Scientists predicting 100,000 or more Ebola deaths

By: James Simpson
DC Independent Examiner

A recent report in Science magazine has made the scary prediction that as many as 100,000 people worldwide could be infected with the Ebola virus in the coming months. Northeastern Universty physicist Alessandro Vespignani hopes his prediction does not come to pass, however, based on the virus’s spread, he predicts as many as 10,000 by the end of September alone. Other researchers have made similarly apocalyptic predictions. The World Health Organization (WHO) has predicted 20,000 cases. The outbreak began in the West African country of Guinea. It has since spread to Liberia, Sierra Leone, Nigeria, and most recently Senegal, which reported its first case on August 29th. To date, the disease has claimed over 1,900 lives.

ABC reports that at least one doctor who died may have contracted the illness without phyiscal contact with an infected person. A WHO spokesperson explained that the Senegaleze doctor had been doing surveillance work. “He wasn’t in treatment centers normally,” she said. “It’s possible he went in there and wasn’t properly covered, but that’s why we’ve taken this unusual measure — to try to figure out what happened.” The CDC and other health organizations have previously played down the risk, for example, of contracting airborne Ebola. However the agency’s own fact sheet on precaution for the airline industry advises taking measures to prevent airborne spread of [mucous] “droplets expelled into the air.”

There is reason for guarded optimism in the search for a cure however. A British health worker infected with Ebola while in Sierra Leone has made a full recovery following treatments with the experimental drug zMapp. Five of seven Ebola victims treated with the drug have recovered completely; two died. Experts qualify those successes with the warning that those who recovered may have recovered anyway. The disease is not always fatal. This most recent epidemic has had a survival rate of 47 percent. Past outbreaks have had survival rates closer to 10 percent, i.e. 90 percent fatality rate.


The Council Has Spoken!! This Weeks’ Watcher’s Council Results – 09/05/14

The Watcher’s Council


The People’s Cube:

Raising awareness, one drop at a time.

The ISIS Bucket Challenge: a life-saving activity involving dumping buckets of piss on the heads of Western pacifists with “Coexist” bumper stickers to raise their awareness about them actually having those heads, at least until ISIS shows up and chops them off.

* * *
Special thanks to Comrade General Secretary for the idea.

The Council has spoken, the votes have been cast and the results are in for this week’s Watcher’s Council match-up.

“What did the President know and when did he know it?” – Senator Howard Baker (R-TN) during the Watergate Scandal

“If a JV team puts on Lakers uniforms, that doesn’t make them Kobe Bryant.” – President Barack Obama dismissing ISIS in a January 27th, 2014 interview – right after they had just taken over Fallujah, Iraq.

“I know in Western countries this is vacation period but when people die, you must return from vacation.” – French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius asking that President Obama return from Martha’s Vineyard to meet with the EU to plan a strategy to stop the Islamic State, August 14th, 2014.

This week, we had a tie in the Council category which, I as Watcher, have to break. Fortunately, this was an easy choice. On the one hand, there was Joshuapundit’s It’s Time To Give Abbas What He’s Asking For, my take on what I thought a fitting response from Israel would be to Palestine’s unelected dictator Mahmoud Abbas’s threats to try and coerce the UN into a resolution gifting him all of Judea and Samaria.

But the other was a marvelous piece by Nice Deb, West Point Report: Obama Watched And Did Nothing As ISIS Threat Grew – Why?, an in-depth examination of exactly what our prevaricator-in-chief knew about the Islamic State, formerly known as ISIS and how he essentially ignored it. I’ve always really liked what Deb writes, but this one’s special. Here’s a slice:

A new report from the West Point counterterrorism center says the Obama administration ignored warning signs as ISIS grew and trained over a four-year period following the US withdrawal from Iraq.

Via IBD:

As President Obama dithers about whether to strike the Islamic State’s sanctuary in Syria, a report by the Combating Terrorism Center at West Point shows how we got to this point. Obama simply overlooked the “JV” team until it was ready for terrorism’s Pro Bowl.

Instead, he was focused on getting us out of Iraq and creating a power vacuum that the terrorist group was all too willing to fill.

“ISIL did not suddenly become effective in early June 2014,” the report states. “It has been steadily strengthening and actively shaping the future operating environment for four years.”

The Islamic State’s rapid expansion into Iraq was “the result of years of patient preparatory operations,” wrote the report’s author, Michael Knights of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.

United States intelligence officials tried to claim they were blindsided back in June when fighters from the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS) seized two major Iraqi cities and sent Iraqi defense forces fleeing. “With U.S. troops long gone from the country,” the story goes, “Washington didn’t have the spies on the ground or the surveillance gear in the skies necessary to predict when and where the jihadist group would strike.”

What a load of malarkey.

As the West Point report notes, ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi “re-booted” the group in 2010 into a “highly motivated cadre of quality light infantry forces,” beginning a nationwide campaign of car bombings in Iraq in 2013.” Their attacks were reported on and evident to anyone with an internet connection.

In August 2013, the Iraqi government even reached out to the Obama administration for help.

Bloomberg News reported that Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari arrived in Washington seeking “U.S. advisers, air surveillance, or even drone strikes” to deal with the growing ISIS threat.

Zebari returned home empty-handed, ignored by an Obama administration more intent on keeping a campaign promise to withdraw from Iraq than in dealing with the new terror threat. Zebari’s requests were apparently lost between all those fundraisers and rounds of golf.

Earlier this year, Iraq continued pleading for help. As we noted, according to a June 11 piece in the New York Times, then-Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki met on May 11 with American diplomats and Gen. Lloyd Austin, head of Central Command, asking the U.S. for the ability to strike IS using drones.

If that wasn’t doable, al-Maliki said that he would approve U.S. drone strikes or airstrikes. That plea also fell on deaf ears.

The question is – why? Obama knew there was an uber-terrorist group rampaging through Syria, with its sites set on the fledgling democracy of Iraq – where so many American troops had made the ultimate sacrifice to secure. Was it not in America’s interest to stop the growing menace before it got to Iraq?

Its “blitzkrieg” into Iraq was due less to the failure of Iraqi forces than to IS’ methodical training, preparation and planning — sort of like the Wehrmacht’s advance into France in 1940.

Their blitzkrieg was also due to the Obama administration’s funneling of advanced weaponry to ISIS infested rebel fighters in Syria – ostensibly to help them topple the Assad regime. The Obama administration began funneling the weapons from Libya after Qaddafi was overthrown, murdered, and dragged through the streets by Islamists in 2011.

Much more at the link.

In our non-Council category, the winner was Ivy Mike Cafe#Ferguson – When Assholes Collide, submitted by Nice Deb. I should warn some readers that you’re dealing with NSFW language here, but it’s a pretty cogent analysis of what happened in Ferguson, Missouri… and why.

Here are this week’s full results. Only Simply Jews, enjoying a brief hiatus, was unable to vote this week and was not subject to usual the 2/3 vote penalty for not voting:

Council Winners

Non-Council Winners

See you next week!

Make sure to tune in every Monday for the Watcher’s Forum and every Tuesday morning, when we reveal the weeks’ nominees for Weasel of the Week!

And remember, every Wednesday, the Council has its weekly contest with the members nominating two posts each, one written by themselves and one written by someone from outside the group for consideration by the whole Council. The votes are cast by the Council and the results are posted on Friday morning.

It’s a weekly magazine of some of the best stuff written in the blogosphere and you won’t want to miss it… or any of the other fantabulous Watcher’s Council content.

And don’t forget to like us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter… ’cause we’re cool like that, y’know?


Benghazi Investigation Heats Up with New Books, Hearings and a Documentary

By: Roger Aronoff
Accuracy in Media

With the anniversary of September 11, 2001 coming up next week, the left is lining up to undermine various and ongoing efforts to get to the truth about what led to the events of September 11, 2012. The latter terrorist attack took place two months before a presidential election. The U.S. Special Mission Compound (often mistakenly referred to as a consulate) in Benghazi, Libya, and the nearby CIA Annex were brutally attacked—killing our U.S. Ambassador to Libya and three other Americans. There are two new books on Benghazi debuting this month, a new documentary on Fox News about one of them, and the first public hearing of the House Select Committee on Benghazi is scheduled for this month.

As a result, the forces of the left are in full “pre-emptive attack” mode, publishing article after article about how false and misleading these reports and books are—sight unseen. Calls for the revelations to not affect Hillary Clinton’s political chances, or claims that there is no cover-up and this is a phony scandal, have emerged at The New York Times, MSNBC, Media Matters, and with the Democrats on the House Intel Committee, which recently completed its own report on Benghazi that is currently being reviewed by the CIA before its public release. The consistent theme is that this controversy has all been investigated numerous times before, and that the evidence shows that there was no cover-up, there was no stand-down order, and there was no failure to deploy military assets.

But as we have shown through various articles, these sources are either wrong on all, or most, counts, or the “answers” they’ve provided raise additional questions.

New revelations by members of the Security Annex Team, interviewed by Bret Baier, call into question these assertions as well. Speaking on Fox News’ Special Report on September 4th, three members of the team—Kris Paronto, Mark Geist and John Tiegen—described their experience as receiving multiple “stand down” orders from “Bob,” the CIA Chief of Base in Benghazi, who delayed their possible rescue of Ambassador Chris Stevens, Information Officer Sean Smith and other staff by about a half an hour. The team members say they ultimately defied orders and rushed to the compound anyway to enact a rescue of the State Department personnel, and contend that Ambassador Stevens and Smith might still be alive if they had been allowed to go sooner.

“The accusation that the station chief, referred to in the book only as ‘Bob,’ held back the rescue opens a new front in a fierce political battle over who is at fault for the American deaths,” writes David Kirkpatrick for The New York Times. Note that Kirkpatrick calls this an accusation, although it is an account given by eyewitnesses. (“Bob” has not yet spoken to the press, and maybe never will.) Kirkpatrick is well known for his article last year claiming that al Qaeda wasn’t involved in the September 11, 2012 attacks. But at least the Times is reporting on the contents of this new blockbuster account of what happened that night in Benghazi. It will be interesting to see how the rest of the media deal with this.

Part of the story told by the Annex Team in their upcoming book has been reported in the past, but it serves as a confirmation of those reports. Jennifer Griffin reported for Fox News in October 2012 that sources on the ground in Libya that night said that the CIA told its Annex Team to “stand down” multiple times before allowing them to proceed to the U.S. Special Mission and attempt a rescue. (The CIA responded with a denial). But the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence found that there was “no evidence of intentional delay or obstruction by the Chief of Base or any other party.” But there was a delay, and several questions about it remain.

Did the delay result from numerous stand-down orders, as Griffin and the Annex Team have said? Why do official reports differ from eyewitness accounts? And if there was a delay, why? Americans should demand to know whether Ambassador Chris Stevens’ and Sean Smith’s lives could have been saved by a quicker Annex response.

Supporters on the left claim that there has been no cover-up, but key questions about Benghazi have not been answered. Among them:

  • Why were so many personnel who were involved in, or have access to information regarding the events that took place in Benghazi required to sign non-disclosure agreements?
  • Why did the intelligence community’s Washington, D.C.-based reports outweigh testimony from those on the ground in the initial analysis of what had occurred?
  • What was the origin of the story that the attack in Benghazi was sparked by a spontaneous demonstration related to a video about Muhammad on YouTube?

As for the failure to deploy assets, the recent release of the House Armed Services Committee (HASC) transcripts reveals that General Carter Ham, then-head of AFRICOM, was able to arm the second drone when it relieved the first outside the Annex, but chose not to because he saw the mission as reconnaissance, or “understanding,” not engagement. (There were two drones: one unarmed, diverted from Derna, Libya and another, unarmed, later sent from Sigonella, Italy to relieve the first.) “There was a capability to arm them at Sigonella” and he knew that, said General Ham. He later added, upon questioning, “The second one was preparing to fly, to take off, to relieve the first one on station.” The second, unarmed drone arrived before Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty, two former Navy SEALs who were working there as part of the CIA’s Global Response staff (GRS), were killed. The point being, had the second drone been armed, it might have saved their lives.

HASC transcripts from January also revealed that General Carter Ham had told Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Martin Dempsey and Defense Secretary Leon Panetta that the attack was an “attack”—meaning a planned, terrorist attack, not a “demonstration” that spun out of control—right before their pre-scheduled meeting that very evening in Washington with President Obama.

In addition, the new transcripts issued by the HASC bring up an interesting issue: in 2012, the air base at Aviano, Italy was apparently scheduled for a two-week inspection that ran through the September 11th anniversary. “September 11, our aircraft were—we were kind of in the admin phase of the inspection, and all of our aircraft were in a true training configuration because we had to start from that cold start,” said Brigadier General Scott Zobrist in his March 12, 2014 interview. “The wing was going back to a normal training posture, and the best that I can recall is that we had no jets on any kind of alert status or anything like that.” Such a lack of readiness on a critical date—the anniversary of 9/11—strikes many as a dereliction of duty.

As we, the Citizens’ Commission on Benghazi, have documented in our Interim Report and additional documents, there are even larger issues here that need to be investigated. Most notably, we point out that the war in Libya was unnecessary—a war of choice—since Muammar Qaddafi had expressed his willingness to abdicate as the war was about to get underway. And the real heart of the matter is that the U.S., under President Obama, has switched sides in the Global War on Terror, which might be better identified as the Global War on Jihadis.

Our readers, and all concerned Americans, should watch the Fox News documentary this weekend (it will air multiple times, including primetime each of the three nights), because it will represent the views of fellow contract operators, the Annex Security Team, who were on the ground with their brothers-in-arms. Was there a stand-down order? They say there were multiple stand down orders. Was there a dereliction of duty that day by the President, then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, or top military officials? We’ll see this weekend what else these eyewitnesses have to say about it. The first airing is Friday, September 5th at 10 p.m. ET on the Fox News Channel.


Holder’s DOJ Punishes Employer for Verifying Against Illegal Hires

By: Arlen Williams
Gulag Bound

Holder & Obama

Holder & Obama

Forgery of documents is rampant in the illegal immigration racket.

That is why an employer which truly cares about its business integrity and the virtues of our republic may be prone to request more than the minimum documentation from potential employees. For example, if an apparent residence and work authorization an employee produces has expired, it may ask for the new document. That could produce difficulty for an illegal alien working in the USA based upon a forgery.

The so entitled Department of Justice, under Eric Holder, has just succeeded in legally intimidating an employee attempting to engage such a standard of scrutiny.

And the reason for this may be that, as we have maintained since the beginning of the Obama administration, it is a false-flag saboteur at its very essence, with goals of “fundamentally transforming the United States of America,” in Obama’s own words.

Here is a key excerpt from the DOJ’s September 2nd press release, about their intimidation of Culinaire International, in the hospitality industry.

The Justice Department’s investigation found that Culinaire required lawful permanent resident employees to produce a new Permanent Resident Card when their prior card expired, even though the Form I-9 and E-Verify rules prohibit this practice. Lawful permanent residents have permanent work authorization in the United States, even after their permanent resident cards expire. The INA’s anti-discrimination provision prohibits employers from placing additional documentary burdens on work-authorized employees during the employment eligibility verification process based on their citizenship status.

“Employers cannot discriminate against workers by requiring them to produce more documents than necessary in the employment eligibility verification and reverification processes,” said Acting Assistant Attorney General Molly Moran for the Civil Rights Division. “The department applauds Culinaire’s willingness to resolve this matter expeditiously and its commitment to changing its past documentary practices.”

Clearly, as this regime has shown, the breakdown of borders and the illegal flooding of America must be carried out. A sovereign, free, and self-empowered United States of America as laid out in our Declaration of Independence rests squarely in the way of global governance in the interests of the cartel collective.

Hat tip: the fund raising email and article of conservative-daily.com