Wednesday, December 29, 2010

One revolving door is not like the other

Special Comment by Mr. Frank Aaronson SecFear Malcolm P. Stag III *

"The liberal media has no business complaining about the military's revolving door
unless it is prepared to look at its own reflection in the other one." 
- Frank Aaronson 

Two industries -- I'll call them Industry A and Industry B -- have different kinds of leaders, fulfilling markedly different roles in American society.   Leaders in both industries have been known to take up  employment within both the public and private sectors, passing through a so-called "revolving door."   Yet these leaders and their industries have little else in common. 

Leaders of Industry A
  1. Idea of "public service" is a two-year stint in the West Wing.
  2. Purpose is profits (and large bonuses).
  3. Motivation is money.
  4. Provide jobs for fellow Harvard graduates in New York City.
  5. Attended mainly ivy league schools, prep schools.
  6. Encourage downsizing, off-shoring, and relentless margin-cutting, resulting in lower paid jobs for the American workforce. 
  7. Work in the industry that caused the Great Depression and Great Recession.
Leaders of Industry B
  1. Idea of "public service" is to spend 25 years on military bases in God-forsaken lands, including a decade being shot at by hajis in Iraq or Afghanistan.
  2. Purpose is to keep America safe, protect the free world.
  3. Motivation is patriotism, honor, ethic of self-sacrifice.
  4. Provide jobs for millions of Americans across every state in the Union.
  5. Attended mainly state schools and military academies.
  6. Provide upward mobility for millions of America's lower and middle class youth.
  7. Work in the industry that won World War II and the Cold War.
A certain journalist has been blogging about the career path of a particular Industry A man.  This guy spent 2 years in the White House, and now he's going to work for City Group, the big bank which he happened to have helped bail out while in the White House.  Name's Peter Orszag.   Fine, the guy's a schmuck.    I'm not about to defend a guy like this.  

But then the same journalist, who should know better, pointing to an article in the Boston Globe, has the audacity to compare Orszag's situation to the the career path of some of our nation's finest military leaders.   And I say that's just plain wrong.

It's no secret that in retirement, generals go to work for defense contractors, they serve on corporate boards.    Well, who the hell is supposed to serve on the  boards of our defense contractors?   Wall Street twerps like Orszag?    I mean seriously, if it's not long-serving demonstratively patriotic military minds who go on to serve on the boards of defense industry firms, then who?

Because the alternative is to see America's corporate board rooms filled with yet more self-serving ivy-educated MBAs and Wall Street bankers.  It really makes you wonder about the motivation of liberal elite media when you read this kind of thing.    The journalist pointed out something really interesting on his blog: "Until this past week," the journalist wrote, "the Post had not devoted a single newspaper item to the Orszag-Citigroup story."  Whereas the Boston Globe ran a three-thousand-word "investigative report" about the military's revolving door, for weeks, no major newspaper thought the Orszag story worth so much as a paragraph.   One revolving door is considered newsworthy, the other isn't.   Does one detect a double-standard here?   (If I was conspiratorially minded I would ask whether the liberal news media is plotting to clear some more space in corporate board rooms for their ivy-league educated brothers.)
One simply cannot compare the paths of Industry A and Industry B leaders through their respective  so-called "revolving doors."   Industry A is comprised of individuals who had the opportunity to attend the country's finest universities, and then elected to apply their skills and knowledge first by cashing out on Wall Street, all the whilst dining in Manhattan's finest restaurants.  This career path sometimes includes a few years networking with lawmakers at Georgetown cocktail parties.   Corrupt?  You be the judge of that.

On the other hand, Industry B is led by uniformed men and women, who, generally lacking the former group's privileges, have elected to dedicate the better part of their careers to the service of their country.  They endure years of discomfort on military bases, dodge mortar fire and IEDs in Iraq or Afghanistan, and live in cramped naval vessels.  Invariably they live away from their families for months at a time.  For the sake of our country, they put themselves in harm's way.   If finally, at the end of a long and distinguished military career, the finest among this latter group get invited to sit on this or that corporate board, perhaps standing a chance of earning some real money, that's a problem?  Please.

