States fight Ebola. Obama fights States.

Barb Wire

By Rebekah Maxwell – BarbWire guest contributor

States fight Ebola. Obama fights states: How bad is the U.S. Government’s handling of the Ebola threat? Governors Cuomo and Christie are starting to look dashed near competent by comparison.

New York and New Jersey announced their states would enact their own quarantines for everyone returning from West Africa’s Ebola-affected countries. But they faced backlash from the White House, as President Obama pressured the governors to lift the bans.

Obama decried the quarantines as “not grounded in science” and said any measures involving health care workers “should be crafted so as not to unnecessarily discourage those workers from serving.”

Trending: BREAKING: Supreme Court to Determine if Facebook Can Censor Conservatives

Because if there’s one thing we should worry about in the face of potentially deadly epidemics in one of the largest cities on earth, it’s whether or not we’ll offend possibly infected medical workers.

After being badgered by Obama, Cuomo said Sunday night that people quarantined in New York who do not show symptoms of the disease “would be allowed to remain at home and would receive compensation for lost income.” Christie however said at a campaign event that the protection of his citizens comes first. (Again, when Chris Christie begins to sound like the objectively logical one, you’re doing something wrong.)

Even the Pentagon is going against Obama’s Ebola (non)policy:

A two-star Army general and 11 of his staff will remain in isolation for 21 days in Italy, following their return from Africa. A Pentagon spokesman, said that Army leaders made the decision to have any soldiers returning from Africa isolated and monitored for the three-week incubation period.

Almost like making absolutely sure to detect/treat any contagions of a vicious plague was more important than how people might feel about the quarantine. Obama is clearly far more concerned with the latter…though I wonder if he was as concerned about the feelings of the soldiers he sent to fight Ebola.

Mandating invasion of foreign lands to conquer a deadly disease…necessary. Mandating isolation in our own land to prevent a disease? Dangerous. What could possibly go wrong?

CA shooting suspect was deported twice: A shooting rampage in California on Friday night left two deputies dead and a motorist seriously injured…and was (predictably) instantly politicized by the anti-gun crowd. Until it turned out that the (alleged) shooter is actually a victim.

Police discovered the man’s real identity when his fingerprints matched federal records, as Luis Enrique Monroy-Bracamonte…an illegal resident, and convicted drug dealer who had already been deported to Mexico twice.

Luis Enrique Monroy-Bracamonte’s background almost certainly should have flagged him for expulsion again. But he appeared to be living quietly with his wife in a suburb of Salt Lake City until his arrest Friday after the shootings in Northern California.

Investigators were trying to determine how he avoided scrutiny.

Hmmm. In the land of open borders, free lunches, and no questions? Let’s think really hard about that one.

Peter Nunez, a former U.S. attorney in San Diego and chairman of the Center for Immigration Studies said the incident exposes shortcomings in border security and interior enforcement. He questioned how the suspect was apparently able to assume another identify.

“It’s symptomatic of the entire system,” he said.

But Dan Kowalski, an Austin immigration attorney and editor of Bender’s Immigration Bulletin, said such violent outbursts are difficult to predict.

“Short of locking down the border and deporting everyone and not letting anyone in in the future, even as a tourist to go to Disneyland, that’s the only solution, and that’s not really a solution,” he said.

Au contraire,  Mr Kowalski. It’s very easy to predict when someone is willing to break the law…when they’ve already done it repeatedly. Isn’t that why we keep records on criminal backgrounds at all? And wouldn’t “locking down the border and deporting everyone” be precisely what the law actually requires as a solution

“Violent outbursts” may not be predictable. But that a man who’s willing to break the law every day, even after being tried and punished, should decide to break even more laws? Who could have seen that coming. But I’m sure a gun ban will fix everything. Because criminals who don’t respect national sovereignty or “Thou shalt not murder” will be stopped by a gun ban. Right.

Shooting in Washington turns into battle over gun laws: The nation was horrified last Friday at the news that a freshman football player, Jaylen Fryberg, walked into his school cafeteria and shot five classmates, killing one, and then turned the gun on himself. While his motives are still unclear, the motives of anti-gun groups are transparent as ever: never let a good crisis go to waste.

In a shocking example of politicizing a tragedy, Washington gun control advocates turned the Marysville shooting into a push for their background-check ballot initiative, in “less than 90 minutes.”

Alan Gottlieb, chairman of the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms said: “It took the proponents of 594 less than 90 minutes to use [the Marysville shooting] to push their initiative. The initiative would have had no impact on this shooting, because the shooter was a minor. It’s already illegal for the shooter to have or purchase a gun.

Police have said the weapon used by Fryberg was “legally acquired,” but declined to elaborate.

Probably because it can’t be “legally acquired” by an illegal user for an illegal use. Not to mention, Fryberg took the weapon into his school, right past the “gun-free zone” signs.

NY Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney used the shooting to promote an Assault Weapons Ban on MSNBC that same evening. Ignoring the fact that the boy didn’t use an “assault weapon.”

But gun control advocates argued Saturday that whether Initiative 594 would have kept that handgun out of the boy’s hands is beside the point.

“The answer is clear that 594 will save lives,” said Dan Gross, president of the Center to Prevent Gun Violence, based in D.C.

The point is, use people’s current emotional tumult to manipulate them to agreeing with our agenda. Who cares if it makes logical sense or common decency standards? It’s just politics. It’s not our child’s funeral.

Could non-citizens decide the November election?: Either the Washington Post’s editors turned collectively racist overnight, or the facts themselves show America has problems with electoral integrity.

WashPo published a piece titled “Could Non-Citizens Decide the November Election?” previewing a new article in the Electoral Studies journal  that analyzes the impact of  self-reported “non-citizen voters” on recent elections.

How many non-citizens participate in U.S. elections? More than 14% of non-citizens in both the 2008 and 2010 samples indicated that they were registered to vote. Furthermore, some of these non-citizens voted. Our best guess, based upon extrapolations from the portion of the sample with a verified vote, is that 6.4 percent of non-citizens voted in 2008 and 2.2 percent of non-citizens voted in 2010.

Estimated Voter Turnout by Non-Citizens
2008 2010
Self reported and/or verified 38 (11.3%) 13 (3.5%)
Self reported and verified 5 (1.5%) N.A.
Adjusted estimate 21 (6.4%) 8 (2.2%)

Because non-citizens tended to favor Democrats (Obama won more than 80 percent of the votes of non-citizens in the 2008 CCES sample), we find that this participation was large enough to plausibly account for Democratic victories in a few close elections. Non-citizen votes could have given Senate Democrats the pivotal 60th vote needed to overcome filibusters in order to pass health-care reform and other Obama administration priorities in the 111th Congress. Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) won election in 2008 with a victory margin of 312 votes. Votes cast by just 0.65 percent of Minnesota non-citizens could account for this margin.

It is also possible that non-citizen votes were responsible for Obama’s 2008 victory in North Carolina. Obama won the state by 14,177 votes, so a turnout by 5.1 percent of North Carolina’s adult non-citizens would have provided this victory margin.

We also find that one of the favorite policies advocated by conservatives to prevent voter fraud appears strikingly ineffective. Nearly three-quarters of the non-citizens who indicated they were asked to provide photo identification at the polls claimed to have subsequently voted.

Bottom-line: Non-citizens are being allowed to vote…by people you trust to uphold voting laws. Non-citizens therefore have the power to decide close races. And non-citizens almost always give the advantage to the Democrats. Remind me why the GOP leadership wants amnesty again?

FEC seeks to grab control of political speech online: Free speech on the Internet is a little too free for the FEC.

Just before Election Day 2014, the Vice Chair of the Federal Election Commission has called for new regulations for Internet-based campaigning, which would extend government control to free online content, including political sites, and even news media like the Drudge Report.

Democrat FEC Vice Chair Ann M. Ravel announced plans to begin the process to win regulations on Internet-based campaigns and videos, currently free from most of the FEC’s rules. “A reexamination of the commission’s approach to the internet and other emerging technologies is long over due,” she said.

The power play followed a deadlocked 3-3 vote on whether an Ohio anti-President Obama Internet campaign featuring two videos violated FEC rules when it did not report its finances or offer a disclosure on the ads. The ads were placed for free on YouTube and were not paid advertising.

Remember when we all thought the rights of each person to speak, write, and publish freely, especially as regards our governance, was so crucial to American freedom that we publicly codified it…in the First Amendment? Apparently, that doesn’t apply to 21st century speech. Must be the latest evolution of the Constitution.

When the Federal government demands the pretended right to limit, charge, regulate, and rule over literal free speech, we no longer have a free nation. But then again, who can speak out against government overreach once they have control of our speech?

Rebekah Maxwell, producer of the Steve Deace Show, began reporting and producing at WHO Radio in 2007, with on-air work recognized by the official alphabet soup: the AP, IBNA, NBNA, RTDNA, NAB (all the while staying far from the TSA and UFOs). She delights in debating religion, politics, and all other subjects impolite at the dinner table. Her favorite time of year is Caucus season, and she’s an accomplished slam poet, ready to spit the truth…in mad rhymes, if necessary.

The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Barb Wire.

Join the conversation!

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.