from State Of The Nation: Submitted by An Armchair Political Analyst SOTN Exclusive We’ll make this one very short, simple and sweet. First of all, Trump is in a world of hurt for many reasons but especially because of his cataclysmic unprovoked war of naked aggression against Iran.  Then there is his proven complicity in the Epsteingate […]

Meet the rootin' tootin' cowboys out of, erm, Cork, Ireland who are pioneering 'yee-hardcore'

Let's be honest: waiting is hard. Waiting on anything—a job, a relationship, a breakthrough, healing—can feel like an eternity. And when you're waiting on God's timing, it can feel even harder. You're trusting in something bigger than yourself, something you can't see or control.I've been there. I've spent seasons of my life feeling stuck, wondering when God was going to answer my prayers. And I know I'm not alone. We all face those moments when we feel like we're in a divine waiting room.But here's the truth: waiting doesn't have to be a passive experience. It doesn't have to be a time of frustration and stagnation. In fact, it can be a time of incredible growth, transformation, and even joy. The key is to shift our perspective and learn how to thrive while we wait.So, how do we do it? Here are five ways that have helped me, and I pray they'll encourage you too:1. Embrace the Present MomentIt's so easy to get caught up in thinking about the future, about what we want, and about when God is going to answer our prayers. But when we do that, we miss out on the beauty and the opportunities of the present moment. Philippians 4:11-13 says, "I am not saying this because I am in need, for I have learned to be content whatever the circumstances. I know what it is to be in need, and I know what it is to have plenty. I have learned the secret of being content in any and every situation, whether well-fed or hungry, whether living in plenty or in want. I can do all this through him who gives me strength." We must learn contentment and find strength in Christ in every situation.God has you exactly where you are for a reason. He has a purpose for you right now, in this season of waiting. Your job is to bloom where you're planted, to make the most of the opportunities that are right in front of you. Matthew 6:34 says, "Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own." This clearly emphasizes that we must learn to focus on the present day rather than worry about the uncertain future.Even Ecclesiastes 3:1 says, "There is a time for everything and a season for every activity under the heavens." This confirms that there is a specific time for everything, even waiting.Here’s how you learn to embrace the present moments in your life: Focus on the blessings you have rather than the things you lack. Look for ways to serve others, to use your gifts and talents to make a difference in the world.Photo Credit: ©Getty Images/GaudiLab

A rare stone sarcophagus found intact, still closed and sealed, has been discovered in the Adriatic coastal town of Cavtart, Croatia. The sarcophagus dates to Late Antiquity, between the 4th and 6th centuries A.D. and is one of very few sarcophaguses preserved undisturbed in their original context ever found in Croatia. The five-ton sarcophagus was found in the necropolis of the Roman colony of Epidaurum. Numerous burials of different types were unearthed in the excavation before the massive sarcophagus was found three meters (10 feet) below the surface. It is a sarcophagus of the Salonitan type, a design manufactured in the workshops of Salona, capital of Roman Dalmatia. It was completely untouched by looters and showing no signs of ever having been moved. The lid was still sealed shut with a layer of lime mortar. In order the remove the sarcophagus and relocate it to an area where it is visible to the public, archaeologists decided to unseal the lid and take both parts out separately. Restorer Sinisa Bizjak worked with sculptor Tomislav Šalo to remove the lime mortar binding the lid to the coffin. Inside the sarcophagus were the remains of one individual. The skeletal remains are in poor condition, but archaeologists recovered them and took samples of organic deposits and other materials inside the coffin. The samples taken will now undergo scientific analysis. Archaeologists hope to narrow down the burial date and find out more about the deceased. The burial remaining in its original location without being disturbed gives archaeologists a rare opportunity to investigate its context. It now stands at the junction of pathways leading to the Račić Family Mausoleum, St Rocco’s Cemetery and the steps descending towards Ključice beach. The relocation ensures that both residents and visitors can view the monument and gain a deeper appreciation of Cavtat’s rich ancient heritage and its connection to the former Roman colony of Epidaur.

[View Article at Source]The National Security Hour with Major Fred Galvin – If billions flow back into the hands of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps while proxy networks remain intact, are we purchasing…

Rep. Wesley Hunt (R-Texas) emphasized to Congress the importance of passing the election integrity SAVE America Act and rejected woke arguments against voter ID as racist and condescending. Advertisement…

Thursday on “The Alex Marlow Show,” Breitbart Editor-in-Chief Alex Marlow talked about the UFC plot. Marlow said, “The broken immigration system is eating our country alive. And this is one…

Foreign Affairs The Strange Case of the United Arab Emirates Abu Dhabi, despite its previous Iran hawkism, appears to have facilitated peace between Washington and Tehran. After the U.S. and Israel attacked Iran in late February, the Gulf States found themselves in a very difficult position. It was a war that served not one of their interests. They had warned the U.S. against the war and lobbied hard to prevent it, and they exerted strenuous effort to stay out of it. And yet, they provide the platform for thirteen U.S. bases and 50,000 U.S. troops that has made the war on Iran possible. As American missiles rained down on Iran and Iranian missiles rained down on the Gulf countries, reports emerged that the U.S. was using the latter nations’ territory and airspace. Bader Al-Saif, assistant professor at Kuwait University, says that the Gulf states do not want to be seen as part of a U.S.-Israeli front against Iran and that they know that this is an illegal war launched amid negotiations that Tehran had appeared to approach in good faith. Reports that Saudi Arabia was pushing the U.S. to continue the war and to put an end to the Iranian threat were denied by Saudi Arabia, and both Al-Saif and Maria Luisa Fantappiè, head of the Mediterranean, Middle East and Africa programme at the Istituto Affari Internazionali, say that there is no evidence of such Saudi lobbying and that the reports are not true. According to President Donald Trump, it was the leaders of the Gulf states, including Qatar, the UAE, and Saudi Arabia, who had asked him last month to “hold off” on an imminent U.S. attack that would have restarted major hostilities. But while the rest of the Gulf countries went one way, toward restraint and staying out of a war they were trying to end, the United Arab Emirates went another. The UAE urged the other Gulf countries to take a more aggressive posture in their defense and to join the United States. They alone said they would be willing to join a U.S.-led international effort to “secure navigation in the Strait of Hormuz.” And on the very day the Gulf Cooperation Council opened its recent summit, the Emirati government announced it was leaving the Saudi-led OPEC group of oil-producing nations. But then the more sensational revelations came. In an extraordinary first, Israel sent an Iron Dome battery, interceptors, and dozens of IDF operators to the UAE, to help intercept Iranian missiles fired at the UAE. It was the first time that Israel had transferred an Iron Dome battery to another country and suggested a level of cooperation between the two nations previously unknown. Then it was reported that the UAE had secretly entered the war by carrying out military strikes on Iran, attacking a refinery on Iran’s ⁠Lavan Island in the Persian Gulf. The UAE’s more aggressive and rogue stance made it a leading target of Iranian missiles. Hassan Ahmadian, associate professor of Middle East and North Africa studies at the University of Tehran, says that Iran sees the UAE and Bahrain as the worst offenders and that they have been struck the most, with the UAE being struck more times than all the other Gulf states combined. But then a strange thing happened. On May 4, Iran struck the UAE’s Fujairah port—and then did not strike the UAE again. There had long been rumors, and even some reports, that Qatar and Oman may have struck their own deals with Iran to avoid further retaliatory strikes. And now, the same rumors have surfaced about the UAE, and Reuters has recently corroborated them. Four unnamed sources told Reuters that the UAE had agreed to release between $10 billion and $20 billion of funds to Iran that are frozen under U.S. sanctions. Two of the sources say that $3 billion has already been delivered.  Perhaps having realized that aligning with the U.S. was making them the key target for Iranian missiles and that, contrary to the promises, the U.S. was unable to defend its territory, the UAE updated their tactics and engaged with Iran rather, than confronting it. Two sources told Reuters that the release of frozen Iranian funds had been promised “in return for a halt to Iranian attacks on ⁠the UAE.” (The UAE has denied the report.) Furthering the intrigue, according to one of the sources “with knowledge of the arrangement,” the intent of the deal went beyond stopping the missile strikes. It has long been clear that Iran would not accept any peace deal without sanction relief and the release of at least some of its frozen assets. The U.S. has insisted that, unlike their representation of Obama’s JCPOA, the U.S. would not be bribing Iran to curb its nuclear program out of a position of weakness, and that any release of funds would be tied to performance.  The UAE releasing funds to Iran would allow Iran to receive frozen funds at the front end of the agreement while allowing the Trump administration to save face. The White House has called claims of side agreements that allowed frozen funds to flow back to Iran at the front end “misinformation,” but the UAE seems to have facilitated precisely that arrangement. Over the past several months, the UAE’s pendulum has swung wildly from Iran hawkism to engagement with the Islamic Republic that makes a peace deal possible. This strange pattern of relations could be made even stranger if, as one source told Reuters, the arrangement between the UAE and Iran went further than stopping the strikes to encompass “rebuilding of bilateral ties, including intelligence sharing and economic cooperation.” Such reports suggest the U.S.–Iran peace deal, with the help of the UAE, could help transform the Middle East and reintegrate Iran and the Gulf nations. The post The Strange Case of the United Arab Emirates appeared first on The American Conservative.

UK Special Coverage Angry Brits Could Make Burnham PM—Then Turn on Him The voters are in a state of electoral ataxia that makes political forecasting impossible. UK Special Coverage Britain has had six prime ministers in the last decade and is about to install a seventh. This seems inevitable following the stunning victory of Andy Burnham, the erstwhile mayor of Manchester, in the crucial Makerfield by-election Thursday night. He received 55 percent of the vote and crushed the life out of Nigel Farage’s Reform UK. The Labour prime minister, Keir Starmer, is now under intense pressure to hand over the keys of Number Ten Downing Street to wannabe Burnham tout de suite. Around 81 MPs are needed to trigger a leadership election under Labour’s rules. Burnham’s people claim they will have over 200 names by Sunday. Starmer insisted as recently as two days ago that he was not going to quit, whatever happened in Makerfield. He had a job to do and he was going to finish it, having won a thumping general election victory only two years ago. If a leadership election happened, he said, he would be a candidate in it—as is his right. But that now seems a forlorn hope, even a state of delusion. The political reality is that Andy Burnham’s momentum is unstoppable. Last weekend, a succession of senior Labour MPs, led by the Energy and Net Zero Secretary Ed Miliband, will be lining up to persuade Sir Keir that he should agree to an “orderly transition” to avoid a damaging leadership election that would only extend the crisis. Starmer can reasonably claim that this is not a crisis of his own making. It is ambitious politicians like Burnham, former Health Secretary Wes Streeting, former Defence Secretary John Healey, and others who have plunged the government into chaos by resigning serially from his cabinet. He has a point. Starmer won Labour’s biggest election victory in twenty-seven years in July 2024. “People have said to me it’s not possible, it’s not possible to turn the Labor Party around,” he noted earlier this week. He points out that some things have been going right under his watch: Immigration is down, inflation is down, GDP is up, and wages are rising. Starmer took the wise decision not to get involved in Donald Trump’s Iran adventure. He has been gradually removing trade barriers with Europe. Only this week, he took on the tech billionaires with his plan to ban children under sixteen from using social media. (Not that many people believe it will work.) However, the first priority of an MP is not policy success but job security—his own. Starmer’s unpopularity has plunged in recent months and has been as low in polls as any of his unloved Tory predecessors. Burnham is much more popular, though whether that will last once he is in the top job remains to be seen. To paraphrase Tony Blair, Starmer was the future once. The apparently irresistible rise of Reform UK is what has induced a state of panic on the Labour benches. The party lost 1,100 seats in the May council elections, mostly to Farage’s people. Northern MPs, often in vulnerable constituencies, feared that Labour, and their seats, were doomed under Starmer. Reform has been leading Labour in the national opinion polls for the last thirteen months and Farage had been drawing up plans for his first government. Now suddenly all that has changed.  After Makerfield, Reform looks to have peaked, says Labour-supporting commentators. Farage is back in his box. Andy Burnham is the Reform killer and looks Labour’s best bet to win the next general election. Well, maybe. We have been here before. The Tories changed their leaders like football managers five times in eight years and they just got more unpopular each time. There is no particular reason why Andy Burnham should be able to turn Labour around.  He stood for leader twice in the past and was rejected. He has been dubbed Andy U-turnham for his policy flip-flops on immigration, borrowing, benefits, and Brexit. It’s hard to know what Burnham’s appeal is beyond the fact that he is not Keir Starmer, whose very speaking voice has been a turn-off for many voters. It’s not really about personalities anyway. The Brits are angry and alienated. There is widespread discontent at the rising cost of living, illegal immigration, unaffordable housing, NHS waiting lists, the benefits culture. “Alarm clock Britain,” as middle- and lower-level wage earners are called, is getting poorer. Petrol prices, energy bills, groceries all seem to be racing ahead of the official inflation figures. Many blame mass migration, welfare claimants, and environmental policies like Net Zero.  British voters seem somewhat lost politically. Old class loyalties have disintegrated.  Cynicism reigns. Politicians are thought to be “in it for themselves,” like the SNP chief executive Peter Murrell, who recently admitted embezzling £400,000, or the Labour Lord Peter Mandelson, who was hand in glove with Jeffrey Epstein.  This alienation has led to apparently contradictory results in elections. Andy Burnham won the Makerfield by-election with 55 percent of the vote—more than all the right-wing parties (Reform, Restore and the Conservatives) put together. Yet only six weeks ago, Nigel Farage’s Reform won around 50 percent of the votes in this very northern English town in the local elections. What are we to make of this? Nigel Farage is claiming that many potential Reform supporters voted tactically for Labour in order to get Starmer out. That is a clever piece of spin, but somewhat improbable. Andy Burnham has been trimming his left-wing policies, but he is still a self-styled “socialist” and is more pro-immigration and “woke” than the prime minister. Burnham is expected to install his main backer, the left-wing Miliband, as chancellor. The Energy and Net Zero Secretary  is everything white working-class Reform voters are supposed to hate: a green zealot who opposes immigration controls and wants, if anything, to increase spending on welfare. Burnham is on record as saying he wants the UK to eventually rejoin the European Union, so why would Reform voters, who invariably backed Brexit, lend their votes to him? It makes little sense. Nor does Farage’s claim that Reform were robbed by the intervention of the far-right ethnonationalists of Rupert Lowe’s Restore UK, which supports remigration and a restoration of the death penalty. Adding Restore’s 3,000 votes to Reform’s 16,000 still leaves them far short of the almost 25,000 received by Burnham. Voters are just mad as hell, to echo Howard Beale in Network, and won’t take it any more. They lash out in all directions. It is a state of electoral ataxia that makes predicting election results almost impossible. Four months ago, in the Gorton and Denton by-election, Labour’s vote collapsed and they lost one of their safest seats to the Green Party. In Makerfield, the once-mighty Conservatives returned 2.2 percent of the vote. Yet on the same day they won their first by-election gain in half a century in Aberdeen South—formerly a Scottish National Party stronghold. What goes around doesn’t come around any more in British politics. It is here-today-gone-tomorrow politics, as this once-great imperial power learns to live with economic and geopolitical decline—and really doesn’t like it. The post Angry Brits Could Make Burnham PM—Then Turn on Him appeared first on The American Conservative.