RUSH: A couple of Ebola stories here. First from Sara Carter at TheBlaze.com. “US Border Patrol agents say an incident along the Texas-Mexico border Wednesday night is a clear warning that they are not prepared to deal with the threat of people infected with Ebola and other communicable diseases trying to cross into the United States.”

Now, I know none of you are surprised to hear this. I’m certainly not. What’s noteworthy here is that a story exists where the agents, the Border Patrol agents, are acknowledging it.

“Agents in the Rio Grande Valley border sector apprehended a man from the eastern African nation of Eritrea who was trying to cross illegally into the US. Agents told TheBlaze it isnÂ’t the first time theyÂ’ve apprehended someone from Africa or ‘special interest aliens’ — persons from nations with known terrorist ties — trying to cross the border. But in this case, the potential for disease, not terrorism, was their primary concern.”

Why isn’t a disease terrorism? I mean, if it’s purposely contracted and then purposely spread, you could call it terrorism.

“Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.) told TheBlaze itÂ’s another instance of the federal government ignoring the ongoing problems on the US-Mexico border. ‘Foreign nationals from all over the world know that the way to enter the US illegally is through the southern border. DHS’ own figures support that fact. But they wonÂ’t discuss those figures, because they show just how vulnerable the border truly is,’ Hunter said.”

So the solution to this is something no one dares speak out loud. The solution to this is closing the border. But now you’re back to the reality that you can’t do that because Obama wants to do amnesty. And by the way, that’s another thing donors are being assured of behind the scenes. All of these Democrat fundraisers, every one of them, every one of these big donor fundraisers, the donors are being assured that amnesty’s gonna happen. It’s gonna happen later in the year. It’s gonna happen after the midterms, probably after the Landrieu runoff, if there is one. Odds are there will be. They’re all being assured of this.

It’s one of these things that it’s so obvious. The more obvious something is, it seems the less it can be said out loud. Many of the problems the country has right now, and many that it will have, could be solved and prevented by securing our borders. It’s just common sense. But, oh, no, that’s bigotry. That’s mean-spiritedness. That is a denial of people in poverty and suffering. But until they are closed, until the borders are closed there isn’t gonna be any significant advance on immigration reform. People aren’t gonna stand for it.

You know, a border that’s like Swiss cheese lets ISIS fanatics, Ebola-infected East Africans or West Africans come in. And when you have border agents acknowledge they caught an East African man trying to sneak into the country, they’re scared. In light of the Ebola outbreak, the agents themselves, they don’t have hazmat gear, they’re not patrolling the borders in hazmat gear, and nobody can assure anybody that this thing does not get spread via airborne contact.

I found a story from about 15 years ago, 2000, New York Times, and its source was The Lancet. The Lancet is one of the most prestigious medical review journals out there. And this story said that there were several experts who thought that Ebola could be spread via the air. Now, that’s 15 years ago and there wasn’t a big outbreak at the time. It didn’t hardly get any notice. And because it’s 15 years ago, who knows what advances or discoveries have made since. That’s why I didn’t print it out, make a big deal of it because it’s 15 years, but there is a New York Times story.

Actually, it was the International Herald Tribune, which is the international version of the New York Times for cruise ships and hotels in Europe. They call it the International Herald Tribune. This is the New York Times reprinted under a different banner and with some localized European news. But it made it clear The Lancet was the source. A lot of people thought Ebola could be spread by virtue of the air, like other contagious viruses are.

And then from the Washington Post today by Joel Achenback, Lena Sun, and Brady Dennis. “The Ominous Math of the Ebola Epidemic — When the experts describe the Ebola disaster, they do so with numbers. The statistics include not just the obvious ones, such as caseloads, deaths and the rate of infection, but also the ones that describe the speed of the global response. Right now, the math still favors the virus.” Meaning caseloads, death, rate of infection vastly outpacing the speed of the response.

“Global health officials are looking closely at the ‘reproduction number,’ which estimates how many people, on average, will catch the virus from each person stricken.” They run those numbers and the analysts estimated it’s one-and-a-half to two people. One-and-a-half to two people on average will catch the virus from each person stricken. “The number of Ebola cases in West Africa has been doubling about every three weeks. There is little evidence so far that the epidemic is losing momentum.”

Now, one thing about Ebola — and I’m not a scientist. I’m gonna have a little bit of a problem explaining this in scientific terms. Ebola needs a host, and at some point Ebola does max out in the damage it can do on an entire population, because in a nonscientific expression, it’s very spread eventually kills itself by denying it hosts. However, that’s a huge number before you get there, but it can’t wipe out a nation and then switch to another nation. It has to migrant from living host to living host. So it does have a finite controllability to it. But the numbers at that point are still unacceptable in terms of deaths and serious illness.

And then the story here quotes the CDC director. “Frieden warned Thursday that without immediate, concerted, bold action, the Ebola virus could become a global calamity on the scale of HIV.” And then, they say, “The situation is worse than it was 12 days ago. ItÂ’s entrenched in the capitals. Seventy percent of the people [who become infected] are definitely dying from this disease.”

Seventy percent is the death rate worldwide. Before any of this started happening, the statistical expression of the death rate was anything from 50 to 90%. So the fact that the death rate in this outbreak is 70% falls within that range. Anyway, the point of this story is this thing is gonna start expanding exponentially. The geometric progression, one times two, two times two, four times four, eight times eight, it’s suddenly out of control.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Patrick in Woodinville, Washington. Great to have you on the program. Hello.

CALLER: Hi, Rush. Longtime listener, first-time caller.

RUSH: Great to have you here, sir.

CALLER: A couple days ago I was talking with a doctor who’s in a position to know, and he said that in West Africa they have about 90 days to contain the epidemic or it’s gonna go — well, it’s already gone — viral, to bleed out to the rest of the world.

RUSH: Ninety days —

CALLER: Ninety days or so.

RUSH: Yeah, but from when? ‘Cause this outbreak started back in February or March.

CALLER: I think he was talking 90 days from now.

RUSH: Ninety days from now. Frankly, that’s more time than I would have thought they would have, because you’ve got 7,500 cases now, and people are and have been trying to get out of these countries for a while. What’s he basing it on, people escaping and traveling outside the countries?

CALLER: Well, no, he’s basing it on how quickly the disease gets — well, first of all, transmitted. People get sick and then transmit, you mentioned that earlier. You know, how quickly the disease spreads.

RUSH: Right. So 90 days he said to contain it or else, Europe — well, you know, it’s interest, because there are some health authorities in the European Union who are saying the same thing. But they’re not saying 90 days; they’re saying 30 or 45 days, if they don’t do something, then Ebola is going to be in every Western European country. And that’s why you hear people continuing to talk about containing it in Africa.

This is what’s crazy. Even our own director at the CDC said, “Oh, yeah, you gotta contain it in Africa.” But then to do that is racist and unfair. So everybody that’s suggesting this ends up contradicting themselves in a way that that makes it, I don’t know, kind of odd and hard to follow and understand. But, Patrick, I appreciate it. Thanks very much.