https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/dr-oz-shouldnt-be-a-senator-or-a-doctor/
He’s built a tremendous following around his lucrative but
evidence-free advice. So, are we surprised that Oz is running as a
Republican for the U.S. Senate in Pennsylvania? No, we are not.
Misinformation-spouting celebrities seem to be a GOP favorite. This move
is very on brand for both Oz and the Republican Party.
In front of Yeshiva Chaim Berlin- Coney Island Avenue Brooklyn
Sund says he requested assistance six times ahead of and during the attack on the Capitol. Each of those requests was denied or delayed, he says.
Washington, D.C., Mayor Muriel Bowser also wanted a light police presence at the Capitol. She reportedly wanted to avoid a similar scenario as last summer, when federal forces responded to demonstrators opposed to police abuses who assembled near the White House.
During Wednesday's violence, Bowser requested, and received, a limited force of 340 from the D.C. National Guard. Those troops were unarmed and their job was to help with traffic flow — not law enforcement, which was meant to be handled by D.C. police.
When the mob reached the Capitol complex at about 12:40 p.m. ET on Wednesday, it took about 15 minutes for the west side perimeter of the building to be breached, he says. The Capitol Police contingent, which numbered around 1,400 that day, was quickly overrun by the estimated 8,000 rioters.
"If we would have had the National Guard we could have held them at bay longer, until more officers from our partner agencies could arrive," he says.
Sund says during a conference call with several law enforcement officials at about 2:26 p.m., he asked the Pentagon to provide backup.
Senior Army official Lt. Gen. Walter E. Piatt, director of the Army Staff, said on the call he couldn't recommend that Army Secretary Ryan McCarthy authorize deployment, Sund and others on the call told the Post. Piatt reportedly said, "I don't like the visual of the National Guard standing a police line with the Capitol in the background," the Post reported.
It would be more than three hours before any National Guard troops arrived, well after the damage at the Capitol had been done.
In the interview, Sund also issued a warning to federal officials, saying "if they don't get their act together with physical security, it's going to happen again."
“It is a fact that … in December of 2020, Nancy Pelosi was made aware of potential security threats to the Capitol and she failed to act. It is a fact that the U.S. Capitol Police raised concerns and rather than providing them with the support and resources they needed and they deserved, she prioritized her partisan political optics over their safety.”
— House Republican Conference Chair Elise Stefanik, R-N.Y., at the news conference, July 27, 2021
— — —
Republicans accused House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., of failing to protect the U.S. Capitol from the attack on Jan. 6, claiming she ignored warnings about potential threats and denied a request to bring in reinforcements from the National Guard.
Many fact-checkers have rated these claims false. In March, we gave Four Pinocchios to Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, a close ally of former president Donald Trump, for leveling the same accusation at Pelosi without proof.
Asked in an interview about the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol, former President Donald Trump claimed that he had made a request for 10,000 National Guard troops to be deployed for the rally he led that preceded the attack, and that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi rejected it.
His claim was widely repeated on social media.
There is no clear evidence that Trump made such a request, and no evidence that Pelosi denied one.
https://apnews.com/article/fact-checking-235651652542
CLAIM: House Speaker Nancy Pelosi blocked the National Guard from coming to the Capitol during the Jan. 6 insurrection.
AP’S ASSESSMENT: False. As Speaker of the House, Pelosi does not direct the National Guard. Further, as the Capitol came under attack, she and the Senate Majority leader called for military assistance, including the National Guard.
THE FACTS: On Tuesday, a false claim about the deadly Jan. 6 riot at the Capitol resurfaced suggesting that Pelosi blocked the National Guard from coming to lawmakers’ defense during the insurrection at the Capitol.
“@SpeakerPelosi, why did you block the National Guard from protecting the Capitol?” Indiana Rep. Jim Banks tweeted.
Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy posed a similar question on Fox News saying, “Was there a decision by the Speaker not to have the National Guard at the Capitol that day?”
The answer is no.
https://www.timesofisrael.com/granted-early-release-berland-leaves-prison-after-a-month-and-a-half/
Convicted sex offender Rabbi Eliezer Berland, head of the controversial Shuvu Bonim sect, was granted early release from prison Wednesday after serving a tumultuous month and a half behind bard on a fraud conviction for swindling sick and elderly followers out of millions of shekels.
https://www.webmd.com/lung/news/20210423/covid-study-deaths-months-after-infection
Long-haul COVID-19 patients face many health threats -- including a higher chance of dying -- up to 6 months after they catch the virus, according to a massive study published in the journal Nature.
A second study, released by the CDC on Friday, also found lingering symptoms months later among COVID-19 patients who originally had mild symptoms.
For the Nature study, researchers examined more than 87,000 COVID-19 patients and nearly 5 million control patients in a federal database. They found COVID-19 patients had a 59% higher risk of death up to 6 months after infection, compared to non-infected people.
The total number of recorded COVID-19 deaths has passed 5 million globally, with over 750,000 deaths in the United States alone. However, these figures are unlikely to reveal the true impact of COVID-19 on the population.
Scientists have now shown an increased risk of death among COVID-19 survivors 12 months after the infection.
For people younger than 65 who were hospitalized with COVID-19, the risk of death in the 12 months after the infection was 233% higher than it was for people who did not have the disease, results published in the journal Frontiers in Medicine have shown.
November 2015 letterNovember 2015 parsha sheet
January 2016 letter
Diasgreeing with the Chazon Ish in Bnei Brak
Disagree with Gadol Hador
https://daattorah.blogspot.com/2024/12/disagree-with-gadol-hador.html
From one of the letters (2:133) of the Chazon Ish it is clear that he permits criticizing gadolim because they are influential - but not people who no one pays attention to.Criticizing GedolimMo'd Koton (17a) is clear that one can publicize the misdeeds of gedolim. We in fact pasken like this gemora.
if a disciple ‘separates’ someone in [defence of] his personal dignity his ‘separation’ is an [effective] . For it is taught: ‘One who has been "separated" [as under a ban] by the Master is [deemed] "separated" from the disciple; but one who has been "separated" by the disciple is not [deemed] "separated" from the Master’.1 [That means], not ‘separated’ from the Master; but in regard to everybody else he is [‘separated’]. [Now let us see; ‘separated’] for what [offence]? If [it was imposed] for some offence towards Heaven, then there is no wisdom nor understanding nor counsel against the Lord!2 Therefore [presumably] it is only so3 [where a disciple had pronounced it] in [defence of] his personal dignity. R. Joseph said that a Collegiate4 may enforce his own rights in a matter where he is perfectly certain [as to the law]. There was once a certain Collegiate whose reputation was objectionable. Said Rab Judah, How is one to act? To put the shammetha on him [we cannot], as the Rabbis have need of him [as an able teacher]. Not to put the shammetha on him [we cannot afford] as the name of Heaven is being profaned. Said he to Rabbah b. Bar Hana, Have you heard alight on that point? He replied: ‘Thus said R. Johanan: What means the text, For the priest's lips should keep knowledge and they should seek the law at his mouth; for he is the messenger of the Lord of Hosts?5 [It means, that] if the Master is like unto a messenger of the Lord of Hosts, they should seek the law at his mouth; but if [he be] not , they should not seek the law at his mouth’. [Thereupon] Rab Judah pronounced the shammetha on him. In the end Rab Judah became indisposed. The Rabbis came to enquire about him and that man came along with them. When Rab Judah beheld him he laughed. Said the man to him: Not enough for him that he put upon that man [me] the shammetha, but he even laughs at me! Replied he [Rab Judah]: I was not laughing at you: but as I am departing to that World [beyond] I am glad to think that even towards such a personage as you I showed no indulgence. Rab Judah's soul came to rest.6 The man [then] came to the College [and] said, ‘Absolve me’. Said the Rabbis to him, There is no man here of the standing of Rab Judah who could absolve you; but go to R. Judah Nesi'ah7 that he may absolve you. He went and presented himself to him. Said he to R. Ammi: ‘Go forth and look into his case; if it be necessary to absolve him, absolve him’. R. Ammi looked into his case and had a mind to absolve him. Then R. Samuel b. Nahmani got up on his feet and said: ‘Why, even a ‘separation" imposed by one of the domestics in Rabbi's house was not lightly treated by the Rabbis for three years; how much more so one imposed by our colleague, Rab Judah!’ Said R. Zera, From the fact that this venerable scholar8 should just now have turned up at this College after not having come here for many years, you must take it that it is not desirable to absolve that man. He [R. Judah Nesi'ah]9 did not absolve him. He went away weeping. A wasp then came and stung him in the privy member and he died. They brought him into ‘The Grotto of the Pious’, but they admitted him not.10 They brought him into ‘The Grotto of the Judges’ and they received him.11 Why was he admitted there? — Because he had acted according to the dictum of R. Il'ai. For R. Il'ai says, If one sees that his [evil] yezer12 is gaining sway over him, let him go away where he is not known; let him put on sordid13 clothes, don a sordid wrap and do the sordid deed that his heart desires rather than profane the name of Heaven openly.14
R. Judah said in the name of Rab: If one finds mixed kinds in his garment, he takes it off even in the street. What is the reason? [It says]: There is no wisdom nor understanding nor counsel against the Lord;4 wherever a profanation of God's name is involved no respect is paid to a teacher.
Rambam(Hilchos De'os 6:8):At first, a person who admonishes a colleague should not speak to him harshly until he becomes embarrassed as [Leviticus 19:17] states: "[You should]... not bear a sin because of him." This is what our Sages said: Should you rebuke him to the point that his face changes [color]? The Torah states: "[You should]... not bear a sin because of him."
From this, [we learn that] it is forbidden for a person to embarrass a [fellow] Jew. How much more so [is it forbidden to embarrass him] in public. Even though a person who embarrasses a colleague is not [liable for] lashes on account of him, it is a great sin. Our Sages said: "A person who embarrasses a colleague in public does not have a share in the world to come."
Therefore, a person should be careful not to embarrass a colleague - whether of great or lesser stature - in public, and not to call him a name which embarrasses him or to relate a matter that brings him shame in his presence.
When does the above apply? In regard to matters between one man and another. However, in regard to spiritual matters, if [a transgressor] does not repent [after being admonished] in private, he may be put to shame in public and his sin may be publicized. He may be subjected to abuse, scorn, and curses until he repents, as was the practice of all the prophets of Israel.
Latin America has a history of autogolpes, or “self-coups.” This is the term for efforts by sitting executives to enhance or retain power by overturning electoral outcomes or by unconstitutionally gutting the power of other branches of government. Trump’s measures to overturn the elections since November 3 constitute a “coup,” as they involve illegal usurpation of state power, even when it may not involve the use of force. Yet it is a “self”-coup because it is perpetrated by the head of government rather than military officers or others against that chief executive.
