Frum partner

Forum Partners is a global real estate investment management firm with five offices across Europe, Asia and North America. Forum was established in 2002 to provide growth and/or restructuring ... Successfully partnering with investment managers and limited partners since 2001. Founded in 2001, Forum Capital Partners is a leading, independent placement agent and fundraising advisor to top-tier private investment managers. London. 16 Berkeley Street 7th Floor London W1J 8DZ United Kingdom +44 20 7399 3800 Forum Partners is a global real estate investment and asset management firm. Founded in 2002, Forum is recognized for investing in and alongside public and private real estate companies, with a focus on income and capital preservation. Fortium Partners is the world's largest and fastest-growing provider of technology leadership services. The firm's Partners form an elite group of the world’s foremost technology leaders collectively focused on managing our clients’ investment in technology to harness its disruptive power and achieve significantly better business outcomes. . Technology Leadership-as-a-Service (TLaaS) is ... Forum is a alternative asset class management and principal investment firm with a focus on infrastructure, energy and renewables and real estate. At Frum Dating, you'll be able to connect with real people who are eager to find a partner who shares their culture, customs, traditions, and religious observations. Disclaimer: 100% Free basic membership allows you to browse the site, view profiles, send flirts and modify your profile.

The following 741 individuals all actively and knowingly conspire in well-planned efforts and constructions to consolidate power and resources. Round-op Alpha

2020.06.13 04:52 OwnPlant The following 741 individuals all actively and knowingly conspire in well-planned efforts and constructions to consolidate power and resources. Round-op Alpha

The following 741 individuals all actively and knowingly conspire in well-planned efforts and constructions to consolidate power and resources. Round-op Alpha
WORLD POLICE
  1. Chan, Margaret /CHINA/ PDF
  2. Halton, Jane /AUSTRALIA/PDF
  3. Grimes, David /CANADA/ PDF
  4. Moura, Antonio Divino /BRAZIL/ PDF
  5. Ostojski, Mieczyslaw S. /POLAND/ PDF
  6. Mokssit, Abdalah /MOROCCO/ PDF
  7. Zerbo, Lassina /BURKINA FASO/ PDF
  8. Dubourg, Thierry /FRANCE/ PDF
  9. Li, Genxin /CHINA/ PDF
  10. Bell, W. Randy /USA/ PDF
  11. Maryssael, Vorian /MEXICO/ PDF
  12. Rozhkov, Oleg /RUSSIA/ PDF
  13. Ozawa, Toshiro /JAPAN/ PDF
  14. Azeez, Aliyar Lebbe Abdul /SRI LANKA/ PDF
  15. Haak, Hein [1, 2] /THE NETHERLANDS/ PDF
  16. Weston, Michael [1, 2] /UK/ PDF
  17. Amano, Yukiya /JAPAN/ PDF
  18. Dunn Lee, Janice /USA/ PDF
  19. Mohamad, Daud /MALAYSIA/ PDF
  20. Aning, Kwaku /GHANA – USA/ PDF
  21. Varjoranta, Tero /FINLAND/ PDF
  22. Bychkov, Alexander /RUSSIA/ PDF
  23. Flory, Denis /FRANCE/ PDF
  24. Horin, Olexandr [1, 2] /UKRAINE/ PDF
  25. Azevêdo, Roberto /BRAZIL/ PDF
  26. Agah, Yonov Frederick [1, 2] /NIGERIA/ PDF
  27. Brauner, Karl [1, 2] /GERMANY/ PDF
  28. Shark, David [1, 2] /USA/ PDF
  29. Xiaozhun, Yi [1, 2] /CHINA/ PDF
  30. Gore, Al /USA/ PDF
  31. Buffett, Warren [2] /USA/ PDF
WORLD BANK GROUP
  1. Kim, Jim Yong [1, 2] /USA – SOUTH KOREA/ PDF
  2. Indrawati, Sri Mulyani /INDONESIA – USA/ PDF
  3. Badré, Bertrand /FRANCE/ PDF
  4. Mohieldin, Mahmoud /EGYPT/ PDF
  5. Basu, Kaushik [1, 2] /INDIA/ PDF
  6. Leroy, Anne-Marie /FRANCE/ PDF
  7. Kyte, Rachel /USA/ PDF
  8. De Villeroche, Hervé /FRANCE/ PDF
  9. Hines, Gwen /UK/ PDF
  10. Hoven, Ingrid G. /GERMANY/ PDF
  11. Aviel, Sara Margalit [1, 2] /USA/ PDF
  12. Suzuki, Hideaki /JAPAN/ PDF
  13. Chen, Shixin /CHINA/ PDF
BILDERBERG
  1. Rothensteiner, Walter /AUSTRIA/ PDF
  2. Treichl, Andreas /AUSTRIA/ PDF
  3. Sigurgestsson, Hörður /ICELAND/ PDF
  4. Lundestad, Geir /NORWAY/ PDF
  5. de Oliveira, Manuel Ferreira /PORTUGAL/ PDF
  6. Salgado, Ricardo /PORTUGAL/ PDF
  7. Silva, Artur Santos /PORTUGAL/ PDF
  8. Mazzie, Mark G. /USA/ PDF
  9. McKinnon, Neil /CANADA/ (status unknown) PDF
  10. Sikora, Sławomir /POLAND/ PDF
  11. Bon, Michel /FRANCE/ PDF
  12. Lévy-Lang, André /FRANCE/ PDF
  13. Schrempp, Jürgen Erich /GERMANY/ PDF
  14. Szwajcowski, Jacek /POLAND/ PDF
  15. Barnevik, Percy Nils /SWEDEN/ PDF
  16. Stråberg, Hans /SWEDEN/ PDF
  17. Uǧur, Agah [2] /TURKEY/ PDF
  18. Browne, Edmund John Philip /UK/ PDF
  19. Gerstner, Louis Vincent /USA/ PDF
  20. Bergsten, C. Fred /FRANCE/ PDF
  21. Pipes, Richard Edgar [2] /USA/ PDF
  22. Black, Conrad Moffat /CANADA/ PDF
  23. Frum, David J. /CANADA/ PDF
  24. Beytout, Nicolas /FRANCE/ PDF
  25. Rossella, Carlo /ITALY/ PDF
  26. Ringier, Michael /SWITZERLAND/ PDF
  27. Kohen, Sami [2] /TURKEY/ PDF
  28. Hutton, William Nicolas /UK/ PDF
  29. Knight, Andrew Stephen Bower /UK/ PDF
  30. Stephanopoulos, George Robert /USA/ PDF
  31. Scheel, Walter /GERMANY/ PDF
  32. Eliot, Theodore L. /USA/ PDF
  33. Yost, Casimir A. /USA/ PDF
  34. Allaire, Paul Arthur /USA/ PDF
  35. Rockefeller, Sharon Percy /USA/ PDF
BILDERBERG [2010, 2011, 2012, 2013]
  1. Davignon, Etienne /BELGIUM/ Vice Chairman, Suez-Tractebel PDF
  2. Achleitner, Paul M. /GERMANY/ Chairman of the Supervisory Board, Deutsche Bank AG PDF
  3. Ackermann, Josef /GERMANY/ Chairman of the Management Board and the Group Executive Committee, Deutsche Bank AG PDF
  4. Agius, Marcus /UK/ Former Chairman, Barclays Bank PLC PDF
  5. Ajami, Fouad /USA/ Senior Fellow, The Hoover Institution, Stanford University PDF
  6. Alexander, Helen /UK/ Chairman, UBM plc PDF
  7. Alexander, Keith B. /USA/ Commander, USCYBERCOM; Director, National Security Agency PDF
  8. Alierta, César /SPAIN/ Chairman and CEO, Telefónica PDF
  9. Almunia, Joaquín /SPAIN/ Commissioner, European Commission PDF
  10. Altman, Roger C. /USA/ Chairman, Evercore Partners Inc. PDF
  11. Amado, Luís /PORTUGAL/ Chairman, Banco Internacional do Funchal (BANIF) PDF
  12. Andresen, Johan H. /NORWAY/ Owner and CEO, FERD PDF
  13. Apunen, Matti /FINLAND/ Director, Finnish Business and Policy Forum EVA PDF
  14. Arrison, Sonia /USA/ Author and policy analyst PDF
  15. Athey, Susan /USA/ Professor of Economics, Stanford Graduate School of Business PDF
  16. Aydıntaşbaş, Aslı /TURKEY/ Columnist, Milliyet Newspaper PDF
  17. Babacan, Ali /TURKEY/ Deputy Prime Minister for Economic and Financial Affairs PDF
  18. Bäckström, Urban /SWEDEN/ Director General, Confederation of Swedish Enterprise PDF
  19. Balls, Edward M. /UK/ Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer PDF
  20. Balsemão, Francisco Pinto /PORTUGAL/ Chairman and CEO, IMPRESA, S.G.P.S.; Former Prime Minister PDF
  21. Barré, Nicolas /FRANCE/ Managing Editor, Les Echos PDF
  22. Barroso, José M. Durão /PORTUGAL/ President, European Commission PDF
  23. Baverez, Nicolas /FRANCE/ Partner, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP PDF
  24. Bavinchove, Olivier de /FRANCE/ Commander, Eurocorps PDF
  25. Bazire, Nicolas /FRANCE/ Managing Director, Groupe Arnault /LVMH PDF
  26. Béchu, Christophe /FRANCE/ Senator, and Chairman, General Council of Maine-et-Loire PDF
  27. Bell, John /UK/ Regius Professor of Medicine, University of Oxford PDF
  28. Berberoğlu, Enis /TURKEY/ Editor-in-Chief, Hürriyet Newspaper PDF
  29. Bernabè, Franco /ITALY/ CEO, Telecom Italia S.p.A. PDF
  30. Bezos, Jeff /USA/ Founder and CEO, Amazon.com PDF
  31. Bildt, Carl /SWEDEN/ Minister of Foreign Affairs PDF
  32. Björling, Ewa /SWEDEN/ Minister for Trade PDF
  33. Blåfield, Antti /FINLAND/ Senior Editorial Writer, Helsingin Sanomat PDF
  34. Boles, Nick /UK/ Member of Parliament PDF
  35. Bolland, Marc J. /THE NETHERLANDS/ Chief Executive, Marks and Spencer Group plc PDF
  36. Bonnier, Jonas /SWEDEN/ President and CEO, Bonnier AB PDF
  37. Borg, Anders /SWEDEN/ Minister for Finance PDF
  38. Botín, Ana P. /SPAIN/ Executive Chairman, Banesto PDF
  39. Boxmeer, Jean François van /THE NETHERLANDS/ Chairman of the Executive Board and CEO, Heineken N.V. PDF
  40. Christiansen, Jeppe /DENMARK/ CEO, Maj Invest PDF
  41. Chubais, Anatoly B. /RUSSIA/ CEO, OJSC RUSNANO PDF
  42. Ciliv, Süreyya /TURKEY/ CEO, Turkcell Iletisim Hizmetleri A.S. PDF
  43. Cisneros, Gustavo A. /SPAIN/ Chairman and CEO, Cisneros Group of Companies PDF
  44. Clark, W. Edmund /CANADA/ President and CEO, TD Bank Financial Group PDF
  45. Clarke, Kenneth /UK/ Member of Parliament, Lord Chancellor and Secretary of Justice PDF
  46. Coene, Luc /BELGIUM/ Governor, National Bank of Belgium PDF
  47. Collins, Timothy C. /USA/ Senior Managing Director and CEO, Ripplewood Holdings, LLC PDF
  48. Conti, Fulvio /ITALY/ CEO and General Manager, Enel SpA PDF
  49. Corydon, Bjarne /DENMARK/ Minister of Finance PDF
  50. Cospedal, María Dolores de /SPAIN/Secretary General, Partido Popular PDF
  51. Cowper-Coles, Sherard /UK/ Business Development Director, International, BAE Systems plc PDF
  52. Cucchiani, Enrico Tommaso /ITALY/ CEO, Intesa Sanpaolo SpA PDF
  53. Daele, Frans van /BELGIUM/ Chief of Staff to the President of the European Council PDF
  54. Daniels, Jr., Mitchell E. /USA/ Governor of Indiana PDF
  55. David, George A. /GREECE/ Chairman, Coca-Cola H.B.C. S.A. PDF
  56. Davis, Ian /UK/ Chairman, Rolls-Royce plc PDF
  57. DeMuth, Christopher /USA/ Distinguished Fellow, Hudson Institute PDF
  58. Dijkgraaf, Robbert H. /THE NETHERLANDS/ Director and Leon Levy Professor, Institute for Advanced Study PDF
  59. Dinçer, Haluk /TURKEY/ President, Retail and Insurance Group, Sabancı Holding A.S. PDF
  60. Donilon, Thomas E. /USA/ National Security Advisor, The White House PDF
  61. Dudley, Robert /UK/ Group Chief Executive, BP plc PDF
  62. Eberstadt, Nicholas N. /USA/ Henry Wendt Chair in Political Economy, American Enterprise Institute PDF
  63. Eide, Espen Barth /NORWAY/ Minister of Foreign Affairs PDF
  64. Ekholm, Börje /SWEDEN/ President and CEO, Investor AB PDF
  65. Eldrup, Anders /DENMARK/ CEO, DONG Energy PDF
  66. Elkann, John /ITALY/ Chairman, Fiat S.p.A. PDF
  67. Enders, Thomas /GERMANY/ CEO, Airbus SAS PDF
  68. Entrecanales, José Manuel /SPAIN/ Chairman, Acciona PDF
  69. Evans, J. Michael /USA/ Vice Chairman, Global Head of Growth Markets, Goldman Sachs & Co. PDF
  70. Faymann, Werner /AUSTRIA/ Federal Chancellor PDF
  71. Federspiel, Ulrik /DENMARK/ Vice President Global Affairs, Haldor Topsøe A/S PDF
  72. Feldstein, Martin S. /USA/ George F. Baker Professor of Economics, Harvard University PDF
  73. Ferguson, Niall /USA/ Laurence A. Tisch Professor of History, Harvard University PDF
  74. Ferreira Alves, Clara /PORTUGAL/ CEO, Claref LDA; writer [1, 2, 3] PDF
  75. Fillon, François /FRANCE/ Former Prime Minister PDF
  76. Fischer, Heinz /AUSTRIA/ Federal President PDF
  77. Fishman, Mark C. /USA/ President, Novartis Institutes for BioMedical Research PDF
  78. Flint, Douglas J. /UK/ Group Chairman, HSBC Holdings plc PDF
  79. Fu, Ying /CHINA/ Vice Minister of Foreign Affairs PDF
  80. Gallagher, Paul /IRELAND/ Attorney General PDF
  81. Gates, William H. /USA/ Co-chair, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and Chairman, Microsoft Corporation PDF
  82. Gephardt, Richard A. /USA/ President and CEO, Gephardt Group PDF
  83. Gfoeller, Michael /USA/ Political Consultant PDF
  84. Giannitsis, Anastasios /GREECE/ Former Minister of Interior; Professor of Development and International Economics, University of Athens PDF
  85. Goolsbee, Austan D. /USA/ Professor of Economics, University of Chicago Booth School of Business PDF
submitted by OwnPlant to conspiracy [link] [comments]


2020.05.10 22:18 Punkster13666 My dad had a Stroke exactly a month ago and im still struggling to deal with it.

