obama alleged. The “no mercy’’ warning, of March 17, targeted rebels only, as reported by The New York Times, which noted that Libya’s leader promised amnesty for those “who throw their weapons away.’’ Khadafy even offered the rebels an escape route and open border to Egypt, to avoid a fight “to the bitter end.’’ <ref> [http://politicalcartel.org/2011/04/17/libya-and-the-obama-doctrine/ Libya and the “Obama Doctrine”.] </ref>
</blockquote>

However Gaddafi wrote to Obama:

<blockquote>
Gaddafi said he bore no ill will toward Obama. "We have been hurt more morally than physically because of what had happened against us in both deeds and words by you," he wrote. "Despite all this you will always remain our son whatever happened. We still pray that you continue to be president of the USA. We endeavour and hope that you will gain victory in the new election campaign." The letter, dated 5 April 2011 in Tripoli, is signed "Mu'aumer Qaddaffi, Leader of the Revolution".<ref>[http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/apr/06/gaddafi-obama-nato-libya?INTCMP=ILCNETTXT3487]</ref>
</blockquote>

Critics point out the only thing worse than starting a "stupid, unnecessary war" against a madman is losing it.<ref>http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/271847/war-libya-dumb-and-dumber-victor-davis-hanson</ref>

==2012 Presidential Campaign==
===2011, Birth Certificate Released===
: ''Main Article: [[Barack_Obama_Controversies#Birth_Certificate]]''
On April 27, 2011<ref>CNN Political Unit (2011, April 27). "[http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/04/27/white-house-releases-obama-birth-certificate/ White House Releases Obama Birth Certificate]." ''CNN''</ref>, a long-running controversy surrounding Obama's birth was largely put to rest<ref>Winter, J. (2011, April 29). "[http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/04/29/expert-says-obamas-birth-certificate-legit/ Expert: No Doubt Obama's Birth Certificate is Legit]." ''FOX News''. Tuchman, G. (2011, April 25). "[http://articles.cnn.com/2011-04-25/politics/birthers.obama.hawaii_1_birther-controversy-obama-opinion-research-corporation?_s=PM:POLITICS Obama Birther Claims Have No Merit]." ''CNN''. (2011, April 27). "[http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42779923/ns/politics-white_house/t/obama-releases-detailed-us-birth-certificate/ Obama Releases Detailed U.S. Birth Certificate]." ''MSNBC''.</ref> when Obama had his long-form birth certificate posted at WhiteHouse.gov.<ref>"[http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/rss_viewer/birth-certificate-long-form.pdf Certificate of Live Birth]." State of Hawaii. Retrieved from ''WhiteHouse.gov''.</ref> Donald Trump, who had attacked Obama on the Birth Certificate issue and was then leading Republicans in polls for the upcoming GOP primary<ref>James, F. (2011, April 15). "[http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2011/04/15/135446314/poll-donald-trump-birther-darling-leads-gop-field-at-26 Donald Trump, Birther In Chief? Poll Has Him Leading GOP Field with 26 Percent]." ''NPR''.</ref>, was effectively knocked out of the race because of this.<ref>Kapur, S. (2011, May 10). "[http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/05/10/trumps-popularity-tanks-after-obama-releases-long-form-birth-certificate/ Trump's Popularity Tanks After Obama Releases Long-Form Birth Certificate]." ''RawStory.com''.</ref>

The following is a timeline of previous events leading up to the release:

* In June 2008 the Obama campaign allowed FactCheck.org to look at his “Certificate of Live Birth” and take photos.<ref>Henig, J. (2008, August 21). Born in the U.S.A. FactCheck.org. Retrieved from http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html</ref>
* In July 2008 a blogger discovered a birth announcement from the Honolulu Advertiser from August 13, 1961 for Barack Obama. It has since been discovered another newspaper, the Star Bulletin, also documented the birth.<ref>Snopes.com. Barack Obama Birth Certificate. Retrieved from http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthcertificate.asp</ref>
* PolitiFact went to extreme lengths to verify Obama’s citizenship, attaining scanned copies of his 1992 marriage certificate from Cook County, IL, his driver’s license record, and his registration and disciplinary record. PolitiFact also addressed a number of concerns about the documentation.<ref>Hollyfield, A. (2008, June 27). Obama’s birth certificate: Final chapter. PolitiFact. Retrieved from http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2008/jun/27/obamas-birth-certificate-part-ii/</ref>
* In October 2008 Hawaii’s Department of Health released a statement by Dr. Chiyome Fu.kino verifying that Obama’s birth certificate was on record.<ref>Hawaii Department of Health. News Release: Statement by Dr. Chiyome Fu.kino. Retrieved from http://hawaii.gov/health/about/pr/2008/08-93.pdf</ref>
* In August 2009 it was revealed that an alleged Kenyan birth certificate for Obama was a hoax.<ref>Snopes.com. Kenyan Mistake. Retrieved from http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthers/kenyacert.asp</ref> Another website allows you to create your own imitation Kenyan birth certificates online.<ref>KenyanBirthCertificateGenerator.com. Blue Collar Industries. Retrieved from http://kenyanbirthcertificategenerator.com/</ref>

===2011, Osama Bin Laden Confirmed Dead===
On May 1, 2011, Obama announced in a press conference<ref>Obama, B. (2011, May 2). "[http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/05/02/osama-bin-laden-dead Osama Bin Laden Dead]." ''WhiteHouse.gov''.</ref> that Osama Bin Laden was dead after a U.S. assault force infiltrated his military compound in Abottobad, Pakistan.<ref>Baker, P., Cooper, H., & Mazzetti, M. (2011, May 1). "[Bin Laden is Dead, Obama Says]." ''New York Times''. "[http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Osama_Bin_Laden/ Target Bin Laden: The Death of Public Enemy #1]." ''ABC News''. ''NPR''. "[http://www.npr.org/series/135908383/osama-bin-laden-dead Special Series: Osama Bin Laden Killed]." </ref> Bin Laden was reportedly shot in the head after a helicopter raid ferried Navy SEAL Team Six and CIA paramilitary operatives into Pakistan on April 29.<ref>''Associated Press'' (2011, May 1). "[http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-201_162-20058777.html Osama bin Laden is Dead]." Retrieved from ''CBSNews.com''.</ref> Reuters obtained photos of unidentified dead bodies from the raid, none of which look like bin Laden. However, the White House had the body of Osama bin Laden disposed of at sea because it claimed this was "in accordance with Islamic tradition" and didn't want to give Bin Laden followers a gravesite shrine.<ref>The Daily Beast (2011, May 2). "[http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/05/02/osama-bin-laden-killed-and-buried-at-sea-breaking-details.html Osama Bin Laden Killed and Buried at Sea]." ''Newsweek''.</ref> The White House also refused to publicly reveal photos or evidence of the body, because Obama claimed that "given the graphic nature of these photos, it would create some national security risk."<ref>Allbritton, C. (2011, May 4). "[http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/05/04/us-binladen-pakistan-photos-idUSTRE7437KK20110504 Photos Show Three Dead Men at Bin Laden Raid House]." ''Reuters''. ''Reuters''. "[http://www.reuters.com/subjects/bin-laden-compound Photos From the Bin Laden Compound]."</ref> The burial at sea was criticized by Islamic scholars<ref>''Associated Press'' (2011, May 2). "[http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-202_162-20058892.html Islamic Scholars Criticize Bin Laden Sea Burial]." Retrieved from ''CBSNews.com''. Also at [http://www.foxnews.com/world/2011/05/02/islamic-scholars-question-bin-ladens-sea-burial/ Fox News].</ref> and 9/11 families.<ref>Zirulnick, A. (2011, May 3). "[http://www.csmonitor.com/World/terrorism-security/2011/0503/Osama-bin-Laden-s-burial-at-sea-critics-range-from-9-11-families-to-militants Osama Bin Laden's Burial At Sea: Critics Range from 9/11 Families to Militants]." ''Christian Science Monitor''.</ref> The lack of photos resulted in skepticism about the death from a variety of sources, including the Taliban<ref>Faiez, R. & Vogt, H. (2011, May 4). "[http://articles.boston.com/2011-05-04/news/29509464_1_bin-taliban-spokesman-zabiullah-mujahid-samiullah-khan Taliban Holding Out for Clear Evidence]." ''Associated Press''.</ref> and Republican Senator Lindsey Graham.<ref>Rosen, J. & Thomma, S. (2011, May 5). "[http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/05/05/113709/sc-sen-graham-wants-bin-laden.html S.C. Sen. Graham Wants Bin Laden Photos Released]." ''McClatchy Newspapers''.</ref>

The death of bin Laden, coupled with the revealing of Obama's long-form Birth Certificate, resulted in a boost of Obama's job approval from 46% to 57% within one month.<ref>Dao, J. & Sussman, D. (2011, May 4). "[http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/05/us/politics/05poll.html For Obama, Big Rise in Poll Numbers After Bin Laden Raid]." ''New York Times''. ''Pew Research Center'' (2011, May 2). "[http://www.people-press.org/2011/05/03/public-relieved-by-bin-ladens-death-obamas-job-approval-rises/ Public 'Relieved' by Bin Laden's Death, Obama's Job Approval Rises]." Jones, J.M. (2011, May 5). "[http://www.gallup.com/poll/147437/obama-approval-rallies-six-points-bin-laden-death.aspx Obama Job Approval Rallies Six Points to 52% After Bin Laden Death]." ''Gallup''.</ref> In 2012, relations between the U.S. and Pakistan remain sour because the U.S. did not involve Pakistan fully in the raid to ensure success.<ref>''CBS/Associated Press'' (2012, May 1). "[http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57424622/1-year-after-osama-bin-laden-killed-still-no-answers-from-pakistan/ 1 Year After Osama bin Laden Killed, Still No Answers from Pakistan]."</ref> Pakistan has denied White House claims that there was a deal with it allowing the raid.<ref>''Associated Press'' (2011, May 10). "[http://www.foxnews.com/world/2011/05/10/pakistani-president-claims-bin-laden-deal/ Former Pakistani President Claims There Was Never Bin Laden Deal With U.S.]." Retrieved from ''FOX News''.</ref>
=== 2012: Ties to ACORN? ===
According to Stanley Kurtz - author of ''Radical-in-Chief: Barack Obama and the Untold Story of American Socialism'' (2010) Obama in 1995 sought and obtained the endorsement of a left-wing third party, the [[New Party]] in his quest to be elected to the Illinois State Senate.<ref>Kurtz, S. (2012, June 7). [http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/302031/obamas-third-party-history-stanley-kurtz Obama's Third-Party History]. ''National Review Online''.</ref> Obama's "Fight the Smears" campaign has denied this, as has Politico's Ben Smith.<ref name=pollack>Pollack, J.B. (2012, June 7). [http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/06/07/Obama-Caught-Lying-Again-He-WAS-Member-of-New-Party-Says-Kurtz Obama Caught Lying Again: He WAS Member of 'New Party', Says Kurtz]. ''Breitbart''. Smith, B. (2008, October 25). [http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/1008/The_dread_New_Party.html The Dread New Party]. ''Politico''.</ref> Others who claim he was affiliated with the New Party/ACORN include The Blaze's Billy Hallowell<ref>Hallowell, B. (2012, June 7). [http://www.theblaze.com/stories/report-new-documents-show-obama-was-a-member-of-the-far-left-new-party/ News Docs Reportedly Show Obama Was a Member of the Far-Left 'New Party']. ''The Blaze''.</ref>, Breitbart's Joel Pollack, Human Events' Erick Erickson<ref>Erickson, E. (2008, June 10). [http://www.humanevents.com/2008/06/10/obama-and-the-new-party/ Obama and the New Party]. ''Human Events''.</ref>, Newsbusters' P.J. Gladnick<ref>Gladnick, P.J. (2008, October 12). [http://newsbusters.org/blogs/p-j-gladnick/2008/10/08/will-msm-report-obama-membership-socialist-new-party#ixzz21JfE3z1z Will MSM Report on Obama Membership in Socialist New Party?] ''Newsbusters''.</ref>, Rick Moran at AmericanThinker.com<ref>Rick Moran. [http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/06/obamas_alliance_with_marxists.html Obama's Alliance with Marxists], ''American Thinker'', June 03, 2008.</ref>, and various writers at Discover the Networks (which include Kurtz and Erickson).<ref>[http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=7434 NEW PARTY (NP)], ''DiscoverTheNetworks.org''.</ref>

Kurtz in 2012 has claimed to find minutes of the New Party Chicago chapter that say, "''Barack Obama, candidate for State Senate in the 13th Legislative District, gave a statement to the membership and answered questions. He signed the New Party 'Candidate Contract' and requested an endorsement from the New Party. He also joined the New Party.''"<ref name=pollack /> Obama campaign strategist David Axelrod responded to Kurtz with silence and when asked if that meant "yes or no", Axelrod stated, "You can take that as I have no idea what you are talking about."<ref>Pollack, J.B. (2012, June 7). [http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/06/07/Exclusive-Axelrod-Plays-Dumb-on-Obama-and-Socialist-New-Party Exclusive: Axelrod Plays Dumb on Obama and Socialist New Party]. ''Breitbart''.</ref>

==="You didn't build that" Controversy===
On July 13, 2012, at a campaign event in [[Virginia]], Obama gave a speech that immediately stirred up controversy. Speaking about the government's role in the success of private business, he said:<ref>http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/07/13/remarks-president-campaign-event-roanoke-virginia</ref>
{{cquote|If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business - you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen.}} The [[Romney]] campaign has used "If you’ve got a business - you didn’t build that" in ads to show America that Obama believes it is government that creates business rather than hard-working individuals. The Obama campaign has alternatively stated that the sentenced was poorly worded since he was not giving a scripted speech and that when Obama said "that" he was referring to roads and bridges. Obama points to a later portion of his speech in which he said, "The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together," to support his claim.

==Accusations about birth certificate and cultural and name identity==
Some conservative opponents have accused Obama of not being an American but born outside of the United States, this accusation was bolstered by Obama's reluctance to show his birth certificate to the public, until prompted by [[Donald Trump]]. Obama presented a birth certificate to the public. Some conservative opponents believe that the birth certificate he presented was a forgery. They are known as "birthers" both by their conservative and liberal opponents. However conservatives like [[Ann Coulter]] reject the birthers' accusations, and view birthers as a fringe group that left-wing media like MSNBC have exaggerated in order to discredit the conservative movement.

There are other right-wing and anti-Islamic opponents of Obama who claim that he is a Muslim '''Barry Soetoro''' during his time in [[Indonesia]]<ref>[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PQPXVJuT2vY Barry Soetoro the muslim - YouTube]</ref>

Other right-wing opponents claim that Obama is an [[Atheism|atheist]].

==See also==

*[[Political positions of Barack Obama]]
*[[Barack Obama and uncharitableness]]
*[[Barack Obama and abortion]]
*[[Essay:Born Outside the U.S.A.!]]
*[[Essay: The Special Interests Candidate]]
*[[Jobsgate]]
*[[Recovery Summer]]
*[[Lobbyists ties to the Obama administration]]
*[[New Party]]
*[[ObamaCare]]
*[[Obama doublespeak]]
*[[Obama inauguration]]
*[[Religion of Barack Hussein Obama]]
*[[The Honorable James David Manning]]
*[[Young Communist League]]

==External links==
*[http://www.antiobama.net/ Anti Obama.net]
*[http://www.dontvoteobama.net/ Don’t Vote For Obama.net]
*[http://nobamanetwork.com/ Nobama Network]
*[http://www.audacityofhypocrisy.com/ Audacity Of Hypocrisy]
*[http://therealbarackobama.wordpress.com/ The Real Barack Obama]
*[http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/6130/ The New Cult of Personality]
*[http://www.survivingobamunism.com/index.html Surviving Obamunism T-shirts]
*[http://www.barackobamaantichrist.blogspot.com/ Barack Obama the Anti-Christ ?]
*[http://www.noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/06/23/che-obama-and-the-revolutionary-agenda/ Che, Obama, and the Revolutionary Agenda]
*[http://www.audacityofhypocrisy.com/fashion-shows/ Obama Laundry List of Lies]
*[http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jun/09/americas-first-muslim-president/ GAFFNEY: America's first Muslim president?] Washington Times
*[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-l-esposito/barack-obama-and-islam_b_212519.html Barack Obama and Islam.] by [[John L. Esposito]].
*[http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=78931 Democrat: Obama's grandma confirms Kenyan birth.]
*[http://www.ontheissues.org/barack_obama.htm Barack Obama on the issues.]
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=etWLwrvT2vo Obama = Kosher Puppet.] video on You Tube.

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

{{USPresidents}}
{{2008 presidential candidates}}
[[Category: Barack Hussein Obama]]
[[Category:Obama Presidency]]
[[Category:Obama Administration]]
[[category:Nobel laureates in Peace]]
[[Category:2012 Presidential Candidates]]
[[Category:Abortion Advocates]]
[[Category:Socialism]]
[[Category:Muslims]]
[[Category:Socialists]]
{{DEFAULTSORT:Obama, Barack Hussein}}

Barack Hussein Obama

2012-10-27T23:45:39Z

Nightsky: /* 1996 Election */ removed picture that makes him look evil

{{Officeholder
|name=Barack Hussein Obama
|image=President Barack Obama.jpg
|party=[[Democratic Party]]
|spouse=[[Michelle LaVaughn Robinson Obama]]; may have had a prior marriage.
|religion=see [[Obama's religion]]
|offices=
{{Officeholder/president
|country=the United States
|number=44th
|terms=January 20, 2009-Present
|vp=[[Joe Biden]]
|preceded=[[George W. Bush]]
|former=n
|succeeded=
}}
{{Officeholder/senator
|state=Illinois
|terms=January 3, 2005 – November 16, 2008
|preceded=Peter Fitzgerald
|former=y
|succeeded=[[Roland Burris]]
}}
}}

'''Barack Hussein Obama II''' (b. August 4, 1961, either in [[Kenya]] or [[Honolulu, Hawaii]]) was elected the 44th President. Promoted heavily by [[liberals]], as demonstrated by his unjustified receipt of the 2009 [[Nobel Prize|Nobel Peace Prize]], Obama won the presidency despite a short and unremarkable political career by outspending his opponent, [[John McCain]], by hundreds of millions of dollars in 2008.

The [[liberal claptrap]] that helped elect Obama as president seems silly today. It was claimed, for example, that Obama has millions of followers on Twitter, when allegedly some 70% of them are fake.<ref>http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2012/08/obama-has-millions-of-fake-twitter-followers/1#.UDfQVqA2et_</ref> And although the [[lamestream media]] promoted Obama as a great orator, in fact he relies almost entirely on teleprompters for his speeches and press conferences, and at one point even had teleprompters set up for him in a middle school classroom in order to speak to the media.

Obama is [[pro-abortion]]. During the 2008 election campaign Obama said that he intended to "[[Redistribution of wealth|spread the wealth around]]" - which conservatives have condemned for being [[Socialism|socialist]]. Barack Obama has been widely criticized by the American [[business]] community and others for his anti-business policies that are destroying American jobs during a period of high unemployment.<ref>Zuckerman, M.B. (2010, July 16). [http://www.usnews.com/opinion/mzuckerman/articles/2010/07/16/obamas-anti-business-policies-are-our-economic-katrina Obama's Anti-business Policies are our Economic Katrina]. ''U.S. News''. Barnes, F. (2009, July 22). [http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/016/619dvjlm.asp An Anti-Business President]. ''The Weekly Standard''. Vol. 14, No. 38 Shedlock, M. (2010, August 20). [http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2010/08/small-businesses-are-not-hiring-why.html Small Businesses are not hiring. Why should they?] Globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com. Wright, C.E. (2012, February 12). [http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/02/dear_mr_president_why_we_are_n.html Dear Mr. President: Why we are not hiring]. ''American Thinker''.</ref> On July 26, 2012, the [[Gallup Poll|Gallup organization]] reported that merely 35% of business owners approved of Barack Obama's job performance.<ref>[http://www.gallup.com/poll/156206/Business-Owners-Among-Least-Approving-Obama.aspx U.S. Business Owners Now Among Least Approving of Obama]</ref> Former [[Democrat]] Presidential candidate [[Joe Lieberman]] endorsed Obama's opponent in 2008 and has declined to endorse [[Obama]] for the [[Presidential Election 2012]].<ref>Lillis, M. (2012, April 22). [http://thehill.com/video/campaign/222929-lieberman-declines-to-endorse-in-presidential-race Sen. Lieberman declines to endorse in presidential race]. ''The Hill''.</ref>

Under President Obama's mismanagement of the economy, the United States Government's credit rating was, for the first time in its history, downgraded from AAA to AA+, and [[poverty]]<ref>[http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/data/incpovhlth/2009/pov09fig04.pdf Figure 4: Number in Poverty and Poverty Rate: 1959-2009]. ''U.S. Census Bureau''. Current Population Survey, 1960 to 2010 Annual Social and Economic Supplements.</ref> increased markedly. By and large his programs, said to combat the recession, unemployment, slow growth, and deficits, have failed<ref>"The vast majority (73%) of respondents reported the fiscal stimulus enacted in February 2009 has had no impact on employment to date. While 68% also believe a jobs bill, such as the one recently enacted into law, will have no impact on payrolls, 30% do believe it will boost payrolls moderately". [http://www.nabe.com/press/ind1004.pdf Industry Survey], ''National Association for Business Economics'', April 2010, p. 2.</ref> leaving the the country saddled with a $16 trillion [[national debt]].<ref>Under Obama the U.S. National Debt has tripled. Source: [https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/fredgraph.png?graph_id=86836 U.S. Treasury]; Federal Reserve Board.</ref> One of his most well known tactics is blaming someone else, such as George W. Bush, for all his failures instead of taking responsibility. Also on the domestic front, Obama passed an expensive [[health care]] bill in 2009 with no [[bipartisan]] support and 34 Democrats dissenting. Recently, the [[Congressional Budget Office]] wrote an open letter to [[John Boehner]], the Speaker of the House, outlining the effects of repealing [[Obamacare]] and explaining why net loss of over 100 billion dollars would occur from the repeal. [http://cbo.gov/publication/43471]

Fatalities in [[Afghanistan]] have more than doubled under Obama's leadership then in the preceding eight years combined, according to the Congressional Research Service <ref>Chesser, S.G. (2012, July 12). [http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/R41084.pdf Afghanistan Casualties: Military Forces and Civilians - CRS Report for Congress]. Pg. 3. ''Congressional Research Service''.</ref>. Against his own Defense Secretary's advice, Obama [[Libyan uprising 2011|attacked Libya]] - a possible violation of the [[War Powers Act]]. After he announced the killing of [[September 11th]] mastermind and terrorist [[Osama bin Laden]], the [[U.S. State Department]] warned of the increased risk to the lives and safety of Americans around the world.<ref>''KABC-TV/DT'' (2011, July 27). [http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=news/national_world&id=8273909 Risk of anti-US violence up after Osama bin Laden's death]. On ''ABC7 News''.</ref> Bin Laden's death had negligible long-term impact on Obama's approval ratings, as seen in Gallup's daily poll.<ref>''Gallup''. [http://www.gallup.com/poll/113980/gallup-daily-obama-job-approval.aspx Gallup Daily: Obama Job Approval].</ref>

Obama's bizarre gaffes are frequent and embarrassing, but typically unreported by the [[liberal media]]. Many hardworking American businessmen took offense to a 2012 campaign speech about the economy where he says "You didn't build that." Obama offended [[Poland]] by referring to the [[Nazi]] death camps there as "Polish death camps." Later Obama apologized.<ref>Sink, J. (2012, June 1). [http://thehill.com/blogs/global-affairs/europe/230419-obama-letter-says-he-regrets-polish-death-camp-gaffe Obama apologizes in writing for 'Polish death camp' verbal gaffe]. ''The Hill''.</ref>

==Biography==
===Birth===
{{TOC right}}
:''Main article : [[Early life and career of Barack Hussein Obama]]''
:''See also : [[Barack Obama's Muslim Heritage]]''
Obama claims to have been born in Hawaii to Stanley Ann Dunham and [[Barack Obama Sr.]] - who had married just six months prior - on August 4, 1961 in [[Honolulu, Hawaii]].<ref name=msnbc>''MSNBC'' (2008, February 20). "[http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23257295/ns/msnbc_tv-documentaries/t/obama-becomes-rising-star-among-democrats/ Obama Becomes Rising Star Among Democrats]."</ref> Some contend that this story is a complete fabrication. After many leading conservatives -- including the leadership of this site and [[Donald Trump]] -- called for Obama to release his birth certificate he produced a document that he claimed was his birth certificate on April 27 2011. Sheriff [[Joe Arpaio]] of Maricopa County in Arizona conducted an investigation of the Obama's eligibility and alleged that the alleged "birth certificate" was a fake; however, no charges have been filed. [[Obama]] was reportedly assigned a social security number whose area code was assigned to applications coming from zip codes in Connecticut.<ref>Beginning in 1972, all Social Security numbers were issued from a central office in Baltimore, Maryland.[http://www.ssa.gov/history/ssn/geocard.html]</ref>

Barack Obama Sr. was not a [[Natural born citizen|citizen of the United States]]. At the time of Obama's birth, Kenya was a British colony, meaning that not only was Obama Sr. a British subject, but he passed that status on to his son. When Kenya gained independence, Obama and his father both ceased to be British subjects and became Kenyan citizens. Barack Obama was a dual citizen of the United States and Kenya until his Kenyan citizenship automatically expired in 1984, as he had failed to renounce US nationality and swear loyalty to Kenya. Even if he had been born with US citizenship through his mother, it has been argued that as he was born with dual nationality, he is not a natural-born citizen of the United States, and thus constitutionally ineligible to become President. Despite this, no court that has considered such arguments has accepted the proposition that Obama is not a natural-born citizen.<ref>See [http://www.scribd.com/doc/88910250/Purpura-Moran-Initial-Decision-of-ALJ-Masin Initial Decision by Jeff S. Masin] in ''Purpura and Moran v. Obama'' at 7 ("Thus, accepting for the point of this issue that Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii, he is a “natural born Citizen” regardless of the status of his father."), Tisdale v. Obama (E.D.Va 2012) Order at 2 ("It is well settled that those born in the United States are considered natural born citizens." (citing ''United States v. Wong Kim Ark'', 169 U.S. 649)), ''aff'd per curiam'' by 4th Cir., ''Ankeny v. Governor of the State of Indiana'', 916 N.E.2d 678, 685 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) ("With regard to President Barack Obama, the Plaintiffs posit that because his father was a citizen of the United Kingdom, President Obama is constitutionally ineligible to assume the Office of the President....we hold that the Plaintiffs' arguments fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted")</ref>

===Early Life===
Obama's birth parents divorced in 1963 due to strain caused by Barack Obama Sr. leaving Hawaii to study economics at Harvard, when Obama was 2 years old, following which his mother married Lolo Soetoro, an [[Indonesian]] geologist. When Barack Obama was age 6 his mother and adoptive father took him to Jakarta, Indonesia for 4 years while his mother pursued a Ph.D. in Anthropology requiring fieldwork there.<ref name="db mother">{{cite web|url=http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2011-05-03/a-singular-woman-by-janny-scott-review-by-stacy-schiff/#|work=The Daily Beast|format=HTML|language=English|title=Dreams of His Mother|author=Stacy Schiff}}</ref> His mother then left him in Hawaii with his grandparents (Stanley and Madelyn Dunham, who had moved to Hawaii in 1959) so he could pursue American education.<ref name=revealed>Malveaux, Suzanne (2008, August 20). "[http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0808/20/se.02.html Barack Obama Revealed]." ''CNN''.</ref> Other siblings of Obama's include his half-sister Maya Soetoro-Ng and 7 other children born to his father by 4 different women.<ref name=raisingobama>Purdum, Todd (2008, March). "[http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/03/obama200803 Raising Obama]." ''Vanity Fair''.</ref> For much of his early life, prior to his transfer to Columbia University, he went by his nickname, "Barry." In the summer of 1988, before attending Harvard Law School (he'd just been accepted), he visited Kogelo, Kenya, to learn more about his father's family. When his mother died in 1995, he and his sister Maya scattered her ashes over Hawaii's south shore.<ref name=revealed />

===Personal Life===
[[Image:Michelle Obama.jpg|frame|right|Michelle (Robinson) Obama, wife of Barack Obama.]]
Barack Obama met and began dating his future wife, an attorney named Michelle Robinson, herself a recent Harvard Law School graduate, while he was working at Sidley Austin LLP, a prestigious corporate law firm.<ref name=msnbc /> The two continued dating long-distance while he finished law school, and on October 18, 1982, were married by Reverend [[Jeremiah Wright]] at Trinity United Church.<ref name=revealed /> In 1999, their first child was born, Malia, and in 2001, another daughter, Natasha (often called Sasha).<ref name=msnbc />

Obama attended Reverend Jeremiah Wright's Trinity United Church from 1984-1988 during his time as a community organizer (''See [[Barack_Obama#1984-1988.2C_Community_Organizer|1985-1988, Community Organizer]] section''). Obama credits Wright with his alleged conversion to Christianity, and had both his daughters, Sasha and Malia, baptized there.<ref name=revealed />

===Education===
At age 6, Obama attended schools in Indonesia, the first a Catholic School while he was in Kindergarten, and later a public school. While the public school had mostly Muslim students (since most Indonesians were Muslim), claims that it was a Muslim school or Madrassa are false. In 1971, at age 10, Barack Obama moved to Hawaii, and his grandparents helped him gain entrance to the prestigious Punahou Academy in Honolulu through a scholarship, while he was in 5th grade.<ref name=revealed /> At his elite high school with 1,200 students he was just 1 of 3 black students, and was on the second string of the state champion basketball team his senior year. During this time he also experimented briefly with marijuana and cocaine. He wrote a poem for the school's literary magazine, ''Ka Wai Ola''.<ref name=raisingobama />

In 1979, he began a 2-year stint at Occidental College college in Los Angeles<ref name=msnbc />, and then transferred to Columbia University in New York, which he graduated from in 1983.<ref name=pragmatic>Scott, Janny (2007, July 30). "[http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/30/us/politics/30obama.html?pagewanted=all In Illinois, Obama Proved Pragmatic and Shrewd]." ''New York Times''.</ref> During this time he allegedly spoke at an Anti-Apartheid rally on campus,<ref name=revealed /> although several prominent student leaders said they did not remember him there. Professor Michael L. Baron was impressed by Obama and wrote him a recommendation for Harvard Law School.<ref name=differs>Scott, J. (2007, October 30). "[http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/30/us/politics/30obama.html?pagewanted=all Obama's Account of New York Years Often Differs From What Others Say]." ''New York Times''.</ref> In the winter of 1988 Barack Obama decided to attend Harvard Law School, and left Chicago for Cambridge, Massachusetts. In his 2nd year he became the first black president of the ''Harvard Law Review'', following a "marathon voting session" in which he was elected on the 19th ballot.<ref name=raisingobama /> This led to national attention and numerous job offers, which Obama passed up, at age 30, to pursue a political career in Chicago.<ref name=msnbc /><ref name=revealed />
===Non-Political Employment===
====1983-1984, Financial Analyst and Writer====
In 1984 Obama worked as a writer and financial analyst for Business International Corporation to pay off his student loans. Business International Corporation was a small newsletter-publishing and research firm which aided multinational companies understand overseas markets. Obama served as a writer/researcher for a company reference service, Financing Foreign Operations, and wrote for their newsletter, ''Business International Money Report''. His supervisor was Cathy Lazere. <ref name=differs /><ref>Henig, J. (2008, June 21). "[http://www.factcheck.org/2008/06/obama-polishes-his-resume-2/ Obama Polishes His Resume]." ''FactCheck.org''.</ref>

====1984-1988, Community Organizer====
In 1984, Obama was hired by the New York Public Interest Research Group, a non-profit organization promoting environmental, consumer, and government reforms. He also was paid just under $10,000 annually as a full-time organizer for Harlem's City College to mobilize student volunteers.<ref name=differs /> From 1985-88, Obama worked as a community organizer on the South Side of Chicago, for which he was paid $1,000 a year, with $2,000 extra for a car. He helped Loretta Herron gain city approval for a local community job center. <ref name=revealed /><ref name=streetwise>Scott, Janny (2007, September 9). "[http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/09/us/politics/09obama.html?pagewanted=all In 2000, a Streetwise Veteran Schooled a Bold Young Obama]." ''New York Times''.</ref> During this time Obama joined Reverend Wright's Trinity United Church because in the words of Suzanne Malveaux of ''CNN'', "It was the church to join if you wanted to be one of Chicago's black movers and shakers." At the time, community organizing involved close affiliation with churches, which was how Obama met Wright. The slow progress in fighting asbestos contamination in the Altgeld Gardens housing project led to Obama's departure from Chicago, and enrollment at Harvard Law School in the winter of 1988.<ref name=revealed />
====1988-1996, Law Practice====
In 1988 Obama gained work as a Summer Associate at one of the most prestigious corporate law firms in the world, Sidley Austin LLP<ref name=austin>Lattman, P. (2007, May 11). "[http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2007/05/11/sidley-austin-when-barack-met-michelle/ When Barack Met Michelle]." ''Wall Street Journal''.</ref><ref name=revealed />, owned by Newton Minow, thanks to the recommendation of Minow's daughter Martha, a professor at Harvard Law School. It was at Minow's law firm that Obama would meet Michelle Robinson, his future wife.<ref name=raisingobama /> From 1993-96 he practiced civil rights law, after graduating from Harvard, at Miner, Barnhill, & Galland, a small politically-connected law firm.<ref name=austin /> It was at Miner, Barnhill, & Galland that he would meet influential real estate developer Tony Rezko.<ref name=revealed />
====1992-2004, Law Professor at University of Chicago====
Obama taught constitutional law part-time at the University of Chicago Law School<ref name=raisingobama /> from 1992-2004. He was a Lecturer from 1992-96, teaching 3 courses per year, and a Senior Lecturer from 1996-2004. Senior Lecturers are considered Law School faculty and regarded as professors but not full-time or tenured. Obama was invited to become a Senior Lecturer several times during this period but declined each time.<ref>"[http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media Media Inquiries: Statement Regarding Barack Obama]." ''University of Chicago Law School''.</ref>
====1995, Author====
In 1995 Obama published ''Dreams From My Father'' about his life and family background.<ref name=msnbc />

===Personal Awards===
====2009 Nobel Peace Prize====
On October 9, 2009 Barack H. Obama became the third sitting U.S. President<ref name=wilsons>Wilson, Scott (2009, October 10). "[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/09/AR2009100900914.html President Obama Wins Nobel Peace Prize]. ''Washington Post''.</ref> to be awarded the Nobel Peace Prize "''for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples''".<ref>NobelPrize.org (2009, October 9). "[http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/2009/press.html The Nobel Prize for 2009: Press Release]." Oslo, Norway. Accessed May 13, 2012.</ref> Obama stated that he was "surprised and deeply humbled" to receive the unexpected award,<ref>(2009, October 9). "[http://articles.cnn.com/2009-10-09/world/nobel.peace.prize_1_norwegian-nobel-committee-international-diplomacy-and-cooperation-nuclear-weapons?_s=PM:WORLD Obama: Nobel Peace Prize is 'Call to Action']." ''CNN''.</ref> and also said, "To be honest, I do not feel that I deserve to be in the company of so many of the transformative figures who've been honored by this prize -- men and women who have inspired me and inspired the entire world through their courageous pursuit of peace".<ref name=wilsons /> The award was widely criticized given Obama's then lack of accomplishments.<ref>Chazan, G. & MacDonald, A. (2009, October 11). "[http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125509603349176083.html Nobel Committee's Decision Courts Controversy]." ''Wall Street Journal''. (2009, October 9). "[http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/10/09/obamas-peace-prize-draws-criticism-liberals/ Obama's Peace Prize Draws Criticism, Even From Some Liberals]." ''Associated Press''.</ref>
==1991-1992, Project Vote==
In 1991 Obama was recruited by Sandy Newman to head the Chicago chapter of Project Vote!<ref name=revealed />, and in 1992 was the Executive Director, overseeing a voter registration drive which registered 125,000 black voters and was credited with helping elect U.S. Senator Carol Mosely Braun.<ref name=raisingobama /><ref name=pragmatic />
==1996-2003, Illinois State Senate==
===1996 Election===
====Knocking Candidates Off the Ballot====
Barack Obama ran for the Illinois state senate in 1996. He was initially supported by incumbent Alice Palmer, who declared she would run for the U.S. Congress. However, when her bid for Congress failed on November 28, 1995, she tried to run for her old seat in the March 1996 election. Her supporters asked Obama to step aside, although whether this was with her permission remains uncertain.<ref name=pragmatic /> Not only did Obama not step down, he gathered a team of high-priced lawyers, including fellow Harvard Law School graduate Thomas Johnson, to challenge his opponent's petition signatures on technicalities after the filing deadline had passed. Such tactics are legal and frequently used in Chicago; in 2006 they eliminated 67 of the 245 aldermanic candidates;<ref name=bareknuckle>Jackson, David & Long, Ray (2007, April 4). "[http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/obama/chi-0704030881apr04-archive,0,1523598,full.story Barack Obama: Showing His Bare Knuckles]." ''Chicago Tribune''.</ref> yet nevertheless led to the term "hardball" by the ''New York Times''<ref name=pragmatic /> and "cutthroat" by David Mendel as reported by both ''CNN''<ref name=revealed /> and ''MSNBC''.<ref name=msnbc /> The ''Chicago Tribune'' declared Obama had mastered "the bare-knuckle arts of Chicago electoral politics", noting "The man now running for president on a message of giving a voice to the voiceless first entered public office not by leveling the playing field, but by clearing it."<ref name=bareknuckle /> As one of Obama's four opponents, eliminated through his ballot challenges, would put it: {{cquote|"Why say you're for a new tomorrow, then do old-style Chicago politics to remove legitimate candidates? He talks about honor and democracy, but what honor is there in getting rid of every other candidate so you can run scot-free? Why not let the people decide?"
-Gha-is Askia, 1996 Illinois Senate candidate<ref>Jackson, David & Long, Ray (2007, April 3). "[http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/obama/chi-070403obama-ballot-archive,0,5297304,full.story Obama Knows His Way Around a Ballot]." ''Chicago Tribune''.</ref>}} Mark Ewell, another candidate, filed 1,286 signatures, and Obama's challenges left him 86 short of the minimum requirement (757<ref name=spivak>Spivak, Todd (2008, February 28). "[http://www.houstonpress.com/2008-02-28/news/barack-obama-screamed-at-me/ Barack Obama and Me]." ''Houston Press''.</ref>). Ewell filed a federal lawsuit contesting the election board's decision but Tom Johnson intervened, and Ewell's case was dismissed just a few days later. Ewell and other Obama opponents were using early 1995 polling sheets to verify signatures of registered voters, but city authorities had just purged 15,871 unqualified people from the 13th district list, and Obama's challenges used the more recent, updated list. Askia was left 69 signatures short of the requirement. If names were printed instead of signed in cursive, they were declared invalid. If they were good but the person registering the signatures wasn't a registered voter (e.g. underage) they were invalid.<ref name=hardball>Griffin, Drew & Johnston, Kathleen (2008, May 29). "[http://articles.cnn.com/2008-05-29/politics/obamas.first.campaign_1_obama-campaign-barack-obama-chicago-politics?_s=PM:POLITICS Obama Played Hardball in First Chicago Campaign]." ''CNN''.</ref> Palmer had according to Obama campaign consult Ronald Davis, used two children to help gather her petition signatures. To this day Palmer denies the challenges were valid, and maintains she could have overcome the objections with more time and resources.<ref name=bareknuckle /> Thanks to his lawyers, Obama would win the election without a single other candidate on the ballot.

===2000 Election===
: ''Main Article: [[Illinois 1st congressional district election, 2000]]''
In 2000, Obama lost his only political election when he chose to run against experienced incumbent and former Black Panther Bobby L. Rush for the U.S. Congress in a 65% black district. Rush's name recognition began at 90%, Obama's at 11%. As media consultant and former Rush campaign staffer Eric Adelstein noted, "Nobody said he’s ‘not black enough.’ They said he’s a professor, a Harvard elite who lives in Hyde Park." Todd Spivak would give voice to this impression of Obama, noting that{{cquote|"My view of Obama then wasn't all that different from the image he projects now. He was smart, confident, charismatic and liberal. One thing I can say is, I never heard him launch into the preacher-man voice he now employs during speeches. He sounded vanilla, and activists in his mostly black district often chided him for it."<ref name=spivak />}}Rush would go on to win the Primary with 61.02% of the vote; Obama received 30.36%.<ref name=streetwise /> The loss led to Obama considering dropping out of politics altogether, particularly after the September 11, 2001 attacks, since his name sounds similar to "Osama bin Laden".<ref name=msnbc />
===Voting Record===
Obama entered the Illinois Senate promising change to a corrupt system. He mixed often radical votes with more pragmatic agreements. Possibly one of his most radical votes was against requiring medical care for aborted children who survive [[abortion|the procedure]] - in fact the Illinois Planned Parenthood Council ascribed him a 100% rating for his consistently pro-choice votes.<ref name="cbs illinois">{{cite web|url=http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/01/17/politics/main2369157.shtml|title=Obama Record May Be Gold Mine For Critics|work=CBS|format=HTML|language=English|last=Clark|first=Amy S.|date=Jan. 17, 2007}}</ref> He was criticized for using the statehouse as a stepping stone for a more illustrious career: Steven J. Rauschenberger, a [[Republican]], said prior to Obama's election as president: “He is a very bright but very ambitious person who has always had his eyes on the prize, and it wasn’t Springfield. If he deserves to be president, it is not because he was a great legislator.”<ref name="nyt illinois">{{cite web|work=The New York Times|title=In Illinois, Obama Proved Pragmatic and Shrewd|last=Scott|first=Janny|format=HTML|language=English|date=July 30, 2007|url=http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/30/us/politics/30obama.html}}</ref>

The statehouse was majority Republican, so the Senator was sometimes forced to compromise. He formed allegiances across party lines to pass [[campaign finance]] reform that banned most gifts by lobbyists, prohibited spending campaign money for legislators’ personal use and required electronic filing of campaign disclosure reports.<ref name="nyt illinois"/> Obama also helped pass a so-called “driving-while-black bill”, which required the police to collect data on the race of drivers they stopped as a way to monitor [[racial profiling]].<ref name="nyt illinois"/>

Obama established himself as a chief spokesperson in opposition to the [[War on Terror]] during an October 2002 rally at Federal Plaza in Chicago<ref>The rally was organized by Chicagoans Against War in Iraq (CAWI) later renamed Chicagoans Against War and Injustice. [http://www.noiraqwar-chicago.org/?page_id=2 About CAWI] by Carl Davidson, Nov 02 2006. Retrieved from Chicagoans Against War and Injustice, March 15, 2010.</ref> [[community organizing|organized]] by veteran [[Mao]]ist and webmaster of [[Progressives for Obama]],<ref>[http://www.linkedin.com/in/carldavidson Carl Davidson,] LinkedIn.com, retrieved March 13, 2010.</ref> [[Carl Davidson]].
===Radical foundation and connection to William Ayers===
{{main article|Radical roots of Barack Hussein Obama}}
In 1995 a cadre of like minded individuals gathered in the home of [[Weather Underground]] (WUO) [[terrorist]]s [[Bernardine Dohrn]] and [[William Ayers|William "Bill" Ayers]]. Dohrn,<ref>Georgie Anne Geyer and Keyes Beach "Cuba: School for U.S. Radicals", ''Chicago Daily News/Chicago Sun-Times'' five part series October 1970, excerpted in [http://foia.fbi.gov/filelink.html?file=/weather/weath1c.pdf FBI file Weather Underground Organization (Weatherman),] Part 1c pp. 5-7 pdf (113-115 in original). [http://therealbarackobama.wordpress.com/2009/06/07/clandestine-agents-of-the-cuban-government-ayers-dohrn-myers/]</ref> along with Carl Davidson, are veterans of [[guerrilla warfare]] training in [[Cuba]] prior 1968 Democratic National Convention riots. Ayers and Dohrn have taken credit for, and never denied, bombing the [[U.S. Capitol]], the [[Pentagon]] and the [[State Department]].

Ayers and Dohrn used their celebrity status among [[leftist]]s to launch Obama's career. Ayers, Dohrn and [[Jeff Jones]]<ref>[http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=106653 ''Obama's 'green jobs czar' worked with terror founder] Van Jones served on board of activist group where ex-Weatherman serves as top director'', By Aaron Klein, [[WorldNetDaily]], August 13, 2009.</ref> are authors of ''[[Bill_Ayers#Prairie_Fire_Organizing_Committee_and_Maoist_thought|Prairie Fire: The Politics of Revolutionary Anti-imperialism]],'' the title taken from ''The Sayings of Mao Zedong.''<ref>[http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/works/red-book/]</ref> The book declares "we are [[communist]] men and women."<ref>Harvey Klehr, ''Far Left of Center: The American Radical Left Today'' (Transaction Books, New Brunswick, 1988), 109.</ref> Ayers later jokingly, publicly admitted to ghostwriting Obama's book, ''Dreams From My Father''<ref>Cashill, J. (2011, March 28). [http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2011/03/ayers_affirms_he_wrote_dreams.html Ayers Affirms He Wrote Dreams From My Father]. ''American Thinker''.</ref> and Obama was to appoint several openly avowed Maoists to prominent White House and Executive Branch positions.<ref>Fund, J. (2009, October 21). [http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704597704574487431322664964.html From Mao to Obama]. ''The Wall Street Journal''.</ref>

===2003 Emil Jones Deal===
: ''Main Article: [[2003 Barack Obama deal with Emil Jones]]''
When Illinois' U.S. Senator Peter Fitzgerald announced he would be retiring in April 2003, Obama jumped at the opportunity, declaring that he would be a candidate for the U.S. Senate in 2004.<ref name=msnbc /> To boost his chances at reaching the U.S. Congress in the 2004 elections, in 2003 Barack Obama approached the newly crowned head of the Illinois Senate, Emil Jones Jr., with a proposal. According to Jones, who Obama has since called his "godfather"<ref name=godfather>''Associated Press'' (2009, June 18). "[http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-250_162-3983147.html Obama's Political 'Godfather' In Illinois]."</ref> the conversation went as follows:
[
{{cquote|"After I was elected president, in 2003, he came to see me, a couple months later. And he said to me, he said, ‘You’re the senate president now, and with that, you have a lot of pow-er.’ And I told Barack, ‘You think I got a lot of pow-er now?,’ and he said, ‘Yeah, you got a lot of pow-er.’ And I said, ‘What kind of pow-er do I have?’ He said, ‘You have the pow-er to make a United States sen-a-tor!’ I said to Barack, I said, ‘That sounds good!’ I said, ‘I haven’t even thought of that.’ I said, ‘Do you have someone in mind you think I could make?,’ and he said, ‘Yeah. Me.’ "<ref name=raisingobama /><ref name=pragmatic />}}

Because of the deal, Obama's entire Illinois Senate legislative record was, as longtime Obama reporter Todd Spivak put it, built in a single year. During his 7th and final year in the Illinois Senate, Obama sponsored an incredible 26 bills into law, including many he now points to when criticized as inexperienced<ref name=spivak /> - as ''CNN's'' Suzanne Malveaux observed, "With help from on high, Obama got his name on hundreds of bills that he pushed through."<ref name=revealed /> Jones not only had Obama craft legislation addressing daily tragedies to raise his political profile<ref name=godfather />, he also appointed Obama head of almost all high-profile legislation in the Illinois Senate, angering other state legislators with more seniority who'd spent years supporting the bills.<ref name=spivak /> Illinois State Senator Rickey Hendon, the original sponsor of the famous racial profiling bill requiring videotaped confessions in police interrogations, complained bitterly about Jones' decision.<ref name=revealed /><ref name=intheblack>Spivak, Todd (2004, March 25). "[http://www.illinoistimes.com/Springfield/article-922-in-the-black.html In the Black]." ''Illinois Times''.</ref> Jones' influence had a major impact on Obama's chances in the 2004 elections, preventing major political players from backing Obama's opponents. To quote Emil Jones,{{cquote|"He knew if he had me in the run for the Senate, it would put a block on the current mayor. The current mayor and the father of the controller, which was Dan Hynes, they were roommates in Springfield when the mayor was a state senator, so they had a relationship. Another big financial backer for the governor was Blair Hull. Barack knew if he had me it would checkmate the governor, ’cause the governor couldn’t come out and go with Blair Hull, ’cause the governor needs me. Same with the mayor. So he had analyzed and figured all of that out. He knew I could help him with labor support. And I could put a checkmate on some of the local politicians that didn’t know him, but they couldn’t really go against me."
-Emil Jones<ref name=raisingobama />}}

==2004-2008, U.S. Senate==
:''See also: [[Early_life_and_career_of_Barack_Hussein_Obama#U.S._Senate_.282004-2008.29|Barack Obama:U.S. Senate (2004-2008)]], [[United States Senate election in Illinois, 2004]]''
[[Image:obama.jpg|thumb|left|Senator Barack Obama]]
===2004 Primary Election===
Despite initially trailing in the polls to frontrunner [[Blair Hull]]<ref name=intheblack />, Obama greatly benefited from what the ''Chicago Tribune'' called "the most inglorious campaign implosion in Illinois political history"<ref name=mendell>Mendell, David (2004, March 17). "[http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2004-03-17/news/0403170332_1_blair-hull-gery-chico-blacks-and-liberal-whites Obama Routs Democratic Foes]." ''Chicago Tribune''.</ref> when pressure from journalists and opposing candidates, just weeks before the election, forced the unsealing of Hull's messy divorce files.<ref name=blairhull>Voegeli, William (2004, March 19). "[http://www.claremont.org/publications/pubid.339/pub_detail.asp The Rise and Fall of Blair Hull]." ''The Claremont Institute''.</ref> The files revealed Hull's ex-wife's accusations of verbal and physical abuse.<ref name=spivak /> Hull would afterwards criticize the media, stating, "As for the press, I will never read the newspaper the same way again."<ref name=mendell /> Obama would go on to win the Primary with 53% of the vote.<ref name=blairhull /> Obama's unexpected victory led to him being termed a "rising star" by the media.<ref>Howlett, Debbie (2004, March 18). "[http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/2004-03-18-obama-usat_x.htm Dems See a Rising Star in Illinois Senate Candidate]." ''USA Today''.</ref>
===2004 General Election, Jack Ryan===
Once again Obama found himself trailing to popular frontrunner [[Jack Ryan]], and once again a candidate's campaign imploded thanks to media intervention. In an unprecedented move, the ''Chicago Tribune'' and local TV station WLS sued to force the unsealing of Ryan's divorce files, despite opposition from both Ryan and his wife, Jeri Ryan, who in the files accused Jack Ryan of trying to coerce her to perform sex acts in public. Though Ryan advisors told him he could still win if using a negative attack on Obama, Ryan refused to engage in what he considered dirty politics.<ref name=abandon>''Associated Press'' (2004, June 26). "[http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/state/2004-06-25-ryan_x.htm Jack Ryan Abandons Senate Bid]."</ref> Ryan then dropped out of the race (per request by the Illinois GOP<ref name=idealist>Sangwan, Rahul (2004, October 1). "[http://www.dartmouthindependent.com/archives/2004/10/jack_ryan_81_th.html Jack Ryan '81: The Conservative Idealist]." ''Dartmouth Independent''.</ref>), following which the Illinois GOP scrambled to find a replacement, leaving Obama uncontested for weeks to campaign and build up public support. On top of all this, Obama was selected to give the keynote speech at the 2004 Democratic National Convention (July 27<ref>''Washington Post'' (2004, June 26). "[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A19751-2004Jul27.html Illinois Senate Candidate Barack Obama]."</ref>), catapulting him into the national spotlight, and leading to further media publicity terming him a "rising star".<ref>Page, Susan & Despoignes, Peronet (2004, July 28). "[http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/2004-07-28-obama-speech_x.htm Rising Star Brings Democrats to Their Feet]." ''USA Today''.</ref>
===2004 General Election, Alan Keyes===
: ''Main Article: [[Obama born alive controversy]]''

After a number of candidates including former Chicago Bears coach Mike Ditka declined to run<ref>''CNN'' (2004, August 9). "[http://articles.cnn.com/2004-08-09/politics/il.keyes_1_senate-candidate-senate-race-illinois-senate?_s=PM:ALLPOLITICS Keyes Challenges Obama for Illinois Senate Seat]."</ref>, the Illinois GOP finally settled on fiery [[Alan Keyes]], a former Ambassador to the Economic and Social Counsel of the United Nations<ref name=spivak />, with less than 3 months left before the November 2004 election.<ref name=msnbc /> His sudden entrance into the state for the election was initially attacked in the press as "carpetbagging".<ref>''Chicago Tribune''. "[http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2004-08-06/news/0408060313_1_mr-keyes-judy-baar-topinka-alan-keyes The GOP's Rent-A-Senator]." ''Washington Post'' (2004, August 9). "[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A50885-2004Aug8.html Mr. Keyes the Carpetbagger].</ref><ref name=pearson>Pearson, Rick (2004, September 5). "[http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2004-09-05/news/0409050304_1_selfish-hedonist-alan-keyes-illinois-republican-party Keyes, State GOP Gearing Up Blame Campaign]." ''Chicago Tribune''.</ref> Keyes repeatedly claimed his primary motivation for entering a race he had seemingly no chance of winning was his disgust at Obama's votes on the popular [[Born Alive]] bills.<ref>Keyes, Alan (2004, August 18). "[http://www.mail-archive.com/newsandviews@chuckmuth.com/msg00699.html How You Can Help Alan Keyes for Senate!]." ''Keyes2004 Inc.''</ref> Keyes, from his first day of arriving in Illinois (August 9, 2004)<ref name=assails>''Associated Press'' (2004, August 9). "[http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5654128/ Keyes Assails Obama's Abortion Views]."</ref>, accused Obama of having voted against bills mandating medical care for newborn children, and supporting "infanticide" (the term twice used in the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act<ref>''United States Congress'' (2003, March 13). "[http://news.findlaw.com/wp/docs/abortion/2003s3.html S.3: Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003]."</ref>) where hospitals left newborn infants to die like garbage.<ref>Smiley, Tavis (2004, August 31). "[http://www.keyesarchives.com/transcript.php?id=341 Alan Keyes on the Tavis Smiley Show]." ''NPR''. ''CBS2 Chicago'' (2004, August 30). "[http://www.keyesarchives.com/transcript.php?id=337 Alan Keyes on CBS2 Chicago This Morning]." This Morning.</ref> Obama in a debate on October 13, 2004, defended himself against Keyes' accusations of infanticide by claiming that Illinois law was already sufficient.<ref>''Chicago Tribune'' (2004, October 13). "[http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2004-10-13/news/0410140004_1_alan-keyes-senate-race-first-of-three-debates Debate or Discussion?]"</ref>

However, Keyes' rhetoric, calling Obama's votes "the slaveholder's position"<ref name=assails /> and saying "Jesus Christ would not vote for Obama"<ref>Thomas, Scott (2004, September 7). "[http://www.keyesarchives.com/transcript.php?id=348 Alan Keyes on the Scott Thomas Show (AM1160 - WYLL)]." ''Scott Thomas Show''. Chicago, Illinois.</ref> was widely ridiculed by the press. Keyes' unabashed criticism of homosexuality as "selfish hedonism" was also targeted.<ref name=pearson /><ref>''Associated Press''. "[http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5897569/ Keyes: Cheney's Gay Daughter Practicing Selfish Hedonism]." Pallasch, Abdom M. (2004, September 2). "[http://web.archive.org/web/20071017122135/http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4155/is_20040902/ai_n12560727 Topinka Says He Should Apologize for 'Idiotic' Comment]." ''Chicago Sun-Times''.</ref> Obama would ultimately win the election, 70% to 27%.<ref>''CNN.com''. "[http://cnn.hu/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/IL/S/01/index.html Election Results: U.S. Senate/Illinois]." Election 2004.</ref>

===Voting Record===
Obama frequently used the [[filibuster]] to obstruct the operations of government,<ref>O'Keefe, E. (2010, February 4). [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/03/AR2010020303801_pf.html Obama criticizes Senate Republicans for delaying confirmation votes]. ''The Washington Post''.</ref> voted against the [[minimum wage]]<ref>[http://uspolitics.about.com/od/legislatio1/a/HR2206.htm HR 2206 - Emergency Appropriations], Kathy Gill, Your Guide to U.S. Politics: Current Events. May 26 2007. [http://more.gov.mtopgroup.com/2007/05/votes-hr-2206-iraq-supplemental.html Votes - H.R. 2206: Iraq Supplemental], May 28, 2007. Retrieved from Deeper Inside the Mountain, June 4, 2007.</ref> and debt ceiling increases,<ref>Kaplan, R. (2011, April 11). [http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/04/obama-once-opposed-debt-ceiling-hike/237129/ Obama Once Opposed Debt Ceiling Hike]. ''The Atlantic''.</ref> and recieved more than $126,000 in campaign contributions from [[Fannie Mae]]. The ''[[National Journal]]'' ranked him the most liberal senator in 2007.<ref name="ranked">{{cite web|url=http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-502163_162-3775451-502163.html|title=National Journal: Obama Most Liberal Senator In 2007|author=Brian Montopoli|date=January 31, 2008|work=CBS}}</ref>

==2008 Presidential Election==
{{main article|Barack Hussein Obama 2008 Presidential campaign}}
Democrats began calling for an Obama candidacy after liberals lauded his 2004 [[Democratic National Convention]] speech.
====Primary Election====
In 2007-08, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton competed for the Democratic nomination. Hillary Clinton cleverly resurrected the "Born Alive" controversy surrounding Obama that had lain largely dormant since 2004 (notwithstanding the continuing mentions by Jill Stanek), by accusing Obama of not being pro-choice for voting "Present" on a number of abortion-related bills<ref>Bettelheim, Adriel (2008, February 13). "[http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2008/feb/13/obamas-present-tension/ Obama's 'Present' Tension]." ''PolitiFact''.</ref> - including the Born Alive ones,<ref name=clinton>Berman, Russell (2008, January 17). "[http://www.nysun.com/national/clinton-obama-should-vote-no-on-abortion-issue/69700/ Clinton: Obama Should Vote 'No' On Abortion Issue She Backed]." ''New York Sun''. Hernandez, Raymond & Drew, Christopher (2007, December 20). "[http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/20/us/politics/20obama.html?pagewanted=all It's Not Just 'Ayes' and 'Nays': Obama's Votes in Illinois Echo]." ''New York Times''.</ref> and cowardly ducking the votes.<ref>''Politi-Fact''. "[http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2008/feb/13/hillary-clinton/yes-but-its-complicated/ Response to Hillary Clinton Comment for January 21st, 2008]." Truth-o-Meter. Dorning, Mike (2007, December 20). "[http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2007/12/criticism_of_obama_present_vot.html Clinton Camp Criticizes Obama 'Present' Votes]." The Swamp. ''Chicago Tribune''.</ref> This led to criticism of Obama by two pro-choice organizations, Emily's List, and the National Organization for Women.<ref>Dorning, Mike (2008, January 14). "[http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2008/01/obama_campaign_mounts_defense.html The Swamp: Obama Campaign Defends His Abortion-Rights Record]." ''Chicago Tribune''. Dorn, Michael (2008, February 6). "[http://voices.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/02/obamas_voting_record_on_aborti_1.html Obama's Voting Record on Abortion]." ''Washington Post''. Newton-Small, Jay (2008, January 14). "[http://swampland.time.com/2008/01/14/obama_campaign_defends_present/ Obama Campaign Defends 'Present' Abortion Votes]." ''Time Magazine''.</ref> However, Pam Sutherland, the long-time head of Illinois Planned Parenthood, came to Obama's aid, criticizing Clinton for making the attack, and stating repeatedly that Obama's present votes were part of a broader strategy used by Planned Parenthood to keep Illinois voters from knowing their state senators were voting against the controversial and popular bills.<ref>Hernandez, Raymond & Drew, Christopher (2007, December 20). "[http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/20/us/politics/20cnd-obama.html?_r=2&hp&oref=slogin Obama's Vote in Illinois Was Often Just 'Present']." ''New York Times''. Follmer, Max (2008, March 28). "[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/01/14/obama-emphasizes-prochoic_n_81460.html Obama Emphasizes Pro-Choice Voting Record as Clinton Questions 'Present' Votes]." ''Huffington Post''.</ref>
{{cquote|"He came to me and said: ‘My members are being attacked. We need to figure out a way to protect members and to protect women. A ‘present’ vote was hard to pigeonhole which is exactly what Obama wanted. What it did was give cover to moderate Democrats who wanted to vote with us but were afraid to do so" because of how their votes would be used against them electorally. A ‘present’ vote would protect them. Your senator voted ‘present.’ Most of the electorate is not going to know what that means."
-Pam Sutherland, President/CEO of Illinois Planned Parenthood Council, 1980-2012<ref>Davis, Teddy (2007, July 17). "[http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2007/07/obama-abortion/ Obama Abortion Dodges Blessed by Planned Parenthood], ''ABC News''.</ref>}}Clinton also made the claim repeatedly that while Obama was leading in Delegates she was winning the Popular Vote<ref>Koffler, Daniel (2008, May 28). "[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/daniel-koffler/hillary-clinton-and-the-p_b_103913.html Hillary Clinton and the Popular Vote: Not Wrong, but Meaningless]." ''Huffington Post''. Barone, Michael (2008, March 28). "[http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/barone/2008/03/28/projection-clinton-wins-popular-vote-obama-wins-delegate-count Projection: Clinton Wins Popular Vote, Obama Wins Delegate Vote]." ''U.S. News''.</ref>, though this was in part because Obama hadn't been registered in Michigan.<ref>Romano, Andrew (2008, August 2). "[http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/blogs/stumper/2008/06/02/clinton-s-popular-vote-claim-close-but-not-quite.html Clinton's Popular Vote Claim? Close--But Not Quite*]." ''Newsweek''. ''RealClearPolitics''. "[http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_vote_count.html 2008 Democratic Popular Vote]."</ref> Obama's advantage with super-delegates over Clinton was about 2-to-1.<ref>{{Cite web|title=Superdelegate endorsements for Friday 6/6|work=Democratic Convention Watch|url=http://demconwatch.blogspot.com/2008/06/superdelegate-endorsements-for-friday.html}}</ref> Obama was able to attract the support of [[liberals]] by pointing out that he had come out against the [[Iraq War]] "from the beginning" whereas Clinton had voted in favor of the war in 2002.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-01-31-democrats-debate_N.htm|title=Obama, Clinton stress differences on Iraq, issues|author=David Jackson|work=USA Today|format=HTML|language=English}}</ref> On June 7, 2008, Hillary Clinton withdrew from the Primaries, conceding the race and endorsing her opponent<ref>''Associated Press''. "[http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24993082/ns/politics-decision_08/t/clinton-ends-historic-bid-endorses-obama/ Clinton Ends Historic Bid, Endorses Obama]."</ref>, when Obama passed the 2,118 Delegates required; winning 2,201 delegates to Clinton's 1,896.<ref>''CNN''. "[http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/scorecard/#D Election Center 2008].</ref>
====Born Alive Record Resurfaces====
On June 30, 2008, Obama's voting record on the "Born Alive" bills came once more to the forefront when CNN gave voice to the growing controversy and revealed the defense Obama had been using since 2004-2008, that the Illinois bills he'd voted against were different from the federal bill, was false, since he'd brought up for a vote a bill word for word identical to the federal bill in the Health and Human Services Committee he chaired, and voted against it, defeating it.<ref>''CNN''. "[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPZCXcTwZPY How He Really Voted on Abortion: Obama's Record Under Attack]." ''The Situation Room''. Uploaded to ''YouTube'' by Jill Stanek. ''CNN''. "[http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0806/30/sitroom.02.html Transcripts: June 30, 2008]." The Situation Room.</ref> This led in August to a confrontation between Obama and the [[NRLC]].<ref>''National Right to Life Committee''. "[http://www.nrlc.org/news/2008/NRL08/ObamaCoverup.html Obama Cover-up Revealed on Born-Alive Abortion Survivor's Bill]." NRL News, Vol. 35, Issue 7-8, pg. 5.</ref> After Obama accused critics of 'lying'<ref>Brody, David (2008, August 16). "[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Skq5M1Ksp_c McCain/Obama Forum]." ''CNN''. Uploaded to ''YouTube'' by Jill Stanek. David Brody (August 16, 2008). "[http://blogs.cbn.com/thebrodyfile/archive/2008/08/16/obama-gets-heated-on-born-alive-infant-protection-act.aspx Obama Gets Heated on Born Alive Infant Protection Act]." ''CBN News''. The Brody File.</ref> the NRLC challenged the assertion, and the Obama campaign conceded he "misspoke" and had voted against an identical bill to the "federal bill that everybody supported" but focused on Obama's new claim, that Illinois law was already sufficient to protect newborn children.<ref>Berman, Russell (2008, August 18). "[http://www.nysun.com/national/obama-facing-attacks-from-all-sides-over-abortion/84059/ Obama Facing Attacks From All Sides Over Abortion Record]." ''New York Sun''.</ref> The NRLC promptly declared "Senator Barack Obama's four-year effort to cover up his full role in killing legislation to protect born-alive survivors of abortions continues to unravel."<ref>Johnson, Douglas (2008, August 18). "[http://www.nrlc.org/ObamaBAIPA/Obamacoveruponbornalive.htm Obama Cover-up on Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Continues to Unravel After Sen. Obama Says NRLC is 'Lying']." ''National Right to Life Committee''.</ref>
====Jeremiah Wright====
:''See also: [[Barack Obama and Liberation Theology]]''
One major dilemma that arose for Obama during his campaign was his connection to his preacher [[Jeremiah Wright]]. Obama and his wife (raised a Baptist) were members of the Trinity [[United Church of Christ]]<ref>http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1776246/posts</ref> in Chicago, a church that embraced [[black liberation theology]] and its emphasis on empowering so-called "oppressed groups" against "establishment forces". This denomination was the first in America to ordain gays as ministers.<ref>http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/31079.html, Obama's church pushes controversial doctrines, March 20, 2008</ref> Church pastor Jeremiah Wright had been making inflammatory comments and posting his sermons online for sale. These include the statement "G-d damn America," and in describing the September 11th attacks, "We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans, and now we are indignant because the stuff we have done overseas is now brought right back to our own front yards. America's chickens are coming home to roost."<ref>[http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/Story?id=4443788 Obama's Pastor: G-d Damn America, U.S. to Blame for 9/11]</ref> In addition, Rev. Wright blamed America saying "We supported Zionism shamelessly while ignoring the Palestinians and branding anybody who spoke out against it as being [[anti-Semitic]]."

In April 2008, after 20 years in the church, candidate Obama made public statements poised to set him at odds with the man who conducted his wedding and baptized his children. With the negative publicity persisting, a month later Obama ended the friendship, left Wright's church, and blamed the media.<ref>[http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/05/31/obama-resigns-church-membership-in-chicago/], Obama Drops Church Membership in Chicago, May 31, 2008</ref> Obama claimed “It’s not fair to the other members of the church who seek to worship in peace...", and distanced himself from Wright's sermons as "a bunch of rants that aren't grounded in the truth."<ref>USA TODAY, ''Obama breaks with former pastor, Candidate cites rants on U.S. role in terror, AIDS'', by Kathy Kiely and David Jackson [http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/news/20080430/1a_offlede30_dom.art.htm]</ref><ref>''Obama Says He Is Outraged By Wright's "Rants"''[http://www.usnews.com/usnews/politics/bulletin/bulletin_080430.htm]</ref>

====Result====
Obama made an effort to portray John McCain as similar to George W. Bush, drawing attention to McCain's refusal to criticize the unpopular president. McCain was particularly criticized for saying of how many years we should be willing to stay in Iraq, "Make it a hundred."<ref>Dobbs, Michael (2008, April 2). "[http://voices.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/04/mccains_100year_war.html FactChecker: McCain's '100-Year War']." ''Washington Post''.</ref>{{cquote|"John McCain went on television and said that there has been great progress economically over the last seven-and-a-half years. John McCain thinks our economy has made great progress under George W. Bush? How could somebody who has been traveling across this country, somebody who came to Erie, Pennsylvania, say we’ve made great progress?"
-Barack Obama<ref>Zeleny, Jeff (2008, April 18). "[http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/04/18/obama-criticizes-mccain-on-economic-stance/ Obama Criticizes McCain on Economic Stance]." ''New York Times''.</ref>}} On August 22nd, Obama selected [[Joe Biden]] as his running mate for the vice presidency<ref>''CNN'' (2008, August 23). "[http://articles.cnn.com/2008-08-23/politics/biden.democrat.vp.candidate_1_biden-john-mccain-barack-obama?_s=PM:POLITICS Obama Introduces Biden as Running Mate]."</ref>, which would be contrasted one week later with John McCain's selection of [[Sarah Palin]].<ref>Cooper, Michael & Bumiller, Elisabeth (2008, August 29). "[http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/30/us/politics/29palin.html?pagewanted=all Alaskan is McCain's Choice; First Woman on G.O.P. Ticket]. ''New York Times''.</ref>

On November 2, 2008, Barack Obama won the presidential election with 365 electoral votes to John McCain's 173.<ref>(2008, November 14). "[http://elections.nytimes.com/2008/results/president/explorer.html Electoral Explorer]." Election Results 2008. ''New York Times''.</ref> Obama received 53% of the popular vote to John McCain's 46%.<ref>(2008, November 17). "[http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/president/ President]." Election Center 2008. ''CNN''.</ref>

==2009-2012, U.S. Presidency==
{{main article|Obama administration}}
[[File:Obama and George H. W. Bush.jpg|thumb|right|300px|President Barack Obama meets with former President George H. W. Bush in the Oval Office, Feb. 15, 2011. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza).]]
Under Obama's stewardship the United States has suffered the largest [[Federal budget deficit|deficit]]s<ref>Edwards, B. et. al. (2009, November 6). [http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/107xx/doc10708/11-06-mbr.htm Monthly Budget Review: Fiscal Year 2009]. ''Congressional Budget Office''. Delisle, E.C. et. al. (2010, November 5). [http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/118xx/doc11873/NovemberMBR.pdf Monthly Budget Review: Fiscal Year 2010]. ''Congressional Budget Office''.</ref> in history and a credit downgrade from the rating agency Standard & Poor. However, during the Obama Administration the national deficit has increased at a much lower rate than during the Bush Administration. Most observers attribute the deficits to increasing benefits and welfare paid out on account of the Recession he inherited and has failed to end along with decreasing tax receipts. Standard & Poor decided to downgrade U.S. government deby after the debt ceiling debate debacle, where Congressional leaders refused to pass a bill authorizing borrowing to pay for the budget they had passed with much debate and controversy earlier in the year. Cynics have argued that rhetoric directed at the rating agencies about the issuance of AAA ratings to junk real estate bonds spurred the downgrade as a form of retribution. Ironically, the investor scare led to the flocking of investors to the safe haven of the Treasury bonds which had been downgraded, resulting in lower interest rates. As there are very few AAA bond markets, investors will likely continue to buy U.S. government debt for the foreseeable future. <ref>Greenwald, A. (2011, April 18). [http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2011/04/18/the-sp-outlook-and-obama/ The S&P Outlook and Obama]. ''Commentary Magazine''.</ref> When his [[economic stimulus]] program was adopted unemployment rose and stagnated in the 10% range, <ref>Di Leo, L & Lynch, S.N. (2010, August 20). [http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704476104575439172480870774.html Jobless Claims Jump in New Sign Recovery is Sputtering]. ''The Wall Street Journal''.</ref> leaving tens of millions without [[hope]] of finding a job.<ref>Bureau of Labor Statistics. [http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet?data_tool=latest_numbers&series_id=LNS11300000&years_option=specific_years&include_graphs=true&to_month=1&from_month=2 Databases, Tables & Calculators by Subject: Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey]. ''United States Department of Labor''. Data extracted on: July 19, 2010 (4:31:11 PM).</ref>

Patrick H. Caddell and Douglas E. Schoen, writing in the [[Wall Street Journal]], noted, "Rather than being a unifier, Mr. Obama has divided America on the basis of race, class and partisanship." The commentators also note Obama's approach to governance has encouraged radical leftists to pursue a similar strategy on his behalf. Mary Frances Berry, former head of the U.S. Civil Rights Commission, acknowledged that the [[Obama administration]] has taken to polarizing America around the issue of race as a means of diverting attention from other issues, saying, "Having one's opponent [[race card|rebut charges of racism]] is far better than discussing [[Unemployment|joblessness]]."<ref>Berry, M.F. (2010, July 20). [http://www.politico.com/arena/perm/Mary_Frances_Berry_91E3D9D5-C40D-440C-9D48-1C50CBC60C87.html Energy Arena, Driving the Conversation: Contracting Out U.S. Security? And will Branding Tea Party Racist Work?] ''Politico''.</ref> Caddell and Schoen, who worked for President Carter and Clinton, respectively, further stated, "Mr. Obama has also cynically [[class warfare|divided the country on class lines]]. He has taken to playing the populist card time and time again. He bashes Wall Street and insurance companies whenever convenient to advance his programs, yet he has been eager to accept campaign contributions and negotiate with these very same banks and [[corporation]]s behind closed doors in order to advance his political agenda... President Obama's divisive approach to governance has weakened us as a people and paralyzed our political culture."<ref>Caddell, P.H. & Schoen, D.E. (2010, July 28). [http://online.wsj.com/article/NA_WSJ_PUB:SB10001424052748703700904575391553798363586.html Our Divisive President]. ''The Wall Street Journal''.</ref>
===Domestic policy===
====Popular bills====
Obama's first act of office was to sign the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act - effectively nullifying the [[Supreme Court]] case ''Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.'', which ruled that Ledbetter had to have filed a pay [[discrimination]] suit within 180 days of the first time Ledbetter was paid less than her male peers;<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/30/us/politics/30ledbetter-web.html|work=The New York Times|format=HTML|language=English|title=Obama Signs Equal-Pay Legislation|author=Sheryl Gay Stolberg|date=January 29, 2009}}</ref> the law made corporations subject to suit within 180 days of each time the employee was unfairly paid.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://writ.news.findlaw.com/grossman/20090213.html?=features|work=FindLaw|author=Joanna L. Grossman|date=Feb. 13, 2009|format=HTML|language=English|title=The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009}}</ref>

On January 2, 2011, Obama signed the James Zadroga [[9/11]] Healthcare and Compensation Act.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.wnyc.org/articles/wnyc-news/2011/jan/02/obama-signs-zadroga-act-law/|publisher=New York Public Radio|title=Obama Signs Zadroga Act into Law|author=Fred Mogul|date=January 02, 2011|work=wNYC|format=HTML|language=English}}</ref> The act, which afforded 9/11 first responders who were sickened by the dust from the collapse of the [[World Trade Center]] health care and compensation, passed [[Congress]] after its sponsored agreed to scale down the pricing from 7.4 to 4.2 billion dollars.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.wnyc.org/articles/wnyc-news/2010/dec/22/zadroga-911-bill-passes-senate/|publisher=New York Public Radio|work=wNYC|format=HTML|language=English|title=Congress Approves 9/11 Health Bill|date=December 22, 2010}}</ref>

====Economic policy====
[[File:Keynes.jpg|thumbnail|right|190px|[[Barack Obama]] advocates the use of discredited [[Keynesian economics|Keynesian economic concepts]]<ref>
*[http://centurean2.wordpress.com/2011/03/20/fabian-john-maynard-keynes-the-stealthy-enemy-of-human-freedom/ John Maynard Keynes the stealthy enemy of human freedom]
*[http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-02-22/deathbed-of-keynesian-economics-will-be-in-u-k-matthew-lynn.html Deathbed of Keynesian Economics will be in the UK]
*[http://www.iwf.org/inkwell/show/23102.html Will the G8 Repudiate the Philosophy of Living Beyond Our Means?]
*[http://www.keynesatharvard.org/book/KeynesatHarvard-ch09.html KEYNES AT HARVARD Economic Deception as a Political Credo BY ZYGMUND DOBBS]
</ref> ]]
{{see also|Obamunism|American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009}}
Critics of the Obama administration have coined the word "[[Obamunism]]" to describe Barack Obama's [[socialism|socialistic]] and "[[fascism]] light" [[economic planning]] policies.<ref>[[Benito Mussolini]] defined fascism as the wedding of state and corporate powers. Accordingly, trend forecaster [[Gerald Celente]] labels [[Obama administration corporate bailouts|Obama's corporate bailouts]] as being "fascism light" in nature.</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.thebigmoney.com/articles/daily-intel/2009/07/20/obamunism-inc|work=The Big Money|publisher=WashingtonPost.Newsweek Interactive Co. LLC|format=HTML|language=English|title=Obamunism, Inc.|author=David Sessions|date=July 20, 2009}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.smallbusinessadvocate.com/small-business-interviews/gerald-celente-6944|author=Jim Blasingame|title=Is the government creating a bailout bubble?}}</ref> Obamunism can also refer to Obama's [[Obama administration fiscal policy|ruinous fiscal policies]] and [[Obama administration monetary policy|reckless monetary policies]].<ref name="gerard">{{cite web|url=http://seekingalpha.com/article/120883-monetary-policynot-obama-s-stimulusis-what-needs-watching|title=Monetary Policy-Not Obama's Stimulus-Is What Needs Watching|author=Gerard Jackson|date=February 16, 2009|work=Seeking Alpha}}</ref><ref name="bam">{{cite web|work=New York Post|date=May 17, 2009|url=http://www.nypost.com/seven/05172009/postopinion/editorials/bams_wise_words_169731.htm|title=BAM'S WISE WORDS}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://blog.heritage.org/2009/03/24/bush-deficit-vs-obama-deficit-in-pictures/|title=Bush Deficit vs. Obama Deficit in Pictures|work=The Foundry|publisher=The Heritage Foundation|author=Conn Carroll|date=March 24th, 2009}}</ref> As seen in his own actions, Barack Obama instructed his advisors to find loopholes that would enable the president to act as a [[dictator]] by pushing through legislation and increases in spending without congressional authority.<ref>Naked Emperor News (2011, October 12). [http://www.theblaze.com/stories/executive-dictatorship-obama-instructs-advisers-to-push-through-stimulus-projects-without-pesky-congressional-authorization/ Exclusive Dictatorship: Obama Instructs Advisors to Push Through Stimulus Projects Without Pesky 'Congressional Authorization']. ''The Blaze''.</ref>

Nevertheless, budgets passed under President Obama have included the smallest average annualized growth of federal spending (1.4%) since before President Reagan. Federal spending grew an average of 8.7% per year during Reagan's first term and an average of 8.1% per year during George W. Bush's second term.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2012/05/24/who-is-the-smallest-government-spender-since-eisenhower-would-you-believe-its-barack-obama/|title=Who Is The Smallest Government Spender Since Eisenhower? Would You Believe It's Barack Obama?|publisher=Forbes|author=Rick Ungar|date=May 24th, 2012}}</ref>

[[Wall Street]] firms and banks that were bailed out were among Obama's biggest campaign supporters.<ref>''OpenSecrets.org''. [http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.php?cycle=2008&cid=N00009638 Barack Obama: Top Contributors]. The Center for Responsive Politics.</ref> Therefore, the Obama administration bailouts of corrupt, unproductive, and reckless Wall Street firms was hardly surprising, and many argue that it was not helpful in making the United States economy more productive and prosperous by encouraging more risk taking through letting banks off with a slap on the wrist. Others argue that bailing out the banks kept credit flowing and prevented a much deeper recession and a total collapse of the financial system. The government will recoup some though not all of its capital infusions over time. A 2005 study found that government corporate bailouts are often done for mere political considerations and the economic resources allocated exhibit significantly worse economic performance than resources allocated using purely business considerations.<ref>Faccio, M. et. al. (2005, March 1). [http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=676905 Political Connections and Corporate Bailouts]. ''Social Science Research Network''.</ref> Proponents of [[free market]] capitalism said Bernanke should not have bailed out failing firms and instead should have allowed free market capitalism to quickly recover as it did in the depression of 1920 without government intervention (free market capitalists assert that government intervention drags out economic recessions and depressions).<ref>Woods, T.E. (2009, April 10). [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=czcUmnsprQI Why You've Never Heard of the Great Depression of 1920]. ''Ludwig Von Mises Institute''. Hosted on ''YouTube''.</ref>

Top trend forecaster [[Gerald Celente]] predicts that the corrupt economic policies of the Obama administration will lead to a second [[Great Depression|great depression]] (Celente predicted the 1987 US stock market crash, the dot.com crash, the US 2008/2009 recession, and the collapse of the USSR in the early 1990s) and may lead to a "second [[American Revolution]]" (Celente predicted the [[Tea Party Movement|tax protests]] that are now occurring in America).<ref name="celente1">Celente, G. (2009, August 1). [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8MMX3SKzrfU&feature=channel_page pt 2/2 Gerald Celente on Financial Sense Newshour Aug 1st 2009]. ''Financial Sense Newshour''. Hosted on ''YouTube''.</ref><ref name="celente2">Celente, G. (2009, August 2). [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sy9bfw1ebgw&feature=response_watch ]. ''Financial Sense Newshour''. Hosted on ''YouTube''.</ref> Celente also asserts that the costly and inefficient temporary short term methods that the Obama administration is using to alleviate economic problems in the short term (which is causing massive increases in [[Obama administration deficit spending]]) is only making matters worse and will not prevent the worse economic depression in United States history from occurring.<ref>Celente, G. (2009, August 11). [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_C8K7rWkGGw pt 1/2 Gerald Celente on Howestreet.com 11 Aug 2009]. ''HoweStreet.com''. Hosted on ''YouTube''.</ref><ref>Celente, G. (2009, August 11). [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1LBffdIW0XA&feature=response_watch pt 2/2 Gerald Celente on Howestreet.com 11 Aug 2009]. ''HoweStreet.com''. Hosted on ''YouTube''.</ref>

The Obama administration has been sharply criticized for [[Obama administration deficit spending|its massive deficit spending]] and [[Obama administration monetary policy|its reckless monetary policy]] via vast increases in the [[money supply]], although inflation under Bernanke has been below the historic mean.<ref name="gerard"/><ref name="bam"/><ref>Carroll, C. (2009, March 24). [http://blog.heritage.org/2009/03/24/bush-deficit-vs-obama-deficit-in-pictures/ Bush Deficit vs. Obama Deficit in Pictures]. ''The Foundry''. The Heritage Network.</ref> Celente predicts that if a "second American Revolution" occurs in a peaceful and productive manner, it may include a [[Third Party System|third party movement]] of governance that will advocate a more [[free market]] [[capitalism]] approach to the American economy and a more strict interpretation of the [[United States Constitution|United States constitution]] as far as the authors' [[original intent]].<ref name="celente1"/><ref name="celente2"/>

During what the [[White House]] billed as [[Recovery Summer]], one half million workers per week continued losing their jobs. His signature legislative achievement, [[ObamaCare]],has been found to be [[unconstitutional]]<ref>Schoenberg, T. & Fisk, M.T. (2010, December 13). [http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-12-13/u-s-health-care-law-requirement-thrown-out-by-judge.html Obama's Health-Care Law Ruled Unconstitutional Over Insurance Requirement]. ''Bloomberg''.</ref> by several judges and constitutional by others, and is credited as a major cause of uncertainty, high [[unemployment]],<ref>http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=33220</ref> lagging job creation,<ref>Foster, J.D. (2010, August 5). [http://blog.heritage.org/2010/08/05/it%E2%80%99s-official-medicare%E2%80%99s-finances-shadowed-by-uncertainty/ It’s Official: Medicare’s Finances Shadowed by Uncertainty]. ''The Foundry''. The Heritage Network.</ref> and risk of a credit default crisis.<ref>Samuelson, R.J. (2010, March 29). [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/28/AR2010032802353.html With health bill, Obama has sown the seeds of a budget crisis]. ''The Washington Post''.</ref><ref>Cramer, J. (2010, March 16). [http://www.thestreet.com/story/10703361/cramer-obamacare-will-topple-the-market.html Cramer: Obamacare Will Topple the Market]. ''The Street''.</ref>

His 2012 Budget plan has been roundly criticized in the mainstream and liberal press as not a serious effort to deal with the nation's economic crisis.<ref>[http://republican.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=blogs.view&blog_id=1551d6f5-2ac9-4b8d-97ab-74def354024e Newspapers Call Out White House: ‘What Would That Path Be, Mr. President?’]</ref>

[[Jeffrey Tucker]] wrote, "President Obama's economic policy has been catastrophic for liberty, enterprise, and the American dream—the very archetype of what not to do to end recession." [http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1118186176/ref=as_li_tf_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=anncoulter-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=1118186176]

====2009 Stimulus====
In early 2009, Obama lobbied Congress and the public to pass sweeping Stimulus legislation for the ailing economy<ref>(2009, January 3). "[http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28479998/ns/politics-white_house/t/obama-urges-congress-pass-stimulus-plan/ Obama Urges Congress to Pass Stimulus Plan]." ''Associated Press''. Parsons, C. & Nicholas, P. (2009, February 10). "[http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28479998/ns/politics-white_house/t/obama-urges-congress-pass-stimulus-plan/ Barack Obama Sternly Urges Congress to Pass Economic Stimulus]." ''Chicago Tribune''.</ref> known as ''The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009'' (H.R. 1)<ref>"[http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.1: Bill Text Versions: H.R. 1]." 111th Congress (2009-2010). ''Library of Congress''. "[http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,id=204335,00.html The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009: Information Center]." ''IRS''.</ref>, ignoring a report by the Congressional Budget Office that the legislation would ultimately harm the economy.<ref>Dinan, S. (2009, February 4). "[http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/feb/04/cbo-obama-stimulus-harmful-over-long-haul/ CBO: Obama Stimulus Harmful Over Long Haul]." ''U.S. News''.</ref> Contrary to his earlier promises of bipartisanship<ref>Dinan, S. (2009, March 28). "[http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/mar/28/mccain-obama-breaks-campaign-promises-shuns-bipart/?page=all McCain: Obama Breaks Promise of Bipartisanship]." ''Washington Times''.</ref>, the bill passed the House 244-188 without a single Republican vote on January 28, 2009,<ref>Calmes, J. (2009, January 28). "[http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/29/us/politics/29obama.html House Passes Stimulus Plan With No G.O.P. Votes]." ''New York Times''.</ref> and received just 3 Republican votes when passing the Senate 61-37.<ref>Herszenhorn, D.M. (2009, February 10). "[http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/11/washington/11web-stim.html Senate Approves Stimulus Plan]." ''New York Times''.</ref> One third of the massive $838 billion bill consisted of tax cuts<ref>(2009, February 11). "Senate Passes $838 Billion Stimulus Bill]." ''Associated Press''.</ref> and the rest spending on "just about every pent-up Democratic proposal of the last 40 years."<ref>(2009, January 28). "[http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123310466514522309.html A 40-Year Wish List]." ''Wall Street Journal''.</ref> In responding to criticism of the broken bipartisanship promise at the time, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi famously quipped, "We won the election. We wrote the bill."<ref>Kane, P. (2009, January 23). "[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/22/AR2009012203961.html Stimulus Plan Meets More GOP Resistance]." ''Washington Post''.</ref> On February 18, 2009, the Stimulus was signed into law by Obama.<ref>(2009, February 17). "[http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29231790/ns/politics-white_house/t/obama-stimulus-lets-americans-claim-destiny/ Obama: Stimulus Lets Americans Claim Destiny]." ''Associated Press''.</ref> In August 2009, Republicans and Democratic Senator David Obey drew attention to mistakes on the Recovery.gov site claiming Stimulus jobs created that didn't exist. Obama responded by saying the errors just indicate the accounting is an "inexact science".<ref>(2009, November 18). "[http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/11/18/obama-calls-stimulus-data-errors-issue-says-focus-job-growth/ Obama Calls Stimulus Data Errors 'Side Issue,' Says Focus Is on Job Growth]." ''FOX News''.</ref>
====Healthcare====
{{main article|Obamacare}}
On March 23, 2010, Obama signed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA). The act had originated in the House of Representatives and passed September 17, 2009. The act was amended and passed the Senate prior to [[Democrat]] [[Ted Kennedy]]'s passing along party lines - just a filibuster-proof majority at 60-39. In what can be construed as a de facto rejection of the bill, [[Massachusetts]] voters elected a [[Republican]] candidate, [[Scott Brown]], who promised to vote against the bill,<ref>{{cite web|url=http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/senate/scott-brown-wins-massachusetts-senate-race.html|work=The Washington Post|author=Chris Cillizza|date=January 19, 2010|title=Scott Brown wins Massachusetts Senate special election race|language=English|format=HTML}}</ref> but another Senate vote would not occur. Scott Brown was also an excellent campaigner and judged to be a better candidate than his rival, Martha Coakley. He has since achieved one of the most moderate senate voting records, likely to avoid the anger of his mostly liberal constituency. After Obama made a promise to issue an [[executive order]] that would ultimately prohibit the use of taxpayer subsidies to pay for [[abortion]] services,<ref>{{cite web|url=http://articles.latimes.com/2010/mar/22/nation/la-na-healthcare-passage22-2010mar22/3|work=The Los Angeles Times|format=HTML|language=English|title=House passes historic healthcare overhaul|date=March 22, 2010|author=Noam N. Levey and Janet Hook}}</ref> the [[House of Representatives]] would pass the bill as it left the Senate 219-212, with 34 Democrats and all other parties dissenting.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://articles.cnn.com/2010-03-21/politics/health.care.main_1_health-care-entire-house-democratic-caucus-pre-existing-conditions?_s=PM:POLITICS|date=March 21, 2010|author=Alan Silverleib|work=CNN|format=HTML|language=English|title=House passes health care bill on 219-212 vote}}</ref>

Amongst other things, the act mandates that the population purchase health care coverage or face punitive tax measures, and on this basis has been constitutionally challenged in the federal courts, with mixed results (three courts have upheld the act, two have declared it unconstitutional); thus, the Act is likely destined for [[Supreme Court]] reviewal. Plans originally proposed involved instituting a universal public insurance program, that is, extending Medicare to everyone. The universal mandate included in the act was originally a conservative idea that was enacted in Massachusetts under Republican Mitt Romney. Its supporters note that having health insurance results in reduced costs in paying for treatment of uninsured and forcing people to take responsibility for their healthcare. Due to ethical constraints, doctors cannot deny care to poor patients, resulting in the hospital and the healthcare system at large bearing the cost.

====Gulf oil spill====
{{main article|Gulf of Mexico oil spill disaster}}
President Obama authorized offshore oil drilling in the [[Gulf of Mexico]]<ref>[http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2010/0430/Gulf-of-Mexico-oil-spill-imperils-Obama-s-offshore-drilling-plan Gulf of Mexico oil spill imperils Obama's offshore drilling plan,] By Mark Clayton, ''Christian Science Monitor'', April 30, 2010.</ref> stating, "oil rigs today generally don’t cause spills"<ref>White House Press Release, [http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/remarks-president-a-discussion-jobs-and-economy-charlotte-north-carolina Remarks by the President in a Discussion on Jobs and the Economy in Charlotte, North Carolina,] Office of the Press Secretary, April 02, 2010. Retrieved from whitehouse.gov 3 May 2010.</ref> and was widely criticized for his mishandling of the "[[Gulf oil spill disaster|worst environmental disaster]] in US history."<ref>[http://www.examiner.com/x-33986-Political-Spin-Examiner~y2010m4d29-Worst-environmental-disaster-in-US-history-Oil-slick-in-Gulf-of-Mexico-is-set-on-fire Worst environmental disaster in US history,] Maryann Tobin, ''Examiner'', April 29, 2010.</ref><ref>[http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/04/30/the-oil-spill-is-obamas-fault/?src=twt&twt=NytimesKrugman Conscience of a Liberal: The Oil Spill Is Obama’s Fault,] Paul Krugman, ''New York Times'', April 30, 2010.</ref>
====Don't Ask Don't Tell====
{{main article|Don't Ask Don't Tell}}
Candidate Obama promised to repeal a policy that originated in the Clinton era that prohibited inquiries into military personnel's [[sexual orientation]] while also barring "out" [[homosexuals]] from serving in the military. [[Liberals]] expressed anger when time passed and no effort to repeal the law was seen;<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/nov/21/obama-to-delay-repeal-of-dont-ask-dont-tell/|work=The Washington Times|format=HTML|title=Obama to delay ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ repeal|language=English|author=Rowan Scarborough|date=November 21, 2008}}</ref> in fact, Obama's [[justice department]], as part of their duty to defend all laws passed by any administration, filed a brief arguing against the [[Supreme Court]] granting a [[writ of certiorari]] to a gay soldier challenging the law (the writ was not granted). In response, the soldier, James Pietrangelo II, a former Army infantryman and lawyer, said, “[Obama's] a coward, a bigot and a pathological liar. This is a guy who spent more time picking out his dog, Bo, and playing with him on the White House lawn than he has working for equality for gay people."<ref>{{cite web|work=Time Magazine|publisher=Time Inc.|format=HTML|url=http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1903545,00.html?imw=Y|title=Dismay Over Obama's 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' Turnabout|author=Mark Thompson|date=Jun. 09, 2009}}</ref>

On December 15th, 2010, a bill was introduced in the [[House of Representatives]] to repeal the law - it passed a day later by a vote of 250-175;<ref>{{cite web|url=http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2010/roll638.xml|title=FINAL VOTE RESULTS FOR ROLL CALL 638|format=HTML|work=Office of the Clerk of the U.S. House of Representatives}}</ref> it passed the Senate three days later 65-31.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=111&session=2&vote=00281|work=The U.S. Senate|title=U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 111th Congress - 2nd Session|format=HTML|language=English}}</ref> Obama signed the Don't Ask, Don't Tell Repeal Act of 2010 on December 22nd.<ref name="g dadt">{{cite web|url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/dec/22/obama-repeals-dont-ask-dont-tell|work=The Guardian|format=HTML|language=English|title='Don't ask, don't tell' repealed as Obama signs landmark law|date=22 December 2010}}</ref>

The [[Pentagon]] itself could not immediately implement the repeal and questioned whether it would hurt combat readiness.<ref name="g dadt"/> Senator [[John McCain]], the senior Republican on the Armed Services Committee, opposed the bill, saying "It may be premature to make such a change at this time and in this manner, without further consideration of this report and further study of the issue by Congress – for of all the people we serve, one of our highest responsibilities is to the men and women of our armed services, especially those risking their lives in combat.”<ref>{{cite web|url=http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/12/02/mccain-on-dont-ask-dont-tell-dont-rush/|title=McCain on ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’: Don’t Rush|date=December 2nd, 2010|format=HTML|author=David M. Herszenhorn|language=English|work=The New York Times}}</ref>
===Foreign policy===
[[File:Western Wall Obama.jpg|thumb|left|320px|At [[Western Wall]], Jerusalem, 2008.]]
As Senator, Obama was highly critical of President Bush and promised change. As President, Obama has tripled down in Afghanistan, widened the war into Pakistan, multiplied drone attacks, bombed Yemen and Somalia, and started an undeclared NATO war in Libya. On presidential war powers, surveillance questions, Guantanamo, detention policy and habeas corpus, Obama has similarly stayed the course, or expanded Bush's precedents. In a speech on May 19, 2011 Obama fully embraced the [[Bush Doctrine]] of preventative war.<ref>Krauthammer, C. (April 19). [http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-news-in-obamas-speech/2011/05/19/AF4dFN7G_story.html The News in Obama's Speech]. ''The Washington Post''.</ref>

From the Boston Globe:
<blockquote>
'The New America Foundation, which tracks the strikes, has listed 23 raids since the beginning of April, 2011, all but one in Pakistan’s tribal regions of North and South Waziristan. A June 20 attack was reported in Kurram, an area north of North Waziristan along the Afghanistan border.'
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
'The drone program has become increasingly controversial as the Obama administration has expanded its use beyond the Afghanistan and Iraq wars. Lethal missiles have been launched from unmanned aircraft in at least five countries in addition to Pakistan: Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Yemen, and, most recently, Somalia. The military’s Joint Special Operations Command used a drone last June to attack what officials said were two senior members of the Al Shabab militant group on the Somali coast.' <ref>DeYoung, K. (2011, July 4). [http://www.boston.com/news/world/asia/articles/2011/07/04/cia_halts_drone_launches_from_pakistan_base/ CIA Halts Drone Launches From Pakistan Base]. ''The Boston Globe''. </ref>
</blockquote>

A commentator says:
<blockquote>
'Obama is commendable when he says he wants to avoid war. His policies, however, favor war by destabilizing the Middle East making it extremely hostile and favoring radical Islam over America’s ally, Israel, and American interests in the region... The president has chosen a very dangerous path for every American and one that promises great difficulty for Israel.' <ref> [http://www.thejerusalemconnection.us/blog/2012/03/14/obamas-words-disguise-his-israel-foreign-policy-actions.html Obama's words disguise his Israel foreign policy actions.] </ref>
</blockquote>
====Commander-in-chief====
By Obama's third year as Commander-in-Chief, over 1200 American troops died in Iraq and Afghanistan - significantly more than the number who died during President [[George W. Bush]]'s term of office. And growing numbers of civilian contractors also have fallen. In the first half of 2010, 250 contractors reportedly died in Iraq and Afghanistan - more than the 235 military personnel who fell during the same period.<ref>http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/05/24/114662/what-price-war.html#ixzz1Nz07pg5O</ref>
=====National Defense=====
President Obama signed into U.S. law the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), only after his administration successfully lobbied to remove language from the bill that would have protected American citizens from being detained indefinitely without trial.<ref>Aaron Dykes. [http://www.infowars.com/president-obamas-ndaa-signing-statement-i-have-the-power-to-detain-americans-but-i-wont/ Obama’s Signing Statement on NDAA: I have the power to detain Americans… but I won’t], Infowars.com, January 1, 2012. </ref> After the legislation cleared Congress, the ACLU commented that if President Obama signed the bill it "will damage both his legacy and American’s reputation for upholding the rule of law," while executive director of the ''Human Rights Watch'' blasted the President for being ‘on the wrong side of history,’ noting that "Obama will go down in history as the president who enshrined indefinite detention without trial in US law."<ref>President Decides to Sign Ill-Conceived National Defense Authorization Act. [http://www.hrw.org/news/2011/12/14/us-refusal-veto-detainee-bill-historic-tragedy-rights US: Refusal to Veto Detainee Bill A Historic Tragedy for Rights], ''Human Rights Watch'', December 14, 2011. [http://www.aclu.org/national-security/white-house-backs-away-defense-bill-veto-threat White House Backs Away from Defense Bill Veto Threat], ''[[ACLU]]'', December 14, 2011.</ref>

Section 1031 of the NDAA bill, which itself defines the entirety of the United States as a “battlefield,” allows American citizens to be snatched from the streets, carted off to a foreign detention camp and held indefinitely without trial. As reported by Infowars.com, the bill states that “any person who has committed a belligerent act” faces indefinite detention, but no trial or evidence has to be presented, the White House merely needs to make the accusation.<ref>Paul Joseph Watson. [http://www.infowars.com/obama-administration-demanded-power-to-indefinitely-detain-u-s-citizens/ Obama Administration Demanded Power To Indefinitely Detain U.S. Citizens], Infowars.com, December 12, 2011. S.1867 [http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c112:2:./temp/~c1122VN0Iv:e548990: National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Engrossed in Senate [Passed Senate] - ES)], ''The Library of Congress'' THOMAS, 112th Congress (2011-2011), Accessed January 25, 2012. Text of S.1867 - National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012. [http://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-s1867/text?version=es&nid=t0:es:281 Sec. 1031. Affirmation of authority of the Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered persons pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force.], [[U.S. Congress]], ''OpenCongress.org'', (Accessed January 25, 2012).</ref>

=====2009-2011 Iraq Troop Withdrawal=====
{{main article|Operation Iraqi Freedom}}
On February 10, 2007, Barack Obama announced his campaign for the U.S. presidency while stating he had a "''plan that will bring our combat troops home by March of 2008.''"<ref name=announcement>(2007, February 10). "[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/10/AR2007021000879.html Illinois Sen. Barack Obama's Announcement Speech]." ''Associated Press''.</ref> Later, Obama campaigned on having troops entirely out of Iraq within 16 months, but in February 2009 revised this promise to withdrawing all but 35-50 thousand troops by December 2011.<ref>Barry, J. (2009, February 25). "[http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2009/02/25/reality-on-the-ground.html Reality on the Ground]." ''Newsweek''.</ref> However, some of the newly withdrawn troops were simply redirected from Iraq to Afghanistan - Obama in Summer 2009 ordered 21,000 troops to Afghanistan.<ref name=amanpour>Amanpour, C. (2009, April 29). "[http://articles.cnn.com/2009-04-29/politics/amanpour.obama.foreign.policy_1_president-obama-obama-administration-iraq?_s=PM:POLITICS Amanpour: Obama's 100 Days of Foreign Affairs]." ''CNN Politics''.</ref>{{cquote|"But all of this cannot come to pass until we bring an end to this war in Iraq. Most of you know I opposed this war from the start. I thought it was a tragic mistake. Today we grieve for the families who have lost loved ones, the hearts that have been broken, and the young lives that could have been. America, it's time to start bringing our troops home. It's time to admit that no amount of American lives can resolve the political disagreement that lies at the heart of someone else's civil war. That's why I have a plan that will bring our combat troops home by March of 2008. Letting the Iraqis know that we will not be there forever is our last, best hope to pressure the Sunni and Shia to come to the table and find peace."
-Barack Obama, February 10, 2007 Presidential Campaign Announcement Speech<ref name=announcement />}}Ultimately, it was the Status of Forces Agreement signed by George W. Bush on November 17, 2008 which forced U.S. combat troops to withdraw from Iraq's cities, villages, and localities by June 30, 2009, and from Iraq entirely by December 31st 2011.<ref>(2008, November 17). "[http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/world/20081119_SOFA_FINAL_AGREED_TEXT.pdf Agreement Between the United States of America and the Republic of Iraq On the Withdrawal of United States from Iraq and the Organization of Their Activities during Their Temporary Presence in Iraq]." Article 24. Withdrawal of the United States Forces from Iraq. Hosted by ''The New York Times''. Office of the Press Secretary (2008, November 27). "[http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2008/11/20081127-1.html Statement by the President on Agreements with Iraq]." ''The White House''.</ref> Obama privately contacted the Iraq government in an attempt to persuade them to let 10,000 troops stay, but was rejected.<ref>Froomkin, D. (2011, October 26). "[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/26/obama-iraq_n_1032507.html Ending the War in Iraq: How Obama's Own Rhetoric - And George Bush's Pact - Boxed in the President]." ''Huffington Post''.</ref> Newsweek's Michael Ware accused Obama of a "War Crime" for "''falsely taking credit for finally bringing Iraq to a close—a war actually ended by the Bush administration back in 2008''" and stated, "''The U.S. troops who fought and died in that war, the Iraqis who perished, and the American people deserve far better.''"<ref>Ware, M. (2011, October 24). "[http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/10/24/obamas-war-crime-taking-credit-from-bush-adminsitration-for-ending-the-iraq-war.html Obama's War Crime]." ''Newsweek''. U.S. Politics.</ref> The last of Iraq's combat troops have now been withdrawn because of Bush's Status of Forces Agreement which Obama took credit for.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://articles.cnn.com/2011-12-17/middleeast/world_meast_iraq-troops-leave_1_1st-cavalry-division-camp-adder-troop-movements?_s=PM:MIDDLEEAST|work=CNN|title=Obama: Last U.S. troops leave Iraq|date=December 17, 2011|language=English|format=HTML}}</ref>
=====Afghanistan=====
{{main article|Afghanistan War}}
Obama escalated troop strength<ref name="pbs">{{cite web|url=http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/obamaswar/themes/strategy.html#ixzz1LhWNImZp|title=Obama's New Strategy (March '09)|author=George Packer, Seth Jones, David Kilcullen, Rory Stewart, Andrew Exum, Col. Andrew Bacevich (Ret.)|work=PBS|language=English|format=HTML}}</ref> and defense costs in Afghanistan from $43.5 billion in George Bush's last year to $113.7 billion for 2011.<ref>Congressional Research Service, quoted in Gregory Anthony, ''What price war?''</ref> Adviser to General [[Stanley McChrystal]] David Kilcullen wrote, "One of the big strategic shifts is the use of language now which talks about Pakistan and Afghanistan as the same theater. Now we talked about Af-Pak long before the Obama administration came about, but the public use of that term, and the description of it as the Afghanistan-Pakistan campaign, sends a new message to people about how the administration is going to think about Afghanistan and Pakistan."<ref name="pbs"/> This became evident when, under the orders of Obama, a military SEALs team killed September 11th mastermind [[Osama bin Laden]] in Abottabad, Pakistan.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.newsweek.com/2011/05/05/commander-in-chief.html|title=Commander in Chief|author=Daniel Romano and Daniel Klaidman|date=May 05, 2011|work=Newsweek|publisher=The Newsweek/Daily Beast Company LLC|language=English|format=HTML}}</ref>
=====Guantanamo Bay=====
{{main article|Guantanamo Bay}}
One of Obama's campaign promises was that he would close the American detention center at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba - detainees would be flown to other countries while the ones awaiting trial would enter the American court system. Two days after taking office he signed an order directing the military to do so.<ref name="salon">{{cite web|url=http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2011/04/25/obama_guantanamo_rhetoric|work=Salon|title=The Obama/Gitmo timeline|author=Natasha Lennard|format=HTML|language=English}}</ref> But, in November 2009 Obama admitted that his self imposed deadline of January 2010 would be missed, and in March 2011 the president went back on his campaign promise, signing an executive order to create a formal system of indefinite detention for the prisoners.<ref name="salon"/>
=====Mexico=====
In May 2012, President Obama promised Mexican President [[Felipe Calderon]] that his administration would assist Mexico in curbing drug cartel violence, which has led to 30,000 deaths in Mexico. "President Calderon and I . . . stand together against the drug cartels that have unleashed horrific violence in so many communities," Obama said on May 19. "Mexico can count on the United States as a full partner in this effort."

The ''[[Washington Post]]'' has reported however that White House officials stopped a requirement for gun dealers to report bulk sales of high-powered semiautomatic rifles commonly used by illegal drug cartels. [[Justice Department]] officials had asked for White House approval to require thousands of gun dealers along the border to report the purchases to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms and Explosives. ATF investigators expected to get leads on suspected arms traffickers. Senior law enforcement sources said the proposal from the ATF was held up by then White House chief of staff [[Rahm Emanuel]].<ref>Horwitz, S. & Grimaldi, J.V. (2010, December 17). [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/17/AR2010121706598.html White House Delayed Rule Meant to Stop Gun Flow to Mexico]. ''The Washington Post''.</ref> Gun dealers have been required for decades to report the sales of multiple handguns to the ATF.

=====Libya=====
{{main article|Libyan uprising 2011}}
In February 2011, the political unrest that had spread through the Arab world showed up as protests in Libya. Colonel Muammar el-Qaddafi - leader of Libya for 41 years - responded to the violent activism<ref>http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article28376.htm</ref> with legible steps.<ref name="nyt libya">{{cite web|url=http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/international/countriesandterritories/libya/index.html|work=The New York Times|publisher=The New York Times Inc.|format=HTML|language=English|title=Libya — Protests and Revolt (2011)}}</ref> The [[United Nations Security Council]] voted unanimously to impose [[sanctions]], and later authorized all members to take action to protect civilians. Obama, acting without approval from Congress and at the beckoning of the [[United Nations]], directed American forces to take out Libya's air defense system.<ref name="nyt libya"/> Obama later said, "[I]f we waited one more day Benghazi, a city nearly the size of Charlotte, could suffer a massacre that would have reverberated across the region and stained the conscience of the world."<ref>{{cite web|author=Barack Obama|url=http://www.npr.org/2011/03/28/134935452/obamas-speech-on-libya-a-responsibility-to-act|title=Obama's Speech On Libya: 'A Responsibility To Act'|date=March 28, 2011|publisher=National Public Radio ([[NPR]])|language=English|format=HTML}}</ref> [[Alan J. Kuperman]] - writing an editorial for the ''[[Boston Globe]]'' - suggested this statement was false, writing, "[I]ntervention did not prevent genocide, because no such bloodbath was in the offing. To the contrary, by emboldening rebellion, US interference has prolonged Libya’s civil war and the resultant suffering of innocents."<ref name="kuperman">{{cite web|author=Alan J. Kuperman|work=The Boston Globe|url=http://articles.boston.com/2011-04-14/bostonglobe/29418371_1_rebel-stronghold-civilians-rebel-positions|title=False pretense for war in Libya?|date=April 14, 2011}}</ref> Kuperman, a professor of public affairs at the University of Texas who authored a book called ''The Limits of Humanitarian Intervention'', further stated that the rebels had tricked the world into thinking a bloodbath was at hand and that Obama had lied to the American people in order to act on this theory.<ref name="kuperman"/>
<blockquote>
Gaddafi [never] threaten civilian massacre in Benghazi, as Obama alleged. The “no mercy’’ warning, of March 17, targeted rebels only, as reported by The New York Times, which noted that Libya’s leader promised amnesty for those “who throw their weapons away.’’ Khadafy even offered the rebels an escape route and open border to Egypt, to avoid a fight “to the bitter end.’’ <ref> [http://politicalcartel.org/2011/04/17/libya-and-the-obama-doctrine/ Libya and the “Obama Doctrine”.] </ref>
</blockquote>

However Gaddafi wrote to Obama:

<blockquote>
Gaddafi said he bore no ill will toward Obama. "We have been hurt more morally than physically because of what had happened against us in both deeds and words by you," he wrote. "Despite all this you will always remain our son whatever happened. We still pray that you continue to be president of the USA. We endeavour and hope that you will gain victory in the new election campaign." The letter, dated 5 April 2011 in Tripoli, is signed "Mu'aumer Qaddaffi, Leader of the Revolution".<ref>[http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/apr/06/gaddafi-obama-nato-libya?INTCMP=ILCNETTXT3487]</ref>
</blockquote>

Critics point out the only thing worse than starting a "stupid, unnecessary war" against a madman is losing it.<ref>http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/271847/war-libya-dumb-and-dumber-victor-davis-hanson</ref>

==2012 Presidential Campaign==
===2011, Birth Certificate Released===
: ''Main Article: [[Barack_Obama_Controversies#Birth_Certificate]]''
On April 27, 2011<ref>CNN Political Unit (2011, April 27). "[http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/04/27/white-house-releases-obama-birth-certificate/ White House Releases Obama Birth Certificate]." ''CNN''</ref>, a long-running controversy surrounding Obama's birth was largely put to rest<ref>Winter, J. (2011, April 29). "[http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/04/29/expert-says-obamas-birth-certificate-legit/ Expert: No Doubt Obama's Birth Certificate is Legit]." ''FOX News''. Tuchman, G. (2011, April 25). "[http://articles.cnn.com/2011-04-25/politics/birthers.obama.hawaii_1_birther-controversy-obama-opinion-research-corporation?_s=PM:POLITICS Obama Birther Claims Have No Merit]." ''CNN''. (2011, April 27). "[http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42779923/ns/politics-white_house/t/obama-releases-detailed-us-birth-certificate/ Obama Releases Detailed U.S. Birth Certificate]." ''MSNBC''.</ref> when Obama had his long-form birth certificate posted at WhiteHouse.gov.<ref>"[http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/rss_viewer/birth-certificate-long-form.pdf Certificate of Live Birth]." State of Hawaii. Retrieved from ''WhiteHouse.gov''.</ref> Donald Trump, who had attacked Obama on the Birth Certificate issue and was then leading Republicans in polls for the upcoming GOP primary<ref>James, F. (2011, April 15). "[http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2011/04/15/135446314/poll-donald-trump-birther-darling-leads-gop-field-at-26 Donald Trump, Birther In Chief? Poll Has Him Leading GOP Field with 26 Percent]." ''NPR''.</ref>, was effectively knocked out of the race because of this.<ref>Kapur, S. (2011, May 10). "[http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/05/10/trumps-popularity-tanks-after-obama-releases-long-form-birth-certificate/ Trump's Popularity Tanks After Obama Releases Long-Form Birth Certificate]." ''RawStory.com''.</ref>

The following is a timeline of previous events leading up to the release:

* In June 2008 the Obama campaign allowed FactCheck.org to look at his “Certificate of Live Birth” and take photos.<ref>Henig, J. (2008, August 21). Born in the U.S.A. FactCheck.org. Retrieved from http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html</ref>
* In July 2008 a blogger discovered a birth announcement from the Honolulu Advertiser from August 13, 1961 for Barack Obama. It has since been discovered another newspaper, the Star Bulletin, also documented the birth.<ref>Snopes.com. Barack Obama Birth Certificate. Retrieved from http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthcertificate.asp</ref>
* PolitiFact went to extreme lengths to verify Obama’s citizenship, attaining scanned copies of his 1992 marriage certificate from Cook County, IL, his driver’s license record, and his registration and disciplinary record. PolitiFact also addressed a number of concerns about the documentation.<ref>Hollyfield, A. (2008, June 27). Obama’s birth certificate: Final chapter. PolitiFact. Retrieved from http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2008/jun/27/obamas-birth-certificate-part-ii/</ref>
* In October 2008 Hawaii’s Department of Health released a statement by Dr. Chiyome Fu.kino verifying that Obama’s birth certificate was on record.<ref>Hawaii Department of Health. News Release: Statement by Dr. Chiyome Fu.kino. Retrieved from http://hawaii.gov/health/about/pr/2008/08-93.pdf</ref>
* In August 2009 it was revealed that an alleged Kenyan birth certificate for Obama was a hoax.<ref>Snopes.com. Kenyan Mistake. Retrieved from http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthers/kenyacert.asp</ref> Another website allows you to create your own imitation Kenyan birth certificates online.<ref>KenyanBirthCertificateGenerator.com. Blue Collar Industries. Retrieved from http://kenyanbirthcertificategenerator.com/</ref>

===2011, Osama Bin Laden Confirmed Dead===
On May 1, 2011, Obama announced in a press conference<ref>Obama, B. (2011, May 2). "[http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/05/02/osama-bin-laden-dead Osama Bin Laden Dead]." ''WhiteHouse.gov''.</ref> that Osama Bin Laden was dead after a U.S. assault force infiltrated his military compound in Abottobad, Pakistan.<ref>Baker, P., Cooper, H., & Mazzetti, M. (2011, May 1). "[Bin Laden is Dead, Obama Says]." ''New York Times''. "[http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Osama_Bin_Laden/ Target Bin Laden: The Death of Public Enemy #1]." ''ABC News''. ''NPR''. "[http://www.npr.org/series/135908383/osama-bin-laden-dead Special Series: Osama Bin Laden Killed]." </ref> Bin Laden was reportedly shot in the head after a helicopter raid ferried Navy SEAL Team Six and CIA paramilitary operatives into Pakistan on April 29.<ref>''Associated Press'' (2011, May 1). "[http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-201_162-20058777.html Osama bin Laden is Dead]." Retrieved from ''CBSNews.com''.</ref> Reuters obtained photos of unidentified dead bodies from the raid, none of which look like bin Laden. However, the White House had the body of Osama bin Laden disposed of at sea because it claimed this was "in accordance with Islamic tradition" and didn't want to give Bin Laden followers a gravesite shrine.<ref>The Daily Beast (2011, May 2). "[http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/05/02/osama-bin-laden-killed-and-buried-at-sea-breaking-details.html Osama Bin Laden Killed and Buried at Sea]." ''Newsweek''.</ref> The White House also refused to publicly reveal photos or evidence of the body, because Obama claimed that "given the graphic nature of these photos, it would create some national security risk."<ref>Allbritton, C. (2011, May 4). "[http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/05/04/us-binladen-pakistan-photos-idUSTRE7437KK20110504 Photos Show Three Dead Men at Bin Laden Raid House]." ''Reuters''. ''Reuters''. "[http://www.reuters.com/subjects/bin-laden-compound Photos From the Bin Laden Compound]."</ref> The burial at sea was criticized by Islamic scholars<ref>''Associated Press'' (2011, May 2). "[http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-202_162-20058892.html Islamic Scholars Criticize Bin Laden Sea Burial]." Retrieved from ''CBSNews.com''. Also at [http://www.foxnews.com/world/2011/05/02/islamic-scholars-question-bin-ladens-sea-burial/ Fox News].</ref> and 9/11 families.<ref>Zirulnick, A. (2011, May 3). "[http://www.csmonitor.com/World/terrorism-security/2011/0503/Osama-bin-Laden-s-burial-at-sea-critics-range-from-9-11-families-to-militants Osama Bin Laden's Burial At Sea: Critics Range from 9/11 Families to Militants]." ''Christian Science Monitor''.</ref> The lack of photos resulted in skepticism about the death from a variety of sources, including the Taliban<ref>Faiez, R. & Vogt, H. (2011, May 4). "[http://articles.boston.com/2011-05-04/news/29509464_1_bin-taliban-spokesman-zabiullah-mujahid-samiullah-khan Taliban Holding Out for Clear Evidence]." ''Associated Press''.</ref> and Republican Senator Lindsey Graham.<ref>Rosen, J. & Thomma, S. (2011, May 5). "[http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/05/05/113709/sc-sen-graham-wants-bin-laden.html S.C. Sen. Graham Wants Bin Laden Photos Released]." ''McClatchy Newspapers''.</ref>

The death of bin Laden, coupled with the revealing of Obama's long-form Birth Certificate, resulted in a boost of Obama's job approval from 46% to 57% within one month.<ref>Dao, J. & Sussman, D. (2011, May 4). "[http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/05/us/politics/05poll.html For Obama, Big Rise in Poll Numbers After Bin Laden Raid]." ''New York Times''. ''Pew Research Center'' (2011, May 2). "[http://www.people-press.org/2011/05/03/public-relieved-by-bin-ladens-death-obamas-job-approval-rises/ Public 'Relieved' by Bin Laden's Death, Obama's Job Approval Rises]." Jones, J.M. (2011, May 5). "[http://www.gallup.com/poll/147437/obama-approval-rallies-six-points-bin-laden-death.aspx Obama Job Approval Rallies Six Points to 52% After Bin Laden Death]." ''Gallup''.</ref> In 2012, relations between the U.S. and Pakistan remain sour because the U.S. did not involve Pakistan fully in the raid to ensure success.<ref>''CBS/Associated Press'' (2012, May 1). "[http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57424622/1-year-after-osama-bin-laden-killed-still-no-answers-from-pakistan/ 1 Year After Osama bin Laden Killed, Still No Answers from Pakistan]."</ref> Pakistan has denied White House claims that there was a deal with it allowing the raid.<ref>''Associated Press'' (2011, May 10). "[http://www.foxnews.com/world/2011/05/10/pakistani-president-claims-bin-laden-deal/ Former Pakistani President Claims There Was Never Bin Laden Deal With U.S.]." Retrieved from ''FOX News''.</ref>
=== 2012: Ties to ACORN? ===
According to Stanley Kurtz - author of ''Radical-in-Chief: Barack Obama and the Untold Story of American Socialism'' (2010) Obama in 1995 sought and obtained the endorsement of a left-wing third party, the [[New Party]] in his quest to be elected to the Illinois State Senate.<ref>Kurtz, S. (2012, June 7). [http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/302031/obamas-third-party-history-stanley-kurtz Obama's Third-Party History]. ''National Review Online''.</ref> Obama's "Fight the Smears" campaign has denied this, as has Politico's Ben Smith.<ref name=pollack>Pollack, J.B. (2012, June 7). [http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/06/07/Obama-Caught-Lying-Again-He-WAS-Member-of-New-Party-Says-Kurtz Obama Caught Lying Again: He WAS Member of 'New Party', Says Kurtz]. ''Breitbart''. Smith, B. (2008, October 25). [http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/1008/The_dread_New_Party.html The Dread New Party]. ''Politico''.</ref> Others who claim he was affiliated with the New Party/ACORN include The Blaze's Billy Hallowell<ref>Hallowell, B. (2012, June 7). [http://www.theblaze.com/stories/report-new-documents-show-obama-was-a-member-of-the-far-left-new-party/ News Docs Reportedly Show Obama Was a Member of the Far-Left 'New Party']. ''The Blaze''.</ref>, Breitbart's Joel Pollack, Human Events' Erick Erickson<ref>Erickson, E. (2008, June 10). [http://www.humanevents.com/2008/06/10/obama-and-the-new-party/ Obama and the New Party]. ''Human Events''.</ref>, Newsbusters' P.J. Gladnick<ref>Gladnick, P.J. (2008, October 12). [http://newsbusters.org/blogs/p-j-gladnick/2008/10/08/will-msm-report-obama-membership-socialist-new-party#ixzz21JfE3z1z Will MSM Report on Obama Membership in Socialist New Party?] ''Newsbusters''.</ref>, Rick Moran at AmericanThinker.com<ref>Rick Moran. [http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/06/obamas_alliance_with_marxists.html Obama's Alliance with Marxists], ''American Thinker'', June 03, 2008.</ref>, and various writers at Discover the Networks (which include Kurtz and Erickson).<ref>[http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=7434 NEW PARTY (NP)], ''DiscoverTheNetworks.org''.</ref>

Kurtz in 2012 has claimed to find minutes of the New Party Chicago chapter that say, "''Barack Obama, candidate for State Senate in the 13th Legislative District, gave a statement to the membership and answered questions. He signed the New Party 'Candidate Contract' and requested an endorsement from the New Party. He also joined the New Party.''"<ref name=pollack /> Obama campaign strategist David Axelrod responded to Kurtz with silence and when asked if that meant "yes or no", Axelrod stated, "You can take that as I have no idea what you are talking about."<ref>Pollack, J.B. (2012, June 7). [http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/06/07/Exclusive-Axelrod-Plays-Dumb-on-Obama-and-Socialist-New-Party Exclusive: Axelrod Plays Dumb on Obama and Socialist New Party]. ''Breitbart''.</ref>

==="You didn't build that" Controversy===
On July 13, 2012, at a campaign event in [[Virginia]], Obama gave a speech that immediately stirred up controversy. Speaking about the government's role in the success of private business, he said:<ref>http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/07/13/remarks-president-campaign-event-roanoke-virginia</ref>
{{cquote|If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business - you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen.}} The [[Romney]] campaign has used "If you’ve got a business - you didn’t build that" in ads to show America that Obama believes it is government that creates business rather than hard-working individuals. The Obama campaign has alternatively stated that the sentenced was poorly worded since he was not giving a scripted speech and that when Obama said "that" he was referring to roads and bridges. Obama points to a later portion of his speech in which he said, "The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together," to support his claim.

==Accusations about birth certificate and cultural and name identity==
Some conservative opponents have accused Obama of not being an American but born outside of the United States, this accusation was bolstered by Obama's reluctance to show his birth certificate to the public, until prompted by [[Donald Trump]]. Obama presented a birth certificate to the public. Some conservative opponents believe that the birth certificate he presented was a forgery. They are known as "birthers" both by their conservative and liberal opponents. However conservatives like [[Ann Coulter]] reject the birthers' accusations, and view birthers as a fringe group that left-wing media like MSNBC have exaggerated in order to discredit the conservative movement.

There are other right-wing and anti-Islamic opponents of Obama who claim that he is a Muslim '''Barry Soetoro''' during his time in [[Indonesia]]<ref>[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PQPXVJuT2vY Barry Soetoro the muslim - YouTube]</ref>

Other right-wing opponents claim that Obama is an [[Atheism|atheist]].

==See also==

*[[Political positions of Barack Obama]]
*[[Barack Obama and uncharitableness]]
*[[Barack Obama and abortion]]
*[[Essay:Born Outside the U.S.A.!]]
*[[Essay: The Special Interests Candidate]]
*[[Jobsgate]]
*[[Recovery Summer]]
*[[Lobbyists ties to the Obama administration]]
*[[New Party]]
*[[ObamaCare]]
*[[Obama doublespeak]]
*[[Obama inauguration]]
*[[Religion of Barack Hussein Obama]]
*[[The Honorable James David Manning]]
*[[Young Communist League]]

==External links==
*[http://www.antiobama.net/ Anti Obama.net]
*[http://www.dontvoteobama.net/ Don’t Vote For Obama.net]
*[http://nobamanetwork.com/ Nobama Network]
*[http://www.audacityofhypocrisy.com/ Audacity Of Hypocrisy]
*[http://therealbarackobama.wordpress.com/ The Real Barack Obama]
*[http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/6130/ The New Cult of Personality]
*[http://www.survivingobamunism.com/index.html Surviving Obamunism T-shirts]
*[http://www.barackobamaantichrist.blogspot.com/ Barack Obama the Anti-Christ ?]
*[http://www.noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/06/23/che-obama-and-the-revolutionary-agenda/ Che, Obama, and the Revolutionary Agenda]
*[http://www.audacityofhypocrisy.com/fashion-shows/ Obama Laundry List of Lies]
*[http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jun/09/americas-first-muslim-president/ GAFFNEY: America's first Muslim president?] Washington Times
*[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-l-esposito/barack-obama-and-islam_b_212519.html Barack Obama and Islam.] by [[John L. Esposito]].
*[http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=78931 Democrat: Obama's grandma confirms Kenyan birth.]
*[http://www.ontheissues.org/barack_obama.htm Barack Obama on the issues.]
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=etWLwrvT2vo Obama = Kosher Puppet.] video on You Tube.

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

{{USPresidents}}
{{2008 presidential candidates}}
[[Category: Barack Hussein Obama]]
[[Category:Obama Presidency]]
[[Category:Obama Administration]]
[[category:Nobel laureates in Peace]]
[[Category:2012 Presidential Candidates]]
[[Category:Abortion Advocates]]
[[Category:Socialism]]
[[Category:Muslims]]
[[Category:Socialists]]
{{DEFAULTSORT:Obama, Barack Hussein}}

Talk:Barack Hussein Obama

2012-10-12T17:44:15Z

Nightsky: /* Country of birth */ reply

[[File:Brainreboot20110429.jpg|400px|thumb|]]

{{articletalkheader|prefix=archive}}
 

==Rense==
Jeff Rense may not be a such a good source. The Anti-Defamation League accuses him of promoting anti-Semitic views and 9/11 Conspiracy theories. OTOH, what is wrong with a Pravda article written in the post Soviet-censorship era when democratic Russia hungars to exercise a free press, open discussion and discernment of facts? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 22:39, 23 January 2010 (EST)

:See my talk page, Rob. I never noticed who added the Pravda cite, so if you say so, it is of course fine with me, and please add it back if you haven't already! I now suspect it was yet another vandal site troll stirring the pot, so feel free to deal with him as well. --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 17:02, 24 January 2010 (EST)

== Terror Attacks ==
I have an issue with a claim made in the second paragraph. ''Since abandoning the "War on Terror" in Obama's first year, the United States has suffered more terrorist attacks with deadly intent on American soil than in the previous eight years combined.'' Since Obama replaced the 'Global War on Terror' with 'Overseas Contingency Operation', there have been only four domestic terrorist attacks, a far cry from the 19 that took place under Bush's tenure. This sentence should be reworded or removed in its entirety; it only makes the article look embarrassing. --[[User:MichaelJB|MichaelJB]] 15:46, 25 January 2010 (EST)

:More [[liberal]] poppycock, Michael? Even the New York Times counts more, excluding 9/11, under Obama. Perhaps you should consider sources other than the Kos? --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 19:29, 25 January 2010 (EST)

::A short time ago you gave me grief for making assumptions, yet here you are doing the same. I didn't get any information from Kos, it all came from legitimate news sources. Do you really believe that more terror attacks occurred on US soil from March 2009 to January 2010 than in the eight years of the Bush administration? I would really like to see all your references for making such a bold claim. And why would you want to exclude the WTC/Pentagon attacks?
::Some people have been making some really stupid claims lately about domestic terror. Dana Perino and Rudy Guiliani both claimed there was not a terror attack on the US when Bush was in office. The fact that these people could make such stupidly partisan claims is incredible. [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4kpfhGxJbLc] [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2tYoMoJHNDs] The claim made in this article reeks of the same idiocy of Perino and Guiliani, why not delete the sentence or at least make it factual? --[[User:MichaelJB|MichaelJB]] 20:23, 25 January 2010 (EST)

:::The facts are undeniable that America was totally unprepared to protect itself from terrorist homeland attacks as Bush entered office, due to the total lack of focus of the Clinton Administration and Congress on the issue. Bush can in no way be blamed for the 9/11 attacks with any real credibility.

:::As I have stated many times before, as Mr. Schlafly has stated many times before, as several other Admins have as well, coming here to argue-without-end against our conservative point of view in all articles you come across, is silly. If you and others cannot bring yourselves to accept alternative points of view, so be it. If you want a place to argue against conservatism in general, make your own site or try the Kos or HuffPo; but CP isn't a debate forum, it is a conservative encyclopedia ''project''. Article talk pages are for suggesting ways to improve articles from a conservative point of view, not a liberal one. Is that a clear enough statement? --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 21:29, 25 January 2010 (EST)

::::TK: The change you made is completely unacceptable from a moral and ethical standpoint because instead of correcting an error, you are now highlighting a lie. Three terror attacks occurred during Pres. Bush's last year in office. I sent you links to all three events but you are willing to over look such trivial matters as the truth. It's funny that a liberal who has been blocked twice for pointing out errors and outright falsehoods is vilified as a trouble-maker while the conservatives that knowingly mislead and lie are in charge of an alleged 'trustworthy encyclopedia'.
::::I'm trying to make these changes because I don't want Americans to look stupid, even the conservative ones. It's an uphill battle.

::::Gunman killed two people in a church. [http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-07-29-church-shooting_N.htm]
::::Suicide bomber attacked a Georgia law firm. [http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/ga_law_firm_explodes_causing_multiple_injuries/]
::::Two police officers were killed by a bomb placed in a bank. [http://www.odmp.org/officer/19697-captain-thomas-paul-tennant]
::::--[[User:MichaelJB|MichaelJB]] 01:25, 29 January 2010 (EST)

MichaelJB you cannot tell the difference between Muslim terrorists and someone with an ax to grind? Godspeed! --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 06:36, 29 January 2010 (EST)v
:So Michael's point is that progressive liberal leftwing commie socialist (or whatever the flavor of the week) Prof. [[Amy Bishop]] conducted a domestic overseas contingency operation attack. It's beginning to make sense. How would we classify the guy who crashed the plane into the IRS building in Houston, a tax protester who railed against corporations. Dang, this is a tuff one.... [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 08:13, 12 March 2010 (EST)

== Middle name in article title? ==

----

::::<big>'''Unless you have some brilliant new argument to add to this section, further discussion is unneeded.</big>'''

----

It strikes to me odd that the title of the article is Barach Hussein Obama. While there is nothing wrong with that by itself, looking at the [[President_of_the_United_States_of_America#Presidents_list|list of all the U.S. presidents]], it seems that all the other presidents' articles are titled either without their middle name, or just a middle initial. Wouldn't it make sense to rename the article to either Barack Obama or Barack H. Obama to follow suit? [[User:Kayvan|Kayvan]] 18:19, 26 February 2010 (EST)
:There is a big difference between Walker or Jefferson and Hussein. My two cents. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 18:22, 26 February 2010 (EST)
::What about [[Ronald Wilson Reagan]]? [[User:DMorris|DMorris]] 18:26, 26 February 2010 (EST)
:::This topic had been discussed before. He decided to be inaugurated with his middle name after not using it during the campaign. He is not ashamed of it and we are not ashamed to include it.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 18:29, 26 February 2010 (EST)
::::Ah, I see. Looking at some lists though ([http://www.ipl.org/div/potus/] and [http://www.apples4theteacher.com/holidays/presidents-day/past-presidents-of-usa.html]), it seems that many presidents were also inaugurated in a similar fashion. [[User:Kayvan|Kayvan]] 18:33, 26 February 2010 (EST)

::: I think that, as all encyclopedias and scholarly works try to do, we should try to decide on a particular set of rules and always follow it. In this case, these are the options:
:::1) Always cite the full name in the title, so "Barack Hussein Obama", "George Herbert Walker Bush" and "Ronald Wilson Reagan";
:::2) Always use initials for middle names, so "Barack H. Obama", "George H.W. Bush" and "Ronald W. Reagan";
:::3) Use the names in the way they most commonly used, using middle name initials only where they are necessary to distinguish one particular individual from another, therefore "Barack Obama", "George H.W. Bush" and "Ronald Reagan".

::: We are talking about titles of articles; the full name should always be cited in the body of the article. Personally, I would vote for solution n.3. --[[User:Maquissar|Maquissar]] 18:34, 26 February 2010 (EST)
::::I like the idea. Either 2 or 3 seem best in my opinion; full names seem a bit to long for article titles. The name that the president was inaugurated with isn't bad either, but it would seem less formal, as some have middle names and others don't. [[User:Kayvan|Kayvan]] 18:38, 26 February 2010 (EST)

:::: I thought about that solution, but then I thought that we should better set very general rules; by this I mean that we should decide how to title page names referring to INDIVIDUALS, not to US PRESIDENTS. Deciding that "the name that the president was inaugurated with" is a rule that, naturally, can only be applied to presidents. --[[User:Maquissar|Maquissar]] 18:41, 26 February 2010 (EST)

:::: Another good rule would be to use the name that is mostly used to refer to that individual; this has the disadvantage of not being objective, but it is also the most effective. So "Barack Obama", "George H.W. Bush" (to distinguish him from his son), "Ronald Reagan", "Eminem" instead of "Marshall Mathers", "O.J. Simpson" instead of "Orenthal J. Simpson"... --[[User:Maquissar|Maquissar]] 18:56, 26 February 2010 (EST)

There isn't any vote here, nor was one asked for. Since Obama tries to soft-pedal his Muslim roots and associations, our editorial policy is to call attention to that ''fact''. In addition you should note the [[Ronald Wilson Reagan|Reagan]] article, where well before anyone had an inkling Obama would run for President, Conservapedia used his full name, ''Ronald Wilson Reagan'' which Reagan himself preferred for formal use. So I submit President Obama isn't being singled out, contrary to the insistence of silly-minded liberals. --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 19:06, 26 February 2010 (EST)

:But why call attention to that ''fact'' in the title of the article? The ''fact'' is never going to be denied. The introduction sentence would still say "Barack Hussein Obama". Italicize his middle name in the introduction or change the font color to bring out the ''fact'' if you wish. What I am trying to point at is, why should his middle name be used in the article title? Reagan may have preferred it for formal use, but does Mr. Obama say that same? He is commonly known as Barack Obama; I haven't seen it used in any other way (except Obama, of course). If he is commonly known as that, it would make sense to title the article like that, as should every article on people. [[User:Kayvan|Kayvan]] 21:05, 26 February 2010 (EST)
::Richard Milhous Nixon was commonly refered to as [[Milhous]] by his detracters. Indeed, googling milhouse brings up hundreds of thousands of hits on Nixon that dwarf most all other uses of the name. Now, googling [[Hussein]] presents a host of other problems. The [[Heshamite Dynasty]] of [[Hussein bin Ali]] had been the Islamic Keeper of the Holy places for 700 years until Western British Imperialist interests unseated them and installed the Saudi ruling clan thier place (visualize Islamists dethroning the Pope and installing thier own choice as successor). How does it look when Hussein bin Ali's namesake bows to tne Saudi puppet? Why not focus on how Obama ''is'' bringing real change to the whole planet, rather than argue about how things have traditionally been done? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 13:14, 27 February 2010 (EST)
Drop it. Further discussion is last-wordism. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 21:14, 26 February 2010 (EST)

:On the question of "''all the other presidents' articles are titled either without their middle name, or just a middle initial. Wouldn't it make sense ...to follow suit? ''"
:You will recall Barack Hussein Obama is the transformational president of change. Wouldn't it make sense to begin change right here, with his name? (assuming that is his name). [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 23:54, 26 February 2010 (EST)

<nowiki>:</nowiki>D 
--<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 01:58, 27 February 2010 (EST)

Pretty slick conservative trap there TK. despite the fact that you neglected to answer some massive holes in the arguments above, you declare the debate "ended" (even though its not) then decry anything else as last wordism to stifle any further debate. well done--[[User:DerikJ|DerikJ]] 11:58, 27 February 2010 (EST)
:What holes? We're implementing change. Let's find common ground and compromise. We've done just that. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 12:35, 27 February 2010 (EST)
::I like your comment on change, Rob, it made me laugh :) Anyway, I don't see how an argument that Obama's slogan being "change" is any reason to title his article to what he is less commonly known as/less traditional. It's pushing it, in a sense. Besides, being a conservative, I would think that you wouldn't want to follow Obama's way of thinking ;) [[User:Kayvan|Kayvan]] 13:40, 27 February 2010 (EST)
:::Conservatives are for change, both economic and social. They want to change tax law and abortion rulings, for example. Above all, change public education. Being anti-change is just a vulgar stereotype held by closeminded and intolerant people. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 14:09, 27 February 2010 (EST)
::::I can agree with that. But ''why'' "change" how Obama's article is titled when others are titled either without their middle name or with their middle name if they are commonly known and identified by the name, in some cases. Simply changing something doesn't necessarily mean it's a good thing, there has to be reason, and the reason has to be, well, reasonable. [[User:Kayvan|Kayvan]] 14:44, 27 February 2010 (EST)
:::::Call it the price of progress. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 15:17, 27 February 2010 (EST)
::::::In that case, would changing the titles of all the other peoples' articles to include their middle names sound all right to you? It would be progress, after all. [[User:Kayvan|Kayvan]] 17:29, 27 February 2010 (EST)
I have always wondered why the Obamabots get so upset with the name Obama's parents chose. Pretty silly. --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 16:40, 27 February 2010 (EST)

:I actually like the name, it has a nice ring to it. It's more of just keeping a solid style of titling pages, a format if you want to call it that. [[User:Kayvan|Kayvan]] 17:29, 27 February 2010 (EST)
::Which brings us to the question of Barry Soetero. If Obama went by this name, then he may have lied to the Illinois Supreme Court when asked to provide former names, according to this Attorney’s Registration Record. [http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2061988/posts] I'm not the sure what the resolution of this issue ever was, and we don't have a word about it in this article. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 17:49, 27 February 2010 (EST)

I know I am new here but there really needs to be a consensus amongst all Presidential and Vice President articles, actually this should probably extend to all US politicians. I know there is a specified conservative bias, however the lack organization and consensus has nothing to do with liberal or conservative bias, it has to do with disorganization and lazyiness by the admins.

If you want to leave the middle, that is fine, however, there would need to be a quick modification of all or the majority of the US Politian article so as not to look so disorganized.[[User:Solarguy17|Solarguy17]] 01:01, 10 March 2010 (EST)

:You hit the nail on the head. You are new here. Don't come in criticizing and such off the bat. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 01:12, 10 March 2010 (EST)

My criticization is to help the article(s) to be better as a whole. None of the above discussion explains the reasoning for leaving it as is. Just people saying he used it in his inauguration so we use it here, however, almost every pres does this so why not have it that way for everyone????[[User:Solarguy17|Solarguy17]] 01:15, 10 March 2010 (EST)

Not really discussion just more of a question. I just recently found this site and was looking through the religious articles and for the most part they seemed pretty good. However, when I come to the political articles, some of them seem a little crazy. I know it is to call more attention to the things that are being overlooked by the media. But I have ask about the middle name thing.

I read all of the information above and I still am not sure why it was decided to leave it as is. Can someone clarify this?
Please don't ban me, I noticed that basically everyone with discussion in this thread that isn't an admin now has banned accounts. I personally don't care, I am just confused. [[User:StevenS|StevenS]] 01:12, 12 March 2010 (EST)

: As it says up at the top of this section, "Unless you have some brilliant new argument to add to this section, further discussion is unneeded." If you do have one, let's have it. But it sure seems like everyone who signs up to this site and immediately starts complaining has nothing new to say at all. Why don't you spend some time reading here with an open mind first, and complain later? [[User:DanielPulido|DanielPulido]] 01:20, 12 March 2010 (EST)

Now, why would a single individual come here under several different user names all in an effort to get the word "Hussein" removed from the title of this article? It makes no sense at all unless that individual has a personal agenda to perform. The article title stays as it is. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 01:42, 12 March 2010 (EST)

:My only concern is that the title seems to exist in its current state for no purpose other than to further a bias. The arguments that "well he asked for it" seem to suggest that accuracy and fairness are non-valuable in this wiki. I sincerely hope this is not the case and that I may not be banned and able to start a fun future in helping this wiki grow in the impressive way it has so far. [[User:Vidihawk|Vidihawk]] 07:47, 6 April 2010 (EDT)

::'''"Unless you have some brilliant new argument to add to this section, further discussion is unneeded."'''
I guess you missed the bold title at the top of this section? Also, see [[Ronald Wilson Reagan]] to see how silly your argument is. --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 08:16, 6 April 2010 (EDT)
:I guess it wasn't as bright an idea as I had hoped. Heh... It still comes off as somewhat purposeful, though. Okie, I'll back away! - [[User:Vidihawk|Vidihawk]] 08:24, 6 April 2010 (EDT)
::Purposeful, as in done with the same horribly malevolent intent as ''my'' adding Reagan's middle name several years ago? You are giving away your intent in advance, good sir, by refusing to admit your already formed assumptions about us are wrong. I hope you prove me wrong, and turn out to be that rare U.K. denizen that turns out to be open-minded and as fair to us as you wish us to be to you. There have been precious few. And please do check out our editors guide and all of that. We differ quite a bit from Wikipedia. --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 08:33, 6 April 2010 (EDT)
:::::I think we should keep the current title of the article. Furthermore, I think we should replace the top picture, which is currently a picture of Obama, with a picture of an oil drenched pelican (and a new caption) as a tribute to Obama's indifference, sloth and incompetence. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 20:36, 16 June 2010 (EDT)

== I moved the material dealing with the present to the top ==

I moved the material dealing with the present to the top as I thought readers would be more interested in how Obama is screwing up the present. For example, I think Americans right now are very concerned about how Obama is screwing up the economy. Of course, he is also doing a poor job in other areas presently as well such as holding terrorists court cases in civilian courts, etc. etc. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 04:30, 15 March 2010 (EDT)

:That makes sense to me. I do appreciate letting me try the other timeline structure. However, I didn't really take into consideration the fact that because he is a high profile individual it may benefit readers to see more recent info before his earlier biography facts. At least while he's fulfilling his one failed term as president, your structure makes sense to me. [[User:DerekE|DerekE]] 12:42, 15 March 2010 (EDT)

::As the ==Maoism== section is being being built, we may eventually be able to free up space from the sections on the Ayers/Dohrn relationship by moving some of that material to Ayers own page, and/or creating a new separate page documenting Obama's rise with communist and terrorist assistance. An acceptable title for that page would be needed. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 13:23, 15 March 2010 (EDT)

==Citation==

"Any orders he gives to the American military are subject to being refused. Orders that Obama gives to America’s Joint Chiefs of Staff of the military can be refused." --http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/columnists/19-01-2009/106972-Barry_Soetoro-0

Do we really want to cite an article that makes this claim? Do any of us really support this opinion, or if we do, do we support the use of opinion articles as sources in addition to factual ones? --[[User:BenjaminS|Ben]] [[User Talk:BenjaminS|Talk]] 08:42, 6 April 2010 (EDT)

:Is the opinion piece backed by valid and factual citations from the United States Code, Ben, as opposed to a unsupported rant? --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 08:47, 6 April 2010 (EDT)

== pronunciation of "Pakistan" ==

This is really considered evidence of anything? I've heard [[Mark Levin]] use the Spanish-inflected pronunciation of Sonia Sotomayor's name (''so tow my OR'' rather than ''so tow MY er''), but nobody would claim that proves he's Catholic or Hispanic. [[User:Golgaronok|Golgaronok]] 23:55, 9 April 2010 (EDT)
:Pronunciation shows an enormous amount about someone's views and history. Obama doesn't use the American pronunciation, and this is telling, since ''no one else in the public sphere'' pronounces it in the muslim way ''but'' Obama. [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 00:15, 10 April 2010 (EDT)
[[David Petraeus]] does [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vtCLp7siY7I]. [[User:Golgaronok|Golgaronok]] 00:50, 10 April 2010 (EDT)
And [http://www.forvo.com/word/pakistan/ numerous other languages] use a pronunciation closer to the native form. [[User:Golgaronok|Golgaronok]] 00:57, 10 April 2010 (EDT)

::"Golgaronok" (if that is your name), your quibbles with the entry have already been argued ad nauseum, [http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Barack_Hussein_Obama/archive4#.22Pokiston.22.3F.3F.3F.3F.3F here], for instance. If you've only come to argue on talk pages, you're wasting your own time. Try making substantive contributions to the project; excessive talk is disfavored here. [[User:DanielPulido|DanielPulido]] 01:04, 10 April 2010 (EDT)
I don't see any responses to the points I raised. But it's y'all's funeral. [[User:Golgaronok|Golgaronok]] 01:13, 10 April 2010 (EDT)
:::Kind of interesting that Davis Petraeus was mentioned here. When that general was ordered to command US forces in Afghanistan and Iraq, the liberal elites decided that his name should be pronounced "BETRAY US". [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 01:29, 10 April 2010 (EDT)

==Barry Soetoro = birth name?==
This may have already been discussed, so forgive me if this has been settled. I noticed that the article says ''"Barack Hussein Obama II (birth name Barry Soetoro..."'', however the articles cited do not support the idea that "Barry Soetoro" is Obama's birth name, in fact quite the opposite. My understanding, from reading the Newsweek article, is that "Barack" is his birth name, although he went by "Barry" when he was younger. His father's name, as I understand it, is Barack Hussein Obama, and he was named after his father. "Seotoro", if I remember right, was his stepfather's last name, so it is unlikely that it would have been part of Obama's birth name. To be clear, I do realize that he spent his younger years being known as "Barry Soetoro", and I think that should be included in the article, I just don't think it was actually his birth name. 
Please understand that I am not as knowledgeable in this kind of thing as many other contributors here, so I may have gotten it all wrong - that's why I didn't attempt to edit the article. Please correct me if I have gotten it wrong - I won't be offended and I am curious as to the truth of the matter. [[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 18:11, 1 May 2010 (EDT)

According to the citation that shows the birth certificate, the birth name is, in fact, Barack Hussein Obama II, NOT Barry Soetoro. Also, because there is an actual document, i.e. physical, demonstrable proof, the word "allegedly" should be removed.

