What Would Obama Do If Ebola Came from Israel?

APphoto_Mideast Emirates Dubai EbolaPretend Ebola was emanating from Israel – can anyone doubt President Obama would immediately ban all travelers from America? A few months ago, Israeli airports were shut down at the recommendation of the Obama Administration – hence rewarding terrorists.

Meanwhile, White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest said Friday there is no consideration of a travel ban right now against Ebola – and there are currently no Ebola travel restrictions. With the first diagnosed case of Ebola in the United States there are still open borders to America.  The President, who remains so concerned about Jews building homes in Jerusalem, continues to ignore bombs being built in Iran, and a deadly disease emanating from Africa.

For an administration that has failed miserably on all international affairs, some thoughts to ponder:

“We should stop accepting flights from countries that are Ebola stricken,” said Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal. “Even countries in Africa have cut back on or stopped accepting flights from countries with Ebola outbreaks.” Jindal further asked, “How exactly would stopping the entry of people potentially carrying the Ebola virus be counterproductive? This seems to be an obvious step to protect public health in the United States.”

The Obama administration, however, appears to be indifferent to the public’s concerns. Matthew Continetti notes, “Over the last few years the divergence between what the government promises and what it delivers, between what it says is happening or will happen and what actually is happening and does happen, between what it determines to be important and what the public wishes to be important—this gap has become abysmal, unavoidable, inescapable.” On the Ebola threat in particular, instead of sharing in the public’s worry, the government suggests that “recommending precautions that the administration says are unnecessary (regarding a disease with a mortality rate of over 50%) is grounds for some to accuse critics of trying to spread hysteria,” as Rick Moran observes.

“This could get beyond our control … Can you imagine if a whole ship full of our soldiers catch Ebola?” Sen. Rand Paul remarked. He later noted, “A wide open, porous border is not only a danger for national security purposes, it is also a danger for a world-wide pandemic.”

Sen. Ted Cruz said it is imperative that the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) take every precaution to prevent the spread of Ebola before the holiday season. He noted that several African countries—in addition to British Airways, Emirates Airlines, and Kenya Airways—have restricted, suspended, or banned flights to Ebola-stricken nations.

Cruz noted, “It is imperative that the FAA take every available precaution in preventing additional cases from arriving in the United States.”

“Keeping the American people safe must be our nation’s top priority, and the White House should immediately ban travel from Liberia, Sierra Leone, and Guinea to contain the spread of Ebola,” North Carolina GOP Senate candidate Thom Tillis stated.

One wonders what can be relied upon from this administration.

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.

Subscribe to Frontpage’s TV show, The Glazov Gang, and LIKE it on Facebook.

  • teq

    One problem with stopping flights to and from the West African countries is that every country would have to participate to make it work. Otherwise ebola people could simply get on a plane to another country and fly from there to America.

    Plus, the big problem is that West Africans don’t have the facilities to keep the disease from spreading. If it had emanated in Israel (brought in, perhaps, by the African migrants) the Israelis would have quickly contained and isolated it. So would any first world country. But in Africa the death toll could reach millions, unless Americans and other Westerners go in to help them contain it.

    “What would Jesus do?” my priest asked last Sunday. I don’t know. He’d probably do what I don’t want to do.

    • kasandra

      Even so, taking an indirect route to the U.S. would be more difficult and costly and take more time, during which symptoms may manifest themselves making it easier to detect infected people if and when they get here. So I’d say, banning flights would still be a plus. Also, banning flights to the U.S. from affected country would not preclude aid trips going to those countries. Finally, as to the article’s closing sentence, “One wonders what can be relied on from this administration,” I think the answer is clearly that you can rely on it to do the wrong thing and the thing that is most adverse to the interests of our population, especially (but not only) if doing so would benefit Third World peoples.

      • teq

        You got that right. But here’s the great irony. George W. Bush is more popular in Africa than Obama.
        http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/barackobama/10143012/Is-Barack-Obama-less-popular-in-Africa-than-George-W-Bush.html

        Poor Bam can’t win for losin’

      • http://www.facebook.com/aemoreira81 aemoreira81

        Except that there are no flights to suspend at this time. The only flights from the USA to sub-Saharan western Africa are to and from Nigeria, Ghana, South Africa, and Senegal.

        • kasandra

          Okay, then we can prohibit entry to anyone travelling on a passport from any of the hot zone countries.

        • Pete

          There is or was Delta flight 487 direct from Liberia.

          It started in 210 or 2011. Apparently it flies between the Dominican Republic & JFK now. Do you take that one?

          Some school kids die of ebola in Dallas and the DNC will have a horrible time with the Hispanic vote.

    • Pete

      If there are connecting flights, then there is more time for the person to represent symptoms and subsequently quarantined upon arrival.

      Britain and several European and African countries have cut direct flights. So if we cut them as well, then we cut possibly the number of infected people arriving in America. It won’t be 100%, but it is better than nothing

      Our health system is good, but it can be overwhelmed.

      • http://www.facebook.com/aemoreira81 aemoreira81

        Belgium has not—and they are currently the weak link.

        • Pete

          So Belgium could be the size of Andorra, Lichtenstein, the Vatican, or San Marino.

          So the correct course of action is to say we will not implement a travel ban because a small country is going to bwag the dog.

          Instead of us along with Britain and several other European countries getting together and trying to persuade them, we are just going to go with what they do.

          That makes Obama look weak. and that is because he is weak.

    • http://www.facebook.com/aemoreira81 aemoreira81

      And that is why I have said that a USA ban would not work—the European Union is the weak link. In this case, Duncan traveled through Brussels…and no EU country (except Ireland, where there is US pre-clearance) screens in-transit passengers through their countries.

      • Pete

        Except Britain has no direct flights to the affected countries.

        Instead of figuring how to make the travel ban work, we are going the other way because it is easier and because the airline want it that way.

  • Hard Little Machine

    Ban the travel of people, not planes. Shouldn’t matter what plane you take, if you’ve been in West Africa in the last 6 months. EVEN IF YOU ARE A US CITIZEN, well you’re just going to have to wait to come here for 30 days after you leave that region. Where you go for that 30 days is your problem but the 30 day clock doesn’t start until you leave West Africa.

  • Larry

    What a very interesting question! Not only would he stop all travel back & forth but I’ll bet he would cut off aid until Israel got their health problems under control.

  • Joanne

    Most Americans want West African flights banned from our country. Why should Americans be at risk when they can stop the visits? Certainly can’t trust the airport workers with this responsibility, they are not capable of screening everyone who comes from this country, they’re not drs.

    • http://www.facebook.com/aemoreira81 aemoreira81

      There are no flights to ban from the affected countries. It would help if those same Americans bothered to look at a flight route map before they opened their mouths.

  • bklyn farmer

    Saw an interview with CDC Director Dr. Tom Frieden, the guy is a pure politician, gives me the same warm fuzzy feeling as Jen Psaki

  • http://www.facebook.com/aemoreira81 aemoreira81

    Sen. Ted Cruz said it is imperative that the Federal Aviation
    Administration (FAA) take every precaution to prevent the spread of
    Ebola before the holiday season. He noted that several African
    countries—in addition to British Airways, Emirates Airlines, and Kenya
    Airways—have restricted, suspended, or banned flights to Ebola-stricken
    nations.

    Here’s the difference: they had flight routes that could be suspended. That is not the case for the USA; you cannot suspend a nonexistent route. By contrast, there are direct nonstop routes between the USA and Israel that could be banned…however, unless the rest of the world were to follow likewise, it would not work. (In the case of Ebola, the weak links are Brussels Airlines and Royal Air Maroc.)

  • EamonnDublin

    Surely, surely, SURELY, somebody in a position of influence in the United States can see clearly that Obama is trying to castrate the country? Why are all the wimps staying silent? Get the guy OUT. O.U.T. Éamonn, Dublin, Ireland.