Friday, November 04, 2022

THE ESTABLISHMENT SPEAKS AKA TPTB

“Woke” Non-Natives Should Stop Playing to Indian Stereotype

Missy Barringer
Thu, November 3, 2022 

(courtesy photo)

Guest Opinion. Ask most people to picture a Native American and a distinct image will inevitably come to mind. Maybe it’s a Disney character, sports mascot, or wooden figure outside of a cigar store. They’re almost certainly wearing a feathered headdress or face paint, carrying a tomahawk, or hunting buffalo with a bow and arrow. If this is your mental image of a “real” Native American, you are seeing a stereotype.

Let’s be clear here: Many Native Americans still wear regalia—the proper name for traditional dress—during powwows and other cultural celebrations, just like you will see lederhosen and dirndls at German Oktoberfests around the world. Regalia can be an important way to keep culture and traditions alive.


Missy Barringer (Courtesy photo)

Modern Native Americans, however, are much more than that. Many are savvy and successful business leaders, running massive economic-development enterprises that generate millions of dollars or more in revenue to fund their governmental operations and provide for their members. On most days, they dress just like everyone else. And perpetuating stereotypes has sadly become a convenient way for non-Natives to undermine and disrespect them.

While this is shameful and destructive when it’s the ignorant who intentionally want to tear down and disrespect Native culture, it’s almost worse when it’s the well-intentioned—that is, the non-Natives who think of themselves as “woke” and feel like they are honoring Native peoples by paying deference to those who dress and act traditionally. That crowd only undermines us by dictating how Native people should act, dress, and think. They keep us trapped in the stereotypes.

In New York State today, the Cayuga Nation is under attack by non-Natives who think they are doing good by supporting a small but vocal minority of its citizens who wish to overthrow the Cayuga Nation government for their own benefit. These self-declared “traditionalists” believe that being “traditional” (i.e. speaking in the native tongue, dressing in ceremonial clothing, etc.) makes them more legitimate citizens and gives them authority to run the Cayuga Nation. This is both false and insulting to all the progress our people have made. The majority of Cayuga Nation citizens have fully embraced what it means to be a modern-day Native American while still honoring their traditions. The Cayuga Nation leadership issue was resolved in 2016 when its citizens confirmed the members of the Cayuga Nation Council and the Nation’s governance structure. The same small opposing group participated in that process, tried to take control of the government then, and failed at getting the support of the Cayuga citizens as a whole.

Though the leadership issue has been resolved now for many years by the Cayuga citizens themselves, which the Bureau of Indian Affairs and federal courts have recognized, these disgruntled individuals make false claims about Cayuga law that have no bearing on the Nation’s governance today. In so doing, these individuals—most of whom are non-Natives—are only removing the agency of Cayuga Nation members who have exercised their right to self-governance by choosing their own leaders. These individuals do not have the authority to dictate how the Cayuga Nation should be governed, and they should stay out of our affairs.

We are our own people with our own laws and our own form of governance. To say we must abide by centuries-old laws is to imply that the Cayuga Nation cannot advance as a people. We are not forced to stick to the “traditional” way of how Native Americans existed, just as we should not be expected to remain in traditional dress to be considered legitimate Cayuga Nation citizens. We, just like any sovereign society, have advanced for the betterment of our people. Yet, the activists and non-Natives meddling in our affairs seem to think they are doing us a service by insisting we honor old traditional ways of operating, rather than who we are today. The federal government does not acknowledge the Haudenosaunee Confederacy today as a form of government. The Confederacy’s laws have no relevance to how we—or any of the Six Nations—conduct ourselves in the 21st century.

Local elected officials, too, have supported these so-called “traditionalists,” but for other, more pernicious reasons. They benefit politically from leadership disputes that appear to divide the Cayuga Nation, so they support insurgents who lack popular support and have no legitimate claim to leadership. It is not about respecting traditional Cayuga culture: Their worst fear is a truly united Cayuga Nation, and they have pulled out all the stops to prevent it. This abrogation of the Cayuga Nation’s sovereignty is both unlawful and paternalistic. They do not have the authority to dictate how our Nation should be governed and who is best suited to lead it, period.

To imply that any individuals have more of a right to govern the Cayuga Nation due to their “traditional” standards is insulting and blatantly racist.

