EDITORIAL

Did Ted Cruz enter the U.S. illegally in 1974 ?

Family Security Matters
Did Ted Cruz enter the U.S. illegally in 1974?

by LAWRENCE SELLIN, PHD February 11, 2016

 

 

This article is a statement of the facts, and is not meant to, or intended to, be interpreted as a political endorsement, or lack thereof, of any political candidate. Family Security Matters takes no political point of view whatsoever.

Exactly how and when did Ted Cruz obtain U.S. citizenship?

The fact that it is still an open question at this stage of the Presidential campaign is a testament either to the galactic ignorance of our political-media elite or their willingness to place political expediency ahead of the Constitution and the law.

There is no third alternative.

Rafael Edward “Ted” Cruz was born in Calgary, Alberta, Canada on December 22, 1970 and remained a Canadian citizen until he officially renounced it on May 14, 2014, eighteen months after taking the oath of office as a U.S. Senator. At the time of his birth, Cruz’s father was a citizen of Canada and his mother was a U.S. citizen.

Legally, Cruz could have obtained US citizenship through his mother consistent with Public Law 414, June 27, 1952, An Act: To revise the laws relating to immigration, naturalization, and nationality and for other purposes [H.R. 5678], Title III Nationality and Naturalization, Chapter 1 – Nationality at Birth and by Collective naturalization; Nationals and citizens of the United States at birth; the relevant section being 301 (a) (7):

“a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than ten years, at least five of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years: Provided That any periods of honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States by such citizen parent may be included in computing the physical presence requirements of this paragraph.”

In that case, Cruz’s mother should have filed a Consular Report of Birth Abroad of a Citizen of the United States of America (CRBA) with the nearest U.S. embassy or consulate after the birth to document that the child was a U.S. citizen.

According to Cruz spokeswoman Catherine Frazier, Cruz’s mother did register his birth with the U.S. consulate and Cruz received a U.S. passport in 1986 ahead of a high school trip to England.

There are two apparent contradictions regarding how and when Ted Cruz obtained US citizenship.

First, according to the Canadian Citizenship Act of 1946, also referred to as the “Act of 1947,” Canada did not allow dual citizenship in 1970. The parents would have had to choose at that time between U.S. and Canadian citizenship. Ted Cruz did not renounce his Canadian citizenship until 2014. Was that the choice originally made?

Second, no CRBA has been released that would verify that Ted Cruz was registered as a U.S. citizen at birth.

It has been reported that the then nearly four-year-old Ted Cruz flew to the U.S. from Calgary, Alberta, Canada in 1974.

Ted Cruz could not have entered the U.S. legally without a CRBA or a U.S. passport, the latter of which was not obtained until 1986.

If Ted Cruz was registered as a U.S. citizen at birth, as his spokeswoman claims, then the CRBA must be released. Otherwise, one could conclude that Cruz came to the U.S. as a Canadian citizen, perhaps on a tourist visa or, possibly, remained in the U.S. as an illegal immigrant.

It is the responsibility of the candidate for the Presidency, not ordinary citizens, to prove that he or she is eligible for the highest office in the land. Voters deserve clarification.

Even assuming a CRBA was filed, the weight of the legal evidence indicates that Ted Cruz is a naturalized U.S. citizen because he was born outside of the jurisdiction of the U.S. and obtained U.S. citizenship by an Act of Congress (Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution). As a naturalized citizen, he is not eligible for the Presidency (Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5 of the Constitution).

It is disturbing to this writer that, Ted Cruz, a man who claims to be a “principled conservative” and a staunch supporter of the Constitution, should be so opaque about his personal history and unwilling to release his records.

Does that sound familiar?
Lawrence Sellin, Ph.D. is a retired colonel with 29 years of service in the US Army Reserve and a veteran of Afghanistan and Iraq. Colonel Sellin is the author of “Restoring the Republic: Arguments for a Second American Revolution “.

 

http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/detail/did-ted-cruz-enter-the-us-illegally-in-1974

 


The 2016 election for dummies – Part 2

The 2016 election for dummies – Part 2

by LAWRENCE SELLIN, PHD February 6, 2016

 

On August 5, 2015, I wrote:

The two most important issues of the 2016 election are non-partisan.

(1) The federal government and the media are, as institutions, hopelessly corrupt.

(2) The United States has elections, but we no longer have representative government.

None of the problems facing the country can be solved effectively without first confronting those two issues.

Those words still ring true and any candidate addressing those issues directly could capture the majority of voters on both sides of the political center.

Many Americans now believe that we are no longer citizens of a republic, but subjects of a reigning oligarchy composed of a self-absorbed permanent political class, which services the interests of wealthy financiers at the expense of the wider population. They maintain their authority by an ever-expanding and increasingly intrusive government and use a compliant media to manipulate public perception and opinion in order to maintain the illusion of democracy.

To maintain control, both Democrats and Republicans have fostered a culture of dependency. Democrats create dependency by expanding federal mandates and increasing entitlements. Republicans promote dependency by limiting voter choice and co-opting or crushing independent candidates and grass roots political movements.

To sustain itself, the corrupt political-media establishment has the power to suppress the truth or interfere with honest inquiry by false authoritative pronouncements or by manipulating the news through the release of misleading information.

