A moment to treasure in these dangerous times

USSR May Day poster from 1919

To honor the memory of the death of Osama bin Laden and America's sacrifices in the war on terror, the US should pressure the UN to declare May 1st a new kind of public holiday.  

Three weeks ago a remarkable scene unfolded outside DoF Center on Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington D.C..  A DoF staff member recorded a video (below) of young Americans celebrating the death of Osama bin Laden.   But such joyous occasions are likely to be few and far between.  We believe a new national holiday could serve to annually rekindle memories of those sweet tears of happiness that were shed on May 1, 2011, helping to sustain enthusiasm for the Global War on Terror through the decades.  

Such a holiday would do good in more ways than one.  Presently many people around the world hold inappropriate celebrations on May 1 or May Day.  Wikipedia notes that "in many countries, May Day is synonymous with International Workers' Day, or Labour Day, a day of political demonstrations and celebrations organised by communists, anarchists, socialists, unionists, and other activist groups."  May Day is a dangerous anachronism, a relic of another century.   The best way to consign the anti-capitalist spirit of May Day to history's dustbin is to displace it.

This September the president of the United States will stand before before the General Assembly of the United Nations and remind the world of the what America achieved on May 1, 2011.  The United States Department of Fear believes that President Obama should then ask the countries of the world to join with America in declaring May 1st "International Counter-Terrorism Day" or "Death to Terrorists Day."  The president should say that any countries that don't establish the new May 1st holiday are making a choice to stand against us. 

Politico: Congress about to declare total worldwide war

Celebrating the death of bin Laden outside the White House.

National celebrations marking the death of bin Laden were not some kind of "grand finale." A better analogy is the half-time show at a football game.   We've still got a game to play.

Republicans, having huddled, have a bold new strategy for the second half.  Politico describes a muscular Republican-sponsored bill that would kick off the next the next phase of the War on Terror:

... critics say the Republican-sponsored measure amounts to the first full-scale declaration of war by the U.S. since World War II – at a moment when counter-terrorism efforts are succeeding, the U.S. is withdrawing from Iraq, and about to begin a withdrawal from Afghanistan. And, they say, it gives Obama and any successor carte blanche to attack any individual or any nation without further approval from Congress.

“The U.S. is trying to finish up and pull out of two wars right now [but] Congress is involved in declaring, for the first time in 70 years, worldwide war,” said Chris Anders, a legislative liaison for the American Civil Liberties Union.

In addition, Anders said, the legislation would result in “a huge transfer of authority from the Congressional Branch to the Executive Branch” that would give “ authority to this president and all future presidents to use military power, war power wherever a terrorism suspect resides.”

The half-time party was great fun, but it's time to get back on the field.  Call your Congressman and demand a declaration of "total worldwide war" before it's too late.

World Wide War Authorization (H.R. 1540, Sec. 1034)

Map of global terrorism.

The proposed "World Wide War Authorization" (H.R. 1540, Sec. 1034) marks a vast improvement over the dated 2001 version known as "Authorization for Use of Military Force" (P.L. 107‐40).  The former was more limited in scope. 

Following is the most important section of the new improved war authorization before Congress:

SEC. 1034 AFFIRMATION OF ARMED CONFLICT WITH AL‐ QAEDA, THE TALIBAN, AND ASSOCI3 ATED FORCES.

Congress affirms that—
(1) the United States is engaged in an armed conflict with
al‐Qaeda, the Taliban, and associated forces and that those entities continue to pose a threat to the United States and its citizens, both domestically and abroad;
(2) the President has the authority to use all necessary and appropriate force during the current armed conflict with al‐Qaeda, the Taliban, and associated forces pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107–40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note);
(3) the current armed conflict includes nations, organization, and persons who— (A) are part of, or are substantially supporting, al‐Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners; or (B) have engaged in hostilities or have directly supported hostilities in aid of a nation, organization, or person described in subparagraph (A); and
(4) the President’s authority pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107–40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note) includes the authority to detain belligerents, including persons described in paragraph (3), until the termination of hostilities.

If you like, you can compare the old version to the new one here.

Don't forget to call your Congressman.  Tell him you're scared shitless of Al Qaeda in Arabian Peninsula.  Tell him that that the death of bin Laden marks a rare opportunity for the president to expand the War on Terror and you want Congress to give Obama and his successors the power to do just that.

Obama orders mandatory mental health examinations

Got a lot of questions on your mind concerning the killing of OBL?  Contact us about arranging your mandatory mental health examination.  President's orders.

Last week a number of Americans questioned the way the Navy SEAL team dealt with Osama bin Laden.  On Sunday evening the president of the United States finally put his foot down, declaring his intention subject these troublemakers to mandatory mental health examinations.

President Obama announced the new public health policy during an interview on the popular CBS News program "60 Minutes."  CG reports: 

With many other aspects of the operation available in the full interview below, Obama closed out his "60 Minutes" interview by saying, “As nervous as I was about this whole process, the one thing I didn’t lose sleep over was the possibility of taking Bin Laden out. Justice was done. And I think that anyone who would question that the perpetrator of mass murder on American soil didn’t deserve what he got needs to have their head examined.”

Particularly in view of the widespread perception that the terrorists are likely to retaliate against the United States in the near future,  the president's proposal seems likely to garner near unanimous bipartisan support.   The American People are frightened.  They understand the need to examine the heads of those who question the government's narrative.  That's because at the back of every compliant citizen's mind is a nagging question: What if those dissenters from mainstream opinion really are "with the terrorists"?  

Mental Health Examinations
It is expected that the new mental health exam will only be mandatory for known civil libertarians and those who have "friended" such individuals in their online social networks.  The examination will likely be developed by the United States Department of Fear (DoF) in cooperation with the National Security Agency (NSA), and the American Psychological Association (APA).

Political Re-Education Program (PREP)
Anyone who fails the mental health exam (and who's name is not on the president's list), may be required to attend a re-education camp. The Department of Fear is already soliciting bids from contractors who have expressed an interest in developing the infrastructure and curriculum for the Political Re-education Program (PREP).

Contacted by phone Sunday night, SecFear Malcolm P. Stag III told DoF blog, "Our partners for PREP may include the Corrections Corporation of America, a consortium of for-profit universities, News Corp., and the SERE Training School at Fort Bragg."

Concerning funding, SecFear said, "The budget is as yet unknown, but like any high-profile national security initiative, PREP promises to be wildly profitable for its partners in the private sector (PREPPIES)."

SecFear mentioned that he had "just got off the phone with the CEO of a leading pharmaceutical company."  SecFear was told that the company has "a new drug in the pipeline" that the CEO believes "could be re-branded to treat PREP participants."

Press Release: It's time to recognize war on terror leaders

Pres. George W. Bush awarded the
Medal of Freedom to former
CIA director George Tenet.

On May 1, 2011 Navy SEALS killed Osama bin Laden.  The United States Department of Fear urges Congress to establish a new medal of honor to mark this historic occasion, the Osama Bin Laden Medal of Honor (OBLMH).    On behalf of the American People, Congress should award this medal to Dick Cheney, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama, in recognition of their contributions toward developing and implementing policies that led to the death of the greatest terrorist of all time.  We hope that the OBLMH will serve as a reminder to the America People that the fight against terrorism is bipartisan, that no one party or political leader deserves all the credit for the greatest triumph to date in the war.

Mystery man in famous situation room photo identified

"The tableau of the already iconic photo is powerful: the unfamiliar ... and the mystery arms and elbows of otherwise unseen men...."

- Washington Post, May 5, 2011

Just who were all the individuals watching the live raid on the Osama bin Laden compound? We've ID'd everyone in the room with President Barack Obama, you can match our country's national security leadership team to the numbers pictured.

1. Vice President Joe Biden

2. President Barack Obama

3. Brig. Gen. Marshall B. "Brad" Webb

He is the assistant commanding general of the Joint Special Operations Command, which targets top suspects, according to news reports. 

4. Deputy National Security Advisor Denis McDonough

The deputy national security advisor is among those who assist the president on national  security and foreign policy issues.

5. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton

The secretary of state plays a lead role in developing and implementing the president's foreign policy, according to WhiteHouse.gov. 

6. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates

The secretary of defense oversees the military forces needed to deter war and to protect the country.

7. Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

The chairman is the highest ranking officer of the Armed Forces and serves as the principal military adviser to the president.  

8. Tom Donilon, national security adviser

The national security adviser acts is the president's go-to person on all national security issues.

9. Bill Daley, chief of staff

The chief of staff is the highest-ranking member of the executive office.       

10. Tony Blinken, national security advisor to the vice president

The national security post is often described as the vice president's right-hand man on the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations.  

11. Audrey Tomason, director for counterterrorism

This director advises the president on counterterrorism efforts.

12. John Brennan, assistant to the president for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism

As a member of the Homeland Security Council, this assistant advises the president alongside the heads of several other federal agencies.

13. James Clapper, director of National Intelligence

The national intelligence director serves as the top adviser to the president for intelligence matters relating to national security.

14. Malcolm P. Stag III, Secretary of Fear, United States Department of Fear.   

The secretary of fear advises the president on how to promote fear in the interest of national security.

Killing Osama bin Laden vindicates Cheney policies, Guantanamo

Osama Bin Laden killers.

Without the leadership and creative genius of the Cheney-Bush administration, without a president who is passionate about assassinating terror suspects, we wouldn't be celebrating today.  

A report in today's Washington Post testifies that the killing of Osama bin Laden was a direct result of intelligence obtained under the previous administration from a Guantanamo Bay prisoner.  This single fact is the ultimate vindication of various Cheney-Bush policies.  WaPo:

...members of the Bush administration — as well as Obama officials — said the prior administration deserved credit, too.

Without information from detainees [DoF: often obtained through enhanced  interrogation techniques] at the Guantanamo Bay prison and elsewhere [DoF: black sites, extraterritorial rendition program, etc.], U.S. officials would never have tracked the courier who led them to bin Laden’s compound, they said.  Much of the intelligence and logistical groundwork [DoF: "illegal" NSA wiretapping, etc] was also laid during the Bush era...

DoF comment:  This isn't reported in the Washington Post as mere speculation, or the assertion of one government official, but historical fact.  It's the truth.

The Obama administration took office strongly opposed to aspects of the Bush administration’s anti-terrorism policy, vowing to prohibit torture during interrogation and to close the detention center at Guantanamo Bay. But under public and political pressure [DoF: the public remained terrified], the Obama team has backed off from shuttering Guantanamo...

Still, there was some zing in the comments of Bush officials who had been heavily criticized for adopting harsh interrogation techniques and establishing the Guantanamo prison.

Paul D. Wolfowitz, the former deputy secretary of defense, said Monday that “most Republicans have been applauding what [Obama] did.” However, he added, the operation “also rested heavily on some of those controversial policies” instituted by Bush, such as setting up the Guantanamo camp. He spoke in a conference call organized by the American Enterprise Institute.

“All of this was made possible by the relentless, sustained pressure on al-Qaeda that the Bush administration initiated after 9/11 and that the Obama administration has wisely chosen to continue,” former Defense secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld wrote on Facebook.

Condi Rice explains that the capture of OBL was the result of the bipartisan work of two administrations.   In fact, every top Cheney-Bush administration official interviewed or quoted by WaPo for the article appears to have come to the same conclusion: that the capture of Osama bin Laden vindicates the policies of Bush and Cheney (and by extension Guantanamo, the enhanced interrogation techniques, extradition, and the wiretapping program).  Moreover, the newspaper informs us that various anonymous Obama administration officials agree with this assessment.   Of course, the killing of OBL also vindicates the Obama administration's enthusiasm for extrajudicial assassination programs.

These new facts expose the treasonous nature of attacks against Bush and Cheney administration officials and President Obama for his defense of those policies and the targeted killing of terror suspects on an unprecedented scale.  Now there can be little doubt that those who have criticized US terror policies have helped the terrorists.  To what extent such assistance to the terrorists had been intentional is something the government will have to determine with regards to each outspoken citizen on a case by case basis (through NSA wiretapping, the monitoring of private email correspondence).

Mr. Y is no Mr. X

An essay entitled A National Strategic Narrative by Mr. Y is the talk of the town.   Mr. Y of course, is a pseudonym for the person who penned the article.

The name is inspired by Mr. X, the author of a memorable 1946 State Department telegram.  Mr. X was later revealed to be George F. Kennan, and his seminal telegram, later published in Foreign Affairs,  was an early warning about the Soviet threat to the Free World.  But any comparison between X and Y is strictly alphabetical.  That's because, unlike Mr. X,  Mr. Y's intention is not to warn America of a new foreign threat.  In fact, it's unclear what Mr. Y's true motivations might be. 

Foreign Policy Magazine describes the article:

The piece was written by two senior members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in a "personal" capacity, but it is clear that it would not have seen the light of day without a measure of official approval. Its findings are revelatory, and they deserve to be read and appreciated not only by every lawmaker in Congress, but by every American citizen.
 
The narrative argues that the United States is fundamentally getting it wrong when it comes to setting its priorities, particularly with regard to the budget and how Americans as a nation use their resources more broadly. The report says Americans are overreacting to Islamic extremism, underinvesting in their youth, and failing to embrace the sense of competition and opportunity that made America a world power. The United States has been increasingly consumed by seeing the world through the lens of threat, while failing to understand that influence, competitiveness, and innovation are the key to advancing American interests in the modern world.

Courageously, the authors make the case that America continues to rely far too heavily on its military as the primary tool for how it engages the world.

CNN comments:

Take a look a the report and then, if you feel so moved, write your congressperson about it here.  [DoF urges you to write your congressperson to complain about Mr Y.  After all, your hard-earned tax dollars pay his salary.]

The United States Department of Fear has issued an Official Statement in response to the article:

It's one thing when the liberal media journalists or bloggers pen rants, but we expect better from people paid to serve us. We need to determine the identity of the authors of the article. They should be fired or possibly prosecuted for insubordination. In a world plagued by terrorism, drugs, and illegal migration, we simply cannot tolerate defense department employees undermining the defense establishment. 

Rumor has it that the article may be part of a sophisticated U.S. intelligence operation.  The idea is that when senior leaders give the appearance of tolerating radical thoughts, government employees who are not sufficiently committed to the agenda will speak out in favor of the message.   In other word, perhaps it's part of a strategy to smoke the liberals out.  

Others have suggested that the article may be someone's idea of a belated April Fool's joke. We think that's highly unlikely because the article concerns a topic most Americans know better than to joke about (certainly not around DoF, and DoD is not so different).  To suggest that America should cut back on defense not 10 years after the worst attack on the Homeland in our history is not funny.  To do so in view of the dangers we face and the various wars we are fighting (and at some risk of losing) abroad is not amusing.   Rather, it's profoundly disrespectful towards the national security establishment.     

Psychological perceptions basis for "Pervasive Insecurity"

The National Intelligence Council, which does the long-term thinking for our nation's 17 intelligence agencies, recently issued an important unclassified report entitled, "Mapping the Global Future."

The section entitled "Pervasive Insecurity" is well worth reading:

We foresee a more pervasive sense of insecurity, which may be as much based on psychological perceptions as physical threats, by 2020.  The psychological aspects, which we have addressed earlier in this paper, include concerns over job security as well as fears revolving around migration among both host populations and migrants.  

Terrorism and internal conflicts could interrupt the process of globalization by significantly increasing the security costs...

SecFear  Malcolm P. Stag III, interviewed by FoxNews about the report, commented: "DoF is dedicated to the proposition that psychological perceptions as much as real world events create a sense of insecurity."  Sec Fear added, "An atmosphere characterized by pervasive insecurity provides the most profitable context for any public appraisal of the security needs of the United States."

You can read the entire report here.

The case for Donald Trump

Even if Donald Trump's bid for the presidency is not successful, his contribution to political thought in America cannot be underestimated.   Trump is the first presidential candidate to explain to Americans that military spending and empire are not the problem, but the solution to our economic troubles.   

There's a lot to like about superstar capitalist Donald Trump,  an American legend who has committed his life to building a profitable business empire for himself.    Trump recently told FoxNews that he's "a good businessman" who has "done a great job and made a lot of great decisions."  Those are inspiring words.

Donald Trump also told FoxNews that he has "great values."  Trump's values include high military spending and empire building. 
 
Donald Trump understands that the democratic approach to empire-building is failing America. It's discouraging when we "free" a country from one dictator (Hussein, Mohammed Omar), only to watch them fall into misrule under new leaders who are susceptible to the influence of our enemies (Iran).      Trump's idea is that America should go in for the resources and stay there until we've got our fair share.    From the Fox interview, it sounds as if Trump would favor taking out Iraq's Iran-friendly government and putting an American in charge (from about 3:20 13:20).   Elsewhere Trump has indicated that he would take Libya's oil.

Trump realizes that supporting American men and women in uniform is the key to building and maintaining tomorrow's more profitable American empire. Therefore, Trump is forthright about the need to increase military spending.  In Trump's own words:  "You have the military.  Our military is great. The other thing I'd do is I wouldn't cut the military, in fact I would increase the military.  I hate when they say 'I would cut the military.'"  (18:45)

Ominous Standard & Poors debt warning

Standard and Poors has issued a warning about the US debt.  

In a conference call with Treasury this morning, SecFear Malcolm P. Stag III called the warning "ominous."

The Department of Fear's advice to Americans is not to question S&P.  As SecFear pointed out, in its entire 105 year-long history, S&P only ever made one mistake that we know about.

Trust S&P.  Call your Congressman.   Demand that he vote to cut social programs --before its too late.

What is Expeditionary Economics?

"Expeditionary Economics" is a new term for an old and profitable idea.

On Wednesday, Thomas J. Donohue, President and CEO of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, gave an important speech to the United States Military Academy at West Point.   Donohue spoke at some length about "Expeditionary Economics"--an old idea that created a lot of buzz after an article with the title appeared in Foreign Affairs last year.  Donohue:

The idea of “expeditionary economics” involves training officers to apply economic principles with a smart and entrepreneurial spirit while also taking account of local circumstances. It recognizes that it takes more than troops and weapons to establish peaceful, stable, democratic societies. It takes hope and opportunity that only free enterprise and a strong private sector can provide.

...we’ve been involved in expeditionary economics long before the term was coined. The Chamber has an affiliate called the Center for International Private Enterprise, also known as CIPE. Through CIPE, we are working to build the capacity of local business organizations and promote the kind of reforms needed for entrepreneurs to thrive.

One of our key tools is a program that the U.S. Chamber has used for many years. It’s called the national business agenda—a set of legal and regulatory reforms needed to strengthen the business environment.

Over the last several years, CIPE has led the way with local groups in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and other countries to help them push for reform and build their economies.

DoF comment:  Iraq is where this concept was most profitably applied.

Ultimately, it’s essential for both the military and the private sector to work in partnership with the people of these countries to create stability and prosperity. The Chamber and the American business community are strong supporters of expeditionary economics. We pledge to work with the military to advance this important concept.

DoF comment:  What is Expeditionary Economics?   In theory, the concept makes explicit what has always been an implicit goal of US foreign policy: exporting American-style capitalism to developing countries.  In practice, Expeditionary Economics describes how US military intervention can profit well-connected American businesspeople.  Our wars open markets, allowing private corporations to purchase formerly state-owned resources and formerly state-run infrastructure.  By networking with the US military, American firms can literally "seize" business opportunities abroad.  Ultimately, American military officers practicing Expeditionary Economics become the "eyes and ears" of the Chamber and its members throughout the war zones of the developing world.

Investors profit when corporations partner with the military.   Expeditionary Economics is just a new term to describe the fruition of this partnership.  Yet Expeditionary Economics cannot thrive in a vacuum.  Unless America continues to intervene abroad militarily, unless we continue to invest in a strong defense, one day there might be no place for America to practice Expeditionary Economics.    The United States Department of Fear lays the necessary foundation for Expeditionary Economics by keeping the American People alert to possible dangers.

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is another Kinza Khaldun

"Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it," goes the time-honored saying.  Compare the profiles of two terrorists:

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed 

1. Allegedly planned the 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center.
2. CIA water-boarded him 183 times. He survives.
3. Liberals wanted him brought back to New York City to face trial in a civilian court.

Kinza Khaldun

1. Attacked the Empire State Building in 1933.
2. US Air Force flew 183 sorties against him (video).  He survives.
3. Some misguided liberals brought him to New York City in the 1970s but he broke lose, attacking the World Trade Center.

The profile of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is eerily similar to that of Kinza Khaldun (the Arabic birth name of the terrorist better known as "King Kong").    Documentary evidence, including video and photographs of the terrorists, makes this abundantly clear.



After SecFear Malcolm P. Stag III showed the above documentary to the Joint Chiefs and Congressional leaders, there was unanimous agreement that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed must not be brought to New York to face trial in a civilian court. Our wise and prudent leaders realized the risks were not worth it.  They know another Kinza Khaldun when they see one.

After the screening, SecFear said, "We are all horrified by the resemblance of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed to the dreaded Kinza Khaldun.  Surely the time has come for the United States to scrap the remaining vestiges of its ancient legal system."  SecFear noted that the president's vision of a new legal framework will ensure that terrorist suspects can be easily convicted--along with anyone suspected of having assisted a terrorist in any conceivable way.

Awaiting military tribunal, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed remains at Guantanamo Bay Naval Base in Cuba.  President Obama is holding KSM in the same large cage that President Herbert Hoover originally had built for the detainment of Kinza Khaldun.

Mayor Bloomberg estimated that holding a trial for KSM in New York City would have cost taxpayers at least $1 billion (the cost of keeping the US Air Force on standby, rental of a cargo ship big enough to transport KSM and his cage to NYC, etc.).   Needless to say, were KSM to have escaped custody while in New York City the cost of repairing the damage after a rampage would likely have exceeded the mayor's cost estimate by a factor of ten.

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed

Kinza Khaldun (aka King Kong)

Practically indistinguishable.

Some advice on how not to get suspected of terrorism

The Wall Street Journal reports: 

...new rules allow investigators to hold domestic-terror suspects longer than others without giving them a Miranda warning, significantly expanding exceptions to the instructions that have governed the handling of criminal suspects for more than four decades.   

The WSJ calls the new guidelines, "one of the Obama administration's most significant revisions to rules governing the investigation of terror suspects in the U.S."

Predictably, civil rights America-hating pundits are making this routine legal adjustment sound like the end of the world when it's not.   Our president only takes away the kind of rights that most law-abiding American citizens never knew they had, rights few would miss.  The president knows that every time he takes away a freedom, it makes Americans feel that much safer.  Because the United States is the most free country on earth, we have a surplus of freedoms.  In a dangerous world, it's sensible to give up a few rights every now and again in exchange for the perception of safety.  

Unless your behavior is perceived to resemble that of a terrorist, the Obama Administration's new interpretation of Miranda won't concern you at all.  Nevertheless, a few precautions are in order.   

Our colleagues at the Dept. of Homeland Security (DHS) understand that the next terrorist attack will resemble the previous attack, and they are preparing for it.  By following several precautions, you help DHS narrow the list of suspects, making their job easier.   Moreover, by following our suggested guidelines, you will reduce the odds that you will be deprived of your Miranda rights, detained indefinitely, and forced to sleep naked in solitary confinement. 

