State Dept. Memo Shows Obama Admin. Considering Plan To Transfer Ebola Patients to US (Video)

FOX News obtained a State Department memo that confirms what Judicial Watch originally reported on October 17 – that the Obama administration is considering a plan to transfer infected Ebola patients to the US. for treatment.

It’s not clear who would bear the  costs of transporting and treating the non-citizen Ebola patients but Judicial Watch reported that “the plans include special waivers of laws and regulations that ban the admission of non-citizens with a communicable disease as dangerous as Ebola.”

Apparently, none of this is any of the American people’s business because when White House Spokesperson Josh Earnest was asked about the memo, he would not confirm nor deny the document exists. While the Obama administration publicly denies claims that they are exploring plans to bring non-U.S. citizens infected with Ebola to the United States for treatment, apparently they’re telling Congress something entirely different.

According to Rep. Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, members of the media and his office “have received confidential communications saying that those plans are being developed.”

Initially, the potentially illegal plans were being kept secret from Congress, but Goodlatte sent a letter of inquiry to the White House, last week.

Via Gateway Pundit,  FOX News reported

“Members of the media, my office have received confidential communications saying that those plans are being developed,” Goodlatte said Monday night.

“This is simply a matter of common sense that if you are concerned about this problem spreading — and this is a deadly disease that we’re even concerned about the great health care workers when they come back not spreading it — we certainly shouldn’t be bringing in the patients.”

But a State Department official said Tuesday that they’re only talking about letting other countries use U.S. planes to transport Ebola patients to their own home countries.

Judge Jeanine Pirro: Obama Doesn’t Have The Guts To Identify Terrorists By Its Rightful Name (Video)

Judge Jeanine Pirro used her show Saturday night as a forum to warn America about the increasing threat of “lone wolf” terror attacks.

In her opening statement, Pirro praised officials in Canada and New York City for being willing to call recent attacks terrorism, but slammed the Obama administration, which “doesn’t have the guts to identify terrorism by its rightful name.”

She ran through a series of recent attacks that have happened in past year; “a woman beheaded in Oklahoma by a recently converted Muslim, angry over co-workers’ complaints that he was trying to convert them to Islam. Four murdered across the country by recently converted Muslims, saying it was in retaliation for Iraq, and four cops attacked by yet another radicalized Muslim convert in New York City, who attacks them with a hatchet.”

She added,  “as the call for lone wolves to attack is met, you have to ask yourself if you’re doing everything you can to be safe.”

She had on retired US Navy Lt and founder for the Islamic Forum For Democracy, Zuhdi Jasser  and Natl. security editor for the Blaze and former CIA officer Buck Sexton to discuss the threat of lone wolf attacks.

Pirro asked Jasser if he thought the United States was ready to handle this problem.

Jasser said “we really aren’t. It’s so sad – 13 years after 9/11 – and it’s not about the individual! Fasten your seat belts and we need to call upon Muslims to unbuckle ours,and start to counter the ideology.”

He continued, “this is not random acts. This is not nut cases. It’s not self radicalization. They’re feeding into an ideology that demonizes Americans – especially our police, our military…”

He called on Muslims to be actively be pro-American and anti-Jihadism.

Sexton pointed out that the call for jihadism is in the Koran – “it is textually based. ISIS is essentially a form of fundamentalists,” he explained.  “They look at the texts, look at what is there and try to put it into action.”

He continued, “to say,  for example as President Obama did, that it’s not Islamic, the Islamic State – or to say this is in no way part of Islam –  is just on it’s face ridiculous and we have to keep pointing this out because there is a knee jerk defense from the left in this country from progressives and a lot of Democrats that this is a version of Islam that doesn’t exist anywhere – it just exists in the heads of the crazy people who take this up… it actually exists in the texts and until we understand that that can be put into action – that there’s an ideological basis for this, we will never actually begin to win that ideological war.”

Judge Jeanine Pirro -RPt: Obama Admin Mislead (Lied To) Congress & About Criminal Illegals:

Pirro also had on  Republican Congressman Randy Forbes of Virginia to discuss the false testimony provided by former ICE Chief, John Morton, back in the Spring of 2013. As you recall, Morton had told Congress under oath, that none of the detainees released by ICE were dangerous felons. Two years later, proof has emerged that that was not the case.

“They weren’t blindsided by this question,” Forbes said. “My staff had asked them this question almost  a month before, so they had plenty of time to prepare for it – then they came back in and still lied to us about it. The second thing to remember — which one frightens you the most? That they intentionally lied about it?  )r they didn’t have a clue who it was that they were releasing into the community. Either one is very very dangerous.

The congressman said he would talk to Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte to see if charges can be brought against Morton for lying to Congress.

CDC Blew Off Ebola Expert’s Advice On Protocols (Video)

Judge Jeanine Pirro gave an opening statement, Saturday night,  slamming the Regime’s response to the Obama outbreak thus far, calling CDC Director Dr. Thomas Friedman a former “community organizer” – a designation I couldn’t independently confirm. I wouldn’t be surprised – but I do know that he’s a highly qualified epidemiologist who has experience in New York fighting infectious diseases, which makes his weak performance dealing with the Ebola outbreak, here all the more bewildering.

She had on bio safety expert and president of Behavioral Based Improvement Solutions, Sean Kaufman, who oversaw the infection control of the first two Ebola patients in the United States.

Kaufman had just returned from  Liberia where he has been fighting the disease through the organization, Samaritan’s Purse. He said there was good news and bad news to share about his experience flying back home. The screening process when he got to the Atlanta Airport was about 45 minutes long,  and was very thorough, he said, but  in Brussels, where he had a ten hour stopover after his flight from Monrovia – there was absolutely no screening what-so-ever.

When Pirro asked Kaufman if he was for or against a travel ban, he answered that he used to be  against it, but given this recent experience in Brussels, he was leaning toward favoring a travel ban for non-essential travel from those effected countries.

Kaufman – a former employee of the CDC – told Pirro that he contacted them early on to criticize their Ebola protocols – which he thought were  inadequate – but he was blown off. He told the stunned Pirro, that they reacted at first by debating his proposals and then they just  “blew me off.”  He added, “the reality is, there was no follow up.”

The CDC was expected to release new guidelines, Saturday night.

Pirro also had infectious disease expert Dr. Arnott to talk about the Ebola outbreak.

He talked about how the The World Health Organization dropped the ball on Ebola. Doctors Without Borders warned WHO about the Ebola outbreak seven months ago, but they blew them off- as did the United States.

 

George Will: Distrust of Obama Administration “Permeates Everything”

After Krauthammer, George Will weighed in, on Special Report, making the point that distrust of this administration “permeates everything.”

“First the president denies something, and then there’s a very late and inadequate response,” he began. “ISIS – or whatever we’re calling it – the Islamic State – is the JayVee –  and then suddenly it’s a menace that we have to destroy. The Employer Mandate – fine. It will go into effect – whoops! It can’t go into effect and so they delay that. Now we have a president who said a few weeks ago that there would be no outbreak of Ebola in our country – the White House says today, there’ll be no widespread outbreak. You have to watch the modifiers with this crowd.”

“The president keeps saying ‘trust us,'” Will continued. “Well, it’s a little late in the game for that. The president who says ‘trust us’ is the one who said an internet video caused the Benghazi attack. The president who says ‘trust us’ says there’s not a smidgen of corruption in the IRS, and it’s the president who said ‘if you like your health care plan you can keep it, period.’ It’s late in the game to hermetically seal the one portion of the government that people are going to trust. Distrust permeates everything.”

So true…

Video via NRO:

On Twitter, this morning, I made the same point Krauthammer and Will made about Obama always being late to handle a problem and waiting until it’s become a crises.

I’ve been making points about how dishonest and untrustworthy Obama is since March of 2008.

Krauthammer: “A Couple More Cases Like Mr. Duncan…And I Absolutely Assure You We’re Going To Have A Travel Ban

On Special Report, Thursday night, Charles Krauthammer weighed in on the question of a travel for persons coming from West Africa.

Dr. K  noted the Regime’s tendency to be slow on the uptake  – days behind (everyone else) in coming to obvious conclusions.

“We just heard the head of the CDC say that we track all visitors coming in,” he said. “We couldn’t even track a nurse who had treated Mr. Duncan all the way to Cleveland. And we’re going to be assured that a Ghanaian coming in here, is going to be tracked for the three weeks? And if you check his temperature and it’s negative – there’s still three weeks in which he can develop symptoms and we’re actually going to know where he is – who he talked to – and if he gets sick, we’re going to have to retrace people he’s been in contact with…This is absurd. We get a couple more cases of people who come in with Ebola – like Mr. Duncan, and I absolutely assure you we’re going to have a travel ban.”

Video via NRO:

 

Lt. Col Ralph Peters: NY Times Chemical Weapons Story a “Political Stunt”

In what some suspect was an attempt to deflect attention away from the president’s failures ahead of the midterms, The New York Times published a “blockbuster” piece Wednesday on an immense stash of chemical weapons that was allegedly kept secret by the Pentagon. The piece is very long and took days – perhaps weeks to construct – and aims to concoct a Bush era cover-up scandal.

Gabriel Malor at Ace of Spades was mostly offended by the false weapons of mass destruction charge which most conservatives have ample experience refuting – but it goes to the heart of the dishonesty of the piece.

 Now, let me start by saying there are parts of this piece that are noteworthy, and those parts recount acts of valor and duty by U.S. service members. That’s not the despicable part. The despicable part is how the NYTimes writers have twisted what happened to these service members to their own end of rewriting the Iraq War.

According to the NYTimes, chemical weapons of mass destruction were indeed found in Iraq during the war, as has been a simmering, off-again-on-again open secret. But the NYTimes says these were not the chemical WMD that President Bush said would be found:

The United States had gone to war declaring it must destroy an active weapons of mass destruction program. Instead, American troops gradually found and ultimately suffered from the remnants of long-abandoned programs, built in close collaboration with the West.The New York Times found 17 American service members and seven Iraqi police officers who were exposed to nerve or mustard agents after 2003. American officials said that the actual tally of exposed troops was slightly higher, but that the government’s official count was classified.

The secrecy fit a pattern. Since the outset of the war, the scale of the United States’ encounters with chemical weapons in Iraq was neither publicly shared nor widely circulated within the military. These encounters carry worrisome implications now that the Islamic State, a Qaeda splinter group, controls much of the territory where the weapons were found.

The first sentence is an absolute lie, uttered at Bush 43’s expense, and made to justify the terrifying conclusion, laid at Obama’s feet, in the last sentence.

This NYTimes piece has an over arching political goal: to cement forever the lie that the Iraq War was directed solely at stopping an active weapons of mass destruction program in Iraq. As we know, the military never found an active weapons program, which makes this a particularly compelling slander.

Fox News’ Bill Hemer had Col. Ralph Peters on to discuss the report – which Peters called a perfectly timed “political stunt” meant to divert attention from Obama’s countless screw-ups.

“At the heart of this story, the US military may have mishandled one to two dozen cases of US troops – no fatalities – who had been exposed to chemical weapons during the occupation of Iraq,” Peters said.

“It looks like bureaucratic clumsiness – there’s no vast, right-wing conspiracy in all of this.”  He said the story tries to connect a lot of dots that aren’t there and “jumps to contusions as the Bowery Boys used to say.”

He continued, “I really believe that the timing is a pre-election attempt to divert attention away from Obama’s reckless deployment of 4,000 (not 2 dozen four THOUSAND) largely unprepared US troops to an Ebola country in West Africa, his utter screw-up of the air campaign against ISIS, his screw-up of Ukraine, the screw-up in Libya, and it’s just not going to work.”

Peters noted that the one time Obama made a prompt decision about sending US troops into a crisis zone it was about Ebola. “Premature, unprepared, and boy I hope they come home safe.”

Both the host, Hemmer and Peters indicated that they didn’t remember the military disclosing in 2006 that they had found chemical weapons, but a June 29, 2006 post at the Dept. of Defense website does just that.

WASHINGTON, June 29, 2006 – The 500 munitions discovered throughout Iraq since 2003 and discussed in a National Ground Intelligence Center report meet the criteria of weapons of mass destruction, the center’s commander said here today.

“These are chemical weapons as defined under the Chemical Weapons Convention, and yes … they do constitute weapons of mass destruction,” Army Col. John Chu told the House Armed Services Committee.

The Chemical Weapons Convention is an arms control agreement which outlaws the production, stockpiling and use of chemical weapons. It was signed in 1993 and entered into force in 1997.

The munitions found contain sarin and mustard gases, Army Lt. Gen. Michael D. Maples, director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, said. Sarin attacks the neurological system and is potentially lethal.

“Mustard is a blister agent (that) actually produces burning of any area (where) an individual may come in contact with the agent,” he said. It also is potentially fatal if it gets into a person’s lungs.

The munitions addressed in the report were produced in the 1980s, Maples said. Badly corroded, they could not currently be used as originally intended, Chu added.

While that’s reassuring, the agent remaining in the weapons would be very valuable to terrorists and insurgents, Maples said. “We’re talking chemical agents here that could be packaged in a different format and have a great effect,” he said, referencing the sarin-gas attack on a Japanese subway in the mid-1990s.

This is true even considering any degradation of the chemical agents that may have occurred, Chu said. It’s not known exactly how sarin breaks down, but no matter how degraded the agent is, it’s still toxic.

“Regardless of (how much material in the weapon is actually chemical agent), any remaining agent is toxic,” he said. “Anything above zero (percent agent) would prove to be toxic, and if you were exposed to it long enough, lethal.”

Though about 500 chemical weapons – the exact number has not been released publicly – have been found, Maples said he doesn’t believe Iraq is a “WMD-free zone.”

“I do believe the former regime did a very poor job of accountability of munitions, and certainly did not document the destruction of munitions,” he said. “The recovery program goes on, and I do not believe we have found all the weapons.”

The Defense Intelligence Agency director said locating and disposing of chemical weapons in Iraq is one of the most important tasks servicemembers in the country perform.

Maples added searches are ongoing for chemical weapons beyond those being conducted solely for force protection.

There has been a call for a complete declassification of the National Ground Intelligence Center’s report on WMD in Iraq. Maples said he believes the director of national intelligence is still considering this option, and has asked Maples to look into producing an unclassified paper addressing the subject matter in the center’s report.

Much of the classified matter was slated for discussion in a closed forum after the open hearings this morning.

Peters thought the weapons today would be too degraded to be put to much use, but there are reports coming out that ISIS have been used chemical weapons on the Kurds in Kobane.

Ft. Hood Shooter Sends Warning To The Pope (Video)

A Fox News exclusive: Convicted Fort Hood shooter Nidal Hasan, who calls himself a “soldier of Allah,”  has written a letter to Pope Francis praising “jihad.”

Despite efforts by the Defense Department to label the 2009 massacre as “workplace violence,” Hasan has described himself several times, and again in the new letter, using the acronym “SoA,” or “Soldier of Allah.”

Hasan directed his attorney John Galligan to mail the undated, six-page, hand-written letter to the pope. A copy of the letter – titled, “A Warning To Pope Francis, Members Of The Vatican, And Other Religious Leaders Around the World” – was provided by the attorney to Fox News.

Hasan appears to make multiple references to the Koran in the letter, and includes a bulleted list of guidelines for “believers.”

In one subsection titled “Jihad,” Hasan praises “The willingness to fight for All-Mighty Allah,” describing it as a test that elevates the “mujahadeen” who “are encouraged to inspire the believers.” He states that “fighters … have a greater rank in the eyes of Allah than believers who don’t fight.”

It’s is almost as if he is openly mocking the Obama administration’s cluelessness at this point.

Megyn Kelly covered this story and had moderate Muslim Dr. Zuhdi Jasser on to discuss the administration’s willful blindness on Islamic extremism.

 SEE ALSO:

The Minority Report: Catholic Priest Sounds the Alarm on the Islamic State:

It’s Time to Take the Islamic State Seriously

REV. JAMES V. SCHALL, S.J.

Islam has no central or definitive body or figure authorized to define what exactly it is. Opinions about its essence and scope vary widely according to the political or philosophic background of its own interpreters. The current effort to establish an Islamic State, with a designated Caliph, again to take up the mission assigned to Islam, brings to our attention the question: “What is Islam?”

The issue of “terror” is a further aspect of this same understanding. Many outside Islam seek to separate “terror” and “Islam” as if they were, in their usage, independent or even opposed ideas. This latter view is almost impossible seriously to maintain in the light of Islamic history and the text of the Qur’an itself.

John Kerry, however, insists that what we see is “terrorism” with nothing to do with Islam. The Obama administration seems to have a rule never to identify Islam with “terrorism,” no matter what the evidence or what representatives of the Islamic State themselves say. The vice-president speaks of “Hell” in connection with actions of the Islamic State. Diane Feinstein speaks of “evil” behind the current slaughters in Iraq and Syria. The pope mentions “stopping aggression.” The English hate-laws prevent frank and honest discussion of what actually goes on in Islamic countries or communities in the West. Not even Winston Churchill’s critical view of Islam is permitted to be read in public.

Ecumenism and liberalism both, in their differing ways, because of their commitment to tolerance and free speech, make it difficult to deal with what is happening in Islamic states. Islam is not friendly to relativism or to subtle distinctions.

Is terror intrinsic to Islam?

What I want to propose here is an opinion. An opinion is a position that sees the plausibility but not certainty of a given proposition. But I think this opinion is well-grounded and makes more sense both of historic and of present Islam than most of the other views that are prevalent. I do not conceive this reflection as definitive. Nor do I document it in any formal sense, though it can be. It is a view that, paradoxically, has, I think, more respect for Islam than most of its current critics or advocates.

This comment is an apologia, as it were, for the Islamic State at least in the sense that it accepts its sincerity and religious purpose. It understands how, in its own terms, the philosophic background that enhances its view does, in its own terms, justify its actions, including the violent ones.

The Islamic State and the broader jihadist movements throughout the world that agree with it are, I think, correct in their basic understanding of Islam. Plenty of evidence is found, both in the long history of early Muslim military expansion and in its theoretical interpretation of the Qur’an itself, to conclude that the Islamic State and its sympathizers have it basically right. The purpose of Islam, with the often violent means it can and does use to accomplish it, is to extend its rule, in the name of Allah, to all the world. The world cannot be at “peace” until it is all Muslim. The “terror” we see does not primarily arise from modern totalitarian theories, nationalism, or from anywhere else but what is considered, on objective evidence, to be a faithful reading of a mission assigned by Allah to the Islamic world, which has been itself largely procrastinating about fulfilling its assigned mission.

Keep reading at the link.

Raymond Ibrahim, PJ Media: Ben Affleck: Portrait of Islam’s Clueless Apologists

A Hollywood actor clueless about his subject playing “Let’s pretend.”
The value of actor Ben Affleck’s recent outbursts in defense of Islam on HBO’s Real Time is that here, in one 10-minute segment, we have all the leftist/liberal bromides used whenever Islam is criticized.In what follows, Affleck’s main arguments are presented and then discredited.Relativism and the Islamic Heterogeneity Myth
At the start, when author Sam Harris began making some critical remarks concerning Islam, a visibly agitated Affleck interrupted him by somewhat sarcastically asking, “Are you the person who understands the officially codified doctrine of Islam? You’re the interpreter of that?”Affleck was essentially arguing that really no one is qualified to say what is or is not Islamic, since all Muslims are free to interpret Islam anyway they want. This notion has less to do with how Islam is practiced and more to do with Western relativism, specifically the postmodern belief that there are no “truths,” that everything is open to individual expression. Thus even if an Islamic sheikh from Al Azhar University were to tell Affleck that the criticism leveled against Islam were true, the actor would no doubt reply, “Fine, that’s your opinion, but I know that most other Muslims disagree.”The fundamental mistake in this position is that it places Muslims on a higher pedestal of authority than Islam itself (even though muslims are by definition “one’s who submit” to islam, which is “submission” to Allah’s laws). Islam is based on the law, or Sharia — “the way” prescribed by Allah and his prophet. And Sharia most certainly does call for any number of things — subjugation of women and religious minorities, war on “infidels” and the enslavement of their women and children, bans on free speech and apostasy — that even Affleck would normally condemn.

IJ Review: It Goes from Awkward to Cringe-Inducing When Reporter Asks Islamic Leader to Answer Qs About ISIS:

Things heated up quickly during a recent interview between reporter Emma Alberici and Wassim Doureihi, a spokesman for the controversial Islamic group Hizb ut-Tahrir.

Mashable covered the tense exchange which took place on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation’s show Lateline.

After a polite introduction, it wasn’t long before the conversation hit a stumbling block. Doureihi took offense to Alberici’s first question:

So tell me first of all, do you support the murderous campaign being waged by Islamic State fighters in Iraq?

Doureihi repeatedly refused to give Alberici the “yes or no” answer she was looking for, and opted to change the direction of the conversation to focus on how groups like ISIS exist as a “reaction to Western interference in the Islamic lands.”

  • Blog Stats

    • 4,683,969 hits
  • free counters
  • Is your cat plotting to kill you?
  • Follow

    Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

    Join 548 other followers

    %d bloggers like this: