The Port Authority promises of electric buses using the new $10 billion 42nd Street bus terminal facility left out some critical information. The estimated cost of an electric bus can range from $1 to $1.4 million per vehicle or $200,000 or more over the price of a standard clean diesel bus. The price depends on if it is a standard 40 foot, articulated or over the road coach model. Each operator would also have to modify their own respective bus garages to install plug in electric and other features to accommodate electric buses. This could cost millions for each garage. None of these costs were included in the most recent $10 billion overall project cost estimate.
Who is going to come up with $1 to $2 billion more for these two additional tasks? How much will the Port Authority contribute to NJ Transit and various private operators to pay for electric buses and facility conversions? Buses have a useful life of between 12 and 15 years. It would take all bus operators fifteen to twenty years before they could convert 100% of their fleets assigned to Port Authority Bus Terminal routes to be all electric.
Sincerely, Larry Penner
(Larry Penner is a transportation advocate, historian and writer who previously worked for the Federal Transit Administration Region 2 NY Office. This included the development, review, approval and oversight for billions of dollars in grants which provided funding for capital projects and programs to the NY MTA, NYC Transit, Long Island and Metro North Rail Roads, NJ Transit and over 30 transit agencies in NY & NJ).
Cop Haters & NYC Mayoral Candidates
Dear Editor:
If you are a resident of NYC and are fearful for the safety of you and your loved ones…bail out, scram, take a powder and leave for safer environs before the next Mayoralty election coming up in November. Last year’s murder rate in the Big Apple zoomed up 43% over 2019’s horrific figures and with the certainty of another cop-hating Democrat occupying City Hall in 2022, a safe but sorry bet would be a continued rise in civilians slaughtering civilians.
Why is this so? Why the lack of reality on the part of our local biggees to understand the crisis our citizens face daily? Our current mayor may have his face mask on too high and cannot see reality when he boasts that his city is the “safest big city in America.” Nonsense. His own appointee, NYPD Police Commissioner, Dermot Shea, came clean back in June, 2021, with his statement: “You have to step back and look at this. You have a criminal-justice system that is imploding!” He’s on the mark, but from the lips of the crowd of Hizzoner Wannabees, that are vying for the top seat, they all see it differently. “It’s the cops!” they scream out. “They are the problem,” they tell ordinary citizens who shudder and push their kids under kitchen tables when they hear gunshots in our Wild West streets.
Andrew Young wants to hold police “accountable” because of their civil rights violations in arresting culprits too vigorously but at the same time accuses them of “not doing their jobs hard enough.” Figure that one out. Scott Stringer and Ray McGuire both want to defund the police and hire mental-health practitioners to answer 911 calls involving mentally-ill criminals. Good luck! And duck! Shaun Donovan claims the problem is that “the police perform too military-like and are overly armed.” Is he aware that Our Finest suffered nearly 500 injuries during the George Floyd riots and a total of nearly 2,000 during the year?
NYC is plunging into disaster. Over 300,000 known residents have left for Covid-19, physical safety precautionary reasons and to avoid soaring taxes. The vacuum they and the ongoing stream of other “fleers” will create will be hard to fill. And from what we can gather from any of those politicians running to govern New York City, none have a clue of how to win them back. For them to continue to bash New York’s Finest is, in our minds, total lunacy. NYC is on the brink, with no happy ending in sight.
Sincerely Alan
New Food Pantry in Queens
Dear Editor:
As part of both organizations’ continued efforts to help feed New Yorkers during this COVID-19 pandemic, Met Council and Chazaq have partnered to open a new food pantry in Kew Gardens Hills on Thursday. The Lev Aharon Community Food Pantry will be supplied by Met Council’s citywide food distribution network and run by Chazaq staff and volunteers who are best equipped to serve the Bukharian community in Queens.
Chazaq and Met Council held a socially distanced grand opening and ribbon cutting at the food pantry on Thursday afternoon. The food pantry, located at 141-47 72nd Ave. in Flushing, provides kosher food tailored to the Bukharian Jewish community in nearby neighborhoods, but the food pantry is available to all families in need and is completely confidential.
“The crisis of hunger and poverty exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic continues and Met Council is proud to partner with Chazaq to open this new food pantry,” said David G. Greenfield, CEO, Met Council. “Food pantries are vital to supporting the struggling families, seniors, and working men and women of this city who have fewer and fewer places to turn to.”
“Building a stronger future for our children is only possible if we also provide for them in the present,” said Rabbi Yaniv Meirov, the CEO of Chazaq. “Through our partnership with Met Council, Chazaq will be able to provide reliable access to healthy, kosher food to thousands more in our community. Our seniors, our children, and anyone who is vulnerable to this pandemic should not and will not go without this winter.”
“Food insecurity has been a real threat to so many Queens families for a long time,” said Queens Borough President Donovan Richards. “This threat has only been exacerbated by the pandemic, and we are grateful that the Met Council and Chazaq are helping address the problem by opening the Lev Aharon Community Food Pantry. We must not rest until all Queens families have the adequate food they need.”
Andrew Yang talks about urban entrepreneurship at the Techonomy Conference in Detroit, Sept. 15, 2015. Credit: Asa Mathat for Techonomy via Wikimedia Commons
Andrew Yang, the frontrunner to be the next mayor of the world’s largest Jewish city, took a stand against anti-Zionist hate, though backed down when Linda Sarsour pressed him on it.
By: Jonathan S Tobin
Most Americans don’t pay much attention to New York City politics. As one of the deepest blue political bastions in the country, the struggle for political ascendancy in the Big Apple can seem to be merely a choice between left and lefter. But while New York has become a one-party city in which Democrats don’t so much predominate as the Republicans have disappeared, that doesn’t mean debates there are insignificant. To the contrary, the city is in some ways a laboratory experiment in which it appears the future of the Democratic Party is up for grabs.
That’s especially true with respect to the question of whether it will be, as it always used to be, a pro-Israel political party. And the struggles of Andrew Yang—the entrepreneur/philanthropist and one-time presidential candidate who has now shifted his ambitions to taking possession of the city’s Gracie Mansion—illustrate this dilemma.
New York is still the world’s largest Jewish city (that is, in terms of those living within its city limits; if we were talking about metropolitan areas, Tel Aviv would now be No. 1), which means that mayoral candidates are bound to wish to appeal to the sensibilities of Jewish voters. But given how diverse the New York community is, that’s easier said than done. After all, a much larger percentage of New York Jewry is not merely Orthodox but denizens of ultra-Orthodox enclaves. At the other end of the political spectrum, Jewish voters who live in more upscale neighborhoods like the Upper East and Upper West Sides tend to be extremely left-wing rather than merely liberal.
In an earlier era when white ethnic voters held the balance of power in the five boroughs, appealing to them meant mayoral candidates would take international tours of the three “i’s”: Ireland, Italy and Israel. Irish and Italian voters don’t seem to be cohesive voting groups anymore, but a million Jews still reside in the city. Yet figuring out what they want is not so easy. That’s especially true if, like Yang, you clearly have no idea what you’re talking about when it comes to the Middle East or Jewish issues.
According to a recent poll conducted by Politico, Yang has parlayed his name recognition from his presidential run into the frontrunner’s position in a mayoral race, where he is competing in a field where there are literally dozens of contenders with only a few of them considered to have a chance. While his lack of political experience is an asset at a time when voters are tired of career politicians, his willingness to say what he thinks various groups want has become a serious problem.
Clearly listening to the advice he’s been given by political consultants, Yang has staked out a position on education that is bound to help him with the ultra-Orthodox. While some in the Jewish community believe the state should be pushing haredi yeshivahs to raise their standards so as to give students a better secular education as well as a religious one, Yang has outflanked his rivals by staking out a hardline stance in which he believes these schools should be left alone. That’s a position that will likely win him Orthodox votes without costing him much support elsewhere.
But navigating the debate about Israel isn’t proving to be so easy.
In an op-ed published in The Forward, Yang laid it on thick while seeking to suck up to New York Jews with flowery rhetoric about his love for the Lower East Side and the shared immigrant experience that Jews have with those who have come to this country from places like Taiwan, the birthplace of his parents.
But then he went full-on Zionist declaring his support for Israel and opposition to the anti-Semitic BDS movement in terms that earned him praise from the Jewish community:
“A Yang administration will push back against the BDS movement, which singles out Israel for unfair economic punishment. Not only is BDS rooted in anti-Semitic thought and history, hearkening back to fascist boycotts of Jewish businesses, it’s also a direct shot at New York City’s economy.”
But as good as that position was, he soon learned that waving the blue-and-white flag isn’t quite the political slam dunk he thought in a Democratic primary dominated by voters who lean to the far-left.
When confronted about this correct evaluation of the anti-Semitic nature of BDS at a mayoral forum hosted by the Muslim Democratic Club of New York, Yang discovered that not everybody in New York loves Israel. In fact, some New Yorkers hate it.
When Palestinian American Linda Sarsour, whose claim to fame is her role in orchestrating the Women’s March protests against former President Donald Trump and promoting anti-Semitism inside that group, pressed him about BDS, Yang folded like a cheap carpet.
Instead of sticking to his guns, he started backing away from his anti-BDS position, declaring that he made a mistake in the op-ed by having “confused” peaceful supporters of economic warfare on the only Jewish state on the planet with “very, very violent” people, and declaring that he had nothing but the greatest respect for those who believe anti-Zionism is right.
The problem here is not just that the distinction he tried to make between various kinds of BDS supporters is meaningless. BDS is inherently discriminatory because it seeks to deny to the Jews rights that no one would deny to anyone else. People like Sarsour hate Israel because it’s a Jewish state, not because of any alleged shortcomings.
Yang isn’t the only top-tier mayoral contender who is having trouble articulating a position on BDS. City Controller Scott Stringer is a conventional, ultra-liberal Manhattan Jew who also proclaims his opposition to BDS. Yet knowing that he would have to tack to the far-left to win the all-important Democratic primary nomination, he’s been flirting with anti-Semitic supporters of intersectional ideology that is implacably hostile to the Jewish state, such as members of the Democratic Socialists of America.
Lest anyone think the DSA is some ancient leftist relic of pre-Holocaust socialism, today it’s the political home of party rock stars like New York Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Jamaal Bowman, who knocked off Rep. Eliot Engel in a primary that ended the career of that pro-Israel stalwart. Yang and Stringer may think they can survive the loss of pro-Israel Jewish voters, but not stands that offend the DSA.
It’s impossible to know how all of this will impact the June primary that will likely decide the identity of the next mayor. But this matters because if the increasingly loud ranks of the leftist activist wing of the Democratic Party are going to decide the identity of the next mayor of New York City, it also bodes ill for the future of pro-Israel Democrats candidates.
While the bulk of the Democrats who make up their congressional majority are conventional pro-Israel politicians, the wind is clearly at the backs of so-called progressives like AOC and her pals in the expanded “Squad,” who have little patience for politicians who think supporting the Jewish state is good politics.
New York City isn’t representative of America, but the people who are the loudest and most influential Democrats in the city are very much the inspiration for younger and more left-wing members of the party elsewhere. Simply put, the woke activists in the DSA may not tolerate having a mayor who would write an anti-BDS op-ed such as the one that was published under Yang’s name.
Seen from this perspective, Yang’s retreat from calling out BDS supporters for their anti-Semitism isn’t just a local kerfuffle but a litmus test that may have a lot to say about the future of the Democrats.
The self-anointed foreign policy and military experts who are now in charge struck without even knowing exactly whether they were hitting what they wanted to hit.
By: Robert Spencer
In December, I wrote an article entitled: “Here We Go: Swamp Rats Start Laying the Groundwork for Sending U.S. Troops Into Syria.” And in January, I wrote an article entitled: “Back to the Endless Wars: US Military Convoy Enters Northeast Syria.” And here we are. CNN reported Friday that “the US military on Thursday struck a site in Syria used by two Iranian-backed militia groups in response to rocket attacks on American forces in the region in the past two weeks. ‘Up to a handful’ of militants were killed in the strikes, a US official told CNN.” There are, of course, no estimates of how many American troops will be killed in Syria pursuing the Biden team’s internationalist agenda.
