If crocodile tears were combustible, the Democrats could solve our energy problem tomorrow. While campaigning in New Hampshire recently, John Edwards bemoaned that “people are worried and concerned and, in some cases, having to choose between paying their rent, paying for food, or paying to keep their place warm.”

He made this statement while announcing his plan to reduce energy costs, one facet of which is to release some of our government’s strategic petroleum reserves. This idea has also been floated by his rival, Sen. Hillary Clinton, and many others in their party.

The striking thing about the suggestion is that it is a recognition that an increase in the available supply of oil would mitigate the increase in the cost. To most people, this is taken as axiomatic, being one of the laws of supply and demand. To Democrats, however, it’s something of a novel concept. Before they fully embrace the idea, they might want to appoint a blue ribbon commission to study it, and issue an interim report sometime in 2011.

Where they’ve gone astray is in that the economic effect of what they’re advocating would be negligible. The most recent drawdown of our government’s strategic petroleum reserves, in response to Hurricane Katrina, was in the amount of 20.8 million barrels. By comparison, the Department of the Interior estimates that the Alaskan National Wildlife Reserve would produce 1.4 million barrels per day, or 511 million annually.

Regardless of all the alternative fuel pipe dreams that have been proposed, increased domestic oil production is the surest way to produce large quantities of energy that can’t be shut off by hostile foreign governments. Compared to that, the effect of releasing the strategic reserves would be like spitting in the ocean.

Yet the Democrats, along with a handful of liberal Republicans, have repeatedly obstructed President Bush’s efforts to allow new oil exploration in ANWR, offshore on both coasts, and in the Gulf of Mexico. Instead, they demand that he release a comparatively miniscule amount of oil that has been put aside in case of emergency, and if he doesn’t, they’ll blame him for the high energy costs they’ve helped to create.

Since Edwards recognizes the benefit to the American people of increasing the oil supply, and won’t agree to increase the supply by any perceptible amount in the long term, then whatever concern he has for struggling homeowners must not rank as highly among his priorities as he pretends.

The most obvious reason why Edwards and his fellow Democrats will not ease the burden on energy consumers is that they don’t want to cross the environmental lobby. What makes it hard to accept their environmental concerns at face value is that, despite their characterization of oil as a global threat, their demands and protests stop at America’s borders.

Upon announcing a major oil strike off the coast of Brazil, that country’s socialist president, Luiz Ignacio Lula da Silva, cited the news as proof that “God is Brazilian.” Imagine the uproar, both internationally and from the Democratic Party, if Bush ever declared God to be American, because he had blessed our country with an abundance of oil. Edwards and friends would throw the word “hubris” around so much that they’d wear the handle off the “h”.

Likewise, Mexico isn’t accused of “destroying the planet” for drilling in its part of the Gulf, or Canada for drilling in its barren Arctic wasteland. This selective nature of the environmentalists’ outrage does not give the Democrats pause, however, to reconsider the validity of their condemnations of the United States. Instead, they accept as an article of faith that only the drilling that takes place within the U.S. and its waters is a potential cause of global destruction.

The Democrats are helping to drive up the costs of gasoline and home heating oil not because they’re concerned about the environment, but because they’re concerned about being concerned about it. They’ve chosen sides between Edwards’ “two Americas,” and they’ve taken the side of the limousine liberals over that of the “little guy” to whom he pays so much lip service. Sure, they could alleviate the pressure that energy prices put on American familes’ budgets, but what would Leonardo DiCaprio think of them?
Whatever else the Democrats propose, until they agree to use the laws of oil supply and demand to our advantage, they resign their constituents to unnecessarily high energy prices. As long as that’s the case, the least they can do is to cap their bottomless supply of phony compassion.

-By Warner Todd Huston

The AP has used the somewhat heartwarming tale of an illegal alien who found an American boy and his mother suffering from a car accident in the Arizona desert and stayed with them until help arrived as an excuse to plead that illegals aren’t “criminals” and should somehow be given a break. The AP tried to pin this wild leap in logic on Santa Cruz County Sheriff Tony Estrada, but they offer no quote marks around the sentence, so it is hard to say if the Sheriff really said that or the AP was extrapolating and putting words in the Sheriff’s mouth. Still, that this one illegal did something morally right even while he was breaking our laws, does not erase all the illegalities and law breaking that every other illegal immigrant has done over the last 30 years. Nor does it erase the fact that this particular illegal was breaking the law even as he was nice enough to help the little boy and his mother.

Here is the tale:

PHOENIX (AP) — A 9-year-old boy looking for help after his mother crashed their van in the southern Arizona desert was rescued by a man entering the U.S. illegally, who stayed with him until help arrived the next day, an official said.

The 45-year-old woman, who eventually died while awaiting help, had been driving on a U.S. Forest Service road in a remote area just north of the Mexican border when she lost control of her van on a curve on Thanksgiving, Sheriff Tony Estrada said.

The van vaulted into a canyon and landed 300 feet from the road, he said. The woman, from Rimrock, north of Phoenix, survived the impact but was pinned inside, Estrada said.

Her son, unhurt but disoriented, crawled out to get help and was found about two hours later by Jesus Manuel Cordova, 26, of Magdalena de Kino in the northern Mexican state of Sonora. Unable to pull the mother out, he comforted the boy while they waited for help.

As night came on, Mr. Cordova built a fire to keep them warm and stayed with the boy until a couple of hunters spotted them and called for help. Cordova was taken into custody by Border Patrol agents and slated for return to his country.

OK, it was nice that Mr. Cordova had that pang of conscience enough to stay by this helpless child. It is possible he saved the boy’s life, and if he didn’t really save his life he certainly comforted the poor, scared kid through the trauma which may or may not have made the whole mess less of a trauma on him. For that Mr. Cordova deserves warm congratulations for his efforts and the knowledge that he did the right thing by the child.

But he doesn’t deserve a free pass into our country.

Here is how the AP ends their story (My Bold):

Cordova likely saved the boy, Estrada said, and his actions should remind people not to quickly characterize illegal immigrants as criminals.

“They do get demonized for a lot of reasons, and they do a lot of good. Obviously this is one example of what an individual can do,” he said.

Notice that they do not have quote marks around the words they attribute to Sheriff Estrada in the first sentence, there? The sentiment that illegals aren’t “criminals” is hard to square coming out of the mouth of a man tasked with upholding American laws via the office of county sheriff, isn’t it? If Sheriff Estrada really feels this way, it would seem to me that he is violating his oath of office at least in sentiment if not in actual operations. Still, since the AP did not use any quote marks, we cannot with any certainty say that Sheriff Estrada thinks illegals are all innocents, here. And with the track record of the AP, with its history of lies and obfuscating the truth, we cannot assume that they are actually presenting Estrada’s sentiments correctly. So, excuse me if I do not take for granted the AP’s claim that Sheriff Estrada said that illegals aren’t criminals.

After all, good people individually or no, illegals ARE criminals. You break a law and you ARE a criminal.

Further the sentence they do place quote marks around is not really the same sentiment as that in the unattributed sentence, exactly. Estrada says that illegals get “demonized.” I can agree with that. Sometimes anti-illegal immigrant activists get a bit carried away with how supposedly evil illegal immigrants really are. A dispassionate review of this issue can easily agree that illegals are sometimes overly “demonized.” Then the Sheriff says they “do a lot of good.” No one is saying all they do is necessarily bad, you know? Illegally immigrating here is the bad thing, but it does not follow that all illegal immigrants are somehow bad people because of it. But, like I said, even if they are basically good people, that inherent goodness does not absolve them of their lawbreaking.

So, I have suspicions that the AP might have exaggerated our good Sheriff’s words a bit. I have sent a query to the Sheriff’s dept. to see if they will respond and if I get an answer, I’ll post an update. But, even if the Sheriff agrees with the APs characterization of his words, Mr. Cordova was a nice guy — that is beyond dispute and no one should quibble with that. But, he still does not deserve to enter our country illegally solely because he was a nice fellow!

This treatment, however, so easily fits the leftist playbook that guides the APs writing. You see, in that vein of thinking, it doesn’t matter that laws were broken. And it’s all because he “meant well.” For the left, the ends always justifies the means.

Usually Hillary Clinton keeps her dagger stare under wraps. But this past Monday CBS News anchor Katie Couric talked to Hillary Clinton about the tightening race for the Democratic nomination.

