Blog Archive - Page 2 of 289 - Washington Free Beacon

Syria Will Never Be Stable With Assad in Power

March 11, 2019 4:01 pm

It is not just a moral stain on humanity for Syrian President Bashar al-Assad to remain in power, but also a major threat to American and allied interests.

In March 2011, tens of thousands of enraged Syrians gathered in the southern city of Daraa to attend an anti-government demonstration. There a group of protesters toppled a statue of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's late father and predecessor, Hafez al-Assad. Days later, hundreds of Syrians climbed on top of the rubble of the statue, shouting slogans denouncing the Assad regime, which by that time had begun using violence to crush popular protests calling for political reforms. Still, despite the regime's brutality, the Syrian people had hope for a better Syria, one that was a little freer, a little more prosperous. Then the mass slaughter began.

Eight years later, after killing some 500,000 Syrians and displacing millions more, Assad won. Indeed, barbarity won. With the support of Russia and Iran, the Syrian president is still in power, and will remain so for the foreseeable future. But victory is not enough, apparently. Supporters of the regime are now rubbing the Syrian people's faces in the dirt, erecting the statue of Hafez in the same spot where protesters tore it down.

In response, hundreds of Syrians took to the streets in Deraa, the cradle of the Syrian uprising. "Syria is ours, not for the house of Assad!" the protesters chanted, walking through the old quarter of the city. "Long live Syria, down with Bashar Assad!" others chanted, as well as, "Your statue is from the past, it's not welcome here!"

A video showing a protest in #Daraa al-Balad, refusing to re-erect the statue of Hafez al-Assad in Daraa al-Mahatta, demanding the overthrow of Assad regime.#AlFurat_News pic.twitter.com/njeJOSJzOB

— Al Furat News Agency (@FuratNews) March 10, 2019

Now in central #Daraa
"Long live #Syria!
Down with Bashar!"
After the regime tried to install a statue of Hafez in central Daraa pic.twitter.com/4hMBYYcQli

— FSA News (@FSAPlatform) March 10, 2019

Security forces closed off the area to prevent residents from other parts of Deraa from joining the protests.

The latest demonstrations are a reminder that a Syria ruled by Assad will never be stable. Some commentators and politicians have argued the opposite for years, claiming that, while Assad may be brutal, he is necessary to ensure stability and to prevent Islamist terrorists from taking control. This notion, often articulated as some deeply intellectual notion of hard-nosed realism, is deeply misguided.

The Syrian people will never accept the Butcher of Damascus, whose regime probably raped, tortured, or murdered their friends and families, as their legitimate leader. What's more, their desire to topple Assad has not gone away, nor has their rage. Yes, the regime has defeated opposition forces through shocking savagery, which can crush and deter them for a time. But that is no recipe for a stable and sustainable—let alone prosperous—situation, especially today, when social media and other new-age technologies make political movements so much easier to spread.

Even now, there is evidence that the protests in Deraa will continue and grow. "There have been small, peaceful protests after prayers on Friday for a few weeks now," one resident of Deraa told the Telegraph by What's App, another tool that can help the opposition organize and solicit outside help. "But the Russians are in charge of everything, so everyone's scared."

"But," the resident added, "people are testing the limits now, seeing how far we can push back."

On cue, protests continued Monday in the nearby town of Tafas. Residents protested against the regime's corruption and brutality, including its shelling of Idlib.

NEW – anti-#Assad protests resume in #Deraa, #Syria, this time in the town of #Tafas.

They're protesting against regime brutality, corruption & its shelling of #Idlib, particularly areas within the demilitarized zone.pic.twitter.com/AsGP89olAu

— Charles Lister (@Charles_Lister) March 11, 2019

The Syrian people have been demoralized, their homes leveled, but their spirit and dignity seem to remain intact. Moreover, their level of hatred for the regime is a powerful force, one that should not be underestimated. And Assad continues to provoke that rage, even after conquering most of Syria. Just look at Syrian refugees who have returned home. Some of them have disappeared into the country's notoriously brutal prison system. No one is safe from the regime's persecution.

More broadly, the situation that sparked the Syrian conflict is still in place: a brutal regime is oppressing its people, who want better lives and a more responsive government. The key difference now is that the Syrian people want the Assad regime thrown into the sea, not to institute reasonable reforms, as they wanted in March 2011.

Beyond the Syrian people, recall how the Islamic State grew in power in Syria after the American surge in Iraq in 2007-2008. The terrorist group waged an insurgency in Iraq, as it is doing now, and then moved into Syria following the outbreak of the Syrian conflict. It gained strength from revenue courtesy of the oil fields in eastern Syria, but also from thousands of disgruntled Sunnis opposed to the Assad regime. And there is the small detail that Assad strengthened ISIS and other terrorist groups to discredit opposition forces and ensure that Western countries did not intervene against him. ISIS is going back to its old playbook in Iraq. It is not that crazy to imagine a similar sequence of events happening again.

Assad's survival also risks a region-wide war in the Middle East. It is no secret that Assad has allowed Iran to entrench itself militarily throughout Syria, which the Islamic Republic has sought to make a forward operating base against Israel. As Iran and its proxies continue to threaten Israel, and as Israel responds with military strikes against Iranian assets in Syria, the two sides move closer toward a large-scale conflict, one that could be disastrous for the entire region. While Assad remains in power, this dynamic is sure to continue to hold, forming a storm cloud over the Middle East. The question is if and when the cloud opens up, and it begins pouring.

It is not just a moral stain on humanity for Assad to remain in power, but also a major threat to American and allied interests. But now there are reports that some European countries want to recognize that Assad won the Syrian conflict and help him reconstruct Syria. Under no circumstances should any Western country do such a thing. Rather than help the Syrian people, Western money for reconstruction will further entrench Assad's control over Syria, enrich those who committed war crimes, and bolster those who would do harm to the United States. Put aside morality for the moment: Assad is no force for stability; he is a walking time bomb.

Read Less

Libs: Sex Change at 9, Vote at 16, No Smoking Until 21

BY: Elizabeth Harrington

March 11, 2019 12:31 pm

This is the future the liberals want: you get your first sex change at age 9. You can vote (for the socialists, naturally) at age 16. But you can’t smoke a cigarette until you’re 21.

This is the future the liberals want: you get your first sex change at age 9. You can vote (for the socialists, naturally) at age 16. But you can't smoke a cigarette until you're 21.

Axios reports on the latest fixation by a "diverse and growing coalition" of nanny-staters. Since big government scolds have an insatiable desire to control your life, they now want to raise the smoking age to 21.

"Proponents' argue that plenty of 18-year-olds are still in high school, so they can buy tobacco products and pass them along to younger peers," Axios writes. "But there aren't a lot of 21-year-olds hanging out with 16-year-olds." If only the mainstream press used that logic during the Kavanaugh affair.

According to liberals, 18-year-olds cannot be trusted to make decisions about what they put into their bodies. But, of course, nine-year-olds can make decisions about what body they want to have—for the rest of their life.

Eighteen-year-olds can't choose to partake in a proven stress reliever, but their 16-year-old peers should be able to decide who is the next president of the United States.

CNN's opinion page reasons kids are so indoctrinated these days, of course we should let them vote the Party Line. Noah Berlatsky explains his 16-year-old son should be allowed to vote because, and I quote, "he watches John Oliver every week."

"He's angry that his parents' and grandparents' generations have left him with a rapidly warming and unlivable world," Berlatsky writes. The wealthiest generation we've ever experienced thinks our society is "unlivable." Heckuva job, academia.

But there's more: "He's joined in demonstrations against gun violence. At his school he was involved in student-led efforts to change the name of Columbus Day and to promote trans rights. He thinks President Donald Trump is, as he puts it, ‘a racist, sexist homophobe.'" Wow, let me guess. He's a big intersectionality fan, too?

If anything, a generation this woke needs the smoking age lowered if there is to be any hope for them. Besides, they only have 12 years left anyway.

Read Less

The Pro-Palestinian Charade

Too many activists who claim to support Palestinian rights only care about attacking Israel

BY: Aaron Kliegman

March 8, 2019 4:16 pm

Pro-Palestinian activism is too often a charade, masquerading as an effort to protect human rights when, in reality, it is a campaign to attack Israel, the Jew among nations.

Freshman Rep. Ilhan Omar (D., Minn.) has tried to couch her recent anti-Semitic comments as legitimate criticism of the Israeli government. Omar's progressive colleagues in Congress have done the same, saying that charges of anti-Semitism are meant to stifle debate about Israel. This defense is of course absurd: accusing the world's only Jewish state of cosmic evil and judging it by a standard different from that applied to all other countries are, historically, the two key features of anti-Semitism. But push aside the facts for a moment and assume their defense is serious. Why do Omar and like-minded progressives criticize Israel so often? Why do they oppose the Jewish state so reflexively, with such visceral hatred? Many of them justify their activism as support for the rights of the weak and oppressed Palestinians, who, they argue, suffer under Israel's rule. In other words, Omar and her allies say they largely oppose Israel because they are pro-Palestinian. The truth, however, is that many of these progressive voices in the media and on college campuses—and increasingly in Congress—who claim to be pro-Palestinian do not actually care about Palestinian rights—unless of course they can attack Israel.

This week, amid the current national uproar over Omar's anti-Semitic comments, and over the Democratic Party's shameful failure to condemn them, it is curious that Omar and her defenders have hardly mentioned the Palestinians. Yes, a few lawmakers included brief nods to the Palestinians in statements, but their overwhelming energy was devoted to justifying Omar's use of anti-Semitic canards—including the charge that Jewish Americans put Israel's interests above America's—as legitimate criticism of the Jewish state.

Meanwhile, halfway around the world on Thursday, when House Democrats pushed a resolution obfuscating Omar's anti-Semitism, dozens of displaced Palestinians who were forcibly deported and now live in horrid conditions wrote emails crying out for help, expressing concern about their children's futures. "What monsters those Israelis are!" supporters of Omar might say. But, to their great inconvenience, it turns out that Israel has nothing to do with these suffering Palestinians. In fact, the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad displaced these refugees from southern Damascus, and they are now "struggling for survival in impoverished refugee camps" in northern Syria, according to the London-based Action Group for Palestinians of Syria, a human rights watchdog that received emails from the Palestinians. Where is the outcry from pro-Palestinian activists, in the West or elsewhere?

At the same time, residents of Daraa Camp for Palestinian refugees in southern Syria have asked authorities to fix a power blackout in the area caused by heavy shelling from nearby fighting. Throughout the Syrian conflict, the Assad regime has surrounded Daraa and blocked residents' access to drinking water and humanitarian aid. Again, where is the concern from pro-Palestinian activists?

Since the Syrian conflict began in 2011, nearly 4,000 Palestinians have been killed in Syria, hundreds of whom were tortured to death in the Assad regime's notoriously brutal prisons. The regime has also imprisoned at least 1,732 Palestinians, including 108 women and girls, according to the human rights watchdog. Syrian authorities have detained thousands more. Has Omar ever mentioned these atrocities? What about her progressive defenders in Congress, in the media, and on college campuses, all of whom claim to care about Palestinian rights? Palestinian leaders, both in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, certainly do not seem to care, nor do most of the Arab states in the Middle East.

The Palestinians' plight extends beyond Syria. The Gatestone Institute reported last month on Palestinian suffering in Lebanon, where more than 500,000 Palestinians live. "Most of the Palestinians in Lebanon live in 12 refugee camps, where they suffer from poverty, overcrowding and violence, as well as Lebanon's discriminatory and apartheid laws and measures that deny them basic rights," according to the institute. What is the response from pro-Palestinian forces? Silence.

What do all of these tragedies have in common? First, they do not involve Israel, and second, they receive no attention from all of the usual pro-Palestinian individuals—where are you, Linda Sarsour?—and organizations. The two commonalities are related. The media and activists obsessively cover any incident involving Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank, portraying Israel as the evil aggressor even when Israeli forces kill a Palestinian terrorist trying to murder them. Yet these same journalists and college students (and their professors) never mention Palestinian suffering when the Jewish state is not involved. In fact, they probably do not even know about the Palestinian plight throughout the Arab world, which for the most part treated the Palestinians as lesser humans, political props to be exploited, after the creation of the modern state of Israel in 1948. This inconsistency is no coincidence: many of the usual pro-Palestinian forces do not actually care about Palestinians; their concern is hurting Israel, demonizing and delegitimizing the country until it ceases to exist as a Jewish state.

Pro-Palestinian activism is too often a charade, masquerading as an effort to protect human rights when, in reality, it is a campaign to attack Israel, the Jew among nations. But worry not: Ilhan Omar will surely talk about the Palestinians in Syria soon enough.

Read Less

Media Takes Party Line From the Kremlin on Venezuela

CNN, WaPo in lockstep calling Guaidó 'opposition leader'

BY: Elizabeth Harrington

March 8, 2019 3:42 pm

Does the mainstream media take its marching orders from the Kremlin?

The description of Venezuela's interim president Juan Guaidó throughout the mainstream press is eerily similar to Sputnik news. The Kremlin refuses to recognize Guaidó as president, even though any fair reading of the Venezuela

Constitution would determine socialist dictator Nicolas Maduro illegally tried to hold onto power.

Maduro circumvented the National Assembly with a sham election, leaving the office vacant. Under a vacancy, as the president of the National Assembly, Guaidó can constitutionally assume the presidency on an interim basis under article 233.

Led by the United States, over 50 democratically allied nations have correctly identified Guaidó as what he is. But to the socialists and authoritarians of the world, Guaidó is a "self-proclaimed" "opposition leader," while Maduro is the victim of a "U.S.-backed coup."

Of course this is confusing to the Washington Post, which recently asked, "Juan Guaidó, interim president or opposition leader?"

I understand. It's tricky for the media when the default anti-Trump position also puts you on the same side as (gasp!) Putin.

The Post quotes Robert Palladino, deputy spokesman for the State Department, who said not calling Guaidó the interim president puts you in Maduro's camp, and falls into the "narrative of a dictator who has usurped the position of the presidency and led Venezuela to the humanitarian and political and economic crisis that exists today."

The Post added the Trump administration said this "sternly." (You wouldn't want to be stern when discussing societal collapse and chaos of mass starvation, violence, and protests as a direct result of failed socialism, of course.) RT didn't approve of Palladino's comments either.

The Post assures us "there are complicating factors" that prevents the paper from calling Guaidó, who wants to restore democracy to Venezuela, the interim president.

"While 54 countries have recognized Guaidó as interim president, that is less than a third of the world's 190-plus countries," the Post contends. Pfft! That's not enough to pass a resolution at the UN, which, you may not know, is full of peaceful, freedom-loving democracies.

But it's even more complicated than that. "Maduro can summon masses of supporters to his rallies," the Post writes. "And Venezuela's military command still backs Maduro, even though some security forces have abandoned him in the face of the country's economic collapse and political crisis."

Get it? It's better to characterize Guaidó the way Maduro (Russia, China, and every other American geopolitical foe) wants us to, because Maduro still controls the military, which also has been opposing the Trump administration lately. If it's anti-Trump, it's good enough for the U.S. media.

It's good enough for the Kremlin, too. The official line is Guaidó is the "opposition leader." State-run media in China are on board as well. Xinhua calls Guaidó the "opposition leader" in a piece praising Maduro's call for mass demonstrations to "protest U.S. imperialism." So does the South China Morning Post.

Virtually every mainstream American outlet is following suit: Reuters, CBS News (which also calls him Maduro's "foe"), the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post, and NPR all refer to Guaidó as the "opposition leader." At least USA Today describes him as the "U.S.-supported opposition leader."

Let's see if we can spot the difference between CNN and Sputnik.

"Opposition leader Juan Guaidó returns to Venezuela, risking arrest," a recent CNN headline reads.

"Venezuela's self-declared interim president, Juan Guaidó, returned to the country on Monday, risking arrest for violating a travel ban in his bid to oust embattled Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro," the report reads.

"Self-declared." "Opposition leader."

CNN continues: "Most Western countries and regional neighbors now recognize Guaidó as Venezuela's leader and have been working with him to bring aid into the country."

But not CNN.

Sputnik's lede on the same news: "The self-proclaimed interim president of Venezuela Juan Guaidó crossed into Colombia in late February in defiance of a Venezuelan Supreme Court order barring him from leaving the country due to an ongoing investigation."

Maybe there is state-run TV. Just not the network, or the state they had in mind.

Read Less

Cheney and Zeldin Were Right to Oppose the Bogus Resolution Against Hate

BY: Noah Pollak

March 8, 2019 2:23 pm

The resolution passed Thursday, nominally against all forms of hate, is a sham that no Republican should have supported. It did the opposite of condemn anti-Semitism—it offered cover for it, exonerated the guilty, drowned it in a sea of PC platitudes, and let Democrats off the hook.

The resolution is the embodiment of the sinister cop-out offered by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D., N.Y.) for why she refused to condemn Omar: "When you don't address [bigotry] as a system and attempt to pick them apart as though they are distinct and separable issues, eventually the thing that gets advanced is white supremacy + classism."

Got that? Criticizing anti-Semitism promotes white supremacy. Confronting Jew-haters is a form of hate. War is peace. And now we have a House resolution that basically endorses this Orwellianism.

The 23 Republicans who refused to go along, led by Conference Chair Liz Cheney (Wyo.) and New York's Lee Zeldin, saw the scam for what it was. And for standing on principle they are predictably being accused by the media, which is desperate to change the subject, of refusing to condemn hate.

And apparently Republican House leaders are fueling this criticism, annoyed with the dissenters for spoiling the facile image of a unified Republican caucus. Playbook reports that some in leadership are "quite peeved" at Cheney and believe "When you're part of a leadership team, you stick together. Period."

But chasing favorable New York Times coverage never works out well for Republicans. And in this case, opposing the resolution would have been politically savvy by helping expose the resolution for what it actually is—a ploy by Democrats to avoid confronting the anti-Semitism problem festering in their progressive ranks.

Cheney and Zeldin did the right thing, morally and politically. Republican support was a loser, and we know because Omar, AOC, and the rest of the BDS wing of the Democrats have been taking victory laps since the resolution passed. They beat the rap, and Republicans helped them.

Read Less

No, Trump Is Not ‘Barreling Toward War’ With Iran

If anything, the president needs to be tougher on the Islamic Republic

BY: Aaron Kliegman

March 7, 2019 4:16 pm

This week, Democratic Sens. Tom Udall (N.M.) and Dick Durbin (Ill.) penned an opinion piece for the Washington Post in which they castigate President Trump’s policy toward Iran. Their arguments are misguided and miss an important truth: Trump actually needs to be tougher on Iran, not softer.

This week, Democratic Sens. Tom Udall (N.M.) and Dick Durbin (Ill.) penned an opinion piece for the Washington Post in which they castigate President Trump's policy toward Iran. "Trump is barreling toward war with Iran," the headline reads. "Congress must act to stop him." In the article, the senators describe the Trump administration's approach to the Islamic Republic as reckless and belligerent, expressing the views of many of the president's critics. Their arguments are misguided, however, and miss an important truth: Trump actually needs to be tougher on Iran, not softer.

Udall and Durbin say the Trump administration is pushing the United States toward conflict based on "faulty and misleading logic," comparing its conduct today to the George W. Bush administration's actions leading up to the invasion of Iraq in 2003. "The Trump administration's Iran policy, built on the ashes of the failed Iraq strategy, is pushing us to take military action aimed at regime change in Tehran," they write. "We must not repeat the mistakes of the past, and Congress must act urgently to ensure that."

The senators claim that the current administration has "presented the false narratives" that Iran is violating the nuclear deal and partially responsible for the rise of the Islamic State in Syria. Yet both narratives are true. Iran has violated the nuclear agreement in several ways. The regime has repeatedly exceeded the limits of heavy water, a form of water used in nuclear reactors that can help produce plutonium, permitted under the deal. Iran has also operated more advanced nuclear centrifuges than are permitted by the accord, refused to grant international inspections of nuclear research and military facilities, and, according to German intelligence agencies, continued illicit attempts to buy nuclear and missile technology. Furthermore, as I wrote in January, Ali Akbar Salehi, the head of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran, explained in an interview how the regime

circumvented a section of the deal that explicitly requires Tehran to remove the reactor core at its Arak nuclear facility in central Iran, and then to fill its tubes with cement so the facility cannot be used to pursue a plutonium path to a bomb. Iran's nuclear chief explained that Tehran secretly acquired and stored replacement tubes, noting that only the supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, knew about the decision … [Salehi] added that images showing the reactor core filled with cement were "photoshopped."

Most importantly, the Israelis last year captured some 100,000 secret files from Iran concerning its nuclear program, including documents on building bombs. Their very existence indicates that Iran seeks to obtain nuclear weapons in the future, thus violating one of the deal's first sentences: "Iran reaffirms that under no circumstances will Iran ever seek, develop, or acquire any nuclear weapons."

Regarding Syria, there is no doubt that Iran's role in the Syrian conflict has helped ISIS and other Sunni terrorist groups recruit new fighters. Iran devoted its own soldiers, proxy militias, and billions of dollars to save the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, whose brutality drove many enraged Sunnis to join ISIS. Moreover, Assad, who would have been deposed if not for Iran's intervention, actually strengthened ISIS and other terrorist groups to discredit opposition forces and ensure that Western militaries did not intervene against him.

Udall and Durbin erroneously accuse the administration of misleading the public in another way. "The Trump administration has also been attempting to create a strong link between al Qaeda and Iran—based on vague suggestions, but no hard evidence." This statement is absurd. There is a mountain of evidence showing that, for decades, Iran has supported al Qaeda, providing the organization a place to operate and even help with carrying out attacks.

In reality, the senators are the ones presenting false narratives about Iran. But regardless, framing an argument about Trump's approach to Iran as a rebuke of the Iraq War is a lazy effort that ignores key details.

Udall and Durbin describe any attempt to confront Iran as a step toward war, implying that appeasement and the nuclear deal comprise a better path and that the administration is the belligerent party. "While Iran is no innocent actor, the Trump administration's policies and pronouncements have only increased tensions in the region," they write. "Today, the United States stands alone in breach of the [nuclear] agreement, bullying friends and foes alike with threats and sanctions."

"No innocent actor." Do the senators not observe what Iran does? From slaughtering civilians in Syria and elsewhere, to supporting terrorist groups, to threatening key allies, to abusing its own citizens, Iran is wreaking havoc across the Middle East. The United States must confront such a regime, which seeks preeminence in the region—thereby threatening key American interests such as the free flow of oil through the Persian Gulf and the security of allies. The regime is an Islamist theocracy and fundamentally anti-American. Confrontation is inevitable. But confrontation does not mean war. It means using the various tools of American power—military, economic, diplomatic, informational—to counter Iran's ambitions.

Udall and Durbin pick out Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and national security adviser John Bolton as the two chief warmongers driving the administration's march toward war. But look at what the administration is actually doing; it does not match up with the senators' dark picture. Despite the lawmakers' claims, the administration is not seeking to change the regime in Iran. Top officials, including Pompeo and Bolton, have said as much several times. Trump wants to pressure Iran to return to the negotiating table. Whether he will seek a narrow nuclear deal or a broader agreement that includes Iran's non-nuclear behavior is unclear, but the United States is clearly not calling for conflict. Furthermore, Trump withdrew from the nuclear deal not to provoke Tehran into conflict, but to avoid one. The agreement paves a path for Iran to obtain nuclear weapons in about a decade, which could lead to war. The administration deemed the deal not in America's security interests. One can disagree with the decision, but to say Trump, Pompeo, and Bolton are thirsty for Iranian blood is another charge entirely.

Most importantly, the administration is not exerting nearly as much pressure on the regime as it can or should. With the partial American withdrawal from Syria, Trump has signaled that he is not willing to do what is necessary to counter Iran's imperial expansion in the region. Moreover, the administration has not done enough to support the Iranian people protesting against their regime, at least publicly. At this point, the United States is only pressuring Iran through sanctions, which are necessary and effective but entirely insufficient to force Iran to renegotiate the nuclear deal or change its belligerent behavior.

In other words, despite its strong rhetoric, the Trump administration needs to be harsher toward the Islamic Republic. Udall and Durbin may see storm clouds on the horizon, but the notion that Trump is "barreling toward war" with Iran is wrong, a scare tactic meant to protect the nuclear deal and take pressure off the regime's leaders. After all, they were on the path to moderating, right?

Read Less

Amazon Corners the Corner Store

BY: Victorino Matus

March 7, 2019 3:36 pm

Last week the Wall Street Journal reported that Amazon was planning to get into the grocery business. But wait, isn’t Amazon already in that business? In September 2017, it acquired Whole Foods Market for $13.7 billion. Organic food stores, however, are just a segment of the cut-throat supermarket industry.

Last week the Wall Street Journal reported that Amazon was planning to get into the grocery business. But wait, isn’t Amazon already in that business? To wit, in September 2017, it acquired Whole Foods Market for $13.7 billion. Organic food stores, however, are just a segment of the cut-throat supermarket industry.

Sources told the Journal that Amazon is now interested in selling the products you can’t find at Whole Foods—items not entirely organic, shall we say. On the other hand, at these alternative stores you probably won’t find asparagus water or almond and cashew milk (what an Onion article renamed "nut sweat").

In Grocery: The Buying and Selling of Food in America, author Michael Ruhlman reminds us the industry is constantly evolving. Grocery stores began as general stores (the first major one being the Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company in 1869, later known as A&P). Following the inventions of the cardboard box and the tin can, business boomed. At the Piggly Wiggly customers could actually pick out items on the shelves without the help of a clerk. The chains, led by A&P and Kroger, consolidated, adding more products at lower cost than the mom-and-pop corner stores, many of which went out of business.

The game was to add as many products as possible—because if you don’t have it, a potential customer will shop elsewhere. By the mid-1970s, supermarkets were carrying up to 9,000 different products. Now it’s up to a staggering 50,000 items, which explains why the profit margins are razor thin. (The moneymaker turns out to be fresh produce. Big in the loss column: the hot food bar. Apparently millennials have skipped cooking altogether.)

But grocer Jeff Heinen tells Ruhlman that supermarkets will contract in size because they can no longer compete with Whole Foods and other giants like Walmart. "Everything else will be so commoditized that we won’t be able to compete from a price perspective." Not to mention the increase in online grocery shopping, which Amazon is also spearheading.

So the old supermarket chains may get smaller and offer more specialty products, which could set them apart—except this is probably the market segment Amazon is now setting its sights on. In fact, it’s already happening, as noted in the Journal:

The company plans to open its first outlet, in Los Angeles, as early as the end of the year, one person said. Amazon has already signed leases for at least two other grocery locations with openings planned for early next year, this person said, without saying where those stores would be.

Additional talks are under way for Amazon grocery stores in San Francisco, Seattle, Chicago, Washington, D.C., and Philadelphia, the people familiar with the matter said.

In other words, when you want Kashi Organic Indigo Morning Cereal, go to Whole Foods. If you're craving for Count Chocula, come to the Amazon grocery store. Either way, those supermarkets are doomed. As I’ve said before: Much like the Borg, resistance is futile.

Read Less

30 Condemnable Acts House Democrats Should Add to Their “Anti-Hate” Resolution

BY: Andrew Stiles

March 7, 2019 1:04 pm

Rather than vote to condemn freshman Rep. Ilhan Omar (D., Minn.) for her habitual displays of anti-Semitism, House Democrats are preparing to vote on a bold, all-encompassing “anti-hate” resolution. Majority Whip Steny Hoyer tells reporters that the House will vote today on a resolution condemning all forms of hate. He says the message will be …

Rather than vote to condemn freshman Rep. Ilhan Omar (D., Minn.) for her habitual displays of anti-Semitism, House Democrats are preparing to vote on a bold, all-encompassing "anti-hate" resolution.

Majority Whip Steny Hoyer tells reporters that the House will vote today on a resolution condemning all forms of hate. He says the message will be "we are against bigotry, we are against prejudice and against hate "

— @FoxReports

— Jake Tapper (@jaketapper) March 7, 2019

In other words, a meaningless display of watered-down criticism masquerading as vague "wokeness" — the sort of feel-good declaration that is typically confined to student councils or those pioneering city governments that are always trying to join the Geneva Convention or the Paris Climate Accord.

The Democrat Party's bizarre decision, in response to the surprisingly aggressive pushback from Rep. Omar's defenders, raises a number of questions, namely: Why stop at "hate" alone? Aren't there plenty of other deplorable acts and emotions worth condemning?

The answer is yes. Here are 30 additional items House Democrats should consider including in their resolution.

1. People who walk too slowly in public

Get out of the way, moron!

2. Soccer "injuries"

No one has ever sustained an actual injury playing soccer. On your feet, crybaby! It's disrespectful to the fans.

3. Soccer "fans"

Pretending to be cultured by enjoying a sport that America doesn't absolutely dominate on the world stage is tantamount to treason, and it's time to get serious and start treating it as such.

4. Clothing requirements on airplanes

It's your seat! You paid for it!

5. Journalists who tweet about air travel

Learn to code, and maybe you'll get rich enough to afford a private jet. Until then, no one cares. Shut up!

6. The phrase "just kidding"

It's the classic "bully's retreat," where verbal assailants take refuge. If it's not immediately obvious that you're actually kidding, don't say it!

7. Movies with flawed protagonists

I think we can all agree: "Gran Torino" would have been a much more inspiring artistic achievement if Clint Eastwood's character had died in prison after being prosecuted for racial harassment.

8. Movies with sympathetic villains

How many people who watched "The Americans" found themselves wishing that the Russians had won the Cold War? Enough to fill a second Guantanamo, probably!

9. The New England Patriots

Enough!

10. Andy Borowitz

(Same reason)

11. The libelous propaganda campaign against the Church of Scientology

Hate and bigotry of all forms must be condemned.

12. TruckNutz

Gross! There are far more tasteful ways to celebrate the male genitalia.

13. People who run marathons

Fat shame much?

14. Anti-anti-Semitism

Do you hate anti-Semites? Congratulations, you're still a hater.

15. People who aren't totally cool with trans women dominating women's athletics

Get over it!

16. Saying "All Hate Matters"

No, it doesn't!

17. The phrase "dunking on"

It's pretty offensive to basketball players who have been dunked on in real life.

18. Maps of "Israel"

They're pretty offensive to anti-Semites.

19. Making fun of Coldplay

We get it. You're cool and trendy. Find a new angle!

20. Having a favorite member of the Diamond & Silk duo

They're a package deal, at least until Silk strikes out on her own and escapes the smothering confines of Diamond's shadow. Preference is bigotry!

21. People who passive aggressively hold doors open for you even though you're like 20 yards away, and guilt you into an awkward half-jog to repay their unnecessary politeness

You know who you are.

22. Criticizing the victims of fake hate crimes

Would you still be criticizing them if the crime actually happened? Didn't think so.

23. Indifference

Hate's introverted companion.

24. Heterosexuals

Branch out!

25. Criticizing people who don't flush toilets

Maybe they're just trying to save water!

26. Porn

It's exploitative!

27. People who don't like porn

It's liberating!

28. Comedy that doesn't "make a difference"

If you're laughing, you're not learning.

29. William H. Macy

He knows why.

30. Shape-shifting Jews who secretly control the world through international finance and kinetic brain waves

Because they're the one who started this dumb debate in the first place!

Read Less

John Bolton’s Wisdom

What is good for America is good for the world

BY: Aaron Kliegman

March 6, 2019 4:08 pm

This is John Bolton’s wisdom: to recognize that what is good for America is good for the world.

Speaking in London in 1982, Henry Kissinger described how, in foreign policy, Britain passed down to the United States "a convenient form of ethical egoism," believing that what was good for itself was "best for the rest." Thirty-seven years later, John Bolton is adhering to this notion, this self-confidence in American power and morality, as President Trump's national security adviser.

Bolton is the subject of a new profile in the Atlantic, in which he explains his worldview to Graeme Wood, the author. "The greatest hope for freedom for mankind in history is the United States, and therefore protecting American national interest is the single best strategy for the world," Bolton says. It is unclear whether Bolton knows of Kissinger's speech at the Royal Institute of International Affairs, but he certainly echoes the same idea: what is good for America is good for the world.

Critics will call this view American chauvinism, and they may be right. But that does not make Bolton wrong. In fact, his conception of America's role in the world is the best way, both morally and strategically, to foster global peace and prosperity—to the extent that either is possible in a turbulent world.

In the international system of states, war is natural and peace an aberration, not the other way around. History shows that peace does not preserve itself; powerful countries with the ability to wield influence on a regional or global scale do so. "The preservation of peace," writes the American historian Donald Kagan, "requires active effort, planning, the expenditure of resources, and sacrifice, just as war does." Such efforts include "maintaining a strong military … and the willingness to use it when necessary." When great powers choose instead to withdraw, disarm, and disengage, conflict is more likely to follow. The outbreak of World War II is the classic example, but far from the only one. Looking forward today, who will take on the burden of preserving the peace?

America is the only option. None of the other democracies—in Europe, Asia, or elsewhere—have the will or capability to do so. Nor does the United Nations, which struggles to condemn—let alone stop—atrocities around the world. Powerful autocracies, especially Russia and China, like to think they have the ability to run a global order, but their leaders live in fear of their own people, lack the needed international backing, and lack the military and economic might to do so. More importantly, the world's dictators are precisely the ones who need to be countered to preserve the peace, since they will, left unchecked, take over territories and terrorize peoples.

The United States has the military and economic power, network of alliances, and, for the most part during the last 70 years, the will to preserve peace to the extent possible and prevent large-scale war. The United States is also blessed with a unique geographic situation that allows it to influence events on the Eurasian supercontinent, where many of the world's troubles take place, while being separate from it. Moreover, the global order that followed World War II and reached new heights after the Cold War—defined by an open global economic system, international institutions, and liberal political norms—was—and is—possible because of American supremacy. American power brought unprecedented peace, wealth, stability, and freedom to so many parts of the world, including the United States itself.

So of course Bolton is right: doing what is best for America is, broadly speaking, to the world's benefit. He should not apologize for saying so. American dominance only hurts those who thrive on destabilization, abuse human rights, and pursue belligerent imperialism.

Bolton describes his views to Wood as "pro-American," a term he also uses to describe the real meaning of Trump's "America first" foreign policy. Here we come to Bolton's wisdom. On the one hand, Bolton promotes Trump's more protectionist foreign policy and is chiefly concerned with American interests—he has called himself a "realist" in previous interviews. But on the other hand, Bolton says America's interests serve the world because the United States is mankind's "greatest hope for freedom." Bolton has long emphasized the importance of pushing for freedom abroad. "I identify with the liberty interest from my days as an anti-communist," he said in 2007. "That was for me the value side of wanting the collapse of communism: people within the communist empire would be free to choose, not that they would necessarily choose Wilsonian democracy. Freedom to choose and what is chosen are two different things."

Bolton may draw an interesting distinction between promoting freedom and promoting democracy, but he is still talking about the importance of values. In other words, Bolton's "pro-American" foreign policy is fundamentally internationalist, rooted in a sense of idealism. He seeks to defend American interests, which in turn benefit the world and promote American values. This formulation is the perfect bridge between realist protectionism and idealist internationalism. Bolton's worldview is the way to connect the foreign policies of Trump and the late Sen. John McCain, to unite the political right under a banner of pragmatic internationalism. The isolationist inclinations of America firsters would be unable to preserve the peace, no matter how hard America tried to withdraw from the world. And, on the other extreme, a messianic quest to remake the world in America's image is noble, but entirely unrealistic; moreover, the American people would not accept the cost in lives and money that such a project would require.

This is John Bolton's wisdom: to recognize that what is good for America is good for the world. Such a view inherently promotes national interests, but in the name of spreading freedom to oppressed peoples who suffer under the rule of brutal dictators. That is not the thinking of a warmonger, but of someone who seeks to better humanity in a realistic way.

Read Less

FAKE HUES: CNN’s Jim Acosta Selectively Edits Hair Color, Analysis Finds

What ELSE is he hiding?

BY: Andrew Stiles

March 6, 2019 1:29 pm

CNN Chief White House Correspondent Jim Acosta claims to be a Guardian of Truth, only interested in the facts. However, a recent analysis suggests the celebrity journalist’s alleged commitment to “factual accuracy” is little more than a macabre facade. Here are the facts: When it comes to the color of his own hair, Acosta refuses …

CNN Chief White House Correspondent Jim Acosta claims to be a Guardian of Truth, only interested in the facts. However, a recent analysis suggests the celebrity journalist's alleged commitment to "factual accuracy" is little more than a macabre facade.

Here are the facts: When it comes to the color of his own hair, Acosta refuses to give the American people the truth.

Just like his fellow members of the Corrupt Liberal Media Establishment, Acosta keeps selectively editing "the truth" to suit his sinister needs and fuel his narcissistic ambitions. The results of a Washington Free Beacon analysis are beyond dispute: Jim Acosta's hair color changes almost as often as the Democrat Party's definition of "collusion." Concerned citizens can only wonder: What else is he hiding from us?

Nov. 7, 2018 — a date which will live in infamy. Acosta "embarrassed himself" at a White House press conference when he refused to hand over the microphone to a traumatized female intern after President Donald J. Trump repeatedly asked the so-called journalist to sit down and let other reporters ask questions.

Acosta's hair was a deep sienna color, elegantly coiffed for the cameras. However, barely a week later, according to our analysis, the journo's mop was noticeably less vibrant upon his return to the White House after winning an heroic legal battle over his credentials.

Analysts observed a similar transformation earlier this year. During his game-changing live broadcast from the U.S.-Mexico border, Acosta's windblown locks were factually gray. Several weeks later, however, those same locks were looking as healthy and brown as a Chesapeake Bay Retriever.

Here's what Acosta looked liked in April 2017, seen here at the White House Correspondents' Dinner.

Acosta's ongoing war against reality is highlighted by the following animated analysis.

Something is going on. Experts can debate whether or not a crime has been committed, but there is certainly a victim of Acosta's deviant escapades: The Truth.

Read Less

‘Intersectionality’ and the New Anti-Semitism

BY: Noah Pollak

March 6, 2019 9:13 am

The real Ilhan Omar scandal isn’t that a high-profile member of a powerful House committee hates Jews and Israel.

The real Ilhan Omar scandal isn't that a high-profile member of a powerful House committee hates Jews and Israel. The real scandal is that progressives don't think her hate is a problem, and in fact they don't even consider it hate.

When I was in college, we were required to take a race relations class, taught out of the sociology department, where a quasi-mathematical formula was offered as the only correct way to understand bigotry. I remember it well because it was so disturbing: Racism = Prejudice + Power.

Its tidiness is brilliant, and in the years since I was an undergraduate this formula has become a core principle of progressivism. It means that only white people can be guilty of racism, because America is defined by institutional race-based oppression and the powerless oppressed cannot be judged by the same rules as their powerful oppressors. (Of course, this ignores the fact that when you're a member of Congress sitting on the Foreign Affairs Committee, you have real power even if you are a black Muslim immigrant.)

Since bigotry for progressives no longer depends on what is said, but on the identity of the speaker, Ilhan Omar simply cannot be guilty of anti-Semitism. She is black, Muslim, female, and immigrant, and American Jews tend to be white, wealthy, and "privileged." Progressives usually don’t admit this explicitly, but it's what they're saying when, no matter how awful Omar's anti-Semitism, they change the subject, or make up elaborate excuses for it, or simply ignore it and promote her anyway.

This is also why media reporting tends to frame these stories as "allegations"about Omar, "controversy" surrounding her tweets, or "concern" about her use of "tropes," instead of simply stating the anti-Semitism as fact. Reporters don't state it as a fact because they don't believe it is a fact.

If the media believed that anti-Semitism was genuinely inexcusable, we would see, surrounding the past month's coverage of Omar, major context pieces exploring the culture of anti-Semitism that Omar was raised in, the epidemic levels of anti-Semitism among Muslims, the anti-Semitism of the BDS movement she supports, and so on. There would be a full-fledged campaign as the media undertakes on so many other issues.

But no such pieces will ever torment Omar. Progressives don't believe her anti-Semitism is the kind of bigotry that counts, and they certainly don't believe it is acceptable to engage in the public vilification of someone who shares their politics and checks so many victimhood boxes.

For those hoping Omar's brazenness will be a wake-up call for progressives, you will be disappointed. No lessons will be learned. No line will be drawn. This case will speed along the normalization process. For many progressives today, bigotry against the right kind of people is a virtue.

Read Less

Iran’s Prospective Supreme Leader, Who Oversaw Mass Executions, to Head the Powerful Judiciary

BY: Aaron Kliegman

March 5, 2019 4:55 pm

Ebrahim Raisi is set to become chief of Iran’s powerful judiciary this week, giving him immense influence over the Islamic Republic’s brutal system of oppression.

At first glance, Ebrahim Raisi does not inspire dread. With glasses, an average build, and a gray, kempt beard, he looks unassuming, just another face in the crowd—save for his black turban. And when the conservative Shi'ite cleric speaks, he is not particularly charismatic. How dangerous can he be? It turns out very dangerous for the Iranian people. Raisi is set to become chief of Iran's powerful judiciary this week, giving him immense influence over the Islamic Republic's brutal system of oppression. That is likely just another stop on his way to becoming the most powerful man in the country. Soon enough, those who do not know Raisi's name may become all too familiar with it.

The spokesperson for the judiciary, Gholamhossein Mohseni Ejei, told Iranian media on Sunday that Raisi, 58, will replace Ayatollah Sadeq Amoli Larijani as head of the judicial system. Meanwhile. Yahya Kamalipour, a member of the Iranian Parliament's judiciary committee, said the change would take effect later this week.

The supreme leader of Iran directly appoints the head of the judiciary to a five-year term, which can be renewed.

Raisi worked his way up through the judiciary after the Islamic Revolution in 1979, holding a number of senior positions. Most notoriously, he served as deputy prosecutor of Tehran from 1985 to 1988, when he played a prominent role in the execution of thousands of political prisoners. In the summer of 1988, then-Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini ordered the secret executions, and Raisi was part of a "death committee" that carried several out, overseeing many of the killings.

Raisi's complicity in abusing human rights goes well beyond 1988. As a cog in the wicked machinery of Iran's "deep state"—a network of security, intelligence, and economic personnel and institutions loyal to the current supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and his ideological vision of the Islamic Republic—Raisi is attached to the regime's cruelty and oppression. In 2014, for example, as attorney general, he delayed an investigation into several acid attacks against women in the city of Isfahan, rather than seek swift justice.

It is morally abhorrent to put such a man in charge of a country's judiciary system, yet that is precisely what Khamenei did. What is worse is that the international community has not let out a peep in protest. The silence from the United Nations and the world's democracies has been telling: no one seems willing to hold Raisi accountable for his past atrocities. If verbal condemnation is too much, then what does that make the prospect of imposing sanctions against him?

Yet the United States should impose sanctions against Raisi, especially after his latest appointment. And it should not just be for his abysmal record on human rights. In 2016, Khamenei appointed Raisi custodian of Astan Quds Razavi, the Muslim world's largest charitable foundation, which manages the Imam Reza Shrine and a vast amount of property in the city of Mashhad. The organization, a massive business conglomerate, has billions of dollars in assets, serving effectively as a slush fund for the regime. As Tzvi Kahn, an analyst at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, has argued, the Trump administration must sanction Astan Quds Razavi and Raisi, who as its custodian built his own network of patronage.

As influential as judiciary chief and custodian of Astan Quds Razavi are, they might not be the limits of Raisi's power. In fact, the hardline cleric will likely replace Khamenei as the next supreme leader.

In recent years, experts have named Raisi as one of a few candidates in the running to succeed Khamenei. He was considered the odds-on favorite until 2017, when Raisi ran for president but lost by a wide margin to incumbent Hassan Rouhani. Some observers said the resounding loss killed Raisi's prospects. But now that time has alleviated the sting, the memory of the loss seems to have faded, as evidenced by Raisi's new appointment as judiciary chief. It is no coincidence that Raisi will be replacing Larijani, the other figure who experts consider a leading candidate to become the next supreme leader. Raisi's appointment will put him on the same level of judicial experience as Larijani, except Raisi has the added benefit of the financial and political influence he gained by running Astan Quds Razavi.

Most importantly, Raisi is a loyal follower and ally of Khamenei. The two first met at the time of the 1979 revolution, when Raisi was a young seminarian in the holy city of Qom. Khamenei was one of his teachers. Raisi had no exemplary skills, but he was a loyal soldier who served Iran's revolution. Over the years, Raisi became Khamenei's apprentice of sorts. Indeed, Khamenei seems to be grooming Raisi to replace him.

The one problem for Raisi is his lackluster religious resume. He is not a high-ranking cleric and has not demonstrated a deep knowledge of theological issues. Larijani, meanwhile, has great clerical credentials (and also enjoys good relations with Khamenei). But Khamenei himself did not have a strong religious resume when he became supreme leader in 1989, and, critically, Raisi has stronger ties to the deep state than Larijani. While the Assembly of Experts, of which both Raisi and Larijani are members, officially chooses Iran's next supreme leader, other power centers in the regime—especially the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps—will play major roles in the process. Raisi enjoys closer relations with many of these entities.

It should also be noted that Larijani has previously been accused of corruption, although the allegations were later debunked. Still, the hit on Larijani's reputation could be enough to hurt his chances.

With Raisi's latest appointment, Khamenei is laying the groundwork to ensure that his hardline vision of the Islamic Republic, one that is virulently anti-Western and anti-Semitic, lives on after he dies. Khamenei is 79 and, according to reports, not in great health. He could very well die in the next few years. He wants his successor to rule over an Iran that remains a brutal Islamist theocracy, not one that engages with the West. With Raisi waiting to assume ultimate power (and with Larijani also in contention), Khamenei is planning for Iranian leaders to be chanting "death to America" for years to come.

Read Less

Self-Made Billionaire Kylie Jenner Is Proof the American Dream Is Real

BY: Alex Griswold

March 5, 2019 2:59 pm

Congratulations are due to Kylie Jenner, who by Forbes’ reckoning just became the youngest ever self-made billionaire in the world! Now, I’ve seen some (likely sexist) naysayers on social media insisting that no, Kylie Jenner can hardly be “self-made.” But Forbes defines “self-made” as “someone who built a company or established a fortune on her …

Congratulations are due to Kylie Jenner, who by Forbes' reckoning just became the youngest ever self-made billionaire in the world!

Now, I've seen some (likely sexist) naysayers on social media insisting that no, Kylie Jenner can hardly be "self-made." But Forbes defines "self-made" as "someone who built a company or established a fortune on her own, rather than inheriting some or all of it. As long as the list member didn’t inherit a business or money, she is labeled self-made." And while it's true that Forbes' wealth estimations rely on honesty and have been manipulated by amoral self-promoters, the Kardashians don't seem like those kinds of folks.

Kylie Jenner is truly the face of the American Dream, pulling herself up by the bootstraps to sell makeup, I think. But as former President Barack Obama once wisely pointed out, she didn't build that! What makes Kylie's story so uniquely American is the community around her. There were dozens of people holding her up to the sunlight, like brown slaves liberated by a white savior Khaleesi.

Take Robert Kardashian. Robert was the great-grandson of Armenian Christians who in the classic American immigration story, came to this country to flee the Russian czar's oppression. Each generation built on the shoulders of the last, until Robert became a successful millionaire attorney and married the future Kris Jenner.

Or take Robert's friend, O.J. Simpson, raised in the housing projects of San Francisco. Through hard work and determination, he became one of the greatest all-time running backs, winning the Heisman Trophy and joining the Pro Football Hall of Fame in his first year of eligibility. Had he not befriended such a hard-working individual, Kardashian never would have become a household name.

Or take Conrad Hilton, the son of a Norwegian immigrant and his German wife, who single-handedly built Hilton Hotels and became a self-made billionaire. His son was self-made billionaire Barron Hilton, who gave birth to self-made billionaire Richard Hilton, whose daughter was self-made model Paris Hilton, employed by self-made billionaire Donald Trump. Paris later became best friends with Robert's daughter Kim, placing the family in the tabloids again.

Or take poker player Rick Salomon, who wooed Paris on camera. Or R&B artist Ray J, who romanced Kim, the tape of which was definitely not leaked against her will by her conniving mother in a bid for a TV show after she saw how much attention Paris got. Where would Jenner be today without these gentlemen? Without her sister quite literally taking one for the team?

The result of the efforts of all these entrepreneurs is that Kylie Jenner became a reality star recognized by millions at the age of ten. A decade later, she had nearly universal name recognition, 118 million Instagram followers, the admiration of virtually every woman below the age of 35, a vast network of entertainment, fashion, and retail connections, and a family worth hundreds of millions to bail her out should her endeavors fail. Despite these obstacles, her self-made makeup line was wildly successful.

John Adams best exemplified the generational aspects of the American Dream in a letter to his wife Abigail.

"I must study politics and war, that our sons may have liberty to study mathematics and philosophy," he wrote to her. "Our sons ought to study mathematics and philosophy, geography, natural history and naval architecture, navigation, commerce and agriculture in order to give their children a right to study painting, poetry, music, architecture, statuary, tapestry and porcelain."

Our forefathers built skyscrapers and worked the land, so their sons could be singers and pole vaulters, so their daughters could sell $360 makeup brushes to gullible teenagers and Pepsi to woke black people. Truly, Kylie Jenner is the American Dream personified.

Read Less

The West’s Blind Approach to Hezbollah

Western states are bolstering the terror group by artificially separating its political activities from its militancy and by supporting Lebanon's military

BY: Aaron Kliegman

March 4, 2019 5:07 pm

It is shameful and strategically incompetent not to ban Hezbollah in its entirety. And it is the height of folly to continue supporting the Lebanese military when it collaborates so closely with Hezbollah.

Guess who said the following: "Everyone knows that Hezbollah's political and military wings are one and the same."

No, it was not some Israeli or American hawk, eager to crush Iran's chief proxy force in Lebanon. On the contrary, Ammar Moussawi, the head of Hezbollah's international relations, uttered those words in 2013, when the European Union blacklisted the group's "military wing" as a terrorist organization, excluding its "political" activities as part of a separate, benign entity. Six years later, the EU still separates Hezbollah's so-called political arm from its militancy, drawing an arbitrary line between the two that does not exist. Apparently leaders in Brussels think they understand Hezbollah better than Hezbollah itself. They are not alone.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel's administration also seems to see the mythical line neatly dividing Hezbollah's military and political wings. After the United Kingdom banned Hezbollah in its entirety last week, Berlin refused to follow suit. American sources familiar with Germany's thinking told the Jerusalem Post that Berlin does not ban the Shi'ite Islamist group's political arm because it is "linked to Israel-Palestinian peace talks." The same sources also told the newspaper last year that Germany considers the Trump administration too pro-Israel. Yet a spokesman for the German Interior Ministry said Monday that "the entire Hezbollah is against the idea of international understanding in the sense of the Basic Law, because it fights the right of existence of the state of Israel with terrorist means." The spokesman added, "Such an objective is anti-Semitic in nature."

So the German government is hesitant to ban all of Hezbollah because of its role in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but also acknowledges that the group seeks Israel's destruction. If those ideas sound contradictory, that is because they are. Perhaps Merkel can explain how an entity dedicated to destroying the Jewish state can play a beneficial role in the peace process.

Germany's refusal to ban all of Hezbollah is also driven by fear of angering Lebanon, where the terror group is a powerful political party. Hezbollah, together with allied parties and politicians, currently controls 70 of the 128 seats in Lebanon's parliament. Moreover, Lebanese President Michel Aoun and other key government officials are allied with Hezbollah. In 2013, EU officials were worried that blacklisting Hezbollah's military wing, which meant freezing any of its assets in the bloc, would complicate the EU's relationship with the Lebanese government. "A few member states wanted to be reassured that such a decision will not in any way jeopardize political dialogue," a senior EU official said at the time. Some EU diplomats also argued that designating the military wing could eventually push members of Hezbollah to move away from militancy into politics. The underlying assumption is that the group's violence has nothing to do with its politics, and that its political activity is innocent. What motivated—and still motivates—the EU is also driving Germany's approach to Hezbollah.

The U.K. saw through this nonsense last week. "Hezbollah is continuing in its attempts to destabilize the fragile situation in the Middle East—and we are no longer able to distinguish between their already banned military wing and the political party," British Home Secretary Sajid Javid said in a statement. "Because of this, I have taken the decision to proscribe the group in its entirety."

The United States, Canada, the Arab League, Israel, the Netherlands, and Japan also designate all of Hezbollah as a terrorist organization.

The notion of separating Hezbollah's military and political activity has always been ludicrous. The entire organization falls under the same leadership. From members of parliament to terrorist operatives, Hassan Nasrallah leads Hezbollah, which is ultimately controlled by Iran. Nasrallah, his top lieutenants, and their masters in Tehran do not divide Hezbollah into two separate wings, so why should the West? Moreover, Hezbollah's soldiers and politicians pass money freely between them. There is no distinction. Money raised from Hezbollah's international criminal enterprise—which includes drug and human trafficking, counterfeiting European currency, and much more—supports Hezbollah's social and political activities inside Lebanon just as it supports terrorist operations and military deployments abroad. Europe's refusal to ban all of Hezbollah actually allows the group to organize and fundraise on European soil.

Also recall that Hezbollah assassinated former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafic Hariri in 2005, and then in 2008, the group used violence in the streets of Lebanon to gain greater influence in the government. How is Hezbollah's political activity different than its militancy?

Germany should have incentive to blacklist all of Hezbollah. As the Jerusalem Post notes, there are 950 Hezbollah operatives in Germany who raise funds, recruit new members, and spread their anti-Western, anti-Semitic ideology, according to German intelligence reports. Hezbollah operatives also work closely with the Quds Force of Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps across Europe. But of course Germany has a policy of appeasing Iran, and therefore Hezbollah by extension. Since banning all of Hezbollah will anger the ayatollahs, Germany has no interest in doing so.

Even countries that outlaw all of Hezbollah still have a blind approach to the terror group. Take Canada, whose armed forces are in Lebanon to train soldiers in winter warfare to help them better protect their borders. And Canada is not alone. The United States has provided about $1.7 billion to the Lebanese Armed Forces, or LAF, since 2006.

There are two major problems with this support. First, Hezbollah has become more powerful than the LAF, with about 130,000 rockets in its arsenal and strong support from Iran. Second and more importantly, the LAF is allied with Hezbollah, closely collaborating with the terrorist group while enjoying Western support. Indeed, Hezbollah and the LAF operate together in south Lebanon, and Hezbollah operatives even sometimes wear Lebanese army uniforms. Iran has also used a civilian airliner, known for its ties to the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, to fly weapons and advanced systems to Beirut International Airport, which the Lebanese army controls. Supporting the LAF is a way of supporting Hezbollah, whether the West knows it or not.

Western countries need to remember what Hezbollah is. It is the same group that has deployed thousands of troops to Syria to help Iran and the Assad regime slaughter the Syrian people. It is the same group that blew up an Israeli tour bus in Bulgaria in 2012, murdering six people and injuring 32 others. And it is the same group that uses Lebanese civilians as human shields to deter Israel from attacking its operatives after they attack Israelis. Hezbollah is destructive both inside Lebanon and abroad. It is shameful and strategically incompetent not to ban the organization in its entirety. And it is the height of folly to continue supporting the LAF when it collaborates so closely with Hezbollah. Maybe the West will eventually learn. But there is no easy cure for willful blindness.

Read Less

The Line Between Criticism of Israel and Anti-Semitism

A lesson for Ilhan Omar and like-minded progressives, who cross the line all too often

BY: Aaron Kliegman

March 1, 2019 4:42 pm

Rep. Ilhan Omar and many like-minded progressives have, through their words and actions, crossed the line from legitimate criticism of Israel to anti-Semitism.

For someone who claims not to be anti-Semitic, Rep. Ilhan Omar (D., Minn.) sure says a lot of anti-Semitic things. Just look at the past two months. In January, Omar defended a tweet from 2012 in which she called Israel "evil" and said the Jewish state "has hypnotized the world," expressing annoyance at the notion that her comments "would be offensive to Jewish Americans." She later called her choice of words "unfortunate." Then early last month, Omar accused American politicians of supporting the Jewish state because of the "Benjamins," a slang term for money. When asked who is paying American leaders to be pro-Israel, she simply responded, "AIPAC," an acronym for the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. Omar later apologized but still called AIPAC "problematic." She then praised a Democratic activist while retweeting a thread in which he said AIPAC's lobbying is "about the Benjamins."

On Wednesday, Omar went even further with her anti-Semitic remarks. She appeared at Busboys and Poets, a restaurant in Washington, D.C., whose owner has his own history of peddling anti-Semitic canards, to discuss a range of progressive issues. Naturally, the evening focused primarily on anti-Semitism and Israel. "So for me," Omar said, "I want to talk about the political influence in this country that says it is okay to push for allegiance to a foreign country." Her comment is the classic anti-Semitic charge of dual loyalty, in this context that Jewish Americans put Israel's interests above America's. There is clearly a pattern here.

But Omar was not done. She also had the audacity to accuse those who say her comments are anti-Semitic of bigotry themselves. "What I am fearful of—because both Rashida [Tlaib] and I are Muslim—is that a lot of our Jewish colleagues and constituents go to thinking that everything we say about Israel is anti-Semitic because we are Muslim," Omar said. "It's something designed to end the debate." Omar does not seem to realize that she is the one making false accusations to "end the debate." No serious person condemning her comments cares what religion she practices. Was the Democratic leadership practicing Islamophobia when it called Omar's remarks from last month anti-Semitic? The substance of the comments is what matters, not her faith.

Omar is of course attempting to couch her views as legitimate criticism of Israel, and to say those who call her comments anti-Semitic do not want to hear it. Indeed, many anti-Zionists and others who harshly oppose Israel, especially progressives, defend their efforts against the Jewish state by claiming, first, that they are simply criticizing the Israeli government's policies and, second, that pro-Israel voices dismiss such criticism as anti-Semitic to shut down debate. Just look at how the discussion began Wednesday night. According to Jewish Insider, the moderator asked what "we as a community here can do to support you criticizing Israel for some of the war crimes that it has done so that it's not seen as ‘you're anti-Semitic'? Because you're not criticizing the religion, you're not criticizing Jewish people, you're criticizing the government policies."

This line of defense, which many on the political left believe wholeheartedly, is a straw man. Of course it is not anti-Semitic to criticize the policies of the state of Israel. No serious person, including supporters of Israel, would say otherwise. But Omar and many like-minded progressives have, through their words and actions, crossed the line from legitimate criticism to anti-Semitism.

Criticism becomes bigotry when it involves demonizing and delegitimizing Israel. Accusing Israel of genocide—or of running an apartheid state, as Omar did on Wednesday—is a shameful lie that cannot be labeled legitimate criticism. The same goes for describing Israel, the only democracy in the Middle East, as a human rights abuser on the level of China and North Korea. Those who support the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement against Israel employ such rhetoric as part of their campaign of economic warfare against the Jewish state. Such efforts seek to destroy the Jewish state through international pressure, undermining Israel to the point that it effectively ceases to survive as we have come to recognize it. Think about the implications for Israeli Jews, who live in a region in which most governments have shown indifference to if not support for slaughtering Jews. Moreover, now that the Jewish people have Israel and are not prepared to surrender it after 2,000 years of exile and persecution, the only way to replace Israel with Palestine, or a bi-national state, or whatever else Omar and her allies envision, is by forcibly taking it. That would mean killing many Jews. Those who do not realize this reality cannot plead ignorance and absolve themselves.

Imagine if someone demonized and sought to de-legitimize another country—say, Ireland—with the same obsessive hatred that Omar shows Israel. Would they not be bigoted against the Irish? Of course they would.

But no one targets Ireland, or any other country, like so many target Israel. And here we get to the bigger point. Anti-Semitism, to paraphrase the eminent historian Bernard Lewis, has two special features that make it a distinct form of bigotry: Jews are assigned restrictive, disadvantageous double standards, and more importantly, a cosmic, satanic evil is attributed to them unlike anything else in this world. What do these criteria look like today? Treating Israel differently than all other countries and accusing it of being a nefarious puppet master controlling world events—maybe even hypnotizing the world.

Separating anti-Semitism from criticism of Israeli policy is not that hard. As with pornography, "I know it when I see it."

In today's world, where hatred and persecution based on race and religion are supposed to be no longer tolerated, anti-Semitism is based primarily on the Jewish people's nation-state. Anti-Zionism, or opposition to Israel's continued existence as a Jewish state, is the chief medium through which anti-Semites push their agenda. Those who may not have a personal animus toward Jews at large—like Omar (one certainly hopes)—but who support the BDS movement and other efforts to destroy the Zionist project—again, like Omar—are complicit in anti-Semitism. As nefarious and troubling as her comments peddling anti-Semitic canards are, her efforts to isolate, hurt, and ultimately destroy the world's only Jewish state pose a much greater threat. Those who want to fight anti-Semitism need to fight the policies toward Israel that Omar and like-minded progressives support. In other words, those who support such policies, those warriors for social justice, are part of the problem.

Read Less