Does it seem that calamity and disorder are on the increase lately? Everything in our nation and world currently gives the impression that it is coming apart at the seams; from those dangerously high prices at the pump last summer, to the equal uneasiness of such low gas prices at present, to the economic meltdown and dubious “bailout,” to the corruption eruption in Illinois, to the outbreak of a new war in the Middle-East. And the list goes on.

 

Even on that infamous date September 11, 2001, though a stunned America was momentarily uncertain of what its future held, the general understanding was that the nation would identify the culprits, take appropriate action to deal with them, and thereby ensure an eventual return to normality. Yet an ominous pattern shortly emerged. The uncertainties of that triumphant outcome for America were insidiously aggravated by the media who, along with their liberal cohorts on Capitol Hill, concocted one scenario after another in which America was either partly to blame for the hostility of the Islamists, or was somehow impotent in its effort to prevent future acts of terrorism.

 

It was prominent Democrats and their media parrots that first pronounced the Iraq war a “defeat” for the United States. And if one was to believe their characterization of the entire War on Terror, it was futility in vanquishing the Taliban in Afghanistan, amidst an endless parade of human rights abuses by Americans, and a general deterioration of life for innocent Iraqis. Meanwhile, the rights of Americans were ostensibly being obliterated by the monitoring of incoming calls from foreign terrorists, an effort that was collectively branded as the U.S. government “spying on Americans.”

 

Some recognized this media/Democrat propaganda blitz as merely the partisan actions of the American left, attempting to gain political dominance over the Republicans. And to a major degree it certainly was such. Yet as the circus of 2008 draws to a close, and 2009 ensues, it is becoming apparent that something is very different in the present climate. The negative characterization of so many institutions and actions were perceived as merely a partisan attack on Congressional Republicans and the Bush White House. But it is becoming grimly apparent as the caterwauling continues that the real target of the attacks was and is America itself.

 

According to the liberal establishment, not merely the GOP, but the nation in its entirety, with its flawed heritage and track record of failure, is in need of a complete overhaul. This prospect for a remake of the nation is the essence of the “change” which we were promised, and which the November 4 election results are loudly being construed to validate. So much is and has been wrong, and so much needs “fixed.” Change indeed is on the way.

 

Admittedly, some of the hysteria occurs on its own, without any prodding or instigating from the liberal mouthpieces. Much like the disastrous Tsunami that hit Southeast Asia in December of 2004, some things simply happen without forewarning or evident cause. However, the responses from liberals invariably reveal a shameless desire to exploit any calamity as a means of undermining traditional America, while promoting an agenda that ultimately discredits it and often empowers the enemies that have tirelessly sought to bring about its downfall.

 

It should be recalled that, in the wake of that Tsunami, the standard media mouthpieces created a veritable circus of international “donations” ostensibly intended to aid the victims. Yet the purpose of keeping score was as a means of asserting that the United States, invariably the biggest contributor to humanitarian causes in the world, had somehow failed to pay its fair share.

 

Likewise, any event from Hurricane Katrina to the newly erupting war between Israel and Hamas is predictably formed and flaked into a storyline that will reflect poorly in the United States. If any angle can be found or created within any event that might make America look bad, it is assured that the media and its Democrat accomplices will find and magnify it.

 

In the same manner, any and every situation that can be kindled into a crisis is currently being treated in just that manner. Those truly guilty of causing the problems, if they are liberal loyalists, can be guaranteed exoneration, while the problems they caused are recast in such a way as to blame Republicans, whether or not they are in power. Thus the gas shortage of last summer was not, we were told, a result of liberal obstruction to the legitimate efforts at locating and developing America’s oil reserves. It was instead the consequence of “greedy” oil executives who were unwilling to develop “alternative energy sources.”

 

The financial collapse of the banking industry was not, according to liberals, the inevitable outcome of foolish lending practices that placed “politically correct” social and ethnic quotas above the fundamental and commonsensical necessity to evaluate a prospective borrower’s ability to repay a loan. Rather, those liberal politicians who demanded such ludicrous quotas have unceasingly decried the meltdown as a result of “predatory lending,” as if bankers would ever conceive on their own of giving out money to borrowers who certainly will not return it. A shrewd moneymaking scheme indeed!

 

So, the economic collapse that ensued as a direct result of such meddling in the marketplace, be it on the energy front or among the nation’s biggest money changers, is itself now a good opportunity for the liberal governmental monster to metastasize even further. A gross misuse of funds and power that caused the downturn is, we are told, the very reason for more monetary abuses and encroachment. Be sure that selected groups will benefit, while others will be penalized, based not in any way on their culpability, but on their standing among the hallowed ranks of glorified liberal “victims.”

 

To be sure, the chaos will continue, and when necessary will be deliberately stoked to greater heights. An America that is content and secure will be immediately wary of any governmental attempts to “help” its citizenry. So the most effective avenue to “change” is in an atmosphere of disarray and fear.

The following report is based on information obtained by the 14,000-member National Association of Chiefs of Police:

As New Yorkers and tourists prepare for tonight’s New Year’s Eve celebrations — especially in Manhattan’s Times Square area — law enforcement will be assisted by the citizen soldiers and airmen of the New York National Guard, according to security officials.

Under orders from New York Governor David Paterson, members of the New York Army and Air National Guard will conduct additional security missions and stand ready to respond to city authorities if a man-made or natural emergency occurs.

Within New York City, National Guard soldiers and airmen will conduct increased security operations at Pennsylvania Station on West 34th Street, the Port Authority Trans-Hudson terminal near Times Square, and at LaGuardia and Kennedy airports in coordination with the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey Police.

The National Guard’s 2nd Civil Support Team, a full-time, rapid-response element that detects chemical, biological or radiological hazards, also will provide a detachment in Manhattan to support the New York Police Department. The 22-man detachment, based at the Scotia Air National Guard Base near Schenectady, NY, has worked with New York City police for counterterrorism support operations since the unit’s formation in 2000, according to police officials.

At the New York National Guard headquarters in Latham, N.Y., staff representatives from New York state’s military forces will operate the National Guard’s joint operations center. This command and control installation provides links to the New York State Emergency Management Office and New York State Office of Homeland Security.

The New York National Guard also will provide liaison officers to New York’s emergency management office and the New York City Police Department.

_________________________________
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). In addition, he’s the editor for the House Conservatives Fund’s weblog. 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.

What would happen if America won a war and no one reported it? Is it still news? What if a credible argument were made pretty much demolishing Darwin’s theory of evolution? If no media outlet conveyed this information to the American public, does that mean its not a valid argument? Does that mean its not news?

The liberal media would have you believe so. For decades, the old media, consisting of the big three networks and the newspapers of most major cities have had a stranglehold on what information gets disseminated to the public at large. The media elite have decided which issues qualify as news. Not surprisingly, the majority of the information that makes it to the airwaves or in print is overwhelmingly one-sided, reflecting a world-view steeped in progressive values and blatantly hostile to traditional values.

 

The old media elite, comprised of less than 1% of our population, has set the agenda and defined the issues in America for decades. More importantly, the old media has had the ability to relegate any facts that didn’t conform to their version of reality to the ash heap. If it doesn’t make the news, its not news.

 

By any measure, America and our allies have won the war in Iraq. Our mission has been accomplished. This is news, even though the media has failed to report it. Iraq’s economy is on track, thanks to much improved security and increased production of oil. Iraq’s fledgling parliament is operating. In other words, we won. The Iraqi people have won. Against tremendous odds.

Because American victory and military success don’t fit the media’s liberal version of America, most Americans remain unaware of the tremendous accomplishments that have been brought about, thanks to president Bush and our brave fighting men. Instead, their focus emcompasses only the price we paid, not the victory we achieved.

 

Ignoring inconvenient news and embarrassing facts is a tried and true tactic of the liberal media. A prime example is conservative author, Thomas Sowell. Sowell has written dozens of books dealing with race, culture, economics and other issues vital to America. More importantly, his facts have never been rebutted. Knowing there is no chance of disputing Sowell’s studies and conclusions, the media elite have chosen to ignore him. He is simply not a part of their carefully fashioned reality.

 

That is the fate of any author or pundit who dares to swim against the progressive tide. Can you spell censorship?

 

Ann Coulter is another example. In her book Godless, Ann makes a credible argument that the theory of Darwinian evolution is a bogus science. The media responded to this serious challenge to one of its core tenets by simply ignoring it, focusing instead on Ann’s cutting observation of four housewives from Jersey who lost their husbands in the 9/11 attack.

 

From their lofty position of moral self-righteousness, the media roundly condemned Coulter for her lack of sensitivity and empathy. Totally ignored in the ensuing media frenzy, was any mention, much less rebuttal, to Ann’s extremely credible argument demolishing Darwinism.

A majority of Americans are now somewhat aware of media bias. Increasingly, when reading a news story, Americans have the ability to recognize the obvious slant. This is all well and good. What is not well and good, is the fact that many of us are not made aware of all the news out there that is ignored. Credible, relevant facts that are simply not reported.

 

How many of you are aware that at the recent UN gathering on global warming, 650 renown scientists made a credible challenge to the UN’s conclusion that man-made global warming is a crisis situation requiring trillions of our tax dollars to remedy?

 

Once again, a credible challenge to a core tenet of progressivism was ignored rather than rebutted. This is media malfeasance.

 

Every American is entitled to enough information to make informed decisions. Instead, our media gives us only the information that fits the liberal template. This is manipulation of the worst sort. No matter how flat the pancake, there are always two sides. Our media has only been reporting one side, and then declaring grandly that the issue is settled.

 

The lack of reporting both sides of a story is having a pernicious effect on America, breeding anti-Americanism, victimology, feelings over facts and form over substance. The traditional values which made our country great, are being cast aside, along with Christianity, capitalism, families and other factors which have served to unite and define us as a nation.

 

The media would have us believe that inclusiveness, multiculturalism, equality and the environment are the most important issues facing our country today. And millions of Americans blindly accept their version of reality as truth. What they fail to report is the fact that each and every one of those policies has been an expensive, catastrophic failure, breeding social pathologies, hate and divisiveness. But, hey, its that thought that counts, right?

 

Just because the media says something is so, doesn’t make it so. And ignoring relevant facts doesn’t make them less relevant. All it means is that millions of Americans are still willing to let someone else do their thinking for them.

 

Nancy Morgan is a columnist and news editor for RightBias.com

She lives in South Carolina

 

 

Article may be reprinted, with attribution.

 

Skewz.com has put together its top 5 predictions for how political communications under the Obama presidency will be changed in 2009.

Now, in some ways, I can see where the Skewz team is coming from seeing as how they are in that Internet bubble, but I think that their assumptions of Internet domination of politics is a bit overblown. Still, I think in many ways the predictions are right if not quite as strong as presented nor as immediate.

Here are their predictions and my replies to them:

1. Blogging Gets Issue-Specific : The 2008 election re-enforced and validated the need for candidates to have a strong outreach program to the blogosphere to amplify their message. While it’s apparent that bloggers are becoming more important and tightly linked to campaigns, the increasing number of blogs is pushing many bloggers to become “issue specific” as a way to differentiate themselves. For example, rather than being just a “right” or “left” blog, specific topics such as crime, the housing crisis, government bailouts, poverty, etc. will dominate. In addition, day-to-day issues such as crime and poverty will become more relevant to larger portions of the electorate.

I think this is less a reaction to “differentiation” among bloggers, more an act of going with what one knows based on the growing legitimacy of the medium. Over the year 2008, Blogs have become a legitimate news source and this has spurred even more people with specific fields of knowledge to feel confident that they won’t merely be laughed off with their blogging efforts. Smart people with detailed knowledge and a passion to debate the issues have migrated to blogs in great numbers over the year. And with the growth of social networking sites like Twitter and FaceBook — all of which rely heavily on linking to stories on news media and blogs — the Internet has really come into its own as an “official” news source. Witness the recent survey that shows a far grater number of people than ever before saying the Internet is their news source.

2. Political Media Must Differentiate: As traditional political media sources will work to differentiate themselves from blogs, viewers and readers will see sharper distinctions between media content and formats. For example, Olbermann/O’Reilly style editorial shows will be the hallmarks of partisan editorial content. David Gregory/Chris Wallace will be hallmarks of the objective news desk. News outlets will need to “court” their target markets while maintaining news credibility and a positive image, much of which was suffered during the 2008 election.

I think this is off base. I think that the Old Media will see its lines blur even more between the “partisan editorial content” and the so-called “objective news” as opposed to them becoming more distinct. We may wish they’d become more distinct, but I see the opposite happening. Witness the recent shift by the Associated Press from a facts based service to one that offers more editorial content even within its supposedly straight newswire stories. I think the Old Media will see the success of the more polemical style mounting on radio and in the blogosphere and mistakenly believe it needs to go that way to succeed in the modern media environment.

