Haaretz
A ministerial panel on Sunday voted to give government backing to a bill that would require internet service providers to block access to pornographic websites, as well as other sites defined as offensive, by default.
To remove the block, a customer will be required to contact the internet provider. If approved, the bill would result in the creation of lists of internet users requesting access pornographic sites.
The bill is sponsored by 26 Knesset members from parties across the political divide. Only MKs from Meretz refused to support the proposed law.
The bill’s chief sponsor is MK Shuli Moalem-Refaeli (Habayit Hayehudi), along with MKs from the Zionist Union, Kulanu, Joint List, Yesh Atid, Shas, United Torah Judaism, Yisrael Beiteinu, Habayit Hayehudi and Likud.
The bill would require ISPs to supply a free-of-charge filter against offensive websites and content. Any customer wishing to remove the filter will be required to make a request in writing, by telephone or through the company’s website.
“The damaging influence of watching, and addiction to, pornographic and severe violence has been proven in many studies, with great harm to children. Today, it is easier for a child to consume harsh content on the internet than to buy an ice cream at the local kiosk,” said Moalem-Refaeli. “We must prevent such access by making the default of the internet provider to filter such content, unless the customer has asked to be exposed to it,” she added. [...]
Monday, October 31, 2016
Former Attorney Generals Gonzales, Holder and Mukasey slam FBI directories Email announcment
CNN [this is dedicated to those who claim the criticism of Comey is a left wing conspiracy]
Alberto Gonzales
Republican former US Attorney General Alberto Gonzales on Monday slammed the FBI director's recent actions in the investigation into Hillary Clinton's email server.
He called Comey's actions an "error in judgment" and said he is "somewhat perplexed about what the director was trying to accomplish here."
Gonzales said Comey's letter Friday informing lawmakers that the FBI is reviewing new emails potentially related to its investigation into Clinton's use of a private email server as secretary of state breaks from long-standing Justice Department practice. The protocol is not to comment on investigations and to stay silent on politically sensitive matters less than 60 days from an election.
"You don't comment on investigations because commenting on the investigation may jeopardize the investigation. And that's the box that he's put himself in, because people are now calling for more information -- for release of the emails," Gonzales told CNN's John Berman and Kate Bolduan on "At This Hour."
He was the third former attorney general to recently and publicly criticize Comey.
Gonzales, who served in the George W. Bush administration, said Comey wouldn't have been misleading voters by withholding the news until after November 8.[...]
Eric Holder
Former Attorney General Eric Holder also criticized Comey's decision Monday. Writing in The Washington Post on Monday, Holder called Comey's decision "incorrect."
Obama's first attorney general said Comey's letter to Congress announcing a review of the new emails was "a stunning breach" of law enforcement protocol and one that carried "potentially severe implications" during a presidential campaign.
"I served with Jim Comey, and I know him well. This is a very difficult piece for me to write. He is a man of integrity and honor. I respect him. But good men make mistakes. In this instance, he has committed a serious error with potentially severe implications," Holder wrote.
"It is incumbent upon him -- or the leadership of the department -- to dispel the uncertainty he has created before Election Day. It is up to the director to correct his mistake — not for the sake of a political candidate or campaign but in order to protect our system of justice and best serve the American people." [...]
Michael Mukasey
Former Attorney General Michael Mukasey also slammed Comey's decision in a Wall Street Journal op-ed. Mukasey, who served under George W. Bush after Gonzalez, called Comey's original decision in July not to indict the Democratic presidential candidate "unworthy." He described the decision as one to "accede to the apparent wish of Obama that no charges be brought against Clinton."
As such, he claimed this earlier move makes Comey's letter to Congress irrelevant.
"Regardless of what is in the newly discovered emails, the current Justice Department will not permit a grand jury to hear evidence in this case. And because only a grand jury can constitutionally bring charges, that means no charges will be brought," Mukasey wrote. "Which is to say, we know enough to conclude that what we don't know is of little immediate relevance to our current dismal situation."
On Clinton Emails, Did the F.B.I. Director Abuse His Power?
THE F.B.I. is currently investigating the hacking of Americans’ computers by foreign governments. Russia is a prime suspect.
Imagine a possible connection between a candidate for president in the United States and the Russian computer hacking. Imagine the candidate has business dealings in Russia, and has publicly encouraged the Russians to hack the email of his opponent. It would not be surprising for the F.B.I. to include this candidate and his campaign staff in its confidential investigation of Russian computer hacking.
But it would be highly improper, and an abuse of power, for the F.B.I. to conduct such an investigation in the public eye, particularly on the eve of the election. It would be an abuse of power for the director of the F.B.I., absent compelling circumstances, to notify members of Congress that the candidate was under investigation. It would be an abuse of power if F.B.I. agents went so far as to obtain a search warrant and raid the candidate’s office tower, hauling out boxes of documents and computers in front of television cameras.
The F.B.I.’s job is to investigate, not to influence the outcome of an election.
Such acts could also be prohibited under the Hatch Act, which bars the use of an official position to influence an election. That is why the F.B.I. presumably would keep those aspects of an investigation confidential until after the election. The usual penalty for a violation is termination of federal employment.
That is why, on Saturday, I filed a complaint against the F.B.I. with the Office of Special Counsel, which investigates Hatch Act violations, and with the Office of Government Ethics. I spent much of my career working on government and lawyers’ ethics, including as the chief White House ethics lawyer for George W. Bush. I never thought that the F.B.I. could be dragged into a political circus surrounding one of its investigations. Until this week.
(For the sake of full disclosure, in this election I have supported Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio, John Kasich and Hillary Clinton for president, in that order.)
On Friday, the director of the F.B.I., James B. Comey, sent members of Congress a letter about developments in the agency’s investigation of Mrs. Clinton’s emails, an investigation which supposedly was closed months ago. This letter, which was quickly posted on the internet, made highly unusual public statements about an F.B.I. investigation concerning a candidate in the election. The letter was sent in violation of a longstanding Justice Department policy of not discussing specifics about pending investigations with others, including members of Congress. According to some news reports, the letter was sent before the F.B.I. had even obtained the search warrant that it needed to look at the newly discovered emails. And it was sent days before the election, when many Americans are already voting.
Violations of the Hatch Act and of government ethics rules on misuse of official positions are not permissible in any circumstances, including in the case of an executive branch official acting under pressure from politically motivated members of Congress. Violations are of even greater concern when the agency is the F.B.I.
It is not clear whether Mr. Comey personally wanted to influence the outcome of the election, although his letter — which cast suspicion on Mrs. Clinton without revealing specifics — was concerning. Also concerning is the fact that Mr. Comey already made unusual public statements expressing his opinion about Mrs. Clinton’s actions, calling her handling of classified information “extremely careless,” when he announced this summer that the F.B.I. was concluding its investigation of her email without filing any charges.
But an official doesn’t need to have a specific intent — or desire — to influence an election to be in violation of the Hatch Act or government ethics rules. The rules are violated if it is obvious that the official’s actions could influence the election, there is no other good reason for taking those actions, and the official is acting under pressure from persons who obviously do want to influence the election.[...]
Chareidi boy attacked on Simchas Torah in Neve Yaakov by someone who appeared to be Chareidi
בצהרי חג שמחת תורה: ילד חרדי נחטף והותקף באכזריות
ילד חרדי נחטף במהלך חג שמחה תורה בשכונת נווה יעקב בצפון ירושלים והותקף באכזריות על ידי גבר בעל חזות חרדית. התושבים החרדים בשכונה חוששים ממקרי תקיפה נוספים (חדשות, חרדים)
אימה בשכונת נווה יעקב: ילד חרדי נחטף במהלך חג שמחה תורה בשכונת נווה יעקב בצפון ירושלים, והותקף באכזריות על ידי גבר זר בעל חזות חרדית, התוקף טרם נתפס. כך נודע ל"כיכר השבת".
על פי הפרטים שנודעו ל"כיכר השבת", האירוע התרחש בצהרי החג. הילד, שעשה את דרכו לביתו, נתפס על ידי גבר שחבש כיפה כחולה ונעליים חומות. האחרון אחז את הילד בחוזקה, הרים אותו וגרר אותו לחצר בית שבעליו לא שהו בארץ.
לאחר שחטף אותו וסחב אותו לחצר, התוקף פגע בילד באכזריות ונמלט מהמקום. לאחר התקיפה, הילד פתח בריצה וברח לביתו, שם שיחזר בפני הוריו את התקיפה האכזרית.
ההורים מיהרו להתלונן במשטרה וחוקרי ילדים גבו עדות מהילד החרדי המותקף. יצוין כי עד כה התוקף טרם נעצר, אך בידי המשטרה ישנם קצי חוט באשר לזהות התוקף.
יצוין, כי בשנה האחרונה החלו תושבי נווה יעקב להתקין מצלמות אבטחה בחדרי מדרגות בכדי למנוע מקרים מסוג זה ולזהות תוקפים מסוכנים.
"יש פחד בשכונה" מספר אחד מתושביה: "יש לא מעט מקרים שילדים מותקפים, אבל עכשיו זה כבר משהו רציני, חטפו ילד בכוח בצהריי היום, תקפו אותו באכזריות רבה... נהיה מפחיד לשלוח את הילדים לבית כנסת, אנחנו מקווים שיתפסו את התוקף במהרה".
Ari Shavit, Celebrated Israeli Columnist, Resigns After Sexual Harassment Accusations
Accused of sexual harassment, Mr. Shavit resigned on Sunday as one of Israel’s most influential newspaper columnists and television commentators, promising to rethink how he approaches other people, especially women.
“In the last few days I have understood that I have been afflicted by blindness,” Mr. Shavit said in a statement published by Haaretz, the leading left-of-center newspaper, for which he wrote a widely read column. “For years I did not understand what people meant when they spoke of privileged men who do not see the damage that they cause to others. Now, I am beginning to understand.”
The woman who complained that Mr. Shavit, who is married, had tried to force her to kiss him in a hotel lobby two years ago praised him for taking responsibility.
“I’m grateful for Ari Shavit’s powerful honest statement,” the woman, Danielle Berrin, a writer for The Jewish Journal, wrote on Twitter. “His resolution to do ‘heshbon hanefesh’ — an accounting of the soul — is admirable.”
The unexpected fall from grace of one of Israel’s most prominent figures shocked his admirers both here and in the United States. In effect, it was unexpected collateral damage from the presidential campaign of Donald J. Trump. Ms. Berrin wrote about her encounter with Mr. Shavit to make a point about sexual harassment, after similar accusations were made against Mr. Trump.
But unlike Mr. Trump, Mr. Shavit acknowledged wrongdoing and did not attack his accuser’s truthfulness. A harsh critic of the Republican presidential candidate in his column, Mr. Shavit told people close to him that he was genuinely remorseful and determined to respond in a way opposite to that of Mr. Trump.
“I am ashamed of the mistakes I made with regards to people in general and women in particular,” he said in his public statement on Sunday. “I am embarrassed that I did not behave correctly to my wife and children. I am embarrassed about the consequences of what I did.” [...]
FBI re-opens email probe against established practice just before elections - No claims of damaging evidence just new material
The FBI obtained a warrant to search emails related to the probe of Hillary Clinton's private server that were discovered on ex-congressman Anthony Weiner's laptop, law enforcement officials confirmed Sunday.
The warrant came two days after FBI Director James Comey revealed the existence of the emails, which law enforcement sources said were linked to Weiner's estranged wife, top Clinton aide Huma Abedin. The sources said Abedin used the same laptop to send thousands of emails to Clinton.
The FBI already had a warrant to search Weiner's laptop, but that only applied to evidence of his allegedly illicit communications with an underage girl.
Agents will now compare the latest batch of messages with those that have already been investigated to determine whether any classified information was sent from Clinton's server.
Comey's disclosure included few details about what the emails contained. In a letter to Congress, he said the FBI learned "of the existence of e-mails that appear to be pertinent" to the Clinton probe, but he added that the agency "cannot yet assess whether or not this material may be significant."
The revelation ignited fierce criticism. Citing the longstanding practice of avoiding even the appearance of acting in a manner that could tip the political scales, former Justice Department spokesman Matt Miller said that "most people, when they hear that the FBI is involved, automatically assume the negative."
Clinton called the move an "unprecedented" departure from FBI policy, and on Sunday, Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid scolded Comey for potentially breaking the law.
"Your actions in recent months have demonstrated a disturbing double standard for the treatment of sensitive information, with what appears to be clear intent to aid one political party over another," the letter says. "I am writing to inform you that my office has determined that these actions may violate the Hatch Act."
The act bars government officials from using their authority to influence elections.
Reid also accused Comey of shielding Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump from scrutiny over his connections to Russia, saying "it has become clear that you possess explosive information about close ties and coordination" between Trump and his advisers and the Russian government.
The FBI didn't immediately respond to requests for comment on Reid's letter. Earlier, Comey said in an internal message to FBI employees that "we don't ordinarily tell Congress about ongoing investigations, but here I feel an obligation to do so given that I testified repeatedly in recent months that our investigation was completed."
The note added that it would "be misleading to the American people were we not to supplement the record. At the same time, however, given that we don't know the significance of this newly discovered collection of e-mails, I don't want to create a misleading impression."
Sunday, October 30, 2016
Could a Diabetes Drug Help Beat Alzheimer's Disease?
Most of the 20 million people diagnosed with type 2 diabetes in the U.S. take metformin to help control their blood glucose. The drug is ultrasafe: millions of diabetics have taken it for decades with few side effects beyond gastrointestinal discomfort. And it is ultracheap: a month's supply costs $4 at Walmart. And now new studies hint that metformin might help protect the brain from developing diseases of aging, even in nondiabetics.
Diabetes is a risk factor for neurodegenerative diseases, but using metformin is associated with a dramatic reduction in their incidence. In the most comprehensive study yet of metformin's cognitive effects, Qian Shi and her colleagues at Tulane University followed 6,000 diabetic veterans and showed that the longer a patient used metformin, the lower the individual's chances of developing Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's disease, and other types of dementia and cognitive impairment. In line with some of the previous, smaller studies of long-term metformin use, patients in the new study who used the drug longer than four years had one quarter the rate of disease as compared with patients who used only insulin or insulin plus other antidiabetic drugs—bringing diabetics' risk level to that of the general population. The findings were presented in June at the American Diabetes Association's Scientific Sessions meeting.
Even in the absence of diabetes, Alzheimer's patients often have decreased insulin sensitivity in the brain, says Suzanne Craft, a neuroscientist who studies insulin resistance in neurodegenerative disease at the Wake Forest School of Medicine. The association has led some people to call Alzheimer's “type 3 diabetes.” Insulin plays many roles in the brain—it is involved in memory formation, and it helps to keep synapses free of protein debris, including the tau tangles and amyloid plaques that build up in Alzheimer's, Craft says.
Metformin, then, may help correct insulin issues in the aging brain. Research in animals shows that the drug's effect on neural stem cells might be key. Neuroscientists Jing Wang and Freda Miller, both then at Toronto's Hospital for Sick Children, showed that when nondiabetic mice are given metformin, their memory improves, thanks to an increase in the neural stem cell population and in the number of these cells that develop into healthy neurons in the hippocampus, the brain's memory center.
Human clinical trials also show promise in treating early Alzheimer's. Steven E. Arnold, a neurologist at Massachusetts General Hospital showed that early Alzheimer's patients had small but significant improvements in their memory and cognitive functioning after taking metformin for eight weeks as compared with a placebo. Brain imaging also revealed some improvements in neural metabolism. Such small effects are the norm when it comes to Alzheimer's; even established drugs are only modestly effective and only for a limited period. “That is one of the great motivations to find new therapies,” Craft says.[...]
Convicted sex offender Stefan Colmer is planning to move to Jerusalem in November according to Jewish Community Watch
Jewish Community Watch has received credible information that Stefan Colmer has plans to return to Israel in early November, with intentions of moving to the Ramot neighborhood in Jerusalem. The authorities in Israel have been notified, as well as local community leaders.
In 2007, Stefan Colmer had escaped to Israel through Canada in an effort to evade arrest from the police in NY. He was formally charged in absentia with 8 counts of deviate sexual intercourse with two 13 year old minors on the same day that his aliyah status was approved. Months later Colmer was extradited back to NY where he was convicted in 2009 and served time until his release in February 2012.
Currently Colmer still holds Israeli citizenship under the alias Dovid Cohen.
Please share widely and act responsibly to protect our communities children.
אזהרה לתושבי ישראל
JCW קיבל מידע ממקור אמין שסטפן קולמר מתכנן לחזור לארץ בתחילת נובמבר, בכוונתו לגור בשכונת רמות בירושלים. הרשויות וראשי הקהילות עודכנו.
בשנת 2007 סטפן קולמר ברח לישראל דרך קנדה על מנת להינצל ממעצר בניו יורק. קולמר הואשם ב8 מעשי אונס עם שתי קטינים בני 13 באותו יום שמעמדו כעולה נכנס לתוקף. כעבור כמה חודשים הוסגר לניו יורק ושם הורשע ב2009 ושם ביצע את מעצרו עד לשחרורו מהכלא בשנת 2012.
כעת קולמר עדיין מחזיק באזרחות ישראלית בשם הבדוי שלו "דוד כהן".
נא לשתף מידע זו לציבור על מנת לדאוג לבטיחות ילדנו בצורה האחראית ביותר.
Friday, October 28, 2016
Kaminetsky-Greenblatt Heter: What Rav Shmuel Kaminetsky needs to do to rectify this unholy mess
It would be helpful if he clearly state that this type of heter is not appropriate unless there is clear, verifiable evidence presented to the truth of the allegations and that the evidence clearly meets Rav Moshe Feinstein's requirements. A full beis din of internationally recognized poskim needs to sign the psak which should be made public. The experts who testify need to be clearly and publicly identified and their evidence needs to be based on direct contact with the parties. The beis din must hear both sides from the husband and wife.
A handwritten letter will suffice - though it would be nice if a video was made public
2) He needs to state unequivocally that he has told Tamar and Adam to separate and that he has told Rav Greenblatt that the evidence he and his son presented him is not valid and that Rav Greenblatt needs to retract his psak
3) He needs to publicly apologize to Aharon Friedman for the grief that he has caused him and that he had no right to try and override the authority of the Baltimore Beis Din.
Mike McQueary Is Awarded $7.3 Million in Penn State Defamation Case
A Pennsylvania jury on Thursday, in a defamation case against Penn State University, awarded $7.3 million to Mike McQueary, the former assistant football coach who in 2001 told Coach Joe Paterno that he had witnessed Jerry Sandusky sexually abusing a child in the locker room shower.
The jury, which deliberated for about four hours, found that Penn State had defamed McQueary with a statement in 2011 defending its former athletic director and vice president against a charge of perjury related to what McQueary said he had told them about Sandusky, a longtime defensive coordinator at Penn State.
Judge Thomas Gavin, who presided in the case, still has to rule on McQueary’s accusation that Penn State retaliated against him after he testified at Sandusky’s 2012 trial. McQueary was not allowed to coach at Penn State’s first game after Paterno was fired in connection with the scandal, in 2011, and McQueary’s contract was not renewed.
Even before Thursday’s ruling, the scandal had already cost Penn State well over $100 million in N.C.A.A. penalties, legal fees and settlements to victims of Sandusky’s sexual abuse. Sandusky was convicted in 2012 of sexually abusing 10 boys and was sentenced to 30 to 60 years in prison.
McQueary testified to a grand jury in 2010 that in 2001 he told Paterno, and later Athletic Director Tim Curley and the university vice president Gary Schultz, that he had witnessed the abuse. The testimony helped prosecutors eventually charge Sandusky, who is now 72.
