When candidate Obama failed to place his hand over his heart at a 2007 rally as the National Anthem was played, while other Democrats did so, some thought it was a trivial omission. Others thought it was deeply significant. The latter were correct. Why should a “citizen of the world” honor his own nation more than he honors all other nations?

During the 2008 campaign, candidate Obama was asked whether he believes in American exceptionalism. He replied:

I believe in American exceptionalism, just as I suspect the Brits believe in British exceptionalism, and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism.

That is, America is exceptional only to the degree that all nations are exceptional. The word is deprived of any meaning. As Gilbert and Sullivan put it:

When everyone is somebody, then no-one’s anybody.

From these and other examples, I believe it is reasonable to conclude that although his is president of the United States, Barack Obama considers himself a “citizen of the world.” But what does this mean?

Citizens of the United States undertake the obligations of citizenship. They must support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign or domestic. They must support the current administration when they believe it to be correct, and oppose it when they believe it to be mistaken. If necessary, they must fight to defend their homeland, even at the risk of their lives.

But a “citizen of the world” needs to do nothing except breathe. I saw this as an easy, cheap, painless way to feel superior, smug, self-satisfied, and sanctimonious – the four Ss so dear to narcissists. So I believed that being a “citizen of the world” was an excuse to remain neutral in the struggles of humanity – to sit idly on the sidelines, while others risked everything to fight Nazis, communists, and now Islamist fanatics. But I was wrong.

Rather than being neutrals in the struggles of life, “citizens of the world” may become active participants – but on the wrong side. Consider the current strife over Ebola.

● The president stubbornly insists that we must not quarantine persons returning from Ebola-affected areas of West Africa. Why? Because this might dissuade health-care workers from going there to help.

This argument might hold water, but only if:

(1) We will offer no incentives, monetary or otherwise, to stimulate workers to volunteer. For example, we could set up a luxurious quarantine facility, and then pay the people confined there a handsome salary during their 21-day stay.

(2) The first priority of the government is to facilitate the care of people in foreign countries, but not to assure the safety of Americans. That is, the government is no longer the United States government, but merely the local branch of the world government.

But no one mentions these possibilities, as if the question of quarantine has only yes or no answers, with no nuances.

● The director of the CDC, Dr. Thomas Frieden, goes along with the president, but he is mainly an administrator. Dr. Anthony Fauci, head of the Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases at the NIH, knows what he is talking about. Yet he too goes along with the president in opposing quarantines.

● Dr. Craig Spencer returned to New York after treating Ebola patients in West Africa. Rather than imposing a 21-day quarantine on himself, he gallivanted all over the city, taking two subways to go bowling, then taking two subways back, then going to a restaurant, then returning home to his fiancée. To top things off, he reportedly lied to health officials, claiming he had stayed home – and thereby delayed contact-tracing at locations he had visited. And then he came down with Ebola.

● Nurse Kaci Hickox returned to New Jersey after treating Ebola patients in West Africa. Apparently she wanted to follow Dr. Spencer’s bad example, but was quarantined. Cowed by her pleas, and by President Obama’s intervention, Gov. Christie allowed her to return home to Maine, where she is living with her boyfriend. But she refuses to abide by the restrictions, and state police were dispatched to watch her. But a judge ruled against the quarantine. If another person contracts Ebola from the nurse, will the judge be held responsible? Are you joking?

In effect, Dr. Spencer actually did – and Nurse Hickox wants to – perform a deeply unethical experiment. It consists of exposing tens, and perhaps hundreds, of Americans – without their informed consent, as required by law – to a disease that is 60%-90% fatal, but for which there is no specific treatment or vaccine. This experiment would make Dr. Mengele proud. He wore a Nazi SS uniform, so we see him as evil. Spencer and Hickox wear scrubs, so the evil is less obvious, but it is no less real.

Spencer and Hickox are narcissists – “I volunteered for a dangerous assignment, so now I deserve to have fun, even if it’s at the expense of others.” But when narcissism endangers human lives, we call it sociopathy – and deal with it via the justice system.

Speaking of experiments, there is evidence that the Obama-sanctioned inrush of children and teenagers from Central America may have exacerbated the epidemic of enterovirus D68 that sickened thousands of American kids – and killed at least three and paralyzed at least 50. There was a known epidemic of that virus in Central America. Did you give your informed consent to transport these inadequately screened immigrants to all 50 states, perhaps near your kids? Do you approve of medical experiments done without the consent of the subjects?

Being a “citizen of the world” may not mean, “I am an American, but I also feel the suffering of people in other nations.” Instead, it may mean, “I feel the suffering of people in other nations more than I feel the suffering of Americans. And because my feelings are supreme, I will endanger the lives of Americans in order to heighten their awareness of Ebola, or to increase ‘diversity’ – or just because I want to.”

These people love “all the peoples of the Earth,” but not their own neighbors. They have empathy for Liberians, but not for Americans. Their empathy does not grow like a circle, encompassing more and more people. Instead, their empathy grows like a doughnut with a hole in its center. And we Americans are in that hole.

A leaked document reveals that the administration is considering bringing to America for treatment health-care workers and others who are suffering from Ebola, but who are citizens of other nations. In other words, the plan is to turn America into the world’s communicable-disease ward. I wonder what the two nurses who contracted Ebola from the Liberian patient in Dallas would think of this plan. It is “citizen of the world” gone mad.

There is a gigantic contradiction here. Liberals tell us that the American health-care system is “broken” and ranks 37th in the world, compared with Cuba at 39th. If this is true, why do wealthy foreigners come here for care, including the Shah of Iran, the King of Jordan, and Saudi princes? And if this is true, why bring Ebola victims here, instead of to the 36 nations with “better” health care? Liars need good memories, or they will contradict themselves.

I spent the first eight years of my life in Lisbon, North Dakota, a town of 2000 people. There were four physicians for the whole county. My father was the youngest and best-trained, so he was also the county health officer. I recall that in one of his desk drawers there was a stack of red “quarantine” posters. When a child came down with measles, or a person contracted another communicable disease, my father would drive out to their house in his 1940 Ford – through the snow if necessary – and tack one of the red posters on the door.

To the best of my knowledge, people followed regulations. Though they were mainly farmers who had never finished high school, they had common sense. If their child had measles, they did not want to spread it to her classmates.

They also had community spirit. Many of them were churchgoers, and they felt an obligation to their neighbors. Their neighbors would bring them necessities during the quarantine, and they did not want to repay such kindness by endangering their neighbors, especially the children.

Those people would have thought you were insane if you suggested that they were “citizens of the world.” Though some of them spoke with Swedish, Norwegian, or German accents, they knew they were citizens of the United States. They maintained an interest in the “old country,” especially if they had relatives there, but their loyalty was focused on their new country. So they did their best to obey its laws, especially the laws that furthered public health.

Governors and other officials who are now attempting to stop the spread of Ebola are not disrespecting science or the Constitution. On the contrary, they are respecting both, just as my father did when he tacked up one of those red posters. Only self-absorbed narcissists and “citizens of the world” can fail to understand this fundamental fact.

●

Contact: dstol@prodigy.net. You are welcome to publish or post these articles, provided that you cite the author and website.
www.stolinsky.com