A revolutionary anthem. The post ‘Five to One’: The drunken session that defined The Doors first appeared on Far Out Magazine.

A musical icon. The post Can’s Irmin Schmidt on the secret to Damo Suzuki’s singing first appeared on Far Out Magazine.

The Russians have taken Avdiivka‚ and President Joe Biden faces a tough choice: he either closes the Mexican border or loses Ukraine. The $61 billion supplemental aid package for Ukraine‚ which may be the minimum required to block further Russian advances‚ remains held up by Congress‚ which is unlikely to pass it anytime soon unless the administration returns to the tough border policies of former President Donald Trump. Speaker of the House Mike Johnson responded to Democrat machinations to force a vote last week by putting the House of Representatives in recess. If Ukraine does not get the aid needed to replenish seriously depleted ammunition stocks soon‚ there won’t be sufficient artillery or air defense ammunition to contain further Russian moves. According to the Washington-based Institute for the Study of War (ISW)‚ intense air strikes by Russian Su-34 and Su-35 fighter aircraft supporting ground forces in Avdiivka proved crucial in Russia’s victory. (READ MORE: Putting America First Means Standing Up to Bullies) “The Russian ability to conduct these mass strikes for several days in the most active part of the frontline suggests that Ukrainian forces were not able to deny them access to the airspace around Avdiivka…. Delays in Western security assistance may lead to further significant constraints on Ukrainian air defenses that could allow Russian forces to replicate the close air support that facilitated Russian advances in Avdiivka at scale in Ukraine‚” ISW reported. Glide bombs with half-ton warheads dropped by the Sukhois on a coke plant serving as a Ukranian fortress‚ decided Ukraine’s newly appointed army commander‚ General Oleksandr Syrsky‚ on sounding the retreat. He had personally led the crack 3rd Assault Brigade equipped with American Abrams tanks and Bradley fighting vehicles to reinforce Avdiivka‚ but when air strikes triggered a chemical fire in the coke plant‚ releasing a toxic cloud‚ he realized the situation was hopeless. Despite his reputed indifference to casualties‚ Syrsky pulled out the troops to “preserve their lives and health‚” according to the official statement. His two or three brigades‚ including exhausted units who had held out in Avdiivka for four months‚ were facing seven Russian brigades encircling the city. The capture of Avdiivka‚ which cost Russia over 20‚000 casualties and thousands of destroyed tanks‚ combat vehicles‚ and artillery pieces‚ solidified the vital central front in Donetsk. Despite the city’s small size (its original population numbered 30‚000)‚ it presented a major obstacle to Putin’s plans to dominate the Donbas region. The town controls a railway and threatened Russia’s hold on nearby Bahkmut‚ a city similarly captured by Russia last spring following an 8-month siege and 25‚000 casualties. (READ MORE: The Stable Path: Two Years of Ukraine’s Fight for Survival) With its central front consolidated‚ Russia can start moving towards Kramatorsk‚ the industrial heart of Donbas‚ which Su-34s started bombing following Avdiivka’s fall last week. With a population of 100‚000‚ modern steel plants‚ vast iron mines‚ gas fields‚ and sophisticated engineering facilities‚ the control of Kramatorsk is a key prize that Putin would need to secure in any future negotiations to partition Ukraine‚ which now seems all but inevitable. Russia is also intensifying attacks in Zaporizhzhia to dislodge the Ukranians from Robotyne‚ which they captured in a failed counteroffensive to penetrate Russia’s southern defensive lines last summer. Russian attacks are also underway in the northern sector of Kupiansk and various other points along the 1‚000-mile front where Putin is reported to be massing a half million troops for an all-out offensive following the Russian elections when he will be free to induct hundreds of thousands more men into the army. Europeans are scrambling to get weapons to Ukraine. As Avdiivka fell‚ President of Ukraine Volodymyr Zelensky flew to Paris and Berlin to plead for arms. Expressing fears about a possible collapse of the Ukrainian army‚ the European Union High Representative for Foreign Affairs Josep Borrell‚ called on member states to ship weapons “immediately”. Half a million of badly needed 155 artillery rounds are on the way‚ according to EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen who has called for the creation of a “defense post” to coordinate assistance. But it’s only half the quantity promised by Germany a year ago and there are serious doubts that Europe can match Russia’s output of over 100‚000 rounds per month anytime soon. Russia is also receiving munitions from North Korea and Iran‚ prompting European defense officials to approach South Korea for help. Ukraine’s NASAM air defense missiles‚ being replenished by Norway‚ and IRIS-T systems‚ being supplied by Germany‚ lack the necessary speed and range to intercept Russia’s hypersonic missiles‚ which can only be stopped by American Patriot missiles that run out next month according to U.S. estimates. It could present the the window of opportunity for Putin to unleash his full arsenal of  Kh-22s‚ Kh-59s‚ and other missiles to knock out Ukraine’s energy and industrial infrastructure‚ according to former Royal United Services Institute director‚ Michael Clarke. Although Europe is waking up to the threat posed by Russia and several countries are ramping up defense spending past