Thursday, October 28, 2021

3 plans to stop Iran's nuclear program: Which will be chosen? - Yaakov Lappin , JNS and ILH Staff

 

​ by Yaakov Lappin , JNS and ILH Staff

Iran's uranium enrichment activities are at their most advanced stage to date, as Tehran benefits from a current status quo that lacks maximum pressure or terms associated with a new deal.

 

IDF looks back on 2018: 865 strikes, 20 terror tunnels destroyed
Israeli fighter jet


The newly-appointed head of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran, Mohammad Eslami, made a significant announcement on Oct. 10.

Iran enriched more than 120 kilograms of uranium to the 20% level, he said – a major jump from the 84 kilograms that Iran had previously enriched a month earlier, according to the United Nation's nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency.

The 120-kilogram milestone is more significant than meets the eye. While Eslami said the figure represented an objective set by the Iranian parliament, the number holds a far wider significance.

This quantity of enriched uranium, if further enriched to 90%, is almost what is required to build a single nuclear bomb.

The fact that Iran is also openly enriching other, albeit smaller quantities of uranium to the 60% level, as its previous announcements demonstrate, means Iran has essentially abandoned any pretense of a civilian cover for its nuclear program. No non-nuclear states need to enrich uranium to 60%.

All told, this means that Iran is at its most advanced stage ever in its nuclear program, both in the amount of uranium enriched and particularly the 60% level to which some of that uranium has been enriched.

These developments signify a broader problem, namely the twilight "no-man's-land" state of Iran's nuclear program. On the one hand, no new or old nuclear deal has been reached since the Trump administration unilaterally exited the original 2015 nuclear deal in 2018. On the other hand, the "maximum pressure" campaign that the former American administration waged on Iran is not in place either.

The Iranian flag at Iran's Bushehr nuclear power plant (Photo by AFP/Atta Kenare)

Although the Biden administration has not lifted sanctions on Iran, the level of enforcement has noticeably decreased, and so, too, has the discipline by members of the international deal. China is striking crude-oil deals with Iran that it didn't make a year ago.

Without maximum pressure and absent a deal, Iran is enjoying all of the benefits as it enriches a growing quantity of uranium.

The longer this status quo persists, the worse the situation will become for global, regional and Israeli security.

In the meantime, Iran has increasingly limited the IAEA's supervision capabilities. Iran is delaying its return to the nuclear talks; the last round of negotiations in Vienna was in June.

In several months, if no change occurs, the threshold for Israeli military action might be triggered.

All told, Iran is approximately a year-and-a-half away from having a nuclear weapon. While it is making major progress on developing fissile material, it has not surged on other components of the program, such as preparing an underground nuclear test, as doing so would make it obvious to the entire world that a military nuclear program is breaking through to the bomb.

This would likely create a strong backlash – a development that the Iranian regime is keen to avoid. Instead, Iran retains all of the technological knowledge and personnel needed to break through, and "puts them on ice," waiting for different timing.

Economic, diplomatic and military deterrence

Looking ahead, there appear to be three potential plans in the work to deal with this situation.

The first, "Plan A," is the Biden administration's intention to return to the 2015 nuclear deal – the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action.

While Washington appears intent on this plan, it is almost pointless in terms of meaningfully stopping Iran's nuclear program due to all the nuclear progress Iran has made in the past 18 months.

"Plan B" would involve applying real international pressure to bring Iran back to negotiations in an authentic manner in order to strike a longer, stronger nuclear agreement. This would involve employing diplomacy, mixed with a credible military threat by both the United States and Israel.

Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi leaves after a JCPOA Joint Commission Iran talks meeting in Vienna, Austria, June 20, 2021 (EPA/Christian Bruna)

It seems reasonable to assume that Israeli officials visiting Washington have been promoting such an approach. A better, stronger agreement would keep Iran away from nuclear weapons for decades – not just several years as the current JCPOA and its short-term sunset clauses would.

A better deal would also see Iran not only giving up its fissile material but disassembling its nuclear infrastructure, and the IAEA receiving stronger supervision abilities able to respond to suspicious activity as revealed in the Iranian archive, which the Mossad retrieved from Tehran in 2018 in a daring operation.

The international community has already proven its ability to unite and press Iran to the negotiations table in 2015, and it could in theory repeat this. A combination of economic, diplomatic and military deterrence and pressure would be needed to achieve this.

A strike could trigger a wider war

In the event that the two plans fail, the question of military action becomes relevant.

The IDF has been working to build updated military options to prevent Iran from breaking through to a bomb.

If diplomacy continues to stall, Iran will need reminders that military options exist.

From Israel's perspective, a nuclear Iran would form an intolerable, existential threat – and not only because of a direct nuclear menace. Iran's regional activity and network of proxies would receive a nuclear umbrella, meaning that Iran's risky, destabilizing activity in the region would amplify exponentially. It would trigger a nuclear arms race with Sunni states, such as Saudi Arabia, launching their own bids to arm themselves with atomic bombs in the coming decades. Such a regional future represents an unacceptably dangerous and unstable scenario to be avoided at all costs.

Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei inspecting a "Khordad 3" air defense system (Reuters via Fars News)

Despite its bravado, Iran has no interest in entering into direct state-on-state wars. It has demonstrated this repeatedly in the past 20 years. In 2003, with the US military in Afghanistan and Iraq around it, the Islamic republic froze its military nuclear program, dubbed "Amad." More recently, Iran has invested plenty of efforts and resources in protecting its nuclear infrastructure by placing parts of it underground and surrounding its sites with air defense systems – showing just how seriously Tehran takes the threat of military action.

Should diplomacy fail, "Plan C" would be the last resort. It is a scenario that the Israeli defense establishment must prepare intensively for. A strike on Iran's nuclear program would likely trigger a wider regional war, though not necessarily.

Multiple scenarios, including the activation of Hezbollah in Lebanon, which is 20 times more powerful than it was during the 2006 Second Lebanon War, coupled with Iran's proxies in Syria and Iraq, must be factored into the planning.

This will contribute to the credibility of Israel's military deterrence. Currently, it appears as if Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, does not believe there is an imminent military threat to his country, and he is acting on the basis of that assessment.

Should he be convinced otherwise, particularly with the assistance of the United States, Khamenei is likely to change course for he fears what a direct war could do to his Islamic revolution.

Israel began developing its military capabilities for stopping Iran's nuclear program in 2004, and it hasn't stopped. As time goes by, the chances of Israel needing to deploy these capabilities appear to have increased. Now, with Tehran accelerating its nuclear program, Jerusalem is accelerating its own military strike capability in parallel.

2022 will prove to be a critical junction.

Reprinted from JNS.org.

 

Yaakov Lappin , JNS and ILH Staff 

Source: https://www.israelhayom.com/2021/10/24/3-plans-to-stop-irans-nuclear-program-which-will-be-chosen/

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Jerusalem Consulate: A Nail in the Coffin of Peace - Richard Kemp

 

​ by Richard Kemp

Its true purpose is to undermine Israeli sovereignty in its own capital city and will jeopardise future prospects for peace between Israel and Palestinian Arabs.

  • This may seem like just another diplomatic facility to issue visas, promote trade and take care of US citizens, with no greater consequence than the US consulate in Edinburgh, UK. But it is far more than a mere office for paper-shuffling diplomats. It amounts to a de facto US embassy to the Palestinians on Israeli territory. Its true purpose is to undermine Israeli sovereignty in its own capital city and will jeopardise future prospects for peace between Israel and Palestinian Arabs.

  • As well as betraying Israel, Biden's irresponsible diplomatic signalling — which also appeases his hard-left supporters — is a betrayal of the Palestinian people. They have suffered too long and too hard under the hostility of their leadership, which has consistently refused to entertain all proposals for peace with Israel that could lead to the establishment of their own state.

  • Successive Palestinian leaders have been encouraged in their intransigence by the US and Europe who have for decades extracted concession after concession from Israel while Palestinians make none.

  • The intended consulate in Israel's capital will... encourage greater support for Hamas, the terrorist group that rules Gaza....

  • That this is not mere bureaucratic reshuffling can also be understood from the Biden administration's determination to do it in the face of Israeli government opposition and despite it potentially breaching Israel's Basic Law, US law and the 1963 Vienna Convention, which does not allow a consulate to be opened without host nation consent.

  • In addition, opening a consulate in the same city as an existing embassy — an unprecedented move — reinforces its immense political significance. Especially as there is no practical purpose for the new facility, with the embassy already incorporating a department devoted exclusively to Palestinian affairs.

  • Following his validation in Afghanistan of this damning indictment, Biden now has a chance at last to get something right by abandoning his plan to undermine a close ally, reduce the prospects of peace and sentence the Palestinian people to more decades of suffering.

US President Joe Biden plans to open a consulate in Jerusalem. This amounts to a de facto US embassy to the Palestinians on Israeli territory. Its true purpose is to undermine Israeli sovereignty in its own capital city. Pictured: David Friedman, then US Ambassador to Israel under the Trump Administration, delivers a speech during the opening of the US embassy in Jerusalem on May 14, 2018. (Photo credit should read Menahem Kahana/AFP via Getty Images)

Only a few months ago, US President Joe Biden betrayed a US ally by withdrawing forces from Afghanistan, bringing down the government in Kabul and consigning the country to the bitter depredations of Taliban terrorists. Now he is winding up to betray another, much closer ally — Israel.

Biden plans to open a consulate in Jerusalem. This may seem like just another diplomatic facility to issue visas, promote trade and take care of US citizens, with no greater consequence than the US consulate in Edinburgh, UK. But it is far more than a mere office for paper-shuffling diplomats. It amounts to a de facto US embassy to the Palestinians on Israeli territory. Its true purpose is to undermine Israeli sovereignty in its own capital city and will jeopardise future prospects for peace between Israel and Palestinian Arabs.

The Palestinian Authority (PA) Prime Minister, Mohammad Shtayyeh, understands the implications only too well. In a recent interview, he triumphantly predicted that the new consulate would re-divide Jerusalem.

After the US moved its embassy from Tel Aviv to Israel's capital in 2018, it subsumed the existing consulate in the city to form a single diplomatic mission. This was achieved under the administration of President Donald J. Trump and that, together with a profound misunderstanding of the dynamics of peace, explains Biden's determination to re-open the consulate. He has devoted much of his presidency so far to undoing everything he could of Trump's work, with the exception of the Afghanistan debacle, over which he uniquely claims to have been bound by Trump's previous plans.

The new consulate, exclusively to manage diplomatic relations with Palestinians, is designed to give hope that one day Jerusalem will be the capital of a putative Palestinian state. Israel can and rightly should never allow that. As well as betraying Israel, Biden's irresponsible diplomatic signalling — which also appeases his hard-left supporters — is a betrayal of the Palestinian people. They have suffered too long and too hard under the hostility of their leadership, which has consistently refused to entertain all proposals for peace with Israel that could lead to the establishment of their own state.

Successive Palestinian leaders have been encouraged in their intransigence by the US and Europe, who have for decades extracted concession after concession from Israel while Palestinians make none. The impossible aspirations of the PA leadership — who intend to see not a two-state solution but the destruction of the Jewish state — were dealt a severe blow by the 2020 Abraham Accords between Israel and several Arab nations, and by the US recognition of Jerusalem as Israel's capital in 2017 with the opening of an embassy there the following year.

These moves, made without pandering to the PA, and in the face of their implacable rejection, were never going to lead immediately to a change of heart by the Palestinians. But they represented a reaffirmation of the historic truth of the Jewish people's deep-rooted connection to the land of Israel, including Jerusalem, for over 3,500 years and created a historic paradigm shift in the region. The US and Arab states signalled the end of a long-standing indulgence of the PA's recalcitrance at the expense of their own people. The Palestinians would no longer have a veto over facilitating peace in the Middle East. This added a political pressure that holds out the best possible hope for an eventual rapprochement after decades of repeated failure from appeasing peace-processors.

Biden's administration has seriously damaged that prospect already. It has wilfully neglected the Abraham Accords, failing to encourage further Arab governments to normalise relations with Israel. The Accords were only achieved by strong American backing for each of the parties involved, offering economic, political or security benefits. Even if Biden was willing to pursue this policy (another of the hated Trump's) his far-reaching betrayal of Afghanistan has critically devalued US currency as a reliable ally and thus American influence in the Middle East -- adding to the damage inflicted by weakness and appeasement towards the Iranian regime.

The intended consulate in Israel's capital will hammer yet another nail into the coffin of peace. It will motivate PA leaders to double down on their hostility towards Israel, inspiring further violence against Israelis as well as inciting Jew-hate around the world by lying condemnation and misrepresentation of Israel's necessary defensive responses. It will also encourage greater support for Hamas, the terrorist group that rules Gaza and is even more overtly opposed to Israel's existence, with Palestinians seeing their violent policies to have renewed potential for victory over the Jews.