It’s a timeless story, The Boy who cried Wolf, one I can remember reading many times as a young child perusing Aesop’s Fables long past my bedtime, while the rest of the house was sleeping. It’s a simple moral, “There is no believing a liar, even when he speaks the truth.” My love of these fables had an enduring effect; imprinting their many lessons on the direction my life has taken. Of late, it has occurred to me that many people are employing this moral to the yellow journalism that has graced the pages of our nation’s newspapers, the hyperbole which has escaped the mouths of our nation’s politicians and to the manipulation of statistics by special interest groups to draw attention to their causes.As I read the Reuters headlines today on my Verizon LG mobile phone, my skeptical side emerged in full force. “More than ¼ of US Birds Threatened: Report…global warming may be partially to blame”, yeah, right; “Bush vows active U.S. role for Mideast peace”, where have I heard that before?; “Cuddly Croc forces passenger off flight”, sounds like “Snakes on a Plane.” I rarely clicked to read the entire item, mentally deleting anything that didn’t sound like there was any substance to it. Every once in awhile I delved further, “Keep your shoes on: T-rays can see right through.” Hmm, that could truly be a breakthrough for medical science but I wouldn’t want airport security aiming that at my breasts.

How can one human being determine what is real and what is not? Who should a person believe? When is something really a crisis that needs to be addressed? What is a reasonable course of action? With all these roadblocks to simple, unedited facts, why (if I can borrow an overused colloquialism dating to the l980’s) wouldn’t our nation’s people be disillusioned and want to cocoon? For many, this is the path they choose, but for others who are trying to do the right thing and fulfill their civic responsibility, it is difficult to navigate through the b*#sh%t and make an informed decision. It is unlikely that they are analyzing both conservative and liberal sources of what is happening in the world and unreasonable to expect them to spend hours of their free time collecting news from around the world. No, for a great many people, they rely on a half hour broadcast which might spend 15 minutes of that time on Hollywood celebrities and sports figures. They will walk away comforted in the knowledge that they have been privy to “all the news worth knowing.” However, there are many stories to which they will never be exposed.

I contrasted this experience to the experience I have when I read some of the new media columnists employing the researched opinion on which I’ve come to rely for my news. Many of my new media colleagues provide historical backgrounds, links to first source materials, and line up the facts on which they provide their informed opinions. I’ve come to trust many of these writers to do the research on issues which demand our attention and I feel more confident as a writer employing these same methods that I am providing a much needed service to those of us who want to advocate responsibly and vote on the most important issues, not the “sparkly things” which evoke an emotional response but detract from what is important.

I’m beginning to have an epiphany about why so many people are drawn to stories about Brittany Spears, Paris Hilton, O.J. Simpson, or Anna Nicole Smith. What these folks have in common is that people get to watch their situations played out on television, analyzed by experts, and can come to their own conclusions about what is happening based on all of the information that’s available. In a sense, they can become experts themselves on the events as they unfold. Contrast that with the one sided coverage of global warming, the Iraq War, or immigration presented in the mainstream, where debate about the issues is not encouraged. Folks eventually figure out that doomsday scenarios such as another Ice Age, over population, and ozone holes are eventually discredited, deforestation might have prevented forest fires, and the Spotted Owl as it become more plentiful was saved only to be eaten by another Owl, and may be threatened with extinction now more than ever.

Many people have concluded that all newspapers, politicians, and talking heads are agenda driven and not to be trusted, becoming apathetic and tuning out everyone and everything that is not within their immediate vicinity and doesn’t affect their lives directly. This has put our country and everything it stands for in jeopardy. Our Constitution depends on an active, responsible, citizenry who are willing to participate in their own self governance. By abdicating their responsibility, they are giving others, who are not necessarily more informed, considerably more power to influence over our government. Some of these people are suggesting that our present administration has cried wolf over the threat of terrorism, our porous borders, and that our country deserves to be vilified by the rest of the world. I would argue that history does not support this conclusion. I challenge our nation’s citizens to do their homework by researching the issues and reading the opinions of experts who argue with the end goal of discovering the truth. Demand nothing less of those who provide us our news. Finally, understand that someone is telling the truth but no one is listening.

“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.” – Congressional Oath of Office

One of the greatest responsibilities bestowed upon elected officials is that of constitutional stewardship. While each elected official has a duty to represent his constituents in a faithful manner, each swears an oath to support and defend the Constitution. We, the citizens of this Republic, through democratic elections, entrust this responsibility to those we elect and expect them to abide by the tenets mandated by the Constitution and to honor their oath to preserve it for future generations. Few have executed that oath more fully than Congressman Henry J. Hyde of Illinois.Politics in the United States circa 2000 has evolved into what can be legitimately described as a cauldron of special interest narcissism. More often than not, those elected to office are more committed to their political parties and personal political well-being than they are to faithfully representing their constituencies. Because of this manipulation, the massaging of the truth – political spinning – has become acceptable; it has become status quo. While every elected official condemns the manipulation of truth in the political arena very few actually disassociate themselves from the practice. Where, it is said, there is honor among thieves, it would seem that there is little, if any, among America’s political class.

On November 5, 2007, Congressman Henry J. Hyde was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the highest honor a president can bestow upon an American citizen. On November 29, 2007 this American patriot passed away.The United States and we, her citizens, have lost not only a statesman and a political intellectual, but someone who put love of country and the well-being of our Constitution ahead of political self-interest and party loyalty. We have lost an American champion and patriot and we are less for it. Personally, my family has lost a friend and I am very sad for that fact.

Related Reading/Viewing:Congressional Oath of Office
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode05/usc_sec_05_00003331—-000-.html Former Illinois Congressman Henry Hyde’s Last Public Appearance

http://www.chicagotribune.com/video/?clipid=1899472&topVideoCatNo=117978&c Henry J. Hyde, Biographical Directory of the US Congress
http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=H001022

Frank Salvato is the Executive Director and Director of Terrorism Research for Basics Project a non-profit, non-partisan, 501(C)(3) research and education initiative. His writing has been recognized by the US House International Relations Committee and the Japan Center for Conflict Prevention. His organization, Basics Project, partnered in producing the first ever national symposium series addressing the root causes of radical Islamist terrorism. He also serves as the managing editor for The New Media Journal. Mr. Salvato has appeared on The O’Reilly Factor on FOX News Channel and is the host of the NMJ Radio show broadcast global on NetTalkWorld global talk radio and broadcast live on BlogTalk Radio. He is a regular guest on The Right Balance with Greg Allen on the Accent Radio Network, syndicated on over 25 stations nationally and on The Captain’s America Radio Show catering to the US Armed Forces around the world, as well as an occasional guests on radio programs across the country. His opinion-editorials are syndicated nationally and he is occasionally quoted in The Federalist. Mr. Salvato is available for public speaking engagements. He can be contacted at newmediajournal@comcast.net.

I am always amused to hear baby boomers applaud themselves for being so much more in touch with their sexuality than were their parents. For them, prior generations were uptight prudes that just didn’t know how to get their groove on. Seemingly lost on these free spirits is that the “boom” in baby-boom came from someplace. As much as we might like to think that sex and eroticism is our exclusive province, the truth is that sex, lust and fun has not changed all that much throughout the ages.

The CNN YouTube debate was a sham with planted Democrat operatives posing as “spontaneous” YouTube questioners — one of them being an official Hillary Campaign operative — and a post debate coverage full of apologies and further spin against the candidates all of which ended up being a showcase for CNN’s leftism placed on full display. It isn’t called the Clinton News Network for nuthin’ it appears.

In one instance with the post debate coverage, not only does CNN try their best to muddy Fred Thompson’s stance on the Confederate flag but to accompany the piece they use a picture that makes the candidate look ashamed of himself or pensive, cementing the fact that CNN is trying their best to flavor Thompson’s flag stance as a “bad” thing for him. This is one of the most manipulative articles I’ve seen this election cycle thus far, shameful for its slant and subtle enough that many won’t recognize it for the anti-Thompson spin that it truly is. But, in many ways, this CNN presentation is a perfect example of the sort of spin that CNN specializes in making the lie to their claims of being purveyors of “news.” They are, instead, purveyors of spin designed to harm GOP candidates — in this case Thompson.

In the entry titled, “Romney, Thompson criticize Confederate flag,” this particular piece on the Political Ticker section of CNN’s website fashions itself as a claim that both Mitt Romney and Fred Thompson “criticized” the Confederate flag during the YouTube, BoobTube debate on Tuesday evening. However, Romney is barely mentioned in the body of the piece with the focus being mostly on Fred Thompson. And, in that focus, CNN distorts Thompson’s position badly.

They begin with Thompson’s initial reply to the YouTuber who asked the question about where the candidates stood on the flag issue.

But Thompson added that, “as far as a public place is concerned, I am glad that people have made the decision not to display it as a prominent flag, symbolic of something, at a state capitol.”

But the Confederate flag in South Carolina’s state capital is in a very public place — located on the Statehouse grounds along Gervais Street in Columbia, next to the Confederate Soldier Monument.

CNN then goes on to remind us that, “On Nov. 6, Thompson held a campaign event on the Statehouse grounds, just yards from the flag.”

CNN is clearly trying to make it seem as if Thompson didn’t know that the Confederate flag does fly in a “public” place at the South Carolina state capitol. Thompson clarified to CNN that the memorial over which the CS flag flutters there is acceptable as far as he is concerned.

Thompson said Wednesday that using the flag in the context of a memorial — as it is used in Columbia — is acceptable.

“As a part of a group of flags or something of that nature, you know, honoring various service people at different times in different parts of the country, I think that’s different,” he said.

(Thompson’s campaign spokesman Todd Harris said after the debate that, “The flag stands right next to the Confederate Memorial on the capitol grounds, honoring, as Fred says, the ‘various service people at different times and different parts of the country.’”)

The former senator concluded: “As a nation, we don’t need to go out of our way to be bringing up things that to certain people in our country that’s bad for them.”

But, Thompson did not really “criticize” the CS flag itself in any of his comments when his comments are considered. He merely said that some find it “bad” for themselves. Here Thompson is obviously saying that we shouldn’t be trying to stick the CS flag in the faces of people who are upset by that 150 year old symbol of a defeated government. But Thompson said nothing of the character of the flag, nor of its admirers. Basically, all he said was that we should be cognizant of the divisive nature of the issue and not force it on people and that he agreed that it was OK for the people of South Carolina to decide to move it away from their Capitol dome.

Romney’s words, however, really were critical of the CS flag.

Romney’s criticism was blunter: “… that flag, frankly, is divisive, and it shouldn’t be shown.”

“Right now, with the kinds of issues we got in this country, I’m not going to get involved with a flag like that,” Romney said. “That’s not a flag that I recognize so that I would hold up in my room.”

“The people of our country have decided not to fly that flag. I think that’s the right thing.”

Romney is fully against the CS flag, but Thompson was saying that it is up to the people of South Carolina, but that he understands it can be a troubled issue.

But, the worst part of this presentation is the photo that accompanies the piece. As the Political Ticker ends their entry with the line, “Both candidates may have to answer questions about those comments next time they hit the state,” it becomes obvious with their photo that Thompson is the only one they feel should have a come-to-Jesus with the South Carolina’s voters.

As I stated in my own graphic of the picture that CNN used, does that picture say “news” to you or does it say Fred Thompson is ashamed of what he has done? That picture is a blatant attempt to make Thompson look as bad as possible.

Shameful spin CNN, shameful spin indeed.

That was just one instance of the attack dogs of CNN and their underhanded insertion of bias in this so-called debate. Anderson Cooper, the host of this debacle, is another example of the agenda and bias of CNN on full display. Later on the same night of the debate Cooper had to apologize for “not knowing” that General Keith Kerr, who appeared as a “spontantous” questioner on the Debates, is a member of the Hillary Clinton campaign. This was not mentioned upfront during the debates and Kerr was treated as a regular, spontaneous questioner. CNN claimed they had no idea Kerr was a Hillary operative.

But on Hillary Clinton’s campaign website, Kerr is clearly listed as a member of her “LGBT Americans for Hillary,” a national steering committee of over 65 leaders in the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) community.

Shouldn’t that have been made clear to the audience? Or does CNN think it’s OK to sandbag the GOP candidates with a Hillary operative without mentioning it? It’s awful hard to imagine that CNN didn’t know that Kerr worked for Hillary, in any case.

They also had two Kerry supporters and one Obama supporter portrayed as “regular” YouTube questioners, all three of whom could easily be discovered as Democrats and as supporting specific candidates by viewing their publicly accessed YouTube profiles as well as their previous postings there.

Now, can you imagine how loud would be the hew and cry if the Democrat Youtube debate had been filled with Republican operatives confronting the Democrat Party candidates?

Actually, I can’t imagine CNN even handing such an ideological hand grenade to their favored Democrats.

No, what the entire CNN, YouTube Republican debate proved was that CNN will stop at nothing to interject their political leftism into everything they do, elections, the news and fair reporting be damned.

