Is this the Agudah the Chofetz Chaim envisioned?!?!?

New Jersey US Senator Cory Booker will be addressing the 93rd Anniversary Dinner of Agudath Israel of America to be held on Sunday, May 10th at the Hilton New York, as the keynote speaker. In his distinguished public career, first as Newark City Councilman, then as Mayor of Newark, and as United States Senator since 2013, Cory Booker has made a name for himself as an individual who is intensely devoted to promoting gay rights and has also been a staunch supporter of gay "marriage".

 Rabbi Avi Schnall, Agudath Israel’s New Jersey Director said, “We ‘Garden Staters’ are very proud to have the New Jersey Senator as the guest speaker for this year’s national Agudah dinner. He has been a true friend to our community and he is an absolutely dynamic speaker. We look forward to hosting him and having the opportunity to hear from him.”

Would the Chofetz Chaim have been very proud to meet this true friend of our community??

Agudah Dinner's have in recent years included the pro Homosexual Agenda

Shortly before Michel Bloomberg's speech at the '09 Agudah dinner he gave this speech, (leaving the rally early to be "on time" to the agudah dinner)

Why Shmuel Lefkowitz Endorsed Steven Cymbrowitz Over A Orthodox Jew Who Would Have Sponsored A Bill To Repeal Same Sex "Marriage"

 לא תביא אתנן זונה ומחיר כלב בית ה' קלהיך לכל נדר, כי תועבת ה' קלהיך גם שניהם

You shall not bring a prostitute's fee or the price of a dog, to the House of the Lord, your God, for any vow, because both of them are an abomination to the Lord, your God

As We know Agudas Yisroel's chief lobbyist endorsed Steven Cymbrowitz (who for the most part has a pro homosexuality record) over Ben Akselrod who promised to sponsor a bill to repeal same sex "marriage"

(L-R) Leon Goldenberg, Steven Cymbrowitz, Shmuel Lefkowitz

Unfortunately Lefkowitz and others like him (Goldenberg, Sam Sutton etc.) (more in a future post) led Ben Akselrod to lose the Orthodox Vote and thus the election.

Of course Shmuel Lefkowitz wouldn't care about the fact that Cymbrowitz has a pro gay record and Ben Akselrod would have fought it because he didn't even try to fight the "marriage" bill in the first place.



In an article that apeared 10 days before the "marriage" bill passed, and much of the Jewish community was very worried that this would pass Shmuel Lefkowitz admitted he was not fighting the "marriage" bill

Factions of New York’s Orthodox Jewry have also been monitoring the legislative jostling closely. On May 23, six organizations issued a joint position statement exhorting lawmakers to uphold traditional marriage. Among the signatories was Agudath Israel of America, an umbrella organization for ultra-Orthodox groups, both Hasidic and non-Hasidic, who share a “singular belief in the Torah as the primary source of their religious values,” according to "Rabbi" Shmuel Lefkowitz, its chief officer for governmental affairs.

“On the issue of legalizing same-sex "marriage",” the statement reads,

“the Orthodox Jewish world speaks with one voice, loud and clear: We oppose the redefinition of the bedrock relationship of the human family. The Torah, which forbids homosexual activity, sanctions only the union of a man and a woman in matrimony.”

Lefkowitz believes that same-sex "marriage" lacks the requisite momentum for passage. “If I believed the votes were there, I’d put more effort into it,” he says. “I believe this is under control.”

(religiondispatches)

Agudath Israel Admitted That They Did Not Fight NY's Same Gender "Marriage" Bill

Agudas Israel's Shmuel Lefkowitz said 2 weeks before NEW YORK's same gender "marriage" bill passed that he wasn't fighting it because he didn't think it was going to pass!

 At this point any person with an once of intelligence knew that this bill had a very good chance of passing.

