Quantcast

Do you believe Barack Obama has been honest and open about his past?

Simmering Frog 2012/04/15 23:37:23
Related Topics: Obama, Barack Obama, Honest
Yes, he's been open about it.
No, he's hiding a lot.
You!
Add Photos & Videos
Add a comment above

Top Opinion

  • Kaimeso 2012/04/15 23:40:38
    No, he's hiding a lot.
    Kaimeso
    +21
    Obama has been open about nothing and honest about even less,...

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest
Opinions

  • Biki~pwcm/potl~ 2012/04/16 19:51:44
    No, he's hiding a lot.
    Biki~pwcm/potl~
    +7
    paid a whole hell of a lot of money to keep it that way too.
  • ☆ Queen... Biki~pw... 2012/04/17 01:36:55
    ☆ QueenAline
    +1
    oh yeah
  • lurx: the soda jerk 2012/04/16 19:26:19 (edited)
    Yes, he's been open about it.
    lurx: the soda jerk
    +8
    While critics praised Obama for his honesty in writing this book, conservatives used passages from it to form political attacks against him,

    Dreams from my father

    ...now they're trying to suggest that nothing in it is true.

    Obama has probably been more upfront about the details of his past than any other President in U.S. history.
  • Simmeri... lurx: t... 2012/04/16 19:40:39
    Simmering Frog
    +4
    Reagan face palm

    "Obama has probably been more upfront about the details of his past than any other President in U.S. history."

    OMFG. I didn't even know it was possible to type that combination of letters without having a computer crash.
  • lurx: t... Simmeri... 2012/04/16 19:44:52
    lurx: the soda jerk
    +7
    ...birthers are funny.
  • Ferηαηd... lurx: t... 2012/04/16 20:08:46 (edited)
    Ferηαηdo Fierce Monster of Phaet
    +6
    Lol it's just like when birthers first denied Obama ever went to Harvard because they couldn't get access to his transcript and then they use a video of him speaking at Harvard as a student (which proves that he did attend the school) for another attack. We should just let the crazies sit in a corner so we can point and laugh.
  • lurx: t... Ferηαηd... 2012/04/16 20:16:51 (edited)
    lurx: the soda jerk
    +6
    One of my favorite bits of birther trivia, is that while no matter how many times Obama puts out his birth certificate, whether it's the legal document that the state of Hawaii recognizes or it's the long form version that the birthers have demanded, they simply refuse to accept it as being legitamate.

    ...at the same time, they seem to believe that not one, but two obviously forged Kenyan birth certificates were real.

    http://www.salon.com/2009/08/...
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com...

    The only thing they have proven so far, is their complete inability to recognize what an actual birth certificate looks like.
  • Ferηαηd... lurx: t... 2012/04/16 20:20:22
    Ferηαηdo Fierce Monster of Phaet
    +6
    Hilarious isn't it? It would be even more funny if they weren't doing it because Obama's skin color. It's really pathetic and it's no coincidence that the only time they seem to give a crap about the president's birth certificate is when a black president is elected.
  • lurx: t... Ferηαηd... 2012/04/16 20:26:50
    lurx: the soda jerk
    +6
    As all of their conspiracy theories have crumbled into dust, the birthers have taken up a fall back position, suggesting that by the mere fact that Obama's father was foreign born, that alone proves his ineligibility,

    http://www.examiner.com/progr...

    ...even though he's actually been the seventh U.S. President who's had foreign born parents.
  • Michaelene lurx: t... 2012/04/17 05:16:05
    Michaelene
    That's not a fallback, that is a fact. The problem is that too many idiots don't understand why our POTUS and our CIC must be a natural born citizen of two citizen parent's.
    It's the only job requirement that connot be exempted!
  • lurx: t... Michaelene 2012/04/17 05:19:02
    lurx: the soda jerk
    +1
    Oh really?

    United States v. Wong Kim Ark

    The decision holds, substantially, that the language used in the Fourteenth Amendment to the constitution is declaratory of the common-law doctrine, and not of the international law doctrine, and that, therefore, a person born in the United States is a citizen thereof, irrespective of the nationality or political status of his parents.

    The amendment, in clear words and in manifest intent, includes the children born within the territory of the United States of all other persons, of whatever race or color, domiciled within the United States. Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States. His allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate, and, although but local and temporary, continuing only so long as he remains within our territory, is yet, in the words of Lord Coke in Calvin’s Case, 7 Coke, 6a, ’strong enough to make a natural subject, for, if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural-born subject’; and his child, as said by Mr. Binney in his essay before quoted, ‘If born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle.’
    http...

    Oh really?

    United States v. Wong Kim Ark

    The decision holds, substantially, that the language used in the Fourteenth Amendment to the constitution is declaratory of the common-law doctrine, and not of the international law doctrine, and that, therefore, a person born in the United States is a citizen thereof, irrespective of the nationality or political status of his parents.

    The amendment, in clear words and in manifest intent, includes the children born within the territory of the United States of all other persons, of whatever race or color, domiciled within the United States. Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States. His allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate, and, although but local and temporary, continuing only so long as he remains within our territory, is yet, in the words of Lord Coke in Calvin’s Case, 7 Coke, 6a, ’strong enough to make a natural subject, for, if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural-born subject’; and his child, as said by Mr. Binney in his essay before quoted, ‘If born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle.’

    http://nativeborncitizen.word...

    ...birthers are funny.
    (more)
  • Michaelene lurx: t... 2012/04/17 06:12:36
    Michaelene
    Try again, this case precedent has nothing to do with the POTUS.
    Mr Binney's statement does not remove the previous legally binding court findings.
    Please review your source, it's called native born citizen and not natural born citizen for a reason
  • lurx: t... Michaelene 2012/04/17 06:15:01 (edited)
    lurx: the soda jerk
    +1
    "Mr Binney's statement does not remove the previous legally binding court findings."

    ...Mr. Binney's statement was sited by the Supreme Court itself in making it's presidential ruling.

    "If born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle."

    ------

    "Please review your source, it's called native born citizen and not natural born citizen for a reason"

    Nice try,

    ...actually it's called "Native AND Natural Born Citizen explored: Where native and natural coincide".
  • Michaelene lurx: t... 2012/04/17 07:22:59
    Michaelene
    Not according to the url you listed.
    The MINOR V. HAPPERSETT case applies here in that it does not affect the 14th Amendment (like Kim Wong Ark) but strictly follows article 2 section 1 of the Constitution.

    "But the Court in Minor did make a direct holding that Mrs. Minor was, in fact, a US citizen. The Court established her citizenship by definining the “class” of “natural-born citizens” as those born in the US to parents who were citizens. Then the Court included Virginia Minor in that class thereby deeming her to be a US citizen. And they did this by specifically avoiding the 14th Amendment and by specifically construing Article 2 Section 1."

    The Court clearly defined the natural born citizen statuses and the ways to attain citizenship. The reason it's important is that the POTUS is also the CIC and his allegiance must be irrefutable.

    "1. “…all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also.” First, the Court states that these persons are “citizens”. But then it makes a second statement about this class -

    2. “These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.” This class of citizens are part of a class defined as “natural-born citizens”. They are citizens, natural-bor...




    Not according to the url you listed.
    The MINOR V. HAPPERSETT case applies here in that it does not affect the 14th Amendment (like Kim Wong Ark) but strictly follows article 2 section 1 of the Constitution.

    "But the Court in Minor did make a direct holding that Mrs. Minor was, in fact, a US citizen. The Court established her citizenship by definining the “class” of “natural-born citizens” as those born in the US to parents who were citizens. Then the Court included Virginia Minor in that class thereby deeming her to be a US citizen. And they did this by specifically avoiding the 14th Amendment and by specifically construing Article 2 Section 1."

    The Court clearly defined the natural born citizen statuses and the ways to attain citizenship. The reason it's important is that the POTUS is also the CIC and his allegiance must be irrefutable.

    "1. “…all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also.” First, the Court states that these persons are “citizens”. But then it makes a second statement about this class -

    2. “These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.” This class of citizens are part of a class defined as “natural-born citizens”. They are citizens, natural-born. This distinguishes them from all other citizens. If this were not the case, it would have been sufficient for the Court to stop at the first statement concerning their citizenship.

    But the Court didn’t stop there. Because the Court was avoiding the 14th Amendment, the Court went to the second step and defined this class to be different from all other citizens. This class did not require the 14th Amendment to be US citizens.

    Whether persons born in the US to non-citizen parents were “citizens” was not a question before the Minor Court because Mrs. Minor was natural-born, whereas Wong Kim Ark was not. The determination of his citizenship required the 14th Amendment, whereas Mrs. Minor’s did not."
    http://naturalborncitizen.wor...
    (more)
  • lurx: t... Michaelene 2012/04/17 07:34:35
    lurx: the soda jerk
    +1
    "Not according to the url you listed."

    Sorry, that's just not the case...

    (Justice) Fuller accepts that under Wong Kim Ark, the children of aliens born on US soil would qualify as natural born and would be eligible for the Presidency. Fuller, in his dissenting opinion in Wong Kim Ark understands very well that which people like Mario Apuzzo and others are trying to deny. If even the justices who dissent disagree with you then you must have a real problem

    Fuller:

    Considering the circumstances surrounding the framing of the Constitution, I submit that it is unreasonable to conclude that “natural-born citizen” applied to everybody born within the geographical tract known as the United States, irrespective of circumstances, and that the children of foreigners, happening to be born to them while passing through the country, whether of royal parentage or not, or whether of the Mongolian, Malay or other race, were eligible to the Presidency, while children of our citizens, born abroad, were not.

    http://nativeborncitizen.word...
  • Michaelene lurx: t... 2012/04/17 08:02:43
    Michaelene
    One case is regarding the 14th Amendment and the other is based on the article2 section 1 clause of the POTUS requirements.

    I give you props for finding a case that sounds like it will work.

    If this were true then why did Obama refuse to provide his BC to both Georgia and to NJ?

    Just because you want this case to be the legal precedent in the POTUS argument, it does not it merely corrects an immigration status under the 14th amendment.
  • lurx: t... Michaelene 2012/04/17 10:26:51 (edited)
    lurx: the soda jerk
    +1
    "One case is regarding the 14th Amendment and the other is based on the article2 section 1 clause of the POTUS requirements."

    ...actually one case where the very nature of citizenship was specifically being addressed, and another whose central focus was on a woman's right to vote (the issue of citizenship only arose in establishing that Minor was indeed an American citizen, and granted all the rights defined by the constitution).

    This is all that Minor v. Happersett has to say about citizenship...

    The court observed that some authorities "include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents"—but since Minor was born in the United States and her parents were U.S. citizens, she was unquestionably a citizen herself, even under the narrowest possible definition, and the court thus noted that the subject did not need to be explored in any greater depth
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    ----

    "Just because you want this case to be the legal precedent in the POTUS argument, it does not it merely corrects an immigration status under the 14th amendment."

    Not just me, but the Supreme Court clearly establishes who is eligible to be President by this ruling...

    "If born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a...

    "One case is regarding the 14th Amendment and the other is based on the article2 section 1 clause of the POTUS requirements."

    ...actually one case where the very nature of citizenship was specifically being addressed, and another whose central focus was on a woman's right to vote (the issue of citizenship only arose in establishing that Minor was indeed an American citizen, and granted all the rights defined by the constitution).

    This is all that Minor v. Happersett has to say about citizenship...

    The court observed that some authorities "include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents"—but since Minor was born in the United States and her parents were U.S. citizens, she was unquestionably a citizen herself, even under the narrowest possible definition, and the court thus noted that the subject did not need to be explored in any greater depth

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    ----

    "Just because you want this case to be the legal precedent in the POTUS argument, it does not it merely corrects an immigration status under the 14th amendment."

    Not just me, but the Supreme Court clearly establishes who is eligible to be President by this ruling...

    "If born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle."

    "Considering the circumstances surrounding the framing of the Constitution, I submit that it is unreasonable to conclude that “natural-born citizen” applied to everybody born within the geographical tract known as the United States, irrespective of circumstances, and that the children of foreigners, happening to be born to them while passing through the country, whether of royal parentage or not, or whether of the Mongolian, Malay or other race, were eligible to the Presidency, while children of our citizens, born abroad, were not."
    (more)
  • Merry lurx: t... 2012/04/16 21:38:11
    Merry
    +2
    They just believe what they damn well please.
  • Phantom Ferηαηd... 2012/04/17 01:44:17
    Phantom
    +1
    Don't you people have any decency? How you talk about these special needs people.
  • C. C. Rider 2012/04/16 19:14:13
    Yes, he's been open about it.
    C. C. Rider
    +8
    President Obama has been more open and honest about his past then any other President in History.

    obama 2012
  • Simmeri... C. C. R... 2012/04/16 19:57:49
    Simmering Frog
    +2
    laughing obama

    "President Obama has been more open and honest about his past then any other President in History."

    Good one!
  • C. C. R... Simmeri... 2012/04/16 22:02:50
    C. C. Rider
    +6
    at least he is not staying drunk like ole Bush did for 8 years.


    bush locked out
  • Quietma... C. C. R... 2012/04/16 23:13:22
  • C. C. R... Quietma... 2012/04/16 23:39:53
    C. C. Rider
    +4
    oikey doikey says the drunk bush. LOL bush drunk
  • Ferηαηdo Fierce Monster of ... 2012/04/16 19:12:09
    Yes, he's been open about it.
    Ferηαηdo Fierce Monster of Phaet
    +6
    He's been open and honest about what matters. He has shown his birth certificate and if birthers want more then too damn bad. Obama shouldn't have to cater to the crazies.
  • DM Twin 2012/04/16 19:08:31
    No, he's hiding a lot.
    DM Twin
    +6
    HAHhahA a a a a AHAAHHAHa aHAaa a a a

    That's the funniest trick question ever Frog !!!....

    HAhahhA a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a
  • Næthan Æterna 2012/04/16 19:02:34
    No, he's hiding a lot.
    Næthan Æterna
    +5
    I think the $1.4 million his law team has spent sealing his records is proof that he's hiding a lot.
  • 4570GOVT 2012/04/16 19:01:22
    No, he's hiding a lot.
    4570GOVT
    +5
    ARE YOU FREEKING KIDDING ME ? ............. you old sly dog you .
  • big T 2012/04/16 18:46:13
    No, he's hiding a lot.
    big T
    +3
    he just will tell enough truth to confuse people that are to lazy to look into his past on their own.
    Obama was not born in the USA but people let that slide for 3 years while he was forging a birth certificate that said he was born in HI state.
  • Thisism... big T 2012/04/16 18:55:25
  • big T Thisism... 2012/04/16 19:04:37
    big T
    +1
    you think so ? ? I throught the USA was like Tin foil, bring it id=s getting ripped apart like Tin foil!
    good job Obamanation oh I mean Obama nation.
  • Ukie 2012/04/16 18:29:26 (edited)
    Yes, he's been open about it.
    Ukie
    +4
    The site flipped my answer. So "NO" I don't think he has/is honest about anything because being truthful does not serve his purpose for taking over the Country. We already know that the number of lies he has told are countless regarding the reality of his plans. Obama pathological liar obama marxist dictator obama work is done here obama work is done here obama gangster
  • God ble... Ukie 2012/04/16 20:29:19
  • Diana 2012/04/16 18:21:33
    No, he's hiding a lot.
    Diana
    +9
    I got more information about my dog.when I adopted him.
  • Maverick Capitalist 2012/04/16 18:06:42
    No, he's hiding a lot.
    Maverick Capitalist
    +9
    Spending money to keep things private logically disproves any claim of openness.
  • Ukie Maveric... 2012/04/16 18:42:19
    Ukie
    +4
    Exactly!!! obama unmasked obama unmasked obama unmasked
  • Gordon 2012/04/16 18:03:25
    No, he's hiding a lot.
    Gordon
    +5
    I believe very little of what Obama says. He has lied far too many times.
  • Carol 2012/04/16 17:46:59
    Yes, he's been open about it.
    Carol
    +4
    No American president has been lied about more than Barack Obama since Franklin D. Roosevelt ran for re-election in 1936. FDR was called every name under the sun, including socialist and liberal -- two labels with which Obama is being tagged now by Republicans, who seem determined to outdo their forbears of the 1936 campaign.
    Both Roosevelt and Obama inherited a colossal economic mess created by their Republican predecessors, and both worked to bring the country back. In doing so, both men made significant progress and, in addition, gave us two landmark legislative achievements -- Social Security for Roosevelt and the Affordable Care Act for Obama.
    Many of us are grateful for both achievements, but not so the Republicans. They want nothing to do with progressive reform or a president who fulfills his constitutional duty by promoting the general welfare, as is prescribed in our Constitution. Nor do they want any regulation of Wall Street bankers or a sensible tax policy.
    Besides the Republican candidates for president, who constantly lie about Obama, we have U.S. Rep. Spencer Bachus, who "fights Obama at every turn," calls the Affordable Care Act a "socialist policy," gives it the false label of "Obamacare" and vows to fight to repeal it.
    Many compromises -- too many to sui...

    No American president has been lied about more than Barack Obama since Franklin D. Roosevelt ran for re-election in 1936. FDR was called every name under the sun, including socialist and liberal -- two labels with which Obama is being tagged now by Republicans, who seem determined to outdo their forbears of the 1936 campaign.
    Both Roosevelt and Obama inherited a colossal economic mess created by their Republican predecessors, and both worked to bring the country back. In doing so, both men made significant progress and, in addition, gave us two landmark legislative achievements -- Social Security for Roosevelt and the Affordable Care Act for Obama.
    Many of us are grateful for both achievements, but not so the Republicans. They want nothing to do with progressive reform or a president who fulfills his constitutional duty by promoting the general welfare, as is prescribed in our Constitution. Nor do they want any regulation of Wall Street bankers or a sensible tax policy.
    Besides the Republican candidates for president, who constantly lie about Obama, we have U.S. Rep. Spencer Bachus, who "fights Obama at every turn," calls the Affordable Care Act a "socialist policy," gives it the false label of "Obamacare" and vows to fight to repeal it.
    Many compromises -- too many to suit me -- had to be made to enact the Affordable Care Act. Only some of Obama's ideas were incorporated into the bill he signed into law; others were advocated by none other than Richard Nixon back in the 1970s. "Obamacare" is a misnomer -- a Republican lie.
    Yet, Bachus, who is seeking re-election to Congress for the 11th time, plays on the irrational fears of his constituents by harping on "Obamacare." History will be kind to Obama for signing the Affordable Care Act into law, for saving the American auto industry, for taking out Osama bin Laden and for keeping our country from plunging into an economic abyss. If Bachus gets a footnote, it will surprise me.
    David T. Morgan
    (more)
  • shenendoah Carol 2012/04/16 18:22:28
    shenendoah
    +7
    The only thing obama has been open about is his contempt for this country and the American people.
  • Carol shenendoah 2012/04/16 20:22:21
    Carol
    +1
    Your opinion, which seems very misinformed.

See Votes by State

The map above displays the winning answer by region.

News & Politics

2014/08/22 18:01:10

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals