Feed aggregator

The House has approved legislation that would require automakers to include AM radio in new passenger vehicles at no additional cost to buyers, moving the bipartisan proposal one step closer to becoming federal law. The measure now goes to the Senate, where a companion bill has attracted substantial support from both parties.

The House passed H.R. 979, the AM Radio for Every Vehicle Act of 2025, by voice vote on Tuesday.

Under the legislation, the Department of Transportation would be directed to establish a federal requirement that new passenger vehicles sold in the United States provide consumers with access to AM broadcast stations as standard equipment, without requiring an extra payment, fee or surcharge. The Senate received the House bill Wednesday, where it was read twice and placed on the Senate calendar.

The proposal has drawn extensive bipartisan backing in the House, with more than 300 lawmakers signing on as cosponsors.

Rep. Gus Bilirakis, R-Fla., introduced the House legislation, with Rep. Frank Pallone Jr., D-N.J., serving as its original cosponsor.

Rep. Josh Gottheimer, D-N.J., who was among those who pushed an earlier version of the proposal, argued that keeping AM radio in vehicles is particularly important when other communications systems fail during an emergency.

“AM radio is a lifeline,” Gottheimer said following House passage. “When the power goes out, when the cell towers go down, and when the Internet cuts off during a storm or an emergency, AM radio is often the only way families can get the life-saving information they need.”

House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., similarly pointed to the role AM broadcasting can play when hurricanes, tornadoes and other disasters disrupt ordinary communications.

“When disaster strikes – especially in hurricane and tornado-prone states like Louisiana – local communities rely on AM radio to deliver accurate, up-to-date information and critical safety alerts,” Johnson said.

If the measure becomes law, the transportation secretary would have one year from enactment to issue the required rule. In most cases, the mandate would take effect within two years after the rule is issued, while certain smaller vehicle manufacturers would receive at least four years to meet the requirement.

During the period before the mandate fully takes effect, automakers selling vehicles that do not offer AM reception would be required to clearly inform prospective buyers. Manufacturers would also be prohibited from imposing an additional charge for access to AM radio.

The congressional effort follows decisions by several automakers to eliminate AM receivers from certain vehicles, particularly electric models. Manufacturers have cited electromagnetic interference from electric motors and high-voltage components as one reason for dropping the technology.

Automotive industry groups have opposed making AM reception a federal requirement. They argue that motorists can receive emergency information through other systems, including wireless emergency alerts, FM broadcasting and satellite radio.

With House passage complete, the legislation’s next hurdle is the Senate, where lawmakers from both parties have also rallied behind the effort.

Senate Commerce Committee Chairman Ted Cruz, R-Texas, and Sen. Edward Markey, D-Mass., have spearheaded the Senate version of the legislation. Their companion measure, S. 315, cleared the Senate Commerce Committee in February 2025, and the senators announced two months later that the proposal had secured 60 Senate cosponsors.

After the House approved H.R. 979, Cruz and Markey jointly called on the Senate to move ahead with the measure.

“This vote sends a clear message to car manufacturers that AM Radio is a lifeline that must be protected in new vehicles,” the senators said in a joint statement.

“From emergency response to sports, entertainment, and news, AM radio is an essential communication tool for tens of millions of Americans.”

“It is now time for the Senate to pass the AM Radio for Every Vehicle Act and for this legislation to become law,” they added.

Despite the broad bipartisan support, the Senate has not yet held final floor action on the House-passed legislation.

As of Sept. 16, H.R. 979 had been read twice in the Senate and placed on its legislative calendar, leaving Senate passage as the next step before the measure could be sent to President Donald Trump for consideration.

{Matzav.com}

Ukraine launched a massive overnight aerial assault on Russia involving more than 1,000 drones, with hundreds directed toward Moscow in what the Russian capital’s mayor described as the “largest ever” drone attack on the city. The strikes came as Russia entered the final day of its three-day parliamentary elections.

Moscow Mayor Sergei Sobyanin said the unprecedented barrage caused damage at the Moscow Oil Refinery as well as a residential building. Russian officials said hundreds of the incoming drones targeting the capital were intercepted.

Across the broader Moscow region, authorities initially reported that two people — a 74-year-old man and a 44-year-old woman — were killed and another 20 were wounded. Russian officials subsequently said that a third person died in the hospital from injuries sustained in the attacks.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said Kyiv employed multiple types of domestically produced weapons in the operation, including Flamingo and Pelican missiles, targeting Russian oil and logistics infrastructure.

“These are billions of dollars that sustain the war machine,” Zelenskyy said, explaining Ukraine’s effort to increase the economic cost of Russia’s war.

At the same time, Ukraine continued to face Russian attacks of its own. Zelenskyy said a Russian drone struck a monastery in Ukraine’s Kherson region on Saturday, killing a clergyman and injuring four other people.

Russian strikes also brought fatalities in the Kyiv region. Ukrainian officials said a mother and two children were killed in one attack Saturday evening, while another child who had been wounded in a separate strike later died in the hospital.

The enormous Ukrainian attack coincided with the last day of Russia’s first parliamentary election since the start of its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022. The election took place under a political system in which most prominent anti-war opposition candidates were excluded, imprisoned or living outside the country, while the Kremlin-aligned United Russia party was expected to retain control of parliament.

Russia also conducted voting in four Ukrainian regions that Moscow claims to have annexed but does not fully control, as well as in Crimea, which Russia annexed in 2014. The annexations are not internationally recognized, and Ukraine has denounced the voting conducted in occupied territory as illegal.

Elsewhere in Russian-occupied territory, an attack in the Kherson region killed a member of a local election commission, according to Russia’s Central Election Commission.

Russia’s Defense Ministry claimed that its air defenses destroyed 1,110 Ukrainian drones overnight across Russian territory, occupied Crimea and the Black Sea. The figures provided by Moscow could not all be independently verified.

Sobyanin said 450 drones headed toward Moscow were destroyed. Despite the interceptions, several drones reached the grounds of the Moscow Oil Refinery, while another struck a residential building.

The Moscow mayor alleged that the timing of the assault was intended to interfere with Russia’s parliamentary voting, describing it as an “unprecedented attack.”

“The enemy failed in this regard,” he said.

More than four years after Russia launched its full-scale invasion, Ukraine has dramatically expanded its ability to conduct long-range strikes deep inside Russian territory. Kyiv increasingly relies on domestically manufactured drones and missiles to hit military, logistics and energy targets hundreds of miles from the front.

Ukraine’s long-range campaign has increasingly focused on Russia’s energy infrastructure, particularly oil refineries, as Kyiv seeks to reduce revenue and fuel supplies available to Moscow. Recent attacks have disrupted Russian refining capacity and contributed to fuel shortages and higher prices in parts of the country.

The latest attack comes as both countries increasingly rely on long-range aerial weapons while movement along the roughly 1,250-kilometer, or 780-mile, front has become difficult. Large numbers of drones and ground-based robotic systems have made troop and vehicle movements increasingly vulnerable, helping drive both sides toward strikes far beyond the immediate battlefield.

{Matzav.com}

Israel Police are asking the public for assistance in locating 24-year-old Yehuda Sferka, who has not been seen for two months and is believed to possibly have traveled from Yerushalayim to northern Israel.

Sferka has been missing since July 20, 2026, when he was last seen on Shaarei Chesed Street in Yerushalayim. Police issued a public appeal Sunday seeking any information that could help determine his whereabouts.

Investigators believe Sferka may have made his way north following his disappearance. Police have specifically identified the Tiveria and Meron areas as locations where he may have traveled.

Sferka is approximately 5 feet 7 inches tall and has dark hair and green eyes. At the time he was last seen, he was wearing a white shirt, dark pants and a black yarmulka.

Anyone who has seen Sferka or has information that could assist in locating him is urged to contact the Lev HaBira Police Station at 02-5381550 or call the Israel Police emergency hotline at 100.

{Matzav.com}

A sharp disagreement over what was said during a private phone call between Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar and British Foreign Secretary Ed Miliband has emerged as a key episode in the rapidly deteriorating relationship between Israel and Britain, culminating this month in British measures targeting Israeli communities in Yehuda and Shomron and retaliatory steps by Yerushalayim.

According to a New York Times report published yesterday, the tense conversation took place on August 11, approximately four weeks before Britain announced its new policy. The discussion centered on Israel’s plans for construction in the E1 area between Yerushalayim and Maale Adumim. The two governments, however, now give significantly different accounts of what Sa’ar communicated during the call.

Three officials familiar with the conversation told the Times that British officials came away believing Sa’ar had clearly signaled that Israel would not open construction tenders for E1 before Israel’s elections in October.

Just one week later, however, the Israeli government published tenders for approximately 1,200 housing units in E1, allowing construction companies to begin submitting bids. British officials viewed that development as contradicting what they believed they had been told during the August 11 conversation.

Israel’s Foreign Ministry strongly disputed that version of events. According to the ministry, Sa’ar had said only that there would be “no change on the ground itself in E1” before the elections.

The ministry further maintained that publication of the tenders was “nothing new,” noting that the broader E1 construction plan had already received final approval more than a year earlier.

Miliband’s office declined to discuss the specifics of the private conversation. The British government has instead reiterated its broader position that continued Israeli construction in Yehuda and Shomron threatens the prospects for a future Palestinian state. Britain officially condemned the E1 tender when it was announced in August and summoned Israel’s chargé d’affaires over the decision.

The dispute over the August phone call is only one component of a much wider diplomatic breakdown between London and Yerushalayim.

According to the Times, the E1 tenders were not the sole reason Britain moved against Israeli communities in Yehuda and Shomron. Miliband became foreign secretary in July after Andy Burnham became prime minister and quickly began developing a new British policy toward Israel, including possible action targeting the communities. Burnham had already signaled that his government would take a different approach to Israel from that of his predecessor, Keir Starmer.

That policy was formally unveiled on September 8, when Miliband addressed Parliament and announced measures targeting Israeli communities in Yehuda and Shomron, including restrictions on trade in goods from those communities. Britain also stated that it considers Israel’s continued presence in what it calls the Palestinian territories unlawful under international law.

Miliband specifically pointed to E1 as one of the developments behind Britain’s response, describing the project as “a longstanding red line for the international community, which is why we saw such an outpouring from our allies.”

The British foreign secretary also invoked allegations of “ethnic cleansing” in discussing Palestinian displacement in Yehuda and Shomron. The phrase has been sharply disputed by Israeli officials, while Britain has cited settlement expansion and violence against Palestinians as part of its rationale for the new measures.

Sa’ar responded forcefully, rejecting Britain’s policy and asserting Israel’s historical and national rights in Yehuda and Shomron.

“We did not return to our land after 2,000 years only to lose it under pressure from jihadists, Islamists, antisemites, far-leftists and wokes,” he said. “Not only will you fail to harm us, you will harm yourselves and your own influence.”

Israel subsequently announced retaliatory measures, including the closure of the British consulate in Yerushalayim and restrictions involving British officials dealing with Palestinian affairs. Israel also barred several British politicians and other individuals whom Sa’ar accused of involvement in antisemitic or anti-Israel activity.

The British action also drew criticism from Israeli opposition leader Yair Lapid, who argued that it would “strengthen extremist voices in Israel” shortly before the election.

“It’s clear to everyone that this is a decision motivated by domestic politics,” Lapid said, accusing the British government of using a “cynical attack on Israel to satisfy disillusioned voters.”

At the center of the entire dispute is E1, a strategically significant tract between Yerushalayim and Maale Adumim where large-scale Israeli construction has been discussed for decades.

Successive Israeli governments held back from implementing major construction there amid international pressure. Britain and other governments argue that building in E1 could impede the territorial continuity of a future Palestinian state by making movement between the northern and southern portions of Yehuda and Shomron more difficult and further separating Palestinian areas from eastern Yerushalayim. Israel disputes international claims regarding the illegality of Jewish communities in Yehuda and Shomron, while members of the current government have openly said that E1 construction is intended in part to prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state.

Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich, one of the leading advocates for expanding Jewish construction in the area, has previously said the E1 project “buries the idea of a Palestinian state.”

The dispute has intensified further as Israel advances additional housing plans. Reuters reported this week that a new tender for 2,167 units was added to the E1 expansion, bringing the combined number involved in the latest tenders to 3,401.

According to the New York Times, each additional procedural step makes the E1 project increasingly difficult to reverse. The deadline for companies to submit bids for approximately 1,200 of the units is October 19, shortly before Israel’s election.

The Israeli government has also announced another tender involving more than 2,100 units, with bidding scheduled to open later in October.

The dispute over precisely what Sa’ar told Miliband on August 11 therefore remains unresolved. British officials say they understood Israel to be signaling that the E1 project would not advance before the election; Israel says Sa’ar promised only that no physical change would occur on the ground during that period.

That disagreement has now become part of a much larger confrontation, as Britain moves forward with measures against Israeli activity in Yehuda and Shomron and Israel responds with diplomatic restrictions of its own — marking one of the sharpest periods of tension between London and Yerushalayim in recent years.

{Matzav.com}

National Security Minister and Otzma Yehudit chairman Itamar Ben Gvir on Sunday called for the execution of the terrorist accused of murdering Netanel Shakron in the shooting attack near Neve Tzuf, arguing that the case should become the first in which Israel’s newly enacted death penalty law for terrorists is applied. The Knesset approved the law in March.

“This is the first case in which the Terrorist Death Penalty Law can be implemented,” Ben-Gvir said.

Ben Gvir maintained that the circumstances of the Binyamin attack fall within the provisions of the new law and said the death sentence should therefore be imposed.

“In this case, the punishment is mandatory, and therefore we are demanding that this punishment be imposed and that the terrorist be executed.”

The National Security Minister insisted that the recently passed law should now be put into practice.

“The law is the law. This is the law we passed. This is the law that allows the terrorist to be executed, and this is the opportunity. Now, execution.”

The legislation, which passed the Knesset in March by a 62-48 vote, established capital punishment for certain Palestinians convicted in military court of lethal terrorist attacks against Israelis. The law has also faced legal challenges and criticism from Israeli and international rights organizations.

Ben Gvir’s demand followed Sunday’s deadly shooting at the Ein Raya spring near Neve Tzuf in Binyamin. The victim was identified as Netanel Shakron, a resident of Alei Zahav and father of six who had gone to the spring with his eldest son to immerse ahead of Yom Kippur.

According to Israeli authorities, the terrorist arrived at the area by vehicle and opened fire toward people at the spring. After the shooting, he left the vehicle while armed and escaped on foot, prompting an extensive manhunt by Israeli security forces.

IDF troops surrounded the village of Deir Nizam as the search intensified. Several hours later, soldiers from the elite Duvdevan Unit apprehended the suspect at a hospital in Ramallah following the pursuit. Israeli authorities also recovered the vehicle believed to have been used in the attack.

[COMMUNICATED]

Maamad Hashava TODAY EREV YOM KIPPUR AT 3PM

Forgotten Debt?* Damaged A Car? *Return An Item??

Keren Neki Kapayim is an innovative halachic solution developed by Gedolei Haposkim for the return of unknown debts and misplaced assets.
Join the thousands who have come clean and your Tefillos will soar this Yom Kippur.

As upstanding, committed Shomrei Torah Umitzvos, our life is all about observing the dictates of Torah and halacha to the utmost of our abilities. Obviously, we each have our shortcomings in different areas, and for this reason the Torah gives us the opportunity of Teshuva – to come clean and make good on our failings. There is one area though, for which the ordinary process of Teshuva, do not suffice to clear us of our misdeeds – that is the real of bein odom l’chaveiro – sins between man and fellow man. When it’s simply a question of a personal offense – one has to ask for forgiveness. If it’s a monetary obligation the debt must be paid up.

But what happens when we don’t even know to whom we owe whom to pay?

This is indeed a dilemma!

Are our hands completely clean?

Is there anything in our hands or in our possession that’s not 100% our own?

Perhaps, we don’t know who the owner is, but does that make it ours?

The thought is frightening!

Click HERE to join the Neki Kapayim annual Maamad Hashava!

Can we stand before Hashem pleading for mercy; asking for brachos for ourselves and our loved ones, when our hands are sullied by money that’s not ours?
The Gemara (Beitza 29a, Bava Kamma 94b) discusses the issue of returning unknown debt. Click here for halachic overview

The solution developed by the dayanim of Keren Neki Kapayim is a new and innovative idea to achieve a complete and immediate return to the true owner of the money, whoever and wherever he might me

President Donald Trump is considering a range of options for dealing with Iran, including additional military action, continued economic pressure and a possible diplomatic agreement, as Iranian leaders prepare to travel to New York for the United Nations General Assembly. Trump also indicated that he would likely be willing to meet Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian while he is in the city.

Fox News chief foreign correspondent Trey Yingst reported Sunday that he had spoken directly with Trump about the administration’s next steps toward Tehran. According to Yingst, the President said he remains in the process of deciding among several possible approaches, including renewed military operations or an attempt to reach an agreement with the Iranian government. Trump has separately said in recent days that he is approaching a major decision over whether to resume large-scale military operations against Iran.

Asked about the possibility of sitting down with Pezeshkian during the UN gathering, Trump indicated that he would likely be open to such a meeting. Pezeshkian and Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi are expected to be among the Iranian officials attending the General Assembly after the United States approved visas for the core Iranian delegation.

Trump also addressed heightened security warnings issued to Americans in the Middle East. According to Yingst, the President said he does not regard this weekend as fundamentally different from other recent weekends, despite the continuing regional tensions.

The conversation also touched on the Iran-backed Houthis in Yemen, who have recently been involved in escalating regional hostilities, including threats to major shipping routes. Yingst said Trump indicated that Washington remains in contact with the Houthis and that the group has agreed not to engage in hostilities against the United States. Trump separately said last week that Washington was in talks with the Houthis about the possibility of an agreement.

According to Yingst, Trump stressed that he has not yet settled on his next move toward Iran and cautioned Tehran against taking provocative action while the administration evaluates its options.

No firm timetable was provided for when Trump expects to reach that decision. The President has been publicly weighing whether to intensify military operations or pursue another diplomatic track, with the U.S.-Iran conflict now stretching into its seventh month.

Yingst said Trump also spoke about difficulties determining which Iranian officials have the authority and willingness to negotiate an agreement. According to the President’s account, some Iranian officials have been attempting to avoid being located amid the conflict.

The administration is also confronting divisions within Iran’s leadership, Yingst reported, pointing to Pezeshkian and Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi on one side and harder-line figures within the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps on the other. The extent to which those internal divisions would affect any potential negotiations remains unclear.

Meanwhile, the U.S. naval blockade of Iran remains in effect, continuing to place additional strain on Tehran’s economy amid the broader conflict. Iran, for its part, has warned the United States and its allies against another escalation and threatened further retaliation if additional attacks are launched.

Yingst cited CENTCOM Commander Adm. Brad Cooper as saying that more than one billion barrels of crude oil have been escorted out of the Persian Gulf since the blockade began, an effort aimed at maintaining the movement of energy supplies while increasing economic pressure on Iran.

Trump has yet to provide a specific date for deciding which course the United States will pursue. His comments indicate that military, economic and diplomatic options remain under consideration as the administration evaluates its next move.

The arrival of Pezeshkian, Araghchi and other Iranian officials in New York for the UN General Assembly could provide an opportunity for diplomatic contact. Whether such a meeting will actually take place has not been announced, leaving open the possibility of negotiations even as Trump continues to consider further military action against Tehran.