Deprecated: Function create_function() is deprecated in /data/user3/2019/148/11208/wordpress/.b88524c1561b782a1a78bd24d1712ffb/wp-content/plugins/smooth-slider/slider_versions/widgets_1.php on line 103
EDITORIAL Archives - Page 3 of 8 - The American Report


Obama’s support of radical Islam and the rise of ISIS

Obama’s support of radical Islam and the rise of ISIS


by LAWRENCE SELLIN, PHD June 18, 2016

The foreign policy for dealing with radical Islam pursued by Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton can best be described as the intersection of ideology and incompetence.

Obama’s “amore” for radical Islam began in 2009, soon after his inauguration, when he ordered his administration not to support the Iranian Green Revolution after thousands of brave Iranian democracy protesters rose up against the brutal Khamenei regime.

According to the Wall Street Journal: “Obama administration officials at the time were working behind the scenes with the Sultan of Oman to open a channel to Tehran. The potential for talks with Iran-and with Mr. Khamenei as the ultimate arbiter of any nuclear agreement,” one that would prove to be a national security disaster for the US. As it turned out, Obama’s Iran nuclear agreement only strengthen the hard-liners; since completion of the agreement, Tehran has stepped up arrests of political opponents.

In 2010, Obama ordered his advisors to produce a secret report, later known as Presidential Study Directive-11 (PSD-11), which concluded that the United States should shift from its longstanding policy of supporting stable but authoritarian regimes in the Middle East and North Africa to one backing, what Obama Administration officials considered groups such as the Muslim Brotherhood and the Turkish AK Party, now led by President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, as a so-called “moderate” alternative to more violent Islamist groups like al Qaeda and the Islamic State.

The Muslim Brotherhood was founded in Egypt in 1928 as a Sunni Islamist religious, political and social movement, whose fundamental goal remains Islam’s global domination and the implementation of Sharia. Although the Muslim Brotherhood uses political instruments more than violence, its radical goals are no different from al-Qaeda and ISIS.

It has long been suspected that Obama, not only supports the Muslim Brotherhood, but that his administration is infiltrated by the Brotherhood, including Hillary Clinton’s long-serving assistant, Huma Abedin, who has enjoyed an intensely close relationship with the Islamist organization for decades.

Therein rests the motivation for the policies formulated and actions taken by Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton in Egypt, Libya and Syria, all of which led to the growth of radical Islam in North Africa and the Middle East.

The Tunisian revolution in December 2010 and the rise of the Islamist Ennahda Movement in that country was quickly followed by the Cairo protests that began on January 25, 2011 under the direction of Egypt’s largest opposition group, the Muslim Brotherhood. The protests and associated violence led to the resignation on February 11, 2011 of long-time US ally, Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak. There are now a number of reports indicating the US cooperated with and attempted to sustain the influence of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, including an alleged Brotherhood agent inside the US Embassy in Cairo.

Violent regime change in support of radical Islam began in earnest on February 15, 2011, when a rebellion broke out in Benghazi, Libya against the authoritarian regime of Muammar Qaddafi. Toppling Qaddafi had long been a goal of Islamic militant groups, including al-Qaeda and the local Libyan al-Qaeda affiliate, the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG), a key player in the anti-Qaddafi rebellion.

Within a few weeks of the outbreak of fighting in eastern Libya, Obama has signed a secret order authorizing a covert CIA operation to support Islamist rebel forces seeking to oust Libyan leader Muammar Qaddafi. Both inside and outside the Obama administration, then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was among the most vocal early proponents of using U.S. military force to unseat Qaddafi. Seven months and thousands of more unnecessary deaths later, in October 2011, after an extended military campaign with sustained Western support, Islamist rebel forces conquered the country and shot Qaddafi dead. Many will recall Hillary Clinton, on October 20, 2011, cackling to a TV news reporter over the death of Qaddafi: “We came, we saw, he died.”

Since then, Libya has been in a constant state of chaos, with factional infighting, no uniting leader and has provided a haven for ISIS and other Islamic terrorists; culminating in the September 11, 2012 attack on the US Consulate in Benghazi and the death of four Americans.

In released, but redacted emails, Hillary Clinton expressed interest in arming Libyan opposition groups using private security contractors. In an April 8, 2011 email to her then-deputy chief of staff, Jake Sullivan, Clinton wrote: “FYI. The idea of using private security experts to arm the opposition should be considered.” It now appears probable that, in 2011, at Clinton’s urging, Obama secretly approved the arming of rebels in Libya and, later Syria by the same method, via a third party, likely Qatar, who had brokered the sale of more than $100 million in crude oil from rebel-held areas.

The rise of ISIS can be directly linked to the power vacuum left after the premature withdrawal of US forces from Iraq in December 2011 and fueled by American abdication of a foreign policy in Syria, where we sub-contracted our interests to Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Turkey. Not surprisingly, those countries pursued their own interests; the Saudis supporting radical Islamic Salafists, while the Turks and Qataris backed the Muslim Brotherhood.

By the summer of 2012, Turkey, together with Saudi Arabia and Qatar, had constructed a fully operational secret command and control center to facilitate communications and the movement of weapons to the Syrian rebel groups. The center in Adana, a city in southern Turkey about 100 km (60 miles) from the Syrian border, was set up after Saudi Deputy Foreign Minister Prince Abdulaziz bin Abdullah al-Saud visited Turkey and requested it. Adana is home to Incirlik, a large Turkish/U.S. air force base which Washington has used in the past for reconnaissance and military logistics operations. Adana is in close proximity to the Turkish port of Iskenderun, a major transit point for arms destined for the Syrian rebels.

It is important to note that Obama’s friend, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, is a Sunni Islamist, a vehement opponent of Syrian President Bashar al Assad and a fervent supporter of the Sunni Muslim Brotherhood.

Assad has placed emphasis on controlling northwest Syria, which safeguards his 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 – a situation that has largely left eastern Syria along the Iraq border open for Islamist exploitation.

A Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) report sent to Hillary Clinton and other administration officials in August 2012 and declassified in May 2015, stated that “the Salafist, the Muslim Brotherhood, and AQI (Al- Qaeda in Iraq, which became ISIS) are the major forces driving the insurgency in Syria,” and being supported by “the West, Gulf countries and Turkey.”

The report goes into detail about how the West was actively helping those opposition groups control the eastern border of Syria near the Iraqi province of Anbar and the strategic city of Mosul, both of which eventually came under control of ISIS.

The stupidity of Obama’s ideological and Muslim Brotherhood-centric policy in dealing with radical Islam is only exceeded by the galactic incompetence in which it was carried out, and has left us living in a more dangerous world.




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

Orlando and radical Islam: How you defeat an ideology


Orlando and radical Islam: How you defeat an ideology

by LAWRENCE SELLIN, PHD June 14, 2016



In order to lessen the likelihood of terrorist attacks like Orlando, San Bernardino and the Boston Marathon and eliminate radical Islam as an existential threat to the United States, we must, first and foremost, defeat the prevailing Islamo-Marxist ideology within our own government and the willing accomplices who sustain it by willful blindness to the danger we face.

If you are still asking the question: how can Orlando happen?

Ask no more.

Stated simply, it is a sad truth that there are people in national leadership positions, who don’t want America to win or who don’t care much if we lose, as long as they can somehow preserve their own personal power and profit.

It is not a question of politics. It is an issue of patriotism.

The United States faces an assault by a global conspiracy, a marriage of convenience between two totalitarian ideologies, radical Islam and the political left. They have been brought together by the traits they share; their hatred of Western civilization and a commitment to the destruction of capitalistic, Judeo-Christian-based democracy.

In part, Orlando happens because the federal government practices Sharia, deliberately downplaying the menace of radical Islam and intentionally stripping law enforcement of its ability to directly counter the threat.

Kerry Picket of the Daily Caller asks: could the FBI’s purge of training material relating to Islamic terrorism have led to the agency dropping the ball on Florida nightclub shooter Omar Mateen?

The FBI’s training on handling possible Islamic terror suspects was turned upside down five years ago, when the Obama administration began a purge of training material that would remove references to Islam that Muslim subject matter experts, hired by the Justice Department, found offensive.

It is also fair question to ask, whether the conditions for and the handling of the Orlando attack were affected by the Obama Administration’s relentless attacks on the nation’s police officers and criminal-justice system, routinely and repeatedly charging that cops and the courts are awash in racial bias and Islamophobia?

