I came across this photo of Benjamin Netenyahu (left) and Barack Obama (right) in their younger years.
This is particularly striking since the Obama administration called Netanyahu a “chicken shit” for not having the courage to fight.
The photo shows Netanyahu as Sayeret Matkal commando and a military Colonel while Obama was a … pothead.
Which one is the genuine chicken shit?
“We’re confident that selfless health workers who were brave enough to care for Ebola patients in a foreign country will be willing to take reasonable steps to protect residents of their own country”
Main Department of Health and Human Services Commissioner Mary Mayhew
Well, it looks like Kaci Hickox is not a selfless health worker.
What is my opinion of the likes of Kaci Hickox?
She is a caring but dangerously and insensitively naïve woman. Caring – mostly about her own selfish interests. Insensitive in that she is far from selfless. Oh, she believes she is so cool and hip, making her big splash in Africa. She not only walks the CDC line, but is in full agreement with our president in this: Protecting other countries is more important than protecting our own.
Here she is, apparently enjoying herself in her chosen location, somewhere in the jungle.
She knows, or should know, that she was involved with a deadly disease. She has , after all, voluntarily agreed to involve herself with those who are infected.
And still, she comes back home to the US with a fever and expects to immediately mix in with our general population. Insane! She doesn’t give a crap about the other people around her over here. She believes she is above us all.
Then she has the audacity to sue the State of New Jersey over her mandatory quarantine for a few days – a quarantine that makes infinite sense to a large majority of US citizens.
Her balls are bigger than the mega-sunspots. She is one hell of a self-centered selfish chick. Oh, she’s giving of herself in Africa. That is her choice and apparently she grooves on that choice. That does not relieve her of her idiocy once she is back “home”, a place she apparently respects less than Africa.
This is a picture of her temporary quarantine quarters. It appears larger than my living room, dining room, and den combined. It is likely significantly better than the conditions she chose to live in in her beloved Africa.
Her whining prevailed. She is now back home. She is fortunate that her fever subsided and she has tested negative for Ebola – so far.
But her arrogance doesn’t stop there. This uppity nurse refuses voluntary quarantine in Maine, too. And she is frightening her hometown folks there. From CBS Connecticut:
The news of Hickox’s return to Maine swept across the town of Fort Kent and the university campus, which has 1,400 students.
Faith Morneault, a 19-year-old behavioral science student, said news that Hickox may be headed to Fort Kent had caused “a lot of panic” among students. But she said she understands her desire to go home.
“You can’t freak out in this situation. You have to understand it,” she said.
Another student, 20-year-old behavioral science major Kayla Michaud, said students also are worried because of the potential presence of Hickox’s boyfriend in the school community.
“If she’s in quarantine, is he going to be quarantined, because we don’t all want to be contaminated with the Ebola virus,” she said.
Department of Health and Human Services Commissioner Mary Mayhew had these words of wisdom, the significance of which escape nurse Kratchet:
“We’re confident that selfless health workers who were brave enough to care for Ebola patients in a foreign country will be willing to take reasonable steps to protect residents of their own country. However we are willing to pursue legal authority if necessary to ensure risk is minimized for Mainers.”
The arrogance of Ms. Hickox is attributable to the ideological predisposition of this self-centered Ebola-don’t-give-a-damner. This from Gotnews.com:
“The nurse…is an employee for the Centers for Disease Control and a registered Democrat with a history of left-wing advocacy, Gotnews.com has learned.
Kaci Hickox’s ties to the CDC were not disclosed in a controversial anti-quarantine column she wrote for the Dallas Morning News. The CDC opposes quarantines or travel bans from Ebola infected countries.
Initially turned down for Doctors Without Borders, Hickox applied for a position with the Centers for Disease Control’s infectious disease unit. She received that position and began a two-year fellowship in Las Vegas, NV where she currently still works.”
More about this poor excuse for a caring human being HERE. By the way, miss arrogant priss, Ebola virus can survive up to several weeks on various surfaces.
But that doesn’t matter. She has the always vigilant bureaucracy of the CDC behind her – as inept as the State Department that hopes to bring Ebola-infected foreigners into the US for treatment. But that is a story for later.
HERE is another pointed article about sweet, caring Kaci titled “Liberalism Manifested” and subtitled “Me Me Me.”
Take a look at these Obama Administration policies in juxtaposition:
October 7th: If US troops in Africa get Ebola, they’ll get treatment in the US. (Sounds an awful lot like “if you like your current health insurance, you can keep your current health insurance.)
October 17th: Obama to Bring Non-American Ebola Victims to US for Treatment (especially since Ebola-stricken countries are mostly Muslim)
And now this one:
October 18th: US Troops that Contract Ebola Will be Quarantined in Liberia (really?)
If this isn’t “kick-the-bastard-out-of-the-White House” worthy, nothing is.
He is a damned traitor. And I don’t usually cuss much on this blog, but this is a special occasion.
This is just another stark example of how the Obama administration is misusing and abusing our military. More HERE.
Ebola, if not good for anything else, is good for demonstrating how our brains and common sense are turned off when faced with a new and stressful situation.
This self-neutering mental capacity is caused by two things:
n that Ebola is nothing new and precautions should be just like for any other transmissible illness. The thinking: “We’ve done this before; what can possibly go wrong?” This mindlessness has been the reason for a number of failures in the diagnosis and precautions involving Ebola in the US:
Here is a relevant comment by someone worth listening to:
Marine Corps Gen. John Kelly, commander of the U.S. Southern Command, predicted last week that the Ebola virus will not be contained in West Africa, and if infected people flee those countries and spread the disease to Central and South America, it could cause “mass migration into the United States” of those seeking treatment.
“If it breaks out, it’s literally, ‘Katie bar the door,’ and there will be mass migration into the United States,” Kelly said in remarks to the National Defense University on Tuesday. “They will run away from Ebola, or if they suspect they are infected, they will try to get to the United States for treatment.
This is a real possibility ignored by the CDC and the Obama administration.
Will we invoke our normalcy bias to ignore or mock these types of real possibilities?
Bloomberg posted an article that mocked Ebola’s “worst case scenario” and sugar-coated the outcome in the United States. I posted the following comment.
Wow! I'd get really FAT from that sugar-coating. Given the facts, the spread, and human nature to date, here is what to expect by January:
* Spread to several additional countries in Africa
* Close to 100,000 total cases and over 50,000 total deaths and accelerating
* Cases in several countries in Europe and the Middle East
* Outbreak in Mexico, Central and South America
* Increased influx, aka "torrent" of scared and potentially infected refugees crossing our border from Mexico
* Over 100 cases in the US and growingWithin a few months we will see reductions in travel, forced and voluntary, people avoiding events and activities involving large groups of people, some sectors of the economy heavily impacted: air travel, theaters, sports venues. School attendance will decline.
Until our population sees credible signs of rhetoric matching reality, fears and concerns will outpace what we are being told, whether what we are told is true or not. Circular reasoning, yes. But that is the way it works.
While most comments basically agreed with my assessment, one did not and questioned why I would comment if I was not an epidemiologist.
Here is my reply:
My basis for these opinions are as follows:
Just processing recent trends and behaviors, and using common sense and logic - such as is currently absent from the CDC, some hospitals, our president, and others that look to 'big daddy' for direction rather than using their head as if we are mindless minions. It appears that common sense may be more valuable than an epidemiology degree at the moment. Given the errors to date and the unbridled arrogance of our government and many professionals, we have a poor start in the fight and not likely to learn much going forward.
And your basis for criticism is what?
Both the normalcy bias and deferring our use of common sense to those who should know better but don’t is the root of our Ebola angst in the US.
Hospitals and the CDC
These are just a few examples of how “big government” has discouraged us from thinking for ourselves and using common sense.
Related: “If You Want to Live, Ignore the CDC” Article by a renowned doctor.
We have begun to hear comparisons of the Ebola outbreak with the spread of AIDS 30+ years ago. Many suggest that Ebola may turn out to have an impact just as bad as AIDS turned out to be. Others suggest Ebola will not be as bad because of one critical difference:
“There is one crucial difference with Aids however. Ebola has only been passed on by an infected person demonstrating symptoms of disease, while HIV can be transmitted by people who for years show no signs of carrying the virus that causes Aids.”
The initial spread of AIDS was propelled through homosexual sex, a conscious, deliberate act. During the early years of the spread of AIDS, the great majority of AIDS cases were transmitted that way. Even today, the website that describes how people contract AIDS http://www.aids.gov/hiv-aids-basics/hiv-aids-101/how-you-get-hiv-aids/ implies that homosexual sexual activity is a major means of transmission. Most other causes of transmission are by other deliberate acts of immorality such as having multiple sex partners or use of AIDS-tainted drug needles.
So with AIDS, the majority of ways it can be acquired is through deliberate acts of immorality.
Not so with Ebola.
Even though the presumed window for transmitting Ebola is when the carrier shows symptoms, the path of contamination is invisible, long lasting, and deadly. Here is a report from The Public Health Agency of Canada:
SURVIVAL OUTSIDE HOST: Filoviruses have been reported capable to survive for weeks in blood and can also survive on contaminated surfaces, particularly at low temperatures (4°C) Footnote 52 Footnote 61. One study could not recover any Ebolavirus from experimentally contaminated surfaces (plastic, metal or glass) at room temperature Footnote 61. In another study, Ebolavirus dried onto glass, polymeric silicone rubber, or painted aluminum alloy is able to survive in the dark for several hours under ambient conditions (between 20 and 250C and 30–40% relative humidity) (amount of virus reduced to 37% after 15.4 hours), but is less stable than some other viral hemorrhagic fevers (Lassa) Footnote 53. When dried in tissue culture media onto glass and stored at 4 °C, Zaire ebolavirus survived for over 50 days Footnote 61.
New information reveals that Ebola may be spread BEFORE full-bore symptoms are obvious in the carrier. This from World Net Daily:
NEW YORK – A group of German medical doctors in a peer-reviewed medical journal article published by Oxford University Press have challenged a key assumption regarding the Ebola virus repeatedly asserted by Dr. Thomas Frieden, director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta.
The researchers found that a patient showing no symptoms of the disease can still transmit a virus like Ebola by air if droplets containing the virus are transmitted to another person by a sneeze or cough.
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2014/10/ebola-victims-without-symptoms-could-still-be-contagious/#JewjvlSoDkBRrI7i.99
With AIDS, those who stayed on the straight and narrow moral path were unlikely to get that disease. On the other hand, with Ebola, moral indiscretion plays no role. All it takes with Ebola is for the unfortunate soul to be in the wrong place at the wrong time where the infected individual is or has been within the last several hours.
Based on the above known information, what will be worse: AIDS or Ebola?
It is obvious after 30+ years of combatting AIDS, we know a lot more about that disease than we know about Ebola. The jury is still out on Ebola. We can be sure that the impact of Ebola will get much worse over the next several months before we even begin to see the light at the end of the tunnel.
Most media, both liberal and conservative, modify the word “Islam” with “radical” every time they make reference to some violent, heinous act of terror committed by Muslims. Even when Sean Hannity reveals the connection between the Muslim who beheaded an Oklahoma woman and his mosque, the caption reads “RISE OF RADICAL ISLAM.” No, Sean, it is the rise of the original, orthodox Islam – exactly the way Muhammad intended.
“The Five” on FOX News Channel fall all over themselves when Bob Beckel mentions just the word “Islam” when referring to jihadists. The others quickly pounce and say “…you mean ‘radical Islam, Bob…”, fearful that Muslims might take offense. I think Bob, bless his liberal heart, is the only one of The Five who is not afraid to assert that Islam itself promotes jihad, terror, and hate as opposed to the others who insist on the obfuscationist term “radical” Islam.
Is the modifier “radical” being used to describe a form of Islam relative to “non-radical” or “normal” Islam? Or is it being used to describe the teaching of Islam and actions of Muslims relative to accepted normal behavior in society at large? Its meaning is certainly not clear. It could be taken either way.
Let’s see if we can clarify the meaning and appropriate usage of the term “radical” by exploring dictionary definitions:
From Merriam Webster:
1rad·i·cal
adjective \ˈra-di-kəl\: very new and different from what is traditional or ordinary
: very basic and important
: having extreme political or social views that are not shared by most people
Full Definition of RADICAL
1. : of, relating to, or proceeding from a root: as
a (1) : of or growing from the root of a plant <radical tubers> (2) : growing from the base of a stem, from a rootlike stem, or from a stem that does not rise above the ground <radical leaves>
b : of, relating to, or constituting a linguistic root
c : of or relating to a mathematical root
d : designed to remove the root of a disease or all diseased and potentially diseased tissue <radical surgery> <radical mastectomy>
2. : of or relating to the origin : fundamental
3. a : very different from the usual or traditional : extreme
b : favoring extreme changes in existing views, habits, conditions, or institutions
c : associated with political views, practices, and policies of extreme change
d : advocating extreme measures to retain or restore a political state of affairs <the radical right>
In definition 1., radical can mean “root” or the very essence or basis for something; or the source. In religious terms, radical Islam would refer to the root or source of Islam. A synonym would be “orthodox” Islam.
In definition 2., radical can mean “origin” – what Islam was in its beginning. Again, a synonym might be “orthodox” or “fundamentalist” Islam.
In definition 3., radical means “different” or “unusual.” The problem with this definition is “different” or “unusual” are relative terms. Different or unusual compared to what? Compared to “normal” Islam or compared to the rest of (non-Islamic) humanity or human behavior? This vagueness creates a problem in conveying the reality of “radical” Islamic teaching and behavior.
Let’s look at The Free Dictionary definitions:
rad·i·cal (r
d
-k
l)
adj.
1. Arising from or going to a root or source; basic: proposed a radical solution to the problem.
2. Departing markedly from the usual or customary; extreme: radical opinions on education.
3. Favoring or effecting fundamental or revolutionary changes in current practices, conditions, or institutions: radical political views.
In definition 1, once again radical can mean “basic” or the root form of Islam: How Islam was in its beginning.
In definition 2, radical can mean unusual or extreme. Here again this usage is relative. Unusual or extreme compared to what? Compared to other usual or non-extreme versions of Islamic behaviors and values? Or compared to usual or non-extreme general (non-Islamic) human behaviors or values? Again, this vagueness creates a problem in conveying the reality of “radical Islamic teaching and behavior.
In definition 3, radical can mean great differences from current practice, conditions or institutions or revolutionary views compared to non-revolutionary views. This definition is less relative because the objects of the differences are identified: Current practice compared to the different or revolutionary practices. If this definition is used with regard to Islam, however, vagueness still exists. What is “radical” Islam being compared to? The current or common beliefs and practices of other Muslims or the current or common beliefs and practices of non-Islamic society?
Complicating this question is the truth about the nature of doctrinal beliefs and practices of Muslims. If we mistakenly believe that the beliefs and practices of Muslims are peaceful and non-threatening, then radical Islam is the right term for those who wage jihad terror. However, if we correctly believe that the fundamental, orthodox, root beliefs promoted by today’s Islam promotes deception, terror, and violent jihad, then the term “radical Islam” becomes very misleading – vague at best.
To recap:
Most entered through New York airports. Of special interest to Floridians, several entered through Miami and Fort Lauderdale. There was and continues to be NO screening – and our leaders have shown no sign of really caring.
God help our ignorant leaders.
This exclusive from Breitbart:
DALLAS, Texas — Over 3,500 passengers from Ebola affected nations have been allowed to enter the U.S. without any special screening since January 1, 2014, according to a leaked internal intelligence report from the U.S. Customs and Border Protection Office of Intelligence and Liaison exclusively obtained by Breitbart Texas. In addition, the individuals entered into at least 18 heavily populated U.S. cities across the nation.
The leaked report specifically reads, “According to CBP [Customs and Border Protection] data, since January 1, 2014 to June 30, 2014, a total of 3,566 passengers with a nexus to Guinea transited through or arrived at U.S. airports.” The term “nexus” refers to passengers who flew from the Ebola stricken nation to a second nation, and then from the second nation into the United States. Guinea is attributed as the nation of origin for the current Ebola outbreak.
The lack of any special processes or testing for individuals with a nexus to Ebola affected nations is illumined in the leaked internal report as well. It reads, “The Level 3 travel alert issued by the CDC on July 31st remains in effect as of August 13, 2014. The travel alert urges all US residents to avoid nonessential travel to Guinea. Although CBP is not doing any additional screening of passengers from the affected countries, CBP has enhanced their screening routine processes through guidance and training. Additionally, CDC is providing assistance with exit screening and communication efforts in West Africa to prevent sick travelers from boarding planes.”
The report indicates that the vast majority of the 3,566 of passengers with a nexus to the nation of origin for the current Ebola outbreak either deplaned in or traveled through New York City. Other cities include Atlanta, Chicago, Minneapolis, Seattle, San Francisco, Philadelphia, Dallas, Miami, Cincinnati, Columbus, Pittsburg, St. Louis, Indianapolis, Baltimore, Washington, D.C., Fort Lauderdale, and Cleveland.
The U.S. federal agent who leaked the report to Breitbart Texas did so and spoke on the condition of anonymity. The agent said, “This internal report, coupled with the current Ebola case in Dallas, reveals that our government is not only allowing individuals from Ebola-stricken nations to enter the U.S. with only the basic screening they give to passengers from any foreign nation, but the claims of the issue being properly addressed in the West African countries are untrue.”
“The CBP is taking no action to screen individuals entering the U.S. from Ebola-stricken nations. We are doing nothing. All we are doing is asking authorities in nations with Ebola to stick a thermometer in the mouths of people boarding planes. That does nothing to keep Americans safe from Ebola,” the agent said.
The leaked report is provided in its unaltered state for our readers. There are nine pages in total and no redactions have been made. The report is labeled “UNCLASSIFIED//FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY//LAW ENFORCEMENT SENSITIVE” and contains a warning stating that the document is not to be made available to the media, the general public, or nonsecure internet servers. It further states that some of this information may not be available through the Freedom of Information Act.
Follow Breitbart Texas Managing Director on Twitter @brandondarby.
The “experts” claim how difficult catching the Ebola virus is – that we practically have to exchange sweat to catch it. Dr. Siegel on FOX even claimed that kissing won’t spread it.
This photo represents how difficult it is to catch Ebola…if you have a suit like these…
Why do doctors who treat Ebola patients have to wear suits like these? Do they know something about Ebola that the likes of Dr. Siegel are not telling us?
If Ebola is so difficult to transmit, how come well-trained US doctors treating Ebola in Africa contracted the disease?
If Ebola is so difficult to transmit, how come these infected missionary doctors were transported in aircraft insulted with three layers of protection?
I suspect the motives of people whose highest priority is to protect people in other nations. During his congressional hearing, one of the cured missionary doctors insisted the United States government send troops and millions of dollars to Africa to build infrastructure in hot zones where the natives are suspicious of and resent outside influences. He held no concern or regard for safeguards in the United States. His priorities were for his favorite missionary activity. To hell with us over here. He couldn’t care less. And our government salivated all over his suggestion. Two days later, 3,000 US soldiers were on their way.
In the meantime, we have not restricted incoming flights from infected African nations. Why not? Because, as the CDC spokesman said, “It is not my call.” Here is more of the illogic of what’s happening as reported by Breitbart:
CDC Spokesman Dave Daigle stated that the US would not be preventing flights from countries with massive outbreaks of the Ebola virus from coming in to the United States, despite seemingly admitting that the case of Ebola patient Thomas Eric Duncan showed that airport screening cannot catch every case of Ebola…
When asked whether he would recommend the US simply not allow flights from countries like Sierra Leone and Liberia, Daigle responded, “I don't think so, and that’s certainly not, I'm not even sure if that’s a CDC call.”
And our borders remain as porous as ever, despite the likelihood that a polio-like respiratory disease that is spreading like wildfire among our children is suspected of being spread by illegals.
We are reminded that all staff of US hospitals have been trained in how to identify and isolate those who are suspected of symptoms of Ebola. Then why did Presbyterian Hospital in Texas send the infected man home from the emergency room after he told her that he recently arrived from Liberia? He then had three more days to spread the disease. Here’s an example of CYA for the textbooks:
Hospital officials defended the initial handling of Duncan, issuing a statement describing his fever as "low-grade," and insisting "his condition did not warrant admission." They added that they are still investigating why Duncan's travel history was not conveyed to the doctors who sent him home. Hospital epidemiologist Dr. Edward Goodman told the Associated Press that the patient did not show the riskier symptoms of vomiting and diarrhea.
If several school children in Texas are suspected of coming in contact with one or more Ebola carriers, why aren’t classes in those schools suspended for the requisite 21 days instead of leaving it up to panicked parents to do the smart thing and pull their kids from class?
The most effective way to destroy the public trust in the medical community and our government is to over promise and under deliver. And that is exactly what they are doing. If I can spend a few minutes a day over several weeks to come up with a significant list of inconsistencies between medical rhetoric and observable reality, then I suspect most of the rest of our population is noticing the same inconsistencies. And that is a trigger for failing trust and potential panic.
