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 “.
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 “.
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.”
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 “.
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 “.
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.
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.
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 →
by LAWRENCE SELLIN, PHD October 3, 2015
Vladimir Putin’s overall strategy is to prop up Russia’s long-time regional ally, Syrian President Bashar al Assad.
Russia has bombed targets in northwestern Syria, an area mainly held by non-ISIS rebel groups such as the Free Syrian Army and an Islamist coalition, Jaysh al-Fatah.
The aim is to eliminate non-ISIS groups first. Then the Syrian, Russian, Iranian, Hezbollah alliance can turn its attention to ISIS and, thereby, force the United States to support or, at least, do nothing to hinder their operations.
Controlling northwest Syria also safeguards Assad’s Shia-Alawite home region and his base of support, as well as securing the strategically critical coastal area containing the Latakia airbase used by Russian forces and the important port of Tartus.
With Russia filling the power vacuum left by Obama’s feckless foreign policy, the big losers in the region are the United States, Turkey and, to some extent, the nations that have supported the Sunni rebels, such as Qatar and Saudi Arabia.
Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan is a Sunni Islamist, an opponent of Syria’s Assad and a fervent supporter of the Sunni Muslim Brotherhood.
Like Erdogan, Obama also demonstrated ardent support for the Muslim Brotherhood regime in Egypt.
Some have argued that the Muslim Brotherhood exerts undue influence on the Obama Administration.
Together with another strong supporter of the Muslim Brotherhood, Qatar, which acted as an intermediary, Erdogan and Obama were likely shipping arms from Libya through Turkey to the Syrian rebels, which led, at least in part, to the death of Americans in Benghazi on September 11, 2012.
Obama, having outsourced the Syrian rebel supply effort to Turkey and Qatar, not unexpectedly, lost control of the funding, the weapons distribution and any significant influence in the region with Turkey and Qatar pursuing their own interests.
Russia and the Shia-axis of Assad, Iran and Hezbollah are now positioned to drive events in the region, all of which will only to be strengthened by Obama’s incompetent lead-from-behind foreign policy and his perilous Iran nuclear deal.
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 “. www.FamilySecurityMatters.org
What do a Cessna in the blue waters of the Pacific Ocean, an Islamic cult, a Chicago family, and a Soviet spy ring all have in common with a sitting U.S. President?
Strap yourself in for an unsettling espionage action-thriller that sounds like a Tom Clancy spy novel. But this cloak-and-dagger exposé is non-fiction. Political non-fiction.
The perplexing sequence of events begins as a Cessna carrying nine people inexplicably descends into the Pacific Ocean off the coast of a Hawaiian island. A passenger wearing a lavender sweater appears calm during the final seconds of flight. The plane enters the water. Some will later speculate the unusual circumstance was a controlled water landing made to look like an accident.
Wreckage of a Cessna Caravan in the Pacific Ocean off the coast of Hawaii.
The passengers and the pilot patiently exit the plane as the cabin becomes flooded with water. The passenger in the lavender sweater appears to the others to be alive and well. This passenger is observed floating in the ocean, wearing a life jacket and showing no signs of distress.
Oddly, another passenger documents the entire event with a GoPro video camera. The video never reveals the face of the passenger in the lavender sweater, who will soon become the focus of a mystery.
This passenger apparently ends up dead about an hour later.
Initial reports describe three different causes of death.
Even more baffling is the fact that no one else on board the Cessna Caravan died.
Do not assume that you can simply look up the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) final report to find out what happened. The incident is “under investigation”… almost two years later.
Now for a little bit more about this dead passenger. The deceased was the former leader of the American branch of an Islamic cult that originated in Indonesia.
The deceased used two names…and had two different birthdays. More mystery.
Through the Islamic cult, the deceased was connected to a very interesting couple from Chicago.
The husband from this Chicago couple is an expert in Soviet propaganda. He is a professor at a university in Chicago. A university where a another professor was a domestic terrorist and a self-described “communist revolutionary.”
The husband attended meetings in Chicago and China with a graphic designer who created a very recognizable circular logo for a famous politician from Chicago.
The father of the graphic designer who created a very recognizable circular logo for a famous politician from Chicago lived in a commune with members of the American branch of the Islamic cult.
