Can Anyone Vouch for Obama’s History? What About His Columbia Records?
It is already known that nobody has stepped forward to vouch for witnessing or being connected to Mr. Obama’s birth as alleged to have been in some Hawaiian hospital. And now it appears that nobody seems to while some individuals associated with Columbia University seem to remember their fellow classmate at Columbia University (see the mixed and varied commentary associated with this posting), nobody appears to be able to vouch for his records.
The Anti-Mullah blog posted this story last Sunday; I did some further research to find out from whence they pulled much of the verbiage in their posting.
First, Reason.com posted an article back in September, 2008 in which they interviewed the Libertarian Party Vice Presidential candidate, Wayne Allen Root (poignantly excerpted quotes):
Root is no fan of the Democratic nominee: “A vote for Obama is four years of Karl Marx, and no one should be happy about that,” he told us and a few genial young libertarian activists over cocktails. “He’s a communist! I don’t care what anybody says. The guy’s a communist…. And his mother was a card-carrying communist, and he says she’s the most important person in his entire life; he learned everything from her.”
But the thing Root really wanted to talk about was Obama’s grades. Specifically, he was willing to bet a million dollars that he earned a better grade point average at Columbia than his old classmate, and that the only reason Obama went on to Harvard Law School was the color of his skin. …
“I think the most dangerous thing you should know about Barack Obama is that I don’t know a single person at Columbia that knows him, and they all know me. I don’t have a classmate who ever knew Barack Obama at Columbia. Ever! … Where was Obama? He wasn’t an outgoing young man, no one ever heard of him. …
Class of ‘83 political science, pre-law Columbia University. You don’t get more exact than that. Never met him in my life, don’t know anyone who ever met him. At the class reunion, our 20th reunion five years ago, 20th reunion, who was asked to be the speaker of the class? Me. No one ever heard of Barack! Who was he, and five years ago, nobody even knew who he was.” …
There’s much more at the posting.
It also appears that The New York Times had interviewed Mr. Root during the next month:
Neither one knew their famous Columbia classmate, Barack Obama. “I’ve not only not met him,” Mr. Root said, “I’ve not met anybody who met him.”
Part of Anti-Mullah’s posting covered reporting on the part of Fox News (h/t NewsHounds, August, 2008, excerpted):
The FOX website released a collection of information about Obama to go along with their examination of his “character and conduct’. The choice of material pretty much illustrates the message they crafted in last night’s piece. …
Although time was spent exploring Obama’s community work in Chicago there was very little emphasis on his teaching career at the University of Chicago. Although viewers were informed that after interviewing 400 Columbia University graduates none of them knew Barack Obama when he attended, they didn’t bother to interview even one of his students about their experiences in Obama’s class. Wouldn’t that have provided insight into the candidates character?
The friendship with Sohale Siddiqi who he meant when he left home for the first time at 18 to attend Occidental College was made into a big deal during the documentary. They made a point to note that Obama visited Pakistan at age 20 to visit Siddiqi’s family. Then gravely explored Obama rooming with him in New York when he first got there alone, broke and homeless to go to Columbia. Obama had written about being forced to sleep on the streets for a few nights and waking up in an alley with a chicken pecking at him. FOX News managed to use it to connect Obama to the drug world with a claim from a New York City detective that the alley was located in a rough neighborhood run by Dominican drug lords.It’s doubtful that they were trying to stress that Obama’s poverty had put him in danger. The article about Obama and Saddiqi on the website is far more positive and objective than last night’s coverage.
Part of the last link in the above quote to The Seattle Times:
The Obama campaign declined to discuss Obama’s time at Columbia and his friendships in general. It won’t, for example, release his transcript or name his friends. It did, however, list five locations where Obama lived during his four years here: three on Manhattan’s Upper West Side and two in Brooklyn – one in Park Slope, the other in Brooklyn Heights. His memoir mentions two others on Manhattan’s Upper East Side.
