RUTHFULLY YOURS

http://government.blogs.xerox.com/2015/01/11/is-two-better-than-one-the-public-private-partnership/#.VLOq6nvIhyJ

By Chuck Brooks, Vice President and Client Executive, Department of Homeland Security

Public-private partnerships have become essential for many government agencies, borrowing from the old adage – it takes two to tango. These relationships create a vehicle for cooperation that can help reduce costs, build expertise and innovation and provide business continuity and resilience. And yet, these types of partnerships can fail just as much as they succeed. According to InformationWeek Government, such partnerships may fit the bill of what’s “good” for the long-term, but the article questions PPP collaboration as viable.

I’ve discussed P3s before in an article on what you can learn from public-private partnerships and when it comes to P3s working together, I’m a firm believer that the relationship will lead to success based on previous results. Here’s a few successful examples of how the public-private sectors can work together:

READ MORE AT SITE

The sole woman killed in the massacre at French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo on Wednesday was targeted because she was a Jew, her cousin has asserted.

Speaking to CNN’s Erin Burnett, Sophie Bramly, the cousin of Jewish Charlie Hebdo columnist Elsa Cayat, was asked whether she believed that Cayat had been “specifically targeted.”

“Yes, I do,” Bramley responded. “They spared all the women, and she was the only one killed, and she was the only one Jewish.”

Bramley added that Cayat’s brother had told her that the columnist had been receiving threatening phone calls for “a while.”

SHAME, SHAME, SHAME ON NETANYAHU FOR ATTENDING THE “FEEL GOOD “RALLY OF THE VERY FOLKS THAT ENABLE AND ENCOURAGE AND SUPPORT THE END OF ISRAEL….RSK

At least four Jews were murdered in a jihad attack on a kosher supermarket, and the French didn’t want Netanyahu there. When it was clear that he was going to come anyway, they invited a supporter of Islamic antisemitism and jihad terror against the Jews. And now the French claim they’re going to fight against this threat. Treating the leader of the state on the front lines of the same conflict that they’re facing is not an auspicious beginning.

“France Told Bibi: If You Come, We’ll Invite Abbas,” by Yishai Karov and Gil Ronen, Arutz Sheva, January 11, 2015:

Channel 2 reported Sunday that there was some ugly international wrangling behind the scenes of Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s changing plans for attending the rally in Paris Sunday.

Netanyahu’s bureau said Saturday evening that the prime minister would not be attending the anti-terror rally, citing security considerations. A short time later, however, it turned out that he would indeed be going.

According to the report, Jerusalem and Paris exchanged diplomatic blows over the matter. Netanyahu contacted a “senior French official” and asked to attend the rally, but France said it did not want him there, because his presence would create “difficulty in arranging the rally.”

Israel Economy Minister Naftali Bennett has issued a stinging criticism of the presence of Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, as well as other Arab leaders he deemed to be complicit in terrorism, at today’s anti-terrorism rally in Paris. “Their hands are covered in blood,” Bennett declared in an interview with Army Radio in Israel. As well as Abbas, Bennett singled out Gulf emirate Qatar for its support of the Palestinian Islamist Hamas organization. “It’s hypocritical of those same Qataris and Arabs who are financing terrorism to come and demonstrate as if against terrorism,” Bennett told a Jewish youth group in the French capital. “I don’t accept this.”

I AGREE WITH EVERY WORD AND NETANYAHU SHOULD NOT HAVE JOINED THE STREET THEATER….RSK
The spectacle of more than a million people taking to the streets of Paris in protest against the attacks against the massacres at Charlie Hebdo and a kosher market is in and of itself a good thing. The condemnations of Islamist terror from a broad cross-section of French society and the willingness of many world leaders, including some from Arab and Muslim nations, to take part in the event is encouraging to those who have noted with dismay not only the assault on free speech but also the many attacks on Jews in Europe in recent years. This has led some to express the hope that the march will mark a turning point in the struggle against Islamist terror and anti-Semitism in which a unified European continent will somehow reject hatred.

Jihad in Paris — on The Glazov Gang
The Islamic teachings that inspired the Charlie Hebdo massacre — and the denial about them.
http://jamieglazov.com/2015/01/11/jihad-in-paris-on-the-glazov-gang/

A version of this column will be posted Monday, Jan. 12, 2015, on the website http://yeoldecrabb.com/

Islam is the problem

The worship of Mohammed’s followers throughout their history has rarely constituted a religion of peace, contrary to repeated statements by leaders in the West – above all Pres. Barack Hussein Obama. These have been made in their pursuit of trying to defuse the current crisis, but nevertheless are now a part of the problem..

One might stretch to argue that Mosses, founder of Judaism, had a “battlefield commission”. But neither Jesus, Gautama nor Confucius, leaders or founders of the several other great world religions, advocated violence. Nor were they soldiers as was Mohammed, the messenger who carried the word of Allah to his flock.

