Obama on Obola Travel Ban: National Strike to Force Obola to Block ALL COMING AND GOING Flights

WP_20140814_h099537

As calls grow louder for a travel ban to prevent flights or deny visitors from West Africa, President Obama remains opposed to blocking travel from the three Ebola outbreak countries.

Lawmakers have repeatedly used the phrase travel ban without defining it. A travel ban could take several forms, but all have challenges.

A flight ban would have no impact because there are no direct flights between the U.S. and Liberia, Sierra Leone and Guinea. Suspending visas would affect only citizens of those countries, but not thousands of health-care workers and military troops fighting the disease — even as two of the three patients diagnosed in the U.S. were nurses.

THIS VIDEO Published on Oct 4, 2014

THIS VIDEO Published on October 17, 2014 

THIS VIDEO Published on Oct 18, 2014

THIS VIDEO Published on  October 16, 2014

He called for patience and a sense of perspective. He said the government is in control of the situation, the AFP reports. “This is a serious disease, but we can’t give in to hysteria or fear — because that only makes it harder to get people the accurate information they need. We have to be guided by the science. We have to remember the basic facts,” he lectured. He said if the government takes “the steps that are necessary, if we’re guided by the science — the facts, not fear — then I am absolutely confident that we can prevent a serious outbreak here in the United States, and we can continue to lead the world in this urgent effort.” Preventing flights arriving from West Africa, however, will not be one of the necessary steps. “Trying to seal off an entire region of the world — if that were even possible — could actually make the situation worse… Experience shows that it could also cause people in the affected region to change their travel, to evade screening, and make the disease even harder to track.” As for hysteria, this is amplified by the media. The corporate owned and government controlled media dwells on the CDC and the idea the state can actually do something about the disease. For statists, the disease is another excuse for government intervention in the lives of ordinary citizens. “Disease pandemics are a dream come true for central planners,” writes Ryan McMaken. “Hysterical over possible contagion, citizens clamor for government action, government quarantines, government coercion, and government planning. In these cases, large numbers of people want government to do what government does best: seize people and property, coerce, issue orders, and spend lots of money.” McMaken notes the repeated and systematic failures of government when dealing with possible pandemic diseases – mishandling anthrax, cross-contaminated bird flu, and the dangerous practice of routinely sending out contaminated samples across the country. Obama’s promise that government will save us is patently false. “Moreover, a more long-term view of the history of disease prevention does not present much of an impeachable case for government intervention. Indeed, governments excel at creating the conditions that enhance the spread of disease, as they did with the Spanish flu in the aftermath of World War I.” The CDC and the National Institutes of Health, of course, are not about to take responsibility for their role in spreading the disease. Bureaucrats claim the bungled response is due to budget restraints. “Frankly, if we had not gone through our 10-year slide in research support, we probably would have had a vaccine in time for this that would’ve gone through clinical trials and would have been ready,” National Institutes of Health Director Francis Collins said last week. Contrary to the lamentations of bureaucrats, budgetary restraints did not stop the flow of confiscated money to the CDC. “Top public health officials have collected $25 million in bonuses since 2007, carving out extra pay for themselves in tight federal budgetary times while blaming a lack of money for the Obama administration’s lackluster response to the Ebola outbreak,” writes Kelly Riddell for The Washington Times. “U.S. taxpayers gave $6 billion in salaries and $25 million in bonuses to an elite corps of health care specialists at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention since 2007,” she writes. And yet these “health care specialists” are unable to implement protocols to handle Ebola patients and protect hospital staff. Once again, the lesson is clear. Government is a parasitical and predatory beast that preys on the real producers in society. It cannot respond to disease pandemics, natural disasters, and other catastrophic events requiring coordinated effort. It invariably exploits these situations to further secure its authority and enrich its partners. “Folks, this is deja vu all over again. This administration is using this crisis to profit from it and, quite possibly, award no-bid contracts to their friends,” writes Jack Perry. “I now deeply suspect the CDC bungling in Dallas was intentional, not mere incompetence. They are manufacturing a crisis in order to not only build more government agencies with potentially unlimited power, but also so that certain corporations in bed with them can profit from it.” This is the history of government – manufactured crises, false flag wars and other staged events to benefit corporate partners, the real recipients of service provided by the largesse extracted from a befuddled, largely brainwashed and fearsome American public. THIS VIDEO Published on October 9, 2014 8:43 AM

THIS VIDEO Published on October 8, 2014

A GENERAL STRIKE IN RESPONSE TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT’S INACTION ON THE EBOLA CRISIS

WP_20140814_h099564

Have the FAA ban all incoming and outgoing flights to ebola-stricken countries until the ebola outbreak is contained

WP_20140814_h099570

WP_20140814_h09937

The department recently sent an applicant a form which asked for his Facebook username and password, and after the applicant complained, the department claimed the form was sent to him by mistake and was only used during face-to-face interviews when the department asks applicants for access to their Facebook accounts.

“It is… a common practice to view social media as a means to identify and determine character of a pistol permit applicant, in addition to other investigatory methods,” the department’s spokesperson told the applicant. “Typically all we ask is that an applicant access their account during an interview.”

But if the police dept. gets the applicant’s login credentials as requested on the form, and the applicant does not change his password afterwards, the police and the court reviewing the application can theoretically access his Facebook account as much as they want.

“It is what it is,” the Chief of Police, Ron Boisvert, told gun rights advocate Robert Farago after Farago told him the request was unconstitutional.

So essentially, the Watervliet Police Dept. and the court are violating the First, Second and Fourth Amendments by strong-arming applicants into a warrantless search, which allows the court to deny applicants their Second Amendment rights based on their views expressed on Facebook.

“…If you decline – such information is no doubt handed up to the judge deciding yes or no on your application,” reported nyfirearms.com. “The question remains – How many people actually gave into this blatant violation of their rights when applying for a pistol permit?”

The request is also a violation of Facebook’s terms of service which prohibits users from sharing their passwords.

“…We’ve seen a distressing increase in reports of employers or others seeking to gain inappropriate access to people’s Facebook profiles or private information,” Erin Egan, the site’s chief privacy officer, wrote. “This practice undermines the privacy expectations and the security of both the user and the user’s friends.”

“If you are a Facebook user, you should never have to share your password, let anyone access your account, or do anything that might jeopardize the security of your account or violate the privacy of your friends.”