Matzav

A sweeping series of border-enforcement announcements this week signaled an intensified effort by federal authorities to deter illegal entry on every front. At the center of the rollout is a newly declared $5,000 fee that will be imposed on anyone 14 or older who entered the country without inspection, accompanied by a renewed crackdown on sea routes and a celebration by federal officials of seven consecutive months without Border Patrol releases into the U.S. interior.

In outlining the new financial penalty, Border Patrol Chief Michael Banks stressed that the rule is grounded in 8 U.S.C. §1815 and applies across the board — to those who crossed unlawfully days ago or decades ago, and whether or not they are currently tied up in immigration court. He noted that additional charges may apply under 8 U.S.C. §§2339 and 1324, signaling an expansive enforcement net.

As part of the same enforcement push, CBP’s Air and Marine Operations division issued an unambiguous warning aimed at people considering illegal maritime crossings. Their message was stark: “If you cross the border illegally, you will be caught, deported, and banned from ever returning to the United States. Don’t take to the sea!” Officials pointed to a steep rise in smuggling operations using ocean routes and vowed to block unlawful entry from the water just as aggressively as on land.

The Department of Homeland Security added to the week’s developments with a pointed declaration highlighting President Trump and Secretary Kristi Noem’s record: seven months running without a single Border Patrol release into the nation’s interior. DHS touted the milestone as evidence of a fortified enforcement strategy, describing this period as the “most secure border in history.” The agency credited interdepartmental coordination for achieving what it characterized as unprecedented control of migrant flows.

Even with that record in hand, the administration is pushing further. Banks revealed that construction of additional border barriers has resumed in the Rio Grande Valley Sector, marking a new round of wall expansion in an area long overwhelmed by illegal crossings. The move underscores that physical infrastructure remains a centerpiece of the administration’s strategy.

The combination of the new penalty, fresh maritime enforcement messaging, and DHS’s border-security declaration reflects a coordinated signal: illegal entry will meet firm consequences, and border controls are tightening at every point of access. That theme was echoed again when Banks described the fast-rising wall sections in Texas. “Solid steel wall panels are now standing tall in Harlingen, TX — marking the beginning of 17.4 miles of unyielding progress,” he said. “Impedance and denial aren’t just the goals — they’re the MISSION. THE BORDER IS STILL CLOSED.”

{Matzav.com}

The last defendant in a widely publicized hate-fueled attack in Times Square has now received his punishment, bringing an end to a case that drew national attention. Manhattan prosecutors announced that Salem Seleiman, 30, will spend two years behind bars for his role in the brutal assault on Joey Borgen.

The confrontation unfolded in 2021 as tensions surrounding the Israel–Gaza conflict spilled into the streets. Borgen had been on his way to a pro-Israel demonstration when a group of six men surrounded him near an anti-Israel rally and set upon him in an attack that was recorded and quickly circulated online.

Authorities say Seleiman was the final member of the group to face sentencing. He acknowledged his involvement earlier this year, entering guilty pleas to second-degree assault and to third-degree assault as a hate crime.

In a statement addressing the outcome, District Attorney Alvin Bragg condemned Seleiman’s conduct. “Salem Seleiman took part in the repugnant and bias-motivated assault of a Jewish man who was peacefully attending a rally,” Bragg said. “The victim was targeted based on his religion and did nothing to warrant physical violence.”

Investigators described a horrifying scene in which Borgen was forced to the pavement and repeatedly punched, kicked, sprayed with chemicals, and struck with a crutch, all while the assailants hurled slurs, calling him a “filthy Jew” and “dirty Jew.”

Borgen has since relocated to Israel, leaving New York not long after the criminal proceedings began. Seleiman, meanwhile, fled the state following the attack. Detectives tracked him down in Florida, where he was arrested in May before being extradited back to Manhattan to face charges.

Officials continue to warn that anti-Jewish hate crimes remain disproportionately high in New York City, underscoring persistent concerns about the safety of the Jewish community.

{Matzav.com}

A sweeping shift in national vaccine guidance for infants set off intense debate on Friday, as the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) voted to push back the first hepatitis B shot for babies whose mothers test negative for the virus. For more than three decades, federal guidance has emphasized administering the vaccine within the first 24 hours of life. Now, with an 8–2 vote, the committee endorsed delaying that dose until two months of age for infants born to mothers confirmed negative.

The vote also endorsed a second change: Instead of automatically giving a newborn the hepatitis B shot, the new language advises “individual decision-making in consultation with a health care provider” for babies whose mothers have tested negative. The shift has stunned a wide range of medical organizations, including the American Academy of Pediatrics, which argue that easing the universal birth recommendation erodes vital protections for infants and undermines decades of solid data demonstrating safety and effectiveness.

These decisions landed on the second day of ACIP’s December convening — a meeting marked by confusion, procedural hiccups, and unusually sharp disagreements. Thursday’s scheduled vote had to be postponed after committee members said they couldn’t clearly see the latest draft of the ballot language and were unsure how many questions they were supposed to address. Technical failures added to the disorder, prompting concerns about transparency and accuracy.

When the panel reconvened Friday, the deliberations grew more charged. Members — all appointed by Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. — opened with a reading of the proposed text. One of the strongest objections came from Restef Levi, a mathematician with no medical background, who declared that experts had “never tested (the vaccines) appropriately” and insisted that the committee should refrain from recommending any timeline at all. His remarks quickly prompted pushback from longtime vaccine specialists.

Among the most vocal critics was Dr. Cody Meissner, a respected pediatrics expert who previously served on the FDA’s vaccine advisory panel. He and ACIP member Dr. Joseph Hibbeln repeatedly warned colleagues that the committee had been handed four versions of the proposal in less than a week. Hibbeln argued that “no rational science has been presented” to justify altering a schedule that has protected millions of infants for more than three decades. As Meissner cast his vote against revising the guidance, he offered a pointed reminder: “We’ve heard ‘do no harm’ as a moral imperative. We are doing harm by changing this wording.”

Hepatitis B poses life-altering risk to young children, leading to liver disease, cancer, and early death. Universal newborn vaccination has been recommended since 1991, leading to a 99% drop in pediatric infections. Experts warn that weakening the first-dose recommendations removes a crucial safety net in cases where prenatal testing is missed — a problem the CDC estimates affects roughly 16% of pregnant women each year.

Soon after the main vote, ACIP took up another contentious proposal: whether parents should test their children after the first dose to see if it provided a sufficient antibody response. The panel narrowly endorsed encouraging such discussions between families and physicians, though even supporters acknowledged the data remain thin and some wording was unclear.

If approved by the CDC director, these measures could influence not only clinical advice but also insurance coverage. ACIP recommendations often set the benchmark for what private insurers must cover. A shift in timing or structure could therefore have financial implications for families.

Friday’s debate followed a tumultuous Thursday session in which several members criticized the limited or contradictory data presented on vaccine safety. Meissner took particular issue with one presentation that suggested safety information on the birth dose was sparse — a claim contradicted by decades of published research documenting no increase in infant death, fever, sepsis, autoimmune disease, multiple sclerosis, or other serious reactions.

Frustration spilled into the public comments as well. Dr. Jason Goldman, representing the American College of Physicians, condemned the approach taken during the proceedings, calling the meeting “completely inappropriate” and accusing ACIP of “wasting taxpayer dollars by not having scientific, rigorous discussion on issues that truly matter.” He reminded the panel that the hepatitis B birth dose has never been mandated nationwide and that families already retain the right to make individualized decisions with their doctors.

This is not the first time ACIP has confronted procedural turmoil. At its September meeting, confusion over ballot wording led members to vote down funding for a combined measles-mumps-rubella-chickenpox vaccine for toddlers, reverse themselves minutes later, and then shift course again the following day.

The public health stakes remain stark. Newborns who contract hepatitis B at or around birth face a 90% chance of developing chronic infection, often culminating in cirrhosis, liver cancer, or premature death. Past research has shown that limiting early vaccination only to babies whose mothers test positive results in missed cases — with devastating consequences.

For years, critics of vaccination have targeted the hepatitis B birth dose, including Kennedy, who inaccurately alleged in a June podcast that the shot was a “likely culprit” in autism. Extensive research has disproven such claims, consistently showing that the vaccine has one of the strongest safety records in modern medicine. Numerous studies confirm that delaying the dose offers no measurable safety benefit.

The American Academy of Pediatrics reiterated this point in strong terms. Dr. Sean O’Leary emphasized that the vaccine administered at birth is “one of the most well established safety records of any vaccine,” adding that early protection is essential to preventing chronic illness and liver cancer. “We’ve been using it for a long time. It’s one of our best tools to protect babies from chronic illness and liver cancer.” He warned that even a single missed infection can have lifelong consequences: “This is a situation where one missed case is too many.”

{Matzav.com}

A Brazilian scholar who admitted to firing an air rifle outside a Brookline synagogue on Yom Kippur is now leaving the United States after being taken into custody by federal immigration authorities earlier this week.

The Department of Homeland Security announced that Carlos Portugal Gouvea, 43, agreed to return to Brazil rather than proceed through deportation proceedings. “It is a privilege to work and study in the United States, not a right,” DHS spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin said, adding, “There is no room in the United States for brazen, violent acts of anti-Semitism like this. They are an affront to our core principals [sic] as a country and an unacceptable threat against law-abiding American citizens.”

Gouvea had pleaded guilty Nov. 13 to one misdemeanor count tied to the Oct. 2 episode outside Temple Beth Zion, admitting to the unlawful use of the air rifle. During the encounter, which unfolded on the holiest day on the Jewish calendar, he told police he had been “hunting rats.”

Authorities said he had fired twice before being approached by the synagogue’s private security team, who engaged him in what the police report described as a “brief physical struggle.” He then retreated into his nearby home, according to details reported by Brookline.News.

When officers questioned him afterward, he continued to insist that his purpose had been to target vermin, although investigators determined that one of the shots had struck and broken a car window.

Prior to the incident, Gouvea had been serving as a visiting professor at Harvard Law School under a J-1 visa. That visa was revoked by the State Department shortly after the shooting, and Harvard subsequently placed him on administrative leave. The school did not announce any further disciplinary steps.

Under the plea arrangement, additional accusations—including disorderly conduct, vandalism, and disturbing the peace—were dismissed.

The clash outside the synagogue occurred just days after President Trump said that Harvard had tentatively resolved a dispute with his administration regarding $2.4 billion in frozen federal research funds, a standoff that grew out of controversies connected to antisemitism and the aftermath of Hamas’ Oct. 7, 2023, massacre in Israel.

A Beis Din ruling in Bnei Brak has handed a decisive victory to Satmar in a high-profile dispute with guesthouse owners in Meron, determining that lodging contracts for a major Shabbos gathering will remain unchanged and that concealing the identity of the renters to prevent price-gouging was entirely legitimate, Matzav.com has learned.

The financial saga began ahead of a massive Shabbos Hisachdus in Meron, where the Satmar Rebbe of Kiryas Yoel, Rav Aharon Teitelbaum, was scheduled to spend Shabbos together with thousands of chassidim who had arrived in Israel. Demand for accommodations in the area surged, prompting Satmar organizers to secure dozens of guesthouses and rental units near the kever of Rabi Shimon bar Yochai.

To prevent extreme price inflation, Satmar enlisted an outside production company and instructed it to quietly reserve every available unit in the Meron region without disclosing that the Rebbe and thousands of followers would be arriving. Organizers feared that revealing this information would trigger massive price hikes from property owners.

After the reservations were finalized, however, one guesthouse owner discovered who the tenants really were and claimed that he could have charged far more had he known. He sought to cancel the agreement entirely. Several additional landlords joined him, filing a formal claim against both Satmar and the production company, alleging that essential information had been withheld during the booking process.

The case was brought before the Beis Din Tzedek of Bnei Brak, founded by Rav Nissim Karelitz zt”l and widely regarded as one of the most respected monetary botei din in the chareidi world. The panel consisted of Dayanim Rav Shalom Mordechai HaLevi Segal, Rav Binyomin Yechiel Posen, and Rav Mordechai Silman, highly experienced arbitrators in financial disputes. The ruling attracted unusual public interest due to the scale of the rentals involved, which included dozens of apartments and lodging complexes.

In their clear and unequivocal ruling, the dayanim upheld the original contracts in full, determining that the guesthouse owners had no basis to void the agreements. The fact that demand later proved higher than anticipated, they ruled, does not constitute any form of “mistaken transaction” and does not justify canceling a freely signed agreement. They emphasized that fluctuating market conditions are not grounds for retroactively altering a deal.

The ruling stated that “there is no flaw whatsoever in the conduct of the community and of the defendants,” adding that renters are not obligated to disclose information that might encourage unfair price gouging. The dayanim further wrote that “they are entitled to act wisely in order to obtain lodging services at reasonable prices.”

As a result, all rental agreements remain binding, leaving the disappointed Meron property owners required to honor the original rates.

{Matzav.com}

A tense exchange of messages and public statements followed a startling moment at a Manhattan charity gala, prompting NYPD Commissioner Jessica Tisch to send a personal apology to the incoming mayor’s team — an apology Mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani acknowledged on Thursday while signaling he intends to move forward without dwelling on the episode.

During his Cocoa Chat community event, Mamdani addressed the controversy directly, noting that Tisch had reached out after her brother publicly referred to him as an “enemy” of the Jewish people. “The commissioner apologized to my team for those remarks, and I look forward to being a mayor for each and every New Yorker, including Jewish New Yorkers,” Mamdani said.

Mamdani underscored that the friction created by the comment would not derail his professional relationship with Tisch, whom he has decided to retain as head of the NYPD despite their policy differences. He reiterated that he does not intend to let the distraction impede his administration’s priorities.

“My focus in my conversations with Commissioner Tisch is on delivering public safety and doing so in tandem with justice for New Yorkers across the five boroughs,” he said. “The apology was one that she conveyed to the team. I appreciated it, and my focus is back on delivering.”

The NYPD also issued a statement through spokesperson Brad Weekes, amplifying Tisch’s reassurance to the public. “I understand the fear in the Jewish community. My sincere belief is that the mayor-elect will live up to the commitment he’s made to be a mayor for all New Yorkers, including the Jewish community.”

The apology was prompted by comments made the previous night by Benjamin Tisch, billionaire CEO of Loews Corporation, during the Met Council’s annual gala at the Mandarin Oriental Hotel. Attendees told the New York Daily News that Tisch’s decision to brand Mamdani an “enemy” stunned the room, especially given that Commissioner Tisch had recently agreed to continue serving under the incoming administration.

One witness described the crowd’s reaction succinctly: “It was just like, ‘wow, he’s actually going to go there.’” Benjamin Tisch has offered no public explanation or follow-up since the event.

Mamdani — a democratic socialist and outspoken critic of Israel’s policies — has repeatedly denied accusations that his political positions amount to antisemitism, even as he has faced sustained attacks from groups aligned against him. The Tisch family as a whole invested heavily in efforts to defeat him during the 2025 mayoral race, donating over a million dollars to super PACs supporting Andrew Cuomo, according to the Daily News. Commissioner Tisch did not participate in those donations.

In an earlier interview with the outlet, Mamdani said of their policy disagreements: “The two of us will not shy away from the fact that we hold disagreements on certain issues… but I also believe that these disagreements are not only reconcilable, but they are the sign of a healthy partnership to come.”

The uproar arrives at a pivotal moment for the incoming administration, with Mamdani set to take office on January 1 — just weeks away from the start of his term and his effort to set a steady tone amid early political turbulence.

{Matzav.com}

Leading Israeli rabbonim have issued a strongly worded public letter condemning a new employment trend in which chareidi women have begun working in a particular field. The letter, titled “And He Shall See No Unseemly Thing in You, and Turn Away From You,” warns that such work is inappropriate and violates long-standing standards of tznius.

The rabbonim expressed alarm over reports from Tzefas that chareidi women have recently begun working as drivers in public transportation. “With great concern we have heard about a new phenomenon taking place here in our holy city of Tzefas, where chareidi women are serving as drivers in public transportation,” the letter begins.

They stressed that, historically, “many of the great leaders of Israel have prohibited women from driving vehicles altogether and viewed it as a serious breach in the boundaries of modesty.”

The letter then intensifies its tone, arguing that becoming public-transportation drivers represents a further decline. “It never occurred to us that they would descend even more steps backward, to serve as drivers in public transportation. In truth, this is not fitting even for non-Jewish women, and even the more refined among them would not degrade themselves with such a lowly job — and all the more so, infinitely more so, for chareidi women,” the rabbonim wrote.

They added that several severe halachic and modesty concerns are intertwined with this type of work, saying some individuals “do not feel the seriousness of the prohibitions involved. This contradicts entirely the Torah’s guidelines for modesty.”

The letter also warns of spiritual consequences, stating: “Woe to us on the Day of Judgment, woe to us on the Day of Rebuke, if we do not erect a wall around this matter, so that it should not be seen or found among the daughters of Israel, lest judgment befall us because of it.”

In their concluding appeal, the rabbonim urge immediate withdrawal from the profession. “We hereby call upon those who have already been tempted into this degrading job to abandon this improper path immediately and seek other forms of employment in accordance with modesty and halacha. We ask that all who are able do everything within their power to stop this destructive development from spreading among the Jewish people.”

The letter is signed “in pain and fear for the suffering of the holy Shechinah.”

{Matzav.com}

Singer Meidad Tasa—once one of the most iconic child performers in the golden era of Jewish music—celebrated his 32nd birthday on the program “Ba Ba’Arba,” where he sat down for a candid conversation with host Kobi Brummer. The two spoke openly about Tasa’s personal growth, his musical aspirations, his struggle with stage fright, and the emotional legacy left behind by his late brother.

Brummer opened the interview by admitting he struggled to believe Tasa had reached age 32. Tasa laughed and replied, “People always said I look young, but I’ve learned a lot about life. I’m at the age of ‘lev’—thirty-two… I feel like my heart has become stronger.” He said that although he has matured personally and professionally, “I still feel like the same kid—just with more experience and stability.”

During the discussion, Tasa revealed the classic song he dreams of reviving. “‘Adon Olam,’ the greatest of them all… a song people loved that somehow disappeared,” he said. He hinted that he will soon release a special rendition of another piece but declined to reveal which one.

The singer also offered advice to anyone facing stage fright. According to him, fear comes from uncertainty. “We’re afraid of the unknown. The first step is to acknowledge the fear. When you ignore it, you stay stuck,” he explained.

In one of the most emotional moments of the interview, Tasa spoke about his brother Aviel, who tragically passed away in a mikvah in Bnei Brak. “He was a true tzaddik. He immersed in the mikvah every day, he learned in the Beis Shmaya yeshiva, he ran a charity fund, and he used to strengthen students without anyone knowing,” Tasa said. He shared that he often bought his brother new tzitzis, and that Aviel left him with a lasting message: treat every person with dignity. “At big concerts, I would stop and listen to a child asking for something. That came from him. That’s my only real possession—the way you treat another human being.”

As the interview wrapped up, Tasa was asked about the musical figures who shaped his style. “I took something from everyone,” he said. “From Avraham Fried, I learned vocal control and stage presence. From Chaim Yisrael, the old-style Mizrachi trills.”

What would he have done if he hadn’t become a singer? Tasa answered without hesitation: “I would want to be a pianist. To play, play, play—and forget about the world.” Torah study in kollel, he said, is his life’s anchor, but music—especially the piano—gives him a space for creativity, expression, and emotional breath.

{Matzav.com}

A direct and unusually sharp confrontation erupted Thursday evening between Supreme Court Justice Yitzchak Amit and Justice Minister Yariv Levin, after Amit delivered a forceful speech accusing Levin of orchestrating “a campaign to harm the judicial branch.” Levin answered swiftly with his own pointed rebuke: “What did you think would happen when you put yourself above the law?”

The dispute surfaced at a conference on public law, where Amit criticized Levin for refusing to recognize his appointment as president of the Supreme Court — an appointment made in defiance of statutory procedures. According to Amit, the minister’s refusal to cooperate reflects an intentional effort to undermine the judiciary, citing Levin’s own earlier remark: “What was built here over decades takes time to dismantle, it doesn’t end in one day.” Amit added, “The words speak for themselves.”

Amit opened his remarks by warning that “the attack on the judicial system continues in full force.” Reflecting on the recent ruling striking down the Reasonableness Law, he compared the country’s constitutional instability to a democracy caught in a dangerous spiral, saying that Israel’s democratic system “has entered a turbulent vortex from which we have not yet emerged.”

While emphasizing that public criticism of the courts is legitimate and essential, he noted that dissent must not morph into direct obstruction. He condemned what he described as coordinated efforts to disrupt hearings, saying: “Unfortunately, in these days, we are witnessing an unprecedented phenomenon of attempts — organized and timed — to interfere with and disrupt hearings in the courtrooms.” Such actions, he said, ultimately harm the public seeking fair and thorough judicial review.

Amit revealed that earlier this week, the court authorized restrictions on public attendance in hearings likely to be disrupted, explaining that when a hearing is broadcast and there is risk of interference, “it will be possible to restrict admission to the courtroom.”

He argued that personal attacks on judges have replaced substantive legal discourse, warning that the rise of online speech has flattened public understanding into simplistic slogans. He described some of the rhetoric directed at judges as “verbal violence” and said it is being used deliberately to weaken judicial independence. These attacks, he argued, are part of “a broader campaign to erode and harm judicial independence.”

Amit then accused Levin of directly contributing to this erosion by boycotting Israel’s top court for more than a year: “For about a year and a half, the justice minister has been boycotting the judicial system, and by doing so, he is boycotting the Israeli public that turns to the courts.” Amit said he repeatedly urged Levin to return to professional cooperation, but these attempts received “no response — not a sisterly hand, but a turned back.”

Levin’s response was immediate and scathing. Addressing Amit directly, he opened: “Respect democracy, and I will be the first to respect you.”

He accused Amit and other senior judges of illegally seizing control of the Judicial Selection Committee. “Justice Yitzchak Amit, what did you think would happen when you and your colleagues, in an unlawful order, took over the committee for selecting judges?” Levin asked. He said Amit prevented examination of serious complaints against him and “imposed on the citizens of Israel a ‘president’ of a court who tramples again and again the majority of the public.”

“You place yourself and your colleagues above the law. Everything is permitted for you,” Levin charged, adding that Amit blocked investigative committees in key scandals and fostered a culture of mutually protective behavior: “Close for me and I’ll close for you.”

Levin turned Amit’s earlier criticism on its head, saying: “There was one thing you said tonight that was correct: I really am dismantling. I am dismantling brick by brick the fortress of lies in which you and your colleagues sit. But I am also building — rebuilding the judicial system as it was in its days of greatness.”

He ended with a final challenge: “Every compromise offered to you, you dismissed with contempt. So I will nevertheless offer another compromise proposal: Respect democracy, and I will be the first to respect you.”

{Matzav.com}

A dramatic escape attempt by members of the radical Lev Tahor cult was thwarted at a U.S. airport late Wednesday night, when two families — four adults and five young children — were taken into custody by undercover FBI agents just moments before boarding a flight to Guatemala.

According to officials, the group had landed back in the United States only two days earlier after being expelled from Colombia. In an effort to avoid detection while arranging their next move, the adults reportedly swapped the radical cult’s distinctive clothing for traditional chassidic attire. They successfully passed passport control and routine airport security checks before agents intervened at the gate.

Footage from the scene showed the group being escorted out of the terminal by law enforcement.

Their arrest comes on the heels of a major international operation. On November 23, Colombian authorities announced the detention of nine adult members of Lev Tahor along with 17 minors. Immigration officials explained that five of the rescued children — all of whom hold Canadian, American, or Guatemalan citizenship — had been flagged by Interpol under a yellow notice due to fears of kidnapping, human trafficking, or exploitation.

Five days later, Colombia confirmed that the adults and all 17 minors had been deported to the United States. A spokesperson for Colombia’s immigration agency said that several children from the group were also transported back to the U.S. on the same flight and handed over to American child-protection services. Colombian police accompanied them onboard.

Local security officials revealed additional concerns uncovered during the probe. Members of Lev Tahor had reportedly planned to settle on a remote private property in Yaromal, a move that could have severely hindered rescue efforts. “Their intention was to disappear onto private land,” a security source said, adding that the plan raised “serious concerns.”

After the deportation, two of the families made a quick attempt to flee again — this time to Guatemala — but were intercepted at the last possible moment. Authorities say further investigations are underway.

{Matzav.com}

Revelations of more than a billion dollars in welfare fraud across Minnesota have ignited sharp questions about what Rep. Ilhan Omar knew regarding the massive schemes carried out within the Somali community she represents. The scope of the theft — sprawling across programs meant to help vulnerable families — has intensified scrutiny of Omar’s long-standing associations with individuals and groups now implicated in the investigations.

Multiple reports note that Omar has maintained close relationships with entities and figures tied directly to several of the fraud cases. The widening scandal, which implicates Minnesota’s expansive welfare network, has now surpassed the billion-dollar mark in misappropriated taxpayer funds.

One of the most glaring examples centers on Safari Restaurant in Minneapolis, a gathering place Omar has used for campaign events and celebrations. That same establishment has been repeatedly referenced in investigative findings. Owners Salim Said and Aimee Bock, who were deeply involved in Omar’s orbit, were convicted for their central role in the Feeding Our Future scheme — a $250 million swindle siphoning off funds intended for children’s meals. Chadwick Moore of the New York Post reported that Omar not only celebrated her 2018 victory at the restaurant but also introduced the very legislation that enabled the scam. Despite those ties, she has insisted she had no knowledge of any wrongdoing.

In August, Said was convicted of stealing $12 million from food-aid allocations under the 2020 MEALS Act — legislation Omar authored and championed as it sailed through Congress with bipartisan backing. Footage even surfaced of Omar promoting the program inside Safari Restaurant, praising the initiative that fraudsters later exploited.

Another troubling link comes from within her own political team. Guhaad Hashi Said, a Democrat activist who served on Omar’s campaign from 2018 to 2020, admitted to masterminding a sham nonprofit called Advance Youth Athletic Development. Claiming to feed 5,000 children, he secured $3.2 million in fraudulent funding. Throughout his tenure, Said was heavily involved in turnout operations for the Somali community and frequently appeared alongside Omar.

Financial ties also emerged as part of the scandal. Omar accepted donations from several individuals later charged in the schemes, though in 2022 she returned $7,400 in contributions traced back to those convicted. Nonetheless, she has continued to insist she had no awareness of any criminal activity.

As the fallout grows, Omar has attempted to reframe public criticism as an attack on the Somali community. She recently published an op-ed in the New York Times, brushing aside Trump’s condemnation of the billion-dollar theft and labeling his concerns as “bigotry.” Outraged over his comment describing her and large numbers of unassimilated Somali migrants as “garbage,” she accused him of attempting to “silence” Black and Muslim “newcomers.”

In the op-ed, she asserted: “He fails to realize how deeply Somali Americans love this country. We are doctors, teachers, police officers and elected leaders working to make our country better. Over 90 percent of Somalis living in my home state, Minnesota, are American citizens by birth or naturalization. Some even supported Mr. Trump at the ballot box.”

Omar continued denouncing Trump’s “dehumanizing” remarks, insisting that Somali migrants care profoundly about the United States. Yet she did not confront the vast fraud schemes carried out within her community nor the allegations of millions in U.S. taxpayer dollars being funneled by Somali networks to the terror group Al-Shabaab.

The unanswered questions — and the scale of the fraud — ensure the pressure on Omar will only intensify.

{Matzav.com}

CNN found itself in an awkward spotlight after an on-air description by host Jake Tapper was immediately contradicted by his own broadcast. While introducing new developments in the Washington, D.C., pipe-bomb investigation, Tapper referred to the suspect as a white man—only for his program moments later to display images showing otherwise.

Tapper had told viewers, “Brian Cole Jr., a 30-year-old white man from the D.C. suburbs, is charged with transporting an explosive device in interstate commerce and with malicious destruction by means of explosion.” But the footage that followed clearly showed a black man identified as the same suspect, prompting swift attention to the discrepancy.

Authorities have stated that the man in question, Brian Cole Jr., was taken into custody and faces a series of federal charges. As Breitbart News noted, Cole was “arrested and charged with placing the pipe bombs at the RNC and the DNC on January 5, 2021.” The outlet further reported, “He was also charged with transporting an explosive device in interstate commerce and the attempted malicious destruction by means of explosive materials, with more charges likely to result from the ongoing investigation.”

Investigators reportedly connected Cole to the bomb locations nearly five years after the incident. Officials used license-plate readers along with cell-tower data to place him near both party headquarters on the day the devices were planted.

In a statement marking the arrest, U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi emphasized the significance of finally breaking the case. “Today’s arrest was the result of good, diligent police work and collaboration on a case that languished for four years under the prior administration,” she said. “The American people are safer thanks to this morning’s successful operation.”

{Matzav.com}

The Supreme Court stepped in on Thursday and allowed Texas to move ahead with its newly drawn congressional map, a ruling that hands Republicans a significant political edge heading into the 2026 midterms and potentially delivers them up to five additional House seats.

Texas had asked the justices to freeze a three-judge district court ruling that struck down the map as an unconstitutional racial gerrymander. The high court granted that request in an unsigned order, prompting Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton to declare victory. “Texas is paving the way as we take our country back, district by district, state by state,” he said. “This map reflects the political climate of our state and is a massive win for Texas and every conservative who is tired of watching the left try to upend the political system with bogus lawsuits.”

The Supreme Court suggested Texas is likely to prevail when the case returns for full review. According to the order, the state met the “traditional criteria for interim relief,” and the lower court committed “at least two serious errors” in tossing the map. The majority faulted the judges for refusing to apply the standard presumption that lawmakers act in “good faith,” insisting that ambiguous evidence was improperly construed “against the legislature.”

The justices also said that challengers should have faced a “dispositive or near-dispositive” adverse inference because they did not submit their own alternative map—one that would accomplish Texas’ stated partisan objectives without the racial characteristics they objected to.

Timing also carried enormous weight. With the candidate-filing deadline arriving on Sunday, the majority quoted earlier decisions warning that lower courts “should ordinarily not alter the election rules on the eve of an election.” They concluded that the district court had “improperly inserted itself into an active primary campaign,” disrupting election processes and disturbing the “delicate federal-state balance in elections.” The ruling keeps the Texas map intact for 2026 as long as the state promptly files its appeal.

Justice Samuel Alito, joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch, issued a separate opinion asserting that partisan strategy—not race—was the true motivation behind the Texas plan. He wrote that it is “indisputable” that the “impetus for the adoption of the Texas map (like the map subsequently adopted in California) was partisan advantage pure and simple.” He added that the usual “clear-error” deference did not apply because the district court “based its findings upon a mistaken impression of applicable legal principles.”

Alito argued that because political affiliation and racial demographics often correlate, racial-gerrymander claims can “easily” be weaponized “for partisan ends.” As a result, he said challengers must “disentangle race and politics” by offering an alternative map that produces the same partisan balance. Since the plaintiffs’ experts never did that, he concluded the record supported a “strong inference that the State’s map was indeed based on partisanship, not race.”

Justice Elena Kagan, joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson, issued a blistering dissent. She maintained that the three-judge panel had done “everything one could ask” to resolve the dispute and accused the majority of discarding the rigorous “clear-error” standard in favor of a rushed review “based on its perusal, over a holiday weekend, of a cold paper record.” She warned that the ruling “guarantees that Texas’s new map, with all its enhanced partisan advantage, will govern next year’s elections” and “disserves the millions of Texans whom the District Court found were assigned to their new districts based on their race.”

Texas House Democrats blasted the decision on X, writing that “the Supreme Court failed Texas voters today, and they failed American democracy. Every Texan who testified against these maps should be angry. Every community that fought for generations to build political power and watched Republicans gerrymander it away should be angry. Democrats will continue to fight.”

Across the country, the ruling is intensifying an already heated redistricting fight. President Donald Trump has urged GOP-led states to redraw maps mid-decade to secure the party’s House majority heading into 2026. Texas, Missouri, North Carolina, Ohio, and Utah have responded with newly approved maps, collectively positioning Republicans to gain as many as nine seats.

Meanwhile, Republican leaders in Florida and Indiana have launched redistricting discussions or special sessions, though internal disagreements and legal uncertainties have stalled final action.

Democrat-led states are maneuvering in response. California voters approved a constitutional amendment championed by Democrat leadership that temporarily sidelines the state’s independent redistricting commission and replaces its map with one expected to generate roughly five additional Democratic seats. In Virginia and Maryland, officials are exploring ways to circumvent or influence their own independent bodies as they consider maps that could add to their party’s tally, though those efforts remain early-stage and likely headed toward legal challenges.

The Texas ruling signals that the coming national battle over congressional districts is far from over—and that the Supreme Court is poised to play a decisive role in shaping the next electoral map of the United States.

{Matzav.com}

The BBC is rolling out compulsory education programs on both antisemitism and Islamophobia, marking the first stage of a new internal push to address bias within the corporation.

Outgoing Director-General Tim Davie wrote to employees, saying, “The BBC is for everyone, and we are clear that everyone working here should feel they belong. As an organization we stand united against any form of discrimination, prejudice, or intolerance.” He emphasized that the antisemitism module is already active and that the Islamophobia component will go live in February, with a six-month deadline for completion. “I know that everyone will be committed to the training, ensuring the BBC is a role model as an inclusive and tolerant workplace,” he added.

The initiative comes only after months of internal pressure. Over 200 Jewish employees and contributors submitted a letter titled “Being Jewish and working at the BBC,” in which they warned that the broadcaster had become “a safe space to be Jewish” no longer. They later followed up, accusing executives of offering “words not action” after the Board allegedly failed to investigate claims of antisemitism.

Jewish communal leaders had also raised the alarm. The Board of Deputies of British Jews met with BBC Chair Samir Shah, Davie, and senior staff to discuss everything from antisemitism to persistent concerns about BBC Arabic and the network’s Middle East reporting. Board President Phil Rosenberg explained, “Over the last 18 months, the Board of Deputies’ engagement with the BBC has focused on the urgent need for change in both culture and content at the Corporation. We have always said that a key component of the cultural change required is a proper understanding of contemporary antisemitism, provided by credible organisations.”

Advocacy groups welcomed the new training, though many noted that it was long overdue. Danny Stone MBE of the Antisemitism Policy Trust stated, “Against a backdrop of rising antisemitism in the UK and across the globe, staff at our national broadcaster must understand how to spot and tackle anti-Jewish racism and support colleagues who face it. This training will assist in that effort.”

Dr. Dave Rich MBE from the Community Security Trust echoed that sentiment, remarking: “The BBC has faced serious challenges in its handling of antisemitism, but we have been encouraged by the open and collaborative way in which they have worked with CST, APT and their own Jewish staff to develop this important training.”

The network’s credibility has taken hit after hit over the past several years, especially regarding its coverage of Israel. The backlash intensified after Hamas’s October 7, 2023 massacre, with critics pointing to a pattern of deeply flawed reporting. One notorious example came in November 2023, when the corporation apologized for wrongly alleging that IDF troops had deliberately targeted medical personnel at Gaza’s Shifa Hospital. Months earlier, the BBC had asserted—again incorrectly—that Israel caused a deadly hospital explosion later proven by the IDF to have been triggered by an Islamic Jihad rocket. The BBC ultimately acknowledged that “it was false to speculate” about the blast.

The problems didn’t stop there. Earlier this year, the broadcaster found itself under renewed scrutiny after discovering that a narrator in the BBC documentary “Gaza: How to Survive a Warzone” was the son of a senior Hamas figure. Following widespread condemnation, the BBC conceded that the film contained “serious flaws.”

Amid the mounting controversies, Davie recently announced that he would step down, a decision that followed public outrage over an edited broadcast of President Donald Trump’s January 6, 2021 remarks. He will stay at the helm until his replacement is chosen.

{Matzav.com}

WATCH:

LISTEN:

​​For more info, email bitachon4life@gmail.com.

LISTEN:

Bibi Netanyahu released an English-language video Thursday night, using the platform to sharply criticize the legal case against him and accuse prosecutors of running a political campaign under the guise of justice.

In discussing Case 1000, Netanyahu ridiculed the very premise of the allegations, declaring it the “Bugs Bunny trial.” He argued that the central claim — that he improperly benefited from media treatment — never held water. “I am accused of receiving favorable press coverage from a second-rate internet site,” Netanyahu said. He added, “that’s the so-called ‘bribe.’ Except, as the trial progressed, it turned out that I didn’t get favorable press coverage, I got unfavorable press coverage.”

Netanyahu went on to say that the judges themselves questioned the bribery claim years ago. According to him, “Yes, it’s a political trial,” and he insisted, “They’re not interested in justice, they’re interested in getting me out of office.” He described the prosecution’s refusal to drop that portion of the indictment as further proof of political motivation.

He then shifted to the specific items referenced in the case, dismissing them as absurd. The standout example, he said, was a toy gift given decades ago. He remarked that one of the accusations centers on a Bugs Bunny figurine he received from Arnon Milchan nearly three decades earlier. “From now on, this trial will be known as the Bugs Bunny trial,” he announced.

Netanyahu acknowledged other gifts — cigars included — but blasted the charges as baseless, contending the entire matter is built on “idiodic charges.” He noted that the proceedings have already stretched across four years and may continue for several more, all while requiring his presence in court three times weekly.

In closing, Netanyahu argued that the drawn-out process is draining national energy and resources. “This farce is costing the country a lot,” he said, lamenting the time being taken from diplomatic and technological progress. “There’s big things to do – there are peace treaties to get, there’s AI and other technologies that are amazing, could change Israel, could change the Middle East, could change the world.”

Frustrated by what he sees as misplaced priorities in the justice system, he summed up his message bluntly: “That’s what this trial is about – Bugs Bunny and cigars. Ridiculous.”

{Matzav.com}

An Arabic-language report out of London is stirring anxiety within Hamas ranks, as Asharq Al-Awsat revealed that the organization is bracing for what it believes could be Israeli action targeting its senior operatives beyond the Middle East.

Following the attempted hit in Doha, the group’s figures living outside Gaza have dramatically escalated their own defense measures. One insider admitted there is “an assumption that Israel will continue to track them using sophisticated technology,” a concern now shaping every aspect of their movements.

The newspaper released what it said was an internal document outlining upgraded security protocols handed to Hamas leaders stationed overseas, reflecting the seriousness with which the organization is treating the threat.

The instructions emphasize that gatherings must no longer occur at recurring sites. Instead, leadership meetings should shift unpredictably, with both timing and location constantly altered to avoid patterns that could be traced.

Hamas officials were further told that all phones and electronic devices must stay no closer than 70 meters from any meeting zone. The document bars any electronic or medical item inside the room, explicitly naming air conditioners, smartwatches, routers, screens, and even intercom systems.

Before any discussion begins, operatives are now required to conduct comprehensive sweeps for concealed surveillance cameras, a final layer in a growing maze of precautions meant to shield the group from what it fears is an expanding Israeli reach.

{Matzav.com}

Vice President JD Vance is publicly disputing warnings from fellow Republicans who argue that antisemitism is taking root within parts of the political right, creating a sharp contrast between himself and figures such as Sen. Ted Cruz. While Cruz and others have been sounding increasingly urgent alarms, Vance insists the charge is unfounded and unfair.

In a broad interview with NBC News, Vance rejected the notion that conservatives are experiencing a rise in anti-Jewish sentiment. He portrayed the allegations as attacks on the party itself, insisting they amount to “slanderous” mischaracterizations. “When I talk to young conservatives, I don’t see some simmering antisemitism that’s exploding,” Vance said. He added, “In any bunch of apples, you have bad people … But it’s slanderous to say the Republican Party … is extremely antisemitic.”

Vance argued that the issue should be viewed through the lens of individual behavior rather than a pervasive cultural trend, noting that judging others based on “immutable characteristics” contradicts both religious and American values. His framing puts him at odds with Republicans who believe the shift is not only real but dangerous.

Cruz, who is positioning himself for a possible 2028 showdown with Vance, has been increasingly vocal about what he sees as a rising tide of hostility toward Jews among some conservative activists. He has pointed to several developments as evidence of a deeper problem, including young conservatives pressing Vance with antagonistic questions about Israel, the growing influence of Tucker Carlson, and rhetoric from segments of the populist right that echoes narratives typically associated with fringe ideologies.

Carlson — a close ally of Vance — plays a central role in Cruz’s critique. Carlson’s recent decision to feature a Holocaust denier on his podcast led to widespread condemnation, including from Cruz. Carlson has also advanced claims that members of the Jewish community view as deeply offensive, asserting that Jews control the banking system, Congress, and even President Donald Trump. He further accused Israel of committing genocide in Gaza as it sought the release of hostages held by Hamas.

These perspectives have been amplified by influencers aligned with “New Right” and national conservative factions, many of whom cast Israel as a costly foreign entanglement or accuse Jewish American leaders of steering U.S. policy in unwanted directions. While they deny any discriminatory intent, many of the narratives they elevate overlap with long-standing antisemitic tropes.

Vance’s political alliances make it difficult to separate his posture from the broader movement reshaping parts of the right. His trip to Israel underscored that tension. Instead of offering the full-throated backing that had long characterized Republican support for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Vance adopted a more critical tone, highlighting what he described as policy missteps and raising questions about Israel’s approach to the conflict.

His stance reflects a growing shift among segments of the conservative base — one that diverges sharply from traditional Republican figures such as Cruz, Nikki Haley, Newt Gingrich, and Mike Pence, all of whom have maintained strong, unequivocal support for Israel.

Against that backdrop, Vance’s assurances that antisemitism is not gaining traction on the right place him squarely in the middle of a widening Republican debate. Even as he aligns with the populist wing, the lingering tensions within the broader movement — including within the orbit of President Donald Trump — make clear that the party is grappling with profound internal divisions over Israel, foreign policy, and the boundaries of public discourse.

{Matzav.com}