It's time to seriously ignore the Ivy League college grads
with the prestigious grades when we're looking for
White House candidates. They make bad presidents.
Last November the Huffington Post commented that Texas Gov. Rick Perry was "hostile" towards the existing college system because he didn't do well scholastically. It seems Perry's transcripts from his years at Texas A&M reveal that Perry seldom earned anything higher than a "C" in the courses he took. He earned a C in US History, a D in Shakespeare and a D in economics.

This is the 21st century. Who cares about Shakespeare? When was the last time you heard Fox Business News quote some Ivy League loser in a Financial Times or Wall Street Journal piece who, when asked if he thought the US currency would remain solvent, reply with a quote from Hamlet: "To be or not to be—that is the question." Or, have a reporter ask Gov. Rick Perry when he was still a candidate, how he thought he would fare in the primaries in March and April, only to have the governor quote Shakespeare's Julius Caesar by saying: "Beware of the Ides of March." Or finally, when a reporter asks Barack Obama about his paternity and have Obama quote Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet by answering: "What's in a name?"

My personal view is that Shakespeare is dead literature. Only an intellectual moron would speak such dribble in polite conversation. The verbiage is corrupt, and it doesn't make sense. If you put me on the racks, I would be forced to confess that while it makes me want to vomit the Old English vocabulary one vowel at a time, my wife loves Shakespeare. I find it not only boring but inane. Literature? Give me Edgar Allan Poe or, better yet, Samuel Clemens (Mark Twain for those who don't know)—and fewer still will since Mark Twain has now been branded as a racist, and his words are unfit for your children because Tom Sawyer and Huckleberry Finn are now politically incorrect. Fret not, fair soul. You can still find Tom Sawyer or Huckleberry Finn at your local flea market—or at a rare book store where first editions of Tom Sawyer or Huckleberry Finn can sell for as much a $7,000.

So, to me a "D" in Shakespeare is a badge of honor. It means you survived Dread & Duress. I could never, in good conscious every vote for a political candidate who scored an "A" in Shakespeare because that person is so removed from common American thought that he would never represent me—or the conservative, constitutional ideals I stand for. The fact that he, or she, would waste his or her education on such worthless liberal tomfoolery tells me that he or she believe they are, or wants to be, part of an elite group of the most refined Americans who have been bred to believe their destiny is to rule the rest of us.

But, let's get back to Gov. Perry for a minute—and to what's important to the average Jane Doe and Joe Doaks who pays the taxes and does all the backbreaking work, all the fighting and all the dying to keep this country strong. No one outside this country likes us. But everyone wants to live here. They just want to change the greatest democracy in history into something else. They don't seem to get it. Once you change who we are, we aren't it anymore. We become what they are trying to escape.

Believe me when I say this: what's important to America's children is not learning about Shakespeare (although a lot of teachers and a whole big bunch of mothers might disagree with me). Me, I never earned a plugged penny in my life from quoting Shakespeare, but I have earned a good living through my knowledge of both American and world history and, even more, how the US government is mismanaged by thieves and opportunists. That's why what our kids need to learn is everything they can about the history of this nation and its government. How are they going to know that politicians are stealing the taxpayers blind if they don't know what politician can and cannot do under the law? But, most important they need to understand their rights under the rule of law through the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights. And they need to understand what makes the Bill of Rights different from the European Union Convention on Human Rights, or its UN clone, the UN Covenant on Human Rights. Under the United States Bill of Rights, liberty is inherent. Under both the UN or EU Convention on Human Rights, freedom is a retractable right given, limited or withdrawn on the whims of politicians because "citizens" are not equals, they are human chattel.

Learning the history of this great nation is what's important. Because to appreciate liberty and profit from it, you have to understand why so many Americans shed their blood to preserve it. Take that away from America's children and they will grow up with a corrupted and distorted view of what America is, who our forefathers were, and how—and why—they very deliberately created the greatest model of liberty in the history of the world. But even more important is the question of why—and how—powerful, greedy rich men were allowed to slowly erase the rights our ancestors fought and died for in places like Lexington and Concord, Ticonderoga, Bunker Hill, Norfolk, Long Island, Mount Holly, Trenton, Princeton, Brandywine, and scores of other names on a map blurred by the erasers of revisionist political correctness in the hands of those who decided Americans are to blame for all of the unrest in the world.

Let's look at America's first president. It's important to study how Gen. George Washington structured the government of the United States because if John Adams or Alexander Hamilton had been our first president, liberty would have vanished before there was a second presidential election. The government of the United States would have quickly morphed into something much more closely resembling the parliamentary governments of Europe in which Lords ruled. Our Presidents would have remained President, but our Vice Presidents would have become Prime Ministers.

We would not have had to wait for Woodrow Wilson and John Pierpont Morgan to convert the Republic into a democracy, or for Franklin Roosevelt, John D. Rockefeller, Jr. and JP Morgan to complete the task by converting that democracy into a form of parliamentarian socialism. Our God-breathed inherent rights would have morphed into "mother-may-I" rights conditioned on our obedience to whatever administration was in power. Our rights should be as secure under a liberal as they are under a conservative. Sad. They aren't. But, they would be if bribing politicians, or politicians providing financially lucrative quid pro quos for those bribes was made illegal—and everyone doing the buying and selling of political favors received a mandatory 20 year vacation as guests of the taxpayers of the United States.

Our written Constitution and Bill of Rights under Federalists who believed the States should not have superior authority over the central government, was doomed to morph into something that read more like the UN Covenant on Human Rights than the Bill of Rights even if we had a few more presidents like George Washington and a few less John Adamses, Abe Lincolns, Woodrow Wilsons, Franklin D. Roosevelts, Jimmy Carters and Barack Obamas. Greedy, power hungry men would have still sold their souls to the princes of industry and the barons of banking and business who needed a central government that unilaterally controlled both the States and the people. Money buys what money wants. The Constitution gave the States the superior role of governance—jointly with the people, the human capital of the rich. Yet the princes of industry, who wanted a dictatorship in America controlled by them, successfully marginalized liberty by buying its caretakers with bribes the politicians call political contributions.

As a youth John Adams was taught by private tutors although his father was a man of modest means. At an early age, Adams' parents decided their son would go to Harvard College in Cambridge. They wanted him to become a clergyman. A brilliant intellectual with a superior IQ, Adams became a delegate in the Continental Congress and a diplomat the courts of Europe during the Revolutionary War. Nicknamed the "Atlas of Independence," the second President of the United States, Adams became the first president to actually erase the Bill of Rights with the signing of the very unconstitutional Aliens and Sedition Act of 1798 that was designed to abridge free speech by stifling criticism of his oppressive political tactics. John Adams saw himself as an elected king.

Men who fought the British to win liberty and with it, the right of free men to speak their mind, were arrested for speaking out against the tyrannical edicts of John Adams. Adams believed the central government had the right through implied authority to overrule the States, when the Constitution specifically said the opposite. Adams relied on the five Federalist appointed Supreme Court justices to enforce the unconstitutional edits of the 5th Congress with respect to the Aliens and Sedition Act of 1797. The first victim of the Sedition Act was a Vermont Representative in the US Congress, Matthew Lyon, who published a letter in a local newspaper complaining that with the federal executive "...every consideration of the public welfare is swallowed up in a continual grasp for power and unbound thirst for ridiculous pomp, foolish adulation and self avarice." (Adams wanted the presidency to be treated like the "crown heads" of Europe—as royalty. Lyon was arrested and brought before Supreme Court Justice William Tyler Paterson. After a brief trial reminiscent of the Salem Witch Trials, a jury found Lyon guilty. The trial only took a few minutes because Justice Paterson refused to allow Lyon's attorney, Anthony Haswell, to present a defense. Paterson then ordered the jury to find Lyon guilty. They did.

Associate Justice Samuel Chase, who addressed Congress and urged them to pass the Aliens & Sedition Act, was more zealous in his persecutions of Republican-Democrat than Paterson. He was impeached and removed from the high court for the Sedition Act persecutions. Ten US citizens were convicted under an unconstitutional law that violated the Bill of Rights by limiting freedom of the press and restricting the right of free speech. (Does any of this have a right of familiarity today?) Thomas Jefferson and James Madison authored the Virginia and Kentucky Resolves, nullifying the Alien and Sedition Act, and stressing that Congress created a central government as an agent of the States, and that it was very deliberately created subservient to those States.

To punish the Federalist Supreme Court Justices who abused their authority by prosecuting US citizens for exercising their first amendment right to free speech, Congress reduced the number of Supreme Court Justices from six to five. Then they impeached New Hampshire US District Court Judge John Pickering. Following Pickering's removal, the House of Representatives impeached Supreme Court Justice Samuel Chase—one of the signers of the Declaration of Independence—for acting as Adams' judicial henchman. The Senate, however, refused to remove him from the bench and Chase continued to serve on the high court until his death in 1811.

The Federalists, who controlled both Houses of Congress, passed what became known as the Midnight Judges Act, (the Judiciary Act of 1801). They reduced the size of the Supreme Court and reorganized the federal court system doubling the number of circuit-riding judgeships in every federal circuit (except the 6th, which had only one circuit court judge). The circuit judgeships were abolished in 1802 even though the judges continued to ride circuit until 1869.. But in 1801, in the 19 days between the passage of the Judiciary Act of 1801 and the end of his presidency, John Adams filled as many of these new judgeships as he could to guarantee that federalist philosophy would dominate the opinions of the federal judiciary for years to come. The judges became known as "Midnight Judges" because their appointments were made official only hours before Thomas Jefferson was sworn in as the third president of the United States. Long before Franklin D. Roosevelt politicized the federal judiciary, John Adams initiated the practice.

Compare Adams' political philosophy with another Harvard alumni—Barack Obama—and you are at least privately forced to acknowledge that not much has changed with the political pedigrees of social progressives in 210 years. Patriotic rhetoric is just that—electioneering rhetoric. We, as a People, need to come to grips with a simple reality: the tongue-in-cheek pun: "How do you know when a politician is lying? When his lips are moving," is not a joke. It's fact. Politicians—from both sides of the aisle—say whatever they think the audience they are addressing will buy. It's a sales pitch, plain and simple. When they say you can't judge a book by its covers, they're wrong. You can. What's between the covers is the sales pitch. The cover tells you the pedigree of the candidate.

One good example of the proverbial sales pitch was Newt Gingrich campaigning in the 2012 GOP primaries. He promising the citizens of every state something from the taxpayers. In fairness to Gingrich, while what he did was disingenuous, that's how political party leaders enact legislation that the constituency of the legislators do not favor—they promise the politicians whose votes they need some grand gratuity they cannot resist in exchange for that vote. Since that's how Speaker Gingrich got votes for legislation the leadership wanted enacted, it's reasonable to assume that Candidate Gingrich would use the same tactics to get the votes he needed to prevail in the presidential primaries. In 2008, Candidate Obama did the same thing. He promised everything to everyone and delivered nothing.

Well, that's not exactly true. He promised change—and that he delivered. It just wasn't the change he promised. He promised jobs and delivered the highest, most sustained unemployment rate since the Great Depression. He promised he would end the recession and bring back a healthy, robust economy. Did he do it? No. He did the reverse. Using FDR-type social engineering, he worsened the economy (but continues to blame former President George W. Bush, who by the way, did not cause the Recession of 2007. That was caused by two things. First, the subprime mortgage collapse which was actually caused by (then) Illinois State Senator Barack Obama who convinced America's first black President, Bill Clinton that financing homes for minorities who could not afford the mortgage payments was good economy. Clinton pushed Congress to pass the Community Reinvestment Act of 1995 (Public Law 95-128, Title VIII, 91 Stat 1147, 13 USC § 2901) that put pressure on banks to finance bad risk loans under a plan that would allow bad risk home buyers to sue them and the Justice Department to prosecute them if they did not. While the subprime collapse was actually Clinton's fault, it was as much Obama's fault since he was the one who convinced the White House and Democratic leaders to enact the law. The law, which was enacted by Jimmy Carter in 1977, was amended under Clinton in 1993 and 1994. One modification was made in 1995—the rule which opened the floodgate for bad mortgages. Banks were no longer allowed to consider where the home was located, or where the buyer's income came from. If he earned enough money to afford the house payment, he was granted a loan. This opened the door for welfare recipients with enough dependents to goose up their welfare check and qualify for a mortgage—on the taxpayer's dime.

Second, with the princes of industry and barons of banking and business transferring industrial assets—factories and jobs—to the third world, the banks in the third world were obligated to make monumental investments in the infrastructures of their fledgling economies with money borrowed—you guessed it—from the banks in those industrialized nations. Once again, our jobs—and our dime. Since he thinks that was Bush-43's fault, too, can you believe that Obama, the Harvard grad, couldn't see that coming? Or didn't care? After all, it wasn't his dime. Had he not had his head up George Soros' very rich rectum, he might have seen it. An unemployed stiff who gave up trying to find a job two or three years ago could probably have explained it to him. After all, they experienced it first hand. Obama only reads about it in his daily briefings that are prepared by likeminded social progressives who are also still blaming George W. Bush—and the GOP for not delivering a national budget since Obama ended up on the wrong end of Pennsylvania Avenue on January 20, 2009.

A global bank crisis was triggered by the collapse of Indonesia's Bank Century in 2007. That bank failure came on the heels of the insolvency of Indonesia's central bank, Bank Indonesia a decade earlier. Bank Century, which was deeply indebted to most of the major banks in the industrialized world, lost 6.7 trillion rupiah ($720 million), and threatened a bank collapse domino affect that could have taken down not only the central banks of the United States and the European Union but the International Monetary Fund as well. As governments were forced to pour money into the financial sink hole, what inevitably happens to any economy when there is no money to grease the wheels of commerce, happened. The global economy ground to a halt. That's what happened in 1930, and that's what happened in 2007. Blaming George W. Bush for the Bank Crisis in 2007 is like blaming humans for global warming when astrophysicists are now making it abundantly clear that global warming is a cyclic event caused by solar cycles, not by carbon dioxide emissions from industrial plants. Obama needs to stop blaming George W/ Bush because he lacks the intellect to solve the problems that face this nation—because he lacks the intellect to define what the problems are, and what caused them.

Adding to the jobs drain is the continued effort by Obama to throw one multi-billion dollar stimulus plan after another into the economic abyss, further reducing the availability of money in the private sector which Obama is still crippling with a thousand new regulations a month. And, that of course, adds to the unemployment crisis. Again, not Bush-43's fault. It's 100% Obama's fault because the Harvard lawyer is clueless now to solve a problem he can't even define—no can all the king's men since they, like their boss, have no experience doing anything except registering illegal aliens to vote. Obama needs to take his head out of the Sierra Club's expansive rear end and listen to the American people—and by that I mean the American people who work for a living in the private sector (and, particularly, those who recently lost their jobs due to Obama's inability to do his job), not the greenie-weinee ecowackos who graduated from some ivy league university and went directly into some leftist wacko save-the-world-from-people foundation or think tank without ever passing go and collecting a paycheck that they had to earn by working in the private sector.

.And sadly, after four years of campaigning 60 to 80 hours a week for a second term, Obama hasn't learned one thing about how to do the job that emanates from 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. He thinks the time he's not campaigning on the taxpayers' dime is for fun and games—on the taxpayers' dime. Obama's been living on the taxpayers' dollar for so long, he doesn't realize that every now and then, he has to pick up the tab himself.

Obama promised to "reset" relations with the Soviet Union (i.e., still referred to as Russia, but don't shelf that phrase, Soviet Union. They'll be using it again fairly soon). In fact, Obama's open mic gaffe with then Russian President Dmitry Medvedev in Seoul on March 25, 2012, verifies Obama new relations with the Soviets won't be to the liking of the American people based on Obama saying, "This is my last election. And after my election, I have more flexibility." To which Medvedev replied: "I understand you. I [will] transmit this information to Vladimir. And, I stand with you." It appears Hillary Clinton may have been wrong about those 3 a.m. calls on the red phone in the White House. Apparently that phone doesn't scare Obama. But, from Obama's mic gaffe, it sounds like those conversations might scare the rest of us.

What Obama appears to have been talking about was pulling our missile defense system out of Poland. Incoming President Vladimir Putin wants a new nuclear umbrella shield treaty with the United States—where we have no capacity to shoot down any nuclear missiles aimed at the United States from Russia. And, with a wink and a handshake, Putin has promised never to fire a missile at us. And the former head of the Soviet KGB is so trustworthy, who wouldn't believe him? Obama halted what was the most important defense project in the history of the nuclear age—the Strategic Defense Initiative anti-missile system to protect us not only from Soviet and Chinese missiles, but those from the Muslim world as well.

According to Obama, we won't need a missile defense system against his friends and personal financial supporters in the Arab world since one of his campaign promises was that he would bring peace to the Middle East. He was going to do that, he promised, by bringing home all US troops in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Obama sat back and watched as the Muslim Brotherhood instigated revolutions or at least civil unrest in Tunisa, Egypt, Syria, Libya, Yemen, Kuwait, Bahrain, and Qatar. The warlords of the desert sands view Obama as a brother, not a threat. America should view him as a threat, not a brother. The Middle East is far more dangerous today than it was the day Obama took office. They know a wimp in the White House when they see one. The Muslim Brotherhood is reincarnating the Ottoman Empire through a union of 46 Muslim-dominated nations. Add to that a post script. Obama promised to bring about a productive, peaceful partnership between the United States and Iran.

Obama's biggest campaign promise, made only to minority audiences in safe zones (campaign rallies without any media cameras rolling) was a promise to redistribute the wealth of the rich (referring only to the White middle class) to the Democratic Party's human chattel—Black Americans. The redistribution has begun. But not one poor minority family has seen any of it. Where are the redistributed taxpayer dollars going? To the one percenters—Obama donors.

First, Obama fed the nation's largest banks with billions of tax dollars who made bad loans to the Indonesian banks financing the modernization of the third world; and then, using the stimulus money that Congress authorized to buy foreclosed subprime mortgages from the mortgage banks to free up money to keep credit alive in the United States, Obama bailed out both General Motors and Chrysler. (Without looking at how Obama redistributed the middle class wealth he promised to the black minorities for their vote in 2008 to Chrysler, let's look at General Motors since that information is more readily accessible to me.) GM received at least $79.6 billion from Obama. First, GM received a loan that was reportedly $49.5 billion. (Some political pundits place the amount anywhere from $51 to d $81 billion. Its hard to tell since the transparency Obama promised in 2008 (another failed pledge) is still as fuzzy as his birth certificate and draft registration card.) The numbers are wrong because $30.1 billion of the money given to GM was not a loan. With that money, Obama purchased 60% of General Motors. The United Auto Workers, who had no financial liability at stake in either GM or Chrysler was given 17% of GM's reissued stock and a 65% stake in Chrysler. The union's argument for ownership was that GM and Chrysler owed millions to their employee pension funds. In reality, it was Marxist social progressive thievery, plain and simple.

I expect a puzzled Florida minority mom named Peggy Joseph is still wondering why the check for the promised redistribution of wealth hasn't reached her mailbox yet. On Oct. 31, 2008, Joseph took her two daughters out of school to see history in the making. Joseph, with her two young daughters in tow, told NBC News that she was excited because, when Obama wins the election, he's "...going to pay for my gas and my mortgage." She told NBC that she never thought this day was going to happen, adding "...I won't have to put gas in my car, or pay my mortgage. You know, if I help him, he's going to help me." Sounds like Peggy Joseph took an Obama campaign promise too literally. The question is, how many minority moms believed that redistribution promise as well? Based on Peggy Joseph's words, I guess we can say, that's another broken promise by the Indonesian-Kenyan.

The list goes on, but you've heard the promises far too many times to want to hear them again. To shorten the rhetoric, he promised everyone who listened and even those who tried hard not to, that he was going to give us a better America. When you're a Muslim, sand dunes, camels, poverty and a submissive wife you can beat whenever you like is a better world. Obama's better world is a Marxist utopia that's a mixture of Kenya, Indonesia and the Soviet Union—before perestroika, maybe with a little Venezuela thrown in. With Obama playing the Hugo Chavez role of dictator. Harvard graduate or not, Obama's not a good man. He might be popular with the watermelons and other social progressives and with other Democrats who are bullied by union bosses into casting their votes for whatever political hack the princes of industry and barons of banking are backing simply because he promised them more bang for their bucks than his opponent.

We now live in a world where human capital has been redefined as the "absolute wealth," and gold and silver as a commodity you buy and sell. The impoverished third world with 80% of the world's population and 95% of its starvation and disease, is the most valuable real estate on Planet Earth. Soon the emerging nations will have almost 100% of its transnational corporate jobs because the industrial nations with a population far below replenishment levels, can neither manufacture nor buy the products and commodities the princes of industry can produce.

That's what the intelligensia brings to the table—communism. America doesn't need social progressives with MBAs and Ph.Ds in the Oval Office. We need leaders in the Oval Office with enough common sense and business savvy to make the hard decisions when they need to be made—for the nation, not the princes of industry and barons of banking who fill their campaign war chests. America's first President was home-schooled and to a large degree, self taught. He never received a college education either from attending classes or from tutors. His education came from associating with educated men

In his first State of the Union address—for which Washington, without a BA, an MBA or a Ph.D nor a teleprompter which Obama absolutely must have to coherently string four two-syllable words together—Washington summed up a 221-year old argument levied by social progressives in this century who know they cannot surrender our sovereignty back to Europe as long as Americans own guns. When Washington uttered the nation's first State of the Union address on Jan. 8, 1790, he said "I embrace with great satisfaction the opportunity of congratulating you on the present favorable prospects of our public affairs...the rising credit and respectability of our country...Among the many interesting objects which will engage your attention that providing for the common defense will merit particular regard. To be prepared for war is one of the most effectual means of preserving peace. A free people ought not only be armed—their safety and interest require that they should promote such manufactories as they tend to render them independent of others..."

Now, here was a home-schooled guy with no college education, no MBA, no Ph.D, and no Nobel Peace Prizes who was smart enough to realize that if you transfer the wealth of the nation—the factories that make the goods the world wants and, in times of peril, the machines and weapons that made your nation the most powerful nation on Earth—to your quasi-frends and deadly enemies, you set into motion a doomsday scenario you will no longer be able to control. Because sooner rather than later, your weakest enemy can, and likely will, defeat you in battle. And, in a nutshell, that is what our current "friends" in Europe who fear us even though we protect them, want.

Why did we stop listening to George Washington? Or, for that matter, backwoodsman Andrew Jackson who had no formal education at all? Yet he was smart enough to realize that Nicholas Biddle, the head of America's central bank, The Second Bank, was a very dangerous man. Biddle was a child prodigy who entered the University of Pennsylvania at the age of 10. When the University refused to award the teenager a decree, he transferred to Princeton and graudated in 1801. He then studied law at Cambridge in England. He was an obnoxious prig who insulted everyone below his station in life. As a result, he was challenged to a duel which his elder brother, Thomas, fought in his stead. Thomas Biddle was killed defending his child prodigy brother.

Because Jackson, the 17th President of the United States, vetoed the bill to recharter the central bank, Biddle hired Richard Lawrence, an unemployed house painter, to assassinate him. On Jan. 30, 1835 while Jackson was attending the funeral of Congressman Warren Davis [D-SC] at the Capitol Building, Lawrence—armed with two pistols—tried to kill him. Both pistols misfired. At his trial on April 11, 1835, Lawrence testified that he was hired by Biddle to kill the hero of the Battle of New Orleans. The prosecutor, Frances Scott Key (who wrote the Star Spangled Banner), argued that Lawrence was a deranged lunatic. The jury deliberated for 5 minutes before bringing in a verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity. Lawrence was confined in various several asylums until 1855 when he was transferred the newly built Government Hospital for the Insane in Washington, DC where he stayed until his death in 1861. Key, the prosecutor for the State, was supposed to argue for a guilty verdict and at least investigate Lawrence's allegation that he was hired to kill the President of the United States—particularly when the man he claimed hired him was Biddle.

Other presidents without college degrees were William Henry Harrison, Zachary Taylor, Millard Fillmore, Andrew Johnson, Grover Cleveland, Harry S. Truman, William McKinley and, of course, Abraham Lincoln. Those with liberal ivy league educations include: John Adams (Harvard), John Quincy Adams (Harvard), George HW Bush (Yale), George W Bush (Yale), Thomas Jefferson (William & Mary), John F. Kennedy (who transferred to Harvard from Princeton), James Madison (Princeton), James Monroe (William & Mary) , Barack Obama (who tranferred to Columbia from Occidental College and then to Harvard Law School—interesting for a guy with no money) , Franklin D. Roosevelt (Harvard), Theodore Roosevelt (Harvard), William Howard Taft (Yale), John Tyler (William and Mary), and Woodrow Wilson (Princeton).

Social progressivism, under the name of Illuminism, began as a clandestine conspiracy to assassinate all the crown heads of Europe in order to break the shackles of bondage to the royals of Europe as America itself fought the American Revolution to free itself of the shackles of one royal—King George III of England. Socialism evolved from what was referred to as the Gilded Age in the 1890s. During the Gilded Age, the sons of the scions of wealth were educated in the ivy league schools that prepared the youth of wealth to rule. The Progressive Era presidents began with William McKinley (a college drop-out), followed by Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Franklin D. Roosevelt and Harry S. Truman. Teddy Roosevelt hand-picked William Howard Taft to succeed him, believing Taft was a socialist as well. Taft was not. Woodrow Wilson was. As were Franklin D. Roosevelt and most of the New Dealers in Congress, including moderate Missouri Truman. By the end of World War II socialsm—communism—had become an ugly word. The communists in the US government , who have been with us since 1933, quickly pretended to be something else. Georgia governor Jimmy Carter, who campaigned as a pious Southern Baptist, was one of them. When Barack Obama's name is struck from the list of US Presidents, Carter will remain the most inept President in history since Obama has absolutely no evidence to prove he is a United States citizen and therefore, Harvard Law School graduate or not, may not be qualified to claim the right to hold that office—and remain inscribed on the list of this nation's leaders..

That's the problem with the political candidate who promise the most transparent presidency in history when his whole live is locked in a closet—with a bevy of lawyers guarding the door. A man with nothing to hide does not spend over a million dollars of his own money over a four year period to hide what he says does not exist, and prevent people from actually seeing what does. How do we know who, or what, this transparent man really is? He wears the shroud of a Manchurian Candidate, and has been accused of being one for the Muslim world. The evidence says he is even with an opaque shroud concealing every moment of his life.

In their book delineating the failed leadership of Barack Obama, Hope Is Not Strategy, DM Lukas and John L. Mariotti described Obama as a completely "manufactured candidate" without the bonafides that past presidents are required to verify in order to get on the ballot—particularly that historic resume called a "past"—other than a couple of one-liners that note Obama has a Harvard law degree, and that he showed up for a few classes at Columbia University and that he was enrolled in Occidental College from 1979 to 1981. Mariotti referred to Obama as a "Manchurian Candiate" whose life as Barry Soetoro is sealed from public scrutiny. Mariotti and Lukas wrote a Forbes online article on March 25, 2012 hawking their book. Before the end of the day the article they posted vanished in the cyber-black hole where things which are not supposed to be printed in the accredited media vanish forever—but, in this case, not before bloggers snagged it for posterity. Here is that vanished snippet from Hope Is Not Strategy: