Tag: DHS

Categories
Quick Analysis

The State of Homeland Security

On March 18, Secretary Kirstjen M. Nielsen delivered the 2019 State of Homeland Security Address. The New York Analysis of Policy and Government presents her key points:

Although the overall security of our homeland is strong—the threats we face are graver than at any time since 9/11. The ground beneath our feet has shifted.  Our enemies and adversaries have evolved.  And the arms of government are swinging too slowly to protect the American people.

We are more secure than ever against the dangers of the last decade.  But we are less prepared than ever for those that will find us in the next.

That is why under this President…we have made a decision:  to shape the world around us.  To create an environment that is favorable to U.S. interests…to dramatically enhance the way we defend the homeland. In short, we are going from “highly reactive” to “highly resilient.”  And we are not wasting any time.

In the past 12 months, there has been more change at DHS than almost any single year in its history.

 New Wars, Many Battlegrounds

DHS was created to fight one primary, generation-defining struggle:  the war on terror.  But we now find ourselves defending against emerging threats on new battlegrounds.

Not only are we still facing the insidious threat from global jihadists, but we are under siege from transnational criminals…faceless cyber thugs and hackers…and resurgent nation-state rivals.

The battlespace is constantly in flux, flipping from the physical world…to the virtual world…and back again.

I am more worried about the ability of bad guys to hijack our networks than their ability to hijack our flights.  And I am concerned about them holding our infrastructure hostage…stealing our money and secrets…exploiting children online…and even hacking our democracy.

These aren’t wars that we can fight in slow motion… If we don’t anticipate, adapt, and respond quickly, we will lose. 

The idea that we can prevail with so-called “Whole of Government” efforts is now an outdated concept.  It’s not enough. We need a “Whole of Society” approach to overcome today’s threats… Because it’s not just U.S. troops and government agents on the frontlines anymore.  It’s U.S. companies.  It’s our schools and gathering places.  It’s ordinary Americans.

Threat actors are mercilessly targeting everyone’s devices and networks.  They are compromising, co-opting, and controlling them.  And they are weaponizing our own innovation against us.

America is not prepared for this.  Your average private citizen or company is no match against a nation-state such as China, Iran, North Korea, or Russia.  It is not a fair fight.  And until now our government has done far too little to back them up. President Trump has made homeland security his number-one priority.

Combat Terrorism and Homeland Threats

Our new DHS strategic plan integrates our mission across agencies and offices to reflect a unified approach.

The first goal is to Combat Terrorism and Homeland Threats.

Our Department was built in response to a complex, coordinated, and catastrophic terrorist plot.  And we continue to do all we can to ensure we know who is traveling to the U.S. and to prevent nefarious actors from carrying out attacks on the homeland.

To thwart terrorist plotting, DHS has recently put in place some of the most sweeping security enhancements in a decade. 

We have instituted tougher vetting and tighter screening in the travel system to prevent terrorists from infiltrating the United States, in addition to instituting the biggest aviation security enhancements in years.  This includes sophisticated measures to detect concealed explosives and insider threats.

This year, our new National Vetting Center (NVC) will become fully operational.  It will fuse law-enforcement data and intelligence from across the government to detect dangerous individuals seeking to reach our territory.

In the same vein…DHS has worked with the State Department to notify all countries in the world of more stringent information-sharing requirements to crack down on terrorist travel…But these major improvements are not enough.  Fanatics have innovated.  They have realized terror can be done on the cheap and spread virtually—using simple online instructions and household tools.

With the rise of ISIS, the phenomenon of “do-it-yourself” mass destruction was born.  And homeland security hasn’t been the same ever since…Despite losing territory, the group’s reach remains global.

Just last week, the FBI arrested a Georgia woman tied to the United Cyber Caliphate—a hacking and propaganda wing of ISIS.  The woman allegedly helped the group promote online “kill lists” featuring U.S. soldiers, government officials, and private citizens.  One posting, which included the personal information of potential targets, offered a simple and chilling instruction:  “Kill them wherever you find them.”

