Dr. Thomas Frieden, director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, insulted the intelligence and common sense of those Americans still possessed of intelligence and common sense this past weekend with the fundamentally absurd argument that controlling the spread of the Ebola virus ought not include limiting entry to the United States from areas in which Ebola is raging.
In fact, not only did he minimize the danger posed by the disease, but Frieden actually made the argument that imposing a travel ban between the U.S. and West African countries dealing with the Ebola virus could worsen the outbreak, citing even more enfeebled logic.
Dr. Anthony Fauci, the director of the National Institute of Infectious Diseases, echoed Frieden on “Fox News Sunday” and downplayed the idea that Ebola could be brought across the southern U.S. border (which illegal immigrants routinely cross, including individuals from West African nations) or that the virus could be used as a biological weapon by terrorists.
In the face of history, epidemiological protocol and, of course, common sense, it is evident that both of these learned men have compromised their medical ethics in advancing this dangerous, paternalistic narrative.
I’m sure that the reader can deduce who might have compelled them to do that as well as I can.
In the meantime, equally learned experts in the scientific community have gone on record in stating that Ebola may be more communicable than originally believed, that our screening protocols stink and that more cases in the U.S. are highly likely. Some have even said that we are being deliberately lied to by the government.
We should be quite used to these institutional deceptions on the part of the Obama administration and its surrogates by now – that is, those of us who are able to recognize them.
For example, each day since the escalated bombing campaign against ISIS in Syria ensued, we have been treated to daily press updates by Pentagon spokesman Rear Adm. John Kirby, whom I have affectionately dubbed “the beady-eyed liar.” While ISIS makes impressive daily gains in Syria and Iraq, and military experts contend that the campaign is ineffectual, Kirby delivers progress reports right out of George Orwell’s “1984.”
For years now, from Obama down through every political appointee and administration spokesperson, all have followed the pattern of denial and minimization prior to implementation of policies (if acknowledging the need for a policy at all), astonishment in the face of the resulting calamity, followed by more denial and minimization. We learned about it on the news. We underestimated the impact of fill-in-the-blank. And no, we don’t have a strategy …
I’ve said before (and I am by no means the only one) that it would be statistically impossible for an individual to be sufficiently unlucky, incompetent, or intellectually compromised that their policies would overwhelmingly result in disaster after disaster. Unfortunately, we’ve cultivated a population wherein there are individuals among us so mind-blowingly stupid that they believe travel restrictions imposed on Ebola-stricken nations would be racist. Thus, there are plenty of folks who still buy into the “Obama as the good-natured bungler” narrative – sort of a Steve Urkel with a pen and a phone.
While I have breath, however, I will continue to affirm that the individual representing himself as Barack Hussein Obama is a malignant saboteur, harboring allegiances that are in conflict with his role as our president.
Obama used political correctness as a pretext for failing to control our southern border. It was viewed as imprudent, but his intention was to overwhelm the system, thus allowing massive numbers of illegal immigrants and potential terrorists access to the United States.
Obama used humanitarianism and regional security as a pretext for arming “moderate” rebels in Syria. It was viewed as imprudent, but his intention was to facilitate the rise of an Islamic caliphate that would destabilize the Middle East and threaten the United States.
Obama used economics and social justice as a pretext for comprehensive changes to America’s health-care system. It was viewed as imprudent, but his intention was to massively increase Americans’ dependency on the government.
Obama used loyalty as a pretext for trading five jihadi generals for one deserter – illegally, I might add. It was viewed as imprudent, but his intention was to provide terrorist groups with the invaluable experience these murderers could offer.
Obama uses citizenship as a pretext for failing to take decisive action against Americans fighting with ISIS in the Middle East upon their return. It is viewed as imprudent, but his intention is to enable terrorist groups within our borders.
Obama is even using the constitutional separation (of church and state) clause as a pretext for refusing to address Islamist ideology, despite his administration’s unconstitutional deportment toward Christians (in the form of the abortifacient and contraceptive mandates under Obamacare and the widespread disenfranchisement of Christians in the military).
And as the infomercials say, there’s so much more…
Of course, Obama is quite willing to be viewed by Americans as incompetent or disengaged, because our beliefs and opinions mean even less to him than our rights. In the end, he envisions a scenario wherein he will be able to act as he likes openly, and the American people will no longer have any recourse or redress.
Barack Obama used the denial of risk as a pretext for failing to restrict travel from Ebola-stricken African nations. This, too, was viewed as imprudent. Is his intention to facilitate an Ebola outbreak in the United States? Will his efforts to protect Americans from this dread disease be as ineffectual and insincere as his war against ISIS?
If the above questions paint the picture of an incomprehensibly diabolical individual, bear in mind that this individual and his contemporaries have despised everything America stands for their entire lives, and that their idols are among worst mass murderers the world has known. Then, consider their track record as indicated above.
Then, ask yourself why they wouldn’t use any and every means at their disposal to bring about the desired result.
Media wishing to interview Erik Rush, please contact [email protected].