Donald Trump Will Not Go To War With North Korea, by Dr. Steven Nur Ahmed

Despite the saber rattling by both the Trump administration and North Korea as of October 30, 2017, neither the Trump administration nor North Korea will start a conventional nor nuclear war. If a nuclear or conventional war does start, it is more likely that it would be triggered either by a human or technical error or caused by someone hacking a military computer to make it appear that one or the other nation has launched a pre-emptive nuclear strike.

I predict that there will not be an intentional hot war with North Korea because neither the United States nor its allies can afford the manpower expenditure. For South Korea, the economic loss would be staggering if they were to engage in a war with North Korea let alone a global war with both China and Russia.

Some experts believe that the Trump administration is on course for war with North Korea. But even though the corporate-owned mainstream media is profiting by fanning war flames to generate public expectation and collective fear that a total war with North Korea is imminent the opposite is, in fact, the case. There will not be a hot war requiring the use of millions of Amerian youth with North Korea nor Russia or China for that matter.

The Trump administration will not go to war with North Korea for several reasons. First, there will be no war with North Korea because it borders China and Russia. Neither Russia nor China will allow the United States to have military bases on their eastern borders. North Korea serves as a buffer for both China and Russia. Both the Russian and Chinese governments know that if the North Korean government is brought down, they would face the same kind U.S. sponsored military buildup on their eastern Asian border that Russia does on its western European border particularly in Ukraine.

Secondly, there will be no hot war with North Korea because if a hot war were to start, it would inevitably cause China and Russia to support North Korea against the United States and its ally South Korea as they did during the United Nations Korean war in the 1950s. In such a case, South Korea would be the big loser. South Korea’s very successful economy and its companies like Samsung, Hyundai, Kia Motors, Daewoo would be destroyed and its population virtually destroyed. Japan, too, would be a loser. It would lose its major technological industries like Sony, Toyota, and hundreds of others. That would end Japan as a global economic power. The only economic winners in such a scenario would be U.S. multinational corporations. But the cascade of negative consequences wouldn’t stop there.

There is yet another inevitable consequence which would ensue if the Trump administration is unwise enough to start a hot war with North Korea. Such a conflict would spread to a very socio-economically unstable Europe because Russia is also part of Europe. Furthermore, it would spread to what is left of West Asia, and eventually to India. Such a global war and the nuclear fallout which would result therefrom would literally bring about the end of human civilization as we have known it. Also, there are social and demographic underpinnings in the United States and both South Korea and Japan which would make a nuclear or global conventional war with North Korea suicidal.

 The United States Does Not Have Sufficient Biotic Potential for Either Global Conventional nor Nuclear War

First, let’s look at some demographic facts.  Let me define bio-potential. Bio-potential is a measure of a group’s relation to all environmental pressures against it. In short, we should ask the question: Is bio-potential greater than, equal to, or less than all environmental pressures against it? The measure of a group’s biotic potential is the first indicator as to whether a nation can afford to go to war. When considering war, there is only one rational choice out of the three possible relations that a group can have with environmental pressures against it. The choice for war would have to be at a time when the biotic potential is greater than the environmental pressures against it.

Along with other resources, wars cost human bodies; nations must pay that cost up front. Prior to monetary costs and industrial infrastructural stability and outputs in the form of war materials, there is the necessity for a nation to have a large healthy youthful population. I have two historical examples to support my claim. All empires that have arisen and fallen over the past 6,000 years were preceded by a population boom. They each had large healthy youthful populations and stable family infrastructures before their expansion. Prior to their rise, they each enjoyed high biotic potential in relation to low environmental resistance to their growth. Let me illustrate another historical example by referencing the Vietnam war.At the height of the Vietnam war, the United States fielded about 500,000 troops in Vietnam. The United States could afford such a human resource expenditure in Vietnam because of the baby boom generation. Between 1946 and 1964 between 65 and 70 million babies were born in the United States.  Within the first 4 years of the baby boom or between 1946 and 1950, 17,637,358 babies were born. Those babies all came of age for the draft by 1968.

My point is that the United States could have put up to and over 4,000,000 troops in Vietnam with no strain on its male human resources at home.  The United States’ industrial and economic power at that time was at its peak. The biotic potential for the United State to engage in global conventional warfare was in surplus more so than at any other time in its history. It will never enjoy such a human resource surplus again. 

A surplus of human resources in the United States does not now exist. Two major reasons for the loss of human surplus in the United States have been the use of birth control contraceptives since 1959 and abortion since 1972. Abortion alone has accounted for a loss of approximately 50,000,000 U.S. would be citizens between 1973 and 2017.  Half of those Boomer echo babies would have been male. The Baby Boom echo was silenced by law.

The Baby Boom generation, the largest and most nurtured youthful and healthy generation in U.S. history, has passed its prime years as has the United States. We should contrast the cohort of baby boomers born between 1946-1950 with those babies born between 1997 and 2000. Between 1946-1950 there were 17, 637, 358 babies born. Assuming half were male, there were about 8, 818, 679 males of age for the draft.  In contrast, there were approximately 15, 840, 678 babies born in the United States between 1997 and 2000. If we assume that half of those babies were male then there are about 7, 920, 339 of those babies who are now of age for military service in the event of a global war. That represents a difference of about 898,340 draft available males. 

Numerically, birth rate data today are misleading because that data suggests a moderately high biotic potential in relation to environmental resistance. However, environmental resistance to biotic potential in the U.S. is actually greater today. The numbers belie an important fact. Health conditions must be analyzed to demonstrate a qualitative difference between the Baby Boom generation and both the Millennial and Generation X generations. Both the millennial and generation X generations are plagued with both poor mental and physical health.

The Pentagon reported that millions of them are physically and mentally unfit for duty. On June 29, 2014, the U.S. Army Recruiting Command’s commanding general at the Pentagon reported that: “7 in 10 Youths Would Fail to Qualify for Military Service … rapidly,” That is 70% percent of youth today that are unfit for military service. The United States is a nation which in 2016 experienced approximately 50,000 opioid overdose deaths many of whom are of those babies born between 1997 and 2000. There are millions of youth addicts in the United States ranging from alcohol, marijuana, cocaine, and opioids. They cannot be rehabilitated; “once an addict always an addict”. Given the Pentagon report, that would reduce the number of available youthful males from 7, 920, 339 available men to about 2, 376, 101. That number would no doubt be less because history proves that the upper classes will always find ways to prevent their sons from going to war.

The indisputable fact is that the United States does not have the human resource capacity to wage a global nuclear or conventional war with North Korea let alone with both Russia and China. But there are other demographic reasons for that as well.

Fertility rates are also an indicator of a nation’s biotic potential to wage global war. Neither the United States nor any of its allies have a fertility rate at what the U.S. Census Bureau defines as the population replacement level of 2.1 babies per woman between the age of 15 and 45. The United States’ fertility rate as of 2016 was 1.8, South Korea’s fertility rate is 1.2, Japan’s fertility rate is 1.4 and North Korea’s fertility rate is estimated to have been .4% in 2009.  None of those nations have the biotic potential for a conventional or nuclear war with North Korea, China, and Russia. Both South Korea and Japan would be destroyed as  nations were a war to start.Given their low fertility rates there would be no possibility for those two nations to kick-start their economies again without a mass influx of immigrants who wouldn’t speak the Korean and Japanese languages and loans. That would cause mass cultural fragmentation in their respective nations and national debt. The United States would lose at least 2,000,000 men and women; that would be about the total manpower called up to serve in the armed forces in the event of global war. And in such a scenario, California and Hawaii would be lost to nuclear attacks costing the lives of millions of American citizens on the west coast of the United States.  

That would be too significant a loss of human resources for the United States and would result in a staggering monetary cost compounded by a national debt already at 20 trillion dollars. It would seal the end of the United States as a global power and a coherent nation. The United States would then have to withdraw its military bases from abroad to curtail civil chaos at home. For that reason, a decision by the Trump administration to move for a hot war with North Korea would be totally irrational. The only rational option for the Trump administration is political negotiation and peace. 

Russian leadership knows that another global war would lead to their destruction as a nation. Russia learned that lesson twice during World War I and II. For that reason, Russia will not start a war with the United States nor any other nation. It lost over 27 million people in World War II and it has yet to recover its greatly diminished biotic potential. Its fertility rate is now about 1.6 along with China which is riding on the downward tail end of a youthful population. Furthermore with a growing elderly population in China and the need to house and feed many more elderly citizens a war would be senseless. Therefore, China will not start a war with any nation either. But both Russia and China can finish a war with their nuclear arsenals despite the fact that it would spell their doom.

Not one of the nations I have mentioned can afford a war except for North Korea. Would engaging in a war with the United States and its allies be a rational decision for North Korea? Relatively speaking, yes, it would be a rational decision for them. Why? Because North Korea has nothing to lose and they know that a war would reshuffle the global power playing deck.

North Korea has had very little socio-economic pleasure for its people in over 100 years dating back to the Japanese invasion of their homeland in 1910 until 1945. Remember also that North Korea was bombed by the United States literally into the dirt 64 years ago during the Korean War. That is one reason North Korea will not negotiate with the Trump administration because they have nothing to lose. They know that they have the power to end it all. That makes North Korea more powerful than any other side in the present contest because the only long and short-term losers will be the United States and its allies because they have more to lose. And, if Russia and China engage in a global war on the side of North Korea, they would be losers as well because they too have more to lose.

 The Power Elite Want Wealth, Power, and Pleasure

One last indicator that supports my thesis that the Trump administration will not attack North Korea unless there is an accident is that the power elite enjoy pleasure. Currently, the United States and France are re-instituting direct physical colonial rule over west African nations. The U.S. and France or more accurately the global financial institutions which control both the U.S. and France are competing with China in Africa. Their interests in Africa is long term and for that reason gives their hand away regarding the contest with North Korea. War for global financial institutions is an anathema. 

Currently, under the U.S. African Command, the United States has hundreds of military bases throughout Africa. Military strikes are being carried out daily throughout Africa. Their targets are organizations which are challenging national debt slavery and corrupt neo-colonial plantation structures set up by Western European nations. This has occurred in the wake of African independence movements beginning after World War II.

Donald Trump in a recent speech bragged that his friends were getting rich in Africa and thanked West African leaders for making that possible. The major corporate powers do not want war with North Korea for that reason. It would weaken and possibly end their efforts to control resources in Africa, make money, enjoy their power, and perpetuate debt slavery in Africa.

A Tried and Failed Military Strategy

One last point. The military strategy which failed in Vietnam is to hire mercenaries, command the militaries of other governments with U.S. officers and by financially rewarding corrupt African leaders. The point is to allow foreign mercenaries to absorb the biotic, social, and cultural meltdowns. After all, most African nations have tremendous bio-potential for war in the form of the highest fertility rates in the world. However, it is a sign of American weakness not of strength. The flaw in that kind of reasoning is simple and proven historically. Most of the indigenous people hate the United States. Their ranks are filled with spies for the opposition and every move made by U.S. troops will be signaled in advance to opposition forces.The Roman Empire applied the same tactics when its biotic potential to wage war and man fortifications throughout its empire was depleted. Hadrian built a wall; it didn’t work. The Caesars hired mercenaries; it didn’t work. Near the end of the Western Rome Empire, one of their trained mercenaries, the Visigoth Alaric, sacked Rome in 410 A.D. With one hit, it was over. After that, the western Roman Empire was plucked like a fat chicken.

The United States, France, England, and Israel are all too willing to supply African governments with the military arms and equipment they need to keep them in chaos. And if African mercenaries or government troops fight to further the purpose of western multinational corporate and financial institutions the western European nations will reward them. But Africa is a big continent capable of swallowing up whole empires.

“Make America Great Again”

The Western Euro-American Empires are past their fighting prime and their currencies are crumbling fast. Like an old prize-fighter wearied and tattered but in a state of mental denial regarding his biotic potential to fight another round and imagining a time when everything worked for him; when he got it right more times than not. He yet enters the ring one more time ‘to be great again’ thinking in terms like Donald Trump’s slogan “Let’s Make America Great AGAIN.”

Implicit in that slogan, though, is the unadulterated truth. The truth is that he cannot fight another round let alone another fight; the U.S. empire is over. The sad fact is that everybody knows it but most U.S. citizens.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Corporate Coup d’Etat of U.S. and Its Casualties, by Dr. Steven Nur Ahmed

Corporate Coup d'etat

The movement of capital in the form of manufacturing jobs and cash out of the United States to foreign countries, primarily to Asia, has lowered the quality of life for all blue collar workers and dimed the future prospects for college students in the United States. It is rapidly closing the door to economic opportunity for black people in particular.

New trade agreements such as NAFTA, CAFTA, and PNTR between at least 20 nations and the United States within the last 20 years have resulted in the loss of millions of jobs to foreign nations because U.S. blue collar workers cannot compete with workers from countries willing to work for .60 cents per hour.

Now, another trade agreement called the Trans Pacific Trade Agreement or TPP threatens to usher in not only the loss of even more blue collar jobs, but even more highly skilled white collar professional and engineering jobs as well by outsourcing to Asian nations.

Urban history in the 20th and 21st centuries is replete with patterns of economic destabilization. Let me give to you an example of what the relocation of blue collar jobs has done to black workers who were dependent upon manufacturing jobs in one particular city.

Corporate coup d'etat 2

Let’s look at the city of Oakland, California between 1950 to the present. It can serve as a microcosm of what is happening and will happen to United States workers in general and to black people in particular.

In the 1940s through the 1970s, Oakland was a highly concentrated industrial city. To give you an example I will name some companies which were situated in close proximity to one another between 81St, 98th, and 105th Avenues in Oakland in the 1960s. First, there was Peter Paul Almond Joy Candy Company, 2) Sunshine Biscuit Company, 3) Mother’s Cookies Company, 3) Pepsi Cola Company, 4) Laura Scuuders Potato Chip Company, 5) Gerber’s Baby Food Company, 6) Granny Goose Potato Chip Company, 7) Nabisco Company, 8) General Mills Company, and 9) General Motors Company. These companies were central to the very robust Oakland economy. They provided not only jobs and stabilized families but they also provided a strong tax base for the city.

Each of those companies ran 3 shifts or 24 hour daily work shifts except Saturdays and Sundays. They employed thousands of unionized workers. The money from those companies not only flowed in the form of family income but also filtered down to Oakland public schools and recreational facilities for children. Those were just a handful of companies in the city of Oakland at that time. There were hundreds more like them each of which added value to a dynamic city economy. However, company location policies began to change in the 1970s.

Each of those companies slowly pulled out of Oakland over a span of 20 years. The industrial companies pulled out after over 100,000 white people fled Oakland between 1950 and 1960 in response to the influx of Black people. White flight cost the city of Oakland its middle and upper middle class tax base.

The military bases also slowly pulled out of Oakland after the end of the Vietnam War. The closure of military bases also cost the city of Oakland millions of dollars in annual revenue. Black people had been attracted to those jobs and had migrated from the southern States to Oakland seeking to economically benefit from factory and civilian military jobs in the city of Oakland. But in scarcely 25 years or one generation the original intent of black people and the economic hope which motivated them faded before their very eyes.

During that time period and up to 1975, the city of Oakland reached its peak economically. But the pattern then was as clear as it is today. The owners of private industry then did not want to give jobs to, work with, nor be around black people any less than today.

The economic effect on black people and Latinos because of the loss of such a high concentration of blue collar and civilian military jobs is correlated with the disintegration of public quality of life because of a: 1.  shrinking tax base and the looting of public school budgets by some public school administrators in the city during and after the exodus of capital, 2.) an increase in black and Latino incarceration rates due to get tough on crime policies in the 1970s and the proliferation of narcotics, methamphetamine, and cocaine, 3.) an increase in AFDC and Food Stamp dependence which now stands at over 47 million Americans, 4.) The implosion of middle class shopping centers which is evidence of shrinking middle class incomes. That is best exemplified by the Eastmont Mall in East Oakland which was opened in 1970, 5.) a phenomenal increase in single parent female headed household far above that of two parent households after 1970, and 6.) a disproportionate rise in the black abortion rate after 1975.

Take what I have described and apply it to your city. Whether you are in Compton, Detroit, Baltimore, or Pittsburg you will see the same pattern; a loss of manufacturing jobs and a steep decline in the quality of life for most people and in particular for black people living there. Black people are always the first to lose economic footing.

Now we are confronted with a new economic challenge. It is called TPP or the Tran Pacific Partnership Trade Agreement. Its predecessor, NAFTA, became law in 1994. NAFTA has resulted in the loss of millions of jobs across the United States. It was signed into law by then democratic president Clinton. TPP will cost Americans more jobs lost to Asian nations and a loss of Federal legal jurisdiction over multinational corporations. Under TPP, foriegn corporations would be given the status of ‘legal citizen’ of the United States and thus have the right to sue U.S. citizens and governments if a law interfers with their profits. Another democratic president, Obama, wants to sign TPP into law. The TPP agreement has a covert purpose; it is designed to serve a particular purpose.

The TPP agreement like NAFTA will only increase the power and wealth of multinational corporations over us and to further diminish the leverage of unionized labor. It will also reduce our individual and collective political leverage as voters. But even more is in store for us if TPP is signed into law.

As Asian purchasing and consumption power increases, U.S. citizens will have correspondingly less economic and political leverage against the global multi-corporate power structure. That is so because over time multi-corporate revenue streams will become less and less dependent upon U.S. consumers. That is what “race to the bottom” means.

For example, in Detroit, public contracts were given to companies connected with corrupt politicians. As a consequence water costs increased in the city of Detroit after the city signed contracts with companies giving them the power to manipulate the price for water. That in turn has lead to water cutoffs to the poor in the city of Detroit.

Another example is California. In California, under Pete Wilson and Gray Davis, public energy controls were modified under the Electric Utility Industry Restructuring Act, 1996.  In 2000, Companies like Enron were then able to increase the price for energy by manipulating the price of energy thereby causing energy bills to triple overnight. The shortage of energy caused rolling energy black outs throughout the State to begin in 2001. . In both cases, elderly low income people on fixed incomes and low income persons suffered the most.

Running parallel to the TPP effort is the slow but steady privatization of local, state, and federal government. Right now it is best exemplified by the privatization of public schools and public utilities. For example, students attending public universities are more dependent on commercial bank loans because of Government cutbacks in grants such as the Pell Grant. Such cuts have resulted in a national student loan debt of over 1 trillion dollars. It is not that private corporations want to own the infrastructure of state universities. Rather, they prefer to allow taxpayers to pay the costs for maintaining university infrastructures; what they want to own, by loan contracts, are the students.

Here is why. Corporate and financial globalization has made those same institutions less dependent upon educated American professionals as is the case with blue collar and professional workers because they have a global pool of educated professionals to draw from and at a cheaper cost to them.

American college graduates must now compete with an international population for professional jobs in the United States. Thus, there is no longer a national and private sector need for large numbers of American students to fill job positions, and so University systems need not cater to students who are financially unable to pay for their education. All of these efforts turn on a single unstated premise: the private sector can do it more efficiently and cheaper than government.

The argument by the proponents of that premise is that since government has a 17 trillion dollar deficit, privatization will help reduce costs for running government. But that argument is not necessarily true. Take the postal service for example. The costs for postal services have been increasing under public control and it will increase under private control at an even faster rate. Furthermore, government will continue to run on a deficit for two basic reasons. First, a federal deficit will remain because the national tax revenue to the federal government will decrease as income levels decrease and secondly, because public debt is the only way to justify an increase in the national debt ceiling which in turn triggers federal loans from the Federal Reserve Bank which generates profits for private banks.

So, keep an eye on what happens to the U.S. Postal Service; it is the canary in the coal mine. Thousands of black people hold operative jobs for the U.S. Post Office. If the U.S. Postal Service is privatized, then thousands of black Americans will lose their operative jobs due to robotic technology. Operative jobs are one of the leading fields of employment for black people. People and their families dependent on those kinds of jobs will sink into a state of perpetual poverty. Black life will become even more sub-standard than it is now.

Statistically for instance, 72% of black people with college degrees are employed by a form of government and generally about 21% of all black workers are employed in local, state, and federal governments. If governmental departments are contracted out to private companies at the local, state, and federal levels, then black people will be the major economic losers.

Black Americans and their families will sink into perpetual poverty. Black life will become even more sub-standard than it is now. On the other hand, white youth with college degrees will get hired in the private sector. That is how corporate government plans to co-opt lower class but college educated white people with the aim to neutralize any movement toward unity of poor whites and blacks.

The closure of military bases in the 1980s and 1990s is yet another example of how the exodus of capital, in this case government capital, adversely affected black people. Such base closures ought to be a red flag on the field for all of us to see. In the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Area, thousands of black people and their families were the major losers when the Army and Navy bases closed.  That is because the Federal Government was the single largest employer of black people in the San Francisco-Oakland bay area. Many of those military installations were moved to other states so that jobs could be given to college educated white people after they were taken from under educated black workers.

Now, at this moment in our history, we should know that it doesn’t matter whether the president of the United States is Democrat or Republican; whether the president is white, black, male or female. Race and political party do not matter at the highest offices of government because the government which rules is multi-corporate and fascist in nature; it is not a democratic republic.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Welcome to Earth Colony: WE, THE PEOPLE, ARE IN CHARGE!

 

war2

Though the moral argument for a ‘just war’ has its roots in older Indian texts; the Western world traces the theory to St. Augustine of Hippo, St. Thomas Aquinas, and later schools of thought in Europe.  The idea is based upon ‘proportionate justice’.  Proportionate justice in turn is based upon the assumption that rewards and punishments can be meted out rationally and thus fairly.

The theory of just war belies yet another assumption.  That assumption is that moral people can determine whether or not an act of military aggression is justified based upon facts and if warranted how much aggression should be acted out on an aggressor.

They also argued that a war is unjust and illegitimate if it is rationalized on the grounds of ‘national self-interests’, ‘individual interests’ or if the people needed to support the war do not want war.  Here, they clearly assumed that a democratic scale of measure would be used to make decisions on war and peace.

One problem the American people face is that the plutocrats who have amassed control of Federal and State governments do not act upon moral grounds unless the consequences of doing so will benefit them.  We are left with this fact.  Plutocrats generally are amoral persons and some of them are evil.  Therefore, theological or philosophical moral arguments against a military strike on Syria would not be persuasive to them.

Yet another problem faced by the American people is the problem of ‘legality’.  One might think that even in the absence of theology and or philosophy at least there can be a consensus on rules or law.  But plutocrats bend, change, and ignore laws so that no matter what the circumstance their purposes are served.

The Constitution vests the American people with the power to declare war and to fund war.  Limited wars must also be approved by Congress.  Neither the President nor the Supreme Court has inherent war power.  That power is solely vested in the People who at the end of the day fight the wars and shed blood.  Nevertheless, the facts of history compel us to be on notice.

5,000 years of human history afford us not only a clear understanding about the nature of war and the kinds of persons who wage it but of the reasons for which war is waged.  War is waged to dominate, control, exploit, and profiteer off more peaceful folk and their resources.  Wars waged for those purposes are not waged on principles of legality.  On the contrary, they are waged outside of civilized law unless those laws benefit those whose intent is to plunder the wealth of others.

Therefore, arguments on the legality of a strike against Syria would not be persuasive to those who intend to wage war.  They push aside all rules of evidence that stand in their way.  For example,

One method used by the plutocrats is the ‘false-flag’ method. It is analogous to a police officer planting a gun on an innocent person or claiming that he or she saw a gun to justify either arresting or killing that innocent person.

Hitler used a false-flag to trigger the invasion of Poland.  Sixty million (60) dead later the Nuremberg War Crimes Hearing had to sort out and weigh the evil involved in World War 2.

Lyndon Johnson used a false-flag to arouse public sentiment for bombing North Vietnam.  Thirty five years later and over 50,000 dead Robert McNamara confessed that it was an unjust war. See the documentary: ‘The Fog of War’.

George Bush used a false-flag to argue that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and to arouse the American people to bomb and invade Iraq.  Now, over 50,000 casualties and 1.5 trillion dollars later it is generally acknowledged that the allegations against Iraq were false. Now, it is President Barak Obama.

The plutocrats in a faceoff with the American people subscribe to a Darwinian world view.  They are persuaded that conflict is a universal law of nature and that the stronger necessarily dominate the weaker in nature and so, too, in politics.  Theirs is an amoral theory of justice in an amoral universe, but they are rational.  It is the zero sum game; it is the game of ‘all or nothing’ they play.  So, what argument must be used by the American people to persuade them to stand down?

Only a utilitarian argument will persuade them. The American people must make a utilitarian argument to the plutocrats who have amassed control over the White House and much of Congress.  That argument to them must be that the cost of them acting against the will of the American people will immeasurably outweigh what they augur their gains or benefits to be from war with Syria.  They must be persuaded to understand that what Congress now knows is that a military strike against Syria is against the will of the people. They must be persuaded that torrents of rage will rain down on Congress and the lobbyist they are financially beholden to if the will of the people is ignored and that the rage will be unbearable.

Neither the President nor the Supreme Court has war power.  War power is solely vested in the People of the United States who at the end of the day are those who fight the wars and suffer loss of blood.  We the People must make it categorically and unequivocally clear to all that we, the People, are in charge of this government.

 

 

 

Welcome to Earth Colony: THE BIG LIE, by Dr. Steven Nur Ahmed

dead_hadji_91_829small

The Constitution is clear on the power to declare war.  Only Congress can declare war[1] and only Congress can approve funding for war. The Constitution and Federal statutes are also clear on the definition of inherent executive power to use military force against foreign nations without congressional approval if the security of the United States is threatened or it is under imminent attack.[2]

Most United States Congressional legislators are trained to be lawyers.  If they are not trained to be lawyers then at least they are knowledgeable of the United States Constitution and Federal Statutes, particularly the Federal Rules of Evidence.

Since the discovery that some form of sarin gas was used in Syria which resulted in the deaths of several hundred persons, a debate has evolved between Congress and President Barak Obama.  It is a debate on War Power.

The issue presented to the public is whether or not Congress (the People of the United States) should be involved in the decision making process to determine whether or not The People of the United States should commit to bomb the sovereign nation of Syria as ‘punishment’ for the use of sarin gas on its own people.

There are two over arching issues, however. One is whether or not Syria is legally subject to the Executive Branch of the United States Government? No reasonable person would make the argument that it is because Syria is not subject to the Executive Branch of the United States Government and has not posed a threat to U.S. national security.  For that reason alone President Barak Obama does not have the legal nor moral authority to bomb Syria.

The second issue is whether or not the Government of Syria knowingly, purposely, recklessly, or negligently used sarin gas to kill its citizens?  Now we must ask: what evidence has been proffered by the President to U.S. citizens?

The Obama administration has used straw man arguments and has proffered at most circumstantial evidence that the Syrian Government used sarin gas on its people.  It has proffered satellite data of phone calls near the scene of sarin gas use and satellite data of the use of artillery near the scene of sarin gas use.  And notice, the use of that presumed evidence is peppered by Secretary of State John Kerry with emotive terminology to manipulate the American People emotionally.

However, satellite data on phone calls and artillery use in the area where the gas was used can be simulated by computer programs as it is done in war games for training purposes. Therefore, such evidence cannot be rationally authenticated and thus cannot be used to justify the bombing of a sovereign nation.

If one accepts as credible United Nations scientists that sarin gas was used and that people actually died then the question now is: who used the sarin gas?  The fact is that there is no direct evidence which conclusively proves who used the sarin gas.

If we further assume that Bashar Assad and the U.S., Israeli, and Saudi rebel leaders are rational persons then what a rational Congress ought to ask is: who would benefit by the use of sarin gas on Syrian people?  Certainly, Bashar Assad would not benefit.  He would lose both Russian and Chinese support as well as his government.  Therefore, he didn’t use the sarin gas. That leaves the rebels.

The rebels would gain from the use of sarin gas because it would enlist the overt might of the U.S. military to destroy the Syrian government. The rebels would then get Syria to ghettoize.  The Israelis would gain because Israel would then be able to undermine Hezbullah in Lebanon and that would allow Israel to take Lebanon’s southern territories to ghettoize, again.  The Saudis would gain because they would feel that greater military pressure would be put on Iran, a nation they want to ghettoize.  And of course, U.S. corporations would gain because they could get contracts to exploit resources and rebuild Syria, again.  Therefore, the rebels and their supporters used the sarin gas.

President Obama drew a Red Line.  Now he should be hoping that Congress gives him a way to back down and to save face by saying no to him because if he bombs Syria there will be terrible repercussions as far away as the Korean peninsula.  Korea is China’s trump card.  Expect South Korea to be under extreme military pressure from North Korea if Syria is bombed.  Russia will up support for Syria,too. President Obama is in a mess.  He should step out of it and clean his shoes.

 

 

 

 



[1] Article 1, Section 8, Clause 11

[2] Article 2, section 2; and Article 2, section 2, clause 1; Stat. 838 (1941); 56 Stat 176 (1942), et al