– Rachel Borch was out for a jog in the woods near her home in Hope, Maine, when a "ferocious-looking" attacker with beady eyes and tiny teeth made a beeline for her, reports the Camden Herald. Borch, 21, knew immediately that something was wrong with the raccoon that was charging toward her. "Imagine the Tasmanian devil," she tells the Bangor Daily News of the "terrifying" June 3 incident. Yanking out her headphones, she began "dancing" around the animal on the narrow path, but she tells the Herald she knew that, one way or another, the animal was going to bite her. She figured her hands would be the best spot, so she offered them up. The raccoon chomped down on her thumb and stayed there, scratching at her legs and arms as she screamed. Now on her knees, she spotted her phone lying submerged in a mud puddle, and had an idea: drown it. "With my thumb in its mouth, I just pushed its head down into the muck," she tells the News. When the raccoon finally stopped moving, she yanked out her finger and raced the three-quarters of a mile home. Two days later, the state confirmed the animal was infected with rabies. Borch got rabies shots, and an animal control officer adds an unpleasant footnote: The infected raccoon may not be alone. "Not to scare people," Heidi Blood tells the News, but "when there’s one, there’s typically another." (Normally nocturnal like raccoons, a crazed beaver attacked a woman paddle-boarder.)

Expand this summary.

By Alex Acquisto , BDN Staff • June 14, 2017 2:30 pm

 Updated: June 22, 2017 1:24 pm

 HOPE, Maine — While jogging on a familiar, overgrown, wooded trail near her home on a recent warm afternoon, Rachel Borch thought to herself, “what a beautiful day.”

 Little did she know she was about to be attacked by a rabid raccoon she would end up killing with her bare hands.

 In the midst of appreciating the weather and scenery, she looked ahead and noticed a raccoon obstructing the narrow foot path, baring its tiny teeth.

 Suddenly, it began “bounding” toward her, Borch recalled Wednesday afternoon during an interview at her home on Hatchet Mountain Road in Hope.

 “I knew instantly it had to be rabid,” said Borch, who remembers ripping out her headphones and dropping her phone on the ground.

 What felt like a split second later, the furry animal was at her feet. Borch said she was “dancing around it,” trying to figure out what to do.

 “Imagine the Tasmanian devil,” she said. “It was terrifying.”

 The path was too narrow for Borch to run past the raccoon, which had begun lunging at her. With adrenaline pumping, Borch suspended her disbelief.

 “I knew it was going to bite me,” she said.

 Figuring she would have the greatest ability to defend herself if she used her hands to hold it down, she decided that probably would be the best place for the aggressive animal to latch on.

 The raccoon sank its teeth into Borch’s thumb and “wouldn’t let go.” Its paws were scratching her arms and legs wildly as Borch screamed and cried.

 In a matter of seconds, Borch, who could not unhinge the raccoon’s jaw to shake it off her hand, noticed that when she had dropped her phone, it had fallen into a puddle in the path and was fully submerged.

 “I didn’t think I could strangle [the raccoon] with my bare hands,” she remembers thinking, but holding it under the water might do the trick.

 Connecting the dots quickly, Borch, then on her knees, dragged the still biting raccoon, which was scratching frantically at her hand and arms, into the puddle.

 “With my thumb in its mouth, I just pushed its head down into the muck,” Borch said.

 With the animal belly-up, she held its head under water. “It was still struggling and clawing at my arms. It wouldn’t let go of my thumb,” she said.

 Borch said she held it there for what felt like an eternity until finally it stopped struggling and “its arms sort of of fell to the side, its chest still heaving really slowly.”

 Hyperventilating and in hysterics, she pulled her thumb out of the raccoon’s mouth, “and then I just bolted as fast as I could through the underbrush,” she said.

 Borch remembers looking back once to see if the raccoon had started chasing her again.

 “It felt like [Stephen King’s] ‘Pet Sematary,’” she said.

 Kicking her shoes off because they were soaked, Borch ran the three-quarters of a mile home to her house.

 Borch, who was screaming and unsure of how rabies affects humans, remembers thinking, “Oh, God, what if I just start foaming at the mouth and can’t find my way back?”

 She met her mother, Elizabeth, at home, and together they drove immediately to Pen Bay Medical Center.

 The dead raccoon was retrieved by Borch’s dad, who packed it into a Taste of the Wild dog food bag and handed it over to the Maine Warden Service.

 Hope Animal Control Officer Heidi Blood confirmed Wednesday that the dead raccoon later tested positive for rabies by the Maine Center for Disease Control.

 “Not to scare people,” Blood said, but “when there’s one [infected], there’s typically another.”

 It’s important to “let folks know that just because there’s one [infected] and it’s gone now, doesn’t mean the risk still isn’t there,” she said.

 Infected animals typically start showing signs within two weeks, Blood said. Humans can start exhibiting symptoms within a few weeks, she said, but often it takes a few months.

 “It’s scary stuff,” Blood said. “The No. 1 thing we try to remind people of is that it’s 100 percent fatal [if it goes untreated].”

 Borch has received six shots so far, including the rabies vaccine, and immunoglobulin and tetanus injections. She is slated to receive her last injection this weekend.

 “If there hadn’t been water on the ground, I don’t know what I would have done,” Borch said of drowning the animal. “It really was just dumb luck. I’ve never killed an animal with my bare hands. I’m a vegetarian. It was self-defense.”

 Her advice for others who find themselves facing a rabid animal? Borch said she has none.

 “I always thought of raccoons as this cute, cuddly forest animal,” she said. “I just will never look at them the same way.”

 Borch is not the only person to have been attacked by a rabid animal so far this season.

 Earlier this week, a Wiscasset man was bitten on both hands in Topsham by what was believed to be a rabid fox.

 As of June 7, according to the Maine CDC, there have been 20 animals, including raccoons, red foxes and skunks, that have tested positive for rabies in 2017.

 In 2016, 64 animals in Maine tested positive for rabies, according to CDC data.

 Loading… ||||| HOPE — A woman who was attacked by a rabid raccoon while running in the woods near her home drowned the animal in a puddle after it latched onto her thumb.

 Rachel Borch, 21, said she was getting ready to go out for an afternoon run on June 3 when her brother Chris told her to be careful because he had seen a raccoon “skulking” around the yard. He told her he thought it odd that the raccoon, normally a nocturnal animal, was out in the daytime.

 Borch said she was running on a fire road next to her house when she encountered the animal.

 “Out of nowhere, I see through the underbrush a very ferocious-looking raccoon charging at me with its teeth bared,” Borch said.

 She immediately knew something was wrong with the animal by the way it was acting.

 “It was one of those moments like out of the ‘Twilight Zone’ – this isn’t real, this doesn’t happen in real life, but then it was right there and it was right at my feet,” she said.

 Borch said she started dancing around the animal, frantically trying to figure out what to do.

 “There was nothing I could do, it was going to bite me,” she said. She had dropped her phone and had nothing to protect herself with.

 She figured that if it was going to bite her, it might as well be her hands. She put her hands out in front of her, and the raccoon latched onto her thumb.

 “I was screaming and crying and trying to hold it down,” she said. “There was a few inches of really muddy water on the ground – it was a swampy area of the trail – so I just took all my strength and pushed it into the water.”

 She said she pushed the raccoon’s head underwater and held it there for what seemed like a very long time as it clawed her arms and continued to bite down on her thumb.

 “It happened so fast, but also in slow motion,” Borch said.

 The state’s Center for Disease Control and Prevention confirmed June 5 that the raccoon tested positive for rabies.

 Rabies is caused by a virus, affects the brain and spinal cord and can cause death if left untreated, according to the Maine CDC. Rabies in people is very rare in the United States, but rabies in animals – especially wildlife – is common in most parts of the country, including Maine.

 The raccoon continued to move for a while while Borch kept its head underwater. She said she was afraid to let go for fear it would continue attacking her. Eventually, it released its paws and its jaws stopped clenching her thumb.

 Bleeding and crying, Borch ran home and screamed for her mother to call 911. Borch’s father, Brad, and her brother retrieved the animal so another animal wouldn’t drag it off and become infected.

 Hope animal control officer Heidi Blood said that if one animal tests positive for rabies, it’s “almost 100 percent” certain there are other animals in the area also infected. Blood said that last summer, two raccoons in Lincolnville and one in Hope tested positive for rabies.

 Blood said an animal doesn’t have to be aggressive to be infected; it can also act “delirious or drunklike.”

 She said people and their pets should avoid such animals, even dead ones, because the rabies virus can live outside the body for 24 hours.

 Under Maine law, cats and dogs, even if they stay indoors, must be vaccinated against the disease.

 Borch is expected to receive the last of four rabies shots on Saturday, and has been taking antibiotics for the puncture wounds on her hands.

 “You just can’t predict something like that,” Borch said. “I’m still processing it, but that does not happen and that is not a normal thing.”

 Share

 Want the news vital to Maine? Our daily headlines email is delivered each morning. Email *

 Newsletter Choices * Daily Headlines and Evening Express Breaking News Business Headlines Maine Cannabis Report High School Sports Real Estate

 * I understand the Terms of Service.

 Name This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

 This iframe contains the logic required to handle Ajax powered Gravity Forms. |||||


Article:

Donald Trump is "a wrecking ball" that's threatening to dismantle the Republican Party, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said Sunday.

 ADVERTISEMENT

 Graham, a GOP presidential contender, said Trump's recent condemnation of most immigrants as criminals — and the embrace of that message by many conservatives — represents "a defining moment" for the party that Republicans should soundly reject.

 "I'm very worried where we're headed as a party. I don't think this is the way to get the Latino vote," he said on CNN's "State of the Union" program.

 "If we don't reject this way of thinking — clearly, without any ambiguity — we'll have lost our way, [and] we'll have lost the moral authority, in my view, to govern this great nation."

 Trump churned countless headlines recently when he characterized most immigrants crossing the southern border as criminals and rapists. He then doubled down on those comments in the wake of this month's killing of a woman in San Francisco, allegedly by an illegal immigrant felon.

 "This is merely one of thousands of similar incidents throughout the United States," Trump said. "[T]remendous infectious disease is pouring across the border."

 The remarks have stirred concerns among national Republican leaders, who are trying to woo Latino voters who could prove crucial in a number of battleground states in 2016. Reince Priebus, the chairman of the Republican National Committee, has privately urged Trump to tone down the rhetoric.

 Graham said the comments "are not only offensive at every level, [but] you're telling the Hispanic community who are friends, neighbors and relatives of the illegal immigrant population exactly what we think of you."

 "I'm not going to be part of that," he said.

 Graham has been on the front lines of the immigration reform debate for years, joining the bipartisan coalition that spearheaded a sweeping reform bill in the last Congress. That proposal was approved by the Senate, but House GOP leaders rejected it, and it was never considered in the lower chamber.

 Graham on Sunday acknowledged the problems at the southern border, vowing to double the number of border patrol agents, triple the number of drones and tackle the problem of visa overstays.

 But he also warned that the Republicans who embrace Trump's message are digging their own political graves.

 "For us to win a national election we have to do better with Hispanics. And for us to have the moral authority as a party to govern a great nation we have to reject this demagoguery. If we don't we will lose, and we will deserve to lose," he said.

 "This is a defining moment for the Republican Party." ||||| Former Sen. Jim Webb (D-Va.) said on Sunday that Donald Trump is cheapening the 2016 presidential campaign with his abrasive immigration remarks.

 ADVERTISEMENT

 The Democratic White House hopeful said that Trump’s campaign rhetoric reflects poorly on the GOP’s presidential field.

 “This kind of divisive, inflammatory rhetoric from people who want to be commander in chief is not helpful,” Webb told host Bret Baier on “Fox News Sunday.”

 “Don’t be throwing these bombs,” he added.

 Trump has repeatedly attacked Hispanic illegal immigrants and Mexico since launching his 2016 campaign last month.

 Webb argued on Sunday that a liberal equivalent exists in the recent push to remove all Confederate symbols from government grounds.

 “We’ve seen it on the liberal side too with Southern white culture,” he said of insensitivity towards Southern culture.

 Webb launched his 2016 Oval Office bid on July 2.

 He said on Sunday that he offers a needed alternative to Hillary Clinton, the frontrunner for his party’s nomination.

 “You’re right — the Democratic Party has moved way to the left,” Webb told Baier when asked about the emergence of progressive politics into Democratic ideology.

 “That’s not my Democratic Party,” he said. “I believe that we can bring a different tone to the Democratic Party.”

 Webb charged on Sunday that his campaign could find success with America’s working class.

 “These are people who have not been forgotten by both parties,” he said of blue-collar voters. “I think they need a voice.” |||||
What is a summary?

– There is a gaggle of Americans currently seeking the 2016 presidential nomination, and a fair number of them are using today to talk about Donald Trump. Lindsey Graham led the charge, calling Trump out on his anti-Latino rhetoric and labeling the mogul "a wrecking ball" that could take apart the GOP as it seeks to bring Hispanic voters into the fold in what Graham terms "a defining moment" for the party, reports the Hill. "If we don't reject this way of thinking—clearly, without any ambiguity—we'll have lost our way, [and] we'll have lost the moral authority, in my view, to govern this great nation." Calling Trump's comments "offensive," Graham said, "I'm not going to be part of that." Carly Fiorina was considerably more amenable, saying that Trump was "tapping into an anger I hear everyday ... that a commonsense thing like securing the border or ending sanctuary cities is somehow considered extreme." Democrat Jim Webb, meanwhile, told Fox News, via the Hill, that Trump shouldn't "be throwing these bombs" and that such "divisive, inflammatory rhetoric from people who want to be commander in chief is" less than helpful. (Trump, meanwhile, is showing no signs of letting up.)


Write an article based on this summary:

– Israel has paid its final respects to divisive former leader Ariel Sharon, who died over the weekend after eight years in a coma. World leaders and Israeli officials gathered for a state memorial service in Jerusalem, which will be followed by a second funeral service at the Sharon family ranch near the Gaza border where he will be buried next to his wife, reports the Guardian. The Israeli military says two rockets were fired from Gaza just before the service but they do not appear to have landed in Israel, the AP reports. Critics denounce Sharon as a war criminal but funeral speakers including Joe Biden and Tony Blair were full of praise at the Jerusalem service, reports Reuters. Biden paid tribute to Sharon's decision to pull out of the Gaza Strip, while acknowledging that he had serious differences with US leaders. "The security of his people was always Arik's unwavering mission—an unbreakable commitment to the future of Jews, whether 30 years or 300 years from now," Biden said, describing Sharon as a complex man who lived in complex times. "Arik was never uncertain. But there were times when he acted, and those actions earned him controversy and even condemnation," he said. "And in certain instances American leaders, American presidents, had profound differences with him. And they were never shy about stating them. Nor was he ever shy about stating his position."

JERUSALEM (AP) — Israel's army says two rockets were fired from the Gaza Strip just hours ahead of Ariel Sharon's funeral but they did not appear to have landed in Israel.

 Israeli soldiers from a paratroopers unit rehearse at the grave site for late Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, who will be buried next to his wife, outside his ranch in Havat Hashikmim, southern Israel,... (Associated Press)

 Israeli soldiers from a paratroopers unit rehearse at the grave site for late Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, who will be buried next to his wife, outside his ranch in Havat Hashikmim, southern Israel,... (Associated Press)

 The location in southern Israel where former Israeli Prime Minister Sharon is to be buried later Monday is within range of rockets from the Palestinian territory and rockets in the past have hit the area.

 The military says Monday's rocket fire caused no injuries or damage. Israeli media said the rockets were fired into the sea.

 Media in Israel also say the Iron Dome anti-missile system has been deployed near Sharon's ranch in southern Israel to protect against rockets during the funeral. The military declined to comment.

 Israeli police spokesman Micky Rosenfeld says increased police forces have been deployed for Sharon's funeral. ||||| Israel beefed up security for former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's funeral near the Gaza border on Monday and warned the enclave's Palestinian rulers not to allow rocket fire during the ceremony, which US Vice President Joe Biden will attend.

 Sharon died at the age of 85 on Saturday after eight years in a coma caused by a stroke. A memorial service will be held on Monday in parliament in Jerusalem and an afternoon funeral near the Sharon family farm some 10 km (6 miles) from Gaza.

 The United States was among 18 countries to send delegations to the state ceremony for Sharon in Jerusalem. The White House said Biden would also travel to the burial at Sycamore Farm's Poppy Hill, in the southern Negev desert.

 An Israeli security source said Israel had "passed the message" to Gazan authorities to prevent any rocket fire during the funeral. Gaza is governed by Hamas Islamists who fought several times with Israel over the past few years.

 "It was made clear to them that tomorrow would be a very bad day for anyone there to test Israel's patience," said the source, who spoke on condition of anonymity.

 There was no immediate response from the Hamas government or other armed Palestinian factions. Egyptian officials, who in the past have served as mediators between Israel and Gaza, were unavailable for comment.

 A Reuters correspondent heard two explosions in northern Gaza on Monday morning which sounded like rocket impacts. An Israeli military spokeswoman said there had been no launches across the border. Israeli media said the blasts appeared to have resulted from Palestinian militants testing their weapons.

 At times of heightened tension Israel steps up aerial patrols of Gaza with combat helicopters and drones designed to spot Palestinian rocket crews and hit them with guided missiles before they can carry out launches.

 Security sources said Israel had deployed an Iron Dome rocket interceptor near Sycamore Farm, which has been hit by Gaza-launched rockets in the past.

 The rockets are often inaccurate and carry small warheads, causing relatively little damage. When fired in salvoes they spread panic and paralyse routine life in south Israel.

 How to handle Gaza is among the sticking points in Israel's US-sponsored peace negotiations with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, Hamas's rival based in the occupied West Bank.

 During his brief visit to Israel, Biden will discuss the so far fruitless diplomatic efforts with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and President Shimon Peres, U.S. officials said.

 The vice president will also seek to ease Netanyahu's concerns about world powers' interim nuclear deal with Israel's arch-foe Iran, which takes effect on 20 January.

 Biden is seen by Israel and its US supporters as one of its best friends in Washington in a career dating back to his decades on Capitol Hill, where he chaired the Senate Foreign Relations Committee before assuming the vice presidency.

 Israel's Army Radio said there had been no intelligence indications that Palestinians were planning to shell Sharon's funeral. Yet authorities braced for any surprise.

 "We are taking the full range of possible scenarios into account," southern police commander Yoram Halevy told the station. "The IDF (Israel Defence Forces) is prepared, informed and ready to respond if so required."

 Since a 2012 eight-day war with Israel, which killed some 170 Palestinians and six Israelis, Hamas has largely held fire but smaller militant groups have occasionally challenged its authority with their own rocket attacks into the Jewish state. |||||


Summarize this article:

Emmanuel Dunand/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images

 LONDON — Christine Lagarde, the International Monetary Fund chief, has succeeded in generating some rare unanimity in crisis-hit Greece with remarks in which she described the Greeks as tax-dodgers.

 “Insulting,” said Evangelos Venizelos, the Socialist leader, in response to an interview Ms. Lagarde gave to The Guardian, a British newspaper. “Greek workers pay their taxes, which are unbearable,” said Alexis Tsipras of the far-left Syriza party.

 As of Monday, more than 19,000 comments had been posted on Ms. Lagarde’s Facebook page, many from Greeks and most uncomplimentary.

 The controversy also spilled over to her native France, where Najat Vallaud-Belkacem, the government spokeswoman, described Ms. Lagarde’s view of the Greeks as “a bit of a caricature.”

 Jean-Luc Mélenchon, of France’s left-wing Front de Gauche, suggested she should quit and demanded to know what right she had to make “unworthy” comments about the Greeks.

