Tuesday, October 21, 2014

Ebola Update: CEC Releases New Guidelines, Fear In America, Strong Quake Hits Ecuador And Colombia




Ebola Outbreak: CDC Releases New Guidelines For Protective Gear



CBC News is dedicating a special day of coverage to the Ebola crisis on Tuesday. On radio, television and online, we'll explore the facts behind Ebola and answer questions. Be part of the conversation Tuesday by using #ebolafacts on social media or by joining our live chat on CBCNews.ca starting at 8 p.m. ET.
Health officials released new guidelines Monday for how health workers should gear up to treat Ebola patients.
The federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention released the long-anticipated updates Monday evening. Health workers have been pushing for new standards since two Dallas hospital nurses were diagnosed with the disease this month after treating an Ebola patient.
The guidelines call for face shields, hoods, boot covers and other garb that leave no part of the body exposed. They also call for a trained monitor to supervise the donning and doffing of protective wear. And they call for repeated training and practice.
The CDC guidance was expected as early as Saturday, but its release has been pushed back while it continues to go through review by experts and government officials.
Health workers had been pushing for the guidance since the nurses at Texas Health Presbyterian Hospital in Dallas were infected. They had treated an Ebola-infected patient named Thomas Eric Duncan — the first person diagnosed with the virus in the U.S.
Exactly how the two nurses were infected is not clear, said CDC Director Dr. Tom Frieden during a Monday night teleconference with reporters.
"We may never know exactly how that happened, but the bottom line is, the guidelines didn't work for that hospital," Frieden said.
The new guidelines include:


  • Use of protective garments, hoods, face shields, double gloves, face masks or respirators and other protective equipment to cover every square inch of a health worker's body.
  • A call for health workers who may be involved in an Ebola patient's care to practice repeatedly and demonstrate proficiency in donning and doffing gear before ever being allowed near a patient.
  • Placement of a trained hospital employee to supervise all aspects of care in an Ebola patient's room and watch that all health workers put on and take off gear correctly.







During the last six years, many Americans have sensed a steep decline in America’s prestige, military might and economic power in the world. They wake up every day to witness their country lurching from crisis to crisis in a rudderless ship.


Jihadists are on the march, unchecked by President Obama’s tepid responses. Russian President Vladimir Putin openly thumbs his nose at the United States under Obama’s leadership. Iran is edging ever closer to achieving its ambition of becoming a nuclear-armed power, while the Obama administration bumbles along with fruitless negotiations and weakening of sanctions. Ebola is spreading, while the president refuses to take the common sense step of banning commercial flights from the most affected countries. In fact, according to Judicial Watch, “the Obama administration is actively formulating plans to admit Ebola-infected non-U.S. citizens into the United States for treatment,” apparently without seeking congressional approval. President Obama is also reportedly planning to issue an executive order after the mid-term elections that would effectively grant amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants in this country while the southern border remains vulnerable to the entry of terrorists and infected illegal immigrants. The economy remains shaky, characterized by stagnant household incomes and people giving up looking for work as the labor participation rate has declined to the lowest rate in 36 years. Add to all this the scandals about which the Obama administration has not been forthcoming, including the handling of events leading up to, during and following the jihadist attacks in Benghazi that claimed four American lives, the IRS’s politically motivated targeting of conservatives, the mess at the Department of Veterans Affairs and Fast-and-Furious.


Thus, it should be no surprise that, in a recent poll of likely voters in competitive U.S. House and Senate races reported on by Politico, 64% believed that “[t]hings in the U.S. feel like they are out of control right now.” A whopping 84% of those polled believed that ISIS represents a threat to our homeland, despite assurances from the Obama administration that there is no credible information that ISIS plans to attack the homeland. When Americans see the brutality ISIS is capable of with their own eyes, and hear ISIS warn that “We Will Drown All of You in Blood” and that the jihadists will “raise the flag of Allah in the White House,” Americans have good reason to believe that things are getting out of control and that the Obama administration is either clueless or deceitful. ISIS is far better armed than al Qaeda was when it carried out its 9/11 attacks and has the advantage of hundreds of recruits from the West, including the United States, who can return home and wreak havoc.

Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll released last week backs up the prevailing feeling among Americans that things are heading in the wrong direction. Sixty-five percent of those polled “said the country had taken a wrong turn, and only 25% said the U.S. was on the right path,” according to the Wall Street Journal. “The only time the public has felt worse was in October 2008, during the first, deep spasms of the recession.” As one retirement-age female Democrat from Iowa was quoted as saying in explaining why she thought the nation was on the wrong track:  “The wars, the bombings, the terrorism and that, this Ebola thing, that’s not good.









A strong earthquake rattled parts of Ecuador and southern Colombia Monday afternoon, sending frightened residents running outdoors. There are no reports of structural damage, but early reports indicate one person may be trapped in a landslide.
The magnitude-6.0 temblor struck the province of Carchi in northern Ecuador at 2:33 p.m. local time (3:33 p.m. EDT). The epicenter was near San Gabriel, a town of 33,000 near the Colombian border. Shaking was reported in Ecuador's capital, Quito, as well as farther away in its largest city, Guayaquil.
Images posted to social media from areas near the epicenter thus far do not appear to show any damage.

However, this photo from the provincial capital, Tulcan, shows people assembled on the streets after running outdoors during the quake.

Nearly two hours after the quake, Ecuador's armed forces reported a landslide in Carchi province with one person possibly trapped.







Former Treasury Secretary Dr. Paul Craig Roberts says all U.S. financial policy revolves around propping up the dollar.  Dr. Roberts contends, “I’ve always said the whole system is rigged.  It’s a house of cards, and the weak spot is the dollar because they cannot print foreign currencies for which to buy dollars.  So, if there is a worldwide run on the dollar, they lose control then.  In the meantime, they have all these things they can do to counteract the direction of the markets, and I expect them to continue doing that.”


Dr. Roberts goes on to say, “The reason they want to hold the gold price down is they are afraid of its impact on the dollar.  The reason why they had to suppress the gold price is they had to protect the dollar from quantitative easing (QE) because they were printing trillions and trillions of new dollars.  This was worrying people around the world who hold dollars because the dollar was increasing, but not the goods and services in the American economy.  So, when the gold price took off, the Fed said this endangers QE because if the dollar is declining in value relative to gold, it must also be declining in value relative to other currencies.  Once the exchange rate starts collapsing, we lose control.  So, we’ve got to suppress gold.  I don’t know which side of the equation will play out first.  I don’t know if they will run out of gold to deliver to India and China, or people will say this is a rigged scheme and we are just not participating anymore.”  Roberts adds, “Again, I don’t know how this will play out, but we keep seeing developments that indicate that people are not content to play in rigged markets.”
On the Ukraine crisis, Dr. Roberts says, “Putin is saying, look you are pushing too far.  Because we are reasonable doesn’t mean you can walk all over us.  Don’t get the idea that because we (Russia) haven’t slapped your face that we are going to permit this forever.  You are being very, very aggressive to somebody who can stand up to you, and we are prepared to do that. . . .So, that is the message that he gave.”
On the U.S. dollar, is the world getting ready to dump it?  Dr. Roberts, who holds a PhD in economics, says, “I think on the whole, that there is a risk that it could be dumped all at once, but it’s going to be dumped anyhow, even if slowly, and it’s already started.  When you see the Russian/Chinese agreements and the Russian/Indian agreements, what you are witnessing is people moving away from using the dollar to settle trade between one another.”








Barack Obama and the Federal Reserve are lying to you.  The "economic recovery" that we all keep hearing about is mostly just a mirage.  The percentage of Americans that are employed hasbarely budgedsince the depths of the last recession, the labor force participation rate is at a 36 year low, the overall rate of homeownership is the lowest that it has been in nearly 20 years and approximately 49 percent of all Americans are financially dependent on the government at this point.  In a recent article, I shared 12 chartsthat clearly demonstrate the permanent damage that has been done to our economy over the last decade.  The response to that article was very strong.  Many people were quite upset to learn that they were not being told the truth by our politicians and by the mainstream media.  Sadly, the vast majority of Americans still have absolutely no idea what is being done to our economy.  For those out there that still believe that we are doing "just fine", here are 19 more facts about the messed up state of the U.S. economy...








Also see:



















Hamas Renews Tunnel Digging




Does Hamas' Renewed Tunnel Digging Concern No One?


An official Hamas newspaper, Al-Risalah, openly and proudly acknowledged this week that the terror group had renewed the digging of attack tunnels connecting the Gaza Strip to targeted Jewish communities in southern Israel.

And this just days after the international community pledged billions of dollars to Hamas-ruled Gaza, and while Western leaders are again putting pressure on Israel to restart peace talks with a Palestinian unity government that includes Hamas.

A reporter for Al-Risalah wrote that he personally visited one of the tunnels now under construction. Like many others, the tunnel had been destroyed by Israeli forces during the summer’s Gaza war. That these tunnels are being restored, at great financial cost, is seen as a victory in Gaza, even though they are likely to lead to another devastating war.
Israeli commentators have responded to the situation with great frustration. Western blindness and willingness to tacitly support Palestinian terror, so long as not too many Israelis die, has become the norm. But many Israelis are increasingly upset that their own government is playing along with this dangerous diplomatic game.

Monday, October 20, 2014

National Security And Double Government





This article, published in the Boston Globe is quite interesting and worth reading in the context of everything we see going on today:








THE VOTERS WHO put Barack Obama in office expected some big changes. From the NSA’s warrantless wiretapping to Guantanamo Bay to the Patriot Act, candidate Obama was a defender of civil liberties and privacy, promising a dramatically different approach from his predecessor.
But six years into his administration, the Obama version of national security looks almost indistinguishable from the one he inherited. Guantanamo Bay remains open. The NSA has, if anything, become more aggressive in monitoring Americans. Drone strikes have escalated. Most recently it was reported that the same president who won a Nobel Prize in part for promoting nuclear disarmament is spending up to $1 trillion modernizing and revitalizing America’s nuclear weapons.

Why did the face in the Oval Office change but the policies remain the same? Critics tend to focus on Obama himself, a leader who perhaps has shifted with politics to take a harder line. But Tufts University political scientist Michael J. Glennon has a more pessimistic answer: Obama couldn’t have changed policies much even if he tried.
Though it’s a bedrock American principle that citizens can steer their own government by electing new officials, Glennon suggests that in practice, much of our government no longer works that way. In a new book, “National Security and Double Government,” he catalogs the ways that the defense and national security apparatus is effectively self-governing, with virtually no accountability, transparency, or checks and balances of any kind. He uses the term “double government”: There’s the one we elect, and then there’s the one behind it, steering huge swaths of policy almost unchecked. Elected officials end up serving as mere cover for the real decisions made by the bureaucracy.


Glennon’s critique sounds like an outsider’s take, even a radical one. In fact, he is the quintessential insider: He was legal counsel to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and a consultant to various congressional committees, as well as to the State Department. “National Security and Double Government” comes favorably blurbed by former members of the Defense Department, State Department, White House, and even the CIA. And he’s not a conspiracy theorist: Rather, he sees the problem as one of “smart, hard-working, public-spirited people acting in good faith who are responding to systemic incentives”—without any meaningful oversight to rein them in.
How exactly has double government taken hold? And what can be done about it? Glennon spoke with Ideas from his office at Tufts’ Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy. This interview has been condensed and edited.


IDEAS: Where does the term “double government” come from?
GLENNON:It comes from Walter Bagehot’s famous theory, unveiled in the 1860s. Bagehot was the scholar who presided over the birth of the Economist magazine—they still have a column named after him. Bagehot tried to explain in his book “The English Constitution” how the British government worked. He suggested that there are two sets of institutions. There are the “dignified institutions,” the monarchy and the House of Lords, which people erroneously believed ran the government. But he suggested that there was in reality a second set of institutions, which he referred to as the “efficient institutions,” that actually set governmental policy. And those were the House of Commons, the prime minister, and the British cabinet.
IDEAS: What evidence exists for saying America has a double government?
GLENNON:I was curious why a president such as Barack Obama would embrace the very same national security and counterterrorism policies that he campaigned eloquently against. Why would that president continue those same policies in case after case after case? I initially wrote it based on my own experience and personal knowledge and conversations with dozens of individuals in the military, law enforcement, and intelligence agencies of our government, as well as, of course, officeholders on Capitol Hill and in the courts. And the documented evidence in the book is substantial—there are 800 footnotes in the book.
IDEAS: Why would policy makers hand over the national-security keys to unelected officials?
GLENNON: It hasn’t been a conscious decision....Members of Congress are generalists and need to defer to experts within the national security realm, as elsewhere. They are particularly concerned about being caught out on a limb having made a wrong judgment about national security and tend, therefore, to defer to experts, who tend to exaggerate threats. The courts similarly tend to defer to the expertise of the network that defines national security policy.
The presidency itself is not a top-down institution, as many people in the public believe, headed by a president who gives orders and causes the bureaucracy to click its heels and salute. National security policy actually bubbles up from within the bureaucracy. Many of the more controversial policies, from the mining of Nicaragua’s harbors to the NSA surveillance program, originated within the bureaucracy. John Kerry was not exaggerating when he said that some of those programs are “on autopilot.”
IDEAS: Isn’t this just another way of saying that big bureaucracies are difficult to change?
GLENNON: It’s much more serious than that. These particular bureaucracies don’t set truck widths or determine railroad freight rates. They make nerve-center security decisions that in a democracy can be irreversible, that can close down the marketplace of ideas, and can result in some very dire consequences.
IDEAS: Couldn’t Obama’s national-security decisions just result from the difference in vantage point between being a campaigner and being the commander-in-chief, responsible for 320 million lives?
GLENNON: There is an element of what you described. There is not only one explanation or one cause for the amazing continuity of American national security policy. But obviously there is something else going on when policy after policy after policy all continue virtually the same way that they were in the George W. Bush administration.
IDEAS: This isn’t how we’re taught to think of the American political system.
GLENNON: I think the American people are deluded, as Bagehot explained about the British population, that the institutions that provide the public face actually set American national security policy. They believe that when they vote for a president or member of Congress or succeed in bringing a case before the courts, that policy is going to change. Now, there are many counter-examples in which these branches do affect policy, as Bagehot predicted there would be. But the larger picture is still true—policy by and large in the national security realm is made by the concealed institutions.
IDEAS: Do we have any hope of fixing the problem?
GLENNON: The ultimate problem is the pervasive political ignorance on the part of the American people. And indifference to the threat that is emerging from these concealed institutions. That is where the energy for reform has to come from: the American people. Not from government. Government is very much the problem here. The people have to take the bull by the horns. And that’s a very difficult thing to do, because the ignorance is in many ways rational. There is very little profit to be had in learning about, and being active about, problems that you can’t affect, policies that you can’t change.