Obama Tells Western African Nations You Can’t Get Ebola on a Bus (Video)

Obama in a video message with soothing talking points to Western African nations: First, Ebola is not spread through the air like the flu. You cannot get it from casual contact like sitting next to someone one a bus.

 

As White House Dossier’s Keith Koffler notes,  the Centers for Disease Control begs to differ.

According to a CDC guidance document, people at risk for exposure to Ebola may be subject to “controlled movement.” It states:

These individuals should not travel by commercial conveyances (e.g. airplane, ship, long-distance bus, or train). Local use of public transportation (e.g. taxi, bus) by asymptomatic individuals should be discussed with the public health authority. If travel is approved, the exposed person must have timely access to appropriate medical care if symptoms develop during travel. Approved long-distance travel should be by chartered flight or private vehicle; if local public transportation is used, the individual must be able to exit quickly.

The reason individuals who have been exposed to Ebola should not take public transportation is because, as Obama himself notes in his statement above, the disease is spread through bodily fluids like sweat, saliva or blood. That means if a person infected with the Ebola virus coughs or sneezes (or sweats) on you – you could become contaminated. What more the virus can live on surfaces for up to six days.

Via The Daily Mail:

Virus expert Charles L. Bailey, who in 1989 helped the American government tackle an outbreak of Ebola among rhesus monkeys being used for research, told the LA Times: ‘We know for a fact that the virus occurs in sputum and no one has ever done a study [disproving that] coughing or sneezing is a viable means of transmitting.

‘Unqualified assurances that Ebola is not spread through the air are “misleading”.’

Dr C J Peters, who has undertaken research into Ebola for America’s Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, told the paper: ‘We just don’t have the data to exclude it [becoming airborne].’

This is bad…the people of West Africa haven’t been conditioned to discount everything this shyster says like we have.

Good grief – I can’t believe the president told people in an Ebola-stricken countries that you can’t get the disease from the guy sitting next to you on the bus.

How can he say that?

What is he doing???

 

The Council Has Spoken!! This Weeks’ Watcher’s Council Results

tribal-council12

This week’s winner, Bookworm Room’s To fight Ebola, we need a Florence Nightingale – although the Marines are good too examines the Ebola crisis in West Africa and a common sense, effective solution to it. Here’s a slice:

Bookworm 3

Tonight, we attended a talk with Paul Farmer, Dan Kelly, Raj Panjabi, and a fourth fellow whose name I can’t remember. The topic was Ebola. All four speakers had front-line experience, having spent a great deal of time recently in Ghana, Sierra Leone, and Liberia. All of them are affiliated with non-profit organizations that have as their sole purpose bringing long-term and emergency healthcare solutions to third world countries. They are all admirable men and masters of their material.

That’s why it was disappointing that the evening was so horribly dull. Rather than the four of them presenting a coherent analysis covering both Africa and America, they engaged in a repetitive, jargon-filled talk that kept reiterating the key points. The key points were interesting, and probably could have been covered in about fifteen minutes. I wasn’t able to take notes, but here’s what I got:

1. Liberia and Sierra Leone have both suffered tremendously from civil wars that utterly destroyed their infrastructure and left them with virtually no health care. I believe it was Liberia that ended up with around 51 doctors for the entire nation. The American equivalent would have been 8 doctors for all of San Francisco.

2. When the latest Ebola outbreak began in a remote village with an infected two-year old child, there were no systems in place to stop the disease’s spread.

3. Because there are no doctors, no buildings, and no supplies in these forsaken African countries, a few things happen:

a. The mortality rate is 70% to 90%.

b. People view hospitals and medical clinics as death traps, which they are.

c. People therefore avoid hospitals and medical clinics, furthering the disease’s spread.

4. To the extent there are any systems on the ground in Ghana, Liberia, and Sierra Leone, they are the NGOs represented at the talk, plus WHO, the CDC, a British government agency, and a few disparate other groups. They are trying to coordinate, but are behind the curve. The local governments are helpless.

5. Money is starting to come in, but little of the money pledged actually makes it to the situation on the ground.

6. If the situation does not approve, we can expect 500,000 to 1.4 million dead in Africa by the end of January 2015.

7. If, however, the money rains down and the existing organizations are able to train health care workers, open clinics, and have medical supplies on hand to treat people, the number of dead may stop at around 70,000.

8. Bringing the current Ebola crisis to heel in Africa, even under the best of circumstances may take 18 to 24 months.

9. A military organization is best suited to imposing structure on these dysfunctional regions. (When I heard this, I thought to myself “So that’s why Obama sent in the Marines.”)

10. Taking a page out of the Borgia book for poisons that can be absorbed through the skin, Ebola can transmit through people’s skin. It’s not enough to keep your hands away from your nose and mouth. If someone’s infected blood, vomit, fecal matter, semen, spit, or sweat just touches you, you can become infected. Even picking up a stained sheet can pass the infection. Additionally, scientists do not know how long the virus will survive on a surface once it’s become dehydrated. The current guess is that Ebola, unlike other viruses, can survive for quite a while away from its original host.

11. The Ebola virus is from the same family as the Marburg virus, which found its way to Germany in the 1960s, killed a few people, and was then quickly contained. That’s good news for Westerners and their medicine.

12. If patients get Western medicine that treats the symptoms — drugs to reduce fever and to control vomiting and diarrhea, proper treatment if the body goes into shock, and blood transfusions — the mortality rate is “only” 25% — which is still high, but is significantly lower than the 70%-90% morality in Africa, where patients get little to no treatment. (See point 3 regarding the disease-spreading negative feedback loop of the high mortality rate.)

13. This is a genuine crisis. If anything, the media is erring by downplaying what’s been happening in Africa, and governments are most certainly responding too slowly to a problem that must be fixed in Africa, rather than just being stopped here (as if that were possible).

In sum, Ebola is a really bad disease, made horribly worse by the complete post-civil war dysfunction and poverty in these three West African nations. With enough money and man power, the disease can be brought to heel. The only problem is getting the money and manpower in place.

Hearing that the problem is one of men and manpower, I immediately thought (as everyone must) of Florence Nightingale. I’m sure all of you remember her story, but I’ll tell it again for my satisfaction. Florence was born in 1820 to a very wealthy, very well-connected, very upper class British family. She was expected to do the ordinary thing: become a “finished” young lady, get married, and have the next generation of wealthy, well-connected, upper class British children. Florence, however, wanted something different. She wanted to be a nurse.

To appreciate just how shocking Florence’s career goal was, imagine your own sweet, young daughter looking up at you and saying “Mother and Father, I want to become a prostitute, and work in the worst slums, with a lot of filthy, disease-ridden people. Oh, and I’m planning to numb myself against the horror of my chosen life with strong drink and opium.” By saying that, your daughter would have described precisely what many nurses were like back in the middle of the 19th century, or at least what upper class people thought they were like.
The hospital in Scutari, circa 1856

The hospital in Scutari, circa 1856

Understandably, Florence’s parents said “No!” and kept saying “No” despite Florence’s certain belief that God himself had called her to the job of nursing. By the time she was 24, Florence ignored her parents and began to study what she could about nursing. She also traveled widely around Europe and the Mediterranean. During her years of work, study, and travel, she met several important men whose wealth and connections would aid her in the coming years.

Much more at the link

In our non-Council category, the winner was Benjamin Weingarten, writing in The BlazeWhy America’s Foreign Policy Has Failed, From George W. Bush to Barack Obama, and the Antidote submitted by The Noisy Room. The title is pretty self explanatory.

Here are this week’s full results.Ask Marion, The Independent Sentinel and the Colossus of Rhodey were unable to vote this week. None were effected by the 2/3 vote penalty:

Council Winners

Non-Council Winners

See you next week!

Make sure to tune in every Monday for the Watcher’s Forum. and every  Tuesday morning, when we reveal the weeks’ nominees for Weasel of the Week!

And remember, every Wednesday, the Council has its weekly contest with the members nominating two posts each, one written by themselves and one written by someone from outside the group for consideration by the whole Council. The votes are cast by the Council, and the results are posted on Friday morning.

It’s a weekly magazine of some of the best stuff written in the blogosphere, and you won’t want to miss it...or any of the other fantabulous Watcher’s Council content.

And don’t forget to like us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter..’cause we’re cool like that, y’know?

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.”