Since 2019, New York has sought to establish the nation’s first congestion pricing zone, which would charge drivers fees for rush hour trips to improve traffic flows and raise funds for the city’s dilapidated subway system. That plan to toll drivers entering lower Manhattan’s gridlocked streets recently hit another roadblock: New Jersey.

Congestion pricing would provide important benefits to drivers themselves. Less gridlock means Manhattan’s roads can handle more cars. Faster travel speeds allow people with pressing errands to get where they need to be on time.

New Jersey officials, however, argue that congestion pricing is a thinly disguised “shakedown” of their suburban constituents who commute to Manhattan. They complain that New Jersey drivers heading to New York would be charged thousands of dollars a year to pay for trains they don’t use.

Because New Jersey’s demands that New York exempt Garden State motorists from the toll scheme have fallen on deaf ears, elected officials are resorting to the courts. In July, New Jersey filed a lawsuit challenging federal officials’ approval of New York’s congestion pricing plan. That move could delay implementation for years.

The planned congestion fees would hit drivers on federally subsidized highways, which requires approval from federal highway officials. Before they could give New York the green light, federal regulators had to produce a lengthy report on any environmental effects congestion pricing might have, a requirement imposed by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).

NEPA allows third parties to sue federal officials if they think an “environmental assessment” is incomplete. To head off such litigation, the Federal Highway Administration spent years producing a 958-page report detailing all the potential effects of congestion tolls. Creating that study delayed New York’s implementation of congestion pricing from the initial target date of January 2021 to 2024.

As soon as the ink was dry on the study, New Jersey filed a lawsuit claiming more analysis was needed. If a federal judge agrees, congestion pricing might not begin before the decade’s end.

Lawsuits like New Jersey’s are “extremely normal,” says Eli Dourado of the Center for Growth and Opportunity. “Plaintiffs bring a complaint [that] doesn’t state the true objection to the project. They sue on environmental grounds because that’s the course of action that’s available to them.”

Cynical NEPA suits have delayed everything from new highways to new windmills to space launches. They’ve become so common that liberals and conservatives alike blame the law for making America the “build nothing” nation. Unless the law undergoes some serious reforms, Manhattan’s roads will continue to look like a parking lot.

ISIS figures, the release notes, in particular have called on attacks against “the Jewish presence all over the world … especially Jewish neighborhoods in America and Europe” and specifically have singled out Jewish temples, nightclubs, “economic interests” and “Jewish and Crusader” embassies.

The warning from the country’s top law enforcement agencies comes on the heels of several high-profile incidents of antisemitic and Islamophobic violence against Jews and Muslims in the United States, which many attribute to the ongoing conflict in Israel.

In a surprise attack on Oct. 7, Hamas militants stormed out of the Gaza Strip, killing more than 1,200 Israelis and abducting dozens more, while firing rockets at cities including Tel Aviv and Jerusalem. Israel has since hit back by commencing a siege of Gaza and firing its own barrage of retaliatory missiles, killing thousands. The U.S. has publicly pledged to support Israel as it seeks to militarily defeat Hamas and end its rule over the Gaza Strip.

On Oct. 14, a man repeatedly stabbed a 6-year-old Palestinian boy, Wadea Al-Fayoume, in Plainfield, Ill. The murder, which authorities have labeled an anti-Muslim hate crime, sparked outrage and grief among Muslim Americans.

Meanwhile, the Anti-Defamation League said Wednesday that “reported incidents of harassment, vandalism and assault increased by 388 percent” since the outbreak of the war in Israel.

Biden has addressed antisemitic and Islamophobic violence since the war began, denouncing both antisemitism and Islamophobia during an Oval Office speech last week. White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre also said in an Oct. 12 briefing that the “entire Biden–Harris administration” is “committed to doing all we can to protect against antisemitism and other forms of hate.”

Still, the Biden administration has been criticized by both Jewish and Muslim community leaders for its response to the incidents. In particular, Biden has been criticized for not emphasizing enough that Palestinians are not all aligned with Hamas.

Meanwhile, on Monday, Jean-Pierre was criticized for saying the White House had not seen “any credible threats,” when asked about the administration’s level of concern about increasing antisemitism. She then went on to condemn “hate-fueled attacks” against Muslim and Arab Americans.