the 2 percent of GDP that Donald Trump demanded‚ they are hardly in shape to take on Russia. The UK‚ for example‚ which has been the most vociferous backer of Ukraine‚ lacks sailors to crew its ships‚ and its new aircraft carrier can’t be put to sea. (READ MORE from Martin Arostegui: Ukraine and Russia Battle for Avdiivka) American Democrats and the media will blame “Republican Trump Supporters” if Ukraine is eventually overrun or forced to negotiate a humiliating peace with Russia. Indications of such an outcome were evident at the international Munich Conference last week where China’s foreign minister dismissed direct appeals by Ukraine’s foreign minister to broker talks‚ on the basis that “conditions in Ukraine are not yet conducive to negotiations‚” which some analysts interpret as meaning that Putin remains short of his territorial goals. The Biden administration bears overriding responsibility for any tragic outcome of the Ukraine conflict. Its obscene withdrawal from Afghanistan encouraged Putin to test Western resolve. Its green energy policies locked European allies into a dependence on Russian oil and gas which they still can’t shake off‚ despite sanctions‚ and the billiard effect of its open borders policy now threatens to sink Kyiv. As Harry Truman said‚ “The buck stops here” and when a president embarks on a high-stakes military enterprise that can alter the world balance of power‚ he must be prepared to sacrifice whatever is necessary for a successful outcome. What is necessary in this case is to reverse a border policy opposed by the vast majority of Americans to marshal the political support to halt Russia. Is Biden capable of being a statesman or is he destined to remain a party machine politician beholden to a cabal of billionaire donors and far-left apparatchiks? The post Russia Is Winning in Ukraine. The US Should Step Up. appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

Conservative groups today are splintering into sects squabbling over what true conservatism is. The last Republican president to unite these sects was Ronald Reagan. He won election and then reelection by wide margins‚ turned over the White House to his own party‚ and restored America’s self-confidence‚ prosperity and global appeal. The only other president to do that in the 20th century was a Democrat‚ Franklin Roosevelt. Conservatives today are not only ignoring Reagan’s legacy‚ they are attacking it. They blame him for too much globalism‚ too much trade and too much immigration. They say he won the Cold War abroad but lost the culture war at home. They claim he put excessive emphasis on individualism rather than the common good‚ free market solutions rather than using the leverage of government‚ and equal opportunity under the law while liberals “marched through the institutions” to “cancel” equal treatment. (READ MORE: Make Biden Own His Weaknesses) Reagan deserves a voice in this debate. He united the warring branches of conservatism — from traditionalists who believe faith holds America to a higher standard‚ to libertarians who champion individual rights and freedom of choice‚ to globalists who believe freedom is universal‚ and to nationalists who insist on America First. He understood that winning in politics requires an energized partisan base‚ an outreach to independents and conservative Democrats‚ and a political coalition on the Hill to implement conservative priorities. “You do not get to be a majority party‚” Reagan warned‚ “by searching for groups you won’t associate or work with.” In short‚ you don’t win by excluding groups — or by ignoring the Reagan’s legacy. How did Reagan define conservatism and lead it to a majority status in American politics? He thought about most of these issues long before he entered public life. Based on voluminous materials written “in his own hand‚” he can speak for himself. Let’s take a look at what he thought‚ wrote and said about conservatism and the relationship between the individual and the group‚ civil society and public life‚ and national interests and world politics.  Individual and Group  Reagan identified conservatism with the freedom and dignity of individual choice. The ultimate source of authority was not some privileged group (race‚ class‚ experts) or institution (church) but individuals acting as “we the people” under the checks and balances of the constitution of a republic. In 1947‚ when conservatives were mired in the postwar debate between communism and liberalism‚ Reagan was already declaring: “Our highest aim should be the cultivation of freedom of the individual‚ for therein lies the highest dignity of man.” But this individualism was not license‚ nor was it individualism without groups or without interest for the common good. It was individualism relatively free to “choose” the community or common good individuals preferred. This freedom to choose gave individuals dignity. They were not branded by race or religion to join or remain in groups they did not choose. They exercised self-government in the context of civil society‚ the numerous private associations of family‚ neighborhood‚ schools‚ markets and church that mediate between state and citizens. It was individualism marinated in learning and reason‚ tradition and faith — a “deliberative and moral individualism” that united traditional conservatives who valued religion and virtue with libertarian conservatives who valued reason and meritocracy. Religion and reason were not separate wings of conservatism‚ they were integral components of the philosophy of conservatism. “What I envision‚” Reagan said‚ “is not simply a melding together of the two branches of American conservatism into a temporary uneasy alliance‚ but the creation of a new‚ lasting majority.” (READ MORE: The Enduring Ronald Reagan) How do individual freedom‚ learning and faith go together? “At its full flowering‚” Reagan continued‚ “freedom is the first principle of society … yet freedom cannot exist alone. “For what is wrought by freedom unaccompanied by learning and faith?” Reagan answered: “human behavior untempered by a sense of moral‚ spiritual‚ or intellectual limits.” In short‚ human freedom unmoored in learning and faith is simply individual vanity. “That’s why‚” Reagan concluded‚ “the theme of … learning‚ faith‚ and freedom is so apt … Each reinforces the others‚ each makes the others possible. For what are they without each other?” “America is what she is because she is guided by all three: learning‚ faith‚ and freedom.”  Why is learning necessary? Because it empowers reason and enables the individual to think critically‚ to contemplate different alternatives‚ undermine dogma‚ even religious dogma‚ and create choice. For‚ without alternatives‚ there is no choice and hence no freedom. “True freedom of choice‚” Reagan wrote to the editor of Pegasus‚ a Eureka College student newspaper in 1971‚ “is impossible until we are sufficiently self-disciplined to know what the results of our choices will be.” “God gave us … freedom‚” Reagan said at the Vatican in June 1987‚ “when he gave us free will‚” reason to evaluate outcomes and choose between right and wrong‚ good and evil — all in an open public square in which Reagan believed‚ citing Thomas Jefferson‚ “error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it.”  But what is learning without faith? “Despotism‚” Reagan opined‚ “may govern without faith‚ but liberty cannot. Religion is more needed in democratic societies than in any other.” Why? Because “learning‚” Reagan observed‚ “does not — not by the longest measure — bring wisdom.” “Unless it’s tempered by faith and a love of freedom‚ it can be very dangerous indeed … It can also bring evil.” Think‚ Reagan said‚ of “the names of many intellectuals … recorded on the rolls of infamy — from Robespierre to Lenin to Ho Chi Minh to Pol Pot.”     Now Reagan reveals the depth and subtlety of his thinking. For faith‚ too‚ he acknowledges‚ can run amuck and must be tempered. “What will faith without a respect for learning and an understanding of freedom bring?” he asks. “We’ve seen the tragedy of untempered faith in the hellish deaths of 14-year-old boys — small hands still wrapped around machine guns‚ on the front lines in Iran.” He was referring‚ of course‚ to religious wars‚ raging between Iran and Iraq at the time and across nations throughout human history. Faith disciplines learning and holds human beings accountable to a higher law. It compels us to treat one another as children of God not just members of the same higher biological species. In one of his most thoughtful aphorisms‚ Reagan summed up the role of religion in a free or republican society: “I recognize we must be cautious in claiming God is on our side‚ but I think it’s all right to keep asking if we’re on His side.” Think about that for a minute — religion is indispensable in a republic but no specific religion can be imposed in the public square. And individuals inspired by religion in the public square cannot claim to have God on their side; they must humbly ask instead if they are on God’s side. Self-restraint by learning and faith is a perquisite of self-government. As Jefferson wrote in his first inaugural and Reagan paraphrased in his first inaugural‚ “if no one among us is capable of governing himself‚ then who among us has the capacity to govern someone else?” The Conservative Public Square The three pillars of conservatism — freedom‚ learning and faith — stand together or they fail separately. As Reagan warned‚ alone they are “very dangerous.” If secular libertarians expel their faith-based colleagues from the conservative public square‚ they are themselves playing God. For godlessness‚ secularism‚ too is a faith. “To make man stand alone without God‚” Reagan warned‚ “is actually the second oldest faith‚ the first proclaimed in the Garden of Eden with the words of temptation‚ ‘Ye shall be as gods.’” Thus‚ libertarians‚ standing alone as gods or without gods‚ corrupt the public square. But the same holds for traditionalists. If they expel secular libertarians from the conservative fold‚ they cancel their own freedom. For without reason and learning‚ there is no way to imagine alternatives and hence no freedom of choice. Now religion dictates in the public square‚ not inspires‚ and the question becomes “whose religion?” The wall between church and state collapses and the prospects of self-government vanish. (READ MORE: By Echoing Newsom‚ Biden Risks Becoming Carter) It is the integration‚ the blending together of the classical (tradition) and the liberal (reason) that defines modern conservatism. Reagan startled his guests at a White House dinner late in his presidency when he said: “Well‚ you know‚ it is possible that we conservatives are the real liberals and the liberals are the real conservatives.”  