The chart below depicts the difference between Romney’s Free Market and Obama’s Socialism.

Below is an article on the cover of the latest issue of Newsweek Magazine, which features the headline “Hit The Road Barack”.  Read the article and let us know what you think.

Newsweek Cover: Hit the Road Barack

Read more on Newsmax.com: Newsweek Cover: Hit the Road Barack

The Following is an interview on FrontPageMag.com with Dr. John C. Drew who tried to let the media know that President Obama had been a Marxist socialist looking forward to an inevitable Communist revolution back when he was a sophomore at Occidental College.

Frontpage Interview’s guest today is Dr. John C. Drew, a political scientist who tried, without success, to alert the media and the John McCain campaign back in 2008 that young Occidental sophomore Obama had been a Marxist socialist looking forward to an inevitable Communist revolution. Since then, Drew’s take on young Obama’s ideological extremism has been featured in books including Michael Savage’s Trickle Up Poverty, Paul Kengor’s Dupes, Stanley Kurtz’s Radical-In-Chief, Jack Cashill’s Deconstructing Obama and most recently in Paul Kengor’s newest book, The Communist – Frank Marshall Davis: The Untold Story of Barack Obama’s Mentor. Dr. Drew has contributed at least four articles regarding young Obama’s ideological extremism to American Thinker and has posted articles at Breitbart.com and PJMedia. Key elements of Dr. Drew’s story have been verified by liberal authors including David Remnick in The Bridge and most recently David Maraniss in Barack Obama: The Story.

FP: Dr. John C. Drew, welcome to Frontpage Interview.

Let’s begin with you sharing how you met the young Barack Obama.

Drew: Thanks Jamie.

I met him through my girlfriend, Caroline Boss. She had taken two political science classes with young Obama at Occidental College – one in the spring of 1980 and one in the fall of 1980. She was the co-president of the Democrat Socialist Alliance at Occidental College and wanted to introduce young Obama to me over Christmas break 1980 as “one of us.” By that time, I was in my second year of graduate school at Cornell University where I was working on my Ph.D. in political science.

FP: What was the young Obama like ideologically?

Drew: The young Obama was a garden variety Marxist-Leninist. He and Boss and his sophomore year roommate, Hasan Chandoo, believed that social forces where creating an inevitable Communist revolution in the U.S. and that it was important to have a highly trained elite of educated leaders guide this revolutionary process and oversee it once the revolution took place. Remember, this was at the height of the Cold War in 1980. Ronald Reagan had just been elected president and the USSR was still our mortal enemy. In a lot of ways, the young Obama was more radical than me because by that Christmas break I had stopped believing in the possibility of a Communist revolution and no longer believed a pure Communist economic and social system – one without private property or profits – was possible anymore.

FP: What did Obama say that made you think he was a Marxist?

Drew: I only remember bits and fragments of the actual conversation. I remember that Obama reacted negatively to my suggestion that it was wrong to ever expect a Communist revolution in the U.S. given the experience of Western Europe. I definitely remember him taking about the need to prepare ourselves and the people for the coming Communist revolution. I remember that he was particularly good at arguing the perspective of Frantz Fanon’s anti-colonial revolutionary thought. I had read Fanon, but his writing was not authoritative to me the way it seemed to be for Boss and Obama.

FP: Tell us why this is significant today.

Drew: I think it is significant, in part, because it helps demonstrate the impact that Frank Marshall Davis had on young Obama. It was very unusual for such a young student at Occidental College to be such an intense believer in Marxist ideology. It turns out Obama last met with Davis only about four months prior to Obama first meeting with me.

The really crucial issue, however, is that Obama does not seem to have a conversion story which explains how he quit being a Marxist. In the experience of me and others, being a Marxist is sort of like being in a religious cult. It ends up controlling what you do with your life, the friends you choose, the mentors you pick and the careers that make sense to you. I have a fairly detailed conversion story. I remember the exact moment when I first realized I was no longer a Marxist. Obama, however, does not seem to have a conversion story in his autobiography.

FP: What do you expect to accomplish by sharing this story?

Drew: I think that if I had gotten my story out earlier in 2008 that it might have been enough to keep Obama from becoming president. The McCain campaign and the mainstream media, however, did nothing to pick up my story. I want to leverage the communication channels available to me now to make sure that the Romney campaign understands the strength of the case regarding young Obama’s ideological extremism. There are a lot of Ph.D.s now – Savage, Kurtz, Cashill, Kengor and me – who are making a very convincing argument that Obama has been lying to the American people about the strength and intensity of his Marxist ideology. If the folks running the Romney campaign have not been reading these books, they really need to.

