Terence Bunch - Astronomy, Music, Science, Internationalism, Peace, Electronics, the Arts, Politics and Society.

I sympathise with other news outlets around the World that would like to take a more holistic approach to their journalism, but are unable, most especially those whom are operating inside the United States territory. Its a better life on the World stage if one is able to more broadly place their journalistic net toward the greater public experience without this kind of thing going on.

For the rest of us, having America in this World with all its attendant problems, most of which are self imposed, is frankly tedious. The normal American people must be living a very frustrated experience knowing that they aren’t being seen, nor even acknowledged.

What is it about your American Nation that invokes these specific problems for your country and no other?

Whatever it is, you live in a far bigger World, so abandon it and function properly. Deal with the obvious corruption in your Government and deal with the source of the extreme ideologies that infest your political identity. Yes, of course there are issues on the International Stage that need the Worlds attention, but that will only ever be accommodated with diplomacy and dialogue, not bombs, murder, criminal enterprise and political opportunism.

I told you that the Iran issue was centered around normal development concepts and would need to be dealt with within the normal parameters of International Diplomacy and fair dealing, not accession to some useless Jewish nationalist racist with a deranged mouth.

Having monitored this as it was happening, we find that there is sufficient evidence to say that American Democracy is not currently functioning correctly, the media/press should be able to hold their Government to account and should be able to do so without these kinds of distortions. Of course the foreign policy definition the US Government is and has been following is clearly an issue. It is time for the American people to step up and deal with this issue more firmly.

The American Government should immediately revise its posture, or the American people should revise its Governments posture without further recourse to foreign intervention.

The rest of the World, and certainly the Republic of Iran, is not responsible for these issues within the United States and it is unfair for anybody to consider that this is the case.

To be fair, you are in trouble here.

We note the normality of the International Community at this point in time, its Peaceful nature and the means by which the International Community is able to communicate freely among and within each other.

And long may this continue, of course.

This, surely, must be due to the values of the underlying populace.

The Holy Land, occupied by the Peaceful People of Palestine, over the longer term, with and of a belief in their history and regard for the spiritual sanctity of the land they stand upon. That Peaceful existence is not perfect, and who would not deny the violence inherent in their defence of that land, and their defended place on it. Would you call it Nationalism?

And on toward the later arriving nationalists, and their Jewish faith, accommodating to the land as only for the Jewish, they say; and writ large too in the political landscape of the, other, less voluminously faithful. And their deeds writ larger, in every part of our own landscape, selectively by some, passionately by others and emphatically still, by others. With each day the crimes are done, with each day the disturbed are empowered, with each day a new derelict morality declared. Would you call it Nationalism?

I would call only Nationalism, Nationalism, the Peace would settle the issue only before God, and the People.

To you this is the be all and end all of your world, to me naught more than the Beginning of anew.

Nationalism is naught to anybody.

There are a number of serious issues here that we may, or may not, return to in the future.

Fundamentally this is cause for concern, but we are happier that these things do not become an emergency before they are fully and properly considered. Emergency for the sake of it serves no-ones interests.

We thank our sister publication El Pais for their excellent, timely and decisive contribution, our friends in the Catholic Church for their wise and comforting guidance, the people of Hungary for their affirmation and our friends and colleagues around the World whom believe, as we do, that the Peace will always triumph over the adversity and poverty of Conflict and War.

Courtesy of France 24

by Ben Whedon

Former Vice President Kamala Harris on Friday told Rev. Al Shaprton that she was considering a run for president in 2028, but did not commit to such a move.

Harris has attracted speculation that she may run again in 2028 for several months and the Democrats have yet to see a major candidate officially enter the race.

“Listen, I might, I might. I’m thinking about it,” she said, according to Politico. “I’ll keep you posted.”

Harris became the Democratic nominee for president in 2024 after President Joe Biden withdrew from the race following a catastrophic debate with President Donald Trump that drew concerns over his mental fitness for the post.

The primary elections were already concluded and Harris became the de facto nominee with little challenge, quickly raising hundreds of millions in campaign funds.

She was, nonetheless, unable to parley the full war chest into political support and lost every swing state.

In a Harvard CAPS/Harris Poll released last month, Harris is the frontrunner for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2028, ahead of Gov. Gavin Newsom and Gov. Josh Shapiro.

Harris leads the pack with 41% of the vote, while Newsom and Shapiro are at 26% and 10%, respectively.

These are the only candidates above 10%, with Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez at 8% and Gov. JB Pritzker at 7%.

The poll showed that Vice President JD Vance is the favorite among Republicans to win the nomination, with 42%, which is 22 points ahead of second place: Donald Trump Jr.

Courtesy, The Michigan Star

A 40dB. survey reveals deep pessimism about the planet’s future and sharp divisions over military spending

Julia Demaree Nikhinson (AP)

Each new opinion poll has confirmed Spaniards’ opposition to U.S. President Donald Trump. The latest survey by 40dB. for the April barometer of EL PAÍS and the Cadena SER radio network delivered a striking result: respondents viewed Donald Trump as the greatest threat to global peace, slightly ahead of Russian President Vladimir Putin, with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in third place.

The research also revealed a profound pessimism about the planet’s future — fewer than 10% expect it to become more prosperous and stable. Spaniards were also almost evenly split, largely along ideological lines, over whether defense spending should increase. All internal survey data can be downloaded here.

When respondents were asked which leaders most endanger global peace, 81% pointed to Trump, compared with 79.3% who cited Putin and 71.2% who named Netanyahu. The rest of the figures suggested by 40dB. rank further behind: Iran’s new supreme leader, Mojtaba Khamenei (62.9%); North Korea’s Kim Jong‑Un (62.25%); and, at a greater distance, the head of state of the other global superpower, China’s Xi Jinping, at 49.3%.

While the greatest hostility toward Trump was found among left-wing voters, even supporters of Spain’s conservative Popular Party (PP) were not particularly favorable toward him. Voters of the PP — the leading opposition party in Spain — identified Putin as the greatest threat (80%), but only slightly ahead of Trump (71.3%). Only among supporters of the far-right Vox was there any sign of sympathy for Trump, with his perceived level of threat falling to 36.5%. This divergence between the electorates of the two right‑wing parties was also evident in views of Netanyahu: 60% of PP voters saw him as a threat to peace, compared with just 24% of Vox voters.

Previous studies had already shown that the public overwhelmingly opposed the start of the war in Iran. Now, weeks into the conflict, there has been no increase in support for continuing the offensive until the Iranian regime is overthrown. The majority of respondents — 56% — rejected that option, a view shared across all political preferences, with the exception of Vox voters. Much larger majorities expressed support for a ceasefire in the Palestinian conflict, for pursuing a negotiated solution to Venezuela’s political crisis, and for maintaining international aid to Ukraine.

The opinion poll also confirmed that international news has become a central part of Spaniards’ information diet: two out of three said they follow it. But the data revealed a striking gap by age and gender. Between the oldest and youngest respondents, there was nearly a 20‑point difference, with older people far more likely to keep up with global events. A similar divide separated men and women, with men paying much closer attention to international news.

The turbulent global situation has cast a thick veil of fatalism over the population. The numbers were stark: nearly 70% described themselves as pessimistic about the future; around half expected it to be violent, authoritarian, and unequal, while fewer than 10% foresaw any improvement. The possibility of democratic backsliding in the U.S. and the European Union was seen as plausible by 59% in the first case and 54% in the second.

Two out of three respondents — or even more, depending on the scenario — believed the United States was likely to embark on new military ventures, including in Greenland and Cuba, and that the conflict in the Middle East would trigger a global economic crisis. Half considered a world‑scale war possible. Fear that Putin might invade an EU country fell to 39%.

There was broad consensus around defending Spain’s economic, territorial, and energy sovereignty, as well as upholding international law — positions supported by more than 75% of those surveyed by 40dB. More than half would favor the creation of a European army. By contrast, over 50% oppose Spain providing military support to the United States in its campaign against Iran or prioritizing its relationship with Washington. On this point, PP voters were divided, while Vox supporters stood out for their pro‑U.S. stance.

There was broad agreement across voter groups on the hypothetical deployment of Spanish troops to conflict zones, with most voters in every electorate opposing the idea.

Another issue where respondents were split down clear ideological lines was the question of increasing military spending. Some 46.3% were in favor and 45.3% against. On the right, the overwhelming majority supported the idea, while the left was broadly opposed, though less sharply among voters of the Spanish Socialist Party (PSOE). Views were even clearer regarding a hypothetical return to mandatory military service: only Vox voters would support it.

Despite what might be expected, there was little disagreement over NATO. Nearly two out of three respondents favor remaining in the Alliance.

The survey closed with a final question: Would you be willing to take personal risks to defend democracy in Spain? Half said yes and 36% said no, with no major differences across the political spectrum.

Courtesy of EL PAÍS, English Language Edition

It has been 2 thousand years since the invocation of the Son of God, here on Earth, and yet still there are those whom deny the truth of the power of God.

It is the time of the great remembrance, and we the Peace do remember only that which confirms our God, here on Earth.

Political legitimacy is the acceptance and authorization of a government’s authority to rule, transforming power into voluntary compliance rather than coercion. It signifies that citizens grant their government the right to make binding decisions and govern on their behalf. A system that lacks legitimacy, no matter how powerful its tools, cannot endure and will ultimately face internal decline.

The issue of legitimacy in contemporary political thought is largely linked to the will and consent of the people. It is believed that any system that has the support of the majority is inherently legitimate. However, this notion is not fully consistent with the fundamental philosophy of Islam, because Islam does not link legitimacy solely to human will or consent, but rather defines it within the framework of divine standards.

In the Islamic concept, sovereignty is the exclusive right of Almighty Allah and human is responsible for implementing this sovereignty. Here, politics is not a game of gaining power, but rather the fulfillment of a trust. When legitimacy is limited to the demands of the people, right and wrong become the taste of the majority, while the majority is not always the guarantor of truth. History shows that the majority often makes decisions under the influence of emotions, propaganda, and short-term interests, which leads the system towards moral deviation.

In contrast, the divine standard is fixed, clear, and above human inclinations. This standard is based on justice, piety, trustworthiness, and responsibility, and is not subject to the limited intellect and changing desires of human being. When a system derives its laws from the principles of Sharia, it does not merely seek to maintain order, but also provides a profound intellectual framework for the reformation of human and the balance of society. So, legitimacy is not only a license to acquire power, but also an obligation to enforce the law.

If a system enjoys widespread support from the people but is in conflict with the explicit principles of the Islamic Sharia, this support cannot give it real legitimacy. The consent of the people might give a system popularity, but legitimacy is meaningful only when that popularity is under the shadow of divine standards. Popularity is a variable mode, which might change due to circumstances, propaganda, and economic conditions, but legitimacy is a constant principle that draws the line between right and wrong.

The will of the people is still important in Islamic politics, as they play key and practical role in the structure of the system, the selection of the leader, and the management of affairs. Such will shifts the system from imposition to participation and gives it stability and legitimacy, but this role has its limits. In the Islamic concept, principles come from the source of revelation and are superior to human will; therefore, the will of the people does not have the authority to determine the principles. If this power is given to the people, then truth and justice will be subordinate to the majority and stability will be destroyed. However, within the framework of these fixed principles, the will of the people is active in the field of implementation, management, and selection, meaning that the people determine the form of the system, the method of selecting the leader, and the ways of organizing affairs, but within the same framework, not by creating their own framework.

A system that subordinates itself solely to the demands of the people has the appearance of flexibility and participation, but in practice it soon faces the challenges of instability because the demands of the people are not fixed; emotions – propaganda, economic pressures, and the political atmosphere change these demands every day. What the majority wants today, can reject it tomorrow, and this constant change somehow forces the system to constantly change its course. In this case, the law loses stability, economic decisions become unsustainable, and the social structure faces chaos.

In contrast, a system that is based on fixed principles is clear in direction and stable in identity. This stability means that even if circumstances change, the foundation not broken. In this way, the system neither remains static nor changes without root, but maintains a reasonable balance between stability and evolution. The experience of the contemporary world shows that systems that rely solely on the will of the people, although they claim legitimacy through elections and majority rule, face deep crises in practice. Concentration of power, economic inequality, and moral decline are signs that majority vote alone cannot guarantee justice. When legitimacy originates solely from human will, this will itself becomes subject to pressure, propaganda, and interests, and the result is a system that ostensibly represents the people – but in reality represents limited interests.

In contrast, the Islamic system defines the concept of legitimacy within a balanced framework, both firmly grounded and actively participatory. With this, the divine guidance is considered the principle, the standard that draws the line between right and wrong, justice and injustice, and does not allow man to change these foundations at will. However, at the same time, the will of the people is not left without influence, but is used as a means of implementing, regulating, and implementing these principles.

This combination gives the Islamic system a special character; on the one hand, it is stable, because its foundation does not change; on the other hand, it is popular, because people feel a sense of belonging to it. People adhere to a system that both meets their real needs and does not conflict with their natural and moral values. To this end, will is neither absolute nor ineffective, but rather active under the shadow of principles, and this balance becomes the basic condition for justice and continuity.

Legitimacy finds its true meaning when it is based on the laws of Almighty Allah and the consent of the people is ensured within this framework. If this balance is lost, the system either moves towards tyranny or towards chaos. The Islamic concept solves this problem in a way that both keeps the principles stable and leaves the door open for human participation, so that politics does not remain an instrument of power – but becomes an orderly system of justice and responsibility.

Sayed Sharif

Courtesy of the Kabul Times.