WASHINGTON — Ever since Thursday’s debate, it has been clear to the American public that a mentally compromised President Joe Biden has put his own ego ahead of the country — a charge the left has hurled at Donald Trump from his first day in office. Biden had no problem raking Thomas over the coals for the essentially uncorroborated charge that Thomas had sexually harassed attorney Anita Hill. Now the big-media mantra is that it is such a shame that Biden isn’t up to the job because, while he shouldn’t be in the Oval Office, he really is such an incredibly good guy. A New York Times headline for a Thomas Friedman column captured big media’s lamentations: “Joe Biden is a Good Man and a Good President. He Must Bow Out of the Race.” (READ MORE from Debra J. Saunders: Debate Over Isis Bride’s Citizenship Not About Trump) I don’t think Biden is as good as he likes to portray himself. I don’t think he’s a good president. So I’m only buying the last part of that statement. To start, Biden has stayed in office past his due date, with little regard for what’s best for the country or the American people. Our national security rivals see how weak our president is, which makes the world a more dangerous place. Not good. Biden likes to say that he devoted his life to public service, but he wasn’t putting the public first. What’s more, Biden’s inner circle was limited to people who played along with the charade — yes, people who wouldn’t challenge him. (Hmmmm. When did we hear that before about a U.S. president?) Not good for a president. Biden has failed to live up to his promise to voters who were led to believe that if elected, the former vice president would govern as a steady hand and a moderate. In office, Biden has governed further to the left of the man who picked him to be his running mate. Barack Obama didn’t open the border. Biden did. Until it hurt him politically. Not good. In 1991, when then-President George H. W. Bush nominated Clarence Thomas to the U.S. Supreme Court, Biden was chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Biden had no problem raking Thomas over the coals for the essentially uncorroborated charge that Thomas had sexually harassed attorney Anita Hill when she was a subordinate in the Department of Education and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Biden was one of 48 senators to vote against the justice’s confirmation. Yet Biden had no problem palling around with the late Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-Mass., who was notorious for, as the late Michael Kelly wrote in GQ, “his obsessive public womanizing and his frequent boorishness,” not to mention manhandling waitresses. Later according to Politico, Biden offered that the Thomas hearings brought up the issue of “sexual harassment,” an issue “no one wanted to touch.” Like he was so good. When he wasn’t. (READ MORE: Ex-FBI Deputy Director Has History of Misleading Statements) In 2012, then Vice President Biden warned a racially mixed audience that, if elected, GOP nominee Mitt Romney would “put y’all back in chains.” A cheap shot against a good man. I don’t like to kick a man when he is down. But really, that never stopped Joe Biden. Contact Review-Journal Washington columnist Debra J. Saunders at dsaunders@reviewjournal.com. Follow @debrajsaunders on X. COPYRIGHT 2024 CREATORS.COM The post Is Joe Biden Really Such a Good Guy? appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

Okay, I know, maybe “perfect” is too strong a word. It’s certainly not a word that one writer uses lightly to describe another writer’s work, even that of a respected colleague on the pages of The American Spectator. But I don’t know of a lesser word that would capture my feelings this morning as I read Nate Hochman’s “All America Lies at the End of the Wilderness Road.” As soon as I finished it, I shared it with my wife, who is notably impatient with most political writing — and she loved it. It’s a concrete vision of the America that lies “at the end of the wilderness,” something real, something as solid as Lambeau Field. I’m just a contributor here at TAS, with no say in editorial decisions, but I hope that the editors leave Hochman’s essay on the main page, perhaps as an “Editor’s Pick,” at least throughout the balance of the 4th of July weekend. Regardless, dear readers, if you’ve missed it, and don’t see it in the coming days, look for it in the author archive. (READ MORE: ‘All America Lies at the End of the Wilderness Road’) Why, then, the lavish — and for me entirely uncharacteristic — praise. It’s simple really, and has less to do with the clean, clear exposition than it does with Hochman’s message. He calls out, bluntly, the tendency to locate “America” as nothing more than a philosophical abstraction, a confection of high-sounding phrases easily uttered and impossible of attainment. We can — and should — thrill to the message of the Declaration of Independence, and to all the other expressions of what we wish of our country. And we can accept, proudly, that in living up to these expressions, always substantially if not always completely, we have served as an inspiration to people across the globe. As Hochman correctly notes, the Left would simply reduce American patriotism to adherence to their interpretation of this aspirational document, something transactional, something scarcely tethered to the reality of the nation we’ve become over 248 years. In their reading, anyone who buys their interpretation of our foundational documents becomes a good American, or “adjacent” thereto. Such an expansive reading might make, say, Emmanuel Macron a “good American,” or Angela Merkel, or Tony Blair. Once upon a time, in the 1960s, there were Americans quite willing to confer “good American” status on Fidel Castro or Che Guevara and, at their silliest, good old Chairman Mao. I chuckled when I read Hochman’s acknowledgement that he only came of political age in 2016, at the end of Obama’s presidency. I’m afraid I have a few years on him. I came of political age watching the Nixon-Kennedy debates in 1960, and voted for the first time in 1968. He locates the 1960s as the onset of a “concerted and intentional campaign” to “abstract America out of existence,” and in this, from my direct observation, he is entirely correct. The tendency, to be sure, existed much earlier than this. Woodrow Wilson’s “progressivism” partook of the poison, and so too did many aspects of FDR’s “New Deal.” But the anti-Vietnam war radicals of the 1960s took this to an entirely new level. Picking up on the narrative of the civil rights movement, the insistence that the U.S. live up to “all men are created equal,” the anti-war movement moved directly from “end the war” to “America fails to live up to its promise” without passing Go or collecting $200. This was the message of Howard Zinn’s appalling A People’s History of the United States and its even more appalling follow-up A Young People’s History of the United States, which, together, have wreaked intellectual havoc on several generations of Americans. There was a time, during the Reagan years, when one might well have hoped that we’d gotten past this nonsense, that “morning in America” meant a fresh appreciation of all that was good in our nation. But the subversive forces continued their corrosive work, until they found their avatar, as Hochman persuasively contends, with the emergence of Barack Obama. Hochman correctly notes Obama’s “diabolical genius for smuggling radical ideas into seemingly blasé, vaguely patriotic sounding statements,” making America so abstract that it may well not exist at all.” As Hochman concludes, for the “progressives,” “America is good so long as it becomes more and more like the country that they wish it was.” It’s no accident that the progressives’ America fits so neatly into the grander globalist enterprise, no accident that, as I noted recently, Obama’s America — and Joe Biden’s — has made “leading from behind” the manner of our role on the world stage. It’s no accident that leading Democrats and their allies in corporate America walk so comfortably among the grandees of the World Economic Forum. It’s no accident that, once again during this most recent “Pride” month, American consulates across the world lit up with rainbow colors and website messages of endorsement for the LGBTQ+ enterprise. And, sadly, it’s no accident that one can draw a straight line from the 1960s chants of “Ho-ho-ho Chi Minh” or “Hey, hey LBJ, how many kids did you kill today” to “from the river to the sea.” (READ MORE from James H. McGee: We Must End the Democrats’ Failed Foreign Policy) Finally, and inspiringly, Hochman locates the antidote to all this in a much different vision of America, a vision that finds America in the everyday lives of Americans and the country that generations of Americans have built through hard work and protected through hard sacrifice. It’s a concrete vision of the America that lies “at the end of the wilderness,” something real, something as solid as Lambeau Field, as beautiful as our “amber waves of grain,” as admirable as the working men and women who have made — and every day go on making — America what it really is. By all means, conservatives should fight to reclaim our aspirational documents from the shallow and self-serving interpretation of the progressives. But we should never assume that the fight begins and ends as a matter of competing political philosophies. We have the advantage of being grounded in reality, and we should never lose sight of this, never lose sight of the fact — and it is a hard fact, not an abstract idea — that the glory of America has come through Americans working side by side to build a nation that works for each and every one of us. And so I return to the accolade with which I greeted Nate Hochman’s essay. How did I arrive at the word “perfect?” Perhaps appropriately, it didn’t come to me as a writerly abstraction, but rather from a very concrete real world memory. My dad was no great handyman, but there were a few small things that he prided himself upon. One of these was the ability to drive a nail. Teaching me how to do this, watching with a grimace as nails kept bending under my haphazard strikes, correcting patiently until finally I could hit the head properly, not once, but repeatedly, driving it clean and true into that recalcitrant 2×4. The grimace became a smile and he said “That’s perfect — you’re hitting it right on the head.” So Mr. Hochman, from my dad, through me, my compliments to you. You’ve hit that nail right on the head and driven it straight and true. James H. McGee retired in 2018 after nearly four decades as a national security and counter-terrorism professional, working primarily in the nuclear security field. Since retiring, he’s begun a second career as a thriller writer. His recent novel, Letter of Reprisal, tells the tale of a desperate mission to destroy a Chinese bioweapon facility hidden in the heart of the central African conflict region. You can find it on Amazon in both Kindle and paperback editions, and on Kindle Unlimited. The post On America, Hochman Strikes the Nail on the Head appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

Calls abound for the removal of President Biden over his objection, using the involuntary disability provision, with Vice-President Kamala Harris to then assume the presidency. What the text of Section 4 makes clear, however, is than under that provision, she can be Acting President only.  Section 3, covering voluntary disability, provides the same. Herewith the full text of Section 4, the “challenge” provision of the 25th Amendment, setting forth the rules and procedures for ascertaining presidential involuntary inability to discharge the “powers and duties” of the presidency: Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President. Thereafter, when the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that no inability exists, he shall resume the powers and duties of his office unless the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive department or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit within four days to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office. Thereupon Congress shall decide the issue, assembling within forty-eight hours for that purpose if not in session. If the Congress, within twenty-one days after receipt of the latter written declaration, or, if Congress is not in session, within twenty-one days after Congress is required to assemble, determines by two-thirds vote of both Houses that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall continue to discharge the same as Acting President; otherwise, the President shall resume the powers and duties of his office. (Emphasis added). A vice-president can only become President under Section 1, which states: In the case of the removal of the President from office, or of his death or resignation, Vice-President shall become President. An Acting President exercises the “powers and duties” of the presidency, but does not hold the office of the presidency. This means that Harris cannot nominate a new vice-president, as Section 2 states: Whenever there is a vacancy in the office of the Vice-President, the President shall nominate a Vice-President who shall take office upon confirmation by a majority vote of both Houses of Congress. Given the proximity of events to the upcoming election, this distinction may seem academic. But Harris, who ardently wants to become the first female president, must win the 2024 election to become president-elect, and then be sworn in on January 20, 2025 to become America’s 47th President. Put simply, Section 4 was not designed to forcibly remove a president from office. The Constitution’s procedure for such removal is impeachment by the House, per Article I, sec. 2, cl. 5; and then obtaining a conviction at trial in the Senate, per Article I, sec. 3, cl. 6. The distinction would hardly be academic, if a vice-president became Acting President with years left in the president’s term, as there would be a protracted vacancy in the office of the vice-presidency. The last vice-presidential vacancy that lasted over a year was 14 months between Lyndon Johnson’s November 22, 1963 ascension to the presidency, and Hubert Humphrey’s swearing in as vice-president on January 20, 1965. Since ratification of the 25th Amendment in 1967, there have been two brief vice-presidential vacancies: two months in 1973 while Gerald Ford was waiting for Congress to confirm his appointment by President Nixon; and four months in 1974 while Nelson Rockefeller was waiting for Congress to confirm his appointment by President Ford. During those intervals the next-in-line of presidential succession was House Speaker Carl Albert (D-OK). Signs of Biden’s cognitive impairment were substantial enough in mid-June 2021, for Rep. Dr. Ronny Jackson (R-TX), who had served as personal presidential physician for three presidents (Bush 43, Obama, and Trump), to call for President Biden to take a mental competency test — less than five months into his term. This could have become a huge succession problem during the current administration, were the president to have had a stroke and lapsed into a coma, unless he had prepared a memorandum to the vice-president akin to that authored by President Eisenhower, on March 3, 1958, which subsequently was adopted by presidents Kennedy and Johnson. It provided:  THE PRESIDENT and the Vice President have agreed that the following procedures are in accord with the purposes and provisions of Article 2, Section I, of the Constitution, dealing with Presidential inability. They believe that these procedures, which are intended to apply to themselves only, are in no sense outside or contrary to the Constitution but are consistent with its present provisions and implement its clear intent. (1) In the event of inability the President would — if possible — so inform the Vice President, and the Vice President would serve as Acting President, exercising the powers and duties of the Office until the inability had ended. (2) In the event of an inability which would prevent the President from so communicating with the Vice President, the Vice President, after such consultation as seems to him appropriate under the circumstances, would decide upon the devolution of the powers and duties of the Office and would serve as Acting President until the inability had ended. (3) The President, in either event, would determine when the inability had ended and at that time would resume the full exercise of the powers and duties of the Office. Alternatively, in event of inability of a president to communicate, a properly executed legal instrument (living will, power of attorney) can provide a basis for a surrogate decision on the president’s behalf. (During his two terms as vice-president under Bush 43, Dick Cheney prepared a March 28, 2001 pre-signed undated resignation letter in event of his inability to carry out “for a significant time” his responsibilities as vice-president, or to communicate the same after a triggering health emergency.) Bottom Line. If Constitutional formalities are observed, and absent a legal instrument designating a surrogate decision maker, Joe will have to agree — or be persuaded to agree — to step down. READ MORE on presidential succession from John Wohlstetter: The Summer 2024 Presidential Succession Crisis The Summer 2024 Presidential Succession Crisis Explodes John C. Wohlstetter is the author of Presidential Succession: Constitution, Congress and National Security (Gold Institute Press, 2024).   The post 25th Amendment: Acting President Is Not President appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

You could have been born in Paris and feeling that walking through its picturesque parks is like crossing Senegal. And hanging love locks on bridges. And having all of Europe look down on you for voting for Le Pen trying to get rid of the hell France has become. And having to share a city with people who find Macron attractive. You could have been born in London and seen how the Conservatives are incapable of conserving anything, not even their voters. You could have been born in Norway and live in the dark, get sick of taking selfies in the fjords, with an expression similar to that of a smoked salmon. You could have been born in Sao Paolo and run into Lula da Silva on the street and have him steal your wallet. And fall in love with all the women at once, and feel true terror in every slum. You could have been born in Polynesia, being French without the option of living in Cannes, and not know how the hell to find your island on a world map. (READ MORE from Itxu Diaz: Ignore the New York Times Killjoys. Enjoy Your Wedding.) You could have been born in China and spend the day eating pangolins and bat wings, dodging coronaviruses, living in prison for expressing your opinion, and writing in strange characters. Worse yet, you could not read The American Spectator without risking a conviction for being a subversive element. You could have been born in Afghanistan and, if you are a girl, have to wear mourning clothes, exchange fines for lashes, and celebrate holidays with non-alcoholic beverages. Plus, every ten years or so, you’d have to go shopping while dodging bombs. You could have been born in Mexico City, have a president even dumber than yours, and wake up kidnapped and unaccounted for every time you get carried away with the tequila at night. You could have been born in Monaco and cross the border every time you go for a jog, and work as a croupier in the casino watching the millions pass before your eyes while being unable to keep even a few coins in your pocket. You could have been born in Tehran and be dead for almost any reason; or, at best, tortured by the regime of the religion of love. You could have been born in Bern and pay $7 for a freaking Big Mac, only to find out that Swiss women, while hot, only marry Swiss men, who are boring as hell. You could have been born in Amsterdam and be offered euthanasia every time you have a cold. And, if you manage to escape suicide, live without knowing anything about what is going on around you because you are stoned all the time just to not draw attention to yourself. You could have been born in London and seen how the Conservatives are incapable of conserving anything, not even their voters; and, what’s more, live depressed surrounded by rain and fog. You could have been born in Germany and hear everyone speaking a language that sounds like an angry lion, and have cars stop you every few miles for lack of Ad Blue anti-pollution, and have normal people ask you why you don’t want to vote for someone as wonderful as Merkel (remember her wonderful “Welcome, refugees!”), or whatever the hell her successor’s name is. You could have been born in India, and … oh, no, probably not. I don’t see you in white robes chanting Ali Express guru chants, and reeking of curry. You could have been born in Spain and, frankly, you would be happy, but you would also have to put up with a government full of communists and incompetent ministers, who fight tooth and nail against your freedom, and whose biggest sexual fantasy is to raise your taxes. (READ MORE: The Confused Generation) But, dear friend, I was thinking this past 4th of July, Providence is on your side, you had the good fortune to be born in the United States, in the heart of the free world, and perhaps it is time to thank God for that. Only a great nation can survive someone like Joe Biden. Hope you had a happy 4th of July! The post After July 4th: You Could Have Been Born Elsewhere appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

Conjugating ‘F’ Is Not Comedy In my car, I now automatically tune my XM radio to Fox News. I used to try the comedy channels, but they are not funny anymore. The contemporary era’s idea of comedy is who can say or conjugate the word “F – – -” in the most variations as frequently as possible. F. (present tense). F’d (past). Will F (future). F’ing (gerund). Having been F’d (past perfect). Will have F’d (future perfect). If were to F (subjunctive). Why don’t you just go F (interrogative). Oh, go F! (imperative). I just cannot listen to XM radio’s comedy channels anymore. Most of the segments are not witty, just trying and not worth the invasion of solitude. Yes, Jeff Foxworthy is a blast. Larry the Cable Guy may be gross deliberately, but there is a cleverness to his stuff. I wonder: have they ever bothered to listen to the garbage on their radio channel? The same for Netflix. I can watch a Netflix special featuring Sebastian Maniscalco any time. But don’t they have anything else — y’know, stuff that is funny? Conjugating “F” is the sum and substance of contemporary American comedy. The idea of all comedy is to surprise your audience with something they never saw coming. In the old days, it would be shocking to discuss toilet matters in public: digestion, excretion.  Therefore, “toilet humor” was common because, theoretically, it was shocking to hear someone on stage talk about his clostridium difficile or urinary incontinence. Get it? Isn’t that hysterical? (READ MORE from Dov Fischer: Kamala v. Jill: The Ugly Catfight Ahead) It also was acceptable and common in those days for people to use horribly racist and hurtful epithets about Irish people, Greeks, Germans, Italians, Poles, Jews, Blacks, Hispanics, Southeast Asians — but only in private or among friends, even respectable friends, at work. Therefore, a performer who would go on a big public stage and start ranting about any or all of those minority groups, even using the most vile epithets, would get big laughs. Isn’t he funny, the way he nailed that group over their excessive inebriation or involvement in organized crime or their financial stinginess or their pure stupidity, or whatever else? And he actually used that unspeakable word to describe them! Wow!  What daring!  I couldn’t believe it! Isn’t that hysterical? Well, now everyone talks publicly about private matters. Tampons are advertised on television. Morons who know very few four-syllable words except “Ocasio” know “incontinence.” A former defeated presidential candidate, who could not claim a cold (i.e., senility) to justify his decision, openly discussed in commercials why Viagra would make him happier. All of that talk about such matters had become so ubiquitous that the only joke left on those subjects was Jackie Mason’s observation that, if he took one of those medicaments, and if it caused a reaction extending beyond four hours, a phenomenon for which commercials warned male users to seek immediate medical attention, Mr. Mason would not go to a doctor in such a case. Rather, if the phenomenon would not stop even after four hours, he would immediately seek someone in Stormy Daniels’s line of work. Thus humor. Michael Richards, who had played (Cosmo) Kramer wonderfully on “Seinfeld,” never got the memo about continuing to use racial-based vitriol as humor. That took care of him for several years. So, digestion-excretion “humor” no longer was “funny” because it no longer surprised “from out of nowhere” because everyone talks about it in public, and with ethnic-racial  “humor” no longer “funny” because no one may talk about it in public anymore (except within their own circles). Remaining Types of Comedy That now leaves only two types of comedy — only two kinds of things that can draw laughs because the audience never sees it coming: (i) variations on the “F” word, because no one would dare say that in public, and (ii) truly witty things that the audience never sees coming because they cleverly do come out of nowhere. However, since true wit requires thoughtful intelligence and a keen insight into the human condition, most comedians and comedy writers are left with “F.” Wit is beyond their pay grade. Their problem — and that of a decent human being who is listening — is that the “F” now has become so ubiquitous in everyday America that no one is surprised or shocked anymore when the stage performer or television actor says it, whether once, twice, or a hundred times, and no matter in how many different conjugations. Yes, in the 1950’s days of Lenny Bruce, that word was beyond shocking to hear uttered publicly on stage. And he also had some wit. That mixture of wit and F made him a household name remembered half a century later, even as it also got him arrested lots of times for violating public morals laws in an era when America concerned itself with morality. And George Carlin made a lifetime career out of the seven words forbidden to be said in public. But those days are over … except, perhaps, in a Jason Aldean-quality small town. Perhaps. Perhaps not even there anymore. Today those words are all over cable TV, all over the internet, all over social media, most of them even are on commercial TV during family hour. So they have lost their shock value. The term that gave Lenny Bruce a career and immortality now is just one more utterance about a rear and immorality. “F” does not generate laughs by coming out of nowhere. Quite the contrary: If the comedian does not use ten F’s every five minutes, people feel cheated. Is he a real comedian? Was she giving us her best performance? Or did we get suckered with a sub-par act? The only truly funny people today are those who are truly witty. Fortunately for most comedians who are not, the vast majority of their audiences are so mediocre in their expectations because their own sharpness is so lacking that they are satisfied with F “humor.” (READ MORE: Democrats Can’t Stand Trump’s Constitutional Immunity) I am not. I just cannot listen to XM radio’s comedy channels anymore. Most of the segments are not witty, just trying and not worth the invasion of solitude. They leave the listener a bit less spiritual, dignified, and holy than when he or she began. If there are children in the car, the parent feels embarrassed all the more. Which should raise additional red flags for Moms and Dads: If the parent indeed has that much self-dignity and self-respect to feel uncomfortable in the car that his or her child is hearing that garbage on XM radio, then really the parent ought to see what the child is seeing, reading — and writing — the rest of the day on social media. Subscribe to Rav Fischer’s YouTube channel here at bit.ly/3REFTbk  and follow him on X (Twitter) at @DovFischerRabbi to find his latest informative and inspiring classes, interviews, speeches, and observations. The post A July 4th Remembrance: When Comedy Was Funny appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

The Biden administration and reportedly even Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu are considering giving the Palestinian Authority/Palestine Liberation Organization/Fatah (collectively, the Palestinian Authority) some leadership role in a post-Hamas Gaza. But statements from the Palestinian Authority (PA) in the past several months, just like it always has, shows that the PA would continue to existentially oppose Israel and support perpetual war against the Jewish state. Jibril Rajoub claimed that Israeli prisons have “living conditions that are unprecedented anywhere but the Nazi camps of the 1940s.” Despite much of the world believing in a two-state solution, the PA wants to conquer all of Israel. Fatah Revolutionary Council member Muhammad Al-Lahham put in bluntly: “This is my opinion as [a member of] Fatah: That my conflict against this occupation (i.e., Israel) is an existential conflict, not just a conflict over borders. It’s either me or him on this land.” (READ MORE from Steve Postal: Surprise! The New (And Old) Palestinian Authority Is Jihadist) Fatah Nablus Branch Secretary Muhammad Hamdan echoed these sentiments by stating: “We say to the entire world that this blood that is being shed (i.e., in the 2023 Gaza war) will be the fuel for our return to Acre, Jaffa, and Haifa (i.e., all Israeli cities), and certainly the Israeli occupation is transient and indeed the State of Palestine will be established, whether the occupation (i.e., Israel) and this world want it or not … we are returning, whether the occupation wants it or not.” Official PA TV editor of Israel-related content Anas Abu Arqoub even stated that an Israeli-Arab who supports Israel is “someone who has mental disorders, an identity crisis.” The PA continues to support terrorism. Fatah Central Committee Secretary Jibril Rajoub stated that “it is our right to carry out all forms of resistance, including armed resistance.” Fatah Deputy Chairman Mahmoud Al-Aloul stated that “we say to the resistance members (i.e., terrorists) — you can use all possible means to defend your land … Yes, this is our position as a Palestinian people.” Fatah spokesman in Jerusalem Ma’arouf Al-Rifai praised a Turkish man for carrying out a stabbing attack in Jerusalem in April, stated that he “ascended to Heaven while carrying out a self-sacrificing operation in the Old City of Jerusalem.” The Official PA daily Al-Hayat Al-Jadida called Khalil Al-Wazir ‘Abu Jihad’ (i.e., a Palestinian arch-terrorist who orchestrated 125 murders) a “lofty example of sacrifice, daring, and self-sacrifice” and who “motivates us to draw inspiration from his opinions and ideas.” In May, the PA dedicated the “Martyr Khalil Al-Wazir ‘Abu Jihad’ Hall” in Ramallah to Abu Jihad’s memory. On official PA TV, the father of a 17-year-old terrorist killed by the IDF in Ramallah stated that his son is “not the first Martyr and not the last, praise Allah. He asked for [Martyrdom] and achieved it, praise Allah. He always told me: ‘I want to die as a Martyr.’” The PA continues to support Hamas’ October 7 attack on Israel. Fatah Central Committee member Abbas Zaki predicted that the attack “will be studied in the universities and echoed widely” and that the attackers are “a source of pride.” Fatah Central Committee Secretary Jibril Rajoub called the attack “a response to this occupation’s crimes.” PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas’ Advisor on Religious Affairs and Islamic Relations Mahmoud Al-Habbash stated that the October 7 attack “can repeat itself 100 times, and perhaps even more seriously.” Despite many still believing that the PA is a secular institution, its members continue to prove otherwise as its rejection of Israel takes religious undertones. A Palestinian preacher on PA TV stated, “It is our duty to fight, confront, and carry out Ribat (i.e., religious conflict) in this land as much as we can.” Another preacher, also on PA TV, stated that Jews “are destined for the burning fire [of Hell].” The PA also seems to support the global spread of Islamism, much like Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood, as PA Chairman Abbas’ Advisor on Religious Affairs and Islamic Relations Sheikh Mahmoud Al-Habbash stated that “the Islamic world can be a superpower because it has tremendous human resources, huge natural resources, capabilities, territory, one religion, and one language, and can constitute a world power together with Russia and China to formulate a new world order that will realize justice,” according to WAFA, the official PA news agency. The PA also continues to incite its population with vicious libels against Israel. The official PA daily Al-Hayat Al-Jadida portrayed Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his cabinet members as “Israeli vampires … that drink the blood of Palestinian children — and they have yet to satiate their thirst.” A modern blood libel indeed. Promoting the “Israel is Nazi Germany/Israelis are Nazis” canard, Fatah Central Committee Secretary Jibril Rajoub claimed that Israeli prisons have “living conditions that are unprecedented anywhere but the Nazi camps of the 1940s.” PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas’ Advisor on Religious Affairs and Islamic Relations Mahmoud Al-Habbash stated that Israel’s goal is to commit genocide on the Palestinians, stating that Israel’s “real goal is to eliminate the Palestinian cause, expel the residents of the Gaza Strip, and empty it, and then to move on to the West Bank and do the same thing there.”(READ MORE: Israel Should Reject the Palestinian State Snake Oil) While the world and the Biden administration continues to ponder how the Palestinian Authority should assume sovereignty in either Gaza, Judea, and Samaria or both, such is a perennial bad idea. Not only does the PA reject Israel and aim to conquer it, but the PA also continues to support terrorism and Hamas’ October 7 attack specifically, and continues to propagate vicious libels against the Jewish state. How exactly would granting the PA more sovereignty promote peace? The post The Palestinian Authority Is Jihadist Too appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

from SD Bullion: TRUTH LIVES on at https://sgtreport.tv/

This is reportedly Biden’s speechwriting team pic.twitter.com/8w7pUbOQVd — Revolver News (@RevolverNewsUSA) July 6, 2024

by Mac Slavo, SHTF Plan: The fourth case of human bird flu has surfaced in Colorado. This is right on time (or it is another wild coincidence) for Moderna to have been awarded $176 million to produce an mRNA bird flu vaccine. Ruling Class To Pay Moderna To Develop An mRNA Flu “Vaccine” As we […]

  Boudica is a historical figure that continues to be shrouded in mystery. Not much is known about her beyond her role in the rebellion of the Iceni and surrounding Brythonic tribes against the Romans in Londinium in 60/61 CE. She has, however, captivated the imagination of the modern public as one of history’s strongest women, and is recognized in Britain as an icon of national heritage. So, who was she?   What’s in a Name?  Boudica, illustration by Charles Hamilton Smith, 1821, Source: Wikimedia Commons   Boudica’s name has been written in different ways throughout history. While “Boudica” is the most common spelling, she has also been identified as Boudicca, Boadicea, Boudicea, and Buddug. The first two spellings are from the Brythonic boudi (victory, win) and ka (having), indicating that her name translates to “Victorious Woman.” The names Boadicea and Boudicea are from Latin accounts of her, and Buddug is the Welsh translation of her name. The Gaelic word “boudeg” also translates to victory.   It is believed that Boudica was born into an elite family in Camulodunum—what is now Colchester—and that she would have been trained as a warrior, learning fighting techniques and the use of weapons. Though her family may not have anticipated the circumstances that led to her role in the uprising of 60/61 CE, when she was born, she was certainly equipped with the tools to ensure her authority as queen of a tribal people from a young age.   Boudica’s Personal Life Boadicea Haranging the Britons, by John Opie, 1807, Source: Wikimedia Commons   Boudica is believed to have been born in Camulodunum, the ancient Roman name for the Brythonic Celtic Camulodunum, or “stronghold of Camulos.” Camulos, or Camulus, was a war god that the Romans associated with Mars. Camulodunum became a satellite kingdom of Rome after its initial occupation and was the first capital of Roman Britain.   Boudica married her husband Prasutagus by the time she was 18, and they had two daughters. How Prasutagus came to be king of the Iceni, a Celtic tribe living in East Anglia, is unclear; he may have been one of the eleven kings who initially surrendered to Roman emperor Claudius following the conquest in 43 CE, or he may have been appointed after the rebellion of the Iceni against Roman occupation in AD 47, at which point the area became a satellite kingdom.   Prasutagus, by all accounts, seems to have been a loyal ally to Rome. He died in 60 or 61 CE, and he left his kingdom to both his daughters and the Roman emperor in his will. His provisions for his family were ignored, and the imperial procurator Decianus Catus seized his entire estate. According to Tacitus, “…his wife Boudicca​ was subjected to the lash and his daughters violated: all the chief men of the Icenians were stripped of their family estates, and the relatives of the king were treated as slaves.” These events directly led to the uprising of 60/61 CE.   Boadicea Shows the Marks of the Roman Rods, by W Parkinson, from Beric, the Briton: a story of the Roman invasion, by G.A. Henty, 1893, Source: The Internet Archive   Boudica’s role as queen of the Iceni raises the question of the social position of women in Celtic society. In truth, it was rare for Celtic women to occupy ruling positions without an accompanying ruling male partner. Boudica is one of two examples, the other being Cartimandua of the Brigantes.   Generally, whether women were able to obtain high status without the aid of a husband varied between Celtic societies. Some of the richest graves that archaeologists have uncovered from the Iron Age likely belonged to women, based on the specific furnishings and jewelry that were included. Celtic society was, by and large, patriarchal, but women of high status certainly existed and many, like Boudica, received training as warriors like that of Celtic men.   The Uprising of 60/61 CE British coin, attributed to the Iceni, 50-20 BCE, Source: The British Museum   After the events following the death of Prasutagus, Boudica led the Iceni in revolt against the Roman presence in Britain. To gather more forces, Boudica and the Iceni conspired with a neighboring Celtic tribe, the Trinovantes, among other tribes. The Trinovantes had similar cause to join the rebellion, as the imposition of a Roman colony on their formal tribal center—as well as the treatment of the native Britons as captives and slaves—had caused resentment over time. It is believed that Boudica amassed an army of around 100,000 Britons.   Boudica initiated the rebellion by launching an attack on Camulodunum, her birthplace and the provincial capital of Roman Britain. Camulodunum was entirely unprepared for the attack; its Roman citizens appealed to Decianus Catus for help, and he sent an armed force of only 200 men. Boudica and her troops burned the city to the ground and killed many of its inhabitants. In an act of pure defiance, they decapitated a bronze statue of the Roman emperor Nero.   Boadicea’s attack upon Camulodunum in 60 AD, by Henry A. Payne, from The History of the Nation, 1922, Source: Roman-Britain.co.uk   Boudica then marched her troops towards Londinium to advance another attack. By this point, the Roman provincial governor, Gaius Suetonius Paulinus, had received word of the rebellion and attempted to fight back against her in Londinium. The city was, like Camulodunum, unprepared for the attack, and Suetonius abandoned the area upon realizing his few thousand troops would not be enough defense. Again, like Camulodunum, Boudica’s troops burned Londinium to the ground. Finally, Boudica’s forces attacked Verulamium. Anticipating how much Boudica’s forces outweighed his own Suetonius did not attempt to defend the site, and the troops once again destroyed the town and killed many of its people.   Boudica’s rebellion had a major impact on the Roman occupation of Britain. Various accounts estimate that around 70,000-80,000 people were killed because of the three attacks on Roman cities and that Nero may have even contemplated ending the Roman colonial project in Britain as a result. Suetonius, however, managed to gather an army of 10,000 troops to fight back against Boudica and the Britons. Though his army was much smaller than hers, he is said to have strategically waged the battle in a deep-sided narrow gorge surrounded by woods so that Boudica could not take advantage of her army’s numbers. Suetonius was victorious, and Boudica’s army was defeated and slaughtered.   Cassius Dio and Tacitus differ in their accounts of how Boudica died: Cassius Dio suggested that she fell ill and died after the battle, and Tacitus suggested that she poisoned herself. Southern Britain was re-secured by the Romans, Londinium was rebuilt and established as the new capital, and Rome would go on to occupy Britain until the Anglo-Saxon invasions of the 5th century.   References to Boudica in Ancient Sources Tribes of Celtic Britain, Davies, 2000, and Cunliffe, 2012, Source ResearchGate   One of the most striking references made to Boudica in ancient textual sources is by Cassius Dio in his Roman History. He wrote:   “But the person who was chiefly instrumental in rousing the natives and persuading them to fight the Romans, the person who was thought worthy to be their leader and who directed the conduct of the entire war, was Buduica, a Briton woman of the royal family and possessed of greater intelligence than often belongs to women….In stature she was very tall, in appearance most terrifying, in the glance of her eye most fierce, and her voice was harsh; a great mass of the tawniest hair fell to her hips; around her neck was a large golden necklace; and she wore a tunic of diverse colors over which a thick mantle was fastened with a brooch. This was her invariable attire.”   Dio’s description of Boudica provides much of the information we have about her character today: that she was responsible for gathering troops in rebellion against Rome, that she possessed a degree of authority, that she was highly militaristic, and that she was a fearsome woman. Dio also states that she had “tawny” hair, a brownish-orange color that has led to many depictions of Boudica as redheaded, sporting a torc.   Boudica urges the Britons to defend their country against the Roman invaders, by Thomas Stothard, c. 1795. Source: Proantic   In Tacitus’s Annals, he describes Boudica’s speech to the Britons encouraging them to war:   “Boudicca, mounted in a chariot with her daughters before her, rode up to clan after clan and delivered her protest:—‘It was customary, she knew, with Britons to fight under female captaincy; but now she was avenging, not, as a queen of glorious ancestry, her ravished realm and power, but, as a woman of the people, her liberty lost, her body tortured by the lash, the tarnished honor of her daughters. Roman cupidity had progressed so far that not their very persons, not age itself, nor maidenhood, were left unpolluted. Yet Heaven was on the side of their just revenge: one legion, which ventured battle, had perished; the rest were skulking in their camps, or looking around them for a way of escape. They would never face even the din and roar of those many thousands, far less their onslaught and their swords!—If they considered in their own hearts the forces under arms and the motives of the war, on that field they must conquer or fall. Such was the settled purpose of a woman—the men might live and be slaves!’”   Tacitus was not an eyewitness to these events, so it is unlikely that these were Boudica’s exact words. He likely recorded this as a way of communicating to the Roman reader what their enemy’s motivations were. These words, however, formed Boudica’s legacy as a national hero in Britain.   References to Boudica, 16th-19th Centuries Boadicea and Her Daughters, by Thomas Thornycroft,1856-1883, Victoria Embankment, Westminster, photo by Paul Walters, Source: Wikimedia Commons   Boudica re-entered the cultural lexicon in the 16th century, when the works of Cassius Dio and Tacitus became available in England during the Renaissance. She appeared in early chronicles of British history like Polydore Vergil’s Anglica Historia (as early as 1506), Hector Boece’s The History and Chronicles of Scotland (1526), and Raphael Holinshed’s Chronicles (c. 1577-1587). She also appeared as a character in British theater, first in the 1612 Jacobean play Bonduca, and a different version of that play called Bonduca, or the British Heroine in 1695. The music from the 1695 production was the source of a popular patriotic song in the 18th and 19th centuries, “Britons, Strike Home!”   The revival of texts from antiquity during the English Renaissance, like those by Cassius Dio and Tacitus, aided in England’s “rediscovery” of its past over the course of the 18th and 19th centuries. Many European countries had nationalist movements then, and historians, archaeologists, and antiquarians aided in national interests to trace the histories of modern nations to their “ancient” roots.   In the case of Britain, this past was “Celtic,” rather than Greek or Roman. Boudica became a popular national figure, put forth as representative of quintessentially British values, and she appeared as the subject of poetry, paintings, prints, and monumental statues.   Boudica in Popular Culture Today Olga Kurylenko in Boudica: Queen of War, Source: Deadline   Boudica remains a relatively popular figure today. She is particularly famous for her position as a strong, powerful woman from ancient history. She received a place setting in the contemporary artist Judy Chicago’s monumental 1970s work The Dinner Party, which contained 39 place settings dedicated to historical figures that have made contributions to women’s lives throughout history. Her history as a feminist figure goes back to the early 20th century, as she was adopted by the suffragettes as a symbol of women’s suffrage.   There have been a few different television and film depictions of Boudica, including the 2003 British television film Boudica, released in the United States as Warrior Queen, and the more recent 2023 film Boudica: Queen of War. She is also referenced in video games like Civilization IV: Beyond the Sword as leader of the Celts and Assassin’s Creed: Valhalla, where players can explore a “Boudicca Tomb” in East Anglia.   Bibliography   Champion, T. (1996). Power, politics, and status. In M. Green (Ed.), The Celtic World (pp. 85-94). Routledge. Crummy, P. (1997). City of Victory; the story of Colchester – Britain’s first Roman town. Colchester Archaeological Trust. Webster, G. (1996). The Celtic Britons under Rome. In M. Green (Ed.), The Celtic World (pp. 623-635). Routledge.