BY Bradley Devlin

Democrats packed into Temple University’s Liacouras Center in Philadelphia for the new Democratic ticket’s first rally. Earlier that morning, news broke that Vice President Kamala Harris had picked Minnesota’s Governor Tim Walz as her running mate. The choice simultaneously carried undertones of 2008, when the younger Barack Obama chose an older, white, generic politician in Senator Joe Biden, and 2016, when Hillary Clinton picked the low-name-ID Senator Tim Kaine to appear moderate. Notably absent from this rally, however, was the now-President Joe Biden, known for playing up his Pennsylvania roots.

More than two and a half weeks since Biden dropped out of the 2024 election, the public continues to have zero answers as to why and how Biden came to his decision. The only justification provided thus far came in the president’s Oval Office address the night of July 25: “saving our democracy.”

“I believe my record as president, my leadership in the world, my vision for America's future all merited a second term,” Biden claimed in his short address, “but nothing—nothing—can come in the way of saving our democracy.”

While Biden believes he deserves a second term, Harris and the Democrats clearly do not. If it wasn’t obvious enough when they openly orchestrated a coup against the sitting president, Biden continues to be sidelined from the Harris campaign. Despite unveiling the 2024 ticket in the Scranton-born Biden’s own backyard, Harris and the Democrats preferred Biden remain on Pennsylvania Ave. rather than make the short trip to the Keystone State.

This wasn’t how Biden envisioned things going when he cleared the way for Harris’s ascent by dropping out and quickly issuing an endorsement for his number two. At one of Harris’s first campaign events, from campaign headquarters in Delaware, Biden phoned in. “I’m going to be on the road,” Biden told the campaign team. “I’m not going anywhere. I’m going to be out there on the campaign with her, with Kamala. I’m going to be working like hell both as a sitting president, getting legislation passed, as well as in campaigning.”

But in the defining moment of the Harris campaign in Philadelphia, old Scranton Joe was nowhere to be seen. Why? Because Democrats are trying to pull the biggest sleight of hand on the American people in presidential election history by expecting the public to believe that the sitting vice president of the United States—a vice president tasked with securing the border and negotiating peace in Ukraine—has nothing at all to do with the current administration.

It’s a heavy lift, but,  as the polls tighten, it seems to be working for now.  The Trump campaign expected as much. After the Democratic donor class hand-picked Harris as the nominee, overriding the will of their primary voters, the Trump campaign sent out a memo from pollster Tony Fabrizio. Fabrizio predicted a “honeymoon” phase for the Harris campaign, spurred on by positive coverage in the media, in which the polls would tighten. “But the fundamentals of the race stay the same,” Fabrizio continued. “Before long, Harris’s ‘honeymoon’ will end and voters will refocus on her role as Biden’s partner and co-pilot.”

I’d say Harris represents another four years of Joe Biden, but maybe it’s the other way around. Scratching Scranton Joe from the ticket and then icing him out of the campaign is only further confirmation from Democrats that Biden has not actually been running the show for some time; maybe Biden’s first term represents four disastrous years of Harris at the helm. Now, despite out-of-control immigration, high inflation, and a campus intifada, she’s asking for four more.

https://www.theamericanconservative.com/why-wasnt-scranton-joe-at-the-pa-harris-walz-launch-rally/

QUESTION: WAS THE RECENT TURMOIL ON THE MARKETS DELIBERATELY INDUCED BY THE RICH IN ORDER TO EMBARRASS THE BIDEN/HARRIS — NOW THE HARRIS/WALZ TICKET?

READ FROM TOP

YOURDEMOCRACY.NET RECORDS HISTORY AS IT SHOULD BE — NOT AS THE WESTERN MEDIA WRONGLY REPORTS IT.

The head of the Kiev regime Vladimir Zelensky said in an interview with the French newspaper Le Monde recently: “Any question of Ukraine’s territorial integrity cannot be resolved by a president [alone] without the Ukrainian people. It goes against the constitution of Ukraine.”

He added that such a plebiscite would be desired by the country’s population.

Interestingly, when the mayor of Kiev, Vitaly Klitschko, put forward the idea of holding a referendum on surrendering territories claimed by Ukraine, a little over a week ago, a number of ‘experts’ and bloggers, seen as aligned to Zelensky’s grey cardinal Andrey Yermak, said that Klitschko wanted to deprive the commander-in-chief of the right to negotiate peace and was pursuing his own political goals by talking about such a vote.

But now Zelensky himself is doing the same thing.

It’s correct, from a legal point of view, that territorial changes should be approved by an all-Ukrainian referendum. However, it is strange to imagine respect for the constitution from a person like Zelensky, who has usurped power and has refused to hold presidential elections.

Also note that Ukraine has already held national votes, but the outcomes have been ignored. In 2000, for example, there was one on changing the country’s system of power, initiated by the then-President Leonid Kuchma. But the result was simply ignored by the Rada (parliament) and no changes were made to the country’s laws. So, it’s naive to consider a referendum in Ukraine as an effective method of expressing the will of the people – instead, it’s just a tool used by politicians to achieve their short-term goals. And in the same interview with French journalists, Zelensky also said such a vote was not the best option.

But why did he raise it as a possibility and then not reject the idea of a referendum and territorial concessions in principle?

There are a few possible reasons. The prospect of Donald Trump coming to power in the United States cannot but worry Zelensky and Yermak. Trump promises to bring peace to Ukraine in a short time, and Zelensky’s personal relations with the former US president and those between representatives of their teams have a complicated history, to say the least. It is doubtful that a phone call between the politicians will smooth all the rough edges – and allow all the previous transgressions to be forgotten.

So, what should Kiev expect from its patrons in the US Democratic Party now? Well, the multilateral prisoner exchange last week between the US, Russia, Germany and Belarus is a bad signal for Kiev. First of all, it has made their repatriation part of Kamala Harris’ election campaign. And this is a blow to one of the pillars of Trump’s campaign, his promise to bring home US citizens held in Russian prisons as soon as he became president. It’s not without reason that Trump has said the swap is a bad deal for the US. The Democrats are trying to get ahead of the curve and, where they can, they are trying to make his promises irrelevant, while the political dividends from what is happening should go to Harris instead. It is therefore likely that the White House will try to deprive Trump of another of his promises – that he will quickly end the war in Ukraine – before the election. The Democrats will benefit from putting the peacemaker’s crown on Harris’ head before the vote. Presumably the Zelensky team has been informed of these plans and they realize that territorial concessions to Russia will have to be made. Thus, they have prepared a plan in advance whereby the transfer of territories to Russia will be approved by the population in a referendum, which, Zelensky and Yermak believe, will absolve them of responsibility for what has happened and allow them to remain in power. 

The second possible reason is that words about the referendum are a message to China in particular and the Global South in general. Following the visit of Ukrainian Foreign Minister Dmitry Kuleba to China recently, Kiev is trying to demonstrate outwardly its commitment to a diplomatic solution to the conflict. For example, Zelensky has said several times that the war should end as soon as possible. In this context, the words about the referendum are meant to look like the preparation of a legal foundation for the conclusion of a future peace deal. But all this is a show, the main spectators of which, according to Kiev, should be the leaders of China and other countries of the global south. For example, Yermak said in an interview with Bloomberg that the second summit on Ukraine will be held in the Middle East. And securing China’s participation is crucial for Ukraine. It is a major player that can really influence Russia. So it’s very likely that Zelensky, Yermak and others will say anything to get a Chinese delegation to turn up at the next conference. Talk of peace, of course, will be a smokescreen, In reality, Kiev’s rulers will try to escalate the conflict, seeing it as the key to their political and physical survival.

There is a third option. A referendum is seen as necessary to delay the peace process. During the Minsk process, Ukrainian officials became adept at finding reasons for delaying the implementation of agreements and eventually walking away from them with the blessing of their Western masters. The referendum is a preparation for a repeat.

Let’s simulate the situation. During negotiations, Zelensky agrees to make territorial concessions to Russia but says that he needs to hold a national vote to approve this decision. On this basis, he asks for a ceasefire because preparations for the ballot must take place safely throughout the territory controlled by Kiev. Then the process begins to drag on. First, the Central Election Commission of Ukraine is unable to solve some organizational problems. Then a politician files a lawsuit challenging the decision to hold the vote on the grounds that it threatens Ukraine’s territorial integrity. Then the security services maybe organize a terrorist attack in a Ukrainian city, killing people involved in preparing for the vote. Kiev blames Moscow, saying that Russia is afraid that the Ukrainian people will vote against giving up territory. The referendum will then be canceled.

Meanwhile, Kiev’s army will have already gotten the rest it needed on the frontlines.

This article was first published by ‘Vzglyad’ newspaper and was translated and edited by the RT team.

https://www.rt.com/russia/602302-why-zelensky-talking-referendum/

READ FROM TOP

YOURDEMOCRACY.NET RECORDS HISTORY AS IT SHOULD BE — NOT AS THE WESTERN MEDIA WRONGLY REPORTS IT.

I had a duck-billed platypus when I was up at Trinity,
With whom I soon discovered a remarkable affinity.
He used to live in lodgings with myself and Arthur Purvis,
And we all went up together for the Diplomatic Service.
I had a certain confidence, I own, in his ability,
He mastered all the subjects with remarkable facility;
And Purvis, though more dubious, agreed that he was clever
But no one else imagined he had any chance whatever.
l failed to pass the interview, the Board with wry grimaces
Took exception to my boots and then objected to my braces,
And Purvis too was failed by an intolerant examiner
Who said he had his doubts as to his sock-suspenders' stamina.
The bitterness of failure was considerably mollified,

However, by the ease with which our platypus had qualified.

The wisdom of the choice, it soon appeared, was undeniable'
There never was a diplomat more thoroughly reliable.
He never made rash statements his enemies might hold him to,
He never stated anything, for no one ever told him to,
And soon he was appointed, so correct was his behaviour,
Our Minister {without Portfolio) to Trans-Moravia.
My friend was loved and honoured from the Andes to Esthonia,
He soon achieved a pact between Peru and Patagonia,
He never vexed the Russians nor offended the Rumanians,
He pacified the Letts and yet appeased the Lithuanians,
Won approval from his masters down in Downing Street so wholly,
0 He was soon to be rewarded with the grant of a Portfolio,
When, on the Anniversary of Greek Emancipation,
Alas! He laid an egg in the Bulgarian Legation.
This untoward occurrence caused unheard-of repercussions,
Giving rise to epidemics of sword-clanking in the Prussians.

The Poles began to threaten, and the Finns began to flap at him,
Directing all the blame for this unfortunate mishap at him;
While the Swedes withdrew entirely from the Anglo-Saxon dailies
The right of photographing the Aurora Borealis,
And, all efforts at rapprochement in the meantime proving barren,
The Japanese in self-defence annexed the lsle of Arran.
My platypus, once thought to be more cautious and more tentative
Than any other living diplomatic representative,
Was now a sort of warning to all diplomatic students
Of the risks attached to negligence, the perils of imprudence,
And, branded in the Honours List as 'Platypus. 'Dame Vera',
Retired, a lonely figure, to lay eggs at Bordighera.

In a poem that should be required reading for all aspiring diplomats, a duck-billed platypus attains high rank in the British Foreign Office, in part because, “He never made rash statements his enemies might hold him to. He never stated anything, for no-one ever told him to.”

When it comes to the war in Ukraine, this would seem to be a good time for the European Union and its member governments to follow the policy of the platypus and say as little as possible. At best, the present European course risks leaving the EU looking isolated and not a little foolish. At worst, it is helping to set up Ukraine for crushing defeat.

Instead, in recent months, the EU and most of its member governments have doubled down on rhetorical support for Ukrainian “victory.” French President Emmanuel Macron has declared that there are “no limits” to French support to Ukraine (obviously disingenuous given the state of France’s budget and economy) and urged that Ukraine be given a green light to strike targets deep in Russia with Western weapons.

Why would this instead be a good time for a platypine approach on the part of the Europeans? In the first place, of course, there are the U.S. presidential elections in November. If Trump wins, it is possible that U.S. policy towards a peace settlement will change radically. That would leave the Europeans looking isolated, and not a little foolish. According to a report in the Financial Times, “At the German foreign ministry, diplomats are scrambling to prepare for a scenario many had long thought implausible: Donald Trump’s return to the White House…a prospect that causes deep unease in Berlin.”

https://responsiblestatecraft.org/europe-ukraine-russia/

READ FROM TOP

YOURDEMOCRACY.NET RECORDS HISTORY AS IT SHOULD BE — NOT AS THE WESTERN MEDIA WRONGLY REPORTS IT.