EVERY SIGNATURE MATTERS - THIS BILL MUST PASS!

EVERY SIGNATURE MATTERS - THIS BILL MUST PASS!
CLICK - GOAL - 100,000 NEW SIGNATURES! 75,000 SIGNATURES HAVE ALREADY BEEN SUBMITTED TO GOVERNOR CUOMO!

EFF Urges Court to Block Dragnet Subpoenas Targeting Online Commenters

EFF Urges Court to Block Dragnet Subpoenas Targeting Online Commenters
CLICK! For the full motion to quash: http://www.eff.org/files/filenode/hersh_v_cohen/UOJ-motiontoquashmemo.pdf

Monday, November 02, 2026

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

 


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.

Sunday, November 01, 2026

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."
A demonstrator holding up a sign with the letters AI crossed out.

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