All of this sounds like an unrealistically severe impact for the opening of a diplomatic office. In the context of the Middle East, where such craven submissiveness, especially by a superpower, means so much, it is not. The PA have demanded the closure of the US Embassy in Jerusalem since it opened. But the PA Prime Minister conceded in February that the establishment of a US consulate would be an adequate substitute, saying that it "sends a [clear] political message." He understands what the US administration intends, that a consulate to the Palestinians in Jerusalem is tantamount to reversal of US recognition of Israel's sovereignty over the city.

That this is not mere bureaucratic reshuffling can also be understood from the Biden administration's determination to do it in the face of Israeli government opposition and despite it potentially breaching Israel's Basic Law, US law and the 1963 Vienna Convention, which does not allow a consulate to be opened without host nation consent. The Israeli Justice Minister, Gideon Sa'ar, made it clear a few days ago that this would not be forthcoming.

Some predict that Biden's consulate plan could even bring down the Bennett government. Foreign Minister Yair Lapid himself warned in September that it would destabilise his fragile coalition. In addition, opening a consulate in the same city as an existing embassy — an unprecedented move — reinforces its immense political significance. Especially as there is no practical purpose for the new facility, with the embassy already incorporating a department devoted exclusively to Palestinian affairs. If an independent consulate were really needed for the Palestinians it would make sense to put it in Ramallah, where virtually all PA government buildings are located.

Robert Gates, Obama's former Defense Secretary, memorably said that Biden has "been wrong on nearly every major foreign policy and national security issue over the past four decades". Following his validation in Afghanistan of this damning indictment, Biden now has a chance to at last get something right by abandoning his plan to undermine a close ally, reduce the prospects of peace and sentence the Palestinian people to more decades of suffering.

 

Colonel Richard Kemp is a former British Army Commander. He was also head of the international terrorism team in the U.K. Cabinet Office and is now a writer and speaker on international and military affairs.

Source: https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/17872/us-consulate-jerusalem

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Biden Makes the U.S. Energy-Dependent Again - Joseph Klein

 

​ by Joseph Klein

Begs OPEC for more oil as gas prices surge to a 7-year high.

 


President Biden was not done humiliating the United States with his disastrous withdrawal of all American troops from Afghanistan. Now he is literally begging Saudi Arabia and other OPEC cartel countries for more oil.

Gas prices at the pump are at a seven-year high. The average retail gasoline price is now more than one dollar per gallon higher than it was a year ago. Americans are feeling the pain every time they fill up their gas tanks.

During his softball CNN town hall on October 21st, Biden conceded that “we're about $3.30 a gallon most places now,” noting that the price had previously been “down in the single digits -- I mean single digits, a dollar-plus.”

What is Biden’s explanation for the incredible rise in gas prices over the last year? He blamed Americans’ plight on the supply of oil “being withheld by OPEC.”

Import petroleum prices have increased 70.5 percent from September 2020 to September 2021, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. There is no sign that this trend will be reversed anytime soon.

Thus, it is unsurprising that Biden admitted he doesn’t see gas prices coming down until “into next year, 2022,” at the earliest. “I don't see anything that's going to happen in the meantime that's going to significantly reduce gas prices,” Biden said.

What Biden did not say, of course, is that his own war on fossil fuels largely caused this problem. Biden turned the clock back to the time when the United States was dependent on Middle East oil -- before former President Donald Trump had managed to make the U.S. energy-independent.

“There's a possibility to be able to bring it down, depends on -- a little bit on Saudi Arabia and a few other things that are in the offing,” Biden said without specifying what those “few other things” are.

Trump had managed to wean the country off of dependence on Middle East oil. During the Trump administration, the United States became the number one producer of oil in the world while maintaining America’s position as the number one producer of natural gas. For the first time in nearly 70 years, the United States had become a net energy exporter.

The Trump administration accomplished this feat with such measures as dismantling burdensome regulations, increasing permit applications to drill on public lands by 300 percent, approving oil pipelines such as the Keystone XL pipeline, and pulling out of the one-sided Paris Climate Agreement that China was gaming.

Meanwhile, the U.S. was significantly reducing carbon emissions without having to be tied down by the job-killing constraints that the Obama-Biden administration had agreed to impose on America's energy sector in its Paris Climate Agreement commitments.

Joe Biden resolved to reverse everything that Trump had done to achieve energy independence. Like the illegal immigration crisis at the southern border, Biden helped to create the conditions leading to the surging gas prices that American consumers are experiencing this year.

Biden’s war on fossil fuels began with his January 20, 2021 executive order shutting down the Keystone XL pipeline that would have delivered more than 800,000 barrels of oil per day from Alberta Canada into the United States.

Days later, Biden issued an executive order imposing a moratorium on new oil and gas lease permits on federal lands and water.

Biden also brought the United States back into the Paris Climate Agreement.  “First thing I committed to do is rejoin that accord, number one,” Biden said at the CNN town hall. The Communist Chinese regime could not be happier.

Biden’s long-term answer to the present energy quagmire “is investing in renewable energy,” he told the CNN town hall audience. He is anticipating “well over a trillion dollars worth of expenditures for climate change,” if Congress passes his Build Back Better tax-and-spend plan.

The Biden administration is also proposing onerous regulations that will put the United States at a further economic disadvantage vis-a-vis China.

The Communist Chinese regime is already flouting the modest commitments it made under the Paris Climate Agreement by accelerating coal mining and building more coal-fired electric plants within the country the regime rules with an iron hand.

In fact, the Chinese government “has ordered all coal mines to operate at full capacity even during holidays, issued approvals for new mines and ordered major coal production bases in north and northwestern China,” according to the Wall Street Journal. China is also importing coal from Australia.

Moreover, China is embarked on an aggressive roll-out of new coal fired electric power plants.

“Last year, China built more than three times more new coal power capacity than all other countries in the world combined,” the New York Times reported on September 21, 2021.

While Chinese President Xi Jinping pledged that China would no longer build new coal-fired power projects abroad, China is continuing to add coal-fired electric power plants at home.

“China is planning to build 43 new coal-fired power plants and 18 new blast furnaces — equivalent to adding about 1.5% to its current annual emissions,” Time reported last August, based on an analysis by the Centre for Research on Energy (CREA). “The new projects were announced in the first half of this year despite the world’s largest polluter pledging to bring its emissions to a peak before 2030, and to make the country carbon neutral by 2060.”

