+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Biden's governance through mandate has several implications and intended consequences:
1) It embraces a one size fits all mentality.

2) It takes away choice and thus freedoms

3) It ignores the individual and increases the authority of government

4) It might even be un-constitutional

5) It is divisive and goes against Biden's pledge to heal and replaces it with "heel."

+++++++++++++++++++++++

This is the time of the year when lonely/melancholy people feel lonelier and some tend to take it upon themselves to engage in needless and tragic acts. Most often, these events could be avoided but something happens and everything falls between the cracks.

Parents are reluctant to become "snitches" even though they know there is something wrong with their kids and sadly they remain in denial. Officials go to sleep at the switch and fail to connect dots. Even 9/11 could have been avoided but for the "want of a nail a nation is lost." Tragic indeed.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Bennett can urge all he wants but his pleas will fall on deaf ears and a witless president.

Prime Minister Naftali Bennett called on the United States to immediately halt the ongoing negotiations in Vienna over Iran’s nuclear weapons program.

Conversation with Blinken »

+++++++++

Justice Kavanaugh Just Boiled the Abortion Debate Down to Its Most Fundamental Core

Larry O'Connor

++++

Kamala Harris is Losing Yet Another Huge Top Staffer

Rebecca Downs

+++++++++++++++++

Hunter Biden Has Map Of His Mother’s Birthplace On His Back

(JustPatriots.com)- Breitbart revealed more disturbing information about Hunter Biden, the son of President Joe Biden, using information obtained via his famous laptop.

The conservative news outlet reported how Hunter Biden appears to have named his “corrupt, Chinese-linked shell company Skaneateles” after the town where his late mother was born. Pictures obtained from the famous “Laptop From Hell,” which Biden abandoned at a Delaware computer repair store, show that he appears to have a map of the area tattooed on his back.

Skaneateles can be found in New York state, situated between Rochester and Syracuse. The name translates to “long lake,” and the region is home to one of the Finger Lakes in New York.

You can see the tattoo in the tweet below. It almost looks demonic.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

A significant amount of criminal behaviour occurs in cities with progressive district attorneys where known criminals, with long rap sheets, are let out of prison, given a modest bail and then re-commit crimes.

Many of these district attorney campaigns have been financed by Soros and their names supplied by former AG Holder. Since there is a pattern and repetitive sequence of occurrences one cannot blithely assume there is no intended connection.

Hun

Black Friday was marked by a significant amount of looting. Stores across California and many other liberal states were broken into, stolen from, and massively looted on the shopping holiday.

Many who did the looting claimed it was in the name of racial justice.

Here’s What Happened and Why!

Fighting for Freedom,

Mike Kinsmater

+++

Our Ship Of State Looks Like The Titanic

by Bruce Thornton via FrontPage Mag.com

The “ship of state” metaphor first appears in the works of the late 7th century BC poet Alcaeus. An aristocrat from the important Greek city of Mytilene on the island of Lesbos, Alcaeus’s metaphor of a ship endangered by a storm represents the political upheavals caused by a succession of tyrants vying for control of the city––the surges and waves of civic violence, political turmoil, and tyranny that have damaged the ship’s hull, sails, and tackle, and threaten to sink it.

++++++++++++++++++

These are two powerful videos.

The first talks about the elites overseas when in fact the elites are now here in America.

The second is visual evidence why we are doomed.

And

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

If up to me I would go far beyond that expression/characterization.

Is it Islamophobic to call out Ilhan Omar for her anti-Semitism?

Rep. Lauren Boebert is a loose cannon on the right. But even if her comments were in bad taste and over the top, the idea that Rep. Ilhan Omar is an innocent victim of a smear is an outrageous lie.

By JONATHAN S. TOBIN

(December 1, 2021 / JNS) As far as congressional Democrats are concerned, another right-wing nut job needs to be disciplined. The newest target of their ire is Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-Colo.) who stands accused of Islamophobia and smearing another member of Congress as a terrorist. Having taken action against two other Republicans over the course of the year, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi says that this time, she’s waiting for Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy to punish Boebert.

It will be a long wait. McCarthy and the GOP caucus have had it with what they think is bullying and hypocrisy from their Democratic colleagues. The odds that he will do anything about Boebert are slim to none. That means that before long, House Democrats will convene a vote for censuring Boebert and, like Reps. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) and Paul Gosar (R-Ariz.), it’s probable that Boebert will be stripped of her committee assignments.

Democrats consider the unwillingness of the GOP to take on figures like this trio as evidence that their party has been taken over by Trumpist extremists who are enemies of democracy as well as decent behavior. That will be the spin on it from most of the mainstream media and liberal Jewish groups like the Anti-Defamation League.

Greene’s past identification with QAnon conspiracies was indefensible. And Gosar’s tweeting out of a photo-shopped cartoon showing him killing creatures with the faces of Democratic members of Congress did transgress the normal rules of congressional conduct. But while Boebert is a loose cannon with no respect for what were once the unquestioned rules of behavior in Congress, any effort to punish her for Islamophobia is a bridge too far.

By choosing to censure Boebert over her comments about Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.), the majority will be committing themselves to a narrative in which one of the members of “The Squad”—one of the nation’s leading exponents of anti-Zionist memes—is treated as an injured party innocent of her own brand of hatemongering. That is not the hill for any Democrat to die on—or at least not for any of them who understand that the extremism and anti-Semitism emanating from the left is a serious problem that cannot be ignored.

Boebert is an easy figure to pillory. She first ran afoul of congressional rules when she demanded that she be given the right to carry a gun on Capitol Hill. Boebert, who has a concealed carry permit in Colorado, is the proprietor of a restaurant (the Shooters Grill, which is, believe it or not, located in Rifle, Colo.) where the employees are encouraged to openly carry firearms. The entire affair was a publicity stunt in which she was posturing for her constituents, and the congresswoman has since complied with the rules.

Boebert has also been accused of links with QAnon, though that accusation, along with claims that she helped Capitol Hill rioters or gave them tours of the site prior to Jan. 6, has been debunked. What she is guilty of is being a fresh-mouthed political bomb-thrower who is devoted to former President Donald Trump.

What got in her the cross-hairs of the House leadership was an encounter with Omar—or at least what she said happened when the two met in an elevator. Boebert’s account of this incident while speaking to a friendly audience was caught on video and shared on Twitter. In it, she claimed that she entered the elevator and saw a police officer running up in a state of concern. Seeing Omar in the car, she says she assured a staffer: “She doesn’t have a backpack; we should be fine.” She then says she taunted Omar by remarking that “The Jihad Squad showed up for work today.”

Omar says it never happened but still demanded an apology for what she said was an Islamophobic epithet. Boebert subsequently called Omar and admitted that she shouldn’t have said anything that made it seem she was attacking her opponent’s religion, and that publicly boasting about the incident was wrong. But she wouldn’t apologize to the Democrats’ satisfaction. Seeing that she wasn’t getting what she wanted and offended by the Republican’s demand that she do some apologizing of her own for past remarks, Omar hung up on her.

The Democratic leadership has lined up behind Omar with a statement accusing Boebert of Islamophobia and racism, in addition to a demand that Republicans condemn “bigoted members of their conference.”

Even if we concede that making remarks about a Congress member being a potential suicide bomber—as well as speaking of a “Jihad Squad” and then boasting about it in public is inflammatory, rude and unparliamentary behavior—the notion that Omar is nothing more than an innocent victim of a smear is chutzpah on steroids. More to the point, this incident was made possible not just by Boebert’s penchant for insults but by the failure of the Democratic caucus to discipline Omar and her fellow “Squad” member, Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.), for their open anti-Semitism and extremism.

Omar is the darling of the left because she is an immigrant, a woman of color and, as the head-scarf-wearing first Muslim woman in Congress, a symbol of diversity. But she is also someone who accused AIPAC and the Jewish community of buying Congress (“It’s all about the Benjamins, baby”). She and Tlaib are also open supporters of the anti-Semitic BDS movement that targets Jews and seeks the elimination of the one Jewish state on the planet. They have embraced the “apartheid state” lie about Israel and sought to enter it on a trip arranged by a Palestinian group that promoted the classic blood libel that Jews bake Christian blood into matzah. While claiming to oppose terrorism, they have acted as tacit defenders of the Hamas terrorist group, ignoring its criminal behavior while asserting that Israel commits war crimes.

So while Boebert’s barbs went too far, the reason they resonate for many is because Omar is not merely just as extreme as her antagonist (she is an ardent supporter of efforts to defund the police while seeking police protection for herself), she is also someone who deserved to be censured for her anti-Semitism. Pelosi is mindful of the influence of the left these days and knows that Omar has been treated as a rock star by the liberal press, the late-night comedy shows and other pop-culture outlets. Instead of depriving Omar of committee assignments, she gave her a plum role on the House Foreign Affairs Committee to use as a platform for her hateful agenda.

Democrats may well appease Omar and their activist base by censuring Boebert. But all they’ll be doing is turning Boebert into a Republican heroine. And if, as now seems likely, the GOP wins back control of the House in 2022, the following January we can expect Republicans to prioritize payback in the form of censures of Omar, Tlaib and other radical Democrats.

This is no way to run a Congress. There is plenty of blame to go around for this state of affairs. But right now, Democrats are so wedded to a narrative in which their opponents are all labeled as “insurrectionists” out to destroy democracy, rather than merely political opponents, that it is impossible to imagine a future in which the divide between the parties will not grow even wider and more bitter.

You can’t expect one party to police its extreme members while their opponents treat theirs as beyond reproach. Whatever you may think of Boebert’s posturing about guns, ardent Trumpism or her insulting manner, what Omar has done is to mainstream anti-Semitism in the public square in a manner that would have been unimaginable only a few years ago. Until more Democrats start treating her as an extremist hatemonger rather than a role model, they are in no position to lecture anyone about her critics.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Seems Biden/Blinken would prefer a war and Israel's destruction or they would be acting differently.

https://www.jns.org/analysts-weigh-on-in-talks-with-tehran-leading-with-pessimism-on-american-action/?utm_source=The+Daily+Syndicate&utm_campaign=0c943519e6-Daily+Syndicate+11-28-21+%28new%29_COPY_01&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_8583953730-0c943519e6-%5BLIST_EMAIL_ID%5D&ct=t%28Daily+Syndicate+11-28-21+%28new%29_COPY_01%29

US needs to give Israel the military tools it needs to deter a nuclear Iran, experts say

“I think the Israelis need to pivot, and policymakers here need to pivot, to give Israel the tools it needs because however this plays out in Vienna, deal or no deal, dragging out negotiations … I think the Israelis feel they have the clock ticking louder and louder, and they have to prepare,” said JINSA president and CEO Michael Makovsky.

By Dmitriy Shapiro

Experts from the Jewish Institute for National Security of America (JINSA) agreed that not much would come out of the current round of indirect negotiations that began this week between the United States and Iran on coming back into compliance with the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA).

JINSA president and CEO Michael Makovsky, and vice president of policy Blaise Misztal, were joined by Ambassador Eric Edelman, JINSA Gemunder Center counselor and Iran policy project co-chair, and JINSA senior fellow John Hannah. The group held a broad discussion of the resumption of the talks in a virtual panel.

Hannah and Edelman said political changes in Iran with the election of hardline Iranian President Ebrahim Raisi indicate that the country is disinterested in re-entering the JCPOA—the Iran nuclear deal agreed to in 2015 and made void by the United States leaving the agreement in 2018 under former President Donald Trump.

Hannah said he believes that one reason Iran agreed to reconvene the talks pointed to conversations that the board of governors of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) was going to pass a censure resolution last week against Iran at its meeting. The Iranians saw re-entering the negotiations as a way to freeze the board’s decision.

“Nobody will want to do anything to upset the resumption of talks,” he said. “So that’s, I guess, one possibility that the Iranians had an immediate tactical goal of making sure that nothing happened in in the meeting of the IAEA that would—in any way, shape or form—hurt their interests.”

Another reason may be that the Iranian regime wants to do the minimum to keep allies such as Russia and China in the process.

Still, Hannah said he didn’t believe anything will get done, especially in the first week. The Iranians are rumored to be coming to the table with conditions that the United States simply cannot accept.

“Iran is going to be so extreme; they have actually said … this is not a nuclear negotiation. This is not about mutual compliance with the JCPOA. This is only a negotiation about the American lifting of sanctions, Iran having a month to evaluate whether it’s getting the full benefit of sanctions [relief], and it’s about America paying compensation to Iran for having withdrawn from the deal. And the kind of guarantee that the United States will never ever again withdraw from the deal, or try and reimpose sanctions on Iran,” he explained. “So that is truly another universe that the Iranians are operating, and if those are the positions they take, and I think there’s every reason to believe they will.”

Edelman, on the other hand, thinks the Iranians are not interested in rejoining the JCPOA, which it believes did not favor their country, and are requesting a negotiation of a new deal that is more favorable to them.

Over the past five months, Iran has made dramatic advancements in its nuclear program, including enriching uranium up to 60 percent, giving it more leverage in the negotiations.

Hannah disagreed with Edelman that the old deal was not favorable to Iran and said that under the current situation, Iran might view re-entering the old deal as a way to seek more sanctions relief while leaving its current state of nuclear advancement in place, especially as many of the provisions of the 2015 sunset clauses expire in a few years.

Another option for Iran is to drag on the process while continuing its current course towards a nuclear weapon, knowing voices internationally and in the United States oppose draconian measures or military action by Israel or America for fear of disrupting the negotiations.

‘A bad way to go into negotiations’

Makovsky, who has just returned from meetings with officials in Israel, said there is a sense of tremendous pessimism in the Jewish state. Israel is a country, he said, that is critically affected by what Iran does but does not have a seat at the table during these negotiations, leaving it to voice its opinions publicly or privately to European and American leaders.

He said Israeli leaders see the United States as weakened from a disastrous withdrawal from Afghanistan, and were shocked and dismayed that the United States did not retaliate after an attack on American forces last month by Iranian-backed forces, even though it was in retaliation for Israeli airstrikes.

“That is not good for the United States, period, heading into these Vienna talks, that we have basically no deterrence—that people or enemies think it’s safer to attack us than it is to attack our allies,” said Makovsky. “That’s a bad way to go into negotiations with Iranians, direct or indirect.”

He said that while Israel is determined not to let Iran have a nuclear weapon, its new government’s approach of not creating tensions with leaders in the United States has gotten it very little in return.

“I think the Israelis need to pivot, and policymakers here need to pivot, to give Israel the tools it needs because however this plays out in Vienna, deal or no deal, dragging out negotiations … I think the Israelis feel they have the clock ticking louder and louder, and they have to prepare. And I think the United States’ job should be to give Israel the tools as soon as possible.”

Senior military officials in Israel, he said, no longer have hope that America will step in militarily to deter a nuclear Iran.

JINSA has over the years argued for accelerating deliveries of Boeing KC-46 air-refueling tankers, precision-guided munitions both offensive and defensive, and Lockheed Martin F-35 and McDonnell Douglas F-15I fighter jets.

“If we’re not going to do the job, we should give Israel the tools. And, by the way, if you do it more publicly, it will also enhance America’s diplomatic leverage with the Iranians. Doing it sooner than later has a lot of benefit,” said Makovsky.

‘Iran is a major problem, a major irritant’

Meanwhile, while some indications that the patience of America’s European allies is wearing thin with Iran’s lack of movement towards a deal, there is no more pressure from them besides strongly-worded statements and finger-wagging.

China and Russia appear satisfied with allowing Iran to drag out the process while being a thorn in the side of the United States.

“If the Russians were thinking logically and in terms of national interest, they would be at least as concerned as we—if not more—about a nuclear-armed Iran since Iran shares a border with Russia. And, at least, notionally they claim on nonproliferation grounds to be concerned about this,” said Edelman.

“But they’re also quite aware of the fact that Iran is a major problem for us, a major irritant,” he continued. “They probably don’t mind that in the least. They would probably be happy with an Iran that was a threshold state, but without actually testing and actually exploding their weapon. But at the end of the day, repeatedly, they have shown that putting a thumb in our eye is more important to them than other priorities.”

The most serious threat against Iran would come from European countries that are still part of the JCPOA to snap back their sanctions against Iran if the IAEA board of governors decides to censure the Islamic regime for not complying with its oversight protocols. Another IAEA board of governors meeting on Iran is scheduled within 30 days, rather than the usual three months, and its decision may determine European action.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I was unable to attend:

About the speaker: John Hannah is a Senior Fellow at JINSA’s Gemunder Center for Defense and Strategy.

Hannah served in senior foreign policy positions for both Democratic and Republican administrations, including as former Vice President Dick Cheney’s National Security Advisor from 2005-2009 and as Vice President Cheney’s Deputy National Security Advisor for the Middle East from 2001-2005. Previously, he also served as a senior advisor to Secretary of State Warren Christopher during the Bill Clinton administration, and as a senior member of Secretary of State James A. Baker’s Policy Planning Staff during the presidency of George H.W. Bush.

Outside of government, Hannah was Senior Counselor at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, a Senior Fellow at The Washington Institute for Near East Policy, and a lawyer practicing in the area of international dispute resolution. Hannah received his BA from Duke University, his JD from the Yale Law School, and did graduate work in international relations at Stanford University.

Watch Here