The self-anointed foreign policy and military experts who are now in charge struck without even knowing exactly whether they were hitting what they wanted to hit. CNN noted that the site of the airstrikes “was not specifically tied to the rocket attacks but Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin said he was ‘confident’ it was used by the same Iranian-backed Shia militias that had fired rockets at US and coalition forces.” Well, that’s that, then: the political elites’ foreign policy exponents, from John Kerry to Ben Rhodes, have done so very much to inspire confidence, who could possibly doubt that they know what they’re doing?
Pentagon spokesman John Kirby claimed improbably that the strikes took place “at President Biden’s direction,” and were designed to deal with “ongoing threats” to U.S. forces in Syria. “Specifically,” Kirby explained, “the strikes destroyed multiple facilities located at a border control point used by a number of Iranian-backed militant groups, including Kata’ib Hezbollah and Kata’ib Sayyid al Shuhada. The operation sends an unambiguous message; President Biden will act to protect American coalition personnel. At the same time, we have acted in a deliberate manner that aims to de-escalate the overall situation in both Eastern Syria and Iraq.”
Here is a better way to protect American troops in Syria and Iraq, and de-escalate the overall situation in both countries: get out and end these pointless military misadventures that serve no genuine American interest.
In any case, since we know that Biden is not going to pursue “America First” policies, that this strike does not benefit America or Americans, and was not intended to.
The Islamic State (ISIS) is resurgent in Syria, but Biden’s handlers didn’t strike the Islamic State. They struck instead at two Iranian-backed groups, which is essentially to strike at Assad. This was in order to placate one of Biden’s handlers’ constituencies: the Muslim Brotherhood network in the U.S., which hates Assad and has for years been trying to compel the U.S. to topple him. However, it antagonizes the Iranians, which Biden’s handlers also intend to appease.
All this could backfire on the handlers in a big way. But in the short term, it will likely lead to a new round of concessions and pot-sweeteners for the Iranian mullahs, all at the expense of the American taxpayer, of course. In the meantime, South Korea got the ball rolling. Korea Times reported Tuesday that “the Iranian assets locked in South Korea will be released after consultations with the United States, the foreign ministry said Tuesday, after Iran claimed it has reached a deal with Seoul on how to transfer and use the frozen money.”
The South Koran foreign ministry announced: “Our government has been in talks with Iran about ways to use the frozen assets,” which amount to $7 billion, “and the Iran side has expressed its consent to the proposals we have made. The actual unfreezing of the assets will be carried out through consultations with related countries, including the United States.”
Korea Times noted that according to a South Korean foreign ministry official, “Seoul was finalizing talks with Washington about using some of the frozen funds to pay Tehran’s U.N. dues in arrears, to which the Islamic republic has also agreed.”
So the bombs are falling in Syria and the money is flowing once again to Tehran, and both the Muslim Brotherhood lobby and the Iranian mullahs are happy. All is well again. America is back.
(Front Page Mag)
Robert Spencer is the director of Jihad Watch and a Shillman Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center. He is author of 21 books, including the New York Times bestsellers The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades) and The Truth About Muhammad. His latest book is Rating America’s Presidents: An America-First Look at Who Is Best, Who Is Overrated, and Who Was An Absolute Disaster. Follow him on Twitter here. Like him on Facebook here.
The Biden administration’s decision to publish the intelligence report on Jamal Khashoggi’s death in late 2018 was as predictable as it was destructive to U.S. national security and to the security and stability of the Middle East. Photo Credit: AP
By: Caroline Glick
The Biden administration’s decision to publish the intelligence report on Jamal Khashoggi’s death in late 2018 was as predictable as it was destructive to U.S. national security and to the security and stability of the Middle East.
It was predictable for two reasons. First, this is Obama’s third term. And in Obama’s first term he played a central role in overthrowing Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, the anchor of the U.S.’s alliance system in the Sunni Arab world in favor of the Muslim Brotherhood, the ideological anchor of every Sunni terror group in the world.
Obama’s consistent policy for eight years was to side with the jihadists. Obama’s anti-colonialist worldview bred his anti-Western sensibilities. He and his neo-Marxist advisors viewed the jihadists as the “authentic” voice of the Islamic world. They were favored because they were “revolutionary” and anti-Western. In every conflict that pitted either conservative Sunni leaders, Iranian anti-regime forces, or Israel against jihadists from Hamas to Hezbollah, to the Muslim Brotherhood and the Houthis, to Iran, Obama and his people supported the jihadists. For this reason, Obama admired both Turkish dictator Erdogan and the Qatari ruling family. Like him, they supported jihadists.
Saudi Crown Prince Muhammed Bin Salman (MBS) and Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Zayed (MBZ) from the UAE were big problems for Obama, Robert Malley and their ilk. They appeared out of nowhere.
Young and vigorous, they seek to liberalize their conservative societies. They are deeply opposed to Iran and the Muslim Brotherhood. They are open to peace and cooperation with Israel. They support Israel in its campaigns against Hamas and Hezbollah. And they are certainly “authentic” Arab Muslims. When the UAE declared the Muslim Brotherhood, and Obama’s key supporters and ideological allies at CAIR terrorist organizations, Obama and his comrades were so angry they could barely put together a coherent sentence.
This brings us to Khashoggi. As Lee Smith reported after he was found dead in the Saudi consulate in Turkey, there were a lot of things about Khashoggi that made him a strange hero for Americans of any stripes. He was a Qatari agent of influence. He was a former Saudi intelligence officer who sided with the Wahabist jihadists in the royal family who supported al Qaeda. He was friends with Osama bin Laden and mourned his death. The al Qaeda, ISIS, Iran and Hamas supporting Qatari regime was essentially writing his columns in the Washington Post.
On its face, Khashoggi’s receipt of a green card made no sense given his open support for al Qaeda. On its face, his gig as a columnist at Jeff Bezos’s paper made no sense given his relationship with Saudi intelligence and with the Qatari ruling family. But they made perfect sense in the context of the efforts made by Obama’s deep state friends, particularly former CIA director John Brennan, who opposed MBS from the outset to empower the Muslim Brotherhood and the Iranian regime.
When seen in this light, it is clear that Khashoggi, a terror supporting Qatari agent who opposed the modernizing, pro-American, anti-jihadist and pro-Israel Saudi Crown Prince was an important political warfare asset for Obama’s clique. His job was to discredit MBS and legitimize the terror-supporting Qataris while making pro-jihadist progressives feel good about themselves.
I’m not saying his murder was justified. I am saying he doesn’t deserve the tears of anyone who opposes jihadist terror and jihadist regimes, cares about human rights or wants to avoid a major war in the Middle East.
Whatever Khashoggi’s ties with Obama’s clique during his lifetime may have been, the way they responded to his murder made clear what they hoped to do with his death. They wanted the old, bad Saudi Arabia back. They wanted the Muslim Brotherhood funding, al Qaeda-spawning Wahabists of Riyadh back. They wanted the Prince Bandars and Prince Turkis of the days of yore, not the guy that gave women drivers licenses.
They immediately set out lionizing Khashoggi as some sort of Nelson Mandela so that they could turn MBS into Hitler or whatever. As Smith reported in another article, Robert Malley, who is now in charge of Biden’s Iran policy, was the first pushing the line that in response to Khashoggi’s death, the U.S. should end its support/alliance with Saudi Arabia in retribution and side with the Iran-controlled Houthis against Saudi Arabia.
It was a testament to Donald Trump’s common sense and his political courage that he refused to bow to their pressure. And it was equally obvious back in 2018 that if a Democrat beat Trump in 2020, the next Democrat administration would resuscitate the Khashoggi affair to try to push MBS from power.
The worst thing that happened to the Obama nee Biden crowd were the Abraham Accords. This is why the first thing that Biden and his handlers did was bow out of the U.S. side of the deal by freezing the arms sales to the UAE and Saudi Arabia. The Abraham Accords put paid their false claims that the jihadists are the authentic voice of the Arab world. The popularity of the deals among the citizens of the Gulf and much of the wider Arab world – like Morocco and Sudan — made clear that Obama (Biden) and their ilk were basing U.S. Middle East policy on the propaganda being taught in Middle East Studies departments throughout the U.S. rather than on anything even vaguely resembling the reality of the region and the views of people who actually live here.
I don’t know if MBS will survive this blow or not. There is reason to fear that at the end of the day, the leaders of the UAE and of Saudi Arabia will decide they are better off making an arrangement with Iran supported by the U.S. than standing up for their sovereignty and their interests with Israel. And if they do, it will be a disaster of epic proportions. The danger of war will rise exponentially. Jihadists of the Sunni and Shiite varieties will be empowered as never before. And Israel will be in a pretty horrible position.
But in the midst of all of this, leave it to the fake human rights activists and real terror supporters and jihad sympathizers like Malley and his comrades in Obama’s new administration to pat themselves on the back for ushering in an “authentic” era in the Middle East.
A couple of additional thoughts on the administration’s sudden efforts to overthrow MBS.
First, by branding MBS a murderer, the administration is making it politically unfeasible for Israel to make peace with Saudi Arabia. This brings me back to my earlier point about the administration’s efforts to undermine and hopefully destroy the Abraham Accords. Hours before the administration opened this shocking offensive against MBS, I24 news reported that Israel, Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Bahrain were establishing a NATO-like military alliance. I wouldn’t be surprised if the two stories were related. Now that the administration has criminalized MBS, with the avid support of its fully mobilized media attack dogs and a stable of fake human rights groups, it can use any move towards formalizing Israel-Saudi ties as “proof” that Israel is immoral.
MBS will become a new version of Bashir Gemayel, the Lebanese leader Christian leader who signed a peace treaty with Israel in 1982 only to be assasinated. Any move MBS makes towards Israel will be attacked by the progressive left and their Muslim Brotherhood and Iranian regime regime fellow travelers in Washington.
So the move against MBS is a move to block further progress towards ending the Arab conflict with Israel.
The second aspect of the U.S. move that is worth noting is that its impact so far has been the opposite of what Biden and his handlers no doubt expected. Rather than express contrition or accept guilt of any sort, the Saudis have rejected the U.S. findings and said that they will not allow the U.S. to overthrow the Crown Prince. The UAE and Bahrain have issued similar responses. Trump spent an enormous amount of time and effort working to rebuild U.S. credibility with its Middle East allies after eight years of Obama’s betrayal. The Saudis and Egyptians did trust Trump, but scarred from eight years with Obama, they were unwilling to place all of their eggs in the U.S. basket. As a consequence, Russia and China expanded their arms sales to Egypt, Saudi Arabia and the UAE during Trump’s tenure.
The Biden administration seems not to have considered that freezing U.S. arms sales to Saudi Arabia and the UAE doesn’t freeze arms sales, it just freezes the U.S. out of the regional arms market. So the first victim of Biden’s policies will be U.S. arms manufacturers. And the damage they incur will likely be longstanding. No matter how hard the next Republican administration works, it will be much more hard pressed than Trump was to rebuild America’s credibility in the Middle East.
Israelis are not responding to Biden’s pro-Iran policies with hysteria. They are simply rejecting his policies.
This doesn’t mean that Biden and Malley et.al., can’t do major damage. They can and they are. It does mean that they are much less powerful than they think they are.
Mark Levin, a Jewish American talk radio host and former Reagan administration official, makes no effort to hide what he thinks
With a radio show pulling in more than 14 million listeners, Mark Levin has no reason to pull his punches.
By: Caroline Glick
A special interview marking the release of the Hebrew edition of Mark Levin’s bestselling book, “Unfreedom of the Press.”
Mark Levin, a Jewish American talk radio host and former Reagan administration official, makes no effort to hide what he thinks. Indeed, what his three-hour radio show’s 14 million regular listeners and the millions more who watch his top-rated show on Fox News every Sunday love most about Levin is that he gives them the unvarnished truth as he sees it. And Levin does so with a combination of intellectual depth and populist passion.
