Trump or Kamala: You Are Electing a Nuclear Dictator

Here is Webster’s first definition for “dictator”: “a person granted absolute emergency power.” Second definition: “one holding complete autocratic control: a person with unlimited governmental power.”

Now, consider the president of the United States – not the current one, or a future one. Just any and all presidents since 1945. He or she has “Sole Presidential Authority” to launch a nuclear war that would kill 5 billion of 8 billion people on the planet. In a crisis, the president has 6 minutes to decide whether to launch America’s 1,500 nuclear missiles and obliterate Russia or China, with them retaliating in kind. Russia currently wields 1,500, China 300, with a rapid increase to 500 and probably 1,500. See my earlier article, “72 Minutes to Nuclear Armageddon.”

Whatever president is elected on Nov. 5 will, come Jan. 20 Inauguration Day, be the one with “Sole Presidential Authority.”

Back to dictators. One of the things all dictators have, even if elected, is complete control over the military, of deciding on war and peace. Although Hitler didn’t “win” the position of chancellor, he was appointed by President Hindenberg after the Nazi Party received the most votes in the in the July federal election, 37.3%, and 230 seats in the Reichstag, the most out of 608. Then he made himself dictator and we know the rest. Only he decided on war and peace.

The U.S. Constitution stipulates in Article I, Section 8, Clause 11: “The Congress shall have Power … To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water….” Congress, not the president.

But if a nuclear war starts, the president/dictator has 6 minutes to make a decision. No time for Congress to deliberate the way it did the last time it declared war, in World War II.

That presents another problem. Since then, although the United States has been almost continuously at war, there have been no declarations of war. The most Congress does is enact such things as the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, based on LBJ’s lies, that got us into Vietnam. Or the 2002 Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution that sucked us into the Iraq War debacle.

In these and other cases, Congress essentially washes its hands of the wars they’re effectively declaring. “Don’t blame us for the war going bad,” it lets them say, “we gave the president what he wanted and he blew it. Re-elect us to Congress.”

The problem before us now is all the wars stirred up by the dementia-incompetence of Joe Biden. Just this past week his wife, Dr. Jill, even presided over the first cabinet meeting in almost a year. If a nuclear crisis erupts, will she or Joe decide whether or not to push the Nuclear Button?

Two weeks ago Joe himself presided over a meeting with new British PM Keir Starmer, who pushed for allowing Ukraine to use British missiles to strike further into Russia than currently allowed. Fortunately, Biden demurred.

The problem there is these would be attacks on Russia’s dual-use facilities, which are warehouses or bases for both the conventional weapons used in the Ukraine War, and the nuclear weapons used in World War III. During the Cold War, it was well understood an attack on nuclear weapons or stockpiles was a First Strike in World War III, bringing immediate retaliation. Apparently that remembrance seeped through Joe’s dementia. It’s also odd how Starmer presides over the Labour Party, which used to be the UK’s peace party, but now is more belligerent than the defeated Tories.

In response, Russia is changing its nuclear doctrine. The BBC reported: “Vladimir Putin says Russia would consider an attack from a non-nuclear state that was backed by a nuclear-armed one to be a ‘joint attack,’ in what could be construed as a threat to use nuclear weapons in the war in Ukraine.” The non-nuclear state, of course, is Ukraine, backed heavily by three nuclear powers: the U.S., France and the UK.

I bring all this up because I read two pieces in today’s New York Times. One is an op-ed by Gen. Stanley McChrystal, “Why Kamala Harris Has Won Me Over.” He’s one of those loser generals who disgraced our country with the debacles in Afghanistan and Iraq. Now he’s identified as “the founder of the McChrystal Group, a consulting firm.” Meaning he’s raking in the Big Bucks from the Military-Industrial Complex. Nowhere does he mention nuclear weapons or the next president will be a Nuclear Dictator.

The second is the Times repeating its July 11 attack on Trump, back when Biden was still the tabloid’s favored candidate, “Donald Trump Is Unfit to Lead.” Again, nowhere does it mention nuclear weapons or the next president will be a Nuclear Dictator.

As to the current choice, we know Trump presided over a general peace during his four years. The Democrats and their tabloid backers, such as the New York Times, even threw the Russiagate Hoax at him, preventing him from negotiating new nuclear peace deals with Putin. Along with the Washington Post, the Times even won a Pulitzer Prize for those lies. They cared more about smearing Trump than keeping us from getting nuked. Trump on the campaign hustings, and in the debate with Kamala, keeps warning we’re on the brink of nuclear war.

As to Kamala, she never mentions the risk of nuclear war, at least that I can detect. Although admittedly it would be mentally impossible to listen to all her word salad. But she would inherit the Biden brinkmanship that has brought us closer than ever to nuclear annihilation. The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, founded in 1945 by Albert Einstein and J. Robert Oppenheimer, warned earlier this year:

Today, we once again set the Doomsday Clock at 90 seconds to midnight because humanity continues to face an unprecedented level of danger. Our decision should not be taken as a sign that the international security situation has eased. Instead, leaders and citizens around the world should take this statement as a stark warning and respond urgently, as if today were the most dangerous moment in modern history. Because it may well be.

More recently, on Aug. 29, the Bulletin headlined, “The US presidential candidates are not confronting the nuclear threat that haunts the world.” Perhaps that’s what sparked Trump since then to speak of it more often.

In any case, the election of the next Nuclear Dictator ought to be the main topic debated for the rest of this campaign. I’ll close with the infamous Daisy Ad LBJ used against Goldwater in 1964. Back then, the Republican was considered most likely to blow up the world. Now it’s obviously the Democrat. Trump should update the ad for 2024 and Armageddon Kamala.