How Gross Are Democrats?

posted by Derek Hunter at Townhall 

That’s an open-ended question for which there is no answer, but only because there is no limit. Democrats have no “bottom” to hit, since every time they do they break out a shovel and go even deeper. In addition to having no standards, no scruples and no decency, Democrats have to shame either – if there is a tragedy to milk, they will morph into a dairy farmer and start pulling on the teat. It’s gross, really.

But none of this would be possible, or even be done, were Democrat donors not so damn stupid. When you read fundraising emails they send you can only come away with the idea that the leadership of the party views their base as poorly as we do. There’s no other explanation for sending transparently false, incredibly insulting to people’s intelligence, emails to people and expecting a return on the money it costs.

That’s the secret, really – Democrats wouldn’t treat their supporters like they’ve recently suffered a severe closed-head injury and are currently in NFL concussion protocols if it didn’t work.

Remember Khzir Khan? His son, Humayun, was killed in Iraq and was a hero. But heroism isn’t transferable. Victimhood is. And while I don’t deny Khan’s grief or the sacrifice his son made, I do find it gross that he’s been dining out on that death for political purposes since he agreed to exploit his son’s death for Hillary Clinton at the 2016 Democratic Convention. 

I find it shameful, honestly. I dislike it when people speak on behalf of the dead. I would absolutely love to have my late friends Andrew Breitbart and Christopher Hitchens around today to hear what they have to say about Joe Biden and Democrats. But they’re gone. And while those of us who knew them, and even those who didn’t but followed them, have an idea of what they’d say, we do not know. They were unpredictable, which helped make them interesting because they could always explain what they did or said you were surprised by in a way that was equally surprising. 

When I see people project what they would have wanted them to say onto them, it is exactly what that is – a projection of what you’d hope they would have said. Anyone who thinks they can speak on behalf of them never knew them at all. 

Khzir speaks on behalf of himself through the memory of his son, which is even worse in my estimation. I would never presume to tell anyone how to grieve, nor would I accept anyone tell me how to. But what Khan did, and is doing, isn’t grieving, it’s gross exploitation. 

In a fundraising email sent under Khan’s name, he writes, “Derek -- In 2016, I stood on stage at the Democratic National Convention, raised my copy of the Constitution, and begged Donald Trump to read it. It's clear he never did, and we suffered as a result. We suffered as he tore apart families at our southern border. As he stripped women of their rights. As he spread lie after lie and encouraged supporters to attack our Capitol. It is plainly obvious: Trump is incapable of leading a country like ours ever again.” (The bold is theirs, not mine.)

Do you believe this guy “suffered” as illegal aliens were separated from the child props they rented from human smugglers to get across the border? Did he suffer from women having to make up their minds about an abortion quickly, rather than being able to wait until the kid basically was old enough to go to college?

He did not. He’s full of crap. And he’s someone Democrats would use to spread their propaganda because his son was killed on active duty. He’s dancing on his son’s grave for money. His son was killed in 2004, didn’t say anything until the 2016 election. That’s quite a window of time to suddenly find your conscience about something, isn’t it?

Khan’s dance continues, “I know President Biden well, but more importantly, President Biden knows us. The President knows how losing a son leaves a hole in your heart that never heals. Since my boy, Captain Humayun Khan, died defending his unit in Iraq, it became a personal mission to share his story of sacrifice and patriotism. It's a story President Biden can relate to.”

Why does losing a son leave a different type of hole than losing a daughter would? Seems odd. 

More than that, Khan joins Biden’s tradition of exploiting his own son’s death from brain cancer for political advantage. 

I would think a real Gold Star parent, which Khan is, would have a problem with a person pretending to be one, like Biden regularly does. But he doesn’t. Because Democrats are Democrats first, anything else is a distant second. It’s “agenda über alles,” written in its original German on purpose.

Khan closes, “If you feel in your heart the conviction I feel in mine, I am kindly asking you to pledge your first donation to reelect President Biden. Chip in $25 or however much is within your means today to help him defeat Donald Trump. it is imperative that we keep a leader in the White House who will defend democracy and protect fundamental rights in the United States.”

The music then ends, Khzir Khan slowly slips backstage and starts to choreograph the next dance when he is summoned by the party to the dancefloor over his son’s grave. Gross.

Loose Talk About the End of Everything

 If the past is any guide to the present, we should take heed that what almost never happens in war can certainly still occur.

After a recent summit between new partners China and Russia, General Secretary Xi Jinping and Russian Federation President Vladimir Putin issued an odd one-sentence communique: “There can be no winners in a nuclear war and it should never be fought.”

No one would disagree, even though several officials of both hypocritical governments have previously threatened their neighbors with nuclear attacks.

But still, why did the two feel the need to issue such a terse statement—and why now?

Rarely has the global rhetoric of mass annihilation reached such a crescendo as the present, as existential wars rage in Ukraine and Gaza.

In particular, Putin at least believes that he is finally winning the Ukraine conflict. Xi seems to assume that conventional ascendant Chinese military power in the South China Sea has finally made the absorption of Taiwan practicable.

They both believe that the only impediment to their victories would be an intervention from the U.S. and the NATO alliance, a conflict that could descend into mutual threats to resort to nuclear weapons.

Thus the recent warnings of Xi and Putin.

Almost monthly, North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un continues his weary threats to use his nuclear arsenal to destroy South Korea or Japan.

A similarly monotonous, pro-Hamas Turkish president, Recep Erdogan, regularly threatens Armenians with crazy talk of repeating the “mission of our grandfathers.” And he occasionally warns Israelis and Greeks that they may one day wake up to Turkish missiles raining down upon their cities.

More concretely, for the first time in history, Iran attacked the homeland of Israel. It launched the largest wartime array of cruise missiles, ballistic missiles and drones in modern history—over 320 projectiles.

Iran’s theocrats simultaneously claim they are about ready to produce nuclear weapons. And, of course, since 1979, Iran has periodically promised to wipe Israel off the map and half the world’s Jews with it.

Most ignore these crazy threats and write them off as the braggadocio of dictators. But as we saw on October 7, the barbarity of human nature has not changed much from the premodern world, whether defined by savage beheading, mutilations, murdering, mass rape, torture, and hostage taking of Israeli elderly, women, and children.

But what has radically transformed are the delivery systems of mass death—nuclear weapons, chemical gases, biological agents, and artificial-intelligence-driven delivery systems.

Oddly, the global reaction to the promise of Armageddon remains one of nonchalance. Most feel that such strongmen rant wildly but would never unleash weapons of civilizational destruction.

Consider that there are as many autocratic nuclear nations (e.g., Russia, China, Pakistan, North Korea, and perhaps Iran) as democratic ones (U.S., Britain, France, Israel, and India). Only Israel has an effective anti-ballistic missile dome. And the more the conventional power of the West declines, the more in extremis it will have to rely on a nuclear deterrent—at a time when it has no effective missile defense of its homelands.

In a just-released book, The End of Everything, I wrote about four examples of annihilation—the classical city-state of Thebes, ancient Carthage, Byzantine Constantinople and Aztec Tenochtitlán—in which the unimaginable became all too real.

In all these erasures, the targeted, naïve states believed that their illustrious pasts, rather than a realistic appraisal of their present inadequate defenses, would ensure their survival.

All hoped that their allies—the Spartans, the anti-Roman Macedonians, the Christian nations of Western Europe, and the subject cities of the Aztecs—would appear at the eleventh hour to stave off their defeat.

Additionally, these targeted states had little understanding of the agendas and capabilities of the brilliantly methodic killers outside their walls—the ruthless wannabe philosopher Alexander the Great, the literary patron Scipio Aemilianus, the self-described intellectual Mehmet II, and the widely read Hernán Cortés—who all sought to destroy utterly rather than merely defeat their enemies.

These doomed cities and nations were reduced to rubble or absorbed by the conquerors. Their populations were wiped out or enslaved, and their once-hallowed cultures, customs, and traditions lost to history. The last words of the conquered were usually variations of, “It can’t happen here.”

If the past is any guide to the present, we should take heed that what almost never happens in war can certainly still occur.

When killers issue wild, even lunatic, threats, we should nonetheless take them seriously.

We should not count on friends or neutrals to save our civilization. Instead, Americans should build defense systems over the skies of our homeland, secure our borders, ensure our military operates on meritocracy, cease wild deficit spending and borrowing, and rebuild both our conventional and nuclear forces.

Otherwise, we will naively—and fatally—believe that we are magically exempt when the inconceivable becomes all too real.

Victor Davis Hanson’s The End of Everything. How Wars Descend into Annihilation was just released by Basic Books.

Justice Clarence Thomas, Champion of a ‘Colorblind Constitution’.

Could he one Day Undo the Legacy of Brown v. Board of Education?

                                                       Never looks happy does he...

The Supreme Court’s decision, by a 6-to-3 margin, to allow South Carolina to keep in place a congressional map that a lower court ruled was  unconstitutionally racially gerrymandered features a concurrence that could lead to the eventual dilution of one of the court’s most venerable precedents.

The decision in Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP was written by Justice Samuel Alito. It mandates that “a party challenging a map’s constitutionality must disentangle race and politics if it wishes to prove that the legislature was motivated by race.” It also ruled that courts are to evaluate maps with the “presumption that the legislature acted in good faith.”

A unanimous three-judge panel of the South Carolina district court had held that the map in question, which covers the territory to Charleston from Savannah and is spoken for in Congress by Representative Nancy Mace, had been so drawn as to amount to a “bleaching” out of Black voters. After the current map was drawn in the wake of the 2020 Census, the lower court found that the district lost 62 percent of its Black voters.     

Justice Alito, though, reckons that the NAACP, which was challenging the map, “provided no direct evidence of a racial gerrymander and their circumstantial evidence is very weak.” That view is not shared by Justice Elena Kagan, who writes in dissent that “the majority goes seriously wrong” and that its “attempt to explain its contrary result fails at every turn.” 

Looming over Alexander is a precedent from 2019, Rucho v. Common Cause. There the court, by a 5-to-4 margin, ruled that while partisan gerrymandering is “incompatible with democratic principles,” such allegations cannot be reviewed by courts because they are nonjusticiable political questions. Justice Kagan dissented then, too, writing that “of all times to abandon the Court’s duty to declare the law, this was not the one.” 

The rule of Rucho, whose majority opinion was written by Chief Justice Roberts, means that excessive partisanship is not a valid basis for courts to nullify a congressional map. Instead, race must be the “predominant factor” in the drawing of a map. As race and partisan affiliation are frequently correlated, this has proved to be a high hurdle to clear, as Alexander demonstrates.

For the court’s senior justice, Clarence Thomas, the court’s gerrymandering jurisprudence has not gone far enough. He writes that “drawing political districts is a task for politicians, not federal judges. There are no judicially manageable standards for resolving claims about districting, and, regardless, the Constitution commits those issues exclusively to the political branches.” 

Justice Thomas adds that a “colorblind Constitution does not require that racial considerations ‘predominate’ before subjecting them to scrutiny,” and that “racial gerrymandering claims to ask courts to reverse engineer the purposes behind a complex and often arbitrary legislative process.” He calls judicial intervention into the messy politics of electoral cartography a “fool’s errand.”

The justice takes a practical approach, writing, “When nearly all black voters support Democrats”  — 90 percent of Black voters in South Carolina voted for President Biden in 2020 —  “an effort to strategically sort Democratic voters can be indistinguishable from an effort to strategically sort black voters.” If politics and race cannot be disentangled, then neither can suffice as a reason for judges and justices to void maps drawn by lawmakers. 

Justice Thomas, though, is hunting bigger constitutional game. He notes that the “view of equity” — meaning when a court can grant non-monetary remedies, like redrawing a map — “required to justify a judicial map drawing power emerged only in the 1950s.” The Supreme Court, in 1954, ruled in Brown v. Board of Education that separating schoolchildren on the basis of race was unconstitutional. Desegregation, though, was slow in coming. 

That is why, Justice Thomas explains, in a followup case — known as Brown II — the high court “took a boundless view of equitable remedies” in order to reinforce desegregation. Justice Thomas describes that dispensation elsewhere as defined by “extravagant uses of judicial power … at odds with the history and tradition of the equity power and the Framers’ design.”

Justice Thomas fears that even Justice Alito does not go far enough in renouncing a role for the courts in keeping judges away from the political cartographers. That position is now a lonely one, as nary a justice joined him in suggesting that even a racially motivated map should be left untouched by the bench. If that view eventually gains traction, though, it would not be the first time Justice Thomas has proven farsighted.

https://www.nysun.com/article/could-justice-clarence-thomas-champion-of-a-colorblind-constitution-one-day-undo-the-legacy-of-brown-v-board-of-education

A.R. HOFFMAN

Mr. Hoffman is an associate editor of the Sun, where he covers politics and culture. He holds a PhD from Harvard and a law degree from Stanford.

Bronx rally, Red Pill News, and more- May 23

 

No War with Russia

Say nyet to war and yes to peace.

by Steve Gruber for American Greatness 

Remember the peace dividend and the promise of cuts in defense spending and freedom for all? Remember the promise of a new world order? Not the utopia of world government, but the reality of life in the aftermath of the Cold War. The rhetoric does not describe our reality, regarding our promises to Russia or our forecasts about the actions of Russia. Not that Joe Biden cares, because he continues to do his best to make the worst possible outcome in Ukraine a reality.

Not for nothing has he been wrong on nearly every major foreign policy and national security issue over the past four decades. So says Robert Gates, former director of the CIA and secretary of defense under presidents H.W. Bush and Obama, respectively.

Gates speaks from experience, based on his assessment of Biden’s inexperience on issues of war and peace. He knows what Biden refuses to understand: that we are wrong to antagonize and isolate Russia; that we continue to antagonize and isolate Russia; that expanding NATO eastward is more provocative than Russia expanding westward, because Russia has legitimate claims in Ukraine.

None of which means Vladimir Putin is a good guy.

We do not have to look Putin in the eye to get a sense of his soul. We do not have to be like George W. Bush and say Putin is “straightforward and trustworthy,” to know it is wrong to publicly insult the president of Russia. We do not have a duty to defend Ukraine by going to war against Russia either.

We do, however, have a duty to oppose U.S. involvement in Ukraine. As conservatives, the preservation of our peace and liberty is our foremost priority.

Putting America first does not mean permanent withdrawal or perpetual isolation, because we retain the right to fight, with the might necessary to win on the battlefield and the magnanimity necessary to triumph at the negotiating table.

Too bad Biden does not remember the words of President Kennedy’s inaugural address, admonishing us to never fear to negotiate. Too bad Biden does not do as Kennedy says. Too bad for us that Biden does not care to negotiate with Russia.

What good does it do for Biden to call Putin a “murderous dictator”? What good does Biden hope to achieve by calling Putin a “crazy SOB”? What good can we achieve with Biden in office, as he violates every rule of diplomacy and every principle of common sense?

Too bad Biden does not practice what Teddy Roosevelt preached: speaking softly and pursuing justice in peace.

By ending the Russo-Japanese War, TR shows us what a president can do for his country—and what America can do to stay out of foreign wars. By winning the Nobel Peace Prize, TR shows us what we should prize most. By doing as he wants, with no regard for our interests, Biden disregards the lessons of history and the legacy of President Roosevelt.

No doubt, Biden knows little or nothing about Russia. But Biden’s ignorance must not be our misfortune, especially when he demonizes Putin and prevents him from saving face. Which brings me to my next question, in the form of a statement.

Tell me how this ends.

Tell me how U.S. involvement in Ukraine ends. Tell me how we leave Ukraine without losing our honor, based on our failures in Afghanistan and Iraq. Tell me, please, how war is the answer to our troubles with Russia.

