web analytics
April 24, 2014 / 24 Nisan, 5774
At a Glance

Posts Tagged ‘Nadler’

Nadler: Major Disaster Declaration for NY Will Aid in Rapid Recovery

Tuesday, October 30th, 2012

On Tuesday, Congressman Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) welcomed President Obama’s declaration of major disaster for New York in the wake of Hurricane Sandy. The designation will allow for timely allocation of federal funds through the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Nadler released the following statement:

“Hurricane Sandy hit New York and the Northeast hard last night and will complicate life in our region for the coming days. I am astounded at what I have seen in my own congressional district: flooding throughout Coney Island, Battery Park City, and other areas; widespread power outages; felled trees everywhere you look; and some very tragic fatalities. I am grateful to our local responders and laborers, who are doing a tremendous job on emergency response. And, through the President’s declaration of New York as a major disaster area, we will be able to immediately allocate FEMA funds to begin to repair the billions of dollars in damage locally and bring relief to New Yorkers whose lives have been turned upside down.”

Nadler Hails 20-Year U.S. Govt. Lease at One World Trade Center

Wednesday, July 18th, 2012

Congressman Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) of Lower Manhattan welcomed the announcement that the U.S. General Services Administration (GSA) has signed a 20-year lease for 277,000 sq. feet of office space at One World Trade Center.

The agreement with the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey and the Durst Organization makes official that 55% of the building is now leased ahead of expected completion in 2013.

“With this lease, GSA and the Port Authority have assured a robust future for the new World Trade Center complex,” Nadler said. “Now more than half leased, One World Trade Center will soon tower above the city, dramatically signaling the resurgence of Lower Manhattan and New York City. 10 years following the devastation of 9/11, Downtown is soaring to new heights, both literally and economically.”

Nadler Pushes to Keep Families Seated Together on Commercial Flights

Thursday, July 12th, 2012

Congressman Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), a senior member of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, introduced legislation to help keep families seated together on commercial flights. In response to ever-increasing fees and decreasing transparency among airline carriers, the Families Flying Together Act of 2012 would require the U.S. Department of Transportation to direct each carrier to “establish a policy to ensure, to the extent practicable, that a family that purchases tickets for a flight with that air carrier is seated together during that flight; and (2) make the policy…available to the public on an appropriate Internet Web site of the air carrier.” The legislation would help to ensure that children are not separated from their families and seated alone on flights.

“Air travel is complicated and expensive enough for families without adding new stresses,” said Nadler. “Families should not be stuck paying hidden fees, or buying ‘premium’ seats, simply because they wish to be seated together on crowded flights. It is positively absurd to expect a two or three-year-old to sit unattended, next to strangers, on an airplane. It is up to air carriers to make their seating policies clear and easily accessible to the public.”

As airlines change policies and increase fees for a variety of basic services, it is becoming more difficult for families to sit together on commercial flights. From airlines charging a fee to make advance seat assignments, to charging a premium for window or aisle seats, to eliminating advanced boarding for parents with small children, the obstacles for families are growing. There are increasing reports of people being separated from their children when they arrive to board the aircraft. When this happens, the only recourse is to rely on another passenger to willingly change seats. This is an inconvenience for everyone involved and not an efficient business practice. It is also potentially unsafe and traumatic for the families involved.

Schumer, Silver, Nadler to Endorse Velázquez, Rebuffing Anti-Zionist Charges

Sunday, June 3rd, 2012

U.S. Senator Charles Schumer will joinNY Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver and Congressman Jerrold Nadler in endorsing Congresswoman Nydia Velázquez for re-election, today, Sunday, June 3rd, at 10:00 a.m. at the Roosevelt Hotel in Manhattan.

Getting the support of the top democratic leaders will boost Velázquez’ campaign. Getting the support of the three top Jewish politicians in New York state is not a bad thing either.

A court-imposed re-mapping of congressional voting districts in New York City has added a hefty part of the still-Jewish Lower East Side to Velázquez’ now Seventh District. The neighborhood used to be part of Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney’s district.

Indeed, the endorsements of the three “top Jews” are scheduled for an hour before the Israel Day Parade on Fifth Avenue today.

A source in the Democratic party told the NY Post that “having the three top Jewish Democrats in the state endorsing her certainly bolsters her credentials on Israel and within the Jewish community.”

Her major opponent, City Councilman Erik Martin Dilan, has called the 10-term incumbent Velázquez anti-Zionist.

In one of his campaign handouts, Dilan said that Velázquez had “the worst voting record on Israel in the New York congressional delegation.”

Dilan attacked Velazquez as one of the few members of Congress who refused to sign a 2010 letter calling on President Obama to impose sanctions on Iran to prevent it from developing nuclear weapons to be used against Israel.

The Velazquez camp told the NY Daily News that “suggesting the Congresswoman is anything but a friend, ally and supporter of Israel is politically driven nonsense.”

“She has been outspoken on issues ranging from holding Syria accountable for failing to support the peace process, condemning attacks by Hamas and Hezbollah on soldiers and civilians, furthering aid to Israel, calling on the U.N. to take to task the Iranian government for threats targeting Israel, and reaffirming the right of Israel to defend itself.”

Velazquez, Dilan, Dan O’Connor and George Martinez are on the ballot for the June 26 Democratic primary.

Two Headaches In Search Of A Cure

Wednesday, July 18th, 2007

Tom Segev is one of Israel’s more distasteful post-Zionists, which is saying a lot, considering their generally unappetizing nature. His newest book, 1967: Israel, the War, and the Year That Transformed the Middle East, is as one-sided and tendentious a work as one would expect from Segev, a columnist for Haaretz whose stock-in-trade is books blaming Israel and Zionism for every conceivable ill in the Middle East.

One of the better reviews of 1967 appears in the current issue of The New Republic (July 23 cover date), and what makes it all the more effective is that it’s written by Benny Morris, a professor of Middle East history at Ben-Gurion University and one of the original group of scholars first tagged as “post-Zionists” two decades ago. Morris has had some second thoughts in recent years, but the ferocity with which he goes after Segev is still astounding – and thoroughly enjoyable.

“In Segev’s view,” writes Morris, “to understand the Six Day War one needs to understand more than the ‘diplomatic and military background. What is needed is deep knowledge of the Israelis themselves.’

“Not of the Arabs – of Nasser and his generals, who sent in their tank divisions and closed the straits in defiance of the agreements of 1956-1957; or of the Jordanians, who ignored Israeli appeals on the morning of June 5 not to open fire or, later, to stop firing artillery into downtown West Jerusalem, the suburbs of Tel Aviv, and the Ramat David air base in lower Galilee (the IDF began responding only at around noon, after Jordanian troops stormed the U.N. headquarters compound in southern Jerusalem); or of the Syrians, who rained down shells on Israel’s Jordan Valley settlements starting on the evening of June 5….

“No, there is no need to look at or understand Nasser, Hussein, or the Syrian leadership – or the hundreds of thousands of Arabs who took to the streets of Cairo, East Jerusalem, Damascus, and Baghdad shouting ‘Idhbah al Yahud!’, ‘Slaughter the Jews!’

“For Segev, Arab politics and Arab society have no bearing upon the proper understanding of the origins of the war. In 1967, the Arabs are mere props – mindless, thoughtless, motiveless extras, and in no meaningful sense historical agents….”

In sum, says Morris, “Segev’s 1967 is studded with such politically correct posturing, and riddled with perverse and high-minded asides and aphorisms.… [H]is book points readers and scholars in no worthwhile direction. Its argument is not merely wrong; it also makes a small contribution of its own to the contemporary delegitimation of Israel.”

* * *

Back in 2002 the Monitor strongly criticized Congressman Jerrold Nadler’s record on military and intelligence matters. Nadler wrote an indignant letter to the editor attempting to defend his record, and the Monitor answered point by point. (The whole business – the Monitor’s original column, Nadler’s response and the Monitor’s defense – can be viewed at The Jewish Press Blog, www.thejewishpress.blogspot.com.)

And so it was with more than a minimal amount of interest that the Monitor read the following, from the editors of the New York Post in that paper’s July 16 issue:

On June 26, Bradford Berenson, a former White House aide, testified before the House Judiciary Committee on whether suspected-terrorist detainees should have habeas-corpus rights.In one exchange, Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-Manhattan) lectured: “I don’t see how you can pick up someone in New York and say that his rights are different or less because he’s accused of being an enemy combatant, based on whatever information, as opposed to his being accused of being a murderer …”

Berenson replied: “We need to be clear about what that means. It means that if we had captured Mohammed Atta on September 10th, we would have had no choice but to treat him as a criminal defendant –”

Nadler (interjecting): “Exactly right.”