Suicide of the West: An Essay on the Meaning and Destiny of Liberalism Paperback – November 25, 2014

Students of ancient history will recall that, back when the Anglican Communion described a form of the Christian religion, there were thirty nine articles [1] universally promulgated within the faith. These declarations were meant to describe the basic elements of the confession, and paid up members of the confraternity were expected to assent in their hearts (and sometimes publically, by an oath) to the substance articulated therein. You can get a good feel for what the thirty-nine articles required by savoring the first two:

Of Faith in the Holy Trinity.
There is but one living and true God, everlasting, without body, parts, or passions; of infinite power, wisdom, and goodness; the Maker, and Preserver of all things both visible and invisible. And in unity of this Godhead there be three Persons, of one substance, power, and eternity; the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost.
Of the Word or Son of God, which was made very Man.
The Son, which is the Word of the Father, begotten from everlasting of the Father, the very and eternal God, and of one substance with the Father, took Man’s nature in the womb of the blessed Virgin, of her substance: so that two whole and perfect Natures, that is to say, the Godhead and Manhood, were joined together in one Person, never to be divided, whereof is one Christ, very God, and very Man; who truly suffered, was crucified, dead, and buried, to reconcile his Father to us, and to be a sacrifice, not only for original guilt, but also for actual sins of men.

Quaint, what? James Burnham was perhaps the most underrated political philosopher of the twentieth century. A month or two back Encounter Books published a new edition of his Cold-War classic Suicide of the West: An Essay on the Meaning and Destiny of Liberalism [2]. The book has a great deal to recommend it. Though published in 1964, when the Soviet colossus had yet begun to teeter, it is if anything more pertinent to our situation today, circa 2015, when Communism is hibernating but totalitarian Islam is on the march. Burnham’s book was Janus-faced: one the one hand, he had a lot to say about the totalitarian threat of Soviet Communism. Mutatis mutandis, what he says there applies also to the threat of militant Islam. But in his efforts to account for the “contraction of the West,” Burnham the diagnostician also looked inward, at the beating heart of liberalism.

Who were the liberals Burnham was talking about? He proposed a list of thirty-nine propositions as a means of identification. Readers were invited to look them over and say whether they agreed or disagreed “by and large, without worrying over fine points.” I invite my readers to take the same quiz.

Among the most pernicious consequences of the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanction (BDS) movement has been the wedge driven between Israel and liberal Americans, including liberal American Jews. The relentless misappropriation of human rights and anti-racist discourse, the slanderous talk of Israeli “ethnic cleansing” and “genocide,” and the bitter, ad hominem attacks against Israelis, their international supporters, and the peace process itself have taken a severe toll on American civil discourse.

It is therefore especially dismaying to see the new call by leading American Jewish figures of the academic left, most prominently Michael Walzer of Princeton University, Todd Gitlin of Columbia University, and Alan Wolfe of Boston University, for sanctions against right-wing Israeli politicians whom they deem “annexationist.” These academics, 14 in all, are members of the “Scholars for Israel and Palestine,” a subgroup of the leftist pro-Israel, anti-BDS organization called “The Third Narrative.” They state that these views are their own, not The Third Narrative’s as a whole. (The declaration is available here on The Third Narrative’s web site.)

Jean Patrick Grumberg journalist. Former lobbyist, he lived in Paris, then in Los Angeles and Tel Aviv, and lives between California and Israel. It is contributing to the website Dreuz and other English and French media.
September 30, 1938, France signed the Munich Agreement to appease Hitler. Back in France, Daladier was acclaimed.
7, 8 and 9 January 2015, affected by the terrorist horror, French leaders, the media, to appease Islam and the suburbs, do not uttered the word jihad, nor the word Islam, and made no reference to the prohibition to reproduce the Prophet Mohammed. They do not conjured the verses of the Qur’an and hadith which order to kill those who lacks respect, and wage war to the Crusaders and Jews to submit them.
A voice rose in 1938 against the cowardly capitulation allies. Churchill “you had the choice between war and dishonor.You chose dishonor, and you will have war. »
In 2015, tragically, no voice denounces dishonor and capitulation of France.
You are not Charlie
Charlie refused censorship and prohibition to represent the prophet of Islam. You are censored to appease Islam.
In 2005, Charlie has published the cartoons of Mohammed that the Danish daily Jyllands-Posten had printed “to contribute to the debate on criticism of Islam and self-censorship.”
Media, you had not published the cartoons of the prophet. You had not supported Charlie. You were not Charlie.

You never had the guts to criticize Islam and defy censorship.
Do not claim courage, freedom of speech you do not. Do not say you’re Charlie.

You are not Charlie, you’ve never been.

On January 7, the day of the attack on Charlie Hebdo, instead of displaying solidarity with its struggle against self-censorship, you still chose appeasement and submission. You do not have published the cartoons that have caused the death of their authors. You are not Charlie, you’ve never been.
You had the choice between war against censorship of Islam and disgrace. You chose dishonor, you have the confidence, and you’ll have Islam.