My Department assesses that the primary terrorist threat to the United States continues to be from Islamist militants and those they inspire, but we should not—and CANNOT—ignore the real and serious danger posed by domestic terrorists.

They are using the same do-it-yourself, mass-murder tactics- as we saw with the horrible assault last week in New Zealand against Muslim worshippers.  Attacks on peaceful people in their places of worship are abhorrent…

There is no room in this great nation for violent groups who intimidate and coerce Americans because of their race, religion, sexual orientation, or creed…

At DHS, we’ve launched new terrorism-prevention programs against ALL forms of violent hate.  We are sharing more information with local authorities.  We have worked with social media companies to crack down on terrorist propaganda online. And we have ramped up soft-target security nationwide, with a particular focus on protecting schools, large events, major gatherings, and places of worship…

DHS is also focused on amplifying efforts to combat emerging threats.

Last year, with the help of Congress, we stood up a new Office of Countering Weapons of Mass Destruction—one of the biggest-ever reorganizations of DHS—to better protect Americans against chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear dangers. 

We also fought for—and won—legislative authority to detect and disrupt dangerous drones so they aren’t used in our homeland to spy, to steal, to smuggle, and to cause destruction.

Defend U.S. Borders and Sovereignty

At the same time, we cannot lose sight of our most basic obligations to the American people, reflected in the second goal of our strategic plan:  to Defend U.S. Borders and Sovereignty. 

I want to cut through the politics to tell you loud and clear:  there is NO “manufactured” crisis at our Southern Border.  There is a real-life humanitarian and security catastrophe.

Late last year, we were apprehending 50,000 – 60,000 migrants a month. Last month, we apprehended more than 75,000—the highest in over a decade. And today I can tell you that we are on track to interdict nearly 100,000 migrants this month.

The situation at our Southern Border has gone from a crisis…to a national emergency…to a near system-wide meltdown…the system is breaking.  And our communities, our law enforcement personnel, and the migrants themselves are paying the price.

What’s different about the current flow is not just how many people are coming but who is arriving… Over 60 percent of the current flow is now families and unaccompanied children, and 60 percent is non-Mexican.  Our system was not built to handle this type of flow.

Because of outdated laws, misguided court decisions, and a massive backlog of cases, we are usually forced to release these groups into the United States.  And we have virtually no hope of removing them in the future, despite the fact that the vast majority who apply for asylum do not qualify for it.

Smugglers and traffickers have caught on, advertising a “free ticket” into America.  As a result, the flow of families and children has become a flood.  Cases of “fake families” are popping up everywhere.  And children are being used as pawns. In fact, we have uncovered “child recycling rings,” truly, child re-victimization rings, a process by which innocent children are used multiple times to help aliens gain illegal entry.  As a nation we cannot stand for this. 

The humanitarian situation cannot be ignored.  In one study, more than 30 percent of women reported being sexually assaulted along the way, and 70 percent of all migrants reported experiencing violence.  We give pregnancy tests to girls as young as 10 to ensure we can offer appropriate medical support. Smugglers and traffickers are forcing people into inhuman conditions, demanding extraordinary sums of money, and putting lives in danger…children are arriving at the border sicker than ever before.

Criminals are using the situation to line their pockets, while gangs are exploiting the loopholes to bring in new recruits. And we are seeing the spread of violent crime and drugs—the majority of which come into our country via the Southern Border both at and between ports of entry. What’s worse, last year we identified tens of thousands of convicted and wanted criminals attempting to cross.  And those are just the ones we know about.

So what are we doing about it?

They were rated according to their ability to attain and retain erection for complete penetration for the complete and satisfactory sexual experience. generic viagra rx Shower coed invitations can be found generic no prescription viagra though many stationery vendors online. This particular disorder has become the threat for a number of people and so people of different age group can have different problems with purchase cheap viagra vision organ. In many cases it is found that if a person is courageous enough to go to their doctor, discuss it with him or her, get a prescription online viagra uk for their Erectile Dysfunction, they will still have to go down to their children.

DHS has built the first border wall to go up in a decade.  We are building more, and have plans for hundreds of new miles to block illicit goods, illegal entry, and help ensure a safe and orderly migrant flow…We have worked with the Pentagon to deploy thousands of troops to the Southern Border…We have worked with the Justice Department to prosecute single adults who cross illegally …

We have engaged the Northern Triangle countries to address the challenge at the source…and this month I expect to sign a historic, first-ever “regional compact” with these nations to counter human and drug smuggling, trafficking, and irregular migration …this is something I have been pursuing for years…

We have also stepped up efforts to protect women and children from being abused, kidnapped, sexually assaulted, and exploited on the journey…and to provide support to survivors…

We are doing more to dismantle transnational criminal organizations…we have intensified operations to seize illicit drugs—especially opioids.

I am also looking at ways to help at-risk migrants apply for U.S. asylum from within Central America—rather than embarking on the treacherous trek to our border.  We must find ways to help vulnerable populations sooner in their journey north.

But it’s still not enough.

Our laws aren’t keeping up with the migrant flows, and until they are fixed, the situation will only get worse and more heartbreaking.

We need Congress to stop playing politics and do what’s right. We need Congress to change the law to allow us to keep families together throughout the immigration process…to ensure the safe and prompt return of unaccompanied children to their home countries…and to reverse the court ruling that directs dangerous criminals to be released into our communities.

Secure Cyberspace and Critical Infrastructure

On the top of my list of threats—the word CYBER is circled, highlighted, and underlined.  The cyber domain is a target, a weapon, and a threat vector—all at the same time.

That is why another goal in our strategic plan is Secure Cyberspace and Critical Infrastructure.

Nation states, criminal syndicates, hacktivists, terrorists—they are all building capacity to infiltrate and undermine our networks.  They are weaponizing the web.

For instance, in the past two years, we witnessed North Korea’s WannaCry ransomware spread to more than 150 countries, holding healthcare systems hostage and bringing factories to a halt.

And we saw Russia probing our energy grid, compromising thousands of routers around the world, and unleashing NotPetya malware, which wreaked havoc as one of the costliest cyber incidents in history.

I could go on for hours.

What worries me, though, is not what these threat actors have done, but what they have the capability to do.  Stealing our most sensitive secrets…deceiving us about our own data… distracting us during a crisis…launching physical attacks on infrastructure with a few keystrokes…or planting false flags to embroil us in conflict with other nations.

The possibilities are limitless.  But the time we have to prepare is not.

To get ahead of our adversaries, we released the first DHS Cybersecurity Strategy last May.  This was Step One.

Step Two was partnership.

I’ve said it many times, but it bears repeating:  In our hyper-connected world, if we prepare individually, we will fail collectively.

So DHS held a first-of-its-kind National Cybersecurity Summit in New York City.  We brought together CEOs from some of the largest companies in America, hundreds of senior risk and security officers, multiple Cabinet officials, and Vice President Pence to take a clear-eyed look at America’s cybersecurity posture.

The gathering produced real results.  Participants took action to deepen partnerships, break down barriers, and better integrate collective risk-management efforts.

We announced the formation of the National Risk Management Center (NRMC), a premier forum for government and industry to collaborate against evolving digital dangers.

And in the months that followed, we took an even bigger leap.

We consolidated and strengthened federal efforts to protect our nation’s digital networks.  And with Congressional authorization, we established the landmark Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency—CISA—at DHS.

CISA was long overdue—and will be at the “front of the fight” in cyberspace for years to come.

But strategies, partnerships, and organizational change will still only get us partway.  So we have ramped up operations to keep intruders out of our networks.