Department of Fear Guidelines on how not to get suspected of terrorism

1. Don't have a lot of foreign stamps in your passport. 
2. Most Americans don't have a passport. What makes you so special?  Standing out only invites unwanted attention from Homeland Security.   Better not to own a passport.  
3. Never rent a minivan or any kind of truck.  
4. If you need items from the hardware store, get them delivered.  You don't want the police to stop you only to discover a chainsaw or a tank of kerosene in the back of the truck.   Or God forbid, boxcutters.  Always arrange to have hardware store supplies delivered to your home.   
5. Don't leave hardware store supplies in the garage where contents may be visible from the street.  Keep all home improvement and gardening supplies locked inside the house.  
6. Don't carry a camera.  It's widely believed that terrorists do a lot of street photography prior to launching their attacks.  Police think terrorists don't know how to use Google Earth. 
7. Don't install Google Earth on your laptop.  Some clever terrorists are likely to have heard about it, and there's people at the FBI who are on to this.
8. Never ever buy a one-way plane ticket. 
9. Don't use online software, including Facebook, Twitter, Google, or Microsoft.    The US military and the NSA monitor social media, and it's always possible that some message you send will be misinterpreted.  
10. In telephone conversations (whether cell phone or land-line), avoid speaking the names of big cities, national landmarks, foreign countries, or national political leaders.   NSA is listening and, trust us, you don't want to raise suspicions.
11. Keep your guns and ammo locked up.
12. Don't visit Washington D.C., New York, or any other city that has ever been targeted by terrorists unless you absolutely have to.   If you have to travel to DC or NY on business, remain in your hotel unless you have a reason to be somewhere.   For example, you don't want to be stopped strolling down Pennsylvania Avenue near the White House.  Do you expect capital police are going to believe that you were "just looking?"
13. Under no circumstances should women wear scarves. If it's cold, wear a hat instead.
14. If you are a Sikh, Hindu, Buddhist, or practice any non-Christian religion,  try to not to dress strangely.  Men should shave their beards.  Women should not wear a sari.  Our police commonly mistake non-Christians for Muslims. 
15. If you are a Muslim, do not carry on your person any of the paraphernalia of your faith.  Shave. Tell your wife to ditch the burka.  Mind points 1-14 scrupulously.   God help you.
16. As soon as the notorious leaker Bradley Manning cracks, it's inevitable that WikiLeaks will be formally declared a terrorist organization.  This hardly needs saying, but DoF urges you to "unfriend" anyone you suspect may hold a positive view of WikiLeaks (even if a person is a family member or an old friend).
17. If you found it necessary to carry out recommendation #16, we advise you to report the names of everyone you just "unfriended" to the US Dept. of Fear.   

If you follow these 17 simple precautions, it less likely that you will be suspected of terrorism, deprived of your Miranda rights, and sent to a Supermax prison where interrogators will try to get you to incriminate yourself.

Always remember, they hate us for our freedoms.   

Hasta la vista liberal news media!

The free online print alternative to the NYT we propose would not only inform and entertain, it would scare people.

NYT:

Beginning March 28, visitors to NYTimes.com will be able to read 20 articles a month without paying, a limit that company executives said was intended to draw in subscription revenue from the most loyal readers while not driving away the casual visitors who make up the vast majority of the site’s traffic.

DoF analysts project that this questionable move by the New York Times -- it coincides with an escalating assault by patriotic lawmakers on NPR's budget -- provides an opportunity to end the hegemony of the liberal media once and for all. 

In hopes of turning one liberal newspaper's blunder into a knockout blow to the liberal media, SecFear Malcolm P. Stag III has just spoken with Rupert Murdoch about organizing an emergency conference on the Future of American Journalism.

Top of the conference agenda will be a plan to get corporate America (Koch bros, News Corp, ExxonMobil, BP, Bank of America, Citibank, JP Morgan, WalMart, etc.) to subsidize a "free" online print news alternative to the Times.  It's conceivable that FoxNews could be expanded to fill this role.  

According to SecFear, the proposed news service might not only be subscription free, but advertising free.   "It's clear that the 'liberal bias' that inevitably creeps into most news accounts by professional journalists tends to create myriad headaches for American business leaders.  Fortunately, most news stories have interesting corporate angles.   And the quality of PR writing these days is such that professional journalists are pretty much redundant.  The notion of separating advertising from the content of articles needlessly adds to the cost of producing content," wrote SecFear in an email to DoF staff this morning. 

Of course, a free online news alternative to the NYT should not only inform and entertain, it should also scare people.  DoF recognizes that Americans are crying out for "news they can use" concerning the threats posed by environmental regulations, terrorists, drugs, and illegal immigrants.  Is there any good reason Americans should have to pay for news?

http://twitter.com/feardept

Learning from China

UPDATED
This is one of those, "Why didn't we think of that!" developments out of China. The New York Times reports on an innovative means by which the Chinese are enhancing state security:

Beijing officials announced Wednesday that they intended to monitor the movements of millions of residents by means of information transmitted by their cellphones. One official was quoted on a government Web site as saying that the new program would provide “real-time information about a user’s activity.”

The project aims to monitor all Beijing residents who use cellphones — about 20 million people — to detect unusually large gatherings. One official said the primary use would be to detect and ease traffic and subway congestion. But Chinese media reports said government officials could use the data to detect and prevent protests.

This is something the US might deploy to track environmentalists, leftists, visa-holders, foreign students, and illegal immigrants.

But why stop there? In fact, since law-abiding American citizens have nothing to hide from their government, eventually this program of cell-phone tracking might be expanded to cover everyone.

UPDATE: We've just been informed by our friends at NSA that this program already exists, and China stole the idea from us.

ABC News identifies world's most dangerous man

President Obama has put out a contract on this American citizen. And with good reason.  Now ABC News reports that this targeted America cleric may well be the most dangerous man in the world:

Yemen is a growing training ground for al Qaeda and is the home of Anwar al-Alawki, the man considered every bit as dangerous -- if not more -- than Osama bin Laden. He helped the failed Christmas Day bomber, inspired the Times Square bomber, and has called for more attacks on Americans. Bombs on board cargo planes also came from Yemen.

Consider this: Anwar al-Alawki is somehow linked to more failed bomb plots than any man alive.  Such a reckless man surely threatens not only the survival of the United States, but also the safety of his fellow terrorists.  The article continues:

Yemeni troops are going after al Qaeda, but that is at risk if the government is overthrown in the poverty stricken nation.

"Yemen becomes an absolute mess," Bender said. "I think the fear is that this would simply fall apart."

So while protests may be cause for cheering in some nations, in others they are making American officials very nervous.

A dangerous American citizen with ties to California is on the lose in Yemen.  President Obama is trying to kill him, but the CIA can't seem to find him.  Now ABC News says this guy could be more dangerous than Osama bin Laden.   Meanwhile, the government of Yemen could fall.  Who's to say Anwar al-Alawki won't seize power in Yemen and try to buy a nuke from North Korea? 
 
One thing's for sure: if American government officials -- the guys protecting us -- are "very nervous," then you should be too.

What a real State of the Union Speech looks like

The president's SOTUS last night disappointed the staff of DoF. Equally disappointing was the response by the Republican side. As a nation, we've got to get back into the grove. Maybe watching this great speech from 2002 can inspire our leaders in Washington.

Miss America says security comes first

Here's the text of remarks by Teresa Scanlan of Nebraska who was crowned Miss America 2010.

QUESTION: "Everybody's talking about the Wikileaks, how do we balance people's right to know with the need for government security?"

ANSWER: "You know when it came to that situation it was actually based on espionage, and when it comes to the security of our nation we have to focus on security first, and then people's right to know. Because it's so important that everyone in our borders is safe, and so we can't let things like that happen and they must be handled properly... and I think that was the case."

Security first.  Spoken like a true American.

Look up and be afraid

The heading for an article by Jeff Goldberg in the Atlantic Monthly reads, "Wealthy travelers routinely bypass the TSA by flying on private jets.  How long until al-Qaeda does the same?"

Here's the key passage from Jeff's alarming article about this threat:

We climbed aboard the eight-seat twin-engine plane. The pilot greeted us, took my bag from me, and placed it on a seat. I noticed that no door separated the cabin from the cockpit.

We took off a few minutes later and headed south, in the direction of the Pentagon, the White House, and the United States Capitol complex.

“So let’s just say that I’m a terrorist pilot,” I said, “and I have a bag filled with handguns and I shoot these two pilots and then I take control of the plane and steer it into the headquarters of the CIA,” near which we would soon be flying. “What’s stopping me?”

“There’s nothing stopping you,” my friend said. “All you need is money to buy a plane, or a charter.”

Luckily for America, I am not a terrorist, I did not kill the pilots, and I did not steer the plane into the headquarters of the CIA. Nor did I pack my bag with Semtex or a dirty bomb. Instead, I occupied myself by taking free candy and bottles of Evian from the plane’s endless stock of free candy and Evian, which reminded me, as if I needed reminding, that it is better to be rich than poor.

Lucky indeed.  As Jeff has illustrated, the freedoms enjoyed by the pilots of private planes are a catastrophe waiting to happen.  

After this weekend's shooting in Tucson, it is important to contemplate the likelihood that any number of small planes are piloted by mentally ill people under the influence of anti-American ideologies.

As SecFear pointed out on Twitter today, in response to the tragedy in Tucson, Americans need to ask themselves what freedoms they are prepared to sacrifice.  Severely restricting private plane flights would be an obvious place to start.  Think about it.  If some freedoms enjoyed by the pilots of small planes were taken away, few of us would miss them, yet all of us would sleep a lot easier.