Contrast Jindal to Governor Blanco's Refusal to Declare Emergency

In 2005 Louisiana governor Kathleen Blanco steadfastly refused to declare an emergency even days after Katrina devastated New Orleans.   Her reasoning was she did not want the Federal government "meddling" and wanted to run the preparation and then rescue as a state, fearing Federal help meant martial law.  This contrasted sharply to the governors of Misssissippi and Alabama who both declared emergencies before Katrina hit.  As confused as governor Blanco's thinking sounds, it's what the Washington Post reported and the reason that it seemed that the Bush administration was late in responding.  The truth is, they did not have the authority to go in and help.

Here is the story from the Washington Post, no friends of the Bush Administration:

Gov. Kathleen Blanco: No State of Emergency
NewsMax.com ^ | Sunday, Sept. 4, 2005 12:47 p.m. EDT

Posted on Sun Sep 4 13:18:30 2005 by one more state

Sunday, Sept. 4, 2005 12:47 p.m. EDT Gov. Kathleen Blanco: No State of Emergency

Though her state has been devastated by Hurricane Katrina and thousands are believed dead in New Orleans, Louisiana Gov. Kathleen Blanco has yet to declare a state of emergency and refuses to cede authority over rescue efforts to the federal government.

"Shortly before midnight Friday, the Bush administration sent her a proposed legal memorandum asking her to request a federal takeover of the evacuation of New Orleans," the Washington Post reported in Sunday editions.

Story Continues Below

Gov. Blanco's office rejected the request, the paper said - concerned that such a move would be comparable to a federal declaration of martial law. The Louisiana Democrat has also failed to declare a state of emergency - in marked contrast to Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour and Alabama Gov. Bob Riley, who both issued emergency declarations before Hurricane Katrina struck. State and federal officials also told the Post that Gov. Blanco did not reach out to a multi-state mutual aid compact for assistance until Wednesday - more than 24 hours after breaches in New Orleans levee system had flooded the city and killed thousands.

Is Government Spending "Investment" or Just Transfer of Wealth

Obama, in his now infamous "you didn't build that" speech set up the context for that remark with the statement,

 “But you know what, I’m not going to see us gut the investments that grow our economy to give tax breaks to me or Mr. Romney or folks who don’t need them"

This is just as bad as the Presidents idea that if you own a business, you didn't build your business.  That government did it.

Let's dissect Obama's fuzzy economic "investment" speak.

First of all, for a liberal//progressive "investment" is now the 1984 code word for taxes.  Obama could not very well say, "gut the taxes that grow our economy" but that is 100% precisely what he meant and there is no other possible meaning.

So in Orwellian double speak progressive liberals have changed "tax" to "investment" and the mainstream press allows this unchallenged.

This is the old liberal notion that somehow government taking from one person to give to another (while skimming off bureaucrats' cut) is some how not a tax but an "investment."  That somehow this will magically make the wheels of business turn and spur the economy if government confiscates one person's money they earn to give it to someone who did not earn it.

But it adds nothing to the economy.  It is literally like bailing water out of the left side of a boat to pour it into the right side of the same boat.  Those who earned the money would also have spent it on goods and services.  And because they actually had to work to earn it, they are apt to be more careful and reward only the better providers of goods and services who deserve their business.  They vote with their dollars every day.  That's how we get an iPhone and not a Nextel dumb phone.  But if you get "free" money from someone on a regular basis you are clearly less apt to be frugal with it.  Even worse, when the government "gives" you money (taken from other people) they want to control it.  They pick winners and losers usually based on pals in a certain industry (GE?) or pet notions such as solar power.

NBC Cool With Saying Niggerization When Desparately Playing Race Card

Democrats are the party of the double standard.  Let Touré say the N word (as a verb) and make wild racial stereotypes against whites and you only hear chuckling from the main stream press and no disclaimer from Obama.

Has anyone noticed that the only, and I mean the only ones injecting race into things are the left?

The real issue is Obama's total mishandling of the American economy, foreign relations and pretty much everything else.  It has nothing to do with his race and everything to do with his wacky ideas and incompetent performance as President.

Dems are desperate to try to change the topic to anything else.

Romney Ad Tells the Truth on Welfare Reform "Work" Waiver

On July 12, President Obama’s Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) released an official policy directive which allows the HHS to “waive compliance” with the work requirement for able-bodied people, ignoring the clear intent of Congress to protect welfare from abuse.

The federal work requirement for welfare recipients originates from bipartisan support in former President Bill Clinton’s 1996 welfare reform law. The work requirement of welfare recipients remains enormously popular; according to a Rasmussen poll released in July, 83 percent percent of Americans favor the requirement.

Specifically, in a memo dated July 12, 2012, The Director of the Obama Administrations HHS writes that they are willing to waive the,

“definitions of work activities and engagement, specified limitations, verification procedures, and the calculation of participation rates.”

The States need only say that the changes in the definition of work were “intended” to do the right thing:

“waivers relating to the work participation requirements that make changes intended to lead to more effective means of meeting the work goals of TANF.”

The Director states that after the changes then they will “evaluate” later whether it’s effective or not.  Of course since one of the waivers is over the way “calculations of participation rates” is defined we all know what this means. 

Chic-Fil-A Free Speech Muzzled Photo

Despite attempts to muzzle free speech in this country, record crowds voted with their wallet to appreciate Chic-Fil-A's CEO's support of traditional marriage and family values.

Obama in Context Still Means "You didn't build" that Business

The full context of Barak Obama's statement supports that his statement,"you didn't build that," indeed referred to the businesses he was decrying, not to mere "roads and bridges" as his later attempts to hide behind the "context" card would have us beleive.

See for yourself. Here is the entire transcript:

“But you know what, I’m not going to see us gut the investments that grow our economy to give tax breaks to me or Mr. Romney or folks who don’t need them. So I’m going to reduce the deficit in a balanced way. We’ve already made a trillion dollars’ worth of cuts. We can make another trillion or trillion-two, and what we then do is ask for the wealthy to pay a little bit more. (Applause.) And, by the way, we’ve tried that before — a guy named Bill Clinton did it. We created 23 million new jobs, turned a deficit into a surplus, and rich people did just fine. We created a lot of millionaires.

There are a lot of wealthy, successful Americans who agree with me — because they want to give something back. They know they didn’t — look, if you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own. You didn’t get there on your own. I’m always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something — there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there. (Applause.)

If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. 

If you’ve got a business — you didn’t build that.  Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn’t get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.

The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together.”

It's impossible to take "that" to mean roads and bridges.  First of all, he uses the singular "that," and not the plural "those," which he would have used had he been referring to "roads and bridges."  He would have said, "If you've got a business--you didn't build those.  Somebody else made those happen."

Secondly, in the previous two paragraphs he twice said that one's individual success is not by one's own effort.

Third, everyone knows that businesses and the "wealthy" pay far more in taxes which build those roads and bridges--so the lame attempt to rewrite his speech fails there too.

Context supports that Obama indeed meant that one has not build his own business.

This also fits with Elizabeth Warrens extended harangue to the same effect some months earlier where she said that you only built a successful business because the "government let" you use bridges and roads free of charge and that you sponged off of everyone else so now it's time to collect your fair share and you can "keep some" of the wealth you created.