That we have no interest in Ukraine is clear. That Russia has no interest in fighting us is also clear. That Biden has no interest in avoiding war with Russia is, unfortunately, deadly obvious.

How wars end, according to the historian Jay Winik, is every bit as important as why they begin and how they were waged.

A question for the interventionists: Tell me why Ukraine matters more to us than she does to Russia.

Do not tell me Volodymyr Zelenskyy is a democrat (small-d) who deserves our help. Do not compare him to Winston Churchill, alone and indomitable, when in fact he has none of the great man’s vision or statesmanship. Do not tell me we need to fight Russia to save Europe from the fate of Ukraine, because any such assertion is a lie.

Also, tell me which countries will pay for us to keep Zelensky in power. If we were unable to get members of NATO to spend more on collective defense during the Cold War, what makes us believe they will spend more now? Why do we insist on expanding NATO when we know where Russia stands on this alliance?

Did a chapter of world history not end on Christmas Day 1991, with the dissolution of the Soviet Union?

The Warsaw Pact is dead; the Berlin Wall is down; and the Cold War is over. And yet NATO endures. Ukraine wants to be in NATO.

What happens if Russia invades the Baltics so as to counter our involvement in Ukraine? If Russia attacks Latvia or Lithuania, does that mean Biden will counterattack with our armed forces?

Do not tell me the issue polls well or that a majority of respondents support U.S. involvement in Ukraine. The polling is as worthless as the reporting. If the reporting were accurate, Ukraine would have won the war two years ago.

Having lost Russia once already, we must not lose her again. We must stop the march of folly before we find ourselves unable and unwilling to extricate ourselves from another forever war.

Say nyet to war and yes to peace.

🎭 𝐖𝟑𝐏 𝓓𝓐𝓘𝓛𝓨 𝓗𝓾𝓶𝓸𝓻, 𝓜𝓾𝓼𝓲𝓬, 𝓐𝓻𝓽, 𝓞𝓟𝓔𝓝 𝓣𝓗𝓡𝓔𝓐𝓓

Welcome to 

The 𝐖𝟑𝐏 𝓓𝓐𝓘𝓛𝓨 𝓗𝓾𝓶𝓸𝓻, 𝓜𝓾𝓼𝓲𝓬, 𝓐𝓻𝓽, 𝓞𝓟𝓔𝓝 𝓣𝓗𝓡𝓔𝓐𝓓 

Here’s a place to share cartoons, jokes, music, art, nature, 

man-made wonders, and whatever else you can think of. 

No politics or divisive posts on this thread. 

This feature will appear every day at 1pm mountain time. 

Anatomy of a Kangaroo Court

posted by Kurt Schlichter at Townhall 

The Donald Trump New York City farce is on the way to being over. The prosecution (at least) rested after what would’ve been a disastrous performance by Michael Cohen in any other trial, but the standard rules don’t apply here because this is not actually a trial. This trial has nothing to do with law. It is a scummy attempt to frame a political opponent of the Democrats to keep him from winning an election against the desiccated old pervert in the White House. Normally, a jury would laugh this case out of court, except that it would never have been in court had the defendant been named Tronald Dump. Everything about it is a lie and a scam, and as soon as you understand that you will understand this disgraceful case.

The Democrats behind this charade are wearing the law like a skinsuit, presenting an exterior that makes this look like a real jury trial when, in fact, it is nothing of the sort. You see the forms and processes performed, but they mean nothing because the fix is already in. Let’s talk about what happens now in terms of procedure. In terms of legality, why bother? Again, this isn’t a legal matter. This is a joke.

The state must prove each of the elements of the charge beyond a reasonable doubt. Remember, in real trials, criminal charges have elements. For instance, fraud is typically a knowing misrepresentation intended to induce reliance that causes monetary damage to the victim. Each of those requirements is an element. Was there a misrepresentation? Was it knowingly false? Was it intended to induce reliance? Was someone who reasonably relied on it damaged in terms of losing money? Each of those elements must have substantial evidence in support of it. Remember, the state has to prove everything. The defendant can just sit there with his arms crossed like a late-80s rapper and say nothing, and if the state fails to provide evidence beyond a reasonable doubt proving each element, he must be acquitted. Others have discussed how the state has failed to prove any of the elements against Trump here — suffice it to say that, as a legal matter, the state has failed on every one of the elements. But again, this case isn’t a legal matter. This is a kangaroo court. We’re just talking about how the scam will proceed.

The defense could have chosen not to call any witnesses at all. If you think you’re winning because the state has failed to make its case, it’s often a good idea to send it to the jury right then. But I agree that Trump was right to try to put on a defense because that helps him in the court of public opinion. There’s no helping him with the jury – the jury is biased, and the majority of them will convict him regardless of the evidence or law. Defense is for the benefit of the voters.

The Democrat-donating judge severely limited some of Trump’s most important evidence. One witness was a former federal elections commissioner who is an expert on federal elections law and could testify as an expert witness as to how none of these alleged expenditures would violate federal campaign finance laws. Now, the judge excluded that testimony based on what is normally solid ground – an expert witness cannot testify as to what the law is. An expert witness provides factual evidence of matters outside the experience of a jury. But during the trial, the prosecution improperly elicited testimony regarding what is and isn’t a federal campaign finance violation from non-expert witnesses – including Michael Cohen. Typical with regard to Trump, there are apparently exceptions to the rules when it involves screwing him over. Allowing this expert witness to testify would be fair, so no surprise it did not happen.

Another witness the defense called was Michael Cohen’s former attorney, who you might think could not testify because of attorney-client privilege. Except Michael Cohen went behind his back and began talking about his discussions with his attorney to the Southern District of New York federal prosecutors when he was trying to sell out Trump to save his behind from jail. When you disclose attorney-client confidentialities, you waive your attorney-client privilege. Attorney Robert Costello, a respected criminal defense lawyer in New York, has already testified to a House committee that everything Michael Cohen said on the stand was a lie, not to convince the jurors because there’s no convincing the Democrat jurors, but to show America what a fiasco this is. On Monday, the judge blew up at Costello, who was disgusted by how the judge was limiting his testimony by sustaining the DA’s ridiculous objections.

As an aside, it is a disgrace that a prosecutor would ever put up on the stand as its key witness a convicted perjurer like Cohen, who has been publicly expressing how he wants to screw over the accused. On Monday, this centipede admitted stealing tens of thousands of dollars from Trump, something the NYDA knew about and failed to charge. I’m glad my mom, who was a judge and a prosecutor before that, doesn’t have to see this. Any decent past or present prosecutor with integrity would be appalled. Carefully note those who are not appalled.

Next week, the parties will do closing arguments. Look for the DA to try to convict Trump of “election interference” and “paying hush money,” neither of which is a crime. But again, this is not about the law; it is about pulling a jury of Democrat partisans who want to help stop a political opponent.

Then the case goes to the jury. The jury is instructed by the judge on the law to be applied. It’ll be interesting to see what jury instructions this judge gives since this completely unprecedented case will require many custom jury instructions. You see, there are standard jury instructions for routine cases. Murder, bank robbery, sex crimes, and the other things that Democratic constituents do all the time have standard jury instructions. Since this is an invented crime that has never been charged against anyone before, the parties will have to make up instructions and the judge will pick the DA’s version. 

Then the case goes to the jury and the jurors will decide the case solely based on how much they hate Donald Trump. That is not how the law is supposed to work, but this isn’t about the law. This is about Democrat voters in Manhattan screwing over a political opponent. If twelve of them agree, they will convict him. If one or more jurors hold out for the truth and do not get kicked off the jury for “refusing to deliberate,” the jury will hang. This results in a mistrial, and the DA can retry the case. If twelve jurors reject the trumped-up Trump charges, Trump will be acquitted - but that will never happen because they’re Democrats, and it doesn’t matter what the facts are or the law is.

If you think I’m cynical, chalk that up to 30 years of experience. 

There is a slight chance the jury will acquit Trump on some of the charges, but my guess is you’ll see him convicted on everything. Hopefully, at least one juror has the integrity and the guts to withstand the pressure to frame, but hope is not a plan.

Now, if convicted on up to 34 felony charges, a typical defendant would be remanded immediately into custody. Of course, Alvin Bragg’s DA office is notoriously easy on actual criminals, but it will certainly demand jail time here. It is quite possible that the judge will hook Trump up and take him into the back in chains. If that happens, a lot of people are going to be really, really sorry down the road. That image would be a devastating blow to our teetering Jenga tower of a country. If they want to throw open the Overton window, they should remember that it is a long way down. 

More likely, this Democrat judge will release Trump on bail and set a sentencing date. But who knows? This has been a blatant and unrepentant farce from the beginning, one that at least half of Americans see as an attempt to frame the political opposition with false charges over made-up crimes before a biased judge and jury. If you want to bet, bet that they do the most outrageous thing – and bet that they cry like little girls when they feel the full blowback of their new rules down the road.

Keep your fingers crossed for at least one juror with the integrity to refuse to play his part in this show trial.

Zelensky’s Prolonged Presidency Proves Americans Were Sold A Lie On Ukraine

Jordan Boyd reporting for The Federalist 

U.S. elites often hail Ukraine as a lone bulwark of democracy in the authoritarian wasteland that is Eastern Europe. President Volodymyr Zelensky’s decision to extend his expiring presidential term by keeping the country under martial law, however, is far from the tidy narrative of Ukrainian democratic behavior the American ruling class and their allies in the corporate media have tried to sell U.S. taxpayers.

According to the President of Ukraine’s official website, the Eastern European country’s leader is supposed to be “elected by the citizens of Ukraine on the basis of universal, equal and direct suffrage by means of secret ballot for five years.”

Zelensky, who first came into power in 2019, was due for another vote this spring. Instead of slogging through an election that his rapidly declining approval rating might mar, Zelensky opted to extend his term indefinitely.

“Ukraine doesn’t need to prove anything about democracy to anyone. Because Ukraine and its people are proving it through their war,” Zelensky declared in a New York Times article headlined “‘What’s the Problem?’ Zelensky Challenges West Over Hesitations.”

Zelensky’s fundamentally anti-democratic decision earned the blessing of U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken, who suggested the election should not commence until “all Ukrainians, including those displaced by Russia’s aggression” can vote. American corporate media were also quick to defend Zelensky’s prolonged rule, saying an election is something Ukrainians have “little appetite” for.

For more than two years, the people running the U.S. government justified throwing billions of American tax dollars at the Russia-Ukraine conflict by claiming it was necessary to defeat Russia and “defend democracy.”

They routinely ignored and even tried to silence those who warned that the Zelensky regime is corrupt in favor of amplifying suspiciously optimistic and hollow rhetoric about sending more money so Ukraine could send Vladimir Putin packing.

Yahoo! Finance reassured its readers that much of the money flowing to the new proxy war with no definable end will “pass through the U.S. economy first.”

By that, Yahoo! aims to affirm Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell’s belief that funneling funds to Ukraine through warmongering defense companies like Boeing and Lockheed Martin is good for Americans. An overwhelming number of the taxpayers funding this venture, however, say any big spending should go to securing their country’s compromised border, not Ukraine’s.

The same politicians and media mouthpieces gnashing their teeth about former President Donald Trump’s First Amendment-protected speech about election shenanigans are calling for more money, more support, and more TV time and PR for a guy whose presence in power is currently guaranteed by martial law alone.

“Ukraine still shutters churches and restricts the free press,” Federalist Senior Editor David Harsanyi noted last year. “Maybe you believe those are justifiable actions during wartime, but under no definition are they liberal. Ukraine has never been a functioning ‘democracy.’” 

Zelensky’s overstaying his welcome without the consent of Ukranain voters makes clear now more than ever that Americans were sold a lie about the reason billions of their hard-earned tax dollars are still up for grabs to sustain an overseas war.