BETSY MCCAUGHEY, PHD: OBAMA’S 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, […]


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:

SOL SANDERS: WHY IS EVERYTHING GOING WRONG? IT ISN’T 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 […]

CHARLES BROOKS: Creating Resilience with Public/Private 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

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.

REVISITING THE OLD NEIGHBORHOOD: DAVID SOLWAY   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 […]

Mr. First Amendment : Congress Shall Make no Law Abridging Floyd Abrams’s Brief. Gabriel Schoenfeld ****

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.

Victor Davis Hanson on Our ‘Path to Armageddon’ John Bennett Historian Victor Davis Hanson recently gave one of the finest and most memorable presentations on the subject of immigration.   America could be on “a path to Armageddon,” given the blend of relativism, racial preferences, and nullified immigration laws, warned Hanson in an interview with Mark Levin, [link opens in pop-up, interview begins at […]

Global Warming: Don’t Confuse Us with the Facts Timothy Birdnow

Global warming is a planetary emergency, climate alarmists tell us. America and the rest of the world must fundamentally alter our lifestyles and radically reduce our consumption of energy and our industrial emissions if we are to survive thermogeddon. This is science, they tell us, and the science is settled.

President Obama echoed this in his State of the Union address, pointing his bony little finger at the American people and declaring global warming a “fact” despite the evidence on the ground. If Mr. Obama is to make such a decisive statement on the accuracy of computer models, then one would suppose he was privy to precise and accurate — and complete — data.

If global warming aka climate change aka global climate flatulence is so serious a problem, then why are they allowing our system of moored ocean buoys that measure sea surface temperatures and the El Niño/La Niña phenomenon to degrade?

From Nature News:

Nearly half of the moored buoys in the Tropical Atmosphere Ocean (TAO) array have failed in the last two years, crippling an early-warning system for the warming and cooling events in the eastern equatorial Pacific, known respectively as El Niño and La Niña. Scientists are now collecting data from just 40% of the array.

“It’s the most important climate phenomenon on the planet, and we have blinded ourselves to it by not maintaining this array,” says Michael McPhaden, a senior scientist at the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) in Seattle, Washington. McPhaden headed the TAO project before it was transferred out of NOAA’s research arm and into the agency’s National Weather Service in 2005.

The network was developed over the course of a decade following the massive El Niño of 1982�’1983. NOAA maintains some 55 buoys across the eastern and central Pacific that monitor weather conditions as well as water temperatures down to 500 metres. Working in concert, the Japan Agency for Marine-Earth Science and Technology (JAMSTEC) maintains another dozen buoys in the western tropical Pacific. Combined, the monitoring system has become a cornerstone for seasonal weather forecasting given the tropical Pacific’s influence on broader weather patterns.

THOMAS LIFSON: THE ROYAL DHIMMIWIT GETS A SATISFYING SMACKDOWN Prince Charles, heir to the British throne, is also heir to the sort of mush-headed liberalism that permeates high society on both sides of the Atlantic. Accordingly, he has thrown his lot in with the warmists, decrying the alleged danger to the future of the earth represented by the harnessing of energy embedded in […]