Ebola Entitlement Is Poison

CHRIS FREIND Ebola Entitlement Is Poison
By Chris Freind

We’ve talked about Ebola’s lethality and the government’s staggering ineptitude.

Now it’s time to admit Ebola likely is here to stay. That’s not because it’s an efficient killer. It’s much more basic. Ebola will thrive because it is being enabled by America’s Big Three diseases which have been gnawing at our core for years: Arrogance, Incompetence, and Entitlement.

Yet we won’t use the antidote – common sense and intestinal fortitude – because of our denial that we are the problem.

Let’s look at the recent spate of mind-blowing developments helping Ebola gain a foothold:

1. Nurse Kaci Hickox, upon returning from West Africa where she treated Ebola patients, registered a fever at Newark airport. New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie placed her under the state’s mandatory quarantine. But she threatened to sue, of course. Her confinement was inhumane, and her civil rights violated! Oh the horror of sleeping, eating, giving interviews and watching movies while keeping the public safe!

But rather than standing his ground, Christie released her into America’s most densely populated region so she could go home to Maine. And what a shocker: she is defying her quarantine order there, choosing to ride a bike and frolic in public.

“I will go to court to attain my freedom … I don’t plan on sticking to the guidelines,” Hickox says.

Grow up, Kaci. First, you are free. If you don’t believe it, visit Cuba. Second, since we still don’t know what we’re dealing with, quarantine is part of the gig. If people don’t like that, they don’t have to go to Africa. But you did. Deal with it.

The hard fact is that we have no idea whether Ebola is lurking in her system, since its incubation period is (usually) 21 days or less. If it slowly manifests itself while Hickox is out and about, she could infect others – thus the absolute need for quarantine. What part of this can’t they understand?

2. Christie should not have discharged her. While he claims he didn’t buckle under pressure from the White House and medical “experts,” that’s clearly what he did. Releasing her to a private transport company, especially given her flagrant disdain for the rules, was especially troubling. In his first true presidential-caliber test, Christie failed, and his capitulation should hurt him in the presidential primaries.

3. Dr. Bruce Beutler, an American immunologist and geneticist who won the Nobel Prize for Medicine and Physiology, doesn’t think Christie is being strict enough.

“I favor (the quarantine) because it’s not entirely clear that they can’t transmit the disease,” Beutler said. “It may not be absolutely true that those without symptoms can’t transmit the disease … there’s a lot of variation with viruses.” And given a recent study (backed by the World Health Organization) showing that 13 percent of Ebola-infected people never exhibit a fever, that should be all the science we need for instituting quarantines.

4. Kaci’s attitude isn’t surprising. We Americans have come to believe we are entitled to everything, and cry that we’re “bullied” anytime someone advocates personal accountability. The “I-deserve-what-I-want, when-I-want-it” mentality has decimated common sense and respect for others. No society can prosper when basic actions for the greater good are flushed away.

And let’s not forget Dr. Craig Spencer in New York, who, after working with Ebola patients in Africa, ignored self-quarantine and misled authorities about riding in subways and taxis, dining out, and bowling – then developed Ebola. And who picks up the tab for the decontamination costs in Dr. Spencer’s case?

One of the first things taught in medical school is that patients lie. We should assume the same for healthcare workers, since, as Dr. Beutler correctly stated, some “behave very irresponsibly.”

Bottom line: if “elite” medical professionals can’t be trusted to follow the rules and tell the truth, what makes us think that Ebola can be contained?

5. The Ebola Wars are not without comedy. Some in the medical community, the CDC in particular, have scolded leaders for establishing quarantines. Accusing them of making decisions based on politics, they argue that they, not politicians, should be calling the shots.

Are they serious? The same people who have been monumentally screwing up from the beginning are now trying to act with moral authority? That’s like Lindsay Lohan preaching temperance. If laughter is indeed the best medicine, well CDC, mission accomplished.

6. Most Americans favor quarantines and travel restrictions, yet their concerns are being ignored by the White House, even as more countries adopt those strategies. (Australia just suspended entry visas for people from Ebola-affected countries).

America’s answer? The State Department wants to bring foreign health care workers infected with Ebola to America for treatment. It’s hard to fathom the stupidity of that plan.

8. What if Ebola arrives at a nearby hospital? Do you send your kids to school if a classmate’s parent works in that hospital? What happens when 30 people become infected, and medical teams can no longer give their undivided attention to a single patient?

Most chilling, what’s the plan for dealing with non-“model” Ebola patients, i.e., those who don’t seek treatment – the illegal alien scared to come forward; the person having an affair who won’t list his mistress as a close contact; “co-habitating” college students who think they’re invincible; the homeless; even the Average Joe. In other words, damn near everybody. This is exactly how Ebola can efficiently spread throughout the most mobile society on Earth.

Not enough people are asking these questions. Instead, too many are dismissive of Ebola as a major threat, or focused on politically correct measures that make Ebola’s inroads that much easier.

Hippocrates said,” Extreme remedies are very appropriate for extreme diseases.” After 2,400 years, it’s pretty scary that many “experts” still haven’t learned from history.

 

Ebola Entitlement Is Poison

Leadership Differs From Management

By Avrum Lapin

In today’s world where sports icons are making more news with their violent behavior off the field than their prowess between the lines, we need to ask ourselves very carefully about the definition and assignment of leadership.

We all remember the classic portrayal in “Trading Places” where the Duke Brothers devise a nefarious plot driven by a $1 bet to measure the preeminence of “nurture over nature.” In doing so they could scoop up a homeless man (Eddie Murphy) and transform him, seemingly overnight, into a leading authority and celebrity in the world of finance, and take a well bred and successful financier (Dan Aykroyd) and transform him into a bumbling beggar. The film, as we all remember, ends with the Duke Brothers being outsmarted and beaten at their own game.

Where was the leadership in all of this? Was it in the experiment? Was it in the inclination and ability on the part of the wealthy and powerful to manipulate others? Was it in the ability of those set upon and manipulated to turn the tables on their antagonists? Some may say that it is “all of the above.”

Leadership is the ability to think creatively and use that creative conception and impulse to influence circumstance and events and to cross conventional lines. In this way leaders redirect an activity or an entity, enabling it to achieve a determined goal, generating transformative results. Leaders are those men and women who can conceive of and articulate innovation and change-driven ideas, and to motivate, guide and direct others and their environment toward executing plans of action, thus creating and making a difference.

As a matter of definition and qualification, this is far different from management, which is often not based on creative energy, and focuses on the fulfillment of existing imperatives or of the plans of others. I say this not as a matter of criticism, as the world needs both – people who will dream and innovate, and those who will make sure that the innovations are “shovel-ready” for implementation.

In the world of philanthropy, especially in the Jewish world, leadership is a matter of daily conversation. We acknowledge leadership, we develop leadership, we encourage and train leaders, we determine the skills and capabilities that define leaders and we expand the definition of leadership to suit our circumstances; often, I may add – at our own peril.

What do we mean when we thank someone for their leadership? What are we thanking them for and how is leadership expressed?

What do we mean when we call someone a leader in the Jewish philanthropic enterprise? Are they inspirers, cheerleaders, servants, helpers, facilitators, guides?

Quoting traditional Jewish teaching (Talmud, Avot 4:1) we learn this about positive attributes of leadership:

Ben Zoma says:

Who is wise? The one who learns from every person…
Who is brave? The one who subdues his negative inclination…
Who is rich? The one who is appreciates what he has…
Who is honored? The one who gives honor to others…

Therefore, if we are to accept this Talmudic definition of the virtues of leadership we must look inward to answer the following questions:

  • When we recognize a donor, do we consider just the gift, or also the individual and what he or she has accomplished in their lives?

  • When we honor someone at an event or a tribute, do we look aside from things that the honoree might have done, right and wrong, or the circumstances through which they may have obtained those charitable funds?

  • When we train and develop a leader and then put him or her on a pedestal as a virtuous example for their community, how do we reconcile this action with the fact that they may not have subdued their negative inclinations in other aspects of their lives?

I am not suggesting that nonprofits and the Jewish philanthropic marketplace should approach the question of leadership from a puritanical perspective or become rigid in their points of view. I truly believe that everyone is capable of improving their lives and of personal redemption, and that our society must be exceedingly careful in judging it constituents. Rather, I look at it from the point of view of the organization, ensuring that it can mobilize its assets in a way that will create the strongest value proposition.

I have written in the past about the need for nonprofits to position themselves to best succeed in an environment that has become hyper-competitive, and therefore I recommend that leaders and donors be vigilant and proactive. Staying mission driven and marshalling resources will help your nonprofit pursue a path that will most likely help you to succeed over the long term. In that context I recommend that successful nonprofits:

  • Look for synergies with donors and sponsors that will enable them to burnish their image as well as advance your case for giving; and

  • Search for those people, through carefully mapping and utilizing relationships and connections to strengthen who you are and invest in your sustainability, rather than creating a splash today and paying for it later.

Embrace the virtues of wisdom, courage, wealth and honor expressed in our tradition. In that way the work that you do, regardless of how religious you or your organization are, will truly be a sacred task.

Avrum Lapin is president of The Lapin Group, LLC, a fundraising consulting firm in Jenkintown. 

Leadership Differs From Management

Leadership Differs From Management

Common Core Crony Capitalism On Global Scale

This article by JaKell Sullivan we have entitled Common Core Crony Capitalism On Global Scale is courtesy of Joanne Yurchak

By JaKell Sullivan

Ezekiel Emanuel, the architect of Obamacare, bragged earlier this year in a New Republic article about Obamacare’s intent to kill the insurance industry, nationalize health care and collect data on every person in order to track and control personal lifestyle choices. He condescendingly wrote, “Be prepared to kiss your insurance company goodbye forever.”

A logical correlation can be drawn that the federal intent behind recent education reforms is the same. What’s in it for crony capitalists?

In 2004, Microsoft signed a technology contract with the United Nation’s education arm, UNESCO, to globalize education. This profit-venture started a chain of events that dismantles our 10th Amendment right to control education, realigns the world’s entire education system on the backs of U.S. taxpayers, and endlessly profits elites. The U.N. announced that the joint venture would foster “web-based communities of practice including content development and worldwide curricula reflecting UNESCO’s values.” Did local parents vote on these curriculum values?

This year, Microsoft joined with the Obama administration’s ConnectEd Initiative to provide one-to-one devices for every child in order to replace textbooks. Meanwhile, legislators across the country are working with groups like Jeb Bush’s Digital Learning Now to implement this federal agenda which profits conservative and liberal foundations joined at the hip with government. Foundations profit from federal “turn around” school mandates that turn public district schools into public charters based on data controlled by assessment companies receiving federal grants.

The implications behind this reality are obvious. Big data becomes the new global commodity. Technology turns teachers into facilitators, local districts into administrators and students into social activists working to improve “democracy” and solve “global issues;” poverty, health rights and global warming — using governments as the solution. Collectivism in, individualism out.

UNESCO’s values rise as one-to-one technology puts real-time, updatable curricula and tests outside the review of parents. Federal privacy laws, stripped in December 2011 now allow the federal government and third parties to collect information from children’s class work and tests (tying existing databases together for third party research, health data, workforce data, criminal data, census data and family information). America is being prodded toward a skills-based economy where education control is further centralized, test scores slot children into workforce tracks, elites pool taxpayer money into global coffers and crony capitalists benefit from cheap labor by standardizing our children’s educations.

Politicians claim that “education should be aligned to the needs of the workforce” and that “the future of our economic prosperity” requires us to align education to jobs. Renowned author Hugh Nibley wrote that scriptural principles reveal “when the Economy becomes the main and engrossing concern of a society — the economy will self-destruct.”

Do Utahns have the fortitude to change course? Most recognize that the family is the fundamental unit of society, yet our politicians tout the economy as the fundamental unit. This gives rise to early childhood education initiatives that undermine and harm childhood attachment to family. Workforce aligned education systems make children beholden to, and fearful of, test scores that decide their future. The state becomes master and parents are marginalized.

Charles Krauthammer said that insurance companies are “becoming wholly owned subsidiaries” of the federal government. And, as federal education reforms turn local school districts and boards into wholly owned subsidiaries, families will suffer the loss of local control over what children learn — and taxpayers will watch our savings dwindle while crony capitalists reap the rewards of big government.

JaKell Sullivan graduated from Utah State University and is an advocate for parental rights in education. She is a mother of two and resides in Sandy, Utah. This article originally ran, Tuesday, in the Deseret News of Salt Lake City

Common Core Crony Capitalism On Global Scale

Common Core Crony Capitalism On Global Scale
Common Core Crony Capitalism On Global Scale
Common Core Crony Capitalism On Global Scale

Common Core Crony Capitalism On Global Scale

Common Core Crony Capitalism On Global Scale

Houston Government Endangers Liberty

Houston Government Endangers Liberty
By Chris Freind

Houston, you’ve got a problem.

Based on disturbing events in Texas’ largest city, it’s clear that Ebola is a distant second in the “greatest threat” category.

That honor goes to political extremist Annise Parker, the mayor of Houston.

In a move that is anathema to religious liberty and freedom of speech, Houston, under Parker’s direction, has issued wide-ranging subpoenas to five pastors who attempted to overturn the Houston Equal Rights Ordinance (HERO). An “anti-discrimination” law, HERO is also known as the “Bathroom Bill” because a provision allows transgender people to use either male or female restrooms, which the pastors opposed.

After HERO became law in May, the pastors helped gather more than 50,000 signatures to place the issue on a ballot referendum. Since only 17,000 signatures were necessary, it appeared Houstonians, not the mayor and city council, would ultimately decide the fate of the ordinance.

Not so fast.

Even though Houston’s city secretary certified the signatures, city Attorney David Feldman deemed 38,000 — yes, thirty-eight thousand — to be invalid, killing the referendum initiative. Not only do some legal experts contend Feldman acted without legal authority, but much of his reasoning is flawed (such as circulators having to be registered voters, a requirement that has been consistently invalidated by federal judges nationwide).

A lawsuit filed by several citizens challenging the city’s action led to subpoenas of massive scope, demanding privileged information from the pastors in 17 different categories. According to the Houston Press, subpoenaed information included:

–Anything related to Parker, Feldman, HERO or any HERO drafts, and any copies or drafts for the petition to repeal the ordinance;

–Anything related to “the topics of equal rights, civil rights, homosexuality, or gender identity;”

–Any language related to rest room access or “any discussion about whether or how HERO does or does not impact rest room access;”

–Communication with anyone at the religious rights group Alliance Defending Freedom, which has criticized the ordinance.

–“All speeches, presentation, or sermons related to HERO, the Petition, Mayor Annise Parker, homosexuality, or gender identity prepared by, delivered by, revised by, or approved by your or in your possession.”

Hell, they might as well try to find out who killed JFK.

After heavy criticism, the mayor slightly revised the subpoenas, “removing” sermons, which means nothing since sermons are actually speeches, and Parker acknowledged some could still be fair game.

Let’s analyze:

1. None of the subpoenaed pastors are even party to the lawsuit against the city.

2. Parker’s rationale is, “We want the instructions on the petition process.” In other words, how the preachers instructed their congregants regarding the petition drive. The mayor claims that if preachers are politicking from the pulpit, sermons and other communications are fair game. Two problems:

First, this case is only supposed to be about whether there are enough valid signatures to warrant a referendum. The pastors’ viewpoints on the mayor and HERO are completely irrelevant.

Second, one needs to define “politicking.” It’s true that a preacher advocating the election of a particular candidate from the pulpit may place the tax status of his church in jeopardy. But there is nothing illegal about a religious organization advocating positions on various issues. That has been a time-honored tradition in America and, no pun intended, thank God for that.

For example, the push to outlaw slavery was rooted in northern churches as pastors encouraged their flocks to support the abolitionist cause. Same goes for much of the impetus behind the Civil Rights Movement.

America’s freedoms are supposed to prevent religious persecution by government. The actions of Mayor Parker fly directly in the face of that.

3. One has to ask, “Why?” Why is the mayor pushing these subpoenas? Does she have a hidden agenda? One can reasonably conclude that it may be an attempt to intimidate religious leaders — who face jail time for contempt of court if they don’t comply — into accepting the radical agenda of a political ideologue hell-bent on social engineering. In other words, flat-out political retribution.

If the mayor believes so strongly in the ordinance, she should do the honorable thing: Agree to the referendum. If it passes, great. If not, Parker should start doing what the people elected her to do: govern a world-class city, albeit one with many problems.

4. This case has the possibility of setting groundbreaking legal precedent. If the mayor’s actions are upheld, America’s unique freedoms are in mortal danger. The door will be opened for more rights to be obliterated — and once that door is opened, it will never close.

This isn’t a Republican/Democrat, conservative/liberal issue, as its outcome will affect every American. Even supporters of the HERO ordinance should be extremely concerned, for anyone who thinks attacks on free speech and religious liberties are limited to one side of the political spectrum is dangerously misinformed.

Just as those on the Right would be wise to accept the right to burn the flag or protest military funerals, no matter how tasteless, the Left should be up in arms about this frontal assault on the liberties that allow us to express who we are and what we believe, without fear of government intrusion.

Perhaps more than any other state, Texas knows a thing or two about fighting oppressors and protecting rights. So here’s hoping they take the steer by the horns and throw the subpoenas right where they belong — in the trash.

Otherwise, start saying your prayers.

 

Houston Government Endangers Liberty

Humanae Vitae Affirmation By Pope Francis

By Fr. Frank Pavone

More significant than the debates or documents of the Synod of Bishops that just concluded was the act with which it concluded. Yesterday, Oct. 19, at the Vatican, Pope Francis again declared in an official way the holiness of one of his predecessors: he beatified Pope Paul VI, the Pope who brought the Second Vatican Council to its conclusion and also issued the encyclical Humanae Vitae (July 25, 1968) — a document preceded and followed by no small controversy, and sometimes called “the birth control encyclical.”

Humanae Vitae does not identify the key problem of our day in the realm of sex or birth or “the pill,” but rather in the myth that we can be God. Pope Paul writes at the beginning of the document, “But the most remarkable development of all is to be seen in man’s stupendous progress in the domination and rational organization of the forces of nature to the point that he is endeavoring to extend this control over every aspect of his own life — over his body, over his mind and emotions, over his social life, and even over the laws that regulate the transmission of life” (n.2).

The Pope here is painting a wider vision of the problem. We think everything belongs to us, but the reality is that we belong to God. “Humanae Vitae” means “Of human life.” Human life came from God, belongs to God, and goes back to God. “You are not your own,” St. Paul declares. “You have been bought, and at a price” (1 Cor. 6:19-20). Sex and having children are aspects of a whole cluster of realities that make up our lives and activities. We suffer from the illusion that all of these activities belong to us. “This is my life, my body, my choice.

The problem we face is not that our society is obsessed with sex. Rather, it is afraid of it– afraid of the total reality and power of what it represents, where it comes from, and where it leads. Sex properly understood requires that we acknowledge God who made it. More than that, sex can never be separated from its purpose: to insert us into this immense, powerful movement of life and love that started when God said “Let there be light” (Genesis 1:3) and culminates when the Spirit and the Bride say “Come, Lord Jesus!” (Revelation 22:17).

Sexual activity means so much that it is wrong to diminish its message or deny its full reality: it belongs in the context of committed love (sealed by marriage) and openness to life precisely because this is the only context great enough to hold its message and reflect the greater reality to which the gift of sexuality points us and to which it commits us.

This is a reality that is bigger than all of us. It is the self-giving which starts in the Trinity, and is revealed in a startling way on the Cross, and then challenges each of us in our daily interaction with others, with God, and with our own eternal destiny. It is so real and so big that it is scary. That’s why so many today are afraid of the full reality and meaning of sex. That’s why Pope Paul VI wrote Humanae Vitae.

And to remind the faithful of that teaching, and of the holy Pope who articulated it so well, is part of why we now call Pope Paul VI Blessed.

Rev. Pavone is the national  director of Priests for Life.

 

Humanae Vitae Affirmation By Pope Francis

Humanae Vitae Affirmation By Pope Francis
Humanae Vitae Affirmation By Pope Francis

 

 

Black-ish Race Conversation

CHRIS FREIND Black-ish Race Conversation
By Chris Freind

Jerry Seinfeld to priest in confessional: Well, I should tell you that I’m Jewish.

Father: That’s no sin.

Jerry: Oh good. Anyway, I wanted to talk to you about Dr. Whatley. I have a suspicion that he’s converted to Judaism just for the jokes.

Father: And this offends you as a Jewish person.

Jerry: No, it offends me as a comedian.

After watching ABC’s new “black-sitcom” “Black-ish,” a Seinfeld-ism must be invoked. I was offended — not because I’m white, but because it wasn’t funny.

* * *

Is it offensive that a show openly touts race in both its title and content? Not at all. Or at least it shouldn’t be.

We’re supposed to be grown-ups. We can change the channel if something doesn’t meet out tastes.

That’s called live and let live, where people don’t have to scream in righteous protest over every single thing they dislike. But that type of tolerance is in increasingly short supply, replaced by double standards that inflame tensions and needlessly generate intense resentment between races.

Could you imagine the backlash if a network tried to air “White-ish?” Producers would get fired, actors blackballed and the network would spend countless hours issuing nauseating apologies and mandating racial-sensitivity training.

But it will never happen. Just as there will never be a White Caucus in a legislature or White Entertainment Television.

And that is where our system breaks down.

The issue isn’t the racially descriptive entity, but the increasing resentment among white Americans who, as the oddballs, are not allowed to do likewise. Their perception, not without merit, is that they have become the only race without the same rights as everyone else.

White comedians get censured for saying the same things as their black counterparts. Black politicians openly advocate the election of black mayors. Whites lose out on job opportunities and college admissions in the name of “diversity.”

Racial discrimination, in all its forms, must be battled. And that includes reverse discrimination.

But unfortunately, selective discrimination has been deemed acceptable, even trendy, in today’s America. Far from creating racial harmony, as its advocates naively believe, reverse discrimination is quickly becoming the flashpoint in the powder keg of America’s race relations.

Nowhere is that more on display than in Missouri.

First, in Ferguson, 6-foot-4, 300-pound, 18-year-old Michael Brown, who had allegedly just committed a felony, was shot after disobeying, then physically engaging a police officer.

It should have made no difference that the officer was white and the shooting victim black, since, until it was unquestionably proven otherwise, race played no part in the shooting. But that became the headline and riots and violent protests ensued, facts be damned. Black anger erupted nationwide, directed at both whites and the police.

Now, it’s Round 2, as an off-duty police officer working as a security guard shot and killed a man near St. Louis who police say engaged him in a gunfight.

Large protests were organized as people were bused in from near and far. The heart of the protests was, of course, “racism,” since the officer was white and the shooting victim black. But no one has the guts, on either side, to ask the most important question: “So what?”

Lost on the protestors, a smorgasbord that grew to include the Occupy movement, unions, gay-rights activists and those protesting the Palestinian-Israeli conflict (must have been a boring weekend for a lot of people), were the pertinent facts that A.) The victim was wearing an ankle bracelet at the time he died, a court-ordered monitoring system as a condition of bail in a gun case, and B.) The police claim that he fired several rounds at the officer and was attempting to shoot more when his gun jammed.

The deceased’s family says he was unarmed, carrying only a sandwich. So either turkey clubs have become the new gun of choice, or he was, in fact, armed when he shouldn’t have been. Whether excessive force was used and whether the shooting was even justified remain questions that will be answered only after a thorough, impartial discovery process.

That’s why God made investigations. And in this case, it will be immeasurably easier than the Ferguson shooting to determine the truth.

So, to automatically assume “race” is simply wrong.

Does anyone of sound mind really believe that, in this day and age and in light of recent events, a white officer is going to deliberately seek out and shoot a young black man “for no reason?” Not only would his freedom be in jeopardy, but his life. That’s not to say it couldn’t happen, but a long list of other possibilities must be exhausted before coming to that conclusion.

Yet, inciting and woefully inaccurate statements, from the victims being “executed” to leaders stating they were both shot from behind (medical examiners determined neither were), serve only to push race relations closer to the edge. Sooner or later, when we go over the cliff, there will be a backlash of epic proportions, which could make the riots of the 1960s look tame.

If we ever hope to eradicate racial tensions, we need strong leaders of all races to unite and demand colorblindness for America, from police to entertainment to the workplace. “Equal opportunity for all, special treatment for none” should be our motto, where race should be an afterthought.

America’s uniqueness makes it the envy of the world, where even its most downtrodden can overcome adversity to become extremely successful.

But that rise must never come because, or at the expense, of race. When it does, we all lose a part of what makes us so special, our common bond: being Americans, and ultimately, members of the only “race” that matters: The human race.

 

Black-ish Race Conversation

Ebola Crisis Exposes Rotted Government

Ebola Crisis Exposes Rotted Government
By Chris Freind

 

Ring. Ring.

“Hello? CDC? Yeah. Quick question. I just took care of a guy with Ebola. Maybe you heard of that virus. Anyway, I was wondering — should I fly on a commercial airplane? And I should let you know that I have a fever.”

CDC: “Oh, fever, schmever. Sure. Why not? Enjoy the friendly skies. What’s the big deal?”

* * *

This conversation is obviously a parody of the real call that took place between a nurse that had direct contact with Ebola patient Thomas Duncan, and the Centers For Disease Control and Prevention.

Unfathomably, the CDC, did, in fact, give the thumbs up to Amber Vinson to fly commercially, despite having full knowledge that A.) she had been caring for an Ebola patient, B.) her colleague, nurse Nina Pham, had already contracted Ebola from Duncan, even though she had worn protective gear, and C.) Vinson had a fever — a symptom of the disease.

How is that possible? It is so immensely stupefying that, for once, this writer is at a loss for words, except to say that the American government is, undeniably, broken.

