Obama proven wrong, wrong, wrong about Ebola in just 2 weeks

Obama proven wrong, wrong, wrong about Ebola in just 2 weeks

By Thomas Lifson
While Jack Cashill today focuses on why President Obama cannot be trusted on Ebola, Byron York of the Washington Examiner does a quick accounting of the president’s track record fully supports Cashill’s conclusion.
On September 16, the president flew to the Centers for Disease Control in Atlanta to speak to the public on the disease with the reassuring and authoritative logo of the CDC behind his head. (That was also where the Secret Service allowed him to board an elevator and stand inches away from an un-vetted security contractor with loaded gun, who happened to have an arrest record, but that’s another story.)


As York shows, just about everything the president told us about the disease was wrong:

The chances of an Ebola outbreak in the United States are "extremely low," Obama said. U.S. are working with officials in Africa "to increase screening at airports so that someone with the virus doesn't get on a plane for the United States." And then this:
In the unlikely event that someone with Ebola does reach our shores, we've taken new measures so that we're prepared here at home. We're working to help flight crews identify people who are sick, and more labs across our country now have the capacity to quickly test for the virus. We're working with hospitals to make sure that they are prepared, and to ensure that our doctors, our nurses and our medical staff are trained, are ready, and are able to deal with a possible case safely.
Obama added that in the unlikely event an Ebola case appeared in the United States, "we have world-class facilities and professionals ready to respond. And we have effective surveillance mechanisms in place."
Now two weeks later, the president's reassurances have turned out to be false. A Liberian infected with the virus, Thomas Eric Duncan, flew from Monrovia to Brussels to Virginia to Dallas. No screening at any airport stopped him, nor did any flight crews. The possibility that someone with Ebola reached American shores turned out not to be "unlikely" at all. And then, when Duncan arrived in Dallas, the doctors, nurses and medical staff at the hospital he entered were not prepared and in fact released him back into the Dallas population where, fully symptomatic, he had contact with lots of people. The system, in other words was not "able to deal with a possible case safely."

I can't remember a time when trust in government was as low as it is today. Obama now has a reputation as a liar, with the great lies of Obamacare ("If you like your doctor...) forever his legacy. The Secret Service, once a revered agency, looks like Keystone Kops. And now with epidemics imported from abroad threatening our health (not just Ebola but Enterovirus), the public has every reason to be distrustful of those offering advice and reassurances.

While Jack Cashill today focuses on why President Obama cannot be trusted on Ebola, Byron York of the Washington Examiner does a quick accounting of the president’s track record fully supports Cashill’s conclusion.
On September 16, the president flew to the Centers for Disease Control in Atlanta to speak to the public on the disease with the reassuring and authoritative logo of the CDC behind his head. (That was also where the Secret Service allowed him to board an elevator and stand inches away from an un-vetted security contractor with loaded gun, who happened to have an arrest record, but that’s another story.)
As York shows, just about everything the president told us about the disease was wrong:

The chances of an Ebola outbreak in the United States are "extremely low," Obama said. U.S. are working with officials in Africa "to increase screening at airports so that someone with the virus doesn't get on a plane for the United States." And then this:
In the unlikely event that someone with Ebola does reach our shores, we've taken new measures so that we're prepared here at home. We're working to help flight crews identify people who are sick, and more labs across our country now have the capacity to quickly test for the virus. We're working with hospitals to make sure that they are prepared, and to ensure that our doctors, our nurses and our medical staff are trained, are ready, and are able to deal with a possible case safely.
Obama added that in the unlikely event an Ebola case appeared in the United States, "we have world-class facilities and professionals ready to respond. And we have effective surveillance mechanisms in place."
Now two weeks later, the president's reassurances have turned out to be false. A Liberian infected with the virus, Thomas Eric Duncan, flew from Monrovia to Brussels to Virginia to Dallas. No screening at any airport stopped him, nor did any flight crews. The possibility that someone with Ebola reached American shores turned out not to be "unlikely" at all. And then, when Duncan arrived in Dallas, the doctors, nurses and medical staff at the hospital he entered were not prepared and in fact released him back into the Dallas population where, fully symptomatic, he had contact with lots of people. The system, in other words was not "able to deal with a possible case safely."

I can't remember a time when trust in government was as low as it is today. Obama now has a reputation as a liar, with the great lies of Obamacare ("If you like your doctor...) forever his legacy. The Secret Service, once a revered agency, looks like Keystone Kops. And now with epidemics imported from abroad threatening our health (not just Ebola but Enterovirus), the public has every reason to be distrustful of those offering advice and reassurances.



Read more: http://americanthinker.com/blog/2014...#ixzz3F6kOBWDP
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

Why We Cannot Trust the White House on Ebola

By Jack Cashill
On Thursday morning, I received my first well-produced Facebook message mocking those deluded souls, presumably on the right, who are worried about the spread of Ebola. The only thing that surprised me about the message was that I had not seen one sooner.
The same people who gave us homophobia and Islamophobia (not to mention racism, sexism, classism, xenophobia, nativism, and climate denial) are about to give us Ebolaphobia. As former Obama chief of staff Rahm Emanuel notoriously said (while plagiarizing Winston Churchill), "You never let a serious crisis go to waste.”


The Obama White House will exploit this crisis, if it becomes one, in ways that alarmists do not anticipate. Obama will not declare martial law or shut down the polls in November – I hope – but he and his cronies will begin immediately to stigmatize the opposition as xenophobes and racists. They have done this before on other issues, and there is no time better to do it again than a month before national elections.
Obama and his allies will do this because they can get away with it. The media have enabled Obama’s mean-spirited mendacity from his breakout appearance at the 2004 Democratic Convention to today, and they show no sign of mending their ways. In the process, they have helped Obama create what Marc Thiessen charitably described in the Washington Post as “a fundamentally dishonest presidency.”
In my newest book, You Lie!, I set out to chronicle President Obama’s many divergences from the truth. What I ended up doing was writing a history of the presidency. He and his enablers have proven themselves capable of lying on every subject of significance, and on none more boldly than those involving race and illegal immigration, like the issue of Ebola.
Obama’s distinctive upbringing had much to do with making him the fabulator he became. Too many of those who have studied the president have gone awry by trusting Obama’s own accounts of that upbringing in his memoir Dreams from My Father. In fact, the parent who shaped him was not his father, but his mother, Stanley Ann Dunham.
As a mixed-race child in a world with monolithic expectations, Dunham could have infused her son with the most powerful and compelling of all identities – that of an “American.” She did the opposite. In one of the more believable passages in Dreams, Obama told one revealing story about his mother’s allegiances.
During their Indonesian years together, Dunham’s then husband, Lolo Soetoro, asked Dunham to meet some of “her own people” at the American oil company where he worked. She shouted at him, “They are not my people.” Obama absorbed the attitude. Even as a boy, he saw his fellow citizens abroad as “caricatures of the ugly American,” and they would not grow prettier over time.
When he returned to Hawaii as a ten-year-old, Obama struggled to define who he was. Given what he knew about Americans, he could have hardly wanted to be one. As to being an African-American, all he knew was what he saw on TV. And so he told his new schoolmates that his father was a prince and his grandfather a chief of a great African tribe.
The story worked on his classmates and almost on himself. “But another part of me knew that what I was telling them was a lie,” he writes, “something I’d constructed from the scraps of information I’d picked up from my mother.” For the next forty years, Obama would continue constructing identities for himself: high school stoner, college Marxist, New York intellectual, Chicago Alinskyite, Harvard cosmopolitan, African-American ward heeler, all-American presidential candidate.