[notable info: there are only three people in our household, me (15) me mum (50s) an me dad (50s). There is a tldr at the bottom aswell]
On Good Friday my dad collapsed in our garden and was sent to our Stroke unit. His first night in the hospital we were told that he was paralysed down the left side and there was a clot on the right side of his brain. During his 17 days in hospital we heard about his progress and how he was doing (obviously we couldnt go and see him because of corona so we were relying on ringing his ward). Now, me parents have a lot of mates and family members who were all told of the situation the night it happened and were put onto an update list where we would tell them of his progress and what he has done (roughly 30 people, not texting both partners).
All the while me dad was in hospital, me an me mum would be cleaning and sorting the house out (very small terraced house) so there was adequate space for him to come through and move about without there being something in the way. Sorting things helped me because it took my mind off what’s happened and briefly put it onto something else.
Slightly before my dad having his stroke my Uncle had caught the virus and on EOL care which already had us three worrying. Due to the worrying and stressing about my dad an uncle i had not been doing my online shit so that had me worrying even more about me grades and what my teachers would do.
Me an me mum shared the same mindset about my dads incident so we could talk freely about our worries without feeling bad about it. Those talks we had were from the minor to the massive extremes (not gonna go through them cuz there was a lot and not all of them were about what had happened) but however much i spoke to me mum about it the thoughts an worries would still be there, wedged in my mind.
So were now at 6 days of my dad being home and the worries and thoughts have died down a bit (luckily) but more thoughts about the future have come into my head like: will i have to leave for school later so i can let the carers in/out and what if he falls and neither of us are there. As i said earlier, frum the minor to extremes was my thoughts, most of then wayyy into the future where non of us could tell or hint at what might happen.
We got in touch with the deputy head of my school to explain what happened and to say that im not slacking off and something serious has happened. The deputy understood and was very nice about the situation, telling me that i wouldnt have to worry about the backlogged online work until i go back to school and to only do the work set fer the later dates, which took some weight off my mind.
My dad is sounding and acting like himself, hes still got his shit humour, makin the suggestive jokes, askin me to do the brews in the morning. But i still feel he aint all there, he can now walk fully unaided which is really good, but adds to my worries about him falling. I seem to think of everything that could go wrong, ive thought of so many situations with various outcomes and i jus cant turn my mind off.
There is a lot missing frum here but its hard to put it all down and state my thoughts
Ive had a lot of my family members die or have problems like this and i was petrified it would happen to my dad
TLDR: My dad had a stroke a month back, me an me mum were understandably worried, i kept on thinking too far into the future and mucked with my mind.
submitted by Punkster13666 to teenagers [link] [comments]


2020.01.22 00:01 IIdentifyAsOrthoprax My Story

Hi All
Posting this to /exjew and /secretotd
This is my first reddit post ever so sorry if its not in the proper format
And this is the first time I have ever expressed what Im about to, so please bear with me and my rambling thoughts....
Im a married guy with kids, ffb, from a 'yeshivish' community. As I went through yeshiva, I became super intense and passionate about anything frum. I did a few years in kolel and even did one of the 2 year kiruv courses because I felt a strong desire to 'give' to others (more about that later).
I left Israel and Kolel and joined the 'real world' 5 years ago. Thats when I started seeing Juidaism in a different perspective. Slowly over the last 5 years my viewpoint has changed completely. The catalyst, although not the ultimate reason, was growing close to several charedi rabbis, and then seeing their real identities. I was sickened by their behaviours, which included adultery, taking advantage of vulnerable people, and a sickening attitude to anyone who didnt agree with them, including their own colleuges.
This slowly turned into feelings of resentment, which led to questions in my mind.At that point I approached someone senior in the community whom I respect and told him my feelings, and that I felt the only thing keeping me frum was my wife and kids. His advice after a brief conversation was that it was not a religious thing, it was a psychological thing and he could try and arrange for me to see a frum therapist, which I did. The therapist explained to me that there were triggers that were causing these thoughts (rabbis behavior as mentioned above, working in a non jewish environment) and at the time that was good enough for me. Looking back it just makes me think how weird and cult-like that whole experience was - 'If you dont have faith you must have mental health problems!'
As time has progressed I have thought and researched (including here - thanx!) alot about it and become more and more certain that I simply dont believe, and would consider myself an agnostic. This is now no longer an emotional conclusion but a logical conclusion. I truly am part of a brainwashed cult.Once I canme to that conclusion I was able to look back at all I had thought to be the 100% truth as pure and utter crap. And that kiruv course! Would you believe it that one of the senior lecturers actually taught us techniques of how to divert attention away from people asking difficult question? (I was bewildered at the time but just thought it was a case of the ends justifying the means)
Anyway, at this point I was really torn. I love and adore my wife and kids and would never ever want to have anything come in between us. Without my family I wouldnt really see any point in living. And I decided that the best thing would be to simply carry on living the same life, as that is what would be necessary to avoid the risk of tearing our family apart, whilst in my mind being aware that I dont think there is truth in it. This caused me a huge amount of stress and it couldnt continue.
[Side point: At this point I reached out to a rabbi whom I have only the utmost resepect for and asked him for advice. I know that sounds wierd, but this person really does love every human being and has only goodness in his heart, and I felt I had nothing to lose. Anyway, I sent him a long anonymous email pouring out my heart. His response literally saved my life. He replied with an equally long email with words of comfort and support and encouragement, despite me saying I didnt want to be religous anymore. He also strongly reccomended I talk to my wife about all of this and said he personally knew couples where one had gone OTD yet they stayed togethor with mutual love and respect. His words gave me the strength I need to 'come out' to my wife, and Im glad I did. His chizuk saved a marriage and possibly my life. There are rabbis out there who are amazing human beings!]
I nervously broached the subject with my wife, and she said she had suspected this for a while. She hugged me and asked me what my intentions were. I told her that I no longer believe, but I recognise that there is an inherrent 'unfairness' where one partner decides to change their way of life which they had led until now, and brought up children in, and expect this to not affect the family, or even worse, push them to do the same. My intentions are to continue life as is, leading the same life (a bit more relaxed) and not change much, except for not davening anymore (I stopped minyan a couple of years ago), and she said she was relieved to hear this. I was secretly hoping she might be ok with it as she has also been slacking off lately, but it seems that that was just that - slacking, not related to her belief. She said that she loves and respects me (awwww) and having different beliefs doesnt need to change that. (I recognise im very lucky with this response). However she wants the children to be frum, and if my actions were disturbing that, we need to 'work out what to do'.
So in short - I guess Im now officialy Orthoprax. It will be hard. At times I feel like Im living a lie. However on the bright side, I have a loving family that is my life, and in all likelihood would be badly affected (if not broken up) if I were to stop. Shabbos - annoying as it may be, its really good to have a tech detox and spend time with the family and read a bit - I even go to shul for a bit which makes my wife happy, and sit and reflect/medidate for a bit. Meals with the kids are beautiful. Niddah - again, annoying as it maybe, it definately seems to have a positive affect on our marriage. So all in all, I think this is the best way forward in my situation.
Thanks for listening!
If you have any comments or thoughts, I would love to hear.
submitted by IIdentifyAsOrthoprax to secretOTD [link] [comments]


2020.01.21 23:49 IIdentifyAsOrthoprax My Story

Hi All
Posting this to /exjew and /secretotd
This is my first reddit post ever so sorry if its not in the proper format
And this is the first time I have ever expressed what Im about to, so please bear with me and my rambling thoughts....
Im a married guy with kids, ffb, from a 'yeshivish' community. As I went through yeshiva, I became super intense and passionate about anything frum. I did a few years in kolel and even did one of the 2 year kiruv courses because I felt a strong desire to 'give' to others (more about that later).
I left Israel and Kolel and joined the 'real world' 5 years ago. Thats when I started seeing Juidaism in a different perspective. Slowly over the last 5 years my viewpoint has changed completely. The catalyst, although not the ultimate reason, was growing close to several charedi rabbis, and then seeing their real identities. I was sickened by their behaviours, which included adultery, taking advantage of vulnerable people, and a sickening attitude to anyone who didnt agree with them, including their own colleuges.
This slowly turned into feelings of resentment, which led to questions in my mind.At that point I approached someone senior in the community whom I respect and told him my feelings, and that I felt the only thing keeping me frum was my wife and kids. His advice after a brief conversation was that it was not a religious thing, it was a psychological thing and he could try and arrange for me to see a frum therapist, which I did. The therapist explained to me that there were triggers that were causing these thoughts (rabbis behavior as mentioned above, working in a non jewish environment) and at the time that was good enough for me. Looking back it just makes me think how weird and cult-like that whole experience was - 'If you dont have faith you must have mental health problems!'
As time has progressed I have thought and researched (including here - thanx!) alot about it and become more and more certain that I simply dont believe, and would consider myself an agnostic. This is now no longer an emotional conclusion but a logical conclusion. I truly am part of a brainwashed cult.Once I canme to that conclusion I was able to look back at all I had thought to be the 100% truth as pure and utter crap. And that kiruv course! Would you believe it that one of the senior lecturers actually taught us techniques of how to divert attention away from people asking difficult question? (I was bewildered at the time but just thought it was a case of the ends justifying the means)
Anyway, at this point I was really torn. I love and adore my wife and kids and would never ever want to have anything come in between us. Without my family I wouldnt really see any point in living. And I decided that the best thing would be to simply carry on living the same life, as that is what would be necessary to avoid the risk of tearing our family apart, whilst in my mind being aware that I dont think there is truth in it. This caused me a huge amount of stress and it couldnt continue.
[Side point: At this point I reached out to a rabbi whom I have only the utmost resepect for and asked him for advice. I know that sounds wierd, but this person really does love every human being and has only goodness in his heart, and I felt I had nothing to lose. Anyway, I sent him a long anonymous email pouring out my heart. His response literally saved my life. He replied with an equally long email with words of comfort and support and encouragement, despite me saying I didnt want to be religous anymore. He also strongly reccomended I talk to my wife about all of this and said he personally knew couples where one had gone OTD yet they stayed togethor with mutual love and respect. His words gave me the strength I need to 'come out' to my wife, and Im glad I did. His chizuk saved a marriage and possibly my life. There are rabbis out there who are amazing human beings!]
I nervously broached the subject with my wife, and she said she had suspected this for a while. She hugged me and asked me what my intentions were. I told her that I no longer believe, but I recognise that there is an inherrent 'unfairness' where one partner decides to change their way of life which they had led until now, and brought up children in, and expect this to not affect the family, or even worse, push them to do the same. My intentions are to continue life as is, leading the same life (a bit more relaxed) and not change much, except for not davening anymore (I stopped minyan a couple of years ago), and she said she was relieved to hear this. I was secretly hoping she might be ok with it as she has also been slacking off lately, but it seems that that was just that - slacking, not related to her belief. She said that she loves and respects me (awwww) and having different beliefs doesnt need to change that. (I recognise im very lucky with this response). However she wants the children to be frum, and if my actions were disturbing that, we need to 'work out what to do'.
So in short - I guess Im now officialy Orthoprax. It will be hard. At times I feel like Im living a lie. However on the bright side, I have a loving family that is my life, and in all likelihood would be badly affected (if not broken up) if I were to stop. Shabbos - annoying as it may be, its really good to have a tech detox and spend time with the family and read a bit - I even go to shul for a bit which makes my wife happy, and sit and reflect/medidate for a bit. Meals with the kids are beautiful. Niddah - again, annoying as it maybe, it definately seems to have a positive affect on our marriage. So all in all, I think this is the best way forward in my situation.
Thanks for listening!
If you have any comments or thoughts, I would love to hear.
submitted by IIdentifyAsOrthoprax to exjew [link] [comments]


2020.01.09 19:07 peripheralfgc My [30-M] coworker [~30M] is proselytizing to me

This is sort of a followup to an earlier post I made, and while the advice given there was generally helpful I feel that I did not fully express the nuance of the situation.
I am a partner in a very small start-up business. We recently made a deal with a young lawyer, he gets to use our office space for free in exchange for legal services (it is actually more complex than this and yes, legal, but I’ll spare you the details). I am a non-observant, spiritually tolerant but somewhat anti-religious jewish person. He is what we call “frum”, i.e. very religious and he happens to belong to a sub-sect of Jews that believe the messiah is coming any day. This lawyer has, in the past two weeks, initiated many conversations about my lack of faith and expressed sincere worries about my “soul”. He has also openly criticized my sibling (a professor of medieval studies) for specializing in christian texts, calling it “weird and disturbing”. This last bit makes me legit mad because my sibling is the most intelligent, thoughtful, hard-working person I know and to hear their life’s work written off as “weird” by someone who does not understand it really gets to me.
If this were a larger, more established company, this would not be an issue. I would go to HR and I would expect them to have a conversation about it with him and that would be the end of it. Unfortunately, since my business is not that developed yet, I am forced to handle this in a more personal fashion. I could go to the CEO and have him deal with this, but I just don’t want to cultivate an atmosphere of hostility and political intrigue in the office. How can I tell this person that these conversations are completely unwanted (and frankly offensive) without creating discomfort in our very small work space? I know this sub is mostly focused on self-care and doing what is absolutely right for the person in question, if that were possible I would just tell him off. That said, I feel this situation calls for a little diplomacy and I need a little help parsing out some options.
tl;dr
I am a non religious jew and a very religious jewish coworker is trying to get me to be more faithful. It is a small start-up so no HR is available. How can I express my distaste for this without fostering a hostile atmosphere in the office?
submitted by peripheralfgc to relationships [link] [comments]


2019.07.07 12:18 stroke_bot loth membrane electroirrigation

scabbling
recapitulationist jactitated victualers acron*ycal ~~m,irier epidemiological altilik semiresolute pharyngo.scope angakut stimulan.t miseat adaman toma d
issceptered muscadi,ne magnetogenerator coiffed diadumenus demonkind frum,pishness samech waterways tychism chaunoprockt mislabeled unjusticiable blinded aetobatus wag`ener afebri
le oxaluric minification benc~~hm*an inc~~itant~~s recounter scrofuloderm amethodical sclerodactyly nylo*n headle langarai nons
anctities flaxdrop mokaddam eschevin .maple joc.oseness funked hydrofluozirconic dentirostrate cutleries interisland hatchety resembled af*ternoons malanga dent.istic axiologically catharize varment phoo rec`onstruction functioned parallelith inf celluliferous terebrantia poteen ancor xenomaniac inte.rloper gloams motocros
s mediaevalism endarteria partners ci*stercian hurlwind brach,ylogy c
ottoneer nonspecifici ty s yntactially pygmean gangs poggy coinvolve nonstampable unshelling catenaries pandemonia
n tularaemia hatsfu.l hachures dubiously rhodamins dar sanctity
weathermaker craterid sevre^s bo,tanics preacetabular crossworder unmarled chinch coalite tranqu
iller scabbled nonvirile zoo,phagineae carney^ hairdressers muffs interchoke pergamentaceous affluence stepless nonsubtractively chirographers nonexclusion berthing unmagnifying burnish
submitted by stroke_bot to nullthworldproblems [link] [comments]


2019.04.17 12:40 majorcrossroad Literally an ex Jew

Hi everyone, I’ve been lurking here for years, (basically ever since I went back on [not a typo] the derech) and I guess it’s finally come time for me to come out of the shadows and post something. I am currently Ortho-prax and have run into a sort of fascinating issue that I think this sub might get a kick out of. I am by no means a writer so I hope you will forgive the length and windiness of my story, I suppose writing this is somewhat therapeutic for me since, as ridiculous as it may seem to someone entirely OTD, it is incredibly significant to me at this point in my life. Thank you so much for reading.
I grew up in a kind of religious family, my parents got married in a conservative shul and got more Frum over the years. At the beginning we kept Kosher at home (but still ate out at non kosher restaurants) and a very liberal form of Shabbos in which we drove to an orthodox shul and then proceeded to hide our keys so our pockets would be empty. Toward the end of my childhood my mom wore a sheitl and we walked to shul. I attended orthodox day school until about 6th grade and then went to public school, taking the bus to study Gemara with my Rav after school most days until I was 16. My father is a scientist and never really had much faith in Judaism and I think mostly kept up whatever he did (Kiddush on Friday nights, davening, etc) for my mother’s sake. No one was surprised when I went off the derech at 16. I didn’t really think much about Judaism while I was otd, I didn’t have such a severe upbringing as many of you, and I certainly never believed anything about Gehenom or H”S punishing me for being OTD, so I mostly remembered Judaism as a nice way to grow up and a cool culture to belong to. Years passed in which I literally didn’t notice that Yom Kippur had come or gone. At some point I met and fell in love with a non-Jewish woman. As soon as our first child was born I started to have very deep feelings about Judaism. I started davening Shachris every day, not really knowing why. After a few years I was basically all in, I separated (amicably) from my non Jewish partner (too complicated to get into here but Judaism was not the main cause), I was seeing Hashkachah Pratis in everything, keeping Kosher, Shabbos, wearing Tzitzis, etc. Recently I started looking into my Yichus to prepare myself for the shidduch world and what do I discover? My mother converted with a conservative Beis Din and never told anyone! My whole tower of belief and logic and meaning starts crumbling around me. It begins with deep depression and hopelessness. If I hold with OJ, I am not a Jew; if I hold with the JTS then I am a Jew but I can also drive on Shabbos which is totally against Torah in my current way of thinking. Ok, I tell myself, I’ll just convert, lot’s of Baal Teshuvahs have converted for this very reason! But wait, do I actually believe in this religion? I got into Judaism because I loved it, certainly no one was breathing down my neck. I like the daily structure and practice, but do I actually believe in Torah MiSinai? I like Shabbos and I can do Kashrus, But given the opportunity not to be liable for Malkos because I traveled beyond the Techum limit on Shabbos or what have you...that is an interesting opportunity indeed. And what about all of my deeply held secular beliefs about feminism, LGBTQ rights, goyishe neshamos, eretz etc. which are all very difficult to maintain in the face of OJ? I know you’re thinking, “who cares?!” But seeing as I really would like to be part of OJ I think the really interesting question here is, is there room in Orthodoxy for people who love it deeply but don’t believe that every word is divinely inspired? It seems to me that a lot of people here started really distancing themselves when they realized that Torah was man made. But what about those of you who actually just love Halacha? Am I alone in thinking there is a way to connect to Judaism as a path rather than a faith? When I and everyone else thought I was a Jew there was PLENTY of room for this. Aish and Chabad and all sorts of Kollels love talking to OTD Jews basically telling them to fake it til you make it, helping to minimize the cognitive dissonances with the ultimate goal of bringing them closer to the fold. But a ger? Will I even be allowed to convert if I am honest about my lack of faith? I’m not asking you to answer these questions as much as I am just sharing them because they are fascinating to me. I suppose I will find out once I begin the giyyur process, or I will remain blissfully ignorant if I just quietly walk away and become a goy...
submitted by majorcrossroad to exjew [link] [comments]


2019.01.05 12:57 Regnes 9 years ago I was bored and became inspired by Half Life: Full Life Consequences to write something just absurdly bad. This is what resulted.

From IGN in early 2010
https://www.ign.com/boards/threads/i-wrot-fanfic.190534841/

Naruto was kill people in sage mod, sasuke was their and dead and sakura was naked.
I am six hokage now scremed naruto as she usd a rasingun on a tree becase it was lowd and looked cool.
Naruto you look awsom becase the tree is bloewed up from your rasingun. I want you sex know sakura whispered becase she was naked and sexy.
But wat abot saske???? Naruto qestond. I thot Sasuke was yo sex partner. Sasuk was dead sarkura replid becase ukill him with rasingun.
I didn’t want ot kill hm but than he died sad natuto his penis big now. I am a msn an i wil plesur yor body.
I don think so yaled kisame who wa wating whoel thing. Im uzanaki narut and iv e destroy you beefor you sad thwt naruto yaled to kisame at top of lun.
Kisame transformed in jint fish and tryed to eat naruto. Naruto doged an jumpd over kisam e and said RASINGUN!!!!!!! And kisame died again from th rasingun. Skura was get hot wachin and used franch kis on nartuo and naruto has sharkingen eyes noiw.
The sharingen loked lik oter sharingen axept it blwoed wind frum his eyes wich was coool. I lik way sarkura loooks naked and not war cloths and skura agred whil naked.
Next naruto tok sakrura and tok her to madras to kill him. You hav cased to much troble mardrara! I woll kil you an sav nij a world becase im 6 hokag an i hav rasingun and shergen wich si coool. Narturo blod wind frim his eyes and trid to stab madnrara with masiv rasingun.
But madnra waped away an nratuto missd. You are a cowerd madrana naruto sad whil pissed. Sudunly naruto was a kubi becase he was angry.
No natrutio yaled sakrura you mist shut down yor evil cakra. Yes narut decided and he shit down kubis cakra.
Madara was empresed and got sereos and used his sharengen to destroy naruto but skura jumped in fron. Mardra was saw her boobs and forgot kill naruto. Naruto sad HAAA HA!!!!!!! And stabed him with seven rasinguns. One from each hands, from feets, from mouth and too from eyes.
Madrara was dead becase naruto stabed him and narut sad you ar dead madra becase i stabed you with my rasingun, and mardrara was dead.
Naruto tok sakura home to konagahur and had sex wit her for days. He lovd it becase she was naked and not wearin cloths.
He likd it so moch that as hojage he mad law tht hot gorls must hav sex with him naked all time and he bred a armee of giant robots becas he wanted too.
submitted by Regnes to Naruto [link] [comments]


2018.08.15 22:56 kidxer Iraq: how traitorous dual citizenship Israel-firsters, America second in the US sway the country toward pursuing Israeli strategic interests as opposed to American ones

Testament to how subverted and compromised the 'anti-war' Left is in the US is the 'no wars for oil!' slogan that was born after the US invaded Iraq in 2003. Easy to assume, after all, is the apparent fact that the only reason the US would invade a Middle Eastern state would be to get its oil. That's apparently all the Middle Eastern states have and the string of other factors that went into shaping the conditions for a US invasion of Iraq goes completely ignored. History can't be ignored, whether it's from yesterday or a decade ago. That this is all information available in the public domain just makes it even worse.
Just a short dismissal of the 'war for oil' explanation, although it'll become apparent enough gradually in the course of the post; China was the main benefactor of the boom in Iraqi oil-production following the US invasion with former Bush administration Defense Department (DoD) official Michael Makovsky saying that US ships and other security measures had ended up merely protecting China's access to the Iraqi oil. The US didn't invade Iraq to ban others from getting its oil and Iraqi oil continued to be sold on the world market just as countries like Iraq and Iran would gladly have done if not for sanctions. Iraq, during its years under the horrid and criminal sanctions imposed on it during the 90s up till 2002, had already been doling out its oil on the international market in exchange for pitiful amounts of food aid as part of the UN's Oil for Food Programme. 576 000 children would starve to death during the course of this programme, and Iraq would continue to be preyed upon for its oil. Pretty good deal right there, and no need for an expensive invasion and ensuing quagmire whereby an anti-Iranian Arab dictator with a history of literally working with the US (Iran-Iraq War) is removed and pro-Iranian anti-Saddam elements empowered. So who wanted Saddam gone?
The answer lies in Israel, and the workings and profiles of the Bush administration DoD post-2001 with regard to Iraq highlight very well that a certain section of the US govermment and media spectrum was working relentlessly to secure what had been a decades-old Israeli Likud policy of destabilizing Iraq and removing a major military adversary of Iraql.
From page 15 onwards in this rather large FBI document obtained by irmep.org's Grant F Smith (it's not secret information that required an FOIA lawsuit but it's a massive document and I like using it) is the full, in-depth description of how the neoconservatives - a mostly Jewish clique of former Communist turned right-wing Republican war hawks and ardent Zionists - rose to prominent positions in the DoD in larger numbers than ever before and produced the false intel on Iraqi chemical weapons, ties to Al Qaeda and so on to give us the eventual 2003 Iraq War. Characteristic of their methods involved setting up new intel-gathering offices to cherry-pick rumours from personally picked out sources (like the famous Iraqi exile and neocon affiliate Ahmed Chalabi who'd later turn into an Iranian spy) and ensure they found the ear of the president himself via their neocon comrades in the White House as well as in the State Department. The 'mobile chemical weapons labs under Saddam's palace', the 'yellowcake uranium purchased by Iraq from Niger' (falsified document complete with the forged signature of a retired Nigerian foreign ministry official) and similar myths came not from the traditional intelligence community in the DoD comprising the CIA and other agencies, but from the Office of Special Plans and similar other fraudulent intelligence-gathering offices prime neocons in the DoD set up. In fact, the purging of non-neocon, regular career officials from the DoD and ignoring of the CIA was a prime tactic used by the neocons, of which the most notorious were probably Paul Wolfowitz (deputy Secretary of Defense) and Douglas Feith (Undersecretary of Defense for policy) who set up the new offices in pre-existing sections of the DoD and began bringing in fellow neocon affiliates and Israel-enthusiasts like David Wurmser and William J Luti to run their fraudulent intel-gathering units.
Saddam Hussein and Iraq, while it's become clear by now remaining a potential partner for the US and highly leverage-able state given the immense damage it took during the 80s and 90s to its infrastructure, economy and society, were Israeli targets since the mid-1970s and had been continuously attacked by Zionist-centric media outlets, think tanks, lobbyists and activists throughout that period who'd go on and form the neocon clique.
Just to demonstrate that Zionism and close ties to Israel's government and strategic circles were the defining aspect of this mostly-Jewish clique of neoconservatives, a little background info is in order. That their oft-repeated claims of Israeli and US security objectives being joint at the hip are cover for their status as de facto foreign agents and that they push for strategic, geopolitical policies of a purely Israeli origin shall be established as a point of secondary importance throughout this.
A LITTLE LOOK AT HISTORY AND THE NEOCON ROLE IN IT:
Paul Wolfowitz, one of the best known and most experienced neocons, has family in Israel and is well acquainted with Israeli government officials as being one of the best-known figures of the 'Jewish right-wing', as Haaretz puts it. This seems to be a common feature among neoconservatives and he himself offers a fine example of an industrious career as one. He's also known as one of the main architects of the Iraq War. Of immense significance, however, is also his acting as a de-facto representative for Israeli strategic interests whilst he worked in the US government even prior to his stint under Bush Jr. Secret memos like this highlighted the Israeli perspective in the Iran Contra Affair and this as an example. Seeking 'approval' for Israel to act as a third-party supplier of weapons to Iran to use against Iraq (which the US was openly backing during the war) were the work of Wolfowitz and other neocons despite the outrage the American public would've had were it been made public at the time that the country that'd taken hostage Americans at the Tehran US Embassy for more than a year was being given arms in exchange for its release of those hostages. The Israeli interest in all of this was facilitated by key neocons like Wolfowitz in the DoD in the Reagan administration who cared more about what the violent, fascistic Menachim Begin of Israel wanted to achieve by inserting Israel into the Iran-Iraq-US mess. That this would break out into a huge scandal toward the mid 1980s showed it was a specific, Zionist, neocon faction of the US government which followed Israeli goals even when they interfered directly with the official US policy which carefully took into account things Israel didn't care all that much about. From 'The US-Israel-Iran Triangle's Tangled History' by the late and great Robert Parry, who first broke the story of the entire Contras Affair (involving more than just Iran but the Nicaraguan part isn't that heavily linked to Iraq so I'll leave it out, I already need to make a turn back to Iraq-centric stuff here):
Determined to help Iran counter Iraq and hopeful about rebuilding at least covert ties to Tehran, Begin’s government cleared the first small shipments of U.S. military supplies to Iran in spring 1980, including 300 tires for Iran’s U.S.-manufactured jet fighters. Soon, Carter learned about the covert shipments and lodged an angry complaint.
Risking pissing off the White House and other government institutions to facilitate Menachem Begin of Israel. Unsurprising, considering Wolfowitz was a neocon and basically an Israeli agent following an anti-Saddam line as opposed to the anti-Iran line that the US government had on the surface.
Begin also was upset at Carter’s perceived failure to protect the Shah of Iran, who had been an Israeli strategic ally. Begin was worried, too, about the growing influence of Saddam Hussein’s Iraq as it massed troops along the Iranian border
More neoconservative pro Israel hawks in the US that the Israelis continued using as their entrypoint into manipulating US policy actively included Robert McFarlane and Michael Ledeen.
According to this analysis, Labor’s desire to open its own arms channel to Iran laid the groundwork for the Iran-Contra scandal, as the government of Prime Minister Shimon Peres tapped into the emerging neoconservative network inside the Reagan administration on one hand and began making his own contacts to Iran’s leadership on the other. Reagan’s National Security Adviser Robert McFarlane, who had close ties to the Israeli leadership, collaborated with Peres’s aide Amiram Nir and with neocon intellectual (and National Security Council consultant) Michael Ledeen in spring 1985 to make contact with the Iranians.
Begin (followed by Peres), being like most Israeli leaders geared toward seeking hegemony, expansion and considering even returning territory annexed through wars of aggression from other countries to be 'bending over', wanted basically to neutralize Iraq as Iraq under Saddam had been an Arab nationalist state. Whatever his flaws, and he had many moral flaws, Saddam was anti-Israel while being 'pragmatic' and fairly multipolar vis-a-vis his relations with the US and its rival the USSR. Which meant, to a neocon like Wolfowitz, that Israel had to be given first priority and thus Saddam removed. The Peres government didn't particularly care for America's views on Iran, either.
Wolfowitz and his fellow neocons also vehemently condemned George HW Bush's refusal to actually take out Saddam Hussein himself when the US attacked Iraq following a huge media circus arranged by Tom Lantos when he orchestrated the now-famous Fake Nayirah Testimony which claimed Iraqi crimes against humanity in Kuwait. Tom Lantos, a Congressman who the Sibel Edmonds testimony revealed to be a spy for Israel alongwith Wolfowitz in the late 90s/early 2000s, was an enthusiastic Zionist and had obvious interest in railroading the US into War in Iraq. The neocons let their frustrations at Bush not having taken Baghdad and removed Saddam be known in a famous 1998 document called Project for the New American Century.
As information about PNAC made its way slowly into the mainstream media, ABC Nightline’s Ted Koppel could no longer avoid it. On March 5th, he told his audience, that “Back in 1997, a group of Washington heavyweights, almost all of them neo-conservatives, formed an organization called the Project for the New American Century. In an article titled 'A War for Israel' written by former photographer-journalist Jeff Blankfort (famous as the only man to sue the ADL and win, in a case where they spied on him decades ago):
Then in September of 2002, during the buildup to the invasion, the Glasgow Sunday Herald reported that it had discovered “A secret blueprint for U.S. global domination [which] reveals that President Bush and his cabinet were planning a premeditated attack on Iraq to secure regime change even before he took power in January 2001.”75 What it was describing was the Project for a New American Century (PNAC), and it even had a web site which spelled out its plans until they were subsequently removed. That it was discovered by a Scottish newspaper was another telling commentary on the state of American journalism.
Founded in June of 1997, following the Clean Break by a year, part of PNAC’s plan was for the U.S. to take control of the Gulf region with overwhelming and deadly military force. “While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification,” the PNAC document explains, ”the need for a substantial American force-presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein.” (My emphasis) 76
Continuing:
As information about PNAC made its way slowly into the mainstream media, ABC Nightline’s Ted Koppel could no longer avoid it. On March 5th, he told his audience, that “Back in 1997, a group of Washington heavyweights, almost all of them neo-conservatives, formed an organization called the Project for the New American Century. They did what former government officials and politicians frequently do when they’re out of power, they began formulating a strategy, in this case, a foreign policy strategy, that might bring influence to bear on the administration then in power, headed by President Clinton. Or failing that, on a new administration that might someday come to power. They were pushing for the elimination of Saddam Hussein. And proposing the establishment of a strong U.S. military presence in the Persian Gulf, linked to a willingness to use force to protect vital American interests in the Gulf. All of that might be of purely academic interest were it not for the fact that among the men behind that campaign were such names as, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and Paul Wolfowitz. What was, back in 1997, merely a theory, is now, in 2003, U.S. policy. Hardly a conspiracy, the proposal was out there for anyone to see. But certainly an interesting case study of how columnists, commentators, and think-tank intellectuals can, with time and the election of a sympathetic president, change the course of American foreign policy.“(My emphasis) There was something different about this operation, however. Politicians out of power may plot how to return to power, but this group was more than that. It had been organized and was largely being run by the Jewish neo-cons whose activities we have been following, plus neo-con journalists and neo-con think-tank members with a long history of connections to the Israeli right wing and whose faces and opinions dominate the TV screens when issues of U.S foreign policy are under discussion. And as indicated above, it had the support of the leading American-Jewish lobbying organizations.
Heading up PNAC was William Kristol, editor of the Weekly Standard, the leading journal of the neo-cons, and Robert Kagan, a columnist for the magazine as well as for the Washington Post, whose columns in the Post and whose joint columns with Kristol in the Weekly Standard have maintained a steady drumbeat for Washington to send more U.S. troops to Iraq and keep to its original unilateralist position.
William (Bill) and father Irving Kristol are among the most well-known neocon Jews who'd been advocating the Israeli policy of removing Saddam for decades. The Weekly Standard had a policy of corroborating every lie about Iraq that began pouring out of the neocons' mouths during the lead-up to the invasion and spread out like wildfire by voices such as them and Judith Miller, herself closely affiliated to the neocons in government at the time.
In February of 1998, PNAC wanted to let President Clinton and the American public know its position on Iraq... Heading the list of over 40 signatures were its authors, Stephen Solarz and Perle, with the rest, beginning with Elliot Abrams, following alphabetically. Among the others were both Feith, and Wurmser, who at the time was heading the Middle East desk at the American Enterprise Institute. It included most of the board of JINSA and Wolfowitz, as well as soon-to-be Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, who must have become aware of the direction in which the center of power was moving and what opportunities it would provide.
Pretty blatant now, isn't it? Regarding the close collaboration between the media and the Bush administration neocons for propagating their idea that Iraq needed to be invaded, the closeness of media war-on-Iraq enthusiast Judith Miller to Vice President Cheney's Chief of Staff at the White House, 'Scooter' Libby, a neocon and Wolfowitz disciple, is a good example. Judith Miller had been complicit in trying to help cover up for Libby after he and a 'coterie of White House officials' leaked to the press the identity of a CIA cover agent, Valerie Plame, in revenge for her sending her husband to Niger to investigate the aforementioned 'yellowcake uranium from Niger bought by Iraq' propaganda. Yeah, the same one that appeared during Bush's 2002 State of the Union address that was written by David Frum, another neocon Zionist. He did just say 'from Africa' instead of 'Niger' though; too dumb to remember the name of the African country I guess.
Miller had made a career out of blaming everything on Iraq, including the Oklahoma City Bombing and the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. As for her friend Libby, had served as an attorney for near two decades for the MOSSAD-linked billionaire Marc Rich who had close ties to the Israelis and was recently pardoned by President Donald Trump after several years of the Plame affair.
So there's an idea of how this Zionist neocon network worked in railroading the US media, the US government, the US military and the American public into a war against Iraq. I've left out the anthrax letters part since I've not a firm grasp of that particular set of operations but suffice to say, having their cronies in the media to peddle their lies for the sake of a war the traditional intelligence officials, many military persons and the various career officials they purged in the DoD had no enthusiasm for, certainly was a blessing.
Putting into the proper Israeli perspective the demands PNAC made requires a look into the Israelis' own way of thinking, especially the Likud, vis-a-vis regional strategy. In 1982, famous Israeli whistleblower-turned-activist-and-author Israel Shahak leaked to the world press a translated form of a document titled 'A Strategy for Israel in the Nineteen Eighties' by Likud strategist and advisor to Ariel Sharon, Oded Yinon. Originally existing only in Hebrew, it appraised in detail the various faultlines present within the much-divided Arab world and how Israel was in a strong position to exploit those faultlines and secure hegemony via the break-up or balkanization of surrounding states into smaller, weaker ones. Keeping things to Iraq, it advocated its splitting up into Kurdistan, Sunni-dominated areas and Shia-dominated areas and suggested bringing down Iraq would remove a major obstacle to then curbing further potential threats. The connection to the neoconservative movement, which as we've discussed at this stage was busy in fulfilling strategic demands from the Israelis vis-a-vis Iraq and Iran (Israel briefly wished to try and see if it could influence the Iranians and not just ship weapons to them as part of the latter's deal with the neocon-Republican-CIA axis to release hostages in favour for the arms), was also noted by Shahak.
PNAC's already been described, and while the original document seems to have recently gone off the internet, much has been written about it such as the Blankfort article I listed above. It contained the broad geostrategic outlines of what the Oded Yinon paper had suggested, except with a lot more lip-service to US security and in more vague terms considering there wasn't a Communist boogeyman around in 1998 to harp on about.
However, in 1996, a group of the neocons which included Richard Perle (served in the DoD during Reagan and Bush Jr administrations, was part of the Tom Lantos and Wolfowitz spying affair where they used AIPAC as a conduit to sell information from Congressional hearings to Israel and major neocon) and Douglas Feith as well as David Wurmser and his wife Meyrav wrote a 6-page policy document for Benjamin Netanyahu who'd been newly elected as Israel's Likud PM. It regurgitated the same regional strategy vis-a-vis Iraq although paying more attention to Iran as a rising threat given the success of its religious partner Hezbollah (today a major force in anti ISIS operations and victor in the 2006 War against Israel) in attacking Israeli troops occupying Lebanon since 1982. The basic Likud approach since then has been to trash the idea of 'negotiations', angrily tear-up the memories of the Oslo 'Peace Process' (it was a bare-faced surrender and treachery by the PLO under Yasser Arafat and his crony Abu Mazen, i.e Mahmoud Abbas, whereby they sold off Palestinian land snatched via war by Israel in exchange for no concessions from Israel itself, even preventing Palestinian lawyers from viewing the terms of the deal being inked). Just like Begin considering returning the Sinai to Egypt as too 'soft', Netanyahu and the Likud have similarly been advocates of an aggressive Israel on all fronts; settlements, no Two State Solution (well this is obvious by now considering the proposed geography for a 2SS is impossible thanks to settlements) and aggression toward neighbouring states. Iraq was yet again slated for regime-change and policy guidelines for enhancing Israel's influence over US Congress (a remarkable success, given that the Congress is basically AIPAC's puppet now) and the US media (via think tanks etc such as FDD/AEI/JINSA/WINEP, all staffed with neocons or individuals close to Israel with a history of promoting myths about the countries its hyper-aggressive strategic paradigm as deemed targets since the 1980s). So basically, in geostrategic terms, just re-hashed Oded Yinon stuff.
Israel's own actions also by and large compliment the policy advocacy contained in these documents over the decades. Destabilize and break up rival states so as to achieve greater Israeli dominance in the region. Hasn't really worked if one thinks about the actual objectives, but it has caused immense damage throughout the region and a lot of suffering. The US makes enemies and spends immense amounts of US taxpayer dollars in fighting wars it wouldn't be in had it not been for Israel via the neocons and the Lobby.
Oil and pipeline politics are, quite obviously, real (think Mossadeq coup in 1953 and gas politics between Europe, the US and Russia) but they featured nowhere in the build-up to the Iraq War. It was all taken forward by the neocons, mostly Jews who had an affinity for Israel.
Palestine is quite obviously a micro-concern. It's a bunch of powerless people the Israelis murder now and then. Discourse on Israel has to be aimed at the workings of its fifth column in the USA and the Jewish Lobby there which pushes Israeli interests that are harmful to everyone but Israel. The USA went to war with Iraq because of Israel's strategic depth inside of its administration and media, not the latest kid shot in the head in Gaza.
stuckinavim I honestly hope I organized this information as well as I could. I had to leave out Syria/Lebanon/Iran stuff as much as I could and focus on Iraq and there's still probably tidbits left out in the post itself yet which will probably be contained in the various articles, documents etc I linked.
So tl;dr Israel's strategic approach to things is to break up its neighbouring states and make them weak and pliable, installing pro-Israel governments there much of the times. It may well be changed in the coming days given that, for a number of reasons, this plan has been met with failure due to the efforts of various foreign actors, but it's worth following this stuff in detail.
submitted by kidxer to worldpolitics [link] [comments]


