As the Western world reels from the brutal killings of six Israeli hostages, including one U.S. citizen, the truth has never been clearer. Israel needs strong, unequivocal American support now more than…

Good Thursday morning. Here is what’s on 46 agenda today: 10am: The President receives the President’s Daily Brief 1:15pm: The President deliver remarks at the Economic Club of Washington, D.C. 8:45pm:…

The cost of beauty could be your vision.

Recipient of the Key to New York City Sean Combs was arrested yesterday at the Park Hyatt hotel on West 57th Street. Combs Freak Off parties localized the compromising operation of the CIA controlled Illuminati Hollywood hellscape. The panic is real and the fallout will be enormous if justice is truly served. UTL COMMENT:- I think differently - more likely that they arrested him so that they can seize the videos and recordings he has of the elites who attended his parties. Once they seize the videos, the evidence will mysteriously disappear and then they will extort these fools into pushing their agendas. Surely Bowne would also realise that!!! Wear a piece of history with the official Infowars ‘Trump Bulletproof Shirt’ that has emablazoned on it the most iconic image of our time! Defy globalist by pre-ordering this comfortable made-in-America shirt TODAY! Our Save Infowars Mega Sale is NOW LIVE! Save up to 60% on our hottest products today! Boost your vitality overall well-being with our premium supplement line Infowars M.D. now available for 25% OFF exclusively at InfowarsStore.com! Get 40% OFF our flagship product DNA Force Plus now! Try it today and see why so many listeners have made it an essential part of their daily routine! Power up with Nitric Boost that’s now 40% OFF! This potent formula gives you the massive edge in strength and superior circulation for that unparalleled performance you've been looking for! Save 40% on Ultimate Fish Oil today and improve your supplement routine & experience the world-renowned powerhouse formula! Save 40% on our limited edition Brain Force Ultra that’s loaded with proprietary super ingredients! URGENT! Keep Alex Jones in the fight against the NWO! Please pray & contribute at DefendJones.com today! Infowars Platinum is BACK! Save 25% on our latest line of products that promotes a healthy lifestyle globalists DO NOT want you to have! Ultra 12 is now 40% OFF! Get it today to experience the powerful source of energy and B12 while this deal lasts!

A whole region's musical traditions. The post What does the title of Dick Dale’s song ‘Misirlou’ mean? first appeared on Far Out Magazine.

from The National Pulse: A Dane County, Wisconsin judge has ruled that Robert F. Kennedy Jr.‘s name will stay on the state’s presidential ballot despite his request to be removed. Circuit Judge Stephen Ehlke stated Wisconsin law only permits presidential candidates to be removed if they die after submitting valid nomination papers. Judge Ehlke emphasized the clear language of the statute, remarking, […]

  Everyone knows the two major players in American politics: the Democratic Party and the Republican Party. At all elections above the municipal level in the United States, these two political parties are dominant, with very few county- or state-level politicians coming from third parties. What are third parties, and do they have any influence in American politics? Are there any widely known third parties? Why have we never had a US president from a third party? If not, why do people ever vote for third-party candidates? Here’s a look at the hidden role and power of third parties in United States elections.   Setting the Stage: Birth of Partisanship in the USA Four early American partisans (clockwise from top left): Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, Aaron Burr, and Alexander Hamilton. Source: United States Capitol Historical Society   When the United States Constitution was written in Philadelphia in 1787, the famous governing document did not include political parties. In fact, factions were a key concern of some of the Founding Fathers, including Constitution writer James Madison. However, despite George Washington’s warning to Americans to avoid political parties, Madison assumed that factions were inevitable. To limit the power of factions to become tyrannical and oppress others, Madison wanted the US Constitution to create systems and processes that would prevent any one faction from becoming dominant.   In The Federalist Papers, Madison skillfully argued—and persuaded the voting public—that having many competing factions in a large republic would limit the growth of any one. He further argued that the ambitions of faction leaders, politicians and candidates, would naturally check the rise of a dominant faction. To compete and win, factions would need to moderate themselves to appeal to large numbers of voters. Madison’s beliefs were quickly put to the test in 1796 when Federalist Vice President John Adams ran for the presidency against Democratic-Republican Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson. Adams won in 1796, but lost in 1800. Fortunately, Adams willingly handed over the presidency to Jefferson in the Peaceful Revolution of 1800, showing that partisanship could be intense without devolving into violence.   Early 1800s: Emergence of the Two-Party System A pamphlet from shortly after the American Civil War (1861-65) advertising the platform of the relatively new Republican Party. Source: Ashland University   The Federalists and the Democratic-Republicans were the first two organized factions, or political parties, that could compete across the growing nation. Why did more political parties not develop? In the Constitution, the United States was set up to have single-member legislative districts, meaning only one person can represent a given district in a legislature (lawmaking body). In state legislatures and the US House of Representatives, each district can send only one elected official. This creates a “winner take all” principle in American politics; the candidate who receives the second-most votes gets nothing.   In addition to the winner-take-all principle, American elections tend to be plurality elections above the local level. All federal elections, meaning for Congress and the president, are plurality elections. This means that the winner of the election is whichever candidate wins the most votes—not necessarily a majority of votes. Because of this, there is little need to create coalitions of small political parties. The biggest party wins outright, dooming parties that cannot win plurality elections quickly to irrelevance. Historically, this has left two main political parties in countries like the United States, Britain, Canada, Jamaica, and Zimbabwe.   1850s: The Know-Nothing Party A nativist (anti-immigration) political cartoon criticizing immigrants as drunkards who “stole” elections from native-born Americans. Source: Smithsonian Institution   By the 1840s, two dominant political parties had emerged in the United States: the Democratic Party and the Whig Party. The Democrats were more powerful in the South and represented mainly agrarian interests. Meanwhile, the Whigs were more powerful in the North and were more urban. However, the Whig Party began to lose power quickly in the 1850s as it broke into smaller factions over the divisive issue of slavery. While the Whig Party still existed, an offshoot became known as the Know-Nothing Party.   The Know-Nothings were nativists who argued that immigrants were destroying American society. This was a popular sentiment in the cities of the Northeast, which experienced rapid immigration from Europe starting in the 1840s. At its peak in 1856, the Know-Nothing Party had a national profile and even enjoyed a former Whig, incumbent US president Millard Fillmore, jumping on board as its presidential nominee. Fillmore received only eight electoral votes—trounced by both the Democratic Party and newly-established Republican Party nominees—and the Know-Nothing Party collapsed, mostly due to disagreements over slavery.   1860: The Constitutional Union Party The 1860 ticket for the Constitutional Union Party, which was primarily composed of conservative former Whigs. Source: Indiana State Museum   The new Republican Party was mainly composed of former Whigs, but some Whigs preferred to experiment with third parties. After the Know-Nothing Party collapsed after 1856, a second post-Whig third party emerged: the Constitutional Union Party. This party was focused on maintaining the union, which was rapidly fracturing over the issue of slavery. It appealed mostly to conservatives from both major parties, especially as some Democrats came to fear growing radicalism in their party. In 1860, the Constitutional Union Party was formed and tried to promote unity…by ignoring the issue of slavery.   Texas governor Sam Houston and Tennessee politician John Bell competed for the party’s first presidential nomination, with Bell winning out. Unfortunately for the fledgling party, most voters stuck with traditional partisanship that fall. The Democratic Party itself split between North and South, with each coalition running its own nominee. Thus, four major candidates competed in November, with Republican nominee Abraham Lincoln winning a plurality of the popular vote and enough votes in the Electoral College. Bell received the least votes, and the Constitutional Union Party collapsed with the outbreak of the Civil War.   1892: The People’s “Populist” Party The 1892 US presidential and vice presidential ticket for the People’s Party, also known as the Populist Party. Source: Virginia Humanities   The Union victory in the Civil War was a tremendous boost to the Republican Party of Abraham Lincoln. Democrats were long seen as Southern supporters of slavery, and thus, the Democratic Party entered a post-war era of irrelevance. However, the Republican Party quickly became known more for being the political party of “big business,” and many poor workers felt that their interests were ignored. If Democrats were the party of agriculture and Republicans were the party of the wealthy, who would be the party of labor?   Quickly, the People’s Party, also known as the Populist Party, emerged in the late 1880s. It sought economic reform to limit the power of banks and railroads. Many farmers joined urban labor as populists, feeling that the Democratic Party was beholden to wealthy landowners. In the 1892 presidential election, the Populist Party won over a million popular votes with nominee James B. Weaver. The federal election also saw some Populists win seats in Congress, which was a rarity for a third party. Would the Populist Party break the two-party system?   1896: Major Party Absorbs a Third Party A newspaper article detailing the political positions of William Jennings Bryan, a populist leader who became the Democratic Party’s presidential nominee in 1896. Source: Library of Congress   While the Know-Nothings and Constitutional Unionists largely collapsed, the Populists seemed to be maintaining their popularity. However, they were thwarted in many places by the winner-take-all principle as they were not able to overcome Democrats or Republicans directly. Quickly, both the Democratic and Republican parties began adopting parts of the Populist platform to retain their own voters and attract some Populist voters. This prevented the Populist Party from growing enough to become a third major party.   In 1896, populist leader William Jennings Bryan became the Democratic Party’s presidential nominee. Many Populists joined Bryan and merged with the larger Democratic Party, adding urban labor issues and economic reforms like increasing the money supply to the Democratic Party platform. Some Populists in the South also merged with the Republican Party, mostly due to disagreement with some anti-Black Democrats. Ultimately, the Populists faded away as most members joined one of the two major parties, with Democrats and Republicans both putting forth some Progressive policies in the late 1890s and early 1900s.   1912: The Progressive “Bull Moose” Party A political cartoon criticizing former US President Theodore Roosevelt’s creation of the Bull Moose Party, taking away Republican votes. Source: PBS   While Millard Fillmore is often considered a largely forgettable US president, the next commander-in-chief to jump ship from a major party to a third party was a historical leader. Theodore Roosevelt, often considered the nation’s top Progressive reformer, was a Republican president from 1901 to 1908. He voluntarily passed up a third term and let a Cabinet secretary, William Howard Taft, take the reins. By 1912, however, Roosevelt was dissatisfied with Taft and pursued the Republican presidential nomination again.   When the Republican Party decided to stick with Taft, an angry Roosevelt formed his own party: the Progressive, or “Bull Moose,” Party. Roosevelt campaigned hard and beat Taft out in the popular vote. Despite this rare example of a third party beating a major party, the other major party won an even greater percentage. Roosevelt’s run effectively split the Republican vote, letting the Democratic Party win a plurality. Woodrow Wilson became the first Democratic president in decades. The stinging loss created a lesson for both major parties: take care to maintain party unity, lest you split your votes!   1912-20: Eugene V. Debs and the Socialists An ad for socialist political candidate Eugene V. Debs, who was imprisoned for violating the Espionage Act by protesting US involvement in World War I. Source: Library of Congress   One politician who cut his teeth during the populist era of labor strikes was Eugene Debs. In 1912, with the Republican Party split by Teddy Roosevelt’s new Progressive Party, Debs also made headway as presidential nominee for the Socialist Party. In his fourth race as Socialist nominee, Debs won almost one million popular votes. The Socialist Party, a minor third party, continued on, and Debs ran for president for a fourth time in 1916.   In 1918, the United States had entered World War I, and Debs—a pacifist—made a speech criticizing America’s role in the conflict. He was arrested under the new Espionage Act, which allowed the government to limit speech that might be harmful to the war effort. Two years later, Debs campaigned for the US presidency from a prison cell, making him the first to do so. Perhaps due to Socialist fervor thanks to the recent Bolshevik Revolution in Russia, or perhaps due to public sympathy for his plight, Debs won over one million popular votes. He was released from prison by election’s victor, Republican nominee Warren G. Harding.   1948-68: The “Dixiecrats” and American Independent Party A Time Magazine cover featuring US Senator Strom Thurmond, who created the breakaway Dixiecrat political party in 1948. Source: Army and Navy Club   The Civil Rights movement ruffled both major parties, especially the Democratic Party. Since the end of post-Civil War Reconstruction, the South had been dominated by the Democratic Party. Beginning with Franklin D. Roosevelt, however, the party had shifted its base of support from Southern farmers to urban labor. In 1948, Roosevelt’s vice president, Harry S. Truman, was now in the White House, and he made the monumental decision to desegregate the armed forces. Angrily, many Southern Democrats split off to create their own party, the pro-segregation and pro-states’ rights Dixiecrat Party.   The Dixiecrats at first tried to work within the larger Democratic Party but failed to prevent Truman from being re-nominated. In the general election, the Dixiecrats won 39 electoral votes but again failed to stop Truman, who won re-election. This failed effort resulted in most Dixiecrats sullenly returning to the Democratic Party. Twenty years later, Alabama Governor George Wallace (who did not join the Dixiecrat movement in 1948 despite strong sympathies) created a similar movement known as the American Independent Party. In a strong showing for a third party, Wallace won 46 electoral votes.   Today: Greens and Libertarians A map showing which states currently include the Green Party on the ballot in 2024, as well as potential access after legal action concludes. Source: The Green Party of the United States   Today, the two largest third parties in the United States are the pro-conservative Libertarian Party and the pro-liberal Green Party. Libertarians are often called “small government conservatives” and favor low taxation, little government involvement in regulating personal behavior, and free market principles. In this regard, they are sometimes described as conservative on economic issues and liberal on social issues. For the past two presidential elections, the party’s nominee has had ballot access in all 50 states.   Logos for some of the third parties in the United States, with the Libertarian Party (left) and the Green Party (center) the two largest today. Source: KQED / NPR   The Green Party is primarily liberal and focuses mostly on environmental issues, social justice, and world peace. In 2020, the party was on the ballot in 30 states, and presidential nominee Howie Hawkins was an accepted write-in candidate in 17 more. Compared to the Libertarian Party, the Green Party’s reduced ballot access may stem from Democratic voter anger in 2000 and 2016, when the Green Party presidential nominee was considered a spoiler by taking away Democratic votes in key swing states and helping the Republican nominee win the election. As a result, fewer state residents may be willing to sign petitions to grant the Green Party ballot access.

  Nothing seems more ancient than the pageantry of the British monarchy. Yet, the grandeur seen today emerged only around 1870. As the Indian Mutiny of 1857-8 shook the British Empire, the symbolic authority of Queen Victoria – as Empress of India – steadied the ship. The association of tartan with ancient Scottish culture was invented in the early nineteenth century. These three stories refer to what Eric Hobsbawm, alongside Terrance Ranger, calls ‘the invention of tradition.’ The Invention of Tradition Eric Hobsbawm, the driving force behind the study of invented traditions,   Eric Hobsbawm’s concept of “invented tradition” describes practices that appear ancient and timeless but are more often than not, recently constructed. Deliberately crafted and maintained to promote specific values and norms, invented traditions help legitimize social structures, reinforce the identity of dominant groups, and tie contemporary political agendas to the illusion of historical continuity.   Three forms of invented tradition exist: those that symbolize or establish social cohesion, both real and artificial; those that legitimize institutions, status, or relations of authority; and those aimed at socialization, such as the inculcation of beliefs, value systems, and conventions of behavior.   Confronted with the need to rule by democracy and facing the threat of social revolution, Hobsbawm shows that after 1870, the ruling classes of Europe increasingly resorted to the production of “invented traditions” to steady their grip on power. In this context, the invention of tradition involves formalizing and ritualizing references to the past, using ‘ancient’ materials to create traditions, ‘of a novel type, for novel purposes’ (Hobsbawm, 1983).   The Highland Tradition in Scotland Portrait of King George IV in a Kilt, by Sir David Wilkie (1829), Source: Wikimedia Commons   The kilted, bagpipe-playing Scotsman is entrenched within the imagination of Scottish tradition. On postcards, at international football games, and on the famous Royal Mile of the Scottish capital. However, as Hugh Trevor-Roper shows in Hobsbawm and Ranger’s book, this tradition is radically modern.    After James Macpherson’s (fraudulent) 18th-century Ossian poems popularized Scottish mythology, Sir Walter Scott somewhat bizarrely proposed the idea of an ancient highland dress in 1805: the tartan kilt.    Initially, an English industrialist created the kilt as cheap workwear, and tartan patterns were an expression of personal taste rather than ‘clan’ affiliation. Yet, it was adopted by the fashionable upper middle classes. Following economic interest, the kilt was transformed into the national regalia of Scotland.   In the context of growing protest against the domination of the English in the politics of the British Isles, the ancient Scottish kilt was invented to symbolize social cohesion and celebrate Scottish national identity.    Representing Authority in Victorian India The Dehli Durbar of 1911: Emperor and Empress of India George V and Queen Mary, flanked by Indian princes, Source: Wikimedia Commons   In chapter five, Bernard S. Cohen uses the concept of invented tradition to explain how the British came to legitimize their colonial authority over the Indian subcontinent following the Mutiny of 1857-8. After brutally suppressing the Mutineers, the British needed to sure up and justify the rule of a small group of Europeans over a quarter of a billion Indians.    Their response was to ‘invent’ a set of traditions to legitimize the institution of the British crown. In 1858, Lord Canning, Viceroy of India, perceived India as a diverse land with no natural sense of cohesion, except that imposed by British rule. He began granting loyal princes with honorific titles and special emblems stylistically derived from the court rituals of Mughal emperors.    In 1861, the royal order of Indian knights, the Star of India, was established. The Imperial Assemblage of 1877, proclaiming Queen Victoria as Empress of India, formalized a new ceremonial order that depicted British colonial authority as natural and unchanging.    Why Invent Tradition? Invented tradition? Abraham Lincoln’s proclamation of a day for Thanksgiving, Source: Jewish Journal   The rise of mass democracy in Europe after 1870 posed a serious challenge for rulers: citizens could not be relied on to follow their masters blindly. In this context, rulers and middle-class observers ‘rediscovered the importance of “irrational” elements in the maintenance of the social fabric and the social order’ (Hobsbawm, 1983).   States played a key role in mass-producing traditions, in particular, the creation of public ceremonies and monuments. In America, to deal with the political problem of assimilating a heterogeneous mass of people that had become American through immigration, innovations such as the 4th of July, Thanksgiving, and worship of the American flag, as a daily ritual in public schools across the country, were of the utmost importance.     Beyond the state, associations, and sports, with their uniforms and rituals, also instilled discipline, loyalty, and a sense of belonging. Thus, the concept of invented tradition, in all its forms, becomes crucial if we are to better understand how political legitimacy, social cohesion, and national identity are maintained and manipulated. 

  The Kingdom of Jerusalem, established in the aftermath of the First Crusade, served as a power base for Christendom in the East. Unlike contemporary kingdoms in Europe, the leaders were not chosen purely by primogeniture, but rather they were elected. This article aims to discuss five of the most significant queens and kings of Jerusalem, and the various factors which made them stand out among all the other monarchs of the Kingdom of Jerusalem.   1. King Baldwin I (r. 1100-18) Baldwin I of Jerusalem, by Merry-Joseph Blondel, 1844. Source: Wikimedia Commons   Often regarded as the First King of Jerusalem, Baldwin I gave his namesake to many other famous Baldwins who would go on to rule the Kingdom of Jerusalem in the coming century.   Born around 1060, Baldwin was the youngest son of Eustace II, Count of Boulogne and Ida of Lorraine. His reputation before he came to the throne is part of the reason he deserves a place on this list — he was, without question, one of the greatest military leaders of the First Crusade.   In 1095, when Pope Urban II had made the call for the First Crusade, Baldwin’s older brother Godfrey immediately joined the fight for Christendom against “the Infidel,” and Baldwin soon followed in his footsteps. During the crusade, Baldwin established himself as a keen military commander.   