TERRORISM EXPERTS PREDICT FUTURE ATTACKS IN US

Terrorism is the most significant threat to our national security. In the international terrorism arena, over the next five years, it’s believed that the number of state-sponsored terrorist organizations will continue to decline, but privately sponsored terrorist groups will increase in number.

However, the terrorist groups will increasingly cooperate with one another to achieve desired ends against common enemies. These alliances will be of limited duration, but such “loose associations” will challenge our ability to identify specific threats. Al-Qaeda, and Hezbollah, and their affiliates will remain the most significant threat over the next five years.

The Federal Bureau of Investigation forecasts that sub-national and non-governmental entities will play an increasing role in world affairs for years to come, presenting new “asymmetric” threats to the United States, according to a report submitted to the National Association of Chiefs of Police and other law enforcement and security organizations.

Although the United States will continue to occupy a position of economic and political leadership — and although other governments will also continue to be important actors on the world stage — terrorist groups, criminal enterprises, and other non-state actors will assume an increasing role in international affairs. Nation states and their governments will exercise decreasing control over the flow of information, resources, technology, services, and people.

The most significant domestic terrorism threat over the next five years will be the lone actor, or “lone wolf” terrorist. They typically draw ideological inspiration from formal terrorist organizations, but operate on the fringes of those movements.

Despite their ad hoc nature and generally limited resources, they can mount high-profile, extremely destructive attacks, and their operational planning is often difficult to detect. An excellent example of this is the lone gunman — a Muslim — who entered a Jewish center in Seattle and killed one woman while wounding five others.

Globalization and the trend of an increasingly networked world economy will become more pronounced within the next five years. The global economy will stabilize some regions, but widening economic divides are likely to make areas, groups, and nations that are left behind breeding grounds for unrest, violence, and terrorism.

As corporate, financial, and nationality definitions and structures become more complex and global, the distinction between foreign and domestic entities will increasingly blur. This will lead to further globalization and networking of criminal elements, directly threatening the security of the United States.

Most experts believe that technological innovation will have the most profound impact on the collective ability of the federal, state, and local governments to protect the United States. Advances in information technology, as well as other scientific and technical areas, have created the most significant global transformation since the Industrial Revolution. These advances allow terrorists, disaffected states, weapons proliferators, criminal enterprises, drug traffickers, and other threat enterprises easier and cheaper access to weapons technology.

Technological advances will also provide terrorists and others with the potential to stay ahead of law enforcement countermeasures. For example, it will be easier and cheaper for small groups or individuals to acquire designer chemical or biological warfare agents, and correspondingly more difficult for forensic experts to trace an agent to a specific country, company, or group.

In the 21st Century, with the ready availability of international travel and telecommunications, neither crime nor terrorism confines itself territorially. Nor do criminals or terrorists restrict themselves, in conformance with the structure of our laws, wholly to one bad act or the other. Instead, they enter into alliances of opportunity as they arise; terrorists commit crimes and, for the right price or reason, criminals assist terrorists. Today’s threats cross geographic and political boundaries with impunity; and do not fall solely into a single category of our law.

To meet these threats, we need an even more tightly integrated intelligence cycle. We must have extraordinary receptors for changes in threats and the ability to make immediate corrections in our priorities and focus to address those changes. And, we must recognize that alliances with others in law enforcement, at home and abroad, are absolutely essential.

The global Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) threat to the United States and its interests is expected to increase significantly in the near term. We expect terrorists to exploit criminal organizations to develop and procure WMD capabilities. Globalization will make it easier to transfer both WMD materiel and expertise throughout the world. The basic science and technologies necessary to produce WMD will be more easily understood. Similarly, raw materials will be more available and easier to obtain.

Violence by domestic terrorists will continue to present a threat to the United States over the next five years. The number of traditional left wing terrorist groups, typically advocating the overthrow of the US Government because of the perceived growth of capitalism and imperialism, have diminished in recent years. However, new groups have emerged that may pose an increasing threat. Right wing extremists, espousing antigovernment or racist sentiment, will pose a threat because of their continuing collection of weapons and explosives coupled with their propensity for violence.

The threat from countries which consider the United States their primary intelligence target, adversary or threat either will continue at present levels or likely increase. The most desirable US targets will be political and military plans and intentions; technology; and economic institutions, both governmental and non-governmental. Foreign intelligence services increasingly will target and recruit US travelers abroad and will use nonofficial collection platforms, including increasing numbers of students, visitors, delegations, and emigres within the United States.

Foreign intelligence activities are likely to be increasingly characterized by the use of sophisticated and secure communication technology to handle recruited agents and to be more likely than in the past to occur almost anywhere in the United States.

(This article is based on a lengthy FBI report received by the National Association of Chiefs of Police. Only parts pertaining exclusively to law enforcement personnel and strategies were omitted.)

—

Read more by this author on our site here. (Scroll down)

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. 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. 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.

DEMOCRATS WANT TO "REDUCE INEQUALITY"

Here we go folks, the 110th Congress - Democrat controlled - convenes today at noon. The Democrats have one primary goal, to increase American's dependency on government. It's all about power. The Democrats had it --- for four decades. For forty years they controlled the congressional agenda. Then they lost it. From the very moment the election results for the 1994 midterm elections were posted Democrats vowed to themselves that they would one day return to power .. and when they did they would immediately move to make sure they never lost that power again.

Just watch. It's transparent. Observe the first 100 days. So much of what the Democrats will do will be designed to increase the dependency of one class of Americans or another on the government. Legislation not designed to increase dependency will be designed to empower groups friendly to Democrat politicians --- unions, for example.

You've heard how the Democrats want to reward their union friends, haven't you? Right now workers get to vote on whether or not they are going to unionize. First there is a petition circulated around the workplace. If a majority of workers sign the petition, then they get to vote on whether or not to unionize. There is a big difference between the petition and the vote. The petition is public. The vote is private.

A worker in a particular business may not want to unionize, but he will sign the petition anyway so as not to anger his coworkers who are organizing for the union. When the secret ballot comes along he will vote his true feelings. This worker is subject to coercion and pressure when the petition is passed around. There is no pressure or coercion when voting the secret ballot.

The Democrats are going to opt for the pressure tactics. They will try to eliminate the need for a vote of the workers. Democrats will argue that once a majority have signed the petition that should be enough. "Who needs a vote?" they'll say. "We already see that a majority of the workers have signed a petition for a union! That should be enough!" Pressure? Coercion? Democrats will deny it exists.

Representative Barney Frank is pushing the idea of "equality" on this first day of the 110th Congress. He doesn't like income disparity, and he wants to see what the government can do about it. Will he come up with ideas that will allow middle and lower income workers to use their talents and work ethic to earn yet more money? It's more likely he's going to come up with ideas on how to restrict the amount of money the high-achievers can earn. For many Democrats the way to correct income disparity is to punish those who do well in order to gain the affections of those who are satisfied with mediocrity.

Democrats, you see, think that income is "distributed." The idea that income is earned is foreign to them. Remember though, this is the party that believes America is great because of government.

My hope is that over the next few years we'll see more and more people suddenly develop an interest in politics. It would be wonderful if we could spend our days concentrating on our families and our careers. How nice it would be if we didn't have to worry so much about what was going on in Washington. That, after all, is the way our founding fathers wanted it to be. The federal government simply wasn't supposed to play this big a role in our daily lives! Our founding fathers made it clear that in times of peace about 95% of all governance should happen at the local level. Now virtually every aspect of our lives is controlled in one way or another by the politicians and regulators enjoying their positions of power and privilege in Washington.

I have this sense - and I've expressed it on the air - that I have lived through the best that this country will ever be. Freedom is on the wane. People pay only basic lip service to the idea of freedom. Freedom to chose where you're going to go on vacation, where you will work, what you will eat, where you'll worship and live --- that's all fine. Freedom to negotiate your own wages with your employer, to govern your own health care, to manage your own retirement plans and to decide where your children will go to school ... well, that's just too much. The consequences of bad choices there are just to grave to leave to chance. This must be handled by the government.

Can our love of freedom be rekindled? Frankly, I doubt it. We're too lazy. Too used to the good life. We love living as adult children with our mommy and daddy, in the form of government, taking care of our basic needs while we sit around worrying who the next Falcon's head coach will be and who is going to be the next American Idol.

I guess in a few years from now some young people will look at me and think to themselves "He's old! Yeeechhhhh." Yeah, maybe so. But I knew America when freedom was precious. I knew America before the war on the individual. I knew America before political correctness. I knew America when individual accomplishment was celebrated, not derided; when grades meant something and when the mother of a functionally illiterate child didn't drive around with a "My child is an honor student" bumper sticker on her car.

I knew America when they kept score in games and when winning was something to be proud of; when mothers allowed their kids to play games where people hit them and threw things at them, instead of running around kicking balls.

