Archive for January 15th, 2010

January 15, 2010

Obama’s Failure In Haiti?

by lewwaters

I must admit, I did not expect to see Barack Obama’s response to the tragic earthquake in Haiti heavily criticized by the lamestream media. After all, he was the “golden boy” all last year and through much of his first year.

But, ABC News ran an article today, “Haitians Wait Desperately for Relief That Hasn’t Come,” Helpless Victims Wait in the Streets as Aid Remains Unorganized and Slow doing just that with,

“We watched Friday as aircraft arrived nonstop, carrying massive amounts of food, water and U.S. military personnel along with it. Some 20,000 large water containers arrived today and 80,000 more are on the USS Carl Vinson off the coast of Haiti, along with 600,000 daily food rations which are continually flowing in. But all this effort and all these supplies moving does not mean Haitians are getting the large supplies of food and water that they need. Instead, most of the supplies are sitting idle at the airport. The widespread distribution of desperately needed supplies to Haiti’s earthquake victims won’t happen until tomorrow.”

MTV also asks, “Where Are Haiti Earthquake Relief Funds Going?” Millions in donations have been raised since the earthquake in Haiti on Tuesday, but where is the money going? says, “Anger Rising in Haiti Amid Slow Relief.”

The UK Telegraph headlines, “Haiti earthquake: anger turns to violence on the streets” with, “Anger turned to violence on the streets of Haiti as earthquake survivors lost their patience with the painfully slow process of getting international aid to those desperate for food, water and medical treatment.

USA Today claims, “Retired general: U.S. aid effort too slow” quoting retired Lt. Gen. Russel Honore, who coordinated military operations after disaster struck the U.S. Gulf Coast in 2005,

“The U.S. relief effort for Haiti started too slowly and cautiously. The next morning after the earthquake, as a military man of 37 years service, I assumed … there would be airplanes delivering aid, not troops, but aid. What we saw instead was discussion about, ‘Well we’ve got to send an assessment team in to see what the needs are.’ And anytime I hear that, my head turns red.”

I’m sure everyone recalls how this same media complained about and criticized every step made by President George W. Bush after the failure of the levies around New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina and as I recall, many leftists happily joined in condemning the President then.

While this would be an ideal time to turn the tables, I will not do so. With all due respect to Gen. Honore, delivering relief across an ocean is far different than driving into a town. There first must be people in place to accept, coordinate and distribute what aid the world is delivering.

Troops will be required to prevent looting or highjacking of the goods by gangs who would then sell or barter them to those in need.

Specialized Troops must be inserted to survey the airport, set up a tactical air control system and coordinate receiving donated goods, as well as working with whatever is left of the government of Haiti, which is not an American state, but a sovereign nation.

Otherwise it is an invasion and turns to chaos leaving no one helped.

I do not see Obama’s response any different than we saw from President Bush in 2005.

Both men followed proper procedure in overcoming insurmountable odds to get help into ravished areas as quickly and safely as possible.

I also see media hyperbole in criticizing another tragedy instead of helping. Sensationalism may sell papers and whip up BDS infected leftists, but it does not bring relief to those affected and injured in another natural disaster.

Perhaps a whole bunch of people owe the previous President an apology.

January 15, 2010

Supreme Court Will Hear R-71 Petition Case

by lewwaters

Just announced today, the United States Supreme Court will take the case filed over gay activists wanting the names, addresses and signatures of the 138,000 people in Washington State who signed the R-71 petition last year released to them so they may place the names on a searchable web site for the public.

At stake in this case is whether or not opposing sides may seek to intimidate or seek retribution against their fellow citizens for the support of any citizen initiatives in the future.

Most disturbing in this case is the desire of Washington’s Secretary of State, Sam Reed and Attorney General Rob McKenna to release those names, addresses and signatures to Gay activists.

R-71 was a citizen initiative to block enhancements to Washington States Domestic Partnership law in 2009 that failed statewide in the election. Almost as soon as the measure qualified for the ballot, Gay activist began their push to have the information on those who signed released so they could make it known publicly who opposed their agenda. This was covered at Traditional Marriage Foes Try To Intimidate Washington Voters.

Gay activists initially challenged R-71 in court over a claim of signatures being improperly accepted. When that failed to keep the initiative off of the ballot, the quest for the release of the signers’ information began.

Gay activist such as John Bisceglia were openly advocating “violence against property” of those who supported the R-71 initiative, but has since removed the calls for violence from his website.

In September, U.S. district judge Benjamin Settle ruled the information should not be released to the Gay Activists, followed by an appeal from AG McKenna.

Another federal court ordered the names and information released, but an appeal to the US Supreme Court resulted in an injunction being placed on releasing the information by Justice Anthony Kennedy while the Supreme Court considered whether or not to take the case.

While so-called scholars say the case could have broad implications for public disclosure laws, should the names and information be released, it could have broad implications on citizen involvement in government and petitions drives, regardless of what they may represent.

If this type of intimidation is allowed to stand and is approved by the courts, it is my opinion that citizens will shy away from involvement in almost any issue whether citizen input is needed out of fear of retribution by opposers.

Should the Supreme Court rule against those wishing to protect citizens who sign petitions, can the secret ballot being nullified be far behind, given the Unions and Democrats push for ‘Card Check?’