Oil, U.S. Auto Industry, Jihad, and Islamic Supremacism

(Compiler's note: Yes - this is a must read article. Read the entire article and consider what is being said here.)

by Jeffrey Imm

As the U.S. automobile industry seeks funds from the U.S. government, Americans need to ask if this industry understands that Islamic supremacists are at war with America, and how the automobile industry is going to change its product lines to recognize the need to reduce petrodollars to our Islamic supremacist enemies.

After the 9/11 attacks, I looked in the mirror and asked myself that, if I was going to do to challenge others on Jihad and Islamic supremacism, what was I going to immediately change in my own life. I had to be able to walk the walk – personally. Among other answers, the easiest one for me was to commit to driving out Jihadists by using a fuel-efficient vehicle or other non-oil based transportation as much as possible. I am not suggesting that this is all it takes for America's energy independence crisis, nor is this a solution that will work for everyone. But we have to be able to show willingness to change and sacrifice as individuals in the larger and longer human rights war against Islamic supremacism.

Of the 19 suspected 9/11 hijackers, 13 came from Saudi Arabia. What does Saudi Arabia export other than oil and Islamic supremacism? Sand? After 9/11, it did not require a political science degree to figure out that a key focus in our economic war against Islamic supremacism had to include a focus on America's energy and oil independence from Saudi Arabia, other Islamic supremacist nations, and other foreign nations.

So what happened after 9/11 to Saudi Arabia? Did American leadership cut off its flow of petrodollars from the U.S.? Did American leadership view Saudi Arabia's Islamic supremacist ideology to be an enemy of America? In fact, Saudi Arabia became wealthier, got more American petrodollars after 9/11, and incredibly, was named as an "ally" of America in a "war on terror" that refused to define the enemy or its ideology.

How did American industry react to the 9/11 Islamic supremacist act of war against America? Did U.S. oil industries shun Saudi Arabia and other Islamic supremacist providers, and promote alternative energy sources? Did U.S. automakers aggressively promote fuel-efficient vehicles to minimize the petrodollars continuing to flow to Islamic supremacist nations? None of these happened. Neither the U.S. oil nor the automobile industries have recognized that America is at war with Islamic supremacism.

As American taxpayer dollars are being asked to bailout the U.S. automobile industry without strings, a history lesson of the U.S. automobile industry's response to the 9/11 attacks would be valuable.

In 2002, an example of General Motors' (GM) offer of "innovation" in response to acts of war by Islamic supremacists on America was to have "AM General... assembling the HUMMER H2, a new 'next generation' sport utility vehicle designed by GM, at a new factory in Mishawaka" – for American consumer use at approximately 10 mpg. In 2001, GM also had an electric automobile known as the EV1, which you might have never heard about. I know about this because, after the 9/11 attacks, I repeatedly contacted GM about trying to purchase or lease an EV1 or even get on the waiting list for a future version ("GenII") of the EV1. In fact, what GM told me was that the EV1s were not available to anyone outside of California, and I am on the East Coast. No matter who I contacted in GM Sales, the answer was the same – they did not want to sell me a GM EV1 electric automobile at any price, under any condition. (You can see from this September 11, 2002 EV1 white paper that I was not only one who could not obtain an EV1 from GM.) GM was more concerned with California's Zero Emission Vehicle (ZEV) mandate than it was with acts of war against America. Just over two months after the 9/11 attacks in 2001, GM was already collecting EV1 electric automobiles to take them off the market and crush them. By 2003, GM had officially ended the EV1 electric automobile program; GM donated one to the Smithsonian museum. Where is GM's progress for fuel-efficient vehicles at today? Among GM's 2009 vehicles, GM offers a hybrid SUV (offering "an astounding EPA estimated MPG 21 city"), hybrid truck ("limited availability early 2009"), and states that it will offer "very limited availability" for its 2009 Malibu Hybrid. In 2010, nine years after the 9/11 attacks, GM claims that it will also offer another electric vehicle, the Volt. In the meantime, GM continues to predominantly manufacture and market vehicles that will ensure the maximum petrodollars go to Islamic supremacist nations.

In early 2002, a division of Ford Motor Company's TH!NK announced that it was going to produce a series of small electric automobiles for use in California and New York City. However, later that year, Ford announced that it was going to halt production of such electric automobiles, and in 2003, Ford abandoned its nascent efforts to counter America's oil dependence on Islamic supremacist nations, and sold the company to a European company for production overseas. A year later in 2004, Ford announced plans to crush its remaining TH!NK electric automobiles, later deciding to send 300 of them to Norway. Concern about ending America's oil dependence on Islamic supremacist nations was the furthest thing from Ford's mind. Later in 2004, Ford developed a "hybrid SUV" (now that's a "hybrid" for certain) called the Ford Escape hybrid SUV. U.S. Sen. John Kerry was famous for promising that he was going to buy and promote one; needless to say after the 2004 election, we have never heard about that subject again from Sen. Kerry. The 2009 Ford Hybrid Escape states that it gets an estimated 34 mpg city, significantly less fuel-efficiency than hybrid vehicles offered by Honda or Toyota. Ford continues to predominantly manufacture and market vehicles that will ensure the maximum petrodollars go to Islamic supremacist nations.

When it comes to fuel-efficient vehicles to cut off petrodollars to Islamic supremacist nations, we have had nothing but counterproductive products, half-measures, and endless promises from GM and Ford. In the meantime, Islamic supremacism has continued to grow in America and around the world.

What did I do about it? Since both GM and Ford refused to take my money and sell me a fuel-efficient vehicle that would limit petrodollars to our Islamic supremacist enemies, I had to go elsewhere. In early 2002, with the remains of the World Trade Center still nothing but a pit and a wing of the Pentagon still in shambles, there was no American leadership or business focus on stopping the flow of petrodollars to our enemies, nor was it a priority. In our nation's capital, there was virtually no interest in hybrid automobiles. But in early 2002, I started driving a hybrid automobile as a strike against Jihad and Islamic supremacism. We started by selling our old automobile and getting a Honda Insight hybrid automobile. When we went to the automobile dealer 10 miles from the White House, it was a real battle to get such a hybrid automobile. The D.C. area Honda sales person tried to persuade me not to buy a Honda Insight hybrid automobile. They were hidden in a back lot and literally covered with dust; they had to wash one off to show it to me. That's how unimportant fuel-efficient vehicles were in the Washington D.C. area after the 9/11 attacks. I was personally uncomfortable with buying a foreign-made automobile, and it was the first I had owned. But I felt that I had no other option, if I was to focus the war of ideas against Islamic supremacism, I had to do what I could personally to stop their funding through petrodollars. We still drive our 2002 Honda Insight hybrid today, as well as a 2005 Toyota Prius hybrid. As a result of GM's and Ford's unwillingness to recognize the need to modify its products to deal with the Islamic supremacist war on America, we have been unable to purchase a GM or Ford automobile since the 9/11 attacks on America.