The Islamic terrorist and registered Democrat Mateen was a US citizen of Afghan decent, who pledged his allegiance to ISIS and between 2011 and 2012 traveled to Saudi Arabia for Umrah, a

Muslim religious pilgrimage. He was investigated by the FBI in 2013 and 2014 for inflammatory statements and his link to Moner Mohammad Abu Salha, an American radical who traveled to Syria and committed a suicide bombing.

Yet, according to recent reports, Mateen was a repeat visitor at Orlando gay nightclub before his killing spree, occasionally got drunk, may have been gay and used the gay dating and chat application Jack’d.

In the apple not falling far from the tree department, Seddique Mir Mateen, the father of the mass murderer, is a supporter of the Afghan Taliban with his own internet program, where he made radical anti-LGBT statements.

Was the murderer Mateen’s motive religious or political or both? Does it matter? I don’t think so.

In part, Orlando happens because radical Islam thinks it is winning. How many ISIS recruits would there be if they were doing the dying instead of us?

Practically speaking, the religious extremism and brutality of ISIS is not unlike that of Nazi Germany or Imperial Japan.

At the onset of World War II, the ordinary American Marine and soldier were unprepared for the fanaticism and cruelty of the Japanese Army.

Eugene B. Sledge, in his celebrated memoir “With the Old Breed: At Peleliu and Okinawa,” describes one instance in which he and a comrade came across the mutilated bodies of three Marines, butchered with severed genitals stuffed into their mouths.

An ideology is a system of ideas, but ideas don’t kill people, Islamists kill people.

You may not be able to eradicate an ideology, but you can certainly exterminate those who violently wield that ideology against you.

Like Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan, the ideology of radical Islam has little chance to thrive, if there are few left eager to practice it.

It also obviates the need for winning any hearts and minds.





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



Family Security Matters

Help us Obi Wan Romney, you’re our only hope

Help us Obi Wan Romney, you’re our only hope

by LAWRENCE SELLIN, PHD June 9, 2016



Jay Cost, a writer for the Weekly “NeverTrump” Standard, penned an article begging Mitt Romney to run for president as an independent candidate in 2016.

According to Mr. Cost, at this critical juncture in our nation’s history, the country needs not a Washington, Jefferson or a Lincoln, but – brace yourself – a Martin van Buren.

Well, if it is a Martin van Buren you are seeking, then I guess Mitt Romney is your guy; a man who lost the Republican nomination to John McCain in 2008 and, after securing the nomination in 2012, proceeded to lose an eminently winnable election against a feeble Barack Obama, only by exceeding that feebleness, running a campaign of monumental timidity.

If Donald Trump describes himself as a counter-puncher, Romney can aptly be labeled as the Democrat Party designated punching bag.

Mr. Cost defines America as not bound by a shared nationality, religion, or even geography, but a commitment to certain ideals-that all people are created equal, endowed by God with inalienable rights, and that government is instituted to secure these blessings.

He says that Neither Trump nor Hillary Clinton is committed to the republican tradition of government of the people, by the people, and for all the people.

Well, Mr. Cost, neither has our de facto one-party government, to which you seem devoted, recommending the problem as the solution.

As elegantly expressed by Angelo Codevilla, country club Republicans have joined the Democrat Party ruling class to form an oligarchy, a form of government in which all power is vested in a few persons or in a dominant class or clique; the Democrat and Republican establishments, the media and their financiers, who every four years hire a President.

The United States already has a bona fide ruling class that transcends government, sees itself as distinct from the rest of society and as the only element that may act on its behalf. The ruling class considers those who resist it as having no moral or intellectual right, and, only reluctantly, any civil right to do so.

Republican leaders neither contest that view nor vilify their Democrat counterparts because they do not want to challenge the ruling class, they want to join it. The GOP leadership has gradually solidified its choice to no longer represent what had been its constituency, but to adopt the identity of junior partners in the ruling class. By repeatedly passing bills that contradict the views of Republican voters, the leadership has made political orphans of millions of Americans, while Republican leaders increasingly represent only themselves.

The differences between the Bushes, Clintons, Obamas and, yes, Mitt Romney are of degree, not kind.

What our elected representatives and their appointees have conveniently forgotten is that the federal government is entirely a creature of the Constitution. It is a government of delegated powers, possessing no authority not expressly or by implication granted to it by the instrument that created it (Albert H. Putney. “United States Constitution, State Constitutions, Statutory Law.” 1910).

