The First Victim Of Swine Flu

OffHisMeds thought it noteworthy in the extreme that when President Obama was asked during his press conference last week whether there were any circumstances under which he would close the border with Mexico (Ground Zero) to control the Swine Flu outbreak, he infamously repeated Homeland Security Chief Janet Napolitano's line that this was not an option because "the horse is already out of the barn".

The underlying assumptions here are as astounding for their short-sightedness as for their cynical political origin. Obama was essentially telling the American people that preventing the flow of people to and from Mexico to prevent a Swine Flu outbreak wouldn't work because things were already as bad as they could possibly get. With this and other statements, Obama not only ruled out quarantine as an option now, he ruled it out forever. The application of simple common sense shows an Administration seriously out of touch with reality.

The lack of specifics to justify his decision was also disturbing. President Obama produced no numbers, and cited neither his experts nor historical precedent; nor was he asked any hard questions about the matter, particularly considering the sheer implausibility of "horse out of the barn" as a means of containing a prospective epidemic. Not only is this notion not a plausible policy when talking about the potential for controlling wide-spread disease, it is arguably the worst policy to pursue.

As I mentioned, not only were there no hard questions, there were no follow up questions, many of which cried out to be asked. Here's some OffHisMeds would have asked:

- If Mexico was found to have 10,000 cases of Swine Flu and the rest of the world only 200, would you still use the "horse out of the barn" analogy to justify not closing the border? Is there any level of infection in Mexico relative to the U.S. that would cause you to change your mind?

- Why not restrict traffic between Mexico and the U.S. for a matter of a week so as to gauge the extent and virulence of the infection? The effect on either economy would be minimal but the results would be almost instantly measurable.

- Why not screen people coming from Mexico for signs of illness? Japan did it on all flights into their country, as did numerous other nations. This involved a visual screening for signs of illness, including taking their temperature, and was accomplished in a matter of seconds. Were the Japanese wrong to screen all passengers coming into their country?

- If screening all people seeking entrance into the USA is impractical, why not selectively screen them based on visible symptoms, and groups with the highest likelihood of infection? Surely this would not be onerous.

- If closing the border with the nation that is Ground Zero for the disease is not an option, why is it acceptable to close schools and businesses all over America? Surely the "horse is already out of the barn" analogy is as applicable in these instances as it is to the border?

- Did the Fort Worth school district over-react when they closed down the entire district? Did they over-react when they screened all the reporters at the press conference, taking their temperature?

- Why not let trade goods continue to flow but restrict simply human traffic? The effect on commerce would be minimal, with only Tourism suffering, and then only for a short period of time. Let the goods come in, and test the truck drivers, train engineers, airfreighter pilots and other personnel transporting the goods.

- What is the opinion of your Administration - if any - on the likelihood of a greater spread of the disease as a result of your policies of an open border?

- What is the opinion of your Administration - if any - on the greater likelihood of mutation of the disease into a more virulent form due to the greater initial spread of the disease?

- Did France and other nations in the E.U. over-react in advocating for blocking air travel from Mexico? If not, don't their actions justify America shutting down the border? After all, on a daily basis, France would have blocked entry to mere hundreds - and arguably those less likely to have the flu since they were affluent (no pun intended) - whereas closing the border would block tens of thousands of potential disease-carriers, and arguably a demographic with a much higher likelihood of having contracted the illness.

- Did you take your VP, Joe "foot-in-Obama's-mouth" Biden out behind the woodshed for getting off-message? And if so, which of his specific admonitions did you take exception to? Was it Biden's claim that we should avoid air travel and public transportation? How does it make you feel to know that VP Biden was simply repeating the preventive steps being taken by Mexico?

- Since 911, Americans have been forced to endure a five to thirty minute delay every time they attempt to board an airplane - including the elderly, the infirm, children, pregnant women and even babies - so as to determine that they are not Terrorists. This is mostly because of Democrat paranoia of being accused of "racial profiling". Is it fair to so inconvenience your own citizens - the ones least likely to be carrying bombs or disease - but demand nothing of foreign nationals, the ones most likely to be carrying bombs or disease?

I'm not really expecting any of these questions to be asked. As in numerous past instances, our Ditherer-In-Chief, along with a Compliant Media, have portrayed his indecision and wrong-headedness as a virtue, and probing questions as a mere inconvenience to Received Truth. For example, his waffling on releasing our Special Forces to rescue the Captain of the freighter The Maersk arguably added at least three days to the rescue and compromised the likelihood of a successful outcome. After all, Piracy and Kidnapping ought to be fairly straightforward matters: rescue the hostages as quickly as possible. For the Obama Administration, though, it had to be viewed through the prism of policy implications.

Meanwhile, the jury is still out as to whether this disease will evolve into a pandemic. Several things that are not in dispute are:

a) The Obama Administration's policies were neither well thought-out, coherent or even explainable.

b) Politics and Political Correctness rule when it comes to preserving the health of Americans. America can be shut down responding to the crisis internally, but woe be unto us for causing even the slightest of inconvenience for the citizens of Mexico or other affected countries.

c) If there is no serious outbreak this summer, this will be trumpeted as a resounding victory for the head-in-the-sand Health policies of the Obama Administration.

d) If the Swine Flu mutates and causes a Pandemic this Fall and Winter, the Obama Administration will blame somebody other than themselves, and get away with it.

e) The Media will continue to flack for the Obama Administration to deflect any blame, and they will never connect the dots between the rank amateurism in play or its consequences.

Finally, any efforts to restrict border traffic in the face of Epidemics will be portrayed - now and forever - as repressive, nativist, racist and wrong-headed. Remember folks, the Obama Administration has just set the bar as low as it can possibly get. It's not like Mexico or any other nation attempting to preserve their cash-flow as they milk the American cow is going to let him forget that. The first victim of Swine Flu from a geopolitical perspective is American Sovereignty.

Am I detecting a pattern here?