Talk:Barack Hussein Obama

Archives: 1 2 3 4

Disgusted Conservative

I've voted Republican in every election since 1960, but I'm absolutely disgusted by this page.

What happened to the dignity of our party under Goldwater and Reagan? This "encyclopedia" page is just one long rant.

Are there any real conservatives out there willing to present objective, factual criticism of Obama? God knows there are enough valid arguments to make. Why are we channeling Michael Savage rather than William Buckley? Currently this page makes me cry for my party.

Sounds like disgusted conservative is voting for BO. I happen to think it is an accurate account of a man that is dishonest. Where will you get the real picture about about if not here? Are you disgusted by Wikipedias article? How about the coverage on MSNBC, ABC, CBS, CNN, PBS, LATimes, WaPo, NYT, Google, The Guardian. Why not be mad and except that the majority of America is being fooled? Why not be mad at someone as disgusting as BO, actually has a real chance to take the Presidency and doesn't deserve it IN THE LEAST? Reagan is rolling over in his grave and so all the Founders.--Jpatt 09:54, 7 October 2008 (EDT)

Voting Republican again this year. I know you're mad about what's going on, but it shows throughout the page. An encyclopedia can't be written from an angry point of view. Let me be specific:

1) "Obama and Elitism" plus "Obama and Islam" are not valid main introductory sections. Start with his early life.

2) His birth certificate gets its own section but his healthcare and tax plans don't? Focus on what's really important.

3) The "Insights" section is just a list of criticisms and belongs under a "Criticism" section. Categorize corectly.

4) Off-topic side-swipes: "He became a member of the Harvard Law Review, which uses racial quotas, in 1989". Why is "which uses racial quotas" in there? If it was a reason that he was chosen, say that. If it wasn't leave it out.

5) Unsubstantiated claims: "Obama's campaign has been financed largely by leftist donors opposed to the war and to the American military in general." Citation definitely needed.

You have several good sections in here: "Senate career", "Foreign policy experience", "Published criticism", "Religious affiliations". These are high-quality and reflect well on Conservapedia. The others do not.

See the reply from hsmom below as the kind of constructive, factual accuracy this page needs.

This sounds like you're standard liberal bellyaching. The fact is that no real conservative Christian can vote for this man.

??!?! Trying to hold this article to some kind of standard is bellyaching? Would you like to address any of my points?

Your points is liberal talking points. The fact is that Barack Hussein Obama wants to talk with Iran without predeterminations, flip flops, and is close friends to an unrepentive TERRORIST. What more can you know?

Trying to shift the focus on an encyclopedia page about a presidential candidate from hypothetical statements (his possible Islamic faith) and trivial matters (his birth certificate), to his actual stance on the issues is liberal bellyaching? If anything, we should be casting aside these trivial circumstances as beneath us and take the time to dissect each of his stances on the actual issues. That's what a real, dignified Conservative would do. Relying on ridiculous tactics such as these is asinine and cowardly. --FrankincenseMonster 16:21, 9 October 2008 (EDT)

I think this article doesn't go far enough. I think there should be a picture of Hitler as the top photo, just like the Evolution page.

Disgusted Conservative, sadly you are only wasting your time.

Why does it say he MAY be the first Muslim President (a horrible, false claim) and he MAY use the Koran to be sworn in

Nation of Islam

Obama's pastor of twenty-years, Rev. Wright, was originally a member with the Nation of Islam (likely always has been, see taqiyya) Let's be careful not to confuse the Nation of Islam with the traditional Muslim faith - they are two quite different things. --Hsmom 10:10, 7 October 2008 (EDT)

What differences do you find so compelling?--Aschlafly 18:15, 18 October 2008 (EDT)

I don't know that I'd use the word "compelling"; I don't know a whole lot about either faith. I do know that they're quite different. The Nation of Islam was started in Detroit in the 1930's as something of a black empowerment/separatist movement - it's a very race-based group, from what I understand, and (in what I would consider a cult-like way) based largely on the teachings of two or three men, who are considered more-or-less prophets. It's been portrayed in the media as very racist and anti-Semitic, though I don't know enough about it to know how accurate that is. It's a uniquely American faith. Traditional Islam is quite a different thing - it's been around for thousands of years. Malcolm X, for example, became a member of NOI in prison, then, due to disillusionment brought on by NOI leader/prophet Elijah Mohamed's adultery, converted to traditional Islam. I have assumed that when you say that you believe that Barak Obama is a Muslim, you are referring to traditional Islam, right? --Hsmom 09:37, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

Perhaps you think Nation of Islam is a denomination of Islam that has slightly different motivations from other denominations, but it's still Islam. Are you saying that NOI adherents do not pray and submit to Allah? I'm sure they do.--Aschlafly 09:52, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

Perhaps you think Nation of Islam is a denomination of Islam that has slightly different motivations from other denominations, but it's still Islam. No, I wouldn't put it that way. I wouldn't consider NOI to be Islam. As I understand it, I think they are two fundamentally different faiths, though NOI has some trappings borrowed from traditional Islam, as well as some borrowed from Christianity. NOI believes, among other things, "that Allah (God) appeared in the Person of Master W. Fard Muhammad, July, 1930; the long-awaited "Messiah" of the Christians and the "Mahdi" of the Muslims."[3] As I understand it, when NOI members pray to Allah, they mean (at least in part) W. Fard Muhammad (the founder of NOI). Wheras of course traditional Muslims don't include anything about W. Fard Muhammad in their beliefs, nor do they recognize NOI as a Muslim denomination. (Christians don't believe W. Fard Muhammad is the Messiah either, obviously.) NOI is a uniquely American black separatist movement. I believe it's quite a different faith from traditional Islam. Maybe I was wrong about assuming you think Barak Obama is a traditional Muslim? Do you think Barak Obama is a member of the NOI? That would lead to quite different concerns; as I understand it, the NOI wants, among other things, quite substantial reparations for slavery. --Hsmom 10:40, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

The Nation of Islam's relationship to Christianity is similar to the relationship of Christianity to Judaism. They use the same texts (to some extent), and have practices that are shared with and developed out of the other - but such distortions take place that one is clearly no longer the other. It's not even about "not being mainstream", it's about that place and time when one religion truly ceases to be it's parent religion. You would be fully inaccurate to call a christian merely a "Jesus loving Jew". Christianity became its own religion in the year 30 (give or take) when our Lord died and rose for us. For the Nation of Islam, with the Prophet Elijah claiming to be the reincarnation of Mohammad, they cease to be merely "Muslim" and become their own religion.--JeanJacques 11:08, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

57 Islamic states

I attempted to make this article better by noting, as several other Conservapedia writers have, that "57 states" could be a reference to Heinz ketchup or simple a misstatement (Obama had visited 47 states), as well as the fact that there were not 57 Islamic states when Obama attended an Indonesian school. It was reverted. Why? Is this an encyclopedia, or a liberal hate blog? Egen 10:42, 8 October 2008 (EDT)

Your edit was baseless, and probably politically motivated. The entry is factual and will remain that way. Obama has likely remained a Muslim long after attending grade school. Godspeed.--Aschlafly 10:52, 8 October 2008 (EDT)

On the subject, I think someone should add the following line to your page: "The odds against Aschlafly's claim to be named 'Andrew Schlafly' being truthful are less than 1 billion to one, as fewer than 6 people in the world are named Andrew Schlafly." Don't put malarkey like this on a serious encyclopedia page and defend it as being "factual". I remind you of Conservapedia Commandments 1, 2, and 5. Egen 11:04, 8 October 2008 (EDT)

In any case, I fail to see how it is "baseless" to note, as other Conservapedia writers have, that "57 states" cannot possibly be a reference to "57 Islamic states" and probably has a more benign origin. It does not to any good to assert that anyone who disagrees with you probably does so because they are "politically motivated" (read: liberal) when many conservatives have expressed disdain for this point. I doubt that the majority of Conservapedia editors would disagree with my edit. This encyclopedia is not a personal blog for you or for anyone else. Therefore, I am reinserting the edit. If anyone can provide proof that Obama was referring to the "57 Islamic states" which did not exist when he was growing up and provide proof that that is what he was referring to, I'll retract this. Egen 12:16, 8 October 2008 (EDT)

Egen - I entirely agree with you. A lot of people here think this is a redstate comments thread rather than, as it says in the top left corner, "the trustworthy encyclopedia". Snopes on this one: http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/57states.asp

I removed the mention of the 57 states, since the article later refers to a source that says that it was probably a misstatement as he has in fact visited 47 states. _{unsigned JohnFA}

This statement has been here for some time. It stays for now.--Jpatt 09:44, 29 October 2008 (EDT)

     Jpatt - Why should it? It's repeated later on in the article where it is also explained. This statement is redundant since it doesn't even have a source.

I added the fact that there were not 57 states when he went to school in indonesia, if we are going to mention that he went to an islamic school we are implying that that is where he learned about the 57 states, this is impossible and that should be noted. People will reference conservapedia and if they reference that he visited the 57 islamic states or that he learned about there being 57 islamic states in islamic school they will look like fools.--Brendanw 13:06, 31 October 2008 (EDT)

Right now, the implication made about Obama's gaff and "57 Islamic states" indicates the United States. If it's about Indonesia, then state Indonesia, as well as prove that Indonesia is divided into 57 states. Karajou 13:12, 31 October 2008 (EDT)

I double-checked the references provided, one of which has a video of Obama himself doing the gaff; it may have been a minor slip of the tounge or a minor mistake, but not once was there a reference to visiting Islamic states or countries. He specified visiting 57 U.S. states. The article was changed to reflect that fact, and the speculation on Islamic states was removed. Karajou 13:23, 31 October 2008 (EDT)

I wanted to do that but I figured I would just get reverted. --Brendanw 13:53, 31 October 2008 (EDT)

I'll let you take credit then for the fixing, or at least getting it started :) Karajou 13:57, 31 October 2008 (EDT)

Biased

Isn't this site supposed to be unbaised?-Red4tribe 16:46, 8 October 2008 (EDT)

Welcome to ConservapediaPluto 18:19, 8 October 2008 (EDT)

"born, allegedly, in Honolulu"

there's no doubt he was born. that should read "allegedly born in Honolulu"

God bless. JohnBarma 13:30, 10 October 2008 (EDT)

As the previous poster said, "(born, allegedly, in Honolulu, August 4, 1961)", implies that he may not have been born, which I think is not what is intended. "Allegedly born in Honolulu" has the same problem. Putting aside whether or not the "allegedly" is silly (and frankly I think the factcheck.org folks debunked this one), if you want to convey the idea that he was born, but may have been born somewhere other than Hawaii, then it should read "(born, allegedly in Honolulu, August 4, 1961)". Comma placement matters. --Hsmom 20:58, 10 October 2008 (EDT)

Correct. Factcheck did take this one apart: http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html

"Of course, it's distantly possible that Obama's grandparents may have planted the announcement just in case their grandson needed to prove his U.S. citizenship in order to run for president someday. We suggest that those who choose to go down that path should first equip themselves with a high-quality tinfoil hat. The evidence is clear: Barack Obama was born in the U.S.A."

Snope also: http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthcertificate.asp

Of course, it's distantly possible that Obama's grandparents may have planted the announcement just in case their grandson needed to prove his U.S. citizenship in order to run for president someday What foolishness! As if the ability to run for President is the sole benefit to be derived from US citizenship! That his grandparents planted the announcement is entirely credible. Bugler 14:30, 17 October 2008 (EDT)

What we need to see to settle this controversy is the actual birth certificate; not a copy of it, and not someone's written opinion. Karajou 13:47, 17 October 2008 (EDT)

It is my understanding from a recent article on Fox that the form presented lists him as "African". This was 1961. The concept of African-American or any reference to African in racial makeup, while very prevalent in the last 15+ years, was still more than 20 years off. Birth certificates in 1961 used "Negro". I'm surprised this isn't mentioned anywhere. Learn together 17:19, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

Favorite black leader

I've just finished reading Dreams from My Father. I don't recommend it. But one thing I missed was a reference to Malcolm X being Obama's "favorite black leader". He speaks highly of Malcolm X's autobiography, but doesn't like the "religious baggage" that the guy "discarded in later life". Is the reference here correct? Marcdaniels 17:10, 10 October 2008 (EDT)

Search Google on {"Malcolm X" Obama favorite} and you'll find numerous credible confirmations of the statement about Malcolm X being Obama's favorite black leader. The entry need not be limited to the silly Dreams book.--Aschlafly 18:03, 10 October 2008 (EDT)

Not really seeing it. Various claims Obama loves Malcolm X's autobiography (which, subject to the point above, seems correct), but the claims that he is Obama's "favorite black leader" all cite no reference, or cite Dreams - I think incorrectly. Is there a source for Obama having said or written this? If not, it should go. Marcdaniels 18:12, 10 October 2008 (EDT)

I agree that it should be sourced, preferably with a quote from his book or one of his speeches, otherwise it could be mistaken for an untrue rumor. If he qualified the statement with something about X's religion, as Marcdaniels noted above, that should be included in the quote. I looked for a credible source, but couldn't find one. I have added a fact tag, which can be removed when a suitable citation is found. (Let's not forget that Malcolm X was involved with the Nation of Islam, which is quite a different thing than traditional Islam. He rejected the Nation of Islam later in life.)--Hsmom 21:13, 10 October 2008 (EDT)

Examples supporting the statement are easy to find. I just added one. I don't think anyone seriously doubts the truth of the statement. Feel free to find and add other citations supporting it. The discomfort expressed above seems to be with the fact itself.--Aschlafly 21:54, 10 October 2008 (EDT)

Your source goes back to the book, which I'd thought we'd both agreed wasn't on point. It's entirely plausible that Obama might regard Malcolm X as his favorite black leader, and that would discomfort me in the slightest, but I'm having real difficulty finding any evidence that he has said or written this. Marcdaniels 07:40, 11 October 2008 (EDT)

No, you've misread me now. I did not agree that book wasn't on point. I did say there is further evidence beyond the book, which is easy to find on the internet.

The quote from the book is convincing enough. If you won't accept it, then I doubt you would accept anything now.--Aschlafly 08:20, 11 October 2008 (EDT)

I am now a little confused, and I'm not sure why you are getting personal. You suggested there were additional sources for the claim on the internet, other than those referring to the book, but I cannot find one. I may be missing something obvious - would be helpful if you could provide a link. The book shows Malcolm X's autobiography to have been Obama's favourite autobiography, and it would be accurate to say that, but anything further seems supposition rather than fact. Marcdaniels 11:35, 11 October 2008 (EDT)

"if elected, Obama will become the first black, and possibly Muslim, President of the United States."

What's the problem with this sentence in place of the one currently there? For starters, it isn't proven that he's Muslim, but it is proven that he's black, so certainly it should be mentioned over the hypothetical. --FrankincenseMonster 21:25, 11 October 2008 (EDT)

The racial composition of all the past presidents is not completely known, so I doubt it's appropriate to insist that Obama would be the first black President. Also, the racial composition of a man is not as important as his beliefs. It is known that none of the prior presidents were Muslim.--Aschlafly 21:54, 11 October 2008 (EDT)

Well said, Aschlafly. It is the content of a person's character that should determine how we "judge" them. Although, who are we to judge? I suspect, however, looking at the photos, that Senator Obama would at least be the first President (if elected) with a clear African American heritage. Whether a few others may have had a lineage leading back to Africa in their family tree is another, albeit interesting, question. Human 23:16, 11 October 2008 (EDT)

That's an interesting argument. If we know so little about the former presidents that we cannot say whether any of them met society's contemporaneous definition of Black - the one-drop rule, for example - then how can we say than none of them were Muslim? If they could keep their African ancestry secret, why not their true religion? Is there evidence of political opponents accusing a candidate of being of mixed-blood ancestry?--Brossa 23:21, 11 October 2008 (EDT)

When people vote, they are called to judge. So the liberal canard of "judge not" is a useless argument here. What will voters judge on? More important than race is the views and beliefs of the candidates.

As to whether past presidents were Muslims, simply look at what they did and said ... including before they became politically ambitious.--Aschlafly 23:33, 11 October 2008 (EDT)

Of course we "judge", or at least "decide" when we vote. However, when did "judge not... [lest ye be judged]" become a "liberal canard"? I thought it was a warning in the Bible not to overstep our bounds? Voting, of course, does not overstep them - we pencil in a space, or pull a lever. That is not "judgment", it is an expression of personal opinion or preference or ideas. Moving beyond that simple step, however, leads us into judgment territory, potentially. When we should be humble and add commentary on ourselves as well as those we judge is an issue of personal ethics - or morality. A good time to sit down with good words and contemplate. Human 01:22, 12 October 2008 (EDT)

Main Picture

I would like someone to please explain to me how this is unbais? At least with the article you can try to make something up saying how its unbais but the main picture is trying to show very obviouisly that Obama is unpatriotic... If you look at McCains page or Palins the picture of professionally done. Please someone give me a reasonable answer User talk:Horriblesite

Funny you should comment. Is it Conservapedia making Obama unpatriotic or is it Obama who IS unpatriotic? I will say the latter.--Jpatt 21:56, 12 October 2008 (EDT)

Also, "unbais" and "professionally done" are Liberal canards. --FrankincenseMonster 21:56, 12 October 2008 (EDT)

Taqiyya

The definition of Taqiyya in this article ((allowed if) ... it advances the cause of Islam) is incorrect for the Sunni Muslims. Taqiyya is only allowed when it will danger their lives otherwise. Also, even with this allowance, many chose instead a honorable death.

Shi'ites (shia) is the one who practices this (taqiyya) in almost any situation that will cause discomfort to them otherwise.

Sunni muslim and some branches of Shi'ite, because of their extreme stances, are pretty much a different religion. --Sufehmi 11:23, 9 November 2008 (EST)

Taqiyya & takeyya

Are these the same thing? LiamG 15:34, 16 October 2008 (EDT)

Yes. --Hsmom 15:52, 16 October 2008 (EDT)

wife opinions

The thing that bothers me about Obama is the comments attributed to his wife. 1. That it was the first time she was proud of america and 2.That black children had no future in america. Both she and her husband are examples of how well a black child can do so its hard to understand why she has that view. Markr 16:38, 16 October 2008 (EDT)

See similar comments from John McCain: http://www.americanconservativedaily.com/2008/06/mccain-it-can-be-%E2%80%9Ctough%E2%80%9D-to-be-proud-of-usa/ “I’ll admit to you … that it’s tough in some respects,” McCain said when asked by a questioner at a town hall meeting how to be proud of the country. “We have not always done things right and we mismanaged the war in Iraq very badly for nearly four years.”

Obvious fake photo (hand on heart)

I suspect this very obvious fake photo (look at how small the two women are compared to the chairs behind them, check out the flag's edges itself and what exactly is holding it up) was placed here by people hoping to discredit Conservapedia. I understand a popular activity among liberals and vandals is to insert things seeming to support Conservative and Christian values, but that are either extreme or fake, and so undermine the encyclopedia as a whole.--TruthOfChrist 11:11, 17 October 2008 (EDT)

It isn't fake. Many other photos of this occasion exist. Video, too. The goofy-looking perspective is an artifact of the angle and lens used. --XavierJ 12:29, 17 October 2008 (EDT)

Answer: http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthcertificate.asp —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Littleriverr (talk)

The single photo lacked context, and the writer of this article, unfortunately, chose to translate it negatively. A more balanced discussion is available on Snopes : http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/anthem.asp --Sufehmi 10:51, 9 November 2008 (EST)

birth certificate lawsuit number 2

In a second lawsuit challenging Barack Obama's "natural born" citizenship, a Washington resident is demanding officials review original or certified birth documents for the Democratic Party presidential candidate.

Steven Marquis of Fall City, Wash., filed suit Oct. 9 in Washington State Superior Court, calling for Secretary of State Sam Reed to determine whether Obama is a citizen before Election Day. Marquis released a statement saying the state has the authority to "prevent the wholesale disenfranchisement of voters" who might have otherwise had the opportunity to choose a qualified candidate should records show Obama is not a natural-born U.S. citizen. [4]

See my analysis of this on this Talk Page, point 58: "Barack raises the bar". MylesP 00:25, 1 November 2008 (EDT)

Errors and dubious claims

- The first sentence says Obama was born in Hawaii. At first I was under the impression that someone decided to act in a competent manner and remove the baseless innuendo about his place of birth. Alas I was mistaken because later in the article the word 'alleged' is still used. I thought all reasonable people would presume that a document from the State of Hawaii would suffice to prove one's citizenship instead of using the rants of the lunatic fringe.

A lawsuit has been filed by someone seeking the real birth certificate. Complain to him, and explain why it still apparently has not been produced.--Aschlafly 17:21, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

The state of Hawaii is not just going to let anybody get a copy of Obama's birth certificate, let alone his original. I can't even get my hands on my own original birth certificate and I'll bet neither can you. A certified copy of Obama's birth certificate has been provided for anyone to look at. If this copy is good enough for our government officials that are not part of the lunatic fringe, then why isn't it good enough for Conservapedia? I'd like to think Conservapedia is not aligning itself with the likes of the people filing these nonsense lawsuits.--NormaN 18:58, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

- Obama only attended religious schools until he reached the age of ten (Islamic and Catholic). The rest of his education from Punahou School, Occidental College, Columbia University, and Harvard was nonsectarian. Clearly the vast majority of his education was non-religious. [[5]]

Obama's formative years were spend being indoctrinated in Islam. Less than 1% convert to Christianity after that experience. Enough said.--Aschlafly 17:21, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

I was never under the impression that a person's formative years stopped at the age of ten. According to you, Obama shouldn't be a liberal because he attended conservative religious schools during his alleged formative years, 6 - 10. How is it that he is now a liberal after living another 35+ years and attending an ivy-league college? You are also ignoring his years in a Catholic school during his time in Indonesia. Why? If he spent two of his formative years at a Catholic school, shouldn't he be a Catholic?--NormaN 18:58, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

- Malcom X was not THE leader of the Nation of Islam, he was A leader. There is a distinct difference. [[6]]

Nitpicking here. I'll change "the" to "a" for you.--Aschlafly 17:21, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

Don't do it for me, do it for the reputation of Conservapedia.--NormaN 18:58, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

- Obama was baptized in 1988, the same year he started attending Harvard. If there is a reference stating he was baptized prior to his political ambitions, please post it. [[7]]

1988 makes no sense, as no one ever saw any Christian behavior or church attendance by Obama at law school from 1988 to 1991. Post his baptismal certificate. You can't and neither can Obama.--Aschlafly 17:21, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

Why doesn't 1988 make any sense? Was there a problem with my reference? Are you able to provide reputable evidence that Obama's baptism didn't occur in 1988? Just because a person doesn't attend church on a regular basis or hardly at all is not a reason to deny someone's baptism. Elsewhere in this article is criticism directed at Obama's CHRISTIAN pastor of 20 years. Either Obama is a Christian that attended a Christian church for 20 years or he is not. If he is a Muslim, then why all the fuss about his Christian pastor of 20 years?--NormaN 18:58, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

- Just because someone reads a book allegedly 'from a Muslim point-of-view' does not mean they are actually a Muslim. I have read parts of the book and I am not a Muslim.

It adds to the evidence. If Obama were reading the Bible, then that would detract from the evidence.--Aschlafly 17:21, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

Obama does read his Bible and has encouraged others to do so as well. Would like a reference?--NormaN 18:58, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

- Roosevelt communicated with America's enemies. After the outbreak of WW II, Roosevelt was negotiating with the Japanese. Things didn't go well and the Japanese were embargoed, thus losing most of their import capability including over 90% of their oil supplies. [[8]]

Your point is lacking here.--Aschlafly 17:21, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

In reference to Obama saying we should talk to our enemies, the following claim was made, "Roosevelt spoke with none of the Axis or Japanese leaders and the only communication that was sent to them was unconditional surrender." Roosevelt and members of his administration talked to our enemies, the reference provided by the article was written by a columnist with a distinct lack of historical credibility.--NormaN 18:58, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

- If Obama' likely benefited from special scholarships not available to most students', then which scholarships were they? Could a reference at least be provided?

You tell us. Obama won't disclose who paid for his education. He claimed he worked his way through school, but that was disproved.--Aschlafly 17:21, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

Why should I tell you? The claim was made in the article without a shred of evidence to back it up. I do happen to know that the Obama's used college loans to pay for much of their schooling and they only just recently paid them off with the proceeds from his books. Since someone writing for Conservapedia is making the incredible claim that Obama was somehow able to acquire loans not available to most others, shouldn't a reference be provided so the claim will withstand scrutiny? --NormaN 18:58, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

- Any chance a reference could be provided for the claim concerning the flag pin? The way it reads now makes the entry look like partisan whining.

Be clearer. No one denies Obama avoided wearing a flag pin as he catered to the anti-war crowd.--Aschlafly 17:21, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

The claim, ' Recently, he has begun wearing one again for reasons that are likely political pandering' was made without a reference. Any chance this opinion could be verified so the article doesn't sound like a smear?--NormaN 18:58, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

The general tone of the article makes it look like a partisan smear campaign, not the encyclopedic scholarly work Conservapedia alleges to produce.--NormaN 17:08, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

I think your conclusion applies more to your own comments.--Aschlafly 17:21, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

Thanks for your response.--NormaN 18:58, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

Malcolm X and the Nation of Islam

Obama has written that the autobiography of Malcolm X, a Nation of Islam leader, inspired him in his youth. I think this statement needs to be tweaked a bit. While it's true that Malcolm X was a leader in the Nation of Islam (a radical black separatist group, not to be confused with the traditional Islam faith), by the time he wrote his autobiography (as told to Alex Haley, of Roots fame), he had rejected the Nation of Islam and converted to traditional Islam. If Obama was inspired by the book to take up Malcolm's religion (which is a stretch, IMHO, as lots of people have read this book and not become Muslims), he would most likely have chosen traditional Islam like Malcolm did. I think it's important to make that distinction clear. (Unless this item is intended to suggest that Obama is a member of the Nation of Islam? If so, it should be in a different section, as it's quite a different claim.) FWIW, Malcolm X was assassinated in 1965, four years after Obama's birth. Also, the title of the book is The Autobiography of Malcolm X. So I suggest this item be changed to something like:

• Obama has written that reading The Autobiography of Malcolm X inspired him in his youth. Malcolm X converted to traditional Islam after leaving the radical Nation of Islam (a black separatist group).

Sounds considered and precise. Most black muslims are NOT NOI, they are in fact sunni Muslim.--JeanJacques 20:11, 20 October 2008

Obamas Grandmother

Breaking news, Americans still forbidden to speak with Obamas grandmother. Now, we may never. Democrat Barack Obama is canceling nearly all his campaign events Thursday and Friday to fly to Hawaii to visit his suddenly ill 86-year-old grandmother. Campaign spokesman Robert Gibbs told reporters Monday that Obama's grandmother, Madelyn Payne Dunham, who helped raise him, was released from the hospital late last week. But he says her health has deteriorated to the point where her situation is very serious. Gibbs said Obama would return to the campaign trail on Saturday, though he was unsure where. Obama events originally planned for Madison, Wis., and Des Moines, Iowa, on Thursday will be replaced with one in Indianapolis before he makes the long flight to Hawaii. --Jpatt 21:16, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

Suggesting corrections to 'atom bomb' sentance

Hello again,

I think it should not say "atom bombs" because this is slang expression. It should be "atomic bombs" except since 1960s it usually is said "nuclear bombs" and even then there are other weapons from bombs (missles are not bombs, then there are torpedoes and so on) so it should say "nuclear weapons."

Also my memory is fuzzy here but didn't Clinton have ties to other washed up sixties communist terrorists? Like former Black Panther Party people who were re-made into "moderate" democrat politicians.

Finally and this is just style, I do not like the Bold text, it makes look rather alarming, not that we are not alarmed about this, but I think it is best to say the raw facts directly and people will know to be alarmed, instead of trying to shock people with text formatting into coming to their sense. I heard Conservapedia wants to get away from "that other encyclopedia"'s use of sensationism and tabloid style, so, maybe take off the bold. ELeger 21:28, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

other than this a very good job in the article, maybe it is too late to change direction your country is going, but at least people will know who had the facts before things all went wrong! ELeger 21:30, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

I appreciate your comments but don't find them compelling. "Atom bombs" is a familiar term; whether Clinton did likewise concerning terrorists is irrelevant; and bolding is obviously helpful for emphasis. Thanks anyway and Godspeed.--Aschlafly 21:44, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

While I plan to stick to the 90-10 ratio here, and this is the first comment I've made, I did want to note that I agree with Eleger about "Atomic Bombs" or "Nuclear Weapons" simply on the basis of the being more accurate terms. My person phrase of choice would be Nuclear arsenal though. Maybe nitpicking, but I think fair. -EternalCritic

I came to post that too; I also have a problem with "first" part of "If elected, Obama would become the first person having ties to a known terrorist to gain control over America's atom bombs". The most recent Democrat President was bad too. OTOH, something like "second person..." might distract from the point that Obama is a threat.MikeMike

How low can you go?

Is this meant as an "How To" article on character assassination? Though I do find some of the 'links' in the Obama and Islam hilarious, I'd thought that the conservative parts of the US had a shred of dignity left. It appears not to be the case. But keep feeding the lies to your fellow yes-men, the rest of us are quite amused.

We are not going low at all, You Who Did Not Leave Your Name. This entry is nothing about the truth about Barack Obama. Unfortunately, liberals like you will not find out until it is too late.--Saxplayer 21:20, 22 October 2008 (EDT)

"the rest of us are quite amused." I am sure the leftwingers are quite amused of the nonstop Obama media lovefest. I am sure they are also amused at the whole disenfranchisement of voting in a Democracy thanks to ACORN. I am on a conservative website and I can't find a good Obama bio, shucks billybob, I need the Obama I can believe in, let's look at MSNBC... La La La, liberal fantasy land.--Jpatt 21:48, 22 October 2008 (EDT)

In response to the first (unsigned) comment above, liberals enjoy deceit. But not everyone is fooled by it, and liberals get very irritable when they see that.--Aschlafly 21:57, 22 October 2008 (EDT)

Berg Obama lawsuit

Philip J. Berg announced 10/21 that Obama and the DNC “ADMITTED”, by way of failure to timely respond to Requests for Admissions, all of the numerous specific requests in the Federal lawsuit. Obama is “NOT QUALIFIED” to be President and therefore Obama must immediately withdraw his candidacy for President. [9]--Jpatt 10:26, 23 October 2008 (EDT)

The "admission" is nothing more than an acknowledgment that there was no response to his suit, so Berg is claiming that this qualifies as an admission that all his allegations are true. Berg's now positioning this as "Obama admits he's not a citizen", but that is legal spin, not reality, and I'd be hesitant to claim it as anything other than the latest round in a lawsuit. --DinsdaleP 10:52, 23 October 2008 (EDT)

There's a legal principle that the silent are understood to consent. Obama's failure to deny Berg's request for admission means that he admits those items under the law. This definitely should be included, and should be reason enough to disqualify him from the election. QWest 16:03, 25 October 2008 (EDT)

The judge in the Berg-Obama case has tossed out the suit [10]--Saxplayer 16:30, 25 October 2008 (EDT)

Just because an activist judge tossed out the suit doesn't mean that the admissions don't count. I'm sure Berg will appeal. QWest 16:54, 25 October 2008 (EDT)

Is the judge activist? Is there reason to believe he's an Obama partisan? Marcdaniels 11:38, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

Lefty DindaleP was right, though it shouldn't be hard to find a sympathetic judge in Democrat bastion of Philadelphia. If, if the bozo (obama) wins, this issue will not go away easily and will be justification for impeachment. Though, will be hard to impeach with super-majority liberal congress, God help us. --Jpatt 12:35, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

Actually, McCain has a similar issue, in that he was not born in the US, and arguably not on US territory. Most every single scholar I've read in the last few days on this has said McCain's case will be a compelling one, legally, because no court in the land would dare say a person born out of this country to two citizens, one of whom was SERVING HIS COUNTRY, would be denied the right to be president. As we become more and more of a mobile population, with people traveling and living overseas for extended periods of time (business, government, or travel) I think more children will be born of two natural citizens, but not on the US territory. I will be curious to watch how the term "Natural Born Citizen" is defined by the Court under any case, Obama or McCain, just for the historical precedent it will set. --JeanJacques 12:41, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

By the way, Qwest, there is no legal principal that "silence is admittance". Until or unless a Judge posts an Order compelling you to provide a particular document or telling you to agree or deny, you are not obligated to. Some instances this might be used could include famous people being hit over and over again with frivolis lawsuits, just cause they have money or power.--JeanJacques 12:52, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

McCain was born in United States territory, which the Panama Canal Zone was prior to 1978, when by treaty it was turned over to Panama. Anyone born in the United States, its territories, or its overseas military bases is an American citizen. Karajou 13:18, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

Yes, very much an American citizen. The interesting language is "Natural Born Citizen". That is what will be interesting to see how it's defined. I think it makes rational sense that anyone born to American parents should be "natural born", regardless of where they are born. But the Framers didn't explain the terms. (I'm not arguing, by the way, for any point. I'm simply saying scholars say this issue of an American Citizen not born on US land has not yet been addressed - or rather, what do the words "natural born" mean, in that context.) The lawsuit for McCain is totally irrelevant (even though the judge has not seen fit to toss it yet), since the Congress already said he is exempt per their own Resolution. --JeanJacques 13:23, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

Birthplace and Grammar Revisited

Barack Hussein Obama, II (allegedly born in Honolulu,[1][2] August 4, 1961) Putting aside all issues about whether the "where Obama was born" issue is worth mentioning, given that it is going to be mentioned, let's get it right. The issue (as a previous poster mentioned somewhere above), is not whether he was born - we all agree on that. The issue is whether he was born in Honolulu. Thus the phrase should read: Barack Hussein Obama, II (born, allegedly in Honolulu,[1][2] August 4, 1961) --Hsmom 21:06, 23 October 2008 (EDT)

Request addition

I would like to add this external page and somehow link to this photo Democrat_Obama_during_the_Pledge.jpg No hand over heart from Obama during national anthem video| Original footage ABC, now available through RawStory Media. Fair use --Jpatt 14:07, 25 October 2008 (EDT)

Will unlock for you now. Thanks.--Aschlafly 14:13, 25 October 2008 (EDT)

First Muslim President

I found this claim quite amusing at first, especially with Snopes already had it debunked quite extensively : http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/muslim.asp

Then I remember that we, Indonesian, also got the wrong information. We thought Obama is a muslim, and we rejoiced. We found out later that (1) clearly his parents are quite liberal on religions (2) the context at that time in Indonesia is that most Muslims were not religious. We were pretty laid back then. My parents drink alcohol and misses their obligatory religious duties.

So even if (again, IF) Obama was a Muslim, there's no way he's enrolled in a "radical Wahabi school". It just didn't exist back then.

Anyway, if we, Indonesians, were wrong about Obama at his time in Indonesia, it's quite understandable if others were also mistaken. --Sufehmi 11:47, 9 November 2008 (EST)

"If elected, Obama would likely become the first Muslim President". The evidence pointing to Obama being a Muslim can be included, but Barack Obama has said he is a Christian, and is a member of the United Church of Christ. So is saying he is likely to become a Muslim president meant to imply that Obama is secretly a Muslim? Perhaps a better phrased version of this sentence would be "If elected, Obama would become the first president with a strong leaning toward Islam". This is concurrent list that follows it, and is much less hypothetical like a good resource should be. --anonymous123 21:52, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

Obama's claims to be a Christian are meaningless for three reasons; first, his distinctly non-Christian stance on issues such as abortion and the homosexual agenda; second, the radical, Marxist theology preached by his church; and third, the Muslim concept of taqiyya outlined in the article. All the of the evidence points away from his being a Christian. SMichaels 16:06, 28 October 2008 (EDT)

Using Taqiyya as a defense is a joke. I'm not doubting it's authenticity, but I could claim the same thing about you and you would have no defense. See Salem Witch Trials for more information. --Limbo 09:42, 1 November 2008 (EDT)

Obama's stances on abortion the homosexual agenda and Marxism do take credibility away from his Chrisitian stance, but Muslims are against abortion, homosexualiity and women's rights themselves. Furthermore, Marxism is against all religions, and if his church preaches Marxism, that makes him a Marxist Christian, not a Marxist Muslim. While I myself question his faith in Jesus, I sincerely doubt that he is a Muslim. And as for Taqiyya? Isn't that just an obscure segment of a doctrine practiced only by some Sunnis and considered hypocrisy by other muslims? Justice Is Blind

The facts you gave are true, but you did not address my bringing up the idea of rewording the phrase. Having a set of words like "might be" or "could be" seem extremely unscholarly. Those facts you threw up also would correspond to him having a strong leaning toward Islam, minus the hypothetical thought he might be a Muslim. --anonymous123 23:03, 28 October 2008 (EDT)

The truth is what it is, whether you find it "unscholarly" or not. We're not fooled here when politicians try to deceive the public about who they are and what they believe.--Aschlafly 10:00, 29 October 2008 (EDT)

Why is it so hard to directly answer my question? First off, do not mix my words, I said the way the sentence is phrased is not scholarly, what is truth or not does not matter to me. I don't really care what you say is the truth, and what you are or are not fooled by. I am just bringing up the option that as long as Obama himself and no mosques claim he is a member, perhaps it should be reworded to "If elected, Obama would become the first president with a strong leaning toward Islam", which also corresponds to the list that follows it, and is all based on fact no conjecture. The reader should have the right to make up their own mind after reading the examples which are listed. --anonymous123 22:18, 29 October 2008 (EDT)

There are strong evidence that Obama is a muslim and it has been layed out again and again. He has never come out and said he's not a muslim among all the questions. There for if elected, he will be the first muslim president ever elected. It's as simple as that. --Patriot1505

Sure he has. [11]--KathrynMonroe 22:23, 31 October 2008 (EDT)

Yes, he has. [12] --Limbo 09:42, 1 November 2008 (EDT)

Barack raises the bar

The snide accusation that Barack Obama insulted America because he refused to hold his hand over his heart is completely off-target. (See photo at top of article). The human heart is just a pump , medically speaking, but culturally it represents the finest, most vital and sensitive parts of our soul. Barack is indicating precisely how much he loves America by putting not one, but both hands over that part of his body which truly encompasses the most vital, potent and sincere components of his soul. Bill Clinton might not be his biggest fan, but he would be the first to applaud this magnificent gesture. MylesP 23:37, 31 October 2008 (EDT)

 ??? --Limbo 09:36, 1 November 2008 (EDT)

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL Aperson41 01:50, 5 November 2008 (EST)

Wow. I have no idea of what to say to that.--JArneal 19:07, 6 November 2008 (EST)

A hypothetical article

The vast majority of this article appears to be purely hypothetical and some of it seems to be fradulent, such as the pornographer donation and the speculation that Obama is a muslim. It is refreshing to see Obama in such a sober light, but I would encourage previous and future writers to be less interested in controversy, and to use legitimate information on the article instead.

Also, the article lacks structure, and seems to dive in and out of his history, his policies, quotations in a manner which pleases the tone. It is all quite juvenile and sad; an encyclopedia is where questions are answered, not where additional questions are brought up.

Birth Certificate Controversy

The whole section should be reworded or entirely deleted. According to this, there can be no more doubt about Obama's birthplace. The article also states, that Obama has no right to release his birth certificate, so all demands for him to do that can only be part of a smear campaign. --Ascat 15:22, 1 November 2008 (EDT)

Agreed. For more confirmation see KITV Honolulu and Fox News' article about Web political rumors. Having 'allegedly' made sense before all the facts were on the table, but now I'm removing the word because it lessens the strength of our true, verifiable criticisms if we leave it there. Jinkas 20:58, 1 November 2008 (EDT)

What about the lawsuit against him about this? [13]--Limbo 21:23, 1 November 2008 (EDT)

The lawsuits all fell through, because anyone looking at the official documents could tell that they were real, it was a manufactured controversy thanks to Hillary (boy I wish expletives were allowed on conservapedia). --Brendanw 16:49, 3 November 2008 (EST)

This issue remains valid even though rejected by the courts. Expect it to be revisited if he wins. Plus, allegiances owed to Keyna and Indonesia are part of the birth certificate controversy. Neither gossip nor the certificate proven true and Hawaii actions are unexplained, still. --Jpatt 17:06, 3 November 2008 (EST)

My version doesn't violate comandments 1, 3, and 5 like the version that was removed. --Brendanw 17:24, 3 November 2008 (EST)

I don't like the edit, but I will let it remain. It does violate CP with personal opinion, (costly time and money during busy election season). --Jpatt 17:30, 3 November 2008 (EST)

The tone is bad I will admit, but that is all fact and not opinion. Is it an opinion or a fact that it takes tie to sit in court for several days? Is it an opinion or a fact that it takes money to pay court costs and extra lawyers? Is it an opinion or a fact that he is in a campaign where the outcome depends largely on the tie and money he spends campaigning? --Brendanw 17:44, 3 November 2008 (EST)

JPatt, could you explain "allegiance to Kenya?" I don't understand this comment.--JeanJacques 17:57, 3 November 2008 (EST)

The original post on this page says "that Obama has no right to release his birth certificate." I do not believe this to be what the original article says. I think it means simply that no state official has the authority to release publicly a birth certificate, not that Obama himself is unable to do so. TGeary 20:15, 3 November 2008 (EST)

Mr. Obama's Grandmother just died

Without getting into politics, it would be nice to mention it respectfully on his page.--JeanJacques 17:33, 3 November 2008 (EST)

Do we have any reputable sources for that? Given Obama's history of engaging in liberal deceit, I wouldn't put it past him to fabricate a story like this to nullify attacks on Election Day. Neutronium 14:06, 4 November 2008 (EST)

May I say, comments like this are what hurt our republican party this year. His politics may be liberal, but he's still a human and making fun of a death of a loved one is beneath a good Christian. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JeanJacques (talk)

Neutronium, keep the parody to a minimum, please. That is simply heartless.

JeanJacques, yes, if it's relevant (do we have the mention of grandparents on anyone else's page? I don't know without looking) the we need it added in a respectful way. No matter what we think about Obama, he is a human and so is his grandmother. The was it is presented now, it almost seems as if we are implying that her death contributes to the controversy, when it clearly doesn't. HelpJazz 18:54, 4 November 2008 (EST)

Neutronium, there is a difference between being a cautious & prudent person, and being a paranoid, heartless person (i use the word "person" only due to the website rules of proper conduct). You would do well to realize that...AndrewM

Obama attending his Grandma's funeral? No mention from the O-MSM! --Jpatt 01:03, 10 November 2008 (EST)

This Is Why Obama Is Wining

Articles like this make me think that Conservapedia is run by liberals. Burying real facts like Obama's membership in a Black Liberation Theology church, with silly lies like he is a "muslim", only serve to discredit real objections to the Obama candidacy.

Agreed. Congratulayions Andy, you did more for the Democrats than you can possibly know. Thoroughly discrediting this site with ridiculous partisan accusations based onm the flimsiest of evidence meant that anything that was a genuine talking point just got lost among the nonsense. That many on the left pointed to this page to discredit the entire conservapedia idea just goes to show that you can go too far. Congratulations for playing your part in losing the election and being successfully gamed by the left, who knew that you would leave tenuous ridiculous nonsense up.

Let's not badmouth the side that lost. Andy, you did your best, and I appreciate that. However, you can see from my comments from way back, that the Obama article was way too extreme, and included a number of outright falsehoods. Not saying that this lost the race for McCain, but going too extreme eventually starts to hurt. Like in business - a good CEO is someone who is willing to go to the edge of what is legal, but not cross that line. Those CEO's who stay on the edge are winners, those who go over, go to jail. Same thing here...I think the whole Republican campaign was just too darn negative, and put off a lot of undecided voters. Anyway, here's looking forward to President Schwarzenegger in 2012...

Both sides were overly negative, but in reality that's a natural thing for long campaigns. The longer it runs the less fresh the ideas seem. It gets repetetive so after a while, in order to keep things fresh, mudslinging becomes common. I honestly wish we had a much shorter election time frame. Like six months max. EternalCritic 13:41, 5 November 2008 (EST)

I've just decided that this site's main contributors are probably liberals messing around with people. I bet there are some liberals somewhere getting a huge laugh at people who are seriously offended, or seriously believe half of these articles.

I have decided the same thing, though maybe not to that extent.--JArneal 19:11, 6 November 2008 (EST)

Is going to be the next president

Barack Obama has won the election, and I think this should be added to the page. Arthur205 00:12, 5 November 2008 (EST)

Yes he is, sadly. I encourage all of us to PRAY for the FATE OF OUR COUNTRY. Unfortunately, this page must be updated. LuvinGodDP 10:10, 5 November 2008 (EST)

I'm surprised no one has updated it yet, it's been over 12 hours since it's been announced. Honestly this sort of time lag on the internet is just sad. You would think that they would at least un-protect it in order for someone else to update it. --Rainedaye 10:13, 5 November 2008 (EST)

Barack Obama is the 44th President of the United States of America

Article should be updated accordingly

President-Elect, technically speaking. He won't be President until he's inaugurated, and we should hold off on explicitly saying he's the winner until the electoral college has voted (not that I'm pretending there's any real chance of 100+ faithless electors suddenly popping up to help McCain). Right now, he's just the likely winner of the presidential race. --JeremyDB 12:24, 5 November 2008 (EST)

Let's not disrespect McCain's gracious concession. We should put in that he's the President Elect and when he will be inaugurated. Let's at least be up to date. EternalCritic 12:56, 5 November 2008 (EST)

The first section of this article has been updated to reflect that Obama is now president-elect, but the rest needs to be updated also. For instance, the section entitled "Obama would be the first Muslim President" should now be "Obama will be the first Muslim President," "will use the Koran to be sworn in," etc. -Rfreeman 18:04, 5 November 2008 (EST)

What happening with the muslim section?

I don't see why it needs to be above the TOC, The TOC lets people find what they are looking for, which may very well be proof that he is a Muslim, and really should be on the first page for formatting reasons.

Also some points that really stand out to me,

• Obama's middle name (Hussein) references its namesake Husayn, who was the grandson of Muhammad, which most Christians would not retain.

In this case the reference should be after the word Muhammad, because it does not reference the notion that christians would have there name changed, also it is his fathers name, and if he changed it it could negatively impact his relationship with his family, I would not consider this strong evidence. Seems like Opinion to me

• Obama recently referred to his "Muslim faith." You do know that the video cited as its source showed clearly that he was talking about a tactic that McCain could use, not his real faith (I strongly suspect Obama to be pretty apathetic to religion)
• On the campaign trail Obama has been reading "The Post-American World" by Fareed Zakaria, which is written from a Muslim point-of-view. If reading a book written in a muslim POV makes you a muslim than how do we know what is in this book, because we can't trust anyone who read it to not be a muslim. If he were seen praying out the the qran that would be another story entirely.
• Obama uses the Muslim Pakistani pronunciation for "Pakistan" rather than the common American one. Pakistan is an islamic nation, the american way of saying it is a bastardized version, he is using the name the nation calls its self.

I really think that this should be reworded in to prose and that it needs to be below the TOC.--Brendanw 13:46, 5 November 2008 (EST)

Copyediting needed

I know that updating things like this as the news changes is tough, but:

"Barack Hussein Obama II (born in Honolulu,[1][2] August 4, 1961), Democratic Party member, junior senator of the state of Illinois, and president-elect of the United States, winning the 2008 Election over Arizona Senator John McCain [3]."

is not a sentence... Human 14:17, 5 November 2008 (EST)

I know they won't let me because I'm too new and can be a bit controversial, but I would love to rewrite the entire first paragraph. It has become such a muddled mess that it doesn't read well at all. EternalCritic 14:27, 5 November 2008 (EST)

Muslim?

That section of the article looks like its attempting to proove that he is a muslim. Why not simply say "some prominent christian sites including X and Y have suggested that Obama may be a muslim". It currently looks like it's trying to make people think that he is a muslim, and that for some reason that's bad. What's wrong with muslims?--Newguy123 16:15, 5 November 2008 (EST)

I think the point is that - no there is nothing wrong with being a Muslim but lying about it for political gain is a problem. AdamBeyer 16:32, 5 November 2008 (EST)

Again, that makes the presupposition being that someone lies when all you have is superficial, rather strained evidence to say he isn't lying. Not very gracious on our part. There are plenty of legitimate issues with Mr. Obama. Living in gossip and innuendo and "he once made a mistake when talking" seems petty on our part. Isn't it more important to emphasis why he is a socialist? All we say is "he is", not what that means, and how it could effect the country, etc. It bothers me that this site emphasizes gossip.--JeanJacques 16:42, 5 November 2008 (EST)

Personally I dont think he is a Muslim however I am not going to kick up a fuss as I was already warned by Aschlafly (is he the boss?) for....something I did? Not sure what. AdamBeyer 16:45, 5 November 2008 (EST)

I think it's funny how at the beginning of the article it claims he is a muslim, and then at the end discusses his previous church and pastor. It even lists 1988 as his year of baptism despite the beginning of the article stating he didn't have a date for baptism, which for everyone here in the conservapedia zone seems to take as undeniable proof he is a super secret muslim spy out for your children and pets. Seriously though, I've mentioned it above that having an article for the current president of the U.S. start out with a poor and unnecessary argument over his faith is unprofessional at best. The beginning makes no valid points, manages to insult Muslims as a whole, and also contains that stupid picture of Obama in a traditional Kenyan costume.--Rainedaye 23:17, 5 November 2008 (EST)

A Muslim President-elect!

Since the article assures us the Barack is a secret Muslim and would if elected become the first Muslim President of the United States, for consistency's sake, it should now be updated by something like the following:

"Now that the unthinkable has occurred and Obama has duped the American People and stolen the election, he will become the first Muslim President, and will probably use the Koran to be sworn into office."

and:

"It is widely believed that now he is President-elect, Obama will drop the tiresome pretence of being a Christian and produce his other wives from hiding, don a turban and a scimitar, pray buns-up five times a day on a Persian carpet while facing Mecca, have a minaret built on top of the White House from which he will personally play the role of the muezzin and call the faithful to prayer, will establish policy recommending that “the Zionist entity be driven into the sea”, and put bin Laden’s face on the American dollar. The week after that will probably be even worse." If no one objects, I will make some such interpolations in the article proper. MylesP 23:30, 5 November 2008 (EST)

The ADL said:

• "Prager is flat-out wrong when he asserts that Representative Ellison's use of a Koran would be 'damaging to the fabric of American civilization.' To the contrary, the U.S. Constitution guarantees that, 'no religious test shall ever be required' to hold public office in America. Members of Congress, like all Americans, should be free to observe their own religious practices without government interference or coercion. [14]

I wonder what all the fuss is about. Certainly there have been radical Muslims who support anti-US terrorism, but politically motivated distortions do not make Islam a wicked religion. Is Christianity to be rejected because of the abuses of the Crusades, the Inquisition, or the fact that Anglo-American Christians held slaves? --Ed Poor ^Talk 11:14, 12 November 2008 (EST)

"70's terrorist"

I object to Ayers being referred to as a "terrorist from the 70's"

he is a "terrorist" end of story. once a terrorist, always a terrorist

we won't call Bin Laden a "2000's terrorist" in 2050

Mike770781 00:22, 6 November 2008 (EST)

Good point, Mike770781. Thanks for the edit. --Hsmom 00:24, 6 November 2008 (EST)

The man is a functioning member of society, an educator, a family man, who has condemns his past actions, and has worked greatly towards improving the lives of others through charity work. He was a part of a group that destroyed property, which doesn't make him a terrorist because that would imply he did random acts of terror on people. Blowing up statues and parts of buildings was wrong but they did not go after people, and no one was hurt or killed. To compare him to Bin Laden is despicable. And to put a section about this man at the top of the page of Presidential-elect Obama who worked with him in an organization to help reduce poverty levels is neither well thought out or tactful. --Rainedaye 08:46, 6 November 2008 (EST)

Except that the Weather Underground did in fact kill people - 3 of their own, in a bomb-making accident. Sometimes that happens when you set off bombs, even if it's not what you had in mind. I would put other property-destruction crimes such as cross burning in the terror category as well. I do agree that Obama's association with Ayres is minimal, at best, and I have huge issues with all the guilt-by-association tactics employed by the McCain campaign. I'm not taking a stand on the content of this article one way or another. I'm just trying to organize it and cite it as best I can. --Hsmom 09:17, 6 November 2008 (EST)

I don't believe an accidental death of their own people should be considered "terror" though. People could technically die while making signs for a normal type of protest, not as likely, but an accident is an accident. Although I do think that some property destruction like cross burning could be argued to be terroristic because it is done in order to terrify a group of people and incite violence against that group. However I still think that what the weather underground did does not quite carry that same connotations. They were protesting a war, and doing so by costing the government money and drawing attention to their cause, at no time was a group of people targeted in a way that would indicate that they were in danger directly from a hostile organization, unless you were an office desk or a public statue/monument. To use the word "terrorist", especially nowadays, in the case of Bill Ayers is misleading, and it is a word that should not be tossed around lightly. It seems that people believe that Ayers = Terrorist, so therefore he must have killed people or tried to kill people, and this article does little to correct this misconception. --Rainedaye 10:41, 6 November 2008 (EST)

MInd Control? Really now?

The people who published this lost what little credibility they had when they published this. Repeating it on this page just makes you look bad. I mean an O looks like a crystal ball? First of all it also looks like an orange or a penny or anything else that is round and circular. Also, I think that crystal balls are the favorite of fortune tellers so unless Obama can predict the future (which I think might make him a better president) this doesn't mean much. --Rainedaye 10:54, 6 November 2008 (EST)

I agree. I am a practicing stage hypnotist (practicing because I still need work :) and I can tell you that most hypnotists use nothing but their voices and physical presence, and those who do use props traditionally use a pencil. SamuelA 13:21, 6 November 2008 (EST)

Absence of Dancing

Dancing is a popular form of celebration and partying by all ethnicities. But why is Barack Obama rarely seen dancing, or even allowing and attending dancing. Perhaps I've missed it (please let me know if I have). I know, there was one highly staged politically correct dance with Ellen DeGeneris as Obama was catering to her audience. But where's the rest?

One explanation is that the Islamic sharia disfavors dancing.[15] --Aschlafly 11:08, 6 November 2008 (EST)

When's the last time you went dancing, Andy? HDCase 11:23, 6 November 2008 (EST)

um, lol?

Dancing in Puerto Rico

Dancing to Snoop Dogg

so there it is... at least three different places where he's seen dancing. Here's my question: lets see you find videos of Mccain dancing! xP your Islamic assumption thingy holds no water since you can say the same for McCain! Ema 11:26, 6 November 2008 (EST)

Ah! Ema, don't be fooled by this deceit, he might secretly be a whirling dervish! They're members of Sufi Islam, by the way. --Wikinterpreter

I took a look at the Puerto Rico video. It proves my point. I've never seen anyone dance-without-dancing like that. Have you?

It will be fascinating to see how long it takes people to wake up to who Obama really is. Judging by the determined objections above, it may be quite a while for some of his supporters.--Aschlafly 12:06, 6 November 2008 (EST)

Your argument is that he is a bad dancer so he must be a Muslim? Seriously Andrew, take a deep breath and relax, proving him to be a Muslim is not going to get him impeached, he has the presidency and that is that. In four years it might matter, but that means you have poor years to find less circumstantial evidence. --Brendanw 12:27, 6 November 2008 (EST)

No, Brendanw, it is obviously not my argument that he is a "bad dancer." I think you understand my argument perfectly well and won't admit it. Suit yourself.--Aschlafly 12:31, 6 November 2008 (EST)

Brendan's right about one thing at least. All the evidence listed is either circumstantial or draws illogical conclusions. The one about him when he says he joins a church after a suggestion does not in any way imply him as a muslim, though it might imply him as a disingenuous Christian. The two are mutually exclusive. EternalCritic 12:38, 6 November 2008 (EST)

Well please explain it to me differently, initially you said he didn't dance, and now that we have three videos of it you say that he "dances with out dancing" what does that mean if not bad dancer? --Brendanw 12:45, 6 November 2008 (EST)

Andy's saying that, in those three videos, Obama isn't really dancing, in the sense of crossing a line of Muslim (im)morality. It's like being against swearing, but recognizing that words like "heck" and "geez" don't really cross that line. That said, however, I did run across a video where Obama dances by anyone's definition.--RossC 14:25, 6 November 2008 (EST)

RossC, this video is obviously faked. BHarlan 14:32, 6 November 2008 (EST)

I wonder if he will dance at his inaugural ball, if it gets to that point. (see: Berg) BHarlan 13:47, 6 November 2008 (EST)

In some Islamic traditions dancing is not allowed, in some christian traditions dancing is not allowed, some people regardless of religion just don't dance with enthusiasm (was he supposed to be [dancing inappropriately with] Ellen? While Barrack is a hottie I'm not sure she would let him do that) I was raised catholic and as a result I am a very quiet person who does not raise his arms in celebration. This is just such a far stretch that it doesn't mean anything. Heck if he were keeping his faith hidden and not praying to meca and not following the rules of Islam in order to complete the 35 year long mission that was trained in to him at a public school in indonesia at the age of 10 don't you think he would dance anyways? And his wife is a great dancer, in Islam men have a whole lot more freedom than women. this just doesn't add up to anything but crazy. --Brendanw 15:30, 6 November 2008 (EST)

I love to dance. For what it's worth, I have seen an Obama campaign button with a picture of him dancing, and the words "Dance Yes We Can" on it. It caught my eye because I take dance lessons. See here [16] for a picture of the button. Over the years, I have met homeschooling moms of various faiths (Christian, Muslim, Jewish) who are careful about their children dancing for modesty reasons. Not everyone enjoys dancing, of course, particularly men. While it's an interesting facet of Obama, to be honest I don't see it as a strong indicator of his religious beliefs. When weaker arguments are included, it detracts from the stronger ones, I think. --Hsmom 21:21, 6 November 2008 (EST)

I don't dance, and I can assure you that I'm not a Muslim. I'm a lousy dancer, and self-conscious about it. I also don't have a tinfoil hat, which might be why this whole conversation seems ludicrous to me. Godspeed.Thecount 21:40, 6 November 2008 (EST)

The very conservative former Prime Minister of Australia, John Howard, did not dance in public. This is despite the fact that his treasurer, Peter Costello, and his rival and current Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, both danced on national television. Is this evidence that John Howard is a Muslim? Certainly not. There is a much less sinister and blatantly obvious explanation for Obama's lack of dancing - he isn't good at it. Just have a look at the videos posted, he has clearly received minimal dance instruction and is evidently self conscious.

And just out of curiosity, has anyone actually seen John McCain dance? How about Palin or Biden? If these three have not then why should the explanation for their lack of participation not be extended to Obama? NormanS 22:05, 6 November 2008 (EST)

Not to mention the fact that Spectral Evidence was outlawed in America back in the 1600's after 19 people were murdered for being accused of witchcraft. Get with the times, Schlafly. DRuss 08:51, 7 November 2008 (EST)

What is different about Obama that makes it unusual for him to not be much of a dancer? Corry 09:45, 7 November 2008 (EST)

Still waiting on an answer, Andy. When'd you last hit the dance floor? HDCase 15:43, 7 November 2008 (EST)

Though irrelevant to the issue, I dance in times of celebration, and have also arranged for the availability of dancing by attendees at such events. Pursue this irrelevancy further and your account will be blocked, per my comment on your talk page.--Aschlafly 16:41, 7 November 2008 (EST)

He does somewhat have a point, even if his methods of conveying it are a little childish. He's pretty much pointing out that your accusation opens up a big can of worms. If I was to say that Obama's lack of dancing must mean he is Muslim due to Islamic Sharia, I could also say that if I saw you sitting on the floor you must be a Muslim who is kneeling to Mecca. St0dad 09:09, 8 November 2008 (EST)

Simple solution to this whole thing. Islam does not forbid dancing. Amazing no? Islam forbids certain kinds of dancing. Such as dancing involving the men and women who are not married, and dancing with the intention to be provocative. Of course there are always members of a group who are more conservative with religious laws (no dancing at all) or more liberal with laws (any dancing is ok) but as written, Dancing is allowed as long as it is well mannered, does not stimulate desires, and does not mix men and women who are not married.

That being said, there are also christian groups that forbid dancing as well. For much the same reasons. So just because Obama doesn't dance enough for your satisfaction does not mean anything regarding religion.--ScottA 22:50, 11 November 2008 (EST)

Anti Americanism

Many points in this article could be summarized into a section called "Anti Americanism"

I'm surprised this hasn't been done already. Anti Americanism should be a given a very prominent place in this article.

I like this idea because I feel the article is too fragmented and not organized. People are adding self contained ideas in various points in the article, especially at the top, which disrupts the flow and readablity. I cleaned up the first paragraph, but I can't smooth up everything MikeMike

If I make such an edit will I be banned? Mike770781 13:01, 6 November 2008 (EST)

"Muslim Faith" comment

I believe Barack Obama is a Muslim or at least more sympathetic to them than Christians, but the "Muslim Faith" statement is taken out of context. I removed it as part of the evidence of him being Muslim.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wpoAVAA1F30

Mike770781 13:06, 6 November 2008 (EST)

I don't like that video btw, I only posted it to show the full context Mike770781 13:07, 6 November 2008 (EST)

On a side note, the entire section, for accuracy's sake, should be called "Why Barack Obama is not a Christian" since the only parts that are not circumstantial are in regard to disingenuous Christianity. Beyond that the idea of him not changing his name making him muslim is ridiculous. He was named for his Father. Example from reality: my middle name is Paul. I received it fromt he name of my grandfather. I'm no longer Christian. But I don't change my middle name because I no longer believe Paul's words. I keep it because I love and respect my grandfather. EternalCritic 13:14, 6 November 2008 (EST)

I partially agree. Maybe there should be two sections. One detailing Anti-Christian facts and one for Pro-Muslim Mike770781 13:17, 6 November 2008 (EST)

Schlafly reverted my change ... Why? Mike770781 14:18, 6 November 2008 (EST)

Because you don't agree with him.EternalCritic 15:14, 6 November 2008 (EST)

So it's Schlaflypedia then? I had high hopes for Conservapedia Mike770781 15:17, 6 November 2008 (EST)

I reverted your change because you deleted factual information. That reason should be obvious.--Aschlafly 19:41, 6 November 2008 (EST)

Socialistic

It is interesting to note that the MSM has buried the exact phrase and can only be found on blogs. The media will use the third person term, e.g. "Obama responds to McCains allegations of Socialistic." The quote itself is relevent. A play on words to blunt its' true impact. Actual charges of 'Socialism' or of being a 'Socialist'. Nobody uses "Socialistic"--Jpatt 15:26, 6 November 2008 (EST)

Wait

Can someone please explain to me how Barack Obama is a Muslim? Thanks. Rockthecasbah 23:12, 6 November 2008 (EST)

Clearly someone's not paying attention. Not that I endorse the, uh, theory, but there's a whoooooole big section about it in the article. And several discussions on this talk page. HelpJazz 23:15, 6 November 2008 (EST)

At this point the very thought that he's a Muslim is preposterous. No Muslim would willingly put Rahm Emmanuel, someone so notably Jewish and pro israel in such a powerful position (chief of staff). All in all though, a pretty good choice from the pool. EternalCritic 23:27, 6 November 2008 (EST)

Obama isn't a muslim. He doesn't have the character we see on the trail to do so. I think Obama will be an awful President, is not a christian (it's too liberal), supports infanticide and sodomy, and won't do almost any of the thigs he has promised. That aside I don't think he's a muslim. Alot of the proof is probably just part of his warped view of multi-culturism, which includes the so-called peaceful religion of Allah and Muhammed. This should be placed on a different page and other more certain information placed on this page (e.g. a better photo should be placed on the top, not a picture of him which tries to accuse his patriotism.) He is going to be President, a bad one, but one nonetheless. Please, let us respect the authority of our time. Additioner 07:34, 7 November 2008 (EST)

Think about this: If I had told you on September 12 2001, that in 6 years we'd ellect a liberal, socialist muslim named Barack Hussein Obama, who has terrorist friends, you call me crazy. But here we are. Patriot1505

Connections with Irish Terrorists

I note that a liberal contributor has seen fit to add a line stating that The Republic of Ireland refused to extradite Rita O'Hare -- the IRA terrorist who Obama met last year -- for one of several alleged offences. Why is this of any interest? She served time in the Republic for smuggling explosives. So that country's legal authorities were in no doubt as to her status. Does Wikipedia regard shooting British soldiers in Northern Ireland as a "political offence"? If so, then should we regard killing American soldiers in Iraq the same way? I don't think so. --KeithJoseph 18:29, 7 November 2008 (GMT)

Well spoken Keith! I intend to contact the Irish Embassy in Washington and ask that they make a clear statement condemning our Marxist Terrorist President-Elect's meeting with these vile killers. I would encourage ASchlafly to perhaps make a television appearance about this? As a lawyer, I'm sure he can speak to the international law aspects of this very serious matter. What's next I wonder - how soon are Nobama's Shining Path, Khmer Rouge, Sandanista, and Red Brigade friends going to crawl their way from their terrorist swamps into the halls of Washington power?! Not long I'll bet! ArnieS 13:34, 7 November 2008 (EST)

Nodanca was was probably a member of the FLQ, too! HDCase 18:38, 7 November 2008 (EST)

Actually, it was the High Court in the Republic of Ireland that regarded her case as falling under the exemptions for 'political offences'. That is why they refused to extradite her to N. Ireland. Also, Arnie S., if you truly are indignant about the "vile killer" Rita O'Hare, why don't you call your members of Congress to condemn the fact that she is the duly appointed Sinn Fein Representative to the US. Tordenvaer 18:37, 7 November 2008 (EST)

I don't understand. I genuinely don't understand. My edit to the Obama page on this subject has been deleted as being "inappropriate and silly". What is the distinction between a link with the Weather Underground and a link with the IRA? Why are inverted commas placed around “terrorism” (like this) when discussing the latter organisation and not when deriding Bill Ayres's mob. I suppose it's different -- and less significant -- when Obama's pals are blowing up Irish folk rather than Americans. Would it be different if he were pictured grinning next to some PLO hoodlum? --KeithJoseph 02:42, 8 November 2008 (GMT)

Tordenvaer (if that is your real name), I already HAVE called my member of Congress about the matter - I don't mess around! The Sinn Feiners are a terrible organization with deep terrorist roots who killed many British soldiers and people over a hundred years in Ireland. I'm as surprised as Keith is about the removal of his well-referenced material. ArnieS 21:57, 7 November 2008 (EST)

Guys, grind your ax about Irish "terrorism" somewhere else. Obama has no plausible connection with it and I'm not going to waste any more time on this silliness.--Aschlafly 22:01, 7 November 2008 (EST)

Andy, why do you place quote marks around the word terrorism? -- Ferret _{Nice old chat} 22:08, 7 November 2008 (EST)

<- I'm not going to get involved in any discussion here, but it appears a lot of you know a fair bit about Rita O'Hare. I have started her article, please contribute and spread your knowledge. NormanS 22:13, 7 November 2008 (EST)

If the site administrator does not think this worthy of inclusion then there is no point arguing the case. But I must again ask -- the question is reiterated above by Ferret -- why this site puts inverted commas around terrorism when discussing the IRA, but not when discussing the Weather Underground. The slaughter of innocent Northern Irish people may seem "silly" to you. It does not to us. --KeithJoseph 12:36, 8 November 2008 (GMT)

Could be because Irish terrorism was largely funded by US "Irish" Catholics? GeorgeK 07:48, 8 November 2008 (EST)

Inciting hatred

Wow, have you ever asked yourselves "What would Jesus do?". I hardly think He would write such a biased and bigoted "factual" article. Real Christians don't need this sort of tripe. People are worked up over fundamentalist muslims, but it is writing like this that brings hatred on Christians and Americans and makes you just as bad, if not worse, than them. This was the first article I have ever read on Conservapedia and it will be http://www.conservapedia.com/skins/common/images/button_sig.pngthe last. WWJD?

Jesus came to tell the truth, no one can deny that. And many people hated Him for it, obviously.--Aschlafly 10:02, 9 November 2008 (EST)

"I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ." -Gandhi

Now who's the ONE? Wikified 10:41, 9 November 2008 (EST)

Gandhi deserves much respect, but I've never heard Christians cite him as an authority on Christianity. I wouldn't expect a Christian to interpret Gandhi's religion for him either.--Aschlafly 15:10, 9 November 2008 (EST)

Trust, but verify; then get an eight day block

Trust, but verify. Though he was not the originator of this quote, it was one of Ronald Reagan's favorites. He quoted it when signing treaties with the Soviet Union and it's a useful concept in today's society. It was in the spirit of this quote that I first read and edited at this encyclopedia.

The commandments and guidelines appear to support Reagan's idiom, yet some of the people in charge feel they can rule with an iron fist and pick and choose which rules they want to follow. I experienced it first hand when I edited this article. I first made several comments about the shortcomings of this article on the talk page so anyone could give me their opinion of my thoughts. These comments highlighted various portions of the article that were factually incorrect, contained partisan sniping, unsupported assertions, gossip or deception by omission. The response I got from Aschlafly was not encouraging, yet he didn't say I was prohibited from making any changes. In fact, the pages that govern this encyclopedia say a lot about how articles must be sourced, placement of citation tags, how facts must to true and verifiable, etc. Based on reading the guidelines, I made several changes that I thought reflected well on conservatives and Conservapedia. Yet alas, I was blocked by Aschlafly for eight days. The reason given was for 'inappropriate edits', that's very vague but I was unable to get any more information because Aschlafly doesn't provide contact information for people that have questions about their block. This says a lot about a person's integrity if they refuse to follow the rules and then block other people because they made an 'inappropriate edit' that followed the spirit and intent of the commandments and guidelines.

Since this encyclopedia is being used an educational resource for home-schooled children, I'd like to think the information contained within would be factual and verifiably true. I'd feel very embarrassed for my child if she read some of the inaccurate content of this encyclopedia and then repeated it to an informed person that was educated on the true and verifiable facts of Barack Obama or others. It is my honest opinion that this encyclopedia is a long way from earning respectability; and blocking editors for making true and verifiable edits is not going to help. The administrators should clean up their act because there are a lot of people out there that will follow Reagan's advice; trust, yet verify.

In conclusion, I will continue to make the same edits proposed by the commandments and the guidelines. If an admin feels they can do without another conservative editing this encyclopedia in an ethical and trustworthy manner, it is their loss.--NormaN 16:23, 9 November 2008 (EST)

Reference 29

Under the "Obama is a Muslim" section there is a point about his name, and following that there is a reference. That reference includes a big chunk of argument and then a few references of its own and some examples and its just a mess. I am about to go through and trim the fat, that means I'm going to take off the examples, and I'm going tot take off the parts that say that it is common to change your name of conversion (Obama never claims to have converted from Islam, so it doesn't really stand out as an inconsistency in his story, some might even claim its a straw man) and I am going to move the reference to the fact with in the bullet point that it supports and put up a fact tag. I am not taking down the bullet point which I would dispute. I would encourage any one who has a problem with this to go out and find a real reference that shows that most christians would not maintain their fathers name if it were tied to another religion. Please don't block me for a good faith factual edit. --Brendanw 19:12, 9 November 2008 (EST)

Muslim, Koran, redux

I removed the silly Muslim and Koran references in the first paragraph for two reasons - one, they are completely unfounded statements with no basis in reality, and two, they are repeated ad nauseum in the first "section", which is apparently intentionally placed above a TOC tag. Let's leave the panicky POV-pushing to sections, at least, in the desperate attempt for this site to resemble an encyclopedia. Human 23:30, 9 November 2008 (EST)

Obama is not a muslim nor a person who embraces biblical Christianity because the evidence contradicts this matter

Here is a well written and scholarly piece that examines Obama's religious views and it was written by the National Clergy Council: http://nationalclergycouncil.org/010807BarackObama.htm The evidence does not support Obama being a muslim. The evidence also does not support Obama embracing biblical Christianity.conservative 09:19, 10 November 2008 (EST)

I skimmed it and don't see where it concludes that Obama is not a Muslim. The article fails to recognize that less than 1% of people raised Muslim (as Obama was) ever leave the religion. The article says Obama is a member of a Christian church, but he left that many months ago.--Aschlafly 09:24, 10 November 2008 (EST)

Okay, a couple questions. 1) Where are you getting this 1% figure from? 2) How was he raised muslim? Countless acquaintances of mine who were 'raised catholic,' spending ample time learning about Catholicism in school are nothing of the sort. 3) Why would a 1% conversion rate even matter? A person's religion isn't probabilistically determined. By that logic, since 0% of previous Presidents were black, it's unlikely that Obama is president. I don't like this guy or his policy, but real criticism seems to be the way to go, not pointless claims about his religion. RodWeathers 10:50, 10 November 2008 (EST)

Also, as he is the president now, wouldn't it be far more constructive to work on things about his articulated agenda, and how it will affect Americans, write about how to influence our Congress people to stand up to agenda, and how to work with him to reflect what real Americans want - rather than report on unproven and unsupported claims? It would be beyond comprehension if something said by panicked conservatives (not specifically here, just in genera) caused someone to think the right answer is to assassinate him. Far better to focus on what we CAN do to remind our government who they serve - themselves or us.--JeanJacques 11:26, 10 November 2008 (EST)

There are several points wrong with youe assertion. 1) He is not the president now, George W. Bush is. 2) His muslim faith is not unsupported and is far from irrelivant. It will effect his leadership (shiria law anyone?) and his cabinet choices. It is a very big deal seeing as he is the first non-Christian president ever elected. Are we suppose to just stick our heads in the sand??Patriot1505 12:43, 10 November 2008 (EST)

Andy, you say that less than one percent of people raised as Muslims convert to another religion and use that percentage as if it is not a significant number. It is. Let us assume that there are one billion Muslims in the world today- this is a conservative estimate, using numbers from www.adherents.com. Let us then assume that, for the sake of a conservative estimate, that 0.1% of Muslims convert to other religions. That means that out of the one billion Muslims alive today, one million would convert. That's more than the population of San Jose, California. This is not an insignificant number of people.

My point here, Andy, is that your use of this statistic is not a good argument. Less than one percent is a far cry from none. Corry 12:46, 10 November 2008 (EST)

Statistical evidence is relevant and compelling. But it does not stand alone here. There are at least a dozen other compelling evidentiary items, and the list is growing. Supporting a ruler who has an agreement to convert the country to Islam, for example, is persuasive evidence also.--Aschlafly 15:28, 10 November 2008 (EST)

Fist of all, I think you mean Sharia, but seeing as how you misspelled some English words, I can't really blame you for getting that wrong. To think that just because you believe he is a Muslim (and I emphasize believe, but there are already multiple sections on this page saying why he is not) he would somehow be able to implement Sharia law in the U.S. is silly. The First Amendment prevents religious laws from being able to be made from any religion. So even if he was Muslim, that doesn't mean it would make pass some sort of Muslim laws, although I'm not exactly sure what ones you are worried about anyway, no intoxicants perhaps? You may be interested in hearing that the U.S. legal system may have been founded in part on ideas from Sharia law. And last but not least, what makes you think every president was Christian? The majority were to be sure, but as far as we know Jefferson was a deist whose ideas were closest to unitarianism, and Grant, Lincoln, Johnson, and Hayes had no religious affiliation and could have ranged from anything such as some sort of personal Christianity, simple theism, agnosticism, or even atheism. --Rainedaye 15:43, 10 November 2008 (EST)

Maybe he wouldn't be able to push sharia law (although the liberals have a majority now), but that doesn't not mean that he wouldn't like to, or introduce pieces of it little by little using deceit. Liberals love to use "what if's" and draw conclusions using their "feelings" about someone or something, but to me it's a matter of facts: As Mr. Schlafly has pointed out, less than 1% of people raised as muslims ever leave the religion. In other words, 99% of those raised muslim stay that way for the rest of their lifes. Whether or not Obama is a muslim at this time is contested, but it is a fact that he was RAISED with muslim beliefs. Which means there is a 99% chance that he still holds those beliefs. Those are tough odds. The US is engaged in a war on terror against muslim extremeists, and there is a 99% chance that our soon to be commander and chief is himself a muslim. Now, no rational person believes that he shares the views of radical muslims or would wish harm on the country, but it is a connection that is difficult to ignore. Especially given his relationship with an unrepentive domestic terrorist. The issue is not that he has a religion other than Christianity, it's that his religion may lead him to sympathize with the very people trying to kill us. Just as if a presidential nominee had had fuzzy ties to the USSR during the cold war. People would, and should, look at those ties closely.Patriot1505 16:54, 10 November 2008 (EST)

Muslim Votes

Wondering if the following should be added to Why barack is a Muslim. "90 Percent of American Muslims Voted for Obama." [17] They voted in such numbers because he is Jewish? No, because he is Muslim. They voted for him because he is a convert to Christianity from Islam? Nope, they voted for a Muslim. --Jpatt 15:33, 10 November 2008 (EST)

Correlation does not equal causation. A lot of other demographics were won over by Obama too, it doesn't make him an hispanic, a young white college student, a Native American, or a resident of California. I think a stronger reason why Muslims voted for Obama may be more of a problem with McCain's and Palin's treatment of certain minorities during the campaign such as the "he's not an Arab, he is a good family man" comment, as well as what other groups these Muslims belonged too such as their overall economic status. --Rainedaye 15:48, 10 November 2008 (EST)

Often correlation is indicative of causation. Can you cite any other voting pattern as high as 90% that is not based on religion or ethnicity? Not your other examples of Hispanic and young white college student, that's for sure.--Aschlafly 15:53, 10 November 2008 (EST)

With the greatest of respect, what an extraordinary thing to say! Are you suggesting that Muslim voters can somehow read Obama's mind and see that he is really a Muslim? The most that such a correlation could indicate is that Muslim voters might think that Obama is a Muslim. And frankly, it doesn't even show that because you cannot know what was in their minds when they voted (possibly any number of different things). Talk about clutching at straws! --HGridley 16:48, 10 November 2008 (EST)

78% of Jewish people voted for Obama, and I doubt they want to convert to either Christianity or Islam. 70% of people who live in urban areas > 500,000 voted for him. Just two examples, from the excellent National Election Pool synopsis, tables and data. There's plenty of information there, so any trends should be visible. But one does need to be careful about correlation and causation, clearly. Famously, the population of penguins at the North Pole is supposed to correlate perfectly with the number of sitting MP's in the UK Labour Party. BenHur 16:07, 10 November 2008 (EST)

So what? Big cities are notorious cesspools of subversion and licence - just the sort of people to be attracted by a chancer like Obama. Bugler 16:17, 10 November 2008 (EST)

The point he was making before you blocked him is that while Obama received a high percentage of the Muslim votes, he also received high percentages from numerous other demographics. Clearly Obama does not belong to all of these demographics, and as such it is a misuse of the data to pick the one group you want to tie Obama to and declare him a part of it.

An interesting idea to consider is the possible circularity or self-fulfillment of this argument. Some people say that Obama is a Muslim, and hence a bad guy. Voting Muslims generally take offense and vote for Obama, giving him a high percentage of their vote. Some people then claim that receiving most of the Muslim vote further indicates that Obama is a Muslim. Corry 16:44, 10 November 2008 (EST)

Excellent find. This should help put to rest any doubts that remain about Obama's muslim faith. RodWeathers 16:46, 10 November 2008 (EST)

Gays overwhelmingly voted for Obama, cleary this is because this married man is a flaming homosexual. If Obama is a socialist, why do you guys silence any mention that Americans VOTED FOR a socialist president?--MichaelMo 16:53, 10 November 2008 (EST)

Deniers, you strike out. Nothing approaches the 90% statistic cited by Jpatt, and for obvious reasons. Go somewhere else to try to fool people. You're not fooling anyone here, particularly when you look at the even more compelling evidence.--Aschlafly 16:55, 10 November 2008 (EST)

It doesn't matter how strong the correlation is, it still doesn't prove causation. FernoKlump^{Look at this petition!} 17:00, 10 November 2008 (EST)

The real question should be: why are you arguing with facts on this website? We argue with feelings here. I feel that Obama is a Muslim, so it's true.--AshleyB 17:02, 10 November 2008 (EST)

Andy, none of this evidence is compelling- it's all weak at best, and when strung together and passed off as proof it just doesn't work. 90% of Muslim votes. Less than 1% of Muslims convert. The list goes on. This "evidence" amounts to a wobbly house of cards, and I'm looking forward to it falling over and people discussing facts and positions, not resorting to religious persecution. Corry 17:04, 10 November 2008 (EST)

Not persecution, Corry. Discussion. Bugler 17:08, 10 November 2008 (EST)

The argument is that if Obama were Muslim that would be a reason not to vote for him. I don't know what else to call that. Also, I would recommend you don't Google what AshleyB advised you to Google on your talk page. Corry 17:10, 10 November 2008 (EST)

This suggestion by ASchlafly is worse than weak, it's nonsensical. ASchlalfy talks about correlation being indicative of causation. How can there be any causation? In order for there to be causation the Muslim voters would have to have known that Obama was a Muslim. Is there some vast secret conspiracy going on? Have the Muslim voters been given contacted and given the secret "Obama is a Muslim" information by the Obama campaign? Are the rest of us being kept in the dark? How many Muslim voters are we talking about? This is just plain silly.--HGridley 17:14, 10 November 2008 (EST)

Be aware, all commenters above, that your accounts will be blocked if you misrepresent what someone else says (as in Corry claiming that "[T]he argument is that if Obama were Muslim that would be a reason not to vote for him" or HGridley pretending this is about some "secret conspiracy.") You won't be warned again. Be respectful and truthful in this discussion, or you'll be ranting in the future on a different site.

No one else can come up with anything close to a 90% voting correlation except where there is religious or ethnic identity. Scientifically and objectively, that is noteworthy. There are a dozen more compelling pieces of evidence, but that does not mean this data point is not suggestive also.--Aschlafly 17:26, 10 November 2008 (EST)

I have been utterly truthful in what I have said. You appear to have missed the point.

In order for there to have been causation (i.e. Obama's being a Muslim caused Muslims to vote for him) the Muslims would necessarily have to know (not just suspect) that Obama is a Muslim. In order for that to be the case there would need to be a vast conspiracy.

Pretty simple really. Can you tell us what you know about this secret conspiracy? --HGridley 17:33, 10 November 2008 (EST)

And how am I misrepresenting you, Andy? Are you trying to convince people that Obama is a Muslim for purely academic reasons? I stand by my statement. This article, in the collection of "evidence" that Obama may be a Muslim, reads that "Contrary to Christianity, the Islamic doctrine of taqiyya encourages adherents to deny they are Muslim if it advances the cause of Islam." So we have the premise that Muslims lie to advance Islam, and Obama is part of this. I would also like to point out you comment in a different section that "It will be fascinating to see how long it takes people to wake up to who Obama really is." That definitely sounds like it'd be a pretty bad thing if Obama was a Muslim. Corry 18:08, 10 November 2008 (EST)

Black Americans vote for the Democrat presidential candidate over 90% of the time, even when that candidate is not Black. BHarlan 18:20, 10 November 2008 (EST)

Often correlation is indicative of causation. Those Democrat cantidates were probably secretly black. --HGridley 18:23, 10 November 2008 (EST)

We are trying to build an encyclopedia here. Either help out or get out of the way, HGridley. You might find more people who think you are funny on a liberalpedia, if one exists.

The only truly funny thing about your note is that you call them "cantidates", which is a true record of how liberals treat Black Americans -- telling them "You can't, so depend on the government to do so for you." BHarlan 18:29, 10 November 2008 (EST)

I have to confess to being very confused by everything that's being said here. None of it seems to quite line up. Wouldn't the Jewish community be LESS likely to vote for a Muslim candidate, particularly one with the alleged terrorist links? Yet 78% of them voted for him - in greater proportion than they have previously voted for a Democrat? That seems to be completely counter to the allegation? It just all seems very odd, and very confusing to a passing reader. HarryR 22:46, 10 November 2008 (EST)

Confusion

I'm just a little bit confused about one of the dot points claiming Obama is a Muslim, and was wondering if someone could explain it. It is the one about him leaving his Church without first finding a new one.

Here in Australia, while many people are members of a Church, a majority of us Christians are not. There is often no official enrolment beyond donations or small groups, and most families simply attend the Church closest to them, some even attending a number of Churches. As such it is quite confusing to state that a person is not a Christian simply because they have not "joined" a Church, as this is not a reflection on whether or not they attend, let alone their individual faith. Perhaps this could be clarified for an international audience.

Also the line "Many of Obama's statements about religion conflict with Christianity" is entirely conterproductive to the argument, as the statements made by Obama that are in opposition to Christianity (regarding homosexuality) are also in opposition to Islam. If anything this is proof that Obama is not a Muslim and is in fact an atheist, and should be removed asap! NormanS 19:48, 10 November 2008 (EST)

Also Malcolm X did not become a Muslim after he was a National of Islam leader, it was before. The current wording needs to be fixed. NormanS 19:51, 10 November 2008 (EST)

Lenin Poster

The statement about the Lenin-like poster is informative. We don't censor informative information here. Let the reader decide.--Aschlafly 23:22, 10 November 2008 (EST)

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

Obama and beer

There are several stories (with photos) of Obama drinking beer, which as an intoxicant is banned by Muslim sharia. No rational person can say that a practicing Muslim wouldn't violate the law in such a blatant, repeated manner. Another strike against the goofy Muslim charge. And remember, we don't censor here. Godspeed. Thecount 12:52, 11 November 2008 (EST)

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

Hussein reference

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

Again, no reason has been given for deleting the Hussein reference, and there is none.--Aschlafly 07:49, 12 November 2008 (EST)

Andy, this is false. Reasons have been given on this talk page numerous times before. I just had a quick look, and found reasons being given in all archives except the first, as well as other places on this talk page. So you are wrong to say that no reason has been given, and wrong to say that there is no reason. And, as I have pointed out in the edit comments, five senior administrators have said that they disagree with it being there. Is your view on this somehow superior to those five put together? Do you want this to be a collaborative encyclopaedia or your blog? The former demands that you not impose your opinion regardless of who is disagreeing. Imposing your opinion regardless suggests that this is your blog. I know you don't consider it to be the latter, but that's the way it's looking. Philip J. Rayment 08:21, 12 November 2008 (EST)

Not a blog but an encylopedia. If it were a blog, your opinion would carry as much weight as anyone else's. Let's put this one in Conservapedia:Debate Topics. --Ed Poor ^Talk 08:24, 12 November 2008 (EST)

If it were a blog, the blog owner's opinion would carry the most weight. Almost all blogs are the opinions of an individual, not a group of people. Philip J. Rayment 08:58, 12 November 2008 (EST)

Philip, the truth is not dependent on consensus, and 5 out of several dozen is not a consensus anyway. Give your best reason for deleting this information here. Since the beginning we have had a policy not to delete factual, informative material, particularly when it is liberal ideology that motivates the demand for censorship of it.--Aschlafly 08:29, 12 November 2008 (EST)

I said five of the senior administrators, which numbers about eleven. So that's five out of eleven, not dozens. Further, that's five against and one (yourself) for, as the remainder have not offered an opinion that I'm aware of. (One perhaps did support you, but because they wanted to support you, not because they considered it a valid argument.)

My reason is relevance, not (primarily) accuracy. I'm not disputing that his middle name is Hussein. The claim that "most Christians would not retain" their (former/Muslim/Arabic?; it's not clear) name is not supported by the references, and even if it is true, means little in individual cases. That is, even if 99% changed their name, Obama not changing his name might mean no more than him being in the other 1%.

And this is just one of the points in that section. The entire argument that Obama is a Muslim is built on very circumstantial evidence, selective evidence, and logical fallacy, and is rejected by other conservatives.

Philip J. Rayment 08:58, 12 November 2008 (EST)

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

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

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

Debate On Obama's Religion

The debate is continuing at Debate:Is Obama a Muslim?‎ It may be best to continue arguing the point there with the aim of reaching a conclusion which can then be utilised in the article, and leave this talk page for discussing other improvements. NormanS 22:22, 11 November 2008 (EST)

Get the section about him being a "Muslim" there have already been to debates concluding that this should be removed.
http://www.conservapedia.com/Debate:Is_Obama_a_Muslim%3F
http://www.conservapedia.com/Debate:_What_is_sufficient_proof_that_Obama_is_a_Muslim%3F-Vcelloho 00:09, 12 November 2008 (EST)

Reference

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Biblically, divorce is not adultery. However, divorce is wrong unless the spouse has been unfaithful. Remarriage after a legitimate divorce is okay. The question is whether remarriage after a wrong divorce is okay. Many believe, I think that although the act of divorce may be wrong, that is a forgivable sin like any other sin, and remarriage is not a further sin. And I'd tend to agree that committing "actual" adultery is worse than divorce and remarriage. However, the point that Conservative was raising was not between those two cases, but between divorce and remarriage compared to marriage without divorce.

I'm not convinced that Obama's marriage does not constitute a "clear personal achievement". Given the divorce rate these days, especially among prominent people, I would think that it was a clear personal achievement. In fact I'd consider staying marriage a "clear personal achievement" for anybody these days, given all the pressures on marriage, including the peer pressure that divorce is okay.

Philip J. Rayment 08:35, 12 November 2008 (EST)

I rarely disagree with you, Philip, as I find your comments to be some of the more considered on this board, but here I would have to disagree. Jesus makes it quite clear that divorce *is* adultery, not *like* adultery. More then any other text, especially OT text, I take Jesus's words to heart. Mark 10

2 Some Pharisees came and tested him by asking, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?" 3 "What did Moses command you?" he replied. 4 They said, "Moses permitted a man to write a certificate of divorce and send her away." 5 "It was because your hearts were hard that Moses wrote you this law," Jesus replied. 6 "But at the beginning of creation God `made them male and female.' 7 `For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, 8 and the two will become one flesh.' So they are no longer two, but one. 9 Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate." 10 When they were in the house again, the disciples asked Jesus about this. 11 He answered, "Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her. 12 And if she divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery." --JeanJacques 09:41, 12 November 2008 (EST)