2018.08.15 13:46 Baliq2018 Iraq: how Israel-firsters in the US sway the country toward pursuing Israeli strategic interests as opposed to American ones

Testament to how subverted and compromised the 'anti-war' Left is in the US is the 'no wars for oil!' slogan that was born after the US invaded Iraq in 2003. Easy to assume, after all, is the apparent fact that the only reason the US would invade a Middle Eastern state would be to get its oil. That's apparently all the Middle Eastern states have and the string of other factors that went into shaping the conditions for a US invasion of Iraq goes completely ignored. History can't be ignored, whether it's from yesterday or a decade ago. That this is all information available in the public domain just makes it even worse.
Just a short dismissal of the 'war for oil' explanation, although it'll become apparent enough gradually in the course of the post; China was the main benefactor of the boom in Iraqi oil-production following the US invasion with former Bush administration Defense Department (DoD) official Michael Makovsky saying that US ships and other security measures had ended up merely protecting China's access to the Iraqi oil. The US didn't invade Iraq to ban others from getting its oil and Iraqi oil continued to be sold on the world market just as countries like Iraq and Iran would gladly have done if not for sanctions. Iraq, during its years under the horrid and criminal sanctions imposed on it during the 90s up till 2002, had already been doling out its oil on the international market in exchange for pitiful amounts of food aid as part of the UN's Oil for Food Programme. 576 000 children would starve to death during the course of this programme, and Iraq would continue to be preyed upon for its oil. Pretty good deal right there, and no need for an expensive invasion and ensuing quagmire whereby an anti-Iranian Arab dictator with a history of literally working with the US (Iran-Iraq War) is removed and pro-Iranian anti-Saddam elements empowered. So who wanted Saddam gone?
The answer lies in Israel, and the workings and profiles of the Bush administration DoD post-2001 with regard to Iraq highlight very well that a certain section of the US govermment and media spectrum was working relentlessly to secure what had been a decades-old Israeli Likud policy of destabilizing Iraq and removing a major military adversary of Iraql.
From page 15 onwards in this rather large FBI document obtained by irmep.org's Grant F Smith (it's not secret information that required an FOIA lawsuit but it's a massive document and I like using it) is the full, in-depth description of how the neoconservatives - a mostly Jewish clique of former Communist turned right-wing Republican war hawks and ardent Zionists - rose to prominent positions in the DoD in larger numbers than ever before and produced the false intel on Iraqi chemical weapons, ties to Al Qaeda and so on to give us the eventual 2003 Iraq War. Characteristic of their methods involved setting up new intel-gathering offices to cherry-pick rumours from personally picked out sources (like the famous Iraqi exile and neocon affiliate Ahmed Chalabi who'd later turn into an Iranian spy) and ensure they found the ear of the president himself via their neocon comrades in the White House as well as in the State Department. The 'mobile chemical weapons labs under Saddam's palace', the 'yellowcake uranium purchased by Iraq from Niger' (falsified document complete with the forged signature of a retired Nigerian foreign ministry official) and similar myths came not from the traditional intelligence community in the DoD comprising the CIA and other agencies, but from the Office of Special Plans and similar other fraudulent intelligence-gathering offices prime neocons in the DoD set up. In fact, the purging of non-neocon, regular career officials from the DoD and ignoring of the CIA was a prime tactic used by the neocons, of which the most notorious were probably Paul Wolfowitz (deputy Secretary of Defense) and Douglas Feith (Undersecretary of Defense for policy) who set up the new offices in pre-existing sections of the DoD and began bringing in fellow neocon affiliates and Israel-enthusiasts like David Wurmser and William J Luti to run their fraudulent intel-gathering units.
Saddam Hussein and Iraq, while it's become clear by now remaining a potential partner for the US and highly leverage-able state given the immense damage it took during the 80s and 90s to its infrastructure, economy and society, were Israeli targets since the mid-1970s and had been continuously attacked by Zionist-centric media outlets, think tanks, lobbyists and activists throughout that period who'd go on and form the neocon clique.
Just to demonstrate that Zionism and close ties to Israel's government and strategic circles were the defining aspect of this mostly-Jewish clique of neoconservatives, a little background info is in order. That their oft-repeated claims of Israeli and US security objectives being joint at the hip are cover for their status as de facto foreign agents and that they push for strategic, geopolitical policies of a purely Israeli origin shall be established as a point of secondary importance throughout this.
A LITTLE LOOK AT HISTORY AND THE NEOCON ROLE IN IT:
Paul Wolfowitz, one of the best known and most experienced neocons, has family in Israel and is well acquainted with Israeli government officials as being one of the best-known figures of the 'Jewish right-wing', as Haaretz puts it. This seems to be a common feature among neoconservatives and he himself offers a fine example of an industrious career as one. He's also known as one of the main architects of the Iraq War. Of immense significance, however, is also his acting as a de-facto representative for Israeli strategic interests whilst he worked in the US government even prior to his stint under Bush Jr. Secret memos like this highlighted the Israeli perspective in the Iran Contra Affair and this as an example. Seeking 'approval' for Israel to act as a third-party supplier of weapons to Iran to use against Iraq (which the US was openly backing during the war) were the work of Wolfowitz and other neocons despite the outrage the American public would've had were it been made public at the time that the country that'd taken hostage Americans at the Tehran US Embassy for more than a year was being given arms in exchange for its release of those hostages. The Israeli interest in all of this was facilitated by key neocons like Wolfowitz in the DoD in the Reagan administration who cared more about what the violent, fascistic Menachim Begin of Israel wanted to achieve by inserting Israel into the Iran-Iraq-US mess. That this would break out into a huge scandal toward the mid 1980s showed it was a specific, Zionist, neocon faction of the US government which followed Israeli goals even when they interfered directly with the official US policy which carefully took into account things Israel didn't care all that much about. From 'The US-Israel-Iran Triangle's Tangled History' by the late and great Robert Parry, who first broke the story of the entire Contras Affair (involving more than just Iran but the Nicaraguan part isn't that heavily linked to Iraq so I'll leave it out, I already need to make a turn back to Iraq-centric stuff here):
Determined to help Iran counter Iraq and hopeful about rebuilding at least covert ties to Tehran, Begin’s government cleared the first small shipments of U.S. military supplies to Iran in spring 1980, including 300 tires for Iran’s U.S.-manufactured jet fighters. Soon, Carter learned about the covert shipments and lodged an angry complaint.
Risking pissing off the White House and other government institutions to facilitate Menachem Begin of Israel. Unsurprising, considering Wolfowitz was a neocon and basically an Israeli agent following an anti-Saddam line as opposed to the anti-Iran line that the US government had on the surface.
Begin also was upset at Carter’s perceived failure to protect the Shah of Iran, who had been an Israeli strategic ally. Begin was worried, too, about the growing influence of Saddam Hussein’s Iraq as it massed troops along the Iranian border
More neoconservative pro Israel hawks in the US that the Israelis continued using as their entrypoint into manipulating US policy actively included Robert McFarlane and Michael Ledeen.
According to this analysis, Labor’s desire to open its own arms channel to Iran laid the groundwork for the Iran-Contra scandal, as the government of Prime Minister Shimon Peres tapped into the emerging neoconservative network inside the Reagan administration on one hand and began making his own contacts to Iran’s leadership on the other. Reagan’s National Security Adviser Robert McFarlane, who had close ties to the Israeli leadership, collaborated with Peres’s aide Amiram Nir and with neocon intellectual (and National Security Council consultant) Michael Ledeen in spring 1985 to make contact with the Iranians.
Begin (followed by Peres), being like most Israeli leaders geared toward seeking hegemony, expansion and considering even returning territory annexed through wars of aggression from other countries to be 'bending over', wanted basically to neutralize Iraq as Iraq under Saddam had been an Arab nationalist state. Whatever his flaws, and he had many moral flaws, Saddam was anti-Israel while being 'pragmatic' and fairly multipolar vis-a-vis his relations with the US and its rival the USSR. Which meant, to a neocon like Wolfowitz, that Israel had to be given first priority and thus Saddam removed. The Peres government didn't particularly care for America's views on Iran, either.
Wolfowitz and his fellow neocons also vehemently condemned George HW Bush's refusal to actually take out Saddam Hussein himself when the US attacked Iraq following a huge media circus arranged by Tom Lantos when he orchestrated the now-famous Fake Nayirah Testimony which claimed Iraqi crimes against humanity in Kuwait. Tom Lantos, a Congressman who the Sibel Edmonds testimony revealed to be a spy for Israel alongwith Wolfowitz in the late 90s/early 2000s, was an enthusiastic Zionist and had obvious interest in railroading the US into War in Iraq. The neocons let their frustrations at Bush not having taken Baghdad and removed Saddam be known in a famous 1998 document called Project for the New American Century.
As information about PNAC made its way slowly into the mainstream media, ABC Nightline’s Ted Koppel could no longer avoid it. On March 5th, he told his audience, that “Back in 1997, a group of Washington heavyweights, almost all of them neo-conservatives, formed an organization called the Project for the New American Century. In an article titled 'A War for Israel' written by former photographer-journalist Jeff Blankfort (famous as the only man to sue the ADL and win, in a case where they spied on him decades ago):
Then in September of 2002, during the buildup to the invasion, the Glasgow Sunday Herald reported that it had discovered “A secret blueprint for U.S. global domination [which] reveals that President Bush and his cabinet were planning a premeditated attack on Iraq to secure regime change even before he took power in January 2001.”75 What it was describing was the Project for a New American Century (PNAC), and it even had a web site which spelled out its plans until they were subsequently removed. That it was discovered by a Scottish newspaper was another telling commentary on the state of American journalism.
Founded in June of 1997, following the Clean Break by a year, part of PNAC’s plan was for the U.S. to take control of the Gulf region with overwhelming and deadly military force. “While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification,” the PNAC document explains, ”the need for a substantial American force-presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein.” (My emphasis) 76
Continuing:
As information about PNAC made its way slowly into the mainstream media, ABC Nightline’s Ted Koppel could no longer avoid it. On March 5th, he told his audience, that “Back in 1997, a group of Washington heavyweights, almost all of them neo-conservatives, formed an organization called the Project for the New American Century. They did what former government officials and politicians frequently do when they’re out of power, they began formulating a strategy, in this case, a foreign policy strategy, that might bring influence to bear on the administration then in power, headed by President Clinton. Or failing that, on a new administration that might someday come to power. They were pushing for the elimination of Saddam Hussein. And proposing the establishment of a strong U.S. military presence in the Persian Gulf, linked to a willingness to use force to protect vital American interests in the Gulf. All of that might be of purely academic interest were it not for the fact that among the men behind that campaign were such names as, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and Paul Wolfowitz. What was, back in 1997, merely a theory, is now, in 2003, U.S. policy. Hardly a conspiracy, the proposal was out there for anyone to see. But certainly an interesting case study of how columnists, commentators, and think-tank intellectuals can, with time and the election of a sympathetic president, change the course of American foreign policy.“(My emphasis) There was something different about this operation, however. Politicians out of power may plot how to return to power, but this group was more than that. It had been organized and was largely being run by the Jewish neo-cons whose activities we have been following, plus neo-con journalists and neo-con think-tank members with a long history of connections to the Israeli right wing and whose faces and opinions dominate the TV screens when issues of U.S foreign policy are under discussion. And as indicated above, it had the support of the leading American-Jewish lobbying organizations.
Heading up PNAC was William Kristol, editor of the Weekly Standard, the leading journal of the neo-cons, and Robert Kagan, a columnist for the magazine as well as for the Washington Post, whose columns in the Post and whose joint columns with Kristol in the Weekly Standard have maintained a steady drumbeat for Washington to send more U.S. troops to Iraq and keep to its original unilateralist position.
William (Bill) and father Irving Kristol are among the most well-known neocon Jews who'd been advocating the Israeli policy of removing Saddam for decades. The Weekly Standard had a policy of corroborating every lie about Iraq that began pouring out of the neocons' mouths during the lead-up to the invasion and spread out like wildfire by voices such as them and Judith Miller, herself closely affiliated to the neocons in government at the time.
In February of 1998, PNAC wanted to let President Clinton and the American public know its position on Iraq... Heading the list of over 40 signatures were its authors, Stephen Solarz and Perle, with the rest, beginning with Elliot Abrams, following alphabetically. Among the others were both Feith, and Wurmser, who at the time was heading the Middle East desk at the American Enterprise Institute. It included most of the board of JINSA and Wolfowitz, as well as soon-to-be Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, who must have become aware of the direction in which the center of power was moving and what opportunities it would provide.
Pretty blatant now, isn't it? Regarding the close collaboration between the media and the Bush administration neocons for propagating their idea that Iraq needed to be invaded, the closeness of media war-on-Iraq enthusiast Judith Miller to Vice President Cheney's Chief of Staff at the White House, 'Scooter' Libby, a neocon and Wolfowitz disciple, is a good example. Judith Miller had been complicit in trying to help cover up for Libby after he and a 'coterie of White House officials' leaked to the press the identity of a CIA cover agent, Valerie Plame, in revenge for her sending her husband to Niger to investigate the aforementioned 'yellowcake uranium from Niger bought by Iraq' propaganda. Yeah, the same one that appeared during Bush's 2002 State of the Union address that was written by David Frum, another neocon Zionist. He did just say 'from Africa' instead of 'Niger' though; too dumb to remember the name of the African country I guess.
Miller had made a career out of blaming everything on Iraq, including the Oklahoma City Bombing and the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. As for her friend Libby, had served as an attorney for near two decades for the MOSSAD-linked billionaire Marc Rich who had close ties to the Israelis and was recently pardoned by President Donald Trump after several years of the Plame affair.
So there's an idea of how this Zionist neocon network worked in railroading the US media, the US government, the US military and the American public into a war against Iraq. I've left out the anthrax letters part since I've not a firm grasp of that particular set of operations but suffice to say, having their cronies in the media to peddle their lies for the sake of a war the traditional intelligence officials, many military persons and the various career officials they purged in the DoD had no enthusiasm for, certainly was a blessing.
Putting into the proper Israeli perspective the demands PNAC made requires a look into the Israelis' own way of thinking, especially the Likud, vis-a-vis regional strategy. In 1982, famous Israeli whistleblower-turned-activist-and-author Israel Shahak leaked to the world press a translated form of a document titled 'A Strategy for Israel in the Nineteen Eighties' by Likud strategist and advisor to Ariel Sharon, Oded Yinon. Originally existing only in Hebrew, it appraised in detail the various faultlines present within the much-divided Arab world and how Israel was in a strong position to exploit those faultlines and secure hegemony via the break-up or balkanization of surrounding states into smaller, weaker ones. Keeping things to Iraq, it advocated its splitting up into Kurdistan, Sunni-dominated areas and Shia-dominated areas and suggested bringing down Iraq would remove a major obstacle to then curbing further potential threats. The connection to the neoconservative movement, which as we've discussed at this stage was busy in fulfilling strategic demands from the Israelis vis-a-vis Iraq and Iran (Israel briefly wished to try and see if it could influence the Iranians and not just ship weapons to them as part of the latter's deal with the neocon-Republican-CIA axis to release hostages in favour for the arms), was also noted by Shahak.
PNAC's already been described, and while the original document seems to have recently gone off the internet, much has been written about it such as the Blankfort article I listed above. It contained the broad geostrategic outlines of what the Oded Yinon paper had suggested, except with a lot more lip-service to US security and in more vague terms considering there wasn't a Communist boogeyman around in 1998 to harp on about.
However, in 1996, a group of the neocons which included Richard Perle (served in the DoD during Reagan and Bush Jr administrations, was part of the Tom Lantos and Wolfowitz spying affair where they used AIPAC as a conduit to sell information from Congressional hearings to Israel and major neocon) and Douglas Feith as well as David Wurmser and his wife Meyrav wrote a 6-page policy document for Benjamin Netanyahu who'd been newly elected as Israel's Likud PM. It regurgitated the same regional strategy vis-a-vis Iraq although paying more attention to Iran as a rising threat given the success of its religious partner Hezbollah (today a major force in anti ISIS operations and victor in the 2006 War against Israel) in attacking Israeli troops occupying Lebanon since 1982. The basic Likud approach since then has been to trash the idea of 'negotiations', angrily tear-up the memories of the Oslo 'Peace Process' (it was a bare-faced surrender and treachery by the PLO under Yasser Arafat and his crony Abu Mazen, i.e Mahmoud Abbas, whereby they sold off Palestinian land snatched via war by Israel in exchange for no concessions from Israel itself, even preventing Palestinian lawyers from viewing the terms of the deal being inked). Just like Begin considering returning the Sinai to Egypt as too 'soft', Netanyahu and the Likud have similarly been advocates of an aggressive Israel on all fronts; settlements, no Two State Solution (well this is obvious by now considering the proposed geography for a 2SS is impossible thanks to settlements) and aggression toward neighbouring states. Iraq was yet again slated for regime-change and policy guidelines for enhancing Israel's influence over US Congress (a remarkable success, given that the Congress is basically AIPAC's puppet now) and the US media (via think tanks etc such as FDD/AEI/JINSA/WINEP, all staffed with neocons or individuals close to Israel with a history of promoting myths about the countries its hyper-aggressive strategic paradigm as deemed targets since the 1980s). So basically, in geostrategic terms, just re-hashed Oded Yinon stuff.
Israel's own actions also by and large compliment the policy advocacy contained in these documents over the decades. Destabilize and break up rival states so as to achieve greater Israeli dominance in the region. Hasn't really worked if one thinks about the actual objectives, but it has caused immense damage throughout the region and a lot of suffering. The US makes enemies and spends immense amounts of US taxpayer dollars in fighting wars it wouldn't be in had it not been for Israel via the neocons and the Lobby.
Oil and pipeline politics are, quite obviously, real (think Mossadeq coup in 1953 and gas politics between Europe, the US and Russia) but they featured nowhere in the build-up to the Iraq War. It was all taken forward by the neocons, mostly Jews who had an affinity for Israel.
Palestine is quite obviously a micro-concern. It's a bunch of powerless people the Israelis murder now and then. Discourse on Israel has to be aimed at the workings of its fifth column in the USA and the Jewish Lobby there which pushes Israeli interests that are harmful to everyone but Israel. The USA went to war with Iraq because of Israel's strategic depth inside of its administration and media, not the latest kid shot in the head in Gaza.
stuckinavim I honestly hope I organized this information as well as I could. I had to leave out Syria/Lebanon/Iran stuff as much as I could and focus on Iraq and there's still probably tidbits left out in the post itself yet which will probably be contained in the various articles, documents etc I linked.
So tl;dr Israel's strategic approach to things is to break up its neighbouring states and make them weak and pliable, installing pro-Israel governments there much of the times. It may well be changed in the coming days given that, for a number of reasons, this plan has been met with failure due to the efforts of various foreign actors, but it's worth following this stuff in detail.
submitted by Baliq2018 to israelexposed [link] [comments]


2018.04.25 19:01 diddykong7 [SUMMARY] Indonesian Defence Procurement 2022

Purchases

Saab

We see the Swedish defence supplier Saab as an excellent partner for the Indonesian National Armed Forces. They have a good history as a reliable supplier of advanced cost effective solutions for militaries around the world with budget restrictions such as ours. We would be interested in a number of large orders from Saab over the next years and establishing a close relationship, similar to that between Saab and Brazil.

Domestic Production

Item Type Quantity Cost (Unit)
Harimau Hitam Medium Tank 30 $3 M
submitted by diddykong7 to GlobalPowers [link] [comments]


2017.09.04 22:26 Lars_Schoonover9 HELP

Plz i am wit mun frum 'merica. I ned Munay 4 ma CSGO shkins 2 mak Prufit on CSGOROLL.COM AFFLILATE CODE: LARSONPC https://steamcommunity.com/tradeoffenew/?partner=404409233&token=dH_XxQBc
submitted by Lars_Schoonover9 to cs_go [link] [comments]


2017.08.05 17:28 feedreddit What’s Worse: Trump’s Campaign Agenda or Empowering Generals and CIA Operatives to Subvert it?

What’s Worse: Trump’s Campaign Agenda or Empowering Generals and CIA Operatives to Subvert it?
by Glenn Greenwald via The Intercept
URL: http://ift.tt/2fgDRyV
During his successful 2016 presidential campaign, Donald Trump, for better and for worse, advocated a slew of policies that attacked the most sacred prongs of long-standing bipartisan Washington consensus. As a result, he was (and continues to be) viewed as uniquely repellent by the neoliberal and neoconservative guardians of that consensus, along with their sprawling network of agencies, think tanks, financial policy organs, and media outlets used to implement their agenda (CIA, NSA, the Brookings/AEI think tank axis, Wall Street, Silicon Valley, etc.).
Whatever else there is to say about Trump, it is simply a fact that the 2016 election saw elite circles in the U.S., with very few exceptions, lining up with remarkable fervor behind his Democratic opponent. Top CIA officials openly declared war on Trump in the nation’s op-ed pages and one of their operatives (now an MSNBC favorite) was tasked with stopping him in Utah, while Time Magazine reported, just a week before the election, that “the banking industry has supported Clinton with buckets of cash . . . . what bankers most like about Clinton is that she is not Donald Trump.”
Hank Paulson, former Goldman Sachs CEO and George W. Bush’s Treasury Secretary, went to the pages of the Washington Post in mid-2016 to shower Clinton with praise and Trump with unbridled scorn, saying what he hated most about Trump was his refusal to consider cuts in entitlement spending (in contrast, presumably, to the Democrat he was endorsing). “It doesn’t surprise me when a socialist such as Bernie Sanders sees no need to fix our entitlement programs,” the former Goldman CEO wrote. “But I find it particularly appalling that Trump, a businessman, tells us he won’t touch Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.” Some of Trump’s advocated assaults on D.C. orthodoxy aligned with long-standing views of at least some left-wing factions (e.g., his professed opposition to regime change war in Syria, Iraq/Libya-style interventions, global free trade deals, entitlement cuts, greater conflict with Russia, and self-destructive pro-Israel fanaticism), while other Trump positions were horrifying to anyone with a plausible claim to leftism, or basic decency (reaffirming torture, expanding GITMO, killing terrorists’ families, launching Islamophobic crusades, fixation on increasing hostility with Tehran, further unleashing federal and local police forces). Ironically, Trump’s principal policy deviation around which elites have now coalesced in opposition – a desire for better relations with Moscow – was the same one that Obama, to their great bipartisan dismay, also adopted (as evidenced by Obama’s refusal to more aggressively confront the Kremlin-backed Syrian government or arm anti-Russian factions in Ukraine).
It is true that Trump, being Trump, was wildly inconsistent in virtually all of these pronouncements, often contradicting or abandoning them weeks after he made them. And, as many of us pointed out at the time, it was foolish to assume that the campaign vows of any politician, let alone an adept con man like Trump, would be a reliable barometer for what he would do once in office. And, as expected, he has betrayed many of these promises within months of being inaugurated, while the very Wall Street interests he railed against have found a very welcoming embrace in the Oval Office.
Nonetheless, Trump, as a matter of rhetoric, repeatedly affirmed policy positions that were directly contrary to long-standing bipartisan orthodoxy, and his policy and personal instability only compounded elites’ fears that he could not be relied upon to safeguard their lucrative, power-vesting agenda. In so many ways – due to his campaign positions, his outsider status, his unstable personality, his witting and unwitting unmasking of the truth of U.S. hegemony, the embarrassment he causes in western capitals, his reckless unpredictability – Trump posed a threat to their power centers.
It is often claimed that this trans-partisan, elite coalition assembled against Trump because they are simply American patriots horrified by the threat he poses to America’s noble traditions and institutions. I guess if you want to believe that the CIA, the GOP consulting class, and assorted D.C. imperialists, along with Bush-era neocons like Bill Kristol and David Frum, woke up one day and developed some sort of earnest, patriotic conscience about democracy, ethics, constitutional limits, and basic decency, you’re free to believe that. It makes for a nice, moving story: a film from the Mr.-Smith-Goes-to-Washington genre. But at the very least, Trump’s campaign assaults on their most sacred pieties was, and remains, a major factor in their seething contempt for him.

From the start of Trump’s presidency, it was clear that the permanent national security power structure in Washington was deeply hostile to his presidency and would do what it could to undermine it. Shortly before Trump was inaugurated, I wrote an article noting that many of the most damaging anti-Trump leaks were emanating from anonymous CIA and other Deep State operatives who despised Trump because the policies he vowed to enact – the ones American voters ratified – were so contrary to their agenda and belief system. Indeed, they were even anonymously boasting that they were withholding secrets from Trump’s briefings because they decided the elected President should not have access to them.
After Trump openly questioned the reliability of the CIA in light of their Iraq War failures, Chuck Schumer went on Rachel Maddow’s show to warn Trump – explicitly – that he would be destroyed if he continued to oppose the intelligence community:
Chuck Schumer on Trump's tweet hitting intel community: "He's being really dumb to do this." https://t.co/MOcU8ruOPK
— Kyle Griffin (@kylegriffin1) January 4, 2017
Although it is now common to assert – as a form of in-the-know mockery – that the notion of a “Deep State” in the U.S. was invented by Trump supporters only in the last year, the reality is that the U.S. Deep State has been reported on and openly discussed in numerous circles long before Trump. In 2010, the Washington Post’s Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative journalist Dana Priest, along with Bill Arkin, published a three-part series which the paper entitled “Top Secret America: A hidden world, growing beyond control.”
The Post series documented that the military-intelligence community “has become so large, so unwieldy and so secretive that no one knows how much money it costs, how many people it employs, how many programs exist within it or exactly how many agencies do the same work.” The Post concluded that it “amounts to an alternative geography of the United States, a Top Secret America hidden from public view and lacking in thorough oversight.” In 2014, mainstream national security journalists Marc Ambinder and D.B. Grady published a book entitled “Deep State: Inside the Government Secrecy Agency,” which documented – in its own words – that “there is a hidden country within the United States,” one “formed from the astonishing number of secrets held by the government and the growing ranks of secret-keepers given charge over them.”
Other journalists, such as Peter Dale Scott and Mike Lofgren have long written about the U.S. Deep State completely independent of Trump. The belief that the “Deep State” was invented by Trump supporters as some recent conspiratorial concoction is based in pure ignorance about national security discourse, or a jingoistic desire to believe that the U.S. (unlike primitive, inferior countries) is immune from such malevolent forces, or both.
Indeed, mainstream liberals in good standing, such as the New Republic’s Jeet Heer, have repeatedly and explicitly speculated about (and, in Heer’s case, warned of) the possibility of Deep State subversion of the White House:
The terrifying thing here is the only people able to stand up to Trump so far are the denizens of the Deep State. Also the Chinese gov't.
— Jeet Heer (@HeerJeet) February 14, 2017
The American Deep State is in open conflict with an incoming president who is twitchy, thin-skinned & paranoid. What could go wrong?
— Jeet Heer (@HeerJeet) January 11, 2017
For me, the most terrifying thing about this political moment is the intervention of the Deep State (against both Clinton & Trump) https://t.co/qBnyH47W6z
— Jeet Heer (@HeerJeet) January 12, 2017
Call it what you will — the National Security Elite, the Deep State, the Blob. It's very pig-headed & knows how to sabotage change.
— Jeet Heer (@HeerJeet) April 17, 2017
To qualify earlier tweet, there's a lot Deep State can do short of a coup: leaking and investigation. That's all to the good.
— Jeet Heer (@HeerJeet) May 12, 2017
That the U.S. has a shadowy, secretive world of intelligence and military operatives who exercise great power outside of elections and democratic accountability is not some exotic, alt-right conspiracy theory; it’s utterly elemental to understanding anything about how Washington works. It’s hard to believe that anyone on this side of a 6th Grade civics class would seek to deny that.

The last several weeks have ushered in more open acknowledgment of – and cheerleading for – a subversion of Trump’s agenda by unelected military and intelligence officials. Media accounts have been almost unanimous in heralding the arrival of retired Marine Gen. John Kelly as White House Chief of Staff (pictured, top photo), widely depicted as a sign that normalcy is returning to the Executive Branch. “John Kelly Quickly Moves to Impose Military Discipline on White House,” the New York Times headline announced.
The current storyline is that Kelly has aligned with Trump’s National Security Advisor, Army Lt. Gen. H.R. McMaster, to bring seriousness and order to the White House. In particular, these two military men are systematically weakening and eliminating many of the White House officials who are true adherents to the domestic and foreign policy worldview on which Trump’s campaign was based. These two military officials (along with yet another retired General, Defense Secretary James Mattis) have long been hailed by anti-Trump factions as the Serious, Responsible Adults in the Trump administration, primarily because they support militaristic policies – such as the war in Afghanistan and intervention in Syria – that is far more in line with official Washington’s bipartisan posture.
As the Atlantic’s Rosie Gray reports, McMaster has successfully fired several national security officials aligned with Steve Bannon and the nationalistic, purportedly non-interventionist foreign policy and anti-Muslim worldview Trump advocated throughout the election. As Gray notes, this has provoked anger among Trump supporters who view the assertion of power by these Generals as an undemocratic attack against the policies for which the electorate voted. Gray writes: “McMaster’s show of force has set off alarm bells among Bannon allies in the pro-Trump media sphere, who favored Flynn and regard the national-security adviser as a globalist interloper.”
In a bizarre yet illuminating reflection of rapidly shifting political alliances, Democratic Party think tanks and other groups have rallied behind McMaster as some sort of besieged, stalwart hero whose survival is critical to the Republic, notwithstanding the fact that, by all accounts, he is fighting to ensure the continuation of the U.S. war in Afghanistan and escalate it in Syria. As usually happens these days, these Democrats are in lockstep with their new neocon partners, led by Bill Kristol, who far prefer the unelected agenda of McMaster and Kelly to the one that Trump used to get elected:
The success or failure of the Bannon/alt-right/Russian assault on McMaster will be a key moment for the Trump Administration–& the country.
— Bill Kristol (@BillKristol) August 4, 2017
It is certainly valid to point out that these Generals didn’t use tanks or any other show of force to barge into the White House; they were invited there by Trump, who appointed them to these positions. And they only have the power that he agrees that they should exercise.
But there’s no denying that Trump is deluged by exactly the kinds of punishments which Schumer warned Trump would be imposed on him if he continued to defy the intelligence community. Many of Trump’s most devoted haters are, notably, GOP consultants; one of the most tenacious of that group, Rick Wilson, celebrated today in the Daily Beast that the threat of prosecution and the tidal waves of harmful leaks has forced Trump into submission. The combination of the “Goldman Boys” and the Generals has taken over, Wilson crows, and is destroying the Bannon-led agenda on which Trump campaigned.
Whatever else is true, there is now simply no question that there is open warfare between adherents to the worldview Trump advocated in order to win, and the permanent national security power faction in Washington that – sometimes for good, and sometimes for evil – despises that agenda. The New Republic’s Brian Beutler described the situation perfectly on Friday:
Where the generals haven’t been empowered to run the show, they have asserted themselves nonetheless. “In the earliest weeks of Trump’s presidency,” the Associated Press reported Tuesday, Mattis and Kelly agreed “that one of them should remain in the United States at all times to keep tabs on the orders rapidly emerging from the White House.”
It would be sensationalizing things to call this a soft coup, but it is impossible to deny that real presidential powers have been diluted or usurped. Elected officials have decided that leaving the functioning of the government to unelected military officers is politically preferable to invoking constitutional remedies that would require them to vote.
Beutler is a full-scale, devoted enemy of Trump’s political agenda, and is clearly glad that something is impeding it. But he also recognizes the serious, enduring dangers to democracy from relying on military officials and intelligence operatives to serve as some sort of backstop, or supreme guardians, of political values and norms.
It’s particularly ironic that many of the same people who have spent the year ridiculing the notion that the U.S. has any kind of Deep State are now trumpeting the need for the U.S. military to save the Republic from the elected government, given that this, roughly speaking, is the defining attribute of all Deep States, at least as they depict themselves.
There have been some solitary Democratic Party voices expressing concern about these developments. Here, for instance, is what Barbara Lee had to say as most of her fellow Democrats were cheering the arrival of Gen. Kelly in the West Wing:
By putting Gen John Kelly in charge, Pres Trump is militarizing the White House & putting our executive branch in the hands of an extremist.
— Rep. Barbara Lee (@RepBarbaraLee) July 28, 2017
But hers was clearly the minority view: the military triumvirate of Kelly, Mattis and McMaster has been cast as the noble defenders of American democracy, pitted against those who were actually elected to lead the government.
No matter how much of a threat one regards Trump as being, there really are other major threats to U.S. democracy and important political values. It’s hard, for instance, to imagine any group that has done more harm, and ushered in more evil, than the Bush-era neocons with whom Democrats are now openly aligning. And who has brought more death, and suffering, and tyranny to the world over the last six decades than the U.S. National Security State?
In terms of some of the popular terms that are often thrown around these days – such as “authoritarianism” and “democratic norms” and “U.S. traditions” – it’s hard to imagine many things that would pose a greater threat to all of that than empowering the National Security State (what, before Trump, has long been called the Deep State) to exert precisely the power that is supposed to be reserved exclusively for elected officials. In sum, Trump opponents should be careful of what they wish for, as it might come true.
The post What’s Worse: Trump’s Campaign Agenda or Empowering Generals and CIA Operatives to Subvert it? appeared first on The Intercept.
submitted by feedreddit to arableaks [link] [comments]


2017.07.06 15:48 twhorrohwt Making friends

I'm a former BT that was mekareved in high school. Went to seminary and started a life in a frum community in my late teens and early 20s. I came from a not so good home so I was never close to my parents and don't have siblings; they're not part of my life. I made good friends in the frum community. That's how they get you hooked lol, that and the food.
I got disillusioned and as I started questioning, most of my friendships fizzled out. The few that were strong and genuine enough not to ended up fizzling after they got married and had kids. Especially since I was in a romantic relationship they wouldn't approve of, so our lives were just too different.
As my relationship grew, I fell in with a crowd who had similar relationships, but those friendships never really took off or were strong because we didn't have much on common besides relationship.
My partner expressed concern that I don't really have a social life or any close friends. I'm ok with that for right now especially because I think we're gonna move in a year. But sometimes I worry about it too.
Idk I just feel dumb and bad for ditching my secular friends when I caught religion, then having a series of friendships based on religion or other stuff instead of genuine connection. And now I'm a working adult and it's much harder to make friends.
Community is important to me and that's part of why I fell for Judaism so easily at first. Now I'm so mad at the Kiruv system and even more at myself for falling for it.
I know it's different if you were born into the frum world than if you weren't, because even though I've missed all the pop culture from roughly the last decade, I still had a solid education and know Disney movies and stuff like that to make relating to people a little easier.
But how do you make friends and find or build community outside of religion? All my adult life has been religious, and this is the one area I keep getting stuck on as I leave.
submitted by twhorrohwt to exjew [link] [comments]


2017.06.25 23:34 ahhhhhjew_labriut Birth moms: I'm interested in your experiences with Judaism and pregnancy/childbirth

I'm interested in Judaism obvi, and since having my first baby I'm pretty interested in talking with women about pregnancy and childbirth.
Did you feel like your jewishness provided a different perspective for your pregnancy/labor? How did your relationship to Torah and/or Hashem impact your pregnancy or birth? Did you feel like being Jewish helped you adjust to being a new mom?
I was really disconnected from davening and learning during my pregnancy, partially because I was pretty sick. But I felt really connected to nature and the world, which I feel are parts of Hashem I already connected with pretty strongly. Definitely having an unmedicated labor (personal choice, zero judgment) made me feel more connected to the generations of Jewish women who birthed in all kinds of crazy circumstances. And I also think that being a part of a frum community and watching what my frum friends did after they gave birth helped me to get up and get out of the house, have people over, etc. which definitely impacted my mood super positively and helped me recover.
Obsevations from the non - gestating partner (or adoptive parents) also welcome.
submitted by ahhhhhjew_labriut to Judaism [link] [comments]


2017.06.15 13:39 feedreddit LATEST on Steve Scalise – TRUMP visits hospital -- Shock on the Hill -- Dems hold off on gun debate -- WAPO: Special counsel investigating obstruction – FOX NEWS drops ‘fair and balanced’ slogan -- B’DAY: Alyssa Farah

LATEST on Steve Scalise – TRUMP visits hospital -- Shock on the Hill -- Dems hold off on gun debate -- WAPO: Special counsel investigating obstruction – FOX NEWS drops ‘fair and balanced’ slogan -- B’DAY: Alyssa Farah
by [email protected] (Daniel Lippman) via POLITICO - TOP Stories
URL: http://ift.tt/2rz62cP
Listen to the Playbook Audio Briefinghttp://bit.ly/2svw2dO ... Subscribe on iTuneshttp://apple.co/2eX6Eay ... Visit the online home of Playbookhttp://politi.co/2f51Jnf
Good Thursday morning. THE LATEST ON STEVE SCALISE -- “Scalise remains in critical condition after mass shooting,” by Louis Nelson, John Bresnahan, and Jake Sherman: “House Majority Whip Steve Scalise is in critical condition in a Washington hospital, and will require additional surgeries after a bullet pierced his hip, injured organs and caused ‘severe bleeding,’ according to a statement Wednesday night. Scalise, a Louisiana Republican, is in MedStar Washington Hospital Center in Northwest D.C., where he has had at least two procedures, and ‘multiple units of blood transfusion,’ the hospital said Wednesday night. Scalise was brought to the hospital in ‘shock,’ the statement said. President Donald Trump and first lady Melania Trump visited the hospital Wednesday night, and brought the Scalise family flowers.” http://politi.co/2ru9BWi
-- @realDonaldTrump at 9:41 p.m.: “Just left hospital. Rep. Steve Scalise, one of the truly great people, is in very tough shape - but he is a real fighter. Pray for Steve!”
STATEMENT FROM MATT MIKA’S FAMILY: “Matt suffered multiple gunshot wounds. He recently came out of surgery but remains in the ICU in critical condition and we expect him to stay there for at least several days. Our family is now here with him and we continue to ask for privacy and understanding while we focus on Matt and his recovery.
“Many have asked about Matt and what we can share about him. While the attack today was a terrible surprise, Matt’s presence on the ball field, helping longtime colleagues and friends was not. He is a very thoughtful, fun-loving person who is competitive and loyal; all things which contributed to his continued commitment to the Congressional Baseball Game.”
-- “Who were the people injured at Wednesday’s baseball practice shooting?,” by Rachael Bade, Theo Meyer, John Lauinger, and Kyle Cheney: http://politi.co/2tppcmG
**SUBSCRIBE to Playbook:http://politi.co/2lQswbh
THE VENEER, SHATTERED. Members of Congress have long thought of Washington as a safe space, of sorts. Sure, they engage in heated rhetoric in the Capitol, waging partisan war from early in the morning until late at night. But their life in Washington is quite sheltered: they exercise in a members-only gym. Many of them sleep in their offices in the Capitol complex. They eat and drink together at partisan social clubs. But we’re hearing a refrain we first heard in 2011, when Gabby Giffords was shot: we’re sitting ducks.
-- FROM USA TODAY’S HEIDI PRZYBYLA: “[L]awmakers including Cedric Richmond, D-La., had expressed fears last week about member safety. Richmond, who chairs the Congressional Black Caucus, raised his concerns directly to House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis.” https://usat.ly/2rjOi5ERichmond is a good friend of Scalise’s, as well.
THE SENSE OF SHOCK in the Capitol -- especially the House -- is extraordinarily palpable. The mood was tense all day, and remained uncertain at night. Several House Republicans were texting us throughout the evening, wondering about the severity of Scalise’s injuries. Lawmakers are extraordinarily shaken. Forget party affiliation: Congress -- and Washington -- is a big saga with a set of predictable characters: lawmakers, aides, lobbyists, reporters. And when one gets hurt, sick, injured -- many realize it could easily be them. And a shooting like this is causing lawmakers and staff to take stock of their own safety. Countless lawmakers we spoke to throughout the day yesterday were rethinking their out-in-front, prominent roles in today’s political scene.
CAPITOL HILL REPORTERS were shaken up, as well. First of all, dozens of reporters work in the Capitol every day. And unlike the White House -- which regularly dumps all over reporters and decries their work product as phony -- lawmakers on the Hill are generally cordial with journalists in the Capitol and respect the job we do. We spend years covering lawmakers up close and oftentimes develop an easy rapport with people like Scalise -- savvy pols who successfully make their way up the leadership ladder. Scalise shows up at off-the-record happy hours for reporters at the annual Republican retreat. His office, like others, throws cocktail receptions to get to become better acquainted with Capitol Hill reporters. That doesn’t mean the relationship isn’t adversarial at times -- it most definitely is. It means building a personal relationship -- getting to know each other as human beings -- is important to both sides. We know Scalise, Paul Ryan, Kevin McCarthy, Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer as politicians, but most of us have had many occasions to talk to them on a personal level, as well.
--“Photos: Following the aftermath of the congressional shooting” -- 43 pixhttp://politi.co/2sdsCd0
PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP is getting bipartisan plaudits so far for his strong speech Wednesday, and his visit to Scalise family in the hospital Wednesday night.
HAPPENING TODAY -- Trump is giving a speech and signing an executive order on apprenticeships. Vice President Mike Pence will be in Miami to give the keynote address at the Conference on Prosperity and Security, a gathering focused on Central American political and security issues.
THE HOUSE is out of session after 4 p.m. today. The Congressional Baseball Game is on. Doors open at 5:30 p.m. and first pitch is set for 7:05 p.m. at Nationals Park. More info and tickets herehttp://atmlb.com/2sCV4aM
--“The Congressional Baseball Game: A History in Pictures: How the most bipartisan event in Washington has changed over time” -- 10 pixhttp://politi.co/2rucdng
THE POLITICS -- “Democrats wary of reviving gun debate too soon,” by Seung Min Kim, Burgess Everett and Heather Caygle: “One year ago, Sen. Chris Murphy sprang into action almost immediately after a gun massacre at an Orlando nightclub - accusing Congress of an ‘unconscionable deafening silence’ and launching a 15-hour filibuster on the Senate floor. But the gun-control advocate who once argued that lawmakers should put forward ‘legislative action within an hour of a shooting’ was more circumspect on Wednesday after a shooting at a congressional baseball practice in the suburbs of Washington. One tragic incident, he acknowledged, won’t move the needle - even one that affected one of their own, House Majority Whip Steve Scalise (R-La.). …
“[T]he tone among even the most ardent proponents of stricter gun laws was dramatically different. In multiple interviews, several Democratic lawmakers urged that no, today was not the day to revive the dormant gun control debate. It was too soon, it hit too close to home - and lawmakers simply didn’t want to stand accused of politicizing a shooting that injured a colleague and friend.” http://politi.co/2t50qZx
-- JONATHAN MARTIN on A18 of the NYT: “Their Own Targeted, G.O.P. Lawmakers Want Looser Gun Laws, Not Stricter Ones.”http://nyti.ms/2s3RtBh
ON THE HOUSE FLOOR TODAY --HOUSE MAJORITY LEADER KEVIN MCCARTHY will “offer a resolution to commend the heroic actions of Capitol Police and other first responders, and recognize everyone affected by this tragic incident."
BEHIND THE SCENES -- FROM KYLE CHENEY, our incredibly versatile House reporter who spent the day in Alexandria reporting on the shooting: “In the course of reporting from Alexandria, I had two eye-opening encounters with witnesses that really gnawed at me during such a harrowing moment. I arrived at the ballpark less than an hour after the shooting and overheard one witness – a man possibly in his mid-20s -- excitedly describing the incident in vivid detail over the phone. It was still a murky situation at that point, so as soon as he hung up, I asked him if he could repeat to me what he had seen.
“The man immediately tensed up and told me that there was no way he’d talk to the media because he can’t stand the press and he thinks we’re all complicit in leaking (of what, I’m not sure). I told him I personally hadn’t ‘leaked’ anything but in fact knew and reported on some of the people on the field that morning – and that his information might help provide some clarity at a critical moment. He still refused. A short while later, while holed up in a coffee shop across from the field, I chatted with a young woman who also witnessed the aftermath. She said she took comfort when she found out the assailant had targeted members of Congress – not because she wished them any harm but because it would’ve been more unnerving, she said, had the violence been random. Both conversations were revealing about some of the sad realities we now live with.
“It’s only fair if I also mention that these encounters were exceptions on a day of many kindnesses. Most witnesses were forthcoming with as much detail as they could muster, and I watched as random passersby delivered Gatorade, iced tea and even a bag full of Chick-fil-A to police on the scene. And the police then shared the spoils with journalists, pedestrians and others baking in the Alexandria sun.”
WAPO SCOOP -- “Special counsel is investigating Trump for possible obstruction of justice, officials say,” by Devlin Barrett, Adam Entous, Ellen Nakashima and Sari Horowitz: “The move by special counsel Robert S. Mueller III to investigate Trump’s conduct marks a major turning point in the nearly year-old FBI investigation, which until recently focused on Russian meddling during the presidential campaign and on whether there was any coordination between the Trump campaign and the Kremlin. Investigators have also been looking for any evidence of possible financial crimes among Trump associates, officials said. …
“Five people briefed on the interview requests, speaking on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the matter publicly, said that Daniel Coats, the current director of national intelligence, Mike Rogers, head of the National Security Agency, and Rogers’s recently departed deputy, Richard Ledgett, agreed to be interviewed by Mueller’s investigators as early as this week. The investigation has been cloaked in secrecy, and it is unclear how many others have been questioned by the FBI. …
“The White House now refers all questions about the Russia investigation to Trump’s personal attorney, Marc Kasowitz. ‘The FBI leak of information regarding the president is outrageous, inexcusable and illegal,’ said Mark Corallo, a spokesman for Kasowitz.” http://wapo.st/2rjkqqo
-- WSJ’s Del Quentin Wilber, Shane Harris and Paul Sonne: “The special counsel also plans to interview Rick Ledgett, who recently retired as the deputy director of the NSA … While Mr. Ledgett was still in office, he wrote a memo documenting a phone call that Mr. Rogers had with Mr. Trump, according to people familiar with the matter. During the call, the president questioned the veracity of the intelligence community’s judgment that Russia had interfered with the election and tried to persuade Mr. Rogers to say there was no evidence of collusion between his campaign and Russian officials.” http://on.wsj.com/2sD4vXP
HUFFPOST and DRUDGE earlier this morning had pretty much the same banner – HuffPo: “BDAY PRESENT FOR PREZ: OBSTRUCTION INQUIRY” ... Drudge: “WASH POST BDAY PRESENT TO TRUMP: MUELLER PROBES OBSTRUCTION”.
CAN’T STOP, WON’T STOP -- “Manafort still doing international work,” by Ken Vogel: “Paul Manafort is at the center of an FBI investigation into ties between President Donald Trump’s team and the Russians, but that hasn’t stopped him from doing business with international figures and companies, partly by claiming continued access to Trump, according to people familiar with his dealings.
“Manafort in recent weeks has either consulted or worked with a Chinese construction billionaire looking to expand his business overseas and a telecommunications firm interested in regulatory approval from governments in Asia and the Middle East, as well as an investment fund claiming links to the Chinese government, according to documents and interviews.
“Manafort quietly consulted on a proposal under which the Chinese fund — the China Development Fund — would invest $30 billion or more in the Puerto Rican government's bond debt and possibly the island's critical infrastructure, according to documents and interviews with four people familiar with the negotiations, including a Manafort business partner.
“One of the people, a lawyer involved in the discussions, said Manafort indicated that he could convince the Trump administration to support any resulting deal, because he’s remained in contact with Trump’s team, and that he played a role in helping to soften Trump's tough campaign rhetoric on China. ‘He’s going around telling people that he’s still talking to the president and -- even more than that -- that he is helping to shape Trump’s foreign policy,’ said the lawyer involved in the discussions.” http://politi.co/2rjtsDO
TARA PALMERI AND KEN VOGEL: “Trump huddled with donors on day of Comey testimony”: “On the same day last week that fired FBI Director James Comey delivered his damaging Senate testimony, President Donald Trump’s team summoned about a dozen top donors to the White House to rally support for Trump’s agenda. The donors -- including Ken Griffin, Doug DeVos, Tom Hicks, Jr., Bekah Mercer, Todd Ricketts, Tom Saunders, Paul Singer and Dick Uihlein -- gathered in the Roosevelt Room on June 8 for a briefing from Trump’s legislative director Marc Short, according to a senior administration official and other people familiar with the event.
“These people said that Trump himself stopped by the briefing to greet the donors, while Vice President Mike Pence, White House Chief of Staff Reince Priebus and presidential counselor Kellyanne Conway also spent time at the event. … A White House spokesperson did not respond to a request for comment on the donor briefing. But a senior administration official said that topics covered during the briefing included healthcare, tax reform, the confirmation of Supreme Court justice Neil Gorsuch, pending judicial nominations, the Paris accord and the Saudi arms sale. ‘[It was a] 'here's what we see as the legislative calendar and how you can be helpful' type of meeting,’ the official said.” http://politi.co/2rtB8HL
COMING ATTRACTIONS -- “Jeh Johnson to testify publicly in House Russia probe,” by Austin Wright: “Former Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson is set to testify publicly next Wednesday before the House Intelligence Committee as part of its investigation into Russia’s election meddling, according to a congressional source. Johnson appeared earlier this week before the Senate Intelligence Committee, but the session was closed.” http://politi.co/2sCSeCE
IMPORTANT READ -- MEGYN KELLY SPEAKS -- NYT'S JIM RUTENBERG: "Megyn Kelly, Alex Jones and a Fine Line Between News and Promotion": "Where’s the line between covering a scoundrel as a news figure and giving him a promotional platform? The question has consumed Megyn Kelly this week, after she showed a trailer Sunday night of her coming feature on NBC about Alex Jones, the conspiracy theorist who has questioned whether the Sandy Hook school massacre truly happened and asserted that Sept. 11 was an inside job....
"'What we do as journalists is we shine a light on those with power, those with influence, those who have become culturally relevant,' she said. 'Of course, it’s upsetting to know that doing that causes any upset to the Newtown families, many of whom I know well. But I have to do my job.'... 'As journalists, we don’t get to interview only the good guys — that’s not journalism,' ... 'It’s going to be very difficult for us to keep an eye on the more controversial figures of our time if we never talk to them.'" https://nyti.ms/2tmhgmj
THE JUICE …
-- HAPPY BIRTHDAY, MR. PRESIDENT: Trump celebrated his 71st birthday with dinner at the White House before going to visit Scalise in the hospital, per a pool report. Eric, Donald Jr., Ivanka and Jared Kushner, their kids and Tiffany were all there.
-- ISAAC DOVERE is reporting that Lambda Legal is opening up a D.C. office and plans to raise an additional $25 million over the next for years in an effort to ratchet up the fight against the Trump administration. Sharon McGowan, who was until January a top attorney in the Justice Department’s civil rights division under President Barack Obama, is running the office. http://politi.co/2sdDcRd
-- SPOTTED: Chris Ruddy, Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.) and Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) having an animated conversation in the lobby of Trump Hotel on Tuesday night.
-- SENATE LEADERSHIP FUND reported dropping $443,104 to boost Sen. Luther Strange’s (R-Ala.) candidacy. … The CHAMBER OF COMMERCE reported $153,491 in spending on behalf of Karen Handel in Georgia.
THE ALLEGED SHOOTER -- “James Hodgkinson’s long descent into rage: ‘Nobody really knew anything about him,’” by Lorraine Woellert, Josh Meyer and Alan Greenblatt: “James T. Hodgkinson lived a seemingly comfortable existence back home. He had a wife, friends and a pool where he hosted parties. How and why his life ended on a blood-soaked field halfway across the nation remains largely a mystery to investigators trying to piece together his life. Anger, plain and simple, seemed to be one driver. A man prone to aggressive outbursts, Hodgkinson had grown increasingly angry at the political order in recent years, lashing out online against President Donald Trump and other Republicans. ...
“Hodgkinson was no stranger to law enforcement. He had a lengthy arrest record and seemed prone to violent fits. Most recently, he had been warned about shooting a high-powered gun in the vicinity of his neighbors’ houses. ... In April 2006, he was arrested on firearms and battery charges after he allegedly punched his girlfriend in the face and pulled a 12-gauge shotgun on a witness, Joel Fernandez, who had attempted to intervene.” http://politi.co/2s4g6Ot
THE BIG PICTURE -- “How an Annual Ballgame Has Kept Congress Civil,” by Ben Strauss for Politico Magazine: “What might seem like just a bunch of middle-aged men reliving their high school glory, has become in recent years a meaningful tribute to the painfully nostalgic notion of old-fashioned bipartisanship in an increasingly divided nation. And so while one baseball team -- this one made up of Republican Congressmen and Senators -- cowered behind fences and trees to save their lives, their ostensible opponents -- a group of Democratic lawmakers -- gathered in a dugout 10 miles away in Northeast Washington. They stood arm in arm, and prayed for their colleagues.” http://politi.co/2sviQpp
-- “Obama reaches out to Sen. Flake after shooting,” by Elana Schor: “Former President Barack Obama reached out to Sen. Jeff Flake Wednesday morning in the wake of the shooting at the GOP’s congressional baseball game practice to extend his ‘best wishes and prayers’ for the victims, the Arizona Republican said.” http://politi.co/2t4QeQM
GARRETT GRAFF in POLITICO Magazine, “How Congress Failed to Plan for Doomsday: What would happen if some crazed gunman or terrorist massacred Congress? We don’t really know—and that’s bad news for our democracy”: “One idea floated was that each member of Congress should designate his or her own list of successors in case of incapacitation—with those successors serving until either the next regular election or the member regained the ability to hold office. Several states, including Delaware and Texas, had passed similar bills during the 1950s and 1960s at the height of the Cold War to reconstitute their state legislatures following a nuclear attack. Two former House speakers, Thomas Foley and Newt Gingrich, endorsed that ‘expeditious path’ to solving the congressional continuity issue and preserving the House’s directly elected ‘legitimacy.’” http://politi.co/2rjrgfy
FOR YOUR RADAR -- “Turkish Guards Will Be Charged in Embassy Protest, Officials Say,” by NYT’s Nick Fandos: “Law enforcement officials plan to announce charges Thursday against a dozen members of the Turkish president’s security detail for their involvement in a brutal attack on protesters outside the Turkish ambassador’s residence here last month, two American officials said on Wednesday. ... The police planned to announce the charges at a news conference on Thursday morning.” http://nyti.ms/2s3N6GE
NOT THE ONION -- “Rodman gives Kim the gift of Trump: ‘The Art of the Deal,’” by AP’s Eric Talmadge in Pyongyang: “Dennis Rodman has delivered a message from President Donald Trump to North Korea -- sort of. On Thursday, the former NBA player gave the country’s sports minister a copy of Trump’s book ‘The Art of the Deal,’ a present intended for North Korean leader Kim Jong Un. It wasn’t signed by Trump, who was Rodman’s boss for two seasons of the ‘Celebrity Apprentice’ reality TV show. Rodman has said his visit has nothing to do with the White House.” http://apne.ws/2rz07EJ
MEDIAWATCH -- GABE SHERMAN in NYMag, “Fox News Is Dropping Its ‘Fair & Balanced’ Slogan”: “As Fox News moves further into the post–Roger Ailes era, the network is shedding one of its most iconic elements. According to network executives, Fox News has abandoned the marketing slogan ‘Fair & Balanced.’ ... [One] executive explained that the tagline was ‘too closely associated with Roger.’ Fox executives have been instructed by management to market the network by its other tagline: ‘Most Watched. Most Trusted.’ It is hard to overstate the significance of what shedding ‘Fair & Balanced’ means for Fox News. (It would be like the New York Times giving up ‘All the News That’s Fit to Print.’) Ailes invented the slogan when he launched the network in 1996, and over the years it became a quasi-religious doctrine among Fox’s anchors and viewers. ... In the annals of modern advertising, ‘Fair & Balanced’ will be considered a classic.” http://nym.ag/2sdxEWZ
SPOTTED last night at the Third Annual Sandy Hook Promise Gala at the Mellon Auditorium: The three co-chairs: Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) and Rep. Elizabeth Esty (D-Conn.). Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) and Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), who were honored for the Toomey-Manchin bill and No Fly No Buy, respectively. Emcees were Sandy Hook parents Mark Barden and Nicole Hockley, who replaced Megyn Kelly after she interviewed Alex Jones, the media figure who alleges the massacre is a hoax. ALSO SPOTTED: Sen. Pat Toomey (R-Pa.), House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-Md.), Rep. Jim Himes (D-Conn.), Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Texas), Rachel Kelly, Joe Dunn, David Bonine, Cynthia Pullom, Ian Rayder, Lou Constantino, Francis Creighton, Cindy Brown, Bruce Heiman, Liz Allen and Nasim Fussell.
OUT AND ABOUT -- On the near 45th anniversary of the Watergate break-in (June 17, 1972), Steve Clemons held a discussion last night at the Watergate Hotel titled “Watergate Then and Now,” where Steve interviewed Scott Stossel, Jennifer Rubin, McKay Coppins and Thomas Mallon. SPOTTED: Rakel and Jacques Cohen, Jeff David, Rep. Debbie Dingell (D-Mich.), Kevin Baron, Sally Quinn, Quinn Bradlee, Harris Wofford, Matthew Charlton, Yael Luttwak, James Barbour, Kathy Gilsinan, Will Hiley, Robb Harleston, Ron Christie, Neil Munro, Jed Shein, Annie Groer, David and Danielle Frum, Tomicah Tillemann, Indira Lakshmanan, Allen Abel, Kevin Chaffee, Grover Norquist, Michael Mael, Gary Silversmith, U.K. Ambassador Kim Darroch, Armanda Downes, Max Neuberger.
OUT AND ABOUT IN NYC -- The Hudson Institute Wednesday night hosted its spring reception in New York at the home of Joe and Marlene Ricketts. UN Ambassador Nikki Haley sat down with Hudson CEO Ken Weinstein for an off-the-record chat about her role as U.S. Ambassador to the UN. Haley said she told Trump “I’m not going to be a talking head or a wallflower” when he offered her the job. On Jim Mattis, she said “I think he’s the coolest guy I’ve ever met ... other than (her husband) Michael.” SPOTTED: Joe and Marlene Ricketts, Todd Ricketts, Silvie Legere, Paul Singer, BofA’s Jeffrey Peek, Annie Dickerson, Angela Meyers, Ed Cox, Deputy UN Ambassador Jon Lerner, Hudsonians Ken Weinstein, John Walters, Scooter Libby, Walter Russell Mead, Chris DeMuth
SPOTTED at a Greenberg, Quinlan, Rosner party last night for new COO Lindsey Reynolds (longtime COO of the DNC) and new partners Elizabeth Sena and Kristi Lowe: Anna Greenberg, John Hagner, Al Quinlan, Lauren Dillon, Jeremy Rosner, Dan Sena, Earl Fowlkes, Jeremy Baker, and Maureen Garde.
SPOTTED Tuesday night aboard the super yacht of philanthropists John Evans and Steve Wozencraft for New America’s Bretton Woods II at Sea event where attendees discussed how to address global risks though strategic investments in social impact and development: Canada’s UN Ambassador and Canadian PM Justin Trudeau’s confidant Marc-Andre Blanchard, top World Bank official Aly Rahim, Bretton Woods II director Tomicah Tillemann, Facebook’s Craig Mullaney, Sovereign Investor Institute chairman Scott Kalb, Edelman’s Peter Segall, Georgetown Dean Joel Hellman, and representatives from the White House, State Department and USAID.
TRANSITIONS -- LIZ JOHNSON has joined U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement as director of its office of public affairs, where she will direct the agency’s global communications efforts. She was previously the communications director for former Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.) and most recently served as spokeswoman for Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch during the Senate confirmation process. ... Jessica Jennings, formerly with the Dem Convention and HFA, is the new director of communications at the University of Maryland. She’s been working with Indivisible since their launch post-election and was previously press secretary at the British Embassy in Washington.
... Briannon Gillis has recently joined Emergent BioSolutions as PAC manager on the government affairs team. Previously she was a PAC fundraiser for Sens. Chuck Schumer, Dianne Feinstein, and Mark Udall, Reps. Paul Tonko, Matt Cartwright, Bonnie Watson-Coleman, Tom Suozzi, and Louise Slaughter, as well as finance director for Kathleen Matthews. ... Henry Darwin has been hired to serve as chief of operations for the EPA. He previously was COO for the Doug Ducey administration since August 2015. ... Julie Kearney, VP of regulatory affairs for the Consumer Technology Association, was picked yesterday as the new president of the Federal Communications Bar Association.
--“Emily’s List taps a Washington outsider as executive director,” by WaPo’s Philip Rucker: “Emily Cain, who helped lead fellow Democrats to the majority in the Maine House of Representatives in 2012, has been tapped to try to do the same for Democrats nationally at the helm of Emily’s List, which works to elect pro-choice Democratic women to offices ranging from city councils to the presidency.” http://wapo.st/2t4xW2b
WELCOME TO THE WORLD -- Becca Ginsberg Rutkoff, head of D.C. and regional communications for Google (and a birthday girl today), and Robby Rutkoff, VP for corporate social responsibility at Guggenheim Partners, welcomed their first child, Henry Langer Rutkoff late Monday night. Henry, Mom and Dad are home from the hospital and eating like champs. Picshttp://bit.ly/2sCOiSl ... http://bit.ly/2ryHOPX
BIRTHDAY OF THE DAY: Dana Bash, CNN’s chief political correspondent. How she’s celebrating: “My birthday falls on my son’s last day of kindergarten this year. It’s a half day, which means I get to spend most of it with him. What could be better?” Read her Playbook Plus Q&A:http://politi.co/2s4msxq
BIRTHDAYS: Adam Jentleson, former deputy chief of staff for Harry Reid now senior strategic advisor at CAP Action ... Dan Schwerin (hat tip: brother Josh) ... Sarah Hurwitz (h/t Michael Kikukawa) ... Becca Ginsberg Rutkoff, Google comms. maven ... Ryan Chittum, reporter for International Consortium of Investigative Journalists ... Fox News star Marie Harf, the pride of Granville, Ohio and former senior advisor for strategic comms. to Secretary Kerry (h/t Steve Clemons) ... Alyssa Farah, comms director and senior adviser for the House Freedom Caucus, is 28 (but actually ageless) ... AP’s Evan Vucci ... Johnny Hallyday ... former House Majority Whip Tony Coelho, now an advocate for the disabled, is 75 ... ABC News digital journalist Ali Rogin is 3-0 ... Politico’s Brian Faler ... Reps. Adam Smith and Rick Larsen (D-Wash.) are both 52 ... Rep. Jim Bridenstine (R-Okla.) is 42 ... NYT’s Clifford Levy is 5-0 ...
... MSNBC producer William Rabbe ... Joseph Brazauskas, staff director for the subcommittee on environment for the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee, is 35, celebrating by playing the Pizza Party game and Mall Madness over happy hour on Friday night with friends (h/t Kristina Baum) ... former Rep. Todd Tiahrt (R-Kans.) is 66 ... former Rep. Tony Coelho (D-Calif.) is 75 … Jamie Greenheck, global managing director of food, beverage and ag at FleishmanHillard ... Susan Toffler, a CNN alum ... former Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell is 63 … Tim Wilson is 36 ... Sara Libby … Abigail Wuest ... Jana Plat ... David Dreyer … Deborah Lukovich … Sue Grady (h/ts Teresa Vilmain) ... former Va. Lt. Gov. Bill Bolling is 6-0 ... Morgan Feist ... Steven Stafford ... Karen Townsend ... Nick Luna ... Scott Monaghan is 6-0 ... Jim Belushi is 62 ... actress Helen Hunt is 54 ... Courteney Cox is 53 ... Ice Cube is 48 ... Neil Patrick Harris is 44 (h/ts AP)
submitted by feedreddit to arableaks [link] [comments]


2017.06.15 00:09 feedreddit The Atlantic Daily: 'An Injury in the Family'

The Atlantic Daily: 'An Injury in the Family'
by Yasmeen Serhan via Master Feed : The Atlantic
URL: http://ift.tt/2sbVGBn

What We’re Following

Shots Fired: House Majority Whip Steve Scalise was among five people shot during a Republican congressional baseball practice in Alexandria, Virginia, marking the first shooting that’s targeted a federal legislator in six years. President Trump praised Capitol Police officers for intervening in the attack and confirmed that the gunman, who law enforcement identified as 66-year-old James T. Hodgkinson, died of his injuries. The House of Representatives cancelled all votes and hearings in the aftermath of the shooting and pledged unity in the face of what House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi called “an injury in the family.” Indeed, as David Frum notes, “an assassin should be seen as the enemy of all—not only of those who share the politics of his targets, but equally of those who reject them.”
Flint Charges: Five people—including Nick Lyon, Michigan’s director of Health and Human Services—were charged with involuntary manslaughter for failing to act in the wake of the Flint water crisis. Though known as a lead-poisoning incident, the crisis brought on by the city’s crumbling water infrastructure also prompted an outbreak of Legionnaires’ disease, from which at least 10 people were killed since 2014. Though other officials have also been charged in connection to the crisis, Lyon is the highest-ranking official and faces the most severe charge.
A Fire in London: At least 12 people were killed and dozens of others were left in critical condition after a fire broke out in western London’s Grenfell Tower, prompting fears that the 24-floor apartment building might collapse. Though the exact cause of the blaze remains unknown, Grenfell’s tenants have voiced concern over the building’s living conditions for years, which may be symptomatic of the city’s public-housing crisis.

Snapshot

This photograph of the climber Wiz Fineron scaling the Taipan Wall of Australia’s Grampians National Park was a finalist in the 2016 Red Bull Illume Image Quest photo competition. See more of the winning images here. (Ken Etzel / Red Bull Illume)

Evening Read

Barbara Bradley Hagerty reports from a center for troubled kids in Texas:
At 11, Samantha is just over 5 feet tall and has wavy black hair and a steady gaze. She flashes a smile when I ask about her favorite subject (history), and grimaces when I ask about her least favorite (math). She seems poised and cheerful, a normal preteen. But when we steer into uncomfortable territory—the events that led her to this juvenile-treatment facility nearly 2,000 miles from her family—Samantha hesitates and looks down at her hands. “I wanted the whole world to myself,” she says. “So I made a whole entire book about how to hurt people.”
Keep reading here, as Hagerty outlines a new clinical approach that offers hope for kids with psychopathic tendencies.

What Do You Know?

  1. California will need ____________ new math and science teachers over the next decade.
Scroll down for the answer, or find it here._2. For gorillas, labor can typically last as little as \___________ hours.
Scroll down for the answer, or find it here._3. In 2014, 500 the U.S.’s highest-paid executives made nearly \___________ times as much as the average American worker.
Scroll down for the answer, or find it here.
Answers: 33,000, Six, 1,000

Look Back

On this day in 1937, the U.S. House of Representatives passed the Marijuana Tax Act (though it wouldn’t be signed into law until August 2). In our November 1966 issue, Allen Ginsberg argued against it:
A full-page paid advertisement in The New York Times, quoting authoritative medical evidence of the harmlessness of marijuana, and signed by a thousand of its most famous smokers, would once and for all break the cultural ice and end once and for all the tyranny of the Treasury Department Narcotics Bureau. For it would only manifest in public what everybody sane in the centers of communication in America knows anyway, an enormous open secret—that it is time to end Prohibition again. And with it put an end to the gangsterism, police mania, hypocrisy, anxiety, and national stupidity generated by administrative abuse of the Marijuana Tax Act of 1937.
Read more here.

Reader Response

In an interview with Alana Semuels last week, the billionaire Reid Hoffman made his case for how philanthropists can make government more efficient. (He’d seen her story “The Problem With Modern Philanthropy” and wanted to offer a defense.) This reader is skeptical:
Philanthropy is a nice thing to do with your spare money, but I’d rather have them and their companies pay their taxes lawfully in the countries where they make the profits.
Another reader counters:
Would you rather have them spend it buying fancy things or giving it to their kids? Rich people giving away their money are usually motivated by altruism, and many of them, like the guy in this article, think hard about how to do altruism effectively. When the government gives out money, it is rarely motivated by altruism, but rather by a desire to please voters. I am very confident that the typical dollar of private charitable giving does much more good for humanity than the typical dollar of public transfer payment, so I have no problem with rich people donating their money to pay less taxes.
Read the interview here, and check out this feature on the most effective way to make your own donations.

Verbs

Franchise flops, double chin dissolved, regional tensions inflamed, legacies undone.

Time of Your Life

Happy birthday to Kani’s partner, who was born right around the time Sally Ride became the first American woman in space. Kani writes: “So very proud of your accomplishments and your book coming out soon!”
If you or a loved one have a birthday coming up, you can sign up for a birthday shout-out here, and click here to explore the Timeline feature for yourself.
This edition of_The Atlantic _Daily was written by Yasmeen Serhan. To contact us, email [[email protected]](mailto:[email protected]).
submitted by feedreddit to arableaks [link] [comments]


2017.03.18 08:43 therecordcorrected David Frum on Twitter: "Not publicly however. Spicer's reckless slur against America's closest intell partner still stands on the record" -- Arieh Kovler‏ on Twitter: "Sean Spicer and Gen McMaster have apologised to the UK"

David Frum on Twitter: submitted by therecordcorrected to EnoughTrumpSpam [link] [comments]


2016.09.08 17:14 ohshiitakemushrooms Deciding not to be frum

I think I'm finally erring on the side of not wanting to be religious anymore.
I don't want to use up all my vacation days or take unpaid leave for the Jewish holidays.
I don't want to go to shabbos meals where I nervously call my girlfriend my roommate.
I don't want to have such a hard time finding places to eat when I travel or feel guilty about compromising on kashrut.
I don't want to turn down gatherings because I won't be able to get home or travel on shabbos or yontif.
I don't want to feel cooped up by where I can/can't go or walk to on shabbos.
I don't want to wear skirts and long sleeve shirts when it's not weather appropriate or appropriate to the activity.
BUT
I don't feel confident enough to chart my own path.
I don't want people to not be able to eat in my kitchen.
I don't want to feel disappointed in myself or to disappoint the people who have accommodated or encouraged my observance.
I don't want to feel like a sell out for picking and choosing what traditions and observances to keep.
I don't want to explain to people in the community either that I'm not frum or why I've been avoiding them.
I don't want to explain to people why Im suddenly wearing pants.
I don't want all of the years of effort I put into becoming a part of the frum world to be written off as a "phase" or to be invisible.
HERE'S WHAT I'M THINKING
I want to work towards being less religious by this time next year. I don't want to miss as much work during Tishrei in 2017 as I will be this year (2016). I am afraid of both perceived and actual social fall out. What can I do? What concrete steps can I take? I'm already in therapy. I'm already financially independent from the frum world. I have some friends who have left and some secular friends. I have a supportive partner. I have supportive non-Jewish family on one side. I'm in a good situation, so how do I stop holding myself back?
submitted by ohshiitakemushrooms to exjew [link] [comments]


2016.07.23 22:01 bexyrex God Delusion chapter 5: the roots of religion

I want to preface with a personal book recommendation for further reading on the origins of religon. The Evolution of God by Robert Wright is an amazing book I started reading back in highschool. Note it's a fucking tome. Its bigger than god delusion. But its an increidbly succinct and scholarly backed account of how humans migrated from animism to polytheism to monoidolatry to monotheism. And opened my eyes to the history of monotheism.
ingroup loyalty p183
" believe, without question, whatever your grown-ups tell you. Obey your parents; obey the tribal elders, especially when they adopt a solemn, minatory tone. Trust your elders without question. This is a generally valuable rule for a child. But, as with the moths, it can go wrong" pg 174
What hope or lack therof does this hypothesis present for children stuck in religion. How does this affect the hypothesis of relgion as a choice? In what did you experience this imperative? Was believing necessary for you to survive? and was it ever harmful for you to keep believing? What about the concept of obedience? Why or why not might it be a bad thing that christianity for example counsels its believers to be "childlike"?
'Those who control what young people are taught, and what they experience - what they see, hear, think, and believe - will determine the future course for the nation"p177
Anthropolgoical belief structure and religious absurdity
On page 178 dawkins references the anthroplogist who studies a culture that believes in witches with special organs that fly under darkness and curse people. He then discusses this with a westernized theologian who finds the idea absurd and cannot fathom how they believe it. Did you ever personally find it difficult to believe the claims made in other religions? How does considering the absurdity of other supersitious/religious claims reinforce or destroy one's own personal religious beliefs?
PSYCHOLOGICALLY PRIMED FOR RELIGION
"Dualists readily interpret mental illness as 'possession by devils', those devils being spirits whose residence in the body is temporary, such that they might be 'cast out'. Dualists personify inanimate physical objects at the slightest opportunity, seeing spirits and demons even in waterfalls and clouds. " pg 180
Were you ever a dualist? How do we overcome the evolutionary priming for dualistic thinking? I've heard it said that superstition was beneficial to our ancestors because the most paranoid ape was the most likely to stay vigilant for forms that move in the night and less likely to dismiss possible predatory shapes. What are ur thoughts on this?
" We hyperactively detect agents where there are none, and this makes us suspect malice or benignity where, in fact, nature is only indifferent. " p184
"Helen Fisher and others have shown that being in love is accompanied by unique brain states, including the presence of neurally active chemicals (in effect, natural drugs) that are highly specific and characteristic of the state. Evolutionary psychologists agree with her that the irrational coup de foudre could be a mechanism to ensure loyalty to one co-parent, lasting for long enough to rear a child together. From a Darwinian point of view it is, no doubt, important to choose a good partner, for all sorts of reasons. But, once having made a choice - even a poor one - and conceived a child, it is more important to stick with that one choice through thick and thin, at least until the child is weaned."p 185
"The equivalent of the moth's light-compass reaction is the apparently irrational but useful habit of falling in love with one, and only one, member of the opposite sex. The misfiring byproduct - equivalent to flying into the candle flame - is falling in love with Yahweh (or with the Virgin Mary, or with a wafer, or with Allah) and performing irrational acts motivated by such love" pg186
Thoughts?
**TREAD SOFTLY, BECAUSE YOU TREAD ON MY MEMES I'm not gonna even try to get into this section because PERSONALLY genetics sincerely bores me. But the concept is interesting enough. And the memetic theory of religion has possible validity.
cargo cults
What does the case of John Frum and the cargo cults render as an example of how religion can spring from nothing? How does this contend with the hypothesis of the historical jesus? Or the idea that jesus may not have existed as a singular figure, or at all?
submitted by bexyrex to ExChristianBookClub [link] [comments]


2014.08.08 20:44 partyon12345 CMV: Casual sex, and especially a one night stand, is dehumanization and objectification. And is wrong--for both men and women (no double standard here). I really want view changed and I'll explain what led to this belief inside (please read that part too before responding).

Before I explain my position I wanted to add a bit of context and background that I hope will help deconstruct my argument. I know its long but I really really really want you to change my view
Context/background: I grew up in an extremely sheltered community of Hassidic Jews. My own parents were closer to Modern Orthodox (I had never heard of them till high school) but they and we had to adapt in practice and I went to the Hassidic private school (later MO private school) and everyone I knew was Hassidic (besides my grandmother and my mom's siblings who are atheists but I didn't see them very often since they lived in Europe and they accepted that my mother believed what she did and that we were her kids so they didn't discuss religion or lack of it). In 8th grade we moved to another city and settled in a little-less-sheltered community of Modern Orthodox.
But for both my education of sex was very limited. I had never heard the word until high school (and then only on the internet) except in books about animals. In high school sex ed was limited to a rabbi starting a kosher class saying "don't touch boy's or you'll die". And a girl asking the math teacher what a condom was--she didn't know it was related to sex--and he refusing to answer because he might lose his job. And also a senior year "marriage class" where the rabbi's wife tried to explain periods to a bunch of 18 year olds without naming any body parts and still being completely uncomfortable with the whole thing (just some very crude drawings that didn't look like what they were supposed to be)
I didn't know any non-Jews very well, my math teacher was the only black guy I had ever said more than a few words to, and I didn't even know less religious Jews.
Furthermore, Jews have numerous laws called "niddah" relating to periods and how the husband can't touch his wife during her period or for a few days after or they'll both die and will go to neither heaven or gehennah (very bad) like Hitler did (he wasn't worth that apparently). Also unmarried men and women can't touch or they'll die too. Also the usual gibberish about skirts above the knee or long jeans will cause rape and a guy won't rape a "frum" pious woman so if we are raped we probably sinned and the guy even a non Jew can somehow "smell" that we are sinners or I don't know.
Anyway long story short I've rejected Judaism for the past 4 years since college--or have been trying to do so. I know my sexuality and views on sex are utterly broken and twisted. It was only a couple years ago that I can say "penis" or "vagina" because of the deep taboo I grew up with and I'm still uncomfortable saying or hearing them. I've dated a non Jewish boy for 2 years--parents surprisingly don't care since I told him he's not Muslim--but it took months to be comfortable with having sex with him. I did, since I knew for me the doing sex had to come before being ready for it (and he never pressured or forced me to sleep with him, he's horrified by rape or anything close to it and its the one thing he hates about his homeland India). I had a lot of sex with him after those few months but the comfort with sex is limited to him only and we broke up because of incompatibility in other areas. Numerous dates have not gone past the first at least partly because of my extreme obvious discomfort with the guys, even if I am otherwise attracted, especially if he gets close to touching at all. My ex boyfriend's dick is the only one I'd ever seen and while I find his dick itself sexy (unrelated to the fact that it belongs to him, even though that adds to the sexiness) I am really unsure I can transfer that comfort or even joy about it to other dicks. It took me awhile to be comfortable even seeing his dick, and even longer to be okay with touching it. When I lost my virginity to him I was terrified of it and how big it was and of it touching me (remember they were taboo for 18 years) but again, I knew that having sex would have to come before comfort or readiness for me so I insisted that he still have sex with me when I saw his consequent reluctance.
Finally, what's behind my belief: Basically what I've internalized from my religious upbringing is this (not always stated explicitly).
When you have casual sex, especially a one night stand you are there ONLY for sex. Therefore you have reduced the person to nothing more than a dick or a pussy and they become merely a tool for masturbation. There is no attempt at getting to know the person as a person, let alone a relationship. Reducing people to genitalia is immoral and wrong and dehumanizing them. The person becomes a piece of meat to satisfy your own desires
This goes doubly so for men who fuck women (although I have internalized it being wrong for both men and women to do their partners) since men don't want to have relationships, and put up with them for the sex, but with casual sex/one night stands they don't even do this (the sham that they love a woman). Anything a man can get besides sex and babies from a woman he can more easily get from another man and the man would understand his psychology better anyway
I have had situations that could have led to casual sex twice. One was a guy at a party who drove me to his place because I was really really drunk. I knew him beforehand, and I knew his roommates and they would stop him if he tried something. It took an uncomfortably long time to convince him that I didn't want sex or even groping. The other was a good friend and he didn't mean it since he knew my religious issues, but he told me he just got too horny and I was very attractive and there at his apartment (I had hung out here without coming anywhere near this). In both cases I couldn't even bear to take my clothes off or touch the guy's dick even through clothes. At least the second guy stopped when I said no. *
I really really want to change this internalized view. I know I judge people for it and I don't want to. It's just one belief stemming from religion I haven't been able to shake off. I also want to stop this from wrecking my minimal (at least right now) dating life. So please refute my argument and tear it to shreds.
BUT PLEASE DON'T JUST INSULT ME. THAT WON'T HELP AND WILL JUST ALIENATE ME. I got enough hate and assertions that I'm "stupid" "insane" "batshit crazy" "disgusting" a "bitch" "immature" including on Reddit. I KNOW all that is true. I know this makes me all of those things and I'm really sad that I'm broken in this way
submitted by partyon12345 to changemyview [link] [comments]


2013.06.04 01:15 thesefatrollz Hamplanets visit "TJ's"; chapter 2

This is going to be chapter two of my (hopefully) continuing series, hamplanets visit "TJ's"
For those who have been living under a rock (or outside of the US). "TJ's" or Trader Joe's is a boutique grocery store. They carry high quality natural and organic foods. The have good prices for the quality, but typically don't carry a huge selection if items.
Be me, newish employee, 5'11 ~250lb; fat yes, fatittude no.
Be stocking shelves on a lazy Thursday afternoon with collegejockbro, standing in the isle where the cookies are kept.
A nice middle-aged woman approaches me and asks where the toothpaste is. I get up, lead her to where it is, and make my way back to the isle we were in.
As I approach, I see that collegejockbro is being compacted by not one, not two, not three, but four hambeasts standing, as one would expect, near the cookies.
I could try to move through the mass of blubber ... but ultimately decide to go around
As I approach I hear the familiar snorting, high-pitched squeals, and heavy breathing, but only as I'm standing shoulder to shoulder with collegejockbro do I realize the true monstrosities we are dealing with.
The head of the brood is a 5'2 ~260lbs. female; she has a rather unique smell, like a mix of cologne, wine, and old dog shit after it rains. To her right stands her breeding partner, 5'8 ~330lbs, his face fixed with a narrow eyed scowl; within his orbit are the two piglets, both girls, probably about 9 and 7. They are still young enough to be considered "cute" and aren't yet insanely obese.
I pick up what the female is saying to collegejockbro mid-sentence:
"-why don' you people evar have the same shtuff? I's it really dat hard to keep ur shelves stocked?"
Collegejockbro, cool as ever:
"The candy cane joe joe's are a seasonal item, we only have the around christmas" noshit.jpg
"Well then why don' u have'em then? Its only a few months after chismas"
FFS it is the middle of may
"Yeah, well, we have to move items quickly off the shelves after Christmas so we don't have them."
The male notices me and says: "So da ya two Einsteins no when ya get thos' cookies back"
Me: "I'm not sure exactly, check back after Thanksgiving; we will probably have them or be able to tell exactly you when we will."
"We drove all away here ta get mah wafe and kids sum cookies, 'not sure exactly' dunt' cut it kiddo"
collegejockbro's jimmies are on fire but he is cut off by the sow:
"That is all we ca-"
"I have had enouh of u two, i wanna speak to ur managur"
I give collegejockbro a look that says "I will take one for the team" and he takes off like a rocket.
Since the woman appears totally done with me, I think to go back to stocking shelves five feet away. But as I do so, the male starts on me:
"How dar ya to walk away frum mah wafe when shes talkin to ya!!! This is jus extremely rude."
wat
I get up, walk back over, and apologize.
The male makes a sound like a truck turning over, placated for now it seems.
The children have been surprisingly well-behaved, but they are getting understandably restless.
The younger one starts straying from the herd and picks up a box of cookies; she walks back and says to mom:
"Howa bout' these momma, dey look good"
Without warning, the sow grabs the child roughly, and slaps her HARD across the face. This wasn't a 'child slap'; this was the way you would slap an adult.
The child naturally lets out a yelp and starts crying:
"Put'em back now emily"
Words cannot describe how much I wanted to kill this bitch.
About 30 seconds later collegejockbro comes back with our assistant manager, a 40-something MBA down on her luck who needs this job:
"Hello ma'am, how can I help you?"
"We've driven all away here fur some canda cane joejoe's and you don't have'm, and des boys dun no notin, when you gettin in sum?"
"Ma'am they are a seasonal item; we will have them around the holiday season, though due to the nature of our business I cannot tell you exactly when" Clearly collegejockbro filled her in.
The husband turns over like a truck again and the sow gurgles with annoyance, but they finally seem to accept what we've told them multiple times.
I breathed a sigh of relief, hoping, praying, pleading, we were done, but alas, it was not so.
The sow waved one of her fat rolls in my general direction and said:
"This one walked away frum me while i wasa talkin' to em', thats not how ta treat a customer. "
A. I'm wearing a nametag.
B. Kill yourself.
40-somethingMBA gave me a questioning looking and said:
"That wasn't a good thing to do, did thesefatrollz apologize?"
"No, he didn't, an my hasban' had to callem' out on it"
My jimmies, oh my poor jimmies.
"Ma'am, I apologized to both you and your husband"
Her voice became a high screech: "No you didn't are you calling meh a liar?!!!!"
Before I could say anything 40-somethingMBA was johnny on the fucking spot:
"No, not at all, ma'am I'm sure there was some miscommunication, thesefatrollz apologize."
"I am sorry to you, your husband, and your family for walking away when you were talking to me"
The sow snorted in acknowledgement but continued giving me the evil eye.
"Now, is there anything else I can help you with ma'am?"
The sow waddles over to a nearby shelf and picks up the SAME FUCKING BOX of cookies her kid did and says:
"I'dda hope u dun mind me taken des wit us complemetry all tings considered?"
"Sure, i'll walk you to the register"
TL;DR: Family of hambeasts ask for a manager after being told we don't have an item, and the mother abuses her child, lies, and gets a free box of cookies.
submitted by thesefatrollz to fatpeoplestories [link] [comments]


Partner Forum 2018 - Les moments forts - YouTube Partner Forum 2019 - Teach on Mars - YouTube My Pretty Husband. Wife Accepts Crossdressing Transgender ... Creators  Partner Managers  YouTube

Forum Equity Partners

  1. Partner Forum 2018 - Les moments forts - YouTube
  2. Partner Forum 2019 - Teach on Mars - YouTube
  3. My Pretty Husband. Wife Accepts Crossdressing Transgender ...
  4. Creators Partner Managers YouTube
  5. Hot Tub Drama Swinger Wives - YouTube

Pour la deuxième année consécutive, Teach on Mars a organisé la seconde édition de son Partner Forum, le jeudi 28 mars à Paris. Invité comme média Presse, DL... A swinger couple show the in's and out's of their way of life. Subscribe to TLC UK for more great clips: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC2vlpX8sNDBmPcY_1_Q... Revivez les moments forts du Partner Forum 2018, première édition de cet évènement qui réunit nos clients et nos partenaires autour du mobile learning. https... Our partner management program is a limited-time privilege offered for a 6 month period to certain channels who meet our eligibility criteria. What happens when a wife discovers her husband crossdresses?Have you been caught crossdressing? Please let us know. Film from http://tranisa.com . http://cro...