3. The Year-Round Campaign: As election cycles get longer and longer, there is a greater need to maintain ongoing enthusiasm among voters. Now, with increased communications via the Internet, political parties will use the online channels even during non-election years to manage their message. With the rise in unemployment, the housing crisis and general economic concern, the campaign style of “selling” solutions will become a constant in political life. This trend will extend from the national level down to the state and local levels in order to muster coordinated support for big policy proposals.

I predict that Barack Obama will go the opposite way, here. I think he’ll become more secretive, far less open and transparent than the claimed he’d be and will not use his Internet machine as the left imagines he is supposed to. I think both parties are a bit too hidebound for the veil to be lifted before 2009 is up.

On top of that, we American politicians still have not yet figured out how instant communication fits in with our representative republic. I personally do not want to see the swiftly changing mood of the crowds heavily influencing our government via the Internet. We are not a direct Democracy and for good reason!

4. Grassroots Returns to Its Roots: With the power of grass roots movements established in the 2008 election with the Obama campaign, political candidates understand the importance of campaigning and getting a message across on a local level. In the coming years, candidates will work to highlight their ability to make a positive impact on people’s lives at the municipal, county, and state levels, and local media will respond with a greater emphasis on local issues.

This one seems a good prediction. But, I don’t think we’ll see it grow more slowly with candidates for a few more years to come. Not enough young candidates that have grow up with this Internet world are yet ready to begin running for office. We won’t see candidates fully accept the Internet until the old guard is fairly gone.

5. The Electoral Map Loses Relevance: With the economy likely to impact people’s lives for years to come, the electorate will become less rigid. Issues such as crime, poverty, economic change, etc. will dominate, but also facilitate the rise of greater issue specific blogging along with the need to differentiate. With voter turnout being critical, parties that can pull together the most convincing and coherent solutions for these day-to-day challenges will command greater success at the ballot box.

I don’t think I see much dispute with that one.

All in all, I see these predictions as eventuals, but not all occurring right away in 2009. I think politics will be a little more resistant to any change wrought by the Internet than the Old Media or the new or society in general has been thus far.

We still have to invent the concrete way that the connectivity and instantaneous manner of the Internet will integrate with government. We will see more and more the push for transparency, of course. More government actions will be trackable on the Internet than ever. But, how do we integrate an instant communication with actual governing in a representative republic without breaking down that necessary wall that by design stands between instant action and deliberation? And, even more pointedly, will people understand the need for that wall to stand? And will Internet mavens get cynical quicker than the relationship between instant access and governing will be figured out?

Let’s face it here, our system is completely incompatible with instant gratification — purposefully so. Will too many people that don’t fully understand how slowly our system works by design become disillusioned because they are not having instant gratification from Internet to the passage of bills? Could cynicism deepen because the ill informed on the Internet (such as your MoveOn.org types) don’t understand that what they immediately want is NOT how our system operates? People seem to too easily forget that what ever we do on the Internet has to both live up to our system and our Constitution.

And will philosophers of Internet ethics and ideals and government theorists bring this debate to the fore well enough that people can grasp it, or are we to just blunder ahead into a murky future that might end up materially damaging the shaky faith in our government that so many Americans already have?

Naturally, only time will tell. But one thing is sure, while changes are coming fast, they will not wholly alter government as fast as they are altering the rest of society. At least, not just in 2009. Perhaps in a few years hence, but not just the next one.

It’s that time of the year — Christmas carols, shiny-wrapped presents, surprise visits by long-lost in-laws. And of course, our announcement of the annual Award for Political Incorrectness.

 

Previous winners of this highly-sought after prize include California governor Arnold Schwarzenegger who took up the dicey issue of paternity fraud; columnist Phyllis Schlafly (“Shame on members of Congress who lack the courage to stand up to feminist outrages.”); and Mark Inglis, the double-amputee who conquered Mt. Everest.

 

Last year’s unanimous winners were Dave Evans, Reade Seligmann, and Collin Finnerty, the former Duke lacrosse players who bravely overcame a firestorm of rape hysteria unconscionably fanned by the media and university activists.

 

Let’s open the envelope for 2008.