 In the offending interview, published Saturday, the I.M.F. boss appeared to place the blame firmly on the Greeks for their present economic mess and suggested “all these people in Greece who are trying to escape tax” should help themselves collectively by paying it.

 In the furor that followed, Ms. Lagarde issued a statement expressing sympathy for the Greeks and the challenges they were facing. That was why the I.M.F. was supporting Greece’s efforts to overcome its economic crisis, she said.

 She tempered her original point by adding: “An important part of this effort is that everyone should carry their fair share of the burden, especially the most privileged and especially in terms of paying their taxes.”

 While Ms. Lagarde’s Facebook page was overwhelmed with comments, some Greeks set up a rival page to channel the national outrage. Commentary on social media accused Ms. Lagarde of preaching to poor Greeks from the position of a highly paid — and untaxed — international bureaucrat.

 That came with advice to stay out of Greece:

 M/s Lagarde would be well advised never to step foot on Greek soil — unless of course she can withstand the wrath of the Greek people ! — Taking On Banks (@bankcustomers) May 28, 2012

 Bill Mitchell, an Australian economist, wrote in his blog on Monday that her remarks fit into a pattern of bullying by international institutions as Greece headed for a new round of elections next month.

 The Guardian itself challenged Ms. Lagarde’s views in a follow-up editorial suggesting that, as French finance minister at the end of the boom years, she was partly responsible for Europe’s current financial plight.

 “Not only should Christine Lagarde know better, she does know better,” the newspaper said.

 Criticizing her for placing the blame on spendthrift southern European nations, it said: “Imprudent borrowers require foolhardy lenders, and in Greece and elsewhere that role has often been played by northern European banks.” ||||| The International Monetary Fund has ratcheted up the pressure on crisis-hit Greece after its managing director, Christine Lagarde, said she has more sympathy for children deprived of decent schooling in sub-Saharan Africa than for many of those facing poverty in Athens.

 In an uncompromising interview with the Guardian, Lagarde insists it is payback time for Greece and makes it clear that the IMF has no intention of softening the terms of the country's austerity package.

 Using some of the bluntest language of the two-and-a-half-year debt crisis, she says Greek parents have to take responsibility if their children are being affected by spending cuts. "Parents have to pay their tax," she says.

 Greece, which has seen its economy shrink by a fifth since the recession began, has been told to cut wages, pensions and public spending in return for financial help from the IMF, the European Union and the European Central Bank.

 Asked whether she is able to block out of her mind the mothers unable to get access to midwives or patients unable to obtain life-saving drugs, Lagarde replies: "I think more of the little kids from a school in a little village in Niger who get teaching two hours a day, sharing one chair for three of them, and who are very keen to get an education. I have them in my mind all the time. Because I think they need even more help than the people in Athens."

 Lagarde, predicting that the debt crisis has yet to run its course, adds: "Do you know what? As far as Athens is concerned, I also think about all those people who are trying to escape tax all the time. All these people in Greece who are trying to escape tax." She says she thinks "equally" about Greeks deprived of public services and Greek citizens not paying their tax.

 "I think they should also help themselves collectively." Asked how, she replies: "By all paying their tax."

 Asked if she is essentially saying to the Greeks and others in Europe that they have had a nice time and it is now payback time, she responds: "That's right."

 The intervention by Lagarde comes after the caretaker Greek government met to discuss a sharp fall in tax revenues – down by a third in a year. Under the terms of the country's bailout, Athens has agreed to improve Greece's poor record for tax collection in order to reduce its budget deficit, and Lagarde's remarks are evidence of a growing impatience in the international community. Reports surfaced in Germany and France of preparations being made to cope with Greece's possible departure from the single currency after its election on 17 June.

 Belgium's deputy prime minister, Didier Reynders, said it would be a "serious professional error" if central banks and companies did not prepare for an exit.

 The euro came under fresh attack on the foreign exchanges, dropping below €1.25 at one point on Friday, as the Spanish government was in talks to pump up to €19bn of rescue finance into Bankia, one of the country's biggest banks, and the Catalan regional government sought financial help from Madrid to deal with its debts.

 Signs emerged of a widening gulf between Germany and France over whether common eurobonds should be issued to help those countries, such as Greece and Spain, with high interest rates on their debt.

 Jens Weidmann, president of the Bundesbank, poured cold water on the idea – which is strongly backed by the French president, François Hollande – and also said financial aid to Greece should be cut off if it failed to keep to the bailout deal.

 Jürgen Fitschen, joint head of Germany's biggest bank, Deutsche, described Greece as "a failed state … a corrupt state". Separately, however, there were reports suggesting that the chancellor, Angela Merkel, was dusting down the economic modernisation plan used to revive East Germany after the fall of communism in the belief that similar measures could be applied to Greece and other struggling eurozone countries. Today's Der Spiegel magazine says Merkel will present a six-point plan based on the East German blueprint as a growth strategy. It includes measures such as privatisation, looser employment law and lower tax rates.

 Opinion polls are pointing to a close race between parties backing and opposing the terms of Greece's €130bn bailout, but neither Germany nor the IMF has demonstrated any willingness to water down Greece's austerity programme.

 In her interview Lagarde says Greece is not getting softer treatment than a poor country in the developing world, and that the IMF does not find it harder to impose strong conditions on a rich nation.

 "No, it's not harder. No. Because it's the mission of the fund, and it's my job to say the truth, whoever it is across the table. And I tell you something: it's sometimes harder to tell the government of low-income countries, where people live on $3,000, $4,000 or $5,000 per capita per year, to actually strengthen the budget and reduce the deficit. Because I know what it means in terms of welfare programmes and support for the poor. It has much bigger ramifications." ||||| Christine Lagarde, the IMF boss who caused international outrage after she suggested in an interview with the Guardian on Friday that beleaguered Greeks might do well to pay their taxes, pays no taxes, it has emerged.

 As an official of an international institution, her salary of $467,940 (£298,675) a year plus $83,760 additional allowance a year is not subject to any taxes.

 The former French finance minister took over as managing director of the IMF last year when she succeeded her disgraced compatriot Dominique Strauss-Kahn, who was forced to resign after he faced charges – later dropped – of sexually attacking a New York hotel maid.

 Lagarde, 56, receives a pay and benefits package worth more than American president Barack Obama earns from the United States government, and he pays taxes on it.

 The same applies to nearly all United Nations employees – article 34 of the Vienna convention on diplomatic relations of 1961, which has been signed by 187 states, declares: "A diplomatic agent shall be exempt from all dues and taxes, personal or real, national, regional or municipal."

 According to Lagarde's contract she is also entitled to a pay rise on 1 July every year during her five-year contract.

 Base salaries range from $46,000 to $80,521. Senior salaries range between $95,394 and $123,033 but these are topped up with adjustments for the cost of living in different countries. A UN worker based in Geneva, for example, will see their base salary increased by 106%, in Bonn by 50.6%, Paris 62% and Peshawar 38.6%. Even in Juba, the capital of South Sudan, one of the poorest areas of the world, a UN employee's salary will be increased by 53.2%.

 Other benefits include rent subsidies, dependency allowances for spouses and children, education grants for school-age children and travel and shipping expenses, as well as subsidised medical insurance.

 For many years critics have complained that IMF, World Bank, and United Nations employees are able to live large at international taxpayers' expense.

 During the 1944 economic conference at Bretton Woods, where the IMF was created, American and British politicians disagreed over salaries for the bureaucrats. British delegates, including the economist John Maynard Keynes, considered the American proposals for salaries to be "monstrous", but lost the argument.

 Officials from the various organisations have long maintained that the high salaries are a way of attracting talent from the private sector. In fact, most senior employees are recruited from government posts. |||||

– IMF chief Christine Lagarde probably wants this one back: She infuriated Greeks last week by asserting that a big part of the nation's financial crisis is "all these people in Greece who are trying to escape tax." It's time for this nation of tax-dodgers to pay up, she declared. After getting bombarded by critics on Facebook, Lagarde walked back the criticism a bit, notes the New York Times. But today, the Guardian follows up with more fodder for her critics: LaGarde has to pay no taxes at all on her own $468,000 salary. "I suppose we can have a discussion about why international organization employees shouldn’t pay taxes," writes David Dayen at Firedog Lake. "But the bigger issue is that Lagarde surely knew at the time of making comments about evil tax evaders that she paid no tax on her salary. This reeks of the attitude of one system for the little people, and one for the elites, which characterizes elite discourse in this day and age."


News article:

BuzzFeed has terminated a deal with the Republican National Committee to run political advertisements in the fall, the company's CEO, Jonah Peretti, informed employees Monday morning.

 In an email, Peretti cited Donald Trump's rhetoric and campaign promises as the reason for the decision to terminate the buy, worth $1.3 million according to a source who spoke with Politico.

 "Earlier today, BuzzFeed informed the RNC that we would not accept Trump for President ads and that we would be terminating our agreement with them," Peretti said. "The Trump campaign is directly opposed to the freedoms of our employees in the United States and around the world and in some cases, such as his proposed ban on international travel for Muslims, would make it impossible for our employees to do their jobs."

 Peretti added later in the email, "We certainly don't like to turn away revenue that funds all the important work we do across the company. However, in some cases we must make business exceptions: we don't run cigarette ads because they are hazardous to our health, and we won't accept Trump ads for the exact same reason."

 A spokesman for the RNC did not respond to a request for comment from BuzzFeed, but RNC senior strategist Sean Spicer told CNN that the RNC never intended to use BuzzFeed as a platform.

 "Space was reserved on many platforms, but we never intended to use BuzzFeed," Spicer said, adding, "It is ironic that they have not ruled out taking money from a candidate currently under investigation by the FBI."

 In a follow-up email, BuzzFeed editor-in-chief Ben Smith reiterated that the decision was not an editorial call and that coverage of the Trump campaign by BuzzFeed News journalists would go unchanged. "This was Jonah's call, and the prerogative of a publisher," Smith wrote.

 Here's Peretti's full email: ||||| On Media Blog Archives Select Date… December, 2015 November, 2015 October, 2015 September, 2015 August, 2015 July, 2015 June, 2015 May, 2015 April, 2015 March, 2015 February, 2015 January, 2015

 Getty BuzzFeed pulls out of $1.3M advertising deal with RNC over Donald Trump

 BuzzFeed has pulled out of an advertising agreement with the Republican National Committee over objections to Donald Trump's rhetoric.

 The buy was for $1.3 million, a source close to BuzzFeed told POLITICO. The source said that the main consideration was the site’s employees – that BuzzFeed could not countenance “having employees make ads, or working at the company and having our site promoting things, that limit our freedom and make it harder for them to live their lives.”

 Asked if the site would rule out any Trump advertising, the source said the specifics would matter: “In general, we have taken the position that we won’t take ads for his presidential campaign.”

 In an email to staff on Monday, BuzzFeed founder and CEO Jonah Peretti explained that in April, the RNC and BuzzFeed signed an agreement to "spend a significant amount on political advertisements slated to run during the Fall election cycle." But since Trump became the nominee his campaign has proven themselves to be "directly opposed to the freedoms of our employees in the United States," because of proposed bans on Muslim immigration and comments about descendants of immigrants, among other policies.

 "We don't need to and do not expect to agree with the positions or values of all our advertisers. And as you know, there is a wall between our business and editorial operations. This decision to cancel this ad buy will have no influence on our continuing coverage of the campaign," Peretti said in the memo, a copy of which was obtained by POLITICO.

 "We certainly don't like to turn away revenue that funds all the important work we do across the company," Peretti wrote. "However, in some cases we must make business exceptions: we don't run cigarette ads because they are hazardous to our health, and we won't accept Trump ads for the exact same reason."

 In a follow up email, BuzzFeed editor-in-chief Ben Smith said the decision was from the business side and would not affect coverage of the Trump campaign. "This was Jonah’s call, and the prerogative of a publisher,” Smith wrote.

 RNC chief strategist and spokesman Sean Spicer said in a statement to CNN that the RNC "never intended" to use the ad space reserved with BuzzFeed.

 "Space was reserved on many platforms, but we never intended to use BuzzFeed," Spicer said. "It is ironic that they have not ruled out taking money from a candidate currently under investigation by the FBI."

 BuzzFeed has had an at times contentious relationship with the Trump campaign, with their reporters being denied credentials or general entry to Trump rallies and being directly targeted by the campaign and Trump himself. Reporters at the site told POLITICO that the decision likely won't change their relationships with the campaign, which they described as already strained.

 It's also far from the first time the site has taken a position on a topic. In early 2012, BuzzFeed blacked out parts of their site in solidarity with the protest against the Stop Online Piracy Act. Following the Supreme Court ruling in 2015 which legalized same sex marriage, the site changed its logo to the rainbow flag colors, which are a symbol of the gay pride movement. Smith said at the time: "We firmly believe that for a number of issues, including civil rights, women’s rights, anti-racism, and LGBT equality, there are not two sides."

 Other websites have taken stands against Trump as well. The Huffington Post adds a note to each of its politics articles about the Republican nominee, calling him "serial liar, rampant xenophobe, racist, misogynist and birther."

 A spokesperson for The Huffington Post told POLITICO "We've made our stance on Trump clear from the very beginning and will not be running any Trump for President ads," when asked if the site would follow Buzzfeed's decision.

 A spokesperson for BuzzFeed declined to comment on the size of the ad buy or on any further details about the ad buy.

 We've reached out to the Trump campaign further comment, and will update here accordingly.

 Read the full memo below:

 "Hello BuzzFeeders,

 I wanted to share with you a business decision we have made regarding the Trump for President campaign and why we made it.

 In April, the Republican National Committee signed an agreement with BuzzFeed to spend a significant amount on political advertisements slated to run during the Fall election cycle. As you know, we accept advertisements from both republican and democratic candidates and we were pleased to accept this advertising order from the RNC.

 Since signing this advertising deal, Donald Trump, as you know, has become the presumptive nominee of his party. The tone and substance of his campaign are unique in the history of modern US politics. Trump advocates banning Muslims from traveling to the United States, he's threatened to limit the free press, and made offensive statements toward women, immigrants, descendants of immigrants, and foreign nationals.

 Earlier today Buzzfeed informed the RNC that we would not accept Trump for President ads and that we would be terminating our agreement with them. The Trump campaign is directly opposed to the freedoms of our employees in the United States and around the world and in some cases, such as his proposed ban on international travel for Muslims, would make it impossible for our employees to do their jobs.

 We don't need to and do not expect to agree with the positions or values of all our advertisers. And as you know, there is a wall between our business and editorial operations. This decision to cancel this ad buy will have no influence on our continuing coverage of the campaign.

 We certainly don't like to turn away revenue that funds all the important work we do across the company. However, in some cases we must make business exceptions: we don't run cigarette ads because they are hazardous to our health, and we won't accept Trump ads for the exact same reason.

 Thanks,

 Jonah "

 Additional reporting by Kelsey Sutton

 Hadas Gold is a reporter at Politico.

 Mike Allen is chief White House correspondent for POLITICO. |||||
What is a shorter version of the above article?

– There've been no shortage of complaints about how the media is handling the candidacy of Donald Trump—but now one media outlet is putting its advertising revenue where its mouth is and axing a deal to run ads this fall from the Republican National Committee. That outlet is BuzzFeed, and in an email to employees Monday morning, company CEO Jonah Peretti outlined the reasons it has nixed what a source tells Politico was a $1.3 million ad buy promoting Trump. "The Trump campaign is directly opposed to the freedoms of our employees in the United States and around the world and in some cases, such as his proposed ban on international travel for Muslims, would make it impossible for our employees to do their jobs," Peretti writes, explaining the deal was originally signed in April, before Trump became the presumptive nominee. Although Peretti notes that BuzzFeed staff "certainly don't like to turn away revenue that funds all the important work we do across the company," he adds that "the tone and substance of his campaign are unique in the history of modern US politics" and that an exception must be made. "We don't run cigarette ads because they are hazardous to our health, and we won't accept Trump ads for the exact same reason," he writes. Ben Smith, BuzzFeed's editor-in-chief, says that editorial coverage of Trump will continue as usual, noting in his own email: "This was Jonah's call, and the prerogative of a publisher." (Read the full email at BuzzFeed.)


Newlyweds Busted Trying To Shoplift $1049 In Groceries For Their Wedding Reception Share

 Tweet

 A Pennsylvania couple married a week ago allegedly attempted to shoplift more than $1000 of merchandise from a supermarket--items they planned to use for their wedding reception last Friday afternoon.

 Brittany Lurch, 22, and Arthur Phillips, 32, were arrested after trying to walk out of a Wegmans with goods valued at $1,049.26, according to the Patton Township Police Department. The newlyweds, pictured in the above mug shots, were collared after wheeling the hot merchandise out of the store in two shopping carts to their waiting Hyundai.

 Phillips told arresting officers that the merchadise was “for their wedding reception” later that afternoon, according to a criminal complaint excerpted here. Lurch, a mother of two, and Phillips were wed a day earlier, on August 18.

 While the complaint does not provide an itemized list of goods boosted from Wegman’s, a cop reported that, “the suspects had ordered numerous items from the seafood department.” A source familiar with the items found in the couple’s carts told TSG that the stolen merch included a shrimp platter ($115); two spiral hams ($70); a vegetable tray ($50); appetizer trays; eggs; a punch bowl; forks; spoons; soda; dinnerware for eight; turkey; toothbrushes; a polo shirt; and Gillette Fusion razor blades.

 Before bonding out, the newlyweds briefly lived under the same roof at the Centre County jail, where they were booked on misdemeanor theft and receiving stolen property charges. ||||| Arthur Phillips III, 32, and Brittany M. Lurch, 22, both of Centre Hall, accused of stealing more than $1,000 worth of merchandise from Wegmans on Saturday. PHOTO PROVIDED

 A newlywed couple is accused of stealing more than $1,000 of merchandise Saturday from a supermarket that police said they intended for their wedding reception later that afternoon.

 The value of the stolen items totaled $1,049.26, police said.

 Arthur Phillips III, 32, and Brittany M. Lurch, 22, both of Centre Hall, married Aug. 18, and scheduled their wedding reception for 5:30 p.m. Saturday, police said. But at 2:30 p.m., Patton Township police were called to Wegmans supermarket for a report of a retail theft.

 They watched the couple on surveillance cameras put items in their shopping cart, and walk out to their car without paying, according to an affidavit filed by police. Police then arrested Phillips and Lurch, who told them the items were intended for their reception.

 The couple didn’t make it to the reception. Charged with misdemeanor counts of retail theft and receiving stolen property, Phillips and Lurch remain in Centre County jail in lieu of $2,500 bail.

 Police said they found a glass smoking pipe with marijuana residue while searching the couple’s car. Philips was charged with possession of drug paraphernalia.

 They each waived their right to a preliminary hearing Wednesday.

 Mike Dawson can be reached at 231-4616. |||||
What is a one-paragraph summary of the above article?

– From the chapel to the clink? A Pennsylvania couple is accused of stealing $1,049.26 of food and other goods from a grocery store on Saturday afternoon—with the intention of serving said food to guests at their 5:30pm wedding reception. Arthur Phillips, 32, and Brittany Lurch, 22, were married two days before they walked into a Wegmans to "shop" for what a source told the Smoking Gun included a shrimp platter, two spiral hams, a veggie tray, and soda, among other edibles. Other crucial reception items included a punch bowl, forks and spoons, and, in a sign that there's nothing like one-stop shopping, a polo shirt and Gillette Fusion razor blades. The most brainiac part? According to the criminal complaint, the duo pushed one cart out of the store ... then went right back in and starting filling up a second cart. The Centre Daily Times reports that when police arrested the pair, they also found a pipe with pot residue in the couple's car. The groom apparently took the fall for his new bride, and was charged with possession of drug paraphernalia; both were hit with theft-related charges.


Summarize this article:

Story highlights Law says doctors can't perform abortions without admitting privileges in nearby hospitals

 Planned Parenthood files suit

 The judge sides with the group

 The restraining order will stay in place until another hearing next week

 A Wisconsin federal judge has granted a temporary restraining order preventing the state from enforcing a new and restrictive abortion law.

 The law, signed by Gov. Scott Walker on Friday, bans doctors from performing abortions if they don't have admitting privileges to hospitals within 30 minutes of their practice.

 U.S. District Judge William Conley granted the hold Monday after the Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin filed suit.

 The group alleges the admitting privilege requirement is unconstitutional and treats doctors who perform abortions differently from doctors who perform other types of medical procedures.

 Conley agreed.

 "There is a troubling lack of justification for the hospital admitting privileges requirement," he wrote in his 19-page ruling.

 He added that the U.S. Supreme Court precedent places the burden upon states to show such laws are "reasonably directed to the preservation of maternal health."

 To that end, "the record to date strongly supports a finding that no medical purpose is served by this requirement," he said.

 The restraining order will stay in place pending a fuller hearing on July 17.

 The law, which took effect Monday, also requires women to have an ultrasound before getting an abortion, but that portion of the law was not challenged in the Planned Parenthood suit.

 Opponents of the Wisconsin legislation allege that restrictions in the law would force the closing of several abortion clinics, and that the law is simply a way to make access to abortions more difficult.

 Supporters insist that it would guarantee a safer environment for a woman suffering from abortion-related complications.

 Judge Conley questioned that contention, saying, "The current system already handles efficiently the very low percentage of women seeking abortions with serious complications."

 CNN reached out to Walker's office for response and is awaiting a response. ||||| SHARE Poll Do you agree with the judge's decision to delay state law requiring doctors who perform abortions to have hospital admitting privileges? Yes No vote View Results Yes: 65% No: 35% Total Responses: 3280

 By of the

 Madison — After a hastily called hearing, a federal judge Monday put a 10-day freeze on a new state law requiring doctors who perform abortions to have hospital-admitting privileges.

 In a 19-page opinion issued Monday evening, U.S. District Judge William M. Conley cited a "troubling lack of justification" for the law and said he would stay enforcement of the admissions provision until July 18, a day after a more deliberate courtroom hearing scheduled before him next week.

 "There will almost certainly be irreparable harm to those women who will be foreclosed from having an abortion in the next week either because of the undue burden of travel or the late stage of pregnancy, as well as facing increasing health risks caused by delay," the judge wrote. "Since the state has failed to date to demonstrate any benefit to maternal health of imposing this restriction, there is no meaningful counterweight recognized by the United States Supreme Court to justify the act's immediate enforcement."

 Conley's ruling does not affect a separate provision of the new law requiring women to undergo an ultrasound before having an abortion. At next week's hearing Conley could potentially choose to reinstate the full law or keep it blocked.

 Abortion clinics filed the lawsuit in federal court in Madison on Friday immediately after Gov. Scott Walker privately signed the law, which went into effect Monday. The measure had been expected to cut the number of clinics offering abortions in Wisconsin from four to two and cause one of the remaining clinics to sharply reduce the number of abortions it provides, according to the operators of the clinics.

 Without Conley's action, one clinic would have had to cancel 30 abortions or related appointments, with additional cancellations also needed at the other two clinics, attorneys for the plaintiffs said Monday.

 A spokeswoman for the Department of Justice, which is defending the law, had no comment on the temporary stay. Lester Pines, an attorney representing Planned Parenthood who had been briefed on the ruling, called it a "very good decision" that would prevent clinics in Milwaukee and Appleton from having to cancel procedures this week.

 In court Monday afternoon, Pines pointed to the Wisconsin Medical Society's opposition to the law, saying that key doctors groups had publicly said the law is not needed to protect women's health. The measure was intended to limit access to abortions, he argued.

 "The state cannot show that there is a legitimate medical purpose for this," Pines said.

 Pines cited a declaration in the case signed by Douglas Laube, a former chairman of the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology at the University of Wisconsin and president of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

 "This requirement is medically unjustified and will have serious consequences for women's health in Wisconsin," Laube said in the declaration.

 Backers of the law, which also requires women seeking abortions to get ultrasounds, have said the measure could benefit both fetuses and pregnant women and the law will ultimately be upheld by the courts.

 Daniel Lennington, an assistant attorney general with the state Department of Justice, focused in Monday's hearing on what he said are the potential benefits of the law compared with its other effects.

 "I don't think that the plaintiffs have provided any proof that a woman's right to an abortion is unduly burdened," Lennington told Conley.

 Planned Parenthood and Affiliated Medical Services brought the federal lawsuit against state Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen, Dane County District Attorney Ismael Ozanne, Safety and Professional Services Secretary Dave Ross and the members of the state Medical Examining Board — all of whom have authority to enforce the law or issue sanctions.

 Planned Parenthood has abortion clinics in Milwaukee, Madison and Appleton; Affiliated has one in Milwaukee. A fifth Wisconsin clinic that offers abortions, in Green Bay, plans to stop offering abortion services on Aug. 1 for reasons unrelated to the admitting privileges law, according to the suit.

 Teri Huyck, president and chief executive officer of Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin, said last week that without a stay, her group would have had to close its Appleton abortion clinic and offer at least 50% fewer abortions at its Milwaukee facility. Affiliated would have to close its Milwaukee clinic, according to the suit.

 That would mean abortions in Wisconsin would not be available north of Madison, and after the 19th week of pregnancy would not be available anywhere in the state, according to the groups' complaint.

 The clinics asked the court to immediately block the law, contending it violates the constitution's due process guarantee, puts an undue burden on a woman's right to choose abortion and unconstitutionally treats doctors who perform abortions differently than doctors who perform other procedures.

 Lennington argued that northern Wisconsin residents could still receive abortions in Milwaukee, Madison, Chicago or the Twin Cities and that the additional drive wasn't an undue burden. But Conley noted the driving conditions that can prevail in wintry northern Wisconsin.

 "You haven't driven those roads very often," he said.

 In his ruling, Conley, who was appointed by President Barack Obama, also said the law will lead to delays in receiving abortions and that many women receiving the procedure at the affected clinics are poor and may find the additional travel beyond their means.

 Challenges to similar laws in other states have had some success, at least initially. Nationally, the matter will likely ultimately be decided by higher courts, according to legal experts on both sides of the issue.

 The bill's proponents have said the law was aimed at providing the best available health care for women and ensuring they have an opportunity to see the fetus on an ultrasound monitor and consider the decision to have an abortion in the light of that.

 Susan Armacost, a lobbyist for Wisconsin Right to Life, said last week that clinics should be able to get admitting privileges if they have competent doctors.

 Citing Laube's declaration and a 1999 study, Pines said Monday that abortion is an outpatient service that requires hospitalization in only 0.3% of cases. When it does, patients quickly get into nearby hospitals without problems under the existing system, he said.

 Pines said getting admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles would be impossible in some cases because some hospitals require physicians to admit a certain numbers of patients annually, and abortion doctors rarely have reason to admit patients to hospitals.

 "The Legislature has set up a catch-22," Pines said after the hearing.

 Lennington said that figure cited by Pines showed complications do sometimes occur after abortions but told Conley he could not verify the statistic on such short notice.

 "That's the best I can do at this time, your honor," he said.

 Larry Dupuis, an American Civil Liberties Union of Wisconsin attorney representing Affiliated Medical Services, said Monday that 30 appointments scheduled for Tuesday at the group's Milwaukee clinic would have had to be canceled if the law remained in place. |||||

– On Friday, Gov. Scott Walker signed into law a bill requiring doctors performing abortions to have admitting privileges at hospitals within a half-hour of their practices. Now a federal judge has temporarily halted the measure, citing "a troubling lack of justification for the hospital admitting-privileges requirement." The US Supreme Court says measures like this one must be "reasonably directed to the preservation of maternal health"—and "it appears that no medical purpose is served by this requirement," Judge William Conley wrote, per CNN. His move, following a Planned Parenthood suit, bars the measure until July 18, a day after another hearing on the measure, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel notes. Another part of the law, requiring pre-abortion ultrasounds, is untouched by Conley's move. It was thought that the admitting-privileges portion of the law would halve the number of abortion clinics in the state, leaving just two.


Write an article based on this summary:

– Congrats, Amazon. The company has the best reputation among American consumers, according to 24/7 Wall St., which lists the companies with the best and worst reputations based on the 2017 Harris Poll and American Customer Satisfaction Index. The top five in each category, with a reputation score out of 100: Best: Amazon.com: 86 Wegmans: 85 Publix: 83 Johnson & Johnson: 82.5 Apple: 82 Worst: Takata: 49 Wells Fargo: 49 Goldman Sachs: 56 Monsanto: 57 Halliburton: 58 Click to see both lists in full, or the companies with the best reputations in 2016.

Harris Poll: Corporate Reputation Politically Polarized as Companies Wrestle With Taking a Stand for Their Values

 Republicans View Chick-fil-A and Hobby Lobby Reputations More Favorably

 08:30 AM EST Feb 9, 2017 Rating Share

 Vision and Strong Leadership Increasingly Important To a Company’s Reputational Equity Yet Half of Americans Have Negative Views of Today’s CEOs

 Although Tesla Out of Reach for the Masses, Americans Propel Automaker’s Reputation

 Consumers Cite Intentional Wrongdoing and Dishonesty as Top Reputational Threats

 Amazon Records Highest Reputation Rating in 18 Years of Study; Wells Fargo Experiences Largest Reputation Drop in Harris Poll History

 NEW YORK – As companies wrestle with how to approach a divided U.S. political climate, new research from The Harris Poll shows that Americans view the reputations of some companies as aligned with their individual values. Republicans hold the reputations of Chick-fil-A and Hobby Lobby - companies that have vocally shared their conservative beliefs - significantly more favorably than Democrats do. Democrats perceive Target’s reputation more positively.

 “In such divided times, as companies scurry to figure out if and how to respond to the issues and commentary of the new administration, we find that corporate reputation perceptions can be just as polarizing,” said Wendy Salomon, vice president of reputation management and public affairs at The Harris Poll. “Companies that have taken very public stands for their beliefs are rewarded by consumers of similar conservative or liberal views, but there is also clear risk among those who feel otherwise.”

 According to Harris Poll’s research, Chick-fil-A earns a higher reputation score among Republicans than any other company, scoring 17.4 points higher among Republicans (“excellent”) than among Democrats (“good”). Hobby Lobby also scores 17 points higher among Republicans (excellent” compared to “fair” among Democrats). Democrats score Target 11.8 points higher (“very good”) compared to Republicans (“fair”).

 “Values play a bigger role than ever before in corporate reputation, and the business significance of a company’s reputation has never been higher,” said Mark J. Penn, managing partner and president of The Stagwell Group LLC, which owns The Harris Poll. “Consumers are keenly interested in how companies engage with the world, and that includes corporate ideals. As the red versus blue duel of politics impacts corporate reputation, we expect to see more alignment along party beliefs.”

 The Harris Poll Reputation Quotient (RQ), which identifies movement, trends and insights in a changing corporate reputation landscape, reveals reputation ratings for the 100 most visible companies in the U.S., as perceived by the general public. A trusted baseline for understanding and managing corporate reputation and identifying new market risks and opportunities, the RQ measures companies’ reputation strength based on the perceptions of more than 23,000 Americans across six corporate reputation dimensions: Social Responsibility, Emotional Appeal, Products and Services, Vision and Leadership, Financial Performance, and Workplace Environment. In this year’s study, 17 of the 100 most visible U.S. companies earned “excellent” reputation scores and 34 companies received “very good” scores. The Harris Poll 2017 Reputation Quotient Summary Report can be found at www.theharrispoll.com/reputation-quotient/.

 The Harris Poll 2017 Reputation Quotient

 Top Ten

 Top Ten Top Ten RQ Score 1. Amazon.com 86.27, Excellent 2. Wegmans 85.41, Excellent 3. Publix Super Markets 82.78, Excellent 4. Johnson & Johnson 82.57, Excellent 5. Apple 82.07, Excellent 6. UPS 82.05, Excellent 7. The Walt Disney Company 82.04, Excellent 8. Google 82.00, Excellent 9. Tesla Motors 81.70, Excellent 10. 3M Company 81.50, Excellent

 The Harris Poll 2017 Reputation Quotient

 Bottom Ten

 Bottom Ten Bottom Ten RQ Score 91. Volkswagen Group 63.46, Poor 92. AIG 63.22, Poor 93. Charter Communications 62.80, Poor 94. Sears Holdings Corporation 62.74, Poor 95. Bank of America 59.69, Poor 96. Halliburton 58.30, Poor 97. Monsanto 56.61, Poor 98. Goldman Sachs 56.32, Poor 99. Wells Fargo & Company 49.11, Critical 100. Takata 48.70, Critical

 Vision and Leadership More Important Than Ever, Yet CEOs’ Reputations Failing

 Harris Poll’s analysis shows that while Vision and Leadership attributes are increasingly important to reputation equity, an astounding half of Americans rate the reputations of today’s corporate leaders and CEOs as “bad.” Only one-quarter of the public rates CEOs with “good” reputations; 26 percent are neutral. Americans cite trusted, ethical and accountable as the most important traits for CEOs, while it is less important for business leaders to be curious, visible, bold and risk takers.

 “Vision and Leadership impact a company’s reputational equity now more than it did ten years ago, meaning today’s CEOs and business leaders have a major reputation issue,” said Salomon. “It’s important that companies continue to find ways to demonstrate the value their vision for the future delivers, and how their team of leaders can make that vision a reality.”

 Tesla Unobtainable for Many Yet Reputation High

 Tesla Motors makes its RQ and top ten (#9) debuts with an “excellent” reputation rating, despite the fact that many Americans may never purchase one of its products – or even ride in one.

 “Many companies with high reputations are fairly ubiquitous; you interact with them in your home, you shop at these stores and you use their services,” said Salomon. “What’s interesting about Tesla is that while Elon Musk undoubtedly brings a ‘celebrity CEO’ factor, it’s a company that isn’t accessible to most consumers. Given this strong reputational backdrop, and that Musk has the ear of the Trump administration, Tesla will be a fascinating company to watch moving forward.”

 Highly Visible for the Wrong Reasons

 The RQ study shows that Americans have a deeper knowledge of how companies behave with companies like Takata (massive airbag scandal) and Mylan (EpiPen pricing scandal) more visible due to reputational crises. This year marks the first time Takata and Mylan have appeared on the Most Visible Companies list, with “fair” (Mylan) and “critical” (Takata) ratings.

 “Takata and Mylan are not household names, yet due to recent events, they are well known,” said Salomon. “It’s a clear indication of the level of understanding and engagement the public has in the granular details of crisis situations. Corporate behavior has become common dinner table conversation.”

 Most Damaging Scenarios to Corporate Reputation

 According to the RQ study, the biggest risks to corporate reputation are intentional wrongdoing or illegal actions by corporate leaders (cited by 85 percent of Americans), lying or misinterpreting the facts about a product or service (83%) and intentional misuse of financial information for financial gain (82%). Other risks to reputation damage include security or data breaches (74%), unfair workplace conditions and culture (67%), workplace discrimination (65%), product recall due to contamination (65%) and poor leadership conduct (64%).

 When asked which company damaged their reputation the most this past year, most consumers cited Wells Fargo (23%), followed by Volkswagen (9%) and Samsung (5%).

 “Incidents that introduce reputational risk are not created equal,” said Salomon. “Some crises that we’ve seen play out in the past few years cut at the core of what the public sees as most damaging, while other situations aren’t such a big deal. Reputation managers often face great internal and external pressures to respond, so the more they can understand the scale of response that makes sense the better.”

 Amazon, Wells Fargo Make RQ History

 Wells Fargo & Company, tainted by a fake accounts scandal, fell 20.6 points, surpassing Volkswagen’s 2016 decline (-20.5) as the largest drop in RQ’s 18-year history.

 Amazon.com - claiming the top spot for the second consecutive year and marking the ninth consecutive year the online retailer has ranked in the top ten - recorded the highest rating (86.27) by any company during nearly two decades of RQ corporate reputation insights.

 Driven by its product offerings and an emotional connection with consumers, Amazon.com is unsurpassed in four areas important to reputation – Emotional Appeal (includes elements of trust, admiration and respect), Products and Services (includes elements of quality, innovation and good value for money), Vision and Leadership and Financial Performance.

 Notable Improvements, Prominent Declines

 Volkswagen Group, plagued by an emissions scandal in 2016, is starting to show signs of reputational recovery, rebounding 8.7 points to an RQ score of 63.46 (poor). The company tied with Toyota Motor Corporation (80.21, excellent) for the largest RQ increase in 2017. JCPenney (+6.4) also shows notable improvement, earning the highest RQ score the company has had in the past decade. UPS (2012) and 3M (2011) return to the top ten after multi-year absences.

 Wells Fargo and Takata are the only companies to score at “critical” levels. Wells Fargo fell 20.6 points, from a “fair” (69.73) score in 2016 to 49.11. Takata debuted at the bottom (#100) of the RQ list with a score of 48.70.

 Other companies showing marked declines are Procter & Gamble Co. (-5.3), Samsung (-5.3), Chipotle (-4.6) and Bank of America (-4.6). Procter & Gamble’s decline is evident across all reputation dimensions, but particularly pronounced with Workplace Environment.

 Methodology

 The 2017 Harris Poll Reputation Quotient was conducted online in English, among 23,633 U.S. respondents from November 29 - December 16, 2016, with preliminary nominating waves of research conducted among 4,092 respondents from September 13 -15 and October 4 – 6, 2016.

 The Annual RQ study begins with a Nomination Phase, which is used to identify the companies with the most "visible" reputations. All respondents are asked, unaided, to name companies that stand out as having the best and worst reputations. Online nominations are summed to create a total number of nominations for each company. The final list of the 100 most visible companies in the U.S. is measured in the RQ Ratings Phase. In the ratings phase, respondents are randomly assigned to rate two of the companies with which they are "very" or "somewhat" familiar. After the first company rating is completed, the respondent is given the option to rate the second company. Companies are rated on their reputation on 20 different attributes that comprise the Reputation Quotient instrument. The attributes are grouped into six different reputation dimensions: Emotional Appeal, Financial Performance, Products and Services, Social Responsibility, Vision and Leadership, and Workplace Environment.

 Respondents for this survey were selected from among those who have agreed to participate in Harris Poll and sample partner surveys. The data have been weighted to reflect the composition of the adult population. Because the sample is based on those who agreed to participate in an online panel, no estimates of theoretical sampling error can be calculated.

 About the Reputation Quotient

 The Harris Poll Reputation Quotient (RQ), an established annual measure of the understanding of corporate reputation in America since 1999, identifies movement, trends and insights in a changing corporate reputation landscape. It quantifies reputation ratings for the 100 most visible companies in the U.S., as perceived by the general public.

 About The Harris Poll

 Over the last five decades, Harris Polls have become media staples. With comprehensive experience and precise technique in public opinion polling, along with a proven track record of uncovering consumers' motivations and behaviors, The Harris Poll has gained strong brand recognition around the world. The Harris Poll offers a diverse portfolio of proprietary client solutions to transform relevant insights into actionable foresight for a wide range of industries including health care, technology, public affairs, energy, telecommunications, financial services, insurance, media, retail, restaurant, and consumer packaged goods.

 The Harris Poll Reputation Quotient results disclosed in this press release may not be used for advertising, marketing or promotional purposes without the prior written consent of Harris Poll. ||||| Worst Reputations:

 Source: vw.com

 10. Volkswagen Group

 > 2017 reputation score: 63.46

 > 2016 reputation score: 54.75

 > Industry: Automobile manufacturing

 > CEO: Matthias Müller

 The Environmental Protection Agency announced in September 2015 that a number of Volkswagen vehicles had been rigged to pass emissions tests. Volkswagen admitted that 11 million of its cars were manipulated to falsely understate exhaust emissions levels. The scandal was one of the worst instances of major corporate fraud in recent history. It resulted in more than $20 billion in fines and lawsuits in the U.S. alone, the resignation of the CEO and suspension of several executives, and pending criminal charges for a number of U.S. employees. While Volkswagen’s reputation is recovering — the increase in the company’s reputation score from 54.75 in 2016 to 63.46 in 2017 was the largest of any corporation — the automaker has one of the worst reputations of any company today.

 Source: Wikimedia Commons

 9. AIG

 > 2017 reputation score: 63.22

 > 2016 reputation score: 61.15

 > Industry: Insurance

 > CEO: Peter Hancock

 AIG can trace its roots back nearly 100 years to its Shanghai-based predecessor, a general insurance company known as American Asiatic Underwriters. Today, the company provides insurance and other financial services in more than 100 countries.

 The company’s reputation took a major hit during the financial crisis, when the federal government stepped in to save the insurer it considered too big to fail with an $85 billion bailout. AIG is one of several companies on this list to receive a bailout during the Great Recession, many of which are also blamed for contributing to the crisis that led to their downfalls. Currently, company board members are discussing CEO Peter Hancock’s future with the company, as his two-year restructuring plan designed to reward shareholders appears to be failing.

 Source: Wikimedia Commons

 8. Charter Communications

 > 2017 reputation score: 62.80

 > 2016 reputation score: 64.78

 > Industry: Cable telecommunications

 > CEO: Thomas Rutledge

 Charter Communications is a telecommunications company that sells cable, phone, and internet services through the brand Charter Spectrum. After purchasing Time Warner Cable and Bright House Networks in 2016, Charter became the second largest broadband internet provider and third largest pay-TV provider in the United States. Those who opposed the merger claimed that the less competition would leave little incentive for Charter to improve its customer service. Charter Communications currently has one of the lowest customer satisfaction scores of any major company on the ACSI. While most of the Harris Poll’s 100 most recognizable companies improved in reputation over the past year, Charter’s reputation score fell from 64.78 in 2016 to 62.80 in 2017 — one of the largest declines of any company.

 Source: Wikimedia Commons

 7. Sears Holdings Corporation

 > 2017 reputation score: 62.74

 > 2016 reputation score: 64.69

 > Industry: Retail

 > CEO: Edward Lampert

 Sears has long struggled against the rising tide of e-commerce. In the ACSI, Sears ranks third worst in customer service among major retailers, ahead of only Ross Stores and Wal-Mart. Sears continues to close stores nationwide. Even as it is constantly trimming down operations, the company loses money. Sears Holding Corporation has reported a net loss in each of the last five fiscal years, amounting to over $8.3 billion. Over the past five years, company shares plunged by nearly 90%.

 Like many other companies on this list, Sears Holdings does not appear to do well by its employees. According to reviews on Glassdoor, fewer than one in three employees would recommend a job with the company to a friend. Only 13% of employees approve of CEO Edward Lampert.

 Source: Wikimedia Commons

 6. Bank Of America

 > 2017 reputation score: 59.69

 > 2016 reputation score: 64.26

 > Industry: Finance

 > CEO: Brian Moynihan

 Bank of America, the second largest American bank based on total assets, did not have a good year when it comes to its reputation. In the 2016 edition of the Harris Poll survey, the bank received a reputation score of just 64. In the 2017 edition, BofA’s score fell below 60, one of the sharpest drops of any company. The company has faced a number of lawsuits for its actions and the actions of companies it acquired, including Bear Stearns, during the financial crisis. In January, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corpoation sued Bank of America for $542 million for money the bank allegedly owes the federal body.

 Customer service is a big part of a company’s reputation, and Bank of America’s ACSI score of just 75 is tied with Chase as the worst among major banks. ||||| Best Reputation:

 Source: Wikimedia Commons

 10. 3M Company

 > 2017 reputation quotient: 81.50

 > 2016 reputation quotient: N/A

 > Industry: Product manufacturing

 > CEO: Inge G. Thulin

 Based on the Harris Poll Reputation Quotient study, 3M has an excellent reputation, ranking 10th highest among visible American companies. 3M was originally founded in 1902 as primarily a mining operation, with the three Ms standing for the Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing co. The company has since evolved considerably. Based in St. Paul, Minnesota today 3M creates a wide range of consumer, industrial, healthcare, safety, and electronics products. In the Harris poll, 3M receives particularly high marks for the quality of its products. The company’s positive reputation may be helping its financial performance on Wall Street. Shares of 3M have risen by more than 100% over the past five years.

 Source: CONCAVO WHEELS / Wikimedia Commons

 9. Tesla Motors

 > 2017 reputation quotient: 81.70

 > 2016 reputation quotient: N/A

 > Industry: Automaker

 > CEO: Elon Musk

 The 2017 edition of the Harris Poll study included for the first time electric car manufacturer Tesla as one of the most visible companies. In its first year, Tesla also rated as one of the most positively reviewed of the highly visible companies. The automaker was founded by tech mogul and icon Elon Musk, who also heads SpaceX. In August 2015, Tesla’s Model S received a score of 103 from Consumer Reports, the highest score the review company has ever awarded to a car. According to Harris Poll, while most Americans cannot afford a Tesla — the Model S and Model X each has an MSRP greater than $70,000 — Musk’s star power helps drive up the company’s reputation. Tesla’s reputation for vision and leadership ranked third best among all companies considered in the Harris Poll study.

 Source: Wikimedia Commons

 8. Google

 > 2017 reputation quotient: 82.00

 > 2016 reputation quotient: 82.97

 > Industry: Internet

 > CEO: Sundar Pichai

 Compared to other companies on this list, Google’s reputation has declined, albeit slightly. In the 2017 edition of the Harris Poll study, Google received a reputation score of 82, slightly below its rating of 83 last year. Still, the internet giant remains one of the most well-regarded brands in the world. Google has long been the dominant search engine worldwide, and Google’s Chrome web browser now commands a substantial lead in its market as well, surpassing long-time leaders such as Microsoft’s Edge (formerly Internet Explorer) and Mozilla’s Firefox. Google has a reputation for being an excellent employer. On employee review site Glassdoor, the company received an extremely high 4.4 out of five, and 98% of employees said they approve of company CEO Sundar Pichai, who was appointed in August 2015.

 Source: Wikimedia Commons

 7. The Walt Disney Company

 > 2017 reputation quotient: 82.04

 > 2016 reputation quotient: 81.18

 > Industry: Film and entertainment

 > CEO: Bob Iger

 For decades, The Walt Disney Company has produced wildly popular children’s movies, and the company’s theme parks have been popular tourist destinations since Disneyland opened in 1955. The company has expanded its reputation and influence in film recently, producing many of the most popular films of the decade. In addition to Disney Studios, the company is the long-time owner of digital animation studio Pixar. It also acquired Marvel Studios in 2009 and Lucasfilm 2012. In 2015 and 2016 alone, Disney’s Buena Vista studios produced nine of the 100 highest grossing films of all time. In December, Disney became the first company to surpass $7 billion at the global box office in a single year. Partially as a result of the company’s success in Hollywood, shares of Disney have increased by over 160% over the last five years. With high revenues and strong returns for investors, Disney’s reputation for financial performance ranks third among all U.S. companies.

 Source: Wikimedia Commons

 6. UPS

 > 2017 reputation score: 82.05

 > 2016 reputation score: 78.22

 > Industry: Package delivery

 > CEO: David Abney

 With a fleet of 108,210 automobiles, 237 jet aircraft, and over 434,000 employees, the United Parcel Service delivers an estimated 19.1 million packages and documents around the globe every day. Perhaps contributing to its positive public image, UPS has a number of environmentally friendly practices in place. It was the first major package delivery business to offer customers and clients the chance to buy carbon offsets to negate the emissions generated by the shipping of their packages. According to Harris Poll, the company’s efforts to modernize — by diversifying and strengthening connections to e-commerce — have also provided a major reputation boost.

 Like many of the companies on this list, UPS in the last five years, Like many other companies on this list, UPS has been a strong performer on Wall Street. In the last five years, the company’s share price has gone up by over 37%. The company’s reputation has improved recently, with its reputation quotient rising from 78.22 in 2016 to 82.05 in 2017, one of the largest improvements of any company. ||||| It came to light in September that Wells Fargo had fraudulently opened over 2 million credit card and banking accounts without approval from customers, allowing the bank to collect $2.6 million in fees from its customers.The bank was fined $185 million by the Federal Deposit Insurance Company.

 The scandal led to a shakeup of the bank’s corporate management, a stumble in share prices, and serious, perhaps permanent damage to the company’s reputation. According to a recently released Harris poll, Wells Fargo now has the second worst reputation of any major, highly visible company. Takata, the Japanese airbag manufacturer responsible for a 42 million vehicle recall, has the worst reputation.

 The Harris Poll Reputation Quotient measures public opinion on the nation’s most recognizable companies. Respondents were asked to rate companies based on six components: emotional appeal, products and services, vision and leadership, workplace environment, social responsibility, and financial performance. 24/7 Wall St. reviewed the companies with the highest and lowest reputation quotients. While Takata now has the worst reputation, e-commerce giant Amazon.com remains the best. These are the companies with the best (and worst) reputations.