An Ohio man has been sentenced to serve ten years in prison for conspiring to provide material support to terrorists, according to an announcement on Tuesday by Julie L. Myers, Assistant Secretary of Homeland Security for Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

Nuradin M. Abdi, 35, a Somali national living in Columbus, Ohio, was named in a four-count indictment returned under seal in the US District Court in Columbus on June 10, 2004. On July 31, 2007, Abdi pleaded guilty in federal court to Count One of the indictment, which charged him with conspiracy to provide material support to terrorists.

The federal indictment specifically alleged that on April 27, 1999, Abdi applied to the Immigration and Naturalization Service — now known as ICE — for a travel document, wherein he concealed his destination by representing that he intended to visit Germany and Saudi Arabia for the purpose of “Umrah (Holly[sic] – Mecca) and visit my relative,” when he actually planned to travel to Ogaden, Ethiopia, for the purpose of obtaining military-style training in preparation for violent jihad. Abdi allegedly sought training in radio usage, guns, guerilla warfare and bombs.

“Today’s sentencing brings to conclusion one aspect of a critical joint investigation that identified and stopped three terrorist supporters bent on causing panic and significant harm to US citizens, said ICE Assistant Secretary Julie L. Myers. This investigation highlights the aggressive pursuit by ICE and the Department of Justice to identify and prosecute those who seek to terrorize America and its allies.”

“Today’s sentence is just punishment for a defendant who exploited our country’s freedoms and manipulated our immigration system on numerous occasions, all in an effort to support and conspire with international terrorists,” said Assistant Attorney General for National Security, Kenneth L. Wainstein.

“I want to commend the men and women who have diligently investigated and prosecuted this case,” US Attorney Lockhart said. “They are successfully carrying out one of our nation’s most important jobs in the fight against terrorism — stopping those in this country who provide support to terrorists.”

“Nuradin Abdi’s sentence should send a very clear message to those who, like Abdi, provide support to terrorist organizations and operatives. The FBI will not tolerate the propagation of violence and discord by those who wish to harm the US and its citizens, and we will continue to work with our partners to pursue suspected terrorists and their supporters,” said Assistant Director Joseph Billy, Jr., FBI Counterterrorism Division.

According to the statement of facts agreed upon by the government and the defendant, Abdi first entered the United States in 1995 using a false passport. He once again illegally entered the United States from Canada in 1997. Abdi was later granted asylum in this country based on a series of false statements.

In the ensuing years, Abdi befriended coconspirators Christopher Paul and Lyman Faris in Ohio. Christopher Paul was later arrested and indicted in April 2007 on charges of providing material support, conspiracy to provide material support to terrorists, and conspiracy to use a weapon of mass destruction (explosives). Lyman Faris was later convicted of providing material support and conspiracy to provide material support to Al-Qaeda. He is currently serving a 20-year prison term.

Federal agents arrested Abdi on Nov. 28, 2003. Abdi subsequently agreed to be interviewed by FBI agents and admitted conspiring with Faris, Paul and others to provide material support to foreign terrorists. These admissions by Abdi have been corroborated in a variety of ways, including bank records, travel records, invoices, and items seized in search warrants.

This case was investigated by the Southern Ohio Joint Terrorism Task Force, a multi-agency operation that includes agents and officers from 15 federal, state and local law enforcement agencies.

The investigation was a joint investigation by agents and officers of the JTTF, specifically ICE Special Agents Bob Medellin and Rich Wilkens; and FBI Special Agents Steve Flowers and John Corbin.

Jim Kouri, CPP is currently fifth vice-president of the National Association of Chiefs of Police and he’s a staff writer for the New Media Alliance (thenma.org).  Kouri also serves as political advisor for Emmy and Golden Globe winning actor Michael Moriarty. 

He’s former chief at a New York City housing project in Washington Heights nicknamed “Crack City” by reporters covering the drug war in the 1980s. In addition, he served as director of public safety at a New Jersey university and director of security for several major organizations.  He’s also served on the National Drug Task Force and trained police and security officers throughout the country.   Kouri writes for many police and security magazines including Chief of Police, Police Times, The Narc Officer and others. He’s a news writer for TheConservativeVoice.Com and PHXnews.com.  He’s also a columnist for AmericanDaily.Com, MensNewsDaily.Com, MichNews.Com, and he’s syndicated by AXcessNews.Com.   He’s appeared as on-air commentator for over 100 TV and radio news and talk shows including Oprah, McLaughlin Report, CNN Headline News, MTV, Fox News, etc.  His book Assume The Position is available at Amazon.Com. Kouri’s own website is located at http://jimkouri.us