The Trumpian Looting Begins: What Happens When Trump Loses Congress?

 

A Damning Account Alleges Jared Kushner Conducted Diplomacy for Profit

The new book by the reporter Matthew Cole connects $2 billion in slush funds from Gulf state leaders to Trump’s son-in-law in an effort to influence U.S. policy.

 

The U.A.E. president Mohammed bin Zayed and President Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner, in 2026.

Cole’s most explosive claims, however, relate to a 2017 operation by a Dutch military intelligence unit, which found that Russian agents had screenshots from inside Kushner’s iPhone. Investigating further, they discovered that Kushner had access to a bank account in the U.A.E., containing $750 million laundered through Azerbaijan but, according to Cole, originally deriving from the Emirati and Saudi governments. “It is unclear if Trump ever approved or even knew about the arrangement,” Cole writes.

By the spring of 2018, Cole maintains, M.B.Z. had moved roughly $1 billion into another account, held by the Israeli central bank, on Kushner’s behalf. Cole says it is also “unclear” if or how Kushner used these funds, “but according to the person with knowledge of the money, its allocation was for Kushner’s personal benefit.” For M.B.Z., Cole suggests, the return on his investment was a recalibration of U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East, culminating in the invasion of Iran, whose influence he feared.

These accusations are grave. The first bank account was allegedly a slush fund used to finance operations in Libya and elsewhere by Erik Prince, the former C.E.O. of Blackwater, the private military contractor (now known as Academi). If Kushner was a signatory to this account, he was helping to run a foreign government’s proxy wars. And if he used some or all of the money in the second account for his personal benefit, he was effectively an undeclared agent of a foreign power.

 https://www.nytimes.com/2026/10/26/books/review/princes-and-thieves-matthew-cole.html?

 

Before Giving Billions to Jared Kushner, Saudi Investment Fund Had Big Doubts

Before committing $2 billion to Mr. Kushner’s fledgling firm, officials at a fund led by the Saudi crown prince questioned taking such a big risk. 

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/10/us/jared-kushner-saudi-investment-fund.html

 

 Mr. Jared Kushner
“Special Envoy for Peace”
Founder and Chief Executive Officer
Affinity Partners
16690 Collins Avenue
Sunny Isles Beach, FL 33160

Dear Mr. Kushner:
You are now reportedly participating as “Special Envoy for Peace” in negotiations on
behalf of the United States government to address the roiling conflicts in the Middle East. At the
same time, you are soliciting billions of dollars from Gulf monarchies for your private business
ventures while already managing billions of dollars of their money in your international
investment firm, A Fin Management LLC (Affinity).

From the standpoint of the American people, your decision to act in these two roles—one
public for the government and one private for personal profit—creates a glaring and incurable
conflict of interest. Your clients Saudi Arabia and the Royal Crown Prince Mohammed Bin
Salman have unique and significant strategic, economic and political interests that are certain to
diverge sharply from the strategic, economic and political interests of the American people....

https://democrats-judiciary.house.gov/sites/evo-subsites/democrats-judiciary.house.gov/files/evo-media-document/2026-04-16-raskin-to-kushner-affinity-re-conflict-of-interest.pdf

* 

There is a frightening possibility that the most dangerous period of Donald Trump's presidency may not be behind us, but directly ahead. If Republicans lose control of the House on Tuesday, November 3, and perhaps even the Senate, America may discover what happens when a president who has repeatedly treated public office as a vehicle for personal power suddenly realizes that his political authority is slipping away. A president who fears accountability, despises oversight, and regards criticism as an act of disloyalty may become considerably more reckless when confronted with a hostile Congress. And the question Americans should be asking is not simply what Trump will do after an electoral defeat, but what he might attempt to accomplish before the clock runs out.

Imagine the possibilities. Executive orders, presidential directives, regulatory interventions, pardons, contracts, international arrangements, and last-minute policy decisions could become instruments in a desperate effort to protect his financial interests, advance the business interests of his family, and consolidate wealth and influence before congressional oversight becomes more formidable. I am not suggesting that every executive order will necessarily be corrupt or unlawful. I am suggesting that a president whose personal financial interests and public responsibilities have repeatedly raised questions about conflicts of interest deserves extraordinary scrutiny, particularly when facing the prospect of losing congressional protection.

Trump has never demonstrated much appreciation for the traditional distinction between the presidency as a public trust and the presidency as a personal possession. His political universe revolves around loyalty, personal advantage, family interests, and the preservation of his own power. In that universe, government institutions are not necessarily independent guardians of the public interest. They are potential obstacles to be overcome, personnel to be replaced, and agencies to be pressured. The presidency becomes less a constitutional responsibility than a platform from which to advance the Trump enterprise.

And what about his children? The Trump family has enjoyed extraordinary commercial and political opportunities because of the family's proximity to the presidency. The American public has every reason to demand transparency about whether presidential decisions, foreign relationships, government policies, or regulatory actions benefit family business interests. The appearance of impropriety is not a minor political inconvenience. In a functioning democracy, it is a serious warning sign.

A Republican congressional defeat would also create a new political reality. Congressional committees could investigate financial dealings, demand documents, subpoena witnesses, examine foreign business relationships, and scrutinize the administration's handling of public resources. The possibility of meaningful oversight could be precisely what makes the remaining months politically explosive. A president who has spent years attacking investigations may view congressional oversight not as a constitutional responsibility but as an enemy operation directed against him personally.

And that is where the danger lies. What happens when a president who has spent years demanding unquestioned loyalty discovers that the constitutional system no longer has to accommodate him? What happens when Congress is no longer a rubber stamp? What happens when investigations become possible, subpoenas become enforceable, and administration officials begin to understand that their obligations are to the Constitution rather than to Donald Trump?

The executive order could become his favorite political weapon. But executive orders are not presidential permission slips to enrich oneself, reward relatives, evade Congress, or rewrite the law. They remain subject to constitutional limitations, statutory authority, judicial review, and congressional oversight. The American system was designed with precisely this sort of presidential temptation in mind.

The irony is extraordinary. Trump campaigned as the man who would drain the swamp. Yet Americans have witnessed a presidency in which the boundaries between personal business, family interests, political loyalty, and public responsibility have repeatedly become subjects of serious controversy. The man who promised to clean up Washington has made the question of presidential self-enrichment one of the defining issues of his political career.

The real test of American democracy may come after Tuesday. If the voters take away Trump's congressional majority, they will not merely be changing the political balance in Washington. They will be sending a message that the presidency does not belong to its occupant, that the federal government is not a family corporation, and that the American treasury is not an extension of a presidential business empire.

And Democrats should understand something important: winning Congress is not enough. They must exercise their constitutional responsibilities intelligently, aggressively, and without turning oversight into political theater. They must investigate where evidence warrants investigation, expose conflicts of interest, protect government institutions, and demonstrate that accountability is more than a campaign slogan. They must resist the temptation to imitate the very political abuses they condemn.

America does not need another presidential circus. It needs an accounting.

The presidency is not a family inheritance. The executive branch is not a private investment fund. The American people are not shareholders in the Trump Organization. And the United States Treasury is not a personal ATM.

If Trump loses Congress on Tuesday, the question will be whether the American constitutional system is strong enough to restrain a president who may have even more incentive to use the remaining power of his office for personal and family advantage.

A president's final years in office should be devoted to serving the country, not settling personal accounts, protecting private fortunes, or arranging the next generation of family privilege.

Trump may regard Tuesday as a political defeat. America must make certain that it does not become a financial opportunity.

 

REPUBLISHED

https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/the-trumpian-looting-begins-what-happens-when-trump-loses-congress/

College Administrator Beats Agudath Israel To The Punch, Opens The Door For More Moshav Leitzim To Sue: He applied for a religious exemption under Title VII, the federal civil rights law that forbids workplace discrimination and allows employees to apply for “religious accommodation,” and his request was accepted in September.

 

Man Granted Religious Exemption Against Using AI at Work....

 

He says AI is undercutting his "ability to be a moral actor."

University of Kentucky administrator David Durman was granted a religious exemption from using AI at work, claiming that use of the tech violates his religious beliefs as a humanist.

As Religion News Service reports, Durman maintains that outsourcing cognitive tasks to chatbots could interfere with his development as a “moral actor.” Assisted by the American Humanist Association (AHA), he applied for a religious exemption under Title VII, the federal civil rights law that forbids workplace discrimination and allows employees to apply for “religious accommodation,” and his request was accepted in September.

“The process and work involved in thinking through situations, through my work, through my ethics, through the way I handle other people, is a key component in being able to develop myself as a moral person,” Durman told RNS. “And offloading that labor, regardless of whether it’s taxing or not, is undercutting my ability to be a moral actor.”

Durman isn’t the first American to obtain this kind of AI exemption. This summer, a software engineer and Unitarian Universalist in North Carolina named Erin Maus was also granted a religious exemption from using AI at work, with Maus saying that ethical and environmental concerns raised by AI violated her religious beliefs.

His approved exemption also comes as religious leaders around the world — most notably Pope Leo, who’s taken a stance against AI — grapple with what AI means for their faith.

In his letter to the University of Kentucky’s Office of Equal Opportunity requesting the exemption, Durman wrote that “substituting automated machine processing for human presence, authentic listening, and personal responsibility in my work directly conflicts with my obligation to uphold human dignity and flourishing as primary.”

Humanism isn’t an organized religion, but does qualify as a religion under federal statutes. The AHA told RNS that Durman, to its knowledge, is the first humanist to be granted an AI exemption.

“This is the first of its kind at the AHA and for humanism generally to exempt those who see AI use as flying in the face of their freedom of conscience,” Alexandria Huiskens, an AHA attorney, told RNS.

“For us, humanism is a comprehensive way of life,” she added. “It’s built on inherent worth and dignity, and everyone should have room to exercise this comprehensive way of life at work the same way Christians do, or Muslims do.”

Durman’s reasoning is reminiscent of “cognitive surrender,” the term coined by Massachusetts Institution of Technology scientists that describes humans farming out their mental agency to AI tools. By refusing to outsource his critical thinking skills, Durman contends, he’ll be able to center his life and agency around humans.

https://futurism.com/artificial-intelligence/man-religious-exemption-ai-work

A second asifa addressing the growing impact of artificial intelligence was held Thursday night in Lakewood, drawing senior dreaming rabbinic artificial unintelligent leadership and continuing a discussion that began earlier this week.

The gathering focused on concerns surrounding AI-driven calling, texting, and content generation, and followed an initial asifah that drew dozens of leading rabbanim and roshei yeshiva, where the gedolim called for a yom taanis u’tefillah over the threats posed by AI. A date has not been set for when that will take place.

Thursday night’s meeting featured remarks from Rav Elyah Ber Wachtfogel, Rav Malkiel Kotler and Rav Yisroel Newman, who addressed both the technological and hashkafic implications of artificial intelligence.

During his remarks, Rav Yisroel Newman warned that artificial intelligence poses dangers he described as more severe than those associated with the general internet. Rav Malkiel addressed the use of AI in Torah learning, stating that Torah learned through AI-generated means would not warrant a bracha, characterizing such a bracha as a berachah levatalah.

https://theunorthodoxjew.blogspot.com/search?q=moshav+leitzim

Melbourne Rebbetzin Lifshy Ajzenszmidt recently disclosed a childhood experience of sexual abuse. She discusses how her own trauma affects her as a communal leader

 

Rebbetzin’s abuse experience shapes her drive to protect children

Kol Nidre is busy at South Caulfield Hebrew Congregation, as it is at any synagogue. While the adults are engaged in the service, children move through the shule, in and out of side rooms and around the grounds.

“Who’s focusing on the kids? I am,” says Rebbetzin Lifshy Ajzenszmidt.

There is a personal driver that prompts her to make sure children are never wholly unsupervised, she told The Jewish Independent.

Ajzenszmidt was sexually abused by a relative when she was 10, in her family home in New York. It was the night before his wedding. He touched her sexually and asked how it felt and which part she liked best. Afterwards, she remembers pretending to be asleep until he sent her back to her bedroom. The next day, she went to his wedding.

Lifshy Ajzenszmidt at age 10 

She did not consciously remember what had happened for years, but when she was 16, away at school and talking with friends, the memory returned.

