Monthly Archives: June 2017

Time magazine wants Donald Trump’s fake covers taken down – MarketWatch

Posted: June 28, 2017 at 6:50 am

Talk about fake news.

Time magazine has asked the Trump Organization to remove copies of a fake magazine cover featuring Donald Trump from its golf clubs walls.

The request came Tuesday after a Washington Post report found framed copies of Trump on the cover of Time displayed in at least five of Trumps clubs. The magazine cover, dated March 1, 2009, features the headline: Donald Trump: The Apprentice is a television smash!

However, there was no Time magazine published on March 1, 2009. Nor was Trump ever on the cover that year. And there are a number of design inaccuracies. I can confirm that this is not a real TIME cover, Time spokeswoman Kerri Chyka told the Post.

Just last year, Trump boasted about his Time magazine cover appearances. I think I was on the cover of Time magazine twice in my life and like six times in the last number of months, he said in July 2016. Perhaps he was counting the fake one before launching his presidential bid in 2015, Trump had only been on the cover once before, in 1989, according to Time.

Its not known who made the fake cover, but anyone with decent Photoshop skills could pull it off. There are also a number of websites that let users upload their own photos to make a mock magazine cover, usually to be used as gag gifts or to tout childrens athletic achievements.

Sports Illustrated, which also falls under the Time Inc. TIME, +0.00% umbrella, responded to the odd development with a wink Tuesday:

Fellow faux cover boy Rep. Gerry Connolly (D-Va.) also chimed in:

In real news, Trump could soon be on friendlier terms with Time. National Enquirer owner David Pecker, a longtime friend of Trumps, is considering buying the struggling publisher, according to a new report by The New Yorker.

Go here to read the rest:

Time magazine wants Donald Trump's fake covers taken down - MarketWatch

Posted in Donald Trump | Comments Off on Time magazine wants Donald Trump’s fake covers taken down – MarketWatch

Donald Trump’s Press Aide Attacks CNN During Briefing – TIME

Posted: at 6:50 am

(NEW YORK) President Trump's press aide Sarah Huckabee Sanders urged all Americans to watch an online video posted by a conservative provocateur with a CNN producer commenting on his network's coverage of Trump's connections to Russia.

Sanders, in the White House briefing, called producer John Bonifield's statements a disgrace to journalism. In the hidden camera video posted by James O'Keefe's Project Veritas, Bonifield is heard to say that the story was getting extensive coverage because it is good for the ratings.

Sanders said, "if the media can't be truthful and report the news, then that's a dangerous place for America."

During her briefing, she did not take any question from CNN correspondent Jeff Zeleny.

The video of Bonifield was released after three CNN journalists resigned Monday following the network's retraction of a story Friday about a supposed investigation into a pre-inaugural meeting between a Trump associate and the head of a Russian investment fund.

Original post:

Donald Trump's Press Aide Attacks CNN During Briefing - TIME

Posted in Donald Trump | Comments Off on Donald Trump’s Press Aide Attacks CNN During Briefing – TIME

How Donald Trump Misunderstood the FBI – New York Times

Posted: at 6:50 am

McCord had been carrying wiretapping gear at the Watergate. This was evidence of a federal crime the illegal interception of communications which meant the break-in was a case for the F.B.I. Wiretapping was standard practice at the F.B.I. under J. Edgar Hoover, who had ruled the bureau since 1924. But Hoover died six weeks before the Watergate break-in, and L. Patrick Gray, a lawyer at the Justice Department and a staunch Nixon loyalist, was named acting director. I dont believe he could bring himself to suspect his superiors in the White House a suspicion which was well within the Watergate investigating agents world by about the third or fourth week, Mindermann said.

A month after the break-in, Mindermann and a colleague named Paul Magallanes found their way to Judy Hoback, a Creep accountant. The interview at her home in suburban Maryland went on past 3 a.m. By the time Mindermann and Magallanes stepped out into the cool night air, they had learned from Hoback that $3 million or more in unaccountable cash was sloshing around at Creep, to finance crimes like the Watergate break-in. Both men sensed instinctively that people in the White House itself were involved, Magallanes, who is now 79 and runs an international security firm near Los Angeles, told me. Mindermann said he felt a dark dread that this is happening in our democracy. By 10:45 that morning, the agents had typed up a 19-page statement that laid out Creeps direct connections to Nixons inner circle.

Mindermann, the young ex-cop with five $27 department-store suits to his name, remembers the presidents men who stonewalled the investigation throughout 1972 and early 1973 as Ivy Leaguers in their custom-fitted finery these privileged boys born to be federal judges and Wall Street barons. They were gutless and completely self-serving. They lacked the ability to do the right thing. By late April 1973, however, the stonewalls were crumbling. On Friday, April 27, as Nixon flew off to Camp David for the weekend, mulling his dark future, the F.B.I. moved to secure White House records relevant to Watergate.

At 5:15 p.m., 15 agents arose from their dented metal desks in the Old Post Office building and marched in tight formation, fully armed, up Pennsylvania Avenue. On Monday, a highly agitated Nixon returned to the White House to find a skinny F.B.I. accountant standing watch outside a West Wing office. The president pushed him up against a wall and demanded to know how he had the authority to invade the White House. Mindermann laughed at the memory: What do you do, he said, when youre mugged by the president of the United States?

I take the president at his word that I was fired because of the Russia investigation, James Comey, the former F.B.I. director, said in June, testifying before the Senate Intelligence Committee a month after his abrupt dismissal from his post by the president. Comey was referring to the account Trump gave in an NBC interview on May 11 and Comey fought back on the rest of the story as Trump told it. Trump, he said, chose to defame me and, more importantly, the F.B.I. by saying that the organization was in disarray, that it was poorly led, that the work force had lost confidence in its leader. Those were lies, plain and simple.

Trump, Comey said, had asked his F.B.I. director for his loyalty and that seemed to shock Comey the most. The F.B.I.s stated mission is to protect the American people and uphold the Constitution of the United States not to protect the president. Trump seemed to believe Comey was dutybound to do his bidding and stop investigating the recently fired national security adviser, Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn. The statue of Justice has a blindfold on because youre not supposed to be peeking out to see whether your patron is pleased or not with what youre doing, Comey said. It should be about the facts and the law.

Trump might have been less confused about how Comey saw his job if he had ever visited the F.B.I. director in his office. On his desk, under glass, Comey famously kept a copy of a 1963 order authorizing Hoover to conduct round-the-clock F.B.I. surveillance of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. It was signed by the young attorney general, Robert F. Kennedy, after Hoover convinced John F. Kennedy and his brother that King had Communists in his organization a reminder of the abuses of power that had emanated from the desk where Comey sat.

One of historys great what-ifs is whether the Watergate investigation would have gone forward if Hoover hadnt died six weeks before the break-in. When Hoover died, Nixon called him my closest personal friend in all of political life. Along with Senator Joseph McCarthy, they were the avatars of anti-Communism in America. Hoovers F.B.I. was not unlike what Trump seems to have imagined the agency still to be: a law-enforcement apparatus whose flexible loyalties were bent to fit the whims of its director. In his half-century at the helm of the F.B.I., Hoover rarely approved cases against politicians. In the 1960s, he much preferred going after the civil rights and antiwar movements and their leaders, and his agents routinely broke the law in the name of the law.

In 1975, however, Congress, emboldened by Watergate and newly attuned to its watchdog responsibilities, began its first full-scale investigation of this legacy, and of similar abuses at the C.I.A. Edward Levi, Gerald Fords attorney general, gave the F.B.I. an unprecedented assignment: investigating itself. Fifty-three agents were soon targets of investigations by their own agency, implicated in crimes committed in the name of national security. Mark Felt, the agencys second-in-command (who 30 years later revealed himself to have been Bob Woodwards source Deep Throat), and Ed Miller, the F.B.I.s intelligence director, were convicted of conspiring to violate the civil rights of Americans. (President Ronald Reagan later pardoned them.) The F.B.I.s rank and file felt it was under attack. Every jot of wrongdoing whether real, imagined or grossly exaggerated now commands an extraordinary amount of attention, Clarence Kelley, the F.B.I. director under Presidents Nixon, Ford and Jimmy Carter, said in 1976. The American people, he argued, could not long endure a crippled and beleaguered F.B.I.

The Iran-contra scandal provided the bureau with its first great post-Watergate test. On Oct. 5, 1986, Sandinistas in Nicaragua shot down a cargo plane, which bore an unassuming transport-company name but was found to contain 60 Kalashnikov rifles, tens of thousands of cartridges and other gear. One crew member was captured and revealed the first inklings of what turned out to be an extraordinary plot. Reagans national-security team had conspired to sell American weapons to the Iranian Revolutionary Guard and, after marking up the price fivefold, skimmed the proceeds and slipped them to the anti-Communist contra rebels in Nicaragua. This was a direct violation of federal law, as Congress had passed a bill cutting off aid to the rebels, which made Iran-contra a case for the F.B.I.

In a major feat of forensics, F.B.I. agents recovered 5,000 deleted emails from National Security Council office computers, which laid out the scheme from start to finish. They opened a burn bag of top-secret documents belonging to the N.S.C. aide Oliver North and found a copy of elaborately falsified secret testimony to Congress. They dusted it for fingerprints and found ones belonging to Clair George, chief of the clandestine service of the C.I.A. In short order, an F.B.I. squad was inside C.I.A. headquarters, rifling through double-locked file cabinets. Almost all the major evidence that led to the indictments of 12 top national-security officials was uncovered by the F.B.I.

George H.W. Bush pardoned many of the key defendants at the end of his presidency, on Christmas Eve 1992 just as Reagan pardoned Mark Felt and Ford pardoned Nixon. This was the limit of the agencys influence, the one presidential power that the F.B.I. could not fight. But over the course of two decades and five presidents, the post-Hoover relationship between the F.B.I. and the White House had settled into a delicate balance between the rule of law and the chief of state. Presidents could use secrecy, and sometimes outright deception, to push their executive powers to the limit. But the F.B.I., through its investigative brief, retained a powerful unofficial check on these privileges: the ability to amass, and unveil, deep secrets of state. The agency might not have been able to stop presidents like Nixon and Reagan from overreaching, but when it did intervene, there was little presidents could do to keep the F.B.I. from making their lives very difficult as Bill Clinton discovered in 1993, when he appointed Louis J. Freeh as his F.B.I. director.

Freeh was an F.B.I. agent early in his career but had been gone from the agency for some time when he was named to run it so he was alarmed to discover, shortly after he started his new job, that the F.B.I. was in the midst of investigating real estate deals involving the Clintons in Arkansas. Freeh quickly turned in his White House pass. He saw Clinton as a criminal suspect in the Whitewater affair, in which the F.B.I. and a special prosecutor bushwhacked through the brambles of Arkansas politics and business for four years and, through a most circuitous route, wound up grilling a 24-year-old former White House intern named Monica Lewinsky in a five-star hotel. The bureau, through the White House physician, had blood drawn from the president to match the DNA on Lewinskys blue dress evidence that the president perjured himself under oath about sex, opening the door to his impeachment by the House of Representatives.

He came to believe that I was trying to undo his presidency, Freeh wrote of Clinton in his memoir. Clintons allies complained after the fact that Freehs serial investigations of the president were not just a headache but also a fatal distraction. From 1996 to 2001, when Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden bombed two American Embassies in Africa and plotted the Sept. 11 attacks, the F.B.I. spent less time and money on any counterterrorism investigation than it did investigating claims that Chinese money bought influence over President Clinton though illegal 1996 campaign contributions an immense project that eventually became a fiasco on its own terms. One of the F.B.I.s informants in the investigation was a socially prominent and politically connected Californian named Katrina Leung. At the time, Leung was in a sexual relationship with her F.B.I. handler, James J. Smith, chief of the bureaus Los Angeles branchs China squad. Smith had reason to suspect that Leung might be a double agent working for Chinese intelligence, but he protected her anyway.

The F.B.I. buried the scandal until after Clinton left the White House in 2001. By the time it came to light, Freeh was out the door, and President George W. Bush had chosen Robert Mueller as the sixth director of the F.B.I.

Born into a wealthy family, Mueller exemplified the tradition of the muscular Christian that came out of the English public-school world of the 19th century, Maxwell King, Muellers classmate at St. Pauls, the elite New England prep school, told me. Mueller arrived at F.B.I. headquarters with a distinguished military record he earned a bronze star as a Marine in Vietnam and years of service as a United States attorney and Justice Department official. It was a week before the Sept. 11 attacks, and he was inheriting an agency ill suited for the mission that would soon loom enormously before it. Richard A. Clarke, the White House counterterrorism czar under Clinton and Bush, later wrote that Freehs F.B.I. had not done enough to seek out foreign terrorists. Clarke also wrote that Freehs counterterror chief, Dale Watson, had told him: We have to smash the F.B.I. into bits and rebuild it.

Mueller had already earned the respect of the F.B.I. rank and file during his tenure as chief of the criminal division of the Justice Department. When he started work at the Justice Department in 1990, the F.B.I. had been trying and failing for two years to solve the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland. The F.B.I. was not set up to deal with a major investigation like this, Richard Marquise, an F.B.I. intelligence analyst who became the leader of the Lockerbie investigation under Mueller, said in an F.B.I. oral history. I blame the institution.

Mueller used his power under law to obliterate the F.B.I.s byzantine flow charts of authority in the case. We literally cut out the chains of command, Marquise said. We brought in the C.I.A. We brought the Scots. We brought MI5 to Washington. And we sat down and we said: We need to change the way were doing business. ... We need to start sharing information. It was a tip from the Scots that put Marquise on the trail of the eventual suspect: one of Col. Muammar el-Qaddafis intelligence officers, whose cover was security chief for the Libyan state airlines. Qaddafis spy, Abdel Basset Ali al-Megrahi, was indicted in 1991. It took until the turn of the 21st century, but he was convicted.

It meant a great deal to Mueller, in the Lockerbie case, that the evidence the F.B.I. produced be deployed as evidence in court, not justification for war. In a speech he gave at Stanford University in 2002, concerning the nations newest threat, he spoke of the balance we must strike to protect our national security and our civil liberties as we address the threat of terrorism. He concluded: We will be judged by history, not just on how we disrupt and deter terrorism, but also on how we protect the civil liberties and the constitutional rights of all Americans, including those Americans who wish us ill. We must do both of these things, and we must do them exceptionally well.

These views made Mueller something of an outlier in the Bush administration; five days after the Sept. 11 attacks, Vice President Dick Cheney was warning that the White House needed to go over to the dark side to fight Al Qaeda. Among the darkest places was a top-secret program code-named Stellar Wind, under which the N.S.A. eavesdropped freely in the United States without search warrants.

By the end of 2003, Mueller had a new boss: James Comey, who was named deputy attorney general. Comey was read into the Stellar Wind program and deemed it unconstitutional. He briefed Mueller, who concurred. They saw no evidence that the surveillance had saved a single life, stopped an imminent attack or uncovered an Al Qaeda member in the United States. In the first week of March, the two men agreed that the F.B.I. could not continue to go along with the surveillance programs. They also thought Attorney General John Ashcroft should not re-endorse Stellar Wind. Comey made the case to Ashcroft.

In remarkable congressional testimony in 2007, Comey would describe what happened next: Hours later, Ashcroft keeled over with gallstone pancreatitis. He was sedated and scheduled for surgery. Comey was now the acting attorney general. He and the president were required to reauthorize Stellar Wind on March 11 for the program to continue. When Comey learned the White House counsel and chief of staff were heading to the hospital of the night of March 10 to get the signature of the barely conscious Ashcroft, Comey raced to Ashcrofts hospital room to head them off. When they arrived, Ashcroft lifted his head off the pillow and told the presidents men that he wouldnt sign. Pointing at Comey, he said: There is the attorney general.

Bush signed the authorization alone anyway, asserting that he had constitutional power to do so. Mueller took meticulous notes of these events; they were partly declassified years later. On March 11, he wrote that the president was trying to do an end run around Comey, at the time the nations chief law-enforcement officer. At 1:30 a.m. on March 12, Mueller drafted a letter of resignation. I am forced to withdraw the F.B.I. from participation in the program, he wrote. If the president did not back down, I would be constrained to resign as director of the F.B.I. And Comey and Ashcroft would go with him.

Seven hours later, with the letter in the breast pocket of his suit, Mueller sat alone with Bush in the Oval Office. Once again, the F.B.I. had joined a battle against a president. Muellers notes show that he told Bush in no uncertain terms that a presidential order alone could not legalize Stellar Wind. Unless the N.S.A. brought Stellar Wind within the constraints of the law, he would lose his F.B.I. director, the attorney general and the acting attorney general. In the end, Bush relented it took years, but the programs were put on what Mueller considered a defensible legal footing.

Trumps showdown with Comey and its aftermath is the fifth confrontation between the F.B.I. and a sitting president since the death of J. Edgar Hoover, and the first in which the presidents principal antagonists, Mueller and Comey, have been there before. When Bush faced the same two men, he was acutely aware of the history that attended their confrontation. He wrote later that he realized their resignations could be the second coming of the Saturday Night Massacre, the penultimate disaster of Nixons presidency, when the embattled president keelhauled the special prosecutor pursuing the secret White House tapes and lost his attorney general and deputy attorney general in the process. The question is whether Trump cares enough about the consequences of history to avoid repeating it.

For the Watergate veterans John Mindermann and Paul Magallanes, the news of recent weeks has come with a certain amount of professional gratification. When I spoke with them on June 14, both agents said they wanted the bureaus role as a check on the president to be in the public eye. For years, they felt that their own work had gone unacknowledged. We never got an attaboy letter from our superiors, Mindermann said. But we changed history, and we knew it. Magallanes had always been bothered by how, in the collective American memory, Nixons downfall was attributed to so many other authors: Woodward and Bernstein, crusading congressional committees, hard-nosed special prosecutors. To the agents who were present at the time, it was first and foremost an F.B.I. story. We were the people who did the work, Magallanes told me. It was we, the F.B.I., who brought Richard Nixon down. We showed that our government can investigate itself.

Tim Weiner was a reporter for The Times from 1993 to 2009. His work on national security has won the Pulitzer Prize and the National Book Award. His books include Enemies: A History of the F.B.I.

Sign up for our newsletter to get the best of The New York Times Magazine delivered to your inbox every week.

A version of this article appears in print on July 2, 2017, on Page MM27 of the Sunday Magazine.

Here is the original post:

How Donald Trump Misunderstood the FBI - New York Times

Posted in Donald Trump | Comments Off on How Donald Trump Misunderstood the FBI – New York Times

The Donald Trump Election Brag Tracker – Slate Magazine

Posted: at 6:50 am

President Donald Trump arrives for a rally on June 21, 2017 in Cedar Rapids, Iowa. Trump spoke about renegotiating NAFTA and building a border wall that would produce solar power during the rally.

Scott Olson/Getty Images

When Donald Trump chatted with three Reuters reporters in April, he handed each of them a map memorializing his win over Hillary Clinton. Its pretty good, right? the president asked before adding, The red is obviously us. This was not an outlier. Trump also bragged about his election victory at a Republican Party retreat in Philadelphia days after the inauguration, during an appearance with the president of Romania, and in response to a question about anti-Semitism.

Slates Donald Trump Election Brag Tracker keeps a close watch on the presidents penchant for praising his own remarkable performance in the 2016 election, a contest in which he lost the popular vote.

Want to know the last time Trump bragged about the election?

Type inwhenwasthelasttimetrumpbraggedabouttheelection.comand youll be redirected to this page.

We cant do this tracking without your help. If we missed any Trump election brags, or if you hear a new one, let us know by filling out this form.

Torie Bosch is the editor of Future Tense, a project of Slate, New America, and Arizona State that looks at the implications of new technologies.

More:

The Donald Trump Election Brag Tracker - Slate Magazine

Posted in Donald Trump | Comments Off on The Donald Trump Election Brag Tracker – Slate Magazine

Judge approves initial motions in Takata bankruptcy – Fox Business

Posted: at 6:49 am

DOVER, Del. (AP) A Delaware bankruptcy judge on Tuesday granted several preliminary orders allowing Japanese auto parts supplier Takata to move forward with its reorganization plan, which includes the sale of most of its assets to a Chinese-owned rival for $1.6 billion.

Takata was forced into bankruptcy this week amid lawsuits, multimillion-dollar fines and crushing costs related to the recall and replacement of tens of millions of lethally defective air bag inflators.

At a first-day hearing, Judge Brendan Shannon granted various motions allowing Takata to continue paying its bills and working with suppliers and customers.

Shannon's rulings include approval of a key agreement between Takata and major automobile manufacturers, who are both the company's largest customers and largest creditor group, that Takata hopes will provide sufficient near-term liquidity as it moves through the bankruptcy and sale process.

In providing liquidity to Takata, the automakers have agreed to forego certain rights, including exercising setoffs against their existing accounts payable to Takata. Takata, in exchange, has agreed to continue to manufacture and supply parts and replacement kits during the bankruptcy and to offer the carmakers certain protections, including replacement liens and super-priority claims.

An attorney representing the U.S. Virgin Islands, which has sued Takata and Honda over the faulty airbags, expressed concern Tuesday that the bankruptcy case seems to have been set primarily for the benefit of the automakers, adding that it's not clear whether their purported setoff rights have been properly established. He also objected to Takata's request for confirmation of an automatic stay, a routine bankruptcy provision that halts litigation or enforcement of judgments against a debtor during its bankruptcy.

Continue Reading Below

ADVERTISEMENT

Shannon overruled the objection, suggesting that the automatic stay is aimed primarily at private parties and foreign entities, and that the interests of the Virgin Islands would be sufficiently protected.

"It is meaningfully different when a United States government entity seeks to move forward," the judge said.

Takata has acknowledged that a chemical used in the air bag inflators, ammonium nitrate, can degrade over time, especially in hot, humid climates. The defect can cause the inflators to rupture, spewing deadly shrapnel inside a vehicle. The problem has been blamed for scores of injuries and at least 16 deaths.

"Takata deeply regrets that this has occurred and regrets the harm that has been done to injured parties and the pain suffered by families who have lost loved ones," Marcia Goldstein, an attorney representing Takata, said Tuesday.

The next hearing in the bankruptcy case is scheduled for July 26.

In the meantime, the U.S. bankruptcy trustee has scheduled a creditor committee formation meeting for July 6.

View original post here:

Judge approves initial motions in Takata bankruptcy - Fox Business

Posted in Bankruptcy | Comments Off on Judge approves initial motions in Takata bankruptcy – Fox Business

Jewish Feminism Should Declare Bankruptcy – The Daily Caller

Posted: at 6:49 am

It hasnt been a good week for Jewish feminists.

Yesterday, Israel squashed its plan to equalize the architecture for egalitarian prayer at the revered Western Wall in Jerusalem. And on Saturday, hostility toward Jews by leftist feminists crystallized when Jewish lesbians sporting flags containing both rainbows and stars of David were booted from the Dyke March in Chicago for supposedly making Palestinian marchers feel unsafe.

These developments are not unrelated. They are symptoms of a Jewish feminism that has somehow found itself both increasingly strident and increasingly feckless. Historically, Judaism has been a pioneer in protecting and respecting women; and in the 20th century American Jewish women paved the way for a society in which women could feel good about themselves, join the workforce, and engineer their own futures without restrictions by men.

But thats not todays Jewish feminism, with its far-left politics and hostility toward Judaism itself at least as historically defined and currently lived by its most faithful practitioners.

In the case of the Kotel, feminists of mostly North American origin, including many who arent Israeli at all, have used the Israeli political system the courts, the Jewish Agency, the prime ministers office to try to force changes to the architecture of the Kotel (Hebrew for Western Wall) to make it appear that the site (and thus Judaism) is indifferent whether prayer is traditional or egalitarian. But its not indifferent. Liberal Jews have pioneered several innovations in Jewish liturgy and synagogue practice and good for them but they shouldnt impose their heterodox practices on a site whose prayer system has always been traditional, and whose regular worshippers cannot be expected to adjust.

Liberal Jews are thus demanding the Kotel they rarely pray at look like the temples and synagogues at home they rarely pray at. They want to push their values on the Orthodox Jews who are there day in, day out. Sure, they claim the mantle of religious freedom. But in this conflict (though not every conflict) the civil rights side is that of the Orthodox.

Lets face it: the Kotel demands are about Jewish identity politics (were just as Jewish as the Orthodox), and thats not a good enough reason to change religious policy. One way you know the issue isnt really egalitarian prayer is that the feminists never talk about, well, egalitarian prayer. Think about it: real egalitarian prayer concerns non-sexist liturgy as well as equitable images of femininity and masculinity in the Divine and the Jewish self. You never hear about any of that from Kotel activists, though. Its all protests and resistance and compromise and mutual antagonism with haredim (one of Israels Orthodox groups).

Mainstream feminisms increasing rejection of Zionist and even Jewish identity is alarming and ominous and telling. Advocacy for Palestinians has become increasingly central to the mission of American feminism, so much so that Linda Sarsour, perhaps the most prominent Palestinian in America, feminist or otherwise, declared earlier this year that one cannot be both a feminist and a Zionist.

The gap is spreading. Feminist pioneer Phyllis Chesler has movingly described her alienation from other feminists over her belief that Israel has a right to exist. And the increasing anti-Zionism among feminists frequently spills over into anti-Semitism, as happened at Saturdays Dyke March where the women booted had said nothing about Israel whatsoever.

While Jewish feminists caught between their ideology and their movement deserve sympathy, they also deserve some of the blame. Since American Jewish women (largely) founded second-wave feminism in the early 1960s, the movement has adopted other causes not strictly about womens equality. In some cases most prominently civil rights for blacks the causes were natural allies. But increasingly becoming a feminist meant signing up for a whole host of dubious left-wing causes.

For example, in just the last few months the Jewish feminist herald Lilith Magazine has published articles about how immigration, climate change, and labor activism are feminist issues. Historically aware Jewish feminists know that extremist movements tend to turn against the Jews eventually. As such, they erred in allowing feminism to stray so far from advocacy for women because now that leftism increasingly denounces Israel, theyre being forced to literally watch the parade from the sidelines.

Its possible to advocate for Jewish women and women in general without antagonizing traditional Jews, and without pleading for acceptance from a movement so far off the rails it attacks the only Middle Eastern country where feminism is being actualized. Jewish feminists should declare bankruptcy and reboot, getting back to the business of equal rights.

David Benkof is a columnist for The Daily Caller. Follow him on Twitter (@DavidBenkof) and Muckrack.com/DavidBenkof, or E-mail him at [emailprotected].

Original post:

Jewish Feminism Should Declare Bankruptcy - The Daily Caller

Posted in Bankruptcy | Comments Off on Jewish Feminism Should Declare Bankruptcy – The Daily Caller

What corporate bankruptcy can teach us about morality – Marketplace.org

Posted: at 6:49 am

ByDavid Brancaccio

June 27, 2017 | 10:22 AM

Does the world of finance and markets needs a good infusion of humanity? One book examines how how a wider reading of the humanities can help you understand finance and at the same time how finance can help you understand the human condition. Its by economist and Harvard Business School professor Mihir Desai.

He joined Marketplace Morning Report host David Brancaccio to discuss his latest book,"The Wisdom of Finance: Discovering Humanity in the World of Risk and Return." Below is an edited transcript of their conversation. Click the audio player above to hear an extended version of their interview.

Brancaccio: So the humanities can be a teaching tool for understanding things that might seem boring but actually guide our lives at different levels. I'm thinking, reading the book, "Insurance. Really, insurance?"

Desai: Yeah. I mean, insurance is the most mundane thing for most people in the world. What's wonderful about insurance, as I was writing the book, I came to realize that, you know, risk and insurance are the core of finance. And it turns out that risk and insurance are the core of a lot of people's lives. And in fact, the story I tell is the story of Charles Peirce who's this remarkable philosopher and the founder of pragmatism who ends up at the end of his life going around the country saying, "We are all insurance companies," which is very jarring to everybody and they think he's crazy.

Brancaccio: I know he gives a lecture at Harvard, and people were, like, "Oh, this guy's lost it."

Desai: And then Peirce shows up, he gives this lecture, and he's driving the first-order conditions for pricing insurance policies, and everybody thinks he's completely crazy. But what he understood is that the problem of an insurance company is the problem of a human being, which is there's chaos and there's randomness in the world, and you've to figure out how to navigate it. And pragmatism is the philosophy which says go out and sample, get experience, don't introspect. And that is exactly what insurance companies do. So that's the sense in which he meant it as we are all insurance companies.

Brancaccio: This really surprised me: The study of bankruptcy, you argue in the book, is clearly about how to deal with failure. But it's also about resolving, you say, conflicting commitments that we made.

Desai: I told a story of American Airlines, which was the last airline to go bankrupt. The first CEO said for a long time he'll never go bankrupt, because it was his duty to make sure every obligation gets paid off. Of course, he gets dragged into bankruptcy at the very end, they switch the CEO. The second CEO comes in, restructures all the obligations, guts the pensions. But American Airlines goes on to live another day. So the idea there is, you know, who's the hero of that story? Is it the guy who said, "I have to stand by all my obligations," but took the company down? Or the guy who said, "I actually got to manage these conflicting obligations"? I traced that and I make a correspondence between that and, you know, Martha Nussbaum's really remarkable work, "The Fragility of Goodness," where she looks at all the Greek tragedies and she says, "Fundamentally, this is about undercutting the idea that you have to follow duty." Most Greek tragedies are about people who have these conflicting obligations, and it's a mess, and you have to navigate them. And she says that's a good life. If you don't have conflicting obligations, you're doing something wrong. So that's the sense in which bankruptcies are really illustrative, I think.

See the article here:

What corporate bankruptcy can teach us about morality - Marketplace.org

Posted in Bankruptcy | Comments Off on What corporate bankruptcy can teach us about morality – Marketplace.org

US on path to bankruptcy – Rutland Herald

Posted: at 6:49 am

The U.S. is on a path to bankruptcy with government debt at $20 trillion and long-term obligations exceeding $200 trillion. Our government spending is unsustainable.

In an effort to bring fiscal responsibility back to Washington, Trump proposed cutting Amtrak by $630 million. Environmentalists and train enthusiasts are vocally opposed to the cut and are holding protest rallies around the country. Senator Leahy vigorously opposes this cut, indicating rail lines bind our communities together and are crucial to our economy. However, in Vermont Amtrak service costs taxpayers $58 per passenger in subsidies, which is unaffordable to the state.

Nationally, around 60 percent of the gas tax dollar is used to fund our roads and bridges, and the rest is spent on non-road programs like Amtrak. Also, 65 percent of Washington spending goes to Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and defense. Congress should spend their time reprioritizing and reforming programs to reduce our debt, and the public should rally and support those efforts instead.

If politicians dont realize the seriousness of our fiscal challenge and stop promising everything to win votes, we need to rally for term limits to bring in new leaders to focus on more responsible spending policies that wont accelerate Americas demise and burden our grandchildren for bailouts.

FRANK MAZUR

South Burlington

Continue reading here:

US on path to bankruptcy - Rutland Herald

Posted in Bankruptcy | Comments Off on US on path to bankruptcy – Rutland Herald

Military Tested Germ Warfare on San Francisco and Other …

Posted: at 6:48 am

One of the largest human experiments ever was conducted on unsuspecting residents in the open air of San Francisco. It was the U.S. Governments own experiment conducted on its own people in 1950.

IFL Science reports[emphasis mine]:

In the wake of World War II, the United Sates military was suddenly worried about and keen to test out the threats posed by biological warfare. They started experiments looking into how bacteria and their harmful toxins might spread, only using harmless stand-in microbes. They tested these on military bases, infecting soldiers and their families who lived with them, but eventually they stepped things up a notch. Disclosed in 1977, it turns out that the U.S. military carried out 239 secret open-air tests on its own citizens.

In one of itslargest experiments called Operation Sea-Spray the military used giant hoses [and burst balloons] to spray a bacterial cloud of Serratia marcescens and Bacillus globigii, both thought to be harmless bacteria at the time, from a Navy ship docked just off the coast of San Francisco. They wanted to investigate how the citys iconic fog might help with the spread of bacterial warfare. And spread it did. Its estimated that all of the citys 800,000 residents inhaled millions of the bacteria over the next few weeks as they went about their daily lives none the wiser.

This entirely unnecessary experiment resulted in the death ofEdward J. Nevinafter he first suffered chills, fever and general malaise. TheS. marcescens bacteria alsodirectly caused the hospitalization of at least 10 others and may have spikedcases of pneumonia during that time. Heres why

S. marcescens, asoil-based bacterium that produces a bloody red pigment was used as a proxy for an anthrax attack. Although it was considered benevolent it can certainly reap death and destruction. In fact, S. marcescens is now one of the most opportunistic pathogens that loves to hang out in hospitals and create sturdy biofilms. Sadly, it latches onto people throughurinary tract infections, catheter infections, lung infections and through other hospital supplies used on vulnerable populations. It is now amongthe top 10 causes of all hospital-acquired respiratory, neonatal and surgical infections.

This bacteria is everywhere. It is now attributed to killing coral reefs via human sewage and causes cornea infections through contact lens cases. It is the reddish-pinkish moldy-looking stuff you see in an unhygienic bathroom or on spoiled food.

It has also symbiotically bonded with bacteria inside wax moth larvae the kind that are born of bee hives.

IFL adds:

But theexperiments didnt stop there. As stated, the military carried out over 200 such tests across the country, from New York to Washington DC., spraying bacteria and other fluorescent and microscopic particles into the air, one of which zinc cadmium sulfide is now thoughtto cause cancer. In another series of experiments, they even went so far as simulating an attack on Washingtons Greyhound bus station and airport.

They sprayedin the New York City subway system, on the Pennsylvania Turnpike, and in National Airport just outside Washington, DC.

But the madness still didnt stop there in tandem with the British governments Ministry of Defence, the military sprayed S. marcescens,an anthrax simulant and phenol off the coast of Dorset in southern England from a ship.Not just once over a hundred times. They, too, sprayed zinc cadmium sulfide across large patchesof Britain.

By the way the biowarfare simulation attack on America was deemed a success. Meaning, the conclusion was that another country could indeed attack Americans via ships off the coast.

In Clouds of Secrecy, author Leonard Cole writes,

Nearly all of San Francisco received 500 particle minutes per liter. In other words, nearly every one of the 800,000 people in San Francisco exposed to the cloud at normal breathing rate (10 liters per minute) inhaled 5,000 or more particles per minute during the several hours that they remained airborne.

Heres the worst part, no amount of congressional hearings or lawsuits has ever compelled the government to apologize or take any other view besides justified immunity for their tests. Worse yet, before Nevins death ultimately caused by a urinary tract infection that reached his heart while recovering from prostrate surgery there had never been any reported cases of S. marcescens bacteriain hospitals.

So this writer must ask which is worse, the threat of an anthrax terrorist attack or the now hospital-acquired bacteria that the government sprayed over large swathes of major cities?

This is not a conspiracy theory its a reality. And America is not alone. Canada also has a history of testing biowarfare on innocent people. Not only are these tests on unwitting human subjects reckless and horror-inducing, but they are also clear violations of the Nuremberg Code.

If you know people who trust the governments decisions regarding public health or the environment, perhaps you should show them this article so that they give pause. If you have friends who wish to join the military for its perks please send them this reminder that their superiors may view them as disposable, living biohazards.

Why? Because it happened before time and again even though it is clearly and knowingly amoral.

Also see:

Get a niftyFREE eBookLikeatFacebook,TwitterandInstagram.

More:

Military Tested Germ Warfare on San Francisco and Other ...

Posted in Germ Warfare | Comments Off on Military Tested Germ Warfare on San Francisco and Other …

Michael Carr: A government for the people – Vallejo Times Herald

Posted: at 6:48 am

Im not an expert on American history and any examples in here may well be inaccurate and not strictly chronological, but they are used to illustrate an overall point of view. The fundamentals of the Constitution were to promote life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The Bill of Rights stipulated that Congress may not make rules to take away freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, the right to bear arms, the right to form peaceful assemblies, or to take away lives or freedom of property unfairly.

All of this was justifiable given the religious persecution and government oppression that the early colonists struggled to escape from. According to Kris Kristofferson, freedoms just another word for nothing left to lose. But I believe our unbridled freedom has lost us a lot, particularly as it relates to moral and ethical standards and concern for our fellow man.

So what have we done with this freedom?

We saw a land with enormous potential from sea to shining sea. We went west in a spirit of free enterprise. We cut down forests, tilled the soil and fenced the land to establish farms and ranches. We imported cheap Chinese labor to build our railroads. In the scramble to establish the biggest piece of the pie, we denied the American Indians their freedom and denied untold numbers of Africans their freedom. Our manifest destiny spread across the continent to the Pacific Ocean and when the dust cleared, we had denied Mexico about one-third of its territory, including nearly all of present-day California, Utah, Nevada, Arizona and New Mexico.

Then, ironically, we imported cheap Mexican labor to cultivate our crops which they still do today for below minimum wages, while suffering the stigma of illegal immigrants. It took a civil war to grant African Americans a euphemism for freedom. The Native Americans still struggle to protect their sacred grounds and eke out an existence on barren reservations.

Gold in California and oil in Pennsylvania encouraged more free enterprise, more scrambling for the good life, and the rise of monolithic companies generating vast wealth for a privileged few. By the time anti-trust laws were established the damage was already done. Now we work for companies that continually reduce employee benefits and pensions to increase profits. We are encouraged to secure our futures by investing in 401ks that depend on ever increasing shareholder value that, paradoxically, depend to some extent on cutting more benefits and services. Demands to increase shareholder value encourage unscrupulous corporations and banks to sell bogus investments, derivatives and mortgages without underlying asset value.

The point is that we became so involved in our freedom of choice and entrepreneurial wealth creation that we are now all complicit in this mess by closing our eyes to the truths of inequality and the social consequences. Weve ignored the shifts in policy that continue to create a bigger and bigger gap between the haves and the have-nots. Weve watched as the government gave tax breaks to the rich, cut programs to the poor, and refused to raise the minimum wage. In 2015, 43.1 million people lived in poverty with the highest poverty rate among blacks and Hispanics. Approximately 15.3 million, or 21 percent, of all children under the age of 18 were in families living in poverty. We are the only country in the civilized world that does not provide universal healthcare to its people. Even communist Cuba provides free healthcare and education. We have created a vicious cycle in which the underprivileged, social injustice and the government deficit continue to grow while the middle class hangs on to its fast fading dreams of the good life. With a growing population and diminishing resources we continue to strive for an ever more elusive piece of the pie and create social unrest in the process. Is it any wonder that drugs and crime increase in impoverished inner cities and immigrant communities?

Advertisement

It was Plato who said that democracy would not work because, given a choice, the average person chooses what pleases him rather than what is good for him. I happen to believe in democracy but I think our two-party system creates a situation where the majority tends to get what is good for them but not necessarily good for society. We the people put these people in power and have watched as politicians strive to retain power by pandering to whatever is popular. As a social conscience develops in the majority we vote Democrat. As government spending and taxes are increased to pay for social programs we sense a reduction in our standard of living and government intrusion on our freedom of choice. So the majority turns to the Republicans for tax breaks and curtailment of government regulations. The results are good for the party in power but not necessarily good for society as a whole. Increasingly over the last decade, the polarization between the parties, the inability to compromise, and the vetoing of the opposing partys agenda, has lead to a legislative stalemate and an exacerbation of societal problems.

When I became a United States citizen in 2011, I had high hopes that under President Obama we would begin to see the social changes outlined in his book, The Audacity of Hope, come to fruition. Instead the intransigence of the Republican Party and its avowed intention to obstruct his agenda has lead us where we are today. Enter Donald J. Trump, who cashed in on the Washington stalemate by vowing to drain the swamp and make America great again. His ultra right-wing agenda might make a proportion of Americans richer and the country more powerful. But by declaring war on immigrants, curtailing the freedom of the press, criticizing the judiciary, appointing right-wing judges, creating cabinet posts for his family, and surrounding himself with not so veiled white supremacists, he has all the trappings of an autocrat and is disliked, or even hated, by a majority of the country. This will further exacerbate the already volatile situation existing with the underprivileged and we should be wary of some form of revolution.

Perhaps there is no simple solution but perhaps it is time to sacrifice some of our personal freedom for what is good for society. As Obama once stated to Oprah Winfrey, We are all connected as one people and our mutual obligations have to express themselves not only in our families, not only in our churches, synagogues, and mosques, but in our government, too. If we can come up with a bipartisan commission to investigate something as serious as the links between Trump campaign advisers and the Russian government, why cant we employ a bipartisan commission to resolve other issues of national importance like health care and the judiciary? Instead of endless partisan scrambling for votes and changing voting rules to suit the situation, we should recognize that only by true bipartisanship can we be sure that government is of the people, by the people and for all the people.

If we must retain a two-party system, why not get rid of the electoral college and appoint a Democrat and a Republican from each state in both the House and the Senate? Admittedly that would have the potential for more stalemate but if legislation is to get passed at least it would force an element of compromise. As for the president, election should be by a simple majority of voters.

Michael Carr/Vallejo

Read more from the original source:

Michael Carr: A government for the people - Vallejo Times Herald

Posted in Government Oppression | Comments Off on Michael Carr: A government for the people – Vallejo Times Herald