IRAN THREATENS TO BLOCK OFF STRAITS OF HORMUZ

That’s the word according to this Jerusalem Post article. Here’s what the article says:

A senior Iranian officer warned that if the West continues to threaten Iran’s economy over its nuclear program, Tehran will discontinue the flow of oil via the Strait of Hormuz, Israel Radio reported Monday.

According to the officer, 40% of the world’s oil is transferred through the strait, and the world is dependent on Iran for a source of energy and a stable economy.

Iran’s spiritual leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, added that Iran cannot allow itself to give up the right to develop its nuclear technology program.

The first thing I though of was this Ralph Peters op-ed. Here’s what Col. Peters wrote:

WORD that Adm. William Fallon will move laterally from our Pacific Command to take charge of Central Command, responsible for the Middle East, while two ground wars rage in the region baffled the media. Why put a swabbie in charge of grunt operations?

There’s a one-word answer: Iran.

ASSIGNING a Navy aviator and combat veteran to oversee our military operations in the Persian Gulf makes perfect sense when seen as a preparatory step for striking Iran’s nuclear-weapons facilities, if that becomes necessary.

While the Air Force would deliver the heaviest tonnage of ordnance in a campaign to frustrate Tehran’s quest for nukes, the toughest strategic missions would fall to our Navy. Iran would seek to retaliate asymmetrically by attacking oil platforms and tankers, closing the Strait of Hormuz, and trying to hit oil infrastructure in Saudi Arabia and the Gulf emirates.

Only the U.S. Navy, hopefully, with Royal Navy and Aussie vessels underway beside us, could keep the oil flowing to a thirsty world.

In short, the toughest side of an offensive operation against Iran would be the defensive aspects, requiring virtually every air and sea capability we could muster. (Incidentally, an additional U.S. carrier battle group is now headed for the Gulf; Britain and Australia are also strengthening their naval forces in the region.)

Democrats are loudly criticizing President Bush for everything he’s done in the Middle East, whether it’s the Taliban regrouping in Afghanistan or too much sectarian violence in Baghdad or “not winning the peace.” This move shows that he’s a step ahead with Iran. There’s no convincing me that he didn’t anticipate Iran threatening this when he started down the path of sanctions with Iran’s mullahs.

I’d further submit that this proves that he’s got a plan for keeping the oil flowing through the Straits. This shouldn’t be taken lightly because the unnamed senior Iranian officer is right: 40% of the world’s oil is transferred through the strait. I would say that there’s enough cushion in the world’s production capacity to offset Iran’s withholding its oil from the market, at least temporarily.

BRUSH UP ON YOUR SPANISH

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer was on TV yesterday saying the president told him he would have an easier time dealing with them on immigration policy than with the Republicans. In other words, get our your Pesos...the Mexican invasion will continue. Let's look at the numbers, shall we?

Right now, there are some 12 million illegal aliens in this country from Mexico, give or take a few hundred thousand. Some estimates go as high as 20 million. That's the number we're at with illegal immigration still being....well, illegal. What is going to happen once you adopt the president's amnesty plan and throw open the doors to anyone who wants to come here for a guest worker card? Another 10 or 15 million? Can your local Home Depot parking lot handle the surge?

El Presidente also knows that the Democratic Congress, eager to pander for the Hispanic vote, will bury this idea of building a border fence. After all, it was only for 700 miles anyway....and besides, they could spend the money elsewhere. You think our laws against illegal immigration are a joke now...it's only going to get worse.

This is the first time in American history that we have been invaded...and the president of the United States doesn't care. Somebody's gotta pick the strawberries, you know.

DEMOCRATS PREPARE ONSLAUGHT OF INVESTIGATIONS: WELCOME TO THE NEW CONGRESSIONAL "LEADERSHIP"

Democratic strategists say it is far better for the party to keep the war focus on Bush than it is to devise a detailed exit plan for Iraq.

“We are not at a point at this moment where I can say we have a specific strategy, but we have several options,” said Sen. Richard Durbin of Illinois, the No. 2 Democratic leader. (Associated Press, 1/6/07)

The truth at last. And this coming from the man who compared our military to Nazis, and is probably still drying his eyes over Saddam’s execution.

So much for “a new direction”. So much for “we have a plan”.

The election is over, voters are back to sleep, and now it’s time to play partisan politics — at the expense of the public good. For Dems without ideas, the best practice is always to criticize others. Welcome to the dawn of Democratic leadership.

AP reports:

“In this new era of divided government, the congressional hearing room is where the executive and legislative branches will clash.

Over the next few weeks, Senate Democrats plan to hold at least 11 hearings just on Iraq. In the House, one of the Democrats’ most dogged investigators is waiting to spring his committee on a different mission — suspected government fraud.

From the war to environmental policy and secret surveillance, the Democrats who now control both the House and Senate are armed with subpoena power and ready to summon panels of witnesses.

These newly empowered Democrats plan to put the Bush administration under scrutiny like never before.
. . .

Iraq is the focal point of Democratic efforts.”

So, instead of rolling out original ideas, introducing strategy, and making plans — as usual, Democrats are just making noise and leaving the heavy-lifing to others.

“The hearings are one way for Democrats to respond to the party’s anti-war wing. Last week, as Democrats prepared to assume power in the new Congress, anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan and a group of protesters interrupted a Democratic press conference, chanting “De-escalate. Investigate. Troops home now!”

The outburst highlighted the limited options Democrats have on redirecting policy in Iraq. Short of cutting off money for the war — a step Democratic leaders say they will not take — Congress has little recourse but to agitate publicly against Bush’s strategy.”

That spells it out, doesn’t it? Amazing what kernels of truth can be found between the lines. Dems have “little recourse but to agitate”? No wonder they’re bankrupt for ideas.

Here’s another option, Democrats should try it sometime: Ignore the fringe. Disregard the vocal activists. Don’t pander to leftist nutjobs like Sheehan, and do what’s best for America.

We’re fighting a war. We’re battling against terrorism. We’ve lost lives, so make the sacrifices of those fallen soldiers count. Put national interest above political self-interest.

That’s the job at hand. That is your sworn duty.

Stop posturing to score points and do something original. In other words, show some real leadership.

AN OPPORTUNITY FOR REPUBLICANS

What a scene it was yesterday....there was Dennis Hastert, former Speaker of the House, sitting in the back row of the chamber as Nancy Pelosi was handed the gavel, just another member of Congress. This may turn out to be the best thing that ever happened to the GOP...if they play their cards right. The failed regime who guided the Republicans to defeat last fall is now out of power. Better yet, their biggest critics are now in charge.

Which means they get to sit back and show us all how it's supposed to be done. No longer can the Democrats criticize the way Republicans do things. Now they get to be in charge. If the House was so unethical for the last 12 years, then let's see just how ethical it is for the next two. The GOP, if they play their cards right, can really hold the Democrats' feet to the fire here.

Every single time one Democrat or another gets into ethical trouble (and it will happen,) Republicans get to rail against the "culture of corruption." Imagine the campaign ads! Sooner or later, William "Cold Cash" Jefferson will go to trial. Will the Democrats expel him from the House if he is indicted, or will they wait to see if he can escape a conviction? Imagine the possibilities.

The Republican Party may have been defeated at the polls last November, but it just may turn out to be the best thing that ever happened to them.

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.