The elite liberal media has no business complaining about the military's revolving door unless it is prepared to look at its own reflection in the other one.
* DoF blog originally incorrectly identified Sec Fear Malcolm P. Stag III as the author of this post.  The post is by Mr. Frank Aaronson.   As explained here, the opinions represented in this post represent only the views of the author, not the United States Department of Fear.

Monday, December 27, 2010

Sue Myrick's letter to Obama on home-grown terrorists

America has become a terrorism exporting nation.

When DoF first heard that a congresswoman had written the president to complain that America is exporting terrorism, we naturally assumed that the woman was just another nutty liberal out to malign America's patriotic and profitable defense industry.

Fortunately -- and most alarmingly -- that turns out not to be the case.  

The Age reports that Rep. Sue Myrick (R-NC), in a letter to Obama, warned the president that the US is now an Islamic terrorist exporting nation:
In her letter, Mrs Myrick said: ''For many years we lulled ourselves with the idea that radicalisation was not happening inside the United States. We believed American Muslims were immune to radicalisation because, unlike their European counterparts, they are socially and economically well integrated into society.
"There had been warnings that these assumptions were false but we paid them no mind. Today, there is no doubt that radicalisation is taking place inside America."
"The strikingly accelerated rate of American Muslims arrested for involvement in terrorist activities since May 2009 makes this fact self-evident. What has been missed is that our home-grown terrorists are now becoming a global threat."
Among cases Mrs Myrick cited was that of David Coleman Headley, a US citizen who conducted the reconnaissance for the Mumbai attacks and also visited Britain. She also wrote about Samir Khan, a propagandist with al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula who produces an English-language online magazine called Inspire. He comes from Mrs Myrick's home town of Charlotte, North Carolina.
The Congresswomen is not only a serious person, a Republican from North Carolina, but she has an enviable track record when it comes to keeping Americans alert to the threat of terrorism.   The article notes Myrick warned the nation that the Council on American Islamic Relations was trying to plant spies on Capitol Hill by placing Muslim interns.  She also urged the State Department to yank President Carter's passport after he held a meeting with Hamas, the Gaza-based terrorist group.

It goes without saying that the best way to decrease the threat of homegrown Muslim terrorism is to continue to bomb Muslim countries, thereby decreasing the number of Muslims who want to emigrate here.     Another common sense approach would be to fly drones over American communities known to be providing sanctuary to Muslim terrorists, striking any buildings in which they may be holding out.  

Saturday, December 25, 2010

Wishing You a Safe and Merry Christmas

National Christmas Tree, Washington D.C.

The National Christmas Tree (top left corner of photo) stands on the Ellipse behind the White House.  Towards the center of the above photo you can see DoF's contribution.   The photo graces the cover of our Christmas greeting card.  We mail these out to our friends in the media and former/future colleagues in the defense industry. 

A limited number of cards signed by Sec Fear Malcolm P. Stag III are available in the gift store at DoF Center.  If you're in Washington over the holidays, be sure to drop by and pick one up.  Sorry sold out.

Monday, December 20, 2010

Sec Fear: Problems with New START Treaty

American workers are building our anti-balistic missile defense system.