FP: Have you received any hate mail or violent threats?

Drew: My father was worried about that when I first went public with my story in February 2010. He even offered to hide my wife and me at a special safe house. It doesn’t look like I’m that attractive as a target. Besides, harming me would only call more attention to my story.

FP: If you had a question for Obama, what would it be?

Drew: I’d really like to hear whether or not he has a conversion story.  David Horowitz has a conversion story. Whittaker Chambers had a conversion story. I have a conversion story. I’d really like Obama to share the moment when he turned to Bill Ayers or Rev. Wright or Alice Palmer and said, “Hey – you guys are wrong.” I want to know what it was like when Obama shared with these folks that he no longer believed in their revolutionary ideology.

FP: Do you have any tips for the Romney presidential campaign?

Drew: Yes. Rush Limbaugh just mentioned my take on young Obama last month. It was obvious to me that Rush – even with all his resources – wasn’t up to speed on the Obama literature. My take was a complete surprise to him. I suspect that there are a lot of folks in the Romney campaign who haven’t been reading what Kurtz, Kengor, Cashill or me have been writing about the young Obama and his ties to extremist ideology.

I think if they read this literature they will see that it is completely solid and they should feel comfortable confronting Obama’s ideological extremism. The voters suspect Obama has secrets up his sleeve regarding what he wants to do to us if he wins reelection. The Romney campaign can leverage all the intellectual work done by these fine scholars to remind swing voters that Obama does have a history of keeping secrets. In the long-run, I think a lot of Obama voters are going to feel that he fooled them in 2008.

FP: Dr. John C. Drew, thank you for joining Frontpage Interview.

To watch a video of Dr. Drew telling his story about knowing Obama in college, and about his own personal break with Marxism, click here or watch below:

To understand Frank Marshall Davis’ influence on Barack Obama, watch the following video now:

The Washington Times posted an editorial on Tuesday August 7th about the possibility of a Civil War in the United States in the next 4 years if things continue the way they are going.  This same story was posted on the Drudge Report and taken down the same day.  You can read the story for yourself below to see why it is so controversial:

EDITORIAL: The Civil War of 2016

U.S. military officers are told to plan to fight Americans

The Washington Times

At issue is an article in the respected Small Wars Journal titled “Full Spectrum Operations in the Homeland: A ‘Vision’ of the Future.” It was written by retired Army Col. Kevin Benson of the Army’s University of Foreign Military and Cultural Studies at Fort Leavenworth, Kan., and Jennifer Weber, a Civil War expert at the University of Kansas. It posits an “extremist militia motivated by the goals of the ‘tea party’ movement” seizing control of Darlington, S.C., in 2016, “occupying City Hall, disbanding the city council and placing the mayor under house arrest.” The rebels set up checkpoints on Interstate 95 and Interstate 20 looking for illegal aliens. It’s a cartoonish and needlessly provocative scenario.

The article is a choppy patchwork of doctrinal jargon and liberal nightmare. The authors make a quasi-legal case for military action and then apply the Army’s Operating Concept 2016-2028 to the situation. They write bloodlessly that “once it is put into play, Americans will expect the military to execute without pause and as professionally as if it were acting overseas.” They claim that “the Army cannot disappoint the American people, especially in such a moment,” not pausing to consider that using such efficient, deadly force against U.S. citizens would create a monumental political backlash and severely erode government legitimacy.

The vision is hard to take seriously. As retired ArmyBrig. Gen. Russell D. Howard, a former professor at West Point, observed earlier in his career, “I am a colonel, colonels write a lot of crazy stuff, but no one listens to colonels, so I don’t see the problem.” Twenty years ago, then-Air Force Lt. Col. Charles J. Dunlap Jr. created a stir with an article in Parameters titled “The Origins of the American Military Coup of 2012.” It carried a disclaimer that the coup scenario was “purely a literary device intended to dramatize my concern over certain contemporary developments affecting the armed forces, and is emphatically not a prediction.”

The scenario presented in Small Wars Journal isn’t a literary device but an operational lay-down intended to present the rationale and mechanisms for Americans to fight Americans. Col. Benson and Ms. Weber contend, “Army officers are professionally obligated to consider the conduct of operations on U.S. soil.” This is a dark, pessimistic and wrongheaded view of what military leaders should spend their time studying.

