Barack Hussein Obama, the 44rth President of the United States, was born into this world because his parents were students of the Russian language.  That is to say, his parents first met in a Russian class. His father was an African socialist. His mother was an American socialist (or so her biography suggests). Why were they studying Russian?
It may be inferred that Obama’s parents were interested in learning Russian because their ideals aligned with those of the “socialist motherland.” Perhaps they were studying Russian because they wanted to visit the Soviet Union. Sadly, Obama’s parents are long dead. We cannot ask them why they were studying Russian in the fall of 1961.
However, it is with this curious family background in mind that we should consider the whole course of Obama’s life and presidency. These early intimations of atavistic allegiance are not insignificant. The actions and policies of President Obama, in relation to Russia, are exactly what one might expect from a president who was born of pro-Soviet parents and mentored by a likely KGB opetative (i.e., Frank Marshall Davis).
During his presidency Obama was eager to assist Russia technologically and economically. Obama’s Russia “reset” policy, begun in 2009, was explained by Hillary Clinton with the following words: “Our goal is to help strengthen Russia.”  — And this is exactly what they did.
First came the Uranium One deal, which gave the Russians access to 20 percent of America’s (strategically important) uranium production.  Then came $1 billion for a Russian tech park at Skolkovo, outside Moscow.  All of this was facilitated by the Obama administration; and it was done despite Russia’s ongoing policy of transferring dangerous materials and technologies to rogue regimes. This was also done despite Moscow’s dismal human rights record — which included the killing of journalists like Anna Politkovskaya and the assassination of overseas dissidents like Alexander Litvinenko. Obama also negotiated a new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, formally titled “Measures for the Further Reduction and Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms.” This Treaty was signed in Prague on 8 April 2010 and entered into force on 5 February 2011. The treaty undercut U.S. efforts to modernize its aging nuclear deterrent. Furthermore, Russia is not a country that abides by arms control agreements.
It is remarkable that scholars and “experts” pretend to know nothing about Moscow’s long history of Treaty-breaking when new agreements are in prospect. Obama also should have known, but he simply did not care about America’s strength in relation to Russia. His policies were, in fact, carefully calculated to put the United States at a military disadvantage, which is now apparent as America’s European allies find themselves suddenly outgunned by the Russians. The logic of making arms reduction agreements with a lawless regime is only understandable in light of Obama’s past ideological commitments.
Russia’s military buildup accelerated throughout the Obama years. Yet Obama never expressed the slightest concern. In fact, he mocked those who showed concern. After the arms reduction treaty was in effect, Russia began an intensive anti-American media campaign, which began in early 2012 and reached a fever pitch in April 2014. Obama also ignored the Russian media’s public denunciations, making no serious effort to rebuke or counter the Kremlin’s Cold War propaganda. (In fact, many older Russians have noted that this propaganda was far worse than anything seen during the Cold War,)
We must not forget how Obama, in March 2012, clasping Russian President Medvedev’s hand, said he would be “more flexible” on missile defense after the November election. Why did he give this assurance? For what possible reason would an American president make such a promise? — as if his position on Russia would soften once the pressure of an election was past.
In 2012 and 2013 the Russians held impromptu secret discussions with Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and John Kerry. These were meetings without any official record of what was said, without witnesses or even translators present. As diplomacy goes, such meetings are considered highly irregular — even suspicious. These secret meetings were handled in a way that offered no transparency to the American side — no means by which other Americans could see what Obama and his Secretaries of State were up to. 
Was Obama merely pretending to be tough on Russia while privately assuring Russian leaders of his pliability? In the presidential campaign of 2012 Obama scolded Mitt Romney for suggesting that Russia was our greatest threat. “The Cold War has been over for twenty years,” said Obama in a lecturing tone. He accused Romney of “wanting to import the foreign policies of the 1980s.” 
The first meeting in the 2012 series was the South Korean meeting when presidents Obama and Medvedev were caught on a hot microphone. We know only part of what was said. The conversation hinted at a deeper, closer, more far-teaching cooperation between Obama and the Russians. How could this be explained at the time? We are reminded by Ambassador Michael McFaul, that the Kremlin had already begun an intensive anti-American media campaign which included Russian reports that U.S. Ambassador McFaul was a child molester working to overthrow Putin. As McFaul explained in his memoirs, “Denying that you are a pedophile, refuting accusations that you are plotting a regime change, explaining to the world that you are not criticizing Putin on his election night — it all became so tedious, defensive, and exhausting.” 
Why would Obama be so nice to the Russians in this situation? He should have been angered and offended by their treatment of his ambassador (who was the architect of the Russia reset policy). Yet Obama always acted the part of a helpful and subservient person when it came to Russia. According to McFaul’s detailed account, Putin treated Obama like a subordinate. Everyone knew Putin was top dog in Russian politics. Obama kept trying to develop a relationship with Putin, but the Putin pushed Obama away, telling the American president to go off and talk to his lackey — President Medvedev. At each encounter Putin disdained Obama, and showed no interest in engaging with him as an equal. At their first meeting in July 2009, Putin subjected Obama to a humiliating lecture. Yet Obama was eager to please Putin, listening to the Russian leader with a patience that astonished McFaul. 
In 2012 Ambassador McFaul noticed an inexplicable turnabout in the Kremlin’s disinformation regime — a sudden departure from the usual “Cold War tropes.” As McFaul put it, “Putin’s regime added a new dimension to the ideological struggle — conservative, moral, nationalist Russia versus the liberal, immoral, internationalist West.” 
Already the Kremlin had developed a plan of action which would uncannily unfold along familiar lines — leading to the famous Mueller investigation and widespread American press hysteria over supposed Russian interference in the 2016 election. It is important to understand the background to all this. The Communist Party and its hidden structures ruled Russia after 1991 as they had during the Cold War. Russia’s supposed turn towards capitalism and democracy was a political trick — not unlike that of Stalin during World War II when he promised to dissolve the Comintern. As history records, the communist apparatus of subversion around the world was not dissolved in May 1943. The dissolution was fake. The same kind of fake dissolution was repeated throughout the former Soviet Union in 1991.
The West has always been gullible in its dealings with communist powers. Starting in 1999, Moscow maintained its liberal facade as it carefully repealed liberalism, putting together key pieces of the Soviet Humpty Dumpty. By 2012 the Kremlin had decided on a new phase of their deception. Despite giving military and financial support to the emerging communist regimes in Latin America, Africa and Asia, Moscow was publicly presenting itself as conservative and “right wing.” This would assume central importance in 2016 when Trump won the presidential election after being called “a Russian puppet” by Obama’s designated successor, Hillary Clinton. But first, the stage had to be set.
In 2015 and 2016 Obama’s intelligence deputies played a prominent role in luring Trump campaign officials to meetings with supposed Russians. We do not know as yet how widespread the effort was to manufacture evidence to prove Republicans were “colluding” with Russia; but now, of a sudden, Obama was willing to view Russia as a threat to American democracy. Obama did not say Russia was a military threat, but an electoral threat. This was an extraordinary rebranding of Obama and the Democratic Party. Here was a facade and an alibi for Obama’s crew of subversives and crypto-communists. Now they took up the cudgels of the House Un-American Activities Committee. The Un-Americans went into the business of prosecuting American nationalism as Russian subversion. It was a bizarre formulation, partaking of the genius of Stalin.
This was the beginning of a game — which would ultimately lead to the impeachment inquiry of autumn 2019. Strange to say, but this game was set up in 2012 as the Kremlin and the Obama White House coordinated a transition from the chummy days of the Russian “reset,” to the sudden transformation of the American left into vigilant hounds of counterintelligence — conveniently focused on the leading Republican presidential candidate of 2016.
In May 2012 Vladimir Putin angrily charged that Obama had interfered in Russia’s presidential elections of that year. The anti-Putin riots in Moscow were said to be the work of Ambassador Michael McFaul and the CIA. Russia was orienting her people to hate and fear America while Obama was portraying Russia as a non-threat. All the while Russia was building new missiles and nuclear warheads. America under Obama was growing weaker. However toothless and two-faced his policy, Obama would position himself as an opponent of Russia in his second term. Here was a performance for the credulous, a narrative for the unthinking, and a witch hunt to match the hysteria of old Salem.
In August 2012 Secretary of State Hillary Clinton spent four hours in an impromptu meeting with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov — absent all witnesses, including translators. Clinton emerged without accounting for what was said. Her diplomatic staff, who were supposed to have participated, were unhappy for being left in the dark. The American Ambassador to Russia, Michael McFaul, later wondered what the secrecy was about. He later speculated that Clinton had learned something upsetting, something she was unwilling to share with other officials. Yet another secret meeting occurred after John Kerry became Secretary of State, after he flew to Moscow in May 2013. There were no witnesses or translators as Kerry and Lavrov met for two hours. What was actually discussed? Why were the translators kept out? 
Whatever was going on behind closed doors, Obama perfected a kind of doublespeak about Russia. After Russia’s annexation of Crimea in 2014, reporters reminded Obama what Romney had said about Moscow being a threat. Obama lectured reporters, “Russia is a regional power that is threatening some of its immediate neighbors — not out of strength but out of weakness.” Despite the fact that Russia was a nuclear superpower that could level America’s cities in minutes, Obama nontheless stated, “They don’t pose the number one national security threat to the United States. I continue to be much more concerned when it comes to our security with the prospect of a nuclear weapon going off in Manhattan.” 
Given Russia’s status as a nuclear superpower with the world’s most modern ICBMs, Obama downplayed the fact of Russian military aggression. Once again, Obama’s behavior was that of someone who was trying to diffuse Western vigilance. Obama was also keen to overlook Moscow’s meddling in the Western Hemisphere — in Nicaragua and Venezuela.
Why did Obama act in this way?
During Obama’s second term, the sanctions he passed against Russia were more an invitation to aggression than a method of deterrence. In fact, Obama’s actual response to Russia’s military aggression in Ukraine has been described by experts as “minimalist.”  Of course, the leftist mainstream media trumpeted news of Obama’s sanctions as if they were backbreaking measures. But they were not. In fact, Russia was not sanctioned at all. Sanctions were levied against seven Russian officials and 17 companies.  Licenses were revoked for a few high-tech items, yet there is no evidence these sanctions have hurt the Russian economy in the least; for Russia’s economy is a state-centered economy with many possible front companies operating abroad. Therefore, the sanctions regime was not serious and, in fact, served as the pretext for repealing more effective sanctions imposed during the Cold War. The Magnitsky Act, for example, removed longstanding measures that stood in Moscow’s way.  It also helped the Kremlin contain Russia’s oligarchs by holding the threat of confiscation over their heads if they dared hide large sums of money overseas — away from the grasp of the Russian government.
It is worth noting that a large body of former U.S. government officials signed a bipartisan document recommending the imposition of “real costs” on Russia. The recommended measures would have included serious assistance to Ukraine. When Obama refused to accept these recommendations, further Russian aggression occurred in Luhansk and Donetsk.  Obama continued to shield Russia from the consequences of its actions even as Russian tank columns entered Ukraine’s eastern territories. This was Obama’s attitude in spite of America’s obligation to defend Ukraine in accordance with the Budapest memorandum.
Obama’s unwillingness to seriously oppose Russia carried over into the Middle East, especially with regard to the Syrian civil war. Despite promising to bomb Syria in the event of chemical weapon use, Obama did everything in his power to avoid following through. He attempted to pass the responsibility for making a decision to the Republicans in Congress; then he secretly met with President Putin, pleading for a way out. Putin offered to persuade the Syrians to eliminate their own chemical weapons (which they did not actually do). It was as if, in this situation, Obama was desperately seeking to avoid a direct clash with Moscow, in keeping with years of hidden fealty. Witnesses at his 2013 meeting with Putin in Saint Petersburg said he was extremely uncomfortable with the idea of bombing Russia’s ally. Many of his top advisers didn’t understand why. 
Obama had no intention of deterring Russia, or imposing real sanctions on the Russian regime. By 2016 it was abundantly clear that Russia had been violating the INF Treaty, but here again Obama would do nothing to correct the situation. As defense and strategy expert Michael Dodge noted, “A continuation of the status quo [regarding the INF Treaty] will allow Russia, which has made nuclear threats to Europe, to gain an advantage across an entire class of weapons.”  Dodge further stated, “The U.S, nuclear arsenal is aging, and no yield-producing tests have been conducted in over twenty years. The U.S. must modernize in order to maintain a credible deterrent.”
Obama was resolutely against revitalizing the U.S. nuclear deterrent, at first refusing and, under irresistible pressure from Republicans in Congress, crafted the resulting programs so they would be effectively delayed for many years. In fact, the U.S. will not begin replacing its obsolete warheads until 2025 at the earliest. Obama and his ideological associates in the government made sure if this — effectively buying time for Russia to secure a significant nuclear advantage.
Obama resisted every suggestion that the Cold War had been renewed by the Russians and their allies. “The United States does not view Europe as a battleground between East and West,” said Obama. “That’s the kind of thinking that should have ended with the Cold War.” 
The explanation for Obama’s unwillingness to confront Russia with anything more than a token gesture may be readily explained by one fact. In his political career, Obama was always a socialist, despite public denials to the contrary. Since 1991 it has been fashionable for all socialist leaders to deny or downplay their commitment to Marxism. This is true for Russian and Chinese leaders as well. What is signified, here, is their involvement (one and all) in a coordinated double game. The purpose of this game is to eliminate resistance to the socialist agenda by hiding the agenda from full view, and by masking the true motives of the political actors involved. If the pro-Marxist radicalism of certain leaders were known, how would they get elected? If Vladimir Putin was known to be a communist, imagine how difficult Russia’s foreign policy would be to carry forward.
Obama has the distinction of having been a socialist, without having come clean about his socialist principles, and later denying those principals. The deception, as part of the larger whole outlined above, does not end there. Marxism is a new form of religion — a secular religion — in which salvation is sought through politics. It does not matter if socialism is a minority belief system. Political events are shaped by minorities, not majorities. The majority only counts on election day. During 720-plus days that separate one election from another, the majority takes no decisions at all. A minority takes all the decisions and makes policy.
As a supposed “former” socialist, Obama never spoke as a witness against socialism — as Whittaker Chambers did — freely admitting the errors of youthful political enthusiasm. We never witnessed Obama’s contrition, or his rationale, for abandoning the revolutionary cause of his youth; for he was a revolutionary. We know this from the testimony of former associates. Obama has never come clean about the communists and pro-Soviet personalities who taught him, who helped him launch his political career; — personalities like Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn (leaders of the Marxist-Leninist Weather Underground), or like Alice Palmer (a pro-Soviet Illinois politician), or the Reverend James Wright (who damned America as evil from his pulpit). There has been no true accounting here.
The true test of Obama’s loyalties, if we can make a test, comes down to his Russia policy. Given that Russia remains controlled by communist apparatchiks who continue to support Marxist causes around the world, we may put the following question as a test: Was Obama helpful to Moscow. Or did he block their way?
Marxism-Leninism was a project of Russia, of the Union of the Soviet Socialist Republics. Moscow was the “General Staff” of the world revolution. This is what the communists of all countries were taught to acknowledge. In the era of the transition from capitalism to socialism, Russia was and is the leader and chief coordinator of communist strategy worldwide. There was and is no socialist revolution in America without Moscow. Such a project could not hope to succeed without Russian help. As a young Marxist Obama would have known this. It was the core of the communist catechism in the 1980s. As one Soviet text explained, “The Great October Revolution in Russia marked the beginning of the implementation of the Marxist-Leninist theory of communism. Mankind’s first socialist society … was built in the Soviet Union.” 
It would have only been natural for Obama to understand this. There can be little doubt that he also understood the game that was afoot. The collapse of communism did not occur as advertised. The Communist Party Soviet Union merely divided itself into new parties, formed into a mock-democracy under the guidance of Party apparatchiks, and fooled the West into thinking they had given up the World Revolution. Yet the Soviet bureaucracy and the KGB continued as before. Liberal reforms came and went, as they had during previous periods of liberalization under Lenin and Khrushchev. All the while, the state system and the economy remained under Party control. Only this time the Party had gone halfway underground.
Many of the communist cadres in the West know that the collapse of communism did not happen as advertised. They are active participants in a form of revolutionary struggle which includes disinformation, infiltration and subversion. For many years the communists have privately talked of the election of a future “stealth” communist president. I first learned of this in 1981, at a lecture given by Darek Shearer at the University of California, Irvine. Again, I listened to a more detailed description of this plan from a communist lecturer in March 1983, on the same campus. He said they were “infiltrating the left wing of the Democratic Party with the object of taking over the party in order to elect a ‘stealth communist.'”
The second lecture I attended was given by a pro-Soviet (Marxist-Leninist) tied directly to the Communist Party USA. Given what has been presented in this book so far, who would this “stealth communist” president have been? What we need, of course, is a witness to get at the truth. Is there testimony that ties Barack Obama directly to Moscow? The answer is yes. The witness is an American physicist named Tom Fife, who I interviewed in 2010.
Ten years ago I asked Fife how he came to live and work in Russia during the 1990s. Fife said he had met “an Englishman who was doing relief work” in Moscow. Fife was persuaded by this Englishman to join a unique business enterprise in coordination with the Russian Academy of Sciences. The work involved the development of handheld devices for businessmen. Fife’s testimony follows:
In the process of doing that work I got to know some of the people who were involved in the Russian Academy of Sciences. These guys were physics types, too, so we had an affinity. They were programmers, too, and they were very keen on a connection with some Western companies … and that is what we ended up doing.
The British guy had a consultancy, doing accounting. He built up an umbrella company that … we would be under. We had been in Moscow, working with these people. It turns out that the Russians had already constructed this little company of their own that was within the Russian Academy of Sciences; and so we just had to hook into that. The head of that little company was a physicist and his wife….
And [after a period of work] we were headed back home. It was pretty common tradition that you have a “goodbye party.” And that’s what this was. We were all gathered together. Some of the Russians and Americans were there. The British guy was there. We had this party in the physicist and his wife’s flat.
It’s a Russian tradition to do these toasts; and the way they usually do it, they work [their way] around the table and everyone will have their turn, and they’ll pour a little vodka out, then they’ll give the toast, and [everyone] tosses it back. Then the next in line will propose a toast and they’ll go along. We were doing that and eating our meal at the same time, and just having a general discussion. Just a light-hearted thing.
My American friend who was with me didn’t want to propose a toast. He, for whatever reason, didn’t want that. He just wanted to go ahead and say what he thought about things; observations he made about being in Russia. For some reason he was caught by the different racial types that he saw in Russia. I think he thought they would be more homogeneous…. But there is a little bit a variety in the Russian people; and one of the things he was noting was the high cheek bones in some of them. So he was remarking on the influence of the Mongols, and stuff like that. I think it was that point that the wife took a little offense at the whole Mongol thing. You know, they were subjugated [by the Mongols] for four hundred years…. It’s not something they remember fondly. The thing we’re talking about, really, is her whole response to that remark; that she wanted to correct him on what true Russia is, racially. And she described what she called ‘a round Russian face.’ And she talked about what villages you could go to to actually see the perfect Russian. And one of the funny things was, she sounded like she was describing herself. She didn’t get out-of-control loud. But you could tell she was miffed, and she started to say things like, ‘You Americans should talk about racism.’ She was particularly talking about the black problems we have, the riots; and she said, ‘You are going to be quite surprised because you are going to have a black president very soon.’ Of course, when she said something like that it was very much a surprise, because how would she know?
The other Russians in the room were subaltern to her and they just sat there riding it out.
I asked Fife to explain this:
What they told me was, that she was an apparatchik of some sort within the Communist Party [Soviet Union], and that she was doing what they call ‘climbing two ladders.’ I got the impression she was one of these people who would be in a group, and she would be the party contact for them.
Were the other Russians in the room afraid of her?
In general, my observation was they didn’t trust communists in general. And they didn’t trust anyone who had been up the ladder at all. So they just sat there with their heads down waiting it out. From that point on….
Did the husband of this woman try and stop her?
He did step up and say, “how about dropping this and we’ll do something else.’ But she brushed him off and said, “No, no.’ She wasn’t done yet. She had something else to say. He just … moved to the side. He also seemed to be just waiting it out, just to let her finish what she was going to say and forget about it.
The next shoe that she dropped was not only that he was black, but that he was a communist. “A Soviet,’ she said. Yes. She called him a Soviet. Then she made a comment that we had a chance to vote for a woman for vice president … but we didn’t take it; and she was saying that was one of the reasons that she knew we were still backwards…. I said, ‘Well, you don’t vote for vice president, you vote for president.’ And she just walked over that, and she started talking about this guy that was going to be president. At first it was just this fact that we were going to have this black president, and about the fact that … he was groomed to be president; and she said, ‘He’s been groomed to be irresistible. And he will be president.’ She said he had a white mother and he had a black African father. She thought that this was great because then he wouldn’t have any slave baggage to go along with it.
Did she give a name?
Yes. She named him as being ‘Barack,’ that he had that name. I said that, from what I remembered, it was an Arabic word…. And I said that I think it meant something like blessing or something. And she said, ‘Yes! He is a blessing!’ I remember she said rather dramatically (this is the point where she got a little dramatic) he’ll be a blessing for our world efforts; a blessing for world communism, I think is what she said.
Were you surprised that this future black president would supposedly have an Arab name?
She was convinced it was an African name, but I let her go on.
Did she provide a last name?
She was a bit muddled on that. I think she knew it but couldn’t remember it quite correctly. She said maybe she was getting a country and his last name confused. That is what she said. But she … thought it was ‘Uganda.’ I am thinking she got that confused with ‘Obama.’ Maybe in her mind, when she heard ‘Obama,’ she thought ‘Uganda.’ And that’s what stuck in her head. But she did say, definitely, ‘Barack.’ She was intent on saying this was a real person she knew about. She didn’t just go with the name, and mom and dad. She said … he was from Hawaii. She said that he had been school ‘in the Ivy League,’ as she referred to it. And she said he was in New York, and went to school in California. And she said he was currently in Chicago. That’s where he was. She said he would soon be entering politics, that everything was under control; you know, like he is going to check all his boxes.
Did she give you the impression Barack had been to the Soviet Union?
You know, she did not say that. There was a series of details she was giving [showing] that she knew [about] this fellow. The other thing, the way she put it, America was the biggest stumbling block to communism and it’s biggest hope; and that America had to be brought over for everything to work worldwide; and so, she said that’s why this had to take place; because it wasn’t just a woman mouthing off. She had this chilling self-assurance about everything she said, that had almost more power than the words she used. She was just so certain, like [it was] as foregone conclusion.
How did your British partner and the other American take what she said?
I think I was the one most taken aback by it…. I felt chilled…. The British guy, particularly, is the one I had little bit of a conversation with … and he remarked that, you know, all your life you’re growing up and hear everyone talking about communists and taking over the world … and he said, ‘I’ll be damned if I didn’t sit there and hear a communist say that they were going to take over the world.’ That was his biggest remark about it, that she fitted the caricature…. But my American friend didn’t have much to say about it.
Would these witnesses be willing to come forward?
It’s been almost twenty years, and I was able to have some contact with the British guy; and he said he absolutely didn’t want to have anything to do with this. He didn’t want to talk about it. He didn’t want to be involved.
Didn’t he feel any responsibility?
I was trying to get him to talk about it, but he didn’t.
So you told him you had been on the radio talking about this?
Yes…. He definitely didn’t want to be involved.
How about the other American?
I’m not sure. The business venture fell apart. Somehow they brought in this other guy, and he ended up in control.
How long before you realized this Barack person was a real guy?
At the time I had an active security clearance. Whenever I went to Russia I had to be debriefed by the D.I.A. [Defense Intelligence Agency]. I was to make note of anyone who wanted to be friendly with me, and I did that. So I kept a little diary of what went on. I did make notes of this conversation because it did strike me strongly. And I was debriefed with the guy when I came back and ended up giving him the little notes I had made. You know, this was a very vivid thing. It was in my head. Matter-of-fact, it was actually so vivid that when I got home one thing I did do, was, I told my son, who was about 14 at the time. I mentioned [it] to him, and I said, ‘In case I’m not around in the future, and you hear about a guy who is going to be president, and he is half white and half black,’ I said, ‘You gotta fight this guy. I just told him enough. One interesting thing, of course, my son remembers that conversation we had. That’s one point of reality that’s vivid for him. That’s one thing he remembers very well. Of course, with me in the meantime, it was just a story for years and years. I didn’t see this guy for awhile. So it was in the back of my mind…. I’d think about it. I’d remember it. Something would remind me of it. And an interesting thing that did cause it to pop up in my head a couple times since then, when she was describing him back at the dinner, and she said he was half white and half black,she stopped and said, ‘That’s right. He’s a chocolate baby.’ And I thought that was such a queer thing to say. It was an odd turn of phrase for me, and I’ve heard it a couple of times since, [so] I’d immediately remember that woman saying it. So it stuck in my head. What really did it was when I saw him at the Democratic National Convention, at that famous speech of his. Even then it didn’t [fully] register with me. It was only afterward I heard [all this praise of him]. When they talked about him having a white mother and father from Kenya, oh oh, it was like something was snapping. It just hit me in the head. That’s what it felt like. You know, it was a story. All of a sudden it didn’t seem like a story any more. I was in the middle of something real…. So I started googling things about him, and everything meshed. Everything she said connects with the reality of this guy.
You must have had quite a shock then.
Yeah. At first I was still kind of simmering on the back burner about this thing. I have to admit, I had an anxious feeling about it. And I felt like, how can I say to anybody what’s going on. I would tell people about it. They’d half believe me, and half think I was making it up. It was enough after the fact that it wasn’t like I was predicting that much, at that point in time. When I could see he really was moving toward the nomination … in the spring of 08 … I wrote emails to everyone I could think of. I wrote paper letters.
Did you get any responses?
What did you write in the letters and emails?
In the first letters I said, ‘There’s something important I have to tell you and it’s about Barack Obama … and no one seemed to care. I got no response at all. What got something going, finally, was a friend of mine, had this rather large conservative email list and I wrote up a little story, and I have it out there on [the] Internet, and I did get a little bit of a response. Then Wiley Drake asked me to come on his show. But I couldn’t get on until election day, mid-election day. Then, from that came an interview with a lady from WorldNetDaily. And after that there were a lot of emails from people, who were starting to reinforce [what I had to say]. 
Such was the testimony of Tom Fife. Does it sound too outlandish to be true? Not if we consider Obama’s policies toward Russia. As stated by Hillary Clinton, Obama wanted to strengthen Russia. And that is exactly what he did. Is it ludicrous to believe Obama was colluding with the Russians? To answer that question, we must first explain the baseless accusations against President Donald Trump. Why did Obama and his confederates smear Donald Trump as a traitor? In the first instance, it wasn’t honest. In the second instance, it was never true. Why have they done this, and why have they persisted in it – regardless of evidence?
The answer must be found in the need for an alibi — to cover up for real collusion.
 Stanley Ann Dunham Soetoro, Metapedia.org entry, https://en.metapedia.org/wiki/Stanley_Ann_Dunham_Soetoro. Also, Barack Obama, Sr., wrote an article titled “Problems Facing Our Socialism” in the East African Journal in 1965, https://prestopundit.wordpress.com/2008/04/10/problems-facing-our-socialism-by-barak-h-obama/.
 Youtube.com, video of Hillary Clinton, March 24, 2010, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AKoCwHGJ1To. She States, “One of the fears that I hear from Russia is that somehow the United States wants Russia to be weak. That could not be farther from the truth. Our goal is to help strengthen Russia.”
 Kaitlyin Schallhorn, “Obama-era Russian Uranium One deal: What to know,” Fox News, February 8, 2018, https://www.foxnews.com/politics/obama-era-russian-uranium-one-deal-what-to-know
 Diana West, “Ka-Boom: Putin, Barack and Hillary’s Skolkovo,” Diana West blog, March 3, 2017, http://dianawest.net/Home/tabid/36/EntryId/3507/Ka-Boom-Putin-Barack-and-Hillarys-Skolkovo.aspx
 McFaul, Michael, From Cold War to Hot Peace (Kindle), p. 256 – 290. McFaul offers many details of meetings in which Obama and his Secretaries of State met secretly with Russian leaders in the absence of witnesses.
 Yahoo News video feed of 2012 Presidential Debate, “Romney and Obama on Russia,” https://video.search.yahoo.com/yhs/search;_ylt=AwrWmjyTlppddzQAPwsPxQt.;_ylu=X3oDMTEyOGZqOXJqBGNvbG8DZ3ExBHBvcwMxBHZ0aWQDQjg5MjJfMQRzZWMDc2M-?p=obama+scolds+romney+on+russia&fr=yhs-pty-pty_weather&hspart=pty&hsimp=yhs-pty_weather
 McFaul, p. 339.
 Ibid, p. 340.
 Ibid, p. 347.
 Ibid, p. 259.
 Scott Wilson, Washington Post, March 25, 2014.
 Anne R. Pierce, A Perilous Path: The Misguided Foreign Policy of Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and John Kerry (New York: Post Hill Press, 2016), p. 109.
 McFaul also discusses this in greater detail in his book, cited above.
 Pierce, p. 110.
 McFaul, pp. 353-354.
 Pierce, p. 115. Also see, Paul N. Schwartz, “Russian INF Treaty Violations: Assessment and Response,” Center For Strategic & International Studies, October 14, 2014, https://www.csis.org/analysis/russian-inf-treaty-violations-assessment-and-response
 KH. Sabirov, What is Communism? (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1987), p. 283.
 The Jeff Nyquist Radio Show, the full audio can be streamed at https://www.iheart.com/podcast/256-jeff-nyquist-show-31007622/episode/tom-fife-and-anne-leary-interviews-39542021/