CDC Now Says Ebola is Easy to Catch

As each day passes we hear more and more about Ebola that is different from the previous day.

The outbreak apparently began in Africa. Guinea, Sierra Leone, and Liberia. At about the same time that it was beginning in West Africa, our borders were being breached by “children” coming from South America through Mexico and they were bring scabbies, lice and other things then put on buses and shipped around the country.

Concerns began here in the United States about whether or not Americans had to worry about the Ebola virus. The Obama Administration said we didn’t have to worry about it. The Center for Disease Control (CDC) said that Ebola was very difficult to contract.

A doctor and nurse were brought here from Africa after they had contracted the disease. The discussion turned to it being caught by bodily fluids, then by contact with the skin, but still claimed to be very difficult to contract.

The discussion turned to whether or not we should close our borders and the Obama Administration, in a rare moment of consistency, said they wouldn’t ban travel from Africa.

A man in Texas was admitted to the hospital with Ebola and died a few days later. Two nurses then exhibited signs and were quarantined. Again, the discussion turned to the ease of contracting the disease with the CDC and the administration saying it is very difficult to get the Ebola virus.

Several states decided that they would force quarantine on anyone that traveled here from Africa. New Jersey was one and a day later, Governor Chris Christie reversed that decision.

Another woman was considered at risk in Maine and was in a forced quarantine, but she’s fighting it. Still the CDC and the administration said it’s very difficult to contract the disease.

Thousands are dying in Africa but we’re told it’s difficult to spread the Ebola virus.

Then yesterday, the New York Post reported that the CDC had issued a statement saying that Ebola can be spread by something as simple as a sneeze and that it can remain active on doorknobs, tables, chairs, etc. It won’t last as long in warm air, but in cold air it can remain contagious for a day or longer by simple touch.

The common cold is spread by coughing and sneezing. Just look at classrooms across the country. Kids come to school and sneeze and within a few days, many children have a cough, and sneeze. Ebola seems to be just as easy to spread now as the common cold.

That doesn’t sound like it’s difficult to contract. Can we trust any statement put out by this administration and its' agencies? 

You’re welcome to comment.

Brett

*************UPDATE**************

The CDC has updated their website by removing information regarding droplets on doorknobs, one day after the New York Post publishes the information regarding sneezing and droplets on doorknobs being a way to spread Ebola. 

Election Time: Here we go Again

It’s election time again and as seems to be the case each election, there are problems. In Cook County Illinois a voting machine was changing votes for Republicans to a vote for Democrats. The election is actually Tuesday, November 4 but Illinois is one of the states that has early voting.

A Republican candidate, Jim Moynihan, showed up to vote and cast his vote for himself and found that the machine had switched his vote to his opponent. It also switched his vote for other Republican candidates to the Democrat party.

Republicans talk about voter fraud and the need for photo id to register to vote and to vote. Democrats say there is no need as there is no voter fraud. We almost never hear of solutions to voting by machine. I can’t remember there being a case where the Democrat cast vote was switched to the Republican ticket. Maybe it’s happened, but I don’t remember it being reported.

There are questions that naturally should come up from the discovery of this “error” with the voting machine but I didn’t see them asked on the two sites that I read about this story. My first question would be; ‘how many people used that machine before it was discovered and how many of those ballots were cast and then changed by the machine?’ My second question would be; “since these machines are only used at election times, and there aren’t that many elections during a year, why aren’t the machines serviced and tested prior to each election to make certain that they are working properly when they are needed the most?’

Another question; “if a machine, like this one, has a calibration problem, why wasn’t the calibration discovered prior to the election?’ Also, ‘how can we depend on these machines with each and every voter if the machines calibration malfunctions in the midst of a day of voting?’

I have said several times over the years that they should do away with the machines and go to paper and pencil voting. There are only two problems then. Problem number one: The pencil might break. If that happens, get another pencil but at least the pencil isn’t changing the vote.

Problem number two: Finding people that are capable of counting one ballot at a time to get an accurate accounting of the votes. I don’t think it would be that difficult to find eight or ten people that can count to ten and stack up ten votes apiece, in one county.

Maybe the Democrats are partially right. Maybe there is no voter fraud on the part of a person. Perhaps the machines have formed an alliance to commit voter fraud and it’s not the fault of any human being at all. But this phrase keeps popping up in the back of my mind each time I try to think that. “When pigs fly.”

You’re welcome to comment.

Brett

Is Homosexuality a Mental Disorder?

A few days ago, a topic was discussed on a program. The topic was about the City of Houston issuing subpoena’s to five pastors requiring them to turn over any sermons, notes and communications regarding homosexuality. I was just beginning to write here about that when the program I was listening to brought it up, so I stopped writing it. All of a sudden, it took a weird turn.

                           

A caller to the program said that the DSM had found that homosexuality was a mental disorder. He was starting to say something else but the host cut him off and said that the DSM had changed their position and decided that it wasn’t a mental disorder. The gentleman again started to say something and was again interrupted. This happened three or four times. The caller even mentioned that he was being interrupted and hadn’t finished saying what he wanted to say. A comment was made even by my daughter about how she didn’t know what the man was going to say because he was being repeatedly interrupted.

I had no idea what or who the DSM was, and naturally didn’t know what the caller was about to say. So, during the commercial break, I did a quick search and found out that the DSM is the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. It’s published by the American Psychiatric Association.

Apparently, sometime in the 1950’s they determined that homosexuality was a mental disorder. I can’t even pretend to understand how they came up with that diagnosis. However, in 1970, gay activists protested the APA’s convention in San Francisco. They continued to pressure the APA over the next couple of years and in 1973, the APA held a vote on their determination of homosexuality being a mental disorder.

Personally, I’m not a big fan of psychiatry, but I would think that they would have a medical basis or scientific basis for any position they take. Something more tangible than “feelings” because everyone has different feelings about different things. After all, they are called “doctors”. This decision however, seems to be based solely on political pressure. I have seen no full research that definitively says that homosexuality is a mental disorder but I also see no full research that says it’s not a mental disorder.

I’m leery of anything put out by the science community mainly because of Global warming which has been changed to Climate Change since they got caught fudging the numbers and allowing political correctness or pressure. Or even a more current example of Ebola and the constant changing of stories by the CDC and the politicians.

At this point, it seems the only thing certain about homosexuality is what each person thinks is the cause or desire of the homosexual person…in other words an opinion that everyone has. Nothing seems to be factually based. People base their ideas of homosexuality on how they were raised, or their religious beliefs or maybe even their own sense of the topic or their own desires.

I may challenge your opinion and always hope my opinions are challenged but I’ll not cut off your opinion which is why I always end these writings with…..

Your comments are welcome.

Brett

Afraid of Tough Topics

There are many views on some topics that cross both Conservative and liberal viewpoints. Topics that many seem to be afraid to deal with any longer. One of those topics is abortion. Radio talk show hosts seem to be afraid of this topic and refuse to even discuss it. Many have taken the position of Neil Boortz when he had his radio program.

Neil Boortz would stop anyone that brought up abortion or even mentioned it in passing when discussing another topic and seeming to tie them together. It’s as though you’re not permitted to have an opinion on abortion, nor to even suggest you have an opinion about it. I believe it’s cowardice to avoid a topic just because so many people are adamant in whatever their position is on the topic.

In many campaigns for office abortion is used as a way to put down the other candidate. The liberal may say “my opponent wants to regulate your wombs” or the Conservative may say “my opponent wants you to allow death to a baby after the baby has viable organs but prior to leaving the womb”. Nobody delves into the actual thoughts on abortion but rather tells you what the other person thinks or will do even though they really don’t know what the other would or wouldn’t do.

I have run into this when talking with people. Friends, family members and others. Well, if you’re scared of hearing about abortion, you might want to stop reading right now because I’m going to talk about it here.

First, there is the identification of whatever belief you have. I call myself Pro-Life. If someone believes that abortion should be an option, I’d call them Pro-Choice. If you tell me that I’m anti-abortion, then I’ll play your game and call you anti-life. That only makes it a name calling match and not a real discussion.