At this pace, China will be building nearly one coal plant unit per week. Clean energy installations have fallen in China this year compared to 2020, according to CREA. The CREA analysis concluded that there is “no clear increasing trend in the share of power demand growth covered by zero-emissions sources.”  China’s newly installed wind, solar and nuclear capacity is “a far cry from the levels required towards the end of this decade to meet the emission peaking pledge” that China had made as part of its participation in the Paris Climate Agreement.

Meanwhile, as China continues to flout its modest greenhouse gas emission commitments, Biden boasted during the CNN town hall that “I'm presenting a commitment to the world that we will, in fact, get to net zero emissions on electric power by 2035.”

Watch out for skyrocketing electricity prices.

The 26th UN Climate Change Conference of the Parties (COP26) commences on October 31st in Glasgow, Scotland. This summit meeting of world leaders is a follow-up to the 2015 conference in Paris, which resulted in the Paris Climate Agreement.

“We’re going to be there with bells on,” Biden said during his September White House meeting with British Prime Minister Boris Johnson, who will be hosting the Glasgow meeting. As of the writing of this article, China’s President Xi has not said whether he plans to attend, with or without bells on.

The question is whether Biden’s planned “commitment to the world” on getting to net zero emissions on electric power by 2035, or any other radical commitments he intends to present, will cause the bells to toll for the U.S. economy and American consumers.

 

Joseph Klein

Source: https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2021/10/biden-makes-us-energy-dependent-again-joseph-klein/

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Israel envoy to brief US over ban on Palestinian groups - AP and ILH Staff

 

​ by AP and ILH Staff

Joshua Zarka, a senior Foreign Ministry official, says the envoy will "give them all the details and present them all the intelligence" during his visit in the coming days.

Israel is sending an envoy to Washington amid a deepening rift with the Biden administration over six outlawed Palestinian rights groups, a Foreign Ministry official said Tuesday.

Israel last week designated the prominent Palestinian human rights groups as terrorist organizations, sparking international criticism and repeated assertions by Israel's top strategic partner, the United States, that there had been no advance warning of the move.

Israel's decision marked what critics say was a major escalation of its decades-long crackdown on political activism in the occupied territories. The US State Department has said it would seek more information on the decision.

Joshua Zarka, a senior Foreign Ministry official, told Army Radio the envoy would "give them all the details and to present them all the intelligence" during his visit in the coming days.

Zarka said he personally updated US officials on Israel's intention to outlaw the groups last week, and said he believed Washington wanted a more thorough explanation of the decision.

The rights groups decision is emerging as a test of the relationship between the Biden administration and Israel's new government, which was formed in June by eight politically disparate parties. The coalition ended the 12-year rule of former Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

Shawan Jabarin, director of the al-Haq human rights group, at the organization's offices 
in Ramallah, Saturday, Oct. 23, 2021 (AP/Majdi Mohammed)

Netanyahu's government enjoyed broad support from the Trump administration, which moved the US embassy to Jerusalem and cut funding to the Palestinians.

The Biden administration has mostly restored traditional foreign policy toward Israel and the Palestinians. But with the US focused on other pressing domestic and foreign issues, the conflict was expected to take a backseat.

The fractious coalition government has also sought to minimize the Palestinian issue, agreeing not to make major moves that might threaten its stability. But in recent weeks, it has ramped up focus on the conflict, offering a number of goodwill gestures to Palestinians in Judea and Samaria and the Gaza Strip and also pushing forward on building thousands of new homes for Jewish settlers – and for Palestinians as well.

Israel has for years alleged the NGO groups' links to the Palestinian Front for the Liberation of Palestine terrorist organization, but even the Netanyahu governments stopped short of labeling them terrorist organizations.

The announcement has outraged the activist community in Israel, which in recent years has also faced pushback from successive Israeli governments. In a joint statement Monday, more than 20 Israeli human rights groups, including some of the country's leading, most established organizations, condemned the step, calling it "a draconian measure that criminalizes critical human rights work."

Meanwhile, activists from Zionist organization Im Tirtzu on Monday filed a complaint with the Israeli police against left-wing lawmakers and organizations who expressed sympathy for the six Palestinian NGOs.

On Tuesday, the United Nations' High Commissioner for Human Rights Michelle Bachelet also criticized the designation, saying it was "an attack on human rights defenders" and calling for it to be rescinded.

The declaration against the Palestinian rights groups appeared to pave the way for Israel to raid their offices, seize assets, arrest staff and criminalize any public expressions of support for the groups. Most of the targeted organizations document alleged human rights violations by Israel as well as the Palestinian Authority, both of which routinely detain Palestinian activists.

The designated groups are Al-Haq, a human rights group founded in 1979, as well as the Addameer rights group, Defense for Children International-Palestine, the Bisan Center for Research and Development, the Union of Palestinian Women's Committees and the Union of Agricultural Work Committees.

 

AP and ILH Staff 

Source: https://www.israelhayom.com/2021/10/27/israel-envoy-to-brief-us-over-ban-on-palestinian-groups/

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

New Jersey’s Phil Murphy has COVID plans he wasn’t going to share with voters - Andrea Widburg

 

​ by Andrea Widburg

With the election imminent, Murphy, one of the most distasteful governors in America, got caught out by Project Veritas.

New Jersey’s governor Phil Murphy is another Democrat governor who has seen COVID’s appearance on the scene as the opportunity to expand his power far beyond the Constitution’s parameters. In 2020, he implemented some of the most draconian lockdown orders in America, including locking down vulnerable seniors with people already infected with COVID. Now that he’s in a tight reelection race against a dynamic Republican candidate, Murphy planned to keep secret that he intends to mandate vaccines. Project Veritas Action, however, gave away the secret. New Jersey voters should be outraged.

Murphy, a product of the Ivy League and Goldman Sachs, became New Jersey’s governor in 2018. A formerly generic Democrat, he became a power-mad tyrant once COVID hit America. As happened in New York, he locked down gyms and restaurants, and even put the kybosh on family gatherings and religious services.

In April, Murphy ordered the arrest of 15 men for attending the funeral of their rabbi, something that is exceptionally important in the Orthodox Jewish community. When Tucker Carlson quizzed him about riding roughshod over the First Amendment’s assertion that people have an inherent right to worship and assemble freely, Murphy guffawed, saying that core constitutional rights were “above my pay grade.” Instead, he said, all that mattered was data.

First, the Constitution is never above a politician’s pay grade. Second, there is no clause in the Constitution saying that a governor can ignore it completely because the scientists say so. And we know, Murphy wasn’t listening to the scientists anyway.

After all, if Murphy had been listening to scientists, he wouldn’t have herded people infected with COVID into old-age homes when it’s been known since the virus first appeared that the elderly are the most vulnerable. In August 2020, when there was still a rule of law in America, the Department of Justice asked the governors of New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, and Michigan to explain the orders they issued that resulted in the deaths of so many nursing home residents. The DOJ noted that “New Jersey’s death rate by population is 1,733 deaths per million people—the highest in the nation.” Luckily for the four Democrat governors who conveniently wiped out the people most reliant on state-funded medical services, Biden’s DOJ dropped the investigation.

Murphy’s opponent in the upcoming gubernatorial election, the personable, dynamic Jack Ciattarelli, had a field day talking about Murphy’s disregard for citizens’ rights.

Ciattarelli is going to have even more fun with Project Veritas Action’s most recent exposé. It turns out that, once he is reelected, Murphy plans to mandate vaccinations for all New Jersey citizens.

Setting aside the fact that this is almost certainly an unconstitutional plan, the big news is that Murphy had no plans to tell New Jersey’s voters about his plan to force them to take an experimental gene-altering vaccine. Nevertheless, both his senior campaign advisor and the manager of an organization working with the New Jersey Democratic State Committee to reelect Murphy say that he will absolutely do so.

Here’s the transcript from Project Veritas:

Wendy Martinez, New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy Campaign Senior Advisor: “What do you mean the mandates?”

Veritas Journalist: “The [COVID] vaccine mandates, like California, that has the mandate that everyone has to be vaccinated.”

Martinez: “He [Murphy] is going to do it, but he couldn’t do it before the elections. Because of the independents and the undecided.”

Veritas Journalist: “The independents and the undecided would not vote for him if he did the mandates.”

Martinez: “Because they are all into all the sh*t. My rights, my sh*t -- and they don’t care if they kill everybody.”

Veritas Journalist: “Well, you see that’s good to know then…after he wins, then he’ll do the mandates. The [COVID] vaccine mandates.”

Martinez: “He will, but right now is about him winning. It will be fine.”

Matthew Urquijo, the manager of New Jersey forward, said the exact same thing. (You can see the transcript at Project Veritas, too.)

On Tuesday, when Project Veritas caught up with both Martinez and Murphy to ask them about what Martinez had said, both refused to comment (although Murphy’s press secretary promised to email an answer). Neither could just say “no.”

No matter your political party, if you’re a New Jersey resident who doesn’t think a governor should have the ability to force people to take experimental gene-altering shots with significant side effects, especially for a disease that, for people under 60, has a greater than 99% survival rate, then you’d do well to vote for Jack Ciattarelli. After all, even if you’re “pro-vaccine,” the next shot Murphy orders might be one you don’t want to take but...too late...there’ll be a precedent.

Image: Wendy Martinez. YouTube screen grab.

 

Andrea Widburg

Source: https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2021/10/new_jerseys_phil_murphy_has_covid_plans_he_wasnt_going_to_share_with_voters.html

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Parents Teaching or Government Indoctrination - You Choose - Pete Hoekstra

 

​ by Pete Hoekstra

While the media may portray this as a battle about COVID mandates, American history, or the teaching of sexuality, those are just the scrimmages that we are witnessing. The real battle is for who the teacher will be in our children's lives

  • Every expert who came in indicated that the most important thing in a child's learning was the presence of a caring adult in that child's life. We learned that schools most connected to their community were most likely to be successful. And that schools that focused on the basics of reading, writing and arithmetic achieved the best results.

  • Hillary Clinton once famously said it takes a village to raise a child. It is hard to disagree with that statement on its face until you realize the village Clinton had in mind is the government and not the parents and families who make it up.

  • While the media may portray this as a battle about COVID mandates, American history, or the teaching of sexuality, those are just the scrimmages that we are witnessing. The real battle is for who the teacher will be in our children's lives — parents and loving local individuals who know our children's names, or faceless government bureaucrats hell-bent on indoctrinating our children with their particular worldview.

  • McAuliffe, Garland, and the NSBA would have you believe that parents are domestic terrorists, but it is time for them to realize how their way of thinking poses a real threat to American rights. Put me in the category of those that believe parents are the ones who should be raising our kids.

(Image source: iStock)

The discontent at school board meetings across America is hard to miss. It is showing up in the news and social media feeds that people are watching and reading in their homes. Many people, however, are missing the major driver of this discontent -- the major transformation that the White House, National School Boards Association (NSBA) and others are trying to impose on our government schools.

The recent debate statements by Terry McAuliffe, the Democrats' Virginia gubernatorial candidate, and actions by Attorney General Merrick Garland following a letter from the NSBA clearly signal they believe that government schools are a tool to be used to indoctrinate children. They also believe the force of the federal government should be used to back them up.

They no longer to believe that a child's primary instructor in life is their parents or a close loved and that local control of schools is a central tenet of the American way of life. Instead, they believe it is the responsibility of the federal government to impose a certain way of thinking and what curriculum children are taught.

I take McAuliffe at his word that he really does not believe parents should have a role in developing or reviewing the curriculum that their children are taught in their local public schools. I take the NSBA at its word that it views parents who question local government school curriculum on sexuality, critical race theory, COVID mandates, and other items should be investigated as domestic terrorists. And I believe Garland really does think it is the role of the FBI to protect government schools from concerned parents.

When someone tells you what they are planning, or better yet shows you, you should take them seriously. And these individuals should be taken seriously. They are the same people who want to control local education from Washington, and kick parents out of the process, that say they want open borders, cradle-to-grave social programs for everyone, higher taxes, and a . Far from meaningless campaign rhetoric, the left is doing everything and more that they promised in the run-up to the 2020 election. And now they are targeting our children.

I spent 18 years on the House Education and Labor Committee. Every expert who came in indicated that the most important thing in a child's learning was the presence of a caring adult in that child's life. We learned that schools most connected to their community were most likely to be successful. And that schools that focused on the basics of reading, writing and arithmetic achieved the best results.

Republicans and Democrats have been dismantling that paradigm for the last 50 years. In that time, local schools have shifted from safe zones where parents could assume that values taught at home would be reflected at their local government school. Instead, government schools are being forged into the latest tool used to indoctrinate our children with Marxist ideology. To them, parents are no longer an integral part of the learning process, parents have apparently become an impediment.

Hillary Clinton once famously said it takes a village to raise a child. It is hard to disagree with that statement on its face until you realize the village Clinton had in mind is the government and not the parents and families who make it up. It is little wonder that McAuliffe, who is a key figure in the Clinton machine, sees things the same way when it comes to parents and education. They evidently believe it must protect our children from what it perceives as backward ideas such as clinging to "guns or religion" as then-presidential candidate Barack Obama said.

While the media may portray this as a battle about COVID mandates, American history, or the teaching of sexuality, those are just the scrimmages that we are witnessing. The real battle is for who the teacher will be in our children's lives — parents and loving local individuals who know our children's names, or faceless government bureaucrats hell-bent on indoctrinating our children with their particular worldview. This is an attack and disruption of the nuclear family as prescribed by Black Lives Matter.

It is far past time to stop the controlling influence on education coming from Washington. McAuliffe, Garland, and the NSBA would have you believe that parents are domestic terrorists, but it is time for them to realize how their way of thinking poses a real threat to American rights. Put me in the category of those that believe parents are the ones who should be raising our kids.

 

Pete Hoekstra was US Ambassador to the Netherlands during the Trump administration. He served 18 years in the U.S. House of Representatives representing the second district of Michigan and served as Chairman and Ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee. He is currently Chairman of the Center for Security Policy Board of Advisors.

Source: https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/17892/schools-indoctrination

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

The battle for the US consulate in Jerusalem - Nadav Shragai

 

​ by Nadav Shragai

The White House is threatening to unilaterally impose the opening of a US consulate for Palestinians in Jerusalem, regardless of Israel's fierce opposition to the move, as well allowing a PLO office to again operate in Washington. But the implications could cause a perilous domino effect.

 

'US consulate for Palestinians will encourage terrorism'
The US Palestinian Consulate  in Jerusalem | File photo: Oren Ben Hakoon

The pessimistic scenario that Israeli diplomats have been describing with regard to the opening of an American consulate for the Palestinians in Jerusalem could materialize in the coming weeks after the Knesset approves the state budget. Thomas R. Nides, the United States' designated ambassador to Israel, who will be replacing David Friedman, is expected at the Shraga famous building on Agron Road, which is currently the official residence of the US ambassador in Israel.

The building housed the US consulate in Jerusalem until about two years ago when it was closed by President Donald Trump; it functioned for many years as the American representative office to east Jerusalem and the territories of the Palestinian Authority and Gaza and was subject to the auspices of the US State Department and not to the embassy in Tel Aviv.

According to the instructions received from his masters in Washington, Nides, despite Israeli opposition, will take unilateral measures. He will restore the sign on the consulate and will separate anew the operations of the embassy that Trump transferred from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, and the operations of the consulate, which will deal with Palestinian affairs. Thus, de facto, two separate American diplomatic entities will operate from Israel's capital: One, an embassy that will deal with Israeli affairs within the Green Line, and a second, the consulate that will act de facto as an embassy, and will deal with Palestinian affairs in east Jerusalem, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, as well as the settlers in Judea and Samaria.

The professional echelon at the Foreign Ministry has described the expected American measures as an "introduction to the division of Jerusalem." They stress that the effect of such a measure, which is backed by President Joe Biden and his Secretary of State Antony Blinken,  will be to undermine, if not to completely withdraw from the measures taken by President Donald Trump to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of the State of Israel.

This is also how these measures are understood by the Palestinians. The Palestinian Prime Minister Mohammad Shtayyeh said a few days ago (in quotes report by Palestinian Media Watch "the message of the new American administration is that Jerusalem is not a united Israeli city, and that the American administration does not recognize the annexation of Arab Jerusalem by the Israeli side. We would like the American consulate to lay the foundation for a future American embassy in a Palestinian state."  Shtayyeh added, "The American measure distances the United States from the view that Jerusalem is one city, a view that was at the foundation of the decision to transfer the American Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem."

The battle against the upcoming steps – the Americans are not in any way hiding their intention to carry them out – will soon come up against a further two American decisions aimed at completing the consulate move. The first is that the United States wishes to reopen not only the consulate on Agron Road, but also its east Jerusalem branch, which operated until 2010 on Nablus Road, (and later moved to Arnona). The conversation with the Palestinians over this possibility has already begun.

The east Jerusalem branch of the consulate for many years helped establish the institutions of power and security mechanisms of the Palestinian Authority and supplied the administration in Washington with incriminating figures about Israeli construction in Judea and Samaria and in the Jewish neighborhoods in east Jerusalem so they could operate against it.

Post-budget embarrassment?

The second measure that could materialize in the future is the reopening of the PLO representative office in Washington. A group of Democratic congressmen from the progressive branch of the party is preparing the ground for this to happen. The representative office was closed during President Trump's term, but the Biden administration is leaning toward reopening it. This will happen when and if legislation being led by Michigan congressman Andy Levin passes through the US House of Representatives.

As reported in Israel Hayom by Caroline Glick, Levin wishes to amend the  Anti-Terrorism Act of 1987 in a manner that will enable the reopening of the PLO representative office in Washington. In that historic law, the United States designated the PLO as a terrorist organization and prohibited it from opening any offices on its territory or from receiving American funding as long as the organization and its members fail to cease engagement in terrorism.

Dr. Dore Gold (Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs/Courtesy)

The possibility of unilateral measures from Washington on the matter of the American consulate in Jerusalem is causing great embarrassment among the Israeli leadership. In particular, after the Americans understood from Foreign Minister Yair Lapid that this is a question of timing and not one of substance as revealed by Ariel Kahana in Israel Hayom. The Americans therefore agreed to postpone the opening of the consulate until after passing of the state budget in the Knesset in order to enable the government to stabilize politically.

Lapid's position assuming that this indeed is how he presented it, as the Americans claim, (Lapid denies this) is not acceptable to Prime Minister Naftali Bennett.  The Prime Minister's confidantes told Israel Hayom that he "is opposed to the opening of a consulate in Jerusalem at any time. He sees this as a move that could bring back through the front door the 'old American policy' that seeks to divide Jerusalem and to establish a Palestinian capital in the east of the city for a future Palestinian state."

The talk by the Prime Minister's confidantes of 'old policy' requires explanation: For decades, American presidential candidates from both the Democratic and Republican parties promised to transfer the US Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem -  but when they were finally elected, they refrained from doing so. The Jerusalem Embassy Act passed by Congress in 1995 required successive administrations to transfer the US embassy to Israel's capital, but successive US presidents signed yearly waivers that temporarily postponed this. The Obama and Bush administrations and their predecessors often removed from official photos the caption "Jerusalem, Israel" and instead just left the caption as "Jerusalem". The State Department even refused to register in the passports of US citizens born in the capital that their place of birth was "Jerusalem, Israel."

A reward for nothing

Former Israeli Ambassador to the US Dr. Michael Oren recalled this week how he was once summoned to the State Department and rebuked for the demolition of an outdoor toilet in east Jerusalem. "The demolition was authorized by the Israeli courts," and that event "like other humiliating incidents"  was "germinated at the American consulate in Jerusalem."

Oren relates how he spoke about this matter with the heads of Jewish organizations:  "I showed them the consulate's website. Everything on it was a Palestinian narrative, just in Arabic and English. From that website, you would not know that there was a single Jew in Jerusalem. I told them; this is antisemitic. Do something about it. They weren't willing to go up against the State Department. The consulate made sure to avoid even an appearance of American recognition of Jerusalem as Israel's capital and in embittered the lives of successive governments here every time they built a new neighborhood for Jews in Jerusalem, and every time they tried to enforce planning and building laws in east Jerusalem."

Former Israeli Ambassador to the US Michael Oren (Miri Tzachi/File)

Donald Trump, as we all know, changed this reality, but the Biden administration, from its very first days, has tried to turn the wheel back. In January, almost immediately after the Biden administration moved in, the title of the US ambassador in Israel was changed on the embassy's Twitter page from "US Ambassador to Israel" to "US Ambassador to Israel, the West Bank and Gaza."

Public criticism led to a rapid turnabout and a return to the old title, but the trend was clear for all to see.

Former Foreign Ministry Director-General Dr. Dore Gold, who currently is the president of the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, believes that Israel should put things on the table and clarify to the United States very openly, what it can do and what it is not capable of doing and what it is not licensed to do. "If we are very clear about our real maneuvering space, the Americans will respect that," he states. Gold, who is well known for his cautious phrasing does not mince his words this time around and defines the administration's intention to reopen the consulate in Jerusalem as "scandalous". "Israel cannot come to terms with threats to its sovereignty in Jerusalem," he says.

Q: Is it possible to prevent the Americans from going ahead if they plan to act unilaterally, as has already been hinted?

"Perhaps not, but then we will have to hold in-depth discussions regarding the possibility of an Israeli response;  for example, the expansion of Jerusalem's boundaries. There are other ideas, I don't want to expand on them here. But, of course, we certainly can't put won't be able to leave such measures without a response."

Q: The United States claims that the consulate existed for decades without Israel making any request for it to be closed.

"We judge the existing reality. The Palestinian Authority didn't exist for decades, and now it does.  For 19 years, Jerusalem was divided with fences and a border, but for 54 years, it has been an undivided city. Things change. If they had opened a consulate in Ramallah, I wouldn't have been enthusiastic, but I would have understood it. If they had opened a consulate after the Palestinian authorities stopped paying salaries to the families of terrorists, I still wouldn't have accepted a consulate in Jerusalem, but I would have understood the demand. But the Palestinians haven't changed their behavior and they are receiving a reward."

Q: Is the opening of an American consulate for the Palestinians in the capital a move that annuls American recognition of Jerusalem as Israel's capital?

"It could lead there or it could pave the way. One has to remember that there is the Vienna Convention of 1963 which both Israel and the United States are signatories to, and according to which the agreement of the host state is required to open a consulate. To do so unilaterally without Israel's agreement would be breaking the rules."

Q: Perhaps the fight against the consulate, which at the end of the day is a symbol, is the wrong battle? Perhaps it would be better to focus on construction in Atarot, Har Homa, Givat Hamatos, and E1, which could shape the boundaries of the city for generations to come?

"There is no contradiction between the two. I in any event don't see the United States today allowing a policy that recognizes Israel's rights to build on territories that were part of Jordan before 1967. Coordination with the United States is something that is vital and important, but the story of the consulate is critical, and there is no room for compromise on this issue. It is something that is at the very soul of the state. We cannot compromise on our rights in all of Jerusalem."

Gold notes that he explained these rights in 2017 in great detail to the US House of Representatives. "Our friends there understood it," he says, "the formal reality now is still such that from the perspective of the United States, Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. The United States has not withdrawn recognition of this.  In this reality, we must be tenacious and manage this battle with the US with prudence and sensitivity. But most of all, with tenacity and faith.

Gold clarifies that he himself does not differentiate between the east and the west of the city. "There is one Jerusalem, but the opening of the consulate on Agron Road in the west of the city will not only undermine Israeli sovereignty in the capital, it will also result in a grave withdrawal from the status Israel achieved in West Jerusalem prior to 1967.

Compromise and creative solutions

Oren is also convinced that if the administration takes unilateral steps and reopens the consulate unilaterally, Israel will have to fight the move. "Theoretically, one could stop providing electricity and water to the building. And it is possible to do other things that we shouldn't talk about right now," he says. "One has to take into account that there will be a price to pay; perhaps condemnations and perhaps sanctions. Therefore, we have to weigh carefully whether we can bear those costs. It is a strategic question, but, if, God forbid, the Americans decide to break all the rules, the battle at one level or the other will have to continue."

Oren hints at creative solutions that are being spoken about behind the scenes but refrains from providing any details. However, some of the proposals have been revealed to Israel Hayom: A consulate in Abu Dis ( the Americans reject the idea); definition of the role of the consulate as a diplomatic entity that will deal only with cultural and visa issues (Israel doesn't believe that the Americans will stick to their obligation on this); an American declaration that the opening of the consulate does not reflect any change in the administration's stand on recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and Israeli sovereignty over the city (the chances that the administration in Washington will agree to this are low); increasing budgets for the Palestinian Authority and UNRWA in exchange for postponing the opening of the consulate (the Palestinians are opposed to this).

Nevertheless, Oren clarifies that "we have to stand up for our interests. I can see crawl toward that old antisemitic policy whereby the ambassador in Washington is summoned for every demolition of illegal construction in east Jerusalem and is summoned for every brick that is laid in Jewish neighborhoods in Jerusalem beyond the Green Line. It is a matter of sovereignty and national honor. This is our capital. We must set boundaries, even when we are talking about our greatest friend. This is the moment where I would expect from our government to do so clearly, firmly and respectfully."

Former Jerusalem Mayor Likud MK Nir Barkat (Oren Ben Hakoon/File)

The campaign against the opening of the consulate has been headed for several months by former Jerusalem mayor Likud MK Nir Barkat, who says he is in possession of polls that show "a huge majority among the Jewish public that is against the moves planned by the United States… Even Most Yesh Atid supporters are against this."

"When the State of Israel was established," he notes, "it inherited the consulates that operated in Mandatory Palestine prior to the establishment of the state. It allowed it to continue to operate, but it also made sure not to the opening of a new consulate in Jerusalem.

"Having two diplomatic delegations in one city means the division of Jerusalem. There is no other possible meaning. It is a finger in Israel's eye. If the Americans take such a unilateral measure, it will not only be a violation of the Vienna Convention, but also an American message that the great United States is not capable of respecting its most loyal partners. It is liable to have a very strong effect on relations with the Americans.

"I will not go into detail what kind of possibilities exists regarding responses. If the Americans do go ahead with unilateral measures," says Barkat. "In my opinion, we must not go there." He expresses the hope that both the "opposition and coalition should unite around my proposed legislation that prohibits the state from opening or establishing in Jerusalem a diplomatic representation that serves any foreign entity."

Barkat warns of a possible chain reaction. "There are no words to describe the size of the catastrophe if we do not act to prevent this. As soon as the United States unilaterally opens a consulate for the Palestinians, other countries could take similar measures, and then we will have lost the ability to stop such a process in the future."

In the meantime, the American administration is preparing the ground for the move, and has allocated a budget to operate the consulate in the west of the city. It has also begun looking into opening a branch of the consulate in the east of the city. An American source clarifies that opening the consulate "is an election promise made by Biden. He owes it this to large parts of the Democratic Party."

In Israel, on the other hand, a source inside the coalition warns the Americans that insisting on the reopening of the consulate, even after the budget passes will undermine the Bennett-Lapid government and could serve Benjamin Netanyahu. "There are ministers in the government who will be unable to live with this and may switch their support to the opposition," the source says. "I hope and believe that the Americans are taking this into account as well," he adds.

 

Nadav Shragai 

Source:https://www.israelhayom.com/2021/10/22/the-battle-for-the-us-consulate-in-jerusalem/

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

The extraordinary power of 'Let's Go Brandon' - Andrea Widburg

 

​ by Andrea Widburg

It's a secret handshake that helps people express their profound discontent with Joe Biden's policies.

I never wear clothes with logos on them.  However, when I saw that I could buy a "Let's Go Brandon" t-shirt for only $20, I couldn't resist.  Today, when I went to my local outlet mall and then to Costco, I wore that shirt.  I live in the Southeast, in an area with a sizeable Black population and a lot of Democrats.  Still, there are conservatives here, so I expected some recognition for the shirt.  What I didn't expect was the happiness with which my shirt would be greeted.

At the outlet mall, a young Black woman, maybe in her late 20s, came hurrying up to me.  "I love your shirt," she said.  "Where did you get it?"  I explained that I'd bought it online.  We agreed that its subtlety made it especially appealing.  From there, the brief conversation drifted to Ben Shapiro (she's a big fan, while I'm more of a Matt Walsh and Michael Knowles person) and ended with fond farewells on both our parts.

My next stop was Costco, where the shirt again elicited happy praise, although this time from White people only.  A young woman with a small child in her cart told me that she loved my shirt.  Two grizzled older men liked it, too.  When I checked out, the clerk said, "I love your shirt."  She also told me that the gas station she passes on the way to work increased the price of gas by ten cents overnight.

The whole experience was so uplifting that I'm planning to make the shirt my standard garb for shopping.  The great thing about it is that it's not "in your face."  Despite the Washington Post trying to argue that the phrase, with its allusion to "Eff Joe Biden," is as offensive as the years of obscenities and death wishes that leftists hurled at Bush and Trump, the fact remains that, outside of political junky circles, most Democrats haven't yet grokked to the meaning behind "Let's Go Brandon."  It's the conservative secret handshake.  We bond over it, knowing that even if we're in a blue town, we're not alone.

The great thing is that I'm not the only one who's bringing "Let's Go Brandon" out of the stadiums and onto the streets.  The Marine who wrestled a gun away from the would-be armed robber appeared at his award ceremony wearing his "Lets Go Brandon [sic]" shirt.  When New York's police, firefighters, and teachers, representing all sorts of races, marched across the Brooklyn Bridge to protest vaccine mandates, one of the things they chanted was "Let's Go Brandon":

Congressmen are also starting to make their "Let's Go Brandon" statement.  Rep. Bill Posey (R-Fla.) made a pithy attack on Biden's oxymoronically titled "Build Back Better" bill and every one of his dismal policies.  He ended by stating, "Let's Go Brandon" (at 3:20), which was a clean way of saying what increasing numbers of Americans think about what Biden is doing to our country.

Indeed, a Politico reporter tweeted out with no small measure of concern that "Let's Go Brandon" is spreading on the Hill:

It's time for all of us to put on our "Let's Go Brandon" gear, whether it's a t-shirt, hat, button, banner, or bumper sticker.  Displaying it doesn't say whether we're Democrat or Republican.  It says we, the people, are fed up with

  • inflation that shows up in the grocery store, the gas pump, and our energy bills;
  • forced vaccines, something that happens in totalitarian nations, not America, and that forces people to choose between bodily integrity and putting food on the table;
  • an open border that allows unvaccinated people from 100+ countries to pour across our borders, putting enormous pressure on our social services, increasing crime, bringing tracks, trafficking children, and undercutting American jobs;
  • efforts to Balkanize America through Critical Race Theory, which claims that Whites are evil and Blacks are pathetic losers;
  • the determined effort to gaslight Americans into accepting that people can magically abandon their biological sex based upon their feelings;
  • a "Build Back Better" plan that will burden our children's children while rewarding the administration's political allies;
  • a foreign policy that seems determined to destroy American credibility and harm her allies;
  • subordinating American economic interests to China; and
  • all the other madness that the Biden administration is visiting up a country Fauci's COVID virus entered America, had a secure border, a thriving economy, energy independence, improved race relations, and a growing middle class.

LET'S GO BRANDON!  LET'S GO BRANDON!  LET'S GO BRANDON!

 

 

Andrea Widburg

Source: https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2021/10/the_extraordinary_power_of_lets_go_brandon.html

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter