Category: Digest

LinkedIn Removes and Restores Post Supporting Immigration Enforcement Policy

A conservative advocacy group criticized LinkedIn after the social media platform temporarily removed a post supporting a Trump-era immigration enforcement policy. LinkedIn later restored the post, saying the removal was an error.

What Happened

According to Fox News, a LinkedIn spokesperson confirmed:

“This was removed in error, and we quickly corrected it.” (Fox News)

The post had been flagged as “hateful speech” by LinkedIn’s moderation system. After review and public backlash, the platform reinstated the post.

Public Reaction

The removal prompted criticism from the conservative advocacy group and some social media users, who called for boycotts of LinkedIn. Inquisitr News reported that many users saw the removal as censorship, even though LinkedIn attributed it to a mistake. (Inquisitr)

Confirmation from Other Outlets

Several other news organizations confirmed the incident:

The Federalist reported LinkedIn quickly corrected the error. (The Federalist)
AOL News noted the post was restored and emphasized that the removal was unintentional. (AOL)

While LinkedIn’s removal of the post drew criticism, the platform confirmed it was a mistake and quickly restored the content. This incident highlights the challenges social media companies face in balancing content moderation with free speech concerns.

View Post↗

Social Media Platforms That Have Removed Posts Supporting Trump’s Policies

Based on official statements and reports from government archives, oversight bodies, and congressional documents, several major social media platforms have removed or restricted content that supported or promoted policies associated with former (and current) President Donald Trump. These actions often involved claims related to election integrity, immigration, or public health policies during his administration, but were frequently justified by platforms under rules against misinformation, incitement to violence, or hate speech. Note that platforms’ official policies emphasize neutral enforcement, though critics, including Trump administration officials, have argued these removals disproportionately targeted conservative viewpoints. Below are key examples from authoritative sources, focusing on platforms beyond LinkedIn (as mentioned in your query snippet).

Twitter (now X): Twitter removed multiple tweets from Trump’s account that supported his policies on election security and postal voting, labeling them as disputed or misleading. For instance, during the 2020 election, tweets falsely suggesting electoral fraud (tied to Trump’s policy stance on voter integrity) were removed or hidden. The platform also permanently suspended Trump’s account on January 8, 2021, citing risks of further violence after the January 6 Capitol events, where posts echoed his policy narratives on election results. Official Twitter statements (via archived government briefings) described these as editorial decisions to prevent harm, not political bias.
Facebook: Facebook removed posts from Trump praising the January 6 events, which supporters framed as backing his immigration and law-and-order policies amid election disputes. These were deleted under the platform’s Community Standards on Dangerous Individuals and Organizations, leading to an indefinite suspension of his account (later set to two years, lifted in 2023). The Oversight Board, an independent body reviewing Facebook decisions, upheld the initial suspension but criticized the indefinite nature as inconsistent with rules. Similar removals affected content supporting Trump’s COVID-19 or election policies deemed misinformation.
Instagram (Meta-owned): As part of the same ecosystem as Facebook, Instagram applied identical restrictions, removing Trump’s posts that glorified the January 6 events (seen by some as supporting his border security and anti-fraud policies). The suspension was extended indefinitely in January 2021 for at least two weeks, later formalized to two years.
YouTube (Google-owned): YouTube suspended Trump’s channel in January 2021 for “content violating policies on incitement, including videos supporting his election-related policies that allegedly risked violence”. The suspension was lifted in March 2023. Google has general policies against incitement to hatred, which have led to removals of content aligned with conservative policy advocacy.

Other platforms like Snapchat, Twitch, and Pinterest have banned Trump-related accounts or content supporting his policies (e.g., on immigration or election fraud), but these are less documented in official government sites and more in oversight reports. Platforms maintain these actions are content-neutral, aimed at curbing harm, but analyses from sources like the White House and Congress suggest asymmetries, with conservative content flagged more often due to higher rates of associated misinformation.

Approaches to Stopping Such Removals

Official sources, including White House executive orders, congressional proposals, and think tank analyses, outline several strategies to address perceived censorship of conservative or Trump-supporting content. These range from legal reforms to promoting transparency, though viewpoints differ: Some conservatives advocate aggressive regulation to limit platform power, while others (including free speech advocates) warn that government intervention could worsen censorship. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that platforms have First Amendment rights to moderate content, but government pressure on them can be unconstitutional. Here’s a high-level overview of proposed solutions from balanced sources:

Approach	Description	Key Proponents/Sources	Potential Challenges
Reform Section 230	Amend the Communications Decency Act to strip liability protections from platforms that engage in “editorial” moderation (e.g., removing political content). This would make platforms liable for user content unless they act neutrally, potentially discouraging removals. Bills like the Stop Shielding Culpable Platforms Act aim to clarify this.	Republican Study Committee, House Republicans rsc-pfluger.house.gov/	Could lead to over-removal of all content to avoid lawsuits, harming free speech overall. brookings.edu
Executive Orders and Federal Accountability	Prohibit federal agencies from pressuring platforms to censor speech. The 2025 White House order requires agencies to report and correct past misconduct, ensuring no taxpayer funds support censorship. It accuses prior administrations of coercing platforms.	Trump Administration (2020 and 2025 orders) whitehouse.gov	Enforcement relies on administration priorities; critics say it risks politicizing speech. npr.org/
Transparency and Due Process Requirements	Mandate platforms to disclose moderation policies, provide appeals for removals, and report annually on actions (e.g., how many conservative posts were removed). Legislation could require public reports on government-platform communications.	FTC inquiries, ACLU, Brookings Institution thefire.org	Platforms resist full disclosure; may not stop removals but increases accountability.
Promote Competition and Alternatives	Encourage new platforms (e.g., Truth Social, Parler) via antitrust actions or reduced barriers, allowing users to migrate to less-moderated spaces. Avoid nondiscrimination mandates that force platforms to host all content.	ITIF, Public Knowledge itif.org	New platforms struggle with scale and app store restrictions. washingtonpost.com
Multistakeholder Guidelines	Create international forums (e.g., proposed International Forum on Content Moderation) for voluntary standards on handling political speech, including definitions of harmful content and appeals processes.	ITIF, Oversight Board itif.org	Non-binding; adoption varies by platform.

These approaches emphasize balancing free speech with harm reduction, but implementation depends on political will.

Sources

January 31, 2026

From Hezbollah Fan to Defending Israel . Rawan Osman’s Stunning Journey (Video )
In this video, Amir Tsarfati interviews Rawan Osman, who shares her personal journey from being raised in a culture of antisemitism to becoming a courageous voice against it.

Here’s a breakdown of the key points:
- Rawan’s Background (2:00): Rawan was born in Damascus and raised in Lebanon, attending a French Catholic school. She grew up in a society that, despite being generally tolerant, harbored a deep-seated hatred for Jews, Zionists, and Israelis (5:55). She admits to having been a strong supporter of Hezbollah, viewing them as liberators against Israeli occupation (6:25).
- Indoctrination and Misinformation (7:10): Rawan explains that she was taught to hate Jews without understanding the full historical context. She learned a simplified version of history where Israel was the aggressor, omitting details about Palestinian groups’ actions that led to Israeli military responses in Lebanon (7:10). She also describes how Christian antisemitism was subtly instilled through the school curriculum and films like “The Passion of the Christ” (8:26).
- The Problem with Education (9:49): Rawan highlights that the Lebanese curriculum presents a biased narrative of “Palestine,” portraying Theodor Herzl as the antagonist who invented Zionism to take land from Palestinians (9:49). This narrative led to the internalization that “Palestine was a country” with indigenous people, and that supporting the “underdog” against the “Jew” was the morally correct stance (10:43).
- Her Epiphany in Europe (11:07): Rawan’s perspective began to shift when she moved to Europe in her mid-20s and found herself living in a Jewish quarter in Strasbourg, France (11:07). Her initial panic attack upon seeing religious Jews made her question why she harbored such fear and hatred towards people she had never interacted with (12:22). This realization led her to re-examine the history of the region.
- Relearning History and Jewish Identity (12:57): Through her research, Rawan discovered that Jews are indigenous to the Middle East, challenging the narrative that they originated solely from Eastern Europe (12:57). She also realized that modern nation-states in the Middle East are relatively new, making the categorical rejection of Israel illogical (13:23). She was “disappointed” to learn that her “side” was the aggressor and had brainwashed people with hatred (13:48). She concludes that the problem has always been with the Jews themselves, not just the state of Israel (18:18).
- Antisemitism and Muslim Supremacy (18:43): Rawan argues that Israel’s existence as the first Jewish state challenges Muslim supremacy, as Jews were the first minority to demand self-governance and equality (18:43). She explains that in Islam, land once governed by Muslims cannot be lost, making Israel’s existence unacceptable to some (20:49).
- The Global Reach of Antisemitism (22:07): She discusses the 1929 Hebron massacre as an example of pre-state anti-Jewish violence, leading Jews to leave Arab countries out of fear (22:07). Rawan notes the widespread nature of antisemitism in the Arab world, citing examples like Hitler’s Mein Kampf being found in Gaza and stores named “Hitler” in the West Bank (27:10). She highlights that October 7th revealed the extent of this global problem, where world sympathy for Israel quickly turned into condemnation (30:03).
- Hope for the Future (47:56): Despite the challenges, Rawan expresses optimism, driven by her newfound faith and identification with Judaism (47:56). She believes that while the West is turning against Israel, support will emerge from the Arab world, as people realize their own economic and social problems are not caused by Israel or Jews (49:16). She points to countries like the UAE and Morocco as examples of nations that have blessed Israel and consequently experienced blessings (49:40).
Video Behold Israel with Amir Tsarfati

Midtown Tribune Independent USA news from New York
January 25, 2026
Chemerinsky Warns “Democracy Won’t Last.” Critics Reply: America Was Built as a Republic to Restrain Mob Rule — and He’s Speaking in NYC Feb. 5
Erwin Chemerinsky—Dean of UC Berkeley School of Law and one of the country’s best-known constitutional law scholars—has a blunt thesis: the United States is facing a crisis of legitimacy and institutional design that could make democratic self-government unsustainable. He lays out that argument in his 2024 book, No Democracy Lasts Forever: How the Constitution Threatens the United States, and in a widely circulated Berkeley Law alumni talk that frames the book as a warning flare for the American system.

That warning has sparked an equally blunt rebuttal from many critics: the United States was never designed to be a “pure democracy” governed by simple majorities. It was designed as a constitutional republic—a representative system constrained by a written constitution—precisely to protect individuals from two perennial dangers: tyranny from above (abuse by rulers) and tyranny from below (majority faction turning politics into legalized coercion).

This debate isn’t an academic parlor game. It’s now moving to a major public stage in New York.

What Chemerinsky argues in No Democracy Lasts Forever

Chemerinsky’s core claim is that American democracy is under severe stress because public confidence in institutions has collapsed and political polarization has hardened into something closer to mutual illegitimacy. In the Berkeley book talk, he argues the crisis is not just cultural—it is structural.

Among the structural issues he highlights:
- The Electoral College: He argues it can produce presidents who lose the national popular vote and that winner-take-all allocation in most states amplifies that risk.
- The U.S. Senate: Equal representation for states regardless of population, he argues, violates democratic intuitions about political equality and entrenches “minority rule.”
- Gerrymandering and representation: He contends partisan map-drawing has made the House less responsive, and that legal constraints limit effective remedies.
- The Supreme Court’s role and tenure: He criticizes life tenure as placing too much power in too few hands for too long, and describes the Court as a central actor in democratic backsliding.
- Money in politics: He argues that the scale and opacity of campaign spending corrodes public trust and democratic legitimacy.
Chemerinsky also proposes remedies—some statutory, some constitutional—and, in the longer arc, suggests Americans should at least begin thinking about what a modern constitutional replacement process might look like (even if not imminent).

The controversy: “Democracy is failing” vs. “A republic with guardrails is the point”

The sharpest disagreement is not whether the country is polarized. It is what standard should be used to evaluate constitutional design.