We know how pregnancy starts. It begins with an act of sex or it can begin with artificial insemination. I can’t imagine anyone choosing to be artificially inseminated to get pregnant, then choosing to abort. I guess there could be some reasons, but it would seem very odd to go to that expense and trouble only to give up.

The act of sex is a choice. The choice can be made by two people or by one person. If it’s made by two people, and a pregnancy occurs, something that they engaged in created a new life. If done within a marriage or within a permanent relationship, it is MY BELIEF, that the couple stand up and take responsibility for their actions. If the pregnancy is an accident, I would think it’s a happy accident. If it comes at an inconvenient time for one or both of the parents, they should adjust to what they created and take responsibility for their actions and the results of those actions. If they choose to abort because of inconvenience, they can do that, but it is MY BELIEF that they are not taking responsibility for their actions and because of that, a life, that is too young to make decisions, let alone voice decisions, gets no say in THEIR life. I have a difficult time reconciling how someone can choose to end a life because of their own inconvenience or disruption to their lives. Do they not consider the disruption to the life they have created? If the baby could voice its’ own opinion what would it be? Who stands up for the baby?

Regarding teenagers engaging in sex, they know it’s possible that a pregnancy could occur. It may not be high on their thoughts as they are beginning to have their fun, but there may be consequences to that fun they are about to have. Ending a life is not taking responsibility for their actions. They can choose to raise the child or they can choose to put the baby up for adoption. The life for the baby may not be the ideal life, but it’s still a life with possibilities. If abortion is chosen that baby’s chance at life is gone with them being able to choose.

In the case of rape, again, I realize a life was created by a violent act. The choice has been taken away from the mother to be, but for her to take away the chance for that baby to have a shot at life removes the possibility of something good coming from something bad.

Many also argue that it’s the mothers choice. After all, it’s her body. I disagree and I may be in the minority on this but it’s MY BELIEF that once she shared her body, the results of their act together makes both of them responsible for the decision. If either of them chooses for the baby to be born, that baby should be born. If the mother wants the baby but the father doesn’t, the mothers argument prevails because she’s choosing life for another as well as her own. If the father chooses for the baby to be born, but the mother doesn’t want it, then again, the baby is given the chance at life. The exception to this is in the case of rape. A rapist gets no say in any decision regarding the baby. He gave her no choice in the act, he gets no choice in the decision. However, he will contribute financially to the raising of that child and will never be given access to the child.

Notice that in each case, I said “MY BELIEF”. It’s not me dictating, it’s MY BELIEF. If you think differently, that’s fine for you as MY BELIEF is fine for me.

Having said all of that, I admit that I have an inconsistency in my belief both morally and intellectually. If my wife was to become pregnant, at my age, I’d be shocked but still follow through on it. However, if the life of my wife were in danger of being lost due to the pregnancy, in that case, I would choose the life of my wife over that of the baby. In effect, I’d be choosing abortion. Thankfully, I never had to make that choice.

If you think I’m wrong in my choices on all of the options above, that’s your prerogative. But if each of those were my choices, those are what I would choose regardless of the hardship a new baby might present. I will not choose abortion out of my convenience. I will not take the choice away from the baby that cannot speak for itself with the one exception I gave. Those are MY choices.

If you choose differently, and ask my opinion, that’s what you’ll get. However, if you don’t ask my opinion (and I can’t imagine anyone asking me my opinion other than my own kids asking if they ever run into that situation) then you are entitled to your opinion without scorn from me. For those of you that don’t know, two of my children are daughters and right now they are aged 18 and 17. I only hope they never have to make that decision and I believe that with how I raised them, I have a pretty good shot at not having my children run into that decision.

My choices, my beliefs, are taken away from me when the government chooses to fund those that want an abortion. My tax money goes to the government just as yours does. If you’re going to get pregnant and for whatever reason you decide to abort the pregnancy, it is wrong for even one fraction of a penny of my money to pay for your decision to do something that I don’t believe in. They were YOUR actions, pay for YOUR OWN decision but don’t force me to pay anything towards a decision that I would not make.

Notice that I said it is wrong. I didn’t say it might be wrong, I said it IS wrong.

If you believe in abortion or even choice, that’s your belief. You would only be wrong in your  belief if you try to force your belief on me or begin putting me down for my belief. But my belief is not forced on you. Abortion is legal. So if you choose abortion, it’s between you and your conscious or your God.

If you want to discuss abortion, I’m all for it, but don’t put me down for my beliefs, and I won’t put you down for your beliefs. I will listen to your side of the topic and in return you should listen to my side and neither of us should be disparaging the other person for their beliefs.

To avoid a discussion on abortion on the talk shows, such as Neil Boortz and others, only tells me that the moderator cannot moderate. He/She must be incapable of asking tough questions on each side to challenge that other persons belief and understand that people believe different things for different reasons, and those reasons are very likely very good reasons from the mindset of each side.

If we’re going to be afraid to talk about a topic, people will never be able to choose without giving thought to other possibilities. They won't realize or even understand they have options. All because people are afraid to talk, reasonably and without rancor and understanding about tough topics. When people say, 'it's my way and there is no other way' it's not Conservative and it's not freedom. 

This only creates flawed legislation and I’m really tired of hearing politicians say “it’s not the best solution, but it’s a start.” We are the greatest country in the world. We ought to be able to come up with the best solutions rather than kicking these topics down the road for whatever is popular at the time. The only way to do that is to discuss and debate them without despising the other side. Try some understanding. If you listen, you might learn. If you talk constantly, you are only dictating and not hearing.

You’re welcome to comment.

Brett

Democrats Pointing Fingers Already....at Themselves

The Democrats are pointing fingers for their losses in this years election before the election even takes place. According to “The Hill”, some are blaming Harry Reid, the Majority Leader.

They are blaming Obama’s low approval rating, low Hispanic turnout, centrist messaging, the media, social media, among others. Not one of them is blaming themselves for their own records, their own policies. Nor are they blaming themselves for legislating and making policies for their own elections and not for what’s good for the people that they represent. They even blame their core voters that don’t bother to vote in mid-term elections.

I think it’s interesting that they single out Hispanic voters. First, it’s the Democrats that scream about profiling, yet when they talk about Hispanic voters aren’t they profiling? Second, are they talking about Hispanic Americans that are here legally or are they talking about illegal aliens voting?

There’s no question any longer about their tactics and policies based on elections and not on the Constitution. For example, the Sunday talk shows were full of what Obama will do about ISIS and what he’s recently done. It seems many of the pundits are saying that the bombings of ISIS are for show and accomplishing little to nothing and they believe that when the election is over, ISIS will not be stopped.

What of the Republicans? I have heard very little message from them. They seem to be just sitting back and trying to take advantage of the peoples disgust of politicians. Had they laid out their ideas, Conservative ideas, I doubt anyone would be saying the Democrats “could” lose control of the Senate. It’s more likely that the pundits would be questioning if the Republicans would be getting double digit gains in the Senate.

You’re welcome to comment.

Brett

The USA is in Disarray

How can one man, one party be so wrong, so often, and so quickly after commenting?

The Economy and bi-partisanship

Obama is inaugurated in late January 2009. He tells Congress to get him a stimulus bill and he’ll sign it on Presidents Day. Democrats control the House, the Senate and the White House. They pass a $780 billion bill and call it bi-partisan. Zero Republicans in the House vote for it and only three in the Senate vote for it. One of those three is Senator Arlen Specter who a short time later changed parties. Obama signed the bill two days after President’s Day so he could have that photo op in Denver. His photo op was more important than his word.

Obama and the Democrats say unemployment will not exceed 8%. It jumps to 10.2%. Unemployment begins running out so those that drop off are not counted as unemployed any longer and Obama and the Democrats tout the bill as reducing unemployment. Cash for Clunkers is a massive failure. The stimulus package didn’t stimulate. This has been the slowest recovery in history.

Immigration reform and bi-partisanship

Candidates always make promises and then don’t deliver. Obama promised immigration reform in his first year. He promised Gitmo to be closed within the first year. Obama had a strong advantage to his agenda. He had a Democrat House. Republicans could stop nothing. He had a Democrat Senate, just shy of having a filibuster proof Senate. Yet, immigration reform was not touched. Gitmo is still open today. Now Obama promises he will do some immigration reform himself by executive order, but not until after the election so that he can hopefully save a couple of Democrat Senators their seats and not lose as many seats nationwide as it appears he will.

At the moment, there is bi-partisanship on immigration reform. Most Republicans don’t want what’s being proposed and most Democrats do. Obama blames Republicans for immigration reform not happening, which is bi-partisan, so he’s going to remove the bi-partisan from it and issue executive orders. If this “MUST” be done why didn’t he do it when he had full control of both Houses of Congress? And remember, for a brief time, after Arlen Specter changed parties, he had a filibuster proof Senate and control of the House. If this “MUST” be done, why are Democrats in danger of losing the election causing him to delay what “MUST” be done until after the election?

Scandals, Transparency and bi-partisanship

Fast and Furious, NSA, IRS, Benghazi, solyndra, voter discrimination/intimidation by the New Black Panthers, The VA scandal, and more. There is no transparency. Documents are requested and not forthcoming. Computer are mysteriously crashing at the IRS. Border agents and American Citizens are killed at the border by cartels using guns provided by the US Government under Fast and Furious. Benghazi was a terrorist attack, but the administration claimed it was due to a video (which nobody had seen).

There is only one place in the Obama administration where transparency has been frequent and obvious. After being promised that the TSA (Transportation Security Agency) new screening process and X-Ray machines would be immediately destroyed upon a person being cleared to get on the plane, it only took a few days for it to come out that those X-rays showing body parts were being saved and admired by TSA agents and in one case a TSA agent was teased about his lack of girth after passed through the machine and that created a physical altercation.

Grandmothers were hand patted and groped. Children were groped. Men and women’s private areas were molested. Disabled people were embarrassed to have their disabilities and prosthetics and other extremely private remedies, such as colostomy bags exposed for all to see, but those that truly looked the part of a possible terrorist suspect were not given a first look, let alone a second.  

Health Care and bi-partisanship

In March of 2009, despite polls showing 67%-75% of the American people against the government take over of the health care system, both Houses of Congress took up what is now known as Obamacare.

The Democrats could not get it through the Senate because they didn’t have a filibuster-proof Senate. Then two events happened. Senator Arlen Specter changed parties giving the Democrats the needed 60 votes so that Republicans couldn’t stop anything.

The House didn’t matter because a simple majority as all that was needed and the Democrats had control. They didn’t need any Republicans to pass anything. Any Republicans voting with them would only lead to claims of bi-partisanship.

However, Senator Ted Kennedy died of his brain cancer taking away that needed 60^th vote. Being from Massachusetts, the special election would likely put another Democrat in the seat Kennedy held, so it would just be delayed. A special election was held and people from around the country helped the Republican, Scott Brown win the election. He ran as the 41^st vote against Obamacare which in effect would kill the bill. It is clear now that Browns election was to prevent Obamacare from being passed, because he lost the seat in the next election when Obamacare was no longer on the table.

There was now only one way to pass the Obamacare bill. The Democrat House wrote the bill and passed the bill without one Republican voting for it. The only way for the Senate to pass Obamacare was to vote straight up or down on the House bill. No changes. That way, they too only needed a simple majority, and that’s exactly what they did. There is nothing bi-partisan about it. Not one Republican in either House voted for the bill. That is not bi-partisan.

 Current Events

We’ve had illegal aliens coming across the border and this administration has been sending them out to every state in the country. 35 year old adults claiming they are childen and this administration believes them and puts them in schools. Criminals coming across the border and committing murder here of American Citizens. First it was lice and scabbies but they said it would be contained and not be a problem. Now we have Ebola that they said wouldn’t be a problem, yet in todays news, there are many cases that are suspected of Ebola around the country.

Obama claimed ISIS was Junior Varsity. They marched from Syria into Iraq in a quick and orderly fashion killing anyone that didn’t join up with them, then after Obama called them JV, they take the heads off of a couple of Americans.

Each time Obama downplays an event in the news, it’s a matter of days or even hours it becomes a major catastrophe. But then, it’s no wonder he doesn’t know anything since he rarely attends intelligent briefings.

It’s easy to understand why the USA is in disarray.

You’re welcome to comment.

Brett