The wife from this Chicago couple was friends with the deceased. The wife became the leader of the American branch of the Islamic cult too; just like her friend who purportedly perished in the Pacific Ocean.
Now it turns out that back in the 1940s, the FBI was extremely interested in the parents of the husband from this Chicago couple.
When this Chicago husband, professor, and Soviet propaganda expert was a young boy he lived with his parents near Washington D.C.
The Chicago husband’s mother and all of his grandparents were from Russia. The Chicago husband’s father worked for the U.S. government.
The FBI had the father under government “technical surveillance” through a judge’s secret order. The FBI monitored his phone calls.
The FBI listened to his father getting chewed out by a Soviet spy for “questioning him over the telephone.” The spy then told the boy’s father “to bear in mind from where he was talking.”
The Soviet spy was part of an espionage network penetrating the highest levels of the U.S. government.
This Soviet spy ring had many agents working at American public libraries, scanning local newspaper obituaries to obtain the names of recently-deceased babies. This Soviet spy network then used the names of these dead babies to create fraudulent identities in order to obtain counterfeit U.S. passports.
These fraudulent passports were used by the communist spy operation to bring additional Soviet espionage agents into the United States.
The FBI eventually had 26,000 pages of files on this ring; the ring which also stole atomic bomb secrets from the Manhattan project.
There is one more detail worth mentioning:
It was the deceased who released a Hawaii birth certificate for the famous politician from Chicago, who is now the sitting U.S. President. Many claim that the Hawaii birth certificate is fraudulent.
More mystery? Yes.
The deceased was named in a sealed affidavit filed in U.S. District Court in Seattle alleging misprision of felony and treason against the United States. The sealed affidavit included a technical analysis concluding that the birth certificate was fraudulent. The affidavit also contained personal financial records of the Hawaii official.
Less than two months after the affidavit was filed the plane allegedly transporting the Hawaii official went down in the Pacific Ocean.
The Hawaii official reportedly died.
Shall we continue?
The following are the actual events portrayed in the story you just read, complete with real names and excerpts from the original Silvermaster FBI files. Approximately 26,000 pages of FBI files related to the Silvermaster Soviet spy ring and the Julius and Ethel Rosenberg espionage case were declassified under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). Excerpts from the William Remington FBI file are presented here as well.
The Hawaii plane incident
The Cessna Caravan 208B turboprop ditched off the coast of Kalaupapa, Molokai, Hawaii on December 11, 2013. The Makani Kai Air Charters flight had departed Molokai en route to Honolulu with eight passengers and one pilot on board.
Several former military pilots reviewed GoPro video which had been recorded by a passenger on board the aircraft. Those military pilots stated that they believe the pilot made a “controlled water landing.”
The island of Molokai is in Maui County, Hawaii. (Image credit: Wikimedia Commons)
The 246-word NTSB preliminary report released after the Cessna Caravan incident was called “one of the most incomplete and un-sourced reports published when compared to other reports.” Twenty months have elapsed since the plane ended up in the Pacific Ocean. The NTSB has yet to release its final report.
One passenger reported killed:
Hawaii/SUBUD official who released President Obama’s birth certificate
Hawaii Director of Health Loretta ‘Deliana’ Fuddy, who released President Obama’s ‘Hawaii Certificate of Live Birth’ on April 27, 2011, was the only passenger pronounced dead after the Cessna Caravan went down.
Hawaii Director of Health Loretta ‘Deliana’ Fuddy released President Obama’s Hawaii Certificate of Live Birth in 2011 and was pronounced dead in 2013 after a Cessna she was reportedly aboard ditched in the Pacific Ocean off the coast of Molokai, Hawaii.
Former Hawaii Director of Health Loretta ‘Deliana’ Fuddy (pictured with former Hawaii Governor Neil Abercrombie). (Image credit: Facebook)
Several passengers claimed that they last saw Loretta Fuddy alive in the water wearing a life jacket. The GoPro video confirmed that passengers were in the water wearing life jackets.
It is unclear if Loretta Fuddy’s face appears in the shaky, heavily-edited GoPro video. Therefore, it cannot be confirmed that Fuddy was ever on board the Cessna Caravan or in the water.
Sealed affidavit filed by Doug Vogt in U.S. District Court on October 18, 2013 included alleged details about Loretta Fuddy’s finances.
Preliminary official reports about Loretta Fuddy’s cause of death contained glaring inconsistencies. Various officials blamed her death on internal injuries due to trauma, on drowning, and finally, on heart arrhythmia.
A sealed affidavit filed by computer scanning expert Doug Vogt in U.S. District Court in Seattle on October 18, 2013 included allegations of misprision of felony and treason against the United States.
The affidavit also contained details about Loretta Fuddy’s personal finances.
Vogt hoped that a federal judge would convene a grand jury to investigate possible criminal conduct and compel the production of Hawaii Department of Health original documents and sworn testimony from Hawaii officials.
Less than two months after Vogt’s affidavit was filed the Cessna allegedly transporting Loretta Fuddy went down in the Pacific Ocean.
Dead Hawaii official held key positions in SUBUD cult:
What is SUBUD?
After the plane incident it surfaced that Hawaii Department of Health Director Loretta ‘Deliana’ Fuddy, the first non-physician health director in Hawaii’s history, had been the SUBUD USA national chairperson from 2006-2008.
‘Deliana,’ we learn from Fuddy’s memorial, is Fuddy’s SUBUD name. Not only is this the first time most Americans become aware of the Islamic cult SUBUD, it is also the first time Americans are made aware that Stanley Ann Dunham, Barack Obama’s mother, was also a member of the little-known Islamic cult SUBUD.
Subud Jakarta, circa early 1970s.
One of the few official documents Americans have actually seen related to President Obama’s early life is Ann Soetoro’s 1968 application to renew her U.S. passport. Dunham was preparing to exclude Barack Hussein Obama (Soebarkah) from her passport, but the name was crossed out. Ann Dunham’s passport was later destroyed by the State Department.
Stanley Ann Dunham Soetoro’s 1968 application to renew her U.S. passport. Dunham was preparing to exclude Barack Hussein Obama (Soebarkah) from her passport, but the name was crossed out. ‘Soebarkah’ is possibly Barack Obama’s SUBUD name.
The name ‘Soebarkah’ has never appeared in any other publicly-known documents related to President Obama. Is ‘Soebarkah’ perhaps Barack Obama’s SUBUD name? Why have Americans never been told of this SUBUD cult connection before? Why the secrecy?
The life histories of Loretta ‘Deliana’ Fuddy and Stanly Ann Dunham appear to share many parallel trajectories. Like Dunham, Fuddy is from Hawaii, spent time in Seattle and in Indonesia, and was deeply involved in the SUBUD cult. Only after reading Dunham’s biography by Janny Scott “A Singular Woman” do we become aware of Dunham’s early fascination with and life-long devotion to SUBUD.
SUBUD cult founder Muhammad Subuh Sumohadiwidjojo of Indonesia.
‘Seven Circles’ symbol of SUBUD.
SUBUD is an Islamic cult comprised of about 10,000 members worldwide. The group observes Ramadan. The cult was founded in Indonesia by Muhammad Subuh Sumohadiwidjojo.
SUBUD maintains strong and enduring connections to the United Nations. Ties between SUBUD and the UN began as early as the 1950s and continue today.
SUBUD spread from Indonesia to Hawaii and Chicago. The group also established an office in Seattle.
SUBUD USA moved its headquarters to a Washington D.C. suburb in 2012.
SUBUD received a land grant at the Crestone/Baca Community in Colorado from the Manitou Foundation. The Monitou Foundation was founded by shadowy former UN official and Agenda 21 architect Maurice Strong. Strong resides in China.
George Soros, through his Open Society Foundation, funded Yayasan Usaha Mulia, a SUBUD humanitarian effort in Indonesia. Soros funded the SUBUD project in 2005.
‘Deliana’ was Loretta Fuddy’s “SUBUD name.”
‘Deliana’ joined SUBUD in 1982 in San Diego.
‘Deliana’ was a SUBUD USA Endowment Fund trustee. This allowed her oversight of the group’s finances.
SUBUD literature often discusses the complete destruction of capitalism and the transformation of Western society.