== Remove name repetition? ==

Would anyone mind if I removed some of the repetition of Obama's name in certain portions of the article? For example, in this paragraph:
{{cquote|
[[Barack Obama and uncharitableness|Barack Obama's recent pattern of charitable giving]] and [[Barack Obama and liberal elitism|Barack Obama's liberal elitism]] is consistent with Obama being a [[Narcissism|narcissist]] which is a charge that has often been made against Barack Obama. However, it is also true that Barack Obama is an [[evolution|evolutionist]]. Barack Obama told the ''York Daily Record'' that "I believe in [[evolution]]...". Barack Obama's recent pattern of charitable giving and liberal elitism is also in accordance with someone who has a certain degree of [[Social Darwinism|social darwinistic]] thinking. In addition to [[Liberals and uncharitableness|American liberals giving less to charity]], it is also true that [[Theory of evolution and liberalism|American liberals are also more likely to believe in evolution]].
}}

I think I could alter it to make it more readable with "Obama's recent pattern of charitable giving and liberal elitism is consistent with that of a narcissist, a charge that has often been made against him."

And so forth. In my linguistics class, we talked about semantic satiation, and I believe that paragraphs like these, along with the fact that it never seems to use pronouns, somewhat diminish the readability of the article. If I were to make this change, I would preserve every wikilink, reference, etc, but I believe it would become more readable. In Christ, [[User:Tzoran|Tyler Zoran]] [[User talk:Tzoran|Talk]] 09:09, 6 May 2010 (EDT)

== Insults? ==

Does the entire beginning of the article have to be so laden with insults? Couldnt it simply say what the article will be about, and THEN express views? As it is it appears very unprofessional. 19:11, 6 May 2010 (EDT)
:We believe in the truth here, and the fact that [[liberals]] like yourself feign offense at the display of it speaks volumes about you. If you insist on closing your mind, at least take ownership of your [[deceit]]! Sign your comments with <nowiki> ~~~~ </nowiki> next time. Godspeed! [[User:Tzoran|Tyler Zoran]] [[User talk:Tzoran|Talk]] 19:58, 6 May 2010 (EDT)

== "The first president who is biracial" ==

There have been other presidents of more than one race. Bush Jr. is has some German and English ancestry. [[User:NP|NP]]

:George W is German and English, is that two races according to our census? I think the readers will understand what biracial refers to.

::English and German are '''''not''''' races, and neither is Hispanic. --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 22:16, 17 May 2010 (EDT)

== Reorganizing ==

I'm glad to see the edit feature is enabled here once more. I think this page needs a revamp to structure information better. I've reorganized everything into a better structure, let me know what you think. I am trying to put a summary of the presidency at the top, information about his life/career next, and then a political summary. This should really improve the page's appearance, as it appears too disorganized right now. --[[User:Jzyehoshua|Jzyehoshua]] 15:56, 20 May 2010 (EDT)
:What you're doing is burying important information so fewer users will find it. That's unacceptable. [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 15:57, 20 May 2010 (EDT)

== Obama is a Muslim theory and the alleged claim of Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Aboul Gheit ==

Here is what the American Thinker reported: "The American President told me in confidence that he is a Muslim." That was the claim of Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Aboul Gheit, as reported in the May 2010 issue of Israel Today. According to journalist Avi Lipkin, Gheit appeared on Nile TV's "Round Table Show" in January, on which he said that "he had had a one-on-one meeting with Obama who swore to him that he was a Moslem, the son of a Moslem father and step-son of Moslem step-father, that his half-brothers in Kenya were Moslems, and that he was loyal to the Moslem agenda."[http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/06/report_obama_said_i_am_a_musli.html] Here is what Hot Air says: http://hotair.com/greenroom/archives/2010/06/14/obama-is-a-muslim-take-two/

Personally, I am beginning to think Obama is: not a Muslim, not a Christian, and not an atheist. I think Obama is a narcissist who worships himself. I can also see him telling one person he is a Christian and then later telling someone else he is a Muslim. There are many examples of Obama being insincere such as all the substantive healthcare discussions were going to be on C-Span, etc. etc. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 15:53, 16 June 2010 (EDT)

== 2009 Nobel Peace Prize ==

I find it strange that there is not a single mention of the president being awarded the Nobel peace prize in this article. Considering that other prominent award winners have it at least mentioned in their respective articles. The [[Mother Teresa]] article, for instance, prominently states her award in the introduction to the article, and even political figures like [[Al Gore]] and [[Henry Kissinger]] (both of whom won the peace prize) have their award at least mentioned in the article.
--[[User:DenisTR|DenisTR]] 16:04, 19 August 2010 (EDT)

:I agree with you, Denis. It was there, once-upon-a-time, but apparently it was removed in the constant editing turmoil. CP does mention this in the [[Nobel Prize]] article. I will add it here, as it should be. --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 16:24, 19 August 2010 (EDT)

==Faulty Logic==
I have a suspicion that Andy Schlafly is secretly a Muslim. Will you deny that, Andy? If you do deny it, then I accuse you of being a Muslim under the concept of Taqiyya.
It's like a terrible flow chart that always ends with "You're a Muslim." I realize that you're kind of scraping the barrel with this whole "Obama is a Muslim" thing, but c'mon. [[User:Pete5383|Paul]] 18:57, 19 August 2010 (EDT)

: Paul, you seem to think all claims or facts are relative. They aren't. Truth is supported by logic and evidence.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:00, 19 August 2010 (EDT)

:: President Obama clearly has an Islamic background. As an adult, he joined a church and says he's a Christian. I'd say he's as much Muslim as I am Jewish; by Jewish law, my having a Jewish mother makes me Jewish by birth, but I became a Christian by choice as a teenager. Go figure. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 14:04, 3 September 2010 (EDT)

:::Whether President Obama is Muslim or not is one question; however it is undeniable Obama misspoke or was deceptive while ramping up his ambitions back in 2005 when he told the ''Chicago Sun-Times'', "I am rooted in the Christian tradition." Nowhere on his maternal side, grandma, gramps, or his natural father, or his stepfather, can any Christian rooting be found. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 14:37, 4 September 2010 (EDT)

==Days in office==
[[Barack Obama]] was inaugurated {{days since|2009|1|20}} days ago and will finish his term in {{#expr: -{{days since|2013|1|20}} }} days. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 14:00, 3 September 2010 (EDT)

==Apparent sourcing errors==

While looking over this article, I noticed a number of problems - mostly unsourced claims or claims for which the source is no longer available. Since my suggestions will almost certainly be controversial, I will not actually make any further changes to this page.

*The quote "Rather than being a unifier, Mr. Obama has divided America on the basis of race, class and partisanship" under the heading "Presidency" is unattributed.

*The claim that Obama represented ACORN in ''Buycks-Roberson v. Citibank Fed. Sav. Bank'' is unsupported. While court documents do list Obama among the Plaintiff's Attorneys, they do not reference ACORN in any way. [http://www.clearinghouse.net/detail.php?id=10112] This claim seems to have been added by bloggers after the fact. Similarly, the cited reference contains no source for the claim that Obama had anything to do with the CRA, only a completely unsourced allegation that was reprinted almost verbatim here. As far as I can tell, Obama represented ACORN exactly once, on a case involving motor voter laws. [http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2008/oct/17/john-mccain/he-represented-them-in-one-case-/]

*The statement "Obama website Fight The Smears has confirmed that Obama was once a Kenyan citizen until 1982" under the subheading "Birth Certificate Controversy" is unsourced and ambiguous.

*Much of the content under the subheading "Engineers defeat of Centrist Democrats" is dubious. Two of the cites [http://articles.latimes.com/1992-03-18/news/mn-3844_1_gus-savage][http://www.dkosopedia.com/wiki/Carol_Moseley_Braun#Political_career] are about Carol Moseley Braun and don't mention Obama at all. There is no indication in any of the sources that Obama was connected to the Braun campaign, so these cites are meaningless. Additionally, the section attributes an anti-Dixon intent to Obama (referring to Obama as "subverting" Dixon's reelection, defined by Conservapedia's own article as "lending of aid, comfort, and moral support to individuals, groups, or organizations that advocate the overthrow of incumbent governments by force and violence"). What he did was increase voter turnout among the black community, a far cry from what the text implies.

*<s>The statement "President Obama falsely claimed that the senior citizen group AARP endorsed his administration's health care plan when they never made such an endorsement" under the subheading "Obama Administration Health Care Plan and Its Advocacy Methods" is sourced to a YouTube video that no longer exists. Additionally, it appears that AARP has been supporting health care reform since at least August 2009. [http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/08/17/eveningnews/main5247916.shtml][http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/19/aarp-ama-announce-support_n_506060.html]</s>

*Similarly, several cites link to YouTube videos that have been removed. Multiple cites under the subheading "Obama Administration Health Care Plan and Liberal Elitism" link to deleted videos, as does the cite for the statement "Barack Obama's "Disinformation Czar" (whose supposed job was to correct disinformation that others are spreading about the Obama administration's health care plan) was caught spreading misleading information." The cite for the statement "Senior citizens are key Democratic party constituents that could kill Obama's socialistic health care plan" links to a private video.

--[[User:DrewJ|DrewJ]] 15:50, 29 September 2010 (EDT)

:Sorry, Drew, but one glaring misrepresentation really sticks out, and explains why liberals are often accused of playing fast and loose with the truth: While AARP has long advocated health care reform, it specifically repudiated Obama's distortion of the truth, saying they were not endorsing any specific plan, at that time. See how easy it is to distort fact, by omission, and make obviously good-intentioned souls like you doubt the real truth?

:You are obviously an editor here, and I would urge you, before making posts such as this one, to try and find substitute sources that back up what is in the story. At the very least, as is the case with the AARP, at least check the facts before stating something is incorrect. It was a very big story at the time, Obama's misstatement, and not at all hard to find....so easy and well-known in fact that some people might be tempted to accuse you of inserting a deliberate [[Red Herring]]. --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 17:29, 29 September 2010 (EDT)

Sources don't count if they are liberal sources. Those are worse than no source at all. Find a reliable source like Cato Institute or Fox News and we can add those. [[User:JoeSmithson117|JoeSmithson117]] 18:44, 4 December 2011 (EST)

== Typo ==
The first sentence here has a typo: it presumably is meant to read "...said to have '''been''' born in..." I'd fix it myself, but the page is so informative (and therefore long) that my poor old computer can't load it to edit. --[[User:LanceS|LanceS]] 21:49, 11 November 2010 (EST)
:Thanks, JPatt got it. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 22:29, 11 November 2010 (EST)

== Bryan Fischer: Obama wants to give America back to the Indians ==

Is [http://www.afa.net/Blogs/BlogPost.aspx?id=2147501360 this site] some kind of liberal parody? Otherwise, this is so serious that is should be included. American Family Association would seem to me as a pretty trustworthy organization, and this Bryan Fischer is writing for them. Any thoughts? – [[User:Dstone|dstone]] 16:42, 1 January 2011 (EST)

==Fact vs Opinion==
Okay...I thought maybe this article would be a good place to start. I was introduced to Conservapedia recently, and have been waffling about joining and bcoming an editor, but can no longer refrain. So, I'm extraordinarily new...and I fully expect the welcoming and flame-free arms of this community, as I support the overall efforts of what Conservapedia is trying to accomplish. The road to becoming a "Trustworthy Encyclopedia" is long, and this site is just starting to make baby steps in that direction. That being said, I will try to keep this short.

FACT: Opinions are not fact. Even expert opinions are not fact. They're just plain old opinions. Despite being in the Commandments, and otherwise stated over and over again, folks seem to have trouble making this distinction.
OPINION: If you are unable to make cited references, or present the conservative viewpoint in a reasoned and intelligent manner, I would heavily suggest that you leave the site to those who can. Your "help" is often unhelpful. Especially in an article as...contentious...as this - and I imagine many others, I'll be looking shortly - the talk page is the place to present your opinions. If you cannot site material, find sources that intelligently argue your viewpoint, or just want a second or third pair of eyes and ears, it would be addressed here. Also, if haven't actually read the article that you are citing...do that first, before posting anything at all...

There are several on this page, the most innocuous of which: President Obama authorized offshore oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico[28]. The moratorium lapsed in 2008. It says it right in the article, paragraph 4. This statement is spruious and vague and will be reworded to say something like: Then-Senator Obama voted to re-authorize oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico. This is just a small and harmless example, but, either research the issue before posting, or don't post. If you wish to engage in historical revisionism, or just bottom-barrel opinion mongering, please roll on over to Wikipedia, and leave us be. [[User:RyanDav|RyanDav]] 2 January 2011
:I moved this from the top of the page to its current location, to maintain threading. [[User:Tzoran|Tyler Zoran]] [[User talk:Tzoran|Talk]] 13:35, 2 January 2011 (EST)

== Oil Drilling Moratorium, redux ==

I did not realize that this would be as contentious as it was. The statement is simply poorly worded, I assume unintentionally, and appears to place the blame squarely on one person's shoulders. This is just factually innacurate, nothing more, nothing less. We accept credit where credit is due, and take blame where blame is appropriate - and the blame belongs to the vast majority of the 110th Congress, both the liberal reps and ours - and to deny that is some kind of revisionism, which will not be tolerated. I'm certainly more than willing to be corrected on this, but you can either site sources that support your viewpoint, or you cannot - it really is that easy. In that case, the article would read something like, "then-Senator Obama lobbied heavily for the moratorium to lapse, and led a congressional coalition consisting of Senators Blah, Blah and Blah and Congressmen Such-and-such and So-and-so to further that end, etc..." accompanied by supporting references. I am afraid, however, that a "nuh-uh," or, "because I said so," is simply Not Good Enough. We're counteracting liberal bias, here, not populating the internet with more unfounded claptrap. [[User:RyanDav|RyanDav]] 19:26, 3 January 2011 (EST)

:If you please, write here your proposal for how this should be written, including the source links. If Obama lobbied heavily for the moritorium to lapse, then the source evidence will say it; if he was a part of a coalition of people, then again the evidence will support that. Since this article is about Obama, it should lean on what he has done while in office. But as far as what the 110th Congress did or didn't do, oh yes, I am in total agreement with you...and so were the vast majority of voters back in November. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 20:00, 3 January 2011 (EST)

::He didn't, as far as I know, or have ever read. I don't think any articles arguing that he soley was responsible, or even more responsible than any other rep, exist. The text is already up there. Pretty vanilla. Mentions him by name, but also says, "hey, don't forget about all the other chair-jockeys, too!" But the article is about him, so he gets a name drop for focus. The article is about him as whole, so his Presidential and Senatorial terms would be seperate sections of the same article, so as not to confuse. The 110th was the last Bush-era Congress. In November, we voted out the 111th. We are now in the 112th Congress.

::Oh, I also replaced someone's citation from an OpEd piece in the NYTimes with an actual news reference that supported the same point (about the Obama administration's poor response to the Oil Spill). If I didn't know better (and I probably don't), I would suspect that some of the citations here are purposefully planted just to make us look like simpletons. [[User:RyanDav|RyanDav]] 21:39, 3 January 2011 (EST)

== Birth Controversy ==
Could someone please explain to me something I've never quite followed: why does it matter where Obama was born? As far as I can tell, no one is claiming his mother was not a US Citizen, which makes him a "natural born" US citizen even if he was born in Kenya, Moscow, or Riyadh. If the issue is "without a birth certificate we can't be certain his mother is really his mother" then I get it, but this side of things seems to be ignored in favor of controversy over the actual location of the birth. If we interpret "natural born citizen" as "born within the US", then that would exclude the children of Armed Forces personnel stationed overseas with their families at the time their children were born from the presidency, which seems like something liberals would love to do. [[User:Ptorquemada|Ptorquemada]] 12:09, 5 April 2011 (EDT)
:Well, John McCain whose father was an Admiral was born to two American parents in Panama Canal Zone. The media questioned his "natural born" citizen status and it seemingly was determined that since both his parents were American citizens who were living out of State because of the Admiral's duties that John McCain's birth status would be considered "natural born. The question concerning Barack Obama is that his father was not a US citizen but was in fact a British subject as Kenya was under British rule at the time. Some suggest that the original conception of "natural born" was that both parents are US citizens at the time of the birth of a child. So there is a question as to his "natural born" status even if he was, in fact, born in Hawaii. The fact that Obama has spent a couple of million dollars fighting any requests for proof of an original long form birth certificate and school records makes some people more convinced that a. he wasn't actually born in Hawaii and that his birth was only registered there or b. because his father was a British subject he had duel citizenship status which would make it doubtful that he would be considered a natural born citizen. There are many questions concerning Obama's "natural born" status because he also appears to have been a citizenship of Indonesia and is supposed to have traveled on an Indonesian passport as an adult. Of course, a lot of questions would be removed if the president just released the original birth certificate. The fact that he hasn't just adds fuel to the fire. [[User:Dwain|Dwain]] 12:09, 8 April 2011 (EDT)

== Birth Certificate Removal? ==

Now that Obama has finally released his birth certificate, all this about Kenya and Barry Soetoro seems a bit silly. Should we remove it? [[User:JimAB|JimAB]] 11:24, 27 April 2011 (EDT)
:Has the question of Mr. Obama traveling to Pakistan on an Indonesian passport under the name Barry Soetero in 1981 been resolved yet? As well as the statements regarding his application to join the Illinois State Bar Association wherein he answered no to the question of ever using any aliases? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 18:12, 28 April 2011 (EDT)

== Shortening the article length ==

I think we need to work on splitting this article; I recently revert a vandal's (mostly) blanking of the page, and my browser would freeze up when I tried to save the page (actually I'm currently trying to save it - and over and over again I'm having no luck). Currently this appears at the top of the edit screen:
:'''WARNING: This page is 144 kilobytes long; some browsers may have problems editing pages approaching or longer than 32kb. Please consider breaking the page into smaller sections or removing irrelevant information.'''
Thoughts?--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 00:34, 30 April 2011 (EDT)

== First Socialist??? ==

Obama is clearly a socialist, but is he the first to be president as the lead of the article states? The New deal democrats who created social security come to mind.[[User:BenDylan|BenD]] 09:03, 1 May 2011 (EDT)
:That certainly may be true. But we are talking about one man who occupies the office of president, not underlings and appopintees. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 09:23, 1 May 2011 (EDT)
::But couldn't the Presidents who hired them be considered socialists? I still don't know about saying he's the FIRST. [[User:KingHanksley|KingHanksley]] 12:31, 4 May 2011 (EDT)
:::You Americans have no idea what socialism is anymore do you?[[User:Cmurphynz|Cmurphynz]] 21:36, 25 June 2012 (EDT)
::::I guess you're on to us. Alex, I'll take What is redistribution of wealth, State control of industry for $200. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 21:43, 25 June 2012 (EDT)

== Obama the Socialist ==
I am counting all the capitalists that have hired self-proclaimed communists. I come up with zero. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 12:43, 2 May 2011 (EDT)

== Update of the article ==

See [[Talk:Barack Hussein Obama/update]] if you'd like to contribute to an update of this article - we'll be keeping a lot of the information that's good, throwing out some information that's a little old, and adding new information - all while hopefully downsizing! All help is appreciated!--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 19:55, 2 May 2011 (EDT)

== Bin Laden ==

Should we at least mention the Bin Laden capture? I feel that in fairness we should give him his one or two accomplishments. We should definitely mention that George W. Bush's policies played a big hand but still Obama could have gone entirely bleeding heart on us and we wouldn't have gotten OBL [[User:KingHanksley|KingHanksley]] 11:24, 4 May 2011 (EDT)

But being fair and giving credit to a liberal muslim socialist for making the world even a little safer would undermine the integrity of a conservative encyclopedia. Now had he screwed up the capture then that would be worthy of mentioning because it would show how he endangered the country. We should only be fair and give credit where credit is due if Obama was a Christian conservative who shared our beliefs. ([[User:Bluebank|Bluebank]] 12:58, 7 July 2011 (EDT))

I agree, it would only be worth mentioning if he had screwed up the capture because then we could hold his feet to the fire. ([[User:Jvclark2|Jvclark2]] 13:00, 7 July 2011 (EDT))

:::''"giving credit to a liberal muslim socialist for making the world even a little safer would undermine the integrity of a conservative encyclopedia."'' Well that's not a biased statement or anything. It should fall under the article Obama presidency but because of its significance, put it on the BHO page. Rarely, but we have given Obama credit in the past. The rescue of a Captain from Somali pirates is a good example of the proper choice the Progressive fake Christian Marxist had made. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 14:58, 7 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::I just don't see where ordering bin Laden's killing is a big accomplishment. What purpose did it serve other than a failed effort to turn around Obama's falling poll ratings while destroying the most important relationship the United States had in the war on terror. After Obama declared the war on terror over two years ago, dismantling the delicate relationship with the Pakistani ISS seems like phase two. Undermining Pakistan's secular regime, the way Obama did, only works to the advantage of Islamic extremists.

:::::Did killing bin Laden bring back the lives lost in the 9/11 attacks? No. Does making the war's in Iraq & Afghanistan about retribution rather than prevention, further American foreign policy interests or make the United States more secure? Hardly.

:::::Does creating the false sense among the American electorate that the objectives of the war in Afghanistan have now been accomplished, and we can abandon the fight? The height of folly -- and a repeat of what happened when the U.S. abandoned Afghanistan to the terrorists after 1991.

:::::Did killing bin Laden make America safe from reprisals? Or rather doies killing bin Laden expose innocent men, women, and children to the never ending threat of sudden, sensesless, and violent death?
:::::The cynical manipulation of American security and foreign policy interests for short term popularity and selfish career interests is appalling. I just don't agree this a "success" to boast of. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 23:15, 7 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::While I think it's laughable to say that taking down the number one most wanted man in the world isn't an accomplishment, I think it's a decision that ''anyone'' would have made, therefore, it isn't special or particular that Obama happened to be the one to make it. [[User:BradB|BradB]] 23:57, 7 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::No. We've learned from our mistakes. In 1967 the the number one most wanted man in the world - Che Guevara - was similiarly hunted and executed, only to be resurrected by liberals, hate-mongers, and other assorted sociopaths and pro-mass murder advocates, made the mascot of the hate-America crowd, and sold to American college students as somethiong larger than life and a cult hero to be worshiped. It is not laughable at all. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 13:55, 8 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::::The angst from the left goes back to Bush hatred. We shouldn't have interfered in Iraq and should have focused on OBL. Leftist sheep knew better than Bush. We knew all along that it is not one man but a movement, confront them there instead of here. At least we are no longer creating and recruiting terrorists, thanks to a Muslim-named president and his policies of peace in the Middle East.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 14:08, 8 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::You will recall Senator [[Patty Murray]], who now heads the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee charged with candidate recruitment and doling out funds, praised bin Laden for his work with children buidling day care centers. He probably supported the Family-Leave Act and opposed No Child Left Behind, too. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 15:26, 8 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::''" I just don't agree this a "success" to boast of. "'' Two points, 1) stating a fact is not boasting, it is just stating a fact. We list domestic policy, popular bills, economic plan, gulf oil spill, DADT... It's just another thing to list. 2) Had Bush done it I'm pretty sure it would be on his page.([[User:Jvclark2|Jvclark2]] 21:09, 8 July 2011 (EDT))
:::::::::::That is the point. Stating the fact that Obama's unnecessarily destroyed the most vital relationship the United States has in the War on Terror to score short term approval ratings. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 12:38, 9 July 2011 (EDT)
Jvclark - bin Laden's death is mentioned on this page. In the lead. What more do you want?--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 11:46, 9 July 2011 (EDT)

==From the update - discussion==
===Structuring===
This is what I feel should be the general sectioning of the article - I think with an article that we have this much information on, what we mostly need to do is use "See also:" pages rather than go into major details.
{| style="width:100%"
|valign="top"|
*Early life
*U.S. Senate career (with a note on opposition to the Iraq War - which should be followed up on in the presidential primary race)
*U.S. Senate career
**Radical endorsements, support, and get out the vote efforts (better language?)
**'''Use of filibuster and obstructionism'''
**'''Voted agaist debt ceiling increase'''

*Presidential election (things to cover: experience question, jeremiah wright, PUMA)
**Primary race
**National election
|valign="top"|
*Presidency
**Domestic policy
***Popular Bills (Zadroga, lilly ledbetter fair pay act)
***Economic plan
****Stimulus plan
***Health care
***The Gulf oil spill
**Foreign policy
***Commander-in-Chief
****Iraq
****Afghanistan
****Libya/The Obama Doctine
****Don't Ask Don't Tell
|valign="top"|

*Ideology (mentioning pro-abortion stance, other things not mentioned above)
*References
*See also
*External links
|}

Rob I've bolded two section that I wonder if they should be sections alone; I do 100% agree that they should be mentioned in the text; are you set on them being sections? If so I'll yield--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 00:58, 3 May 2011 (EDT)
:Leave bold for now & let's see what develops; '''Recovery''' is ambiguous; while total output (GDP growth) has recovered, we've seen several polls just over the past week where 60-70% of respondents ''still'' think the US is in recession (despite the fact GDP growth has recovered over the past year and half). Likewise, it certainly has not been a "jobs recovery". I'd suggest this needs a better name. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 01:15, 3 May 2011 (EDT)

::I very much agree - that's a misleading section title - I think what I meant was "Proposed Recovery" - or "Recovery Plan". The latter sounds a little better to my ears. I made a few edits below - I'm gonna hold off on doing anything else till you get a chance to take a look and add things.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]]01:22, 3 May 2011 (EDT)
:::I've replaced Recovery with Stimulus, perhaps "Stimulus and budget". Also, Don't Ask Don't Tell seems a little wierd under "Wartime"; is it there solely cause it's a military subject? It could just as easily fit under Idealogy as well (I' not just trying to be argumentative....) [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 01:40, 3 May 2011 (EDT)
::::Hmm. Very true. No I think it's definitely a legitimate question. I HAD been thinking that Ideology would just cover what wasn't addressed in the prior sections (since certainly we'd discuss his economic ideology in the "Economic plan" section) - so, yes, I had just placed it under wartime solely because its a military subject. But it is probably more apropos to homosexual rights. I am worried that Ideology will become a bucket of worms, so to speak, only in that it'd be weird to just have a section for DADT under it, so then we'd have to have a super-section for "Homosexual policy", and then super-sections for everything else, making the article very long. I leave it up to you.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 01:45, 3 May 2011 (EDT)
:::::Alternatively, we can just leave it as is for now. I'm updating the [[Obama administration]] article right now, too. That one is structured , "Economic policy", "Foreign policy", etc. Wartime leader is something new. Perhaps, Commander-in-Chief? that would encompass DADT as well as ongoing military operations. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 02:08, 3 May 2011 (EDT)
::::::I like that. It's broader and works well. Nice.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 02:29, 3 May 2011 (EDT)
I took a look at the Wikipedia page on Obama - and I actually like how they organize his presidency - into Domestic policy and foreign policy. I'm going to make some changes to reflect that. I think in the long run it'll actually limit the number of sections we need--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 18:15, 4 May 2011 (EDT)

== Congratulations! ==
To the people who worked updating this article. It looks much better now.--[[User:AlejandroH|AlejandroH]] 00:43, 10 May 2011 (EDT)

== Speculation ==

In the spirit of accuracy, I think that all articles should refrain from speculative language (I thought this would be good article to start with). I understand that this is a conservative encyclopedia, but one should not overrule the other. We can still present the conservative view point that other encyclopedias overlook without veering off the path of facts. I think that President Obama has done enough to harm himself without adding inflammatory and opinion statements. This language degrades the reliability of the site. [[User:McTone|McTone]] 10:59, 23 May 2011 (EDT)McTone
:You're actually not making encyclopedic edits - for example how you're adding titles ("''President'' Obama"), which is traditionally not done. As you've now been reverted twice I think you should refrain from editing this article.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 11:35, 23 May 2011 (EDT)
:: That is encyclopaedic, as it is proper to use a person's title in reference material. However, that's not ththe only edits I've made. Most of them being removing speculative speech. Basically we should follow the rule of "if you can't cite it, don't say it."[[User:McTone|McTone]] 13:01, 23 May 2011 (EDT)McTone
:::No it's generally not. See his Wikipedia page if you don't believe. We also don't say "Mr." or "Ms."--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 12:02, 23 May 2011 (EDT)
::::Are we not better than Wikipedia? In any case, this is deferring the point I was making with this heading.[[User:McTone|McTone]] 13:01, 23 May 2011 (EDT)McTone

== Perhaps ==

I have read two cases of the word perhaps in the opening section of this article. Shouldn't assumptions like these not belong in an encyclopedia like article, especially in the opening section?- AlexMason
:The first one is arguably a wording error ... I'll consider that - the second one is more appropriate; since the event just happened we're not sure what the consequences will be, but if a potential consequence is notable enough it's probably worth stating--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 16:30, 23 May 2011 (EDT)
::I'm an underwriter at Fox News and I see stuff like this all the time. I think AlexMason is correct here (as well as the poster in the previous topic). Is this a web encyclopedia or is this an opinion site? Speculating on the outcome of events is tantamount to gossip (highly frowned upon and in fact forbidden by the standards of Conservapedia as I have read the rules and commandments). I really think this should be fixed. I noticed some edits in the history of this page and I've got to stick with Andy's last revision (reverting some of the edits of the previous editor) which kept to the less speculative nature of the article.[[User:PapaBear|PapaBear]] 21:32, 28 May 2011 (EDT)

== Obama Muslim Evidence? ==

I was going to make a post on this talk page suggesting we move the long list of evidence that Obama may be a Muslim to its own article (or an article dealing with the Obama/Islam controversy) but when I got here I saw that section had been removed, as had any mention of the words "Islam" or "Muslim". (I did a search on my browser). I could not find a reason for this on the talk page. Could someone explain why this was made? [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 22:13, 3 June 2011 (EDT)
:I rescued the content from an old revision and put it here: [[Barack Obama's Muslim Heritage]] [[User:AndyJ|AndyJ]] 22:18, 21 June 2011 (EDT)

== Obama as President ==
With the long-standing controversy about Hussein's birth certificate and the recent evidence that the one that was released is forged, I feel that there is ample evidence to conclude that Obama was born in Kenya. Because of that, I propose that we list the current holder of the office of [[President]] as [[Joe Biden]], as he would take the office if Obama were found to be unable or ineligible to serve. --[[User:AndyJ|AndyJ]] 22:29, 21 June 2011 (EDT)
:You may be misreading the story; the "Obama was born in Kenya" conspiracy theory was promoted by the White House to hide the fact that, Barack Hussein Obama's father was a [[natural born citizen]] of Kenya, and not the United States. That is the constitutional question, being that a case can be made that the Constitutional framers defined "natural born citizen" as being a citizen of the country of ''your fathers'' birth. The birth certificate, or the location of Obama Jr. birth, that is to say, the birther conspircacy the White House promoted, never had anything to do with the constitutional issue in question. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 16:27, 22 June 2011 (EDT)
::And two things, firstly, there is not ample evidence. Just conspiracy theories. Even assuming that the certificate/s released are forgeries, that alone isn't enough to prove he wasn't born in the US, it would just raise concerning questions. Secondly, Obama would remain the President. The Constitution doesn't mention what would happen if someone who was ineligible to be President became President. Hence, until impeachment or the 25th Amendment is invoked, Obama would remain President. (Presumably the 25th would be invoked, as impeachment would take a lot longer, and would require proving that Obama knew, which could be a little difficult.) - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 07:57, 18 October 2011 (EDT)

== Why is the birth certificate things still going? ==

I read a while ago (and posted in the article) an article from the National Review where even they concede that Obama was probably born in the US. [[User:CaptainSwing|CaptainSwing]] 23:43, 7 November 2011 (EST)

:Well as soon as it's verified than we can move past. Until then, we'll just pretend everything is a ok. For me, I'd still like to see every executive order, every law signed, every supreme court nominee from Obama overturned. It took three years the release of the long form certificate. I can wait another three years if need be for the proof.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 00:11, 8 November 2011 (EST)
::I don't understand, the National Review, a magazine that I admit is quite conservative, viewed the birth certificate and said it was most likely valid. I'm not sure what you're waiting for, as I don't think anyone is going to prove that Obama wasn't born in the country. [[User:CaptainSwing|CaptainSwing]] 09:59, 8 November 2011 (EST)
:::Because what they viewed was a Photoshoped work. Until the American public sees for itself exactly what is - or is not - on file in Hawaii, there will always be this unanswered question. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 11:22, 8 November 2011 (EST)
::::But it wasn't photo-shopped, that was the whole point the National Review was making: [http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/265767/pdf-layers-obamas-birth-certificate-nathan-goulding]. And honestly it makes sense, why on Earth would they go to the trouble of planting so much evidence that even the Mccain campaign declined to pursue it further, only to bungle the job on an elementary error in photoshop that any reasonable graphics designer would never make. [[User:CaptainSwing|CaptainSwing]] 12:03, 8 November 2011 (EST)
:::::It was Photoshopped, and downloading the original White House copy of it reveals all of the layers when it's run under Photoshop. Try reading all of these [http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=98546] by different reporters rather than a single National Review piece that's harping the beliefs of the "Yes We Can" crowd. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:21, 8 November 2011 (EST)
::::::So wait, you're saying that because they agree with Obama we can dismiss them? Isn't that circular reasoning? The author of the national review article posted a guide of how the mistakes could have easily come up and has no reason to lie about it. And again, let's think about this logically, they have authentic birth announcements from the relevant papers, good enough to fool the Mccain campaign, why would they botch a photoshop job? [[User:CaptainSwing|CaptainSwing]] 12:27, 8 November 2011 (EST)
:::::::And one of those mistakes that appeared on the Obama "certificate" was a sequence number that interfered with the numbers issued to a pair of twins; one of those mistakes was the "signature" of an individual which happens to be close enough to the name of a very small Hawaiian guitar; one of those mistakes is a smiley face attached to another signature; the list goes on. And until we see the real, bona-fide birth certificate, this issue is not going to go away, and we will continue to publish the current evidence as the fraud that it is. So don't worry too much about it, okay? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:44, 8 November 2011 (EST)
::::::::Does that mean to say that it should be considered a fraud until such a time as every US citizen has held and viewed the physical document? [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 16:49, 8 November 2011 (EST)
:::::::::Though this discussion is old. I will agree with this CaptainSwing person and this MaxFletcher that Obama's birth certificate issue has been dealt with, and the National Review magazine that one user mentioned is a conservative magazine. Plus you don't go to court with flimsy argument saying "hey he was born in Kenya" and demand that the defense prove all its points without the prosecution being able to present solid evidence. I see no solid evidence that proves he was born outside the United States, in our party the centre-right Austrian-born Arnold Schwarzenegger was elected Governor of California. And besides the real serious problems that people have with Obama are what he is doing as President, such as his high tax agenda for instance.--[[User:TheQuestioner|TheQuestioner]] 17:08, 3 August 2012 (EDT)

==Promises kept==
I can count how many promises Obama kept on one hand.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 13:47, 19 December 2011 (EST)

== Poverty comment in paragraph 2 of intro ==

The poverty comment isn't supported by the link at all. The link looks at from the 1950s to 2009. Obama began office in 2009, so the 14.3 percent marked at the end of the graph is a measure of the poverty at some point during 2009, and may have been taken in Bush's last month in office. It is unreasonable to conclude from the graph that poverty increased under Obama's presidency. I'll also note that the increase in poverty began, according to the graph, whilst Bush was in office. - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 00:08, 20 March 2012 (EDT)

== Better, More Objective Article at CreationWiki.org ==

There's now a better-sourced, more objective article at CreationWiki.org:

http://creationwiki.org/Barack_Obama

This article mentions virtually no biographic detail about Obama, or major controversies, including the Born Alive issue or his Chicago Politics. And the sourcing looks haphazard here. --[[User:Jzy|Jzy]] 09:52, 29 May 2012 (EDT)

Still, you guys have a 1-sentence mention of the Born Alive controversy even though it was brought up by Obama's last 4 political opponents, John McCain, Sarah Palin, Hillary Clinton, and Alan Keyes. And Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum both brought it up a few months ago as well. There's a whole article on this subject alone over at CreationWiki:

http://creationwiki.org/Obama_born_alive_controversy

You're missing the boat on the biggest controversy surrounding Obama, one that hasn't been debunked and is going to cause him a WHOLE lot of trouble. I told you guys this 2 years ago.
--[[User:Jzy|Jzy]] 10:14, 29 May 2012 (EDT)

:Thanks for the comments Jyz, the current article has been in the top 10 for nearly four years now. Most Americans are quite aware that Obama is the most pro-abortion president ever. Feel free to add to our wiki with the born-alive controversy page. In addition, you were not registered here two years ago so no wonder we didn't heed your warning.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 12:52, 29 May 2012 (EDT)

::Well, if this were just another abortion issue Obama wouldn't have a thing to worry about. This is an entirely different subject because it involves aborting children who aren't inside the mother's body but are outside the body and capable of surviving if given medical attention. We passed the federal Born Alive Infant Protection Act in 2002 making it illegal to let premature, newborn babies who survive late-term abortions get left to die without medical attention. We also passed the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act outlawing the late-term Dilation & Extraction (D&E) abortions that resulted in these live births. Nurses Jill Stanek and Allison Baker (of Christ Hospital in Oak Lawn, IL) testified before Congress in 2001 that newborn babies were being born prematurely after botched abortions in their home state of Illinois and being thrown in wastebaskets or soiled utility rooms. Stanek's moving testimony about how she held a little baby in her arms after one of these abortions and the physician refused to help keep it alive so that it died in her arms, proved especially influential.

::The entire U.S. Senate passed the Born Alive Infant Protection Act unanimously, because as Obama would put it, it was "the bill everybody supported". The Partial-Birth Abortion Act twice refers to the practice in federal law as "infanticide". It's a legal, technical term referring to what U.S. law now considers murder of newborn children. Stanek also testified before the Illinois Senate at the time, where Obama was leading a Planned Parenthood movement to vote down numerous Born Alive bills and cover up this fact from Illinois citizens using "present votes". Normally pro-choice Democrats like Barbara Boxer, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, and Ted Kennedy all voted for the Born Alive Infant Protection Act. Hillary Clinton herself brought up Obama's voting record on this in 2008 to criticize him over. So like I said, if this were just a Pro-Life vs. Pro-Choice issue it wouldn't be controversial. I'm not talking about abortion here. I'm talking about infanticide, and opposition to medical care for newborn infants. I'm talking about Obama's opposition to a bill that had over 90% public support, unlike typical Pro-Life bills. --[[User:Jzy|Jzy]] 02:18, 4 June 2012 (EDT)

:::I'm going to incorporate some of my writing and sourcing from that article to this one, and edit boldly. If anyone has any objections to any material please state them. However, I believe I've sourced everything so solidly it should be unobjectionable. --[[User:Jzyehoshua|Jzyehoshua]] 22:03, 20 July 2012 (EDT)

== Last Change ==

The protests weren't peaceful, but they were really violent, to date there's no proof that Muammar Gaddafi had took any violent action against civilians, but there are proof and reports from Amnesty International, Human rights watch, Russian intelligence which denies any of the rumors and falsely alleged crime.

Here's one source where US defense secretary Robert Gates and Navy Admiral Michael Mullen tells about whole thing, :-

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL1110/S00144/un-silent-despite-no-basis-for-natos-illegal-war-on-libya.htm

Thanks. [[User:Regular|Regular]] 11:10, 14 June 2012 (EDT)

== Changes, Detailed ==

I made the following changes, merging an article I wrote on Obama for CreationWiki with this one:

http://creationwiki.org/Barack_Obama

The diff for the changes can be seen here:

http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Barack_Hussein_Obama&action=historysubmit&diff=994904&oldid=994689

I left the Lede intact.

* Birth: I removed an opening sentence about Obama eating dog meat. It looks really silly there, starting off the section. Maybe the article could be linked somewhere else but it looks really bad starting off the page like that.
* Early Life: I included a whole new section on his early life and family and removed some unsourced claims that he was the antichrist and will be instating police rule (which either way doesn't fit the section). If it's going to be put anywhere in the article an appropriate subsection should be created for it, and some sourcing provided - neither of which was the case before.
* Personal Life: I added a whole new section on his marriage to Michelle Obama, children, and church.
* Education: I added a new section on education. Some of it was alluded to earlier but didn't have sources, my material does.
* Non-Political Employment: Whole new section, a LOT of detail about his employment history here.
* Personal Awards: The Nobel controversy mentioned in this new section.
* 1991-1992, Project Vote: His time as a community organizer, new section.
* 1996 Election: I added an entirely new section on how Obama knocked candidates off the ballot.
* 2003 Emil Jones Deal: Whole new section on how Obama struck a deal with Emil Jones to get appointed legislation for other Illinois Senators to advance his political career.
* 2004 Primary Election: Completely new section on how the Illinois media knocked off Obama's first opponent.
* 2004 General Election, Jack Ryan: Completely new section on how the Illinois media knocked off Jack Ryan afterwards through the same tricks.
* 2004 General Election, Alan Keyes: Completely new section highlighting the Born Alive controversy surrounding Obama.
* 2008 Presidential Election: I preserved what little detail there was and merged it in but otherwise everything here is new.
* 2009-2012, U.S. Presidency: I added new sections on the Stimulus and Iraq troop withdrawal. What little info there was about the withdrawal I preserved and merged in.

--[[User:Jzyehoshua|Jzyehoshua]] 23:15, 20 July 2012 (EDT)

=== Deletions ===

I figure it's best to mention any deletions made.

- I deleted the following from the end of the Lede:
{{cquote|Later Obama apologized. When Obama visited [[England]] in 2011, he signed his name and added the date of "2008" -- the last time he won an election. He never explaned that one. When Obama read a speech from a teleprompter, as he almost always does, he repeatedly mispronounced the familiar military term of "corpsman" by sounding out the "p".}}
I removed it because (A) it had no sourcing provided, (B) it showed signs of poor grammar (misspelled "explained"), (C) used weasel words/phrases (almost always does), and perhaps most importantly, (D) it's not even especially relevant. I mean, who cares if he mispronounced the word "corpsman"? How many Americans even would pronounce it right? Maybe that could merit a footnote somewhere on the page, but in the Lede? Really??? I try to preserve as much of the page as possible, but I really think those sentences made the rest of the page look bad. --[[User:Jzyehoshua|Jzyehoshua]] 15:45, 21 July 2012 (EDT)
:Having those sentences there in the Lede gives the impression the whole page is going to be about nitpicking over Obama's grammar, and I really don't think that's the impression Conservapedia wants to give. I'd like to think the Lede would show evidence Obama will be fairly and accurately criticized, not with poorly written and unsourced claims that he mispronounced a word most Americans wouldn't pronounce right anyway. --[[User:Jzyehoshua|Jzyehoshua]] 15:49, 21 July 2012 (EDT)

-I deleted the "Retrieved from 对当代托洛茨基主义的批判：英文论集百花齐放 - 中国文革研究网, March 15, 2010." part of this footnote:
{{cquote|[[File:O-2002-antiwar-rally-davidson.jpg|right|thumb|250px| Obama speaking at the October 2002 rally in Chicago organized by [[Carl Davidson]].<ref>Davidson is a longtime [[Mao]]ist and champion of the ''Thought of Mao Tse Tung.'' Davidson's anti-Trotskyite polemic, [http://www.wengewang.org/read.php?tid=10925 ''Left in Form, Right in Essence''] defends Maoist doctrine. Retrieved from 对当代托洛茨基主义的批判：英文论集百花齐放 - 中国文革研究网, March 15, 2010.</ref> ''"[H]e is a brutal man who butchers his own people,"'' nevertheless Obama opposed ''"dumb wars".'']]}}
I think this should all be in English. It might belong on a Chinese page for Conservapedia, the alternate language translations, but I don't think so here. Hopefully someone can find an alternate reference for this, but it looks bad at the bottom of the page in footnotes like that, and since it can't be understood doesn't serve any real purpose. --[[User:Jzyehoshua|Jzyehoshua]] 21:39, 21 July 2012 (EDT)

== New Section On ACORN/New Party Ties ==

Alright, I just removed the following sentence from the 1996 section:
{{cquote|In 1995 Obama openly sought and obtained the endorsement of the [[Marxist]] [[New Party]] in his quest to be elected to the Illinois State Senate.<ref>[http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=7434 NEW PARTY (NP)], discoverthenetwork.org.</ref><ref>Rick Moran. [http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/06/obamas_alliance_with_marxists.html Obama's Alliance with Marxists], ''American Thinker'', June 03, 2008.</ref>}}

I made a new section on this at the end of the article. Frankly, I just wanted to remove the section from the 1996 section because it makes the whole thing look bad. I don't really care about his New Party or ACORN affiliations but I know many conservatives care about them, so I didn't want to delete the sentence and wanted to see if I could move it somewhere else, and maybe provide some more detail to give it a small subsection somewhere. I didn't think much of the sources it had so I figured I'd see if I could find any decent sourcing and information for it. In the process, I found out it had articles relating to it at National Review, Politico, and by Billy Hallowell (a FOX News contributor), plus had been addressed by Obama's "Fight the Smears" campaign and David Axelrod. Plus it's still relevant in 2012.

So I wrote it a new section, because I just follow sources and newsworthiness, and it is does appear to have some prominence. I tried to provide sources and perspective from both sides, and provide all the facts, so it won't just be a one-sided claim. Anyway, that's why I detailed it out more. Like I said, I don't really care about the claim myself, but it is newsworthy and a cause for concern among some conservatives, so I figured I might as well write it a section - and get it out of the 1996 one :) --[[User:Jzyehoshua|Jzyehoshua]] 23:21, 21 July 2012 (EDT)

:For me, the big issue surrounding Obama has always been his voting record against the Born Alive bills, and repeated lying attempts to cover this up. That he's gone to such lengths to prevent newborn babies from being given medical attention and then lie about having done so, has always struck me as reprehensible. His political corruption and constant lies are also disgusting. I just want people to know about these things. But his Marxism and ACORN stuff? Not really an issue for me. I just wrote this because I know it's a cause for concern to other conservatives, so I made sure the facts are presented on it. --[[User:Jzyehoshua|Jzyehoshua]] 23:37, 21 July 2012 (EDT)

:And mainly I didn't want that sentence in the 1996 section, by the way, because it's still highly controversial. I don't like starting off an otherwise credible section with undeniable sources with a claim that is still under investigation. Maybe this stuff on the New Party will hold up - those minutes will be strong evidence if Kurtz is right about them. But right now the sourcing for it isn't as strong as I'd like, even if it is newsworthy. And I'd prefer the 1996 section stick to strongly proven facts. That he knocked off all his opponents using a team of lawyers is well sourced by the Chicago Tribune, CBS News, CNN, New York Times, etc. The stuff about the New Party had two lesser-known sources and while it has better sourcing now, it's still an ongoing issue, which is why I think it's more relevant in a 2012 section than 1996. --[[User:Jzyehoshua|Jzyehoshua]] 23:51, 21 July 2012 (EDT)

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

== Conspiracy theory that Obama is not born in the US is by crazy lunatic fringe right-wing people who don't represent the mainstream right, it is just like crazy lunatic fringe left-wing conspiracy theories on JFK being killed by the CIA and not J. Harvey Oswald or 9-11 truthers ==

Regardless of criticisms and condemnations by mainstream conservatives of Obama's policies, these claims that he is a foreign-born citizen have been disproven and mainstream conservatives accept that he is an American citizen. Theories that he was born outside the USA are lunatic fringe conspiracy theories - and I don't care whether they are right-wing - their ideas have been disproven just like the crazy 9-11 truther conspiracy theories and JFK conspiracy theories by lunatic fringe left-wing people. Why is there such focus on conspiracy theories on where Obama is born in the intro, rather than focus in the intro on Obama's policies and conservative criticisms of Obama's policies?--[[User:TheQuestioner|TheQuestioner]] 12:31, 3 August 2012 (EDT)

:Thank God you registered here to set the record straight. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 12:34, 3 August 2012 (EDT)

::What do you mean?--[[User:TheQuestioner|TheQuestioner]] 12:36, 3 August 2012 (EDT)

== Title of article ==

The middle name should be removed as the name of the article. The middle name of other figures is not in the title in other articles. [[User:AcomaMagic|AcomaMagic]] 15:17, 18 August 2012 (EDT)
:[[Ronald Wilson Reagan]]?? --[[User:JamesWilson|James Wilson]] 05:16, 4 September 2012 (EDT)
::That looks like a rarity. All the other biography pages that I've seen use the most common name. The middle name of Reagan should be removed as the title too. [[User:AcomaMagic|AcomaMagic]] 08:08, 9 September 2012 (EDT)

== Teleprompter at school ==

It is a false rumor, based on photoshopped photos, that Obama had teleprompters set up for a speech to a middle school class. He spoke to the class without teleprompters, then went to another classroom, where he spoke to the ''media'' using a teleprompter. Surely there are enough things to criticize without distorting the truth? [http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/photos/6thgrade.asp] [[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 10:39, 2 September 2012 (EDT)
:This is a little shaky as a criticism I suppose. With his voting record on the Born Alive bills and political corruption, there's an awful lot that can be criticized about him. That he uses teleprompters so often is a valid criticism of him, but the teleprompters in classrooms one needs to be carefully presented in context, as pointed out by Sharon. --[[User:JZambrano|Joshua Zambrano]] 08:56, 4 September 2012 (EDT)

== "may have had a prior marriage" ==

This appears in the information box - I assume its about Obama rather than his wife - but is not explained in the main article, let alone supported with any references. As a Brit, this is completely new to me. Can anyone develop this further? [[User:Rafael|Rafael]] 17:54, 10 September 2012 (EDT)

== Accusations about birth certificate and cultural and name identity ==

I would like to move this section back to the section about Obama's birth, and weave it back into the relevant section instead of having it tagged on to the end of the article. None of the edits will change the argument at all. [[User:MattyD|MattyD]] 12:40, 16 September 2012 (EDT)
:JPatt, the edits I made REMOVED fluff and apologies. Can you please point to specific passages where you think the argument was softened? [[User:MattyD|MattyD]] 12:57, 16 September 2012 (EDT)
::No--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 13:01, 16 September 2012 (EDT)
:::Why not? My edits REMOVE a lot of the fluff. Where is the problem? [[User:MattyD|MattyD]] 13:03, 16 September 2012 (EDT)

==Page has too many kbs==
This age is ''WAY'' too heavy for updating the Intro and I can't wait 2 hours to make these minor changes. Can someone who actually cares please add,
* the U.S. Government's credit rating, for the first time in its history, was downgraded, and [[poverty]]<ref>[http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/data/incpovhlth/2009/pov09fig04.pdf Figure 4: Number in Poverty and Poverty Rate: 1959-2009]. ''U.S. Census Bureau''. Current Population Survey, 1960 to 2010 Annual Social and Economic Supplements.</ref> increased markedly every year.<ref>[http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-201_162-20105376.html Poverty continues to rise in U.S., now 15.1%], CBS News.</ref>
I realize I am penalized 9 mainspace edits for asking for this help, but some, if not much of the Intro citations are two years out of date. [[User:OscarO|OscarO]] 11:38, 29 September 2012 (EDT?)
:Could the group agree on creating three major subpages such as "Obama Presidency", then move the current content to the subpages and have only a summary paragraph in this article for each of the subpages? That would give this article a readable length. It would also make editing easier and page loading quicker. [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 06:49, 12 October 2012 (EDT)

== Country of birth ==

He released his long-form birth certificate, so what evidence is there that he was born in Kenya? [[User:Nightsky|Nightsky]] 15:43, 8 October 2012 (EDT)

*I think at this point the question might better be, "Why do we care at this point?" Obama's almost certainly going to be defeated by Romney, since Romney is better-suited to handle the currently-relevant economic issues (and boy howdy do we ever need someone like that in the Oval Office right now!) Seriously, he's got a little bit more than a month before the election in November, and at this point if his country of birth was conclusively proven to be Kenya it really wouldn't make all that much difference. It's an interesting academic question, but at this point it's irrelevant to the practical situation. [[User:JGrant|JGrant]] 17:17, 8 October 2012 (EDT)

::In response to Nightsky, the document released by the White House as the Obama long form birth certificate was proven to be an item created via Photoshop; it is in individual layers grouped together, and ''not'' a .jpeg or .PNG image one would expect had they simply scanned the actual item.
::In response to JGrant, yes we should care. Obama has a past association with communists and radicals; he has fought to prevent this part of his history from being revealed to the public; this includes that birth certificate. Why would he hide something as innocuous and mundane as a birth certificate, ''unless there was information on it that he does not want revealed?'' If it's a Kenyan goat herder who had no part in politics whatsoever, then why spend millions just to keep that man's name from the public? I happen to think it's another man's name, and it's something that's part and parcel to his current belief system and his political associations, past and present: the communist radical [[Frank Marshall Davis]]. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 17:46, 8 October 2012 (EDT)
:::Are there any reliable sources for this proof? It's just that if it was proven or suspected, it would be a major news story and there would be a constitutional crisis and I'm surprised I haven't heard about it. [[User:Nightsky|Nightsky]] 18:09, 8 October 2012 (EDT)
::::What is needed is for the actual birth certificate to be seen in public and examined by impartial investigators. News items are here: [http://www.wnd.com/?s=frank+marshall+davis]
:::::They aren't reliable sources and I'm not even sure they can be counted as a news item. For a claim that the birth certificate has been proven to be false, I expect a media frenzy and a vote of no confidence in Congress. [[User:Nightsky|Nightsky]] 18:47, 8 October 2012 (EDT)
::::::First, you are in no position to judge what is and what is not a reliable source; you're just another individual. Second, their wont be a media frenzy about this subject because the media here is solidly pro-Obama, which is why WND, Newsmax, Fox, Breitbart, and similar organizations labeled "faux" by leftists with severe bias problems are covering the story. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 19:03, 8 October 2012 (EDT)
::::::Meh, they were accused of being Pro-Bush, especially during the WMD intelligence controversy. If a news organisation can break a story as big as this would be, they'll take it. At the moment there's no evidence that it's fake and it's a fringe theory even among Republicans and it's a non-issue. [[User:Nightsky|Nightsky]] 19:15, 8 October 2012 (EDT)
:::::::They did break the story; if it's not your favorite news organization I don't know what to tell you. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 19:35, 8 October 2012 (EDT)
::::::::There were reports that some conservatives alleged it was fake and that very few people agreed with them, even among republicans. [[User:Nightsky|Nightsky]] 13:44, 12 October 2012 (EDT)

Talk:Barack Hussein Obama

2012-10-09T16:35:09Z

Nightsky: /* Country of birth */ reply

[[File:Brainreboot20110429.jpg|400px|thumb|]]

{{articletalkheader|prefix=archive}}
 

==Rense==
Jeff Rense may not be a such a good source. The Anti-Defamation League accuses him of promoting anti-Semitic views and 9/11 Conspiracy theories. OTOH, what is wrong with a Pravda article written in the post Soviet-censorship era when democratic Russia hungars to exercise a free press, open discussion and discernment of facts? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 22:39, 23 January 2010 (EST)

:See my talk page, Rob. I never noticed who added the Pravda cite, so if you say so, it is of course fine with me, and please add it back if you haven't already! I now suspect it was yet another vandal site troll stirring the pot, so feel free to deal with him as well. --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 17:02, 24 January 2010 (EST)

== Terror Attacks ==
I have an issue with a claim made in the second paragraph. ''Since abandoning the "War on Terror" in Obama's first year, the United States has suffered more terrorist attacks with deadly intent on American soil than in the previous eight years combined.'' Since Obama replaced the 'Global War on Terror' with 'Overseas Contingency Operation', there have been only four domestic terrorist attacks, a far cry from the 19 that took place under Bush's tenure. This sentence should be reworded or removed in its entirety; it only makes the article look embarrassing. --[[User:MichaelJB|MichaelJB]] 15:46, 25 January 2010 (EST)

:More [[liberal]] poppycock, Michael? Even the New York Times counts more, excluding 9/11, under Obama. Perhaps you should consider sources other than the Kos? --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 19:29, 25 January 2010 (EST)

::A short time ago you gave me grief for making assumptions, yet here you are doing the same. I didn't get any information from Kos, it all came from legitimate news sources. Do you really believe that more terror attacks occurred on US soil from March 2009 to January 2010 than in the eight years of the Bush administration? I would really like to see all your references for making such a bold claim. And why would you want to exclude the WTC/Pentagon attacks?
::Some people have been making some really stupid claims lately about domestic terror. Dana Perino and Rudy Guiliani both claimed there was not a terror attack on the US when Bush was in office. The fact that these people could make such stupidly partisan claims is incredible. [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4kpfhGxJbLc] [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2tYoMoJHNDs] The claim made in this article reeks of the same idiocy of Perino and Guiliani, why not delete the sentence or at least make it factual? --[[User:MichaelJB|MichaelJB]] 20:23, 25 January 2010 (EST)

:::The facts are undeniable that America was totally unprepared to protect itself from terrorist homeland attacks as Bush entered office, due to the total lack of focus of the Clinton Administration and Congress on the issue. Bush can in no way be blamed for the 9/11 attacks with any real credibility.

:::As I have stated many times before, as Mr. Schlafly has stated many times before, as several other Admins have as well, coming here to argue-without-end against our conservative point of view in all articles you come across, is silly. If you and others cannot bring yourselves to accept alternative points of view, so be it. If you want a place to argue against conservatism in general, make your own site or try the Kos or HuffPo; but CP isn't a debate forum, it is a conservative encyclopedia ''project''. Article talk pages are for suggesting ways to improve articles from a conservative point of view, not a liberal one. Is that a clear enough statement? --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 21:29, 25 January 2010 (EST)

::::TK: The change you made is completely unacceptable from a moral and ethical standpoint because instead of correcting an error, you are now highlighting a lie. Three terror attacks occurred during Pres. Bush's last year in office. I sent you links to all three events but you are willing to over look such trivial matters as the truth. It's funny that a liberal who has been blocked twice for pointing out errors and outright falsehoods is vilified as a trouble-maker while the conservatives that knowingly mislead and lie are in charge of an alleged 'trustworthy encyclopedia'.
::::I'm trying to make these changes because I don't want Americans to look stupid, even the conservative ones. It's an uphill battle.

::::Gunman killed two people in a church. [http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-07-29-church-shooting_N.htm]
::::Suicide bomber attacked a Georgia law firm. [http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/ga_law_firm_explodes_causing_multiple_injuries/]
::::Two police officers were killed by a bomb placed in a bank. [http://www.odmp.org/officer/19697-captain-thomas-paul-tennant]
::::--[[User:MichaelJB|MichaelJB]] 01:25, 29 January 2010 (EST)

MichaelJB you cannot tell the difference between Muslim terrorists and someone with an ax to grind? Godspeed! --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 06:36, 29 January 2010 (EST)v
:So Michael's point is that progressive liberal leftwing commie socialist (or whatever the flavor of the week) Prof. [[Amy Bishop]] conducted a domestic overseas contingency operation attack. It's beginning to make sense. How would we classify the guy who crashed the plane into the IRS building in Houston, a tax protester who railed against corporations. Dang, this is a tuff one.... [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 08:13, 12 March 2010 (EST)

== Middle name in article title? ==

----

::::<big>'''Unless you have some brilliant new argument to add to this section, further discussion is unneeded.</big>'''

----

It strikes to me odd that the title of the article is Barach Hussein Obama. While there is nothing wrong with that by itself, looking at the [[President_of_the_United_States_of_America#Presidents_list|list of all the U.S. presidents]], it seems that all the other presidents' articles are titled either without their middle name, or just a middle initial. Wouldn't it make sense to rename the article to either Barack Obama or Barack H. Obama to follow suit? [[User:Kayvan|Kayvan]] 18:19, 26 February 2010 (EST)
:There is a big difference between Walker or Jefferson and Hussein. My two cents. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 18:22, 26 February 2010 (EST)
::What about [[Ronald Wilson Reagan]]? [[User:DMorris|DMorris]] 18:26, 26 February 2010 (EST)
:::This topic had been discussed before. He decided to be inaugurated with his middle name after not using it during the campaign. He is not ashamed of it and we are not ashamed to include it.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 18:29, 26 February 2010 (EST)
::::Ah, I see. Looking at some lists though ([http://www.ipl.org/div/potus/] and [http://www.apples4theteacher.com/holidays/presidents-day/past-presidents-of-usa.html]), it seems that many presidents were also inaugurated in a similar fashion. [[User:Kayvan|Kayvan]] 18:33, 26 February 2010 (EST)

::: I think that, as all encyclopedias and scholarly works try to do, we should try to decide on a particular set of rules and always follow it. In this case, these are the options:
:::1) Always cite the full name in the title, so "Barack Hussein Obama", "George Herbert Walker Bush" and "Ronald Wilson Reagan";
:::2) Always use initials for middle names, so "Barack H. Obama", "George H.W. Bush" and "Ronald W. Reagan";
:::3) Use the names in the way they most commonly used, using middle name initials only where they are necessary to distinguish one particular individual from another, therefore "Barack Obama", "George H.W. Bush" and "Ronald Reagan".

::: We are talking about titles of articles; the full name should always be cited in the body of the article. Personally, I would vote for solution n.3. --[[User:Maquissar|Maquissar]] 18:34, 26 February 2010 (EST)
::::I like the idea. Either 2 or 3 seem best in my opinion; full names seem a bit to long for article titles. The name that the president was inaugurated with isn't bad either, but it would seem less formal, as some have middle names and others don't. [[User:Kayvan|Kayvan]] 18:38, 26 February 2010 (EST)

:::: I thought about that solution, but then I thought that we should better set very general rules; by this I mean that we should decide how to title page names referring to INDIVIDUALS, not to US PRESIDENTS. Deciding that "the name that the president was inaugurated with" is a rule that, naturally, can only be applied to presidents. --[[User:Maquissar|Maquissar]] 18:41, 26 February 2010 (EST)

:::: Another good rule would be to use the name that is mostly used to refer to that individual; this has the disadvantage of not being objective, but it is also the most effective. So "Barack Obama", "George H.W. Bush" (to distinguish him from his son), "Ronald Reagan", "Eminem" instead of "Marshall Mathers", "O.J. Simpson" instead of "Orenthal J. Simpson"... --[[User:Maquissar|Maquissar]] 18:56, 26 February 2010 (EST)

There isn't any vote here, nor was one asked for. Since Obama tries to soft-pedal his Muslim roots and associations, our editorial policy is to call attention to that ''fact''. In addition you should note the [[Ronald Wilson Reagan|Reagan]] article, where well before anyone had an inkling Obama would run for President, Conservapedia used his full name, ''Ronald Wilson Reagan'' which Reagan himself preferred for formal use. So I submit President Obama isn't being singled out, contrary to the insistence of silly-minded liberals. --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 19:06, 26 February 2010 (EST)

:But why call attention to that ''fact'' in the title of the article? The ''fact'' is never going to be denied. The introduction sentence would still say "Barack Hussein Obama". Italicize his middle name in the introduction or change the font color to bring out the ''fact'' if you wish. What I am trying to point at is, why should his middle name be used in the article title? Reagan may have preferred it for formal use, but does Mr. Obama say that same? He is commonly known as Barack Obama; I haven't seen it used in any other way (except Obama, of course). If he is commonly known as that, it would make sense to title the article like that, as should every article on people. [[User:Kayvan|Kayvan]] 21:05, 26 February 2010 (EST)
::Richard Milhous Nixon was commonly refered to as [[Milhous]] by his detracters. Indeed, googling milhouse brings up hundreds of thousands of hits on Nixon that dwarf most all other uses of the name. Now, googling [[Hussein]] presents a host of other problems. The [[Heshamite Dynasty]] of [[Hussein bin Ali]] had been the Islamic Keeper of the Holy places for 700 years until Western British Imperialist interests unseated them and installed the Saudi ruling clan thier place (visualize Islamists dethroning the Pope and installing thier own choice as successor). How does it look when Hussein bin Ali's namesake bows to tne Saudi puppet? Why not focus on how Obama ''is'' bringing real change to the whole planet, rather than argue about how things have traditionally been done? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 13:14, 27 February 2010 (EST)
Drop it. Further discussion is last-wordism. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 21:14, 26 February 2010 (EST)

:On the question of "''all the other presidents' articles are titled either without their middle name, or just a middle initial. Wouldn't it make sense ...to follow suit? ''"
:You will recall Barack Hussein Obama is the transformational president of change. Wouldn't it make sense to begin change right here, with his name? (assuming that is his name). [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 23:54, 26 February 2010 (EST)

<nowiki>:</nowiki>D 
--<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 01:58, 27 February 2010 (EST)

Pretty slick conservative trap there TK. despite the fact that you neglected to answer some massive holes in the arguments above, you declare the debate "ended" (even though its not) then decry anything else as last wordism to stifle any further debate. well done--[[User:DerikJ|DerikJ]] 11:58, 27 February 2010 (EST)
:What holes? We're implementing change. Let's find common ground and compromise. We've done just that. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 12:35, 27 February 2010 (EST)
::I like your comment on change, Rob, it made me laugh :) Anyway, I don't see how an argument that Obama's slogan being "change" is any reason to title his article to what he is less commonly known as/less traditional. It's pushing it, in a sense. Besides, being a conservative, I would think that you wouldn't want to follow Obama's way of thinking ;) [[User:Kayvan|Kayvan]] 13:40, 27 February 2010 (EST)
:::Conservatives are for change, both economic and social. They want to change tax law and abortion rulings, for example. Above all, change public education. Being anti-change is just a vulgar stereotype held by closeminded and intolerant people. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 14:09, 27 February 2010 (EST)
::::I can agree with that. But ''why'' "change" how Obama's article is titled when others are titled either without their middle name or with their middle name if they are commonly known and identified by the name, in some cases. Simply changing something doesn't necessarily mean it's a good thing, there has to be reason, and the reason has to be, well, reasonable. [[User:Kayvan|Kayvan]] 14:44, 27 February 2010 (EST)
:::::Call it the price of progress. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 15:17, 27 February 2010 (EST)
::::::In that case, would changing the titles of all the other peoples' articles to include their middle names sound all right to you? It would be progress, after all. [[User:Kayvan|Kayvan]] 17:29, 27 February 2010 (EST)
I have always wondered why the Obamabots get so upset with the name Obama's parents chose. Pretty silly. --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 16:40, 27 February 2010 (EST)

:I actually like the name, it has a nice ring to it. It's more of just keeping a solid style of titling pages, a format if you want to call it that. [[User:Kayvan|Kayvan]] 17:29, 27 February 2010 (EST)
::Which brings us to the question of Barry Soetero. If Obama went by this name, then he may have lied to the Illinois Supreme Court when asked to provide former names, according to this Attorney’s Registration Record. [http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2061988/posts] I'm not the sure what the resolution of this issue ever was, and we don't have a word about it in this article. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 17:49, 27 February 2010 (EST)

I know I am new here but there really needs to be a consensus amongst all Presidential and Vice President articles, actually this should probably extend to all US politicians. I know there is a specified conservative bias, however the lack organization and consensus has nothing to do with liberal or conservative bias, it has to do with disorganization and lazyiness by the admins.

If you want to leave the middle, that is fine, however, there would need to be a quick modification of all or the majority of the US Politian article so as not to look so disorganized.[[User:Solarguy17|Solarguy17]] 01:01, 10 March 2010 (EST)

:You hit the nail on the head. You are new here. Don't come in criticizing and such off the bat. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 01:12, 10 March 2010 (EST)

My criticization is to help the article(s) to be better as a whole. None of the above discussion explains the reasoning for leaving it as is. Just people saying he used it in his inauguration so we use it here, however, almost every pres does this so why not have it that way for everyone????[[User:Solarguy17|Solarguy17]] 01:15, 10 March 2010 (EST)

Not really discussion just more of a question. I just recently found this site and was looking through the religious articles and for the most part they seemed pretty good. However, when I come to the political articles, some of them seem a little crazy. I know it is to call more attention to the things that are being overlooked by the media. But I have ask about the middle name thing.

I read all of the information above and I still am not sure why it was decided to leave it as is. Can someone clarify this?
Please don't ban me, I noticed that basically everyone with discussion in this thread that isn't an admin now has banned accounts. I personally don't care, I am just confused. [[User:StevenS|StevenS]] 01:12, 12 March 2010 (EST)

: As it says up at the top of this section, "Unless you have some brilliant new argument to add to this section, further discussion is unneeded." If you do have one, let's have it. But it sure seems like everyone who signs up to this site and immediately starts complaining has nothing new to say at all. Why don't you spend some time reading here with an open mind first, and complain later? [[User:DanielPulido|DanielPulido]] 01:20, 12 March 2010 (EST)

Now, why would a single individual come here under several different user names all in an effort to get the word "Hussein" removed from the title of this article? It makes no sense at all unless that individual has a personal agenda to perform. The article title stays as it is. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 01:42, 12 March 2010 (EST)

:My only concern is that the title seems to exist in its current state for no purpose other than to further a bias. The arguments that "well he asked for it" seem to suggest that accuracy and fairness are non-valuable in this wiki. I sincerely hope this is not the case and that I may not be banned and able to start a fun future in helping this wiki grow in the impressive way it has so far. [[User:Vidihawk|Vidihawk]] 07:47, 6 April 2010 (EDT)

::'''"Unless you have some brilliant new argument to add to this section, further discussion is unneeded."'''
I guess you missed the bold title at the top of this section? Also, see [[Ronald Wilson Reagan]] to see how silly your argument is. --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 08:16, 6 April 2010 (EDT)
:I guess it wasn't as bright an idea as I had hoped. Heh... It still comes off as somewhat purposeful, though. Okie, I'll back away! - [[User:Vidihawk|Vidihawk]] 08:24, 6 April 2010 (EDT)
::Purposeful, as in done with the same horribly malevolent intent as ''my'' adding Reagan's middle name several years ago? You are giving away your intent in advance, good sir, by refusing to admit your already formed assumptions about us are wrong. I hope you prove me wrong, and turn out to be that rare U.K. denizen that turns out to be open-minded and as fair to us as you wish us to be to you. There have been precious few. And please do check out our editors guide and all of that. We differ quite a bit from Wikipedia. --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 08:33, 6 April 2010 (EDT)
:::::I think we should keep the current title of the article. Furthermore, I think we should replace the top picture, which is currently a picture of Obama, with a picture of an oil drenched pelican (and a new caption) as a tribute to Obama's indifference, sloth and incompetence. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 20:36, 16 June 2010 (EDT)

== I moved the material dealing with the present to the top ==

I moved the material dealing with the present to the top as I thought readers would be more interested in how Obama is screwing up the present. For example, I think Americans right now are very concerned about how Obama is screwing up the economy. Of course, he is also doing a poor job in other areas presently as well such as holding terrorists court cases in civilian courts, etc. etc. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 04:30, 15 March 2010 (EDT)

:That makes sense to me. I do appreciate letting me try the other timeline structure. However, I didn't really take into consideration the fact that because he is a high profile individual it may benefit readers to see more recent info before his earlier biography facts. At least while he's fulfilling his one failed term as president, your structure makes sense to me. [[User:DerekE|DerekE]] 12:42, 15 March 2010 (EDT)

::As the ==Maoism== section is being being built, we may eventually be able to free up space from the sections on the Ayers/Dohrn relationship by moving some of that material to Ayers own page, and/or creating a new separate page documenting Obama's rise with communist and terrorist assistance. An acceptable title for that page would be needed. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 13:23, 15 March 2010 (EDT)

==Citation==

"Any orders he gives to the American military are subject to being refused. Orders that Obama gives to America’s Joint Chiefs of Staff of the military can be refused." --http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/columnists/19-01-2009/106972-Barry_Soetoro-0

Do we really want to cite an article that makes this claim? Do any of us really support this opinion, or if we do, do we support the use of opinion articles as sources in addition to factual ones? --[[User:BenjaminS|Ben]] [[User Talk:BenjaminS|Talk]] 08:42, 6 April 2010 (EDT)

:Is the opinion piece backed by valid and factual citations from the United States Code, Ben, as opposed to a unsupported rant? --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 08:47, 6 April 2010 (EDT)

== pronunciation of "Pakistan" ==

This is really considered evidence of anything? I've heard [[Mark Levin]] use the Spanish-inflected pronunciation of Sonia Sotomayor's name (''so tow my OR'' rather than ''so tow MY er''), but nobody would claim that proves he's Catholic or Hispanic. [[User:Golgaronok|Golgaronok]] 23:55, 9 April 2010 (EDT)
:Pronunciation shows an enormous amount about someone's views and history. Obama doesn't use the American pronunciation, and this is telling, since ''no one else in the public sphere'' pronounces it in the muslim way ''but'' Obama. [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 00:15, 10 April 2010 (EDT)
[[David Petraeus]] does [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vtCLp7siY7I]. [[User:Golgaronok|Golgaronok]] 00:50, 10 April 2010 (EDT)
And [http://www.forvo.com/word/pakistan/ numerous other languages] use a pronunciation closer to the native form. [[User:Golgaronok|Golgaronok]] 00:57, 10 April 2010 (EDT)

::"Golgaronok" (if that is your name), your quibbles with the entry have already been argued ad nauseum, [http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Barack_Hussein_Obama/archive4#.22Pokiston.22.3F.3F.3F.3F.3F here], for instance. If you've only come to argue on talk pages, you're wasting your own time. Try making substantive contributions to the project; excessive talk is disfavored here. [[User:DanielPulido|DanielPulido]] 01:04, 10 April 2010 (EDT)
I don't see any responses to the points I raised. But it's y'all's funeral. [[User:Golgaronok|Golgaronok]] 01:13, 10 April 2010 (EDT)
:::Kind of interesting that Davis Petraeus was mentioned here. When that general was ordered to command US forces in Afghanistan and Iraq, the liberal elites decided that his name should be pronounced "BETRAY US". [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 01:29, 10 April 2010 (EDT)

==Barry Soetoro = birth name?==
This may have already been discussed, so forgive me if this has been settled. I noticed that the article says ''"Barack Hussein Obama II (birth name Barry Soetoro..."'', however the articles cited do not support the idea that "Barry Soetoro" is Obama's birth name, in fact quite the opposite. My understanding, from reading the Newsweek article, is that "Barack" is his birth name, although he went by "Barry" when he was younger. His father's name, as I understand it, is Barack Hussein Obama, and he was named after his father. "Seotoro", if I remember right, was his stepfather's last name, so it is unlikely that it would have been part of Obama's birth name. To be clear, I do realize that he spent his younger years being known as "Barry Soetoro", and I think that should be included in the article, I just don't think it was actually his birth name. 
Please understand that I am not as knowledgeable in this kind of thing as many other contributors here, so I may have gotten it all wrong - that's why I didn't attempt to edit the article. Please correct me if I have gotten it wrong - I won't be offended and I am curious as to the truth of the matter. [[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 18:11, 1 May 2010 (EDT)

According to the citation that shows the birth certificate, the birth name is, in fact, Barack Hussein Obama II, NOT Barry Soetoro. Also, because there is an actual document, i.e. physical, demonstrable proof, the word "allegedly" should be removed.

== Remove name repetition? ==

Would anyone mind if I removed some of the repetition of Obama's name in certain portions of the article? For example, in this paragraph:
{{cquote|
[[Barack Obama and uncharitableness|Barack Obama's recent pattern of charitable giving]] and [[Barack Obama and liberal elitism|Barack Obama's liberal elitism]] is consistent with Obama being a [[Narcissism|narcissist]] which is a charge that has often been made against Barack Obama. However, it is also true that Barack Obama is an [[evolution|evolutionist]]. Barack Obama told the ''York Daily Record'' that "I believe in [[evolution]]...". Barack Obama's recent pattern of charitable giving and liberal elitism is also in accordance with someone who has a certain degree of [[Social Darwinism|social darwinistic]] thinking. In addition to [[Liberals and uncharitableness|American liberals giving less to charity]], it is also true that [[Theory of evolution and liberalism|American liberals are also more likely to believe in evolution]].
}}

I think I could alter it to make it more readable with "Obama's recent pattern of charitable giving and liberal elitism is consistent with that of a narcissist, a charge that has often been made against him."

And so forth. In my linguistics class, we talked about semantic satiation, and I believe that paragraphs like these, along with the fact that it never seems to use pronouns, somewhat diminish the readability of the article. If I were to make this change, I would preserve every wikilink, reference, etc, but I believe it would become more readable. In Christ, [[User:Tzoran|Tyler Zoran]] [[User talk:Tzoran|Talk]] 09:09, 6 May 2010 (EDT)

== Insults? ==

Does the entire beginning of the article have to be so laden with insults? Couldnt it simply say what the article will be about, and THEN express views? As it is it appears very unprofessional. 19:11, 6 May 2010 (EDT)
:We believe in the truth here, and the fact that [[liberals]] like yourself feign offense at the display of it speaks volumes about you. If you insist on closing your mind, at least take ownership of your [[deceit]]! Sign your comments with <nowiki> ~~~~ </nowiki> next time. Godspeed! [[User:Tzoran|Tyler Zoran]] [[User talk:Tzoran|Talk]] 19:58, 6 May 2010 (EDT)

== "The first president who is biracial" ==

There have been other presidents of more than one race. Bush Jr. is has some German and English ancestry. [[User:NP|NP]]

:George W is German and English, is that two races according to our census? I think the readers will understand what biracial refers to.

::English and German are '''''not''''' races, and neither is Hispanic. --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 22:16, 17 May 2010 (EDT)

== Reorganizing ==

I'm glad to see the edit feature is enabled here once more. I think this page needs a revamp to structure information better. I've reorganized everything into a better structure, let me know what you think. I am trying to put a summary of the presidency at the top, information about his life/career next, and then a political summary. This should really improve the page's appearance, as it appears too disorganized right now. --[[User:Jzyehoshua|Jzyehoshua]] 15:56, 20 May 2010 (EDT)
:What you're doing is burying important information so fewer users will find it. That's unacceptable. [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 15:57, 20 May 2010 (EDT)

== Obama is a Muslim theory and the alleged claim of Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Aboul Gheit ==

Here is what the American Thinker reported: "The American President told me in confidence that he is a Muslim." That was the claim of Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Aboul Gheit, as reported in the May 2010 issue of Israel Today. According to journalist Avi Lipkin, Gheit appeared on Nile TV's "Round Table Show" in January, on which he said that "he had had a one-on-one meeting with Obama who swore to him that he was a Moslem, the son of a Moslem father and step-son of Moslem step-father, that his half-brothers in Kenya were Moslems, and that he was loyal to the Moslem agenda."[http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/06/report_obama_said_i_am_a_musli.html] Here is what Hot Air says: http://hotair.com/greenroom/archives/2010/06/14/obama-is-a-muslim-take-two/

Personally, I am beginning to think Obama is: not a Muslim, not a Christian, and not an atheist. I think Obama is a narcissist who worships himself. I can also see him telling one person he is a Christian and then later telling someone else he is a Muslim. There are many examples of Obama being insincere such as all the substantive healthcare discussions were going to be on C-Span, etc. etc. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 15:53, 16 June 2010 (EDT)

== 2009 Nobel Peace Prize ==

I find it strange that there is not a single mention of the president being awarded the Nobel peace prize in this article. Considering that other prominent award winners have it at least mentioned in their respective articles. The [[Mother Teresa]] article, for instance, prominently states her award in the introduction to the article, and even political figures like [[Al Gore]] and [[Henry Kissinger]] (both of whom won the peace prize) have their award at least mentioned in the article.
--[[User:DenisTR|DenisTR]] 16:04, 19 August 2010 (EDT)

:I agree with you, Denis. It was there, once-upon-a-time, but apparently it was removed in the constant editing turmoil. CP does mention this in the [[Nobel Prize]] article. I will add it here, as it should be. --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 16:24, 19 August 2010 (EDT)

==Faulty Logic==
I have a suspicion that Andy Schlafly is secretly a Muslim. Will you deny that, Andy? If you do deny it, then I accuse you of being a Muslim under the concept of Taqiyya.
It's like a terrible flow chart that always ends with "You're a Muslim." I realize that you're kind of scraping the barrel with this whole "Obama is a Muslim" thing, but c'mon. [[User:Pete5383|Paul]] 18:57, 19 August 2010 (EDT)

: Paul, you seem to think all claims or facts are relative. They aren't. Truth is supported by logic and evidence.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:00, 19 August 2010 (EDT)

:: President Obama clearly has an Islamic background. As an adult, he joined a church and says he's a Christian. I'd say he's as much Muslim as I am Jewish; by Jewish law, my having a Jewish mother makes me Jewish by birth, but I became a Christian by choice as a teenager. Go figure. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 14:04, 3 September 2010 (EDT)

:::Whether President Obama is Muslim or not is one question; however it is undeniable Obama misspoke or was deceptive while ramping up his ambitions back in 2005 when he told the ''Chicago Sun-Times'', "I am rooted in the Christian tradition." Nowhere on his maternal side, grandma, gramps, or his natural father, or his stepfather, can any Christian rooting be found. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 14:37, 4 September 2010 (EDT)

==Days in office==
[[Barack Obama]] was inaugurated {{days since|2009|1|20}} days ago and will finish his term in {{#expr: -{{days since|2013|1|20}} }} days. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 14:00, 3 September 2010 (EDT)

==Apparent sourcing errors==

While looking over this article, I noticed a number of problems - mostly unsourced claims or claims for which the source is no longer available. Since my suggestions will almost certainly be controversial, I will not actually make any further changes to this page.

*The quote "Rather than being a unifier, Mr. Obama has divided America on the basis of race, class and partisanship" under the heading "Presidency" is unattributed.

*The claim that Obama represented ACORN in ''Buycks-Roberson v. Citibank Fed. Sav. Bank'' is unsupported. While court documents do list Obama among the Plaintiff's Attorneys, they do not reference ACORN in any way. [http://www.clearinghouse.net/detail.php?id=10112] This claim seems to have been added by bloggers after the fact. Similarly, the cited reference contains no source for the claim that Obama had anything to do with the CRA, only a completely unsourced allegation that was reprinted almost verbatim here. As far as I can tell, Obama represented ACORN exactly once, on a case involving motor voter laws. [http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2008/oct/17/john-mccain/he-represented-them-in-one-case-/]

*The statement "Obama website Fight The Smears has confirmed that Obama was once a Kenyan citizen until 1982" under the subheading "Birth Certificate Controversy" is unsourced and ambiguous.

*Much of the content under the subheading "Engineers defeat of Centrist Democrats" is dubious. Two of the cites [http://articles.latimes.com/1992-03-18/news/mn-3844_1_gus-savage][http://www.dkosopedia.com/wiki/Carol_Moseley_Braun#Political_career] are about Carol Moseley Braun and don't mention Obama at all. There is no indication in any of the sources that Obama was connected to the Braun campaign, so these cites are meaningless. Additionally, the section attributes an anti-Dixon intent to Obama (referring to Obama as "subverting" Dixon's reelection, defined by Conservapedia's own article as "lending of aid, comfort, and moral support to individuals, groups, or organizations that advocate the overthrow of incumbent governments by force and violence"). What he did was increase voter turnout among the black community, a far cry from what the text implies.

*<s>The statement "President Obama falsely claimed that the senior citizen group AARP endorsed his administration's health care plan when they never made such an endorsement" under the subheading "Obama Administration Health Care Plan and Its Advocacy Methods" is sourced to a YouTube video that no longer exists. Additionally, it appears that AARP has been supporting health care reform since at least August 2009. [http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/08/17/eveningnews/main5247916.shtml][http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/19/aarp-ama-announce-support_n_506060.html]</s>

*Similarly, several cites link to YouTube videos that have been removed. Multiple cites under the subheading "Obama Administration Health Care Plan and Liberal Elitism" link to deleted videos, as does the cite for the statement "Barack Obama's "Disinformation Czar" (whose supposed job was to correct disinformation that others are spreading about the Obama administration's health care plan) was caught spreading misleading information." The cite for the statement "Senior citizens are key Democratic party constituents that could kill Obama's socialistic health care plan" links to a private video.

--[[User:DrewJ|DrewJ]] 15:50, 29 September 2010 (EDT)

:Sorry, Drew, but one glaring misrepresentation really sticks out, and explains why liberals are often accused of playing fast and loose with the truth: While AARP has long advocated health care reform, it specifically repudiated Obama's distortion of the truth, saying they were not endorsing any specific plan, at that time. See how easy it is to distort fact, by omission, and make obviously good-intentioned souls like you doubt the real truth?

:You are obviously an editor here, and I would urge you, before making posts such as this one, to try and find substitute sources that back up what is in the story. At the very least, as is the case with the AARP, at least check the facts before stating something is incorrect. It was a very big story at the time, Obama's misstatement, and not at all hard to find....so easy and well-known in fact that some people might be tempted to accuse you of inserting a deliberate [[Red Herring]]. --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 17:29, 29 September 2010 (EDT)

Sources don't count if they are liberal sources. Those are worse than no source at all. Find a reliable source like Cato Institute or Fox News and we can add those. [[User:JoeSmithson117|JoeSmithson117]] 18:44, 4 December 2011 (EST)

== Typo ==
The first sentence here has a typo: it presumably is meant to read "...said to have '''been''' born in..." I'd fix it myself, but the page is so informative (and therefore long) that my poor old computer can't load it to edit. --[[User:LanceS|LanceS]] 21:49, 11 November 2010 (EST)
:Thanks, JPatt got it. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 22:29, 11 November 2010 (EST)

== Bryan Fischer: Obama wants to give America back to the Indians ==

Is [http://www.afa.net/Blogs/BlogPost.aspx?id=2147501360 this site] some kind of liberal parody? Otherwise, this is so serious that is should be included. American Family Association would seem to me as a pretty trustworthy organization, and this Bryan Fischer is writing for them. Any thoughts? – [[User:Dstone|dstone]] 16:42, 1 January 2011 (EST)

==Fact vs Opinion==
Okay...I thought maybe this article would be a good place to start. I was introduced to Conservapedia recently, and have been waffling about joining and bcoming an editor, but can no longer refrain. So, I'm extraordinarily new...and I fully expect the welcoming and flame-free arms of this community, as I support the overall efforts of what Conservapedia is trying to accomplish. The road to becoming a "Trustworthy Encyclopedia" is long, and this site is just starting to make baby steps in that direction. That being said, I will try to keep this short.

FACT: Opinions are not fact. Even expert opinions are not fact. They're just plain old opinions. Despite being in the Commandments, and otherwise stated over and over again, folks seem to have trouble making this distinction.
OPINION: If you are unable to make cited references, or present the conservative viewpoint in a reasoned and intelligent manner, I would heavily suggest that you leave the site to those who can. Your "help" is often unhelpful. Especially in an article as...contentious...as this - and I imagine many others, I'll be looking shortly - the talk page is the place to present your opinions. If you cannot site material, find sources that intelligently argue your viewpoint, or just want a second or third pair of eyes and ears, it would be addressed here. Also, if haven't actually read the article that you are citing...do that first, before posting anything at all...

There are several on this page, the most innocuous of which: President Obama authorized offshore oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico[28]. The moratorium lapsed in 2008. It says it right in the article, paragraph 4. This statement is spruious and vague and will be reworded to say something like: Then-Senator Obama voted to re-authorize oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico. This is just a small and harmless example, but, either research the issue before posting, or don't post. If you wish to engage in historical revisionism, or just bottom-barrel opinion mongering, please roll on over to Wikipedia, and leave us be. [[User:RyanDav|RyanDav]] 2 January 2011
:I moved this from the top of the page to its current location, to maintain threading. [[User:Tzoran|Tyler Zoran]] [[User talk:Tzoran|Talk]] 13:35, 2 January 2011 (EST)

== Oil Drilling Moratorium, redux ==

I did not realize that this would be as contentious as it was. The statement is simply poorly worded, I assume unintentionally, and appears to place the blame squarely on one person's shoulders. This is just factually innacurate, nothing more, nothing less. We accept credit where credit is due, and take blame where blame is appropriate - and the blame belongs to the vast majority of the 110th Congress, both the liberal reps and ours - and to deny that is some kind of revisionism, which will not be tolerated. I'm certainly more than willing to be corrected on this, but you can either site sources that support your viewpoint, or you cannot - it really is that easy. In that case, the article would read something like, "then-Senator Obama lobbied heavily for the moratorium to lapse, and led a congressional coalition consisting of Senators Blah, Blah and Blah and Congressmen Such-and-such and So-and-so to further that end, etc..." accompanied by supporting references. I am afraid, however, that a "nuh-uh," or, "because I said so," is simply Not Good Enough. We're counteracting liberal bias, here, not populating the internet with more unfounded claptrap. [[User:RyanDav|RyanDav]] 19:26, 3 January 2011 (EST)

:If you please, write here your proposal for how this should be written, including the source links. If Obama lobbied heavily for the moritorium to lapse, then the source evidence will say it; if he was a part of a coalition of people, then again the evidence will support that. Since this article is about Obama, it should lean on what he has done while in office. But as far as what the 110th Congress did or didn't do, oh yes, I am in total agreement with you...and so were the vast majority of voters back in November. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 20:00, 3 January 2011 (EST)

::He didn't, as far as I know, or have ever read. I don't think any articles arguing that he soley was responsible, or even more responsible than any other rep, exist. The text is already up there. Pretty vanilla. Mentions him by name, but also says, "hey, don't forget about all the other chair-jockeys, too!" But the article is about him, so he gets a name drop for focus. The article is about him as whole, so his Presidential and Senatorial terms would be seperate sections of the same article, so as not to confuse. The 110th was the last Bush-era Congress. In November, we voted out the 111th. We are now in the 112th Congress.

::Oh, I also replaced someone's citation from an OpEd piece in the NYTimes with an actual news reference that supported the same point (about the Obama administration's poor response to the Oil Spill). If I didn't know better (and I probably don't), I would suspect that some of the citations here are purposefully planted just to make us look like simpletons. [[User:RyanDav|RyanDav]] 21:39, 3 January 2011 (EST)

== Birth Controversy ==
Could someone please explain to me something I've never quite followed: why does it matter where Obama was born? As far as I can tell, no one is claiming his mother was not a US Citizen, which makes him a "natural born" US citizen even if he was born in Kenya, Moscow, or Riyadh. If the issue is "without a birth certificate we can't be certain his mother is really his mother" then I get it, but this side of things seems to be ignored in favor of controversy over the actual location of the birth. If we interpret "natural born citizen" as "born within the US", then that would exclude the children of Armed Forces personnel stationed overseas with their families at the time their children were born from the presidency, which seems like something liberals would love to do. [[User:Ptorquemada|Ptorquemada]] 12:09, 5 April 2011 (EDT)
:Well, John McCain whose father was an Admiral was born to two American parents in Panama Canal Zone. The media questioned his "natural born" citizen status and it seemingly was determined that since both his parents were American citizens who were living out of State because of the Admiral's duties that John McCain's birth status would be considered "natural born. The question concerning Barack Obama is that his father was not a US citizen but was in fact a British subject as Kenya was under British rule at the time. Some suggest that the original conception of "natural born" was that both parents are US citizens at the time of the birth of a child. So there is a question as to his "natural born" status even if he was, in fact, born in Hawaii. The fact that Obama has spent a couple of million dollars fighting any requests for proof of an original long form birth certificate and school records makes some people more convinced that a. he wasn't actually born in Hawaii and that his birth was only registered there or b. because his father was a British subject he had duel citizenship status which would make it doubtful that he would be considered a natural born citizen. There are many questions concerning Obama's "natural born" status because he also appears to have been a citizenship of Indonesia and is supposed to have traveled on an Indonesian passport as an adult. Of course, a lot of questions would be removed if the president just released the original birth certificate. The fact that he hasn't just adds fuel to the fire. [[User:Dwain|Dwain]] 12:09, 8 April 2011 (EDT)

== Birth Certificate Removal? ==

Now that Obama has finally released his birth certificate, all this about Kenya and Barry Soetoro seems a bit silly. Should we remove it? [[User:JimAB|JimAB]] 11:24, 27 April 2011 (EDT)
:Has the question of Mr. Obama traveling to Pakistan on an Indonesian passport under the name Barry Soetero in 1981 been resolved yet? As well as the statements regarding his application to join the Illinois State Bar Association wherein he answered no to the question of ever using any aliases? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 18:12, 28 April 2011 (EDT)

== Shortening the article length ==

I think we need to work on splitting this article; I recently revert a vandal's (mostly) blanking of the page, and my browser would freeze up when I tried to save the page (actually I'm currently trying to save it - and over and over again I'm having no luck). Currently this appears at the top of the edit screen:
:'''WARNING: This page is 144 kilobytes long; some browsers may have problems editing pages approaching or longer than 32kb. Please consider breaking the page into smaller sections or removing irrelevant information.'''
Thoughts?--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 00:34, 30 April 2011 (EDT)

== First Socialist??? ==

Obama is clearly a socialist, but is he the first to be president as the lead of the article states? The New deal democrats who created social security come to mind.[[User:BenDylan|BenD]] 09:03, 1 May 2011 (EDT)
:That certainly may be true. But we are talking about one man who occupies the office of president, not underlings and appopintees. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 09:23, 1 May 2011 (EDT)
::But couldn't the Presidents who hired them be considered socialists? I still don't know about saying he's the FIRST. [[User:KingHanksley|KingHanksley]] 12:31, 4 May 2011 (EDT)
:::You Americans have no idea what socialism is anymore do you?[[User:Cmurphynz|Cmurphynz]] 21:36, 25 June 2012 (EDT)
::::I guess you're on to us. Alex, I'll take What is redistribution of wealth, State control of industry for $200. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 21:43, 25 June 2012 (EDT)

== Obama the Socialist ==
I am counting all the capitalists that have hired self-proclaimed communists. I come up with zero. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 12:43, 2 May 2011 (EDT)

== Update of the article ==

See [[Talk:Barack Hussein Obama/update]] if you'd like to contribute to an update of this article - we'll be keeping a lot of the information that's good, throwing out some information that's a little old, and adding new information - all while hopefully downsizing! All help is appreciated!--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 19:55, 2 May 2011 (EDT)

== Bin Laden ==

Should we at least mention the Bin Laden capture? I feel that in fairness we should give him his one or two accomplishments. We should definitely mention that George W. Bush's policies played a big hand but still Obama could have gone entirely bleeding heart on us and we wouldn't have gotten OBL [[User:KingHanksley|KingHanksley]] 11:24, 4 May 2011 (EDT)

But being fair and giving credit to a liberal muslim socialist for making the world even a little safer would undermine the integrity of a conservative encyclopedia. Now had he screwed up the capture then that would be worthy of mentioning because it would show how he endangered the country. We should only be fair and give credit where credit is due if Obama was a Christian conservative who shared our beliefs. ([[User:Bluebank|Bluebank]] 12:58, 7 July 2011 (EDT))

I agree, it would only be worth mentioning if he had screwed up the capture because then we could hold his feet to the fire. ([[User:Jvclark2|Jvclark2]] 13:00, 7 July 2011 (EDT))

:::''"giving credit to a liberal muslim socialist for making the world even a little safer would undermine the integrity of a conservative encyclopedia."'' Well that's not a biased statement or anything. It should fall under the article Obama presidency but because of its significance, put it on the BHO page. Rarely, but we have given Obama credit in the past. The rescue of a Captain from Somali pirates is a good example of the proper choice the Progressive fake Christian Marxist had made. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 14:58, 7 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::I just don't see where ordering bin Laden's killing is a big accomplishment. What purpose did it serve other than a failed effort to turn around Obama's falling poll ratings while destroying the most important relationship the United States had in the war on terror. After Obama declared the war on terror over two years ago, dismantling the delicate relationship with the Pakistani ISS seems like phase two. Undermining Pakistan's secular regime, the way Obama did, only works to the advantage of Islamic extremists.

:::::Did killing bin Laden bring back the lives lost in the 9/11 attacks? No. Does making the war's in Iraq & Afghanistan about retribution rather than prevention, further American foreign policy interests or make the United States more secure? Hardly.

:::::Does creating the false sense among the American electorate that the objectives of the war in Afghanistan have now been accomplished, and we can abandon the fight? The height of folly -- and a repeat of what happened when the U.S. abandoned Afghanistan to the terrorists after 1991.

:::::Did killing bin Laden make America safe from reprisals? Or rather doies killing bin Laden expose innocent men, women, and children to the never ending threat of sudden, sensesless, and violent death?
:::::The cynical manipulation of American security and foreign policy interests for short term popularity and selfish career interests is appalling. I just don't agree this a "success" to boast of. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 23:15, 7 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::While I think it's laughable to say that taking down the number one most wanted man in the world isn't an accomplishment, I think it's a decision that ''anyone'' would have made, therefore, it isn't special or particular that Obama happened to be the one to make it. [[User:BradB|BradB]] 23:57, 7 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::No. We've learned from our mistakes. In 1967 the the number one most wanted man in the world - Che Guevara - was similiarly hunted and executed, only to be resurrected by liberals, hate-mongers, and other assorted sociopaths and pro-mass murder advocates, made the mascot of the hate-America crowd, and sold to American college students as somethiong larger than life and a cult hero to be worshiped. It is not laughable at all. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 13:55, 8 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::::The angst from the left goes back to Bush hatred. We shouldn't have interfered in Iraq and should have focused on OBL. Leftist sheep knew better than Bush. We knew all along that it is not one man but a movement, confront them there instead of here. At least we are no longer creating and recruiting terrorists, thanks to a Muslim-named president and his policies of peace in the Middle East.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 14:08, 8 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::You will recall Senator [[Patty Murray]], who now heads the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee charged with candidate recruitment and doling out funds, praised bin Laden for his work with children buidling day care centers. He probably supported the Family-Leave Act and opposed No Child Left Behind, too. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 15:26, 8 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::''" I just don't agree this a "success" to boast of. "'' Two points, 1) stating a fact is not boasting, it is just stating a fact. We list domestic policy, popular bills, economic plan, gulf oil spill, DADT... It's just another thing to list. 2) Had Bush done it I'm pretty sure it would be on his page.([[User:Jvclark2|Jvclark2]] 21:09, 8 July 2011 (EDT))
:::::::::::That is the point. Stating the fact that Obama's unnecessarily destroyed the most vital relationship the United States has in the War on Terror to score short term approval ratings. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 12:38, 9 July 2011 (EDT)
Jvclark - bin Laden's death is mentioned on this page. In the lead. What more do you want?--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 11:46, 9 July 2011 (EDT)

==From the update - discussion==
===Structuring===
This is what I feel should be the general sectioning of the article - I think with an article that we have this much information on, what we mostly need to do is use "See also:" pages rather than go into major details.
{| style="width:100%"
|valign="top"|
*Early life
*U.S. Senate career (with a note on opposition to the Iraq War - which should be followed up on in the presidential primary race)
*U.S. Senate career
**Radical endorsements, support, and get out the vote efforts (better language?)
**'''Use of filibuster and obstructionism'''
**'''Voted agaist debt ceiling increase'''

*Presidential election (things to cover: experience question, jeremiah wright, PUMA)
**Primary race
**National election
|valign="top"|
*Presidency
**Domestic policy
***Popular Bills (Zadroga, lilly ledbetter fair pay act)
***Economic plan
****Stimulus plan
***Health care
***The Gulf oil spill
**Foreign policy
***Commander-in-Chief
****Iraq
****Afghanistan
****Libya/The Obama Doctine
****Don't Ask Don't Tell
|valign="top"|

*Ideology (mentioning pro-abortion stance, other things not mentioned above)
*References
*See also
*External links
|}

Rob I've bolded two section that I wonder if they should be sections alone; I do 100% agree that they should be mentioned in the text; are you set on them being sections? If so I'll yield--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 00:58, 3 May 2011 (EDT)
:Leave bold for now & let's see what develops; '''Recovery''' is ambiguous; while total output (GDP growth) has recovered, we've seen several polls just over the past week where 60-70% of respondents ''still'' think the US is in recession (despite the fact GDP growth has recovered over the past year and half). Likewise, it certainly has not been a "jobs recovery". I'd suggest this needs a better name. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 01:15, 3 May 2011 (EDT)

::I very much agree - that's a misleading section title - I think what I meant was "Proposed Recovery" - or "Recovery Plan". The latter sounds a little better to my ears. I made a few edits below - I'm gonna hold off on doing anything else till you get a chance to take a look and add things.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]]01:22, 3 May 2011 (EDT)
:::I've replaced Recovery with Stimulus, perhaps "Stimulus and budget". Also, Don't Ask Don't Tell seems a little wierd under "Wartime"; is it there solely cause it's a military subject? It could just as easily fit under Idealogy as well (I' not just trying to be argumentative....) [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 01:40, 3 May 2011 (EDT)
::::Hmm. Very true. No I think it's definitely a legitimate question. I HAD been thinking that Ideology would just cover what wasn't addressed in the prior sections (since certainly we'd discuss his economic ideology in the "Economic plan" section) - so, yes, I had just placed it under wartime solely because its a military subject. But it is probably more apropos to homosexual rights. I am worried that Ideology will become a bucket of worms, so to speak, only in that it'd be weird to just have a section for DADT under it, so then we'd have to have a super-section for "Homosexual policy", and then super-sections for everything else, making the article very long. I leave it up to you.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 01:45, 3 May 2011 (EDT)
:::::Alternatively, we can just leave it as is for now. I'm updating the [[Obama administration]] article right now, too. That one is structured , "Economic policy", "Foreign policy", etc. Wartime leader is something new. Perhaps, Commander-in-Chief? that would encompass DADT as well as ongoing military operations. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 02:08, 3 May 2011 (EDT)
::::::I like that. It's broader and works well. Nice.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 02:29, 3 May 2011 (EDT)
I took a look at the Wikipedia page on Obama - and I actually like how they organize his presidency - into Domestic policy and foreign policy. I'm going to make some changes to reflect that. I think in the long run it'll actually limit the number of sections we need--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 18:15, 4 May 2011 (EDT)

== Congratulations! ==
To the people who worked updating this article. It looks much better now.--[[User:AlejandroH|AlejandroH]] 00:43, 10 May 2011 (EDT)

== Speculation ==

In the spirit of accuracy, I think that all articles should refrain from speculative language (I thought this would be good article to start with). I understand that this is a conservative encyclopedia, but one should not overrule the other. We can still present the conservative view point that other encyclopedias overlook without veering off the path of facts. I think that President Obama has done enough to harm himself without adding inflammatory and opinion statements. This language degrades the reliability of the site. [[User:McTone|McTone]] 10:59, 23 May 2011 (EDT)McTone
:You're actually not making encyclopedic edits - for example how you're adding titles ("''President'' Obama"), which is traditionally not done. As you've now been reverted twice I think you should refrain from editing this article.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 11:35, 23 May 2011 (EDT)
:: That is encyclopaedic, as it is proper to use a person's title in reference material. However, that's not ththe only edits I've made. Most of them being removing speculative speech. Basically we should follow the rule of "if you can't cite it, don't say it."[[User:McTone|McTone]] 13:01, 23 May 2011 (EDT)McTone
:::No it's generally not. See his Wikipedia page if you don't believe. We also don't say "Mr." or "Ms."--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 12:02, 23 May 2011 (EDT)
::::Are we not better than Wikipedia? In any case, this is deferring the point I was making with this heading.[[User:McTone|McTone]] 13:01, 23 May 2011 (EDT)McTone

== Perhaps ==

I have read two cases of the word perhaps in the opening section of this article. Shouldn't assumptions like these not belong in an encyclopedia like article, especially in the opening section?- AlexMason
:The first one is arguably a wording error ... I'll consider that - the second one is more appropriate; since the event just happened we're not sure what the consequences will be, but if a potential consequence is notable enough it's probably worth stating--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 16:30, 23 May 2011 (EDT)
::I'm an underwriter at Fox News and I see stuff like this all the time. I think AlexMason is correct here (as well as the poster in the previous topic). Is this a web encyclopedia or is this an opinion site? Speculating on the outcome of events is tantamount to gossip (highly frowned upon and in fact forbidden by the standards of Conservapedia as I have read the rules and commandments). I really think this should be fixed. I noticed some edits in the history of this page and I've got to stick with Andy's last revision (reverting some of the edits of the previous editor) which kept to the less speculative nature of the article.[[User:PapaBear|PapaBear]] 21:32, 28 May 2011 (EDT)

== Obama Muslim Evidence? ==

I was going to make a post on this talk page suggesting we move the long list of evidence that Obama may be a Muslim to its own article (or an article dealing with the Obama/Islam controversy) but when I got here I saw that section had been removed, as had any mention of the words "Islam" or "Muslim". (I did a search on my browser). I could not find a reason for this on the talk page. Could someone explain why this was made? [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 22:13, 3 June 2011 (EDT)
:I rescued the content from an old revision and put it here: [[Barack Obama's Muslim Heritage]] [[User:AndyJ|AndyJ]] 22:18, 21 June 2011 (EDT)

== Obama as President ==
With the long-standing controversy about Hussein's birth certificate and the recent evidence that the one that was released is forged, I feel that there is ample evidence to conclude that Obama was born in Kenya. Because of that, I propose that we list the current holder of the office of [[President]] as [[Joe Biden]], as he would take the office if Obama were found to be unable or ineligible to serve. --[[User:AndyJ|AndyJ]] 22:29, 21 June 2011 (EDT)
:You may be misreading the story; the "Obama was born in Kenya" conspiracy theory was promoted by the White House to hide the fact that, Barack Hussein Obama's father was a [[natural born citizen]] of Kenya, and not the United States. That is the constitutional question, being that a case can be made that the Constitutional framers defined "natural born citizen" as being a citizen of the country of ''your fathers'' birth. The birth certificate, or the location of Obama Jr. birth, that is to say, the birther conspircacy the White House promoted, never had anything to do with the constitutional issue in question. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 16:27, 22 June 2011 (EDT)
::And two things, firstly, there is not ample evidence. Just conspiracy theories. Even assuming that the certificate/s released are forgeries, that alone isn't enough to prove he wasn't born in the US, it would just raise concerning questions. Secondly, Obama would remain the President. The Constitution doesn't mention what would happen if someone who was ineligible to be President became President. Hence, until impeachment or the 25th Amendment is invoked, Obama would remain President. (Presumably the 25th would be invoked, as impeachment would take a lot longer, and would require proving that Obama knew, which could be a little difficult.) - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 07:57, 18 October 2011 (EDT)

== Why is the birth certificate things still going? ==

I read a while ago (and posted in the article) an article from the National Review where even they concede that Obama was probably born in the US. [[User:CaptainSwing|CaptainSwing]] 23:43, 7 November 2011 (EST)

:Well as soon as it's verified than we can move past. Until then, we'll just pretend everything is a ok. For me, I'd still like to see every executive order, every law signed, every supreme court nominee from Obama overturned. It took three years the release of the long form certificate. I can wait another three years if need be for the proof.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 00:11, 8 November 2011 (EST)
::I don't understand, the National Review, a magazine that I admit is quite conservative, viewed the birth certificate and said it was most likely valid. I'm not sure what you're waiting for, as I don't think anyone is going to prove that Obama wasn't born in the country. [[User:CaptainSwing|CaptainSwing]] 09:59, 8 November 2011 (EST)
:::Because what they viewed was a Photoshoped work. Until the American public sees for itself exactly what is - or is not - on file in Hawaii, there will always be this unanswered question. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 11:22, 8 November 2011 (EST)
::::But it wasn't photo-shopped, that was the whole point the National Review was making: [http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/265767/pdf-layers-obamas-birth-certificate-nathan-goulding]. And honestly it makes sense, why on Earth would they go to the trouble of planting so much evidence that even the Mccain campaign declined to pursue it further, only to bungle the job on an elementary error in photoshop that any reasonable graphics designer would never make. [[User:CaptainSwing|CaptainSwing]] 12:03, 8 November 2011 (EST)
:::::It was Photoshopped, and downloading the original White House copy of it reveals all of the layers when it's run under Photoshop. Try reading all of these [http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=98546] by different reporters rather than a single National Review piece that's harping the beliefs of the "Yes We Can" crowd. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:21, 8 November 2011 (EST)
::::::So wait, you're saying that because they agree with Obama we can dismiss them? Isn't that circular reasoning? The author of the national review article posted a guide of how the mistakes could have easily come up and has no reason to lie about it. And again, let's think about this logically, they have authentic birth announcements from the relevant papers, good enough to fool the Mccain campaign, why would they botch a photoshop job? [[User:CaptainSwing|CaptainSwing]] 12:27, 8 November 2011 (EST)
:::::::And one of those mistakes that appeared on the Obama "certificate" was a sequence number that interfered with the numbers issued to a pair of twins; one of those mistakes was the "signature" of an individual which happens to be close enough to the name of a very small Hawaiian guitar; one of those mistakes is a smiley face attached to another signature; the list goes on. And until we see the real, bona-fide birth certificate, this issue is not going to go away, and we will continue to publish the current evidence as the fraud that it is. So don't worry too much about it, okay? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:44, 8 November 2011 (EST)
::::::::Does that mean to say that it should be considered a fraud until such a time as every US citizen has held and viewed the physical document? [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 16:49, 8 November 2011 (EST)
:::::::::Though this discussion is old. I will agree with this CaptainSwing person and this MaxFletcher that Obama's birth certificate issue has been dealt with, and the National Review magazine that one user mentioned is a conservative magazine. Plus you don't go to court with flimsy argument saying "hey he was born in Kenya" and demand that the defense prove all its points without the prosecution being able to present solid evidence. I see no solid evidence that proves he was born outside the United States, in our party the centre-right Austrian-born Arnold Schwarzenegger was elected Governor of California. And besides the real serious problems that people have with Obama are what he is doing as President, such as his high tax agenda for instance.--[[User:TheQuestioner|TheQuestioner]] 17:08, 3 August 2012 (EDT)

==Promises kept==
I can count how many promises Obama kept on one hand.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 13:47, 19 December 2011 (EST)

== Poverty comment in paragraph 2 of intro ==

The poverty comment isn't supported by the link at all. The link looks at from the 1950s to 2009. Obama began office in 2009, so the 14.3 percent marked at the end of the graph is a measure of the poverty at some point during 2009, and may have been taken in Bush's last month in office. It is unreasonable to conclude from the graph that poverty increased under Obama's presidency. I'll also note that the increase in poverty began, according to the graph, whilst Bush was in office. - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 00:08, 20 March 2012 (EDT)

== Better, More Objective Article at CreationWiki.org ==

There's now a better-sourced, more objective article at CreationWiki.org:

http://creationwiki.org/Barack_Obama

This article mentions virtually no biographic detail about Obama, or major controversies, including the Born Alive issue or his Chicago Politics. And the sourcing looks haphazard here. --[[User:Jzy|Jzy]] 09:52, 29 May 2012 (EDT)

Still, you guys have a 1-sentence mention of the Born Alive controversy even though it was brought up by Obama's last 4 political opponents, John McCain, Sarah Palin, Hillary Clinton, and Alan Keyes. And Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum both brought it up a few months ago as well. There's a whole article on this subject alone over at CreationWiki:

http://creationwiki.org/Obama_born_alive_controversy

You're missing the boat on the biggest controversy surrounding Obama, one that hasn't been debunked and is going to cause him a WHOLE lot of trouble. I told you guys this 2 years ago.
--[[User:Jzy|Jzy]] 10:14, 29 May 2012 (EDT)

:Thanks for the comments Jyz, the current article has been in the top 10 for nearly four years now. Most Americans are quite aware that Obama is the most pro-abortion president ever. Feel free to add to our wiki with the born-alive controversy page. In addition, you were not registered here two years ago so no wonder we didn't heed your warning.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 12:52, 29 May 2012 (EDT)

::Well, if this were just another abortion issue Obama wouldn't have a thing to worry about. This is an entirely different subject because it involves aborting children who aren't inside the mother's body but are outside the body and capable of surviving if given medical attention. We passed the federal Born Alive Infant Protection Act in 2002 making it illegal to let premature, newborn babies who survive late-term abortions get left to die without medical attention. We also passed the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act outlawing the late-term Dilation & Extraction (D&E) abortions that resulted in these live births. Nurses Jill Stanek and Allison Baker (of Christ Hospital in Oak Lawn, IL) testified before Congress in 2001 that newborn babies were being born prematurely after botched abortions in their home state of Illinois and being thrown in wastebaskets or soiled utility rooms. Stanek's moving testimony about how she held a little baby in her arms after one of these abortions and the physician refused to help keep it alive so that it died in her arms, proved especially influential.

::The entire U.S. Senate passed the Born Alive Infant Protection Act unanimously, because as Obama would put it, it was "the bill everybody supported". The Partial-Birth Abortion Act twice refers to the practice in federal law as "infanticide". It's a legal, technical term referring to what U.S. law now considers murder of newborn children. Stanek also testified before the Illinois Senate at the time, where Obama was leading a Planned Parenthood movement to vote down numerous Born Alive bills and cover up this fact from Illinois citizens using "present votes". Normally pro-choice Democrats like Barbara Boxer, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, and Ted Kennedy all voted for the Born Alive Infant Protection Act. Hillary Clinton herself brought up Obama's voting record on this in 2008 to criticize him over. So like I said, if this were just a Pro-Life vs. Pro-Choice issue it wouldn't be controversial. I'm not talking about abortion here. I'm talking about infanticide, and opposition to medical care for newborn infants. I'm talking about Obama's opposition to a bill that had over 90% public support, unlike typical Pro-Life bills. --[[User:Jzy|Jzy]] 02:18, 4 June 2012 (EDT)

:::I'm going to incorporate some of my writing and sourcing from that article to this one, and edit boldly. If anyone has any objections to any material please state them. However, I believe I've sourced everything so solidly it should be unobjectionable. --[[User:Jzyehoshua|Jzyehoshua]] 22:03, 20 July 2012 (EDT)

== Last Change ==

The protests weren't peaceful, but they were really violent, to date there's no proof that Muammar Gaddafi had took any violent action against civilians, but there are proof and reports from Amnesty International, Human rights watch, Russian intelligence which denies any of the rumors and falsely alleged crime.

Here's one source where US defense secretary Robert Gates and Navy Admiral Michael Mullen tells about whole thing, :-

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL1110/S00144/un-silent-despite-no-basis-for-natos-illegal-war-on-libya.htm

Thanks. [[User:Regular|Regular]] 11:10, 14 June 2012 (EDT)

== Changes, Detailed ==

I made the following changes, merging an article I wrote on Obama for CreationWiki with this one:

http://creationwiki.org/Barack_Obama

The diff for the changes can be seen here:

http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Barack_Hussein_Obama&action=historysubmit&diff=994904&oldid=994689

I left the Lede intact.

* Birth: I removed an opening sentence about Obama eating dog meat. It looks really silly there, starting off the section. Maybe the article could be linked somewhere else but it looks really bad starting off the page like that.
* Early Life: I included a whole new section on his early life and family and removed some unsourced claims that he was the antichrist and will be instating police rule (which either way doesn't fit the section). If it's going to be put anywhere in the article an appropriate subsection should be created for it, and some sourcing provided - neither of which was the case before.
* Personal Life: I added a whole new section on his marriage to Michelle Obama, children, and church.
* Education: I added a new section on education. Some of it was alluded to earlier but didn't have sources, my material does.
* Non-Political Employment: Whole new section, a LOT of detail about his employment history here.
* Personal Awards: The Nobel controversy mentioned in this new section.
* 1991-1992, Project Vote: His time as a community organizer, new section.
* 1996 Election: I added an entirely new section on how Obama knocked candidates off the ballot.
* 2003 Emil Jones Deal: Whole new section on how Obama struck a deal with Emil Jones to get appointed legislation for other Illinois Senators to advance his political career.
* 2004 Primary Election: Completely new section on how the Illinois media knocked off Obama's first opponent.
* 2004 General Election, Jack Ryan: Completely new section on how the Illinois media knocked off Jack Ryan afterwards through the same tricks.
* 2004 General Election, Alan Keyes: Completely new section highlighting the Born Alive controversy surrounding Obama.
* 2008 Presidential Election: I preserved what little detail there was and merged it in but otherwise everything here is new.
* 2009-2012, U.S. Presidency: I added new sections on the Stimulus and Iraq troop withdrawal. What little info there was about the withdrawal I preserved and merged in.

--[[User:Jzyehoshua|Jzyehoshua]] 23:15, 20 July 2012 (EDT)

=== Deletions ===

I figure it's best to mention any deletions made.

- I deleted the following from the end of the Lede:
{{cquote|Later Obama apologized. When Obama visited [[England]] in 2011, he signed his name and added the date of "2008" -- the last time he won an election. He never explaned that one. When Obama read a speech from a teleprompter, as he almost always does, he repeatedly mispronounced the familiar military term of "corpsman" by sounding out the "p".}}
I removed it because (A) it had no sourcing provided, (B) it showed signs of poor grammar (misspelled "explained"), (C) used weasel words/phrases (almost always does), and perhaps most importantly, (D) it's not even especially relevant. I mean, who cares if he mispronounced the word "corpsman"? How many Americans even would pronounce it right? Maybe that could merit a footnote somewhere on the page, but in the Lede? Really??? I try to preserve as much of the page as possible, but I really think those sentences made the rest of the page look bad. --[[User:Jzyehoshua|Jzyehoshua]] 15:45, 21 July 2012 (EDT)
:Having those sentences there in the Lede gives the impression the whole page is going to be about nitpicking over Obama's grammar, and I really don't think that's the impression Conservapedia wants to give. I'd like to think the Lede would show evidence Obama will be fairly and accurately criticized, not with poorly written and unsourced claims that he mispronounced a word most Americans wouldn't pronounce right anyway. --[[User:Jzyehoshua|Jzyehoshua]] 15:49, 21 July 2012 (EDT)

-I deleted the "Retrieved from 对当代托洛茨基主义的批判：英文论集百花齐放 - 中国文革研究网, March 15, 2010." part of this footnote:
{{cquote|[[File:O-2002-antiwar-rally-davidson.jpg|right|thumb|250px| Obama speaking at the October 2002 rally in Chicago organized by [[Carl Davidson]].<ref>Davidson is a longtime [[Mao]]ist and champion of the ''Thought of Mao Tse Tung.'' Davidson's anti-Trotskyite polemic, [http://www.wengewang.org/read.php?tid=10925 ''Left in Form, Right in Essence''] defends Maoist doctrine. Retrieved from 对当代托洛茨基主义的批判：英文论集百花齐放 - 中国文革研究网, March 15, 2010.</ref> ''"[H]e is a brutal man who butchers his own people,"'' nevertheless Obama opposed ''"dumb wars".'']]}}
I think this should all be in English. It might belong on a Chinese page for Conservapedia, the alternate language translations, but I don't think so here. Hopefully someone can find an alternate reference for this, but it looks bad at the bottom of the page in footnotes like that, and since it can't be understood doesn't serve any real purpose. --[[User:Jzyehoshua|Jzyehoshua]] 21:39, 21 July 2012 (EDT)

== New Section On ACORN/New Party Ties ==

Alright, I just removed the following sentence from the 1996 section:
{{cquote|In 1995 Obama openly sought and obtained the endorsement of the [[Marxist]] [[New Party]] in his quest to be elected to the Illinois State Senate.<ref>[http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=7434 NEW PARTY (NP)], discoverthenetwork.org.</ref><ref>Rick Moran. [http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/06/obamas_alliance_with_marxists.html Obama's Alliance with Marxists], ''American Thinker'', June 03, 2008.</ref>}}

I made a new section on this at the end of the article. Frankly, I just wanted to remove the section from the 1996 section because it makes the whole thing look bad. I don't really care about his New Party or ACORN affiliations but I know many conservatives care about them, so I didn't want to delete the sentence and wanted to see if I could move it somewhere else, and maybe provide some more detail to give it a small subsection somewhere. I didn't think much of the sources it had so I figured I'd see if I could find any decent sourcing and information for it. In the process, I found out it had articles relating to it at National Review, Politico, and by Billy Hallowell (a FOX News contributor), plus had been addressed by Obama's "Fight the Smears" campaign and David Axelrod. Plus it's still relevant in 2012.

So I wrote it a new section, because I just follow sources and newsworthiness, and it is does appear to have some prominence. I tried to provide sources and perspective from both sides, and provide all the facts, so it won't just be a one-sided claim. Anyway, that's why I detailed it out more. Like I said, I don't really care about the claim myself, but it is newsworthy and a cause for concern among some conservatives, so I figured I might as well write it a section - and get it out of the 1996 one :) --[[User:Jzyehoshua|Jzyehoshua]] 23:21, 21 July 2012 (EDT)

:For me, the big issue surrounding Obama has always been his voting record against the Born Alive bills, and repeated lying attempts to cover this up. That he's gone to such lengths to prevent newborn babies from being given medical attention and then lie about having done so, has always struck me as reprehensible. His political corruption and constant lies are also disgusting. I just want people to know about these things. But his Marxism and ACORN stuff? Not really an issue for me. I just wrote this because I know it's a cause for concern to other conservatives, so I made sure the facts are presented on it. --[[User:Jzyehoshua|Jzyehoshua]] 23:37, 21 July 2012 (EDT)

:And mainly I didn't want that sentence in the 1996 section, by the way, because it's still highly controversial. I don't like starting off an otherwise credible section with undeniable sources with a claim that is still under investigation. Maybe this stuff on the New Party will hold up - those minutes will be strong evidence if Kurtz is right about them. But right now the sourcing for it isn't as strong as I'd like, even if it is newsworthy. And I'd prefer the 1996 section stick to strongly proven facts. That he knocked off all his opponents using a team of lawyers is well sourced by the Chicago Tribune, CBS News, CNN, New York Times, etc. The stuff about the New Party had two lesser-known sources and while it has better sourcing now, it's still an ongoing issue, which is why I think it's more relevant in a 2012 section than 1996. --[[User:Jzyehoshua|Jzyehoshua]] 23:51, 21 July 2012 (EDT)

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

== Conspiracy theory that Obama is not born in the US is by crazy lunatic fringe right-wing people who don't represent the mainstream right, it is just like crazy lunatic fringe left-wing conspiracy theories on JFK being killed by the CIA and not J. Harvey Oswald or 9-11 truthers ==

Regardless of criticisms and condemnations by mainstream conservatives of Obama's policies, these claims that he is a foreign-born citizen have been disproven and mainstream conservatives accept that he is an American citizen. Theories that he was born outside the USA are lunatic fringe conspiracy theories - and I don't care whether they are right-wing - their ideas have been disproven just like the crazy 9-11 truther conspiracy theories and JFK conspiracy theories by lunatic fringe left-wing people. Why is there such focus on conspiracy theories on where Obama is born in the intro, rather than focus in the intro on Obama's policies and conservative criticisms of Obama's policies?--[[User:TheQuestioner|TheQuestioner]] 12:31, 3 August 2012 (EDT)

:Thank God you registered here to set the record straight. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 12:34, 3 August 2012 (EDT)

::What do you mean?--[[User:TheQuestioner|TheQuestioner]] 12:36, 3 August 2012 (EDT)

== Title of article ==

The middle name should be removed as the name of the article. The middle name of other figures is not in the title in other articles. [[User:AcomaMagic|AcomaMagic]] 15:17, 18 August 2012 (EDT)
:[[Ronald Wilson Reagan]]?? --[[User:JamesWilson|James Wilson]] 05:16, 4 September 2012 (EDT)
::That looks like a rarity. All the other biography pages that I've seen use the most common name. The middle name of Reagan should be removed as the title too. [[User:AcomaMagic|AcomaMagic]] 08:08, 9 September 2012 (EDT)

== Teleprompter at school ==

It is a false rumor, based on photoshopped photos, that Obama had teleprompters set up for a speech to a middle school class. He spoke to the class without teleprompters, then went to another classroom, where he spoke to the ''media'' using a teleprompter. Surely there are enough things to criticize without distorting the truth? [http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/photos/6thgrade.asp] [[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 10:39, 2 September 2012 (EDT)
:This is a little shaky as a criticism I suppose. With his voting record on the Born Alive bills and political corruption, there's an awful lot that can be criticized about him. That he uses teleprompters so often is a valid criticism of him, but the teleprompters in classrooms one needs to be carefully presented in context, as pointed out by Sharon. --[[User:JZambrano|Joshua Zambrano]] 08:56, 4 September 2012 (EDT)

== "may have had a prior marriage" ==

This appears in the information box - I assume its about Obama rather than his wife - but is not explained in the main article, let alone supported with any references. As a Brit, this is completely new to me. Can anyone develop this further? [[User:Rafael|Rafael]] 17:54, 10 September 2012 (EDT)

== Accusations about birth certificate and cultural and name identity ==

I would like to move this section back to the section about Obama's birth, and weave it back into the relevant section instead of having it tagged on to the end of the article. None of the edits will change the argument at all. [[User:MattyD|MattyD]] 12:40, 16 September 2012 (EDT)
:JPatt, the edits I made REMOVED fluff and apologies. Can you please point to specific passages where you think the argument was softened? [[User:MattyD|MattyD]] 12:57, 16 September 2012 (EDT)
::No--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 13:01, 16 September 2012 (EDT)
:::Why not? My edits REMOVE a lot of the fluff. Where is the problem? [[User:MattyD|MattyD]] 13:03, 16 September 2012 (EDT)

==Page has too many kbs==
This age is ''WAY'' too heavy for updating the Intro and I can't wait 2 hours to make these minor changes. Can someone who actually cares please add,
* the U.S. Government's credit rating, for the first time in its history, was downgraded, and [[poverty]]<ref>[http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/data/incpovhlth/2009/pov09fig04.pdf Figure 4: Number in Poverty and Poverty Rate: 1959-2009]. ''U.S. Census Bureau''. Current Population Survey, 1960 to 2010 Annual Social and Economic Supplements.</ref> increased markedly every year.<ref>[http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-201_162-20105376.html Poverty continues to rise in U.S., now 15.1%], CBS News.</ref>
I realize I am penalized 9 mainspace edits for asking for this help, but some, if not much of the Intro citations are two years out of date. [[User:OscarO|OscarO]] 11:38, 29 September 2012 (EDT)

== Country of birth ==

He released his long-form birth certificate, so what evidence is there that he was born in Kenya? [[User:Nightsky|Nightsky]] 15:43, 8 October 2012 (EDT)

*I think at this point the question might better be, "Why do we care at this point?" Obama's almost certainly going to be defeated by Romney, since Romney is better-suited to handle the currently-relevant economic issues (and boy howdy do we ever need someone like that in the Oval Office right now!) Seriously, he's got a little bit more than a month before the election in November, and at this point if his country of birth was conclusively proven to be Kenya it really wouldn't make all that much difference. It's an interesting academic question, but at this point it's irrelevant to the practical situation. [[User:JGrant|JGrant]] 17:17, 8 October 2012 (EDT)

::In response to Nightsky, the document released by the White House as the Obama long form birth certificate was proven to be an item created via Photoshop; it is in individual layers grouped together, and ''not'' a .jpeg or .PNG image one would expect had they simply scanned the actual item.
::In response to JGrant, yes we should care. Obama has a past association with communists and radicals; he has fought to prevent this part of his history from being revealed to the public; this includes that birth certificate. Why would he hide something as innocuous and mundane as a birth certificate, ''unless there was information on it that he does not want revealed?'' If it's a Kenyan goat herder who had no part in politics whatsoever, then why spend millions just to keep that man's name from the public? I happen to think it's another man's name, and it's something that's part and parcel to his current belief system and his political associations, past and present: the communist radical [[Frank Marshall Davis]]. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 17:46, 8 October 2012 (EDT)
:::Are there any reliable sources for this proof? It's just that if it was proven or suspected, it would be a major news story and there would be a constitutional crisis and I'm surprised I haven't heard about it. [[User:Nightsky|Nightsky]] 18:09, 8 October 2012 (EDT)
::::What is needed is for the actual birth certificate to be seen in public and examined by impartial investigators. News items are here: [http://www.wnd.com/?s=frank+marshall+davis]
:::::They aren't reliable sources and I'm not even sure they can be counted as a news item. For a claim that the birth certificate has been proven to be false, I expect a media frenzy and a vote of no confidence in Congress. [[User:Nightsky|Nightsky]] 18:47, 8 October 2012 (EDT)
::::::First, you are in no position to judge what is and what is not a reliable source; you're just another individual. Second, their wont be a media frenzy about this subject because the media here is solidly pro-Obama, which is why WND, Newsmax, Fox, Breitbart, and similar organizations labeled "faux" by leftists with severe bias problems are covering the story. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 19:03, 8 October 2012 (EDT)
::::::Meh, they were accused of being Pro-Bush, especially during the WMD intelligence controversy. If a news organisation can break a story as big as this would be, they'll take it. At the moment there's no evidence that it's fake and it's a fringe theory even among Republicans and it's a non-issue. [[User:Nightsky|Nightsky]] 19:15, 8 October 2012 (EDT)
:::::::They did break the story; if it's not your favorite news organization I don't know what to tell you. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 19:35, 8 October 2012 (EDT)
::::::::They broke a story that a few conservatives alleged that it is fake and that there is very little support for that view. [[User:Nightsky|Nightsky]] 12:35, 9 October 2012 (EDT)

Talk:Barack Hussein Obama

2012-10-08T23:15:43Z

Nightsky: /* Country of birth */ reply

[[File:Brainreboot20110429.jpg|400px|thumb|]]

{{articletalkheader|prefix=archive}}
 

==Rense==
Jeff Rense may not be a such a good source. The Anti-Defamation League accuses him of promoting anti-Semitic views and 9/11 Conspiracy theories. OTOH, what is wrong with a Pravda article written in the post Soviet-censorship era when democratic Russia hungars to exercise a free press, open discussion and discernment of facts? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 22:39, 23 January 2010 (EST)

:See my talk page, Rob. I never noticed who added the Pravda cite, so if you say so, it is of course fine with me, and please add it back if you haven't already! I now suspect it was yet another vandal site troll stirring the pot, so feel free to deal with him as well. --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 17:02, 24 January 2010 (EST)

== Terror Attacks ==
I have an issue with a claim made in the second paragraph. ''Since abandoning the "War on Terror" in Obama's first year, the United States has suffered more terrorist attacks with deadly intent on American soil than in the previous eight years combined.'' Since Obama replaced the 'Global War on Terror' with 'Overseas Contingency Operation', there have been only four domestic terrorist attacks, a far cry from the 19 that took place under Bush's tenure. This sentence should be reworded or removed in its entirety; it only makes the article look embarrassing. --[[User:MichaelJB|MichaelJB]] 15:46, 25 January 2010 (EST)

:More [[liberal]] poppycock, Michael? Even the New York Times counts more, excluding 9/11, under Obama. Perhaps you should consider sources other than the Kos? --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 19:29, 25 January 2010 (EST)

::A short time ago you gave me grief for making assumptions, yet here you are doing the same. I didn't get any information from Kos, it all came from legitimate news sources. Do you really believe that more terror attacks occurred on US soil from March 2009 to January 2010 than in the eight years of the Bush administration? I would really like to see all your references for making such a bold claim. And why would you want to exclude the WTC/Pentagon attacks?
::Some people have been making some really stupid claims lately about domestic terror. Dana Perino and Rudy Guiliani both claimed there was not a terror attack on the US when Bush was in office. The fact that these people could make such stupidly partisan claims is incredible. [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4kpfhGxJbLc] [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2tYoMoJHNDs] The claim made in this article reeks of the same idiocy of Perino and Guiliani, why not delete the sentence or at least make it factual? --[[User:MichaelJB|MichaelJB]] 20:23, 25 January 2010 (EST)

:::The facts are undeniable that America was totally unprepared to protect itself from terrorist homeland attacks as Bush entered office, due to the total lack of focus of the Clinton Administration and Congress on the issue. Bush can in no way be blamed for the 9/11 attacks with any real credibility.

:::As I have stated many times before, as Mr. Schlafly has stated many times before, as several other Admins have as well, coming here to argue-without-end against our conservative point of view in all articles you come across, is silly. If you and others cannot bring yourselves to accept alternative points of view, so be it. If you want a place to argue against conservatism in general, make your own site or try the Kos or HuffPo; but CP isn't a debate forum, it is a conservative encyclopedia ''project''. Article talk pages are for suggesting ways to improve articles from a conservative point of view, not a liberal one. Is that a clear enough statement? --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 21:29, 25 January 2010 (EST)

::::TK: The change you made is completely unacceptable from a moral and ethical standpoint because instead of correcting an error, you are now highlighting a lie. Three terror attacks occurred during Pres. Bush's last year in office. I sent you links to all three events but you are willing to over look such trivial matters as the truth. It's funny that a liberal who has been blocked twice for pointing out errors and outright falsehoods is vilified as a trouble-maker while the conservatives that knowingly mislead and lie are in charge of an alleged 'trustworthy encyclopedia'.
::::I'm trying to make these changes because I don't want Americans to look stupid, even the conservative ones. It's an uphill battle.

::::Gunman killed two people in a church. [http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-07-29-church-shooting_N.htm]
::::Suicide bomber attacked a Georgia law firm. [http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/ga_law_firm_explodes_causing_multiple_injuries/]
::::Two police officers were killed by a bomb placed in a bank. [http://www.odmp.org/officer/19697-captain-thomas-paul-tennant]
::::--[[User:MichaelJB|MichaelJB]] 01:25, 29 January 2010 (EST)

MichaelJB you cannot tell the difference between Muslim terrorists and someone with an ax to grind? Godspeed! --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 06:36, 29 January 2010 (EST)v
:So Michael's point is that progressive liberal leftwing commie socialist (or whatever the flavor of the week) Prof. [[Amy Bishop]] conducted a domestic overseas contingency operation attack. It's beginning to make sense. How would we classify the guy who crashed the plane into the IRS building in Houston, a tax protester who railed against corporations. Dang, this is a tuff one.... [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 08:13, 12 March 2010 (EST)

== Middle name in article title? ==

----

::::<big>'''Unless you have some brilliant new argument to add to this section, further discussion is unneeded.</big>'''

----

It strikes to me odd that the title of the article is Barach Hussein Obama. While there is nothing wrong with that by itself, looking at the [[President_of_the_United_States_of_America#Presidents_list|list of all the U.S. presidents]], it seems that all the other presidents' articles are titled either without their middle name, or just a middle initial. Wouldn't it make sense to rename the article to either Barack Obama or Barack H. Obama to follow suit? [[User:Kayvan|Kayvan]] 18:19, 26 February 2010 (EST)
:There is a big difference between Walker or Jefferson and Hussein. My two cents. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 18:22, 26 February 2010 (EST)
::What about [[Ronald Wilson Reagan]]? [[User:DMorris|DMorris]] 18:26, 26 February 2010 (EST)
:::This topic had been discussed before. He decided to be inaugurated with his middle name after not using it during the campaign. He is not ashamed of it and we are not ashamed to include it.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 18:29, 26 February 2010 (EST)
::::Ah, I see. Looking at some lists though ([http://www.ipl.org/div/potus/] and [http://www.apples4theteacher.com/holidays/presidents-day/past-presidents-of-usa.html]), it seems that many presidents were also inaugurated in a similar fashion. [[User:Kayvan|Kayvan]] 18:33, 26 February 2010 (EST)

::: I think that, as all encyclopedias and scholarly works try to do, we should try to decide on a particular set of rules and always follow it. In this case, these are the options:
:::1) Always cite the full name in the title, so "Barack Hussein Obama", "George Herbert Walker Bush" and "Ronald Wilson Reagan";
:::2) Always use initials for middle names, so "Barack H. Obama", "George H.W. Bush" and "Ronald W. Reagan";
:::3) Use the names in the way they most commonly used, using middle name initials only where they are necessary to distinguish one particular individual from another, therefore "Barack Obama", "George H.W. Bush" and "Ronald Reagan".

::: We are talking about titles of articles; the full name should always be cited in the body of the article. Personally, I would vote for solution n.3. --[[User:Maquissar|Maquissar]] 18:34, 26 February 2010 (EST)
::::I like the idea. Either 2 or 3 seem best in my opinion; full names seem a bit to long for article titles. The name that the president was inaugurated with isn't bad either, but it would seem less formal, as some have middle names and others don't. [[User:Kayvan|Kayvan]] 18:38, 26 February 2010 (EST)

:::: I thought about that solution, but then I thought that we should better set very general rules; by this I mean that we should decide how to title page names referring to INDIVIDUALS, not to US PRESIDENTS. Deciding that "the name that the president was inaugurated with" is a rule that, naturally, can only be applied to presidents. --[[User:Maquissar|Maquissar]] 18:41, 26 February 2010 (EST)

:::: Another good rule would be to use the name that is mostly used to refer to that individual; this has the disadvantage of not being objective, but it is also the most effective. So "Barack Obama", "George H.W. Bush" (to distinguish him from his son), "Ronald Reagan", "Eminem" instead of "Marshall Mathers", "O.J. Simpson" instead of "Orenthal J. Simpson"... --[[User:Maquissar|Maquissar]] 18:56, 26 February 2010 (EST)

There isn't any vote here, nor was one asked for. Since Obama tries to soft-pedal his Muslim roots and associations, our editorial policy is to call attention to that ''fact''. In addition you should note the [[Ronald Wilson Reagan|Reagan]] article, where well before anyone had an inkling Obama would run for President, Conservapedia used his full name, ''Ronald Wilson Reagan'' which Reagan himself preferred for formal use. So I submit President Obama isn't being singled out, contrary to the insistence of silly-minded liberals. --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 19:06, 26 February 2010 (EST)

:But why call attention to that ''fact'' in the title of the article? The ''fact'' is never going to be denied. The introduction sentence would still say "Barack Hussein Obama". Italicize his middle name in the introduction or change the font color to bring out the ''fact'' if you wish. What I am trying to point at is, why should his middle name be used in the article title? Reagan may have preferred it for formal use, but does Mr. Obama say that same? He is commonly known as Barack Obama; I haven't seen it used in any other way (except Obama, of course). If he is commonly known as that, it would make sense to title the article like that, as should every article on people. [[User:Kayvan|Kayvan]] 21:05, 26 February 2010 (EST)
::Richard Milhous Nixon was commonly refered to as [[Milhous]] by his detracters. Indeed, googling milhouse brings up hundreds of thousands of hits on Nixon that dwarf most all other uses of the name. Now, googling [[Hussein]] presents a host of other problems. The [[Heshamite Dynasty]] of [[Hussein bin Ali]] had been the Islamic Keeper of the Holy places for 700 years until Western British Imperialist interests unseated them and installed the Saudi ruling clan thier place (visualize Islamists dethroning the Pope and installing thier own choice as successor). How does it look when Hussein bin Ali's namesake bows to tne Saudi puppet? Why not focus on how Obama ''is'' bringing real change to the whole planet, rather than argue about how things have traditionally been done? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 13:14, 27 February 2010 (EST)
Drop it. Further discussion is last-wordism. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 21:14, 26 February 2010 (EST)

:On the question of "''all the other presidents' articles are titled either without their middle name, or just a middle initial. Wouldn't it make sense ...to follow suit? ''"
:You will recall Barack Hussein Obama is the transformational president of change. Wouldn't it make sense to begin change right here, with his name? (assuming that is his name). [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 23:54, 26 February 2010 (EST)

<nowiki>:</nowiki>D 
--<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 01:58, 27 February 2010 (EST)

Pretty slick conservative trap there TK. despite the fact that you neglected to answer some massive holes in the arguments above, you declare the debate "ended" (even though its not) then decry anything else as last wordism to stifle any further debate. well done--[[User:DerikJ|DerikJ]] 11:58, 27 February 2010 (EST)
:What holes? We're implementing change. Let's find common ground and compromise. We've done just that. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 12:35, 27 February 2010 (EST)
::I like your comment on change, Rob, it made me laugh :) Anyway, I don't see how an argument that Obama's slogan being "change" is any reason to title his article to what he is less commonly known as/less traditional. It's pushing it, in a sense. Besides, being a conservative, I would think that you wouldn't want to follow Obama's way of thinking ;) [[User:Kayvan|Kayvan]] 13:40, 27 February 2010 (EST)
:::Conservatives are for change, both economic and social. They want to change tax law and abortion rulings, for example. Above all, change public education. Being anti-change is just a vulgar stereotype held by closeminded and intolerant people. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 14:09, 27 February 2010 (EST)
::::I can agree with that. But ''why'' "change" how Obama's article is titled when others are titled either without their middle name or with their middle name if they are commonly known and identified by the name, in some cases. Simply changing something doesn't necessarily mean it's a good thing, there has to be reason, and the reason has to be, well, reasonable. [[User:Kayvan|Kayvan]] 14:44, 27 February 2010 (EST)
:::::Call it the price of progress. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 15:17, 27 February 2010 (EST)
::::::In that case, would changing the titles of all the other peoples' articles to include their middle names sound all right to you? It would be progress, after all. [[User:Kayvan|Kayvan]] 17:29, 27 February 2010 (EST)
I have always wondered why the Obamabots get so upset with the name Obama's parents chose. Pretty silly. --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 16:40, 27 February 2010 (EST)

:I actually like the name, it has a nice ring to it. It's more of just keeping a solid style of titling pages, a format if you want to call it that. [[User:Kayvan|Kayvan]] 17:29, 27 February 2010 (EST)
::Which brings us to the question of Barry Soetero. If Obama went by this name, then he may have lied to the Illinois Supreme Court when asked to provide former names, according to this Attorney’s Registration Record. [http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2061988/posts] I'm not the sure what the resolution of this issue ever was, and we don't have a word about it in this article. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 17:49, 27 February 2010 (EST)

I know I am new here but there really needs to be a consensus amongst all Presidential and Vice President articles, actually this should probably extend to all US politicians. I know there is a specified conservative bias, however the lack organization and consensus has nothing to do with liberal or conservative bias, it has to do with disorganization and lazyiness by the admins.

If you want to leave the middle, that is fine, however, there would need to be a quick modification of all or the majority of the US Politian article so as not to look so disorganized.[[User:Solarguy17|Solarguy17]] 01:01, 10 March 2010 (EST)

:You hit the nail on the head. You are new here. Don't come in criticizing and such off the bat. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 01:12, 10 March 2010 (EST)

My criticization is to help the article(s) to be better as a whole. None of the above discussion explains the reasoning for leaving it as is. Just people saying he used it in his inauguration so we use it here, however, almost every pres does this so why not have it that way for everyone????[[User:Solarguy17|Solarguy17]] 01:15, 10 March 2010 (EST)

Not really discussion just more of a question. I just recently found this site and was looking through the religious articles and for the most part they seemed pretty good. However, when I come to the political articles, some of them seem a little crazy. I know it is to call more attention to the things that are being overlooked by the media. But I have ask about the middle name thing.

