Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene vows to file articles of impeachment against Biden

 https://www.foxnews.com/politics/georgia-rep-vows-to-file-articles-of-impeachment-against-biden

Her announcement seems to be at odds with many in her own party who say Trump’s second impeachment was unnecessarily divisive at a time when the country needs to start coming together.

Greene had defended her decision not to wear a mask when locked in a secure room with other House members during the Capitol riots and pushed back against Democrats who are now blaming her and other maskless GOP members for their recent coronavirus positive tests.

She said she tested negative for COVID-19 on Jan. 4 at the White House and doesn't believe that healthy Americans should be forced to muzzle themselves with a mask.

The GOP's carnival of hypocrisy

 https://edition.cnn.com/2021/01/13/opinions/impeachment-republican-hypocrisy-ghitis/index.html

If Republicans want healing and reconciliation, it may have something to do with the threats they are receiving In what is the closest to a fascist tactic we have seen in this godforsaken presidency. Republican Rep. Peter Meijer wrote in the Detroit News of how one of his "profoundly shaken" colleagues had acknowledged after last week's riot that voting to certify Biden's win was a constitutional duty -- but instead voted to overturn the election result for fear of endangering family members.

 

The right way to heal those divisions, the right way to unite the country, is to come together in repudiating the poisonous presidency of Donald Trump. What better way to do that than by impeaching and convicting him? Even if he completes the full four years of his term, Americans will have formally declared his presidency a grave national error, telling future generations -- and even current ones -- that Trump's values and tactics are abhorrent to this nation.

 

That's the way to achieve unity. The claims we're hearing that impeachment is bad for healing are lies. They are a way to avoid responsibility, to protect the President, to sweep the filth under the rug. At a time like this, when the country should stand together, what America needs from its leaders is courage, not hypocrisy.

Talking with women - prohibition

Nitai Gavriel (Chapter 50 Yichud page 325): Avos (1:5) A man should not have excessive idle conversation (sicha) with a woman. That is said in regards to one’s wife so even more so it applies to the wife of another.” Therefore when a man has no choice but to speak to a woman he should minimize it as much as possible. That is what the Derech Pekudecha (Mahartza Mudinov - Lo Saaseh 35:8) concluded. He said, “It is surprising that accomplished Torah scholars and G‑d fearing men are not careful of this prohibition which requires them to weigh precisely each word that they speak with a woman in order not to add even one unnecessary word. I personally could not find a legitimate justification for this behavior. However I provided some sort of rationale for it based on the Sefer Chasidim which is cited by the Beis Shmuel (E.H. 62:11). He says that at a wedding meal – if there are men and women together in a single room then the beracha of hasimcha b'miono should not be recited. That is because there is no true rejoicing in a place where the evil inclination operates freely. In fact I have not seen anyone who acts in accord with this ruling. I did find an explanation for this in the Levush who writes, ‘And now we are not careful to observe this ruling because it is normal for women to be frequently found together with men (e.g., business, professions, and stores). As a consequence of this reality, sinful thoughts when seeing women are not so prevalent as when the sexes were kept separate because they are viewed neutrally as one would view geese due to the constant habituation. Therefore since it has become normal to violate this concern – it is ignored .’ One must conclude according to this analysis that when a Jewish community is operating properly and livelihood is readily obtained you will not see a single woman outside the home because they are not involved in commerce. Consequently a man living in that community if he happens to see a woman – it is something extremely rare experience and therefore it will generate erotic thoughts and feelings. In contrast when the weight of exile is heavy and livelihood is difficult to obtain the women are involved in commerce and there is no novelty for a man to see women. Therefore he becomes habituated to the sight of a woman and doesn’t become sexually excited so much when he see one. Therefore if we see that habituation removes the problem of men having erotic thoughts from being with women, it should also apply to our case of excessive talking [and therefore when the norm is that men interact with women there should be no restriction on conversation.] We can answer this assertion by noting that it is clear that a man does not in fact get sexually aroused by excessive chatter because of habituation. Nevertheless despite the existence of habituation in conversation, it is clear that this leniency for habituation cannot be applied in the case of conversation. That is because excessive conversation is prohibited even with his wife with whom he is obviously habituated. That is because speaking and voice are considered sexual because they are mentioned in the Shir HaShirim (2:14), Your voice is sweet and Shir HaShirim (4:3), Your speech is pleasant (This is astounding! Is the ordinary voice of a women considered sexually arousing – isn’t it in fact only the singing voice? N.G.). It is possible that at the time when ordinary conversations with a woman were presumed to be prohibited because of sexual arousal that they made the decree to prohibit excessive talk even with one’s wife.

The Only Way to Wean America's Orthodox Jews Off Trumpism

 https://www.haaretz.com/us-news/.premium-the-only-way-to-wean-america-s-orthodox-jews-off-trumpism-1.9446401

The Capitol siege has, finally, triggered calls for soul-searching within an Orthodox community in lockstep with Trump. It will be hard work

Saluting the Heroes of the Insurrection | The Daily Social Distancing Show

Trump isolated and wallowing in self-pity in the White House, sources say

 https://edition.cnn.com/politics/live-news/house-trump-impeachment-vote-01-13-21/h_ba9752fdf65b29ad98f4031e63fe8b52

As President Trump made history tonight as the only US president to be impeached twice, one White House adviser said “everybody’s angry at everyone” inside the White House, with the President being upset because he thinks people aren’t defending him enough.

At the 11th hour, Trump hands Biden a whole new set of foreign policy headaches

 https://edition.cnn.com/2021/01/13/world/trump-biden-taiwan-cuba-yemen-intl/index.html

 His days as president of the United States may be numbered, but Donald Trump is going out of his way to light a string of wildfires for his successor to put out.

While President-elect Joe Biden's immediate focus will likely be on the troubled domestic situation, with the Covid-19 pandemic and the political divide in the US, the Trump administration has also opted, as part of its final act, to hand him a series of new international diplomatic dilemmas. In some instances, these are life-or-death situations.

Final days bring new urgency to Trump's desire to pardon himself and his children

 https://edition.cnn.com/2021/01/12/politics/trump-pardons-children-attacks-capitol/index.html

CNN reported Monday that Trump's White House Counsel Pat Cipollone and former Attorney General Bill Barr warned him against pardoning himself, but advisors say Trump may still do it, even though it would almost certainly be met with lawsuits.

Presidential pardon power is untested and sources say both Barr and Cipollone thought it would be a bad idea for Trump to try to pardon himself. Barr believes a 1974 Justice Department legal memo finding that the president cannot pardon himself should stand, and Cipollone has not asked the Justice Department Office of Legal Counsel for a re-examination of the issue, according to two sources.

The memo clearly states that under "the fundamental rule that no one may be a judge in his own case, the President cannot pardon himself."

Trump's turbulent and lawless presidency will end with historic second impeachment

 https://edition.cnn.com/2021/01/13/politics/donald-trump-impeachment-history-joe-biden/index.html

The sole article of impeachment that the House is expected to pass Wednesday charging Trump with high crimes and misdemeanors is damning. Its simple clarity explains why this impeachment is no mere futile partisan ritual in the waning days of the most aberrant presidency in history.

"Donald John Trump, by such conduct, has demonstrated that he will remain a threat to national security, democracy, and the Constitution if allowed to remain in office, and has acted in a manner grossly incompatible with self-governance and the rule of law," the article reads

It is an extraordinary mark of turbulent times and a lawless term that Trump will become the first president to be impeached twice -- only 13 months after the House first resolved that his abuses of power merited removal from office.

 

The idea that the rampage in which five people died was just a political outburst that got out of control was debunked Tuesday by the serious tone of a news conference held by the acting district attorney in Washington.

A wife is acquired What does that mean?

Netziv (Meishiv Davar 4:35):Question: You asked a second time to discuss what does it mean that a man acquires (kinyan) a wife? Why and for what purpose is she acquired. This is that you wrote in the first letter in which you noted that according to the Torah a man makes no acquisition of the woman except in respect to intercourse – however aside from intercourse there is absolutely no acquisition. As a consequence if she makes a neder (vow) and says that she is prohibiting him from the pleasure of intercourse with her – there is no need to nullify the neder. But she can be pressured to have intercourse - in spite of the neder - because for that purpose she was acquired by her husband. Answer: This matter is very clear. This that it says in the Torah that the wife is kinyan kaspo (acquired with money) and also this that we find that the wife of a man is his slave and maidservant – the intent is clearly that she is like his slave and maidservant – but not literally so. Just as the work of a slave’s hand belongs to his master so is his wife regarding intercourse but not in any other aspect. A clear proof that a wife is not literally a slave to her husband is that our Sages say that according to the Torah, the work of her hands does not belong to her husband. But how do our Sages know this. Is it stated clearly in the Torah? But doesn't the Torah say that she is kinyan kaspo (acquired by money) which is the same description given for a slave and maidservant? So what is the source that her work does not belong to her husband? In fact let’s reverse the question, how do we know that his wife is obligated to him regarding intercourse and therefore cannot prohibit herself sexually to her husband. There is no problem if he was the one making the neder and said that he is prohibiting her from having intercourse with him. Of course the neder would not be valid because we have a clear Torah verse prohibiting him from diminishing her rights to sexual intercourse. And even according to the view that that verse is only talking about his obligation to cloth her, nevertheless the neder is still not valid because he is obligated to satisfy her sexually from a kal v’chomer. As we see in a braissa in the Mechilta (Shoftim). Rav Yonason said “she ‘era kesuba” is referring to clothing which is appropriate for her body. If she is young she should not be given clothing for an old person. Additionally that this verse can mean that she should not be given clothing for the summer in the winter and vice versa…. And how do we know that he needs to feed her?…How do we know intercourse?. There is a kal v’chomer. And those things which she didn’t get married for you cannot prevent her from having, those things for which she did marry to get she surely cannot be prevented from having. (I speak further about this in my sefer HaEmek She’ela (6:1). In contrast regarding the wife - she cannot withhold the pleasure of intercourse from the husband. So what is the source that says she is required to have intercourse with him? Perhaps it is from the fact that she is called “kinyan kaspo” (acquired with money) and that she is owned by the husband also in regard to everything else like his maidservant? But that is clearly not so and it is an elementary from the verse “When a man takes a wife”. Why does it end “And he has sexual relations with her” – and mentions nothing else? From this we learn that only for that particular aspect i.e., sexual intercourse she is acquired by him like a maidservant to serve him – but not for anything else….The kinyan (acquisition) of the man is only concerning the sexuality of wife. This is not a question regarding an unmarried woman according to the view of the Rambam who says it is prohibited to have intercourse with an unmarried woman. But even according to those who disagree with the Rambam – having intercourse with an unmarried women is only optional - but she is not obligated to have intercourse with him. And if he forces an unmarried woman to have intercourse – G-d forbid - then he is required to pay her for shame and degradation. Forcing an unmarried woman is like theft and like beating someone. In contrast his wife who is acquired by him – she is required to have intercourse with him any time he wants and if she does not do it willingly he is able to force her – just as a master who forces his maidservant to do who work. All of this is very clear and it isn’t worthwhile going over it again…. It is important to note that a man’s wife is acquired by him and also sanctified by him. It is important to understand that these two things are separate. Acquisition (kinyan) means that she is required to have intercourse with her husband just as a slave is required to do his work for his master. In contrast, kiddushin (sanctification) is like hekdesh i.e., she is prohibited to others. The significance of having two separate aspects is that from the point of view of the wife being acquired to her husband – it is considered theft if she gave her love to someone else and did nothing else. This would be like a slave who works for someone other than his master at a time when he had work to do for his master – this is pure theft. On the other hand purely from the point of view of acquisition, if her husband gave her permission to have intercourse with someone else it would be permitted – just as a slave who was permitted to work for someone else. Consequently that is why she is also sanctified (mekudeshesh) from which there is no escape except by receiving a Get from her husband or if he dies. However from the pure perspective of sanctification, I would not know that she has any obligation or that she is acquired by her husband. I would only know that she is prohibited to others through the sanctification. Consequently that is why she also has to be acquired. I have already written in the name of the Rambam that if one sanctifies an unborn baby that the kiddushin is valid and the baby is a married woman and is prohibited to others – but the baby is not also acquired by the husband. Consequently if a man sanctifies a woman who is prohibited to him by a negative commandment, she is definitely not acquired by him but she is in fact sanctified to him. Therefore anyone else who has intercourse with her is committing adultery…In summary, there is no doubt that a wife is only acquired (kinyan) by her husband concerning her sexuality and nothing else and there is no reason to repeat this again.

Pleasure is undesirable

Nesivos Shalom (letter after 3 months translation by Dr. Benny Brown) The early chasidim of the previous generation, whom we were privileged to witness, had shed their sweat and blood in the struggle against permitted pleasures, in just the same way as those who struggle to refrain from the most strictly prohibited acts. They struggled more to resist a commandment that pleasures the body than they struggled to resist a transgression that gives the body no pleasure at all. The Sages had said: “He should love his wife as his own flesh,” and. the early chasidim interpreted it -  but not as his own soul. When someone once said to Rabbi Avraham the Angel, who practiced strict sexual abstinence, that by this he was bound to lose his share in the World to Come, he replied: “The World to Come is worth losing in order to avoid the pleasures of This World.” Some of them would weep copiously every leil tevilah. They would repent the required [and permitted sexual act] just as one repents a grave sin, lest their bodies experience physical pleasure. They feared the kelipah [evil force] of permission more than the kelipah of prohibition. [...] and our Rebbe [the Beys Avrom], of blessed memory, told us that Rav Mikhl Sofer of Kobrin did not realize that his wife was lame even after three years of marriage. Such was their holiness. And we—what are we by comparison, whose hearts are weak and whose brains are dull?! For when the heart and the brains fail to function, the liver, where lust dwells, takes hold of the body. The boiling, impure blood overflows, and the evil inclination burns like fire, even among those who are engaged in Torah study and mitzvos all day long

 https://disq.us/url?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.academia.edu%2F38353109%2FThe_Kedushah_Crisis_Sexual_abstinence_of_married_men_roils_the_Hasidic_groups_of_Gur_Slonim_and_Toledot_Aharon%3AtdjaOFowPtngWYGMt0mRFcTx_uc&cuid=3025274

Netziv (Bereishis 30:23)Rachel called the baby Yosef because she said G-d stopped her degradation According to the simple meaning all creature that have not accomplished their purpose are lacking and thus degraded in particular a childless woman. Consequently all intercourse with them that doesn’t result in children but is done for pleasure is also a degradation.

What are genuine Torah principles?

 Am having a discussion whether yeridas hadoros is a Torah principle despite the  existence of a few gemoras that state it I think the answer is no! 

you can not prove anything from a few isolated gemoras. The failure of the Rambam, Shulchan Aruch and many others to use the principle indicates it is not mainstream. 

This is like the assumption that hashgacha protis applies to everything, beshert is real, or that faith will get you anything. As well as all that happens can only be from G-d, also the idea that the ideal is asceticism. You can add others such as astrology or that everything that happens is for the good.

 כסף משנה הלכות ממרים פרק ב הלכה א
[א] בית דין הגדול שדרשו וכו'. למד כן רבינו ממאי דאשכחן תנאי בתראי דפליגי אקמאי וכן אמוראי בתראי פליגי אקמאי והא דתנן בפ"ק דעדיות (משנה ה') שאם יראה ב"ד את דברי היחיד ויסמוך עליו שאין ב"ד יכול לבטל דברי ב"ד חבירו עד שיהא גדול ממנו בחכמה ובמנין מוקי לה רבינו בשאותו יחיד ואותם רבים נחלקו בגזירה או תקנה כלומר שאם ב"ד פסק כדעת היחיד אין ב"ד אחר יכול לחלוק ולפסוק כדעת הרבים אלא אם היה גדול וכו' וכמו שיתבאר בסמוך אבל אם נחלקו בשזה דורש באחת מן המדות וזה באחרת אה"נ שיכול לבטל דבריו אפילו שאינו גדול כמוהו בחכמה ובמנין. ואם תאמר אם כן אמאי לא פליגי אמוראי אתנאי דהא בכל דוכתא מקשינן לאמורא ממתניתין או מברייתא וצ"ל אנא דאמרי כי האי תנא ואם לא יאמר כן קשיא ליה וכפי דברי רבינו הרשות נתונה להם לחלוק על דברי התנאים. ואפשר לומר שמיום חתימת המשנה קיימו וקבלו שדורות האחרונים לא יחלקו על הראשונים וכן עשו גם בחתימת הגמ' שמיום שנחתמה לא ניתן רשות לשום אדם לחלוק עליה:

Cuomo on Trump speech: Only people who thought it was appropriate was that mob

What Impeachment Won't Change: How the GOP Became the Party of Trump Over Several Decades

 https://time.com/5928937/trumpism-deeply-rooted-republican-party/

The Trump presidency was a product, not the cause, of the new Republican Party. President Trump’s success was only possible because of the transformation that the party underwent since the 1980s. So deeply rooted is the dysfunction that shapes the GOP that even the shock and awe of a presidentially incited mob storming Capitol Hill won’t fundamentally shift what the party is all about.
 While it is true that Democrats and Republicans have moved further apart, with the number of moderates having vastly diminished, the GOP has become much more radicalized than the Democrats. As a whole, Republicans have shifted further to the right than Democrats, as a whole, have moved to the left. Just as important, Republicans have embraced a much more extreme approach to partisan warfare, proving more willing to damage institutions and shatter norms than their opponents. Democrats come prepared for a pillow fight, as Trump’s advisor Steve Bannon argued, Republicans for the head wound.