Trump makes false claim that he lost New Hampshire because of voter fraud - he provided no evidence

Washington Post

On ABC’s “This Week” on Sunday, President Trump’s adviser Stephen Miller wasn’t interested in shedding light on reality. If anything, he was running around turning lights off. Inadvertently, though, he did offer one bit of insight into what’s happening at the White House.

Miller was asked by host George Stephanopoulos about a comment Trump made in a meeting with senators last week, where Trump claimed that he had narrowly lost the presidential contest in New Hampshire because of voter fraud. Before we get into the exchange, though, let’s evaluate Trump’s claim.

Trump lost the state by 2,700 votes — a narrow margin but in a small state. It came down to about 0.4 percent of votes cast. Trump reportedly claimed that the difference was because of people being bused in from Massachusetts. He also claimed that former senator Kelly Ayotte (R) lost her race for the same reason.

That’s weird, though, because Ayotte lost only by 1,000 votes. What’s more, Hillary Clinton earned about 6,000 fewer votes in the state than did the Democratic Senate candidate, Maggie Hassan. Trump got about 7,800 fewer votes than Ayotte. So how does that work? People came in to vote just for Hassan but not Clinton? Did some illegal voters come in to vote for Ayotte but not Trump? In the same election, New Hampshirites elected Chris Sununu as governor. He’s a Republican. Were the illegal voters told to cast votes only for Senate and the presidency? This is a complicated operation, to be sure.

Fergus Cullen, who ran the state Republican Party in 2007 and 2008, expressed skepticism about the bused-in-voters claim on Twitter. “I will pay $1000 to 1st person proving even 1 out-of-state person took bus from MA 2 any NH polling place last Election Day,” he wrote. It’s a safe bet; a review of a decade of news reports on Nexis about voter fraud arrests in the state turned up the following:

A man from Manchester, N.H., who said he lived in Salem, N.H., to vote there.
A state representative who tried to cover up the fact that he’d moved out of his district.
The end.

With that background, here is Miller’s defense of Trump’s claim to Stephanopoulos.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Let me move on, though, to the question of voter fraud, as well. President Trump again this week suggested in a meeting with senators that thousands of illegal voters were bused from Massachusetts to New Hampshire and that’s what caused his defeat in the state of New Hampshire, also the defeat of Senator Kelly Ayotte.

That has provoked a response from a member of the Federal Election Commission, Ellen Weintraub, who says, “I call upon the president to immediately share New Hampshire voter fraud evidence so that his allegations may be investigated promptly.”

Here’s Weintraub’s tweet.

Follow
Ellen L Weintraub @EllenLWeintraub
I call upon @POTUS to immediately share NH voter-fraud evidence so that his allegations may be investigated promptly https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/5381420/ELW-POTUS-voter-fraud-statement.pdf …
12:41 AM - 11 Feb 2017
5,979 5,979 Retweets 7,937 7,937 likes

STEPHANOPOULOS: Do have that evidence?

MILLER: I’ve actually, having worked before on a campaign in New Hampshire, I can tell you that this issue of busing voters into New Hampshire is widely known by anyone who’s worked in New Hampshire politics. It’s very real. It’s very serious. This morning, on this show, is not the venue for me to lay out all the evidence.

A nationally televised program seems like a very good place to offer evidence to back up a contentious claim made by a president. It seems, in fact, like this is the reason that Miller is offered the chance to speak at all.

MILLER: But I can tell you this, voter fraud is a serious problem in this country. You have millions of people who are registered in two states or who are dead who are registered to vote. And you have 14 percent of noncitizens, according to academic research, at a minimum, are registered to vote, which is an astonishing statistic.

Three claims here. First, that there are millions of people who are registered in multiple states. Second, that dead people are still registered. Both of those things are true. (Among those registered to vote in two places, by the way, are Trump’s son-in-law, treasury nominee, daughter and press secretary.) But that’s not voter fraud. It’s a sloppy registration system — and indifference from people whose first instincts when relatives die is not to ensure that the registrar of voters is informed.

The third claim is that 14 percent of noncitizens are registered to vote, which is based on an academic analysis released several years ago. It has been subsequently shown to be problematic. As anyone paying attention to the issue should know.

STEPHANOPOULOS: You can’t make a — hold on a second. You just claimed again that there was illegal voting in New Hampshire, people bused in from the state of Massachusetts.

Do you have any evidence to back that up?

MILLER: I’m saying anybody — George, go to New Hampshire. Talk to anybody who has worked in politics there for a long time. Everybody is aware of the problem in New Hampshire with respect to —

If this is a rampant problem that has riddled New Hampshire politics, why has no losing candidate ever sought to overturn the results of an election by citing this horrible problem? If I spent a year running for office and then lost because of widespread illegal activity, my response would probably not be to shrug and say c’est la vie.

STEPHANOPOULOS: I’m asking you as the White House senior — hold on a second. I’m asking you as the White House senior policy adviser. The president made a statement, saying he was the victim of voter fraud, people are being bused from —

MILLER: And the president — the president — the president was.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Do you have any evidence?

MILLER: — issue — if this is an issue that interests you, then we can talk about it more in the future. And we now have — our governance is beginning to get stood up. But we have a Department of Justice and we have more officials.

An issue of voter fraud is something we’re going to be looking at very seriously and very hard. [...]

MILLER: But the reality is, is that we know for a fact, you have massive numbers of noncitizens registered to vote in this country. Nobody disputes that. And many, many highly qualified people, like Kris Kobach, the Kansas secretary of state, have looked deeply into this issue and have confirmed it to be true and have put together evidence.

And I suggest you invite Kris Kobach onto your show and he can walk you through some of the evidence of voter fraud —

STEPHANOPOULOS: You have — you have —

MILLER: — in greater detail.

STEPHANOPOULOS: — just for the record, you have provided absolutely no evidence. [...]

