DNC joins Obama to block Berg suit

(Compiler's note: This can be quickly solved with the right documentation. If such is NOT produced and verified, then we have a crisis brewing. To NOT produce the documentation can only lead one to believe that it does not exist. Must read. Be sure and get to the bottom of this article. rca)

By Jon Christian Dryer

On September 29, 2008 Pennsylvania attorney Philip J. Berg, filed a response to a motion to dismiss by defendant Barack Obama who was joined in his effort to quash Berg's lawsuit by the Democratic National Committee, claiming it has no standing to proceed. Berg argued in the brief response that he has provided the precedents which establish the standing and petitioned US District Court Judge R. Barclay Surrick of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania to pursue the case. In his Sept. 29 filing, Berg said: "Plaintiff served discovery in way of Admissions and Request for Production of Documents, on Defendants on September 15, 2008 and has attempted to obtain verification of Obama's eligibility through subpoenas to the government entities and the hospital's in Hawaii. To date, Plaintiffs and two of (2) the locations, which subpoenas were served upon, refused to honor the subpoenas.

"For the above aforementioned reasons, Plaintiff respectfully request Defendants and the Democratic National Committee's Motion to Dismiss pursuant to F.R.C.P. 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) be denied and order immediate discovery (the unsigned order requiring Obama to produce..." within three (3) days{

1. Obama's "vault" version (certified copy of his "original" long version) birth certificate; and

2. a certified copy of Obama's Certificate of Citizenship;

3. a certified copy of Obama's oath of allegiance."

The Obama "Birth Flap" was not of Berg's making. It began in June when National Review's Jim Geraghty raised the question and asked the Obama Campaign to release a copy of his birth certificate in order to prove that he actually was born in the United States. (Reports had previously surfaced claiming that Obama's Kenyan grandmother, Sarah Hussein Obama, told reporters that Obama was not born in Hawaii, but in Kenya. She also reportedly told reporters that when her son, Barack Hussein Obama, Sr. returned to Kenya he was accompanied by his pregnant white wife who was close to term.)

Obama's family did not take to Stanley Ann Dunham Obama very well, because she was white, according to Sarah Obama. Shortly after she arrived in Kenya Stanley Ann decided to return to Hawaii because she later said, she did not like how Muslim men treated their wives in Kenya. However, because she was near term the airline would not let her fly until after the birth of her baby. Obama's grandmother said the baby—Barack Hussein Obama, Jr.—was born in Kenya and that shortly after he was born, Stanley Ann returned to Hawaii.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What follows is a portion of the Berg-Obama Suit ... the compiler of this story did the highlighting.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
PHILIP J. BERG, ESQUIRE :

:
Plaintiff :
vs. : CIVIL ACTION NO.
:
BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA, a/k/a :
BARRY SOETORO, a/k/a :
BARRY OBAMA , a/k/a : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
BARACK DUNHAM, a/k/a :
BARRY DUNHAM, THE :
DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL :
COMMITTEE, THE FEDERAL :
ELECTION COMMISSION AND :
DOES 1-50 INCLUSIVE ::

Defendants :
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARTORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

1. Article II, Section I of the United States Constitution, states in particular part, “No Person
except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States at the time of the Adoption
of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person
be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and
been Fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.” Furthermore, all Presidents
since and including Martin Van Buren were born in the United States subsequent to the
Declaration of Independence.

2. “The general doctrine of our Constitution is, that the executive power of the nation is
vested in the President; subject only to the exceptions and qualifications, which are
expressed in the instrument.” 7 Works of Alexander Hamilton, J. C. Hamilton ed. (New
C:\Documents and Settings\Geoff\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\RUX63DMN\ObamaComplaint.doc 1
York: 1851), 76, 80–81 (emphasis in original), U.S. Constitution, Article II (Hamilton and
Madison.)

3. Obama is a representative of the Democratic People. However, the Obama must meet the
Qualifications specified for the United States Office of the President, which is he must be
a “natural born” citizen. Unfortunately, Obama is not a “natural born” citizen. Just to
name one of the problems, Obama lost his U.S. citizenship when his mother married an
Indonesian citizen and relocated herself and Obama to Indonesia wherein Obama’s
mother naturalized in Indonesia and Obama followed her naturalization, as he was a
minor and in the custody of his mother. Obama failed to take the oath of allegiance when
he turned eighteen (18) years to regain his United States Citizenship status.

4. The Democratic National Committee is for Plaintiff and “We the People” who believe in
the Democratic Vision. The Democratic National Party is supposed to represent the
Democratic Americans in seeking honest leadership, Open Government, Real Security,
Energy Independence, Economic Prosperity, Educational Excellence, a Healthcare
System that works for Everyone and Retirement Security. The Democratic Party is
supposed to represent and protect the interests of working Americans and guaranteeing
personal liberties for all. Of which includes securing a Democratic Nominee on the
Presidential Election ballot who represents the Democratic vision and who is qualified
and eligible to run for Office of the President under the qualifications of the United States
Constitution.

5. The actions of Obama, a U.S. Senator, in running for President of the United States,
knowing he is not eligible, have been taken entirely without authorization under the
C:\Documents and Settings\Geoff\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\RUX63DMN\ObamaComplaint.doc 2
United States Constitution, completely ignoring the qualification and procedures created
by the United States Constitution he is purporting to enforce.

6. Should Obama become the Nominee of the Democratic Party and then be discovered by
virtue of malfeasance, or negligence, on his part not to have revealed material evidence
showing him to be Ineligible for the Office of President of the United States of America
and thereby his Nomination be declared void by the appropriate Authorities Acting under
the Law, Plaintiff as well as other Democratic Americans will suffer Irreparable Harm .....