I read all of the information above and I still am not sure why it was decided to leave it as is. Can someone clarify this?
Please don't ban me, I noticed that basically everyone with discussion in this thread that isn't an admin now has banned accounts. I personally don't care, I am just confused. [[User:StevenS|StevenS]] 01:12, 12 March 2010 (EST)

: As it says up at the top of this section, "Unless you have some brilliant new argument to add to this section, further discussion is unneeded." If you do have one, let's have it. But it sure seems like everyone who signs up to this site and immediately starts complaining has nothing new to say at all. Why don't you spend some time reading here with an open mind first, and complain later? [[User:DanielPulido|DanielPulido]] 01:20, 12 March 2010 (EST)

Now, why would a single individual come here under several different user names all in an effort to get the word "Hussein" removed from the title of this article? It makes no sense at all unless that individual has a personal agenda to perform. The article title stays as it is. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 01:42, 12 March 2010 (EST)

:My only concern is that the title seems to exist in its current state for no purpose other than to further a bias. The arguments that "well he asked for it" seem to suggest that accuracy and fairness are non-valuable in this wiki. I sincerely hope this is not the case and that I may not be banned and able to start a fun future in helping this wiki grow in the impressive way it has so far. [[User:Vidihawk|Vidihawk]] 07:47, 6 April 2010 (EDT)

::'''"Unless you have some brilliant new argument to add to this section, further discussion is unneeded."'''
I guess you missed the bold title at the top of this section? Also, see [[Ronald Wilson Reagan]] to see how silly your argument is. --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 08:16, 6 April 2010 (EDT)
:I guess it wasn't as bright an idea as I had hoped. Heh... It still comes off as somewhat purposeful, though. Okie, I'll back away! - [[User:Vidihawk|Vidihawk]] 08:24, 6 April 2010 (EDT)
::Purposeful, as in done with the same horribly malevolent intent as ''my'' adding Reagan's middle name several years ago? You are giving away your intent in advance, good sir, by refusing to admit your already formed assumptions about us are wrong. I hope you prove me wrong, and turn out to be that rare U.K. denizen that turns out to be open-minded and as fair to us as you wish us to be to you. There have been precious few. And please do check out our editors guide and all of that. We differ quite a bit from Wikipedia. --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 08:33, 6 April 2010 (EDT)
:::::I think we should keep the current title of the article. Furthermore, I think we should replace the top picture, which is currently a picture of Obama, with a picture of an oil drenched pelican (and a new caption) as a tribute to Obama's indifference, sloth and incompetence. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 20:36, 16 June 2010 (EDT)

== I moved the material dealing with the present to the top ==

I moved the material dealing with the present to the top as I thought readers would be more interested in how Obama is screwing up the present. For example, I think Americans right now are very concerned about how Obama is screwing up the economy. Of course, he is also doing a poor job in other areas presently as well such as holding terrorists court cases in civilian courts, etc. etc. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 04:30, 15 March 2010 (EDT)

:That makes sense to me. I do appreciate letting me try the other timeline structure. However, I didn't really take into consideration the fact that because he is a high profile individual it may benefit readers to see more recent info before his earlier biography facts. At least while he's fulfilling his one failed term as president, your structure makes sense to me. [[User:DerekE|DerekE]] 12:42, 15 March 2010 (EDT)

::As the ==Maoism== section is being being built, we may eventually be able to free up space from the sections on the Ayers/Dohrn relationship by moving some of that material to Ayers own page, and/or creating a new separate page documenting Obama's rise with communist and terrorist assistance. An acceptable title for that page would be needed. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 13:23, 15 March 2010 (EDT)

==Citation==

"Any orders he gives to the American military are subject to being refused. Orders that Obama gives to America’s Joint Chiefs of Staff of the military can be refused." --http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/columnists/19-01-2009/106972-Barry_Soetoro-0

Do we really want to cite an article that makes this claim? Do any of us really support this opinion, or if we do, do we support the use of opinion articles as sources in addition to factual ones? --[[User:BenjaminS|Ben]] [[User Talk:BenjaminS|Talk]] 08:42, 6 April 2010 (EDT)

:Is the opinion piece backed by valid and factual citations from the United States Code, Ben, as opposed to a unsupported rant? --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 08:47, 6 April 2010 (EDT)

== pronunciation of "Pakistan" ==

This is really considered evidence of anything? I've heard [[Mark Levin]] use the Spanish-inflected pronunciation of Sonia Sotomayor's name (''so tow my OR'' rather than ''so tow MY er''), but nobody would claim that proves he's Catholic or Hispanic. [[User:Golgaronok|Golgaronok]] 23:55, 9 April 2010 (EDT)
:Pronunciation shows an enormous amount about someone's views and history. Obama doesn't use the American pronunciation, and this is telling, since ''no one else in the public sphere'' pronounces it in the muslim way ''but'' Obama. [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 00:15, 10 April 2010 (EDT)
[[David Petraeus]] does [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vtCLp7siY7I]. [[User:Golgaronok|Golgaronok]] 00:50, 10 April 2010 (EDT)
And [http://www.forvo.com/word/pakistan/ numerous other languages] use a pronunciation closer to the native form. [[User:Golgaronok|Golgaronok]] 00:57, 10 April 2010 (EDT)

::"Golgaronok" (if that is your name), your quibbles with the entry have already been argued ad nauseum, [http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Barack_Hussein_Obama/archive4#.22Pokiston.22.3F.3F.3F.3F.3F here], for instance. If you've only come to argue on talk pages, you're wasting your own time. Try making substantive contributions to the project; excessive talk is disfavored here. [[User:DanielPulido|DanielPulido]] 01:04, 10 April 2010 (EDT)
I don't see any responses to the points I raised. But it's y'all's funeral. [[User:Golgaronok|Golgaronok]] 01:13, 10 April 2010 (EDT)
:::Kind of interesting that Davis Petraeus was mentioned here. When that general was ordered to command US forces in Afghanistan and Iraq, the liberal elites decided that his name should be pronounced "BETRAY US". [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 01:29, 10 April 2010 (EDT)

==Barry Soetoro = birth name?==
This may have already been discussed, so forgive me if this has been settled. I noticed that the article says ''"Barack Hussein Obama II (birth name Barry Soetoro..."'', however the articles cited do not support the idea that "Barry Soetoro" is Obama's birth name, in fact quite the opposite. My understanding, from reading the Newsweek article, is that "Barack" is his birth name, although he went by "Barry" when he was younger. His father's name, as I understand it, is Barack Hussein Obama, and he was named after his father. "Seotoro", if I remember right, was his stepfather's last name, so it is unlikely that it would have been part of Obama's birth name. To be clear, I do realize that he spent his younger years being known as "Barry Soetoro", and I think that should be included in the article, I just don't think it was actually his birth name. 
Please understand that I am not as knowledgeable in this kind of thing as many other contributors here, so I may have gotten it all wrong - that's why I didn't attempt to edit the article. Please correct me if I have gotten it wrong - I won't be offended and I am curious as to the truth of the matter. [[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 18:11, 1 May 2010 (EDT)

According to the citation that shows the birth certificate, the birth name is, in fact, Barack Hussein Obama II, NOT Barry Soetoro. Also, because there is an actual document, i.e. physical, demonstrable proof, the word "allegedly" should be removed.

== Remove name repetition? ==

Would anyone mind if I removed some of the repetition of Obama's name in certain portions of the article? For example, in this paragraph:
{{cquote|
[[Barack Obama and uncharitableness|Barack Obama's recent pattern of charitable giving]] and [[Barack Obama and liberal elitism|Barack Obama's liberal elitism]] is consistent with Obama being a [[Narcissism|narcissist]] which is a charge that has often been made against Barack Obama. However, it is also true that Barack Obama is an [[evolution|evolutionist]]. Barack Obama told the ''York Daily Record'' that "I believe in [[evolution]]...". Barack Obama's recent pattern of charitable giving and liberal elitism is also in accordance with someone who has a certain degree of [[Social Darwinism|social darwinistic]] thinking. In addition to [[Liberals and uncharitableness|American liberals giving less to charity]], it is also true that [[Theory of evolution and liberalism|American liberals are also more likely to believe in evolution]].
}}

I think I could alter it to make it more readable with "Obama's recent pattern of charitable giving and liberal elitism is consistent with that of a narcissist, a charge that has often been made against him."

And so forth. In my linguistics class, we talked about semantic satiation, and I believe that paragraphs like these, along with the fact that it never seems to use pronouns, somewhat diminish the readability of the article. If I were to make this change, I would preserve every wikilink, reference, etc, but I believe it would become more readable. In Christ, [[User:Tzoran|Tyler Zoran]] [[User talk:Tzoran|Talk]] 09:09, 6 May 2010 (EDT)

== Insults? ==

Does the entire beginning of the article have to be so laden with insults? Couldnt it simply say what the article will be about, and THEN express views? As it is it appears very unprofessional. 19:11, 6 May 2010 (EDT)
:We believe in the truth here, and the fact that [[liberals]] like yourself feign offense at the display of it speaks volumes about you. If you insist on closing your mind, at least take ownership of your [[deceit]]! Sign your comments with <nowiki> ~~~~ </nowiki> next time. Godspeed! [[User:Tzoran|Tyler Zoran]] [[User talk:Tzoran|Talk]] 19:58, 6 May 2010 (EDT)

== "The first president who is biracial" ==

There have been other presidents of more than one race. Bush Jr. is has some German and English ancestry. [[User:NP|NP]]

:George W is German and English, is that two races according to our census? I think the readers will understand what biracial refers to.

::English and German are '''''not''''' races, and neither is Hispanic. --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 22:16, 17 May 2010 (EDT)

== Reorganizing ==

I'm glad to see the edit feature is enabled here once more. I think this page needs a revamp to structure information better. I've reorganized everything into a better structure, let me know what you think. I am trying to put a summary of the presidency at the top, information about his life/career next, and then a political summary. This should really improve the page's appearance, as it appears too disorganized right now. --[[User:Jzyehoshua|Jzyehoshua]] 15:56, 20 May 2010 (EDT)
:What you're doing is burying important information so fewer users will find it. That's unacceptable. [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 15:57, 20 May 2010 (EDT)

== Obama is a Muslim theory and the alleged claim of Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Aboul Gheit ==

Here is what the American Thinker reported: "The American President told me in confidence that he is a Muslim." That was the claim of Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Aboul Gheit, as reported in the May 2010 issue of Israel Today. According to journalist Avi Lipkin, Gheit appeared on Nile TV's "Round Table Show" in January, on which he said that "he had had a one-on-one meeting with Obama who swore to him that he was a Moslem, the son of a Moslem father and step-son of Moslem step-father, that his half-brothers in Kenya were Moslems, and that he was loyal to the Moslem agenda."[http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/06/report_obama_said_i_am_a_musli.html] Here is what Hot Air says: http://hotair.com/greenroom/archives/2010/06/14/obama-is-a-muslim-take-two/

Personally, I am beginning to think Obama is: not a Muslim, not a Christian, and not an atheist. I think Obama is a narcissist who worships himself. I can also see him telling one person he is a Christian and then later telling someone else he is a Muslim. There are many examples of Obama being insincere such as all the substantive healthcare discussions were going to be on C-Span, etc. etc. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 15:53, 16 June 2010 (EDT)

== 2009 Nobel Peace Prize ==

I find it strange that there is not a single mention of the president being awarded the Nobel peace prize in this article. Considering that other prominent award winners have it at least mentioned in their respective articles. The [[Mother Teresa]] article, for instance, prominently states her award in the introduction to the article, and even political figures like [[Al Gore]] and [[Henry Kissinger]] (both of whom won the peace prize) have their award at least mentioned in the article.
--[[User:DenisTR|DenisTR]] 16:04, 19 August 2010 (EDT)

:I agree with you, Denis. It was there, once-upon-a-time, but apparently it was removed in the constant editing turmoil. CP does mention this in the [[Nobel Prize]] article. I will add it here, as it should be. --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 16:24, 19 August 2010 (EDT)

==Faulty Logic==
I have a suspicion that Andy Schlafly is secretly a Muslim. Will you deny that, Andy? If you do deny it, then I accuse you of being a Muslim under the concept of Taqiyya.
It's like a terrible flow chart that always ends with "You're a Muslim." I realize that you're kind of scraping the barrel with this whole "Obama is a Muslim" thing, but c'mon. [[User:Pete5383|Paul]] 18:57, 19 August 2010 (EDT)

: Paul, you seem to think all claims or facts are relative. They aren't. Truth is supported by logic and evidence.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:00, 19 August 2010 (EDT)

:: President Obama clearly has an Islamic background. As an adult, he joined a church and says he's a Christian. I'd say he's as much Muslim as I am Jewish; by Jewish law, my having a Jewish mother makes me Jewish by birth, but I became a Christian by choice as a teenager. Go figure. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 14:04, 3 September 2010 (EDT)

:::Whether President Obama is Muslim or not is one question; however it is undeniable Obama misspoke or was deceptive while ramping up his ambitions back in 2005 when he told the ''Chicago Sun-Times'', "I am rooted in the Christian tradition." Nowhere on his maternal side, grandma, gramps, or his natural father, or his stepfather, can any Christian rooting be found. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 14:37, 4 September 2010 (EDT)

==Days in office==
[[Barack Obama]] was inaugurated {{days since|2009|1|20}} days ago and will finish his term in {{#expr: -{{days since|2013|1|20}} }} days. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 14:00, 3 September 2010 (EDT)

==Apparent sourcing errors==

While looking over this article, I noticed a number of problems - mostly unsourced claims or claims for which the source is no longer available. Since my suggestions will almost certainly be controversial, I will not actually make any further changes to this page.

*The quote "Rather than being a unifier, Mr. Obama has divided America on the basis of race, class and partisanship" under the heading "Presidency" is unattributed.

*The claim that Obama represented ACORN in ''Buycks-Roberson v. Citibank Fed. Sav. Bank'' is unsupported. While court documents do list Obama among the Plaintiff's Attorneys, they do not reference ACORN in any way. [http://www.clearinghouse.net/detail.php?id=10112] This claim seems to have been added by bloggers after the fact. Similarly, the cited reference contains no source for the claim that Obama had anything to do with the CRA, only a completely unsourced allegation that was reprinted almost verbatim here. As far as I can tell, Obama represented ACORN exactly once, on a case involving motor voter laws. [http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2008/oct/17/john-mccain/he-represented-them-in-one-case-/]

*The statement "Obama website Fight The Smears has confirmed that Obama was once a Kenyan citizen until 1982" under the subheading "Birth Certificate Controversy" is unsourced and ambiguous.

*Much of the content under the subheading "Engineers defeat of Centrist Democrats" is dubious. Two of the cites [http://articles.latimes.com/1992-03-18/news/mn-3844_1_gus-savage][http://www.dkosopedia.com/wiki/Carol_Moseley_Braun#Political_career] are about Carol Moseley Braun and don't mention Obama at all. There is no indication in any of the sources that Obama was connected to the Braun campaign, so these cites are meaningless. Additionally, the section attributes an anti-Dixon intent to Obama (referring to Obama as "subverting" Dixon's reelection, defined by Conservapedia's own article as "lending of aid, comfort, and moral support to individuals, groups, or organizations that advocate the overthrow of incumbent governments by force and violence"). What he did was increase voter turnout among the black community, a far cry from what the text implies.

*<s>The statement "President Obama falsely claimed that the senior citizen group AARP endorsed his administration's health care plan when they never made such an endorsement" under the subheading "Obama Administration Health Care Plan and Its Advocacy Methods" is sourced to a YouTube video that no longer exists. Additionally, it appears that AARP has been supporting health care reform since at least August 2009. [http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/08/17/eveningnews/main5247916.shtml][http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/19/aarp-ama-announce-support_n_506060.html]</s>

*Similarly, several cites link to YouTube videos that have been removed. Multiple cites under the subheading "Obama Administration Health Care Plan and Liberal Elitism" link to deleted videos, as does the cite for the statement "Barack Obama's "Disinformation Czar" (whose supposed job was to correct disinformation that others are spreading about the Obama administration's health care plan) was caught spreading misleading information." The cite for the statement "Senior citizens are key Democratic party constituents that could kill Obama's socialistic health care plan" links to a private video.

--[[User:DrewJ|DrewJ]] 15:50, 29 September 2010 (EDT)

:Sorry, Drew, but one glaring misrepresentation really sticks out, and explains why liberals are often accused of playing fast and loose with the truth: While AARP has long advocated health care reform, it specifically repudiated Obama's distortion of the truth, saying they were not endorsing any specific plan, at that time. See how easy it is to distort fact, by omission, and make obviously good-intentioned souls like you doubt the real truth?

:You are obviously an editor here, and I would urge you, before making posts such as this one, to try and find substitute sources that back up what is in the story. At the very least, as is the case with the AARP, at least check the facts before stating something is incorrect. It was a very big story at the time, Obama's misstatement, and not at all hard to find....so easy and well-known in fact that some people might be tempted to accuse you of inserting a deliberate [[Red Herring]]. --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 17:29, 29 September 2010 (EDT)

Sources don't count if they are liberal sources. Those are worse than no source at all. Find a reliable source like Cato Institute or Fox News and we can add those. [[User:JoeSmithson117|JoeSmithson117]] 18:44, 4 December 2011 (EST)

== Typo ==
The first sentence here has a typo: it presumably is meant to read "...said to have '''been''' born in..." I'd fix it myself, but the page is so informative (and therefore long) that my poor old computer can't load it to edit. --[[User:LanceS|LanceS]] 21:49, 11 November 2010 (EST)
:Thanks, JPatt got it. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 22:29, 11 November 2010 (EST)

== Bryan Fischer: Obama wants to give America back to the Indians ==

Is [http://www.afa.net/Blogs/BlogPost.aspx?id=2147501360 this site] some kind of liberal parody? Otherwise, this is so serious that is should be included. American Family Association would seem to me as a pretty trustworthy organization, and this Bryan Fischer is writing for them. Any thoughts? – [[User:Dstone|dstone]] 16:42, 1 January 2011 (EST)

==Fact vs Opinion==
Okay...I thought maybe this article would be a good place to start. I was introduced to Conservapedia recently, and have been waffling about joining and bcoming an editor, but can no longer refrain. So, I'm extraordinarily new...and I fully expect the welcoming and flame-free arms of this community, as I support the overall efforts of what Conservapedia is trying to accomplish. The road to becoming a "Trustworthy Encyclopedia" is long, and this site is just starting to make baby steps in that direction. That being said, I will try to keep this short.

FACT: Opinions are not fact. Even expert opinions are not fact. They're just plain old opinions. Despite being in the Commandments, and otherwise stated over and over again, folks seem to have trouble making this distinction.
OPINION: If you are unable to make cited references, or present the conservative viewpoint in a reasoned and intelligent manner, I would heavily suggest that you leave the site to those who can. Your "help" is often unhelpful. Especially in an article as...contentious...as this - and I imagine many others, I'll be looking shortly - the talk page is the place to present your opinions. If you cannot site material, find sources that intelligently argue your viewpoint, or just want a second or third pair of eyes and ears, it would be addressed here. Also, if haven't actually read the article that you are citing...do that first, before posting anything at all...

There are several on this page, the most innocuous of which: President Obama authorized offshore oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico[28]. The moratorium lapsed in 2008. It says it right in the article, paragraph 4. This statement is spruious and vague and will be reworded to say something like: Then-Senator Obama voted to re-authorize oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico. This is just a small and harmless example, but, either research the issue before posting, or don't post. If you wish to engage in historical revisionism, or just bottom-barrel opinion mongering, please roll on over to Wikipedia, and leave us be. [[User:RyanDav|RyanDav]] 2 January 2011
:I moved this from the top of the page to its current location, to maintain threading. [[User:Tzoran|Tyler Zoran]] [[User talk:Tzoran|Talk]] 13:35, 2 January 2011 (EST)

== Oil Drilling Moratorium, redux ==

I did not realize that this would be as contentious as it was. The statement is simply poorly worded, I assume unintentionally, and appears to place the blame squarely on one person's shoulders. This is just factually innacurate, nothing more, nothing less. We accept credit where credit is due, and take blame where blame is appropriate - and the blame belongs to the vast majority of the 110th Congress, both the liberal reps and ours - and to deny that is some kind of revisionism, which will not be tolerated. I'm certainly more than willing to be corrected on this, but you can either site sources that support your viewpoint, or you cannot - it really is that easy. In that case, the article would read something like, "then-Senator Obama lobbied heavily for the moratorium to lapse, and led a congressional coalition consisting of Senators Blah, Blah and Blah and Congressmen Such-and-such and So-and-so to further that end, etc..." accompanied by supporting references. I am afraid, however, that a "nuh-uh," or, "because I said so," is simply Not Good Enough. We're counteracting liberal bias, here, not populating the internet with more unfounded claptrap. [[User:RyanDav|RyanDav]] 19:26, 3 January 2011 (EST)

:If you please, write here your proposal for how this should be written, including the source links. If Obama lobbied heavily for the moritorium to lapse, then the source evidence will say it; if he was a part of a coalition of people, then again the evidence will support that. Since this article is about Obama, it should lean on what he has done while in office. But as far as what the 110th Congress did or didn't do, oh yes, I am in total agreement with you...and so were the vast majority of voters back in November. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 20:00, 3 January 2011 (EST)

::He didn't, as far as I know, or have ever read. I don't think any articles arguing that he soley was responsible, or even more responsible than any other rep, exist. The text is already up there. Pretty vanilla. Mentions him by name, but also says, "hey, don't forget about all the other chair-jockeys, too!" But the article is about him, so he gets a name drop for focus. The article is about him as whole, so his Presidential and Senatorial terms would be seperate sections of the same article, so as not to confuse. The 110th was the last Bush-era Congress. In November, we voted out the 111th. We are now in the 112th Congress.

::Oh, I also replaced someone's citation from an OpEd piece in the NYTimes with an actual news reference that supported the same point (about the Obama administration's poor response to the Oil Spill). If I didn't know better (and I probably don't), I would suspect that some of the citations here are purposefully planted just to make us look like simpletons. [[User:RyanDav|RyanDav]] 21:39, 3 January 2011 (EST)

== Birth Controversy ==
Could someone please explain to me something I've never quite followed: why does it matter where Obama was born? As far as I can tell, no one is claiming his mother was not a US Citizen, which makes him a "natural born" US citizen even if he was born in Kenya, Moscow, or Riyadh. If the issue is "without a birth certificate we can't be certain his mother is really his mother" then I get it, but this side of things seems to be ignored in favor of controversy over the actual location of the birth. If we interpret "natural born citizen" as "born within the US", then that would exclude the children of Armed Forces personnel stationed overseas with their families at the time their children were born from the presidency, which seems like something liberals would love to do. [[User:Ptorquemada|Ptorquemada]] 12:09, 5 April 2011 (EDT)
:Well, John McCain whose father was an Admiral was born to two American parents in Panama Canal Zone. The media questioned his "natural born" citizen status and it seemingly was determined that since both his parents were American citizens who were living out of State because of the Admiral's duties that John McCain's birth status would be considered "natural born. The question concerning Barack Obama is that his father was not a US citizen but was in fact a British subject as Kenya was under British rule at the time. Some suggest that the original conception of "natural born" was that both parents are US citizens at the time of the birth of a child. So there is a question as to his "natural born" status even if he was, in fact, born in Hawaii. The fact that Obama has spent a couple of million dollars fighting any requests for proof of an original long form birth certificate and school records makes some people more convinced that a. he wasn't actually born in Hawaii and that his birth was only registered there or b. because his father was a British subject he had duel citizenship status which would make it doubtful that he would be considered a natural born citizen. There are many questions concerning Obama's "natural born" status because he also appears to have been a citizenship of Indonesia and is supposed to have traveled on an Indonesian passport as an adult. Of course, a lot of questions would be removed if the president just released the original birth certificate. The fact that he hasn't just adds fuel to the fire. [[User:Dwain|Dwain]] 12:09, 8 April 2011 (EDT)

== Birth Certificate Removal? ==

Now that Obama has finally released his birth certificate, all this about Kenya and Barry Soetoro seems a bit silly. Should we remove it? [[User:JimAB|JimAB]] 11:24, 27 April 2011 (EDT)
:Has the question of Mr. Obama traveling to Pakistan on an Indonesian passport under the name Barry Soetero in 1981 been resolved yet? As well as the statements regarding his application to join the Illinois State Bar Association wherein he answered no to the question of ever using any aliases? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 18:12, 28 April 2011 (EDT)

== Shortening the article length ==

I think we need to work on splitting this article; I recently revert a vandal's (mostly) blanking of the page, and my browser would freeze up when I tried to save the page (actually I'm currently trying to save it - and over and over again I'm having no luck). Currently this appears at the top of the edit screen:
:'''WARNING: This page is 144 kilobytes long; some browsers may have problems editing pages approaching or longer than 32kb. Please consider breaking the page into smaller sections or removing irrelevant information.'''
Thoughts?--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 00:34, 30 April 2011 (EDT)

== First Socialist??? ==

Obama is clearly a socialist, but is he the first to be president as the lead of the article states? The New deal democrats who created social security come to mind.[[User:BenDylan|BenD]] 09:03, 1 May 2011 (EDT)
:That certainly may be true. But we are talking about one man who occupies the office of president, not underlings and appopintees. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 09:23, 1 May 2011 (EDT)
::But couldn't the Presidents who hired them be considered socialists? I still don't know about saying he's the FIRST. [[User:KingHanksley|KingHanksley]] 12:31, 4 May 2011 (EDT)
:::You Americans have no idea what socialism is anymore do you?[[User:Cmurphynz|Cmurphynz]] 21:36, 25 June 2012 (EDT)
::::I guess you're on to us. Alex, I'll take What is redistribution of wealth, State control of industry for $200. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 21:43, 25 June 2012 (EDT)

== Obama the Socialist ==
I am counting all the capitalists that have hired self-proclaimed communists. I come up with zero. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 12:43, 2 May 2011 (EDT)

== Update of the article ==

See [[Talk:Barack Hussein Obama/update]] if you'd like to contribute to an update of this article - we'll be keeping a lot of the information that's good, throwing out some information that's a little old, and adding new information - all while hopefully downsizing! All help is appreciated!--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 19:55, 2 May 2011 (EDT)

== Bin Laden ==

Should we at least mention the Bin Laden capture? I feel that in fairness we should give him his one or two accomplishments. We should definitely mention that George W. Bush's policies played a big hand but still Obama could have gone entirely bleeding heart on us and we wouldn't have gotten OBL [[User:KingHanksley|KingHanksley]] 11:24, 4 May 2011 (EDT)

But being fair and giving credit to a liberal muslim socialist for making the world even a little safer would undermine the integrity of a conservative encyclopedia. Now had he screwed up the capture then that would be worthy of mentioning because it would show how he endangered the country. We should only be fair and give credit where credit is due if Obama was a Christian conservative who shared our beliefs. ([[User:Bluebank|Bluebank]] 12:58, 7 July 2011 (EDT))

I agree, it would only be worth mentioning if he had screwed up the capture because then we could hold his feet to the fire. ([[User:Jvclark2|Jvclark2]] 13:00, 7 July 2011 (EDT))

:::''"giving credit to a liberal muslim socialist for making the world even a little safer would undermine the integrity of a conservative encyclopedia."'' Well that's not a biased statement or anything. It should fall under the article Obama presidency but because of its significance, put it on the BHO page. Rarely, but we have given Obama credit in the past. The rescue of a Captain from Somali pirates is a good example of the proper choice the Progressive fake Christian Marxist had made. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 14:58, 7 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::I just don't see where ordering bin Laden's killing is a big accomplishment. What purpose did it serve other than a failed effort to turn around Obama's falling poll ratings while destroying the most important relationship the United States had in the war on terror. After Obama declared the war on terror over two years ago, dismantling the delicate relationship with the Pakistani ISS seems like phase two. Undermining Pakistan's secular regime, the way Obama did, only works to the advantage of Islamic extremists.

:::::Did killing bin Laden bring back the lives lost in the 9/11 attacks? No. Does making the war's in Iraq & Afghanistan about retribution rather than prevention, further American foreign policy interests or make the United States more secure? Hardly.

:::::Does creating the false sense among the American electorate that the objectives of the war in Afghanistan have now been accomplished, and we can abandon the fight? The height of folly -- and a repeat of what happened when the U.S. abandoned Afghanistan to the terrorists after 1991.

:::::Did killing bin Laden make America safe from reprisals? Or rather doies killing bin Laden expose innocent men, women, and children to the never ending threat of sudden, sensesless, and violent death?
:::::The cynical manipulation of American security and foreign policy interests for short term popularity and selfish career interests is appalling. I just don't agree this a "success" to boast of. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 23:15, 7 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::While I think it's laughable to say that taking down the number one most wanted man in the world isn't an accomplishment, I think it's a decision that ''anyone'' would have made, therefore, it isn't special or particular that Obama happened to be the one to make it. [[User:BradB|BradB]] 23:57, 7 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::No. We've learned from our mistakes. In 1967 the the number one most wanted man in the world - Che Guevara - was similiarly hunted and executed, only to be resurrected by liberals, hate-mongers, and other assorted sociopaths and pro-mass murder advocates, made the mascot of the hate-America crowd, and sold to American college students as somethiong larger than life and a cult hero to be worshiped. It is not laughable at all. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 13:55, 8 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::::The angst from the left goes back to Bush hatred. We shouldn't have interfered in Iraq and should have focused on OBL. Leftist sheep knew better than Bush. We knew all along that it is not one man but a movement, confront them there instead of here. At least we are no longer creating and recruiting terrorists, thanks to a Muslim-named president and his policies of peace in the Middle East.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 14:08, 8 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::You will recall Senator [[Patty Murray]], who now heads the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee charged with candidate recruitment and doling out funds, praised bin Laden for his work with children buidling day care centers. He probably supported the Family-Leave Act and opposed No Child Left Behind, too. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 15:26, 8 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::''" I just don't agree this a "success" to boast of. "'' Two points, 1) stating a fact is not boasting, it is just stating a fact. We list domestic policy, popular bills, economic plan, gulf oil spill, DADT... It's just another thing to list. 2) Had Bush done it I'm pretty sure it would be on his page.([[User:Jvclark2|Jvclark2]] 21:09, 8 July 2011 (EDT))
:::::::::::That is the point. Stating the fact that Obama's unnecessarily destroyed the most vital relationship the United States has in the War on Terror to score short term approval ratings. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 12:38, 9 July 2011 (EDT)
Jvclark - bin Laden's death is mentioned on this page. In the lead. What more do you want?--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 11:46, 9 July 2011 (EDT)

==From the update - discussion==
===Structuring===
This is what I feel should be the general sectioning of the article - I think with an article that we have this much information on, what we mostly need to do is use "See also:" pages rather than go into major details.
{| style="width:100%"
|valign="top"|
*Early life
*U.S. Senate career (with a note on opposition to the Iraq War - which should be followed up on in the presidential primary race)
*U.S. Senate career
**Radical endorsements, support, and get out the vote efforts (better language?)
**'''Use of filibuster and obstructionism'''
**'''Voted agaist debt ceiling increase'''

*Presidential election (things to cover: experience question, jeremiah wright, PUMA)
**Primary race
**National election
|valign="top"|
*Presidency
**Domestic policy
***Popular Bills (Zadroga, lilly ledbetter fair pay act)
***Economic plan
****Stimulus plan
***Health care
***The Gulf oil spill
**Foreign policy
***Commander-in-Chief
****Iraq
****Afghanistan
****Libya/The Obama Doctine
****Don't Ask Don't Tell
|valign="top"|

*Ideology (mentioning pro-abortion stance, other things not mentioned above)
*References
*See also
*External links
|}

Rob I've bolded two section that I wonder if they should be sections alone; I do 100% agree that they should be mentioned in the text; are you set on them being sections? If so I'll yield--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 00:58, 3 May 2011 (EDT)
:Leave bold for now & let's see what develops; '''Recovery''' is ambiguous; while total output (GDP growth) has recovered, we've seen several polls just over the past week where 60-70% of respondents ''still'' think the US is in recession (despite the fact GDP growth has recovered over the past year and half). Likewise, it certainly has not been a "jobs recovery". I'd suggest this needs a better name. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 01:15, 3 May 2011 (EDT)

::I very much agree - that's a misleading section title - I think what I meant was "Proposed Recovery" - or "Recovery Plan". The latter sounds a little better to my ears. I made a few edits below - I'm gonna hold off on doing anything else till you get a chance to take a look and add things.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]]01:22, 3 May 2011 (EDT)
:::I've replaced Recovery with Stimulus, perhaps "Stimulus and budget". Also, Don't Ask Don't Tell seems a little wierd under "Wartime"; is it there solely cause it's a military subject? It could just as easily fit under Idealogy as well (I' not just trying to be argumentative....) [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 01:40, 3 May 2011 (EDT)
::::Hmm. Very true. No I think it's definitely a legitimate question. I HAD been thinking that Ideology would just cover what wasn't addressed in the prior sections (since certainly we'd discuss his economic ideology in the "Economic plan" section) - so, yes, I had just placed it under wartime solely because its a military subject. But it is probably more apropos to homosexual rights. I am worried that Ideology will become a bucket of worms, so to speak, only in that it'd be weird to just have a section for DADT under it, so then we'd have to have a super-section for "Homosexual policy", and then super-sections for everything else, making the article very long. I leave it up to you.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 01:45, 3 May 2011 (EDT)
:::::Alternatively, we can just leave it as is for now. I'm updating the [[Obama administration]] article right now, too. That one is structured , "Economic policy", "Foreign policy", etc. Wartime leader is something new. Perhaps, Commander-in-Chief? that would encompass DADT as well as ongoing military operations. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 02:08, 3 May 2011 (EDT)
::::::I like that. It's broader and works well. Nice.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 02:29, 3 May 2011 (EDT)
I took a look at the Wikipedia page on Obama - and I actually like how they organize his presidency - into Domestic policy and foreign policy. I'm going to make some changes to reflect that. I think in the long run it'll actually limit the number of sections we need--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 18:15, 4 May 2011 (EDT)

== Congratulations! ==
To the people who worked updating this article. It looks much better now.--[[User:AlejandroH|AlejandroH]] 00:43, 10 May 2011 (EDT)

== Speculation ==

In the spirit of accuracy, I think that all articles should refrain from speculative language (I thought this would be good article to start with). I understand that this is a conservative encyclopedia, but one should not overrule the other. We can still present the conservative view point that other encyclopedias overlook without veering off the path of facts. I think that President Obama has done enough to harm himself without adding inflammatory and opinion statements. This language degrades the reliability of the site. [[User:McTone|McTone]] 10:59, 23 May 2011 (EDT)McTone
:You're actually not making encyclopedic edits - for example how you're adding titles ("''President'' Obama"), which is traditionally not done. As you've now been reverted twice I think you should refrain from editing this article.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 11:35, 23 May 2011 (EDT)
:: That is encyclopaedic, as it is proper to use a person's title in reference material. However, that's not ththe only edits I've made. Most of them being removing speculative speech. Basically we should follow the rule of "if you can't cite it, don't say it."[[User:McTone|McTone]] 13:01, 23 May 2011 (EDT)McTone
:::No it's generally not. See his Wikipedia page if you don't believe. We also don't say "Mr." or "Ms."--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 12:02, 23 May 2011 (EDT)
::::Are we not better than Wikipedia? In any case, this is deferring the point I was making with this heading.[[User:McTone|McTone]] 13:01, 23 May 2011 (EDT)McTone

== Perhaps ==

I have read two cases of the word perhaps in the opening section of this article. Shouldn't assumptions like these not belong in an encyclopedia like article, especially in the opening section?- AlexMason
:The first one is arguably a wording error ... I'll consider that - the second one is more appropriate; since the event just happened we're not sure what the consequences will be, but if a potential consequence is notable enough it's probably worth stating--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 16:30, 23 May 2011 (EDT)
::I'm an underwriter at Fox News and I see stuff like this all the time. I think AlexMason is correct here (as well as the poster in the previous topic). Is this a web encyclopedia or is this an opinion site? Speculating on the outcome of events is tantamount to gossip (highly frowned upon and in fact forbidden by the standards of Conservapedia as I have read the rules and commandments). I really think this should be fixed. I noticed some edits in the history of this page and I've got to stick with Andy's last revision (reverting some of the edits of the previous editor) which kept to the less speculative nature of the article.[[User:PapaBear|PapaBear]] 21:32, 28 May 2011 (EDT)

== Obama Muslim Evidence? ==

I was going to make a post on this talk page suggesting we move the long list of evidence that Obama may be a Muslim to its own article (or an article dealing with the Obama/Islam controversy) but when I got here I saw that section had been removed, as had any mention of the words "Islam" or "Muslim". (I did a search on my browser). I could not find a reason for this on the talk page. Could someone explain why this was made? [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 22:13, 3 June 2011 (EDT)
:I rescued the content from an old revision and put it here: [[Barack Obama's Muslim Heritage]] [[User:AndyJ|AndyJ]] 22:18, 21 June 2011 (EDT)

== Obama as President ==
With the long-standing controversy about Hussein's birth certificate and the recent evidence that the one that was released is forged, I feel that there is ample evidence to conclude that Obama was born in Kenya. Because of that, I propose that we list the current holder of the office of [[President]] as [[Joe Biden]], as he would take the office if Obama were found to be unable or ineligible to serve. --[[User:AndyJ|AndyJ]] 22:29, 21 June 2011 (EDT)
:You may be misreading the story; the "Obama was born in Kenya" conspiracy theory was promoted by the White House to hide the fact that, Barack Hussein Obama's father was a [[natural born citizen]] of Kenya, and not the United States. That is the constitutional question, being that a case can be made that the Constitutional framers defined "natural born citizen" as being a citizen of the country of ''your fathers'' birth. The birth certificate, or the location of Obama Jr. birth, that is to say, the birther conspircacy the White House promoted, never had anything to do with the constitutional issue in question. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 16:27, 22 June 2011 (EDT)
::And two things, firstly, there is not ample evidence. Just conspiracy theories. Even assuming that the certificate/s released are forgeries, that alone isn't enough to prove he wasn't born in the US, it would just raise concerning questions. Secondly, Obama would remain the President. The Constitution doesn't mention what would happen if someone who was ineligible to be President became President. Hence, until impeachment or the 25th Amendment is invoked, Obama would remain President. (Presumably the 25th would be invoked, as impeachment would take a lot longer, and would require proving that Obama knew, which could be a little difficult.) - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 07:57, 18 October 2011 (EDT)

== Why is the birth certificate things still going? ==

I read a while ago (and posted in the article) an article from the National Review where even they concede that Obama was probably born in the US. [[User:CaptainSwing|CaptainSwing]] 23:43, 7 November 2011 (EST)

:Well as soon as it's verified than we can move past. Until then, we'll just pretend everything is a ok. For me, I'd still like to see every executive order, every law signed, every supreme court nominee from Obama overturned. It took three years the release of the long form certificate. I can wait another three years if need be for the proof.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 00:11, 8 November 2011 (EST)
::I don't understand, the National Review, a magazine that I admit is quite conservative, viewed the birth certificate and said it was most likely valid. I'm not sure what you're waiting for, as I don't think anyone is going to prove that Obama wasn't born in the country. [[User:CaptainSwing|CaptainSwing]] 09:59, 8 November 2011 (EST)
:::Because what they viewed was a Photoshoped work. Until the American public sees for itself exactly what is - or is not - on file in Hawaii, there will always be this unanswered question. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 11:22, 8 November 2011 (EST)
::::But it wasn't photo-shopped, that was the whole point the National Review was making: [http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/265767/pdf-layers-obamas-birth-certificate-nathan-goulding]. And honestly it makes sense, why on Earth would they go to the trouble of planting so much evidence that even the Mccain campaign declined to pursue it further, only to bungle the job on an elementary error in photoshop that any reasonable graphics designer would never make. [[User:CaptainSwing|CaptainSwing]] 12:03, 8 November 2011 (EST)
:::::It was Photoshopped, and downloading the original White House copy of it reveals all of the layers when it's run under Photoshop. Try reading all of these [http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=98546] by different reporters rather than a single National Review piece that's harping the beliefs of the "Yes We Can" crowd. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:21, 8 November 2011 (EST)
::::::So wait, you're saying that because they agree with Obama we can dismiss them? Isn't that circular reasoning? The author of the national review article posted a guide of how the mistakes could have easily come up and has no reason to lie about it. And again, let's think about this logically, they have authentic birth announcements from the relevant papers, good enough to fool the Mccain campaign, why would they botch a photoshop job? [[User:CaptainSwing|CaptainSwing]] 12:27, 8 November 2011 (EST)
:::::::And one of those mistakes that appeared on the Obama "certificate" was a sequence number that interfered with the numbers issued to a pair of twins; one of those mistakes was the "signature" of an individual which happens to be close enough to the name of a very small Hawaiian guitar; one of those mistakes is a smiley face attached to another signature; the list goes on. And until we see the real, bona-fide birth certificate, this issue is not going to go away, and we will continue to publish the current evidence as the fraud that it is. So don't worry too much about it, okay? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:44, 8 November 2011 (EST)
::::::::Does that mean to say that it should be considered a fraud until such a time as every US citizen has held and viewed the physical document? [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 16:49, 8 November 2011 (EST)
:::::::::Though this discussion is old. I will agree with this CaptainSwing person and this MaxFletcher that Obama's birth certificate issue has been dealt with, and the National Review magazine that one user mentioned is a conservative magazine. Plus you don't go to court with flimsy argument saying "hey he was born in Kenya" and demand that the defense prove all its points without the prosecution being able to present solid evidence. I see no solid evidence that proves he was born outside the United States, in our party the centre-right Austrian-born Arnold Schwarzenegger was elected Governor of California. And besides the real serious problems that people have with Obama are what he is doing as President, such as his high tax agenda for instance.--[[User:TheQuestioner|TheQuestioner]] 17:08, 3 August 2012 (EDT)

==Promises kept==
I can count how many promises Obama kept on one hand.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 13:47, 19 December 2011 (EST)

== Poverty comment in paragraph 2 of intro ==

The poverty comment isn't supported by the link at all. The link looks at from the 1950s to 2009. Obama began office in 2009, so the 14.3 percent marked at the end of the graph is a measure of the poverty at some point during 2009, and may have been taken in Bush's last month in office. It is unreasonable to conclude from the graph that poverty increased under Obama's presidency. I'll also note that the increase in poverty began, according to the graph, whilst Bush was in office. - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 00:08, 20 March 2012 (EDT)

== Better, More Objective Article at CreationWiki.org ==

There's now a better-sourced, more objective article at CreationWiki.org:

http://creationwiki.org/Barack_Obama

This article mentions virtually no biographic detail about Obama, or major controversies, including the Born Alive issue or his Chicago Politics. And the sourcing looks haphazard here. --[[User:Jzy|Jzy]] 09:52, 29 May 2012 (EDT)

Still, you guys have a 1-sentence mention of the Born Alive controversy even though it was brought up by Obama's last 4 political opponents, John McCain, Sarah Palin, Hillary Clinton, and Alan Keyes. And Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum both brought it up a few months ago as well. There's a whole article on this subject alone over at CreationWiki:

http://creationwiki.org/Obama_born_alive_controversy

You're missing the boat on the biggest controversy surrounding Obama, one that hasn't been debunked and is going to cause him a WHOLE lot of trouble. I told you guys this 2 years ago.
--[[User:Jzy|Jzy]] 10:14, 29 May 2012 (EDT)

:Thanks for the comments Jyz, the current article has been in the top 10 for nearly four years now. Most Americans are quite aware that Obama is the most pro-abortion president ever. Feel free to add to our wiki with the born-alive controversy page. In addition, you were not registered here two years ago so no wonder we didn't heed your warning.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 12:52, 29 May 2012 (EDT)

::Well, if this were just another abortion issue Obama wouldn't have a thing to worry about. This is an entirely different subject because it involves aborting children who aren't inside the mother's body but are outside the body and capable of surviving if given medical attention. We passed the federal Born Alive Infant Protection Act in 2002 making it illegal to let premature, newborn babies who survive late-term abortions get left to die without medical attention. We also passed the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act outlawing the late-term Dilation & Extraction (D&E) abortions that resulted in these live births. Nurses Jill Stanek and Allison Baker (of Christ Hospital in Oak Lawn, IL) testified before Congress in 2001 that newborn babies were being born prematurely after botched abortions in their home state of Illinois and being thrown in wastebaskets or soiled utility rooms. Stanek's moving testimony about how she held a little baby in her arms after one of these abortions and the physician refused to help keep it alive so that it died in her arms, proved especially influential.

::The entire U.S. Senate passed the Born Alive Infant Protection Act unanimously, because as Obama would put it, it was "the bill everybody supported". The Partial-Birth Abortion Act twice refers to the practice in federal law as "infanticide". It's a legal, technical term referring to what U.S. law now considers murder of newborn children. Stanek also testified before the Illinois Senate at the time, where Obama was leading a Planned Parenthood movement to vote down numerous Born Alive bills and cover up this fact from Illinois citizens using "present votes". Normally pro-choice Democrats like Barbara Boxer, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, and Ted Kennedy all voted for the Born Alive Infant Protection Act. Hillary Clinton herself brought up Obama's voting record on this in 2008 to criticize him over. So like I said, if this were just a Pro-Life vs. Pro-Choice issue it wouldn't be controversial. I'm not talking about abortion here. I'm talking about infanticide, and opposition to medical care for newborn infants. I'm talking about Obama's opposition to a bill that had over 90% public support, unlike typical Pro-Life bills. --[[User:Jzy|Jzy]] 02:18, 4 June 2012 (EDT)

:::I'm going to incorporate some of my writing and sourcing from that article to this one, and edit boldly. If anyone has any objections to any material please state them. However, I believe I've sourced everything so solidly it should be unobjectionable. --[[User:Jzyehoshua|Jzyehoshua]] 22:03, 20 July 2012 (EDT)

== Last Change ==

The protests weren't peaceful, but they were really violent, to date there's no proof that Muammar Gaddafi had took any violent action against civilians, but there are proof and reports from Amnesty International, Human rights watch, Russian intelligence which denies any of the rumors and falsely alleged crime.

Here's one source where US defense secretary Robert Gates and Navy Admiral Michael Mullen tells about whole thing, :-

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL1110/S00144/un-silent-despite-no-basis-for-natos-illegal-war-on-libya.htm

Thanks. [[User:Regular|Regular]] 11:10, 14 June 2012 (EDT)

== Changes, Detailed ==

I made the following changes, merging an article I wrote on Obama for CreationWiki with this one:

http://creationwiki.org/Barack_Obama

The diff for the changes can be seen here:

http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Barack_Hussein_Obama&action=historysubmit&diff=994904&oldid=994689

I left the Lede intact.

* Birth: I removed an opening sentence about Obama eating dog meat. It looks really silly there, starting off the section. Maybe the article could be linked somewhere else but it looks really bad starting off the page like that.
* Early Life: I included a whole new section on his early life and family and removed some unsourced claims that he was the antichrist and will be instating police rule (which either way doesn't fit the section). If it's going to be put anywhere in the article an appropriate subsection should be created for it, and some sourcing provided - neither of which was the case before.
* Personal Life: I added a whole new section on his marriage to Michelle Obama, children, and church.
* Education: I added a new section on education. Some of it was alluded to earlier but didn't have sources, my material does.
* Non-Political Employment: Whole new section, a LOT of detail about his employment history here.
* Personal Awards: The Nobel controversy mentioned in this new section.
* 1991-1992, Project Vote: His time as a community organizer, new section.
* 1996 Election: I added an entirely new section on how Obama knocked candidates off the ballot.
* 2003 Emil Jones Deal: Whole new section on how Obama struck a deal with Emil Jones to get appointed legislation for other Illinois Senators to advance his political career.
* 2004 Primary Election: Completely new section on how the Illinois media knocked off Obama's first opponent.
* 2004 General Election, Jack Ryan: Completely new section on how the Illinois media knocked off Jack Ryan afterwards through the same tricks.
* 2004 General Election, Alan Keyes: Completely new section highlighting the Born Alive controversy surrounding Obama.
* 2008 Presidential Election: I preserved what little detail there was and merged it in but otherwise everything here is new.
* 2009-2012, U.S. Presidency: I added new sections on the Stimulus and Iraq troop withdrawal. What little info there was about the withdrawal I preserved and merged in.

--[[User:Jzyehoshua|Jzyehoshua]] 23:15, 20 July 2012 (EDT)

=== Deletions ===

I figure it's best to mention any deletions made.

- I deleted the following from the end of the Lede:
{{cquote|Later Obama apologized. When Obama visited [[England]] in 2011, he signed his name and added the date of "2008" -- the last time he won an election. He never explaned that one. When Obama read a speech from a teleprompter, as he almost always does, he repeatedly mispronounced the familiar military term of "corpsman" by sounding out the "p".}}
I removed it because (A) it had no sourcing provided, (B) it showed signs of poor grammar (misspelled "explained"), (C) used weasel words/phrases (almost always does), and perhaps most importantly, (D) it's not even especially relevant. I mean, who cares if he mispronounced the word "corpsman"? How many Americans even would pronounce it right? Maybe that could merit a footnote somewhere on the page, but in the Lede? Really??? I try to preserve as much of the page as possible, but I really think those sentences made the rest of the page look bad. --[[User:Jzyehoshua|Jzyehoshua]] 15:45, 21 July 2012 (EDT)
:Having those sentences there in the Lede gives the impression the whole page is going to be about nitpicking over Obama's grammar, and I really don't think that's the impression Conservapedia wants to give. I'd like to think the Lede would show evidence Obama will be fairly and accurately criticized, not with poorly written and unsourced claims that he mispronounced a word most Americans wouldn't pronounce right anyway. --[[User:Jzyehoshua|Jzyehoshua]] 15:49, 21 July 2012 (EDT)

-I deleted the "Retrieved from 对当代托洛茨基主义的批判：英文论集百花齐放 - 中国文革研究网, March 15, 2010." part of this footnote:
{{cquote|[[File:O-2002-antiwar-rally-davidson.jpg|right|thumb|250px| Obama speaking at the October 2002 rally in Chicago organized by [[Carl Davidson]].<ref>Davidson is a longtime [[Mao]]ist and champion of the ''Thought of Mao Tse Tung.'' Davidson's anti-Trotskyite polemic, [http://www.wengewang.org/read.php?tid=10925 ''Left in Form, Right in Essence''] defends Maoist doctrine. Retrieved from 对当代托洛茨基主义的批判：英文论集百花齐放 - 中国文革研究网, March 15, 2010.</ref> ''"[H]e is a brutal man who butchers his own people,"'' nevertheless Obama opposed ''"dumb wars".'']]}}
I think this should all be in English. It might belong on a Chinese page for Conservapedia, the alternate language translations, but I don't think so here. Hopefully someone can find an alternate reference for this, but it looks bad at the bottom of the page in footnotes like that, and since it can't be understood doesn't serve any real purpose. --[[User:Jzyehoshua|Jzyehoshua]] 21:39, 21 July 2012 (EDT)

== New Section On ACORN/New Party Ties ==

Alright, I just removed the following sentence from the 1996 section:
{{cquote|In 1995 Obama openly sought and obtained the endorsement of the [[Marxist]] [[New Party]] in his quest to be elected to the Illinois State Senate.<ref>[http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=7434 NEW PARTY (NP)], discoverthenetwork.org.</ref><ref>Rick Moran. [http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/06/obamas_alliance_with_marxists.html Obama's Alliance with Marxists], ''American Thinker'', June 03, 2008.</ref>}}

I made a new section on this at the end of the article. Frankly, I just wanted to remove the section from the 1996 section because it makes the whole thing look bad. I don't really care about his New Party or ACORN affiliations but I know many conservatives care about them, so I didn't want to delete the sentence and wanted to see if I could move it somewhere else, and maybe provide some more detail to give it a small subsection somewhere. I didn't think much of the sources it had so I figured I'd see if I could find any decent sourcing and information for it. In the process, I found out it had articles relating to it at National Review, Politico, and by Billy Hallowell (a FOX News contributor), plus had been addressed by Obama's "Fight the Smears" campaign and David Axelrod. Plus it's still relevant in 2012.

So I wrote it a new section, because I just follow sources and newsworthiness, and it is does appear to have some prominence. I tried to provide sources and perspective from both sides, and provide all the facts, so it won't just be a one-sided claim. Anyway, that's why I detailed it out more. Like I said, I don't really care about the claim myself, but it is newsworthy and a cause for concern among some conservatives, so I figured I might as well write it a section - and get it out of the 1996 one :) --[[User:Jzyehoshua|Jzyehoshua]] 23:21, 21 July 2012 (EDT)

:For me, the big issue surrounding Obama has always been his voting record against the Born Alive bills, and repeated lying attempts to cover this up. That he's gone to such lengths to prevent newborn babies from being given medical attention and then lie about having done so, has always struck me as reprehensible. His political corruption and constant lies are also disgusting. I just want people to know about these things. But his Marxism and ACORN stuff? Not really an issue for me. I just wrote this because I know it's a cause for concern to other conservatives, so I made sure the facts are presented on it. --[[User:Jzyehoshua|Jzyehoshua]] 23:37, 21 July 2012 (EDT)

:And mainly I didn't want that sentence in the 1996 section, by the way, because it's still highly controversial. I don't like starting off an otherwise credible section with undeniable sources with a claim that is still under investigation. Maybe this stuff on the New Party will hold up - those minutes will be strong evidence if Kurtz is right about them. But right now the sourcing for it isn't as strong as I'd like, even if it is newsworthy. And I'd prefer the 1996 section stick to strongly proven facts. That he knocked off all his opponents using a team of lawyers is well sourced by the Chicago Tribune, CBS News, CNN, New York Times, etc. The stuff about the New Party had two lesser-known sources and while it has better sourcing now, it's still an ongoing issue, which is why I think it's more relevant in a 2012 section than 1996. --[[User:Jzyehoshua|Jzyehoshua]] 23:51, 21 July 2012 (EDT)

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

== Conspiracy theory that Obama is not born in the US is by crazy lunatic fringe right-wing people who don't represent the mainstream right, it is just like crazy lunatic fringe left-wing conspiracy theories on JFK being killed by the CIA and not J. Harvey Oswald or 9-11 truthers ==

Regardless of criticisms and condemnations by mainstream conservatives of Obama's policies, these claims that he is a foreign-born citizen have been disproven and mainstream conservatives accept that he is an American citizen. Theories that he was born outside the USA are lunatic fringe conspiracy theories - and I don't care whether they are right-wing - their ideas have been disproven just like the crazy 9-11 truther conspiracy theories and JFK conspiracy theories by lunatic fringe left-wing people. Why is there such focus on conspiracy theories on where Obama is born in the intro, rather than focus in the intro on Obama's policies and conservative criticisms of Obama's policies?--[[User:TheQuestioner|TheQuestioner]] 12:31, 3 August 2012 (EDT)

:Thank God you registered here to set the record straight. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 12:34, 3 August 2012 (EDT)

::What do you mean?--[[User:TheQuestioner|TheQuestioner]] 12:36, 3 August 2012 (EDT)

== Title of article ==

The middle name should be removed as the name of the article. The middle name of other figures is not in the title in other articles. [[User:AcomaMagic|AcomaMagic]] 15:17, 18 August 2012 (EDT)
:[[Ronald Wilson Reagan]]?? --[[User:JamesWilson|James Wilson]] 05:16, 4 September 2012 (EDT)
::That looks like a rarity. All the other biography pages that I've seen use the most common name. The middle name of Reagan should be removed as the title too. [[User:AcomaMagic|AcomaMagic]] 08:08, 9 September 2012 (EDT)

== Teleprompter at school ==

It is a false rumor, based on photoshopped photos, that Obama had teleprompters set up for a speech to a middle school class. He spoke to the class without teleprompters, then went to another classroom, where he spoke to the ''media'' using a teleprompter. Surely there are enough things to criticize without distorting the truth? [http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/photos/6thgrade.asp] [[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 10:39, 2 September 2012 (EDT)
:This is a little shaky as a criticism I suppose. With his voting record on the Born Alive bills and political corruption, there's an awful lot that can be criticized about him. That he uses teleprompters so often is a valid criticism of him, but the teleprompters in classrooms one needs to be carefully presented in context, as pointed out by Sharon. --[[User:JZambrano|Joshua Zambrano]] 08:56, 4 September 2012 (EDT)

== "may have had a prior marriage" ==

This appears in the information box - I assume its about Obama rather than his wife - but is not explained in the main article, let alone supported with any references. As a Brit, this is completely new to me. Can anyone develop this further? [[User:Rafael|Rafael]] 17:54, 10 September 2012 (EDT)

== Accusations about birth certificate and cultural and name identity ==

I would like to move this section back to the section about Obama's birth, and weave it back into the relevant section instead of having it tagged on to the end of the article. None of the edits will change the argument at all. [[User:MattyD|MattyD]] 12:40, 16 September 2012 (EDT)
:JPatt, the edits I made REMOVED fluff and apologies. Can you please point to specific passages where you think the argument was softened? [[User:MattyD|MattyD]] 12:57, 16 September 2012 (EDT)
::No--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 13:01, 16 September 2012 (EDT)
:::Why not? My edits REMOVE a lot of the fluff. Where is the problem? [[User:MattyD|MattyD]] 13:03, 16 September 2012 (EDT)

==Page has too many kbs==
This age is ''WAY'' too heavy for updating the Intro and I can't wait 2 hours to make these minor changes. Can someone who actually cares please add,
* the U.S. Government's credit rating, for the first time in its history, was downgraded, and [[poverty]]<ref>[http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/data/incpovhlth/2009/pov09fig04.pdf Figure 4: Number in Poverty and Poverty Rate: 1959-2009]. ''U.S. Census Bureau''. Current Population Survey, 1960 to 2010 Annual Social and Economic Supplements.</ref> increased markedly every year.<ref>[http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-201_162-20105376.html Poverty continues to rise in U.S., now 15.1%], CBS News.</ref>
I realize I am penalized 9 mainspace edits for asking for this help, but some, if not much of the Intro citations are two years out of date. [[User:OscarO|OscarO]] 11:38, 29 September 2012 (EDT)

== Country of birth ==

He released his long-form birth certificate, so what evidence is there that he was born in Kenya? [[User:Nightsky|Nightsky]] 15:43, 8 October 2012 (EDT)

*I think at this point the question might better be, "Why do we care at this point?" Obama's almost certainly going to be defeated by Romney, since Romney is better-suited to handle the currently-relevant economic issues (and boy howdy do we ever need someone like that in the Oval Office right now!) Seriously, he's got a little bit more than a month before the election in November, and at this point if his country of birth was conclusively proven to be Kenya it really wouldn't make all that much difference. It's an interesting academic question, but at this point it's irrelevant to the practical situation. [[User:JGrant|JGrant]] 17:17, 8 October 2012 (EDT)

::In response to Nightsky, the document released by the White House as the Obama long form birth certificate was proven to be an item created via Photoshop; it is in individual layers grouped together, and ''not'' a .jpeg or .PNG image one would expect had they simply scanned the actual item.
::In response to JGrant, yes we should care. Obama has a past association with communists and radicals; he has fought to prevent this part of his history from being revealed to the public; this includes that birth certificate. Why would he hide something as innocuous and mundane as a birth certificate, ''unless there was information on it that he does not want revealed?'' If it's a Kenyan goat herder who had no part in politics whatsoever, then why spend millions just to keep that man's name from the public? I happen to think it's another man's name, and it's something that's part and parcel to his current belief system and his political associations, past and present: the communist radical [[Frank Marshall Davis]]. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 17:46, 8 October 2012 (EDT)
:::Are there any reliable sources for this proof? It's just that if it was proven or suspected, it would be a major news story and there would be a constitutional crisis and I'm surprised I haven't heard about it. [[User:Nightsky|Nightsky]] 18:09, 8 October 2012 (EDT)
::::What is needed is for the actual birth certificate to be seen in public and examined by impartial investigators. News items are here: [http://www.wnd.com/?s=frank+marshall+davis]
:::::They aren't reliable sources and I'm not even sure they can be counted as a news item. For a claim that the birth certificate has been proven to be false, I expect a media frenzy and a vote of no confidence in Congress. [[User:Nightsky|Nightsky]] 18:47, 8 October 2012 (EDT)
::::::First, you are in no position to judge what is and what is not a reliable source; you're just another individual. Second, their wont be a media frenzy about this subject because the media here is solidly pro-Obama, which is why WND, Newsmax, Fox, Breitbart, and similar organizations labeled "faux" by leftists with severe bias problems are covering the story. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 19:03, 8 October 2012 (EDT)
::::::Meh, they were accused of being Pro-Bush, especially during the WMD intelligence controversy. If a news organisation can break a story as big as this would be, they'll take it. At the moment there's no evidence that it's fake and it's a fringe theory even among Republicans and it's a non-issue. [[User:Nightsky|Nightsky]] 19:15, 8 October 2012 (EDT)

Talk:Barack Hussein Obama

2012-10-08T22:47:50Z

Nightsky: /* Country of birth */ reply

[[File:Brainreboot20110429.jpg|400px|thumb|]]

{{articletalkheader|prefix=archive}}
 

==Rense==
Jeff Rense may not be a such a good source. The Anti-Defamation League accuses him of promoting anti-Semitic views and 9/11 Conspiracy theories. OTOH, what is wrong with a Pravda article written in the post Soviet-censorship era when democratic Russia hungars to exercise a free press, open discussion and discernment of facts? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 22:39, 23 January 2010 (EST)

:See my talk page, Rob. I never noticed who added the Pravda cite, so if you say so, it is of course fine with me, and please add it back if you haven't already! I now suspect it was yet another vandal site troll stirring the pot, so feel free to deal with him as well. --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 17:02, 24 January 2010 (EST)

== Terror Attacks ==
I have an issue with a claim made in the second paragraph. ''Since abandoning the "War on Terror" in Obama's first year, the United States has suffered more terrorist attacks with deadly intent on American soil than in the previous eight years combined.'' Since Obama replaced the 'Global War on Terror' with 'Overseas Contingency Operation', there have been only four domestic terrorist attacks, a far cry from the 19 that took place under Bush's tenure. This sentence should be reworded or removed in its entirety; it only makes the article look embarrassing. --[[User:MichaelJB|MichaelJB]] 15:46, 25 January 2010 (EST)

:More [[liberal]] poppycock, Michael? Even the New York Times counts more, excluding 9/11, under Obama. Perhaps you should consider sources other than the Kos? --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 19:29, 25 January 2010 (EST)

::A short time ago you gave me grief for making assumptions, yet here you are doing the same. I didn't get any information from Kos, it all came from legitimate news sources. Do you really believe that more terror attacks occurred on US soil from March 2009 to January 2010 than in the eight years of the Bush administration? I would really like to see all your references for making such a bold claim. And why would you want to exclude the WTC/Pentagon attacks?
::Some people have been making some really stupid claims lately about domestic terror. Dana Perino and Rudy Guiliani both claimed there was not a terror attack on the US when Bush was in office. The fact that these people could make such stupidly partisan claims is incredible. [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4kpfhGxJbLc] [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2tYoMoJHNDs] The claim made in this article reeks of the same idiocy of Perino and Guiliani, why not delete the sentence or at least make it factual? --[[User:MichaelJB|MichaelJB]] 20:23, 25 January 2010 (EST)

:::The facts are undeniable that America was totally unprepared to protect itself from terrorist homeland attacks as Bush entered office, due to the total lack of focus of the Clinton Administration and Congress on the issue. Bush can in no way be blamed for the 9/11 attacks with any real credibility.

:::As I have stated many times before, as Mr. Schlafly has stated many times before, as several other Admins have as well, coming here to argue-without-end against our conservative point of view in all articles you come across, is silly. If you and others cannot bring yourselves to accept alternative points of view, so be it. If you want a place to argue against conservatism in general, make your own site or try the Kos or HuffPo; but CP isn't a debate forum, it is a conservative encyclopedia ''project''. Article talk pages are for suggesting ways to improve articles from a conservative point of view, not a liberal one. Is that a clear enough statement? --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 21:29, 25 January 2010 (EST)

::::TK: The change you made is completely unacceptable from a moral and ethical standpoint because instead of correcting an error, you are now highlighting a lie. Three terror attacks occurred during Pres. Bush's last year in office. I sent you links to all three events but you are willing to over look such trivial matters as the truth. It's funny that a liberal who has been blocked twice for pointing out errors and outright falsehoods is vilified as a trouble-maker while the conservatives that knowingly mislead and lie are in charge of an alleged 'trustworthy encyclopedia'.
::::I'm trying to make these changes because I don't want Americans to look stupid, even the conservative ones. It's an uphill battle.

::::Gunman killed two people in a church. [http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-07-29-church-shooting_N.htm]
::::Suicide bomber attacked a Georgia law firm. [http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/ga_law_firm_explodes_causing_multiple_injuries/]
::::Two police officers were killed by a bomb placed in a bank. [http://www.odmp.org/officer/19697-captain-thomas-paul-tennant]
::::--[[User:MichaelJB|MichaelJB]] 01:25, 29 January 2010 (EST)

MichaelJB you cannot tell the difference between Muslim terrorists and someone with an ax to grind? Godspeed! --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 06:36, 29 January 2010 (EST)v
:So Michael's point is that progressive liberal leftwing commie socialist (or whatever the flavor of the week) Prof. [[Amy Bishop]] conducted a domestic overseas contingency operation attack. It's beginning to make sense. How would we classify the guy who crashed the plane into the IRS building in Houston, a tax protester who railed against corporations. Dang, this is a tuff one.... [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 08:13, 12 March 2010 (EST)

== Middle name in article title? ==

----

::::<big>'''Unless you have some brilliant new argument to add to this section, further discussion is unneeded.</big>'''

----

It strikes to me odd that the title of the article is Barach Hussein Obama. While there is nothing wrong with that by itself, looking at the [[President_of_the_United_States_of_America#Presidents_list|list of all the U.S. presidents]], it seems that all the other presidents' articles are titled either without their middle name, or just a middle initial. Wouldn't it make sense to rename the article to either Barack Obama or Barack H. Obama to follow suit? [[User:Kayvan|Kayvan]] 18:19, 26 February 2010 (EST)
:There is a big difference between Walker or Jefferson and Hussein. My two cents. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 18:22, 26 February 2010 (EST)
::What about [[Ronald Wilson Reagan]]? [[User:DMorris|DMorris]] 18:26, 26 February 2010 (EST)
:::This topic had been discussed before. He decided to be inaugurated with his middle name after not using it during the campaign. He is not ashamed of it and we are not ashamed to include it.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 18:29, 26 February 2010 (EST)
::::Ah, I see. Looking at some lists though ([http://www.ipl.org/div/potus/] and [http://www.apples4theteacher.com/holidays/presidents-day/past-presidents-of-usa.html]), it seems that many presidents were also inaugurated in a similar fashion. [[User:Kayvan|Kayvan]] 18:33, 26 February 2010 (EST)

::: I think that, as all encyclopedias and scholarly works try to do, we should try to decide on a particular set of rules and always follow it. In this case, these are the options:
:::1) Always cite the full name in the title, so "Barack Hussein Obama", "George Herbert Walker Bush" and "Ronald Wilson Reagan";
:::2) Always use initials for middle names, so "Barack H. Obama", "George H.W. Bush" and "Ronald W. Reagan";
:::3) Use the names in the way they most commonly used, using middle name initials only where they are necessary to distinguish one particular individual from another, therefore "Barack Obama", "George H.W. Bush" and "Ronald Reagan".

::: We are talking about titles of articles; the full name should always be cited in the body of the article. Personally, I would vote for solution n.3. --[[User:Maquissar|Maquissar]] 18:34, 26 February 2010 (EST)
::::I like the idea. Either 2 or 3 seem best in my opinion; full names seem a bit to long for article titles. The name that the president was inaugurated with isn't bad either, but it would seem less formal, as some have middle names and others don't. [[User:Kayvan|Kayvan]] 18:38, 26 February 2010 (EST)

:::: I thought about that solution, but then I thought that we should better set very general rules; by this I mean that we should decide how to title page names referring to INDIVIDUALS, not to US PRESIDENTS. Deciding that "the name that the president was inaugurated with" is a rule that, naturally, can only be applied to presidents. --[[User:Maquissar|Maquissar]] 18:41, 26 February 2010 (EST)

:::: Another good rule would be to use the name that is mostly used to refer to that individual; this has the disadvantage of not being objective, but it is also the most effective. So "Barack Obama", "George H.W. Bush" (to distinguish him from his son), "Ronald Reagan", "Eminem" instead of "Marshall Mathers", "O.J. Simpson" instead of "Orenthal J. Simpson"... --[[User:Maquissar|Maquissar]] 18:56, 26 February 2010 (EST)

There isn't any vote here, nor was one asked for. Since Obama tries to soft-pedal his Muslim roots and associations, our editorial policy is to call attention to that ''fact''. In addition you should note the [[Ronald Wilson Reagan|Reagan]] article, where well before anyone had an inkling Obama would run for President, Conservapedia used his full name, ''Ronald Wilson Reagan'' which Reagan himself preferred for formal use. So I submit President Obama isn't being singled out, contrary to the insistence of silly-minded liberals. --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 19:06, 26 February 2010 (EST)

:But why call attention to that ''fact'' in the title of the article? The ''fact'' is never going to be denied. The introduction sentence would still say "Barack Hussein Obama". Italicize his middle name in the introduction or change the font color to bring out the ''fact'' if you wish. What I am trying to point at is, why should his middle name be used in the article title? Reagan may have preferred it for formal use, but does Mr. Obama say that same? He is commonly known as Barack Obama; I haven't seen it used in any other way (except Obama, of course). If he is commonly known as that, it would make sense to title the article like that, as should every article on people. [[User:Kayvan|Kayvan]] 21:05, 26 February 2010 (EST)
::Richard Milhous Nixon was commonly refered to as [[Milhous]] by his detracters. Indeed, googling milhouse brings up hundreds of thousands of hits on Nixon that dwarf most all other uses of the name. Now, googling [[Hussein]] presents a host of other problems. The [[Heshamite Dynasty]] of [[Hussein bin Ali]] had been the Islamic Keeper of the Holy places for 700 years until Western British Imperialist interests unseated them and installed the Saudi ruling clan thier place (visualize Islamists dethroning the Pope and installing thier own choice as successor). How does it look when Hussein bin Ali's namesake bows to tne Saudi puppet? Why not focus on how Obama ''is'' bringing real change to the whole planet, rather than argue about how things have traditionally been done? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 13:14, 27 February 2010 (EST)
Drop it. Further discussion is last-wordism. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 21:14, 26 February 2010 (EST)

:On the question of "''all the other presidents' articles are titled either without their middle name, or just a middle initial. Wouldn't it make sense ...to follow suit? ''"
:You will recall Barack Hussein Obama is the transformational president of change. Wouldn't it make sense to begin change right here, with his name? (assuming that is his name). [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 23:54, 26 February 2010 (EST)

<nowiki>:</nowiki>D 
--<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 01:58, 27 February 2010 (EST)

Pretty slick conservative trap there TK. despite the fact that you neglected to answer some massive holes in the arguments above, you declare the debate "ended" (even though its not) then decry anything else as last wordism to stifle any further debate. well done--[[User:DerikJ|DerikJ]] 11:58, 27 February 2010 (EST)
:What holes? We're implementing change. Let's find common ground and compromise. We've done just that. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 12:35, 27 February 2010 (EST)
::I like your comment on change, Rob, it made me laugh :) Anyway, I don't see how an argument that Obama's slogan being "change" is any reason to title his article to what he is less commonly known as/less traditional. It's pushing it, in a sense. Besides, being a conservative, I would think that you wouldn't want to follow Obama's way of thinking ;) [[User:Kayvan|Kayvan]] 13:40, 27 February 2010 (EST)
:::Conservatives are for change, both economic and social. They want to change tax law and abortion rulings, for example. Above all, change public education. Being anti-change is just a vulgar stereotype held by closeminded and intolerant people. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 14:09, 27 February 2010 (EST)
::::I can agree with that. But ''why'' "change" how Obama's article is titled when others are titled either without their middle name or with their middle name if they are commonly known and identified by the name, in some cases. Simply changing something doesn't necessarily mean it's a good thing, there has to be reason, and the reason has to be, well, reasonable. [[User:Kayvan|Kayvan]] 14:44, 27 February 2010 (EST)
:::::Call it the price of progress. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 15:17, 27 February 2010 (EST)
::::::In that case, would changing the titles of all the other peoples' articles to include their middle names sound all right to you? It would be progress, after all. [[User:Kayvan|Kayvan]] 17:29, 27 February 2010 (EST)
I have always wondered why the Obamabots get so upset with the name Obama's parents chose. Pretty silly. --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 16:40, 27 February 2010 (EST)

:I actually like the name, it has a nice ring to it. It's more of just keeping a solid style of titling pages, a format if you want to call it that. [[User:Kayvan|Kayvan]] 17:29, 27 February 2010 (EST)
::Which brings us to the question of Barry Soetero. If Obama went by this name, then he may have lied to the Illinois Supreme Court when asked to provide former names, according to this Attorney’s Registration Record. [http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2061988/posts] I'm not the sure what the resolution of this issue ever was, and we don't have a word about it in this article. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 17:49, 27 February 2010 (EST)

I know I am new here but there really needs to be a consensus amongst all Presidential and Vice President articles, actually this should probably extend to all US politicians. I know there is a specified conservative bias, however the lack organization and consensus has nothing to do with liberal or conservative bias, it has to do with disorganization and lazyiness by the admins.

If you want to leave the middle, that is fine, however, there would need to be a quick modification of all or the majority of the US Politian article so as not to look so disorganized.[[User:Solarguy17|Solarguy17]] 01:01, 10 March 2010 (EST)

:You hit the nail on the head. You are new here. Don't come in criticizing and such off the bat. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 01:12, 10 March 2010 (EST)

My criticization is to help the article(s) to be better as a whole. None of the above discussion explains the reasoning for leaving it as is. Just people saying he used it in his inauguration so we use it here, however, almost every pres does this so why not have it that way for everyone????[[User:Solarguy17|Solarguy17]] 01:15, 10 March 2010 (EST)

Not really discussion just more of a question. I just recently found this site and was looking through the religious articles and for the most part they seemed pretty good. However, when I come to the political articles, some of them seem a little crazy. I know it is to call more attention to the things that are being overlooked by the media. But I have ask about the middle name thing.

I read all of the information above and I still am not sure why it was decided to leave it as is. Can someone clarify this?
Please don't ban me, I noticed that basically everyone with discussion in this thread that isn't an admin now has banned accounts. I personally don't care, I am just confused. [[User:StevenS|StevenS]] 01:12, 12 March 2010 (EST)

: As it says up at the top of this section, "Unless you have some brilliant new argument to add to this section, further discussion is unneeded." If you do have one, let's have it. But it sure seems like everyone who signs up to this site and immediately starts complaining has nothing new to say at all. Why don't you spend some time reading here with an open mind first, and complain later? [[User:DanielPulido|DanielPulido]] 01:20, 12 March 2010 (EST)

Now, why would a single individual come here under several different user names all in an effort to get the word "Hussein" removed from the title of this article? It makes no sense at all unless that individual has a personal agenda to perform. The article title stays as it is. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 01:42, 12 March 2010 (EST)

:My only concern is that the title seems to exist in its current state for no purpose other than to further a bias. The arguments that "well he asked for it" seem to suggest that accuracy and fairness are non-valuable in this wiki. I sincerely hope this is not the case and that I may not be banned and able to start a fun future in helping this wiki grow in the impressive way it has so far. [[User:Vidihawk|Vidihawk]] 07:47, 6 April 2010 (EDT)

::'''"Unless you have some brilliant new argument to add to this section, further discussion is unneeded."'''
I guess you missed the bold title at the top of this section? Also, see [[Ronald Wilson Reagan]] to see how silly your argument is. --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 08:16, 6 April 2010 (EDT)
:I guess it wasn't as bright an idea as I had hoped. Heh... It still comes off as somewhat purposeful, though. Okie, I'll back away! - [[User:Vidihawk|Vidihawk]] 08:24, 6 April 2010 (EDT)
::Purposeful, as in done with the same horribly malevolent intent as ''my'' adding Reagan's middle name several years ago? You are giving away your intent in advance, good sir, by refusing to admit your already formed assumptions about us are wrong. I hope you prove me wrong, and turn out to be that rare U.K. denizen that turns out to be open-minded and as fair to us as you wish us to be to you. There have been precious few. And please do check out our editors guide and all of that. We differ quite a bit from Wikipedia. --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 08:33, 6 April 2010 (EDT)
:::::I think we should keep the current title of the article. Furthermore, I think we should replace the top picture, which is currently a picture of Obama, with a picture of an oil drenched pelican (and a new caption) as a tribute to Obama's indifference, sloth and incompetence. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 20:36, 16 June 2010 (EDT)

== I moved the material dealing with the present to the top ==

I moved the material dealing with the present to the top as I thought readers would be more interested in how Obama is screwing up the present. For example, I think Americans right now are very concerned about how Obama is screwing up the economy. Of course, he is also doing a poor job in other areas presently as well such as holding terrorists court cases in civilian courts, etc. etc. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 04:30, 15 March 2010 (EDT)

:That makes sense to me. I do appreciate letting me try the other timeline structure. However, I didn't really take into consideration the fact that because he is a high profile individual it may benefit readers to see more recent info before his earlier biography facts. At least while he's fulfilling his one failed term as president, your structure makes sense to me. [[User:DerekE|DerekE]] 12:42, 15 March 2010 (EDT)

::As the ==Maoism== section is being being built, we may eventually be able to free up space from the sections on the Ayers/Dohrn relationship by moving some of that material to Ayers own page, and/or creating a new separate page documenting Obama's rise with communist and terrorist assistance. An acceptable title for that page would be needed. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 13:23, 15 March 2010 (EDT)

==Citation==

"Any orders he gives to the American military are subject to being refused. Orders that Obama gives to America’s Joint Chiefs of Staff of the military can be refused." --http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/columnists/19-01-2009/106972-Barry_Soetoro-0

Do we really want to cite an article that makes this claim? Do any of us really support this opinion, or if we do, do we support the use of opinion articles as sources in addition to factual ones? --[[User:BenjaminS|Ben]] [[User Talk:BenjaminS|Talk]] 08:42, 6 April 2010 (EDT)

:Is the opinion piece backed by valid and factual citations from the United States Code, Ben, as opposed to a unsupported rant? --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 08:47, 6 April 2010 (EDT)

== pronunciation of "Pakistan" ==

This is really considered evidence of anything? I've heard [[Mark Levin]] use the Spanish-inflected pronunciation of Sonia Sotomayor's name (''so tow my OR'' rather than ''so tow MY er''), but nobody would claim that proves he's Catholic or Hispanic. [[User:Golgaronok|Golgaronok]] 23:55, 9 April 2010 (EDT)
:Pronunciation shows an enormous amount about someone's views and history. Obama doesn't use the American pronunciation, and this is telling, since ''no one else in the public sphere'' pronounces it in the muslim way ''but'' Obama. [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 00:15, 10 April 2010 (EDT)
[[David Petraeus]] does [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vtCLp7siY7I]. [[User:Golgaronok|Golgaronok]] 00:50, 10 April 2010 (EDT)
And [http://www.forvo.com/word/pakistan/ numerous other languages] use a pronunciation closer to the native form. [[User:Golgaronok|Golgaronok]] 00:57, 10 April 2010 (EDT)

::"Golgaronok" (if that is your name), your quibbles with the entry have already been argued ad nauseum, [http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Barack_Hussein_Obama/archive4#.22Pokiston.22.3F.3F.3F.3F.3F here], for instance. If you've only come to argue on talk pages, you're wasting your own time. Try making substantive contributions to the project; excessive talk is disfavored here. [[User:DanielPulido|DanielPulido]] 01:04, 10 April 2010 (EDT)
I don't see any responses to the points I raised. But it's y'all's funeral. [[User:Golgaronok|Golgaronok]] 01:13, 10 April 2010 (EDT)
:::Kind of interesting that Davis Petraeus was mentioned here. When that general was ordered to command US forces in Afghanistan and Iraq, the liberal elites decided that his name should be pronounced "BETRAY US". [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 01:29, 10 April 2010 (EDT)

==Barry Soetoro = birth name?==
This may have already been discussed, so forgive me if this has been settled. I noticed that the article says ''"Barack Hussein Obama II (birth name Barry Soetoro..."'', however the articles cited do not support the idea that "Barry Soetoro" is Obama's birth name, in fact quite the opposite. My understanding, from reading the Newsweek article, is that "Barack" is his birth name, although he went by "Barry" when he was younger. His father's name, as I understand it, is Barack Hussein Obama, and he was named after his father. "Seotoro", if I remember right, was his stepfather's last name, so it is unlikely that it would have been part of Obama's birth name. To be clear, I do realize that he spent his younger years being known as "Barry Soetoro", and I think that should be included in the article, I just don't think it was actually his birth name. 
Please understand that I am not as knowledgeable in this kind of thing as many other contributors here, so I may have gotten it all wrong - that's why I didn't attempt to edit the article. Please correct me if I have gotten it wrong - I won't be offended and I am curious as to the truth of the matter. [[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 18:11, 1 May 2010 (EDT)

According to the citation that shows the birth certificate, the birth name is, in fact, Barack Hussein Obama II, NOT Barry Soetoro. Also, because there is an actual document, i.e. physical, demonstrable proof, the word "allegedly" should be removed.

== Remove name repetition? ==

Would anyone mind if I removed some of the repetition of Obama's name in certain portions of the article? For example, in this paragraph:
{{cquote|
[[Barack Obama and uncharitableness|Barack Obama's recent pattern of charitable giving]] and [[Barack Obama and liberal elitism|Barack Obama's liberal elitism]] is consistent with Obama being a [[Narcissism|narcissist]] which is a charge that has often been made against Barack Obama. However, it is also true that Barack Obama is an [[evolution|evolutionist]]. Barack Obama told the ''York Daily Record'' that "I believe in [[evolution]]...". Barack Obama's recent pattern of charitable giving and liberal elitism is also in accordance with someone who has a certain degree of [[Social Darwinism|social darwinistic]] thinking. In addition to [[Liberals and uncharitableness|American liberals giving less to charity]], it is also true that [[Theory of evolution and liberalism|American liberals are also more likely to believe in evolution]].
}}

I think I could alter it to make it more readable with "Obama's recent pattern of charitable giving and liberal elitism is consistent with that of a narcissist, a charge that has often been made against him."

And so forth. In my linguistics class, we talked about semantic satiation, and I believe that paragraphs like these, along with the fact that it never seems to use pronouns, somewhat diminish the readability of the article. If I were to make this change, I would preserve every wikilink, reference, etc, but I believe it would become more readable. In Christ, [[User:Tzoran|Tyler Zoran]] [[User talk:Tzoran|Talk]] 09:09, 6 May 2010 (EDT)

== Insults? ==

Does the entire beginning of the article have to be so laden with insults? Couldnt it simply say what the article will be about, and THEN express views? As it is it appears very unprofessional. 19:11, 6 May 2010 (EDT)
:We believe in the truth here, and the fact that [[liberals]] like yourself feign offense at the display of it speaks volumes about you. If you insist on closing your mind, at least take ownership of your [[deceit]]! Sign your comments with <nowiki> ~~~~ </nowiki> next time. Godspeed! [[User:Tzoran|Tyler Zoran]] [[User talk:Tzoran|Talk]] 19:58, 6 May 2010 (EDT)

== "The first president who is biracial" ==

There have been other presidents of more than one race. Bush Jr. is has some German and English ancestry. [[User:NP|NP]]

:George W is German and English, is that two races according to our census? I think the readers will understand what biracial refers to.

::English and German are '''''not''''' races, and neither is Hispanic. --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 22:16, 17 May 2010 (EDT)

== Reorganizing ==

I'm glad to see the edit feature is enabled here once more. I think this page needs a revamp to structure information better. I've reorganized everything into a better structure, let me know what you think. I am trying to put a summary of the presidency at the top, information about his life/career next, and then a political summary. This should really improve the page's appearance, as it appears too disorganized right now. --[[User:Jzyehoshua|Jzyehoshua]] 15:56, 20 May 2010 (EDT)
:What you're doing is burying important information so fewer users will find it. That's unacceptable. [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 15:57, 20 May 2010 (EDT)

== Obama is a Muslim theory and the alleged claim of Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Aboul Gheit ==

Here is what the American Thinker reported: "The American President told me in confidence that he is a Muslim." That was the claim of Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Aboul Gheit, as reported in the May 2010 issue of Israel Today. According to journalist Avi Lipkin, Gheit appeared on Nile TV's "Round Table Show" in January, on which he said that "he had had a one-on-one meeting with Obama who swore to him that he was a Moslem, the son of a Moslem father and step-son of Moslem step-father, that his half-brothers in Kenya were Moslems, and that he was loyal to the Moslem agenda."[http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/06/report_obama_said_i_am_a_musli.html] Here is what Hot Air says: http://hotair.com/greenroom/archives/2010/06/14/obama-is-a-muslim-take-two/

Personally, I am beginning to think Obama is: not a Muslim, not a Christian, and not an atheist. I think Obama is a narcissist who worships himself. I can also see him telling one person he is a Christian and then later telling someone else he is a Muslim. There are many examples of Obama being insincere such as all the substantive healthcare discussions were going to be on C-Span, etc. etc. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 15:53, 16 June 2010 (EDT)

== 2009 Nobel Peace Prize ==

I find it strange that there is not a single mention of the president being awarded the Nobel peace prize in this article. Considering that other prominent award winners have it at least mentioned in their respective articles. The [[Mother Teresa]] article, for instance, prominently states her award in the introduction to the article, and even political figures like [[Al Gore]] and [[Henry Kissinger]] (both of whom won the peace prize) have their award at least mentioned in the article.
--[[User:DenisTR|DenisTR]] 16:04, 19 August 2010 (EDT)

:I agree with you, Denis. It was there, once-upon-a-time, but apparently it was removed in the constant editing turmoil. CP does mention this in the [[Nobel Prize]] article. I will add it here, as it should be. --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 16:24, 19 August 2010 (EDT)

==Faulty Logic==
I have a suspicion that Andy Schlafly is secretly a Muslim. Will you deny that, Andy? If you do deny it, then I accuse you of being a Muslim under the concept of Taqiyya.
It's like a terrible flow chart that always ends with "You're a Muslim." I realize that you're kind of scraping the barrel with this whole "Obama is a Muslim" thing, but c'mon. [[User:Pete5383|Paul]] 18:57, 19 August 2010 (EDT)

: Paul, you seem to think all claims or facts are relative. They aren't. Truth is supported by logic and evidence.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:00, 19 August 2010 (EDT)

:: President Obama clearly has an Islamic background. As an adult, he joined a church and says he's a Christian. I'd say he's as much Muslim as I am Jewish; by Jewish law, my having a Jewish mother makes me Jewish by birth, but I became a Christian by choice as a teenager. Go figure. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 14:04, 3 September 2010 (EDT)

:::Whether President Obama is Muslim or not is one question; however it is undeniable Obama misspoke or was deceptive while ramping up his ambitions back in 2005 when he told the ''Chicago Sun-Times'', "I am rooted in the Christian tradition." Nowhere on his maternal side, grandma, gramps, or his natural father, or his stepfather, can any Christian rooting be found. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 14:37, 4 September 2010 (EDT)

==Days in office==
[[Barack Obama]] was inaugurated {{days since|2009|1|20}} days ago and will finish his term in {{#expr: -{{days since|2013|1|20}} }} days. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 14:00, 3 September 2010 (EDT)

==Apparent sourcing errors==

While looking over this article, I noticed a number of problems - mostly unsourced claims or claims for which the source is no longer available. Since my suggestions will almost certainly be controversial, I will not actually make any further changes to this page.

*The quote "Rather than being a unifier, Mr. Obama has divided America on the basis of race, class and partisanship" under the heading "Presidency" is unattributed.

*The claim that Obama represented ACORN in ''Buycks-Roberson v. Citibank Fed. Sav. Bank'' is unsupported. While court documents do list Obama among the Plaintiff's Attorneys, they do not reference ACORN in any way. [http://www.clearinghouse.net/detail.php?id=10112] This claim seems to have been added by bloggers after the fact. Similarly, the cited reference contains no source for the claim that Obama had anything to do with the CRA, only a completely unsourced allegation that was reprinted almost verbatim here. As far as I can tell, Obama represented ACORN exactly once, on a case involving motor voter laws. [http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2008/oct/17/john-mccain/he-represented-them-in-one-case-/]

*The statement "Obama website Fight The Smears has confirmed that Obama was once a Kenyan citizen until 1982" under the subheading "Birth Certificate Controversy" is unsourced and ambiguous.

*Much of the content under the subheading "Engineers defeat of Centrist Democrats" is dubious. Two of the cites [http://articles.latimes.com/1992-03-18/news/mn-3844_1_gus-savage][http://www.dkosopedia.com/wiki/Carol_Moseley_Braun#Political_career] are about Carol Moseley Braun and don't mention Obama at all. There is no indication in any of the sources that Obama was connected to the Braun campaign, so these cites are meaningless. Additionally, the section attributes an anti-Dixon intent to Obama (referring to Obama as "subverting" Dixon's reelection, defined by Conservapedia's own article as "lending of aid, comfort, and moral support to individuals, groups, or organizations that advocate the overthrow of incumbent governments by force and violence"). What he did was increase voter turnout among the black community, a far cry from what the text implies.

*<s>The statement "President Obama falsely claimed that the senior citizen group AARP endorsed his administration's health care plan when they never made such an endorsement" under the subheading "Obama Administration Health Care Plan and Its Advocacy Methods" is sourced to a YouTube video that no longer exists. Additionally, it appears that AARP has been supporting health care reform since at least August 2009. [http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/08/17/eveningnews/main5247916.shtml][http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/19/aarp-ama-announce-support_n_506060.html]</s>

*Similarly, several cites link to YouTube videos that have been removed. Multiple cites under the subheading "Obama Administration Health Care Plan and Liberal Elitism" link to deleted videos, as does the cite for the statement "Barack Obama's "Disinformation Czar" (whose supposed job was to correct disinformation that others are spreading about the Obama administration's health care plan) was caught spreading misleading information." The cite for the statement "Senior citizens are key Democratic party constituents that could kill Obama's socialistic health care plan" links to a private video.

--[[User:DrewJ|DrewJ]] 15:50, 29 September 2010 (EDT)

:Sorry, Drew, but one glaring misrepresentation really sticks out, and explains why liberals are often accused of playing fast and loose with the truth: While AARP has long advocated health care reform, it specifically repudiated Obama's distortion of the truth, saying they were not endorsing any specific plan, at that time. See how easy it is to distort fact, by omission, and make obviously good-intentioned souls like you doubt the real truth?

:You are obviously an editor here, and I would urge you, before making posts such as this one, to try and find substitute sources that back up what is in the story. At the very least, as is the case with the AARP, at least check the facts before stating something is incorrect. It was a very big story at the time, Obama's misstatement, and not at all hard to find....so easy and well-known in fact that some people might be tempted to accuse you of inserting a deliberate [[Red Herring]]. --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 17:29, 29 September 2010 (EDT)

Sources don't count if they are liberal sources. Those are worse than no source at all. Find a reliable source like Cato Institute or Fox News and we can add those. [[User:JoeSmithson117|JoeSmithson117]] 18:44, 4 December 2011 (EST)

== Typo ==
The first sentence here has a typo: it presumably is meant to read "...said to have '''been''' born in..." I'd fix it myself, but the page is so informative (and therefore long) that my poor old computer can't load it to edit. --[[User:LanceS|LanceS]] 21:49, 11 November 2010 (EST)
:Thanks, JPatt got it. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 22:29, 11 November 2010 (EST)

== Bryan Fischer: Obama wants to give America back to the Indians ==

Is [http://www.afa.net/Blogs/BlogPost.aspx?id=2147501360 this site] some kind of liberal parody? Otherwise, this is so serious that is should be included. American Family Association would seem to me as a pretty trustworthy organization, and this Bryan Fischer is writing for them. Any thoughts? – [[User:Dstone|dstone]] 16:42, 1 January 2011 (EST)

==Fact vs Opinion==
Okay...I thought maybe this article would be a good place to start. I was introduced to Conservapedia recently, and have been waffling about joining and bcoming an editor, but can no longer refrain. So, I'm extraordinarily new...and I fully expect the welcoming and flame-free arms of this community, as I support the overall efforts of what Conservapedia is trying to accomplish. The road to becoming a "Trustworthy Encyclopedia" is long, and this site is just starting to make baby steps in that direction. That being said, I will try to keep this short.

FACT: Opinions are not fact. Even expert opinions are not fact. They're just plain old opinions. Despite being in the Commandments, and otherwise stated over and over again, folks seem to have trouble making this distinction.
OPINION: If you are unable to make cited references, or present the conservative viewpoint in a reasoned and intelligent manner, I would heavily suggest that you leave the site to those who can. Your "help" is often unhelpful. Especially in an article as...contentious...as this - and I imagine many others, I'll be looking shortly - the talk page is the place to present your opinions. If you cannot site material, find sources that intelligently argue your viewpoint, or just want a second or third pair of eyes and ears, it would be addressed here. Also, if haven't actually read the article that you are citing...do that first, before posting anything at all...

There are several on this page, the most innocuous of which: President Obama authorized offshore oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico[28]. The moratorium lapsed in 2008. It says it right in the article, paragraph 4. This statement is spruious and vague and will be reworded to say something like: Then-Senator Obama voted to re-authorize oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico. This is just a small and harmless example, but, either research the issue before posting, or don't post. If you wish to engage in historical revisionism, or just bottom-barrel opinion mongering, please roll on over to Wikipedia, and leave us be. [[User:RyanDav|RyanDav]] 2 January 2011
:I moved this from the top of the page to its current location, to maintain threading. [[User:Tzoran|Tyler Zoran]] [[User talk:Tzoran|Talk]] 13:35, 2 January 2011 (EST)

== Oil Drilling Moratorium, redux ==

I did not realize that this would be as contentious as it was. The statement is simply poorly worded, I assume unintentionally, and appears to place the blame squarely on one person's shoulders. This is just factually innacurate, nothing more, nothing less. We accept credit where credit is due, and take blame where blame is appropriate - and the blame belongs to the vast majority of the 110th Congress, both the liberal reps and ours - and to deny that is some kind of revisionism, which will not be tolerated. I'm certainly more than willing to be corrected on this, but you can either site sources that support your viewpoint, or you cannot - it really is that easy. In that case, the article would read something like, "then-Senator Obama lobbied heavily for the moratorium to lapse, and led a congressional coalition consisting of Senators Blah, Blah and Blah and Congressmen Such-and-such and So-and-so to further that end, etc..." accompanied by supporting references. I am afraid, however, that a "nuh-uh," or, "because I said so," is simply Not Good Enough. We're counteracting liberal bias, here, not populating the internet with more unfounded claptrap. [[User:RyanDav|RyanDav]] 19:26, 3 January 2011 (EST)

:If you please, write here your proposal for how this should be written, including the source links. If Obama lobbied heavily for the moritorium to lapse, then the source evidence will say it; if he was a part of a coalition of people, then again the evidence will support that. Since this article is about Obama, it should lean on what he has done while in office. But as far as what the 110th Congress did or didn't do, oh yes, I am in total agreement with you...and so were the vast majority of voters back in November. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 20:00, 3 January 2011 (EST)

::He didn't, as far as I know, or have ever read. I don't think any articles arguing that he soley was responsible, or even more responsible than any other rep, exist. The text is already up there. Pretty vanilla. Mentions him by name, but also says, "hey, don't forget about all the other chair-jockeys, too!" But the article is about him, so he gets a name drop for focus. The article is about him as whole, so his Presidential and Senatorial terms would be seperate sections of the same article, so as not to confuse. The 110th was the last Bush-era Congress. In November, we voted out the 111th. We are now in the 112th Congress.

::Oh, I also replaced someone's citation from an OpEd piece in the NYTimes with an actual news reference that supported the same point (about the Obama administration's poor response to the Oil Spill). If I didn't know better (and I probably don't), I would suspect that some of the citations here are purposefully planted just to make us look like simpletons. [[User:RyanDav|RyanDav]] 21:39, 3 January 2011 (EST)

== Birth Controversy ==
Could someone please explain to me something I've never quite followed: why does it matter where Obama was born? As far as I can tell, no one is claiming his mother was not a US Citizen, which makes him a "natural born" US citizen even if he was born in Kenya, Moscow, or Riyadh. If the issue is "without a birth certificate we can't be certain his mother is really his mother" then I get it, but this side of things seems to be ignored in favor of controversy over the actual location of the birth. If we interpret "natural born citizen" as "born within the US", then that would exclude the children of Armed Forces personnel stationed overseas with their families at the time their children were born from the presidency, which seems like something liberals would love to do. [[User:Ptorquemada|Ptorquemada]] 12:09, 5 April 2011 (EDT)
:Well, John McCain whose father was an Admiral was born to two American parents in Panama Canal Zone. The media questioned his "natural born" citizen status and it seemingly was determined that since both his parents were American citizens who were living out of State because of the Admiral's duties that John McCain's birth status would be considered "natural born. The question concerning Barack Obama is that his father was not a US citizen but was in fact a British subject as Kenya was under British rule at the time. Some suggest that the original conception of "natural born" was that both parents are US citizens at the time of the birth of a child. So there is a question as to his "natural born" status even if he was, in fact, born in Hawaii. The fact that Obama has spent a couple of million dollars fighting any requests for proof of an original long form birth certificate and school records makes some people more convinced that a. he wasn't actually born in Hawaii and that his birth was only registered there or b. because his father was a British subject he had duel citizenship status which would make it doubtful that he would be considered a natural born citizen. There are many questions concerning Obama's "natural born" status because he also appears to have been a citizenship of Indonesia and is supposed to have traveled on an Indonesian passport as an adult. Of course, a lot of questions would be removed if the president just released the original birth certificate. The fact that he hasn't just adds fuel to the fire. [[User:Dwain|Dwain]] 12:09, 8 April 2011 (EDT)

== Birth Certificate Removal? ==

Now that Obama has finally released his birth certificate, all this about Kenya and Barry Soetoro seems a bit silly. Should we remove it? [[User:JimAB|JimAB]] 11:24, 27 April 2011 (EDT)
:Has the question of Mr. Obama traveling to Pakistan on an Indonesian passport under the name Barry Soetero in 1981 been resolved yet? As well as the statements regarding his application to join the Illinois State Bar Association wherein he answered no to the question of ever using any aliases? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 18:12, 28 April 2011 (EDT)

== Shortening the article length ==

I think we need to work on splitting this article; I recently revert a vandal's (mostly) blanking of the page, and my browser would freeze up when I tried to save the page (actually I'm currently trying to save it - and over and over again I'm having no luck). Currently this appears at the top of the edit screen:
:'''WARNING: This page is 144 kilobytes long; some browsers may have problems editing pages approaching or longer than 32kb. Please consider breaking the page into smaller sections or removing irrelevant information.'''
Thoughts?--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 00:34, 30 April 2011 (EDT)

== First Socialist??? ==

Obama is clearly a socialist, but is he the first to be president as the lead of the article states? The New deal democrats who created social security come to mind.[[User:BenDylan|BenD]] 09:03, 1 May 2011 (EDT)
:That certainly may be true. But we are talking about one man who occupies the office of president, not underlings and appopintees. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 09:23, 1 May 2011 (EDT)
::But couldn't the Presidents who hired them be considered socialists? I still don't know about saying he's the FIRST. [[User:KingHanksley|KingHanksley]] 12:31, 4 May 2011 (EDT)
:::You Americans have no idea what socialism is anymore do you?[[User:Cmurphynz|Cmurphynz]] 21:36, 25 June 2012 (EDT)
::::I guess you're on to us. Alex, I'll take What is redistribution of wealth, State control of industry for $200. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 21:43, 25 June 2012 (EDT)

== Obama the Socialist ==
I am counting all the capitalists that have hired self-proclaimed communists. I come up with zero. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 12:43, 2 May 2011 (EDT)

== Update of the article ==

See [[Talk:Barack Hussein Obama/update]] if you'd like to contribute to an update of this article - we'll be keeping a lot of the information that's good, throwing out some information that's a little old, and adding new information - all while hopefully downsizing! All help is appreciated!--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 19:55, 2 May 2011 (EDT)

== Bin Laden ==

Should we at least mention the Bin Laden capture? I feel that in fairness we should give him his one or two accomplishments. We should definitely mention that George W. Bush's policies played a big hand but still Obama could have gone entirely bleeding heart on us and we wouldn't have gotten OBL [[User:KingHanksley|KingHanksley]] 11:24, 4 May 2011 (EDT)

But being fair and giving credit to a liberal muslim socialist for making the world even a little safer would undermine the integrity of a conservative encyclopedia. Now had he screwed up the capture then that would be worthy of mentioning because it would show how he endangered the country. We should only be fair and give credit where credit is due if Obama was a Christian conservative who shared our beliefs. ([[User:Bluebank|Bluebank]] 12:58, 7 July 2011 (EDT))

I agree, it would only be worth mentioning if he had screwed up the capture because then we could hold his feet to the fire. ([[User:Jvclark2|Jvclark2]] 13:00, 7 July 2011 (EDT))

:::''"giving credit to a liberal muslim socialist for making the world even a little safer would undermine the integrity of a conservative encyclopedia."'' Well that's not a biased statement or anything. It should fall under the article Obama presidency but because of its significance, put it on the BHO page. Rarely, but we have given Obama credit in the past. The rescue of a Captain from Somali pirates is a good example of the proper choice the Progressive fake Christian Marxist had made. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 14:58, 7 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::I just don't see where ordering bin Laden's killing is a big accomplishment. What purpose did it serve other than a failed effort to turn around Obama's falling poll ratings while destroying the most important relationship the United States had in the war on terror. After Obama declared the war on terror over two years ago, dismantling the delicate relationship with the Pakistani ISS seems like phase two. Undermining Pakistan's secular regime, the way Obama did, only works to the advantage of Islamic extremists.

:::::Did killing bin Laden bring back the lives lost in the 9/11 attacks? No. Does making the war's in Iraq & Afghanistan about retribution rather than prevention, further American foreign policy interests or make the United States more secure? Hardly.

:::::Does creating the false sense among the American electorate that the objectives of the war in Afghanistan have now been accomplished, and we can abandon the fight? The height of folly -- and a repeat of what happened when the U.S. abandoned Afghanistan to the terrorists after 1991.

:::::Did killing bin Laden make America safe from reprisals? Or rather doies killing bin Laden expose innocent men, women, and children to the never ending threat of sudden, sensesless, and violent death?
:::::The cynical manipulation of American security and foreign policy interests for short term popularity and selfish career interests is appalling. I just don't agree this a "success" to boast of. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 23:15, 7 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::While I think it's laughable to say that taking down the number one most wanted man in the world isn't an accomplishment, I think it's a decision that ''anyone'' would have made, therefore, it isn't special or particular that Obama happened to be the one to make it. [[User:BradB|BradB]] 23:57, 7 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::No. We've learned from our mistakes. In 1967 the the number one most wanted man in the world - Che Guevara - was similiarly hunted and executed, only to be resurrected by liberals, hate-mongers, and other assorted sociopaths and pro-mass murder advocates, made the mascot of the hate-America crowd, and sold to American college students as somethiong larger than life and a cult hero to be worshiped. It is not laughable at all. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 13:55, 8 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::::The angst from the left goes back to Bush hatred. We shouldn't have interfered in Iraq and should have focused on OBL. Leftist sheep knew better than Bush. We knew all along that it is not one man but a movement, confront them there instead of here. At least we are no longer creating and recruiting terrorists, thanks to a Muslim-named president and his policies of peace in the Middle East.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 14:08, 8 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::You will recall Senator [[Patty Murray]], who now heads the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee charged with candidate recruitment and doling out funds, praised bin Laden for his work with children buidling day care centers. He probably supported the Family-Leave Act and opposed No Child Left Behind, too. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 15:26, 8 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::''" I just don't agree this a "success" to boast of. "'' Two points, 1) stating a fact is not boasting, it is just stating a fact. We list domestic policy, popular bills, economic plan, gulf oil spill, DADT... It's just another thing to list. 2) Had Bush done it I'm pretty sure it would be on his page.([[User:Jvclark2|Jvclark2]] 21:09, 8 July 2011 (EDT))
:::::::::::That is the point. Stating the fact that Obama's unnecessarily destroyed the most vital relationship the United States has in the War on Terror to score short term approval ratings. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 12:38, 9 July 2011 (EDT)
Jvclark - bin Laden's death is mentioned on this page. In the lead. What more do you want?--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 11:46, 9 July 2011 (EDT)

==From the update - discussion==
===Structuring===
This is what I feel should be the general sectioning of the article - I think with an article that we have this much information on, what we mostly need to do is use "See also:" pages rather than go into major details.
{| style="width:100%"
|valign="top"|
*Early life
*U.S. Senate career (with a note on opposition to the Iraq War - which should be followed up on in the presidential primary race)
*U.S. Senate career
**Radical endorsements, support, and get out the vote efforts (better language?)
**'''Use of filibuster and obstructionism'''
**'''Voted agaist debt ceiling increase'''

*Presidential election (things to cover: experience question, jeremiah wright, PUMA)
**Primary race
**National election
|valign="top"|
*Presidency
**Domestic policy
***Popular Bills (Zadroga, lilly ledbetter fair pay act)
***Economic plan
****Stimulus plan
***Health care
***The Gulf oil spill
**Foreign policy
***Commander-in-Chief
****Iraq
****Afghanistan
****Libya/The Obama Doctine
****Don't Ask Don't Tell
|valign="top"|

*Ideology (mentioning pro-abortion stance, other things not mentioned above)
*References
*See also
*External links
|}

Rob I've bolded two section that I wonder if they should be sections alone; I do 100% agree that they should be mentioned in the text; are you set on them being sections? If so I'll yield--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 00:58, 3 May 2011 (EDT)
:Leave bold for now & let's see what develops; '''Recovery''' is ambiguous; while total output (GDP growth) has recovered, we've seen several polls just over the past week where 60-70% of respondents ''still'' think the US is in recession (despite the fact GDP growth has recovered over the past year and half). Likewise, it certainly has not been a "jobs recovery". I'd suggest this needs a better name. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 01:15, 3 May 2011 (EDT)

::I very much agree - that's a misleading section title - I think what I meant was "Proposed Recovery" - or "Recovery Plan". The latter sounds a little better to my ears. I made a few edits below - I'm gonna hold off on doing anything else till you get a chance to take a look and add things.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]]01:22, 3 May 2011 (EDT)
:::I've replaced Recovery with Stimulus, perhaps "Stimulus and budget". Also, Don't Ask Don't Tell seems a little wierd under "Wartime"; is it there solely cause it's a military subject? It could just as easily fit under Idealogy as well (I' not just trying to be argumentative....) [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 01:40, 3 May 2011 (EDT)
::::Hmm. Very true. No I think it's definitely a legitimate question. I HAD been thinking that Ideology would just cover what wasn't addressed in the prior sections (since certainly we'd discuss his economic ideology in the "Economic plan" section) - so, yes, I had just placed it under wartime solely because its a military subject. But it is probably more apropos to homosexual rights. I am worried that Ideology will become a bucket of worms, so to speak, only in that it'd be weird to just have a section for DADT under it, so then we'd have to have a super-section for "Homosexual policy", and then super-sections for everything else, making the article very long. I leave it up to you.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 01:45, 3 May 2011 (EDT)
:::::Alternatively, we can just leave it as is for now. I'm updating the [[Obama administration]] article right now, too. That one is structured , "Economic policy", "Foreign policy", etc. Wartime leader is something new. Perhaps, Commander-in-Chief? that would encompass DADT as well as ongoing military operations. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 02:08, 3 May 2011 (EDT)
::::::I like that. It's broader and works well. Nice.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 02:29, 3 May 2011 (EDT)
I took a look at the Wikipedia page on Obama - and I actually like how they organize his presidency - into Domestic policy and foreign policy. I'm going to make some changes to reflect that. I think in the long run it'll actually limit the number of sections we need--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 18:15, 4 May 2011 (EDT)

== Congratulations! ==
To the people who worked updating this article. It looks much better now.--[[User:AlejandroH|AlejandroH]] 00:43, 10 May 2011 (EDT)

== Speculation ==

In the spirit of accuracy, I think that all articles should refrain from speculative language (I thought this would be good article to start with). I understand that this is a conservative encyclopedia, but one should not overrule the other. We can still present the conservative view point that other encyclopedias overlook without veering off the path of facts. I think that President Obama has done enough to harm himself without adding inflammatory and opinion statements. This language degrades the reliability of the site. [[User:McTone|McTone]] 10:59, 23 May 2011 (EDT)McTone
:You're actually not making encyclopedic edits - for example how you're adding titles ("''President'' Obama"), which is traditionally not done. As you've now been reverted twice I think you should refrain from editing this article.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 11:35, 23 May 2011 (EDT)
:: That is encyclopaedic, as it is proper to use a person's title in reference material. However, that's not ththe only edits I've made. Most of them being removing speculative speech. Basically we should follow the rule of "if you can't cite it, don't say it."[[User:McTone|McTone]] 13:01, 23 May 2011 (EDT)McTone
:::No it's generally not. See his Wikipedia page if you don't believe. We also don't say "Mr." or "Ms."--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 12:02, 23 May 2011 (EDT)
::::Are we not better than Wikipedia? In any case, this is deferring the point I was making with this heading.[[User:McTone|McTone]] 13:01, 23 May 2011 (EDT)McTone

== Perhaps ==

I have read two cases of the word perhaps in the opening section of this article. Shouldn't assumptions like these not belong in an encyclopedia like article, especially in the opening section?- AlexMason
:The first one is arguably a wording error ... I'll consider that - the second one is more appropriate; since the event just happened we're not sure what the consequences will be, but if a potential consequence is notable enough it's probably worth stating--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 16:30, 23 May 2011 (EDT)
::I'm an underwriter at Fox News and I see stuff like this all the time. I think AlexMason is correct here (as well as the poster in the previous topic). Is this a web encyclopedia or is this an opinion site? Speculating on the outcome of events is tantamount to gossip (highly frowned upon and in fact forbidden by the standards of Conservapedia as I have read the rules and commandments). I really think this should be fixed. I noticed some edits in the history of this page and I've got to stick with Andy's last revision (reverting some of the edits of the previous editor) which kept to the less speculative nature of the article.[[User:PapaBear|PapaBear]] 21:32, 28 May 2011 (EDT)

== Obama Muslim Evidence? ==

I was going to make a post on this talk page suggesting we move the long list of evidence that Obama may be a Muslim to its own article (or an article dealing with the Obama/Islam controversy) but when I got here I saw that section had been removed, as had any mention of the words "Islam" or "Muslim". (I did a search on my browser). I could not find a reason for this on the talk page. Could someone explain why this was made? [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 22:13, 3 June 2011 (EDT)
:I rescued the content from an old revision and put it here: [[Barack Obama's Muslim Heritage]] [[User:AndyJ|AndyJ]] 22:18, 21 June 2011 (EDT)

== Obama as President ==
With the long-standing controversy about Hussein's birth certificate and the recent evidence that the one that was released is forged, I feel that there is ample evidence to conclude that Obama was born in Kenya. Because of that, I propose that we list the current holder of the office of [[President]] as [[Joe Biden]], as he would take the office if Obama were found to be unable or ineligible to serve. --[[User:AndyJ|AndyJ]] 22:29, 21 June 2011 (EDT)
:You may be misreading the story; the "Obama was born in Kenya" conspiracy theory was promoted by the White House to hide the fact that, Barack Hussein Obama's father was a [[natural born citizen]] of Kenya, and not the United States. That is the constitutional question, being that a case can be made that the Constitutional framers defined "natural born citizen" as being a citizen of the country of ''your fathers'' birth. The birth certificate, or the location of Obama Jr. birth, that is to say, the birther conspircacy the White House promoted, never had anything to do with the constitutional issue in question. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 16:27, 22 June 2011 (EDT)
::And two things, firstly, there is not ample evidence. Just conspiracy theories. Even assuming that the certificate/s released are forgeries, that alone isn't enough to prove he wasn't born in the US, it would just raise concerning questions. Secondly, Obama would remain the President. The Constitution doesn't mention what would happen if someone who was ineligible to be President became President. Hence, until impeachment or the 25th Amendment is invoked, Obama would remain President. (Presumably the 25th would be invoked, as impeachment would take a lot longer, and would require proving that Obama knew, which could be a little difficult.) - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 07:57, 18 October 2011 (EDT)

== Why is the birth certificate things still going? ==

I read a while ago (and posted in the article) an article from the National Review where even they concede that Obama was probably born in the US. [[User:CaptainSwing|CaptainSwing]] 23:43, 7 November 2011 (EST)

:Well as soon as it's verified than we can move past. Until then, we'll just pretend everything is a ok. For me, I'd still like to see every executive order, every law signed, every supreme court nominee from Obama overturned. It took three years the release of the long form certificate. I can wait another three years if need be for the proof.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 00:11, 8 November 2011 (EST)
::I don't understand, the National Review, a magazine that I admit is quite conservative, viewed the birth certificate and said it was most likely valid. I'm not sure what you're waiting for, as I don't think anyone is going to prove that Obama wasn't born in the country. [[User:CaptainSwing|CaptainSwing]] 09:59, 8 November 2011 (EST)
:::Because what they viewed was a Photoshoped work. Until the American public sees for itself exactly what is - or is not - on file in Hawaii, there will always be this unanswered question. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 11:22, 8 November 2011 (EST)
::::But it wasn't photo-shopped, that was the whole point the National Review was making: [http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/265767/pdf-layers-obamas-birth-certificate-nathan-goulding]. And honestly it makes sense, why on Earth would they go to the trouble of planting so much evidence that even the Mccain campaign declined to pursue it further, only to bungle the job on an elementary error in photoshop that any reasonable graphics designer would never make. [[User:CaptainSwing|CaptainSwing]] 12:03, 8 November 2011 (EST)
:::::It was Photoshopped, and downloading the original White House copy of it reveals all of the layers when it's run under Photoshop. Try reading all of these [http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=98546] by different reporters rather than a single National Review piece that's harping the beliefs of the "Yes We Can" crowd. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:21, 8 November 2011 (EST)
::::::So wait, you're saying that because they agree with Obama we can dismiss them? Isn't that circular reasoning? The author of the national review article posted a guide of how the mistakes could have easily come up and has no reason to lie about it. And again, let's think about this logically, they have authentic birth announcements from the relevant papers, good enough to fool the Mccain campaign, why would they botch a photoshop job? [[User:CaptainSwing|CaptainSwing]] 12:27, 8 November 2011 (EST)
:::::::And one of those mistakes that appeared on the Obama "certificate" was a sequence number that interfered with the numbers issued to a pair of twins; one of those mistakes was the "signature" of an individual which happens to be close enough to the name of a very small Hawaiian guitar; one of those mistakes is a smiley face attached to another signature; the list goes on. And until we see the real, bona-fide birth certificate, this issue is not going to go away, and we will continue to publish the current evidence as the fraud that it is. So don't worry too much about it, okay? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:44, 8 November 2011 (EST)
::::::::Does that mean to say that it should be considered a fraud until such a time as every US citizen has held and viewed the physical document? [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 16:49, 8 November 2011 (EST)
:::::::::Though this discussion is old. I will agree with this CaptainSwing person and this MaxFletcher that Obama's birth certificate issue has been dealt with, and the National Review magazine that one user mentioned is a conservative magazine. Plus you don't go to court with flimsy argument saying "hey he was born in Kenya" and demand that the defense prove all its points without the prosecution being able to present solid evidence. I see no solid evidence that proves he was born outside the United States, in our party the centre-right Austrian-born Arnold Schwarzenegger was elected Governor of California. And besides the real serious problems that people have with Obama are what he is doing as President, such as his high tax agenda for instance.--[[User:TheQuestioner|TheQuestioner]] 17:08, 3 August 2012 (EDT)

==Promises kept==
I can count how many promises Obama kept on one hand.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 13:47, 19 December 2011 (EST)

== Poverty comment in paragraph 2 of intro ==

The poverty comment isn't supported by the link at all. The link looks at from the 1950s to 2009. Obama began office in 2009, so the 14.3 percent marked at the end of the graph is a measure of the poverty at some point during 2009, and may have been taken in Bush's last month in office. It is unreasonable to conclude from the graph that poverty increased under Obama's presidency. I'll also note that the increase in poverty began, according to the graph, whilst Bush was in office. - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 00:08, 20 March 2012 (EDT)

== Better, More Objective Article at CreationWiki.org ==

There's now a better-sourced, more objective article at CreationWiki.org:

http://creationwiki.org/Barack_Obama

This article mentions virtually no biographic detail about Obama, or major controversies, including the Born Alive issue or his Chicago Politics. And the sourcing looks haphazard here. --[[User:Jzy|Jzy]] 09:52, 29 May 2012 (EDT)

Still, you guys have a 1-sentence mention of the Born Alive controversy even though it was brought up by Obama's last 4 political opponents, John McCain, Sarah Palin, Hillary Clinton, and Alan Keyes. And Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum both brought it up a few months ago as well. There's a whole article on this subject alone over at CreationWiki:

http://creationwiki.org/Obama_born_alive_controversy

You're missing the boat on the biggest controversy surrounding Obama, one that hasn't been debunked and is going to cause him a WHOLE lot of trouble. I told you guys this 2 years ago.
--[[User:Jzy|Jzy]] 10:14, 29 May 2012 (EDT)

:Thanks for the comments Jyz, the current article has been in the top 10 for nearly four years now. Most Americans are quite aware that Obama is the most pro-abortion president ever. Feel free to add to our wiki with the born-alive controversy page. In addition, you were not registered here two years ago so no wonder we didn't heed your warning.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 12:52, 29 May 2012 (EDT)

::Well, if this were just another abortion issue Obama wouldn't have a thing to worry about. This is an entirely different subject because it involves aborting children who aren't inside the mother's body but are outside the body and capable of surviving if given medical attention. We passed the federal Born Alive Infant Protection Act in 2002 making it illegal to let premature, newborn babies who survive late-term abortions get left to die without medical attention. We also passed the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act outlawing the late-term Dilation & Extraction (D&E) abortions that resulted in these live births. Nurses Jill Stanek and Allison Baker (of Christ Hospital in Oak Lawn, IL) testified before Congress in 2001 that newborn babies were being born prematurely after botched abortions in their home state of Illinois and being thrown in wastebaskets or soiled utility rooms. Stanek's moving testimony about how she held a little baby in her arms after one of these abortions and the physician refused to help keep it alive so that it died in her arms, proved especially influential.

::The entire U.S. Senate passed the Born Alive Infant Protection Act unanimously, because as Obama would put it, it was "the bill everybody supported". The Partial-Birth Abortion Act twice refers to the practice in federal law as "infanticide". It's a legal, technical term referring to what U.S. law now considers murder of newborn children. Stanek also testified before the Illinois Senate at the time, where Obama was leading a Planned Parenthood movement to vote down numerous Born Alive bills and cover up this fact from Illinois citizens using "present votes". Normally pro-choice Democrats like Barbara Boxer, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, and Ted Kennedy all voted for the Born Alive Infant Protection Act. Hillary Clinton herself brought up Obama's voting record on this in 2008 to criticize him over. So like I said, if this were just a Pro-Life vs. Pro-Choice issue it wouldn't be controversial. I'm not talking about abortion here. I'm talking about infanticide, and opposition to medical care for newborn infants. I'm talking about Obama's opposition to a bill that had over 90% public support, unlike typical Pro-Life bills. --[[User:Jzy|Jzy]] 02:18, 4 June 2012 (EDT)

:::I'm going to incorporate some of my writing and sourcing from that article to this one, and edit boldly. If anyone has any objections to any material please state them. However, I believe I've sourced everything so solidly it should be unobjectionable. --[[User:Jzyehoshua|Jzyehoshua]] 22:03, 20 July 2012 (EDT)

== Last Change ==

The protests weren't peaceful, but they were really violent, to date there's no proof that Muammar Gaddafi had took any violent action against civilians, but there are proof and reports from Amnesty International, Human rights watch, Russian intelligence which denies any of the rumors and falsely alleged crime.

Here's one source where US defense secretary Robert Gates and Navy Admiral Michael Mullen tells about whole thing, :-

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL1110/S00144/un-silent-despite-no-basis-for-natos-illegal-war-on-libya.htm

Thanks. [[User:Regular|Regular]] 11:10, 14 June 2012 (EDT)

== Changes, Detailed ==

I made the following changes, merging an article I wrote on Obama for CreationWiki with this one:

http://creationwiki.org/Barack_Obama

The diff for the changes can be seen here:

http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Barack_Hussein_Obama&action=historysubmit&diff=994904&oldid=994689

I left the Lede intact.

* Birth: I removed an opening sentence about Obama eating dog meat. It looks really silly there, starting off the section. Maybe the article could be linked somewhere else but it looks really bad starting off the page like that.
* Early Life: I included a whole new section on his early life and family and removed some unsourced claims that he was the antichrist and will be instating police rule (which either way doesn't fit the section). If it's going to be put anywhere in the article an appropriate subsection should be created for it, and some sourcing provided - neither of which was the case before.
* Personal Life: I added a whole new section on his marriage to Michelle Obama, children, and church.
* Education: I added a new section on education. Some of it was alluded to earlier but didn't have sources, my material does.
* Non-Political Employment: Whole new section, a LOT of detail about his employment history here.
* Personal Awards: The Nobel controversy mentioned in this new section.
* 1991-1992, Project Vote: His time as a community organizer, new section.
* 1996 Election: I added an entirely new section on how Obama knocked candidates off the ballot.
* 2003 Emil Jones Deal: Whole new section on how Obama struck a deal with Emil Jones to get appointed legislation for other Illinois Senators to advance his political career.
* 2004 Primary Election: Completely new section on how the Illinois media knocked off Obama's first opponent.
* 2004 General Election, Jack Ryan: Completely new section on how the Illinois media knocked off Jack Ryan afterwards through the same tricks.
* 2004 General Election, Alan Keyes: Completely new section highlighting the Born Alive controversy surrounding Obama.
* 2008 Presidential Election: I preserved what little detail there was and merged it in but otherwise everything here is new.
* 2009-2012, U.S. Presidency: I added new sections on the Stimulus and Iraq troop withdrawal. What little info there was about the withdrawal I preserved and merged in.

--[[User:Jzyehoshua|Jzyehoshua]] 23:15, 20 July 2012 (EDT)

=== Deletions ===

I figure it's best to mention any deletions made.

- I deleted the following from the end of the Lede:
{{cquote|Later Obama apologized. When Obama visited [[England]] in 2011, he signed his name and added the date of "2008" -- the last time he won an election. He never explaned that one. When Obama read a speech from a teleprompter, as he almost always does, he repeatedly mispronounced the familiar military term of "corpsman" by sounding out the "p".}}
I removed it because (A) it had no sourcing provided, (B) it showed signs of poor grammar (misspelled "explained"), (C) used weasel words/phrases (almost always does), and perhaps most importantly, (D) it's not even especially relevant. I mean, who cares if he mispronounced the word "corpsman"? How many Americans even would pronounce it right? Maybe that could merit a footnote somewhere on the page, but in the Lede? Really??? I try to preserve as much of the page as possible, but I really think those sentences made the rest of the page look bad. --[[User:Jzyehoshua|Jzyehoshua]] 15:45, 21 July 2012 (EDT)
:Having those sentences there in the Lede gives the impression the whole page is going to be about nitpicking over Obama's grammar, and I really don't think that's the impression Conservapedia wants to give. I'd like to think the Lede would show evidence Obama will be fairly and accurately criticized, not with poorly written and unsourced claims that he mispronounced a word most Americans wouldn't pronounce right anyway. --[[User:Jzyehoshua|Jzyehoshua]] 15:49, 21 July 2012 (EDT)

-I deleted the "Retrieved from 对当代托洛茨基主义的批判：英文论集百花齐放 - 中国文革研究网, March 15, 2010." part of this footnote:
{{cquote|[[File:O-2002-antiwar-rally-davidson.jpg|right|thumb|250px| Obama speaking at the October 2002 rally in Chicago organized by [[Carl Davidson]].<ref>Davidson is a longtime [[Mao]]ist and champion of the ''Thought of Mao Tse Tung.'' Davidson's anti-Trotskyite polemic, [http://www.wengewang.org/read.php?tid=10925 ''Left in Form, Right in Essence''] defends Maoist doctrine. Retrieved from 对当代托洛茨基主义的批判：英文论集百花齐放 - 中国文革研究网, March 15, 2010.</ref> ''"[H]e is a brutal man who butchers his own people,"'' nevertheless Obama opposed ''"dumb wars".'']]}}
I think this should all be in English. It might belong on a Chinese page for Conservapedia, the alternate language translations, but I don't think so here. Hopefully someone can find an alternate reference for this, but it looks bad at the bottom of the page in footnotes like that, and since it can't be understood doesn't serve any real purpose. --[[User:Jzyehoshua|Jzyehoshua]] 21:39, 21 July 2012 (EDT)

== New Section On ACORN/New Party Ties ==

Alright, I just removed the following sentence from the 1996 section:
{{cquote|In 1995 Obama openly sought and obtained the endorsement of the [[Marxist]] [[New Party]] in his quest to be elected to the Illinois State Senate.<ref>[http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=7434 NEW PARTY (NP)], discoverthenetwork.org.</ref><ref>Rick Moran. [http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/06/obamas_alliance_with_marxists.html Obama's Alliance with Marxists], ''American Thinker'', June 03, 2008.</ref>}}

I made a new section on this at the end of the article. Frankly, I just wanted to remove the section from the 1996 section because it makes the whole thing look bad. I don't really care about his New Party or ACORN affiliations but I know many conservatives care about them, so I didn't want to delete the sentence and wanted to see if I could move it somewhere else, and maybe provide some more detail to give it a small subsection somewhere. I didn't think much of the sources it had so I figured I'd see if I could find any decent sourcing and information for it. In the process, I found out it had articles relating to it at National Review, Politico, and by Billy Hallowell (a FOX News contributor), plus had been addressed by Obama's "Fight the Smears" campaign and David Axelrod. Plus it's still relevant in 2012.

So I wrote it a new section, because I just follow sources and newsworthiness, and it is does appear to have some prominence. I tried to provide sources and perspective from both sides, and provide all the facts, so it won't just be a one-sided claim. Anyway, that's why I detailed it out more. Like I said, I don't really care about the claim myself, but it is newsworthy and a cause for concern among some conservatives, so I figured I might as well write it a section - and get it out of the 1996 one :) --[[User:Jzyehoshua|Jzyehoshua]] 23:21, 21 July 2012 (EDT)

:For me, the big issue surrounding Obama has always been his voting record against the Born Alive bills, and repeated lying attempts to cover this up. That he's gone to such lengths to prevent newborn babies from being given medical attention and then lie about having done so, has always struck me as reprehensible. His political corruption and constant lies are also disgusting. I just want people to know about these things. But his Marxism and ACORN stuff? Not really an issue for me. I just wrote this because I know it's a cause for concern to other conservatives, so I made sure the facts are presented on it. --[[User:Jzyehoshua|Jzyehoshua]] 23:37, 21 July 2012 (EDT)

:And mainly I didn't want that sentence in the 1996 section, by the way, because it's still highly controversial. I don't like starting off an otherwise credible section with undeniable sources with a claim that is still under investigation. Maybe this stuff on the New Party will hold up - those minutes will be strong evidence if Kurtz is right about them. But right now the sourcing for it isn't as strong as I'd like, even if it is newsworthy. And I'd prefer the 1996 section stick to strongly proven facts. That he knocked off all his opponents using a team of lawyers is well sourced by the Chicago Tribune, CBS News, CNN, New York Times, etc. The stuff about the New Party had two lesser-known sources and while it has better sourcing now, it's still an ongoing issue, which is why I think it's more relevant in a 2012 section than 1996. --[[User:Jzyehoshua|Jzyehoshua]] 23:51, 21 July 2012 (EDT)

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

== Conspiracy theory that Obama is not born in the US is by crazy lunatic fringe right-wing people who don't represent the mainstream right, it is just like crazy lunatic fringe left-wing conspiracy theories on JFK being killed by the CIA and not J. Harvey Oswald or 9-11 truthers ==

Regardless of criticisms and condemnations by mainstream conservatives of Obama's policies, these claims that he is a foreign-born citizen have been disproven and mainstream conservatives accept that he is an American citizen. Theories that he was born outside the USA are lunatic fringe conspiracy theories - and I don't care whether they are right-wing - their ideas have been disproven just like the crazy 9-11 truther conspiracy theories and JFK conspiracy theories by lunatic fringe left-wing people. Why is there such focus on conspiracy theories on where Obama is born in the intro, rather than focus in the intro on Obama's policies and conservative criticisms of Obama's policies?--[[User:TheQuestioner|TheQuestioner]] 12:31, 3 August 2012 (EDT)

:Thank God you registered here to set the record straight. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 12:34, 3 August 2012 (EDT)

::What do you mean?--[[User:TheQuestioner|TheQuestioner]] 12:36, 3 August 2012 (EDT)

== Title of article ==

The middle name should be removed as the name of the article. The middle name of other figures is not in the title in other articles. [[User:AcomaMagic|AcomaMagic]] 15:17, 18 August 2012 (EDT)
:[[Ronald Wilson Reagan]]?? --[[User:JamesWilson|James Wilson]] 05:16, 4 September 2012 (EDT)
::That looks like a rarity. All the other biography pages that I've seen use the most common name. The middle name of Reagan should be removed as the title too. [[User:AcomaMagic|AcomaMagic]] 08:08, 9 September 2012 (EDT)

== Teleprompter at school ==

It is a false rumor, based on photoshopped photos, that Obama had teleprompters set up for a speech to a middle school class. He spoke to the class without teleprompters, then went to another classroom, where he spoke to the ''media'' using a teleprompter. Surely there are enough things to criticize without distorting the truth? [http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/photos/6thgrade.asp] [[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 10:39, 2 September 2012 (EDT)
:This is a little shaky as a criticism I suppose. With his voting record on the Born Alive bills and political corruption, there's an awful lot that can be criticized about him. That he uses teleprompters so often is a valid criticism of him, but the teleprompters in classrooms one needs to be carefully presented in context, as pointed out by Sharon. --[[User:JZambrano|Joshua Zambrano]] 08:56, 4 September 2012 (EDT)

== "may have had a prior marriage" ==

This appears in the information box - I assume its about Obama rather than his wife - but is not explained in the main article, let alone supported with any references. As a Brit, this is completely new to me. Can anyone develop this further? [[User:Rafael|Rafael]] 17:54, 10 September 2012 (EDT)

== Accusations about birth certificate and cultural and name identity ==

I would like to move this section back to the section about Obama's birth, and weave it back into the relevant section instead of having it tagged on to the end of the article. None of the edits will change the argument at all. [[User:MattyD|MattyD]] 12:40, 16 September 2012 (EDT)
:JPatt, the edits I made REMOVED fluff and apologies. Can you please point to specific passages where you think the argument was softened? [[User:MattyD|MattyD]] 12:57, 16 September 2012 (EDT)
::No--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 13:01, 16 September 2012 (EDT)
:::Why not? My edits REMOVE a lot of the fluff. Where is the problem? [[User:MattyD|MattyD]] 13:03, 16 September 2012 (EDT)

==Page has too many kbs==
This age is ''WAY'' too heavy for updating the Intro and I can't wait 2 hours to make these minor changes. Can someone who actually cares please add,
* the U.S. Government's credit rating, for the first time in its history, was downgraded, and [[poverty]]<ref>[http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/data/incpovhlth/2009/pov09fig04.pdf Figure 4: Number in Poverty and Poverty Rate: 1959-2009]. ''U.S. Census Bureau''. Current Population Survey, 1960 to 2010 Annual Social and Economic Supplements.</ref> increased markedly every year.<ref>[http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-201_162-20105376.html Poverty continues to rise in U.S., now 15.1%], CBS News.</ref>
I realize I am penalized 9 mainspace edits for asking for this help, but some, if not much of the Intro citations are two years out of date. [[User:OscarO|OscarO]] 11:38, 29 September 2012 (EDT)

== Country of birth ==

He released his long-form birth certificate, so what evidence is there that he was born in Kenya? [[User:Nightsky|Nightsky]] 15:43, 8 October 2012 (EDT)

*I think at this point the question might better be, "Why do we care at this point?" Obama's almost certainly going to be defeated by Romney, since Romney is better-suited to handle the currently-relevant economic issues (and boy howdy do we ever need someone like that in the Oval Office right now!) Seriously, he's got a little bit more than a month before the election in November, and at this point if his country of birth was conclusively proven to be Kenya it really wouldn't make all that much difference. It's an interesting academic question, but at this point it's irrelevant to the practical situation. [[User:JGrant|JGrant]] 17:17, 8 October 2012 (EDT)

::In response to Nightsky, the document released by the White House as the Obama long form birth certificate was proven to be an item created via Photoshop; it is in individual layers grouped together, and ''not'' a .jpeg or .PNG image one would expect had they simply scanned the actual item.
::In response to JGrant, yes we should care. Obama has a past association with communists and radicals; he has fought to prevent this part of his history from being revealed to the public; this includes that birth certificate. Why would he hide something as innocuous and mundane as a birth certificate, ''unless there was information on it that he does not want revealed?'' If it's a Kenyan goat herder who had no part in politics whatsoever, then why spend millions just to keep that man's name from the public? I happen to think it's another man's name, and it's something that's part and parcel to his current belief system and his political associations, past and present: the communist radical [[Frank Marshall Davis]]. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 17:46, 8 October 2012 (EDT)
:::Are there any reliable sources for this proof? It's just that if it was proven or suspected, it would be a major news story and there would be a constitutional crisis and I'm surprised I haven't heard about it. [[User:Nightsky|Nightsky]] 18:09, 8 October 2012 (EDT)
::::What is needed is for the actual birth certificate to be seen in public and examined by impartial investigators. News items are here: [http://www.wnd.com/?s=frank+marshall+davis]
:::::They aren't reliable sources and I'm not even sure they can be counted as a news item. For a claim that the birth certificate has been proven to be false, I expect a media frenzy and a vote of no confidence in Congress. [[User:Nightsky|Nightsky]] 18:47, 8 October 2012 (EDT)

Talk:Barack Hussein Obama

2012-10-08T22:09:37Z

Nightsky: /* Country of birth */ reply

[[File:Brainreboot20110429.jpg|400px|thumb|]]

{{articletalkheader|prefix=archive}}
 

==Rense==
Jeff Rense may not be a such a good source. The Anti-Defamation League accuses him of promoting anti-Semitic views and 9/11 Conspiracy theories. OTOH, what is wrong with a Pravda article written in the post Soviet-censorship era when democratic Russia hungars to exercise a free press, open discussion and discernment of facts? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 22:39, 23 January 2010 (EST)

:See my talk page, Rob. I never noticed who added the Pravda cite, so if you say so, it is of course fine with me, and please add it back if you haven't already! I now suspect it was yet another vandal site troll stirring the pot, so feel free to deal with him as well. --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 17:02, 24 January 2010 (EST)

== Terror Attacks ==
I have an issue with a claim made in the second paragraph. ''Since abandoning the "War on Terror" in Obama's first year, the United States has suffered more terrorist attacks with deadly intent on American soil than in the previous eight years combined.'' Since Obama replaced the 'Global War on Terror' with 'Overseas Contingency Operation', there have been only four domestic terrorist attacks, a far cry from the 19 that took place under Bush's tenure. This sentence should be reworded or removed in its entirety; it only makes the article look embarrassing. --[[User:MichaelJB|MichaelJB]] 15:46, 25 January 2010 (EST)

:More [[liberal]] poppycock, Michael? Even the New York Times counts more, excluding 9/11, under Obama. Perhaps you should consider sources other than the Kos? --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 19:29, 25 January 2010 (EST)

::A short time ago you gave me grief for making assumptions, yet here you are doing the same. I didn't get any information from Kos, it all came from legitimate news sources. Do you really believe that more terror attacks occurred on US soil from March 2009 to January 2010 than in the eight years of the Bush administration? I would really like to see all your references for making such a bold claim. And why would you want to exclude the WTC/Pentagon attacks?
::Some people have been making some really stupid claims lately about domestic terror. Dana Perino and Rudy Guiliani both claimed there was not a terror attack on the US when Bush was in office. The fact that these people could make such stupidly partisan claims is incredible. [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4kpfhGxJbLc] [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2tYoMoJHNDs] The claim made in this article reeks of the same idiocy of Perino and Guiliani, why not delete the sentence or at least make it factual? --[[User:MichaelJB|MichaelJB]] 20:23, 25 January 2010 (EST)

:::The facts are undeniable that America was totally unprepared to protect itself from terrorist homeland attacks as Bush entered office, due to the total lack of focus of the Clinton Administration and Congress on the issue. Bush can in no way be blamed for the 9/11 attacks with any real credibility.

:::As I have stated many times before, as Mr. Schlafly has stated many times before, as several other Admins have as well, coming here to argue-without-end against our conservative point of view in all articles you come across, is silly. If you and others cannot bring yourselves to accept alternative points of view, so be it. If you want a place to argue against conservatism in general, make your own site or try the Kos or HuffPo; but CP isn't a debate forum, it is a conservative encyclopedia ''project''. Article talk pages are for suggesting ways to improve articles from a conservative point of view, not a liberal one. Is that a clear enough statement? --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 21:29, 25 January 2010 (EST)

::::TK: The change you made is completely unacceptable from a moral and ethical standpoint because instead of correcting an error, you are now highlighting a lie. Three terror attacks occurred during Pres. Bush's last year in office. I sent you links to all three events but you are willing to over look such trivial matters as the truth. It's funny that a liberal who has been blocked twice for pointing out errors and outright falsehoods is vilified as a trouble-maker while the conservatives that knowingly mislead and lie are in charge of an alleged 'trustworthy encyclopedia'.
::::I'm trying to make these changes because I don't want Americans to look stupid, even the conservative ones. It's an uphill battle.

::::Gunman killed two people in a church. [http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-07-29-church-shooting_N.htm]
::::Suicide bomber attacked a Georgia law firm. [http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/ga_law_firm_explodes_causing_multiple_injuries/]
::::Two police officers were killed by a bomb placed in a bank. [http://www.odmp.org/officer/19697-captain-thomas-paul-tennant]
::::--[[User:MichaelJB|MichaelJB]] 01:25, 29 January 2010 (EST)

MichaelJB you cannot tell the difference between Muslim terrorists and someone with an ax to grind? Godspeed! --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 06:36, 29 January 2010 (EST)v
:So Michael's point is that progressive liberal leftwing commie socialist (or whatever the flavor of the week) Prof. [[Amy Bishop]] conducted a domestic overseas contingency operation attack. It's beginning to make sense. How would we classify the guy who crashed the plane into the IRS building in Houston, a tax protester who railed against corporations. Dang, this is a tuff one.... [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 08:13, 12 March 2010 (EST)

== Middle name in article title? ==

----

::::<big>'''Unless you have some brilliant new argument to add to this section, further discussion is unneeded.</big>'''

----

It strikes to me odd that the title of the article is Barach Hussein Obama. While there is nothing wrong with that by itself, looking at the [[President_of_the_United_States_of_America#Presidents_list|list of all the U.S. presidents]], it seems that all the other presidents' articles are titled either without their middle name, or just a middle initial. Wouldn't it make sense to rename the article to either Barack Obama or Barack H. Obama to follow suit? [[User:Kayvan|Kayvan]] 18:19, 26 February 2010 (EST)
:There is a big difference between Walker or Jefferson and Hussein. My two cents. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 18:22, 26 February 2010 (EST)
::What about [[Ronald Wilson Reagan]]? [[User:DMorris|DMorris]] 18:26, 26 February 2010 (EST)
:::This topic had been discussed before. He decided to be inaugurated with his middle name after not using it during the campaign. He is not ashamed of it and we are not ashamed to include it.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 18:29, 26 February 2010 (EST)
::::Ah, I see. Looking at some lists though ([http://www.ipl.org/div/potus/] and [http://www.apples4theteacher.com/holidays/presidents-day/past-presidents-of-usa.html]), it seems that many presidents were also inaugurated in a similar fashion. [[User:Kayvan|Kayvan]] 18:33, 26 February 2010 (EST)

::: I think that, as all encyclopedias and scholarly works try to do, we should try to decide on a particular set of rules and always follow it. In this case, these are the options:
:::1) Always cite the full name in the title, so "Barack Hussein Obama", "George Herbert Walker Bush" and "Ronald Wilson Reagan";
:::2) Always use initials for middle names, so "Barack H. Obama", "George H.W. Bush" and "Ronald W. Reagan";
:::3) Use the names in the way they most commonly used, using middle name initials only where they are necessary to distinguish one particular individual from another, therefore "Barack Obama", "George H.W. Bush" and "Ronald Reagan".

::: We are talking about titles of articles; the full name should always be cited in the body of the article. Personally, I would vote for solution n.3. --[[User:Maquissar|Maquissar]] 18:34, 26 February 2010 (EST)
::::I like the idea. Either 2 or 3 seem best in my opinion; full names seem a bit to long for article titles. The name that the president was inaugurated with isn't bad either, but it would seem less formal, as some have middle names and others don't. [[User:Kayvan|Kayvan]] 18:38, 26 February 2010 (EST)

:::: I thought about that solution, but then I thought that we should better set very general rules; by this I mean that we should decide how to title page names referring to INDIVIDUALS, not to US PRESIDENTS. Deciding that "the name that the president was inaugurated with" is a rule that, naturally, can only be applied to presidents. --[[User:Maquissar|Maquissar]] 18:41, 26 February 2010 (EST)

:::: Another good rule would be to use the name that is mostly used to refer to that individual; this has the disadvantage of not being objective, but it is also the most effective. So "Barack Obama", "George H.W. Bush" (to distinguish him from his son), "Ronald Reagan", "Eminem" instead of "Marshall Mathers", "O.J. Simpson" instead of "Orenthal J. Simpson"... --[[User:Maquissar|Maquissar]] 18:56, 26 February 2010 (EST)

There isn't any vote here, nor was one asked for. Since Obama tries to soft-pedal his Muslim roots and associations, our editorial policy is to call attention to that ''fact''. In addition you should note the [[Ronald Wilson Reagan|Reagan]] article, where well before anyone had an inkling Obama would run for President, Conservapedia used his full name, ''Ronald Wilson Reagan'' which Reagan himself preferred for formal use. So I submit President Obama isn't being singled out, contrary to the insistence of silly-minded liberals. --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 19:06, 26 February 2010 (EST)

:But why call attention to that ''fact'' in the title of the article? The ''fact'' is never going to be denied. The introduction sentence would still say "Barack Hussein Obama". Italicize his middle name in the introduction or change the font color to bring out the ''fact'' if you wish. What I am trying to point at is, why should his middle name be used in the article title? Reagan may have preferred it for formal use, but does Mr. Obama say that same? He is commonly known as Barack Obama; I haven't seen it used in any other way (except Obama, of course). If he is commonly known as that, it would make sense to title the article like that, as should every article on people. [[User:Kayvan|Kayvan]] 21:05, 26 February 2010 (EST)
::Richard Milhous Nixon was commonly refered to as [[Milhous]] by his detracters. Indeed, googling milhouse brings up hundreds of thousands of hits on Nixon that dwarf most all other uses of the name. Now, googling [[Hussein]] presents a host of other problems. The [[Heshamite Dynasty]] of [[Hussein bin Ali]] had been the Islamic Keeper of the Holy places for 700 years until Western British Imperialist interests unseated them and installed the Saudi ruling clan thier place (visualize Islamists dethroning the Pope and installing thier own choice as successor). How does it look when Hussein bin Ali's namesake bows to tne Saudi puppet? Why not focus on how Obama ''is'' bringing real change to the whole planet, rather than argue about how things have traditionally been done? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 13:14, 27 February 2010 (EST)
Drop it. Further discussion is last-wordism. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 21:14, 26 February 2010 (EST)

:On the question of "''all the other presidents' articles are titled either without their middle name, or just a middle initial. Wouldn't it make sense ...to follow suit? ''"
:You will recall Barack Hussein Obama is the transformational president of change. Wouldn't it make sense to begin change right here, with his name? (assuming that is his name). [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 23:54, 26 February 2010 (EST)

<nowiki>:</nowiki>D 
--<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 01:58, 27 February 2010 (EST)

Pretty slick conservative trap there TK. despite the fact that you neglected to answer some massive holes in the arguments above, you declare the debate "ended" (even though its not) then decry anything else as last wordism to stifle any further debate. well done--[[User:DerikJ|DerikJ]] 11:58, 27 February 2010 (EST)
:What holes? We're implementing change. Let's find common ground and compromise. We've done just that. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 12:35, 27 February 2010 (EST)
::I like your comment on change, Rob, it made me laugh :) Anyway, I don't see how an argument that Obama's slogan being "change" is any reason to title his article to what he is less commonly known as/less traditional. It's pushing it, in a sense. Besides, being a conservative, I would think that you wouldn't want to follow Obama's way of thinking ;) [[User:Kayvan|Kayvan]] 13:40, 27 February 2010 (EST)
:::Conservatives are for change, both economic and social. They want to change tax law and abortion rulings, for example. Above all, change public education. Being anti-change is just a vulgar stereotype held by closeminded and intolerant people. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 14:09, 27 February 2010 (EST)
::::I can agree with that. But ''why'' "change" how Obama's article is titled when others are titled either without their middle name or with their middle name if they are commonly known and identified by the name, in some cases. Simply changing something doesn't necessarily mean it's a good thing, there has to be reason, and the reason has to be, well, reasonable. [[User:Kayvan|Kayvan]] 14:44, 27 February 2010 (EST)
:::::Call it the price of progress. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 15:17, 27 February 2010 (EST)
::::::In that case, would changing the titles of all the other peoples' articles to include their middle names sound all right to you? It would be progress, after all. [[User:Kayvan|Kayvan]] 17:29, 27 February 2010 (EST)
I have always wondered why the Obamabots get so upset with the name Obama's parents chose. Pretty silly. --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 16:40, 27 February 2010 (EST)

:I actually like the name, it has a nice ring to it. It's more of just keeping a solid style of titling pages, a format if you want to call it that. [[User:Kayvan|Kayvan]] 17:29, 27 February 2010 (EST)
::Which brings us to the question of Barry Soetero. If Obama went by this name, then he may have lied to the Illinois Supreme Court when asked to provide former names, according to this Attorney’s Registration Record. [http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2061988/posts] I'm not the sure what the resolution of this issue ever was, and we don't have a word about it in this article. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 17:49, 27 February 2010 (EST)

I know I am new here but there really needs to be a consensus amongst all Presidential and Vice President articles, actually this should probably extend to all US politicians. I know there is a specified conservative bias, however the lack organization and consensus has nothing to do with liberal or conservative bias, it has to do with disorganization and lazyiness by the admins.