Pledge Allegiance to the Trump Brand - The new normal in the White House is Trump profits before country.

update  NY Times Trump’s Defense of Ivanka Reflects Approach That Could hurt the Economy

Ivanka Trump’s business just absorbed some blows. But more damaging than Nordstrom’s decision to drop her clothing line might have been the reaction from her father, the president. His lashing out at the upscale department store seems to reflect an approach to industrial policy that often brings unintended consequences.

In response to Nordstrom’s decision, President Trump took to Twitter to complain:

Donald J. Trump ✔ @realDonaldTrump

My daughter Ivanka has been treated so unfairly by @Nordstrom. She is a great person -- always pushing me to do the right thing! Terrible!

5:51 PM

Lest the message be unclear, his official presidential account dutifully retweeted the complaint. And his son Donald Trump Jr.followed up with reports that supporters were planning to boycott the store.

Such actions, if meant to disrupt Nordstrom’s business, could be a signal to other retailers that it’ll be costly to cut off existing business relationships with the Trump family. This kind of bullying could have unintended consequences.

Put yourself in the shoes of a purchasing manager considering adding the Ivanka Trump Collection to your stores. Even if you think her products are excellent, Mr. Trump’s outburst provides an incentive not to stock them. After all, if it doesn’t work out, who wants to be in the cross-hairs of an easily angered president with 24.3 million Twitter followers and the power of the regulatory state? It might be far safer to do business with someone else. 

 And when you make it more expensive to exit a relationship, you make it more expensive to enter it. That extra cost can create a greater harm. It’s a lesson that many European governments have learned the hard way. Research shows that efforts to boost employment by making it difficult or costly to fire workers have backfired. The prospect of a costly and lengthy legal battle for laid-off employees makes it less appealing to hire new workers. The result has been that higher firing costs have led to to weaker productivity, sclerotic labor markets and higher unemployment.

================================================
US News and World Report

"I pledge allegiance, to the Trump brand, and to the United States of America."

That's the direct order coming from the White House, and all Americans and corporations should take heed.

After the luxury retailer Nordstrom made the decision to stop carrying Ivanka Trump's label in its stores, as doing so was no longer profitable, the new president took action:

Donald J. Trump ✔ @realDonaldTrump

My daughter Ivanka has been treated so unfairly by @Nordstrom. She is a great person -- always pushing me to do the right thing! Terrible!

5:51 PM - 8 Feb 2017

Adviser Kellyanne Conway took it even further on Thursday, telling "Fox and Friends" viewers, "It's a wonderful line. I own some of it. … I'm going to give a free commercial here: Go buy it today, everybody." Meanwhile, White House press secretary Sean Spicer called Nordstrom's decision "a direct attack on his policies and her name."

Catch their drift? Private business decisions that hurt the Trump family bottom-line are seen as an official affront to the White House, and it's up to all of us as consumers to make sure the Trump brand is profitable.

The unabashed anger from the administration shows Trump was never serious when he and his family promised to separate their personal businesses from the business of running the country; they've been playing us for fools all along.

vanka pledged last month that upon her father taking office, she would resign from managing both the Trump Organization and her personal clothing and accessories brand. But ProPublica found that despite the promises, she's done neither – she hasn't even filed the appropriate paperwork in many cases.

Trump has been in office less than three weeks, and already his immediate family has given every indication they expect to profit off the presidency. Melania Trump specified in a defamation lawsuit that her new title of first lady gave her a "unique, one-in-a-lifetime opportunity" to garner "multi-million dollar business relationships." Taxpayers paid nearly $100,000 for Eric Trump to fly to Uruguay to promote the Trump Organization last month. The Department of Defense will soon pay the Trump Organization rent for space in Trump Tower, in order to "support the POTUS at his residence in the building."

Despite Trump's flashy press conference last month, complete with (possibly blank) piles of paper and folders, during which he promised to place his business holdings in a trust run in part by his son Don Jr., new documents show the trust specifies the assets therein are for the "exclusive benefit" of Trump himself, whose Social Security number still holds the accounts. He'll reportedly continue to receive updates on the profitability of his company. And if he'll reflexively attack Nordstrom for decisions on his daughter's company, it follows that he'll react in kind to perceived slights against his own organization.[...]

Beyond the glaring conflict of interest and economic blackmail the administration's response imposes on American businesses, it might also have broken the law. Federal law prohibits public office holders from endorsing any product or using public office for private gain. Even if the president is immune from legal restrictions on conflicts of interest (which is still up for debate in some cases), advisers like Conway are assuredly not.

Whatever the legal outcome, this appears to be the new normal from the White House: Trumps before country. For anyone looking to put themselves in the president's good graces, a good place to start would be showing up in Ivanka Trump accessories and shoes.

Trump's lies again! Tells Sheriff's group that the murder rate in U.S. is the highest in 47 years

Washington Post   CBS News

President Trump met Tuesday morning with a group of sheriffs from the National Sheriffs Association, a group that consists of more than 3,000 sheriffs from around the country. And to this sworn group of law enforcement veterans, with reporters taking notes, he again repeated a falsehood about the murder rate in America.

Trump told the sheriffs, “the murder rate in our country is the highest it’s been in 47 years.” He blamed the news media for not publicizing this development, then added, “But the murder rate is the highest it’s been in, I guess, 45 to 47 years.”

The country’s murder rate is not the highest it’s been in 47 years. It is almost at its lowest point, actually, according to the FBI, which gathers statistics every year from police departments around the country.

The murder rate is defined as the number of murders and non-negligent homicides per 100,000 residents. Beginning in 1957, when the rate was 4.0 murders per 100,000 residents, the rate rose steadily to a high of 10.2 in 1980. It then steadily dropped, to 7.4 in 1996, to 6.1 in 2006, to 4.4 in 2014. It went up in 2015 to 4.9. But that is less than half the murder rate of 1980, while the population has risen from 226 million in 1980 to 321 million in 2015.[...]