After facing pushback from Jewish Democrats, Jean-Pierre clarified her remarks on Tuesday, saying “there is no place for antisemitism. Full stop. Period. This is important to the president. This is important for me personally and to everyone in the administration.”

“We must all do our part and forcefully — forcefully speak out against antisemitism, and we must ensure there is no place for hate in America — not against Jews, not against Muslims, not against Arab Americans, not against Palestinian Americans, not against anyone,” Jean-Pierre continued.

The ABC talk show “The View” descended into chaos once again on Wednesday morning when co-hosts Whoopi Goldberg and Joy Behar, who are usually aligned in their radically liberal views, got into a heated exchange over men and abortion.

It’s time for #HotTopics because @TheView is LIVE — coming up:

Bombshells from Britney’s new memoir

Should men have a say in reproductive rights?

GOP nominate Rep. Mike Johnson for speaker

and more pic.twitter.com/XNSVVSqYPU

— The View (@TheView) October 25, 2023

Goldberg And Behar Go At It On ‘The View’

Things quickly went off the rails during a segment in which the women of “The View” discussed Britney Spears’ recent claim that she got an abortion twenty years ago during her time dating her fellow singer Justin Timberlake from 1999-2002. Spears alleged in her new memoir “The Woman In Me,” which came out yesterday, that Timberlake pressured her into getting the abortion even though she had wanted to have the baby.

The conversation on “The View” quickly shifted to one about whether or not men should have a say in a woman’s choice when it comes to abortion, with Behar saying that a woman shouldn’t even need to inform a man that she is pregnant with his child.

“When they get pregnant and start getting bloated and retaining, then they can make the decision,” said Behar, 81. “In the meantime, I’m the one who has to pop this kid out, go through nine months of a pregnancy, possibly be nauseous for three months, whatever is involved. And then take care of the kid! It’s her decision, in my opinion.”

Jane Fonda just went on the View and said Pro-Life politicians need to be “murdered” because of their views on abortion.

Joy Behar desperately tried to save face by saying that Fonda was “kidding” but she clearly was not. pic.twitter.com/igGJ3ZY28S

— Citizen Free Press (@CitizenFreePres) March 10, 2023

Related: Britney Spears Admits She Aborted Baby At Justin Timberlake’s Request

Goldberg Chimes In

Goldberg, 68, then chimed in to give her own “suggestion.”

“You know, if they put as much onus on how men treat their own bodies — because the swimmers, we carry eggs. They carry the swimmers,” she said. “I kind of feel like, they need to put the same onus on abortion for men as they do for women, and let’s see how deep it’s going to be, because if you tell a man, ‘No, you can’t take care of yourself,’ I wonder how many of them are going to listen.”

“But we don’t tell them what to do with their prostate,” Behar fired back, with Goldberg immediately cutting her off to say, “No, no, you’re missing the point.”

“What is the point?” a confused Behar said.

“The point is, if men cannot take care of themselves in the way that men do—” Goldberg tried to reply before Behar interrupted her to bluntly exclaim “wear a condom!”

“No,” a visibly annoyed Goldberg said in response. “Listen, we’ll be right back. I’ll explain.”

However, Goldberg never did explain, as the show moved on to other topics when it returned to commercial. Check out the bizarre exchange in the video below.

SHOULD MEN HAVE A SAY IN REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS? As bombshells from Britney Spears’ new memoir come out, including claims she had an abortion while dating ex-boyfriend Justin Timberlake, #TheView co-hosts weigh in. https://t.co/cVclFZQU98 pic.twitter.com/Le2NBLxlsq

— The View (@TheView) October 25, 2023

Related: After Tragic Abortion Confession, Britney Spears Holds Knives To Her Own Throat

Spears’ Abortion

This came after Spears blamed Timberlake for pressuring her into getting an abortion.

“It was a surprise, but for me, it wasn’t a tragedy. I loved Justin so much. I always expected us to have a family together one day. This would just be much earlier than I’d anticipated,” Spears wrote, according to People Magazine. “But Justin definitely wasn’t happy about the pregnancy. He said we weren’t ready to have a baby in our lives, that we were way too young.”

“I’m sure people will hate me for this, but I agreed not to have the baby,” she continued. “I don’t know if that was the right decision. If it had been left up to me alone, I never would have done it. And yet Justin was so sure that he didn’t want to be a father.”

Spears regrets getting the abortion to this day.

“To this day, it’s one of the most agonizing things I have ever experienced in my life,” she admitted.