17. Obama claims he was born in Honolulu, Hawaii on August 4, 1961; however, has never
given the name of the hospital he was born in; whereas Obama’s grandmother on his
father’s side, half brother and half sister claim Obama was born in Kenya. Reports
reflect Obama’s mother went to Kenya during her pregnancy; however, she was
prevented from boarding a flight from Kenya to Hawaii at her late stage of pregnancy,
which apparently was a normal restriction to avoid births during a flight. Stanley Ann
Dunham (Obama) gave birth to Obama in Kenya, after which she flew to Hawaii and
registered Obama’s birth. There are records of a “registry of birth” for Obama, on or
about August 8, 1961 in the public records office in Hawaii.

18. Upon investigation into the birth of Barack Hussein Obama in Honolulu, Hawaii,
Obama’s birth is reported as occurring at two (2) separate hospitals, Kapiolani Hospital
and Queens Hospital. Wikipedia English Version under the subject “Barack Obama”
states Obama was born at Kapiolani Hospital. Wikipedia Italian Version under the
subject “Queens Hospital” states Barack Obama was born in Queens Hospital.

19. There are further references circulating on the internet claiming examination of the
hospital’s records in Hawaii show no birthing records for Stanley Ann Dunham (Obama),
C:\Documents and Settings\Geoff\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\RUX63DMN\ObamaComplaint.doc 5
Obama’s mother. However, there are records of a “registry of birth” for Obama, on or about
August 8, 1961 in the public records office in Hawaii.

20. Wayne Madsen, Journalist with Online Journal was a contributing writer and published
an article on June 9, 2008 stating the GOP sent a research team to Mombasa, Kenya and
located a Certificate Registering the birth of Barack Obama, Jr. at a Maternity Hospital,
to his father, a Kenyan Citizen and his mother, a U.S. Citizen.

21. At the time of Obama’s birth in 1961, Kenya was a British Colony.

22. There is a Canadian Birth Certificate posted on the Internet in the name of Barack
Hussein Obama, Jr.; however, the date of birth shows to be August 23, 1961.

23. Under the Independence Constitution of Kenya, Obama became a Kenyan citizen on
December 12, 1963. Chicago-based Internet journalist, broadcaster and critic Andy
Martin states Obama has never renounced his Kenyan citizenship. Andy Martin further
states on Obama’s Senate web site, Obama tap dances around his own dual nationality
when discussing his father. Obama obviously knows, because his father told the Obama,
that he (Obama) also held/holds Kenyan nationality.

24. If in fact Obama was born in Kenya, the laws on the books at the time of his birth stated
if a child is born abroad and one parent was a U.S. Citizen, which would have been his
mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, Obama’s mother would have had to live ten (10) years in
the United States, five (5) of which were after the age of fourteen (14). At the time of
Obama’s birth, his mother was only eighteen (18) and therefore did not meet the
residency requirements under the law to give her son (Obama) U.S. Citizenship. The
laws in effect at the time of Obama’s birth prevented U.S. Citizenship at birth of children
born abroad to a U.S. Citizen parent and a non-citizen parent, if the citizen parent was
under the age of nineteen (19) at the time of the birth of the child. Obama’s mother did
C:\Documents and Settings\Geoff\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\RUX63DMN\ObamaComplaint.doc 6
not qualify under the law on the books to register Obama as a “natural born” citizen.
Section 301(a)(7) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of June 27, 1952, 66 Stat. 163,
235, 8 U.S.C. §1401(b), Matter of S-F- and G-, 2 I & N Dec. 182 (B.I.A.) approved
(Att’y Gen. 1944). Obama would have only been naturalized and a Naturalized citizen is
not qualified and/or eligible to run for Office of the President. U.S. Constitution, Article
II, Section I, Clause 4.

25. Furthermore, if Obama had been born in Kenya, his birth father Barack Obama, Sr. was a
citizen of Kenya; therefore, Obama would have automatically become a citizen of Kenya.

26. In or about 1967, when Obama was approximately six (6) years old, his mother, Stanley
Ann Dunham married Lolo Soetoro, a citizen of Indonesia and moved to Indonesia with
Obama. At this time, if Obama was Registered as a “natural born” citizen, which he did
not qualify to be registered as, he would have lost his U.S. Citizenship when his mother
married Lolo Soetoro and took up residency in Indonesia. The first requirement is that
naturalization must be achieved through “application.” Such type of naturalization
occurs, for example, when a person acquires a foreign nationality by marriage to a
national of that country. Nationality Act of 1940, Section 317(b). Additionally, there is
rumor circulating on the Internet that his Indonesian stepfather, Lolo Soetoro, adopted
Obama. ....

U.S. Awards $22M to Develop Marburg, Ebola Vaccine

A Maryland biotechnology firm has received a $22 million contract from the U.S. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases to pursue a vaccine to protect against the Ebola and Marburg viruses, the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy reported yesterday (see GSN, Oct. 3).

The new contract covers preclinical work, but Integrated BioTherapeutics has said it could later receive an additional $43 million in federal funds for conducting clinical tests and preparing to manufacture a vaccine against the potential bioterrorism agents.

The company has already developed a version of the treatment effective in animals by working with the U.S. Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases at Fort Detrick, Md., the firm said.

"This is a significant step forward in our mission to improving public health and developing countermeasures for biodefense," Javad Aman, the firm’s president and chief scientific officer, said in a statement. "The contract will fund a major portion of the pre-clinical and clinical activities required to confirm and refine the activity in animals and verify the activity in humans” (Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy release, Oct. 8).

Oak Ridge National Laboratory Considers Options for Disinterring Jars of Nuclear Material

The Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee is considering options for dealing with 50 to 70 buried glass jars containing an unstable uranium-plutonium mixture, the Knoxville News Sentinel reported yesterday (see GSN, Feb. 8).

It was unclear why the radioactive material from old reactor fuel studies was buried in fragile jars, which were buffered with a carbon coating and plunged into an oil base several decades ago, according to U.S. Energy Department official David Adler. Steel drums and boxes were used to contain the waste, but were expected to deteriorate over the years.

A 2005 attempt to excavate the jars in Trench 13 — one of 22 in a waste burial area at the laboratory — ended abruptly when a fire ignited when pyrophoric material made contact with oxygen.

The jars are supposed to be removed from the burial site by Sept. 30 of next year, but the fate of the substance remains uncertain. The environmental management firm Bechtel Jacobs evaluated methods of handling the material and Energy Department officials are expected to discuss the review with Tennessee officials within the next several months. ....

Drug and WMD Smugglers Could Team Up, Officials Say

U.S. officials yesterday expressed concern that terrorists could team up with drug smugglers in Latin America to transfer weapons of mass destruction into the United States along established drug routes, the Associated Press reported (see GSN, May 28).

Members of radical groups have already been found in Latin America gathering funds and carrying out other activities, said Charles Allen, intelligence analysis head for the Homeland Security Department.

"The presence of these people in the region leaves open the possibility that they will attempt to attack the United States," Allen said. "The threats in this hemisphere are real. We cannot ignore them."

Michael Braun, operations chief for the Drug Enforcement Administration, added: "It is not in our interest to let that potpourri of scum to come together."

Officials also suggested that al-Qaeda or other groups could use cocaine profits to help fund their activities (Curt Anderson, Associated Press

North Korea Bars IAEA From All Nuclear Facilities

North Korea is no longer allowing International Atomic Energy Agency personnel to conduct any monitoring activities at the nation’s Yongbyon nuclear complex, Reuters reported today (see GSN, Oct. 8).

“The monitors were told that as of today, they are out, no more access permitted to any facilities in Yongbyon. But as of now, they are still in their guest house on the premises,” said one high-level diplomat close to the U.N. nuclear watchdog.

"The monitors were there (at storage sites) but from here on they are out. So the IAEA won't know what the North Koreans are doing any more," the source added. ....

The Hunt For Bin Laden

(Compiler's note: A must read. rca)
from 60 Minutes

The officer who led the army's Delta Force mission to kill Osama bin Laden after 9/11 reveals what really happened in Tora Bora, Afghanistan, when the al-Qaeda leader narrowly escaped. Scott Pelley reports.

Click on the title above to see the video.

Country is Headed to a Constitutional Crisis

(Compiler's note: Another must read article. rca One has to note that it would be difficult, if not impossible, for a normal citizen of our great Country to successfully pass a background investigation for a security clearance if one had a foreign name and could not produce a birth certificate. Now, for any of you reading this that have had White House credentials, and I know that several of you have, imagine how long you would have had to wait to ever actually go to work. Apparently, there is a different set of rules for people who seek the most sensitive job of all, President of the United States! Consider – None of the general officers who would be serving under Obama as commander-in-chief were permitted to skip the arduous security investigation update upon selection, but here we have lawyers jousting over producing a birth certificate. Either you have one or you don’t, and if you don’t, please explain. Seems simple enough to me, but then, I have nothing to hide.)

(Lafayette Hill, Pennsylvania – 10/06/08) - Philip J. Berg, Esquiire, the Attorney who filed suit against Barack H. Obama challenging Senator Obama’s lack of “qualifications” to serve as President of the United States, announced today that Obama and Democratic National Committee [DNC] filed a Joint Motion for Protective Order to Stay Discovery Pending a Decision on the Motion to Dismiss (which was) filed on 09/24/08.

While legal, Berg stated he is “outraged as this is another attempt to hide the truth from the public; it is obvious that documents do not exist to prove that Obama is qualified to be President.” The case is Berg v. Obama, No. 08-cv-04083.

Their joint motion indicates a concerted effort to avoid the truth by attempting to delay the judicial process, although legal, by not resolving the issue presented: that is, whether Barack Obama meets the qualifications to be President.

It is obvious that Obama was born in Kenya and does not meet the “qualifications” to be President of the United States pursuant to our United States Constitution. Obama cannot produce a certified copy of his “Vault” [original long version] Birth Certificate from Hawaii because it does not exist.

Furthermore, and actually more important is Obama’s Certificate of Citizenship that he received when he returned from Indonesia, as if it exists it would indicate that Obama was “naturalized” and also not able to be President.

The DNC has promised “we the people” an Open and Honest Government and has promised to uphold our United States Constitution. The DNC has failed their promise. DNC Chairperson Howard Dean should resign as he has not and is not fulfilling his responsibility of seeing that a “qualified” candidate is on the ballot as the Democratic candidate for President of the United States.

Berg stated that a response in opposition will be filed in the next day or so to the Defendants Motion for a Protective Order.

Our website obamacrimes.com now has 21.7 + million hits. We are urging all to spread the word of our website – and forward to your local newspapers and radio and TV stations. Berg again stressed his position regarding the urgency of this case as, “we” the people, are heading to a “Constitutional Crisis” if this case is not resolved forthwith.

Philip J. Berg, Esquire
555 Andorra Glen Court, Suite 12
Lafayette Hill, PA 19444-2531
Cell (610) 662-3005
(610) 825-3134
(800) 993-PHIL [7445]
Fax (610) 834-7659
philjberg@obamacrimes.com

High Rate of H-1B Visa Fraud

by Moira Herbst

A report released Oct. 8 by the U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Services (USCIS) reveals that 13% of petitions filed for H-1B visas on behalf of employers are fraudulent. Another 8% contain some sort of technical violations.

