Trump lies to support his previous lies: Trump’s absurd claim the 2012 Pew report researcher was ‘groveling’

Washington Post

The Pinocchio Test

It is remarkable that the president of the United States continues makes a false claim with no support, then finds a five-year-old report that doesn’t support his claim, then attacks the researcher of the study when confronted with the fact that the report does not support his false claim.

Trump says Becker was “groveling” when he claimed his 2012 Pew study did not find evidence of voter fraud. Yet since the report was first released, and in contemporaneous news coverage, it is clear that Becker has consistently said his research did not find evidence of voter fraud.

We have given many four–Pinocchio ratings to Trump and his staff for his talking point. We award four more Pinocchios.

====================================================================

“Then he’s groveling again. You know I always talk about the reporters that grovel when they want to write something that you want to hear but not necessarily millions of people want to hear or have to hear.”
— President Trump, interview with ABC News, Jan. 25, 2017

For the first time since taking office, President Trump addressed the 2012 Pew Center on the States report that he and his staff have repeatedly — and unsuccessfully — used to support his claims of widespread voter fraud in the 2016 election.

Trump once again referred to a 2012 Pew report as evidence of widespread voter fraud. When David Muir of ABC News noted the study’s author said he found no evidence of voter fraud, Trump said: “Excuse me, then why did he write the report?”

Then Trump claimed the author was “groveling.” Really?

The Facts

No.

David Becker, who directed the research for the Pew report, has said since the report’s release in February 2012 that there was no evidence of fraud from his findings.

The report, instead, found problems with inaccurate voter registrations, people who registered in more than one state (which could happen if the voter moves and registers in the new state without telling the former state) and deceased voters whose information was still on the voter rolls. Trump did reference these other findings correctly in the interview — but then claimed these findings are evidence of fraud.

In a February 2012 Q&A about the study’s findings, Becker specifically said researchers did not find evidence of voter fraud:

Q. Are these problems leading either to fraud or to efforts to keep eligible people from voting?
A. We have not seen evidence of that. These problems really are the result of an antiquated system — one that relies almost exclusively on 19th and 20th century technologies (paper and mail) to serve a 21st century, highly mobile society. About one in eight Americans moved during each of the 2008 and 2010 election years. Some Americans — including those serving in the military, young people and those living in communities affected by the economic downturn — are even more mobile.
One in four voters assumes that election officials or the U.S. Postal Service updates registrations automatically with each move, even though that is almost never the case, and about half of all voters don’t know they can update their registration at a motor vehicles office.
Election offices often are flooded with millions of paper registration applications from third-party voter registration drives right before Election Day, at a time when their resources are stretched the most.

Contemporaneous news coverage shows that Becker consistently said the research did not show evidence of fraud. Here are a few examples: [...]

In response to Trump’s comments on ABC News, Becker reiterated to The Fact Checker that the scope of his report did not address voter fraud.

“It’s all about the voter list. It was not about fraud at all,” Becker said.

Becker added that many improvements have been made since 2012 to make voter rolls more accurate and up-to-date.

“It’s a five-year-old report,” he said. “So many election officials from across the aisle and around the country have worked to leverage technology and data to make sure the voter lists are serving the voters. I don’t know that I would feel comfortable saying the estimates we reached in February of 2012 would be the same estimates that we would reach today, given the substantial improvements that have occurred in the last five years.”

The White House did not respond to our inquiry.

Women don't ask for marital relations directly - Refined character or curse?

In a recent post of the explanation of the Maharal - that the merit of being redeemed from Egypt was because of the lust of the women for their husbands - the question was raised why he omitted part of the gemora in Nedarim (20b)? The gemora presented a contradiction between the undesirability of relations with a brazen woman who asks directly for intercourse and the praise of women who are active in getting their husbands to have intercourse with them. This is what the gemora says:

Nedarim (20b): And I will purge out from among you the rebels, and them that transgress against me. R. Levi said: This refers to children belonging to the following nine categories: children of fear, of outrage, of a hated wife, one under a ban, of a woman mistaken for another, of strife, of intoxication [during intercourse], of a mentally divorced wife, of promiscuity, and of a brazen woman.

But that is not so: for did not R. Samuel b. Nahmani say in the name of R. Jonathan: One who is summoned to his marital duty by his wife will beget children such as were not to be found even in the generation of Moses? For it is said, Take you wise men, and understanding [and known among your tribes, and I will make them rulers over you]; and it is written, So I took the chiefs of your tribes, wise men and known but ‘understanding’ is not mentioned. But it is also written, Issachar is a large-boned ass; whilst elsewhere it is written, And of the children of Issachar, which were men that had understanding of the titles?

— [It is virtuous] only when the wife ingratiates herself [with her husband].

The Maharal omits that it is praiseworthy for women to persuade their husband to have intercourse  only if they hint or ingratiate themselves with their husbands - but not if they ask directly.

One obvious possibility is that perhaps the Maharal doesn't think that women have to indicate indirectly. However that is clearly not true as can be seen from the following statement in his commentary to Bereishis.

Maharal (Bereishis 3:16): And your desire will be to your husband – to have sexual relations even though you are not so arrogant as to directly ask for it (Rashi). Because if you were allowed to directly ask for sexual relations then “to your husband will be your desire” is not a curse but rather a beracha and desirable. Furthermore what is the significance here of saying “And he will rule over you”? Because even before Eve was cursed the Torah (Bereishis 1:28) said, “And will have control” is written without a “vov” to teach you that the man is to have control over the woman that she should not be constantly leaving the house (Rashi). [So what is added by this verse?] It is to add additional subservience - that even though the woman’s desire is for her husband and he controls her but she is not to be so brazen as to ask directly for sexual intercourse. In other words, everything has to come from him and nothing comes from you. That is the curse. Because she is not to be so brazen as to ask for intercourse but everything is from him and not from you.

The Maharal clearly says that the requirement to ask indirectly is a curse that was given to Eve - and thus to all women.

Further research seems to indicate that there is a dispute amongst authorities whether this requirement for women is 1) simply a desirable behavior for all women not to be brazen or 2) it is a punishment and curse for the Sin of Eve.

Desirable personality trait for all women not to be brazen

Ramban (Bereishis 3:16): And to you husband will be your desire - for sexual intercourse. Even so she should not have the arrogance to ask for it directly. Rather he should rule over you that everything is from him and not from the wife. This is Rashi’s explanation. But it is not correct. This verse is in fact a praise of the wife as it says in Eiruvin (100b) that this is a beautiful characteristic of women. Ibn Ezra says that the expression “your desire will be to your husband” means that she will obey all that he says, because the woman is in the domain of the husband to do all that he wishes. However I have found no instance where this language of “desire” means obedience – it always means passion or lust. It appears correct to me that she was punished that she would have very strong desire for her husband and she would not be concerned with the associated suffering of pregnancy and birth and the fact that the husband treats her as a slave. It is not normal that a slave should desire to have a master but rather the slave wants to escape to freedom. However this is measure for measure because Eve gave the fruit to Adam and commanded him to eat it. Therefore she was punished that she would no longer be his boss but that he would boss her according to his wishes. 

 Eiruvin (100b): And you shall have desire for your husband – this teaches that she has a strong desire for her husband when he set out on a journey. And he shall rule over you - this teaches that a woman asks with her heart while her husband asks directly for intercourse. But this is a good attribute for all women [not to be brazen and it is definitely not a curse]? [The curse is] that she must act seductively and ingratiates herself with him but can not directly say what she wants.

Rambam (Hilchos Issurei Bi'ah 21:13): And similarly our Sages have said that any brazen woman who directly asks for intercourse…. will give birth to children who are rebellious and sinful who will be purified by the affliction of Exile 

Rashi (Nedarim 20b): [She is acting virtuously in getting her husband to have intercourse] Only by ingratiating herself with her husband – But she does not directly ask her husband to have sexual intercourse but rather ingratiates herself with him. That means that she shows from her words that she is interested as Leah did and as a consequence she will have good children,. 

Curse as the result of the Sin of Eve to be seductive to obtain it

Eiruvin (100b): Rav Yitzchok bar Avdimi said, Eve was cursed with 10 curses as it says Bereishis (3:16), “To the woman, He said, and I will greatly mulitply.” That is referring to two drops of blood – one being that of nida and the other that of virginity.”your pain”, refers to the pain of raising children. “And your travail”, refers to the pain of pregnancy. “and in your pain you shall give birth to children” is literally birth pains. “And your desire shall before for your husband” teaches that a woman has a desire for her hsuband when he is about to go on a journey.”And he shall rule over you” teaches that while the wife expreses her desire for her husband with her heart, the husband does exresses his desire for her with his mouth. But this is a fine character trait of women? What it meant is that she needs to ingratiate herself with him. But these are only seven? When Rav Dimi came to Bavel he explained, She is wrapped up like a mourner, she is banished from the company of all men and she is confined within a prison.(Mishlei 44:14).

 Eiruvin (100b): And you shall have desire for your husband – this teaches that she has a strong desire for her husband when he set out on a journey. And he shall rule over you - this teaches that a woman asks with her heart while her husband asks directly for intercourse. But this is a good attribute for all women [not to be brazen and it is definitely not a curse]? [The curse is] that she must act seductively and ingratiates herself with him but can not directly say what she wants.

So why did the Maharal omit the requirement? I think it was because it is well known that the women in Egypt were righteous and therefore they obviously had a refined character and would clearly not ask directly but provide hints  - so there was no need to mention it.

Pischei Teshuvos (O.C. 240:13): Rambam(Hilchos Ishus 15:18) said, And the Sages commanded the woman that she should be modest within her house and not to talk a lot or display levity before her husband and she should not directly ask him for intercourse nor should she talk about intercourse. However the intent of our Sages was that she shouldn’t ask and speak about intercourse in a manner of brazenness and arrogance as the Sages said, “children of brazenness”. However if she speaks in a clean manner such as saying “Come to me” [as Leah said to Yaakov] or she makes him interested with words of enticement and she beautifies herself with cosmetics in order that he think about her [then that is appropriate] – then they will have proper children.

The Banal Belligerence of Donald Trump

NY Times by Roger Cohen

The soldiers, millions of them, came home from the war. They dispersed across the country, in big towns and small. It was not easy to recount what had happened to them, and for the dead it was impossible.

Something in the nature of their sacrifice was unsayable. The country was not especially interested. War had not brought the nation together but had divided it. The sudden flash, the boom, the acrid stench and utter randomness of death were as haunting as they were incommunicable.

This was war without victory, the kind that invites silence. For the soldiers, who fought in the belief that their cause was right and their nation just, the silence was humiliating. They bore their injuries, visible and invisible, with stoicism.

Resentments accumulated. The years went by, bringing only mediocrity. Glory and victory were forgotten words. Perhaps someone might mutter, “Thank you for your service.” That was it. There was no national memorial, for what would be memorialized?

Savings evaporated overnight in an economic meltdown engineered by financiers and facilitated by the abolishers of risk.

Democracy, the great diluter, slow and compromised, was inadequate for the expression of the soldiers’ emotions. Reasonable leaders with rational arguments could not assuage the loss. They seemed to belittle it with their parsing of every question and their half-decisions.

No, what was needed was a leader with answers, somebody to marshal a popular movement and cut through hesitations, a strongman who would put the nation first and mythologize its greatness, a figure ready to scapegoat without mercy, a unifier giving voice to the trampled masses, a man who could use democracy without being its slave.

Over 15 years national embitterment festered and yearning intensified. But which 15 years? Anyone these days may be forgiven for moments of disorientation. The 15 years from the devastating German defeat of 1918 to the electoral victory (with 43.9 percent of the vote) of Adolf Hitler in 1933? Or the 15 years from the devastating 9/11 attack on the United States to the electoral victory (with 46.1 percent of the vote) of Donald Trump in 2016?

National humiliation is long in gestation and violent in resolution.

German soldiers, two million of them killed in the Great War, came home to fractious and uneasy democratic politics, the ignominy of reparations, the hyperinflation of the early 1920s, the crash of 1929, and the paralysis of a political system held hostage by the extremes of left and right.

Some 2.7 million American soldiers came home to a country that had been shopping while they served in the Afghan and Iraqi wars, with 6,893 killed and more than 52,000 injured. They returned to an increasingly dysfunctional and polarized polity; to the financial disaster of 2008; to the mystery of what the spending of trillions of dollars in those wars had achieved; to stagnant incomes; to the steady diminishment of American uniqueness and the apparent erosion of its power.[...]

I have tried to tread carefully with analogies between the Fascist ideologies of 1930s Europe and Trump. American democracy is resilient. But the first days of the Trump presidency — whose roots of course lie in far more than the American military debacles since 9/11 — pushed me over the top. The president is playing with fire.

To say, as he did, that the elected representatives of American democracy are worthless and that the people are everything is to lay the foundations of totalitarianism. It is to say that democratic institutions are irrelevant and all that counts is the great leader and the masses he arouses. To speak of “American carnage” is to deploy the dangerous lexicon of blood, soil and nation. To boast of “a historic movement, the likes of the which the world has never seen before” is to demonstrate consuming megalomania. To declaim “America first” and again, “America first,” is to recall the darkest clarion calls of nationalist dictators. To exalt protectionism is to risk a return to a world of barriers and confrontation. To utter falsehood after falsehood, directly or through a spokesman, is to foster the disorientation that makes crowds susceptible to the delusions of strongmen.

Trump’s outrageous claims have a purpose: to destroy rational thought. When Primo Levi arrived at Auschwitz he reached, in his thirst, for an icicle outside his window but a guard snatched it away. “Warum?” Levi asked (why?). To which the guard responded, “Hier ist kein warum” (here there is no why).

As the great historian Fritz Stern observed, “This denial of ‘why’ was the authentic expression of all totalitarianism, revealing its deepest meaning, a negation of Western civilization.”

Americans are going to have to fight for their civilization and the right to ask why against the banal belligerence of Trump.

Maharal: Because of the lust of women in Egypt - Jews were redeemed

Maharal (Sotah 11b): This that the gemora says that for the sake of the righteous women of the generation they were redeemed from Egypt. This has very incredible implications. Because when these women had very great desire for their husbands they gave birth to children who were deserving of freedom. And a proof that when a woman has a great desire for her husband she gives birth to children who deserve to be redeem is (Nedarim 20b),” Rabbi Yochanon said that all men whose wife asks them for sexual intercourse will have children that even in the generation of Moshe didn’t exist. For it is said, Take you wise men, and understanding [and known among your tribes, and I will make them rulers over you]; and it is written, So I took the chiefs of your tribes, wise men and known but ‘understanding’ is not mentioned. But it is also written, Yissachar is a large-boned ass; whilst elsewhere it is written, And of the children of Yissachar, which were men that had understanding of the times.” 

The explanation of this is that when a woman asks her husband for intercourse then the woman cleaves to her husband who is characterized as the Form while the woman is Substance. When the Substance attaches itself to the Form the woman is being completed by the Form and therefore she has children who are understanding because everything is drawn after the Form and is distant from the Substance. Similarly regarding redemption, when the women desired their husbands they had children who deserved to be redeemed. As we have explained in many other places that enslavement is to Substance in particular while the Form is inherently free. Thus when a wife desires her husband there is a perfection of the Substance by the Form and therefore they give birth to children who are wise and understanding and fit to be redeemed. 

And this explains the statement that the women recognized their Creator as they said, “This is my G-d and I will praise him. It all follows from what we said, because they did not have the deficiency and foolishness of Substance – they recognized their Creator. And this that it says that they had intercourse in the sheep pens – this shows that they had so much desire for their husbands that they had intercourse with them whenever it was possible. And this that it says that it took place in the sheep pens is something very deep because it means that they had total unity when they had intercourse and that is called “in the sheep pens’’. That is because there the boundaries were joined and unified. And through the complete unity that comes from intercourse the wives cleaved to their husbands and the child that was born was not Substance because of the joining of the Substance and the Form as we have explained. But when there is separation in this joining, then the inherently materialistic woman makes her child Substance because there is not a cleaving of the Substance to the Form.

When you understand further the words of wisdom you will know that when there is unity of intercourse because of the desire of the woman - then in fact it becomes a divine pairing as we have explained many times. That is because division is a materialistic thing while unity is divine. That is because unity is relevant only from that which is separate from material while distinctiveness and separation are always materialistic. Therefore when there is a joining in complete unity it is something divine and not mundane. That is meant by saying that they had intercourse in the sheep pens which is between the boundaries of the field and between the field itself which is unique. This all comes to tell you that when they had intercourse together they had a divine connection because of the complete unity that they had. And thus “in the sheep pens” which was between the two borders which were separate from the field, they had a joining together which was distinct from the body. The comparison is totally comparable to the sheep pens when properly understood because the sheep pens is the border which is separate for itself between the two fields. Understand this.

When you understand these words of wisdom, you will also understand how great are the words of our Sages which is a hidden secret. That in the name man (ish) there is the letter “yud” and in the name woman (isha) the letter “hey”. When these two letters are joined we have the name of G-d. This shows that when there is a joining in unity it has the quality of divine holiness because of the name of G-d that results from their unity.

 From all this we can understand that the reward for intercourse in the sheep pens which is the divine level as we mentioned – caused also that they would have the spoils of Egypt. That is because this achievement that they acquired by means of the sheep pens caused them to have silver and gold. That is why it says, “As the wings of a dove covered with silver, and her pinions with yellow gold (Tehilim 68:14). Because through the unity of intercourse which is a divine quality – it draws silver and gold just as the wings are drawn after the dove. It is called a dove because of the unity of the joining. It mentions in Shir HaShirim Rabbah (4) that if the mate of the dove dies, the remaining bird will not mate with any other dove. That is why the relationship is called dove because the mating of doves is a complete intercourse and afterwards it mentions being covered with gold and silver because the two wings follow after the body which is a one body. Because when there is a joining of male and female in one attachment until they become one body –then there is the attraction to this of the two wings and these two wings are silver and gold as the verse said, To Me is the silver to Me is the Gold. This all follows after this unity. You shall understand this extremely well.[...]

Massive Women’s March turnout shows Trump’s opponents are done underestimating him

Vox

Every previous winning presidential candidate — and a good number of losing ones like John McCain and John Kerry — have been popular. Even Bill Clinton, who kind of limped into office with 43 percent of the popular vote in 1992, enjoyed approval ratings in the mid-to-high 60s during his post-election winter.

Donald Trump is not like that. While Barack Obama won the votes of a decent number of people who also had a favorable impression of McCain, Trump triumphed in the face of a badly divided opposition. Perhaps his most impressive political feat was trouncing Hillary Clinton 47-30 among the 18 percent voters who viewed both candidates negatively. He got 17 percent of the vote of people who said he wasn’t qualified to serve as president, 19 percent of the vote of people who said he lacked the temperament to be president, and 23 percent of the vote of people who wanted the next president to be more liberal than Obama.

A normal person would have responded to this kind of strange victory with some sort of effort to reassure people or shore up his support. But rather than pivot or mature, Trump spent his transition months feuding with the intelligence community, offered the most divisive inaugural address in memory, and then on his first full day in office went to Langley to deliver what amounted to a campaign rally in front of the CIA’s Memorial Wall.

These antics have taken Trump much further than anyone predicted they possibly could, and so he evidently has no intention of abandoning them. But in parallel on Saturday, millions of people took to the streets in cities and towns around the country to do the one thing his opponents never really did during the campaign — take the prospect of a Trump administration seriously. After benefitting mightily from a fractured opposition that systematically underestimated his candidacy, Trump is now finally in for the fight of his life.

Donald Trump won 46 percent of the popular vote on the way to victory — a victory driven by capturing the electoral votes of seven states in which he failed to capture a majority of the vote: Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Florida, Arizona, and Utah.

He was elected anyway because many people who didn’t want him to be president couldn’t bring themselves to vote for his opponent. Some of that was her own fault. But some of it was because Trump, in an odd way, was the beneficiary of the perception that he couldn’t possibly win.

People who felt he’d be a bad president felt secure in dissenting from the Democratic Party to either the right (Gary Johnson) or the left (Jill Stein) because everyone knew Clinton would win anyway. Almost everyone who had any kind of serious policy doubts about Clinton invested vast time and energy in exploring them, regardless of whether or not they had much more profound doubts about Trump, because everyone knew Clinton would win anyway. Mainstream journalists spent more time poring over potential access-seeking at Clinton’s undoubtedly life-saving charitable foundation than they did detailing the fact that Trump’s foundation was a potentially criminal fraud that appears to have had no legitimate public benefit.

Everyone knew Clinton would win anyway.

That was, obviously, a miscalculation. But it’s important to be clear about what the miscalculation was. Trump’s opponents failed to unify around a single compelling alternative. He wasn’t popular on Election Day and he wasn’t popular on Inauguration Day. And he’s not doing anything to try to turn that around.

Like any sensible pundit looking back on 2016, I am getting out of the political predictions game. But what we saw in Saturday’s demonstrations is that nobody is taking Trump’s defeat for granted anymore. The women and men who marched in cities and towns all across the country undoubtedly have different opinions about taxes and foreign policy and government email server protocol and single-payer health care and bank regulation. They agree that Trump is alarming and that it is incumbent upon them, personally, to try to come together and do something about it.

The absence of that kind of attitude among the 54 percent of Americans who didn’t vote for him last November is one of the primary reasons he was able to win.

Now that it is present, he has lost one of his main advantages.

Trump is a president who is in many ways unusually vulnerable to protest. He’s not a policy wonk who has the disposition to tune out the street theater and focus on issues. And his policy agenda, as far as we can tell, consists largely of unpopular causes like cutting taxes on millionaires, deregulating banks, and stripping millions of their health insurance. His administration’s first policy action was to prevent homeowners from getting a small scheduled mortgage discount.

He’s also a president who is uniquely vulnerable due to his conflicts of interest. Past wealthy presidents have held their assets in diversified funds managed by blind trusts in part to avoid corruption. And his conflicts run both ways — a non-corrupt president wouldn’t want his political adversaries to be able to use his private business interests against him. Million-person mass demonstrations can’t be done every day. But even relatively small-scale demonstrations and acts of civil disobedience targeting Trump-branded hotels, golf courses, office buildings, and apartments can be dramatic and telling.[...]

He won because people didn’t take the threat of him winning — or if him trying to govern as he campaigned — seriously enough to go out and stop him.

This weekend, that ended.

Trump repeats lie that 3-5M illegal ballots cost him popular vote, cites no evidence

CBS News

At a small reception for a bipartisan group of congressional leaders, President Trump claimed that 3 to 5 million illegal ballots cost him the popular vote, CBS News’ Nancy Cordes and Catherine Reynolds confirmed on Monday night. The claim is unproven.

Mr. Trump made a similar claim before. After the election, he tweeted that he “won the popular vote if you deduct the millions of people who voted illegally,” but he cited no evidence to back up his claim.

Politico first reported Mr. Trump’s comments, which were made at the Monday evening White House reception for congressional leadership, his first meeting with them at the White House.

House Speaker Paul Ryan, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi were among those who met with Mr. Trump.[...]

Advance notice: Disqus is switching to free version only with ads

Just letting you know that as of February 8 Disqus will be adding ads to their free version. Of course they also provide the option of ad free for $10/month. I will be going back to Blogger. Not sure what it will do to all the responses

Neil Postman: The End of Education

Rav Shmuel Kaminetsky's contribution to the welfare of Klall Yisroel: Measles outbreak grows in L.A.'s Orthodox Jewish community

Los Angeles Times

Six months after California’s strict vaccine law took effect, a measles outbreak has infected 20 people, most of them in Los Angeles County, prompting a search for others who may have been exposed to the highly contagious virus.

Most of the patients live in western areas of the county, including L.A.’s Westside, the Santa Monica Mountains and the San Fernando Valley. Santa Barbara and Ventura counties each reported one case.

At least 15 of the 18 L.A. County patients either knew one another or had a clear social connection, said Dr. Jeffrey Gunzenhauser, interim health officer for the L.A. County Department of Public Health. None of the 18 could provide proof of vaccination, he said.

Gunzenhauser said the first person was diagnosed in early December, followed by 16 cases in the last three weeks of 2016, and then one more case last week.

“I’m hopeful that we’re getting to the end of this,” he said.

Hershy Z. Ten, a rabbi who runs Jewish healthcare foundation Bikur Cholim in L.A.’s Beverly Grove neighborhood, said county health officials told him a measles outbreak was affecting the county’s Orthodox Jewish community. He convened a panel last week to discuss steps that Jewish day schools and synagogues could take to stem the outbreak and ensure unvaccinated children are immunized.

“Measles is very, very serious,” he said. “Those children are at risk and they put other children at risk.”[...]

The traditional way of reporting on a president is dead. And Trump’s press secretary killed it.

Washington Post      The presidency is not a reality show, but President Trump on his first full day in office made clear that he’s still obsessed with being what he once proudly called “a ratings machine.”

He cares enough about it to send his press secretary, Sean Spicer, out to brazenly lie to the media in his first official briefing.

“This was the largest audience to ever witness an inauguration — period — both in person and around the globe,” Spicer said. And he added a scolding about widespread reports that differ from his evidence-free assessment: “These attempts to lessen the enthusiasm of the inauguration are shameful and wrong.”

Crowd size experts estimate Trump’s audience at far fewer than the million or more that Trump is claiming, and at far less than the size of the following day’s women’s march, which the new president has said little about. And side-by-side photographs showed the contrast between the comparatively thin gathering for Trump’s inauguration and the record-setting one in 2009 for former president Barack Obama’s first.

Ari Fleischer, a former George W. Bush press secretary, saw Saturday’s bizarre session for what it was.

“This is called a statement you’re told to make by the President. And you know the President is watching,” Fleischer wrote. (MSNBC’s Mika Brzezinski pegged it as “Sean Spicer’s first hostage video.”)

The mainstream media, including The Washington Post, appropriately made clear note of the falsehoods about crowd size. The New York Times called out “false claims” in a prominent headline, and many broadcast journalists challenged Spicer immediately — although they didn’t get a chance to do so to his face, since he took no questions.

CNN wisely chose not to air the briefing in full, but to report on it and to show parts, providing context. Fox News showed it in its full glory, infomercial style.

Some journalists, afterward, sounded stunned at what had transpired.

“Astonishing,” said Jim Acosta of CNN. “Jaw meet floor” was the reaction of Glenn Thrush of the New York Times.

The reaction is understandable. Some semblance of truth from the White House ought to be reasonable enough, especially on Day Two.

But nothing about this should shock.

Anyone — citizen or journalist — who is surprised by false claims from the new inhabitant of the Oval Office hasn’t been paying attention. That was reinforced when Trump adviser Kellyanne Conway told “Meet the Press” Sunday that Spicer had been providing “alternative facts” to what the media had reported, making it clear we’ve gone full Orwell.

Official words do matter, but they shouldn’t be what news organizations pay most attention to, as they try to present the truth about a new administration.

White House press briefings are “access journalism,” in which official statements — achieved by closeness to the source — are taken at face value and breathlessly reported as news. And that is over. Dead.

Spicer’s statement should be seen for what it is: Remarks made over the casket at the funeral of access journalism. [...]

Rabbi Marvin Hier speaks about his Inauguration Benediction

Published on Jan 22, 2017

The first Orthodox Jewish rabbi to give an invocation at a presidential inauguration said that the biblical passages included in his approximately two minute address were carefully chosen to convey specific messages.

Rabbi Marvin Hier, dean and founder of the Simon Wiesenthal Center in Los Angeles, said that he chose verses that, in addition highlighting the concepts of being actively involved and helping others, focused the spotlight directly on the State of Israel.

In a Saturday night radio interview on Zev Brenner’s Talkline radio program, Rabbi Hier said that his statements about Israel were directed not just at President Trump and the American public but the entire world and called Senator John Kerry’s remarks about Israeli settlements blatantly false.

Maharal - Listening to wife's advice lead to Gehinom/Satan was created with woman

Maharal (Bava Metzia 59a): All those who follow the advice of their wife fall into Gehinom – This is truly incredible. We explain this also in relationship to Avos (1:5), All those who talk a lot with their wives are idle from words of Torah and in the end they inherit Gehinom. You should know that the woman is compared to Substance while the man is compared to the Form in every place. And when the Form is not separated from the Substance but rather the Form follows after the Substance entirely – he falls in Gehinom. That is because it is well known that the deficit is attached and bound with the Substance. This is alluded to by the Sages when they noted that when the woman was created the Samech was created with her. Because we don’t find the letter Samech in the Torah until the woman was created. ויסגר בשר תחתנה Bereishis (2:21) and closed up the flesh. That teaches you that with the woman was attached the deficit which is Satan who is the Angel of Death. When the Form follow after the Substance the Form obtains the deficit. That is because Gehinom is only the complete deficit as we learn from the names Gehinom itself... But this is only when the husband listen to her regarding worldly matters. But regarding household matters, “He should bend down and listen to her”. That is because it is clear that the Form stands on the Substance and the Substance serves the Form and is like a house for the Substance. Therefore regarding household matters “He should bend down and listen to her”. In contrast in worldly matters, if the Form follows after the Substance – then such is loss and deficit for the Form. However according to the other answer of the gemora that a husband should listen to his wife also for worldly matters that is because the Form stands on the Substance and thus also advice worldly matters are relevant. It is only spiritual matters that should be avoided from the wife. That is because the husband is considered the abstract Form but not the Form in the Substance. In such a case if the man follows after the Substance it would be a deficit for him. That would mean that the Form which is the abstract Form is sunken in the Substance which is a completely negative for the Form. Understand these matters in depth because they a very clear.

Bereishis Rabbah (17:9):[[ R. Hanina, son of R. Adda, said: From the beginning of the Book until here no samech 3 is written, but as soon as she [Eve] was created, Satan4 was created with her. While should one quote, That is it which compasseth-sobeb (Gen. II, 11),5 answer him: the text refers there to rivers.6

Property prices are rising in some of the old Jewish quarters in Europe

Wall Street Journal

In Poland, Barcelona, Rome and Berlin, traditionally Jewish neighborhoods have recently seen an appreciation for their heritage and an upswing in real estate prices and development. Photo: Shutterstock

In the fall, Lane Auten, an American real-estate developer who lives in Barcelona, began marketing 10 condominiums in an early 19th-century building he restored in the Call, Barcelona’s medieval Jewish quarter.

Next door is a Jewish museum that opened in 2002 on the site of a medieval synagogue. So far, half of the apartments have sold for between $650,000 and $1.35 million, said Mr. Lane, managing partner of ARC Properties, a Barcelona-based real-estate developer.

The existence of a developer that would make Jewish heritage part of a marketing plan is a big change, said Adi Mahler, co-founder of Barcelona Dreaming, a tour company that specializes in the city’s Jewish history. “There was no awareness whatsoever about Jewish heritage” for many years, said Mr. Mahler, who noted that Barcelona’s Jewish history was largely erased after 1391, when Jews were massacred or forced to convert to Christianity.

Mr. Auten’s condos are one example of a new appreciation for traditionally Jewish neighborhoods in parts of Europe. Haunted by harsh conditions for Jews over the centuries and the specter of the Holocaust, these areas are now being embraced by both Jewish home buyers and non-Jews who value their unique character. Tourists are drawn by museums, guided tours and cultural events that explore Jewish history, and cafes, bars and restaurants have opened to cater to them.

In Rome, Andrea Colavita, 34, with the help of his father, Enrico Colavita, 71, purchased a $2.1 million, three-bedroom apartment in the Jewish quarter in November. The apartment overlooks the area’s main square and synagogue. The elder Mr. Colavita lives with his wife just down the street in an apartment he bought seven years ago. [...]

Trump's Administration begins with Blatant Lies: Attacks Media regarding Turnout and Intelligence Rift

NY Times

President Trump used his first full day in office on Saturday to unleash a remarkably bitter attack on the news media, falsely accusing journalists of both inventing a rift between him and intelligence agencies and deliberately understating the size of his inauguration crowd.

In a visit to the Central Intelligence Agency intended to showcase his support for the intelligence community, Mr. Trump ignored his own repeated public statements criticizing the intelligence community, a group he compared to Nazis just over a week ago.

He also called journalists “among the most dishonest human beings on earth,” and he said that up to 1.5 million people had attended his inauguration, a claim that photographs disproved.

Later, at the White House, he dispatched Sean Spicer, the press secretary, to the briefing room in the West Wing, where Mr. Spicer scolded reporters and made a series of false statements.

He said news organizations had deliberately misstated the size of the crowd at Mr. Trump’s inauguration on Friday in an attempt to sow divisions at a time when Mr. Trump was trying to unify the country, warning that the new administration would hold them to account.

The statements from the new president and his spokesman came as hundreds of thousands of people protested against Mr. Trump, a crowd that appeared to dwarf the one that gathered the day before when he was sworn in. It was a striking display of invective and grievance at the dawn of a presidency, usually a time when the White House works to set a tone of national unity and to build confidence in a new leader.

Instead, the president and his team appeared embattled and defensive, signaling that the pugnacious style Mr. Trump employed as a candidate will persist now that he has ascended to the nation’s highest office.

Saturday was supposed to be a day for Mr. Trump to mend fences with the intelligence community, with an appearance at the C.I.A.’s headquarters in Langley, Va. While he was lavish in his praise, the president focused in his 15-minute speech on his complaints about news coverage of his criticism of the nation’s spy agencies, and meandered to other topics, including the crowd size at his inauguration, his level of political support, his mental age and his intellectual heft.

On Saturday, he said journalists were responsible for any suggestion that he was not fully supportive of intelligence agencies’ work.

“I have a running war with the media,” Mr. Trump said. “They are among the most dishonest human beings on earth, and they sort of made it sound like I had a feud with the intelligence community.”

“The reason you’re the No. 1 stop is, it is exactly the opposite,” Mr. Trump added. “I love you, I respect you, there’s nobody I respect more.”

Mr. Trump also took issue with news reports about the number of people who attended his inauguration, complaining that the news media used photographs of “an empty field” to make it seem as if his inauguration did not draw many people.

“We caught them in a beauty,” Mr. Trump said of the news media, “and I think they’re going to pay a big price.”

Mr. Spicer said that Mr. Trump had drawn “the largest audience to ever witness an inauguration,” a statement that photographs clearly show to be false. Mr. Spicer said photographs of the inaugural ceremonies were deliberately framed “to minimize the enormous support that had gathered on the National Mall,” although he provided no proof of either assertion.

Photographs of Barack Obama’s inauguration in 2009 and of Mr. Trump’s plainly showed that the crowd on Friday was significantly smaller, but Mr. Spicer attributed that disparity to new white ground coverings he said had caused empty areas to stand out and to security measures that had blocked people from entering the Mall.

“These attempts to lessen the enthusiasm of the inauguration are shameful and wrong,” Mr. Spicer said. He also admonished a journalist for erroneously reporting on Friday that Mr. Trump had removed a bust of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. from the Oval Office, calling the mistake — which was corrected quickly — “egregious.”

