Posts Tagged ‘New York Times Op Ed’

Is Chuck Hagel Simply Ignorant? Or Worse?

by Humberto Fontova on Thursday, February 7th, 2013

This is article 81 of 118 in the topic Obama Appointments

“Elian is now where he belongs.” (Senator Chuck Hagel after Elian Gonzalez was shanghaied at U.S. gunpoint from his American family at Fidel Castro’s command and without a warrant.)

“To me,” wrote Hagel in a New York Times Op-Ed just after the armed raid on the Gonzalez family’s Miami home, “this case has always been fundamentally about a father-son relationship. … the point of the raid — to reunite Elián with his father when those housing him had repeatedly refused to hand him over….The boy is where he belongs.”

Why did this Republican Senator accept the word of a Stalinist dictator whose lifelong dream was to nuke Hagel’s homeland over that of the most loyal Republicans in modern U.S. history: (Americans of Cuban heritage)?

Some background:

During the dawn of April 22, 2000 on the orders of Janet Reno– acting on the orders of her Commander-in-Chief Bill Clinton, acting under the threat of blackmail by Stalinist dictator Fidel Castro—armed INS agents maced, kicked, and gun-butted their way into Lazaro Gonzalez’s Miami home, wrenched a bawling 6-year-old child from his American family at (genuine) assault weapon-point and bundled him off to Castro’s Stalinist fiefdom, leaving 102 people injured, some seriously.

Thanks to the ritual Media-Democratic-Castroite collusion most people forget (or missed) the crucial legal and ethical details of this circus/tragedy — which were mostly established during the first week after Elian’s rescue at sea, after his heroic mother’s drowning. The “son-belongs-with-his-father” crowd, for instance, “missed” that Elian’s father was initially delighted that his motherless son was in the U.S. and in the loving arms of his uncles and cousins.

The evidence — frantically buried by the Media-Democratic-Castroite complex — was overwhelming. Mauricio Vicent, a reporter for Madrid newspaper El Pais, wrote that during that first week he’d visited Elian’s home town of Cardenas and talked with Elian’s father, Juan Miguel, along with other family members and friends. All confirmed that Juan Miguel had always longed for his son Elian to flee to the United State. Shortly after Elian’s rescue, his father had even applied for a U.S. visa!

Elian’s Miami uncle, Lazaro, explained it repeatedly and best: “I always said I would turn over Elian to his father, when Juan Miguel would come here and claim him. But I (along with practically everyone with experience under communism from Cambodians to Hungarians and from Lithuanians to Cubans) knew such a thing was impossible. He couldn’t do that. I knew it wasn’t Juan Miguel requesting Elian– it was Fidel.”

The legal-weasels forgot (or missed) that on Dec, 1st 1999 the INS asserted that Miami-based uncle Lazaro was indeed Elian’s legal custodian and Florida’s family court indeed the place to arbitrate further issues .

Then on Dec 5th, 1999, Castro clapped his hands and his U.S. media minions along with the Clinton administration snapped to attention.

“Bill Clinton was terrified of Castro,” later explained Dick Morris. “Clinton looked over his shoulder for rafters the way Castro is always looking over his shoulder expecting an invasion of marines.”

The Mariel exodus of Cubans in 1980, you see, had cost Bill Clinton the only electoral loss of his life. Some of the Cuban criminals Castro sent over (a small portion of the refugees, actually) had been held in Fort Chafee Arkansas, as agreed by Governor Clinton acting on Jimmy Carters request.

Click to continue reading “Is Chuck Hagel Simply Ignorant? Or Worse?”
Go straight to Post

Obama Admin. to Issue Waivers From Federal Work Requirement in Welfare Program

by Doug Powers on Saturday, July 14th, 2012

This is article 30 of 53 in the topic Social Services/Welfare

nullIn 2006, Bill Clinton wrote this in a New York Times op-ed:

On Aug. 22, 1996, after vetoing two earlier versions, I signed welfare reform into law. At the time, I was widely criticized by liberals who thought the work requirements too harsh and conservatives who thought the work incentives too generous. Three members of my administration ultimately resigned in protest. Thankfully, a majority of both Democrats and Republicans voted for the bill because they thought we shouldn’t be satisfied with a system that had led to intergenerational dependency.

The last 10 years have shown that we did in fact end welfare as we knew it, creating a new beginning for millions of Americans.

In the past decade, welfare rolls have dropped substantially, from 12.2 million in 1996 to 4.5 million today. At the same time, caseloads declined by 54 percent. Sixty percent of mothers who left welfare found work, far surpassing predictions of experts. Through the Welfare to Work Partnership, which my administration started to speed the transition to employment, more than 20,000 businesses hired 1.1 million former welfare recipients. Welfare reform has proved a great success, and I am grateful to the Democrats and Republicans who had the courage to work together to take bold action.
The 1996 Welfare Act shows us how much we can achieve when both parties bring their best ideas to the negotiating table and focus on doing what is best for the country.

People were getting off welfare and getting back to work. Great news… unless you feed off dependency in order to stay in power.

Fast forward to this week:

The Department and Health and Human Services announced the agency will issue waivers for the federal work requirement of the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program — considered a central facet of welfare reform in 1996 — Thursday.

The “Information Memorandum” states that the agency will be issuing waivers for TANF’s work participation requirements for parents and caretakers as a way to find new approaches to better employment outcomes.

“While the TANF work participation requirements are contained in section 407, section 402(a)(1)(A)(iii) requires that the state plan ‘[e]nsure that parents and caretakers receiving assistance under the program engage in work activities in accordance with section 407,’” the memo, signed by HHS Director of the Office of Family Assistance, Earl Johnson, explained. “Thus, HHS has authority to waive compliance with this 402 requirement and authorize a state to test approaches and methods other than those set forth in section 407, including definitions of work activities and engagement, specified limitations, verification procedures, and the calculation of participation rates.”

“New approaches to better employment outcomes”? The first thing that comes to mind to accomplish that is to vote this bunch out in November.

Of course, in defense of Obama, having a federal work requirement after he and the rest of the Dems have trashed the economy could be considered cruel and unusual punishment. It’s like having a “go find a gallon of water” requirement for people being released into the Sahara Desert.

Click to continue reading “Obama Admin. to Issue Waivers From Federal Work Requirement in Welfare Program”
Go straight to Post

Finally some good news for the Obama campaign

by Doug Powers on Tuesday, June 26th, 2012

This is article 737 of 1298 in the topic 2012 Elections

If you hear a collective sigh of relief coming from the White House, it’s because they appear to have dodged the last thing they would have needed right now, which is any kind of nod of approval from Jimmy Carter.

From ABC News:

A former U.S. president is accusing the current president of sanctioning the “widespread abuse of human rights” by authorizing drone strikes to kill suspected terrorists.

Jimmy Carter, America’s 39th president, denounced the Obama administration for “clearly violating” 10 of the 30 articles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, writing in a New York Times op-ed on Monday that the “United States is abandoning its role as the global champion of human rights.”

“Instead of making the world safer, America’s violation of international human rights abets our enemies and alienates our friends,” Carter wrote.
In addition to the drone strikes, Carter criticized the current president for keeping the Guantanamo Bay detention center open, where prisoners “have been tortured by waterboarding more than 100 times or intimidated with semiautomatic weapons, power drills or threats to sexually assault their mothers.”

The former president blasted the government for allowing “unprecedented violations of our rights to privacy through warrantless wiretapping and government mining of our electronic communications.”

Just to be safe, both of their Nobel Peace Prizes should be confiscated until we sort all this out. Until then, we’ll let Al Gore hold them for safe keeping.

Go straight to Post

NYT Op-Ed: Capital Punishment and Turkey Pardons

by Doug Powers on Tuesday, November 22nd, 2011

When the holidays roll around, you can always count on a New York Times op-ed contributor to come along and try to suck the fun from it, which of course ends up having the reverse effect creates a nice bit of comedy. This year is no different.

Here’s the introduction:

In just a few days, we will once again endure the annual spectacle of the president of the United States pardoning a turkey that would otherwise have been fated for the Thanksgiving table. This event is typically covered in the media as a light-hearted bit of fluff — and fluff is what it might well be, if there were not actual humans on death row awaiting similar intervention. In the current American context, however, the turkey pardon is a distasteful parody of the strange power vested in politicians to decide the earthly fates of death-row prisoners. There is in it an implicit acknowledgment that the killing of these prisoners is a practice that bears real, non-jocular comparison to the ritual slaughter of birds for feasts.

I am not saying that this slaughter of birds for food is wrong ? not here anyway ? but only that the parallel the presidential ritual invites us to notice is revealing. To riff on Dostoyevsky’s famous line about prisoners: you can tell what a nation is like by the way it treats its turkeys. Obama’s pardoning of one randomly selected bird at Thanksgiving not only carries with it an implicit validation of the slaughtering of millions of other turkeys. It also involves an implicit validation of the parallel practice for human beings, in which the occasional death-row inmate is pardoned, or given a stay by the hidden reasoning of an increasingly capricious Supreme Court, even as the majority of condemned prisoners are not so lucky. In this respect, the Thanksgiving pardon is an acknowledgment of the arbitrariness of the system of capital punishment.

Does this guy know how to party, or what?

So I guess this year Obama should chop the head off the turkey instead of pardoning it just to be consistent with the justice system? I think that’s the message. If that’ what he wants, this author should have supported Sarah Palin for president.


Update: Maybe this will make the guy who wrote that column happy.

Go straight to Post

Warren Buffett Begs the Government to Raise His Taxes

by Doug Powers on Tuesday, August 16th, 2011

nullAs a free market capitalist, I don’t begrudge anybody financial success of any level that they came upon honestly through hard and/or smart work. That said, some rich people sure do go out of their way to earn some of that contempt that comes their way:

Warren Buffett, the third wealthiest man in the world with a net worth of around $80 billion, is demanding the U.S. government make the rich like him pay higher taxes and says they should no longer be protected like endangered “spotted owls.”

In a New York Times op-ed on Monday, titled “Stop Coddling the Rich,” Buffett, Berkshire Hathaway’s chair and CEO, said he and his “mega-rich” friends have been spared the “shared sacrifice” the country’s leaders have asked for as the country veers toward a double-dip recession.

The reason Buffett’s proposal is preposterous as a “solution” to US financial nightmare is simple. The net worth of Buffett — one of the richest men in the world — could be confiscated (which frankly wouldn’t bother me much at this point) and it would run our government for about a week, give or take another bailout or stimulus. And we’d run out of Warren Buffett types — the “mega rich” — real fast.

I’ve mentioned it before, but the government would welcome a voluntary donation from Warren Buffett in any amount. Or, he could send each and every American living today a check for about $225. Hey, I wouldn’t argue with him.

I just don’t get it. There is a group of wealthy people, Warren Buffett included, who are sitting around looking at what’s being done to America’s economy and saying this to themselves “If only more of my money were wasted by the government things would get better” when money wasted by the government is the problem!

It’s true what they say: Some people are wealthy in spite of themselves.

Go straight to Post

The Two Year Anniversary of the Obama Recovery

by John Lott on Thursday, June 2nd, 2011

This is article 154 of 393 in the topic economy

From Investors’ Business Daily:

Without a lot of fanfare, the Obama economic recovery officially turned 2 this month. Anyone think we’re better off than we were two years ago? . . .

Single family home prices dropped in March to their lowest level since April 2009; the consumer Confidence Index tumbled to a six-month low of 60.8; and regional manufacturing is slowing. In the Chicago area, it fell to its lowest level since November 2009.

Yet if you listened to President Obama and his cheerleaders in the press over the past two years, the answer should have been a resounding yes.

Obama promised way back in February 2009 that his $830 billion stimulus plan would unleash “a new wave of innovation, activity and construction” and “ignite spending by businesses and consumers.”

In June 2010, he announced that the recovery was “well under way” and that it “is getting stronger by the day.” A couple months later, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner penned a New York Times op-ed headlined “Welcome to the Recovery.”

And all along, media simply parroted the White House line, extolling every “green shoot” they could find, celebrating every time a handful of jobs got created, while constantly acting surprised by the ongoing “unexpected” bad economic news.

But the fact is that the Obama recovery is one of the worst ever. Certainly the worst since the Great Depression. It’s so bad, in fact, that even 24 months after the recession officially ended there are few places beyond the stock market and corporate profits that have shown much, if any, improvement. A few examples:

• Jobs: The number of people with jobs has barely changed since June 2009 — up just 0.4%.

• Unemployment: While the unemployment rate has dropped a bit, the number of long-term unemployed is up by a third, and the average length of unemployment is now a staggering 38 weeks.

• Earnings: Median weekly earnings are down slightly between Q3 2009 and Q1 2011, after adjusting for inflation, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

• Housing prices: The National Association of Realtors reports that median price for existing home sales dropped 10% since June 2009. . . . .

Yet, incredibly, Obama continues to escape blame for this sorry state of affairs. A Rasmussen survey in May found 54% of the public still blames President Bush, while just 39% blame Obama’s policies. . . .

Go straight to Post

What Are Israel’s Defensible Borders?

by Donald Douglas on Sunday, May 22nd, 2011

This is article 381 of 1260 in the topic International

An excellent video from the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs.

Also, from Dore Gold, President of the Jerusalem Center, at Wall Street Journal, “Israel’s 1967 Borders Aren’t Defensible“:

It’s no secret that Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas plans to lobby the U.N. General Assembly this September for a resolution that will predetermine the results of any Israeli-Palestinian negotiations on borders. He made clear in a New York Times op-ed this week that he will insist that member states recognize a Palestinian state on 1967 lines, meaning Israel’s boundaries before the Six Day War.

Unfortunately, even President Barack Obama appears to have been influenced by this thinking. He asserted in a speech Thursday that Israel’s future borders with a Palestinian state “should be based on the 1967 lines,” a position he tried to offset by offering “mutually agreed land swaps.” Mr. Abbas has said many times that any land swaps would be minuscule.

Remember that before the Six Day War, those lines in the West Bank only demarcated where five Arab armies were halted in their invasion of the nascent state of Israel 19 years earlier. Legally, they formed only an armistice line, not a recognized international border. No Palestinian state ever existed that could have claimed these prewar lines. Jordan occupied the West Bank after the Arab invasion, but its claim to sovereignty was not recognized by any U.N. members except Pakistan and the U.K. As Jordan’s U.N. ambassador said before the war, the old armistice lines “did not fix boundaries.” Thus the central thrust of Arab-Israeli diplomacy for more than 40 years was that Israel must negotiate an agreed border with its Arab neighbors.

More at the link above.

Added: Now a thread at Memorandum, featuring Israel Matzav.

Go straight to Post

Democrat Who Called for Shooting Governor Now Says “Only Fruitcakes” Take Him Literally!

by John Lillpop on Saturday, January 15th, 2011

This is article 0 of 12 in the topic Violence

There is a perfectly good reason why Paul Kanjorski was booted out of Congress by Pennsylvania voters in November.

Actually, there are two: Stupidity and insolence.

Following the Tucson slaughter of a week ago, the deposed Democrat decided that the American people would benefit from his words of wisdom on the subject of violence.

Lunatics at the New York Times agreed and thus did they publish a New York Times op-ed in which Kanjorski engages in sanctimonious lecturing by writing:

“It is incumbent on all Americans to create an atmosphere of civility and respect in which political discourse can flow freely, without fear of violent confrontation.”

Powerful words those, intended to inspire politicians to tone down the angry rhetoric and rise to a better place.


Kanjorski’s lofty words in January, 2011 might be more believable and inspirational if the hypocritical Representative had not scraped bottom with these words of violence aimed at Republican Rick Scott last October.

“That Scott down there that’s running for governor of Florida,” Mr. Kanjorski said. “Instead of running for governor of Florida, they ought to have him and shoot him. Put him against the wall and shoot him. He stole billions of dollars from the United States government and he’s running for governor of Florida. He’s a millionaire and a billionaire. He’s no hero. He’s a damn crook. It’s just we don’t prosecute big crooks.”

Hmmm2. Sure sounds like a hypocritical contradiction, and another perfect example of the sort of stupidity that has Nancy Pelosi in a snit after being deposed as Speaker.

What say ye about that, Mr. Kanjorski?

This is where the insolence takes over.

Challenged to explain his own violence-laced rhetoric, Kanjorski brilliantly offered that “only fruitcakes” would take his statement about Scott literally.

So, when a Congressional Democrat proposes to stand a Republican against a wall and shoot him, those who are offended and outraged are “fruitcakes” ?

Whereas folks like Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin and anyone with an R next to his or her name is guilty of conspiracy to commit murder for the crime of disagreeing with the Marxist agenda of Barack Obama and fellow Marxists?

Thank God Pennsylvania voters saw through this dim-witted vermin who, when you think about it, is the only true “Fruit cake” running around!

Go straight to Post

President Barack Obama Claims Credit on Iraq War

by Donald Douglas on Sunday, August 29th, 2010

This is article 1 of 91 in the topic Wars

For all of the socialism and Islamist-appeasement of this administration, the one thing that has bothered me the most about this president (and candidate in 2007-08) is his screechingly perverse antiwar ideology and opportunism. Barack Obama was the most antiwar Senator in Congress throughout 2007 and in 2008 he tried to play both sides of the fence: After opposing the surge he then turned around and hailed its success, while insisting once more that the war was wrong. As noted in his New York Times op-ed in July 14, 2008, “My Plan for Iraq“:

In the 18 months since President Bush announced the surge, our troops have performed heroically in bringing down the level of violence. New tactics have protected the Iraqi population, and the Sunni tribes have rejected Al Qaeda — greatly weakening its effectiveness.

But the same factors that led me to oppose the surge still hold true. The strain on our military has grown, the situation in Afghanistan has deteriorated and we’ve spent nearly $200 billion more in Iraq than we had budgeted. Iraq’s leaders have failed to invest tens of billions of dollars in oil revenues in rebuilding their own country, and they have not reached the political accommodation that was the stated purpose of the surge.

I do not hate this president. But he brings deep shame to the role of Commander-in-Chief. And that shame is seen one more time with this weekend’s White House announcement on the end of U.S. combat operations in Iraq. IMHO, Obama just lies when he claims to be upholding the “sacred trust” of our fighting men and women. It takes more than winning an election to win that trust — you have to earn it. That said, folks may have different emotions than I do. But I think we can agree that getting the Democrats out of power in 2010 and 2012 will begin the process of restoring American power in the world. I cringe at the thought of this sick ACORN-sleazeball presidential interloper directing the force and capabilities of the U.S. abroad. But time heals all wounds, and the electorate is rumbling:

Go straight to Post

Featuring YD Feedwordpress Content Filter Plugin