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, 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:

See the following links regarding the eligibility saga:


Subscriptions -=- Twitter: @trsol -=- Facebook (TRSoL) -=- Facebook (Rightside Phil)

426 thoughts on “Can Anyone Vouch for Obama’s History? What About His Columbia Records?”

  1. 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.

  2. Phil asserted:

    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).

    Here’s the most recent ruling from a Federal Court on the matter:

    [O]n the day that President Obama took the presidential oath and was sworn in, he became President of the United States. Any removal of him from the presidency must be accomplished through the Constitution’s mechanisms for the removal of a President, either through impeachment or the succession process set forth in theT wenty-Fifth Amendment…. The process for removal of a sitting president–removal for any reason–is within the province of Congress, not the courts.

    Barnett v. Obama, “Order regarding Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss”, at pp. 24-25; see:

  3. 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.

  4. 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…


    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.

Comments are closed.