Obama takes new swipe at Founding Fathers ahead of America’s 250th birthday: ‘Deep flaw’
Former President Barack Obama took aim at the Founding Fathers ahead of America’s 250th anniversary, saying they held a “deep flaw” for their ties to slavery despite being “geniuses.” “I think sometimes we get confused in thinking that these two stories are separate. They’re intertwined, right? Which is why it’s possible for me to be a great admirer of George Washington, and also acknowledge he was a slaveholder,” said Obama in an interview Sunday with MSNOW. The 44th president’s appearance comes as most Americans prepare to celebrate the nation’s 250th birthday on Saturday with patriotic events across the country, while Obama is using the milestone to deliver a more cautionary message about the state of American democracy. OBAMA KNOCKS FOUNDERS AT PRESIDENTIAL CENTER DEBUT BEFORE AMERICA’S 250TH: ‘FELL TERRIBLY SHORT’ “That does not negate [Washington’s] greatness, it simply acknowledges that there’s a profound deep flaw in these Founding Fathers who were also geniuses and gave us these tools,” Obama said. “It’s that we’re this mixed bag, we’ve got contradictions. And embody the country’s contradictions,” he added. OBAMA KNOCKS FOUNDERS AT PRESIDENTIAL CENTER DEBUT BEFORE AMERICA’S 250TH: ‘FELL TERRIBLY SHORT’ Obama has been making many media appearances leading up to and following the opening of his presidential center in Chicago earlier this month. The expansive center includes a museum, library branch, community programming and is intended as a legacy project tied to Obama’s political roots on Chicago’s South Side. OBAMA KNOCKS FOUNDERS AT PRESIDENTIAL CENTER DEBUT BEFORE AMERICA’S 250TH: ‘FELL TERRIBLY SHORT’ During the center’s opening ceremony, which attracted former presidents and Hollywood elites, Obama took a swipe at the founders. “The success of this experiment was never a given,” Obama said in his speech, referring to the nation’s founding. “In forming our union, the founders fell terribly short of the Declaration’s promise, leaving slavery intact, allowing states to restrict the franchise to white men who owned property. But in drafting a Constitution and a Bill of Rights, they did have the foresight, the genius, to provide us with a framework that allows each generation to make our union more perfect,” he added. Fox News Digital reached out to Obama’s office for additional comment on Monday. During Obama’s early political rise, researchers found that some of his White ancestors had owned slaves in the U.S., a discovery that has resurfaced periodically in political discourse, including in 2019 comments by then-Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky. “While a relative owned slaves, another fought for the Union in the Civil War,” then-Obama spokesman Bill Burton confirmed to the Associated Press in 2007 of the future president’s family history.
Thomas, Gorsuch target landmark ruling Trump says protects the ‘fake news’
Two of the Supreme Court‘s conservative justices criticized the majority’s decision not to take up attorney Alan Dershowitz’s defamation case against CNN, saying the high court missed an opportunity to revisit a controversial 1960s defamation precedent. The dissent from the court’s conservative wing effectively called on the justices to revisit long-standing libel precedent, echoing President Donald Trump’s 2016 calls to loosen U.S. libel laws. Dershowitz, who has represented famous figures like Trump, O.J. Simpson and Leona Helmsley, claimed CNN deceptively edited a snippet of his defense during Trump’s first impeachment trial about “quid pro quo[s]” to make it sound like he said the opposite of his fuller statements and used that clip to damage his reputation. Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch — appointees of Presidents George H.W. Bush and Trump, respectively — criticized their colleagues for relying on the “actual malice” standard in evaluating whether CNN defamed Dershowitz, arguing the standard is not rooted in the Constitution and instead was created in the Supreme Court’s landmark 1964 decision in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan. ISRAELI PM NETANYAHU INITIATING DEFAMATION LAWSUIT AGAINST NEW YORK TIMES OVER CONTROVERSIAL ‘DOG RAPE’ STORY “Predictably, Dershowitz did not prevail under that exacting standard, which this Court created in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan. Dershowitz now asks this Court to overrule Sullivan and related precedents,” the conservatives wrote. Dershowitz also reacted to the dissent in remarks to Fox News Digital, calling the majority’s standard “impossible” to overcome. “All the judges agreed that CNN lied about me,” he said Monday. “But the majority ruled, over dissents, that I had to prove actual malice by clear and convincing evidence— an impossible standard that I believe will be overruled in years to come.” The Sullivan case arose after a Montgomery, Alabama, commissioner sued the Times for libel over a full-page advertisement criticizing how the city treated civil rights protesters. An Alabama jury awarded damages to L.B. Sullivan even though he was not mentioned by name in the ad. The Supreme Court later reversed the ruling, holding that a public official cannot prevail in a defamation case unless he proves the statement was made with “actual malice” — knowing it was false or acting with reckless disregard for the truth. “The actual-malice standard for public figures bears no relation to the text, history, or structure of the Constitution,” Thomas and Gorsuch wrote Monday in Dershowitz’ case. “Instead, the founding generation believed that, if anything, public figures had stronger claims for damages when they were defamed.” As one historical example, Thomas and Gorsuch pointed to the Sedition Act of 1798, which imposed a far lower threshold for defamatory statements about public officials. Then-Rep. Matthew Lyon, D-Vt., was prosecuted under the law for characterizing President John Adams as someone with “unbounded thirst for ridiculous pomp, foolish adulation and selfish avarice” during American tensions with France. JUDGE DISMISSES TRUMP’S $10B DEFAMATION LAWSUIT AGAINST THE WALL STREET JOURNAL OVER EPSTEIN STORY President Thomas Jefferson allowed that law to expire in 1801 and pardoned many caught in its net. More recently, Trump has called for loosening U.S. libel laws, echoing concerns similar to those expressed by Thomas and Gorsuch about the court’s defamation jurisprudence. While running for president in 2016, Trump pledged to “open up our libel laws” if elected to pursue the ideological conglomerate he often labels “fake news.” SIGN UP TO GET THE POLITICS NEWSLETTER Journalists who “write purposefully negative and horrible and false articles — we can sue them and win lots of money,” Trump said. He has often singled out defendant CNN more than most – famously warring regularly with its then-White House correspondent, podcaster Jim Acosta. During one 2017 incident, Acosta repeatedly interrupted Trump during a news conference, leading the president to demand he not “be rude.”.” Trump informed Acosta that he would not be taking a question from him because “you are fake news.” “We’re going to open up libel laws, and we’re going to have people sue you like you’ve never got sued before,” Trump said at the 2016 event, going on to further name-drop the Times and Washington Post. The ruling, along with Trump’s own lawsuit against the Ted Turner-founded network over its use of the term “Big Lie” to describe his claims about the 2020 election, leaves open the possibility that the court could revisit Sullivan, though such a shift appears unlikely in the near term. Fox News Digital reached out to CNN for comment on the dissent.
Ethics panel clears Gallego as Luna declares, ‘Once a creep, always a creep’
The Senate Ethics Committee has dismissed a complaint against Sen. Ruben Gallego, D-Ariz., that alleged the lawmaker committed sexual misconduct and campaign finance violations. The probe was spurred by Rep. Anna Paulina Luna, R-Fla., who earlier this year charged that there were “very disturbing” allegations against a sitting senator in the wake of the scandal-filled downfall of former-Rep. Eric Swalwell, D-Calif., a close friend of Gallego’s. But after a nearly monthlong investigation into the matter, the committee told Gallego in a letter on Monday that there wasn’t evidence to back up Luna’s claims. ‘DISTURBING’ ALLEGATIONS AGAINST UNNAMED SENATOR UNDER REVIEW IN WAKE OF SCANDALS ROCKING CONGRESS “We are writing to inform you that the Select Committee on Ethics (the Committee) dismissed a complaint filed against you by Representative Anna Paulina Luna,” the panel stated. “Specifically, the complaint alleged campaign finance violations and inappropriate conduct of a sexual nature.” “In response to your request for an investigation, the Committee referred these allegations to you and requested additional information on April 17 and May 15, 2026,” the letter continued. “Based on the investigation of the Committee, the Committee did not find evidence that your actions violated Federal law, Senate Rules, or related standards of conduct.” Gallego said in a statement that the Ethics Committee’s decision “reaffirms what I have said about these accusations from the beginning: they were right-wing conspiracies peddled by far-right activists like Anna Paulina Luna, the White House and their allies.” SENATOR GALLEGO SAYS LONGTIME FRIENDSHIP WITH SWALWELL ‘CLOUDED MY JUDGMENT’ AS RUMORS SWIRLED IN DC “I look forward to an apology from Rep. Luna for weaponizing the ethics process while refusing to investigate historic corruption that’s making life harder for families,” Gallego said. “In the meantime, I will continue fighting for Arizonans and holding Trump Republicans accountable for high costs and new wars.” But an apology from Luna is unlikely. The lawmaker shot back on X that the allegations “are not conspiracy theories. You’re a gross example of representation.” SWALWELL FRIEND GALLEGO DEFENDS CAMPAIGN-FUNDED SUPER BOWL, MIAMI TRIPS: ‘GO WHERE THE MONEY IS’ “Need I mention you leaving your pregnant wife during your campaign for Senate? There are plenty of people who know about your antics,” Luna said. “The good news about D.C. is everyone talks, and eventually the reporters come forward with your texts,” she continued. “Do yourself a favor and keep raising for your legal defense fund. Once a creep, always a creep, and you’re gonna need it.” Luna’s allegations against Gallego came shortly after Swalwell resigned from the House following a bombshell report from The San Francisco Chronicle that the ex-lawmaker allegedly sexually assaulted a former staffer. Gallego moved to quickly put distance between himself and Swalwell and argued that his tight-knit relationship “clouded my judgment,” regarding rumors that swirled about the ex-lawmaker for years in Washington, D.C. Gallego has recently come under scrutiny for a report from Politico that he spent thousands in campaign cash on luxury travel, Super Bowl tickets and childcare. “This is not breaking news,” Gallego told the outlet. “With the rising costs of childcare and the burden it has on the budgets of American families, Democrats and Republicans in Congress and the White House alike regularly travel with their wives and children, as is permitted by the FEC.”
Conservatives revolt after Trump-appointed Barrett joins liberals in ‘shockingly wrong’ mail ballot ruling
Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett faced the wrath of conservatives on social media on Monday after she authored the majority opinion ruling in favor of a Mississippi law allowing mail-in ballots to be counted in elections even if they are received after Election Day. The court was split 5-4 on the ruling with Barrett, appointed by President Donald Trump, writing the majority opinion joined by Chief Justice John Roberts, as well as justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson. Barrett’s opinion held that Election Day, in the context of federal law, set a deadline for when voters must make a choice regarding their preferred candidate but said that relevant laws have no standard for when ballots must be received to be considered valid. Barrett was quickly criticized by conservative commentators and politicians. AMY CONEY BARRETT CALLS ROE V WADE ‘FREE-FLOATING’ DECISION THAT JUDGES ‘READ INTO’ CONSTITUTION “A shockingly wrong opinion,” Republican Sen. Eric Schmitt posted on X. “Justice Barrett joins with the liberal justices to hold that federal election law does not preempt states who allow late mail-in ballots to be counted. This is terrible for election integrity. Another reason we must pass the full SAVE American Act.” “Barrett is the biggest conservative judicial disaster since Souter,” conservative author Hans Mahncke posted on X. “The difference is that few conservatives expected much from Souter whereas Barrett was supposed to be the future of the Court. The worst part is that she’ll be there pushing leftist policies for another 40 years.” “Amy Coney Barrett continues to disappoint in far too many high-profile cases,” political commentator Josh Hammer posted on X. “Remember Election Day?” Republican Rep. Abe Hamadeh’s office posted on X. “This disastrous SCOTUS decision, authored by Justice Barrett, guarantees we’ll keep drifting away from it — as our sacred elections get bogged down by endless mail-in ballots and never-ending counts.” “Amy Coney Barrett is the worst choice ever among all GOP justices,” retired U.S. Army captain Seth Keshel posted on X. “And that includes Roberts. What a disappointment she is.” REPORTER’S NOTEBOOK: GOP WEIGHS ‘NUKING’ FILIBUSTER TO PASS TRUMP’S SAVE ACT “She quotes Alexander Hamilton in Federalist No. 59, speaks of the Framers’ intent, and repeatedly invokes history as its guide,” constitutional attorney Krisanne Hall posted on X. “But when the historical evidence becomes inconvenient, Barrett quietly sets it aside. Barrett engages in judicial activism disguised as selective originalism.” Jason Snead, executive director of Honest Elections Project, said in a statement that the ruling is “deeply disappointing and misses the mark.” “Federal law is clear: all ballots must be received by Election Day to be counted,” Snead wrote. “The Court missed a major opportunity to reinforce election integrity and instead sides with California-style chaos. As Justice Alito makes clear in his dissent, watching ballots trickle in after Election Day and flip races does nothing but damage public trust in our system of government.” Hans von Spakovsky, a former Federal Election Commissioner and Senior Legal Fellow in AAF’s Edwin Meese III Institute for the Rule of Law, said in a statement that the ruling is a “grave disappointment.” “As Justice Samuel Alito says in his dissent, joined by three other justices, not only is Justice Amy Comey Barrett’s opinion inconsistent with the plain text of those laws and historical practice and precedents, it ‘risks further undermining Americans’ confidence in election integrity,’” von Spakovsky wrote. The ruling prompted many to reiterate the importance of the SAVE Act, Trump’s long-sought voter ID and citizenship verification legislation, including Republican Rep. Greg Steube who posted on X, “The Senate filibuster is the only thing standing in the way. Nuke it!” Trump reacted to the ruling on Truth Social, calling it a “tremendous loss” and stressing the importance that all voters must show a photo ID and proof of citizenship and that there should be “no mail-in” ballots except for specific exceptions. “There is no excuse for a politician, or otherwise, to be against the above three requirements,” Trump wrote. “There is only one reason to oppose — CHEATING!” Trump added, “The House of Representatives has approved this vital Act, THREE TIMES. The United States Senate seems unable to do so. In a time when there is a powerful Communist Movement taking place in our Country, one more dangerous than World War I, World War II, Pearl Harbor, or September 11th, all Dumocrats, and our five Republican Senate Hold Outs, Lisa Murkowski, Susan Collins, Thom Tillis, Bill Cassidy, and Mitch McConnell must vote to SAVE OUR COUNTRY. There can be no more excuses!” Fox News Digital’s Robert Schmad and Anders Hagstrom contributed to this report.
Trump voters say costs are crushing their wallets — but look past president for blame
Supporters attending President Donald Trump’s rally on the National Mall acknowledged feeling the pinch from higher gas prices, but they largely declined to blame Trump — instead pointing to the Iran conflict and lingering frustration with inflation under former President Joe Biden. “My least favorite president ran gas up to about $5 a gallon for no reason, and that was Mr. Biden,” said Billy of North Carolina. Fox News Digital spoke with Americans who gathered on the National Mall Wednesday evening for President Donald Trump’s rally kicking off the “Great American State Fair” celebrating the nation’s 250th anniversary, where attendees weighed in on whether they are feeling pain in their pockets as affordability concerns loom over the war with Iran and midterm elections in November. “Affordability has a lot to do with just interest rates that went up the highest in 48 years under President Biden, so it’s going to take some time to get those prices back down to where we were before that,” said James McNair of Maryland. GAS SURGE TIED TO IRAN CONFLICT HITS SWING STATES, TESTING TRUMP’S LOW-PRICE PITCH “I’m not that concerned about the affordability thing. I think that our president is probably the best businessman to ever be president, and things will turn,” added James’ brother, David. “Being in Gen Z, everything’s very expensive now,” William of New York said in summary. Many attendees shared that while they recognize gas prices are high, they attribute the recent spike to the escalating conflict with Iran—a development they continue to support. TRUMP PROMISED LOWER COSTS; THE IRAN CONFLICT NOW THREATENS THAT PLEDGE “I don’t think the prices in general have gotten any worse than when Biden was in the administration,” said Lisa of Maryland. Before the war, the national average price of gasoline was $2.98 per gallon. Prices climbed to a peak of $4.56 per gallon in late May before gradually declining to $3.87 per gallon by the end of June. Lisa and her husband, Matt, both served in the Army and expressed diverging opinions on affordability and Trump’s handling of Iran. PENTAGON ESTIMATES IRAN WAR COST $11.3B IN THE FIRST SIX DAYS IN CLOSED-DOOR CONGRESSIONAL HEARING: REPORT “Prices have definitely gone up and they do get my attention,” said Matt of Maryland. Matt shared that his drill sergeants were warning him of being deployed to Iran back in 1985. “Here we are today in 2026, still dealing with this problem.” “If we’re worried about gas prices, we’re going to be worrying again and again and again until we get a handle on regimes that just don’t share our values,” said Matt. BLACKROCK CEO LARRY FINK ARGUES US-IRAN CONFLICT WON’T DERAIL ECONOMY AS GAS PRICES SURGE Norma Holm of Indiana also said she believed Iran would eventually have to be dealt with and that it was better to address the issue head-on than leave it for the next generation. “We are taking it for the team with the gas prices and everything else, but things are stabling, and President Trump, don’t underestimate him.” Washington and Tehran agreed to halt military strikes in the region with delegations scheduled to meet June 30 in Doha, Qatar for talks. Other attendees are hoping that a resolution to the Iran conflict will lead to lower prices. “As the Iran war comes to an end and the peace deal hopefully gels, we’ll see. I think gas prices are already coming down, not tremendously, not where we would like to see, but those things take time,” said James of New York.
Enzo Maresca appointed Man City manager to succeed Pep Guardiola
Former Blues manager inks a three-year deal at Manchester City and succeeds Pep Guardiola, who stepped down in May. By Reuters Published On 29 Jun 202629 Jun 2026 Manchester City have appointed Enzo Maresca as manager to replace departing coach Pep Guardiola next season, the Premier League club announced on Monday. The Italian joins City following a mid-season exit from Chelsea, with the London club saying they had reached an agreement with the Manchester club over a compensation package. British media reported the fee to be about £17 million ($22.5 million). Recommended Stories list of 4 itemsend of list Maresca, who has signed a three-year contract, brings familiarity with City’s set-up, having previously coached the club’s youth team. He was also the senior side’s assistant coach under Guardiola during City’s 2018-19 treble-winning season. “Manchester City is a club I know very well and to have the chance to manage this team is a brilliant opportunity for me,” Maresca said in a statement. “The quality of the people who work here is what makes it so special and I want to thank them for showing faith in my ability. “I cannot wait to start coaching the players. I want us to win, play good football and enjoy the pressure of representing Manchester City.” Managerial journey The 46-year-old Italian’s managerial journey began at Parma in 2021, where he lasted 14 games, winning only four times. He was appointed Leicester City boss at the start of the 2023-24 Championship season and guided them back to the Premier League as champions. His success in the East Midlands earned him a move to Chelsea, where he was charged with steering a young but expensively assembled squad back to the Champions League. Maresca led Chelsea to victory in the 2025 FIFA Club World Cup during his 18-month spell at Stamford Bridge [Kai Pfaffenbach/Reuters] Abrupt departure at Chelsea Maresca guided Chelsea to a fourth-place finish and lifted both the Conference League and FIFA Club World Cup, but his relationship with the club’s owners deteriorated and he left midway through his second season at Stamford Bridge. Advertisement Chelsea said in a statement on Monday that Maresca had expressed a desire to leave in the middle of his contract after being informed of the opportunity to succeed Guardiola at Manchester City. “It became clear to us that it was his strong desire to succeed Guardiola and that he was fully committed to pursuing the opportunity, despite the fact he was under a long-term contract which he had no right to terminate,” Chelsea said in a statement. “In December 2025, our Head Coach unexpectedly and abruptly resigned from his position. Obviously, we felt let down as we believed that his head and heart were focused on another club and another opportunity, despite having just arrived at Chelsea the year before.” City also confirmed they held confidential talks with Maresca last year, while he was still at Chelsea. The Italian acknowledged his departure disrupted Chelsea’s season, with the club eventually finishing ninth after parting ways with his successor Liam Rosenior and turning to caretaker Calum McFarlane. “I recognise that my departure from Chelsea in the middle of the season caused disruption for the club and I apologise for that. It was neither my intention nor my wish,” Maresca said in a statement on the Manchester City website. “I was treated well by everyone at Chelsea and together we achieved great success and memories that I will always treasure.” Chelsea have since appointed Xabi Alonso as manager. Pep Guardiola was Man City boss for 10 years and became the most successful manager in the club’s history [File: Lee Smith/Reuters] Replacing Guardiola Maresca now faces the daunting task of replacing 55-year-old Guardiola, whose decade-long spell transformed City into English football’s dominant force. “City is an incredibly well-run football club. Everything they do is innovative, planned and purposeful,” Maresca said. “For a manager, that is a dream situation. It provides the consistency I need to do my job effectively.” Guardiola, who announced his departure in May, led City to a dazzling array of silverware, including six Premier League titles and one Champions League crown. The Spaniard won the League Cup and FA Cup in his final season to cap a remarkable tenure at the club, but missed out on leading his side to another dramatic Premier League title victory. Adblock test (Why?)
Five killed in shooting at German youth centre
NewsFeed Five people were killed in a shooting at a youth welfare centre in Stade, northern Germany. Police arrested two people, including the suspected gunman, and said there is no ongoing threat to the public as investigators work to establish the motive and full circumstances of the attack. Published On 29 Jun 202629 Jun 2026 Click here to share on social media share-nodes Share googleAdd Al Jazeera on Googleinfo Adblock test (Why?)
JD Vance’s 2028 strategy is starting to take shape
In a recent interview with the New York Times, Vice President JD Vance denied that there was an “intense rivalry” between him and Secretary of State Marco Rubio. And yet, reports and speculations about tensions between them continue to emerge, with the Rubio camp allegedly spreading rumours that Vance was thinking about pulling out of the presidential campaign before it even starts In response, perhaps, during the past two weeks, the vice president has stepped out of his routine public persona that usually avoids controversy to make bold statements critical of Israel. Rubio, on the other hand, has continued to hold the party line of unconditional support for Israel. While Vance has led efforts to negotiate a peace deal with Iran, which have rattled Israel, Rubio has spearheaded efforts to pressure the Lebanese government into an agreement on Israel’s terms. By becoming the face of Republican scepticism of Israel and clashing with his likely presidential election rival Rubio, Vance appears to be charting his own way to the presidency – one that distances the vice president from what increasingly seem to be unpopular foreign policy positions. Rubio, until recently, had been on the upswing, assigned ever-more important responsibilities by Trump. He has been a leading voice within the administration for a hawkish approach that has encompassed military action from Venezuela to Iran, outweighing the counsel of the more isolationist Vance. When it comes to Israel, Rubio has made a point of being as public and proactive as possible in his support for that country and its prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, supporting his appeal for the US to enter the war with Iran, and even going so far as to put his name on determinations leveraging claims of national security threats to deport foreign students critical of Israel. Advertisement While the bulk of his public statements have been directed at the Netanyahu government, it is hard not to read some of Vance’s recent comments as being directly responsive to Rubio’s actions not only abroad, but at home as well. As Vance put it, “…pro-Israel people in the United States make two critical mistakes. One, on the one hand, is not delineating between America’s interest and Israeli interests because they’re not the same. But the second is always conflating criticism of a particular government with Jew hatred, because if everything is Jew hatred, then nothing is Jew hatred.” But, if Vance is creating space between himself and Rubio (including, apparently, by eschewing the increasingly weaponised terminology of “antisemitism”), it must also be the case that there is a political case for his doing so. That case has yet to be tested on the Republican side, where the political elites well beyond Rubio continue to move in lockstep with Israel’s Netanyahu. But Vance, as ever, is reading the base. The same polls that show an absolute collapse of Democratic grassroots support for Israel also show an unmistakable weakening of that support in the Republican base, with one recent survey finding that 57 percent of Republicans under 50 now hold negative views of Israel. Despite the inability of Republican elected officials to rally support behind their criticism of Israel (neither of the two most visible examples, Representatives Marjorie Taylor Greene and Thomas Massie will re-enter Congress next year), the demand signal for more frank conversation has propelled right-wing commenters like Tucker Carlson and Candace Owens to ever-greater prominence. Looking into the social media landscape, Republican questioning of the Israel relationship – particularly under the banner question of whether it represents “America First” or “Israel First,” is inescapable. Which is not to say it will be an easy path. As sitting vice president, Vance must defer to Trump; while the latter is currently frustrated with Netanyahu, there are no guarantees that the relationship will not warm up between now and 2028 – or that if Israel elects a new leader this autumn, that that person would not be able to rebuild much of Israel’s political capital in Washington. And similarly, if Vance’s stance on Israel helps him capture the “America First” – which is no easy task given the cohesion within that movement of the Christian Zionist camp that remains strongly pro-Israel – he may then have to contend with a Democratic competitor who seizes the Israel-sceptic mantle more credibly. Advertisement Or not. It is still early, but the favoured nominee on the Democratic side appears to be California Governor Gavin Newsom, whose few forays into commentary on Palestine and Israel have quickly been walked back to appease the pro-Israel backers of the party establishment. Indeed, the Democrats will have their own complicated, and likely ugly, battle to fight when it comes to Israel. What does appear certain, however, is that Israel will be a wedge issue in the upcoming election – and in the wake of the failed Iran war and increasingly unpopular attacks on free speech, both greatly driven by the government of Israel or its aligned lobbies, there is an opening here that Vance, given his competition with Rubio, would have been foolish to ignore. So is Vance’s public criticism of Israel – and pro-Israel voices within his own party genuine, or calculated? As Vance put it in his book Hillbilly Elegy, “I don’t believe in epiphanies. I don’t believe in transformative moments, as transformation is harder than a moment. I’ve seen far too many people awash in a genuine desire to change only to lose their mettle when they realised just how difficult change actually is.” Until now, little is harder in Republican politics than to go against the prevailing dogma on Israel. And while Vance has long demonstrated what might be termed isolationist tendencies, there is no reason to think that his recent comments represent an epiphany. Rather, like any politician, he is reading the tea leaves, and sensing an opportunity on the back of a change that is filtering across American public opinion. Vance may not be committed to driving that change. But he may be smart enough
Delhi singes with ‘feel-like’ temperature of 50 degrees Celsius, why extreme heat scorches residents
Delhi continued to reel under intense heat on Sunday, with the heat index crossing 50°C and a dust storm hitting parts of the city, though weather officials have predicted relief later this week.
Pune’s Nasrapur Rape Case: 65-year-old man to be ‘hanged till death’ for raping, murdering 3-year-old
The convict, identified as Bhimrao Kambale, was found guilty of raping and murdering the minor in Nasrapur village. The incident took place on May 1.