Ebola and ISIS - Both Dangerous and Relentless

Lately, much of America's attention has been focused on Ebola and ISIS. Both of those lurking threats are dangerous and relentless. 

Even now, we can see that each possesses the capacity to inflict immeasurable, even massive, pain and suffering. As of yet, though, we are still unsure about how much damage they can realistically do to the American homeland.

However, despite all the other existing and potential crises like Vladimir Putin's slow-motion takeover of Ukraine, Russia's teetering on the verge of financial collapse, Iran's impending ascension to the nuclear club, the disturbing prospect of Islam's growing dominance of Europe, various crumbling national economies around the world, and on and on and on, Sweden and Great Britain have reckoned that maybe the most pressing action they need to take is recognizing the non-existent state of Palestine.

Last week, Sweden did it officially and Britain did it unofficially.

Caroline Glick is a senior contributing editor at The Jerusalem Post. Writing this week in The New York Times, Ms. Glick noted that the Prime Minister of Sweden, Stefan Lofven said that "a two-state solution requires mutual recognition and a will to peaceful co-existence." She then reminded Mr. Lofven and the world that "...PLO chief Mahmoud Abbas has pledged, repeatedly, over decades that he will never, ever recognize Israel."

Her implicit question, which none of the politically-correct European and British politicians can ever answer, is, "How can you say that Palestinian recognition of Israel is vital to a so-called 'two-state solution,' then blatantly ignore the critical fact that the Palestinians have pledged NEVER to recognize Israel and still demand that Israel give the PLO and Hamas all they want."

Ms. Glick rightly observed that those European politicians aren't stupid. She wrote, "They know that if Israel succumbs to their political and economic warfare and cedes its capital city and historic heartland to its enemies, it will be unable to defend its remaining territory." Then she hit the nail on the head, "In other words, they know that in recognizing 'Palestine,' they are not helping the cause of peace. They are advancing Israel's ruin."

To make matters worse, last week U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry implied to reporters that he blames Israel for the success of ISIS. He hinted that the lack of peace between Israel and the Palestinians is "a cause of recruitment and of street anger and agitation."

I've got a news flash for Secretary Kerry, ISIS follows the long Muslim tradition of hating Jews. That's why they will be just as outraged by a "two-state solution" as they are by the very existence of a Jewish state. They will not rest as long as Israel exists in any shape or form.

Further, they don't just want to wipe out Israel, they want to rid the earth of every last Jew.

Will they be satisfied then? No. Why? Because close behind their hatred of Jews is their hatred of Christians. ANY Jew or Christian living anywhere in the world will always be an affront to their faith.

So when you hear Kerry and company calling on Israel to sacrifice its security for "peace in the Middle East," remember that the appetite of radical Islam is insatiable. They don't want two states anywhere. They want one state everywhere -- the Islamic state!

President Obama is right.

We need to send help to the nations in West Africa who are on the frontlines battling Ebola. In fact, we need to send massive help.

Even more, it's definitely in our best interest to do so. IF -- and that's a capitalized "IF" -- the outbreak there reaches the fantastic, "exponential" proportions predicted by the head of the World Health Organization (WHO) and even our own CDC, it is imperative that the disease be stopped where it is -- essentially, in three nations in West Africa.

However, just as right and important as it is to stop Ebola in its West African tracks, it's dumb to send thousands of unprepared, untrained American troops into the "hot zone" to deal with it.

But, you say, the mainstream media says they ARE trained to deal with it. Yeah, 50 at a time, trained by two instructors for four hours! Just look at who's been catching Ebola. Medical professionals with years of training and intimate and extensive knowledge of the dangers they face and the precautions necessary to deal with it. They probably spent more than four hours just learning the history of Ebola and how to spell its medically appropriate name!

Again, you say, the popular media says our soldiers WON'T be dealing directly with Ebola patients. Big deal. America's first Ebola patient, Dr. Kent Brantly, an expert on safely treating the deadly disease, insists that he "did not get Ebola in the isolation unit." He believes he caught the virus outside the hospital, while going about his daily life in Monrovia, Liberia.

Even Thomas Eric Duncan, America's first Ebola fatality, the Liberian who traveled here after becoming infected, did not get Ebola at the hospital treating patients. He came into close contact with an infected person in his own neighborhood when he tried to help her.

So just the fact that thousands of American soldiers are on site, building shelters and isolation units, moving about and interacting with the general population, even living in local hotels at the moment, means they are being exposed daily to potentially infected Liberians who are still asymptomatic, but carry the deadly contagion.

To me, that's an irresponsible way to use the heroic men and women who have volunteered to risk their lives to ensure our nation's security and way of life. On top of that, those thousands will constitute a dense environment through which Ebola could easily spread once some of them contract it.

I think the same lack of forethought is also demonstrated by the President's appointment of Democratic operative Ron Klain as the nation's "Ebola Czar."

While it's true that Klain served as Chief of Staff to both Vice Presidents Gore and Biden, and he is a loyal Democratic facilitator who was instrumental in the Solyndra scandal, and he was a lobbyist for that famous governmental millstone, Fannie Mae, and he is a lawyer, it's also true that he has no medical expertise or experience.

However, maybe that's not so important.

Recently on CNN, Elaine Kamarck from the Brookings Institute, who once served in the Bill Clinton White House, stated that "[President Obama] appointed Ron [Klain] to coordinate the government response... The governmental response has little to do with the medicine part of the Ebola crisis."

Sadly, I think Ms. Kamarck is probably right, too. The efforts of the U.S. government, which is a leading player in the worldwide fight against a MEDICAL crisis of potentially catastrophic potential, are being led by a bureaucrat who probably can't even pick an advanced Ebola patient out of a line-up. But it's apparently not important that he have any understanding of the MEDICAL implications of the disaster, just that he has the tools and experience (and willingness) to protect the Administration's political rear-end during the whole affair.

And here's a late-breaking twist to the story. WorldNetDaily reported that in a recent interview, Ron Klain identified the "top leadership issue challenging the world today" as "how to deal with the continually growing population in the world and all the resource demands it places on the world and burgeoning populations in Asia and Africa that lack the resources to have a healthy, happy life." And for good measure, he immediately added that "climate change impacts that issue...."

So, America's new "Ebola Czar" has no medical expertise or credentials, but he does think overpopulation is the "top leadership issue challenging the world today...." I see now why President Obama thought he was the perfect guy for the job.

Welcome to America 2014.

Now I understand why 58% of Americans surveyed in a recent Fox News poll felt that America was "going to hell in a handbasket."