There will be No Ebola Travel Ban - and Why

There will be no Ebola travel ban. 

Grudgingly, we must admit there may be some logic to what appears to be madness. The irony lies in that this administration is absolutely incapable of speaking truthfully on this matter.

The major conflict with an Ebola travel ban is that it would push those who sought entry into the U.S. into the already profitable and booming business of illegal passage into the U.S. The current policy of border enforcement results in dozens of illegal entrants being detained and housed in close quarters, in over-crowded holding areas. Likewise, these illegal entrants often travel in tightly confined spaces in overcrowded train cars, trucks, and cars. 

If the Ebola virus were introduced into the current illegal entrant holding or trafficking environments, the resulting rate of infection could grow exponentially.

While the idea of allowing desperate Liberians access to U.S. medical services via the airways seems intuitively absurd, it at least provides some ability to identify, track, and control the people who enter the U.S. from Ebola affected regions of the world. In the event that these people are forced into the "illegal entry pipeline" that exists along our southern border; we lose all remaining ability to identify and track potential risks.

Ironically, the reason that a travel ban is ill advised; is that our border policy has been deplorable.

In other words, "We can't lock the front door - because we no longer have a back door."

and ...

"We are way more vulnerable if Ebola comes in the back door."

Of course, to admit this unfortunate reality would be an admission that the current "open border" policy, and the push for even more open border legislation; are flawed at their core - and that's not going to happen. 

So...

Don't expect a travel ban, and don't expect a real explanation.

Add a comment

Ferguson - A Missed Teaching Opportunity

The shooting death of Micheal Brown, and its aftermath can give some insight on the reflexive assumptions by parties on both sides of this tragedy. The irony is that many who take extreme positions on either side of this event don't realize they have significant common ground, but seem to consciously ignore it.

Many conservatives find it troubling that Blacks in Ferguson almost reflexively concluded that Micheal Brown was murdered in cold blood by an over zealous police officer who had little regard for the life of a young black man.

Many conservatives found it troubling that Ferguson residents were openly critical of the heavy handed military style tactics of the police in dealing with protests.

Add a comment

Perry Sends Texas Guard to the Border - Yippee!

Amid much media hoopla, in a strategically planned announcement; Texas Governor Rick Perry proclaimed he was "taking action" to address the current crisis at the U.S. border - by sending 1,000 Texas Guardsmen to the border.

Yippee....

So, what will these guard be doing?

Stopping people crossing the border and preventing them from ever entering the U.S.? 

-er well, uh no. they won't be doing that.

Quickly apprehending them and sending them back across the border?

-a, well no, they won't be doing that either.

They'll be grabbing up those darned illegals and turning them in to Federal Authorities, where they'll be handled EXACTLY as they were yesterday, and the day before. 

So will this do any good?

Sure, it will get Rick Perry a lot of attention, a good deal of campaign contributions, and push him toward the front of the early running for the 2016 GOP Presidential Nomination.

yippee.

 

Add a comment

ObamaCare subsidy ruling - Dangerous for GOP

Many are heralding the DC circuit court ruling that eliminates subsidies from the ObamaCare policies issued via the Federal Exchange as a crippling blow to the law. Possibly fatal.

They are wrong. It's neither crippling or fatal. In reality it's a Democrat issue "Made to Order."

Consider:

If the ruling is upheld, it will be almost instantly "corrected" with Senate drafted legislation that reverses the original wording. There is absolutely nothing even remotely underhanded about this tactic. The fact that it hasn't already been done is evidence that it's being held for its greatest campaign impact.

Once the corrective legislation is authored, Harry Reid will waive it about the Senate floor every day demanding Republicans "re-instate the health care of millions of Americans."

After a brief make believe battle - the Senate will cave - they always do.

Then it will go to the House. GOP Congressmen will tear each other to pieces arguing over this.  The media will hammer the airwaves with story after story of sobbing people showing their cancelled healthcare - all because the GOP won't pass the bill. This could make the shut down hysteria look like a Saturday morning cartoon.

Boehner will eventually cave and bring it to a vote. All the Dems will vote for it, enough GOP will vote for it to pass. The subsidies will remain, and the GOP will be in shambles as this issue causes the current fissures in the  GOP to become a full blown war.

You can bet that there are a bunch of elected GOP that are secretly praying the DC Circuit "En Banc" hearing quashes  this issue and it goes away - fast. 

Add a comment

Low Expectations for Benghazi Select Committee

I'd like to be enthused at the prospect of the brilliant pit bull prosecutor Trey Gowdy conducting an aggressive in-depth investigation into Benghazi and its related lies and cover ups.

But I just can't.

It seems this is just another in a long series of GOP Kubuki theatre events.

Remember Boehner explaining how he was against the "shut down" before he was for it?

Seems like much more of the same. Boehner buckled to political pressure to finally call for a select committee - and now will make sure that it doesn't have any real impact.

Boehner has already lectured us on not "Politicizing" the committee. This, while Democrats are lining up at every available mic to "politicize" this as a brazen, meaningless, partisan witch hunt.

Then there's the actual bill, H. RES. 36 which seems to go out of it's way to avoid investigating the "cover up" and rather focuses on finding "what went wrong" and how to "avoid future attacks." 

Only item 7 of the H.RES. 36 even remotely refers to the lies and obfuscation that have surrounded Benghazi since it occurred.:

(7) any other relevant issues relating to the attack or the response to the attack.

Combine the above with the typically ridiculous time limits on questioning, the stone-walling, the Democrat speech making, and it's easy to see this committee becoming a future talking point of the Hillary campaign "proving" there is no scandal.

I hope I'm wrong, but this is really looking more like a typical "white wash" committee to get this off the table as soon as possible - clearing the way for Hillary 2016

 

Add a comment