Friends of the dead Hawaii/SUBUD official:
The Chicago SUBUD couple
Pictured from L to R: Former Hawaii Director of Health and former SUBUD USA National Chairperson Loretta ‘Deliana’ Fuddy, Former SUBUD USA National Chairperson Sylvia ‘Shoshanah’ Margolin, UIC Professor Emeritus of Design and Soviet propaganda expert Victor Margolin. Victor has also served as SUBUD Chicago treasurer. (Image credits: SUBUD USA, UIC)
Former SUBUD USA chair Loretta ‘Deliana’ Fuddy and future Subud USA chair Sylvia ‘Shoshanah’ Margolin met at the SUBUD USA board of directors meeting in Portland, OR on November 10, 2010. Eleven weeks later Fuddy was appointed acting director of the Hawaii Department of Health. (Source: subudusa.org)
Communist revolutionary and domestic terrorist bomber Bill Ayers was a UIC professor. (Image credit: Chicago PD)
Loretta ‘Deliana’ Fuddy was connected to the University of Illinois at Chicago (UIC).
‘Deliana’ Fuddy, who held a Master’s Degree in public health, posthumously co-authored an academic paper with one medical doctor and two UIC professors who held doctorates. The academic work may have been intended to enhance Fuddy’s limited résumé, which did not include a medical degree, the traditional prerequisite for Hawaii health directors.
UIC is the academic bastion of domestic terrorist and self-described communist revolutionary Bill Ayers.
UIC is also connected to Sylvia ‘Shoshanah’ Margolin and Victor Margolin Ph.D., both officials of SUBUD Chicago.
‘Deliana’ Fuddy was facebook friends with ‘Shoshanah’ Margolin.
‘Shoshanah’ Margolin holds a Master’s Degree and a Ph.D. in social work, both from UIC, according to LinkedIn.
‘Shoshanah’ Margolin, like ‘Deliana’ Fuddy, also served as SUBUD USA national chairperson. ‘Shoshanah’ was national chairperson from 2012-2014.
‘Deliana’ Fuddy and ‘Shoshanah’ Margolin both attended the SUBUD USA board of directors meeting in Portland, Oregon on November 10, 2010. The Portland meeting happened 11 weeks before Fuddy was appointed Hawaii Acting Director of Health.
‘Shoshanah’ is married to UIC Professor Emeritus of Design History Victor Margolin, a leading Soviet propaganda expert.
Victor has also worked as a professor in Havana, Cuba.
Victor Margolin is a graduate of Columbia University, like Bill Ayers, and has hard-core leftist political leanings. A small panel called “Conversation Café“, “conceived by Victor Margolin,” was held at the 14th SUBUD World Conference in Puebla, Mexico in 2014. The panel discussed “a new design for capitalism” and “the need for new concepts that would challenge the notion of nation states.”
Obama campaign logo designed by Sol Sender.
Victor, drawing on his in-depth expertise in Soviet propaganda design, suggested ways in which Radical America, the journal of Bill Ayer’s ‘Weather Underground’ Students for a Democratic Society (SDS), could have employed graphic design elements to better deliver their communist revolutionary message.
Victor has connections to Chicago graphic designer Sol Sender, the lead designer of the Barack Obama 2008 presidential campaign logo.
Meet the parents of Chicago’s Soviet/SUBUD propaganda expert
The frightening shadow of the Soviet Union’s communist espionage machine did not come into full focus until this investigation looked into Victor Margolin’s late parents Benjamin and Olya Margolin.
Running the Margolin name through the FBI Vault, a database of declassified files, led to a stunning discovery: The system immediately linked the names Benjamin and Olya Margolin to the FBI’s Silvermaster spy ring files.
Benjamin and Olya Margolin lived near Washington D.C. Benjamin held a series of high-level positions within the federal government and Olya would become well known in Washington for her work with the National Council of Jewish Women (NCJW).
The most notable campaign waged by Olya Margolin was NCJW’s ‘Freedom campaign’ targeting Senator Joseph McCarthy (R-WI) and the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC).
Olya Margolin was also involved in a scandalous 1976 secret meeting in Washington, D.C. with representatives of the P.L.O, uncovered by Wolf Blitzer at the Jerusalem Post.
Like the communists of today, Olya was deeply immersed in refugee resettlement programs.
British Soviet double-agent Kim Philby was also involved in refugee resettlement. Under the guise of humanitarianism, Philby secretly moved Soviet agents and Nazis into the United States and called them “refugees.”
Benjamin and Olya are referenced in several FBI files, most notably the Silvermaster File Volume 24, part of the intelligence agency’s Julius and Ethel Rosenberg Soviet espionage case files. Those case files investigated traitorous Americans employed by the U.S. government who shared secrets about America’s nuclear weapons development program with Soviet agents.
Convicted spies Julius and Ethel Rosenberg helped the Soviets steal atomic secrets from the U.S. and were executed in 1953. (Image: LA Times)
Soviet spies Julius and Ethel Rosenberg of the Silvermaster spy ring were executed in 1953 for their role in the theft of American atomic secrets on behalf of the U.S.S.R.
The Silvermaster File is named after Soviet spymaster Nathan Gregory Silvermaster.
Nathan Silvermaster was born in Russia and raised in China, then emigrated to the United States.
Soviet spymaster Nathan Gregory Silvermaster.
The communist spy ring in America which Nathan Silvermaster set up and directed was connected to high-level communists in the Soviet Union and China.
Silvermaster was employed as an economist with the United States War Production Board during the Second World War.
The Silvermaster FBI files chronicle the activities of dozens of American traitors who worked inside the U.S. government and who passed information to Soviet spies.
These traitors held high-level positions inside the Treasury Department, the military, the State Department, the Commerce Department’s Office of Coordinator of Inter-American Affairs (OCIAA), the OSS (predecessor of the CIA), and even the White House.
This treasonous activity was organized under the leadership of the Communist Party USA (CPUSA) and Soviet agents.
Benjamin and Olya (spelled Olga in FBI files) Margolin are identified in the Silvermaster file as “close friends” with Robert Talbot Miller III of the Silvermaster Soviet spy ring.
Robert T. Miller was an American who moved to Moscow before relocating to Washington D.C. to work for the U.S. government.
Benjamin Margolin and Robert Miller both worked at the Office of Coordinator of Inter-American Affairs. The OCIAA was deeply infiltrated by the Soviets. OCIAA employees spied for the Soviets and passed American intelligence reports about Soviet activities in Latin American to espionage agents for the U.S.S.R.
Margolin and Miller both left OCIAA and began working at the State Department. The State Department, like the OCIAA, was also heavily infiltrated by the Soviets.
Miller held a sensitive high-level position at OCIAA where he had access to Navy, Army, and OSS intelligence reports.
Soviet spy Elizabeth Bentley feared the Soviets would assassinate her. She became an FBI informant.
Elizabeth Bentley was a Soviet spy who became an FBI informant after she realized that the Soviets planned to assassinate her. Bentley told the FBI that Miller passed intelligence reports to the Soviets.
Bentley was a handler and courier for the Silvermaster spy ring.
Bentley provided FBI agents with the names of more the 80 Americans, including Robert Talbot Miller, who had participated in espionage against the United States on behalf of the Soviet Union.
After Elizabeth Bentley identified Robert Miller as a Soviet spy, the FBI began surveillance on Miller and his network of spies.
The FBI’s investigation of Miller led the intelligence agency to Benjamin and Olya Margolin.
Benjamin Margolin was recorded in a 1944 telephone intercept speaking with Robert Talbot Miller according to the Silvermaster file.
Miller “took Margolin to task for questioning him over the telephone.” Miller then warned Margolin “to bear in mind from where Miller was talking.”
Olya Margolin’s name also appears in the index of the FBI’s William Remington File Part 17. The ten pages where information about Olya should appear are missing or were stolen from the FBI.
William Remington, also a U.S. government employee who was accused of espionage by Elizabeth Bentley, was prosecuted and convicted of perjury. Remington was murdered in prison by inmates who objected to Remington’s activities as a communist spy.
The FBI Vault instantly matched the name Benjamin Margolin with several major Soviet espionage FBI files. (Source: FBI)
Robert Talbot Miller III was identified as a Soviet spy by Elizabeth Bentley, a Soviet spy who became an FBI informant. (Source: FBI’s William Remington File)
FBI Silvermaster File Volume 15.
Benjamin and Olya Margolin are listed as acquaintances of Robert Miller. (Source: FBI)
FBI Silvermaster File, Volume 24, page 71 of 166, March 1946.