By the time of Dreams, Obama had picked up enough postmodern patois to rationalize these identity shifts and the lies needed to ease the transitions. Even a supportive Obama biographer like David Remnick called Dreams a "mixture of verifiable fact, recollection, recreation, invention, and artful shaping."
Equally friendly biographer David Maraniss agreed. “The character creations and rearrangements of the book are not merely a matter of style, devices of compression, but are also substantive,” wrote Maraniss. "We didn't understand why his politically calculating chameleon nature was never discussed," an aide to Hillary Clinton told Remnick. "We were said to be the chameleons, but he changed his life depending on who he was talking to."
Obama’s early influences like his Communist mentor in Hawaii, Frank Marshall Davis, and his Marxist professors and friends at Occidental College did not encourage truth-telling. Although leftists are not uniquely guilty of lying, they are uniquely guilty of lying as a conscious strategy. “If there is no God,” concluded Jean-Paul Sartre in his famous paraphrase of Dostoevsky’s Ivan Karamazov, “everything is permitted.”
Given this grounding, the less scrupulous among progressive activists have judged sentiments not by their veracity, but by their utility. As Nikolai Lenin once coldly noted, “a lie told often enough becomes the truth.” Although Obama did not drink deeply at this well, he drank deeply enough to be dangerous.
Obama’s appearance mattered at least as much as his influences. He had the good fortune of growing up thinking and acting much as white liberals had, but in the body of a black man. He believed what they believed and spoke as they spoke. They noticed, they approved, they marveled.
“I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American presidential candidate who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy,” said Joe Biden of Obama in early 2007. In still another unwittingly honest revelation, Senate majority leader Harry Reid found comfort in Obama’s having “no Negro dialect.”
By the time Obama emerged as a national candidate, every major newsroom in America – save one – was chock-a-block with people who thought like Biden and Reid or Maraniss and Remnick. All serious surveys of media political preferences have shown a leftward skew – one that has been only getting deeper over time.
It is harder to calculate newsroom attitudes toward race, but the collective media indulgence of well-spoken black liberals – black conservatives get no such pass – is impossible to deny. As the beau ideal of progressive wish dream, Obama would enjoy an unprecedented immunity from major media criticism. This did not encourage truth-telling, either by him or by the media.
Most critically, perhaps, Obama lied about the kind of administration he would run. On his first day in office, he told his assembled staff, “Let me say it as simply as I can. Transparency and the rule of law will be the touchstones of this presidency.”
This two-headed promise has been violated more wantonly than a goat at a Taliban bachelor party. “Barack Obama,” said liberal constitutional scholar Jonathan Turley, “is really the president Richard Nixon always wanted to be.”
South Carolina congressman Joe Wilson nailed the phenomenon early on. He famously interrupted President Obama’s speech to Congress on health care in 2009 by shouting out, “You lie.” As history records, Wilson could have safely shouted out “That’s a lie” on at least five occasions during that same speech. He did not. Instead, he made the existential declaration, “You lie.” So saying, Wilson spoke to what he saw as the very essence of the man: Sinatra sings, Astaire dances, Obama lies.
If there is a serious Ebola outbreak in America, the one thing that citizens will demand is the truth. At this stage, even if Obama is inclined to tell it, no one, alas, will be able to recognize it.
Jack Cashill’s newest book, You Lie! The Evasions, Ommissions, Frabrications, Frauds and Outright Faleshoods of Barack Obama will be available October 7.