DoF has serious concerns about New START and we fully support the efforts of a few Senate Republicans to kill the treaty by amending it.   Malcolm P. Stag III, Secretary of Fear, explained the department's opposition to New START during a speech Monday at the US Chamber of Commerce:
Failure to ratify New START will make it more difficult to prevent other states from building up nuclear arsenals of their own. Even if killing New START doesn't spark a three-way nuclear arms race between the Russians, the Chinese, and ourselves, it is certain to curtail support for the NPT. Presently, the rationale for America's strategic defense initiative depends on the indefinite continuation of the rogue regimes ruling Iran and North Korea. Yet, both of these unpopular regimes could collapse at any time, depriving us of our strongest sales pitch for anti-ballistic missile technology.   Even nuclear proliferation has an upside: it opens up an array of new markets for our anti-ballistic missile defense systems. 
It has been correctly pointed out that Russia's poorly defended nuclear weapons stockpile will not be easy for the US to monitor should New START fail. This situation also has an economic upside: It will provide an incentive for greater investment in an array of counter-terrorism measures. Also, emergency preparedness, including bomb-shelter design and construction. Tolerating higher risk in one area has the advantage of stimulating more investment in other areas, creating new jobs and boosting the US economy. 
Arms control is fundamentally incompatible with the sustained growth of the security and defense sectors.... Let us not forget that the New Start treaty was negotiated during a decade of economic prosperity and jobs growth. Given the recent slowdown in the US economy, ratification of New START can no longer be justified on economic grounds.
DoF is optimistic that geo-politically speaking, killing New START ought to be sufficiently destabilizing to spur the US economy for decades to come.   From the perspective of the DoF, the economic case against New START is bunker-strong.

Saturday, December 18, 2010

Why we prefer Fox News

The New York Times reports:
According to the study, which can be reviewed online, in most cases, the more a person watched and read the news, the less likely they were to have been misled about the facts. But “there were however a number of cases where greater exposure to a news source increased misinformation on a specific issue,” the study’s authors wrote. In particular, they found that regular viewers of the Fox News Channel, which tilts to the right in prime time, were significantly more likely to believe untruths about the Democratic health care overhaul, climate change and other subjects.
As per the department's moto, Timendi causa est nescire.

Wednesday, December 15, 2010

Preferring Fox News, Air Force blocks liberal media sites

The United States Department of Fear has long maintained that Americans -- particularly employees of the federal government -- should get their news from Fox.  In our experience, the so-called liberal media is an unreliable source of information about the biggest threats to the American Way of Life. Of course, these include terrorism, drugs, social activism, and illegal immigration.

In a positive development, the US Air Force has apparently used the New York Times' decision to publish the stolen US government documents released by WikiLeaks as a pretext for blocking the newspaper's website -- along with 25 other liberal media sites that have been actively promoting America's dangerous new enemy.   The effect of this move will be to encourage US Air Force staff to turn to America's "fair and balanced" news source.

Fox News reported:
Other sites that have been blocked include Germany's Der Spiegel, France's Le Monde, Britain's Guardian and Spain's El Pais... is not one of the blocked sites...
The only thing worse than the New York Times is a left wing European paper.   It goes without saying that Americans can't possibly learn anything they need to know from Le Monde, a socialist French paper.    For one thing, nobody reads French. 

It should be pointed out that American troops don't want access the New York Times or any leftist European  newspaper sites.  Back in 2008 Right's Pundit reported:
It makes perfect sense to me that troops overseas would prefer Fox News because they are getting fair treatment and fair perspective in the war coverage provided. Troops and their families are also frequently honored by FOX for their great service and sacrifice to this country.

...The troop’s choice? It’s Fox News.
Fox News had this to say about the strong support the network enjoys at US military installations around the world:

It's not just the military, at DoF Center in Washington D.C., our televisions are always tuned to Fox News.  The staff wouldn't have it any other way.

Swedes teach Americans how to react to failed attacks

Sweden was recently attacked by a terrorist who blew himself up, almost killing many people.    Fortunately, the only person who died was the terrorist himself.  Of course, next time it could be worse.   Swedes, a people so obsessed with safety that they invented the Volvo,  understand that even a bungled terror attack is cause to feel very frightened; they know that's reason to stay awake at night.

Dr. Rebecca Wolf, Undersecretary for Community and Social Media at the United States Department of Fear, told Fox News, "After hearing of the failed attack in Stockholm, Swedes responded by sharing their fears on Twitter.   The Swedes provide an example for Americans to emulate."  Dr. Wolf explained, "Young Swedes promoted a new Twitter topic (#prayforSweden) which, for several hours, became the top "trending topic" on Twitter.  As a result, 9 million frightened Swedes were able to spread their fear throughout the entire Twitter community -- some 145 million souls."

Here is a sample of DoF's favorite tweets relating to the crisis in Sweden:

 Did you know there's been a Terrorist attack here in Sweden?! I'm scared as hell!
 France, Scotland, Sweden and London. I'm scared actually
 Police doing door to door questioning regarding Sweden Bomber. I was too scared so i went n hid under my duvet
 hey what happened with  ?? we are still in danger :(
 Please  ... There has been a terrorist attack over there. There may be more! 
 gonna sleep. hope there wont be any new bombs this night :/ 
  First terrorist bomb thing here ever last night. So scary.

In the US, when terrorists attacks fail, the TSA creates new inconveniences for travelers, taking away more of their freedoms.   Given that the failed attack in Sweden did not involve air transport, how should Sweden respond?

DoF hopes that Sweden will react by taking away WikiLeak's presumed freedom to publish stolen documents.  The first step, demanding the extradition of Jullian Assange from Great Britain, is already underway.   After putting the alleged sex criminal on trial in Stockholm, DoF urges Swedes to support the  prompt extradition of Assange to the United States to face espionage charges.

By supporting US government secrecy, Swedes support the ability of American leaders to plan future wars in the Middle East.   To paraphrase George W. Bush, if we Americans can fight our wars over there, we many never have to bomb Sweden.

Wednesday, December 8, 2010

Mike Hayden: "Privately security professionals paint a world even more dangerous"

Gen. Michael V. Hayden, former director of the CIA and NSA, stands on the far left.

Mike Hayden, a close friend of Sec Fear Malcolm P. Stag III, served as director of the National Security Agency (NSA) from 1999–2005.  As NSA director, Mike was instrumental in turning the apparatus of American's spy technology "inward" so that the government could monitor the private phone conversations of the American people without any judicial oversight.

Having overseen signal intelligence assets that only narrowly missed detecting the terrorists who planned  the catastrophic attacks of 9/11, Mike has long been regarded as a true hero in the Global War on Terror.    Mike performed so well as leader of America's "electronic spy agency" that in 2006 he was promoted by Vice President Dick Cheney to serve as CIA director.  
Tuesday, in an op-ed for CNN, Mike explained "Who's to blame for damage from WikiLeaks?":
If anything, the private conversations of diplomats and security professionals paint a world even more dangerous than the one we usually allow ourselves to describe publicly. And there seems to be more consistency with this American worldview on the part of our friends and allies than is generally admitted. Quite an exposé.
Now what will this and the previous dumps cost us? With a certainty approaching 1.0, it will cost us sources. Some described in previous releases will be killed. Others, like those who described the inner workings of the formation of the German government, will simply refuse to talk to Americans.... 
SIPRNET, the Department of Defense network from which these documents were stolen, has a vast array of data available to hundreds of thousands of subscribers. We will now conclude that this is too much information and too many people, and we will once again be trading off potential physical safety for information security. It will set back the kind of information sharing that has actually made us safer since 9/11.
Who bears responsibility for this? The prime culprits are clear. 
There is, of course, the original leaker of the data. Then there is Julian Assange, whom I have described previously as "a dangerous combination of arrogance and incompetence." Listing global infrastructure sites that are critical and vulnerable is not transparency; it is perfidy.
"Partially and indirectly" Mike blames the Obama Administration [note: publicly DoF does not]:
But it was the Obama campaign that made a fetish of openness and transparency, and both the candidate and Harold Koh (then dean of the Yale Law School and now the top lawyer at the State Department) railed against the allegedly excessive secrecy of the Bush administration.
When President Obama decided to make public the details of a covert action of his predecessor -- the CIA interrogation program -- his spokesman defended the move as part of the president's standing commitment to transparency. Things may look different now, but actions and rhetoric have consequences.
And I would especially include the one U.S. news organization that has aggressively maneuvered to have early access to the Wiki dumps -- The New York Times. The Times could have said no to partnering with Assange. But the Times decided instead to attach what exists of its prestige to Assange's piratical enterprise, even though it had to obtain this latest WikiLeaks dump through a third party.
Essentially, The Cheney Administration had successfully created an environment in which secrecy was the norm.  But years of hard work were undone when the Obama campaign irresponsibly indulged the fantasies of the extreme left fringe of the Democratic Party.   Of course, today Obama exhibits a mature approach to secrecy -- as a president must -- but the rhetoric of the 2008 presidential campaign sent the wrong message to society at large.  The result?  Mainstream liberal media indulgence of WikiLeaks criminality.

It's one thing when government officials eavesdrop on the private conversations of the people, it's quite another when WikiLeaks presumes to allow the people to hear the secret conversations of their leaders. Mike understands this distinction and the extreme danger posed by the latter.

Tuesday, December 7, 2010

Promoting information freedom, US to host World Press Freedom Day

World Press Freedom Day in Washington: an opportunity to spotlight China's oppression of cyberdissidents.

Philip Crowley at the State Department sent us this memo today:
The United States is pleased to announce that it will host Unesco's World Press Freedom Day event in 2011, from 1-3 May in Washington, DC.  Next paragraph from the press release:          
Next paragraph from the press release:
The theme for next year's commemoration will be 21st Century Media: New Frontiers, New Barriers. The United States places technology and          innovation at the forefront of its diplomatic and development efforts. New media has empowered citizens around the world to report on their circumstances, express opinions on world events, and exchange information in environments sometimes hostile to such exercises of individuals' right to freedom of expression. At the same time, we are concerned about the determination of some governments to censor and silence individuals, and to restrict the free flow of information. We mark events such as World Press Freedom Day in the context of our enduring commitment to support and expand press freedom and the free flow of information in this digital age.
The United States Department of Fear is proud that America will be hosting the event next year.   As Secretary of State Clinton said in a historic speech on Internet freedom earlier this year, the issue today "isn’t just about information freedom; it is about what kind of world we want and what kind of world we will inhabit."

Let's hope China gets the message.

Sunday, December 5, 2010

Students learn WikiLeaks cables too dangerous to touch

Columbia's SIPAA program partnered with the State Department to scare its students.

Integral to the mission of the United States Department of Fear is to encourage other departments of the federal government to spread fear in the interest of a more profitable foreign policy.  

That's why we love this letter.   A State Department official wrote to Columbia University's School of International and Public Affairs this week.  The letter was a warning to students, informing them that talking about WikiLeaks on Facebook or Twitter could ruin their futures by endangering their job prospects (so true).    Here's the letter

From: Office of Career Services 
Date: Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 3:26 PM
Subject: Wikileaks - Advice from an alum
To: "Office of Career Services (OCS)"

Hi students,

We received a call today from a SIPA alumnus who is working at the State Department. He asked us to pass along the following information to anyone who will be applying for jobs in the federal government, since all would require a background investigation and in some instances a security clearance.

The documents released during the past few months through Wikileaks are still considered classified documents. He recommends that you DO NOT post links to these documents nor make comments on social media sites such as Facebook or through Twitter. Engaging in these activities would call into question your ability to deal with confidential information, which is part of most positions with the federal government.


Office of Career Services

The United States Department of Fear is proud to call the author of this letter one of our own.   

Friday, December 3, 2010

Travel Warning for the United Kingdom

Travel Warning
Bureau of Consular Affairs
United Kingdom
November 3, 2010
The United States Department of Fear has issued this Travel Warning to inform U.S. citizens traveling to and living in United Kingdom about the security situation in United Kingdom.  In August 2010, Julian Paul Assange, the 39 year-old founder of WikiLeaks, allegedly molested and raped two Swedish women in Stockholm.   On 3 December 2010 Julian Assange was added to the Interpol Most Wanted List and an arrest warrant for Julian Assange was issued by the International Public Prosecution Office in Gothenburg, Sweden.   Based upon a security review following the transit of the alleged rapist to London, U.S. government personnel from the Embassy have been advised that the immediate, practical and reliable way to reduce the security risks is for American women to leave the United Kingdom.   
Millions of U.S. citizens safely visit United Kingdom each year.   The British government makes a considerable effort to protect U.S. citizens and other visitors.    Nevertheless, the presence of alleged rapist Julian Assange in London presents a serious risk.  While most victims of rape in Britain are British citizens, we have reason to believe Julian Assange may try to hit on foreign women, including Americans.
It is imperative that female U.S. citizens understand the risks involved in travel to United Kingdom, how best to avoid Julian Assange, and who to contact if one becomes a victim of this alleged rapist.  Common-sense precautions such as avoiding press conferences and Internet cafes during daylight hours, and avoiding areas where a computer nerd might hang-out, can help ensure that travel to United Kingdom is safe and enjoyable.  
Safety Recommendations
Do not display expensive computer hardware, particularly the new 13” MacBook Air, or other geeky electronic items, as these may attract Julian Assange.

U.S. citizens who believe they are being targeted for sex with Julian Assange should notify British law enforcement officials and the U.S. Embassy in London as soon as possible.  Any U.S. visitors who suspect they are at risk of being molested or raped by Julian Assange should consider returning to the United States immediately.  U.S. citizens should be aware that many cases of crime are never resolved by Scotland Yard, and the U.S. government has no authority to investigate crimes committed in United Kingdom.  
Assassination Attempts
While you are enjoying your vacation in the United Kingdom law enforcement operations targeting Jullian Assange may occur.   These operations may involve the land, sea, and air assets of American, British and NATO armed forces.  U.S. citizens are advised to remain in their homes or hotels, and avoid London and surrounding areas during these operations.  
Predator Drone strikes may cause crowds to gather on roads, blocking traffic on streets, including major arteries.  U.S. citizens should take cover in such situations.  
During your stay, Apache attack helicopters may be searching the United Kingdom for Julian Assange. Since the flight routes may change suddenly, U.S. citizens should monitor local media sources for new developments and exercise extreme caution while within the vicinity of the helicopters.   
If you witness a missile attack, do not go the assistance of the wounded.  Be mindful of the fate of the Iraqi rescuers in the van depicted in the so-called “Collateral Murder” video released by WikiLeaks on 6 April 2010.   
Further Information
U.S. citizens are urged to monitor Fox News for information about fast-breaking situations that could affect their security.    The United States Department of Fear provides updates on Twitter.  
Any U.S. citizen who spots Julian Assange is asked to please contact the U.S. Embassy or the closest U.S. Consulate.   
Embassy Address and Phone
24 Grosvenor Square, London, United Kingdom
Switchboard: [44] (0)20 7499-9000

Thursday, December 2, 2010

An opportunity to test a bunker-buster nuclear bomb

DoF has learned that WikiLeaks, the organization responsible for the ongoing "digital 9/11" attack on America, is storing 250,000 State Department cables -- stolen US government property -- in a data center  located in an underground bunker in Sweden (photo, above, shows the actual facility).    In addition,  WikiLeaks is probably using the facility to store confidential financial data belonging to a large, highly respected Wall Street bank.  The likely result of the release of this information would be another taxpayer-funded bank bail-out.

From CNN:

"If Wikileaks founder Julian Assange is trying to turn himself into a Bond villain, he's succeeded: the ongoing distributed denial of service attack against Wikileaks has forced his minions to move the site to a fortified data center encased in a cold war-era, nuke-proof bunker encased in bedrock. Really."
Forbes has further details about the storage site:
"That data center will store Wikileaks' data 30 meters below ground inside a Cold-War-era nuclear bunker carved out of a large rock hill in downtown Stockholm. The server farm has a single entrance and is outfitted by half-meter thick metal doors and backup generators pulled from German submarines --fitting safeguards, perhaps."

One video, from a group called Data Center Pulse, describes the center as one of the coolest on earth and "fit for a James Bond villain." A man who describes himself as Bahnhof's CEO in the video says that the inspiration for the center actually was "science fiction and James Bond movies."
WikiLeak's use of this bunker presents an opportunity for America to test a bunker-buster nuclear warhead.   The development of the B61-11 nuclear warhead, green-lighted by president Clinton, became  a top priority of Vice President Cheney and former Sec Def Don Rumsfeld.  Although the missile is not yet in production, DoF has learned that a functioning prototype is available from Los Alamos.

Other advantages of nuking WikiLeaks
By using the B61-11 nuclear warhead against WikiLeaks's data center, we can send Iran a clear message.   Sweden, a sparsely populated country, is an ideal place to test this kind of technology in the unlikely event that anything should go wrong.  

A nuclear strike against WikiLeaks is an opportunity too good to pass up.  In addition to striking fear in the hearts of Tehran's monstrous leaders, the destruction of WikiLeaks' data center should reignite public enthusiasm for the continued development of America's nuclear arsenal in the years ahead.
This video describes how nuclear bunker-buster technology works:

Wednesday, December 1, 2010

WikiLeaks scaring the shit out of Americans

"It could be very, very damaging. . . . The Secretary slammed the release of the cables, calling it an attack."
"...there's enormous potential damage for the United States in these -- in these leaks, Jill. I assume that's what officials there are telling you."
"WikiLeaks is creating a new and potentially dangerous information paradigm...."

As never before during a national security crisis, Americans are turning to social media to express their fears.   A new survey of social media sites by a DoF research team reveals America's deep-seated fear of  WikiLeaks.

Dr. Rebecca Wolf, Deputy Secretary for Community and Social Media at DoF, has learned of Americans who "cannot sleep" (see here and here), so frightened are they of the subversive whistle-blowing organization.

Dr. Wolf writes, "The response on Twitter shows that the media is doing its job." She added, "Throughout the cablegate crisis, government and news media organizations have continued to cooperate in the interest of protecting the national security establishment."

The team's findings affirm that traditional news media organizations continue to serve a critical role.   Easton Syme, a senior DoF analyst, writes, "Rather than displace traditional media, DoF research shows that new social media tools complement traditional media.  Americans learn from traditional news sources what to fear; and the salience of the propaganda is amplified by social media.  It's a virtuous circle."

These tweets illustrate how America has reacted to WikiLeaks:

 Sam Tate  Wikileaks scares me
 Monty Dhaliwal   scares the hell out of me. Maybe ignorance really is bliss...
 Sasha Nouri  This genuinely scares me. RT @ Gary Sick on Wikileaks, Iran and war  
 Gregory Littley Wikileaks scares me, to the core. Hillary Clinton delivered statement on Wikileaks  
 James Bailie  wikileaks scares me. i have no idea what it is, or whether i'm going to die because of it....
 Larawriter WikiLeaks scares me.

DoF salutes everyone who has shared their fear of WikiLeaks by way of social media.  The reaction to WikiLeaks suggests that US citizens have learned to take perceived national security threats very seriously.   That's positive.  Of course, there can be too much of a good thing.   Scared shitless of WikiLeaks, the country may be at risk of paralysis.  Decisions will have to be made.  The question America's leaders face today is:  How to channel public fear of WikiLeaks into programs that will either profit our partners in the security and defense industries or expand the influence of the national security establishment?

Shortly after having been briefed by DoF opinion researchers, Sec Fear Malcolm P. Stag III participated in a panel with Fox News host Bill O'Reilly.   Secretary Stag said,  "At this point, the government needs to do something -- just about anything -- and the sooner the better.  Basically, we've got to either bomb something* or pass some new laws.  Preferably both.  This approach promises to make the American People fee safer."

Mr. O'Reilly asked Secretary Stag if he could be more specific: "Assuming he's not too busy nationalizing American industry, what is the next step Obama might take?"

Sec Fear replied, "Obviously, the next step would be for our Commander in Chief to ask Sec Def Gates  to identify WikiLeaks-related targets to strike.   Whether the bombing is to be carried out by the CIA or the Pentagon, the president needs a list of targets.  He will also want to call up the Attorney General.   (Attorney Gen.) Holder will be told to compile a list of freedoms that Americans could be asked to give up in exchange for the perception of greater security."

* For example, we can try to take out Julian Assange, as suggested by the Rev. Mike Huckabee, perhaps by way of drone strike as suggested by an advisor to the Canadian prime minister.