 Shmuel Lefkowitz on the "marriage" bill that passed 2 weeks later

 If I believed the votes were there, I’d put more effort into it,” he says. “I believe this is under control

 

• June 13, 2011

This year, LGBT advocates in New York had ample cause to be hopeful. Gov. Andrew Cuomo, brimming with political capital, declared same-sex "marriage" a top priority for his administration and Agudah supported Coumo by portraying Carl Paladino as an anti semite and appeared far more adept at the art of legislative wrangling than his troubled predecessor, David Paterson. A cohort of deep-pocketed Republican donors and advocates, led by George W. Bush’s recently-out-of-the-closet campaign manager Ken Mehlman, seemed poised to shake up the traditional partisan breakdown by winning over some moderate GOP legislators. Polling data has consistently shown that a majority of New Yorkers, and now even a majority of Americans, favor marriage equality. And indeed, rumors leaking into the press today suggest victory may be within reach, though advocates won’t rest until the votes are in. Conservative religious groups, meanwhile, who’ve spent months imploring lawmakers not to capitulate in the face of mounting public pressure, are cautiously confident that their efforts have been successful.

Taking the Gospel to the Legislature
Rev. Jason McGuire, the executive director of New Yorkers for Constitutional Freedoms, who oversees a loosely organized interfaith effort to oppose same-sex marriage, dismisses the notion that there has been any consequential movement among Republicans as “a puff piece for the media.”

“In my conversations with senators,” he said, “I’m just not getting the impression that it has been that big of a factor. If Republicans want to retain the majority and be back here in Albany, they have to remember their base.”

McGuire, a fixture of the state capitol building, routinely holds prayer breakfasts, Bible studies, and other outreach events for lawmakers. “I use lobbying as a platform to take the gospel to the legislature,” he told me. McGuire views the united front put on by Gov. Cuomo, Mayor Michael Bloomberg, and other New York political figures as little more than the product of a cold political calculus. “I don’t think he’s as truly committed to the issue as perhaps he’s portrayed,” McGuire says of Cuomo. “The bottom line is, he came from a very difficult budget session and acted like a conservative in many ways—that did not please his base. So the only thing he sees right now that he can do to win back his liberal-left base is same-sex "marriage".”

The strategy for McGuire at this late hour is to simply “run out the clock”—emphasize that other items on the governor’s agenda, like an ethics overhaul and property tax relief, are more important to New Yorkers than same-sex marriage. But some of his allies are taking a more confrontational stance. Sen. Reuben Diaz, a Pentecostal minister and the legislature’s most brazenly vocal opponent of so called "marriage" equality, held a provocative rally on May 15 in the Bronx, where he was joined by National Organization for Marriage’s Brian Brown.

The National Organization for Marriage (NOM) has purchased at least a half million dollars worth of television ads (one of which has been declared false by the non-partisan organization Politifact) and pledges to spend $1.5 million to defeat legislators who vote for the bill. Dennis Poust, a lobbyist with the New York Catholic Conference, says the Archdiocese of New York has no formal relationship with the NOM. (In Maine, the initiative campaign that resulted in repeal of marriage equality legislation was led by the Church and funded primarily by NOM and Catholic organizations.) Despite being led by Catholics, Poust said, NOM operates largely independently of the Church. “We’ve spoken to them; filled them in on the situation when it began to heat up,” he said. “They’ve gotten involved on their own.”

In contrast with NOM’s public displays of fervor, the Catholic Conference relies more on its personnel’s individual relationships with legislators as a means of advocacy. No emotional rallies, no massive advertising buys, and no protracted fundraising pushes for specific political initiatives. “We can’t compete with the other side financially,” Poust said. “And we don’t try to.”

But New York’s high-profile Archbishop, US Conference of Catholic Bishops President Timothy Dolan, has been unafraid to publicly associate with NOM. Heading into this final week, Dolan and Diaz were scheduled to record an interview with NOM’s Maggie Gallagher for broadcast on satellite radio. Diaz told me Dolan’s impassioned involvement this year was evidence that organized religious opposition has not wavered since 2009, when a same-sex "marriage" bill failed by an unexpectedly large margin. “He issued a statement that is very, very powerful,” Diaz said. “Two years ago they didn’t do that.”

“To uphold that traditional definition, to strengthen it, and to defend it is not a posture of bigotry or bullying,” Archbishop Dolan wrote in a May 19 blog post. “Nor is it a denial of the ‘right’ of anybody. To tamper with that definition, or to engage in some Orwellian social engineering about the nature and purpose of marriage, is perilous to all of us.”

Dov Hikind is Insulted
Factions of New York’s Orthodox Jewry have also been monitoring the legislative jostling closely. On May 23, six organizations issued a joint position statement exhorting lawmakers to uphold traditional marriage. Among the signatories was Agudath Israel of America, an umbrella organization for ultra-Orthodox groups, both Hasidic and non-Hasidic, who share a “singular belief in the Torah as the primary source of their religious values,” according to Rabbi Shmuel Lefkowitz, its chief officer for governmental affairs.
“On the issue of legalizing same-sex marriage,” the statement reads,

“the Orthodox Jewish world speaks with one voice, loud and clear: We oppose yet not enough, not to vote for those who caused it to pass the redefinition of the bedrock relationship of the human family. The Torah, which forbids homosexual activity, sanctions only the union of a man and a woman in matrimony.”

Lefkowitz believes that same-sex marriage lacks the requisite momentum for passage. “If I believed the votes were there, I’d put more effort into it,” he says. “I believe this is under control.”

Religious opponents routinely reference the shocking level of vitriol they say they’ve encountered for their piety; for remaining observant of what they see as thousands-year-old beliefs. Dov Hikind, a Brooklyn assemblyman who represents one of the largest communities of Orthodox Jews outside of Israel, told me,

“I think more than ever before—and if we vote on it in the assembly, this is what I’m going to speak about—I sort of resent the fact that if you’re for human rights, civil rights, morality, then you gotta be for gay "marriage". You know, that’s insulting to me. And it should be to a lot of New Yorkers.”

“They’re throwing everything, including the kitchen sink, in order to get people to vote for this,” Hikind said. “Lady Gaga thinks I should vote for gay "marriage"? It’s like the world turned upside down.”
(religiondispatches)highlights are my additions

A few days later Lefkowitz told one of the few Orthodox Jews who was in Albany actually trying to fight the bill that he wasn't fighting it strongly because it was going to pass.  He also refused to ally Agudah up with those people in the Orthodox Jewish community who were in lobbying and I'm not referring to Rabi Levin senators in Albany and warning people weeks before this interview, that bill was in great danger of passing and that we needed to lobby our legislators with great strength.  His reason was he was afraid they would mess things up, so how did aguda try and lobby Albany they met with Andrew Coumo to officially try and convince him not to pass the bill that he promised to pass.


The next primary/general election after the "marriage" bill passed Agudah (board members) supported the same legislators who voted to pass the bill they were supposedly against.

How The City Won Their Attack On Williamsburg Stores, And Our Askonim Celebrated

 Bill Deblasio agrees that signs on stores, are discriminating against women

What Happened

City settles with Hasidic businesses over dress codes

The city "backed off" Tuesday from a lawsuit against Hasidic Brooklyn businesses that posted modesty dress codes in their store windows.

The Human Rights Commission "settled" with the seven Williamsburg shops on the eve of trial after they agreed that any future signs will say that everyone is welcome.

“Representatives from the stores agreed that if they were to post new signs in their windows, they would say that while modest dress is appreciated, all individuals are welcome to enter the stores free from "discrimination",” Commissioner Patricia Gatling said in a statement.

Lawyers for the Jewish stores - which were targeted in August 2012 for signs prohibiting bare feet, shorts and sleeveless or low-cut shirts - had a somewhat different interpretation.

“They're welcome - subject to dressing modestly,” said Jay Lefkowitz, who represented the businesses, said of future signs. “We're still working on the writing.”

 
While the city contended the signs in the shopping strip on Lee Ave., in the heart of the Satmar sect, constituted an implicit gender and religious "discrimination", the stores argued they’re no different than dress codes in fancy restaurants and other establishments.

“What's good for Manhattan is good for Williamsburg also,” said Rabbi David Niederman, President of the United Jewish Organizations. “We're very "happy" that the small businesses "cannot" be tortured anymore.” dumbest statement he ever made?

He called the commission's request Tuesday to up potential fines from $2,500 to $75,000 “an audacity and chutzpah.”

A counsel for the city said the proposed fine was actually to $7,500.

After a conference with Administrative Judge Kevin Casey, sources said, the city all but caved, settling the suit without fines or admissions of wrongdoing. except for the one thing the city was really after an agreement by the store owners that this was "discriminatory"

“The shopkeepers always said that nobody was actually excluded from the stores,” Lefkowitz said, adding the city never received a complaint from someone who was kept out. “Any future signs will make clear that everybody is welcome, which was the reality.” and according to the law not necessary (see legal analysis)

(Daily News) highlights my additions

Mr. Lefkowitz said the two sides were scheduled to appear for a trial before John Spooner, an administrative law judge for the commission, but another judge, Kevin Casey, took the parties aside for discussions. Mr. Lefkowitz said he had made it clear that the merchants would never pay “a single dollar in fines,” but were willing to state clearly that they did not discriminate on the basis of gender or race. A settlement was reached after an hour.

(NYT)

The signs posted in the store windows simply read, “No shorts; no barefoot; no sleeveless; no low cut necklines; thank you” or something similar and had not been the subject of any formal complaints by the public. Under the settlement, any signs the business owners post must make it clear that while modest dress is requested and appreciated, all members of the public including those dressed immodestly are welcome to enter the store.(Matzav)

Official statement by the Commission on Human Rights (the underlined and boxed words are key to understanding the rest of this article)



15 Points on this Tragic Event

What the Jewish community did by accepting the deal
1. By accepting the deal they showed they agreed with the government that a store mandating a dress decency code is "discriminatory".

2. They will have a lot of trouble mandating dress codes in the future (it's legal in NY for a woman to walk topless).

3. By caving in, the government will push even further on issues like helping out same gender "weddings".

4. Soon, the "suggested dress codes" will also considered "discriminatory"

5. By agreeing to this, we are showing the government that we think that the Torah only governs us in our house and our synagogues; that the Torah only governs us in private settings and that we should abandon the Torah in the public sector.

6. By agreeing with the city we caused a chillul hashem, showing we only care about money and not the Torah.


7. Al pi halacha this may have been a yehoreg ve al yaavor.

8. Since the city only cared about the principle and not money, we lost completely. There was no compromise:  the city had a complete victory.




What the city did by attacking us

9. They showed that they did not care about the actual text of the law which only forbade "refusing, or withholding accommodations, advantages, facilities or privileges based on sex, or religion etc."


10. This shows yet again that the text of a law meant to promote liberalism (eg. hate crimes bills, bullying/teaching bills, anti discrimination bills), are, in practice. way more liberal then the text of the law actually allows.

11. The city doesn't consider religion as a bona-fide reason for dress codes

12. By only going after dress codes in religious stores as opposed to dress codes in fancy restaurants, they admit that according to liberal theology ONLY stores mandating dress codes based on morality/religious is "discriminatory" and wrong

what we as a United Jewish Community should have done
13. we should not have changed even a period or comma, on the original signs.


14.The Jewish community around NYC should have all put up similar signs so the city would have to go after all of us or none of us. By not doing so, they allowed the city  to" divide and conquer."

finally

15. Why did our "leaders" celebrate when they should have cried?




 www.thejewishweek.com/news/news-brief/williamsburg-stores-revise-modesty-signs-city-drops-suit
 failedmessiah.typepad.com/failed_messiahcom/2014/01/nyc-settles-discrimination-lawsuit-against-hasidic-stores-345.html


Here is the relevant parts of the NYC Laws on discrimination

Who it applies to
9. The term "place or provider of public accommodation" shall include providers, whether licensed or unlicensed, of goods, services, facilities, accommodations, advantages or privileges of any kind, and places, whether licensed or unlicensed, where goods, services, facilities, accommodations, advantages or privileges of any kind are extended, offered, sold or otherwise made available. Such term shall not include any club, which proves that it is in its nature distinctly private. A club shall not be considered in its nature distinctly private if it has more than four hundred members, provides regular meal service and regularly receives payment for dues, fees, use of space, facilities, services, meals or beverages directly or indirectly from or on behalf of non-members for the furtherance of trade or business. For the purposes of this section a corporation incorporated under the benevolent orders law or described in the benevolent orders law but formed under any other law of this state, or a religious corporation incorporated under the education law or the religious corporations law shall be deemed to be in its nature distinctly private. No club which sponsors or conducts any amateur athletic contest or sparring exhibition and advertises or bills such contest or exhibition as a New York state championship contest or uses the words "New York State” in its announcements shall be deemed a private exhibition within the meaning of this section.
In Short these stores would be considered public accommodations.


the highlighted portions are my comments in the law that are relevant to this case
4. Public accommodations. (a) It shall be an unlawful discriminatory practice for any person, being the owner, lessee, proprietor, manager, superintendent, agent or employee of any place or provider of public accommodation because of the actual or perceived race, creed, color, national origin, age, gender, disability, marital status, partnership status, sexual orientation or alienage or citizenship status of any person directly or indirectly not one of these groups was included on that sign , to refuse, withhold from or deny to such person any of the accommodations, advantages, facilities or privileges thereof, or, directly or indirectly, to make any declaration, publish, circulate, issue, display, post or mail any written or printed communication, notice or advertisement, to the effect that any of the accommodations, advantages, facilities and privileges of any such place or provider shall be refused, withheld from or denied to any person on account of race, creed, color, national origin, age, gender, disability, marital status, partnership status, sexual orientation or alienage or citizenship status or that the patronage or custom of any person belonging to, purporting to be, or perceived to be, of any particular race, creed, color, national origin, age, gender, disability, marital status, partnership status, sexual orientation or alienage or citizenship status is unwelcome, objectionable or not acceptable, desired or solicited. so in short, the law has nothing to do with dress codes, yet liberals reinterpret this law to include any distinctions within any of the groups mentioned here, even though that is not in the actual law.

(b) Notwithstanding the foregoing, the provisions of this subdivision shall not apply, with respect to age or gender, to places or providers of public accommodation where the commission grants an exemption based on bona fide considerations of public policy this exemption should have applied to these stores, even under their false interpretation of section A. By attacking these stores, they are saying that dress codes based on religion are not bona fide.
(c) The provisions of this subdivision relating to discrimination on the basis of gender shall not prohibit any educational institution subject to this subdivision from making gender distinctions which would be permitted (i) for educational institutions which are subject to section thirty-two hundred one-a of the education law or any rules or regulations promulgated by the state commissioner of education relating to gender or (ii) under sections 86.32, 86.33 and 86.34 of title forty-five of the code of federal regulations for educational institutions covered thereunder.
(d) Nothing in this subdivision shall be construed to preclude an educational institution—other than a publicly operated educational institution— which establishes or maintains a policy of educating persons of one gender exclusively from limiting admissions to students of that gender.
(e) The provisions of this subdivision relating to disparate impact shall not apply to the use of standardized tests as defined by section three hundred forty of the education law by an educational institution subject to this subdivision provided that such test is used in the manner and for the purpose prescribed by the test agency which designed the test.
(f) The provisions of this subdivision as they relate to unlawful discriminatory practices by educational institutions shall not apply to matters that are strictly educational or pedagogic in nature.



According to the Yated this was even worse

The so-called ‘Williamsburg Modesty Case,’ which pitted Williamsburg shopkeepers against the New York City Human Rights Commission, was dropped Tuesday morning, as the trial was about to begin. According to our sources, during a conference in his chambers, Judge John Spooner urged the Commission to withdraw the lawsuit, because it would not stand up in court. The lawyers of Kirkland & Ellis, who had been defending the shopkeepers pro bono, celebrated another "successful" victory for Constitutional rights in America. 

(Yated) 

If The Yated Is right

Why in the world would they settle?

and how could the Yated call this successful if they settled and losed?

Thankfully, the judge realized that the case had no merits, and urged the plaintiffs to withdraw their claim, instead of wasting the court’s valuable time. The Jewish community owes a debt of gratitude to the dedicated lawyers gave of their time, resources and talent to uphold these vital Constitutional Rights.(Yated) 

According to the Yated's own statements they already won why is the Yated saying thankfully ?


How our leaders (self appointed, elected) responded to our compromising into a utter defeat. 

Self Appointed leaders
David Greenfield

“I am pleased that these small business owners and the Human Rights Commission have come to a reasonable agreement. This was an unfair and unnecessary lawsuit that arbitrarily targeted these businesses while ignoring many others around the city that employ similar dress codes. As I said at the time, this was clearly another example of local government overstepping its authority and unfairly targeting the Orthodox community. I am very relieved that the merchants and the city were able to settle this matter without resorting to a trial,” said Councilman David Greenfield.(Matzav) in a press release

Moshe Dovid Niederman
 “We're very happy that the small businesses cannot be tortured anymore.” (DN)
Niederman said the community was very happy the suit was over. “We’re happy small businesses don’t have to make a decision [either] to pay a hefty fine or to put food on the table for their families.(JPost)

Rabbi Moshe Dovid Niederman said that the stores’ innocence had been “vindicated.” (Hamodia)

Gary Schlesinger Executive Board Chairman of United Jewish Community Advocacy Relations and Enrichment (UJCare) said: This lawsuit by the NYC Human Rights Commission singled out the Orthodox Jewish Community for its Modesty practices, Modesty helps enhance family values and quality of life and its a shame that the commission went this far to suppress our way of life so I am glad it’s over!(VIN) Sorry Gary your heroes are going to make sure that this is just beginning


Chaim Dovid Zwiebel and Agudath Israel of America
“While we believe that the signs, which simply requested that customers respect the community’s values with regard to dress, were entirely legal,” said Rabbi Chaim Dovid Zwiebel, Agudath Israel’s executive vice president, “we are happy that the issue here is closed.” Zweibel added that he believes the suit “should never have been brought in the first place,” and that “the commission’s pursuit of the Williamsburg store owners raised serious concerns of selective prosecution.” 
Zwiebel also praised the newly elected Mayor Bill de Blasio’s administration for “apparently realizing the disturbing aspect of this suit, its lack of legal merit, and the need for reason and good will here.” listen to what BDB says Because of a rapidly growing population, the Orthodox Jewish community has become politically important in recent elections, and by many estimates is likely to continue to grow in both size and importance. The administration apparently did not want to be seen as picking on the hassidic community so early in de Blasio’s term, which was how many people had characterized the suit. (JPost)

While Agudath Israel welcomed the news, Rabbi Zwiebel also expressed his view that “the case should never have been brought in the first place,” and that “the Commission’s pursuit of the Williamsburg store owners raised serious concerns of selective prosecution.”  He praised the de Blasio administration for “apparently "realizing" that disturbing aspect of this suit, its lack of legal merit, and the need for reason and good will here.” (Matzav)

Agudath Israel of America greeted the settlement as "a sign of reasonableness" from the new city administration. (Yated)

elected official Steve Levin the worthless City Councilman from Williamsburg: To single out these small businesses from Williamsburg – businesses that are an important part of this community and who took down the signs in question immediately upon request – and to then impose thousands of dollars in fines against them, would have been an overreach and would have threatened their future existence. I applaud the commission for dropping this case and congratulate the small business owners and their lawyers at Kirkland & Ellis.” (JPost)

Agudas Yisroel's Statement ?Against? Yesterday's Court Ruling

 Agudah becomes Poets to commemorate yesterdays court decision

“Society’s mores may shift and crumble but eternal verities exist. One is marriage, the union of a man and a woman. Its sanctity may have been grievously insulted by the High Court today, but that sanctity remains untouched.” – Agudath Israel of America

Is The FJCC Afraid That Orthodox Jews Are Going To Vote For Erick Salgado?

Erick Salgado Second from the Left

In a situation that makes the Jewish Press's corruption seems tame, The Flatbush Jewish Community Coalition, and COJO of Flatbush kicks the only candidate (Erick Salgado) with real rabbaniem's support from it's forum which is scheduled to take place tonight.  Besides just being being the only candidate in favor basic morality, he's also the strongest on MBP, and the only candidate in favor of vouchers and/or tax credits to yeshiva parents.

After saying that their only inviting "real" candidates, this past Thursday Erick Salgado was invited to the FJCC/COJO Mayoral Forum (See Email invitation on the bottom).  This past motzai Shabbos on Zev Brenner's radio program Josh Mehlman, and Avi Schick were on the show to discuss the forum.

Josh Mehlman, the chairman of the Flatbush Jewish Community Coalition said "only the major five Democratic candidates, that stand a chance to become the next mayor of New York City, will participate in Tuesday night’s mayoral forum on Jewish issues. Sal Albanese and Erick Salgado, were not invited due to the fact that they have not met the minimum criteria of being considered a viable candidate, at least according to public opinion polls."  He further added “Our community is best served if we take the candidates who’re most likely to win – the major candidates who have any shot on winning – and force them to confront the issues and address our concerns,”

While Josh Mehlman claims to be a talmid of the Mir his Rosh Yeshiva, Rav Avrohom Yaakov Nelkenbaum, said "there's no such thing as a long shot or not a long shot, if people do what their supposed to do the abishter helps"

Yesterday Erick Salgados's campaign confirmed with someone from COJO that Erick Salgado was invited to the forum.  Later in the day Mr Salgado was told that his invitation was rescinded.

Furthermore on Yeshiva World News Jacob Kornbluh wrote

• While it was rumored that the remaining serious candidates – Sal Albanese and Erick Salgado – were invited in the last minute to participate, the organizers of the event deny that claim.
  
  In a conversation with YWN, Mr. Mehlman confirmed that only the five major candidates were invited, since the issues at stake are too serious to waste the time given for filibuster.
  
  “We have sent invitations to all of the candidates to meet with the members of our Coalition,” said Mr. Mehlman. “We intend to give all of the remaining candidates an opportunity to lay out their vision and plans to make New York City a better place to live in, and discuss with them their positions on the issues that are at great concern to our community.”

Email COJO sent to Erick Salgado inviting him to the forum

This whole scenario leads to a few questions
1.  Is The FJCC Afraid That Orthodox Jews Are Going To Vote For Erick Salgado?
2. Would Sal Albanese be invited if not for Erick Salgado?
3.  How can they invite a mesis umodiach like Quinn but not the only candidate who isn't against the Torah and has support of real rabbaniem?
4. Does the FJCC follow Daas Torah?
5. Is there any more corruption that we do not know about?
6. Is any other organization like agudah behind this corruption?

Who Is The Flatbush Jewish Community Coalition (FJCC)?

Psak Avi Schron violated when he donated money to Meng

This Year a "new" political group was formed, named the Flatbush Jewish Community Coalition (the FJCC). The main leader of this organization is Josh Mehlman, (COJO Board Member). Most of the leaders of this are connected to Agudah (at least 2 people have chaired Agudahs dinner Menachem Lubinsky, and Shimon Lefkowitz) and/or COJO (Leon Goldenberg) .  Many also have lousy records, in their support of terrible politicians

The Rest of the committee in formation of the FJCC is
Avi Schron (donated money to Grace Meng even though Rav Shmuel Kaminetzky and many other rabbanim asered it), Shimon Lefkowitz, Avi Schick (lawyer for the Working Families Party), Menachem Lubinsky, Chaim Scharf, Leon Goldenberg (donated $4,950.00 to the Lesbian Christine Quinn's campaign, he also publicly violated the psak of many rabbaniem by supporting Lew Fidler), Abish Brodt, Elly Kleinman, Peter Rebenwurzel, Chaskel Bennett (was one of the leading supporters of Helen Weinstein who voted for toeivah marriage 5 times and 9 times for a bill that led to teachers asking girls to kiss one another), Yechiel Landau, Yussie Zalmanowitz, Yanky Arem, Pinny Rand, Aaron Tessler, Dr. Simon Friedman, Rafi Treitel, Shmuel Kairy, Mendy Pomerantz, Yitzchok Fuchs, Lenny Wassner, Avrohom Poznanski, Ephraim Fruchthandler, Dudi Spira, Sruli Berger, Dr. Seymour Edelstein, Victor Shine, Ephraim Nierenberg, Avrohom Tikotsky, and Dr. Israel Zyskind.




Leon Goldenberg ignoring rabbaniem by supporting Lew Fidler