Obama's Katrina
5/28/2010
Upon comparing the two events, one could only wish this was Obama’s Katrina and told him that back in April. If it were his Katrina, he would have prepared ahead of time for it and immediately moved this to his highest priority.
There are major differences between the two events. Perhaps the greatest difference is the fact that the BP incident was certainly 100% caused by (man) private industry, but the permit & licensing fees and enormous amount of taxes paid by companies in the off shore oil business are to be used , in part, by the federal government to minimize the impact of such disasters. While the media and the administration were wagging their fingers at BP, the federal government was supposed to be implementing the In-situ Burn Plan that has introduced by NOAA’s Oil Spill – Behavior, Response and Planning report back in 1997. Furthermore, as pointed out on the Mark Levin shown on May 24, 2010, the federal government and specifically the President is given the following three options in the Oil Pollution Act of 1990: 1) Perform cleanup immediately (“federalize” the spill) 2) Monitor the response efforts of the spiller 3) Direct the spiller’s cleanup activities.
Katrina, on the other hand, was mostly a natural disaster that was made worse by what man did not do to fortify the levees, which dates back to 1969, all the way up to the local government’s failure to make and carry out some key decisions immediately before and after the storm moved out of the area. Unlike the federal government’s complete and immediate authority involving oil spills, the federal government is not allowed to intervene in storm disasters (i.e. dispatch FEMA) until the state approves it. On top of that, New Orleans had been squandering the funds that were supposed to be used to fortify the levies for 30 years, they did a horrible job of evacuating the city and waited too long to authorize federal assistance. If you believe local government was not responsible for much of the outcome, just compare the prevention and recovery efforts in Louisiana to Alabama and Mississippi. Click HERE for a response timeline for both disasters (hit your browser's back button to return to the blog)
As you will see, Bush responded 100% faster, as he was able to take action before the disaster. He also arrived on the scene almost 250% faster and took responsibility for his shortcomings 230% faster than Obama took any responsibility for the federal government’s shortcomings. While it only took 72 hours for the media to begin blaming Bush, it took five weeks for Obama to face any criticism.
There is scant debate whether or not there is a liberal media bias, even among liberals. Unfortunately, the question many are now faced with is if this administration deliberately chose to politicize rather than federalize this spill. If the answer is no, we are left to wonder if they ever knew their own responsibility or were just unwilling or able to help with this crisis.
"H" is for....
5/21/2010
Tough Tea Party Talk
5/06/2010
You have to wonder how today’s media would have covered the Tea Party back in 1773. Perhaps a better question to ponder would be, how the Tea Partiers would have reacted to such hypothetical media coverage…
We are becoming increasingly more aware of what to expect from the left leaning media in our country. However, the contemptuous statements from some Democrat political figures, has become downright disgusting. Former President Clinton said, “ “legitimate” comparisons can be drawn between today’s grass roots anger and resentment toward the government and the right-wing extremism that bubbled up prior to the bombing of a federal building in Oklahoma City 15 years ago (while he was in office).” More recently, Mayor Bloomberg guessed the Islamic Extremist responsible for the attempted Times Square bombing was someone “that doesn’t like the health care bill or something”, in response to a question from Katie Couric. It was shocking that the ever insightful and probing Couric did not challenge that notion and suggest an actual terrorist! Perhaps, she was too busy wondering what magazines Bloomberg reads when he is not monitoring New Yorkers’ sodium intake levels?
The fact of the matter is that the modern Tea Party members can be considered terrorists…if you are a liberal politician. The Tea Party movement is certainly terrorizing both Democrats and liberal Republicans, as evidenced by the way the 2010 midterm elections are shaping up. The demand for politicians to follow our constitution has literally forced some to resign and others to change their party affiliation. This is precisely the goal of the movement. The fringe benefit has been the further exposing of just how desperate liberals have become.
Independents and moderate Democrats are no longer buying the formulaic Olinsky tactics the far left have been using for decades. For those not familiar, it is the simple method of creating villains and stirring up resentment between social classes. In this instance, you have a true grass roots movement of law-abiding citizens demanding their employees (elected politicians) obey the company policy manual (U.S. Constitution). Olinsky rules simply call for the Tea Party targets to attack the character of the Tea Party members. If it sounds like a third grade school yard approach to you, you’re absolutely right. However, this is fairly effective when 98% of the media uses the same liberal playbook, and a growing percentage of the electorate make voting decisions solely on eight-second media segments.
The Tea Party movement is aptly named, as it stands for lower taxes and it feels the federal government’s increasing power is intolerable. However, it may be most appropriate, as the name itself forces people to reflect on American history. As one patriot stated, “There is little that is more important for an American citizen to know than the history and traditions of his country and [it] is the means by which a nation establishes its sense of identity and purpose.” Which patriot said that… Rush Limbaugh….Sarah Palin….Glenn Beck…??? No, that would be President John F. Kennedy in an article he wrote in 1962, for American Heritage magazine, while in the White House. He also went on to say, “A knowledge of history is, above all, a means of responsibility – of responsibility to the past and of responsibility to the future … of responsibility to those who came before us and struggled and sacrificed to pass on to us our precious inheritance of freedom … and of responsibility to those who will come after us and to whom we must pass on that inheritance with what new strength and substance it is within our power to add.”
Considering JFK’s respect for American history, his support for tax cuts, not to mention pushing NASA to the moon, you wonder if today’s Democratic party would even be seen in public with their former Prince of America’s Royal Family. I’m afraid the feeling could be mutual. You never know, there might just be one more member of the Tea Party from Massachusetts to add authenticity, if he were alive today!