The administration’s handling of the Ebola crisis continues to be marked by double talk, runaround and gobbledygook. And its logic is worse than its language. In many of its actions, especially its public pronouncements, the government is functioning not as a soother of public anxiety but the cause of it.
An example this week came in the dialogue between Megyn Kelly of Fox News and Thomas Frieden, director of the Centers for Disease Control.
Their conversation focused largely on the government’s refusal to stop travel into the United States by citizens of plague nations. “Why not put a travel ban in place,” Ms. Kelly asked, while we shore up the U.S. public-health system?
Dr. Frieden replied that we now have screening at airports, and “we’ve already recommended that all nonessential travel to these countries be stopped for Americans.” He added: “We’re always looking at ways that we can better protect Americans.”
“But this is one,” Ms. Kelly responded.
Dr. Frieden implied a travel ban would be harmful: “If we do things that are going to make it harder to stop the epidemic there, it’s going to spread to other parts of—”
Ms. Kelly interjected, asking how keeping citizens from the affected regions out of America would make it harder to stop Ebola in Africa.
“Because you can’t get people in and out.”
“Why can’t we have charter flights?”
“You know, charter flights don’t do the same thing commercial airliners do.”
“What do you mean? They fly in and fly out.”
Dr. Frieden replied that limiting travel between African nations would slow relief efforts. “If we isolate these countries, what’s not going to happen is disease staying there. It’s going to spread more all over Africa and we’ll be at higher risk.”
Later in the interview, Ms. Kelly noted that we still have airplanes coming into the U.S. from Liberia, with passengers expected to self-report Ebola exposure.
Dr. Frieden responded: “Ultimately the only way—and you may not like this—but the only way we will get our risk to zero here is to stop the outbreak in Africa.”
Ms. Kelly said yes, that’s why we’re sending troops. But why can’t we do that and have a travel ban?
“If it spreads more in Africa, it’s going to be more of a risk to us here. Our only goal is protecting Americans—that’s our mission. We do that by protecting people here and by stopping threats abroad. That protects Americans.”
Dr. Frieden’s logic was a bit of a heart-stopper. In fact his responses were more non sequiturs than answers. We cannot ban people at high risk of Ebola from entering the U.S. because people in West Africa have Ebola, and we don’t want it to spread. Huh?
In testimony before Congress Thursday, Dr. Frieden was not much more straightforward. His answers often sound like filibusters: long, rolling paragraphs of benign assertion, advertising slogans—“We know how to stop Ebola,” “Our focus is protecting people”—occasionally extraneous data, and testimony to the excellence of our health-care professionals.
It is my impression that everyone who speaks for the government on this issue has been instructed to imagine his audience as anxious children. It feels like how the pediatrician talks to the child, not the parents. It’s as if they’ve been told: “Talk, talk, talk, but don’t say anything. Clarity is the enemy.”
The language of government now is word-spew.
Dr. Frieden did not explain his or the government’s thinking on the reasons for opposition to a travel ban. On the other hand, he noted that the government will consider all options in stopping the virus from spreading here, so perhaps that marks the beginning of a possible concession.
It is one thing that Dr. Frieden, and those who are presumably making the big decisions, have been so far incapable of making a believable and compelling case for not instituting a ban. A separate issue is how poor a decision it is. To call it childish would be unfair to children. In fact, if you had a group of 11-year-olds, they would surely have a superior answer to the question: “Sick people are coming through the door of the house, and we are not sure how to make them well. Meanwhile they are starting to make us sick, too. What is the first thing to do?”
The children would reply: “Close the door.” One would add: “Just for a while, while you figure out how to treat everyone getting sick.” Another might say: “And keep going outside the door in protective clothing with medical help.” Eleven-year-olds would get this one right without a lot of struggle.
If we don’t momentarily close the door to citizens of the affected nations, it is certain that more cases will come into the U.S. It is hard to see how that helps anyone. Closing the door would be no guarantee of safety—nothing is guaranteed, and the world is porous. But it would reduce risk and likelihood, which itself is worthwhile.
Africa, by the way, seems to understand this. The Associated Press on Thursday reported the continent’s health-care officials had limited the threat to only five countries with the help of border controls, travel restrictions, and aggressive and sophisticated tracking.
All of which returns me to my thoughts the past few weeks. Back then I’d hear the official wordage that doesn’t amount to a logical thought, and the unspoken air of “We don’t want to panic you savages,” and I’d look at various public officials and muse: “Who do you think you are?”
Now I think, “Who do they think we are?”
Does the government think if America is made to feel safer, she will forget the needs of the Ebola nations? But Americans, more than anyone else, are the volunteers, altruists and in a few cases saints who go to the Ebola nations to help. And they were doing it long before the Western media was talking about the disease, and long before America was experiencing it.
At the Ebola hearings Thursday, Rep. Henry Waxman (D., Calif.) said, I guess to the American people: “Don’t panic.” No one’s panicking—except perhaps the administration, which might explain its decisions.
Is it always the most frightened people who run around telling others to calm down?
This week the president canceled a fundraiser and returned to the White House to deal with the crisis. He made a statement and came across as about three days behind the story—“rapid response teams” and so forth. It reminded some people of the statement in July, during another crisis, of the president’s communications director, who said that when a president rushes back to Washington, it “can have the unintended consequence of unduly alarming the American people.” Yes, we’re such sissies. Actually, when Mr. Obama eschews a fundraiser to go to his office to deal with a public problem we are not scared, only surprised.
But again, who do they think we are? You gather they see us as poor, panic-stricken people who want a travel ban because we’re beside ourselves with fear and loathing. Instead of practical, realistic people who are way ahead of our government.
Some Southland drivers seem convinced that the President’s policy on stopping the virus to-date have not inspired confidence
by TRUTH REVOLT | OCTOBER 8, 2014
Vice President Joe Biden held up traffic around Los Angeles for a second day on Tuesday, but it was President Obama himself on the minds of many Southern California drivers as bumper stickers began appearing on area cars featuring the word Ebola with the Obama logo replacing the letter “o.”
The scathing stickers come on the eve of President Obama’s Thursday trip to LA for a fundraiser at the home of Gwyneth Paltrow and on the same day that the LATimes reports that it may be premature for Mr. Obama’s government to declare that the deadly Ebola virus is not transmitted by air.
Dr. C.J. Peters, who battled a 1989 outbreak of the virus among research monkeys housed in Virginia and who later led the CDC’s most far-reaching study of Ebola’s transmissibility in humans, said he would not rule out the possibility that it spreads through the air in tight quarters.
“We just don’t have the data to exclude it,” said Peters, who continues to research viral diseases at the University of Texas in Galveston.
Whatever the case, at least some Southland drivers seem convinced that the President’s policy on stopping the virus to-date have not inspired confidence.
by Jason DeWitt | Top Right News
At a public town hall meeting at the Islamic Society of Orange County, California, Democrat Maxine Waters told the audience that Islamic Sharia Law was compatible with the U.S. Constitution.
According to Sharia Law:
Theft is punishable by amputation of the right hand
Criticizing or denying any part of the Quran is punishable by death.
Criticizing or denying Muhammad is a prophet is punishable by death.
Criticizing or denying Allah, the moon god of Islam is punishable by death.
A Muslim who becomes a non-Muslim is punishable by death.
A non-Muslim who leads a Muslim away from Islam is punishable by death.
A non-Muslim man who marries a Muslim woman is punishable by death.
A man can marry an infant girl and consummate the marriage when she is 9 years old.
Girls’ clitoris should be cut (per Muhammad‘s words in Book 41, Kitab Al-Adab, Hadith 5251).
A woman can have 1 husband, but a man can have up to 4 wives; Muhammad can have more.
A man can unilaterally divorce his wife but a woman needs her husband’s consent to divorce.
A man can beat his wife for insubordination.
Testimonies of four male witnesses are required to prove rape against a woman.
A woman who has been raped cannot testify in court against her rapist(s).• A woman’s testimony in court, allowed only in property cases, carries half the weight of a man’s.
A female heir inherits half of what a male heir inherits.
A woman cannot drive a car, as it leads to fitnah (upheaval).
A woman cannot speak alone to a man who is not her husband or relative.
Meat to be eaten must come from animals that have been sacrificed to Allah – i.e., be Halal.
Muslims should engage in Taqiyya and lie to non-Muslims to advance Islam.
THIS is compatible with the Constitution that Waters took an oath to uphold?
This woman is a threat to freedom.
By Craig Bannister
Illegal aliens successfully landed on a San Diego beach in a panga boat on Monday and ran to shore – but, when another group tried the same thing on Tuesday, U.S. Customs and Border (CBP) agents were waiting for them.
Around 7am Monday morning, a horde of illegal aliens stormed a San Diego beach after coming ashore in a panga boat. They sprinted across the beach and climbed over a wall, entering the city.
Seven of the illegal aliens were spotted by helicopter and later apprehended several blocks from the beach; the CBP is still looking for at least ten more who remain at-large, NBC7 in San Diego reports.
Then, about 1am Tuesday morning, a second panga boat filled with 20 illegal aliens was intercepted about off the coast of San Diego County by U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) agents.
CBP Air Interdiction Agents in an OAM Multi-role Enforcement Aircraft (MEA) King Air 350ER spotted the 30-foot panga around 30 miles from the coastal city of Del Mar. The MEA crew directed two OAM Interceptor boats to the panga’s location.
The OAM boats caught up with and stopped the panga about 12 miles west of the city of Oceanside at around 2:30 a.m. The United States Coast Guard Cutter Tern was also in the area providing information and assistance.
The panga and passengers were taken to the Oceanside Harbor where they were turned over to the U.S. Border Patrol for processing. There were 13 men and seven women on board. All were Mexican nationals except two men were from Guatemala and one man was from El Salvador. The passengers’ ages ranged from 20 to 51. Two men from the panga will be prosecuted for human smuggling.
Panga boats are small fishing boats with outboard motors used in Central American waters.
by TONY LEE 26 Aug 2014
As Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto travels across California and declares America to be “the other Mexico,” a Pew Research survey has found that 60% of Mexicans disapprove of Peña Nieto on the economy. Perhaps as a result, a plurality of Mexicans think that life is better across the border, and a third want to move to America.
In addition, the Pew survey found that “two-thirds are dissatisfied with the way things are going in Mexico today” while “only 30% are satisfied with the country’s direction.” That may be why “a plurality of Mexicans (44%) believe life is better north of the border for those who migrated from Mexico” and “roughly a third (34%) still say they would move to the U.S. if they had the opportunity, including 17% of Mexicans who would do so” illegally. Fewer Mexicans, though, said they had close friends and family in the United States than in years past.
On Monday, Peña Nieto scolded governors who did not embrace open borders. California Gov. Jerry Brown was not one of them. The liberal Democrat who has turned California into a sanctuary state and given illegal immigrants driver’s licenses said that illegal immigrants from Mexico are “all welcome in California.”
Mexicans are overwhelmingly concerned with crime in their country – 79% of respondents said “crime is a very big problem in their country.” In addition, “about seven-in-ten Mexicans also worry about corrupt political leaders (72%), drug cartel-related violence (72%), water pollution (70%) and air pollution (69%).” In addition, “just over six-in-ten say corrupt police officers (63%) are a top problem.”
As Breitbart News noted, a “record 33.7 million Hispanics of Mexican origin resided in the United States in 2012,” and that estimate included “11.4 million immigrants born in Mexico and 22.3 million born in the U.S. who self-identified as Hispanics of Mexican origin,” according to data from the Census and Pew Research. In addition, Mexicans accounted for “nearly two-thirds (64%) of the U.S. Hispanic population in 2012″ and “made up roughly 28% percent of all foreign-born residents in the United States.”
Pew Research, in conjunction with Princeton Survey Research Associates, conducted the interviews in Spanish. The poll was taken in Mexico based on “1,000 face-to-face interviews with adults 18 and older, between April 21 and May 2, 2014,” and its margin of error is +/- 4 percentage points.