Egypt Daily News has long claimed to be the only 'independent' daily in a heavily restricted media landscape
Syriac Orthodox bishop inaugurated four years after previous incumbent left the country
Attacks over the past two days have killed 16 people in Russia, Spain and Finland
Some would prefer a quick conclusion to the negotiations over the North American Free Trade Agreement, or Nafta, that began this week. But there is a strong case for a different approach, involving trade and something more important: human rights
Charlottesville was a defeat for America but a win for the provocateurs in our midst.
Adam Liptak wrote in the New York Times several days ago that law schools are preparing to delve into numerous Constitutional questions that have been brought to a head by the Trump presidency, not the least of which is:“Must Congress authorize a nuclear strike against North Korea?”
Case in point: a conference taking place in Cambridge on November 4 will address the question, “Presidential First Use of Nuclear Weapons: Is it Legal? Is it Constitutional? Is it Just?” The affiliations of the speakers – including Yale Law School, Georgetown University Law Center, University of Chicago’s Harris School of Public Policy, Princeton, Harvard, Stanford, MIT – tend to affirm Liptak’s suggestion that this is a question that is being taken up in law schools and on campuses nationwide.
Also speaking at the Cambridge conference will be Massachusetts member of Congress Jim McGovern, a co-sponsor of HR669 “Restricting First Use of Nuclear Weapons Act of 2017.” Central to HR669 are the principles that . . .“The Constitution gives Congress the sole power to declare war”;
“By any definition of war, a first-use nuclear strike from the United States would constitute a major act of war”; and
“A first-use nuclear strike conducted absent a declaration of war by Congress would violate the Constitution.”
Of course, breathing life into HR669’s steely logic requires the participation of actual members of Congress, and in turn by the life-and-blood people they represent. It is worth noting that HR 669 now has forty-seven (47) co-sponsors in the House, including representatives from . . .
Food for thought: how many law schools and universities will avail themselves of the opportunity to invite their member of Congress to participate in a discussion of this vital question? As the list above indicates, “Presidential First Use of Nuclear Weapons: Is it Legal? Is it Constitutional? Is it Just?” has now become the question people are asking everywhere.
Reprinted with permission from Scarry Thoughts.
Although not as deadly as they might have been, the terrorist attacks in Barcelona on Thursday afternoon and at a Spanish beach resort in the early hours of Friday appear to be the most extensive coordinated operations claimed by the so-called Islamic State since the carnage in Paris in November 2015 and Brussels in March 2016.
The words “alt-left” sounded strange coming from Donald Trump’s mouth, but then most words do. After a weekend of violence in Charlottesville, Virginia, that left three dead, including an anti-fascist activist murdered by the far right, Trump has refused to unequivocally condemn the “alt-right” neo-Nazis responsible for the violence. Instead, he complains that his exterminationist supporters have been treated “very unfairly.” What about the violence of the anti-fascists, he wants to know: “What about the fact that they came charging with clubs...
Apparently, as long as violent leftists label their victims “fascists,” they are free to set fires, smash windows and beat civilians bloody. No police officer will stop them. They have carte blanche to physically assault anyone they disapprove of, including Charles Murray, Heather Mac Donald, Ben Shapiro, me and Milo Yiannopoulos, as well as anyone who wanted to hear us speak.
There are two ways to look at what happened this week in Charlottesville, Va. One is as a crisis over racism, anti-Semitism and violence. The other is as a crisis over the removal of Robert E. Lee on a horse. We know where our president went. “Sad to see the history and culture of our great country being ripped apart with the removal of our beautiful statues and monuments,” wrote Donald Trump.
For the last seven-plus years, Republicans ran on repealing and replacing ObamaCare. It was a winning platform, demonstrated by their gaining seats in Congress in almost every election since Obama was elected in 2008 — achieving a majority in the House in 2010, a majority in the Senate in 2014, and finally the White House in 2016.
Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and Defense Secretary Jim Mattis insist that the United States will seek to stop North Korea's nuclear-missile program through economic pressure backed by militaryÃ¢?Â¦
Liberals have helped make it impossible to sit at a table with someone with whom you disagree, writes Mark Bauerlein, but isolating and excluding other viewpoints is antithetical to a shared democracy.
President Trump and his national-security team are meeting Friday at Camp David, Maryland, to discuss the U.S. strategy in Afghanistan. The results of that meeting could have long-term consequences not only for both countries, but also for many regional powers engaged in a new “great game” in Afghanistan. At the heart of the deliberations lies one question: What more can the U.S. do in a country where it has been present for 16 years?
The ongoing war in Afghanistan—America's longest (and most expensive) conflict to date—is a mess and the military has no idea how to clean it up. What began as a simple punitive expedition targeting the terrorists responsible for 9/11 has become an indefinite nation-building exercise