People: if you have a disagreement with the conclusions posted here, you need to argue them first. Use the talkpages (such as this), don't just change the article. Unlike Andy Schlafly on Conservapedia, I won't ban you for asserting a different point of view -- but I will revert any edits which completely change the point of an article without having made a satisfactory case in prior discussion. You are also free to state contrary opinions on your userpage, or on subpages of that page (e.g. position statements). --Woozle 23:33, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
P.S. Please note that Conservapedia did not even bother to defend its own claims of Obama's Muslimhood when they were seriously challenged. Not that Conservapedia particularly cares about arriving at the truth through objective evidence -- but they didn't even try, because they know the evidence isn't really there; the arguments they've posted as fact are thoroughly phony. They are ideological protectionists who believe what they believe because it's what they believe, and that's good enough for them -- and so are the birthers and the Obamuslimorons. -W.
thanks for the postUNCONNACILD
Thank you, I have recently been searching for information about this topic for ages and yours is the best I have discovered so far.