 

This year’s award goes to an unassuming university professor who has devoted his career to the understanding and remedy of family violence. He has received funding from the National Institutes of Health and was elected president of the National Council on Family Relations and the Eastern Sociological Society. Needless to say, his resumé is lengthy and impressive.

 

When he began his research in the 1970s, the public was well-acquainted with the stereotype of  beer-swilling men who bullied their wives. That was the good professor’s assumption, as well. But when he published his research findings in 1975, everyone was amazed — women were just as likely as men to engage in partner violence.

 

When he did follow-up surveys over the following 20 years, the gender-equal results confirmed his original research. More surprising, when other researchers studied homosexual relationships, they found lesbians had the highest rates of partner aggression.

 

There was a problem, but not with the research itself.

 

The burgeoning feminist movement had staked out the domestic violence issue as its cri de coeur. The feminists had ginned up their own theory: Domestic violence is a hate crime perpetrated against women. Gloria Steinem said it best: “The patriarchy requires violence or the subliminal threat of violence in order to maintain itself.”

 

But what if all the research paints a completely different picture, showing heterosexual women are equally likely to aggress, and the highest rates of battering are found among lesbians? Obviously the hate crime theory goes out the window, and Steinem’s breathless claim seems pretty far-fetched, as well.

 

So what’s a good feminist to do about the good professor’s research? Well, why not start a whispering campaign? Anything for the cause of female empowerment, right?

 

So feminists at his university organized telephone ring accusing him of being a misogynist. He was picketed repeatedly. At the University of Massachusetts, a group of shouting and stomping women prevented him from delivering a guest lecture. (Yes, these are the same women who claim to be working for a more peaceful and tolerant society.)

 

In Canada, Pat Marshall, chairwoman of the Commission on Violence Against Women, made this charge to a reporter about her meeting with the professor’s wife: “I have never met a woman who looked so victimized.” But when the writer called the woman, she said she had never been struck. Marshall was later forced to apologize.

 

When the professor was elected president of the Society for the Study of Social Problems, a group of feminists stood up and walked out as he began his presidential address. And the threats continue to this day — recently one of his PhD students was told she would never find a job if she did her doctoral research with him.

 

In the face of such opposition, many academics would go into another line of research, or begin to skew their data to be politically acceptable. But he would have none of that. Rather than being cowed by the threats, he opted to expose the motivations behind the attacks.

 

In one interview, he charged the criticisms of his work are “justifications of violence by women in the guise of feminism. This is a betrayal of the feminist ideal of a nonviolent world.”

 

Then we went on to shed the light of truth their tactics.

 

Writing last year in the European Journal of Criminal Policy and Research, he cast the spotlight on how feminist academics conceal, deny, and distort the evidence. Then he detailed the ways in which feminists have corrupted the research on female-perpetrated abuse, even scheming to obstruct research funds that might identify female offenders. Finally he took aim at researchers who have “let their ideological commitments overrule their scientific commitments.”

 

Interested persons can read this no-holds-barred paper here: http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/V74-gender-symmetry-with-gramham-Kevan-Method%208-.pdf .

 

Congratulations, Dr. Murray Straus, director of the Family Research Laboratory at the University of New Hampshire. You are the winner of the 2008 Award for Political Incorrectness.

If I had the power, there are any number of people from whom or about whom I would not want to hear, see, or read anything in 2009. Here’s a short list!

Al Gore. This pusillanimous fraud, a leftover from the Clinton administration who was defeated for president in 2000, has devoted his time to issuing warnings against global warming, the greatest hoax of the modern era. He tends to be most vocal during blizzards.

Dr. James Hansen. Right behind, with his nose deeply buried in Al Gore’s posterior, is the man who started the global warming hoax when, in the 1980s, he testified to Congress that the whole world is doomed. To his name I add the hundreds of other alarmists.

Rep. Nancy Pelosi. The Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives is quite possibly the most stupid person to have ever held that post.

Sen. Harry Reid. The Senate Majority Leader, like his counterpart in the House, holds a lot of idiotic ideas and beliefs. He continues to oppose the opening of Yucca Mountain, a multi-billion dollar repository for spent, but radioactive nuclear fuel.

Bill Clinton. Having cost Hillary a shot at the presidency and failed in so many ways during his own two terms in office, one fervently hopes he will busy himself giving million dollar speeches in Abu Dhabi and other venues far from the U.S. This is the man who once said, “We just have to slow down our economy and cut back our greenhouse gas emissions ’cause we have to save the planet for our grandchildren.” Well, he got his wish; the economy is slowing to a crawl. Happy now?

Jimmy Carter. This friend to every dictator on Earth was once elected President of the United States. Mistakes happen.

Barney Frank. Don’t hold your breath waiting for this House of Representatives’ Elmer Fudd impersonator to take responsibility for the nation’s financial crisis. He spent the last few years defending Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac while both purchased billions in sub-prime mortgage loans.

George W. Bush. I have had to listen to President Bush for eight years and that is quite enough.

John McCain. America has voted, but less than half for you and most of them held their nose when they did.

Keith Olbermann & Chris Matthews. These two alleged political pundits so thoroughly embarrassed themselves and MSNBC during the campaigns that their co-workers refuse to sit at their table in the company cafeteria.

Al Sharpton & Jesse Jackson. The next President of the United States of America is an Afro-American. Millions of white people voted for him. Now go away.

Mahmoud Amadinejad. This loony is convinced that millions must die so that a mythical Twelfth Imam can return to bring Islam to all mankind. Meanwhile, Mahmoud and the ayatollahs have been busy destroying Iran when not taking hostages.

Hugo Chavez. This Fidel Castro wannabe has managed to destroy Venezuela’s economy with his communist ranting. I miss the good old days when the CIA was encouraged to rid us of such pests.

Osama bin Laden. With any luck, this sucker is dead.

The United Nations. Anything that comes out of this institution should be treated like toxic waste.

So many annoying, deranged, and stupid people; we can be assured that the mainstream media will hang on their every word.

Alan Caruba writes a daily blog at http://factsnotfantasy.blogspot.com. Every week, he posts a column on the website of The National Anxiety Center, www.anxietycenter.com.

[The following is based on an FBI strategy report sent to the 14,000-member National Association of Chiefs of Police.]

The foreign intelligence threat within the United States is far more complex than it has ever been historically. The threat is increasingly asymmetrical insofar as it comes not only from traditional foreign intelligence services but also from nontraditional, non-state actors who operate from decentralized organizations.

Intelligence collection is no longer limited to classified national defense information but now includes targeting of the elements of national power, including our national economic interests. Moreover, foreign intelligence tradecraft is increasingly sophisticated and takes full advantage of advances in communications security and the general openness of US society.

In short, the foreign intelligence threat is more challenging than ever. In the fall of 2003, the Foreign Counterintelligence Program had investigations involving dozens of countries that focused on hundreds of known or suspected intelligence officers who were assigned to enter or travel within the United States. These investigations spanned all 56 field offices.

In order to meet these challenges, the Foreign Counterintelligence Program is being redesigned to become more nationally focused and directed. Through a more centralized program, the FBI will ensure its ability to establish priorities, be more proactive, and better engage other intelligence community agencies so that cooperation in important cases is immediate and seamless.

A centralized program will also ensure that infrastructure issues will be consistently addressed and coordinated in order to ensure workforce expertise, that staffing matches the articulated foreign intelligence threat, and that a sufficiently broad and reliable intelligence base is developed. From this foundation, the Foreign Counterintelligence Program will be positioned to achieve its strategic objectives and ultimately reach its goal to prevent harm to the United States through foreign intelligence activity inimical to US interests.

During the past year, the Foreign Counterintelligence Program has been invigorated by the introduction of a new and innovative National Strategy for Counterintelligence and a program plan, both of which are proactive in emphasis. At the same time, additional resources were introduced to the program. To enhance counterintelligence workforce expertise, a new four-week Counterintelligence Operations course was developed.

All special agents assigned to the Counterintelligence Program are required to successfully complete this course. Computer-based distance learning courses are also available to all personnel on a variety of counterintelligence topics. A counterintelligence training course for midlevel and executive managers was also initiated, covering topics in both the tactical and strategic areas of counterintelligence management.

The FBI plays an essential role in the US government’s counterintelligence efforts and has the responsibility to produce domestic foreign intelligence in support of other members of the intelligence community.

The FBI also has the responsibility to oversee the integration of domestic law enforcement and intelligence efforts to address intelligence threats in support of Director of Central Intelligence imperatives. The counterintelligence strategy involves centrally managed, proactive, and nationally directed initiatives, with prioritized and strategic objectives that support DCI imperatives, overseen by experienced headquarters managers.

Success for the Foreign Counterintelligence Program will be reflected in the extent to which the FBI agents are able to: identify the objectives, the assets, and the operations of foreign intelligence services operating in the United States; disrupt the operations of those foreign intelligence services; and change the behavior of targeted institutions and individuals to minimize opportunities for their exploitation.

Government support of critical national research and development initiatives in a large number of agencies and involving thousands of government contractors must be protected. Compromise of these initiatives by those hostile to the United States would do irreparable harm. The FBI must effectively meet its responsibility to assess the threat against those projects and, with other Intelligence Community agencies, initiate operations to counter the threat.

Critical National Assets are any information, policies, plans, technologies, or industries that, if stolen, modified, or manipulated by an adversary would seriously threaten US national or economic security. The FBI has a major role in identifying threats to Critical National Assets and assessing their overall vulnerability, especially in the areas of economic espionage, academic research, and private sector research and development.

As the remaining world superpower, the United States is targeted from nearly every corner of the globe. The FBI will focus its counterintelligence resources on those countries and non-state actors having the greatest potential to harm US interests, and will work to gain a greater understanding of the threats they pose. Specifically, the FBI will examine threats related to terrorism, espionage, weapons proliferation, national infrastructure, US government perception management, and foreign intelligence activities.

Sources: Federal Bureau of Investigation, National Security Institute, AmeriCop USA, National Association of Chiefs of Police, American Society for Industrial Security

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

The Palestinians raise their kids to hate Jews. The Israelis have endured decades of acts of terror against their own children and have generally acted with forbearance in reply. The UN has been vehemently and irrationally anti-Israeli since day one. The questions of “right of return” and the “two state solution” have dogged international politics for a long time. And what is the Timesonline worried about? Are they worried about the safety of Jewish children. Are they concerned of the improvement in quality of life for Palestinian children? No, none of that. The Times is worried that all this will hurt poor Barack Obama and his wonderful plans for a foreign policy that will at last bring us peace in our times.

I’m not kidding. In all this mess, the Times is most concerned that Obama’s foreign policy promises will be harmed because of what Hamas has forced upon itself. While Obama skips church and runs off to the gym on a daily basis, the Times is all concerned for Barack’s foreign policy.

In a perfect emulation of their most beloved countryman, Neville Chamberlain, the peace-in-our-times London Times proves that Brits are entirely feckless where it concerns a moral understanding of foreign policy. In times like these, the delicate feelings of Barack Obama should be the last thing that anyone should care about. On top of that he isn’t even president, yet, so his ideas and opinion are meaningless at this point in time. But, this is the point the Times wants to explore in theirs headlined, “Barack Obama’s hopes for early peace deal shattered in minefield of Middle Eastern politics.”

Barack Obama refused yesterday to stake out his position on the Israeli airstrikes in Gaza but he and his team were in no doubt that the offensive had dealt a significant blow to his hopes of forging a Middle East peace deal early in his presidency.

Oh, poor, poor little Barack! The Times pity party for little Barack goes on…

The growing violence presents Mr Obama and Hillary Clinton, his incoming secretary of state, with their first and unexpected foreign policy crisis at a time when their intray is already groaning with the urgent geopolitical challenges of Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran, Iraq, North Korea and Russia.

I am wondering how a 60 some year-old conflict based on thousands of year of enmity can be an “unexpected foreign policy crisis”?

Is there a word about the poor Israeli kids being killed by terrorist Katyusha rockets? Maybe a word about Israeli planes responding, killing Palestinian folks? Nah, who cares about all that? We are more interested in how this thing impacts The One! The feelings and effectiveness of the Obammessiah is far, far more important to the Times!

One of the next lines is telling:

How Mr Obama reacts to it, and in particular how forcefully he defends Israel, also risks straining relations with Britain and his other European allies.

And this is an admission that the Europeans have no morals and are supporting the murderers in Hamas.

For his part, between visits to the water park, skipping church and showing the loving press corps his manly, gleaming pecs, Obama has pretended toward strong support for Israel although he really hasn’t said a whole lot about what is going on at this time. But, don’t worry, Barack. The Times has got your back.

So, not only do the Brits blame Israel for attacking the poor, innocent Palestinians, now they are guilty of hurting the Obammessiah, too.

Oh, the humanities.

(Photo credit: washingtonpost.com)