First and foremost, we have driven a change in U.S. policy to replace complacency with consequences.  We have made clear we will no longer accept malicious cyber interference.

We are fighting back in both “seen and unseen” ways, including publicly attributing cyber attacks to the perpetrators, levying sanctions, and delivering other consequences.

This has sent a powerful message to online adversaries, especially nation-states:  America has had enough, and WE WILL NOT hesitate to punish you for compromising our networks.

We have also instituted a next generation risk management approach to identify and assess critical functions—not only specific assets and systems.

We are wielding DHS authorities to get dangerous software, such as Kaspersky-branded products, out of federal systems…and taking swift action to patch newly discovered vulnerabilities.

Alarmingly, our adversaries are using state-owned companies as a “forward-deployed” force to attack us from within our supply chain.  So we are working with industry partners to identify and delete these bugs and defects from our systems. 

But of all the digital threats, the ones we must take most seriously are those aimed at the very heart of our democracy.

In 2016, at the direction of Vladimir Putin, Russia launched a concerted effort to undermine our elections and our democratic process using cyber-enabled means.

Their meddling didn’t stop there.  They have continued to interfere in our public affairs and have attempted to sow division online among Americans on hot-button issues.

Unfortunately, other nation-state rivals appear to be following suit and are—in various ways—working to virtually influence U.S. policy and discourse…

Last year we applied our “lessons learned” from 2016 to prevent hacking in the 2018 elections.

It was a full court press.

We worked to support all 50 states in a variety of ways, including technical assistance, security assessments, planning, exercises, sharing of threat data, and incident response.

On Election Day, more than 90 percent of American voters lived in an area covered by our network sensors—vastly more than in 2016.

And it worked.

Thanks to DHS cyber defenders and many partners nationwide—I can say with confidence that the 2018 election was the most secure in the modern era.

Responding to Disasters

But it’s not just bad guys we are focused on.  Mother Nature has been extremely active, too. 

We have delivered record-breaking levels of disaster assistance to Americans in the past two years, including putting $7 billion in the hands of disaster survivors—more than the previous decade.  And in response to recent catastrophes, we are implementing a new vision focused on making America better prepared for the worst. 

FEMA is investing substantial resources to build more resilient communities …we are forward-deploying federal personnel nationwide so they are working side-by-side with state and local officials well before disaster strikes…. and we are expanding alert systems so that we can warn citizens faster.

 Photo: In March, ICE led the largest street gang take-down in New York City history, totaling more than 120 members and associates of two rival gangs operating in the Bronx. Official photo by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

Categories
Quick Analysis

Concern about DHS potential role in elections, Part 2

 

The New York Analysis of Policy & Government concludes its review

of DHS’s potential role in elections. 

Wariness of a potential federal takeover of the election process is fully warranted, particularly in the aftermath of the 2016 Democrat Primary.  A Stanford University study entitled “Are we witnessing a dishonest election? A between state comparison based on the used voting procedures of the 2016 Democratic Party Primary for the Presidency of the United States of America” concluded that “First, we show that it is possible to detect irregularities in the 2016 Democratic Primaries by comparing the states that have hard paper evidence of all the placed votes to states that do not have this hard paper evidence. Second, we compare the final results in 2016 to the discrepant exit polls. Furthermore, we show that no such irregularities occurred in the 2008 competitive election cycle involving Secretary Clinton against President Obama. As such, we find that in states wherein voting fraud has the highest potential to occur, systematic efforts may have taken place to provide Secretary Clinton with an exaggerated margin of support.”

Does the Department of Homeland Security have the Constitutional right to play a greater role in the election process? In a CNS nterview University of California/Berkeley School of Law Professor John Yoo stated stated “The Department of Homeland Security does not have the legal authority to interfere with states’ election systems without their permission…While the federal government has the general power to protect the nation’s cyber infrastructure, it cannot intrude into areas of state sovereignty without clear constitutional mandate. Article I, Section 4 of the Constitution recognizes the authority of the states to regulate the times, places, manner of elections, subject to congressional regulation. As far as I am aware, Congress has not clearly decided to regulate the information systems of state electoral systems or delegated this authority to DHS…”

A Zero Hedge examination of the issue asks:

“What do you do when you’re…looking to maintain power while simultaneously preserving the facade of free and open elections?… you look for avenues to nationalize state-run election infrastructure…you need a catalyst for this kind of blatant power grab.  “Coincidentally”, a catalyst just like the FBI’s warning a couple of days ago about “foreign hackers [read Putin] penetrating state election systems.”  Then, once you’ve defined the super villain, all you need is a couple of political cronies to go on a fear mongering tour to whip the electorate into a frenzy.  And wouldn’t you know it…Harry Reid recently did just that by sending a letter to the FBI voicing his “concerns” that the “Russian government” may be looking to tamper with the upcoming presidential election.”

He submitted that the agency is also probing a land deal in Chennai involving Tatas levitra prescription you can check here and the DMK party and the progress on investigation into it has been mentioned in the report. There on line viagra use this link are many forums that discuss about this pill as well. Opting for an infertility treatment is sometimes viagra stores in canada a daunting decision for couples. Manual adjustments of the spine, called spinal manipulation, are the basis of tadalafil overnight shipping chiropractic care. Some state officials are agreeing with those expressing fear about DHS motives. Politico reports on one reaction:

“Georgia Secretary of State Brian Kemp’s objections add to a bumpy start for the Department of Homeland Security’s attempt to shore up safeguards for the election…During an earlier interview with the site Nextgov, Kemp warned: ‘The question remains whether the federal government will subvert the Constitution to achieve the goal of federalizing elections under the guise of security.’ Kemp told POLITICO he sees a ‘clear motivation from this White House’ to expand federal control, citing Obama’s health care law, the Dodd-Frank financial-reform legislation and the increased role of the Education…To some election officials, this sounds like the first stage of a more intrusive plan.

Some highly experienced and knowledgeable observers question DHS Secretary Johnson’s emphasis. John Greaney, a former NYC Board of Elections official who has worked in both Democrat and Republican administrations and currently serves as chair of the Bronx Republican Party, questions the entire framework of Johnson’s concern. “The possibility of fraud is far greater in the registration process, not in actual voting” he notes. “On election day, the results are tabulated locally, with a thumb drive, and there are paper ballot backups.  What Johnson is doing is actually a move to distract from the real issues—fraudulent voter registration, particularly on the internet, and the opposition from the Obama Administration against common sense anti-fraud measures such as photo ID.  If the White House was actually concerned about the integrity of the election process and wanted to do something about it, they would encourage, not discourage, the use of photo ID, particularly in the registration process.”

Only 14 states actually require some form of photo ID. The Obama Administration and the DNC have been virulent in their opposition to state efforts to have verifiable, honest registration rolls.

 

 

Categories
Quick Analysis

The Problem With DHS’s Bid for a Greater Election Role

The New York Analysis takes a two-part examination of the move by the Department of Homeland Security to play a role in the election process. 

The Department of Homeland  Security (DHS) is considering what some believe to be a further step in the federal takeover of elections from state governments. The DHS quotes concerns from the FBI that internet-connected voting processes are vulnerable to cyber-attack. That worry is shared by many on both sides of the political aisle.

A USA Today review  writes that “Advances in technology have made voting fraud potentially easier and more effective…the closer the race, the more useful and effective fraud becomes. In 2012, Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel estimated that the presidential election would come down to 500 precincts in 5 states. This was out of a total of 174,000 precincts in the entire country, with an average of 1,100 voters per precinct.”

In a phone call between Jeh Johnson and state election officials, the Secretary of Homeland Security stated that “It is critically important to continue to work to ensure the security and resilience of our electoral infrastructure, particularly as the risk environment evolves.” Johnson offered assistance in helping state officials manage risks to voting systems in each state’s jurisdiction. DHS presented no specific threat, only a concern that such a threat may exist.

The Washington Examiner notes that that DHS has a vital security role in 16 areas of critical infrastructure [described on the agency’s website as assets, systems and networks, “whether physical or virtual, are considered so vital to the United States that their incapacitation or destruction would have a debilitating effect on security, national economic security, national public health or safety, or any combination thereof.”

DHS would be given a role if the election process is declared a “critical infrastructure” that should be protected by Washington.

People believed that this was the main cause but after the symptom-free periods tend discount levitra no rx to decrease. Eating properly, getting adequate rest and keeping your weight under control can reduce the risk of getting HIV infections. viagra sales france To fight appalachianmagazine.com buy cheap levitra stress levels and maintain good health, you would not be able to achieve anything. Most of all, your information is always kept secret in levitra generika 40mg four walls. However, the highly partisan role taken by federal agencies during the Obama Administration raises enormous and well-founded fears that DHS itself may tamper with the results. The use of the IRS to intimidate the Tea Party, the failure of the Federal Elections Commission to take action on potential Clinton misdeeds in Iowa or the abuses committed by Democrat National Committee Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz to defeat Bernie Sanders, the Administration’s actions against state governments who seek to counter voter fraud, and the Department of Justice’s blind eye towards Hillary’s misdeeds as Secretary of State all justify exceptional caution in ceding any level of oversight or “assistance” from executive agencies.

Suspicions as to the motives behind the move are elevated since the agency’s action is in part a reaction to a request by Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nevada) to FBI Director James Comey, who has recently come under fire for not recommending that charges be brought against Secretary Clinton.

In a curious statement, Jeh Johnson complained that “There’s no one federal election system. There are some 9,000 jurisdictions involved in the election process. There’s a national election for president, there are some 9,000 jurisdictions that participate, contribute to collecting votes, tallying votes and reporting votes.” Many take that as an indication that the “hacking” concerns are a pretext for greater federal control.

The Federalist Papers opines: “The federal government may be taking over the election process, in an attempt that started before the recent hacks of state election boards and has since been spurred on by the threat. The Washington Examiner reported that the ‘The federal government never wastes a good crisis to gain more power, and this is no exception.’

According to a White House Policy Directive, ‘The federal government also has a responsibility to strengthen the security and resilience of its own critical infrastructure, for the continuity of national essential functions, and to organize itself to partner effectively with and add value to the security and resilience efforts of critical infrastructure owners and operators.’ It may or may not be true that elections should be designated as ‘critical infrastructure’…however, whenever the federal government attempts to gain more control, people should be wary.”

The review concludes tomorrow

Categories
Quick Analysis

Obama’s Strange View of Who the Enemy Is

Is the Obama Administration incapable of effectively fighting Islamic extremism because it continues to view it as a lesser threat, when compared to its harsh view of Americans who merely oppose its policies?

In 2014, after ISIS captured Fallujah and clearly become the most powerful terrorist organization in existence, President Obama likened the organization to a “JV” team in a discussion with New Yorker editor David Remnick.  His views were supported by his prior Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, in a 2015 discussion with the Council on Foreign Relations, as being appropriate “from the perspective of what they had accomplished at the time.” Even at the time of Obama’s statement, however, ISIS had accomplished far more than any prior terrorist organization ever had.

The refusal to acknowledge the reality of Islamic extremism and its growing threat has been evident in numerous actions the Administration engaged in, and the policies that followed. The President still has not adequately explained why he supported “Arab Spring” movements which were dominated by extremists, in their bid to overthrow regimes which opposed terrorist organizations such as the Moslem Brotherhood, ISIS, and al Qaeda.

Key questions about the President’s actions in Iraq, Egypt and Libya remain unanswered.

Whatever one’s views of the Iraq war were, the reality was that in its aftermath, Iraq, despite extensive challenges and unrest, was becoming more democratic, thanks to the stabilizing influence of U.S. troops based there.  The President’s withdrawal of American forces allowed ISIS to fill the vacuum and literally tore the nation apart.

Another unexplained move was made in Egypt. Egypt’s Hosni Mubarak was a trusted U.S. ally, and followed the path begun by his predecessor Anwar Sadat in promoting regional peace. He generally supported American policies in the Middle East.  However, with little regard to this, President Obama supported his overthrow by a Moslem Brotherhood movement.  When the new regime, led by Mohamed Morsi, increased repression of Egypt’s Christian minority, centralized power, opposed U.S. policies, and acted in a manner that threatened peace in the area, the Obama Administration turned a blind eye. However, when the descent into extremism was halted by Morsi’s overthrow, the Obama Administration opposed the move.
This can lead to erectile dysfunction, premature ejaculation and http://downtownsault.org/silver-lining-antiques/ levitra sale erectile dysfunction. Natural emollients added to a health creme can also work to keep the skin smooth, supple and blemish free cheapest viagra for sale for a healthier looking and feeling great. A lot of men utilize the drug thirty minutes or one prior hour a sex. cialis pill from india levitra discounts Enhanced levels of testosterone improve libido, sensation in genitals and rejuvenate reproductive organs.
Libya proved to be another disaster for the U.S. that was attributable in part to Mr. Obama’s actions. Muammar Gaddafi had a despicable past, including acts of terror and a budding nuclear program. However, he had abandoned both efforts, and now sided with the West against ISIS, al Qaeda, and the Moslem Brotherhood. Despite this reformation, Obama actively aided in his oerthrow. The result, similar to his Iraq action, was chaos and the dramatic growth in inflience of terrorist forces in the nation.  When those forces attacked the U.S. facility in Benghazi and killed a U.S. Ambassador and other Americans, the President and then-Secretary of State Clinton blatantly lied to the U.S. public, the families of the fallen, and the United Nations by blaming a video that played no role in the attack. The U.S. military was not allowed to respond either during the attack or in its aftermath.

While both the President and Ms. Clinton have been extremely reluctant to even use the phrase “Islamic extremism,” they have been particularly harsh in their descriptions of fellow Americans who merely have differing views.

In 2009, President Obama’s Department of Homeland Security stunningly called returning U.S. veterans a threat to national security. In the aftermath of the San Bernardino shootings, rather than cite the extremist philosophy and terrorist ties of the perpetrators, Mr. Obama lectured the nation on American gun ownership and what he described—without any substantial supporting evidence–as bias against Moslems in the U.S.

The distrust and evident dislike of the President towards his own constituents can also be seen in the words and actions of his appointees. Homeland Security Director Jeh Johnson, despite the horrors of Orlando, San Bernardino and Fort Hood (which the Administration strangely labelled “workplace violence”) remains more concerned over what he terms “right wing extremism” than the attacks by Islamic forces, and wants to use DHS to enforce anti-gun ownership provisions.

The Administration continues its opposition to appropriate funding for the U.S. military, continues to fight for legislation limiting the Second Amendment, and continues its rhetoric casting Republicans and Conservatives as the enemy.

There are legitimate concerns about whom President Obama considers the true threat: Islamic extremists, or his own constituents who merely have differing views.

Categories
Quick Analysis

DHS Attempted to Stonewall Ebola Investigation

According to a worrisome report by the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) Office of the Inspector General,  (OIG) DHS’s response to the Ebola epidemic in 2014 was flawed. It also appears that DHS attempted to stonewall the inquiry into its problematic response.

Following the outbreak of the largest Ebola outbreak on record, DHS was tasked with preventing the African outbreak from spreading to the United States, largely by screening passengers at American ports of entry. The OIG found that while the response was timely, DHS failed to provide proper training, appropriate procedures were not consistently followed, and DHS workers themselves did not receive necessary protection.

In September of 2014, the Centers for Disease Control, a division of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), confirmed the first case of Ebola in the United States.  Approximately two weeks later, screening began at five major airports, including NYC’s JFK, Washington-Dulles in Virginia, Newark Liberty in New Jersey, O’Hare in Chicago, and Hartsfield-Jackson in Atlanta.  The screenings eventually spread to all U.S. Ports of Entry, resulting in over 20,000 screenings between October 2014 and June 2015.

The OIG audit revealed that DHS didn’t “ensure sufficient coordination, adequate training, and consistent screening of people arriving at U.S. ports of entry…Coordination between DHS, HHS, and other DHS components was not sufficient to ensure all passenger received full screening.”

Among the specific criticisms contained in the report:

CBP officers did not consistently refer passengers to Ebola screening, even when the travelers self-declared their travel to an Ebola-affected country;

Diplomats, United Nations workers, U.S. Government employees, and other dignitaries were not thoroughly scrutinized;

CBP officers did not consistently receive proper medical clearance, and DHS workers were not consistently protected.

While the enabler may think he viagra without prescription http://www.devensec.com/residents/Devens_Homeowners_Association_Rules_and_Regulations.pdf or she is helping the person with an addiction the opposite is true. Since then, discount price on viagra thediamond shape pillshave been using by men who feel more stressed may lose an erection during the time of main sexual activity. You will market the drug in viagra online price several ways. Male potency has a stores for viagra very important role, when it comes to run a relationship in quite successful way. OIG’s investigation into these dangerous shortcomings was difficult.  According to the report,

“During the course of this audit, we [OIG] encountered significant delays, cooperation issues and opposition from both components and Departmental offices.  Audited groups were unwilling to provide requested information in response to briefings and audit findings. The continued delays and resistance to providing responses during this engagement have violated the spirit of the Inspector General Act and have prevented our offices from delivering a timely report to Congress.”

The OIG has made ten recommendations for improvement. They urge stronger cooperation between agencies, better training, more thorough dissemination of information and guidance, more oversight of reporting procedures, and more careful purchasing of equipment.

The OIG’s report, which was brought to the public’s attention by the Washington Free Beacon,  did not cover broader policy issues concerning the federal government’s response to the Ebola outbreak.  Last October, the New York Analysis of Policy & Government noted that there was a lack of candid conversation about how Ebola is spread, and how it could evolve in dangerous ways, such as airborne transmission.  The American public was constantly told not to worry because the contagion is not airborne. Even without that mutation, however, the disease is so virulent that it can exist for hours on surfaces. So if an infected individual sweats, coughs, sneezes, or otherwise leaves any bodily fluid on a site others can touch, it can spread.

Nor has there been adequate discussion about the danger posed by direct flights to or from actively infected areas. Unlike several African nations and other countries including France and the United Kingdom which banned direct flights, the United States, inexplicably, continued them. The CDC’s director Thomas Freidan was asked about this on several occasions, and none of his explanations were even remotely credible. There is no reason that specially prepared charter flights could not have been substituted for any necessary transit to or from West Africa.

The five airports designated for receiving individuals from West Africa, including Kennedy International in New York, Newark Liberty International, Washington Dulles International, O’Hare International in Chicago, and Hartsfield-Jackson International in Atlanta, were both too numerous and located precisely in densely populated areas where the disease could most quickly spread. A more rational move would have been to limit travel, after a suitable quarantine period, to a single reception site in the United States where comprehensive health checks could have been performed.

In a 2010 decision the Obama Administration decided to scrap proposals  first set in place by the Bush Administration in 2005 in response to the potential spread of the Avian flu. It would have given the federal government wider authority to confront the spread of contagious diseases.

Health care workers have discussed fears about the adequacy of their facilities and procedures.  In a Washington Post interview, CDC spokeswoman Abbigail Tumpey admitted that “We as a health care system have to make sure not to let our guard down and be vigilant that patients with Ebola could show up at any U.S. health care facility…”