On Thursday morning, I received my first well-produced Facebook message mocking those deluded souls, presumably on the right, who are worried about the spread of Ebola. The only thing that surprised me about the message was that I had not seen one sooner.
The same people who gave us homophobia and Islamophobia (not to mention racism, sexism, classism, xenophobia, nativism, and climate denial) are about to give us Ebolaphobia. As former Obama chief of staff Rahm Emanuel notoriously said (while plagiarizing Winston Churchill), "You never let a serious crisis go to waste.”
The Obama White House will exploit this crisis, if it becomes one, in ways that alarmists do not anticipate. Obama will not declare martial law or shut down the polls in November – I hope – but he and his cronies will begin immediately to stigmatize the opposition as xenophobes and racists. They have done this before on other issues, and there is no time better to do it again than a month before national elections.
Obama and his allies will do this because they can get away with it. The media have enabled Obama’s mean-spirited mendacity from his breakout appearance at the 2004 Democratic Convention to today, and they show no sign of mending their ways. In the process, they have helped Obama create what Marc Thiessen charitably described in the Washington Post as “a fundamentally dishonest presidency.”
In my newest book, You Lie!, I set out to chronicle President Obama’s many divergences from the truth. What I ended up doing was writing a history of the presidency. He and his enablers have proven themselves capable of lying on every subject of significance, and on none more boldly than those involving race and illegal immigration, like the issue of Ebola.
Obama’s distinctive upbringing had much to do with making him the fabulator he became. Too many of those who have studied the president have gone awry by trusting Obama’s own accounts of that upbringing in his memoir Dreams from My Father. In fact, the parent who shaped him was not his father, but his mother, Stanley Ann Dunham.
As a mixed-race child in a world with monolithic expectations, Dunham could have infused her son with the most powerful and compelling of all identities – that of an “American.” She did the opposite. In one of the more believable passages in Dreams, Obama told one revealing story about his mother’s allegiances.
During their Indonesian years together, Dunham’s then husband, Lolo Soetoro, asked Dunham to meet some of “her own people” at the American oil company where he worked. She shouted at him, “They are not my people.” Obama absorbed the attitude. Even as a boy, he saw his fellow citizens abroad as “caricatures of the ugly American,” and they would not grow prettier over time.
When he returned to Hawaii as a ten-year-old, Obama struggled to define who he was. Given what he knew about Americans, he could have hardly wanted to be one. As to being an African-American, all he knew was what he saw on TV. And so he told his new schoolmates that his father was a prince and his grandfather a chief of a great African tribe.


The story worked on his classmates and almost on himself. “But another part of me knew that what I was telling them was a lie,” he writes, “something I’d constructed from the scraps of information I’d picked up from my mother.” For the next forty years, Obama would continue constructing identities for himself: high school stoner, college Marxist, New York intellectual, Chicago Alinskyite, Harvard cosmopolitan, African-American ward heeler, all-American presidential candidate.
By the time of Dreams, Obama had picked up enough postmodern patois to rationalize these identity shifts and the lies needed to ease the transitions. Even a supportive Obama biographer like David Remnick called Dreams a "mixture of verifiable fact, recollection, recreation, invention, and artful shaping."
Equally friendly biographer David Maraniss agreed. “The character creations and rearrangements of the book are not merely a matter of style, devices of compression, but are also substantive,” wrote Maraniss. "We didn't understand why his politically calculating chameleon nature was never discussed," an aide to Hillary Clinton told Remnick. "We were said to be the chameleons, but he changed his life depending on who he was talking to."
Obama’s early influences like his Communist mentor in Hawaii, Frank Marshall Davis, and his Marxist professors and friends at Occidental College did not encourage truth-telling. Although leftists are not uniquely guilty of lying, they are uniquely guilty of lying as a conscious strategy. “If there is no God,” concluded Jean-Paul Sartre in his famous paraphrase of Dostoevsky’s Ivan Karamazov, “everything is permitted.”
Given this grounding, the less scrupulous among progressive activists have judged sentiments not by their veracity, but by their utility. As Nikolai Lenin once coldly noted, “a lie told often enough becomes the truth.” Although Obama did not drink deeply at this well, he drank deeply enough to be dangerous.
Obama’s appearance mattered at least as much as his influences. He had the good fortune of growing up thinking and acting much as white liberals had, but in the body of a black man. He believed what they believed and spoke as they spoke. They noticed, they approved, they marveled.
“I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American presidential candidate who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy,” said Joe Biden of Obama in early 2007. In still another unwittingly honest revelation, Senate majority leader Harry Reid found comfort in Obama’s having “no Negro dialect.”
By the time Obama emerged as a national candidate, every major newsroom in America – save one – was chock-a-block with people who thought like Biden and Reid or Maraniss and Remnick. All serious surveys of media political preferences have shown a leftward skew – one that has been only getting deeper over time.
It is harder to calculate newsroom attitudes toward race, but the collective media indulgence of well-spoken black liberals – black conservatives get no such pass – is impossible to deny. As the beau ideal of progressive wish dream, Obama would enjoy an unprecedented immunity from major media criticism. This did not encourage truth-telling, either by him or by the media.
Most critically, perhaps, Obama lied about the kind of administration he would run. On his first day in office, he told his assembled staff, “Let me say it as simply as I can. Transparency and the rule of law will be the touchstones of this presidency.”
This two-headed promise has been violated more wantonly than a goat at a Taliban bachelor party. “Barack Obama,” said liberal constitutional scholar Jonathan Turley, “is really the president Richard Nixon always wanted to be.”
South Carolina congressman Joe Wilson nailed the phenomenon early on. He famously interrupted President Obama’s speech to Congress on health care in 2009 by shouting out, “You lie.” As history records, Wilson could have safely shouted out “That’s a lie” on at least five occasions during that same speech. He did not. Instead, he made the existential declaration, “You lie.” So saying, Wilson spoke to what he saw as the very essence of the man: Sinatra sings, Astaire dances, Obama lies.
If there is a serious Ebola outbreak in America, the one thing that citizens will demand is the truth. At this stage, even if Obama is inclined to tell it, no one, alas, will be able to recognize it.



Read more: http://americanthinker.com/2014/10/w...#ixzz3F6kw8fXW
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

Judge Jeanine Pirro on Ebola and Ostupidity

How is he not banned yet?

How is he not banned yet? Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

Banning Obaminable would be a waste of time and money. Although the numbers of Democrats desire him to stay on the golf course and out of harms way are increasing daily as the elections approach.

if the upshot is Obama is an indolent, torpid liar, well, haven't we all known this since at least 2007?

if the upshot is Obama is an indolent, torpid liar, well, haven't we all known this since at least 2007? Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought

There appears to be a group of die-hard loyalists, who either are "mentally challenged" or simply didn't care in the first place and still don't care.

Besides ... it's all Bush's fault.

There appears to be a group of die-hard loyalists, who either are "mentally challenged" or simply didn't care in the first place and still don't care.

Besides ... it's all Bush's fault. Originally Posted by LexusLover

It's not certainly not willful suspension of honesty on their part.......democrat voters aren't hallmarked with integrity.. So there's not honesty to suspend

Just another example of what happens when you combine naïveté and stupidly in a Commander in Chief.

How is he not banned yet? Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

Fuck you, faggot!!!
Don't Be Daft!!!

How have I not been banned yet? Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

Probably because . . . Well, I really don't know, AssupRidee, DEM, DOTY 2013-2014.



Oh, FTFY.

There appears to be a group of die-hard loyalists, who either are "mentally challenged" or simply didn't care in the first place and still don't care.

Besides ... it's all Bush's fault. Originally Posted by LexusLover

Are you speaking of the Bush/Reagan loyalists? Because you could say the exact same thing about you nitwits.

Authorities have removed the ebola's victim's family from the apartment and 10 people people altogether and put them in a central place.

Given how infectious ebola has been portrayed, these others should start showing signs in the next day or two if they are to show signs at all. If these folks don't show signs then it will be a good thing for the level of transmitability of the disease.

Duncan is dead.

The questions that remain unanswered:

• Did he journey to this country to take advantage of the United States' healthcare system?
• Did he risk the lives of hundreds of others, including Americans, to save his own hide?
• How much did this cost American taxpayers?
• Will Odumbo, et al, let it happen again?