Pro-Trump protesters inside the US Capitol building. Photo Credit: AP
Levin’s massive audience insulates him from the growing fear of censors that now plagues conservatives in America. At a time when progressive propaganda has become a substitute for news reporting at liberal media organs across the United States, fresh from four years of unrelenting media assaults on former President Donald Trump and his supporters, Levin is a leading voice for millions of Americans who feel increasingly marginalized and besieged.
Ahead of the release of the Hebrew edition of his New York Times bestseller “Unfreedom of the Press,” (Sella Meir Publishers), Levin sat down for a conversation with Israel Hayom. He explained what moved him to research the roots of media bias and why he believes the rising extremism of the U.S. media poses a threat to the future of the most powerful democracy in the world.
Levin sees a direct link between the U.S. media’s longstanding hostility towards Israel and its burgeoning anti-Americanism. He also sees parallels between the overwhelmingly leftist Israeli media and the U.S. media.
Our conversation was broadcast last week to mark the official launch of the Hebrew edition of his book. What follows are excerpts from our discussion.
“As somebody who watches the Israeli media, the Israeli media is a disaster,” Levin begins.
“The American media is a disaster. But at least in America, we have conservative talk radio. You have a few outlets in Israel—not many. And we have Fox News where at least we have some conservative opinion shows. You have nothing like that in Israel. You pretty much have a statist media that backs the left—as small as the left is now politically, the media remains overwhelmingly leftist in Israel.
“They are constantly, in my humble opinion, trying to undermine the conservatives, the hawks, the Netanyahu administration. And yet the people of Israel have pretty much rejected the media, haven’t they? At least in the last number of elections. The Labor Party really only exists in The Jerusalem Post and some of the other media outlets there. But it’s appalling to watch it. It’s appalling to watch the lies about the prime minister because I’m very familiar with his legal situation and the law in Israel.
Barack Obama and Joe Biden. Photo Credit: AP
“And I would say the other problem is basically—I hope this doesn’t get me in trouble—the founding socialists pretty much adopted the Italian parliamentary system. So you have 412 parties that are constantly running, and if you can pick off three guys maybe you can get a coalition. So it’s this constant state of play which is unstable, I think, for democracy.
“Now that said, in my own country over here, we have disasters looming all over the place. Part of the problem is our media. Our media here is a one-party media. I call it ‘the Democrat Party Media’ because that’s what it is. We have individuals in our media who worked in Democrat presidential administrations, Democrat presidential campaigns, who worked for members of Congress on Capitol Hill in Washington, and vice versa.
“The media in our country is at the tip of the spear dividing our country in many vile ways. They talk about incitement of an insurrection in our country and they’re attacking former President Donald Trump for that. He didn’t incite an insurrection.
“If the president of the United States wanted to lead an insurrection, I don’t think he would’ve sent 200 militia guys from all over the country into the Capitol. I think he would have sent in the Marines. But that’s quite beside the point. What about the left, and their language and their incitement? How do we know that doesn’t anger people and cause people to do things they ought not to do?
“But all that said, it’s kind of hard to maintain a republic, a civil society, rational debate when you have a media that has no interest in reporting the news. There are many ways you can affect the news—one is by censorship, not reporting the news even though something is newsworthy. And the other is of course with political bias. I am 63 years old and I have never seen anything like what is going on in our country before. The media are not really a profession anymore. They are social advocates.
“Let me just say this, in our journalism schools today there’s something taught called public or social advocacy. This is something that goes back a hundred years in our country to the progressive movement, the neo-Marxist movement. And you have it in your country too, trust me. You even have it on your Supreme Court.
“This is what it is: You don’t teach anything—science, math, history, language, literature, without it having a patina of social activism. In other words, it’s got to be placed in some social activist category. So you don’t just teach math, that’s too rote.
In our journalism schools they’re being taught, ‘Don’t just report news. You have to give it an angle—and certainly not a conservative angle or a free-market angle or a constitutional angle. No, no, no. It’s got to be the left’s angle because only the left believes in humanity. Only the left is compassionate. Only the left wants progress.’ And that is what we are getting out of our media in the U.S. today, and I daresay in Israel today.”
Q: In terms of the commingling of media and government, it’s hard to know sometimes where the media begins and the government ends. The most outstanding example of that was during the Obama administration when Obama’s information czar, his deputy national security advisor Ben Rhodes, was placed in charge of selling the Iran nuclear deal while Rhodes’ brother, David Rhodes. was the president of CBS.
Rhodes bragged in a media interview about how he created an “echo chamber” around the deal. It began with the administration, went through “experts” at allied think tanks, and was digested by reporters whom he noted derisively “literally knew nothing” about Iran or its nuclear program and were in no position to question the propaganda they were spoon-fed by Rhodes’ echo chamber. That echo chamber was responsible for falsely portraying a deal that guaranteed Iran would get the bomb inside a decade as a non-proliferation agreement. It also demonized deal opponents as warmongers and agents of a Jewish financial conspiracy that extended from Jerusalem to New York. And it worked. The merging of the media with the administration on the Iran deal looked an awful lot like fascism. How do you view this unity of forces and combined action?
A: That is a perfect example. He was putting out propaganda. They deliberately lied about everything. They knew the government of Iran wasn’t moderate but they were claiming it was moderate. They knew the government of Iran wasn’t trustworthy but they said it could be trusted. All those people are back. I just want my Israeli brothers and sisters to know, all those people are back in the Biden administration, and then some.
You’re going to have your hands full. We have our hands full here. And if you can’t have an honest media—which you do not have in Israel and which we do not have in the United States—it’s hard to preserve a free society.
I would though slightly amend what you said. The media are only part of the state when the left controls the state. Otherwise, they try to undermine the state as much as they can.
So as long as they’re Democrats, the media is fine. You can see the treatment here with Biden. Biden doesn’t hold press conferences. Biden is not challenged. Biden is signing executive orders like some kind of king. We don’t do that in the United States. He’s signing exceedingly radical executive orders, so he’s legislating through the executive branch. We have this system of checks and balances here which is relatively formal. And you don’t hear any talk about impeachment. You don’t hear any talk about violating the Constitution when it comes to Joe Biden.
I call the media in our country when it comes to Biden and Obama “The Praetorian Guard Media.” They not only do not want to report on what these guys are doing—they seek to protect them. And they protect them during their campaigns and they protect them when they are in office.
And what I do in the book, it’s chapter and verse. I don’t just give my opinion. I’ve got hundreds of endnotes in this book. I’ve got an enormous number of examples. I’ve got some in the media criticizing others in the media. You know, some “old school” guys who are liberals saying, “You know, we can’t do this,” and yet, they’re still doing it. You know it’s actually getting worse in this country. And it’s because, whether it’s media in this country or Hollywood, or academia or the Democrat Party, they’ve all been devoured by this progressive, sort of neo-Marxist movement. They’re all kind of one and the same, moving in the same direction.”
When I write these books, and I’m working on another one, it’s really quite depressing. What you find is that these so-called intellectuals and masterminds of critical race theory have as their intention, literally, to bring down a society. You’ll get it in Israel. It will come in the form of the Palestinians, the Arabs. We get it here in the form of everyone other than Caucasian Christians. And I would argue that they have a voice certainly in a corner of the Democrat Party but a growing part of the Democrat Party with Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib and AOC [Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez], and these anti-Semites and anti-American types. It is a growing part of the Democrat Party. The media not only do not condemn them, they promote them. And the Democrat Party doesn’t condemn them. They seek their reelection.
Rashida Tlaib and Ilhan Omar. Photo Credit: AP
Q: One of the things you discuss in your book is how progressive Jews over time have covered anti-Semites. You devote a chapter, for instance, to how the Sulzbergers—the progressive Jewish owners of The New York Times—deliberately hid news of the Holocaust from their readers and in so doing, helped the Nazis to expand the pace of the genocide of European Jewry unabated.
Today we see progressive American Jewish organizations and leaders calling for the Biden administration to deny civil rights protections to American Jews who are being persecuted by progressive anti-Semites through the BDS movement and other anti-Israel campaigns. So these progressive Jewish groups are actually enabling progressive anti-Semitism and allowing progressive anti-Semites to get off scot-free for harming Jews. What do you make of this?
A: Well, you’ve got groups like J Street, and all the anti-Semites go to J Street and they speak. And they’re all given a plaque and patted on the head. And then they feel that they’ve spoken to Jews around the world. I’ll just be honest. I’ve said it on the radio. These are self-hating Jews.
I don’t know what their problem is. But you know, we’ve always had this phenomenon. There’s always been a corner of Judaism that is self-hating Jews. I would argue that these are some of them. So the anti-Semites and those who are very hostile to the current government in Israel, they go to these groups. And they speak. And they feel like they’ve spoken to “the Jews,” and they haven’t.
As for reportage of the Holocaust, I didn’t feel enough Americans were aware enough of what the New York Times did and didn’t do during World War II and the Holocaust. It wasn’t just the New York Times. It was all the American media. Old man Sulzberger was a secularist. He was hostile to the Zionist movement. He was hostile to Orthodox Jews. And he was a Roosevelt sycophant.
The Roosevelt administration was very hostile to the Jews. They wanted to keep the Holocaust quiet, as quiet as possible. And the New York Times assisted them. The American media assisted them. This is what happens when you don’t have a media that is responsible, that is independent, that is going to report “the news” as opposed to its opinions.
President Trump refers to the media in America as “the enemy of the people.” And when he says that you have the New York Times saying, ‘That’s outrageous, that’s like Hitler.’
I mean, are you kidding me? You guys, who hid what Hitler was doing, you’re casting aspersions? But the New York Times really hasn’t changed in many ways. As I write in the book, they still are extremely hostile to Israel. They are very sympathetic to Hamas and to terrorist activities.
The book isn’t about Israel. But I don’t know how you can talk about America and America’s principles and the way America’s covered without talking about Israel, and Israel’s principles and the way Israel is covered in America.
We also get in this country from our media—depending which media outlet—that Israel is an apartheid society, a racist society. It’s the same things they say about our country, they say about Israel. So it’s kind of hard to write a book, [about] what I call “Unfreedom of the Press,” and ignore what’s going on with Israel.
The latest anti-Netanyahu cartoon
And finally, it’s hard to ignore it as a Jew. I see the overlays. I see the animus towards Israel, the animus towards the United States, and really, I think that the American people—forget about the elites—I think the American people and the Israeli people have such a connection, such a love for each other. You know when we clear out all the race-baiters, clear out all the academics, and clear out Hollywood and clear out the media and clear out the politicians, I really feel that’s the case.
Q: During Trump’s tenure in office, and most notably during his last months in office, it seemed that social media platforms abandoned their role as open platforms for all—including conservatives.
When Facebook and Twitter began, conservatives raced to join. They believed this was their chance to finally level the playing field because Facebook and Twitter and the rest gave the conservatives that have no voice in the liberal media an opportunity to be heard. But in Trump’s final months in office, these platforms betrayed their conservative users, they joined the liberal media to shut them down, censor and block them.
The most stunning moment came when, after weeks of aggressive censorship, they banned Donald Trump from all the major platforms while he was still president. How are people supposed to respond to this?
A: Donald Trump used Twitter to get elected, to help get around Big Media. But Big Tech is controlled by multi-billionaires, I mean multi-multi-billionaires who [are] quite liberal, and they’re all Democrats. I think they decided that that was never going to happen again. So they’ve all been extremely partisan in the way they allow people to post information in terms of news. They and Big Media were quiet about Hunter Biden, candidate Biden’s son, who is corrupt as hell.
I quit Twitter and Facebook on my own. I gave them about a month. I brought over as many people as I could to Parler.
[Parler, an alternative free speech platform, was shut down by Big Tech last month, after millions of conservatives responded to Trump’s expulsion from Facebook and Twitter by joining the new platform.]
Parler, before it was shut down, had about 20-21 million followers. Five and a half million of whom were mine. I think that’s one of the reasons they got whacked, quite frankly. What our media has tried to do is they’ve tried to destroy Parler, to take it down. They called it “right-wing.” In America “right-wing” is pejorative. I know in Israel, not so much. It’s an open platform. I don’t even know what their politics are.
I told everybody, “Let’s go to Parler.” I’m not going to be censored. No more scarlet letters. I don’t need left-wing kook billionaires like Mark Zuckerberg or the goofball with the beard, Jack Dorsey, telling me what to do and putting all these conditions and censorship. It was like “Holy Mackerel, what’s going on here?” So I said, “You know what, I’m gonna get the hell out of here. I have enough [of an] audience myself and I don’t need these people to be dinging me all the time.”
Donald Trump Facebook/Twitter post, 13 July 2017. Credit: WIkimedia Commons.
Q: Do you think the events that followed the Jan. 6 riot on Capitol Hill were sort of an inflection point for social media platforms—that they became something different after Jan. 6 from what they were before Jan. 6 in terms of censorship?
A: I think they saw an opportunity on Jan. 6. When the thugs stormed the Capitol building, they took that opportunity and they are still taking that opportunity, as are the rest of the left, taking that opportunity to turn America inside out.
But there will be pushback. There’s pushback already. I’m not going to keep my mouth shut. Other radio hosts are not going to keep their mouths shut. My friends on the opinion side of Fox, they’re not going to keep their mouths shut. We do have something now called podcasts. But here’s the problem: Those same companies we’re talking about own the platforms. They can pull the plug on podcasts.
But I think if they keep this up in America, people are going to rise up. I don’t know how, but you cannot keep silencing people, you cannot keep abusing people and keep calling them those vile, vicious names, and then through policy destroy their wealth, destroy their jobs, destroy their personal identity.
You can’t keep treating 100 million people that way and expect there to be no response. This is why I say to the left, “You talk about incitement? You’re pushing people to a point that scares the hell out of me.”
Because one of the relief valves is speech. And if you’re going to crush speech and then crush people, day in and day out on television and day in and day out on social media, people in the end don’t like that very much.
Q: Today’s world is different, media-wise, than it was just two years ago when your book was first published. We’re in a time when censors that are more powerful than humanity has ever seen are bearing down on the Right on Facebook, Twitter and all the rest. How are people supposed to respond to this? These platforms gave people unprecedented opportunities to share their views and now they are clamping down on freedom of speech in a way we’ve never experienced. What do you think people should do?
A: We use their tactics. Not the violent ones. We learn from the BDS movement. I’ve been saying on American airwaves—we need to BDS them. We need to have a BDS movement against Big Tech, and if it’s not Big Tech, then their advertisers. They can’t survive without their advertisers. They take our data, they steal it from us, they sell it to each other [and] they sell it to commercial entities. We need to find out who those commercial entities are. We need to BDS the major television networks just like the left does.
Q: One of the problems with saying “I want to leave Facebook,” or “I want to leave Twitter,” is that people really do want to have their voices heard. They don’t want to lose their freedom of expression. They’re not market makers. They’re market takers. They’re the little guys with their 150, 500 friends on Facebook and they want to communicate with them. What are they supposed to do?
A: People have given up a helluva lot more for liberty than Twitter and Facebook. So my advice is just to give it a year. And then other companies are going to pop up. Because once Parler figures out how to do it, others will be able to do it. When you look at YouTube, there’s another small entrepreneur out there called Rumble. And YouTube and Google are trying to crush it. I used to have 4,000 followers on Rumble, but then two weeks ago I said, okay, I’m done with YouTube, and now I have half a million followers on Rumble. Come join us. You could talk. There’s a lot of people to talk to on Rumble. There’s going to be a lot of people to talk to on Parler.
Water always finds the cracks. Liberty always finds the cracks. We’re going to find the cracks and we’re going to use them and exploit them. We’re going to compete against these people once and for all. What we reject is their attempt to crush us, and their attempt to use government to advantage them. This is what we need to fight. So you’re either in this fight, or you’re not. Get the hell off there. Try other sites. We still have more ways to communicate than we did 20 years ago.
Ahead of the release of the Hebrew edition of his New York Times bestseller “Unfreedom of the Press,” (Sella Meir Publishers), Levin sat down for a conversation with Israel Hayom. Photo Credit: Amazon.com
Q: Any parting words for your new Israeli readers?
A: Whenever I come to Israel, and I go to the Western Wall or what have you, people come up to me. I just want you to know how much I appreciate the Israeli people, the way I appreciate the American people. It always really puts a big smile on my face when someone comes [up to me] with the Israeli accent and says that they listen to me on the radio. And I get Israelis who call my show at three and four in the morning Israel time, and that’s always a lot of fun too. Some of them are Americans living in Israel, or Israelis. I just want you to know you’re heard by 14 million people, so feel free to call in.
(INN)
Caroline Glick is an award-winning columnist and author of “The Israeli Solution: A One-State Plan for Peace in the Middle East.”
Rabbi Dr Aaron Adler’s new book,’Seventy Conversations in Transit with HaGaon HaRav Joseph B. Soloveitchik zt”l,” (OUPress, Urim Publications, 179 pp.)
Rabbi Dr. Aaron Adler’s insightful and fascinating book brings Rabbi Soloveitchik to life while inspiring the awe in which he was held by all.
By: Rochel Sylvetsky
A beautiful and true story is told about the meeting of two great Talmudic minds several decades ago. When Israeli Chief Rabbi Hagaon HaRav Avraham Shapira, then Rabbinic leader of Religious Zionism, visited America, he gave a shiur at Yeshiva University (YU) attended by that institution’s famed Rosh Yeshiva, HaGaon HaRav Joseph B. Soloveitchik, known reverently as the “Rov”. At the end of his lecture, Rabbi Shapira approached Rabbi Soloveitchik and kissed him. When some of those present remarked that one is not allowed to kiss even one’s own children in a synagogue, Rabbi Shapira responded: “But one is allowed to kiss a Sefer Torah.”
HaGaon HaRav Joseph B. Soloveitchik zt”l
That story came to mind as I noted that Rabbi Dr Aaron Adler’s new book,’Seventy Conversations in Transit with HaGaon HaRav Joseph B. Soloveitchik zt”l,” (OUPress, Urim Publications, 179 pp.) chronicling the period in which he served as the Rovi’s driver, is aptly titled in Hebrew, Vayehi Binsoa Haaron (When the Holy Ark travelled, a quote from the Book of Numbers on the Tabernacle’s sojourn in the desert). After all, if Rabbi Soloveitchik is likened to a Sefer Torah, the car in which he travelled is akin to the Holy Ark, and it is Rabbi Aaron who merited taking it on its journeys.
In fact, Rabbi Dr. Aaron Adler was privileged, from 1974-1977, to be Rabbi Soloveitchik’s personal driver to the airport to catch the Rov’s weekly flight to New York, where he was a a brilliant and awe-inspiring Torah lecturer, from his home in Boston where he was a more accessible community rabbi. Rabbi Adler, who admits that he purposely drove in the slow lane to add precious minutes to the ride, gained priceless insights into the Rov’s thoughts on varied halakhic issues, glimpses into his hashkafa (Torah worldview) and most fascinatingly, an inside look at the everyday behavior of an intellectual giant who saw himself, first and foremost, as a servant of Hashem.
Rabbi Herschel Shachter was a main talmid of HaGaon HaRav Joseph B. Soloveitchik zt”l. Photo Credit: YouTube.com
The Talmud says that attending to the needs of one’s teacher has more value than learning from him, because although a great Talmudic sage adds immeasurably to the understanding of Torah, his actions are a mirror of how the Torah is supposed to affect every aspect of one’s life. Rabbi Adler realized that he was in a unique situation and luckily for us, took the time to jot down brief highlights of each conversation, and – perhaps thanks to the lockdowns due to the corona pandemic which he alludes to in his remarks — has now expanded and generously shared them with us.
Reading the seventy vignettes of 1-4 pages each that comprise the book (which I found hard to put down until I finished it and then wished there were more) will be a fascinating and nostalgic experience for the Rov’s students. The opinions of several of his well-known students, printed on the back cover, Rabbi Herschel Shachter, Rabbi Prof. Carmi Horowitz and Rabbi Menachem Genack, show that the three, close talmidim (students) of the Rov, thoroughly enjoyed it. For those of us, like this writer, who occasionally heard the Rov speak, but were not his students, it is the closest we can get to learning about the Rov’s attitudes and views, without an intermediary’s opinion intertwined in the writing. Rabbi Adler did add his own comments to some of the conversations, but, with laudable integrity – and humility–took care to print them in a different font with a black line delineating them. He also divides the conversations into five subsections, so that the conversations in each section, although on different topics, are part of a coherent whole.
Rabbi Prof. Carmi Horowitz was also a main talmid of HaGaon HaRav Joseph B. Soloveitchik zt”l. He is a professor of Jewish Thought and Intellectual History at Michlalah Yerushalayim. Photo Credit: YouTube.com
We learn about the Rov’s scrupulous honesty as he refunds a nickel, insists on paying the tolls and parking and how he cares about people’s feelings in the way he answers questions. Strictness and leniency within the halakhic framework take social and human factors into account when granting a halakhic decision as well as when dealing with the non-observant, while he evinces an informed, analytic and matter of fact approach in decisions on issues such as prenatal testing, glatt kosher meat and saying the Hagomel blessing after air travel. His educational principles and decisions are pioneering, ideological and at the same time, pragmatic, as are his views on women’s Torah study. I found the visit to his father’s grave, an exception to family tradition, extremely moving and must admit having tears in my eyes when Rabbi Adler wrote of the Rov’s saying tehillim at Rabbi Belkin’s bedside before he passed away. And there is much, much more.
Rabbi Adler brings what he admits is probably an apocryphal story about Yitzchak Rabin offering the Education portfolio to Mizrachi in exchange for dropping the controversial “Who is a Jew” issue and the Rov opting for Education as having more influence. Rabbi Adler, in his comment section, disputes the efficacy of religious education ministers in that regard in retrospect, saying that this was “overly optimistic”, but having worked in education since my aliyah 50 years ago, I would like to add my own comment! The NRP Education Ministers, although they certainly tried, could not have much of an effect on an antagonistic secular parent body which, for example, decided at one point that talking about teshuva before Rosh Hashanah was an attempt to turn their children into baalei teshuva and banned rabbis (including Chabad) from the non-religious schools! However, the Yeshiva high school and Ulpana networks, National Service and countless other educational projects for the religious community, would not have happened without a Religious Zionist Education minister. And those students have had much influence volunteering in the secular community.
Rabbi Menachem Genack is known as one of the foremost talmidim of HaGaon HaRav Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik, zt’l under whom he studied for over a decade. He is the CEO of the Orthodox Union Kosher Division
Different opinions exist as to the Rov’s attitude to the State of Israel, Rabbi Avraham HaCohen Kook’s views on the rebirth of Jewish life in Eretz Yisrael, the Chief Rabbinate and aliyah. The Rov’s seminal work Kol Dodi Dofek (part of Israel’s Religious Education curriculum) and his role in the Mizrachi put him squarely in the Religious Zionist camp, with perhaps a nuanced definition of Zionism. Rabbi Adler brings memorable examples of the Rov’s identification with the State, but also makes clear that he felt strongly that American Jewry needed rabbinic leadership as well.
It is well known that Rav Tzvi Yehuda Kook, Rosh Yeshiva of Merkaz HaRav and the son of Rav Avraham HaCohen Kook, made considerable efforts to travel to wherever the Rov was giving shiurim when he spent time in Israel while running (unsuccessfully) for the Tel Aviv Chief Rabbinate. (Running on the Agudah list gave him little chance of being elected in a city that was then overwhelmingly Mizrachi, whose candidate was the much-respected and older Rav Amiel). Party affiliations notwithstanding, Rav Tzvi Yehuda explained that Rav Soloveitchik had visited his father in 1935, the last year of his life, and that Rabbi Kook told his son to attend the Rov’s shiurim whenever possible because “the genius of Rav Chaim of Brisk has passed down to his grandson.”