If you want to leave the middle, that is fine, however, there would need to be a quick modification of all or the majority of the US Politian article so as not to look so disorganized.[[User:Solarguy17|Solarguy17]] 01:01, 10 March 2010 (EST)

:You hit the nail on the head. You are new here. Don't come in criticizing and such off the bat. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 01:12, 10 March 2010 (EST)

My criticization is to help the article(s) to be better as a whole. None of the above discussion explains the reasoning for leaving it as is. Just people saying he used it in his inauguration so we use it here, however, almost every pres does this so why not have it that way for everyone????[[User:Solarguy17|Solarguy17]] 01:15, 10 March 2010 (EST)

Not really discussion just more of a question. I just recently found this site and was looking through the religious articles and for the most part they seemed pretty good. However, when I come to the political articles, some of them seem a little crazy. I know it is to call more attention to the things that are being overlooked by the media. But I have ask about the middle name thing.

I read all of the information above and I still am not sure why it was decided to leave it as is. Can someone clarify this?
Please don't ban me, I noticed that basically everyone with discussion in this thread that isn't an admin now has banned accounts. I personally don't care, I am just confused. [[User:StevenS|StevenS]] 01:12, 12 March 2010 (EST)

: As it says up at the top of this section, "Unless you have some brilliant new argument to add to this section, further discussion is unneeded." If you do have one, let's have it. But it sure seems like everyone who signs up to this site and immediately starts complaining has nothing new to say at all. Why don't you spend some time reading here with an open mind first, and complain later? [[User:DanielPulido|DanielPulido]] 01:20, 12 March 2010 (EST)

Now, why would a single individual come here under several different user names all in an effort to get the word "Hussein" removed from the title of this article? It makes no sense at all unless that individual has a personal agenda to perform. The article title stays as it is. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 01:42, 12 March 2010 (EST)

:My only concern is that the title seems to exist in its current state for no purpose other than to further a bias. The arguments that "well he asked for it" seem to suggest that accuracy and fairness are non-valuable in this wiki. I sincerely hope this is not the case and that I may not be banned and able to start a fun future in helping this wiki grow in the impressive way it has so far. [[User:Vidihawk|Vidihawk]] 07:47, 6 April 2010 (EDT)

::'''"Unless you have some brilliant new argument to add to this section, further discussion is unneeded."'''
I guess you missed the bold title at the top of this section? Also, see [[Ronald Wilson Reagan]] to see how silly your argument is. --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 08:16, 6 April 2010 (EDT)
:I guess it wasn't as bright an idea as I had hoped. Heh... It still comes off as somewhat purposeful, though. Okie, I'll back away! - [[User:Vidihawk|Vidihawk]] 08:24, 6 April 2010 (EDT)
::Purposeful, as in done with the same horribly malevolent intent as ''my'' adding Reagan's middle name several years ago? You are giving away your intent in advance, good sir, by refusing to admit your already formed assumptions about us are wrong. I hope you prove me wrong, and turn out to be that rare U.K. denizen that turns out to be open-minded and as fair to us as you wish us to be to you. There have been precious few. And please do check out our editors guide and all of that. We differ quite a bit from Wikipedia. --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 08:33, 6 April 2010 (EDT)
:::::I think we should keep the current title of the article. Furthermore, I think we should replace the top picture, which is currently a picture of Obama, with a picture of an oil drenched pelican (and a new caption) as a tribute to Obama's indifference, sloth and incompetence. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 20:36, 16 June 2010 (EDT)

== I moved the material dealing with the present to the top ==

I moved the material dealing with the present to the top as I thought readers would be more interested in how Obama is screwing up the present. For example, I think Americans right now are very concerned about how Obama is screwing up the economy. Of course, he is also doing a poor job in other areas presently as well such as holding terrorists court cases in civilian courts, etc. etc. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 04:30, 15 March 2010 (EDT)

:That makes sense to me. I do appreciate letting me try the other timeline structure. However, I didn't really take into consideration the fact that because he is a high profile individual it may benefit readers to see more recent info before his earlier biography facts. At least while he's fulfilling his one failed term as president, your structure makes sense to me. [[User:DerekE|DerekE]] 12:42, 15 March 2010 (EDT)

::As the ==Maoism== section is being being built, we may eventually be able to free up space from the sections on the Ayers/Dohrn relationship by moving some of that material to Ayers own page, and/or creating a new separate page documenting Obama's rise with communist and terrorist assistance. An acceptable title for that page would be needed. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 13:23, 15 March 2010 (EDT)

==Citation==

"Any orders he gives to the American military are subject to being refused. Orders that Obama gives to America’s Joint Chiefs of Staff of the military can be refused." --http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/columnists/19-01-2009/106972-Barry_Soetoro-0

Do we really want to cite an article that makes this claim? Do any of us really support this opinion, or if we do, do we support the use of opinion articles as sources in addition to factual ones? --[[User:BenjaminS|Ben]] [[User Talk:BenjaminS|Talk]] 08:42, 6 April 2010 (EDT)

:Is the opinion piece backed by valid and factual citations from the United States Code, Ben, as opposed to a unsupported rant? --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 08:47, 6 April 2010 (EDT)

== pronunciation of "Pakistan" ==

This is really considered evidence of anything? I've heard [[Mark Levin]] use the Spanish-inflected pronunciation of Sonia Sotomayor's name (''so tow my OR'' rather than ''so tow MY er''), but nobody would claim that proves he's Catholic or Hispanic. [[User:Golgaronok|Golgaronok]] 23:55, 9 April 2010 (EDT)
:Pronunciation shows an enormous amount about someone's views and history. Obama doesn't use the American pronunciation, and this is telling, since ''no one else in the public sphere'' pronounces it in the muslim way ''but'' Obama. [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 00:15, 10 April 2010 (EDT)
[[David Petraeus]] does [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vtCLp7siY7I]. [[User:Golgaronok|Golgaronok]] 00:50, 10 April 2010 (EDT)
And [http://www.forvo.com/word/pakistan/ numerous other languages] use a pronunciation closer to the native form. [[User:Golgaronok|Golgaronok]] 00:57, 10 April 2010 (EDT)

::"Golgaronok" (if that is your name), your quibbles with the entry have already been argued ad nauseum, [http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Barack_Hussein_Obama/archive4#.22Pokiston.22.3F.3F.3F.3F.3F here], for instance. If you've only come to argue on talk pages, you're wasting your own time. Try making substantive contributions to the project; excessive talk is disfavored here. [[User:DanielPulido|DanielPulido]] 01:04, 10 April 2010 (EDT)
I don't see any responses to the points I raised. But it's y'all's funeral. [[User:Golgaronok|Golgaronok]] 01:13, 10 April 2010 (EDT)
:::Kind of interesting that Davis Petraeus was mentioned here. When that general was ordered to command US forces in Afghanistan and Iraq, the liberal elites decided that his name should be pronounced "BETRAY US". [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 01:29, 10 April 2010 (EDT)

==Barry Soetoro = birth name?==
This may have already been discussed, so forgive me if this has been settled. I noticed that the article says ''"Barack Hussein Obama II (birth name Barry Soetoro..."'', however the articles cited do not support the idea that "Barry Soetoro" is Obama's birth name, in fact quite the opposite. My understanding, from reading the Newsweek article, is that "Barack" is his birth name, although he went by "Barry" when he was younger. His father's name, as I understand it, is Barack Hussein Obama, and he was named after his father. "Seotoro", if I remember right, was his stepfather's last name, so it is unlikely that it would have been part of Obama's birth name. To be clear, I do realize that he spent his younger years being known as "Barry Soetoro", and I think that should be included in the article, I just don't think it was actually his birth name. 
Please understand that I am not as knowledgeable in this kind of thing as many other contributors here, so I may have gotten it all wrong - that's why I didn't attempt to edit the article. Please correct me if I have gotten it wrong - I won't be offended and I am curious as to the truth of the matter. [[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 18:11, 1 May 2010 (EDT)

According to the citation that shows the birth certificate, the birth name is, in fact, Barack Hussein Obama II, NOT Barry Soetoro. Also, because there is an actual document, i.e. physical, demonstrable proof, the word "allegedly" should be removed.

== Remove name repetition? ==

Would anyone mind if I removed some of the repetition of Obama's name in certain portions of the article? For example, in this paragraph:
{{cquote|
[[Barack Obama and uncharitableness|Barack Obama's recent pattern of charitable giving]] and [[Barack Obama and liberal elitism|Barack Obama's liberal elitism]] is consistent with Obama being a [[Narcissism|narcissist]] which is a charge that has often been made against Barack Obama. However, it is also true that Barack Obama is an [[evolution|evolutionist]]. Barack Obama told the ''York Daily Record'' that "I believe in [[evolution]]...". Barack Obama's recent pattern of charitable giving and liberal elitism is also in accordance with someone who has a certain degree of [[Social Darwinism|social darwinistic]] thinking. In addition to [[Liberals and uncharitableness|American liberals giving less to charity]], it is also true that [[Theory of evolution and liberalism|American liberals are also more likely to believe in evolution]].
}}

I think I could alter it to make it more readable with "Obama's recent pattern of charitable giving and liberal elitism is consistent with that of a narcissist, a charge that has often been made against him."

And so forth. In my linguistics class, we talked about semantic satiation, and I believe that paragraphs like these, along with the fact that it never seems to use pronouns, somewhat diminish the readability of the article. If I were to make this change, I would preserve every wikilink, reference, etc, but I believe it would become more readable. In Christ, [[User:Tzoran|Tyler Zoran]] [[User talk:Tzoran|Talk]] 09:09, 6 May 2010 (EDT)

== Insults? ==

Does the entire beginning of the article have to be so laden with insults? Couldnt it simply say what the article will be about, and THEN express views? As it is it appears very unprofessional. 19:11, 6 May 2010 (EDT)
:We believe in the truth here, and the fact that [[liberals]] like yourself feign offense at the display of it speaks volumes about you. If you insist on closing your mind, at least take ownership of your [[deceit]]! Sign your comments with <nowiki> ~~~~ </nowiki> next time. Godspeed! [[User:Tzoran|Tyler Zoran]] [[User talk:Tzoran|Talk]] 19:58, 6 May 2010 (EDT)

== "The first president who is biracial" ==

There have been other presidents of more than one race. Bush Jr. is has some German and English ancestry. [[User:NP|NP]]

:George W is German and English, is that two races according to our census? I think the readers will understand what biracial refers to.

::English and German are '''''not''''' races, and neither is Hispanic. --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 22:16, 17 May 2010 (EDT)

== Reorganizing ==

I'm glad to see the edit feature is enabled here once more. I think this page needs a revamp to structure information better. I've reorganized everything into a better structure, let me know what you think. I am trying to put a summary of the presidency at the top, information about his life/career next, and then a political summary. This should really improve the page's appearance, as it appears too disorganized right now. --[[User:Jzyehoshua|Jzyehoshua]] 15:56, 20 May 2010 (EDT)
:What you're doing is burying important information so fewer users will find it. That's unacceptable. [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 15:57, 20 May 2010 (EDT)

== Obama is a Muslim theory and the alleged claim of Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Aboul Gheit ==

Here is what the American Thinker reported: "The American President told me in confidence that he is a Muslim." That was the claim of Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Aboul Gheit, as reported in the May 2010 issue of Israel Today. According to journalist Avi Lipkin, Gheit appeared on Nile TV's "Round Table Show" in January, on which he said that "he had had a one-on-one meeting with Obama who swore to him that he was a Moslem, the son of a Moslem father and step-son of Moslem step-father, that his half-brothers in Kenya were Moslems, and that he was loyal to the Moslem agenda."[http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/06/report_obama_said_i_am_a_musli.html] Here is what Hot Air says: http://hotair.com/greenroom/archives/2010/06/14/obama-is-a-muslim-take-two/

Personally, I am beginning to think Obama is: not a Muslim, not a Christian, and not an atheist. I think Obama is a narcissist who worships himself. I can also see him telling one person he is a Christian and then later telling someone else he is a Muslim. There are many examples of Obama being insincere such as all the substantive healthcare discussions were going to be on C-Span, etc. etc. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 15:53, 16 June 2010 (EDT)

== 2009 Nobel Peace Prize ==

I find it strange that there is not a single mention of the president being awarded the Nobel peace prize in this article. Considering that other prominent award winners have it at least mentioned in their respective articles. The [[Mother Teresa]] article, for instance, prominently states her award in the introduction to the article, and even political figures like [[Al Gore]] and [[Henry Kissinger]] (both of whom won the peace prize) have their award at least mentioned in the article.
--[[User:DenisTR|DenisTR]] 16:04, 19 August 2010 (EDT)

:I agree with you, Denis. It was there, once-upon-a-time, but apparently it was removed in the constant editing turmoil. CP does mention this in the [[Nobel Prize]] article. I will add it here, as it should be. --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 16:24, 19 August 2010 (EDT)

==Faulty Logic==
I have a suspicion that Andy Schlafly is secretly a Muslim. Will you deny that, Andy? If you do deny it, then I accuse you of being a Muslim under the concept of Taqiyya.
It's like a terrible flow chart that always ends with "You're a Muslim." I realize that you're kind of scraping the barrel with this whole "Obama is a Muslim" thing, but c'mon. [[User:Pete5383|Paul]] 18:57, 19 August 2010 (EDT)

: Paul, you seem to think all claims or facts are relative. They aren't. Truth is supported by logic and evidence.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:00, 19 August 2010 (EDT)

:: President Obama clearly has an Islamic background. As an adult, he joined a church and says he's a Christian. I'd say he's as much Muslim as I am Jewish; by Jewish law, my having a Jewish mother makes me Jewish by birth, but I became a Christian by choice as a teenager. Go figure. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 14:04, 3 September 2010 (EDT)

:::Whether President Obama is Muslim or not is one question; however it is undeniable Obama misspoke or was deceptive while ramping up his ambitions back in 2005 when he told the ''Chicago Sun-Times'', "I am rooted in the Christian tradition." Nowhere on his maternal side, grandma, gramps, or his natural father, or his stepfather, can any Christian rooting be found. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 14:37, 4 September 2010 (EDT)

==Days in office==
[[Barack Obama]] was inaugurated {{days since|2009|1|20}} days ago and will finish his term in {{#expr: -{{days since|2013|1|20}} }} days. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 14:00, 3 September 2010 (EDT)

==Apparent sourcing errors==

While looking over this article, I noticed a number of problems - mostly unsourced claims or claims for which the source is no longer available. Since my suggestions will almost certainly be controversial, I will not actually make any further changes to this page.

*The quote "Rather than being a unifier, Mr. Obama has divided America on the basis of race, class and partisanship" under the heading "Presidency" is unattributed.

*The claim that Obama represented ACORN in ''Buycks-Roberson v. Citibank Fed. Sav. Bank'' is unsupported. While court documents do list Obama among the Plaintiff's Attorneys, they do not reference ACORN in any way. [http://www.clearinghouse.net/detail.php?id=10112] This claim seems to have been added by bloggers after the fact. Similarly, the cited reference contains no source for the claim that Obama had anything to do with the CRA, only a completely unsourced allegation that was reprinted almost verbatim here. As far as I can tell, Obama represented ACORN exactly once, on a case involving motor voter laws. [http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2008/oct/17/john-mccain/he-represented-them-in-one-case-/]

*The statement "Obama website Fight The Smears has confirmed that Obama was once a Kenyan citizen until 1982" under the subheading "Birth Certificate Controversy" is unsourced and ambiguous.

*Much of the content under the subheading "Engineers defeat of Centrist Democrats" is dubious. Two of the cites [http://articles.latimes.com/1992-03-18/news/mn-3844_1_gus-savage][http://www.dkosopedia.com/wiki/Carol_Moseley_Braun#Political_career] are about Carol Moseley Braun and don't mention Obama at all. There is no indication in any of the sources that Obama was connected to the Braun campaign, so these cites are meaningless. Additionally, the section attributes an anti-Dixon intent to Obama (referring to Obama as "subverting" Dixon's reelection, defined by Conservapedia's own article as "lending of aid, comfort, and moral support to individuals, groups, or organizations that advocate the overthrow of incumbent governments by force and violence"). What he did was increase voter turnout among the black community, a far cry from what the text implies.

*<s>The statement "President Obama falsely claimed that the senior citizen group AARP endorsed his administration's health care plan when they never made such an endorsement" under the subheading "Obama Administration Health Care Plan and Its Advocacy Methods" is sourced to a YouTube video that no longer exists. Additionally, it appears that AARP has been supporting health care reform since at least August 2009. [http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/08/17/eveningnews/main5247916.shtml][http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/19/aarp-ama-announce-support_n_506060.html]</s>

*Similarly, several cites link to YouTube videos that have been removed. Multiple cites under the subheading "Obama Administration Health Care Plan and Liberal Elitism" link to deleted videos, as does the cite for the statement "Barack Obama's "Disinformation Czar" (whose supposed job was to correct disinformation that others are spreading about the Obama administration's health care plan) was caught spreading misleading information." The cite for the statement "Senior citizens are key Democratic party constituents that could kill Obama's socialistic health care plan" links to a private video.

--[[User:DrewJ|DrewJ]] 15:50, 29 September 2010 (EDT)

:Sorry, Drew, but one glaring misrepresentation really sticks out, and explains why liberals are often accused of playing fast and loose with the truth: While AARP has long advocated health care reform, it specifically repudiated Obama's distortion of the truth, saying they were not endorsing any specific plan, at that time. See how easy it is to distort fact, by omission, and make obviously good-intentioned souls like you doubt the real truth?

:You are obviously an editor here, and I would urge you, before making posts such as this one, to try and find substitute sources that back up what is in the story. At the very least, as is the case with the AARP, at least check the facts before stating something is incorrect. It was a very big story at the time, Obama's misstatement, and not at all hard to find....so easy and well-known in fact that some people might be tempted to accuse you of inserting a deliberate [[Red Herring]]. --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 17:29, 29 September 2010 (EDT)

Sources don't count if they are liberal sources. Those are worse than no source at all. Find a reliable source like Cato Institute or Fox News and we can add those. [[User:JoeSmithson117|JoeSmithson117]] 18:44, 4 December 2011 (EST)

== Typo ==
The first sentence here has a typo: it presumably is meant to read "...said to have '''been''' born in..." I'd fix it myself, but the page is so informative (and therefore long) that my poor old computer can't load it to edit. --[[User:LanceS|LanceS]] 21:49, 11 November 2010 (EST)
:Thanks, JPatt got it. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 22:29, 11 November 2010 (EST)

== Bryan Fischer: Obama wants to give America back to the Indians ==

Is [http://www.afa.net/Blogs/BlogPost.aspx?id=2147501360 this site] some kind of liberal parody? Otherwise, this is so serious that is should be included. American Family Association would seem to me as a pretty trustworthy organization, and this Bryan Fischer is writing for them. Any thoughts? – [[User:Dstone|dstone]] 16:42, 1 January 2011 (EST)

==Fact vs Opinion==
Okay...I thought maybe this article would be a good place to start. I was introduced to Conservapedia recently, and have been waffling about joining and bcoming an editor, but can no longer refrain. So, I'm extraordinarily new...and I fully expect the welcoming and flame-free arms of this community, as I support the overall efforts of what Conservapedia is trying to accomplish. The road to becoming a "Trustworthy Encyclopedia" is long, and this site is just starting to make baby steps in that direction. That being said, I will try to keep this short.

FACT: Opinions are not fact. Even expert opinions are not fact. They're just plain old opinions. Despite being in the Commandments, and otherwise stated over and over again, folks seem to have trouble making this distinction.
OPINION: If you are unable to make cited references, or present the conservative viewpoint in a reasoned and intelligent manner, I would heavily suggest that you leave the site to those who can. Your "help" is often unhelpful. Especially in an article as...contentious...as this - and I imagine many others, I'll be looking shortly - the talk page is the place to present your opinions. If you cannot site material, find sources that intelligently argue your viewpoint, or just want a second or third pair of eyes and ears, it would be addressed here. Also, if haven't actually read the article that you are citing...do that first, before posting anything at all...

There are several on this page, the most innocuous of which: President Obama authorized offshore oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico[28]. The moratorium lapsed in 2008. It says it right in the article, paragraph 4. This statement is spruious and vague and will be reworded to say something like: Then-Senator Obama voted to re-authorize oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico. This is just a small and harmless example, but, either research the issue before posting, or don't post. If you wish to engage in historical revisionism, or just bottom-barrel opinion mongering, please roll on over to Wikipedia, and leave us be. [[User:RyanDav|RyanDav]] 2 January 2011
:I moved this from the top of the page to its current location, to maintain threading. [[User:Tzoran|Tyler Zoran]] [[User talk:Tzoran|Talk]] 13:35, 2 January 2011 (EST)

== Oil Drilling Moratorium, redux ==

I did not realize that this would be as contentious as it was. The statement is simply poorly worded, I assume unintentionally, and appears to place the blame squarely on one person's shoulders. This is just factually innacurate, nothing more, nothing less. We accept credit where credit is due, and take blame where blame is appropriate - and the blame belongs to the vast majority of the 110th Congress, both the liberal reps and ours - and to deny that is some kind of revisionism, which will not be tolerated. I'm certainly more than willing to be corrected on this, but you can either site sources that support your viewpoint, or you cannot - it really is that easy. In that case, the article would read something like, "then-Senator Obama lobbied heavily for the moratorium to lapse, and led a congressional coalition consisting of Senators Blah, Blah and Blah and Congressmen Such-and-such and So-and-so to further that end, etc..." accompanied by supporting references. I am afraid, however, that a "nuh-uh," or, "because I said so," is simply Not Good Enough. We're counteracting liberal bias, here, not populating the internet with more unfounded claptrap. [[User:RyanDav|RyanDav]] 19:26, 3 January 2011 (EST)

:If you please, write here your proposal for how this should be written, including the source links. If Obama lobbied heavily for the moritorium to lapse, then the source evidence will say it; if he was a part of a coalition of people, then again the evidence will support that. Since this article is about Obama, it should lean on what he has done while in office. But as far as what the 110th Congress did or didn't do, oh yes, I am in total agreement with you...and so were the vast majority of voters back in November. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 20:00, 3 January 2011 (EST)

::He didn't, as far as I know, or have ever read. I don't think any articles arguing that he soley was responsible, or even more responsible than any other rep, exist. The text is already up there. Pretty vanilla. Mentions him by name, but also says, "hey, don't forget about all the other chair-jockeys, too!" But the article is about him, so he gets a name drop for focus. The article is about him as whole, so his Presidential and Senatorial terms would be seperate sections of the same article, so as not to confuse. The 110th was the last Bush-era Congress. In November, we voted out the 111th. We are now in the 112th Congress.

::Oh, I also replaced someone's citation from an OpEd piece in the NYTimes with an actual news reference that supported the same point (about the Obama administration's poor response to the Oil Spill). If I didn't know better (and I probably don't), I would suspect that some of the citations here are purposefully planted just to make us look like simpletons. [[User:RyanDav|RyanDav]] 21:39, 3 January 2011 (EST)

== Birth Controversy ==
Could someone please explain to me something I've never quite followed: why does it matter where Obama was born? As far as I can tell, no one is claiming his mother was not a US Citizen, which makes him a "natural born" US citizen even if he was born in Kenya, Moscow, or Riyadh. If the issue is "without a birth certificate we can't be certain his mother is really his mother" then I get it, but this side of things seems to be ignored in favor of controversy over the actual location of the birth. If we interpret "natural born citizen" as "born within the US", then that would exclude the children of Armed Forces personnel stationed overseas with their families at the time their children were born from the presidency, which seems like something liberals would love to do. [[User:Ptorquemada|Ptorquemada]] 12:09, 5 April 2011 (EDT)
:Well, John McCain whose father was an Admiral was born to two American parents in Panama Canal Zone. The media questioned his "natural born" citizen status and it seemingly was determined that since both his parents were American citizens who were living out of State because of the Admiral's duties that John McCain's birth status would be considered "natural born. The question concerning Barack Obama is that his father was not a US citizen but was in fact a British subject as Kenya was under British rule at the time. Some suggest that the original conception of "natural born" was that both parents are US citizens at the time of the birth of a child. So there is a question as to his "natural born" status even if he was, in fact, born in Hawaii. The fact that Obama has spent a couple of million dollars fighting any requests for proof of an original long form birth certificate and school records makes some people more convinced that a. he wasn't actually born in Hawaii and that his birth was only registered there or b. because his father was a British subject he had duel citizenship status which would make it doubtful that he would be considered a natural born citizen. There are many questions concerning Obama's "natural born" status because he also appears to have been a citizenship of Indonesia and is supposed to have traveled on an Indonesian passport as an adult. Of course, a lot of questions would be removed if the president just released the original birth certificate. The fact that he hasn't just adds fuel to the fire. [[User:Dwain|Dwain]] 12:09, 8 April 2011 (EDT)

== Birth Certificate Removal? ==

Now that Obama has finally released his birth certificate, all this about Kenya and Barry Soetoro seems a bit silly. Should we remove it? [[User:JimAB|JimAB]] 11:24, 27 April 2011 (EDT)
:Has the question of Mr. Obama traveling to Pakistan on an Indonesian passport under the name Barry Soetero in 1981 been resolved yet? As well as the statements regarding his application to join the Illinois State Bar Association wherein he answered no to the question of ever using any aliases? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 18:12, 28 April 2011 (EDT)

== Shortening the article length ==

I think we need to work on splitting this article; I recently revert a vandal's (mostly) blanking of the page, and my browser would freeze up when I tried to save the page (actually I'm currently trying to save it - and over and over again I'm having no luck). Currently this appears at the top of the edit screen:
:'''WARNING: This page is 144 kilobytes long; some browsers may have problems editing pages approaching or longer than 32kb. Please consider breaking the page into smaller sections or removing irrelevant information.'''
Thoughts?--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 00:34, 30 April 2011 (EDT)

== First Socialist??? ==

Obama is clearly a socialist, but is he the first to be president as the lead of the article states? The New deal democrats who created social security come to mind.[[User:BenDylan|BenD]] 09:03, 1 May 2011 (EDT)
:That certainly may be true. But we are talking about one man who occupies the office of president, not underlings and appopintees. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 09:23, 1 May 2011 (EDT)
::But couldn't the Presidents who hired them be considered socialists? I still don't know about saying he's the FIRST. [[User:KingHanksley|KingHanksley]] 12:31, 4 May 2011 (EDT)
:::You Americans have no idea what socialism is anymore do you?[[User:Cmurphynz|Cmurphynz]] 21:36, 25 June 2012 (EDT)
::::I guess you're on to us. Alex, I'll take What is redistribution of wealth, State control of industry for $200. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 21:43, 25 June 2012 (EDT)

== Obama the Socialist ==
I am counting all the capitalists that have hired self-proclaimed communists. I come up with zero. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 12:43, 2 May 2011 (EDT)

== Update of the article ==

See [[Talk:Barack Hussein Obama/update]] if you'd like to contribute to an update of this article - we'll be keeping a lot of the information that's good, throwing out some information that's a little old, and adding new information - all while hopefully downsizing! All help is appreciated!--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 19:55, 2 May 2011 (EDT)

== Bin Laden ==

Should we at least mention the Bin Laden capture? I feel that in fairness we should give him his one or two accomplishments. We should definitely mention that George W. Bush's policies played a big hand but still Obama could have gone entirely bleeding heart on us and we wouldn't have gotten OBL [[User:KingHanksley|KingHanksley]] 11:24, 4 May 2011 (EDT)

But being fair and giving credit to a liberal muslim socialist for making the world even a little safer would undermine the integrity of a conservative encyclopedia. Now had he screwed up the capture then that would be worthy of mentioning because it would show how he endangered the country. We should only be fair and give credit where credit is due if Obama was a Christian conservative who shared our beliefs. ([[User:Bluebank|Bluebank]] 12:58, 7 July 2011 (EDT))

I agree, it would only be worth mentioning if he had screwed up the capture because then we could hold his feet to the fire. ([[User:Jvclark2|Jvclark2]] 13:00, 7 July 2011 (EDT))

:::''"giving credit to a liberal muslim socialist for making the world even a little safer would undermine the integrity of a conservative encyclopedia."'' Well that's not a biased statement or anything. It should fall under the article Obama presidency but because of its significance, put it on the BHO page. Rarely, but we have given Obama credit in the past. The rescue of a Captain from Somali pirates is a good example of the proper choice the Progressive fake Christian Marxist had made. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 14:58, 7 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::I just don't see where ordering bin Laden's killing is a big accomplishment. What purpose did it serve other than a failed effort to turn around Obama's falling poll ratings while destroying the most important relationship the United States had in the war on terror. After Obama declared the war on terror over two years ago, dismantling the delicate relationship with the Pakistani ISS seems like phase two. Undermining Pakistan's secular regime, the way Obama did, only works to the advantage of Islamic extremists.

:::::Did killing bin Laden bring back the lives lost in the 9/11 attacks? No. Does making the war's in Iraq & Afghanistan about retribution rather than prevention, further American foreign policy interests or make the United States more secure? Hardly.

:::::Does creating the false sense among the American electorate that the objectives of the war in Afghanistan have now been accomplished, and we can abandon the fight? The height of folly -- and a repeat of what happened when the U.S. abandoned Afghanistan to the terrorists after 1991.

:::::Did killing bin Laden make America safe from reprisals? Or rather doies killing bin Laden expose innocent men, women, and children to the never ending threat of sudden, sensesless, and violent death?
:::::The cynical manipulation of American security and foreign policy interests for short term popularity and selfish career interests is appalling. I just don't agree this a "success" to boast of. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 23:15, 7 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::While I think it's laughable to say that taking down the number one most wanted man in the world isn't an accomplishment, I think it's a decision that ''anyone'' would have made, therefore, it isn't special or particular that Obama happened to be the one to make it. [[User:BradB|BradB]] 23:57, 7 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::No. We've learned from our mistakes. In 1967 the the number one most wanted man in the world - Che Guevara - was similiarly hunted and executed, only to be resurrected by liberals, hate-mongers, and other assorted sociopaths and pro-mass murder advocates, made the mascot of the hate-America crowd, and sold to American college students as somethiong larger than life and a cult hero to be worshiped. It is not laughable at all. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 13:55, 8 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::::The angst from the left goes back to Bush hatred. We shouldn't have interfered in Iraq and should have focused on OBL. Leftist sheep knew better than Bush. We knew all along that it is not one man but a movement, confront them there instead of here. At least we are no longer creating and recruiting terrorists, thanks to a Muslim-named president and his policies of peace in the Middle East.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 14:08, 8 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::You will recall Senator [[Patty Murray]], who now heads the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee charged with candidate recruitment and doling out funds, praised bin Laden for his work with children buidling day care centers. He probably supported the Family-Leave Act and opposed No Child Left Behind, too. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 15:26, 8 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::''" I just don't agree this a "success" to boast of. "'' Two points, 1) stating a fact is not boasting, it is just stating a fact. We list domestic policy, popular bills, economic plan, gulf oil spill, DADT... It's just another thing to list. 2) Had Bush done it I'm pretty sure it would be on his page.([[User:Jvclark2|Jvclark2]] 21:09, 8 July 2011 (EDT))
:::::::::::That is the point. Stating the fact that Obama's unnecessarily destroyed the most vital relationship the United States has in the War on Terror to score short term approval ratings. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 12:38, 9 July 2011 (EDT)
Jvclark - bin Laden's death is mentioned on this page. In the lead. What more do you want?--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 11:46, 9 July 2011 (EDT)

==From the update - discussion==
===Structuring===
This is what I feel should be the general sectioning of the article - I think with an article that we have this much information on, what we mostly need to do is use "See also:" pages rather than go into major details.
{| style="width:100%"
|valign="top"|
*Early life
*U.S. Senate career (with a note on opposition to the Iraq War - which should be followed up on in the presidential primary race)
*U.S. Senate career
**Radical endorsements, support, and get out the vote efforts (better language?)
**'''Use of filibuster and obstructionism'''
**'''Voted agaist debt ceiling increase'''

*Presidential election (things to cover: experience question, jeremiah wright, PUMA)
**Primary race
**National election
|valign="top"|
*Presidency
**Domestic policy
***Popular Bills (Zadroga, lilly ledbetter fair pay act)
***Economic plan
****Stimulus plan
***Health care
***The Gulf oil spill
**Foreign policy
***Commander-in-Chief
****Iraq
****Afghanistan
****Libya/The Obama Doctine
****Don't Ask Don't Tell
|valign="top"|

*Ideology (mentioning pro-abortion stance, other things not mentioned above)
*References
*See also
*External links
|}

Rob I've bolded two section that I wonder if they should be sections alone; I do 100% agree that they should be mentioned in the text; are you set on them being sections? If so I'll yield--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 00:58, 3 May 2011 (EDT)
:Leave bold for now & let's see what develops; '''Recovery''' is ambiguous; while total output (GDP growth) has recovered, we've seen several polls just over the past week where 60-70% of respondents ''still'' think the US is in recession (despite the fact GDP growth has recovered over the past year and half). Likewise, it certainly has not been a "jobs recovery". I'd suggest this needs a better name. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 01:15, 3 May 2011 (EDT)

::I very much agree - that's a misleading section title - I think what I meant was "Proposed Recovery" - or "Recovery Plan". The latter sounds a little better to my ears. I made a few edits below - I'm gonna hold off on doing anything else till you get a chance to take a look and add things.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]]01:22, 3 May 2011 (EDT)
:::I've replaced Recovery with Stimulus, perhaps "Stimulus and budget". Also, Don't Ask Don't Tell seems a little wierd under "Wartime"; is it there solely cause it's a military subject? It could just as easily fit under Idealogy as well (I' not just trying to be argumentative....) [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 01:40, 3 May 2011 (EDT)
::::Hmm. Very true. No I think it's definitely a legitimate question. I HAD been thinking that Ideology would just cover what wasn't addressed in the prior sections (since certainly we'd discuss his economic ideology in the "Economic plan" section) - so, yes, I had just placed it under wartime solely because its a military subject. But it is probably more apropos to homosexual rights. I am worried that Ideology will become a bucket of worms, so to speak, only in that it'd be weird to just have a section for DADT under it, so then we'd have to have a super-section for "Homosexual policy", and then super-sections for everything else, making the article very long. I leave it up to you.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 01:45, 3 May 2011 (EDT)
:::::Alternatively, we can just leave it as is for now. I'm updating the [[Obama administration]] article right now, too. That one is structured , "Economic policy", "Foreign policy", etc. Wartime leader is something new. Perhaps, Commander-in-Chief? that would encompass DADT as well as ongoing military operations. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 02:08, 3 May 2011 (EDT)
::::::I like that. It's broader and works well. Nice.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 02:29, 3 May 2011 (EDT)
I took a look at the Wikipedia page on Obama - and I actually like how they organize his presidency - into Domestic policy and foreign policy. I'm going to make some changes to reflect that. I think in the long run it'll actually limit the number of sections we need--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 18:15, 4 May 2011 (EDT)

== Congratulations! ==
To the people who worked updating this article. It looks much better now.--[[User:AlejandroH|AlejandroH]] 00:43, 10 May 2011 (EDT)

== Speculation ==

In the spirit of accuracy, I think that all articles should refrain from speculative language (I thought this would be good article to start with). I understand that this is a conservative encyclopedia, but one should not overrule the other. We can still present the conservative view point that other encyclopedias overlook without veering off the path of facts. I think that President Obama has done enough to harm himself without adding inflammatory and opinion statements. This language degrades the reliability of the site. [[User:McTone|McTone]] 10:59, 23 May 2011 (EDT)McTone
:You're actually not making encyclopedic edits - for example how you're adding titles ("''President'' Obama"), which is traditionally not done. As you've now been reverted twice I think you should refrain from editing this article.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 11:35, 23 May 2011 (EDT)
:: That is encyclopaedic, as it is proper to use a person's title in reference material. However, that's not ththe only edits I've made. Most of them being removing speculative speech. Basically we should follow the rule of "if you can't cite it, don't say it."[[User:McTone|McTone]] 13:01, 23 May 2011 (EDT)McTone
:::No it's generally not. See his Wikipedia page if you don't believe. We also don't say "Mr." or "Ms."--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 12:02, 23 May 2011 (EDT)
::::Are we not better than Wikipedia? In any case, this is deferring the point I was making with this heading.[[User:McTone|McTone]] 13:01, 23 May 2011 (EDT)McTone

== Perhaps ==

I have read two cases of the word perhaps in the opening section of this article. Shouldn't assumptions like these not belong in an encyclopedia like article, especially in the opening section?- AlexMason
:The first one is arguably a wording error ... I'll consider that - the second one is more appropriate; since the event just happened we're not sure what the consequences will be, but if a potential consequence is notable enough it's probably worth stating--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 16:30, 23 May 2011 (EDT)
::I'm an underwriter at Fox News and I see stuff like this all the time. I think AlexMason is correct here (as well as the poster in the previous topic). Is this a web encyclopedia or is this an opinion site? Speculating on the outcome of events is tantamount to gossip (highly frowned upon and in fact forbidden by the standards of Conservapedia as I have read the rules and commandments). I really think this should be fixed. I noticed some edits in the history of this page and I've got to stick with Andy's last revision (reverting some of the edits of the previous editor) which kept to the less speculative nature of the article.[[User:PapaBear|PapaBear]] 21:32, 28 May 2011 (EDT)

== Obama Muslim Evidence? ==

I was going to make a post on this talk page suggesting we move the long list of evidence that Obama may be a Muslim to its own article (or an article dealing with the Obama/Islam controversy) but when I got here I saw that section had been removed, as had any mention of the words "Islam" or "Muslim". (I did a search on my browser). I could not find a reason for this on the talk page. Could someone explain why this was made? [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 22:13, 3 June 2011 (EDT)
:I rescued the content from an old revision and put it here: [[Barack Obama's Muslim Heritage]] [[User:AndyJ|AndyJ]] 22:18, 21 June 2011 (EDT)

== Obama as President ==
With the long-standing controversy about Hussein's birth certificate and the recent evidence that the one that was released is forged, I feel that there is ample evidence to conclude that Obama was born in Kenya. Because of that, I propose that we list the current holder of the office of [[President]] as [[Joe Biden]], as he would take the office if Obama were found to be unable or ineligible to serve. --[[User:AndyJ|AndyJ]] 22:29, 21 June 2011 (EDT)
:You may be misreading the story; the "Obama was born in Kenya" conspiracy theory was promoted by the White House to hide the fact that, Barack Hussein Obama's father was a [[natural born citizen]] of Kenya, and not the United States. That is the constitutional question, being that a case can be made that the Constitutional framers defined "natural born citizen" as being a citizen of the country of ''your fathers'' birth. The birth certificate, or the location of Obama Jr. birth, that is to say, the birther conspircacy the White House promoted, never had anything to do with the constitutional issue in question. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 16:27, 22 June 2011 (EDT)
::And two things, firstly, there is not ample evidence. Just conspiracy theories. Even assuming that the certificate/s released are forgeries, that alone isn't enough to prove he wasn't born in the US, it would just raise concerning questions. Secondly, Obama would remain the President. The Constitution doesn't mention what would happen if someone who was ineligible to be President became President. Hence, until impeachment or the 25th Amendment is invoked, Obama would remain President. (Presumably the 25th would be invoked, as impeachment would take a lot longer, and would require proving that Obama knew, which could be a little difficult.) - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 07:57, 18 October 2011 (EDT)

== Why is the birth certificate things still going? ==

I read a while ago (and posted in the article) an article from the National Review where even they concede that Obama was probably born in the US. [[User:CaptainSwing|CaptainSwing]] 23:43, 7 November 2011 (EST)

:Well as soon as it's verified than we can move past. Until then, we'll just pretend everything is a ok. For me, I'd still like to see every executive order, every law signed, every supreme court nominee from Obama overturned. It took three years the release of the long form certificate. I can wait another three years if need be for the proof.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 00:11, 8 November 2011 (EST)
::I don't understand, the National Review, a magazine that I admit is quite conservative, viewed the birth certificate and said it was most likely valid. I'm not sure what you're waiting for, as I don't think anyone is going to prove that Obama wasn't born in the country. [[User:CaptainSwing|CaptainSwing]] 09:59, 8 November 2011 (EST)
:::Because what they viewed was a Photoshoped work. Until the American public sees for itself exactly what is - or is not - on file in Hawaii, there will always be this unanswered question. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 11:22, 8 November 2011 (EST)
::::But it wasn't photo-shopped, that was the whole point the National Review was making: [http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/265767/pdf-layers-obamas-birth-certificate-nathan-goulding]. And honestly it makes sense, why on Earth would they go to the trouble of planting so much evidence that even the Mccain campaign declined to pursue it further, only to bungle the job on an elementary error in photoshop that any reasonable graphics designer would never make. [[User:CaptainSwing|CaptainSwing]] 12:03, 8 November 2011 (EST)
:::::It was Photoshopped, and downloading the original White House copy of it reveals all of the layers when it's run under Photoshop. Try reading all of these [http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=98546] by different reporters rather than a single National Review piece that's harping the beliefs of the "Yes We Can" crowd. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:21, 8 November 2011 (EST)
::::::So wait, you're saying that because they agree with Obama we can dismiss them? Isn't that circular reasoning? The author of the national review article posted a guide of how the mistakes could have easily come up and has no reason to lie about it. And again, let's think about this logically, they have authentic birth announcements from the relevant papers, good enough to fool the Mccain campaign, why would they botch a photoshop job? [[User:CaptainSwing|CaptainSwing]] 12:27, 8 November 2011 (EST)
:::::::And one of those mistakes that appeared on the Obama "certificate" was a sequence number that interfered with the numbers issued to a pair of twins; one of those mistakes was the "signature" of an individual which happens to be close enough to the name of a very small Hawaiian guitar; one of those mistakes is a smiley face attached to another signature; the list goes on. And until we see the real, bona-fide birth certificate, this issue is not going to go away, and we will continue to publish the current evidence as the fraud that it is. So don't worry too much about it, okay? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:44, 8 November 2011 (EST)
::::::::Does that mean to say that it should be considered a fraud until such a time as every US citizen has held and viewed the physical document? [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 16:49, 8 November 2011 (EST)
:::::::::Though this discussion is old. I will agree with this CaptainSwing person and this MaxFletcher that Obama's birth certificate issue has been dealt with, and the National Review magazine that one user mentioned is a conservative magazine. Plus you don't go to court with flimsy argument saying "hey he was born in Kenya" and demand that the defense prove all its points without the prosecution being able to present solid evidence. I see no solid evidence that proves he was born outside the United States, in our party the centre-right Austrian-born Arnold Schwarzenegger was elected Governor of California. And besides the real serious problems that people have with Obama are what he is doing as President, such as his high tax agenda for instance.--[[User:TheQuestioner|TheQuestioner]] 17:08, 3 August 2012 (EDT)

==Promises kept==
I can count how many promises Obama kept on one hand.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 13:47, 19 December 2011 (EST)

== Poverty comment in paragraph 2 of intro ==

The poverty comment isn't supported by the link at all. The link looks at from the 1950s to 2009. Obama began office in 2009, so the 14.3 percent marked at the end of the graph is a measure of the poverty at some point during 2009, and may have been taken in Bush's last month in office. It is unreasonable to conclude from the graph that poverty increased under Obama's presidency. I'll also note that the increase in poverty began, according to the graph, whilst Bush was in office. - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 00:08, 20 March 2012 (EDT)

== Better, More Objective Article at CreationWiki.org ==

There's now a better-sourced, more objective article at CreationWiki.org:

http://creationwiki.org/Barack_Obama

This article mentions virtually no biographic detail about Obama, or major controversies, including the Born Alive issue or his Chicago Politics. And the sourcing looks haphazard here. --[[User:Jzy|Jzy]] 09:52, 29 May 2012 (EDT)

Still, you guys have a 1-sentence mention of the Born Alive controversy even though it was brought up by Obama's last 4 political opponents, John McCain, Sarah Palin, Hillary Clinton, and Alan Keyes. And Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum both brought it up a few months ago as well. There's a whole article on this subject alone over at CreationWiki:

http://creationwiki.org/Obama_born_alive_controversy

You're missing the boat on the biggest controversy surrounding Obama, one that hasn't been debunked and is going to cause him a WHOLE lot of trouble. I told you guys this 2 years ago.
--[[User:Jzy|Jzy]] 10:14, 29 May 2012 (EDT)

:Thanks for the comments Jyz, the current article has been in the top 10 for nearly four years now. Most Americans are quite aware that Obama is the most pro-abortion president ever. Feel free to add to our wiki with the born-alive controversy page. In addition, you were not registered here two years ago so no wonder we didn't heed your warning.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 12:52, 29 May 2012 (EDT)

::Well, if this were just another abortion issue Obama wouldn't have a thing to worry about. This is an entirely different subject because it involves aborting children who aren't inside the mother's body but are outside the body and capable of surviving if given medical attention. We passed the federal Born Alive Infant Protection Act in 2002 making it illegal to let premature, newborn babies who survive late-term abortions get left to die without medical attention. We also passed the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act outlawing the late-term Dilation & Extraction (D&E) abortions that resulted in these live births. Nurses Jill Stanek and Allison Baker (of Christ Hospital in Oak Lawn, IL) testified before Congress in 2001 that newborn babies were being born prematurely after botched abortions in their home state of Illinois and being thrown in wastebaskets or soiled utility rooms. Stanek's moving testimony about how she held a little baby in her arms after one of these abortions and the physician refused to help keep it alive so that it died in her arms, proved especially influential.

::The entire U.S. Senate passed the Born Alive Infant Protection Act unanimously, because as Obama would put it, it was "the bill everybody supported". The Partial-Birth Abortion Act twice refers to the practice in federal law as "infanticide". It's a legal, technical term referring to what U.S. law now considers murder of newborn children. Stanek also testified before the Illinois Senate at the time, where Obama was leading a Planned Parenthood movement to vote down numerous Born Alive bills and cover up this fact from Illinois citizens using "present votes". Normally pro-choice Democrats like Barbara Boxer, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, and Ted Kennedy all voted for the Born Alive Infant Protection Act. Hillary Clinton herself brought up Obama's voting record on this in 2008 to criticize him over. So like I said, if this were just a Pro-Life vs. Pro-Choice issue it wouldn't be controversial. I'm not talking about abortion here. I'm talking about infanticide, and opposition to medical care for newborn infants. I'm talking about Obama's opposition to a bill that had over 90% public support, unlike typical Pro-Life bills. --[[User:Jzy|Jzy]] 02:18, 4 June 2012 (EDT)

:::I'm going to incorporate some of my writing and sourcing from that article to this one, and edit boldly. If anyone has any objections to any material please state them. However, I believe I've sourced everything so solidly it should be unobjectionable. --[[User:Jzyehoshua|Jzyehoshua]] 22:03, 20 July 2012 (EDT)

== Last Change ==

The protests weren't peaceful, but they were really violent, to date there's no proof that Muammar Gaddafi had took any violent action against civilians, but there are proof and reports from Amnesty International, Human rights watch, Russian intelligence which denies any of the rumors and falsely alleged crime.

Here's one source where US defense secretary Robert Gates and Navy Admiral Michael Mullen tells about whole thing, :-

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL1110/S00144/un-silent-despite-no-basis-for-natos-illegal-war-on-libya.htm

Thanks. [[User:Regular|Regular]] 11:10, 14 June 2012 (EDT)

== Changes, Detailed ==

I made the following changes, merging an article I wrote on Obama for CreationWiki with this one:

http://creationwiki.org/Barack_Obama

The diff for the changes can be seen here:

http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Barack_Hussein_Obama&action=historysubmit&diff=994904&oldid=994689

I left the Lede intact.

* Birth: I removed an opening sentence about Obama eating dog meat. It looks really silly there, starting off the section. Maybe the article could be linked somewhere else but it looks really bad starting off the page like that.
* Early Life: I included a whole new section on his early life and family and removed some unsourced claims that he was the antichrist and will be instating police rule (which either way doesn't fit the section). If it's going to be put anywhere in the article an appropriate subsection should be created for it, and some sourcing provided - neither of which was the case before.
* Personal Life: I added a whole new section on his marriage to Michelle Obama, children, and church.
* Education: I added a new section on education. Some of it was alluded to earlier but didn't have sources, my material does.
* Non-Political Employment: Whole new section, a LOT of detail about his employment history here.
* Personal Awards: The Nobel controversy mentioned in this new section.
* 1991-1992, Project Vote: His time as a community organizer, new section.
* 1996 Election: I added an entirely new section on how Obama knocked candidates off the ballot.
* 2003 Emil Jones Deal: Whole new section on how Obama struck a deal with Emil Jones to get appointed legislation for other Illinois Senators to advance his political career.
* 2004 Primary Election: Completely new section on how the Illinois media knocked off Obama's first opponent.
* 2004 General Election, Jack Ryan: Completely new section on how the Illinois media knocked off Jack Ryan afterwards through the same tricks.
* 2004 General Election, Alan Keyes: Completely new section highlighting the Born Alive controversy surrounding Obama.
* 2008 Presidential Election: I preserved what little detail there was and merged it in but otherwise everything here is new.
* 2009-2012, U.S. Presidency: I added new sections on the Stimulus and Iraq troop withdrawal. What little info there was about the withdrawal I preserved and merged in.

--[[User:Jzyehoshua|Jzyehoshua]] 23:15, 20 July 2012 (EDT)

=== Deletions ===

I figure it's best to mention any deletions made.

- I deleted the following from the end of the Lede:
{{cquote|Later Obama apologized. When Obama visited [[England]] in 2011, he signed his name and added the date of "2008" -- the last time he won an election. He never explaned that one. When Obama read a speech from a teleprompter, as he almost always does, he repeatedly mispronounced the familiar military term of "corpsman" by sounding out the "p".}}
I removed it because (A) it had no sourcing provided, (B) it showed signs of poor grammar (misspelled "explained"), (C) used weasel words/phrases (almost always does), and perhaps most importantly, (D) it's not even especially relevant. I mean, who cares if he mispronounced the word "corpsman"? How many Americans even would pronounce it right? Maybe that could merit a footnote somewhere on the page, but in the Lede? Really??? I try to preserve as much of the page as possible, but I really think those sentences made the rest of the page look bad. --[[User:Jzyehoshua|Jzyehoshua]] 15:45, 21 July 2012 (EDT)
:Having those sentences there in the Lede gives the impression the whole page is going to be about nitpicking over Obama's grammar, and I really don't think that's the impression Conservapedia wants to give. I'd like to think the Lede would show evidence Obama will be fairly and accurately criticized, not with poorly written and unsourced claims that he mispronounced a word most Americans wouldn't pronounce right anyway. --[[User:Jzyehoshua|Jzyehoshua]] 15:49, 21 July 2012 (EDT)

-I deleted the "Retrieved from 对当代托洛茨基主义的批判：英文论集百花齐放 - 中国文革研究网, March 15, 2010." part of this footnote:
{{cquote|[[File:O-2002-antiwar-rally-davidson.jpg|right|thumb|250px| Obama speaking at the October 2002 rally in Chicago organized by [[Carl Davidson]].<ref>Davidson is a longtime [[Mao]]ist and champion of the ''Thought of Mao Tse Tung.'' Davidson's anti-Trotskyite polemic, [http://www.wengewang.org/read.php?tid=10925 ''Left in Form, Right in Essence''] defends Maoist doctrine. Retrieved from 对当代托洛茨基主义的批判：英文论集百花齐放 - 中国文革研究网, March 15, 2010.</ref> ''"[H]e is a brutal man who butchers his own people,"'' nevertheless Obama opposed ''"dumb wars".'']]}}
I think this should all be in English. It might belong on a Chinese page for Conservapedia, the alternate language translations, but I don't think so here. Hopefully someone can find an alternate reference for this, but it looks bad at the bottom of the page in footnotes like that, and since it can't be understood doesn't serve any real purpose. --[[User:Jzyehoshua|Jzyehoshua]] 21:39, 21 July 2012 (EDT)

== New Section On ACORN/New Party Ties ==

Alright, I just removed the following sentence from the 1996 section:
{{cquote|In 1995 Obama openly sought and obtained the endorsement of the [[Marxist]] [[New Party]] in his quest to be elected to the Illinois State Senate.<ref>[http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=7434 NEW PARTY (NP)], discoverthenetwork.org.</ref><ref>Rick Moran. [http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/06/obamas_alliance_with_marxists.html Obama's Alliance with Marxists], ''American Thinker'', June 03, 2008.</ref>}}

I made a new section on this at the end of the article. Frankly, I just wanted to remove the section from the 1996 section because it makes the whole thing look bad. I don't really care about his New Party or ACORN affiliations but I know many conservatives care about them, so I didn't want to delete the sentence and wanted to see if I could move it somewhere else, and maybe provide some more detail to give it a small subsection somewhere. I didn't think much of the sources it had so I figured I'd see if I could find any decent sourcing and information for it. In the process, I found out it had articles relating to it at National Review, Politico, and by Billy Hallowell (a FOX News contributor), plus had been addressed by Obama's "Fight the Smears" campaign and David Axelrod. Plus it's still relevant in 2012.

So I wrote it a new section, because I just follow sources and newsworthiness, and it is does appear to have some prominence. I tried to provide sources and perspective from both sides, and provide all the facts, so it won't just be a one-sided claim. Anyway, that's why I detailed it out more. Like I said, I don't really care about the claim myself, but it is newsworthy and a cause for concern among some conservatives, so I figured I might as well write it a section - and get it out of the 1996 one :) --[[User:Jzyehoshua|Jzyehoshua]] 23:21, 21 July 2012 (EDT)

:For me, the big issue surrounding Obama has always been his voting record against the Born Alive bills, and repeated lying attempts to cover this up. That he's gone to such lengths to prevent newborn babies from being given medical attention and then lie about having done so, has always struck me as reprehensible. His political corruption and constant lies are also disgusting. I just want people to know about these things. But his Marxism and ACORN stuff? Not really an issue for me. I just wrote this because I know it's a cause for concern to other conservatives, so I made sure the facts are presented on it. --[[User:Jzyehoshua|Jzyehoshua]] 23:37, 21 July 2012 (EDT)

:And mainly I didn't want that sentence in the 1996 section, by the way, because it's still highly controversial. I don't like starting off an otherwise credible section with undeniable sources with a claim that is still under investigation. Maybe this stuff on the New Party will hold up - those minutes will be strong evidence if Kurtz is right about them. But right now the sourcing for it isn't as strong as I'd like, even if it is newsworthy. And I'd prefer the 1996 section stick to strongly proven facts. That he knocked off all his opponents using a team of lawyers is well sourced by the Chicago Tribune, CBS News, CNN, New York Times, etc. The stuff about the New Party had two lesser-known sources and while it has better sourcing now, it's still an ongoing issue, which is why I think it's more relevant in a 2012 section than 1996. --[[User:Jzyehoshua|Jzyehoshua]] 23:51, 21 July 2012 (EDT)

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

== Conspiracy theory that Obama is not born in the US is by crazy lunatic fringe right-wing people who don't represent the mainstream right, it is just like crazy lunatic fringe left-wing conspiracy theories on JFK being killed by the CIA and not J. Harvey Oswald or 9-11 truthers ==

Regardless of criticisms and condemnations by mainstream conservatives of Obama's policies, these claims that he is a foreign-born citizen have been disproven and mainstream conservatives accept that he is an American citizen. Theories that he was born outside the USA are lunatic fringe conspiracy theories - and I don't care whether they are right-wing - their ideas have been disproven just like the crazy 9-11 truther conspiracy theories and JFK conspiracy theories by lunatic fringe left-wing people. Why is there such focus on conspiracy theories on where Obama is born in the intro, rather than focus in the intro on Obama's policies and conservative criticisms of Obama's policies?--[[User:TheQuestioner|TheQuestioner]] 12:31, 3 August 2012 (EDT)

:Thank God you registered here to set the record straight. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 12:34, 3 August 2012 (EDT)

::What do you mean?--[[User:TheQuestioner|TheQuestioner]] 12:36, 3 August 2012 (EDT)

== Title of article ==

The middle name should be removed as the name of the article. The middle name of other figures is not in the title in other articles. [[User:AcomaMagic|AcomaMagic]] 15:17, 18 August 2012 (EDT)
:[[Ronald Wilson Reagan]]?? --[[User:JamesWilson|James Wilson]] 05:16, 4 September 2012 (EDT)
::That looks like a rarity. All the other biography pages that I've seen use the most common name. The middle name of Reagan should be removed as the title too. [[User:AcomaMagic|AcomaMagic]] 08:08, 9 September 2012 (EDT)

== Teleprompter at school ==

It is a false rumor, based on photoshopped photos, that Obama had teleprompters set up for a speech to a middle school class. He spoke to the class without teleprompters, then went to another classroom, where he spoke to the ''media'' using a teleprompter. Surely there are enough things to criticize without distorting the truth? [http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/photos/6thgrade.asp] [[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 10:39, 2 September 2012 (EDT)
:This is a little shaky as a criticism I suppose. With his voting record on the Born Alive bills and political corruption, there's an awful lot that can be criticized about him. That he uses teleprompters so often is a valid criticism of him, but the teleprompters in classrooms one needs to be carefully presented in context, as pointed out by Sharon. --[[User:JZambrano|Joshua Zambrano]] 08:56, 4 September 2012 (EDT)

== "may have had a prior marriage" ==

This appears in the information box - I assume its about Obama rather than his wife - but is not explained in the main article, let alone supported with any references. As a Brit, this is completely new to me. Can anyone develop this further? [[User:Rafael|Rafael]] 17:54, 10 September 2012 (EDT)

== Accusations about birth certificate and cultural and name identity ==

I would like to move this section back to the section about Obama's birth, and weave it back into the relevant section instead of having it tagged on to the end of the article. None of the edits will change the argument at all. [[User:MattyD|MattyD]] 12:40, 16 September 2012 (EDT)
:JPatt, the edits I made REMOVED fluff and apologies. Can you please point to specific passages where you think the argument was softened? [[User:MattyD|MattyD]] 12:57, 16 September 2012 (EDT)
::No--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 13:01, 16 September 2012 (EDT)
:::Why not? My edits REMOVE a lot of the fluff. Where is the problem? [[User:MattyD|MattyD]] 13:03, 16 September 2012 (EDT)

==Page has too many kbs==
This age is ''WAY'' too heavy for updating the Intro and I can't wait 2 hours to make these minor changes. Can someone who actually cares please add,
* the U.S. Government's credit rating, for the first time in its history, was downgraded, and [[poverty]]<ref>[http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/data/incpovhlth/2009/pov09fig04.pdf Figure 4: Number in Poverty and Poverty Rate: 1959-2009]. ''U.S. Census Bureau''. Current Population Survey, 1960 to 2010 Annual Social and Economic Supplements.</ref> increased markedly every year.<ref>[http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-201_162-20105376.html Poverty continues to rise in U.S., now 15.1%], CBS News.</ref>
I realize I am penalized 9 mainspace edits for asking for this help, but some, if not much of the Intro citations are two years out of date. [[User:OscarO|OscarO]] 11:38, 29 September 2012 (EDT)

== Country of birth ==

He released his long-form birth certificate, so what evidence is there that he was born in Kenya? [[User:Nightsky|Nightsky]] 15:43, 8 October 2012 (EDT)

*I think at this point the question might better be, "Why do we care at this point?" Obama's almost certainly going to be defeated by Romney, since Romney is better-suited to handle the currently-relevant economic issues (and boy howdy do we ever need someone like that in the Oval Office right now!) Seriously, he's got a little bit more than a month before the election in November, and at this point if his country of birth was conclusively proven to be Kenya it really wouldn't make all that much difference. It's an interesting academic question, but at this point it's irrelevant to the practical situation. [[User:JGrant|JGrant]] 17:17, 8 October 2012 (EDT)

::In response to Nightsky, the document released by the White House as the Obama long form birth certificate was proven to be an item created via Photoshop; it is in individual layers grouped together, and ''not'' a .jpeg or .PNG image one would expect had they simply scanned the actual item.
::In response to JGrant, yes we should care. Obama has a past association with communists and radicals; he has fought to prevent this part of his history from being revealed to the public; this includes that birth certificate. Why would he hide something as innocuous and mundane as a birth certificate, ''unless there was information on it that he does not want revealed?'' If it's a Kenyan goat herder who had no part in politics whatsoever, then why spend millions just to keep that man's name from the public? I happen to think it's another man's name, and it's something that's part and parcel to his current belief system and his political associations, past and present: the communist radical [[Frank Marshal Davis]]. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 17:46, 8 October 2012 (EDT)
:::Are there any reliable sources for this proof? It's just that if it was proven or suspected, it would be a major news story and there would be a constitutional crisis and I'm surprised I haven't heard about it. [[User:Nightsky|Nightsky]] 18:09, 8 October 2012 (EDT)

Talk:Barack Hussein Obama

2012-10-08T19:43:47Z

Nightsky: /* Country of birth */ new section

[[File:Brainreboot20110429.jpg|400px|thumb|]]

{{articletalkheader|prefix=archive}}
 

==Rense==
Jeff Rense may not be a such a good source. The Anti-Defamation League accuses him of promoting anti-Semitic views and 9/11 Conspiracy theories. OTOH, what is wrong with a Pravda article written in the post Soviet-censorship era when democratic Russia hungars to exercise a free press, open discussion and discernment of facts? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 22:39, 23 January 2010 (EST)

:See my talk page, Rob. I never noticed who added the Pravda cite, so if you say so, it is of course fine with me, and please add it back if you haven't already! I now suspect it was yet another vandal site troll stirring the pot, so feel free to deal with him as well. --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 17:02, 24 January 2010 (EST)

== Terror Attacks ==
I have an issue with a claim made in the second paragraph. ''Since abandoning the "War on Terror" in Obama's first year, the United States has suffered more terrorist attacks with deadly intent on American soil than in the previous eight years combined.'' Since Obama replaced the 'Global War on Terror' with 'Overseas Contingency Operation', there have been only four domestic terrorist attacks, a far cry from the 19 that took place under Bush's tenure. This sentence should be reworded or removed in its entirety; it only makes the article look embarrassing. --[[User:MichaelJB|MichaelJB]] 15:46, 25 January 2010 (EST)

:More [[liberal]] poppycock, Michael? Even the New York Times counts more, excluding 9/11, under Obama. Perhaps you should consider sources other than the Kos? --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 19:29, 25 January 2010 (EST)

::A short time ago you gave me grief for making assumptions, yet here you are doing the same. I didn't get any information from Kos, it all came from legitimate news sources. Do you really believe that more terror attacks occurred on US soil from March 2009 to January 2010 than in the eight years of the Bush administration? I would really like to see all your references for making such a bold claim. And why would you want to exclude the WTC/Pentagon attacks?
::Some people have been making some really stupid claims lately about domestic terror. Dana Perino and Rudy Guiliani both claimed there was not a terror attack on the US when Bush was in office. The fact that these people could make such stupidly partisan claims is incredible. [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4kpfhGxJbLc] [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2tYoMoJHNDs] The claim made in this article reeks of the same idiocy of Perino and Guiliani, why not delete the sentence or at least make it factual? --[[User:MichaelJB|MichaelJB]] 20:23, 25 January 2010 (EST)

:::The facts are undeniable that America was totally unprepared to protect itself from terrorist homeland attacks as Bush entered office, due to the total lack of focus of the Clinton Administration and Congress on the issue. Bush can in no way be blamed for the 9/11 attacks with any real credibility.

:::As I have stated many times before, as Mr. Schlafly has stated many times before, as several other Admins have as well, coming here to argue-without-end against our conservative point of view in all articles you come across, is silly. If you and others cannot bring yourselves to accept alternative points of view, so be it. If you want a place to argue against conservatism in general, make your own site or try the Kos or HuffPo; but CP isn't a debate forum, it is a conservative encyclopedia ''project''. Article talk pages are for suggesting ways to improve articles from a conservative point of view, not a liberal one. Is that a clear enough statement? --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 21:29, 25 January 2010 (EST)

::::TK: The change you made is completely unacceptable from a moral and ethical standpoint because instead of correcting an error, you are now highlighting a lie. Three terror attacks occurred during Pres. Bush's last year in office. I sent you links to all three events but you are willing to over look such trivial matters as the truth. It's funny that a liberal who has been blocked twice for pointing out errors and outright falsehoods is vilified as a trouble-maker while the conservatives that knowingly mislead and lie are in charge of an alleged 'trustworthy encyclopedia'.
::::I'm trying to make these changes because I don't want Americans to look stupid, even the conservative ones. It's an uphill battle.

::::Gunman killed two people in a church. [http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-07-29-church-shooting_N.htm]
::::Suicide bomber attacked a Georgia law firm. [http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/ga_law_firm_explodes_causing_multiple_injuries/]
::::Two police officers were killed by a bomb placed in a bank. [http://www.odmp.org/officer/19697-captain-thomas-paul-tennant]
::::--[[User:MichaelJB|MichaelJB]] 01:25, 29 January 2010 (EST)

MichaelJB you cannot tell the difference between Muslim terrorists and someone with an ax to grind? Godspeed! --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 06:36, 29 January 2010 (EST)v
:So Michael's point is that progressive liberal leftwing commie socialist (or whatever the flavor of the week) Prof. [[Amy Bishop]] conducted a domestic overseas contingency operation attack. It's beginning to make sense. How would we classify the guy who crashed the plane into the IRS building in Houston, a tax protester who railed against corporations. Dang, this is a tuff one.... [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 08:13, 12 March 2010 (EST)

== Middle name in article title? ==

----

::::<big>'''Unless you have some brilliant new argument to add to this section, further discussion is unneeded.</big>'''

----

It strikes to me odd that the title of the article is Barach Hussein Obama. While there is nothing wrong with that by itself, looking at the [[President_of_the_United_States_of_America#Presidents_list|list of all the U.S. presidents]], it seems that all the other presidents' articles are titled either without their middle name, or just a middle initial. Wouldn't it make sense to rename the article to either Barack Obama or Barack H. Obama to follow suit? [[User:Kayvan|Kayvan]] 18:19, 26 February 2010 (EST)
:There is a big difference between Walker or Jefferson and Hussein. My two cents. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 18:22, 26 February 2010 (EST)
::What about [[Ronald Wilson Reagan]]? [[User:DMorris|DMorris]] 18:26, 26 February 2010 (EST)
:::This topic had been discussed before. He decided to be inaugurated with his middle name after not using it during the campaign. He is not ashamed of it and we are not ashamed to include it.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 18:29, 26 February 2010 (EST)
::::Ah, I see. Looking at some lists though ([http://www.ipl.org/div/potus/] and [http://www.apples4theteacher.com/holidays/presidents-day/past-presidents-of-usa.html]), it seems that many presidents were also inaugurated in a similar fashion. [[User:Kayvan|Kayvan]] 18:33, 26 February 2010 (EST)

::: I think that, as all encyclopedias and scholarly works try to do, we should try to decide on a particular set of rules and always follow it. In this case, these are the options:
:::1) Always cite the full name in the title, so "Barack Hussein Obama", "George Herbert Walker Bush" and "Ronald Wilson Reagan";
:::2) Always use initials for middle names, so "Barack H. Obama", "George H.W. Bush" and "Ronald W. Reagan";
:::3) Use the names in the way they most commonly used, using middle name initials only where they are necessary to distinguish one particular individual from another, therefore "Barack Obama", "George H.W. Bush" and "Ronald Reagan".

::: We are talking about titles of articles; the full name should always be cited in the body of the article. Personally, I would vote for solution n.3. --[[User:Maquissar|Maquissar]] 18:34, 26 February 2010 (EST)
::::I like the idea. Either 2 or 3 seem best in my opinion; full names seem a bit to long for article titles. The name that the president was inaugurated with isn't bad either, but it would seem less formal, as some have middle names and others don't. [[User:Kayvan|Kayvan]] 18:38, 26 February 2010 (EST)

:::: I thought about that solution, but then I thought that we should better set very general rules; by this I mean that we should decide how to title page names referring to INDIVIDUALS, not to US PRESIDENTS. Deciding that "the name that the president was inaugurated with" is a rule that, naturally, can only be applied to presidents. --[[User:Maquissar|Maquissar]] 18:41, 26 February 2010 (EST)

:::: Another good rule would be to use the name that is mostly used to refer to that individual; this has the disadvantage of not being objective, but it is also the most effective. So "Barack Obama", "George H.W. Bush" (to distinguish him from his son), "Ronald Reagan", "Eminem" instead of "Marshall Mathers", "O.J. Simpson" instead of "Orenthal J. Simpson"... --[[User:Maquissar|Maquissar]] 18:56, 26 February 2010 (EST)

There isn't any vote here, nor was one asked for. Since Obama tries to soft-pedal his Muslim roots and associations, our editorial policy is to call attention to that ''fact''. In addition you should note the [[Ronald Wilson Reagan|Reagan]] article, where well before anyone had an inkling Obama would run for President, Conservapedia used his full name, ''Ronald Wilson Reagan'' which Reagan himself preferred for formal use. So I submit President Obama isn't being singled out, contrary to the insistence of silly-minded liberals. --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 19:06, 26 February 2010 (EST)

:But why call attention to that ''fact'' in the title of the article? The ''fact'' is never going to be denied. The introduction sentence would still say "Barack Hussein Obama". Italicize his middle name in the introduction or change the font color to bring out the ''fact'' if you wish. What I am trying to point at is, why should his middle name be used in the article title? Reagan may have preferred it for formal use, but does Mr. Obama say that same? He is commonly known as Barack Obama; I haven't seen it used in any other way (except Obama, of course). If he is commonly known as that, it would make sense to title the article like that, as should every article on people. [[User:Kayvan|Kayvan]] 21:05, 26 February 2010 (EST)
::Richard Milhous Nixon was commonly refered to as [[Milhous]] by his detracters. Indeed, googling milhouse brings up hundreds of thousands of hits on Nixon that dwarf most all other uses of the name. Now, googling [[Hussein]] presents a host of other problems. The [[Heshamite Dynasty]] of [[Hussein bin Ali]] had been the Islamic Keeper of the Holy places for 700 years until Western British Imperialist interests unseated them and installed the Saudi ruling clan thier place (visualize Islamists dethroning the Pope and installing thier own choice as successor). How does it look when Hussein bin Ali's namesake bows to tne Saudi puppet? Why not focus on how Obama ''is'' bringing real change to the whole planet, rather than argue about how things have traditionally been done? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 13:14, 27 February 2010 (EST)
Drop it. Further discussion is last-wordism. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 21:14, 26 February 2010 (EST)

:On the question of "''all the other presidents' articles are titled either without their middle name, or just a middle initial. Wouldn't it make sense ...to follow suit? ''"
:You will recall Barack Hussein Obama is the transformational president of change. Wouldn't it make sense to begin change right here, with his name? (assuming that is his name). [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 23:54, 26 February 2010 (EST)

<nowiki>:</nowiki>D 
--<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 01:58, 27 February 2010 (EST)

Pretty slick conservative trap there TK. despite the fact that you neglected to answer some massive holes in the arguments above, you declare the debate "ended" (even though its not) then decry anything else as last wordism to stifle any further debate. well done--[[User:DerikJ|DerikJ]] 11:58, 27 February 2010 (EST)
:What holes? We're implementing change. Let's find common ground and compromise. We've done just that. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 12:35, 27 February 2010 (EST)
::I like your comment on change, Rob, it made me laugh :) Anyway, I don't see how an argument that Obama's slogan being "change" is any reason to title his article to what he is less commonly known as/less traditional. It's pushing it, in a sense. Besides, being a conservative, I would think that you wouldn't want to follow Obama's way of thinking ;) [[User:Kayvan|Kayvan]] 13:40, 27 February 2010 (EST)
:::Conservatives are for change, both economic and social. They want to change tax law and abortion rulings, for example. Above all, change public education. Being anti-change is just a vulgar stereotype held by closeminded and intolerant people. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 14:09, 27 February 2010 (EST)
::::I can agree with that. But ''why'' "change" how Obama's article is titled when others are titled either without their middle name or with their middle name if they are commonly known and identified by the name, in some cases. Simply changing something doesn't necessarily mean it's a good thing, there has to be reason, and the reason has to be, well, reasonable. [[User:Kayvan|Kayvan]] 14:44, 27 February 2010 (EST)
:::::Call it the price of progress. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 15:17, 27 February 2010 (EST)
::::::In that case, would changing the titles of all the other peoples' articles to include their middle names sound all right to you? It would be progress, after all. [[User:Kayvan|Kayvan]] 17:29, 27 February 2010 (EST)
I have always wondered why the Obamabots get so upset with the name Obama's parents chose. Pretty silly. --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 16:40, 27 February 2010 (EST)

:I actually like the name, it has a nice ring to it. It's more of just keeping a solid style of titling pages, a format if you want to call it that. [[User:Kayvan|Kayvan]] 17:29, 27 February 2010 (EST)
::Which brings us to the question of Barry Soetero. If Obama went by this name, then he may have lied to the Illinois Supreme Court when asked to provide former names, according to this Attorney’s Registration Record. [http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2061988/posts] I'm not the sure what the resolution of this issue ever was, and we don't have a word about it in this article. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 17:49, 27 February 2010 (EST)

I know I am new here but there really needs to be a consensus amongst all Presidential and Vice President articles, actually this should probably extend to all US politicians. I know there is a specified conservative bias, however the lack organization and consensus has nothing to do with liberal or conservative bias, it has to do with disorganization and lazyiness by the admins.

If you want to leave the middle, that is fine, however, there would need to be a quick modification of all or the majority of the US Politian article so as not to look so disorganized.[[User:Solarguy17|Solarguy17]] 01:01, 10 March 2010 (EST)

:You hit the nail on the head. You are new here. Don't come in criticizing and such off the bat. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 01:12, 10 March 2010 (EST)

My criticization is to help the article(s) to be better as a whole. None of the above discussion explains the reasoning for leaving it as is. Just people saying he used it in his inauguration so we use it here, however, almost every pres does this so why not have it that way for everyone????[[User:Solarguy17|Solarguy17]] 01:15, 10 March 2010 (EST)

Not really discussion just more of a question. I just recently found this site and was looking through the religious articles and for the most part they seemed pretty good. However, when I come to the political articles, some of them seem a little crazy. I know it is to call more attention to the things that are being overlooked by the media. But I have ask about the middle name thing.

I read all of the information above and I still am not sure why it was decided to leave it as is. Can someone clarify this?
Please don't ban me, I noticed that basically everyone with discussion in this thread that isn't an admin now has banned accounts. I personally don't care, I am just confused. [[User:StevenS|StevenS]] 01:12, 12 March 2010 (EST)

: As it says up at the top of this section, "Unless you have some brilliant new argument to add to this section, further discussion is unneeded." If you do have one, let's have it. But it sure seems like everyone who signs up to this site and immediately starts complaining has nothing new to say at all. Why don't you spend some time reading here with an open mind first, and complain later? [[User:DanielPulido|DanielPulido]] 01:20, 12 March 2010 (EST)

Now, why would a single individual come here under several different user names all in an effort to get the word "Hussein" removed from the title of this article? It makes no sense at all unless that individual has a personal agenda to perform. The article title stays as it is. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 01:42, 12 March 2010 (EST)

:My only concern is that the title seems to exist in its current state for no purpose other than to further a bias. The arguments that "well he asked for it" seem to suggest that accuracy and fairness are non-valuable in this wiki. I sincerely hope this is not the case and that I may not be banned and able to start a fun future in helping this wiki grow in the impressive way it has so far. [[User:Vidihawk|Vidihawk]] 07:47, 6 April 2010 (EDT)

::'''"Unless you have some brilliant new argument to add to this section, further discussion is unneeded."'''
I guess you missed the bold title at the top of this section? Also, see [[Ronald Wilson Reagan]] to see how silly your argument is. --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 08:16, 6 April 2010 (EDT)
:I guess it wasn't as bright an idea as I had hoped. Heh... It still comes off as somewhat purposeful, though. Okie, I'll back away! - [[User:Vidihawk|Vidihawk]] 08:24, 6 April 2010 (EDT)
::Purposeful, as in done with the same horribly malevolent intent as ''my'' adding Reagan's middle name several years ago? You are giving away your intent in advance, good sir, by refusing to admit your already formed assumptions about us are wrong. I hope you prove me wrong, and turn out to be that rare U.K. denizen that turns out to be open-minded and as fair to us as you wish us to be to you. There have been precious few. And please do check out our editors guide and all of that. We differ quite a bit from Wikipedia. --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 08:33, 6 April 2010 (EDT)
:::::I think we should keep the current title of the article. Furthermore, I think we should replace the top picture, which is currently a picture of Obama, with a picture of an oil drenched pelican (and a new caption) as a tribute to Obama's indifference, sloth and incompetence. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 20:36, 16 June 2010 (EDT)

== I moved the material dealing with the present to the top ==

I moved the material dealing with the present to the top as I thought readers would be more interested in how Obama is screwing up the present. For example, I think Americans right now are very concerned about how Obama is screwing up the economy. Of course, he is also doing a poor job in other areas presently as well such as holding terrorists court cases in civilian courts, etc. etc. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 04:30, 15 March 2010 (EDT)

:That makes sense to me. I do appreciate letting me try the other timeline structure. However, I didn't really take into consideration the fact that because he is a high profile individual it may benefit readers to see more recent info before his earlier biography facts. At least while he's fulfilling his one failed term as president, your structure makes sense to me. [[User:DerekE|DerekE]] 12:42, 15 March 2010 (EDT)

::As the ==Maoism== section is being being built, we may eventually be able to free up space from the sections on the Ayers/Dohrn relationship by moving some of that material to Ayers own page, and/or creating a new separate page documenting Obama's rise with communist and terrorist assistance. An acceptable title for that page would be needed. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 13:23, 15 March 2010 (EDT)

==Citation==

"Any orders he gives to the American military are subject to being refused. Orders that Obama gives to America’s Joint Chiefs of Staff of the military can be refused." --http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/columnists/19-01-2009/106972-Barry_Soetoro-0

Do we really want to cite an article that makes this claim? Do any of us really support this opinion, or if we do, do we support the use of opinion articles as sources in addition to factual ones? --[[User:BenjaminS|Ben]] [[User Talk:BenjaminS|Talk]] 08:42, 6 April 2010 (EDT)

:Is the opinion piece backed by valid and factual citations from the United States Code, Ben, as opposed to a unsupported rant? --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 08:47, 6 April 2010 (EDT)

== pronunciation of "Pakistan" ==

This is really considered evidence of anything? I've heard [[Mark Levin]] use the Spanish-inflected pronunciation of Sonia Sotomayor's name (''so tow my OR'' rather than ''so tow MY er''), but nobody would claim that proves he's Catholic or Hispanic. [[User:Golgaronok|Golgaronok]] 23:55, 9 April 2010 (EDT)
:Pronunciation shows an enormous amount about someone's views and history. Obama doesn't use the American pronunciation, and this is telling, since ''no one else in the public sphere'' pronounces it in the muslim way ''but'' Obama. [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 00:15, 10 April 2010 (EDT)
[[David Petraeus]] does [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vtCLp7siY7I]. [[User:Golgaronok|Golgaronok]] 00:50, 10 April 2010 (EDT)
And [http://www.forvo.com/word/pakistan/ numerous other languages] use a pronunciation closer to the native form. [[User:Golgaronok|Golgaronok]] 00:57, 10 April 2010 (EDT)

::"Golgaronok" (if that is your name), your quibbles with the entry have already been argued ad nauseum, [http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Barack_Hussein_Obama/archive4#.22Pokiston.22.3F.3F.3F.3F.3F here], for instance. If you've only come to argue on talk pages, you're wasting your own time. Try making substantive contributions to the project; excessive talk is disfavored here. [[User:DanielPulido|DanielPulido]] 01:04, 10 April 2010 (EDT)
I don't see any responses to the points I raised. But it's y'all's funeral. [[User:Golgaronok|Golgaronok]] 01:13, 10 April 2010 (EDT)
:::Kind of interesting that Davis Petraeus was mentioned here. When that general was ordered to command US forces in Afghanistan and Iraq, the liberal elites decided that his name should be pronounced "BETRAY US". [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 01:29, 10 April 2010 (EDT)

==Barry Soetoro = birth name?==
This may have already been discussed, so forgive me if this has been settled. I noticed that the article says ''"Barack Hussein Obama II (birth name Barry Soetoro..."'', however the articles cited do not support the idea that "Barry Soetoro" is Obama's birth name, in fact quite the opposite. My understanding, from reading the Newsweek article, is that "Barack" is his birth name, although he went by "Barry" when he was younger. His father's name, as I understand it, is Barack Hussein Obama, and he was named after his father. "Seotoro", if I remember right, was his stepfather's last name, so it is unlikely that it would have been part of Obama's birth name. To be clear, I do realize that he spent his younger years being known as "Barry Soetoro", and I think that should be included in the article, I just don't think it was actually his birth name. 
Please understand that I am not as knowledgeable in this kind of thing as many other contributors here, so I may have gotten it all wrong - that's why I didn't attempt to edit the article. Please correct me if I have gotten it wrong - I won't be offended and I am curious as to the truth of the matter. [[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 18:11, 1 May 2010 (EDT)

According to the citation that shows the birth certificate, the birth name is, in fact, Barack Hussein Obama II, NOT Barry Soetoro. Also, because there is an actual document, i.e. physical, demonstrable proof, the word "allegedly" should be removed.

== Remove name repetition? ==

Would anyone mind if I removed some of the repetition of Obama's name in certain portions of the article? For example, in this paragraph:
{{cquote|
[[Barack Obama and uncharitableness|Barack Obama's recent pattern of charitable giving]] and [[Barack Obama and liberal elitism|Barack Obama's liberal elitism]] is consistent with Obama being a [[Narcissism|narcissist]] which is a charge that has often been made against Barack Obama. However, it is also true that Barack Obama is an [[evolution|evolutionist]]. Barack Obama told the ''York Daily Record'' that "I believe in [[evolution]]...". Barack Obama's recent pattern of charitable giving and liberal elitism is also in accordance with someone who has a certain degree of [[Social Darwinism|social darwinistic]] thinking. In addition to [[Liberals and uncharitableness|American liberals giving less to charity]], it is also true that [[Theory of evolution and liberalism|American liberals are also more likely to believe in evolution]].
}}

I think I could alter it to make it more readable with "Obama's recent pattern of charitable giving and liberal elitism is consistent with that of a narcissist, a charge that has often been made against him."

And so forth. In my linguistics class, we talked about semantic satiation, and I believe that paragraphs like these, along with the fact that it never seems to use pronouns, somewhat diminish the readability of the article. If I were to make this change, I would preserve every wikilink, reference, etc, but I believe it would become more readable. In Christ, [[User:Tzoran|Tyler Zoran]] [[User talk:Tzoran|Talk]] 09:09, 6 May 2010 (EDT)

== Insults? ==

Does the entire beginning of the article have to be so laden with insults? Couldnt it simply say what the article will be about, and THEN express views? As it is it appears very unprofessional. 19:11, 6 May 2010 (EDT)
:We believe in the truth here, and the fact that [[liberals]] like yourself feign offense at the display of it speaks volumes about you. If you insist on closing your mind, at least take ownership of your [[deceit]]! Sign your comments with <nowiki> ~~~~ </nowiki> next time. Godspeed! [[User:Tzoran|Tyler Zoran]] [[User talk:Tzoran|Talk]] 19:58, 6 May 2010 (EDT)

== "The first president who is biracial" ==

There have been other presidents of more than one race. Bush Jr. is has some German and English ancestry. [[User:NP|NP]]

:George W is German and English, is that two races according to our census? I think the readers will understand what biracial refers to.

::English and German are '''''not''''' races, and neither is Hispanic. --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 22:16, 17 May 2010 (EDT)

== Reorganizing ==

I'm glad to see the edit feature is enabled here once more. I think this page needs a revamp to structure information better. I've reorganized everything into a better structure, let me know what you think. I am trying to put a summary of the presidency at the top, information about his life/career next, and then a political summary. This should really improve the page's appearance, as it appears too disorganized right now. --[[User:Jzyehoshua|Jzyehoshua]] 15:56, 20 May 2010 (EDT)
:What you're doing is burying important information so fewer users will find it. That's unacceptable. [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 15:57, 20 May 2010 (EDT)

== Obama is a Muslim theory and the alleged claim of Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Aboul Gheit ==

Here is what the American Thinker reported: "The American President told me in confidence that he is a Muslim." That was the claim of Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Aboul Gheit, as reported in the May 2010 issue of Israel Today. According to journalist Avi Lipkin, Gheit appeared on Nile TV's "Round Table Show" in January, on which he said that "he had had a one-on-one meeting with Obama who swore to him that he was a Moslem, the son of a Moslem father and step-son of Moslem step-father, that his half-brothers in Kenya were Moslems, and that he was loyal to the Moslem agenda."[http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/06/report_obama_said_i_am_a_musli.html] Here is what Hot Air says: http://hotair.com/greenroom/archives/2010/06/14/obama-is-a-muslim-take-two/

Personally, I am beginning to think Obama is: not a Muslim, not a Christian, and not an atheist. I think Obama is a narcissist who worships himself. I can also see him telling one person he is a Christian and then later telling someone else he is a Muslim. There are many examples of Obama being insincere such as all the substantive healthcare discussions were going to be on C-Span, etc. etc. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 15:53, 16 June 2010 (EDT)

== 2009 Nobel Peace Prize ==

I find it strange that there is not a single mention of the president being awarded the Nobel peace prize in this article. Considering that other prominent award winners have it at least mentioned in their respective articles. The [[Mother Teresa]] article, for instance, prominently states her award in the introduction to the article, and even political figures like [[Al Gore]] and [[Henry Kissinger]] (both of whom won the peace prize) have their award at least mentioned in the article.
--[[User:DenisTR|DenisTR]] 16:04, 19 August 2010 (EDT)

:I agree with you, Denis. It was there, once-upon-a-time, but apparently it was removed in the constant editing turmoil. CP does mention this in the [[Nobel Prize]] article. I will add it here, as it should be. --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 16:24, 19 August 2010 (EDT)

==Faulty Logic==
I have a suspicion that Andy Schlafly is secretly a Muslim. Will you deny that, Andy? If you do deny it, then I accuse you of being a Muslim under the concept of Taqiyya.
It's like a terrible flow chart that always ends with "You're a Muslim." I realize that you're kind of scraping the barrel with this whole "Obama is a Muslim" thing, but c'mon. [[User:Pete5383|Paul]] 18:57, 19 August 2010 (EDT)

: Paul, you seem to think all claims or facts are relative. They aren't. Truth is supported by logic and evidence.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:00, 19 August 2010 (EDT)

:: President Obama clearly has an Islamic background. As an adult, he joined a church and says he's a Christian. I'd say he's as much Muslim as I am Jewish; by Jewish law, my having a Jewish mother makes me Jewish by birth, but I became a Christian by choice as a teenager. Go figure. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 14:04, 3 September 2010 (EDT)

:::Whether President Obama is Muslim or not is one question; however it is undeniable Obama misspoke or was deceptive while ramping up his ambitions back in 2005 when he told the ''Chicago Sun-Times'', "I am rooted in the Christian tradition." Nowhere on his maternal side, grandma, gramps, or his natural father, or his stepfather, can any Christian rooting be found. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 14:37, 4 September 2010 (EDT)

==Days in office==
[[Barack Obama]] was inaugurated {{days since|2009|1|20}} days ago and will finish his term in {{#expr: -{{days since|2013|1|20}} }} days. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 14:00, 3 September 2010 (EDT)

==Apparent sourcing errors==

While looking over this article, I noticed a number of problems - mostly unsourced claims or claims for which the source is no longer available. Since my suggestions will almost certainly be controversial, I will not actually make any further changes to this page.

*The quote "Rather than being a unifier, Mr. Obama has divided America on the basis of race, class and partisanship" under the heading "Presidency" is unattributed.

*The claim that Obama represented ACORN in ''Buycks-Roberson v. Citibank Fed. Sav. Bank'' is unsupported. While court documents do list Obama among the Plaintiff's Attorneys, they do not reference ACORN in any way. [http://www.clearinghouse.net/detail.php?id=10112] This claim seems to have been added by bloggers after the fact. Similarly, the cited reference contains no source for the claim that Obama had anything to do with the CRA, only a completely unsourced allegation that was reprinted almost verbatim here. As far as I can tell, Obama represented ACORN exactly once, on a case involving motor voter laws. [http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2008/oct/17/john-mccain/he-represented-them-in-one-case-/]

*The statement "Obama website Fight The Smears has confirmed that Obama was once a Kenyan citizen until 1982" under the subheading "Birth Certificate Controversy" is unsourced and ambiguous.

*Much of the content under the subheading "Engineers defeat of Centrist Democrats" is dubious. Two of the cites [http://articles.latimes.com/1992-03-18/news/mn-3844_1_gus-savage][http://www.dkosopedia.com/wiki/Carol_Moseley_Braun#Political_career] are about Carol Moseley Braun and don't mention Obama at all. There is no indication in any of the sources that Obama was connected to the Braun campaign, so these cites are meaningless. Additionally, the section attributes an anti-Dixon intent to Obama (referring to Obama as "subverting" Dixon's reelection, defined by Conservapedia's own article as "lending of aid, comfort, and moral support to individuals, groups, or organizations that advocate the overthrow of incumbent governments by force and violence"). What he did was increase voter turnout among the black community, a far cry from what the text implies.

*<s>The statement "President Obama falsely claimed that the senior citizen group AARP endorsed his administration's health care plan when they never made such an endorsement" under the subheading "Obama Administration Health Care Plan and Its Advocacy Methods" is sourced to a YouTube video that no longer exists. Additionally, it appears that AARP has been supporting health care reform since at least August 2009. [http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/08/17/eveningnews/main5247916.shtml][http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/19/aarp-ama-announce-support_n_506060.html]</s>

*Similarly, several cites link to YouTube videos that have been removed. Multiple cites under the subheading "Obama Administration Health Care Plan and Liberal Elitism" link to deleted videos, as does the cite for the statement "Barack Obama's "Disinformation Czar" (whose supposed job was to correct disinformation that others are spreading about the Obama administration's health care plan) was caught spreading misleading information." The cite for the statement "Senior citizens are key Democratic party constituents that could kill Obama's socialistic health care plan" links to a private video.

--[[User:DrewJ|DrewJ]] 15:50, 29 September 2010 (EDT)

:Sorry, Drew, but one glaring misrepresentation really sticks out, and explains why liberals are often accused of playing fast and loose with the truth: While AARP has long advocated health care reform, it specifically repudiated Obama's distortion of the truth, saying they were not endorsing any specific plan, at that time. See how easy it is to distort fact, by omission, and make obviously good-intentioned souls like you doubt the real truth?

:You are obviously an editor here, and I would urge you, before making posts such as this one, to try and find substitute sources that back up what is in the story. At the very least, as is the case with the AARP, at least check the facts before stating something is incorrect. It was a very big story at the time, Obama's misstatement, and not at all hard to find....so easy and well-known in fact that some people might be tempted to accuse you of inserting a deliberate [[Red Herring]]. --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 17:29, 29 September 2010 (EDT)

Sources don't count if they are liberal sources. Those are worse than no source at all. Find a reliable source like Cato Institute or Fox News and we can add those. [[User:JoeSmithson117|JoeSmithson117]] 18:44, 4 December 2011 (EST)

== Typo ==
The first sentence here has a typo: it presumably is meant to read "...said to have '''been''' born in..." I'd fix it myself, but the page is so informative (and therefore long) that my poor old computer can't load it to edit. --[[User:LanceS|LanceS]] 21:49, 11 November 2010 (EST)
:Thanks, JPatt got it. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 22:29, 11 November 2010 (EST)

== Bryan Fischer: Obama wants to give America back to the Indians ==

Is [http://www.afa.net/Blogs/BlogPost.aspx?id=2147501360 this site] some kind of liberal parody? Otherwise, this is so serious that is should be included. American Family Association would seem to me as a pretty trustworthy organization, and this Bryan Fischer is writing for them. Any thoughts? – [[User:Dstone|dstone]] 16:42, 1 January 2011 (EST)

==Fact vs Opinion==
Okay...I thought maybe this article would be a good place to start. I was introduced to Conservapedia recently, and have been waffling about joining and bcoming an editor, but can no longer refrain. So, I'm extraordinarily new...and I fully expect the welcoming and flame-free arms of this community, as I support the overall efforts of what Conservapedia is trying to accomplish. The road to becoming a "Trustworthy Encyclopedia" is long, and this site is just starting to make baby steps in that direction. That being said, I will try to keep this short.

FACT: Opinions are not fact. Even expert opinions are not fact. They're just plain old opinions. Despite being in the Commandments, and otherwise stated over and over again, folks seem to have trouble making this distinction.
OPINION: If you are unable to make cited references, or present the conservative viewpoint in a reasoned and intelligent manner, I would heavily suggest that you leave the site to those who can. Your "help" is often unhelpful. Especially in an article as...contentious...as this - and I imagine many others, I'll be looking shortly - the talk page is the place to present your opinions. If you cannot site material, find sources that intelligently argue your viewpoint, or just want a second or third pair of eyes and ears, it would be addressed here. Also, if haven't actually read the article that you are citing...do that first, before posting anything at all...

There are several on this page, the most innocuous of which: President Obama authorized offshore oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico[28]. The moratorium lapsed in 2008. It says it right in the article, paragraph 4. This statement is spruious and vague and will be reworded to say something like: Then-Senator Obama voted to re-authorize oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico. This is just a small and harmless example, but, either research the issue before posting, or don't post. If you wish to engage in historical revisionism, or just bottom-barrel opinion mongering, please roll on over to Wikipedia, and leave us be. [[User:RyanDav|RyanDav]] 2 January 2011
:I moved this from the top of the page to its current location, to maintain threading. [[User:Tzoran|Tyler Zoran]] [[User talk:Tzoran|Talk]] 13:35, 2 January 2011 (EST)

== Oil Drilling Moratorium, redux ==

I did not realize that this would be as contentious as it was. The statement is simply poorly worded, I assume unintentionally, and appears to place the blame squarely on one person's shoulders. This is just factually innacurate, nothing more, nothing less. We accept credit where credit is due, and take blame where blame is appropriate - and the blame belongs to the vast majority of the 110th Congress, both the liberal reps and ours - and to deny that is some kind of revisionism, which will not be tolerated. I'm certainly more than willing to be corrected on this, but you can either site sources that support your viewpoint, or you cannot - it really is that easy. In that case, the article would read something like, "then-Senator Obama lobbied heavily for the moratorium to lapse, and led a congressional coalition consisting of Senators Blah, Blah and Blah and Congressmen Such-and-such and So-and-so to further that end, etc..." accompanied by supporting references. I am afraid, however, that a "nuh-uh," or, "because I said so," is simply Not Good Enough. We're counteracting liberal bias, here, not populating the internet with more unfounded claptrap. [[User:RyanDav|RyanDav]] 19:26, 3 January 2011 (EST)

:If you please, write here your proposal for how this should be written, including the source links. If Obama lobbied heavily for the moritorium to lapse, then the source evidence will say it; if he was a part of a coalition of people, then again the evidence will support that. Since this article is about Obama, it should lean on what he has done while in office. But as far as what the 110th Congress did or didn't do, oh yes, I am in total agreement with you...and so were the vast majority of voters back in November. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 20:00, 3 January 2011 (EST)

::He didn't, as far as I know, or have ever read. I don't think any articles arguing that he soley was responsible, or even more responsible than any other rep, exist. The text is already up there. Pretty vanilla. Mentions him by name, but also says, "hey, don't forget about all the other chair-jockeys, too!" But the article is about him, so he gets a name drop for focus. The article is about him as whole, so his Presidential and Senatorial terms would be seperate sections of the same article, so as not to confuse. The 110th was the last Bush-era Congress. In November, we voted out the 111th. We are now in the 112th Congress.

::Oh, I also replaced someone's citation from an OpEd piece in the NYTimes with an actual news reference that supported the same point (about the Obama administration's poor response to the Oil Spill). If I didn't know better (and I probably don't), I would suspect that some of the citations here are purposefully planted just to make us look like simpletons. [[User:RyanDav|RyanDav]] 21:39, 3 January 2011 (EST)

== Birth Controversy ==
Could someone please explain to me something I've never quite followed: why does it matter where Obama was born? As far as I can tell, no one is claiming his mother was not a US Citizen, which makes him a "natural born" US citizen even if he was born in Kenya, Moscow, or Riyadh. If the issue is "without a birth certificate we can't be certain his mother is really his mother" then I get it, but this side of things seems to be ignored in favor of controversy over the actual location of the birth. If we interpret "natural born citizen" as "born within the US", then that would exclude the children of Armed Forces personnel stationed overseas with their families at the time their children were born from the presidency, which seems like something liberals would love to do. [[User:Ptorquemada|Ptorquemada]] 12:09, 5 April 2011 (EDT)
:Well, John McCain whose father was an Admiral was born to two American parents in Panama Canal Zone. The media questioned his "natural born" citizen status and it seemingly was determined that since both his parents were American citizens who were living out of State because of the Admiral's duties that John McCain's birth status would be considered "natural born. The question concerning Barack Obama is that his father was not a US citizen but was in fact a British subject as Kenya was under British rule at the time. Some suggest that the original conception of "natural born" was that both parents are US citizens at the time of the birth of a child. So there is a question as to his "natural born" status even if he was, in fact, born in Hawaii. The fact that Obama has spent a couple of million dollars fighting any requests for proof of an original long form birth certificate and school records makes some people more convinced that a. he wasn't actually born in Hawaii and that his birth was only registered there or b. because his father was a British subject he had duel citizenship status which would make it doubtful that he would be considered a natural born citizen. There are many questions concerning Obama's "natural born" status because he also appears to have been a citizenship of Indonesia and is supposed to have traveled on an Indonesian passport as an adult. Of course, a lot of questions would be removed if the president just released the original birth certificate. The fact that he hasn't just adds fuel to the fire. [[User:Dwain|Dwain]] 12:09, 8 April 2011 (EDT)

== Birth Certificate Removal? ==

Now that Obama has finally released his birth certificate, all this about Kenya and Barry Soetoro seems a bit silly. Should we remove it? [[User:JimAB|JimAB]] 11:24, 27 April 2011 (EDT)
:Has the question of Mr. Obama traveling to Pakistan on an Indonesian passport under the name Barry Soetero in 1981 been resolved yet? As well as the statements regarding his application to join the Illinois State Bar Association wherein he answered no to the question of ever using any aliases? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 18:12, 28 April 2011 (EDT)

== Shortening the article length ==

I think we need to work on splitting this article; I recently revert a vandal's (mostly) blanking of the page, and my browser would freeze up when I tried to save the page (actually I'm currently trying to save it - and over and over again I'm having no luck). Currently this appears at the top of the edit screen:
:'''WARNING: This page is 144 kilobytes long; some browsers may have problems editing pages approaching or longer than 32kb. Please consider breaking the page into smaller sections or removing irrelevant information.'''
Thoughts?--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 00:34, 30 April 2011 (EDT)

== First Socialist??? ==

Obama is clearly a socialist, but is he the first to be president as the lead of the article states? The New deal democrats who created social security come to mind.[[User:BenDylan|BenD]] 09:03, 1 May 2011 (EDT)
:That certainly may be true. But we are talking about one man who occupies the office of president, not underlings and appopintees. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 09:23, 1 May 2011 (EDT)
::But couldn't the Presidents who hired them be considered socialists? I still don't know about saying he's the FIRST. [[User:KingHanksley|KingHanksley]] 12:31, 4 May 2011 (EDT)
:::You Americans have no idea what socialism is anymore do you?[[User:Cmurphynz|Cmurphynz]] 21:36, 25 June 2012 (EDT)
::::I guess you're on to us. Alex, I'll take What is redistribution of wealth, State control of industry for $200. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 21:43, 25 June 2012 (EDT)

== Obama the Socialist ==
I am counting all the capitalists that have hired self-proclaimed communists. I come up with zero. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 12:43, 2 May 2011 (EDT)

== Update of the article ==

See [[Talk:Barack Hussein Obama/update]] if you'd like to contribute to an update of this article - we'll be keeping a lot of the information that's good, throwing out some information that's a little old, and adding new information - all while hopefully downsizing! All help is appreciated!--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 19:55, 2 May 2011 (EDT)

== Bin Laden ==

Should we at least mention the Bin Laden capture? I feel that in fairness we should give him his one or two accomplishments. We should definitely mention that George W. Bush's policies played a big hand but still Obama could have gone entirely bleeding heart on us and we wouldn't have gotten OBL [[User:KingHanksley|KingHanksley]] 11:24, 4 May 2011 (EDT)

But being fair and giving credit to a liberal muslim socialist for making the world even a little safer would undermine the integrity of a conservative encyclopedia. Now had he screwed up the capture then that would be worthy of mentioning because it would show how he endangered the country. We should only be fair and give credit where credit is due if Obama was a Christian conservative who shared our beliefs. ([[User:Bluebank|Bluebank]] 12:58, 7 July 2011 (EDT))

I agree, it would only be worth mentioning if he had screwed up the capture because then we could hold his feet to the fire. ([[User:Jvclark2|Jvclark2]] 13:00, 7 July 2011 (EDT))

:::''"giving credit to a liberal muslim socialist for making the world even a little safer would undermine the integrity of a conservative encyclopedia."'' Well that's not a biased statement or anything. It should fall under the article Obama presidency but because of its significance, put it on the BHO page. Rarely, but we have given Obama credit in the past. The rescue of a Captain from Somali pirates is a good example of the proper choice the Progressive fake Christian Marxist had made. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 14:58, 7 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::I just don't see where ordering bin Laden's killing is a big accomplishment. What purpose did it serve other than a failed effort to turn around Obama's falling poll ratings while destroying the most important relationship the United States had in the war on terror. After Obama declared the war on terror over two years ago, dismantling the delicate relationship with the Pakistani ISS seems like phase two. Undermining Pakistan's secular regime, the way Obama did, only works to the advantage of Islamic extremists.

:::::Did killing bin Laden bring back the lives lost in the 9/11 attacks? No. Does making the war's in Iraq & Afghanistan about retribution rather than prevention, further American foreign policy interests or make the United States more secure? Hardly.

:::::Does creating the false sense among the American electorate that the objectives of the war in Afghanistan have now been accomplished, and we can abandon the fight? The height of folly -- and a repeat of what happened when the U.S. abandoned Afghanistan to the terrorists after 1991.

:::::Did killing bin Laden make America safe from reprisals? Or rather doies killing bin Laden expose innocent men, women, and children to the never ending threat of sudden, sensesless, and violent death?
:::::The cynical manipulation of American security and foreign policy interests for short term popularity and selfish career interests is appalling. I just don't agree this a "success" to boast of. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 23:15, 7 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::While I think it's laughable to say that taking down the number one most wanted man in the world isn't an accomplishment, I think it's a decision that ''anyone'' would have made, therefore, it isn't special or particular that Obama happened to be the one to make it. [[User:BradB|BradB]] 23:57, 7 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::No. We've learned from our mistakes. In 1967 the the number one most wanted man in the world - Che Guevara - was similiarly hunted and executed, only to be resurrected by liberals, hate-mongers, and other assorted sociopaths and pro-mass murder advocates, made the mascot of the hate-America crowd, and sold to American college students as somethiong larger than life and a cult hero to be worshiped. It is not laughable at all. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 13:55, 8 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::::The angst from the left goes back to Bush hatred. We shouldn't have interfered in Iraq and should have focused on OBL. Leftist sheep knew better than Bush. We knew all along that it is not one man but a movement, confront them there instead of here. At least we are no longer creating and recruiting terrorists, thanks to a Muslim-named president and his policies of peace in the Middle East.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 14:08, 8 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::You will recall Senator [[Patty Murray]], who now heads the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee charged with candidate recruitment and doling out funds, praised bin Laden for his work with children buidling day care centers. He probably supported the Family-Leave Act and opposed No Child Left Behind, too. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 15:26, 8 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::''" I just don't agree this a "success" to boast of. "'' Two points, 1) stating a fact is not boasting, it is just stating a fact. We list domestic policy, popular bills, economic plan, gulf oil spill, DADT... It's just another thing to list. 2) Had Bush done it I'm pretty sure it would be on his page.([[User:Jvclark2|Jvclark2]] 21:09, 8 July 2011 (EDT))
:::::::::::That is the point. Stating the fact that Obama's unnecessarily destroyed the most vital relationship the United States has in the War on Terror to score short term approval ratings. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 12:38, 9 July 2011 (EDT)
Jvclark - bin Laden's death is mentioned on this page. In the lead. What more do you want?--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 11:46, 9 July 2011 (EDT)

==From the update - discussion==
===Structuring===
This is what I feel should be the general sectioning of the article - I think with an article that we have this much information on, what we mostly need to do is use "See also:" pages rather than go into major details.
{| style="width:100%"
|valign="top"|
*Early life
*U.S. Senate career (with a note on opposition to the Iraq War - which should be followed up on in the presidential primary race)
*U.S. Senate career
**Radical endorsements, support, and get out the vote efforts (better language?)
**'''Use of filibuster and obstructionism'''
**'''Voted agaist debt ceiling increase'''

*Presidential election (things to cover: experience question, jeremiah wright, PUMA)
**Primary race
**National election
|valign="top"|
*Presidency
**Domestic policy
***Popular Bills (Zadroga, lilly ledbetter fair pay act)
***Economic plan
****Stimulus plan
***Health care
***The Gulf oil spill
**Foreign policy
***Commander-in-Chief
****Iraq
****Afghanistan
****Libya/The Obama Doctine
****Don't Ask Don't Tell
|valign="top"|

*Ideology (mentioning pro-abortion stance, other things not mentioned above)
*References
*See also
*External links
|}

Rob I've bolded two section that I wonder if they should be sections alone; I do 100% agree that they should be mentioned in the text; are you set on them being sections? If so I'll yield--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 00:58, 3 May 2011 (EDT)
:Leave bold for now & let's see what develops; '''Recovery''' is ambiguous; while total output (GDP growth) has recovered, we've seen several polls just over the past week where 60-70% of respondents ''still'' think the US is in recession (despite the fact GDP growth has recovered over the past year and half). Likewise, it certainly has not been a "jobs recovery". I'd suggest this needs a better name. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 01:15, 3 May 2011 (EDT)

::I very much agree - that's a misleading section title - I think what I meant was "Proposed Recovery" - or "Recovery Plan". The latter sounds a little better to my ears. I made a few edits below - I'm gonna hold off on doing anything else till you get a chance to take a look and add things.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]]01:22, 3 May 2011 (EDT)
:::I've replaced Recovery with Stimulus, perhaps "Stimulus and budget". Also, Don't Ask Don't Tell seems a little wierd under "Wartime"; is it there solely cause it's a military subject? It could just as easily fit under Idealogy as well (I' not just trying to be argumentative....) [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 01:40, 3 May 2011 (EDT)
::::Hmm. Very true. No I think it's definitely a legitimate question. I HAD been thinking that Ideology would just cover what wasn't addressed in the prior sections (since certainly we'd discuss his economic ideology in the "Economic plan" section) - so, yes, I had just placed it under wartime solely because its a military subject. But it is probably more apropos to homosexual rights. I am worried that Ideology will become a bucket of worms, so to speak, only in that it'd be weird to just have a section for DADT under it, so then we'd have to have a super-section for "Homosexual policy", and then super-sections for everything else, making the article very long. I leave it up to you.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 01:45, 3 May 2011 (EDT)
:::::Alternatively, we can just leave it as is for now. I'm updating the [[Obama administration]] article right now, too. That one is structured , "Economic policy", "Foreign policy", etc. Wartime leader is something new. Perhaps, Commander-in-Chief? that would encompass DADT as well as ongoing military operations. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 02:08, 3 May 2011 (EDT)
::::::I like that. It's broader and works well. Nice.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 02:29, 3 May 2011 (EDT)
I took a look at the Wikipedia page on Obama - and I actually like how they organize his presidency - into Domestic policy and foreign policy. I'm going to make some changes to reflect that. I think in the long run it'll actually limit the number of sections we need--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 18:15, 4 May 2011 (EDT)

== Congratulations! ==
To the people who worked updating this article. It looks much better now.--[[User:AlejandroH|AlejandroH]] 00:43, 10 May 2011 (EDT)

== Speculation ==

In the spirit of accuracy, I think that all articles should refrain from speculative language (I thought this would be good article to start with). I understand that this is a conservative encyclopedia, but one should not overrule the other. We can still present the conservative view point that other encyclopedias overlook without veering off the path of facts. I think that President Obama has done enough to harm himself without adding inflammatory and opinion statements. This language degrades the reliability of the site. [[User:McTone|McTone]] 10:59, 23 May 2011 (EDT)McTone
:You're actually not making encyclopedic edits - for example how you're adding titles ("''President'' Obama"), which is traditionally not done. As you've now been reverted twice I think you should refrain from editing this article.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 11:35, 23 May 2011 (EDT)
:: That is encyclopaedic, as it is proper to use a person's title in reference material. However, that's not ththe only edits I've made. Most of them being removing speculative speech. Basically we should follow the rule of "if you can't cite it, don't say it."[[User:McTone|McTone]] 13:01, 23 May 2011 (EDT)McTone
:::No it's generally not. See his Wikipedia page if you don't believe. We also don't say "Mr." or "Ms."--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 12:02, 23 May 2011 (EDT)
::::Are we not better than Wikipedia? In any case, this is deferring the point I was making with this heading.[[User:McTone|McTone]] 13:01, 23 May 2011 (EDT)McTone

== Perhaps ==

I have read two cases of the word perhaps in the opening section of this article. Shouldn't assumptions like these not belong in an encyclopedia like article, especially in the opening section?- AlexMason
:The first one is arguably a wording error ... I'll consider that - the second one is more appropriate; since the event just happened we're not sure what the consequences will be, but if a potential consequence is notable enough it's probably worth stating--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 16:30, 23 May 2011 (EDT)
::I'm an underwriter at Fox News and I see stuff like this all the time. I think AlexMason is correct here (as well as the poster in the previous topic). Is this a web encyclopedia or is this an opinion site? Speculating on the outcome of events is tantamount to gossip (highly frowned upon and in fact forbidden by the standards of Conservapedia as I have read the rules and commandments). I really think this should be fixed. I noticed some edits in the history of this page and I've got to stick with Andy's last revision (reverting some of the edits of the previous editor) which kept to the less speculative nature of the article.[[User:PapaBear|PapaBear]] 21:32, 28 May 2011 (EDT)

== Obama Muslim Evidence? ==

I was going to make a post on this talk page suggesting we move the long list of evidence that Obama may be a Muslim to its own article (or an article dealing with the Obama/Islam controversy) but when I got here I saw that section had been removed, as had any mention of the words "Islam" or "Muslim". (I did a search on my browser). I could not find a reason for this on the talk page. Could someone explain why this was made? [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 22:13, 3 June 2011 (EDT)
:I rescued the content from an old revision and put it here: [[Barack Obama's Muslim Heritage]] [[User:AndyJ|AndyJ]] 22:18, 21 June 2011 (EDT)

== Obama as President ==
With the long-standing controversy about Hussein's birth certificate and the recent evidence that the one that was released is forged, I feel that there is ample evidence to conclude that Obama was born in Kenya. Because of that, I propose that we list the current holder of the office of [[President]] as [[Joe Biden]], as he would take the office if Obama were found to be unable or ineligible to serve. --[[User:AndyJ|AndyJ]] 22:29, 21 June 2011 (EDT)
:You may be misreading the story; the "Obama was born in Kenya" conspiracy theory was promoted by the White House to hide the fact that, Barack Hussein Obama's father was a [[natural born citizen]] of Kenya, and not the United States. That is the constitutional question, being that a case can be made that the Constitutional framers defined "natural born citizen" as being a citizen of the country of ''your fathers'' birth. The birth certificate, or the location of Obama Jr. birth, that is to say, the birther conspircacy the White House promoted, never had anything to do with the constitutional issue in question. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 16:27, 22 June 2011 (EDT)
::And two things, firstly, there is not ample evidence. Just conspiracy theories. Even assuming that the certificate/s released are forgeries, that alone isn't enough to prove he wasn't born in the US, it would just raise concerning questions. Secondly, Obama would remain the President. The Constitution doesn't mention what would happen if someone who was ineligible to be President became President. Hence, until impeachment or the 25th Amendment is invoked, Obama would remain President. (Presumably the 25th would be invoked, as impeachment would take a lot longer, and would require proving that Obama knew, which could be a little difficult.) - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 07:57, 18 October 2011 (EDT)

== Why is the birth certificate things still going? ==

I read a while ago (and posted in the article) an article from the National Review where even they concede that Obama was probably born in the US. [[User:CaptainSwing|CaptainSwing]] 23:43, 7 November 2011 (EST)

:Well as soon as it's verified than we can move past. Until then, we'll just pretend everything is a ok. For me, I'd still like to see every executive order, every law signed, every supreme court nominee from Obama overturned. It took three years the release of the long form certificate. I can wait another three years if need be for the proof.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 00:11, 8 November 2011 (EST)
::I don't understand, the National Review, a magazine that I admit is quite conservative, viewed the birth certificate and said it was most likely valid. I'm not sure what you're waiting for, as I don't think anyone is going to prove that Obama wasn't born in the country. [[User:CaptainSwing|CaptainSwing]] 09:59, 8 November 2011 (EST)
:::Because what they viewed was a Photoshoped work. Until the American public sees for itself exactly what is - or is not - on file in Hawaii, there will always be this unanswered question. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 11:22, 8 November 2011 (EST)
::::But it wasn't photo-shopped, that was the whole point the National Review was making: [http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/265767/pdf-layers-obamas-birth-certificate-nathan-goulding]. And honestly it makes sense, why on Earth would they go to the trouble of planting so much evidence that even the Mccain campaign declined to pursue it further, only to bungle the job on an elementary error in photoshop that any reasonable graphics designer would never make. [[User:CaptainSwing|CaptainSwing]] 12:03, 8 November 2011 (EST)
:::::It was Photoshopped, and downloading the original White House copy of it reveals all of the layers when it's run under Photoshop. Try reading all of these [http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=98546] by different reporters rather than a single National Review piece that's harping the beliefs of the "Yes We Can" crowd. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:21, 8 November 2011 (EST)
::::::So wait, you're saying that because they agree with Obama we can dismiss them? Isn't that circular reasoning? The author of the national review article posted a guide of how the mistakes could have easily come up and has no reason to lie about it. And again, let's think about this logically, they have authentic birth announcements from the relevant papers, good enough to fool the Mccain campaign, why would they botch a photoshop job? [[User:CaptainSwing|CaptainSwing]] 12:27, 8 November 2011 (EST)
:::::::And one of those mistakes that appeared on the Obama "certificate" was a sequence number that interfered with the numbers issued to a pair of twins; one of those mistakes was the "signature" of an individual which happens to be close enough to the name of a very small Hawaiian guitar; one of those mistakes is a smiley face attached to another signature; the list goes on. And until we see the real, bona-fide birth certificate, this issue is not going to go away, and we will continue to publish the current evidence as the fraud that it is. So don't worry too much about it, okay? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:44, 8 November 2011 (EST)
::::::::Does that mean to say that it should be considered a fraud until such a time as every US citizen has held and viewed the physical document? [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 16:49, 8 November 2011 (EST)
:::::::::Though this discussion is old. I will agree with this CaptainSwing person and this MaxFletcher that Obama's birth certificate issue has been dealt with, and the National Review magazine that one user mentioned is a conservative magazine. Plus you don't go to court with flimsy argument saying "hey he was born in Kenya" and demand that the defense prove all its points without the prosecution being able to present solid evidence. I see no solid evidence that proves he was born outside the United States, in our party the centre-right Austrian-born Arnold Schwarzenegger was elected Governor of California. And besides the real serious problems that people have with Obama are what he is doing as President, such as his high tax agenda for instance.--[[User:TheQuestioner|TheQuestioner]] 17:08, 3 August 2012 (EDT)

==Promises kept==
I can count how many promises Obama kept on one hand.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 13:47, 19 December 2011 (EST)

== Poverty comment in paragraph 2 of intro ==

The poverty comment isn't supported by the link at all. The link looks at from the 1950s to 2009. Obama began office in 2009, so the 14.3 percent marked at the end of the graph is a measure of the poverty at some point during 2009, and may have been taken in Bush's last month in office. It is unreasonable to conclude from the graph that poverty increased under Obama's presidency. I'll also note that the increase in poverty began, according to the graph, whilst Bush was in office. - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 00:08, 20 March 2012 (EDT)

== Better, More Objective Article at CreationWiki.org ==

There's now a better-sourced, more objective article at CreationWiki.org:

http://creationwiki.org/Barack_Obama

This article mentions virtually no biographic detail about Obama, or major controversies, including the Born Alive issue or his Chicago Politics. And the sourcing looks haphazard here. --[[User:Jzy|Jzy]] 09:52, 29 May 2012 (EDT)

Still, you guys have a 1-sentence mention of the Born Alive controversy even though it was brought up by Obama's last 4 political opponents, John McCain, Sarah Palin, Hillary Clinton, and Alan Keyes. And Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum both brought it up a few months ago as well. There's a whole article on this subject alone over at CreationWiki:

http://creationwiki.org/Obama_born_alive_controversy

You're missing the boat on the biggest controversy surrounding Obama, one that hasn't been debunked and is going to cause him a WHOLE lot of trouble. I told you guys this 2 years ago.
--[[User:Jzy|Jzy]] 10:14, 29 May 2012 (EDT)

:Thanks for the comments Jyz, the current article has been in the top 10 for nearly four years now. Most Americans are quite aware that Obama is the most pro-abortion president ever. Feel free to add to our wiki with the born-alive controversy page. In addition, you were not registered here two years ago so no wonder we didn't heed your warning.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 12:52, 29 May 2012 (EDT)

::Well, if this were just another abortion issue Obama wouldn't have a thing to worry about. This is an entirely different subject because it involves aborting children who aren't inside the mother's body but are outside the body and capable of surviving if given medical attention. We passed the federal Born Alive Infant Protection Act in 2002 making it illegal to let premature, newborn babies who survive late-term abortions get left to die without medical attention. We also passed the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act outlawing the late-term Dilation & Extraction (D&E) abortions that resulted in these live births. Nurses Jill Stanek and Allison Baker (of Christ Hospital in Oak Lawn, IL) testified before Congress in 2001 that newborn babies were being born prematurely after botched abortions in their home state of Illinois and being thrown in wastebaskets or soiled utility rooms. Stanek's moving testimony about how she held a little baby in her arms after one of these abortions and the physician refused to help keep it alive so that it died in her arms, proved especially influential.

::The entire U.S. Senate passed the Born Alive Infant Protection Act unanimously, because as Obama would put it, it was "the bill everybody supported". The Partial-Birth Abortion Act twice refers to the practice in federal law as "infanticide". It's a legal, technical term referring to what U.S. law now considers murder of newborn children. Stanek also testified before the Illinois Senate at the time, where Obama was leading a Planned Parenthood movement to vote down numerous Born Alive bills and cover up this fact from Illinois citizens using "present votes". Normally pro-choice Democrats like Barbara Boxer, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, and Ted Kennedy all voted for the Born Alive Infant Protection Act. Hillary Clinton herself brought up Obama's voting record on this in 2008 to criticize him over. So like I said, if this were just a Pro-Life vs. Pro-Choice issue it wouldn't be controversial. I'm not talking about abortion here. I'm talking about infanticide, and opposition to medical care for newborn infants. I'm talking about Obama's opposition to a bill that had over 90% public support, unlike typical Pro-Life bills. --[[User:Jzy|Jzy]] 02:18, 4 June 2012 (EDT)

:::I'm going to incorporate some of my writing and sourcing from that article to this one, and edit boldly. If anyone has any objections to any material please state them. However, I believe I've sourced everything so solidly it should be unobjectionable. --[[User:Jzyehoshua|Jzyehoshua]] 22:03, 20 July 2012 (EDT)

== Last Change ==

The protests weren't peaceful, but they were really violent, to date there's no proof that Muammar Gaddafi had took any violent action against civilians, but there are proof and reports from Amnesty International, Human rights watch, Russian intelligence which denies any of the rumors and falsely alleged crime.

Here's one source where US defense secretary Robert Gates and Navy Admiral Michael Mullen tells about whole thing, :-

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL1110/S00144/un-silent-despite-no-basis-for-natos-illegal-war-on-libya.htm

Thanks. [[User:Regular|Regular]] 11:10, 14 June 2012 (EDT)

== Changes, Detailed ==

I made the following changes, merging an article I wrote on Obama for CreationWiki with this one:

http://creationwiki.org/Barack_Obama

The diff for the changes can be seen here:

http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Barack_Hussein_Obama&action=historysubmit&diff=994904&oldid=994689

I left the Lede intact.

* Birth: I removed an opening sentence about Obama eating dog meat. It looks really silly there, starting off the section. Maybe the article could be linked somewhere else but it looks really bad starting off the page like that.
* Early Life: I included a whole new section on his early life and family and removed some unsourced claims that he was the antichrist and will be instating police rule (which either way doesn't fit the section). If it's going to be put anywhere in the article an appropriate subsection should be created for it, and some sourcing provided - neither of which was the case before.
* Personal Life: I added a whole new section on his marriage to Michelle Obama, children, and church.
* Education: I added a new section on education. Some of it was alluded to earlier but didn't have sources, my material does.
* Non-Political Employment: Whole new section, a LOT of detail about his employment history here.
* Personal Awards: The Nobel controversy mentioned in this new section.
* 1991-1992, Project Vote: His time as a community organizer, new section.
* 1996 Election: I added an entirely new section on how Obama knocked candidates off the ballot.
* 2003 Emil Jones Deal: Whole new section on how Obama struck a deal with Emil Jones to get appointed legislation for other Illinois Senators to advance his political career.
* 2004 Primary Election: Completely new section on how the Illinois media knocked off Obama's first opponent.
* 2004 General Election, Jack Ryan: Completely new section on how the Illinois media knocked off Jack Ryan afterwards through the same tricks.
* 2004 General Election, Alan Keyes: Completely new section highlighting the Born Alive controversy surrounding Obama.
* 2008 Presidential Election: I preserved what little detail there was and merged it in but otherwise everything here is new.
* 2009-2012, U.S. Presidency: I added new sections on the Stimulus and Iraq troop withdrawal. What little info there was about the withdrawal I preserved and merged in.

--[[User:Jzyehoshua|Jzyehoshua]] 23:15, 20 July 2012 (EDT)

=== Deletions ===

I figure it's best to mention any deletions made.

- I deleted the following from the end of the Lede:
{{cquote|Later Obama apologized. When Obama visited [[England]] in 2011, he signed his name and added the date of "2008" -- the last time he won an election. He never explaned that one. When Obama read a speech from a teleprompter, as he almost always does, he repeatedly mispronounced the familiar military term of "corpsman" by sounding out the "p".}}
I removed it because (A) it had no sourcing provided, (B) it showed signs of poor grammar (misspelled "explained"), (C) used weasel words/phrases (almost always does), and perhaps most importantly, (D) it's not even especially relevant. I mean, who cares if he mispronounced the word "corpsman"? How many Americans even would pronounce it right? Maybe that could merit a footnote somewhere on the page, but in the Lede? Really??? I try to preserve as much of the page as possible, but I really think those sentences made the rest of the page look bad. --[[User:Jzyehoshua|Jzyehoshua]] 15:45, 21 July 2012 (EDT)
:Having those sentences there in the Lede gives the impression the whole page is going to be about nitpicking over Obama's grammar, and I really don't think that's the impression Conservapedia wants to give. I'd like to think the Lede would show evidence Obama will be fairly and accurately criticized, not with poorly written and unsourced claims that he mispronounced a word most Americans wouldn't pronounce right anyway. --[[User:Jzyehoshua|Jzyehoshua]] 15:49, 21 July 2012 (EDT)

-I deleted the "Retrieved from 对当代托洛茨基主义的批判：英文论集百花齐放 - 中国文革研究网, March 15, 2010." part of this footnote:
{{cquote|[[File:O-2002-antiwar-rally-davidson.jpg|right|thumb|250px| Obama speaking at the October 2002 rally in Chicago organized by [[Carl Davidson]].<ref>Davidson is a longtime [[Mao]]ist and champion of the ''Thought of Mao Tse Tung.'' Davidson's anti-Trotskyite polemic, [http://www.wengewang.org/read.php?tid=10925 ''Left in Form, Right in Essence''] defends Maoist doctrine. Retrieved from 对当代托洛茨基主义的批判：英文论集百花齐放 - 中国文革研究网, March 15, 2010.</ref> ''"[H]e is a brutal man who butchers his own people,"'' nevertheless Obama opposed ''"dumb wars".'']]}}
I think this should all be in English. It might belong on a Chinese page for Conservapedia, the alternate language translations, but I don't think so here. Hopefully someone can find an alternate reference for this, but it looks bad at the bottom of the page in footnotes like that, and since it can't be understood doesn't serve any real purpose. --[[User:Jzyehoshua|Jzyehoshua]] 21:39, 21 July 2012 (EDT)

== New Section On ACORN/New Party Ties ==

Alright, I just removed the following sentence from the 1996 section:
{{cquote|In 1995 Obama openly sought and obtained the endorsement of the [[Marxist]] [[New Party]] in his quest to be elected to the Illinois State Senate.<ref>[http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=7434 NEW PARTY (NP)], discoverthenetwork.org.</ref><ref>Rick Moran. [http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/06/obamas_alliance_with_marxists.html Obama's Alliance with Marxists], ''American Thinker'', June 03, 2008.</ref>}}

I made a new section on this at the end of the article. Frankly, I just wanted to remove the section from the 1996 section because it makes the whole thing look bad. I don't really care about his New Party or ACORN affiliations but I know many conservatives care about them, so I didn't want to delete the sentence and wanted to see if I could move it somewhere else, and maybe provide some more detail to give it a small subsection somewhere. I didn't think much of the sources it had so I figured I'd see if I could find any decent sourcing and information for it. In the process, I found out it had articles relating to it at National Review, Politico, and by Billy Hallowell (a FOX News contributor), plus had been addressed by Obama's "Fight the Smears" campaign and David Axelrod. Plus it's still relevant in 2012.

So I wrote it a new section, because I just follow sources and newsworthiness, and it is does appear to have some prominence. I tried to provide sources and perspective from both sides, and provide all the facts, so it won't just be a one-sided claim. Anyway, that's why I detailed it out more. Like I said, I don't really care about the claim myself, but it is newsworthy and a cause for concern among some conservatives, so I figured I might as well write it a section - and get it out of the 1996 one :) --[[User:Jzyehoshua|Jzyehoshua]] 23:21, 21 July 2012 (EDT)

:For me, the big issue surrounding Obama has always been his voting record against the Born Alive bills, and repeated lying attempts to cover this up. That he's gone to such lengths to prevent newborn babies from being given medical attention and then lie about having done so, has always struck me as reprehensible. His political corruption and constant lies are also disgusting. I just want people to know about these things. But his Marxism and ACORN stuff? Not really an issue for me. I just wrote this because I know it's a cause for concern to other conservatives, so I made sure the facts are presented on it. --[[User:Jzyehoshua|Jzyehoshua]] 23:37, 21 July 2012 (EDT)

:And mainly I didn't want that sentence in the 1996 section, by the way, because it's still highly controversial. I don't like starting off an otherwise credible section with undeniable sources with a claim that is still under investigation. Maybe this stuff on the New Party will hold up - those minutes will be strong evidence if Kurtz is right about them. But right now the sourcing for it isn't as strong as I'd like, even if it is newsworthy. And I'd prefer the 1996 section stick to strongly proven facts. That he knocked off all his opponents using a team of lawyers is well sourced by the Chicago Tribune, CBS News, CNN, New York Times, etc. The stuff about the New Party had two lesser-known sources and while it has better sourcing now, it's still an ongoing issue, which is why I think it's more relevant in a 2012 section than 1996. --[[User:Jzyehoshua|Jzyehoshua]] 23:51, 21 July 2012 (EDT)

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

== Conspiracy theory that Obama is not born in the US is by crazy lunatic fringe right-wing people who don't represent the mainstream right, it is just like crazy lunatic fringe left-wing conspiracy theories on JFK being killed by the CIA and not J. Harvey Oswald or 9-11 truthers ==

Regardless of criticisms and condemnations by mainstream conservatives of Obama's policies, these claims that he is a foreign-born citizen have been disproven and mainstream conservatives accept that he is an American citizen. Theories that he was born outside the USA are lunatic fringe conspiracy theories - and I don't care whether they are right-wing - their ideas have been disproven just like the crazy 9-11 truther conspiracy theories and JFK conspiracy theories by lunatic fringe left-wing people. Why is there such focus on conspiracy theories on where Obama is born in the intro, rather than focus in the intro on Obama's policies and conservative criticisms of Obama's policies?--[[User:TheQuestioner|TheQuestioner]] 12:31, 3 August 2012 (EDT)

:Thank God you registered here to set the record straight. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 12:34, 3 August 2012 (EDT)

::What do you mean?--[[User:TheQuestioner|TheQuestioner]] 12:36, 3 August 2012 (EDT)

== Title of article ==

The middle name should be removed as the name of the article. The middle name of other figures is not in the title in other articles. [[User:AcomaMagic|AcomaMagic]] 15:17, 18 August 2012 (EDT)
:[[Ronald Wilson Reagan]]?? --[[User:JamesWilson|James Wilson]] 05:16, 4 September 2012 (EDT)
::That looks like a rarity. All the other biography pages that I've seen use the most common name. The middle name of Reagan should be removed as the title too. [[User:AcomaMagic|AcomaMagic]] 08:08, 9 September 2012 (EDT)

== Teleprompter at school ==

It is a false rumor, based on photoshopped photos, that Obama had teleprompters set up for a speech to a middle school class. He spoke to the class without teleprompters, then went to another classroom, where he spoke to the ''media'' using a teleprompter. Surely there are enough things to criticize without distorting the truth? [http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/photos/6thgrade.asp] [[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 10:39, 2 September 2012 (EDT)
:This is a little shaky as a criticism I suppose. With his voting record on the Born Alive bills and political corruption, there's an awful lot that can be criticized about him. That he uses teleprompters so often is a valid criticism of him, but the teleprompters in classrooms one needs to be carefully presented in context, as pointed out by Sharon. --[[User:JZambrano|Joshua Zambrano]] 08:56, 4 September 2012 (EDT)

== "may have had a prior marriage" ==

This appears in the information box - I assume its about Obama rather than his wife - but is not explained in the main article, let alone supported with any references. As a Brit, this is completely new to me. Can anyone develop this further? [[User:Rafael|Rafael]] 17:54, 10 September 2012 (EDT)

== Accusations about birth certificate and cultural and name identity ==

I would like to move this section back to the section about Obama's birth, and weave it back into the relevant section instead of having it tagged on to the end of the article. None of the edits will change the argument at all. [[User:MattyD|MattyD]] 12:40, 16 September 2012 (EDT)
:JPatt, the edits I made REMOVED fluff and apologies. Can you please point to specific passages where you think the argument was softened? [[User:MattyD|MattyD]] 12:57, 16 September 2012 (EDT)
::No--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 13:01, 16 September 2012 (EDT)
:::Why not? My edits REMOVE a lot of the fluff. Where is the problem? [[User:MattyD|MattyD]] 13:03, 16 September 2012 (EDT)

==Page has too many kbs==
This age is ''WAY'' too heavy for updating the Intro and I can't wait 2 hours to make these minor changes. Can someone who actually cares please add,
* the U.S. Government's credit rating, for the first time in its history, was downgraded, and [[poverty]]<ref>[http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/data/incpovhlth/2009/pov09fig04.pdf Figure 4: Number in Poverty and Poverty Rate: 1959-2009]. ''U.S. Census Bureau''. Current Population Survey, 1960 to 2010 Annual Social and Economic Supplements.</ref> increased markedly every year.<ref>[http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-201_162-20105376.html Poverty continues to rise in U.S., now 15.1%], CBS News.</ref>
I realize I am penalized 9 mainspace edits for asking for this help, but some, if not much of the Intro citations are two years out of date. [[User:OscarO|OscarO]] 11:38, 29 September 2012 (EDT)

== Country of birth ==

He released his long-form birth certificate, so what evidence is there that he was born in Kenya? [[User:Nightsky|Nightsky]] 15:43, 8 October 2012 (EDT)

== Country of birth ==

He released his long-form birth certificate, so what evidence is there that he was born in Kenya? [[User:Nightsky|Nightsky]] 15:43, 8 October 2012 (EDT)

== Country of birth ==

He released his long-form birth certificate, so what evidence is there that he was born in Kenya? [[User:Nightsky|Nightsky]] 15:43, 8 October 2012 (EDT)

Talk:Barack Hussein Obama

2012-10-08T19:43:42Z

Nightsky: /* Country of birth */ new section

[[File:Brainreboot20110429.jpg|400px|thumb|]]

{{articletalkheader|prefix=archive}}
 

==Rense==
Jeff Rense may not be a such a good source. The Anti-Defamation League accuses him of promoting anti-Semitic views and 9/11 Conspiracy theories. OTOH, what is wrong with a Pravda article written in the post Soviet-censorship era when democratic Russia hungars to exercise a free press, open discussion and discernment of facts? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 22:39, 23 January 2010 (EST)

:See my talk page, Rob. I never noticed who added the Pravda cite, so if you say so, it is of course fine with me, and please add it back if you haven't already! I now suspect it was yet another vandal site troll stirring the pot, so feel free to deal with him as well. --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 17:02, 24 January 2010 (EST)

== Terror Attacks ==
I have an issue with a claim made in the second paragraph. ''Since abandoning the "War on Terror" in Obama's first year, the United States has suffered more terrorist attacks with deadly intent on American soil than in the previous eight years combined.'' Since Obama replaced the 'Global War on Terror' with 'Overseas Contingency Operation', there have been only four domestic terrorist attacks, a far cry from the 19 that took place under Bush's tenure. This sentence should be reworded or removed in its entirety; it only makes the article look embarrassing. --[[User:MichaelJB|MichaelJB]] 15:46, 25 January 2010 (EST)

:More [[liberal]] poppycock, Michael? Even the New York Times counts more, excluding 9/11, under Obama. Perhaps you should consider sources other than the Kos? --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 19:29, 25 January 2010 (EST)

::A short time ago you gave me grief for making assumptions, yet here you are doing the same. I didn't get any information from Kos, it all came from legitimate news sources. Do you really believe that more terror attacks occurred on US soil from March 2009 to January 2010 than in the eight years of the Bush administration? I would really like to see all your references for making such a bold claim. And why would you want to exclude the WTC/Pentagon attacks?
::Some people have been making some really stupid claims lately about domestic terror. Dana Perino and Rudy Guiliani both claimed there was not a terror attack on the US when Bush was in office. The fact that these people could make such stupidly partisan claims is incredible. [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4kpfhGxJbLc] [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2tYoMoJHNDs] The claim made in this article reeks of the same idiocy of Perino and Guiliani, why not delete the sentence or at least make it factual? --[[User:MichaelJB|MichaelJB]] 20:23, 25 January 2010 (EST)

:::The facts are undeniable that America was totally unprepared to protect itself from terrorist homeland attacks as Bush entered office, due to the total lack of focus of the Clinton Administration and Congress on the issue. Bush can in no way be blamed for the 9/11 attacks with any real credibility.

:::As I have stated many times before, as Mr. Schlafly has stated many times before, as several other Admins have as well, coming here to argue-without-end against our conservative point of view in all articles you come across, is silly. If you and others cannot bring yourselves to accept alternative points of view, so be it. If you want a place to argue against conservatism in general, make your own site or try the Kos or HuffPo; but CP isn't a debate forum, it is a conservative encyclopedia ''project''. Article talk pages are for suggesting ways to improve articles from a conservative point of view, not a liberal one. Is that a clear enough statement? --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 21:29, 25 January 2010 (EST)

::::TK: The change you made is completely unacceptable from a moral and ethical standpoint because instead of correcting an error, you are now highlighting a lie. Three terror attacks occurred during Pres. Bush's last year in office. I sent you links to all three events but you are willing to over look such trivial matters as the truth. It's funny that a liberal who has been blocked twice for pointing out errors and outright falsehoods is vilified as a trouble-maker while the conservatives that knowingly mislead and lie are in charge of an alleged 'trustworthy encyclopedia'.
::::I'm trying to make these changes because I don't want Americans to look stupid, even the conservative ones. It's an uphill battle.

::::Gunman killed two people in a church. [http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-07-29-church-shooting_N.htm]
::::Suicide bomber attacked a Georgia law firm. [http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/ga_law_firm_explodes_causing_multiple_injuries/]
::::Two police officers were killed by a bomb placed in a bank. [http://www.odmp.org/officer/19697-captain-thomas-paul-tennant]
::::--[[User:MichaelJB|MichaelJB]] 01:25, 29 January 2010 (EST)

MichaelJB you cannot tell the difference between Muslim terrorists and someone with an ax to grind? Godspeed! --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 06:36, 29 January 2010 (EST)v
:So Michael's point is that progressive liberal leftwing commie socialist (or whatever the flavor of the week) Prof. [[Amy Bishop]] conducted a domestic overseas contingency operation attack. It's beginning to make sense. How would we classify the guy who crashed the plane into the IRS building in Houston, a tax protester who railed against corporations. Dang, this is a tuff one.... [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 08:13, 12 March 2010 (EST)

== Middle name in article title? ==

----

::::<big>'''Unless you have some brilliant new argument to add to this section, further discussion is unneeded.</big>'''

----

It strikes to me odd that the title of the article is Barach Hussein Obama. While there is nothing wrong with that by itself, looking at the [[President_of_the_United_States_of_America#Presidents_list|list of all the U.S. presidents]], it seems that all the other presidents' articles are titled either without their middle name, or just a middle initial. Wouldn't it make sense to rename the article to either Barack Obama or Barack H. Obama to follow suit? [[User:Kayvan|Kayvan]] 18:19, 26 February 2010 (EST)
:There is a big difference between Walker or Jefferson and Hussein. My two cents. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 18:22, 26 February 2010 (EST)
::What about [[Ronald Wilson Reagan]]? [[User:DMorris|DMorris]] 18:26, 26 February 2010 (EST)
:::This topic had been discussed before. He decided to be inaugurated with his middle name after not using it during the campaign. He is not ashamed of it and we are not ashamed to include it.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 18:29, 26 February 2010 (EST)
::::Ah, I see. Looking at some lists though ([http://www.ipl.org/div/potus/] and [http://www.apples4theteacher.com/holidays/presidents-day/past-presidents-of-usa.html]), it seems that many presidents were also inaugurated in a similar fashion. [[User:Kayvan|Kayvan]] 18:33, 26 February 2010 (EST)

::: I think that, as all encyclopedias and scholarly works try to do, we should try to decide on a particular set of rules and always follow it. In this case, these are the options:
:::1) Always cite the full name in the title, so "Barack Hussein Obama", "George Herbert Walker Bush" and "Ronald Wilson Reagan";
:::2) Always use initials for middle names, so "Barack H. Obama", "George H.W. Bush" and "Ronald W. Reagan";
:::3) Use the names in the way they most commonly used, using middle name initials only where they are necessary to distinguish one particular individual from another, therefore "Barack Obama", "George H.W. Bush" and "Ronald Reagan".

::: We are talking about titles of articles; the full name should always be cited in the body of the article. Personally, I would vote for solution n.3. --[[User:Maquissar|Maquissar]] 18:34, 26 February 2010 (EST)
::::I like the idea. Either 2 or 3 seem best in my opinion; full names seem a bit to long for article titles. The name that the president was inaugurated with isn't bad either, but it would seem less formal, as some have middle names and others don't. [[User:Kayvan|Kayvan]] 18:38, 26 February 2010 (EST)

:::: I thought about that solution, but then I thought that we should better set very general rules; by this I mean that we should decide how to title page names referring to INDIVIDUALS, not to US PRESIDENTS. Deciding that "the name that the president was inaugurated with" is a rule that, naturally, can only be applied to presidents. --[[User:Maquissar|Maquissar]] 18:41, 26 February 2010 (EST)

:::: Another good rule would be to use the name that is mostly used to refer to that individual; this has the disadvantage of not being objective, but it is also the most effective. So "Barack Obama", "George H.W. Bush" (to distinguish him from his son), "Ronald Reagan", "Eminem" instead of "Marshall Mathers", "O.J. Simpson" instead of "Orenthal J. Simpson"... --[[User:Maquissar|Maquissar]] 18:56, 26 February 2010 (EST)

There isn't any vote here, nor was one asked for. Since Obama tries to soft-pedal his Muslim roots and associations, our editorial policy is to call attention to that ''fact''. In addition you should note the [[Ronald Wilson Reagan|Reagan]] article, where well before anyone had an inkling Obama would run for President, Conservapedia used his full name, ''Ronald Wilson Reagan'' which Reagan himself preferred for formal use. So I submit President Obama isn't being singled out, contrary to the insistence of silly-minded liberals. --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 19:06, 26 February 2010 (EST)

:But why call attention to that ''fact'' in the title of the article? The ''fact'' is never going to be denied. The introduction sentence would still say "Barack Hussein Obama". Italicize his middle name in the introduction or change the font color to bring out the ''fact'' if you wish. What I am trying to point at is, why should his middle name be used in the article title? Reagan may have preferred it for formal use, but does Mr. Obama say that same? He is commonly known as Barack Obama; I haven't seen it used in any other way (except Obama, of course). If he is commonly known as that, it would make sense to title the article like that, as should every article on people. [[User:Kayvan|Kayvan]] 21:05, 26 February 2010 (EST)
::Richard Milhous Nixon was commonly refered to as [[Milhous]] by his detracters. Indeed, googling milhouse brings up hundreds of thousands of hits on Nixon that dwarf most all other uses of the name. Now, googling [[Hussein]] presents a host of other problems. The [[Heshamite Dynasty]] of [[Hussein bin Ali]] had been the Islamic Keeper of the Holy places for 700 years until Western British Imperialist interests unseated them and installed the Saudi ruling clan thier place (visualize Islamists dethroning the Pope and installing thier own choice as successor). How does it look when Hussein bin Ali's namesake bows to tne Saudi puppet? Why not focus on how Obama ''is'' bringing real change to the whole planet, rather than argue about how things have traditionally been done? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 13:14, 27 February 2010 (EST)
Drop it. Further discussion is last-wordism. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 21:14, 26 February 2010 (EST)

:On the question of "''all the other presidents' articles are titled either without their middle name, or just a middle initial. Wouldn't it make sense ...to follow suit? ''"
:You will recall Barack Hussein Obama is the transformational president of change. Wouldn't it make sense to begin change right here, with his name? (assuming that is his name). [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 23:54, 26 February 2010 (EST)

<nowiki>:</nowiki>D 
--<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 01:58, 27 February 2010 (EST)

Pretty slick conservative trap there TK. despite the fact that you neglected to answer some massive holes in the arguments above, you declare the debate "ended" (even though its not) then decry anything else as last wordism to stifle any further debate. well done--[[User:DerikJ|DerikJ]] 11:58, 27 February 2010 (EST)
:What holes? We're implementing change. Let's find common ground and compromise. We've done just that. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 12:35, 27 February 2010 (EST)
::I like your comment on change, Rob, it made me laugh :) Anyway, I don't see how an argument that Obama's slogan being "change" is any reason to title his article to what he is less commonly known as/less traditional. It's pushing it, in a sense. Besides, being a conservative, I would think that you wouldn't want to follow Obama's way of thinking ;) [[User:Kayvan|Kayvan]] 13:40, 27 February 2010 (EST)
:::Conservatives are for change, both economic and social. They want to change tax law and abortion rulings, for example. Above all, change public education. Being anti-change is just a vulgar stereotype held by closeminded and intolerant people. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 14:09, 27 February 2010 (EST)
::::I can agree with that. But ''why'' "change" how Obama's article is titled when others are titled either without their middle name or with their middle name if they are commonly known and identified by the name, in some cases. Simply changing something doesn't necessarily mean it's a good thing, there has to be reason, and the reason has to be, well, reasonable. [[User:Kayvan|Kayvan]] 14:44, 27 February 2010 (EST)
:::::Call it the price of progress. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 15:17, 27 February 2010 (EST)
::::::In that case, would changing the titles of all the other peoples' articles to include their middle names sound all right to you? It would be progress, after all. [[User:Kayvan|Kayvan]] 17:29, 27 February 2010 (EST)
I have always wondered why the Obamabots get so upset with the name Obama's parents chose. Pretty silly. --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 16:40, 27 February 2010 (EST)

:I actually like the name, it has a nice ring to it. It's more of just keeping a solid style of titling pages, a format if you want to call it that. [[User:Kayvan|Kayvan]] 17:29, 27 February 2010 (EST)
::Which brings us to the question of Barry Soetero. If Obama went by this name, then he may have lied to the Illinois Supreme Court when asked to provide former names, according to this Attorney’s Registration Record. [http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2061988/posts] I'm not the sure what the resolution of this issue ever was, and we don't have a word about it in this article. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 17:49, 27 February 2010 (EST)

I know I am new here but there really needs to be a consensus amongst all Presidential and Vice President articles, actually this should probably extend to all US politicians. I know there is a specified conservative bias, however the lack organization and consensus has nothing to do with liberal or conservative bias, it has to do with disorganization and lazyiness by the admins.

If you want to leave the middle, that is fine, however, there would need to be a quick modification of all or the majority of the US Politian article so as not to look so disorganized.[[User:Solarguy17|Solarguy17]] 01:01, 10 March 2010 (EST)

:You hit the nail on the head. You are new here. Don't come in criticizing and such off the bat. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 01:12, 10 March 2010 (EST)

My criticization is to help the article(s) to be better as a whole. None of the above discussion explains the reasoning for leaving it as is. Just people saying he used it in his inauguration so we use it here, however, almost every pres does this so why not have it that way for everyone????[[User:Solarguy17|Solarguy17]] 01:15, 10 March 2010 (EST)

Not really discussion just more of a question. I just recently found this site and was looking through the religious articles and for the most part they seemed pretty good. However, when I come to the political articles, some of them seem a little crazy. I know it is to call more attention to the things that are being overlooked by the media. But I have ask about the middle name thing.

I read all of the information above and I still am not sure why it was decided to leave it as is. Can someone clarify this?
Please don't ban me, I noticed that basically everyone with discussion in this thread that isn't an admin now has banned accounts. I personally don't care, I am just confused. [[User:StevenS|StevenS]] 01:12, 12 March 2010 (EST)

: As it says up at the top of this section, "Unless you have some brilliant new argument to add to this section, further discussion is unneeded." If you do have one, let's have it. But it sure seems like everyone who signs up to this site and immediately starts complaining has nothing new to say at all. Why don't you spend some time reading here with an open mind first, and complain later? [[User:DanielPulido|DanielPulido]] 01:20, 12 March 2010 (EST)

Now, why would a single individual come here under several different user names all in an effort to get the word "Hussein" removed from the title of this article? It makes no sense at all unless that individual has a personal agenda to perform. The article title stays as it is. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 01:42, 12 March 2010 (EST)

:My only concern is that the title seems to exist in its current state for no purpose other than to further a bias. The arguments that "well he asked for it" seem to suggest that accuracy and fairness are non-valuable in this wiki. I sincerely hope this is not the case and that I may not be banned and able to start a fun future in helping this wiki grow in the impressive way it has so far. [[User:Vidihawk|Vidihawk]] 07:47, 6 April 2010 (EDT)

::'''"Unless you have some brilliant new argument to add to this section, further discussion is unneeded."'''
I guess you missed the bold title at the top of this section? Also, see [[Ronald Wilson Reagan]] to see how silly your argument is. --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 08:16, 6 April 2010 (EDT)
:I guess it wasn't as bright an idea as I had hoped. Heh... It still comes off as somewhat purposeful, though. Okie, I'll back away! - [[User:Vidihawk|Vidihawk]] 08:24, 6 April 2010 (EDT)
::Purposeful, as in done with the same horribly malevolent intent as ''my'' adding Reagan's middle name several years ago? You are giving away your intent in advance, good sir, by refusing to admit your already formed assumptions about us are wrong. I hope you prove me wrong, and turn out to be that rare U.K. denizen that turns out to be open-minded and as fair to us as you wish us to be to you. There have been precious few. And please do check out our editors guide and all of that. We differ quite a bit from Wikipedia. --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 08:33, 6 April 2010 (EDT)
:::::I think we should keep the current title of the article. Furthermore, I think we should replace the top picture, which is currently a picture of Obama, with a picture of an oil drenched pelican (and a new caption) as a tribute to Obama's indifference, sloth and incompetence. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 20:36, 16 June 2010 (EDT)

== I moved the material dealing with the present to the top ==

I moved the material dealing with the present to the top as I thought readers would be more interested in how Obama is screwing up the present. For example, I think Americans right now are very concerned about how Obama is screwing up the economy. Of course, he is also doing a poor job in other areas presently as well such as holding terrorists court cases in civilian courts, etc. etc. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 04:30, 15 March 2010 (EDT)

:That makes sense to me. I do appreciate letting me try the other timeline structure. However, I didn't really take into consideration the fact that because he is a high profile individual it may benefit readers to see more recent info before his earlier biography facts. At least while he's fulfilling his one failed term as president, your structure makes sense to me. [[User:DerekE|DerekE]] 12:42, 15 March 2010 (EDT)

::As the ==Maoism== section is being being built, we may eventually be able to free up space from the sections on the Ayers/Dohrn relationship by moving some of that material to Ayers own page, and/or creating a new separate page documenting Obama's rise with communist and terrorist assistance. An acceptable title for that page would be needed. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 13:23, 15 March 2010 (EDT)

==Citation==

"Any orders he gives to the American military are subject to being refused. Orders that Obama gives to America’s Joint Chiefs of Staff of the military can be refused." --http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/columnists/19-01-2009/106972-Barry_Soetoro-0

Do we really want to cite an article that makes this claim? Do any of us really support this opinion, or if we do, do we support the use of opinion articles as sources in addition to factual ones? --[[User:BenjaminS|Ben]] [[User Talk:BenjaminS|Talk]] 08:42, 6 April 2010 (EDT)

:Is the opinion piece backed by valid and factual citations from the United States Code, Ben, as opposed to a unsupported rant? --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 08:47, 6 April 2010 (EDT)

== pronunciation of "Pakistan" ==

This is really considered evidence of anything? I've heard [[Mark Levin]] use the Spanish-inflected pronunciation of Sonia Sotomayor's name (''so tow my OR'' rather than ''so tow MY er''), but nobody would claim that proves he's Catholic or Hispanic. [[User:Golgaronok|Golgaronok]] 23:55, 9 April 2010 (EDT)
:Pronunciation shows an enormous amount about someone's views and history. Obama doesn't use the American pronunciation, and this is telling, since ''no one else in the public sphere'' pronounces it in the muslim way ''but'' Obama. [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 00:15, 10 April 2010 (EDT)
[[David Petraeus]] does [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vtCLp7siY7I]. [[User:Golgaronok|Golgaronok]] 00:50, 10 April 2010 (EDT)
And [http://www.forvo.com/word/pakistan/ numerous other languages] use a pronunciation closer to the native form. [[User:Golgaronok|Golgaronok]] 00:57, 10 April 2010 (EDT)

::"Golgaronok" (if that is your name), your quibbles with the entry have already been argued ad nauseum, [http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Barack_Hussein_Obama/archive4#.22Pokiston.22.3F.3F.3F.3F.3F here], for instance. If you've only come to argue on talk pages, you're wasting your own time. Try making substantive contributions to the project; excessive talk is disfavored here. [[User:DanielPulido|DanielPulido]] 01:04, 10 April 2010 (EDT)
I don't see any responses to the points I raised. But it's y'all's funeral. [[User:Golgaronok|Golgaronok]] 01:13, 10 April 2010 (EDT)
:::Kind of interesting that Davis Petraeus was mentioned here. When that general was ordered to command US forces in Afghanistan and Iraq, the liberal elites decided that his name should be pronounced "BETRAY US". [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 01:29, 10 April 2010 (EDT)

==Barry Soetoro = birth name?==
This may have already been discussed, so forgive me if this has been settled. I noticed that the article says ''"Barack Hussein Obama II (birth name Barry Soetoro..."'', however the articles cited do not support the idea that "Barry Soetoro" is Obama's birth name, in fact quite the opposite. My understanding, from reading the Newsweek article, is that "Barack" is his birth name, although he went by "Barry" when he was younger. His father's name, as I understand it, is Barack Hussein Obama, and he was named after his father. "Seotoro", if I remember right, was his stepfather's last name, so it is unlikely that it would have been part of Obama's birth name. To be clear, I do realize that he spent his younger years being known as "Barry Soetoro", and I think that should be included in the article, I just don't think it was actually his birth name. 
Please understand that I am not as knowledgeable in this kind of thing as many other contributors here, so I may have gotten it all wrong - that's why I didn't attempt to edit the article. Please correct me if I have gotten it wrong - I won't be offended and I am curious as to the truth of the matter. [[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 18:11, 1 May 2010 (EDT)

According to the citation that shows the birth certificate, the birth name is, in fact, Barack Hussein Obama II, NOT Barry Soetoro. Also, because there is an actual document, i.e. physical, demonstrable proof, the word "allegedly" should be removed.

== Remove name repetition? ==

Would anyone mind if I removed some of the repetition of Obama's name in certain portions of the article? For example, in this paragraph:
{{cquote|
[[Barack Obama and uncharitableness|Barack Obama's recent pattern of charitable giving]] and [[Barack Obama and liberal elitism|Barack Obama's liberal elitism]] is consistent with Obama being a [[Narcissism|narcissist]] which is a charge that has often been made against Barack Obama. However, it is also true that Barack Obama is an [[evolution|evolutionist]]. Barack Obama told the ''York Daily Record'' that "I believe in [[evolution]]...". Barack Obama's recent pattern of charitable giving and liberal elitism is also in accordance with someone who has a certain degree of [[Social Darwinism|social darwinistic]] thinking. In addition to [[Liberals and uncharitableness|American liberals giving less to charity]], it is also true that [[Theory of evolution and liberalism|American liberals are also more likely to believe in evolution]].
}}

I think I could alter it to make it more readable with "Obama's recent pattern of charitable giving and liberal elitism is consistent with that of a narcissist, a charge that has often been made against him."

And so forth. In my linguistics class, we talked about semantic satiation, and I believe that paragraphs like these, along with the fact that it never seems to use pronouns, somewhat diminish the readability of the article. If I were to make this change, I would preserve every wikilink, reference, etc, but I believe it would become more readable. In Christ, [[User:Tzoran|Tyler Zoran]] [[User talk:Tzoran|Talk]] 09:09, 6 May 2010 (EDT)

== Insults? ==

Does the entire beginning of the article have to be so laden with insults? Couldnt it simply say what the article will be about, and THEN express views? As it is it appears very unprofessional. 19:11, 6 May 2010 (EDT)
:We believe in the truth here, and the fact that [[liberals]] like yourself feign offense at the display of it speaks volumes about you. If you insist on closing your mind, at least take ownership of your [[deceit]]! Sign your comments with <nowiki> ~~~~ </nowiki> next time. Godspeed! [[User:Tzoran|Tyler Zoran]] [[User talk:Tzoran|Talk]] 19:58, 6 May 2010 (EDT)

== "The first president who is biracial" ==

There have been other presidents of more than one race. Bush Jr. is has some German and English ancestry. [[User:NP|NP]]

:George W is German and English, is that two races according to our census? I think the readers will understand what biracial refers to.

::English and German are '''''not''''' races, and neither is Hispanic. --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 22:16, 17 May 2010 (EDT)

== Reorganizing ==

I'm glad to see the edit feature is enabled here once more. I think this page needs a revamp to structure information better. I've reorganized everything into a better structure, let me know what you think. I am trying to put a summary of the presidency at the top, information about his life/career next, and then a political summary. This should really improve the page's appearance, as it appears too disorganized right now. --[[User:Jzyehoshua|Jzyehoshua]] 15:56, 20 May 2010 (EDT)
:What you're doing is burying important information so fewer users will find it. That's unacceptable. [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 15:57, 20 May 2010 (EDT)

== Obama is a Muslim theory and the alleged claim of Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Aboul Gheit ==

Here is what the American Thinker reported: "The American President told me in confidence that he is a Muslim." That was the claim of Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Aboul Gheit, as reported in the May 2010 issue of Israel Today. According to journalist Avi Lipkin, Gheit appeared on Nile TV's "Round Table Show" in January, on which he said that "he had had a one-on-one meeting with Obama who swore to him that he was a Moslem, the son of a Moslem father and step-son of Moslem step-father, that his half-brothers in Kenya were Moslems, and that he was loyal to the Moslem agenda."[http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/06/report_obama_said_i_am_a_musli.html] Here is what Hot Air says: http://hotair.com/greenroom/archives/2010/06/14/obama-is-a-muslim-take-two/

Personally, I am beginning to think Obama is: not a Muslim, not a Christian, and not an atheist. I think Obama is a narcissist who worships himself. I can also see him telling one person he is a Christian and then later telling someone else he is a Muslim. There are many examples of Obama being insincere such as all the substantive healthcare discussions were going to be on C-Span, etc. etc. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 15:53, 16 June 2010 (EDT)

== 2009 Nobel Peace Prize ==

I find it strange that there is not a single mention of the president being awarded the Nobel peace prize in this article. Considering that other prominent award winners have it at least mentioned in their respective articles. The [[Mother Teresa]] article, for instance, prominently states her award in the introduction to the article, and even political figures like [[Al Gore]] and [[Henry Kissinger]] (both of whom won the peace prize) have their award at least mentioned in the article.
--[[User:DenisTR|DenisTR]] 16:04, 19 August 2010 (EDT)

:I agree with you, Denis. It was there, once-upon-a-time, but apparently it was removed in the constant editing turmoil. CP does mention this in the [[Nobel Prize]] article. I will add it here, as it should be. --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 16:24, 19 August 2010 (EDT)

==Faulty Logic==
I have a suspicion that Andy Schlafly is secretly a Muslim. Will you deny that, Andy? If you do deny it, then I accuse you of being a Muslim under the concept of Taqiyya.
It's like a terrible flow chart that always ends with "You're a Muslim." I realize that you're kind of scraping the barrel with this whole "Obama is a Muslim" thing, but c'mon. [[User:Pete5383|Paul]] 18:57, 19 August 2010 (EDT)

: Paul, you seem to think all claims or facts are relative. They aren't. Truth is supported by logic and evidence.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:00, 19 August 2010 (EDT)

:: President Obama clearly has an Islamic background. As an adult, he joined a church and says he's a Christian. I'd say he's as much Muslim as I am Jewish; by Jewish law, my having a Jewish mother makes me Jewish by birth, but I became a Christian by choice as a teenager. Go figure. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 14:04, 3 September 2010 (EDT)

:::Whether President Obama is Muslim or not is one question; however it is undeniable Obama misspoke or was deceptive while ramping up his ambitions back in 2005 when he told the ''Chicago Sun-Times'', "I am rooted in the Christian tradition." Nowhere on his maternal side, grandma, gramps, or his natural father, or his stepfather, can any Christian rooting be found. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 14:37, 4 September 2010 (EDT)

==Days in office==
[[Barack Obama]] was inaugurated {{days since|2009|1|20}} days ago and will finish his term in {{#expr: -{{days since|2013|1|20}} }} days. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 14:00, 3 September 2010 (EDT)

==Apparent sourcing errors==

While looking over this article, I noticed a number of problems - mostly unsourced claims or claims for which the source is no longer available. Since my suggestions will almost certainly be controversial, I will not actually make any further changes to this page.

*The quote "Rather than being a unifier, Mr. Obama has divided America on the basis of race, class and partisanship" under the heading "Presidency" is unattributed.

*The claim that Obama represented ACORN in ''Buycks-Roberson v. Citibank Fed. Sav. Bank'' is unsupported. While court documents do list Obama among the Plaintiff's Attorneys, they do not reference ACORN in any way. [http://www.clearinghouse.net/detail.php?id=10112] This claim seems to have been added by bloggers after the fact. Similarly, the cited reference contains no source for the claim that Obama had anything to do with the CRA, only a completely unsourced allegation that was reprinted almost verbatim here. As far as I can tell, Obama represented ACORN exactly once, on a case involving motor voter laws. [http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2008/oct/17/john-mccain/he-represented-them-in-one-case-/]

*The statement "Obama website Fight The Smears has confirmed that Obama was once a Kenyan citizen until 1982" under the subheading "Birth Certificate Controversy" is unsourced and ambiguous.

*Much of the content under the subheading "Engineers defeat of Centrist Democrats" is dubious. Two of the cites [http://articles.latimes.com/1992-03-18/news/mn-3844_1_gus-savage][http://www.dkosopedia.com/wiki/Carol_Moseley_Braun#Political_career] are about Carol Moseley Braun and don't mention Obama at all. There is no indication in any of the sources that Obama was connected to the Braun campaign, so these cites are meaningless. Additionally, the section attributes an anti-Dixon intent to Obama (referring to Obama as "subverting" Dixon's reelection, defined by Conservapedia's own article as "lending of aid, comfort, and moral support to individuals, groups, or organizations that advocate the overthrow of incumbent governments by force and violence"). What he did was increase voter turnout among the black community, a far cry from what the text implies.

*<s>The statement "President Obama falsely claimed that the senior citizen group AARP endorsed his administration's health care plan when they never made such an endorsement" under the subheading "Obama Administration Health Care Plan and Its Advocacy Methods" is sourced to a YouTube video that no longer exists. Additionally, it appears that AARP has been supporting health care reform since at least August 2009. [http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/08/17/eveningnews/main5247916.shtml][http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/19/aarp-ama-announce-support_n_506060.html]</s>

*Similarly, several cites link to YouTube videos that have been removed. Multiple cites under the subheading "Obama Administration Health Care Plan and Liberal Elitism" link to deleted videos, as does the cite for the statement "Barack Obama's "Disinformation Czar" (whose supposed job was to correct disinformation that others are spreading about the Obama administration's health care plan) was caught spreading misleading information." The cite for the statement "Senior citizens are key Democratic party constituents that could kill Obama's socialistic health care plan" links to a private video.

--[[User:DrewJ|DrewJ]] 15:50, 29 September 2010 (EDT)

:Sorry, Drew, but one glaring misrepresentation really sticks out, and explains why liberals are often accused of playing fast and loose with the truth: While AARP has long advocated health care reform, it specifically repudiated Obama's distortion of the truth, saying they were not endorsing any specific plan, at that time. See how easy it is to distort fact, by omission, and make obviously good-intentioned souls like you doubt the real truth?

:You are obviously an editor here, and I would urge you, before making posts such as this one, to try and find substitute sources that back up what is in the story. At the very least, as is the case with the AARP, at least check the facts before stating something is incorrect. It was a very big story at the time, Obama's misstatement, and not at all hard to find....so easy and well-known in fact that some people might be tempted to accuse you of inserting a deliberate [[Red Herring]]. --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 17:29, 29 September 2010 (EDT)

Sources don't count if they are liberal sources. Those are worse than no source at all. Find a reliable source like Cato Institute or Fox News and we can add those. [[User:JoeSmithson117|JoeSmithson117]] 18:44, 4 December 2011 (EST)

== Typo ==
The first sentence here has a typo: it presumably is meant to read "...said to have '''been''' born in..." I'd fix it myself, but the page is so informative (and therefore long) that my poor old computer can't load it to edit. --[[User:LanceS|LanceS]] 21:49, 11 November 2010 (EST)
:Thanks, JPatt got it. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 22:29, 11 November 2010 (EST)

== Bryan Fischer: Obama wants to give America back to the Indians ==

Is [http://www.afa.net/Blogs/BlogPost.aspx?id=2147501360 this site] some kind of liberal parody? Otherwise, this is so serious that is should be included. American Family Association would seem to me as a pretty trustworthy organization, and this Bryan Fischer is writing for them. Any thoughts? – [[User:Dstone|dstone]] 16:42, 1 January 2011 (EST)

==Fact vs Opinion==
Okay...I thought maybe this article would be a good place to start. I was introduced to Conservapedia recently, and have been waffling about joining and bcoming an editor, but can no longer refrain. So, I'm extraordinarily new...and I fully expect the welcoming and flame-free arms of this community, as I support the overall efforts of what Conservapedia is trying to accomplish. The road to becoming a "Trustworthy Encyclopedia" is long, and this site is just starting to make baby steps in that direction. That being said, I will try to keep this short.

FACT: Opinions are not fact. Even expert opinions are not fact. They're just plain old opinions. Despite being in the Commandments, and otherwise stated over and over again, folks seem to have trouble making this distinction.
OPINION: If you are unable to make cited references, or present the conservative viewpoint in a reasoned and intelligent manner, I would heavily suggest that you leave the site to those who can. Your "help" is often unhelpful. Especially in an article as...contentious...as this - and I imagine many others, I'll be looking shortly - the talk page is the place to present your opinions. If you cannot site material, find sources that intelligently argue your viewpoint, or just want a second or third pair of eyes and ears, it would be addressed here. Also, if haven't actually read the article that you are citing...do that first, before posting anything at all...

There are several on this page, the most innocuous of which: President Obama authorized offshore oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico[28]. The moratorium lapsed in 2008. It says it right in the article, paragraph 4. This statement is spruious and vague and will be reworded to say something like: Then-Senator Obama voted to re-authorize oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico. This is just a small and harmless example, but, either research the issue before posting, or don't post. If you wish to engage in historical revisionism, or just bottom-barrel opinion mongering, please roll on over to Wikipedia, and leave us be. [[User:RyanDav|RyanDav]] 2 January 2011
:I moved this from the top of the page to its current location, to maintain threading. [[User:Tzoran|Tyler Zoran]] [[User talk:Tzoran|Talk]] 13:35, 2 January 2011 (EST)

== Oil Drilling Moratorium, redux ==

I did not realize that this would be as contentious as it was. The statement is simply poorly worded, I assume unintentionally, and appears to place the blame squarely on one person's shoulders. This is just factually innacurate, nothing more, nothing less. We accept credit where credit is due, and take blame where blame is appropriate - and the blame belongs to the vast majority of the 110th Congress, both the liberal reps and ours - and to deny that is some kind of revisionism, which will not be tolerated. I'm certainly more than willing to be corrected on this, but you can either site sources that support your viewpoint, or you cannot - it really is that easy. In that case, the article would read something like, "then-Senator Obama lobbied heavily for the moratorium to lapse, and led a congressional coalition consisting of Senators Blah, Blah and Blah and Congressmen Such-and-such and So-and-so to further that end, etc..." accompanied by supporting references. I am afraid, however, that a "nuh-uh," or, "because I said so," is simply Not Good Enough. We're counteracting liberal bias, here, not populating the internet with more unfounded claptrap. [[User:RyanDav|RyanDav]] 19:26, 3 January 2011 (EST)

:If you please, write here your proposal for how this should be written, including the source links. If Obama lobbied heavily for the moritorium to lapse, then the source evidence will say it; if he was a part of a coalition of people, then again the evidence will support that. Since this article is about Obama, it should lean on what he has done while in office. But as far as what the 110th Congress did or didn't do, oh yes, I am in total agreement with you...and so were the vast majority of voters back in November. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 20:00, 3 January 2011 (EST)

::He didn't, as far as I know, or have ever read. I don't think any articles arguing that he soley was responsible, or even more responsible than any other rep, exist. The text is already up there. Pretty vanilla. Mentions him by name, but also says, "hey, don't forget about all the other chair-jockeys, too!" But the article is about him, so he gets a name drop for focus. The article is about him as whole, so his Presidential and Senatorial terms would be seperate sections of the same article, so as not to confuse. The 110th was the last Bush-era Congress. In November, we voted out the 111th. We are now in the 112th Congress.

::Oh, I also replaced someone's citation from an OpEd piece in the NYTimes with an actual news reference that supported the same point (about the Obama administration's poor response to the Oil Spill). If I didn't know better (and I probably don't), I would suspect that some of the citations here are purposefully planted just to make us look like simpletons. [[User:RyanDav|RyanDav]] 21:39, 3 January 2011 (EST)

== Birth Controversy ==
Could someone please explain to me something I've never quite followed: why does it matter where Obama was born? As far as I can tell, no one is claiming his mother was not a US Citizen, which makes him a "natural born" US citizen even if he was born in Kenya, Moscow, or Riyadh. If the issue is "without a birth certificate we can't be certain his mother is really his mother" then I get it, but this side of things seems to be ignored in favor of controversy over the actual location of the birth. If we interpret "natural born citizen" as "born within the US", then that would exclude the children of Armed Forces personnel stationed overseas with their families at the time their children were born from the presidency, which seems like something liberals would love to do. [[User:Ptorquemada|Ptorquemada]] 12:09, 5 April 2011 (EDT)
:Well, John McCain whose father was an Admiral was born to two American parents in Panama Canal Zone. The media questioned his "natural born" citizen status and it seemingly was determined that since both his parents were American citizens who were living out of State because of the Admiral's duties that John McCain's birth status would be considered "natural born. The question concerning Barack Obama is that his father was not a US citizen but was in fact a British subject as Kenya was under British rule at the time. Some suggest that the original conception of "natural born" was that both parents are US citizens at the time of the birth of a child. So there is a question as to his "natural born" status even if he was, in fact, born in Hawaii. The fact that Obama has spent a couple of million dollars fighting any requests for proof of an original long form birth certificate and school records makes some people more convinced that a. he wasn't actually born in Hawaii and that his birth was only registered there or b. because his father was a British subject he had duel citizenship status which would make it doubtful that he would be considered a natural born citizen. There are many questions concerning Obama's "natural born" status because he also appears to have been a citizenship of Indonesia and is supposed to have traveled on an Indonesian passport as an adult. Of course, a lot of questions would be removed if the president just released the original birth certificate. The fact that he hasn't just adds fuel to the fire. [[User:Dwain|Dwain]] 12:09, 8 April 2011 (EDT)

== Birth Certificate Removal? ==

Now that Obama has finally released his birth certificate, all this about Kenya and Barry Soetoro seems a bit silly. Should we remove it? [[User:JimAB|JimAB]] 11:24, 27 April 2011 (EDT)
:Has the question of Mr. Obama traveling to Pakistan on an Indonesian passport under the name Barry Soetero in 1981 been resolved yet? As well as the statements regarding his application to join the Illinois State Bar Association wherein he answered no to the question of ever using any aliases? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 18:12, 28 April 2011 (EDT)

== Shortening the article length ==

I think we need to work on splitting this article; I recently revert a vandal's (mostly) blanking of the page, and my browser would freeze up when I tried to save the page (actually I'm currently trying to save it - and over and over again I'm having no luck). Currently this appears at the top of the edit screen:
:'''WARNING: This page is 144 kilobytes long; some browsers may have problems editing pages approaching or longer than 32kb. Please consider breaking the page into smaller sections or removing irrelevant information.'''
Thoughts?--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 00:34, 30 April 2011 (EDT)

== First Socialist??? ==

Obama is clearly a socialist, but is he the first to be president as the lead of the article states? The New deal democrats who created social security come to mind.[[User:BenDylan|BenD]] 09:03, 1 May 2011 (EDT)
:That certainly may be true. But we are talking about one man who occupies the office of president, not underlings and appopintees. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 09:23, 1 May 2011 (EDT)
::But couldn't the Presidents who hired them be considered socialists? I still don't know about saying he's the FIRST. [[User:KingHanksley|KingHanksley]] 12:31, 4 May 2011 (EDT)
:::You Americans have no idea what socialism is anymore do you?[[User:Cmurphynz|Cmurphynz]] 21:36, 25 June 2012 (EDT)
::::I guess you're on to us. Alex, I'll take What is redistribution of wealth, State control of industry for $200. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 21:43, 25 June 2012 (EDT)

== Obama the Socialist ==
I am counting all the capitalists that have hired self-proclaimed communists. I come up with zero. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 12:43, 2 May 2011 (EDT)

== Update of the article ==

See [[Talk:Barack Hussein Obama/update]] if you'd like to contribute to an update of this article - we'll be keeping a lot of the information that's good, throwing out some information that's a little old, and adding new information - all while hopefully downsizing! All help is appreciated!--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 19:55, 2 May 2011 (EDT)

== Bin Laden ==

Should we at least mention the Bin Laden capture? I feel that in fairness we should give him his one or two accomplishments. We should definitely mention that George W. Bush's policies played a big hand but still Obama could have gone entirely bleeding heart on us and we wouldn't have gotten OBL [[User:KingHanksley|KingHanksley]] 11:24, 4 May 2011 (EDT)

But being fair and giving credit to a liberal muslim socialist for making the world even a little safer would undermine the integrity of a conservative encyclopedia. Now had he screwed up the capture then that would be worthy of mentioning because it would show how he endangered the country. We should only be fair and give credit where credit is due if Obama was a Christian conservative who shared our beliefs. ([[User:Bluebank|Bluebank]] 12:58, 7 July 2011 (EDT))

I agree, it would only be worth mentioning if he had screwed up the capture because then we could hold his feet to the fire. ([[User:Jvclark2|Jvclark2]] 13:00, 7 July 2011 (EDT))

:::''"giving credit to a liberal muslim socialist for making the world even a little safer would undermine the integrity of a conservative encyclopedia."'' Well that's not a biased statement or anything. It should fall under the article Obama presidency but because of its significance, put it on the BHO page. Rarely, but we have given Obama credit in the past. The rescue of a Captain from Somali pirates is a good example of the proper choice the Progressive fake Christian Marxist had made. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 14:58, 7 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::I just don't see where ordering bin Laden's killing is a big accomplishment. What purpose did it serve other than a failed effort to turn around Obama's falling poll ratings while destroying the most important relationship the United States had in the war on terror. After Obama declared the war on terror over two years ago, dismantling the delicate relationship with the Pakistani ISS seems like phase two. Undermining Pakistan's secular regime, the way Obama did, only works to the advantage of Islamic extremists.

:::::Did killing bin Laden bring back the lives lost in the 9/11 attacks? No. Does making the war's in Iraq & Afghanistan about retribution rather than prevention, further American foreign policy interests or make the United States more secure? Hardly.

:::::Does creating the false sense among the American electorate that the objectives of the war in Afghanistan have now been accomplished, and we can abandon the fight? The height of folly -- and a repeat of what happened when the U.S. abandoned Afghanistan to the terrorists after 1991.

:::::Did killing bin Laden make America safe from reprisals? Or rather doies killing bin Laden expose innocent men, women, and children to the never ending threat of sudden, sensesless, and violent death?
:::::The cynical manipulation of American security and foreign policy interests for short term popularity and selfish career interests is appalling. I just don't agree this a "success" to boast of. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 23:15, 7 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::While I think it's laughable to say that taking down the number one most wanted man in the world isn't an accomplishment, I think it's a decision that ''anyone'' would have made, therefore, it isn't special or particular that Obama happened to be the one to make it. [[User:BradB|BradB]] 23:57, 7 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::No. We've learned from our mistakes. In 1967 the the number one most wanted man in the world - Che Guevara - was similiarly hunted and executed, only to be resurrected by liberals, hate-mongers, and other assorted sociopaths and pro-mass murder advocates, made the mascot of the hate-America crowd, and sold to American college students as somethiong larger than life and a cult hero to be worshiped. It is not laughable at all. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 13:55, 8 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::::The angst from the left goes back to Bush hatred. We shouldn't have interfered in Iraq and should have focused on OBL. Leftist sheep knew better than Bush. We knew all along that it is not one man but a movement, confront them there instead of here. At least we are no longer creating and recruiting terrorists, thanks to a Muslim-named president and his policies of peace in the Middle East.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 14:08, 8 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::You will recall Senator [[Patty Murray]], who now heads the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee charged with candidate recruitment and doling out funds, praised bin Laden for his work with children buidling day care centers. He probably supported the Family-Leave Act and opposed No Child Left Behind, too. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 15:26, 8 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::''" I just don't agree this a "success" to boast of. "'' Two points, 1) stating a fact is not boasting, it is just stating a fact. We list domestic policy, popular bills, economic plan, gulf oil spill, DADT... It's just another thing to list. 2) Had Bush done it I'm pretty sure it would be on his page.([[User:Jvclark2|Jvclark2]] 21:09, 8 July 2011 (EDT))
:::::::::::That is the point. Stating the fact that Obama's unnecessarily destroyed the most vital relationship the United States has in the War on Terror to score short term approval ratings. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 12:38, 9 July 2011 (EDT)
Jvclark - bin Laden's death is mentioned on this page. In the lead. What more do you want?--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 11:46, 9 July 2011 (EDT)

==From the update - discussion==
===Structuring===
This is what I feel should be the general sectioning of the article - I think with an article that we have this much information on, what we mostly need to do is use "See also:" pages rather than go into major details.
{| style="width:100%"
|valign="top"|
*Early life
*U.S. Senate career (with a note on opposition to the Iraq War - which should be followed up on in the presidential primary race)
*U.S. Senate career
**Radical endorsements, support, and get out the vote efforts (better language?)
**'''Use of filibuster and obstructionism'''
**'''Voted agaist debt ceiling increase'''

*Presidential election (things to cover: experience question, jeremiah wright, PUMA)
**Primary race
**National election
|valign="top"|
*Presidency
**Domestic policy
***Popular Bills (Zadroga, lilly ledbetter fair pay act)
***Economic plan
****Stimulus plan
***Health care
***The Gulf oil spill
**Foreign policy
***Commander-in-Chief
****Iraq
****Afghanistan
****Libya/The Obama Doctine
****Don't Ask Don't Tell
|valign="top"|

*Ideology (mentioning pro-abortion stance, other things not mentioned above)
*References
*See also
*External links
|}

Rob I've bolded two section that I wonder if they should be sections alone; I do 100% agree that they should be mentioned in the text; are you set on them being sections? If so I'll yield--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 00:58, 3 May 2011 (EDT)
:Leave bold for now & let's see what develops; '''Recovery''' is ambiguous; while total output (GDP growth) has recovered, we've seen several polls just over the past week where 60-70% of respondents ''still'' think the US is in recession (despite the fact GDP growth has recovered over the past year and half). Likewise, it certainly has not been a "jobs recovery". I'd suggest this needs a better name. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 01:15, 3 May 2011 (EDT)

::I very much agree - that's a misleading section title - I think what I meant was "Proposed Recovery" - or "Recovery Plan". The latter sounds a little better to my ears. I made a few edits below - I'm gonna hold off on doing anything else till you get a chance to take a look and add things.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]]01:22, 3 May 2011 (EDT)
:::I've replaced Recovery with Stimulus, perhaps "Stimulus and budget". Also, Don't Ask Don't Tell seems a little wierd under "Wartime"; is it there solely cause it's a military subject? It could just as easily fit under Idealogy as well (I' not just trying to be argumentative....) [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 01:40, 3 May 2011 (EDT)
::::Hmm. Very true. No I think it's definitely a legitimate question. I HAD been thinking that Ideology would just cover what wasn't addressed in the prior sections (since certainly we'd discuss his economic ideology in the "Economic plan" section) - so, yes, I had just placed it under wartime solely because its a military subject. But it is probably more apropos to homosexual rights. I am worried that Ideology will become a bucket of worms, so to speak, only in that it'd be weird to just have a section for DADT under it, so then we'd have to have a super-section for "Homosexual policy", and then super-sections for everything else, making the article very long. I leave it up to you.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 01:45, 3 May 2011 (EDT)
:::::Alternatively, we can just leave it as is for now. I'm updating the [[Obama administration]] article right now, too. That one is structured , "Economic policy", "Foreign policy", etc. Wartime leader is something new. Perhaps, Commander-in-Chief? that would encompass DADT as well as ongoing military operations. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 02:08, 3 May 2011 (EDT)
::::::I like that. It's broader and works well. Nice.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 02:29, 3 May 2011 (EDT)
I took a look at the Wikipedia page on Obama - and I actually like how they organize his presidency - into Domestic policy and foreign policy. I'm going to make some changes to reflect that. I think in the long run it'll actually limit the number of sections we need--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 18:15, 4 May 2011 (EDT)

== Congratulations! ==
To the people who worked updating this article. It looks much better now.--[[User:AlejandroH|AlejandroH]] 00:43, 10 May 2011 (EDT)

== Speculation ==

In the spirit of accuracy, I think that all articles should refrain from speculative language (I thought this would be good article to start with). I understand that this is a conservative encyclopedia, but one should not overrule the other. We can still present the conservative view point that other encyclopedias overlook without veering off the path of facts. I think that President Obama has done enough to harm himself without adding inflammatory and opinion statements. This language degrades the reliability of the site. [[User:McTone|McTone]] 10:59, 23 May 2011 (EDT)McTone
:You're actually not making encyclopedic edits - for example how you're adding titles ("''President'' Obama"), which is traditionally not done. As you've now been reverted twice I think you should refrain from editing this article.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 11:35, 23 May 2011 (EDT)
:: That is encyclopaedic, as it is proper to use a person's title in reference material. However, that's not ththe only edits I've made. Most of them being removing speculative speech. Basically we should follow the rule of "if you can't cite it, don't say it."[[User:McTone|McTone]] 13:01, 23 May 2011 (EDT)McTone
:::No it's generally not. See his Wikipedia page if you don't believe. We also don't say "Mr." or "Ms."--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 12:02, 23 May 2011 (EDT)
::::Are we not better than Wikipedia? In any case, this is deferring the point I was making with this heading.[[User:McTone|McTone]] 13:01, 23 May 2011 (EDT)McTone

== Perhaps ==

I have read two cases of the word perhaps in the opening section of this article. Shouldn't assumptions like these not belong in an encyclopedia like article, especially in the opening section?- AlexMason
:The first one is arguably a wording error ... I'll consider that - the second one is more appropriate; since the event just happened we're not sure what the consequences will be, but if a potential consequence is notable enough it's probably worth stating--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 16:30, 23 May 2011 (EDT)
::I'm an underwriter at Fox News and I see stuff like this all the time. I think AlexMason is correct here (as well as the poster in the previous topic). Is this a web encyclopedia or is this an opinion site? Speculating on the outcome of events is tantamount to gossip (highly frowned upon and in fact forbidden by the standards of Conservapedia as I have read the rules and commandments). I really think this should be fixed. I noticed some edits in the history of this page and I've got to stick with Andy's last revision (reverting some of the edits of the previous editor) which kept to the less speculative nature of the article.[[User:PapaBear|PapaBear]] 21:32, 28 May 2011 (EDT)

== Obama Muslim Evidence? ==

I was going to make a post on this talk page suggesting we move the long list of evidence that Obama may be a Muslim to its own article (or an article dealing with the Obama/Islam controversy) but when I got here I saw that section had been removed, as had any mention of the words "Islam" or "Muslim". (I did a search on my browser). I could not find a reason for this on the talk page. Could someone explain why this was made? [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 22:13, 3 June 2011 (EDT)
:I rescued the content from an old revision and put it here: [[Barack Obama's Muslim Heritage]] [[User:AndyJ|AndyJ]] 22:18, 21 June 2011 (EDT)

== Obama as President ==
With the long-standing controversy about Hussein's birth certificate and the recent evidence that the one that was released is forged, I feel that there is ample evidence to conclude that Obama was born in Kenya. Because of that, I propose that we list the current holder of the office of [[President]] as [[Joe Biden]], as he would take the office if Obama were found to be unable or ineligible to serve. --[[User:AndyJ|AndyJ]] 22:29, 21 June 2011 (EDT)
:You may be misreading the story; the "Obama was born in Kenya" conspiracy theory was promoted by the White House to hide the fact that, Barack Hussein Obama's father was a [[natural born citizen]] of Kenya, and not the United States. That is the constitutional question, being that a case can be made that the Constitutional framers defined "natural born citizen" as being a citizen of the country of ''your fathers'' birth. The birth certificate, or the location of Obama Jr. birth, that is to say, the birther conspircacy the White House promoted, never had anything to do with the constitutional issue in question. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 16:27, 22 June 2011 (EDT)
::And two things, firstly, there is not ample evidence. Just conspiracy theories. Even assuming that the certificate/s released are forgeries, that alone isn't enough to prove he wasn't born in the US, it would just raise concerning questions. Secondly, Obama would remain the President. The Constitution doesn't mention what would happen if someone who was ineligible to be President became President. Hence, until impeachment or the 25th Amendment is invoked, Obama would remain President. (Presumably the 25th would be invoked, as impeachment would take a lot longer, and would require proving that Obama knew, which could be a little difficult.) - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 07:57, 18 October 2011 (EDT)

== Why is the birth certificate things still going? ==

I read a while ago (and posted in the article) an article from the National Review where even they concede that Obama was probably born in the US. [[User:CaptainSwing|CaptainSwing]] 23:43, 7 November 2011 (EST)

:Well as soon as it's verified than we can move past. Until then, we'll just pretend everything is a ok. For me, I'd still like to see every executive order, every law signed, every supreme court nominee from Obama overturned. It took three years the release of the long form certificate. I can wait another three years if need be for the proof.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 00:11, 8 November 2011 (EST)
::I don't understand, the National Review, a magazine that I admit is quite conservative, viewed the birth certificate and said it was most likely valid. I'm not sure what you're waiting for, as I don't think anyone is going to prove that Obama wasn't born in the country. [[User:CaptainSwing|CaptainSwing]] 09:59, 8 November 2011 (EST)
:::Because what they viewed was a Photoshoped work. Until the American public sees for itself exactly what is - or is not - on file in Hawaii, there will always be this unanswered question. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 11:22, 8 November 2011 (EST)
::::But it wasn't photo-shopped, that was the whole point the National Review was making: [http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/265767/pdf-layers-obamas-birth-certificate-nathan-goulding]. And honestly it makes sense, why on Earth would they go to the trouble of planting so much evidence that even the Mccain campaign declined to pursue it further, only to bungle the job on an elementary error in photoshop that any reasonable graphics designer would never make. [[User:CaptainSwing|CaptainSwing]] 12:03, 8 November 2011 (EST)
:::::It was Photoshopped, and downloading the original White House copy of it reveals all of the layers when it's run under Photoshop. Try reading all of these [http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=98546] by different reporters rather than a single National Review piece that's harping the beliefs of the "Yes We Can" crowd. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:21, 8 November 2011 (EST)
::::::So wait, you're saying that because they agree with Obama we can dismiss them? Isn't that circular reasoning? The author of the national review article posted a guide of how the mistakes could have easily come up and has no reason to lie about it. And again, let's think about this logically, they have authentic birth announcements from the relevant papers, good enough to fool the Mccain campaign, why would they botch a photoshop job? [[User:CaptainSwing|CaptainSwing]] 12:27, 8 November 2011 (EST)
:::::::And one of those mistakes that appeared on the Obama "certificate" was a sequence number that interfered with the numbers issued to a pair of twins; one of those mistakes was the "signature" of an individual which happens to be close enough to the name of a very small Hawaiian guitar; one of those mistakes is a smiley face attached to another signature; the list goes on. And until we see the real, bona-fide birth certificate, this issue is not going to go away, and we will continue to publish the current evidence as the fraud that it is. So don't worry too much about it, okay? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:44, 8 November 2011 (EST)
::::::::Does that mean to say that it should be considered a fraud until such a time as every US citizen has held and viewed the physical document? [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 16:49, 8 November 2011 (EST)
:::::::::Though this discussion is old. I will agree with this CaptainSwing person and this MaxFletcher that Obama's birth certificate issue has been dealt with, and the National Review magazine that one user mentioned is a conservative magazine. Plus you don't go to court with flimsy argument saying "hey he was born in Kenya" and demand that the defense prove all its points without the prosecution being able to present solid evidence. I see no solid evidence that proves he was born outside the United States, in our party the centre-right Austrian-born Arnold Schwarzenegger was elected Governor of California. And besides the real serious problems that people have with Obama are what he is doing as President, such as his high tax agenda for instance.--[[User:TheQuestioner|TheQuestioner]] 17:08, 3 August 2012 (EDT)

==Promises kept==
I can count how many promises Obama kept on one hand.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 13:47, 19 December 2011 (EST)

== Poverty comment in paragraph 2 of intro ==

The poverty comment isn't supported by the link at all. The link looks at from the 1950s to 2009. Obama began office in 2009, so the 14.3 percent marked at the end of the graph is a measure of the poverty at some point during 2009, and may have been taken in Bush's last month in office. It is unreasonable to conclude from the graph that poverty increased under Obama's presidency. I'll also note that the increase in poverty began, according to the graph, whilst Bush was in office. - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 00:08, 20 March 2012 (EDT)

== Better, More Objective Article at CreationWiki.org ==

There's now a better-sourced, more objective article at CreationWiki.org:

http://creationwiki.org/Barack_Obama

This article mentions virtually no biographic detail about Obama, or major controversies, including the Born Alive issue or his Chicago Politics. And the sourcing looks haphazard here. --[[User:Jzy|Jzy]] 09:52, 29 May 2012 (EDT)

Still, you guys have a 1-sentence mention of the Born Alive controversy even though it was brought up by Obama's last 4 political opponents, John McCain, Sarah Palin, Hillary Clinton, and Alan Keyes. And Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum both brought it up a few months ago as well. There's a whole article on this subject alone over at CreationWiki:

http://creationwiki.org/Obama_born_alive_controversy

You're missing the boat on the biggest controversy surrounding Obama, one that hasn't been debunked and is going to cause him a WHOLE lot of trouble. I told you guys this 2 years ago.
--[[User:Jzy|Jzy]] 10:14, 29 May 2012 (EDT)

:Thanks for the comments Jyz, the current article has been in the top 10 for nearly four years now. Most Americans are quite aware that Obama is the most pro-abortion president ever. Feel free to add to our wiki with the born-alive controversy page. In addition, you were not registered here two years ago so no wonder we didn't heed your warning.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 12:52, 29 May 2012 (EDT)

::Well, if this were just another abortion issue Obama wouldn't have a thing to worry about. This is an entirely different subject because it involves aborting children who aren't inside the mother's body but are outside the body and capable of surviving if given medical attention. We passed the federal Born Alive Infant Protection Act in 2002 making it illegal to let premature, newborn babies who survive late-term abortions get left to die without medical attention. We also passed the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act outlawing the late-term Dilation & Extraction (D&E) abortions that resulted in these live births. Nurses Jill Stanek and Allison Baker (of Christ Hospital in Oak Lawn, IL) testified before Congress in 2001 that newborn babies were being born prematurely after botched abortions in their home state of Illinois and being thrown in wastebaskets or soiled utility rooms. Stanek's moving testimony about how she held a little baby in her arms after one of these abortions and the physician refused to help keep it alive so that it died in her arms, proved especially influential.

::The entire U.S. Senate passed the Born Alive Infant Protection Act unanimously, because as Obama would put it, it was "the bill everybody supported". The Partial-Birth Abortion Act twice refers to the practice in federal law as "infanticide". It's a legal, technical term referring to what U.S. law now considers murder of newborn children. Stanek also testified before the Illinois Senate at the time, where Obama was leading a Planned Parenthood movement to vote down numerous Born Alive bills and cover up this fact from Illinois citizens using "present votes". Normally pro-choice Democrats like Barbara Boxer, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, and Ted Kennedy all voted for the Born Alive Infant Protection Act. Hillary Clinton herself brought up Obama's voting record on this in 2008 to criticize him over. So like I said, if this were just a Pro-Life vs. Pro-Choice issue it wouldn't be controversial. I'm not talking about abortion here. I'm talking about infanticide, and opposition to medical care for newborn infants. I'm talking about Obama's opposition to a bill that had over 90% public support, unlike typical Pro-Life bills. --[[User:Jzy|Jzy]] 02:18, 4 June 2012 (EDT)

:::I'm going to incorporate some of my writing and sourcing from that article to this one, and edit boldly. If anyone has any objections to any material please state them. However, I believe I've sourced everything so solidly it should be unobjectionable. --[[User:Jzyehoshua|Jzyehoshua]] 22:03, 20 July 2012 (EDT)

== Last Change ==

The protests weren't peaceful, but they were really violent, to date there's no proof that Muammar Gaddafi had took any violent action against civilians, but there are proof and reports from Amnesty International, Human rights watch, Russian intelligence which denies any of the rumors and falsely alleged crime.

Here's one source where US defense secretary Robert Gates and Navy Admiral Michael Mullen tells about whole thing, :-

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL1110/S00144/un-silent-despite-no-basis-for-natos-illegal-war-on-libya.htm

Thanks. [[User:Regular|Regular]] 11:10, 14 June 2012 (EDT)

== Changes, Detailed ==

I made the following changes, merging an article I wrote on Obama for CreationWiki with this one:

http://creationwiki.org/Barack_Obama

The diff for the changes can be seen here:

http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Barack_Hussein_Obama&action=historysubmit&diff=994904&oldid=994689

I left the Lede intact.

* Birth: I removed an opening sentence about Obama eating dog meat. It looks really silly there, starting off the section. Maybe the article could be linked somewhere else but it looks really bad starting off the page like that.
* Early Life: I included a whole new section on his early life and family and removed some unsourced claims that he was the antichrist and will be instating police rule (which either way doesn't fit the section). If it's going to be put anywhere in the article an appropriate subsection should be created for it, and some sourcing provided - neither of which was the case before.
* Personal Life: I added a whole new section on his marriage to Michelle Obama, children, and church.
* Education: I added a new section on education. Some of it was alluded to earlier but didn't have sources, my material does.
* Non-Political Employment: Whole new section, a LOT of detail about his employment history here.
* Personal Awards: The Nobel controversy mentioned in this new section.
* 1991-1992, Project Vote: His time as a community organizer, new section.
* 1996 Election: I added an entirely new section on how Obama knocked candidates off the ballot.
* 2003 Emil Jones Deal: Whole new section on how Obama struck a deal with Emil Jones to get appointed legislation for other Illinois Senators to advance his political career.
* 2004 Primary Election: Completely new section on how the Illinois media knocked off Obama's first opponent.
* 2004 General Election, Jack Ryan: Completely new section on how the Illinois media knocked off Jack Ryan afterwards through the same tricks.
* 2004 General Election, Alan Keyes: Completely new section highlighting the Born Alive controversy surrounding Obama.
* 2008 Presidential Election: I preserved what little detail there was and merged it in but otherwise everything here is new.
* 2009-2012, U.S. Presidency: I added new sections on the Stimulus and Iraq troop withdrawal. What little info there was about the withdrawal I preserved and merged in.

--[[User:Jzyehoshua|Jzyehoshua]] 23:15, 20 July 2012 (EDT)

=== Deletions ===

I figure it's best to mention any deletions made.

- I deleted the following from the end of the Lede:
{{cquote|Later Obama apologized. When Obama visited [[England]] in 2011, he signed his name and added the date of "2008" -- the last time he won an election. He never explaned that one. When Obama read a speech from a teleprompter, as he almost always does, he repeatedly mispronounced the familiar military term of "corpsman" by sounding out the "p".}}
I removed it because (A) it had no sourcing provided, (B) it showed signs of poor grammar (misspelled "explained"), (C) used weasel words/phrases (almost always does), and perhaps most importantly, (D) it's not even especially relevant. I mean, who cares if he mispronounced the word "corpsman"? How many Americans even would pronounce it right? Maybe that could merit a footnote somewhere on the page, but in the Lede? Really??? I try to preserve as much of the page as possible, but I really think those sentences made the rest of the page look bad. --[[User:Jzyehoshua|Jzyehoshua]] 15:45, 21 July 2012 (EDT)
:Having those sentences there in the Lede gives the impression the whole page is going to be about nitpicking over Obama's grammar, and I really don't think that's the impression Conservapedia wants to give. I'd like to think the Lede would show evidence Obama will be fairly and accurately criticized, not with poorly written and unsourced claims that he mispronounced a word most Americans wouldn't pronounce right anyway. --[[User:Jzyehoshua|Jzyehoshua]] 15:49, 21 July 2012 (EDT)

-I deleted the "Retrieved from 对当代托洛茨基主义的批判：英文论集百花齐放 - 中国文革研究网, March 15, 2010." part of this footnote:
{{cquote|[[File:O-2002-antiwar-rally-davidson.jpg|right|thumb|250px| Obama speaking at the October 2002 rally in Chicago organized by [[Carl Davidson]].<ref>Davidson is a longtime [[Mao]]ist and champion of the ''Thought of Mao Tse Tung.'' Davidson's anti-Trotskyite polemic, [http://www.wengewang.org/read.php?tid=10925 ''Left in Form, Right in Essence''] defends Maoist doctrine. Retrieved from 对当代托洛茨基主义的批判：英文论集百花齐放 - 中国文革研究网, March 15, 2010.</ref> ''"[H]e is a brutal man who butchers his own people,"'' nevertheless Obama opposed ''"dumb wars".'']]}}
I think this should all be in English. It might belong on a Chinese page for Conservapedia, the alternate language translations, but I don't think so here. Hopefully someone can find an alternate reference for this, but it looks bad at the bottom of the page in footnotes like that, and since it can't be understood doesn't serve any real purpose. --[[User:Jzyehoshua|Jzyehoshua]] 21:39, 21 July 2012 (EDT)

== New Section On ACORN/New Party Ties ==

Alright, I just removed the following sentence from the 1996 section:
{{cquote|In 1995 Obama openly sought and obtained the endorsement of the [[Marxist]] [[New Party]] in his quest to be elected to the Illinois State Senate.<ref>[http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=7434 NEW PARTY (NP)], discoverthenetwork.org.</ref><ref>Rick Moran. [http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/06/obamas_alliance_with_marxists.html Obama's Alliance with Marxists], ''American Thinker'', June 03, 2008.</ref>}}

I made a new section on this at the end of the article. Frankly, I just wanted to remove the section from the 1996 section because it makes the whole thing look bad. I don't really care about his New Party or ACORN affiliations but I know many conservatives care about them, so I didn't want to delete the sentence and wanted to see if I could move it somewhere else, and maybe provide some more detail to give it a small subsection somewhere. I didn't think much of the sources it had so I figured I'd see if I could find any decent sourcing and information for it. In the process, I found out it had articles relating to it at National Review, Politico, and by Billy Hallowell (a FOX News contributor), plus had been addressed by Obama's "Fight the Smears" campaign and David Axelrod. Plus it's still relevant in 2012.

So I wrote it a new section, because I just follow sources and newsworthiness, and it is does appear to have some prominence. I tried to provide sources and perspective from both sides, and provide all the facts, so it won't just be a one-sided claim. Anyway, that's why I detailed it out more. Like I said, I don't really care about the claim myself, but it is newsworthy and a cause for concern among some conservatives, so I figured I might as well write it a section - and get it out of the 1996 one :) --[[User:Jzyehoshua|Jzyehoshua]] 23:21, 21 July 2012 (EDT)

:For me, the big issue surrounding Obama has always been his voting record against the Born Alive bills, and repeated lying attempts to cover this up. That he's gone to such lengths to prevent newborn babies from being given medical attention and then lie about having done so, has always struck me as reprehensible. His political corruption and constant lies are also disgusting. I just want people to know about these things. But his Marxism and ACORN stuff? Not really an issue for me. I just wrote this because I know it's a cause for concern to other conservatives, so I made sure the facts are presented on it. --[[User:Jzyehoshua|Jzyehoshua]] 23:37, 21 July 2012 (EDT)

:And mainly I didn't want that sentence in the 1996 section, by the way, because it's still highly controversial. I don't like starting off an otherwise credible section with undeniable sources with a claim that is still under investigation. Maybe this stuff on the New Party will hold up - those minutes will be strong evidence if Kurtz is right about them. But right now the sourcing for it isn't as strong as I'd like, even if it is newsworthy. And I'd prefer the 1996 section stick to strongly proven facts. That he knocked off all his opponents using a team of lawyers is well sourced by the Chicago Tribune, CBS News, CNN, New York Times, etc. The stuff about the New Party had two lesser-known sources and while it has better sourcing now, it's still an ongoing issue, which is why I think it's more relevant in a 2012 section than 1996. --[[User:Jzyehoshua|Jzyehoshua]] 23:51, 21 July 2012 (EDT)

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

== Conspiracy theory that Obama is not born in the US is by crazy lunatic fringe right-wing people who don't represent the mainstream right, it is just like crazy lunatic fringe left-wing conspiracy theories on JFK being killed by the CIA and not J. Harvey Oswald or 9-11 truthers ==

Regardless of criticisms and condemnations by mainstream conservatives of Obama's policies, these claims that he is a foreign-born citizen have been disproven and mainstream conservatives accept that he is an American citizen. Theories that he was born outside the USA are lunatic fringe conspiracy theories - and I don't care whether they are right-wing - their ideas have been disproven just like the crazy 9-11 truther conspiracy theories and JFK conspiracy theories by lunatic fringe left-wing people. Why is there such focus on conspiracy theories on where Obama is born in the intro, rather than focus in the intro on Obama's policies and conservative criticisms of Obama's policies?--[[User:TheQuestioner|TheQuestioner]] 12:31, 3 August 2012 (EDT)

:Thank God you registered here to set the record straight. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 12:34, 3 August 2012 (EDT)

::What do you mean?--[[User:TheQuestioner|TheQuestioner]] 12:36, 3 August 2012 (EDT)

== Title of article ==

The middle name should be removed as the name of the article. The middle name of other figures is not in the title in other articles. [[User:AcomaMagic|AcomaMagic]] 15:17, 18 August 2012 (EDT)
:[[Ronald Wilson Reagan]]?? --[[User:JamesWilson|James Wilson]] 05:16, 4 September 2012 (EDT)
::That looks like a rarity. All the other biography pages that I've seen use the most common name. The middle name of Reagan should be removed as the title too. [[User:AcomaMagic|AcomaMagic]] 08:08, 9 September 2012 (EDT)

== Teleprompter at school ==

It is a false rumor, based on photoshopped photos, that Obama had teleprompters set up for a speech to a middle school class. He spoke to the class without teleprompters, then went to another classroom, where he spoke to the ''media'' using a teleprompter. Surely there are enough things to criticize without distorting the truth? [http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/photos/6thgrade.asp] [[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 10:39, 2 September 2012 (EDT)
:This is a little shaky as a criticism I suppose. With his voting record on the Born Alive bills and political corruption, there's an awful lot that can be criticized about him. That he uses teleprompters so often is a valid criticism of him, but the teleprompters in classrooms one needs to be carefully presented in context, as pointed out by Sharon. --[[User:JZambrano|Joshua Zambrano]] 08:56, 4 September 2012 (EDT)

== "may have had a prior marriage" ==

This appears in the information box - I assume its about Obama rather than his wife - but is not explained in the main article, let alone supported with any references. As a Brit, this is completely new to me. Can anyone develop this further? [[User:Rafael|Rafael]] 17:54, 10 September 2012 (EDT)

== Accusations about birth certificate and cultural and name identity ==

I would like to move this section back to the section about Obama's birth, and weave it back into the relevant section instead of having it tagged on to the end of the article. None of the edits will change the argument at all. [[User:MattyD|MattyD]] 12:40, 16 September 2012 (EDT)
:JPatt, the edits I made REMOVED fluff and apologies. Can you please point to specific passages where you think the argument was softened? [[User:MattyD|MattyD]] 12:57, 16 September 2012 (EDT)
::No--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 13:01, 16 September 2012 (EDT)
:::Why not? My edits REMOVE a lot of the fluff. Where is the problem? [[User:MattyD|MattyD]] 13:03, 16 September 2012 (EDT)

==Page has too many kbs==
This age is ''WAY'' too heavy for updating the Intro and I can't wait 2 hours to make these minor changes. Can someone who actually cares please add,
* the U.S. Government's credit rating, for the first time in its history, was downgraded, and [[poverty]]<ref>[http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/data/incpovhlth/2009/pov09fig04.pdf Figure 4: Number in Poverty and Poverty Rate: 1959-2009]. ''U.S. Census Bureau''. Current Population Survey, 1960 to 2010 Annual Social and Economic Supplements.</ref> increased markedly every year.<ref>[http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-201_162-20105376.html Poverty continues to rise in U.S., now 15.1%], CBS News.</ref>
I realize I am penalized 9 mainspace edits for asking for this help, but some, if not much of the Intro citations are two years out of date. [[User:OscarO|OscarO]] 11:38, 29 September 2012 (EDT)

== Country of birth ==

He released his long-form birth certificate, so what evidence is there that he was born in Kenya? [[User:Nightsky|Nightsky]] 15:43, 8 October 2012 (EDT)

== Country of birth ==

He released his long-form birth certificate, so what evidence is there that he was born in Kenya? [[User:Nightsky|Nightsky]] 15:43, 8 October 2012 (EDT)

Talk:Barack Hussein Obama

2012-10-08T19:43:09Z

Nightsky: /* Country of birth */ new section

[[File:Brainreboot20110429.jpg|400px|thumb|]]

{{articletalkheader|prefix=archive}}
 

==Rense==
Jeff Rense may not be a such a good source. The Anti-Defamation League accuses him of promoting anti-Semitic views and 9/11 Conspiracy theories. OTOH, what is wrong with a Pravda article written in the post Soviet-censorship era when democratic Russia hungars to exercise a free press, open discussion and discernment of facts? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 22:39, 23 January 2010 (EST)

:See my talk page, Rob. I never noticed who added the Pravda cite, so if you say so, it is of course fine with me, and please add it back if you haven't already! I now suspect it was yet another vandal site troll stirring the pot, so feel free to deal with him as well. --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 17:02, 24 January 2010 (EST)

== Terror Attacks ==
I have an issue with a claim made in the second paragraph. ''Since abandoning the "War on Terror" in Obama's first year, the United States has suffered more terrorist attacks with deadly intent on American soil than in the previous eight years combined.'' Since Obama replaced the 'Global War on Terror' with 'Overseas Contingency Operation', there have been only four domestic terrorist attacks, a far cry from the 19 that took place under Bush's tenure. This sentence should be reworded or removed in its entirety; it only makes the article look embarrassing. --[[User:MichaelJB|MichaelJB]] 15:46, 25 January 2010 (EST)

:More [[liberal]] poppycock, Michael? Even the New York Times counts more, excluding 9/11, under Obama. Perhaps you should consider sources other than the Kos? --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 19:29, 25 January 2010 (EST)

::A short time ago you gave me grief for making assumptions, yet here you are doing the same. I didn't get any information from Kos, it all came from legitimate news sources. Do you really believe that more terror attacks occurred on US soil from March 2009 to January 2010 than in the eight years of the Bush administration? I would really like to see all your references for making such a bold claim. And why would you want to exclude the WTC/Pentagon attacks?
::Some people have been making some really stupid claims lately about domestic terror. Dana Perino and Rudy Guiliani both claimed there was not a terror attack on the US when Bush was in office. The fact that these people could make such stupidly partisan claims is incredible. [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4kpfhGxJbLc] [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2tYoMoJHNDs] The claim made in this article reeks of the same idiocy of Perino and Guiliani, why not delete the sentence or at least make it factual? --[[User:MichaelJB|MichaelJB]] 20:23, 25 January 2010 (EST)

:::The facts are undeniable that America was totally unprepared to protect itself from terrorist homeland attacks as Bush entered office, due to the total lack of focus of the Clinton Administration and Congress on the issue. Bush can in no way be blamed for the 9/11 attacks with any real credibility.

:::As I have stated many times before, as Mr. Schlafly has stated many times before, as several other Admins have as well, coming here to argue-without-end against our conservative point of view in all articles you come across, is silly. If you and others cannot bring yourselves to accept alternative points of view, so be it. If you want a place to argue against conservatism in general, make your own site or try the Kos or HuffPo; but CP isn't a debate forum, it is a conservative encyclopedia ''project''. Article talk pages are for suggesting ways to improve articles from a conservative point of view, not a liberal one. Is that a clear enough statement? --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 21:29, 25 January 2010 (EST)

::::TK: The change you made is completely unacceptable from a moral and ethical standpoint because instead of correcting an error, you are now highlighting a lie. Three terror attacks occurred during Pres. Bush's last year in office. I sent you links to all three events but you are willing to over look such trivial matters as the truth. It's funny that a liberal who has been blocked twice for pointing out errors and outright falsehoods is vilified as a trouble-maker while the conservatives that knowingly mislead and lie are in charge of an alleged 'trustworthy encyclopedia'.
::::I'm trying to make these changes because I don't want Americans to look stupid, even the conservative ones. It's an uphill battle.

::::Gunman killed two people in a church. [http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-07-29-church-shooting_N.htm]
::::Suicide bomber attacked a Georgia law firm. [http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/ga_law_firm_explodes_causing_multiple_injuries/]
::::Two police officers were killed by a bomb placed in a bank. [http://www.odmp.org/officer/19697-captain-thomas-paul-tennant]
::::--[[User:MichaelJB|MichaelJB]] 01:25, 29 January 2010 (EST)

MichaelJB you cannot tell the difference between Muslim terrorists and someone with an ax to grind? Godspeed! --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 06:36, 29 January 2010 (EST)v
:So Michael's point is that progressive liberal leftwing commie socialist (or whatever the flavor of the week) Prof. [[Amy Bishop]] conducted a domestic overseas contingency operation attack. It's beginning to make sense. How would we classify the guy who crashed the plane into the IRS building in Houston, a tax protester who railed against corporations. Dang, this is a tuff one.... [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 08:13, 12 March 2010 (EST)

== Middle name in article title? ==

----

::::<big>'''Unless you have some brilliant new argument to add to this section, further discussion is unneeded.</big>'''

----

It strikes to me odd that the title of the article is Barach Hussein Obama. While there is nothing wrong with that by itself, looking at the [[President_of_the_United_States_of_America#Presidents_list|list of all the U.S. presidents]], it seems that all the other presidents' articles are titled either without their middle name, or just a middle initial. Wouldn't it make sense to rename the article to either Barack Obama or Barack H. Obama to follow suit? [[User:Kayvan|Kayvan]] 18:19, 26 February 2010 (EST)
:There is a big difference between Walker or Jefferson and Hussein. My two cents. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 18:22, 26 February 2010 (EST)
::What about [[Ronald Wilson Reagan]]? [[User:DMorris|DMorris]] 18:26, 26 February 2010 (EST)
:::This topic had been discussed before. He decided to be inaugurated with his middle name after not using it during the campaign. He is not ashamed of it and we are not ashamed to include it.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 18:29, 26 February 2010 (EST)
::::Ah, I see. Looking at some lists though ([http://www.ipl.org/div/potus/] and [http://www.apples4theteacher.com/holidays/presidents-day/past-presidents-of-usa.html]), it seems that many presidents were also inaugurated in a similar fashion. [[User:Kayvan|Kayvan]] 18:33, 26 February 2010 (EST)

::: I think that, as all encyclopedias and scholarly works try to do, we should try to decide on a particular set of rules and always follow it. In this case, these are the options:
:::1) Always cite the full name in the title, so "Barack Hussein Obama", "George Herbert Walker Bush" and "Ronald Wilson Reagan";
:::2) Always use initials for middle names, so "Barack H. Obama", "George H.W. Bush" and "Ronald W. Reagan";
:::3) Use the names in the way they most commonly used, using middle name initials only where they are necessary to distinguish one particular individual from another, therefore "Barack Obama", "George H.W. Bush" and "Ronald Reagan".

::: We are talking about titles of articles; the full name should always be cited in the body of the article. Personally, I would vote for solution n.3. --[[User:Maquissar|Maquissar]] 18:34, 26 February 2010 (EST)
::::I like the idea. Either 2 or 3 seem best in my opinion; full names seem a bit to long for article titles. The name that the president was inaugurated with isn't bad either, but it would seem less formal, as some have middle names and others don't. [[User:Kayvan|Kayvan]] 18:38, 26 February 2010 (EST)

:::: I thought about that solution, but then I thought that we should better set very general rules; by this I mean that we should decide how to title page names referring to INDIVIDUALS, not to US PRESIDENTS. Deciding that "the name that the president was inaugurated with" is a rule that, naturally, can only be applied to presidents. --[[User:Maquissar|Maquissar]] 18:41, 26 February 2010 (EST)

:::: Another good rule would be to use the name that is mostly used to refer to that individual; this has the disadvantage of not being objective, but it is also the most effective. So "Barack Obama", "George H.W. Bush" (to distinguish him from his son), "Ronald Reagan", "Eminem" instead of "Marshall Mathers", "O.J. Simpson" instead of "Orenthal J. Simpson"... --[[User:Maquissar|Maquissar]] 18:56, 26 February 2010 (EST)

There isn't any vote here, nor was one asked for. Since Obama tries to soft-pedal his Muslim roots and associations, our editorial policy is to call attention to that ''fact''. In addition you should note the [[Ronald Wilson Reagan|Reagan]] article, where well before anyone had an inkling Obama would run for President, Conservapedia used his full name, ''Ronald Wilson Reagan'' which Reagan himself preferred for formal use. So I submit President Obama isn't being singled out, contrary to the insistence of silly-minded liberals. --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 19:06, 26 February 2010 (EST)

:But why call attention to that ''fact'' in the title of the article? The ''fact'' is never going to be denied. The introduction sentence would still say "Barack Hussein Obama". Italicize his middle name in the introduction or change the font color to bring out the ''fact'' if you wish. What I am trying to point at is, why should his middle name be used in the article title? Reagan may have preferred it for formal use, but does Mr. Obama say that same? He is commonly known as Barack Obama; I haven't seen it used in any other way (except Obama, of course). If he is commonly known as that, it would make sense to title the article like that, as should every article on people. [[User:Kayvan|Kayvan]] 21:05, 26 February 2010 (EST)
::Richard Milhous Nixon was commonly refered to as [[Milhous]] by his detracters. Indeed, googling milhouse brings up hundreds of thousands of hits on Nixon that dwarf most all other uses of the name. Now, googling [[Hussein]] presents a host of other problems. The [[Heshamite Dynasty]] of [[Hussein bin Ali]] had been the Islamic Keeper of the Holy places for 700 years until Western British Imperialist interests unseated them and installed the Saudi ruling clan thier place (visualize Islamists dethroning the Pope and installing thier own choice as successor). How does it look when Hussein bin Ali's namesake bows to tne Saudi puppet? Why not focus on how Obama ''is'' bringing real change to the whole planet, rather than argue about how things have traditionally been done? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 13:14, 27 February 2010 (EST)
Drop it. Further discussion is last-wordism. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 21:14, 26 February 2010 (EST)

:On the question of "''all the other presidents' articles are titled either without their middle name, or just a middle initial. Wouldn't it make sense ...to follow suit? ''"
:You will recall Barack Hussein Obama is the transformational president of change. Wouldn't it make sense to begin change right here, with his name? (assuming that is his name). [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 23:54, 26 February 2010 (EST)

<nowiki>:</nowiki>D 
--<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 01:58, 27 February 2010 (EST)

Pretty slick conservative trap there TK. despite the fact that you neglected to answer some massive holes in the arguments above, you declare the debate "ended" (even though its not) then decry anything else as last wordism to stifle any further debate. well done--[[User:DerikJ|DerikJ]] 11:58, 27 February 2010 (EST)
:What holes? We're implementing change. Let's find common ground and compromise. We've done just that. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 12:35, 27 February 2010 (EST)
::I like your comment on change, Rob, it made me laugh :) Anyway, I don't see how an argument that Obama's slogan being "change" is any reason to title his article to what he is less commonly known as/less traditional. It's pushing it, in a sense. Besides, being a conservative, I would think that you wouldn't want to follow Obama's way of thinking ;) [[User:Kayvan|Kayvan]] 13:40, 27 February 2010 (EST)
:::Conservatives are for change, both economic and social. They want to change tax law and abortion rulings, for example. Above all, change public education. Being anti-change is just a vulgar stereotype held by closeminded and intolerant people. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 14:09, 27 February 2010 (EST)
::::I can agree with that. But ''why'' "change" how Obama's article is titled when others are titled either without their middle name or with their middle name if they are commonly known and identified by the name, in some cases. Simply changing something doesn't necessarily mean it's a good thing, there has to be reason, and the reason has to be, well, reasonable. [[User:Kayvan|Kayvan]] 14:44, 27 February 2010 (EST)
:::::Call it the price of progress. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 15:17, 27 February 2010 (EST)
::::::In that case, would changing the titles of all the other peoples' articles to include their middle names sound all right to you? It would be progress, after all. [[User:Kayvan|Kayvan]] 17:29, 27 February 2010 (EST)
I have always wondered why the Obamabots get so upset with the name Obama's parents chose. Pretty silly. --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 16:40, 27 February 2010 (EST)

:I actually like the name, it has a nice ring to it. It's more of just keeping a solid style of titling pages, a format if you want to call it that. [[User:Kayvan|Kayvan]] 17:29, 27 February 2010 (EST)
::Which brings us to the question of Barry Soetero. If Obama went by this name, then he may have lied to the Illinois Supreme Court when asked to provide former names, according to this Attorney’s Registration Record. [http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2061988/posts] I'm not the sure what the resolution of this issue ever was, and we don't have a word about it in this article. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 17:49, 27 February 2010 (EST)

I know I am new here but there really needs to be a consensus amongst all Presidential and Vice President articles, actually this should probably extend to all US politicians. I know there is a specified conservative bias, however the lack organization and consensus has nothing to do with liberal or conservative bias, it has to do with disorganization and lazyiness by the admins.

If you want to leave the middle, that is fine, however, there would need to be a quick modification of all or the majority of the US Politian article so as not to look so disorganized.[[User:Solarguy17|Solarguy17]] 01:01, 10 March 2010 (EST)

:You hit the nail on the head. You are new here. Don't come in criticizing and such off the bat. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 01:12, 10 March 2010 (EST)

My criticization is to help the article(s) to be better as a whole. None of the above discussion explains the reasoning for leaving it as is. Just people saying he used it in his inauguration so we use it here, however, almost every pres does this so why not have it that way for everyone????[[User:Solarguy17|Solarguy17]] 01:15, 10 March 2010 (EST)

Not really discussion just more of a question. I just recently found this site and was looking through the religious articles and for the most part they seemed pretty good. However, when I come to the political articles, some of them seem a little crazy. I know it is to call more attention to the things that are being overlooked by the media. But I have ask about the middle name thing.

I read all of the information above and I still am not sure why it was decided to leave it as is. Can someone clarify this?
Please don't ban me, I noticed that basically everyone with discussion in this thread that isn't an admin now has banned accounts. I personally don't care, I am just confused. [[User:StevenS|StevenS]] 01:12, 12 March 2010 (EST)

: As it says up at the top of this section, "Unless you have some brilliant new argument to add to this section, further discussion is unneeded." If you do have one, let's have it. But it sure seems like everyone who signs up to this site and immediately starts complaining has nothing new to say at all. Why don't you spend some time reading here with an open mind first, and complain later? [[User:DanielPulido|DanielPulido]] 01:20, 12 March 2010 (EST)

Now, why would a single individual come here under several different user names all in an effort to get the word "Hussein" removed from the title of this article? It makes no sense at all unless that individual has a personal agenda to perform. The article title stays as it is. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 01:42, 12 March 2010 (EST)

:My only concern is that the title seems to exist in its current state for no purpose other than to further a bias. The arguments that "well he asked for it" seem to suggest that accuracy and fairness are non-valuable in this wiki. I sincerely hope this is not the case and that I may not be banned and able to start a fun future in helping this wiki grow in the impressive way it has so far. [[User:Vidihawk|Vidihawk]] 07:47, 6 April 2010 (EDT)

::'''"Unless you have some brilliant new argument to add to this section, further discussion is unneeded."'''
I guess you missed the bold title at the top of this section? Also, see [[Ronald Wilson Reagan]] to see how silly your argument is. --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 08:16, 6 April 2010 (EDT)
:I guess it wasn't as bright an idea as I had hoped. Heh... It still comes off as somewhat purposeful, though. Okie, I'll back away! - [[User:Vidihawk|Vidihawk]] 08:24, 6 April 2010 (EDT)
::Purposeful, as in done with the same horribly malevolent intent as ''my'' adding Reagan's middle name several years ago? You are giving away your intent in advance, good sir, by refusing to admit your already formed assumptions about us are wrong. I hope you prove me wrong, and turn out to be that rare U.K. denizen that turns out to be open-minded and as fair to us as you wish us to be to you. There have been precious few. And please do check out our editors guide and all of that. We differ quite a bit from Wikipedia. --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 08:33, 6 April 2010 (EDT)
:::::I think we should keep the current title of the article. Furthermore, I think we should replace the top picture, which is currently a picture of Obama, with a picture of an oil drenched pelican (and a new caption) as a tribute to Obama's indifference, sloth and incompetence. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 20:36, 16 June 2010 (EDT)

== I moved the material dealing with the present to the top ==

I moved the material dealing with the present to the top as I thought readers would be more interested in how Obama is screwing up the present. For example, I think Americans right now are very concerned about how Obama is screwing up the economy. Of course, he is also doing a poor job in other areas presently as well such as holding terrorists court cases in civilian courts, etc. etc. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 04:30, 15 March 2010 (EDT)

:That makes sense to me. I do appreciate letting me try the other timeline structure. However, I didn't really take into consideration the fact that because he is a high profile individual it may benefit readers to see more recent info before his earlier biography facts. At least while he's fulfilling his one failed term as president, your structure makes sense to me. [[User:DerekE|DerekE]] 12:42, 15 March 2010 (EDT)

::As the ==Maoism== section is being being built, we may eventually be able to free up space from the sections on the Ayers/Dohrn relationship by moving some of that material to Ayers own page, and/or creating a new separate page documenting Obama's rise with communist and terrorist assistance. An acceptable title for that page would be needed. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 13:23, 15 March 2010 (EDT)

==Citation==

"Any orders he gives to the American military are subject to being refused. Orders that Obama gives to America’s Joint Chiefs of Staff of the military can be refused." --http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/columnists/19-01-2009/106972-Barry_Soetoro-0

Do we really want to cite an article that makes this claim? Do any of us really support this opinion, or if we do, do we support the use of opinion articles as sources in addition to factual ones? --[[User:BenjaminS|Ben]] [[User Talk:BenjaminS|Talk]] 08:42, 6 April 2010 (EDT)

:Is the opinion piece backed by valid and factual citations from the United States Code, Ben, as opposed to a unsupported rant? --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 08:47, 6 April 2010 (EDT)

== pronunciation of "Pakistan" ==

This is really considered evidence of anything? I've heard [[Mark Levin]] use the Spanish-inflected pronunciation of Sonia Sotomayor's name (''so tow my OR'' rather than ''so tow MY er''), but nobody would claim that proves he's Catholic or Hispanic. [[User:Golgaronok|Golgaronok]] 23:55, 9 April 2010 (EDT)
:Pronunciation shows an enormous amount about someone's views and history. Obama doesn't use the American pronunciation, and this is telling, since ''no one else in the public sphere'' pronounces it in the muslim way ''but'' Obama. [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 00:15, 10 April 2010 (EDT)
[[David Petraeus]] does [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vtCLp7siY7I]. [[User:Golgaronok|Golgaronok]] 00:50, 10 April 2010 (EDT)
And [http://www.forvo.com/word/pakistan/ numerous other languages] use a pronunciation closer to the native form. [[User:Golgaronok|Golgaronok]] 00:57, 10 April 2010 (EDT)

::"Golgaronok" (if that is your name), your quibbles with the entry have already been argued ad nauseum, [http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Barack_Hussein_Obama/archive4#.22Pokiston.22.3F.3F.3F.3F.3F here], for instance. If you've only come to argue on talk pages, you're wasting your own time. Try making substantive contributions to the project; excessive talk is disfavored here. [[User:DanielPulido|DanielPulido]] 01:04, 10 April 2010 (EDT)
I don't see any responses to the points I raised. But it's y'all's funeral. [[User:Golgaronok|Golgaronok]] 01:13, 10 April 2010 (EDT)
:::Kind of interesting that Davis Petraeus was mentioned here. When that general was ordered to command US forces in Afghanistan and Iraq, the liberal elites decided that his name should be pronounced "BETRAY US". [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 01:29, 10 April 2010 (EDT)

==Barry Soetoro = birth name?==
This may have already been discussed, so forgive me if this has been settled. I noticed that the article says ''"Barack Hussein Obama II (birth name Barry Soetoro..."'', however the articles cited do not support the idea that "Barry Soetoro" is Obama's birth name, in fact quite the opposite. My understanding, from reading the Newsweek article, is that "Barack" is his birth name, although he went by "Barry" when he was younger. His father's name, as I understand it, is Barack Hussein Obama, and he was named after his father. "Seotoro", if I remember right, was his stepfather's last name, so it is unlikely that it would have been part of Obama's birth name. To be clear, I do realize that he spent his younger years being known as "Barry Soetoro", and I think that should be included in the article, I just don't think it was actually his birth name. 
Please understand that I am not as knowledgeable in this kind of thing as many other contributors here, so I may have gotten it all wrong - that's why I didn't attempt to edit the article. Please correct me if I have gotten it wrong - I won't be offended and I am curious as to the truth of the matter. [[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 18:11, 1 May 2010 (EDT)

According to the citation that shows the birth certificate, the birth name is, in fact, Barack Hussein Obama II, NOT Barry Soetoro. Also, because there is an actual document, i.e. physical, demonstrable proof, the word "allegedly" should be removed.

== Remove name repetition? ==

Would anyone mind if I removed some of the repetition of Obama's name in certain portions of the article? For example, in this paragraph:
{{cquote|
[[Barack Obama and uncharitableness|Barack Obama's recent pattern of charitable giving]] and [[Barack Obama and liberal elitism|Barack Obama's liberal elitism]] is consistent with Obama being a [[Narcissism|narcissist]] which is a charge that has often been made against Barack Obama. However, it is also true that Barack Obama is an [[evolution|evolutionist]]. Barack Obama told the ''York Daily Record'' that "I believe in [[evolution]]...". Barack Obama's recent pattern of charitable giving and liberal elitism is also in accordance with someone who has a certain degree of [[Social Darwinism|social darwinistic]] thinking. In addition to [[Liberals and uncharitableness|American liberals giving less to charity]], it is also true that [[Theory of evolution and liberalism|American liberals are also more likely to believe in evolution]].
}}

I think I could alter it to make it more readable with "Obama's recent pattern of charitable giving and liberal elitism is consistent with that of a narcissist, a charge that has often been made against him."

And so forth. In my linguistics class, we talked about semantic satiation, and I believe that paragraphs like these, along with the fact that it never seems to use pronouns, somewhat diminish the readability of the article. If I were to make this change, I would preserve every wikilink, reference, etc, but I believe it would become more readable. In Christ, [[User:Tzoran|Tyler Zoran]] [[User talk:Tzoran|Talk]] 09:09, 6 May 2010 (EDT)

== Insults? ==

Does the entire beginning of the article have to be so laden with insults? Couldnt it simply say what the article will be about, and THEN express views? As it is it appears very unprofessional. 19:11, 6 May 2010 (EDT)
:We believe in the truth here, and the fact that [[liberals]] like yourself feign offense at the display of it speaks volumes about you. If you insist on closing your mind, at least take ownership of your [[deceit]]! Sign your comments with <nowiki> ~~~~ </nowiki> next time. Godspeed! [[User:Tzoran|Tyler Zoran]] [[User talk:Tzoran|Talk]] 19:58, 6 May 2010 (EDT)

== "The first president who is biracial" ==

There have been other presidents of more than one race. Bush Jr. is has some German and English ancestry. [[User:NP|NP]]

:George W is German and English, is that two races according to our census? I think the readers will understand what biracial refers to.

::English and German are '''''not''''' races, and neither is Hispanic. --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 22:16, 17 May 2010 (EDT)

== Reorganizing ==

I'm glad to see the edit feature is enabled here once more. I think this page needs a revamp to structure information better. I've reorganized everything into a better structure, let me know what you think. I am trying to put a summary of the presidency at the top, information about his life/career next, and then a political summary. This should really improve the page's appearance, as it appears too disorganized right now. --[[User:Jzyehoshua|Jzyehoshua]] 15:56, 20 May 2010 (EDT)
:What you're doing is burying important information so fewer users will find it. That's unacceptable. [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 15:57, 20 May 2010 (EDT)

== Obama is a Muslim theory and the alleged claim of Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Aboul Gheit ==

Here is what the American Thinker reported: "The American President told me in confidence that he is a Muslim." That was the claim of Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Aboul Gheit, as reported in the May 2010 issue of Israel Today. According to journalist Avi Lipkin, Gheit appeared on Nile TV's "Round Table Show" in January, on which he said that "he had had a one-on-one meeting with Obama who swore to him that he was a Moslem, the son of a Moslem father and step-son of Moslem step-father, that his half-brothers in Kenya were Moslems, and that he was loyal to the Moslem agenda."[http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/06/report_obama_said_i_am_a_musli.html] Here is what Hot Air says: http://hotair.com/greenroom/archives/2010/06/14/obama-is-a-muslim-take-two/

Personally, I am beginning to think Obama is: not a Muslim, not a Christian, and not an atheist. I think Obama is a narcissist who worships himself. I can also see him telling one person he is a Christian and then later telling someone else he is a Muslim. There are many examples of Obama being insincere such as all the substantive healthcare discussions were going to be on C-Span, etc. etc. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 15:53, 16 June 2010 (EDT)

== 2009 Nobel Peace Prize ==

I find it strange that there is not a single mention of the president being awarded the Nobel peace prize in this article. Considering that other prominent award winners have it at least mentioned in their respective articles. The [[Mother Teresa]] article, for instance, prominently states her award in the introduction to the article, and even political figures like [[Al Gore]] and [[Henry Kissinger]] (both of whom won the peace prize) have their award at least mentioned in the article.
--[[User:DenisTR|DenisTR]] 16:04, 19 August 2010 (EDT)

:I agree with you, Denis. It was there, once-upon-a-time, but apparently it was removed in the constant editing turmoil. CP does mention this in the [[Nobel Prize]] article. I will add it here, as it should be. --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 16:24, 19 August 2010 (EDT)

==Faulty Logic==
I have a suspicion that Andy Schlafly is secretly a Muslim. Will you deny that, Andy? If you do deny it, then I accuse you of being a Muslim under the concept of Taqiyya.
It's like a terrible flow chart that always ends with "You're a Muslim." I realize that you're kind of scraping the barrel with this whole "Obama is a Muslim" thing, but c'mon. [[User:Pete5383|Paul]] 18:57, 19 August 2010 (EDT)

: Paul, you seem to think all claims or facts are relative. They aren't. Truth is supported by logic and evidence.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:00, 19 August 2010 (EDT)

:: President Obama clearly has an Islamic background. As an adult, he joined a church and says he's a Christian. I'd say he's as much Muslim as I am Jewish; by Jewish law, my having a Jewish mother makes me Jewish by birth, but I became a Christian by choice as a teenager. Go figure. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 14:04, 3 September 2010 (EDT)

:::Whether President Obama is Muslim or not is one question; however it is undeniable Obama misspoke or was deceptive while ramping up his ambitions back in 2005 when he told the ''Chicago Sun-Times'', "I am rooted in the Christian tradition." Nowhere on his maternal side, grandma, gramps, or his natural father, or his stepfather, can any Christian rooting be found. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 14:37, 4 September 2010 (EDT)

==Days in office==
[[Barack Obama]] was inaugurated {{days since|2009|1|20}} days ago and will finish his term in {{#expr: -{{days since|2013|1|20}} }} days. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 14:00, 3 September 2010 (EDT)

==Apparent sourcing errors==

While looking over this article, I noticed a number of problems - mostly unsourced claims or claims for which the source is no longer available. Since my suggestions will almost certainly be controversial, I will not actually make any further changes to this page.

*The quote "Rather than being a unifier, Mr. Obama has divided America on the basis of race, class and partisanship" under the heading "Presidency" is unattributed.

*The claim that Obama represented ACORN in ''Buycks-Roberson v. Citibank Fed. Sav. Bank'' is unsupported. While court documents do list Obama among the Plaintiff's Attorneys, they do not reference ACORN in any way. [http://www.clearinghouse.net/detail.php?id=10112] This claim seems to have been added by bloggers after the fact. Similarly, the cited reference contains no source for the claim that Obama had anything to do with the CRA, only a completely unsourced allegation that was reprinted almost verbatim here. As far as I can tell, Obama represented ACORN exactly once, on a case involving motor voter laws. [http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2008/oct/17/john-mccain/he-represented-them-in-one-case-/]

*The statement "Obama website Fight The Smears has confirmed that Obama was once a Kenyan citizen until 1982" under the subheading "Birth Certificate Controversy" is unsourced and ambiguous.

*Much of the content under the subheading "Engineers defeat of Centrist Democrats" is dubious. Two of the cites [http://articles.latimes.com/1992-03-18/news/mn-3844_1_gus-savage][http://www.dkosopedia.com/wiki/Carol_Moseley_Braun#Political_career] are about Carol Moseley Braun and don't mention Obama at all. There is no indication in any of the sources that Obama was connected to the Braun campaign, so these cites are meaningless. Additionally, the section attributes an anti-Dixon intent to Obama (referring to Obama as "subverting" Dixon's reelection, defined by Conservapedia's own article as "lending of aid, comfort, and moral support to individuals, groups, or organizations that advocate the overthrow of incumbent governments by force and violence"). What he did was increase voter turnout among the black community, a far cry from what the text implies.

*<s>The statement "President Obama falsely claimed that the senior citizen group AARP endorsed his administration's health care plan when they never made such an endorsement" under the subheading "Obama Administration Health Care Plan and Its Advocacy Methods" is sourced to a YouTube video that no longer exists. Additionally, it appears that AARP has been supporting health care reform since at least August 2009. [http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/08/17/eveningnews/main5247916.shtml][http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/19/aarp-ama-announce-support_n_506060.html]</s>

*Similarly, several cites link to YouTube videos that have been removed. Multiple cites under the subheading "Obama Administration Health Care Plan and Liberal Elitism" link to deleted videos, as does the cite for the statement "Barack Obama's "Disinformation Czar" (whose supposed job was to correct disinformation that others are spreading about the Obama administration's health care plan) was caught spreading misleading information." The cite for the statement "Senior citizens are key Democratic party constituents that could kill Obama's socialistic health care plan" links to a private video.

--[[User:DrewJ|DrewJ]] 15:50, 29 September 2010 (EDT)

:Sorry, Drew, but one glaring misrepresentation really sticks out, and explains why liberals are often accused of playing fast and loose with the truth: While AARP has long advocated health care reform, it specifically repudiated Obama's distortion of the truth, saying they were not endorsing any specific plan, at that time. See how easy it is to distort fact, by omission, and make obviously good-intentioned souls like you doubt the real truth?

:You are obviously an editor here, and I would urge you, before making posts such as this one, to try and find substitute sources that back up what is in the story. At the very least, as is the case with the AARP, at least check the facts before stating something is incorrect. It was a very big story at the time, Obama's misstatement, and not at all hard to find....so easy and well-known in fact that some people might be tempted to accuse you of inserting a deliberate [[Red Herring]]. --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 17:29, 29 September 2010 (EDT)

Sources don't count if they are liberal sources. Those are worse than no source at all. Find a reliable source like Cato Institute or Fox News and we can add those. [[User:JoeSmithson117|JoeSmithson117]] 18:44, 4 December 2011 (EST)

== Typo ==
The first sentence here has a typo: it presumably is meant to read "...said to have '''been''' born in..." I'd fix it myself, but the page is so informative (and therefore long) that my poor old computer can't load it to edit. --[[User:LanceS|LanceS]] 21:49, 11 November 2010 (EST)
:Thanks, JPatt got it. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 22:29, 11 November 2010 (EST)

== Bryan Fischer: Obama wants to give America back to the Indians ==

Is [http://www.afa.net/Blogs/BlogPost.aspx?id=2147501360 this site] some kind of liberal parody? Otherwise, this is so serious that is should be included. American Family Association would seem to me as a pretty trustworthy organization, and this Bryan Fischer is writing for them. Any thoughts? – [[User:Dstone|dstone]] 16:42, 1 January 2011 (EST)

==Fact vs Opinion==
Okay...I thought maybe this article would be a good place to start. I was introduced to Conservapedia recently, and have been waffling about joining and bcoming an editor, but can no longer refrain. So, I'm extraordinarily new...and I fully expect the welcoming and flame-free arms of this community, as I support the overall efforts of what Conservapedia is trying to accomplish. The road to becoming a "Trustworthy Encyclopedia" is long, and this site is just starting to make baby steps in that direction. That being said, I will try to keep this short.

FACT: Opinions are not fact. Even expert opinions are not fact. They're just plain old opinions. Despite being in the Commandments, and otherwise stated over and over again, folks seem to have trouble making this distinction.
OPINION: If you are unable to make cited references, or present the conservative viewpoint in a reasoned and intelligent manner, I would heavily suggest that you leave the site to those who can. Your "help" is often unhelpful. Especially in an article as...contentious...as this - and I imagine many others, I'll be looking shortly - the talk page is the place to present your opinions. If you cannot site material, find sources that intelligently argue your viewpoint, or just want a second or third pair of eyes and ears, it would be addressed here. Also, if haven't actually read the article that you are citing...do that first, before posting anything at all...

There are several on this page, the most innocuous of which: President Obama authorized offshore oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico[28]. The moratorium lapsed in 2008. It says it right in the article, paragraph 4. This statement is spruious and vague and will be reworded to say something like: Then-Senator Obama voted to re-authorize oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico. This is just a small and harmless example, but, either research the issue before posting, or don't post. If you wish to engage in historical revisionism, or just bottom-barrel opinion mongering, please roll on over to Wikipedia, and leave us be. [[User:RyanDav|RyanDav]] 2 January 2011
:I moved this from the top of the page to its current location, to maintain threading. [[User:Tzoran|Tyler Zoran]] [[User talk:Tzoran|Talk]] 13:35, 2 January 2011 (EST)

== Oil Drilling Moratorium, redux ==

I did not realize that this would be as contentious as it was. The statement is simply poorly worded, I assume unintentionally, and appears to place the blame squarely on one person's shoulders. This is just factually innacurate, nothing more, nothing less. We accept credit where credit is due, and take blame where blame is appropriate - and the blame belongs to the vast majority of the 110th Congress, both the liberal reps and ours - and to deny that is some kind of revisionism, which will not be tolerated. I'm certainly more than willing to be corrected on this, but you can either site sources that support your viewpoint, or you cannot - it really is that easy. In that case, the article would read something like, "then-Senator Obama lobbied heavily for the moratorium to lapse, and led a congressional coalition consisting of Senators Blah, Blah and Blah and Congressmen Such-and-such and So-and-so to further that end, etc..." accompanied by supporting references. I am afraid, however, that a "nuh-uh," or, "because I said so," is simply Not Good Enough. We're counteracting liberal bias, here, not populating the internet with more unfounded claptrap. [[User:RyanDav|RyanDav]] 19:26, 3 January 2011 (EST)

:If you please, write here your proposal for how this should be written, including the source links. If Obama lobbied heavily for the moritorium to lapse, then the source evidence will say it; if he was a part of a coalition of people, then again the evidence will support that. Since this article is about Obama, it should lean on what he has done while in office. But as far as what the 110th Congress did or didn't do, oh yes, I am in total agreement with you...and so were the vast majority of voters back in November. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 20:00, 3 January 2011 (EST)

::He didn't, as far as I know, or have ever read. I don't think any articles arguing that he soley was responsible, or even more responsible than any other rep, exist. The text is already up there. Pretty vanilla. Mentions him by name, but also says, "hey, don't forget about all the other chair-jockeys, too!" But the article is about him, so he gets a name drop for focus. The article is about him as whole, so his Presidential and Senatorial terms would be seperate sections of the same article, so as not to confuse. The 110th was the last Bush-era Congress. In November, we voted out the 111th. We are now in the 112th Congress.

::Oh, I also replaced someone's citation from an OpEd piece in the NYTimes with an actual news reference that supported the same point (about the Obama administration's poor response to the Oil Spill). If I didn't know better (and I probably don't), I would suspect that some of the citations here are purposefully planted just to make us look like simpletons. [[User:RyanDav|RyanDav]] 21:39, 3 January 2011 (EST)

== Birth Controversy ==
Could someone please explain to me something I've never quite followed: why does it matter where Obama was born? As far as I can tell, no one is claiming his mother was not a US Citizen, which makes him a "natural born" US citizen even if he was born in Kenya, Moscow, or Riyadh. If the issue is "without a birth certificate we can't be certain his mother is really his mother" then I get it, but this side of things seems to be ignored in favor of controversy over the actual location of the birth. If we interpret "natural born citizen" as "born within the US", then that would exclude the children of Armed Forces personnel stationed overseas with their families at the time their children were born from the presidency, which seems like something liberals would love to do. [[User:Ptorquemada|Ptorquemada]] 12:09, 5 April 2011 (EDT)
:Well, John McCain whose father was an Admiral was born to two American parents in Panama Canal Zone. The media questioned his "natural born" citizen status and it seemingly was determined that since both his parents were American citizens who were living out of State because of the Admiral's duties that John McCain's birth status would be considered "natural born. The question concerning Barack Obama is that his father was not a US citizen but was in fact a British subject as Kenya was under British rule at the time. Some suggest that the original conception of "natural born" was that both parents are US citizens at the time of the birth of a child. So there is a question as to his "natural born" status even if he was, in fact, born in Hawaii. The fact that Obama has spent a couple of million dollars fighting any requests for proof of an original long form birth certificate and school records makes some people more convinced that a. he wasn't actually born in Hawaii and that his birth was only registered there or b. because his father was a British subject he had duel citizenship status which would make it doubtful that he would be considered a natural born citizen. There are many questions concerning Obama's "natural born" status because he also appears to have been a citizenship of Indonesia and is supposed to have traveled on an Indonesian passport as an adult. Of course, a lot of questions would be removed if the president just released the original birth certificate. The fact that he hasn't just adds fuel to the fire. [[User:Dwain|Dwain]] 12:09, 8 April 2011 (EDT)

== Birth Certificate Removal? ==

Now that Obama has finally released his birth certificate, all this about Kenya and Barry Soetoro seems a bit silly. Should we remove it? [[User:JimAB|JimAB]] 11:24, 27 April 2011 (EDT)
:Has the question of Mr. Obama traveling to Pakistan on an Indonesian passport under the name Barry Soetero in 1981 been resolved yet? As well as the statements regarding his application to join the Illinois State Bar Association wherein he answered no to the question of ever using any aliases? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 18:12, 28 April 2011 (EDT)

== Shortening the article length ==

I think we need to work on splitting this article; I recently revert a vandal's (mostly) blanking of the page, and my browser would freeze up when I tried to save the page (actually I'm currently trying to save it - and over and over again I'm having no luck). Currently this appears at the top of the edit screen:
:'''WARNING: This page is 144 kilobytes long; some browsers may have problems editing pages approaching or longer than 32kb. Please consider breaking the page into smaller sections or removing irrelevant information.'''
Thoughts?--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 00:34, 30 April 2011 (EDT)

== First Socialist??? ==

Obama is clearly a socialist, but is he the first to be president as the lead of the article states? The New deal democrats who created social security come to mind.[[User:BenDylan|BenD]] 09:03, 1 May 2011 (EDT)
:That certainly may be true. But we are talking about one man who occupies the office of president, not underlings and appopintees. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 09:23, 1 May 2011 (EDT)
::But couldn't the Presidents who hired them be considered socialists? I still don't know about saying he's the FIRST. [[User:KingHanksley|KingHanksley]] 12:31, 4 May 2011 (EDT)
:::You Americans have no idea what socialism is anymore do you?[[User:Cmurphynz|Cmurphynz]] 21:36, 25 June 2012 (EDT)
::::I guess you're on to us. Alex, I'll take What is redistribution of wealth, State control of industry for $200. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 21:43, 25 June 2012 (EDT)

== Obama the Socialist ==
I am counting all the capitalists that have hired self-proclaimed communists. I come up with zero. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 12:43, 2 May 2011 (EDT)

== Update of the article ==

See [[Talk:Barack Hussein Obama/update]] if you'd like to contribute to an update of this article - we'll be keeping a lot of the information that's good, throwing out some information that's a little old, and adding new information - all while hopefully downsizing! All help is appreciated!--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 19:55, 2 May 2011 (EDT)

== Bin Laden ==

Should we at least mention the Bin Laden capture? I feel that in fairness we should give him his one or two accomplishments. We should definitely mention that George W. Bush's policies played a big hand but still Obama could have gone entirely bleeding heart on us and we wouldn't have gotten OBL [[User:KingHanksley|KingHanksley]] 11:24, 4 May 2011 (EDT)

But being fair and giving credit to a liberal muslim socialist for making the world even a little safer would undermine the integrity of a conservative encyclopedia. Now had he screwed up the capture then that would be worthy of mentioning because it would show how he endangered the country. We should only be fair and give credit where credit is due if Obama was a Christian conservative who shared our beliefs. ([[User:Bluebank|Bluebank]] 12:58, 7 July 2011 (EDT))

I agree, it would only be worth mentioning if he had screwed up the capture because then we could hold his feet to the fire. ([[User:Jvclark2|Jvclark2]] 13:00, 7 July 2011 (EDT))

:::''"giving credit to a liberal muslim socialist for making the world even a little safer would undermine the integrity of a conservative encyclopedia."'' Well that's not a biased statement or anything. It should fall under the article Obama presidency but because of its significance, put it on the BHO page. Rarely, but we have given Obama credit in the past. The rescue of a Captain from Somali pirates is a good example of the proper choice the Progressive fake Christian Marxist had made. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 14:58, 7 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::I just don't see where ordering bin Laden's killing is a big accomplishment. What purpose did it serve other than a failed effort to turn around Obama's falling poll ratings while destroying the most important relationship the United States had in the war on terror. After Obama declared the war on terror over two years ago, dismantling the delicate relationship with the Pakistani ISS seems like phase two. Undermining Pakistan's secular regime, the way Obama did, only works to the advantage of Islamic extremists.

:::::Did killing bin Laden bring back the lives lost in the 9/11 attacks? No. Does making the war's in Iraq & Afghanistan about retribution rather than prevention, further American foreign policy interests or make the United States more secure? Hardly.

:::::Does creating the false sense among the American electorate that the objectives of the war in Afghanistan have now been accomplished, and we can abandon the fight? The height of folly -- and a repeat of what happened when the U.S. abandoned Afghanistan to the terrorists after 1991.

:::::Did killing bin Laden make America safe from reprisals? Or rather doies killing bin Laden expose innocent men, women, and children to the never ending threat of sudden, sensesless, and violent death?
:::::The cynical manipulation of American security and foreign policy interests for short term popularity and selfish career interests is appalling. I just don't agree this a "success" to boast of. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 23:15, 7 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::While I think it's laughable to say that taking down the number one most wanted man in the world isn't an accomplishment, I think it's a decision that ''anyone'' would have made, therefore, it isn't special or particular that Obama happened to be the one to make it. [[User:BradB|BradB]] 23:57, 7 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::No. We've learned from our mistakes. In 1967 the the number one most wanted man in the world - Che Guevara - was similiarly hunted and executed, only to be resurrected by liberals, hate-mongers, and other assorted sociopaths and pro-mass murder advocates, made the mascot of the hate-America crowd, and sold to American college students as somethiong larger than life and a cult hero to be worshiped. It is not laughable at all. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 13:55, 8 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::::The angst from the left goes back to Bush hatred. We shouldn't have interfered in Iraq and should have focused on OBL. Leftist sheep knew better than Bush. We knew all along that it is not one man but a movement, confront them there instead of here. At least we are no longer creating and recruiting terrorists, thanks to a Muslim-named president and his policies of peace in the Middle East.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 14:08, 8 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::You will recall Senator [[Patty Murray]], who now heads the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee charged with candidate recruitment and doling out funds, praised bin Laden for his work with children buidling day care centers. He probably supported the Family-Leave Act and opposed No Child Left Behind, too. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 15:26, 8 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::''" I just don't agree this a "success" to boast of. "'' Two points, 1) stating a fact is not boasting, it is just stating a fact. We list domestic policy, popular bills, economic plan, gulf oil spill, DADT... It's just another thing to list. 2) Had Bush done it I'm pretty sure it would be on his page.([[User:Jvclark2|Jvclark2]] 21:09, 8 July 2011 (EDT))
:::::::::::That is the point. Stating the fact that Obama's unnecessarily destroyed the most vital relationship the United States has in the War on Terror to score short term approval ratings. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 12:38, 9 July 2011 (EDT)
Jvclark - bin Laden's death is mentioned on this page. In the lead. What more do you want?--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 11:46, 9 July 2011 (EDT)

==From the update - discussion==
===Structuring===
This is what I feel should be the general sectioning of the article - I think with an article that we have this much information on, what we mostly need to do is use "See also:" pages rather than go into major details.
{| style="width:100%"
|valign="top"|
*Early life
*U.S. Senate career (with a note on opposition to the Iraq War - which should be followed up on in the presidential primary race)
*U.S. Senate career
**Radical endorsements, support, and get out the vote efforts (better language?)
**'''Use of filibuster and obstructionism'''
**'''Voted agaist debt ceiling increase'''

*Presidential election (things to cover: experience question, jeremiah wright, PUMA)
**Primary race
**National election
|valign="top"|
*Presidency
**Domestic policy
***Popular Bills (Zadroga, lilly ledbetter fair pay act)
***Economic plan
****Stimulus plan
***Health care
***The Gulf oil spill
**Foreign policy
***Commander-in-Chief
****Iraq
****Afghanistan
****Libya/The Obama Doctine
****Don't Ask Don't Tell
|valign="top"|

*Ideology (mentioning pro-abortion stance, other things not mentioned above)
*References
*See also
*External links
|}

Rob I've bolded two section that I wonder if they should be sections alone; I do 100% agree that they should be mentioned in the text; are you set on them being sections? If so I'll yield--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 00:58, 3 May 2011 (EDT)
:Leave bold for now & let's see what develops; '''Recovery''' is ambiguous; while total output (GDP growth) has recovered, we've seen several polls just over the past week where 60-70% of respondents ''still'' think the US is in recession (despite the fact GDP growth has recovered over the past year and half). Likewise, it certainly has not been a "jobs recovery". I'd suggest this needs a better name. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 01:15, 3 May 2011 (EDT)

::I very much agree - that's a misleading section title - I think what I meant was "Proposed Recovery" - or "Recovery Plan". The latter sounds a little better to my ears. I made a few edits below - I'm gonna hold off on doing anything else till you get a chance to take a look and add things.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]]01:22, 3 May 2011 (EDT)
:::I've replaced Recovery with Stimulus, perhaps "Stimulus and budget". Also, Don't Ask Don't Tell seems a little wierd under "Wartime"; is it there solely cause it's a military subject? It could just as easily fit under Idealogy as well (I' not just trying to be argumentative....) [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 01:40, 3 May 2011 (EDT)
::::Hmm. Very true. No I think it's definitely a legitimate question. I HAD been thinking that Ideology would just cover what wasn't addressed in the prior sections (since certainly we'd discuss his economic ideology in the "Economic plan" section) - so, yes, I had just placed it under wartime solely because its a military subject. But it is probably more apropos to homosexual rights. I am worried that Ideology will become a bucket of worms, so to speak, only in that it'd be weird to just have a section for DADT under it, so then we'd have to have a super-section for "Homosexual policy", and then super-sections for everything else, making the article very long. I leave it up to you.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 01:45, 3 May 2011 (EDT)
:::::Alternatively, we can just leave it as is for now. I'm updating the [[Obama administration]] article right now, too. That one is structured , "Economic policy", "Foreign policy", etc. Wartime leader is something new. Perhaps, Commander-in-Chief? that would encompass DADT as well as ongoing military operations. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 02:08, 3 May 2011 (EDT)
::::::I like that. It's broader and works well. Nice.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 02:29, 3 May 2011 (EDT)
I took a look at the Wikipedia page on Obama - and I actually like how they organize his presidency - into Domestic policy and foreign policy. I'm going to make some changes to reflect that. I think in the long run it'll actually limit the number of sections we need--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 18:15, 4 May 2011 (EDT)

== Congratulations! ==
To the people who worked updating this article. It looks much better now.--[[User:AlejandroH|AlejandroH]] 00:43, 10 May 2011 (EDT)

== Speculation ==

In the spirit of accuracy, I think that all articles should refrain from speculative language (I thought this would be good article to start with). I understand that this is a conservative encyclopedia, but one should not overrule the other. We can still present the conservative view point that other encyclopedias overlook without veering off the path of facts. I think that President Obama has done enough to harm himself without adding inflammatory and opinion statements. This language degrades the reliability of the site. [[User:McTone|McTone]] 10:59, 23 May 2011 (EDT)McTone
:You're actually not making encyclopedic edits - for example how you're adding titles ("''President'' Obama"), which is traditionally not done. As you've now been reverted twice I think you should refrain from editing this article.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 11:35, 23 May 2011 (EDT)
:: That is encyclopaedic, as it is proper to use a person's title in reference material. However, that's not ththe only edits I've made. Most of them being removing speculative speech. Basically we should follow the rule of "if you can't cite it, don't say it."[[User:McTone|McTone]] 13:01, 23 May 2011 (EDT)McTone
:::No it's generally not. See his Wikipedia page if you don't believe. We also don't say "Mr." or "Ms."--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 12:02, 23 May 2011 (EDT)
::::Are we not better than Wikipedia? In any case, this is deferring the point I was making with this heading.[[User:McTone|McTone]] 13:01, 23 May 2011 (EDT)McTone

== Perhaps ==

I have read two cases of the word perhaps in the opening section of this article. Shouldn't assumptions like these not belong in an encyclopedia like article, especially in the opening section?- AlexMason
:The first one is arguably a wording error ... I'll consider that - the second one is more appropriate; since the event just happened we're not sure what the consequences will be, but if a potential consequence is notable enough it's probably worth stating--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 16:30, 23 May 2011 (EDT)
::I'm an underwriter at Fox News and I see stuff like this all the time. I think AlexMason is correct here (as well as the poster in the previous topic). Is this a web encyclopedia or is this an opinion site? Speculating on the outcome of events is tantamount to gossip (highly frowned upon and in fact forbidden by the standards of Conservapedia as I have read the rules and commandments). I really think this should be fixed. I noticed some edits in the history of this page and I've got to stick with Andy's last revision (reverting some of the edits of the previous editor) which kept to the less speculative nature of the article.[[User:PapaBear|PapaBear]] 21:32, 28 May 2011 (EDT)

== Obama Muslim Evidence? ==

I was going to make a post on this talk page suggesting we move the long list of evidence that Obama may be a Muslim to its own article (or an article dealing with the Obama/Islam controversy) but when I got here I saw that section had been removed, as had any mention of the words "Islam" or "Muslim". (I did a search on my browser). I could not find a reason for this on the talk page. Could someone explain why this was made? [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 22:13, 3 June 2011 (EDT)
:I rescued the content from an old revision and put it here: [[Barack Obama's Muslim Heritage]] [[User:AndyJ|AndyJ]] 22:18, 21 June 2011 (EDT)

== Obama as President ==
With the long-standing controversy about Hussein's birth certificate and the recent evidence that the one that was released is forged, I feel that there is ample evidence to conclude that Obama was born in Kenya. Because of that, I propose that we list the current holder of the office of [[President]] as [[Joe Biden]], as he would take the office if Obama were found to be unable or ineligible to serve. --[[User:AndyJ|AndyJ]] 22:29, 21 June 2011 (EDT)
:You may be misreading the story; the "Obama was born in Kenya" conspiracy theory was promoted by the White House to hide the fact that, Barack Hussein Obama's father was a [[natural born citizen]] of Kenya, and not the United States. That is the constitutional question, being that a case can be made that the Constitutional framers defined "natural born citizen" as being a citizen of the country of ''your fathers'' birth. The birth certificate, or the location of Obama Jr. birth, that is to say, the birther conspircacy the White House promoted, never had anything to do with the constitutional issue in question. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 16:27, 22 June 2011 (EDT)
::And two things, firstly, there is not ample evidence. Just conspiracy theories. Even assuming that the certificate/s released are forgeries, that alone isn't enough to prove he wasn't born in the US, it would just raise concerning questions. Secondly, Obama would remain the President. The Constitution doesn't mention what would happen if someone who was ineligible to be President became President. Hence, until impeachment or the 25th Amendment is invoked, Obama would remain President. (Presumably the 25th would be invoked, as impeachment would take a lot longer, and would require proving that Obama knew, which could be a little difficult.) - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 07:57, 18 October 2011 (EDT)

== Why is the birth certificate things still going? ==

I read a while ago (and posted in the article) an article from the National Review where even they concede that Obama was probably born in the US. [[User:CaptainSwing|CaptainSwing]] 23:43, 7 November 2011 (EST)

:Well as soon as it's verified than we can move past. Until then, we'll just pretend everything is a ok. For me, I'd still like to see every executive order, every law signed, every supreme court nominee from Obama overturned. It took three years the release of the long form certificate. I can wait another three years if need be for the proof.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 00:11, 8 November 2011 (EST)
::I don't understand, the National Review, a magazine that I admit is quite conservative, viewed the birth certificate and said it was most likely valid. I'm not sure what you're waiting for, as I don't think anyone is going to prove that Obama wasn't born in the country. [[User:CaptainSwing|CaptainSwing]] 09:59, 8 November 2011 (EST)
:::Because what they viewed was a Photoshoped work. Until the American public sees for itself exactly what is - or is not - on file in Hawaii, there will always be this unanswered question. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 11:22, 8 November 2011 (EST)
::::But it wasn't photo-shopped, that was the whole point the National Review was making: [http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/265767/pdf-layers-obamas-birth-certificate-nathan-goulding]. And honestly it makes sense, why on Earth would they go to the trouble of planting so much evidence that even the Mccain campaign declined to pursue it further, only to bungle the job on an elementary error in photoshop that any reasonable graphics designer would never make. [[User:CaptainSwing|CaptainSwing]] 12:03, 8 November 2011 (EST)
:::::It was Photoshopped, and downloading the original White House copy of it reveals all of the layers when it's run under Photoshop. Try reading all of these [http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=98546] by different reporters rather than a single National Review piece that's harping the beliefs of the "Yes We Can" crowd. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:21, 8 November 2011 (EST)
::::::So wait, you're saying that because they agree with Obama we can dismiss them? Isn't that circular reasoning? The author of the national review article posted a guide of how the mistakes could have easily come up and has no reason to lie about it. And again, let's think about this logically, they have authentic birth announcements from the relevant papers, good enough to fool the Mccain campaign, why would they botch a photoshop job? [[User:CaptainSwing|CaptainSwing]] 12:27, 8 November 2011 (EST)
:::::::And one of those mistakes that appeared on the Obama "certificate" was a sequence number that interfered with the numbers issued to a pair of twins; one of those mistakes was the "signature" of an individual which happens to be close enough to the name of a very small Hawaiian guitar; one of those mistakes is a smiley face attached to another signature; the list goes on. And until we see the real, bona-fide birth certificate, this issue is not going to go away, and we will continue to publish the current evidence as the fraud that it is. So don't worry too much about it, okay? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:44, 8 November 2011 (EST)
::::::::Does that mean to say that it should be considered a fraud until such a time as every US citizen has held and viewed the physical document? [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 16:49, 8 November 2011 (EST)
:::::::::Though this discussion is old. I will agree with this CaptainSwing person and this MaxFletcher that Obama's birth certificate issue has been dealt with, and the National Review magazine that one user mentioned is a conservative magazine. Plus you don't go to court with flimsy argument saying "hey he was born in Kenya" and demand that the defense prove all its points without the prosecution being able to present solid evidence. I see no solid evidence that proves he was born outside the United States, in our party the centre-right Austrian-born Arnold Schwarzenegger was elected Governor of California. And besides the real serious problems that people have with Obama are what he is doing as President, such as his high tax agenda for instance.--[[User:TheQuestioner|TheQuestioner]] 17:08, 3 August 2012 (EDT)

==Promises kept==
I can count how many promises Obama kept on one hand.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 13:47, 19 December 2011 (EST)

== Poverty comment in paragraph 2 of intro ==

The poverty comment isn't supported by the link at all. The link looks at from the 1950s to 2009. Obama began office in 2009, so the 14.3 percent marked at the end of the graph is a measure of the poverty at some point during 2009, and may have been taken in Bush's last month in office. It is unreasonable to conclude from the graph that poverty increased under Obama's presidency. I'll also note that the increase in poverty began, according to the graph, whilst Bush was in office. - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 00:08, 20 March 2012 (EDT)

== Better, More Objective Article at CreationWiki.org ==

There's now a better-sourced, more objective article at CreationWiki.org:

http://creationwiki.org/Barack_Obama

This article mentions virtually no biographic detail about Obama, or major controversies, including the Born Alive issue or his Chicago Politics. And the sourcing looks haphazard here. --[[User:Jzy|Jzy]] 09:52, 29 May 2012 (EDT)

Still, you guys have a 1-sentence mention of the Born Alive controversy even though it was brought up by Obama's last 4 political opponents, John McCain, Sarah Palin, Hillary Clinton, and Alan Keyes. And Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum both brought it up a few months ago as well. There's a whole article on this subject alone over at CreationWiki:

http://creationwiki.org/Obama_born_alive_controversy

You're missing the boat on the biggest controversy surrounding Obama, one that hasn't been debunked and is going to cause him a WHOLE lot of trouble. I told you guys this 2 years ago.
--[[User:Jzy|Jzy]] 10:14, 29 May 2012 (EDT)

:Thanks for the comments Jyz, the current article has been in the top 10 for nearly four years now. Most Americans are quite aware that Obama is the most pro-abortion president ever. Feel free to add to our wiki with the born-alive controversy page. In addition, you were not registered here two years ago so no wonder we didn't heed your warning.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 12:52, 29 May 2012 (EDT)

::Well, if this were just another abortion issue Obama wouldn't have a thing to worry about. This is an entirely different subject because it involves aborting children who aren't inside the mother's body but are outside the body and capable of surviving if given medical attention. We passed the federal Born Alive Infant Protection Act in 2002 making it illegal to let premature, newborn babies who survive late-term abortions get left to die without medical attention. We also passed the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act outlawing the late-term Dilation & Extraction (D&E) abortions that resulted in these live births. Nurses Jill Stanek and Allison Baker (of Christ Hospital in Oak Lawn, IL) testified before Congress in 2001 that newborn babies were being born prematurely after botched abortions in their home state of Illinois and being thrown in wastebaskets or soiled utility rooms. Stanek's moving testimony about how she held a little baby in her arms after one of these abortions and the physician refused to help keep it alive so that it died in her arms, proved especially influential.

::The entire U.S. Senate passed the Born Alive Infant Protection Act unanimously, because as Obama would put it, it was "the bill everybody supported". The Partial-Birth Abortion Act twice refers to the practice in federal law as "infanticide". It's a legal, technical term referring to what U.S. law now considers murder of newborn children. Stanek also testified before the Illinois Senate at the time, where Obama was leading a Planned Parenthood movement to vote down numerous Born Alive bills and cover up this fact from Illinois citizens using "present votes". Normally pro-choice Democrats like Barbara Boxer, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, and Ted Kennedy all voted for the Born Alive Infant Protection Act. Hillary Clinton herself brought up Obama's voting record on this in 2008 to criticize him over. So like I said, if this were just a Pro-Life vs. Pro-Choice issue it wouldn't be controversial. I'm not talking about abortion here. I'm talking about infanticide, and opposition to medical care for newborn infants. I'm talking about Obama's opposition to a bill that had over 90% public support, unlike typical Pro-Life bills. --[[User:Jzy|Jzy]] 02:18, 4 June 2012 (EDT)

:::I'm going to incorporate some of my writing and sourcing from that article to this one, and edit boldly. If anyone has any objections to any material please state them. However, I believe I've sourced everything so solidly it should be unobjectionable. --[[User:Jzyehoshua|Jzyehoshua]] 22:03, 20 July 2012 (EDT)

== Last Change ==

The protests weren't peaceful, but they were really violent, to date there's no proof that Muammar Gaddafi had took any violent action against civilians, but there are proof and reports from Amnesty International, Human rights watch, Russian intelligence which denies any of the rumors and falsely alleged crime.

Here's one source where US defense secretary Robert Gates and Navy Admiral Michael Mullen tells about whole thing, :-

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL1110/S00144/un-silent-despite-no-basis-for-natos-illegal-war-on-libya.htm

Thanks. [[User:Regular|Regular]] 11:10, 14 June 2012 (EDT)

== Changes, Detailed ==

I made the following changes, merging an article I wrote on Obama for CreationWiki with this one:

http://creationwiki.org/Barack_Obama

The diff for the changes can be seen here:

http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Barack_Hussein_Obama&action=historysubmit&diff=994904&oldid=994689

I left the Lede intact.

* Birth: I removed an opening sentence about Obama eating dog meat. It looks really silly there, starting off the section. Maybe the article could be linked somewhere else but it looks really bad starting off the page like that.
* Early Life: I included a whole new section on his early life and family and removed some unsourced claims that he was the antichrist and will be instating police rule (which either way doesn't fit the section). If it's going to be put anywhere in the article an appropriate subsection should be created for it, and some sourcing provided - neither of which was the case before.
* Personal Life: I added a whole new section on his marriage to Michelle Obama, children, and church.
* Education: I added a new section on education. Some of it was alluded to earlier but didn't have sources, my material does.
* Non-Political Employment: Whole new section, a LOT of detail about his employment history here.
* Personal Awards: The Nobel controversy mentioned in this new section.
* 1991-1992, Project Vote: His time as a community organizer, new section.
* 1996 Election: I added an entirely new section on how Obama knocked candidates off the ballot.
* 2003 Emil Jones Deal: Whole new section on how Obama struck a deal with Emil Jones to get appointed legislation for other Illinois Senators to advance his political career.
* 2004 Primary Election: Completely new section on how the Illinois media knocked off Obama's first opponent.
* 2004 General Election, Jack Ryan: Completely new section on how the Illinois media knocked off Jack Ryan afterwards through the same tricks.
* 2004 General Election, Alan Keyes: Completely new section highlighting the Born Alive controversy surrounding Obama.
* 2008 Presidential Election: I preserved what little detail there was and merged it in but otherwise everything here is new.
* 2009-2012, U.S. Presidency: I added new sections on the Stimulus and Iraq troop withdrawal. What little info there was about the withdrawal I preserved and merged in.

--[[User:Jzyehoshua|Jzyehoshua]] 23:15, 20 July 2012 (EDT)

=== Deletions ===

I figure it's best to mention any deletions made.

- I deleted the following from the end of the Lede:
{{cquote|Later Obama apologized. When Obama visited [[England]] in 2011, he signed his name and added the date of "2008" -- the last time he won an election. He never explaned that one. When Obama read a speech from a teleprompter, as he almost always does, he repeatedly mispronounced the familiar military term of "corpsman" by sounding out the "p".}}
I removed it because (A) it had no sourcing provided, (B) it showed signs of poor grammar (misspelled "explained"), (C) used weasel words/phrases (almost always does), and perhaps most importantly, (D) it's not even especially relevant. I mean, who cares if he mispronounced the word "corpsman"? How many Americans even would pronounce it right? Maybe that could merit a footnote somewhere on the page, but in the Lede? Really??? I try to preserve as much of the page as possible, but I really think those sentences made the rest of the page look bad. --[[User:Jzyehoshua|Jzyehoshua]] 15:45, 21 July 2012 (EDT)
:Having those sentences there in the Lede gives the impression the whole page is going to be about nitpicking over Obama's grammar, and I really don't think that's the impression Conservapedia wants to give. I'd like to think the Lede would show evidence Obama will be fairly and accurately criticized, not with poorly written and unsourced claims that he mispronounced a word most Americans wouldn't pronounce right anyway. --[[User:Jzyehoshua|Jzyehoshua]] 15:49, 21 July 2012 (EDT)

-I deleted the "Retrieved from 对当代托洛茨基主义的批判：英文论集百花齐放 - 中国文革研究网, March 15, 2010." part of this footnote:
{{cquote|[[File:O-2002-antiwar-rally-davidson.jpg|right|thumb|250px| Obama speaking at the October 2002 rally in Chicago organized by [[Carl Davidson]].<ref>Davidson is a longtime [[Mao]]ist and champion of the ''Thought of Mao Tse Tung.'' Davidson's anti-Trotskyite polemic, [http://www.wengewang.org/read.php?tid=10925 ''Left in Form, Right in Essence''] defends Maoist doctrine. Retrieved from 对当代托洛茨基主义的批判：英文论集百花齐放 - 中国文革研究网, March 15, 2010.</ref> ''"[H]e is a brutal man who butchers his own people,"'' nevertheless Obama opposed ''"dumb wars".'']]}}
I think this should all be in English. It might belong on a Chinese page for Conservapedia, the alternate language translations, but I don't think so here. Hopefully someone can find an alternate reference for this, but it looks bad at the bottom of the page in footnotes like that, and since it can't be understood doesn't serve any real purpose. --[[User:Jzyehoshua|Jzyehoshua]] 21:39, 21 July 2012 (EDT)

== New Section On ACORN/New Party Ties ==

Alright, I just removed the following sentence from the 1996 section:
{{cquote|In 1995 Obama openly sought and obtained the endorsement of the [[Marxist]] [[New Party]] in his quest to be elected to the Illinois State Senate.<ref>[http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=7434 NEW PARTY (NP)], discoverthenetwork.org.</ref><ref>Rick Moran. [http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/06/obamas_alliance_with_marxists.html Obama's Alliance with Marxists], ''American Thinker'', June 03, 2008.</ref>}}

I made a new section on this at the end of the article. Frankly, I just wanted to remove the section from the 1996 section because it makes the whole thing look bad. I don't really care about his New Party or ACORN affiliations but I know many conservatives care about them, so I didn't want to delete the sentence and wanted to see if I could move it somewhere else, and maybe provide some more detail to give it a small subsection somewhere. I didn't think much of the sources it had so I figured I'd see if I could find any decent sourcing and information for it. In the process, I found out it had articles relating to it at National Review, Politico, and by Billy Hallowell (a FOX News contributor), plus had been addressed by Obama's "Fight the Smears" campaign and David Axelrod. Plus it's still relevant in 2012.

So I wrote it a new section, because I just follow sources and newsworthiness, and it is does appear to have some prominence. I tried to provide sources and perspective from both sides, and provide all the facts, so it won't just be a one-sided claim. Anyway, that's why I detailed it out more. Like I said, I don't really care about the claim myself, but it is newsworthy and a cause for concern among some conservatives, so I figured I might as well write it a section - and get it out of the 1996 one :) --[[User:Jzyehoshua|Jzyehoshua]] 23:21, 21 July 2012 (EDT)

:For me, the big issue surrounding Obama has always been his voting record against the Born Alive bills, and repeated lying attempts to cover this up. That he's gone to such lengths to prevent newborn babies from being given medical attention and then lie about having done so, has always struck me as reprehensible. His political corruption and constant lies are also disgusting. I just want people to know about these things. But his Marxism and ACORN stuff? Not really an issue for me. I just wrote this because I know it's a cause for concern to other conservatives, so I made sure the facts are presented on it. --[[User:Jzyehoshua|Jzyehoshua]] 23:37, 21 July 2012 (EDT)

:And mainly I didn't want that sentence in the 1996 section, by the way, because it's still highly controversial. I don't like starting off an otherwise credible section with undeniable sources with a claim that is still under investigation. Maybe this stuff on the New Party will hold up - those minutes will be strong evidence if Kurtz is right about them. But right now the sourcing for it isn't as strong as I'd like, even if it is newsworthy. And I'd prefer the 1996 section stick to strongly proven facts. That he knocked off all his opponents using a team of lawyers is well sourced by the Chicago Tribune, CBS News, CNN, New York Times, etc. The stuff about the New Party had two lesser-known sources and while it has better sourcing now, it's still an ongoing issue, which is why I think it's more relevant in a 2012 section than 1996. --[[User:Jzyehoshua|Jzyehoshua]] 23:51, 21 July 2012 (EDT)

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

== Conspiracy theory that Obama is not born in the US is by crazy lunatic fringe right-wing people who don't represent the mainstream right, it is just like crazy lunatic fringe left-wing conspiracy theories on JFK being killed by the CIA and not J. Harvey Oswald or 9-11 truthers ==

Regardless of criticisms and condemnations by mainstream conservatives of Obama's policies, these claims that he is a foreign-born citizen have been disproven and mainstream conservatives accept that he is an American citizen. Theories that he was born outside the USA are lunatic fringe conspiracy theories - and I don't care whether they are right-wing - their ideas have been disproven just like the crazy 9-11 truther conspiracy theories and JFK conspiracy theories by lunatic fringe left-wing people. Why is there such focus on conspiracy theories on where Obama is born in the intro, rather than focus in the intro on Obama's policies and conservative criticisms of Obama's policies?--[[User:TheQuestioner|TheQuestioner]] 12:31, 3 August 2012 (EDT)

:Thank God you registered here to set the record straight. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 12:34, 3 August 2012 (EDT)

::What do you mean?--[[User:TheQuestioner|TheQuestioner]] 12:36, 3 August 2012 (EDT)

== Title of article ==

The middle name should be removed as the name of the article. The middle name of other figures is not in the title in other articles. [[User:AcomaMagic|AcomaMagic]] 15:17, 18 August 2012 (EDT)
:[[Ronald Wilson Reagan]]?? --[[User:JamesWilson|James Wilson]] 05:16, 4 September 2012 (EDT)
::That looks like a rarity. All the other biography pages that I've seen use the most common name. The middle name of Reagan should be removed as the title too. [[User:AcomaMagic|AcomaMagic]] 08:08, 9 September 2012 (EDT)

== Teleprompter at school ==

It is a false rumor, based on photoshopped photos, that Obama had teleprompters set up for a speech to a middle school class. He spoke to the class without teleprompters, then went to another classroom, where he spoke to the ''media'' using a teleprompter. Surely there are enough things to criticize without distorting the truth? [http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/photos/6thgrade.asp] [[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 10:39, 2 September 2012 (EDT)
:This is a little shaky as a criticism I suppose. With his voting record on the Born Alive bills and political corruption, there's an awful lot that can be criticized about him. That he uses teleprompters so often is a valid criticism of him, but the teleprompters in classrooms one needs to be carefully presented in context, as pointed out by Sharon. --[[User:JZambrano|Joshua Zambrano]] 08:56, 4 September 2012 (EDT)

== "may have had a prior marriage" ==

This appears in the information box - I assume its about Obama rather than his wife - but is not explained in the main article, let alone supported with any references. As a Brit, this is completely new to me. Can anyone develop this further? [[User:Rafael|Rafael]] 17:54, 10 September 2012 (EDT)

== Accusations about birth certificate and cultural and name identity ==

I would like to move this section back to the section about Obama's birth, and weave it back into the relevant section instead of having it tagged on to the end of the article. None of the edits will change the argument at all. [[User:MattyD|MattyD]] 12:40, 16 September 2012 (EDT)
:JPatt, the edits I made REMOVED fluff and apologies. Can you please point to specific passages where you think the argument was softened? [[User:MattyD|MattyD]] 12:57, 16 September 2012 (EDT)
::No--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 13:01, 16 September 2012 (EDT)
:::Why not? My edits REMOVE a lot of the fluff. Where is the problem? [[User:MattyD|MattyD]] 13:03, 16 September 2012 (EDT)

==Page has too many kbs==
This age is ''WAY'' too heavy for updating the Intro and I can't wait 2 hours to make these minor changes. Can someone who actually cares please add,
* the U.S. Government's credit rating, for the first time in its history, was downgraded, and [[poverty]]<ref>[http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/data/incpovhlth/2009/pov09fig04.pdf Figure 4: Number in Poverty and Poverty Rate: 1959-2009]. ''U.S. Census Bureau''. Current Population Survey, 1960 to 2010 Annual Social and Economic Supplements.</ref> increased markedly every year.<ref>[http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-201_162-20105376.html Poverty continues to rise in U.S., now 15.1%], CBS News.</ref>
I realize I am penalized 9 mainspace edits for asking for this help, but some, if not much of the Intro citations are two years out of date. [[User:OscarO|OscarO]] 11:38, 29 September 2012 (EDT)

== Country of birth ==

He released his long-form birth certificate, so what evidence is there that he was born in Kenya? [[User:Nightsky|Nightsky]] 15:43, 8 October 2012 (EDT)

Talk:Essay: John Maynard Keynes and pederasty

2012-10-08T19:38:32Z

Nightsky: /* Article needs to be deleted */ reply

== Why is this here? ==
Is this article really needed? It is almost exactly word for word the same as the section in the Maynard Keynes main article. At the very most this should probably just be a redirect. [[User:TonyB|TonyB]] 20:56, 11 April 2011 (EDT)
:::Is your talk page comment really needed? [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 21:08, 11 April 2011 (EDT)
:::: Yes [[User:TonyB|TonyB]] 21:08, 11 April 2011 (EDT)
::::: Without it, I wouldn't be able to start a discussion [[User:TonyB|TonyB]] 21:09, 11 April 2011 (EDT)
:::::::Is this discussion necessary. If so, why? [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 21:17, 11 April 2011 (EDT)
:::::::: This discussion is necessary, because like all '''adult''' discussion it helps to foster communication, and it means that people are better able to work together to improve upon projects and other situations. Through this discussion, I was hoping too discuss whether this article really needs to exist or not, because it my personal opinion, it isn't really needed. Of course, people are free to object to that. [[User:TonyB|TonyB]] 21:21, 11 April 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::::TonyB, please feel free to add more content to the article. [http://www.google.com/search?hl=&q=john+maynard+keynes+and+pederasty&sourceid=navclient-ff&rlz=1B3GGLS_enUS406US406&ie=UTF-8 Here] are some resources for you to investigate. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 21:38, 11 April 2011 (EDT)

Looks like I might as well. [[User:TonyB|TonyB]] 21:40, 11 April 2011 (EDT)

== Article needs to be deleted ==

It claims he is a pedophile despite no evidence that he had sexual relations with prepubescent children. Needs to be deleted as soon as possible. [[User:Nightsky|Nightsky]] 17:08, 7 October 2012 (EDT)

: Could you give more evidence or references about your claim? --[[User:Joaquín Martínez|Joaquín Martínez]] 23:21, 7 October 2012 (EDT)
::The burden of proof lies on those making the claim. Quotes of "Jew boy" is not good enough. [[User:Nightsky|Nightsky]] 15:38, 8 October 2012 (EDT)

Talk:Essay: John Maynard Keynes and pederasty

2012-10-07T21:08:59Z

Nightsky: /* Article needs to be deleted */ new section

Keynesian economics

2012-10-07T21:08:36Z

Nightsky: No evidence of sexual relationships with prepubescent children.

[[File:WhiteandKeynes.jpg|right|thumbnail|220px|John Maynard Keynes (right) with [[KGB]] agent and first head of the [[International Monetary Fund]], [[Harry Dexter White]] (left). White described himself as a devout [[New Deal]]er. ]]
'''Keynesian Economics''' was "the dominant economic paradigm from the 1940s to the 1970s."<ref>[http://www.thefreemanonline.org/featured/the-great-depression-according-to-milton-friedman/ The Great Depression According to Milton Friedman] </ref>
It is associated with the ideas of the incompetent [[British]] economist [[John Maynard Keynes]].<ref>
*[http://www.keynesatharvard.org/book/KeynesatHarvard-ch09.html KEYNES AT HARVARD Economic Deception as a Political Credo BY ZYGMUND DOBBS]
*[http://www.theatlantic.com/daily-dish/archive/2008/01/keyness-jew-boy-quickie/220620/ The Atlantic - Keynes' pederasty]
*[http://centurean2.wordpress.com/2011/03/20/fabian-john-maynard-keynes-the-stealthy-enemy-of-human-freedom/ John Maynard Keynes the stealthy enemy of human freedom]
*[http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-02-22/deathbed-of-keynesian-economics-will-be-in-u-k-matthew-lynn.html Deathbed of Keynesian Economics will be in the UK]
*[http://www.iwf.org/inkwell/show/23102.html Will the G8 Repudiate the Philosophy of Living Beyond Our Means?]
</ref> In 2010, his native land of Britain (which is deeply in debt) repudiated his economic folly of government deficit spending through the implementation of an austerity budget during a period of economic difficulty.<ref>[http://www.iwf.org/inkwell/show/23102.html Will the G8 Repudiate the Philosophy of Living Beyond Our Means?]</ref><ref>[http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-02-22/deathbed-of-keynesian-economics-will-be-in-u-k-matthew-lynn.html Deathbed of Keynesian Economics will be in the UK]</ref> Although government certainly is necessary, economic history demonstrates the more efficient private sector is better at creating economically productive jobs and other economic activity such as [[investment|investing.]]<ref>[http://voxday.blogspot.com/2011/08/overprepared.html Overprepared]</ref>

In August of 2011, the [[conservative]] author [[Vox Day]] wrote:
{{cquote|...in the 1930s, it was only the USA that attempted to fight the post-1929 economic contraction with Keynesian stimulus policies and only the USA suffered a [[Great Depression]]. In England, the contraction stopped in 1932, France never saw double-digit unemployment, and the Japanese economy was actually enjoying significant growth.(1) This time, Europe, China, and Japan all followed the US lead and applied their own stimulus plans in 2009, which we are already seeing is now in the process of backfiring on everyone.<ref>[http://voxday.blogspot.com/2011/08/overprepared.html Overprepared]</ref>}}

"Keynes thought there is no self-corrective mechanism (or [[invisible hand]]) in a [[free-market economy]]."<ref name=milton>[http://www.thefreemanonline.org/featured/the-great-depression-according-to-milton-friedman/ The Great Depression According to Milton Friedman] </ref>

"An unfettered [[market economy]] results in [[depression (economics)]]s, [so Keynes] recommended that the government engage in massive [[deficit spending]]."<ref name=milton />

It is ironic that [[liberal]]s such as [[Barack Obama]] advocate Keynesian economic concepts since they are violating one [[John Maynard Keynes]]' key principles. Keynes advocated having governments run [[budget surplus|budget surpluses]] during good economic times.<ref>EK Brown-Collie and Bruce E. Collier, What Keynes really said about deficit spending, Journal of Post Keynesian Economics, Vol. 17, No. 3, Spring, 1995</ref> In addition, Keynes advocated that governments should increase government spending during difficult times and even engage in [[deficit spending]]. Keynes was against large structural deficits because he believed they are a drag on the economy.<ref>http://money.cnn.com/2010/02/04/news/economy/meltzer_keynes.fortune/</ref> Liberals such as Barack Obama [[American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009|advocate massive U.S. government spending]] during a period when the federal government already has a [[Obama administration fiscal policy|massive amount of existing debt.]] Furthermore, Obama's colossal government spending was inefficient and [[American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009|did not pull the American economy out of its economic problems]], but merely [[Obama administration fiscal policy|buried the U.S. economy under more debt.]]
== Keynes the incompetent fraud ==
[[File:President Barack Obama.jpg|thumbnail|right|190px|[[Barack Obama]] advocates the use of Keynesian economics despite the fact that the [[John Maynard Keynes and pederasty|pedophile]] [[John Maynard Keynes]] was incompetent and a fraud.<ref>
*[http://centurean2.wordpress.com/2011/03/20/fabian-john-maynard-keynes-the-stealthy-enemy-of-human-freedom/ John Maynard Keynes the stealthy enemy of human freedom]
*[http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-02-22/deathbed-of-keynesian-economics-will-be-in-u-k-matthew-lynn.html Deathbed of Keynesian Economics will be in the UK]
*[http://www.iwf.org/inkwell/show/23102.html Will the G8 Repudiate the Philosophy of Living Beyond Our Means?]
*[http://www.keynesatharvard.org/book/KeynesatHarvard-ch09.html KEYNES AT HARVARD Economic Deception as a Political Credo BY ZYGMUND DOBBS]
*[http://www.theatlantic.com/daily-dish/archive/2008/01/keyness-jew-boy-quickie/220620/ John Maynard Keynes - the pedophile, The Atlantic]
</ref> ]]
Murry Rothbard wrote in his work ''Keynes the man'':
{{cquote|The young Keynes displayed no interest whatsoever in economics; his dominant interest was philosophy. In fact, he completed an undergraduate degree at Cambridge without taking a single economics course. Not only did he never take a degree in the subject, but the only economics course Keynes ever took was a single-term graduate course under Alfred Marshall.

...Murray Rothbard says it all: Was Keynes, as Hayek maintained, a “brilliant scholar”? “Scholar” hardly, since Keynes was abysmally read in the economics literature: he was more of a buccaneer, taking a little bit of knowledge and using it to inflict his personality and fallacious ideas upon the world, with a drive continually fueled by an arrogance bordering on egomania. … He possessed the tactical wit to dress up ancient statist and inflationist fallacies with modern, pseudoscientific jargon, making them appear to be the latest findings of economic science. Keynes was thereby able to ride the tidal wave of statism and socialism, of managed and planning economies.<ref>http://centurean2.wordpress.com/2011/03/20/fabian-john-maynard-keynes-the-stealthy-enemy-of-human-freedom/</ref>}}

=== Dishonesty of Keynes ===

Concerning his dishonesty Rothbard wrote:
{{cquote|Keynes reviewed Ludwig von Mises’s German Treatise on Money and Credit in 1914, slandering it, but it later came out that he did not understand German! As Murray Rothbard notes, ‘This was Keynes to the hilt: to review a book in a language where he was incapable of grasping new ideas, and then to attack that book for not containing anything new, is the height of arrogance and irresponsibility.”<ref>http://centurean2.wordpress.com/2011/03/20/fabian-john-maynard-keynes-the-stealthy-enemy-of-human-freedom/</ref>}}

Rothbard also maintains Keynes purposefully misrepresented the work of English economist Arthur Cecil Pigou.<ref>http://centurean2.wordpress.com/2011/03/20/fabian-john-maynard-keynes-the-stealthy-enemy-of-human-freedom/</ref>

== Keynesian Economics and Stagflation ==
[[File:6a00d8341c60bf53ef011571a57670970b-500wi1.jpg|right|300px|thumb| [http://hotair.com/greenroom/archives/2009/07/19/the-anti-stimulus-in-pictures-any-questions/?print=1 ''Chart courtesy to Duane Lester''] ]]
In February of 2010 the ''[[Washington Times]]'' reported:
{{cquote|Prices rose 2.7 percent during 2009, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics' recent update of the Consumer Price Index (CPI). This is a worrisome fact because last year's unemployment rate averaged more than 9 percent. This trend may signal a return of "stagflation," a merger of stagnation and [[inflation]].

In the 1970s, stagflation shocked traditional [[Keynesian economics|Keynesian]] economists, whose models said the economy could not suffer from both high unemployment and rapid inflation at the same time. Unfortunately, the Keynesians were wrong, because an economy obviously can experience both evils simultaneously...

It seems every week the Obama administration announces some new tax or mandate that will further handicap businesses. Regardless of the official definitions of recession, the economy will remain sluggish for years to come. But if the [[Federal Reserve]] continues with its reckless policies, Americans will experience high inflation on top of high unemployment. As in the late 1970s, Americans will see that the pundits are wrong, because stagflation is very real.<ref>http://washingtontimes.com/news/2010/feb/19/setting-the-stage-for-stagflation/</ref>}}

On June 18, 2011 Business Insider declared:
{{cquote|There are millions upon millions of Americans that are sitting at home on their couches right now wondering why they lost their jobs and why nobody will hire them. Millions of others are wondering why the only jobs they can get are jobs that a high school student could do. Families all across America are wondering why it seems like their wages never go up but the price of food and the price of gas continue to skyrocket.<ref>http://www.businessinsider.com/collapse-of-the-economy-2011-5</ref>}}

On June 15, 2011 Fox News reported:
{{cquote|The government said consumer prices jumped 3.6% year-over-year, exceeding estimates for 3.4% and good for the largest increase since October 2008 when they climbed 3.7%. Core prices gained 1.5%, compared with forecasts for 1.4%.

The hotter-than-expected inflation data combined with a dreary report that showed manufacturing activity in New York State unexpectedly contracted in June to send U.S. stock futures tumbling more than 100 points into the red Wednesday morning.

The inflation report underscores the Fed's limited options in injecting new stimulus into a U.S. economic recovery that may have stalled out in recent months. That’s because further quantitative easing may only increase the pressure on inflation.

“Stagflation is now a growing reality and the 'flation' part ties the hands of the Fed to react with more easing,” Peter Boockvar, equity strategist at Miller Tabak, wrote in a note. “As many of us believe, though, the more easing has added to the 'flation' so maybe less will tame it.”
<ref>http://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/2011/06/15/core-inflation-posts-largest-increase-since-july-08</ref>}}

== Keynes speculations ==
According to Keynes, economic slumps are the result of too little [[demand]] (see also [[aggregate demand]]). The government can stimulate demand by cutting taxes and increasing spending even if this results in growing deficits. During times of economic boom the government can increase taxes and/or cut spending. This will reduce the risk of [[Inflation]] and also reduce government deficits. Keynesian economics influenced [[FDR]]'s [[New Deal]] programs during the [[Great Depression]].

Keynes also felt that [[inflation]] and [[unemployment]] were opposites. This was proven false by the "[[stagflation]]" of the 1970s.

While Keynes supported government intervention and government programs, he intended that they only be active during poor economic situations, unlike the modern [[welfare state]]. Many believe that FDR agreed, though FDR had died before these programs could be repealed.

Keynesian economics had much in common with [[Fascism]]. A leading Fascist propagandist<ref>James Strachey Barnes led a "major group" established "to promote ... fascism," and circulate "fascist propaganda," emphasizing "the positive nature of fascism." Roger Griffin with Matthew Feldman, eds., ''[http://books.google.com/books?id=xeHuSpHzqGUC Fascism: The 'Fascist Epoch']'' (Taylor & Francis, 2004) ISBN 0415290198, p. 255</ref> noted (in a book with a preface by [[Mussolini]]):<ref>Gaetano Salvemini, ''[http://books.google.com/books?id=CaONx1VLelsC Under the Axe of Fascism]'' (Read Books, 2008) ISBN 1443736708, p. 115</ref>
::"Fascism entirely agrees with Mr. Maynard Keynes, despite the latter’s prominent position as a Liberal. In fact, Mr. Keynes’ excellent little book, ''[http://books.google.com/books?id=pKBdAAAAIAAJ The End of Laissez-Faire]'' (l926) might, so far as it goes, serve as a useful introduction to fascist economics. There is scarcely anything to object to in it and there is much to applaud."<ref>James Strachey Barnes, ''[http://books.google.com/books?cd=1&id=N_jSAAAAMAAJ Universal Aspects of Fascism]'' (London: Williams and Norgate, 1929), pp. 113-114</ref>

While liberal in nature, Keynesian economics also had an influence on conservatives - the [[Laffer curve]], a key component of [[supply-side economics]] and the basis for the Reagan and Bush II tax cuts, was based on Keynesian concepts.

== See also ==
*[[Austrian economics]]
*[[Essay: Obamanomics - Voodoo pedophile influenced economics]] - [[satire]]

==Notes==
<references />

[[Category:United States Government]]

John Maynard Keynes

2012-10-07T21:04:00Z

Nightsky: /* Keynes the incompetent fraud */ No evidence that he had sexual relations with prepubescent children. Also changed a statement claiming fact when it is a claim.

[[File:Keynes.jpg|right|thumbnail|175px|John Maynard Keynes]]
'''John Maynard Keynes''' (5 June 1883 - 21 April 1946) was a [[British]] economist.
<ref>
*[http://www.keynesatharvard.org/book/KeynesatHarvard-ch09.html KEYNES AT HARVARD Economic Deception as a Political Credo BY ZYGMUND DOBBS]
*[http://www.theatlantic.com/daily-dish/archive/2008/01/keyness-jew-boy-quickie/220620/ The Atlantic - Keynes' pederasty]
*[http://centurean2.wordpress.com/2011/03/20/fabian-john-maynard-keynes-the-stealthy-enemy-of-human-freedom/ John Maynard Keynes the stealthy enemy of human freedom]
*[http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-02-22/deathbed-of-keynesian-economics-will-be-in-u-k-matthew-lynn.html Deathbed of Keynesian Economics will be in the UK]
*[http://www.iwf.org/inkwell/show/23102.html Will the G8 Repudiate the Philosophy of Living Beyond Our Means?]
</ref> In 2010, his native land of Britain (which is deeply in debt) repudiated his economic folly of government [[deficit spending]] through the implementation of an austerity budget during a period of economic difficulty.<ref>[http://www.iwf.org/inkwell/show/23102.html Will the G8 Repudiate the Philosophy of Living Beyond Our Means?]</ref><ref>[http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-02-22/deathbed-of-keynesian-economics-will-be-in-u-k-matthew-lynn.html Deathbed of Keynesian Economics will be in the UK]</ref>
Although government certainly is necessary, the more efficient private sector is better at creating economically productive jobs and other economic activity such as [[investment|investing.]]

In August of 2011, the [[conservative]] author and member of [[Mensa]] [[Vox Day]] wrote:
{{cquote|...in the 1930s, it was only the USA that attempted to fight the post-1929 economic contraction with [[Keynesian Economics|Keynesian stimulus policies]] and only the USA suffered a [[Great Depression]]. In England, the contraction stopped in 1932, France never saw double-digit unemployment, and the Japanese economy was actually enjoying significant growth. This time, Europe, China, and Japan all followed the US lead and applied their own stimulus plans in 2009, which we are already seeing is now in the process of backfiring on everyone.<ref>[http://voxday.blogspot.com/2011/08/overprepared.html Overprepared]</ref>}}

It is ironic that [[liberal]]s such as [[Barack Obama]] advocate Keynesian economic concepts since they are violating one of John Maynard Keynes' key principles. Keynes advocated having governments run [[budget surplus|budget surpluses]] during good economic times.<ref>EK Brown-Collie and Bruce E. Collier, What Keynes really said about deficit spending, Journal of Post Keynesian Economics, Vol. 17, No. 3, Spring, 1995</ref> In addition, Keynes advocated that governments should increase government spending during difficult times and even engage in [[deficit spending]]. Keynes was against large structural deficits as he believed they are a drag on the economy.<ref>http://money.cnn.com/2010/02/04/news/economy/meltzer_keynes.fortune/</ref> Liberals such as Barack Obama [[American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009|advocate massive U.S. government spending]] during a period when the federal government already has a [[Obama administration fiscal policy|massive amount of existing debt]]. Furthermore, Obama's colossal government spending was inefficient and [[American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009|did not pull the American economy out of its economic problems]], but merely [[Obama administration fiscal policy|buried the U.S. economy under more debt.]]

==Biography==

Keynes, the son of a professor, was born in [[Cambridge]], and went on to attend [[Eton College]] where he excelled in mathematics, classics, and history. In 1902 he entered [[King's College, Cambridge]] to read for a degree in mathematics, however, due to his interest in politics he found himself increasingly drawn toward economics. It was at Cambridge that he found himself under the tutelage of [[Alfred Marshall]] and [[A.C. Pigou]]. Keynes accepted an economics lectureship at Cambridge funded personally by Marshall. Soon thereafter he took a leave of absence to work for the British Treasury, an institution in which his expertise was frequently called upon during the [[World War I|First World War]]. Indeed, at the end of the war, Keynes was selected to be the Treasury's principal representative at the [[Paris Peace Conference]] of 1919. The subsequent [[Treaty of Versailles]] precipitated Keynes' resignation from the Treasury, as he felt it was draconian in its treatment of Germany.

He returned to Cambridge. His ''The Economic Consequences of Peace'' in 1920 was a highly influential slashing attack on the economic disasters that he said would be caused by the Versailles Treaty. He furthered these ideas in 1922 with ''A Revision of the Treaty'', in which he argued that the reparations that Germany was being forced to pay would lead to the collapse of the German economy. In 1923, the German economy entered a period of [[hyperinflation]], which Keynes had not predicted. Keynes found himself becoming increasingly involved in the political process. First supporting the [[British Liberal Party|Liberal Party's]] 1929 "Election Manifesto", and later as an adviser to [[Ramsay MacDonald]]'s Labour government.

Keynes' ''magnum opus'' appeared in 1936, ''The General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money''. Largely a reaction to the high unemployment that had characterised post-war Britain, the book was among the most revolutionary works of modern economics, signaling a paradigm shift within modern economic thought. As the era went on his prestige and celebrity grew, in 1942 he was made a lord. During the war he advised the Treasury and was Britain's lead representative at the 1944 [[Bretton Woods Conference]]. He died of a heart attack in 1946.

== Keynesian school of economics ==

Keynes was a founding father of modern theoretical [[macroeconomics]]. Breaking with the [[Neo-classical Economics|neoclassical]] orthodoxy of his era, Keynes argued that macroeconomic relationships differ from their [[Microeconomics|microeconomic]] counterparts. He went on to advocate government intervention into markets and proposed a demand-driven model for money. His theories formed the basis of what came to be known as [[Keynesian economics]].

Keynes rejected socialism--he did not want government to own or even control industry, but rather he wanted the government to optimize the economy though its "fiscal policies," that is, taxes and spending. He was a lifelong member of the [[British Liberal Party]], which held few seats in Parliament after 1920.

Keynes was, with [[Milton Friedman]] one of the two most influential economists of the 20th century. Keynes, based at Cambridge University, influenced the economics profession in many ways and was surrounded by students and disciples. He was a major adviser to the Treasury during World War II and helped design the postwar "Bretton Woods" international monetary system.

Keynes' most influential work was in [[Macroeconomics]], where his model of the nation economy emphasized fiscal policy (government spending and taxation) as more useful than regulation or monetary policy. He thus offered a non-socialist solution to the [[Great Depression]]. The Keynesian solutions were not accepted for many years, then they were widely adopted in the 1950s in Britain and the United States. Their popularity peaked in the 1960s, just as they came under heavy criticism from [[Milton Friedman]] and other conservatives for their theoretical weaknesses, and their inability in practice to deal with the economic crises of the 1970s in which high unemployment, high inflation, and slow growth coexisted.

== Keynes, homosexuality and pederasty ==

''see also:'' [[Atheism, pederasty and NAMBLA]] and [[John Maynard Keynes and pederasty]]

Lytton Strachey, his male bed partner, wrote that Keynes was “A [[liberal]] and a [[homosexuality|sodomite]], An [[atheism|atheist]] and a statistician.”<ref>http://www.keynesatharvard.org/book/KeynesatHarvard-ch09.html</ref> Keynes and his friends made numerous trips to the resorts surrounding the Mediterranean. At the resorts, little boys were sold by their families to bordellos which catered to [[homosexuality|homosexuals]].<ref>http://www.keynesatharvard.org/book/KeynesatHarvard-ch09.html</ref>

In 2008, ''The Atlantic'' reported:
{{cquote|Keynes obsessively counted and tabulated almost everything; it was a life-long habit. As a child, he counted the number of front steps of every house on his street. Later he kept a running record (not surprisingly) of his expenses and his golf scores. He also counted and tabulated his sex life.

The first diary is easy: Keynes lists his sexual partners, either by their initials (GLS for Lytton Strachey, DG for Duncan Grant) or their nicknames ("Tressider," for J. T. Sheppard, the King's College Provost). When he apparently had a quick, anonymous hook-up, he listed that sex partner generically: "16-year-old under Etna" and "Lift boy of Vauxhall" in 1911, for instance, and "Jew boy," in 1912.<ref>http://www.theatlantic.com/daily-dish/archive/2008/01/keyness-jew-boy-quickie/220620/</ref>}}

Zygmund Dobbs wrote in his work ''Keynes at Harvard'':
{{cquote|In 1967 the world was startled by the publication of the letters between Lytton Strachey and Maynard Keynes. Undisputed evidence in their private correspondence shows that Keynes was a life-long sexual deviate. What was more shocking was that these practices extended to a large group. Homosexuality, sado-masochism, [[lesbianism]], and the deliberate policy of corrupting the young was the established practice of this large and influential group which eventually set the political and cultural tone for the British Empire.

Keynes’ sexual partner, Lytton Strachey, indicated that their sexual attitudes could be infiltrated, “subtly, through literature, into the bloodstream of the people, and in such a way that they accepted it all quite naturally, if need be, without at first realizing what it was to which they were agreeing.” He further explained, privately, that, “he sought to write in a way that would contribute to an eventual change in our ethical and sexual mores—a change that couldn’t ‘be done in a minute,’ but would unobtrusively permeate the more flexible minds of young people.” This is a classic expression of the Fabian socialist method of seducing the mind. This was written in 1929 when it was already in practice for over forty years. It is no wonder we are reaping the whirlwind of student disorders where drug addiction and homosexuality rule the day.<ref>http://www.keynesatharvard.org/book/KeynesatHarvard-ch09.html</ref>}}

Keynes was a [[bisexual]] who married Lydia Lopokova. In his work ''The Cambridge Apostles, 1820-1914: Liberalism, Imagination, and Friendship in British Intellectual and Professional Life'', William C. Lubenow expresses the opinion that Keynes was an [[agnosticism|agnostic]].<ref>The Cambridge Apostles, 1820-1914: Liberalism, Imagination, and Friendship in British Intellectual and Professional Life, 1998, Cambridge University Press, page 402</ref>

== Keynes the incompetent fraud ==
[[File:President Barack Obama.jpg|thumbnail|right|190px|[[Barack Obama]] advocates the use of [[Keynesian economics|Keynesian economic concepts]] despite the claims that John Maynard Keynes was incompetent and a fraud.<ref>
*[http://centurean2.wordpress.com/2011/03/20/fabian-john-maynard-keynes-the-stealthy-enemy-of-human-freedom/ John Maynard Keynes the stealthy enemy of human freedom]
*[http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-02-22/deathbed-of-keynesian-economics-will-be-in-u-k-matthew-lynn.html Deathbed of Keynesian Economics will be in the UK]
*[http://www.iwf.org/inkwell/show/23102.html Will the G8 Repudiate the Philosophy of Living Beyond Our Means?]
*[http://www.keynesatharvard.org/book/KeynesatHarvard-ch09.html KEYNES AT HARVARD Economic Deception as a Political Credo BY ZYGMUND DOBBS]
</ref> ]]
Murry Rothbard wrote in his work ''Keynes the man'':
{{cquote|The young Keynes displayed no interest whatsoever in economics; his dominant interest was philosophy. In fact, he completed an undergraduate degree at Cambridge without taking a single economics course. Not only did he never take a degree in the subject, but the only economics course Keynes ever took was a single-term graduate course under Alfred Marshall.

...Murray Rothbard says it all: Was Keynes, as Hayek maintained, a “brilliant scholar”? “Scholar” hardly, since Keynes was abysmally read in the economics literature: he was more of a buccaneer, taking a little bit of knowledge and using it to inflict his personality and fallacious ideas upon the world, with a drive continually fueled by an arrogance bordering on egomania. … He possessed the tactical wit to dress up ancient statist and inflationist fallacies with modern, pseudoscientific jargon, making them appear to be the latest findings of economic science. Keynes was thereby able to ride the tidal wave of statism and socialism, of managed and planning economies.<ref>http://centurean2.wordpress.com/2011/03/20/fabian-john-maynard-keynes-the-stealthy-enemy-of-human-freedom/</ref>}}

=== Dishonesty of Keynes ===

Concerning his dishonesty Rothbard wrote:
{{cquote|Keynes reviewed Ludwig von Mises’s German Treatise on Money and Credit in 1914, slandering it, but it later came out that he did not understand German! As Murray Rothbard notes, ‘This was Keynes to the hilt: to review a book in a language where he was incapable of grasping new ideas, and then to attack that book for not containing anything new, is the height of arrogance and irresponsibility.”<ref>http://centurean2.wordpress.com/2011/03/20/fabian-john-maynard-keynes-the-stealthy-enemy-of-human-freedom/</ref>}}

Rothbard also maintains Keynes purposefully misrepresented the work of English economist Arthur Cecil Pigou.<ref>http://centurean2.wordpress.com/2011/03/20/fabian-john-maynard-keynes-the-stealthy-enemy-of-human-freedom/</ref>

== Keynesian Economics and Stagflation ==
[[File:6a00d8341c60bf53ef011571a57670970b-500wi1.jpg|right|300px|thumb| [http://hotair.com/greenroom/archives/2009/07/19/the-anti-stimulus-in-pictures-any-questions/?print=1 ''Chart courtesy of Duane Lester''] ]]
In February of 2010 the ''[[Washington Times]]'' reported:
{{cquote|Prices rose 2.7 percent during 2009, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics' recent update of the Consumer Price Index (CPI). This is a worrisome fact because last year's unemployment rate averaged more than 9 percent. This trend may signal a return of "stagflation," a merger of stagnation and [[inflation]].

In the 1970s, stagflation shocked traditional [[Keynesian economics|Keynesian]] economists, whose models said the economy could not suffer from both high unemployment and rapid inflation at the same time. Unfortunately, the Keynesians were wrong, because an economy obviously can experience both evils simultaneously...

It seems every week the Obama administration announces some new tax or mandate that will further handicap businesses. Regardless of the official definitions of recession, the economy will remain sluggish for years to come. But if the [[Federal Reserve]] continues with its reckless policies, Americans will experience high inflation on top of high unemployment. As in the late 1970s, Americans will see that the pundits are wrong, because stagflation is very real.<ref>http://washingtontimes.com/news/2010/feb/19/setting-the-stage-for-stagflation/</ref>}}

On June 18, 2011 Business Insider declared:
{{cquote|There are millions upon millions of Americans that are sitting at home on their couches right now wondering why they lost their jobs and why nobody will hire them. Millions of others are wondering why the only jobs they can get are jobs that a high school student could do. Families all across America are wondering why it seems like their wages never go up but the price of food and the price of gas continue to skyrocket.<ref>http://www.businessinsider.com/collapse-of-the-economy-2011-5</ref>}}

On June 15, 2011 Fox News reported:
{{cquote|The government said consumer prices jumped 3.6% year-over-year, exceeding estimates for 3.4% and good for the largest increase since October 2008 when they climbed 3.7%. Core prices gained 1.5%, compared with forecasts for 1.4%.

The hotter-than-expected inflation data combined with a dreary report that showed manufacturing activity in New York State unexpectedly contracted in June to send U.S. stock futures tumbling more than 100 points into the red Wednesday morning.

The inflation report underscores the Fed's limited options in injecting new stimulus into a U.S. economic recovery that may have stalled out in recent months. That’s because further quantitative easing may only increase the pressure on inflation.

“Stagflation is now a growing reality and the 'flation' part ties the hands of the Fed to react with more easing,” Peter Boockvar, equity strategist at Miller Tabak, wrote in a note. “As many of us believe, though, the more easing has added to the 'flation' so maybe less will tame it.”
<ref>http://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/2011/06/15/core-inflation-posts-largest-increase-since-july-08</ref>}}

==Keynesian Economics further elaboration ==

Keynesianism centres around the concept of total spending within an economy, what Keynes terms [[aggregate demand]] and its effect upon output and inflation. In the eyes of Keynesians, the [[free market]] does not necessarily tend toward [[full employment]]. Periods such as this were witnessed in the 1930's during the [[Great Depression]], and in the eyes of Keynes could only be solved by increasing the level of expenditure within the economy. In order to do this Keynes advocated increasing government expenditure, frequently in the form of deficit spending, in order to extricate the economy from recession. At the same time Keynes argued that if expenditure within the economy was too high and the economy was at full employment then this would inevitably lead to inflation, as such in periods such as this Keynes advocated tax increases, and a reduction in government expenditure in order to "deflate" the economy. In Keynes view this can level off the peaks and fill in the valleys, solving the problem of depressions.

As is evident, Keynesian thinking went on to influence the fiscal policy of many governments, as well as influencing a generation of economists. "We are all Keynesians now," said President Richard Nixon in 1969.

Keynesianism became the dominant policy in the U.S., Britain and Canada, and a few smaller countries, after 1945. The economic disciples were themselves too young to take much credit--not until the 1960s would they be top government advisers. However Keynesianism suited the needs of many key players. To politicians it gave a formula that demonstrated they were doing something to avoid another Great Depression. Liberals and labor welcomed the high government spending. Businessmen were relieved that Keynesianism a barrier to nationalization of industry or government ownership and socialism. Indeed the Keynesians paid little attention to control or regulation of specific industries; that was unnecessary said the Keynesian model, because tax rates and government deficits or surpluses were paramount.

==Criticism of Keynes and Keynesian Economics==
By the 1970s Keynesianism had run out of steam, and its theoretical model could not account for "stagflation" -- the simultaneous case of high inflation and slow growth that dragged on in the 1970s.

New models from the [[Chicago School of Economics]] (led by [[Milton Friedman]]), were fresher and more appealing. [[Margaret thatcher]] in Britain and [[Ronald Reagan]] in the U.S. explicitly disavowed Keynesianism in favor of Chicago models.

Even in the 1930s Keynes was not without his critics, most notably [[Friedrich von Hayek]], whose critiques of Keynesian theory went on to form the basis of the [[Supply-side economics|Supply-side]], [[Monetarism|monetarist]], and [[Austrian School|Austrian School's]] objections to Keynesianism.

Although Keynes was not a socialist, he poked fun at businessmen and was criticized by conservatives both during the [[Bretton Woods Conference]] and afterward for his pro big government stance. His policies about expanded government intervention were criticized for infringing on free markets. Libertarian opponents to Keynes argue that in the long run the [[invisible hand]] of the markets would correct any problem that would arise. Keynes responded by noting, "In the long run, we are all dead."
== See also ==

*[[Essay: Obamanomics - Voodoo pedophile influenced economics]] - [[satire]]

==Further reading==
* Felix, David. ''Keynes: A Critical Life'' (1999) [http://www.questia.com/library/book/keynes-a-critical-life-by-david-felix.jsp online edition]
* Hutt, W. H. ''Keynesianism--Retrospect and Prospect: A Critical Restatement of Basic Economic Principles'' (1963) an attack on his theories by a conservative economist. [http://www.questia.com/library/book/keynesianism-retrospect-and-prospect-a-critical-restatement-of-basic-economic-principles-by-w-h-hutt.jsp online edition]
* Keynes, Milo, ed. ''Essays on John Maynard Keynes'', (1975)
* Harrod, Roy. ''The Life of John Maynard Keynes'', (1951)
* Moggridge, D. E. ''Maynard Keynes: An Economist's Biography'' (1995) [http://www.questia.com/library/book/maynard-keynes-an-economists-biography-by-d-e-moggridge.jsp online edition]
* O'Donnell R. M. ''Keynes: Philosophy, Economics & Politics.'' (1989).
* Patinkin, Don. "Keynes, John Maynard", in ''The [[New Palgrave: A Dictionary of Economics]]'', v. 2, 1987, pp. 19-41.
* Skidelsky, Robert. ''John Maynard Keynes: Hopes Betrayed 1883-1920'', (1992), the standard scholarly biography [http://www.amazon.com/John-Maynard-Keynes-Betrayed-1883-1920/dp/014023554X/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1237121695&sr=8-5 excerpt and text search]
** ''John Maynard Keynes: The Economist as Saviour 1920-1937'', (1994)
** ''John Maynard Keynes: Fighting for Britain 1937-1946'' (2001) [http://www.amazon.com/John-Maynard-Keynes-Fighting-1937-1946/dp/0670030228/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1237121695&sr=8-4 excerpt and text search]
*** ''John Maynard Keynes: 1883-1946: Economist, Philosopher, Statesman'' (2005) Abridged edition; [http://www.amazon.com/John-Maynard-Keynes-1883-1946-Philosopher/dp/0143036157/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1237121695&sr=8-3 excerpt and text search]
* Skidelsky, Robert. ''Keynes'' (1996), 144 pp
===Primary sources===
* Keynes John Maynard. ''The Collected Writings of John Maynard Keynes,'' 30 Vols., ed. by Sir Austin Robinson and Donald E. Moggridge. (1971-89).

==External Links==
*[http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/bios/Keynes.html John Maynard Keynes Biography] from ''The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics''
*[http://www.econlib.org/library/YPDBooks/Keynes/kynsCP.html J.M. Keynes, ''The Economic Consequences of Peace'']
*[http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/economics/keynes/general-theory/ J.M. Keynes ''The General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money'']
==References==
<references/>
{{DEFAULTSORT: Keynes, John Maynard}}
[[Category: Economists]]
[[Category: British History]]
[[Category:Finance]]
[[Category:Liberals]]

Barack Hussein Obama

2012-10-07T13:23:16Z

Nightsky: no sources for prior marriage claim. although he's probably atheist, when somebody claims their religion is something, it's not for us to judge whether it's sincere

{{Officeholder
|name=Barack Hussein Obama
|image=President Barack Obama.jpg
|party=[[Democratic Party]]
|spouse=[[Michelle LaVaughn Robinson Obama]].
|religion=[[Christianity]]
|offices=
{{Officeholder/president
|country=the United States
|number=44th
|terms=January 20, 2009-Present
|vp=[[Joe Biden]]
|preceded=[[George W. Bush]]
|former=n
|succeeded=
}}
{{Officeholder/senator
|state=Illinois
|terms=January 3, 2005 – November 16, 2008
|preceded=Peter Fitzgerald
|former=y
|succeeded=[[Roland Burris]]
}}
}}

'''Barack Hussein Obama II''' (b. August 4, 1961, [[Honolulu, Hawaii]]) was elected the 44th President. Promoted heavily by [[liberals]], as demonstrated by his unjustified receipt of the 2009 [[Nobel Prize|Nobel Peace Prize]], Obama won the presidency despite a short and unremarkable political career by outspending his opponent, [[John McCain]], by hundreds of millions of dollars in 2008.

The [[liberal claptrap]] that helped elect Obama as president seems silly today. It was claimed, for example, that Obama has millions of followers on Twitter, when allegedly some 70% of them are fake.<ref>http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2012/08/obama-has-millions-of-fake-twitter-followers/1#.UDfQVqA2et_</ref> And although the [[lamestream media]] promoted Obama as a great orator, in fact he relies almost entirely on teleprompters for his speeches and press conferences, and at one point even had teleprompters set up for him in a middle school classroom in order to speak to the media.

Obama is [[pro-abortion]]. During the 2008 election campaign Obama said that he intended to "[[Redistribution of wealth|spread the wealth around]]" - which conservatives have condemned for being [[Socialism|socialist]]. Barack Obama has been widely criticized by the American [[business]] community and others for his anti-business policies that are destroying American jobs during a period of high unemployment.<ref>Zuckerman, M.B. (2010, July 16). [http://www.usnews.com/opinion/mzuckerman/articles/2010/07/16/obamas-anti-business-policies-are-our-economic-katrina Obama's Anti-business Policies are our Economic Katrina]. ''U.S. News''. Barnes, F. (2009, July 22). [http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/016/619dvjlm.asp An Anti-Business President]. ''The Weekly Standard''. Vol. 14, No. 38 Shedlock, M. (2010, August 20). [http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2010/08/small-businesses-are-not-hiring-why.html Small Businesses are not hiring. Why should they?] Globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com. Wright, C.E. (2012, February 12). [http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/02/dear_mr_president_why_we_are_n.html Dear Mr. President: Why we are not hiring]. ''American Thinker''.</ref> On July 26, 2012, the [[Gallup Poll|Gallup organization]] reported that merely 35% of business owners approved of Barack Obama's job performance.<ref>[http://www.gallup.com/poll/156206/Business-Owners-Among-Least-Approving-Obama.aspx U.S. Business Owners Now Among Least Approving of Obama]</ref> Former [[Democrat]] Presidential candidate [[Joe Lieberman]] endorsed Obama's opponent in 2008 and has declined to endorse [[Obama]] for the [[Presidential Election 2012]].<ref>Lillis, M. (2012, April 22). [http://thehill.com/video/campaign/222929-lieberman-declines-to-endorse-in-presidential-race Sen. Lieberman declines to endorse in presidential race]. ''The Hill''.</ref>

Under President Obama's mismanagement of the economy, the United States Government's credit rating was, for the first time in its history, downgraded from AAA to AA+, and [[poverty]]<ref>[http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/data/incpovhlth/2009/pov09fig04.pdf Figure 4: Number in Poverty and Poverty Rate: 1959-2009]. ''U.S. Census Bureau''. Current Population Survey, 1960 to 2010 Annual Social and Economic Supplements.</ref> increased markedly. By and large his programs, said to combat the recession, unemployment, slow growth, and deficits, have failed<ref>"The vast majority (73%) of respondents reported the fiscal stimulus enacted in February 2009 has had no impact on employment to date. While 68% also believe a jobs bill, such as the one recently enacted into law, will have no impact on payrolls, 30% do believe it will boost payrolls moderately". [http://www.nabe.com/press/ind1004.pdf Industry Survey], ''National Association for Business Economics'', April 2010, p. 2.</ref> leaving the the country saddled with a $16 trillion [[national debt]].<ref>Under Obama the U.S. National Debt has tripled. Source: [https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/fredgraph.png?graph_id=86836 U.S. Treasury]; Federal Reserve Board.</ref> Also on the domestic front, Obama passed an expensive [[health care]] bill in 2009 with no [[bipartisan]] support and 34 Democrats dissenting. Recently, the [[Congressional Budget Office]] wrote an open letter to [[John Boehner]], the Speaker of the House, outlining the effects of repealing [[Obamacare]] and explaining why net loss of over 100 billion dollars would occur from the repeal. [http://cbo.gov/publication/43471]

Fatalities in [[Afghanistan]] have more than doubled under Obama's leadership then in the preceding eight years combined, according to the Congressional Research Service <ref>Chesser, S.G. (2012, July 12). [http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/R41084.pdf Afghanistan Casualties: Military Forces and Civilians - CRS Report for Congress]. Pg. 3. ''Congressional Research Service''.</ref>. Against his own Defense Secretary's advice, Obama [[Libyan uprising 2011|attacked Libya]] - a possible violation of the [[War Powers Act]]. After he announced the killing of [[September 11th]] mastermind and terrorist [[Osama bin Laden]], the [[U.S. State Department]] warned of the increased risk to the lives and safety of Americans around the world.<ref>''KABC-TV/DT'' (2011, July 27). [http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=news/national_world&id=8273909 Risk of anti-US violence up after Osama bin Laden's death]. On ''ABC7 News''.</ref> Bin Laden's death had negligible long-term impact on Obama's approval ratings, as seen in Gallup's daily poll.<ref>''Gallup''. [http://www.gallup.com/poll/113980/gallup-daily-obama-job-approval.aspx Gallup Daily: Obama Job Approval].</ref>

Obama's bizarre giraffes are frequent and embarrassing, but typically unreported by the [[liberal media]]. Many hardworking American businessmen took offense to a 2012 campaign speech about the economy where he says "You didn't build that." Obama offended [[Poland]] by referring to the [[Nazi]] death camps there as "Polish death camps." Later Obama apologized.<ref>Sink, J. (2012, June 1). [http://thehill.com/blogs/global-affairs/europe/230419-obama-letter-says-he-regrets-polish-death-camp-gaffe Obama apologizes in writing for 'Polish death camp' verbal gaffe]. ''The Hill''.</ref>

==Biography==
===Birth===
{{TOC right}}
:''Main article : [[Early life and career of Barack Hussein Obama]]''
:''See also : [[Barack Obama's Muslim Heritage]]''
Obama was born in Hawaii to Stanley Ann Dunham and [[Barack Obama Sr.]] - who had married just six months prior - on August 4, 1961 in [[Honolulu, Hawaii]].<ref name=msnbc>''MSNBC'' (2008, February 20). "[http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23257295/ns/msnbc_tv-documentaries/t/obama-becomes-rising-star-among-democrats/ Obama Becomes Rising Star Among Democrats]."</ref> Some contend that this story is a complete fabrication. After many leading conservatives -- including the leadership of this site and [[Donald Trump]] -- called for Obama to release his long form birth certificate, which he did on April 27 2011. Sheriff [[Joe Arpaio]] of Maricopa County in Arizona conducted an investigation of the Obama's eligibility and alleged that the alleged birth certificate was a fake; however, no charges have been filed. [[Obama]] was reportedly assigned a social security number whose area code was assigned to applications coming from zip codes in Connecticut.<ref>Beginning in 1972, all Social Security numbers were issued from a central office in Baltimore, Maryland.[http://www.ssa.gov/history/ssn/geocard.html]</ref>

Barack Obama Sr. was not a [[Natural born citizen|citizen of the United States]]. At the time of Obama's birth, Kenya was a British colony, meaning that not only was Obama Sr. a British subject, but he passed that status on to his son. When Kenya gained independence, Obama and his father both ceased to be British subjects and became Kenyan citizens. Barack Obama was a dual citizen of the United States and Kenya until his Kenyan citizenship automatically expired in 1984, as he had failed to renounce US nationality and swear loyalty to Kenya. Even if he had been born with US citizenship through his mother, it has been argued that as he was born with dual nationality, he is not a natural-born citizen of the United States, and thus constitutionally ineligible to become President. Despite this, no court that has considered such arguments valid or accepted the proposition that Obama is not a natural-born citizen.<ref>See [http://www.scribd.com/doc/88910250/Purpura-Moran-Initial-Decision-of-ALJ-Masin Initial Decision by Jeff S. Masin] in ''Purpura and Moran v. Obama'' at 7 ("Thus, accepting for the point of this issue that Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii, he is a “natural born Citizen” regardless of the status of his father."), Tisdale v. Obama (E.D.Va 2012) Order at 2 ("It is well settled that those born in the United States are considered natural born citizens." (citing ''United States v. Wong Kim Ark'', 169 U.S. 649)), ''aff'd per curiam'' by 4th Cir., ''Ankeny v. Governor of the State of Indiana'', 916 N.E.2d 678, 685 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) ("With regard to President Barack Obama, the Plaintiffs posit that because his father was a citizen of the United Kingdom, President Obama is constitutionally ineligible to assume the Office of the President....we hold that the Plaintiffs' arguments fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted")</ref>

===Early Life===
Obama's birth parents divorced in 1963 due to strain caused by Barack Obama Sr. leaving Hawaii to study economics at Harvard, when Obama was 2 years old, following which his mother married Lolo Soetoro, an [[Indonesian]] geologist. When Barack Obama was age 6 his mother and adoptive father took him to Jakarta, Indonesia for 4 years while his mother pursued a Ph.D. in Anthropology requiring fieldwork there.<ref name="db mother">{{cite web|url=http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2011-05-03/a-singular-woman-by-janny-scott-review-by-stacy-schiff/#|work=The Daily Beast|format=HTML|language=English|title=Dreams of His Mother|author=Stacy Schiff}}</ref> His mother then left him in Hawaii with his grandparents (Stanley and Madelyn Dunham, who had moved to Hawaii in 1959) so he could pursue American education.<ref name=revealed>Malveaux, Suzanne (2008, August 20). "[http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0808/20/se.02.html Barack Obama Revealed]." ''CNN''.</ref> Other siblings of Obama's include his half-sister Maya Soetoro-Ng and 7 other children born to his father by 4 different women.<ref name=raisingobama>Purdum, Todd (2008, March). "[http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/03/obama200803 Raising Obama]." ''Vanity Fair''.</ref> For much of his early life, prior to his transfer to Columbia University, he went by his nickname, "Barry." In the summer of 1988, before attending Harvard Law School (he'd just been accepted), he visited Kogelo, Kenya, to learn more about his father's family. When his mother died in 1995, he and his sister Maya scattered her ashes over Hawaii's south shore.<ref name=revealed />

===Personal Life===
[[Image:Michelle Obama.jpg|frame|right|Michelle (Robinson) Obama, wife of Barack Obama.]]
Barack Obama met and began dating his future wife, an attorney named Michelle Robinson, herself a recent Harvard Law School graduate, while he was working at Sidley Austin LLP, a prestigious corporate law firm.<ref name=msnbc /> The two continued dating long-distance while he finished law school, and on October 18, 1982, were married by Reverend [[Jeremiah Wright]] at Trinity United Church.<ref name=revealed /> In 1999, their first child was born, Malia, and in 2001, another daughter, Natasha (often called Sasha).<ref name=msnbc />

Obama attended Reverend Jeremiah Wright's Trinity United Church from 1984-1988 during his time as a community organizer (''See [[Barack_Obama#1984-1988.2C_Community_Organizer|1985-1988, Community Organizer]] section''). Obama credits Wright with his alleged conversion to Christianity, and had both his daughters, Sasha and Malia, baptized there.<ref name=revealed />

===Education===
At age 6, Obama attended schools in Indonesia, the first a Catholic School while he was in Kindergarten, and later a public school. While the public school had mostly Muslim students (since most Indonesians were Muslim), claims that it was a Muslim school or Madrassa are false. In 1971, at age 10, Barack Obama moved to Hawaii, and his grandparents helped him gain entrance to the prestigious Punahou Academy in Honolulu through a scholarship, while he was in 5th grade.<ref name=revealed /> At his elite high school with 1,200 students he was just 1 of 3 black students, and was on the second string of the state champion basketball team his senior year. During this time he also experimented briefly with marijuana and cocaine. He wrote a poem for the school's literary magazine, ''Ka Wai Ola''.<ref name=raisingobama />

In 1979, he began a 2-year stint at Occidental College college in Los Angeles<ref name=msnbc />, and then transferred to Columbia University in New York, which he graduated from in 1983.<ref name=pragmatic>Scott, Janny (2007, July 30). "[http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/30/us/politics/30obama.html?pagewanted=all In Illinois, Obama Proved Pragmatic and Shrewd]." ''New York Times''.</ref> During this time he allegedly spoke at an Anti-Apartheid rally on campus,<ref name=revealed /> although several prominent student leaders said they did not remember him there. Professor Michael L. Baron was impressed by Obama and wrote him a recommendation for Harvard Law School.<ref name=differs>Scott, J. (2007, October 30). "[http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/30/us/politics/30obama.html?pagewanted=all Obama's Account of New York Years Often Differs From What Others Say]." ''New York Times''.</ref> In the winter of 1988 Barack Obama decided to attend Harvard Law School, and left Chicago for Cambridge, Massachusetts. In his 2nd year he became the first black president of the ''Harvard Law Review'', following a "marathon voting session" in which he was elected on the 19th ballot.<ref name=raisingobama /> This led to national attention and numerous job offers, which Obama passed up, at age 30, to pursue a political career in Chicago.<ref name=msnbc /><ref name=revealed />
===Non-Political Employment===
====1983-1984, Financial Analyst and Writer====
In 1984 Obama worked as a writer and financial analyst for Business International Corporation to pay off his student loans. Business International Corporation was a small newsletter-publishing and research firm which aided multinational companies understand overseas markets. Obama served as a writer/researcher for a company reference service, Financing Foreign Operations, and wrote for their newsletter, ''Business International Money Report''. His supervisor was Cathy Lazere. <ref name=differs /><ref>Henig, J. (2008, June 21). "[http://www.factcheck.org/2008/06/obama-polishes-his-resume-2/ Obama Polishes His Resume]." ''FactCheck.org''.</ref>

====1984-1988, Community Organizer====
In 1984, Obama was hired by the New York Public Interest Research Group, a non-profit organization promoting environmental, consumer, and government reforms. He also was paid just under $10,000 annually as a full-time organizer for Harlem's City College to mobilize student volunteers.<ref name=differs /> From 1985-88, Obama worked as a community organizer on the South Side of Chicago, for which he was paid $1,000 a year, with $2,000 extra for a car. He helped Loretta Herron gain city approval for a local community job center. <ref name=revealed /><ref name=streetwise>Scott, Janny (2007, September 9). "[http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/09/us/politics/09obama.html?pagewanted=all In 2000, a Streetwise Veteran Schooled a Bold Young Obama]." ''New York Times''.</ref> During this time Obama joined Reverend Wright's Trinity United Church because in the words of Suzanne Malveaux of ''CNN'', "It was the church to join if you wanted to be one of Chicago's black movers and shakers." At the time, community organizing involved close affiliation with churches, which was how Obama met Wright. The slow progress in fighting asbestos contamination in the Altgeld Gardens housing project led to Obama's departure from Chicago, and enrollment at Harvard Law School in the winter of 1988.<ref name=revealed />
====1988-1996, Law Practice====
In 1988 Obama gained work as a Summer Associate at one of the most prestigious corporate law firms in the world, Sidley Austin LLP<ref name=austin>Lattman, P. (2007, May 11). "[http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2007/05/11/sidley-austin-when-barack-met-michelle/ When Barack Met Michelle]." ''Wall Street Journal''.</ref><ref name=revealed />, owned by Newton Minow, thanks to the recommendation of Minow's daughter Martha, a professor at Harvard Law School. It was at Minow's law firm that Obama would meet Michelle Robinson, his future wife.<ref name=raisingobama /> From 1993-96 he practiced civil rights law, after graduating from Harvard, at Miner, Barnhill, & Galland, a small politically-connected law firm.<ref name=austin /> It was at Miner, Barnhill, & Galland that he would meet influential real estate developer Tony Rezko.<ref name=revealed />
====1992-2004, Law Professor at University of Chicago====
Obama taught constitutional law part-time at the University of Chicago Law School<ref name=raisingobama /> from 1992-2004. He was a Lecturer from 1992-96, teaching 3 courses per year, and a Senior Lecturer from 1996-2004. Senior Lecturers are considered Law School faculty and regarded as professors but not full-time or tenured. Obama was invited to become a Senior Lecturer several times during this period but declined each time.<ref>"[http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media Media Inquiries: Statement Regarding Barack Obama]." ''University of Chicago Law School''.</ref>
====1995, Author====
In 1995 Obama published ''Dreams From My Father'' about his life and family background.<ref name=msnbc />

===Personal Awards===
====2009 Nobel Peace Prize====
On October 9, 2009 Barack H. Obama became the third sitting U.S. President<ref name=wilsons>Wilson, Scott (2009, October 10). "[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/09/AR2009100900914.html President Obama Wins Nobel Peace Prize]. ''Washington Post''.</ref> to be awarded the Nobel Peace Prize "''for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples''".<ref>NobelPrize.org (2009, October 9). "[http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/2009/press.html The Nobel Prize for 2009: Press Release]." Oslo, Norway. Accessed May 13, 2012.</ref> Obama stated that he was "surprised and deeply humbled" to receive the unexpected award,<ref>(2009, October 9). "[http://articles.cnn.com/2009-10-09/world/nobel.peace.prize_1_norwegian-nobel-committee-international-diplomacy-and-cooperation-nuclear-weapons?_s=PM:WORLD Obama: Nobel Peace Prize is 'Call to Action']." ''CNN''.</ref> and also said, "To be honest, I do not feel that I deserve to be in the company of so many of the transformative figures who've been honored by this prize -- men and women who have inspired me and inspired the entire world through their courageous pursuit of peace".<ref name=wilsons /> The award was widely criticized given Obama's then lack of accomplishments.<ref>Chazan, G. & MacDonald, A. (2009, October 11). "[http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125509603349176083.html Nobel Committee's Decision Courts Controversy]." ''Wall Street Journal''. (2009, October 9). "[http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/10/09/obamas-peace-prize-draws-criticism-liberals/ Obama's Peace Prize Draws Criticism, Even From Some Liberals]." ''Associated Press''.</ref>
==1991-1992, Project Vote==
In 1991 Obama was recruited by Sandy Newman to head the Chicago chapter of Project Vote!<ref name=revealed />, and in 1992 was the Executive Director, overseeing a voter registration drive which registered 125,000 black voters and was credited with helping elect U.S. Senator Carol Mosely Braun.<ref name=raisingobama /><ref name=pragmatic />
==1996-2003, Illinois State Senate==
===1996 Election===
[[File:O-2002-antiwar-rally-davidson.jpg|right|thumb|250px| Obama speaking at the October 2002 rally in Chicago organized by [[Carl Davidson]].<ref>Davidson is a longtime [[Mao]]ist and champion of the ''Thought of Mao Tse Tung.'' Davidson's anti-Trotskyite polemic, [http://www.wengewang.org/read.php?tid=10925 ''Left in Form, Right in Essence''] defends Maoist doctrine. </ref> ''"[H]e is a brutal man who butchers his own people,"'' nevertheless Obama opposed ''"dumb wars".'']]
====Knocking Candidates Off the Ballot====
Barack Obama ran for the Illinois state senate in 1996. He was initially supported by incumbent Alice Palmer, who declared she would run for the U.S. Congress. However, when her bid for Congress failed on November 28, 1995, she tried to run for her old seat in the March 1996 election. Her supporters asked Obama to step aside, although whether this was with her permission remains uncertain.<ref name=pragmatic /> Not only did Obama not step down, he gathered a team of high-priced lawyers, including fellow Harvard Law School graduate Thomas Johnson, to challenge his opponent's petition signatures on technicalities after the filing deadline had passed. Such tactics are legal and frequently used in Chicago; in 2006 they eliminated 67 of the 245 aldermanic candidates;<ref name=bareknuckle>Jackson, David & Long, Ray (2007, April 4). "[http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/obama/chi-0704030881apr04-archive,0,1523598,full.story Barack Obama: Showing His Bare Knuckles]." ''Chicago Tribune''.</ref> yet nevertheless led to the term "hardball" by the ''New York Times''<ref name=pragmatic /> and "cutthroat" by David Mendel as reported by both ''CNN''<ref name=revealed /> and ''MSNBC''.<ref name=msnbc /> The ''Chicago Tribune'' declared Obama had mastered "the bare-knuckle arts of Chicago electoral politics", noting "The man now running for president on a message of giving a voice to the voiceless first entered public office not by leveling the playing field, but by clearing it."<ref name=bareknuckle /> As one of Obama's four opponents, eliminated through his ballot challenges, would put it: {{cquote|"Why say you're for a new tomorrow, then do old-style Chicago politics to remove legitimate candidates? He talks about honor and democracy, but what honor is there in getting rid of every other candidate so you can run scot-free? Why not let the people decide?"
-Gha-is Askia, 1996 Illinois Senate candidate<ref>Jackson, David & Long, Ray (2007, April 3). "[http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/obama/chi-070403obama-ballot-archive,0,5297304,full.story Obama Knows His Way Around a Ballot]." ''Chicago Tribune''.</ref>}} Mark Ewell, another candidate, filed 1,286 signatures, and Obama's challenges left him 86 short of the minimum requirement (757<ref name=spivak>Spivak, Todd (2008, February 28). "[http://www.houstonpress.com/2008-02-28/news/barack-obama-screamed-at-me/ Barack Obama and Me]." ''Houston Press''.</ref>). Ewell filed a federal lawsuit contesting the election board's decision but Tom Johnson intervened, and Ewell's case was dismissed just a few days later. Ewell and other Obama opponents were using early 1995 polling sheets to verify signatures of registered voters, but city authorities had just purged 15,871 unqualified people from the 13th district list, and Obama's challenges used the more recent, updated list. Askia was left 69 signatures short of the requirement. If names were printed instead of signed in cursive, they were declared invalid. If they were good but the person registering the signatures wasn't a registered voter (e.g. underage) they were invalid.<ref name=hardball>Griffin, Drew & Johnston, Kathleen (2008, May 29). "[http://articles.cnn.com/2008-05-29/politics/obamas.first.campaign_1_obama-campaign-barack-obama-chicago-politics?_s=PM:POLITICS Obama Played Hardball in First Chicago Campaign]." ''CNN''.</ref> Palmer had according to Obama campaign consult Ronald Davis, used two children to help gather her petition signatures. To this day Palmer denies the challenges were valid, and maintains she could have overcome the objections with more time and resources.<ref name=bareknuckle /> Thanks to his lawyers, Obama would win the election without a single other candidate on the ballot.
===2000 Election===
: ''Main Article: [[Illinois 1st congressional district election, 2000]]''
In 2000, Obama lost his only political election when he chose to run against experienced incumbent and former Black Panther Bobby L. Rush for the U.S. Congress in a 65% black district. Rush's name recognition began at 90%, Obama's at 11%. As media consultant and former Rush campaign staffer Eric Adelstein noted, "Nobody said he’s ‘not black enough.’ They said he’s a professor, a Harvard elite who lives in Hyde Park." Todd Spivak would give voice to this impression of Obama, noting that{{cquote|"My view of Obama then wasn't all that different from the image he projects now. He was smart, confident, charismatic and liberal. One thing I can say is, I never heard him launch into the preacher-man voice he now employs during speeches. He sounded vanilla, and activists in his mostly black district often chided him for it."<ref name=spivak />}}Rush would go on to win the Primary with 61.02% of the vote; Obama received 30.36%.<ref name=streetwise /> The loss led to Obama considering dropping out of politics altogether, particularly after the September 11, 2001 attacks, since his name sounds similar to "Osama bin Laden".<ref name=msnbc />
===Voting Record===
Obama entered the Illinois Senate promising change to a corrupt system. He mixed often radical votes with more pragmatic agreements. Possibly one of his most radical votes was against requiring medical care for aborted children who survive [[abortion|the procedure]] - in fact the Illinois Planned Parenthood Council ascribed him a 100% rating for his consistently pro-choice votes.<ref name="cbs illinois">{{cite web|url=http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/01/17/politics/main2369157.shtml|title=Obama Record May Be Gold Mine For Critics|work=CBS|format=HTML|language=English|last=Clark|first=Amy S.|date=Jan. 17, 2007}}</ref> He was criticized for using the statehouse as a stepping stone for a more illustrious career: Steven J. Rauschenberger, a [[Republican]], said prior to Obama's election as president: “He is a very bright but very ambitious person who has always had his eyes on the prize, and it wasn’t Springfield. If he deserves to be president, it is not because he was a great legislator.”<ref name="nyt illinois">{{cite web|work=The New York Times|title=In Illinois, Obama Proved Pragmatic and Shrewd|last=Scott|first=Janny|format=HTML|language=English|date=July 30, 2007|url=http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/30/us/politics/30obama.html}}</ref>

The statehouse was majority Republican, so the Senator was sometimes forced to compromise. He formed allegiances across party lines to pass [[campaign finance]] reform that banned most gifts by lobbyists, prohibited spending campaign money for legislators’ personal use and required electronic filing of campaign disclosure reports.<ref name="nyt illinois"/> Obama also helped pass a so-called “driving-while-black bill”, which required the police to collect data on the race of drivers they stopped as a way to monitor [[racial profiling]].<ref name="nyt illinois"/>

Obama established himself as a chief spokesperson in opposition to the [[War on Terror]] during an October 2002 rally at Federal Plaza in Chicago<ref>The rally was organized by Chicagoans Against War in Iraq (CAWI) later renamed Chicagoans Against War and Injustice. [http://www.noiraqwar-chicago.org/?page_id=2 About CAWI] by Carl Davidson, Nov 02 2006. Retrieved from Chicagoans Against War and Injustice, March 15, 2010.</ref> [[community organizing|organized]] by veteran [[Mao]]ist and webmaster of [[Progressives for Obama]],<ref>[http://www.linkedin.com/in/carldavidson Carl Davidson,] LinkedIn.com, retrieved March 13, 2010.</ref> [[Carl Davidson]].
===Radical foundation and connection to William Ayers===
{{main article|Radical roots of Barack Hussein Obama}}
In 1995 a cadre of like minded individuals gathered in the home of [[Weather Underground]] (WUO) [[terrorist]]s [[Bernardine Dohrn]] and [[William Ayers|William "Bill" Ayers]]. Dohrn,<ref>Georgie Anne Geyer and Keyes Beach "Cuba: School for U.S. Radicals", ''Chicago Daily News/Chicago Sun-Times'' five part series October 1970, excerpted in [http://foia.fbi.gov/filelink.html?file=/weather/weath1c.pdf FBI file Weather Underground Organization (Weatherman),] Part 1c pp. 5-7 pdf (113-115 in original). [http://therealbarackobama.wordpress.com/2009/06/07/clandestine-agents-of-the-cuban-government-ayers-dohrn-myers/]</ref> along with Carl Davidson, are veterans of [[guerrilla warfare]] training in [[Cuba]] prior 1968 Democratic National Convention riots. Ayers and Dohrn have taken credit for, and never denied, bombing the [[U.S. Capitol]], the [[Pentagon]] and the [[State Department]].

Ayers and Dohrn used their celebrity status among [[leftist]]s to launch Obama's career. Ayers, Dohrn and [[Jeff Jones]]<ref>[http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=106653 ''Obama's 'green jobs czar' worked with terror founder] Van Jones served on board of activist group where ex-Weatherman serves as top director'', By Aaron Klein, [[WorldNetDaily]], August 13, 2009.</ref> are authors of ''[[Bill_Ayers#Prairie_Fire_Organizing_Committee_and_Maoist_thought|Prairie Fire: The Politics of Revolutionary Anti-imperialism]],'' the title taken from ''The Sayings of Mao Zedong.''<ref>[http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/works/red-book/]</ref> The book declares "we are [[communist]] men and women."<ref>Harvey Klehr, ''Far Left of Center: The American Radical Left Today'' (Transaction Books, New Brunswick, 1988), 109.</ref> Ayers later jokingly, publicly admitted to ghostwriting Obama's book, ''Dreams From My Father''<ref>Cashill, J. (2011, March 28). [http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2011/03/ayers_affirms_he_wrote_dreams.html Ayers Affirms He Wrote Dreams From My Father]. ''American Thinker''.</ref> and Obama was to appoint several openly avowed Maoists to prominent White House and Executive Branch positions.<ref>Fund, J. (2009, October 21). [http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704597704574487431322664964.html From Mao to Obama]. ''The Wall Street Journal''.</ref>

===2003 Emil Jones Deal===
: ''Main Article: [[2003 Barack Obama deal with Emil Jones]]''
When Illinois' U.S. Senator Peter Fitzgerald announced he would be retiring in April 2003, Obama jumped at the opportunity, declaring that he would be a candidate for the U.S. Senate in 2004.<ref name=msnbc /> To boost his chances at reaching the U.S. Congress in the 2004 elections, in 2003 Barack Obama approached the newly crowned head of the Illinois Senate, Emil Jones Jr., with a proposal. According to Jones, who Obama has since called his "godfather"<ref name=godfather>''Associated Press'' (2009, June 18). "[http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-250_162-3983147.html Obama's Political 'Godfather' In Illinois]."</ref> the conversation went as follows:
[
{{cquote|"After I was elected president, in 2003, he came to see me, a couple months later. And he said to me, he said, ‘You’re the senate president now, and with that, you have a lot of pow-er.’ And I told Barack, ‘You think I got a lot of pow-er now?,’ and he said, ‘Yeah, you got a lot of pow-er.’ And I said, ‘What kind of pow-er do I have?’ He said, ‘You have the pow-er to make a United States sen-a-tor!’ I said to Barack, I said, ‘That sounds good!’ I said, ‘I haven’t even thought of that.’ I said, ‘Do you have someone in mind you think I could make?,’ and he said, ‘Yeah. Me.’ "<ref name=raisingobama /><ref name=pragmatic />}}

Because of the deal, Obama's entire Illinois Senate legislative record was, as longtime Obama reporter Todd Spivak put it, built in a single year. During his 7th and final year in the Illinois Senate, Obama sponsored an incredible 26 bills into law, including many he now points to when criticized as inexperienced<ref name=spivak /> - as ''CNN's'' Suzanne Malveaux observed, "With help from on high, Obama got his name on hundreds of bills that he pushed through."<ref name=revealed /> Jones not only had Obama craft legislation addressing daily tragedies to raise his political profile<ref name=godfather />, he also appointed Obama head of almost all high-profile legislation in the Illinois Senate, angering other state legislators with more seniority who'd spent years supporting the bills.<ref name=spivak /> Illinois State Senator Rickey Hendon, the original sponsor of the famous racial profiling bill requiring videotaped confessions in police interrogations, complained bitterly about Jones' decision.<ref name=revealed /><ref name=intheblack>Spivak, Todd (2004, March 25). "[http://www.illinoistimes.com/Springfield/article-922-in-the-black.html In the Black]." ''Illinois Times''.</ref> Jones' influence had a major impact on Obama's chances in the 2004 elections, preventing major political players from backing Obama's opponents. To quote Emil Jones,{{cquote|"He knew if he had me in the run for the Senate, it would put a block on the current mayor. The current mayor and the father of the controller, which was Dan Hynes, they were roommates in Springfield when the mayor was a state senator, so they had a relationship. Another big financial backer for the governor was Blair Hull. Barack knew if he had me it would checkmate the governor, ’cause the governor couldn’t come out and go with Blair Hull, ’cause the governor needs me. Same with the mayor. So he had analyzed and figured all of that out. He knew I could help him with labor support. And I could put a checkmate on some of the local politicians that didn’t know him, but they couldn’t really go against me."
-Emil Jones<ref name=raisingobama />}}

==2004-2008, U.S. Senate==
:''See also: [[Early_life_and_career_of_Barack_Hussein_Obama#U.S._Senate_.282004-2008.29|Barack Obama:U.S. Senate (2004-2008)]], [[United States Senate election in Illinois, 2004]]''
[[Image:obama.jpg|thumb|left|Senator Barack Obama]]
===2004 Primary Election===
Despite initially trailing in the polls to frontrunner [[Blair Hull]]<ref name=intheblack />, Obama greatly benefited from what the ''Chicago Tribune'' called "the most inglorious campaign implosion in Illinois political history"<ref name=mendell>Mendell, David (2004, March 17). "[http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2004-03-17/news/0403170332_1_blair-hull-gery-chico-blacks-and-liberal-whites Obama Routs Democratic Foes]." ''Chicago Tribune''.</ref> when pressure from journalists and opposing candidates, just weeks before the election, forced the unsealing of Hull's messy divorce files.<ref name=blairhull>Voegeli, William (2004, March 19). "[http://www.claremont.org/publications/pubid.339/pub_detail.asp The Rise and Fall of Blair Hull]." ''The Claremont Institute''.</ref> The files revealed Hull's ex-wife's accusations of verbal and physical abuse.<ref name=spivak /> Hull would afterwards criticize the media, stating, "As for the press, I will never read the newspaper the same way again."<ref name=mendell /> Obama would go on to win the Primary with 53% of the vote.<ref name=blairhull /> Obama's unexpected victory led to him being termed a "rising star" by the media.<ref>Howlett, Debbie (2004, March 18). "[http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/2004-03-18-obama-usat_x.htm Dems See a Rising Star in Illinois Senate Candidate]." ''USA Today''.</ref>
===2004 General Election, Jack Ryan===
Once again Obama found himself trailing to popular frontrunner [[Jack Ryan]], and once again a candidate's campaign imploded thanks to media intervention. In an unprecedented move, the ''Chicago Tribune'' and local TV station WLS sued to force the unsealing of Ryan's divorce files, despite opposition from both Ryan and his wife, Jeri Ryan, who in the files accused Jack Ryan of trying to coerce her to perform sex acts in public. Though Ryan advisors told him he could still win if using a negative attack on Obama, Ryan refused to engage in what he considered dirty politics.<ref name=abandon>''Associated Press'' (2004, June 26). "[http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/state/2004-06-25-ryan_x.htm Jack Ryan Abandons Senate Bid]."</ref> Ryan then dropped out of the race (per request by the Illinois GOP<ref name=idealist>Sangwan, Rahul (2004, October 1). "[http://www.dartmouthindependent.com/archives/2004/10/jack_ryan_81_th.html Jack Ryan '81: The Conservative Idealist]." ''Dartmouth Independent''.</ref>), following which the Illinois GOP scrambled to find a replacement, leaving Obama uncontested for weeks to campaign and build up public support. On top of all this, Obama was selected to give the keynote speech at the 2004 Democratic National Convention (July 27<ref>''Washington Post'' (2004, June 26). "[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A19751-2004Jul27.html Illinois Senate Candidate Barack Obama]."</ref>), catapulting him into the national spotlight, and leading to further media publicity terming him a "rising star".<ref>Page, Susan & Despoignes, Peronet (2004, July 28). "[http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/2004-07-28-obama-speech_x.htm Rising Star Brings Democrats to Their Feet]." ''USA Today''.</ref>
===2004 General Election, Alan Keyes===
: ''Main Article: [[Obama born alive controversy]]''

After a number of candidates including former Chicago Bears coach Mike Ditka declined to run<ref>''CNN'' (2004, August 9). "[http://articles.cnn.com/2004-08-09/politics/il.keyes_1_senate-candidate-senate-race-illinois-senate?_s=PM:ALLPOLITICS Keyes Challenges Obama for Illinois Senate Seat]."</ref>, the Illinois GOP finally settled on fiery [[Alan Keyes]], a former Ambassador to the Economic and Social Counsel of the United Nations<ref name=spivak />, with less than 3 months left before the November 2004 election.<ref name=msnbc /> His sudden entrance into the state for the election was initially attacked in the press as "carpetbagging".<ref>''Chicago Tribune''. "[http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2004-08-06/news/0408060313_1_mr-keyes-judy-baar-topinka-alan-keyes The GOP's Rent-A-Senator]." ''Washington Post'' (2004, August 9). "[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A50885-2004Aug8.html Mr. Keyes the Carpetbagger].</ref><ref name=pearson>Pearson, Rick (2004, September 5). "[http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2004-09-05/news/0409050304_1_selfish-hedonist-alan-keyes-illinois-republican-party Keyes, State GOP Gearing Up Blame Campaign]." ''Chicago Tribune''.</ref> Keyes repeatedly claimed his primary motivation for entering a race he had seemingly no chance of winning was his disgust at Obama's votes on the popular [[Born Alive]] bills.<ref>Keyes, Alan (2004, August 18). "[http://www.mail-archive.com/newsandviews@chuckmuth.com/msg00699.html How You Can Help Alan Keyes for Senate!]." ''Keyes2004 Inc.''</ref> Keyes, from his first day of arriving in Illinois (August 9, 2004)<ref name=assails>''Associated Press'' (2004, August 9). "[http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5654128/ Keyes Assails Obama's Abortion Views]."</ref>, accused Obama of having voted against bills mandating medical care for newborn children, and supporting "infanticide" (the term twice used in the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act<ref>''United States Congress'' (2003, March 13). "[http://news.findlaw.com/wp/docs/abortion/2003s3.html S.3: Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003]."</ref>) where hospitals left newborn infants to die like garbage.<ref>Smiley, Tavis (2004, August 31). "[http://www.keyesarchives.com/transcript.php?id=341 Alan Keyes on the Tavis Smiley Show]." ''NPR''. ''CBS2 Chicago'' (2004, August 30). "[http://www.keyesarchives.com/transcript.php?id=337 Alan Keyes on CBS2 Chicago This Morning]." This Morning.</ref> Obama in a debate on October 13, 2004, defended himself against Keyes' accusations of infanticide by claiming that Illinois law was already sufficient.<ref>''Chicago Tribune'' (2004, October 13). "[http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2004-10-13/news/0410140004_1_alan-keyes-senate-race-first-of-three-debates Debate or Discussion?]"</ref>

However, Keyes' rhetoric, calling Obama's votes "the slaveholder's position"<ref name=assails /> and saying "Jesus Christ would not vote for Obama"<ref>Thomas, Scott (2004, September 7). "[http://www.keyesarchives.com/transcript.php?id=348 Alan Keyes on the Scott Thomas Show (AM1160 - WYLL)]." ''Scott Thomas Show''. Chicago, Illinois.</ref> was widely ridiculed by the press. Keyes' unabashed criticism of homosexuality as "selfish hedonism" was also targeted.<ref name=pearson /><ref>''Associated Press''. "[http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5897569/ Keyes: Cheney's Gay Daughter Practicing Selfish Hedonism]." Pallasch, Abdom M. (2004, September 2). "[http://web.archive.org/web/20071017122135/http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4155/is_20040902/ai_n12560727 Topinka Says He Should Apologize for 'Idiotic' Comment]." ''Chicago Sun-Times''.</ref> Obama would ultimately win the election, 70% to 27%.<ref>''CNN.com''. "[http://cnn.hu/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/IL/S/01/index.html Election Results: U.S. Senate/Illinois]." Election 2004.</ref>

===Voting Record===
Obama frequently used the [[filibuster]] to obstruct the operations of government,<ref>O'Keefe, E. (2010, February 4). [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/03/AR2010020303801_pf.html Obama criticizes Senate Republicans for delaying confirmation votes]. ''The Washington Post''.</ref> voted against the [[minimum wage]]<ref>[http://uspolitics.about.com/od/legislatio1/a/HR2206.htm HR 2206 - Emergency Appropriations], Kathy Gill, Your Guide to U.S. Politics: Current Events. May 26 2007. [http://more.gov.mtopgroup.com/2007/05/votes-hr-2206-iraq-supplemental.html Votes - H.R. 2206: Iraq Supplemental], May 28, 2007. Retrieved from Deeper Inside the Mountain, June 4, 2007.</ref> and debt ceiling increases,<ref>Kaplan, R. (2011, April 11). [http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/04/obama-once-opposed-debt-ceiling-hike/237129/ Obama Once Opposed Debt Ceiling Hike]. ''The Atlantic''.</ref> and recieved more than $126,000 in campaign contributions from [[Fannie Mae]]. The ''[[National Journal]]'' ranked him the most liberal senator in 2007.<ref name="ranked">{{cite web|url=http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-502163_162-3775451-502163.html|title=National Journal: Obama Most Liberal Senator In 2007|author=Brian Montopoli|date=January 31, 2008|work=CBS}}</ref>

==2008 Presidential Election==
{{main article|Barack Hussein Obama 2008 Presidential campaign}}
Democrats began calling for an Obama candidacy after liberals lauded his 2004 [[Democratic National Convention]] speech.
====Primary Election====
In 2007-08, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton competed for the Democratic nomination. Hillary Clinton cleverly resurrected the "Born Alive" controversy surrounding Obama that had lain largely dormant since 2004 (notwithstanding the continuing mentions by Jill Stanek), by accusing Obama of not being pro-choice for voting "Present" on a number of abortion-related bills<ref>Bettelheim, Adriel (2008, February 13). "[http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2008/feb/13/obamas-present-tension/ Obama's 'Present' Tension]." ''PolitiFact''.</ref> - including the Born Alive ones,<ref name=clinton>Berman, Russell (2008, January 17). "[http://www.nysun.com/national/clinton-obama-should-vote-no-on-abortion-issue/69700/ Clinton: Obama Should Vote 'No' On Abortion Issue She Backed]." ''New York Sun''. Hernandez, Raymond & Drew, Christopher (2007, December 20). "[http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/20/us/politics/20obama.html?pagewanted=all It's Not Just 'Ayes' and 'Nays': Obama's Votes in Illinois Echo]." ''New York Times''.</ref> and cowardly ducking the votes.<ref>''Politi-Fact''. "[http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2008/feb/13/hillary-clinton/yes-but-its-complicated/ Response to Hillary Clinton Comment for January 21st, 2008]." Truth-o-Meter. Dorning, Mike (2007, December 20). "[http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2007/12/criticism_of_obama_present_vot.html Clinton Camp Criticizes Obama 'Present' Votes]." The Swamp. ''Chicago Tribune''.</ref> This led to criticism of Obama by two pro-choice organizations, Emily's List, and the National Organization for Women.<ref>Dorning, Mike (2008, January 14). "[http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2008/01/obama_campaign_mounts_defense.html The Swamp: Obama Campaign Defends His Abortion-Rights Record]." ''Chicago Tribune''. Dorn, Michael (2008, February 6). "[http://voices.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/02/obamas_voting_record_on_aborti_1.html Obama's Voting Record on Abortion]." ''Washington Post''. Newton-Small, Jay (2008, January 14). "[http://swampland.time.com/2008/01/14/obama_campaign_defends_present/ Obama Campaign Defends 'Present' Abortion Votes]." ''Time Magazine''.</ref> However, Pam Sutherland, the long-time head of Illinois Planned Parenthood, came to Obama's aid, criticizing Clinton for making the attack, and stating repeatedly that Obama's present votes were part of a broader strategy used by Planned Parenthood to keep Illinois voters from knowing their state senators were voting against the controversial and popular bills.<ref>Hernandez, Raymond & Drew, Christopher (2007, December 20). "[http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/20/us/politics/20cnd-obama.html?_r=2&hp&oref=slogin Obama's Vote in Illinois Was Often Just 'Present']." ''New York Times''. Follmer, Max (2008, March 28). "[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/01/14/obama-emphasizes-prochoic_n_81460.html Obama Emphasizes Pro-Choice Voting Record as Clinton Questions 'Present' Votes]." ''Huffington Post''.</ref>
{{cquote|"He came to me and said: ‘My members are being attacked. We need to figure out a way to protect members and to protect women. A ‘present’ vote was hard to pigeonhole which is exactly what Obama wanted. What it did was give cover to moderate Democrats who wanted to vote with us but were afraid to do so" because of how their votes would be used against them electorally. A ‘present’ vote would protect them. Your senator voted ‘present.’ Most of the electorate is not going to know what that means."
-Pam Sutherland, President/CEO of Illinois Planned Parenthood Council, 1980-2012<ref>Davis, Teddy (2007, July 17). "[http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2007/07/obama-abortion/ Obama Abortion Dodges Blessed by Planned Parenthood], ''ABC News''.</ref>}}Clinton also made the claim repeatedly that while Obama was leading in Delegates she was winning the Popular Vote<ref>Koffler, Daniel (2008, May 28). "[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/daniel-koffler/hillary-clinton-and-the-p_b_103913.html Hillary Clinton and the Popular Vote: Not Wrong, but Meaningless]." ''Huffington Post''. Barone, Michael (2008, March 28). "[http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/barone/2008/03/28/projection-clinton-wins-popular-vote-obama-wins-delegate-count Projection: Clinton Wins Popular Vote, Obama Wins Delegate Vote]." ''U.S. News''.</ref>, though this was in part because Obama hadn't been registered in Michigan.<ref>Romano, Andrew (2008, August 2). "[http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/blogs/stumper/2008/06/02/clinton-s-popular-vote-claim-close-but-not-quite.html Clinton's Popular Vote Claim? Close--But Not Quite*]." ''Newsweek''. ''RealClearPolitics''. "[http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_vote_count.html 2008 Democratic Popular Vote]."</ref> Obama's advantage with super-delegates over Clinton was about 2-to-1.<ref>{{Cite web|title=Superdelegate endorsements for Friday 6/6|work=Democratic Convention Watch|url=http://demconwatch.blogspot.com/2008/06/superdelegate-endorsements-for-friday.html}}</ref> Obama was able to attract the support of [[liberals]] by pointing out that he had come out against the [[Iraq War]] "from the beginning" whereas Clinton had voted in favor of the war in 2002.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-01-31-democrats-debate_N.htm|title=Obama, Clinton stress differences on Iraq, issues|author=David Jackson|work=USA Today|format=HTML|language=English}}</ref> On June 7, 2008, Hillary Clinton withdrew from the Primaries, conceding the race and endorsing her opponent<ref>''Associated Press''. "[http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24993082/ns/politics-decision_08/t/clinton-ends-historic-bid-endorses-obama/ Clinton Ends Historic Bid, Endorses Obama]."</ref>, when Obama passed the 2,118 Delegates required; winning 2,201 delegates to Clinton's 1,896.<ref>''CNN''. "[http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/scorecard/#D Election Center 2008].</ref>
====Born Alive Record Resurfaces====
On June 30, 2008, Obama's voting record on the "Born Alive" bills came once more to the forefront when CNN gave voice to the growing controversy and revealed the defense Obama had been using since 2004-2008, that the Illinois bills he'd voted against were different from the federal bill, was false, since he'd brought up for a vote a bill word for word identical to the federal bill in the Health and Human Services Committee he chaired, and voted against it, defeating it.<ref>''CNN''. "[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPZCXcTwZPY How He Really Voted on Abortion: Obama's Record Under Attack]." ''The Situation Room''. Uploaded to ''YouTube'' by Jill Stanek. ''CNN''. "[http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0806/30/sitroom.02.html Transcripts: June 30, 2008]." The Situation Room.</ref> This led in August to a confrontation between Obama and the [[NRLC]].<ref>''National Right to Life Committee''. "[http://www.nrlc.org/news/2008/NRL08/ObamaCoverup.html Obama Cover-up Revealed on Born-Alive Abortion Survivor's Bill]." NRL News, Vol. 35, Issue 7-8, pg. 5.</ref> After Obama accused critics of 'lying'<ref>Brody, David (2008, August 16). "[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Skq5M1Ksp_c McCain/Obama Forum]." ''CNN''. Uploaded to ''YouTube'' by Jill Stanek. David Brody (August 16, 2008). "[http://blogs.cbn.com/thebrodyfile/archive/2008/08/16/obama-gets-heated-on-born-alive-infant-protection-act.aspx Obama Gets Heated on Born Alive Infant Protection Act]." ''CBN News''. The Brody File.</ref> the NRLC challenged the assertion, and the Obama campaign conceded he "misspoke" and had voted against an identical bill to the "federal bill that everybody supported" but focused on Obama's new claim, that Illinois law was already sufficient to protect newborn children.<ref>Berman, Russell (2008, August 18). "[http://www.nysun.com/national/obama-facing-attacks-from-all-sides-over-abortion/84059/ Obama Facing Attacks From All Sides Over Abortion Record]." ''New York Sun''.</ref> The NRLC promptly declared "Senator Barack Obama's four-year effort to cover up his full role in killing legislation to protect born-alive survivors of abortions continues to unravel."<ref>Johnson, Douglas (2008, August 18). "[http://www.nrlc.org/ObamaBAIPA/Obamacoveruponbornalive.htm Obama Cover-up on Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Continues to Unravel After Sen. Obama Says NRLC is 'Lying']." ''National Right to Life Committee''.</ref>
====Jeremiah Wright====
:''See also: [[Barack Obama and Liberation Theology]]''
One major dilemma that arose for Obama during his campaign was his connection to his preacher [[Jeremiah Wright]]. Obama and his wife (raised a Baptist) were members of the Trinity [[United Church of Christ]]<ref>http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1776246/posts</ref> in Chicago, a church that embraced [[black liberation theology]] and its emphasis on empowering so-called "oppressed groups" against "establishment forces". This denomination was the first in America to ordain gays as ministers.<ref>http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/31079.html, Obama's church pushes controversial doctrines, March 20, 2008</ref> Church pastor Jeremiah Wright had been making inflammatory comments and posting his sermons online for sale. These include the statement "G-d damn America," and in describing the September 11th attacks, "We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans, and now we are indignant because the stuff we have done overseas is now brought right back to our own front yards. America's chickens are coming home to roost."<ref>[http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/Story?id=4443788 Obama's Pastor: G-d Damn America, U.S. to Blame for 9/11]</ref> In addition, Rev. Wright blamed America saying "We supported Zionism shamelessly while ignoring the Palestinians and branding anybody who spoke out against it as being [[anti-Semitic]]."

In April 2008, after 20 years in the church, candidate Obama made public statements poised to set him at odds with the man who conducted his wedding and baptized his children. With the negative publicity persisting, a month later Obama ended the friendship, left Wright's church, and blamed the media.<ref>[http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/05/31/obama-resigns-church-membership-in-chicago/], Obama Drops Church Membership in Chicago, May 31, 2008</ref> Obama claimed “It’s not fair to the other members of the church who seek to worship in peace...", and distanced himself from Wright's sermons as "a bunch of rants that aren't grounded in the truth."<ref>USA TODAY, ''Obama breaks with former pastor, Candidate cites rants on U.S. role in terror, AIDS'', by Kathy Kiely and David Jackson [http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/news/20080430/1a_offlede30_dom.art.htm]</ref><ref>''Obama Says He Is Outraged By Wright's "Rants"''[http://www.usnews.com/usnews/politics/bulletin/bulletin_080430.htm]</ref>

====Result====
Obama made an effort to portray John McCain as similar to George W. Bush, drawing attention to McCain's refusal to criticize the unpopular president. McCain was particularly criticized for saying of how many years we should be willing to stay in Iraq, "Make it a hundred."<ref>Dobbs, Michael (2008, April 2). "[http://voices.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/04/mccains_100year_war.html FactChecker: McCain's '100-Year War']." ''Washington Post''.</ref>{{cquote|"John McCain went on television and said that there has been great progress economically over the last seven-and-a-half years. John McCain thinks our economy has made great progress under George W. Bush? How could somebody who has been traveling across this country, somebody who came to Erie, Pennsylvania, say we’ve made great progress?"
-Barack Obama<ref>Zeleny, Jeff (2008, April 18). "[http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/04/18/obama-criticizes-mccain-on-economic-stance/ Obama Criticizes McCain on Economic Stance]." ''New York Times''.</ref>}} On August 22nd, Obama selected [[Joe Biden]] as his running mate for the vice presidency<ref>''CNN'' (2008, August 23). "[http://articles.cnn.com/2008-08-23/politics/biden.democrat.vp.candidate_1_biden-john-mccain-barack-obama?_s=PM:POLITICS Obama Introduces Biden as Running Mate]."</ref>, which would be contrasted one week later with John McCain's selection of [[Sarah Palin]].<ref>Cooper, Michael & Bumiller, Elisabeth (2008, August 29). "[http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/30/us/politics/29palin.html?pagewanted=all Alaskan is McCain's Choice; First Woman on G.O.P. Ticket]. ''New York Times''.</ref>

On November 2, 2008, Barack Obama won the presidential election with 365 electoral votes to John McCain's 173.<ref>(2008, November 14). "[http://elections.nytimes.com/2008/results/president/explorer.html Electoral Explorer]." Election Results 2008. ''New York Times''.</ref> Obama received 53% of the popular vote to John McCain's 46%.<ref>(2008, November 17). "[http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/president/ President]." Election Center 2008. ''CNN''.</ref>

==2009-2012, U.S. Presidency==
{{main article|Obama administration}}
[[File:Obama and George H. W. Bush.jpg|thumb|right|300px|President Barack Obama meets with former President George H. W. Bush in the Oval Office, Feb. 15, 2011. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza).]]
Under Obama's stewardship the United States has suffered the largest [[Federal budget deficit|deficit]]s<ref>Edwards, B. et. al. (2009, November 6). [http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/107xx/doc10708/11-06-mbr.htm Monthly Budget Review: Fiscal Year 2009]. ''Congressional Budget Office''. Delisle, E.C. et. al. (2010, November 5). [http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/118xx/doc11873/NovemberMBR.pdf Monthly Budget Review: Fiscal Year 2010]. ''Congressional Budget Office''.</ref> in history and a credit downgrade from the rating agency Standard & Poor. However, during the Obama Administration the national deficit has increased at a much lower rate than during the Bush Administration. Most observers attribute the deficits to increasing benefits and welfare paid out on account of the Recession he inherited and has failed to end along with decreasing tax receipts. Standard & Poor decided to downgrade U.S. government deby after the debt ceiling debate debacle, where Congressional leaders refused to pass a bill authorizing borrowing to pay for the budget they had passed with much debate and controversy earlier in the year. Cynics have argued that rhetoric directed at the rating agencies about the issuance of AAA ratings to junk real estate bonds spurred the downgrade as a form of retribution. Ironically, the investor scare led to the flocking of investors to the safe haven of the Treasury bonds which had been downgraded, resulting in lower interest rates. As there are very few AAA bond markets, investors will likely continue to buy U.S. government debt for the foreseeable future. <ref>Greenwald, A. (2011, April 18). [http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2011/04/18/the-sp-outlook-and-obama/ The S&P Outlook and Obama]. ''Commentary Magazine''.</ref> When his [[economic stimulus]] program was adopted unemployment rose and stagnated in the 10% range, <ref>Di Leo, L & Lynch, S.N. (2010, August 20). [http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704476104575439172480870774.html Jobless Claims Jump in New Sign Recovery is Sputtering]. ''The Wall Street Journal''.</ref> leaving tens of millions without [[hope]] of finding a job.<ref>Bureau of Labor Statistics. [http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet?data_tool=latest_numbers&series_id=LNS11300000&years_option=specific_years&include_graphs=true&to_month=1&from_month=2 Databases, Tables & Calculators by Subject: Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey]. ''United States Department of Labor''. Data extracted on: July 19, 2010 (4:31:11 PM).</ref>

Patrick H. Caddell and Douglas E. Schoen, writing in the [[Wall Street Journal]], noted, "Rather than being a unifier, Mr. Obama has divided America on the basis of race, class and partisanship." The commentators also note Obama's approach to governance has encouraged radical leftists to pursue a similar strategy on his behalf. Mary Frances Berry, former head of the U.S. Civil Rights Commission, acknowledged that the [[Obama administration]] has taken to polarizing America around the issue of race as a means of diverting attention from other issues, saying, "Having one's opponent [[race card|rebut charges of racism]] is far better than discussing [[Unemployment|joblessness]]."<ref>Berry, M.F. (2010, July 20). [http://www.politico.com/arena/perm/Mary_Frances_Berry_91E3D9D5-C40D-440C-9D48-1C50CBC60C87.html Energy Arena, Driving the Conversation: Contracting Out U.S. Security? And will Branding Tea Party Racist Work?] ''Politico''.</ref> Caddell and Schoen, who worked for President Carter and Clinton, respectively, further stated, "Mr. Obama has also cynically [[class warfare|divided the country on class lines]]. He has taken to playing the populist card time and time again. He bashes Wall Street and insurance companies whenever convenient to advance his programs, yet he has been eager to accept campaign contributions and negotiate with these very same banks and [[corporation]]s behind closed doors in order to advance his political agenda... President Obama's divisive approach to governance has weakened us as a people and paralyzed our political culture."<ref>Caddell, P.H. & Schoen, D.E. (2010, July 28). [http://online.wsj.com/article/NA_WSJ_PUB:SB10001424052748703700904575391553798363586.html Our Divisive President]. ''The Wall Street Journal''.</ref>
===Domestic policy===
====Popular bills====
Obama's first act of office was to sign the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act - effectively nullifying the [[Supreme Court]] case ''Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.'', which ruled that Ledbetter had to have filed a pay [[discrimination]] suit within 180 days of the first time Ledbetter was paid less than her male peers;<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/30/us/politics/30ledbetter-web.html|work=The New York Times|format=HTML|language=English|title=Obama Signs Equal-Pay Legislation|author=Sheryl Gay Stolberg|date=January 29, 2009}}</ref> the law made corporations subject to suit within 180 days of each time the employee was unfairly paid.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://writ.news.findlaw.com/grossman/20090213.html?=features|work=FindLaw|author=Joanna L. Grossman|date=Feb. 13, 2009|format=HTML|language=English|title=The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009}}</ref>

On January 2, 2011, Obama signed the James Zadroga [[9/11]] Healthcare and Compensation Act.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.wnyc.org/articles/wnyc-news/2011/jan/02/obama-signs-zadroga-act-law/|publisher=New York Public Radio|title=Obama Signs Zadroga Act into Law|author=Fred Mogul|date=January 02, 2011|work=wNYC|format=HTML|language=English}}</ref> The act, which afforded 9/11 first responders who were sickened by the dust from the collapse of the [[World Trade Center]] health care and compensation, passed [[Congress]] after its sponsored agreed to scale down the pricing from 7.4 to 4.2 billion dollars.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.wnyc.org/articles/wnyc-news/2010/dec/22/zadroga-911-bill-passes-senate/|publisher=New York Public Radio|work=wNYC|format=HTML|language=English|title=Congress Approves 9/11 Health Bill|date=December 22, 2010}}</ref>

====Economic policy====
[[File:Keynes.jpg|thumbnail|right|190px|[[Barack Obama]] advocates the use of discredited [[Keynesian economics|Keynesian economic concepts]]<ref>
*[http://centurean2.wordpress.com/2011/03/20/fabian-john-maynard-keynes-the-stealthy-enemy-of-human-freedom/ John Maynard Keynes the stealthy enemy of human freedom]
*[http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-02-22/deathbed-of-keynesian-economics-will-be-in-u-k-matthew-lynn.html Deathbed of Keynesian Economics will be in the UK]
*[http://www.iwf.org/inkwell/show/23102.html Will the G8 Repudiate the Philosophy of Living Beyond Our Means?]
*[http://www.keynesatharvard.org/book/KeynesatHarvard-ch09.html KEYNES AT HARVARD Economic Deception as a Political Credo BY ZYGMUND DOBBS]
</ref> ]]
{{see also|Obamunism|American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009}}
Critics of the Obama administration have coined the word "[[Obamunism]]" to describe Barack Obama's [[socialism|socialistic]] and "[[fascism]] light" [[economic planning]] policies.<ref>[[Benito Mussolini]] defined fascism as the wedding of state and corporate powers. Accordingly, trend forecaster [[Gerald Celente]] labels [[Obama administration corporate bailouts|Obama's corporate bailouts]] as being "fascism light" in nature.</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.thebigmoney.com/articles/daily-intel/2009/07/20/obamunism-inc|work=The Big Money|publisher=WashingtonPost.Newsweek Interactive Co. LLC|format=HTML|language=English|title=Obamunism, Inc.|author=David Sessions|date=July 20, 2009}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.smallbusinessadvocate.com/small-business-interviews/gerald-celente-6944|author=Jim Blasingame|title=Is the government creating a bailout bubble?}}</ref> Obamunism can also refer to Obama's [[Obama administration fiscal policy|ruinous fiscal policies]] and [[Obama administration monetary policy|reckless monetary policies]].<ref name="gerard">{{cite web|url=http://seekingalpha.com/article/120883-monetary-policynot-obama-s-stimulusis-what-needs-watching|title=Monetary Policy-Not Obama's Stimulus-Is What Needs Watching|author=Gerard Jackson|date=February 16, 2009|work=Seeking Alpha}}</ref><ref name="bam">{{cite web|work=New York Post|date=May 17, 2009|url=http://www.nypost.com/seven/05172009/postopinion/editorials/bams_wise_words_169731.htm|title=BAM'S WISE WORDS}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://blog.heritage.org/2009/03/24/bush-deficit-vs-obama-deficit-in-pictures/|title=Bush Deficit vs. Obama Deficit in Pictures|work=The Foundry|publisher=The Heritage Foundation|author=Conn Carroll|date=March 24th, 2009}}</ref> As seen in his own actions, Barack Obama instructed his advisors to find loopholes that would enable the president to act as a [[dictator]] by pushing through legislation and increases in spending without congressional authority.<ref>Naked Emperor News (2011, October 12). [http://www.theblaze.com/stories/executive-dictatorship-obama-instructs-advisers-to-push-through-stimulus-projects-without-pesky-congressional-authorization/ Exclusive Dictatorship: Obama Instructs Advisors to Push Through Stimulus Projects Without Pesky 'Congressional Authorization']. ''The Blaze''.</ref>

Nevertheless, budgets passed under President Obama have included the smallest average annualized growth of federal spending (1.4%) since before President Reagan. Federal spending grew an average of 8.7% per year during Reagan's first term and an average of 8.1% per year during George W. Bush's second term.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2012/05/24/who-is-the-smallest-government-spender-since-eisenhower-would-you-believe-its-barack-obama/|title=Who Is The Smallest Government Spender Since Eisenhower? Would You Believe It's Barack Obama?|publisher=Forbes|author=Rick Ungar|date=May 24th, 2012}}</ref>

[[Wall Street]] firms and banks that were bailed out were among Obama's biggest campaign supporters.<ref>''OpenSecrets.org''. [http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.php?cycle=2008&cid=N00009638 Barack Obama: Top Contributors]. The Center for Responsive Politics.</ref> Therefore, the Obama administration bailouts of corrupt, unproductive, and reckless Wall Street firms was hardly surprising, and many argue that it was not helpful in making the United States economy more productive and prosperous by encouraging more risk taking through letting banks off with a slap on the wrist. Others argue that bailing out the banks kept credit flowing and prevented a much deeper recession and a total collapse of the financial system. The government will recoup some though not all of its capital infusions over time. A 2005 study found that government corporate bailouts are often done for mere political considerations and the economic resources allocated exhibit significantly worse economic performance than resources allocated using purely business considerations.<ref>Faccio, M. et. al. (2005, March 1). [http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=676905 Political Connections and Corporate Bailouts]. ''Social Science Research Network''.</ref> Proponents of [[free market]] capitalism said Bernanke should not have bailed out failing firms and instead should have allowed free market capitalism to quickly recover as it did in the depression of 1920 without government intervention (free market capitalists assert that government intervention drags out economic recessions and depressions).<ref>Woods, T.E. (2009, April 10). [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=czcUmnsprQI Why You've Never Heard of the Great Depression of 1920]. ''Ludwig Von Mises Institute''. Hosted on ''YouTube''.</ref>

Top trend forecaster [[Gerald Celente]] predicts that the corrupt economic policies of the Obama administration will lead to a second [[Great Depression|great depression]] (Celente predicted the 1987 US stock market crash, the dot.com crash, the US 2008/2009 recession, and the collapse of the USSR in the early 1990s) and may lead to a "second [[American Revolution]]" (Celente predicted the [[Tea Party Movement|tax protests]] that are now occurring in America).<ref name="celente1">Celente, G. (2009, August 1). [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8MMX3SKzrfU&feature=channel_page pt 2/2 Gerald Celente on Financial Sense Newshour Aug 1st 2009]. ''Financial Sense Newshour''. Hosted on ''YouTube''.</ref><ref name="celente2">Celente, G. (2009, August 2). [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sy9bfw1ebgw&feature=response_watch ]. ''Financial Sense Newshour''. Hosted on ''YouTube''.</ref> Celente also asserts that the costly and inefficient temporary short term methods that the Obama administration is using to alleviate economic problems in the short term (which is causing massive increases in [[Obama administration deficit spending]]) is only making matters worse and will not prevent the worse economic depression in United States history from occurring.<ref>Celente, G. (2009, August 11). [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_C8K7rWkGGw pt 1/2 Gerald Celente on Howestreet.com 11 Aug 2009]. ''HoweStreet.com''. Hosted on ''YouTube''.</ref><ref>Celente, G. (2009, August 11). [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1LBffdIW0XA&feature=response_watch pt 2/2 Gerald Celente on Howestreet.com 11 Aug 2009]. ''HoweStreet.com''. Hosted on ''YouTube''.</ref>

The Obama administration has been sharply criticized for [[Obama administration deficit spending|its massive deficit spending]] and [[Obama administration monetary policy|its reckless monetary policy]] via vast increases in the [[money supply]], although inflation under Bernanke has been below the historic mean.<ref name="gerard"/><ref name="bam"/><ref>Carroll, C. (2009, March 24). [http://blog.heritage.org/2009/03/24/bush-deficit-vs-obama-deficit-in-pictures/ Bush Deficit vs. Obama Deficit in Pictures]. ''The Foundry''. The Heritage Network.</ref> Celente predicts that if a "second American Revolution" occurs in a peaceful and productive manner, it may include a [[Third Party System|third party movement]] of governance that will advocate a more [[free market]] [[capitalism]] approach to the American economy and a more strict interpretation of the [[United States Constitution|United States constitution]] as far as the authors' [[original intent]].<ref name="celente1"/><ref name="celente2"/>

During what the [[White House]] billed as [[Recovery Summer]], one half million workers per week continued losing their jobs. His signature legislative achievement, [[ObamaCare]],has been found to be [[unconstitutional]]<ref>Schoenberg, T. & Fisk, M.T. (2010, December 13). [http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-12-13/u-s-health-care-law-requirement-thrown-out-by-judge.html Obama's Health-Care Law Ruled Unconstitutional Over Insurance Requirement]. ''Bloomberg''.</ref> by several judges and constitutional by others, and is credited as a major cause of uncertainty, high [[unemployment]],<ref>http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=33220</ref> lagging job creation,<ref>Foster, J.D. (2010, August 5). [http://blog.heritage.org/2010/08/05/it%E2%80%99s-official-medicare%E2%80%99s-finances-shadowed-by-uncertainty/ It’s Official: Medicare’s Finances Shadowed by Uncertainty]. ''The Foundry''. The Heritage Network.</ref> and risk of a credit default crisis.<ref>Samuelson, R.J. (2010, March 29). [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/28/AR2010032802353.html With health bill, Obama has sown the seeds of a budget crisis]. ''The Washington Post''.</ref><ref>Cramer, J. (2010, March 16). [http://www.thestreet.com/story/10703361/cramer-obamacare-will-topple-the-market.html Cramer: Obamacare Will Topple the Market]. ''The Street''.</ref>

His 2012 Budget plan has been roundly criticized in the mainstream and liberal press as not a serious effort to deal with the nation's economic crisis.<ref>[http://republican.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=blogs.view&blog_id=1551d6f5-2ac9-4b8d-97ab-74def354024e Newspapers Call Out White House: ‘What Would That Path Be, Mr. President?’]</ref>

[[Jeffrey Tucker]] wrote, "President Obama's economic policy has been catastrophic for liberty, enterprise, and the American dream—the very archetype of what not to do to end recession." [http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1118186176/ref=as_li_tf_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=anncoulter-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=1118186176]

====2009 Stimulus====
In early 2009, Obama lobbied Congress and the public to pass sweeping Stimulus legislation for the ailing economy<ref>(2009, January 3). "[http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28479998/ns/politics-white_house/t/obama-urges-congress-pass-stimulus-plan/ Obama Urges Congress to Pass Stimulus Plan]." ''Associated Press''. Parsons, C. & Nicholas, P. (2009, February 10). "[http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28479998/ns/politics-white_house/t/obama-urges-congress-pass-stimulus-plan/ Barack Obama Sternly Urges Congress to Pass Economic Stimulus]." ''Chicago Tribune''.</ref> known as ''The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009'' (H.R. 1)<ref>"[http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.1: Bill Text Versions: H.R. 1]." 111th Congress (2009-2010). ''Library of Congress''. "[http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,id=204335,00.html The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009: Information Center]." ''IRS''.</ref>, ignoring a report by the Congressional Budget Office that the legislation would ultimately harm the economy.<ref>Dinan, S. (2009, February 4). "[http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/feb/04/cbo-obama-stimulus-harmful-over-long-haul/ CBO: Obama Stimulus Harmful Over Long Haul]." ''U.S. News''.</ref> Contrary to his earlier promises of bipartisanship<ref>Dinan, S. (2009, March 28). "[http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/mar/28/mccain-obama-breaks-campaign-promises-shuns-bipart/?page=all McCain: Obama Breaks Promise of Bipartisanship]." ''Washington Times''.</ref>, the bill passed the House 244-188 without a single Republican vote on January 28, 2009,<ref>Calmes, J. (2009, January 28). "[http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/29/us/politics/29obama.html House Passes Stimulus Plan With No G.O.P. Votes]." ''New York Times''.</ref> and received just 3 Republican votes when passing the Senate 61-37.<ref>Herszenhorn, D.M. (2009, February 10). "[http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/11/washington/11web-stim.html Senate Approves Stimulus Plan]." ''New York Times''.</ref> One third of the massive $838 billion bill consisted of tax cuts<ref>(2009, February 11). "Senate Passes $838 Billion Stimulus Bill]." ''Associated Press''.</ref> and the rest spending on "just about every pent-up Democratic proposal of the last 40 years."<ref>(2009, January 28). "[http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123310466514522309.html A 40-Year Wish List]." ''Wall Street Journal''.</ref> In responding to criticism of the broken bipartisanship promise at the time, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi famously quipped, "We won the election. We wrote the bill."<ref>Kane, P. (2009, January 23). "[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/22/AR2009012203961.html Stimulus Plan Meets More GOP Resistance]." ''Washington Post''.</ref> On February 18, 2009, the Stimulus was signed into law by Obama.<ref>(2009, February 17). "[http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29231790/ns/politics-white_house/t/obama-stimulus-lets-americans-claim-destiny/ Obama: Stimulus Lets Americans Claim Destiny]." ''Associated Press''.</ref> In August 2009, Republicans and Democratic Senator David Obey drew attention to mistakes on the Recovery.gov site claiming Stimulus jobs created that didn't exist. Obama responded by saying the errors just indicate the accounting is an "inexact science".<ref>(2009, November 18). "[http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/11/18/obama-calls-stimulus-data-errors-issue-says-focus-job-growth/ Obama Calls Stimulus Data Errors 'Side Issue,' Says Focus Is on Job Growth]." ''FOX News''.</ref>
====Healthcare====
{{main article|Obamacare}}
On March 23, 2010, Obama signed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA). The act had originated in the House of Representatives and passed September 17, 2009. The act was amended and passed the Senate prior to [[Democrat]] [[Ted Kennedy]]'s passing along party lines - just a filibuster-proof majority at 60-39. In what can be construed as a de facto rejection of the bill, [[Massachusetts]] voters elected a [[Republican]] candidate, [[Scott Brown]], who promised to vote against the bill,<ref>{{cite web|url=http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/senate/scott-brown-wins-massachusetts-senate-race.html|work=The Washington Post|author=Chris Cillizza|date=January 19, 2010|title=Scott Brown wins Massachusetts Senate special election race|language=English|format=HTML}}</ref> but another Senate vote would not occur. Scott Brown was also an excellent campaigner and judged to be a better candidate than his rival, Martha Coakley. He has since achieved one of the most moderate senate voting records, likely to avoid the anger of his mostly liberal constituency. After Obama made a promise to issue an [[executive order]] that would ultimately prohibit the use of taxpayer subsidies to pay for [[abortion]] services,<ref>{{cite web|url=http://articles.latimes.com/2010/mar/22/nation/la-na-healthcare-passage22-2010mar22/3|work=The Los Angeles Times|format=HTML|language=English|title=House passes historic healthcare overhaul|date=March 22, 2010|author=Noam N. Levey and Janet Hook}}</ref> the [[House of Representatives]] would pass the bill as it left the Senate 219-212, with 34 Democrats and all other parties dissenting.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://articles.cnn.com/2010-03-21/politics/health.care.main_1_health-care-entire-house-democratic-caucus-pre-existing-conditions?_s=PM:POLITICS|date=March 21, 2010|author=Alan Silverleib|work=CNN|format=HTML|language=English|title=House passes health care bill on 219-212 vote}}</ref>

Amongst other things, the act mandates that the population purchase health care coverage or face punitive tax measures, and on this basis has been constitutionally challenged in the federal courts, with mixed results (three courts have upheld the act, two have declared it unconstitutional); thus, the Act is likely destined for [[Supreme Court]] reviewal. Plans originally proposed involved instituting a universal public insurance program, that is, extending Medicare to everyone. The universal mandate included in the act was originally a conservative idea that was enacted in Massachusetts under Republican Mitt Romney. Its supporters note that having health insurance results in reduced costs in paying for treatment of uninsured and forcing people to take responsibility for their healthcare. Due to ethical constraints, doctors cannot deny care to poor patients, resulting in the hospital and the healthcare system at large bearing the cost.

====Gulf oil spill====
{{main article|Gulf of Mexico oil spill disaster}}
President Obama authorized offshore oil drilling in the [[Gulf of Mexico]]<ref>[http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2010/0430/Gulf-of-Mexico-oil-spill-imperils-Obama-s-offshore-drilling-plan Gulf of Mexico oil spill imperils Obama's offshore drilling plan,] By Mark Clayton, ''Christian Science Monitor'', April 30, 2010.</ref> stating, "oil rigs today generally don’t cause spills"<ref>White House Press Release, [http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/remarks-president-a-discussion-jobs-and-economy-charlotte-north-carolina Remarks by the President in a Discussion on Jobs and the Economy in Charlotte, North Carolina,] Office of the Press Secretary, April 02, 2010. Retrieved from whitehouse.gov 3 May 2010.</ref> and was widely criticized for his mishandling of the "[[Gulf oil spill disaster|worst environmental disaster]] in US history."<ref>[http://www.examiner.com/x-33986-Political-Spin-Examiner~y2010m4d29-Worst-environmental-disaster-in-US-history-Oil-slick-in-Gulf-of-Mexico-is-set-on-fire Worst environmental disaster in US history,] Maryann Tobin, ''Examiner'', April 29, 2010.</ref><ref>[http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/04/30/the-oil-spill-is-obamas-fault/?src=twt&twt=NytimesKrugman Conscience of a Liberal: The Oil Spill Is Obama’s Fault,] Paul Krugman, ''New York Times'', April 30, 2010.</ref>
====Don't Ask Don't Tell====
{{main article|Don't Ask Don't Tell}}
Candidate Obama promised to repeal a policy that originated in the Clinton era that prohibited inquiries into military personnel's [[sexual orientation]] while also barring "out" [[homosexuals]] from serving in the military. [[Liberals]] expressed anger when time passed and no effort to repeal the law was seen;<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/nov/21/obama-to-delay-repeal-of-dont-ask-dont-tell/|work=The Washington Times|format=HTML|title=Obama to delay ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ repeal|language=English|author=Rowan Scarborough|date=November 21, 2008}}</ref> in fact, Obama's [[justice department]], as part of their duty to defend all laws passed by any administration, filed a brief arguing against the [[Supreme Court]] granting a [[writ of certiorari]] to a gay soldier challenging the law (the writ was not granted). In response, the soldier, James Pietrangelo II, a former Army infantryman and lawyer, said, “[Obama's] a coward, a bigot and a pathological liar. This is a guy who spent more time picking out his dog, Bo, and playing with him on the White House lawn than he has working for equality for gay people."<ref>{{cite web|work=Time Magazine|publisher=Time Inc.|format=HTML|url=http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1903545,00.html?imw=Y|title=Dismay Over Obama's 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' Turnabout|author=Mark Thompson|date=Jun. 09, 2009}}</ref>

On December 15th, 2010, a bill was introduced in the [[House of Representatives]] to repeal the law - it passed a day later by a vote of 250-175;<ref>{{cite web|url=http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2010/roll638.xml|title=FINAL VOTE RESULTS FOR ROLL CALL 638|format=HTML|work=Office of the Clerk of the U.S. House of Representatives}}</ref> it passed the Senate three days later 65-31.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=111&session=2&vote=00281|work=The U.S. Senate|title=U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 111th Congress - 2nd Session|format=HTML|language=English}}</ref> Obama signed the Don't Ask, Don't Tell Repeal Act of 2010 on December 22nd.<ref name="g dadt">{{cite web|url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/dec/22/obama-repeals-dont-ask-dont-tell|work=The Guardian|format=HTML|language=English|title='Don't ask, don't tell' repealed as Obama signs landmark law|date=22 December 2010}}</ref>

The [[Pentagon]] itself could not immediately implement the repeal and questioned whether it would hurt combat readiness.<ref name="g dadt"/> Senator [[John McCain]], the senior Republican on the Armed Services Committee, opposed the bill, saying "It may be premature to make such a change at this time and in this manner, without further consideration of this report and further study of the issue by Congress – for of all the people we serve, one of our highest responsibilities is to the men and women of our armed services, especially those risking their lives in combat.”<ref>{{cite web|url=http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/12/02/mccain-on-dont-ask-dont-tell-dont-rush/|title=McCain on ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’: Don’t Rush|date=December 2nd, 2010|format=HTML|author=David M. Herszenhorn|language=English|work=The New York Times}}</ref>
===Foreign policy===
[[File:Western Wall Obama.jpg|thumb|left|320px|At [[Western Wall]], Jerusalem, 2008.]]
As Senator, Obama was highly critical of President Bush and promised change. As President, Obama has tripled down in Afghanistan, widened the war into Pakistan, multiplied drone attacks, bombed Yemen and Somalia, and started an undeclared NATO war in Libya. On presidential war powers, surveillance questions, Guantanamo, detention policy and habeas corpus, Obama has similarly stayed the course, or expanded Bush's precedents. In a speech on May 19, 2011 Obama fully embraced the [[Bush Doctrine]] of preventative war.<ref>Krauthammer, C. (April 19). [http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-news-in-obamas-speech/2011/05/19/AF4dFN7G_story.html The News in Obama's Speech]. ''The Washington Post''.</ref>

<blockquote>
The New America Foundation, which tracks the strikes, has listed 23 raids since the beginning of April, 2011, all but one in Pakistan’s tribal regions of North and South Waziristan. A June 20 attack was reported in Kurram, an area north of North Waziristan along the Afghanistan border.
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
The drone program has become increasingly controversial as the Obama administration has expanded its use beyond the Afghanistan and Iraq wars. Lethal missiles have been launched from unmanned aircraft in at least five countries in addition to Pakistan: Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Yemen, and, most recently, Somalia. The military’s Joint Special Operations Command used a drone last June to attack what officials said were two senior members of the Al Shabab militant group on the Somali coast. <ref>DeYoung, K. (2011, July 4). [http://www.boston.com/news/world/asia/articles/2011/07/04/cia_halts_drone_launches_from_pakistan_base/ CIA Halts Drone Launches From Pakistan Base]. ''The Boston Globe''. </ref>
</blockquote>

<blockquote>
Obama is commendable when he says he wants to avoid war. His policies, however, favor war by destabilizing the Middle East making it extremely hostile and favoring radical Islam over America’s ally, Israel, and American interests in the region... The president has chosen a very dangerous path for every American and one that promises great difficulty for Israel. <ref> [http://www.thejerusalemconnection.us/blog/2012/03/14/obamas-words-disguise-his-israel-foreign-policy-actions.html Obama's words disguise his Israel foreign policy actions.] </ref>
</blockquote>
====Commander-in-chief====
By Obama's third year as Commander-in-Chief, over 1200 American troops died in Iraq and Afghanistan - significantly more than the number who died during President [[George W. Bush]]'s term of office. And growing numbers of civilian contractors also have fallen. In the first half of 2010, 250 contractors reportedly died in Iraq and Afghanistan - more than the 235 military personnel who fell during the same period.<ref>http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/05/24/114662/what-price-war.html#ixzz1Nz07pg5O</ref>
=====National Defense=====
President Obama signed into U.S. law the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), only after his administration successfully lobbied to remove language from the bill that would have protected American citizens from being detained indefinitely without trial.<ref>Aaron Dykes. [http://www.infowars.com/president-obamas-ndaa-signing-statement-i-have-the-power-to-detain-americans-but-i-wont/ Obama’s Signing Statement on NDAA: I have the power to detain Americans… but I won’t], Infowars.com, January 1, 2012. </ref> After the legislation cleared Congress, the ACLU commented that if President Obama signed the bill it "will damage both his legacy and American’s reputation for upholding the rule of law," while executive director of the ''Human Rights Watch'' blasted the President for being ‘on the wrong side of history,’ noting that "Obama will go down in history as the president who enshrined indefinite detention without trial in US law."<ref>President Decides to Sign Ill-Conceived National Defense Authorization Act. [http://www.hrw.org/news/2011/12/14/us-refusal-veto-detainee-bill-historic-tragedy-rights US: Refusal to Veto Detainee Bill A Historic Tragedy for Rights], ''Human Rights Watch'', December 14, 2011. [http://www.aclu.org/national-security/white-house-backs-away-defense-bill-veto-threat White House Backs Away from Defense Bill Veto Threat], ''[[ACLU]]'', December 14, 2011.</ref>

Section 1031 of the NDAA bill, which itself defines the entirety of the United States as a “battlefield,” allows American citizens to be snatched from the streets, carted off to a foreign detention camp and held indefinitely without trial. As reported by Infowars.com, the bill states that “any person who has committed a belligerent act” faces indefinite detention, but no trial or evidence has to be presented, the White House merely needs to make the accusation.<ref>Paul Joseph Watson. [http://www.infowars.com/obama-administration-demanded-power-to-indefinitely-detain-u-s-citizens/ Obama Administration Demanded Power To Indefinitely Detain U.S. Citizens], Infowars.com, December 12, 2011. S.1867 [http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c112:2:./temp/~c1122VN0Iv:e548990: National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Engrossed in Senate [Passed Senate] - ES)], ''The Library of Congress'' THOMAS, 112th Congress (2011-2011), Accessed January 25, 2012. Text of S.1867 - National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012. [http://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-s1867/text?version=es&nid=t0:es:281 Sec. 1031. Affirmation of authority of the Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered persons pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force.], [[U.S. Congress]], ''OpenCongress.org'', (Accessed January 25, 2012).</ref>

=====2009-2011 Iraq Troop Withdrawal=====
{{main article|Operation Iraqi Freedom}}
On February 10, 2007, Barack Obama announced his campaign for the U.S. presidency while stating he had a "''plan that will bring our combat troops home by March of 2008.''"<ref name=announcement>(2007, February 10). "[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/10/AR2007021000879.html Illinois Sen. Barack Obama's Announcement Speech]." ''Associated Press''.</ref> Later, Obama campaigned on having troops entirely out of Iraq within 16 months, but in February 2009 revised this promise to withdrawing all but 35-50 thousand troops by December 2011.<ref>Barry, J. (2009, February 25). "[http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2009/02/25/reality-on-the-ground.html Reality on the Ground]." ''Newsweek''.</ref> However, some of the newly withdrawn troops were simply redirected from Iraq to Afghanistan - Obama in Summer 2009 ordered 21,000 troops to Afghanistan.<ref name=amanpour>Amanpour, C. (2009, April 29). "[http://articles.cnn.com/2009-04-29/politics/amanpour.obama.foreign.policy_1_president-obama-obama-administration-iraq?_s=PM:POLITICS Amanpour: Obama's 100 Days of Foreign Affairs]." ''CNN Politics''.</ref>{{cquote|"But all of this cannot come to pass until we bring an end to this war in Iraq. Most of you know I opposed this war from the start. I thought it was a tragic mistake. Today we grieve for the families who have lost loved ones, the hearts that have been broken, and the young lives that could have been. America, it's time to start bringing our troops home. It's time to admit that no amount of American lives can resolve the political disagreement that lies at the heart of someone else's civil war. That's why I have a plan that will bring our combat troops home by March of 2008. Letting the Iraqis know that we will not be there forever is our last, best hope to pressure the Sunni and Shia to come to the table and find peace."
-Barack Obama, February 10, 2007 Presidential Campaign Announcement Speech<ref name=announcement />}}Ultimately, it was the Status of Forces Agreement signed by George W. Bush on November 17, 2008 which forced U.S. combat troops to withdraw from Iraq's cities, villages, and localities by June 30, 2009, and from Iraq entirely by December 31st 2011.<ref>(2008, November 17). "[http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/world/20081119_SOFA_FINAL_AGREED_TEXT.pdf Agreement Between the United States of America and the Republic of Iraq On the Withdrawal of United States from Iraq and the Organization of Their Activities during Their Temporary Presence in Iraq]." Article 24. Withdrawal of the United States Forces from Iraq. Hosted by ''The New York Times''. Office of the Press Secretary (2008, November 27). "[http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2008/11/20081127-1.html Statement by the President on Agreements with Iraq]." ''The White House''.</ref> Obama privately contacted the Iraq government in an attempt to persuade them to let 10,000 troops stay, but was rejected.<ref>Froomkin, D. (2011, October 26). "[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/26/obama-iraq_n_1032507.html Ending the War in Iraq: How Obama's Own Rhetoric - And George Bush's Pact - Boxed in the President]." ''Huffington Post''.</ref> Newsweek's Michael Ware accused Obama of a "War Crime" for "''falsely taking credit for finally bringing Iraq to a close—a war actually ended by the Bush administration back in 2008''" and stated, "''The U.S. troops who fought and died in that war, the Iraqis who perished, and the American people deserve far better.''"<ref>Ware, M. (2011, October 24). "[http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/10/24/obamas-war-crime-taking-credit-from-bush-adminsitration-for-ending-the-iraq-war.html Obama's War Crime]." ''Newsweek''. U.S. Politics.</ref> The last of Iraq's combat troops have now been withdrawn because of Bush's Status of Forces Agreement which Obama took credit for.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://articles.cnn.com/2011-12-17/middleeast/world_meast_iraq-troops-leave_1_1st-cavalry-division-camp-adder-troop-movements?_s=PM:MIDDLEEAST|work=CNN|title=Obama: Last U.S. troops leave Iraq|date=December 17, 2011|language=English|format=HTML}}</ref>
=====Afghanistan=====
{{main article|Afghanistan War}}
Obama escalated troop strength<ref name="pbs">{{cite web|url=http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/obamaswar/themes/strategy.html#ixzz1LhWNImZp|title=Obama's New Strategy (March '09)|author=George Packer, Seth Jones, David Kilcullen, Rory Stewart, Andrew Exum, Col. Andrew Bacevich (Ret.)|work=PBS|language=English|format=HTML}}</ref> and defense costs in Afghanistan from $43.5 billion in George Bush's last year to $113.7 billion for 2011.<ref>Congressional Research Service, quoted in Gregory Anthony, ''What price war?''</ref> Adviser to General [[Stanley McChrystal]] David Kilcullen wrote, "One of the big strategic shifts is the use of language now which talks about Pakistan and Afghanistan as the same theater. Now we talked about Af-Pak long before the Obama administration came about, but the public use of that term, and the description of it as the Afghanistan-Pakistan campaign, sends a new message to people about how the administration is going to think about Afghanistan and Pakistan."<ref name="pbs"/> This became evident when, under the orders of Obama, a military SEALs team killed September 11th mastermind [[Osama bin Laden]] in Abottabad, Pakistan.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.newsweek.com/2011/05/05/commander-in-chief.html|title=Commander in Chief|author=Daniel Romano and Daniel Klaidman|date=May 05, 2011|work=Newsweek|publisher=The Newsweek/Daily Beast Company LLC|language=English|format=HTML}}</ref>
=====Guantanamo Bay=====
{{main article|Guantanamo Bay}}
One of Obama's campaign promises was that he would close the American detention center at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba - detainees would be flown to other countries while the ones awaiting trial would enter the American court system. Two days after taking office he signed an order directing the military to do so.<ref name="salon">{{cite web|url=http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2011/04/25/obama_guantanamo_rhetoric|work=Salon|title=The Obama/Gitmo timeline|author=Natasha Lennard|format=HTML|language=English}}</ref> But, in November 2009 Obama admitted that his self imposed deadline of January 2010 would be missed, and in March 2011 the president went back on his campaign promise, signing an executive order to create a formal system of indefinite detention for the prisoners.<ref name="salon"/>
=====Mexico=====
In May 2012, President Obama promised Mexican President [[Felipe Calderon]] that his administration would assist Mexico in curbing drug cartel violence, which has led to 30,000 deaths in Mexico. "President Calderon and I . . . stand together against the drug cartels that have unleashed horrific violence in so many communities," Obama said on May 19. "Mexico can count on the United States as a full partner in this effort."

The ''[[Washington Post]]'' has reported however that White House officials stopped a requirement for gun dealers to report bulk sales of high-powered semiautomatic rifles commonly used by illegal drug cartels. [[Justice Department]] officials had asked for White House approval to require thousands of gun dealers along the border to report the purchases to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms and Explosives. ATF investigators expected to get leads on suspected arms traffickers. Senior law enforcement sources said the proposal from the ATF was held up by then White House chief of staff [[Rahm Emanuel]].<ref>Horwitz, S. & Grimaldi, J.V. (2010, December 17). [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/17/AR2010121706598.html White House Delayed Rule Meant to Stop Gun Flow to Mexico]. ''The Washington Post''.</ref> Gun dealers have been required for decades to report the sales of multiple handguns to the ATF.

=====Libya=====
{{main article|Libyan uprising 2011}}
In February 2011, the political unrest that had spread through the Arab world showed up as protests in Libya. Colonel Muammar el-Qaddafi - leader of Libya for 41 years - responded to the violent activism<ref>http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article28376.htm</ref> with legible steps.<ref name="nyt libya">{{cite web|url=http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/international/countriesandterritories/libya/index.html|work=The New York Times|publisher=The New York Times Inc.|format=HTML|language=English|title=Libya — Protests and Revolt (2011)}}</ref> The [[United Nations Security Council]] voted unanimously to impose [[sanctions]], and later authorized all members to take action to protect civilians. Obama, acting without approval from Congress and at the beckoning of the [[United Nations]], directed American forces to take out Libya's air defense system.<ref name="nyt libya"/> Obama later said, "[I]f we waited one more day Benghazi, a city nearly the size of Charlotte, could suffer a massacre that would have reverberated across the region and stained the conscience of the world."<ref>{{cite web|author=Barack Obama|url=http://www.npr.org/2011/03/28/134935452/obamas-speech-on-libya-a-responsibility-to-act|title=Obama's Speech On Libya: 'A Responsibility To Act'|date=March 28, 2011|publisher=National Public Radio ([[NPR]])|language=English|format=HTML}}</ref> [[Alan J. Kuperman]] - writing an editorial for the ''[[Boston Globe]]'' - suggested this statement was false, writing, "[I]ntervention did not prevent genocide, because no such bloodbath was in the offing. To the contrary, by emboldening rebellion, US interference has prolonged Libya’s civil war and the resultant suffering of innocents."<ref name="kuperman">{{cite web|author=Alan J. Kuperman|work=The Boston Globe|url=http://articles.boston.com/2011-04-14/bostonglobe/29418371_1_rebel-stronghold-civilians-rebel-positions|title=False pretense for war in Libya?|date=April 14, 2011}}</ref> Kuperman, a professor of public affairs at the University of Texas who authored a book called ''The Limits of Humanitarian Intervention'', further stated that the rebels had tricked the world into thinking a bloodbath was at hand and that Obama had lied to the American people in order to act on this theory.<ref name="kuperman"/>
<blockquote>
Gaddafi [never] threaten civilian massacre in Benghazi, as Obama alleged. The “no mercy’’ warning, of March 17, targeted rebels only, as reported by The New York Times, which noted that Libya’s leader promised amnesty for those “who throw their weapons away.’’ Khadafy even offered the rebels an escape route and open border to Egypt, to avoid a fight “to the bitter end.’’ <ref> [http://politicalcartel.org/2011/04/17/libya-and-the-obama-doctrine/ Libya and the “Obama Doctrine”.] </ref>
</blockquote>

However Gaddafi wrote to Obama:

<blockquote>
Gaddafi said he bore no ill will toward Obama. "We have been hurt more morally than physically because of what had happened against us in both deeds and words by you," he wrote. "Despite all this you will always remain our son whatever happened. We still pray that you continue to be president of the USA. We endeavour and hope that you will gain victory in the new election campaign." The letter, dated 5 April 2011 in Tripoli, is signed "Mu'aumer Qaddaffi, Leader of the Revolution".<ref>[http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/apr/06/gaddafi-obama-nato-libya?INTCMP=ILCNETTXT3487]</ref>
</blockquote>

Critics point out the only thing worse than starting a "stupid, unnecessary war" against a madman is losing it.<ref>http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/271847/war-libya-dumb-and-dumber-victor-davis-hanson</ref>

==2012 Presidential Campaign==
===2011, Birth Certificate Released===
: ''Main Article: [[Barack_Obama_Controversies#Birth_Certificate]]''
On April 27, 2011<ref>CNN Political Unit (2011, April 27). "[http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/04/27/white-house-releases-obama-birth-certificate/ White House Releases Obama Birth Certificate]." ''CNN''</ref>, a long-running controversy surrounding Obama's birth was largely put to rest<ref>Winter, J. (2011, April 29). "[http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/04/29/expert-says-obamas-birth-certificate-legit/ Expert: No Doubt Obama's Birth Certificate is Legit]." ''FOX News''. Tuchman, G. (2011, April 25). "[http://articles.cnn.com/2011-04-25/politics/birthers.obama.hawaii_1_birther-controversy-obama-opinion-research-corporation?_s=PM:POLITICS Obama Birther Claims Have No Merit]." ''CNN''. (2011, April 27). "[http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42779923/ns/politics-white_house/t/obama-releases-detailed-us-birth-certificate/ Obama Releases Detailed U.S. Birth Certificate]." ''MSNBC''.</ref> when Obama had his long-form birth certificate posted at WhiteHouse.gov.<ref>"[http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/rss_viewer/birth-certificate-long-form.pdf Certificate of Live Birth]." State of Hawaii. Retrieved from ''WhiteHouse.gov''.</ref> Donald Trump, who had attacked Obama on the Birth Certificate issue and was then leading Republicans in polls for the upcoming GOP primary<ref>James, F. (2011, April 15). "[http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2011/04/15/135446314/poll-donald-trump-birther-darling-leads-gop-field-at-26 Donald Trump, Birther In Chief? Poll Has Him Leading GOP Field with 26 Percent]." ''NPR''.</ref>, was effectively knocked out of the race because of this.<ref>Kapur, S. (2011, May 10). "[http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/05/10/trumps-popularity-tanks-after-obama-releases-long-form-birth-certificate/ Trump's Popularity Tanks After Obama Releases Long-Form Birth Certificate]." ''RawStory.com''.</ref>

The following is a timeline of previous events leading up to the release:

* In June 2008 the Obama campaign allowed FactCheck.org to look at his “Certificate of Live Birth” and take photos.<ref>Henig, J. (2008, August 21). Born in the U.S.A. FactCheck.org. Retrieved from http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html</ref>
* In July 2008 a blogger discovered a birth announcement from the Honolulu Advertiser from August 13, 1961 for Barack Obama. It has since been discovered another newspaper, the Star Bulletin, also documented the birth.<ref>Snopes.com. Barack Obama Birth Certificate. Retrieved from http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthcertificate.asp</ref>
* PolitiFact went to extreme lengths to verify Obama’s citizenship, attaining scanned copies of his 1992 marriage certificate from Cook County, IL, his driver’s license record, and his registration and disciplinary record. PolitiFact also addressed a number of concerns about the documentation.<ref>Hollyfield, A. (2008, June 27). Obama’s birth certificate: Final chapter. PolitiFact. Retrieved from http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2008/jun/27/obamas-birth-certificate-part-ii/</ref>
* In October 2008 Hawaii’s Department of Health released a statement by Dr. Chiyome Fu.kino verifying that Obama’s birth certificate was on record.<ref>Hawaii Department of Health. News Release: Statement by Dr. Chiyome Fu.kino. Retrieved from http://hawaii.gov/health/about/pr/2008/08-93.pdf</ref>
* In August 2009 it was revealed that an alleged Kenyan birth certificate for Obama was a hoax.<ref>Snopes.com. Kenyan Mistake. Retrieved from http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthers/kenyacert.asp</ref> Another website allows you to create your own imitation Kenyan birth certificates online.<ref>KenyanBirthCertificateGenerator.com. Blue Collar Industries. Retrieved from http://kenyanbirthcertificategenerator.com/</ref>

===2011, Osama Bin Laden Confirmed Dead===
On May 1, 2011, Obama announced in a press conference<ref>Obama, B. (2011, May 2). "[http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/05/02/osama-bin-laden-dead Osama Bin Laden Dead]." ''WhiteHouse.gov''.</ref> that Osama Bin Laden was dead after a U.S. assault force infiltrated his military compound in Abottobad, Pakistan.<ref>Baker, P., Cooper, H., & Mazzetti, M. (2011, May 1). "[Bin Laden is Dead, Obama Says]." ''New York Times''. "[http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Osama_Bin_Laden/ Target Bin Laden: The Death of Public Enemy #1]." ''ABC News''. ''NPR''. "[http://www.npr.org/series/135908383/osama-bin-laden-dead Special Series: Osama Bin Laden Killed]." </ref> Bin Laden was reportedly shot in the head after a helicopter raid ferried Navy SEAL Team Six and CIA paramilitary operatives into Pakistan on April 29.<ref>''Associated Press'' (2011, May 1). "[http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-201_162-20058777.html Osama bin Laden is Dead]." Retrieved from ''CBSNews.com''.</ref> Reuters obtained photos of unidentified dead bodies from the raid, none of which look like bin Laden. However, the White House had the body of Osama bin Laden disposed of at sea because it claimed this was "in accordance with Islamic tradition" and didn't want to give Bin Laden followers a gravesite shrine.<ref>The Daily Beast (2011, May 2). "[http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/05/02/osama-bin-laden-killed-and-buried-at-sea-breaking-details.html Osama Bin Laden Killed and Buried at Sea]." ''Newsweek''.</ref> The White House also refused to publicly reveal photos or evidence of the body, because Obama claimed that "given the graphic nature of these photos, it would create some national security risk."<ref>Allbritton, C. (2011, May 4). "[http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/05/04/us-binladen-pakistan-photos-idUSTRE7437KK20110504 Photos Show Three Dead Men at Bin Laden Raid House]." ''Reuters''. ''Reuters''. "[http://www.reuters.com/subjects/bin-laden-compound Photos From the Bin Laden Compound]."</ref> The burial at sea was criticized by Islamic scholars<ref>''Associated Press'' (2011, May 2). "[http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-202_162-20058892.html Islamic Scholars Criticize Bin Laden Sea Burial]." Retrieved from ''CBSNews.com''. Also at [http://www.foxnews.com/world/2011/05/02/islamic-scholars-question-bin-ladens-sea-burial/ Fox News].</ref> and 9/11 families.<ref>Zirulnick, A. (2011, May 3). "[http://www.csmonitor.com/World/terrorism-security/2011/0503/Osama-bin-Laden-s-burial-at-sea-critics-range-from-9-11-families-to-militants Osama Bin Laden's Burial At Sea: Critics Range from 9/11 Families to Militants]." ''Christian Science Monitor''.</ref> The lack of photos resulted in skepticism about the death from a variety of sources, including the Taliban<ref>Faiez, R. & Vogt, H. (2011, May 4). "[http://articles.boston.com/2011-05-04/news/29509464_1_bin-taliban-spokesman-zabiullah-mujahid-samiullah-khan Taliban Holding Out for Clear Evidence]." ''Associated Press''.</ref> and Republican Senator Lindsey Graham.<ref>Rosen, J. & Thomma, S. (2011, May 5). "[http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/05/05/113709/sc-sen-graham-wants-bin-laden.html S.C. Sen. Graham Wants Bin Laden Photos Released]." ''McClatchy Newspapers''.</ref>

The death of bin Laden, coupled with the revealing of Obama's long-form Birth Certificate, resulted in a boost of Obama's job approval from 46% to 57% within one month.<ref>Dao, J. & Sussman, D. (2011, May 4). "[http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/05/us/politics/05poll.html For Obama, Big Rise in Poll Numbers After Bin Laden Raid]." ''New York Times''. ''Pew Research Center'' (2011, May 2). "[http://www.people-press.org/2011/05/03/public-relieved-by-bin-ladens-death-obamas-job-approval-rises/ Public 'Relieved' by Bin Laden's Death, Obama's Job Approval Rises]." Jones, J.M. (2011, May 5). "[http://www.gallup.com/poll/147437/obama-approval-rallies-six-points-bin-laden-death.aspx Obama Job Approval Rallies Six Points to 52% After Bin Laden Death]." ''Gallup''.</ref> In 2012, relations between the U.S. and Pakistan remain sour because the U.S. did not involve Pakistan fully in the raid to ensure success.<ref>''CBS/Associated Press'' (2012, May 1). "[http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57424622/1-year-after-osama-bin-laden-killed-still-no-answers-from-pakistan/ 1 Year After Osama bin Laden Killed, Still No Answers from Pakistan]."</ref> Pakistan has denied White House claims that there was a deal with it allowing the raid.<ref>''Associated Press'' (2011, May 10). "[http://www.foxnews.com/world/2011/05/10/pakistani-president-claims-bin-laden-deal/ Former Pakistani President Claims There Was Never Bin Laden Deal With U.S.]." Retrieved from ''FOX News''.</ref>
=== 2012: Ties to ACORN? ===
According to Stanley Kurtz - author of ''Radical-in-Chief: Barack Obama and the Untold Story of American Socialism'' (2010) Obama in 1995 sought and obtained the endorsement of a left-wing third party, the [[New Party]] in his quest to be elected to the Illinois State Senate.<ref>Kurtz, S. (2012, June 7). [http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/302031/obamas-third-party-history-stanley-kurtz Obama's Third-Party History]. ''National Review Online''.</ref> Obama's "Fight the Smears" campaign has denied this, as has Politico's Ben Smith.<ref name=pollack>Pollack, J.B. (2012, June 7). [http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/06/07/Obama-Caught-Lying-Again-He-WAS-Member-of-New-Party-Says-Kurtz Obama Caught Lying Again: He WAS Member of 'New Party', Says Kurtz]. ''Breitbart''. Smith, B. (2008, October 25). [http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/1008/The_dread_New_Party.html The Dread New Party]. ''Politico''.</ref> Others who claim he was affiliated with the New Party/ACORN include The Blaze's Billy Hallowell<ref>Hallowell, B. (2012, June 7). [http://www.theblaze.com/stories/report-new-documents-show-obama-was-a-member-of-the-far-left-new-party/ News Docs Reportedly Show Obama Was a Member of the Far-Left 'New Party']. ''The Blaze''.</ref>, Breitbart's Joel Pollack, Human Events' Erick Erickson<ref>Erickson, E. (2008, June 10). [http://www.humanevents.com/2008/06/10/obama-and-the-new-party/ Obama and the New Party]. ''Human Events''.</ref>, Newsbusters' P.J. Gladnick<ref>Gladnick, P.J. (2008, October 12). [http://newsbusters.org/blogs/p-j-gladnick/2008/10/08/will-msm-report-obama-membership-socialist-new-party#ixzz21JfE3z1z Will MSM Report on Obama Membership in Socialist New Party?] ''Newsbusters''.</ref>, Rick Moran at AmericanThinker.com<ref>Rick Moran. [http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/06/obamas_alliance_with_marxists.html Obama's Alliance with Marxists], ''American Thinker'', June 03, 2008.</ref>, and various writers at Discover the Networks (which include Kurtz and Erickson).<ref>[http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=7434 NEW PARTY (NP)], ''DiscoverTheNetworks.org''.</ref>

Kurtz in 2012 has claimed to find minutes of the New Party Chicago chapter that say, "''Barack Obama, candidate for State Senate in the 13th Legislative District, gave a statement to the membership and answered questions. He signed the New Party 'Candidate Contract' and requested an endorsement from the New Party. He also joined the New Party.''"<ref name=pollack /> Obama campaign strategist David Axelrod responded to Kurtz with silence and when asked if that meant "yes or no", Axelrod stated, "You can take that as I have no idea what you are talking about."<ref>Pollack, J.B. (2012, June 7). [http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/06/07/Exclusive-Axelrod-Plays-Dumb-on-Obama-and-Socialist-New-Party Exclusive: Axelrod Plays Dumb on Obama and Socialist New Party]. ''Breitbart''.</ref>

==="You didn't build that" Controversy===
On July 13, 2012, at a campaign event in [[Virginia]], Obama gave a speech that immediately stirred up controversy. Speaking about the government's role in the success of private business, he said:<ref>http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/07/13/remarks-president-campaign-event-roanoke-virginia</ref>
{{cquote|If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business - you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen.}} The [[Romney]] campaign has used "If you’ve got a business - you didn’t build that" in ads to show America that Obama believes it is government that creates business rather than hard-working individuals. The Obama campaign has alternatively stated that the sentenced was poorly worded since he was not giving a scripted speech and that when Obama said "that" he was referring to roads and bridges. Obama points to a later portion of his speech in which he said, "The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together," to support his claim.

==Accusations about birth certificate and cultural and name identity==
Some conservative opponents have accused Obama of not being an American but born outside of the United States, this accusation was bolstered by Obama's reluctance to show his birth certificate to the public, until prompted by [[Donald Trump]]. Obama presented a birth certificate to the public. Some conservative opponents believe that the birth certificate he presented was a forgery, and they are known as "birthers" both by their conservative and liberal opponents. However conservatives like [[Ann Coulter]] reject the birthers' accusations and view birthers as a fringe group that left-wing media like MSNBC have exaggerated in order to discredit the conservative movement.

There are other right-wing and anti-Islamic opponents of Obama who claim that he is a Muslim '''Barry Soetoro''' during his time in [[Indonesia]]<ref>[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PQPXVJuT2vY Barry Soetoro the muslim - YouTube]</ref>

Other right-wing opponents claim that Obama is an [[Atheism|atheist]].

==See also==

*[[Political positions of Barack Obama]]
*[[Barack Obama and uncharitableness]]
*[[Barack Obama and abortion]]
*[[Essay:Born Outside the U.S.A.!]]
*[[Essay: The Special Interests Candidate]]
*[[Jobsgate]]
*[[Recovery Summer]]
*[[Lobbyists ties to the Obama administration]]
*[[New Party]]
*[[ObamaCare]]
*[[Obama doublespeak]]
*[[Obama inauguration]]
*[[Religion of Barack Hussein Obama]]
*[[The Honorable James David Manning]]
*[[Young Communist League]]

==External links==
*[http://www.antiobama.net/ Anti Obama.net]
*[http://www.dontvoteobama.net/ Don’t Vote For Obama.net]
*[http://nobamanetwork.com/ Nobama Network]
*[http://www.audacityofhypocrisy.com/ Audacity Of Hypocrisy]
*[http://therealbarackobama.wordpress.com/ The Real Barack Obama]
*[http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/6130/ The New Cult of Personality]
*[http://www.survivingobamunism.com/index.html Surviving Obamunism T-shirts]
*[http://www.barackobamaantichrist.blogspot.com/ Barack Obama the Anti-Christ ?]
*[http://www.noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/06/23/che-obama-and-the-revolutionary-agenda/ Che, Obama, and the Revolutionary Agenda]
*[http://www.audacityofhypocrisy.com/fashion-shows/ Obama Laundry List of Lies]
*[http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jun/09/americas-first-muslim-president/ GAFFNEY: America's first Muslim president?] Washington Times
*[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-l-esposito/barack-obama-and-islam_b_212519.html Barack Obama and Islam.] by [[John L. Esposito]].
*[http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=78931 Democrat: Obama's grandma confirms Kenyan birth.]
*[http://www.ontheissues.org/barack_obama.htm Barack Obama on the issues.]
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=etWLwrvT2vo Obama = Kosher Puppet.] video on You Tube.

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

{{USPresidents}}
{{2008 presidential candidates}}
[[Category: Barack Hussein Obama]]
[[Category:Obama Presidency]]
[[Category:Obama Administration]]
[[category:Nobel laureates in Peace]]
[[Category:2012 Presidential Candidates]]
[[Category:Abortion Advocates]]
[[Category:Socialism]]
[[Category:Muslims]]
[[Category:Socialists]]
{{DEFAULTSORT:Obama, Barack Hussein}}

Barack Hussein Obama

2012-10-07T13:19:25Z

Nightsky: /* Birth */ fixes - a random sherif doesn't invalid a birth certificate that has been accepted as true

{{Officeholder
|name=Barack Hussein Obama
|image=President Barack Obama.jpg
|party=[[Democratic Party]]
|spouse=[[Michelle LaVaughn Robinson Obama]]; may have had a prior marriage.
|religion=see [[Obama's religion]]
|offices=
{{Officeholder/president
|country=the United States
|number=44th
|terms=January 20, 2009-Present
|vp=[[Joe Biden]]
|preceded=[[George W. Bush]]
|former=n
|succeeded=
}}
{{Officeholder/senator
|state=Illinois
|terms=January 3, 2005 – November 16, 2008
|preceded=Peter Fitzgerald
|former=y
|succeeded=[[Roland Burris]]
}}
}}

'''Barack Hussein Obama II''' (b. August 4, 1961, [[Honolulu, Hawaii]]) was elected the 44th President. Promoted heavily by [[liberals]], as demonstrated by his unjustified receipt of the 2009 [[Nobel Prize|Nobel Peace Prize]], Obama won the presidency despite a short and unremarkable political career by outspending his opponent, [[John McCain]], by hundreds of millions of dollars in 2008.

The [[liberal claptrap]] that helped elect Obama as president seems silly today. It was claimed, for example, that Obama has millions of followers on Twitter, when allegedly some 70% of them are fake.<ref>http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2012/08/obama-has-millions-of-fake-twitter-followers/1#.UDfQVqA2et_</ref> And although the [[lamestream media]] promoted Obama as a great orator, in fact he relies almost entirely on teleprompters for his speeches and press conferences, and at one point even had teleprompters set up for him in a middle school classroom in order to speak to the media.

Obama is [[pro-abortion]]. During the 2008 election campaign Obama said that he intended to "[[Redistribution of wealth|spread the wealth around]]" - which conservatives have condemned for being [[Socialism|socialist]]. Barack Obama has been widely criticized by the American [[business]] community and others for his anti-business policies that are destroying American jobs during a period of high unemployment.<ref>Zuckerman, M.B. (2010, July 16). [http://www.usnews.com/opinion/mzuckerman/articles/2010/07/16/obamas-anti-business-policies-are-our-economic-katrina Obama's Anti-business Policies are our Economic Katrina]. ''U.S. News''. Barnes, F. (2009, July 22). [http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/016/619dvjlm.asp An Anti-Business President]. ''The Weekly Standard''. Vol. 14, No. 38 Shedlock, M. (2010, August 20). [http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2010/08/small-businesses-are-not-hiring-why.html Small Businesses are not hiring. Why should they?] Globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com. Wright, C.E. (2012, February 12). [http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/02/dear_mr_president_why_we_are_n.html Dear Mr. President: Why we are not hiring]. ''American Thinker''.</ref> On July 26, 2012, the [[Gallup Poll|Gallup organization]] reported that merely 35% of business owners approved of Barack Obama's job performance.<ref>[http://www.gallup.com/poll/156206/Business-Owners-Among-Least-Approving-Obama.aspx U.S. Business Owners Now Among Least Approving of Obama]</ref> Former [[Democrat]] Presidential candidate [[Joe Lieberman]] endorsed Obama's opponent in 2008 and has declined to endorse [[Obama]] for the [[Presidential Election 2012]].<ref>Lillis, M. (2012, April 22). [http://thehill.com/video/campaign/222929-lieberman-declines-to-endorse-in-presidential-race Sen. Lieberman declines to endorse in presidential race]. ''The Hill''.</ref>

Under President Obama's mismanagement of the economy, the United States Government's credit rating was, for the first time in its history, downgraded from AAA to AA+, and [[poverty]]<ref>[http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/data/incpovhlth/2009/pov09fig04.pdf Figure 4: Number in Poverty and Poverty Rate: 1959-2009]. ''U.S. Census Bureau''. Current Population Survey, 1960 to 2010 Annual Social and Economic Supplements.</ref> increased markedly. By and large his programs, said to combat the recession, unemployment, slow growth, and deficits, have failed<ref>"The vast majority (73%) of respondents reported the fiscal stimulus enacted in February 2009 has had no impact on employment to date. While 68% also believe a jobs bill, such as the one recently enacted into law, will have no impact on payrolls, 30% do believe it will boost payrolls moderately". [http://www.nabe.com/press/ind1004.pdf Industry Survey], ''National Association for Business Economics'', April 2010, p. 2.</ref> leaving the the country saddled with a $16 trillion [[national debt]].<ref>Under Obama the U.S. National Debt has tripled. Source: [https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/fredgraph.png?graph_id=86836 U.S. Treasury]; Federal Reserve Board.</ref> Also on the domestic front, Obama passed an expensive [[health care]] bill in 2009 with no [[bipartisan]] support and 34 Democrats dissenting. Recently, the [[Congressional Budget Office]] wrote an open letter to [[John Boehner]], the Speaker of the House, outlining the effects of repealing [[Obamacare]] and explaining why net loss of over 100 billion dollars would occur from the repeal. [http://cbo.gov/publication/43471]

Fatalities in [[Afghanistan]] have more than doubled under Obama's leadership then in the preceding eight years combined, according to the Congressional Research Service <ref>Chesser, S.G. (2012, July 12). [http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/R41084.pdf Afghanistan Casualties: Military Forces and Civilians - CRS Report for Congress]. Pg. 3. ''Congressional Research Service''.</ref>. Against his own Defense Secretary's advice, Obama [[Libyan uprising 2011|attacked Libya]] - a possible violation of the [[War Powers Act]]. After he announced the killing of [[September 11th]] mastermind and terrorist [[Osama bin Laden]], the [[U.S. State Department]] warned of the increased risk to the lives and safety of Americans around the world.<ref>''KABC-TV/DT'' (2011, July 27). [http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=news/national_world&id=8273909 Risk of anti-US violence up after Osama bin Laden's death]. On ''ABC7 News''.</ref> Bin Laden's death had negligible long-term impact on Obama's approval ratings, as seen in Gallup's daily poll.<ref>''Gallup''. [http://www.gallup.com/poll/113980/gallup-daily-obama-job-approval.aspx Gallup Daily: Obama Job Approval].</ref>

Obama's bizarre giraffes are frequent and embarrassing, but typically unreported by the [[liberal media]]. Many hardworking American businessmen took offense to a 2012 campaign speech about the economy where he says "You didn't build that." Obama offended [[Poland]] by referring to the [[Nazi]] death camps there as "Polish death camps." Later Obama apologized.<ref>Sink, J. (2012, June 1). [http://thehill.com/blogs/global-affairs/europe/230419-obama-letter-says-he-regrets-polish-death-camp-gaffe Obama apologizes in writing for 'Polish death camp' verbal gaffe]. ''The Hill''.</ref>

==Biography==
===Birth===
{{TOC right}}
:''Main article : [[Early life and career of Barack Hussein Obama]]''
:''See also : [[Barack Obama's Muslim Heritage]]''
Obama was born in Hawaii to Stanley Ann Dunham and [[Barack Obama Sr.]] - who had married just six months prior - on August 4, 1961 in [[Honolulu, Hawaii]].<ref name=msnbc>''MSNBC'' (2008, February 20). "[http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23257295/ns/msnbc_tv-documentaries/t/obama-becomes-rising-star-among-democrats/ Obama Becomes Rising Star Among Democrats]."</ref> Some contend that this story is a complete fabrication. After many leading conservatives -- including the leadership of this site and [[Donald Trump]] -- called for Obama to release his long form birth certificate, which he did on April 27 2011. Sheriff [[Joe Arpaio]] of Maricopa County in Arizona conducted an investigation of the Obama's eligibility and alleged that the alleged birth certificate was a fake; however, no charges have been filed. [[Obama]] was reportedly assigned a social security number whose area code was assigned to applications coming from zip codes in Connecticut.<ref>Beginning in 1972, all Social Security numbers were issued from a central office in Baltimore, Maryland.[http://www.ssa.gov/history/ssn/geocard.html]</ref>

Barack Obama Sr. was not a [[Natural born citizen|citizen of the United States]]. At the time of Obama's birth, Kenya was a British colony, meaning that not only was Obama Sr. a British subject, but he passed that status on to his son. When Kenya gained independence, Obama and his father both ceased to be British subjects and became Kenyan citizens. Barack Obama was a dual citizen of the United States and Kenya until his Kenyan citizenship automatically expired in 1984, as he had failed to renounce US nationality and swear loyalty to Kenya. Even if he had been born with US citizenship through his mother, it has been argued that as he was born with dual nationality, he is not a natural-born citizen of the United States, and thus constitutionally ineligible to become President. Despite this, no court that has considered such arguments valid or accepted the proposition that Obama is not a natural-born citizen.<ref>See [http://www.scribd.com/doc/88910250/Purpura-Moran-Initial-Decision-of-ALJ-Masin Initial Decision by Jeff S. Masin] in ''Purpura and Moran v. Obama'' at 7 ("Thus, accepting for the point of this issue that Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii, he is a “natural born Citizen” regardless of the status of his father."), Tisdale v. Obama (E.D.Va 2012) Order at 2 ("It is well settled that those born in the United States are considered natural born citizens." (citing ''United States v. Wong Kim Ark'', 169 U.S. 649)), ''aff'd per curiam'' by 4th Cir., ''Ankeny v. Governor of the State of Indiana'', 916 N.E.2d 678, 685 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) ("With regard to President Barack Obama, the Plaintiffs posit that because his father was a citizen of the United Kingdom, President Obama is constitutionally ineligible to assume the Office of the President....we hold that the Plaintiffs' arguments fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted")</ref>

===Early Life===
Obama's birth parents divorced in 1963 due to strain caused by Barack Obama Sr. leaving Hawaii to study economics at Harvard, when Obama was 2 years old, following which his mother married Lolo Soetoro, an [[Indonesian]] geologist. When Barack Obama was age 6 his mother and adoptive father took him to Jakarta, Indonesia for 4 years while his mother pursued a Ph.D. in Anthropology requiring fieldwork there.<ref name="db mother">{{cite web|url=http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2011-05-03/a-singular-woman-by-janny-scott-review-by-stacy-schiff/#|work=The Daily Beast|format=HTML|language=English|title=Dreams of His Mother|author=Stacy Schiff}}</ref> His mother then left him in Hawaii with his grandparents (Stanley and Madelyn Dunham, who had moved to Hawaii in 1959) so he could pursue American education.<ref name=revealed>Malveaux, Suzanne (2008, August 20). "[http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0808/20/se.02.html Barack Obama Revealed]." ''CNN''.</ref> Other siblings of Obama's include his half-sister Maya Soetoro-Ng and 7 other children born to his father by 4 different women.<ref name=raisingobama>Purdum, Todd (2008, March). "[http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/03/obama200803 Raising Obama]." ''Vanity Fair''.</ref> For much of his early life, prior to his transfer to Columbia University, he went by his nickname, "Barry." In the summer of 1988, before attending Harvard Law School (he'd just been accepted), he visited Kogelo, Kenya, to learn more about his father's family. When his mother died in 1995, he and his sister Maya scattered her ashes over Hawaii's south shore.<ref name=revealed />

===Personal Life===
[[Image:Michelle Obama.jpg|frame|right|Michelle (Robinson) Obama, wife of Barack Obama.]]
Barack Obama met and began dating his future wife, an attorney named Michelle Robinson, herself a recent Harvard Law School graduate, while he was working at Sidley Austin LLP, a prestigious corporate law firm.<ref name=msnbc /> The two continued dating long-distance while he finished law school, and on October 18, 1982, were married by Reverend [[Jeremiah Wright]] at Trinity United Church.<ref name=revealed /> In 1999, their first child was born, Malia, and in 2001, another daughter, Natasha (often called Sasha).<ref name=msnbc />

Obama attended Reverend Jeremiah Wright's Trinity United Church from 1984-1988 during his time as a community organizer (''See [[Barack_Obama#1984-1988.2C_Community_Organizer|1985-1988, Community Organizer]] section''). Obama credits Wright with his alleged conversion to Christianity, and had both his daughters, Sasha and Malia, baptized there.<ref name=revealed />

===Education===
At age 6, Obama attended schools in Indonesia, the first a Catholic School while he was in Kindergarten, and later a public school. While the public school had mostly Muslim students (since most Indonesians were Muslim), claims that it was a Muslim school or Madrassa are false. In 1971, at age 10, Barack Obama moved to Hawaii, and his grandparents helped him gain entrance to the prestigious Punahou Academy in Honolulu through a scholarship, while he was in 5th grade.<ref name=revealed /> At his elite high school with 1,200 students he was just 1 of 3 black students, and was on the second string of the state champion basketball team his senior year. During this time he also experimented briefly with marijuana and cocaine. He wrote a poem for the school's literary magazine, ''Ka Wai Ola''.<ref name=raisingobama />

In 1979, he began a 2-year stint at Occidental College college in Los Angeles<ref name=msnbc />, and then transferred to Columbia University in New York, which he graduated from in 1983.<ref name=pragmatic>Scott, Janny (2007, July 30). "[http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/30/us/politics/30obama.html?pagewanted=all In Illinois, Obama Proved Pragmatic and Shrewd]." ''New York Times''.</ref> During this time he allegedly spoke at an Anti-Apartheid rally on campus,<ref name=revealed /> although several prominent student leaders said they did not remember him there. Professor Michael L. Baron was impressed by Obama and wrote him a recommendation for Harvard Law School.<ref name=differs>Scott, J. (2007, October 30). "[http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/30/us/politics/30obama.html?pagewanted=all Obama's Account of New York Years Often Differs From What Others Say]." ''New York Times''.</ref> In the winter of 1988 Barack Obama decided to attend Harvard Law School, and left Chicago for Cambridge, Massachusetts. In his 2nd year he became the first black president of the ''Harvard Law Review'', following a "marathon voting session" in which he was elected on the 19th ballot.<ref name=raisingobama /> This led to national attention and numerous job offers, which Obama passed up, at age 30, to pursue a political career in Chicago.<ref name=msnbc /><ref name=revealed />
===Non-Political Employment===
====1983-1984, Financial Analyst and Writer====
In 1984 Obama worked as a writer and financial analyst for Business International Corporation to pay off his student loans. Business International Corporation was a small newsletter-publishing and research firm which aided multinational companies understand overseas markets. Obama served as a writer/researcher for a company reference service, Financing Foreign Operations, and wrote for their newsletter, ''Business International Money Report''. His supervisor was Cathy Lazere. <ref name=differs /><ref>Henig, J. (2008, June 21). "[http://www.factcheck.org/2008/06/obama-polishes-his-resume-2/ Obama Polishes His Resume]." ''FactCheck.org''.</ref>

====1984-1988, Community Organizer====
In 1984, Obama was hired by the New York Public Interest Research Group, a non-profit organization promoting environmental, consumer, and government reforms. He also was paid just under $10,000 annually as a full-time organizer for Harlem's City College to mobilize student volunteers.<ref name=differs /> From 1985-88, Obama worked as a community organizer on the South Side of Chicago, for which he was paid $1,000 a year, with $2,000 extra for a car. He helped Loretta Herron gain city approval for a local community job center. <ref name=revealed /><ref name=streetwise>Scott, Janny (2007, September 9). "[http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/09/us/politics/09obama.html?pagewanted=all In 2000, a Streetwise Veteran Schooled a Bold Young Obama]." ''New York Times''.</ref> During this time Obama joined Reverend Wright's Trinity United Church because in the words of Suzanne Malveaux of ''CNN'', "It was the church to join if you wanted to be one of Chicago's black movers and shakers." At the time, community organizing involved close affiliation with churches, which was how Obama met Wright. The slow progress in fighting asbestos contamination in the Altgeld Gardens housing project led to Obama's departure from Chicago, and enrollment at Harvard Law School in the winter of 1988.<ref name=revealed />
====1988-1996, Law Practice====
In 1988 Obama gained work as a Summer Associate at one of the most prestigious corporate law firms in the world, Sidley Austin LLP<ref name=austin>Lattman, P. (2007, May 11). "[http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2007/05/11/sidley-austin-when-barack-met-michelle/ When Barack Met Michelle]." ''Wall Street Journal''.</ref><ref name=revealed />, owned by Newton Minow, thanks to the recommendation of Minow's daughter Martha, a professor at Harvard Law School. It was at Minow's law firm that Obama would meet Michelle Robinson, his future wife.<ref name=raisingobama /> From 1993-96 he practiced civil rights law, after graduating from Harvard, at Miner, Barnhill, & Galland, a small politically-connected law firm.<ref name=austin /> It was at Miner, Barnhill, & Galland that he would meet influential real estate developer Tony Rezko.<ref name=revealed />
====1992-2004, Law Professor at University of Chicago====
Obama taught constitutional law part-time at the University of Chicago Law School<ref name=raisingobama /> from 1992-2004. He was a Lecturer from 1992-96, teaching 3 courses per year, and a Senior Lecturer from 1996-2004. Senior Lecturers are considered Law School faculty and regarded as professors but not full-time or tenured. Obama was invited to become a Senior Lecturer several times during this period but declined each time.<ref>"[http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media Media Inquiries: Statement Regarding Barack Obama]." ''University of Chicago Law School''.</ref>
====1995, Author====
In 1995 Obama published ''Dreams From My Father'' about his life and family background.<ref name=msnbc />

===Personal Awards===
====2009 Nobel Peace Prize====
On October 9, 2009 Barack H. Obama became the third sitting U.S. President<ref name=wilsons>Wilson, Scott (2009, October 10). "[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/09/AR2009100900914.html President Obama Wins Nobel Peace Prize]. ''Washington Post''.</ref> to be awarded the Nobel Peace Prize "''for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples''".<ref>NobelPrize.org (2009, October 9). "[http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/2009/press.html The Nobel Prize for 2009: Press Release]." Oslo, Norway. Accessed May 13, 2012.</ref> Obama stated that he was "surprised and deeply humbled" to receive the unexpected award,<ref>(2009, October 9). "[http://articles.cnn.com/2009-10-09/world/nobel.peace.prize_1_norwegian-nobel-committee-international-diplomacy-and-cooperation-nuclear-weapons?_s=PM:WORLD Obama: Nobel Peace Prize is 'Call to Action']." ''CNN''.</ref> and also said, "To be honest, I do not feel that I deserve to be in the company of so many of the transformative figures who've been honored by this prize -- men and women who have inspired me and inspired the entire world through their courageous pursuit of peace".<ref name=wilsons /> The award was widely criticized given Obama's then lack of accomplishments.<ref>Chazan, G. & MacDonald, A. (2009, October 11). "[http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125509603349176083.html Nobel Committee's Decision Courts Controversy]." ''Wall Street Journal''. (2009, October 9). "[http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/10/09/obamas-peace-prize-draws-criticism-liberals/ Obama's Peace Prize Draws Criticism, Even From Some Liberals]." ''Associated Press''.</ref>
==1991-1992, Project Vote==
In 1991 Obama was recruited by Sandy Newman to head the Chicago chapter of Project Vote!<ref name=revealed />, and in 1992 was the Executive Director, overseeing a voter registration drive which registered 125,000 black voters and was credited with helping elect U.S. Senator Carol Mosely Braun.<ref name=raisingobama /><ref name=pragmatic />
==1996-2003, Illinois State Senate==
===1996 Election===
[[File:O-2002-antiwar-rally-davidson.jpg|right|thumb|250px| Obama speaking at the October 2002 rally in Chicago organized by [[Carl Davidson]].<ref>Davidson is a longtime [[Mao]]ist and champion of the ''Thought of Mao Tse Tung.'' Davidson's anti-Trotskyite polemic, [http://www.wengewang.org/read.php?tid=10925 ''Left in Form, Right in Essence''] defends Maoist doctrine. </ref> ''"[H]e is a brutal man who butchers his own people,"'' nevertheless Obama opposed ''"dumb wars".'']]
====Knocking Candidates Off the Ballot====
Barack Obama ran for the Illinois state senate in 1996. He was initially supported by incumbent Alice Palmer, who declared she would run for the U.S. Congress. However, when her bid for Congress failed on November 28, 1995, she tried to run for her old seat in the March 1996 election. Her supporters asked Obama to step aside, although whether this was with her permission remains uncertain.<ref name=pragmatic /> Not only did Obama not step down, he gathered a team of high-priced lawyers, including fellow Harvard Law School graduate Thomas Johnson, to challenge his opponent's petition signatures on technicalities after the filing deadline had passed. Such tactics are legal and frequently used in Chicago; in 2006 they eliminated 67 of the 245 aldermanic candidates;<ref name=bareknuckle>Jackson, David & Long, Ray (2007, April 4). "[http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/obama/chi-0704030881apr04-archive,0,1523598,full.story Barack Obama: Showing His Bare Knuckles]." ''Chicago Tribune''.</ref> yet nevertheless led to the term "hardball" by the ''New York Times''<ref name=pragmatic /> and "cutthroat" by David Mendel as reported by both ''CNN''<ref name=revealed /> and ''MSNBC''.<ref name=msnbc /> The ''Chicago Tribune'' declared Obama had mastered "the bare-knuckle arts of Chicago electoral politics", noting "The man now running for president on a message of giving a voice to the voiceless first entered public office not by leveling the playing field, but by clearing it."<ref name=bareknuckle /> As one of Obama's four opponents, eliminated through his ballot challenges, would put it: {{cquote|"Why say you're for a new tomorrow, then do old-style Chicago politics to remove legitimate candidates? He talks about honor and democracy, but what honor is there in getting rid of every other candidate so you can run scot-free? Why not let the people decide?"
-Gha-is Askia, 1996 Illinois Senate candidate<ref>Jackson, David & Long, Ray (2007, April 3). "[http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/obama/chi-070403obama-ballot-archive,0,5297304,full.story Obama Knows His Way Around a Ballot]." ''Chicago Tribune''.</ref>}} Mark Ewell, another candidate, filed 1,286 signatures, and Obama's challenges left him 86 short of the minimum requirement (757<ref name=spivak>Spivak, Todd (2008, February 28). "[http://www.houstonpress.com/2008-02-28/news/barack-obama-screamed-at-me/ Barack Obama and Me]." ''Houston Press''.</ref>). Ewell filed a federal lawsuit contesting the election board's decision but Tom Johnson intervened, and Ewell's case was dismissed just a few days later. Ewell and other Obama opponents were using early 1995 polling sheets to verify signatures of registered voters, but city authorities had just purged 15,871 unqualified people from the 13th district list, and Obama's challenges used the more recent, updated list. Askia was left 69 signatures short of the requirement. If names were printed instead of signed in cursive, they were declared invalid. If they were good but the person registering the signatures wasn't a registered voter (e.g. underage) they were invalid.<ref name=hardball>Griffin, Drew & Johnston, Kathleen (2008, May 29). "[http://articles.cnn.com/2008-05-29/politics/obamas.first.campaign_1_obama-campaign-barack-obama-chicago-politics?_s=PM:POLITICS Obama Played Hardball in First Chicago Campaign]." ''CNN''.</ref> Palmer had according to Obama campaign consult Ronald Davis, used two children to help gather her petition signatures. To this day Palmer denies the challenges were valid, and maintains she could have overcome the objections with more time and resources.<ref name=bareknuckle /> Thanks to his lawyers, Obama would win the election without a single other candidate on the ballot.
===2000 Election===
: ''Main Article: [[Illinois 1st congressional district election, 2000]]''
In 2000, Obama lost his only political election when he chose to run against experienced incumbent and former Black Panther Bobby L. Rush for the U.S. Congress in a 65% black district. Rush's name recognition began at 90%, Obama's at 11%. As media consultant and former Rush campaign staffer Eric Adelstein noted, "Nobody said he’s ‘not black enough.’ They said he’s a professor, a Harvard elite who lives in Hyde Park." Todd Spivak would give voice to this impression of Obama, noting that{{cquote|"My view of Obama then wasn't all that different from the image he projects now. He was smart, confident, charismatic and liberal. One thing I can say is, I never heard him launch into the preacher-man voice he now employs during speeches. He sounded vanilla, and activists in his mostly black district often chided him for it."<ref name=spivak />}}Rush would go on to win the Primary with 61.02% of the vote; Obama received 30.36%.<ref name=streetwise /> The loss led to Obama considering dropping out of politics altogether, particularly after the September 11, 2001 attacks, since his name sounds similar to "Osama bin Laden".<ref name=msnbc />
===Voting Record===
Obama entered the Illinois Senate promising change to a corrupt system. He mixed often radical votes with more pragmatic agreements. Possibly one of his most radical votes was against requiring medical care for aborted children who survive [[abortion|the procedure]] - in fact the Illinois Planned Parenthood Council ascribed him a 100% rating for his consistently pro-choice votes.<ref name="cbs illinois">{{cite web|url=http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/01/17/politics/main2369157.shtml|title=Obama Record May Be Gold Mine For Critics|work=CBS|format=HTML|language=English|last=Clark|first=Amy S.|date=Jan. 17, 2007}}</ref> He was criticized for using the statehouse as a stepping stone for a more illustrious career: Steven J. Rauschenberger, a [[Republican]], said prior to Obama's election as president: “He is a very bright but very ambitious person who has always had his eyes on the prize, and it wasn’t Springfield. If he deserves to be president, it is not because he was a great legislator.”<ref name="nyt illinois">{{cite web|work=The New York Times|title=In Illinois, Obama Proved Pragmatic and Shrewd|last=Scott|first=Janny|format=HTML|language=English|date=July 30, 2007|url=http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/30/us/politics/30obama.html}}</ref>

The statehouse was majority Republican, so the Senator was sometimes forced to compromise. He formed allegiances across party lines to pass [[campaign finance]] reform that banned most gifts by lobbyists, prohibited spending campaign money for legislators’ personal use and required electronic filing of campaign disclosure reports.<ref name="nyt illinois"/> Obama also helped pass a so-called “driving-while-black bill”, which required the police to collect data on the race of drivers they stopped as a way to monitor [[racial profiling]].<ref name="nyt illinois"/>

Obama established himself as a chief spokesperson in opposition to the [[War on Terror]] during an October 2002 rally at Federal Plaza in Chicago<ref>The rally was organized by Chicagoans Against War in Iraq (CAWI) later renamed Chicagoans Against War and Injustice. [http://www.noiraqwar-chicago.org/?page_id=2 About CAWI] by Carl Davidson, Nov 02 2006. Retrieved from Chicagoans Against War and Injustice, March 15, 2010.</ref> [[community organizing|organized]] by veteran [[Mao]]ist and webmaster of [[Progressives for Obama]],<ref>[http://www.linkedin.com/in/carldavidson Carl Davidson,] LinkedIn.com, retrieved March 13, 2010.</ref> [[Carl Davidson]].
===Radical foundation and connection to William Ayers===
{{main article|Radical roots of Barack Hussein Obama}}
In 1995 a cadre of like minded individuals gathered in the home of [[Weather Underground]] (WUO) [[terrorist]]s [[Bernardine Dohrn]] and [[William Ayers|William "Bill" Ayers]]. Dohrn,<ref>Georgie Anne Geyer and Keyes Beach "Cuba: School for U.S. Radicals", ''Chicago Daily News/Chicago Sun-Times'' five part series October 1970, excerpted in [http://foia.fbi.gov/filelink.html?file=/weather/weath1c.pdf FBI file Weather Underground Organization (Weatherman),] Part 1c pp. 5-7 pdf (113-115 in original). [http://therealbarackobama.wordpress.com/2009/06/07/clandestine-agents-of-the-cuban-government-ayers-dohrn-myers/]</ref> along with Carl Davidson, are veterans of [[guerrilla warfare]] training in [[Cuba]] prior 1968 Democratic National Convention riots. Ayers and Dohrn have taken credit for, and never denied, bombing the [[U.S. Capitol]], the [[Pentagon]] and the [[State Department]].

Ayers and Dohrn used their celebrity status among [[leftist]]s to launch Obama's career. Ayers, Dohrn and [[Jeff Jones]]<ref>[http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=106653 ''Obama's 'green jobs czar' worked with terror founder] Van Jones served on board of activist group where ex-Weatherman serves as top director'', By Aaron Klein, [[WorldNetDaily]], August 13, 2009.</ref> are authors of ''[[Bill_Ayers#Prairie_Fire_Organizing_Committee_and_Maoist_thought|Prairie Fire: The Politics of Revolutionary Anti-imperialism]],'' the title taken from ''The Sayings of Mao Zedong.''<ref>[http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/works/red-book/]</ref> The book declares "we are [[communist]] men and women."<ref>Harvey Klehr, ''Far Left of Center: The American Radical Left Today'' (Transaction Books, New Brunswick, 1988), 109.</ref> Ayers later jokingly, publicly admitted to ghostwriting Obama's book, ''Dreams From My Father''<ref>Cashill, J. (2011, March 28). [http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2011/03/ayers_affirms_he_wrote_dreams.html Ayers Affirms He Wrote Dreams From My Father]. ''American Thinker''.</ref> and Obama was to appoint several openly avowed Maoists to prominent White House and Executive Branch positions.<ref>Fund, J. (2009, October 21). [http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704597704574487431322664964.html From Mao to Obama]. ''The Wall Street Journal''.</ref>

===2003 Emil Jones Deal===
: ''Main Article: [[2003 Barack Obama deal with Emil Jones]]''
When Illinois' U.S. Senator Peter Fitzgerald announced he would be retiring in April 2003, Obama jumped at the opportunity, declaring that he would be a candidate for the U.S. Senate in 2004.<ref name=msnbc /> To boost his chances at reaching the U.S. Congress in the 2004 elections, in 2003 Barack Obama approached the newly crowned head of the Illinois Senate, Emil Jones Jr., with a proposal. According to Jones, who Obama has since called his "godfather"<ref name=godfather>''Associated Press'' (2009, June 18). "[http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-250_162-3983147.html Obama's Political 'Godfather' In Illinois]."</ref> the conversation went as follows:
[
{{cquote|"After I was elected president, in 2003, he came to see me, a couple months later. And he said to me, he said, ‘You’re the senate president now, and with that, you have a lot of pow-er.’ And I told Barack, ‘You think I got a lot of pow-er now?,’ and he said, ‘Yeah, you got a lot of pow-er.’ And I said, ‘What kind of pow-er do I have?’ He said, ‘You have the pow-er to make a United States sen-a-tor!’ I said to Barack, I said, ‘That sounds good!’ I said, ‘I haven’t even thought of that.’ I said, ‘Do you have someone in mind you think I could make?,’ and he said, ‘Yeah. Me.’ "<ref name=raisingobama /><ref name=pragmatic />}}

Because of the deal, Obama's entire Illinois Senate legislative record was, as longtime Obama reporter Todd Spivak put it, built in a single year. During his 7th and final year in the Illinois Senate, Obama sponsored an incredible 26 bills into law, including many he now points to when criticized as inexperienced<ref name=spivak /> - as ''CNN's'' Suzanne Malveaux observed, "With help from on high, Obama got his name on hundreds of bills that he pushed through."<ref name=revealed /> Jones not only had Obama craft legislation addressing daily tragedies to raise his political profile<ref name=godfather />, he also appointed Obama head of almost all high-profile legislation in the Illinois Senate, angering other state legislators with more seniority who'd spent years supporting the bills.<ref name=spivak /> Illinois State Senator Rickey Hendon, the original sponsor of the famous racial profiling bill requiring videotaped confessions in police interrogations, complained bitterly about Jones' decision.<ref name=revealed /><ref name=intheblack>Spivak, Todd (2004, March 25). "[http://www.illinoistimes.com/Springfield/article-922-in-the-black.html In the Black]." ''Illinois Times''.</ref> Jones' influence had a major impact on Obama's chances in the 2004 elections, preventing major political players from backing Obama's opponents. To quote Emil Jones,{{cquote|"He knew if he had me in the run for the Senate, it would put a block on the current mayor. The current mayor and the father of the controller, which was Dan Hynes, they were roommates in Springfield when the mayor was a state senator, so they had a relationship. Another big financial backer for the governor was Blair Hull. Barack knew if he had me it would checkmate the governor, ’cause the governor couldn’t come out and go with Blair Hull, ’cause the governor needs me. Same with the mayor. So he had analyzed and figured all of that out. He knew I could help him with labor support. And I could put a checkmate on some of the local politicians that didn’t know him, but they couldn’t really go against me."
-Emil Jones<ref name=raisingobama />}}

==2004-2008, U.S. Senate==
:''See also: [[Early_life_and_career_of_Barack_Hussein_Obama#U.S._Senate_.282004-2008.29|Barack Obama:U.S. Senate (2004-2008)]], [[United States Senate election in Illinois, 2004]]''
[[Image:obama.jpg|thumb|left|Senator Barack Obama]]
===2004 Primary Election===
Despite initially trailing in the polls to frontrunner [[Blair Hull]]<ref name=intheblack />, Obama greatly benefited from what the ''Chicago Tribune'' called "the most inglorious campaign implosion in Illinois political history"<ref name=mendell>Mendell, David (2004, March 17). "[http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2004-03-17/news/0403170332_1_blair-hull-gery-chico-blacks-and-liberal-whites Obama Routs Democratic Foes]." ''Chicago Tribune''.</ref> when pressure from journalists and opposing candidates, just weeks before the election, forced the unsealing of Hull's messy divorce files.<ref name=blairhull>Voegeli, William (2004, March 19). "[http://www.claremont.org/publications/pubid.339/pub_detail.asp The Rise and Fall of Blair Hull]." ''The Claremont Institute''.</ref> The files revealed Hull's ex-wife's accusations of verbal and physical abuse.<ref name=spivak /> Hull would afterwards criticize the media, stating, "As for the press, I will never read the newspaper the same way again."<ref name=mendell /> Obama would go on to win the Primary with 53% of the vote.<ref name=blairhull /> Obama's unexpected victory led to him being termed a "rising star" by the media.<ref>Howlett, Debbie (2004, March 18). "[http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/2004-03-18-obama-usat_x.htm Dems See a Rising Star in Illinois Senate Candidate]." ''USA Today''.</ref>
===2004 General Election, Jack Ryan===
Once again Obama found himself trailing to popular frontrunner [[Jack Ryan]], and once again a candidate's campaign imploded thanks to media intervention. In an unprecedented move, the ''Chicago Tribune'' and local TV station WLS sued to force the unsealing of Ryan's divorce files, despite opposition from both Ryan and his wife, Jeri Ryan, who in the files accused Jack Ryan of trying to coerce her to perform sex acts in public. Though Ryan advisors told him he could still win if using a negative attack on Obama, Ryan refused to engage in what he considered dirty politics.<ref name=abandon>''Associated Press'' (2004, June 26). "[http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/state/2004-06-25-ryan_x.htm Jack Ryan Abandons Senate Bid]."</ref> Ryan then dropped out of the race (per request by the Illinois GOP<ref name=idealist>Sangwan, Rahul (2004, October 1). "[http://www.dartmouthindependent.com/archives/2004/10/jack_ryan_81_th.html Jack Ryan '81: The Conservative Idealist]." ''Dartmouth Independent''.</ref>), following which the Illinois GOP scrambled to find a replacement, leaving Obama uncontested for weeks to campaign and build up public support. On top of all this, Obama was selected to give the keynote speech at the 2004 Democratic National Convention (July 27<ref>''Washington Post'' (2004, June 26). "[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A19751-2004Jul27.html Illinois Senate Candidate Barack Obama]."</ref>), catapulting him into the national spotlight, and leading to further media publicity terming him a "rising star".<ref>Page, Susan & Despoignes, Peronet (2004, July 28). "[http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/2004-07-28-obama-speech_x.htm Rising Star Brings Democrats to Their Feet]." ''USA Today''.</ref>
===2004 General Election, Alan Keyes===
: ''Main Article: [[Obama born alive controversy]]''

After a number of candidates including former Chicago Bears coach Mike Ditka declined to run<ref>''CNN'' (2004, August 9). "[http://articles.cnn.com/2004-08-09/politics/il.keyes_1_senate-candidate-senate-race-illinois-senate?_s=PM:ALLPOLITICS Keyes Challenges Obama for Illinois Senate Seat]."</ref>, the Illinois GOP finally settled on fiery [[Alan Keyes]], a former Ambassador to the Economic and Social Counsel of the United Nations<ref name=spivak />, with less than 3 months left before the November 2004 election.<ref name=msnbc /> His sudden entrance into the state for the election was initially attacked in the press as "carpetbagging".<ref>''Chicago Tribune''. "[http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2004-08-06/news/0408060313_1_mr-keyes-judy-baar-topinka-alan-keyes The GOP's Rent-A-Senator]." ''Washington Post'' (2004, August 9). "[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A50885-2004Aug8.html Mr. Keyes the Carpetbagger].</ref><ref name=pearson>Pearson, Rick (2004, September 5). "[http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2004-09-05/news/0409050304_1_selfish-hedonist-alan-keyes-illinois-republican-party Keyes, State GOP Gearing Up Blame Campaign]." ''Chicago Tribune''.</ref> Keyes repeatedly claimed his primary motivation for entering a race he had seemingly no chance of winning was his disgust at Obama's votes on the popular [[Born Alive]] bills.<ref>Keyes, Alan (2004, August 18). "[http://www.mail-archive.com/newsandviews@chuckmuth.com/msg00699.html How You Can Help Alan Keyes for Senate!]." ''Keyes2004 Inc.''</ref> Keyes, from his first day of arriving in Illinois (August 9, 2004)<ref name=assails>''Associated Press'' (2004, August 9). "[http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5654128/ Keyes Assails Obama's Abortion Views]."</ref>, accused Obama of having voted against bills mandating medical care for newborn children, and supporting "infanticide" (the term twice used in the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act<ref>''United States Congress'' (2003, March 13). "[http://news.findlaw.com/wp/docs/abortion/2003s3.html S.3: Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003]."</ref>) where hospitals left newborn infants to die like garbage.<ref>Smiley, Tavis (2004, August 31). "[http://www.keyesarchives.com/transcript.php?id=341 Alan Keyes on the Tavis Smiley Show]." ''NPR''. ''CBS2 Chicago'' (2004, August 30). "[http://www.keyesarchives.com/transcript.php?id=337 Alan Keyes on CBS2 Chicago This Morning]." This Morning.</ref> Obama in a debate on October 13, 2004, defended himself against Keyes' accusations of infanticide by claiming that Illinois law was already sufficient.<ref>''Chicago Tribune'' (2004, October 13). "[http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2004-10-13/news/0410140004_1_alan-keyes-senate-race-first-of-three-debates Debate or Discussion?]"</ref>

However, Keyes' rhetoric, calling Obama's votes "the slaveholder's position"<ref name=assails /> and saying "Jesus Christ would not vote for Obama"<ref>Thomas, Scott (2004, September 7). "[http://www.keyesarchives.com/transcript.php?id=348 Alan Keyes on the Scott Thomas Show (AM1160 - WYLL)]." ''Scott Thomas Show''. Chicago, Illinois.</ref> was widely ridiculed by the press. Keyes' unabashed criticism of homosexuality as "selfish hedonism" was also targeted.<ref name=pearson /><ref>''Associated Press''. "[http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5897569/ Keyes: Cheney's Gay Daughter Practicing Selfish Hedonism]." Pallasch, Abdom M. (2004, September 2). "[http://web.archive.org/web/20071017122135/http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4155/is_20040902/ai_n12560727 Topinka Says He Should Apologize for 'Idiotic' Comment]." ''Chicago Sun-Times''.</ref> Obama would ultimately win the election, 70% to 27%.<ref>''CNN.com''. "[http://cnn.hu/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/IL/S/01/index.html Election Results: U.S. Senate/Illinois]." Election 2004.</ref>

===Voting Record===
Obama frequently used the [[filibuster]] to obstruct the operations of government,<ref>O'Keefe, E. (2010, February 4). [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/03/AR2010020303801_pf.html Obama criticizes Senate Republicans for delaying confirmation votes]. ''The Washington Post''.</ref> voted against the [[minimum wage]]<ref>[http://uspolitics.about.com/od/legislatio1/a/HR2206.htm HR 2206 - Emergency Appropriations], Kathy Gill, Your Guide to U.S. Politics: Current Events. May 26 2007. [http://more.gov.mtopgroup.com/2007/05/votes-hr-2206-iraq-supplemental.html Votes - H.R. 2206: Iraq Supplemental], May 28, 2007. Retrieved from Deeper Inside the Mountain, June 4, 2007.</ref> and debt ceiling increases,<ref>Kaplan, R. (2011, April 11). [http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/04/obama-once-opposed-debt-ceiling-hike/237129/ Obama Once Opposed Debt Ceiling Hike]. ''The Atlantic''.</ref> and recieved more than $126,000 in campaign contributions from [[Fannie Mae]]. The ''[[National Journal]]'' ranked him the most liberal senator in 2007.<ref name="ranked">{{cite web|url=http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-502163_162-3775451-502163.html|title=National Journal: Obama Most Liberal Senator In 2007|author=Brian Montopoli|date=January 31, 2008|work=CBS}}</ref>

==2008 Presidential Election==
{{main article|Barack Hussein Obama 2008 Presidential campaign}}
Democrats began calling for an Obama candidacy after liberals lauded his 2004 [[Democratic National Convention]] speech.
====Primary Election====
In 2007-08, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton competed for the Democratic nomination. Hillary Clinton cleverly resurrected the "Born Alive" controversy surrounding Obama that had lain largely dormant since 2004 (notwithstanding the continuing mentions by Jill Stanek), by accusing Obama of not being pro-choice for voting "Present" on a number of abortion-related bills<ref>Bettelheim, Adriel (2008, February 13). "[http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2008/feb/13/obamas-present-tension/ Obama's 'Present' Tension]." ''PolitiFact''.</ref> - including the Born Alive ones,<ref name=clinton>Berman, Russell (2008, January 17). "[http://www.nysun.com/national/clinton-obama-should-vote-no-on-abortion-issue/69700/ Clinton: Obama Should Vote 'No' On Abortion Issue She Backed]." ''New York Sun''. Hernandez, Raymond & Drew, Christopher (2007, December 20). "[http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/20/us/politics/20obama.html?pagewanted=all It's Not Just 'Ayes' and 'Nays': Obama's Votes in Illinois Echo]." ''New York Times''.</ref> and cowardly ducking the votes.<ref>''Politi-Fact''. "[http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2008/feb/13/hillary-clinton/yes-but-its-complicated/ Response to Hillary Clinton Comment for January 21st, 2008]." Truth-o-Meter. Dorning, Mike (2007, December 20). "[http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2007/12/criticism_of_obama_present_vot.html Clinton Camp Criticizes Obama 'Present' Votes]." The Swamp. ''Chicago Tribune''.</ref> This led to criticism of Obama by two pro-choice organizations, Emily's List, and the National Organization for Women.<ref>Dorning, Mike (2008, January 14). "[http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2008/01/obama_campaign_mounts_defense.html The Swamp: Obama Campaign Defends His Abortion-Rights Record]." ''Chicago Tribune''. Dorn, Michael (2008, February 6). "[http://voices.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/02/obamas_voting_record_on_aborti_1.html Obama's Voting Record on Abortion]." ''Washington Post''. Newton-Small, Jay (2008, January 14). "[http://swampland.time.com/2008/01/14/obama_campaign_defends_present/ Obama Campaign Defends 'Present' Abortion Votes]." ''Time Magazine''.</ref> However, Pam Sutherland, the long-time head of Illinois Planned Parenthood, came to Obama's aid, criticizing Clinton for making the attack, and stating repeatedly that Obama's present votes were part of a broader strategy used by Planned Parenthood to keep Illinois voters from knowing their state senators were voting against the controversial and popular bills.<ref>Hernandez, Raymond & Drew, Christopher (2007, December 20). "[http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/20/us/politics/20cnd-obama.html?_r=2&hp&oref=slogin Obama's Vote in Illinois Was Often Just 'Present']." ''New York Times''. Follmer, Max (2008, March 28). "[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/01/14/obama-emphasizes-prochoic_n_81460.html Obama Emphasizes Pro-Choice Voting Record as Clinton Questions 'Present' Votes]." ''Huffington Post''.</ref>
{{cquote|"He came to me and said: ‘My members are being attacked. We need to figure out a way to protect members and to protect women. A ‘present’ vote was hard to pigeonhole which is exactly what Obama wanted. What it did was give cover to moderate Democrats who wanted to vote with us but were afraid to do so" because of how their votes would be used against them electorally. A ‘present’ vote would protect them. Your senator voted ‘present.’ Most of the electorate is not going to know what that means."
-Pam Sutherland, President/CEO of Illinois Planned Parenthood Council, 1980-2012<ref>Davis, Teddy (2007, July 17). "[http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2007/07/obama-abortion/ Obama Abortion Dodges Blessed by Planned Parenthood], ''ABC News''.</ref>}}Clinton also made the claim repeatedly that while Obama was leading in Delegates she was winning the Popular Vote<ref>Koffler, Daniel (2008, May 28). "[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/daniel-koffler/hillary-clinton-and-the-p_b_103913.html Hillary Clinton and the Popular Vote: Not Wrong, but Meaningless]." ''Huffington Post''. Barone, Michael (2008, March 28). "[http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/barone/2008/03/28/projection-clinton-wins-popular-vote-obama-wins-delegate-count Projection: Clinton Wins Popular Vote, Obama Wins Delegate Vote]." ''U.S. News''.</ref>, though this was in part because Obama hadn't been registered in Michigan.<ref>Romano, Andrew (2008, August 2). "[http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/blogs/stumper/2008/06/02/clinton-s-popular-vote-claim-close-but-not-quite.html Clinton's Popular Vote Claim? Close--But Not Quite*]." ''Newsweek''. ''RealClearPolitics''. "[http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_vote_count.html 2008 Democratic Popular Vote]."</ref> Obama's advantage with super-delegates over Clinton was about 2-to-1.<ref>{{Cite web|title=Superdelegate endorsements for Friday 6/6|work=Democratic Convention Watch|url=http://demconwatch.blogspot.com/2008/06/superdelegate-endorsements-for-friday.html}}</ref> Obama was able to attract the support of [[liberals]] by pointing out that he had come out against the [[Iraq War]] "from the beginning" whereas Clinton had voted in favor of the war in 2002.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-01-31-democrats-debate_N.htm|title=Obama, Clinton stress differences on Iraq, issues|author=David Jackson|work=USA Today|format=HTML|language=English}}</ref> On June 7, 2008, Hillary Clinton withdrew from the Primaries, conceding the race and endorsing her opponent<ref>''Associated Press''. "[http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24993082/ns/politics-decision_08/t/clinton-ends-historic-bid-endorses-obama/ Clinton Ends Historic Bid, Endorses Obama]."</ref>, when Obama passed the 2,118 Delegates required; winning 2,201 delegates to Clinton's 1,896.<ref>''CNN''. "[http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/scorecard/#D Election Center 2008].</ref>
====Born Alive Record Resurfaces====
On June 30, 2008, Obama's voting record on the "Born Alive" bills came once more to the forefront when CNN gave voice to the growing controversy and revealed the defense Obama had been using since 2004-2008, that the Illinois bills he'd voted against were different from the federal bill, was false, since he'd brought up for a vote a bill word for word identical to the federal bill in the Health and Human Services Committee he chaired, and voted against it, defeating it.<ref>''CNN''. "[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPZCXcTwZPY How He Really Voted on Abortion: Obama's Record Under Attack]." ''The Situation Room''. Uploaded to ''YouTube'' by Jill Stanek. ''CNN''. "[http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0806/30/sitroom.02.html Transcripts: June 30, 2008]." The Situation Room.</ref> This led in August to a confrontation between Obama and the [[NRLC]].<ref>''National Right to Life Committee''. "[http://www.nrlc.org/news/2008/NRL08/ObamaCoverup.html Obama Cover-up Revealed on Born-Alive Abortion Survivor's Bill]." NRL News, Vol. 35, Issue 7-8, pg. 5.</ref> After Obama accused critics of 'lying'<ref>Brody, David (2008, August 16). "[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Skq5M1Ksp_c McCain/Obama Forum]." ''CNN''. Uploaded to ''YouTube'' by Jill Stanek. David Brody (August 16, 2008). "[http://blogs.cbn.com/thebrodyfile/archive/2008/08/16/obama-gets-heated-on-born-alive-infant-protection-act.aspx Obama Gets Heated on Born Alive Infant Protection Act]." ''CBN News''. The Brody File.</ref> the NRLC challenged the assertion, and the Obama campaign conceded he "misspoke" and had voted against an identical bill to the "federal bill that everybody supported" but focused on Obama's new claim, that Illinois law was already sufficient to protect newborn children.<ref>Berman, Russell (2008, August 18). "[http://www.nysun.com/national/obama-facing-attacks-from-all-sides-over-abortion/84059/ Obama Facing Attacks From All Sides Over Abortion Record]." ''New York Sun''.</ref> The NRLC promptly declared "Senator Barack Obama's four-year effort to cover up his full role in killing legislation to protect born-alive survivors of abortions continues to unravel."<ref>Johnson, Douglas (2008, August 18). "[http://www.nrlc.org/ObamaBAIPA/Obamacoveruponbornalive.htm Obama Cover-up on Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Continues to Unravel After Sen. Obama Says NRLC is 'Lying']." ''National Right to Life Committee''.</ref>
====Jeremiah Wright====
:''See also: [[Barack Obama and Liberation Theology]]''
One major dilemma that arose for Obama during his campaign was his connection to his preacher [[Jeremiah Wright]]. Obama and his wife (raised a Baptist) were members of the Trinity [[United Church of Christ]]<ref>http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1776246/posts</ref> in Chicago, a church that embraced [[black liberation theology]] and its emphasis on empowering so-called "oppressed groups" against "establishment forces". This denomination was the first in America to ordain gays as ministers.<ref>http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/31079.html, Obama's church pushes controversial doctrines, March 20, 2008</ref> Church pastor Jeremiah Wright had been making inflammatory comments and posting his sermons online for sale. These include the statement "G-d damn America," and in describing the September 11th attacks, "We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans, and now we are indignant because the stuff we have done overseas is now brought right back to our own front yards. America's chickens are coming home to roost."<ref>[http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/Story?id=4443788 Obama's Pastor: G-d Damn America, U.S. to Blame for 9/11]</ref> In addition, Rev. Wright blamed America saying "We supported Zionism shamelessly while ignoring the Palestinians and branding anybody who spoke out against it as being [[anti-Semitic]]."

In April 2008, after 20 years in the church, candidate Obama made public statements poised to set him at odds with the man who conducted his wedding and baptized his children. With the negative publicity persisting, a month later Obama ended the friendship, left Wright's church, and blamed the media.<ref>[http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/05/31/obama-resigns-church-membership-in-chicago/], Obama Drops Church Membership in Chicago, May 31, 2008</ref> Obama claimed “It’s not fair to the other members of the church who seek to worship in peace...", and distanced himself from Wright's sermons as "a bunch of rants that aren't grounded in the truth."<ref>USA TODAY, ''Obama breaks with former pastor, Candidate cites rants on U.S. role in terror, AIDS'', by Kathy Kiely and David Jackson [http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/news/20080430/1a_offlede30_dom.art.htm]</ref><ref>''Obama Says He Is Outraged By Wright's "Rants"''[http://www.usnews.com/usnews/politics/bulletin/bulletin_080430.htm]</ref>

====Result====
Obama made an effort to portray John McCain as similar to George W. Bush, drawing attention to McCain's refusal to criticize the unpopular president. McCain was particularly criticized for saying of how many years we should be willing to stay in Iraq, "Make it a hundred."<ref>Dobbs, Michael (2008, April 2). "[http://voices.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/04/mccains_100year_war.html FactChecker: McCain's '100-Year War']." ''Washington Post''.</ref>{{cquote|"John McCain went on television and said that there has been great progress economically over the last seven-and-a-half years. John McCain thinks our economy has made great progress under George W. Bush? How could somebody who has been traveling across this country, somebody who came to Erie, Pennsylvania, say we’ve made great progress?"
-Barack Obama<ref>Zeleny, Jeff (2008, April 18). "[http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/04/18/obama-criticizes-mccain-on-economic-stance/ Obama Criticizes McCain on Economic Stance]." ''New York Times''.</ref>}} On August 22nd, Obama selected [[Joe Biden]] as his running mate for the vice presidency<ref>''CNN'' (2008, August 23). "[http://articles.cnn.com/2008-08-23/politics/biden.democrat.vp.candidate_1_biden-john-mccain-barack-obama?_s=PM:POLITICS Obama Introduces Biden as Running Mate]."</ref>, which would be contrasted one week later with John McCain's selection of [[Sarah Palin]].<ref>Cooper, Michael & Bumiller, Elisabeth (2008, August 29). "[http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/30/us/politics/29palin.html?pagewanted=all Alaskan is McCain's Choice; First Woman on G.O.P. Ticket]. ''New York Times''.</ref>

On November 2, 2008, Barack Obama won the presidential election with 365 electoral votes to John McCain's 173.<ref>(2008, November 14). "[http://elections.nytimes.com/2008/results/president/explorer.html Electoral Explorer]." Election Results 2008. ''New York Times''.</ref> Obama received 53% of the popular vote to John McCain's 46%.<ref>(2008, November 17). "[http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/president/ President]." Election Center 2008. ''CNN''.</ref>

==2009-2012, U.S. Presidency==
{{main article|Obama administration}}
[[File:Obama and George H. W. Bush.jpg|thumb|right|300px|President Barack Obama meets with former President George H. W. Bush in the Oval Office, Feb. 15, 2011. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza).]]
Under Obama's stewardship the United States has suffered the largest [[Federal budget deficit|deficit]]s<ref>Edwards, B. et. al. (2009, November 6). [http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/107xx/doc10708/11-06-mbr.htm Monthly Budget Review: Fiscal Year 2009]. ''Congressional Budget Office''. Delisle, E.C. et. al. (2010, November 5). [http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/118xx/doc11873/NovemberMBR.pdf Monthly Budget Review: Fiscal Year 2010]. ''Congressional Budget Office''.</ref> in history and a credit downgrade from the rating agency Standard & Poor. However, during the Obama Administration the national deficit has increased at a much lower rate than during the Bush Administration. Most observers attribute the deficits to increasing benefits and welfare paid out on account of the Recession he inherited and has failed to end along with decreasing tax receipts. Standard & Poor decided to downgrade U.S. government deby after the debt ceiling debate debacle, where Congressional leaders refused to pass a bill authorizing borrowing to pay for the budget they had passed with much debate and controversy earlier in the year. Cynics have argued that rhetoric directed at the rating agencies about the issuance of AAA ratings to junk real estate bonds spurred the downgrade as a form of retribution. Ironically, the investor scare led to the flocking of investors to the safe haven of the Treasury bonds which had been downgraded, resulting in lower interest rates. As there are very few AAA bond markets, investors will likely continue to buy U.S. government debt for the foreseeable future. <ref>Greenwald, A. (2011, April 18). [http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2011/04/18/the-sp-outlook-and-obama/ The S&P Outlook and Obama]. ''Commentary Magazine''.</ref> When his [[economic stimulus]] program was adopted unemployment rose and stagnated in the 10% range, <ref>Di Leo, L & Lynch, S.N. (2010, August 20). [http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704476104575439172480870774.html Jobless Claims Jump in New Sign Recovery is Sputtering]. ''The Wall Street Journal''.</ref> leaving tens of millions without [[hope]] of finding a job.<ref>Bureau of Labor Statistics. [http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet?data_tool=latest_numbers&series_id=LNS11300000&years_option=specific_years&include_graphs=true&to_month=1&from_month=2 Databases, Tables & Calculators by Subject: Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey]. ''United States Department of Labor''. Data extracted on: July 19, 2010 (4:31:11 PM).</ref>

Patrick H. Caddell and Douglas E. Schoen, writing in the [[Wall Street Journal]], noted, "Rather than being a unifier, Mr. Obama has divided America on the basis of race, class and partisanship." The commentators also note Obama's approach to governance has encouraged radical leftists to pursue a similar strategy on his behalf. Mary Frances Berry, former head of the U.S. Civil Rights Commission, acknowledged that the [[Obama administration]] has taken to polarizing America around the issue of race as a means of diverting attention from other issues, saying, "Having one's opponent [[race card|rebut charges of racism]] is far better than discussing [[Unemployment|joblessness]]."<ref>Berry, M.F. (2010, July 20). [http://www.politico.com/arena/perm/Mary_Frances_Berry_91E3D9D5-C40D-440C-9D48-1C50CBC60C87.html Energy Arena, Driving the Conversation: Contracting Out U.S. Security? And will Branding Tea Party Racist Work?] ''Politico''.</ref> Caddell and Schoen, who worked for President Carter and Clinton, respectively, further stated, "Mr. Obama has also cynically [[class warfare|divided the country on class lines]]. He has taken to playing the populist card time and time again. He bashes Wall Street and insurance companies whenever convenient to advance his programs, yet he has been eager to accept campaign contributions and negotiate with these very same banks and [[corporation]]s behind closed doors in order to advance his political agenda... President Obama's divisive approach to governance has weakened us as a people and paralyzed our political culture."<ref>Caddell, P.H. & Schoen, D.E. (2010, July 28). [http://online.wsj.com/article/NA_WSJ_PUB:SB10001424052748703700904575391553798363586.html Our Divisive President]. ''The Wall Street Journal''.</ref>
===Domestic policy===
====Popular bills====
Obama's first act of office was to sign the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act - effectively nullifying the [[Supreme Court]] case ''Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.'', which ruled that Ledbetter had to have filed a pay [[discrimination]] suit within 180 days of the first time Ledbetter was paid less than her male peers;<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/30/us/politics/30ledbetter-web.html|work=The New York Times|format=HTML|language=English|title=Obama Signs Equal-Pay Legislation|author=Sheryl Gay Stolberg|date=January 29, 2009}}</ref> the law made corporations subject to suit within 180 days of each time the employee was unfairly paid.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://writ.news.findlaw.com/grossman/20090213.html?=features|work=FindLaw|author=Joanna L. Grossman|date=Feb. 13, 2009|format=HTML|language=English|title=The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009}}</ref>

On January 2, 2011, Obama signed the James Zadroga [[9/11]] Healthcare and Compensation Act.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.wnyc.org/articles/wnyc-news/2011/jan/02/obama-signs-zadroga-act-law/|publisher=New York Public Radio|title=Obama Signs Zadroga Act into Law|author=Fred Mogul|date=January 02, 2011|work=wNYC|format=HTML|language=English}}</ref> The act, which afforded 9/11 first responders who were sickened by the dust from the collapse of the [[World Trade Center]] health care and compensation, passed [[Congress]] after its sponsored agreed to scale down the pricing from 7.4 to 4.2 billion dollars.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.wnyc.org/articles/wnyc-news/2010/dec/22/zadroga-911-bill-passes-senate/|publisher=New York Public Radio|work=wNYC|format=HTML|language=English|title=Congress Approves 9/11 Health Bill|date=December 22, 2010}}</ref>

====Economic policy====
[[File:Keynes.jpg|thumbnail|right|190px|[[Barack Obama]] advocates the use of discredited [[Keynesian economics|Keynesian economic concepts]]<ref>
*[http://centurean2.wordpress.com/2011/03/20/fabian-john-maynard-keynes-the-stealthy-enemy-of-human-freedom/ John Maynard Keynes the stealthy enemy of human freedom]
*[http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-02-22/deathbed-of-keynesian-economics-will-be-in-u-k-matthew-lynn.html Deathbed of Keynesian Economics will be in the UK]
*[http://www.iwf.org/inkwell/show/23102.html Will the G8 Repudiate the Philosophy of Living Beyond Our Means?]
*[http://www.keynesatharvard.org/book/KeynesatHarvard-ch09.html KEYNES AT HARVARD Economic Deception as a Political Credo BY ZYGMUND DOBBS]
</ref> ]]
{{see also|Obamunism|American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009}}
Critics of the Obama administration have coined the word "[[Obamunism]]" to describe Barack Obama's [[socialism|socialistic]] and "[[fascism]] light" [[economic planning]] policies.<ref>[[Benito Mussolini]] defined fascism as the wedding of state and corporate powers. Accordingly, trend forecaster [[Gerald Celente]] labels [[Obama administration corporate bailouts|Obama's corporate bailouts]] as being "fascism light" in nature.</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.thebigmoney.com/articles/daily-intel/2009/07/20/obamunism-inc|work=The Big Money|publisher=WashingtonPost.Newsweek Interactive Co. LLC|format=HTML|language=English|title=Obamunism, Inc.|author=David Sessions|date=July 20, 2009}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.smallbusinessadvocate.com/small-business-interviews/gerald-celente-6944|author=Jim Blasingame|title=Is the government creating a bailout bubble?}}</ref> Obamunism can also refer to Obama's [[Obama administration fiscal policy|ruinous fiscal policies]] and [[Obama administration monetary policy|reckless monetary policies]].<ref name="gerard">{{cite web|url=http://seekingalpha.com/article/120883-monetary-policynot-obama-s-stimulusis-what-needs-watching|title=Monetary Policy-Not Obama's Stimulus-Is What Needs Watching|author=Gerard Jackson|date=February 16, 2009|work=Seeking Alpha}}</ref><ref name="bam">{{cite web|work=New York Post|date=May 17, 2009|url=http://www.nypost.com/seven/05172009/postopinion/editorials/bams_wise_words_169731.htm|title=BAM'S WISE WORDS}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://blog.heritage.org/2009/03/24/bush-deficit-vs-obama-deficit-in-pictures/|title=Bush Deficit vs. Obama Deficit in Pictures|work=The Foundry|publisher=The Heritage Foundation|author=Conn Carroll|date=March 24th, 2009}}</ref> As seen in his own actions, Barack Obama instructed his advisors to find loopholes that would enable the president to act as a [[dictator]] by pushing through legislation and increases in spending without congressional authority.<ref>Naked Emperor News (2011, October 12). [http://www.theblaze.com/stories/executive-dictatorship-obama-instructs-advisers-to-push-through-stimulus-projects-without-pesky-congressional-authorization/ Exclusive Dictatorship: Obama Instructs Advisors to Push Through Stimulus Projects Without Pesky 'Congressional Authorization']. ''The Blaze''.</ref>

Nevertheless, budgets passed under President Obama have included the smallest average annualized growth of federal spending (1.4%) since before President Reagan. Federal spending grew an average of 8.7% per year during Reagan's first term and an average of 8.1% per year during George W. Bush's second term.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2012/05/24/who-is-the-smallest-government-spender-since-eisenhower-would-you-believe-its-barack-obama/|title=Who Is The Smallest Government Spender Since Eisenhower? Would You Believe It's Barack Obama?|publisher=Forbes|author=Rick Ungar|date=May 24th, 2012}}</ref>

[[Wall Street]] firms and banks that were bailed out were among Obama's biggest campaign supporters.<ref>''OpenSecrets.org''. [http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.php?cycle=2008&cid=N00009638 Barack Obama: Top Contributors]. The Center for Responsive Politics.</ref> Therefore, the Obama administration bailouts of corrupt, unproductive, and reckless Wall Street firms was hardly surprising, and many argue that it was not helpful in making the United States economy more productive and prosperous by encouraging more risk taking through letting banks off with a slap on the wrist. Others argue that bailing out the banks kept credit flowing and prevented a much deeper recession and a total collapse of the financial system. The government will recoup some though not all of its capital infusions over time. A 2005 study found that government corporate bailouts are often done for mere political considerations and the economic resources allocated exhibit significantly worse economic performance than resources allocated using purely business considerations.<ref>Faccio, M. et. al. (2005, March 1). [http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=676905 Political Connections and Corporate Bailouts]. ''Social Science Research Network''.</ref> Proponents of [[free market]] capitalism said Bernanke should not have bailed out failing firms and instead should have allowed free market capitalism to quickly recover as it did in the depression of 1920 without government intervention (free market capitalists assert that government intervention drags out economic recessions and depressions).<ref>Woods, T.E. (2009, April 10). [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=czcUmnsprQI Why You've Never Heard of the Great Depression of 1920]. ''Ludwig Von Mises Institute''. Hosted on ''YouTube''.</ref>

Top trend forecaster [[Gerald Celente]] predicts that the corrupt economic policies of the Obama administration will lead to a second [[Great Depression|great depression]] (Celente predicted the 1987 US stock market crash, the dot.com crash, the US 2008/2009 recession, and the collapse of the USSR in the early 1990s) and may lead to a "second [[American Revolution]]" (Celente predicted the [[Tea Party Movement|tax protests]] that are now occurring in America).<ref name="celente1">Celente, G. (2009, August 1). [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8MMX3SKzrfU&feature=channel_page pt 2/2 Gerald Celente on Financial Sense Newshour Aug 1st 2009]. ''Financial Sense Newshour''. Hosted on ''YouTube''.</ref><ref name="celente2">Celente, G. (2009, August 2). [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sy9bfw1ebgw&feature=response_watch ]. ''Financial Sense Newshour''. Hosted on ''YouTube''.</ref> Celente also asserts that the costly and inefficient temporary short term methods that the Obama administration is using to alleviate economic problems in the short term (which is causing massive increases in [[Obama administration deficit spending]]) is only making matters worse and will not prevent the worse economic depression in United States history from occurring.<ref>Celente, G. (2009, August 11). [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_C8K7rWkGGw pt 1/2 Gerald Celente on Howestreet.com 11 Aug 2009]. ''HoweStreet.com''. Hosted on ''YouTube''.</ref><ref>Celente, G. (2009, August 11). [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1LBffdIW0XA&feature=response_watch pt 2/2 Gerald Celente on Howestreet.com 11 Aug 2009]. ''HoweStreet.com''. Hosted on ''YouTube''.</ref>

The Obama administration has been sharply criticized for [[Obama administration deficit spending|its massive deficit spending]] and [[Obama administration monetary policy|its reckless monetary policy]] via vast increases in the [[money supply]], although inflation under Bernanke has been below the historic mean.<ref name="gerard"/><ref name="bam"/><ref>Carroll, C. (2009, March 24). [http://blog.heritage.org/2009/03/24/bush-deficit-vs-obama-deficit-in-pictures/ Bush Deficit vs. Obama Deficit in Pictures]. ''The Foundry''. The Heritage Network.</ref> Celente predicts that if a "second American Revolution" occurs in a peaceful and productive manner, it may include a [[Third Party System|third party movement]] of governance that will advocate a more [[free market]] [[capitalism]] approach to the American economy and a more strict interpretation of the [[United States Constitution|United States constitution]] as far as the authors' [[original intent]].<ref name="celente1"/><ref name="celente2"/>

During what the [[White House]] billed as [[Recovery Summer]], one half million workers per week continued losing their jobs. His signature legislative achievement, [[ObamaCare]],has been found to be [[unconstitutional]]<ref>Schoenberg, T. & Fisk, M.T. (2010, December 13). [http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-12-13/u-s-health-care-law-requirement-thrown-out-by-judge.html Obama's Health-Care Law Ruled Unconstitutional Over Insurance Requirement]. ''Bloomberg''.</ref> by several judges and constitutional by others, and is credited as a major cause of uncertainty, high [[unemployment]],<ref>http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=33220</ref> lagging job creation,<ref>Foster, J.D. (2010, August 5). [http://blog.heritage.org/2010/08/05/it%E2%80%99s-official-medicare%E2%80%99s-finances-shadowed-by-uncertainty/ It’s Official: Medicare’s Finances Shadowed by Uncertainty]. ''The Foundry''. The Heritage Network.</ref> and risk of a credit default crisis.<ref>Samuelson, R.J. (2010, March 29). [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/28/AR2010032802353.html With health bill, Obama has sown the seeds of a budget crisis]. ''The Washington Post''.</ref><ref>Cramer, J. (2010, March 16). [http://www.thestreet.com/story/10703361/cramer-obamacare-will-topple-the-market.html Cramer: Obamacare Will Topple the Market]. ''The Street''.</ref>

His 2012 Budget plan has been roundly criticized in the mainstream and liberal press as not a serious effort to deal with the nation's economic crisis.<ref>[http://republican.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=blogs.view&blog_id=1551d6f5-2ac9-4b8d-97ab-74def354024e Newspapers Call Out White House: ‘What Would That Path Be, Mr. President?’]</ref>

[[Jeffrey Tucker]] wrote, "President Obama's economic policy has been catastrophic for liberty, enterprise, and the American dream—the very archetype of what not to do to end recession." [http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1118186176/ref=as_li_tf_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=anncoulter-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=1118186176]

====2009 Stimulus====
In early 2009, Obama lobbied Congress and the public to pass sweeping Stimulus legislation for the ailing economy<ref>(2009, January 3). "[http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28479998/ns/politics-white_house/t/obama-urges-congress-pass-stimulus-plan/ Obama Urges Congress to Pass Stimulus Plan]." ''Associated Press''. Parsons, C. & Nicholas, P. (2009, February 10). "[http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28479998/ns/politics-white_house/t/obama-urges-congress-pass-stimulus-plan/ Barack Obama Sternly Urges Congress to Pass Economic Stimulus]." ''Chicago Tribune''.</ref> known as ''The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009'' (H.R. 1)<ref>"[http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.1: Bill Text Versions: H.R. 1]." 111th Congress (2009-2010). ''Library of Congress''. "[http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,id=204335,00.html The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009: Information Center]." ''IRS''.</ref>, ignoring a report by the Congressional Budget Office that the legislation would ultimately harm the economy.<ref>Dinan, S. (2009, February 4). "[http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/feb/04/cbo-obama-stimulus-harmful-over-long-haul/ CBO: Obama Stimulus Harmful Over Long Haul]." ''U.S. News''.</ref> Contrary to his earlier promises of bipartisanship<ref>Dinan, S. (2009, March 28). "[http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/mar/28/mccain-obama-breaks-campaign-promises-shuns-bipart/?page=all McCain: Obama Breaks Promise of Bipartisanship]." ''Washington Times''.</ref>, the bill passed the House 244-188 without a single Republican vote on January 28, 2009,<ref>Calmes, J. (2009, January 28). "[http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/29/us/politics/29obama.html House Passes Stimulus Plan With No G.O.P. Votes]." ''New York Times''.</ref> and received just 3 Republican votes when passing the Senate 61-37.<ref>Herszenhorn, D.M. (2009, February 10). "[http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/11/washington/11web-stim.html Senate Approves Stimulus Plan]." ''New York Times''.</ref> One third of the massive $838 billion bill consisted of tax cuts<ref>(2009, February 11). "Senate Passes $838 Billion Stimulus Bill]." ''Associated Press''.</ref> and the rest spending on "just about every pent-up Democratic proposal of the last 40 years."<ref>(2009, January 28). "[http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123310466514522309.html A 40-Year Wish List]." ''Wall Street Journal''.</ref> In responding to criticism of the broken bipartisanship promise at the time, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi famously quipped, "We won the election. We wrote the bill."<ref>Kane, P. (2009, January 23). "[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/22/AR2009012203961.html Stimulus Plan Meets More GOP Resistance]." ''Washington Post''.</ref> On February 18, 2009, the Stimulus was signed into law by Obama.<ref>(2009, February 17). "[http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29231790/ns/politics-white_house/t/obama-stimulus-lets-americans-claim-destiny/ Obama: Stimulus Lets Americans Claim Destiny]." ''Associated Press''.</ref> In August 2009, Republicans and Democratic Senator David Obey drew attention to mistakes on the Recovery.gov site claiming Stimulus jobs created that didn't exist. Obama responded by saying the errors just indicate the accounting is an "inexact science".<ref>(2009, November 18). "[http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/11/18/obama-calls-stimulus-data-errors-issue-says-focus-job-growth/ Obama Calls Stimulus Data Errors 'Side Issue,' Says Focus Is on Job Growth]." ''FOX News''.</ref>
====Healthcare====
{{main article|Obamacare}}
On March 23, 2010, Obama signed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA). The act had originated in the House of Representatives and passed September 17, 2009. The act was amended and passed the Senate prior to [[Democrat]] [[Ted Kennedy]]'s passing along party lines - just a filibuster-proof majority at 60-39. In what can be construed as a de facto rejection of the bill, [[Massachusetts]] voters elected a [[Republican]] candidate, [[Scott Brown]], who promised to vote against the bill,<ref>{{cite web|url=http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/senate/scott-brown-wins-massachusetts-senate-race.html|work=The Washington Post|author=Chris Cillizza|date=January 19, 2010|title=Scott Brown wins Massachusetts Senate special election race|language=English|format=HTML}}</ref> but another Senate vote would not occur. Scott Brown was also an excellent campaigner and judged to be a better candidate than his rival, Martha Coakley. He has since achieved one of the most moderate senate voting records, likely to avoid the anger of his mostly liberal constituency. After Obama made a promise to issue an [[executive order]] that would ultimately prohibit the use of taxpayer subsidies to pay for [[abortion]] services,<ref>{{cite web|url=http://articles.latimes.com/2010/mar/22/nation/la-na-healthcare-passage22-2010mar22/3|work=The Los Angeles Times|format=HTML|language=English|title=House passes historic healthcare overhaul|date=March 22, 2010|author=Noam N. Levey and Janet Hook}}</ref> the [[House of Representatives]] would pass the bill as it left the Senate 219-212, with 34 Democrats and all other parties dissenting.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://articles.cnn.com/2010-03-21/politics/health.care.main_1_health-care-entire-house-democratic-caucus-pre-existing-conditions?_s=PM:POLITICS|date=March 21, 2010|author=Alan Silverleib|work=CNN|format=HTML|language=English|title=House passes health care bill on 219-212 vote}}</ref>

Amongst other things, the act mandates that the population purchase health care coverage or face punitive tax measures, and on this basis has been constitutionally challenged in the federal courts, with mixed results (three courts have upheld the act, two have declared it unconstitutional); thus, the Act is likely destined for [[Supreme Court]] reviewal. Plans originally proposed involved instituting a universal public insurance program, that is, extending Medicare to everyone. The universal mandate included in the act was originally a conservative idea that was enacted in Massachusetts under Republican Mitt Romney. Its supporters note that having health insurance results in reduced costs in paying for treatment of uninsured and forcing people to take responsibility for their healthcare. Due to ethical constraints, doctors cannot deny care to poor patients, resulting in the hospital and the healthcare system at large bearing the cost.

====Gulf oil spill====
{{main article|Gulf of Mexico oil spill disaster}}
President Obama authorized offshore oil drilling in the [[Gulf of Mexico]]<ref>[http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2010/0430/Gulf-of-Mexico-oil-spill-imperils-Obama-s-offshore-drilling-plan Gulf of Mexico oil spill imperils Obama's offshore drilling plan,] By Mark Clayton, ''Christian Science Monitor'', April 30, 2010.</ref> stating, "oil rigs today generally don’t cause spills"<ref>White House Press Release, [http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/remarks-president-a-discussion-jobs-and-economy-charlotte-north-carolina Remarks by the President in a Discussion on Jobs and the Economy in Charlotte, North Carolina,] Office of the Press Secretary, April 02, 2010. Retrieved from whitehouse.gov 3 May 2010.</ref> and was widely criticized for his mishandling of the "[[Gulf oil spill disaster|worst environmental disaster]] in US history."<ref>[http://www.examiner.com/x-33986-Political-Spin-Examiner~y2010m4d29-Worst-environmental-disaster-in-US-history-Oil-slick-in-Gulf-of-Mexico-is-set-on-fire Worst environmental disaster in US history,] Maryann Tobin, ''Examiner'', April 29, 2010.</ref><ref>[http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/04/30/the-oil-spill-is-obamas-fault/?src=twt&twt=NytimesKrugman Conscience of a Liberal: The Oil Spill Is Obama’s Fault,] Paul Krugman, ''New York Times'', April 30, 2010.</ref>
====Don't Ask Don't Tell====
{{main article|Don't Ask Don't Tell}}
Candidate Obama promised to repeal a policy that originated in the Clinton era that prohibited inquiries into military personnel's [[sexual orientation]] while also barring "out" [[homosexuals]] from serving in the military. [[Liberals]] expressed anger when time passed and no effort to repeal the law was seen;<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/nov/21/obama-to-delay-repeal-of-dont-ask-dont-tell/|work=The Washington Times|format=HTML|title=Obama to delay ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ repeal|language=English|author=Rowan Scarborough|date=November 21, 2008}}</ref> in fact, Obama's [[justice department]], as part of their duty to defend all laws passed by any administration, filed a brief arguing against the [[Supreme Court]] granting a [[writ of certiorari]] to a gay soldier challenging the law (the writ was not granted). In response, the soldier, James Pietrangelo II, a former Army infantryman and lawyer, said, “[Obama's] a coward, a bigot and a pathological liar. This is a guy who spent more time picking out his dog, Bo, and playing with him on the White House lawn than he has working for equality for gay people."<ref>{{cite web|work=Time Magazine|publisher=Time Inc.|format=HTML|url=http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1903545,00.html?imw=Y|title=Dismay Over Obama's 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' Turnabout|author=Mark Thompson|date=Jun. 09, 2009}}</ref>

On December 15th, 2010, a bill was introduced in the [[House of Representatives]] to repeal the law - it passed a day later by a vote of 250-175;<ref>{{cite web|url=http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2010/roll638.xml|title=FINAL VOTE RESULTS FOR ROLL CALL 638|format=HTML|work=Office of the Clerk of the U.S. House of Representatives}}</ref> it passed the Senate three days later 65-31.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=111&session=2&vote=00281|work=The U.S. Senate|title=U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 111th Congress - 2nd Session|format=HTML|language=English}}</ref> Obama signed the Don't Ask, Don't Tell Repeal Act of 2010 on December 22nd.<ref name="g dadt">{{cite web|url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/dec/22/obama-repeals-dont-ask-dont-tell|work=The Guardian|format=HTML|language=English|title='Don't ask, don't tell' repealed as Obama signs landmark law|date=22 December 2010}}</ref>

The [[Pentagon]] itself could not immediately implement the repeal and questioned whether it would hurt combat readiness.<ref name="g dadt"/> Senator [[John McCain]], the senior Republican on the Armed Services Committee, opposed the bill, saying "It may be premature to make such a change at this time and in this manner, without further consideration of this report and further study of the issue by Congress – for of all the people we serve, one of our highest responsibilities is to the men and women of our armed services, especially those risking their lives in combat.”<ref>{{cite web|url=http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/12/02/mccain-on-dont-ask-dont-tell-dont-rush/|title=McCain on ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’: Don’t Rush|date=December 2nd, 2010|format=HTML|author=David M. Herszenhorn|language=English|work=The New York Times}}</ref>
===Foreign policy===
[[File:Western Wall Obama.jpg|thumb|left|320px|At [[Western Wall]], Jerusalem, 2008.]]
As Senator, Obama was highly critical of President Bush and promised change. As President, Obama has tripled down in Afghanistan, widened the war into Pakistan, multiplied drone attacks, bombed Yemen and Somalia, and started an undeclared NATO war in Libya. On presidential war powers, surveillance questions, Guantanamo, detention policy and habeas corpus, Obama has similarly stayed the course, or expanded Bush's precedents. In a speech on May 19, 2011 Obama fully embraced the [[Bush Doctrine]] of preventative war.<ref>Krauthammer, C. (April 19). [http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-news-in-obamas-speech/2011/05/19/AF4dFN7G_story.html The News in Obama's Speech]. ''The Washington Post''.</ref>

<blockquote>
The New America Foundation, which tracks the strikes, has listed 23 raids since the beginning of April, 2011, all but one in Pakistan’s tribal regions of North and South Waziristan. A June 20 attack was reported in Kurram, an area north of North Waziristan along the Afghanistan border.
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
The drone program has become increasingly controversial as the Obama administration has expanded its use beyond the Afghanistan and Iraq wars. Lethal missiles have been launched from unmanned aircraft in at least five countries in addition to Pakistan: Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Yemen, and, most recently, Somalia. The military’s Joint Special Operations Command used a drone last June to attack what officials said were two senior members of the Al Shabab militant group on the Somali coast. <ref>DeYoung, K. (2011, July 4). [http://www.boston.com/news/world/asia/articles/2011/07/04/cia_halts_drone_launches_from_pakistan_base/ CIA Halts Drone Launches From Pakistan Base]. ''The Boston Globe''. </ref>
</blockquote>

<blockquote>
Obama is commendable when he says he wants to avoid war. His policies, however, favor war by destabilizing the Middle East making it extremely hostile and favoring radical Islam over America’s ally, Israel, and American interests in the region... The president has chosen a very dangerous path for every American and one that promises great difficulty for Israel. <ref> [http://www.thejerusalemconnection.us/blog/2012/03/14/obamas-words-disguise-his-israel-foreign-policy-actions.html Obama's words disguise his Israel foreign policy actions.] </ref>
</blockquote>
====Commander-in-chief====
By Obama's third year as Commander-in-Chief, over 1200 American troops died in Iraq and Afghanistan - significantly more than the number who died during President [[George W. Bush]]'s term of office. And growing numbers of civilian contractors also have fallen. In the first half of 2010, 250 contractors reportedly died in Iraq and Afghanistan - more than the 235 military personnel who fell during the same period.<ref>http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/05/24/114662/what-price-war.html#ixzz1Nz07pg5O</ref>
=====National Defense=====
President Obama signed into U.S. law the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), only after his administration successfully lobbied to remove language from the bill that would have protected American citizens from being detained indefinitely without trial.<ref>Aaron Dykes. [http://www.infowars.com/president-obamas-ndaa-signing-statement-i-have-the-power-to-detain-americans-but-i-wont/ Obama’s Signing Statement on NDAA: I have the power to detain Americans… but I won’t], Infowars.com, January 1, 2012. </ref> After the legislation cleared Congress, the ACLU commented that if President Obama signed the bill it "will damage both his legacy and American’s reputation for upholding the rule of law," while executive director of the ''Human Rights Watch'' blasted the President for being ‘on the wrong side of history,’ noting that "Obama will go down in history as the president who enshrined indefinite detention without trial in US law."<ref>President Decides to Sign Ill-Conceived National Defense Authorization Act. [http://www.hrw.org/news/2011/12/14/us-refusal-veto-detainee-bill-historic-tragedy-rights US: Refusal to Veto Detainee Bill A Historic Tragedy for Rights], ''Human Rights Watch'', December 14, 2011. [http://www.aclu.org/national-security/white-house-backs-away-defense-bill-veto-threat White House Backs Away from Defense Bill Veto Threat], ''[[ACLU]]'', December 14, 2011.</ref>

Section 1031 of the NDAA bill, which itself defines the entirety of the United States as a “battlefield,” allows American citizens to be snatched from the streets, carted off to a foreign detention camp and held indefinitely without trial. As reported by Infowars.com, the bill states that “any person who has committed a belligerent act” faces indefinite detention, but no trial or evidence has to be presented, the White House merely needs to make the accusation.<ref>Paul Joseph Watson. [http://www.infowars.com/obama-administration-demanded-power-to-indefinitely-detain-u-s-citizens/ Obama Administration Demanded Power To Indefinitely Detain U.S. Citizens], Infowars.com, December 12, 2011. S.1867 [http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c112:2:./temp/~c1122VN0Iv:e548990: National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Engrossed in Senate [Passed Senate] - ES)], ''The Library of Congress'' THOMAS, 112th Congress (2011-2011), Accessed January 25, 2012. Text of S.1867 - National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012. [http://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-s1867/text?version=es&nid=t0:es:281 Sec. 1031. Affirmation of authority of the Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered persons pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force.], [[U.S. Congress]], ''OpenCongress.org'', (Accessed January 25, 2012).</ref>

=====2009-2011 Iraq Troop Withdrawal=====
{{main article|Operation Iraqi Freedom}}
On February 10, 2007, Barack Obama announced his campaign for the U.S. presidency while stating he had a "''plan that will bring our combat troops home by March of 2008.''"<ref name=announcement>(2007, February 10). "[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/10/AR2007021000879.html Illinois Sen. Barack Obama's Announcement Speech]." ''Associated Press''.</ref> Later, Obama campaigned on having troops entirely out of Iraq within 16 months, but in February 2009 revised this promise to withdrawing all but 35-50 thousand troops by December 2011.<ref>Barry, J. (2009, February 25). "[http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2009/02/25/reality-on-the-ground.html Reality on the Ground]." ''Newsweek''.</ref> However, some of the newly withdrawn troops were simply redirected from Iraq to Afghanistan - Obama in Summer 2009 ordered 21,000 troops to Afghanistan.<ref name=amanpour>Amanpour, C. (2009, April 29). "[http://articles.cnn.com/2009-04-29/politics/amanpour.obama.foreign.policy_1_president-obama-obama-administration-iraq?_s=PM:POLITICS Amanpour: Obama's 100 Days of Foreign Affairs]." ''CNN Politics''.</ref>{{cquote|"But all of this cannot come to pass until we bring an end to this war in Iraq. Most of you know I opposed this war from the start. I thought it was a tragic mistake. Today we grieve for the families who have lost loved ones, the hearts that have been broken, and the young lives that could have been. America, it's time to start bringing our troops home. It's time to admit that no amount of American lives can resolve the political disagreement that lies at the heart of someone else's civil war. That's why I have a plan that will bring our combat troops home by March of 2008. Letting the Iraqis know that we will not be there forever is our last, best hope to pressure the Sunni and Shia to come to the table and find peace."
-Barack Obama, February 10, 2007 Presidential Campaign Announcement Speech<ref name=announcement />}}Ultimately, it was the Status of Forces Agreement signed by George W. Bush on November 17, 2008 which forced U.S. combat troops to withdraw from Iraq's cities, villages, and localities by June 30, 2009, and from Iraq entirely by December 31st 2011.<ref>(2008, November 17). "[http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/world/20081119_SOFA_FINAL_AGREED_TEXT.pdf Agreement Between the United States of America and the Republic of Iraq On the Withdrawal of United States from Iraq and the Organization of Their Activities during Their Temporary Presence in Iraq]." Article 24. Withdrawal of the United States Forces from Iraq. Hosted by ''The New York Times''. Office of the Press Secretary (2008, November 27). "[http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2008/11/20081127-1.html Statement by the President on Agreements with Iraq]." ''The White House''.</ref> Obama privately contacted the Iraq government in an attempt to persuade them to let 10,000 troops stay, but was rejected.<ref>Froomkin, D. (2011, October 26). "[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/26/obama-iraq_n_1032507.html Ending the War in Iraq: How Obama's Own Rhetoric - And George Bush's Pact - Boxed in the President]." ''Huffington Post''.</ref> Newsweek's Michael Ware accused Obama of a "War Crime" for "''falsely taking credit for finally bringing Iraq to a close—a war actually ended by the Bush administration back in 2008''" and stated, "''The U.S. troops who fought and died in that war, the Iraqis who perished, and the American people deserve far better.''"<ref>Ware, M. (2011, October 24). "[http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/10/24/obamas-war-crime-taking-credit-from-bush-adminsitration-for-ending-the-iraq-war.html Obama's War Crime]." ''Newsweek''. U.S. Politics.</ref> The last of Iraq's combat troops have now been withdrawn because of Bush's Status of Forces Agreement which Obama took credit for.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://articles.cnn.com/2011-12-17/middleeast/world_meast_iraq-troops-leave_1_1st-cavalry-division-camp-adder-troop-movements?_s=PM:MIDDLEEAST|work=CNN|title=Obama: Last U.S. troops leave Iraq|date=December 17, 2011|language=English|format=HTML}}</ref>
=====Afghanistan=====
{{main article|Afghanistan War}}
Obama escalated troop strength<ref name="pbs">{{cite web|url=http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/obamaswar/themes/strategy.html#ixzz1LhWNImZp|title=Obama's New Strategy (March '09)|author=George Packer, Seth Jones, David Kilcullen, Rory Stewart, Andrew Exum, Col. Andrew Bacevich (Ret.)|work=PBS|language=English|format=HTML}}</ref> and defense costs in Afghanistan from $43.5 billion in George Bush's last year to $113.7 billion for 2011.<ref>Congressional Research Service, quoted in Gregory Anthony, ''What price war?''</ref> Adviser to General [[Stanley McChrystal]] David Kilcullen wrote, "One of the big strategic shifts is the use of language now which talks about Pakistan and Afghanistan as the same theater. Now we talked about Af-Pak long before the Obama administration came about, but the public use of that term, and the description of it as the Afghanistan-Pakistan campaign, sends a new message to people about how the administration is going to think about Afghanistan and Pakistan."<ref name="pbs"/> This became evident when, under the orders of Obama, a military SEALs team killed September 11th mastermind [[Osama bin Laden]] in Abottabad, Pakistan.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.newsweek.com/2011/05/05/commander-in-chief.html|title=Commander in Chief|author=Daniel Romano and Daniel Klaidman|date=May 05, 2011|work=Newsweek|publisher=The Newsweek/Daily Beast Company LLC|language=English|format=HTML}}</ref>
=====Guantanamo Bay=====
{{main article|Guantanamo Bay}}
One of Obama's campaign promises was that he would close the American detention center at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba - detainees would be flown to other countries while the ones awaiting trial would enter the American court system. Two days after taking office he signed an order directing the military to do so.<ref name="salon">{{cite web|url=http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2011/04/25/obama_guantanamo_rhetoric|work=Salon|title=The Obama/Gitmo timeline|author=Natasha Lennard|format=HTML|language=English}}</ref> But, in November 2009 Obama admitted that his self imposed deadline of January 2010 would be missed, and in March 2011 the president went back on his campaign promise, signing an executive order to create a formal system of indefinite detention for the prisoners.<ref name="salon"/>
=====Mexico=====
In May 2012, President Obama promised Mexican President [[Felipe Calderon]] that his administration would assist Mexico in curbing drug cartel violence, which has led to 30,000 deaths in Mexico. "President Calderon and I . . . stand together against the drug cartels that have unleashed horrific violence in so many communities," Obama said on May 19. "Mexico can count on the United States as a full partner in this effort."

The ''[[Washington Post]]'' has reported however that White House officials stopped a requirement for gun dealers to report bulk sales of high-powered semiautomatic rifles commonly used by illegal drug cartels. [[Justice Department]] officials had asked for White House approval to require thousands of gun dealers along the border to report the purchases to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms and Explosives. ATF investigators expected to get leads on suspected arms traffickers. Senior law enforcement sources said the proposal from the ATF was held up by then White House chief of staff [[Rahm Emanuel]].<ref>Horwitz, S. & Grimaldi, J.V. (2010, December 17). [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/17/AR2010121706598.html White House Delayed Rule Meant to Stop Gun Flow to Mexico]. ''The Washington Post''.</ref> Gun dealers have been required for decades to report the sales of multiple handguns to the ATF.

=====Libya=====
{{main article|Libyan uprising 2011}}
In February 2011, the political unrest that had spread through the Arab world showed up as protests in Libya. Colonel Muammar el-Qaddafi - leader of Libya for 41 years - responded to the violent activism<ref>http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article28376.htm</ref> with legible steps.<ref name="nyt libya">{{cite web|url=http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/international/countriesandterritories/libya/index.html|work=The New York Times|publisher=The New York Times Inc.|format=HTML|language=English|title=Libya — Protests and Revolt (2011)}}</ref> The [[United Nations Security Council]] voted unanimously to impose [[sanctions]], and later authorized all members to take action to protect civilians. Obama, acting without approval from Congress and at the beckoning of the [[United Nations]], directed American forces to take out Libya's air defense system.<ref name="nyt libya"/> Obama later said, "[I]f we waited one more day Benghazi, a city nearly the size of Charlotte, could suffer a massacre that would have reverberated across the region and stained the conscience of the world."<ref>{{cite web|author=Barack Obama|url=http://www.npr.org/2011/03/28/134935452/obamas-speech-on-libya-a-responsibility-to-act|title=Obama's Speech On Libya: 'A Responsibility To Act'|date=March 28, 2011|publisher=National Public Radio ([[NPR]])|language=English|format=HTML}}</ref> [[Alan J. Kuperman]] - writing an editorial for the ''[[Boston Globe]]'' - suggested this statement was false, writing, "[I]ntervention did not prevent genocide, because no such bloodbath was in the offing. To the contrary, by emboldening rebellion, US interference has prolonged Libya’s civil war and the resultant suffering of innocents."<ref name="kuperman">{{cite web|author=Alan J. Kuperman|work=The Boston Globe|url=http://articles.boston.com/2011-04-14/bostonglobe/29418371_1_rebel-stronghold-civilians-rebel-positions|title=False pretense for war in Libya?|date=April 14, 2011}}</ref> Kuperman, a professor of public affairs at the University of Texas who authored a book called ''The Limits of Humanitarian Intervention'', further stated that the rebels had tricked the world into thinking a bloodbath was at hand and that Obama had lied to the American people in order to act on this theory.<ref name="kuperman"/>
<blockquote>
Gaddafi [never] threaten civilian massacre in Benghazi, as Obama alleged. The “no mercy’’ warning, of March 17, targeted rebels only, as reported by The New York Times, which noted that Libya’s leader promised amnesty for those “who throw their weapons away.’’ Khadafy even offered the rebels an escape route and open border to Egypt, to avoid a fight “to the bitter end.’’ <ref> [http://politicalcartel.org/2011/04/17/libya-and-the-obama-doctrine/ Libya and the “Obama Doctrine”.] </ref>
</blockquote>

However Gaddafi wrote to Obama:

<blockquote>
Gaddafi said he bore no ill will toward Obama. "We have been hurt more morally than physically because of what had happened against us in both deeds and words by you," he wrote. "Despite all this you will always remain our son whatever happened. We still pray that you continue to be president of the USA. We endeavour and hope that you will gain victory in the new election campaign." The letter, dated 5 April 2011 in Tripoli, is signed "Mu'aumer Qaddaffi, Leader of the Revolution".<ref>[http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/apr/06/gaddafi-obama-nato-libya?INTCMP=ILCNETTXT3487]</ref>
</blockquote>

Critics point out the only thing worse than starting a "stupid, unnecessary war" against a madman is losing it.<ref>http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/271847/war-libya-dumb-and-dumber-victor-davis-hanson</ref>

==2012 Presidential Campaign==
===2011, Birth Certificate Released===
: ''Main Article: [[Barack_Obama_Controversies#Birth_Certificate]]''
On April 27, 2011<ref>CNN Political Unit (2011, April 27). "[http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/04/27/white-house-releases-obama-birth-certificate/ White House Releases Obama Birth Certificate]." ''CNN''</ref>, a long-running controversy surrounding Obama's birth was largely put to rest<ref>Winter, J. (2011, April 29). "[http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/04/29/expert-says-obamas-birth-certificate-legit/ Expert: No Doubt Obama's Birth Certificate is Legit]." ''FOX News''. Tuchman, G. (2011, April 25). "[http://articles.cnn.com/2011-04-25/politics/birthers.obama.hawaii_1_birther-controversy-obama-opinion-research-corporation?_s=PM:POLITICS Obama Birther Claims Have No Merit]." ''CNN''. (2011, April 27). "[http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42779923/ns/politics-white_house/t/obama-releases-detailed-us-birth-certificate/ Obama Releases Detailed U.S. Birth Certificate]." ''MSNBC''.</ref> when Obama had his long-form birth certificate posted at WhiteHouse.gov.<ref>"[http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/rss_viewer/birth-certificate-long-form.pdf Certificate of Live Birth]." State of Hawaii. Retrieved from ''WhiteHouse.gov''.</ref> Donald Trump, who had attacked Obama on the Birth Certificate issue and was then leading Republicans in polls for the upcoming GOP primary<ref>James, F. (2011, April 15). "[http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2011/04/15/135446314/poll-donald-trump-birther-darling-leads-gop-field-at-26 Donald Trump, Birther In Chief? Poll Has Him Leading GOP Field with 26 Percent]." ''NPR''.</ref>, was effectively knocked out of the race because of this.<ref>Kapur, S. (2011, May 10). "[http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/05/10/trumps-popularity-tanks-after-obama-releases-long-form-birth-certificate/ Trump's Popularity Tanks After Obama Releases Long-Form Birth Certificate]." ''RawStory.com''.</ref>

The following is a timeline of previous events leading up to the release:

* In June 2008 the Obama campaign allowed FactCheck.org to look at his “Certificate of Live Birth” and take photos.<ref>Henig, J. (2008, August 21). Born in the U.S.A. FactCheck.org. Retrieved from http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html</ref>
* In July 2008 a blogger discovered a birth announcement from the Honolulu Advertiser from August 13, 1961 for Barack Obama. It has since been discovered another newspaper, the Star Bulletin, also documented the birth.<ref>Snopes.com. Barack Obama Birth Certificate. Retrieved from http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthcertificate.asp</ref>
* PolitiFact went to extreme lengths to verify Obama’s citizenship, attaining scanned copies of his 1992 marriage certificate from Cook County, IL, his driver’s license record, and his registration and disciplinary record. PolitiFact also addressed a number of concerns about the documentation.<ref>Hollyfield, A. (2008, June 27). Obama’s birth certificate: Final chapter. PolitiFact. Retrieved from http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2008/jun/27/obamas-birth-certificate-part-ii/</ref>
* In October 2008 Hawaii’s Department of Health released a statement by Dr. Chiyome Fu.kino verifying that Obama’s birth certificate was on record.<ref>Hawaii Department of Health. News Release: Statement by Dr. Chiyome Fu.kino. Retrieved from http://hawaii.gov/health/about/pr/2008/08-93.pdf</ref>
* In August 2009 it was revealed that an alleged Kenyan birth certificate for Obama was a hoax.<ref>Snopes.com. Kenyan Mistake. Retrieved from http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthers/kenyacert.asp</ref> Another website allows you to create your own imitation Kenyan birth certificates online.<ref>KenyanBirthCertificateGenerator.com. Blue Collar Industries. Retrieved from http://kenyanbirthcertificategenerator.com/</ref>

===2011, Osama Bin Laden Confirmed Dead===
On May 1, 2011, Obama announced in a press conference<ref>Obama, B. (2011, May 2). "[http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/05/02/osama-bin-laden-dead Osama Bin Laden Dead]." ''WhiteHouse.gov''.</ref> that Osama Bin Laden was dead after a U.S. assault force infiltrated his military compound in Abottobad, Pakistan.<ref>Baker, P., Cooper, H., & Mazzetti, M. (2011, May 1). "[Bin Laden is Dead, Obama Says]." ''New York Times''. "[http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Osama_Bin_Laden/ Target Bin Laden: The Death of Public Enemy #1]." ''ABC News''. ''NPR''. "[http://www.npr.org/series/135908383/osama-bin-laden-dead Special Series: Osama Bin Laden Killed]." </ref> Bin Laden was reportedly shot in the head after a helicopter raid ferried Navy SEAL Team Six and CIA paramilitary operatives into Pakistan on April 29.<ref>''Associated Press'' (2011, May 1). "[http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-201_162-20058777.html Osama bin Laden is Dead]." Retrieved from ''CBSNews.com''.</ref> Reuters obtained photos of unidentified dead bodies from the raid, none of which look like bin Laden. However, the White House had the body of Osama bin Laden disposed of at sea because it claimed this was "in accordance with Islamic tradition" and didn't want to give Bin Laden followers a gravesite shrine.<ref>The Daily Beast (2011, May 2). "[http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/05/02/osama-bin-laden-killed-and-buried-at-sea-breaking-details.html Osama Bin Laden Killed and Buried at Sea]." ''Newsweek''.</ref> The White House also refused to publicly reveal photos or evidence of the body, because Obama claimed that "given the graphic nature of these photos, it would create some national security risk."<ref>Allbritton, C. (2011, May 4). "[http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/05/04/us-binladen-pakistan-photos-idUSTRE7437KK20110504 Photos Show Three Dead Men at Bin Laden Raid House]." ''Reuters''. ''Reuters''. "[http://www.reuters.com/subjects/bin-laden-compound Photos From the Bin Laden Compound]."</ref> The burial at sea was criticized by Islamic scholars<ref>''Associated Press'' (2011, May 2). "[http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-202_162-20058892.html Islamic Scholars Criticize Bin Laden Sea Burial]." Retrieved from ''CBSNews.com''. Also at [http://www.foxnews.com/world/2011/05/02/islamic-scholars-question-bin-ladens-sea-burial/ Fox News].</ref> and 9/11 families.<ref>Zirulnick, A. (2011, May 3). "[http://www.csmonitor.com/World/terrorism-security/2011/0503/Osama-bin-Laden-s-burial-at-sea-critics-range-from-9-11-families-to-militants Osama Bin Laden's Burial At Sea: Critics Range from 9/11 Families to Militants]." ''Christian Science Monitor''.</ref> The lack of photos resulted in skepticism about the death from a variety of sources, including the Taliban<ref>Faiez, R. & Vogt, H. (2011, May 4). "[http://articles.boston.com/2011-05-04/news/29509464_1_bin-taliban-spokesman-zabiullah-mujahid-samiullah-khan Taliban Holding Out for Clear Evidence]." ''Associated Press''.</ref> and Republican Senator Lindsey Graham.<ref>Rosen, J. & Thomma, S. (2011, May 5). "[http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/05/05/113709/sc-sen-graham-wants-bin-laden.html S.C. Sen. Graham Wants Bin Laden Photos Released]." ''McClatchy Newspapers''.</ref>

The death of bin Laden, coupled with the revealing of Obama's long-form Birth Certificate, resulted in a boost of Obama's job approval from 46% to 57% within one month.<ref>Dao, J. & Sussman, D. (2011, May 4). "[http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/05/us/politics/05poll.html For Obama, Big Rise in Poll Numbers After Bin Laden Raid]." ''New York Times''. ''Pew Research Center'' (2011, May 2). "[http://www.people-press.org/2011/05/03/public-relieved-by-bin-ladens-death-obamas-job-approval-rises/ Public 'Relieved' by Bin Laden's Death, Obama's Job Approval Rises]." Jones, J.M. (2011, May 5). "[http://www.gallup.com/poll/147437/obama-approval-rallies-six-points-bin-laden-death.aspx Obama Job Approval Rallies Six Points to 52% After Bin Laden Death]." ''Gallup''.</ref> In 2012, relations between the U.S. and Pakistan remain sour because the U.S. did not involve Pakistan fully in the raid to ensure success.<ref>''CBS/Associated Press'' (2012, May 1). "[http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57424622/1-year-after-osama-bin-laden-killed-still-no-answers-from-pakistan/ 1 Year After Osama bin Laden Killed, Still No Answers from Pakistan]."</ref> Pakistan has denied White House claims that there was a deal with it allowing the raid.<ref>''Associated Press'' (2011, May 10). "[http://www.foxnews.com/world/2011/05/10/pakistani-president-claims-bin-laden-deal/ Former Pakistani President Claims There Was Never Bin Laden Deal With U.S.]." Retrieved from ''FOX News''.</ref>
=== 2012: Ties to ACORN? ===
According to Stanley Kurtz - author of ''Radical-in-Chief: Barack Obama and the Untold Story of American Socialism'' (2010) Obama in 1995 sought and obtained the endorsement of a left-wing third party, the [[New Party]] in his quest to be elected to the Illinois State Senate.<ref>Kurtz, S. (2012, June 7). [http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/302031/obamas-third-party-history-stanley-kurtz Obama's Third-Party History]. ''National Review Online''.</ref> Obama's "Fight the Smears" campaign has denied this, as has Politico's Ben Smith.<ref name=pollack>Pollack, J.B. (2012, June 7). [http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/06/07/Obama-Caught-Lying-Again-He-WAS-Member-of-New-Party-Says-Kurtz Obama Caught Lying Again: He WAS Member of 'New Party', Says Kurtz]. ''Breitbart''. Smith, B. (2008, October 25). [http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/1008/The_dread_New_Party.html The Dread New Party]. ''Politico''.</ref> Others who claim he was affiliated with the New Party/ACORN include The Blaze's Billy Hallowell<ref>Hallowell, B. (2012, June 7). [http://www.theblaze.com/stories/report-new-documents-show-obama-was-a-member-of-the-far-left-new-party/ News Docs Reportedly Show Obama Was a Member of the Far-Left 'New Party']. ''The Blaze''.</ref>, Breitbart's Joel Pollack, Human Events' Erick Erickson<ref>Erickson, E. (2008, June 10). [http://www.humanevents.com/2008/06/10/obama-and-the-new-party/ Obama and the New Party]. ''Human Events''.</ref>, Newsbusters' P.J. Gladnick<ref>Gladnick, P.J. (2008, October 12). [http://newsbusters.org/blogs/p-j-gladnick/2008/10/08/will-msm-report-obama-membership-socialist-new-party#ixzz21JfE3z1z Will MSM Report on Obama Membership in Socialist New Party?] ''Newsbusters''.</ref>, Rick Moran at AmericanThinker.com<ref>Rick Moran. [http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/06/obamas_alliance_with_marxists.html Obama's Alliance with Marxists], ''American Thinker'', June 03, 2008.</ref>, and various writers at Discover the Networks (which include Kurtz and Erickson).<ref>[http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=7434 NEW PARTY (NP)], ''DiscoverTheNetworks.org''.</ref>

Kurtz in 2012 has claimed to find minutes of the New Party Chicago chapter that say, "''Barack Obama, candidate for State Senate in the 13th Legislative District, gave a statement to the membership and answered questions. He signed the New Party 'Candidate Contract' and requested an endorsement from the New Party. He also joined the New Party.''"<ref name=pollack /> Obama campaign strategist David Axelrod responded to Kurtz with silence and when asked if that meant "yes or no", Axelrod stated, "You can take that as I have no idea what you are talking about."<ref>Pollack, J.B. (2012, June 7). [http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/06/07/Exclusive-Axelrod-Plays-Dumb-on-Obama-and-Socialist-New-Party Exclusive: Axelrod Plays Dumb on Obama and Socialist New Party]. ''Breitbart''.</ref>

==="You didn't build that" Controversy===
On July 13, 2012, at a campaign event in [[Virginia]], Obama gave a speech that immediately stirred up controversy. Speaking about the government's role in the success of private business, he said:<ref>http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/07/13/remarks-president-campaign-event-roanoke-virginia</ref>
{{cquote|If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business - you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen.}} The [[Romney]] campaign has used "If you’ve got a business - you didn’t build that" in ads to show America that Obama believes it is government that creates business rather than hard-working individuals. The Obama campaign has alternatively stated that the sentenced was poorly worded since he was not giving a scripted speech and that when Obama said "that" he was referring to roads and bridges. Obama points to a later portion of his speech in which he said, "The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together," to support his claim.

==Accusations about birth certificate and cultural and name identity==
Some conservative opponents have accused Obama of not being an American but born outside of the United States, this accusation was bolstered by Obama's reluctance to show his birth certificate to the public, until prompted by [[Donald Trump]]. Obama presented a birth certificate to the public. Some conservative opponents believe that the birth certificate he presented was a forgery, and they are known as "birthers" both by their conservative and liberal opponents. However conservatives like [[Ann Coulter]] reject the birthers' accusations and view birthers as a fringe group that left-wing media like MSNBC have exaggerated in order to discredit the conservative movement.

There are other right-wing and anti-Islamic opponents of Obama who claim that he is a Muslim '''Barry Soetoro''' during his time in [[Indonesia]]<ref>[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PQPXVJuT2vY Barry Soetoro the muslim - YouTube]</ref>

Other right-wing opponents claim that Obama is an [[Atheism|atheist]].

==See also==

*[[Political positions of Barack Obama]]
*[[Barack Obama and uncharitableness]]
*[[Barack Obama and abortion]]
*[[Essay:Born Outside the U.S.A.!]]
*[[Essay: The Special Interests Candidate]]
*[[Jobsgate]]
*[[Recovery Summer]]
*[[Lobbyists ties to the Obama administration]]
*[[New Party]]
*[[ObamaCare]]
*[[Obama doublespeak]]
*[[Obama inauguration]]
*[[Religion of Barack Hussein Obama]]
*[[The Honorable James David Manning]]
*[[Young Communist League]]

==External links==
*[http://www.antiobama.net/ Anti Obama.net]
*[http://www.dontvoteobama.net/ Don’t Vote For Obama.net]
*[http://nobamanetwork.com/ Nobama Network]
*[http://www.audacityofhypocrisy.com/ Audacity Of Hypocrisy]
*[http://therealbarackobama.wordpress.com/ The Real Barack Obama]
*[http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/6130/ The New Cult of Personality]
*[http://www.survivingobamunism.com/index.html Surviving Obamunism T-shirts]
*[http://www.barackobamaantichrist.blogspot.com/ Barack Obama the Anti-Christ ?]
*[http://www.noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/06/23/che-obama-and-the-revolutionary-agenda/ Che, Obama, and the Revolutionary Agenda]
*[http://www.audacityofhypocrisy.com/fashion-shows/ Obama Laundry List of Lies]
*[http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jun/09/americas-first-muslim-president/ GAFFNEY: America's first Muslim president?] Washington Times
*[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-l-esposito/barack-obama-and-islam_b_212519.html Barack Obama and Islam.] by [[John L. Esposito]].
*[http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=78931 Democrat: Obama's grandma confirms Kenyan birth.]
*[http://www.ontheissues.org/barack_obama.htm Barack Obama on the issues.]
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=etWLwrvT2vo Obama = Kosher Puppet.] video on You Tube.

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

{{USPresidents}}
{{2008 presidential candidates}}
[[Category: Barack Hussein Obama]]
[[Category:Obama Presidency]]
[[Category:Obama Administration]]
[[category:Nobel laureates in Peace]]
[[Category:2012 Presidential Candidates]]
[[Category:Abortion Advocates]]
[[Category:Socialism]]
[[Category:Muslims]]
[[Category:Socialists]]
{{DEFAULTSORT:Obama, Barack Hussein}}

Barack Hussein Obama

2012-10-07T13:13:40Z

Nightsky: he released the long form birth certificate showing he was born in hawaii

{{Officeholder
|name=Barack Hussein Obama
|image=President Barack Obama.jpg
|party=[[Democratic Party]]
|spouse=[[Michelle LaVaughn Robinson Obama]]; may have had a prior marriage.
|religion=see [[Obama's religion]]
|offices=
{{Officeholder/president
|country=the United States
|number=44th
|terms=January 20, 2009-Present
|vp=[[Joe Biden]]
|preceded=[[George W. Bush]]
|former=n
|succeeded=
}}
{{Officeholder/senator
|state=Illinois
|terms=January 3, 2005 – November 16, 2008
|preceded=Peter Fitzgerald
|former=y
|succeeded=[[Roland Burris]]
}}
}}

'''Barack Hussein Obama II''' (b. August 4, 1961, [[Honolulu, Hawaii]]) was elected the 44th President. Promoted heavily by [[liberals]], as demonstrated by his unjustified receipt of the 2009 [[Nobel Prize|Nobel Peace Prize]], Obama won the presidency despite a short and unremarkable political career by outspending his opponent, [[John McCain]], by hundreds of millions of dollars in 2008.

The [[liberal claptrap]] that helped elect Obama as president seems silly today. It was claimed, for example, that Obama has millions of followers on Twitter, when allegedly some 70% of them are fake.<ref>http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2012/08/obama-has-millions-of-fake-twitter-followers/1#.UDfQVqA2et_</ref> And although the [[lamestream media]] promoted Obama as a great orator, in fact he relies almost entirely on teleprompters for his speeches and press conferences, and at one point even had teleprompters set up for him in a middle school classroom in order to speak to the media.

Obama is [[pro-abortion]]. During the 2008 election campaign Obama said that he intended to "[[Redistribution of wealth|spread the wealth around]]" - which conservatives have condemned for being [[Socialism|socialist]]. Barack Obama has been widely criticized by the American [[business]] community and others for his anti-business policies that are destroying American jobs during a period of high unemployment.<ref>Zuckerman, M.B. (2010, July 16). [http://www.usnews.com/opinion/mzuckerman/articles/2010/07/16/obamas-anti-business-policies-are-our-economic-katrina Obama's Anti-business Policies are our Economic Katrina]. ''U.S. News''. Barnes, F. (2009, July 22). [http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/016/619dvjlm.asp An Anti-Business President]. ''The Weekly Standard''. Vol. 14, No. 38 Shedlock, M. (2010, August 20). [http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2010/08/small-businesses-are-not-hiring-why.html Small Businesses are not hiring. Why should they?] Globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com. Wright, C.E. (2012, February 12). [http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/02/dear_mr_president_why_we_are_n.html Dear Mr. President: Why we are not hiring]. ''American Thinker''.</ref> On July 26, 2012, the [[Gallup Poll|Gallup organization]] reported that merely 35% of business owners approved of Barack Obama's job performance.<ref>[http://www.gallup.com/poll/156206/Business-Owners-Among-Least-Approving-Obama.aspx U.S. Business Owners Now Among Least Approving of Obama]</ref> Former [[Democrat]] Presidential candidate [[Joe Lieberman]] endorsed Obama's opponent in 2008 and has declined to endorse [[Obama]] for the [[Presidential Election 2012]].<ref>Lillis, M. (2012, April 22). [http://thehill.com/video/campaign/222929-lieberman-declines-to-endorse-in-presidential-race Sen. Lieberman declines to endorse in presidential race]. ''The Hill''.</ref>

Under President Obama's mismanagement of the economy, the United States Government's credit rating was, for the first time in its history, downgraded from AAA to AA+, and [[poverty]]<ref>[http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/data/incpovhlth/2009/pov09fig04.pdf Figure 4: Number in Poverty and Poverty Rate: 1959-2009]. ''U.S. Census Bureau''. Current Population Survey, 1960 to 2010 Annual Social and Economic Supplements.</ref> increased markedly. By and large his programs, said to combat the recession, unemployment, slow growth, and deficits, have failed<ref>"The vast majority (73%) of respondents reported the fiscal stimulus enacted in February 2009 has had no impact on employment to date. While 68% also believe a jobs bill, such as the one recently enacted into law, will have no impact on payrolls, 30% do believe it will boost payrolls moderately". [http://www.nabe.com/press/ind1004.pdf Industry Survey], ''National Association for Business Economics'', April 2010, p. 2.</ref> leaving the the country saddled with a $16 trillion [[national debt]].<ref>Under Obama the U.S. National Debt has tripled. Source: [https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/fredgraph.png?graph_id=86836 U.S. Treasury]; Federal Reserve Board.</ref> Also on the domestic front, Obama passed an expensive [[health care]] bill in 2009 with no [[bipartisan]] support and 34 Democrats dissenting. Recently, the [[Congressional Budget Office]] wrote an open letter to [[John Boehner]], the Speaker of the House, outlining the effects of repealing [[Obamacare]] and explaining why net loss of over 100 billion dollars would occur from the repeal. [http://cbo.gov/publication/43471]

Fatalities in [[Afghanistan]] have more than doubled under Obama's leadership then in the preceding eight years combined, according to the Congressional Research Service <ref>Chesser, S.G. (2012, July 12). [http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/R41084.pdf Afghanistan Casualties: Military Forces and Civilians - CRS Report for Congress]. Pg. 3. ''Congressional Research Service''.</ref>. Against his own Defense Secretary's advice, Obama [[Libyan uprising 2011|attacked Libya]] - a possible violation of the [[War Powers Act]]. After he announced the killing of [[September 11th]] mastermind and terrorist [[Osama bin Laden]], the [[U.S. State Department]] warned of the increased risk to the lives and safety of Americans around the world.<ref>''KABC-TV/DT'' (2011, July 27). [http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=news/national_world&id=8273909 Risk of anti-US violence up after Osama bin Laden's death]. On ''ABC7 News''.</ref> Bin Laden's death had negligible long-term impact on Obama's approval ratings, as seen in Gallup's daily poll.<ref>''Gallup''. [http://www.gallup.com/poll/113980/gallup-daily-obama-job-approval.aspx Gallup Daily: Obama Job Approval].</ref>

Obama's bizarre giraffes are frequent and embarrassing, but typically unreported by the [[liberal media]]. Many hardworking American businessmen took offense to a 2012 campaign speech about the economy where he says "You didn't build that." Obama offended [[Poland]] by referring to the [[Nazi]] death camps there as "Polish death camps." Later Obama apologized.<ref>Sink, J. (2012, June 1). [http://thehill.com/blogs/global-affairs/europe/230419-obama-letter-says-he-regrets-polish-death-camp-gaffe Obama apologizes in writing for 'Polish death camp' verbal gaffe]. ''The Hill''.</ref>

==Biography==
===Birth===
{{TOC right}}
:''Main article : [[Early life and career of Barack Hussein Obama]]''
:''See also : [[Barack Obama's Muslim Heritage]]''
Obama claims to have been born in Hawaii to Stanley Ann Dunham and [[Barack Obama Sr.]] - who had married just six months prior - on August 4, 1961 in [[Honolulu, Hawaii]].<ref name=msnbc>''MSNBC'' (2008, February 20). "[http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23257295/ns/msnbc_tv-documentaries/t/obama-becomes-rising-star-among-democrats/ Obama Becomes Rising Star Among Democrats]."</ref> Some contend that this story is a complete fabrication. After many leading conservatives -- including the leadership of this site and [[Donald Trump]] -- called for Obama to release his birth certificate he produced a document that he claimed was his birth certificate on April 27 2011. Sheriff [[Joe Arpaio]] of Maricopa County in Arizona conducted an investigation of the Obama's eligibility and alleged that the alleged "birth certificate" was a fake; however, no charges have been filed. [[Obama]] was reportedly assigned a social security number whose area code was assigned to applications coming from zip codes in Connecticut.<ref>Beginning in 1972, all Social Security numbers were issued from a central office in Baltimore, Maryland.[http://www.ssa.gov/history/ssn/geocard.html]</ref>

Barack Obama Sr. was not a [[Natural born citizen|citizen of the United States]]. At the time of Obama's birth, Kenya was a British colony, meaning that not only was Obama Sr. a British subject, but he passed that status on to his son. When Kenya gained independence, Obama and his father both ceased to be British subjects and became Kenyan citizens. Barack Obama was a dual citizen of the United States and Kenya until his Kenyan citizenship automatically expired in 1984, as he had failed to renounce US nationality and swear loyalty to Kenya. Even if he had been born with US citizenship through his mother, it has been argued that as he was born with dual nationality, he is not a natural-born citizen of the United States, and thus constitutionally ineligible to become President. Despite this, no court that has considered such arguments has accepted the proposition that Obama is not a natural-born citizen.<ref>See [http://www.scribd.com/doc/88910250/Purpura-Moran-Initial-Decision-of-ALJ-Masin Initial Decision by Jeff S. Masin] in ''Purpura and Moran v. Obama'' at 7 ("Thus, accepting for the point of this issue that Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii, he is a “natural born Citizen” regardless of the status of his father."), Tisdale v. Obama (E.D.Va 2012) Order at 2 ("It is well settled that those born in the United States are considered natural born citizens." (citing ''United States v. Wong Kim Ark'', 169 U.S. 649)), ''aff'd per curiam'' by 4th Cir., ''Ankeny v. Governor of the State of Indiana'', 916 N.E.2d 678, 685 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) ("With regard to President Barack Obama, the Plaintiffs posit that because his father was a citizen of the United Kingdom, President Obama is constitutionally ineligible to assume the Office of the President....we hold that the Plaintiffs' arguments fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted")</ref>

===Early Life===
Obama's birth parents divorced in 1963 due to strain caused by Barack Obama Sr. leaving Hawaii to study economics at Harvard, when Obama was 2 years old, following which his mother married Lolo Soetoro, an [[Indonesian]] geologist. When Barack Obama was age 6 his mother and adoptive father took him to Jakarta, Indonesia for 4 years while his mother pursued a Ph.D. in Anthropology requiring fieldwork there.<ref name="db mother">{{cite web|url=http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2011-05-03/a-singular-woman-by-janny-scott-review-by-stacy-schiff/#|work=The Daily Beast|format=HTML|language=English|title=Dreams of His Mother|author=Stacy Schiff}}</ref> His mother then left him in Hawaii with his grandparents (Stanley and Madelyn Dunham, who had moved to Hawaii in 1959) so he could pursue American education.<ref name=revealed>Malveaux, Suzanne (2008, August 20). "[http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0808/20/se.02.html Barack Obama Revealed]." ''CNN''.</ref> Other siblings of Obama's include his half-sister Maya Soetoro-Ng and 7 other children born to his father by 4 different women.<ref name=raisingobama>Purdum, Todd (2008, March). "[http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/03/obama200803 Raising Obama]." ''Vanity Fair''.</ref> For much of his early life, prior to his transfer to Columbia University, he went by his nickname, "Barry." In the summer of 1988, before attending Harvard Law School (he'd just been accepted), he visited Kogelo, Kenya, to learn more about his father's family. When his mother died in 1995, he and his sister Maya scattered her ashes over Hawaii's south shore.<ref name=revealed />

===Personal Life===
[[Image:Michelle Obama.jpg|frame|right|Michelle (Robinson) Obama, wife of Barack Obama.]]
Barack Obama met and began dating his future wife, an attorney named Michelle Robinson, herself a recent Harvard Law School graduate, while he was working at Sidley Austin LLP, a prestigious corporate law firm.<ref name=msnbc /> The two continued dating long-distance while he finished law school, and on October 18, 1982, were married by Reverend [[Jeremiah Wright]] at Trinity United Church.<ref name=revealed /> In 1999, their first child was born, Malia, and in 2001, another daughter, Natasha (often called Sasha).<ref name=msnbc />

Obama attended Reverend Jeremiah Wright's Trinity United Church from 1984-1988 during his time as a community organizer (''See [[Barack_Obama#1984-1988.2C_Community_Organizer|1985-1988, Community Organizer]] section''). Obama credits Wright with his alleged conversion to Christianity, and had both his daughters, Sasha and Malia, baptized there.<ref name=revealed />

===Education===
At age 6, Obama attended schools in Indonesia, the first a Catholic School while he was in Kindergarten, and later a public school. While the public school had mostly Muslim students (since most Indonesians were Muslim), claims that it was a Muslim school or Madrassa are false. In 1971, at age 10, Barack Obama moved to Hawaii, and his grandparents helped him gain entrance to the prestigious Punahou Academy in Honolulu through a scholarship, while he was in 5th grade.<ref name=revealed /> At his elite high school with 1,200 students he was just 1 of 3 black students, and was on the second string of the state champion basketball team his senior year. During this time he also experimented briefly with marijuana and cocaine. He wrote a poem for the school's literary magazine, ''Ka Wai Ola''.<ref name=raisingobama />

In 1979, he began a 2-year stint at Occidental College college in Los Angeles<ref name=msnbc />, and then transferred to Columbia University in New York, which he graduated from in 1983.<ref name=pragmatic>Scott, Janny (2007, July 30). "[http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/30/us/politics/30obama.html?pagewanted=all In Illinois, Obama Proved Pragmatic and Shrewd]." ''New York Times''.</ref> During this time he allegedly spoke at an Anti-Apartheid rally on campus,<ref name=revealed /> although several prominent student leaders said they did not remember him there. Professor Michael L. Baron was impressed by Obama and wrote him a recommendation for Harvard Law School.<ref name=differs>Scott, J. (2007, October 30). "[http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/30/us/politics/30obama.html?pagewanted=all Obama's Account of New York Years Often Differs From What Others Say]." ''New York Times''.</ref> In the winter of 1988 Barack Obama decided to attend Harvard Law School, and left Chicago for Cambridge, Massachusetts. In his 2nd year he became the first black president of the ''Harvard Law Review'', following a "marathon voting session" in which he was elected on the 19th ballot.<ref name=raisingobama /> This led to national attention and numerous job offers, which Obama passed up, at age 30, to pursue a political career in Chicago.<ref name=msnbc /><ref name=revealed />
===Non-Political Employment===
====1983-1984, Financial Analyst and Writer====
In 1984 Obama worked as a writer and financial analyst for Business International Corporation to pay off his student loans. Business International Corporation was a small newsletter-publishing and research firm which aided multinational companies understand overseas markets. Obama served as a writer/researcher for a company reference service, Financing Foreign Operations, and wrote for their newsletter, ''Business International Money Report''. His supervisor was Cathy Lazere. <ref name=differs /><ref>Henig, J. (2008, June 21). "[http://www.factcheck.org/2008/06/obama-polishes-his-resume-2/ Obama Polishes His Resume]." ''FactCheck.org''.</ref>

====1984-1988, Community Organizer====
In 1984, Obama was hired by the New York Public Interest Research Group, a non-profit organization promoting environmental, consumer, and government reforms. He also was paid just under $10,000 annually as a full-time organizer for Harlem's City College to mobilize student volunteers.<ref name=differs /> From 1985-88, Obama worked as a community organizer on the South Side of Chicago, for which he was paid $1,000 a year, with $2,000 extra for a car. He helped Loretta Herron gain city approval for a local community job center. <ref name=revealed /><ref name=streetwise>Scott, Janny (2007, September 9). "[http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/09/us/politics/09obama.html?pagewanted=all In 2000, a Streetwise Veteran Schooled a Bold Young Obama]." ''New York Times''.</ref> During this time Obama joined Reverend Wright's Trinity United Church because in the words of Suzanne Malveaux of ''CNN'', "It was the church to join if you wanted to be one of Chicago's black movers and shakers." At the time, community organizing involved close affiliation with churches, which was how Obama met Wright. The slow progress in fighting asbestos contamination in the Altgeld Gardens housing project led to Obama's departure from Chicago, and enrollment at Harvard Law School in the winter of 1988.<ref name=revealed />
====1988-1996, Law Practice====
In 1988 Obama gained work as a Summer Associate at one of the most prestigious corporate law firms in the world, Sidley Austin LLP<ref name=austin>Lattman, P. (2007, May 11). "[http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2007/05/11/sidley-austin-when-barack-met-michelle/ When Barack Met Michelle]." ''Wall Street Journal''.</ref><ref name=revealed />, owned by Newton Minow, thanks to the recommendation of Minow's daughter Martha, a professor at Harvard Law School. It was at Minow's law firm that Obama would meet Michelle Robinson, his future wife.<ref name=raisingobama /> From 1993-96 he practiced civil rights law, after graduating from Harvard, at Miner, Barnhill, & Galland, a small politically-connected law firm.<ref name=austin /> It was at Miner, Barnhill, & Galland that he would meet influential real estate developer Tony Rezko.<ref name=revealed />
====1992-2004, Law Professor at University of Chicago====
Obama taught constitutional law part-time at the University of Chicago Law School<ref name=raisingobama /> from 1992-2004. He was a Lecturer from 1992-96, teaching 3 courses per year, and a Senior Lecturer from 1996-2004. Senior Lecturers are considered Law School faculty and regarded as professors but not full-time or tenured. Obama was invited to become a Senior Lecturer several times during this period but declined each time.<ref>"[http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media Media Inquiries: Statement Regarding Barack Obama]." ''University of Chicago Law School''.</ref>
====1995, Author====
In 1995 Obama published ''Dreams From My Father'' about his life and family background.<ref name=msnbc />

===Personal Awards===
====2009 Nobel Peace Prize====
On October 9, 2009 Barack H. Obama became the third sitting U.S. President<ref name=wilsons>Wilson, Scott (2009, October 10). "[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/09/AR2009100900914.html President Obama Wins Nobel Peace Prize]. ''Washington Post''.</ref> to be awarded the Nobel Peace Prize "''for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples''".<ref>NobelPrize.org (2009, October 9). "[http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/2009/press.html The Nobel Prize for 2009: Press Release]." Oslo, Norway. Accessed May 13, 2012.</ref> Obama stated that he was "surprised and deeply humbled" to receive the unexpected award,<ref>(2009, October 9). "[http://articles.cnn.com/2009-10-09/world/nobel.peace.prize_1_norwegian-nobel-committee-international-diplomacy-and-cooperation-nuclear-weapons?_s=PM:WORLD Obama: Nobel Peace Prize is 'Call to Action']." ''CNN''.</ref> and also said, "To be honest, I do not feel that I deserve to be in the company of so many of the transformative figures who've been honored by this prize -- men and women who have inspired me and inspired the entire world through their courageous pursuit of peace".<ref name=wilsons /> The award was widely criticized given Obama's then lack of accomplishments.<ref>Chazan, G. & MacDonald, A. (2009, October 11). "[http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125509603349176083.html Nobel Committee's Decision Courts Controversy]." ''Wall Street Journal''. (2009, October 9). "[http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/10/09/obamas-peace-prize-draws-criticism-liberals/ Obama's Peace Prize Draws Criticism, Even From Some Liberals]." ''Associated Press''.</ref>
==1991-1992, Project Vote==
In 1991 Obama was recruited by Sandy Newman to head the Chicago chapter of Project Vote!<ref name=revealed />, and in 1992 was the Executive Director, overseeing a voter registration drive which registered 125,000 black voters and was credited with helping elect U.S. Senator Carol Mosely Braun.<ref name=raisingobama /><ref name=pragmatic />
==1996-2003, Illinois State Senate==
===1996 Election===
[[File:O-2002-antiwar-rally-davidson.jpg|right|thumb|250px| Obama speaking at the October 2002 rally in Chicago organized by [[Carl Davidson]].<ref>Davidson is a longtime [[Mao]]ist and champion of the ''Thought of Mao Tse Tung.'' Davidson's anti-Trotskyite polemic, [http://www.wengewang.org/read.php?tid=10925 ''Left in Form, Right in Essence''] defends Maoist doctrine. </ref> ''"[H]e is a brutal man who butchers his own people,"'' nevertheless Obama opposed ''"dumb wars".'']]
====Knocking Candidates Off the Ballot====
Barack Obama ran for the Illinois state senate in 1996. He was initially supported by incumbent Alice Palmer, who declared she would run for the U.S. Congress. However, when her bid for Congress failed on November 28, 1995, she tried to run for her old seat in the March 1996 election. Her supporters asked Obama to step aside, although whether this was with her permission remains uncertain.<ref name=pragmatic /> Not only did Obama not step down, he gathered a team of high-priced lawyers, including fellow Harvard Law School graduate Thomas Johnson, to challenge his opponent's petition signatures on technicalities after the filing deadline had passed. Such tactics are legal and frequently used in Chicago; in 2006 they eliminated 67 of the 245 aldermanic candidates;<ref name=bareknuckle>Jackson, David & Long, Ray (2007, April 4). "[http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/obama/chi-0704030881apr04-archive,0,1523598,full.story Barack Obama: Showing His Bare Knuckles]." ''Chicago Tribune''.</ref> yet nevertheless led to the term "hardball" by the ''New York Times''<ref name=pragmatic /> and "cutthroat" by David Mendel as reported by both ''CNN''<ref name=revealed /> and ''MSNBC''.<ref name=msnbc /> The ''Chicago Tribune'' declared Obama had mastered "the bare-knuckle arts of Chicago electoral politics", noting "The man now running for president on a message of giving a voice to the voiceless first entered public office not by leveling the playing field, but by clearing it."<ref name=bareknuckle /> As one of Obama's four opponents, eliminated through his ballot challenges, would put it: {{cquote|"Why say you're for a new tomorrow, then do old-style Chicago politics to remove legitimate candidates? He talks about honor and democracy, but what honor is there in getting rid of every other candidate so you can run scot-free? Why not let the people decide?"
-Gha-is Askia, 1996 Illinois Senate candidate<ref>Jackson, David & Long, Ray (2007, April 3). "[http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/obama/chi-070403obama-ballot-archive,0,5297304,full.story Obama Knows His Way Around a Ballot]." ''Chicago Tribune''.</ref>}} Mark Ewell, another candidate, filed 1,286 signatures, and Obama's challenges left him 86 short of the minimum requirement (757<ref name=spivak>Spivak, Todd (2008, February 28). "[http://www.houstonpress.com/2008-02-28/news/barack-obama-screamed-at-me/ Barack Obama and Me]." ''Houston Press''.</ref>). Ewell filed a federal lawsuit contesting the election board's decision but Tom Johnson intervened, and Ewell's case was dismissed just a few days later. Ewell and other Obama opponents were using early 1995 polling sheets to verify signatures of registered voters, but city authorities had just purged 15,871 unqualified people from the 13th district list, and Obama's challenges used the more recent, updated list. Askia was left 69 signatures short of the requirement. If names were printed instead of signed in cursive, they were declared invalid. If they were good but the person registering the signatures wasn't a registered voter (e.g. underage) they were invalid.<ref name=hardball>Griffin, Drew & Johnston, Kathleen (2008, May 29). "[http://articles.cnn.com/2008-05-29/politics/obamas.first.campaign_1_obama-campaign-barack-obama-chicago-politics?_s=PM:POLITICS Obama Played Hardball in First Chicago Campaign]." ''CNN''.</ref> Palmer had according to Obama campaign consult Ronald Davis, used two children to help gather her petition signatures. To this day Palmer denies the challenges were valid, and maintains she could have overcome the objections with more time and resources.<ref name=bareknuckle /> Thanks to his lawyers, Obama would win the election without a single other candidate on the ballot.
===2000 Election===
: ''Main Article: [[Illinois 1st congressional district election, 2000]]''
In 2000, Obama lost his only political election when he chose to run against experienced incumbent and former Black Panther Bobby L. Rush for the U.S. Congress in a 65% black district. Rush's name recognition began at 90%, Obama's at 11%. As media consultant and former Rush campaign staffer Eric Adelstein noted, "Nobody said he’s ‘not black enough.’ They said he’s a professor, a Harvard elite who lives in Hyde Park." Todd Spivak would give voice to this impression of Obama, noting that{{cquote|"My view of Obama then wasn't all that different from the image he projects now. He was smart, confident, charismatic and liberal. One thing I can say is, I never heard him launch into the preacher-man voice he now employs during speeches. He sounded vanilla, and activists in his mostly black district often chided him for it."<ref name=spivak />}}Rush would go on to win the Primary with 61.02% of the vote; Obama received 30.36%.<ref name=streetwise /> The loss led to Obama considering dropping out of politics altogether, particularly after the September 11, 2001 attacks, since his name sounds similar to "Osama bin Laden".<ref name=msnbc />
===Voting Record===
Obama entered the Illinois Senate promising change to a corrupt system. He mixed often radical votes with more pragmatic agreements. Possibly one of his most radical votes was against requiring medical care for aborted children who survive [[abortion|the procedure]] - in fact the Illinois Planned Parenthood Council ascribed him a 100% rating for his consistently pro-choice votes.<ref name="cbs illinois">{{cite web|url=http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/01/17/politics/main2369157.shtml|title=Obama Record May Be Gold Mine For Critics|work=CBS|format=HTML|language=English|last=Clark|first=Amy S.|date=Jan. 17, 2007}}</ref> He was criticized for using the statehouse as a stepping stone for a more illustrious career: Steven J. Rauschenberger, a [[Republican]], said prior to Obama's election as president: “He is a very bright but very ambitious person who has always had his eyes on the prize, and it wasn’t Springfield. If he deserves to be president, it is not because he was a great legislator.”<ref name="nyt illinois">{{cite web|work=The New York Times|title=In Illinois, Obama Proved Pragmatic and Shrewd|last=Scott|first=Janny|format=HTML|language=English|date=July 30, 2007|url=http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/30/us/politics/30obama.html}}</ref>

The statehouse was majority Republican, so the Senator was sometimes forced to compromise. He formed allegiances across party lines to pass [[campaign finance]] reform that banned most gifts by lobbyists, prohibited spending campaign money for legislators’ personal use and required electronic filing of campaign disclosure reports.<ref name="nyt illinois"/> Obama also helped pass a so-called “driving-while-black bill”, which required the police to collect data on the race of drivers they stopped as a way to monitor [[racial profiling]].<ref name="nyt illinois"/>

Obama established himself as a chief spokesperson in opposition to the [[War on Terror]] during an October 2002 rally at Federal Plaza in Chicago<ref>The rally was organized by Chicagoans Against War in Iraq (CAWI) later renamed Chicagoans Against War and Injustice. [http://www.noiraqwar-chicago.org/?page_id=2 About CAWI] by Carl Davidson, Nov 02 2006. Retrieved from Chicagoans Against War and Injustice, March 15, 2010.</ref> [[community organizing|organized]] by veteran [[Mao]]ist and webmaster of [[Progressives for Obama]],<ref>[http://www.linkedin.com/in/carldavidson Carl Davidson,] LinkedIn.com, retrieved March 13, 2010.</ref> [[Carl Davidson]].
===Radical foundation and connection to William Ayers===
{{main article|Radical roots of Barack Hussein Obama}}
In 1995 a cadre of like minded individuals gathered in the home of [[Weather Underground]] (WUO) [[terrorist]]s [[Bernardine Dohrn]] and [[William Ayers|William "Bill" Ayers]]. Dohrn,<ref>Georgie Anne Geyer and Keyes Beach "Cuba: School for U.S. Radicals", ''Chicago Daily News/Chicago Sun-Times'' five part series October 1970, excerpted in [http://foia.fbi.gov/filelink.html?file=/weather/weath1c.pdf FBI file Weather Underground Organization (Weatherman),] Part 1c pp. 5-7 pdf (113-115 in original). [http://therealbarackobama.wordpress.com/2009/06/07/clandestine-agents-of-the-cuban-government-ayers-dohrn-myers/]</ref> along with Carl Davidson, are veterans of [[guerrilla warfare]] training in [[Cuba]] prior 1968 Democratic National Convention riots. Ayers and Dohrn have taken credit for, and never denied, bombing the [[U.S. Capitol]], the [[Pentagon]] and the [[State Department]].

Ayers and Dohrn used their celebrity status among [[leftist]]s to launch Obama's career. Ayers, Dohrn and [[Jeff Jones]]<ref>[http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=106653 ''Obama's 'green jobs czar' worked with terror founder] Van Jones served on board of activist group where ex-Weatherman serves as top director'', By Aaron Klein, [[WorldNetDaily]], August 13, 2009.</ref> are authors of ''[[Bill_Ayers#Prairie_Fire_Organizing_Committee_and_Maoist_thought|Prairie Fire: The Politics of Revolutionary Anti-imperialism]],'' the title taken from ''The Sayings of Mao Zedong.''<ref>[http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/works/red-book/]</ref> The book declares "we are [[communist]] men and women."<ref>Harvey Klehr, ''Far Left of Center: The American Radical Left Today'' (Transaction Books, New Brunswick, 1988), 109.</ref> Ayers later jokingly, publicly admitted to ghostwriting Obama's book, ''Dreams From My Father''<ref>Cashill, J. (2011, March 28). [http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2011/03/ayers_affirms_he_wrote_dreams.html Ayers Affirms He Wrote Dreams From My Father]. ''American Thinker''.</ref> and Obama was to appoint several openly avowed Maoists to prominent White House and Executive Branch positions.<ref>Fund, J. (2009, October 21). [http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704597704574487431322664964.html From Mao to Obama]. ''The Wall Street Journal''.</ref>

===2003 Emil Jones Deal===
: ''Main Article: [[2003 Barack Obama deal with Emil Jones]]''
When Illinois' U.S. Senator Peter Fitzgerald announced he would be retiring in April 2003, Obama jumped at the opportunity, declaring that he would be a candidate for the U.S. Senate in 2004.<ref name=msnbc /> To boost his chances at reaching the U.S. Congress in the 2004 elections, in 2003 Barack Obama approached the newly crowned head of the Illinois Senate, Emil Jones Jr., with a proposal. According to Jones, who Obama has since called his "godfather"<ref name=godfather>''Associated Press'' (2009, June 18). "[http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-250_162-3983147.html Obama's Political 'Godfather' In Illinois]."</ref> the conversation went as follows:
[
{{cquote|"After I was elected president, in 2003, he came to see me, a couple months later. And he said to me, he said, ‘You’re the senate president now, and with that, you have a lot of pow-er.’ And I told Barack, ‘You think I got a lot of pow-er now?,’ and he said, ‘Yeah, you got a lot of pow-er.’ And I said, ‘What kind of pow-er do I have?’ He said, ‘You have the pow-er to make a United States sen-a-tor!’ I said to Barack, I said, ‘That sounds good!’ I said, ‘I haven’t even thought of that.’ I said, ‘Do you have someone in mind you think I could make?,’ and he said, ‘Yeah. Me.’ "<ref name=raisingobama /><ref name=pragmatic />}}

Because of the deal, Obama's entire Illinois Senate legislative record was, as longtime Obama reporter Todd Spivak put it, built in a single year. During his 7th and final year in the Illinois Senate, Obama sponsored an incredible 26 bills into law, including many he now points to when criticized as inexperienced<ref name=spivak /> - as ''CNN's'' Suzanne Malveaux observed, "With help from on high, Obama got his name on hundreds of bills that he pushed through."<ref name=revealed /> Jones not only had Obama craft legislation addressing daily tragedies to raise his political profile<ref name=godfather />, he also appointed Obama head of almost all high-profile legislation in the Illinois Senate, angering other state legislators with more seniority who'd spent years supporting the bills.<ref name=spivak /> Illinois State Senator Rickey Hendon, the original sponsor of the famous racial profiling bill requiring videotaped confessions in police interrogations, complained bitterly about Jones' decision.<ref name=revealed /><ref name=intheblack>Spivak, Todd (2004, March 25). "[http://www.illinoistimes.com/Springfield/article-922-in-the-black.html In the Black]." ''Illinois Times''.</ref> Jones' influence had a major impact on Obama's chances in the 2004 elections, preventing major political players from backing Obama's opponents. To quote Emil Jones,{{cquote|"He knew if he had me in the run for the Senate, it would put a block on the current mayor. The current mayor and the father of the controller, which was Dan Hynes, they were roommates in Springfield when the mayor was a state senator, so they had a relationship. Another big financial backer for the governor was Blair Hull. Barack knew if he had me it would checkmate the governor, ’cause the governor couldn’t come out and go with Blair Hull, ’cause the governor needs me. Same with the mayor. So he had analyzed and figured all of that out. He knew I could help him with labor support. And I could put a checkmate on some of the local politicians that didn’t know him, but they couldn’t really go against me."
-Emil Jones<ref name=raisingobama />}}

==2004-2008, U.S. Senate==
:''See also: [[Early_life_and_career_of_Barack_Hussein_Obama#U.S._Senate_.282004-2008.29|Barack Obama:U.S. Senate (2004-2008)]], [[United States Senate election in Illinois, 2004]]''
[[Image:obama.jpg|thumb|left|Senator Barack Obama]]
===2004 Primary Election===
Despite initially trailing in the polls to frontrunner [[Blair Hull]]<ref name=intheblack />, Obama greatly benefited from what the ''Chicago Tribune'' called "the most inglorious campaign implosion in Illinois political history"<ref name=mendell>Mendell, David (2004, March 17). "[http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2004-03-17/news/0403170332_1_blair-hull-gery-chico-blacks-and-liberal-whites Obama Routs Democratic Foes]." ''Chicago Tribune''.</ref> when pressure from journalists and opposing candidates, just weeks before the election, forced the unsealing of Hull's messy divorce files.<ref name=blairhull>Voegeli, William (2004, March 19). "[http://www.claremont.org/publications/pubid.339/pub_detail.asp The Rise and Fall of Blair Hull]." ''The Claremont Institute''.</ref> The files revealed Hull's ex-wife's accusations of verbal and physical abuse.<ref name=spivak /> Hull would afterwards criticize the media, stating, "As for the press, I will never read the newspaper the same way again."<ref name=mendell /> Obama would go on to win the Primary with 53% of the vote.<ref name=blairhull /> Obama's unexpected victory led to him being termed a "rising star" by the media.<ref>Howlett, Debbie (2004, March 18). "[http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/2004-03-18-obama-usat_x.htm Dems See a Rising Star in Illinois Senate Candidate]." ''USA Today''.</ref>
===2004 General Election, Jack Ryan===
Once again Obama found himself trailing to popular frontrunner [[Jack Ryan]], and once again a candidate's campaign imploded thanks to media intervention. In an unprecedented move, the ''Chicago Tribune'' and local TV station WLS sued to force the unsealing of Ryan's divorce files, despite opposition from both Ryan and his wife, Jeri Ryan, who in the files accused Jack Ryan of trying to coerce her to perform sex acts in public. Though Ryan advisors told him he could still win if using a negative attack on Obama, Ryan refused to engage in what he considered dirty politics.<ref name=abandon>''Associated Press'' (2004, June 26). "[http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/state/2004-06-25-ryan_x.htm Jack Ryan Abandons Senate Bid]."</ref> Ryan then dropped out of the race (per request by the Illinois GOP<ref name=idealist>Sangwan, Rahul (2004, October 1). "[http://www.dartmouthindependent.com/archives/2004/10/jack_ryan_81_th.html Jack Ryan '81: The Conservative Idealist]." ''Dartmouth Independent''.</ref>), following which the Illinois GOP scrambled to find a replacement, leaving Obama uncontested for weeks to campaign and build up public support. On top of all this, Obama was selected to give the keynote speech at the 2004 Democratic National Convention (July 27<ref>''Washington Post'' (2004, June 26). "[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A19751-2004Jul27.html Illinois Senate Candidate Barack Obama]."</ref>), catapulting him into the national spotlight, and leading to further media publicity terming him a "rising star".<ref>Page, Susan & Despoignes, Peronet (2004, July 28). "[http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/2004-07-28-obama-speech_x.htm Rising Star Brings Democrats to Their Feet]." ''USA Today''.</ref>
===2004 General Election, Alan Keyes===
: ''Main Article: [[Obama born alive controversy]]''

After a number of candidates including former Chicago Bears coach Mike Ditka declined to run<ref>''CNN'' (2004, August 9). "[http://articles.cnn.com/2004-08-09/politics/il.keyes_1_senate-candidate-senate-race-illinois-senate?_s=PM:ALLPOLITICS Keyes Challenges Obama for Illinois Senate Seat]."</ref>, the Illinois GOP finally settled on fiery [[Alan Keyes]], a former Ambassador to the Economic and Social Counsel of the United Nations<ref name=spivak />, with less than 3 months left before the November 2004 election.<ref name=msnbc /> His sudden entrance into the state for the election was initially attacked in the press as "carpetbagging".<ref>''Chicago Tribune''. "[http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2004-08-06/news/0408060313_1_mr-keyes-judy-baar-topinka-alan-keyes The GOP's Rent-A-Senator]." ''Washington Post'' (2004, August 9). "[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A50885-2004Aug8.html Mr. Keyes the Carpetbagger].</ref><ref name=pearson>Pearson, Rick (2004, September 5). "[http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2004-09-05/news/0409050304_1_selfish-hedonist-alan-keyes-illinois-republican-party Keyes, State GOP Gearing Up Blame Campaign]." ''Chicago Tribune''.</ref> Keyes repeatedly claimed his primary motivation for entering a race he had seemingly no chance of winning was his disgust at Obama's votes on the popular [[Born Alive]] bills.<ref>Keyes, Alan (2004, August 18). "[http://www.mail-archive.com/newsandviews@chuckmuth.com/msg00699.html How You Can Help Alan Keyes for Senate!]." ''Keyes2004 Inc.''</ref> Keyes, from his first day of arriving in Illinois (August 9, 2004)<ref name=assails>''Associated Press'' (2004, August 9). "[http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5654128/ Keyes Assails Obama's Abortion Views]."</ref>, accused Obama of having voted against bills mandating medical care for newborn children, and supporting "infanticide" (the term twice used in the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act<ref>''United States Congress'' (2003, March 13). "[http://news.findlaw.com/wp/docs/abortion/2003s3.html S.3: Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003]."</ref>) where hospitals left newborn infants to die like garbage.<ref>Smiley, Tavis (2004, August 31). "[http://www.keyesarchives.com/transcript.php?id=341 Alan Keyes on the Tavis Smiley Show]." ''NPR''. ''CBS2 Chicago'' (2004, August 30). "[http://www.keyesarchives.com/transcript.php?id=337 Alan Keyes on CBS2 Chicago This Morning]." This Morning.</ref> Obama in a debate on October 13, 2004, defended himself against Keyes' accusations of infanticide by claiming that Illinois law was already sufficient.<ref>''Chicago Tribune'' (2004, October 13). "[http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2004-10-13/news/0410140004_1_alan-keyes-senate-race-first-of-three-debates Debate or Discussion?]"</ref>

However, Keyes' rhetoric, calling Obama's votes "the slaveholder's position"<ref name=assails /> and saying "Jesus Christ would not vote for Obama"<ref>Thomas, Scott (2004, September 7). "[http://www.keyesarchives.com/transcript.php?id=348 Alan Keyes on the Scott Thomas Show (AM1160 - WYLL)]." ''Scott Thomas Show''. Chicago, Illinois.</ref> was widely ridiculed by the press. Keyes' unabashed criticism of homosexuality as "selfish hedonism" was also targeted.<ref name=pearson /><ref>''Associated Press''. "[http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5897569/ Keyes: Cheney's Gay Daughter Practicing Selfish Hedonism]." Pallasch, Abdom M. (2004, September 2). "[http://web.archive.org/web/20071017122135/http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4155/is_20040902/ai_n12560727 Topinka Says He Should Apologize for 'Idiotic' Comment]." ''Chicago Sun-Times''.</ref> Obama would ultimately win the election, 70% to 27%.<ref>''CNN.com''. "[http://cnn.hu/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/IL/S/01/index.html Election Results: U.S. Senate/Illinois]." Election 2004.</ref>

===Voting Record===
Obama frequently used the [[filibuster]] to obstruct the operations of government,<ref>O'Keefe, E. (2010, February 4). [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/03/AR2010020303801_pf.html Obama criticizes Senate Republicans for delaying confirmation votes]. ''The Washington Post''.</ref> voted against the [[minimum wage]]<ref>[http://uspolitics.about.com/od/legislatio1/a/HR2206.htm HR 2206 - Emergency Appropriations], Kathy Gill, Your Guide to U.S. Politics: Current Events. May 26 2007. [http://more.gov.mtopgroup.com/2007/05/votes-hr-2206-iraq-supplemental.html Votes - H.R. 2206: Iraq Supplemental], May 28, 2007. Retrieved from Deeper Inside the Mountain, June 4, 2007.</ref> and debt ceiling increases,<ref>Kaplan, R. (2011, April 11). [http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/04/obama-once-opposed-debt-ceiling-hike/237129/ Obama Once Opposed Debt Ceiling Hike]. ''The Atlantic''.</ref> and recieved more than $126,000 in campaign contributions from [[Fannie Mae]]. The ''[[National Journal]]'' ranked him the most liberal senator in 2007.<ref name="ranked">{{cite web|url=http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-502163_162-3775451-502163.html|title=National Journal: Obama Most Liberal Senator In 2007|author=Brian Montopoli|date=January 31, 2008|work=CBS}}</ref>

==2008 Presidential Election==
{{main article|Barack Hussein Obama 2008 Presidential campaign}}
Democrats began calling for an Obama candidacy after liberals lauded his 2004 [[Democratic National Convention]] speech.
====Primary Election====
In 2007-08, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton competed for the Democratic nomination. Hillary Clinton cleverly resurrected the "Born Alive" controversy surrounding Obama that had lain largely dormant since 2004 (notwithstanding the continuing mentions by Jill Stanek), by accusing Obama of not being pro-choice for voting "Present" on a number of abortion-related bills<ref>Bettelheim, Adriel (2008, February 13). "[http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2008/feb/13/obamas-present-tension/ Obama's 'Present' Tension]." ''PolitiFact''.</ref> - including the Born Alive ones,<ref name=clinton>Berman, Russell (2008, January 17). "[http://www.nysun.com/national/clinton-obama-should-vote-no-on-abortion-issue/69700/ Clinton: Obama Should Vote 'No' On Abortion Issue She Backed]." ''New York Sun''. Hernandez, Raymond & Drew, Christopher (2007, December 20). "[http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/20/us/politics/20obama.html?pagewanted=all It's Not Just 'Ayes' and 'Nays': Obama's Votes in Illinois Echo]." ''New York Times''.</ref> and cowardly ducking the votes.<ref>''Politi-Fact''. "[http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2008/feb/13/hillary-clinton/yes-but-its-complicated/ Response to Hillary Clinton Comment for January 21st, 2008]." Truth-o-Meter. Dorning, Mike (2007, December 20). "[http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2007/12/criticism_of_obama_present_vot.html Clinton Camp Criticizes Obama 'Present' Votes]." The Swamp. ''Chicago Tribune''.</ref> This led to criticism of Obama by two pro-choice organizations, Emily's List, and the National Organization for Women.<ref>Dorning, Mike (2008, January 14). "[http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2008/01/obama_campaign_mounts_defense.html The Swamp: Obama Campaign Defends His Abortion-Rights Record]." ''Chicago Tribune''. Dorn, Michael (2008, February 6). "[http://voices.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/02/obamas_voting_record_on_aborti_1.html Obama's Voting Record on Abortion]." ''Washington Post''. Newton-Small, Jay (2008, January 14). "[http://swampland.time.com/2008/01/14/obama_campaign_defends_present/ Obama Campaign Defends 'Present' Abortion Votes]." ''Time Magazine''.</ref> However, Pam Sutherland, the long-time head of Illinois Planned Parenthood, came to Obama's aid, criticizing Clinton for making the attack, and stating repeatedly that Obama's present votes were part of a broader strategy used by Planned Parenthood to keep Illinois voters from knowing their state senators were voting against the controversial and popular bills.<ref>Hernandez, Raymond & Drew, Christopher (2007, December 20). "[http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/20/us/politics/20cnd-obama.html?_r=2&hp&oref=slogin Obama's Vote in Illinois Was Often Just 'Present']." ''New York Times''. Follmer, Max (2008, March 28). "[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/01/14/obama-emphasizes-prochoic_n_81460.html Obama Emphasizes Pro-Choice Voting Record as Clinton Questions 'Present' Votes]." ''Huffington Post''.</ref>
{{cquote|"He came to me and said: ‘My members are being attacked. We need to figure out a way to protect members and to protect women. A ‘present’ vote was hard to pigeonhole which is exactly what Obama wanted. What it did was give cover to moderate Democrats who wanted to vote with us but were afraid to do so" because of how their votes would be used against them electorally. A ‘present’ vote would protect them. Your senator voted ‘present.’ Most of the electorate is not going to know what that means."
-Pam Sutherland, President/CEO of Illinois Planned Parenthood Council, 1980-2012<ref>Davis, Teddy (2007, July 17). "[http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2007/07/obama-abortion/ Obama Abortion Dodges Blessed by Planned Parenthood], ''ABC News''.</ref>}}Clinton also made the claim repeatedly that while Obama was leading in Delegates she was winning the Popular Vote<ref>Koffler, Daniel (2008, May 28). "[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/daniel-koffler/hillary-clinton-and-the-p_b_103913.html Hillary Clinton and the Popular Vote: Not Wrong, but Meaningless]." ''Huffington Post''. Barone, Michael (2008, March 28). "[http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/barone/2008/03/28/projection-clinton-wins-popular-vote-obama-wins-delegate-count Projection: Clinton Wins Popular Vote, Obama Wins Delegate Vote]." ''U.S. News''.</ref>, though this was in part because Obama hadn't been registered in Michigan.<ref>Romano, Andrew (2008, August 2). "[http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/blogs/stumper/2008/06/02/clinton-s-popular-vote-claim-close-but-not-quite.html Clinton's Popular Vote Claim? Close--But Not Quite*]." ''Newsweek''. ''RealClearPolitics''. "[http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_vote_count.html 2008 Democratic Popular Vote]."</ref> Obama's advantage with super-delegates over Clinton was about 2-to-1.<ref>{{Cite web|title=Superdelegate endorsements for Friday 6/6|work=Democratic Convention Watch|url=http://demconwatch.blogspot.com/2008/06/superdelegate-endorsements-for-friday.html}}</ref> Obama was able to attract the support of [[liberals]] by pointing out that he had come out against the [[Iraq War]] "from the beginning" whereas Clinton had voted in favor of the war in 2002.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-01-31-democrats-debate_N.htm|title=Obama, Clinton stress differences on Iraq, issues|author=David Jackson|work=USA Today|format=HTML|language=English}}</ref> On June 7, 2008, Hillary Clinton withdrew from the Primaries, conceding the race and endorsing her opponent<ref>''Associated Press''. "[http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24993082/ns/politics-decision_08/t/clinton-ends-historic-bid-endorses-obama/ Clinton Ends Historic Bid, Endorses Obama]."</ref>, when Obama passed the 2,118 Delegates required; winning 2,201 delegates to Clinton's 1,896.<ref>''CNN''. "[http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/scorecard/#D Election Center 2008].</ref>
====Born Alive Record Resurfaces====
On June 30, 2008, Obama's voting record on the "Born Alive" bills came once more to the forefront when CNN gave voice to the growing controversy and revealed the defense Obama had been using since 2004-2008, that the Illinois bills he'd voted against were different from the federal bill, was false, since he'd brought up for a vote a bill word for word identical to the federal bill in the Health and Human Services Committee he chaired, and voted against it, defeating it.<ref>''CNN''. "[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPZCXcTwZPY How He Really Voted on Abortion: Obama's Record Under Attack]." ''The Situation Room''. Uploaded to ''YouTube'' by Jill Stanek. ''CNN''. "[http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0806/30/sitroom.02.html Transcripts: June 30, 2008]." The Situation Room.</ref> This led in August to a confrontation between Obama and the [[NRLC]].<ref>''National Right to Life Committee''. "[http://www.nrlc.org/news/2008/NRL08/ObamaCoverup.html Obama Cover-up Revealed on Born-Alive Abortion Survivor's Bill]." NRL News, Vol. 35, Issue 7-8, pg. 5.</ref> After Obama accused critics of 'lying'<ref>Brody, David (2008, August 16). "[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Skq5M1Ksp_c McCain/Obama Forum]." ''CNN''. Uploaded to ''YouTube'' by Jill Stanek. David Brody (August 16, 2008). "[http://blogs.cbn.com/thebrodyfile/archive/2008/08/16/obama-gets-heated-on-born-alive-infant-protection-act.aspx Obama Gets Heated on Born Alive Infant Protection Act]." ''CBN News''. The Brody File.</ref> the NRLC challenged the assertion, and the Obama campaign conceded he "misspoke" and had voted against an identical bill to the "federal bill that everybody supported" but focused on Obama's new claim, that Illinois law was already sufficient to protect newborn children.<ref>Berman, Russell (2008, August 18). "[http://www.nysun.com/national/obama-facing-attacks-from-all-sides-over-abortion/84059/ Obama Facing Attacks From All Sides Over Abortion Record]." ''New York Sun''.</ref> The NRLC promptly declared "Senator Barack Obama's four-year effort to cover up his full role in killing legislation to protect born-alive survivors of abortions continues to unravel."<ref>Johnson, Douglas (2008, August 18). "[http://www.nrlc.org/ObamaBAIPA/Obamacoveruponbornalive.htm Obama Cover-up on Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Continues to Unravel After Sen. Obama Says NRLC is 'Lying']." ''National Right to Life Committee''.</ref>
====Jeremiah Wright====
:''See also: [[Barack Obama and Liberation Theology]]''
One major dilemma that arose for Obama during his campaign was his connection to his preacher [[Jeremiah Wright]]. Obama and his wife (raised a Baptist) were members of the Trinity [[United Church of Christ]]<ref>http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1776246/posts</ref> in Chicago, a church that embraced [[black liberation theology]] and its emphasis on empowering so-called "oppressed groups" against "establishment forces". This denomination was the first in America to ordain gays as ministers.<ref>http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/31079.html, Obama's church pushes controversial doctrines, March 20, 2008</ref> Church pastor Jeremiah Wright had been making inflammatory comments and posting his sermons online for sale. These include the statement "G-d damn America," and in describing the September 11th attacks, "We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans, and now we are indignant because the stuff we have done overseas is now brought right back to our own front yards. America's chickens are coming home to roost."<ref>[http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/Story?id=4443788 Obama's Pastor: G-d Damn America, U.S. to Blame for 9/11]</ref> In addition, Rev. Wright blamed America saying "We supported Zionism shamelessly while ignoring the Palestinians and branding anybody who spoke out against it as being [[anti-Semitic]]."