Naturally, there’s the question of Columbia’s yearbook. This question is more than fully covered by DBKP and further commentary over at FreeRepublic; both links are certainly worth investigating for more insights into next to no background on this President.
While part of the story is dealing with Mr. Obama’s presence at Columbia University, I would invite all of my readers to not miss the bigger point here:
There is clearly precious little evidence showing substantial bona fides for this President. And for someone who claims to want to operate within the realm of transparency, one could not be any more opaque.
In related eligibility news, here are two links regarding the now-dismissed but promised-to-be-appealed Kerchner v. Obama case:
- Federal judge cites lack of standing, dismisses Obama eligibility case (SonoranNews.com)
- Judge Simandle Has Granted the DOJ’s Motion to Dismiss (attorney Mario Apuzzo’s blog)
See the following links regarding the eligibility saga:
- The background:
- The questions:
-Phil
Subscriptions -=- Twitter: @trsol -=- Facebook (TRSoL) -=- Facebook (Rightside Phil)
It sure is funny that after one year of obama, every one that I ask says they didn`t vote for him.Whats up with that? Nobody want to take the blame? The only people that say they did are hideing behind their computer.
Phil asserted:
Here’s the most recent ruling from a Federal Court on the matter:
Barnett v. Obama, “Order regarding Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss”, at pp. 24-25; see:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/21808122/Judge-Carter-Ruling-on-MTD
JJ says:
October 28, 2009 at 9:20 pm
For all of your points pro or con of the constitutional matter….heed this…….
If you are accepting that aka Obama, who is really Soetoro, because he hasn’t proven he ever legally changed his adoptive name, is president…….then you are suggesting that Ahmadinejad, of Iran, can visit the U.S., impregnate a U.S. citizen, and after she gives birth in ********, Mississippi, the child can become President of the U.S. one day.
You’re okay with that??
Because ‘if’ Ann is aka Obama’s mother, and ‘if’ Barack Obama, Sr. is his father, and ‘if’ aka Obama was born in Hawaii, then that’s exactly what has happened……a British subject has become your president.
The Supreme Court of the United States has never applied the term “natural born citizen” to any other category than “those born in the country of parents who are citizens thereof………on American soil and blood of two citizens, not one American and one British………….
And that’s why a million of your tax dollars are spent to tuck away any of these ‘documents’ that prove aka Obama’s true dual citizenship…..British and Indonesian……he’s an illegal alien.
___________________________________________________________________
Wow, a entire post filled with speculation and no facts. That was impressive. Let us address some points. First of all can you show us some legally admissible proof that President Obama ever changed his name to Soetero or was adopted? And we don’t mean the unsourced “Indonesian school record”. That is not considered proof. Secondly can you show us where the President spent “millions of our tax dollars” hiding his documents? I mean yo were so specific so you must have proof? Since Obama is the President, the DOJ is defending him in these ridiculous lawsuits. And the so called documents are all protected by federal privacy laws. Now if you want to change the privacy laws so that anyone can look at your personal records, then do that. The only waste of taxpayer money is all of the time the courts have to waste with these frivolous lawsuits by Orly, Apuzzo, and Berg. Leo never had the guts to actually file one so he is not in the same category as the others. And of course the biggest lie is that your parental citizenship status matters in determining whether or not you are a natural born citizen. That has never been the case and is currently not the case. That was a birther invention from some Swiss philospher. Not the US Constitution and definately not SCOTUS rulings. Thanks to the Wong ruling, we know that is not the case. Sorry. The President was born in HI, so he is a natural born citizen.
terminu says:
October 28, 2009 at 4:47 pm
fraudster Black Lion:
Thank you for proving the point that Barack is ineligible:
“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside..” US Constitution 14th Amendment
“Subject to the jurisdiction thereof” means sole allegiance, which is redundantly born out in CRA1866 and the VERY MODERN naturalization oath. Show were CRA1866 was ever overturned?
and since you USE the 14th amendment, you might possibly give credence to the man who constructed the bulk of it, Mr. John Bingham who clearly defines NBC as jus soli jus sanguinis both parents.
You know what? I notice none of you bots bother countering one argument in particular…
OBAMA HIMSELF SAYS BOTH PARENTS MUST BE US CITIZENS FOR NATURAL BORN CITIZEN STATUS
SENATE RESOLUTION 511
______________________________________________________________________________
First of all the Senate resolution also said that you had to be born in Panama in 1936 but I see you of course forget to mention that part of the resolution. So that means that no one other than McCain is eligible to be President.
Subject to the jurisdiction of does NOT mean sole allegiance. It means that being born in the US means that you are subject to its jurisdiction by virture of being a citizen of the country.
Chester A Authur’s father’s status was known at the time. There are writings that show that.
Regardless of what Bingham may have said, AG Bates said different as shown in my quote. Also the Wong Kim Ark ruling was in 1896, which came after the 14th amendment, is the case regarding citizenship.
So overall you have been proven wrong. But you knew you would be. Hence the name calling. I guess when your argument makes no sense, like yours, you need to distract by calling names. Which is the usual birther M.O.
JJ says:
October 28, 2009 at 9:20 pm
*You’re okay with that??*
Yes, I am OK with any child born in America except the child of a diplomat no matter the status of his parents be eligible to be President. The primary process would weed out someone like the child of Ahmadinijad. If you think Obama is really named Soetoro, don’t vote for him in 2012. If you don’t think a child born in Hawaii and who has spent 44 of his 48 years living in the US is eligible, don’t vote for him. If you don’t like the law, get your senator to propose a Constitutional amendment on eligibility. But don’t try to force your views on the majority who think you’re nuts.
For all of your points pro or con of the constitutional matter….heed this…….
If you are accepting that aka Obama, who is really Soetoro, because he hasn’t proven he ever legally changed his adoptive name, is president…….then you are suggesting that Ahmadinejad, of Iran, can visit the U.S., impregnate a U.S. citizen, and after she gives birth in ********, Mississippi, the child can become President of the U.S. one day.
You’re okay with that??
Because ‘if’ Ann is aka Obama’s mother, and ‘if’ Barack Obama, Sr. is his father, and ‘if’ aka Obama was born in Hawaii, then that’s exactly what has happened……a British subject has become your president.
The Supreme Court of the United States has never applied the term “natural born citizen” to any other category than “those born in the country of parents who are citizens thereof………on American soil and blood of two citizens, not one American and one British………….
And that’s why a million of your tax dollars are spent to tuck away any of these ‘documents’ that prove aka Obama’s true dual citizenship…..British and Indonesian……he’s an illegal alien.
David says:
October 28, 2009 at 6:23 pm
*Now, I suppose I’ll wait another six days and countless more comments for you to finally grasp that.*
No more answers for you. You bore me.
Practical Kat,
Sounds to me like an issue of a difference of opinion. Has SCOTUS ruled in your favor somewhere in determining the precise and exact scope of the 25th Amendment with respect to presidential eligibility?
Actually, the question regarding objections was never raised as it had been in previous Joint Sessions, so I’m not completely sure what you’re talking about in the first part of your pulled comment.
Secondly, we are apparently going to have to agree to disagree that “THAT determination (sic.) cannot be revisited.” To date, I have seen no constitutional verbiage nor federal law that specifically says that Congress is the sole arbiter of eligibility (versus, of course, impeachment).
-Phil
Practical Kat,
Again, I think we’re talking about two distinctly different issues here — one of eligibility and one of impeachment. Further, to date, I’m pretty sure that the American republic has never actually had to deal with an ineligible President who was found to be such either before or during his term.
But even if we are to consider this argument to the fullest, the bottom line is that the Constitution only ever states that Congress has the “sole” power to impeach; it does not say that Congress has the “sole” power to determine eligibility.
Quite simply, where the Constitution is silent, I believe that this means that the federal government is to be silent in that respect and refer to the Bill of Rights, or, more specifically, the 9th and 10th Amendments. Of course, this observation of mine is of a general nature. Specifically regarding eligibility, if the Constitution does not give Congress the sole power of determining eligibility, then, clearly, Congress does not have that power. It would be precisely the same as saying that while the 1st Amendment guarantees the right to free speech, Congress should step in to speech of any sort if it offends someone.
As I believe “jvn” recently made comment, the Constitution similarly does not spell out the ingredients for Coca-Cola (or some such legitimate analogy). Therefore, we can clearly surmise that this is subsequently not a federal issue but one that is left to the States or the People thereof.
Yeah, and?
-Phil
Jenni @ The Audacity of Questioning -
[...] Phil, I am worried about you…I check back in on you and it seems like this site is a mess. [...]
Jenni, “get in their face is the answer”, and you know this very well.
The site is not exactly a mess, yet it is under constant assault by a swarm of Obamatrolls who are willing to go at any lengths to push any issue or discussion re Obama to irrelevancy -
The comments section of any site has two functions:
1) debate the article in cause,
2) a posting bord for additional, pertinent information
… and if you check, you will see that on this site the trolls in cause don’t constructively debate issues, all what they do is building assaults of circuitous arguments and jam the thread ad nauseam, trying to push the issue to death – again and again, again and again, like some broken records -
As any trolling operation, while what’s happening here can be irritating, it also is counterproductive:
1) the trolls convince none -
2) but, as the curent article well shows, these trolls sure confirm that anything related with Obama is fraudulent and malevolent, fact that is quite motivating for further digging in Obama’s obscure past -
While you acknowledged that you are a liberal (unfortunately, for so many a self-incrimination declaration), I hope you don’t really have an Obamaton’s flawed nature and ways –
Best regards -
Phil speculated:
If you actually read the 25th Amendment, you would know that it is clearly addressed only to situations where the President is “unable” to fill his duties, in the case of mental or physical disability. It is NOT a way to test the President’s qualifications to hold office — it IS a way to act in the event that there is a President who suffers a debilitating stroke, or Alzheimer’s, or who lapses into a coma.
“Fail to qualify” is NOT the same as “unable to discharge the powers and duties”.
Congress determined (without objection) on January 8th that Barack Obama was qualified. (It’s an either/or proposition — if they had not made that determination, they could not have designated him President). THAT determination cannot be revisited.
siseduermapierda,
“David finally gets it!!!”
Actually, I think it is YOU who has finally comprehended my original point – at least in part. Congratulations nonetheless.
However, you missed the part where I also stated that disseminating information about one’s past that has been kept from the public – i.e., records, associates, etc. – is crucial to knowing and understanding a candidate running for federal office. If we don’t know about people, we can’t make proper and rational judgments. If we can’t make proper judgments about our leaders in the federal government, then we put ourselves at risk for failure and ruin.
Now, I suppose I’ll wait another six days and countless more comments for you to finally grasp that.
Phil surmised:
No, Phil, the truth is that the Constitution provides one, and only one, avenue for determining the issue of eligibility — and that is at the joint session, as outlined in Article II and the 12th and 20th Amendment.
There is NO OTHER mechanism after the electoral college has voted. Under the Constitution, Congress is REQUIRED TO certify the candidate with the most electoral votes as President, UNLESS they find that he is unqualified. Once they certify — there is no mechanism to challenge or question that determination.
Rather than try to build your argument on what the Constitution clearly does not say — why don’t you explain your rationale and specify the legal or Constitutional authority for your own belief?
So far, every birther lawsuit has been thrown out of court on jurisdictional grounds. It’s going to keep right on happening, perhaps with a few more Judges stepping up to the plate and imposing big money sanctions on the idiots with law degrees who insist on wasting their time with frivolous law suits.
SanDiegoSam,
Excellent. Then the truth of the matter is that any given Joint Session of Congress that convenes for the purpose of certifying Electoral Votes is not the “last legal opportunity” to “raise the issue” of eligibility.
Again, excellent, regarding the impeachment question. However, that’s not been my question.
