Conservative Musings

Our goal is to have intelligent discussion of the topics of the day. We realize everyone has their opinion and they should be allowed to express it in a discussion forum without calling each other names. We learn from discussion and not from name calling or argument.We use cookies to personalise content and ads, to provide social media features and to analyse our traffic. We also share information about your use of our site with our social media, advertising and analytics partners. See details

Friday, October 3, 2014

Ebola--A Boon or A Threat To Obama? Will He Use It To Shut Down Elections? Or Is It Just A Fear Tactic?

Is Ebola Obama’s October surprise?

Posted on October 3, 2014 by Bob Livingston

Curious timing, this announcement that the U.S. now has Ebola patient No. 1.

Five weeks before a national election.

First case in Texas, where President Barack Obama’s de facto amnesty policy for illegals allowed for an influx of tens of thousands of immunity-compromised, disease-carrying, individuals from the Central American backwaters. People rife for “catching” the Ebola virus.

The first patient, Thomas E. Duncan, was allowed to travel freely into the U.S. from Liberia, despite, as we have learned, having hand-carried a convulsing 19-year-old woman to an Ebola clinic in Monrovia — a woman who died from the disease the next day. And despite being told two times that Duncan had been to Liberia, hospital workers sent him home with antibiotics. Home to a residence with three children. Children who then went to school.

But it’s worse. Much worse. Duncan traveled through Dulles International Airport, where he had a layover of nearly three hours, and then to Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport.

We were initially told that 12 to 18 people — now including a total of five children who went to four different schools — had come into contact with Duncan after he had become symptomatic. By the next day, that list had expanded to a total of 80 to 100. Those initial contacts are being isolated for 21 days.

“It’s a constant process of interviews and locating as many contacts as are out there,” Dallas County health official Erikka Neroes said. “We expect daily that there could be more people added.” Others could fall off the list as time passes and they show no symptoms. “It’s constantly evolving,” she said.

Those initial contacts are being isolated for 21 days, the purported incubation period for the disease. Twenty-one days, and as another case pops up, those concentric circles grow until you have more being isolated for 21 days and more being isolated for 21 days…

And with hundreds upon hundreds and perhaps thousands upon thousands being isolated; well, what about the Nov. 4 election?

And is it not just a little curious that the government ordered 160,000 hazmat suits in response to a disease that is said not to be airborne? And is it not just a little curious that a large government supplier of emergency response products specializing in “high risk events” said in a public tweet that Disaster Assistance Response Teams were told weeks ago to prepare to be activated in the month of October?

“What we are now hearing is just the tip of the iceburg as we enter October,” noted the company’s Twitter spokesperson. “Ebola virus will cripple EMS and hospitals.”

The government has assumed the authority to lock down and/or quarantine areas at will. Don’t think it won’t exercise that presumed authority “for the greater good.”

The fear hysteria will also lead to a public outcry for a vaccine. It’s a vaccine U.S. drug manufacturers hold the patent on. Millions of willing medical slaves ripe for the picking.

The masters in the dark rooms of the pharmas know exactly how to conjure up mass fear hysteria so that the people clamor for vaccinations. So we have another multibillion-dollar hoax — like the great swine flu “pandemic” — to bring in a demand for more vaccinations. Vaccinations that are worthless for people’s health but that further enrich Big Pharma.

Now comes the great Ebola epidemic. Obama’s October surprise.

Here’s how you prepare for and avoid Ebola and any other disease. Load up on vitamin D3. The key to avoiding disease is immunity and the key to strong immunity is vitamin D3. The power of immunization protection comes from within. It is a healthy internal environment that protects the individual and the population.

How Are Carriers Of Ebola Financing Their Trips To The US? What Should We Do With Them If They Enter The Country?

A friend called me today and asked me the question--Are the people coming to the United States with Ebola from Liberia and other countries being paid to do so? Frankly, I had not even thought of that connection. However, it does make one wonder, how do they finance their travel? How many have already gotten here and they haven't gotten sick yet? How many "Typhoid Mary's" are there?

Could they be purposely being sent here to infect us? Who would be funding them? How is it that their travels were very circuitous and not directly to the US from Liberia or Nigeria? Are these people Muslims or believers in Islam? What would be the end game?

Yes, a lot of questions and remarkably, we have heard this threat being discussed in the lame stream media or anywhere else. Could it be that no one has thought of this and my friend is just ahead of the rest of us? He's smart but...

It is obvious to us that our President and his administration have been trailing the rest of the country and world on this issue. It is a dangerous disease and can spread quickly if the proper precautions are not taken. Are we being lulled into complacency? Or is our inferior health care, according to the President and his staff, going to be overwhelmed by the disease. Are we being punished for being Americans as Farrakhan has said?

We wish that we knew more but here is where we are. First of all we must contain the disease. It must be controlled in the countries with the outbreak. That means anyone coming from or that has visited any infected region cannot enter the country until the incubation period has expired. That means they cannot enter the US period.

Should they get past our "intrepid" TSA, we should establish quarantine zones. This would be a good use of the FEMA camps that have been set up by the government. Keep potentially infected individuals housed separately from others until their time has run. However, the emphasis should be on keeping them away from our shores first which means sealing our borders.

Secondly, anyone who shows signs of the disease and any of his relatives who live with him/her must be immediately quarantined. Any place that they have visited in the last 30 days must be sanitized. Anyone exposed to the disease must also be quarantined.

Thirdly, any individual who conspires with others to hide an Ebola infection or to fund or to plan their travel to this country, should be imprisoned for a long period of time even if they live outside the US. This goes for the patient, his/her doctor or other medical professional, friends, relatives and acquaintances.

Fourthly, if we find the Centers for Disease Control has not adequately informing us of the nature and severity of the disease, the head of this agency should be brought up on endangerment charges. This is NOT the time to be politically correct. This a goes to anyone in government who withholds or "spins" information. We are in a war with a disease and we cannot be meek.

Lastly, the media must be tasked with informing the public of person who are infected, where they live, where they have been (shopping, working, anywhere else) in the past 30 days. This is not a privacy issue, it is a matter of life and death. The infected person's disease trumps their right to maintain their privacy.

If we take these onerous and very restrictive steps we might be lucky to get ahead of the disease and prevent the deaths of thousands. If not, each of us could become victims of what appears to be, an attack on this country.

What other steps do you think we should take? Let us know. Comment on the blog or write to us at tom.conservativemusings1@gmail.com

Conservative Tom

We Now Are Killing American Citizens Who Were Informants. This Is A Travesty.

by Andrew C. McCarthy

Disclosures Pried From Government Strongly Suggest Terrorist Awlaki Was an Informant

Andrew C. MCCarthy

October 2nd, 2014 - 4:07 pm

New evidence pried from the government under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) proves the point I have positedhere at Ordered Liberty: The federal government willfully intervened on behalf of al Qaeda terrorist Anwar al-Awlaki on October 10, 2002, undoing his arrest on felony fraud charges when he was detained at JFK International Airport in New York, and allowing him to walk away with a Saudi handler. As I argued over two years ago, the government’s story to the contrary – viz., that it was moved by sheer coincidence on the eve of Awlaki’s arrival to pull the plug on a weak case – does not pass the laugh test.

Twelve years ago, when the FBI intervened to “un-arrest” Awlaki despite the pendency of a valid felony warrant, he was a suspect – or, at the very least, a highly material witness – in the 9/11 conspiracy that resulted in the killing of nearly 3000 Americans. He went on to become one of al Qaeda’s most effective operatives. Awlaki is suspected of involvement in or incitement of the 2009 Fort Hood jihadist attack in which 13 U.S. soldiers were killed and many others wounded; the attempt to bomb a plane over Detroit on Christmas Day 2009; the attempted bombing of Times Square in 2010; and the modernization of al Qaeda’s international recruitment practices.

In 2011, he was finally killed as an enemy-combatant by an American drone strike in Yemen.

Fox News chief intelligence correspondent Catherine Herridge, who in 2012 broke the news about Awlaki’s mysterious un-arrest a decade earlier, has stayed on the case. So has Judicial Watch, thanks to whose FOIA lawsuit, the government has been compelled to turn over 900 pages of documents about its investigations of, and communications with, the jihadist. As Ms. Herridge’s new reportingelaborates, the FOIA disclosures show that Awlaki had numerous contacts with the FBI well into 2004 – when the 9/11 Commission was trying to locate him for an interview based on mounting evidence of his likely knowledge of, if not complicity in, the 9/11 conspiracy.

Consistent with our government’s seemingly incorrigible penchant to dismiss extremist Islamic incitement as harmless rhetoric, and to perceive Islamic supremacists as “moderate Islamists” with whom it can collaborate, law enforcement officials knew about Awlaki’s extensive contacts with some of the 9/11 suicide-hijackers but excused them as “random [and] the inevitable consequence of living in the small world of Islam in America.” Years later, law enforcement and military officials knew about but ignored startling jihadist communications between Awlaki and eventual Fort Hood killer Nidal Hasan.

The new information corroborates my suggestion here two years ago that, in letting Awlaki go rather than arresting him on the pending fraud charge, the government was “acting on the misguided hope of using him as an informant.” This is not only cause for potential embarrassment in its own right; it adds to the concerns over the circumstances of Awlaki’s death.

Though raised in Yemen, where he ultimately met his demise, Awlaki was born in the United States. Because he was thus an American citizen, many on the left and the libertarian right have condemned the Obama administration for killing him without any judicial process rather than capturing him and returning him to the U.S. for a civilian trial. The latter arrangement is one Obama has made for some of the worst alien terrorists, and would even make for the 9/11 plotters held at Guantanamo Bay if Congress would let him.

From a constitutional standpoint, this complaint is unavailing. Under World War II era precedents that the Supreme Court reaffirmed after 9/11, an American citizen who joins with the enemy in wartime may be treated like any other enemy combatant: attacked with lethal force, detained without trial, or tried by military commission. Wartime commanders-in-chief are responsible for prosecuting wars and do not need a judicial warrant to attack enemy operatives – certainly not overseas, outside the courts’ jurisdiction.

Critics claim the new disclosures suggest that President Obama authorized the extrajudicial killing of someone who was not only an American citizen but also a government informant. This dramatically overstates the case. Assuming Awlaki was an informant – or, more likely, a saboteur pretending to be an informant – that arrangement almost certainly ended several years before his killing. It has been over a decade since Awlaki left the United States and resettled in Yemen, where he overtly worked for al Qaeda and called for attacks against the West. There is every reason to believe this American citizen was an enemy combatant when he was killed in 2011; to date, even with the newly reported disclosures, there is no reason to believe Awlaki was an informant at that time.

Even though the legal objection to Awlaki’s wartime killing is unpersuasive, there remain other considerations. Let’s focus on three of them.

1. Successfully prosecuting a war requires good intelligence. Its acquisition is undermined by a policy that favors lethal attacks when capture (and subsequent interrogation) might be a practical alternative – a policy the Obama administration, in its aversion to Guantanamo Bay and the Bush policy of detention under the laws of war, seems to prefer. Awlaki is said to have been a pivotal player in al Qaeda plots against the United States; it is very likely that capturing him – and detaining him as an enemy combatant rather than dallying with him as a duplicitous informant – would have yielded valuable actionable intelligence.

2. While American citizenship does not immunize an enemy operative from attack, neither is it irrelevant. Awlaki was not executing combat operations at the time he was killed. If he had been encountered in the United States under such circumstances, he would have been arrested, not fired on. So, should his American citizenship – wholly apart from his potential intelligence value – have militated in favor of capturing rather than killing him? That is difficult to say.

Yemen is dangerous place. We have few reliable assets there and it may well be that capturing Awlaki would have been impractical if not impossible. On the other hand, many terrorists have been apprehended in dangerous places, including Yemen. We do not know what the competing concerns were. If capturing Awlaki was a practical alternative and the government chose to kill him instead, that would be alarming – perhaps an abuse of power even if not a violation of law.

3. Finally, there is the matter of embarrassment. Had Awlaki been captured and returned to the United States for trial, it is virtually certain that he would have attempted to build his defense around any relationship he may have had with the government. It may have become painfully apparent that Awlaki had played government agents for fools while he collaborated with terrorists; and that the government had numerous opportunities to arrest and put an end to Awlaki’s jihad, but instead allowed him to flee and continue igniting atrocities like the Fort Hood massacre.

Having worked in the Justice Department for many years, I would be stunned if the desire to avoid embarrassment factored, even slightly, into the decision to kill Awlaki rather than capture him. Irregularities and worse happen in many investigations; government often acts reprehensibly in stonewalling efforts to discover incompetence and misconduct, but it does not kill people for that purpose. In a trial situation, the embarrassing details are disclosed; defendants try to exploit them, but to little effect; and the terrorists get convicted.

Still, this government systematically and purposefully misleads Americans. Indeed, it has clearly not been forthright regarding Awlaki specifically. It is thus understandable that people would demand a thorough investigation rather than simply trust that this government targeted Awlaki for a drone strike solely because he was an enemy combatant plotting to mass-murder Americans.

I will close with what I closed with two years ago: Congress should be pressing hard for answers to the disturbing questions surrounding the government’s handling of Awlaki. Enough willful blindness.

Will It Take Israel To Destroy ISIS? Must ISIS Attack Israel? We Think Yes!

Is the Islamic State a Good Thing?

by Raymond Ibrahim on October 2, 2014 in Islam

FrontPage Magazine

The following is an envisioning of what might eventually unfold if the Islamic State is left to flourish. Although it is only one of several possible scenarios, due to its ostensibly implausible nature, it requires some delineation.

The Islamic State (IS) continues expanding its territory and influence through jihad. Religious minorities that fall under its sway—at least the fortunate ones—continue to flee in droves, helping make the Islamic State what it strives to be: purely Islamic.

Left unfettered, with only cosmetic airstrikes by an indecisive Obama administration to deal with, IS continues growing in strength and confidence, as Western powers again stand idly by.

More and more Muslims around the world, impressed and inspired by what they see, become convinced that the Islamic State is in fact the new caliphate deserving of their allegiance. Such Muslims—the most “radical” kind, who delight in the slaughter and subjugation of “infidels”—continue leaving Western nations and migrating to the Islamic State to wage jihad and live under Sharia.

In other words, a sizable chunk of the world’s most radicalized/pious Muslims all become localized in one region. There they openly and proudly display their anti-infidel supremacism.

Throughout, Western media have no choice but to report objectively—so thoroughly exposed for its barbarity has IS become that it is an insurmountable task to whitewash its atrocities. The world has seen enough about IS to know that this is a savage, hostile, and supremacist state without excuse. Even Obama, after originally citing “grievances” as propelling the Islamic State’s successes, recently made an about face, saying “No grievance justifies these actions.”

Put differently, the “Palestinian card” will not work here. Western media, apologists, and talking heads cannot portray IS terror—including crucifying, beheading, and raping humans simply because they are “infidels”—as a product of “grievances” or “land disputes.”

Indeed, the Islamic State itself, which is largely composed of foreigners, is the one invading other territories (Iraq, Syria), massacring and driving out their most indigenous inhabitants, from Christians to Yazidis.

In time, the Islamic State’s borders are fully consolidated and the “caliphate” is a fact of reality. Its war on fellow Muslim “apostates”—its current excuse for not engaging the greatest of all “infidels” in the region, Israel—eventually comes to a close or stalemate.

Then the inevitable happens: another conflict erupts between Israel and Hamas; Muslims around the word, including those under IS authority, drunk with power and feelings of superiority, demand that the time to wipe out the Jewish infidel has finally come; that the second phase of the caliphate is now or never—conquest of “original infidels.”

As Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu recently declared during his U.N. speech, “ISIS and Hamas are branches of the same poisonous tree. ISIS and Hamas share a fanatical creed, which they both seek to impose well beyond the territory under their control.”

Thus the Islamic State will eventually be compelled to start saber rattling and worse against Israel. After all, its entire legitimacy is founded on its namesake—that it is the “Islamic state,” the state that magnifies and protects Islam and Muslims. It must eventually confront Israel or else be proven the greatest of all hypocrites or munafiqun—a term of great rebuke in the Koran, which some Muslim authorities are already applying to IS for not confronting Israel now.

Conflicts inevitably ensue between Israel and its neighboring Islamic State. But unlike the Jewish state’s war on Hamas—which the mainstream media can manipulate and portray as a war on innocent Palestinian women and children—world governments and media will find it exceedingly difficult to criticize Israel should any conflict between it and IS arise.

Unlike sympathy for the Palestinians, non-Muslims around the world vacillate between hate for and fear of the Islamic State; even Karen Armstrong, John Esposito and their ilk cannot apologize for this particular group of Islamic savages—other than to insist that theirs is not true Islam (an irrelevant point for the purposes of this scenario).

Moreover, the argument habitually used against Israel—that its war on Hamas creates innocent Palestinian casualties—loses all legitimacy in any war on the Islamic State.

After all, IS, the state itself—not some terrorist organization ensconced within the state—is beheading, massacring, and enslaving humans solely on the basis of their religious identity. Its citizens—who went there of their own accord, unlike “displaced” and “trapped” Palestinians—are fanatical, extremist Muslims, whose greatest aspiration is to decapitate an infidel.

No one can apologize for this. The best that can be said is that this is not “true” Islam, which is neither here nor there.

This is why, even now, the pro-Islamic Obama administration is forced to condemn IS and even (if perfunctorily) militarily engage it.

In short, conventional war becomes very justifiable against IS—especially because there is no longer any worry of accidentally killing this or that moderate or non-Muslim, as they have all been driven away, replaced by Islamic terrorists from around the world.

And conventional war has traditionally been the bane of Islamists, who prefer terrorism, hiding among civilians, using them as shields, and playing the victim.

Safe from international censure and pushed to the edge, Israel eventually obliterates the Islamic State, while even Islam’s greatest apologists in the West must hold their tongue or else be seen as defenders of the state responsible for the greatest atrocities—crucifixions, beheadings, rapes, slavery, and wholesale massacres—so far committed in the 21st century.

Three positive consequences emerge from all this:

Not only is the Islamic State destroyed, but with it, some of the world’s most supremacist and hate-filled Muslims—those who quit their home countries, including from the West, to persecute and kill the “infidels.”
The rest of the world’s Muslims get a major and much needed wakeup call. Some may start to rethink the notion of “jihad” and eternal enmity for the rest of the world. Some may start to rethink Islam altogether.
The non-Muslim world also gets a much needed wakeup call, another lesson to add to the major wars and conflicts of the 20th century, this time about Islamic fascism, which, finally, becomes catalogued as the danger it is.

Note: I am not advocating for this scenario—admittedly, one of many different kinds of scenarios that can develop if the Islamic State is left to flourish—and would prefer to see IS made extinct now. For even if this scenario comes to pass, matters must first get significantly worse before they can begin to get better.

Obama Administration Manipulates Unemployment Numbers, Gloats But Misses The Most Important Statistic! Lies, Lies and More Lies

EXPOSED: The Ugly Truth Behind New Jobs Report The Obama-Backing Media Won’t Tell You

Look a little deeper than the glossy surface reflection of Obama's self-congratulatory talking points...

NORVELL ROSE — OCTOBER 3, 2014

Whenever a new government report comes out that gives the left-leaning media any reason to raise a cheer for the Obama administration, you can bet the progressive chorus will begin to sing the praises of their champion.

And so it goes after today’s release of the latest jobs creation and unemployment report from the Labor Department.

Advertisement-content continues below

Right on cue, outlets such as The Huffington Post sound a triumphant trumpet for the latest figures — 248,000 jobs created last month, with the country’s unemployment rate falling to 5.9%.

Here’s how The Huffington Post helped to lead the cheerleading for Obama, citing a report by the reliably pro-administration Associated Press:

The mostly positive government report also showed that employers added 69,000 more jobs in July and August than previously estimated.

The rate fell from 6.1 percent in August and is now close to 5.5 percent, which many economists consider a healthy level.

The improved figures come after President Barack Obama touted his administration’s economic achievements in a speech Thursday. The economy is the top issue in voters’ minds as the November elections near.

So, right after the president’s speech at Northwestern University in which he extolled the virtues of his economic policies and programs…right when polling shows that the economy and the jobs market are at the top of most voters’ list of concerns…right as the real pressure mounts on vulnerable Democrats heading into crucial midterm elections — we get this “mostly positive” government report.

Well, let’s look a little deeper than the glossy surface reflection of Obama’s self-congratulatory talking points — the ones that make for the kind of glib arguments that miss the underlying fundamentals — the fundamentals showing a perilous weakness.

Advertisement-content continues below

Beneath those top-line talking-point numbers — new jobs, lower unemployment — beneath those figures lies a much-more telling statistic. The labor force participation rate — the not-so-rosy number that Obama and his cheerleaders in the media don’t want to shout about.

Zerohedge.com reveals the ugly truth — that, once again last month, a ton of folks dropped out of the U.S. labor market. They became a drain on the system rather than contributors to it. Instead of paying taxes, they’ll suck up government benefits funded from tax revenues paid by others.

While by now everyone should know the answer, for those curious why the US unemployment rate just slid once more to a meager 5.9%, the lowest print since the summer of 2008, the answer is the same one we have shown every month since 2010: the collapse in the labor force participation rate, which in September slide from an already three decade low 62.8% to 62.7% – the lowest in over 36 years, matching the February 1978 lows.

And while according to the Household Survey, 232K people found jobs, what is more disturbing is that the people not in the labor force, rose to a new record high, increasing by 315,000 to 92.6 million!

So, far more people last month left the labor force than joined or rejoined it. Far more Americans gave up on finding work and dropped out.

The truth is, America is working less…even as Obama is gloating more.

Read more at http://www.westernjournalism.com/exposed-ugly-truth-behind-new-jobs-report-obama-backing-media-wont-tell/#i9v8FBTzLJvoqCjo.99

Obama Upsets 2/3 Of Americans With His Uncomprehensible, Irresponsible Immigration Policy.

Obama Alienates Right & Left on this 1 Critical Issue

President Obama has made a lot of people unhappy, but perhaps nowhere more so than on the subject of immigration. There, he has managed to anger the Right and alienate the Left equally. Conservatives detest what they regard as Obama’s lack of respect for legal process, and Liberals decry his record on immigration as a mishmash of broken promises, failed attempts, and political cowardice.

Largely because of Obama’s pro-immigration reform stance, the country’s Hispanic voters lined up with Liberals to elect him. Immigration reform was one of the issues Obama promised to address within his first year in office. It soon became apparent this was easier said than done. Immigration reform had failed during his predecessor’s tenure, despite President George W. Bush’s support. Overall, opposition in the country ran high.

After he was elected, Obama appointed Rahm Emanuel his Chief of Staff. Emanuel had been counseling Democrats for years to avoid the controversial issue. The first year passed, and other issues took precedence. No immigration bill was introduced. Meanwhile, in an attempt to placate the Right, the administration increased enforcement of existing law, and Hispanic groups began referring to Obama as Deporter in Chief.

Finally, in 2010, the Obama administration sent proposed legislation to the Hill. The DREAM Act was designed to provide protection and certain advantages of citizenship to young people brought into the United States as small children. The Act did not pass, although the administration later instituted parts of the proposal through Executive Order. Hispanics were somewhat encouraged, but frustrated at the general lack of progress.

While the most conservative wing of the Republican Party never wavered in their opposition to immigration reform, some in the party believed it was important to win over Latino support. In 2013, eight senators introduced a full immigration reform bill, which passed the Senate. The bill died in the House, however, where the Republican majority strongly opposed it. A recent ABC News poll shows that most of the country still opposes any reform that includes a path to citizenship for illegal aliens.

In the absence of any hope of passing legislation, the administration has been considering more executive action. But the recent influx of young people from Central America has turned up the heat on this issue. Red State candidates in the November 2014 elections fear they face defeat if they support reform. Consequently, Democratic hopefuls have been leaning on the President to put off any further action, and he has agreed. An administration official recently announced, “Because of the Republicans’ extreme politicization of this issue, the President believes it would be harmful to the policy itself and to the long-term prospects for comprehensive immigration reform to announce administrative action before the elections.” Now, more than ever, immigration supporters are incensed.

Overall, among both Conservatives and Liberals, Americans’ approval rating for Obama’s handling of immigration has dropped to 31%. A full two out of three of Americans disapprove of the way this president is handling immigration.