At an affordability-focused appearance in Pennsylvania, the president launched into a blistering attack on Rep. Ilhan Omar, painting her as someone who constantly airs grievances and contributes little. He mocked her by name, telling the audience, “I love this Ilhan Omar, whatever the … her name is, with the little turban. I love her. She comes in, does nothing but [complain]. She’s always complaining. She comes from her country, where I mean, it’s considered about the worst country in the world, right?”
The crowd roared as he amped up the rhetoric, prompting them with “We oughta get her the …. out,” which quickly morphed into loud chants of “Send her back!”
He didn’t stop there. The president once again resurfaced an allegation he has long lobbed at the Minnesota lawmaker—that she married her brother for the purpose of committing immigration fraud—reintroducing one of his most controversial claims.
Trump also pointed back to a message he posted last month on Truth Social, when he had demanded Rep. Omar leave the country. In that post, he shared a video of her speaking in Minnesota, remarking that “Somalia is our home” and referring to the Somali president as “our President,” and added, “She should go back!”
The suggestion that Omar does not belong in the United States is a theme he has revisited often. In the fall, he recounted a conversation at the White House, telling reporters, “You know I met the head of Somalia, did you know that? And I suggested that maybe he’d like to take her back. He said ‘I don’t want her.’”
His antagonism toward Omar traces back years. Throughout his first term—especially in the closing months of the 2020 race—he repeatedly showcased her as a foil, accusing her of “telling us how to run our country.”
{Matzav.com}
A US-based Palestinian critic of Hamas is alleging that the terror group secretly stockpiled massive quantities of baby formula and children’s nutritional drinks in Gaza while publicly insisting that Israel had plunged the Strip into famine, the NY Post reports. According to activist Ahmed Fouad Alkhatib, the organization intentionally kept essential supplies out of public reach to intensify hunger and advance its political messaging.
Alkhatib, who has been outspoken in his opposition to Hamas, says the hidden stockpiles were meant to deepen desperation among civilians and harden global sentiment against Israel. He shared video clips online that he says were taken inside one of these concealed storage sites—rooms filled wall-to-wall with boxes of infant formula and supplemental shakes.
“During the worst of the days of the hunger crisis in Gaza in the past six months, Hamas deliberately hid literal tons of infant formula and nutritional shakes for children by storing them in clandestine warehouses belonging to the Gaza Ministry of Health,” he wrote on X.
He argued that the group’s intention was clear. “The goal, as I said then, was to worsen the hunger crisis and initiate a disaster as part of the terror group’s famine narrative in a desperate effort to stop Israel’s onslaught against Gaza and force the return of the UN’s aid distribution mechanism, and away from the controversial Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF),” he added.
The accusations come months after warnings of potential famine surged following the collapse of a temporary cease-fire in March. With Israel blocking aid shipments after the truce fell apart, scenes of gaunt children and empty markets circulated widely, ultimately prompting the United States to spearhead the creation of the GHF to deliver food into Gaza.
But the GHF initiative was plagued by turmoil from the outset, including frequent gunfire and fatal incidents around distribution zones. Hamas reportedly cautioned residents not to approach these centers, which only intensified confusion and danger on the ground.
Against that backdrop, Alkhatib repeatedly accused Hamas of manipulating the crisis and treating its own people as expendable in its struggle against Israel. A longtime advocate of coexistence and a diplomatic resolution, he emphasized that condemning Hamas and calling for increased aid to Gaza are not contradictory positions.
“You can have compassion for the real suffering of the Palestinian civilians of Gaza, and demand Israeli action to facilitate aid entry into the coastal enclave, while still holding Hamas accountable for its part in causing a hunger and starvation crisis in the first place,” he said.
Israel, for its part, has consistently rejected claims that its military campaign contributed to a famine, instead asserting that Hamas operatives were the ones seizing food and creating shortages. Yet independent assessments have provided little confirmation that Hamas was responsible for the wave of looting that struck incoming convoys. A review by the UN Office for Project Services over the chaotic summer concluded that armed gangs—not Hamas—were primarily behind the hijackings of aid trucks.
{Matzav.com}
Elon Musk is now openly questioning whether his government-reform project — the Department of Government Efficiency, better known as DOGE — accomplished enough to justify the upheaval it triggered across Washington.
During a sweeping and often introspective appearance on “The Katie Miller Podcast,” Musk acknowledged that he can’t confidently say his experiment in uprooting waste was the right call. When pressed by Miller on whether DOGE fulfilled its mission, he offered only lukewarm praise: “We’re a little bit successful. We’re somewhat successful.”
That modest assessment didn’t last long. Musk quickly shifted to frustration over how deeply the waste was embedded in federal spending. “There was, like, probably $100, maybe $200 billion worth of zombie payments per year,” he said, noting that DOGE was able to shut down only a sliver of it.
The impact of cutting even that portion, he stressed, brought swift political retaliation. “If you stop money going to political corruption, they will lash out big time,” he said. “They really want the money to keep flowing.”
Pressed on whether he’d sign up for DOGE again, Musk didn’t hedge. “I mean, no, I don’t think so,” he said, explaining that in hindsight he would have devoted his time fully to his companies. He went so far as to imagine an alternate reality in which stepping away from Washington’s storm spared his brand from the wave of Tesla vandalism that erupted after he joined the second Trump administration. In that timeline, he said, “the cars — they wouldn’t have been burning the cars.”
Throughout the interview, Musk portrayed Washington not as a place he ever saw through rose-colored glasses, but as a system warped by what he condemned as “massive transfer payments” to migrants — a “gigantic money magnet,” he claimed, that incentivizes inflows to the US. “I wouldn’t say I was super illusioned to begin with,” he said before launching into another critique of federal spending.
He didn’t stay in policy mode for long. With characteristic bluntness, he admitted that “AI nightmares” jolt him awake “many days in a row,” leaving him running on only six hours of sleep. Asked what sparks the terror, he answered dryly, “Why do I wake up in nightmares? Oh, AI. Yeah.”
Musk insisted he doesn’t entertain what he considers irrational fears. “If I find an irrational fear, I … squelch it. Fear is the mind killer.” Yet he made clear that public life brings its own real dangers. He said he avoids any situation “where there’s the general public” due to swarming selfie-seekers and ongoing “serious security issues,” especially in the aftermath of the assassination of Charlie Kirk. “Life is on a hardcore mode,” he said. “You make one mistake, and you’re dead.”
By the time the conversation wound down, the hesitation that had hovered from the start resurfaced. Speaking with Miller — whose husband Stephen Miller remains one of President Trump’s closest advisers — Musk admitted he’s unlikely to resurrect DOGE under any circumstances. “I don’t think so,” he concluded. “Knowing what I know now.”
{Matzav.com}
A new investigation is shining a harsh spotlight on Instacart, accusing the delivery giant of quietly manipulating grocery prices through an opaque algorithm that charges different users different amounts for the exact same items—sometimes at the exact same store on the very same day.
Researchers uncovered dramatic differences in what Instacart shoppers paid for identical products. In one striking case at a Target in North Canton, Ohio, a shopper was charged $2.99 for a jar of Skippy Creamy Peanut Butter during a September order, while other customers that very day paid as much as $3.59 for the same jar from the same location.
Seattle shoppers saw similar disparities. At one Safeway, Instacart users were billed five separate prices for the same package of Oscar Mayer Deli Turkey: $3.99, $4.31, $4.59, $4.69 and $4.89 — a spread of 23% between the highest and lowest amount collected.
Across stores in four different cities, this pattern repeated itself. The findings come from Groundwork Collaborative and Consumer Reports, which enlisted 437 shoppers to place Instacart pickup orders and track the prices that appeared.
The revelations add to the growing backlash against “dynamic pricing,” a frustration that began with rideshare surges during bad weather and has since seeped into countless industries. Consumers have complained about vanishing price stability at a time when inflation has made everyday living increasingly unaffordable.
Companies already known for employing price fluctuation tactics include airlines—whose fares often rise when multiple users are searching at once—and fast-food chains that use digital menus to quietly adjust burger prices throughout the day. Groundwork warned that Instacart’s methods alone could cost families up to $1,200 a year, especially as food inflation continues to climb faster than most other expenses.
The study reported that nearly 75% of items reviewed on Instacart were listed at multiple prices, despite being identical products. Instacart, responding to The Post, rejected the notion that its system resembles real-time surge pricing. The company insisted that any price “tests” are not tied to customers’ personal characteristics, stating its prices are never “dynamic,” even though the discrepancies revealed in the study showed dramatic swings from shopper to shopper.
Researchers clarified that they found no proof Instacart is actively using personal data to determine pricing, but noted that Instacart and its retail partners very likely possess the capability to alter prices based on factors like income level, age, or whether a user is new or returning.
Instacart defended the strategy, positioning its tests as tools to help retailers “learn what matters most to consumers.” The company said higher markups might appear on niche items, whereas staples like milk and bread sometimes show lower prices. “Just as retailers have long tested prices in their physical stores to better understand consumer preferences, a subset of only 10 retail partners – ones that already apply markups – do the same online via Instacart,” a spokesperson said.
Target, however, distanced itself from the entire practice. A company representative stressed, “Target is not affiliated with Instacart and is not responsible for prices on the Instacart platform.” The retailer offered no further comment on whether it planned to evaluate Instacart’s conduct.
Safeway’s parent company, Albertsons, declined to respond to requests for comment.
The uproar comes as grocery prices remain 25% higher than before the pandemic. Over the weekend, President Trump ordered a sweeping federal probe into allegations of price-fixing across the food industry, following accusations from several Democratic lawmakers that major conglomerates have been exploiting consumers.
Some supermarket chains say they would never consider the type of in-store price variability that Instacart appears to be experimenting with. Stew Leonard’s, which uses Instacart for e-commerce, said it has never been asked to take part in such pricing practices—and wouldn’t agree even if it were. “We would never price customer A differently from customer B,” said chief marketing officer Tammy Berentson. “We would have nothing to gain. It’s unfair. We are transparent about our pricing and we want to be fair to our customers and for our customers to trust us.”
The variability documented in the study was staggering. At a Safeway in Washington, DC, some Instacart customers paid $3.99 for a dozen Lucerne eggs while others were charged $4.79. The same store sold Signature SELECT Corn Flakes for anywhere between $2.99 and $3.69. At a Target in North Canton, one group of Instacart shoppers paid $3.99 for Premium Original Saltine Crackers, while others were charged $4.59 or $4.69. Even a store-brand farfalle pasta ranged from $1.19 to $1.43.
In Seattle, Wheat Thins ordered through Instacart at Safeway appeared with four distinct price tags: $3.99, $4.31, $4.69 and $4.89.
“Instacart is a black hole for the retailer,” one industry executive told The Post. The executive explained that grocers joined Instacart to gain digital reach, only to discover during the pandemic that they no longer had a clear view into customer transactions. “The classic rub in the scenario is ‘Whose customer is it’ – Instacart’s or the grocer’s?”
Driving all these shifting numbers is a pricing engine developed by Eversight, the software company Instacart acquired in 2022. Last year, during an investor call, Instacart CEO Fidji Simo said the AI system “helps retailers dynamically optimize their pricing both online and in-store to really figure out which categories of products a customer is more price sensitive on versus less price sensitive on and really adjust their prices based on that information.”
Despite denials from the company, the study’s findings raise sharp questions about transparency, fairness, and the future of pricing in a digital marketplace dominated by algorithms—algorithms that, for now, remain largely invisible to the very shoppers they affect.
{Matzav.com}
A circulating photo that supposedly captures Vice President JD Vance in a tense back-and-forth with his wife, Usha, sent social media into a frenzy — but the VP shut it down with a quip that instantly flipped the narrative.
The picture, which has no date, no source, and no verification, shows Vance in a plain white T-shirt, sitting across from Usha in what looks like a restaurant booth. In the image, she appears to be looking downward with her hand on her face, while he wears a stern expression. The internet immediately seized on the snapshot, spinning it into a storyline about the Vances’ personal life.
Critics of the Trump-Vance administration wasted no time. The comments section filled with snark, including from Facebook user Thomas Clay Jr., who wrote on Dec. 5, “Looks like things are not so good in Republicanistan.” Others insisted the picture looked more like a digital fabrication than a genuine moment.
As speculation snowballed, Vance stepped in on Tuesday and dismantled the rumor mill with a single razor-sharp line. Posting directly to X, he cracked, “I always wear an undershirt when I go out in public to have a fight loudly with my wife.”
His sarcasm immediately reframed the conversation and showed the absurdity of treating the image as evidence of marital drama.
This isn’t the first time the couple has been the subject of online gossip. That intensified again when Usha appeared without her wedding ring at two separate events alongside First Lady Melania Trump. Her spokesperson quickly clarified the issue, saying the second lady simply juggles a full load as a mother: she “does a lot of dishes, gives lots of baths, and forgets her ring sometimes.” Vance himself brushed off the noise in a recent interview with NBC News, saying that he and Usha “kind of get a kick out of it.”
{Matzav.com}
WATCH:
LISTEN:
https://matzav.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/Bitachon4Life-Shiur-1652-Chikuy-Part-52-36-Tzadikim.mp3For more info, email bitachon4life@gmail.com.
