We didn’t even reach the evening news cycle, and the damn hole is not plugged yet…

Some on the right claim that President Obama’s response to the Oil Spill is just like President Bush’s Katrina response back in August of 2005.

The fact however is, the two instances are not the same.

Saturday morning, approximately 48 hours before Katrina passed next to New Orleans, Bush got a call from the then-LA Governor who asked Bush to declare a State of Emergency. Bush did so shortly thereafter, and in a published memorandum authorized the FEMA to coordinate efforts, and so on. But here at the spill, how long did it take for the LA governor to hear back from the Feds regarding barrier islands? WEEKS!

Sunday morning, a day before the New Orleans mess, Bush on the call of then-FEMA director Brown, contacted the LA Governor to demand a mandatory evacuation of New Orleans. Here at the spill, what did Obama demand beyond “Plug the Damn Hole” 30 days later?

Sunday midday, Bush held a video-conference out of his Texas ranch with all relevant agencies. When did Obama have his first Conference regarding this spill?

Katrina made fall near New Orleans Monday 6:00 AM. By 2:30 that day, a representative of FEMA had already assessed – In person – the situation at the Superdome. Here at the spill, when was the first time a civilian from NOAA or whatever crazy federal agency in charge of Spills, assessed the situation?

Back during Katrina, FEMA had only 2,600 employees, non/few of which are trained or equipped to rescue people from roof tops. That’s why, according to the rescue plan put in motion months before Katrina, the first 48-60 hours following any New Orleans disaster, it was to be in the hands of State/Local officials to do things on the ground while FEMA got contractors or whoever to takeover. But here at the spill, how many 48/60-hour periods later did a federal agency take lead of containing the spread of oil?

So my friends: the Left is correct that this spill is not a Katrina. Not even by a long-shot.

The article was posted earlier today at American Thinker.

• Only 16% of ALL voters think Health Care Reform will personally help them…

• Only 18% of ALL voters think their local economy is getting better…

• 20% Dems think National Economic Conditions are Very Bad…

• 28% Dems think Obama has brought no change to the country or perhaps made things worse…

• 53% Dems think Wall St. has too much influence the Obama Administration…

• 56% of Dems think AZ Immigration Laws are About Right/Didnt go Far Enough…

• 61% of ALL voters think this country is going in the Wrong Direction…

• 67% Dems have not even heard enough about Kagan to have an opinion about her, or are still undecided about it…

• 71% Dems think that Obama’s Economic Programs had NO Personal affect on them. Another five percent think it made things worse for them…

• 77% of ALL voters think HCR will have No Effect on them or perhaps Hurt them…

• 79% of ALL voters believe that National Economic Conditions are Fairly/Very Bad…

Dems are down deep, but… if Repubs do not get a grip on a good public message, they will not be able to cash-in fully these bad/weak Obama/Dem numbers.

I never paid too much attention to the Birther’s opinion, even after seeing recently a Video of Mrs. Obama referring to Barack Obama as a “Kenyan,” and another video where she says that she visited Obama’s  “home country in Kenya.”  However, two things may be interesting to know regarding Hawaii law:

1)      According to Hawaii law, “a person born in a foreign country who has been legally adopted in the State of Hawaii,” can apply and obtain a Birth Certificate. They only need a “certified copy of the adoption decree or the certificate of adoption, and payment of fees.” In other words, even if – let’s say – Barack Obama was born Kenya, he can still get a Birth paper from Hawaii, since he was adapted to his grandmother in… Hawaii. 

2)      The words atop the Hawaii paper that Obama’s people posted online, read “Certification of Live Birth.” According to the Hawaiian Home Lands website, a Certificate of Live birth is an “original birth certificate,” which “generally has more information” than say… a Certification of Life Birth, the one Obama made public. However, both are valid as Birth Certificates in the State of Hawaii. But again, even if you are born in Kenya, you can get a Certification, as long you were adopted in the State.

With this info at hand, it is up to you to decide where Obama was born.

Leave me out of it…

UPDATE: I just noticed that the text of this law was addressed in a World Net Daily column back in July of 2009. There is nothing new here. Now you see how not tuned-in I was to this Birthers.

At any rate, the WND papers reminded me of an anecdote: Two Newspapers in Hawaii placed a Mazel Tove for Obama’s parents or the birth of a son, which of course proves that Obama was born in the United States. If not, why would the papers have those announcements back in 1961?

Yeah, it’s a VERY good question. However, it is relevant to have in mind, that President Obama has eight half-siblings by four other marriages or relationships of his Parents. So go figure on your own which son was in the papers. In addition, as WND pointed-out back in July 2009, The Honolulu Star-Bulletin, for example, according to its website, reprints birth information it receives from Hawaii’s Department of Health, which includes Certifications of Birth that foreigners may obtain…

Again, you decide what you want on this issue. Leave me out of it!

Following is what I wrote, between others:

Although I never voted for a Dem on a state or national level, and although I contributed only to Republican causes, this time around things are different. Not only will I vote for Obama in the general election (if Hillary is NOT his running mate), I also already contributed 2 X $36.00 for his campaign! Moreover, I will continue to contribute in the future, if my bank account will permit it.

Why the sudden change? Because CHANGE is what Obama brought to this campaign. Here are some of them:

1)      He is young and energetic; not worn out like Senator McCain nor wrinkled like Senator Clinton. In addition, he is not from the old school politicians who live in some distant world. He is in Washington barely three years; he is one of “us.”

2)      Because he is young in national politics, he does not have many strong positions on the issues, which means, he will be open for new ideas. He will hear out two sides of an issue. His opponents, who are 20-25 years older than he is, are hardened into their way of thinking and will not budge even if they are going with their heads straight into a wall.

3)      Obama keeps positive. No matter how much former President Bill Clinton and Senator Clinton worked to drag Obama into mud, he kept outside of it; he did not play their game. Even more, most of his speeches are about him, not about why not to vote for his opponent. This I call real change in politics. 

I ask those in the Democrat Party, who have the power to give Obama the nomination, that they should do so. Next November, I want to pull the lever for Obama, especially if his running mate is a right-leaning Democrat. (Not Hillary! if she is the VP pick, then forget it).

25 years ago, it was about the Reagan-Democrats. This time around, it is the Obama-Republicans. I am one of them. No, I do not agree with Obama on the major issues. However, I appreciate the fact that he is a new type of politician: young, energetic, positive and open to new ideas. After having a Republican president spend crazy on domestic programs; introducing a new major entitlement program all with the support of a Republican-controlled Congress, I have no interest in voting Republican again just because “our” candidate has a R next to his name. He (McCain) needs to have more than that; he does not.

*

By the time November 2008 came around, I did not vote for Obama. His affiliation with radicals, and his “spreading the wealth” mentality, pushed me far away from him. Then of course, after giving us a $1.4 trillion deficit in 2009 and an unemployment rate 0f 10 percent, I conclude that the Republican congress was and is anytime better than is Pelosi.

The point here is, that if Presidents who made a real change in world peace didn’t get this thing, it is just a joke that Obama did receive it.

So it was. I didn’t listen to it, and I am sure I didn’t miss anything. The Left will probably say that this is “one of the best speeches.” Those on the Right will say otherwise. I am saying what I said in the morning: it makes NO difference on the ground. All what matters is America’s will to defeat the enemy once and for all. Anything beyond that is just political claptrap.

Much is being made of the words Obama will or will not use, i.e. if he will use the term “exit strategy,” etc. The fact however is that his speeches become more irrelevant by the day in the face of new facts. For example, does anyone, besides a few pundits, remember what the President did or didn’t say months ago in his Health Care speech to Congress? Does anyone remember what Obama said a week after the Ft. Hood Shootings?

The answer is no. More than most people do not remember. Instead, what counts and will count, are the successes on the ground. Therefore, listening to the speech might be a waste of time. Instead, I will continue to follow the news from Afghanistan. I hope that on this front, President Obama does not fail. However, I don’t have much confidence that his plan to add troops on a slow pace will do the job.

Do these people in places of power and news-making think that the American public is stupid? Does the President think that the name Hasan rings Irish to most Americans? Do reporters who spin this story away from Islam think that we, the public, believe that screaming Allah Achbar is some sort yell of joy by a Jew wining a lottery ticket? Do the spinners think that Americans can’t read facts, such as Hasan’s glorifying suicide bombers?

Wake up, Mr. President. You fooled us one time already with your change baloney. Give it up. Every American who has even just low brain voltage knows that the Ft. Hood attack was a gruesome act of Muslim terror, and the American people want you to call it as is.

Besides, if “the system” is that it is the president, and not his critics that divide the country, we should assume that President Obama is at fault for dividing the country following his unifying win of last year November. Don’t you agree?

You see, when Obama came onto the 2008 stage, a lot of people were excited for Him, including people on the right, and count me as one of them. Obama appeared as a fresh person with an open mind to political issues who is willing to work across party lines through giving up some of his own to the other side. I even donated $36 to the campaign (due to a computer mistake, the charge was 2X$36) and signed up to get e-mails from Him, but then, then His true colors came out (his radical associations, spreading the wealth mentality), and Obama lost me and millions others thus dividing the nation again along ideological lines.

Once coming into office, Obama got back the good will of a majority of voters, as reflected in opinion polls earlier this year. But then he took over huge firms (Bush bailed them out, but Obama took them over); dictating executive pay; increasing federal spending well-above the already-crazy Bush spending; apologizing for America worldwide; going soft on the Red Russians; and the list has barely started. With all this, it is no wonder that the Obama’s approval rating is down to the low-mid fifties, which means the country is divided again.

If Obama will continue down this route, He will indeed unite this nation – unite it against him.

The Dems are spending millions of dollars and are bringing in all the star power they got, from former President Clinton to Obama, and ended with VP Biden, to give the Dems a win in a Dem State. So even IF the Dems keep NJ, it will be done only after pulling all the capital in their book, a thing they cannot repeat in all important ’10 races.

Wining NJ only under the above circumstances in addition to a third party candidate that helps the Dems, will confirm the Democrats’ biggest fear: ’10 is a tough year for them, as of now. In other words, the Dems might as well not spend there so much capital just to have a nice 2010 cover story, because even with a win, the writing on the wall for 2010 is for everyone to see.

Let’s have a drink to celebrate.

But hold that one, because if you are currently uninsured, you still have a 50% chance of staying this way even if the Dem plan gets signed by Obama.

Here are the simple numbers…

The U.S. population is approximately 305 million people.

The number without health insurance is 47 million.

Of it, less than 37 million are actually legal in the U.S.

From another perspective it means: approximately 12% is not insured.

The Dem Plan covers only 94%, which means 6% will be left without coverage.

Total: if you are of the 12% without coverage you still have a 50% chance of staying without healthcare.

 Yeah… What a marvelous health plan.

You want more? The Dem plan for 94% coverage kicks in only in ’13. So my fellow 12% uninsured Americans: your 50% chance of getting insurance, has a 100% chance of waiting another 3-4 years.

Ok, so let’s give Medicare for everyone, as the recent plan is. In others, if the old plan is not good because it leaves to the dumps only 6% of the population, let’s go with Medicare and screw up the whole population.

Another note: Medicare is not free; it gets “officially” funded through 7.5% tax off of your weekly income. Plus, you still have premiums when you hit 65. So… if you think Free Health Care is coming your way, wash your face with cold water because you are day-dreaming.