Britney Spears revealed she was pregnant with Justin Timberlake but decided to get an abortion. #TheWomanInMe pic.twitter.com/6cAV7J96FY

— niko (@UDR1VEMECRAZY) October 18, 2023

While Spears’ abortion is an undeniable tragedy, we’re glad to see that her going public about it appears to have led to two radical liberals like Goldberg and Behar having a nonsensical argument on live television. In the end, all Goldberg and Behar accomplished was showing the world how ignorant they each really are about the issue of abortion.

Newsweek (Matthew Impelli) reported today on this incident, which involved “a graduate student” instructor “at UC Berkeley’s Department of Ethnic Studies.” (The story may have been first broken by Israelly Cool [David Lange].) Fortunately, UC Berkeley promptly rejected this; when I e-mailed the media relations office, I was informed that:

As soon as the administration was made aware of the assignment it moved quickly to ensure that it would be changed. The situation has been remedied, the assignment has been changed and there are now a number of options for extra credit, not just one. Students can now attend any local event they wish—such as a book talk or a panel discussion—-related to the course’s subject, including the protest…or they can watch any documentary they wish about the Middle East.

The Berkeley provost’s office has also just sent out this follow-up, apparently to “all faculty, staff, and students”:

I write to remind people of University policy as pertains to academic freedom and political advocacy in the classroom. While instructors enjoy considerable freedom and all individuals, when acting as private citizens, enjoy free speech rights, University policy does impose limits on using the classroom or one’s course for purposes of political advocacy.

I call your immediate attention to Regents’ Policy 2301, which prohibits canceling a class session for the purpose of encouraging students to participate in a protest or rally.

The principal policies that apply to these matters are (URLs at end of message):

Among other limitations, these policies prohibit:

• significant intrusion of material unrelated to the course (APM 015, Section II, A.1.b & Section B4(b) of Unit 18 agreement);
• use of the position or powers of a faculty member to coerce the judgment or conscience of a student or to cause harm to a student for arbitrary or personal reasons (APM 015, Section II, A.5 & Section B4(h) of Unit 18 agreement); and
• misuse of the classroom by, for example, allowing it to be used for political indoctrination, for purposes other than those for which the course was constituted, or for providing grades without commensurate and appropriate student achievement (Regents’ Policy 2301).

In addition,

• Regents’ Policy 2301 stipulates “the right of students to have their classes held on the regularly scheduled basis and to be taught by the instructor whose responsibility it is to teach the course in question is to be upheld”; and
• APM 015, Part II, A.1.c. defines”significant failure to adhere, without legitimate reason, to the rules of the faculty in the conduct of courses, to meet class, to keep office hours, or to hold examinations as scheduled” to be a violation of the Faculty Code of Conduct.

Instructors are also reminded of the campus’s Principles of Community (https://diversity.berkeley.edu/principles-community) and of the importance of ensuring that students are not made to feel intimidated, threatened, and/or excluded in their classes.

Instructors who have questions concerning permissible or impermissible actions should discuss them with their department chair or school dean.

Portugal’s Foreign Minister João Gomes Cravinho on Wednesday said his government supported António Guterres’ position on the Israel-Hamas war, amid an escalating dispute between the United Nations secretary-general and Israeli authorities.

“We fully understand and follow the position of António Guterres, who was unequivocal when he condemned Hamas terrorism,” Gomes Cravinho told Portuguese newswire Lusa. “There is no way to say that António Guterres is in any way excusing terrorism.”

The Portuguese foreign minister also dismissed Israel’s calls for Guterres — who is Portuguese — to resign.

Guterres also received Germany’s support, with a spokesperson for the government in Berlin saying on Wednesday it had confidence in the U.N. chief, according to Reuters.

On Tuesday, Guterres said during a Security Council meeting that the violent Hamas attack against Israel on October 7 “did not happen in a vacuum,” triggering furious reactions from Israel.

In response, Israel’s U.N. ambassador Gilad Erdan told Israeli radio on Wednesday morning that the country has denied a visa to U.N. Under Secretary-General Martin Griffiths, following Guterres’ comments.

“Due to his remarks we will refuse to issue visas to U.N. representatives … The time has come to teach them a lesson,” Erdan told Army Radio, reported Times of Israel.

Guterres followed up in the early hours of Wednesday morning, saying that the “horrendous attacks” by Hamas “cannot justify the collective punishment of the Palestinian people.”

Guterres’ initial “vacuum” remarks were slammed by Erdan, who said “the Secretary-General is completely disconnected from the reality in our region” and called for his resignation. Israeli Foreign Minister Eli Cohen also announced he would no longer meet with Guterres.

Some top Western officials have been appealing to Israel to mitigate its response against civilians in Gaza, a coastal strip of land where more than two million Palestinians live and where Hamas militants are in control.

Following Hamas’ deadly attack in early October, which killed more than 1,400 people, Israel has carried out relentless retaliatory airstrikes and put the Gaza Strip under a “complete siege,” cutting off fuel, electricity and water, and killing more than 6,500 people.

By Casey Harper (The Center Square)

U.S. House Republicans chose Rep. Mike Johnson, R-La., to be the new nominee for speaker of the House, the latest in a series of Republican lawmakers facing the daunting task of cobbling together the needed 217 votes for the speakership.

Nine House Republicans were announced Sunday as throwing their hat in the ring to be speaker, but that number has slowly been whittled down as lawmakers dropped out.

Now, Johnson, a conservative Republican with significant support in the party, will have his chance.

“We must govern well and expand our majority next year,” Johnson said in a letter to his fellow Republicans earlier over the weekend asking for support in the speaker’s race.

It remains unclear if Johnson will have a vote on the House floor. The House has gone without a speaker for more than three weeks.

Related: Trump Volunteers To Temporarily Serve As Speaker If House Needs A ‘Unifier’, Then Endorses This Man

Notably, Rep. Kevin Hern, chairman of the Republican Study Committee, was previously running for speaker but dropped out, telling reporters he was throwing his support behind Johnson.

Rep. Matt Gaetz, R-Fla., kicked off the speakership battle by filing a motion to vacate former House Speaker Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif. From there, Majority Leader Steve Scalise won the nomination but quickly backed out after failing to get the needed support. House Judiciary Chair Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, was next in line but lost the nomination after three failed votes on the House floor with 25 Republicans ultimately voting against him.

Jordan took fire in particular for questioning the results of the 2020 election, which has become a key issue in this speakership battle.

Majority Whip Tom Emmer, R-Minn., was next to secure the nomination but quickly withdrew after failing to gain support. Notably, former President Donald Trump aggressively spoke out against Emmer, likely hurting his chances.

Related: ‘It’s Over, I Killed Him’: Trump Brags About Sinking ‘RINO’ Tom Emmer’s Bid For Speaker 

However, Trump’s endorsement of Jordan was not enough to secure the speakership.

Now, the House remains stalled and unable to pass any legislation until resolving the lack of a speaker. The federal government is set to partially shut down in the middle of November if another spending package is not passed, and lawmakers face growing calls to send funds overseas to help Ukraine and Israel with their respective wars.

“Mike Johnson is a man of integrity and a principled conservative,” Rep. Jim Banks, R-Ind., wrote on X, formerly known as Twitter. “I will be proud to cast my vote on behalf of northeast Indiana for him on the floor tomorrow to make him the next Speaker of the House!”

Syndicated with permission from The Center Square.

Remember when Sen. Rand Paul (R–Ky.) accused then–White House COVID-19 adviser Anthony Fauci of funding China’s Wuhan virus lab?

Fauci replied, “Senator Paul, you do not know what you’re talking about.”

The media loved it. Vanity Fair smirked, “Fauci Once Again Forced to Basically Call Rand Paul a Sniveling Moron.”

But now the magazine has changed its tune, admitting, “In Major Shift, NIH Admits Funding Risky Virus Research in Wuhan” and “Paul might have been onto something.”

Then what about question two: Did COVID-19 occur because of a leak from that lab?

When Paul confronted Fauci, saying, “The evidence is pointing that it came from the lab!” Fauci replied, “I totally resent the lie that you are now propagating.”

Was Paul lying? What’s the truth?

The media told us COVID came from an animal, possibly a bat.

But in my new video, Paul points out there were “reports of 80,000 animals being tested. No animals with it.”

Now he’s released a book, Deception: The Great Covid Cover-Up, that charges Fauci and others with funding dangerous research and then covering it up.

“Three people in the Wuhan lab got sick with a virus of unknown origin in November of 2019,” says Paul. The Wuhan lab is 1,000 kilometers away from where bats live.

Today the FBI, the Energy Department, and others agree with Paul. They believe COVID most likely came from a lab.

I ask Paul, “COVID came from evil Chinese scientists, in a lab, funded by America?”

“America funded it,” he replies, “maybe not done with evil intentions. It was done with the misguided notion that ‘gain-of-function’ research was safe.”

Gain-of-function research includes making viruses stronger.

The purpose is to anticipate what might happen in nature and come up with vaccines in advance. So I push back at Paul, “They’re trying to find ways to stop diseases!”

He replies, “Many scientists have now looked at this and said, ‘We’ve been doing this gain-of-function research for quite a while.’ The likelihood that you create something that creates a vaccine that’s going to help anybody is pretty slim to none.”

Paul points out that Fauci supported “gain-of-function” research.

“He said in 2012, even if a pandemic occurs…the knowledge is worth it.” Fauci did write: “The benefits of such experiments and the resulting knowledge outweigh the risks.”

Paul answers: “Well, that’s a judgment call. There’s probably 16 million families around the world who might disagree with that.”

Fauci and the National Institutes of Health (NIH) didn’t give money directly to the Chinese lab. They gave it to a nonprofit, EcoHealth Alliance. The group works to protect people from infectious diseases.

“They were able to accumulate maybe over $100 million in U.S. taxpayer dollars, and a lot of it was funneled to Wuhan,” says Paul.

EcoHealth Alliance is run by zoologist Peter Daszak. Before the pandemic, Daszak bragged about combining coronaviruses in Wuhan.

Once COVID broke out, Daszak became less eager to talk about these experiments. He won’t talk to me.

“Peter Daszak has refused to reveal his communications with the Wuhan lab,” complains Paul. “I do think that ultimately there is a great deal of culpability on his part.… They squelched all dissent and said, ‘You’re a conspiracy theorist if you’re saying this [came from a lab],’ but they didn’t reveal that they had a monetary self-incentive to cover this up,” says Paul.

“The media is weirdly uncurious about this,” I say to Paul.

“We have a disease that killed maybe 16 million people,” Paul responds. “And they’re not curious as to how we got it?”

Also, our NIH still funds gain of function research, Paul says.

“This is a risk to civilization. We could wind up with a virus…that leaks out of a lab and kills half of the planet,” Paul warns.

Paul’s book reveals much more about Fauci and EcoHealth Alliance. I will cover more of that in this column in a few weeks.

COPYRIGHT 2023 BY JFS PRODUCTIONS INC.

ABOARD THE FRENCH HELICOPTER CARRIER TONNERRE — John Denver’s “Country Roads,” a folk song from 1971, resounds through the Tonnerre. 

It’s 7:30 a.m., and some of the crew aboard the Mistral-class amphibious helicopter carrier are already eating breakfast — loading up on coffee, bread and jam ahead of a planned exercise to storm a Spanish beach. It’s been a short night, and plans for the landing have changed several times.

The French assault vessel — 199 meters long, 32 meters wide and able to carry 21,500 tons — is a key element in the European Union’s first live military exercise in October off the southern coast of Spain. 

In the training scenario chosen by top EU military officials, European troops had to assault a beach to rescue the government of a fictitious ally called Seglia. 

That’s exactly what the Tonnerre (Thunder in English), was designed to do. Called a Landing Helicopter Dock in NATO-speak, the ship can carry helicopters, armored vehicles, tanks and troops; move them overseas at 19 knots and transform into a landing base. Landing craft parked in the 885-square-meter bay can carry men and military vehicles to the shore.

“Amphibious helicopter carriers are the core of France’s power projection, that is to say the ability to project military capabilities onto enemy territory, or onto allied land confronted with an enemy,” Vessel Captain Adrien Schaar, the commanding officer, told POLITICO speaking from the flight deck. “The Tonnerre can be deployed across the entire spectrum, from low to high intensity.”

The vessel’s motto —“si vis pacem, para Tonnerre” — is a pun on the famous Latin adage “si vis pacem, para bellum,” meaning, if you want peace, prepare for war.

The Tonnerre has been in service since 2007 and is stationed in Toulon on France’s Mediterranean coast.

It’s part of the Mistral class, built by France in the 2000s. They have been deployed for a wide range of operations, including evacuating French and European citizens from the Middle East during the 2006 Israel-Hezbollah war and backing France’s military intervention in Mali in 2013. They also participate in NATO missions and U.N. peacekeeping efforts.

Five ships were built, with France operating three: the Tonnerre, the Mistral and the Dixmude.

The remaining two have a much more complicated past.

Former President Nicolas Sarkozy initially sold them to Russia — the first time a NATO country planned to send military equipment to Moscow. However, after Russian President Vladimir Putin annexed Crimea in 2014, it became politically impossible to deliver the Sevastopol and the Vladivostok. Sarkozy’s successor François Hollande canceled the order and France had to refund Russia €950 million, in what remains one of the worst diplomatic fallouts between Paris and Moscow before Vladimir Putin launched his full-scale invasion of Ukraine. 

France later sold the warships to Egypt, and the whole tangle ended up costing French taxpayers €409 million.

Floating village

While the Tonnerre’s mission is the projection of military force, it takes a lot of mundane activity for that to happen.

The warship is a self-sufficient mini-town with a 69-bed hospital that includes two surgery units, a dentist, gyms and even a boulangerie, where bakers make hundreds of baguettes every day.

The Tonnerre can go up to three weeks without restocking, explained Pierre, who works in the kitchens and has been a sailor for a decade (his full name cannot be disclosed for security reasons). Military cooks go through special training to learn how to provide crews of hundreds with a balanced diet. Aboard the warship, a typical dinner is chicken, rice and spinach. “You can’t have pasta or French fries every night,” Pierre said.

For the EU’s October military exercise, the kitchen was running at full tilt, as the Tonnerre hosted about 600 military personnel, including from the army and the air force — in addition to the permanent crew of about 200. The overwhelming majority are men.

“At first, some had a hard time adjusting,” said Daniel, who’s been in the army for four-and-a-half years and aboard a warship for the first time, “but if you’re not claustrophobic, you get used to it.” 

“We’re discovering the navy,” he added, with a grin.

Amphibious helicopter carriers are, by their nature, inter-service vessels, linking ground, air and naval forces.

The Tonnerre can act as mobile command and control center, and can carry 16 helicopters as well as 60 armored vehicles, or 13 Leclerc tanks. The 5,200-square-meter flight deck also functions as a track for joggers looking to stretch their legs.

It’s not always used for war. One of the Tonnerre’s missions was in Lebanon after the 2020 explosions that tore apart the Port of Beirut, when France provided food supplies and construction material. The ship’s narrow, white corridors are decorated with photos of that mission and a framed drawing by cartoonist Plantu on Franco-Lebanese friendship. 

Not an easy life

The crew joined for a variety of reasons — the desire to belong to a group, the chance to sail to different countries, an interesting career — but missions aren’t easy.

Being aboard the Tonnerre for weeks or months at a time means limited contacts with friends and family. Cell phones are allowed — unless the mission requires a blackout — however there’s often no reception and only high-ranking personnel have access to computers.

“We adapt, that’s the life of a sailor, but the family has to keep up,” said Charles, who’s been in the navy for nearly three decades and whose father was also a sailor. “Back in the day, there was no contact at all, no contact with the family for months on end.”

Now, there are landline telephones and TVs — which isn’t always positive.

In mid-October, the crew gathered in the helicopter hangar to watch France’s nail-biting 29-28 defeat to South Africa in the quarterfinals of the Rugby World Cup.

In the evening on deck, in a makeshift smoking area, young men in uniform check their phones for an internet connection — but the Spanish shore is too far away. “So we play silly games,” said one of them, scrolling on his smartphone screen with a shrug.

The lack of decent Wi-Fi is a problem that needs to be addressed to attract and retain younger people, navy chief Admiral Nicolas Vaujour told the French Association of defense journalists, including POLITICO, in Paris last month.

The French government is also trying to make life easier for sailors and their families, well aware that the navy — like most European militaries — has a talent retention problem. Civilian work may be less exciting, but it is more comfortable and defense contractors are more than willing to poach trained and specialized people from the military.

The government has come up with a so-called Family Plan to help, among other challenges, with childcare.

“We’re fully aware that we have to work for the sailors at sea,” Vaujour told the National Assembly earlier this month. “The question I ask my staff is: ‘What have you done today for those at sea? Have you used up at least five minutes of your time for those in operations?'”

The former Led Zeppelin singer Robert Plant shocked fans over the weekend by performing the iconic song “Stairway To Heaven” for the first time in sixteen years.

Plant Performs ‘Stairway To Heaven’

Robert Plant performed Led Zeppelin’s “Stairway to Heaven” for the first time in 16 years during a charity concert in the UK over the weekend. pic.twitter.com/w3nNe6ieUC

— CONSEQUENCE (@consequence) October 23, 2023

The Huffington Post reported that Plant, 75, performed the song on Saturday night in the United Kingdom at a benefit for Cancer Awareness Trust that was organized by the Duran Duran guitarist Andy Taylor, who is in the midst of a battle with Stage 4 prostate cancer. Plant made the lyrics even more poignant for the occasion by changing up the final verse of the song.

Check out his full performance in the video below.

Plant’s History With ‘Stairway To Heaven’

Plant hadn’t performed “Stairway To Heaven” publicly since December 10, 2007, when he joined the surviving members of Led Zeppelin for a one-off reunion show in London. While he’s performed other Led Zeppelin songs in the years since then, he’s avoided “Stairway To Heaven,” and he’s long been open about having issues with the song. In 1988, Plant told The Los Angeles Times that he would “definitely not” sing “Stairway to Heaven” on tour.

“I’d break out in hives if I had to sing that song in every show,” he said at the time. “I wrote those lyrics and found that song to be of some importance and consequence in 1971, but 17 years later, I don’t know. It’s just not for me.”

“It’s not that I don’t like that song,” Plant later added at the SXSW music festival in 2005, according to The Oregonian. “It’s just that I’ve heard it before.”

Plant further opened up about his feelings about “Stairway To Heaven” in an interview with Rolling Stone last year.

“When I hear it in isolation, I feel overwhelmed for every single reason you could imagine,” he said. “There was a mood and an air of trying to make it through. The world is a different place. Everybody was reeling from Vietnam and the usual extra helping of corruption with politics.”

“There were people who were really eloquent who brought it home far less pictorially and did a much better job of reaching that point,” Plant continued. “But I am what I am, and as my grandfather said, ‘I can’t be more ‘am’-erer.’”

Watch Plant talk more about this in the video below.

Related: Toby Keith Launches Comeback After Stomach Cancer Diagnosis – Returning To Concert Stage For First Time

Taylor’s Cancer Battle

Taylor, 62, addressed Plant’s mixed feelings about “Stairway To Heaven” after his performance on Saturday.

“Bet I enjoyed that more than him,” Taylor said.

Plant undoubtedly decided to perform the song to show support for Taylor, who revealed back in July that he is treating his stage 4 prostate cancer with “nuclear therapy,” a new form of treatment that is currently only available in the U.K.

“Essentially it’s a nuclear medicine,” Taylor explained to Daily Mail. “It’s put into your body and it detects the cancer on the outside of the cells and it only hits cancer cells in your bones, which is mainly where it is with me, and zaps them. But if there’s a healthy cell next to it, it doesn’t touch it.”

“So it’s not curative, but it can knock out and then it’s got to start again and from what was kind of – I’ll not even say the term they used to have on the thing – but I can get back full fitness,” he added. “I’ll be fine for five years.”

An Evening With Andy Taylor & Special Guests In Support Of The Cancer Awareness Trust. Saturday 21st October. More info here https://t.co/el4wQo8pUu pic.twitter.com/qAD09VbZYb

— Robert Plant (@RobertPlant) October 16, 2023

Related: House Majority Leader Steve Scalise Diagnosed With Blood Cancer

While performing “Stairway To Heaven” may not be Plant’s favorite thing to do, we applaud him for singing it in support for his dear friend. Please join us in saying a prayer for Taylor as he continues his cancer battle!

In the weeks following Hamas’ attacks in Israel and Israel’s military response in Gaza, college students have launched protests on campuses across the United States. Some efforts, like the student group letter at Harvard University that held Israel “entirely responsible” for Hamas’ siege, have drawn a huge backlash. Harvard has seen major donors withdrawing their financial support and executive board members stepping down over the protests.

Three Republican presidential candidates have not only expressed their opposition to the protests but have also voiced their desire to see certain protesters punished.

“As president, if you’re on a student visa and you’re a foreigner and you’re out there celebrating terrorism, I’m canceling your visa and I’m sending you home,” said Ron DeSantis at a campaign event last week. “We will revoke the student visas of radical anti-American and antisemitic foreigners at our colleges and universities,” promised former President Donald Trump. “We will send them straight back home.” Sen. Tim Scott (R–S.C.), likewise, said that “foreign national students on visas who are protesting against our ally Israel should be sent back to their country.” (The DeSantis, Trump, and Scott campaigns did not respond to Reason‘s requests for comment by press time.)

The call isn’t just limited to the 2024 GOP presidential candidates. Nineteen Republican House members have urged Biden administration officials to deport “foreign students who are in the U.S. on temporary visas and have expressed support for Hamas,” according to Fox News. “They note that students on student visas can be disqualified under the Immigration and Nationality Act from being eligible for a visa if they endorse or espouse terror activity.”

Hamas has committed grave atrocities against Israelis, and some stateside anti-Israel protesters have voiced truly objectionable and troubling views at demonstrations. But these protesters are still entitled to their First Amendment rights, and the candidates’ proposal raises serious concerns about free speech and noncitizen civil liberties.

“If we want to protect free speech, we have to protect both the speech and the speaker,” says Michael Kagan, a law professor at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) and director of the UNLV Immigration Clinic. “The problem for immigrants is that we do protect the speech, but we leave the speaker vulnerable.”

Kagan, an expert on the intersection of immigration law and free speech, notes that certain immigrants may be punished for their speech. Reno v. AADC (1999) “basically found that it would be extremely difficult for an immigrant to raise a selective prosecution defense against deportation,” he notes. “Undocumented immigrants are always vulnerable to being deported, but the key question is, will they be targeted by the government for deportation?” Selective prosecution could defend them if they can show that the government is trying to deport them only on the grounds of their political speech, but Reno “makes that a very difficult defense to raise.”

The Supreme Court “has at least twice said that the First Amendment applies to non-citizens in the country,” Kagan wrote in a 2015 article for the California Law Review, but “no Supreme Court case has squarely reached the question of whether free speech rights apply to immigrants that entered unlawfully.” The situation might not be clear-cut for foreign student protesters either. Kagan argues that foreign students who are here legally may still be vulnerable on the grounds of their speech: They often need their visas to be renewed, which means “there’s a lot more discretion involved in when [their visas] could be canceled.”

The GOP candidates haven’t narrowly defined who they favor sending home. They haven’t specified who, exactly, qualifies as people who are “celebrating terrorism” or are “radical anti-American and antisemitic foreigners,” the people DeSantis and Trump singled out last week. Scott favors booting an ostensibly broader category—student visa holders who are “protesting against our ally Israel.” This would seem to include more than just the extreme end of anti-Israel protesters and more than the people explicitly calling for violence. It would be deeply problematic for a U.S. president to have the power to kick out foreigners on such subjective grounds—a power that Republicans would no doubt oppose if wielded by Democrats.

What’s more, “the Supreme Court has set forth very narrow exceptions to the First Amendment,” says Joe Cohn, legislative and policy director at the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression. “For example, incitement to commit imminent acts of violence has been defined in Brandenburg v. Ohio and more recently refined and countermanded this last term. Simply expressing approval of violence is not the same as incitement.”

“People who are here lawfully, regardless of whether or not they are citizens, are here on student visas, or have permanent residence—they all enjoy the same First Amendment rights,” Cohn continues. “It’s good that elected officials and candidates for office are actively thinking about how to protect…students from antisemitism, but they have to use strategies that are constitutional to accomplish that important goal. Unfortunately, these proposals would not survive First Amendment scrutiny.”

This isn’t the only way candidates have proposed targeting immigrants and other noncitizens on ideological grounds. If elected, Trump says he would “implement strong ideological screening for all immigrants” and “aggressively deport resident aliens with jihadist sympathies.” He also says that foreigners who don’t believe in Israel’s right to exist wouldn’t be allowed to enter the country.

There are obvious civil liberties problems with the candidates’ call to revoke the visas of foreign student protesters—but they’re doubly disappointing since they illustrate an unwillingness to encounter contentious ideas. “The statements I’ve seen from these candidates are not talking about someone who’s actually giving material support to terrorists, they’re just expressing an opinion that they disagree with,” says Kagan.

“The usual American response to that is supposed to be, ‘Then explain why you disagree,'” he continues. “To throw them out of the country is essentially to repress and silence people and to send the message to others, ‘Don’t speak. Don’t raise your voice.'”