I was raised by a generation that recognized the necessity of fighting .. fighting long and hard, if necessary .. to preserve freedom.

Old? Maybe in the eyes of some know-it-all 20-something. But I'm not going to grow old in a country with a government-controlled economy where initiative is punished. I'm not going to know the misery of socialized medicine. I'll never have to wait months for a simple MRI or elective surgery.

Can America be saved? Can we be rescued from politicians who are more interested in their positions of power and the perks that come with membership in the congress? Perhaps ... but I don't see it happening. I don't see it happening as long as CNN can travel to the sidewalks and find some young bimbo who will proclaim that she doesn't want to manage any part of her own retirement plans --- that she would rather have the government do it all for her. I don't see it happening as long as people look to the government to set their wage rates. And I certainly don't see it happening as long as the American people remain blissfully unaware of the threat of Islamic fascism.

But anyway ...... let's move on to some more notes.

HILLARY GEARING UP

Hillary Clinton is poised to make her run for the highest office in the land and is sizing up the competition. She thinks Obamamania is going to pass and she actually views the ambulance-chasing John Edwards as a threat. Very interesting....we're only 22 months or so from finding out who will take over the Oval Office next. When you consider that the nomination will be locked up by Super Tuesday next March, we're only a year from finding out who will take on John McCain, or Rudy Giuliani or Mitt Romney or whoever. There's not much time.

So who will The Hildabeast be facing in the primary? Probably no one. Barack Obama is going to fade...most likely because he will have peaked too soon and because he hasn't done anything the least bit noteworthy as yet in his short political career. Aside from the fact that the media is treating his potential candidacy like the Second Coming, there's not much to it. Just tell me one issue that Obama has championed? What issues is he known for? Oh, and then the revelation that he did cocaine while in college...that isn't going to help either. It shows a weak personality. So it's Bye-Bye-Barack. Enjoy your 15 minutes.

What of John Edwards? His candidacy is going nowhere. He wasn't electable when he ran with The Poodle and he isn't now. But he's got a lot of money and connections, so he'll hang around long enough to give Hillary a workout on C-SPAN in a few debates. But really, Edwards is in the same boat as Obama. He doesn't have much of a record either -- except his record as a rather successful plaintiff's attorney. Remember .. this is the guy who said that cripples would walk if the voters would just make John Kerry our president.

So far it looks like smooth sailing for Hillary Clinton. The next year is going to be interesting. On top of that, you have Nancy Pelosi swinging the Speaker's gavel down at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue. What fun!

AIN'T THAT SWEET???

Michigan’s hyperpartisan representative John Conyers has admitted that he “possibly violating House rules by requiring his official staff to perform campaign-related work, according to a statement quietly released by the House ethics committee late Friday evening”, according to this Hill Magazine article.

The top Republican and Democratic members on the ethics panel, Reps. Doc Hastings (R-WA) and Howard Berman (D-CA), said in a statement that Conyers acknowledged a “lack of clarity” in communicating what was expected of his official staff and that he accepted responsibility for his actions.

“[Conyers] agreed to take a number of additional, significant steps to ensure that his office complies with all rules and standards regarding campaign and personal work by congressional staff,” they stated. “We have concluded that this matter should be resolved through the issuance of this public statement.”

Regardless of the “additional, significant steps” taken, this is proof of the Democrats’ own culture of corruption. It smacks me as hypocritical if further steps aren’t taken by incoming Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Whether she realized it or not, she set the bar by bypassing Alcee Hastings for the House Intelligence Committee Chairmanship because he was impeached by a Democratic House and convicted by a Democratic Senate. How can Conyers chair the House Judiciary Committee in light of his admitting his unethical behavior?

I’d further suggest that the Ethics Committee’s work isn’t finished, contrary to their statement saying that “We have concluded that this matter should be resolved through the issuance of this public statement.” Issuing a public statement and putting in place some undisclosed “additional, significant steps” isn’t nearly good enough. This behavior isn’t nothing. Instead, it’s rather disturbing. Conyers’ actions were deliberate and they were repetitious in nature.

This is an early test of Ms. Pelosi’s veracity, too. She’s already letting John Murtha, one of CREW’s most corrupt Washington politicians chair the House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee. If she’s willing to let a corrupt person like John Conyers chair one of the most powerful House committees, how can we take her seriously when she says that she’ll run the most honest, ethical, and open Congress in history? That a nice soundbite but it isn’t based in reality, at least based on the facts I’ve presented thus far.

The finding by the ethics panel could spark debate, and perhaps eclipse, the first week of the incoming-Democratic majority’s plans to change the House ethics rules, as well as raise questions about Conyers’ standing to chair the Judiciary Committee.

Ms. Pelosi isn’t the only person on the hot seat over this issue. If the editors at the Washington Post, the NY Times and the LA Times don’t give this serious coverage, then we’ll have additional proof that these media outlets aren’t serious about reporting important facts about Democratic corruption. This wouldn’t be shocking but it is more ammunition that the major media outlets aren’t serious, reliable news-gathering outlets.

A spokesman for Incoming House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) said Conyers will remain chairman of the Judiciary Committee.

The Hill is a respected Capitol Hill magazine. They generally employ trustworthy reporters. Let’s see how the ‘Big Three’ newspapers react to the Hill’s article. Let’s see if they take Ms. Pelosi to task for keeping Conyers as Judiciary Committee Chairman. Let’s see if the major media outlets will start questioning Pelosi’s ability to lead. Let’s see if they start questioning her judgment. Based on the decisions she’s made thus far, it’s safe to say that she’s a walking disaster for the Democratic Party. She’s giving Republicans a ton of ammunition to campaign on already and she hasn’t even been sworn in yet.

The Hill reported last March that two former Conyers’ aides alleged that he repeatedly violated House ethics rules by requiring aides to work on local and state
campaigns, and babysit and chauffeur his children. Deanna Maher, a former deputy chief of staff in the Detroit office, and Sydney Rooks, a former legal counsel in his district office, shared numerous letters, memos, e-mails, handwritten notes and expense reports with The Hill.

It’s obvious that Conyers knowingly and repeatedly violated House ethics guidelines. I don’t see why a slap on the wrist is in order for such a willing disregard for the House ethics rules. What’s more alarming is that Conyers is the clown that’s all bent out of shape over President Bush’s infamous Sixteen Words, claiming that that sentence, combined with the Downing Street Memos, constitute grounds for impeachment.

Let’s also remember this bit of Conyers history:

Working with Conyers, the Ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, Democrats have introduced legislation to end racial profiling, limit the reach of the Patriot Act, and make immigration safe and accessible. Leader Pelosi is a proud cosponsor of the End Racial Profiling Act, the Security and Freedom Ensured Act (SAFE), and the Safe, Orderly, and Legal Visas Enforcement Act (SOLVE).

In other words, John Conyers has a history of caving into his Muslim constituents by attempting to gut the USA Patriot Act. That official statement was made prior to the Democratic National Convention in July, 2004. If you think that’s ancient history, think again:

Turns out among those attending their conference was Rep.-elect Keith Ellison, (D-MN), who will be the first Muslim sworn into Congress (with his hand on the Quran). Two days earlier, Ellison, an African-American convert who wants to criminalize Muslim profiling, spoke at a fundraiser for the Council on American-Islamic Relations, the Muslim-rights group that wasted no time condemning US Airways for “prejudice and ignorance.” CAIR wants congressional hearings to investigate other incidents of “flying while Muslim.” Incoming Judiciary Chairman John Conyers, (D-MI), has already drafted a resolution, borrowing from CAIR rhetoric, that gives Muslims special civil-rights protections.

Part of this legislation is to make racial profiling illegal, thereby gutting the USA Patriot Act.

FULL SADDAM HANGING VIDEO

FULL SADDAM HANGING VIDEO Infowars Chatroom: http://infowars-chat.net irc: irc.virtuanet.org #infowars

SADDAM'S LAST MOMMENT

By Michelle Malkin

Video:

Jeff Goldstein reflects on Saddam Husseined.

Andy McCarthy weighs in:

I had to turn off the TV-news.

This is a solemn, important moment. It's not a joyous one. An evil man deserved to die. His elimination was necessary — not close to sufficient, but necessary — for achieving, over time, a semblance civilized stability in Iraq...

...This wasn't victory. It didn't end suffering. It was, in the heat of a war that has actually gotten more vicious and more uncertain since Saddam's capture three years ago, the carrying out of an essential but unpleasant duty. It marginally enhances Iraq's propects, and ours. But Saddam's death (as opposed to his deposing) has no impact whatsoever on the deep dysfunction and hatred that is rending what passes for Iraqi society...

...Saddam's death is a marker worth observing. It is not something to go up in a balloon over.

Meanwhile, the American Left is, yes, unhinged.