Home
 

Obama's Katrina: Compassion or Inaction?

By Rebekah Rast

President Obama’s commemoration of the fifth anniversary of Hurricane Katrina at Xavier University could have been used as a time to explain to the people of New Orleans that the federal government is not perfect.

As President Bush admitted delay within his initial response to Hurricane Katrina and worked three years to make it better, Obama used his speech delivered on August 29th, 2010, to highlight promise, good fortune and companionship with New Orleans until the state is completely rebuilt.

“I wanted to come here and tell the people of this city directly: My administration is going to stand with you — and fight alongside you — until the job is done. Until New Orleans is all the way back, all the way,” Obama said in his remarks.

Obama’s speech of compassion and dedication to the people of New Orleans raises questions for some. One such expert, Paul Conway, finds it difficult to take Obama at his word.

Conway served as federal coordinator and chief of staff to The Office of the Federal Coordinator for Gulf Coast Rebuilding. The Office of the Federal Coordinator was set up after Hurricane Katrina devastated Louisiana in 2005. Conway led the effort starting in April 2007 until April 2009. He was on the ground helping victims rebuild their lives after Katrina hit and stayed busy preparing the Gulf in case another disaster should strike. The office closed March 31st, 2010, only weeks before an oil rig exploded off the coast of Louisiana. An event many people label as Obama’s Katrina.

“Looking at incidences over the past 10 years, like the Sago mine disaster, September 11th, Katrina and the Katrina response, the job of the immediate crisis team around the President is to bring about the best resources and ideas of what should have been done,” Conway stated about Obama’s response to the Gulf oil spill in an interview with Americans for Limited Government (ALG) in June 2010. “It didn’t seem like there was any of this in the initial stage of crisis.”

What Conway saw was weeks of inaction on the part of federal government.

“The Gulf people are good people. There are hard-working people down there that are not going to believe that Obama went to work for them day one of the oil spill,” Conway said. “It is not good for the country when people step back and have to say, who is going to help us?”

Despite the events that took place during the Gulf cleanup, Obama stands by the way the federal government handled the crisis. “When I took office, I directed my Cabinet to redouble our efforts, to put an end to the turf wars between agencies, to cut the red tape and cut the bureaucracy. I wanted to make sure that the federal government was a partner — not an obstacle — to recovery here in the Gulf Coast,” Obama said.

The oil spill cleanup efforts seemed tied up in red tape at every turn. State officials of those states impacted didn’t get what they needed in a timely matter. “Unfortunately in the eyes of the American public, hard-working civil servants, federal employees, Army Corps of Engineers, FEMA and the Coast Guard looked ineffective because the federal leadership failed to use their knowledge in a crisis and that’s too bad because these people know how to respond,” Conway stated.

Bill Wilson, president of ALG, agrees, and adds, “Obama’s words delivered at Xavier University do not match his actions. His speech is filled with words of encouragement, compassion and action, but his true inaction during the Gulf oil crisis proves otherwise.”

Obama has admitted no wrongdoings in how he handled the Gulf spill crisis. BP was at fault for the oil rig explosion, and is covering the costs for the cleanup, but the federal government is responsible for its people and its response efforts to state leaders in the affected area. “It looks like we have a chief executive who cannot lead and cannot manage,” Conway said.

Near of the end of his speech Obama said, “And together, we are helping to make New Orleans a place that stands for what we can do in America—not just for what we can’t do. Ultimately, that must be the legacy of Katrina: not one of neglect, but of action; not one of indifference, but of empathy; not of abandonment, but of a community working together to meet shared challenges.”

It will be interesting to hear what is said five years from the Gulf oil spill disaster. Will those people of the Gulf who lost their jobs because of the drilling moratorium, those restaurant owners who are hurting to keep their businesses afloat because oil has devastated the food market or those fisherman who also lost jobs due to months of spewing oil be able to say that Obama’s Administration empathized with their losses, went to work day one and did all it could to save the Gulf?

If Obama’s current efforts to aid the Gulf are interpreted anything like his initial response to the oil disaster, then Obama may not need to prepare a speech of encouragement and compassion, instead one of humility, explanation and apology.

The Obama Administration has a chance to learn from mistakes made during Hurricane Katrina and the Gulf oil spill. It’s not a question of whether or not another disaster will strike America’s soil, but when.