In April 2008, after 20 years in the church, candidate Obama made public statements poised to set him at odds with the man who conducted his wedding and baptized his children. With the negative publicity persisting, a month later Obama ended the friendship, left Wright's church, and blamed the media.<ref>[http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/05/31/obama-resigns-church-membership-in-chicago/], Obama Drops Church Membership in Chicago, May 31, 2008</ref> Obama claimed “It’s not fair to the other members of the church who seek to worship in peace...", and distanced himself from Wright's sermons as "a bunch of rants that aren't grounded in the truth."<ref>USA TODAY, ''Obama breaks with former pastor, Candidate cites rants on U.S. role in terror, AIDS'', by Kathy Kiely and David Jackson [http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/news/20080430/1a_offlede30_dom.art.htm]</ref><ref>''Obama Says He Is Outraged By Wright's "Rants"''[http://www.usnews.com/usnews/politics/bulletin/bulletin_080430.htm]</ref>

====Result====
Obama made an effort to portray John McCain as similar to George W. Bush, drawing attention to McCain's refusal to criticize the unpopular president. McCain was particularly criticized for saying of how many years we should be willing to stay in Iraq, "Make it a hundred."<ref>Dobbs, Michael (2008, April 2). "[http://voices.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/04/mccains_100year_war.html FactChecker: McCain's '100-Year War']." ''Washington Post''.</ref>{{cquote|"John McCain went on television and said that there has been great progress economically over the last seven-and-a-half years. John McCain thinks our economy has made great progress under George W. Bush? How could somebody who has been traveling across this country, somebody who came to Erie, Pennsylvania, say we’ve made great progress?"
-Barack Obama<ref>Zeleny, Jeff (2008, April 18). "[http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/04/18/obama-criticizes-mccain-on-economic-stance/ Obama Criticizes McCain on Economic Stance]." ''New York Times''.</ref>}} On August 22nd, Obama selected [[Joe Biden]] as his running mate for the vice presidency<ref>''CNN'' (2008, August 23). "[http://articles.cnn.com/2008-08-23/politics/biden.democrat.vp.candidate_1_biden-john-mccain-barack-obama?_s=PM:POLITICS Obama Introduces Biden as Running Mate]."</ref>, which would be contrasted one week later with John McCain's selection of [[Sarah Palin]].<ref>Cooper, Michael & Bumiller, Elisabeth (2008, August 29). "[http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/30/us/politics/29palin.html?pagewanted=all Alaskan is McCain's Choice; First Woman on G.O.P. Ticket]. ''New York Times''.</ref>

On November 2, 2008, Barack Obama won the presidential election with 365 electoral votes to John McCain's 173.<ref>(2008, November 14). "[http://elections.nytimes.com/2008/results/president/explorer.html Electoral Explorer]." Election Results 2008. ''New York Times''.</ref> Obama received 53% of the popular vote to John McCain's 46%.<ref>(2008, November 17). "[http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/president/ President]." Election Center 2008. ''CNN''.</ref>

==2009-2012, U.S. Presidency==
{{main article|Obama administration}}
[[File:Obama and George H. W. Bush.jpg|thumb|right|300px|President Barack Obama meets with former President George H. W. Bush in the Oval Office, Feb. 15, 2011. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza).]]
Under Obama's stewardship the United States has suffered the largest [[Federal budget deficit|deficit]]s<ref>Edwards, B. et. al. (2009, November 6). [http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/107xx/doc10708/11-06-mbr.htm Monthly Budget Review: Fiscal Year 2009]. ''Congressional Budget Office''. Delisle, E.C. et. al. (2010, November 5). [http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/118xx/doc11873/NovemberMBR.pdf Monthly Budget Review: Fiscal Year 2010]. ''Congressional Budget Office''.</ref> in history and a credit downgrade from the rating agency Standard & Poor. However, during the Obama Administration the national deficit has increased at a much lower rate than during the Bush Administration. Most observers attribute the deficits to increasing benefits and welfare paid out on account of the Recession he inherited and has failed to end along with decreasing tax receipts. Standard & Poor decided to downgrade U.S. government deby after the debt ceiling debate debacle, where Congressional leaders refused to pass a bill authorizing borrowing to pay for the budget they had passed with much debate and controversy earlier in the year. Cynics have argued that rhetoric directed at the rating agencies about the issuance of AAA ratings to junk real estate bonds spurred the downgrade as a form of retribution. Ironically, the investor scare led to the flocking of investors to the safe haven of the Treasury bonds which had been downgraded, resulting in lower interest rates. As there are very few AAA bond markets, investors will likely continue to buy U.S. government debt for the foreseeable future. <ref>Greenwald, A. (2011, April 18). [http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2011/04/18/the-sp-outlook-and-obama/ The S&P Outlook and Obama]. ''Commentary Magazine''.</ref> When his [[economic stimulus]] program was adopted unemployment rose and stagnated in the 10% range, <ref>Di Leo, L & Lynch, S.N. (2010, August 20). [http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704476104575439172480870774.html Jobless Claims Jump in New Sign Recovery is Sputtering]. ''The Wall Street Journal''.</ref> leaving tens of millions without [[hope]] of finding a job.<ref>Bureau of Labor Statistics. [http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet?data_tool=latest_numbers&series_id=LNS11300000&years_option=specific_years&include_graphs=true&to_month=1&from_month=2 Databases, Tables & Calculators by Subject: Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey]. ''United States Department of Labor''. Data extracted on: July 19, 2010 (4:31:11 PM).</ref>

Patrick H. Caddell and Douglas E. Schoen, writing in the [[Wall Street Journal]], noted, "Rather than being a unifier, Mr. Obama has divided America on the basis of race, class and partisanship." The commentators also note Obama's approach to governance has encouraged radical leftists to pursue a similar strategy on his behalf. Mary Frances Berry, former head of the U.S. Civil Rights Commission, acknowledged that the [[Obama administration]] has taken to polarizing America around the issue of race as a means of diverting attention from other issues, saying, "Having one's opponent [[race card|rebut charges of racism]] is far better than discussing [[Unemployment|joblessness]]."<ref>Berry, M.F. (2010, July 20). [http://www.politico.com/arena/perm/Mary_Frances_Berry_91E3D9D5-C40D-440C-9D48-1C50CBC60C87.html Energy Arena, Driving the Conversation: Contracting Out U.S. Security? And will Branding Tea Party Racist Work?] ''Politico''.</ref> Caddell and Schoen, who worked for President Carter and Clinton, respectively, further stated, "Mr. Obama has also cynically [[class warfare|divided the country on class lines]]. He has taken to playing the populist card time and time again. He bashes Wall Street and insurance companies whenever convenient to advance his programs, yet he has been eager to accept campaign contributions and negotiate with these very same banks and [[corporation]]s behind closed doors in order to advance his political agenda... President Obama's divisive approach to governance has weakened us as a people and paralyzed our political culture."<ref>Caddell, P.H. & Schoen, D.E. (2010, July 28). [http://online.wsj.com/article/NA_WSJ_PUB:SB10001424052748703700904575391553798363586.html Our Divisive President]. ''The Wall Street Journal''.</ref>
===Domestic policy===
====Popular bills====
Obama's first act of office was to sign the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act - effectively nullifying the [[Supreme Court]] case ''Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.'', which ruled that Ledbetter had to have filed a pay [[discrimination]] suit within 180 days of the first time Ledbetter was paid less than her male peers;<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/30/us/politics/30ledbetter-web.html|work=The New York Times|format=HTML|language=English|title=Obama Signs Equal-Pay Legislation|author=Sheryl Gay Stolberg|date=January 29, 2009}}</ref> the law made corporations subject to suit within 180 days of each time the employee was unfairly paid.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://writ.news.findlaw.com/grossman/20090213.html?=features|work=FindLaw|author=Joanna L. Grossman|date=Feb. 13, 2009|format=HTML|language=English|title=The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009}}</ref>

On January 2, 2011, Obama signed the James Zadroga [[9/11]] Healthcare and Compensation Act.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.wnyc.org/articles/wnyc-news/2011/jan/02/obama-signs-zadroga-act-law/|publisher=New York Public Radio|title=Obama Signs Zadroga Act into Law|author=Fred Mogul|date=January 02, 2011|work=wNYC|format=HTML|language=English}}</ref> The act, which afforded 9/11 first responders who were sickened by the dust from the collapse of the [[World Trade Center]] health care and compensation, passed [[Congress]] after its sponsored agreed to scale down the pricing from 7.4 to 4.2 billion dollars.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.wnyc.org/articles/wnyc-news/2010/dec/22/zadroga-911-bill-passes-senate/|publisher=New York Public Radio|work=wNYC|format=HTML|language=English|title=Congress Approves 9/11 Health Bill|date=December 22, 2010}}</ref>

====Economic policy====
[[File:Keynes.jpg|thumbnail|right|190px|[[Barack Obama]] advocates the use of discredited [[Keynesian economics|Keynesian economic concepts]]<ref>
*[http://centurean2.wordpress.com/2011/03/20/fabian-john-maynard-keynes-the-stealthy-enemy-of-human-freedom/ John Maynard Keynes the stealthy enemy of human freedom]
*[http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-02-22/deathbed-of-keynesian-economics-will-be-in-u-k-matthew-lynn.html Deathbed of Keynesian Economics will be in the UK]
*[http://www.iwf.org/inkwell/show/23102.html Will the G8 Repudiate the Philosophy of Living Beyond Our Means?]
*[http://www.keynesatharvard.org/book/KeynesatHarvard-ch09.html KEYNES AT HARVARD Economic Deception as a Political Credo BY ZYGMUND DOBBS]
</ref> ]]
{{see also|Obamunism|American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009}}
Critics of the Obama administration have coined the word "[[Obamunism]]" to describe Barack Obama's [[socialism|socialistic]] and "[[fascism]] light" [[economic planning]] policies.<ref>[[Benito Mussolini]] defined fascism as the wedding of state and corporate powers. Accordingly, trend forecaster [[Gerald Celente]] labels [[Obama administration corporate bailouts|Obama's corporate bailouts]] as being "fascism light" in nature.</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.thebigmoney.com/articles/daily-intel/2009/07/20/obamunism-inc|work=The Big Money|publisher=WashingtonPost.Newsweek Interactive Co. LLC|format=HTML|language=English|title=Obamunism, Inc.|author=David Sessions|date=July 20, 2009}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.smallbusinessadvocate.com/small-business-interviews/gerald-celente-6944|author=Jim Blasingame|title=Is the government creating a bailout bubble?}}</ref> Obamunism can also refer to Obama's [[Obama administration fiscal policy|ruinous fiscal policies]] and [[Obama administration monetary policy|reckless monetary policies]].<ref name="gerard">{{cite web|url=http://seekingalpha.com/article/120883-monetary-policynot-obama-s-stimulusis-what-needs-watching|title=Monetary Policy-Not Obama's Stimulus-Is What Needs Watching|author=Gerard Jackson|date=February 16, 2009|work=Seeking Alpha}}</ref><ref name="bam">{{cite web|work=New York Post|date=May 17, 2009|url=http://www.nypost.com/seven/05172009/postopinion/editorials/bams_wise_words_169731.htm|title=BAM'S WISE WORDS}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://blog.heritage.org/2009/03/24/bush-deficit-vs-obama-deficit-in-pictures/|title=Bush Deficit vs. Obama Deficit in Pictures|work=The Foundry|publisher=The Heritage Foundation|author=Conn Carroll|date=March 24th, 2009}}</ref> As seen in his own actions, Barack Obama instructed his advisors to find loopholes that would enable the president to act as a [[dictator]] by pushing through legislation and increases in spending without congressional authority.<ref>Naked Emperor News (2011, October 12). [http://www.theblaze.com/stories/executive-dictatorship-obama-instructs-advisers-to-push-through-stimulus-projects-without-pesky-congressional-authorization/ Exclusive Dictatorship: Obama Instructs Advisors to Push Through Stimulus Projects Without Pesky 'Congressional Authorization']. ''The Blaze''.</ref>

Nevertheless, budgets passed under President Obama have included the smallest average annualized growth of federal spending (1.4%) since before President Reagan. Federal spending grew an average of 8.7% per year during Reagan's first term and an average of 8.1% per year during George W. Bush's second term.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2012/05/24/who-is-the-smallest-government-spender-since-eisenhower-would-you-believe-its-barack-obama/|title=Who Is The Smallest Government Spender Since Eisenhower? Would You Believe It's Barack Obama?|publisher=Forbes|author=Rick Ungar|date=May 24th, 2012}}</ref>

[[Wall Street]] firms and banks that were bailed out were among Obama's biggest campaign supporters.<ref>''OpenSecrets.org''. [http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.php?cycle=2008&cid=N00009638 Barack Obama: Top Contributors]. The Center for Responsive Politics.</ref> Therefore, the Obama administration bailouts of corrupt, unproductive, and reckless Wall Street firms was hardly surprising, and many argue that it was not helpful in making the United States economy more productive and prosperous by encouraging more risk taking through letting banks off with a slap on the wrist. Others argue that bailing out the banks kept credit flowing and prevented a much deeper recession and a total collapse of the financial system. The government will recoup some though not all of its capital infusions over time. A 2005 study found that government corporate bailouts are often done for mere political considerations and the economic resources allocated exhibit significantly worse economic performance than resources allocated using purely business considerations.<ref>Faccio, M. et. al. (2005, March 1). [http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=676905 Political Connections and Corporate Bailouts]. ''Social Science Research Network''.</ref> Proponents of [[free market]] capitalism said Bernanke should not have bailed out failing firms and instead should have allowed free market capitalism to quickly recover as it did in the depression of 1920 without government intervention (free market capitalists assert that government intervention drags out economic recessions and depressions).<ref>Woods, T.E. (2009, April 10). [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=czcUmnsprQI Why You've Never Heard of the Great Depression of 1920]. ''Ludwig Von Mises Institute''. Hosted on ''YouTube''.</ref>

Top trend forecaster [[Gerald Celente]] predicts that the corrupt economic policies of the Obama administration will lead to a second [[Great Depression|great depression]] (Celente predicted the 1987 US stock market crash, the dot.com crash, the US 2008/2009 recession, and the collapse of the USSR in the early 1990s) and may lead to a "second [[American Revolution]]" (Celente predicted the [[Tea Party Movement|tax protests]] that are now occurring in America).<ref name="celente1">Celente, G. (2009, August 1). [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8MMX3SKzrfU&feature=channel_page pt 2/2 Gerald Celente on Financial Sense Newshour Aug 1st 2009]. ''Financial Sense Newshour''. Hosted on ''YouTube''.</ref><ref name="celente2">Celente, G. (2009, August 2). [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sy9bfw1ebgw&feature=response_watch ]. ''Financial Sense Newshour''. Hosted on ''YouTube''.</ref> Celente also asserts that the costly and inefficient temporary short term methods that the Obama administration is using to alleviate economic problems in the short term (which is causing massive increases in [[Obama administration deficit spending]]) is only making matters worse and will not prevent the worse economic depression in United States history from occurring.<ref>Celente, G. (2009, August 11). [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_C8K7rWkGGw pt 1/2 Gerald Celente on Howestreet.com 11 Aug 2009]. ''HoweStreet.com''. Hosted on ''YouTube''.</ref><ref>Celente, G. (2009, August 11). [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1LBffdIW0XA&feature=response_watch pt 2/2 Gerald Celente on Howestreet.com 11 Aug 2009]. ''HoweStreet.com''. Hosted on ''YouTube''.</ref>

The Obama administration has been sharply criticized for [[Obama administration deficit spending|its massive deficit spending]] and [[Obama administration monetary policy|its reckless monetary policy]] via vast increases in the [[money supply]], although inflation under Bernanke has been below the historic mean.<ref name="gerard"/><ref name="bam"/><ref>Carroll, C. (2009, March 24). [http://blog.heritage.org/2009/03/24/bush-deficit-vs-obama-deficit-in-pictures/ Bush Deficit vs. Obama Deficit in Pictures]. ''The Foundry''. The Heritage Network.</ref> Celente predicts that if a "second American Revolution" occurs in a peaceful and productive manner, it may include a [[Third Party System|third party movement]] of governance that will advocate a more [[free market]] [[capitalism]] approach to the American economy and a more strict interpretation of the [[United States Constitution|United States constitution]] as far as the authors' [[original intent]].<ref name="celente1"/><ref name="celente2"/>

During what the [[White House]] billed as [[Recovery Summer]], one half million workers per week continued losing their jobs. His signature legislative achievement, [[ObamaCare]],has been found to be [[unconstitutional]]<ref>Schoenberg, T. & Fisk, M.T. (2010, December 13). [http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-12-13/u-s-health-care-law-requirement-thrown-out-by-judge.html Obama's Health-Care Law Ruled Unconstitutional Over Insurance Requirement]. ''Bloomberg''.</ref> by several judges and constitutional by others, and is credited as a major cause of uncertainty, high [[unemployment]],<ref>http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=33220</ref> lagging job creation,<ref>Foster, J.D. (2010, August 5). [http://blog.heritage.org/2010/08/05/it%E2%80%99s-official-medicare%E2%80%99s-finances-shadowed-by-uncertainty/ It’s Official: Medicare’s Finances Shadowed by Uncertainty]. ''The Foundry''. The Heritage Network.</ref> and risk of a credit default crisis.<ref>Samuelson, R.J. (2010, March 29). [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/28/AR2010032802353.html With health bill, Obama has sown the seeds of a budget crisis]. ''The Washington Post''.</ref><ref>Cramer, J. (2010, March 16). [http://www.thestreet.com/story/10703361/cramer-obamacare-will-topple-the-market.html Cramer: Obamacare Will Topple the Market]. ''The Street''.</ref>

His 2012 Budget plan has been roundly criticized in the mainstream and liberal press as not a serious effort to deal with the nation's economic crisis.<ref>[http://republican.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=blogs.view&blog_id=1551d6f5-2ac9-4b8d-97ab-74def354024e Newspapers Call Out White House: ‘What Would That Path Be, Mr. President?’]</ref>

[[Jeffrey Tucker]] wrote, "President Obama's economic policy has been catastrophic for liberty, enterprise, and the American dream—the very archetype of what not to do to end recession." [http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1118186176/ref=as_li_tf_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=anncoulter-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=1118186176]

====2009 Stimulus====
In early 2009, Obama lobbied Congress and the public to pass sweeping Stimulus legislation for the ailing economy<ref>(2009, January 3). "[http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28479998/ns/politics-white_house/t/obama-urges-congress-pass-stimulus-plan/ Obama Urges Congress to Pass Stimulus Plan]." ''Associated Press''. Parsons, C. & Nicholas, P. (2009, February 10). "[http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28479998/ns/politics-white_house/t/obama-urges-congress-pass-stimulus-plan/ Barack Obama Sternly Urges Congress to Pass Economic Stimulus]." ''Chicago Tribune''.</ref> known as ''The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009'' (H.R. 1)<ref>"[http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.1: Bill Text Versions: H.R. 1]." 111th Congress (2009-2010). ''Library of Congress''. "[http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,id=204335,00.html The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009: Information Center]." ''IRS''.</ref>, ignoring a report by the Congressional Budget Office that the legislation would ultimately harm the economy.<ref>Dinan, S. (2009, February 4). "[http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/feb/04/cbo-obama-stimulus-harmful-over-long-haul/ CBO: Obama Stimulus Harmful Over Long Haul]." ''U.S. News''.</ref> Contrary to his earlier promises of bipartisanship<ref>Dinan, S. (2009, March 28). "[http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/mar/28/mccain-obama-breaks-campaign-promises-shuns-bipart/?page=all McCain: Obama Breaks Promise of Bipartisanship]." ''Washington Times''.</ref>, the bill passed the House 244-188 without a single Republican vote on January 28, 2009,<ref>Calmes, J. (2009, January 28). "[http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/29/us/politics/29obama.html House Passes Stimulus Plan With No G.O.P. Votes]." ''New York Times''.</ref> and received just 3 Republican votes when passing the Senate 61-37.<ref>Herszenhorn, D.M. (2009, February 10). "[http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/11/washington/11web-stim.html Senate Approves Stimulus Plan]." ''New York Times''.</ref> One third of the massive $838 billion bill consisted of tax cuts<ref>(2009, February 11). "Senate Passes $838 Billion Stimulus Bill]." ''Associated Press''.</ref> and the rest spending on "just about every pent-up Democratic proposal of the last 40 years."<ref>(2009, January 28). "[http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123310466514522309.html A 40-Year Wish List]." ''Wall Street Journal''.</ref> In responding to criticism of the broken bipartisanship promise at the time, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi famously quipped, "We won the election. We wrote the bill."<ref>Kane, P. (2009, January 23). "[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/22/AR2009012203961.html Stimulus Plan Meets More GOP Resistance]." ''Washington Post''.</ref> On February 18, 2009, the Stimulus was signed into law by Obama.<ref>(2009, February 17). "[http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29231790/ns/politics-white_house/t/obama-stimulus-lets-americans-claim-destiny/ Obama: Stimulus Lets Americans Claim Destiny]." ''Associated Press''.</ref> In August 2009, Republicans and Democratic Senator David Obey drew attention to mistakes on the Recovery.gov site claiming Stimulus jobs created that didn't exist. Obama responded by saying the errors just indicate the accounting is an "inexact science".<ref>(2009, November 18). "[http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/11/18/obama-calls-stimulus-data-errors-issue-says-focus-job-growth/ Obama Calls Stimulus Data Errors 'Side Issue,' Says Focus Is on Job Growth]." ''FOX News''.</ref>
====Healthcare====
{{main article|Obamacare}}
On March 23, 2010, Obama signed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA). The act had originated in the House of Representatives and passed September 17, 2009. The act was amended and passed the Senate prior to [[Democrat]] [[Ted Kennedy]]'s passing along party lines - just a filibuster-proof majority at 60-39. In what can be construed as a de facto rejection of the bill, [[Massachusetts]] voters elected a [[Republican]] candidate, [[Scott Brown]], who promised to vote against the bill,<ref>{{cite web|url=http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/senate/scott-brown-wins-massachusetts-senate-race.html|work=The Washington Post|author=Chris Cillizza|date=January 19, 2010|title=Scott Brown wins Massachusetts Senate special election race|language=English|format=HTML}}</ref> but another Senate vote would not occur. Scott Brown was also an excellent campaigner and judged to be a better candidate than his rival, Martha Coakley. He has since achieved one of the most moderate senate voting records, likely to avoid the anger of his mostly liberal constituency. After Obama made a promise to issue an [[executive order]] that would ultimately prohibit the use of taxpayer subsidies to pay for [[abortion]] services,<ref>{{cite web|url=http://articles.latimes.com/2010/mar/22/nation/la-na-healthcare-passage22-2010mar22/3|work=The Los Angeles Times|format=HTML|language=English|title=House passes historic healthcare overhaul|date=March 22, 2010|author=Noam N. Levey and Janet Hook}}</ref> the [[House of Representatives]] would pass the bill as it left the Senate 219-212, with 34 Democrats and all other parties dissenting.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://articles.cnn.com/2010-03-21/politics/health.care.main_1_health-care-entire-house-democratic-caucus-pre-existing-conditions?_s=PM:POLITICS|date=March 21, 2010|author=Alan Silverleib|work=CNN|format=HTML|language=English|title=House passes health care bill on 219-212 vote}}</ref>

Amongst other things, the act mandates that the population purchase health care coverage or face punitive tax measures, and on this basis has been constitutionally challenged in the federal courts, with mixed results (three courts have upheld the act, two have declared it unconstitutional); thus, the Act is likely destined for [[Supreme Court]] reviewal. Plans originally proposed involved instituting a universal public insurance program, that is, extending Medicare to everyone. The universal mandate included in the act was originally a conservative idea that was enacted in Massachusetts under Republican Mitt Romney. Its supporters note that having health insurance results in reduced costs in paying for treatment of uninsured and forcing people to take responsibility for their healthcare. Due to ethical constraints, doctors cannot deny care to poor patients, resulting in the hospital and the healthcare system at large bearing the cost.

====Gulf oil spill====
{{main article|Gulf of Mexico oil spill disaster}}
President Obama authorized offshore oil drilling in the [[Gulf of Mexico]]<ref>[http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2010/0430/Gulf-of-Mexico-oil-spill-imperils-Obama-s-offshore-drilling-plan Gulf of Mexico oil spill imperils Obama's offshore drilling plan,] By Mark Clayton, ''Christian Science Monitor'', April 30, 2010.</ref> stating, "oil rigs today generally don’t cause spills"<ref>White House Press Release, [http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/remarks-president-a-discussion-jobs-and-economy-charlotte-north-carolina Remarks by the President in a Discussion on Jobs and the Economy in Charlotte, North Carolina,] Office of the Press Secretary, April 02, 2010. Retrieved from whitehouse.gov 3 May 2010.</ref> and was widely criticized for his mishandling of the "[[Gulf oil spill disaster|worst environmental disaster]] in US history."<ref>[http://www.examiner.com/x-33986-Political-Spin-Examiner~y2010m4d29-Worst-environmental-disaster-in-US-history-Oil-slick-in-Gulf-of-Mexico-is-set-on-fire Worst environmental disaster in US history,] Maryann Tobin, ''Examiner'', April 29, 2010.</ref><ref>[http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/04/30/the-oil-spill-is-obamas-fault/?src=twt&twt=NytimesKrugman Conscience of a Liberal: The Oil Spill Is Obama’s Fault,] Paul Krugman, ''New York Times'', April 30, 2010.</ref>
====Don't Ask Don't Tell====
{{main article|Don't Ask Don't Tell}}
Candidate Obama promised to repeal a policy that originated in the Clinton era that prohibited inquiries into military personnel's [[sexual orientation]] while also barring "out" [[homosexuals]] from serving in the military. [[Liberals]] expressed anger when time passed and no effort to repeal the law was seen;<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/nov/21/obama-to-delay-repeal-of-dont-ask-dont-tell/|work=The Washington Times|format=HTML|title=Obama to delay ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ repeal|language=English|author=Rowan Scarborough|date=November 21, 2008}}</ref> in fact, Obama's [[justice department]], as part of their duty to defend all laws passed by any administration, filed a brief arguing against the [[Supreme Court]] granting a [[writ of certiorari]] to a gay soldier challenging the law (the writ was not granted). In response, the soldier, James Pietrangelo II, a former Army infantryman and lawyer, said, “[Obama's] a coward, a bigot and a pathological liar. This is a guy who spent more time picking out his dog, Bo, and playing with him on the White House lawn than he has working for equality for gay people."<ref>{{cite web|work=Time Magazine|publisher=Time Inc.|format=HTML|url=http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1903545,00.html?imw=Y|title=Dismay Over Obama's 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' Turnabout|author=Mark Thompson|date=Jun. 09, 2009}}</ref>

On December 15th, 2010, a bill was introduced in the [[House of Representatives]] to repeal the law - it passed a day later by a vote of 250-175;<ref>{{cite web|url=http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2010/roll638.xml|title=FINAL VOTE RESULTS FOR ROLL CALL 638|format=HTML|work=Office of the Clerk of the U.S. House of Representatives}}</ref> it passed the Senate three days later 65-31.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=111&session=2&vote=00281|work=The U.S. Senate|title=U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 111th Congress - 2nd Session|format=HTML|language=English}}</ref> Obama signed the Don't Ask, Don't Tell Repeal Act of 2010 on December 22nd.<ref name="g dadt">{{cite web|url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/dec/22/obama-repeals-dont-ask-dont-tell|work=The Guardian|format=HTML|language=English|title='Don't ask, don't tell' repealed as Obama signs landmark law|date=22 December 2010}}</ref>

The [[Pentagon]] itself could not immediately implement the repeal and questioned whether it would hurt combat readiness.<ref name="g dadt"/> Senator [[John McCain]], the senior Republican on the Armed Services Committee, opposed the bill, saying "It may be premature to make such a change at this time and in this manner, without further consideration of this report and further study of the issue by Congress – for of all the people we serve, one of our highest responsibilities is to the men and women of our armed services, especially those risking their lives in combat.”<ref>{{cite web|url=http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/12/02/mccain-on-dont-ask-dont-tell-dont-rush/|title=McCain on ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’: Don’t Rush|date=December 2nd, 2010|format=HTML|author=David M. Herszenhorn|language=English|work=The New York Times}}</ref>
===Foreign policy===
[[File:Western Wall Obama.jpg|thumb|left|320px|At [[Western Wall]], Jerusalem, 2008.]]
As Senator, Obama was highly critical of President Bush and promised change. As President, Obama has tripled down in Afghanistan, widened the war into Pakistan, multiplied drone attacks, bombed Yemen and Somalia, and started an undeclared NATO war in Libya. On presidential war powers, surveillance questions, Guantanamo, detention policy and habeas corpus, Obama has similarly stayed the course, or expanded Bush's precedents. In a speech on May 19, 2011 Obama fully embraced the [[Bush Doctrine]] of preventative war.<ref>Krauthammer, C. (April 19). [http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-news-in-obamas-speech/2011/05/19/AF4dFN7G_story.html The News in Obama's Speech]. ''The Washington Post''.</ref>

<blockquote>
The New America Foundation, which tracks the strikes, has listed 23 raids since the beginning of April, 2011, all but one in Pakistan’s tribal regions of North and South Waziristan. A June 20 attack was reported in Kurram, an area north of North Waziristan along the Afghanistan border.
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
The drone program has become increasingly controversial as the Obama administration has expanded its use beyond the Afghanistan and Iraq wars. Lethal missiles have been launched from unmanned aircraft in at least five countries in addition to Pakistan: Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Yemen, and, most recently, Somalia. The military’s Joint Special Operations Command used a drone last June to attack what officials said were two senior members of the Al Shabab militant group on the Somali coast. <ref>DeYoung, K. (2011, July 4). [http://www.boston.com/news/world/asia/articles/2011/07/04/cia_halts_drone_launches_from_pakistan_base/ CIA Halts Drone Launches From Pakistan Base]. ''The Boston Globe''. </ref>
</blockquote>

<blockquote>
Obama is commendable when he says he wants to avoid war. His policies, however, favor war by destabilizing the Middle East making it extremely hostile and favoring radical Islam over America’s ally, Israel, and American interests in the region... The president has chosen a very dangerous path for every American and one that promises great difficulty for Israel. <ref> [http://www.thejerusalemconnection.us/blog/2012/03/14/obamas-words-disguise-his-israel-foreign-policy-actions.html Obama's words disguise his Israel foreign policy actions.] </ref>
</blockquote>
====Commander-in-chief====
By Obama's third year as Commander-in-Chief, over 1200 American troops died in Iraq and Afghanistan - significantly more than the number who died during President [[George W. Bush]]'s term of office. And growing numbers of civilian contractors also have fallen. In the first half of 2010, 250 contractors reportedly died in Iraq and Afghanistan - more than the 235 military personnel who fell during the same period.<ref>http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/05/24/114662/what-price-war.html#ixzz1Nz07pg5O</ref>
=====National Defense=====
President Obama signed into U.S. law the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), only after his administration successfully lobbied to remove language from the bill that would have protected American citizens from being detained indefinitely without trial.<ref>Aaron Dykes. [http://www.infowars.com/president-obamas-ndaa-signing-statement-i-have-the-power-to-detain-americans-but-i-wont/ Obama’s Signing Statement on NDAA: I have the power to detain Americans… but I won’t], Infowars.com, January 1, 2012. </ref> After the legislation cleared Congress, the ACLU commented that if President Obama signed the bill it "will damage both his legacy and American’s reputation for upholding the rule of law," while executive director of the ''Human Rights Watch'' blasted the President for being ‘on the wrong side of history,’ noting that "Obama will go down in history as the president who enshrined indefinite detention without trial in US law."<ref>President Decides to Sign Ill-Conceived National Defense Authorization Act. [http://www.hrw.org/news/2011/12/14/us-refusal-veto-detainee-bill-historic-tragedy-rights US: Refusal to Veto Detainee Bill A Historic Tragedy for Rights], ''Human Rights Watch'', December 14, 2011. [http://www.aclu.org/national-security/white-house-backs-away-defense-bill-veto-threat White House Backs Away from Defense Bill Veto Threat], ''[[ACLU]]'', December 14, 2011.</ref>

Section 1031 of the NDAA bill, which itself defines the entirety of the United States as a “battlefield,” allows American citizens to be snatched from the streets, carted off to a foreign detention camp and held indefinitely without trial. As reported by Infowars.com, the bill states that “any person who has committed a belligerent act” faces indefinite detention, but no trial or evidence has to be presented, the White House merely needs to make the accusation.<ref>Paul Joseph Watson. [http://www.infowars.com/obama-administration-demanded-power-to-indefinitely-detain-u-s-citizens/ Obama Administration Demanded Power To Indefinitely Detain U.S. Citizens], Infowars.com, December 12, 2011. S.1867 [http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c112:2:./temp/~c1122VN0Iv:e548990: National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Engrossed in Senate [Passed Senate] - ES)], ''The Library of Congress'' THOMAS, 112th Congress (2011-2011), Accessed January 25, 2012. Text of S.1867 - National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012. [http://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-s1867/text?version=es&nid=t0:es:281 Sec. 1031. Affirmation of authority of the Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered persons pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force.], [[U.S. Congress]], ''OpenCongress.org'', (Accessed January 25, 2012).</ref>

=====2009-2011 Iraq Troop Withdrawal=====
{{main article|Operation Iraqi Freedom}}
On February 10, 2007, Barack Obama announced his campaign for the U.S. presidency while stating he had a "''plan that will bring our combat troops home by March of 2008.''"<ref name=announcement>(2007, February 10). "[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/10/AR2007021000879.html Illinois Sen. Barack Obama's Announcement Speech]." ''Associated Press''.</ref> Later, Obama campaigned on having troops entirely out of Iraq within 16 months, but in February 2009 revised this promise to withdrawing all but 35-50 thousand troops by December 2011.<ref>Barry, J. (2009, February 25). "[http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2009/02/25/reality-on-the-ground.html Reality on the Ground]." ''Newsweek''.</ref> However, some of the newly withdrawn troops were simply redirected from Iraq to Afghanistan - Obama in Summer 2009 ordered 21,000 troops to Afghanistan.<ref name=amanpour>Amanpour, C. (2009, April 29). "[http://articles.cnn.com/2009-04-29/politics/amanpour.obama.foreign.policy_1_president-obama-obama-administration-iraq?_s=PM:POLITICS Amanpour: Obama's 100 Days of Foreign Affairs]." ''CNN Politics''.</ref>{{cquote|"But all of this cannot come to pass until we bring an end to this war in Iraq. Most of you know I opposed this war from the start. I thought it was a tragic mistake. Today we grieve for the families who have lost loved ones, the hearts that have been broken, and the young lives that could have been. America, it's time to start bringing our troops home. It's time to admit that no amount of American lives can resolve the political disagreement that lies at the heart of someone else's civil war. That's why I have a plan that will bring our combat troops home by March of 2008. Letting the Iraqis know that we will not be there forever is our last, best hope to pressure the Sunni and Shia to come to the table and find peace."
-Barack Obama, February 10, 2007 Presidential Campaign Announcement Speech<ref name=announcement />}}Ultimately, it was the Status of Forces Agreement signed by George W. Bush on November 17, 2008 which forced U.S. combat troops to withdraw from Iraq's cities, villages, and localities by June 30, 2009, and from Iraq entirely by December 31st 2011.<ref>(2008, November 17). "[http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/world/20081119_SOFA_FINAL_AGREED_TEXT.pdf Agreement Between the United States of America and the Republic of Iraq On the Withdrawal of United States from Iraq and the Organization of Their Activities during Their Temporary Presence in Iraq]." Article 24. Withdrawal of the United States Forces from Iraq. Hosted by ''The New York Times''. Office of the Press Secretary (2008, November 27). "[http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2008/11/20081127-1.html Statement by the President on Agreements with Iraq]." ''The White House''.</ref> Obama privately contacted the Iraq government in an attempt to persuade them to let 10,000 troops stay, but was rejected.<ref>Froomkin, D. (2011, October 26). "[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/26/obama-iraq_n_1032507.html Ending the War in Iraq: How Obama's Own Rhetoric - And George Bush's Pact - Boxed in the President]." ''Huffington Post''.</ref> Newsweek's Michael Ware accused Obama of a "War Crime" for "''falsely taking credit for finally bringing Iraq to a close—a war actually ended by the Bush administration back in 2008''" and stated, "''The U.S. troops who fought and died in that war, the Iraqis who perished, and the American people deserve far better.''"<ref>Ware, M. (2011, October 24). "[http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/10/24/obamas-war-crime-taking-credit-from-bush-adminsitration-for-ending-the-iraq-war.html Obama's War Crime]." ''Newsweek''. U.S. Politics.</ref> The last of Iraq's combat troops have now been withdrawn because of Bush's Status of Forces Agreement which Obama took credit for.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://articles.cnn.com/2011-12-17/middleeast/world_meast_iraq-troops-leave_1_1st-cavalry-division-camp-adder-troop-movements?_s=PM:MIDDLEEAST|work=CNN|title=Obama: Last U.S. troops leave Iraq|date=December 17, 2011|language=English|format=HTML}}</ref>
=====Afghanistan=====
{{main article|Afghanistan War}}
Obama escalated troop strength<ref name="pbs">{{cite web|url=http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/obamaswar/themes/strategy.html#ixzz1LhWNImZp|title=Obama's New Strategy (March '09)|author=George Packer, Seth Jones, David Kilcullen, Rory Stewart, Andrew Exum, Col. Andrew Bacevich (Ret.)|work=PBS|language=English|format=HTML}}</ref> and defense costs in Afghanistan from $43.5 billion in George Bush's last year to $113.7 billion for 2011.<ref>Congressional Research Service, quoted in Gregory Anthony, ''What price war?''</ref> Adviser to General [[Stanley McChrystal]] David Kilcullen wrote, "One of the big strategic shifts is the use of language now which talks about Pakistan and Afghanistan as the same theater. Now we talked about Af-Pak long before the Obama administration came about, but the public use of that term, and the description of it as the Afghanistan-Pakistan campaign, sends a new message to people about how the administration is going to think about Afghanistan and Pakistan."<ref name="pbs"/> This became evident when, under the orders of Obama, a military SEALs team killed September 11th mastermind [[Osama bin Laden]] in Abottabad, Pakistan.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.newsweek.com/2011/05/05/commander-in-chief.html|title=Commander in Chief|author=Daniel Romano and Daniel Klaidman|date=May 05, 2011|work=Newsweek|publisher=The Newsweek/Daily Beast Company LLC|language=English|format=HTML}}</ref>
=====Guantanamo Bay=====
{{main article|Guantanamo Bay}}
One of Obama's campaign promises was that he would close the American detention center at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba - detainees would be flown to other countries while the ones awaiting trial would enter the American court system. Two days after taking office he signed an order directing the military to do so.<ref name="salon">{{cite web|url=http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2011/04/25/obama_guantanamo_rhetoric|work=Salon|title=The Obama/Gitmo timeline|author=Natasha Lennard|format=HTML|language=English}}</ref> But, in November 2009 Obama admitted that his self imposed deadline of January 2010 would be missed, and in March 2011 the president went back on his campaign promise, signing an executive order to create a formal system of indefinite detention for the prisoners.<ref name="salon"/>
=====Mexico=====
In May 2012, President Obama promised Mexican President [[Felipe Calderon]] that his administration would assist Mexico in curbing drug cartel violence, which has led to 30,000 deaths in Mexico. "President Calderon and I . . . stand together against the drug cartels that have unleashed horrific violence in so many communities," Obama said on May 19. "Mexico can count on the United States as a full partner in this effort."

The ''[[Washington Post]]'' has reported however that White House officials stopped a requirement for gun dealers to report bulk sales of high-powered semiautomatic rifles commonly used by illegal drug cartels. [[Justice Department]] officials had asked for White House approval to require thousands of gun dealers along the border to report the purchases to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms and Explosives. ATF investigators expected to get leads on suspected arms traffickers. Senior law enforcement sources said the proposal from the ATF was held up by then White House chief of staff [[Rahm Emanuel]].<ref>Horwitz, S. & Grimaldi, J.V. (2010, December 17). [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/17/AR2010121706598.html White House Delayed Rule Meant to Stop Gun Flow to Mexico]. ''The Washington Post''.</ref> Gun dealers have been required for decades to report the sales of multiple handguns to the ATF.

=====Libya=====
{{main article|Libyan uprising 2011}}
In February 2011, the political unrest that had spread through the Arab world showed up as protests in Libya. Colonel Muammar el-Qaddafi - leader of Libya for 41 years - responded to the violent activism<ref>http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article28376.htm</ref> with legible steps.<ref name="nyt libya">{{cite web|url=http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/international/countriesandterritories/libya/index.html|work=The New York Times|publisher=The New York Times Inc.|format=HTML|language=English|title=Libya — Protests and Revolt (2011)}}</ref> The [[United Nations Security Council]] voted unanimously to impose [[sanctions]], and later authorized all members to take action to protect civilians. Obama, acting without approval from Congress and at the beckoning of the [[United Nations]], directed American forces to take out Libya's air defense system.<ref name="nyt libya"/> Obama later said, "[I]f we waited one more day Benghazi, a city nearly the size of Charlotte, could suffer a massacre that would have reverberated across the region and stained the conscience of the world."<ref>{{cite web|author=Barack Obama|url=http://www.npr.org/2011/03/28/134935452/obamas-speech-on-libya-a-responsibility-to-act|title=Obama's Speech On Libya: 'A Responsibility To Act'|date=March 28, 2011|publisher=National Public Radio ([[NPR]])|language=English|format=HTML}}</ref> [[Alan J. Kuperman]] - writing an editorial for the ''[[Boston Globe]]'' - suggested this statement was false, writing, "[I]ntervention did not prevent genocide, because no such bloodbath was in the offing. To the contrary, by emboldening rebellion, US interference has prolonged Libya’s civil war and the resultant suffering of innocents."<ref name="kuperman">{{cite web|author=Alan J. Kuperman|work=The Boston Globe|url=http://articles.boston.com/2011-04-14/bostonglobe/29418371_1_rebel-stronghold-civilians-rebel-positions|title=False pretense for war in Libya?|date=April 14, 2011}}</ref> Kuperman, a professor of public affairs at the University of Texas who authored a book called ''The Limits of Humanitarian Intervention'', further stated that the rebels had tricked the world into thinking a bloodbath was at hand and that Obama had lied to the American people in order to act on this theory.<ref name="kuperman"/>
<blockquote>
Gaddafi [never] threaten civilian massacre in Benghazi, as Obama alleged. The “no mercy’’ warning, of March 17, targeted rebels only, as reported by The New York Times, which noted that Libya’s leader promised amnesty for those “who throw their weapons away.’’ Khadafy even offered the rebels an escape route and open border to Egypt, to avoid a fight “to the bitter end.’’ <ref> [http://politicalcartel.org/2011/04/17/libya-and-the-obama-doctrine/ Libya and the “Obama Doctrine”.] </ref>
</blockquote>

However Gaddafi wrote to Obama:

<blockquote>
Gaddafi said he bore no ill will toward Obama. "We have been hurt more morally than physically because of what had happened against us in both deeds and words by you," he wrote. "Despite all this you will always remain our son whatever happened. We still pray that you continue to be president of the USA. We endeavour and hope that you will gain victory in the new election campaign." The letter, dated 5 April 2011 in Tripoli, is signed "Mu'aumer Qaddaffi, Leader of the Revolution".<ref>[http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/apr/06/gaddafi-obama-nato-libya?INTCMP=ILCNETTXT3487]</ref>
</blockquote>

Critics point out the only thing worse than starting a "stupid, unnecessary war" against a madman is losing it.<ref>http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/271847/war-libya-dumb-and-dumber-victor-davis-hanson</ref>

==2012 Presidential Campaign==
===2011, Birth Certificate Released===
: ''Main Article: [[Barack_Obama_Controversies#Birth_Certificate]]''
On April 27, 2011<ref>CNN Political Unit (2011, April 27). "[http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/04/27/white-house-releases-obama-birth-certificate/ White House Releases Obama Birth Certificate]." ''CNN''</ref>, a long-running controversy surrounding Obama's birth was largely put to rest<ref>Winter, J. (2011, April 29). "[http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/04/29/expert-says-obamas-birth-certificate-legit/ Expert: No Doubt Obama's Birth Certificate is Legit]." ''FOX News''. Tuchman, G. (2011, April 25). "[http://articles.cnn.com/2011-04-25/politics/birthers.obama.hawaii_1_birther-controversy-obama-opinion-research-corporation?_s=PM:POLITICS Obama Birther Claims Have No Merit]." ''CNN''. (2011, April 27). "[http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42779923/ns/politics-white_house/t/obama-releases-detailed-us-birth-certificate/ Obama Releases Detailed U.S. Birth Certificate]." ''MSNBC''.</ref> when Obama had his long-form birth certificate posted at WhiteHouse.gov.<ref>"[http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/rss_viewer/birth-certificate-long-form.pdf Certificate of Live Birth]." State of Hawaii. Retrieved from ''WhiteHouse.gov''.</ref> Donald Trump, who had attacked Obama on the Birth Certificate issue and was then leading Republicans in polls for the upcoming GOP primary<ref>James, F. (2011, April 15). "[http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2011/04/15/135446314/poll-donald-trump-birther-darling-leads-gop-field-at-26 Donald Trump, Birther In Chief? Poll Has Him Leading GOP Field with 26 Percent]." ''NPR''.</ref>, was effectively knocked out of the race because of this.<ref>Kapur, S. (2011, May 10). "[http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/05/10/trumps-popularity-tanks-after-obama-releases-long-form-birth-certificate/ Trump's Popularity Tanks After Obama Releases Long-Form Birth Certificate]." ''RawStory.com''.</ref>

The following is a timeline of previous events leading up to the release:

* In June 2008 the Obama campaign allowed FactCheck.org to look at his “Certificate of Live Birth” and take photos.<ref>Henig, J. (2008, August 21). Born in the U.S.A. FactCheck.org. Retrieved from http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html</ref>
* In July 2008 a blogger discovered a birth announcement from the Honolulu Advertiser from August 13, 1961 for Barack Obama. It has since been discovered another newspaper, the Star Bulletin, also documented the birth.<ref>Snopes.com. Barack Obama Birth Certificate. Retrieved from http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthcertificate.asp</ref>
* PolitiFact went to extreme lengths to verify Obama’s citizenship, attaining scanned copies of his 1992 marriage certificate from Cook County, IL, his driver’s license record, and his registration and disciplinary record. PolitiFact also addressed a number of concerns about the documentation.<ref>Hollyfield, A. (2008, June 27). Obama’s birth certificate: Final chapter. PolitiFact. Retrieved from http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2008/jun/27/obamas-birth-certificate-part-ii/</ref>
* In October 2008 Hawaii’s Department of Health released a statement by Dr. Chiyome Fu.kino verifying that Obama’s birth certificate was on record.<ref>Hawaii Department of Health. News Release: Statement by Dr. Chiyome Fu.kino. Retrieved from http://hawaii.gov/health/about/pr/2008/08-93.pdf</ref>
* In August 2009 it was revealed that an alleged Kenyan birth certificate for Obama was a hoax.<ref>Snopes.com. Kenyan Mistake. Retrieved from http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthers/kenyacert.asp</ref> Another website allows you to create your own imitation Kenyan birth certificates online.<ref>KenyanBirthCertificateGenerator.com. Blue Collar Industries. Retrieved from http://kenyanbirthcertificategenerator.com/</ref>

===2011, Osama Bin Laden Confirmed Dead===
On May 1, 2011, Obama announced in a press conference<ref>Obama, B. (2011, May 2). "[http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/05/02/osama-bin-laden-dead Osama Bin Laden Dead]." ''WhiteHouse.gov''.</ref> that Osama Bin Laden was dead after a U.S. assault force infiltrated his military compound in Abottobad, Pakistan.<ref>Baker, P., Cooper, H., & Mazzetti, M. (2011, May 1). "[Bin Laden is Dead, Obama Says]." ''New York Times''. "[http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Osama_Bin_Laden/ Target Bin Laden: The Death of Public Enemy #1]." ''ABC News''. ''NPR''. "[http://www.npr.org/series/135908383/osama-bin-laden-dead Special Series: Osama Bin Laden Killed]." </ref> Bin Laden was reportedly shot in the head after a helicopter raid ferried Navy SEAL Team Six and CIA paramilitary operatives into Pakistan on April 29.<ref>''Associated Press'' (2011, May 1). "[http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-201_162-20058777.html Osama bin Laden is Dead]." Retrieved from ''CBSNews.com''.</ref> Reuters obtained photos of unidentified dead bodies from the raid, none of which look like bin Laden. However, the White House had the body of Osama bin Laden disposed of at sea because it claimed this was "in accordance with Islamic tradition" and didn't want to give Bin Laden followers a gravesite shrine.<ref>The Daily Beast (2011, May 2). "[http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/05/02/osama-bin-laden-killed-and-buried-at-sea-breaking-details.html Osama Bin Laden Killed and Buried at Sea]." ''Newsweek''.</ref> The White House also refused to publicly reveal photos or evidence of the body, because Obama claimed that "given the graphic nature of these photos, it would create some national security risk."<ref>Allbritton, C. (2011, May 4). "[http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/05/04/us-binladen-pakistan-photos-idUSTRE7437KK20110504 Photos Show Three Dead Men at Bin Laden Raid House]." ''Reuters''. ''Reuters''. "[http://www.reuters.com/subjects/bin-laden-compound Photos From the Bin Laden Compound]."</ref> The burial at sea was criticized by Islamic scholars<ref>''Associated Press'' (2011, May 2). "[http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-202_162-20058892.html Islamic Scholars Criticize Bin Laden Sea Burial]." Retrieved from ''CBSNews.com''. Also at [http://www.foxnews.com/world/2011/05/02/islamic-scholars-question-bin-ladens-sea-burial/ Fox News].</ref> and 9/11 families.<ref>Zirulnick, A. (2011, May 3). "[http://www.csmonitor.com/World/terrorism-security/2011/0503/Osama-bin-Laden-s-burial-at-sea-critics-range-from-9-11-families-to-militants Osama Bin Laden's Burial At Sea: Critics Range from 9/11 Families to Militants]." ''Christian Science Monitor''.</ref> The lack of photos resulted in skepticism about the death from a variety of sources, including the Taliban<ref>Faiez, R. & Vogt, H. (2011, May 4). "[http://articles.boston.com/2011-05-04/news/29509464_1_bin-taliban-spokesman-zabiullah-mujahid-samiullah-khan Taliban Holding Out for Clear Evidence]." ''Associated Press''.</ref> and Republican Senator Lindsey Graham.<ref>Rosen, J. & Thomma, S. (2011, May 5). "[http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/05/05/113709/sc-sen-graham-wants-bin-laden.html S.C. Sen. Graham Wants Bin Laden Photos Released]." ''McClatchy Newspapers''.</ref>

The death of bin Laden, coupled with the revealing of Obama's long-form Birth Certificate, resulted in a boost of Obama's job approval from 46% to 57% within one month.<ref>Dao, J. & Sussman, D. (2011, May 4). "[http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/05/us/politics/05poll.html For Obama, Big Rise in Poll Numbers After Bin Laden Raid]." ''New York Times''. ''Pew Research Center'' (2011, May 2). "[http://www.people-press.org/2011/05/03/public-relieved-by-bin-ladens-death-obamas-job-approval-rises/ Public 'Relieved' by Bin Laden's Death, Obama's Job Approval Rises]." Jones, J.M. (2011, May 5). "[http://www.gallup.com/poll/147437/obama-approval-rallies-six-points-bin-laden-death.aspx Obama Job Approval Rallies Six Points to 52% After Bin Laden Death]." ''Gallup''.</ref> In 2012, relations between the U.S. and Pakistan remain sour because the U.S. did not involve Pakistan fully in the raid to ensure success.<ref>''CBS/Associated Press'' (2012, May 1). "[http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57424622/1-year-after-osama-bin-laden-killed-still-no-answers-from-pakistan/ 1 Year After Osama bin Laden Killed, Still No Answers from Pakistan]."</ref> Pakistan has denied White House claims that there was a deal with it allowing the raid.<ref>''Associated Press'' (2011, May 10). "[http://www.foxnews.com/world/2011/05/10/pakistani-president-claims-bin-laden-deal/ Former Pakistani President Claims There Was Never Bin Laden Deal With U.S.]." Retrieved from ''FOX News''.</ref>
=== 2012: Ties to ACORN? ===
According to Stanley Kurtz - author of ''Radical-in-Chief: Barack Obama and the Untold Story of American Socialism'' (2010) Obama in 1995 sought and obtained the endorsement of a left-wing third party, the [[New Party]] in his quest to be elected to the Illinois State Senate.<ref>Kurtz, S. (2012, June 7). [http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/302031/obamas-third-party-history-stanley-kurtz Obama's Third-Party History]. ''National Review Online''.</ref> Obama's "Fight the Smears" campaign has denied this, as has Politico's Ben Smith.<ref name=pollack>Pollack, J.B. (2012, June 7). [http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/06/07/Obama-Caught-Lying-Again-He-WAS-Member-of-New-Party-Says-Kurtz Obama Caught Lying Again: He WAS Member of 'New Party', Says Kurtz]. ''Breitbart''. Smith, B. (2008, October 25). [http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/1008/The_dread_New_Party.html The Dread New Party]. ''Politico''.</ref> Others who claim he was affiliated with the New Party/ACORN include The Blaze's Billy Hallowell<ref>Hallowell, B. (2012, June 7). [http://www.theblaze.com/stories/report-new-documents-show-obama-was-a-member-of-the-far-left-new-party/ News Docs Reportedly Show Obama Was a Member of the Far-Left 'New Party']. ''The Blaze''.</ref>, Breitbart's Joel Pollack, Human Events' Erick Erickson<ref>Erickson, E. (2008, June 10). [http://www.humanevents.com/2008/06/10/obama-and-the-new-party/ Obama and the New Party]. ''Human Events''.</ref>, Newsbusters' P.J. Gladnick<ref>Gladnick, P.J. (2008, October 12). [http://newsbusters.org/blogs/p-j-gladnick/2008/10/08/will-msm-report-obama-membership-socialist-new-party#ixzz21JfE3z1z Will MSM Report on Obama Membership in Socialist New Party?] ''Newsbusters''.</ref>, Rick Moran at AmericanThinker.com<ref>Rick Moran. [http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/06/obamas_alliance_with_marxists.html Obama's Alliance with Marxists], ''American Thinker'', June 03, 2008.</ref>, and various writers at Discover the Networks (which include Kurtz and Erickson).<ref>[http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=7434 NEW PARTY (NP)], ''DiscoverTheNetworks.org''.</ref>

Kurtz in 2012 has claimed to find minutes of the New Party Chicago chapter that say, "''Barack Obama, candidate for State Senate in the 13th Legislative District, gave a statement to the membership and answered questions. He signed the New Party 'Candidate Contract' and requested an endorsement from the New Party. He also joined the New Party.''"<ref name=pollack /> Obama campaign strategist David Axelrod responded to Kurtz with silence and when asked if that meant "yes or no", Axelrod stated, "You can take that as I have no idea what you are talking about."<ref>Pollack, J.B. (2012, June 7). [http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/06/07/Exclusive-Axelrod-Plays-Dumb-on-Obama-and-Socialist-New-Party Exclusive: Axelrod Plays Dumb on Obama and Socialist New Party]. ''Breitbart''.</ref>

==="You didn't build that" Controversy===
On July 13, 2012, at a campaign event in [[Virginia]], Obama gave a speech that immediately stirred up controversy. Speaking about the government's role in the success of private business, he said:<ref>http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/07/13/remarks-president-campaign-event-roanoke-virginia</ref>
{{cquote|If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business - you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen.}} The [[Romney]] campaign has used "If you’ve got a business - you didn’t build that" in ads to show America that Obama believes it is government that creates business rather than hard-working individuals. The Obama campaign has alternatively stated that the sentenced was poorly worded since he was not giving a scripted speech and that when Obama said "that" he was referring to roads and bridges. Obama points to a later portion of his speech in which he said, "The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together," to support his claim.

==Accusations about birth certificate and cultural and name identity==
Some conservative opponents have accused Obama of not being an American but born outside of the United States, this accusation was bolstered by Obama's reluctance to show his birth certificate to the public, until prompted by [[Donald Trump]]. Obama presented a birth certificate to the public. Some conservative opponents believe that the birth certificate he presented was a forgery, and they are known as "birthers" both by their conservative and liberal opponents. However conservatives like [[Ann Coulter]] reject the birthers' accusations and view birthers as a fringe group that left-wing media like MSNBC have exaggerated in order to discredit the conservative movement.

There are other right-wing and anti-Islamic opponents of Obama who claim that he is a Muslim '''Barry Soetoro''' during his time in [[Indonesia]]<ref>[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PQPXVJuT2vY Barry Soetoro the muslim - YouTube]</ref>

Other right-wing opponents claim that Obama is an [[Atheism|atheist]].

==See also==

*[[Political positions of Barack Obama]]
*[[Barack Obama and uncharitableness]]
*[[Barack Obama and abortion]]
*[[Essay:Born Outside the U.S.A.!]]
*[[Essay: The Special Interests Candidate]]
*[[Jobsgate]]
*[[Recovery Summer]]
*[[Lobbyists ties to the Obama administration]]
*[[New Party]]
*[[ObamaCare]]
*[[Obama doublespeak]]
*[[Obama inauguration]]
*[[Religion of Barack Hussein Obama]]
*[[The Honorable James David Manning]]
*[[Young Communist League]]

==External links==
*[http://www.antiobama.net/ Anti Obama.net]
*[http://www.dontvoteobama.net/ Don’t Vote For Obama.net]
*[http://nobamanetwork.com/ Nobama Network]
*[http://www.audacityofhypocrisy.com/ Audacity Of Hypocrisy]
*[http://therealbarackobama.wordpress.com/ The Real Barack Obama]
*[http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/6130/ The New Cult of Personality]
*[http://www.survivingobamunism.com/index.html Surviving Obamunism T-shirts]
*[http://www.barackobamaantichrist.blogspot.com/ Barack Obama the Anti-Christ ?]
*[http://www.noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/06/23/che-obama-and-the-revolutionary-agenda/ Che, Obama, and the Revolutionary Agenda]
*[http://www.audacityofhypocrisy.com/fashion-shows/ Obama Laundry List of Lies]
*[http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jun/09/americas-first-muslim-president/ GAFFNEY: America's first Muslim president?] Washington Times
*[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-l-esposito/barack-obama-and-islam_b_212519.html Barack Obama and Islam.] by [[John L. Esposito]].
*[http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=78931 Democrat: Obama's grandma confirms Kenyan birth.]
*[http://www.ontheissues.org/barack_obama.htm Barack Obama on the issues.]
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=etWLwrvT2vo Obama = Kosher Puppet.] video on You Tube.

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

{{USPresidents}}
{{2008 presidential candidates}}
[[Category: Barack Hussein Obama]]
[[Category:Obama Presidency]]
[[Category:Obama Administration]]
[[category:Nobel laureates in Peace]]
[[Category:2012 Presidential Candidates]]
[[Category:Abortion Advocates]]
[[Category:Socialism]]
[[Category:Muslims]]
[[Category:Socialists]]
{{DEFAULTSORT:Obama, Barack Hussein}}

Liberal

2012-10-07T13:10:43Z

Nightsky: removed gibberish

[[File:President Barack Obama.jpg|thumbnail|right|180px|President [[Barack Obama]] advocates the use of [[Keynesian economics|Keynesian economic concepts]].]]

A '''liberal''' is someone who favors [[censorship]] of [[Christianity]] plus increased government spending and power, as in [[ObamaCare]]. Increasingly, liberals side with the [[homosexual agenda]], including supporting [[same-sex marriage]]. Many liberals favor a [[welfare state]] where people receive endless entitlements without working. Liberals are often anti-[[Christian]], or otherwise disagree with moral or social principles held by many American Christians. The liberal ideology has worsened over the years and degenerated into economically delusional views and intolerant ideology. Some liberals simply support, in knee-jerk fashion, the opposite of [[conservative]] principles without having any meaningful values of their own.

Polling data has consistently shown that a decreasingly large percentage of Americans identify as conservative, rather than as liberal, currently by 38% to 21%. Younger people and those with higher levels of education are more likely to identify as liberal.<ref>http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1042/winds-of-political-change-havent--shifted-publics-ideology-balance</ref>

The decline in liberal principles can be illustrated by how [[Franklin Delano Roosevelt]] opposed and condemned public sector unions, stating that the idea of collective bargaining can't be transferred from the private to the public sector, as that would result in the government being unable to carry out its duties. Yet today, decades later, [[Democrats]] and liberals are in lock-step with public sector unions, as they "donate" money to the reelection campaign in exchange for more taxpayer money in their wallets and fluffed up pensions.

A liberal generally supports many of the following political positions and practices:

* Spending money on government programs (the significant economic problems in the [[Eurozone]] due to government debt will no doubt increasingly discredit this aspect of liberal ideology and make things more difficult for advocates of liberal economic ideologies)
* Government's ability to solve economic problems<ref>http://www.studentnewsdaily.com/conservative-vs-liberal-beliefs</ref>
* The belief that terrorism is not a huge threat, and that the main reason for Muslim extremists' hostility towards America is because of bad foreign policy <ref>http://www.studentnewsdaily.com/conservative-vs-liberal-beliefs</ref>
* Taxpayer-funded and/or legalized [[abortion]]
* Censorship of teacher-led [[prayer]] in classrooms and school/state-sponsored religious events
* Support for [[gun control]]
* Affirmative action<ref>http://www.studentnewsdaily.com/conservative-vs-liberal-beliefs</ref>
* Support of obscenity, pornography and violence in video games as a [[First Amendment]] right<ref>The [[Warren Court]], led by [[liberal]] Justices [[William O. Douglas]], [[Hugo Black]], [[Abe Fortas]], [[William Brennan]] and Chief Justice [[Earl Warren]] issued 36 decisions granting [[First Amendment]] rights to obscenity and pornography. These decisions remain fully supported by liberals today.</ref>
* Government-funded medical care, such as [[Obamacare]]
* Taxpayer-funded and government-controlled [[public education]]
* Insisting that men and women be placed in the same jobs in the [[military]]
* Legalized [[same-sex marriage]] and homosexual adoption
* [[Tax and spend]]
* Support for economic sector regulations<ref>http://www.studentnewsdaily.com/conservative-vs-liberal-beliefs</ref>
* Support and spreading of [[political correctness]]
* Support of non-syndicalist [[labor union|labor unions]]
* Encouraging promiscuity through sexual education (the teaching of safe sex) rather than teaching [[abstinence]] from premarital sex<ref> [http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,286671,00.html Democrats Aim To Kill Abstinence-Only Program Funding], [[Fox News]], Monday, June 25, 2007</ref>
* A "[[living Constitution]]" that is reinterpreted as liberals prefer, rather than how it is thought to have been intended.
* Government programs to [[rehabilitate criminals]]
* Abolition of the death penalty
* [[Environmentalism]]<ref> and environmental organizations, for example [[Greenpeace]]</ref>
* [[Globalism]]
* Opposition to the integration of church and state.
* Opposition to full private property rights.<ref> For example, the liberal wing of the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] issued the 5-4 [[Kelo v. City of New London]] decision authorizing the taking of private property by government in order to give the property to another private entity rather than convert it to a public use.</ref>
* Reinstating the [[Fairness Doctrine]]
* In 2005, it was reported by CBS News that [[Theory of evolution and liberalism|liberals were the most likely supporters of the theory of evolution]].
* Opposition to domestic wire-tapping as authorized in the [[Patriot Act]]
* Opposition of [[Operation Iraqi Freedom]], a major part of the [[War on Terrorism]]
* Withholds support to the [[War on Terrorism]] and the [[War in Iraq]]
* Tolerance of different ideas and lifestyles
* Do not support a laissez-faire capitalist economy and support regulation of business

Liberals currently use two clauses to try and expand their power: the Commerce Clause and the General Welfare Clause. The general welfare clause mentions "promoting the general welfare". This to a liberal means taxing the rich at increased rates and redistributing that money. The commerce clause, on the other hand, says that Congress has the power to regulate trade with foreign nations, between the states and with the indian tribes. Since the days of FDR this clause has been interpreted very loosely and has resulted in the federal government expanding its power. The latest example is The Affordable Care Act(ACA), better know as [[Obamacare]]. In the ACA, the liberals justify the individual mandate by saying it regulates commerce between the states.

Current dictionaries describe the liberal ideology by pretending that a liberal is "a person who favors a political philosophy of progress and reform and the protection of civil liberties" or "a person who favors an economic theory of laissez-faire and self-regulating markets,"<ref>http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=liberal&sub=Search+WordNet&o2=&o0=1&o7=&o5=&o1=1&o6=&o4=&o3=&h=00</ref> or "open-minded or tolerant, especially free of or not bound by traditional or conventional ideas, values, etc." or "favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, especially as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties."<ref>http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/liberal</ref>

==Liberals and Uncharitableness==
[[Image:228130875 35181424e3.jpg|thumb|right|175px|[[United States|American]] Liberals have been observed to give less to charity than American conservatives.<ref>http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/conservatives_more_liberal_giv.html</ref> In addition, [[per capita]] [[atheism|atheists]] and [[agnosticism|agnostics]] in the United States [[Atheism and charity|give significantly less to charity than theists even when church giving is not counted for theists]].[http://www.barna.org/barna-update/article/12-faithspirituality/102-atheists-and-agnostics-take-aim-at-christians][http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3647/is_200310/ai_n9340592/][http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Story?id=2682730&page=2] ]]
''For more information please see'': [[Liberals and uncharitableness]] and [[Atheism and charity]]

In March of 2008, [[George Will]] wrote at [[RealClearPolitics]] concerning the [[United States]]:
{{cquote|Sixteen months ago, [[Arthur C. Brooks]], a professor at [[Syracuse University]], published "Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism." The surprise is that liberals are markedly less charitable than [[conservative]]s....

If many conservatives are liberals who have been mugged by reality, Brooks, a registered independent, is, as a reviewer of his book said, a social scientist who has been mugged by data. They include these findings:

-- Although liberal families' incomes average 6 percent higher than those of conservative families, conservative-headed households give, on average, 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal-headed household ($1,600 per year vs. $1,227).

-- Conservatives also donate more time and give more blood.<ref>http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/conservatives_more_liberal_giv.html</ref>}}
[[Atheism|Atheists]] and [[agnosticism|agnostics]] often reject [[Bible|Biblical]] [[morality]] (and therefore [[conservative Christianity]] ) and hold to [[moral relativism]].<ref>http://www.barna.org/FlexPage.aspx?Page=BarnaUpdate&BarnaUpdateID=152</ref> Therefore, it is not surprising that [[per capita]] atheists and agnostics in [[United States|America]] [[Atheism and charity|give significantly less to charity than theists even when church giving is not counted for theists]].[http://www.barna.org/barna-update/article/12-faithspirituality/102-atheists-and-agnostics-take-aim-at-christians][http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3647/is_200310/ai_n9340592/][http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Story?id=2682730&page=2]

=== Liberal politicians and uncharitableness ===
The political magazine the [[American Spectator]] featured an article which focused on [[liberal politicians and uncharitableness]] exposing the hypocrisy of the liberal politicians it featured.<ref>http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=1c5_1238044128&c=1</ref>

In addition, [[Barack Obama]] has been criticized concerning [[Barack Obama and uncharitableness|his lack of charitable giving]].

== Liberalism and bestiality ==

See also: [[Liberalism and bestiality]]

[[File:Peter-Singer.jpg|right|thumbnail|260px|The [[atheist]] philosopher [[Peter Singer]] defends the practice of [[bestiality]] (as well as [[abortion]], infanticide and [[euthanasia]]). Despite holding these immoral views the liberal and pro-[[evolution]] academic establishment rewarded his views with a bioethics chair at [[Princeton University]].<ref>
*[http://creation.com/the-basis-of-a-christian-worldview The Basis of a Christian Worldview - Creation Ministries International]
*[http://creation.com/answer-to-philosophy-religion-professor-on-biblical-exegesis-and-the-problem-of-evil CMI answers philosophy/religion professor on biblical exegesis and the problem of evil]
*[http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2011/06/the-dangerous-mind-of-peter-singer ''The Dangerous Mind''] by Joe Carter, ''[[First Things]]''</ref> See: [[Atheism and bestiality]] ]]
[[Bestiality]] is the act of engaging in sexual relations with an animal. The [[atheist]] philosopher [[Peter Singer]] defends the practice of bestiality (as well as [[abortion]], infanticide and [[euthanasia]])<ref>
*[http://creation.com/the-basis-of-a-christian-worldview The Basis of a Christian Worldview - Creation Ministries International]
*[http://creation.com/answer-to-philosophy-religion-professor-on-biblical-exegesis-and-the-problem-of-evil CMI answers philosophy/religion professor on biblical exegesis and the problem of evil]
*[http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2011/06/the-dangerous-mind-of-peter-singer ''The Dangerous Mind''] by Joe Carter, ''[[First Things]]''</ref>. Despite holding these immoral views the liberal and pro-[[evolution]] academic establishment rewarded his views with a bioethics chair at [[Princeton University]] (Princeton University is a very liberal school - see: [[Liberalism and bestiality]]).<ref>
*[http://creation.com/the-basis-of-a-christian-worldview The Basis of a Christian Worldview - Creation Ministries International]
*[http://creation.com/answer-to-philosophy-religion-professor-on-biblical-exegesis-and-the-problem-of-evil CMI answers philosophy/religion professor on biblical exegesis and the problem of evil]
*[http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2011/06/the-dangerous-mind-of-peter-singer ''The Dangerous Mind''] by Joe Carter, ''[[First Things]]''</ref> Peter Singer was installed as the Ira W. DeCamp Professor of Bioethics at the University Center for Human Values at Princeton University in 1999 and in 2006 it was reported that he still worked part-time in that capacity. <ref>[http://creation.com/the-basis-of-a-christian-worldview The Basis of a Christian Worldview]</ref> In 2006, it was also reported that Singer worked part-time as Laureate Professor at the University of Melbourne in the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics since 2005.<ref>[http://creation.com/the-basis-of-a-christian-worldview The Basis of a Christian Worldview]</ref>

Joe Carter's ''[[First Things]]'' article entitled ''The Dangerous Mind'' declares concerning Peter Singer declared:
{{cquote|Singer has spent a lifetime justifying the unjustifiable. He is the founding father of the [[Animal rights|animal liberation movement]] and advocates ending “the present speciesist bias against taking seriously the interests of nonhuman animals.” He is also a defender of killing the aged (if they have dementia), newborns (for almost any reason until they are two years old), necrophilia (assuming it’s consensual), and bestiality (also assuming it’s consensual).<ref>[http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2011/06/the-dangerous-mind-of-peter-singer ''The Dangerous Mind''] by Joe Carter, ''[[First Things]]''</ref>}}

On October 5, 2011, the British newspaper The Telegraph wrote an article which discussed how homosexuality "rights" have emboldened individuals to ask for so called bestiality "rights" (see: [[Homosexuality and bestiality]]).<ref>[http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/timstanley/100108943/the-gay-rights-movement-has-emboldened-americas-bestiality-advocates/ The dark side of sexual freedom: American 'zoophiles' take on the language of equality - October 5, 2011 - The Telegraph]</ref>

In 2010, the liberal state of [[Washington]] has the highest number of reported cases of bestiality in the United States even though it was merely the 13th most populous state according to the 2010 United States census. (for more information please see: [[Washington state and bestiality]]).<ref>[http://www.pet-abuse.com/pages/cruelty_database/statistics/state_ranking.php?year=2010&search=go Pet Abuse -2010]</ref><ref>[http://2010.census.gov/2010census/data/apportionment-pop-text.php 2010 United States Census data]</ref><ref>[http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/02/25/new-poll-identifies-most-liberal-and-conservative-states/ 2011 Political map - CNN]</ref>

In 2005, four legislators in the liberal state of [[Massachusetts]] tried to soften it bestiality laws.<ref>[Massachusetts bill to repeal fornication, adultery, and blasphemy, and to soften bestiality laws]</ref>
[[File:NBC Tower.jpg|thumbnail|200px|[[LifeSiteNews]] reported:"In 46 hours of programming, [[NBC]] contained only one reference to marital sex, but 11 references to non-marital sex and one reference to [[adultery]] were made. References to incest, pedophilia, partner swapping, prostitution, threesomes, transsexuals/transvestites, [[bestiality]], and necrophilia combined outnumbered references to sex in marriage on NBC by a ratio of 27 to 1.<ref>[http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/archive/ldn/2008/aug/08080602 Study Finds TV Treats Marital Sex as Burdensome, Adultery as Positive]</ref> See also: [[Liberalism and bestiality]] ]]
The Bible says that bestiality is a perversion and, under the [[Old Testament]] [[Pentateuch|Jewish Law]], punishable by death (Exodus 22:19, Leviticus 18:23, Leviticus 20:15 and Deuteronomy 27:21). The atheistic worldview does not lend itself to the establishment of morality within society and individuals (see: [[Atheism and morality]] and [[Atheism and deception]]). The atheistic worldview does not lend itself to the establishment of morality within society and individuals (see: [[Atheism and morality]] and [[Atheism and deception]]).

A study found that "Psychiatric patients were found to have a statistically significant higher prevalence rate (55%) of bestiality than the control groups (10% and 15% respectively)."<ref>[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1778686 A prevalence study of bestiality (zoophilia) in psychiatric in-patients, medical in-patients, and psychiatric staff - Int J Psychosom. 1991;38(1-4):45-7.]</ref> The atheist population [[Atheism and suicide|has a higher suicide rate]] and [[Atheism and marriageability|lower marriage rates]] than the general population (see: [[Atheism and suicide]] and [[Atheism and marriageability]] and [[Atheism and health]]).

For more information please see:

*[[Atheism and bestiality]]

*[[Evolutionary belief and bestiality]]

*[[Liberalism and bestiality]]

*[[Homosexuality and bestiality]]

*[[Liberal American entertainment industry and bestiality]]

*[[Wikipedia on bestiality]]

*[[Bestiality and Sweden|Liberal Sweden and bestiality]]

*[[Bestiality and Britain|Godless Britain and bestiality]]

*[[Denmark, Sweden, evolutionary belief and bestiality]]

*[[Netherlands and bestiality|The liberal Netherlands and bestiality]]

*[[Skeptic Skatje Myers' comments on bestiality]]

*[[Joseph Stalin's ape-men experiments]]
=== Occupy Wall Street and bestiality chant ===

''See also:'' [[Occupy Wall Street and bestiality chant]]

[[Bestiality]] is the act of engaging in sexual relations with an animal. A crowd at Occupy Wall Street was led to repeat various chants which included a chant involving bestiality and the incident was videotaped.<ref>[http://rightwingnews.com/john-hawkins/the-10-greatest-moments-from-the-occupy-wall-street-protests-so-far/ The 10 Greatest Moments From The Occupy Wall Street Protests So Far]</ref>

Below is an excerpt of the chant:
{{cquote|Everything seems to be possible. [Crowd Parrot Chant] You can travel to the moon. [CPC] You can become immortal [CPC] by biogenetics. You can have sex with animals, or whatever. [CPC].<ref>[http://rightwingnews.com/john-hawkins/the-10-greatest-moments-from-the-occupy-wall-street-protests-so-far/ The 10 Greatest Moments From The Occupy Wall Street Protests So Far]</ref>}}

==Liberals and Superstition==
[[Image:2384975035_230a0eac30.jpg‎‎|right|150px]]

The [[Wall Street Journal]] reported: "A comprehensive new study released by Baylor University, shows that [[Conservative Christianity|traditional Christian religion]] greatly decreases belief in everything from the efficacy of palm readers to the usefulness of [[astrology]]. <ref>[http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122178219865054585.html]</ref>

Also, in September of 2008, the [[Wall Street Journal]] reported:
{{cquote|The reality is that the [[New Atheism|New Atheist]] campaign, by discouraging [[religion]], won't create a new group of intelligent, skeptical, enlightened beings. Far from it: It might actually encourage new levels of mass superstition. And that's not a conclusion to take on faith — it's what the empirical data tell us.

"What Americans Really Believe," a comprehensive new study released by Baylor University yesterday, shows that [[Conservative Christianity|traditional Christian religion]] greatly decreases belief in everything from the efficacy of palm readers to the usefulness of [[astrology]]. It also shows that the irreligious and the members of more liberal Protestant denominations, far from being resistant to superstition, tend to be much more likely to believe in the paranormal and in pseudoscience than evangelical Christians....

This is not a new finding. In his 1983 book "The Whys of a Philosophical Scrivener," skeptic and science writer Martin Gardner cited the decline of traditional religious belief among the better educated as one of the causes for an increase in [[pseudoscience]], cults and superstition. He referenced a 1980 study published in the magazine Skeptical Inquirer that showed irreligious college students to be by far the most likely to embrace paranormal beliefs, while born-again Christian college students were the least likely.<ref>http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122178219865054585.html</ref>}}

== Liberalism in the United States Today ==
[[File:Smear merchants.jpg|right|200px]]
[[Democrats]] and most media outlets in the [[U.S.]] are blatantly liberal.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.mrc.org/biasbasics/biasbasics1.asp|title=Media Bias basics|publisher=Media Research Center}}</ref> Liberalism in North America today practices three primary tactics to attack the Republican Party, and sometimes to attack American values in general. These three liberal tactics can be pronounced using the following [[acronym]]: SIN. Liberals (1) '''s'''hift the subject, they (2) '''i'''gnore the facts, and they (3) '''n'''ame call.<ref>Scott Baker. [http://www.theblaze.com/stories/did-herman-cain-give-the-dont-miss-speech-at-cpac/ Did Herman Cain Give the ‘Don’t Miss’ Speech at CPAC?], ''[[The Blaze]], February 12, 2011.</ref><ref>[[YouTube]]. [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-N3-j3HM7-A& Herman Cain: "Stupid People Are Ruining America"], February 11, 2011.</ref>

* Liberals typically support a "mixed" economy, a policy similar to that of [[fascism]]. <ref>{{cite web|url=http://fora.tv/2008/01/30/Liberal_Traits_of_Fascism|title=Video discussion about how modern liberalism is actually fascist by author Jonah Goldberg.}}</ref>

* Liberals claimed a monopoly on [[compassion]], [[decency]], and [[social justice]] (as defined by themselves), posing as the sole defenders of [[civic virtue]] against a horde of backwoodsmen, racists, and religious fanatics. [http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/03/the_disgrace_of_liberalism.html]
{{cquote|There's another goal, from my point of view, which is to try to lay the groundwork for a radical political force which would conceive of itself as distinctly to the left of moderate, reformist American liberals. And that has two aspects. One is to try to change that liberalism, to transform it by analysis, critique, and activism; the second is to build a radical movement which would be an autonomous force in its own right, which would be distinct from the traditional American liberal consensus. This radical part of the program involves not simply supporting the liberal students against conservative students and conservative professors, but trying to act on them, to push them to the left. It also involves trying to find and support, even trying to help create, networks of radical students in law school and of radical professors around the country — students and teachers who see themselves as wanting to go a lot further than most people want to go. <ref> [http://66.218.69.11/search/cache?ei=UTF-8&p=liberal+teachers&fr=yfp-t-501&fp_ip=MX&u=duncankennedy.net/documents/Liberal%2520Values%2520in%2520Legal%2520Education.pdf&w=liberal+liberals+teachers+teacher&d=BNZFhPReRjC1&icp=1&.intl=us Liberal Values in Legal Education] Duncan Kennedy (professor at Harvard Law School)</ref>}}

===Liberal Rankings of Congress Members===

The National Journal compiles the votes of each congress member each year and uses the information to create rankings<ref>http://nationaljournal.com/voteratings/index.htm</ref> of how liberal each member of the United States [[Congress]] is. In addition to showing the voting records of each member and given an overall all ranking of liberalness, the National Journal also ranks congress members by liberalness in the areas of social, economic, and foreign policy.

=== American liberalism, demographics and expected tipping point in the decline of American liberalism ===
''
See also:'' [[American atheism]] and [[Decline of atheism]] and [[Global atheism]]

Due to the explosive growth of [[global Christianity]] in traditional cultures and their influence on Western [[Christianity]] and the higher birth rate of [[Conservative Christianity|conservative Christians]] and religious conservatives, social conservatism is expected to rise.

The Birkbeck College, University of London professor Eric Kaufman wrote in his 2010 book ''Shall the Righteous Inherit the Earth?'' concerning America:
{{cquote|High evangelical fertility rates more than compensated for losses to liberal Protestant sects during the twentieth century. In recent decades, white secularism has surged, but Latino and Asian religious immigration has taken up the slack, keeping secularism at bay. Across denominations, the fertility advantage of religious fundamentalists of all colours is significant and growing. After 2020, their demographic weight will to tip the balance in the [[Culture War|culture wars]] towards the conservative side, ramping up pressure on hot-button issues such as abortion. By the end of the century, three quarters of America may be pro-life. Their activism will leap over the borders of the 'Redeemer Nation' to evangelize the world. Already, the rise of the World Congress of Families has launched a global religious right, its arms stretching across the bloody lines of the War on Terror to embrace the entire Abrahamic family.<ref>[http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2012/05/why-are-years-2012-and-2020-key-years.html Why are 2012 and 2020 key years for Christian creationists and pro-lifers?]</ref>}}

==Liberalism in Europe today==

In Europe, on the other hand, parties that call themselves ''liberal'' are moderate in outlook, ranging from centre-left to centre-right, promote typically economic and business freedom. The Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe<ref>http://www.alde.eu</ref> is a party of the European Parliament that represents most ''liberal'' parties from European countries. Similar policies are promoted by many ''liberal'' parties throughout the world,<ref>http://www.liberal-international.org/</ref> such as the Liberal Party of Australia.<ref>[http://www.liberal.org.au/]</ref>

Trade unions and socialist parties often criticize politicians for promoting lower taxes on business, or more flexible hiring and firing laws, by calling them "liberals" or [[neoliberal|neoliberals]]. Thus, just as in the US, "liberal" may occasionally be used as a term of abuse. But when someone is called "liberal" in Europe, it has an entirely different meaning than in the US. In fact, the US meaning of liberal is more similar to the politics of European [[socialist]] or [[social democracy|social democratic]] parties.<ref>[http://www.pes.org]</ref>

==Historical Liberalism ==
In history, the word "liberal" has meant different things at different times, and was associated with individual liberty in prior centuries. In the postwar period, liberals supported government intervention in the economy and welfare state policies, as well as peaceful coexistence with the communist block, which are not liberal policies in the sense of classical liberalism. After the end of the cold war, with the demise of socialism and communism, many liberals embraced some ideas from economic neo-liberalism, and coined it the "Third Way". In the area of national security and foreign policy liberals in the [[U.S.]] failed to define a consistent stance, even after the events of 9/11 and the beginning of the war in Iraq. Liberals generally support affirmative action, gay marriage, and abortion.<ref>"Political liberals tend, for whatever reason, to be ardent supporters of both gay rights and pro-choice programs." Greenberg and Bailey [http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/conway/TS/Bailey/Greenberg-Bailey/Homosexual%20Eugenics.pdf] </ref>

==Original meaning: Classical Liberalism==
Liberalism is a political philosophy with freedom as its core value. The term was originally applied to supporters of individual liberties and equal rights, but, in America, the term has come to represent a movement of social change that often conflicts with [[conservative]] values such as moral values and tradition.

See [[Classical Liberal|Classical Liberalism]]. Compare [[Libertarianism]].

== Infamous liberals ==

''See also:'' [[Infamous liberals]]

* [[Margaret Sanger]]

*[[John Wayne Gacy]] - In an interview where he denied killing any of his victims, [[serial killer]] John Wayne Gacy said he was [[bisexuality|bisexual]] and "very liberal".<ref>http://s151.photobucket.com/albums/s151/candypop_02/Serial%20Killers/John%20Wayne%20Gacy/?action=view&current=SERIAL_KILLER_John_Wayne_Gacy_In-1.mp4</ref> Gacy was also a [[Democratic Party]] activist who had his picture taken with [[Rosalynn Carter]].<ref>http://www.digitaljournal.com/image/45527</ref>

==Liberal Organizations ==
*[[AARP|AARP - American Association of Retired People]]
*[[ACLU|ACLU - American Civil Liberties Union]]
*[[ACORN|ACORN - Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now]]
*[[AFL-CIO|AFL-CIO - American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations]]
*[[Amnesty International|AI - Amnesty International]]
*[[A.N.S.W.E.R.|ANSWER - Act Now to Stop War and End Racism]]
*[[CAIR|CAIR - Council on American-Islamic Relations]]
*[[Committees of Correspondence for Democracy and Socialism]]
*[[Democratic National Committee]]
*[[Greenpeace]]
*[[MoveOn.org]]
*[[NARAL|NARAL - National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League]]
*[[NAACP|NAACP - National Association for the Advancement of Colored People]]
*[[National Committee for an Effective Congress]]
*[[National Education Association]]
*[[National Organization of Women|NOW - National Organization of Women]]
*[[PETA|PETA - People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals]]
*[[Planned Parenthood|Planned Parenthood Federation of America]]
*[[Progressives for Obama]]
*[[Rainbow/PUSH Coalition]]
*[[SEIU|SEIU - Service Employees International Union]]
*[[U.S. Peace Council]]
Source: [http://www.politixgroup.com/lo.htm The Politix Group]

==Quotes on Liberals==
"I never use the words [[Democrats]] and [[Republicans]]. It's [[liberals]] and [[Americans]]." -James Watt, Secretary of the Interior under [[Ronald Reagan]]

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

==See Also==

* [[Conservative resources]]
* [[Conservapedia:Articles about liberals|Articles about liberals]]
* [[Classical liberal]]
* [[Drinking Liberally]]
* [[Godless liberal]]
* [[Last wordism]]
* [[Essay:Liberal celebrity obsession|Liberal celebrity obsession]]
* [[Essay:Liberal Behavior on Conservapedia|Liberal Behavior on Conservapedia]]
* [[Liberal Christianity]]
* [[Liberal Democrats]]
* [[Liberal Elite]]
* [[Essay: Liberal Falsehoods|Liberal Falsehoods]]
* [[Liberal Fascism]]
* [[Liberal friendship]]
* [[Liberal Gloss]]
* [[Liberal grading]]
* [[Liberal hypocrisy]]
* [[Essay:Liberal hysteria|Liberal hysteria]]
* [[Essay:Liberal Intellectualism|Liberal Intellectualism]]
* [[Liberal labels]]
* [[Slander: Liberal Lies About the American Right|Liberal Lies About the American Right]]
* [[Liberal logic]]
* [[The Liberal Mind: The Psychological Causes of Political Madness|Liberal Mind]]
* [[Liberal Party]]
* [[Liberal supremacist]]
* [[Massachusetts liberal]]
* [[Progressives]]
* [[Scientific Illiteracy and Liberals]]

==Further Information==
* [[Best_New_Conservative_Words#New_Liberal_Terms|New Liberal Terms]]
* [[Conservative Links]]
* http://www.studentnewsdaily.com/conservative-vs-liberal-beliefs/

{{liberalism}}

[[Category:Political Ideologies]]
[[Category:Politics]]
[[Category: Liberals]]

Liberal

2012-10-07T13:05:04Z

Nightsky: the source shows that it decreased from george bush times to now. added other results in source

[[File:President Barack Obama.jpg|thumbnail|right|180px|President [[Barack Obama]] advocates the use of [[Keynesian economics|Keynesian economic concepts]].

*[http://centurean2.wordpress.com/2011/03/20/fabian-john-maynard-keynes-the-stealthy-enemy-of-human-freedom/ John Maynard Keynes the stealthy enemy of human freedom]
*[http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-02-22/deathbed-of-keynesian-economics-will-be-in-u-k-matthew-lynn.html Deathbed of Keynesian Economics will be in the UK]
*[http://www.iwf.org/inkwell/show/23102.html Will the G8 Repudiate the Philosophy of Living Beyond Our Means?]
*[http://www.keynesatharvard.org/book/KeynesatHarvard-ch09.html KEYNES AT HARVARD Economic Deception as a Political Credo BY ZYGMUND DOBBS]
*[http://www.theatlantic.com/daily-dish/archive/2008/01/keyness-jew-boy-quickie/220620/ Keynes's "Jew Boy" Quickie, The Atlantic]
</ref> ]]
[[File:Johnwaynegacyrosalynncarter.jpg|right|300px|thumbnail|[[Serial killer]] [[John Wayne Gacy]] was a [[Democratic Party]] activist who had his picture taken with First Lady [[Rosalynn Carter]] in 1978. In an interview where he denied killing any of his victims, John Gacy said he was [[bisexuality|bisexual]] and "very liberal".<ref>http://s151.photobucket.com/albums/s151/candypop_02/Serial%20Killers/John%20Wayne%20Gacy/?action=view&current=SERIAL_KILLER_John_Wayne_Gacy_In-1.mp4</ref>]]

A '''liberal''' is someone who favors [[censorship]] of [[Christianity]] plus increased government spending and power, as in [[ObamaCare]]. Increasingly, liberals side with the [[homosexual agenda]], including supporting [[same-sex marriage]]. Many liberals favor a [[welfare state]] where people receive endless entitlements without working. Liberals are often anti-[[Christian]], or otherwise disagree with moral or social principles held by many American Christians. The liberal ideology has worsened over the years and degenerated into economically delusional views and intolerant ideology. Some liberals simply support, in knee-jerk fashion, the opposite of [[conservative]] principles without having any meaningful values of their own.

Polling data has consistently shown that a decreasingly large percentage of Americans identify as conservative, rather than as liberal, currently by 38% to 21%. Younger people and those with higher levels of education are more likely to identify as liberal.<ref>http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1042/winds-of-political-change-havent--shifted-publics-ideology-balance</ref>

The decline in liberal principles can be illustrated by how [[Franklin Delano Roosevelt]] opposed and condemned public sector unions, stating that the idea of collective bargaining can't be transferred from the private to the public sector, as that would result in the government being unable to carry out its duties. Yet today, decades later, [[Democrats]] and liberals are in lock-step with public sector unions, as they "donate" money to the reelection campaign in exchange for more taxpayer money in their wallets and fluffed up pensions.

A liberal generally supports many of the following political positions and practices:

* Spending money on government programs (the significant economic problems in the [[Eurozone]] due to government debt will no doubt increasingly discredit this aspect of liberal ideology and make things more difficult for advocates of liberal economic ideologies)
* Government's ability to solve economic problems<ref>http://www.studentnewsdaily.com/conservative-vs-liberal-beliefs</ref>
* The belief that terrorism is not a huge threat, and that the main reason for Muslim extremists' hostility towards America is because of bad foreign policy <ref>http://www.studentnewsdaily.com/conservative-vs-liberal-beliefs</ref>
* Taxpayer-funded and/or legalized [[abortion]]
* Censorship of teacher-led [[prayer]] in classrooms and school/state-sponsored religious events
* Support for [[gun control]]
* Affirmative action<ref>http://www.studentnewsdaily.com/conservative-vs-liberal-beliefs</ref>
* Support of obscenity, pornography and violence in video games as a [[First Amendment]] right<ref>The [[Warren Court]], led by [[liberal]] Justices [[William O. Douglas]], [[Hugo Black]], [[Abe Fortas]], [[William Brennan]] and Chief Justice [[Earl Warren]] issued 36 decisions granting [[First Amendment]] rights to obscenity and pornography. These decisions remain fully supported by liberals today.</ref>
* Government-funded medical care, such as [[Obamacare]]
* Taxpayer-funded and government-controlled [[public education]]
* Insisting that men and women be placed in the same jobs in the [[military]]
* Legalized [[same-sex marriage]] and homosexual adoption
* [[Tax and spend]]
* Support for economic sector regulations<ref>http://www.studentnewsdaily.com/conservative-vs-liberal-beliefs</ref>
* Support and spreading of [[political correctness]]
* Support of non-syndicalist [[labor union|labor unions]]
* Encouraging promiscuity through sexual education (the teaching of safe sex) rather than teaching [[abstinence]] from premarital sex<ref> [http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,286671,00.html Democrats Aim To Kill Abstinence-Only Program Funding], [[Fox News]], Monday, June 25, 2007</ref>
* A "[[living Constitution]]" that is reinterpreted as liberals prefer, rather than how it is thought to have been intended.
* Government programs to [[rehabilitate criminals]]
* Abolition of the death penalty
* [[Environmentalism]]<ref> and environmental organizations, for example [[Greenpeace]]</ref>
* [[Globalism]]
* Opposition to the integration of church and state.
* Opposition to full private property rights.<ref> For example, the liberal wing of the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] issued the 5-4 [[Kelo v. City of New London]] decision authorizing the taking of private property by government in order to give the property to another private entity rather than convert it to a public use.</ref>
* Reinstating the [[Fairness Doctrine]]
* In 2005, it was reported by CBS News that [[Theory of evolution and liberalism|liberals were the most likely supporters of the theory of evolution]].
* Opposition to domestic wire-tapping as authorized in the [[Patriot Act]]
* Opposition of [[Operation Iraqi Freedom]], a major part of the [[War on Terrorism]]
* Withholds support to the [[War on Terrorism]] and the [[War in Iraq]]
* Tolerance of different ideas and lifestyles
* Do not support a laissez-faire capitalist economy and support regulation of business

Liberals currently use two clauses to try and expand their power: the Commerce Clause and the General Welfare Clause. The general welfare clause mentions "promoting the general welfare". This to a liberal means taxing the rich at increased rates and redistributing that money. The commerce clause, on the other hand, says that Congress has the power to regulate trade with foreign nations, between the states and with the indian tribes. Since the days of FDR this clause has been interpreted very loosely and has resulted in the federal government expanding its power. The latest example is The Affordable Care Act(ACA), better know as [[Obamacare]]. In the ACA, the liberals justify the individual mandate by saying it regulates commerce between the states.

Current dictionaries describe the liberal ideology by pretending that a liberal is "a person who favors a political philosophy of progress and reform and the protection of civil liberties" or "a person who favors an economic theory of laissez-faire and self-regulating markets,"<ref>http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=liberal&sub=Search+WordNet&o2=&o0=1&o7=&o5=&o1=1&o6=&o4=&o3=&h=00</ref> or "open-minded or tolerant, especially free of or not bound by traditional or conventional ideas, values, etc." or "favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, especially as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties."<ref>http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/liberal</ref>

==Liberals and Uncharitableness==
[[Image:228130875 35181424e3.jpg|thumb|right|175px|[[United States|American]] Liberals have been observed to give less to charity than American conservatives.<ref>http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/conservatives_more_liberal_giv.html</ref> In addition, [[per capita]] [[atheism|atheists]] and [[agnosticism|agnostics]] in the United States [[Atheism and charity|give significantly less to charity than theists even when church giving is not counted for theists]].[http://www.barna.org/barna-update/article/12-faithspirituality/102-atheists-and-agnostics-take-aim-at-christians][http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3647/is_200310/ai_n9340592/][http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Story?id=2682730&page=2] ]]
''For more information please see'': [[Liberals and uncharitableness]] and [[Atheism and charity]]

In March of 2008, [[George Will]] wrote at [[RealClearPolitics]] concerning the [[United States]]:
{{cquote|Sixteen months ago, [[Arthur C. Brooks]], a professor at [[Syracuse University]], published "Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism." The surprise is that liberals are markedly less charitable than [[conservative]]s....

If many conservatives are liberals who have been mugged by reality, Brooks, a registered independent, is, as a reviewer of his book said, a social scientist who has been mugged by data. They include these findings:

-- Although liberal families' incomes average 6 percent higher than those of conservative families, conservative-headed households give, on average, 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal-headed household ($1,600 per year vs. $1,227).

-- Conservatives also donate more time and give more blood.<ref>http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/conservatives_more_liberal_giv.html</ref>}}
[[Atheism|Atheists]] and [[agnosticism|agnostics]] often reject [[Bible|Biblical]] [[morality]] (and therefore [[conservative Christianity]] ) and hold to [[moral relativism]].<ref>http://www.barna.org/FlexPage.aspx?Page=BarnaUpdate&BarnaUpdateID=152</ref> Therefore, it is not surprising that [[per capita]] atheists and agnostics in [[United States|America]] [[Atheism and charity|give significantly less to charity than theists even when church giving is not counted for theists]].[http://www.barna.org/barna-update/article/12-faithspirituality/102-atheists-and-agnostics-take-aim-at-christians][http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3647/is_200310/ai_n9340592/][http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Story?id=2682730&page=2]

=== Liberal politicians and uncharitableness ===
The political magazine the [[American Spectator]] featured an article which focused on [[liberal politicians and uncharitableness]] exposing the hypocrisy of the liberal politicians it featured.<ref>http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=1c5_1238044128&c=1</ref>

In addition, [[Barack Obama]] has been criticized concerning [[Barack Obama and uncharitableness|his lack of charitable giving]].

== Liberalism and bestiality ==

See also: [[Liberalism and bestiality]]

[[File:Peter-Singer.jpg|right|thumbnail|260px|The [[atheist]] philosopher [[Peter Singer]] defends the practice of [[bestiality]] (as well as [[abortion]], infanticide and [[euthanasia]]). Despite holding these immoral views the liberal and pro-[[evolution]] academic establishment rewarded his views with a bioethics chair at [[Princeton University]].<ref>
*[http://creation.com/the-basis-of-a-christian-worldview The Basis of a Christian Worldview - Creation Ministries International]
*[http://creation.com/answer-to-philosophy-religion-professor-on-biblical-exegesis-and-the-problem-of-evil CMI answers philosophy/religion professor on biblical exegesis and the problem of evil]
*[http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2011/06/the-dangerous-mind-of-peter-singer ''The Dangerous Mind''] by Joe Carter, ''[[First Things]]''</ref> See: [[Atheism and bestiality]] ]]
[[Bestiality]] is the act of engaging in sexual relations with an animal. The [[atheist]] philosopher [[Peter Singer]] defends the practice of bestiality (as well as [[abortion]], infanticide and [[euthanasia]])<ref>
*[http://creation.com/the-basis-of-a-christian-worldview The Basis of a Christian Worldview - Creation Ministries International]
*[http://creation.com/answer-to-philosophy-religion-professor-on-biblical-exegesis-and-the-problem-of-evil CMI answers philosophy/religion professor on biblical exegesis and the problem of evil]
*[http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2011/06/the-dangerous-mind-of-peter-singer ''The Dangerous Mind''] by Joe Carter, ''[[First Things]]''</ref>. Despite holding these immoral views the liberal and pro-[[evolution]] academic establishment rewarded his views with a bioethics chair at [[Princeton University]] (Princeton University is a very liberal school - see: [[Liberalism and bestiality]]).<ref>
*[http://creation.com/the-basis-of-a-christian-worldview The Basis of a Christian Worldview - Creation Ministries International]
*[http://creation.com/answer-to-philosophy-religion-professor-on-biblical-exegesis-and-the-problem-of-evil CMI answers philosophy/religion professor on biblical exegesis and the problem of evil]
*[http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2011/06/the-dangerous-mind-of-peter-singer ''The Dangerous Mind''] by Joe Carter, ''[[First Things]]''</ref> Peter Singer was installed as the Ira W. DeCamp Professor of Bioethics at the University Center for Human Values at Princeton University in 1999 and in 2006 it was reported that he still worked part-time in that capacity. <ref>[http://creation.com/the-basis-of-a-christian-worldview The Basis of a Christian Worldview]</ref> In 2006, it was also reported that Singer worked part-time as Laureate Professor at the University of Melbourne in the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics since 2005.<ref>[http://creation.com/the-basis-of-a-christian-worldview The Basis of a Christian Worldview]</ref>

Joe Carter's ''[[First Things]]'' article entitled ''The Dangerous Mind'' declares concerning Peter Singer declared:
{{cquote|Singer has spent a lifetime justifying the unjustifiable. He is the founding father of the [[Animal rights|animal liberation movement]] and advocates ending “the present speciesist bias against taking seriously the interests of nonhuman animals.” He is also a defender of killing the aged (if they have dementia), newborns (for almost any reason until they are two years old), necrophilia (assuming it’s consensual), and bestiality (also assuming it’s consensual).<ref>[http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2011/06/the-dangerous-mind-of-peter-singer ''The Dangerous Mind''] by Joe Carter, ''[[First Things]]''</ref>}}

On October 5, 2011, the British newspaper The Telegraph wrote an article which discussed how homosexuality "rights" have emboldened individuals to ask for so called bestiality "rights" (see: [[Homosexuality and bestiality]]).<ref>[http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/timstanley/100108943/the-gay-rights-movement-has-emboldened-americas-bestiality-advocates/ The dark side of sexual freedom: American 'zoophiles' take on the language of equality - October 5, 2011 - The Telegraph]</ref>

In 2010, the liberal state of [[Washington]] has the highest number of reported cases of bestiality in the United States even though it was merely the 13th most populous state according to the 2010 United States census. (for more information please see: [[Washington state and bestiality]]).<ref>[http://www.pet-abuse.com/pages/cruelty_database/statistics/state_ranking.php?year=2010&search=go Pet Abuse -2010]</ref><ref>[http://2010.census.gov/2010census/data/apportionment-pop-text.php 2010 United States Census data]</ref><ref>[http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/02/25/new-poll-identifies-most-liberal-and-conservative-states/ 2011 Political map - CNN]</ref>

In 2005, four legislators in the liberal state of [[Massachusetts]] tried to soften it bestiality laws.<ref>[Massachusetts bill to repeal fornication, adultery, and blasphemy, and to soften bestiality laws]</ref>
[[File:NBC Tower.jpg|thumbnail|200px|[[LifeSiteNews]] reported:"In 46 hours of programming, [[NBC]] contained only one reference to marital sex, but 11 references to non-marital sex and one reference to [[adultery]] were made. References to incest, pedophilia, partner swapping, prostitution, threesomes, transsexuals/transvestites, [[bestiality]], and necrophilia combined outnumbered references to sex in marriage on NBC by a ratio of 27 to 1.<ref>[http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/archive/ldn/2008/aug/08080602 Study Finds TV Treats Marital Sex as Burdensome, Adultery as Positive]</ref> See also: [[Liberalism and bestiality]] ]]
The Bible says that bestiality is a perversion and, under the [[Old Testament]] [[Pentateuch|Jewish Law]], punishable by death (Exodus 22:19, Leviticus 18:23, Leviticus 20:15 and Deuteronomy 27:21). The atheistic worldview does not lend itself to the establishment of morality within society and individuals (see: [[Atheism and morality]] and [[Atheism and deception]]). The atheistic worldview does not lend itself to the establishment of morality within society and individuals (see: [[Atheism and morality]] and [[Atheism and deception]]).

A study found that "Psychiatric patients were found to have a statistically significant higher prevalence rate (55%) of bestiality than the control groups (10% and 15% respectively)."<ref>[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1778686 A prevalence study of bestiality (zoophilia) in psychiatric in-patients, medical in-patients, and psychiatric staff - Int J Psychosom. 1991;38(1-4):45-7.]</ref> The atheist population [[Atheism and suicide|has a higher suicide rate]] and [[Atheism and marriageability|lower marriage rates]] than the general population (see: [[Atheism and suicide]] and [[Atheism and marriageability]] and [[Atheism and health]]).

For more information please see:

*[[Atheism and bestiality]]

*[[Evolutionary belief and bestiality]]

*[[Liberalism and bestiality]]

*[[Homosexuality and bestiality]]

*[[Liberal American entertainment industry and bestiality]]

*[[Wikipedia on bestiality]]

*[[Bestiality and Sweden|Liberal Sweden and bestiality]]

*[[Bestiality and Britain|Godless Britain and bestiality]]

*[[Denmark, Sweden, evolutionary belief and bestiality]]

*[[Netherlands and bestiality|The liberal Netherlands and bestiality]]

*[[Skeptic Skatje Myers' comments on bestiality]]

*[[Joseph Stalin's ape-men experiments]]
=== Occupy Wall Street and bestiality chant ===

''See also:'' [[Occupy Wall Street and bestiality chant]]

[[Bestiality]] is the act of engaging in sexual relations with an animal. A crowd at Occupy Wall Street was led to repeat various chants which included a chant involving bestiality and the incident was videotaped.<ref>[http://rightwingnews.com/john-hawkins/the-10-greatest-moments-from-the-occupy-wall-street-protests-so-far/ The 10 Greatest Moments From The Occupy Wall Street Protests So Far]</ref>

Below is an excerpt of the chant:
{{cquote|Everything seems to be possible. [Crowd Parrot Chant] You can travel to the moon. [CPC] You can become immortal [CPC] by biogenetics. You can have sex with animals, or whatever. [CPC].<ref>[http://rightwingnews.com/john-hawkins/the-10-greatest-moments-from-the-occupy-wall-street-protests-so-far/ The 10 Greatest Moments From The Occupy Wall Street Protests So Far]</ref>}}

==Liberals and Superstition==
[[Image:2384975035_230a0eac30.jpg‎‎|right|150px]]

The [[Wall Street Journal]] reported: "A comprehensive new study released by Baylor University, shows that [[Conservative Christianity|traditional Christian religion]] greatly decreases belief in everything from the efficacy of palm readers to the usefulness of [[astrology]]. <ref>[http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122178219865054585.html]</ref>

Also, in September of 2008, the [[Wall Street Journal]] reported:
{{cquote|The reality is that the [[New Atheism|New Atheist]] campaign, by discouraging [[religion]], won't create a new group of intelligent, skeptical, enlightened beings. Far from it: It might actually encourage new levels of mass superstition. And that's not a conclusion to take on faith — it's what the empirical data tell us.

"What Americans Really Believe," a comprehensive new study released by Baylor University yesterday, shows that [[Conservative Christianity|traditional Christian religion]] greatly decreases belief in everything from the efficacy of palm readers to the usefulness of [[astrology]]. It also shows that the irreligious and the members of more liberal Protestant denominations, far from being resistant to superstition, tend to be much more likely to believe in the paranormal and in pseudoscience than evangelical Christians....

This is not a new finding. In his 1983 book "The Whys of a Philosophical Scrivener," skeptic and science writer Martin Gardner cited the decline of traditional religious belief among the better educated as one of the causes for an increase in [[pseudoscience]], cults and superstition. He referenced a 1980 study published in the magazine Skeptical Inquirer that showed irreligious college students to be by far the most likely to embrace paranormal beliefs, while born-again Christian college students were the least likely.<ref>http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122178219865054585.html</ref>}}

== Liberalism in the United States Today ==
[[File:Smear merchants.jpg|right|200px]]
[[Democrats]] and most media outlets in the [[U.S.]] are blatantly liberal.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.mrc.org/biasbasics/biasbasics1.asp|title=Media Bias basics|publisher=Media Research Center}}</ref> Liberalism in North America today practices three primary tactics to attack the Republican Party, and sometimes to attack American values in general. These three liberal tactics can be pronounced using the following [[acronym]]: SIN. Liberals (1) '''s'''hift the subject, they (2) '''i'''gnore the facts, and they (3) '''n'''ame call.<ref>Scott Baker. [http://www.theblaze.com/stories/did-herman-cain-give-the-dont-miss-speech-at-cpac/ Did Herman Cain Give the ‘Don’t Miss’ Speech at CPAC?], ''[[The Blaze]], February 12, 2011.</ref><ref>[[YouTube]]. [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-N3-j3HM7-A& Herman Cain: "Stupid People Are Ruining America"], February 11, 2011.</ref>

* Liberals typically support a "mixed" economy, a policy similar to that of [[fascism]]. <ref>{{cite web|url=http://fora.tv/2008/01/30/Liberal_Traits_of_Fascism|title=Video discussion about how modern liberalism is actually fascist by author Jonah Goldberg.}}</ref>

* Liberals claimed a monopoly on [[compassion]], [[decency]], and [[social justice]] (as defined by themselves), posing as the sole defenders of [[civic virtue]] against a horde of backwoodsmen, racists, and religious fanatics. [http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/03/the_disgrace_of_liberalism.html]
{{cquote|There's another goal, from my point of view, which is to try to lay the groundwork for a radical political force which would conceive of itself as distinctly to the left of moderate, reformist American liberals. And that has two aspects. One is to try to change that liberalism, to transform it by analysis, critique, and activism; the second is to build a radical movement which would be an autonomous force in its own right, which would be distinct from the traditional American liberal consensus. This radical part of the program involves not simply supporting the liberal students against conservative students and conservative professors, but trying to act on them, to push them to the left. It also involves trying to find and support, even trying to help create, networks of radical students in law school and of radical professors around the country — students and teachers who see themselves as wanting to go a lot further than most people want to go. <ref> [http://66.218.69.11/search/cache?ei=UTF-8&p=liberal+teachers&fr=yfp-t-501&fp_ip=MX&u=duncankennedy.net/documents/Liberal%2520Values%2520in%2520Legal%2520Education.pdf&w=liberal+liberals+teachers+teacher&d=BNZFhPReRjC1&icp=1&.intl=us Liberal Values in Legal Education] Duncan Kennedy (professor at Harvard Law School)</ref>}}

===Liberal Rankings of Congress Members===

The National Journal compiles the votes of each congress member each year and uses the information to create rankings<ref>http://nationaljournal.com/voteratings/index.htm</ref> of how liberal each member of the United States [[Congress]] is. In addition to showing the voting records of each member and given an overall all ranking of liberalness, the National Journal also ranks congress members by liberalness in the areas of social, economic, and foreign policy.

=== American liberalism, demographics and expected tipping point in the decline of American liberalism ===
''
See also:'' [[American atheism]] and [[Decline of atheism]] and [[Global atheism]]

Due to the explosive growth of [[global Christianity]] in traditional cultures and their influence on Western [[Christianity]] and the higher birth rate of [[Conservative Christianity|conservative Christians]] and religious conservatives, social conservatism is expected to rise.

The Birkbeck College, University of London professor Eric Kaufman wrote in his 2010 book ''Shall the Righteous Inherit the Earth?'' concerning America:
{{cquote|High evangelical fertility rates more than compensated for losses to liberal Protestant sects during the twentieth century. In recent decades, white secularism has surged, but Latino and Asian religious immigration has taken up the slack, keeping secularism at bay. Across denominations, the fertility advantage of religious fundamentalists of all colours is significant and growing. After 2020, their demographic weight will to tip the balance in the [[Culture War|culture wars]] towards the conservative side, ramping up pressure on hot-button issues such as abortion. By the end of the century, three quarters of America may be pro-life. Their activism will leap over the borders of the 'Redeemer Nation' to evangelize the world. Already, the rise of the World Congress of Families has launched a global religious right, its arms stretching across the bloody lines of the War on Terror to embrace the entire Abrahamic family.<ref>[http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2012/05/why-are-years-2012-and-2020-key-years.html Why are 2012 and 2020 key years for Christian creationists and pro-lifers?]</ref>}}

==Liberalism in Europe today==

In Europe, on the other hand, parties that call themselves ''liberal'' are moderate in outlook, ranging from centre-left to centre-right, promote typically economic and business freedom. The Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe<ref>http://www.alde.eu</ref> is a party of the European Parliament that represents most ''liberal'' parties from European countries. Similar policies are promoted by many ''liberal'' parties throughout the world,<ref>http://www.liberal-international.org/</ref> such as the Liberal Party of Australia.<ref>[http://www.liberal.org.au/]</ref>

Trade unions and socialist parties often criticize politicians for promoting lower taxes on business, or more flexible hiring and firing laws, by calling them "liberals" or [[neoliberal|neoliberals]]. Thus, just as in the US, "liberal" may occasionally be used as a term of abuse. But when someone is called "liberal" in Europe, it has an entirely different meaning than in the US. In fact, the US meaning of liberal is more similar to the politics of European [[socialist]] or [[social democracy|social democratic]] parties.<ref>[http://www.pes.org]</ref>

==Historical Liberalism ==
In history, the word "liberal" has meant different things at different times, and was associated with individual liberty in prior centuries. In the postwar period, liberals supported government intervention in the economy and welfare state policies, as well as peaceful coexistence with the communist block, which are not liberal policies in the sense of classical liberalism. After the end of the cold war, with the demise of socialism and communism, many liberals embraced some ideas from economic neo-liberalism, and coined it the "Third Way". In the area of national security and foreign policy liberals in the [[U.S.]] failed to define a consistent stance, even after the events of 9/11 and the beginning of the war in Iraq. Liberals generally support affirmative action, gay marriage, and abortion.<ref>"Political liberals tend, for whatever reason, to be ardent supporters of both gay rights and pro-choice programs." Greenberg and Bailey [http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/conway/TS/Bailey/Greenberg-Bailey/Homosexual%20Eugenics.pdf] </ref>

==Original meaning: Classical Liberalism==
Liberalism is a political philosophy with freedom as its core value. The term was originally applied to supporters of individual liberties and equal rights, but, in America, the term has come to represent a movement of social change that often conflicts with [[conservative]] values such as moral values and tradition.

See [[Classical Liberal|Classical Liberalism]]. Compare [[Libertarianism]].

== Infamous liberals ==

''See also:'' [[Infamous liberals]]

* [[Margaret Sanger]]

*[[John Wayne Gacy]] - In an interview where he denied killing any of his victims, [[serial killer]] John Wayne Gacy said he was [[bisexuality|bisexual]] and "very liberal".<ref>http://s151.photobucket.com/albums/s151/candypop_02/Serial%20Killers/John%20Wayne%20Gacy/?action=view&current=SERIAL_KILLER_John_Wayne_Gacy_In-1.mp4</ref> Gacy was also a [[Democratic Party]] activist who had his picture taken with [[Rosalynn Carter]].<ref>http://www.digitaljournal.com/image/45527</ref>

==Liberal Organizations ==
*[[AARP|AARP - American Association of Retired People]]
*[[ACLU|ACLU - American Civil Liberties Union]]
*[[ACORN|ACORN - Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now]]
*[[AFL-CIO|AFL-CIO - American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations]]
*[[Amnesty International|AI - Amnesty International]]
*[[A.N.S.W.E.R.|ANSWER - Act Now to Stop War and End Racism]]
*[[CAIR|CAIR - Council on American-Islamic Relations]]
*[[Committees of Correspondence for Democracy and Socialism]]
*[[Democratic National Committee]]
*[[Greenpeace]]
*[[MoveOn.org]]
*[[NARAL|NARAL - National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League]]
*[[NAACP|NAACP - National Association for the Advancement of Colored People]]
*[[National Committee for an Effective Congress]]
*[[National Education Association]]
*[[National Organization of Women|NOW - National Organization of Women]]
*[[PETA|PETA - People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals]]
*[[Planned Parenthood|Planned Parenthood Federation of America]]
*[[Progressives for Obama]]
*[[Rainbow/PUSH Coalition]]
*[[SEIU|SEIU - Service Employees International Union]]
*[[U.S. Peace Council]]
Source: [http://www.politixgroup.com/lo.htm The Politix Group]

==Quotes on Liberals==
"I never use the words [[Democrats]] and [[Republicans]]. It's [[liberals]] and [[Americans]]." -James Watt, Secretary of the Interior under [[Ronald Reagan]]

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

==See Also==

* [[Conservative resources]]
* [[Conservapedia:Articles about liberals|Articles about liberals]]
* [[Classical liberal]]
* [[Drinking Liberally]]
* [[Godless liberal]]
* [[Last wordism]]
* [[Essay:Liberal celebrity obsession|Liberal celebrity obsession]]
* [[Essay:Liberal Behavior on Conservapedia|Liberal Behavior on Conservapedia]]
* [[Liberal Christianity]]
* [[Liberal Democrats]]
* [[Liberal Elite]]
* [[Essay: Liberal Falsehoods|Liberal Falsehoods]]
* [[Liberal Fascism]]
* [[Liberal friendship]]
* [[Liberal Gloss]]
* [[Liberal grading]]
* [[Liberal hypocrisy]]
* [[Essay:Liberal hysteria|Liberal hysteria]]
* [[Essay:Liberal Intellectualism|Liberal Intellectualism]]
* [[Liberal labels]]
* [[Slander: Liberal Lies About the American Right|Liberal Lies About the American Right]]
* [[Liberal logic]]
* [[The Liberal Mind: The Psychological Causes of Political Madness|Liberal Mind]]
* [[Liberal Party]]
* [[Liberal supremacist]]
* [[Massachusetts liberal]]
* [[Progressives]]
* [[Scientific Illiteracy and Liberals]]

==Further Information==
* [[Best_New_Conservative_Words#New_Liberal_Terms|New Liberal Terms]]
* [[Conservative Links]]
* http://www.studentnewsdaily.com/conservative-vs-liberal-beliefs/

{{liberalism}}

[[Category:Political Ideologies]]
[[Category:Politics]]
[[Category: Liberals]]

Same-sex marriage

2012-10-07T12:56:54Z

Nightsky: added other polls and studies

'''Same-sex "marriage"''' is a proposed redefinition or variation on the traditional concept of [[marriage]], granting [[same-sex union]]s the same legal status as heterosexual marriage, contrary to thousands of years of success based on a one-man/one-woman marriage system and in direct violation of the [[Bible]] and most other religious teachings.<ref>"Same-sex marriage uses force of secular law to justify what the scripture of ''most modern religions'' has clearly labelled a sin: i.e., [[homosexual]] relations. At least one nation that has adopted same-sex marriage now requires the largest Christian church there to perform them also, despite its clear contradiction with the [[Bible]].</ref>

In [[Norway]] and [[Sweden]], the adoption of same-sex marriage has led to a loss in respect for the marriage institution itself even for traditional couples. In [[Massachusetts]], the imposition of same-sex marriage led to a decline in property values and an exodus from the state by many. Also in response to the introduction of same-sex marriage the State Department of Public Health changed marriage certificates to read "Party A" and "Party B" instead of husband and wife.

In May 2012, voters in [[North Carolina]] banned both same-sex marriage and gay unions. North Carolina thereby became the 29th state to pass an [[amendment]] against gay marriage, by a huge 61-39% margin.<ref>http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/north-carolina-voters-ban-gay-marriage-civil-unions/story?id=16307081#.T6nLvOjlvKY</ref> [[Barack Obama]] -- heavily dependent on gay donations for his reelection -- rushed to prop up the [[homosexual agenda]] by endorsing same-sex marriage after its stunning defeat in this [[swing state]].

Various detailed polls and studies about same-sex marriage conducted in several countries generally show that support for same-sex marriage increases with higher levels of education, and that younger people are more likely to support the legalization of it than older generations.<ref>{{cite web|title=Survey - Generations at Odds: The Millennial Generation and the Future of Gay and Lesbian Rights|url=http://publicreligion.org/research/2011/08/generations-at-odds/|publisher=[[Public Religion Research Institute]]|accessdate=25 September 2012}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|title=Pew Forum: Part 2: Gay Marriage|url=http://www.pewforum.org/PublicationPage.aspx?id=647|publisher=[[Pew Research Center]]|accessdate=25 September 2012}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|last=Poirier|first=Justine|title=Same-Sex Marriage: Let's Make a Change|url=http://www.montrealites.ca/justice/same-sex-marriage-lets-make-a-change.html|publisher=Montréalités Justice|accessdate=25 September 2012}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|title=Data Points: Support for Legal Same-Sex Marriage|url=http://chronicle.com/article/Chart-Support-for-Legal/64683/|accessdate=25 September 2012|newspaper=The Chronicle of Higher Education|date=16 March 2010}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|title=Support for Same‐Sex Marriage in Latin America|url=http://www.vanderbilt.edu/lapop/insights/I0844.enrevised.pdf|publisher=[[Vanderbilt University]]|accessdate=25 September 2012}}</ref> Polls show the most right-wing religious people are more likely to oppose it.<ref>{{cite news|last=Waldman|first=Steven|title=A Common Missed Conception|url=http://www.slate.com/articles/life/faithbased/2003/11/a_common_missed_conception.html|accessdate=25 September 2012|newspaper=[[Slate (magazine)]]|date=19 November 2003}}</ref> In each U.S. state to hold a voter referendum on the issue, the public has rejected same-sex marriage laws by a small majority.<ref>{{cite news|title=Maine voters reject gay-marriage law|url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/feedarticle/8789627|accessdate=20 September 2012|newspaper=Associated Press via [[The Guardian]]|date=4 November 2009}}</ref> However, recent polls indicate that more than half of Americans support same-sex marriage, approximately 53%.<ref name=Gallup2011>{{cite web|last=Newport|first=Frank|title=For First Time, Majority of Americans Favor Legal Gay Marriage|url=http://www.gallup.com/poll/147662/First-Time-Majority-Americans-Favor-Legal-Gay-Marriage.aspx|publisher=[[The Gallup Organization|Gallup]]|accessdate=25 September 2012}}</ref><ref name=ABC2012>{{cite web|url=http://www.langerresearch.com/uploads/1137a2GayMarriage.pdf |title=ABC News/Washington Post poll: Strong Support for Gay Marriage Now Exceeds Strong Opposition – 23 May 2012 |format=PDF |accessdate=16 September 2012}}</ref><ref name=CNN2012>{{cite web|url=http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2012/images/06/06/rel5e.pdf |title=CNN Opinion Research – May 29-31, 2012 |format=PDF |accessdate=16 September 2012}}</ref>

Campaigns advocating same-sex marriage are at the forefront of the [[gay rights movement]]'s attempt to elevate [[homosexuality]] to the same moral plane as [[heterosexuality]], overturning centuries of established tradition whereby homosexuals were would keep their (according to many Christians) sinful acts hidden. Some opponents of marriage claim its purpose is to destroy the [[family]] as an institution, merely to secure a legal basis for [[sexual freedom]]. According to some opponents of marriage, the primary purpose of marriage is to bring joy to society as much as to safeguard the development of happy families, and it is not for individual glory. They believe that unrelated people living together make each other miserable and harm society. Among the many reasons homosexuals might advocate same-sex marriage are the ability to make emergent healthcare decisions for a loved one in the absence of a durable power of attorney or living will, the alteration of the laws of intestate succession to include gay partners, and equal tax treatment as heterosexual married couples.

Current [[United States]] [[law]] defines "marriage" as "one man, one woman" for purposes of the federal [[Defense of Marriage Act]], which prohibits the federal government from recognizing same-sex relationships as marriages for any purpose, even if permitted under state law, and permits a state to disregard a same-sex marriage entered into in another state. An interesting consequence of the federal definition of "marriage" is that it specifically rules out [[polygamy]]. 

__TOC__
==Morality==
Social [[conservatives]] regard same-sex marriage as immoral, and argue that use of the word "[[marriage]]" is a misnomer, because the [[Form of Solemnization of Matrimony|marriage services]] of Christian denominations define marriage as the union of a man and a woman. Some social liberals try to use this debate as a excuse to take the socially-conservative view of marriage out of the law. In some Christian marriage ceremonies, the wedding will begin with a statement along the lines of: "Dearly beloved: We have come together in the presence of God to witness and bless the joining together of this man and this woman in Holy Matrimony,"<ref>''The Book of Common Prayer,'' Episcopal Church, The Church Hymnal Corporation and the Seabury Press, 1979: "The Celebration and Blessing of a Marriage," p. 423</ref> a definition which was also written into United States federal law in 1996.<ref>[http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode01/usc_sec_01_00000007----000-.html US Code - Title 1, section 7]</ref>

Dr. [[James Dobson]]'s [[Focus on the Family]] organization prefers the phrase ''same-sex "marriage,"'' with quotation marks around the word "marriage," to call attention to his belief that marriage—civil as well as religious—is intrinsically a union between a man and a woman, and that that same-sex unions are "counterfeits."<ref>[http://www.family.org/socialissues/A000000464.cfm Same-Sex 'Marriage' and Civil Unions], ''Focus on the Family's'' website</ref>

Use of the term "same-sex marriage" was unheard of a few decades ago; however, these unions are now among a number of issues advocated by [[liberal]] activists. They argue that heterosexual people are allowed to marry and so the homosexual population should be given that right too.

Some advocates of same-sex marriage view marriage as a purely civil matter, which in the history of the United States is a position taken particularly strongly by Puritan colonists, who viewed the interjection of religion into the franchise of marriage as scandalous to Christ's Church.

== Background ==
In the United States, marriage is primarily governed by each individual state and marriage laws differ from state to state. Several states allow [[civil union]]s between two people of the same sex, and eight, [[Massachusetts]], [[Connecticut]], [[Vermont]], [[New Hampshire]], [[New York]], [[Maryland]], [[Washington]], and [[Iowa]], plus the [[Washington, D.C.|District of Columbia]], currently issue same-sex marriage licenses. These marriage licenses are not recognized by the Federal government.

In 1996 Congress recognized the likelihood that [[liberal]] activists would soon seek changes to the laws in some states that pertain to homosexuals. It considered the possibility of test cases reaching the Supreme Court, and of the court conceivably ruling that a state—even though it prohibits same-sex marriage itself—must honor same-sex marriages performed in another state pursuant to the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the United States Constitution. The Defense of Marriage act, which was passed and signed by President Clinton, prevents this possibility, and also prevents the Federal Government from recognizing marriage as anything other than a union between a man and a woman. Its Constitutionality has not yet been tested under the Full Faith and Credit Clause, the Equal Protection Clause of the 5th Amendment, or the Due Process Clause of the 5th Amendment.

In 1999 a Vermont court ruled that under its constitution, it was not required to allow same-sex marriage but was required to make provisions to grant same-sex couples legal rights identical to those provided by marriage. Vermont responded by creating "civil unions," which are legally distinct from marriages but convey the same rights. In 2009, the Vermont legislature overrode the governor's veto to pass a bill allowing same-sex marriage.

In 2003 the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled that under Massachusetts' constitution, same-sex couples could not be denied Massachusetts marriage licenses, making Massachusetts the first state to issue same-sex marriage licenses. As of April 2009, same-sex marriage was legal in four states, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Vermont, and Iowa. <ref>''Vermont Legislature Makes Same-Sex Marriage Legal'' [http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/08/us/08vermont.html?_r=1&hp]</ref><ref>[http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081010/ap_on_re_us/connecticut_same_sex_marriage Conn. high court rules gay couples can marry]</ref>

Beginning in 2008, the states of [[Washington]], and [[Oregon]] also provide for same-sex unions. [[Hawaii]] provides certain benefits to same sex couples. <ref>[http://www.newsday.com/news/local/wire/connecticut/ny-bc-ct--civilunions-optio0531may31,0,341613.story?coll=ny-region-apconnecticut Newsday]</ref> The State of New Hampshire issued civil unions until the summer of 2009, when it passed a bill approving same-sex marriage <ref>"New Hampshire Legalizes Same-Sex Marriage" [http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/04/us/04marriage.html]</ref> The state will begin issuing same-sex marriage licenses in January, 2010.

In the fall of 2009, a same-sex marriage bill was introduced to the [[Washington, D.C.]] city council by At-Large Council Member David Catania (who is openly gay.) After two days of testimony involving nearly 250 witnesses <ref>''D.C. Council hears from both sides in gay marriage debate'' [http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/local/D_C_-Council-hears-from-both-sides-in-gay-marriage-debate-8442433-66188647.html]</ref>, the council voted to approve the bill, 11-2. Once signed by the Mayor, the bill went to Congress for a mandatory [[DC Home Rule|30-day review period]]. While opponents of the bill vowed to fight it in Congress<ref>"DC Council Approves Same-Sex Marriage" [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/15/AR2009121500945.html]</ref> it passed and became law in 2010.

The New York legislature voted for same-sex marriage on June 24, 2011.<ref>http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/breaking-gay-marriage-passes-in-new-york</ref>

Same-sex marriages were legal for a brief period in the state of [[California]], but the people of that state voted to repeal the law in the fall of 2008<ref>"California Votes for Prop 8"[http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122586056759900673.html]</ref>, through a ballot initiative known as [[Proposition 8]]. The legislature of [[Maine]] approved a same-sex marriage bill in May of 2009 <ref>"Lawmakers approve same-sex marriage in N.H., Maine" [http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/05/06/maine.same.sex.marriage/index.html]</ref> but opponents lobbied to have the bill put up to a popular vote, and it was defeated by the voters in the fall of 2009.<ref>"Maine rejects same-sex marriage law" [http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/11/04/maine.same.sex/index.html]</ref>

Same-sex marriage is legal in eleven countries: the [[Netherlands]], [[Belgium]], [[Spain]], [[Canada]], [[South Africa]], [[Norway]], [[Sweden]], [[Portugal]], [[Iceland]], [[Argentina]], and [[Denmark]]. Other countries, such as [[France]], [[Germany]], and the [[United Kingdom]], recognize [[civil unions]] and [[domestic partnership]]s.<ref>[http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2004-03/05/content_311998.htm Countries worldwide address gay marriage]</ref><ref>[http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-08-05/tasmania-to-back-gay-marriage-intensifying-pressure-on-gillard]</ref>

In Israel, all marriages must be performed by a religious organization - there is no "civil" marriage. Specific religions may determine the definition of marriages that they perform, and none currently recognize same-sex couples. However, a Supreme Court decision determined that Israel must recognize all marriages performed outside the country, same-sex or opposite-sex. In September of 2011, an Orthodox Jewish rabbi in Israel attempted to marry homosexual males to homosexual females so they could start a conventional family. However, the plan drew criticism both from liberals, who said the plan was meant to discourage homosexuality, and from conservatives, who claimed the plan promoted loveless relationships. <ref>"Israeli rabbi pairs gays to lesbians" http://news.yahoo.com/israeli-rabbi-pairs-gays-lesbians-061904417.html</ref>

Some opponents of same-sex marriage believe that the religious ceremony of marriage is governed by each denomination and is unaffected by laws passed by civil authority. Same-sex marriage is forbidden in Orthodox Judaism, Catholicism, and most mainstream Protestant denominations. In Massachusetts, however, about 6% of all marriages are same-sex marriages, so this does not appear to be a problem. <ref>[http://www.massequality.org/news/news_story.php?id=273]</ref><ref>http://www.pdfdownload.org/pdf2html/pdf2html.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cdc.gov%2Fnchs%2Fdata%2Fnvss%2Fmarriage90_04.pdf&images=yes</ref>

Public attitude toward same-sex marriage parallels attitude toward homosexuality. In general, it is opposed by social conservatives and outside of this group, support is split down the middle leaning to opposition.<ref>[http://www.abcnews.go.com/sections/us/Relationships/same_sex_marriage_poll_040121.html Same Sex Marriage Poll from ABC News]</ref>

== Motivation for advocating it==
[[Image:Cycle.gif|thumbnail|200px|right|A recent study by the [[Canada|Canadian]] government states that "violence was twice as common among homosexual couples compared with [[heterosexual]] couples".<ref>http://www.statcan.ca/english/research/85-570-XIE/2006001/findings/risk.htm Aforementioned Canadian Study.</ref>]]
[[James Dobson]] cites Stanley Kurtz to argue that the motivation of those advocating same-sex marriage is not to secure the benefits of marriage for gay couples, but to destroy the institution of marriage itself:
:...most gays and lesbians do not want to marry each other. That would entangle them in all sorts of legal constraints. Who needs a lifetime commitment to one person? The intention here is to destroy marriage altogether. With marriage as we know it gone, everyone would enjoy all the legal benefits of marriage (custody rights, tax-free inheritance, joint ownership of property, health care and spousal citizenship, etc.,) without limiting the number of partners or their gender. Nor would "couples" be bound to each other in the eyes of the law. This is clearly where the movement is headed.<ref>Stanley Kurtz, "Beyond Marriage," The Weekly Standard, August 4/August 11, 2003. - cited in [http://www.focusonthefamily.com/docstudy/newsletters/A000000771.cfm Marriage on the Ropes], Dr. James Dobson, retrieved from ''Focus on the Family'', 15 May 2007. </ref>

Homosexuals are beginning to admit they want what Mollenkott proposes, namely the destruction of the concept of [[monogamy]] and [[traditional marriage]] altogether. What they really are after is a society that recognizes every sexual arrangement as normal - even [[group sex]]ual liaisons and [[polygamy]].<ref name=pjones>
Peter Jones, ''The God of Sex: How Spirituality Defines Your Sexuality'', page 22</ref>

==Child-rearing and adoption==

According to a March, 2007 report, there are 65,000 adopted children in the U.S. being raised by same-sex couples. The same report says 14,100 foster children were being raised by one or more gay or lesbian foster parents.<ref>[http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/06/25/gay.adoption/index.html Gay adoption: A new take on the American family]</ref>

In Great Britain, the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB) has expressed its full support to the stand taken by the Catholic Church opposing regulations on gay adoption. The Catholic Church sought to be exempt from the new law. The Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams of the Church of England, supports the Catholic Church's efforts declaring that the rights of conscience cannot be subject to laws. Catholic leaders have already said that its teachings prevent its agencies placing children with homosexuals and they will have to close if bound by the rules. The MCB, the UK's leading Muslim umbrella group embracing over 400 affiliated organizations, said that while it supported anti-discrimination laws, homosexuality is forbidden in Islam. <ref>[http://www2.irna.com/en/news/view/menu-234/0701266670200554.htm UK Muslim group backs Christian opposition to gay adoption rules London], Islamic republic News Agency, Jan 26, 2007.</ref>

Several states, including [[New York]], allow any two adults living together to adopt a child regardless of marital status. This law provided a method for same-sex couples to adopt children even before New York legalized same-sex marriage.

==Homosexual promiscuity==

Studies indicate that homosexual couples have higher rates of promiscuity than heterosexual couples.<ref>[http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS04C02 Comparing the Lifestyles of Homosexual Couples to Married Couples]</ref> Allowing gays to marry would make gays seek more partners.<ref>2004 General Social Survey, Statistics Canada, Canada's National Statistical Agency, July 7, 2005</ref>

==Homosexual violence and abuse==

In addition, studies report that [[Homosexual Couples and Domestic Violence|homosexual couples have significantly higher incidences of violent behavior]].{{fact}} These studies are not surprising given what pathologists have stated regarding the commonness and brutality of homosexual murders{{fact}} (see [[Homosexuality and Murders]]). The prevalence of violence and emotional abuse in gay domestic partnerships. One survey found 53% of gays felt if the high incidence of violence against partners in homosexual relationships was known and understood by the heterosexual population, it would hinder the drive for gay rights.

Domestic abuse is divided into two categories, emotional abuse and physical abuse. While gay domestic abuse has not been studied to the extent that heterosexual relationships have, [[Homosexual Couples and Domestic Violence|preliminary studies indicate a much higher level of abuse]].

==Family breakdown ==

Bishop Harry Jackson has shown how same-sex "marriage" is causally linked to the breakdown of the family in recent decades, particularly the black family.<ref>[http://townhall.com/columnists/harryrjacksonjr/2008/10/13/the_naacp_abandons_the_black_family The NAACP Abandons the Black Family]</ref> As noted in the 1965 [[Daniel Patrick Moynihan|Moynihan]] Report,<ref>[http://www.dol.gov/oasam/programs/history/webid-meynihan.htm The Negro Family: The Case for National Action]</ref> the breakdown of the African-American family is a national concern. He has attributed support for same-sex marriage in the District of Columbia and Maryland to a demonic force called the [[Queen of Heaven]].<ref>[http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=GMnaW-0rQ-U Harry Jackson, Cindy Jacobs Rally Against Same-Sex Marriage]</ref>

Subsequent to same-sex marriage becoming law in [[Massachusetts]], property values declined and many left the State, in contrast to those states that do not recognize it.

One study, however, claims that the children of same-sex couples or gay parents have equal or higher scores in psychological evaluations as well as cognitive. Researchers Nanette Gartrell, a professor of psychiatry at the University of California at San Francisco, and Henry Bos, a behavioral scientist at the University of Amsterdam, led a study focused on planned lesbian families in which a lesbian couple had chosen to adopt children or undergo artificial insemination to start a family. These children were shown to have higher self esteems and confidence which in turn enabled them to have higher test results academically than their straight-parent counterparts. <ref>[http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1994480,00.html],Study: Children of Lesbians May Do Better Than Their Peers</ref>

==Social dysfunction==

Legalization of same-sex "marriage" is correlated with social dysfunctions<ref>[http://www.allaboutlove.org/same-sex-marriage-countries.htm Same Sex Marriage Countries]</ref> that states and countries banning it have avoided. States and countries legalizing same-sex "marriage" have markedly different levels of quality of life from those that have banned it.

==Collapse of civilizations==

Some ancient civilizations that recognized same-sex "marriage" collapsed as a result, while some that refused to recognize it escaped that fate.<ref>[http://ezinearticles.com/?The-Slippery-Slope-Of-Same-Sex-Marriage&id=824855 The Slippery Slope of Same Sex Marriage]</ref> However, [[Correlation is not causation]], and there is not even a large enough data set to get a correlation.

==Legal disadvantages for heterosexuals==

Legalization of same-sex "marriage" would confer [[special rights]] on homosexuals, thereby placing heterosexuals at a legal disadvantage.<ref>[http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/us/2009/December/New-Jersey-Lawmakers-Drop-Same-Sex-Marriage-Bill/ New Jersey Lawmakers Drop Same-Sex Marriage Bill], from [[CBN]]</ref>

The fact that the strongest predictor of support for same-sex "marriage" is level of education<ref>[http://www.gainesville.com/article/20090902/ARTICLES/909021016?p=1&tc=pg UF study: Education best predicted support for gay marriage ban]</ref> shows that [[brainwashing]] into [[professor values]] has a corrosive effect on morality.

Since rights are a [[zero-sum game]],<ref>[http://bbprof.wordpress.com/2010/11/18/the-new-three-rs/ The New Three R's], by Bill Borst</ref> granting same-sex couples the right to "marry" will necessarily come at the expense of the rights of others.

==See also==
*[[Anti-Defamation League]]
*[[Intimate Partner Violence]]
*[[Gay bowel syndrome]]
*[[Homosexuality and the Bible]]
*[[Homosexuality and biblical interpretation]]

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

==External Links==
*[http://www.nogaymarriage.com/tenarguments.asp Gay Marriage: Why Would It Affect Me? Ten Arguments Against Same Sex Marriage], NoGayMarriage.com
*[http://www.robgagnon.net/homoPresbyTodayArticle.htm Why “Gay Marriage” Is Wrong, by Robert A. J. Gagnon, Ph.D.]
[[Category:Homosexual Agenda]]