Afterwards, I continued to try to promote fuel-efficient vehicles as part of a campaign against Islamic supremacism and Jihad. I soon learned that there was very little interest in this tactic. I went to political events, campaign events, public affairs events, and tried to get the public to cut off the petrodollars to Islamic supremacists. My efforts on this have been met, on every level, with a resounding silence and disinterest. I am well aware that this is not a popular issue to discuss. I am also not suggesting that fuel-efficient automobiles alone will solve our energy independence from Islamic supremacist nations. But when will America decide that this is a necessary issue to address? The fact remains that not only has GM and Ford been unwilling to do anything about this issue, our government and much of the American public has been unwilling to do anything as well.

In the meantime, what has grown is this tacit acceptance among the American governmental leadership, the American automobile industry, and the American public that we won't talk about the need for fuel-efficient vehicles to help in cutting back petrodollars to Islamic supremacist nations. Glittering generalities are fine; everyone is for someone else to do something about it. But calling for accountability and actually doing anything about it, well, that isn't polite discussion.

But as American taxpayers get ready to hand over (either by a bailout or a bankruptcy – we pay) tax dollars to GM and Ford, when exactly will it be the right time to talk about the need for fuel-efficient vehicles in reducing petrodollars to Islamic supremacist nations? Why not now when we have GM's and Ford's attention? Isn't it about time that these companies with a very checkered history when America has been at war to step up and prove that if they want American taxpayer dollars that they recognize and will support America's national security priorities?

Did Americans all have to read Robert Baer's book in 2003 Sleeping with the Devil to understand how petrodollars had further empowered Saudi Arabia to spread Islamic supremacism around the world? Did America really need to wait until the 2005 Freedom House report on how Saudi Arabia was spreading Islamic supremacism in the United States to act on energy independence? Even so, wasn't that three to five years ago? We need American leadership that can define the war against Islamic supremacism clearly enough to the American people that they don't have to wait until gasoline is $4.00/gallon to seek to drive fuel-efficient vehicles. Moreover, they need the U.S. automobile industries to deliver products in line with America's national security interests during war.

Four years ago, President Bush stated during his campaign for re-election that America's energy independence was going to be a key national security issue and priority. Such false promises have resulted in petrodollars continuing to flow from the U.S. to Islamic supremacist nations as much, if not greater, than before. Islamic supremacist Sharia finance has expanded and grown over the past four years. On November 6, 2008, the U.S. Treasury held a training session on Islamic supremacist Sharia finance and a week later, on November 10, the U.S. Federal Reserve Board announced that it was purchasing $40 billion of AIG preferred shares of stock, while AIG has continued to own divisions that promote and sell Islamic supremacist Sharia finance investment and insurance products. As a result, American taxpayers now own part of a Sharia finance business. Are American taxpayers next going to support automobile manufacturers selling products to ensure our Islamic supremacist enemies get the maximum amount of petrodollars?

The failure to have accountability in national business and economic decisions that support and embolden the Islamic supremacist enemy remains a national disgrace. The root of this problem can be found in the failure to define the enemy and the enemy's ideology in Islamic supremacism and to declare unequivocal total war on Islamic supremacism, using every tactic, including economic measures.

On November 13, 2008, at a Saudi-sponsored "interfaith conference," Saudi King Abdullah Bin Abdul Aziz told world leaders that Islamic supremacism practiced in Saudi Arabia supports peace, justice and tolerance, while President Bush replied that freedom includes "the right to choose or change religions and the right to worship in private or public." Those are noble sentiments by President Bush, but what has he done in terms of Saudi Arabia or any other Islamic supremacist nation to defend those rights? Has he sought to constrain Islamic supremacist Sharia finance? Has he sought to stop petrodollars to Saudi Arabia and other nations? Has he accomplished any significant initiatives to gain our energy independence from Islamic supremacist nations? Has he made all Islamic supremacist nations a pariah? Has he identified Islamic supremacism as an enemy ideology? The answer to all of these questions, of course, is no.

Believing in the need to defend equality and liberty should be a fundamental part of each American's identity. But the real test of this American virtue is deciding to actually do more than just talk about it.

In fighting the culture wars for America, we need to stay focused on fighting for what America's culture is truly all about, and not view our culture as only based on consumer goods and recreational activities. America is not merely about baseball, apple pie, and Chevrolets. We are at war, and the Islamic supremacist enemy continues to gain power every day. Remembering what we are fighting for is essential for us to win this war.

America's culture war is about living and defending the inalienable human rights of equality and liberty. America is about the idea that all men and women are created equal. Equality and liberty are the basis of our culture war for America against Islamic supremacism, not gas-guzzling vehicles that give endless petrodollars to our Islamic supremacist enemies, and not businesses that refuse to put America's interests first during war-time.

If GM and Ford want a hand out from American taxpayers (either via bailout or bankruptcy protection), they need to commit to business practices that recognize American values and recognize that Islamic supremacists continue to be at war with America. Energy independence will not be gained from fuel-efficient automobiles alone. It is a much greater and complex issue than that. But if American leadership, American business, and the American public can't even start to address such a basic step in energy independence through improved fuel-efficient automobiles, we can't hope to stop handing money to our Islamic supremacist enemies that seek to destroy us, and who seek to destroy every hope there is for defending equality and liberty.

We can't let that happen. Too many hopeless, helpless people are counting on us to act.

Fear No Evil.

National Security Information Guide

What all Americans need to know to keep their families safe.

UPDATE 2-US clout down, risks up by 2025 -intel outlook

By Randall Mikkelsen

WASHINGTON, Nov 20 (Reuters) - U.S. economic and political clout will decline over the next two decades and the world will be more dangerous, with food and water scarce and advanced weapons plentiful, U.S. spy agencies projected on Thursday.

The National Intelligence Council analysis "Global Trends 2025" also said the current financial crisis on Wall Street is just the first phase of a global economic reordering.

The U.S. dollar's role as the world's major currency would weaken to become a "first among equals," the report said.

