Yehuda Lave is an author, journalist, psychologist, rabbi, spiritual teacher, and coach, with degrees in business, psychology and Jewish Law. He works with people from all walks of life and helps them in their search for greater happiness, meaning, business advice on saving money, and spiritual engagement.
Professor Eran Segal, a researcher at the Weizmann Institute whose analyzes of the epidemic data are submitted to the Corona Cabinet, publishes today (Monday) the numbers of those who died from it among people over the age of 60, from which a particularly shocking figure emerges.
According to the data now revealed, from the beginning of the corona plague until yesterday, one in every hundred people over the age of sixty from the ultra-Orthodox community fell victim to the virus.
Speaking to Kikar Hashabat, Segal says: "The spread of morbidity in the ultra-Orthodox sector was significantly greater than the spread in other sectors, and unfortunately we see that it had a high price per capita, with mortality in the sector aged 60 and over 3.5 times higher than in the general sector."
As will be recalled, the Arab sector in Israel also suffered quite badly from the corona virus, where 1 in 140 people over the age of 60 died after being infected with it.
As for the general sector, the professor writes, 1 in 350 people over the age of 60 dies from the corona virus. According to Segal, "If the level of morbidity in the general sector was the same as in the ultra-Orthodox sector, it could have amounted to an additional 7,600 deaths compared to today from the general sector aged 60 and over."
The weighting of all populations in Israel, regardless of them, shows that 93% of those who died of the corona virus were over sixty years old.
The Three Musketeers at the Kotel
Omar’s anti-Semitism makes her unfit for House committees, Republicans say
By Lauren Marcus, World Israel News
House Republicans have launched an effort to oust Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) from her Committee assignments, “in light of conduct she has exhibited,” reported Fox News.
Reps. Brian Babin (R-TX), Jeff Duncan (R-SC), Jody Hice (R-GA), Andy Biggs (R-AZ), and Ronny Jackson (R-TX) argue that Omar’s repeated anti-Semitic and anti-Israel statements make her unfit for her job.
The move comes on the heels of a Democrat-led effort to expel newcomer Rep. Marjorie Taylor-Greene (R-GA) from Congress after she “liked” social media posts stating that a number of U.S. mass shootings were staged.
A member of the progressive “Squad,” Omar’s past statements have earned her criticism from Jewish groups, Republicans, and even some of her left-wing allies.
”Israel has hypnotized the world, may Allah awaken the people and help them see the evil doings of Israel,” she tweeted in August 2012. The tweet rose to prominence years later after her election, and Omar defended the tweet in an interview.
“What is really important to me is that people recognize that there is a difference between criticizing a military action by a government that has exercised really oppressive policies and being offensive or attacking particular people of faith,” she told CNN.
During her July 2020 re-election campaign, Omar’s tactics against her fellow Democrat challenger, attorney Antone Melton-Meaux, were widely condemned as relying on anti-Semitic tropes.
Vice Newspublished Omar’s flyer, which pointed large donations to Melton-Meaux from Jews. The flyer noted that one was made by “Michael in Scarsdale, New York,” a town known for having a large Jewish population.
“It’s a common campaign tactic for progressives to attack their moderate foes for taking big corporate money. But by solely mentioning Jewish donors by name while painting Melton-Meaux as being in their ‘pocket’ to do their bidding on financial issues, her campaign’s mailer makes an argument that critics see as an anti-Semitic trope — especially in light of her string of previous controversial remarks about Israel,” Vice reported.
In November 2020, Omar accused Israel of “ethnic cleansing” after the Jewish state demolished temporary Palestinian structures which were illegally built in the middle of an IDF firing range.
House Impeachment Brief Against Trump Threatens Freedom of Speech of All Americans: Dershowitz
Harvard Law School professor emeritus Alan Dershowitz said Thursday that the House impeachment brief against former President Donald Trump, which seeks to undermine Trump’s First Amendment-based argument in his defense, amounts to a dangerous broadside against the freedom of speech of all Americans.
Writing in an op-ed for The Hill, Dershowitz made a case against a key argument contained in the brief, namely that “the First Amendment does not apply at all to impeachment proceedings,” signals Congressional willingness to take aim at the freedom of speech more broadly.
“The brief filed by the House managers advocating the conviction and disqualification of citizen Donald Trump contains a frontal attack on freedom of speech for all Americans,” Dershowitz wrote. “It states categorically that ‘the First Amendment does not apply at all to impeachment proceedings,’ despite the express language of that amendment prohibiting Congress from making any law, or presumably taking any other action, that abridges ‘the freedom of speech.’”
The legal scholar then challenged another statement in the brief, namely that “the First Amendment exists to promote our democratic system.”
“This categorical statement surely would have surprised the Framers of the First Amendment, who believed in freedom of speech but not so much in democracy,” Dershowitz wrote. “The Framers of our constitutional system thought they were building a ‘republic,’ with limited suffrage and many checks on ‘democracy,’” he added, arguing that freedom of speech is “essential to keeping it a republic, but not necessarily a democracy.”
“So, no, the First Amendment does not exist only to ‘protect our democratic system.’ It exists to protect our liberty, regardless of what system we choose,” he wrote.
Dershowitz said that the argument made by the authors of the House brief that the First Amendment “doesn’t apply to presidents or others who ‘attack our democracy,’ is the same as that made by Sen. Joseph McCarthy and his acolytes decades ago “when they sought to deny First Amendment protection to communists and others who were seen as enemies of democracy and who, if they had come to power, would have denied the rest of us our freedoms, including that of free speech.”
“Freedom of speech must include those who would replace democracy with other systems of governance. It must even include those who advocate severe restrictions on freedom of speech, as many young left wing radicals do today. They, too, must be allowed to express their dangerous views,” he argued.
The House brief argues that the First Amendment protects private citizens from the government but “it does not protect government officials from accountability for their own abuses in office.”
Holding Trump “accountable through conviction on the article of impeachment would vindicate First Amendment freedoms—which certainly offer no excuse or defense for President Trump’s destructive conduct,” the brief’s authors argue.
“Even if the First Amendment were applicable here, private citizens and government officials stand on very different footing when it comes to being held responsible for their statements,” they wrote.
Citing U.S. Supreme Court rulings in cases Branti v. Finkel and Elrod v. Burns, they argued that, “as the leader of the Nation, the President occupies a position of unique power. And the Supreme Court has made clear that the First Amendment does not shield public officials who occupy sensitive policymaking positions from adverse actions when their speech undermines important government interests.”
The House brief alleges that Trump incited a mob that breached the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6 by sowing doubt about the integrity of the 2020 presidential election.
<figure id="attachment_3674209" class="wp-caption alignnone"><figcaption class="wp-caption-text">Protesters clash with police at the U.S. Capitol in Washington on Jan. 6, 2021. (Julio Cortez/AP Photo)</figcaption></figure>
Trump’s legal team denies the allegation and argues in a memo (pdf) that the trial is unconstitutional because Trump is no longer president. The team also argues that Trump exercised his First Amendment rights in calling into question the results of the election.
“After the November election, the 45th President exercised his First Amendment right under the Constitution to express his belief that the election results were suspect, since with very few exceptions, under the convenient guise of COVID-19 pandemic ‘safeguards’ states election laws and procedures were changed by local politicians or judges without the necessary approvals from state legislatures,” the legal team wrote.
“Like all Americans, the 45th President is protected by the First Amendment,” they wrote. “Indeed, he believes, and therefore avers, that the United States is unique on Earth in that its governing documents, the Constitution and Bill of Rights, specifically and intentionally protect unpopular speech from government retaliation.”
“If the First Amendment protected only speech the government deemed popular in current American culture, it would be no protection at all,” they added.
Dershowitz’ sentiment that the reasoning featured in the impeachment brief is a threat to freedom of speech more broadly was echoed in a statement by Trump adviser Jason Miller, who said: “not only will President Trump be on trial next week. The First Amendment will be on trial next week because the Democrats aren’t going to stop with attacking President Trump, they want to go after the free speech and the rights of all Americans.”
Democrats face an uphill battle in the Senate in their pursuit of an impeachment conviction against Trump. Forty-five Republican senators voted in favor of a resolution calling the trial unconstitutional, since Trump is now a private citizen. With the Senate split 50–50, the impeachment managers would have to convince 17 Republicans that the trial is constitutional and that Trump is guilty of inciting an insurrection.
Ivan Pentchoukov contributed to this report.
Trip To Vietnam Reconfirmed My Hatred Of Communism
Ten years ago, I wrote a column reflecting on my reactions to visiting Vietnam. Given the lack of revulsion to, and even flirtation with, communism (or its more mildly named version, socialism) among many young Americans, it’s worth revisiting.
It was difficult to control my emotions – specifically, my anger – during my visit to Vietnam. The more I came to admire the Vietnamese people – their intelligence, love of life, dignity, and hard work – the more rage I felt toward the communists who brought them (and, of course, us Americans) so much suffering in the second half of the 20th century.
Unfortunately, communists still rule the country. Yet, Vietnam has embraced the only way that exists to escape poverty, let alone to produce prosperity: capitalism and the free market. So, then, what exactly did the two million Vietnamese who died in the Vietnam War die for?
I would like to pose that question to some of Vietnam’s communist rulers. “Comrade, you have disowned everything your Communist Party stood for: communal property, collectivized agriculture, central planning, and militarism, among other things. Looking back, then, for what precisely did your beloved Ho Chi Minh and your party sacrifice millions of your fellow Vietnamese?”
There is no good answer. There are only lies and truths, and the truths are not good.
The lie is the response offered by the Vietnamese communists, repeated by the world’s non-communist left, taught in virtually every Western university and spread by virtually every news medium on the planet: The Vietnam communists – i.e., the North Vietnamese regime and the Viet Cong in South Vietnam – were merely fighting for national independence against imperialism, i.e., foreign control of their country.
First, they fought the Japanese, then the French, and then the Americans. American baby boomers will remember being told over and over that Ho Chi Minh was Vietnam’s George Washington, that he loved the American Constitution, after which he modeled his own, and that he wanted nothing more than Vietnamese independence.
Here is the truth: Every communist dictator has been a megalomaniacal, cult-of-personality, power-hungry, bloodthirsty thug. Ho Chi Minh was no different. He murdered his opponents, tortured G-d only knows how many innocent Vietnamese (burying peasants alive was a favored method) so as to scare millions of peasants into fighting for him – yes, for him and his blood-soaked Vietnamese Communist Party, backed by the greatest murderer of all time, Mao Zedong.
But moral idiots in America chanted “Ho, ho, Ho Chi Minh” at anti-war rallies, and depicted America as the real murderers of Vietnamese – “Hey, hey, LBJ: How many kids did you kill today?”
The Vietnamese communists were not fighting America for Vietnamese independence. America was never interested in controlling the Vietnamese people, and there is a perfect parallel to prove this: the Korean War. Did America fight the Korean communists in order to control Korea? Or did 37,000 Americans die in Korea so that Koreans could be free?
Who was (and remains) a freer human being – a Korean living under Korean communist rule in North Korea or a Korean living in that part of Korea where America defeated the Korean communists?
And who was a freer human being in Vietnam – those who lived in noncommunist (but authoritarian) South Vietnam or those who lived under Ho, Ho, Ho Chi Minh’s communists in North Vietnam?
America has fought to liberate countries, not to rule over them. It was the Vietnamese Communist Party (and China), not America, that was interested in controlling the Vietnamese people.
But the lie was spread so widely and so effectively that most of the world – except supporters of the American war effort in Vietnam, the Vietnamese boat people, and Vietnamese who yearned for liberty – believed that America was fighting for tin, tungsten and the wholly fictitious “American empire,” while the Vietnamese communists were fighting for Vietnamese freedom.
I went to the “Vietnam War Remnants Museum,” the Communist Party’s three-floor exhibit of anti-American photos. Nothing surprised me – not the absence of any truth about the communist North Vietnamese or the Viet Cong; not a word about the widespread threats on the lives of anyone who did not fight for the communists; not a word about those who risked their lives to escape by boat, preferring to risk dying by drowning, being eaten by sharks, or being tortured or gang-raped by pirates than to live under the communists who “liberated” South Vietnam.
Equally unsurprising is that there is little difference between the history of the Vietnam War as told by the Communist Party of Vietnam and what just about any college student will be told in just about any college by just about any professor in America, Europe, Asia, or Latin America.
I will end with the subject with which I began – the Vietnamese. It is impossible to visit Vietnam and not be impressed by the people. I hope I live to see the day when the people of Vietnam, freed from the communist lies that still permeate their daily lives, understand that every Vietnamese death in the war against America was a wasted life, one of the more than 100 million human sacrifices on the altar of the most bloodthirsty ideology in history: communism.
Share this with your son or daughter who knows nothing about communism and has no idea why decent people hate it, along with fascism and Nazism.
Doctors detect lung cancer in patients who turn up for COVID-19 treatment
Doctors say that lung cancer generally ends up being detected at advanced stages in India. Around 75% of all detected cases are diagnosed in Stage 4, and the prognosis is generally not good.
BENGALURU: Covid treatment protocol has had the unintended consequence of detecting lung cancer in many people who were unaware of their condition, with the effect that treatment was started early, which improved odds of recovery.
Doctors say that lung cancer generally ends up being detected at advanced stages in India. Around 75% of all detected cases are diagnosed in Stage 4, and the prognosis is generally not as good as for Stages 1-3.
However, due to Covid protocol, doctors detected lung cancer in an elderly man and woman in Bengaluru who had contracted Covid, and were able to start treatment early for the pair, with good outcomes.
A 69-year-old man came down with a severe case of Covid-19 in July 2020.
He had severe hypoxia oxygen saturation levels dropped, and he was to undergo a CT scan of the chest.The CT scan revealed that the chest had features of a Covid infection of the lungs, and also detected a lung lesion.
The man recovered from Covid in about 20 days, and was advised to meet an oncologist.
A PET scan suggested that the lesion could be indicative of early-stage cancer. He underwent a biopsy which revealed that the lesion was cancerous.
“He was diagnosed with stage 2 cancer and is being treated for it. Early diagnosis definitely helped the patient, as against a late diagnosis,” said Dr Vishwanath S, consultant for medical oncology at Apollo Hospital Cancer Centre.
In another instance, a 74-year-old woman who showed severe Covid symptoms, was also asked to undergo a CT scan of the chest.
In her case, the scan revealed a lung lesion with lymph node spread in the chest, along with other Covid features. She was given radiation therapy and is following up on treatment.
“We are seeing a lot of non-smokers and women being diagnosed with lung cancer, unlike previously, when lung cancer mainly affected smokers,” Dr Vishwanath said.
Shimon worked as a cashier in Heimowitz's grocery store. He was also a coin collector and had a large collection of rare coins and bills. As an avid hobbyist, Shimon had an eye for special bills. He knew that rare bills circulated among people who had no idea that their bill was worth more than its face value as a collector's item.
One day a person came into the store. The purchase came to $38.99. The person gave Shimon two $20 bills, and Shimon gave him a dollar bill as change.
As Shimon put the $20 bills in their compartment, he noticed that one had a star in the serial number. He recognized it as a series 2017 $20 bill Federal Reserve Star Note, worth over $30 as a collector's item! Shimon put the bill at the bottom of the pile, so that he would not give it as change to other customers.
When he had a quiet moment, Shimon exchanged the $20 star bill in the cash register with a regular $20 bill from his wallet.
That evening, Shimon shared with his chavrusa what had happened that day.
"I'm shocked!" said his chavrusa. "You stole from Mr. Heimowitz!"
"What do you mean?" asked Shimon. "I took $20 and returned $20."
"You know that it's not so," argued his chavrusa. "You took something worth over $30 and paid only $20."
"But to Mr. Heimowitz it was only worth $20," insisted Shimon. "He would have no idea that the bill was worth more than its face value."
The two decided to turn to Rabbi Dayan. Shimon asked:
"Was I allowed to exchange the bill?"
"Classically, the value of coins was based on the metal in them," replied Rabbi Dayan. "Over time, the world moved to coins and bills representative of value, although the metal or paper itself is worth far less. Nonetheless, poskim consider legal tender as money worth its official value for almost all halachos, including ribbis, kinyan (acquisition), pidyon haben, maaser sheni,onaah, etc.
“A rare bill maintains its primary value as legal tender, at face value. However, it has additional value, not as money but as an object, a collector's item. When such a bill is used as payment in a store, or returned by the cashier as change, we consider its face value. Its additional value as a collector's item is like a metziah, a found hefker item.
“Although a person's property can acquire hefker for him, even without his knowledge, many Rishonim curtail this to a case in which the owner will likely discover the metziah. The Gemara (B.M. 26a-b) indicates that a person who acquires a house does not acquire a lost treasure hidden in the wall, and a store owner does not acquire money dropped in the public areas of the store (C.M. 260:1,5).
“Based on this, Mordechai (B.M. #258) rules that if someone bought seemingly plain metal and sold it to another, but it turned out to contain valuable metal inside, the first person has no claim to the valuable metal, since he never intended to acquire it” (Rama,C.M. 232:18; Pischei Teshuvah 232:8).
“Here, the store owner will not likely find out about the valuable bill. It will likely be given as change to another customer or deposited in the bank. Although Shimon acquired the bill on behalf of Mr. Heimowitz and was responsible for it as a guardian, he accepted it only as $20” (see C.M. 291:4).
"Therefore," concluded Rabbi Dayan, "Shimon, who recognized the bill as rare, was allowed to exchange it for a regular bill of the same face value, and to possess its additional value as a collector's item."
Verdict: Regarding the cash register, the rare $20 bill is worth its face value, and the additional value as a collector's item is comparable to a metziah unlikely to be found by the store owner, so that the cashier can replace it with a regular bill and acquire it.