The latest perplexing statement from the most incompetent White House in history is that a travel ban from Ebola-ravaged Liberia would “actually impede the response” to the disease. Flights will therefore continue between the United States and the epicenter of pestilence. Oh how predictable.
So attempting to contain the disease is actually bad policy? Apparently so, says Lisa Monaco, assistant to the president for Homeland Security and Counter-terrorism. “They impede and slow down the ability of the United States and other international partners to actually get expertise and capabilities and equipment into the affected areas,” said Monaco.
No one is talking about keeping Americans out of Liberia. There isn’t exactly a rush to get there now. But some in Congress are talking about keeping Liberians out of the United States. Clearly Ms. Monaco is confused about the direction of travel that would be banned.
Of course, some Americans are traveling to Liberia to bring relief. Many of those Americans are members of the military and must follow orders, even if that means putting their lives at risk combating an invisible enemy they haven’t been trained to fight. At some point they will have to come back here. There’s a risk, of course, to the relief workers and to others they may infect upon their return but there’s no reason why we can’t allow only those Americans who were part of the relief effort back into the United States.
Perhaps we shouldn’t send them in the first place? Well, it’s too late for that. The first uniformed Americans arrived on September 19th.
Ms. Monaco was asked about a one-way travel ban. She said that such a ban wouldn’t be necessary because people in Liberia are being screened for the virus before departing on international flights.
Let’s unravel the twisted logic of this charlatan. She began by knocking down a straw man argument—that relief workers shouldn’t be allowed to go to Liberia. No one was suggesting they shouldn’t. The argument was that Liberians should not be allowed to come here. If such a policy had been in place two weeks ago, Ebola patient Thomas Eric Duncan would not have been allowed into the country and one hundred people would not have been exposed to the virus. Monaco quickly changed her tune. Suddenly the travel ban wasn’t counterproductive but unnecessary.
Sure. Because travelers will be screened, right?
You know who else was screened? Thomas Eric Duncan. His temperature was normal, which shouldn’t be a surprise. An elevated temperature may indicate Ebola, but a normal temperature does not preclude it. Duncan also filled out a questionnaire designed to identify high risk individuals. “He lied on his form,” said the chairman of the Liberia Airport Authority. “If he had answered truthfully, he would have been sent to secondary screening immediately and not allowed to leave.”
Apparently Ms. Monaco didn’t get the memo that Thomas Eric Duncan slipped through the impenetrable net of third world medical screening because she’s still singing its praises, citing the “many, many dozens of people” who have been stopped. Apparently we’re supposed to ignore the one who got through and just focus on the others who didn’t.
If you believe anything this administration says—and you need your head checked if you do—Ebola isn’t even supposed to be here. As President Obama said on the September 7th installment of Meet the Press: “Americans shouldn’t be concerned about the prospect of contagions here in the United States, short term, because this is not an airborne disease.” Thirteen days later an Ebola-positive Liberian arrived on American soil. I guess that all depends on what your definition of “short term” is but I’d say that his prediction missed its mark by just a little.
On Friday evening the administration sent an actual doctor, Anthony Fauci, in front of the TV cameras to calm our fears. If you think his appearance was anything other than damage control for the administration, you are a fool. Here’s your sign.
Anxieties need to be soothed because they hurt Obama who is a huge supporter of immigration, both legal and illegal. Both varieties carry the risk of bringing infectious diseases into the country, though the illegal kind is riskier because there are no controls. Legal immigrants, of course, have to go through screening which is imperfect, as mentioned above.
What the president doesn’t want is for people to draw the connection between immigration and the spreading of disease, and not because the connection isn’t there but because it would be disastrous for his long term plans to change the demographics of this country for the benefit of his party and its politics. He’s already announced that amnesty by royal decree is coming after the November elections.
Thus far, liberals have been able to vilify anyone who opposes amnesty as a crypto-racist who harbors deeply irrational fears of The Other. It might be a little harder to sell that tripe if people realized that previously eradicated diseases are making a comeback like a bad 80s singer. What’s “irrational” about not wanting scabies at your child’s school? Anarchy at the border might not be such a crowd pleaser when concerns about disease are on the public’s mind. What’s a liberal to do?
Scream “racism” louder? That might work. They could declare Ebola the new racist dog whistle. That’s essentially what liberals did when protesters in Murrietta, California blocked buses of illegal aliens, citing public health concerns. They were accused of fear-mongering. The citizens of Murrietta weren’t really concerned about disease, it was Mexicans they didn’t like. Or at least that was the yarn the liberals were spinning.
Yet I think most people understand disease to be a very real concern completely unrelated to racism. That’s why it’s so important to control public perceptions. We’ve got this Ebola thing under control, you see. Just have a few guys with thermometers check everybody at the Monrovia airport and we’ll all be okay.
Oh yeah? And who’s going to stand at the Mexican border and check all the illegals for tuberculosis? How about typhoid? Leprosy? Nobody. It’s a two thousand mile open door through which flow all sorts of communicable illnesses.
Unfortunately, one party in this country is “all in” for lawless immigration, and the other is halfway there too. They won’t let a little thing like Ebola—or tuberculosis, scabies, or leprosy—to sway the debate. Your health is not as important as their source of future voters.