The efficiency and effectiveness of government, therefore, are directly dependent upon the trustworthiness of government officials as representatives and executors of the views and desires of the people.

In other words, whenever the interests of government officials divert from or are in conflict with those of the people, tyranny ensues.

Today the federal government has become an entity unto itself operating outside of Constitutional constraints and unaccountable to the American people.

Both parties have used campaign deception, practiced political expediency, engaged in crony capitalism and, when necessary, promoted voter fraud to sustain the corrupt status quo.

The 2016 election is not a contest between Democrat and Republican candidates or liberals and conservatives, but a battle between the entrenched power of a bipartisan political-media establishment versus the rights and liberties of the American people.

Revealing the extent and depth of the endemic corruption in Washington, D.C. is the first, essential step toward restoring the Constitution and the rule of law.

Perhaps that is the “intemperance” the establishment really fears.



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


romney_ 2016

This article 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.

#NeverTrumpers offer only “corruption as usual”


by LAWRENCE SELLIN, PHD May 31, 2016







Charles Murray, the W. H. Brady Scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, writing in the National Review, says that Donald Trump “is unfit to be president in ways that apply to no other candidate of the two major political parties throughout American history.”

Wow. I wonder if Murray has been in a vegetative state for the last eight years.

And just who are these Republican establishment “angels” Mr. Murray prefers to Trump?

He doesn’t say, but he seems to favor the hopelessly corrupt Hillary Clinton as a reasonable alternative, who, according to Murray, tells lies within “normal parameters.”

I suppose those “normal parameter” lies include Benghazi, “Clinton Cash,” the potentially felonious email scandal or her Avogadro’s number of other lies.

Since January 20, 2009, the executive branch of the federal government has been composed of people who do not believe that United States should be a strong, sovereign, capitalistic- and Judeo-Christian-based constitutional republic.

If Barack Obama was the perpetrator, the two major political parties have been his willing accomplices, facilitating the most divisive, destructive and deceitful administration in American history.

Both the Democrat and Republican parties comprise what can now only be described as an anti-American establishment, both of whom have fostered policies pernicious to the well-being of the country, one in the pursuit of totalitarianism, the other to become beneficiaries of globalist greed.

If the Democrat Party has adopted an Islamo-Marxist agenda, the Republican Party has eagerly become a wholly-owned subsidiary of corporate lobbyists and international financial interests.

The Democrat Party is controlled by the radical left and Islamic sympathizers, whose messianic goals can only be achieved by attacking the basis of Western Judeo-Christian civilization, which emphasizes the uniqueness and sacredness of the individual. While Islamic radicals seek to impose Sharia by purging 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 income inequality.

The Republican establishment, by contrast, is simply willing to sell-out the country to the highest international bidder and considers American workers as little more than farm animals.

To maintain control of a timid citizenry, both Democrats and Republicans foster a culture of dependency. Democrats create dependency by expanding federal mandates and increasing entitlements. Republicans promote dependency by limiting voter choice, as Murray recommends.

There is already a long history of Republican collaboration with the Obama Administration, but the political degeneration has reached new depths of absurdity.

Here is the list of 43 Republican members of the US House of Representatives who supported Obama’s transgender edicts and are willing to mandate by law that grown men should be permitted to share dressing rooms, locker rooms, or bathrooms with little girls:

Amash (Mich., third congressional district), Brooks, S. (Ind., 5), Coffman (Colo., 6), Costello (Penn., 6), Curbelo (Fla., ), Davis, R. (Ill., 13), Denham (Calif., 10), Dent (Penn., 15), Diaz-Balart (Fla., 25), Dold (Ill., 10), Donovan (N.Y., 11), Emmer (Minn., 6), Fitzpatrick (Penn., 8), Frelinghuysen (N.J., 11), Gibson (N.Y., 19), Heck (Nev., 3), Hurd (Texas, 23), Issa (Calif., 49), Jolly (Fla., 13), Katko (N.Y., 24), Kinzinger (Ill., 16), Lance (N.J., 7), LoBiondo (N.J., 2), MacArthur (N.J., 3), McSally (Ariz., 2), Meehan (Penn., 7), Messer (Ind., 6), Paulsen (Minn., 3), Poliquin (Maine, 2), Reed, (N.Y., 23), Reichert (Wash., 8), Renacci (Ohio, 16), Rooney (Fla., 17), Ros-Lehtinen (Fla., 27), Shimkus (Ill., 15), Stefanik (N.Y., 21), Upton (Mich., 6), Valadao (Calif., 21), Walden (Ore., 2), Walters (Calif., 45), Young, D. (Iowa, 3), Young, T. (Ind., 9), Zeldin (N.Y., 1).