The outlook is intended to inform U.S. President-elect Barack Obama of factors that will influence global events. It is based on a year-long global survey of experts and trends by U.S. intelligence analysts.

"The next 20 years of transition to a new system are fraught with risks," said the report, which was more pessimistic about U.S. influence and the potential for conflict than the last outlook for 2020.

Thomas Fingar, chairman of the intelligence council and deputy national director of intelligence for analysis, said harmful outcomes were not inevitable.

"It is not beyond the mind of human beings, or political systems, (or) in some cases (the) working of market mechanisms to address and alleviate if not solve these problems," Fingar told reporters. "We could have a better world in 2025."

China and India, following a "state capitalism" economic model, were likely to join the United States atop a multipolar world and compete for influence, the report said.

Russia's potential was less certain, depending on its energy wealth and internal investment. But Iran, Turkey and Indonesia were also seen gaining power.

POTENTIAL FOR CONFLICT

A world with multiple power centers has been less stable than one with a single or two rival superpowers, and there was a growing potential for conflict, the report said.

Global warming will be felt, and water, food and energy constraints may fuel conflict over resources.

"Strategic rivalries are most likely to revolve around trade, investments and technological innovation and acquisition, but we cannot rule out a 19th century-like scenario of arms races, territorial expansion and military rivalries," the report said.

"Types of conflict we have not seen for a while -- such as over resources -- could reemerge," it said.

Global wealth was seen shifting from the developed West to the energy-rich Gulf States and Russia, and to Asia, the rising center of manufacturing and some service industries.

Global rich-poor disparities would grow, leaving Africa vulnerable to increased instability.

A reordering of the world financial system was happening faster than the report's authors envisioned, Fingar said. Last weekend's Group of 20 summit of advanced and major developing countries in Washington showed work had begun, he said.

A shift away from an oil-based energy system will be underway or complete by 2025. Better renewable technologies such as solar and wind power offer the best opportunity for a quick and low-cost transition, the report said.

There was a greater, but still small, risk of nuclear attack, based on spreading technologies and the weakening of international nonproliferation systems.

If Iran were to acquire nuclear weapons, Fingar said, that could set off an arms race in the Middle East, which is considered in the report as an "arc of instability."

The risk that militant groups would use biological weapons was greater than the risk of nuclear terrorism, the report said.

The appeal of terrorism could decline over the next two decades, particularly if Middle Eastern countries provide productive education and opportunities for their young people, the report said. But with a growing population, the pool of potential terrorism recruits is likely to be larger, and access to dangerous weapons will rise. (Editing by Vicki Allen)

Premium Article ! Your account has been frozen. For your available options click the below button. Options Premium Article ! To read this article i

By Sarah Freeman

John Bailey is not a natural diplomat.

As careful negotiations were continuing to secure the safe release of the crew of the hijacked Sirius Star, the Hornsea mariner's own suggestion for dealing with the growing problem of piracy is rather more blunt.

"You don't stop pirates by talking to them," he says with the kind of pragmatism which comes after decades at sea. "You stop them by aiming guns at them."

Still he should know. Seven years ago, Bailey was marine supervisor on board an elderly tanker in waters near Sierra Leone when he was woken in the early hours by the sound of machine guns being cocked outside his cabin door.

Less experienced seamen might have pulled the covers over their head and prayed for divine intervention, but Bailey, then 52, instinctively grabbed the gun beside his bed and jumped into action. He didn't even bother getting dressed.

The 10-strong pirate gang had already overpowered one officer, but confronted by the naked Yorkshireman armed with a pump-action shotgun, their plans to make off with the ship's cargo of cash began to unravel.

"While we were taken by surprise, we always knew there was a possibility of a pirate attack," says the 60-year-old veteran of African waters. "The tanker was an off-shore fuel station for fishing boats so we had a lot of money on board, but the Russian crew were pretty lax when it came to security.

"When I woke up, the pirates were already trying to force their way into the captain's cabin and I came face to face with one of them, who tried to fire his Kalashnikov. Thankfully, it jammed and it gave me a few seconds to retaliate. As I fired my own gun, he tried to escape leaving behind a trail of blood.

"It was very dark, but we could see the gang's boat near to our ship. We couldn't see anyone on it, but I fired two magazines in its direction and it drifted off into the dark. It's something I'll never forget, but it didn't leave me feeling particularly traumatised."

While Bailey's encounter with pirates seems like a particularly dramatic boy's own adventure, increasing numbers of ships are being targeted by armed gangs in search of easy pickings.

So far this year, nine crew members have been killed in pirate attacks, the same number are missing, presumed dead, and 581 have been taken hostage. With a third of all ambushes taking place in the sea near Somalia, the African coast has become a piracy hotspot and the International Maritime Bureau now estimate that more than 1,200 Somalis and at least six major groups are involved.

It is a lucrative business. The ransom paid to gangs has risen from $10,000 to $1m in recent years and the higher stakes have brought ever more audacious attacks.

"Piracy may have now come to the public's attention now, but it's always been a problem in that part of the world," says Bailey. "It started small-scale, but because ship owners are reluctant to take direct action it has escalated. Companies have to abide by
so many health and safety regulations and much of the shipping industry now views on- board protection teams as too much of a potential risk.

"The general advice from the coastguard is always not to antagonise pirates. Gangs know that nine times out of 10 their demands will be met and there is absolutely no deterrent. Until piracy stops being easy money, they will continue to take ship after ship."

Currently, 10 other vessels and 250 crew members are thought to be in the hands of pirates and this week an Indian navy warship destroyed a suspect boat after it came under fire in the Gulf of Aden. In wake of an increasing number of incidents, some shipping owners have installed electrified fencing and satellite tracking, but neither would have provided adequate defence against the gang, armed with an anti-tank rocket launcher and grenades, who attacked the Sirius Star.

The hijack of the tanker, carrying some £67m of oil, some 420 nautical miles from the shore was also a departure from the norm. Piracy has tended to be concentrated nearer to the coastlines, but with the increasingly well armed, well-funded and well-organised operations casting their nets ever wider, detection is proving difficult.

"A few years ago, if you were anchored near to a coast you knew the situation was potentially dodgy," says Bailey. "But now ships are being targeted when they are miles away at sea. Ship owners are paying thousands of pounds to these criminals, because they think there's no other option. They are prepared to write off ransom demands against the value of the cargo, but it's just crazy.

"Patrols can only do so much, but the truth is it's easy to defend a ship against robbers. It would cost virtually nothing to have a protection team on board and if these gangs thought they might end up on the wrong end of two or three ex-Army guys they might actually think twice about doing it.

"Historically, merchant ships were always armed, but now they don't have the facilities to defend themselves and the gangs are winning. These pirates aren't straight out of a children's book, they are nasty pieces of work."

Bailey's run-in with pirates, who it later emerged were ex-rebel soldiers from Sierra Leone, wasn't the first or last time he would face dangers at sea. Three years earlier, when a rebellion of renegade soldiers attempted to topple the government of Guinea Bissau, near Senegal, he took his cargo ship to rescue the United States Ambassador and her staff from the former Portuguese colony.

More recently he has been working in fishing protection, tracking down the boats responsible for over-fishing in the West African seas.

"It's a massive problem," he says. "They're wiping out entire stocks of tuna and small fish and our job is to identify illegal operations and arrest them. Of course they don't like being told what to do, but we are there to do a job."

Bailey is currently on terra firma, enjoying a break at his Hornsea home, but he plans to be back on the water after Christmas.

"At some point I'll slow down," he says, acknowledging his 60th birthday just a few months away. "But just not yet.

TOLL OF THE MODERN PIRATES

Warships from at least nine countries are patrolling the Indian Ocean and the Gulf of Aden on the lookout for pirates, but many believe their presence has only shifted the problem further out to sea.

Piracy is estimated to have cost the world an estimated $60m-$70m this year alone.

It has become a particular problem in Somalia where after 17 years of non-stop conflict, almost half the population needs food aid.

Following the capture of the Sirius Star, a Hong Kong cargo ship carrying 36,000 tonnes of wheat bound for Iran also fell victim to pirates.

In April, a Japanese oil tanker was hit by rocket-propelled grenades and Iranian carrier was chased for 30 minutes by a machine-gun wielding gang in a speed boat.

US seeks 300 billion dlrs from Gulf states: report

KUWAIT CITY (AFP) – The United States has asked four oil-rich Gulf states for close to 300 billion dollars to help it curb the global financial meltdown, Kuwait's daily Al-Seyassah reported Thursday.

Quoting "highly informed" sources, the daily said Washington has asked Saudi Arabia for 120 billion dollars, the United Arab Emirates for 70 billion dollars, Qatar for 60 billion dollars and was seeking 40 billion dollars from Kuwait.

Al-Seyassah said Washington sought the amount as "financial aid" to face the fallout of the financial crisis and help prevent its economy from sliding into a painful recession.

The daily said the United States plans to use the funds to help the ailing automobile industry , banks and other companies suffering from the global financial turmoil.

The four nations, all members of OPEC, produce together 14 million barrels of oil per day, around half of the cartel's production and about 17 percent of world supplies.

The four states are estimated to have amassed close to 1.5 trillion dollars in surplus in the past six years due to high oil prices that rocketed above 147 dollars in July before sliding to just above 50 dollars.

The daily also said that the United States has asked Kuwait to forgive its Iraqi debt estimated at around 16 billion dollars.

Stealth Jihad: The War Within Our Borders

By Erick Stackelbeck

The media regularly reports about the danger to America from Islamic terrorists. But what about potential threats from inside this country?

Radical Muslims are looking for ways to bring sharia law to the United States.

Watch Low Band

Are Muslims in America victims of Islamophobia? Warnings from the Council on American-Islamic Relations seem to suggest just that.

CAIR claims to be the nation's leading Muslim civil rights group. But the group's critics say it's focused more on making Islam a dominant force than with fighting bigotry.

In a 1998, CAIR founder Omar Ahmad told the San Ramon Valley Herald, "Islam isn't in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant. The Koran should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on Earth."

Others point to a 1991 memo by the radical Muslim Brotherhood challenging American Islamic groups.

The memorandum, presented as evidence during a terrorism trial last year, reads that these Muslim groups "must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the western civilization from within and 'sabotaging' its miserable house by their hands" until Islam reigns supreme."

For radical Muslims, that means pushing an aggressive, pro-Islam agenda that's been increasingly successful in recent years: Muslim cab drivers in Minneapolis refuse to carry passengers who have alcohol in their possession. Public schools schedule prayer breaks to accommodate Muslim students. Pork is banned in the workplace - the list goes on.

Islam expert Robert Spencer says Americans have caved in to such demands far too often. His new book, The Stealth Jihad, describes the non-violent war being waged by radical Muslims against American society.

Denver a terror risk?

by Peter Marcus

Report: 1.7M vulnerable if chemical plant attacked

More than 1.7 million people in the Denver area could be at risk if an area chemical facility were to be attacked by terrorists, states a report released this week by the Center for American Progress.

In addition to 100 other “most dangerous chemical facilities” around the nation, Denver’s KIK Denver, Inc., part of Ontario, Canada-based KIK International, Inc., is highlighted as a chemical plant that could bring the region a worst-case toxic gas cloud if it were to be targeted by terrorists. The plant produces bleach by using chlorine gas at its facility located at 4941 East 39th Ave., which requires bulk shipments, according to the report.

The report identifies alternatives for each chemical plant across the nation, each of which threatens at least 1 million people if they were to be attacked by terrorists. In the case of KIK Denver, the Center for American Progress recommends producing bleach on-site from salt and electricity without shipping or storing chlorine gas. The liberal policy group hired a chemical safety consultant for the report.

“Adopting safer chemicals is the only certain way to protect American communities from a toxic gas release,” said Paul Orum, chemical safety consultant. “Site security cannot assure protection against a concerted attack, insider sabotage, or catastrophic release. Replacing hazardous chemicals with safer alternatives removes the danger.”

Calls to KIK Denver by the Denver Daily News went unreturned yesterday. If the plant follows-up, the Denver Daily News will print its response.

Since 1994, KIK Denver has made great strides in the number of toxic chemicals released into the environment, according to the Toxics Release Inventory Program of the Environmental Protection Agency. In fact, from 1991-2002 chlorine releases have decreased by 34 percent. The facility is ranked by the EPA as one of the “cleanest/best facilities in the U.S.”

Meanwhile, the Department of Homeland Security warns that terrorists could use chemical plants as improvised weapons of mass destruction. There are concerns, however, that security standards developed within the last two years at chemical facilities only focus on “physical measures” like adding gates and guards. The measures do not completely protect against an internal attack, or catastrophic release, states the report.

“So far we have been unwilling to address this threat in a serious way,” states P.J. Crowley, director of national defense and homeland security at the Center for American Progress. “We must move beyond our current focus on site security.”

Converting to alternative chemicals and processes would increase the safety of as many as 80 million Americans living near chemical plants, states the report. Millions more living near railroads and highways used for transporting chemicals would also be safer.

“Millions of people remain unnecessarily vulnerable to toxic terrorism,” said Reece Rushing, director of regulatory and information policy at the Center for American Progress. “This report shows that substantial safety and security improvements are possible and affordable.”

Northrop sees defense spending steady in near term

By Andrea Shalal-Esa

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Northrop Grumman Corp Chief Executive Ron Sugar on Wednesday said U.S. defense spending would likely remain steady for the next few years, but significant changes might occur in fiscal 2011 and 2012, depending on the priorities of the Obama administration.

Given ongoing security threats and the way U.S. defense programs are structured, Sugar said he does not expect any "dramatic reductions" in major weapons programs.

"Nobody has a crystal ball. You may see some rearrangements of what's emphasized and what's not emphasized, but the way this system works, the next couple years are pretty well understood," Sugar said in webcast remarks to a New York conference sponsored by Aviation Week and Credit Suisse.

"There can be significant deviations in the '11, '12 period, depending on what the administration and the Congress decide to do," Sugar said.

He said Northrop is well positioned in areas that should do well in any readjustment of defense priorities, including unmanned aerial vehicles, a sector which he said is expected to grow substantially in coming years.

Another promising area is cybersecurity, Sugar said, citing mounting evidence that many countries are developing cyberwarfare capabilities, and that U.S. industry and government are facing numerous attempted attacks already.

Sugar said new business in the cybersecurity sector could amount to "billions and billions" of dollars of orders, but some of the work would be classified.

"It will be significant. It will be a piece that is growing faster than the other accounts," he said.

Shipbuilding should be steady, but the company is working hard to improve its profitability and margins in that area.

Information technology should remain stable in the defense and intelligence sectors, but state and local work will probably weaken, given the overall economic crisis, he said.

Asked about possible missile defense cuts, Sugar said only about $1 billion of his company's annual revenues come from there, and he does not expect the new administration to make wholesale cuts in this area, especially given the very real and growing threat of missile attacks by enemy states.

Overall, he predicted cuts could amount to around $500 million to $1 billion from the current annual spending level of $8 billion to $9 billion on missile defense, Sugar said.

Sugar said Northrop had an order backlog valued at around $70 billion at the end of the third quarter, about half of which was not yet funded with signed contracts. But he said the company has been cautious about adding any orders to the backlog unless they were fairly certain.

One exception is about $1.5 billion in backlog from a $35 billion contract for new aerial refueling tankers that Northrop won last February. The Pentagon in September said it would cancel the deal and redo the tanker competition, but Northrop said its contract with the Air Force has still not been formally terminated.

Spokesman Randy Belote said the two sides continue to engage in discussions about the issue.

At issue is how much of a termination fee the Air Force would have to pay Northrop for canceling the contract.

(Reporting by Andrea Shalal-Esa, editing by Gerald E. McCormick)

Pentagon bans computer flash drives

By Lolita C. Baldor

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Pentagon has banned, at least temporarily, the use of external computer flash drives because of a virus threat officials detected on Defense Department networks.

While defense officials would not publicly confirm the ban, messages were sent to department employees informing them of the new restrictions. As part of the ban, the Pentagon was collecting any of the small flash drives that were purchased or provided by the department to workers, according to one message distributed to employees.

Workers are being told there is no guarantee they will ever get the devices back and it is not clear how long the ban will last.

Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman would provide no details on the virus Friday, but he described it as a "global virus" that has been the subject of public alerts.

"This is not solely a department problem, this is not solely a government problem," Whitman said.

The Pentagon has acknowledged that its vast computer network is scanned or probed by outsiders millions of times each day. Last year a cyber attack forced the Defense Department to take up to 1,500 computers off line.

Officials said then that a penetration of the system was detected, but the attack had no adverse impact on department operations.

However, military leaders have consistently warned of potential threats from a variety of sources including other countries -- such as China -- along with other self-styled cyber-vigilantes and terrorists.

The issue has also been of concern at the Department of Homeland Security. A September audit by the DHS Inspector General recommended that the agency implement greater procedures to ensure that only authorized computer flash drives or other storage devices can be connected to the network there and that an inventory of those devices be set up.

DHS agreed with the recommendations and said some of that is already being done. DHS also said more software enhancements are in the works that will provide more protection.

China 'using cyberwarfare to challenge US power'

By Richard Spencer

China is using cyberwarfare to challenge American power and distorting economic policy to exert political influence over other countries, according to a hostile congressional report.

The report accuses China of using its foreign exchange reserves, built up through "heavy-handed government control" to buy influence.

In one recent example, a government sovereign wealth fund agreed to use the reserves to loan money to Costa Rica in return for its dropping diplomatic recognition of China's rival, Taiwan.

Meanwhile, it has built up its army of cyber-spies to such an extent that it can launch attacks "anywhere in the world at any time".

The number of attacks on US government, defence companies and businesses rose by a third in 2007, to 43,880 incidents affecting five million computers, according to the claims by the US-China Economic and Security Review Commission.

Some were so sophisticated that they might be impossible to counteract, or even detect. Meanwhile, its space programme, targeted at what one Chinese military strategist called "America's soft ribs", was steadily increasing the vulnerability of US assets.

"China is intent on expanding its sphere of control even at the expense of its Asian neighbours and the United States," it said.

Pentagon and other Washington studies have accused China of using computer hacking to steal information and threaten disruption to both civil and defence services before, and particularly since an alleged co-ordinated attack in 2002, code-named by the US "Titan Rain", downloaded huge quantities of information.

The Chinese government vociferously denies being involved in such attacks.

But the current report comes at a time of great American unease that China will benefit from the global financial crisis to cut into its economic, political and even military dominance.

A separate US study published yesterday said that by 2025 America would probably have to share world leadership with India and China.

The increased attention given in the report to China's economic policy is another sign of that unease.

China has been accused of keeping its exchange rate too low, boosting its exports artificially and using the dollars it is forced to buy as a result of the policy to lend back to the United States, exacerbating the recent credit bubble.

"Rather than use this money for the benefit of its citizens – by funding pensions and erecting hospitals and schools, for example – China has been using the funds to seek political and economic influence over other nations," Larry Wortzel, the Commission chairman, said at the report's launch.

The regular publication of such reports over the last six years with cross-party backing – the committee consists of six Democrats and six Republicans – has not deterred President George W Bush from pursuing ever closer business and diplomatic relations with China, a policy set in place by his father, the first President Bush.

China is waiting anxiously to see whether an Obama presidency brings less hawkishness on international relations, or a more protectionist trade policy, which Beijing fears.

The commission called for legislation pressuring China to raise the value of its currency and to demand its main sovereign wealth fund, China Investment Corporation, disclose investments it is making in the United States.

"China appears far less likely than other nations to manage its sovereign wealth funds without regard to political influence that it can gain by offering such sizeable investments," the report said.

Is he or isn't he? The debate over Obama's eligibility

New feature focuses on birth certificate, the U.S. Constitution and doubts

TV newsgal-wannabe goes bonkers when fired

Terror financing runs wild in Saudi Arabia

(Compiler's note: A must read article)

Kingdom cracks down on violence at home, ignores help flowing to outside groups

Saudi Arabia is cracking down on extremist violence within its borders, but virtually ignoring terror recruitment and financing drives that are suspected of enabling violence around the rest of the world, according to a report from Joseph Farah's G2 Bulletin.

The revelation comes as Saudi Interior Minister Prince Nayef Bin Abdul Aziz complained that Saudi mosques were being used to recruit operatives for al-Qaida networks. But he has yet to curb either terrorist recruitment in Saudi Arabia or diminish Saudi assistance to terrorists outside the country.

Saudi officials acknowledge that devout Saudis who attend some of the nation's mosques are being targeted by Islamists for a range of operations. Nayef has fretted that Islamic clerics have failed to block the influence of al-Qaida in the mosques which he says serve as places of indoctrination and recruitment of what he describes as an extremist ideology.

"Intellectual security is by no means less important than public security," Nayef said.

In a recent seminar on intellectual security, Nayef was critical of the imams inside Saudi Arabia.

"Frankly speaking, I would like to say that the imams of mosques, with the exception of the two holy mosques, have not played their desired role," he said. "The more than 15,000 mosques in the country constitute the best forums for guidance, but the imams have failed miserably in discharging their duties."

He also urged Saudi universities to play more of a role in curbing Islamic extremism.

"Since universities are centers of research, it is their duty to study ways to root out ideas that distort religion and defame the nation," he added. "Universities should be capable of contributing to the service of the country and it is in line with the teaching of Islam, which urges its followers to benefit from fruits of learning."

Nayef went on to say that the Interior Ministry has made considerable strides in the war against al-Qaida in 2008 with the arrests of more than 700 suspected operatives and the foiling of a number of potentially mass-casualty strikes.

"We have proved to the world that the Saudi security forces are capable of confronting the challenges of the deviant ideology though the country was the main target of extremist plots," Nayef said.

But security experts point to a distinction between Saudi support to fight terrorism inside Saudi Arabia and outside the country.

Those security experts say while Nayef has been in the forefront in cracking down on terrorism within the kingdom, the Saudi leadership continues to work with charities whose funds are skimmed off for terrorist activities internationally.

This recently has been the case in Lebanon, where WND was told by sources that Saudi Prince Bandar bin Sultan, chief of the Saudi National Security Council, is helping to finance Sunnis whose militias are instigating fighting against the Shiite Alawite minority in northern Lebanon.

New Report Calls Nuclear Terrorism Risk Unacceptably High

from National Terror Alert Response Center

A new report says the world still faces a serious risk that terrorists could obtain a nuclear bomb and urges President-elect Barack Obama to make reducing that risk a top priority of U.S. security policy and diplomacy. VOA correspondent Meredith Buel has details from Washington.

The new report, called “Securing the Bomb 2008,” says major progress has been made to reduce the danger of nuclear terrorism.

The report warns, however, there are still major gaps in these efforts and says the risk of terrorists acquiring a nuclear weapon remains unacceptably high.

The author of the report, Harvard professor Matthew Bunn, says the potential for a disastrous attack is very real.

“That would incinerate the heart of a major city,” he said. “It could turn the center of Washington, D.C. or the center of Manhattan into a smoking, radioactive ruin that would be unusable for decades to come. That would have profound and catastrophic affects on our society, really reverberating around the world.”

The study is the seventh annual report from Harvard University’s Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs and was commissioned by the Nuclear Threat Initiative, a nonproliferation group based in Washington, D.C.

The report details a series of events around the world in recent years it says highlights the risk of poor security at nuclear installations.

These include an armed break-in at a South African site with hundreds of kilograms of highly enriched uranium, the arrest of a Russian colonel for soliciting bribes to overlook violations of nuclear security rules and the increasing terrorist threats amid the ongoing strife in Pakistan.

With All Eyes on Obama, Port of Los Angeles Security Under Control of Chinese President’s Son

(Compiler's note: Must read)

by Judi McLeod

With all eyes on the Big O’s Office of the President-elect, very few know that the Port of Los Angeles – the nation’s largest – is now effectively under the control of the Peoples Republic of China.

The Port has purchased with $1.7 million American tax dollars via a “port security grant” awarded by the U.S. Department of Homeland security, a mobile X-ray scanning system, mounted on a Mack Truck chassis. The scanning system is owned by Nuctech Company Limited, owned outright by Hu Haifeng, the son of Chinese President Hu Jintao.

Sated with their Obama victory, the mainstream media is asleep at the switch, but eagle eye Lou Dobbs is flagging the America public’s attention. See Dobbs on YouTube.

Communist China couldn’t be any closer to America aside from moving its Army right in. Touted as “sophisticated” and “high-energy”, the X-ray scanning machine was manufactured by Nuctech, headquartered in Beijing.

“The bid that included the Nuctech scanner, which was cheaper than rival bids submitted by Smiths Detection, a British company with offices in New Jersey, and Rapiscan Systems, of Torrance, CA, was formally submitted to the port by a small U.S.-based business headquartered in Rancho Palos Verdes, CA, known as DULY Research Inc.” (gsnmagazine.com, Oct. 16, 2008).

“We were cognizant of the fact that we were the first port to acquire this Chinese system,” said George Cummings, the port’s director of homeland security. “They were the low bidder and they complied with all the technical requirements.”

If Dobbs is worried, this latest potential breach in security doesn’t bother Cummings: “We don’t have any heartburn about this. We did all the due diligence we had to do. We took it to our board. We’re comfortable with this decision.”

Critics of the transaction, swallowed up by mainstream media focus on the recent presidential election, raise the specter of sensitive X-ray images and cargo manifests being archived on the X-ray scanning system and, perhaps, transmitted via the Internet back to Nuctech in China, or to the Chinese government. Indeed, the mobile system was required to offer that technical capability from the get-go.

