DOJ will not conduct witch hunts for Obama

By Michelle Malkin

Remember Barack Obama’s attempt to silence TV stations running an independent ad by American Issues Project spotlighting The One’s ties to Weather Underground terrorist Bill Ayers? (link)

And remember the Obama campaign’s attempt to sic the Justice Department on the GOP donor behind the forbidden ad? (link)

A source sends the following report on DOJ’s public comments about Obama’s witch hunt. The comments were made September 12 and have not been reported yet by the MSM: ....

....No, Obama, the government will not do your bidding and intimidate conservatives exercising their free speech.

So call off your henchmen and back off.

And here, again, is the ad Obama doesn’t want you to see:

....

Maintaining Infrastructure Is Crucial to National Security

(Compiler's note: Heads up -- another must read. rca)

By Bruce Martin, MPP

Here’s what the principal candidates for President of the United States need to know before the election:

Entropy is the condition which all matter goes towards. Without maintenance efforts, along with investments in capital and energy (i.e. work by all able citizens), this society’s production capabilities will decline and we will progress towards disorder.

Development and repair of this nation’s infrastructure – public and quasi-public utilities and facilities such as roads, bridges, sewers, sewer plants, water lines, power lines, port facilities, depots, etc. – all of which are needed for delivery of our vital goods and services, is a vital first step. Since our infrastructure is our first line of our domestic defense, particularly at the local levels, we cannot rely on foreign governments or institutions to do the job for us.

This came to the forefront seven years ago. On September 11th and September 12th, 2001, the leaders of our nation needed to identify and answer as quickly as possible: What is “critical infrastructure and how is it to be protected?” Relative to that protection, major “yes/no” decisions were required. Government staff employees prepared countless models and spreadsheets for the nation’s decision makers, who then made the call to mobilize forces as required. (The lessons that were learned during that exercise led to the creation of a 12-member National Infrastructure Command, which examines all aspects of the nation’s hard infrastructure.) Our presidential candidates must engage in an identical, long-range exercise.

For example, many dozens of the more than 300 maritime ports within our borders have significant repair needs that are not being addressed. While many security standards have been enhanced since the “Attacks on America,” there has not been a corresponding expression of public concern to make those vital repairs a national priority. Since the maritime system is one that is vulnerable to exploitation and disruption, this lack of attention to improving our port infrastructure has caused a continuation of our struggle to recover momentum since the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.

Precluding a catastrophic incident at any of our maritime ports within the United States requires an equal emphasis on security measures, training and awareness. It also requires significant investment towards improved intermodal transportation (truck and rail) as well as pre-positioning of basic equipment and knowledge of its use.

Currently, national news headlines are concentrating on the national mortgage crisis and failure of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Yet, there are countless other examples of critical things which have not been properly addressed, which in many cases are worse than those in third-world countries. These include:

• The nation’s electrical grid (recall the East coast blackout)
• Thousands of bridges (recall the Minneapolis bridge collapse)
• School buildings
• Roadways
• Railways

In this critical situation, blaming lack of financial resources will be unacceptable. The financial cost of inaction relative to improvement of this nation’s infrastructure far outweighs the direct costs of doing so. Methods must be discussed by all of our decision makers on how to find the needed capital for investment and how to make this happen.

Claims of lack of sufficient capital for lifting the nation out of an economic depression were rampant on December 6, 1941. Yet on December 8, 1941, we began the greatest military build-up ever witnessed by mankind.

Likewise, on September 12, 2001, this nation was able to plan and locate the funding to fight the Global War on Terror on two fronts, and to build an entirely new cabinet level department whose sole focus was to protect the homeland. Our ability to gear up towards the “Arsenal for Democracy” and to engage in a complete paradigm shift relative to homeland security required those with the political vision and will to stand up and say “We will make this happen!”

