by Larry C. Johnson

Before I delve into the delusional thinking of Piers Morgan, one observation of pure irony — Volodomyr Zelensky’s condemnation of Russia’s Presidential election. Here’s Mr. Zelensky’s take:

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy said on Sunday that Russian President Vladimir Putin wanted to rule forever and that Russia’s presidential election was an illegitimate imitation.

Zelenskiy said in his nightly video address that “the Russian dictator is simulating another election,” and that Putin was “sick for power and is doing everything to rule forever.”

Boy. The cocaine must have really addled his noodle. This was the ultimate Pot calls kettle black moment. At least Russia held and election and did not jail all of Putin’s political opponents and did not shut down opposition media. Zelensky? He’s refusing to hold the election required under the Ukrainian Constitution, he’s shuttered opposition political parties, stifled opposition media and attacked the clergy of the Ukrainian Eastern Orthodox Church. And that is the West’s standard for a democracy?

It is crap like this that totally discredits any voice in the West that wants to pillory President Putin while saying nothing about Zelensky’s abuse of power. He’s afraid to let the Ukrainian voters speak. Unlike Putin, who demonstrated that Western funded public opinion polls of Russian voters giving him a 88% favorability rating, Zelensky reportedly has support of 62% of the Ukrainian public. Maybe, but Zelensky’s fear of holding an election suggests he does not trust the voters to turn out for him.

Now to Piers Morgan. Morgan embodies everything that is wrong with Western politicians and media pooh bahs when it comes to dealing with the real world. I challenge you to watch Morgan’s interview of Professor Jeffrey Sachs. Sachs is an astute, thoughtful man with unparalleled firsthand experience in dealing with the principals in Russia, Europe, the Middle East and China. Piers does not.

https://ronpaulinstitute.org/piers-morgan-embodies-the-juvenile-thinking-that-threatens-world-peace/

READ FROM TOP

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW....

Texas voters could get the chance to cast their ballots for a man named ‘Literally Anybody Else’ this November, if his long-shot scheme to protest the US’ two-party system is successful.

Math teacher and military veteran Dustin Ebey formally changed his name to ‘Literally Anybody Else’ earlier this month, and is now scrambling to gather the 113,151 signatures required to appear on Texas ballots as an independent candidate, WFAA News reported on Friday.

“I’m not delusional,” Else told the outlet. “This will be very hard to do, but it’s not impossible. My hope is to have Donald Trump, Joe Biden, and then Literally Anybody Else right underneath,” he continued, explaining that “I really want there to be an outlet for folks like me who are just so fed up with this constant power grab between two parties that has no benefit for the common person.”

“This isn’t about me… more so as it is an idea,” Else told WFAA. “We can do better out of 300 million people for president.”

Else is far from the only American dismayed at a Trump/Biden rematch. A NewsNation poll conducted in January found that 59% of registered voters were ‘not too enthusiastic’ or ‘not at all enthusiastic’ about seeing the pair compete for the presidency again. However, despite majorities in both parties calling for fresh faces, Trump easily defeated all of his Republican rivals during the last three months’ primaries, while Biden faced no competition from any high-profile Democrats.

Else faces an uphill struggle to even enter the race. First, he has until May 13 to collect 113,151 signatures from registered voters who did not vote in either the Republican or Democratic primaries in Texas. Having achieved this, he must replicate the feat in every other US state and territory, all of which have similar rules for independent candidates.

Failing this, he could register as a write-in candidate. However, he would then have to build up a national profile and convince voters to actually write in ‘Literally Anybody Else’ on election day. No write-in candidate has ever come close to being elected president of the US, although two US senators have won office this way since the 1950s.

Voters often write in undeclared candidates as a means of prank or protest, with ‘Mickey Mouse’, ‘Jesus Christ’, and ‘Batman’ all picking up a handful of votes in 2020. 

https://www.rt.com/news/594952-anybody-else-us-election/

READ FROM TOP

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW....

The Twenty-second Amendment is an arbitrary restraint on presidents who serve nonconsecutive terms—and on democracy itself.

BY Peter Tonguette

Lost in the Left’s endless babbling about Donald Trump’s alleged threat to democracy is a very simple but inconvenient truth: Trump’s re-emergence as the Republican presidential nominee in 2024 is a triumph of democracy.