A professor at the Joint Forces Staff College was relieved of duty in June for uttering the heresy that the United States is at war with Islam. The Obama administration contended the professor had to be relieved because what he was teaching was not U.S. policy. Because there is no disclaimer attached to the Small Wars piece, it is fair to ask, at least in Col. Benson’s case, whether his views reflect official policy regarding the use of U.S. military force against American citizens.

The Washington Times

UPDATE: The standard Defense Department disclaimer was added to the article after The Washington Times drew attention to the omission.

Before It’s News has an article out about the fact that President Obama has signed 923 Executive Orders in 40 Months! You can read the entire article below:

Obama Has Signed 923 Executive Orders In 40 Months – Video
June 5, 2012 8:51

THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION: Obama has signed 923 Executive Orders in 40 months!

What did Congress do in those 40 months?

-EXECUTIVE ORDER 10990 allows the government to take over all modes of transportation and control of highways and seaports.

-EXECUTIVE ORDER 10995 allows the government to seize and control the communication media.

-EXECUTIVE ORDER 10997 allows the government to take over all electrical power, gas, petroleum, fuels and minerals.

-EXECUTIVE ORDER 10998 allows the government to take over all food resources and farms.

-EXECUTIVE ORDER 11000 allows the government to mobilize civilians into work brigades under government supervision.

-EXECUTIVE ORDER 11001 allows the government to take over all health, education and welfare functions.

-EXECUTIVE ORDER 11002 designates theof all persons. Postmaster General to operate a national registration

-EXECUTIVE ORDER 11003 allows the government to take over all airports and aircraft, including commercial aircraft.

-EXECUTIVE ORDER 11004 allows the Housing and Finance Authority to relocate communities, build new housing with public funds, designate areas to be abandoned, and establish new locations for populations.

-EXECUTIVE ORDER 11005 allows the government to take over railroads, inland waterways and public storage facilities.

-EXECUTIVE ORDER 11049 assigns emergency preparedness function to federal departments and agencies, consolidating 21 operative Executive Orders issued over a fifteen year period.

-EXECUTIVE ORDER 11051 specifies the responsibility of the Office of Emergency Planning and gives authorization to put all Executive Orders into effect in times of increased international tensions and economic or financial crisis.

-EXECUTIVE ORDER 11310 grants authority to the Department of Justice to enforce the plans set out in Executive Orders, to institute industrial support, to establish judicial and legislative liaison, to control all aliens, to operate penal and correctional institutions, and to advise and assist the President.

-EXECUTIVE ORDER 11921 allows the Federal Emergency Preparedness Agency to develop plans to establish control over the mechanisms of production and distribution, of energy sources, wages, salaries, credit and the flow of money in U.S. financial institution in any undefined national emergency. It also provides that when a state of emergency is declared by the President, Congress cannot review the action for six months.

Feel free to verify the “executive orders” at will… and these are just the major ones…

I’m sure you’ve all heard the tale of the “Frog in the Pot”… you all comfortable???

Watch Obama’s actions, not his words! By his actions he will show you where America is headed.

When it comes to Barack Obama, one of the most important things to understand is that he is a committed globalist. He firmly believes that more “global governance” (the elite don’t like to use the term “global government”) will make the world a much better place. Throughout his time in the White House, Obama has consistently sought to strengthen international institutions such as the UN, the IMF, the World Bank and the WTO. At every turn, Obama has endeavored to more fully integrate America into the “global community”. Since he was elected, Obama has signed a whole host of new international economic agreements. He regularly speaks of the need for “cooperation” among global religions and he has hosted a wide variety of different religious celebrations at the White House. Obama once stated that “all nations must come together to build a stronger global regime”. If you do not want to live in a “global regime” that is just too bad. To globalists such as Obama, it is inevitable that the United States of America will be merged into the emerging global system. Just this week, Obama has issued a new executive order that seeks to “harmonize” U.S. economic regulations with the rest of the world. This new executive order is yet another incremental step that is pushing us closer to a North American Union and a one world economic system. Unfortunately, most Americans have absolutely no idea what is happening.

The American people need to understand that Barack Obama is constantly looking for ways to integrate the United States more deeply with the rest of the world. The globalization of the world economy has accelerated under Obama, and this latest executive order represents a fundamental change in U.S. economic policy. Now federal regulators will be required to “harmonize” their work with the international community. The following is how this new executive order was assessed in a recent Businessweek article….

Obama’s order provides a framework to organize scattered efforts to promote international regulatory cooperation, the chamber’s top global regulatory official said today.

“Today’s executive order marks a paradigm shift for U.S. regulators by directing them to take the international implications of their work into account in a consistent and comprehensive way,” Sean Heather, vice president of the chamber’s Center for Global Regulatory Cooperation, said in an e-mailed statement.

Members of the Obama administration are touting this as a way to “reduce regulation”, but the truth is that this is much more about aligning ourselves with the rest of the world than anything else.

Obama’s “Information Czar”, Cass Sunstein, authored a piece in the Wall Street Journal on Monday in which he stressed the need to eliminate “unnecessary regulatory differences across nations” so that the United States can compete more effectively in our “interdependent global economy”. The end result of this process will be that we will now do things much more like how the rest of the world does things….

In an interdependent global economy, diverse regulations can cause trouble for companies doing business across national boundaries. Unnecessary differences in countries’ regulatory requirements can cost money, compromising economic growth and job creation. Think of divergent requirements for car headlights, or the labeling of food, or standards for container sizes.

Recognizing this, President Obama’s Jobs Council has called for U.S. agencies to better align U.S. regulations with those of our major trading partners. And today the president is issuing an executive order, “Promoting International Regulatory Cooperation,” with a simple goal: to promote exports, growth, and job creation by eliminating unnecessary regulatory differences across nations.

But a one world economic system is not going to arrive overnight. Initially, it is much more likely that there will be a very strong push toward North American integration first. The goal will be to shape North America into an integrated regional economic unit similar to the EU. Cass Sunstein discussed how this new executive order will affect North American integration on the White House website on Tuesday….

The new Executive Order will build on work that is already underway. We have started close to home, with President Obama launching Regulatory Cooperation Councils with Prime Minister Harper of Canada and President Calderon of Mexico. The Councils are implementing work plans to eliminate or prevent the creation of unnecessary regulatory differences that adversely affect cross-border trade; to streamline regulatory requirements; and to promote greater certainty for the general public and businesses, particularly small- and medium-sized enterprises, in the regulation of food, pharmaceuticals, nanotechnology, and other areas. The United States and Canada released the United States-Canada Regulatory Cooperation Council (RCC) Joint Action Plan last December. In February, we announced the United States-Mexico High-Level Regulatory Cooperation Council (HLRCC) Work Plan.

Most Americans have absolutely no idea how far plans to integrate the United States, Canada and Mexico have advanced.

Last year, Barack Obama signed an agreement to create a “North American security perimeter” and most Americans never even heard about it because the mainstream news networks almost entirely ignored it.

But this is exactly what the globalists want. They don’t want people to become alarmed by these moves toward North American integration. In fact, a document uncovered by Wikileaks shows that those involved in the effort to integrate North America believe that an “incremental” approach is best. Apparently they believe that small moves toward integration are less likely to alarm the general population. The following is from an article that appeared in The National Post last year….

The integration of North America’s economies would best be achieved through an “incremental” approach, according to a leaked U.S. diplomatic cable.

The cable, released through the WikiLeaks website and apparently written Jan. 28, 2005, discusses some of the obstacles surrounding the merger of the economies of Canada, the United States and Mexico in a fashion similar to the European Union.

“An incremental and pragmatic package of tasks for a new North American Initiative (NAI) will likely gain the most support among Canadian policymakers,” the document said. “The economic payoff of the prospective North American initiative … is available, but its size and timing are unpredictable, so it should not be oversold.”

If the people of Canada, the United States and Mexico were told that there was a plan to merge all three economies, there might be massive protests to stop it, and the globalists do not want that.

A few years ago, the “Security and Prosperity Partnership Of North America” (SPP) that was being promoted by President George W. Bush started to generate quite a bit of negative publicity. That caused those seeking to integrate the economies of North America to back off for a little while.

But as an article by Jerome Corsi last year detailed, the eventual goal is to turn North America into another version of the eurozone. That includes a common currency for North America called the “amero”….

The SPP in the administration of President George W. Bush appeared designed to replicate the steps taken in Europe over a 50-year period following the end of World War II to transform an economic agreement under the European Common Market into a full-fledged regional government, operating as the European Union, with its own currency, the euro, functioning as the sole legitimate currency in what has become known as “the eurozone.”

The concern under the SPP has been that the North American Free Trade Agreement, or NAFTA, could be evolved into a regional government, the North American Union, with a regional currency, the amero, designed to replace the U.S. dollar, the Mexican peso and the Canadian dollar.

So will we ever see the “amero” replace the U.S. dollar?

Hopefully not.

If the globalists try to introduce the “amero”, it would probably be after a horrible financial crisis in which the U.S. dollar falls apart. The “amero” would be heralded as the “solution” to the problems that were plaguing the dollar.

If there ever is a move to get rid of the U.S. dollar for an international currency of some kind, the American people will need to resist it with all of their might.

The more integrated the world becomes, the more likely it becomes that we will see nightmarish global tyranny someday. It is very frightening to think of what someone very evil might do if they had the chance to run the entire planet.

Once our national sovereignty is gone, it will be incredibly difficult to get back. If the American people don’t take a stand while they still can, their children may wake up someday as citizens of a very oppressive “global regime”.

Entrepreneurs for Free Enterprise announces today that the major media outlets are becoming heavily “liberally-biased” and not covering all of the important issues and news. You can read the rest of this press release below:

Entrepreneurs for Free Enterprise Finds Mainstream Media is Becoming Irrelevant

By not covering the recent Chick-Fil-A groundswell, most Americans now openly resent “Obama-agenda bias” in major media outlets

Rockville, MD – August 9, 2012 – Major media outlets such as ABC, NBC, CBS and CNN want to pretend that the Conservative groundswell doesn’t exist by ignoring it. Conservatives have a message for them — YOU are becoming irrelevant by not covering issues important to us. We will take our considerable buying power and ignore you back.

As a result of this history of heavily ‘liberally-biased’ coverage in major media outlets, Conservatives tend to now get their news from online channels, including social media networks like Twitter. FOX News is their #1 network to watch after these, due to its commitment to more ‘fair and balanced’ coverage.

“America tends to be a slightly right of center country,” says Robyn Sachs, EFFE Steering Committee member. “So major media outlets only showing one view is dangerous to their ratings. Over 50% of the country is ‘ignoring’ them back. FOX News has 3, 4, or even 6 times the viewership of any other cable news network, depending on the daypart.”

For example, major media outlets have barely covered the White House and leaks that compromise our National Security, the ‘war’ going on between the White House and Border Patrol and ICE around the issue of enforcing the law in border states like Arizona and Texas, and didn’t cover Fast and Furious until President Obama invoked Executive Privilege.

In a recent interview for The Daily Caller’s Leaders with Ginni Thomas series, President and Founder of the Media Research Center Brent Bozell weighed in on his views and observations of recent omissions and censorship in major media outlets in favor of a liberal agenda. Describing coverage – or lack thereof around other recent news issues like the Healthcare-Contraception debate  between the Catholic Church and the Obama Administration that represented the largest lawsuit in the history of the Republican Party,  as well as prompted simultaneous demonstrations in 163 cities – and received ZERO coverage in any of the major networks, ABC, NBC, and CBS. Another example he gives is the Trayvon Martin case where NBC in particular, according to Bozell, “cooked the books” to edit footage to make George Zimmerman appear to be a racially-motivated killer. Bozell says, there is “willful, deliberate, politically-motivated sensationalism designed to advance a Left Wing world view, while destroying a Conservative world view.”

Now, as a result of this bias, online publications, like Newsmax, The Daily Caller, and Breitbart are much more popular than traditional publications and media outlets with Conservatives. Publishers should take note and adjust accordingly to provide more balanced coverage, says EFFE. Otherwise, they will find their ratings continuing to slide, just like the economy as a whole. Calling Leftism a “social experiment gone awry,” Bozell mentions also that “Leftism doesn’t work – anywhere in the world. Every country that is collapsing economically right now is collapsing under [this] burden That is where we’re headed right now.”

Further, Bozell adds, “more people [in America] watch re-runs of The Simpsons than CBS News.”EFFE urges major media outlets to re-examine their agendas and priorities and to return to balanced coverage of news issues affecting all Americans, regardless of party affiliation, social class, or any other factor.

About Entrepreneurs for Free Enterprise

Entrepreneurs for Free Enterprise is an organization founded in 2012 to educate the general public on the major issues surrounding the Presidential Election.  Entrepreneurs for Free Enterprise organization takes it upon themselves to make sure that citizens are told the entire story to allow them to make an educated vote in November’s election with all the facts in front of them.   For additional information on Entrepreneurs for Free Enterprise, please contact info@entrepreneursforfreeenterprise.org.  General information can be obtained by accessing the organization’s web site at www.effe4usa.org, the organization’s Twitter page at @EFFE4USA or the organization’s Facebook page at http://www.facebook.com/EFFE4USA.

On Monday, TheBlaze.com posted an article written by Wayne Allyn Root, President Obama’s former classmate  at Columbia University, about Obama’s Columbia scandal and tactic to distract Americans from learning about his scandal by attacking Mitt Romney. You can read the article below:

Obama’s College Classmate: ‘The Obama Scandal Is at Columbia’

BY Wayne Allyn Root

I am President Obama’s classmate at Columbia University, Class of ’83. I am also one of the most accurate Las Vegas oddsmakers and prognosticators. Accurate enough that I was awarded my own star on the Las Vegas Walk of Stars. And I smell something rotten in Denmark. Obama has a big skeleton in his closet. It’s his college records. Call it “gut instinct” but my gut is almost always right. Obama has a secret hidden at Columbia- and it’s a bad one that threatens to bring down his presidency. Gut instinct is how I’ve made my living for 29 years since graduating Columbia.

Obama and his infamous strategist David Axelrod understand how to play political hardball, the best it’s ever been played. Team Obama has decided to distract America’s voters by condemning Mitt Romney for not releasing enough years of his tax returns. It’s the perfect cover. Obama knows the best defense is a bold offense. Just keep attacking Mitt and blaming him for secrecy and evasion, while accusing him of having a scandal that doesn’t exist. Then ask followers like Senator Harry Reid to chase the lead. The U.S. Senate Majority Leader appears to now be making up stories out of thin air, about tax returns he knows nothing about. It’s a cynical, brilliant, and vicious strategy. Make Romney defend, so he can’t attack the real Obama scandal.

This is classic Axelrod. Obama has won several elections in his career by slandering his opponents and leaking sealed documents. Not only do these insinuations and leaks ruin the credibility and reputation of Obama’s opponents, they keep them on the defensive and off Obama’s trail of sealed documents.

By attacking Romney’s tax records, Obama’s socialist cabal creates a problem that doesn’t exist. Is the U.S. Senate Majority Leader making up stories out of thin air? You decide. But the reason for this baseless attack is clear- make Romney defend, so not only is he “off message” but it helps the media ignore the real Obama scandal.

My answer for Romney? Call Obama’s bluff.

Romney should call a press conference and issue a challenge in front of the nation. He should agree to release more of his tax returns, only if Obama unseals his college records. Simple and straight-forward. Mitt should ask “What could possibly be so embarrassing in your college records from 29 years ago that you are afraid to let America’s voters see? If it’s THAT bad, maybe it’s something the voters ought to see.” Suddenly the tables are turned. Now Obama is on the defensive.

My bet is that Obama will never unseal his records because they contain information that could destroy his chances for re-election. Once this challenge is made public, my prediction is you’ll never hear about Mitt’s tax returns ever again.

Why are the college records, of a 51-year-old President of the United States, so important to keep secret? I think I know the answer.

If anyone should have questions about Obama’s record at Columbia University, it’s me. We both graduated (according to Obama) Columbia University, Class of ’83. We were both (according to Obama) Pre-Law and Political Science majors. And I thought I knew most everyone at Columbia. I certainly thought I’d heard of all of my fellow Political Science majors. But not Obama (or as he was known then- Barry Soetoro). I never met him. Never saw him. Never even heard of him. And none of the classmates that I knew at Columbia have ever met him, saw him, or heard of him.

But don’t take my word for it. The Wall Street Journal reported in 2008 that Fox News randomly called 400 of our Columbia classmates and never found one who had ever met Obama.

Now all of this mystery could be easily and instantly dismissed if Obama released his Columbia transcripts to the media. But even after serving as President for 3 1/2 years he refuses to unseal his college records. Shouldn’t the media be as relentless in pursuit of Obama’s records as Romney’s? Shouldn’t they be digging into Obama’s past–beyond what he has written about himself–with the same boundless enthusiasm as Mitt’s?

The first question I’d ask is, if you had great grades, why would you seal your records? So let’s assume Obama got poor grades. Why not release the records? He’s president of the free world, for gosh sakes. He’s commander-in-chief of the U.S. military. Who’d care about some poor grades from three decades ago, right? So then what’s the problem? Doesn’t that make the media suspicious? Something doesn’t add up.

Secondly, if he had poor grades at Occidental, how did he get admitted to an Ivy League university in the first place? And if his grades at Columbia were awful, how’d he ever get into Harvard Law School? So again those grades must have been great, right? So why spend millions to keep them sealed?

Third, how did Obama pay for all these fancy schools without coming from a wealthy background? If he had student loans or scholarships, would he not have to maintain good grades?

I can only think of one answer that would explain this mystery.

Here’s my gut belief: Obama got a leg up by being admitted to both Occidental and Columbia as a foreign exchange student. He was raised as a young boy in Indonesia. But did his mother ever change him back to a U.S. citizen? When he returned to live with his grandparents in Hawaii or as he neared college-age preparing to apply to schools, did he ever change his citizenship back? I’m betting not.

If you could unseal Obama’s Columbia University records I believe you’d find that:

A)   He rarely ever attended class.

B)   His grades were not those typical of what we understand it takes to get into Harvard Law School.

C)   He attended Columbia as a foreign exchange student.

D)   He paid little for either undergraduate college or Harvard Law School because of foreign aid and scholarships given to a poor foreign students like this kid Barry Soetoro from Indonesia.

If you think I’m “fishing” then prove me wrong. Open up your records Mr. President. What are you afraid of?

If it’s okay for U.S. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to go on a fishing expedition about Romney’s taxes (even though he knows absolutely nothing about them nor will release his own), then I think I can do the same thing. But as Obama’s Columbia Class of ’83 classmate, at least I have more standing to make educated guesses.

It’s time for Mitt to go on the attack and call Obama’s bluff.

Wayne Allyn Root is a former Libertarian vice presidential nominee. He now serves as Chairman of the Libertarian National Campaign Committee. He is the best-selling author of “The Conscience of a Libertarian: Empowering the Citizen Revolution with God, Guns, Gold & Tax Cuts.” His web site: www.ROOTforAmerica.com

Today, Ken Timmerman, Republican candidate for Maryland’s Congressional Eighth District, released a press release on the recent Jobs bill passed by the House and why his Democrat opponent, Chris Van Hollen, would be detrimental to Maryland. You can read the entire press release for yourself below:

 VAN JOBLESS FAILS ECONOMICS 101

August 7, 2012: Ken Timmerman, Republican candidate for Maryland’s Congressional Eighth District, released the following statement today regarding the latest Jobs bill passed by the House:

“A bipartisan majority in Congress acted responsibly last week to extend the current tax rates through 2013, rather than subject our struggling economy to job-killing tax hikes in January that will drain an estimated $650. billion out of the private sector just next year alone.”

“Incomprehensibly, my opponent voted in lockstep with the Democrat party leadership to raise taxes, kill jobs, and gut our national defense. This is why I call him Chris Van Jobless. He just doesn’t get Economics 101.”

“The Job Protection and Recession Prevention Act of 2012 won the support of 19 Democrats who understand that tax increases are bad for an economy struggling under the burden of over-regulation and job-killing government interference.”

“We need to get government out of the way so our economy can grow again at normal rates and produce jobs, not pile on new taxes, new government programs, and job-killing regulations.”

Timmerman for Congress

Ken Timmerman is a nationally recognized investigative reporter who was nominated for the Nobel Peace prize in 2006 along with John Bolton for the work he has done to expose Iran’s nuclear weapons program. Ambassador Bolton and a team of our nation’s most senior national security officials have endorsed Ken in Maryland’s new 8^th District in his race to defeat the top Democrat spender in Congress, Rep. Chris Van Hollen. Ken is also a witness to the persecuted church, and has written a book about the Christians of Iraq based on recent trips to Mosul and Amman, Jordan. For the past seven years, Ken has been the lead investigator for families of 9/11 victims in a civil lawsuit against Iran. Based on Ken’s evidence, a federal district judge ruled just before Christmas that Iran “shared responsibility” for the 9/11 terrorist attacks with al Qaeda, and had provided “direct, material support” for the attacks. As former president of the Maryland Taxpayers Association, Ken has been a strong advocate for Maryland citizens. He urged the adoption — back in 2000 — of a Return-the-Surplus- Amendment. Ken was also at the forefront of the Divest Terror movement along with Delegate Don George, to prevent Maryland pension funds from being invested in companies doing business with terrorists. For more information on Timmerman for Congress please visit, http://timmermanforcongress.com/ or call Matthew Crow at 202-281-4302.

Yesterday, @USATodayMoney posted an article on the fact that the IRS may have delivered more than $5 billion in refund checks to identity thieves who filed fraudulent tax returns for 2011.  You can read the article below:

IRS may have refunded $5 billion or more to identity thieves

They estimate another $21 billion could make its way to ID thieves over the next five years.

The IRS is detecting far fewer fraudulent tax refund claims than actually occur, according to a government audit that warned the widespread problem could undermine public trust in the U.S. tax system.

Although the IRS detected about 940,000 fraudulent returns for last year claiming $6.5 billion in refunds, there were potentially another 1.5 million undetected cases of thieves seeking refunds after assuming the identity of a dead person, a child or someone who normally wouldn’t file a tax return.

In one example, investigators found a single address in Lansing, Mich., that was used to file 2,137 tax returns. The IRS issued more than $3.3 million in refunds to that address. Three addresses in Florida, the center of the identity theft crisis, filed more than 500 returns totaling more than $1 million in refunds for each address.

In another troubling scenario, hundreds of refunds were deposited into the same bank account — a red flag for investigators searching for ID thieves who may be filing for refunds for multiple people. In one instance, the IRS deposited 590 refunds totaling more than $900,000 into one account.

“We found multiple reasons for the IRS’s inability to detect billions of dollars in fraud,” said J. Russell George, the Treasury Department’s inspector general for tax administration. “At a time when every dollar counts, these results are extremely troubling.”

Topping the list of concerns is the IRS’s lack of timely access to third-party information it needs to verify returns and root out fraud.

With so many Americans struggling to pay their bills, the IRS is under immense pressure to process and issue refunds promptly. But taxpayers can start filing returns in mid-January, while employers and financial institutions don’t have to submit withholding and income documents for taxpayers to the IRS until the end of March. That means the IRS often issues refunds long before it can confirm information on taxpayer returns.

IRS officials said the growth of identity theft-related fraud is one of its biggest challenges. Already this year, the agency has stopped almost $12 billion in confirmed fraud, it says. And it says its criminal investigators are actively pursuing those who perpetrate fraud.

“If the IRS determines a refund has been issued improperly, we will attempt to recoup the funds,” said IRS spokeswoman Michelle Eldridge.

The IRS agreed with the inspector general that Congress should expand the agency’s access to resources that could help it fight theft, including the National Directory of New Hires, a database created to help states enforce child support orders.

But IRS officials disputed the notion that $21 billion in fraudulent returns could be issued over the next five years, arguing that the estimate didn’t take into account the IRS’s stepped-up compliance and prevention efforts.

“We’re going to continue to monitor the IRS in this area until we see some improvement,” Michael McKenney, the acting deputy inspector general for audit, told The Associated Press.

Investigators went back through a sample of the 1.5 billion undetected cases to see why the IRS never flagged them as fraudulent. In 49 of 60 returns, investigators said, the return didn’t score high enough on the IRS’s fraud filter to merit a closer review. In eight of 11 cases where the IRS did perform an additional review, it never verified the income and withholding on the return.

The audit was prompted by a request from Florida Sen. Bill Nelson, whose home state contains the top two cities where fraudulent tax returns originate: Tampa and Miami. Last week Nelson, a Democrat, joined with Republican Sen. Tom Coburn of Oklahoma to introduce legislation designed to curb identity theft in the tax system.

“It’s an ongoing problem,” Nelson said. “We’ve got to find a fix.”

Nelson’s bill would improve protections for Social Security numbers that thieves need to file returns, and would expand an existing program that gives previous victims of ID theft a personal identification number to deter repeat offenses against the same taxpayer. Another bipartisan bill passed by the House on Wednesday would bolster prosecutions and strengthen criminal penalties on ID thieves.

The IRS said it is already putting a number of new measures in place, including new ID theft screening filter that will hold on to refunds until the IRS can verify a taxpayer’s identity. That filter had thwarted about $1.3 billion in potentially fraudulent refunds through April, the audit said. Another system flags returns filed with Social Security numbers of those who have died.

For those who fall victim to identity thieves, the recovery process can be less than smooth. A separate report by the inspector general in May found that the IRS wasn’t providing good customer service and proper assistance to victims of ID theft, increasing the burden for those whose identities are stolen. The Federal Trade Commission has listed identity theft as the No. 1 consumer complaint for the past 12 years.