The FBI Silvermaster file stated:
Olga and Benjamin Margolin are likewise close friends of the Millers. He was formerly a Research Consultant and Law Librarian for the Honorable Stanley H. Fuld in the District Attorney’s office in New York City. He has been recently employed by the office of Inter-American Affairs. In September, 1944, during a telephone conversation, subject Miller took Margolin to task for questioning him over the telephone. Miller told him to bear in mind from where Miller was talking. Margolin has recently been employed in the State Department, but has been fearful of applying for foreign assignment since his father, mother, and wife were born in Russia. – FBI Silvermaster File, Volume 24, page 71 of 166, March 1946
Olya Margolin’s name appears in the index of the FBI’s William Remington file, but the pages referenced in the index appear to be missing: either redacted or stolen. (Image credit: FBI)
Soviet espionage organizational chart from FBI Silvermaster File Part 15 page 4.
Many family descendants of agents from the Silvermaster spy ring and descendants of Soviet agents covertly inserted into the United States under Philby’s ‘refugee resettlement’ program, are actively engaged in anti-American communist operations today.
Below is a chart revealing the numerous individuals in President Obama’s network who have either been in contact with Soviet, Chinese, or Cuban espionage agents or are communist spies themselves:
Connections between President Barack Obama and communist Soviet and Cuban espionage agents.
Silvermaster/CPUSA communist spies stole dead baby birth certificates: Modus operandi continued by Bill Ayers
J. Peters (1894-1990) was a Hungarian who was trained in Moscow and Berlin and was “famous in the Communist world for the fabrication of the finest quality forged passports and other personal documents.”
Peters entered the United States and masterminded the Silvermaster/CPUSA passport fabrication operation, creating thousands of fraudulent passports for Soviet spies infiltrating the U.S.
Peters invented the dead-baby identification theft technique later adopted by Bill Ayers:
Silvermaster/CPUSA communist agents working in public libraries scanned the obituaries looking for dead babies, then wrote letters to records offices requesting duplicate birth certificates, claiming that the original document had been lost. The fraudulently-obtained birth certificates were subsequently used by the communist ring to obtain U.S. passports for Soviet agents infiltrating the United States.
President Obama’s Chicago associate, communist revolutionary Bill Ayers, continued the dead-baby stolen identity racket initially set up in America by Silvermaster/CPUSA spies.
Bill Ayers stated:
We soon figured out that the deepest and most foolproof ID had a government-issued Social Security card at its heart, and the best source of those were dead-baby birth certificates. I spent impious days over the next several months tramping through rural cemeteries in Iowa and Wisonsin, Illinois and North Dakota, searching for those sad little markers of people born between 1940 and 1950 who had died between 1945 and 1955. The numbers were surprising: two in one graveyard, a cluster of fourteen in another. Those poor souls had typically been issued birth certificates – available to us at any county courthouse for a couple of bucks and a simple form I could copy from a death announcement at the archive of the local paper – but they had never applied for a Social Security card. Collecting those birth certificates became a small industry, and we soon had over a hundred. – Bill Ayers, passage from his book “Fugitive Days: Memoirs of an Antiwar Activist“
FBI Weathermen File
Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn coordinated with Cuba’s General Directorate of Intelligence (DGI), the communist island’s equivalent of the CIA, during the late 1960s and early 1970s. According to the New York Times, citing a top-secret FBI report, “Cuban espionage agents operating in the United States and Canada supplied limited aid to the Weather Underground.”
FBI: Valerie Jarrett’s father was in communication with Soviet agent who was charged with espionage and fled the U.S.
The startling connection between Loretta Fuddy’s Islamic cult SUBUD network and twentieth-century Soviet spy rings is only the latest revelation to paint an increasingly troubling picture of President Obama.
Valerie Jarrett, President Obama’s most trusted and influential adviser, is the product of Soviet communist espionage roots.
FBI files show that the father of senior Obama White House adviser Valerie Jarrett was in communication with paid Soviet agent Alfred Stern. Stern was charged with espionage and fled to Prague.
Declassified FBI files, obtained under FOIA by Judicial Watch, reveal that the father, the maternal grandfather, and the father-in-law of President Obama’s closest adviser Valerie Jarrett “were hardcore Communists under investigation by the U.S. government.”
Valerie Jarrett’s grandfather Robert Taylor and Soviet spy Alfred Stern worked as business partners in low-income housing. Valerie Jarrett carried on this family business tradition. Valerie earned the moniker “slumlord after she became ensnared in several Chicago public/private low-income housing scandals.
Valerie Jarrett’s father-in-law Vernon Jarrett, a communist propagandist for the Soviets, was placed on the FBI’s Security Index. The Security Index was a secret list of individuals to be immediately arrested should any disruption break out between the U.S. and the Soviet Union.
Vernon Jarrett and Frank Marshall Davis simultaneously worked as writers at the radical Chicago Defender newspaper.
Valerie Jarrett’s own father Dr. James Bowman was deemed a Soviet subversive by the FBI. Dr. Bowman, like Vernon Jarrett, was in touch with Soviet spy Alfred Stern.
The Jarrett family’s extensive connections to Alfred Stern provide further evidence that President Obama is affiliated with a long-standing Soviet espionage cabal.
Any question about Stern being a Soviet spy dissipated when he fled the U.S. in 1956 to Prague before moving to the Soviet Union and Cuba.
Dr. Bowman left the U.S. military in 1955 and moved to Iran, claiming that racism and pay disparity had forced him to seek employment in Iran.
Stern was subsequently charged with espionage in absentia in 1957.
President Obama refers to Valerie Jarret as “family.”
Frank Marshal Davis, another member of President Obama’s “family,” was also placed on the FBI’s Security Index.
Davis was CPUSA member #47544 and was a suspected KGB agent. Davis was Barack Obama’s Hawaii mentor.
Is President Obama an agent for Marxism?
Is President Obama a communist agent, recruited decades ago by Soviet communists, who is now working to rebuild and empower the globe’s Communist nations? The Marxist Muslim Brotherhood has assumed power over much of the Middle East and is in every U.S. government agency under Barack Hussein Obama.
Many people were already asking that question in 2012 after President Obama was inadvertently caught by an open microphone surreptitiously telling Russian President Dmitri Medvedev:
This is my last election. After my election I have more flexibility.
Medvedev replied:
I understand. I transmit this information to Vladimir.
President Obama then rearranged his pants and glanced at the press corps looking like he was just caught with his hand in the cookie jar.
The discovery of the connection among Fuddy/SUBUD, the Margolins, and the FBI Silvermaster spy files provides new evidence that suggests President Obama’s allegiance is not to the United States of America.
The concern is that President Obama’s allegiance is to the power structure inherited from Soviet and Chinese Marxists, the Marxist Muslim Brotherhood, and the Communist Party of the United States (CPUSA).
From Chicago radicals Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn, who launched President Obama’s political career, to his chief White House adviser Valerie Jarrett and to his “mentor” growing up Frank Marshall Davis, almost everywhere one looks one can find connections to the CPUSA and often to Communist spies.
Obama’s stunning move for normalization with Communist Cuba seems almost mundane in this construct of global communism.
If a man’s associations define him, then is Barack Obama a communist agent?
Soviet KGB defector and communist propaganda expert Yuri Bezmenov revealed the communist plan to take down America:
It has become abundantly clear that the communist connections to President Obama extend from the Silvermaster Soviet spy ring of Julius and Ethel Rosenberg to today, where those who surround him and his closest confidants–his “family”–are the products of the same deep connections.
If (i) the unprecedented connections and associations of President Obama to Soviet agents, terrorists, the Marxist Muslim Brotherhood, and the anti-American pro-Marxist global movement to destroy the United States, (ii) his decision to scrap Poland’s missile defense shield, and (iii) the inexplicable, secret Iran deal are not enough evidence of his communist anti-American connections, look no further than President Obama’s own words to President Medvedev promising greater “flexibility” after his re-election.
Barack Hussein Obama has made it abundantly clear through his actions that he is the enemy–from a long line of enemies–here to destroy the United States, her allies, and her position in the world. The U.S. is being crippled with debt, overloaded with Muslim refugees, and stripped of her power as President Obama works feverishly to rebuild the Axis of Evil by using the United States as its handmaiden.
President Obama’s “transformation” of America is our destruction.
ADDITIONAL RESOURCES:
Former CIA Director/Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, Hugh De Lacy, and the Silvermaster spy ring:
