RUTHFULLY YOURS

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/289918

A New York City Health Department was filmed writing a summons to an empty yeshiva building, citing a “list” to justify the procedure.

Video circulating on social media shows two inspectors visiting Yeshivat Shaare Torah on Coney Island Avenue in the Midwood section of Brooklyn, an area decreed to be a “red zone” by NY Governor Andrew Cuomo.

The yeshiva Director asked the inspectors why they were writing a summons if the building was vacant, excepting staff members performing essential tasks. The inspectors were invited inside the building and offered to look anywhere they wanted, and scrutinize any room or floor of the building they suspected of sheltering decree-violators.

When pressed to explain the procedure, the female inspector appeared to become flustered, asked not to be recorded, and concealed her badge from the camera. The only statutory justification for the executive procedure the inspector offered was to state, “we have a list”.

Yeshiva World News claims to be in possession of evidence that multiple yeshivas that were closed received fines in the past two weeks.

YWN contacted Deputy Assistant Attorney General Melinda Rogers to respond to the incident. She did not immediately comment on YWN’s query.

https://quillette.com/2020/10/24/reflections-on-solzhenitsyns-harvard-address/

THIS SPEECH COULD NOT BE DELIVERED IN HARVARD TODAY…AN ACADEMIC OUTPOST OF NEO-MARXISM…..RSK
In his 1978 Harvard commencement address, A World Split Apart, Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, a fierce enemy of the Soviet system, delivered a forceful and insightful critique of the West, a society which he characterized as spiritually weakened by rampant materialism. The man who, when forced to leave his own country four years earlier, encouraged his countrymen to “live not by lies”, gave us a magnificent lesson in how to not be blinded by our own sense of superiority, and urged us to ask hard questions about who we are and where we are going.

When I first heard this speech in 1978 as a young refugee from communist Romania, I was able to appreciate Solzhenitsyn’s address in terms of the competition raging then between the West and the East, but did not comprehend its larger meaning. Rereading it today, in the fall of the horrible year 2020, I find it truly prophetic. It is now painfully clear that, as Solzhenitsyn was able to discern 42 years ago, the West has been gradually losing the will and intellectual ability to defend itself, not so much against foreign armies as it may have appeared in 1978, but against an army of internal critics determined to demolish everything the West used to stand for.

In the central part of the address Solzhenitsyn said:

A decline in courage may be the most striking feature which an outside observer notices in the West in our days. The Western world has lost its civil courage, both as a whole and separately, in each country, each government, each political party, and, of course, in the United Nations. Such a decline in courage is particularly noticeable among the ruling groups and the intellectual elite, causing an impression of loss of courage by the entire society. Should one point out that from ancient times declining courage has been considered the beginning of the end?

https://dianebederman.com/we-need-a-truth-and-reconciliation-commission-about-c

We need a truth and reconciliation commission about the handling of Covid, the Chinese Virus. Have crimes against humanity been committed?

There are 7.8 billion people on this planet. Since the virus was unleashed last November/December, approximately 1.5 million people have died. Thankfully, few are children. Sadly, many are elderly. In the Spanish Flu epidemic in 1918, 60 million people died.

I suggest the response to Covid by our political and scientific leaders is a prime example of “moral hazard.” A moral hazard is a circumstance or decision in which one party can take risks because they do not have to endure the consequences of their actions. While citizens of all countries are told what they can and cannot do, when they can work, how they can work, or worship, or a walk outside or visit family and friends, leaders, political and scientific, promoting lockdowns will not be adversely affected. They continue to receive their paychecks, while others lose their entire income and end up at food banks.

Every politician, every medical expert must be held to account for the decisions they made and the destruction they have caused. The collateral damage. The Crimes against Humanity.

We get to listen to self-righteous leaders and doctors explain to us all day, every day, why it is in our best interests to shut down the economy and stop going to houses of worship, or attend school, while Walmart stays open and Casinos get up and running. It’s in our best interests, they say, and they feel so bad.

Dr. Anthony Fauci, self-appointed Emperor of all things Covid, never sat down with the hundreds of infectious disease epidemiologists and public health scientists of the Barrington Declaration who have shared their grave concerns about the damaging physical and mental health impacts of the prevailing COVID-19 policies.  The collateral damage includes the breakdown of the family; from mental illness, suicide, drug addiction, child abuse and wife abuse and sadly, to divorce. Who will care for children when their parents fall apart?

https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/10/equality-and-envy/

One of the most striking aspects of equality policies is that they are not born out of demand from citizens, but out of commitment by the elites.

We are not the same. Neither men, nor women, nor races, nor ages, nor nationalities, nor in wealth, nor in training, nor in beauty. We are not equal in any way. And that is a reason to be proud and happy, because at the end of the day we are human and not the product of some factory. Let us once and for all praise difference, bless the inequality that makes some people prefer beer and others water (because otherwise there would be a shortage of beer, and that would cruelly condemn us bohemians to discovering what water tastes like). Allow me to be even clearer: Since the French Revolution, everything that we have called “policies of equality” is nothing but the bureaucratization of envy.

“Why do we need more Women In Politics?” a U.N. Women tweet asked recently. “There are only 14 countries with 50% or more women in cabinet.” If we weren’t living under the strain of egalitarianism, of political correctness, and under the suffocating pressure of a totalitarian roller, anyone reading the tweet would be tempted to take a breath and simply say, “So what? Yes: so what?” I realize that these two words can trigger a world war in the climate of 2020, where dissent pits itself against global progressive abduction.

One of the most striking aspects of equality policies is that they are not born out of demand from citizens, but out of commitment by the elites. In the street there is no demand for women rulers, but for good rulers. We have thousands of examples of bad rulers of both genders. Cristina Kirchner and Pedro Sánchez are of different sexes, and yet they are equally stupid and sectarian. It is hard to understand why the United Nations, all the European governments, the media, and millions of educational institutions and multinational brands promoting the feminist fever of equality are making girls believe from school onwards that they live subjected to men, who are portrayed as potential rapists. Possibly, the reason for this generalized madness (in Europe, it is supported with as much enthusiasm from the center-right as from the left) is what Helmut Schoeck detected in his analysis of society and envy: It is resentment. There is nothing older.

https://www.theepochtimes.com/trump-transition-team-records-was-secretly-given-to-fbi-and-mueller-senate-committees-report_3551212.html?utm_

The General Service Administration (GSA) secretly gave President Donald Trump’s transition team records to then-special counsel Robert Mueller and the FBI in 2017, a report by two Senate committees says.

Meanwhile, the GSA refused to provide Trump’s transition team copies of its own records, according to the report (pdf).

GSA, the executive agency responsible for providing services to the transition teams of both Democrat and Republican candidates, had agreed to a memorandum of understanding with Trump’s transition team. According to the memorandum, the records would be regarded as the private property of the transition team and the GSA would not retain those records at the conclusion of the transition.

The majority staff report released on Friday by Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs and Senate Finance Committee shows GSA officials proactively contacted the FBI to ask if they should preserve Trump transition team records on Feb. 15, 2017, after Michael Flynn resigned as Trump’s national security adviser. The agency then decided to preserve all of the Trump transition team’s records after the FBI requested them to preserve records associated with Flynn.

The GSA officials’ offer to the FBI to preserve the Trump transition team’s records came after the removal process of the records had begun on Jan. 26, 2017, according to the terms of the memorandum.

The removal process was stopped afterward.

 A Thoughtful commentary from a friend:

I have watched some of the Amy Coney Barrett confirmation hearings, and I am struck by the vehemence of the Democratic Senators inquiring how she would rule if Roe v. Wade were challenged in the Supreme Court. All this publicity has brought Roe v. Wade front and center once again, and yes, her faith alone suggests that she might be against abortion at any level.

However, all of those who spoke for her commented time and again on her ability to disregard her personal feelings and opinions in favor of the rule of law, so there is no reason to believe she would vote otherwise. She reiterated it time and again, question after question.

Personally, after these weeks of discovery and disclosure about Judge Barrett, I find her to be above reproach; she does not appear to have a single skeleton in her closet. Among her many attributes are integrity, grace, character, brilliance, humility and faith, and she is obviously more than qualified for the position of Associate Justice of the Supreme Court.

But what if Roe v. Wade did come up on the docket? For years there has been speculation about the constitutionally of the law; perhaps down the road there would be a challenge to it, and with the new balance on the court, it might be overturned or limited. This is what the pro-choice advocates fear. It got me to wondering how it is that the Supreme Court of the United States, arguably the country which is the greatest champion of human rights the world has ever seen, ever ever passed a law that so egregiously violates those rights.

https://amgreatness.com/2020/10/23/new-york-city-restaurateurs-can-no-longer-swallow-subjective-unscientific-covid-restrictions/

Restaurants, delis, and pubs are the lifeblood of our neighborhoods. They’re places we go to congregate with colleagues, celebrate with family, and catch up on “hyperlocal” news and gossip with neighbors. Much of the character and vibrancy of a neighborhood is found in its eateries.

On April 13, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo announced a Northeast regional plan to reopen the state’s economy in coordination with New Jersey, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Delaware: “We have reached a plateau in the number of cases and . . . should start looking forward to reopening but with a plan. The art form will be doing it smartly, in a coordinated way, cooperatively and share intelligence.”

Unfortunately, Cuomo long ago ditched the idea of coordinating the full reopening of New York City with nearby states, and the Big Apple lagged months behind other regions in the state—and in the entire Northeast—to allow indoor dining and drinking.

Coincidentally or not, days after a planned class-action suit by more than 450 restaurants in New York City got local media coverage in early September, Cuomo relented—exactly one iota—and announced restaurants in the five boroughs could offer limited indoor seating starting September 30.

Restaurants in Nassau, Suffolk, Westchester and other suburban counties have been allowed to offer indoor seating at half of maximum occupancy since the middle of June, and are subject to significantly laxer mandatory practices.

Il Bacco Ristorante, the lead plaintiff in the class-action suit is located in Little Neck, Queens. Compare the COVID-19 protocols imposed on Il Bacco and Peter Luger Steak House, which is within walking distance in Great Neck, Long Island:

https://www.theepochtimes.com/studies-show-significant-drop-in-mortality-rate-since-beginning-of-pandemic_3550621.html

Two recent studies found that the rate of mortality has been dropping for hospitalized COVID-19 patients.

One of the studies was conducted on hospitalizations in the New York University Langone Health system between March and August. An author of the study, Leora Horwitz, also an associate professor at the Grossman School of Medicine at NYU, said that from the beginning of the pandemic until now, the mortality rate for patients infected with the CCP (Chinese Communist Party) virus has decreased significantly.

The study, which looked at over 5,000 patients inside the Langone Health system, discovered that in the study timeframe, the mortality rate decreased from 25.6 percent in March to 7.6 percent in August—an 18 percent decrease from the start of the pandemic.

According to the data, the median age was seen to have decreased over time, meaning that as time went on, most patients infected with the CCP virus were younger. Although that change seemed to partially explain the decreased mortality rate, it didn’t account for all of it.

“Even after risk adjustment for variety of clinical and demographic factors, including severity of illness at presentation, mortality was significantly and progressively lower over the course of the study period,” the study stated.

Patients of all ages experienced a decreased mortality rate. Among those, patients who were at or over the age of 75 saw the largest decrease, from just under 45 percent in the beginning of March to a under 10 percent in August.

The study also suggests that the decreased mortality may be in part due to a combination of factors such as increased clinical experience, decreased hospital volume, as well as more advanced treatment procedures, something that was seen in another study conducted in the United Kingdom.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/epidemiologists-stray-from-the-covid-herd-11603477330?mod=opinion_lead_pos5

The Covid rebels make an unlikely pair. Jay Bhattacharya was born in Kolkata, an Indian city that pulsates with people. Martin Kulldorff is from Umeå, Sweden, population 90,000. Yet they have much in common. “I almost view Martin like a brother,” says the talkative Dr. Bhattacharya, 52, who moved to the U.S. with his Bengali parents when he was 4. “I mean, we complete each other’s sentences, as you can see.” The feeling is “mutual,” confirms the more phlegmatic Mr. Kulldorff, 58.

Dr. Bhattacharya, a physician and economist, and Mr. Kulldorf, a biostatistician—who study epidemiology at the medical schools at Stanford and Harvard, respectively—are, in the eyes of their critics, dangerous contrarians for opposing Covid-19 lockdowns. Some of the criticism borders on hysteria: A colleague accused Mr. Kulldorff of practicing “Trumpian epidemiology” after he gave an interview to the far-left Jacobin magazine in which he called for a “radically different” approach to pandemic management.

Most pertinently, the two men are the authors—with Sunetra Gupta, a professor of epidemiology at Oxford—of the Great Barrington Declaration. Published on Oct. 4, the declaration is a cri de coeur against lockdowns and other economic restrictions that have hobbled swaths of the world. It asked instead for “focused protection”—a policy of allowing “those at minimal risk of death” to resume their lives while societies concentrate on “better protecting those who are at highest risk.”

I interview the two men jointly by Zoom—Dr. Bhattacharya in California, Mr. Kulldorff in Massachusetts. The former speaks of a “systematic media campaign” against the declaration. He says Google “shadow banned” the text in the days after it was published. “If you typed in ‘Great Barrington Declaration,’ what would happen is that the actual website would appear on the second or third page, buried under a whole long list of negative stories.” (The matter has since been resolved, he says.)