“I think I was molested,” she remembers saying.

She called her relative and recounted the experience. He said he did not remember doing it, apologised if he had done it, then asked her not to tell anyone.

Initially she agreed to the pressure to keep quiet, but months later, she told her mother. She was met with anger and disbelief, followed by excuses and pressure to move on. Her mother later told her it had happened only once and that she should get over it.

However, Ajzenszmidt could not stop thinking about whether another child might be harmed. For years, she says, she asked adults in her family to do something, but no one would. Family members pressured her not to disclose, warning that the revelation could break up the family or harm elderly relatives with the shock.

“I felt like if I said something, and there would be issues in the family, it would be my fault,” she said.

Ajzenszmidt was pressured to continue speaking with her relative and being with him at family gatherings.

When she was 20, she moved away from her New York family, travelling with her husband Rabbi Mendy Ajzenszmidt, to Hong Kong, where she helped lead a Chabad community on Lantau Island. They later worked at Chabad Campus in Melbourne before moving to South Caulfield Hebrew Congregation.

Her childhood experience continued to haunt her. She has been in therapy since she was 17 and still has nightmares.

The family resemblance can be a reminder too. “Sometimes I look at myself, and I see him.”

Ajzenszmidt says the experience has affected her self-image and self-care. Being heavier sometimes made her feel safer, less likely to attract unwanted attention and harder to physically overpower.

“My fat feels like a protective layer for me,” she said. “It feels safe.”

She has tried to protect others from her relative, contacting Jewish Community Watch and trying to establish where he lives, so people around him could be warned. Recently, she found out and reported her experience to police in the state where he lives.

This year she finally went public, posting about the abuse on Instagram and naming the man she accuses.

“PLEASE SHARE, SCREENSHOT, DO WHATEVER YOU NEED TO KEEP CHILDREN SAFE,” she wrote.

Her disclosure gained significant public attention. One post attracted more than 44,000 likes, while an April follow-up was shared more than 4,000 times.

But there were also harsh responses. Relatives accused her of lying, said she was embarrassing the family, or accepted the disclosure but called to say she should forgive the abuser.

Online, strangers demanded more detail before deciding whether to believe her. Some openly called her account false.

For the first two weeks after posting, she deleted Instagram from her phone. The nightmares returned.

Then other survivors began contacting her. Women and men, some in their 70s and 80s, told her about abuse they had never spoken about before. Three women told her privately that they were abused by the same man.

Disclosing has released something in her. “It’s not my secret anymore,” she said

 

Lifshy Ajzenszmidt and husband Rabbi Mendy Ajzenszmidt

As a mother and rebbetzin, she now does what she can to prevent another child from being abused. She believes communities can reduce the likelihood of abuse when children are taught about bodies, boundaries and consent, and when adults are open to disclosures.

Ajzenszmidt received virtually no sex education as a child and did not properly understand her own anatomy when she first got her period.

Looking back, one small moment from her teens still stands out. At about 15, she was sitting in her bedroom while people moved through the house. Her door was open. A friend of her brother noticed and quietly closed it. It was her first understanding of respecting privacy.

Her own children are taught differently. They learn the proper names for body parts and talk openly about consent and physical boundaries.

At South Caulfield, she says there is not only a formal child protection policy but a culture of protection. She says children should know they are entitled to boundaries, and adults should notice when something feels wrong.

And, while her husband runs the synagogue, Ajzenszmidt watches where the children are, who is around them and whether they seem comfortable. If it prevents her from attending the service, she thinks it is a small price to pay.

“Make yourself uncomfortable to keep your children safe. Their safety comes before your comfort.”

https://thejewishindependent.com.au/rebbetzins-abuse-experience-shapes-her-drive-to-protect-children/

We Can't Stay in our Ivory Towers - Parshas Vayeira | Rav Yitzchak Berkovits "We Can't Hide Behind The Walls of a Yeshiva"

 

All Haredi Political Parties Must Lose for All Haredi Life to Become Meaningful & Productive

The greatest danger confronting Haredi Jewry in Israel may not come from secular Israelis, hostile governments, or even the enemies surrounding the Jewish state. It may come from within, from a political system that has learned to confuse the preservation of its own power with the preservation of Torah. For decades, Haredi political parties have presented themselves as indispensable guardians of the Jewish soul, demanding public money, political concessions, and immunity from the responsibilities imposed on other citizens. Yet a fundamental question remains unanswered: if this system is so successful at protecting Haredi life, why does it leave so many families struggling economically, so many young people with inadequate preparation for the modern economy, and so many children facing a future narrower than the one their parents deserve to offer them?

The time has come to confront an uncomfortable possibility. Haredi life cannot become fully productive while its political leadership is rewarded for preserving dependency rather than building independence. The issue is not whether Torah study has value. It does. The issue is whether the institutions claiming to defend Torah have created a political structure in which too many of the practical responsibilities of citizenship, economic self-sufficiency, and national defense are treated as someone else's obligation. When political parties continually secure arrangements that protect their own constituencies from difficult choices, the immediate beneficiaries may be their institutions and political allies. The long-term costs, however, can fall on ordinary Haredi families.

This is not an attack on Haredi Jews. It is an argument on behalf of Haredi Jews, especially those who work hard, raise large families, struggle with the cost of living, and want their children to enjoy both a meaningful religious life and a viable economic future. It is an argument for the young man who wants to study Torah but also wants the education necessary to support his family. It is an argument for the father who works long hours and resents being treated as a second-class member of his own community because he does not devote his entire life to full-time study. It is an argument for the mother who carries an enormous economic burden while being told that the existing system represents the highest expression of religious devotion. These people are not enemies of Torah. They are human beings whose sacrifices deserve more than political slogans.

The central problem is the relationship between rabbinic authority and political power. Parties such as Shas and United Torah Judaism have developed a political model in which religious leadership helps determine communal priorities, political representatives negotiate government benefits, and the resulting arrangements reinforce the authority of the institutions that helped produce them. There is nothing inherently improper about religious communities organizing politically or seeking public resources. Every democratic constituency does so. The legitimate question is whether the arrangements obtained actually improve the lives of the people represented, and whether public support is tied to measurable commitments to education, employment, responsible budgeting, and civic participation.

When political representatives become more concerned with preserving coalition leverage than confronting the structural problems facing their constituents, political influence can become a substitute for leadership. A community may win another budget allocation, another exemption, or another concession, yet lose something far more important: the capacity to prepare its children for the world they will inherit. The test of leadership is not how many benefits it can extract from a government. The test is whether, over time, fewer families are trapped in poverty, more young people can earn a dignified living, educational standards improve, and religious life remains strong without requiring permanent political dependency.

The question of education is particularly urgent. A Jewish education should provide spiritual depth, intellectual discipline, moral responsibility, and the ability to confront difficult questions honestly. But in a modern economy, young people also need practical competencies. Mathematics, English, science, digital literacy, and professional skills are not inherently enemies of Torah. They are tools that can enable a person to support a family, establish a business, enter a profession, and contribute to society. The choice between Torah and economic competence is not a law of nature. It is a false dichotomy when it is used to deny children the foundations they need to live productive lives.

There are, of course, Haredi institutions and individuals who have pursued higher education, professional training, business ownership, and meaningful employment while maintaining serious religious commitments. Their existence demonstrates that the question is not whether religious observance and economic participation can coexist. The question is how to expand those opportunities without treating every departure from a narrow communal model as an act of disloyalty. A community confident in its values should be capable of educating its children for the world as it exists, rather than demanding that the world accommodate every limitation of its educational system.

The same debate must address the ideal of full-time Torah study. Serious Torah learning is indispensable to Jewish civilization. The Jewish people have survived because generations of scholars preserved, interpreted, debated, and transmitted the tradition. The problem begins when a worthy religious vocation is transformed into a universal political expectation, regardless of aptitude, economic circumstances, or family responsibilities. Not every young man is suited to lifelong advanced study, and not every household can survive on a single modest income. A system that fails to distinguish between those who genuinely flourish in intensive Torah scholarship and those who would be better served by combining study with employment risks harming both groups.

The Torah itself recognizes the dignity of labor, the obligation to provide for one's household, and the importance of communal responsibility. Jewish tradition contains a rich debate about Torah study and work, not a simple command that every man must remain indefinitely outside the productive economy. The wisdom of the tradition lies partly in its refusal to reduce a complicated human life to a single slogan. A society that honors scholars should also honor honest workers, responsible businesspeople, teachers, engineers, physicians, tradespeople, and parents who provide for their children. The dignity of one vocation does not require the humiliation of another.

Yet political systems do not reform themselves merely because an argument is morally compelling. They change when citizens demand accountability and when political rewards become conditional on performance. That is why the future of Haredi society cannot be separated from the future of its political parties. If parties repeatedly defend arrangements that leave substantial numbers of young people without adequate preparation for employment, resist reforms that could broaden economic opportunity, or treat participation in national responsibilities as a bargaining chip, voters and community leaders have every reason to demand a different approach.

The issue of military service makes this contradiction especially visible. Israel is a state whose security depends on citizens accepting serious personal risks. Haredi Jews have legitimate religious concerns, and the state must take religious needs seriously when designing arrangements for military service. But those concerns cannot permanently settle the question of how the burdens of national defense should be distributed. A sustainable arrangement must reconcile religious life with the security needs of a country whose survival cannot be taken for granted. When political leaders defend exemptions without presenting a credible, broadly accepted framework for sharing responsibility, they deepen resentment and weaken the trust on which a democratic society depends.

The burden is not exclusively Haredi, and the failures of Israeli politics cannot fairly be attributed to one community alone. Secular politicians have their own interests, the Israeli economy has structural inequalities, and governments of different political orientations have contributed to the country's divisions. Nevertheless, acknowledging those wider failures does not absolve Haredi political leadership of its responsibility to its own constituents. A community cannot demand that other Israelis respect its religious identity while dismissing every request that it participate more fully in the common responsibilities of the state.

The economic consequences deserve equal attention. Poverty is not a badge of holiness, and financial hardship does not automatically confer spiritual distinction. Nor should families be shamed for living modestly or for choosing religious priorities over material advancement. The problem is preventable hardship created or prolonged by policies that fail to equip people with options. Children should not have to pay the price for political arrangements they did not choose. Parents should not have to rely indefinitely on charity when better education, job training, and access to employment could help them become self-sufficient. Public policy should make it easier for families to build stable lives, not make their prospects dependent on permanent subsidies or political patronage.

A serious reform agenda would therefore begin with the children. Every child deserves an education that preserves religious identity while providing the foundational skills required for adult life. Public funding should be accompanied by transparent educational standards and meaningful accountability for results. Young adults should have access to vocational training, apprenticeships, professional education, and employment services that respect religious observance. Communities should be encouraged to develop businesses and professional networks that create opportunities from within, while remaining open to the wider economy. Families in genuine need should receive assistance, but assistance should be part of a policy that expands opportunity rather than perpetuates dependency.

The political parties themselves should be judged by clear standards. How many young people leave school with the skills necessary to earn a living? How effectively do public funds reach the families and institutions they are intended to support? What are the parties doing to reduce preventable poverty? How do they encourage productive employment without undermining serious Torah study? What credible proposals do they offer for sharing the burdens of citizenship? And how openly do they explain their decisions to the people whose votes sustain them? These questions are not anti-religious. They are the elementary questions that citizens should ask of representatives who exercise power in their name.

The Haredi public must also be permitted to debate these issues without being accused of disloyalty. A young man who seeks professional training is not necessarily abandoning Torah. A parent who questions educational policy is not necessarily rebelling against rabbinic authority. A religious Jew who demands transparency in public spending is not betraying the community. In a healthy society, criticism can be an expression of responsibility. The ability to question leaders, examine evidence, and change course when policies fail is not a concession to secular culture. It is a condition of institutional integrity.

This is where the ballot box becomes important. In a democracy, political parties cannot claim permanent ownership of a community's loyalty. They must earn it. If Haredi voters conclude that their representatives have failed to prepare the next generation for economic independence, have neglected the needs of working families, or have resisted reasonable reforms in order to preserve political arrangements, they have the right to demand alternatives. That may mean supporting different candidates, insisting on internal party reforms, or refusing to treat traditional voting patterns as an obligation beyond scrutiny.

The objective should not be to punish Haredi Jews or to diminish Torah institutions. It should be to make political leadership answerable to the people it represents. Any party that can demonstrate genuine improvements in education, employment, family welfare, fiscal transparency, and responsible participation in national life should be judged on those results. Any party that cannot should face the consequences of democratic accountability. Political change must follow evidence and public judgment, not blind loyalty or hostility toward an entire religious community.

There is also a responsibility that belongs to rabbinic leadership itself. Rabbis who exercise influence over political decisions must recognize that spiritual authority carries obligations beyond defending institutional arrangements. They should ask whether the policies they endorse allow families to flourish, whether young people are prepared for adulthood, and whether the community's economic model can endure. They should encourage honest debate about Torah and work, acknowledge the legitimacy of different life paths, and resist the temptation to equate criticism of communal policy with opposition to Judaism. The authority of a rabbi is strengthened, not weakened, when that authority is exercised with humility, foresight, and concern for the practical consequences of communal decisions.

The Jewish past offers a sobering lesson about the danger of confusing institutional continuity with survival. Jewish communities have endured persecution, displacement, poverty, and profound social upheaval. They survived through Torah learning, but also through adaptability, communal solidarity, economic resourcefulness, and the ability to respond to changing circumstances. Tradition was transmitted by people who understood that preserving Judaism required more than repeating yesterday's arrangements. It required ensuring that the next generation could live Jewish lives under the conditions it actually faced.

The Haredi world has produced extraordinary scholars, devoted families, charitable networks, and institutions of learning. None of that should be dismissed. But genuine respect for those achievements should make the community more willing, not less willing, to confront policies that may jeopardize its future. A movement that claims to defend the Jewish inheritance must ask whether it is giving its children the tools to sustain that inheritance. A political party that claims to defend the poor must ask whether its policies help people escape poverty. A rabbinic leadership that claims to guide the community must demonstrate that it can distinguish between preserving a valuable tradition and preserving a political arrangement simply because it has become familiar.

The ultimate measure of Haredi political leadership is not how much power it accumulates, but how much human potential it helps release. A successful Haredi future would include serious Torah scholarship, thriving families, excellent education, productive employment, responsible citizenship, and a culture in which honest disagreement does not threaten communal belonging. It would not require every young man to follow the same path, every family to depend on the same political machinery, or every voter to accept the claim that the established parties are the only legitimate defenders of religious life.

If Haredi political parties want to retain public confidence, they must show that their priorities serve the future rather than merely preserve the present. If they cannot do so, voters must be free to replace them. That is not a declaration of war on Torah. It is a demand that political power serve Torah's human purpose: to build a community of responsibility, dignity, learning, and life.

The real question is not whether Haredi Jewry can survive without its current political arrangements. It is whether those arrangements are helping Haredi Jewry flourish. The answer must be measured in the lives of children, the stability of families, the quality of education, the dignity of work, and the willingness to share responsibility for the Jewish future. No party, no coalition, and no political tradition deserves permanent loyalty at the expense of those goals. 

Haredi life must be larger than Haredi politics. Torah must be larger than the institutions that claim to speak in its name. And the future of a generation must matter more than the survival of a political machine.

REPUBLISHED

https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/all-haredi-political-parties-must-lose-for-all-haredi-life-to-become-meaningful/

The best Orthodox Jewish blogs curated and ranked based on multiple factors, including content relevancy, subject expertise, posting frequency, and freshness of content. Blogs with highest credibility within the Orthodox Jewish space are ranked higher. This list is updated regularly to ensure it reflects the most active, influential, and valuable Orthodox Jewish blogs on the internet today.  https://bloggers.feedspot.com/orthodox_jewish_blogs/

One Rabbi Passed Away, One Rabbi Left His Teeth At Home, One Rabbi Went To Change His Diaper...Vote "Hospice" Party! Letter ה

 

The Roman Catholic archdiocese might now avoid bankruptcy by reaching a settlement with 1,300 people who said they had been abused by clergy members and lay leaders

 

New York Archdiocese Agrees to Settle Sexual Abuse Claims for Over $800 Million - Litigation after the New York Child Victims Act opened the window for claims has been ongoing for seven years, said Jeff Anderson, whose firm, Jeff Anderson & Associates, represents nearly 300 clients who say they were abused.

 

YOU GUYS GOT OFF EASY

“This settlement is not just about money,” said Jeff Herman, whose law firm represents 260 plaintiffs. “The Archdiocese is now required to publish the names of its abusers and keep that list current. That protects children going forward, and it is long overdue.”https://hermanlaw.com/

Find out if you have a case or ask us a question by calling us at 1 866 850 3766

St. Patrick’s Cathedral in Midtown Manhattan. The Archdiocese of New York includes Manhattan, the Bronx, Staten Island and several Hudson Valley communities.

 

The Archdiocese of New York and plaintiffs’ lawyers reached an agreement on a proposed settlement in which the church would pay more than $800 million to settle claims from 1,300 people who said they had been sexually abused by its clergy members and lay leaders.

The plaintiffs’ lawyers said late Friday that they had finalized the settlement with the archdiocese and that all of the plaintiffs had signed off on it.

In an email to the priests of the archdiocese shared with The New York Times, Archbishop Ronald A. Hicks confirmed on Saturday that an agreement had been reached to settle the claims. He said the deal will not be final until the plaintiffs, lawyers and representatives for the archdiocese sign the settlement, which they are scheduled to do in early November.

“We are on the verge of being able to, please God, bring some measure of healing and reconciliation to all victim-survivors,” he said in the message, adding that the agreement “will also allow the archdiocese to turn its full attention once again to its mission of preaching the Gospel, healing the sick, caring for the poor and needy, welcoming the stranger, and educating our children.”

Terms of the settlement would call for each plaintiff to have the option of receiving a lump-sum payment of at least $250,000, or a potentially larger payout after a review of the extent of the abuse each plaintiff has claimed, according to the plaintiffs’ lawyers.

The proposal would end a multiyear saga that threatened to bankrupt America’s foremost Roman Catholic archdiocese. The terms of the proposed settlement required that all 1,300 plaintiffs accept it, and there were some holdouts, who argued that the proposal did not do enough to rectify the harms they had experienced. Progress was also stymied by the deaths of some plaintiffs.

“Tonight, we were able to finalize the settlement with the Archdiocese,” Trusha Goffe, an attorney with Jeff Anderson & Associates, wrote Friday in an email to the firm’s nearly 300 clients who say they were abused. “All of the survivors agreed to the revised deal. This means that the settlement you agreed to will move forward.”

Lawyers for the plaintiffs said they had repeatedly warned their clients that if they did not accept the proposal, the archdiocese would most likely declare bankruptcy, reducing the size of any eventual payout and extending the length of the already yearslong litigation.

To appease the handful of plaintiffs who were resistant to the proposal, the lawyers said, the archdiocese negotiated with one of its insurers to increase the amount of money it would pay the holdouts. They would now receive a pot of $20 million to be evenly distributed among them — an uncommon arrangement that hinged largely on the availability of insurance funds.

“The survivors showed an amazing amount of perseverance and patience here,” said Paul Mones, a veteran lawyer whose Los Angeles-based firm represents 33 of the plaintiffs against the archdiocese. “After a lifetime of pain and struggle, they mustered the energy to push that final mile. And hopefully this deal will give them a degree of solace and healing.”

The Archdiocese of New York, which includes Manhattan, the Bronx, Staten Island and a handful of Hudson Valley communities, would be the latest Catholic institution to pay hundreds of millions of dollars to settle claims of sexually abuse.

In June, the Archdiocese of San Francisco agreed to pay $395 million to settle claims from more than 530 people who said clergy members and lay leaders had abused them. In 2024, the Archdiocese of Los Angeles settled similar claims for more than $1 billion — one of the largest sexual abuse settlements in church history.

The agreement with the New York Archdiocese also requires it to publish on its website the names of the clergy members and lay leaders who were credibly accused of sexual abuse, and to keep that list updated with any future substantiated claims of abuse.

The accusers and their lawyers said they thought these requirements would not only illuminate past abuses, but also help to prevent future ones. It is unclear what disclosures, if any, the archdiocese would have faced if it had declared bankruptcy.

In her email, Ms. Goffe said she would have more details about the settlement process in the next two weeks but wanted to emphasize “what an achievement” the agreement represents.

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/10/24/us/archdiocese-new-york-sexual-abuse-settlement.html?

There is a deep perversity in invoking “Daas Torah”– the Haredi party line, as it were – to enforce a political line through fear. The Torah teaches us to seek guidance from rabbis, respect their wisdom, and take their words seriously. But when political gatekeepers decide which rabbis count, which views may be heard, and what consequences await those who disagree, they are using Torah’s name to protect a monopoly on power.

 

Fear is silencing the Charedi Public’s attempts at discussion 

 

I'm running for Knesset and want to explain my passion for the new Haredi party, but it's inviting threats. That's coercion, not the Torah's model of dispute 

 

 

Party head Moti Leitner greets supporters at an election campaign rally of the Charedi Public party at the International Convention Center in Jerusalem, ahead of Israel’s upcoming general elections, October 17, 2026.

We are currently in a state of affairs where rabbis are silenced, families threatened, and private gatherings have become dangerous places to express opinions. In the Haredi world, religious persuasion has turned into political coercion and is carried out in the name of Torah. This needs to change.

A Home Gathering Becomes a Test of Loyalty

I tried to organize a small gathering in a private home in Afula, where I live. I was not organizing a rally or asking a synagogue to sponsor a political event. I wanted to sit with people, explain why I am passionate about the HaTzibur HaCharedi party, and discuss questions that deserve an honest conversation inside our community.

I did not even consider asking the local shul where I used to daven to host the gathering. I knew that a shul connected to the campaign could face pressure, and I did not want to put its members or its plans for expansion at risk. Instead, I asked a friend who shares many of my concerns whether he would open his home.

The answer came quickly. A rabbi called him and told him that hosting me would be a terrible idea, and that both of us would be unwelcome. My friend was told that the shul hoped to obtain municipal land for an expansion, and that people whose support mattered might look unfavorably on the community if they heard that some of its members had attended a meeting for our party. The message was unmistakable: host this gathering, and the shul’s plans could be jeopardized.

My friend was frightened, and I understood why. He tried to find another home. People barely connected to the shul also worried about becoming involved. Several people told him that many families would stay away because their children attend a particular school, and their parents feared consequences for the children if they were seen at the gathering.

Eventually, another friend, whose family is involved in our party, agreed to host. I announced the meeting on a general mailing list, not a synagogue forum. The calls began almost immediately: Why was I publicizing politics in the community? Why was I putting the entire community at risk? Another influential rabbi called with the same message, and my host received repeated calls urging him to cancel.

A healthy Torah community does not fear a living-room conversation. It answers ideas with ideas, and disagreement with argument — not threats

The gathering has effectively been shut down. The host has been intimidated, and potential attendees have been frightened away. A handful of people wanted to meet in a home for a civil discussion. That was enough to put municipal support, community standing, and children’s schooling into the conversation as threats.

Sadly, this is not an isolated incident, nor is it unique to Afula. It reflects a broader phenomenon throughout the Haredi world in Israel. A woman employed in a non-political office role by our party recently received a letter from her children’s school stating that, because she worked for us, her children could be expelled unless she resigned.

Nor does this affect only HaTzibur HaCharedi. In many communities, those who depart even slightly from the mainstream fear ostracism, whether through consequences for their children’s schooling, family shidduchim (marriages), or their standing in schools, shuls, and the wider community.

The pressure takes many forms: a venue suddenly becomes unavailable; a school threatens a family; a shadchan refuses to arrange matches; a rabbi is warned to stay silent. At times, even prominent rabbis are physically attacked, and their homes or institutions vandalized. The message is clear: even attending a private discussion can come at a cost.

Nor is this limited to elections. Families fear that if a child unsuited to full-time study chooses another path, his siblings may suffer the consequences. Parents worry that pursuing education or a profession will brand them as disloyal. Those who wish to serve the country, earn an honest living, or speak positively about the State of Israel can be treated as though they have betrayed their community.

Private Support, Public Silence

The pressure reaches every level of Haredi society. Dozens of rabbis have told us privately that they support the need for change and intend to vote for us, yet will not say so publicly for fear of repercussions for themselves, their families, their institutions, or their supporters. As a result, open discussion of major issues facing the community becomes extraordinarily difficult.

A stark double standard prevails. What is sanctioned by the established system is considered legitimate; alternatives are vilified, and their supporters are ostracized or, at times, effectively excommunicated. On the same community channel where my gathering was denounced as dangerous political activity, a rally featuring prominent Gedolim (great rabbinic leaders) and supporting Gimmel (the Haredi electoral letter) was promoted without objection. This is not about principle. It is about control and intimidation.

When Political Control Speaks in Torah’s Name

There is a deep perversity in invoking “Daas Torah”– the Haredi party line, as it were – to enforce a political line through fear. The Torah teaches us to seek guidance from rabbis, respect their wisdom, and take their words seriously. But when political gatekeepers decide which rabbis count, which views may be heard, and what consequences await those who disagree, they are using Torah’s name to protect a monopoly on power.

A community that truly believes in the authority of Torah should be confident enough to allow people to hear arguments, ask questions, and consult the rabbis they trust. The Mishnah’s instruction, Asei Lecha Rav, “choose for yourself a rabbi,” cannot mean that every individual must accept whichever rabbinic voice a political establishment has selected for him. There have always been different rabbinic approaches and legitimate disagreements about how Torah should guide public life. Respect for rabbis does not require pretending otherwise. These pressure tactics do not bring beauty to the Torah world; quite the opposite. They trap people, isolate families, and make ordinary life choices feel like acts of rebellion.

The overwhelming majority of Israelis are not anti-Torah. They have no problem with Haredi Jews who want to devote themselves to Torah study. They object to religious coercion. They want a fairer sharing of civic burdens, and they want those who serve, work, and support their families to be treated with dignity instead of mocked. They also want soldiers and police officers spoken about as human beings, not vilified with ugly epithets, even called Nazis, while they carry out their responsibilities.

A Haredi community that can answer those concerns with honesty and gratitude will be better understood, and more faithful to its own values.

That is why this campaign matters to me. I am a candidate for the Knesset on the HaTzibur HaCharedi list. Our community needs a voice that is deeply committed to Torah and prepared to engage constructively with the State of Israel and the broader Jewish people. A political party should not dictate which rabbi anyone must follow. It should help create conditions in which people can make responsible choices without fear.

A Different Haredi Future Is Possible

At our rally in Jerusalem this past Motzaei Shabbos (Saturday night), I saw a different possibility. A writer who attended described arriving wrapped in layers of cynicism and despair. He wrote about years of poverty, educational deprivation, and frustration with institutional politics, problems caused and sustained by the policies of Haredi leadership and the cynical use of Daas Torah. He left with a measure of hope: he had seen Haredi Jews who wanted to live as human beings, build families, learn Torah, work, and take part in Israeli society.

I am angry about what happened. I am also saddened. I do not know what it will mean for my relationship with the shul where I once davened. But the answer cannot be silence. If the only people permitted to speak are those who repeat the party line and sanctioned opinions, the community will lose the very voices it most needs to hear.

Challenging the grip of intimidation does not weaken the Haredi world. It makes room for the many sincere, God-fearing Jews who want to help it flourish.

The choice before us is between a community held together by fear and one held together by shared commitment, responsibility, and love of Torah. I believe many people are ready to choose the latter.

Rabbi Yehuda Oppenheimer is running for Knesset with the Hatzibur HaCharedi party and is #8 on the party’s list. He is a former congregational rabbi, attorney, writer, editor, and licensed tour guide. He lives with his family in Afula.

https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/what-intimidation-is-costing-the-haredi-public/

 

 

Many Americans continue to underestimate one particular potential threat to our economic future: President Trump’s clearly expressed desire to interfere with and even usurp the midterm elections.

 

In Six Decades of Public Life, I Never Thought I Would Write This Piece

 

In 1920, H.L. Mencken famously penned an op-ed in the Baltimore Sun, warning that on “some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.” "Taking all of this together, the “Americans are stupid” camp makes the following conclusions: A lot of Americans are uneducated and ignorant. They can’t read or comprehend high school-level text, and they don’t know anything about how the American government works. Therefore, they consistently make bad choices when voting in elections, if they vote at all, and that is the proximate cause of so much political dysfunction. This is a problem, because it means educating Americans about an issue, or showing them data, or running on a platform “based in reality” won’t actually convince voters to elect smart, effective legislators into government."PM

 

By Robert E. Rubin - Mr. Rubin is a senior counselor to Centerview Partners and was the U.S. Treasury secretary from 1995 to 1999.

The economy has been voters’ top issue in four of the six midterm elections this century — and 2026 appears all but certain to make it five of seven. Beyond the cost of living, the war in Iran and tariffs, America faces a series of daunting longer-term economic challenges, from mounting federal debt to the effects of artificial intelligence.

Yet many Americans continue to underestimate one particular potential threat to our economic future: President Trump’s clearly expressed desire to interfere with and even usurp the midterm elections. Nov. 3 could be a defining test for the rule of law in this country, and both our democracy and our prosperity are on the line.

There is a chance — some would argue a likelihood — that the midterms will proceed smoothly and honestly, with the winners seated in a straightforward manner. There is also the possibility that the election will be, like so much else over the past two years, chaotic at best and lawless at worst. From amplifying false claims of fraud and slashing defenses against foreign meddling in our elections to attempting to bully states into using an error-prone database to purge voter registrations, the Trump administration has already thrown up obstacles to fair and free midterm elections. There are widespread fears Mr. Trump and his allies could go further, including by sending armed federal agents to polling locations, seizing ballot boxes and exploiting a procedural loophole involving the clerk of the House that could enable them to refuse to seat duly elected Democratic members when the new Congress convenes on Jan. 3.

If the Trump administration launches an effort to manipulate the outcome of the midterms, the economic impact could be felt immediately, and it could last long after Mr. Trump’s presidency ends.

With the exception of the booming A.I. sector, corporate investment is already weak. The National Federation of Independent Business’s measurement of small-business uncertainty is 32 percent above its historical average. This seems like a bad time to inject substantially more instability into the mix.

The short-term risks from election interference look even more concerning when we consider the possibility that a fight over the outcomes will not necessarily remain contained to the courtroom. Mr. Trump has explicitly refused to rule out invoking the Insurrection Act in regard to the 2026 elections. Starting in late 2025, a surge of immigration enforcement agents into Minneapolis cost the city, its businesses and its residents an estimated $700 million. Sustained post-election chaos coupled with aggressive federal interference could create similar disruptions on a nationwide scale.

Any effort to undermine the election will eventually resolve itself, whether through political compromise, contentious rulings from courts, the use of force or all three. But the economic impact will outlast any immediate political crisis. The rule of law, undergirded by a tradition of free elections and the peaceful transfer of power, supports business decisions and attracts foreign companies to invest. It underlies the position of the dollar as the world’s reserve currency. It bolsters investors’ confidence in the full faith and credit of the United States and lowers interest rates on our debt. The integrity of our elections, in other words, has been one of the keys to American prosperity.

The United States has not yet seen its economy suffer from a lack of confidence in its legal system. Other countries have. “We can live with high inflation,” one Turkish executive told The Financial Times last year, “but our biggest disincentive to invest is the lack of the rule of law.” A 2024 State Department report similarly identified rule-of-law issues — including lack of respect for property rights, repression of criticism and arbitrary investigations and arrests — as major impediments to the business climate in China.

The United States does not have to become Turkey or China to feel the economic impacts of a diminished rule of law. The economist John Maynard Keynes famously wrote of the “animal spirits” that encourage people to engage in market activity. Americans’ animal spirits have long been bolstered by the knowledge that their country is the best place on earth to start or invest in a business. A contested or overturned election could call that into question.

When I talk to leaders in business and politics, even many of those who acknowledge the election threat seem to consider such a possibility remote. They do not tend to take Mr. Trump’s attacks on voting seriously. That’s another way of saying that the markets are not pricing in what I consider a meaningful risk.

If Mr. Trump accomplishes in 2026 what he was unable to with respect to the 2020 election, or even if he causes widespread chaos by coming closer to his objective, it could create serious disruptions in the bond and equity markets. The yield on 10-year Treasuries recently reached 5.36 percent — higher than it was in the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis — in part because of concerns about the country’s policy trajectory. Election chaos could increase investors’ worry about the ability of our political system to deal with our fiscal problems, driving yields even higher. This would result in higher debt service costs for the government and higher mortgage rates and credit card bills for consumers, exacerbating our already considerable challenges.

I’ve lived my entire life as a citizen of a constitutional republic that provides rights and protections, and I’d like to continue doing so. I imagine most Americans, regardless of their political leanings, feel the same way.

Over the next few weeks, leaders in business and in all sectors of our society should work with state and local elected officials to help protect the political process that lies at the heart of our constitutional system. They can do this by making clear, nonpartisan declarations of support for election integrity, by supporting nonpartisan organizations that protect our elections and by using behind-the-scenes influence to discourage those who might be considering any steps to disrupt or overturn the midterms.

In more than six decades spent in and around economic policymaking, I never imagined having to write a piece such as this. If we act now, we can still protect our government, our people and our economy — and we can preserve the benefits that accrue to all of us, no matter whom we vote for, when American elections are fair and free.

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/10/21/opinion/trump-midterms-election-threats-ice-economy.html

Life Inside Monsey: The Orthodox Town an Hour From Manhattan Most People Have Never Visited

 

History:

Rockland County was inhabited by the Munsee band of Lenape Native Americans, who were speakers of the Algonquian languages. Monsey Glen, a Native American encampment, is west of the intersection of State Route 59 and State Route 306. Numerous artifacts have been found there and some rock shelters are still visible. The Monsey railroad station, named from an alternate spelling of the Munsee Lenape, was built when the New York & Erie Railroad passed through the glen in 1841.^[4]

In 1943, Rabbi Shraga Feivel Mendlowitz purchased a property in Monsey with the intention to raise the education level of Torah teachers. Named Aish Dos (Pillar of Fire), the institute comprised two buildings on a 16-acre plot. In 1944, it was reconstituted as Beth Medrash Elyon, Monsey's first Jewish institution.^[5]

^{https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsey,_New_York}

Oy!

DO NOT VOTE BUT TAKE THEIR MONEY - CHILLUL HASHEM - STERNBUCH

 

VOTE AND TAKE THEIR MONEY - CHILLUL HASHEM - HIRSCH

HATE THEM - VOTE FOR THE ARABS - AND TAKE THEIR MONEY IN SECRET -SATMAR

Israel's Young Ultra-Orthodox Jews Are Turning Against Their Leaders | Rabbi Yehoshua Pfeffer

Karlin-Stolin Rebbe Attacked By Charedi Extremists Over Support For IDF Enlistment

Fringe Charedim extremists hurled rocks at the Karlin-Stolin Rebbe's vehicle Sunday night as he left a family wedding in Beit Shemesh, the latest in a series of attacks on the Rebbe, who has repeatedly instructed his chassidim not to respond. 

The Karlin-Stolin Rebbe was attacked with stones Sunday night as he left a family wedding in Beit Shemesh, in what the chareidi world is calling an unprecedented low by fringe extremists.

Rocks were thrown at the Rebbe's vehicle as he departed a simcha at his mechutan's home. The Rebbe was not injured, but the attack has sent shockwaves through the Orthodox world.

This is not the first time the Rebbe has been targeted. He has been attacked multiple times in the Meah Shearim neighborhood of Yerushalayim, both while attending simchos of his descendants and while leaving his beis medrash. Despite the repeated harassment, the Rebbe has consistently instructed his chassidim not to respond in any way to what he has called the disgraceful actions of a fringe element.

The chareidi public across all sectors has reacted with outrage and revulsion. Voices from every corner of the Torah world are condemning the lawless behavior and expressing complete rejection of those responsible for attacking one of the generation's leading Torah figures.

Rabbinic leaders are now being called upon to issue a sharp and unequivocal response to the violence, which has crossed every red line and brought shame to the Torah-observant community.

VIDEO: https://www.jfeed.com/hareidim/tn5l12