 Click here to see the companies with the best reputations.

 Click here to see the companies with the worst reputations.

 Many companies on both sides of this list are customer facing, and quality of service is a key part of their reputations — for better or worse. All of the well-regarded companies on this list with data from the American Customer Satisfaction Index have a customer satisfaction score of at least 80 out of 100. Companies with excellent reputations such as Amazon, Apple, and Google have among the highest scores in the ACSI.

 None of the companies with the poorest reputations has a better score than 80 in the ACSI. The subscription television service of Charter Communications, which has the eighth worst reputation of any highly visible company, has a score of just 60 in the ACSI, nearly the worst.

 A company’s reputation can have a meaningful impact on its bottom line, and vice versa. Most of the companies with the best reputations, including Amazon, Apple, Google, and Tesla have likely benefitted significantly from word of mouth about the quality of their products. Nearly every one of the best rated companies has reported considerable profits and several have had stock prices more than double in the past few years. With high sales and healthy profits, these companies can spend more on customer service, product quality, and employee satisfaction, creating a positive feedback loop that can boost reputation in the long term.

 Meanwhile, several companies with poor reputations have lost money and have had plummeting share prices. For example, Sears shares are down by about 90% and the company has reported over $8 billion in losses over the past five years. As the company continues to lose money, it will likely be forced to cut corners, doing itself no favors in terms of customer service and reputation.

 Company reputation is not just determined by the quality of products or services, but often by specific events. Wells Fargo one clear example of this, as the 2016 account scandal caused the bank’s reputation to plummet by more than 20% in a single year. Volkswagen’s diesel emissions scandal in 2015 destroyed the German automaker’s reputation, and the company still ranks among the 10 worst.

 Several brands on this list, including Takata, are only visible enough to be considered in the Harris Reputation Quotient because they were involved in scandal. Others, such as Monsanto, Halliburton, and Chick-fil-A, have polarizing reputations closely tied to the respondent’s political convictions.

 To determine America’s most and least reputable companies, 24/7 Wall St. reviewed reputation scores among the nation’s 100 most recognizable companies from the 2017 Harris Poll Reputation Quotient (RQ), produced by Harris Interactive. The study consists of two parts: a nominations stage in which consumers identify the nation’s most visible companies, followed by a ratings stage, in which each company’s reputation is measured on a scale of 0-100. In addition, we considered company consumer satisfaction scores from the American Customer Satisfaction Index (ACSI), and company information from SEC filings.

 These are the companies with the best (and worst) reputations. |||||


Article:
UPDATE, 11:45 a.m. ET: Contrary to a new report from the Associated Press, Madonna says she has not applied to adopt two more children from Malawi.

 "I am in Malawi to check on the children's hospital in Blantyre and my other work with Raising Malawi, and then heading home," she tells Us Weekly in a statement. "The rumors of an adoption process are untrue.”

 Original story below:

 Her Madgesty is hoping to expand her dynasty. Madonna has applied to adopt two more children from Malawi, the Associated Press reports.

 According to the AP, government spokesman Mlenga Mvula says the 58-year-old superstar appeared before a High Court judge on Wednesday, January 25. The decision to grant Madonna the adoption order remains in the hands of the court. The AP reports that the “Living for Love” singer will have to wait one week before finding out if she is able to move forward with the adoptions.

 The pop diva, who adopted son David and daughter Mercy James, both 11, in 2008 and 2009, respectively, founded her Raising Malawi foundation in 2006 to benefit the orphans and underprivileged children living in the impoverished nation.

 During an October 2006 interview with Oprah Winfrey, Madonna shared why she was inspired to adopt from Malawi.

 “To see 8-year-olds in charge of households. To see mothers dying, with Kaposi's sarcoma lesions all over their bodies. To see open sewages everywhere. To see what I saw. It is a state of emergency. As far as I'm concerned, the adoption laws have to be changed to suit that state of emergency,” she said at the time. “I think if everybody went there, they'd want to bring one of those children home with them and give them a better life."

 The Queen of Pop also told Winfrey about the struggle of adopting a child from the southern African country.

 "I assure you it doesn't matter who you are or how much money you have, nothing goes fast in Africa," she explained. "There are no adoption laws in Malawi. And I was warned by my social worker that because there were no known laws in Malawi, they were more or less going to have to make them up as we went along. And she did say to me, 'Pick Ethiopia. Go to Kenya. Don't go to Malawi because you're just going to get a hard time.'"

 Madonna adopted David with ex-husband Guy Ritchie, whom she divorced in 2008 after eight years of marriage. She shares 16-year-old son Rocco with the British filmmaker too. The Grammy winner is also mom of Lourdes, 20, with ex Carlos Leon.

 Sign up now for the Us Weekly newsletter to get breaking celebrity news, hot pics and more delivered straight to your inbox!

 Want stories like these delivered straight to your phone? Download the Us Weekly iPhone app now! ||||| Image copyright AP Image caption The star previously adopted two children from Malawi with ex-husband Guy Ritchie

 Pop star Madonna has denied "rumours" she has applied to adopt two more children in Malawi.

 It comes after a Malawian government spokesperson told news outlets the 58-year-old singer had appeared in court and had "filed an application expressing interest" to adopt.

 Madonna is currently in the African country, but said her visit was strictly for charity purposes.

 "The rumours of an adoption process are untrue," she said in a statement.

 "I am in Malawi to check on the children's hospital in Blantyre and my other work with Raising Malawi and then heading home."

 Court spokesman Mlenga Mvula had told news agencies earlier on Wednesday the singer had appeared in High Court, applying to adopt two children.

 "As a court, we adjourned the matter for a ruling (in the next two weeks). The court will either grant the adoption order or might not," he said.

 Image copyright AFP Image caption Madonna with her children (L-R): David, Madonna, Lourdes, Mercy and Rocco visiting Malawi in 2013

 Madonna previously adopted two children from the African country: David Banda in 2006 and Mercy James in 2009.

 The star's relationship with Malawi dates back to 2006, when she established the Raising Malawi charity, with the goal of improving children's lives.

 She initially planned to build a $15m (£12m) girls' academy, but later changed strategy, and used the money to fund a number of schools.

 The charity also provides scholarships to female students, and is currently building the country's first paediatric intensive care unit at the Queen Elizabeth Central Hospital, in Blantyre.

 Madonna visited the project last summer, and took David and Mercy to visit the orphanages where they lived before being adopted.

 The star has two other children - Lourdes and Rocco - from previous relationships. Last year saw her involved in a custody dispute over Rocco with ex-husband Guy Ritchie.

 She eventually lost the case, with the 16-year-old moving to London to live with his father.

 Follow us on Facebook, on Twitter @BBCNewsEnts, or on Instagram at bbcnewsents. If you have a story suggestion email entertainment.news@bbc.co.uk. ||||| The Secret Service isn’t happy with Madonna’s remarks about “blowing up the White House.”

 In a passionate speech on Saturday, Madonna went on a rampage about her feelings toward Donald Trump’s presidency.

 “Yes, I’m angry. Yes, I am outraged. Yes, I thought an awful lot about blowing up the White House,” she said at a Women’s March protest in Washington, D.C. “But I know that this won’t change anything. We cannot fall into despair.”

 RELATED: Kellyanne Conway weighs in on the Women’s March: “I frankly didn’t see the point”

 According to Page Six, her comments got the attention of federal law enforcement and the Secret Service is reportedly investigating.

 On Sunday, the “Material Girl’ singer took to Instagram to clarify her comments.

 “I want to clarify some very important things. I am not a violent person, I do not promote violence and it’s important people hear and understand my speech in it’s entirety rather than one phrase taken wildly out of context,” Madonna wrote.

 “One of the singers said she wanted to blow up the White House. I mean, can you imagine saying that about President Obama,” White House Chief of Staff Reince Priebus told “Fox News Sunday.”

 RELATED: The Dunkin’ Donuts employee who wrote the NSFW poem Ashley Judd recited at the Women’s March is defending her words

 An official U.S. spokesperson said that the statement will be evaluated for it’s seriousness.

 “It’s all about intent. Is she intending to do harm to the White House or President Trump? Otherwise it will be characterized as inappropriate,” the official said to The Post. “If it’s characterized as inappropriate, then there won’t be any discussions with the U.S. Attorney. If it’s determined that there’s intent on her part, then there will be discussions with the U.S. Attorney and they’ll take it from there.” ||||| This will appear next to all of your comments

 This will NOT appear anywhere on Newser ||||| Madonna is applying to adopt two more children from Malawi, a government spokesman has confirmed.

 The singer appeared in court in Lilongwe today after filing her application and must wait a week to decide if the court will grant an adoption order. She flew into the country yesterday, fresh from the Women’s March in Washington.

 She already has two children from the African country - David, adopted from an orphanage in 2006, and Mercy, adopted in 2009. Both are aged 11. Her other children are Lourdes, 20, from a relationship with Carlos Leon, and Rocco, 16, by her former husband Guy Ritchie.

 Lilongwe High Court officials said Madonna appeared before Justice Fiona Mwale.

 According to local reports, Madonna was spotted after the hearing carrying one child, while one of her entourage carried another. |||||Summary:

– Scratch that: Outlets including the BBC and the AP reported that Madonna had applied to adopt two children in Malawi, but the Material Girl has since refuted those reports. "I am in Malawi to check on the children's hospital in Blantyre and my other work with Raising Malawi, and then heading home," she tells Us. "The rumors of an adoption process are untrue." Madonna, 58, flew into Malawi on Tuesday and a government spokesperson had confirmed to the aforementioned news outlets that she appeared in High Court in the country's capital on Wednesday. Citing local reports, the Telegraph said she was seen carrying one child after the hearing, while another person from her group carried a second child. A court spokesperson had also said that the singer, who has already adopted two children from Malawi, would need to wait a week before learning the court's decision. (The Secret Service is rumored to be investigating Madonna.)