Trump Administration - "our friends in the White House "- Lists 78 'Under-reported' Terror Attacks - but ominously leaves out attacks in Israel

Haaretz

List includes attacks – such as the Bataclan attack and San Bernardino – that were widely covered by media. No reason was given how list was compiled, and why Israel not included.

The White House on Monday published a list of terror attacks from recent years that it claims were "under-reported" by the American media, after President Trump claimed in a speech that the media was refraining from reporting on terror attacks. The list includes 78 incidents worldwide, but notably, doesn't mention even one terror attack in Israel. 

The list published by the White House included a number of terror attacks that received wide coverage and dominated the headlines in the U.S. and around the world for days, contradicting the president's claim that the media was ignoring or downplaying terror attacks. 

For example, one event appearing on the list is the November 2015 attack in Paris which led to the death of 129 people and was the most covered news story in the world at the time. The White House did not include an explanation or any evidence to support the claim that this event did not receive wide coverage in the U.S. or international media. 

Another terror attack in Paris mentioned in the report was the attack on a Kosher supermarket in the French capital in January 2015, which occurred on the same week as the attack against the French magazine Charlie Hebdo. At the time, there were indeed complaints from French Jews that the attack on the supermarket received less attention than the attack on Charlie Hebdo, but nevertheless, it was an event that received widespread coverage in the U.S. and around the world. [...]

While the list includes dozens of attacks that were carried out in countries all across the world, it doesn't mention even one such attack against Israel, a country where dozens of stabbing, car-ramming and shooting attacks have led to the deaths of Israeli citizens, policemen and soldiers in the last two years. The administration didn't clarify on Monday how the list was composed, and why it made sense to include widely-covered events like the Paris and San Bernardino attacks but leave out any reference to Israel. 

Israeli officials and supporters of Israel have been complaining for years that the international media is downplaying or minimizing terror attacks against the Jewish state. Another frequent complaint heard from Israel has been that the headlines chosen by certain international media organizations do not accurately reflect the nature of these terror attacks. 

Unlike Israel, other Middle Eastern countries were included in the list, including Libya, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Jordan, Turkey, Kuwait, Algeria and Tunisia. Some of these attacks, such as the June 2016 attack on Ataturk International Airport in Istanbul, Turkey, dominated headlines around the world when they took place, while others, that included much less casualties, did not. 

On Tuesday morning, the Egyptian Ministry of Foreign Affairs put out a statement saying that "The White House's criticism of Western media of the 78 terrorist attacks deserves praise." The statement went on to attack the Western media for its criticism of Egypt's security services, following their failure to prevent attacks within the country. 

On Tuesday morning, the Egyptian Ministry of Foreign Affairs put out a statement saying that "The White House's criticism of Western media of the 78 terrorist attacks deserves praise." The statement went on to attack the Western media for its criticism of Egypt's security services, following their failure to prevent attacks within the country. [...]

Joe Schreiber - Jewish messianic - get 30 years for Florida mosque fire

Times of Israel   An ex-convict who posted anti-Islamic rants online pleaded no contest and was sentenced to 30 years in prison on Monday for setting fire to a mosque that the Orlando nightclub shooter attended occasionally.

Joseph Schreiber, dressed in a burnt orange jumpsuit, his wrists and ankles shackled, pleaded no contest during Monday’s hearing before Circuit Judge Steven Levin. A no contest plea is treated the same as a guilty plea. Schreiber answered Levin’s questions in a clear, unwavering voice before sentencing. He was also ordered to pay $10,000 in restitution although damages exceeded $100,000. Because he was declared a habitual offender, he could have received a life sentence.

He had confessed to detectives that he set fire to the Islamic Center of Fort Pierce last September 11, the 15th anniversary of the 2001 terrorist attacks. The damage to the mosque was so extensive that the leaders recently announced that it will move.

Omar Mateen was killed by police after opening fire at the Pulse nightclub on June 12 in a rampage that left 49 victims dead and 53 wounded, making it the worst mass shooting in modern US history. Mateen professed allegiance to the Islamic State group. His father is among roughly 100 people who regularly attend the mosque.

Schreiber, who is Jewish, posted on Facebook last July that “All Islam is radical” and that all Muslims should be treated as terrorists and criminals.

Prosecutor Steve Gosnell said Schreiber, 32, confessed to detectives that he set the fire, saying he believed Muslims “are trying to infiltrate our government” and that “the teaching of Islam should be completely, completely illegal.”

Before he was sentenced, Schreiber read a written statement entitled “From the Mountaintops, Stop the Killings” where he said the fire was not caused by hate but by his anxiety. He feared that Florida could be the site of another 9-11, Boston Marathon bombing or Pulse nightclub shooting, he said.

“My message is this to all the Muslim communities on the face of the Earth — make peace with America and make peace with Israel and stop the killings, stop the attacks,” he said.[...]

Ralph Alfonso said Schreiber joined a Messianic Jewish group he led because he was looking for a place to fit in. Messianic Jews follow Jewish law and the Torah but also believe that Jesus Christ is the Messiah. He said Schreiber sometimes would say something negative about Muslims, but “we would tell him that’s not what we believe, that it is not godly.”[...]

Higayon: Importance of students learning traditional understanding - not just the text of the Torah

JPost by Rabbi Levi Cooper  [The question remains - is it only children that should avoid higayon or also mature Torah students?]

When Rabbi Eliezer's health was failing, his students paid him a visit (B. Berachot 28b): "Our master, teach us the ways of life that we may merit through them the life of the world to come," they implored their teacher. Rabbi Eliezer offered them parting advice: "Be mindful of the honor of your peers, and keep your children from higayon, and place them between the knees of Torah scholars, and when you pray know before whom you stand - and on account of this you will merit the life of the world to come." A legacy relating to interpersonal relationships and to our connection with God.

What, however, is this higayon that we should steer our children away from? Over the ages our commentators have offered different explanations of this obscure term. The earliest attempts to translate higayon refer to the art of rhetoric taught by the Greek sophists of the fifth century BCE (Hai Gaon, 10th-11th centuries, Pumbedita). The sophists taught that the search for truth was of secondary importance and trained their charges with the ability to persuade the masses of whatever they wished them to believe. Such an education prepared the youth for the world of Greek politics, where being clever and smart was often more valuable than being truthful and earnest. Some sophists even claimed that knowledge was unnecessary for the art of forming a cogent argument or offering an unassailable reply. According to this approach, Rabbi Eliezer was discouraging this discipline which went contrary to the more lofty goals of Torah study. 

A number of later commentators, who were far removed from Greek culture, suggested that higayon refers to aspects of the study of Bible. According to one such approach, Rabbi Eliezer was imploring his students not to overly focus on Bible which draws the heart (Rashi, France, 11th century). It appears that Rabbi Eliezer was afraid that the attractive literary biblical style would be so inviting that youth would not progress to the more difficult subjects of Torah study. Indeed, elsewhere the sages declare that the pursuit of Talmud is the loftiest of disciplines, with Bible study being a mere stepping stone toward the distinguished enterprise of discussing and deriving law (B. Bava Metzia 33a). 

In a similar yet different vein, other commentators suggested that Rabbi Eliezer was warning against the literal translation of biblical passages, where such a translation would lead to a heretical reading of the text (Rabbi Natan of Rome, 11th century; Meiri, Provence, 13th century). The above suggestions all try to grasp the meaning of Rabbi Eliezer's statement by seeking the connotation of the key word - higayon. 

One commentator, however, suggests that instead of focusing on this elusive term, we should look to Rabbi Eliezer's legacy to fathom his message (Rabbi Reuven Margoliyot, Lvov-Tel Aviv, 20th century). Elsewhere in the Talmud, Rabbi Eliezer is adamant that tradition must be faithfully transmitted in an unbroken chain reaching back to Sinai (B. Succa 27b).[...]

[Rabbli Eliezer] never stated any ruling that he had not heard from his teachers. He would only transmit traditions that he had received. Returning to our passage and the word higayon - Rabbi Eliezer is suggesting an educational maxim: Not to encourage youth to explore higayon, that is, new disciplines that are not rooted in the tradition or material that has not been passed down from one generation to the next. 

This approach can be supported by comparing the last bidding of Rabbi Eliezer with the legacies of other sages. From the tractate Avot we are familiar with sages offering three aphorisms as their ethical will. Rabbi Eliezer would have been familiar with this pattern which dated back to the end of the Second Temple period. Yet when choosing his parting words, Rabbi Eliezer appears to offer four aphorisms: (1) Consciously honoring peers, (2) steering youth away from higayon, (3) raising children among Torah scholars, and (4) knowing before whom we stand. If we understand higayon to be referring to disciplines that have no Torah basis, then the four statements could be read as the traditional three: The first max im refers to interpersonal relationships and the third maxim refers to matters between humans and God. The middle truism relates to passing the legacy to the next generation. With regard to this matter, Rabbi Eliezer suggests that children should be directed away from studies not rooted in tradition and instead be guided toward Torah scholars. Through this three-point program, says Rabbi Eliezer, "You will merit life in the world to come."  

Woman fined 40,000 shekel for false claims of abuse against husband

bhol

חוייבה לשלם לבעלה 40,000 ש"ח: תלונות השווא שלא השתלמו

תלונות השווא שלא השתלמו: בפסק דין שניתן על ידי בית המשפט נגזר על אישה לשלם לבעלה סכום של 40,000 ש"ח על שהגישה נגדו תלונת שווא למשטרה והאשימה אותו באלימות שלא הייתה תלונות השווא שלא השתלמו: בפסק דין שניתן על ידי בית המשפט נגזר על אישה לשלם לבעלה סכום של 40,000 ש"ח על שהגישה נגדו תלונות שווא למשטרה והאשימה אותו באלימות שלא הייתה.  בשנת 2014, אישה הגישה תלונה במשטרה נגד בעלה כי היכה אותה ושנה לאחר מכן הגישה תלונה דומה נוספת. בעקבות התלונות נחקר הבעל, התלונה הראשונה נסגרה מחוסר ראיות והשנייה עדיין פתוחה. מאז, הספיקו בני הזוג להתגרש.  הבעל הגיש לבית המשפט תביעת נזיקית נגד אשתו זה מכבר: נגד "תלונות השווא אשר הסבו לו עגמת נפש רבה ונזקים". בתלונה השנייה, האישה ניתקה ביודעין את 'פלטת השבת' וכן הוציאה את הנורה מהמקרר, על מנת שבעלה - שומר תורה ומקפיד על מצוות השבת - לא יוכל לאכול את סעודות השבת.  [...] בפסק הדין ציין השופט "פסיקתי מבוססת על העניין שבין התובע לנתבעת בלבד. מצאתי לנכון לציין האמור לעיל (הטרדת המשטרה א.ש.) ולו משום הצבת תמרור נוסף בפני כל מי שישקול פעולה דומה". בסיום הדיון החליט כי האישה תשלם לבעלה 30,000 ש"ח ובנוסף חייב אותה גם ב-10,000 ש"ח הוצאות משפט שישולמו תוך 15 יום"

The World’s Most Expensive Coffee from Civet Cats - is it kosher?

Din on Line

Civet coffee or Kopi_ Luwak is produced by the civet cat. Coffee cherries are given to a civet cat to eat and digested by the cat, and then excreted. The coffee beans are taken out of the excrement, dried and roasted. The issue at hand, (besides that it may “ba’al tshaktzu” to eat something like this) is if the rule of “Yotzei Min Hatamei” applies here. (This rule is that anything that exits from a non kosher animal etc. that it is also not permitted to eat etc.) Although the actual beans did not actually come from the cat, but were eaten, the cat’s enzymes however are inside it and what made the changes to the beans.

Although it is controversial, most Rabbinic authorities that I have consulted said that regarding Yotzei Min Hatamei it should be alright. The reasons being that the actual beans didn’t come from the cat, therefore it is similar to bee’s honey, which is permitted because the bee didn’t produce the honey: it only processed it and changed it from the flower into honey.

Regarding the enzymes that are from the cat that is also not an issue we don’t consider excrement as part of the actual animal, it is considered “pirsha b’alma”, and therefore the above issue doesn’t apply.

There are to other factors here that might make drinking this coffee impractical.[...]

Time

The costliest coffee on earth has a humble proletarian beginning. As folklore has it, civet coffee, or kopi luwak in Indonesian, was discovered by plantation workers in colonized Indonesia. Forbidden from consuming coffee beans picked from the plants, they picked up, cleaned and then roasted the beans excreted by wild Asian palm civets that entered the plantations to eat the ripest coffee cherries. The civets’ digestive systems gave kopi luwak a uniquely rich aroma and smooth, rounded flavor — so much so that the Dutch plantation owners soon became die-hard fans.

In the past 10 years, kopi luwak has won the hearts — and wallets — of global consumers. A cup sells for $30 to $100 in New York City and London, while 1 kg of roasted beans can fetch as much as $130 in Indonesia and five times more overseas. The ultimate in caffeine bling is civet coffee packed in a Britannia-silver and 24-carat gold-plated bag, sold at the British department store Harrods for over $10,000. The justification for these exorbitant prices? A claim that kopi luwak is sourced from wild animals and that only 500 kg of it is collected annually. The claim is largely nonsense.

While there are some ethical suppliers of hand-gathered civet coffee, recent investigations, both by journalists and animal-rights activists, have revealed a cruel and avaricious industry. To satisfy global demand, many suppliers keep captured civets in cages and feed them almost exclusively on coffee cherries. Enduring appalling living conditions and an unhealthy diet, these nocturnal omnivores suffer mental distress — incessantly pacing and gnawing on their limbs — and succumb to illness and death. These grim farms are not confined to Indonesia. Farmers elsewhere in Asia have jumped on the bandwagon. By one estimate, 50 tons of mass-produced civet coffee from Indonesia, Vietnam, the Philippines and China flood the market every year.

Trump continues his attempts to discredit the Media falsely claiming they ignore or minimize Terror Attacks

NY Times

President Trump on Monday asserted that the news media was playing down the terrorist threat posed by the Islamic State, telling American military personnel that journalists were reluctant to report on the militant group’s attacks in Europe and “have their reasons” for failing to cover them.

Mr. Trump initially did not provide examples of a news media conspiracy to underplay terrorist attacks, and his comments appeared to ignore the vast amount of reporting on violence committed by the Islamic State and its supporters in the Middle East, Europe and the United States. Later Monday night, the White House released a list of what it said were 78 attacks from September 2014 to December 2016 that were carried out or inspired by the Islamic State. The White House said that “most have not received the media attention they deserved.”

The list included the major attacks in Paris; Brussels; San Bernardino, Calif.; and Orlando, Fla., that dominated the news for weeks. Other attacks overseas, lesser known to Americans, received extensive local coverage, like a shooting in Zvornik, Bosnia, in April 2015 in which one police officer was killed and two others were wounded.

The president’s speech was the second time in recent weeks that he has used an appearance before national security personnel — usually apolitical settings in which the focus is on strategy and sacrifice — to discredit journalists and exult in his election victory. 

“Radical Islamic terrorists are determined to strike our homeland, as they did on 9/11, as they did from Boston to Orlando to San Bernardino and all across Europe,” Mr. Trump said at MacDill Air Force Base in Tampa, Fla., home to the military’s Central Command and Special Operations Command. “All over Europe it’s happening. It’s gotten to a point where it’s not even being reported, and in many cases, the very, very dishonest press doesn’t want to report it.”

“They have their reasons,” Mr. Trump added, “and you understand that.”

The theory that the news media is trying to whitewash terrorist attacks to protect Islam or Muslim migrants has been pushed by several right-wing news organizations, including the conspiracy-filled site Infowars, whose founder, Alex Jones, is an ally of Mr. Trump’s.

The president’s comments on Monday were reminiscent of his claim during a visit last month to the headquarters of the Central Intelligence Agency in Langley, Va., that the news media had fabricated his feud with the intelligence community. Those remarks came only days after he likened American intelligence officials to Nazis, after several weeks in which he had denigrated their work.

Aboard Air Force One on Monday, Sean Spicer, the White House press secretary, told reporters returning to Washington with Mr. Trump that the president had been referring in Tampa to “several instances” in which the news media had not devoted sufficient attention to terrorism. Mr. Trump, Mr. Spicer said, believes journalists pay more attention to public protests than they do to terrorist attacks or plots.

“He felt members of the media don’t always cover some of those events to the extent that other events might get covered,” Mr. Spicer said. “Protests will get blown out of the water, and yet an attack or a foiled attack doesn’t necessarily get the same coverage.”[...]

Why were the Matriarchs barren? Bereishis Rabbah (45:4)

update - added Bereishis Rabbah (45:5) and Yevamos (64a)

Bereishis Rabbah (45:4): Why were the Matriarchs barren?... Because G-d has a strong desire for their prayers and their requests.... R’ Chanina answered, So that they would be dependent and attached to their husband in spite of their beauty. Rav Chiya bar Abba answered, So that they would spend most of their lives without being burdened (i.e., Exile should be delayed). Rav Meir said so that their husbands should get pleasure from them because when a woman becomes pregnant she becomes ugly and lacks grace. 

For the 90 years that Sara did not have children she was like a bride in her canopy. When aristocratic women came to ask how she was she would say, “Go ask about the welfare of that unfortunate woman [Hagar]. And Hagar would say to them, Sarai my mistress in a hypocrite. She appears as a righteous woman but how could she be righteous. Look at how many years she has been married and hasn't gotten pregnant. In contrast I got pregnant the first time.” [Rashi 16:4 cites this medrash to explain what Hagar did to belittle Sarah]. Sarah replied, “Should I argue with this woman? I will complain to the master.

Bereishis Rabbah (45:5):  AND SARAI SAID UNTO ABRAM: MY WRONG (HAMASI) BE UPON THEE (XVI, 5). R. Judan explained this in R. Judah's name: Thou wrongest me with words, since thou hearest me insulted yet art silent.4 R. Berekiah explained it in R. Abba's name: I have a grievance against thee. For imagine two men incarcerated in prison, and as the king passes one of them cries out, ‘Execute justice for me!’ The king orders him to be released, whereupon his fellow-prisoner says to him, ' I have a grievance against you, for had you said, " Execute justice for us," he would have released me just as he has released you; but now that you said, "Execute justice for me," he released you but not me.’

Similarly, hadst thou said, ' We go childless,’ then as He gave thee a child so would He have given me; since, however, thou saidest, And I go childless (Gen. XV, 2), He gave thee a child but not me. This may [also] be compared to two people who went to borrow seed from the king. One of them asked, ' Lend me seed,’ and he ordered, ‘Give it to him.’ Said his companion to him, ‘I have a grievance against you. Had you asked, "Lend us seed," he would have given me just as he gave you; now however that you said, " Lend me seed," he has given you but not me.’ Similarly, hadst thou said, ‘Behold, to us Thou hast given no seed,’ then as He gave thee so had He given me. Now however that thou didst say, ’Behold, to me Thou hast given no seed ' (ib. 3), He gave to thee but not to me.

R. Menahema [Nehemiah] said in R. Abin's name: She scratched his face.1 The Rabbis said: Women are said to possess four traits: they are greedy, eavesdroppers, slothful, and envious. Greedy, as it says, And she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat (ib. III, 6); eavesdroppers: And Sarah heard in the tent door (ib. XVIII, 10); slothful: Make ready quickly three measures of fine meal (ib. 6); envious: Rachel envied her sister (ib. XXX, 1). R. Joshua b. Nehemiah said: She is also a scratcher and talkative. A scratcher:  AND SARAI SAID UNTO ABRAM: MY SCRATCH BE UPON THEE. Talkative: And Miriam spoke against Moses (Num. XII, 1). R. Levi said: She is also prone to steal and a gadabout. Prone to steal: And Rachel stole the teraphim (Gen. XXXI, I9). A gadabout: And Dinah went out (ib. XXXIV, 1).

THE LORD JUDGE BETWEEN ME AND THEE (UBENEKA). R. Tanhuma said in the name of R. Hiyya the Elder, and R. Berekiah said in R. Eleazar's name: Whoever plunges eagerly into litigation does not escape from it unscathed. Sarah should have reached Abraham's years, but because she said, THE LORD JUDGE BETWEEN ME AND THEE, her life was reduced by forty-eight years. R. Hoshaya said: Binka (thy son) is written.1 Seeing that it is already written, And he went in unto Hagar, and she conceived, why is it further stated, Behold, thou wilt conceive (ib. 11)?2 This, however, teaches that an evil eye took possession of her and she miscarried.3 R. Hanina observed: Had the prophet Elisha told her that by the Holy Spirit, it would have sufficed her.’

In contrast see Yevamos(64a):

The other replied: Isaac was barren.If so,Abraham also was barren!— That text is required For a deduction in accordance with the statement of R. Hiyya b. Abba. For R. Hiyya b. Abba stated in the name of R. Johanan: Why were the years of Ishmael counted? In order to determine thereby the years of Jacob. 

R. Isaac stated: Our father Isaac was barren; for it is said, And Isaac entreated the Lord opposite his wife.It does not say ‘for his wife’ but opposite. This teaches that both were barren.If so, And the Lord let Himself be entreated of him should have read, And the Lord let Himself be entreated of them!— Because the prayer of a righteous man the son of a righteous man is not like the prayer of a righteous man the son of a wicked man. 

R. Isaac stated: Why were our ancestors barren? — Because the Holy One, blessed be He, longs to hear the prayer of the righteous. 

R. Isaac further stated: Why is the prayer of the righteous compared to a pitchfork? As a pitchfork turns the sheaves of grain from one position to another, so does the prayer of the righteous turn the dispensations of the Holy One, blessed be He, from the attribute of anger to the attribute of mercy. 

R. Ammi stated: Abraham and Sarah were originally of doubtful sex for it is said, Look unto to the rock whence you were hewn and to the hole of the pit whence you were digged, and this is followed by the text, Look unto Abraham your father, and unto Sarah that bore you.

R. Nahman stated in the name of Rabbah b. Abbuha: Our mother Sarah was incapable of procreation; for it is said, And Sarai was barren; she had no child,she had not even a womb.

Charles Sykes - Why Nobody Cares the President Is Lying

NY Times

If President Trump’s first tumultuous weeks have done nothing else, at least they have again made us a nation of readers.

As Americans grapple with the unreality of the new administration, George Orwell’s “1984” has enjoyed a resurgence of interest, becoming a surprise best seller and an invaluable guide to our post-factual world.

On his first full day in office Mr. Trump insisted that his inaugural crowd was the largest ever, a baseless boast that will likely set a pattern for his relationship both to the media and to the truth.

At an event marking Black History Month last week, the president took a detour from a discussion of Frederick Douglass — he described the abolitionist as “an example of somebody who’s done an amazing job and is being recognized more and more” — to talk about the press. “A lot of the media is actually the opposition party — they’re so biased,” he said. “So much of the media is the opposition party and knowingly saying incorrect things.”

Continue reading the main story

Mr. Trump understands that attacking the media is the reddest of meat for his base, which has been conditioned to reject reporting from news sites outside of the conservative media ecosystem.

For years, as a conservative radio talk show host, I played a role in that conditioning by hammering the mainstream media for its bias and double standards. But the price turned out to be far higher than I imagined. The cumulative effect of the attacks was to delegitimize those outlets and essentially destroy much of the right’s immunity to false information. We thought we were creating a savvier, more skeptical audience. Instead, we opened the door for President Trump, who found an audience that could be easily misled.

The news media’s spectacular failure to get the election right has made it only easier for many conservatives to ignore anything that happens outside the right’s bubble and for the Trump White House to fabricate facts with little fear of alienating its base.

Unfortunately, that also means that the more the fact-based media tries to debunk the president’s falsehoods, the further it will entrench the battle lines.

During his first week in office, Mr. Trump reiterated the unfounded charge that millions of people had voted illegally. When challenged on the evident falsehood, Sean Spicer, the White House press secretary, seemed to argue that Mr. Trump’s belief that something was true qualified as evidence. The press secretary also declined to answer a straightforward question about the unemployment rate, suggesting that the number will henceforth be whatever the Trump administration wants it to be.

He can do this because members of the Trump administration feel confident that the alternative-reality media will provide air cover, even if they are caught fabricating facts or twisting words (like claiming that the “ban” on Muslim immigrants wasn’t really a “ban”). Indeed, they believe they have shifted the paradigm of media coverage, replacing the traditional media with their own.

In a stunning demonstration of the power and resiliency of our new post-factual political culture, Mr. Trump and his allies in the right media have already turned the term “fake news” against its critics, essentially draining it of any meaning. During the campaign, actual “fake news” — deliberate hoaxes — polluted political discourse and clogged social media timelines.

Some outlets opened the door, by helping spread conspiracy theories and indulging the paranoia of the fever swamps. For years, the widely read Drudge Report has linked to the bizarre conspiracy theorist Alex Jones, who believes that both the attacks of Sept. 11 and the Sandy Hook shootings were government-inspired “false flag” operations.

For conservatives, this should have made it clear that something was badly amiss in their media ecosystem. But now any news deemed to be biased, annoying or negative can be labeled “fake news.” Erroneous reports that the bust of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. had been removed from the Oval Office or misleading reports that sanctions against Russia had been lifted will be seized on by Mr. Trump’s White House to reinforce his indictment.

Even as he continues to attack the “dishonest media,” Mr. Trump and his allies are empowering this alt-reality media, providing White House access to Breitbart and other post-factual outlets that are already morphing into fierce defenders of the administration.

The relationship appears to be symbiotic, as Mr. Trump often seems to pick up on talking points from Fox News and has tweeted out links from websites notorious for their casual relationship to the truth, including sites like Gateway Pundit, a hoax-peddling site that announced, shortly after the inauguration, that it would have a White House correspondent.

By now, it ought to be evident that enemies are important to this administration, whether they are foreigners, refugees, international bankers or the press.

But discrediting independent sources of information also has two major advantages for Mr. Trump: It helps insulate him from criticism and it allows him to create his own narratives, metrics and “alternative facts.”

All administrations lie, but what we are seeing here is an attack on credibility itself.

The Russian dissident and chess grandmaster Garry Kasparov drew upon long familiarity with that process when he tweeted: “The point of modern propaganda isn’t only to misinform or push an agenda. It is to exhaust your critical thinking, to annihilate truth.”

Mr. Kasparov grasps that the real threat is not merely that a large number of Americans have become accustomed to rejecting factual information, or even that they have become habituated to believing hoaxes. The real danger is that, inundated with “alternative facts,” many voters will simply shrug, asking, “What is truth?” — and not wait for an answer.

In that world, the leader becomes the only reliable source of truth; a familiar phenomenon in an authoritarian state, but a radical departure from the norms of a democratic society. The battle over truth is now central to our politics.[...]

Or as George Orwell said: “The very concept of objective truth is fading out of the world. Lies will pass into history.” But Ms. Hughes’s comment was perhaps unintentionally insightful. Mr. Trump and company seem to be betting that much of the electorate will not care if the president tells demonstrable lies, and will pick and choose whatever “alternative facts” confirm their views.[...]

Perhaps just as important, it will be incumbent on conservative media outlets to push back as well. Conservatism should be a reality-based philosophy, and the movement will be better off if it recognizes that facts really do matter. There may be short-term advantages to running headlines about millions of illegal immigrants voting or secret United Nations plots to steal your guns, but the longer the right enables such fabrications, the weaker it will be in the long run. As uncomfortable as it may be, it will fall to the conservative media to police its worst actors.

The conservative media ecosystem — like the rest of us — has to recognize how critical, but also how fragile, credibility is in the Orwellian age of Donald Trump.

More "alternative facts" : Trump adviser cites non-existent 'massacre' defending ban

CNN

Kellyanne Conway seems to be confused. On Thursday night the Trump adviser appeared in a TV interview and made a statement that pricked the ears of fact-checkers everywhere.

She told MSNBC's Chris Matthews:

"I bet it's brand new information to people that President Obama had a 6-month ban on the Iraqi refugee program after two Iraqis came here to this country, were radicalized and they were the masterminds behind the Bowling Green massacre. It didn't get covered."

First of all, Obama didn't ban the Iraqi refugee program.

Second, there's no such thing as the Bowling Green massacre.

Conway could have been referencing two Iraqis -- Waad Ramadan Alwan and Mohanad Shareef Hammadi -- who lived in Bowling Green, Kentucky. Both were granted refugee status and entered the United States in 2009.

They were arrested in May 2011 on a series of terrorism charges and were sentenced two years later after pleading guilty.

The two men were never planning on committing an act of terrorism on US soil. Instead, they were trying to help get weapons to al Qaeda in Iraq. They were terrorists who should not have been allowed in the country, but they weren't planning an attack in the United States. And they didn't kill anyone in Bowling Green (or anywhere else in the US).[...]

An indictment released at the time said the United States was able to locate Alwan's fingerprints on an IED and on the base of a cordless phone used in an attack near Bayji, Iraq in the early 2000s. That the vetting process didn't work and that these men were allowed into the country highlighted serious flaws in the refugee resettlement system and led to reforms of the vetting process.

As a result, Obama ordered that 57,000-58,000 Iraqi refugees recently allowed into the country be revetted, causing a massive backlog. So, while there was no specific 'ban' on Iraqi refugees coming into the country, there was a delay in allowing anymore in. [...]

"Donald Trump is the Mad King: volatile, vainglorious, and untrustworthy" - the Blunder Down Under

The Atlantic

Citizens of an unusually close ally now regard the president as a volatile, vainglorious, untrustworthy bully after he needlessly disrespected their leader in a phone call

Dishonor and distraction. That is what Donald Trump brought the United States Wednesday when news broke that he inexplicably lashed out at the prime minister of Australia in a phone call, tried to renege on an agreement between the two nations, and bragged as ever about himself. To add insult to insolence, he then took to Twitter to complain.

The Washington Post first reported on the self-indulgent outburst:

President Trump blasted Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull over a refu­gee agreement and boasted about the magnitude of his electoral college win, according to senior U.S. officials briefed on the Saturday exchange. Then, 25 minutes into what was expected to be an hour-long call, Trump abruptly ended it. At one point, Trump informed Turnbull that he had spoken with four other world leaders that day — including Russian President Vladi­mir Putin — and that “this was the worst call by far.”

Trump’s behavior suggests that he is capable of subjecting world leaders, including close allies, to a version of the vitriol he frequently employs against political adversaries and news organizations in speeches and on Twitter.

Australian media sources soon confirmed parts of the story.

By Thursday, a columnist at the Sydney Morning Herald had coined a new name for the president of the United States: “Donald Trump is the Mad King: volatile, vainglorious, and untrustworthy,” Mark Kenny wrote. “Trump is now gainsaying his own private commitments, via Twitter. This is an extraordinary situation and one that is almost impossible to manage. American prestige is on the line.” In fact, it took a hit.

President Obama’s critics argued that the United States was no longer respected under his tenure. Trump assured his voters that he alone would make America respected again. After barely a week his undisciplined antics have damaged America’s standing with multiple allies. “World leaders be warned,” the Australian newspaper declared. “Trump's conversations are not private and his word, unreliable.”

Who can now deny that?

Other allies were watching. Trump’s behavior made all the British papers. The story in the conservative Telegraph at one point characterized Trump as having a “tantrum.”

And the image Trump has projected to the world is bullying disloyalty.

After all, there is no country that has stood by the U.S. like Australia. The two nations’ soldiers fought alongside each other in World War I, World War II, Korea, Vietnam, the Persian Gulf, Afghanistan, and Iraq. They’ve helped America battle al-Qaeda and ISIS. They are a member of the Five Eyes, an intelligence alliance of English-speaking countries that shares mutually beneficial information. That all counts for something. Our shared language and similar cultures do, too. But the alliance is not to be taken for granted.

The prosperity of Australians is no longer mainly a function of their relationship with the United States. “The rise of China has created the unprecedented situation in which Australia's major trading partner sits outside the U.S. alliance framework, and in fact constitutes the greatest threat to U.S. strategic predominance in the Asia-Pacific,” Stephan Fruehling, a scholar of defense studies and international relations at Australian National University, explained in the 2016 book Australia's American Alliance. “Australia's split imperatives between its Sinocentric prosperity interests and US-focused security interests have begun to generate significant turbulence.”

Two years ago, Malcolm Fraser, Australia’s former prime minister, wrote in National Affairs that “it is time for Australia to end its strategic dependence on the United States,” arguing that the relationship “has now become dangerous to Australia’s future,” because “if America goes to war in the Pacific, it will take us to war as well—without an independent decision by Australia.” What’s more, “in any major contest in the Pacific, our relationship with America would make us a strategic target for America’s enemies. It is not in Australia’s interest to be in that position.”

Just as Trump was throwing his tantrum, the press was reporting on his top adviser, Stephen Bannon, bloviating a few months back about how “we’re going to war in the South China Sea.”[...]

The mix of Trump’s incompetence and Bannon’s casual bellicosity endangers America. It strains its alliances. It squanders goodwill, making allies like Australia marginally less inclined to help the United States. It causes the citizens of allied nations to regard America as a laughingstock.

The leader of every allied nation on earth is now wondering whether they can trust Trump to have candid conversations, keep sensitive secrets, follow through on American commitments, or simply control himself for longer than a day. And so am I.

This man has proved repeatedly that he cannot master himself.

As a safeguard against a break in judgment or sanity more severe than any we’ve yet seen, Republicans should plan for what exactly happens if Trump loses the faculty to govern. We’re only a week in and he is failing the easiest of tests. Who among us couldn’t have handled a call with Australia better than the man sitting in the Oval Office?

Former Brooklyn math tutor gets just three years’ probation in sexual assault of his 6-year-old pupil Tweet email

NY Daily News

A former Brooklyn math tutor busted for sexually assaulting a 6-year-old student will only spend three years on probation - in a sweetheart sentencing on Wednesday.

Moshe Friedman, 31, admitted in December to violating the little boy multiple times between September 2014 and June 2015 when he was supposed to be helping him with his homework.

Friedman, was originally charged with first-degree felony sexual conduct against a child — but pleaded guilty to endangering the welfare of a child, a misdemeanor..[...]

“The victim’s family were adamant about not allowing their child to testify and they approved of the plea,” according to a law enforcement source.

Friedman, who was represented by lawyer Arthur Aidala, has several conditions to the plea bargain — including not having to register as a sex offender.[...]

Included in Friedman’s plea agreement, he must serve three years probation surrender his Department of Education teaching license, never contact the victim or be around anyone under the age of 18, not speak to other sex offenders, not watch pornography, no calls to phone sex services and must not use the computer to view sexual material.

“Thank you, your honor,” Friedman told Brooklyn Supreme Court Justice Miriam Cyrulnik on Wednesday.

If Friedman violates the terms of his agreement, he faces up to a year in jail.[...]