Here are the facts: as a sovereign entity, only the Cayuga Nation can choose its leaders. In 2016, the so-called “Council of Chiefs” participated in a process to determine the governance and leadership of the Cayuga Nation. They were rejected by more than 60 percent of the Nation’s membership. As part of their subsequent campaign to seize power, they have sought to ally themselves with outsiders (local governing bodies, student groups, activists, and non-Natives with a vested interest in the Cayuga Nation’s failure) who do not understand or respect our people’s governance structure and independence.

It’s no surprise that white non-Natives are more comfortable with stereotypical images of indigenous people rather than the strong, independent, and economically advanced business leaders many of us are today. In the Cayuga Nation’s case, its current Council and federal representative, Clint Halftown (who has been unfairly demonized by the above-mentioned non-Native groups), has focused on economic development, grossing millions of dollars over the last two decades. These revenues have allowed the Nation to acquire lands within its traditional reservation borders, funded essential government operations, and provided goods and services directly to the Cayuga Nation’s membership.

We may not look and dress the way non-Natives think we should, but we are the ones keeping the Cayuga Nation’s traditional culture alive by positioning the Nation as an economic force to improve our citizens’ quality of life. Telling us to be like the “traditionalists” is an attempt by non-Natives to control the Cayuga Nation economically and imply we should stay in our lane.

No board of supervisors, no group of activists, no non-Cayuga Native Americans, and no non-Natives determine who we are or who should govern our people. If you want to support the Cayuga Nation, stop meddling in our affairs. Your people have done enough damage already. It’s time to set a better example.

Missy Barringer, a citizen of the Cayuga Nation, has been the Chief Operating Officer for LakeSide Enterprises of the Cayuga Nation since June. Over the course of her 30-year career, she has worked as a professional marketer on behalf of companies such as Harrah’s Casinos, Nissan Automotive, J.P. Morgan Chase, and various nonprofit organizations. She has also worked at MediSked, assisting agencies moving individuals with developmental disabilities into managed care, using a person-centered software system. As COO of LakeSide Enterprises, she helps continue the growth of the Cayuga Nation, improve the employee experience, and work towards building a better future for all citizens on the Nation’s ancestral lands, a 64,015-acre reservation in upstate New York.

About the Author: ""

Contact: MissyBarringer@blah.com

Nigeria's surprise move against inflation: redesigning its currency notes




Alexander Onukwue
Wed, November 2, 2022 

Last week, the Central Bank of Nigeria announced an unorthodox inflation-fighting measure: a redesign of its 100-, 200-, 500-, and 1,000-naira currency notes. Forcing people to exchange old notes for new ones, the bank believes, will mop up the huge volumes of currency stashed in private safes, outside the banking system.

The new notes will debut in December, but Nigerians have already been urged to start depositing their old notes before they become invalid by the end of January next year. But as Nigerians look to evade that measure, and to change naira into dollars instead, a consequent shortage of dollars is weakening the naira even further and making inflation worse.

The naira officially traded at 438 against the dollar yesterday (Nov. 1), 6% higher than the exchange rate on the same day in 2021. While that is already a high rise, the “real” rate—traded outside bank halls on the streets of Lagos and Abuja—has shot up to 830 naira to the dollar this week, from under 570 this time last year.

Why is Nigeria redesigning its naira notes?

Nigeria’s inflation hit a 17-year high of 20.8% last month, driven by a weaker naira that raised the price of imports. To tackle inflation, Nigeria’s central bank announced its currency redesign last week, adding that the move was overdue. The last such redesign was undertaken 20 years ago, whereas global best practices recommend redesigning notes every five to eight years.

But two days after the announcement, Zainab Ahmed, Nigeria’s finance minister, appeared to distance herself from the project, wondering if the central bank had fully considered the possible consequences of the move. “There will be some benefits, but there will be some challenges,” Ahmed said. In response, the bank said explained on Oct. 29 that it needs to reverse “the hoarding of significant sums of banknotes outside the vaults of commercial banks.”

Nigerian confidence in the naira is low

Nigeria’s naira suffers from the weight of an import-dependent economy. Its yearlong depreciation against the dollar has been fueled by, among other things, low dollar revenues from the sale of oil due to theft from pipelines. (An official of the state oil company said Nigeria has lost 470,000 barrels per day in theft, valued at $700 million monthly.) In turn, this has set off high demand for greenbacks amongst importers and businesses like international airlines.

With confidence in the naira already low, experts fear that the central bank’s move could simply prompt people to buy dollars rather than return naira notes. This could well be a temporary response⁠—a way to get rid of old naira now, and swap dollars for new notes come December⁠—but it will have the effect, in that short term, of widening the gap between the nair and the dollar.

The difference between official and parallel market currency exchange rates in Nigeria is one of the most reliable indicators for the economy’s health. This week’s rates have strengthened the perception that prices could increase dramatically as the Christmas season approaches.

Quartz
How Nazi Billionaires Thrived in Postwar Germany

AN INTERVIEW WITH DAVID DE JONG

In Nazi Germany, industrialists built vast fortunes from slave labor and stolen Jewish property. In postwar West Germany, they were allowed to keep them — with denazification doing little to trouble those who had profited most from the regime.


Adolf Hitler holds a reception for leading figures in German business,
 including Dr Gustav Krupp (foreground), 1939. 
(Ullstein Bild via Getty Images)

10.31.2022
 Jacobin 

INTERVIEW BYONDŘEJ BĚLÍČEK

In 2019, the German tabloid Bild published shocking revelations about one of the country’s most powerful companies. Bild discovered that Albert Reimann — creator of a family business whose investment firm, JAB Holding, has majority stakes in brands from Dr Pepper to Jacobs Douwe Egberts — was a devoted Nazi who sexually abused, tortured, and humiliated slave workers in his business during World War II. The Reimann family fortune is estimated at €33 billion. The family decided to confront its dark past and donated millions of euros to nonprofit organizations devoted to helping religious and national minorities and seeking out the families of the war prisoners forced to work for the grandfather’s firm.

This was just one recent case showing how Nazi tycoons had been able to cover up their dark pasts in postwar West Germany. One of the journalists who dug into the archives to find out about this history was David de Jong. His new book, Nazi Billionaires, follows the story of men who became part of the Third Reich’s business and financial elite, making their fortunes by stealing Jewish-owned firms, banks, and other assets, as well as exploiting forced and slave labor in concentration camps during World War II. Companies like Siemens, Volkswagen, BMW, Daimler-Benz, Dr. Oetker, Porsche, Krupp, IG Farben, and many more cooperated with the SS, which built “satellite concentration camps” near these private companies’ factories and mines where slave laborers toiled in the most appalling conditions. While, after 1945, legal proceedings were launched against Nazi businessmen, almost none would be punished. Industrialists like Günther Quandt, Friedrich Flick, and Ferdinand Porsche were even allowed to keep their assets and continue business as usual. During the “economic miracle” of the 1950s in Germany, they made even bigger fortunes, and their family businesses remain among the most powerful in Germany. Some have even continued to support far-right political parties.

But how did the relationship between Adolf Hitler and the business and financial elite develop during the interwar period? And why were Nazi businessmen set free after the war, even though their activities were key to the regime’s operations? Jacobin’s Ondřej Bělíček spoke to De Jong about the fate of the Nazi billionaires.

ONDŘEJ BĚLÍČEK

Your book starts with the moment when Hermann Göring and Adolf Hitler invited industrialists for a meeting and asked them to donate huge sums to the Nazi Party. Sometimes it is said that Hitler used these businessmen for his own purposes, but in another sense, he was the figure that they were looking for. How would you describe the relationship between Germany’s financial and industrial elite and the Nazi Party?

DAVID DE JONG

I would agree that in a way most of the men that I write about were sheer opportunists. These families were already very rich before Hitler seized power in 1933, with the exception of the Porsche-Piëch family, which laid the foundations for their wealth during the Third Reich. They were leading business families during the German Empire, the Weimar Republic, the Third Reich, in West Germany, and still today in unified Germany. These businessmen looked to maximize profit, and they thrived in any political system. I would even argue that they would have somehow risen to the top even in a communist system. Their main goal was to maximize profit and expand their business empires and fortunes regardless of the political system.

These men became interested in Hitler and the Nazi Party once it had his first electoral success in Germany in September 1930. It was the period when the Great Depression hit Germany with a wave of discontent and unemployment. The entire business world hung in the balance, and that, for the first time, opened the door for Hitler to Germany’s business community, which had before mostly supported establishment conservative figures. It opened the door for them to have conversations, but they didn’t really start supporting Hitler until he came to power on January 30, 1933. In that meeting that you refer to, he promised them something that he initially delivered on, which is economic and political stability and the rearmament of Germany, which they greatly profited from. They made billions of reichsmarks that were flowing to them from their steel, machinery, and car companies that were retooled to produce weapons and war material.

ONDŘEJ BĚLÍČEK

Hitler gave them the means to make more money and control anything they wanted in exchange for their loyalty.

DAVID DE JONG

He promised to make them more money, but also to protect their interests, because it was a very unstable period. Sure, it was about making more money, but that was always their bottom line. But now it was also really about reviving their companies, getting Germany’s economy back to where it was before World War I and Weimar.

ONDŘEJ BĚLÍČEK

In your book, you follow the story of a few main protagonists among the Third Reich’s financiers, industrialists, and weapons manufacturers, who exploited Nazi race policies and made huge fortunes. Could you describe the main practices that these people used to get what they wanted and make themselves the wealthiest and most powerful people in Nazi Germany?

DAVID DE JONG

There were three ways to profit from the Nazi system. I already mentioned weapons production, which was not criminal, although it was forbidden under the Treaty of Versailles. But from 1935 onward, with the introduction of the Nuremberg race laws, you see the sliding scale that devolves into criminality with the disfranchisement and expropriation of Jewish business owners and families.

Initially, it had this veneer of legality, where they coerced Jewish entrepreneurs to sign over their companies, for far below market value, to the men I write about. Or else these families wanted to sell their companies because they wanted to flee Nazi Germany. But then, as the 1930s go on, you see that it devolves into outright theft and robbery and seizure of Jewish-owned assets. They used the same practice in German-occupied territory across Europe, with business owners who were robbed just because the Germans had occupied their country. And the third way was the mass exploitation of forced and slave labor. After the German invasion into the Soviet Union in 1941, the mass deportation of forced and slave laborers from all across Europe to German factories and mines began. An estimated 12 to 20 million people were deported to work in Germany, and approximately 2.5 million people died due to the horrific working conditions in factories, mines, and labor camps.

ONDŘEJ BĚLÍČEK

The most shocking part of this story is the exploitation of the prisoners from concentration camps as a slave workforce for the private companies. To what extent did these private companies use slave labor — and what were the working conditions?

DAVID DE JONG

There were three ways German companies procured this labor. There were forced laborers who were mainly from Eastern Europe, who were deported by the millions through the German labor front, and paid much less than German laborers and kept in labor camps. Then there were prisoners of war. They were not paid. Thirdly, you had concentration camp labor. That was a collaboration of the SS with big companies like BMW, Daimler, Volkswagen, IG Farben, Siemens, Krupp, Dr. Oetker, and companies controlled by Günther Quandt and Friedrich Flick. These people were slaves, and the aim was to exterminate them through labor. These companies leased prisoners from the SS for four reichsmark per day for unskilled labor and six reichsmark per day for skilled labor. The SS built sub-concentration camps, or “satellite concentration camps,” as they were called, on factory complexes. These camps were guarded by the SS, and there was barely any medical attention and food for the captives. Prisoners were executed, hanged, or shot for the most minor infringements, and they were abused at their workplaces. They didn’t have any protective clothing, so they handled the machinery with their bare hands. There were the most awful working conditions you can imagine.

ONDŘEJ BĚLÍČEK

After the war, trials against the Nazi financial and industrial elite were prepared, and it seemed like justice would be done. But soon it turned out that almost none of the main culprits were sentenced to jail. Could you describe how the trials were initially set up and what determined the outcome of these trials?

DAVID DE JONG

It’s important to distinguish between two things. First, there were the Nuremberg trials. The first and main Nuremberg trial was a major success, and it was focused on the top political and military protagonists of the Nazi regime. And there was the plan to hold trials against industrialists, which would be similar to the first main trial. But the Americans were worried that the Soviets would turn it into an anti-capitalist show trial. At the same time, the British and the French were so economically weak that they didn’t want to put money into another massive tribunal. The Americans decided to go at it alone and staged eleven trials at Nuremberg.

Three of these trials were held against industrialists. They concerned Friedrich Flick and his managers, Alfred Krupp and his managers, and the entire executive board of IG Farben. Those trials were very well prepared, and justice was done. However, the American judges didn’t really get most of the dense evidentiary material, translated from German. The Americans limited the number of trials against industrialists because they didn’t want to put capitalism on trial. At that time, the Cold War was getting started, and the Americans made this policy decision where they wanted to rebuild West Germany as a democratically viable and economically strong state, which would act as a buffer against the Soviet Union and the encroachment of communism.Hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of Germans went free for their crimes.

I understand that policy decision, but where it went completely wrong, in my opinion, was when the Americans, British, and French handed over hundreds of thousands of suspected Nazi war criminals back to West German authorities for so-called denazification processes, which were very flawed legal trials that went on in western Germany between 1945 and 1950. It basically meant that hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of Germans went free for their crimes, because there was no interest on the German side to judge people on crimes that they themselves had committed and sympathies that they had held as well.

The denazification of Germany is a myth. It never took place. There was a continuation of money and power from Nazi Germany to West Germany, and also, to an extent, in East Germany, because former SS officers became high-ranking Stasi and party officials. But it was far more pervasive in West Germany, where — in whatever part of society, whether business, legal, medical, academic, or media — there was no denazification.

ONDŘEJ BĚLÍČEK

It’s shocking that the top leaders of Nazi Germany’s financial elite were allowed to continue doing business as usual.

DAVID DE JONG

Yes, totally. They were allowed to keep all their assets. Except, of course, apart from their assets located in Soviet-occupied East Germany, where the authorities expropriated them and took everything. But in West Germany, they were allowed to keep everything.

ONDŘEJ BĚLÍČEK

As for the trials, I found it odd that investigators weren’t interested in the brutal practices of the industrialists like exploitation of forced slave labor and running subcamps near their factories. Why do you think that was the case?

DAVID DE JONG

It was related to the fact that they didn’t want to put capitalism on trial. Similarly, that’s why they were allowed to keep all their assets, because business had to thrive in West Germany if they wanted it to be an effective buffer against the Soviet Union, and if Western Europe was to be revived again. I think the Americans were worried that, if they investigated the labor practices, it could turn against them, and they could be asked questions like, “OK, but what are you doing in your factories?” or “What about the exploitation of African Americans in your country?” That’s something they wanted to avoid at all costs.

ONDŘEJ BĚLÍČEK

It’s often said that Germany confronted its dark past. The student movement of the 1960s is frequently cited as the moment when German society started to ask difficult questions. After reading your book, I’m not so sure if German society was that successful in this respect. You mention that the first major backlash against the family of one of the most powerful industrialists in the Third Reich, Friedrich Flick, happened in the mid-1990s. And only in recent years does there seem to be a wider debate about history of other major Nazis who built their empires during the Third Reich and continued to do so after the war. Why do you think this is happening now and not much earlier, for instance when the Cold War ended?

DAVID DE JONG

It’s because German business has never been forced to take any kind of moral responsibility for its crimes during the Third Reich. Sure, there were financial compensations, but they always negotiated that they didn’t have to admit any culpability or guilt for the crimes they committed. They paid money, but paying money is something different than actually coming out and taking responsibility for the actions in the past. The lack of responsibility has allowed these business families to sweep the history under the rug up to this day.German business has never been forced to take any kind of moral responsibility for its crimes during the Third Reich.

ONDŘEJ BĚLÍČEK

So when we talk about how Germany managed to confront its past, do you think it’s a myth?

DAVID DE JONG

If you look at a macro level then yes, they’ve reckoned with it pretty well. If you look on a micro level, nobody wants to talk about it. Nobody really wants to talk about what their grandparents did during World War II. This debate in the 1960s was more of a generational conflict. People who were born after the war became very critical toward power structures that were still in place. Very violent movements were formed from that debate, like the Rote Armee Fraktion, but they were mainly challenging the conservatism and the lack of historical reckoning that Germany had, which didn’t much occur in the business world, which was still a very conservative world. That reckoning really didn’t come until the 1990s or the 2000s. And in my opinion, it’s still far from being fulfilled.

ONDŘEJ BĚLÍČEK

How did German society react to the findings that recently appeared in the newspapers about the dark Nazi past of certain billionaire companies?

DAVID DE JONG

The problem in Germany is that the public has become a little bit desensitized to revelations regarding its Nazi past. You notice that people are inundated with such revelations on a daily basis. They have become used to them, and they aren’t shocked.

ONDŘEJ BĚLÍČEK

Some of the families of former Nazi businessmen took public responsibility for the past following pressure from media and the public. In your book, you particularly mentioned the damage control by the Reimann family business as an example of how to deal with findings about a firm’s dark past. Why do you think the steps they took are the best way to deal with it?

DAVID DE JONG

Because they’re transparent about the fact that their father and grandfather were committed Nazis. Also, they’ve renamed their foundation after their other grandfather, who turned out to be murdered in the Holocaust. My point is that there should be more of this historical transparency and taking responsibility for the past. But if you name your foundations after Herbert Quandt or Friedrich Flick or Ferdinand Porsche, who were committed Nazis or voluntary SS officers who committed war crimes on a large scale, than you can’t celebrate their business successes while leaving out their Nazi history.

ONDŘEJ BĚLÍČEK

What reaction did you get from the public on your book?

DAVID DE JONG

There have been two major developments since the book came out. First, the BMW foundation Herbert Quandt was inundated with angry letters from people who received money from that foundation but felt lied to because they had been given money in the name of a Nazi war criminal. So the foundation came out with a statement and promised change, but BMW is stuck between conservative shareholder Stefan Quandt, who honors his father, and angry foundation members, who are not very powerful but were very public about their anger. Second, Porsche is now negotiating with the heirs of Adolf Rosenberger, the company’s cofounder, who was pushed out of Porsche in 1935 and erased from Porsche company history for being Jewish. So they want to restore his place in Porsche company history. It’s also due to the fact that they have so many financial interests on the line right now, with the company going to the stock exchange and being valued at €80 billion, which is a massive amount.

CONTRIBUTORS

David de Jong is author of Nazi Billionaires.

Ondřej Bělíček is editor of Czech online daily A2larm.cz





























































  • Nazi Billionaires by David de Jong: How Hitler’s financiers are still ...

    https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2022/11/02/nazi-n02.html

    In “Nazi Billionaires: The Dark History of Germany's Wealthiest Dynasties,” published in late May of this year, Dutch financial journalist David de Jong shows what the real attitude of...

  • Nazi Billionaires: The Dark History of Germany's Wealthiest …

    https://www.amazon.ca/Nazi-Billionaires-Germanys-Wealthiest-Dynasties/...

    “Lucid, and damning, David de Jong's Nazi Billionaires unearths decades of family secrets and exposes the tainted origins of several of the world's most significant dynastic fortunes. As …

  • About David — David de Jong

    https://daviddejong.net/about

    David de Jong is a journalist and author. His first book, Nazi Billionaires, is published in the US and the UK by HarperCollins. He spent four years reporting from Berlin while researching and …

  • David de Jong

    https://daviddejong.net

    "Lucid, and damning, David de Jong’s Nazi Billionaires unearths decades of family secrets and exposes the tainted origins of several of the world’s most significant dynastic fortunes. As …

  • Nazi Billionaires: The Dark History of Germany’s Wealth…

    https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/58312061

    In this landmark work of investigative journalism, David de Jong reveals the true story of how Germany’s wealthiest business dynasties amassed untold money and power by abetting the …

  • Nazi Billionaires by David De Jong — Open Letters Review

    https://openlettersreview.com/posts/nazi-billionaires-by-david-de-jong

    By David De Jong Mariner Books, 2022. Journalist David De Jong spent years investigating the Nazi 


  • The U$ Supreme Court Weighs A Massive Change to Medicaid

    Jessica Washington
    Thu, November 3, 2022


    Black woman at doctor

    In less than a week people across the United States will head to the polls and cast their ballots in the November midterm elections. But behind the hallowed walls of the Supreme Court another battle will be brewing over the future of Medicaid.

    Next Tuesday, oral arguments will begin in Health and Hospital Corporation of Marion County v. Talevski. The case centers on whether or not the 76 million low-income Americans who currently rely on Medicaid have a legal right to bring lawsuits under federal Medicaid law.

    Experts on the side of Talveski argue that without the ability to sue, tens of millions of Medicaid recipients will lose vital legal protections that help ensure they get adequate medical care.

    “Over the years, Medicaid has been highly effective at improving health outcomes for millions of women, children, the elderly, and people with disabilities, among others,” said Lynn R. Goldman, Dean of the George Washington University Milken Institute School of Public Health in a statement. “If these essential protections are stripped away, millions of Medicaid beneficiaries could lose the care that they depend on to stay healthy.”

    The impact could be particularly pronounced for Black Americans who as of 2018, accounted for 34 percent of the Medicaid population, according to the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare.

    It’s worth taking a look at the man behind the case to get a better understanding of what’s at stake next Tuesday.

    In 2019, the family of Gorgi Taleveski, a dementia patient and Medicaid recipient, brought a lawsuit against the Indiana health system (operated by local governments and a private management company), housing him, alleging that they had violated several provisions of federal law.

    According to the lawsuit, nursing home staff administered psychotropic drugs to Taleveski in order to keep him “chemically restrained” in violation of federal law, which bans nursing homes from using psychotropic drugs for anything other than to treat “medical symptoms.”

    Now, the Indiana health system is arguing that patients like Taleveski and his family shouldn’t be able to sue at all if their rights are violated.

    If the Indiana health system in this case wins, they would be overturning roughly five decades of precedent that has allowed Medicaid patients to bring these types of lawsuits. It’s unclear exactly how the Supreme Court would rule. But according to VOX news, at least three of the conservative justices are likely amenable to the hospital group’s argument based on past voting records.

    Based on the court’s penchant for blasting through decades of precedent, it’ll be worth keeping a close eye on the oral arguments in this case.

    Marjorie Taylor Greene Makes Alarming Promise About Ukraine If GOP Wins Congress

    Far-right Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) on Thursday vowed to nix American funding for Ukraine’s resistance to Russia’s invasion if the GOP retakes Congress in next week’s midterm elections.

    “The only border they care about is Ukraine, not America’s southern border,” Greene said of Democrats at a rally in Iowa. “Under Republicans, not another penny will go to Ukraine. Our country comes first. They don’t care about our border or our people.”

    Greene’s pledge was met with cheers from the audience.

    Outgoing Rep. Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.) slammed Greene’s comment as being “exactly” what Russian President Vladimir Putin wants.

    “If we’d had Republicans like this in the 1980s, we would have lost the Cold War,” Cheney wrote on Twitter.

    The GOP is currently split over whether to continue financially assisting Ukraine against the invasion, which Putin launched in February. The U.S. has so far donated more than $67 billion to the Ukrainian cause.

    But this week, House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) suggested U.S. pursestrings for the defense will be significantly tightened if his party wins control of the House and Senate.

    “I think people are gonna be sitting in a recession and they’re not going to write a blank check to Ukraine,” McCarthy said. “They just won’t do it.”

    This article originally appeared on HuffPost and has been updated.

    NY judge orders monitor to oversee all Trump Organization financial reporting

    New York - The judge hearing a massive civil fraud lawsuit against former President Donald Trump, his businesses and three of his adult children on Thursday ordered the appointment of a monitor with sweeping authority to oversee all Trump-related business operations.

    Acting Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Arthur Engoron issued the ruling after hearing arguments from the New York Attorney General's Office, which filed the lawsuit and sought the appointment, and a lawyer for Trump, who said the Attorney General' lacked the authority and legal standing to seek a preliminary injunction appointing the monitor and to pursue the lawsuit.

    "Defendants are wrong," wrote Engoron, whom Trump's legal team has sought unsuccessfully to have removed from hearing the case.

    Engoron's ruling preliminarily bars the Trump businesses from selling, transferring or disposing of non-cash assets without first providing 14 days written notice to the Attorney General's office and the court. It also orders appointment of a monitor to ensure compliance with the order.

    Trump businesses must give the monitor access to financial statements, statements of financial condition and "full and accurate descriptions of the structure and liquid and illiquid holdings and assets for the Trump Organization" and its subsidiaries and affiliates, the state trial court judge ordered.

    The businesses must give the monitor at least a 30-day advance notification of any planned reorganization or restructuring of the Trump Organization. Engoron set a Nov. 10 deadline for the submission of up to three monitor candidates each from state officials and Trump lawyers.

    "This court finds that the appointment of an independent monitor is the most prudent and narrowly tailored mechanism to ensure there is no further fraud or illegality...pending the final disposition of this action," wrote Engoron.

    His ruling added: "Defendants have failed to submit an iota of evidence or an affidavit from any one with personal knowledge rebutting" the attorney general's "comprehensive demonstration of persistent fraud."

    The decision is certain to be appealed by Trump. Barring a successful appeal, the ruling marks a major defeat for Trump and a preliminary victory for the state in the September lawsuit filed by New York Attorney General Letitia James, a Democrat who has frequently clashed with Trump.

    Former President Donald Trump gestures as he departs Trump Tower, Wednesday, Aug. 10, 2022, in New York, on his way to the New York attorney general's office for a deposition in a civil investigation.
    Former President Donald Trump gestures as he departs Trump Tower, Wednesday, Aug. 10, 2022, in New York, on his way to the New York attorney general's office for a deposition in a civil investigation.

    “Today’s decision will ensure that Donald Trump and his companies cannot continue the extensive fraud that we uncovered," James said in astatement. "No number of lawsuits, delay tactics, or threats will stop our pursuit of justice."

    Christopher Kise, an attorney for the Trump business entities, said in an email statement "this unprecedented order effectively seizes control of the financial affairs of a highly successful private corporate empire based on nothing more than gross exaggeration of standard valuation differences common in complex commercial real estate financing transactions."

    He also argued that James has "stretched the bounds of her authority to set a very dangerous precedent" that will affect other businesses.

    Trump, in a statement posted on his Save America political action committee, called the ruling "Communism come to our shores."

    The lawsuit argues that Trump was part of a 10-year scheme "that grossly inflated" his personal net worth by billions of dollars, and then used the higher values "to induce banks to lend money to the Trump Organization on more favorable terms than would otherwise have been available."

    The alleged actions violated New York laws and likely saved Trump, his business and his family more than $150 million from 2011-2021, the complaint argues.

    James' office is seeking $250 million in penalties and an order barring Trump and his children from holding executive posts on any New York businesses.

    Lawyers for the Trumps say there was no wrongdoing.

    Attorneys for both sides stated their positions for nearly three hours Thursday during an at-times heated hearing before Engoron.

    Kevin Wallace, a top lawyer in James' office, argued that appointment of a monitor and other steps were necessary to halt alleged "ongoing fraudulent activities" by the Trump Organization.

    He said the recent creation of the Trump Organization II required a legal block preventing the new organization or other entities from receiving financial transfers from Trump's long-existing businesses. Any such transactions could foil efforts to enforce the $250 million in penalties demanded by the lawsuit, said Wallace.

    Wallace also cited reports about a major asset-shedding move since James filed the civil lawsuit. The Trump Organization reportedly is moving to sell its rights to the Trump International Hotel in Washington, D.C., said Wallace.

    And he cited a lawsuit Trump lawyers filed against James in a Florida state court on Wednesday. The filing, replete with criticism of James, argued that her office lacks jurisdiction to seek internal details of a Florida-based trust that holds all of Trump's businesses on behalf of the former president. Trump previously lost a federal court action to end James' investigation.

    That new lawsuit filed by Trump aims to "preclude any visibility" into the trust's decisions and transactions, making it difficult for James' office to detect potential ongoing or future frauds, said Wallace.

    A court-authorized monitor would resolve potential financial questions about Trump's companies, said Wallace, who added that the monitor would not "inhibit the day-to-day operations of the Trump Organization."

    However, Kise, a Florida-based attorney, contended that appointment of a monitor represented an extraordinary step unsupported by any evidence.

    He argued that James lacked legal standing to win such an appointment, particularly before any court proceedings have been held on the accuracy and merits of the civil fraud allegations.

    There have been no efforts to avoid penalties that would be levied if James wins the case, said Kise. Two of Trump's Manhattan real estate properties, including Trump Tower, collectively are worth more than $250 million and "aren't going anywhere," he argued.

    Kise noted that major banks and insurance companies involved in Trump-related real estate development projects never complained or lost money on loan agreements they reached with the Trump Organization.

    He also argued that James' office misunderstood the nuances and complexities of the loan agreements that he said were "negotiated by experts on both sides."

    "This is a private dispute, and the private parties have not seen fit to complain," said Kise. "We view this as a manufactured bill of grievances."

    If a monitor were appointed,"then every business in the state of New York needs to be very concerned" about similar "nationalization of a private corporation," said Kise.

    Engoron, who questioned the attorneys during Thursday's arguments, is the judge who issued a contempt order against Trump and fined him more than $100,000 for failing to cooperate with subpoenas for James' investigation.

    Late Wednesday, Engoron declined to grant a request by Trump's lawyers to move the civil lawsuit to the court's Commercial Division, which typically handles complex corporate cases. Engoron said a previous denial of such a transfer by a New York supervisory judge was final and could not be appealed.

    Keys to the civil case against Trump: What to know about the NY attorney general's lawsuit against former President Donald Trump

    This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: NY judge orders monitor to oversee Trump Organization financial reports