Not only did Trump secure the nomination following his defeat in 2020—a rather incredible feat in and of itself—but did so in spite of every obstacle the mainstream media, the Republican establishment, and the lawfare apparatus have put in his way.

The primary voters and caucus-goers who chose Trump did so in spite of January 6, the prosecution of the former president, or even the popularity in some MAGA quarters of Ron DeSantis. They chose him because they damn well felt like it. 

This is democracy in action: The voters surveyed the scene, tuned out the noise, and selected the man the rest of the world loves to hate. What could be more democratic than voting for your preferred candidate against the advice—the warnings, the threats, the fear-mongering—of your betters?

Yet, even if Trump returns to the White House this November, the Twenty-second Amendment will bar him from standing for re-election in 2028. Ratified in 1951, the amendment is largely seen as a kind of constitutional course correction following the four consecutive presidential terms of Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

The amendment reads, in part: “No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once.”

This sounds reasonable enough, especially in light of FDR’s hold on the office. Yet those who supported the amendment more than 70 years ago could not have foreseen the prospect of a one-term president who lost the office but who later regained it in a subsequent election. Grover Cleveland remains the only president to have successfully vaulted himself to the White House in nonconsecutive elections, in 1884 and in 1892. (Theodore Roosevelt, president from 1901 to 1909, also gave it a try by running as the Progressive Party standard-bearer in 1912.)

In modern times, it is virtually inconceivable that any of the ousted one-term presidents would have seriously thought of running anew against the same opponent (now the occupant of the White House) who had bested them four years earlier. (Think about it: George H.W. Bush running against Bill Clinton in 1996?) This is not a reflection of a weakness in their character but the reality of American public life: Voters are fickle, and by the end of the first term of any presidency, they have long forgotten the loser from four years earlier. 

As the primary season has shown us, the Republicans have not moved on from Trump—yet the Twenty-second Amendment works to constrain their enthusiasm by prohibiting them from rewarding Trump with re-election four years from now. 

This is plainly unfair. Indeed, there has long been support for axing the Twenty-second Amendment due to the artificial limits it places on voter choice. Many popular presidents have agreed. In 1985, the Washington Post reported that Ronald Reagan supported repealing the amendment, saying in private remarks that the lame-duck label being applied to his second term left him feeling “handicapped.” In 2016, Barack Obama told David Axelrod that he was sure he would have coasted to a third term if such a thing were permissible: “I am confident in this vision, because I’m confident that if I had run again and articulated it, I think I could have mobilized a majority of the American people to rally behind it.” 

The case of Donald Trump, however, makes an even more forceful ethical argument against the Twenty-second Amendment and for its repeal: If a man who once was president returns, after a series of years, to stand again for the office and proves so popular as to earn a second nonconsecutive term—as Trump seems bound to do—to deny him the right to run for a second consecutive term cuts against basic fair play. If, by 2028, voters feel Trump has done a poor job, they can pick another candidate; but if they feel he has delivered on his promises, why should they be denied the freedom to choose him once more?

Don’t let questions of Trump’s age in four years fool you. 

Besides the glaringly obvious differences between the men in their brain power, physical strength, and ability to walk in a straight line, Trump and Biden are about four years apart, making this issue something of a wash. If Trump wins in November and would be eligible to run for re-election in 2028, he would be 82 years old during that election—the same age Biden will be later this year. And at the end of Trump’s hypothetical second consecutive term, in 2032, he would be 86—the same age Biden would be at the end of his second term if he is returned to the White House. 

Conservatives have gritted their teeth for years as the Left, in their hatred of Trump, has attempted to pervert the meaning of first the Twenty-fifth Amendment and, more recently, the Fourteenth Amendment. The case for repealing the Twenty-second Amendment is far more straightforward: As with Prohibition, it is simply a matter of finding the will to get rid of a bad idea that needlessly limits Americans’ freedom. 

Trump in 2028! 

https://www.theamericanconservative.com/trump-2028/

READ FROM TOP

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW....

GUSNOTE: I DO NOT ENDORSE TRUMP, BUT I COMPLETELY REJECT BIDEN. BIDEN HAS DESTROYED THE LAST SHREDS OF AMERICAN DEMOCRACY.... TRUMP IS NOT THE IDEAL CLOWN EITHER....

WE CAN'T IMAGINE TRUMP IN 2032.... NOR CAN WE IMAGINE BIDEN IN 2028.... 

London's concerns about the "China threat" are increasingly veering toward absurdity. On Monday, British Deputy Prime Minister Oliver Dowden publicly accused China in parliament, alleging that "China state-affiliated actors" were involved in two cyberattacks targeting British democratic institutions and lawmakers. He also announced sanctions on two individuals and one company. Some British media outlets claimed that China obtained personal details of 40 million voters. Dowden also mentioned that statements of support from the US and other allies were expected later in the day. This may be the start of yet another collective attempt by the West to smear China.

Previously, in reports by British media, the widespread attention to "the disappearance of Kate Middleton" globally has also been linked to China. An article in The Telegraph, a British newspaper, without providing any evidence, claimed that "China and Russia are fueling disinformation to destabilize the nation" by spreading negative information about the British royal family. From stealing personal information of 40 million voters and deliberately undermining British democracy, to sensationalizing news about Kate Middleton and affecting the reputation of the British royal family and national security, it seems as though China has endless designs on the UK, doing nothing else all day but targeting the UK. This symptom of paranoia deserves a severe diagnosis.

In recent years, the UK has become one of the most enthusiastic countries in the West to hype up the "Chinese spies" and "China threat." Chinese-made cameras have been banned under suspicion of being "spy cameras," Chinese-made electric cars are labeled as "four-wheeled Trojan horses" monitoring British citizens for Beijing, and even Hong Kong laundry workers with a long hiring history in the British navy have been dismissed due to alleged "spy risks." The bizarre accusations from the UK about "Chinese spies" and "China threats" are sufficient to compile into a comprehensive "paranoia casebook."

From what we can see now, London seems somewhat intoxicated with this absurd farce and delusion, even embracing it, charging headlong into absurdity, and even treating it as a lever to enhance its "global influence." As is well-known, post-Brexit Britain has stumbled economically and lost some visibility in diplomacy. In order to assert its position as a core member within the Western camp, it seems that the only way to secure its position in the "co-pilot" seat is by closely aligning with the US and causing trouble for China.

In fact, it is not China but the UK that is focused on causing disruption and infiltration. China has previously reported a case where the British Secret Intelligence Service (MI6) used the head of a foreign consulting firm to gather intelligence related to China for the British side and look for individuals to be recruited by the MI6. British media have also reported that agencies like MI6 have advertised to recruit Chinese-speaking individuals for intelligence activities. This is why some British politicians are so sensitive and fearful of so-called Chinese infiltration and influence; it's a projection of their own thoughts and actions.

Regarding cyberattacks and cyber espionage, as the spokesperson of the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs has stated, the issue of tracing the origins of cyberattacks is highly complex and sensitive. When investigating and determining cyber events, there should be sufficient objective evidence rather than baselessly smearing other countries, and cybersecurity issues should not be politicized. British politicians and media have repeatedly thrown out unverified or even deliberately distorted information, clearly not aiming to seek the truth.

The so-called "Chinese spies" and "China threat" are nothing but the paranoia of some anti-China extremist politicians hijacking the entire country. They deliberately stoke fear of China to advance their political agendas and achieve their political goals. On one hand, by hyping up the idea of "Chinese spies" and "China threat," they cover up their failures in addressing domestic issues in the UK and divert public attention. On the other hand, there are those who simply do not want good relations between China and the UK. Just as China-UK relations were beginning to show signs of dialogue last year, suddenly there emerged a groundless case of the arrest of a parliamentary researcher as a spy, intentionally causing trouble for bilateral relations.

Regarding the recent British hype about Chinese "cyberattacks" affecting 40 million voters, an important background highlighted in British media reports is the upcoming general election in the UK later this year. By using such attention-grabbing numbers to stir up fear of foreign interference, it's essentially scaring themselves, showing a lack of confidence in their democratic system. A previous poll showed that 43 percent of respondents believed that the UK was "in decline," with only 6 percent believing that the UK's political system was functioning well. If they are genuinely concerned about their democratic system being undermined, what Britain should do is not to go around with a loudspeaker looking for enemies but to earnestly search for and address their own problems. The enemy is not outside, and certainly not China.

https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202403/1309503.shtml

READ FROM TOP

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW....