http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/misleading-cold-war-analogy_778816.html Jerusalem The Israeli debate over Iran’s nuclear program is, perhaps oddly, not yet heated. For now, the action is with the Americans: Israelis watch the negotiations nervously and without confidence, but there is little sense of impending doom—or impending war. Opinion polls show that Israelis think Iran is building toward a weapon, not toward […]
http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/detail/us-is-going-bankrupt-one-city-at-a-time?f=puball Time to start watching U.S. cities go bankrupt. Prior to Detroit, there was Stockton, California, and, according to Stephen Moore, now the chief economist with the Heritage Foundation, there are more than sixty of the largest cities that “are plagued with the same kinds of retirement legacy costs that sent Detroit in Chapter 9 […]
http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/detail/ongoing-threats-to-free-speech?f=puball The Obama administration and other liberal proponents of “net neutrality” were dealt a significant blow last month when the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia decided that 2010 FCC regulations on Internet providers were invalid. However, conservatives should remain alert to one caveat: the ruling affirmed a Federal Communications Commission right […]
http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/detail/obamas-hobbyhorse-gender-equality On Jan. 28, 19 U.S. senators and 91 members of the House of Representatives, all Democrats, filed briefs with the Supreme Court supporting the Obama administration’s legal war against Hobby Lobby, a family-owned chain of craft stores providing health insurance to employees but refusing to cover morning-after pills, such as Plan B and Ella, […]
http://tundratabloids.com/2014/02/a-father-of-a-belgian-jewish-family-tells-why-he-chose-to-leave-europe.html
And it’s for all of the same reasons posted here at the TT on a daily basis.
And the nay sayers who rail against this blog and against others in the anti-Islamization movement (Counterjihad) have nothing to say to this man and his family, for they are part of the reasons why he chose to leave.
Four years ago I interviewed a French Jewish doctor, Dr.Ami Cammarella, concerning his reasons why he was leaving France for good, (now resides in Israel), it was due to the rise of antisemitism, and more Jews are coming to the same conclusion and decision as Ami.
NOTE: The irony of Europe destroying +6million of its Jews, then shedding crocodile tears in their yearly apologies for the mass murders, while they import by the tens of millions, immigrants from Islamic lands who hold deep seated anti-Jewish views, cannot be understated. In fact, it shows their apologies to be a total sham.
For our children, before it’s too late
Testimony detailing the reasons a Belgian Jewish family chose to leave Belgium for the United States: the rise of anti-Semitism, anti-Zionism, the attacks of Toulouse, Islamism, etc.
Watch the Video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A_LFf6_I39o
http://yeoldecrabb.com/ Why is everything going wrong? It isn’t. There is an old axiom in the news business or what is left of it as traditional newspapers die to be replaced, for the moment at least, by amateurism on the internet and its social networks that good news is not news. So we get […]
http://executive.mit.edu/blog/2014/02/creating-resilience-with-publicprivate-partnerships-and-planning/ Public/private partnerships are critical to the success of government operations that provide essential services and benefits. Such partnerships can help agencies reduce costs, simplify operations, and are easily scalable at times of increased and decreased need. Whether motivated by a natural disaster, terrorism, or an interruption caused by legislative shortfall, successful public/private partnerships can […]
The Hillary Papers Archive of ‘Closest Friend’ Paints Portrait of Ruthless First Lady: Alana Goodman
http://freebeacon.com/the-hillary-papers/
On May 12, 1992, Stan Greenberg and Celinda Lake, top pollsters for Bill Clinton’s presidential campaign, issued a confidential memo. The memo’s subject was “Research on Hillary Clinton.”
Voters admired the strength of the Arkansas first couple, the pollsters wrote. However, “they also fear that only someone too politically ambitious, too strong, and too ruthless could survive such controversy so well.”
Their conclusion: “What voters find slick in Bill Clinton, they find ruthless in Hillary.”
The full memo is one of many previously unpublished documents contained in the archive of one of Hillary Clinton’s best friends and advisers, documents that portray the former first lady, secretary of State, and potential 2016 presidential candidate as a strong, ambitious, and ruthless Democratic operative.
The papers of Diane Blair, a political science professor Hillary Clinton described as her “closest friend” before Blair’s death in 2000, record years of candid conversations with the Clintons on issues ranging from single-payer health care to Monica Lewinsky.
The archive includes correspondence, diaries, interviews, strategy memos, and contemporaneous accounts of conversations with the Clintons ranging from the mid-1970s to the turn of the millennium.
http://pjmedia.com/blog/revisiting-the-neighborhood/?print=1 On February 15, 2013, I posted an article at Front Page Magazine titled “Saving the Neighborhood [1]” that dealt with an invitation the democratic advocacy organization Act! for Canada had extended to British lawyer Gavin Boby, a specialist in town planning law and director of the Law and Freedom Foundation. I referred in […]
http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/mr-first-amendment_778805.html?nopager=1
What are we to make of Floyd Abrams?
For more than five decades he has been toiling in the vineyards of the First Amendment, as a practicing attorney, a professor at the law schools of Columbia and Yale, and an apostle of free speech and a free press, writing and lecturing extensively in defense of his vision of both. He has appeared as counsel in numerous landmark cases in virtually every area of First Amendment law, from government secrecy to libel to campaign finance regulation. He holds the unique distinction of being the only lawyer in America known to have appeared before the Supreme Court wearing only one sock—and in the Pentagon Papers case, no less. Most of all, he is someone who has thought long and hard about 14 words—“Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech or of the press”—that are not only central to our national life, but are the continuing source of fierce controversy and litigation.
Abrams has just published Friend of the Court, a collection of his writings and speeches on an array of critical issues; it follows Speaking Freely (2005), in which he ranged over some of the key cases of his career, including the tale of the missing sock. Abrams is a staunch, though frequently unorthodox, liberal, with a life project of protecting and expanding the scope of legal expression under American law. For anyone—conservatives very much included—interested in the continuing controversies surrounding the First Amendment, his writings are an excellent place to start.
In both volumes, Abrams reconstructs the 1971 Pentagon Papers case. Together with Alexander Bickel, he was the outside counsel brought in to defend the New York Times against Richard Nixon’s ill-conceived effort to stop the paper from publishing the trove of purloined secrets it had obtained from former Defense Department insider Daniel Ellsberg. The story of the battle over the attempt to impose a prior restraint on the newspaper—the first in American history—is gripping no matter who tells it, and Abrams’s pen brings it vividly to life yet again. After telling the tale from his participant’s vantage point, he steps back to reflect on its legacy. And he settles on a number of consequences, one of which is the emergence of a new era of “press militancy,” or adversary journalism, as others have called it. A second is the case’s dramatic demonstration to the public of the “absurdity” of a classification system that cloaked a wealth of innocuous information in official secrecy.
But it is the legal ramifications of the decision that, to Abrams, surpass all else in importance:
Up to that time prior restraints had historically been viewed as the single most intrusive and dangerous form of government conduct threatening freedom of expression. In the Pentagon Papers case, that notion was considered in the context of publication that a majority of the Supreme Court believed would do significant harm, yet still held was protected by the First Amendment.
This paved the way for our current legal order, in which the kind of disclosure that would warrant halting the presses in advance has been narrowed nearly to the vanishing point.
