Friday, October 10, 2014

Why Is Obama Sending Troops To West Africa and Not Iraq?

President Obama spoke to residents of West African countries that are experiencing Ebola epidemics, advising them that -
You cannot get it through casual contact like sitting next to someone on a bus.
Yet CDC, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, advises Americans who travel to Ebola-stricken nations to avoid public transportation.
Obama and friends hope that Americans do not see the difference in information output. 
So which is it, Mr. President?
And in mention of CDC, it has reported that heroin overdose death rates up to 102% - markedly increase since last year.Wonder why?
Here is a CDC list of what people should do to prevent Ebola infection:
  • Practice careful hygiene. For example, wash your hands with soap and water or an alcohol-based hand sanitizer and avoid contact with blood and body fluids.
  • Do not handle items that may have come in contact with an infected person’s blood or body fluids (such as clothes, bedding, needles, and medical equipment).
  • Avoid funeral or burial rituals that require handling the body of someone who has died from Ebola.
  • Avoid contact with bats and nonhuman primates or blood, fluids, and raw meat prepared from these animals.
There is not vaccine to prevent or cure Ebola, yet, Obama is sending 3,000 US troops to Africa where Ebola is an outbreak; putting “boots on the ground” when he refused to do so in Iraq.
Allegedly it is part of a declaration of war against Ebola.
Talk about putting our men and women in uniform in unnecessary danger.
Obama appeared at the CDC and stated that the outbreaks of Ebola in west Africa is:
...a global threat, and it demands a truly global response. This is an epidemic that is not just a threat to regional security. It’s a potential threat to global security, if these countries break down, if their economies break down, if people panic. That has profound effects on all of us, even if we are not directly contracting the disease. This outbreak is already spiraling out of control.
So how does sending 3,000 troops stop an Ebola epidemic? Indeed, it can only expose our troops to the deadly disease. That is NOT what men and women volunteer for in the US Armed Forces.
The Commander-in-Chief of US Armed Forces did not make it clear whether the US troops were intended to shoot the virus or shoot Africans suspected of having Ebola. Sending CDC personnel trained in public health affairs would make sense, a small staff to supervise and control the outbreak. But sending combat troops?
Like his vice president, one wonders about the mental stability and responsible reasoning behind this action.
Global Research has another possibility, a reason underlying the Ebola scare …
The Obama Administration and Pentagon policy has continued that of George W. Bush who in 2008 created the US military Africa Command or AFRICOM, to battle the rapidly-growing Chinese economic presence in Africa’s potential oil-rich countries. West Africa is a rapidly-emerging oil treasure, barely tapped to date. A US Department of Energy study projected that African oil production would rise 91 percent between 2002 and 2025, much from the region of the present Ebola alarm. Chinese oil companies are all over Africa and increasingly active in west Africa, especially Angola, Sudan and Guinea, the later in the epicenter of Obama’s new War on Ebola troop deployment. … Reuters reports that the Cuban government, a small financially distressed, economically sanctioned island nation of 11 million people, with a national budget of $50 billion, Gross Domestic Product of 121 billion and per capita GDP of just over $10,000, is dispatching 165 medical personnel to Africa to regions where there are Ebola outbreaks. Washington sends 3,000 combat troops. Something smells very rotten around the entire Ebola scare.
The questioning of real reasons for sending US troops to west Africa makes sense considering the past lies and coverups that has ridden his administration since 2008.
So much for a transparent president, as hailed in his 2008 campaign for president.
So much for the credibility and reputation of the American voter for voting for him again in 2012, despite clear and truthful presentations of his administrative record and useless policies.
The big thing in the news media is put into a question: Could Ebola become an epidemic in the United States?
That is a reasonable assessment, since illegal aliens are not medically screened like legal immigrants. Diseases have surfaced that are rare in the US, such as tuberculosis, spreading because of uninvited immigrant invaders.
He said the danger is two-fold: Not only might illegal immigrants from Africa enter the U.S. unchecked, but if Ebola spreads to Central America it could spark a new wave of illegal immigration to the U.S. that would make this summer’s surge “look like a small problem.”
Conservative media sources are addressing these possible threats caused by an inept and irresponsible president that should never have been elected in 2008, nor reelected in 2012 – and it seems that whatever he does or does not do, will never be impeached and Rush Limbaugh says 'we can't'. Whiles some Democrats insist that Obama will be impeached if Republicans gain majority in the Senate, which will put them in majority of both Senate and House. Those of us who know their game realize that this is just a scare tactic to get Democrats reelected in Congress and gain majority in the House. Democrats like James Clyburn. Rep. Clyburn's voting record tells the rest of the story. 
Judge Jeanine says to Obama - Your Job is to Protect US! 
Meanwhile, further digging into the Secret Service prostitute scandal seems to reveal that a White House aide was involved. They tried to hide this, like other actions of corruption and poor ethics, the most infamous being the Benghazi scandal, costing four lives and the Fast-N-Furious that cost much more than that in terms of lives of more than just one American Border Patrol officer. It seems the scandals and corruption of this presidential administration is unending. But then again, the associates and political connections of Barack Hussein Obama (one of his registered names) was revealed as far back as 2008 and when he was a senator - but no one seemed to care when they went to the polls to ensure that the first African American ("Black") president was to be elected.  Martin Luther King once stated that it was the character of a person that counted, not the pigmentation of their skin. Apparently his wise words have been forgotten. There were other such candidates to choose from among people of that racial background, but they were not Democrat nor part of the progressive socialist crowd that Obama had found himself amongst. In the end, it is great sadness that someone like Obama would stain the honor of the office of the President of the United States, instead of someone with character and constitutionally-minded citizens like Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams, Allen West, or Star Parker
Tell me, Obama fans, has your life become better since 2008? Did your candidate fulfill any promises, except Obamacare that has proved to be a fiasco as predicted, he made in 2008 and when asked to be our president again in 2012?  
Democrats expecting to be reelected or elected are afraid to admit their sponsoring of Obama in 2008/2012. Wonder why? Obama is making a political tour to gather support of fellow Democrats who want to continue their plunder of the Constitution and promote their continuing progressive socialism - hoping that voters will forget the myriad of scandals, ineffective and costly programs, and coverups - proving they are not qualified. I think it is time to show them that voters are not forgetful and no longer passive towards their shenanigans; as well as a warning against RINOs - Republicans who claim they are "moderate". .
Voting for someone on the sole basis of race or gender is just as bad as not voting for someone for the same reason; clearly the gist of what problems we have with the federal government today.
Voting is important, but most importantly is voting responsibly - not because of popularity or any other mundane reason, but because they are qualified to ensure that our government returns to a limited government prescribed in the US Constitution and someone who puts themselves and their political club second to our nation and its people. It is not an easy task nor one to be taken lightly - so why are voters not more careful who they choose to operate their government?

No comments:

Post a Comment