What did he mean? One thing is sure. He had been thinking about it for a long time. In the original 1965 edition of his first autobiography‚ Reagan writes: “the classical liberal used to be the man who was‚ and should be forever‚ the master of his destiny. That is now the conservative position … The liberal used to believe in freedom under law. Now he believes in a stronger and stronger central government” In an interview with Reason in 1975‚ Reagan reiterated: “I think conservatism is really a misnomer just as liberalism is a misnomer for the liberals—if we were back in the days of the [American] Revolution‚ so-called conservatives today would be the liberals and the liberals would be the Tories.” In a letter written before his presidency‚ he summed it up: “Today’s conservative is … the true liberal — in the classic meaning of the word. But it is today’s so-called liberal who … affixed the title conservative on those who opposed his affinity for centralized authority and a big government.” Reagan detested this attempt to define conservatism as simply an opposition to liberalism. For him‚ conservatism‚ “in the classical meaning of the word‚” was all about freeing the individual from the authoritarian clutches of Tory aristocrats‚ papal authorities and social-engineering bureaucrats. Classical conservatism relocated choice at the level of the individual‚ the ordinary human being‚ not the group‚ the church or the state. Fallible as that individual might be‚ he or she was capable‚ equipped by learning (education) and faith‚ to pass judgment on human affairs in the public square.  Conservatives will endlessly debate whether the Enlightenment delivered or destroyed true freedom‚ but in doing so they acknowledge that “classical conservatism” did not overthrow but “conserved” principles from the past (religion‚ the classics). It did so precisely in order to discipline the choices of free individuals in the future (liberty). Reagan‚ again‚ said it best: “The principles of conservatism are sound because they are based on what men and women have discovered through experience in not just one generation or a dozen‚ but in all the combined experience of mankind.” The National Public Square On the home front‚ Reagan exhorted Republicans to declare this positive vision of conservatism in “bold‚ unmistakable colors with no pale pastel shades.” Conservatives do not just stand in the way of liberals‚ he believed‚ they stand for a different way. They stand for freedom of the individual‚ limited central government‚ and equality of opportunities. Liberals‚ by contrast‚ stand for groups — race‚ tribe‚ class‚ collective‚ gender‚ village‚ etc. — activist central government‚ and equality of outcomes not just opportunities.  Liberals fear tyranny most in the private sector (corrupt corporations‚ racial discrimination‚ inequality‚ and the like) and urge central government to intervene. Conservatives fear tyranny most in the public sector (administrative state‚ attacks on constitutional checks and balances‚ arrests without due process‚ political weaponization of federal agencies‚ and the like) and urge solutions by local government and private sector actors. Both threats are real and need to be addressed. In a healthy national public square‚ liberals and conservatives check and balance one another. They constitute the guardrails of the American Republic‚ protecting unalienable individual rights through institutional checks and balances. In this context the two-party system works well. Robust‚ albeit peaceful‚ partisanship highlights the content (principles) as well as the process (compromise) of politics. It protects the existence of substantive alternatives and free choice. Too many alternatives‚ on the other hand‚ confound choice. Reagan rejected a “third party” and called instead for “a new first party made up of people who share our principles.” Choice and compromise vanish‚ however‚ when the political parties try to expel one another from the public square. Liberals do so when they insist on only one legitimate point of view and cancel opposing views as “evil.” They play god in the public square. Conservatives do it when they insist on no common point of view and sanction individual license and anarchy. They reject the public square altogether. Both extremes betray the fundamental premise of self-government‚ a willingness to trust the people to govern themselves. To sum it up‚ Reagan insisted on differences within the guard rails: “Our party must be the party of the individual. It must not sell out the individual to cater to the group…. Freedom rests‚ and it always has‚ on individual responsibility‚ individual integrity‚ individual effort‚ individual courage‚ and yes‚ individual faith … No greater challenge faces our society today than ensuring that each one of us can maintain his dignity and his identity in an increasingly complex‚ centralized society.”  The Global Public Square In foreign policy Reagan applied conservative principles to political affairs abroad. Global politics‚ just like domestic politics‚ was about the struggle for individual freedom and dignity. Reagan divided the world into domestic political systems that were free and those that were not. The Cold War‚ he said at Eureka College in 1957‚ “wasn’t really a new struggle at all. It was the oldest struggle of humankind‚ as old as man himself.” It is the “irreconcilable conflict…. between those who believe in the sanctity of individual freedom and those who believe in the supremacy of the state.”  The conflict was spiritual not material. At Westminster‚ Reagan declared: “the ultimate determinant in the struggle that is now going on in the world will not be bombs and rockets but a test of wills and ideas‚ a trial of spiritual resolve.” Such a conflict could only be won or lost; it could not end by moral equivalence. He called the Soviet Union an “evil empire” and declared: “we win; they lose.” Just as he started with individualism in the national public square‚ he started with nationalism in the global public square. He was first and foremost an American nationalist; and conservative nationalists in his day‚ the so-called paleoconservatives‚ supported him.  Anchored in nationalism‚ Reagan’s foreign policy was thoroughly conservative not liberal. It called for a world of strong nation-states not universal global institutions‚ independent national defenses not collective security‚ competitive markets not expert-driven globalization‚ defense of freedom where it exists not ending tranny everywhere at once‚ more equal-burden sharing by allies not free-riding‚ and negotiations to encourage peaceful democratic reforms not morally equivalent coexistence.  Reagan defined national interests in terms of concentric circles. The health of America came first. He rebuilt its military and economic power and self-confidence. America’s neighborhood came second. He called for a North America Accord and Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)‚ the Caribbean Basin Initiative (CBI)‚ and the Cancun Summit‚ an inaugural meeting of what later became the Group of 20. Reagan endorsed the Monroe Doctrine. There was no going abroad without a secure and prosperous western hemisphere.  Beyond this hemisphere‚ Reagan rallied the free nations and allies of Europe and Asia‚ not just because free nations share basic values of individual freedom and choice but also because they were needed to contain and eventually defeat authoritarian powers such as the former Soviet Union.  America was involved in world affairs‚ Reagan believed‚ not by choice or geopolitics but by who we are.  We are the beachhead of “republican self-government” in the world. As Reagan once mused‚ our role in the world was “thrust upon us some two centuries ago in that little hall in Philadelphia.” At that time we were weak‚ not strong. Yet we threatened monarchs in Europe and Asia.  America was exceptional because it was experimental not because it was powerful. It was the first large nation to pursue self-government by individuals of all backgrounds with the freedom to choose. America had no monarch‚ state church or even common history. Yet‚ as Reagan said‚ if we succeed‚ “we are proof that all mankind can live together in peace.” And “if we lose freedom here‚” Reagan pointed out‚ “there is no place to escape to. This is the last stand on earth.” Reagan’s concentric nationalism was inspiring and forward looking. It united nationalists and globalists. It reassured nationalists that America respected borders‚ sovereignty‚ the homeland and patriotism. Without the nationalists‚ America would have no anchor and would dissolve into a world of globalist grifters and the unaccountable global institutions they promote. On the other hand‚ globalists reminded America that freedom is in the imagination of human beings everywhere. If not‚ where then did freedom in America come from? Except for a few native Americans‚ Americans are immigrants. If the United States is just another country like every other‚ what is the American project — race (1619 Project)‚ populism (soil)‚ blood (patriotism)? Where does that lead us. Back to the world of 1914 or 1945?  Reagan’s Conservatism in the 21st Century Would Reagan modify this conservative vision today? Of course. Circumstances change. But the concentric circles would remain. They are the building blocks of global conservatism. Reagan might insist on three caveats: First‚ trade with free allies must be conducted on a reciprocal basis. That means‚ no more subsidies or special access to U.S. markets. American products get the same treatment in free countries’ markets as free countries have in the America market. Period! And the free allied nations have to man up on defense spending. America accounts for roughly 1/3 of free nations’ GDP. It should bear no more than 1/3 of NATO’s defense expenditures. The ratio is improving in Ukraine‚ currently about 50-50‚ and the addition of Finland (bordering Russia) and Sweden to NATO is pivotal. But burden sharing is still not proportionate.   Second‚ inviting China to participate in global markets was well-meaning but naïve. Economic progress does not automatically lead to political reform. Reagan never assumed that. Domestic reform came first. He opposed détente and significant economic ties with the Soviet Union until Moscow introduced domestic political reforms. He would do the same today with respect to China. Third‚ China and Russia have clearly decided on a course of militant conflict with the western-led international order. The “oldest struggle of humankind” persists. However‚ the United States has no need to prioritize one of these conflicts over the other or withdraw entirely to the western hemisphere. The conflict is ideological and transcends regions. Reagan would clearly see it that way. If the United States prioritizes China‚ free nations in Europe must take the lead in defense of Ukraine.  Fourth‚ although Reagan gave amnesty in 1986 to some 3 million illegal immigrants‚ thereby encouraging millions more illegal immigrants‚ he would have never condoned the obliteration of America’s borders that exists today. Even at a time when the issue was less critical‚ Reagan approved a wall‚ albeit one with doors‚ for legal immigration. In his farewell address to the American people in 1989‚ he said: “if there had to be city walls‚ the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and heart to get here.” That’s an endorsement of a wall if we can’t find any other solution‚ and so far we haven’t. A wall to keep people out‚ moreover‚ is not the same as one to keep people in (the Berlin Wall). It is a badge of success not failure. So‚ if it comes to that‚ America can still hold its head high.   Reagan’s accomplishments are still with us — a more prosperous and democratic world than ever before; a Republican Party that seized power in Congress in 1995 for the first time since 1933 and remains competitive today (sharing since 1995 roughly the same number of years in control of Congress and the White House as Democrats); numerous conservative think tanks that did not exist in 1970; a conservative Supreme Court for the first time in 60 years and hundreds of new conservative judges on lower courts; an explosion of school choice and charter schools and now a growing push back against woke-ism in grade schools and higher education; and welfare reforms that restored individual dignity and responsibility by providing jobs and moving the poor permanently off the dole into the free economy.  Nothing is guaranteed but‚ at the margins‚ conservatives are winning the culture war with liberalism‚ if they can only see it. Reagan contributed to that turn-around more than anyone else. Isn’t his view of conservatism worth another look? The post Reagan’s Conservatism Is Worth Another Look appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

Since Oct. 17‚ Iranian proxies have targeted U.S. troops in Iraq‚ Syria‚ and Jordan over 160 times. On Jan. 28‚ three U.S. soldiers were killed‚ and more than 30 other service members were injured following a done attack conducted by an Iranian-backed militia. In response‚ U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) forces launched a targeted airstrike in Baghdad‚ killing a senior leader of Iranian-backed Kataib Hezbollah. Unfortunately‚ these limited strikes have not stopped the near-daily attacks against the 900 U.S. troops based in Syria and the roughly 2‚500 U.S. troops based in Iraq.   With no end in sight‚ U.S. senators are demanding that the administration do more to deter Iranian aggression.   “The administration’s military and economic responses to Iran and its proxies have not only been disproportionate‚ they appear to be completely disjointed‚” argued Sen. Rick Scott (R-Fla.) and 24 Republicans in a letter addressed to Secretary of State Antony Blinken‚ Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen and Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin. (READ MORE: Mr. Biden‚ Why Do You Hide Your True Self?) The letter claims that “a strong signal of deterrence—utilizing military‚ economic‚ and diplomatic tools—is needed if we want to stop the attacks against U.S. personnel and prevent the war in Gaza from expanding into a protracted regional conflict.”  Some Republicans argue that the administration must target Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corp fighters directly and if that doesn’t deter Iran‚ to target Tehran’s strategic assets.  Others are calling for the administration to freeze the $6 billion and additional $10 billion of sanctions relief money to Iran‚ to fully enforce U.S. oil sanctions‚ and interdict Iranian oil exports — all moves that would reimpose key elements of the Trump administration’s “maximum pressure campaign.”   Drugs Can (and Do) Fund Iran and Its Proxies Economic pressure and military action are not enough. Drug smuggling also provides Iran and its proxies with alternative funding that it can use to ramp up attacks against U.S. forces in Syria and Iraq. Illicit narcotics like Captagon are a major source of revenue for Iran and its proxies. Dubbed “the poor man’s cocaine‚” Captagon is a synthetic amphetamine-type  stimulant that took off in 2018 and now bankrolls the Assad Regime and Iranian proxies in Iraq and Syria. Popular Mobilization Force (PMF) militias like Kataib Hezbollah‚ for example‚ receive a cut of the $10 billion Captagon drug trade by providing cover for drug smugglers along the Syrian-Iraqi border. These groups are behind many of the attacks against U.S. forces in Iraq today. (READ MORE: The American People Know the Real Hamas) Given the high demand for Captagon in the region‚ Lebanese Hezbollah and other Iranian proxies can tap into Captagon revenues when the U.S. implements additional sanctions against Iran.  For its part‚ Congress introduced and passed several bills to mitigate the threat of Captagon. H.R. 4681 and H.R. 6265 sanctioned individuals tied to the trade and required the interagency to produce a strategy that would disrupt‚ degrade‚ and dismantle the illicit Captagon networks linked to the Assad regime. That strategy was released in June 2023.   Following the Oct. 7 attack against Israel‚ the U.S. House of Representatives introduced H.R. 836‚ which called for the formation of an interagency counter-Captagon task force to “enhance interdiction efforts” through intelligence sharing and precursor supply flow monitoring. Such efforts are meant to limit Iran and its proxies of the ability to use drug money to finance terrorism in the region.  Cut Drug Money to Defund Terrorism This is not the first time that an Iranian-backed group used drug money to fund terrorism. According to a 2018 Treasury Department report‚ Lebanese Hezbollah receives an estimated $700 million annually from Iran and raises another $300 million from a vast network of illegal businesses tied to the Latin American drug trade.   Hezbollah’s nefarious business dealings with Latin American drug cartels traced back to the 1980s when Lebanese nationals worked with cocaine drug traffickers in Colombia and South America. (READ MORE: The Spectacle Ep. 60: What Is Next in Israel? Nobody Knows.)    Successive U.S. administrations throughout the 1980s and 1990s sanctioned Iran for its support for terrorism‚ which forced Lebanese Hezbollah to find alternative funding. The group relied on revenue from cocaine smuggling in Latin America to fund a series of attacks against U.S. and Israeli targets‚ including the 1983 Beirut barracks bombings and the 1994 bombing against a Jewish cultural center in Argentina. Captagon is today’s cocaine. Sanctions may slow down Iran‚ but its proxies in the region can still  tap into the Captagon drug trade to finance attacks. The stakes are high for the United States. Iranian proxies are attacking U.S. troops daily with no end in sight. Cracking down on the  Captagon drug trade will cut off one revenue stream that Iran and its proxies use to fuel these attacks.  The post Iran Is Using Drug Money to Fund Terrorism. We Can Fix That. appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

Ever since the October 7 Hamas pogrom polls have indicated that there has been a massive shift rightward in Israeli society. A poll by the Direct Polls organization indicates that 44 percent of Israelis‚ including 30 percent of leftists‚ have moved politically to the right. It’s common for people to rally round the flag during wartime but this shift has been due neither to blind patriotism nor to government propaganda. On the contrary‚ the shift has been organic‚ from the bottom up. It is the upshot of people having epiphanies arising from personal experiences and is also based on popular images about how the war is playing out on the battlefield. If not for religious Jews‚ Israel would not have been a viable region for a Jewish nation-state. One of the ongoing criticisms of the Haredi community from the Israeli secular Left is that they are exempt from military duty. However‚ the Haredi are not the only Orthodox sector of Israeli society. The most interesting aspect of the shift to the right is that it has stemmed from the acknowledgment by many on the Left of the outsized sacrifices of a different religious sector of society‚ the religious-Zionists‚ to the work on the battlefield. Notably this contribution arises directly from religious values and conviction. (READ MORE from Max Dublin: Moloch Is Back: Sacrificing Our Children) The highest value of the Jewish religion is the protection and preservation of life. It supersedes all other religious values including the most stringent rules of religious observance. From the very beginning of this war no sector of Israeli society has embodied this value more than the religious-Zionist camp (not to be confused with the party of the same name). On October 7 this supreme value was epitomized in the heroic actions of the Kalmanzon brothers who belonged to a religious community called Otniel in the Hebron hills. Elhanan Kalmanzon was a reserve major in the IDF and a member of Mossad. As soon as he heard about the Hamas invasion‚ he immediately called his brother Menachem and‚ though it was the Sabbath when driving is forbidden‚ they jumped in a car and sped to where the Hamas pogrom was taking place. When they arrived‚ they found an abandoned armored troop carrier and for fourteen and a half hours went house-to-house in Kibbutz Be’eri pulling besieged kibbutz members through the windows of their safe-rooms and transporting them to safety. They saved about a hundred of the kibbutz members this way but in the end the terrorists managed to kill Elhanan on what turned out to be his last run. Ironically‚ as Caroline Glick has pointed out‚ Kibbutz Be’eri was part of the leftist community that during the anti-government protests before the war had vilified people like the Kalmanzon brothers. Surviving members of Kibbutz Be’eri attended Elhanan’s shiva where his father called for national unity. From this example it is easy to imagine why the country is unifying towards the Right. But what the Kalmanzon brothers did was not unique. Since the beginning of this war‚ it has become evident to the Israeli public that a disproportionate number of soldiers who have fallen in action have come from the Religious-Zionist camp. Despite the fact that this sector comprises only ten percent of Israeli society‚ it has suffered forty-five percent of the casualties. The reason for this is that an inordinate number of soldiers who belong to this camp sign up for combat units in the IDF. On the internet you can find images of religious warriors saying prayers while in the field. In recognition of the qualities that have led to their service to their country the Jerusalem Post has editorialized‚ “Most within this camp agree that there is religious significance in the reborn State of Israel and that defending it is both a historic privilege and a religious value.” These facts seem to fly in the face of the leftist narrative about the true essence of Israeli society. Israeli leftists like to point out that the early Zionists were secular Jews just like them. This was indeed true but only up to a point. As secular Jews they were not so assimilated as to be willing to completely erase their Jewish identity in order to feel safe. Nor‚ obviously‚ were they assimilated to the point where they were willing to forget that Israel had once been the Jewish homeland. If they had been that assimilated there would not have been a Zionist movement at all. It must be remembered that in the late nineteenth century‚ just when the Zionist movement was taking off‚ it was explicitly rejected by the Reform movement in America. In its Pittsburgh Platform of 1885 not only did the Reform movement reject Zionism it also rejected what it called Jewish ritual including the most basic rules of religious observance while calling its places of worship temples‚ fitting them with organs‚ and purposely not facing them eastward towards Jerusalem. In other words‚ it tried as hard as possible to assimilate to the then dominant Christian culture in America. Assimilation is a very good thing. It is absolutely essential in any society that wishes to create and maintain the social cohesion and unity that it needs in order to function‚ flourish‚ and ultimately even to survive. But any pressure for citizens to assimilate beyond what is needed to achieve unity is distinctly undemocratic and illiberal. In liberal-democracies the melting pot was never intended to be a smelting pot; it was never meant to be so absolute that it would nullify two of the other fundamental principles of liberal-democracy‚ tolerance and pluralism. If one compares the Zionist movement with the Reform movement as alternate strategies for Jewish survival there is no question that Israel … is the more successful. When carried on indefinitely assimilation inevitably leads to a sort of extinction—not‚ of course‚ of the physical person but of all of the qualities that make one kind of person or community different from others.  When the Assyrian empire conquered Israel about 2‚700 years ago the Hebrew nation had already split into two parts‚ Judah and Israel. As was common then‚ the conquering Assyrians moved most of the Israel part to other parts of their empire and they never returned. They are the part that is now popularly known as the Lost Tribes. But they were not lost the way you might lose your wallet. They were lost because in time they were completely assimilated and as Jews completely faded away. This is what has steadily been happening to the Reform movement in America (though notably not in Canada where it is more conservative). The rejection of Jewish ritual by the Reform movement has ultimately turned into a slippery slope. For some time now the Reform movement in America has been twisting itself out of shape while trying to assimilate to the most perverse social trends‚ to the point where there is no longer anything recognizably Jewish about it. Only in America could arise the astonishing phenomenon of a Reform Rabbi consecrating a late-term abortion clinic. Meanwhile‚ despite these efforts‚ its numbers have been rapidly shrinking away much as has been happening to the most secularized parts of the Christian church. Currently there is a Jewish joke going around that succinctly summarizes this trend “Q. What is the difference between Donald Trump’s grandchildren and those of a Reform Jew? A. Donald Trump’s grandchildren are Jewish.” (READ MORE: In Their Words: The Families of Hamas’ Victims) If not for religious Jews‚ Israel would not have been a viable region for a Jewish nation-state. It’s safe to say that the Jews that managed to stay in Israel after the Roman expulsion as well as the small number that crept back before the advent of Zionism in the mid- to late-1800s were all religious Jews. Today they are not thought of as having been Zionists‚ but for two millennia this tiny beleaguered community is what constituted the continuous Jewish presence in the Promised Land. And in the diaspora it was the religious Jews‚ and not the disappearing ones‚ who were the culture-bearers of the Jewish traditions that‚ to varying degrees‚ define all Jewish sectors of Israeli society to this day. It is unfortunate that the militarily-excused cult-like Haredi with their retrograde attire and professed conviction that through round-the-clock Torah study it is they who are “sustaining the world” have become the face of the religious community. They are not its most authentic representatives. It is the religious-Zionists who represent the Jewish religion and Jewish tradition in its fullness. If one compares the Zionist movement with the Reform movement as alternate strategies for Jewish survival there is no question that Israel‚ with all of its challenges and difficulties‚ is the more successful. The secular Jews outside of Israel are heading for self-extinction‚ they are joining the Lost Tribes. In terms of Jewish survival some interesting and rather telling sorting and convergence is now taking place both in Israel and America. While before the Hamas pogroms Israeli leftists in the tech industry were threatening to leave the country‚ as soon as the war started Israelis working in Silicon Valley returned home en masse to participate in the call-up of reserves. Meanwhile in America some congregations that are collapsing are inviting the orthodox Chabad movement to take them over. In Israel Haredi men of military age‚ though exempted from military service‚ are starting to enlist in the IDF. In the end‚ dividing the Jewish religion into different segments is a mug’s game. What really exists is a spectrum with extreme religionists and extreme secularists on either end. But the heart of the Jewish religion is not about observance or even faith. The heart of the Jewish religion is about the values exemplified in the Ten Commandments and other parts of the Hebrew Bible and indeed‚ that is the Jews’ primary contribution to Western Civilization. I think that what appears to be a movement to the Right in Israel during the present war is really a movement towards those values‚ that is‚ towards the center. Politically if this holds it is very promising because it means that in the future centrist coalitions could be formed that exclude the extremists on either end of the political spectrum. The post Israel: Unifying Around the Center appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

Hey‚ Elon Musk‚ You May Have A 'Deep State' Problem