Rebekah Rast is a contributing editor to Americans for Limited Government (ALG) News Bureau.

Obama's World versus Real World Report Released by ALG Foundation

By Rick Manning

Fairfax, Virginia-based, free enterprise education foundation, Americans for Limited Government (ALG) Foundation released a report titled “Obama’s World v. Real World” today to commemorate President Obama’s returning from what seemed like an endless summer of vacations.

The report features a cover photo of a golf-shirt clad President with putter in hand, kicking his cleated foot in the air in exuberance after apparently sinking a putt — or Obama is auditioning for a Karate Kid 2 remake.

The report itself is serious. Detailing date after date when the President or the First Lady were engaged in recreational, vacation or fundraising activities while at the same time, Americans were dying in combat, losing jobs and going into bankruptcy.

One example from the report shows that on June 5, 2009, in Obama’s world, the President and First Lady enjoyed a date night in Paris, France, and managed to snub the French President in the process. On that same day, the U.S. Department of Labor released data showing that 345,000 Americans lost their jobs the prior month and the unemployment rate jumped to 9.4 percent.

Bill Wilson, president of ALG explained, “This report shows just how out of touch the Obama’s are from the real problems facing the rest of America, and should be taken to heart when the President embarks on a compassion offensive in 2011.”

The report spans from February 11, 2009, when the Obama’s made a highly publicized visit to Ford’s Theater just a few days into his presidency to August 28, 2010, his most recent late-August family vacation to Martha’s Vineyard. The report also includes the First Lady’s controversial vacation to Spain, and the 27-hour Gulf of Mexico frolic in Panama City, Florida.
A few of the examples of recreational activities listed include the following.

On June 29, 2009, when on the same day that Obama had a reception for Lesbian, Gay, Bi-sexual and Transsexual Pride month, five American soldiers died in warzones.

On March 10, 2010, while the President was raising money for the Democrats in St. Louis, Missouri, the Treasury Department released budget data showing that our nation fell $220.9 billion more in debt.

On May 3, 2010, while Obama entertained the Business Council for dinner, the American Bankruptcy Institute released data showing that personal bankruptcies in April had increased 15 percent from the year before.

Wilson concluded, “This President seems to be more interested in lowering his handicap than with the damage that his policies have done to the American people. His callousness is in direct contrast to the economic pain that people are suffering.”

The full report can be read at Americans for Limited Government’s website - www.getliberty.org.

Rick Manning is the Director of Communications for Americans for Limited Government.

Way More Vacation

Other Views


Democrats: The Party of "O"

By Chris Slavens

Throughout 2010, Democrats have attempted to deceive the public with a number of mudslinging strategies, ranging from the feeble “blame Bush” tactic to the slightly more successful (but utterly despicable) ploy of race-baiting. Finally, they resorted to calling the minority party the “Party of No,” claiming that Republicans have no ideas of their own. Republicans have responded to these attacks with facts and figures, but who really wants to listen to those? Not the liberal media, that’s for sure.

The GOP can continue to refute the label “Party of No,” as it should, but conservative candidates must also make it clear that they are running against the “Party of O” — a fitting nickname for the Obama-worshipping Democrats of the day.

“O” can refer to a number of things, most obviously the president himself. Various polls indicate that the majority of Americans are consistently opposed to Obama’s agenda, yet Democrats have gone far out of their way — risking their seats to mid-term challengers in many cases — to make his Marxist vision for the United States a reality.

Conservatives should tie each and every Democrat to the party’s chosen deity, Barack Hussein Obama, who is on his way to being the most unpopular leader in the history of Western democracy. In the ongoing battle of liberty versus tyranny, there is no neutral territory. Lawmakers stand either with us — the American people — or with the Obama administration.

In the past, the Democratic Party was said to have a large tent, because it tolerated a wide range of viewpoints with the goal of representing blue-collar voters. The South produced conservative Democrats that would put wishy-washy moderates like Michael Castle (R-DE) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC) to shame. No longer.

Time and time again, Democrats thought to be conservative have showed their true colors (various hues of yellow, mostly) and bent under pressure from Pelosi and Reid, who have taken upon themselves the task of legislating the president’s radical agenda. Years ago, Democrats would have resisted the demands that are handed down from these shady characters. But not today. Not the lock-step “Party of O.”

Democrats at the state and local levels are just as guilty. A number of states are in the process of nullifying ObamaCare, as every state should. Other states, controlled by Democrats, have refused to stand up for their own citizens’ constitutional rights. These accomplices — spineless members of the “Party of O” — must be removed from office along with their federal chums if there is to be a chance of restoring constitutional government.

There are good Democrats, to be sure, but if they aren’t alert enough to recognize that their party is in the hands of anti-American radicals, then government is not the place for them. At this point, simply having a “D” after one’s name contributes to the oft-misused power of the Obama regime, and the country’s downward spiral.

The letter “O” is also suggestive of zero — the number of real jobs (private sector jobs, that is) that Democratic policies have created. More likely, it’s a negative number. Hiring census takers and additional IRS agents (as if there weren’t enough already) might help to offset the unemployment rate, but it’s not particularly helpful to the employed among us who are paying for these unneeded positions.

If all goes well, and the American people clean house in Washington, as it seems they will, “O” is the shape that many Democrats’ mouths will form as they clean out their offices and head home to reality.

Chris Slavens, former contributor to the Wilmington News Journal, is a Liberty Features Syndicated writer.

Video: Reagan vs. Obama

ALG Editor’s Note: In the following featured video by Americans for Limited Government’s Andrius Vaitekunas, the ideological polar opposites, Ronald Reagan and Barack Obama, square off on the issue of government-run health care:


 

ALG in the News: Earth to NASA

ALG in the News: Earth to NASA

ALG Editor’s Note: Over the weekend, on FOX News Watch, Americans for Limited Government’s own William Warren had one of his cartoons featured in a segment analyzing media coverage of NASA’s new mission to reach out to the Muslim world:

Still More Popular


Obama administration contradictions go on for miles

By Adam Bitely

With all eyes on the Blagojevich trial, some hard truths and contradictions are coming to light. The Obama administration, already jolted by claims of corruption in their involvement in Democrat party primaries, is now facing new questions on Obama’s role in Balgojevich’s Senate seat pick.

According to a memo released on December 23, 2008 by President-Elect’s Counsel-Designate Greg Craig, Obama never took an active role in the Illinois Senate seat appointment. However, sworn testimony from SEIU official Tom Balanoff says otherwise.

According to Balanoff, who received a phone call from Obama on the eve of the 2008 election:

"Tom, i want to talk to you with regard to the Senate seat," Obama told him.
Balanoff said Obama said he had two criteria: someone who was good for the citizens of Illinois and could be elected in 2010.

Obama said he wasn't publicly coming out in support of anyone but he believed Valerie Jarrett would fit the bill.

"I would much prefer she (remain in the White House) but she does want to be Senator and she does meet those two criteria," Balanoff said Obama told him. "I said: 'thank you, I'm going to reach out to Gov. Blagojevich."

Clearly someone isn’t telling the truth. And with the pattern of events around the Sestak and Romanoff scandal, it would appear to be the White House.

We have seen this pattern before. The White House has proven that when it comes to electioneering, it holds nothing back. Why wouldn’t Obama be involved in the appointment of the next Senator to his old Senate seat? It would seem natural that he would have an interest.

Further, in the wake of the Sestak and Romanoff scandals, we now know that this White House plays in every election it can get its hands on. And, when asked of their involvement, they stonewall. Robert Gibbs has gotten pretty good at avoiding the tough questions of the Administrations roles in these elections, amongst other things.

But here is what we all know. Blagojevich was attempting to sell the seat in Illinois. We know that Obama has denied having any role in the future of his former seat. And we now know that Obama may have been lying about his uninvolvement. After all, what does Tom Balanoff have to gain by lying under oath about a phone call from Obama?

While it is important that people remain innocent until proven guilty, an Administration that is stonewalling on important questions that require serious answers does nothing but give off the appearance of guilt. It would behoove Obama and his staff to come clean and prove his role in the Blagojevich affair. After all, if Obama wants the trust of the nation, he should be up front with his actions.

Adam Bitely is the Editor-in-Chief of NetRightDaily.com.

At Least He's Consistent
 
© 2008 GETLIBERTY.ORG, AMERICANS FOR LIMITED GOVERNMENT