POLICY:

America already has the historical blueprint for an effective policy for infrastructure repair. The great projects that have not been properly cared for were originally built in the 1930s through President Franklin Roosevelt’s Civilian Conservation Corps, Works Projects Administration, Tennessee Valley Authority, etc., all of which improved the quality of life for citizens in this country. Had these projects not preceded our entry into WWII, it is doubtful that we would have been successful in producing that “Arsenal for Democracy” that won the war.

A reconstituted policy of mandatory national service will fulfill several current critical needs in this society, including:

• Provide important economic stimulus
• Provide for the repair of critical infrastructure
• Provide job training and building of important life skills for at-risk youth
• Improve the nation’s overall production capabilities

Relative to building of our infrastructure: This nation did it before and can do it again. All that is required is someone with the political will to make it happen.

Protecting the Candidates Is No Game

....protecting the candidates is no game — it comes with the territory that an agent may have to take a bullet for the president or a candidate.

The actual instruction to Secret Service trainees is a little more complicated. “What we are trained to do as shift agents is to cover and evacuate if there is an attack,” an agent says. “We form a human shield around the protectee and get him out of the danger area to a safer location. If an agent is shot during the evacuation, then that is something that is expected. We rely on our layers of security to handle the attacker while the inside shift’s main function is to get the heck out of Dodge.”

The idea is to never allow an attack to happen in the first place. The key to that is the Secret Service’s James J. Rowley Training Center in Laurel, Md. ....

Which is more important to Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama - the voting rights of ex-felons, or the voting rights of America's military

(Compiler's note: It goes without question that this upcoming presidential election has significant national security implications. As voters, we must make the correct decision or we will get the type of "change" that we really don't want. rca)

This report is from a letter I received from WorldNetDaily.

Answer: The ex-felons. Why else would Obama refuse to support the "Military Voting Protection Act," which would ensure that the votes of America 's troops serving overseas are counted, but instead supports the "Count Every Vote Act," which would override state laws and extend voting rights to millions of ex-felons?

This is just one of Obama's many controversial policy positions, virtually unreported by the major media, but laid out in detail in the blockbuster book, The Audacity of Deceit: Barack Obama's War on American Values by Brad O'Leary.

In what promises to be the book that finishes off the Obama presidential candidacy, "The Audacity of Deceit" reveals just how Obama's must-vaunted platform of "change" would radically redefine American life and government for the worst.

The Audacity of Deceit, released by WND Books, is brand new in the nation's largest bookstores. Printers have produced 100,000 copies of "Audacity" already and 31,000 have been shipped to retailers and book clubs.

"Brad O'Leary has written a book that will shed new light on a public figure who's enjoyed a meteoric rise with little scrutiny," says Eric M. Jackson, president of WND Books. "When the dust settles, we think The Audacity of Deceit will be the defining book on his candidacy."

O'Leary, former president of the American Association of Political Consultants, is the author of 11 books, a former talk radio host with millions of listeners and the award-winning television producer of "Ronald Reagan: An American President."

O'Leary's book suggests Obama's vision for change, if exposed, would not come close to what Americans are hoping for.

"Obama has written multiple books and no major legislation, but that's not a coincidence" says O'Leary. "He's tried to hide his true beliefs from the American people behind soaring oratory promising 'hope' and 'change,' but that's just a smokescreen, and one that's been very effective. Until now."

Other books, such as Jerome Corsi's No. 1 best-seller, The Obama Nation have focused on Obama's past; but in The Audacity of Deceit, O'Leary looks to Obama's proposed future, detailing what America would look like if Obama were elected president and actually made good on his campaign promises.

According to O'Leary, Obama plans to enact, among others, the following "changes" to American life:

* An increase in taxes from the low rate of 28 percent under Ronald Reagan to an economy-stifling 60 percent;

* An expansion of federal medical insurance to 12 million illegal aliens and policies that would increase emergency room costs by $15.4 billion annually;

* Health care reforms that would let government determine which procedures and operations senior citizens are allowed to have;

* A shift on the Supreme Court that would reverse the partial-birth abortion ban, preserve Roe v. Wade for decades, and threaten Americans' Second Amendment gun rights;

* Sweeping environmental measures that would take 25 percent of farmland out of production, choke off America 's domestic energy resources and send energy and food costs skyrocketing;

* A new "0 to 5" program that would transfer child-rearing responsibility and authority from parents to the federal government.

The book also publishes for the first time exclusive polling from Zogby America that reveals the startling contrast between Obama's political views and the majority of Americans' values, as well as evidence that much of Obama's support in the polls comes from voters who don't pay federal income tax.

The Secret to Why We Have Not Been Attacked

(Compiler's note: This author "gets it" -- a must read article. rca.)

By: Ronald Kessler

The biggest secret in American political life is why we have not had another terrorist attack since 9/11.

The media and liberal politicians will tell you it’s an accident or a matter of luck. They are wrong.

Terrorists haven’t attacked during the past seven years because of the work of the FBI, the CIA, and our military, as well as the sweeping changes President Bush instigated in the intelligence community.

When Bush proclaimed that any country harboring a terrorist would be considered a terrorist country, Arab countries began cooperating in the war on terror, turning over thousands of terrorists and leads.

He also made the FBI become more prevention-oriented. Although the bureau’s mission always included stopping terrorist plots, and it often did so, it usually closed the case when it got the bad guys, as it did in the first World Trade Center bombing. Now every case becomes the basis to develop new sources, and these informants may be run out for years to infiltrate terrorist groups.

As FBI official Art Cummings told me for my book “The Terrorist Watch: Inside the Desperate Race to Stop the Next Attack,” “Pre-9/11, the first consideration was, I got an indictment in my pocket. ... Slap it down on the table, pick the guy up, you throw him on an airplane. You bring him home, you put him in jail, and you go, ‘Okay, I’ve done a great job today.’”

[Editor's Note: Get “The Terrorist Watch: Inside the Desperate Race to Stop the Next Attack” — Go Here Now].

If that were to happen today, “I would have told my agents they basically just put Americans more in jeopardy rather than less in jeopardy. It’s a completely different approach and bears little resemblance to the previous one,” says Cummings, who heads the FBI’s international counterterrorism operations.

Now, Cummings tells agents, “Your objective is not to make the arrest. Your objective is to make that suspect our collection platform. That guy now is going to tell us just how big and broad the threat might be. He now becomes a means to collection, instead of the target of collection. I want you to understand his entire universe.”

The media will tell you that the FBI and CIA still don’t talk to each other. But in 2005, Bush established the National Counterterrorism Center in McLean, Va., where 200 analysts from the CIA and FBI sit side by side analyzing threats 24 hours a day. Secure video conferences three times a day include representatives from all parts of the intelligence community and the White House analyzing threats and parceling out leads.

Bush’s Patriot Act tore down the so-called wall that Attorney General Janet Reno imposed, a wall that prevented FBI agents from sharing information with each other and with the CIA. The act, although maligned in the media, allowed the FBI to wiretap terrorists, regardless of what phones they happen to use, as the FBI could in organized crime cases.

The National Security Agency (NSA) intercepts that Bush ordered also opened a window for the FBI on terrorist activity within the U.S.

Since 9/11, the FBI, the CIA, and the military have rolled up about 5,000 terrorists worldwide. Every few months, the FBI announces new arrests of terrorists. Thus, many plots are never hatched because terrorists have been killed, arrested, or sent back to their own countries and imprisoned.

Instead of hailing the efforts to connect the dots, the media demonize those who are trying to protect us, portraying the tools that uncover clues to plots as “spying on innocent Americans.” When a plot is quashed, the media minimize it.

In June 2007, when the FBI foiled a plot to blow up John F. Kennedy International Airport, The New York Times buried the story. In the dream world of the Times editors, such threats to America are less important than the fact that 75-year-old Andrea Mosconi’s job is to play violins in a museum in Italy to keep them in shape, a feature the Times played on page one the same day.

The media have even managed to portray Saddam Hussein as benign. But as revealed in “The Terrorist Watch,” during seven months of secret debriefings, Hussein admitted to FBI agent George Piro that he had planned to resume his weapons of mass destruction program, including developing nuclear weapons, within a year.

Many in the media could not bear to hear that Bush might have done something right in removing Hussein. Few newspapers reported the story.

When the media and politicians run out of ways to deny Bush credit for making us safer, they will claim that al-Qaida has chosen to space out its attacks. But al-Qaida’s attempt to blow up nine American airliners crossing the Atlantic in 2006 and the alleged role of an al-Qaida affiliate in the assassination of Benazir Bhutto are reminders that al-Qaida is constantly on the attack.

While the media underplay the threats, distort descriptions of the measures needed to uncover the next plot, and mischaracterize the progress in the war on terror, they also undermine it by revealing secrets of how the FBI and CIA are trying to stop the next attack.

Without a reliable way to get information about this secret war, Americans are at the mercy of the media’s slanted portrayal. Yet, we face a critical choice in the 2008 presidential election: Given that al-Qaida is intent on wiping out the U.S. with nuclear weapons, as FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III has told me, do we continue on the offense, dealing with threats before they materialize, or do we return to the pre-9/11 approach?

Back then, because of politically correct rules the Clinton administration imposed, FBI agents were not allowed to follow suspects into mosques that are open to the public. CIA officers had to get special permission to recruit sources with so-called human rights violations. FBI agents could not look at public online chat rooms to develop leads on people who might be recruiting terrorists or distributing information on making explosives, even though any 12-year-old could go on them.

Sen. Barack Obama has made it clear that, if he were elected president, he would roll back the clock and take away tools necessary not only to connect the dots but also to find them in the first place. In fact, he twice voted against — and eventually voted for — revising the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to allow the NSA to continue to monitor foreign terrorists’ calls without a warrant, even if all parties are foreigners situated overseas.

Like a Rip Van Winkle who is unaware of recent history, Obama has cited the government’s prosecution of those responsible for the 1993 World Trade Center bombing as the correct way to deal with terrorism.

Apparently, Obama missed learning that the 9/11 hijackers wanted to be martyrs and were prepared to be jailed or killed. No threat of prosecution would have deterred them.

When the Rev. Rick Warren asked Obama whether evil exists, he said it does and named three examples, none of them the biggest threat to our safety.

In contrast, Sen. John McCain cited al-Qaida as evil, declaring, “And we must totally defeat it.”

In this election, the choice is clear: Do we continue to protect ourselves, our families, and our country with an aggressive approach? Or, blinded by media distortions, do we leave ourselves wide open to more attacks as Obama weakens our national security?

U.S. had permission for Pakistan attack

The United States, despite public outrage in Pakistan over recent military attacks into its tribal areas along the Afghanistan border, may have had permission from officials there for their work targeting terrorists, according to a report from Joseph Farah's G2 Bulletin.

Well-placed Pakistani sources are reporting the U.S. quietly worked out a deal with Pakistan to allow U.S. special operations troops to attack terrorist sanctuaries inside the country.

The sources said the tacit agreement was reached when Pakistani Prime Minister Yousef Raza Gilani and Rehman Malik, Gilani's internal security adviser, were briefed on a change in U.S. engagement rules during an official visit to Washington, D.C., in late July. ....

Survey: Nation Not Prepared For ‘Dirty Bomb’ Terrorist Attack

The Radiological Threat Awareness Coalition (R-TAC) recently released a national survey on homeland security preparedness, showing that at least 81 percent of those polled said the threat of a "dirty bomb" is serious, yet less than one third (32 percent) feel prepared for a terrorist attack.

The national survey of public sentiment finds that a majority of likely voters would not know what to do in the event of a "dirty bomb" attack, and have not taken steps to make themselves more prepared.

"Seven years after 9/11 proved that America was vulnerable, the American people know the danger of a dirty bomb, but they don't know what to do about it," said R-TAC chairman James P. Pinkerton. "The sense of urgency that sparked R-TAC will help deploy much-needed support to federal, state, and local responders to address the threat of a dirty bomb. This is the best way to honor their efforts and protect America."

Among the findings:

• 81 percent said they consider the threat posed to the United States by the possibility of a "dirty bomb" attack by terrorists to be serious.
• A majority (56 percent) said they were not confident they would know what to do in the event of a "dirty bomb" attack.
• 63 percent said they do not feel prepared in the event of a terrorist attack on their community.
• Only 34 percent of voters agreed the government was doing a good job informing people about preparedness for a terrorist attack.

The nationwide survey of 502 likely voters was conducted August 25-28.

Congress Should Establish EMP Recognition Day

by Jena Baker McNeill and James Jay Carafano, Ph.D.

The threat of an Electro-Magnetic Pulse (EMP) attack against the United States is credible. Such a strike could have a devastating impact on the nation by disabling electrical systems, grinding the economy to a halt, and possibly resulting in the deaths of millions. Yet other than establishing a commission to study the problem and holding a handful of hearings, Congress has done virtually nothing to address the issue. Such inaction could change virtually overnight, however, if Congress held even one EMP Recognition Day.

The Darkest Hour

An EMP attack is produced by detonating a nuclear weapon launched by a ballistic missile. Such a detonation—occurring high above the earth—produces a massive pulse of ionized particles that could damage many electrical and information systems. An attack would disrupt telecommunications, banking and finance, fuel and energy, food and water supplies, emergency and government services, and more, threatening millions of lives.

If, just for one day, Congress simulated even a fraction of the impact such an attack would have, the scope of the danger would be clear. Here is a short list of what could happen on EMP Recognition Day on the Hill. Congress could:

1. Close all cafeterias. After an attack transportation networks would grind to a halt and no food would be delivered.
   
   
2. Walk to work. Traffic lights would no longer function, so all roads would be gridlocked. The computer systems operating mass transit would be inoperative.
   
   
3. Turn off members' Blackberries. Satellites in low-earth and many of the communication support systems will be disabled. Devices such as Blackberries and GPS would not work.
   
   
4. Shut off the lights. Critical computers that direct the national electrical grid would be inoperative.

Congress should take just these four steps for one day—and then all the members would understand the magnitude of the dangers posed by an EMP attack.

A Day to Remember

In a speech on March 23, 1983, Ronald Reagan detailed his plans for the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI). SDI was aimed at ensuring America's safety against a nuclear missile attack by implementing land and space-based defense systems. Reagan's vision was never completely realized, but the missile threats against the United States have never dissipated, and the need for such a system grows more pressing. A little over 20 years later, a congressionally chartered commission led by Dr. William Graham released a report that detailed an unappreciated dimension of the missile problem: an EMP attack. Thus, March 23 would be an excellent candidate for Congress's EMP Recognition Day.

A Call to Action

EMP Recognition Day would be about more than putting Congress in the dark. It could promote several tasks the Congress could take now, including:

1. Fund comprehensive missile defense. Building a comprehensive missile defense system will allow our nation to intercept and destroy a missile bound for the United States regardless of the launch point or whether the attack is aimed at destroying a city or engaging in an EMP attack on the nation.
   
   
2. Demand the Administration develop a National Recovery Plan. In order to minimize lives lost and property destroyed, the United States needs a plan that will address its ability to recover quickly after an attack. The EMP Commission emphasized that our nation must first improve the infrastructure on which all other sectors are dependent, specifically citing electric power and telecommunications. This risk-based approach recognizes that certain infrastructure is key to post-EMP attack recovery. EMP should also be added to the list of 15 disaster scenarios.
   
   
3. Require more research on the EMP threat. More research is needed in order to ensure that the United States fully understands the scope of the danger and cost-effective countermeasures.

Need for Congressional Action

Before Congress ends its session this year, its members should agree to make March 23 EMP Recognition Day. Even if Congress does not stop feeding its staff, turn off the lights, or hitchhike to work, simply recognizing the EMP threat would go a long way toward better preparing America for this grave threat.

Jena Baker McNeill is Policy Analyst for Homeland Security in the Douglas and Sarah Allison Center for Foreign Policy Studies, a division of the Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for International Studies, and James Jay Carafano, Ph.D., is Assistant Director of the Davis Institute and Senior Research Fellow for National Security and Homeland Security in the Allison Center at The Heritage Foundation.

Cybersecurity is crucial to protecting nation's water supply, official says

By Gautham Nagesh

The greater use of computer systems to monitor and control the U.S. water supply has increased the importance of cybersecurity to protect the country's utilities, a top official for a large water company said on Monday.

"There are new vulnerabilities and threats every day of the week," said Bruce Larson, security director for American Water, one of the country's largest water service companies. "The technology has advanced, along with the threat's access. A keyboard in Afghanistan can talk to computers in the U.S. We need to take a look at this."

Larson discussed the issue during an event at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce as part of National Preparedness Month.

The industrial control systems water and other utility companies use run on common technology platforms such as Microsoft Windows, which leaves them vulnerable to attacks from hackers or enemy states seeking to disrupt the country's water supply. In addition, a major natural disaster such as a hurricane could shut down servers, forcing a disruption in the supply of water and wastewater services.

"We're taking the full-spectrum, all-hazards approach," said Larson. "We need to bake security into the next generation of control systems.

Most of the nation's water supply infrastructure is privately owned so the Homeland Security Department must work with industry as well as state and local agencies to help protect critical infrastructure. To that end, the American Water Works Association released a roadmap earlier this year detailing its plans to secure all water control systems. Part of the difficulty is water companies vary greatly in terms of size and mission; while many have fully staffed IT departments, others rely on only a handful of people or are without a dedicated tech specialist.

Larson said ensuring continuity of control systems was crucial to protecting the nation's water supply. He suggested that agencies and companies have backup servers, computers and parallel IT infrastructures in place in the event of an attack or natural disaster to prevent disruption of service. For guidance, Larson said the water sector was turning to other public utility industries, which have been working on similar issues for years.

"The threats and risks are common with other sectors, so we gain a little commonality," he said. He mentioned the oil, gas and electrical industries along with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission as examples of groups grappling with similar challenges. "They're doing the same stuff, it's very similar; we just have to personalize it to our sector," Larson said.

OBAMA TRIED TO STALL GIS' IRAQ WITHDRAWAL

(Compiler's note: Clearly a jail term for Obama would be in order here along side "Hanoi Jane" Fonda.)

WHILE campaigning in public for a speedy withdrawal of US troops from Iraq, Sen. Barack Obama has tried in private to persuade Iraqi leaders to delay an agreement on a draw-down of the American military presence.

According to Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari, Obama made his demand for delay a key theme of his discussions with Iraqi leaders in Baghdad in July.

"He asked why we were not prepared to delay an agreement until after the US elections and the formation of a new administration in Washington," Zebari said in an interview.

Obama insisted that Congress should be involved in negotiations on the status of US troops - and that it was in the interests of both sides not to have an agreement negotiated by the Bush administration in its "state of weakness and political confusion."

"However, as an Iraqi, I prefer to have a security agreement that regulates the activities of foreign troops, rather than keeping the matter open." Zebari says.

Though Obama claims the US presence is "illegal," he suddenly remembered that Americans troops were in Iraq within the legal framework of a UN mandate. His advice was that, rather than reach an accord with the "weakened Bush administration," Iraq should seek an extension of the UN mandate.

While in Iraq, Obama also tried to persuade the US commanders, including Gen. David Petraeus, to suggest a "realistic withdrawal date." They declined. ....