There is no one definitive answer as to why, years later, the Rov did not accept the offer to serve as Chief Rabbi, and perhaps that is because several factors came into play – wanting to avoid another election experience may understandably even be one of the unspoken ones–but the book does explain that the Rov was not comfortable with the idea of a rabbinate under government aegis and said that it was not for him. That attitude is different from that of Chief Rabbis such as Rabbi Ovadia Yosef, Rav Avraham Shapira, Rav Mordechai Eliyahu and others, who were well aware of that built in difficulty but were fearless in standing up for Torah truth against political or governmental pressures and who saw that as an integral and crucial part of their role in a changing and developing miraculous Jewish state which faces religious questions of national significance.
Rabbi Dr. Aaron Adler was privileged, from 1974-1977, to be Rabbi Soloveitchik’s personal driver to the airport to catch the Rov’s weekly flight to New York, where he was a a brilliant and awe-inspiring Torah lecturer, from his home in Boston where he was a more accessible community rabbi. Rabbi Adler, who admits that he purposely drove in the slow lane to add precious minutes to the ride, gained priceless insights into the Rov’s thoughts on varied halakhic issues, glimpses into his hashkafa (Torah worldview) and most fascinatingly, an inside look at the everyday behavior of an intellectual giant who saw himself, first and foremost, as a servant of Hashem.
Had Rabbi Soloveitchik been Chief Rabbi, there is no question that he would have done the same and Rabbi Adler’s relating how the Rov felt that the Israeli Chief Rabbinate is the “mara deasra” – the national halakhic authority – on questions such as the Jewish status of Ethiopian immigrants or Hallel on Independence Day is in line with Rav Kook’s definition of the Chief Rabbinate’s role. The book tells of his pride in a grandson’s IDF service, of his calling the IDF uniform “bigdei kodesh” – holy garments – when asked about whether a soldier needs to put on freshly laundered clothes to daven–but that was possible because of a chief rabbinate system, as it was at Chief IDF Rabbi Goren’s insistence early on that the IDF kitchens are kosher.
Rabbi Adler should be highly commended for this uplifting, interesting and enlightening book, and I have no doubt readers will be profoundly grateful for the glimpse it gives into the life of a true Gadol who was, in every way, larger than life.
When Israeli Chief Rabbi Hagaon HaRav Avraham Shapira (pictured above) then Rabbinic leader of Religious Zionism, visited America, he gave a shiur at Yeshiva University (YU) attended by that institution’s famed Rosh Yeshiva, HaGaon HaRav Joseph B. Soloveitchik, known reverently as the “Rov”.
Rabbi Dr. Aaron Adler was a student of the Rov, attained his B.A. and M.A. as well as semicha from Yeshiva University, and his Ph.D. from Bar Ilan University where he served on the faculty after making aliyah in 1979. He was president and campus rabbi at the Emunah College of Technology and Arts in Jerusalem, founding head of Yeshivat Ner Tamid in Hashmonaim, and pulpit rabbi in Ramot, in Zurich and currently at the Ohel Nechama Synagogue in Katamon. He is a popular lecturer and scholar in residence as well as a leader of Jewish Heritage tours.
(Israel National News)
Rochel Sylvetsky is op-ed and Judaism editor at Arutz Sheva and formerly its Managing Editor.
The major events of the parsha are even more troubling: The people sin, they worship the Golden Calf and dance around it. Moses beholds this shameful scene and becomes enraged. He hurls the tablets from his hands, shattering them. He directs the Levites to gird their swords and “slay brother, neighbor, and kin.”
By: Rabbi Tzvi Hersh Weinreb
As a person who likes to see the connections between the Jewish calendar of holiday celebrations and the weekly Torah reading, I have long been perplexed by the proximity of Purim to this week’s Torah portion, Ki Tisa (Exodus 30:11-34:35).
We generally read Parshat Ki Tisa (Exodus 30:11-34:35) soon after concluding the celebration of the holiday of Purim. I have always been struck by the contrast between the frivolity of Purim and the somber themes of this parsha.
After all, Purim is a day of “merry-making and feasting…a holiday and an occasion for sending gifts to one another” (Esther 9:19). Our Rabbis have even declared it obligatory to become somewhat inebriated on this day. Behavior which would not be tolerated all year long is encouraged on Purim.
But Parshat Ki Tisa projects quite a different mood.
It begins with the strict annual obligation, incumbent upon rich and poor, to donate a half-shekel for the maintenance of the Temple and its ceremonies.
It proceeds to underscore the centrality of Sabbath observance in our religion: “The Israelite people shall keep the Sabbath, observing the Sabbath throughout the ages as a covenant for all time.” Harsh punishment is threatened for those who break this covenant: “…Whoever does work on the Sabbath day shall be put to death.” (Exodus 32:15-16).
The major events of the parsha are even more troubling: The people sin, they worship the Golden Calf and dance around it. Moses beholds this shameful scene and becomes enraged. He hurls the tablets from his hands, shattering them. He directs the Levites to gird their swords and “slay brother, neighbor, and kin.” (Exodus 33:27)
No wonder I have felt frustrated in my attempts to discover a linkage between the fearsome content of our parsha and the levity and laxity which we enjoyed on Purim, just days ago.
This year, under the influence of Purim and an overflowing cup of wine, I uncovered such a linkage, and it is a profoundly meaningful one. It has to do with the masks we wear, the façades we maintain, and the role of the imposter in our midst.
A common component of the Purim experience, especially for children, is the masquerade. Visit a Jewish neighborhood, anywhere, and you will see throngs of young people dressed up as Mordechai or Haman, Vashti or Queen Esther. Adults dress up in preposterous disguises, and even the most subdued among us puts on a face mask or at least wears a garish tie.
The goal of the day is to re-enact the historical Purim. “On the very day in which the enemies of the Jews had expected to get them in their power, the opposite happened, and the Jews got their enemies in their power.” (Esther 9:1). We masquerade, pretending to be the opposites of who we really are.
Ironically, however, most of us pretend to be the “opposites of whom we really are” not just on Purim, but all year long. We hide our real selves from those around us; we wear masks and disguises. We may reveal our real faces for those close to us, but when we are “out there”, in public, we play the roles that we think society expects of us. We deceitfully present a façade to the world; an image which we hope will bring us admiration, approval, and material success.
To some extent we are all imposters. Inauthenticity has been identified by social scientists as the malaise of postmodern man. I recently came across a poem which makes this point so well:
“Oh God of such truth as sweeps away all lies,/ of such grace as shrivels all excuses,/ come now to find us/for we have lost ourselves/in a shuffle of disguises/and the rattle of empty words.” (Ted Loder, My Heart in My Mouth)
For many of us the masquerades of Purim are worn all year.
We are now prepared to discern the link to Purim in this week’s parsha. Did you know that, of all people, Moses himself wore a mask? He did not wear it at all times, and certainly not for all of his life.
When he descended from Sinai with a second set of tablets, the first tablets having been smashed by his own action, we read: “…As Moses came down from the mountain…he was unaware that the skin of his face was radiant… Aaron and all the Israelites… shrank from coming near him. But Moses called to them… and he instructed them concerning all that the Lord had imparted to him on Mount Sinai. And when Moses finished speaking with them, he put a veil over his face.” (Exodus 34:19-33)
Read the rest of the story near the very end of the parsha, and you will discover that Moses did not wear the mask when he was in direct contact with the people: Speaking to them, advising them, teaching them. He also did not wear it when he was in dialogue with the Almighty. At all other times he had the mask, or veil, at the ready.
Moses knew that masks may be worn, but only with great discretion. In moments of communion with the Master of the Universe one must shed one’s mask, hiding nothing. Absolute authenticity is demanded when one attempts to reach or teach another person. Then there can be no facades, no disguises, and no masks. In Moses’ case, his veil was worn for one purpose only: to assure that others would not shrink from his presence, to guarantee that others would not avoid him because of his frightening radiance.
Moses knew when to assert himself publicly with the full radiance of his personality, and when to withdraw in solitude and in modesty. This is illustrated in the following homiletic comment by the great Rabbi Meir Shapiro, the Rabbi of Lublin in the immediate pre-Holocaust years, and the founder of its famed yeshiva.
Earlier in the parsha we read of the mysterious encounter between Moses and the Almighty: “And the Lord said, ‘See, there is a place near Me. Station yourself on the rock and, as My Presence passes by, I will put you in a cleft of the rock and shield you with My hand…”. (Exodus 33:21-22)
Rabbi Shapiro pointed out that all leaders confront this dilemma: When should I publicly and courageously assert myself with my entire being, and when should I retreat to my own space, in humility. The answer, he suggested, lies in the aforementioned verse: When you are in “a place near Me”, when the issue is one which involves promulgating My Divine will, then “Station yourself on the rock”. Then there can be no masks, no withholding of your personal talents and radiance. But, “as My presence passes by”, when the issues are neither sublime not spiritual, your place is “in a cleft in the rock”, in privacy, modesty, and occasional isolation.
When we are doing the Lord’s work we must shed our masks and assert ourselves in full authenticity, holding nothing back. But then there are circumstances when the Lord’s honor is not at all at stake. In such mundane moments solitude and humility are warranted. At such moments one may resort to veils, masks, and disguises.
We must limit our use of facades to the one day a year festival of Purim. But if our encounters with others and with the Almighty are to be meaningful, we must shed our masks, and act with courageous authenticity.
(Rabbi Tzvi Hersh Weinreb is the Executive Vice President, Emeritus of the Orthodox Union)
The half a shekel that we are called upon to donate is also symbolic of a heart broken in half which results from the awareness that we have failed in our mission of fulfilling G-d`s command- ments. That realization is in and of itself an atonement for our soul.. As King David proclaimed in his psalm: “G-d is close to the broken hearted...” (Psalm 34:19)
By: Rabbi Osher Jungreis
Sometimes we wonder whether we puny individuals can make an impact on world events, whether we can make a real difference in G-d`s universe.
Most of us would give a negative response to such questions. Parshas Ki Tisa however, comes to challenge that view. This week`s parsha impresses upon us that not only is it possible for us to make a difference, but it is our imperative to do so. The portion opens with the words “Ki Tisa…” – “When you shall take a census of the children of Israel… every man shall give – ‘v`nosnu` G-d an atonement for his soul… this shall they give…all who pass through the census, half a shekel…” (Exodus 30:11-13)
At first glance, this commandment to count the Jewish people appears puzzling. Surely the Almighty G-d knew our numbers, so what purpose was there in a census? Moreover, why should the people be counted through a “half shekel”?
Herein is to be found a profound teaching, which, if absorbed properly, can be a life-transforming experience through which we can make that difference. Ki Tisa – the words with which the Torah commands the census does not literally mean “counting,” but rather “the elevation of one`s head”, impressing upon us that when we realize that we count, our heads are lifted up and we are elevated, That realization, that we can impact on the destiny of the world, that our words and deeds have significance, charges us with responsibility and allows us to grow and become better people..
Our sages offer many explanations as to how we may best achieve this elevation. When we make a spiritual accounting by carefully scrutinizing our lives, then we transcend ourselves and grow spiritually. By having to contribute half a shekel to the census, we are challenged to realize that we are all only halves and that our nation is only as strong as its individual parts. It follows then that when we make a decision to pray with greater intensity and devote more time to torah study, to be more scrupulous about the observance of Shabbos and Kashruth, to make an effort to control our tempers and to desist from loshen hora (gossip and slander), to reach out with chesed (loving-kindness and patience), then we are not only elevating our individual selves, but we are actually tipping the scales in favor of our people and the world.
The half a shekel that we are called upon to donate is also symbolic of a heart broken in half which results from the awareness that we have failed in our mission of fulfilling G-d`s command- ments. That realization is in and of itself an atonement for our soul.. As King David proclaimed in his psalm: “G-d is close to the broken hearted…” (Psalm 34:19)
Finally, the word v`nosnu – and they shall give” is a palindrome–a word or phrase that reads the same backwards and forwards. reminding us that that which we give always comes back to us. In these tumultuous times, when we are all concerned about our personal safety and security, let us be aware that our most powerful protection is to be found in giving. We are all only halves, and to create that whole and to bring blessing to ourselves and to our people, we must learn to give.
A school district in San Diego conducted a “white privilege training” for its white teachers who were told they were racist for being white, and for upholding racist ideas and policies
A healthy way to begin defending our children from leftist indoctrination
By: Jason D. Hill
A friend of mine told me an apocryphal story that left me with a cold shudder. He is an old-fashioned left-leaning “liberal” and a strong advocate of public education. All his children attend public schools. In fact, he is vehemently opposed to the idea of promoting private schools on the premise that its implementation will result in a more stratified society because, he believes, poor whites and blacks will be disproportionately disqualified from attending such institutions.
In good faith, he has always entrusted his children’s education to what I had typically referred to as Government Schools. He was confident that his children would receive a robust education from K-12 grade.
During the COVID-19 pandemic, however, he was forced to monitor the classroom activities of his children. Unemployment had left him more time to inconspicuously sit-in — especially on the classes of his 6th grader son.
He was shocked, one afternoon, to come upon an assignment being conducted during an English class in which all the white students in the zoom online course were required to place their arms beside a brown paper bag. How his 6th grader had acquired a crisp brown paper bag was a mystery to him. The teacher asked them if they noticed a difference in color between their skin and the brown paper bag. All of the white students nodded, and some verbally assented. The teacher asked them if the color of the bag looked close to the color of some of the students identified as black in the class. His son peered at the zoom screen and raised the icon button identifying his acknowledgement. The teacher then announced with full moral rectitude and intransigence the following:
Seattle Public Schools also held racially charged teacher-training sessions that accused them, unequivocally, of murdering the souls of black children everyday through systemic institutionalized, anti-black, state-sanctioned violence
If your skin color is different from the color of the paper bag, then you are part of a problem in America known as systemic racism that does irreparable harm to all black and brown people in America. Further, if your skin color is different from the brown paper bag and you are identified as white you enjoy something called white privilege which means you are practicing racism every day without knowing it.
Each such student that had a different color than the brown paper bag bore a collective guilt. The teacher then went on to ask the class if they had ever heard the term, “Reparations.”
Out of some sense of visceral, atavistic paternal protection, my friend slammed down his son’s computer and told him to go to his room for a while. He said he stood with his fingers pressed into the metal cover of the computer, shaking with incredulity.
I explained to him that guilt implied wrong-doing, and that because his son at age twelve had committed no egregious harm against any black person that he would eventually grow to feel a burgeoning sense of resentment. Over time, as his mind grew more focused and the charges against him repeated had been codified into a cultural norm, he would feel that he was the real cause of all harms directed at black people. I said that something evil and sinister was going to take root in his son’s psyche.
My friend grew alarmed. But I pressed on. His son, I told him, would grow to feel resentment towards black people. It would be mild at first; a contemptuous discharge fueled by a growing sense of his superiority and empowerment that he, by the power of his whiteness, could cause so much harm and that he, by that same magical power of whiteness, could alleviate the misery and suffering of blacks. I told him it would not end well, His son’s curriculum would include a phalanx of black and white progressive nihilists who would call for the annihilation of “whiteness” which, his mind would come to understand as: the annihilation of all white people from the earth including himself.
His son, I told him, runs the risk not just of becoming a racist, but of a white supremacist. Becoming a white supremacist, he will come to believe, will be his only default position from which to protect his life from the early stages of assault being waged against it — starting with the seemingly benign comparison between his skin color and that of a brown paper bag. And all this from white liberals masquerading as anti-racists.
Be careful how you proceed with his education, I warned him. It is not too late for you to assume responsibility and assert control of his mind by extracting him from one of our many national security threats destroying our American civilization: our Government schools on the tertiary level, and our nation’s universities. The decision is yours.
The idea first started by Rutgers that grammar is racist, has been extrapolated on to the disciplines of science and math — they, as well, are racists disciplines, we’re being told. Photo Credit: Rutgers.edu
Doubtless, readers have been keeping up with reports of how our public schools have become inundated with what is becoming known as “Culturally Responsive Teaching.” Teachers are required to implement “action civics” in the classroom, leading students in activism on behalf of various causes.
A school district in San Diego conducted a “white privilege training” for its white teachers who were told they were racist for being white, and for upholding racist ideas and policies. They were made to feel ashamed for teaching on stolen Native American land.
Seattle Public Schools also held racially charged teacher-training sessions that accused them, unequivocally, of murdering the souls of black children everyday through systemic institutionalized, anti-black, state-sanctioned violence. They, too, were told they were natural racists because of their mere possession of white skin, and that they had to self-consciously reject their “whiteness.” Any objection to their indictment of being racists, they were told, no matter how well-argued or factually grounded, would be dismissed as a reflex of their whiteness, as “lizard brain,” which was proof of their white fragility.
These stories come on the heels of decolonized courses in which Shakespeare, Homer, Chaucer and other classics are expurgated from curricula in high schools and colleges in the United States (I cannot keep up). The idea first started by Rutgers that grammar is racist, has been extrapolated on to the disciplines of science and math — they, as well, are racists disciplines, we’re being told.
It is obvious that today’s cultural activists are guilty of massive child abuse in our classrooms. They have criminalized independent thinking, logic, reason, and so, have ended up conceptually breaking the minds of our children. They have usurped the purpose of educational from one of learning to one of, ultimately, Marxist indoctrination and the destruction of the values that undergird American civilization. They are using children as political pawns, weapons of mass destruction, and objectified instruments in their war against the United States of America.
They have declared war on this country’s children and their precious minds — openly, vulgarly, and with full forethought of malice.
It is time to apply an intransigent and implacable counterassault against their efforts. We know where they are and who they are.
The battle is, first, a philosophical one. We must proudly defend our first principles and our unassailable constitutive values that define America: our free market system of capitalism, our sacred Constitution and its Bill of Rights, a philosophy of individualism, reason, and American exceptionalism.
To destroy this movement, we must, first, abolish public education, that is, all government schools from K-12 to our public universities that have become national security threats and indoctrination centers for anti-American, and Marxist and post-modern ideologies. They have to be shut down. Your tax dollars cannot fund these institutions any longer.
A future secretary of education, and philosophically-minded future leaders must prepare for the complete eradication of the Department of Education. Education must be placed back in the hands of parents, and morally speaking, ought to be privatized. If as the New Cultural Leaders say, state teachers are racists — then, alright, they must all be fired.
Private learning institutions should no longer receive any funding from the federal government, or from any state governing agencies that mandate an activist curricula.
This is a contentious position to hold. I am willing to entertain the idea of issuing school vouchers for the use of a child’s private school tuition. This is also a more divisive issue among reasonable people, as it involves the use of public funds to pay for a child’s education. Some will argue, therefore, that vouchers still involve the state’s role in education. A safer alternative, it seems to me, and one predicated on the moral principle that people are responsible for the procreative choices that they make — not society — is to implement a unilateral tax credit for education for all parents.
All one would have to do to qualify is to have a child or children that one wishes to educate in a private school. One would not be taxed on the portion of one’s income that is needed to send one’s child to school. This would certainly dis-incentivize more people from having more children than they can afford to educate. Among competing private schools in a free market, it simply would not be in the fiscal interests of private educators to leave broad swaths of people outside the system. We have seen where the emergence of private online universities have provided a plethora of opportunities for those whose income levels do not permit easy entrance into traditional, high-tuition universities, to receive an education.
It is obvious that today’s cultural activists are guilty of massive child abuse in our classrooms. They have criminalized independent thinking, logic, reason, and so, have ended up conceptually breaking the minds of our children. Photo Credit: Pinterest
I think a conversation about the two possibilities outlined is a healthy way to begin rooting out the existence of government schools from our republic.
To fight a war, one must start at the root by defeating the adversary’s strategies and methods. Strategies will follow as I continue to write on this topic. For now, I simply want those brown paper bags destroyed, those government schools closed forever, and American children given back to the safety of their parents. They are innocent. The future is theirs. And they deserve a shot at making something magnificent of it, and of their minds.
Jason D. Hill is professor of philosophy at DePaul University in Chicago, and a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center. His areas of specialization include ethics, social and political philosophy, American foreign policy and American politics. He is the author of several books, including We Have Overcome: An Immigrant’s Letter to the American People (Bombardier Books/Post Hill Press). His new forthcoming book is What Do White Americans Owe Black People: Racial Justice in the Age of Post Oppression. Follow him on Twitter @JasonDhill6.
A recent Swedish study found that physical activity was the number one contributor to longevity, adding extra years to your life—even if you don’t start exercising until your senior years.
No matter your age or physical condition, it’s never too late to start exercising and get fit. These easy tips will help you get started safely and make it fun.
By: Lawrence Robinson, Melinda Smith, M.A., & Jeanne Segal, Ph.D.
What are the benefits of exercise for older adults?
There are many reasons why we tend to slow down and become more sedentary with age. It may be due to health problems, weight or pain issues, or worries about falling. Or perhaps you think that exercising simply isn’t for you. But as you grow older, an active lifestyle becomes more important than ever to your health.
A recent Swedish study found that physical activity was the number one contributor to longevity, adding extra years to your life—even if you don’t start exercising until your senior years. But getting active is not just about adding years to your life, it’s about adding life to your years.
Getting moving can help boost your energy, maintain your independence, protect your heart, and manage symptoms of illness or pain as well as your weight. Regular exercise is also good for your mind, mood, and memory. It’s never too late to find simple, enjoyable ways to become more active, improve your mood and outlook, and reap all of the physical and mental health benefits of exercise.
Enhance your mobility, flexibility, and balance. Exercise improves your strength, flexibility, and posture, which in turn can help with your balance and coordination, and reduce your risk of falls
Physical health benefits of exercise for seniors
As an older adult, exercise can help you to:
Maintain or lose weight. As your metabolism naturally slows with age, maintaining a healthy weight can become a challenge. Regular exercise helps increase your metabolism and build muscle mass, helping your body to burn more calories.
Reduce the impact of illness and chronic disease. People who exercise tend to have improved immune and digestive functioning, better blood pressure and bone density, and a lower risk of Alzheimer’s disease, diabetes, obesity, heart disease, osteoporosis, and certain cancers.
Enhance your mobility, flexibility, and balance. Exercise improves your strength, flexibility, and posture, which in turn can help with your balance and coordination, and reduce your risk of falls. Strength training can also help alleviate the symptoms of chronic conditions such as arthritis.
Mental health benefits
Exercise can also help you to:
Improve how well you sleep. Quality sleep is vital for your overall health as you get older. Regular activity can help you fall asleep faster, sleep more deeply, and wake feeling more energetic and refreshed.
Boost your mood and self-confidence. Exercise is a huge stress reliever and the endorphins produced can actually help reduce feelings of sadness, depression, and anxiety. Being active and feeling strong can also help you feel more self-confident.
Improve your brain function Activities like Sudoku or crossword puzzles can help keep your brain active, but little comes close to the beneficial effects of exercise on the brain. It can aid brain functions as diverse as multitasking and creativity, and help to prevent memory loss, cognitive decline, and dementia. Getting active may even help slow the progression of brain disorders such as Alzheimer’s disease.
Overcoming obstacles to getting active as you age
Starting or maintaining a regular exercise routine can be a challenge at any age—and it doesn’t get any easier as you get older. You may feel discouraged by health problems, aches and pains, or concerns about injuries or falls. If you’ve never exercised before, you may not know where to begin, or you may think you’re too old or frail and can never live up to the standards you set when you were younger. Or maybe you just think that exercise is boring.
While these may seem like good reasons to slow down and take it easy as you age, they’re even better reasons to get moving. Becoming more active can energize your mood, relieve stress, help you manage symptoms of illness and pain, and improve your overall sense of well-being. And reaping the rewards of exercise doesn’t have to involve strenuous workouts or trips to the gym. You can gain the benefits from adding more movement and activity to your life, even in small ways. No matter your age or physical condition, it’s never too late to get your body moving, boost your health and outlook, and improve how well you age.
Six myths about activity and aging
Myth 1: “There’s no point to exercising. I’m going to get old anyway.”
Fact: Regular physical activity helps you look and feel younger and stay independent longer. It also lowers your risk for a variety of conditions, including Alzheimer’s and dementia, heart disease, diabetes, certain cancers, high blood pressure, and obesity. And the mood benefits of exercise can be just as great at 70 or 80 as they were at 20 or 30.
Myth 2: “Exercise puts me at risk of falling down.”
Fact: Regular exercise, by building strength and stamina, prevents loss of bone mass and improves balance, actually reducing your risk of falling.
Myth 3: “It’s too frustrating; I’ll never be the athlete I once was.”
Fact: Changes in hormones, metabolism, bone density, and muscle mass mean that your strength and performance levels inevitably decline with age. But that doesn’t mean you can no longer derive a sense of achievement from physical activity or improve your health. The key is to set lifestyle goals that are appropriate for your age. And remember: a sedentary lifestyle takes a much greater toll on athletic ability than biological aging.
Myth 4: “I’m too old to start exercising.”
Fact: You’re never too old to get moving and improve your health! In fact, adults who become active later in life often show greater physical and mental improvements than their younger counterparts. If you’ve never exercised before, or it’s been a while, you won’t be encumbered by the same sports injuries that many regular exercisers experience in later life. In other words, there aren’t as many miles on your clock so you’ll quickly start reaping the rewards. Just begin with gentle activities and build up from there.
Myth 5: “I can’t exercise because I’m disabled.”
Fact: If you’re chair-bound, you obviously face special challenges. However, you can lift light weights, stretch, and do chair aerobics, chair yoga, and chair tai chi to increase your range of motion, improve muscle tone and flexibility, and promote cardiovascular health. Many swimming pools offer access to wheelchair users and you can also find adaptive exercise programs for wheelchair sports such as basketball.
Myth 6: “I’m too weak or have too many aches and pains.”
Fact: Getting moving can help you manage pain and improve your strength and self-confidence. Many older people find that regular activity not only helps stem the decline in strength and vitality that comes with age, but actually improves it. The key is to start off gently.
What if you hate to exercise?
If you dread working out, you’re not alone. But you don’t have to exercise until you’re soaked in sweat or every muscle aches to make a big difference to your health. Think about activities that you enjoy and how you can incorporate them into an exercise routine:
Listen to music or an audiobook while lifting weights.
Window shop while walking laps at the mall.
Get competitive while playing tennis.
Take photographs on a nature hike.
Meet new people at a yoga class or fitness center.
Watch a favorite movie or TV show while walking on the treadmill.
Instead of chatting with a friend over coffee, chat while walking, stretching, or strength training.
Walk the golf course instead of using a cart.
Walk or play fetch with a dog. If you don’t own a dog, offer to take a neighbor’s dog for a walk or volunteer at a pet shelter or rescue group.
Go for a run, walk, or cycle when you’re feeling stressed—see how much better you feel afterwards.
Find an exercise buddy, someone whose company you really enjoy, and try activities you’ve never tried before—you may find something you love. At worst, you’ve spent time with a good friend.
Building a balanced exercise plan
Staying active is not a science. Just remember that mixing different types of physical activity helps to both keep your workouts interesting and improve your overall health. The key is to find activities that you enjoy—based on the four building blocks of fitness. These are:
1: Balance
What it is: Balance exercises help maintain standing and stability, whether you’re stationary or moving around. Try yoga, tai chi, and posture exercises to gain confidence with balance.
Why it’s good for you: It improves your balance, posture, and the quality of your walking. It also reduces your risk of falling or fear of falls.
2: Cardio
What it is: Cardiovascular exercise uses large muscle groups in rhythmic motions over a period of time. It gets your heart pumping and may even leave you feeling a little short of breath. Cardio workouts include walking, stair climbing, swimming, hiking, cycling, rowing, tennis, and dancing.
Why it’s good for you: Cardio exercise helps lessen fatigue and shortness of breath. It also promotes independence by improving endurance for daily activities such as walking, house cleaning, and errands.
3: Strength and power training
What it is: Strength training builds up muscle with repetitive motion using weight or external resistance from machines, free weights, elastic bands, or your own body weight. Power training is often strength training done at a faster speed to increase power and reaction times.
Enhance your mobility, flexibility, and balance. Exercise improves your strength, flexibility, and posture, which in turn can help with your balance and coordination, and reduce your risk of falls
Why it’s good for you: Strength training helps prevent loss of bone mass, builds muscle, and improves balance—important for staying active and avoiding falls. Power training can improve your speed while crossing the street, for example, or prevent falls by enabling you to react quickly if you start to trip or lose balance. Building strength and power will help you stay independent and make day-to-day activities such as opening a jar, getting in and out of a car, and lifting objects easier.
4: Flexibility
What it is: Flexibility workouts challenge the ability of your body’s joints to move freely through a full range of motion. This can be done through stationary stretches or stretches that involve movement to keep your muscles and joints supple and less prone to injury. Yoga is an excellent means of improving flexibility.
Why it’s good for you: Flexibility helps your body stay limber and increases your range of movement for ordinary physical activities, such as looking behind while driving, tying your shoes, shampooing your hair, or playing with your grandchildren.
Activities beneficial to older adults
Walking. Walking is a perfect way to start exercising. It requires no special equipment, aside from a pair of comfortable walking shoes, and can be done almost anywhere.
Senior sports or fitness classes. Exercising with others can help keep you motivated while also providing a source of fun, stress relief, and a place to meet friends.
Water aerobics and water sports. Working out in water reduces stress and strain on the body’s joints.
Yoga. Yoga combines a series of poses with breathing. Moving through the poses helps improve strength, flexibility and balance, and can be adapted to any level.
Tai chi and qi gong. These martial arts-inspired systems of movement can increase balance and strength. Classes for seniors are often available at local YMCA or community centers.
Getting started safely
Getting active is one of the healthiest decisions you can make as you age, but it’s important to do it safely.
Get medical clearance from your doctor before starting an exercise program, especially if you have a preexisting condition. Ask if there are any activities you should avoid.
Consider health concerns. Keep in mind how your ongoing health problems affect your workouts. For example, diabetics may need to adjust the timing of medication and meal plans when setting an exercise schedule.
Listen to your body. Exercise should never hurt or make you feel lousy. Stop exercising immediately and call your doctor if you feel dizzy or short of breath, develop chest pain or pressure, break out in a cold sweat, or experience pain. And put your routine on hold if a joint is red, swollen, or tender to the touch—the best way to cope with injuries is to avoid them in the first place. If you regularly experience pain or discomfort after exercising, try exercising for less time but more frequently throughout the day.
Start slow and build up steadily. If you haven’t been active in a while, build up your exercise program little by little. Try spacing workouts in ten-minute increments twice a day. Or try just one class each week. If you’re concerned about falling or have an ongoing heart problem, start with easy chair exercises to slowly increase your fitness and confidence.
Prevent injury and discomfort by warming up, cooling down, and keeping water handy.
Commit to an exercise schedule for at least three or four weeks so that it becomes a habit and force yourself to stick with it. This is much easier if you find activities you enjoy.
Experiment with mindfulness. Instead of zoning out when you exercise, try to focus on how your body feels as you move—the rhythm of your breathing, the way your feet strike the ground, or your muscles flexing, for example. Practicing mindfulness will improve your physical condition faster, better relieve stress and anxiety, and better help you to avoid accidents or injuries.
If you have an injury, disability, weight problem, or diabetes…
While there are challenges that come with exercising with mobility issues, by adopting a creative approach, you can overcome any physical limitations and find enjoyable ways to get active and improve your health and well-being.
Support activity levels with the right diet
Diet as well as exercise can have a major impact on your energy, mood, and fitness. Many older adults don’t get sufficient high-quality protein in their diets, despite evidence suggesting they need more than younger people to maintain energy levels and lean muscle mass, promote recovery from illness and injury, and support overall health. Older adults without kidney disease or diabetes should aim for about 0.5 grams of protein per pound of body weight.
Vary your sources of protein instead of relying on just red meat, including more fish, poultry, beans, and eggs.
Reduce the amount of processed carbohydrates you consume—pastries, cakes, pizza, cookies and chips—and replace them with high-quality protein.
Snack on nuts and seeds instead of chips, replace a baked dessert with Greek yogurt, swap out slices of pizza for a grilled chicken breast and a side of beans.
Tips for staying motivated
It’s easy to become discouraged when illness, injury, or changes in the weather interrupt your routine and seem to set you back to square one. But there are ways to stay motivated when life’s challenges get in the way.
Focus on short-term goals, such as improving your mood and energy levels and reducing stress, rather than goals such as weight loss, which can take longer to achieve.
Reward yourself when you successfully complete a workout, reach a new fitness goal, or simply show up on a day when you were tempted to ditch your activity plans. Choose something you look forward to, but don’t allow yourself to do until after exercising, such as having a hot bath or a favorite cup of coffee.
Regular physical activity helps you look and feel younger and stay independent longer. It also lowers your risk for a variety of conditions, including Alzheimer’s and dementia, heart disease, diabetes, certain cancers, high blood pressure, and obesity
Keep a log. Writing down your activities or using an app to track your progress not only holds you accountable, but is also a useful reminder of your accomplishments.
Find support. When you work out with a friend or family member, you can encourage and motivate each other.
How to stay fit when your routine changes
You’re on vacation
Many hotels now have fitness centers. Bring along your exercise clothing or equipment (resistance band, bathing suit, or walking shoes).
Get out and see the sights on foot rather than just by tour bus.
Caring for an ill spouse is taking up too much of your time
Work out to an exercise video when your spouse is napping.
Ask a family member or friend to come over so you can go for a walk.
Your usual exercise buddy moves away
Ask another friend to go with you on your daily walk.
Reach out to other older adults in your area—many are in the same boat, so be the one to break the ice.
Join an exercise class at your local community center or senior center. This is a great way to meet other active people.
You move to a new community
Check out the fitness centers, parks, community websites, and recreation associations in your new neighborhood.
Look for activities that match your interests and abilities.
Illness keeps you out of action for a few weeks
Wait until you feel better and then start your activity again.
Gradually build back up to your previous level of activity.
You’re recovering from injury or surgery
Talk with your doctor about specific exercises and activities you can do safely.
Start slowly and gradually build up your activity level as you become stronger.
Dr. Daniel Laroche, Director of Glaucoma Services and President of Advanced Eyecare of New York, wants you to know there is a way to prevent the devastating effects of glaucoma.
Edited by: TJVNews.com
Blindness caused by glaucoma is insidious. In most cases, there is no pain, and the loss of vision occurs slowly from peripheral to central. Many people do not even realize it’s happening until they have lost a substantial amount of peripheral vision. But Dr. Daniel Laroche, Director of Glaucoma Services and President of Advanced Eyecare of New York, wants you to know there is a way to prevent the devastating effects of glaucoma: Don’t skip your eyecare visits.
What is Glaucoma? Glaucoma is a disease of the eye characterized by three components:
Damage and loss of the retinal ganglions cells and optic nerve described as cupping
Loss of visual field
Usually increased eye pressure (the mean normal eye pressure is 15mmHG)
People at risk for glaucoma include the elderly, Blacks, people with elevated eye pressure, primary relatives with glaucoma, persons with high myopia, high hyperopia, history of eye trauma and diabetes.
The elevated intraocular pressure from glaucoma damages the optic nerve mechanically and creates decreased blood flow to the eye. The most identifiable cause of glaucoma is the enlarged lens or cataract in the eye. Early cataract surgery and trabecular bypass has become the best option to stop vision loss in patients with glaucoma. The current use of eyedrops and laser help to lower intraocular pressure but do not address the causative mechanism of the glaucoma being the enlarged lens. Incisional cataract surgery and glaucoma surgery is often needed to truly stabilize glaucoma.
All people should be screened regularly for glaucoma as part of a medical eye exam. Screening should consist of an eye examination consisting of gonioscopy (examination of the drainage angle), intraocular pressure measurement with Goldmann applanation tonometry and a dilated optic nerve examination. If there appears to be any damage to the optic nerve or abnormal pressure, then a visual field test should be performed, and optic nerve photos taken. Persons with thin corneas should be more aggressively monitored and treated for glaucoma as the disease tends to be worse in these patients.
If you have eye pressure or glaucoma and feel that you may be losing vision, Dr. Laroche recommends that you seek the care of a glaucoma specialist for a second opinion. DON’T GO BLIND FROM GLAUCOMA! People with conditions such as glaucoma and diabetic retinopathy that could lead to blindness if left unchecked need to stay particularly vigilant with their checkups. The pandemic shouldn’t keep you from visiting your doctor, but for patients over 60, Dr. Laroche advises it’s better to stay home and do telehealth visits or video consultations until the pandemic flattens. He also encourages people to wear face masks on visits and maintain social distancing, even if they are in a health clinic, and if you’re high-risk, consider adding eye protection when in public spaces.
“Eyesight or human vision is one of the most important senses. As much as 80 percent of what we feel comes through our sense of sight. By protecting the eyes, people will reduce the chance of blindness and vision loss while also staying on top of any developing eye diseases, such as glaucoma and cataracts.
“A healthy brain function requires a healthy vision. The brain is our most essential organ, and it allows us to control other organs. Normal and healthy vision contributes to improved learning and comprehension for a better quality of life,” says Dr. Laroche.
About Dr. Daniel Laroche
Dr. Laroche is an exceptional glaucoma specialist in New York. He studied and received his bachelor’s degree from New York University and a medical doctorate with honors in research from Weil Cornell University Medical College. He underwent a medical internship at Montefiore Hospital and finished his ophthalmology residency at Howard University Hospital in Washington D.C., where he was the chief resident in his third year. He later completed his glaucoma fellowship at New York Eye and Ear.
(TJVNEWS) A Hasidic Jewish family says they have kicked off a flight because they refused to make their 18-month-old baby wear a mask, while passengers claimed Frontier Airlines staff performed celebratory high-fives after the incident.
Despite the policy being that children aged under 2 do not have to wear masks, the Orthodox Jewish Public Affairs Council (OJPAC) says the family were told “to get off because their 18-month-old had no mask.
The incident has gone viral on Twitter
Disturbing incident the last hour on a @FlyFrontier flight as staff told a Hasidic couple to get off because their 18 month old had no mask. Applause is heard as the couple started leaving. Travels say on camera that the applause came from staff who also cheered that “we did it.” pic.twitter.com/rA2JQmI1tU
An Orthodox Jewish person spoke up in defense of the Hasidic couple. Then the whole family siblings and in-laws started leaving the plane at which point the @FlyFrontier ordered everyone off of the airplane. pic.twitter.com/N1OwqxFI3Q
Frontier Airlines put out a statement claiming that the family was removed because adults were refusing to wear masks, according to the company’s Twitter post The above videos posted on Twitter however indicate that every family member was wearing a mask, except for the baby.
Members of a large group, including adults, refused to wear masks as flight 2878 was preparing for departure from MIA-LGA. Repeated requests to comply with federal law necessitated their removal from the flight. The issue did not stem from a child under 2.
YouTube suspended former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani again for spreading false information related to the 2020 presidential election, claiming the election was stolen.
Rudy Giuliani was suspended for repeatedly claiming the election was stolen from former President Donald Trump, who President Joe Biden unseated in November, Bloomberg reported. YouTube cited its “presidential election integrity policy” and its “regulated goods policy,” alleging that Giuliani had posted content facilitating nicotine use.
“We removed content from the Rudy W. Giuliani channel for violating our sale of regulated goods policy, which prohibits content facilitating the use of nicotine, and our presidential election integrity policy,” a YouTube spokesperson told Bloomberg in a statement.
“Additionally, in accordance with our long standing strikes system, we issued a strike against the Rudy W. Giuliani channel, which temporarily restricts uploading or live-streaming,” the statement continued.
Giuliani was suspended for similar violations in January, according to Bloomberg. If he violates the policy a third time, he will be permanently banned from the popular video sharing and live streaming platform.
In the aftermath of the election, Giuliani represented Trump in several election fraud lawsuits and made a series of unsubstantiated claims regarding the outcome of the election. Voting machine and software maker Dominion Voting Systems filed a $1.3 billion defamation lawsuit against the former New York City mayor in January.
“He and his allies manufactured and disseminated the ‘Big Lie,’ which foreseeably went viral and deceived millions of people into believing that Dominion had stolen their votes and fixed the election,” the lawsuit alleged.
YouTube suspended Trump’s account following the Jan. 6 Capitol riot, citing potential incitement to violence from his content. Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, Twitch, Reddit and many others suspended the former president as well.
Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact [email protected].
In breaking, news NBC News New York reported that legislators from New York’s Assembly and state Senate struck a deal Tuesday to strip Gov. Andrew Cuomo of his pandemic-linked emergency powers and return matters like lockdowns to local control.
The deal would reverse emergency powers granted to Cuomo exactly a year ago, in the early days of the COVID pandemic, that gave him free rein to order measures like quarantines.
Assemblymember Carrie Woerner tweeted the outlines of the widely reported deal Tuesday afternoon, saying it would:
“repeal the extraordinary powers granted to the Governor last year”
“provide for an orderly transition through the end of the disaster period”
“Limit any further modifications to directives to that which is necessary to reduce the spread or increase vaccinations”
“Restore the right of counties and municipalities to issue executive orders without seeking state approval”
“Require the Governor to provide online reporting on all executive orders, providing transparency for all”
Woerner said she understood a bill would be passed as early as this Friday.
Queens State Senator John Liu said the agreement is less about retribution from the mushrooming scandals the governor is facing and more about restoring the balance of power in Albany between the branches of government
Texas Governor Greg Abbott announced the ending of the statewide coronavirus mask mandate during an event in Lubbock, Texas. The mandate went into effect in July and required all Texans to wear a mask covering the mouth and nose while in public places.
Governor Abbott addressed a group of small business and community leaders at a meeting of the Lubbock Chamber of Commerce on Tuesday afternoon. During the meeting, the governor announced he would end the statewide coronavirus mask mandate.
“It is time for Texas to be open 100 percent,” the governor said. “Everybody that wants a job should be able to get a job. Every business that wants to be open should be open.”
The governor said all businesses of any time can be open at 100 percent capacity. He also said Texas is “ending the statewide mask mandate.”
Abbott cited the number of vaccines administered to Texans, the experience that Texans have in choosing to wear protection, and the number of recovered COVID cases as reasons for the ending of the mandates and reopening of business at 100 percent capacity.
“With the medical advancements of vaccines and antibody therapeutic drugs, Texas now has the tools to protect Texans from the virus,” Abbott explained. “We must now do more to restore livelihoods and normalcy for Texans by opening Texas 100 percent. Make no mistake, COVID-19 has not disappeared, but it is clear from the recoveries, vaccinations, reduced hospitalizations, and safe practices that Texans are using that state mandates are no longer needed.”
The governor said that COVID vaccines have been issued to 5.7 million Texans as of last week and the state is going to vaccinate a record 216,000 people on Tuesday alone.
“By next Wednesday, about 7 million shots will have been administered in Texas and over half of seniors in Texas will have received a vaccine shot. By the end of March, every senior who wants a vaccine should be able to get one,” he continued. “The vaccine supply continues to increase so rapidly that more and more Texans will soon be eligible to receive a vaccine.”
Should a county have a local spike in COVID cases, Abbott said local officials can act to increase some restrictions. However, no financial penalties or jail time for failing to follow local restrictions.
The Texas governor issued the mandate in July in an executive order, Breitbart News reported. The order required “all Texans to wear a face-covering over the nose and mouth in public spaces in counties with 20 or more positive COVID-19 cases, with few exceptions.”
The proclamation also gave local authorities the approval to issue restrictions on outdoor gatherings of more than ten people.
The governor teased the idea of lifting statewide orders during a press conference in Corpus Christi last week.
Governor Abbott responded to a question about when he would end the statewide mandate requiring the wearing of masks.
The governor called it a “great question,” the Texas Tribune reported. “We’re working right now on evaluating when we’re gonna be able to remove all statewide orders, and we will be making announcements about that pretty soon.”
Abbott cautioned Texans against abandoning safe protocols and social distancing.
“Today’s announcement does not abandon safe practices that Texans have mastered over the past year,” Abbott stated. “Instead, it is a reminder that each person has a role to play in their own personal safety and the safety of others. With this executive order, we are ensuring that all businesses and families in Texas have the freedom to determine their own destiny.”
Mordechai Sones (INN) A group of lawyers is preparing to sue the World Health Organization and some of its partners for allegedly misleading the world over the severity of the COVID-19 outbreak and the measures taken to control it, which they say have damaged livelihoods and caused tremendous harm to economies.
The move was announced by Dr. Reiner Fuellmich, one of four members of the German Coronavirus Investigative Committee that has been hearing international scientists’ and experts’ testimonies since July 10, 2020.
In a video released to his YouTube channel, Fuellmich accuses WHO Director Tedros Adhanom, Dr Christan Drosten, the head of virology at Berlin’s Charité Hospital, and Dr Lothar Wieler, the head of the RKI, the German counterpart of the U.S. Center for Disease Control, whom he claims knowingly misled governments across the world.
“This corona crisis, according to all we know today, must be renamed a corona scandal, and those responsible for it must be criminally prosecuted, and sued for civil damages,” he said. “On a political level, everything must be done to make sure that no one will ever again, be in a position of such power as to be able to defraud humanity, or to attempt to manipulate us with their corrupt agendas.”
Fuellmich plans on filing a class-action suit in the United States.
“One: is there a corona pandemic, or is there only a PCR test pandemic, specifically, does a positive PCR test result mean that the person tested is infected with COVID-19, or does it mean absolutely nothing, in connection with the COVID-19 infection,” he said, unafraid to mention alleged corporate greed in his lawsuit.
“Two, do the so-called anti-corona measures, such as the lockdowns, facemasks, social distancing, and quarantine regulations serve to protect the world’s population from corona, or do they serve only to make people panic, so they believe without asking any questions, that their lives are in danger, so that in the end, the pharmaceutical and technology companies can generate huge profits from the sale of PCR tests, antigen and antibody tests and vaccines, as well as the harvesting of our genetic fingerprints.”
“Three, is it true that the German government was extensively lobbied, more so than any other government, by the chief protagonists of the so-called corona pandemic?” he questioned. “Germany is known as a particularly disciplined country and was therefore to become a role model for the rest of the world, for its strict, and therefore, successful adherence to the corona measures.”
Fuellmich deals with concerns over collateral damage caused by measures claimed to stop COVID-19, in addition to seeking answers about how dangerous the virus truly is, and whether a person whose PCR test has come back positive is actually infected by the disease.
“Based on the rules of criminal law, asserting false facts concerning the PCR tests or intentional misrepresentation, as conducted by Messrs. Drosten and Wieler and the WHO, this can only be interpreted as fraud,” he explained. “Based on the rules of the civil tort law, this translates into intentional infliction of damage.”
He claimed that these people knew “the PCR tests cannot provide any information about infections, but asserted over and over, to the general public, that they can, with their counterparts all over the world repeating this.
“They all knew and accepted that based on their recommendations, the governments of the world would decide on lockdowns, the rules for social distancing, and the mandatory wearing of masks, the latter representing a serious health hazard as more and more independent studies and expert statements show.
“Under tort laws, all those harmed by these PCR test-induced lockdowns are entitled to full compensation for their losses,” he added. “In particular, there is a duty to compensate – that is a duty to pay damages – to companies and self-employed persons as a result of the lockdown and other measures.
“In the meantime however, the anti-corona measures have caused and continue to cause such devastating damage to the world’s population’s health and its economy, that the crimes committed by Messrs. Drosten, Wieler, and the WHO, must be legally qualified as crimes against humanity, as defined in Section 7 of the International Criminal Code,” Fuellmich said.
