The Worst President Since Before the Civil War

By Steve
McCann

Three years ago, the people of the United States
elected someone who has turned out to be the worst president since the pre-Civil
War era.  Barack Obama, whether in economic matters, domestic affairs or
international relations, has been an abject failure and has severely jeopardized
the future of the American people.

This must be the focus and message of those seeking
the Republican presidential nomination, who must not allow themselves to be
focused on demeaning each other and sidetracked by falling for the usual tactics
of the Democrat and media smear machines (epitomized by the latest specious
attack on Herman Cain).

A cursory examination of Obama’s overall record
compared with other presidents reveals someone driven purely by statist
ideology, whose narcissism renders him incapable of change regardless of the
long-term consequences.  He does not seem to care what happens to the American
people.

Ronald Reagan and Franklin Roosevelt faced far worse
economic conditions when they came into office than were in play when Barack
Obama was elected president.  Yet with one a fiscal conservative (Ronald Reagan)
and the other (Franklin Roosevelt) a liberal Democrat, even though they pursued
differing solutions to the dilemmas at hand, neither put the nation squarely and
inexorably on the road to bankruptcy and second-class status.

Barack Obama and his apologists continuously claim
that he inherited the worst economy since the Great Depression and that if it
were not for his policies presently in place, matters would be far worse.  The
reality is that he did not inherit the worst economy since the 1930s, and his
policies have diminished the standard of living for the majority of
Americans.

The actual factors in play for Barack Obama, Ronald
Reagan, and Franklin Roosevelt when they assumed office were as
follows:

	Annual GDP Growth	Unemployment Rate	Inflation
Barack Obama	1.1%	6.7%	1.0%
Ronald Reagan	.1	7.6	12.6
Franklin Roosevelt	-13.0	24.0	-10.0

For the average American, the employment numbers are
the most critical.  The following chart is a side by side comparison of the
employment situation for Barack Obama as of Election Day 2008 versus the present
day after three years of his failed policies:

	November 2008	October 2011	Difference
Unemployment Rate	6.7%	9.1%	+35.8%
Total Employment	144.25 million	140.07 million	-4.18 million
Employment-Goods Producing sector	20.9 million	18.1 million	-2.8 million
Part-time Workers (Only Jobs Available)	1.57 million	2.9 million	+84.7%
Unemployed 27 Weeks or more	2.2 million	6.3 million	+4.1 million
Avg. Weekly Wage (inflation adjusted)	$654.03	$655.87	+.2%

(http://www.bls.gov/schedule/archives/empsit_nr.htm#current)

How does Barack Obama compare to some of his
predecessors, who inherited far more severe financial crises?  As a further
comparison, while he did not inherit a financial crisis, Jimmy Carter is
included, as he is considered by many the worst president in the post-World War
II era, and many of his policies triggered the massive recession and inflation
inherited by Ronald Reagan.

(Note: The Bureau of Labor Statistics changed its
method of calculating the unemployment rate in 1994.  Therefore, in order to
make this a more valid comparison, those workers the BLS considers discouraged
and marginally attached to the labor force and therefore not part of the
unemployment rate calculation have been added below.)

	Unemployment Rate as of Election Day	Unemployment Rate Three years later	Difference
Barack Obama	7.9%	10.75%	-36%
Ronald Reagan	7.6	8.3	–  9
Jimmy Carter	7.8	5.9	+24
Franklin Roosevelt	24.1	20.1	+17

Barack Obama has chosen uncontrolled and unbridled
government spending, much of it directed to his cronies and fellow ideologues,
as his solution to restarting the economy.  This has created an enormous amount
of new debt for the nation with nothing to show for it.  One of his
predecessors, Franklin Roosevelt, also chose that route as part of his plan to
rescue the American economy.  However, he never took it to the extreme that
Obama has done, with the aid of his allies in the Democratic Party.  During
Obama’s tenure, he has added over $4,000 billion ($4 trillion) to the national
debt.

Using the historical actual deficits as a percentage
of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) applied to today’s GDP, the comparison would
be as follows (Herbert Hoover has been added, as he faced the actual massive
collapse of the economy in 1929, the first year of his term.)

	Average Deficit as % of GDP First Three Years of Term	(2011 Dollars) Additional National Debt
Barack Obama	9.23%	$4,005 Billion
Ronald Reagan	4.08	1,800
Franklin Roosevelt	3.50	1,531
Jimmy Carter	2.27	986
Herbert Hoover	.01	15

(http://www.usgovernmentspending.com)

The ultimate measure of the success or failure of a
president’s economic policies is the growth of the nation’s Gross Domestic
Product while facing economic headwinds.  Here, too, Barack Obama cannot measure
up to those who faced enormous challenges, as his policies and regulatory
obsession have shown him to be an anti-capitalist ideologue with more in common
with the Occupy Wall Street Movement than with the American
people.

	Barack Obama	Ronald Reagan	Franklin Roosevelt
Actual inflation adjusted GDP Growth First Three Years	.3%	13.7%	23.4%

It should be noted that Franklin Roosevelt, after
re-election in 1936, began to pursue more statist policies including demonizing
the rich, higher taxes, passing union-friendly legislation, and additional
government spending, so that by the third year of his second term, the GDP had
contracted by 6.5% and unemployment rose to 19.0% from a low of 14.0% in 1937.
Yet the annual budget deficit as a percent of GDP averaged 3.85% for Roosevelt’s
first two terms as compared to Obama’s 9.23% to date.  (http://www.shmoop.com/great-depression/statistics.html)

By any measure, Barack Obama is not only a failure in
his economic policies, but he is, in the aggregate, the worst steward of the
American economy since economic measurements began to be
recorded.

It is little wonder that his re-election strategy is
centered on demonizing his potential opponents and deliberately appealing to the
base nature of the human race — greed and envy — as manifested in his class
warfare rhetoric.  This is a record that cannot be defended under any
circumstances, and one the Republicans must focus upon and unceasingly bring it
before the American people.

Obama one of the best presidents evah! Is there bias in the academy toward Democrats and liberals?

Obama one of the best presidents evah!

Rick Moran

Is there bias in the academy toward Democrats and liberals?

Does Charlie Daniels play a real fast fiddle?

George W. Bush was no FDR, but Barack Obama could be.That’s the verdict of 238 of the nation’s leading presidential scholars, who – for a fifth time – rated Franklin Delano Roosevelt the best president ever in the latest Siena College Research Institute poll.

In office for barely two years, Obama entered the survey in the 15th position – two spots behind Bill Clinton and three spots ahead of Ronald Reagan.

Obama got high marks for intelligence, ability to communicate and imagination, but his score was dragged down by his relative lack of experience and family background.

“Most of the presidents came from elite backgrounds, and he certainly did not,” said professor Douglas Lonnstrom, who crunched the numbers. “He grew up without a father.”

I find this kind of thing fascinating. Not because they rank conservatives and Republicans lower, or that they made FDR #1 (that’s the narrative and they’re sticking to it). It’s that the nation’s public intellectuals operate so much in a cocoon that they don’t realize people are laughing at them when they make Barack Obama the 15th best president of all time, while giving him “high marks for intelligence, ability to communicate and imagination.” The evidence for any of that is so lacking that it obviously exists only in the minds of the respondents.

BTW – they rank Jimmy Carter 7 places higher (#32) than George Bush (#39).

Will Obama Be the ‘Jimmy Carter of the 21st Century’?

SPIEGEL ONLINE

06/17/2010 03:14 PM

The World from Berlin

Will Obama Be the ‘Jimmy Carter of the 21st Century’?

Can US President Barack Obama lead America away from fossil fuel dependency? German commentators don’t think so. Some say he is in danger of turning into an idealistic, one-term president like Jimmy Carter.

US President Barack Obama’s address from the Oval Office on Tuesday was supposed to be a moment of leadership during the worst environmental disaster in American history. But critics from across the political spectrum wondered afterwards whether he’d shown leadership at all. The geyser of oil in the Gulf of Mexico seems, technologically, to lie beyond anything either BP or the US government was prepared for, and Obama failed to mention any specific new ideas.

“The tragedy unfolding on our coast is the most painful and powerful reminder yet that the time to embrace a clean-energy future is now,” he declared, without offering policy details. Of course, it wasn’t a policy speech. But the fact that Obama failed to outline a clear path toward this clean-energy future seems to have disappointed a lot of people. “He didn’t boldly push an agenda,” said Sen. Lindsey Graham, a Republican senator from South Carolina, to Politico, the Washington-based news website. “I think a lot of people took that to mean lukewarm support for anything big.”

One immediate result of White House talks with the American arm of BP, though, was a series of concessions on Wednesday. BP Plc agreed to set aside $20 billion (€16.1 billion) in escrow to cover damage claims by shrimpers, restauranteurs and other Gulf-Coast residents hurt by the spill. The energy giant also said it would suspend shareholder dividends until 2011, when it expects to have a clearer notion of the catastrophe’s costs. Another $100 million (€80.8 million) will be set aside for compensation to BP workers hurt by the spill.

These gestures from the energy giant are the most tangible form of good news local residents have heard in the two months since the spill began. German commentators on Thursday think BP’s concessions are genuine as well as worthwhile — but they warn that Obama will need to paddle harder to realize the shining future he promised in his speech on Tuesday.

The center-left Süddeutsche Zeitung writes:

“Obama wants to lead the US out of its dependence on oil. Absolutely right. In fact it’s the very thing people have been wanting to hear from Obama for weeks.”

“But how cautious he seems, and how vague his suggestions. In 1961 President Kennedy declared a national mission to place a man on the moon by the end of the decade. Obama has chosen not to name concrete goals. No numbers, no time frame. He doesn’t dare mention how things will have to change to favor the climate. Professor Obama waits for new ideas and looks forward to a public debate. He doesn’t dare push the Senate to settle on a climate-change bill. This president won’t lead America out of a crisis this way — and he certainly won’t usher in a new era.”

The left-leaning daily Die Tageszeitung argues:

“International markets have started to take environmental problems seriously. BP stock has fallen by almost 50 percent since the start of the oil catastrophe. Ratings agencies have downgraded its creditworthiness to near-junk status. And banks have stopped sealing long-term contracts with BP.”

“This situation is new. When oil companies in the past soiled the Niger Delta or the Amazon, markets tended to reward them — because corporations that skimped on security also increased their profits, to the detriment of the environment and the public interest. Now the costs of environmental damage have started to weigh on the balance sheet, with consequences extending to the possible bankruptcy of a multinational.”

“This new environmental sensibility has been possible not through a sudden display of reason on the markets, but through political decision-making. President Barack Obama made it clear (in early June) that BP won’t be exempt from criminal investigation. He’s also maintained a moratorium on new oil exploration on the deep-ocean floor, and looks determined to end corruption in federal oil agencies.”

The Financial Times Deutschland writes:

“The oil company could be prosecuted by shareholders for paying billions upon billions into a fund for damages without being legally required to do so … It’s therefore a good thing that the US government has not asked for a blank check to cover damages. With the high sum (of $20 billion), the government can now offer quick and unbureaucratic First Aid (to people living near the Gulf).”

“But the firm can’t just run free now that an arbitrary sum has been set. What the final cost for damages might be, and which mistakes were made by whom, have yet to be determined. Civil and criminal complaints against BP have to remain an open possibility. This fund is just a first step toward stopping the holes that the oil catastrophe has ripped in the finances of many affected people.”

The conservative daily Die Welt writes:

“When Obama surprised people by lifting his opposition to offshore drilling, just before the , he meant it as one part of a package deal: Citizens who worried primarily about high fuel prices were meant to be placated by expanded domestic oil production — as a gambit to win more acceptance for the core of his new-energy agenda. This strategy is marked by a typical American pragmatism, unlike Europe’s forces of climate protection. The emphasis rests on incentives to save energy, on building more nuclear-energy plants and on developing new ideas in renewable energy.”

“This is the right way to make America independent of problematic nations. Going forward, the mix will also have to include exploitation of (America’s) domestic energy resources, even if it also means heavier regulation to avoid a new disaster. But if this oil shock accelerates America’s shift to new energies, and moves the West away from a dangerous dependency on fossil fuels, then the catastrophe will have at least one positive outcome.”

The left-leaning Berliner Zeitung writes:

“If Barack Obama isn’t careful, he will become the Jimmy Carter of the 21st century.”

“In his speech, Obama tried to make a virtue of an emergency. He said a shift to new energy sources was now a ‘national mission.’ Just as the nation once mobilized its powers for World War II, now it needs to conquer its devilish dependence on fossil fuels … If Obama wins this debate, and achieves a true shift in energy dependence, then his name will perhaps be mentioned again in the same breath with great American presidents.”

“Politically, though, it’s fraught with risk. His opponents have already charged Obama with using the Gulf catastrophe to advance his climate agenda in Congress. Republicans rely on the tendency of Americans to prefer cheap fuel and big cars with a certain level of power. Over 30 years ago, after all, another president called for smarter American energy policies in a televised speech from the Oval Office. He wanted to know, ‘Why have we not been able to get together as a nation to resolve our serious energy problem?’ That president’s name was Jimmy Carter.”

— Michael Scott Moore

URL:

• http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,701279,00.html

RELATED SPIEGEL ONLINE LINKS:

• Text of President Obama’s Speech: ‘We Will Fight This Spill With Everything We’ve Got’ (06/16/2010)
  http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,701019,00.html
• Obama’s Half-Hearted Battle: President of Change Unwilling to Tackle US Oil Addiction (06/16/2010)
  http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,701025,00.html
• BP’s Oil Disaster: The Dangers and Difficulties of ‘Bottom Kill’ (06/16/2010)
  http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,700759,00.html
• Hidden Menace in the Gulf of Mexico: Oil Spill’s Real Threat Lies Beneath the Surface (06/08/2010)
  http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,699382,00.html

© SPIEGEL ONLINE 2010

Obama to Tea Partiers: See! The Gulf Disaster is What Smaller Government Will Get You

By Doug Powers  •  June 12, 2010 11:29 AM

**Written by guest-blogger Doug Powers

When you’re stuck in quicksand, the first pointer in the survival manual is not to flail — President Obama hasn’t read that manual:

The president also implied that anti-big government types such as tea party activists were being hypocritical on the issue.

“Some of the same folks who have been hollering and saying ‘do something’ are the same folks who, just two or three months ago, were suggesting that government needs to stop doing so much,” Obama said. “Some of the same people who are saying the president needs to show leadership and solve this problem are some of the same folks who, just a few months ago, were saying this guy is trying to engineer a takeover of our society through the federal government that is going to restrict our freedoms.”

Is the president saying that he didn’t react quickly because he was trying to placate Tea Party activists, thus blaming them for the slow response? Obama almost makes it sound like he let the Gulf die to make a point against those who are for smaller, more responsible government, doesn’t he?

Besides, the whole argument is bogus, desperate, and perhaps eventually counterproductive for Obama.

Dan Riehl:

Patently false. If the Tea Party mentality held sway, we’d be drilling in ANWR and closer to the shore in shallower water, so this disaster would never have happened. He’s opening the door for even more attacks over how government overreach creates problem like this.

On top of that, it was Obama who was talking about more drilling just before the rig explosion. Is he now saying that was a bad idea, he simply pushed for pure politics? Americans are smart enough to know there’s a big difference between how the government reacts in a major disaster, or a war, versus how it encroaches into their lives more and more on any given day.

‘Nuff said.

**Written by guest-blogger Doug Powers

Twitter @ThePowersThatBe

Uncovered: Obama’s mystery college years Tied to Ayers’ group, extremist groups operating on campus

Uncovered: Obama’s
mystery college years
Tied to Ayers’ group, extremist
groups operating on campus

---

Posted: June 11, 2010
12:00 am Eastern

---

WorldNetDaily

William Ayers

WASHINGTON, D.C. – A recently released book uncovers untold aspects of President Obama’s mysterious college years, tying the politician to associates of Weather Underground founder William Ayers and to radical groups operating at the time.

The new book, “The Manchurian President: Barack Obama’s ties to communists, socialists and other anti-American extremists,” charges Obama has deep ties to an anti-American extremist nexus that has been instrumental not only in building his political career but in crafting current White House policy.

The book exposes an extremist coalition of communists, socialists and other radicals working both inside and outside the administration to draft and advance current White House policy goals.

With nearly 900 citations, the New York Times best-selling title from WND senior reporter and WABC Radio host Aaron Klein bills itself as the most exhaustive investigation ever performed into Obama’s political background and radical ties. Klein’s co-author is historian and researcher Brenda J. Elliott.

Read the inside story on the president and his friends, get your autographed copy of “The Manchurian President” at WND’s Superstore

In one of the many strange features of Obama’s presidential candidacy, his 2008 campaign went to great lengths to conceal normally routine information about the candidate’s college years.

The information included his first two undergraduate years at Occidental College in Los Angeles, followed by his final two years and graduation from Columbia University in New York City.

No official or unofficial records were ever made available. No college transcripts, published records, or even contemporary newspaper announcements about his education have been released.

Obama remarkably relates in his autobiography “Dreams from My Father” that, beginning at Occidental, he surrounded himself with an assortment of radicals, socialists, Marxist-Leninists, Maoists and communists.

Obama, however, provides neither names nor clues.

“The Manchurian President” uncovers a slew of radicals with whom Obama associated during his college years.

SDS founder

It was at Occidental that Obama first engaged in community activism, delivering what has been described as the first political speech of his career. On Feb. 18, 1981, Obama addressed students gathered outside Coons Hall administration building, exhorting Occidental’s trustees to divest from South Africa.

Obama writes in “Dreams” about the rally in which he took part, reportedly led by the Black Student Alliance and Students for Economic Democracy.

Tom Hayden at 2004 Democratic National Convention

Obama agreed to deliver the opening remarks for the rally, for which, he writes, “the agenda had been carefully arranged beforehand.” In the middle of his speech “a couple of white students” were to come onstage, “dressed in their paramilitary uniforms,” to drag him away. “A bit of street theater, a way to dramatize the situation for activists in South Africa,” Obama writes.

Students for Economic Democracy, or SED, was a national student advocacy group established by soon-to-be California State Representative Tom Hayden, now a professor at Occidental, and his former wife, actress Jane Fonda

Hayden authored the 1962 “Port Huron Statement,” the first official political manifesto of the Students for a Democratic Society, or SDS – the radical 1960s protest movement from which Ayers’ Weathermen terrorist organization splintered.

An example of Hayden’s brash rhetoric dates to his December 1968 testimony before the House Committee on Un-American Activities on the Chicago “anti-war protests.”

At the committee, a portion of Hayden’s SDS manifesto was read:

“Disobey your parents: burn your money: you know life is a dream and all of our institutions are man-made illusions effective because YOU take the dream for reality. … Break down the family, church, nation, city, economy; turn life into an art form, a theatre of the soul and a theatre of the future; the revolutionary is the only artist. … What’s needed is a generation of people who are freaky, crazy, irrational, sexy, angry, irreligious, childish and mad: people who burn draft cards, burn high school and college degrees; people who say: “To hell with your goals!”; people who lure the youth with music, pot and acid; people who re-define the normal; people who break with the status-role-title-consumer game; people who have nothing material to lose but their flesh. …”

When asked if this was “the way to have a better America,” Hayden called them “beautiful sentiments.”

The official mission statement for Hayden’s SED, for which Obama delivered a major speech, espouses socialist ideology:

“Economic democracy means that ownership and control will be spread among a wide variety of public bodies: city, state and Federal governments, churches, trade unions, cooperatives and community groups, small business people, workers and consumers.”

Hayden later was a founding member of Progressives for Obama, a matrix of radicals who supported Obama’s presidential candidacy.

Meanwhile, “Manchurian” relates Obama’s involvement with the anti-apartheid movement, which sparked a firestorm of activism at Occidental.

Political mentors

The book rejects as unlikely speculation from various media outlets that two Occidental professors, Roger Boesche and Eric Newhall, served as Obama’s political mentors at the time.

Instead, “Manchurian” finds the most likely candidate to be Occidental professor Gary Chapman, whose background includes “military service, academic research and organizational experience.”

Chapman’s political organization and campaign experience also includes “peace issues” with the New American Movement, or NAM. The lineage of NAM is associated with that of the Democratic Socialists of America. NAM also is identified as a “splinter group” of Hayden’s and Ayers’ SDS.

Appeared with Columbia activist, Ayers

Obama has revealed almost nothing about his last two years as an undergraduate at Columbia University’s Columbia College.

Columbia University

Obama has said he was involved with the Black Students Organization, which emerged in the 1960s in response to a growing black student population at Columbia. Undergraduates formed the Student Afro-American Society, “which was concerned with the affairs of black students and issues of the greater black community.”

The Coalition for a Free South Africa, or CFSA, began as a Black Students’ Organization committee to promote Columbia University’s divestment in stock in companies doing business in South Africa.

CFSA, which split from the Black Students’ Organization in 1981, was a loosely structured group with a predominantly black steering committee of about a dozen individuals who made decisions by consensus, and a less active circle of about fifty students who attended meetings and the group’s protests and educational events.”

Early CFSA leaders were Danny Armstrong, a Columbia College student who played forward for Columbia’s basketball team, and Barbara Ransby, a student from the School of General Studies

As CFSA spokeswoman, Ransby famously convinced Columbia’s student senate “to support full divestment.”

Ransby, now an associate professor of African-American studies and history at the University of Illinois-Chicago, and the executive director of Public Square, was in the class of 1984 at Columbia, only one year behind Obama, who would later publicly appear with both Ransby and Ayers.

In April 2002, Ransby appeared at a University of Illinois-Chicago forum and sat on the same panel – “Intellectuals in Times of Crisis: Experiences and applications of intellectual work in urgent situations” – with both Obama and Ayers.

Obama knew FCC chief from Columbia activism?

Another name that emerges from Obama’s involvement with the Black Students’ Organization and Coalition for a Free South Africa is that of Julius Genachowski.

In October 2008, Genachowski, co-founder of the venture capital firm LaunchBox Digital, was described as “an adviser to Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama.”

Obama and Genakowski were later Harvard Law School classmates.

In August 2008 it was reported in the New York Times that Genachowski, who led the Obama campaign’s technology working group, was also a big fundraiser. Genachowski raised at least $500,000 as an Obama “bundler.”

In March 2009, Obama nominated Genachowski to chair the Federal Communications Commission, and he was sworn in June 29, 2009.

Book uncovers radical nexus

Along with a chapter on Ayers, “The Manchurian President” includes an extensive investigation into Obama’s own background. The work uncovers, among many other things, Obama’s early years, including his previously overlooked early childhood ties to a radical, far-left church connected to Ayers’ ideology.

Obama’s associations with the Nation of Islam, Black Liberation Theology and black political extremists are also revealed, with extensive new information on the subjects.

Also detailed are Obama’s deep ties to ACORN, which are much more extensive than previously documented elsewhere. The book crucially describes how a socialist-led, ACORN-affiliated union helped facilitate Obama’s political career and now exerts major influence in the White House.

“The Manchurian President” contains potentially explosive information not only about President Obama but also concerning other officials in the White House, including top czars and senior advisers Valerie Jarrett and David Axelrod.

“The Manchurian President” also exposes how Obama’s health-care policy, masked by moderate populist rhetoric, was pushed along and partially crafted by extremists, some of whom reveal in their own words that their principal aim is to achieve corporate socialist goals and a vast increase in government powers.

“I believe this work is crucial to Americans from across the political spectrum,” says Klein, “including mainstream Democrats who should be alarmed that their party has been hijacked by an extreme-left fringe bent on permanently changing the party to fit its radical agenda.

“Indeed, this book will document, with new information, Obama’s own involvement with a socialist party whose explicit goal was to infiltrate and eventually take over the Democratic Party and mold it into a socialist organization,” Klein claims.

Klein began investigating Obama during the 2008 presidential campaign and broke major national stories. He first exposed the politician’s association with Ayers in a widely circulated WND article.

The story prompted the Nation magazine to lament, via the CBS News website, that “mainstream reporters now call the Obama campaign to ask about Klein’s articles.”

It was in a WABC Radio interview with Klein that Ahmed Yousef, chief political adviser to Hamas, “endorsed” Obama for president, generating world headlines and sparking controversy. Republican presidential nominee Sen. John McCain and Obama repeatedly traded public barbs over Hamas’ positive comments.

Klein was among the first reporters to expose that Obama’s “green jobs” czar, Van Jones, founded a communist organization and called for “resistance” against the U.S. government. The theme was picked up and expanded upon by the Fox News Channel’s Glenn Beck, leading to Jones’ resignation last September.

Co-author Brenda J. Elliott is a historian, author and investigative researcher known for her blogging during the 2008 presidential election about Ayers, Tony Rezko and other controversial figures linked to Obama. Since 1988, Elliott has been responsible for a number of historical projects, has won an award by Project Censored for her work and has been named “One of the Intriguing People” by Central Florida magazine.

The introduction to “The Manchurian President” relates: “Barack Obama is backed by and deeply tied to an anti-American fringe nexus that, as this book will show, was instrumental not only in mentoring Obama and helping him to build his political career, but essentially in overthrowing the moderate wing of the Democratic Party and in securing and powerfully influencing Obama’s presidency.

“As will be seen, these radical associates not only continue to influence Obama and White House strategy, but some are directly involved in creating the very policies intended to undermine or radically transform the United States of America.”