The Nuctech set up makes for a more comfortable environment than the ongoing transfer of information passed on to China by industrial spies active in other areas on U.S. and Canadian soil.

Nuctech also conducts business in Iran, Cuba, Venezuela and Zimbabwe.

Setting itself apart from the mainstream media, HDMK, Strategy Communications, Media Public Affairs, an organization that has been engaged in hundreds of high profile public policy battles, is posing some hard-line questions:

Will Nuctech X-ray machines have any direct connection to the U.S. Department of Homeland security computer systems and are there any firewalls in place?

Has Nuctech retained Washington lobbyists to help ease the approval for this unprecedented expenditure of U.S. security funds, and if so, who are they?

Have United States Customs and Border Patrol officials visited Nutech in China to approve or to explore the prospect of purchasing equipment for other port security operations?

If so, who went to China, when?

“If there’s nothing to hide, why won’t Nuctech or DULY Research in Los Angeles (the winner of the contact for the Port of Los Angeles) talk to the media,” asks HDMK’s Trent D. Duffy.

Most significantly, will images taken by Nuctech X-ray machines be portable?

What are the personnel requirements needed to support the Nuctech X-ray machines in terms of operations, maintenance, performance checks, etc., in the Port of Los Angeles?

Have any of these individuals even undergone routine security screening?

Who paid for Port of Los Angeles officials to travel to China to visit Nuctech facilities?

It’s been two years since the Dubai Ports fiasco was last on the public radar screen. During the high profile Dubai Ports debacle, those who opposed the sale of American ports to Dubai, vowed that no foreign government would be permitted to acquire such strategic targets in future.

The Port of Los Angeles is not only one of them, it’s the biggest of the lot.

Got your earplugs turned on, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff?

Iran said to have enough nuclear fuel for one weapon

By William J. Broad and David E. Sanger

Iran has now produced roughly enough nuclear material to make, with added purification, a single atom bomb, according to nuclear experts analyzing the latest report from global atomic inspectors.

The figures detailing Iran's progress were contained in a routine update on Wednesday from the International Atomic Energy Agency, which has been conducting inspections of the country's main nuclear plant at Natanz. The report concluded that as of early this month, Iran had made 630 kilograms, or about 1,390 pounds, of low-enriched uranium.

Several experts said that was enough for a bomb, but they cautioned that the milestone was mostly symbolic, because Iran would have to take additional steps. Not only would it have to breach its international agreements and kick out the inspectors, but it would also have to further purify the fuel and put it into a warhead design — a technical advance that Western experts are unsure Iran has yet achieved.

"They clearly have enough material for a bomb," said Richard Garwin, a top nuclear physicist who helped invent the hydrogen bomb and has advised Washington for decades. "They know how to do the enrichment. Whether they know how to design a bomb, well, that's another matter."

Iran insists that it wants only to fuel reactors for nuclear power. But many Western nations, led by the United States, suspect that its real goal is to gain the ability to make nuclear weapons.

While some Iranian officials have threatened to bar inspectors in the past, the country has made no such moves, and many experts inside the Bush administration and the IAEA believe it will avoid the risk of attempting "nuclear breakout" until it possessed a larger uranium supply.

Even so, for President-elect Barack Obama, the report underscores the magnitude of the problem that he will inherit Jan. 20: an Iranian nuclear program that has not only solved many technical problems of uranium enrichment, but that can also now credibly claim to possess enough material to make a weapon if negotiations with Europe and the United States break down.

American intelligence agencies have said Iran could make a bomb between 2009 and 2015. A national intelligence estimate made public late last year concluded that around the end of 2003, after long effort, Iran had halted work on an actual weapon. But enriching uranium, and obtaining enough material to build a weapon, is considered the most difficult part of the process.

Siegfried Hecker of Stanford University and a former director of the Los Alamos weapons laboratory said the growing size of the Iranian stockpile "underscored that they are marching down the path to developing the nuclear weapons option."

In the report to its board, the atomic agency said Iran's main enrichment plant was now feeding uranium into about 3,800 centrifuges — machines that spin incredibly fast to enrich the element into nuclear fuel. That count is the same as in the agency's last quarterly report, in September. Iran began installing the centrifuges in early 2007. But the new report's total of 630 kilograms — an increase of about 150 — shows that Iran has been making progress in accumulating material to make nuclear fuel.

That uranium has been enriched to the low levels needed to fuel a nuclear reactor. To further purify it to the highly enriched state needed to fuel a nuclear warhead, Iran would have to reconfigure its centrifuges and do a couple months of additional processing, nuclear experts said.

"They have a weapon's worth," Thomas Cochran, a senior scientist in the nuclear program of the Natural Resources Defense Council, a private group in Washington that tracks atomic arsenals, said in an interview.

He said the amount was suitable for a relatively advanced implosion-type weapon like the one dropped on Nagasaki. Its core, he added, would be about the size of a grapefruit. He said a cruder design would require about twice as much weapon-grade fuel.

"It's a virtual milestone," Cochran said of Iran's stockpile. It is not an imminent threat, he added, because the further technical work to make fuel for a bomb would tip off inspectors, the United States and other powers about "where they're going."

The agency's report made no mention of the possible military implications of the size of Iran's stockpile. And some experts said the milestone was still months away. In an analysis of the IAEA report, the Institute for Science and International Security, a private group in Washington, estimated that Iran had not yet reached the mark but would "within a few months." It added that other analysts estimated it might take as much as a year.

Whatever the exact date, it added, "Iran is progressing" toward the ability to quickly make enough weapon-grade uranium for a warhead.

Peter Zimmerman, a physicist and former United States government arms scientist, cautioned that the Iranian stockpile fell slightly short of what international officials conservatively estimate as the minimum threatening amount of nuclear fuel. "They're very close," he said of the Iranians in an interview. "If it isn't tomorrow, it's soon," probably a matter of months.

In its report, the IAEA, which is based in Vienna, said Iran was working hard to roughly double its number of operating centrifuges.

A senior European diplomat close to the agency said Iran might have 6,000 centrifuges enriching uranium by the end of the year. The report also said Iran had said it intended to start installing another group of 3,000 centrifuges early next year.

The atomic energy agency said Iran was continuing to evade questions about its suspected work on nuclear warheads. In a separate report released Wednesday, the agency said, as expected, that it had found ambiguous traces of uranium at a suspected Syrian reactor site bombed by Israel last year.

"While it cannot be excluded that the building in question was intended for non-nuclear use," the report said, the building's features "along with the connectivity of the site to adequate pumping capacity of cooling water, are similar to what may be found in connection with a reactor site." Syria has said the uranium came from Israeli bombs.

Supremes to review Barack's citizenship

(Compiler's note: Must read)

By Bob Unruh

A case that challenges President-elect Barack Obama's name on the 2008 election ballot citing questions over his citizenship has been scheduled for a "conference" at the U.S. Supreme Court.

Conferences are private meetings of the justices at which they review cases and decide which ones to accept for formal review. This case is set for a conference Dec. 5, just 10 days before the Electoral College is scheduled to meet to make formal the election of Obama as the nation's next president.

The Supreme Court's website listed the date for the case brought by Leo C. Donofrio against Nina Wells, the secretary of state in New Jersey, over not only Obama's name on the 2008 election ballot but those of two others, Sen. John McCain and Roger Calero.

The case, unsuccessful at the state level, had been submitted to Justice David Souter, who rejected it. The case then was resubmitted to Justice Clarence Thomas. The next line on the court's docket says: "DISTRIBUTED for Conference of December 5, 2008."

If four of the nine justices vote to hear the case in full, oral argument may be scheduled.

The action questions whether any of the three candidates is qualified under the U.S. Constitution's requirement that a president be a "natural-born citizen."

According to America's Right blogger Jeff Schreiber, there also was a development in a second case presented to the Supreme Court on the same issue.

His report said the Federal Election Commission now has waived its right to respond to a complaint brought by attorney Philip Berg.

"There are a number of reasons why the respondents here would choose not to respond. First, because the court only grants between 70 and 120 of the 8,000 or so petitions it receives every year, perhaps they just liked their odds of Berg's petition getting denied. Second, because they have made arguments as to Berg's lack of standing several times at the district court level and beyond, perhaps they felt as though any arguments had already been made and were available on the record. Or, perhaps the waiver shows that the FEC and other respondents do not take seriously the allegations put forth by Berg, and did not wish to legitimize the claims with a response," the blogger speculated.

"Another thing which is not completely clear is whether the FEC is filing for itself or on behalf of all respondents," he added.

"If it were just the FEC filing the waiver, I must say that I'm surprised," Berg told America's Right. "I'm surprised because I think they should take the position that the Supreme Court should grant standing to us. I think they have a responsibility not only to Phil Berg, but to all citizens of this country, to put forth a sense of balance which otherwise doesn't seem to exist.

"However, if this was filed by the FEC on behalf of the DNC and Barack Obama too, it reeks of collusion," he said, noting that the attorney from the Solicitor General's office should be representing federal respondents and not the DNC or Obama.

But he noted that "questions surrounding this aspect of Obama's candidacy are seemingly beginning to see the light of day."

Just last week, WND reported on worries over a "constitutional crisis" that could be looming over the issue of Obama's citizenship.

Former presidential candidate Alan Keyes and others filed a court petition in California asking the secretary of state to refuse to allow the state's 55 Electoral College votes to be cast in the 2008 presidential election until Obama verifies his eligibility to hold the office.

Alan Keyes

The disputes all cite "natural-born citizen" requirement set by the U.S. Constitution.

WND senior reporter Jerome Corsi even traveled to Kenya and Hawaii prior to the election to investigate issues surrounding Obama's birth. But his research and discoveries only raised more questions.

The biggest question is why Obama, if a Hawaii birth certificate exists as his campaign has stated, simply hasn't ordered it made available to settle the rumors.

The governor's office in Hawaii said there is a valid certificate but rejected requests for access and left ambiguous its origin: Does the certificate on file with the Department of Health indicate a Hawaii birth or was it generated after the Obama family registered a Kenyan birth in Hawaii?

Obama's half-sister, Maya Soetoro, has named two different Hawaii hospitals where Obama could have been born. There have been other allegations that Obama actually was born in Kenya during a time when his father was a British subject.

The California action was filed by Gary Kreep of the United States Justice Foundation on behalf of Keyes, the presidential candidate of the American Independent Party, along with Wiley S. Drake and Markham Robinson, both California electors.

"Should Senator Obama be discovered, after he takes office, to be ineligible for the Office of President of the United States of America and, thereby, his election declared void, Petitioners, as well as other Americans, will suffer irreparable harm in that (a) usurper will be sitting as the President of the United States, and none of the treaties, laws, or executive orders signed by him will be valid or legal," the action challenges.

An Obama spokesman interviewed by WND described such lawsuits as "garbage."

The popular vote Nov. 4 favored Obama over Sen. John McCain by several percentage points. But because of the distribution of the votes, Obama is projected to take the Electoral College vote, when it is held in December, by a 2-to-1 margin.

The California case states, "There is a reasonable and common expectation by the voters that to qualify for the ballot, the individuals running for office

must meet minimum qualifications as outlined in the federal and state Constitutions and statutes, and that compliance with those minimum qualifications has been confirmed by the officials overseeing the election process," the complaint said, when in fact the only documentation currently required is a signed statement from the candidate attesting to those qualifications.

"Since [the secretary of state] has, as its core, the mission of certifying and establishing the validity of the election process, this writ seeks a Court Order barring SOS from certifying the California Electors until documentary proof that Senator Obama is a 'natural born' citizen of the United States of America is received by her," the document said.

"This proof could include items such as his original birth certificate, showing the name of the hospital and the name and the signature of the doctor, all of his passports with immigration stamps, and verification from the governments where the candidate has resided, verifying that he did not, and does not, hold citizenship of these countries, and any other documents that certify an individual’s citizenship and/or qualification for office.

The "certificate of live birth" posted by the Obama campaign cannot be viewed as authoritative, the case alleges.

"Hawaii Revised Statute 338-178 allows registration of birth in Hawaii for a child that was born outside of Hawaii to parents who, for a year preceding the child’s birth, claimed Hawaii as their place of residence," the document said. "The only way to know where Senator Obama was actually born is to view Senator Obama's original birth certificate from 1961 that shows the name of the hospital and the name and signature of the doctor that delivered him."

The case also raises the circumstances of Obama's time during his youth in Indonesia, where he was listed as having Indonesian citizenship. Indonesia does not allow dual citizenship, raising the possibility of Obama's mother having given up his U.S. citizenship.

Any subsequent U.S. citizenship then, the case claims, would be "naturalized," not "natural-born."

WND has reported other challenges that have been raised in Ohio, Connecticut, Washington, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Georgia and Hawaii.