And he incorrectly claimed that ridership on Washington’s subway system was higher than on Inauguration Day in 2013. In reality, there were 782,000 riders that year, compared with 571,000 riders this year, according to figures from the Washington-area transit authority.

Mr. Spicer also said that security measures had been extended farther down the National Mall this year, preventing “hundreds of thousands of people” from viewing the ceremony. But the Secret Service said the measures were largely unchanged this year, and there were few reports of long lines or delays.

Commentary about the size of his inauguration crowd made Mr. Trump increasingly angry on Friday, according to several people familiar with his thinking.

On Saturday, Mr. Trump told his advisers that he wanted to push back hard on “dishonest media” coverage — mostly referring to a Twitter post from a New York Times reporter showing side-by-side frames of Mr. Trump’s crowd and Mr. Obama’s in 2009. But most of Mr. Trump’s advisers urged him to focus on the responsibilities of his office during his first full day as president.

However, in his remarks at the C.I.A., he wandered off topic several times, at various points telling the crowd he felt no older than 39 (he is 70); reassuring anyone who questioned his intelligence by saying, “I’m, like, a smart person”; and musing out loud about how many intelligence workers backed his candidacy.

“Probably everybody in this room voted for me, but I will not ask you to raise your hands if you did,” Mr. Trump said. “We’re all on the same wavelength, folks.”

But most of his remarks were devoted to attacking the news media. And Mr. Spicer picked up the theme later in the day in the White House briefing room. But his appearance, according to the people familiar with Mr. Trump’s thinking, went too far, in the president’s opinion.

Mr. Trump’s appearance at the C.I.A. touched off a fierce reaction from some current and former intelligence officials.

Nick Shapiro, who served as chief of staff to John O. Brennan, who resigned Friday as the C.I.A. director, said Mr. Brennan “is deeply saddened and angered at Donald Trump’s despicable display of self-aggrandizement in front of C.I.A.’s Memorial Wall of Agency heroes.

“Brennan says that Trump should be ashamed of himself,” Mr. Shapiro added.

“I was heartened that the president gave a speech at C.I.A.,” said Michael V. Hayden, a former director of the C.I.A. and the National Security Agency. “It would have been even better if more of it had been about C.I.A.”

Representative Adam B. Schiff of California, the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, said that he had had high hopes for Mr. Trump’s visit as a step to begin healing the relationship between the president and the intelligence community, but that Mr. Trump’s meandering speech had dashed them.

“While standing in front of the stars representing C.I.A. personnel who lost their lives in the service of their country — hallowed ground — Trump gave little more than a perfunctory acknowledgment of their service and sacrifice,” Mr. Schiff said. “He will need to do more than use the agency memorial as a backdrop if he wants to earn the respect of the men and women who provide the best intelligence in the world.”

Mr. Trump said nothing during the visit about how he had mocked the C.I.A. and other intelligence agencies as “the same people that said Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction.” He did not mention his apparent willingness to believe Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks, who is widely detested at the C.I.A., over his own intelligence agencies.[...]

Despite Sabbath, Ivanka Trump and Husband Celebrate Inauguration

NY Times    See Rav Moshe Feinstein regarding full observance by geirim

For Ivanka Trump and her husband, Jared Kushner, celebrating the presidential inauguration by attending the gatherings on Friday night posed an obstacle to their Orthodox Jewish observance of the Sabbath.

Ms. Trump, President Trump’s older daughter, and Mr. Kushner got special permission to break from strict religious laws that prohibit them from using technology or mechanized devices, such as cars, during the Sabbath, which begins on Friday evening.

A Jewish person who was briefed on the matter but not authorized to speak publicly about it said on Friday night that they were given an exemption under the principle in Jewish law of pikuach nefesh, which suggests preserving the safety of a specific person over any religious consideration.

In the case of Mr. Kushner and Ms. Trump, that would have meant being outside security escorts once the Sabbath had started.[...]

Rav Shmuel Kaminetsky - Daas Torah on Medicine and Alternative Therapies

This letter appeared in a blog post by Rabbi Slifkin

Masri vs Masri - New York court finds Get Law unconstitutional

http://law.justia.com/cases/new-york/other-courts/2017/2017-ny-slip-op-27007.html

In view of the foregoing, this court holds that in the circumstances presented here, increasing the amount or the duration of Defendant's post-divorce spousal maintenance obligation pursuant to DRL §236B(6)(o) by reason of his refusal to give Plaintiff a Jewish religious divorce or "Get" would violate the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. There is no evidence that the Defendant has withheld a Get to extract concessions from Plaintiff in matrimonial litigation or for other wrongful purposes. The religious and social consequences of which Plaintiff complains flow not from any impropriety in Defendant's withholding a "Get", but from religious beliefs to which Plaintiff no less than Defendant subscribes. To apply coercive financial pressure because of the perceived unfairness of Jewish religious divorce doctrines to induce Defendant to perform a religious act would plainly interfere with the free exercise of his (and her) religion and violate the First Amendment. The court accordingly declines Plaintiff's invitation to apply DRL §236B(6)(o) in determining Defendant's maintenance obligation.

======================================================[...]

It was of the view that "the relief [the wife] seeks from this court so obviously runs afoul of the threshold tests of the Free Exercise Clause that the court need never reach the delicate balancing normally required in such cases." Id., at 534. It wrote:

The court is not unsympathetic to [the wife's] desire to have [the husband's] cooperation in the obtaining of a "get". She, too, is sincere in her religious beliefs. Her religion, at least in terms of divorce, does not profess gender equality. But does that mean that she can obtain the aid of this court of equity to alter this doctrine of her faith? ....

Id., at 535. After extended analysis, the court answered:

It may seem "unfair" that [the husband] may ultimately refuse to provide a "get". But the unfairness comes from [the wife's] own sincerely-held religious beliefs. When she entered into the "ketubah" she agreed to be obligated to the laws of Moses and Israel. Those laws apparently include the tenet that if [the husband] does not provide her with a "get" she must remain an "agunah". That was [the wife's] choice and one which can hardly be remedied by this court. This court has no authority — were it willing — to choose for these parties which aspects of their religion may be embraced and which must be rejected. Those who founded this Nation knew too well the tyranny of religious persecution and the need for religious freedom. To engage even in "well-intentioned' resolution of a religious dispute requires the making of a choice which accommodates one view and suppresses another. If that is permitted, it readily follows that less "well-intentioned" choices may be made in the future . . . .

The tenets of [the wife's] religion would be debased by this court's crafting of a short-cut or loophole through the religious doctrines she adheres to; and the dignity and integrity of the court and its processes would be irreparably injured by such misuse...

Id., at 542-543.

It is clear from the legislative history that it was precisely this purported "unfairness" of a Jewish husband's refusal to provide a Get that drove the enactment of the DRL §253 requirement of removal of barriers to remarriage:

....Although the statute is phrased in ostensibly neutral language, its avowed purpose is to curb what has been described as the withholding of Jewish religious divorces, despite the entry of civil divorce judgments, by spouses acting out of vindictiveness or applying economic coercion. See Governor's Memorandum of Approval, McKinney's 1983 Session Laws of New York, pp. 2818, 2819. The statute seeks to provide a remedy for the "tragically unfair" situation presented where a Jewish husband refuses to sign [*6]religious documents needed for a religious divorce. Id.

Though this is the purpose of the statute, the statute makes no express reference to Jewish religious divorces or Jewish religious tribunals. The absence of references to Jewish religious practices was hardly unintentional. The statute represents an obvious encroach-ment by the civil authorities into religious matters, particularly with respect to perceived unfairness in the religious divorce doctrines of one particular religion. In an attempt to skirt some of the difficult constitutional questions raised in the context of the relationship between church and state, the drafters of the statute wrote in neutral language and avoided any express singling out of Jewish practices. However, even approached with linguistic backhand, the contention has been raised that the entire statute is unconstitutional. The existence of constitutional questions was noted by the Governor when the original legislation was presented for signature. However, he was determined to sign the legislation because of the absence of "impelling precedent" and confidence in the courts to resolve the constitutional questions. See Governor's Memorandum of Approval, McKinney's 1983 Session Laws of New York, pp. 2818, 2819.

McKinney's Cons. Laws of New York Annotated, DRL §253, Practice Commentaries (Scheinkman) C253:1 (2016).

Noting the potential constitutional infirmity of DRL §253 in terms directly applicable to Plaintiff's request that maintenance be so calibrated per DRL §236B(6)(o) as to apply financial pressure on Defendant to induce him to provide a Jewish religious divorce, the Hon. Alan D. Scheinkman wrote:

DRL §253 is really designed to induce or compel Jewish spouses, especially men, to "voluntarily" accede to religious divorces or else be precluded from obtaining a civil divorce decree. Viewed as such, it is questionable whether the statute can withstand constitutional challenge.

It cannot be doubted that marriage is a personal relation and the state may fix the rights, duties, and obligations which arise out of the relationship, including the terms on which the relationship may be terminated. Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190...(1888). The state may allow civil divorce, even though one spouse object to the decree on the basis of religious conviction and even though a religious divorce cannot be or has not been obtained. See Williams v. Williams, 543 P.2d 1401 (Okla. Sup. Ct. 1976), appeal dismissed, cert. denied ...426 U.S. 901.... Religious practices, even those relating to religious marriage practice, may be regulated, if offensive to overriding public policy. See Reynolds v. United States, 8 Otto 145, 98 U.S. 145...(1878)(criminal prosecution for bigamy).[FN4]

This statute does not purport to prohibit a religious practice on public policy grounds. Instead, it is intended to coerce parties to seek religious relief on pain of being deprived of civil relief. While it may perhaps be permissible for secular courts to compel a party to perform a contractual obligation, though imposed in a religious writing (as allowed by the Avitzur decision), it seems doubtful that a civil statute can compel, by mandating the withholding of relief, a party to a civil action to undertake religious proceedings or submit [*7]to religious authorities and practices. The statute may be susceptible to the conclusion that it interferes with the free practice of religion and transgresses the separation of church and state.

McKinney's Cons. Laws of New York Annotated, DRL §253, Practice Commentaries (Scheinkman) C253:1 (2016) (emphasis added).

In view of the foregoing, this court holds that in the circumstances presented here, increasing the amount or the duration of Defendant's post-divorce spousal maintenance obligation pursuant to DRL §236B(6)(o) by reason of his refusal to give Plaintiff a Jewish religious divorce or "Get" would violate the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. There is no evidence that the Defendant has withheld a Get to extract concessions from Plaintiff in matrimonial litigation or for other wrongful purposes. The religious and social consequences of which Plaintiff complains flow not from any impropriety in Defendant's withholding a "Get", but from religious beliefs to which Plaintiff no less than Defendant subscribes. To apply coercive financial pressure because of the perceived unfairness of Jewish religious divorce doctrines to induce Defendant to perform a religious act would plainly interfere with the free exercise of his (and her) religion and violate the First Amendment. The court accordingly declines Plaintiff's invitation to apply DRL §236B(6)(o) in determining Defendant's maintenance obligation.

5. Findings

Defendant is a young, well educated man in good health with an earning capacity far in excess of the very meager income reflected on his 2015 tax return. Moreover, evidence of record indicates that his earnings and financial resources exceed the amounts stated on his tax return and net worth statement, and, in addition, that Defendant has willfully failed to comply with his financial disclosure obligations in this case. In view of the foregoing, the court imputes to Defendant gross income in the amount of $75,000.00 per annum. Applying the statutory guideline for post-divorce spousal maintenance to the parties' income as determined hereinabove, spousal maintenance owing from Defendant to Plaintiff would be $9,696.00 per annum (or $808.00 per month, $186.46 per week) for a minium of 2.1 years and a maximum of 4.2 years.

In accordance with the post-divorce maintenance guidelines, the court fixes Defendant's maintenance obligation at $9,696.00 per annum ($808.00 per month, $186.46 per week), taxable to Plaintiff and tax-deductible by Defendant, for a period of four (4) years, and finds that this guideline obligation is neither unjust nor inappropriate in light of the factors set forth in DRL §236B(6)(e)(1).

Child Support

At this time, Plaintiff is the custodial parent. Unless and until Family Court alters her status as the custodial parent, Defendant's child support obligation is $843.83 per month (or $194.73 per week), calculated as follows: [...]

The foregoing constitutes the decision of the court. Plaintiff's counsel is directed to submit revised Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, and a revised Judgment of Divorce, consistent with this Decision, for settlement on ten (10) days notice to Defendant.

Dated: January 13, 2017

At Trump Hotel in Washington, Champagne Toasts in an Ethical ‘Minefield’

NY Times   With sirens blaring, a fleet of limousines and security personnel raced down Pennsylvania Avenue twice in less than the last 24 hours to deliver Donald J. Trump to inauguration events.

But he was not heading to the White House. He was going to Trump International Hotel.

It was a telling destination for those visits Wednesday night and Thursday afternoon. Perhaps more than any other location in Mr. Trump’s far-flung real estate empire, this 263-room hotel epitomizes the convergence of Donald Trump the global businessman and Donald Trump the president-elect.

Conflicts that for months have been theoretical are now about to become real — most immediately a possible challenge by the federal government. It owns the building that houses Mr. Trump’s hotel and has granted him a 60-year lease. From the moment he is sworn in as president at noon Friday, Mr. Trump may be in violation of that lease, given a provision that appears to prohibit federal elected officials from renting the Old Post Office building, the Pennsylvania Avenue landmark that houses the hotel, from the government.

Guests at the hotel include foreign diplomats and politicians who could be looking to curry favor with Mr. Trump — but even the act of paying their bills as they check out after the inauguration may open Mr. Trump to a challenge that he has violated the United States Constitution, which prohibits federal government officials from taking payments or gifts from foreign governments.[...]

“That building is symbolic of the minefield that President-elect Trump has decided to walk through,” said Representative Elijah E. Cummings, Democrat of Maryland, who is the ranking member on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, which is charged with investigating any potential wrongdoing by government officials. “We are going now from the hypothetical to reality — and I myself am not sure where it is going to lead.”

Sean Spicer, Mr. Trump’s press secretary, defended Mr. Trump’s continued close ties to the hotel. “That he’s going to his own hotel? I mean, I think that’s pretty smart,” Mr. Spicer said. “I think the idea that he’s going to his own hotel shouldn’t be a shocker. It’s a beautiful place. It’s a place that he’s very proud of.”[...]

The Post Office project is valued at roughly $200 million, much of it financed by Deutsche Bank, a favorite lender of the Trump Organization. The bank agreed to lend up to $170 million. The deal requires a Trump company to pay the government $3 million a year in rent from the hotel’s opening date. [...]

The lease between the General Services Administration and the Trump company includes a clause — “no member or delegate to Congress, or elected official of the government of the United States or the government of the District of Columbia, shall be admitted to any share or part of this lease, or to any benefit that may arise therefrom” — that federal contract experts say makes clear that Mr. Trump will be in violation of the deal as soon as he is sworn in.

“The basic integrity and credibility of the president of the United States of the federal procurement and contracting regime is at risk,” said Steven L. Schooner, a professor specializing in government procurement law at George Washington University. “We are about to have a legitimate scandal on our hands.”

Representative Cummings, the Maryland Democrat, said he expected the G.S.A. to declare the Trump Organization in breach of the contract. Renee Kelly, a spokeswoman for the agency, would not confirm that it intends to take such a move, saying only in a written statement that the “G.S.A. won’t have an update until Friday after the inauguration.”

That a company Mr. Trump controls is a prominent tenant of the federal government is just the beginning of it.

His administration will assume oversight of Wall Street regulation, which includes policing Deutsche Bank’s activities.[...]

Mr. Trump’s lawyers have said he would donate any profit derived from foreign government hotel guests to the United States Treasury. But Mr. Trump’s critics say that would not eliminate the risk he would be violating the emoluments clause of the Constitution, which some legal experts say prohibits federal employees from taking gifts or payments from foreign governments.

Erwin Chemerinsky, the dean of University of California, Irvine, School of Law, said, “There is no doubt he will be benefiting financially from foreign government officials who are patronizing the Trump Hotel in Washington and other facilities around the world.” [...]

Oral appellate argument of Binyamin Stimler (Epstein/Wolmark gang) scheduled for next Wednesday

Everyone Is Falling For This Frighteningly Effective Gmail Scam

Fortune

Security researchers have identified a "highly effective" phishing scam that's been fooling Google Gmail customers into divulging their login credentials. The scheme, which has been gaining popularity in the past few months and has reportedly been hitting other email services, involves a clever trick that can be difficult to detect.

Researchers at WordFence, a team that makes a popular security tool for the blog site WordPress, warned of the attack in a recent blog post, noting that it has been "having a wide impact, even on experienced technical users." (See these people, whose accounts were targeted.)

Here's how the swindle works. The attacker, usually disguised as a trusted contact, sends a boobytrapped email to a prospective victim. Affixed to that email, there appears to be a regular attachment, say a PDF document. Nothing seemingly out of the ordinary.

But the attachment is actually an embedded image that has been crafted to look like a PDF. Rather than reveal a preview of the document when clicked, that embedded image links out to a fake Google (GOOGL, +0.31%) login page. And this is where the scam gets really devious.

Everything about this sign-in page looks authentic: the Google logo, the username and password entry fields, the tagline ("One account. All of Google."). By all indications, the page is a facsimile of the real thing. Except for one clue: the browser's address bar.[...]

As soon as a person enters her username and password into the fields, the attackers capture the information. To make matters worse, once they gain access to a person's inbox, they immediately reconnoiter the compromised account and prepare to launch their next bombardment. They find past emails and attachments, create boobytrapped-image versions, drum up believable subject lines, and then target the person's contacts. [...]

Shemot 75 - Setting a Personal Example by Allan Katz

Guest post by Allan Katz

Setting a personal example is said to be crucial in the parenting or educating children. Albert Einstein said - “Setting an example is not the main means of influencing others, it is the only means.”

For sure the ' Do as I say and not Do as I do ' attitude and approach of care givers just undermines the credibility and authenticity of a parent and teacher. However, there are many kids and students who are being raised and educated in an environment where parents and teachers are setting great personal examples and yet it has no impact on these kids or on students. So what is the problem?

The problem is the behaviorist nature of ' setting a personal example'. Education is not about a passive student or child absorbing information but a child and student actively noticing what is happening around them and then making meaning of this. In order to learn from the personal example of a parent, teacher or Rabbi, the child needs to notice and to be sensitive to the nuances and the motives behind the behavior or personal example set by his parent, teacher etc. One can only benefit from ' Shimush Talmeidi Chachamim ', being an apprentice to great sages or being exposed to them if one keenly observes and is sensitive to the example they set. Education is not only noticing the inconsistencies and incongruent passages or words in a text, but to notice them in situations and on peoples' faces. Kids and students don't learn from 'personal example ' because they are simply not sensitive enough to be aware of what is happening and certainly they are not in a position to reflect and learn from personal example.

The portion-parasha of Shemot has examples where actively noticing something peculiar in the environment actually changed history. Pharaoh's daughter noticed a basket hidden among the reeds. This led her to being a mother to Moses – the future savior and redeemer of the Israelites in Egypt. Moses himself while looking after Yitro- Jethro's flocks in the desert noticed a fire, a burning bush. This excited his curiosity. He went to investigate and he saw that the bush was burning but not being consumed .If he would not have noticed the bush, he would not have experienced God's revelation and accepting the leadership role to take the Israelites out of Egypt. As they journey towards Mount Moriah, the place where the 'Akeidat Yitzchak' – the binding of Isaac would take place, Abraham and Isaac notice a cloud hovering over the mountain. Abraham says – do you notice what I see and Isaac says yes. Abraham asks the same question to his 2 attendants and they did not see anything unique. This ability to notice reflected on Isaac's spiritual insight which made him fit to be an offering, while the attendants who did not notice could not continue the journey.

Kids and people have a problem about being grateful and expressing gratitude. As a sign of gratitude, Moses does not execute the plague of blood that turned the Nile and other water resources into blood, and the plague of lice that infected the dust and ground, because he was saved by the Nile and he hid the dead Egyptian in the sand. In order to be grateful and express gratitude - ha'carat ha'tov in Hebrew, one has to be aware and recognize the good that was done. People simply are not aware and don't see the good done to them. This is reinforced by the fact that people don't like to feel indebted to others so we tend to subconsciously minimize or ignore the good done to us.

We are told in the Ethics of our Fathers that a wise person learns from every person. The difficulty people have in learning from the example of others is that they tend to be very judgmental and only notice things that already fit in with their world view and justify their opinions about people and events. This is very true if kids don't have a good relationship with parents and teachers and don't see them as their teachers and guides. Kids must have a good relationship with parents and teachers and seek relationship in order to benefit from the example set by care givers and teachers.

Setting an example is not enough. We have to bring kids ' behind the scenes ' and share our thinking, our motives and values behind our decisions and actions. We can share our dilemmas, our concerns and perspectives and get a kid's input as well. Kids can also pick up our attitude, enthusiasm and why we feel joy and privilege in what we do. The best way to set an example is to get them involved with us, cooperating and collaborating when appropriate and solving problems in a collaborative way. In this way, we teach them the skills needed for their lives, adult life and marriage.