While there were some early major skirmishes (aided by the Byzantine Emperor Alexios I Komnenos) Baldwin remained unscathed throughout the first year of the crusade. By 1097, Baldwin had seized important fortress towns along the River Euphrates, and in 1098 one of the most important gains of the crusade: seizing Edessa. Here, he established the first Crusader State on March 10, 1098 — it would last for another 52 years. From this base in Edessa, Baldwin successfully provided food for the crusader army at the infamous Siege of Antioch (October 1097-June 1098).   The Crusader States by 1135. Source: Wikimedia Commons   Baldwin’s brother Godfrey was elected as the first King of Jerusalem by the Crusaders but he died in 1100. The kingship was then offered to Bohemond I of Antioch (Baldwin’s uncle), but he had been captured by Muslims at this point. In response, Baldwin marched on Jerusalem and was crowned king (in Bethlehem) on 25 December 1100.   Baldwin’s rule as king was arguably the most successful of all of the kings of Jerusalem, and he helped to establish the Crusader States through the sheer amount of towns and provinces that he had captured. Caesarea and Arsuf were captured in 1101, Acre three years later, and Beirut and Sidon in 1110 and 1111 respectively. Although Baldwin I failed to capture Tyre altogether, his victory at the Third Battle of Ramla in 1105 was enough to put off the Egyptians, who attempted no further major campaigns against the Kingdom of Jerusalem.   Taking of Jerusalem by the Crusaders, 15th July, 1099, by Émile Signol, 1847. Source: Wikimedia Commons   Interestingly, but unsurprisingly, Baldwin was the only elected monarch in the Latin East, so he claimed suzerainty over all of the Crusader States. Some historians view this as Baldwin uniting the Crusader States together under the umbrella of the Kingdom of Jerusalem, and note his ambitions of establishing a permanent “crusader colony” in the Latin East.   Baldwin’s incessant warfare throughout his reign would eventually catch up with him. In 1116, he fell seriously ill and began redistributing his assets, before making a swift recovery.   On the way to a campaign in Egypt in 1118, Baldwin fell ill once more. He was to be returned home, but only made it as far as Al-Arish on the edge of the Fatimid Empire. Baldwin died on April 2, 1118, and was buried next to his brother Godfrey in the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem.   Not only was Baldwin a savvy military commander and a clever politician, but he was also a good king who established the Kingdom of Jerusalem as a major player in the Crusades for the next two centuries. Without Baldwin I at the helm, it is unlikely that the Kingdom of Jerusalem would have survived as long as it did.   2. Queen Melisende (r. 1131-53)  Melisende and Fulk, 13th century. Source: The BBC   It was rare for a woman in the medieval world, particularly in the Middle East, to make a list of the greatest monarchs. However, Melisende, Queen of Jerusalem, thoroughly deserves her place.   Melisende came from good stock — her grandfather was the aforementioned Baldwin I of Jerusalem, while her father was Baldwin II, who had also ruled as King of Jerusalem. Despite coming from royal lineage, Baldwin II knew that his eldest daughter had to marry into a strong family to ensure their family’s legacy carried on, and that is exactly what happened. In 1129, Melisende married Fulk V, Count of Anjou in Jerusalem.   Fulk was a renowned military commander and a keen crusader. He also had a son by a previous marriage, called Geoffrey. Geoffrey was married to Empress Matilda, the daughter of King Henry I of England, and his heir presumptive. Melisende had forged a very powerful alliance as a result of her marriage to Fulk.   Ivory cover of the Melisende Psalter, belonging to the queen, 12th century. Source: The British Library   In 1130, Melisende gave birth to a son (who would go on to rule as the future Baldwin III of Jerusalem), and as a result her father made the necessary steps to ensure that Fulk and Melisende ruled jointly as monarchs of Jerusalem. This included the baby Baldwin III — so that Fulk could not install anyone else as a King of Jerusalem. Baldwin II died a year later, so Fulk and Melisende ascended the throne as joint rulers.   Interestingly, Fulk was not the only monarch who Melisende would co-rule with. In 1143, Fulk died, and Melisende co-ruled Jerusalem with their son, Baldwin III. She had a complex relationship with him — some historians view her as being a wise and providing mother, others see her as overbearing. She may have been the real ruler while Baldwin was a mere puppet.   By 1153, mother and son had reconciled after a period of difficulty, and it was around this time that Melisende retired from her political duties. In 1161, she became seriously ill (the likely cause was a stroke), and she died on September 11, 1161.   