ISIS closer than you think

Imminent Terrorist Attack Warning By Feds on US Border


Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi

AUGUST 29, 2014 | Judicial Watch

Islamic terrorist groups are operating in the Mexican border city of Ciudad Juarez and planning to attack the United States with car bombs or other vehicle born improvised explosive devices (VBIED). High-level federal law enforcement, intelligence and other sources have confirmed to Judicial Watch that a warning bulletin for an imminent terrorist attack on the border has been issued.  Agents across a number of Homeland Security, Justice and Defense agencies have all been placed on alert and instructed to aggressively work all possible leads and sources concerning this imminent terrorist threat.

Specifically, Judicial Watch sources reveal that the militant group Islamic State of Iraq and Greater Syria (ISIS) is confirmed to now be operating in Juarez, a famously crime-infested narcotics hotbed situated across from El Paso, Texas. Violent crimes are so rampant in Juarez that the U.S. State Department has issued a number of travel warnings for anyone planning to go there. The last one was issued just a few days ago.

Intelligence officials have picked up radio talk and chatter indicating that the terrorist groups are going to “carry out an attack on the border,” according to one JW source.  “It’s coming very soon,” according to this high-level source, who clearly identified the groups planning the plots as “ISIS and Al Qaeda.” An attack is so imminent that the commanding general at Ft. Bliss, the U.S. Army post in El Paso, is being briefed, another source confirms. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) did not respond to multiple inquiries from Judicial Watch, both telephonic and in writing, about this information.

The disturbing inside intelligence comes on the heels of news reports revealing that U.S. intelligence has picked up increased chatter among Islamist terror networks approaching the 13th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks. While these terrorists reportedly plan their attack just outside the U.S., President Obama admits that “we don’t have a strategy yet” to combat ISIS. “I don’t want to put the cart before the horse,” the commander-in-chief said this week during a White House press briefing. “I think what I’ve seen in some of the news reports suggest that folks are getting a little further ahead of what we’re at than what we currently are.”

The administration has also covered up, or at the very least downplayed, a serious epidemic of crime along the Mexican border even as heavily armed drug cartels have taken over portions of the region. Judicial Watch has reported that the U.S. Border Patrol actually ordered officers to avoid the most crime-infested stretches because they’re “too dangerous” and patrolling them could result in an “international incident” of cross border shooting. In the meantime, who could forget the famous words of Obama’s first Homeland Security Secretary, Janet Napolitano; the southern border is “as secure as it has ever been.”

These new revelations are bound to impact the current debate about the border crisis and immigration policy.

Judicial Watch

HHS official convicted on child porn

Former HHS cyber security chief convicted on child porn charges

Timothy DeFoggi, who had been the lead IT specialist at the Department of Health and Human Services, was found guilty Tuesday for accessing and viewing child porn, and discussing his fantasies — which included the rape and murder of children — on message boards.

BY Leslie Larson Published: Wednesday, August 27, 2014

Omaha Police Department

An ex-cyber security chief at the Department of Health and Human Services was convicted on Tuesday on several counts of child pornography.

Timothy DeFoggi, 56, was found guilty of engaging in a child exploitation enterprise, conspiracy to advertise and distribute child pornography and accessing a computer with intent to view child pornography.

He was listed as an employee with top clearance at the HHS up until January 2014, though he was charged and held without bail in May 2013.

According to his detention order, the court ruled that DeFoggi be held on the basis of an apparent “mental condition” that could impact his ability to appear in court.

He was arrested as part of an FBI investigation into three child pornography websites closed down by the agency in 2012.

His activities on the site included accessing child pornography and expressing sexual fantasies — including raping and murdering children — in his communication with other site members.

Gosnell move over, we’re from the government…

Full Disclosure: Did Government’s Experiment on Preemies Hide Risks?

Sharyl Attkisson / @SharylAttkisson / June 03, 2014


Just 25 weeks into her pregnancy, Sharrissa Cook gave birth to a critically ill baby boy. Dreshan weighed in at a fragile 1 pound, 11 ounces. He lay motionless in the incubator, connected to tubes and monitors in the neonatal intensive care unit at the University of Alabama at Birmingham Hospital.

“He was so tiny,” Cook recalls. “I was a first-time mom. I didn’t have a clue. I didn’t know what to expect.”

It was Oct. 11, 2006. Medical personnel asked Cook, then a 26-year-old single mother, to enroll little Dreshan in a study. She says they described it as a program offering assistance and encouragement to preemies—premature babies—and their families. She readily signed the consent form.

“I remember them telling me they were a support group who would pretty much hold my hand through the developmental process,” Cook says.

But in reality, the study was much more than that. It was a national, government-funded experiment on 1,316 extremely premature infants in which their fate may as well have rested with the flip of a coin.

Other single moms who were among those persuaded to sign up their critically ill babies at the University of Alabama at Birmingham Hospital describe similar misunderstandings of the study’s purpose.

Bernita Lewis, then a 22-year-old student, says she enrolled her premature newborn, Christian, after medical personnel told her it simply was to gather data such as weight and height.

And Survonda Banks, then 21, unemployed and on public assistance, says someone handed her the consent form on her way in for an emergency C-section at 28 weeks of pregnancy. Banks remembers being told only that it was a way to help her baby, Destiny.

‘Parents Were Misled’

The government-backed study is called SUPPORT, which stands for “Surfactant, Positive Airway Pressure, and Pulse Oximetry Randomized Trial.” The experiment was conducted at 23 academic institutions from 2005 through 2009 under the National Institutes of Health, part of the Department of Health and Human Services.

All three women now say they never would have agreed to take part if they had known the NIH-funded study’s true nature—to randomly manipulate preemie oxygen levels. They discovered that just last year.

Dreshan and Christian are now 7 years old and both struggle with myriad health problems. Destiny died within three weeks. The mothers wonder: Did the experiment contribute to any of the medical problems of their children?

“[Dreshan] was already at a slim chance of surviving; why would I make his chances of surviving more slim?” Cook asks.

The NIH-funded experiment used the test babies in an attempt to find the sweet spot for preemies yet to be born: the lowest level of oxygen that would preserve vision, yet be sufficient to prevent brain damage and death.

To get the answer, researchers arbitrarily assigned infants to either a high-oxygen or low-oxygen group.

Playing Russian roulette’

In some instances, the results proved both disturbing and tragic.

More of the high-oxygen babies ended up with serious vision disorders. The low-oxygen preemies were more likely to die. The results, published in the New England Journal of Medicine in May 2010, sparked ethical questions and complaints. Companion studies being conducted in other countries were halted.

Read full article:

Part 2: Full Disclosure: ‘Input’ Stalls Agency’s Ethics Probe in Baby Oxygen Trials

Pressure from government officials and eminent researchers appears to have pushed a federal agency to postpone enforcement action on violations it found in a government-financed experiment on extremely premature babies.

The agency, which polices ethics in health studies, says the controversy over the study of preemies highlights a “fundamental difference between the obligations of clinicians and those of researchers.”

That ethics body, called the Office for Human Research Protections, is part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The sponsor of the controversial experiment, the National Institutes of Health, is also part of HHS. Officials at both HHS and NIH provided “input” leading to the office’s delay in enforcement.

Gov vs. Gov

The entire dispute might be little more than an academic debate if it weren’t for one crucial factor: The Office for Human Research Protections, the ethics body within HHS, ruled that the consent process for the study violated federal regulations designed to protect human research subjects.

Part 3: Full Disclosure: Parents Fault Medical Research Study for Putting Preemies in Harm’s Way

Thanks to Just Gene, H/T for the article.

The Art of a Resignation

I’ll post the whole article because it is an indictment on Obama’s big-government.
H/T to Jeff @ Necessary and Proper Gov’t for the tip.

This HHS official’s resignation letter says everything you’ve ever thought about bureaucracy

March 14, 2014 by Mary Katharine Ham | Hot Air

Yeah, yeah, I Upworthied the headline. But I tried for something to truly encapsulate the heaps of truth in this letter, and a standard headline didn’t do it. I’m against compulsory service, but there’s a part of me that thinks a year of compulsory service within the federal bureaucracy might change minds. Exposure to the truly harmful forces of government—often unintentional and sloppy, but harmful nonetheless—could yield progress in assessing the beast honestly. Or, maybe it’d just yield more pensions.

A Health and Human Services official has resigned after dealing with the frustration of the “profoundly dysfunctional” federal bureaucracy, which left him “offended as an American taxpayer.”

In a resignation letter obtained by ScienceInsider, David Wright, director of the Office of Research Integrity (ORI) — which oversees and monitors possible research misconduct — offers a scathing rebuke of the unwieldy and inefficient bureaucracy that he dealt with for the two years he served in the position.

In his letter to Assistant Secretary for Health Howard Koh, Wright explains that the 35 percent of his job that was spent working with science-investigators in his department “has been one of the great pleasures of my long career.” The majority of his duties, however, represented his worst job ever.

He calls it “secretive, autocratic and unaccountable,” making use of exactly zero good-management principles put to work in businesses across the nation. People who know nothing about his mission or job description make critical decisions about what he can and can’t spend. Compared to the academic bureaucracy he came from, the federal government is slower by months, sometimes more. He also points out that perhaps the highly politicized environment in which he’s working is not the correct one for a scientific oversight organization:

Finally, there is another important organizational question that deserves mention: Is OASH the proper home for a regulatory agency such as ORI? OASH is a collection of important public health offices that have agendas significantly different from the regulatory roles of ORI and OHRP. You’ve observed that OASH operates in an “intensely political environment.” I agree and have observed that in this environment decisions are often made on the basis of political expediency and to obtain favorable “optics.” There is often a lack of procedural rigor in this environment. I discovered recently, for example, that OASH operates a grievance procedure for employees that has no due process protections of any kind for respondents to those grievances. Indeed, there are no written rules or procedures for the OASH grievance process regarding the rights and responsibilities of respondents. By contrast, agencies such as ORI are bound by regulation to make principled decisions on the basis of clearly articulated procedures that protect the rights of all involved. Our decisions must be supported by the weight of factual evidence. ORI’s decisions may be and frequently are tested in court. There are members of the press and the research community who don’t believe ORI belongs in an agency such as OASH and I, reluctantly, have come to agree.

Wright calls for at least discussion of the problems with bureaucracy, if not outrage. To that end, he’s planning to “publish a version of the daily log I’ve kept as ORI Director in order to share my experience and observations with my colleagues in government and with members of the regulated research community.”

Read the whole thing.

Good. More sunlight and less fooling ourselves by saying a government agency is performing a sacred duty when the reality is it’s likely far too dysfunctional to be performing it well enough to be worth the money or to help the people it’s meant to serve. The quicker more people come to grips with that, the quicker we can start actually helping people (sometimes by reacquainting them with some of their money formerly used to fuel the bureaucracy).


That’s some segue… confirming what skeptics always knew about bureaucracy. For everyone else: it’s what you didn’t want to know about government and were afraid to ask.

Now why does this sound strange to me, am I too cynical to be optimistic here? Maybe. But he seems more like a potential whistle-blower than a disgruntled resignee. And willing! Too bad he is the exception and not the rule.

Okay, it reveals the truth about bureaucracy and the hopelessness for fixing it. My Casablanca face is shocked that politics is prevailing in its nethermost corners.

Then there is the question: why resign? Isn’t this usually the place where no matter what you do they do not throw you out? Often mistakes or incompetence lead to promotions, that’s the context. What is the upside? For once, someone has the integrity to not want to be a part of this – it’s hopeless. Commendable… for what that’s worth. Even worse than academic bureaucracy. The eagle has landed.

I kind of like the compulsory service idea as a teaching tool. Well, if after that someone is still thrilled with the system/process, then they are probably not the best person for the department. On the other hand, if someone is uncomfortable with it, then you might want that person there. Just sayin’.

Some managers in the private sector have the kind of loyalty and honesty that would lay themselves off when it became necessary. If they had to lay off people under them, they would take a hit themselves sharing the sacrifice. That’s the integrity we need and lacking.

Within this big-government, no one person should be as large or important as the dep. But in reality we see the opposite: each thinks they are a indispensable component, without whom it would collapse. They’re trained to believe the bureaucracy would fail without them. Then put politics in that mix.

Theirs is the kind of bureaucrat mentality that works to preserve a problem or process than to change it. Their duty is to defend incompetence and corruption rather than hold it accountable. Luckily for us, this one realizes his duty as a taxpayer is a higher calling.

We are a nation of laws, not men. It’s time we start acting like that again. Calling any job in the leviathan “public service” should not be carte blanche to evade accountability to the public. But they often do exactly that. One broke the chains.

H/T to Jeff @ N & P Gov’t for the articles


Top U.S. Scientific Misconduct Official Quits in Frustration With Bureaucracy

More side effects of ObamaCare

New insurance fee in health overhaul law likely to hit consumers

(AP)Your medical plan is facing an unexpected expense, so you probably are, too. It’s a new, $63-per-head fee to cushion the cost of covering people with pre-existing conditions under President Obama’s health care overhaul.

The charge, buried in a recent regulation, works out to tens of millions of dollars for the largest companies, employers say. Most of that is likely to be passed on to workers

Most of the money will go into a fund administered by the Health and Human Services Department. It will be used to cushion health insurance companies from the initial hard-to-predict costs of covering uninsured people with medical problems. Under the law, insurers will be forbidden from turning away the sick as of Jan. 1, 2014.

Read more:

Fees, fees, and more fees

ObamaCare is not a solution, it is only a symptom of the disease.

I recently talked to a guy who runs a small arts business. Immediately he mentioned taxes and how it is almost impossile to stay in business. He wondered about all the places that get grants and assistance from either state or federal government. He was not on the special list, not that he wanted anything. He just wanted the deck not to be staked against him. He has around a dozen employees, and with that no one wants to know him or cares. We should tell Obama that these are the people and businesses that are on their own, when he spews the “you are on your own” rhetoric.

Why are those people or businesses being demonized, penalized, and targeted by unions as well?

If you are a big company, there are enticements to attract and keep you in the area. But for the little guy, persona non grata. With those taxes which at least locally go up every year, one eventually asks if it is wort it? They expect you to make it up on your fees from customers, though sometimes that just is not possible or practical. You are penalized for being an employer. Your success is ridiculed.

And these are the folks that Obama says “you didn’t build that”. It seems to me anyone struggling that hard to stay in business, with the odds against them, deserves to say they built it. But can they keep it? That is the real question. The signal sent from the local to the Federal government is “we really could not care less”. However, lots of these benefit the community, not just its coffers. They would be missed — argueably as much as the big guys — if they closed. The payrolls to them are just as important.

I was recently reading the history of a small town. It was founded by business. A couple large companies actually founded and put the town on the map. They paid for and built the origninal roads. They built the schools and hospital. And they atracted more people. They built the much ballyhooed “infrastructure”. Who else was going to do it? These days people have the idea government always comes first, and without it nothing could happen. (ala Obama and Warren) Look at some of history of those towns.

Today the same government holds the life and death of your endeavor over your head. If you are big, they will talk to you. If you are small, you are just a whipping post and more fodder for its schemes. Today, Obama and his ilk have no conception about that America. They render it obsolete and now want to erase it from history…and our memory.