Chemerinsky often describes the U.S. as a “constitutional democracy” and measures legitimacy against a majoritarian benchmark: outcomes should track popular majorities more consistently, and institutions that systematically distort majority rule are treated as core democratic defects.

Critics respond that this framing smuggles in a premise the Founders explicitly resisted: that “more direct democracy” is inherently better.

1) The Constitution guarantees “republican” government—not direct majoritarian rule.
Article IV, Section 4 requires the United States to guarantee each state a “Republican Form of Government.” Whatever else Americans argue about, the constitutional text chooses “republican” as the baseline civic architecture.

2) Madison’s warning: “pure democracies” can be violent and unstable.
In Federalist No. 10, Madison draws a famous contrast between a republic and what he calls “such democracies,” warning they have historically been “spectacles of turbulence and contention” and incompatible with personal security and the rights of property.

This is a foundational insight for critics: the system was designed not to maximize majority power, but to control the predictable pathologies of majority power.

3) The “two tyrannies” problem: protect society from rulers and from majorities.
Federalist No. 51 states the principle in plain language: it is vital “in a republic” not only to guard society against oppression by its rulers, but also to guard “one part of the society against the injustice of the other part,” because if a majority unites around a common interest, the rights of the minority will be insecure.

This is the conceptual backbone of the “constitutional republic” critique of Chemerinsky: many so-called “anti-democratic” features are better understood as anti-tyrannical guardrails—constraints that prevent elections from becoming a moral permission slip to punish disfavored groups.

4) Courts are not meant to be majoritarian institutions.
Chemerinsky’s critique of judicial power and long tenure often collides with Hamilton’s argument in Federalist No. 78 that life tenure “during good behavior” is a barrier against despotism in a monarchy—and, in a republic, a barrier against “encroachments and oppressions of the representative body.”

In this view, the judiciary’s legitimacy is not measured by popularity; it is measured by fidelity to higher law—especially when popular majorities demand shortcuts.

A key clarification that strengthens the critique

Even many constitutional conservatives concede an important nuance: the Constitution does not literally contain the phrase “constitutional republic.” The more precise claim is that the U.S. is a representative republic operating under a written constitution, and that “democracy” (as used in modern speech) should be understood as representative democracy, not pure direct democracy.

This matters rhetorically. It allows critics to challenge Chemerinsky’s framing without making an easily refutable claim like “America isn’t a democracy at all.” The stronger, more defensible line is: America is not a pure democracy—and it was never intended to be; it is a constitutional republic built to protect liberty against both top-down tyranny and majority faction.

Coming up in NYC: Brennan Center Jorde Symposium, Feb. 5

This dispute over constitutional legitimacy will intersect with an in-person NYU event next month.

On Thursday, February 5, 2026, the Brennan Center for Justice will host the Jorde Symposium: “Against Constitutional Theory” at NYU School of Law (Greenberg Lounge), 40 Washington Square South, New York, NY.
The program runs 4:00–5:50 p.m. ET, followed by a reception 5:50–6:30 p.m.

Erwin Chemerinsky is the featured lecturer. Commentators include Leah Litman (University of Michigan Law School) and Sherif Girgis (University of Notre Dame Law School). The event is open to the public but requires RSVP, and is listed as free.

For anyone tracking the national argument over “democracy,” constitutional limits, and the role of courts, this is one of the most substantive public constitutional law events on the New York calendar—especially because it puts Chemerinsky’s broader book thesis in conversation with scholars who do not share all of his premises.

Midtown Tribune Independent USA news from New York
January 24, 2026
Hochul Signs Law Letting New York Seniors Get Property Tax Breaks Up to 65%
New York Gov. Kathy Hochul signed legislation allowing local governments to offer property-tax exemptions of up to 65% for eligible senior homeowners, raising the previous cap from 50% for the first time in decades. Under the measure, known as S5175A/A3698A, municipalities can set income limits and other criteria to determine who qualifies, with state officials estimating potential savings of about $300 a year for the average senior on a fixed income. The change is aimed at helping roughly 1.8 million older New Yorkers remain in their homes amid rising housing costs and inflation, and comes as part of a broader affordability push that includes middle-class tax cuts, expanded child tax credits, inflation rebate checks and free school meals for all K–12 students.

Governor Hochul Authorizes Real Property Tax Exemptions for New York Seniors

Governor Kathy Hochul signed legislation that enhanced real property tax exemptions for New York seniors. Legislation S5175A/A3698A allows localities to provide a real property tax exemption for senior citizens who meet the income eligibility limits, among other criteria, up to 65 percent percent of the assessed valuation of their properties. This legislation builds on the Governor’s affordability agenda, which included tax cuts for middle-class New Yorkers.

“No New York senior should lose their home because they can no longer afford their property taxes,” Governor Hochul said. “By signing this legislation, we are working to make New York more affordable for our seniors on fixed incomes and empowering them to age in place, at home, in the communities they know and love.”

The bill will give localities the option to offer real property tax exemptions of up to 65 percent to seniors living below the maximum income eligibility level set by the locality. Prior to, the maximum percentage of exemption local governments have been able to offer senior citizens was set at 50 percent and has not been raised in decades. Increasing the exemption from 50 percent to 65 percent could translate into savings of up to $300 annually for the average senior.

New York State Office for the Aging (NYSOFA) Acting Director Greg Olsen said, “Governor Hochul is coming through yet again on making New York more affordable for individuals and their families. Property taxes, especially for those on fixed incomes, can often be difficult to afford. With more than 1.8 million older adults who own their own homes, this important law will continue to help older adults remain in the homes and communities of their choice and keeping their vast contributions within New York State.”

State Senator Leroy Comrie said, “Seniors have faced rising housing costs and inflation— oftentimes living on fixed income. Signing S5175A into law is an important step toward restoring real affordability for older adults across New York. This law allows localities to offer up to a 65 percent discount to eligible seniors so long-time homeowners can remain in their communities with dignity and security. I thank Governor Hochul, my colleagues and especially Assemblymember David Weprin for partnering to deliver meaningful support for the New Yorkers who helped build this state.”

Assemblymember David Weprin said, “I’m grateful for Governor Kathy Hochul’s commitment to improving affordability for all New Yorkers, including our senior citizen homeowners. By advancing this bill into law, we will provide relief from the burden of increasing real property taxes and ensure stability for elderly homeowners on low fixed incomes. I look forward to continued partnership with Governor Hochul and my fellow elected leaders to advance this critical affordability agenda.”

This legislation builds on Governor Hochul’s affordability agenda, which includes:
- Middle-Class Tax Cut: Approximately 8.3 million New Yorkers will benefit from decreased tax rates, bringing middle-class taxes to their lowest levels in 70 years.
- Child Tax Credit Expansion: The Child Tax Credit is increasing to up to $1,000 per child under the age of four and up to $500 for school-aged children, starting in 2026.
- Inflation Refund Checks: Eligible New Yorkers have received up to $200 per person or $400 per family, reaching 8.2 million people.
- Free School Meals: All K-12 students now have access to free breakfast and lunch, saving families up to $1,600 per child annually.
Sources: Governor.NY.gov , Big New York news ,
Midtown Tribune news

Midtown Tribune Independent USA news from New York
December 7, 2025
NYC Subway Attack: Teen Hiram Carrero Accused of Setting Homeless Man on Fire

A shocking attack in the New York City subway has raised new fears about rider safety. Police say 18-year-old Manhattan resident Hiram Carrero allegedly set a sleeping homeless man on fire in a No. 3 train car around 3 a.m. The incident happened near Times Square/Penn Station. The 56-year-old victim suffered serious burns but is expected to survive, according to the NYPD.

The suspect, who was seen in surveillance video, was later perp walked out of the 9th Precinct after his arrest. Carrero has been identified by police and is being charged with attempted murder, three counts of assault, arson, and reckless endangerment. The case has quickly become another example used in the debate over crime and safety in the NYC subway system.

New York Congresswoman Nicole Malliotakis called the attack “horrific” and says it proves that the subway is still not truly safe. She notes that the NYPD is thousands of officers below past staffing levels and argues that more police are needed on trains and platforms. In Congress, Malliotakis is pushing a bipartisan transit security bill to increase federal funding for subway safety, including more officers, better lighting, more cameras, and upgraded surveillance systems to protect riders and the city’s most vulnerable residents.

Sources: U.S. Rep. Nicole Malliotakis , Midtown Tribune News
Fox News+2NBC New York+2 , Big New York news BigNY.com

Midtown Tribune Independent USA news from New York

Midtown Tribune Independent USA news from New York

December 5, 2025
Mayor Eric Adams Urges Americans to Stand Together Against Antisemitism at 2025 Mayors Summit

At CAM’s 2025 North American Mayors Summit Against Antisemitism, Mayor Eric Adams gave a powerful speech asking people to stop “outrunning the lion” of hate and instead work together to remove it from our communities. He said that while many groups face hate and injustice, this moment is focused on fighting antisemitism, especially in New York City where Jews are a small part of the population but suffer more than half of all hate crimes. Adams urged everyone—teachers, faith leaders, and community organizations—to “play their position” by pushing back against antisemitism, misinformation, and the radicalization of young people. He announced an executive order against BDS and confirmed that New York City will keep investing pension funds in Israeli companies. Adams also reminded people of the long history of Jewish support for Black civil rights and called on Jewish communities to stand proudly and openly as Jews. He ended by saying he is willing to “leave everything on the ice” in the fight against hate and asked everyone to “lace up their skates” and join him.

Transcript: Mayor Adams Delivers Remarks at CAM’s 2025 North American Mayors Summit Against Antisemitism Closing Gala Dinner

Mayor Eric Adams: Thank you so much, mayor. Throughout this afternoon, you shared something that resonated with me, and I’m hoping people didn’t miss it. A good friend of mine, Rabbi Potasnik, told me a joke about two lions. Two hunters in a jungle, hunting for big game, they came up against a lion. One hunter looked at the other and said, “Let’s run, let’s get out of here.” The other hunter replied, “What’s wrong with you, we can’t outrun a lion.” The hunter replied, “I don’t have to outrun the lion, I have to outrun you.”

And when Rabbi Potasnik told me the story, I laughed, and he had this look on his face. He said, “That’s the problem. We’re trying to outrun each other.” Yes, the lion of foreclosure took your home, but I have my home, I outran that lion. The lion of crime may have taken your child, but I outran that lion. The lion of poverty, the lion of domestic violence, the lion of hatred. As long as I outrun that lion, I’m alright.

But what the hunter did not understand is, that if you don’t take the lion out of the jungle after he devours one hunter, he’s going to devour you. You were so right. The goal is not to outrun each other. The goal is to remove the lion of hatred from our community. That’s the goal.

If you go back to what Lyndon B. Johnson did in 1964 when he signed the Civil Rights Act, there were Jewish brothers and sisters that didn’t say, “Well, that had nothing to do with me.” When you look in 2013 and the Black Lives Matter movement took place after we saw the devastation, murder of a young man in Florida, and people used to say to Black folks who said Black lives matter, they said, well, all lives matter. Well, right now we’re not talking about all lives, we’re talking about Black lives.

And so, when we come to a conference and talk about combating antisemitism, don’t start telling me about other issues. Right now, we’re talking about antisemitism. And talking about a specific incident during a time does not dismiss the other incidents. Yes, we know we have other issues, but right now the focus is on antisemitism. That’s what it’s on.

And we can engage in other conversations. I’m going to continue to lift up my Asian brothers and sisters that are dealing with Asian violence. I’m going to continue to lift up the overproliferation of abuse in young African American males and the incarceration of them. I’m going to continue to lift up what’s happening with men and women of the LGBTQ+ community. We’re going to continue to do that.

But right now we’re in this stadium talking about antisemitism. And we need to be focused on what is happening, particularly in New York City, where you have a numerical minority of the community from the Jewish community and over 50 percent of the victims are Jewish people of hate crimes. That’s a real issue. And what we must focus on is to be laser focused on that. Because when we marry talking about this issue and bridging it with the other issues that we’re facing, we will raise the standard of who we are as human beings.

But how do we do it? That’s why I grabbed the football. This is a team sport, folks. If I’m the quarterback, you should not be the running back standing behind the center. Get your ass out of the way. Each player, play your position. We all got to play our positions.

If you are a teacher, you need to be in our public school system pushing back on the radicalization of our young people who not only hate Israel, they hate America because they were taught to hate America. That’s what we saw on the Columbia campus when the protests took place. We saw flyers that said hatred for Israel and hatred for America. Now, I don’t know who’s in this room, but I think you are Americans, right?

So, my educators must play their role. My faith-based leaders, play your position. You’re not the mayor. Be the rabbi, be the preacher, be the monk, be a Sikh leader. Play your position. And to my organizations, play your positions. Play your roles. And stand outside your comfort zones. Because if all we do all the time is speak to the same people, the choir heard the song, folks. It’s time to sing to those who are singing off-key so they can learn the lyrics and chorus of ending hate in our city and in our country.

And then let’s be honest with ourselves. Folks have been hating Jews for a long time. Our Jewish brothers and sisters have been fleeing and running from the days of Moses to when Columbus left Spain and Jews had to get out because of the edict, to being in Rome and watching the Jewish quarter. You can go over and over and over again to see how Jewish people have fled and ran from particular places.

And I’m saying to my Jewish brothers and sisters, your legacy in this generation is to say we run no more. We stand and fight. We don’t live in fear hoping that it goes away. We don’t allow certain groups to take to the streets and determine that you should be eradicated. And you’re sitting back contemplating what block you take off your yarmulke or what morning you remove your star of David. If you want to win this fight, then you need to stand up, stand firm, and say, “I am Jewish and there’s not a darn thing you can do about it.”

And you need to be strong in your faith and your belief. And people should see it in your presence and in your posture and in your stance. And that’s what we must do as a team. And then you need to lift up those who stand with you and let them know you support them. Because many of these mayors in this room will lose their races because they’re standing tall with you and not with the numerical loud minority that have hijacked the narrative.

They will be targeted, they will be focused, and they will go after them one at a time. That’s the hate that has swept our entire country and globe. You are being targeted. And we have to be as intelligent and as focused, as strategic as possible. That’s why we put the IHRA definition in place in New York City.

That’s why I am signing an executive order today to deal with BDS so we can stop the madness that we should not invest in Israel. That is why we’re going to sign an executive order stating that our pension funds will invest in Israeli companies because we’re getting a high return on our investment because they’re doing the right thing.

But Israel and Jews must tell their story. When I talk about ending antisemitism, you know what I talk about to that young African American man that’s in Brownsville? I tell him about the device that was discovered in Israel that helped his mother deal with a medical condition that she’s facing.

When I talk about ending hatred, you go look at who has the highest number of Nobel Peace Prize winners. Go look at the technology that’s coming out of Israel today because of the partnership that we have with New York City and Israel that is saving the lives of people from communities across the globe.

So, when you eradicate Israel and when you put them on an island and don’t allow their companies to go to trade shows and don’t allow their companies to participate in innovation, it is impacting us directly because it impacts us every day and the health and welfare of our communities. That’s what we have to do today. Don’t just talk about stopping antisemitism because it stops attacks on Jewish people. Stop antisemitism because we are all connected together and we’re all involved in this together.

I was sitting in a restaurant, as I conclude. It must have been October 10th. I’m sitting down at the table having a meal and a young African American woman walked in with a Howard University shirt on. She looked at me and said, “You’re one of those Zionist lovers. We know what you’re about. I just came from the march. We know what you are about.”

And while she’s saying that, I’m on my phone. I’m Googling Howard University. And I handed her my phone. And she looked at the founder of Howard University, Julius Rosenwald. And I told her, “Read on.” And she read on and she looked at the fact that almost 40 percent of the children in the Deep South were educated in schools that he opened, a Jewish philanthropist.

When segregation was the norm in the Deep South, he was opening schools so Black and Brown children could go to school and become teachers and educators to go into the Black and Brown communities and deal with segregation. And I said, “Read on.” And she saw how he was one of the original co-founders of the NAACP.

And I said, let’s go talk about the two Jewish young men who were down in Mississippi and lost their lives. But let’s not stop there. Let’s talk about when young white students went to the Deep South, 51 percent of them were Jewish, putting their lives on the line. And so yes, call me a Zionist. But what you can’t call me is mis-educated. And if you are going to denounce what gave birth to the college that you’re in right now, then they’re not educating you.

So, the next time you go in the street to celebrate October 7th, buy a plane ticket and go see what happened there. The next time you believe that you should eradicate from the river to the sea, first know where on the map you’re talking about. The next time you want to align yourself with groups who are proliferating hatred and talking about genocide, go look at what’s happening in Sudan and the thousands of lives that are being lost.

Lift up your educational understanding so you can properly fight a fight on the right side of the issue. That’s where we are missing this. They have indoctrinated and radicalized our children in the social media generation that is taking them down the road of devastation, of not knowing who their allies and brothers and sisters have historically been.

And you’re right, mayor. You are our cousins. You marched with us for Dr. King. You committed and volunteered your lives throughout the generations to stand side by side. But now your story can no longer be a tree that falls in a forest where no one hears a sound. It’s time for you to tell your story. Because if you don’t tell your story, people will distort your story.

So, I’m going to play my position. I may not be the best at it, but I’m going to do everything possible. We had a hockey player called Wayne Gretzky. They called him the ‘Great One.’ I loved his story. Wayne lost his first Stanley Cup. That’s a championship for hockey players. And he went into his locker room and all his teammates were pointing the finger at each other. “Who missed the puck? Who didn’t do their job?”

And then Wayne, being the gentleman that he is, walked down the hall to the opposing team’s locker room. It was quiet. He thought they went home. He peeked his head inside. They were laid out on the benches, bloody and bruised. They left everything they had on the ice. He knew then, that’s how you win.

And I don’t know what’s going to happen in the future. But I’m going to fight hate. And I’m going to be battered, I’m going to be bruised. I’m going to leave everything I have on the ice. And all I’m asking all of you, lace up your skates and get on this ice with me. And let’s win.

December 3, 2025 Manhattan, New York

Sources: NYC.gov , Big New York news BigNY.com
Midtown Tribune News

Midtown Tribune Independent USA news from New York

December 4, 2025
Why Gen Z Is Renting Everything From Clothes to Strollers Instead of Owning (Video)

Gen Z is driving a major shift away from traditional ownership and toward a rental-first lifestyle, according to a Fox Business discussion on the growing “rental boom.” Young consumers are now renting everything from clothes and kids’ strollers to glassware, treating access as more important than possession. What older generations might see as a financial red flag, many Gen Zers now see as a smart, flexible way to live—one that allows them to enjoy variety and convenience without long-term commitment or big upfront costs.

The panel highlighted that this rental trend has both lifestyle and environmental benefits. Renting fashion and children’s toys, for example, keeps items in circulation longer and reduces waste compared to fast fashion that ends up in landfills after just a few wears. At the same time, there’s still tension between the pride and responsibility that comes with owning assets and the ease of simply renting what you need, when you need it. The guests cautioned against calling things like clothes or shoes “assets,” noting that most people don’t recoup much value when they try to resell them.

Technology is the backbone of this new rental economy. Subscription platforms and apps now make it easy to rent clothes, accessories, and even household items on demand, in much the same way services like Uber and Airbnb reshaped transportation and travel. Companies such as Nuuly, FashionPass, and rental programs by major brands leverage cloud-based technology to manage inventory, logistics, and customer preferences at scale. The result is a fast-growing business model where Gen Z can constantly refresh their lifestyle—wardrobes, baby gear, and more—without needing to own it all.

Sources: Midtown Tribune news , Video Fox Business

Midtown Tribune Independent USA news from New York

December 3, 2025