Those Republican members of Congress, who are apparently eager to disregard privacy, decency, women’s equal protection and even public safety, actively sided with Obama and the Democrats to promote transgenderism.

In essence, the Republican Party thinks it is sensible for transgenders, who are arguably mentally disturbed and representing a miniscule 0.3% of the US population, to determine social policy for the other 97.7% of us.

Unlike the #NeverTrumpers, the American people seem to have concluded, like Albert Einstein, that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.





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


Family Security Matters


Petraeus’ profoundly silly Islamophobia article

Petraeus’ profoundly silly Islamophobia article

by LAWRENCE SELLIN, PHD May 14, 2016

Retired U.S. Army general and former CIA director David Petraeus wrote an article entitled “David Petraeus: Anti-Muslim bigotry aids Islamist terrorists.”

Thank you, sir, for the clarification. Up until now, I had believed Barack Obama; that Islamic terrorism was caused by climate change.

Petraeus’ premise is that “inflammatory political discourse…against Muslims and Islam…including proposals from various quarters for blanket discrimination against people on the basis of their religion… will compound the already grave terrorist danger to our citizens… directly undermine our ability to defeat Islamist extremists by alienating and undermining the allies whose help we most need to win this fight: namely, Muslims.”

Let us first dispel a universal myth and the fundamental flaw in Petraeus’ argument. There is no such thing as gratitude in foreign policy; only interests.

In every one of the “alliance” cases Petraeus cites: Sunni Muslims in al Anbar province, the Iraqi Shiite government, the Afghan Northern Alliance, the nation of Indonesia – all of them worked with the United States because of mutual interest, not happy talk.

NATO exists and operates on the basis of mutual interest and even after a decade of vitriol and their mutually exclusive ideologies, Hitler and Stalin still concluded the 1939 Nazi-Soviet Pact.

Petraeus is concerned that political rhetoric will inhibit our ability to root out entrenched terrorist, like in Libya, which would not have become entrenched with terrorists except for the foreign policy malpractice of the Obama Administration and CIA Director Petraeus, arguably compounding “the already grave terrorist danger to our citizens.”

The Islamic State, ISIS, has made no secret of its intention to infiltrate Europe and the United States through “refugee” migration or other means for the purpose of carrying out terrorist acts.

In his Congressional testimony, FBI Director James Comey admitted that there is no way to screen the tens of thousands of Muslim refugees the Obama administration plans to accept into the US.

Yet Petraeus considers any effort to halt uncontrolled Muslim immigration as “blanket discrimination against people on the basis of their religion,” “demonizing a religious faith” or “toying with anti-Muslim bigotry.”

Petraeus employs all the familiar false propositions made popular by Democrat Party operatives, the liberal media, and, more recently, by the Republican establishment as a not-so-well-disguised repudiation of potential courses of action outlined by Donald Trump.

It reads less like a valuable contribution to the foreign policy literature than a left-wing academic polemic or an audition for a cabinet position in the Administration of Hillary Clinton.

Petraeus equates prudent self-defense measures to hate-speech and considers potential ISIS infiltration an acceptable risk in order for “moderate” Muslims to feel good about themselves.

And just exactly who are these “moderate” Muslims Petraeus wishes to appease?

Is it the Wahhabis in Saudi Arabia, Muslim Brotherhood Qatar, or Sunni Islamist Turkish President Erdogan to whom, collectively, the Obama Administration has recklessly outsourced our Middle East policy?

Petraeus knows full well that it is not an issue of religion, but recognition of the potentially deadly consequences of thousands of violent migrants from a volatile region entering the US en masse.

In the end, the Petraeus argument provides little more than the tired clichés of Islamophobia, that Muslim hostility to the West is caused by verbal slights or other affronts to Islam.

No one is advocating gratuitous insults, but unwarranted appeasement or other emotionally satisfying liberal gestures are, in reality, construed by Muslim leaders as a weakness to be exploited.

In the world of realpolitik, it is preferable to be liked. It is advantageous to be respected. In the absence of those, fear will do.


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


Muslims don’t assimilate, they infiltrate

Muslims don’t assimilate, they infiltrate

May 11, 2016

Let us first, dispense with the pretense.

Every notion we in the West have adopted in terms of dealing with Muslims, both individually and collectively, is wrong.

It is a policy based more on political correctness than on rational analysis, more on a misunderstanding of culture than religion.

The term “Islamophobia” was invented and promoted in the early 1990s by the International Institute for Islamic Thought, a front group of the Muslim Brotherhood. It was designed as a weapon to advance a totalitarian cause by stigmatizing critics and silencing them, similar to the tactics used by the political left, when they hurl the accusations of “racist,” “sexist,” “homophobe” and “hate-speech.”

It became the role of Islamist lobby organizations like the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) to depict themselves as civil-rights groups speaking out on behalf of a Muslim American population that was allegedly besieged by outsiders who harbored an illogical, unfounded fear of them and regularly accusing the American people, American institutions, law-enforcement authorities, and the U.S. government of harboring a deep and potentially violent prejudice against Muslims. Of course, FBI data on hate crimes show that such allegations are nonsense.

Contrary to the propaganda, Islamophobia is not what Muslims feel, but what radical Muslims hope to instill politically and culturally in non-Muslims cultures, that is, intimidation and fear. Thereby, they can, not only further their goal of a global Caliphate, but gain a type of “respect” to which they would otherwise not be entitled based on an absence of convincing arguments or constructive contributions to society.

Danish psychologist, Nicolai Sennels, who treated 150 criminal Muslim inmates found fundamental and largely irreconcilable psychological differences between Muslim and Western culture, which makes effective assimilation at best serendipity and at worst urban myth.

For example, Muslim culture has a very different view of anger. In Western culture, expressions of anger and threats are probably the quickest way to lose face leading to a feeling of shame and a loss of social status. In Muslim culture, aggressive behaviors, especially threats, are generally seen to be accepted, and even expected as a way of handling conflicts.

In the context of foreign policy, peaceful approaches such as demonstrations of compassion, compromise and common sense are seen by Muslim leaders as cowardice and a weakness to be exploited. In that respect, anger and violence are not reasons to begin negotiations, but are integral components of the negotiation process itself.

According to Sennels, there is another important psychological difference between Muslim and Western cultures called the “locus of control,” whether people experience life influenced by either internal or external factors.

Westerners feel that their lives are mainly influenced by inner forces, our ways of handling our emotions, our ways of thinking, our ways of relating to people around us, our motivations, and our way of communicating; factors that determine if we feel good and self-confident or not.

In Muslim culture, however, inner factors are replaced by external rules, traditions and laws for human behavior. They have powerful Muslim clerics who set the directions for their community, dictate political views, and provide rules for virtually all aspects of life.

The locus of control is central to the individual’s understanding of freedom and responsibility. When Westerners have problems, we most often look inward and ask “What did I do wrong?” and “What can I do to change the situation?” Muslims look outward for sources to blame asking: “Who did this to me?” Sennels noted that a standard answer from violent Muslims is often: “It is his own fault that I beat him up (or raped her). He (or she) provoked me.”

As a result, Muslim culture offers a formula for perpetual victimhood.

With a decrease in feelings of personal responsibility, there is a greater tendency to demand that the surroundings adapt to Muslim wishes and desires, infiltrating rather than to assimilating into a Western culture.

All of this does not bode well for the logic of any proposal to increase Muslim immigration into non-Muslim cultures or the success of any foreign policy involving Muslim nations by applying current Islamophobia-based misconceptions.

Sennels offers a harsh, but realistic prescription:

“We should not permit the destruction of our cities by lawless parallel societies, with groups of roaming criminal Muslims overloading of our welfare system and the growing justified fear that non-Muslims have of violence. The consequences should be so strict that it would be preferable for any anti-social Muslim to go back to a Muslim country, where they can understand, and can be understood by their own culture.

It is not Islamophobia from which the West suffers, but Islamonausea, a natural reaction to something culturally abnormal.


Lawrence Sellin, Ph.D. is a retired colonel with 29 years of service in the US Army Reserve and a veteran of Afghanistan


Family Security Matters

An open letter to Brent Bozell’s open letter

An open letter to Brent Bozell’s open letter
by LAWRENCE SELLIN, PHD April 27, 2016


cruz _ trump 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.

On April 26, 2016 Breitbart published Brent Bozell’s open letter asking Sarah Palin, Ben Carson, Mike Huckabee, Phyllis Schlafly and other conservatives to withdraw their endorsements of Donald Trump.

Mr. Bozell, you ask “Does Donald Trump mean a word he says?”

Well, Mr. Bozell, we already know that the Republican Party doesn’t mean a word that it says.

For example, prior to the 2014 mid-term elections, Reince Priebus, the chairman of the Republican National Committee, speaking about Barack Obama’s executive amnesty, said: “We will do everything we can to make sure it doesn’t happen: Defunding, going to court, injunction. You name it. It’s wrong. It’s illegal. And for so many reasons, and just the basic fabric of this country, we can’t allow it to happen and we won’t let it happen. I don’t know how to be any stronger than that. I’m telling you, everything we can do to stop it we will.”

After the 2014 election, when voters gave his party control of Congress, the Republicans “rewarded” their constituents by enthusiastically facilitating the funding and implementation of Obama’s “illegal” executive amnesty.

According an article in the left-wing outlet Politico and reported by Breitbart, Republican House Speaker John Boehner held secret negotiations with Democrat Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, leading up to his decision to flip-flop and fund Obama’s executive amnesty; including a pre-hashed out deal to use the hoopla around Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s March 3, 2015 address to Congress over Iran’s nuclear ambitions as political cover to sneak in the extraordinarily controversial vote.

As part of this effort, the former chiefs of staff to House Speaker John Boehner and Republican National Committee chairman Reince Priebus, through a group called the American Action Network, spent $400,000 for advertisements aimed at pressuring House conservatives to support Obama’s executive amnesty and fund it in its entirety through the end of the fiscal year.

On the same day as Netanyahu’s speech, the Republican-led House of Representatives caved to the demands of Democrats and passed a “clean” Department of Homeland Security appropriations bill by 257-167 with a majority of Democratic votes. Seventy-five Republicans voted to pass the clean bill, 167 voted against passage. The measure provided full funding of the DHS through September 30th, the end of the federal fiscal year, leaving Obama’s executive amnesty untouched.

In essence, the seventy-five Republicans, who joined all House Democrats to fund Obama’s executive amnesty, aided and abetted the shredding of the Constitution by giving Obama the funding and future permission to rewrite federal law as he sees fit.

And what about Ted Cruz, the candidate you endorsed, Mr. Bozell?

Is it not Ted Cruz, who has joined the Republican establishment to thwart the will of the American people by back-room manipulation of the electoral process? Is that what you endorse, Mr. Bozell?

Was it not Ted Cruz, the candidate you endorsed, who voted in favor of the Corker/Cardin Amendment, which essentially “pre-approved” the Iran nuclear deal by turning the treaty provision of the Constitution on its head, changing ratification from the constitutionally-mandated 67-vote for approval to a 67-vote for denial?

Was it not Ted Cruz, the candidate you endorsed, who penned a Wall Street Journal op-ed with House Speaker Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) endorsing Obama’s trade agenda -describing the TPP as an “historic” agreement that “would mean greater access to a billion customers for American manufacturers, farmers and ranchers?”

Like many in the Washington DC chattering class, Mr. Bozell, you just don’t get it.

The November 2014 election was not an endorsement of the Republican Party, but a repudiation of Obama’s dramatic expansion of government power. The voters demanded that Congress stop his fundamental transformation of America, restoring the Constitutional balance of power and ending the Executive Branch abuses against the citizenry. Yet, the Republican leadership and its toadies in Congress undercut that vote and became complicit in the enactment of Obama’s unconstitutional policies.

And you speak about “sanity,” Mr. Bozell? To paraphrase Albert Einstein, again trusting the Republican establishment and expecting different results would be insane.

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.

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. Any candidate addressing them directly will capture the majority of voters on both sides of the political center.

But let’s be honest for a moment, Mr. Bozell. It is really not Donald Trump’s words that the establishment fears, and it is not only the loss of political power, but they fear the revelations of past government conduct that might emerge, and the potential for investigation and prosecution.

Perhaps it is you, Mr. Bozell, who should do the “courageous thing,” and stand with the American people and not with the corrupt political-media establishment.


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

Family Security Matters

Terrorist Bill Ayers and The American Spring

imageTERRORIST Bill Ayers, nefarious Obama friend and bloodthirsty Communist Revolutionary,  you know – “just a guy in my neighborhood” — that Bill Ayers, …brought the “American Spring” and meststicizing “days of rage” to Chicago Friday evening.   Ayers then tweeted this celebratory image of the “alter” — that “transformation” thing again,  …upon destroying Trump’s Friday night rally where Trump and his supporter’s  Constitutional Rights to Free Speech were annhilated,  trampled and denied.

Chicago Police were ordered not to arrest protesters by Mayor “Dead fish” Rahm Emmanuel who at one time  worked for Barack Obama.  Obama signed H.R. 347 making it illegal to collude and conspire to protest or disrupt in an area under protection of the Secret Service punishable by up to a year in prison…unless of course you’re a conservative to whom the establishment doesn’t afford legal rights .

[Current federal law (H.R. 347) does not allow for protesting of any type in an area under protection by the Secret Service. When the federal law on trespass was quietly amended―it is a crime, punishable by up to a year in prison, to “knowingly impede or disrupt the orderly conduct of Government business or official functions” in locations guarded by the Secret Service, including places where individuals under Secret Service protection are temporarily located―the revised statute made it “easier for the government to criminalize protest.

And Bill H.R. 347…/BILLS…/pdf/BILLS-112hr347enr.pdf]


Communist Che, Malcolm X,  a mystery woman, and a pacifier were among the celebratory images Ayers tweeted out of his “alter” image.

On the ground at the University of Illinois Chicago Ayers was seen holding court among the thousands of assembled protesters where we saw shades of Occupy, BLM and Move-On.  The evidence is there…this was paid for as has been widely reported,  by Nazi collaborator and America-hater George Soros.
The left’s protestors threatened, grabbed and destroyed Trump signs,  elbowed, and  put they put their hands on Trumps’s supporters, cracked a cop over the head, truly a plethora of disorderly conduct in an effort to shut the Trump rally down.  That Trump was behind the violence is utter balderdash.  The protesters had no right to stop and suppress Trump and his supporter’s Constitutional rights.

Imagine if it had been the reverse.  You know exactly what Barack Obama, Jessie Jackson,  Al Sharpton, Joe Biden, Teachers Unions, Labor Unions, LaRaza, CAIR, LGBT, Planned Parenthood, the Washington Post and The New York Times among many others would have had to say.
The intolerant left does not afford  others their Constitutional rights to free speech and they set out to shut them down in Chicago.  And they did. Trump in an effort to avoid violence cancelled his rally.  His supporters had to run the gauntlet through thugs in order to leave.  The media dutifully neglected to report those facts.

We noted the “Lord of Flies” week of continuous drumbeat led by Fox, CNN, Megyn Kelly, Chris Stirewalt, Greta, National Review’s Rich Lowry, John McCormack, Betsy Woodruf, Stephen Hayes, Katie Pavlich, Michelle Fields among many others –where they held wall to wall negative coverage on Trump –demonizing him just short of “kill the pig- smash his head” in the week leading up to Trump’s Chicago rally.  The political/media establishment has given their marching orders to their minions and it is obvious they have followed them.  This is journalistic malpractice meant to incite and harm Trump’s campaign. Rather un-American.

The MSM further colluded in perpetuating the lie against TRUMP when Fox New’s Sunday’s Chris Wallace  hosted Trump and with questionable cherry-picking of imagery showed the one image of  a Trump supporter’s bad actions from a sea of the left’s thuggery he simply chose to ignore. Fair and Balanced?  I think not!

Shame and blame belong to GOPe’s Cruz, Rubio, Romney and Kasich for supporting the acts of terrorism and destruction against Trump and his supporters as they twisted truth, blamed the innocent and demonized their political opponent TRUMP in an effort to achieve relevance in Trump’s proAmerica movement that does not include them.

Cruz certainly worked feverishly to incite anger against Trump.  His rant against Trump not being the “true conservative” contrasts sharply with his own liberal ideology showcased in his support for the TPP, TPA and Amnesty which certainly illustrates Cruz’s support for the globalization of the USA, the destruction of her sovereignty and the redistribution of her jobs. Those very acts confirm Cruz is no Reagan Conservative.

Trusted and well know Conservative Senator Jeff Sessions saw through the overly earnest Ted Cruz and supported Donald Trump.  Perhaps you should too.

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 “.