On January 2, 2014, I called for a “political insurgency” because there are no untainted elections, there is no rule of law, there is no means to petition elected officials or the courts for the redress of grievances and there is no independent press to challenge governmental abuse. In other words, all the traditional avenues to fight the corrupt practices of political expediency and crony capitalism have been blocked.

Democrat pollster Pat Caddell recently noted that the 2016 election “is not about ideology, not about issues, it’s about insurgency… The system is on the verge of coming apart…The politicians in Washington aren’t going to be able to put the genie back in the bottle.”

According to Caddell, such conditions are largely responsible for the rise of non-political-consultant-class candidates like Donald Trump, Ted Cruz and Bernie Sanders as well as the weakness of those considered establishment candidates.

The political insurgency feature of the 2016 campaign would also explain the fragmentation of the conservative moment.

Like the Republican Party in general, American conservatism appears to be fully and openly untethered from any principles. Like the Constitution, conservatism is now whatever you want it to be, and for most but not all, whatever is politically expedient in the pure pursuit of power.

The internal conflicts within the conservative movement have widened the already existing fissures, roughly dividing it into three groups: status quo, zealots and anti-establishment nationalists.

Status quo conservatives are a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Republican establishment. They are the inhabitants of the House of Representatives Freedom Caucus, who provide a convenient venting mechanism as a substitute for meaningful political reform or opposition to Democrat legislation. They are the political pundits ensconced in the hallways of the National Review, the Weekly Standard, the Wall Street Journal and Fox News, who, during every election cycle, help dress up Republican establishment candidates in appropriate conservative clothing.

Conservative zealots tend to espouse a multitude of widely varying conservative “values,” but, in practice, often consider Constitutional principles as optional and disposable components, when political expediency requires it. In an effort to resurrect Ronald Reagan, the zealots tend to produce candidates that more resemble Frankenstein.

A growing constituency of the fragmented conservative movement is the anti-establishment nationalists, which comprises the largest fraction of Donald Trump supporters. These voters are more insurgents than conservatives and are unlikely to respond to classical conservative or establishment Republican arguments. It is this constituency that is most likely to attract disaffected Democrats and has the greatest potential for disruptive political innovation.

Stay tuned.

 
Lawrence Sellin, Ph.D. is a retired colonel with 29 years of service in the US Army Reserve and a veteran of Afghanistan and Iraq. Colonel Sellin is the author of “Restoring the Republic: Arguments for a Second American Revolution “.

http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/detail/the-2016-election-for-dummies-part-2?f=must_reads
election 4 dummies 2016


Is the Fort Hood shooter a “natural born citizen” and eligible for the Presidency?

Is the Fort Hood shooter a “natural born citizen” and eligible for the Presidency?

by LAWRENCE SELLIN, PHD January 12, 2016

 
If Nidal Hasan had not committed his heinous crime, could he have been President?

Yes, according to conventional political wisdom.

For the sake of argument, let’s make a hypothetical comparison between Nidal Hasan and Marco Rubio, who are of similar age and backgrounds in terms of Presidential eligibility.

Nidal Malik Hasan was born on September 8, 1970 in Arlington, Virginia. According to the New York Times, Hasan’s parents emigrated to the U.S. from a small town near Jerusalem, were presumed to be Jordanian citizens, became permanent U.S. residents and, before their deaths, became U.S. Citizens.

On November 5, 2009, Hasan reportedly shouted “Allahu Akbar” (or “God is Great”) and opened fire in the Soldier Readiness Center of Fort Hood, located in Killeen, Texas, killing 13 people and wounding over 30 others in the worst shooting ever to take place on an American military base.

Senator Marco Antonio Rubio (R-FL) was born on May 28, 1971 in Miami, Florida. His parents, Mario and Oriales, emigrated to the U.S. from Cuba in 1956, were both permanent U.S. residents when Senator Rubio was born and became U.S. citizens in 1975.

Senator Rubio is now a candidate for the Republican Presidential nomination.

What is the difference between Nidal Hasan and Marco Rubio in terms of Presidential eligibility according to the conventional political wisdom?

None. They are both considered “natural born citizens” and both are eligible for the Presidency.

Article II Section I Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution, which proscribed Presidential eligibility states:

“No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”

What was the original public meaning of the phrase “natural born citizen” that establishes the eligibility for the office of President of the United States?

“There is general agreement on the core of its meaning. Anyone born on American soil whose parents are citizens of the United States is a ‘natural born citizen.'”

What is then the difference between Nidal Hasan and Marco Rubio in terms of Presidential eligibility according to an originalist interpretation of the Constitution?

None. Neither are “natural born citizens” and neither are eligible for the Presidency.

To understand who is a “natural born citizen” according to the original intent of the Framers of the Constitution, one needs to refer to the republican principles expressed in Emer Vattel’s, “Law of Nations,” with which the Framers were intimately familiar.

Pundits of the conventional political wisdom often mistakenly refer to “natural born subjects” in English common law as the source of the concept of “natural born citizen.” There is a difference between English common law, from which the American colonists broke away, and the republican principles espoused in Vattel’s “Law of Nations”, that is, monarchies have subjects, republics are formed by citizens. Natural-born subjects are born within the dominions of the crown of England and subject to the king, whereas, our Constitution created a federal government which was subject to us, the citizens of the republic.

Vattel says in “Law of Nations”, Book I, Ch. XIX:

§ 212: Natural-born citizens are those born in the country of parents who are citizens.

The republican concept of “natural born citizen” is radically different from the feudal notion of “natural born subject.” Under English common law merely being born in the domains of the King made one by birth a “natural born subject”. In Vattel’s model and in our constitutional republic, citizens are “natural born” only if they are born of citizens.

In addition, having just separated from Great Britain and fearing foreign influence on the President and Commander in Chief of the American military, the future first U.S. Supreme Court Justice, John Jay, on July 25, 1787, asked the convention presiding officer George Washington to strengthen the requirements for the Presidency:

“Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Command in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.”

It is important to note that pundits of the conventional political wisdom make two other errors when attempting to define “natural born citizen:” (1) the “one-parent” argument for “natural born citizen” only began in 2008 to accommodate the eligibility of Barack Obama and (2) statutory law, that is, laws passed by Congress may only define the manner in which one becomes a citizen, per Article I Section VIII of the Constitution; not the concept of “natural born citizen,” which can only be changed by Constitutional Amendment.

Senator Ted Cruz, for example, claims to be a “natural born citizen” because he was a “citizen at birth” through his one-parent US citizen mother.

If the Framers of the Constitution meant the eligibility requirement to be “citizen at birth,” why didn’t they write it that way?

In a letter written to James Madison, the Father of the Constitution, Alexander Hamilton had suggested that “born a citizen” be used:

“No person shall be eligible to the office of President of the United States unless he be now a Citizen of one of the States, or hereafter be born a Citizen of the United States.”

Such phrasing was known at the time of the writing of the Constitution and it was rejected.

It appears that our corrupt political-media establishment does not wish the American people to understand to true intent of the Framers of the Constitution, when they created the eligibility requirements for President of the United States.

 
Lawrence Sellin, Ph.D. is a retired colonel with 29 years of service in the US Army Reserve and a veteran of Afghanistan and Iraq. Colonel Sellin is the author of “Restoring the Republic: Arguments for a Second American Revolution “.

 

http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/detail/is-the-fort-hood-shooter-a-natural-born-citizen-and-eligible-for-the-presidency?f=must_reads


The Difference Between a U.S. Citizen and a Natural Born Citizen

Family Security Matters
The Difference Between a U.S. Citizen and a Natural Born Citizen

by LAWRENCE SELLIN, PHD January 7, 2016

 
Many members of the political-media establishment are either deliberately misrepresenting facts for political reasons or they are simply ignorant of those facts, that is, the manner in which one becomes a citizen as opposed to the concept of natural born citizenship.

Those who equate “citizen” with “natural born citizen” often misinterpret Constitutional law and statute law, the latter meaning that Congress may pass laws only defining the manner in which one becomes a citizen, either citizen by birth or a naturalized citizen, not the Constitutional concept of natural born citizenship.

In addition, many people mistakenly cite English Common Law as the origin of the natural born citizen concept, which, in that regard, the Founders rejected; rather than its true origin, the codification of natural law described by Emerich de Vattel in his 1758 book “The Law of Nations.”

Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 states:

“No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”

Recognizing the Constitutional nature of the natural born citizen concept, there have been numerous attempts, in recent years, both by Democrats and Republicans, to amend the Article II “natural born citizen” clause, including:

January 14, 1975 – Democrat House Rep. Jonathon B. Bingham, [NY-22] introduced a constitutional amendment under H.J.R. 33: which called for the outright removal of the natural-born requirement for president found in Article II of the U.S. Constitution – “Provides that a citizen of the United States otherwise eligible to hold the Office of President shall not be ineligible because such citizen is not a natural born citizen.”

June 11, 2003 – Democrat House member Vic Snyder [AR-2] introduced H.J.R 59: in the 108th Congress – “Constitutional Amendment – Makes a person who has been a citizen of the United States for at least 35 years and who has been a resident within the United States for at least 14 years eligible to hold the office of President or Vice President.”

September 3, 2003 – Democrat Rep. John Conyers [MI] introduced H.J.R. 67: – “Constitutional Amendment – Makes a person who has been a citizen of the United States for at least 20 years eligible to hold the office of President.”

September 15, 2004 – Republican Rep. Dana Rohrabacher [CA-46] introduced H.J.R. 104: – “Constitutional Amendment – “Makes eligible for the Office of the President non-native born persons who have held U.S. citizenship for at least 20 years and who are otherwise eligible to hold such Office.”

According to Article II, Section I, Clause 5 of the U. S. Constitution, a candidate for the Presidency must be a “natural born citizen,” that is, a second generation American, a U.S. citizen, whose parents were also U.S. citizens at the time of the candidate’s birth.

That there is a difference between “citizen” and “natural born citizen” has been clear since the writing of the U.S. Constitution on September 17, 1787 and its ratification on June 21, 1788.

A first draft of what would become Article II, Section 1, Clause 5, submitted by Alexander Hamilton to the Constitutional Convention on June 18, 1787 stated:

“No person shall be eligible to the office of President of the United States unless he be now a Citizen of one of the States, or hereafter be born a Citizen of the United States.”

Fearing foreign influence on the President and Commander in Chief of the American military, the future first U.S. Supreme Court Justice, John Jay, on July 25, 1787, asked the convention presiding officer George Washington to strengthen the requirements for the Presidency:

“Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Command in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.”

The term “or a Citizen of the United States at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution” referred to loyal Americans who lived in the thirteen colonies at the time of the Revolutionary War, thus establishing the first generation of United States “citizens,” upon which future “natural born” citizens would be created. The Founders, under Article II, allowed these original U.S. citizens to be eligible for the Presidency.

As understood by the Founders and as applied to the U.S. Constitution, the term “natural born citizen” derived its meaning less from English Common Law, than from Vattel’s “The Law of Nations.”

They knew from reading Vattel that a “natural born citizen” had a different standard from just “citizen,” for he or she was a child born in the country to two citizen parents (Vattel, Section 212 in original French and English translation).

That is the definition of a “natural born citizen,” as recognized by numerous U.S. Supreme Court and lower court decisions (The Venus, 12U.S. 253(1814), Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 242 (1830), Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1856), Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875) , Ex parte Reynolds, 20 F. Cas. 582 (C.C.W.D. Ark 1879), United States v. Ward, 42 F. 320 (1890); Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), Ludlam, Excutrix, & c., v. Ludlam, 26 N.Y. 356 (1863) and more) and the framers of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, the 14th Amendment, the Naturalization Act of 1795, 1798, 1802, 1885, and our modern 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1401.

There are historical arguments too numerous to include in a short article, which explain why the definition of “natural born subject,” as found in the English Common Law, was not used as the basis of “natural born citizen” in the U.S. Constitution because Great Britain was a monarchy and the new nation was a constitutional republic.

Legal precedent and interpretation leave no doubt regarding the meaning of “natural born citizen.”

The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 253 (1814)

“The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens.”

Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857)

“The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.”

John Bingham, father of the 14th Amendment, which gave citizenship to American slaves after the Civil War, stated on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives in 1862:

“All from other lands, who by the terms of [congressional] laws and a compliance with their provisions become naturalized, are adopted citizens of the United States; all other persons born within the Republic, of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty, are natural born citizens.”

In 1866, Bingham also stated on the House floor:

“Every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.”

Minor v. Happersett , 88 U.S. 162 (1875)

“The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.”

United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)

“At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children, born in a country of parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.”

As recently as September 2008, in a Michigan Law Review article entitled “Originalism and the Natural Born Citizen Clause,” Lawrence B. Solum, then John E. Cribbet Professor of Law at the University of Illinois College of Law, wrote:

“What was the original public meaning of the phrase that establishes the eligibility for the office of President of the United States? There is general agreement on the core of its meaning. Anyone born on American soil whose parents are citizens of the United States is a natural born citizen.”

Citizen parents, plural.

Just as the Presidential oath of office is unique “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution,” the eligibility requirements for President are equally unique, to ensure allegiance and prevent foreign influence at the highest levels of government.

I think the Founders had anticipated the mess in which we find ourselves today.

 
Lawrence Sellin, Ph.D. is a retired colonel with 29 years of service in the US Army Reserve and a veteran of Afghanistan and Iraq. Colonel Sellin is the author of “Restoring the Republic: Arguments for a Second American Revolution.”

 

http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/detail/the-difference-between-a-us-citizen-and-a-natural-born-citizen


Unlimited Muslim immigration: A Congress of fools or traitors?

Family Security Matters
Unlimited Muslim immigration: A Congress of fools or traitors?

by LAWRENCE SELLIN, PHD December 15, 2015

 

Senate bill 153, the Immigration Innovation Act (or I-Squared), led by Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL), would allow for virtually unlimited Muslim immigration into the United States. Several of Rubio’s most prominent financial backers are among the bill’s boosters. Rubio’s campaign theme, “A New American Century,” employs a euphemism commonly used to describe demographic transformation of the United States brought about by immigration.

A recent Pew Research report found that “nearly all Muslims in Afghanistan (99%) and most in Iraq (91%) and Pakistan (84%) support sharia law as official law.”

Yet in the last five years, the U.S. has issued 83,000 green cards to Pakistan, 83,000 green cards to Iraq and 11,000 green cards to Afghanistan.

According to Fox News’ Chad Pergram, Speaker Paul Ryan (R-WI) and House Republicans are gearing up to attach a proposal to the omnibus spending bill that gives Barack Obama a blank check, empowering him to bring in an unlimited number of refugees.

Andrew McCarthy has warned about the continued admission of “assimilation-resistant Muslims,” writing:

“As we are seeing in France, and have seen elsewhere in Europe and the Middle East, jihadism thrives when it has a support system of sharia-adherent Muslims. In Europe this means – as it would mean here – enclaves of assimilation-resistant Muslims… it is from the assimilation-resistance Islamic communities that future ‘homegrown’ jihadists will emerge – and that is apart from the material and moral support jihadists get from like-minded Islamists in these communities.”

The San Bernardino terrorist attack, killing 14 and wounding 17 others, was only possible due to Muslim immigration. Reportedly, Syed Farook is the child of Pakistani immigrants, and his jihadi bride, Tashfeen Malik, was born in Pakistan; all apparently “assimilation-resistant.”

The motivations of Sen. Rubio, Rep. Ryan and other members of the Republican establishment are clear; to pay back their wealthy corporate or individual donors, who own them, with cheap imported labor, whether that is engineers or landscapers.

For the fifty million unemployed, the Republican establishment/Obama plan will only reduce wages, lower job opportunities, and make it harder for all struggling Americans to make ends meet.

According to a new Pew study, under Obama, the middle class in America has declined and no longer constitutes a majority – “after more than four decades of serving as the nation’s economic majority, the American middle class is now matched in number by those in the economic tiers above and below it.” Pew found that the “share of American adults living in middle-income households has fallen from 61% in 1971 to 50% in 2015. The share living in the upper-income tier rose from 14% to 21% over the same period. Meanwhile, the share in the lower-income tier increased from 25% to 29%.”

So much for the Middle Class, America’s engine of democracy, decimated by Republican-Obama collusion.

Alternatively, the Democrats seem to have an Islamo-Marxist problem.

Today, as the threat of violent jihad in the United States increases, listless Obama and his administration of coffeehouse communists and apologists for radical Islam are joined by a limp-wristed and hysterical media in a chorus of nervous verbal hand-wringing over, not Islamic terrorism, but the “real” danger of Islamophobia.

Although their motivations are different, fundamentalist Islam and the political left are both devoted to totalitarianism, have a shared hatred of Western civilization and Judeo-Christian democracy and are determined to extinguish liberty and subjugate the individual, either to Sharia or the state.

Those in touch with reality or not consumed by mindless ideology will know that Sharia or Islamic Law is not merely a set of religious guidelines, but a comprehensive list of regulations governing nearly every aspect of life including what one consumes, what type of music is permissible, how financial affairs are conducted and even rules regarding a woman’s menstrual cycle.

Hillary supporters, who might wish to rethink her romance with Islam, should note that, under Sharia, aborting the fetus is forbidden. It is permissible when the pregnancy poses danger to the mother’s life, but only before the soul has entered the fetus. Should the spirit enter the fetus, as determined by a male Islamic cleric, it is not permissible to abort it, even if the pregnancy spells danger to the mother’s life. It is not permissible to have an abortion merely because of economic problems, to abort the fetus at any stage because the fetus is deformed, to abort a fetus for future difficulties the born child might encounter, or to abort the fetus conceived in adultery.

Except for the galactically stupid, Sharia is clearly incompatible with the Constitution and if Muslims choose to live in the United States, they will need to renounce all public practice of its tenets; that is, American assimilation.

In November of 1934, Winston Churchill made a stirring speech in the British House of Commons demanding an increase in military expenditures to counter the growing threat from Nazi Germany: “To urge preparation of defense is not to assert the imminence of war…”

Nevertheless, Neville Chamberlain, the soon-to-be Prime Minister and architect of appeasement, urged continued disarmament, claiming:

“The real danger to this country is Winston. He is the warmonger, not Hitler.”

In essence, Chamberlain was accusing Churchill of “Hitlerophobia,” that, by preparing to defend itself, Britain would only make Nazi Germany more aggressive.

In other words, in vulnerability, there is strength.

We know how that turned out.

 

 
Lawrence Sellin, Ph.D. is a retired colonel with 29 years of service in the US Army Reserve and a veteran of Afghanistan and Iraq. Colonel Sellin is the author of “Restoring the Republic: Arguments for a Second American Revolution “.

http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/detail/unlimited-muslim-immigration-a-congress-of-fools-or-traitors?f=must_readsmuslims_pray_capitol_LARGE


Obama is not delusional; he is ideologically and resolutely anti-American

Obama is not delusional; he is ideologically and resolutely anti-American

by LAWRENCE SELLIN, PHD December 6, 2015

 

Barack Hussein Obama is fond of telling Americans, “that’s not who we are,” when admonishing us about not agreeing with his policies.

It is Obama and his fellow travelers, who are, in fact, “not who we are.”

It is why many mistakenly describe his views as being delusional, basing their conclusion on what mainstream America believes, not on Obama’s Islamo-Marxist proclivities.

Like earlier Nazi and communist propagandists, Obama and his fellow travelers traffic in myths, half-truths and, when necessary, blatant lies. In an Islamic context, it can easily take on the form of taqiyya and tawriya; Islamic doctrines that instruct Muslims to deceive when it is perceived to be in Islam’s interest.

Obama and his fellow travelers intentionally excuse Islamic terrorism by invoking the mantra of moral equivalence; the “we are just as bad or worse as they” argument, by framing it as an unhappy consequence of “Western misdeeds and faults.” It is a form of pathological self-criticism adopted by self-absorbed and morally self-flagellating liberals, but cynically and skillfully used by America’s enemies to undermine our will to resist the onslaught of radical Islam.

Unlike homicides due to insanity or criminal activity, Islamic terrorism has a unique goal; to demoralize and undermine the target societies to prepare the way for the global caliphate and the imposition of Sharia.

Stated simply, Obama and his fellow travelers dissemble and lie because their true objective, their so-called fundamental transformation, is the permanent decline of the United States as a world power and the dismantling of the country as a capitalist republic based on Judeo-Christian democratic principles.

Because the goal is ideological and totalitarian, the Machiavellian dictum of “the ends justify the means” is their operational approach, where statements not bounded by facts, logic or even common sense are not delusional, but practical, if they result in the desired outcome.

To Obama and his fellow travelers, they are not lies or delusions. It is acceptable to use bad or immoral methods as long as you accomplish something “good” by using them. In other words, in order to achieve what you consider as an important aim, it is acceptable to do something bad. Morally “right” consequences often necessitate morally wrong actions and what is considered “right” or “wrong” is determined by whatever supports their Islamo-Marxist agenda.

It, therefore, does not matter whether or not Obama believes what he is saying or even if what he is saying is rational.

It does matter if we accept the outcome Obama seeks through his Islamo-Marxist policies. Even passively excusing his utterances as delusional serves his purpose, because Obama and his fellow travelers take their visions and hallucinations seriously; that American society needs to reach that state of hopelessness and chaos as the necessary prerequisite for Obama’s fundamental transformation to become permanent.

In Mountain of Crumbs, a memoir of childhood in the 1960s and 1970s propaganda-soaked Soviet Union, Elena Gorokhova explains the meaning of “vranyo”, the Russian word for a lie or half-truth:

“In Russia we played the ‘vranyo’ game on a daily basis. The government lied to us, we knew they were lying, they knew we knew they were lying, but they kept lying anyway and we pretended to believe them. ”

During the Soviet era, “vranyo” became the de facto way of life, an instrument of governmental coercion as well as a coping mechanism to endure both unbearable calamities and trivial annoyances of life in a totalitarian state.

In America today, “vranyo” is political correctness and radical Islam is a lethal threat rather than a trivial annoyance.

What is the nature of a religion, where the more “devout” you become, the more you want to kill people?

Make no mistake. Obama and his fellow travelers intend to soothe us into complacency and continue to pursue policies that will ultimately make us more vulnerable.

And that is no delusion.
Lawrence Sellin, Ph.D. is a retired colonel with 29 years of service in the US Army Reserve and a veteran of Afghanistan and Iraq. Colonel Sellin is the author of “Restoring the Republic: Arguments for a Second American Revolution “.

 

http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/detail/obama-is-not-delusional-he-is-ideologically-and-resolutely-anti-american?f=must_reads


The political-media establishment is the enemy

Family Security Matters

The political-media establishment is the enemy

by LAWRENCE SELLIN, PHD November 29, 2015
The 2016 election is not a contest between the Democrat and Republican ideologies, nor is it a choice among various approaches to address the nation’s problems, but something far more fundamental.

It is a battle between the entrenched power of the bipartisan political-media establishment versus the rights and liberties of the American people.

It is a conflict between those who want to adhere to the Constitution and the rule of law and the party leaders and a biased media, who wish to continue the practices of political expediency and crony capitalism.

It is a decadent system the political-media elite created and continues to nurture, one that benefits a few at the expense of the many.

There are only two issues that matter for the 2016 election: the political-media establishment is hopelessly corrupt and, although we have elections, we no longer have representative government.

It is a system, not incapable of, but largely unwilling to solve pressing national issues like illegal immigration, a moribund economy or the threat from radical Islam.

It is because solutions benefitting the American people conflict with the financial or ideological interests of the oligarchy, the Democrat and Republican establishments, the media and their financiers, who every four years hire a President.

It is a system that, through benign, if not criminal neglect, made possible the two-term Presidency of Barack Hussein Obama, who, if he continues unopposed, will fundamentally transform the United States from a capitalist republic based on Judeo-Christian democratic principles into some kind of Islamo-Marxist totalitarian perversion, a permanently weakened and fragmented America.

It is now but a tiny step to Obama’s “America” from that which the oligarchy has already shaped, a composite government of J. L. Talmon’s “totalitarian democracy” and Sheldon S. Wolin’s “managed democracy.”

That is, a political system in which lawfully elected representatives rule a nation state whose citizens, although granted the right to vote, have little or no participation in the decision-making process of government; a country where citizens are politically uninterested and submissive – and where elites are eager to keep them that way.

Thomas Jefferson feared that it would only be a matter of time before the American system of government degenerated into a form of “elective despotism” (1785), now fostered by corrupt politicians, enabled by wealthy special interests and facilitated by a compliant press.

“They should look forward to a time, and that not a distant one, when a corruption in this, as in the country from which we derive our origin, will have seized the heads of government, and be spread by them through the body of the people; when they will purchase the voices of the people, and make them pay the price.”

Is it not true that members of Congress seek election, not to uphold the Constitution and serve the American people, but to obtain power, and to use that power to accrue professional and financial benefits for themselves and their major supporters?

Is it not true that all the traditional means for the American people to seek the redress of grievances have now been blocked by a self-absorbed permanent political-media elite unaccountable to the American people?

Is it not true that the current tenant in the White House leads a dishonest and lawless cabal of anti-American ideologues, who engage in activities and foster policies that risk the survival of the American republic, undermine the security of its citizens and abrogate their unalienable rights?

Is it not true that when the blatant and outrageous lies of the political-media establishment are no longer sufficient to soothe the electorate into complacency, such a government must begin to curtail liberty and oppress the people in order to remain in power?

Is it not true, as Thomas Jefferson predicted that corruption has seized the heads of our present-day government in a manner similar to that which sparked the American Revolution?

Ladies and gentlemen, we are now on our own.
Lawrence Sellin, Ph.D. is a retired colonel with 29 years of service in the US Army Reserve and a veteran of Afghanistan and Iraq. Colonel Sellin is the author of “Restoring the Republic: Arguments for a Second American Revolution “. He receives email at lawrence.sellin@gmail.com.

 

http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/detail/the-political-media-establishment-is-the-enemy?f=must_reads


Choosing National Suicide

Choosing National Suicide

by LAWRENCE SELLIN, PHD November 22, 2015

As Winston Churchill noted in his indictment of appeasement of Nazi Germany in the 1930s, “there is a great danger in refusing to believe things you do not like.”

Barack Hussein Obama is succeeding in his fundamental transformation; that is, dismantling the United States as a capitalist republic, based on Judeo-Christian democratic principles.

Obama is dangerous as a President because his ideologies, Marxism and sympathy for Islam, drive him to pursue policies that run counter to the national interest, the well-being of the American people and, quite frankly, the survival of the country. His mendacity is compounded by his arrogance and narcissism that prevent him from accepting responsibility and learning from his mistakes. He is not on our side.

People ask – How can this be happening to our country? What can we do to stop it?

It can happen because the political-media establishment does not consider the United States “our” country. The political-media establishment considers the United States “their” country, in which ordinary Americans are permitted to live as long as we elect those they want elected and continue to pay taxes to support their lavish life styles and to maintain the corrupt status quo. Welcome to feudal America.

It can happen because, like Obama, the Democrat Party, the liberal media and academia are populated with the same Islamo-Marxists, a totalitarian marriage of convenience, distinguished by the traits they share – their hatred of Western civilization and a belief that the United States is the embodiment of evil on earth. While Islamic radicals seek to purge the world of heresies and of the infidels who practice them, leftist radicals seek to purge society of the vices allegedly spawned by capitalism — those being racism, sexism, imperialism, and greed. Through unregulated immigration, Democrats seek to alter the demographics of the United States to create a permanent one-party state to implement their far-left totalitarian agenda. Islamists have something similar in mind, albeit even more brutal and oppressive.

It can happen because America’s domestic enemies promulgate notions that attack the basis of Western Judeo-Christian civilization, which emphasizes the uniqueness and sacredness of the individual. They also promote policies that weaken our ability to transmit to the next generation the values and traditions upon which the United States was built e.g. the Common Core assault on American education. Anti-American, messianic political movements can only succeed when the individual believes that his or her actions are determined, not by personal freedom endowed by the Creator, but by the destiny of the community, endowed by a ruling elite of commissars or mullahs.

In can happen in any otherwise sophisticated society that loses a sense of its own history, succumbs to a present-tense culture and embraces the false promises of a leftist utopia in order to generate the truly blissed-out and vacant servitude required by the Obama strategy. Using media deception and historical revisionism, the low-information voter will slouch towards Obama’s utopia by a combination of governmental coercion as in George Orwell’s “Nineteen Eighty-Four” and the hedonist nihilism of a painless, amusement-sodden, and stress-free consensus managed by the nanny-state found in Aldous Huxley’s “Brave New World.

It can happen because the Republican establishment and its propaganda arm, Fox News, choose not to expose and oppose Obama to any extent that it might place in jeopardy their position as junior partners in the corrupt political-media status quo. They are funded by and serve the Chamber of Commerce and a broader class of wealthy global financiers, locusts, who view America as just another landmass and people to exploit. Republicans are not in Congress to represent their constituency or solve the nation’s problems, but to perpetuate themselves in office. As the Republican establishment’s grip on power becomes ever more tenuous, they will more aggressively oppose internal political challenges, whether it is from Donald Trump or the Tea Party and they more eagerly work together with Obama and the Democrats.

Case in point is the cynical piece of legislative window dressing, but appropriately-named SAFE ACT (American Security Against Foreign Enemies), recently passed by a bipartisan “veto-proof” 289-137 majority in the Paul Ryan (R-WI)-led House of Representatives. It is being heralded by the political-media establishment as a bill that would “erect high hurdles for Syrian and Iraqi refugees coming to American shores” and “require new FBI background checks and individual sign-offs from three high-ranking U.S. officials before any refugee could come to the U.S. from Iraq or Syria.” Those descriptions are nonsensical at best, outright lies at worst. FBI Director James Comey already testified before the House Committee on Homeland Security that the federal government does not have the ability to conduct thorough background checks for terrorist ties on all Syrian refugees. The legislation does not cover potential terrorists coming from countries other than Iraq and Syria. Finally, the SAFE ACT gives final approval authority for entry solely to the Obama Administration, which has vowed to flood the country with refugees i.e. to facilitate a Muslim invasion of the U.S. similar to that we are witnessing in Europe, all financed by George Soros. The SAFE ACT does not provide physical safety for the American people, but it does provide political safety for the Republican establishment in the form of disinformation and legislative legerdemain.

In essence, the Republican establishment, in choosing to collaborate with Obama and the Democrats, is choosing national suicide. They prefer that option to representative government.

What can we do to stop it?

More than anything else, the political-media establishment does not want the American people to take back our country. The legislation, executive orders and judicial decisions emanating from Washington D.C. are geared to maintain the status quo or enhance the power of the federal government over the American people.

More than any other time in our history has the separation between the rulers and the ruled been as great and it bears comparison to the events leading up to the American Revolution. Whenever the interests of government officials are in such stark conflict with those of the people, tyranny ensues.

Frederick Douglass wrote: “Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did, and it never will. Find out just what people will submit to, and you have found out the exact amount of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them; and these will continue until they are resisted with either words or blows, or with both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress.”

I think the American people are running out of words.
Lawrence Sellin, Ph.D. is a retired colonel with 29 years of service in the US Army Reserve and a veteran of Afghanistan and Iraq. Colonel Sellin is the author of “Restoring the Republic: Arguments for a Second American Revolution “. He receives email at lawrence.sellin@gmail.com.

 

http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/detail/choosing-national-suicide


When Will Our Leaders Understand That It’s Morning In America For Jihadists?

When Will Our Leaders Understand That It’s Morning In America For Jihadists?

This article originally appeared on FoxNews.com.
By Pete Hoekstra

Jihadists awoke to a new dawn on the day that the Obama administration began implementing a new and uncharted foreign policy seven years ago.
In his 2009 inaugural speech the new president declared that America “will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist” when discussing “those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent.”
The result? Today Egypt is rebuilding its government following the disastrous Islamist Muslim Brotherhood regime. Libya is a malignant tumor in north Africa that spreads the cancer of weapons, training and ideology throughout the broader region. Syria and Iraq are nearly ungovernable with ISIS on its murderous rampage. Israel is under siege by Palestinian terrorists.
This is not to say that Obama and his advisors caused the chaos by themselves, yet the common thread starts from when it fundamentally reversed longstanding bipartisan U.S. foreign policy. For the first time in decades, the government embraced such bad actors as the Muslim Brotherhood, Al Qaeda and Hamas – jihadist groups with American blood on their hands – without prejudice.
U.S. leadership needs to recognize that jihadists hate us, they want to destroy our way of life, and that they have developed dozens of front groups in the United States such as the Council for American-Islamic Relations to provide cover for their activities.
Previous Republican and Democratic administrations did not overtly engage with radical Islamists because their philosophy is inconsistent with Western values. Their goal is not to reach an accommodation with the West, but to destroy it.
Obama’s rhetoric became policy, and the full nature of the dramatic shift revealed itself. He threw President Hosni Mubarak – our ally in Egypt – under the bus as the U.S. subtly signaled that it was comfortable working with the Muslim Brotherhood.
Director of National Intelligence General James R. Clapper reinforced the change in direction with his unfounded prediction to a congressional committee in 2012 that al Qaida would “find it difficult to compete for local support with groups like the Muslim Brotherhood that participate in the political process, provide social services and advocate religious values.”
In Libya, Muammar Qaddafi’s son, Seif, begged for peace negotiations, but the administration allied with the salafi-jihadist Libyan Islamic Fighting Group to overthrow and kill his father.
The resulting failed state in Libya allowed significant weapons caches – Gaddafi’s leftover stockpiles, NATO-supplied arms and those shipped in from the UAE and Qatar — to make their way into the hands of those who murdered four Americans in Benghazi, as well as to the ‘rebels’ in Syria that would metastasize into ISIS.
Jihadi organizations around the world saw a new America with the Obama administration that they had repeatedly fooled into believing that they could now be trusted and managed.
In the same manner the Obama administration provided unprecedented access by individuals and groups with radical Islamist ties to the highest levels of the executive branch. Such access offers unique opportunities to influence public policy and to gain credibility, which they in turn exploit to discredit other organizations and add authority to their messages.
Such a sweeping policy change by Obama resulted in much of the world seeing U.S. weakness and taking advantage of it. America has experienced the failure of this engagement policy through aggression by the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt; radical Islamists operating unmolested in Libya; ISIS expanding its reach and genocidal campaign in Syria and Iraq; as well as Hamas and Palestinian mercenaries attacking Israel, which current Secretary of State John Kerry dismisses as “random acts of violence.”
Despite the turmoil, former Secretary of State and presidential frontrunner Hillary Clinton recently claimed that the U.S. is safer and that this is the best example of an exercise in American smart power.
It’s not.
U.S. leadership needs to recognize that jihadists hate us, they want to destroy our way of life, and that they have developed dozens of front groups in the United States such as the Council for American-Islamic Relations to provide cover for their activities.
We are at war and the sooner we recognize, confront and defeat the enemy, the safer we will become.
Republican Pete Hoekstra represented Michigan’s 2nd congressional district from 1993 to 2011 in the House of Representatives. He is the former House Intelligence Committee chairman and author of the upcoming book “Architects of Disaster: The Destruction of Libya.”


Soviet Spy’s Dire Warnings 30 Years Ago Come True in Obama’s America

Soviet Spy’s Dire Warnings 30 Years Ago Come True in Obama’s America

by LAWRENCE SELLIN, PHD November 1, 2015

http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/detail/soviet-spys-dire-warnings-30-years-ago-come-true-in-obamas-america
spy _ agent_.jpg

Subversion as a strategy used against one’s adversaries is not new. Chinese military general, strategist, and philosopher Sun Tzu wrote over 2,500 years ago:

“The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting.”

In a 1985 interview, former Soviet KGB agent Yuri Bezmenov described the techniques of ideological subversion (short video below and full text),

that were used to undermine American values, traditions and institutions to the extent that the people will be unable or unwilling to resist takeover by the totalitarian ideology of communism; methods adopted and now being employed against the United States by the supporters of radical Islam. Continue reading


Page 4 of 8« First...23456...Last »