Political Correctness and Ebola

 I don't think I have ever been so angry as I was when the Director of the CDC admitted publicly that the real reason for no travel ban was to protect "the fledgling economies" of the ebola-affected, West African states - angry at him, angry at Obama, and especially angry at liberal friends who helped put this incompetent, dangerous fool, racist and liar into the White House.  Mexico can refuse the docking of a cruise ship that MIGHT contain an infected passenger, but citizens of the United States are denied the protection of a travel ban because of liberal commitment to "political correctness".

      

Incompetence Meets Mendacity in Obama Administration’s Ebola Response

Americans are shaken by government’s inability to function.

By Andrew C. McCarthy October 18, 2014 National Review

Ebola is causing such anxiety that even alarm over an outbreak of enterovirus D-68 — far more prevalent and linked to the deaths of at least four children — has been crowded out. Ditto news of the Islamic State’s rampage, a stock-price rollercoaster, and the impending midterm elections. Understandably, two concerns dominate the public discussion.

One is incompetence. Lulled into ever more dependence on government by the metastasis of regulation in what used to be the realm of private action, Americans are shaken by Washington’s inability to function. It is bungling elementary tasks. There is a sense of unraveling, a sense that officials are not merely out of their depth in addressing problems but incapable of spotting the problems in the first place — or, even worse, responsible for creating the very problems that then explode into crises.

Intimately related is the other concern: dishonesty. People expect politicians to spin and, at times, to out-and-out lie. I’ve been contending for a while now that our politics are no longer rational but tribal. Being right is secondary to being on the “right” side, as that side is perceived by the popular culture. That culture has largely tuned out the news and is swayed more by character assassination than by linear, fact-based argument. Official dishonesty is the natural result. When it is more important that “our side” wins than that the sensible thing be done, it is to be expected that the partisans, especially those in power, will say whatever they need to say to get through the news cycle. After all, fewer people than ever care about the news part of the news cycle; they care about the drama and their sympathies will be with their heroes — the fibs told to escape the latest jam are more admired for craftiness than condemned as breaches of trust.

Still, as we’ve previously observed, there is a breaking point. You can only abide politics as soap opera for so long because politics is actually about real life and real stakes. Reality cannot be scripted. Therefore, politics cannot forever be stage-managed as a “narrative” with “optics,” a daily show focused on how the lead character is affected by the latest crisis.

At a certain point, the reality of the crises hits us, and hits close to home. Am I threatened? Am I going to get sick? If I do get sick, am I going to have health coverage and the doctor I trust? Is the government doing its best to make sure I am not infected? Or shot? Or bombed? Or beheaded?

Where do we get the answers to these questions? From the government we’ve grown to depend on. And now the answers are so purposely, patently, and pervasively false, it suddenly seems as if nothing can be trusted — as if, even as our perils intensify, our government erects another house in its Potemkin village.

Of course you can keep your health coverage, and your doctor. And we’ll cover everyone while your premiums plummet. Meanwhile, al-Qaeda is “decimated” and these Islamic State guys are just the jayvee team. In fact (fact?), they’re not even Islamic — although they may not be quite as “secular” as the Muslim Brotherhood. Just extremists. (Extreme about what? Don’t ask.) Jihad is just a “purification of the self” . . . or, at most, “workplace violence.” Benghazi? A spontaneous “protest” incited by a video. The president was not told it was a terrorist attack . . . except by the secretary of defense right after it started — long before he responded by . . . going to Vegas, where he promptly announced al-Qaeda was “on the path to defeat.” Still, rest assured that the State Department’s top priority is the safety of American personnel . . . although we did reduce security in Benghazi after our facility was bombed. And rest assured that the Justice Department would never ever let guns walk . . . except for the thousands its Fast and Furious program transferred to violent gangs — who’ve used them in who knows how many crimes, including the murder of a Border Patrol agent. Still, at least there’s “not a smidgen of corruption” at the IRS, where citizens are harassed, evidence keeps disappearing, and the official at the center of it all takes the Fifth to avoid giving incriminating testimony. No matter. Just take heart that Ebola is not coming to the United States . . . um, well, if it does come there will be no outbreak . . . but, er, if there is an outbreak, we have careful protocols and health-care professionals fully trained to deal with it . . . and even if the protocols don’t work and the professionals don’t have adequate training, we’ll have a rigorous monitoring program for anyone who is exposed . . . or maybe a self-monitoring program for people who will isolate themselves . . . unless, of course, we tell them to go ahead and hop on a plane. Well, look, at least we can promise there won’t be a “serious” outbreak.

If you say so.

The shocking competence gap and the cavernous honesty gap — brought to you by the “most transparent administration in history” — make our heads spin as we careen from debacle to government-induced debacle. In the tumult, we can miss the main point: Why do we have a federal government?

Its purpose is to safeguard the American people and pursue our interests in the world, not to solve the world’s problems on our dime and, occasionally, by using us as laboratory mice. As free people, we can try to save the planet. The federal government, however, was not created to do it for us, much less to coerce us into implausible “humanitarian” schemes that always manage to line some crony’s pocket. National interest is our government’s only reliable compass, yet it has been discarded.

It is a short step to incompetence when you lose sight of what you are expected to be competent at accomplishing. It is an even shorter step to mendacity for a ruling class that is schooled to believe the country is fatally flawed and, thus, that the pursuit of our national interests is evil. It turns out that when real crises rivet their attention, the rubes still expect the government to protect and defend them. At that point, the government must either attend to those basic duties, or lie.
This government has made its choice.

 

The End of Columbus Day

Long ago I solved the mystery of why liberals supported such foolishness like open borders, political correctness, multiculturalism and the end of Columbus Day. I learned that their world view was that we citizens of the USA had such a wonderful country because we had stolen resources from all the rest of the world. It was up to liberals to right these wrongs by sharing our wealth, celebrating other cultures while destroying our own – and, in general, cutting us down to size. To be sure, there is a fair amount of self-hatred in their thinking, but they have some outdated facts on their side.

Like most developed countries, like Great Britain, France, Germany, Holland, Portugal and Spain, there was a time when might made right, colonialism was God's work, and slavery (which still exists in some countries) was an accepted practice. We were more successful than most, but the problem is: those days are gone forever, and this is still a very dangerous world.

As I ponder the strange reactions by the Obama Administration to the dual crises of an ebola epidemic possibly developing in our country and the rise of ISIS, a powerful force dedicated to destroying America and all things smacking of enlightened western culture, I ask myself, “Is this liberal world view and self-hatred at work here also?”.

Are we supposed to share the sufferings of the third world because of our past sins? What other explanation is there for the nonsense being put forth as to why travel from the ebola-stricken countries has not been shut down? Why has the response to the threat from ISIS been so lame and so late? Is it from a view that they should be left to work things out – even at the expense of a future confrontation with an enemy of barbarian death-cultists armed with nuclear weapons?

You Can Help Stop Ebola

I just emailed my two senators asking them to urge President Obama to stop all flights and all nationals from ebola-stricken countries from entering the United States. He already has the authority.  I am urging my readers to send similar messages to their Congressmen. Here's why: Immediately after the President assured us that our medical system was set up to handle any such cases, facts and events again proved him wrong (like with the IRS, ISIS, Fast and Furious, 'you can keep your doctor', open immigration of children, Benghazi, leaving a force in Iraq, etc., etc., etc.). The first case in Texas was completely mishandled by medical personnel, and the patient was sent home to infect hundreds of others. CDC leakers are also telling us that we cannot contain a major outbreak, and that almost no medical facilities even have the special haz-mat suits needed to handle such patients.

The argument is being made that no professionals will want to go into those West African countries to help them deal with ebola if they cannot get back out. This is a ridiculous argument. We can certainly track those individuals, and our military, who have already been committed to this fight, can certainly get them out.

Another scary thing is that some Central American countries from which all these thousands of illegals, mostly children, flooded our borders this summer have about the same conditions of sanitation in which dreadful diseases originate and spread – and our President invited them to come.

This is a time for action to protect America and for the lying and spinning to stop.

Bush vs. Obama on Islamic Fascists

Bush: “I Know The Nature of the Enemy.”

By Aaron Goldstein on 10.2.14 American Spectator

In an interview with Brian Kilmeade on Fox & Friends today, former President George W. Bush did something he has seldom done since leaving office - comment on Iraq.

Kilmeade drew Bush's attention to comments he made in July 2007 in which he warned against withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq too soon. Bush argued at the time that doing so would allow terrorists (namely al Qaeda) to establish a safe haven in Iraq which would lead to mass killings and result in the return of U.S. troops to Iraq. Substitute ISIS for al Qaeda and Bush's warnings have unfortunately come to pass.

When asked how he knew this would come about, Bush replied, "I know the nature of the enemy."
This sums up the difference between George W. Bush and Barack Obama.

Now one can certainly Bush legitimately criticize Bush not only for his prosecution of the War in Iraq, but even if we should have gone in there in the first place. Hell, even I found myself posing that question.

Nevertheless, Bush understands human nature in a way that Obama never will. Obama honestly believes reaching out to the Muslim world, apologizing for America's actions, withdrawing from Iraq and saying that America was not and never would be at war with Islam would change things. He really believed his words would slow the rise of the oceans. Well, as I wrote in one my Obama poems, "The Pyramids do not look at you with wonder".

While it is fair to take Bush to task for calling Islam "a religion of peace", he also acknowledged there is "evil" and "evil-doers" in the world. Bush would later use the term "Islamic fascists".

President Obama would never utilize such language. Come to think of it, the only time Obama used the term "war on terror" was to declare that it was over. Far from it.

Killing Osama bin Laden, while symbolic and significant to the families who lost loved ones on 9/11, wasn't going to end the civilizational struggle against Islamic fascism. Now it is possible that we could triumph over Islamic fascism (provided that we once again have a President who is prepared to acknowledge such things). Should that comes to pass, evil will be put on retreat and perhaps even a lengthy retreat. But so long as their are humans there remains a capacity for evil, religious or otherwise.

It was coming to this understanding that as much as anything else made me declare myself a conservative in the months following September 11, 2001. When Bush said today he knew the nature of the enemy in Iraq it served as a reminder of what made me come to this understanding.