Under direction and guidance from the White House, the Department of Homeland Security has implemented new screenings for Ebola symptoms at airports in the United States. Many details about new procedures haven't been provided, but we do know officials will be taking temperatures of incoming passengers in an effort to stop the spread of the disease.
"These additional screening measures will involve personnel from Customs and Border Protection, from the Coast Guard and CDC officials will also be on hand if a response is necessary so this is going to be an inter-agency effort," he said.
Earnest said he didn't have any specifics about who will be taking the temperatures of incoming passengers or what will happen to those people if they do have temperatures. When asked about why new procedures have been implemented at this time, Earnest said that although the White House is confident old procedures have worked to stop an outbreak, extra caution is being taken.
"We continue to have lot of confidence in the screening measures that have been in place for some time and the performance of those screening measures is evident based on the success that we've had in preventing an outbreak here in the United States. Again, because of the screening measures in place, because of our medical infrastructure that we have in place, we think that the risk of an outbreak here in the United States is exceedingly low," Earnest said. "We do believe the screening measures that we have put in place have been effective in protecting the American public. In this case after some thought and evaluation of the systems we do have in place, our security professionals determined that there were additional steps that we could take to further strengthen the safety of the American public without causing a significant disruption to the broader traveling public."
Information about what is being done to protect officials taking temperatures and fellow passengers who may have come into contact with infected people during flights hasn't been provided. Details about protecting medical personnel and those working on screening at the airports have not been released.
The man with the first case of Ebola in the United States, who died earlier today, didn't have a temperature or other symptoms of Ebola when he left Liberia and landed in Dallas.
Earnest said he isn't aware of any new requests to Congress for funds to set up these extra screenings at airports.
And not just 2016, either. He’s apparently also ruled out running for his old job in Utah (via Politico):
“I can’t describe a pathway through the early primary states up to Super Tuesday, and if you can’t find that pathway or describe what that pathway is, then you had [better] not be in the race,” Huntsman said in an exclusive interview for POLITICO’s “Lessons from Leaders” series.
Huntsman also dismissed any future run for state office. “I’ve been governor, elected twice as governor, but when you get elected with about 80 percent of the vote, if you try to do that over again, you’re never going to be as good as the first time around. I think its fool-hearted to try,” he said.
Perhaps this is for the best.
If he can’t articulate to himself how he’d clinch the GOP presidential nomination (after all, he’s already been down this road before and flamed out early), why on earth would he run again? A generous estimate would place his chances of getting the nod in 2016 at about … 0 percent. So while no-shot politicians oftentimes run for president (for financial and commercial gain, networking purposes, or to stroke their own egos), Huntsman’s decision to sit this one out is actually quite commendable since he freely admits he has no chance of winning.
This isn’t to say, however, that Huntsman is retiring from public life or staying out of the spotlight. On the contrary, Politico notes that Huntsman is currently “serving as co-chairman of the bipartisan No Labels group that is striving to make Washington more functional.” Presumably, then, this will keep him busy as he focuses his attention on reforming Washington and bridging the partisan divide on Capitol Hill.
This is worthy undertaking. And of course, one that better suits his skills and experiences than running for a political office he will never win.
Here’s one big hurdle: The site still won’t have any tools to allow consumers to see which doctors and hospitals are covered by individual insurance plans. Mr. Counihan told Mr. Wayne that HealthCare.gov would not change to allow consumers to comparison shop on insurance plan networks. Plans that limit patients’ choices of doctors and hospitals have turned out to be the signature product of the Affordable Care Act marketplaces. That may be a welcome development for cost-conscious consumers, but only if they know what they’re buying.
If there was one takeaway from last night’s debate, it’s that North Carolina voters know that Sen. Kay Hagan missed an Armed Services hearing to attend a fundraiser. Yet, the incumbent Democratic senator told the press that her Republican opponent, Thom Tillis, also faced similar controversy; the only problem is that the North Carolina state legislature isn’t fighting ISIS.
There was one and what had happened at that hearing, it was scheduled early in the day, and then votes were scheduled, and that hearing then had to be postponed later that day, so yes, I did miss that one, but you know what? Speaker Tillis' hometown newspaper called on him to resign, because he missed so many days in the legislature because he was out fundraising.
This allegation was made towards the end of last month, with the Hagan campaign refusing to answer questions about whether she skipped a classified February hearing on ISIS to attend a fundraiser in New York.
Today, Hagan responded with this ad pushing back against such allegations.
This admission will surely make its way into attack ads as the 2014 cycle comes to a close–and it should.
With President Obama’s approval rating in the tank, what does that mean for a senator who has voted with him 99 percent of the time?
During the Denver Post debate Tuesday night, Republican challenger Cory Gardner slammed Sen. Mark Udall (D-CO) for his association with the president and the broken promises that followed in suit.
“Three primary promises were made when Obamacare passed," Gardner explained.
"The first promise that was made was that ‘if you like your health care plan you can keep it.’ Senator Udall broke his promise. The second promise: ‘if you liked your doctor, you could keep your doctor.’ Senator Udall broke his word. The third promise: ‘this will lower the cost of healthcare,’ that was the third promise. Senator Udall broke his word. And in fact, at a debate just yesterday he said it will still increase.”
Sen. Udall claimed in a 2008 Senate debate that he was “not for a government run-solution” for healthcare reform. Despite this, Udall voted in support of the Affordable Care Act.
“We did just what I suggested we should do, which is put people in charge of their health insurance,” Udall said Tuesday in his defense.
“That’s what the Affordable Care Act does. Insurance companies were running our system, we had a broken system. If you were a woman, you were charged more. If you or someone in your family had a pre-existing condition good luck getting the coverage you needed. If someone got sick in your family your rates could be jacked up or you could literally be dropped off your policy. The system was flat-out broke.”
Udall claimed that Obamacare puts people back in charge of their insurance. Gardner contested the idea as he himself received a letter saying his family’s plan was canceled.
“We were one of the 340,000 people who Senator Udall broke his promise to,” Gardner claimed.
“The promise that if we liked our health care plan, we could keep it. We chose a plan that we could afford. A plan that best fit our needs. As did 340,000 other Coloradans.”
While Senator Udall claimed that "in Colorado we work together," Gardner pointed out that Obamacare was passed on partisan lines and not a single Republican voted for it.
“Senator Udall promised that [Coloradans] could keep their health care plan if they liked it,” Gardner stated, “He didn’t say ‘if I like your plan, you can keep it.’ But that is exactly what happened.”
Just remember that 99 percent of the time, Udall has Obama's back.
Sparring with Bill O’Reilly on cable television is one way to promote your new book -- but it’s not always the most fun. For example, watch in the interview below as the veteran television host cross-examines his guest for 12 straight minutes.
Panetta was asked (among other things) about his former boss’ incoherent foreign policy; his failure to leave a residual ground force presence in Iraq (which O’Reilly described as a “colossal blunder”); his tendency to blame the intelligence community for his own failures; and his utter surprise at the expansion and growth of ISIS.
For his part, Panetta didn’t go as far as to publicly disavow the man he once worked for but he didn't give him a resounding endorsement, either:
One gets the impression that Panetta wanted to criticize the president for his “mistakes” and “mixed" messaging, but for whatever reason never took the bait. For instance, when O'Reilly asserted that the president doesn’t have the "stomach” to fight ISIS, Panetta disagreed.
“I’m a guy who believes that Barack Obama -- by virtue of what I’ve seen in the time I was there -- has the guts to do the right thing,” he said. “The real question is will he make the decision to do it.”
Panetta argued that the president now finally understands the ISIS threat -- although he needs to do a much better job explaining to the public his policies and why destroying ISIS will “take time.”I'll leave you with this: Charles Krauthammer calling the interview you just watched "utterly devastating" for the commander-in-chief. Take a look:
We've seen some shameful and misleading ads this election cycle, but has the pro-abortion organization NARAL crossed the line? In an ad buy that cost over five figures, the group's new video in North Carolina criticizes the pro-life group Susan B. Anthony List for endorsing Republican Thom Tillis and his anti-abortion agenda. That's the predictable part.
What is shocking, however, is an image the NARAL ad uses at the end of the video for comparison: a man sexually molesting a woman.
Watch the ad if you don't believe me:
Talk to any liberal and he'll eagerly tell you about how awful Republicans use gobs of outside money to buy elections -- and that they spend a lot of that dirty cash to run gutter campaigns, featuring relentlessly negative, fear-mongering attack ads. As we reported in late September, though, Democrats are once again massively outspending the GOP this cycle, including among those deep-pocketed 'outside groups' they pretend to hate. The New York Times follows up with additional details:
With the battle for the Senate tilting toward Republicans and President Obama’s approval ratings hovering near his all-time low, Democrats are more reliant than they have ever been on the very kind of big-money groups they have spent years trying to outlaw. They are countering the Republican Party’s expansive and formidable outside spending network this fall with a smaller but more tightly knit alliance of groups that share donors, closely coordinate their advertising and hit harder than their conservative counterparts. To hold the Senate, the Democratic outside spending network is working hand in hand with — and is funded by — the party’s traditional ideological allies, including abortion rights organizations, environmentalists and labor unions. They have overlapping board memberships, use the same voter data and even share advertising content. Most of their on-air money is being spent through a small cluster of “super PACs,” which can explicitly advocate the election or defeat of specific candidates.
The race for control of the Senate in this year’s election is big, expensive, important—and negative. And the most negative so far are those with the most to lose...Democratic groups, fighting to defend more Senate seats and keep control of the chamber, have been more negative than their Republican counterparts, that independent analysis shows... In that early September period, for example, 70.5% of ads run on behalf of Democrats from all sources were rated as negative, while 39.3% of those run on behalf of Republicans were negative. Among outside groups, 91.4% of ads backing Democrats were negative, while the figure was 77.9% among groups backing Republicans. Similarly, in the period between Sept. 12 and Sept. 25, the Wesleyan analysis found that just under 40% of negative ads aired directly by Democratic candidates themselves attacked the personal characteristics of their Republican opponents, while all negative campaign ads from Republicans focused on policy fights.
Really stupid lack of negative ads from the right. https://t.co/mIUUQgUD3V— Phil Kerpen (@kerpen) October 7, 2014
It pays to be prepared for injuries in the field. Bob Owens, editor of BearingArms.com, reports for Townhall Magazine.
Most of the better shooters I know dedicate a lot of time, money, and energy to increasing their level of skill with firearms. They try to go to the range at least once a month, and most take part in dry-fire practice, form practice without live ammunition, at least once a week. Some spend their vacation time in shooting schools, and take part in competitions.
In short, they spend a lot of time learning to make holes where they want them to appear.
Relatively few, however, have taken much interest in learning how to treat the various sorts of injuries that can result from spending time around firearms.
I’d like to see that change.
While it may be surprising to some, the overwhelming majority of shooting-related injuries have very little to do with people being shot.
Minor burns, lacerations, and fingertip slices or crushes are commonplace. During the summer, heat injuries and dehydration from a long day afield or at the range can quickly take their toll.
Hunters fall out of stands with predictable regularity during deer seasons in every state, and hunters using knives slick with blood all too often slip and slice themselves while butchering.
Some unfortunate souls also have a tendency to irritate the wrong wildlife and end up stung or bitten, or happen to find every thorn, snag, or rusting strand of barbed wire.
Other firearms-related incidents can be far more traumatic, such as when there are firearm and ammunition failures while shooting.
Over the past few years I’ve been privy to the details of a few “kabooms,” which are the catastrophic detonations of firearms. Several were attributed to the wrong kind of ammunition being loaded in the wrong gun, such as two instances where 6.5mm cartridges loaded in 5.56mm rifles detonated when the trigger was pulled. The shooters in these instances were incredibly lucky, with the blast being directed down the magazine well away from the shooters. The detonations destroyed the rifles, but the shooters only suffered minor shrapnel and burn injuries, and perhaps needed new underwear.
In another instance, old and possible overcharged ammunition blew the bolt out of a Russian submachine gun a friend was firing, blasting the shooter’s hand and arm with burning powder and shards of the cartridge case that had to be removed with tweezers.
Some people simply take to the field when they are out of shape and over-exert their hearts, and a number of people die of these “natural causes” while hunting or sport shooting every year.
Solid first aid training and CPR training, like that provided by the Red Cross or other organizations, can handle many of these kinds of shooting sport-related injuries.
Unfortunately, there are more serious injuries that occur while around firearms that need more specialized treatment. There are catastrophic weapon failures, the rare accidental shooting of oneself or another, and even the intentional shooting of an adversary in a self-defense scenario.
These sorts of injuries are of course far more traumatic than the basic first aid kit can handle. They require a specialized kit, called either a “blowout kit” or an IFAK, which is based on the military’s Individual First Aid Kits used by soldiers to render self-aid in combat conditions until a medic can arrive.
It gives the people who make holes in things the ability to also patch up those holes.
Instead of the fingertip bandages, analgesics, and ointments common in a first aid kit, IFAKs are stocked with scissors to cut away clothing from wound areas, dressings and bandages (often impregnated with blood-clotting agents) to control hemorrhaging, a nasopharyngeal airway tube (to keep air going to the lungs), chest seals to put over punctured lungs, an eye shield, sterile disposable gloves and, I’m not kidding, duct tape. Oftentimes these kits are also augmented by tourniquets to stop excessive bleeding to the extremities (and yes, some even include instructions to not apply them to the head or neck).
IFAKs can typically be had for $50-$200 depending on a kit’s specific content, but the fact remains that without training, the contents of the kits are all but worthless.
There are a number of companies teaching these “tactical medicine” classes, and they’re easy enough to find online or through some shooting schools.
We spend a lot of time learning how to defend ourselves, and our families, with firearms, acting as our own police officers.
It simply makes sense to also learn how to patch up wounds and be our own medics as well. •
The Federal Bureau of Investigation is seeking the public's help in identifying individuals who are planning to leave the United States in order to fight with the terror army ISIS overseas.
“We need the public's assistance in identifying U.S. persons going to fight overseas with terrorist groups or who are returning home from fighting overseas,” FBI Counterterrorism Division Assistant Director Michael Steinbach said in a statement.
In particular, the FBI is looking for leads and help identifying an English speaking ISIS fighter featured in a recent propaganda video.
“We’re hoping that someone might recognize this individual and provide us with key pieces of information,” Steinbach said. “No piece of information is too small.”
In an interview with 60 Minutes last weekend, FBI Director James Comey said a dozen ISIS fighters have returned home to the United States after being overseas. Comey also said it is impossible to stop American ISIS fighters from returning to the U.S. on passports because their citizenship has not been revoked.
The FBI has set up a form to submit tips and leads at www.fbi.gov/ISILtips.