The study, released to members of the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, marks the first time the agency, part of the Homeland Security Dept., has documented systematic problems with the controversial program. Technology companies, in particular, have come to rely on the H-1B visa program to bring in skilled foreign workers to fill jobs that employers claim can't be filled with U.S. candidates. Tech companies like Oracle (ORCL), Microsoft (MSFT), and Google (GOOG) have pushed to get more visas, claiming that a shortage of skilled workers is hampering U.S. competitiveness. Microsoft Chairman and co-founder Bill Gates has twice testified in front of Congress on the issue.

Critics say H-1Bs help U.S. companies replace American workers with less costly foreign workers. "The report makes it clear that the H-1B program is rife with abuse and misuse," says Ron Hira, assistant professor of public policy at the Rochester Institute of Technology. "It shows the desperate need for an auditing system." However, both Presidential candidates, Senator Barack Obama (D-Ill.) and Senator John McCain (R-Ariz.), have said they support expanding the program.

Program Abuses Alleged

A USCIS spokesperson was not immediately available for comment. The report's conclusion states: "Given the significant vulnerability, USCIS is making procedural changes, which will be described in a forthcoming document." A spokeswoman, Beth Pellett Levine, says Senator Chuck Grassley (D-Iowa), a longtime critic of the H-1B program, is drafting a letter to USCIS in response to the study.

The H-1B visa program has become increasingly controversial in recent years as groups such as the Programmers Guild and WashTech, which represent U.S. tech workers, allege it is being abused, resulting in mistreatment of foreign workers, wage depression, and the displacement of U.S. workers. The program was originally set up to allow companies in the U.S. to import the best and brightest in technology, engineering, and other fields when such workers are in short supply in America. But data released this year by the federal government show that offshore outsourcing firms, particularly from India, dominated the list of companies that were awarded H-1B visas to employ workers in the U.S. (BusinessWeek, 3/6/08) in 2007. Indian outsourcers such as Infosys (INFY), Wipro (WIT), and Tata (TCS.NS) accounted for nearly 80% of the visa petitions approved last year for the top 10 participants in the program.

There is also evidence that workers on H-1B visas are being mistreated. In a pending case (BusinessWeek, 1/31/08), H-1B workers for State Farm Insurance allege they were underpaid.

Critics say such instances of abuse represent the tip of an iceberg of deeper problems with the visa program. Academics and U.S. tech worker advocates point out the requirement that even employers who abide by the law—for example by paying the required "prevailing wage"—are able to underpay workers .

"We shouldn't forget that the major problem with the H-1B program are caused by massive loopholes that allow firms to legally pay below-market wages and force US workers to train foreign replacements," says Hira. "Those wouldn't show up in this investigation because they are entirely legal." Hira says that a bill proposed by Grassley and Senator Dick Durbin's (D-Ill.) bill in 2007, S. 1035, would address both fraud and legal loopholes in the program.

Companies Not Named

The USCIS report, called H-1B Benefit Fraud & Compliance Assessment, is based on a sample of 246 H-1B petitions. It does not name companies involved in the study. The report says that 80% of the fraud or technical violations were uncovered during site visits.

Fraudulent cases include instances in which the visa worker was not working or had never worked at the specified location on the application. Technical violations involved situations in which the worker was paid at or below the prevailing wage, which companies are required by law to pay.

In other cases, the job duties were significantly different from the position listed on the visa petition. This could involve misrepresenting the skill set required or the location of the job. Accounting, human resources, business analyst, sales, and advertising occupations are more likely than other categories to involve fraud, according to the study. Other areas in which violations were found include computer-related occupations, and art and managerial jobs. "Until we make a conscious effort to close the loopholes, we're going to see continued abuse where people coming to this country on H-1B visas are working at Laundromats," said Grassley in a statement. He was referring to situations in which companies misrepresent what type of work the visa holder will do.

In the study, visa workers with only bachelor's degrees were subject to higher fraud or technical violation rates (31%) than those with graduate degrees (13%). Fraud and violations were more common for companies employing 25 or fewer employees and with annual gross income of less than $10 million.

Report: A disaster waiting to happen

(Compiler's note: I've been in this business long enough to know that this is the truth.)

By Jake Armstrong, The Times-Union

ATLANTA - Despite millions spent on technological upgrades, Georgia's first responders will likely face communication problems in the event of a large-scale disaster, according to a state audit released this week.

Law enforcement, fire departments and other response agencies have found ways to communicate with their neighboring counterparts for daily operations, such as car accidents.

But a major tornado or hurricane could fling into a disaster zone agencies that have not worked together before. A lack of familiarity among those agencies could cause difficulty in communications, especially when state agencies respond and find local agencies have changed their communications technology or procedures, the 46-page Department of Audits and Accounts report said.

While new radios with better technology fill in gaps that previously hampered communication, the state lacks an umbrella of leadership to coordinate improvements to communication, an ongoing effort since the 2001 terrorist attacks, the audit found.

The auditors recommended state leaders create a statewide committee for that job.

Currently, a subcommittee of the state Homeland Security Task Force administers a statewide plan for improving communications among agencies. But auditors say it lacks bylaws to define membership and its responsibilities are not spelled out.

That has left much of the coordination to local jurisdictions, with varying degrees of success, the audit said.

Richmond County appears to have successfully integrated its communications with surrounding agencies at state and federal levels.

Augusta-area responders encountered a chaotic scene when two freight trains collided nearly four years ago in Graniteville, S.C., killing nine people and wounding about 250. The wreck put responders from either side of the border together against a massive chemical spill.

But nearly all the agencies use the same radio frequencies and have been through the same incident-response training program, which prevented snags in communications among the agencies, said Col. Gary Powell of the Richmond County Sheriff's Office.

"We haven't had too much of a problem in Richmond County," Powell said.

The sheriff's office also trains with safety agencies from the Savannah River Site and Plant Vogtle near Waynesboro to prepare for emergencies involving radioactive materials, he said.

The state has distributed $100 million in federal funding for interagency communications since 2002.

In response to the audit, officials for the Georgia State Patrol, which operates a statewide communications network, said they believe the state is ready to respond to a large-scale disaster.

A financial apocalypse isn't nearly as scary as a nuclear one

(Compiler's note: Must read. This in my mind could also include an EMP version of muclear terrorism. rca)

By John Diamond

Nuclear terrorism, the most serious existential threat to our homeland, has fallen off our priority list. The startling crisis on Wall Street, and the threat it poses to Main Street, has relegated national security to an afterthought — when it should be anything but.

Four years ago, during the presidential campaign, President Bush and Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., agreed that the possibility that a terrorist group could obtain fissile material, fashion a crude nuclear weapon and set it off in an American city was our greatest threat.

This year, the topic barely got a mention in the presidential debates. Go to the websites of Barack Obama and John McCain and click on the "Issues" buttons. In neither case does the drop-down list include a separate category called "terrorism." Once you click through enough layers, you discover that they both agree on the importance of securing nuclear weapons material. Both have endorsed the concept of "a world without nuclear weapons." And they both support gradual but significant reductions in the U.S. and Russian arsenals.

The absence of a sharp disagreement between the candidates on responding to the nuclear terror threat might explain why it has all but disappeared from view as the fall campaign approaches. Yet perhaps our leaders and their constituents have not fully grasped the consequences of such an attack beyond the grim image of a mushroom cloud over an American city.

The aftershocks

As the Saga Foundation — a non-profit organization focused on the threat of terrorism involving weapons of mass destruction — argued in a recent white paper, the vast damage at and around a nuclear ground zero would be dwarfed in scope by the national and global economic aftershocks. These aftershocks would stem not only from the explosion itself but also from a predictable set of decisions a president would almost certainly have to make in grappling with the possibility of a follow-on attack.

Assuming, as the experts believe likely, that such a weapon would have to be smuggled into the country, the president could be expected to close the nation's borders, halt all freight commerce and direct a search of virtually any moving conveyance that could transport a nuclear weapon. Most manufacturing would then cease. In a nation that lives on just-in-time inventory, these developments could empty the nation's shelves in days.

The effects of post-attack decision-making go far beyond this example. If U.S. intelligence determined that one or more countries had somehow aided and abetted the attack, we would face the prospect of full-scale war. Even short of that, the nation would demand, and the president would almost certainly order, a level of retaliation at the suspected locus of the attacking group that would dwarf the post-9/11 military response. The possibility of follow-on attacks could transform our notions of civil liberties and freedom forever. And as former 9/11 Commission co-chairman Lee Hamilton has pointed out, a nuclear terrorist attack would prompt a collapse in public faith in the government's ability to protect the American people.

Think your 401(k) hurts now?

The presidential nominees, and the American people, should reconsider the tendency to view these two issues — economic crisis and the threat of catastrophic terrorism — as separate problems. A nuclear attack on a U.S. city would not only devastate the target and kill possibly hundreds of thousands, it would also create instantaneous national and global economic ripple effects with incalculable consequences.

To put it in personal terms, if you think things are tough in the nation's financial sector now, imagine what your 401(k) — or your paycheck — might look like six months after a nuclear detonation in Lower Manhattan or downtown Washington. Saga's study merely began what must become a much larger-scale effort to understand in the fullest detail possible the consequences of an act of nuclear terrorism, not only the attack itself but also the decisions that would almost certainly follow. The idea is not to depress people but to motivate them.

While some of the consequences are obvious, others are not, and it is the less understood aftershocks that could damage our world as well as transform it — and not for the better.

John Diamond is a Washington fellow of the Saga Foundation. He is also a former national security reporter for USA TODAY and author of The CIA and the Culture of Failure.

US Intelligece Worried About Terror-Narco Nexus

(Compiler's note: Must read. rca)

by Anthony L. Kimery

Al Qaeda and Hezbollah could form alliances with powerful Latin American narco-cartels

Ranking US intelligence officials’ open expression of concern Wednesday that Islamist jihad terrorist organizations could be forming alliances with Central and South American narco-terrorists came as no surprise to veteran Intelligence Community (IC) counterterror and counternarcotics officials who regularly talk to HSToday.us.

Indeed. What the IC officials who spoke at the SOUTHCOM and Armed Forces Communications and Electronics Association sponsored conference in Miami, “Drugs and the Americas: What Are the Challenges and the Global Impact?” disclosed neatly dovetails with a variety of still classified intelligence from the late 1980s and early 1990s that was made available to HSToday.us.

That intelligence clearly shows that even that far back terrorist organizations like Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad and the since defeated Abu Nidal Organization had made significant inroads toward establishing operational and financial conduits throughout the Americas – conduits that even twenty years ago had began to overlap with narco-trafficking infrastructure.

Consequently, the worries of intelligence officials twenty years ago about the intersection of terrorists and narco-trafficers is reason for alarm today, as IC officials have pointed out. ....

Biden's Secret Diplomacy

By Vladimir Bukovsky and Pavel Stroilov

Here before us is a Soviet archival document,* a top secret report by a communist apparatchik who had received a delegation of US Senators led by Joseph Biden in 1979. After describing routine arms control discussions, it quotes Biden as telling the Soviets off-record that he did not really care about the persecution of Russian dissidents. He and other Senators might raise human rights issues with their Soviet counterparts, but only to be seen by the public as defenders of human rights, not to have those problems really solved. They would happily take no for an answer. ...

Inside The Taliban

from Strategy Page

While the Taliban appear to be on a roll, internally they are in big trouble. A battle with the Pakistani army in Bajaur is going badly, the leader of the Pakistani Taliban, Baitullah Mehsud has been sick for months, and recently died, from kidney failure. That means a messy succession struggle to determine the new top dog. Meanwhile, some leaders of the Afghan Taliban have been engaged in secret (well, not so secret anymore) negotiations (brokered by Saudi Arabia) with the Afghan government. These talks are not going well. But now it will get worse, as NATO announced a Winter offensive against the Taliban, taking advantage of the snow, bad weather and lack of mobility the Afghans suffer then. NATO has helicopters and air power, and has increasingly used this edge during the Winter. This year, the Taliban have announced that they will try to keep many of their gunmen operating during the Winter. To do this, you have to use the roads, at least when they are free of snow. That is less of a problem in southern Afghanistan, which is less frigid and snowbound. The smart money is on NATO in this one, and the Afghan Taliban cannot afford yet another loss at this point.

The Pakistanis also recognize that defeating the Taliban is more a matter of symbols than body count. The tribes have several hundred thousand potential recruits along the Afghan border, but only a few percent of those have joined the Islamic radical groups (al Qaeda, Taliban and several others you don't hear the names of much). Many more tribesmen oppose the Taliban, but most of these are not willing to go to war in support of these views. While the pro-Taliban tribesmen believe they are on a Mission From God, the effort is getting discouraging. The national backlash to the Marriott Hotel bombing on September 20th was noted, as are the other defeats. The Taliban are generally unpopular in Pakistan. Yes, the few guys with guns and bad manners will attract the journalists, but in this part of the world, the majority with better manners have guns as well. And increasingly they have been using them to show their displeasure with the Islamic radicals.

News stories about Pakistani troops exchanging fore with NATO and U.S. helicopters at the border appear to be more stories than news. Many of the border guards (a force recruited from local tribes) are pro-Taliban, and quick to fire on aircraft and any armed men they were not familiar with. That's been going on for decades, and was the cause of tension with the Russians in the 1980s. Real violence between Pakistan and the United States is unlikely, because the U.S. is the major financial and military supplier of the government. Without U.S. support, the military upgrades and the economy tank. Religion is one thing, defense and economics are something else (that is more important to more Pakistanis). Meanwhile, the government makes the right noises about "defending Pakistan's borders" while doing nothing to actually interfere with American operations on both sides of the border.

Pakistani officials admit that the U.S. appears to have a good intelligence network in the tribal areas, at least when it comes to al Qaeda and foreign Islamic militants, but not so much about the Taliban. That's because the tribesmen are more willing to talk about foreigners in their midst, than cousins mixed up with the Taliban. Pakistani intelligence agencies have better sources inside the tribes, mainly because many of the intel operators are from the tribes, either by blood or marriage.

Meanwhile, the Pakistani intelligence agency, the ISI, has been brought to heel by the new government, with the appointment of a new director. In the past, the ISI has refused to take orders from the government. How can this be? Simple, the ISI has, over the last three decades, become the effective tool of the government in dealing with troublemakers, and keeping top politicians informed on who is doing what to who. But the ISI is part of the military, and is full of Islamic conservatives, and men who sympathize with the Taliban and al Qaeda. The ISI has been willing to use those has files on the misbehavior of politicians and senior military men. But the ISI militants have been losing ground since September 11, 2001, as Islamic radicalism became more of a liability. The new director is an attempt to accelerate this process. But the Islamic conservatives are still a formidable bloc within the ISI, and things might get interesting.

Bombs, smaller ones, keep going off in the cities of the Pakistani tribal zones. Some of these are part of extortion efforts, to get businesses to pay their "taxes" to Islamic radicals, or just criminal gangs. There is some crossover between Islamic radicals and criminal gangs, and that becomes important because gangs can quickly drop the religious angle if that approach becomes a liability. But the extortion and violence continue, religion or not. Terrorist bombings became a major terrorist weapon in Pakistan after the government shut down the Red Mosque, and its Islamic radical operations, in July 2007. Since then, 1,188 people have died from suicide bomb attacks. But over 75 percent of the dead were civilians, and, as has happened so often recently, the public has become very hostile to Islamic militants. And in all those other nations, this led to heavy losses for the Islamic militants, and crippling of their abilities.

In Kashmir, more Islamic terrorists are trying to get across the border from Pakistan before the Winter snows close the easiest routes. Indian troops, using better sensors (especially heat sensitive ones) are catching more of these infiltrators, and killing or capturing them. This means hundreds of trained (in Pakistan camps) terrorists are put out of action, and the number of active Islamic terrorists in Kashmir continues to shrink (along with the number of violent incidents).

September 27, 2008: An example of how the Taliban make themselves unpopular occurred recently in the suburbs of Peshawar (one of the major Pushtun cities along the Afghan border). There, a group of Taliban began kidnapping women who are caught in public without a veil, and demanding a "fine" of $210 to release them. A similar bit of extortion was practiced on the drivers of busses carrying unveiled women. The Taliban did not grab all unveiled women, just those from families able to pay the fine. It's scams like this that push many tribesmen over the edge, meaning they pick up their guns and go after the Taliban. This happened to the Taliban in Afghanistan a few years after they took over there in the 1990s. It's happening a lot more quickly in Pakistan.

September 24, 2008: The U.S., and several other Western countries, have urged their citizens to stay away from Pakistan, and it take care of their security if they do come.

Ten Reasons to Be Concerned about Obama’s Stance on National Security

by Ryan Mauro

Click here for Part One; here for Part Two.

4. Wrong on Virtually Every Other Foreign Policy Issue

Sen. Obama isn't just wrong on the top foreign policy issues of Iraq, Iran and Russia, but also on virtually every other one that comes to mind. His strongest position is on Pakistan, where he advocates launching strikes on terrorists identified in that country if the government is unable or unwilling to go after them. This is an honorable position, although openly stating such an intention has extremely negative diplomatic repercussions and threatens the stability of the Pakistani government, which could allow radical Muslims to have an even greater safe harbor. Such statements are meant to be made in private, but at least this shows one area of the world where Obama is tough. Unfortunately, Obama still doesn't go far enough in developing a plan for handling Pakistan.

Sen. Obama declined to talk about the need to embrace the Pakistani tribes on the border in order to enlist them in fighting the insurgents, perhaps because saying so would again vindicate one of the strategies Gen. Petraeus and Sen. McCain advocated that caused the war in Iraq to turn around. At the first debate, Obama even failed to embrace this proven concept after McCain mentioned it. While Obama's call for unilateral strikes when necessary is refreshing and commendable, it does not appear that he recognizes that a greater counter-insurgency campaign that involves the tribes is needed. Air strikes and raids absent such a strategy will only increase resentment against the Pakistani government and the U.S. among the population and may even cause the Pakistanis to end their alliance with us. Ironically, Obama is advocating the same tactics he criticized in Afghanistan, when he said, "We've got to get the job done there and that requires us to have enough troops so that we're not just air-raiding villages and killing civilians, which is causing enormous pressure over there."

The one semi-bright spot of an Obama Administration doesn't even come from Obama, it comes from Joe Biden, and he deserves applause for his plan for Sudan. Sen. Biden has called for intervention in Darfur to create a No-Fly Zone over that part of Sudan and to send in NATO peacekeepers (approximately 2500 he said in one speech in Iowa). While it is good that someone has finally presented a plan for Darfur, Biden does not say which allies we can rely upon to help intervene, or how only 2,500 soldiers can stop the genocide. The government-backed militias, much like the situation in Iraq, will attack such peacekeepers in small groups, mixed among the local population in classic insurgency fashion. They will strike even more fear into the local population so they don't cooperate in providing intelligence.

If the Obama-Biden plan is to succeed, it will have to adopt counter-insurgency principles (again, like in Iraq) to kick out the Janjaweed and other insurgent and terrorist forces that will inevitably try to attack such peacekeepers. The focus on the no-fly zone demonstrates a pre-9/11 thinking, where conventional militaries are expected to be used to wage warfare, not unconventional forces like insurgents, militias, and terrorists. The plan calls for tackling the Janjaweed, yet neither Biden or Obama have called for the use of the tactics proven to work in Iraq and other counter-insurgency situations.

Obama's foreign policy is indeed one of contradictions. While he said he'd meet with Ahmadinejad and Chavez, he never even tried to meet with General Petraeus, the foremost authority of what's going on in Iraq. While he wants to strike a deal with Iran and North Korea, which would certainly involve financial aid packages, he opposes free trade agreements with critical U.S. allies like South Korea and Colombia, the latter of which is engaged in a battle with terrorists backed by Chávez. Obama says he favors pushing democracy and human rights in the region, yet wants to pull U.S. forces out of Iraq despite the fact it'd cause the Iraqis to lose such rights. He condemns the way Iran and other countries oppress their people, yet has made no indication that he'd like to see those regimes fall or that he'd even provide non-lethal aid to democratic opposition groups like Reagan did. He says he considers the Iranian Revolutionary Guards as terrorists, but didn't vote for a bill to label them as such. The only coherent message an Obama foreign policy sends is that there is no new strategy, tactic, or idea that should make our enemies worry. And it is for that reason that many of our enemies are supporting Obama.

5. America's enemies favor Obama's policies

When trying to figure out whether Obama's policies are good for national security, it is wise to ask how our enemies view them. The answer is clear: America's enemies favor Obama. This doesn't mean he is in league with them, or anti-American, but it should make voters ask why terrorists are so eager for him to win. What is it about Obama's policies that comfort them?

Let's look at some of these individuals. Ahmed Yousef, a top political advisor for Hamas, told Aaron Klein of WorldNetDaily that "We like Mr. Obama, and we hope that he will win the elections." The Iranian and Syrian government-controlled media is also pro-Obama. The terrorist group FARC in Colombia, which is backed by Venezuela's Hugo Chávez, according to some of their computer files, seems eager for Obama to win.

The question of Obama's past associations with people like William Ayers should also be mentioned. Why did people like Ayers, the unrepentant former member of Weather Underground who bombed the U.S. Capitol, work alongside Obama? And if it's true that Khalid al-Mansour, a top advisor to a terrorism-supporting Saudi prince, helped raise money for Obama's education, then why? The argument here isn't that Obama is anti-American or shares their views, but something about his viewpoint and policies is bringing people like these to embrace him.

6. Obama will reduce the technological advantages the U.S. military possesses.

In a videotaped address, widely available on YouTube, Obama promises not to militarize space, not fund "unproven missile defense systems," to "slow our development of future combat systems," and to not build any more nuclear weapons, even though new bunker buster nukes are necessary to threaten deep underground bunkers and do far less damage than a normal conventional nuke would. These comments, particularly on "slow[ing] our development of future combat systems" deserves no further comment as most Americans know how critical our technological advances have been to saving the lives of our military men and women and protecting American national security. Future combat systems, as Obama describes them, are the most important asset the U.S. military has, and has saved an enormous amount of lives - including the lives of our soldiers, civilians, and even our enemies.

7. Inexperience

Sen. Obama would be the most inexperienced president in a century, perhaps even in America's history. He has never run a business, been in the military, authored a ground-breaking piece of legislation, or managed or run anything. He has not become go-to expert on any topic, certainly not foreign policy. He was in the Senate for less than two years before preparing to run for president, and during that time, did not show bold leadership on any issue with political consequences. In short, he has not conducted virtually any of the tasks required of a president. As demonstrated, this lack of experience has negatively affected his judgment on various national security and foreign policy topics, particularly with the "surge" which he incorrectly predicted would not work, and could not see was working when the verdict had already been given.

Supporters of Obama may argue that he will have experienced advisors. However, without the right experience and judgment, he cannot pick the correct advisors, nor can he decide which among them are correct. He will fall victim to the "White House bubble" as President George W. Bush did. The failures in Iraq were largely due to the President's inability to consider the viewpoints of those outside his Administration, such as Sen. John McCain, who were warning that the path we were on would lead to failure. The president, lacking experience in foreign affairs and having to rely upon advisors, could not know when such advisors needed to be disregarded. In a time of war, the U.S. must have a president who has the knowledge and experience to make the right calls and not rely upon advisors who will inevitably be wrong at some point. Sen. Obama does not have that experience.

What have we learned over the past 2,063 years?

(Compiler's note: A good friend, a patriotic American and fellow retired Marine forwarded this to me) bailout

"The budget should be balanced, the Treasury should be refilled, public debt should be reduced, the arrogance of officialdom should be tempered and controlled, and the assistance to foreign lands should be curtailed lest Rome become bankrupt. People must again learn to work, instead of living on public assistance."

~ Marcus Tullius Cicero (55 BC) Roman statesman, lawyer, political theorist, and philosopher

It’s not just ACORN: La Raza partner caught red-handed

By Michelle Malkin

ACORN isn’t the only one cornering the voter fraud market.

Democracia USA is a partner of open-borders La Raza (The Race) in an aggressive, nationwide Hispanic voter registration drive.

George Moneo at Babalu Blog reports that canvassers for Democracia USA have been caught on tape sabotaging electoral integrity.

Watch the video here.

Don’t expect the La Raza Twins to complain.

Hands up! You're under arrest for saying 'Hussein Obama!'

by Bobby Eberle

We have seen many changes in this great nation which have been brought about by left wing activists. As kids, we used to say the Pledge of Allegiance. Now, it's being attacked in the courts. We used to say a prayer in the morning before school or at football games. Socialists in America have deemed that "offensive" and the practice has all but disappeared. Christmas displays honoring the birth of Christ trigger convulsions by the Left, who say that we shouldn't make people feel "uncomfortable" with our manger scenes.

Now, we can't even say what we want to say in public because not only will the thought police be on patrol, but, using a recent event in Florida as an example, saying "Hussein Obama" in public might just get you a visit from the FBI. Just ask Florida's Lee County Sheriff Mike Scott who is under fire -- and investigation -- for referring to Obama at a campaign rally by his -- gasp -- full name. What is going on with America?

At a rally in Estero, Florida on Monday for Gov. Sarah Palin, one of the pre-rally speakers was Sheriff Scott. Now, anyone who has been to a political rally knows that the job of the warm-up speakers is to do exactly as the name implies: warm-up the audience. Whether the audience is cheering wildly or booing loudly, the pre-rally speakers are there to wake them up and get them going. So... according to ABC News, Sheriff Scott stepped to the podium and said, "On November 4, let's leave Barack Hussein Obama wondering what happened."

Oh, the shock of it all! Speaking someone's full legal name in public! When asked about the "incident," Sheriff Scott responded by saying:

“I absolutely, unequivocally don’t regret saying it,” Scott told the News-Press on Monday. “In order to be a speaker at this event, I had to give my full name — Michael Joseph Scott — to the Secret Service, even though I’m the sheriff of Lee County. So why would I apologize? Is there some kind of double standard here where I have to give my full name, but I can’t use his?”

“Unless he changed his name, my position hasn’t changed,” said Scott of Obama. “It seems very clear to me that people have one of three stances on this thing: There are those who dislike it, there are those who like it, and there are those who think it’s a whole big deal about nothing, which is where I stand.”

As noted in the Cape Coral Daily Breeze, the Palin campaign responded by issuing the following statement:

“We do not condone this inappropriate rhetoric which distracts from the real questions of judgment, character and experience that voters will base their decisions on this November.”

Fair enough. If Palin or anyone else wants to say the usage of Barack Hussein Obama is inappropriate, he or she has a right to do so. But Sheriff Scott also has a right to say what he wants to say without fear of reprisal by the government. However, according to a local Florida NBC affiliate, Sheriff Scott's remark has now earned him an investigation by the federal government.

The NBC station reports that officials with the U.S. Office of Special Counsel have started an investigation of the Sheriff under the question of "did he use his position as sheriff to influence an election? If so, he could be in violation of a federal election law called the Hatch Act." The basis the Feds are using is whether Scott was campaigning while on duty and in uniform.

Sheriff Scott responded to the NBC story with the following statement:

"I am on duty 24/7 and 365 whether in or out of uniform. Like every other elected official, I am aware of from President to Governor to State Representatives, etc. We engage in political activities whether for ourselves as candidates or for others. As of this writing, I am unaware of having done anything to generate all this attention other than using the senator's full name."

The question is this... If Sheriff Scott had not said "Barack Hussein Obama," do you really think he would now be under investigation? If you answered "no," then that should send a shiver down your spine, because it means that the government is imposing pressure and creating a public example of Scott for simply saying someone's name.

Whether the investigation leads to charges or legal action is not the point. The point is that government intimidation is being brought to bear for someone exercising his first amendment right to free speech. This is wrong, regardless of whether you think his usage of Barack Hussein Obama was appropriate or not. This is still America, isn't it?