During her 30-year reign, she oversaw many things, from protecting Jerusalem in the failed Second Crusade to ensuring that the Kingdom of Jerusalem reached its largest territorial extent under her overlordship. She was also a rare case of a woman in the medieval world known for her prowess as a ruler. She went down as one of the most successful monarchs that the Kingdom of Jerusalem had ever had.   3. King Amalric I (r. 1163-74) Amalric engaging in theological discussions, from Passages d’Outremer, 1450. Source: Wikimedia Commons   The next significant monarch of Jerusalem on our list is King Amalric I, who was a son of Fulk and Melisende. Following Fulk’s death from a hunting accident in 1143 and the ongoing conflict between his brother Baldwin III and his mother Melisende, Amalric sided with his mother.   This resulted in both he and his mother being held prisoner in the Tower of David. However, following their reconciliation, Amalric was free to return to his fiefdom of Jaffa.   In 1157, he married Agnes of Courtenay, a hugely significant event in Amalric’s life. Two of their children (Sibylla and Baldwin IV) would go on to rule the Kingdom of Jerusalem.   Baldwin died in 1163, and the throne passed to Amalric, whose immediate focus was on campaigning in Egypt. He led two successful invasions but was never able to hold onto any Egyptian territory.   Amalric successfully brought the Byzantines to his cause — and he is perhaps best remembered for forging an alliance between the Byzantine Empire and the Crusader States. Following the annulment of his marriage with Agnes, he married Byzantine Princess Maria Komnena in 1167 and he would go on to father another future ruler of Jerusalem (Isabella I).   The following year, he negotiated a joint alliance with the Byzantine Empire against the Egyptians, but this turned out to be bad timing. The rise of one of history’s most notorious military leaders was just around the corner: Saladin.   Saladin, by Cristofano dell’Altissimo, c. 1550. Source: Wikimedia Commons   In 1170, Saladin invaded the Kingdom of Jerusalem and took the port city of Eilat, which formally cut off the Kingdom of Jerusalem from the Red Sea. It was not until the following year that Saladin was formally declared Sultan, and fortunately for Amalric I, his attention was fixed elsewhere.   Amalric’s reign came to an end on July 11, 1174, when he died of dysentery. Perhaps Amalric’s biggest legacy that he left behind was that he fathered three monarchs of Jerusalem, thus preserving his legacy for years to come.   4. King Baldwin IV (r. 1174-85) Baldwin IV, as portrayed in Ridley’s Scott’s Kingdom of Heaven. Source: Medium   It is likely that you will have heard of Baldwin IV under his rather sad nickname, the “Leper King.” As mentioned above, Baldwin was a son of Amalric and Agnes and was born around 1161. Baldwin had shown symptoms of leprosy as a child, but he was not formally diagnosed with the condition until after he became king in 1174.   Baldwin succeeded his father to the throne as King of Jerusalem upon the latter’s death, although Raymond III, Count of Tripoli, ruled in his name until he reached the age of majority two years later, in 1176. Baldwin was deemed to be a clever politician, although it was soon realized that he would never be able to marry or have children due to his leprosy. However, this didn’t stop him from becoming arguably the greatest-ever king of Jerusalem.   Baldwin initially planned on abdicating once he had arranged a successful marriage for his heir, his sister, Sibylla. Sibylla was married to William of Montferrat, a prominent member of the Italian nobility, but he died shortly after the marriage, although Sibylla was pregnant with their son.   As mentioned above, Saladin was on the rise and in 1177, he gathered his forces and attacked the crusader city of Ascalon. Baldwin himself was trapped in the city, but managed to escape. Saladin’s forces still believed that Baldwin IV was inside the city, but Baldwin routed the Muslim forces, and attacked them at Montgisard.   Coronation of Baldwin IV, c. 14th century. Wikimedia Commons   This was all despite the fact that Baldwin IV was only 16 years old at the time and suffering from leprosy! It was this determination that meant Baldwin IV was viewed as one of the greatest-ever crusader kings. He also managed to secure a peace with Saladin in 1180, something very few other crusader leaders were able to achieve.   In 1183, the peace treaty broke down, and Saladin attacked Aleppo. Baldwin’s health was rapidly deteriorating at this point, but he still did not shy away from Saladin. The Muslim victory at Aleppo ensured that the Kingdom of Jerusalem was surrounded, and Baldwin IV, determined as ever, left his residence to go into the city while being carried in nothing but a litter because he was so weak.   It was at this point that he crowned Sibylla’s son as the next king — Baldwin V. He also made sure that the aging Raymond III was designated as the younger Baldwin’s regent.   Baldwin IV’s incredibly determined nature was likely a factor in how he survived for so long given the debilitating nature of leprosy. He died aged 24 in Spring 1185. Thanks to his determination, he not only survived leprosy for much longer than expected, he also managed to negotiate peace with Saladin, and even still undertook his political duties during his joint reign with his nephew, right up until the end.   5. Queen Sibylla (r. 1186-90) Eva Green as Sibylla, in Ridley Scott’s Kingdom of Heaven. Source: Hub Pages   Sibylla is another rarity like Melisende — a successful female ruler in the medieval Middle East. The sister of King Baldwin IV, daughter of King Amalric, and mother of King Baldwin V, it is fair to say that Sibylla was surrounded by great men — but this does not take anything away from the strength of her own character.   Following Baldwin IV’s death in 1185 and the death of the short-lived Baldwin V, Sibylla moved quickly to prevent Raymond III from taking this opportunity to seize the throne for himself.   Due to the unpopularity of her second marriage to Guy of Lusignan, she agreed to rule by herself and set Guy aside as long as she ruled the Kingdom of Jerusalem as its Queen, and on the condition that she could choose her next husband once she was crowned.   This turned out to be a very clever move from Sibylla. At her coronation in 1186, she chose Guy as her husband, and then crowned him herself!   Battle of Hattin, from Chronica Majora, by Matthew Paris, 13th century, c. 1250. Source: Cambridge University   However, the disruption and civil unrest that this caused within the Kingdom of Jerusalem also led to its downfall. Saladin sensed unrest and chose the right time to strike. In 1187, he invaded, reducing the once-mighty Kingdom of Jerusalem to just one city (Tyre).   One of the most famous battles of the Second Crusade, the Battle of Hattin, saw Guy captured and taken prisoner by Saladin’s forces. Nevertheless, Sibylla’s resolute spirit (like that of her brother Baldwin IV’s) kept her going. She managed to persuade Saladin to release Guy, which he eventually did.   Sibylla died of a disease epidemic that swept throughout Acre while she was outside the city as Guy was besieging it on July 25, 1190. Without Sibylla’s resolute and determined nature, it is highly unlikely that she would have become Queen of Jerusalem in the first place, and even less likely that anyone else would have managed to persuade Saladin to release Guy of Lusignan.

Syria was one of the last countries left on Sam Goodwin’s list. He was young and on a mission to join a small group of people alive today who have visited every country in the world.  By 2019, Goodwin had already traveled to 180 countries, including those with hostile regimes in Iran, North Korea, and Venezuela.  “I had always traveled, because it was fun and I enjoyed it, but most importantly, I learned from it,” Goodwin says. “Travel was always the best education I’d ever had.” With fewer than 20 U.N.-recognized sovereign states left to visit at the time, Goodwin—then 30—arrived in Syria on May 25, 2019. He had been in the country only for a couple hours when, while walking to meet his guide, “this black pickup truck abruptly pulled up next to me, two armed men jumped out of the back seat, and instructed me to get inside,” he said in an interview on “The Daily Signal Podcast.” Goodwin would spend the next 27 days in solitary confinement in a prison cell with no windows.  “Everything had been taken from me, my material possessions, my communication, my freedom,” he said. “But no matter what, I knew that my faith was absolute, and I would have been in a completely different situation without it. What I learned most significantly in that cell is that we’re never less alone than when we’re totally alone with God.”  After those first 27 days, Goodwin was transferred to a cell with other prisoners, where he spent an additional 35 days. While in prison and accused of espionage, Goodwin had no idea the efforts that his family was making to rescue him, and the unlikely friend God would use to help set him free.  Sam Goodwin is reunited with his parents in Beirut, Lebanon, on July 26, 2019, after spending 63 days in prison in Syria. In his new book, “Saving Sam: The True Story of an American’s Disappearance in Syria and His Family’s Extraordinary Fight to Bring Him Home,” Goodwin details his travels across the globe and how his faith gave him the strength to endure 63 days of captivity in the Middle East.  Listen to Goodwin’s conversation on “The Daily Signal Podcast” below.  The post Held Hostage in Syria, He Says ‘Everything’ Was Taken From Him, but His ‘Faith Was Absolute’ appeared first on The Daily Signal.