The Pennsylvania attorney general subsequently charged Curley and Schultz with perjury after they told a grand jury that McQueary did not tell them Sandusky had committed something as serious as sexual abuse. The perjury charge was dismissed, but Schultz, Curley and Graham B. Spanier, the former university president, still face criminal charges of failure to report suspected child abuse and endangering the welfare of children. [...]
McQueary’s testimony in December 2011 helped show that Paterno, one of the most successful and beloved coaches in college football history, had heard that Sandusky had abused a boy at least a decade before Sandusky’s behavior became publicly known. Court documents released this summer showed that Paterno heard such an allegation as early as 1976.
Beit Shemesh man allegedly molests young girls who came to help clean the house while his wife was in the hospital.
An act of kindness by neighbors looking to help was repaid in the cruelest fashion, when a father took advantage of his wife’s absence from the home to allegedly sexually molest two young girls.
The alleged incident took place in a haredi neighborhood of Beit Shemesh, west of Jerusalem.
The mother of the family in question had recently given birth, and was still in the hospital. During her hospital stay, neighbors of the family sent two young girls, ages 11 and 12, to help out with chores.
According to haredi website BeHadrei Haredim, the father was supposed to be out of the house at the time, but was in fact there when the two girls arrived.
After the girls cleaned his house, the man allegedly began to molest them
One of the girls, however, managed to escape and notify her mother of what had transpired. The girls’ mother quickly arrived, took her other daughter, and called the police. [...]
Thursday, October 27, 2016
The stench of corruption keeps growing: ‘Bill Clinton, Inc.’ Memo Reveals Tangled Business, Charitable Ties
A 2011 memo made public Wednesday by Wikileaks revealed new details of how former President Bill Clinton made tens of millions of dollars for himself and his wife, then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, through an opaque, ethically messy amalgam of philanthropic, business and personal activities.
The memo was written by Bill Clinton’s longtime aide, Doug Band, and is among tens of thousands of emails apparently stolen from Hillary Clinton’s campaign chief, John Podesta, in what U.S. officials believe is part of a massive Russian-backed attempt to disrupt the U.S. election.
The Band memo came in response to an investigation undertaken by a law firm, Simpson Thatcher, into the activities of the Clinton Foundation at the behest of its board. The board was concerned that some of the activities undertaken by Band and others on behalf of the President could threaten the Foundation’s IRS status as a charity, according to Band’s memo. Chelsea Clinton had also reported concerns to Podesta and other Clinton advisors that Band and his recently-launched consulting firm, Teneo, were using her father’s name without his knowledge to contact British lawmakers for clients, including Dow Chemical.
In the 12-page memo, Band describes how he and several colleagues spent much of the years after Bill Clinton’s presidency working to fund the Clinton Foundation, which has raised nearly $2 billion from individuals, corporations and governments for charities focusing on climate change, economic development, health, women and girls issues and other causes. Band claims in the memo that from 2006 to 2011, he and a colleague, Justin Cooper, raised $46 million for the Foundation through the Clinton Global Initiative, an annual networking conference that is one of the Foundation’s big sources of income.
But the Foundation work was just a part of what Bill Clinton did during his wife’s time as a Senator and Secretary of State, and it wasn’t always clear where the former president’s non-profit activities ended and his for-profit ones began. Five months before he wrote the memo, Band joined forces with a recently retired State Department envoy, Declan Kelly, to form Teneo, which Band said provided merchant and investment banking services, corporate restructuring, public relations and communications services and strategic advising services to 20 clients, including Coca-Cola, Dow Chemical, UBS, Barclays and BHP Billiton, among others. Over that period, Band says in the memo, Teneo raised $8 million for the Clinton Foundation.
And Band was also organizing personal income directly for Clinton. Under the heading, “For-Profit Activity of President Clinton (i.e. Bill Clinton, Inc.),” Band wrote, “We have dedicated our selves to helping the President secure and engage in for-profit activities—including speeches, books, and advisory service engagements… In support of the President’s for-profit activity, we also have solicited and obtained, as appropriate, in-kind services for the President and his family—for personal travel, hospitality, vacation and the like. Neither Justin nor I are separately compensated for these activities (e.g., we do not receive a fee for, or percentage of, the more than $50 million in for-profit activity we have personally helped to secure for President Clinton to date or the $66 million in future contracts, should he choose to continue with those engagements).”
Band mentions four such “arrangements” without naming them. Bill Clinton was paid nearly $18 million to be “honorary chancellor” of a for-profit college, Laureate International Universities, according to reports and the family’s tax returns. A Dubai-based firm, GEMS Education, paid Bill Clinton more than $560,000 in 2015, according to the tax returns. Band also lists a variety of speaking fees, previously disclosed by the Clintons, including hundreds of thousands of dollars each from UBS, Ericsson, BHP and Barclays. In 2011 alone, according to the Clinton’s tax returns, Bill Clinton earned $13,454,000 in speaking fees.
No evidence has been found to support allegations of a quid pro quo of official acts by Hillary Clinton as senator or Secretary of State in exchange for the money received by the Clintons or the Clinton Foundation. However the messiness and opacity of the relationship between Clinton’s personal, business and philanthropic undertakings detailed in the memo raises new questions about Bill Clinton’s activity. In the email to which Band’s draft memo was attached, Band tells Podesta he has removed the “lasry section all together.” Marc Lasry is a hedge fund manager and Clinton donor who funded an unsuccessful investment vehicle launched by Chelsea Clinton’s husband Marc Mezvinsky.
Other questions arise in the penultimate paragraph of the memo, entitled “Other Matters.” Without providing details, Band writes that since the end of Bill Clinton’s presidency he and Cooper had served as the primary contact and point of management for President Clinton’s activities, including political, business and Foundation matters, speeches, books, and family/personal needs, including “securing in-kind private airplane travel, in-kind vacation stays, and supporting family business and personal needs.” [...]
Don't suppress the truth of Torah - even regarding your own rebbe or gedolim
Devarim (1:17) states, you shall not be afraid of the face of man; for the judgment is God’s. Rashi (Devarim 1:17), Lo Saguru - Do not be afraid of any man. Another explanation is one should not hold back your words before any man. The Tosefta (Sanhedrin 1:8), What is the sources that says that if you are sitting before the judges and you know a merit for the poor and and liability for the rich that you can not remain silent? Because the Torah say, You shall not be afraid of the face of man (Devarim 1:14). That means that you should not hold back your words before any man. Sotah (47b), When they who displayed partiality in judgment multiplied, the command you shall not be afraid [of the face of man] became void and you shall not respect [persons in judgment] ceased to be practiced; and people threw off the yoke of heaven and placed upon themselves the yoke of human beings. The Yerushalmi Sanhedrin (1:1), When two litigants come before you – one who is powerful and one who is weak – prior to hearing their claims it is allowed for a judge to say he doesn’t want to deal with the case out of fear that if he finds the strong one guilty it will make the strong one his enemy. However once he has heard their claims it is not allowed to say that he doesn’t want to deal with the case because it says in Devarim (1:17), Do not be afraid of any man and suppress your views against him. Rather the judges need to know who they are judging and before Whom they are judging…
Sifri Devarim (17): Do not be afraid of any man. Perhaps a judge will say that he is afraid that one of the litigants will kill his son or burn down his harvest or destroy his crops – the Torah say, Do not be afraid of any man because judgement belongs to G-d… And that includes one’s own teacher as it states in Tanchumin (Mishpatim) What is the source that says if a student is sitting before his Rebbe and he sees a merit to the poor and an obligation to the rich that he should not be silent? Because it says in the Torah, Do not be afraid of any man.
Avoiding Coke, pastry, candy, pizza, burgers and other things that are primarily for physical pleasures
Rambam (Hilchos De'os 3:2): A person should direct his heart and the totality of his behavior to one goal, becoming aware of God, blessed be He. The [way] he rests, rises, and speaks should all be directed to this end. For example: when involved in business dealings or while working for a wage, he should not think solely of gathering money. Rather, he should do these things, so that he will be able to obtain that which the body needs - food, drink, a home and a wife. Similarly, when he eats, drinks and engages in intimate relations, he should not intend to do these things solely for pleasure to the point where he will eat and drink only that which is sweet to the palate and engage in intercourse for pleasure. Rather, he should take care to eat and drink only in order to be healthy in body and limb. Therefore, he should not eat all that the palate desires like a dog or a donkey. Rather, he should eat what is beneficial for the body, be it bitter or sweet. Conversely, he should not eat what is harmful to the body, even though it is sweet to the palate. For example: a person with a warm constitution should not eat meat or honey, nor drink wine, as Solomon has stated in a parable: The eating of much honey is not good (Proverbs 25:27). One should drink endive juice, even though it it bitter, for then, he will be eating and drinking for medical reasons only, in order to become healthy and be whole - for a man cannot exist without eating and drinking. Similarly, he should not have intercourse except to keep his body healthy and to preserve the [human] race. Therefore, he should not engage in intercourse whenever he feels desire, but when he knows that he requires a seminal emission for medical reasons or in order to preserve the [human] race.
Rambam (Moreh Nevuchim 2:40): In order to be enabled to answer this question, we must examine the merits of the person, obtain an accurate account of his actions, and consider his character. The best test is the rejection, abstention, and contempt of bodily pleasures: for this is the first condition of men, and a fortiori of prophets: they must especially disregard pleasures of the sense of touch, which, according to Aristotle, is a disgrace to us: and, above all, restrain from the pollution of sensual intercourse
Shulchan Aruch (O.C. 231:1): If it is impossible for a person to learn Torah without taking a nap during the day – he should take a nap. Rema: ... The permissibility of taking a nap during the day is only if he doesn't take a long one because it is prohibited to sleep during the day more that more than the sleep of a horse which is 60 breaths. And even a short nap should be minimized because his intent in taking the nape is not for physical pleasure but to strengthen his body to be able to serve G d. In general in partaking of all the pleasures of this world he should not focus on the physical pleasure but rather that it enables him to serve G d as it says (Mishlei 3:6), In all your ways you should know Him.. Our Sages explain this to mean that all your deeds should be for the purpose of serving G-d (leShem Shamayim) – even though activities which are optional (reshus) and not a mitzva. For example eating, drinking, walking, sitting, standing, sexual intercourse, converstaion and all physical needs – they should all be done for the purpose of serving G d or something which will lead to serving G d. Therefore even if a person is thirsty or hungry, if he eats or drinks in order to get pleasure – it is not praiseworthy. He should instead have intent to eat and drink in order to live so that he can serve his Creator. Similarly even to sit in the private meeting of upright men or to stand in the place of the righteous or to follow the advice of fair men – if he does it for his own pleasure and to fulfill his desires and lusts – it is not praiseworthy unless he does these things for the sake of Heaven. The same is true for sleeping. It is obvious that even when a person studies Torah and does mitzvos that he should not be involved in sleeping to give himself pleasure, But even at a time when he is exhausted and needs to sleep in or to rest from his exhaustion – if he sleeps for the sake of pleasure it is not praiseworthy.Rather his intent should be to give rest to his eyes and his body for the sake of his health so that he won't get confused in his Torah studies because of his lack of sleep. And similarly concerning marital relations according to the time and frequency that the Torah teaches – if he is doing it for his own physical pleasure – that is disgusting. Even if his intent is to have children who will serve him or to fill his place – this is not praiseworthy. Rather his intent should be that he wants to have children who will serve G d or to fulfill the mitzva of onah (conjugal rights of his wife) – and he does it in the manner of one who is paying back a debt. It is exactly the same regarding conversation - even in discussing matters of wisdom – his intent needs to be for the sake of serving G d or something which will lead to serving G d. The fundamental principle in this matter is that a person should pay full attention to what he does and carefully evaluate all his deeds objectively. If he sees that something will lead to serving G d he should do it but otherwise he should not do it. One who is guided by this principle will constantly be serving G d.
Subscribe to:
Posts
(
Atom
)