-Phil
Jenni,
If the site is a “mess,” that would be based on the quality of comments being bandied about. I can assure you that the postings continue to be of bodaciously kewl quality.
You’re using portions of my site for writing your paper? Wow. Nice effect. Hopefully you’ve properly sourced it
Yes, it is true — my life is temporarily exceptionally busy for the time being, so the site is not as updated as frequently. But hey — at least the comments don’t require me to always moderate them to be public.
“In-fighting?” Don’t you mean, “vehement, robust discussion?” That’s been going on since long before you took a break from my site.
-Phil
terminu says:
October 28, 2009 at 4:36 pm
fraudster siseduermapierda :
*If barack was born in Hawaii, he is a US citizen but not a natural born citizen *
Utter nonsense. The 14th amendment defines two and only two types of citizen: born and naturalized. There are no separate natural born citizens. The born citizens ARE the natural born citizens. The case of Wong Kim Ark clarified who are the citizens born under the jurisdiction of the US, and that is most certainly children who are born here, regardless of their parents’ status. Insisting there is a different class of citizen other than the two defined by the 14th amendment is a fatal flaw in your logic. The Wong case tells us it just isn’t so. Barack Obama was born in Hawaii Aug 4, 1961. Prove otherwise. And stop the stupid ‘fraudster’ name-calling, you come off looking like a jackass.
terminu says:
October 28, 2009 at 4:40 pm
Minor states the definition of NBC as jus soli jus sanguinis both parents*
No it doesn’t. The definition of who is citizen born under the jurisdiction of the US was decided in Wong Kim Ark. You’ve made the same error often made by birthers. ( Or you copied and pasted and never really read the whole decision.) They cherry-pick a phrase out of the decision that you think supports your argument and dismiss the rest. But you’ve taken it out of context of the decision. Dr Conspiracy wrote a fine explanation of the decision in the Minor case. I’ll post it for you here so you will understand it in its context to the Wong case that followed it:
- Minor tells us that there are two kinds of citizens: native or natural born and naturalized
- There was some question prior to the passage of the Fourteenth Amendment whether the children of aliens born under the jurisdiction of the United States were citizens.
- Minor does not resolve this question
- However, it is clear that those born citizens are natural born citizens (since there are only two types, and those born citizens cannot be naturalized).
- United States v. Wong Kim Ark clarifies who is under the jurisdiction of the United States and thereby who are citizens at birth.
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2009/03/minor-v-happersett-88-u-s-162-1874/
(Calling names reduces your credibility.)
fraudster Black Lion:
Thank you for proving the point that Barack is ineligible:
“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside..” US Constitution 14th Amendment
“Subject to the jurisdiction thereof” means sole allegiance, which is redundantly born out in CRA1866 and the VERY MODERN naturalization oath. Show were CRA1866 was ever overturned?
and since you USE the 14th amendment, you might possibly give credence to the man who constructed the bulk of it, Mr. John Bingham who clearly defines NBC as jus soli jus sanguinis both parents.
And Chester Arthur the usurper, his father’s citizenship was not known at the time of his usurpation, born out in recent historical discoveries. So he lied, and made US military salute the British flag and indian tribes are suing over their land because he was ineligible, as is Obama. Chester Arthur is a historic usurper, he defrauded about his parental citizenship, whereas Obama has admitted he was born British.
And you lied about any Kerchner ruling, in fact that is the stark glaring outcome–no ruling whatsoever, the judge never said Obama was NBC nor that he was even born in Hawaii. The merits of the case, any case, has never come to scrutiny, just as no courts martial have taken place –because they will not pass muster.
No jury would allow that a British citizen is a natural born American. If it’s not obvious, try to think of what the founders would have thought of such an obscene slap in the face to their sacrifice notion..
And failing that, fall back on Barack Obama’s words in S.R. 511 which he actively cosponsored and signed off on…your fraud plastic jesus said…
BOTH PARENTS MUST BE US CITIZENS FOR THE CHILD TO BE A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN.
You know what? I notice none of you bots bother countering one argument in particular…
OBAMA HIMSELF SAYS BOTH PARENTS MUST BE US CITIZENS FOR NATURAL BORN CITIZEN STATUS
SENATE RESOLUTION 511
fraudster Black Lion:
Thank you for proving the point that Barack is ineligible:
“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside..” US Constitution 14th Amendment
“Subject to the jurisdiction thereof” means sole allegiance, which is redundantly born out in CRA1866 and the VERY MODERN naturalization oath. Show were CRA1866 was ever overturned?
and since you USE the 14th amendment, you might possibly give credence to the man who constructed the bulk of it, Mr. John Bingham who clearly defines NBC as jus soli jus sanguinis both parents.
You know what? I notice none of you bots bother countering one argument in particular…
OBAMA HIMSELF SAYS BOTH PARENTS MUST BE US CITIZENS FOR NATURAL BORN CITIZEN STATUS
SENATE RESOLUTION 511
misanthropicus:
Hey you were the guy babbling about “oistriches” and “speciae.” Not me.
The topic of this thread was Obama at Columbia. The topic was quickly shown to be based on falsehood, and even Phil has gone back and rewritten his headline to disguise how badly and thoroughly it was debunked.
Your “irrefutable” evidence is no more coherent than your garbled misuse of the phrase “cognitive dissonance.” But that is neither here nor there. If you had evidence of a fraud, then you should be filing a criminal complaint. Until you do so, you’re pretty much just a yawner.
fraudster siseduermapierda, you may like to make up things and believe them, but next time try reading the BNA ‘48 and KIA which prove that barack’s citizenship did not vanish in to thin air nor get gobbled up by superior US sovereignty, what made-up lala fluff!
Minor states the definition of NBC as jus soli jus sanguinis both parents, and that NBC is not in the Constitution, yet the 14th had been added 6 years prior, obviously NBC is not therefore in the 14th.
The Constitution Article II differentiates NBC from US Citizen via the legal term “OR”, critical because US citizen is sufficient eligibility for Congress, not for POTUS.
fraudster siseduermapierda :
If barack was born in Hawaii, he is a US citizen but not a natural born citizen because his father was UKC and per BNA1948 and KIA he is still even a British citizen having never revoked said citizenship.
If barak was not born in Hawaii his mother, in 1961 was too young to confer US citizenship.
THOSE ARE THE LAWS
deal with it, fraudster
David:
And yet you stumbled rather badly by providing an object lesson in the opposite. We appear here to be in violent agreement.
The burden of proof is on the affirmative.
Obama has met his.
It remains evidentiarily unchallenged.
Phil says:
The courts don’t seem to want to get involved in your conspiracy theory, so I doubt you’ll have much luck with that. In any case, you have one definite answer there: yes, President Obama showed the proper legal documentation of his birth in Hawaii.
I did not say it was anything new. The questions of Obama’s eligibility were answered long ago. Yes, he is eligible. Do the proper authorities say so? Yes. Do senators argue with conspiracy theorists? Of course not, but Senator Kyl did refer to Snopes.com where the myths you are spreading have been debunked. Since the time of Kyl’s letter you have gotten yet more proof, most notably the clear statement from the Hawaiian Department of Health: http://hawaii.gov/health/about/pr/2009/09-063.pdf
The issue is that you keep pretending things have not been established when in fact they have. That’s why even President Obama’s serious political opponents call you crazy (or worse).
Can anyone vouch for Obama’s history?
Obamamama (Valerie Jarrett) is a pefect illustration of Obamatons’ hypocrisy –
http://www.breitbart.tv/top-obama-aide-blasts-fox-news-while-ducking-msnbc-question/
terminu says:
October 28, 2009 at 1:46 pm
You are completely wrong. Re-read Minor. And it was explained in a prior post why you are wrong about British citizenship. When you start out down the path of suggesting that Barack Obama may not be a citizen at all, intelligent people tune the rest out. It’s wacka-doodle nonsense.