Its handling of the Ebola crisis — or, more accurately, the lack thereof — was, and remains, pathetic. Despite knowing that this Ebola outbreak, which began almost a year ago, was bound to come to America, the CDC made mistake after inexcusable mistake. One would think the “pregame” jitters would have subsided by now, and with it, the incompetence.

But it hasn’t.

In fact, the Dumb And Dumber show continues unabated.

* * *

The problem isn’t just with the CDC. And it’s not just the Obama Administration and Congress. It’s the entire government, at all levels.

Once upon a time, America solved its problems by rolling up its sleeves and getting the job done. From putting a man on the moon to foiling the Soviets during the Cold War, and from passing Civil Rights legislation to building a world-class transportation infrastructure, our leaders used common sense and an iron will to keep America moving forward.

But that has changed.

Somewhere along the way, we fell, and are now stuck in a malaise of stagnation, with far too many comfortable with mediocrity. Gone is the pioneering spirit that embodied what America was — a nation with an unbreakable self-confidence, and a people who innately understood that with a bold vision, and the courage to see it through, nothing was impossible. Whereas once we would never settle for second-best, now we are content with simply being “better than most.”

Which, as this writer has pointed out many times, is like being valedictorian of summer school.

Nowhere is that more apparent than the government’s failures. And before the partisan barbs fly, let’s not forget that it isn’t Obama’s government, nor was it Bush’s. It’s ours. We alone are responsible for picking the captain of our ship, and have no one to blame but ourselves for the course we have taken.

From the DMV to the White House, the failures of government have taken a serious toll on Americans’ optimism, the hallmark that, above all, has set us apart from every other nation.

Common sense has gone out the window. It has been replaced by politicians jockeying for the 30-second sound bite to gain cheap points and throw red-meat to their bases, with zero regard for actually coming up with a real solution.

The result is an America that either charges headlong into a situation before considering the ramifications, or, on the opposite end, sits idle and does nothing, paralyzed to act. When we do emerge from the fog, the crisis is already upon us, forcing us more often than not to make ill-fated decisions.

Consider:

–America ended its space shuttle program despite having no replacement; now, we must rely solely on the Russians to ferry us to our space station.

–Educational achievement levels continue to decline, yet no innovative solutions are offered; instead, we throw more money at the problem, despite knowing it won’t fix anything.

–We invade country after country with absolutely no clue about how to proceed once regime change is achieved; the results speak for themselves.

— Both Parties talk incessantly about reforming immigration, yet neither has any interest in doing so, creating a huge crisis on the southern border.

–Our onerous tax structure and unfavorable trade policies harm America’s companies, while foreign competitors continue to woo American jobs overseas.

— Despite full knowledge that America’s health care system was not equipped, let alone trained, to deal with the Ebola crisis, the government continues to drop the ball. Now, Americans routinely reject government reassurances that all will be okay. Instead, panic has set in, causing major volatility in the markets.

* * *

Whether it’s the miles of red tape, unaccountable bureaucrats, the bowing to political correctness, an overall aloofness to the concerns of Main Street USA — or all of the above — the causes for Americans’ growing pessimism must be addressed. Quickly.

The alternative is ever so bleak.

Ebola Crisis Exposes Rotted Government

Ebola Incompetence Endangers All

Ebola Incompetence Endangers All
By Chris Freind

Mindboggling. Astounding. Incomprehensible.

All perfectly describe the string of mistakes and idiotic actions of government officials and health care professionals dealing with the Ebola virus on American soil.

But the most important descriptor cannot be omitted.

Expected.

Since we are willfully letting Ebola in, how could we not expect unintended consequences and detrimental results? History teaches us it’s inevitable.

It’s bad enough that we allowed Ebola-stricken Americans to enter the U.S., but by granting unrestricted access to anyone who has traveled to West Africa within a 21-day time frame (Ebola’s incubation period), we asked for big trouble. And now that Thomas Duncan, a Liberian national who flew to America and became the first person diagnosed with Ebola on U.S. soil, we got it. Lots of it.

But don’t worry, we’re told. The “experts” have everything under control. America is more-than-prepared to contain Ebola and wipe it out.

So nothing to fear, right? Wrong. Dead wrong.

Given that Ebola happens to be one of the deadliest viruses in human history, and knowing this year-long outbreak in Africa was unprecedented, we should have been prepared. But in modern America, being proactive is treated with contempt, and as a result, Ebola was given a free ride.

So in the interest of preserving human civilization, let’s look at why Ebola, despite being downplayed by the government, needs to be considered such a grave threat:

HIV/AIDS is the world’s most infectious killer, but contracting it is quite difficult, making the average person’s risk factor virtually nonexistent. The risk to those engaged in certain sexual practices (where intimate physical contact is required for transmission) can be substantially mitigated if simple, medically advised precautions are taken. Yet despite that, a staggering 36 million people worldwide have died since 1981. Thirty-six million!

Contrast that to Ebola, which has a mortality rate of up to 90 percent and where person-to-person contact is not necessary to contract the virus, and it should be immediately obvious what we are facing. Yet officials continue living in la-la land, not seeing, or at least not admitting, that Ebola presents a potentially unstoppable pandemic, especially if it mutates.

Too many view pandemics, such as the Black Death, as relics of the ancient past, arrogantly believing modern medicine is equipped to stop anything. But in doing so, they forget 20th-century history. The Spanish Flu of 1918 devastated the world, including America (and Philadelphia in particular), infecting more than 500 million. It killed with startling efficiency, and as many as 100 million people perished (5 percent of the global population), leading Spanish Flu to be called “the greatest medical holocaust in history.”

Given that Ebola’s lethality is, at a minimum, 300 percent greater than the Spanish Flu, with its 10 to 20 percent mortality rate, it’s anything but alarmist to think we should be pulling out all the stops to halt Ebola. But we’re not. Consider:

1. Continuously admitting Americans infected with Ebola into the U.S. is playing Russian Roulette with five bullets in a six-round gun. We should spare no expense in setting up a Level-4 bio-hazard lab on a remote island to treat all Americans. No exceptions. But instead, the borders, especially at airports, remain wide open, warmly welcoming Mr. Ebola. That’s not compassionate. That’s suicide.

2. After exhibiting symptoms of Ebola at a Dallas hospital, Thomas Duncan was sent home, even after telling health care workers he had just been to Liberia, Ebola’s Ground Zero. First, the hospital blamed a nurse for failing to pass along that hugely critical information, then claimed Duncan’s medical report wasn’t visible to doctors due to an electronic records glitch. Also false. Turns out everyone on the case had access to the information, but simply missed it. Incomprehensible, yes, but also expected.

3. It gets worse. The highly contagious Duncan was free to roam for days, possibly infecting God knows how many — and, truly, only God knows, because the “experts” have no idea. Their guess at Duncan’s “close contacts” keeps rising (it was eight, now it’s over 100). Even after Duncan was diagnosed with Ebola, his family and friends moved freely, including sending possibly exposed children to school.

The family was eventually quarantined in Duncan’s apartment, but why there? Incredibly, no officials deemed it important to remove the family and immediately decontaminate the apartment. Instead, the family was forced to live in a petri dish alongside Duncan’s potentially virus-ridden sheets and clothes. The first cleanup crew, as well as police entering the apartment, had no virus protection. And topping it off, the emergency services’ reverse-911 call to warn residents failed in embarrassing fashion.

The real culprit in all the snafus is Ebola’s biggest benefactor: Human error. And that is why, despite claims to the contrary, Ebola cannot be contained. We knew it was coming, yet inexcusably bad decisions were made, and things went horribly wrong. What happens when it appears in a different form on a mass scale?

All of which makes the statements of Dr. Thomas Frieden, director of the Centers For Disease Control and Prevention — that “we are stopping it in its tracks in this country … There is no doubt in my mind we will stop it here” — ring hollow, huh?

The CDC keeps changing its story, out of both ignorance and deceit. Its leaders believe that by downplaying the extreme seriousness of Ebola and reassuring Americans that all is under control, the problem will go away. They couldn’t be more wrong.

 

Ebola Incompetence Endangers All

Philadelphia Dope Decriminalization Defended

Philadelphia Dope Decriminalization Defended
By Chris Freind

I was delirious with fever.

At first, I was certain it was Ebola. But turns out, it was much worse.

I found myself agreeing with Philadelphia Mayor Michael Nutter.

For a columnist espousing common sense and responsible government, any consensus with Nutter could make a career go to pot. But fair is fair, and in turning over a new leaf, I must congratulate the mayor for his recent action — which is sure to make the grass greener in Philadelphia. For a half-baked administration that’s been in the weeds for seven years, much more smoke than substance, better late than never.

In what will clearly be a high for the city, Mayor Nutter signed a law decriminalizing marijuana.

Maybe now Philadelphia can end its doobie-ous distinction of always being a backwards town as the mayor tries to get the joint back on track.

Adherents of misguided, draconian drug laws stand opposed to decriminalization, but they are living in a fog, using arguments better suited for the Stone Age.

The decriminalization of marijuana is a smart move for Philadelphia, and hopefully other municipalities will follow its lead.

To be clear, there is a distinction between legalization and decriminalization. Washington and Colorado have legalized marijuana, meaning people can grow and smoke a limited amount of pot without penalty; consumption laws are similar to those governing alcohol.

Decriminalization doesn’t make pot legal, but, as is the case with Philadelphia’s law, police will no longer arrest low-level offenders possessing small amounts of pot. Instead, those caught with 30 grams or less will receive a citation and a $25 fine; smoking it in public will result in either a $100 fine or up to nine hours of community service. Selling or distributing marijuana, as well as possessing more than 30 grams, are still crimes carrying significant penalties.

Nutter also is launching a public awareness campaign to explain the new law. That is commendable, since the average person thinks decriminalization and legalization are the same thing. There is a fine line between government decriminalizing pot and not appearing as though it is encouraging marijuana use.

Here’s the straight dope on why decriminalization is a good idea:

1. Why not decriminalize? At the most basic level, what’s the difference between smoking marijuana and drinking alcohol? Virtually none. Both alter the mind with excessive use, which is where that almost forgotten commodity called personal responsibility comes into play. If you drive or work while intoxicated, there is a price to be paid. The same types of regulations should apply to pot, as Washington and Colorado have done.

And let’s be honest: some of the biggest lobbies against decriminalization and legalization are the alcohol companies, but not because they’re worried about our health and well-being. Their opposition is rooted in financial self-interest, as they justifiably fear a loss of revenue as consumers emerge from the shadows to spend their “recreational” dollars elsewhere.

Bottom line: Since most people don’t view recreational marijuana use as harmful, and studies show pot is not a springboard to other drugs, what’s the big deal?

Ironically, it took action by died-in-the-wool big government Democrats like Nutter to start dismantling Philadelphia’s nanny state. Who would have ever believed that — without being high?

2. Logjams in law enforcement, backlogs in courts, and overcrowding in prisons will be somewhat relieved due to thousands fewer being arrested and processed in the judicial system. Granted, there are many other reforms needed, but this no-brainer is a good place to begin.

3. Police have better things to do than chase recreational pot users. Last time we checked, Philly still had extremely high rates of violence and murder; in fact, the Mayor is still being blatantly disingenuous in how he reports murders. Rather than comparing murders year to year, which is the common sense way to measure progress, he compares them to murders in 2007, the high-water mark for killings. So while the claim is made that the murder rate is “down,” there have actually been seven more murders year-to-date than at the same point in 2013.

There’s a lot of work to be done to make Philadelphia safer for residents, workers and tourists; finding solutions should be the Mayor’s first priority, and this new law will help him focus on that.

4. In a larger context, Nutter has much bigger fish to fry. Philadelphia is one of the most heavily taxed cities in the nation, its schools are dismal and manufacturing plants (and the good jobs they generate) are a distant memory. This has created a vicious cycle: Because of these problems, few companies want to relocate to Philadelphia and many others leave. As businesses and jobs disappear, so do billions in tax revenue; those remaining pay ever-higher taxes despite a vastly decreased customer base. The result is a rapidly-shrinking middle class and continued residential flight.

Any initiative not centered on reversing those monumental problems — such as expending resources to apprehend low-level pot smokers — should be immediately jettisoned.

The decriminalization of marijuana is not waving the white flag of defeat in the “war on drugs,” nor a gift to “druggies” born out of a desperate “they’re going to do it anyway, so why not make it legal” mentality.

It is a smart, reasonable approach to dealing with cannabis and its storied history (George Washington and Thomas Jefferson grew hemp) while not wavering on the fight against the real drugs that threaten society. Hopefully, decriminalization and legalization will also lead to more accepted medicinal marijuana for its undeniably positive attributes.

So kudos, Mr. Mayor. Moving forward, just don’t forget to exhale.

 

Philadelphia Dope Decriminalization Defended

Priests HHS Mandate Case Advances

By Father Frank Pavone

The lawsuit of Priests for Life against the Obama Administration’s HHS mandate continues to move forward in the nation’s second highest court. We filed earlier this month a supplemental brief with the District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals addressing two key developments that have occurred since oral arguments were heard by that court in May. The brief declares that the religious freedom violations inflicted by the HHS mandate are not eliminated by the government’s new regulations, but rather perpetuated. It also states that rather than help the government’s case, the Supreme Court’s Hobby Lobby decision strengthens the arguments contained in Priests for Life’s lawsuit.

The filing in Priests for Life v. HHS argues that the latest government “accommodation” to Obamacare’s HHS mandate offers no actual change in policy and, therefore, does nothing to alleviate the mandate’s harm to Priests for Life and other religious groups.

At issue in Priests for Life’s lawsuit is whether the federal government can compel a religious non-profit organization to violate the faith upon which it exists and operates. Even more to the point is the question of whether the government can force such a violation of faith when its purported policy goal can be achieved easily in other ways.

Before its latest regulations were issued, the Department of Health and Human Services had required religious non-profit groups to file a form with their insurance companies authorizing that their employees be provided with coverage for sterilization and birth control drugs and devices, including those which can cause abortions. The authorization of such drugs and devices would directly violate the teaching of the Catholic Church.

After two recent Supreme Court actions related to the HHS mandate went against the government, the Obama administration apparently realized that its so-called “accommodation” for non-profit religious groups would not withstand legal scrutiny. It issued yet another version of this accommodation. As stated in Priests for Life’s latest brief, though, “The new regulations… continue the Government’s pattern of attempting to create the illusion of accommodation while coercing religious organizations to act contrary to their beliefs.”

Call it a smokescreen, call it a ruse, the government’s latest scheme still would require Priests for Life and other religious organizations to violate their faith. Under the new regulations, Priests for Life would be mandated to send authorization for abortifacient, contraceptive, and sterilization coverage for its employees to the government instead of to an insurance carrier. In the words of Priests for Life’s latest brief, “the new regulations do nothing more than provide Plaintiffs with another avenue for violating their religion.”

Referring to the Hobby Lobby decision, the brief also pointed out that the Supreme Court, in effect, reaffirms the arguments that Priests for Life is making. Hobby Lobby made it clear that the government cannot force a believer to act against his or her faith, and that when a believer identifies an action as contrary to his or her faith, it is not up to the government to judge whether that is unreasonable. Mr. David Green, CEO of Hobby Lobby, has stated, “The religious freedom of believers of all denominations is under attack. Our family therefore joins in prayerful support of the Priests for Life case against the HHS mandate. As our Hobby Lobby case represents the concerns of businesses, so the Priests for Life case represents the concerns of the religious non-profit groups. Together, we stand against this injustice, and for the law of God.”

Father Frank Pavone is national director of Priests for Life

Priests HHS Mandate Case Advances