Berenson: “– which would have meant no interrogation –”

Nadler (interjecting): “Exactly right.”

Berenson: “– no intelligence, and the World Trade Center is coming down.”

Nadler: “That’s exactly right. And when we captured mass murderers in the United States, we did exactly the same. We captured Charles Manson, we did the same.”

Nadler’s district includes Ground Zero.

Dems Throw Stones From Glass Houses

Wednesday, June 26th, 2002
Democrats and their allies in the media who thought they could use those pre-Sept. 11 intelligence reports and FBI memos to diminish President Bush’s standing with the American people were in full retreat this week, as a slew of polls gave Bush continued high marks, both for his overall job performance and his handling of the war on terror.

What the Monitor found most abhorrent about the transparently political endeavor was that the president’s loudest critics tended to be the very Democrats who year after year had voted not just against any increase, but in many cases for significant cuts, in intelligence funding.

Political researcher Terry Cooper, who undertook an examination of Congressional voting patterns in the areas of intelligence and counter-terrorism, paints a damning picture of Democratic apathy and obstructionism.

“From 1993 through 1999,” writes Cooper, “there were ten recorded House floor votes on amendments to reduce authorized funding for intelligence.” Although the amendments were all defeated, a majority of House Democrats voted “yes” on five of them.

Dick Gephardt, the House Democratic leader, voted to cut intelligence funding on five of those occasions.Other senior Democrats followed suit: David Bonior, for example, who as party Whip was the House’s number-two Democrat, voted for each of the ten fund-cutting amendments.

“Many of the Democrats whose committee positions give them immense say over our national security,” Cooper notes, “likewise voted for most or all of the cut-funding amendments.” In stark contrast, “no member of the House Republican leadership ever voted for any of the cut-funding amendments and only one Republican in a key committee post ever did.”

The Monitor was particularly interested in the voting record of Jerrold Nadler, the New York Democrat whose district includes what used to be the World Trade Center and whose non-stop criticism of President Bush and Republicans runs the gamut from the silly to the shrill.

Cooper describes the 1994 House debate on the Fiscal 1995 Authorization Bill, during which an amendment was offered calling for deep cuts to the intelligence budget. Congress overwhelmingly rejected the proposed cuts, but one of the few representatives who did vote for them was none other than Jerrold Nadler.

“The fact is,” Nadler argued on the floor of the House, “that with the Soviet Union gone, and with the cold war over, if we cannot reduce our intelligence budget by 10 or 20 percent, then we are wasting a heck of a lot of money.”

As Cooper archly observes, “The World Trade Center had already been bombed once, and not by Soviet agents, but [Nadler] was proposing to shrink America’s intelligence capability even more.”

Sufficiently intrigued, the Monitor paid a visit to the invaluable website vote-smart.org and looked at some of Nadler’s other votes. Just a few of the many fascinating tidbits we found: Nadler voted “no” on the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal years 2000 and 2001, which called for $288.8 billion for military matters, including a 4.8 percent pay raise for the nation’s armed forces and tightened security at U.S. nuclear labs. (The act was passed by the lopsided margin of 365 to 38.)

On Oct. 24, 2001, Nadler voted against legislation calling for expanded powers for law enforcement officials investigating suspected terrorists. (The bill passed, 357-66.)

On May 2, 2002, the House easily passed the Bob Stump National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2003, which incorporated President Bush’s request for $7.3 billion for counter-terrorism programs and $7.8 billion for missile defense systems. Nadler was one of only 58 representatives to vote against it.

On May 7, 2002, the House voted on a border security bill that, among other measures, called for passenger ships and planes traveling from other countries to provide U.S. officials lists of crew members and passengers before their arrival. The important legislation passed by a margin of 411-0 (212 Republicans, 198 Democrats, 1 Independent). Jerrold Nadler? He didn’t vote.

Jason Maoz can be reached at jmaoz@jewishpress.com

Printed from: http://www.jewishpress.com/indepth/media-monitor/dems-throw-stones-from-glass-houses/2002/06/26/

Scan this QR code to visit this page online: