.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}
EIB Bumpersticker

Monday, September 12, 2005

 

UH Daily Cougar Columnist Hasan Rizvi 'Places Katrina disaster responsibility solely on the Feds' (LA City and State liberals get a free ride)

When the history of Hurricane Katrina is written liberals will try to spin it as a disaster that is placed squarely on the shoulders of the federal government and President George Bush. In reading columns like Hasan Ali Rizvi's today, we get that same exact feeling. Mayor Nagin is not mentioned for his faults, Governor Blanco is not mentioned for her faults, but all the faults of the disaster are projected to the federal government, as if they were the only one involved in the tragedy.

In his tripe today "FEMA's gaffes raise questions," Rizvi gives a history of the disaster, and in doing so completely skips over two levels of government and heads straight for the jugular in placing blame squarely on FEMA, the federal government, and President Bush.

Rizvi never tells us of the lack of leadership that led up to the FEMA portion of the disaster. We never learn how Mayor Nagin refused to order New Orleans transit and school buses to help those people who could not afford to leave town. Or how the Superdome was deemed a 'refuge of last resort,' and would not be supported by the state.

In fact Governor Blanco refused the Red Cross request when they begged to go to the Superdome in the first place, even before the levees broke. Rizvi does not tell us that those in the Superdome would not be supported by design of the Lousiana Department of Homeland Security. The children were expecting a ride, when the state government wanted them to walk out. Why wasn't this known beforehand? And don't be expecting Hasan to inform us.

Of course FEMA's response, nor its director Mike Brown, were perfect. That's why he's in Washington now and will be dealt with accordingly. Rizvi's highlighting of Brown's faults and not the faults of others is worthless.

FEMA is not the first responder in this case. The city takes their actions, the state takes their actions, then the federal government comes in -- WHEN ASKED by the governor of an effected state. The city and state dropped the ball just as bad as FEMA -- IF NOT WORSE, and this will be brought out in time.

Rizvi slaps the hand of liberals in this disaster, but as if under Islamic law he chops the hand off the "seemingly oblivious federal government" for their role in the disaster response.

Rizvi looks at Hurricane Katrina and sees the next al-Qaeda attack on a densely populated American city. Hasan is worried. He wonders "if our government is unable to at the very least drop supplies to a concentration of more than 20,000 people in one area, would they be able to, without warning, execute rescue operations on a much greater scale in an area where survivors are more thinly dispersed?"

Of course Rizvi says the answer is "no." Government is full of bureaucracy and Rizvi does not see this. Hell, if UPS or FedEx had got food into New Orleans the next day, Rizvi and the liberals would be complaining of something. See they don't have bureaucracy in private businesses.

Rizvi's tirade peaks when he states FEMA "was not only useless when our fellow Americans were suffering but actually served as an impediment to alleviating much of that suffering," which is completely worthless, and is part of a growing liberal conspiracy that completely gives a pass to all city and state officials. Hell, the federal response due to Katrina was faster than in many hurricanes, and all the liberals can do is complain.

As I mentioned before about Gov. Blanco and refusing the Red Cross to assist with those in the Superdome, Rizvi counters with the liberal blogger lead story "that FEMA officials refused help that victims could have really used. In one example of their incompetence, FEMA officials did not allow tanker trucks full of water from Wal-Mart to enter New Orleans." Of course controlled movements of materials, and the liberal Blanco wasn't allowing any help early on in the tragedy.

Hasan Ali Rizvi's childish blaming of the federal government for the entire disaster response is crazy. It is obvious that when everything is known, the liberals will be blamed. We have seen liberal example after example of attempts to spin the media and fool the public that Republicans are "bad," but they are so blinded by the 90s and the Clinton Adminstration that they can't see the forest for the trees.

The blame game of the liberals is not working, and the cries of "wolf" and the "sky is falling," are being repelled as if they were a pesky mosquito looking for a meal. One of the worst wolf callers and racists is Senator Mary Landrieu whose comments to Fox that Mayor Nagin "has a hard enough time getting his people to work on a sunny day" much less than when a hurricane is coming. Since 70% of New Orleans is Black, where is the liberal outrage on that. You know the libs would be calling for a Republicans head if comments like that were said.

Rizvi can go on till he's blue in the face heralding the faults of Mike Brown, FEMA, and the federal response. Big whoops. In the end it will be nothing more than a beedie cigarette compared the big fat cigar of Clintonian liberalism.

Screw the libs!

Comments:
With brown's resignation, do you believ that mayor nagin and gov blanco should resign.
 
http://www.lp.org/article_186.shtml

Disarming New Orleaneans



Bumper sticker wisdom, like literary cliché, often becomes overused because it is true.



Saying of the day: If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.



Yes, it's a cliché. But it's also very true (if simplistic) and it's currently nowhere more true than in New Orleans, Louisiana.



As if the atrocities committed upon that dingy city by Hurricane Katrina, government officials at all levels, and its own haywire citizens running amok following the hurricane weren't enough, the local police superintendent has now announced that no civilians in New Orleans will be allowed to carry firearms of any kind.



The only apparent exceptions to the official order are security guards who have been hired to protect businesses and other private property; a police spokesman said he is aware of the private guards but that the police have no plans to confiscate their weapons.



So apparently the only citizens who have the "right" to protect their own property with firepower are those who are financially flush enough to hire other people to wield the guns for them.



To a governmental mind, this policy must make sense: "People are committing crimes with guns, so we need to confiscate all the guns. Only by taking people's guns away will we be able to control gun crime."



What they ignore, of course, is the fact that those bent on committing crimes with guns are not likely to voluntarily quit carrying their firearms. Every crime that can be committed with a firearm or other weapon is already against the law. It would make much more sense if the New Orleans police -- and all other law enforcement organizations -- would concentrate on fighting existing crimes, enforcing the existing laws rather than creating new ones by outlawing gun possession.



In disarming people who have committed no crime -- and who own their firearms legally -- the police are creating new enemies and robbing themselves of valuable allies in the struggle against mayhem in New Orleans.



As a press release from the Gun Owners of America noted, there have been many reports of gun owners defending themselves against armed intruders and looters -- many of whom were released from local prisons by so-called public servants.



Using their constitutional right to own and bear arms, these people protected themselves rather than relying on a police force that was in disarray.



And how are they thanked by bureaucrats in the city of New Orleans? They find themselves vilified by a police state intent on criminalizing those who defend themselves. The police in New Orleans (as in many other American cities) have proven that they aren't capable of protecting the citizenry -- witness murders, rapes and various other violent crimes in the Superdome, which was set aside as an official safe area -- and they now want to ensure that the citizens aren't able to defend themselves, as well.



New Orleans' law-abiding citizens have suffered enough. They've been hit by mighty winds, by flooding caused when ill-maintained government-funded levees broke, by opportunistic looters who roam the streets looking for unprotected homes, and by a government that has turned away assistance from many sources.



That's not enough for the police: They want to strip Second Amendment rights from the city, to disarm the citizens and ensure that New Orleaneans aren't able to hold onto what little they still own.



And that's an outrage.
 
You're right SG. The answer is not resigned in taking arms from citizens.

I've always maintained an armed society is a polite society.

I look to the day when little old ladies are responsible for more young teen punk deaths than drugs or gangs.
 
Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link



<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?