Guys remember that this website does not have a budget and it depends on grants and donations to survive. If you have enjoyed all the articles published so far, you can donate and assist us in providing you with some more great contents, or in the alternative, you can advise us where we can get some grants that will support our work. Personally, I enjoy my contributions and I could do a lot more with your financial support, funding and grants.                                                                                                          Donate here https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/ademolaadesanya111/ . Thanks                                                                              Contact Us : info@ademolaadesanya.at                                                                                                                                              WhatsApp / Direct : +4366493216108  

DONATE !

It is not by force, and although neither legaly enforceable nor legally binding, however donations as financial compensation for all of the articles that have been published on this website, are possible, if anyone has actually benefitted from any of them, even though the articles have been written “unsolicited” and without “prior requests”.  The concept is called “Moral obligation to compensate” in law, where a non-contractual relationship between two individuals resulted into one of the parties producing something that the other party has benefitted from even though that party did not request for it.                                                                                                                                                          Here is how Grok A4 defines “Moral obligation to financially compensate” The concept of a "moral obligation to compensate someone financially" refers to a situation where an individual or entity feels a duty, based on ethical or moral principles, to provide financial restitution or support to another person, even if there is no legal requirement to do so. This obligation stems from a sense of fairness, responsibility, or empathy rather than a legally enforceable mandate.                                                                                                                                              Key Aspects:                                                                                                                                                                                                          Moral vs. Legal Obligation:                                                                                                                                                                                    A legal obligation to compensate arises from laws, contracts, or court rulings (e.g., paying damages for negligence or breach of contract).      A moral obligation is not legally binding but is driven by conscience, societal norms, or personal values. For example, someone might feel morally obligated to compensate a neighbor for accidentally damaging their property, even if no legal claim exists.                                          For over 16 years, I made hundreds of “unsolicited” contributions in tweets on Twitter from which many people benefited a lot from my tweets, and I did not get a dime. This website is different, because I plan to make a living here and I consider this website a job from which I can make a livelihood. Thus, if any one has benefitted from any of the articles published “unsolicited”  on this website, it is a moral obligation for you to donate

      NEW UPDATES AND ISSUES YET TO BE COMPLETED

                                               

                                                   Miscellaneous and jokes!!  November 17

-1- What's your take?  https://x.com/salvation_f/status/1989053385795072138?s=20

-2- https://x.com/paranormal_2ch/status/1987056423348674773?s=20  It's always like that on either side of the fence, unti it opens

-3- Christianity too, has defects  https://x.com/mariolexxx/status/1983288625904361898

-4- Elephants at the waterside https://x.com/WildfriendsUG/status/1989245746726801796?s=20

-5- The audacity of this warthog https://www.instagram.com/reel/DRFM8EsCCk6/?igsh=MW14bjQzazRob28z 

-6- Practice consistency is required for the trumpet and every musical instrument https://www.instagram.com/reel/DL5sBj3gh9P/?igsh=MXB5ajRxNjdlOGN5MA== 

-7- https://vm.tiktok.com/ZNdKmDNHw/ 

-8- Ha,ha,ha Probably AI!  https://www.instagram.com/reel/DPI5v2lD13Z/?igsh=MW85N2x3dmhpZTJwMA== 

-9- https://www.instagram.com/reel/DNjoOlfvhZE/?igsh=azhsMHpmbjI5N2pv 

-10- https://www.instagram.com/reel/DPFit_iEs9X/?igsh=MWE0ZTZqM25tcXkydQ==

-11- AI stuff but very funny https://www.instagram.com/reel/DQdeYiDjqXP/?igsh=aDl6YXFteG51Zzhk 

-12- Did you see that? Which animal is that judging from the speed (with no brakes)? Legend has it that, that particular animal is still flying in space and orbit since then and until today! It looks like the Cheetah with that speed! When in full flight, Cheetahs have no brakes! And if they miss their target, they will launch into space and flying until the end of time! The late Comedian Richard Pryor got it right about Cheetahs! https://x.com/AMAZlNGNATURE/status/1984643829778014270?t=fXWo_im6Qv8TUseItYdHbQ&s=08 

-13- https://x.com/ImtiazMadmood/status/1980514388886057368                                                                                                                    Australia created the first bionic eye that restores vision in blind people. This  is Progress  !!!

-14- Jealousy and envy never did me any good my entire life, and I will not start now with these 2 girls. I think they are both 13 or 14. One is a Pilot

https://www.instagram.com/pilote.romy/  

https://www.instagram.com/stories/highlights/18004978247725682/

https://www.instagram.com/p/DM12zcSsqFQ/

And the other girl is Journalist https://www.instagram.com/p/DRIEgH1jQEs/                                                                                                        When you are only 13 or 14 and you get your "Dream" job, and both of these girls are having lots of fun ha,ha,ha. The Journalist is very happy interviewing celebrities, and the Pilot loves to fly. It's good! And lots of fun!

Website update,  November 11  ++  ++   +++++     +++++++++++++++++++++++=

Islam in the US, and the expected predictable decision of the US Supreme Court (REWORDED, NOVEMBER 3, 2025) Constitutional challenges, an intersection between Political Science (Democracy and Institutions)  and Law (Constitutional Law).

Disaggregation analysis of the joint efforts by  U.S Senator Tommy Tuberville and US House Rep Member Chip Roy to ban Sharia application anywhere in the US.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QTZasqgtAkI Here, Federal Senator Tommy Tuberville has called for the ban of Sharia Law in the US.  And also here https://fine.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=100, US  Senator Tuberville “Washington, DC: Congressman Randy Fine (FL-06) announced that Senator Tommy Tuberville (R-AL) has introduced the Senate companion to Congressman Fine’s No Sharia Act, legislation prohibiting the application of Sharia law anywhere in the United States. Congressman Keith Self (TX-03), is co-leading the bill on the House side with Congressman Fine”

Tuberville goes "Sharia Law is fundamentally anti-American and has no place in our country,” said Senator Tuberville. “If you want to peacefully practice your religion, you have every right to do so under the Constitution. But if you want to come to the United States and advocate for the practice of Sharia Law over U.S. law, you should not be here. We do not want people who chant ‘death to America’ residing in our communities and endangering our families. We must protect American values, not apologize for them. I applaud my House colleagues for joining me in this effort to preserve our Constitutional and God-given rights."

The Bill Co-Sponsor Self goes  “Sharia—a radical ideology that wages war on our Constitution, threatening our freedoms and way of life—has no place in America,” said Congressman Self. “From Muslim-only enclaves in Texas to No-Go Zones in Michigan, Sharia’s influence is spreading unchecked. Enough is enough—it stops now! We cannot let an ideology that undermines the rule of law and the rights of women and children conquer America, as it has in the UK and France. I’m proud to co-lead the introduction of the No Sharia Act with Congressman Randy Fine, and grateful for Senator Tommy Tuberville’s leadership on the companion version in the Senate. This crucial legislation bars U.S. courts from enforcing Sharia or any foreign system that violates our constitutional rights, protecting America’s legal and cultural foundation. Sharia is completely incompatible with Western civilization and cannot be allowed to exist in America.” https://x.com/SarahAllisonFl/status/1989547671749878219?s=20 

 Finally, the Bill main sponsor Fine said that “Sharia law has no place in the United States of America,” said Congressman Fine. “We’ve seen what has happened in the UK and across Europe with the spread of sharia, and it is not an exaggeration to say it is coming here next. Well, we are not going to let that happen. This is America. We don’t stone women for speaking. We don’t hang people in the streets for the world to watch and celebrate. We don’t force little girls into marriage or mutilate their genitals in the name of religion. Our nation is built on freedom, equality, and the rule of law, and our Western values are incompatible with sharia. I am grateful to Senator Tuberville for his leadership and for standing with me. Along with Congressman Self and the fourteen other members of the House who have co-sponsored this critical legislation, we are defending the Constitution and American values.” https://x.com/ImtiazMadmood/status/1989166409235255757?s=20

It is required to put these quotes out there as they may be brought back later if what is required is a complete ban on Islam (including Sharia Law) or partial ban of Sharia Law but Islam is not banned, the issue for the US Supreme Court to decide. The issue involves critical “Free Speech” aspect of the Constitution and even if one disagrees with all the elements of Islam, it is free speech (unless it violates certain conditions of free speech)

On his part is House of Rep member Chip Roy's take https://x.com/RepChipRoy/status/1986135165442351294 !

If it is possible to let the cat out of the bag very early in this disaggregation analysis, when its actual place is still 100 kilometers away but let us do it anyway. If these types of arguments above from the Law Makers (Tuberville, Fine and Self) were to be presented to the US Supreme Court requesting for the ban on Sharia, and sure as hell, the US Supreme Court would strike down the law (Act of Congress) banning Sharia Law to be illegal and UnConstitutional. Both Tuberville and Self have not presented any legal arguments (instead but rather, what they have are hysterical dirty rants, ha,ha,ha), and any assertion by Fine is inflamatory because it re-directs the genuine response to the argument with anger and not reason. One needs to be very careful when approaching the Supreme Court, the fact that, the Justices themselves are American citizens, it does not count on how they will rule on any matter, rather, they will bow down and be swayed by superior arguments and it is the more superior argument that will win the case. Anytime a Court delivers what seems to be a bad judgment, it is never the Court’s fault and in the Common Law System as the US that is based upon adversarial process, it is the party with the superior argument that wins.  You be the Judge and determine for yourself if these arguments from the Law Makers will hold any water before the US Supreme Court (when compared to the serious arguments to be presented 100 miles away. Unlike the “Civil Law” (Roman Law) system in most of Europe in which the Judge in a case can intervene and make personal inquiry on an issue in a case and thereby influence the decision, this is not allowed in the “Common Law” system. Political Science analysis to be provided later is about the competition between Sharia Law and already established Core State Powers,.

On a personal note, as the reader would have noticed  at the beginning of the article that, the headline has been reworded from its original topic headline. Initially, it looked like a slam dunk and there was only one way the US Supreme Court could rule on the matter and that is uphold the law and Act of Congress banning Sharia Law. However, on a careful reflection, it has since been discovered that, the issue is very much convoluted legally, the issue involves civil rights, States rights and the supremacy clause of the US Constitution.  Hence, this analysis has been called “Disaggregation”

Meanwhile in Texas, an update on EPIC City is required                                                                https://x.com/SaltyGoat17/status/1971157763284988184                                                                                                                        Sharia Law has been banned in Texas.                                                                                                                                                              As we go further down the analysis into the conclusion, we will examine the effects of this ban of Sharia from Texas on the aggregate with the US Constitution and the decision of the US Supreme Court

While there is no black or white or “acceptable” format to present a convoluted  analysis such as this, however, as far as all the salient points are covered and there is no “omitted variable bias” that can cause or manifest error in the conclusion, it is OK for the analysis not to be organized 100%. https://x.com/SarahAllisonFl/status/1989547671749878219?s=20 

One way to start this analysis is to compare between State and Federal efforts to ban Sharia Law in the US, and the implications in the Courts and the US Supreme Court and the final battle between Congress and the US Supreme Court on the long run. Simply put, the matter will ultimately be decided by the Supreme Court, however, it is unpredictable how the decision of the Supreme Court will go and if it is negative and the Act of Congress on Sharia Law is struck down as illegal and UnConstitutional by the Supreme Court, Congress reserves the right “At Will” with every right reserved, to reinvent, redraft, reword, and re-issue a new Act from the same Act in a different form that effectively circumvents the effects of the ruling of the Supreme Court.  Along the way and a sure thing that breaks the gridlock between the Supreme Court and Congress is a Constitutional Amendment on the matter or a new US Constitution entirely. Inside the new Constitution or Constitutional Amendment, there will be a specific provision that bans Islam and Sharia law in the US.

https://x.com/YossiBenYakar/status/1983950226491678890

Comparative Analysis between the US Federal Constitution and State Constitutions.                                                                                A cursory review of the system of Constitutional Order in the US.                                                                                                                The US operates a 3 tier system of government including Federal, State and Local which is also known as the US Presidential system of government (among its several features) and as distinct from the British Parliamentary system with only 2 tiers of government, federal and Local). There are two sovereigns in the system including the Federal and State Governments, thus, each operates a Constitution, Federal Constitution for the Federal Government and State Constitution for the State Constitution. The two sovereigns are considered to be separate but equal, and with the Federal Constitution being the larger of the sovereigns. The system is a sovereign within a sovereign.

 The smallest of the group is the Local government which is not a sovereign hence without a Constitution but its implementation powers are embedded inside the sovereignty of the State Government and State Constitution. The two Constitutions are the sources of authority that used for the implementation of all the laws in the US, horizontally and vertically within their areas of domain. The US Constitution does not have any vertical implementation powers because there is no hierarchical government organ under it whose laws to be implemented, and through its horizontal powers, it is the source of authority that implements every single Act of Congress, otherwise, Congress cannot make any law without authority and the source of authority is the US Constitution. Between the two sovereigns, there is no implementation connection between them, however, the State Constitution tracks the Federal Constitution because of the “Supremacy Clause” in the Federal Constitution and the State Constitution cannot issue any laws that violate the provisions of the Federal Constitution. At the State level, because the 3^rd tier of government Local government is embedded within the sovereignty of the State Constitution, thus, there their relationship is hierarchical in vertical format and the Local government is below or under the State Government, thus, it is the State Constitution is the source of authority that implements the laws, ordinance and Charter that the local Government uses for governance.  Thus, the Constitutional order based upon their implementation powers both vertical and horizontal is that, the Local government Charter tracks the State Constitution, and the State Constitution tracks the US (Federal) Constitution. https://x.com/2025DJT2025/status/1987465515401637949?t=SIjnlI0SpMiwvjfvuvyhxQ&s=08 

To backtrack on the relationship between the Federal and State Constitutions, in asmuch, there is no implementation connection between them, otherwise the Federal Constitution does not implement the State Constitution. When it is being said that the State Constitution "tracks" the Federal Constitution, it is only along the lines of the first few Amendments derived mostly from the Bill of Rights including free speech (A1 "Amendment 1"), right to bear arms (A2), unreasonable search and seizure (A4) , due process (notice and fair hearing (A5),  Right to Jury Trial (A6) unjust and cruel punishment (A8), and color of State violation of due process A14), all of which are attached to the Supremacy Clause of the Federal Constitution. These powers/rights are the so-called "enumerated" powers/rights because they are listed in the US Constitution and no State can violate any of these rights. However under the 10th Amendment, any power, rights and any item not "enumerated" (listed) in the Federal Constitution, that power belongs to the States and it is enumerated under the State Constitution and the Federal Constitution has no control over these powers. At issue that will will be discussed later is the "Social Order" Core State Powers in the State Constitution which are not enumerated in the Federal Constitution, and under this power, States have the right to intervene in the welfare and well-being of every resident of the State. It is here that laws concerning "social cohesion" of the State are found, including laws that ban polygamy (a man having 3 wives and 20 children)  and laws that prohibit  adults having sex with children. The 10th Amendment is big and very huge, is all about "State Rights". The Federal Constitution will not mess with the "Social Cohesion" laws of any State. In all the 50 States, it is a big crime for an adult to have sex with a child. https://x.com/realMaalouf/status/1989391628831002830?s=20

Apart from listing how the government functions and how it is to be run every day, the Constitution also provides the source of rights that the people enjoy including free speech, right to bear arms, due process, notice and fair hearing and protection from unjust and cruel punishment, civil rights and all other rights.

Considering the divergent (different) functions between the Federal and State Governments as defined between both Federal ad State Constitutions, and where most of the essential functions (education, health, transportation, security, social cohesion, agriculture) are all performed at the State level, while few functions that are truly federal (Armed Forces, Immigration and Foreign Mission) exist at the Federal level, one would then wonder about the connection between the Federal and State Constitutions. Simply put, it is like in Economics when we are trying to analyze the equation of a given "Model", first of all, we find the FOC "First Order of Conditions" , then we factor in the given value on both sides of the equation because we are looking for the derivative that exists, which eventually connects all the parts of the equation together. The 10th Amendment is the connection between the Federal and State Government functions. Almost 100 percent of all the functions of a State are not listed enumerated in the US Constitution, however, which every State has the power to create and list under its own State Constitution under the 10th Amendment. The derivative we are looking for, comes from the first 10 Amendments in the US Constitution. These first 10 Amendments are also called the "Bill of Rights". This derivative exists at both the Federal and State levels of government, it is the same derivative. At the Federal level, all the laws by Congress must be compliant with A1 (First Amendment) Free speech, A2 right to bear arms, A4 search and seizure, A5 Due process, A6 Right to Jury Trial, A8 Prohibition of Cruel and unjust punishment and A14 Color of State Due Process violation. In all the functions of the Federal Government at every level and function, there must be compliance with these Constitutional Amendments. At the State level, the samething applies and in all of the functions of the State (at both the State and Local Government City level), there must be 100% compliance with these Amendments from the US Constitution. In every State Constitution is the Section for "Crimes and Punishment" usually at the City Local Government level but also at the State level. it must not violate A4, A5, A6 and A8. Equally at the Federal level "Crimes and Punishment", there must be no violation of A4, A5, A6 and A8. At the State level, any violations of these US Constitutional Amendments is a violation of the Supremacy Clause of the US Constitution. https://x.com/2025DJT2025/status/1987465515401637949?t=SIjnlI0SpMiwvjfvuvyhxQ&s=08 

Generally, the Constitution is essentially “Public Law” and it is a public document, and originally, the purpose of the US Constitution starting with the Bill of Rights, was to limit the power of Government, and its original purpose was designed by Congress to effectively  check, police and limit the power of Government. Thus, the Bill of Rights and all of the Amendments were all geared and formulated against the US Government. https://x.com/ImtiazMadmood/status/1989151302853492877?s=20

Thus, for over 200 years, the arrangement in the US system of governance has been that, there is a 3 tier organs in the system that forms “Checks and Balances”  including the Parliament (Organ that makes laws), Executive (organ that enforces the law) and the Judiciary (Organ with the Supreme Court “The Courts” that interprets the Federal Constitution). Operations between the 3 tier of governments (Federal, State, and Local) are distinct from each other based upon their functions also known as “Core State Functions” or Core State Powers. At the Federal level, functions that are innately federal in nature including immigration, the armed forces, Judiciary (Federal Courts and Laws) Foreign Missions, Post Office, Transportation (Roads), Agriculture and Health Care. At the State level the State Constitution operates the Core State Powers of Education, Judiciary (The Supreme Court “The Courts” the Courts that interpret the State Constitution), Health Care, Roads, Social Order. While at the local Government, the main job here is Security (Police). Quite very unusual to have an overlapping of functions between the different tiers of governments within their “Core State Functions” and “Core State Powers”

The Constitution is large, among the States, State Constitutions have “Social Order” section that bans polygamy and prohibits a man marrying more than one wife at a time. Also, the Constitution (both Federal and State) includes sections that cover elections, and term limits. There is no part in the major of the function of the State that the Constitution does not cover.  Meanwhile at the “City” Local Government level, the City Charter does the samething on the elections and its essential core function concerning security and Police.

Factoring Sharia Law into the equation : The Constitution Versus the Quran                                                                                              A brief background of Sharia Law                                                                                                                                                                      The source of authority implementing Sharia Law is the Quran, it is a religious Law and more appropriate for a  country that is non-secular but fatally incompatible with any country that is secular under a Constitution. Sharia Law is “fatally” incompatible with any Constitution and particularly the US Constitution. Neither can implement the other, the Constitution cannot implement Sharia Law and Sharia Law cannot implement the Constitution. There is absolutely no vertical or horizontal implementation connection between the Constitution and Sharia Law. It is un-possible to find any derivative between Sharia law and the Constitution.  https://x.com/AdamMoczar/status/1989801540337746358?s=20

Islam in the US

The spread of Islam in the US is very recent and since the past 20 years, and largely due to mass immigration and conversions of millions of  disgruntled Americans who are hell bent on destroying the system. Several US Cities have been over-run by Islam activities, Dearborn Michigan and the entire States New Jersey, New- York and Texas are being subdued under Sharia control. https://x.com/NiohBerg/status/1989280550180606069?s=20

Against all odds, Islam arrived in America 200 years late and does not stand a chance against the US Constitution that is firmly embedded in the daily lives of every American citizen, and even, the oxygen that every American breathes, is controlled by the Constitution.

Observations

-1- Explanation of rapid growth of Islam population in the US despite legal limitations

If we go by the experience in Texas from the EPIC City project which the State Governor has confirmed that the project Coordinators did not obtain the necessary permits to do anything, or construct the building or instruct Islam anywhere, equally, in all other cities including Michigan Dearborn and the State of New Jersey, American Institutions have been consistent not to issue any permit that will encourage the construction of anything Islamic in the US, and all the operations by the various Islamic groups have been done in defiance and violation of applicable State laws. Illegal immigration contributed a lot to the mass inflow of foreigners into the US, and recently, the Biden Administration allowed millions of illegal foreigners into the US. Also, there have been massive fraud on visa applications with the loophole on family reunification which allowed an individual to bring into the US over 100 people, and even people who are not related to the individual. If genetic and DNA testing  were conducted on the visa applicants and the purported family members that they brought into the US, the result would be catastrophic for the fact that, DNA testing would prove that almost 90% of the applicants are not related to the people they brought to the US on the family reunion scheme.  

-2- Issue about the bribery of the Texas State Law Makers

There have been several complaints against the Texas Assembly members (Law Makers) who have been accused of making laws favorable to Islam. I think, even if true that there was bribery which cannot be proven, it seems like someone had a lot of money to waste by giving free money out to anybody. The issue with laws from law makers is that, laws are meant to be challenged for validity and Constitutionality in the Courts. Citizens are free to challenge in Court every law made by the Law Makers.

LEGAL CHALLENGES

Islam is “fatally” incompatible with any country that operates a Constitution and particularly the US. Absent any procedural legal mistake, and after 20 years of uninterrupted run in the US, and on the day the matter appears before the US Supreme Court, the matter will be decided once and for all. The issue of Islam in the US has never been before the US Supreme Court when it is only the Court that can decide on the matter. The issue for the Court to decide is either total or partial ban of Islam in the US. However, Congress has the first bite to ban Islam in the US, and knowing that the Act of Congress will be challenged for Constitutionality in the Courts, that leaves the US Supreme Court as the only decider on matter. On a properly framed “legal” theory, citizens are also free to challenge the matter in the Courts. If the Supreme Court strikes down an Act of Congress (banning Islam to be illegal and unconstitutional), Congress reserves every right to re-invent, re-make, re-word, the same Act under a new different law that has the same outcome as the one struck down by the US Supreme Court. Effective coordination between the two branches of Government are required to effectively nip out the issue finally. An alernative way that resolves the conundrum between the US Supreme Court and Congress is for a Constitutional Amendment that includes the Sharia law matter banning Islam.  While the US Supreme Court is empowered to stike out an Act of Cogress as illegal and unconstitutional, however, the Court cannot strike out any provision that is contained in the Constitution (emphasis later).  

FAQ TIME

-1- Which is the best way to legally get rid of an issue? Is it either to kill the message or kill the messenger? 

Answer : As it concerns any issue at law where there are parties contesting the issue, either the parties (properly brought before the Court) or the issue itself, is sufficient enough to legally get rid of any matter. Here in this instance, the issue is the Jihad and Islamization of the US, any future topics that concern Islam or Jihad in the US is adequately covered in this issue. The issue is usually the message, and once the issue has been solved, that gets rid of the matter once and for all. The parties to an issue are the messengers, they are not vital to solving an issue.  https://x.com/realMaalouf/status/1987964393964073211?s=20 

-2- What are the legal effects of the State of Texas banning Sharia Law in the State?

Answer: This question is huge.     

-a- ARGUMENT FOR TOTAL BAN ON ISLAM

https://x.com/RadioGenoa/status/1987864145778086050?s=20 

Absolutely no doubt under the 10^th Amendment as “unenumerated power”, the law banning Sharia law in the State of Texas is within the sovereign rights and States Rights of the State of Texas to do, however, it appears because of the 14^th Amendment (color of State due process violation), there could have been a violation of the first Amendment rights of Moslems in the State and in essence, violation of free speech rights and freedom of expression and also due process rights of fair hearing of the 5^th Amendment. The 14^th Amendment tracks the 5^th Amendment on “Due Process” (Fair hearing and Notice). Thus, the State Constitution of Texas is in violation of the US Constitution with the violation of the “Supremacy Clause”. Also, any violation of Due Process rights under the 14th Amendment automatically triggers a Section 1983 "Civil Rights Violation" lawsuit under the color of State Law (The ban on Sharia Law by the State). Thus, the Islamic party EPIC City has the right to sue the State of Texas in the Federal District Court for Civil Rights Violation that their free speech right under the first Amendment has been violated. In response and as a matter of equity, it is up to the State of Texas to say precisely why and how the right of the State is greater than the first Amendment rights of any individual. Texas can claim that, the plan by EPIC City for a Jihad, violated the US Constitution and the State Constitution of Texas. In response, EPIC can claim that, the proposed Jihad Estate plan is a “private” enterprise and the proposed City under Jihad control is strictly and entirely private, and that the US and Texas State Constitutions apply only to public entities, and because EPIC City is a private enterprise, it is outside the control of the US Constitution and the State Constitution of Texas. EPIC City is the size of a football field and should be allowed to keep its private structure that makes it immune to the US and Texas State Constitutions. Texas will reply that, size does not matter and EPIC cannot claim to be private and thus remain firmly under the control of US Constitution and Texas State Constitution.  EPIC City counter argues and  firmly reminds the Court that, the US Constitution (and the State Constitution of Texas) cannot interfere with the privacy rights required for free speech under First Amendment rights because the original intention by the Framers of the US Constitution starting with the Bill of Rights, was to limit the powers of the US Government and the only person who can violate the US Constitution is the person for whom the document was designed against to protect the citizens from tyranny of government, thus, the only person who can violate the US Constitution is the US Government. Next, EPIC informs the Court that, the only structure that is important in the entire “City” plan of the Jihad project is the Mosque where people gather to pray. EPIC reminds the Court that, people come from their homes to gather at the Mosque to worship, and because people have privacy at their homes when they worship at home and the US Constitution does not interfere with the privacy of the people to worship in their homes, EPIC respectfully urges the Court to extend the same privacy that people enjoy in their homes to the Mosque at the Jihad project of EPIC City. People come to the Mosque from different parts of the State and in some instances between 50 to 100 kilometers outside the city limits of EPIC city.  Texas urges the Supreme Court to reject the privacy argument on the grounds that “Rules are Rules”, Texas calls the argument absurd  “that it is only the US Government who can violate the US Constitution and that the US Constitution is a public document that does not apply to private entities”. Further, Texas traces and explains the history and purpose of Mosques that they are not a place of worship but historically where muslims  plan their Jihad and gather to see each other face to face and plan their next attack and military strategy to take over a targeted area by force. In response, EPIC calls the statement from Texas which said that “Mosques historically have been used to plan Jihad”, a “fuckin” lie.  

Upon hearing the “F” word, several Justices (US Supreme Court) winced with discomfort on their seats, how the times have changed, one million years ago, no one would have ever thought this would have every happened.

https://x.com/RadioGenoa/status/1984538385940193368

THIS IS THE BATTLEGROUND FOR THE TOTAL BAN ON ISLAM IN THE US. IF THE PRIVACY ARGUMENT FAILS, MOSLEMS CANNOT WORSHIP IN THEIR HOMES AND MOSQUES. THUS, ANY ARGUMENT FOR PARTIAL BAN ON SHARIA LAW, IS MOOT.

-b- ARGUMENT FOR PARTIAL BAN AND PROHIBITION OF SHARIA LAW                                                                                                  (POLITICAL SCIENCE INTERSECTION WITH CONSTITUTIONAL LAW).

Texas makes a separate distinctive application for the partial ban on Islam with the prohibition of Sharia Law. Usually after muslims feel comfortable with practicing their religion in the host country, the next thing they do is to demand for Sharia Law in which they demand that the host country now change its own laws and Constitution to Sharia law. For Texas, to bifurcate the issues into two makes sense, first it allows the State to have a second bite at the apple incase the first argument is lost, it also makes sense for Texas to pick its battles and win the argument that is win-able, otherwise, the first argument was on an head -on collision with the first Amendment, it is 50/50 chance Texas could lose this argument. First Amendment free speech rights and freedom of expression and religious beliefs is at the core of free speech and the Supreme Court must balance the equities on which is greater between the 10^th Amendment rights of the State of Texas or the First Amendment rights of Muslim citizens. Core State Powers and Core State Functions as used here, are core terms from the subject             Political Science.

For the application for the prohibition of Sharia law, it is a repeat of the first battle, First Amendment (Free speech) versus 10^th Amendment (States rights). Leaving no stone unturned, Texas begins this session by outlining the practices in Islam which is essential for someone to understand how Sharia law fits into the equation. Texas says that, the religion involves adults having sex with children, girls as young as 6 years old can get married and have sex with adults. Texas presents evidence of incest among families with fathers having sex with their daughters (adults and children 6 and 7 year old girls), and sex between first cousins with marriages between cousins (which has resulted into catastrophic genetic defects and disorder in the UK with idiots being born as children and draining heavily financially on the health care system). Texas also includes the social harm of the practice of every muslim man marrying 3 wives in direct violation of the State’s polygamy laws that prohibit a man from marrying more than one wife at a time, which has resulted into over breeding and over-population of the group in society.  The religion calls for the stoning of women (stoning to death), every single offense carries the death penalty, minor offense requires amputations of the limbs. Specifically, all the punishments for every crime are enabled by the Quran as the source of authority, which is Sharia law. The process begins with the Sharia Court, Sharia Council and Sharia Supreme Court. Along the parallel line, all other systems will be changed accordingly, there will be Islamic schools for the training of Sharia Lawyers and Sharia Judges. All the buildings, roads and even the banking systems will be changed into Islamic Sharia Islamic banking. At the Federal level, the country becomes an Islamic Caliphate, Congress will be replaced by Sharia Council and the US Supreme Court will be replaced by the Sharia Supreme Court. Sharia law is a system of Islamic governance. https://x.com/LizaRosen0000/status/1988003916835852465?s=20 , https://x.com/PeriklesGREAT/status/1987991427582976488?s=20                    

Texas makes 3 submissions.

-1- Free speech in the first Amendment does not have any provision for any specific religion and any right under free speech (First Amendment)  is too small, very minute and inconspicuous that it cannot grow to the extent of challenging the 10^th Amendment rights of the State of Texas by trying to replace and supplant the "Core State Powers" and "Core State Functions" of the State of Texas

-2- The demand for Sharia law challenges the States rights of Texas because it attempts to replace the established “Core State Powers” and “Core State Functions” in everything (Education, branches of government, Executive, Parliament, Judiciary, Agriculture, Police, Social Order and many others at the State level. At the Federal level, the country will become an Islamic Caliphate, the US Supreme Court will be replaced with the Sharia Supreme Court, Congress will be replaced by the Sharia Supreme Council and the US President will be replaced by a Sultan).

-3- Sharia law will replace the US Constitution and Texas State Constitution which amounts to an overthrow of US Government through unconstitutional means.

In response, EPIC reiterated the “privacy” argument from the first battle, insisting that since the Mosque and homes of its members enjoy privacy, hence whatever they do in the privacy of their homes and Mosques, is absolutely none of the  business of the State of Texas, and neither does the US Constitution nor the Texas State Constitution can interfere in the religious practices of its members because of privacy rights.

Texas replied angrily and called this remark from EPIC to be “bullshit”. https://x.com/realMaalouf/status/1989013451620913550?s=20

At this time the Justices of the US Supreme Court are getting ticked off with the “free-style” dirty street language from the Lawyers from both sides. Tempers and tension are flaring everywhere. The Justices called a sidebar to warn the Lawyers from both sides

Texas calmy tried to finish its previous statement and said that, under the 10^th Amendment which empowers the State Cohesion Laws of Texas under the State Constitution,  and it is firmly embedded in the State Constitution that, the welfare and well-being of every resident of the State residing in every square inch of the State boundaries, are the responsibility of the Government and with no exemptions. If under any circumstances in any part of the State, adults are having sex with children, and adults are having sex with 6 and 9 year old girls, the State has greater rights under the 10^th Amendment to intervene (and sure as hell, the government reserves the right to intervene) and free speech religious First Amendment rights from a citizen must give way to the States 10^th Amendment rights.                                                      The exuberance in the elements of persuasion from the Lawyer for Texas with "and sure as hell, the government reserves the right to intervene"! Reliable sources gathered that infact what the Lawyer wanted to say before was "Sure as fuck and Fuck Yeah - - - - - - - " but the Lawyer controlled himself without using the "F" word. Lawyers these days! What happened to the good old days? Without the F word?

EPIC replied that, young children and the 6 and 9 year old girls whom adults are having sex with, are under the supervision of their parents, and if their parents give their consent for adults to have sex with their children, as is the practice in Islam that parents give their consent for their children to have sex with adults. In Islam parents marry off their children to adults and the marriage is consumed with sex between the 6 year old child and the adult, hence thus (thus hence), it is absolutely none of the “fuckin” business of the State of Texas and the US Constitution and Texas State Constitution have no power over the religious practices of Islam. https://x.com/2025DJT2025/status/1987465515401637949?t=SIjnlI0SpMiwvjfvuvyhxQ&s=08

Lawyers for Texas shook their heads in total disbelief at this argument.

Meanwhile, EPIC did not respond to the 3 submissions from Texas concerning Sharia Law.

What are your predictions of how the US Supreme Court will rule on these two arguments                                                                    -1- Application for the total ban of Islam or -2- Application for the partial ban and Sharia Law?

The first argument involves free speech, and the private enterprise argument, the situation is dicey 50/50 and Texas may lose this argument. However, the 2^nd argument seems plausible for Texas to win because among other things, EPIC has failed to respond to the 3 submissions and several points raised by Texas. Further, a win for Texas here on this application will also reach and eliminate the harmful parts of the religion (which EPIC has failed to respond to) which leaves the religion toothless and harmless even if EPIC wins the rights to practice Islam (however, without the harmful parts).

As previously stated, this matter of Islamization and Jihad in the US, has never been presented before the US Supreme Court, and it is only the Court that can decide its future in the US, either with a complete ban or partial ban.

There are 4 pathways this matter can reach the US Supreme Court

-1- EPIC CITY Versus Texas

This is the fastest the matter can reach the US Supreme Court, the case is fully ripe and ready for the Court to decide all the matters on it. However, the case does not have the “Appellate Jurisdiction” of the US Supreme Court because the 2 parties are not “States”. Thus, the matter has to start from the US District Court and all the way to the Court of Appeals and then, US Supreme Court, and this may take several years (4 to 6 years). However in public interest and the controversy surrounding this matter in the US and globally, the process in the Court of Appeals may be sidelined and bypassed, and the matter taken from the District Court directly to the US Supreme Court and the matter can resolved within a year. However, nobody is forcing EPIC to sue the State of  Texas over the ban, and EPIC decides not to sue, the matter dies away quietly, and the issue will continue undergrounds and unresolved.

-2- DOJ INVESTINGATION                                                                                                                                                                                    Texas State US Senator John Cornyn has called the Attorney General's attention to EPIC City and the DOJ is investing EPIC City for any Federal violations. It is possible that the DOJ may sue EPIC City for any violations found, and this will end up eventually before the                 US Supreme Court.

-3- An Act of Congress.

Currently as it appears that Congress is “hell-bent” on total ban of Islam from the US, Tuberville and his colleagues (in both Houses) are united for this purpose. As analyzed here, it just seems that a complete ban on Islam will be unconstitutional and illegal because the matter involves the First Amendment. It expected that, any ban from Congress will be challenged for Constitutional validity before the US Supreme Court. The situational now is that, Congress is NOT waiting for the reaction from EPIC to the ban from Texas and they are working independently assiduously on their own timetable to enact the Law that will ban Islam and Sharia from the US.  As indicated earlier, this is going to be a long battle between the US Supreme Court and Congress because if the Court strikes down the Act of Congress on the matter as unconstitutional, Congress reserves the right to re-invent, re-make, re-furbish, re-install, re-word and re-enact the same law (that was struck down by the Supreme Court as unconstitutional) in a different format that will achieve the same goal and purpose.

-4- President Trump's "Citizenship Birth Right" Control initiative : EXPULSION LAWS                                                                              It is reasonably expected that, those who are affected in their several millions (about 40 million people fair estimate) would sue Trump for Civil Rights and Due Process Violations, and that way, the issue will get to US Supreme Court. A quick cursory review of what Trump is doing under Birthright citizenship. Initially, it was meant for tourists and non-immigrants who entered the US to give birth and under the Constitution (arguably) anyone born under the soil of the US is an American citizen. Trump is attempting to change that. The same "Birthright citizenship" law has been expanded into several categories, and unlike the previous non-immmigrant type that required only individual deportation on case by case basis, the newly expanded categories (which are determined ad hoc by the Attorney General), it involves "expulsion" of millions of people at the same time who are expelled from the US for any reason by the DOJ. It involves deportation of American citizens who are actually born in the US (and it does not matter if you naturalized or how you you got into the US by fraud or otherwise), and it extends back in time from 50 to 100 years (which means several generations of families could be expelled from the US). Under the plan, those who are to be expelled, cannot appeal to the Courts and their case is determined only by the Executive at the DOJ. For those who have regarded the Islamization of the US to be an invasion, and actually it is not because of this expanded immigration expulsion laws that allow the President to expel millions of people on the sameday without the Courts interfering in the process. An example could be the entire city of Dearborn Michigan, it is a matter of time, when Trump is tired of their shit, every foreigner in Dearborn could be expelled and removed from the US in their millions on the same day, and this goes for any city in the US in which there are lots of foreign born citizens who are trouble makers.  The Attorney General  will make up the charges (fake or real charges, nobody cares at this point) for example, the violation of the polygamy laws of Michigan by the group to be expelled is sufficient enough to justify expulsion. There are good reasons why any violation of the State's polygamy laws should be considered a crime, first, it's economic sabotage, it did not allow the State proper planning for infrastructure because of the explosive population increase with a man marrying 3 wives and having 20 children. The population explosion within a short period alerted policy makers to the reason of the sudden increase in population growth attributed to only foreigners of muslim and not hidden is the fact that, the increase in population growth would some day increase their opportunity for the Jihad take over of the country with Sharia law, thus, the children born under this plan are known as "Jihad children", who have been conceived and born to increase the Muslim population for the purpose of Jihad.  Under the expulsion law, an entire State like New Jersey could have all the citizens expelled and deported. Massive immigration fraud and financial fraud and incest (adults having sex with children, 6 and 7 year old girls) and cousin marriage in Minneapolis in Minnesota is sufficient for expulsion, and the DOJ does not owe anybody any explanation for their action. For those who do not understand the meaning of "Due Process" and when the issue involves "expulsion" and deportation of millions of people on the same day and without any judicial review from the Courts and the DOJ can make up any charges that are not required to be substantiated, it is a great movie to watch.  

What we have in theory in Constitutional Law is that, everyone is created equal but however, Political Science teaches us differently that, with power, not every-one is equal before the law. The immigrants who came to the US but forgot their origin and where they came from, and they are now planning to take over government and demanding for Sharia law. When millions are expelled from the US, they will have no judicial review and the Courts cannot and will not interfere. After their forceful removal from the US, that is the end, they cannot fight their case outside the US.   

IF EVER PUSHING CAME TO SHOVING, THE EXPULSION LAW IS THE ULTIMATE GAME CHANGER, IT GOES BACK TO SEVERAL DECADES AND SEVERAL GENERATIONS OF FAMILIES COULD BE ROUNDED UP AND DEPORTED, AND MILLIONS OF PEOPLE COULD BE ROUNDED UP AND EXPELLED AND DEPORTED THE SAME DAY.

ALTERNATIVE SOLUTION WITH CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT 

US Congress is “Hell-Bent” on this matter and US Senator Tuberville will not have peace until he has seen the end of this matter, and one way Congress can by-pass the US Supreme Court is with a Constitutional Amendment. The Supreme Court can only review an Act of Congress for Constitutional validity and legality but the Court cannot review any provision of the Constitution for validity and Constitutionality, hence, the Court cannot strike down any provision of the Constitution. Here, Congress can effectively sideline and bypass the US Supreme Court, and effortlessly Congress can have two thirds of both Houses pass the Constitutional Amendment. The second half requires three quarters of the States to adopt and approve the Constitutional Amendment. This should not be difficult from the same States whose representatives pass the same law in Congress.    

////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

November 1, 2025  

-1- PREDICTION :                                                                                                                                                                                            MILITARY INCURSION WITHIN THE NEXT 4 YEARS IN AT LEAST ONE THE FOLLOWING COUNTRIES IN EUROPE

PREDICTIONS !

Within the next 4 years, at least one (or more) of these countries in the EU is accurately predicted that, there will be a military incursion through UnConstitutional means and take over of governance. A situation like this where there is “Involuntary” military incursion in any country (particularly in the EU because of the migration crisis and the Jihad Islamization of Europe) has been analyzed several times on this website to be “Justified” and it is not a crime by the Military, and rather, a patriotic response to call of duty by the Military . 7 countries are listed according to their likelihood of severity and occurrence

-1- The UK (100% likelihood)

-2- Ireland (100% likelihood)

-3- Spain (90% likelihood)

-4- Germany (90% likelihood )

-5- France (90% likelihood)

-6- Sweden (90% likelihood)

-7- Italy (90% likelihood)

While some are predicting a civil war in the UK which is highly unlikely, however, the military incursion will have consequences on the Monarchy, it may be the end of the monarchy in the entire UK! Samething goes for Spain, any military incursion will decisively end the Monarchy. The solution advocated on this website that can prevent “Involuntary Incursion” from the Military, still remains viable and strongly recommended, is for each country to amend their Constitution and the Constitutional-Amendment gives the Military a role to play in governance and as a result, it enables the military to have a ”Voluntary Incursion” into the governance with a peaceful transfer of power between the incumbent Civilian PM and Military Commander, and it also facilitates the exit of the military from power (after 6 to 12 months of the emergency operation). In the case of the UK that does not have a “codified” Constitution, time is of the essence and very critical, otherwise failing which, and for all practical purposes, Keir Starmer will be the last civilian PM and will be replaced by the British Military indefinitely for a long time to come and until Kingdom come.  Just to be sure that, everyone is on the same page, chapter and word for word, the purported Islamization Jihad take over in any country with a Constitution is a treasonable offense, punishable by death. Any particular "Administration" that got careless that "ever" allowed a Jihad takeover of government, would be complicit and part of the Jihad conspiracy at large. This is the view of the Military if and when they come in un-invited and involuntarily. It just seems that, it makes a lot of sense to do the Constitutional Amendment that allows the Military to come in voluntarily which provides for a peaceful transfer of power and it also makes the Military to be bound by the Constitution. If the Military were to come in on their own initiative, it is involountary, and they are not bound by the Constitution and the first thing they will do once in power, is to suspend the Constitution. 

 

-2- SPECIAL THANKS TO NICOLAS ROBERT FROM SAN-ANTONIO, TEXAS FOR THE FIRST DONATION TO THIS WEBSITE.

After one year of working on this website without a budget, the first donation arrived on October 29, 2025 from Mr Nicolas Robert from San-Antonio, Texas who kindly donated 5 euros. It's good and appreciated. 

 

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

 

Special thanks to everyone who has recently visited this website, and also, special thanks to anyone who has ever visited this website since the inception in October 2024. 

The web statistics screenshots are at the top on the left pane and you can click to zoom large.  it shows a global picture of visitors across the globe and the entire world. It is a small humble beginning that will achieve greater heights very soon. Most of the website visitors have this website regularly “Direct traffic” and some by Social Media “Referrals” that I do on my twitter and LinkedIn accounts directing traffic to this website. Special thanks to Twitter and LinkedIn and I will start using Instagram too, henceforth from now , these three Social media websites are very powerful sources in driving traffic to my website. I'm very active on LinkedIn where I have 7,000 connections, I get 3,000 profile reviews every month, and I get 1,000 profile visitors and on Instagram monthly, I get another 1,000 profile visitors monthly. Also, every month the countries locations of visitors change across the globe and while some countries have permanent and consistent visitors to the website, but it is a pleasant surprise when a new country from a new continent enters the chat for example in South America, I have previously seen Brazil and now I’m very happy to see Bolivia, it’s like “Wow, I’m here in Austria and someone all the way down at the tip of South America in Bolivia has visited my website”.  I think, most people are looking for something new and fresh, my writing style is unique and different, we start with a lot of laughter before getting into more serious stuff. Those visitors since the past 30 days, thank you very much for your patience and despite the issues of my personal life interfering with the progress and timely completion of the issues listed for reviews, your endurance is my strength to continue and keep on. I promise to improve on the delivery both in quality and timeliness. Tip, when the current update is fully completed, of course, the page will be neatly arranged, and the paragraphs will have punctuations and proper separations indicating the end  of each analysis.  Note that the topics to be analyzed are in bold letters. Let me take this opportunity to stress the fact that, if you are member of an Organization, State or Country that your topic has been listed for review and analysis, you can contact me for a speedy delivery of your topic. Contact me at info@ademolaadesanya.at or you can also reach on WhatsApp +4366493216108, you can call or text me.  Most issues are analyzed by research, empirical and thoughtful analyses, there is no easy way out. I think as of now, all of the topics currently listed, should be the final issues for this current update. I'm going to be very busy all summer long trying to finish all the topics. Thank you.      

 

President Trump and Elon Musk break-up! Ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha!  Ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha! Yippee ee 

https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-threatens-doge-investigate-musk-074339020.html/ 

This update is going to be very good, being an academic website, it is always good to bring some theoretical foundation as the background of the current events and topics to be discussed, starting with the Constitutional which is a subject at the intersection between the subjects Law (Constitutional Law) and Political Science. What is the difference between Law and Political Science when the subject matter is the “Constitution”?. While most of the writings and essays on the various topics on this website have not been supported with academic styles including references, however, being that the topics themselves are academic,  and if required and absolutely necessary, bibliographical references could be provided that will guarantee that these essays are not ad hoc “rants” that cannot be proven scientifically.  OK great, we will do some “Comparative Politics” analysis by comparing the systems of Government in these countries including China, Russia, US, and the UK and decide which one of them is the best under certain situations. We will do some words game, not too many words. https://x.com/himachal_queen/status/1942057652089225251,

https://x.com/BillyM2k/status/1941507323631108121

https://x.com/awkwardgoogle/status/1923900341063389259   XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX    XXXXXXXXXXXXXX     xxxxxxxxxx        It is true, children do not learn language and instead, they acquire it through bodily symbolic gestures from their mothers and those close to them. To learn a language, a child would be required to be able to read and write and also know the spellings of words before a word could be interpreted for its true meaning, the process which may be very cumbersome for a child.  However, acquistion of language is much easier for a child, and children acquire the language from their mothers when  the child reads the face and bodily gestures of the mother to know the meaning of word, and when the mother speaks, the child associates the spoken word to a particular action or to act. Here, this 3/4 year old future "Black Belt" Kung Fu Master was asked to show an angry face, see what she did! Ha,ha,ha,ha,ha and that is an angry face! I died laughing so hard seeing her response! If she understood what she was asked, she was supposed to frown her face and bare her teeth all out, showing some anger like the face of an angry cat or a lion. It also explains one thing about the girl, she must have grown up in a loving environment and nobody around her (including her mother) ever got angry! It's good, very good!  If her mother and people around her were always angry at each other, for her to look angry would have come very easily because she would have learnt how to look angry by seeing her mother's face looking angry.  

https://x.com/BGatesIsaPyscho/status/1928748592988135750/ 

Goodbye to 2 Jazz Greats Chuck Mangione and Hugh: Masekela https://x.com/ademolaadesanya/status/1949460938610102438 

https://x.com/fasc1nate/status/1948563954579488805           XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX                                                                                        Guys! I want my money back on this one guys! I have been robbed!  Ha,ha,ha,ha, all the missed tackles and deliberately diving in opposite directions ha,ha,ha,ha

https://x.com/RandomTheGuy_/status/1944839412925554746                                                                                                                         In her own way, this teacher makes the world a better place by bringing sunshine and smiles to kids everyday at school. This is good !

Word game 

What is the difference between “Luck” and “Opportunity”?

I think, luck happens by chance and is random but opportunity is not random and it has to be searched for, created and to be earned. Because of its impromptu randomness, luck cancould either be bad or good as in “good-luck” or “bad-luck”, however, opportunity always has a positive outcome. Are they both mutually exclusive of each other? Does luck need opportunity to operate or vice versa? Opportunity does not need luck to operate because that person is creating the path and purpose to earn that opportunity, but it looks like, luck may need opportunity to operate. Based on an event, someone must be in need of luck (good or bad) in the first place which creates the opportunity for luck to operate and through its randomness and not planned for by that person, and luck from an event always comes in either good luck or bad luck, ha,ha,ha too bad! 

Miscellaneous :

Commendations and congratulations to countries and individuals who have contributed to make this world a better place despite the chaos and anarchy everywhere!

Korea (South Korea)! 

From the link, https://x.com/InterestingSTEM/status/1916746035805749644  Korea has developed a cancer treatment that reverses cancer cells back to their normal cells, this is great. First of all, a distinction must be made about Korea and the fact is, there are two countries called Korea (North and South). However in the academics and in all academic scholarship, literature, maps and statistics, South Korea has the respectable distinction from North Korea, for being the Korea that is involved in knowledge and progress in almost every category of human endeavor. (South) Korea has been reported to having the best system of education in the whole world, and South Korea can hold its own ground against the best in the world in any scientific competition. It is not exactly clear who the best country from the East is between China, Japan and South Korea, it is three way tie. In one of my Economics classes when I saw “Korea” as the number one country in the world in Education?, so I asked my Professor the question “Which of the two Koreas North or South is that Korea?”. First she laughed and she explained that, in academic scholarship and literature, there is only one country Korea and that reference goes only to “South” Korea because the North does not exist and  “they don’t participate in anything”.  Great job Korea! You are highly recognized for making great progress in the world of chaos and anarchy we currently live in. 

Japan

-1- Scientists from Japan have developed a protein that allows the teeth to grow back . This is great news for individuals with bad teeth configuration that require implants which may no  longer be necessary because the teeth can grow  back. Congratulations Japan! 

-2- Also in Japan, Scientists have been able to isolate and remove the extra chromosome that causes "Downe-Syndrome" and restores cells back to normal function. https://academic.oup.com/pnasnexus/article/4/2/pgaf022/8016019?login=true/ 

We will celebrate this achievement from Japan! It is Science and Progress! Great job Japan 

Germany

Germany made the list for being the only country in Europe where University education is free for both citizens and foreign students, thereby creating equal opportunities for everybody. This good-will is not taken for granted and deserves to be mentioned and recognized.

Next, are private citizens and individuals who have contributed in their own way in making the world a better place. Some are teachers and Music Instructors who are responsible for molding the minds of children into becoming better adults tomorrow. You are all recognized for doing a great job. We will advertise your business free of charge as a token of appreciation of your work.

Issues Development

September 2, 2025

The UK : Blasphemy law in the UK is blatantly illegal and unconstitutional. PART 2 :   ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++      As a prerequisite requirement, please read PART 1 below.

The Constitution, Core State Powers and Free Speech! Disambiguation Revealed      ++++++++++++++++++++                                      For every country operating a Constitution, the document dominates every sphere of life of the people and even up to the oxygen they breathe. Some clarification needs to be made however concerning the “blasphemy” issue at hand which has been clarified to have originated from the Constitution under the right “Free Speech”, further analysis is required to separate the extent and limits of free speech in the Constitution. Religion does not have any free standing provision in the Constitution and the only place it is found “inconspicuously” is under free speech. Free speech, as the right exists in the Constitution, the right is not absolute and instead, it has limits and as the US Supreme Court has said that free speech does not cover someone shouting fire at the theatre when there is no fire. In every democracy, because of the ignorance and misinterpretation of the extent of free speech, it has resulted into various forms of abuse by some dirty citizens who seek to gain from the chaos and anarchy that comes along with their misuse and abuse of free speech. It has always been and still is that, free speech does not cover any speech that incites the public to violence, free speech does not allow any speech that offends public morals and decency, free speech does not allow any speech that advocates the overthrow of government through unconstitutional means. Quite often, democracy is often very slow to react decisively to the violations of free speech.  To set this analysis on track from the blasphemy issue, the most important aspect of the Constitution is called “Core State Powers” or “Core State Functions” but mostly referred to as “Core State Powers” because the “Powers” there often refers to sovereignty. Under “Core State Powers” , the Constitution lists the essentials functions of Government including some examples among others, Military, Foreign Service, Security / Police, Crimes and Punishment, Education, Health, Social Order, Cultural And Value System among others. The tiny small rights under free speech , CANNOT and MUST NOT encroach any of the much larger Constitutional provisions under “Core State Powers”. Quite often, people don’t know the difference because most are illiterates and idiots, dirty idiots. Thus, religion as it gets the right and a tiny right (to even exist in the Constitution) MUST NOT and CANNOT encroach any “Core State Powers” of the Constitution, otherwise, religion stays OK in the Constitution as long as it stays within the limits and boundaries of free speech and not encroach upon Core State Powers.

Violation of Public Morals And Decency                                                                                                                                                                Ever since Elon Musk bought “twitter” and with the monetization policy that requires everyone to subscribe, and because I did not subscribe, the algorithm I got on my feed was mostly trash, complete dirty trash. For one year, it was porn stuff and the second year, it has been followed by complete trash by Islamic clerics. Meanwhile, I have not been able to access my favorite Constitutional Law Professor Laurence Tribe and my other Law Scholars favorites that I used to enjoy on twitter before Elon Musk took over.  Lots of trash by these Islamic clerics, total load of shit of crap of trash, some advocate fathers to rape their 2 year old daughters, some advocate fathers to rape their daughters (4 to 6 year old children) at will, and after that, jump up 10 times to beg for forgiveness (lots of absurd crazy shit like this). Nearly all advocate murder and to kill anyone who disagrees with them. Others advocate “Honor Killings”. I’m not lying, it is all on twitter. And most of all, nearly all have been demanding for Sharia law in every country in the West. And in this case at hand on this issue of “blasphemy law”.  Clearly and unequivocally, these speeches are so disgusting, vile and repugnant that no civilized society will allow these kinds of speeches because they shock the civilized senses and violate public morals and decency.  Again, clearly and unequivocally, these speeches are not free speech and they are outside the limits and boundaries of free speech because they violate public morals and public conscience.       

Violation of Core State Powers.                                                                                                                                                                          The repugnant speeches from Religion that offend and violate public morals and decency are not allowed under free speech and they ultimately violate Core State Powers. In the Constitution, the absolute monopoly over the definitions of crimes and punishment, is conferred  to the State, and citizens cannot go outside the parameters of the definitions as set by the State. The State makes rape of any kind illegal, incest is also illegal, a father raping his own child, a 2 year old, is strictly prohibited. Again and again, this is the monopoly of the State over citizens as arranged by the Constitution. Also, murder of any kind is prohibited by the State, and the State strongly prohibits “Honor Killings”.   Equally, the State has absolute monopoly over “Social Order” as a Core State Power. If the State says it is one man one wife and 2 children per family, that is the law, nobody can have 4 wives and 20 children.  

Parallel Opposite Institutions Of Governance Is A Violation Of Core State Powers                                                                                      From the demand of “Blasphemy” law which can only be enforced by Sharia Courts and Sharia Institutions, is a violation of Core State Powers as it is an assembly of parallel Institutions of Governance opposite and incongruent  to the State Institutions authorized by the Constitution. Here, the Sharia Court and Sharia Institutions are in direct competition with the Judiciary/Courts as set up by the Constitution, this is not allowed and it is a violation of Core State Powers. In as much there is no separate free standing provision for Sharia / Religion in the Constitution, otherwise, the tiny provision for religion under free speech cannot assemble parallel illegal Institutions to grow up to the point of challenging any Core State Powers for dominance. Equally, anyone demanding for Sharia law in a country operating a Constitution, this is impossible because there is no  “free standing” provision for Sharia in the Constitution and the tiny provision for religion under free speech, cannot elevate itself up to the point of challenging or be in competition with any of the Core State Powers in the Constitution

August 23, 2025  

The UK : Blasphemy law in the UK is blatantly illegal and unconstitutional. PART 1 :

It can never be applied to legislative proceedings that are always “privileged”, and Law-makers are free to say whatever they want and they have immunity to anything they say, amounts to free-speech and anything said in Chambers during a session is not actionable. Unless a country has a designated State-Religion or governed by Religious laws (Sharia) before blasphemy law could be applied but however not in the present UK!

 

https://x.com/FarazPervaiz3/status/1957827186473480197/  https://x.com/RemIsBuzzin/status/1957162728659025948/ 

In this video, a guy could be seen, demanding that the UK should have “Blasphemy law”. Ordinarily any time an issue develops in law, a Lawyer (or any Legal mind) immediately compartmentalizes  the issue, sort it out and narrow it down to an area where the issue specifically belongs to, for the best analysis. Blasphemy law, from these two words involves several deductions, it has to do with religion (Islam), it involves the Constitution since it is asking for the prohibition of free speech, it is also demanding for some penalty most likely in Criminal Law and Torts Law. Equally, because it is only Parliament who can make the law, it involves the subject Constitutional Law. Thus, this issue will be addressed in the Law subjects of Constitutional Law, Criminal law, and Torts law, however first, the first topic disaggregates religion from the Constitution.

Religion and the Constitution                                                                                                                                                                           In every modern democracy, it is required that, religion (Church) must be separate from government (State). In every fully developed democracy, there is no free standing or stand-alone provision for religion in the Constitution, however, religion exists in the Constitution. Religion is part of free speech and freedom of expression, thus, religion being free speech is a first Amendment Constitutional right. This is as good as it gets and it is good enough, hence it is absolutely unnecessary to create a stand-alone provision for religion in the Constitution as it is already fully captured in the first Amendment. There should never be any stand alone provision for religion in the Constitution because it is a private matter and not of any public concern and government has no interest in citizens private issues.

Constitutional law                                                                                                                                                                                                 As this matter involves the request for the prohibition of free speech and the request for Parliament to pass such a law, this analysis starts first with free speech (First Amendment). The request for the prohibition of a perceived “offensive” speech, is at war with free speech, which the Constitution guarantees citizens. Blasphemy law involves a religious background, and the appropriateness of having such a law in any country is examined. In a non- secular country that is governed by religion or Sharia law, the legal source of authority made for all the laws in such a country is from the Quran, and here, it is possible to have “Blasphemy laws” . However, in a (religion neutral) secular country that is governed under the rule of law and the Constitution, blasphemy law cannot operate here for being fatally inconsistent with the environment here. The Constitution gives citizens the right to free speech which the blasphemy law is trying to ban, thus, it is impossible. Next, the Constitution does not contain any provision that authorizes blasphemy laws, in as much every law to be made by Parliament requires prior authorization and authority from the Constitution. That said, this connects the next issue concerning the ability of Parliament to enact a blasphemy law. Again to reiterate, Parliament does not make its laws in vacuum but rather from the instructions, guidelines and prior authorizations provided by the Constitution. A country that is secular which is governed by a Constitution can never have any provision for blasphemy law, it is just so  “un-natural”.  Further aspects of the Constitution are analyzed under Torts Law.  

Criminal Law                                                                                                                                                                                                      I n order to “criminalize” an act to be a criminal offense that is punishable at law, that act first of all, has to be in a perfect “fit” with the existing areas of criminal law and that crime must also have the two elements of a crime, mens rea and actus res. And also, it has to be decided if the crime is intentional or negligent. A crime demands that, someone must have been physically harmed by the conduct of another (and here, if it is emotional distress, most jurisdictions require some physical harm first) either intentionally or negligently. To fit in blasphemy law within the context of the existing Criminal law areas including, physical harm (injury to the body of another including mental harm) and property damage. Here, blasphemy cannot fit in as physical harm, and cannot be categorized as property damage. However, the closest blasphemy can get to being a crime is, assault. However, words alone do not constitute assault. Blasphemy cannot establish physical harm and also, cannot prove emotional harm (as there cannot be emotional harm without physical harm occurring from the same event) either intentionally or negligence. Moreover blasphemy is not property damage.  Because it is impossible to fit in blasphemy into any area of Criminal Law, thus, this concept fails squarely in the UK.

Torts Law                                                                                                                                                                                                              In Law, Torts and Criminal Law are like twins, they have the same elements (intent and negligence) on most issues, and usually, any action that is not actionable in Criminal Law (because of the stricter rules of evidence “preponderance) is actionable in Torts where the rule of evidence is less strict “probable”. Torts involve actions of civil wrongs between individuals. Under Torts law, blasphemy may have a chance as a “civil” wrong and actionable alone as emotional distress (unlike Criminal Law), proceedings under Torts Law particularly “Libel and Slander” make blasphemy actionable.  However because of the various Constitutional red-tapes, it is impossible to prove blasphemy as a tort. Unlike “Assault” in Criminal Law where words alone do not carry ant harm, in Torts under Libel and Slander, words alone can do harm to ones reputation. An individual who is a member of a group can sue on behalf of other members of his group on an issue that affects all, and here, on any words considered to be blasphemy. Slander are spoken words and Libel are written form of words that do damage to ones reputation. Here, a Muslim (on behalf of others) is suing for blasphemy for the slander and libel of their Prophet “Mohammed” that damaged his reputation (Prophet’s reputation). However, it is essential to be sure that the legal theory of recovery is sound, because it requires that it is the reputation of the person suing that has been damaged, and not a 3^rd party’s reputation  as the case is here with Mohammed, unless the person can prove that the damage to Mohammed’s reputation has also damaged his own personal reputation.  First issue is to decide if Mohammed is a private or public (famous)  person as there are separate proceedings for both. A famous person such as Mohammed is presumed to have enough resources,  fame and power to fight back and counter-act any damage to his reputation with his ability to defend himself and fire back against any slander / libel against his reputation with his several millions of followers (same logic applies to the individual suing who is also claiming that his personal reputation has been damaged, generally, members of this group have lots of resources avaibale at their disposal to fight back any offensive remarks about their religion) . Thus, the case will lose right here. A private person who does not have any resources to fight back, may move on to the next round. Next and after surviving the brutal conditions of establishing harm, causation (legal and proximate) and remedy, (under “Intentional”  or after also establishing duty under “Negligence”) the defense available for slander makes it impossible to win. The truth, hyperbole of the matter, and free speech right of the public to know about the matter. The truth is an absolute defense to slander and libel, and what is being said is true, that is the end of the case. Or if hyperbole has been used, in which nobody can take the slander/libel  words seriously, that is the end of the case. Also, if any slander/libel remark has assisted greater discussion of the matter by the public, it crosses the Constitutional threshold of free speech of the right of the public to know and discuss about any issue. This is another great defense. Most slander and libel cases end up between the truth and hyperbole, however, the right of the public to talk about any issue remains a valid defense.                       

Constitutional Matter And The Right Of The Public To Know .                                                                                                                        On any issue that involves public discuss on any matter which involves the general public, this automatically triggers the Constitution and it becomes a Constitutional matter with some heavy weight. The right of the public (as a Constitutional matter) to know and engage in lively debates and discussion on any matter, cannot be infringed upon by any individual. If the blasphemy lawsuit is attempting to stifle the public from the debates and discussing on any matter that is of public concern and which the public has absolute right to know and talk about, the blasphemy lawsuit for libel and slander will fail. Here it appears this exactly what the blasphemy law intends to do, to stifle public debate on a matter that the public has every right to know and talk about, this is unconstitutional and illegal as it infringes on the public’s Constitutional right to free speech. The public has every right to know and talk about Islam and Prophet Mohammed, and if both are things they would like to have around them or in their midst and immediate surroundings, this public right cannot be denied or waived because it is guaranteed by the Constitution. If you mess with the public, it means, you are messing bigtime with the Constitution.

Constitutional Matter And Proceedings in Parliamentary Chambers Are Privileged.                                                                                   While this analysis here concerns Torts and Libel/Slander Lawsuit proceedings, however, one must remember the original intent of “blasphemy law” which was to ban and prohibit everybody from talking about the religion Islam and Mohammed. These ban and prohibition would have extended invariably to Parliamentarians and Law-Makers which they would have made a law banning themselves from talking about the matter. With all the previous analysis applicable that, Parliamentarians cannot make a law that is not authorized by the Constitution, next, as a matter of Constitutional right, all the proceedings and everything Parliamentarians do in Chambers while performing their official duties is “privileged” and with “Immunity”, and whatever they say (even if it contains offensive blasphemy words) is NOT actionable . With “immunity”, anyone asking Law-Makers not to discuss a matter or not to say certain words (even if anyone is seriously offended) must be an idiot or perhaps a hard-core illiterate. This immunity extends to them even when they are not in Chambers.

Constitutional Matter And Free Speech                                                                                                                                                             In as much the Constitution has “Sections”, the first thing Law-Makers would do was to find a section where the “blasphemy law” would fit, and the only section is Free Speech. If Parliamentarians entertained the request, it would defeat the entire purpose of the Constitution. However, there is nothing to worry about and it is all about “Genetics”, as previously stated, no country operating a Constitution would ever have “Blasphemy Law” in it which enables Parliament to make laws on it. Free speech is tied to the Public’s right to talk and debate on an issue, and the immunity of Parliamentarians to do their work with privilege in Chambers.

Summary                                                                                                                                                                                                    Having a law called “Blasphemy law” in the UK which is a secular (religion neutral) country that operates a Constitution for governance is close to zero, completely impossible. While the UK does not have a written codified Constitution at the moment that would guide Law Makers on the matter, however, Parliamentarians regardless are hesitant and reluctant to pass any law that limits their own power because the blasphemy law would have applied to them as well. Meanwhile on the contrary, Parliamentarians have immunity to say and do anything they want to do, and whatever they do or say, is privileged and NOT actionable and they are above the law (blaspheny law). Law Makers would have a hardtime to categorize a blasphemy law as it does not have any historical background and context in any secular country that operates a Constitution for governance. The benefits of a law like that to society cannot be ascertained and instead, the defects and negative impacts of a law like that on society have been established, with the conclusion that the blasphemy law is illegal and unconstitutional. However, having a blasphemy law is not necessary because currently, the Torts system in the Courts can accommodate any complaint for slander and libel which handles any matter concerning blasphemy but it is very difficult to prove in a Court of Law..

 

 

August 17th, 2025   XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX  XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX  XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

The Oath of Office swearing in document: Which is the only appropriate document (between the Constitution, Bible, Quran) to swear in newly elected public Officers including Presidents, Vice Presidents, Law Makers, Judges, Mayors ?

A newly elected public official into any of the political Institutions at the local, State and Federal levels of Government, traditionally, requires to be sworn into Office by the Oath of Office during which the individual pledges allegiance to the Office, the Oath ends with but not required “---- so help me God”, and all along, the individual places their right hand on the Bible, or in the case of the UK, the Quran. A Political Scientist will find problems with this arrangement, and there is something inherently not right with the set-up. 

An elected Official gains access to the public Office through an election which means through a system that is firmly embedded in democracy. An election is democracy’s greatest asset. In every modern democracy, there has always been a clean separation between the Church (religion) and State, and to reiterate, there cannot be a situation in any democracy that accommodates religion and government to exist together, otherwise, when all the properties of democracy are examined, it is government that controls religion and it can never be the other way round where religion controls government . Government and religion are fatally inconsistent together and can never exist together in a democracy.

The inherent flaw where an elected official is sworn into Office and the official uses the Bible or Quran to swear, it automatically defeats the essence of democracy that was the process of election that got that official elected in the first place by failing to separate religion from government, and by doing so, the oath of allegiance to the Office is defeated with the reliance on the Bible/Quran and the individual actually thinks that, their allegiance is to their religion and Bible/Quran and not the political office that they were elected to serve. And when the oath ends with “--- so help me God”, it is affirmative, that oath of Office is an allegiance to a particular religion and not the public office.  This is a back-door attempt to steal from democracy its greatest asset, an election.  Of course, there are various forms of “democracy” and depending on the level of pollical maturity of a particular country, and any democracy that does not separate Church and State (religion from government), is not there yet.

Upon applying the tools of democracy to eliminate the Bible and Quran, this leaves only the Constitution to be the only appropriate document to swear in a newly elected public official into Office. Democracy recognizes the Constitution to be the only appropriate document to swear in a newly elected public official into Office because of several legitimate reasons. First, the Constitution is a Government document and official State document, and its entire contents contains only the provisions on how the entire country is to be governed. As a rule, every government official (including the Military) swears an oath of allegiance to the Constitution of the country.  Next, the duties and functions of the political office (where the newly elected official is going) are clearly defined in the Constitution (or by proxy through lesser Government/State documents like Charter and Ordinances). It is only the Constitution that defines the duties and functions of the public Office of the newly elected public official, and it is the Constitution that established that public Office in the first instance.  Also, it is the Constitution that controls the “election” that elected the official into that public office in the first instance. The Constitution also provides the rules to remove the elected official from office if he does not perform his duties according to the Constitution.  You will not find any of these in the Bible or Quran.

Because the Constitution of every country commands and demands allegiance from every citizen of that particular country, this forms the basis (in the first instance) for the requirement that the oath of office of every newly elected public official into a public office must be with the Constitution and there is no other way, and  cannot be with the Bible or Quran.  Next, the Constitution  is the source of legal authority that implements and controls the election through which the official was elected and the Constitution defines the duties and functions of that public office the official is going to do, and the Constitution can also remove the official from office, thus, unequivocally, the Constitution is the only appropriate document to swear in a newly elected public official into office and there cannot be any other way.

The part of the “Oath of Office” that ends with “------- so help me God” should be deleted when the Constitution is being used for the swearing in, or in the alternative, the oath could be replaced with the “Allegiance Pledge to the Constitution” where the newly elected official pledges allegiance to the Constitution as always, and particularly while performing their official public duties and functions in office.  This analysis goes with public office holders including Presidents, Vice Presidents, Prime Ministers, Law-Makers (Parliamentarians), Judges, and everyone who is a public-servant. By deleting  “ ------so help me God” is correct because you have not been elected into office to serve God but you have been elected to serve the public, and you are a public servant.

The definition of “Public-Office” extends to public offices “by proxy” and those private persons who by the nature of their profession and occupation work for a Government Institution, for example Lawyers. Lawyers are not elected but are sworn into the State Bar to get their license to practice Law. The State Bar is an organ of Government, the Judiciary branch, and to be sworn into the State Bar as a member of the Bar means being a member of the Government by proxy holding a public office as an “Officer of the Court”. The swearing into the Bar as a Lawyer with the Constitution is more applicable here than any other situation and can never be with the Bible or Quran. The first job of Lawyers is to uphold and defend the Constitution. Whey you recall the doctrine of separation between Church and State (religion from government), if you work for government (or by proxy) and your job requirements demand that you be sworn in first before you start your government functions as a public official, you can only be sworn in with a government document  and that is the Constitution, and absolutely nothing else and not with a religious document.  

August 17th, 2025

Assignment UK:   XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX                >          XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx   xxxxxxxxxxx   UPDATE - 8/18/2025 

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX  Final Update 8/20/2025                                                               xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>         >                 >>       >

How to start this topic is not going to be easy, either it is not going to be ordered or in no particular order, is that the same?

This topic is non-partisan as it does not address any particular political party but it is directed at all the political parties, and infact, all the citizens of the UK to come and work together for the common good.  Also, this analysis has been done with the strongest intellectual integrity and anyone who is in doubt of the correctness can take the analysis either in total or parts to the Professors at the best Political Science Grad School for confirmation or rejection. I dare you !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!   But, why not Law Schools since they deal more with the "Constitution" (under the subject Constitutional Law) than Political Science Grad School?    

Correction :

It is correct that, the Constitution is a subject that falls in between Political Science and Law, however, there are clear demarcations when either Political Science or Law is in absolute control of the Constitution. The Constitution has two stages of preparation, procurement/acquision which is at the beginning and it concerns how the document is obtained from the people in a democracy, and as everyone knows, how to obtain this document in a democracy falls squarely in the subject Political Science. At the second stage and after the document has been obtained and ratified, and the document is ready to be used in Courts for interpretation and application, then, the subject Law comes in and Political Science drops out. At this current stage that involves “procurement” (acquisition), thus, this subject is fully under Political Science. This preliminary stage involves some volatile issues of democracy particularly, “the” contents of the new Constitution, who or what  is going to be in it, or  what and those who will not make it inside the document, clearly this is "Politics" Political Science and not Law.

Here is the assignment, at the moment, the UK does not have a written Constitution: True or False? The correct answer is “False” (Wait a minute, it could also be True). FAQ: 1 : In any country where there are no laws, there are no sins: True or False?. The answer is True.

The purpose of this analysis and the main focus is the first question that concerns the UK Constitution, and the assignment here for all UK citizens is to get the UK, the Constitution.

As a preliminary matter as explained further below under “Functions of the Constitution” concerning the “Horizontal Implementation Powers” of the Constitution over Parliament and how the Constitution is the only source of authority for Parliament to make laws, and how every Act of Parliament requires authority from the Constitution for that law to be implemented, and also, how Parliament does not have authority to make laws without the Constitution, then, if we follow this argument, the entire analysis below is moot. Even the laws that we are looking for, even if they qualify as alternatives for the Constitution, however, each of those laws is an Act of Parliament, made by Parliament. When one recalls that, Parliament requires authority from the Constitution to be able make any law, and because there was no Constitution in place when Parliament made such laws, every law like that from Parliament is unconstitutional, illegal, null and void. Thus, it is going to be a futile exercise to look for laws that Parliament had made without authority from the Constitution, for the purpose of such (illegal) laws to be assembled and codified as parts of the new Constitution. It reminds me of Grad School what my Comparative Political Science Professor used to say in class “Which one came first, the chicken or the egg?”. Here, the Constitution comes first because Parliament cannot make a law without authority from the Constitution. Since Parliament made all those laws without authority, such laws are unconstitutional, illegal, null and void and essentially useless, and cannot be assembled as parts of the new Constitution. Of course, it is only an idiot or a hardcore illiterate who can ever suggest that, the Parliamentarians themselves constituted the “legal” authority in making such laws when the Constitution was not available. Thus, the procurement process for the new Constitution MUST start new.

However, you be the Judge and examine the futility and possibility of the argument of finding alternative laws that could be assembled and codified for the new Constitution.

From the binary answers to the question above (False and True), the problem is explained below, however in quick summary, even if it could be deduced that the UK has a written Constitution from the available documents and evidence, it is not a complete set and some required parts of a valid State Constitution are missing. The UK written Constitution is NOT codified. If in fact, it is confirmed that the essential parts are missing or do not exist, then, the UK does not have a Constitution for the parts, and there are consequences and any future act that finally produces the missing parts will have “retroactive” effects back in time either canceling and nullifying  acts that were conducted during the absence of the Constitution. If it is the modern standard and practice globally for a country to have a particular law in its Constitution and the UK does not have it, the international and global practice will prevail. This analysis may help explain the current human trafficking  going on in the UK  and Ireland that has exacerbated the migrant crisis  While every State Constitution has several parts, however, this analysis will focus on three parts that have federal consequences in every square inch of the territory of the country, free speech, elections and immigration.

Fundamentals of the Constitution

In modern times and since the past 300 years, a new system of governance took place globally in which countries are governed by a document called “Constitution”. Basically, it is a document that explains how the country should be governed in total and in parts. In total depends upon the system of governance in a country, if as in the UK where the Parliamentary system if practiced, then there is only one set of Constitution at the Federal level, the Parliamentary system operates the local and Federal, however the local government does not have a separate Constitution and instead, it uses a lesser form of instrument called “Charter” or “Ordinances”. In the US Presidential system of Government that has 3 branches of governance including Federal, State and local, this is the format that includes a Federal Constitution (covers all federal issues like immigration, free speech and elections), there is also the State Constitution which each of the 50 States uses for their daily operations and finally at the local government level, the Charter/Ordinance operates.  In both systems, the Federal Constitution is superior to any other form of legal instrument (State Constitution and local government Charter) and also, the Federal Constitution is the “supreme” law of the land and everything else (the Bible and Quran) MUST give way. In both systems, ordinarily, the functions and duties between the Federal and State/local are separate, or in the case of the UK, the Federal government does all the functions of government and the local government has little function.  In both Presidential and Parliamentary systems, topics that are federal in nature including immigration, elections and free speech, these are federal matters, and their applications require consistency and to be the same all over the country. No other part in the country can have different election laws or immigration laws or free speech laws. In both systems, the local government laws require supervised authority from a higher source of authority (Federal Constitution in the UK, and State and Federal Constitutions in the US) to implement its laws, otherwise, a local government cannot implement its own laws on its own

Functions of the Constitution :   XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX                                                                     Basically, the Constitution has two major functions, -1- it is the source of all the rights and civil liberties that citizens enjoy in a democracy. -2- The other function (explained in full details immediately infra below) is the source of authority for the creation of the three branches of Government including Parliament, the Executive, and Judiciary, the Constitution provides the rules on the daily operation of government.      As it concerns the rights of citizens that are written and listed in the Constitution, the document protects the citizens from the Government from encroaching on those rights. In a democracy,  the Constitution being the supreme law of the land, is the only document that gives rights and liberties to citizens, and no other document gives citizens rights and liberties, otherwise the Bible and the Quran do not and cannot give citizens any rights in a democracy because they are not laws of the land and they MUST vacate and give way to the Constitution.  If what you are trying to achieve is not listed as a right in the Constitution, or it violates the norms, cultural and social values of the particular society, then what you are doing is in direct violation of the Constitution and it is illegal, and you have no right to do it. If the Constitution says you can only have one wife, that is the law and you cannot have 4 wives. Are you crazy?  If the Constitution limits every family to 2 children, you cannot have 20 children. That is the law, and everybody MUST obey and comply. Again and again (emphasis added), in any country with a Constitution, the only source of your rights and civil liberties is from the Constitution and absolutely not the Quran or Bible.                                                                                                          

The split between horizontal and vertical implementation authority                                                             

The Constitution of every country is the symbol and act of sovereignty, that enables sovereign acts internally within the country, and externally in global affairs, it gives the country identification as an independent sovereign nation.  Internally, it is the supreme law of the land and everything else (the Bible and Quran) MUST give way. The Constitution is the source of sovereign authority that implements every Act of Parliament, simply put, Parliament cannot make any laws without authority, and it is the Constitution that gives and enables Parliament with the authority to make laws. Simply put, in a democracy, no Government can exist without the Constitution. Where the job of the Executive is to enforce (the Constitution), laws and every Act of Parliament, and the job of the Judiciary is to interpret the Constitution, thus in a democracy, a government cannot exist without a Constitution. Usually at the foundation of every country, the first thing a Government must obtain is, the Constitution.  Depending on the type of government and differentiating between US Presidential and UK Parliamentary systems, sovereignty contains supervisory powers by the Federal Government over lesser powers who are not sovereign (or of equal sovereign status, if it is the US), thus, which demands an explanation of the implementation powers of the Federal sovereign that are divided into two parts, horizontal and vertical implementation powers.

Horizontal implementation powers

As explained previously, the Constitution is the source of authority that Parliament uses to make laws, and Parliament does not have any authority to make laws without the Constitution. Because Parliament makes laws for the entire country, here, the horizontal implementation powers of the Constitution encapsulate the entire country as a whole and more so in a unitary Parliamentary system of government such as the UK, and it might have dual function of vertical implementation as such, if an Act of Parliament directly affects the local government. However in strict sense, horizontal implementation powers restrict the Federal Constitution to activities at the federal level, this refers to the control  of the Federal Constitution over all Federal agencies and every organ of government at the federal level (as is the case in the US Presidential system).

Vertical implementation powers                                                                                                                                                                        In every system of governance, every tier of government (Federal, State, Local government) requires a legal instrument to operate, and it is impossible to have any tier of government without a legal instrument, and this brings about the sovereignty of the Federal government (Federal Constitution) over the smaller tiers of governance, State (State Constitution) and City local governments (Charter). The required legal Instruments in brackets .                                                                                                                                                                            The arrangement here is hierarchical in nature, and it means control of the Federal Constitution over a lower system of governance and again, differentiating between the UK and US systems, in the Parliamentary system, the federal Constitution has control over (city) local governments, this is hierarchical because both the federal and city, are governments but the Federal is superior and a sovereign with a Constitution and the local government does not have a Constitution, thus, of lower (totally inferior)  status with the federal. Thus, in the UK system, the Federal Constitution is the implementation source of authority for the city and local governments.  Under the implementation powers of the Federal Constitution, it is mandatory that, every local Government must apply to the Federal Government for the Charter they will use to govern their cities. In the US however where you have 3 tiers of government, Federal, State and Local, the Federal Constitution remains the supreme law of the land, however, sovereignty is shared with the State Government which also has a State Constitution. The sovereign arrangement in the US is known as “Separate but equal” where you have a smaller sovereign (State Constitution) within a larger sovereign (the Federal Government), the Federal Constitution does not implement the State Constitution and there is no hierarchical vertical implementation powers in this arrangement. While the Federal Constitution does not implement the State Constitution, regardless, the State Constitution cannot violate any provision of the Federal Constitution under the “Supremacy Clause” in the Federal Constitution. In the arrangement in the US system, the only hierarchical arrangement is between the State and Local governments. It is the State Constitution that implements “City” local government Charters.  Every city and local government must register and apply to the State Government for the Charter they will use to govern.  The pecking order of legal authority in the US System is that, the local government Charter follows the State Constitution and the State Constitution follows the Federal Constitution. Also, under both systems (UK Parliamentary and US Presidential), the local government is under vertical implementation control from a higher authority with a Constitutional sovereignty. It is essential that the local government cannot be let loose on its own without supervision from the higher authority, otherwise, lack of supervision brings about insidious lawlessness, chaos and dangerous anarchy, however on the otherhand, supervision creates order, consistency and uniformity .

What is available in the UK written Constitution, “Free speech”

The only known written Constitution from the UK is the “Magna Carta”  and it has been in existence for over 1,000 years, and it covers free speech. In theory, the UK has “free speech” however in practice and application and with the current events with the arrests of citizens on issues concerning the Jihad, Islamization and migrant problems, the UK does not have free speech. However, we will accept the Magna Carta for a passing grade that the UK has a written Constitution on free speech.

What is not available in the UK written Constitution, “Election Laws”

There is no known written document that exists anywhere that governs elections in the UK at all levels, both at the Federal and local levels. Since the UK does not have a “Codified” Constitution and all the documents are scattered every where, it becomes cumbersome and almost impossible to find a legal document that can be classified as a Federal law that governs elections (both federal and local) in the UK. Under the “Federal Constitution Election Laws, both federal and local elections must have “consistency” in every square inch of the UK territory, the London Mayor election must have the same requirements as the Mayoral election in Ipswich, and both London and Ipswich cannot have different Mayoral elections laws. While it is correct that, from their local government Charter laws, both London and Ipswich may be different on some aspects, but there are some issues that are non-negotiable that are federal in nature that only the Federal Constitution can provide the guidelines on the election matter for the purpose of uniformity and consistency across the UK.  A few months ago, I saw a new Mayor and she was female ( I cant remember the name of the City), there was no election but she was selected into the Office by the City Board Members. The new Mayor was from Pakistan and all the City Council members who appointed her to be the Mayor, were all from Pakistan.  If the local Charter of this City had said it was OK to have a Mayor without an election, this would be in violation of the Federal Constitution Election law that makes elections mandatory for Mayors to be elected, this is the consistency and uniformity across the country that the presence of a Federal Constitution brings.  All over the UK, in all the cities with Mayors, there are some severe fundamental major flaws concerning the elections (or, non-election) of these Mayors, all of whom could have been elected on fraudulent local government Charter laws that would have been in violation of the Federal Constitution laws on elections if the UK had one. In all of these cities, there are fatal inconsistencies, and every city does as they wish, some have elections and some do not have elections, and there are large scales voters fraud everywhere in the UK in all the Mayor elections that fail modern day international standards.

Legal conundrum of the lack of authority of the local government to implement its own laws without supervision from a higher source of authority, the Federal Constitution.

As the supreme law of the land, the Federal Constitution has supervisory powers over local government laws (Charter) as in the British Parliamentary system in the UK, and it  is the source of authority that every city and local government uses to implement their laws.         If there is no federal written Constitution in the UK governing local government Mayor elections or any other federal written law that qualifies as a viable law for local government elections in the UK, thus,  all the local government Charters and laws that have been used by all the cities in the UK to elect their Mayors are all completely unconstitutional, illegal, null and void for lacking the legal authority by the city and local government to implement its own laws without authority from the Federal Constitution. Matters are worse if all the UK cities local governments are operating their governments illegally  without  a legal Instrument and without Charters. Since the Federal Constitution is the source of authority that implements the Charter of every City and local government, and because the UK does not have a Constitution, even if a City government has a Charter, there is no (higher) authority to implement it . Thus, all the Mayors elections in every city in the UK (from London to Manchester) are all illegal, unconstitutional, null and void, and will be canceled immediately after the procurement of the new Constitution.

It is well settled area of Constitutional law that, the Federal Constitution is the source of authority and implementation of all the laws in the land and it follows that, in any Constitutional law system, any law that has a higher authority that is above it, requires supervision and approval from that higher authority to be able to implement its own laws. In both the US Presidential and British Parliamentary systems, the local governments (cities) being the lowest form of governance, require supervision from the higher source of authority and that source of authority is ultimately the Federal Constitution (although in the US, it is the State Constitution that implements local government laws). 

What is not available in the UK Written Constitution: Immigration laws

Where can someone find the immigration laws for the UK? Are the laws authentic enough that could be augmented into the written Constitution of the UK? Who is a UK citizen? Is it by birth-right? How is citizenship by naturalization obtained and by how many years? What is the process for deportation? What is the process for expulsion of undesirable foreigners? Can the Government deport British citizens and anyone born in the UK?

With the current biggest problem of mass immigration, any law found must answer each of these questions and if not, the UK does not have any immigration laws.

The Assignment

In the 21^st century when almost every country on the planet has a written Constitution that is well codified and organized, the UK does not have a  written Constitution, a situation that is totally unacceptable because it is below the global international standard of best practices by States.

Thus, the UK must produce and have a  written Constitution that lists all the laws of the UK, and also marks the borderlines of the territory. This assignment is not directed at any political party, rather, every adult UK citizen must participate and ensure that the UK has a codified Constitution.

With the right prompts, AI could generate a  Written Constitution for the UK in a matter of 5 minutes, to be followed by human oversight that all the outputs  are correct. Or in the alternative, Constitutional Law Professors can get together to assemble together all the laws of the UK in a single format, that will be the  Written Constitution of the UK.

Arrangements of the  Written Constitution for the UK.

The Constitution will be arranged in sections with numbers according to the activities on the land, and some few aspects have been identified here, but certainly there will be many more to follow and the numbering here is only suggestive, and it could actually be up to 50 sections, and Lawyers will be trained accordingly .

Sections

-1- Free Speech

-2- Due Process (Fair hearing and Notice)

-3- British Culture and Values

-4- Social Order:    XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX                                                                                                                            Polygamy is strictly prohibited and it is one man and a wife and not 4 wives, maximum children allowed per family is 2,                inter-family sex and marriages and incest among family members is strictly prohibited, parents cannot marry and have sex with their children. You can’t marry and have sex with your sister or brother or  cousin, Are You Crazy ?  Sex with children is strictly prohibited.

-4- Education

-5- Health

-6- Security (Police)

-7- Local Governments (Cities) (Charter requirements)

-8- Immigration (citizenship, deportation and expulsion processes)

-10- Territorial Boundary lines of the UK

-11- Language And Culture

-12- Designated State religion (Christianity)

-13- Elections  (Local And Federal)

-14- The Executive

-15- The Judiciary

-16- Parliament

-17- Military / Martial Laws (Military Intervention Provisions)

-18- Democracy Laws  (Requirements, democracy is NOT replacement, majority does not “always” win, and the goal post will be moved or removed or relocated or there is no goal post)

Expectations

All the provisions here will solve the current mass immigration crisis, sections 3,8 and 11 will solve the Jihad problems, and very important, the expulsion laws reiterates the fact that, the length of stay of an individual does not matter, and the individual and with 4 generations before him might have stayed in the country for over 100 years, and then, the Government retains the power to deport them with “expulsion” laws. Usually, expulsion is meant for a group of people, and it is different from deportation (or actually, they are the same) in that,  deportation has present/current effects but expulsion has retroactive effects from the present time that dates back to 100 years as long as the group of people have violated the country’s laws.  This is the same law that President Trump currently has in the US, expulsion laws that have retroactive effects that date back to 100 years. As a matter of fact, expulsion laws are not new to England, it was the same law that was used to deport thousands of prisoners from the UK to Australia and New Zealand in the 19^th century.

Sections 7 and 13, address the fraud, lawlessness, chaos and anarchy  in the local government Mayor elections, and it brings order, conformity, consistency and uniformity in all the Mayor elections all over the UK. It brings local governments under direct supervision of the Federal government. 

As it concerns the local governments, all the Mayor elections in every city will be canceled because of fraud and irregularities,  and also because the UK did not have a Federal Constitution in place authorizing the Mayor elections.

Ratification of the new Constitution.

It is by a national referendum. It is the power of the people from a national referendum that is the ultimate source of sovereignty that a Constitution has. The national referendum is the ultimate power of the Constitution and why Parliamentarians cannot claim the power of sovereignty, over the power of the people from a national referendum. Concerning retroactive effects of some of the provisions in the new Constitution, by default concerning certain topics, the requirements may be waived because life must go on. For example, some Acts of Parliament that were done without the Constitution. Without immunity from the waiver, a smart-ass dirty citizen can sue Parliament and declare all the Acts of Parliament (before the acquistion of the Constitution) to be illegal, thus hold the entire country to ransom.  Those issues to be waived will be listed as “Measures” in the referendum. In a democracy, power (sovereignty) belongs to the people and the people may waive any provision in the Constitution with retroactive effects. However some issues particularly involving acts of fraud and criminality and including all the local governments and city Mayor elections are not negotiable, they will NOT be waived and they will be canceled as null and void because of fraud and irregularities, and also because of public safety and national security. All the current chaos and anarchy all over the UK have their roots from the cities and local government. Thus all the cities need a new start, they get their legal instruments and Charters from the Federal government and be under direct supervision of the Federal Constitution.  The current illegal migrant problem in the UK (while generally is an EU problem) has been caused by election fraud where political parties and candidates organize with human traffickers to bring in thousands of illegal immigrants into the country to vote illegally in all the elections especially in the Mayor elections. With the start over, UK citizens must remain vigilant, get proper elections regulations that meet international standards including local government registration of the person, Voters ID card, National ID card, and current address registration of every voter to be confirmed is a resident of the city.

Measures to be included in the ratification of the Constitution

At the ratification of the new UK Constitution in a national referendum, and of course, it is only 100% full blooded UK citizens who can vote, and migrants cannot vote. Measures to be included in the ratification contain supplementary issues in society that require a popular mandate such that only a national referendum can provide. The national referendum provides the opportunity of killing two birds with one stone including the ratification of the Constitution and the measures. The current social menace of the migrant problem could be put to a vote for the citizens to decide on immediate expulsion of all illegal migrants from the country and those migrants who are Jihadists  trouble makers.  The “expulsion measure” takes the matter out of the governments hands and the citizens can decide on the matter as a matter of law. If the expulsion measure is successful, the UK will be rid of this problem within 6 months after the vote as all the trouble makers would have been expelled out of the country. Where the citizens are currently heavily frustrated for the lack of action from the government on the migrant crisis, they have the power to do something about it in the national referendum for the ratification of the Constitution

FAQ time

-1- Is it possible to have the "Expulsion Measure" on a stand-alone basis on the referendum without the ratification of the Constitution?

Yes, it is possible but it is not recommended if there is another social pressing concern that could be addressed together at the same time considering the fact that, the process of a national referendum is huge! It is almost once in a life-time that one witnesses a national referendum any where these days. However, what is possible is that, the Constitution ratification could be done on a stand-alone without the "Expulsion Measure" but the measure is included in the Constitution as a law, however, this is not recommended. One must remember that the referendum is the act of sovereignty by the people and anything that is done on that refrendum day becomes law and with immediate effect.  On the other hand, if the expulsion measure does not become law on that day of referendum, it may never become law, and here is why. After the referendum, the Constitution creates the 3 branches of Government, Parliament, Judiciary and Executive. Between these 3 branches of government, dirty politics will enter between Parliament and the Judiciary, and the Supreme Court may even rule that the "Expulsion Law" is illegal and unconstitutional. Meanwhile, it is Parliament that holds custody of  the Constitution which they use daily as guidelines of their work, and they may add additional laws (Acts of Parliament) to the "Expulsion Measure" that may permanently obfusticate, obstruct and block it that it will never be enforced and with time passing by, for the next 30 years, there will be no action on the "Expulsion Measure". On the otherhand, if and when the measure becomes law on the same day as the referendum, it goes immediately to the Prime Minister for "immediate" almost "same-day" enforcement, and it takes and forces the matter out of the hands of government particularly Parliament who might mess with it bigtime. It is possible within a year after the referendum, almost 100% expulsion would have been carried out.   Also, a stand-alone expulsion referendum is possible in other cases, for example, this migrant problem is generally an EU problem, the measure may have a domino effect on every country in Europe with every country having an "Expulsion-Measure" referendum and it may require that expulsions between several different EU countries be coordinated so that migrants from one country may not escape to other EU countries . 

-2- Who is allowed to vote for the UK Constitution ratification referendum?

It is only 100% full blooded UK citizens who can vote, migrants cannot vote 

 

August 9th, 2025  >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       >>>>>>>>     >>> >   >              >        >

 

Calling on all Political Science Grad Schools in Europe and US to overhaul the current curriculum of studies to reflect modern realities. Doctoral and Masters Theses must address the Jihad and Islamization of Europe and US, and the total redundancy of “Democracy” in the scheme of things.

In Grad School, every Masters or Doctoral thesis that we write, has one purpose which must as rule be listed in the “Introduction”, and that purpose globally and everywhere “is to advise Policy Makers” on how to address an identified significant problem area in society. This rule still applies, however currently, to irrelevant, insignificant, moribund and mundane issues in society, and it does not address the most significant issue of the day concerning the global Jihad and Islamization of Europe and US. If anything else and apart from advising Policy Makers on how to deal with a particular problem in society, these theses also serve the multipurpose of  “military intelligence” or “intelligence gathering”  that contributes significantly to safety, national security, and overall well being of society generally.

Democracy (and its attachments including Political Parties, Rule of Law, Political Issues) as the main focus of study in Grad School has been inaccurate and over-rated, whereas, the inherent weaknesses of the system of governance particularly from free speech, make democracy susceptible  to destruction and anyone who is familiar with the weaknesses in any particular democracy can destroy the system. Democracy is not meant for everybody, it is expensive and the historical events surrounding several groups of people who have nothing in common but forced to stay together, ultimately makes matters worse.

Governance must include both soft and hard forms, and Political Science Grad Schools must teach and research both forms of soft and hard governance, Democracy is the soft part and Military Rule (Martial Laws) is the hard part. Political Science Graduates deserve to make more money than Law / Economics graduates because it is our job that provides stability in society which makes everything else thrives. Again and again, Grad Schools must teach and research both forms of governance. It is a fact of life that, democracy is not a consistent concept and there will be times that a country becomes ungovernable when democracy will turn into  chaos and anarchy and which puts the existence and survival of the State at risk, and which necessitates the “hard” form of governance “Military Rule” and “Martial Law” to take over governance and restore Law and Order.  There are some social issues that it is only the Military that can solve these problems.

As stated above, every Masters or PhD thesis has the purpose of “intelligence gathering” for the Government on how Policy Makers can tackle an issue. In addition to teaching “Military Intervention” in governance, Grad Schools when required and absolutely necessary can nominate some pressing “social issues” and “social concerns” for Masters and PhD research as parts of their efforts into researching that particular issue, afterall, every Masters or PhD degree is a research degree and there is no better way to obtain research that is well structured to addressing a particular social problem. Their efforts will be rewarded with information and details that are “intelligence gathering” for the government useful for national security and State survival.

Here is an example of “intelligence gathering” from a Masters / PhD thesis concerning national security from the current issue of the Jihad and Islamization of US and Europe. In most places and in Europe, if the Government were to launch the “expulsion” process attempting to expel millions of undesirable foreigners from the country, the process will have both soft and parts. Government wants to make sure that the expulsion process has no inconvenience for citizens, it is fast and swift and no citizens will be harmed. The soft part is the “No Go Zones” which are areas that most foreigners live, and no citizens are expected to be here, the Government can clear up the place very quickly and easily with aerial bombings by the Air Force and artillery ground assaults by the Military.  If by any chance any citizens resides in these No Go Zones, they are advised together with everybody else and including foreigners to vacate these areas within 72 hours in preparation for total and complete demolition by the Military and every single building or structure in these areas will be razed down to complete ashes, rubbles, dusts and fine particles.

The “hard” part is the general population, where the apartments, houses and residences are mixed and inhabited by citizens and foreigners, this the biggest problem for government to effectively identify and round up foreigners for expulsion when they live and hide among the citizens. If anyone saw the situation during the riots in Los Angeles, this is worse. Government does not have an effective tool to separate foreigners from citizens in the general population in their places of residence and apartments. If the citizens occupy different apartments with no foreigners or foreigners occupy only apartments for foreigners with no citizens, this makes it easier for Government to round up for expulsion, foreigners who are trouble makers. Note, not every foreigner in the country is a trouble maker, and in order to be fair, research must establish the nationalities of the trouble makers and they should be the ones to be rounded up for expulsion.   

Thus, Grad Schools nominate this problem area for research, and it is expected over 100 Masters and PhD students in a Department will positively respond to do the research. Several concepts can start with, separation of citizens and foreigners can start from City Hall where foreigners are required by law to register every year to renew their visa, here all the data are foreigners and in any event, foreigners are different from citizens by their names. From the data at City Hall, Government can reassign the apartments that will separate citizens from foreigners. After the reassignment, Governments sends notices to everybody to move and relocate to their new homes, the apartments contain citizens only and foreigners only. Separation also applies to grocery stores.  Another concept could be, during the round up operation that lasts for 7 days, citizens are moved into the Army and Police Barracks and large Soccer fields (heavily protected areas) where they will stay while the Military rounds all the foreigners for expulsion. In some instances, there could be relocation of citizens between cities, for example here in Austria, the capital city Vienna is known to contain mostly foreigners and the city of Salzburg has mostly citizens and no foreigners, and thus, all the citizens in Vienna could be relocated to Salzburg while the Military rounds up all the foreigners in Vienna.   In all instances, citizens are heavily armed and provided with guns for self defense.  There is not going to be an easy way out and the goal is to minimize and eliminate discomfort to citizens during the expulsion process.

Every Masters or PhD thesis on the average takes between 6 months to a year to finish, and where a thesis is identified as a great potential source of “military” intelligence, the thesis is immediately classified (not to be published) and converted into a military document, and the owner is rewarded 100,000 euros (one hundred thousand euros), and the thesis is forwarded to the Military Government for further action. It will be noted that, the Military Government from their own military training and background will have their own ideas of  “intelligence” and national security,  however, the intelligence from Graduate School and Military training are complementary. For example, a Grad School thesis that suggests the separation of foreigners from citizens, the Military from their background must also be thinking simultaneously that, the borders must be also closed. Every idea is strongly encouraged, and nothing is considered to be "evil" or "bad" as long as it helps in the war effort and the fight against the Islamization of Europe and US. It's like everyone has seen the videos when they gather to pray and they illegally occupy and block access to unauthorized areas including parks, bridges and other areas, and all of a sudden, they appear in large numbers, however with proper logistics, this is an easy way to round up hundreds or thousands of undesirable foreigners, thus, a thesis could provide the research introducing the ideas, concepts that will enhance the logistics of rounding up thousands in situations like that.     

A reminder that most Grad Schools are public Universities funded by the Government, and the curicullum is issued and authorized by Government, thus, Government reserves the right and absolute right to determine the contents and structure of the curicullum for a Masters or PhD thesis as deemed fit. Redundant topics like Political Parties, this and that, must be suspended for the time being to be replaced with teachings and research on hard and soft types of Governance that will include Martial Laws and Military Governance. Also to be suspended immediately are some useless, redundant and rubbish research questions for Masters or PhD thesis, an example a research question like this "Asking if Mount Everest is big enough with a lion to intervene in the EU financial crisis of the 2010". Research questions like this (for a Masters or PhD thesis) must stop henceforth. First of all, what does Mount Everest have to do with anything? Also, what does Mount Everest have to do with a lion? Also, who or what is a lion? It is better to keep an open mind about some of these things. Is it the animal from Africa from the savanna? Aaaaaaaaaaawwwwww! Of all people, it is the King of the Jungle! ! Look, I don't get it! Above all, what do Mount Everest and a lion have to do with the EU finacial crisis?. When compared to the demands and problems of the present realities that need urgent attention, redundant and useless research questions MUST stop henceforth to be replaced with research questions that contribute to miitary inteligence that helps the Government fight the Islamization of Europe and US.

There is no easy way out, and Government and Policy Makers must actively solicit and pay for ideas on every significant social problem. Every idea that comes from Grad School research that serves as “intelligence” that contributes to national security, seems to be authoritative and convincing than any other way, because of the rigorous academic process that a Masters or PhD degree goes through from the research process. The current mass immigration problem in Europe with disastrous consequences of Jihadism, has been escalating for over 10 years and getting worse by the minute, and the problem Europe has with dealing with the problem is, logistics. There must be a time that Europe must start the process of tackling the problem and the solution cannot wait another 10 years

 

                                 

Criminal Law (Revisit 2,000)                                                                                                                 

https://x.com/BoxingEnth/status/1949793982055170092                                                                                                                                Hypothetical Question on “Self Defense” And Proportionality Requirement .                                                                                              In this video, a boxer could be seen beating the shit out of a defenseless woman. The question is, assuming if this woman had a gun, and she took out the gun and shot the boxer dead,  is this “Self Defense” or “Manslaughter” ?”. The video shows that “Retreat” was not possible and not required and she did not start the aggression and she did not exchange the first blow. About proportionality as it concerns the use of “deadly” or “lethal” force, is to match the fists of a boxer (on a defenseless person) with the effects of a gun, are they the same? In Law, the proportionality requirement (under the attending situations and circumstances seen on the video) is justified as “self defense” if the woman took out her gun and shot the boxer dead anytime during the several blows she got from the boxer. Short and simple. In the US and even globally, boxers are licensed to fight, and the only place they can fight is in a fight that is “authorized” and licensed by the Government. Boxers are not allowed to fight on the streets. In Criminal Law, the fists of a boxer are considered to be  “deadly weapon” on the same scale with a gun. And again with the surrounding situation as seen on the video, the boxer was the aggressor and she started the fight and throwing deadly punches on the woman, and she could have killed her. While the boxer has been barred for life (which is good) but not good enough. She should also spend some time (at least one year for a felony aggravated assault and aggravated battery) in prison on felony charges of “aggravated assault” and “aggravated battery” and even “Attempted Murder”. For non-Lawyers, the intent of a crime is elevated and becomes "aggravated" if a weapon is used, as in the case of a boxer, the fist is a weapon, a deadly weapon. Clearly, in any civilized society, we don’t want boxers or professional athletes engaging in street fights and beating the shit out of  people and beating up people.   To elevate this discussion, requires to go deeper into the issue of "Manslaughter"                                                                                MANSLAUGHTER ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                              From the hypothetical question above derives a second hypthesis (entire analysis below is hypothetical), what if one of the two (either the woman or the boxer) dies from this event, either the woman dies from her injuries from all the blows she got from the boxer, or, it is the boxer who dies after being shot by the woman, who claims self defense. Manslaugter is explained from two different perspectives, from the boxer and the woman. If death occurs eitherway, that is homicide, and as a preliminary rule, we check for causation both legal and proximate causation that clears the "But For Test", that one of the two parties is responsible for the death of the other. Next, we test for "Murder", and from here, we split the analysis between the boxer and the woman.                                                                                              Boxer's murder (after being shot by the woman). Here, we quickly run through the elements of first and second degree murder, if it is premeditated with malice aforethought. Malice is required for first degree murder for premeditation, here because the boxer was shot by the woman, there is no malice here and no premeditation and no planning because the encounter and chance of the two people meeting that day was by chance, random and happenstance. While malice is not required for second degree murder, however, it requires planning and premeditation, however and again that these two had never met before and they did not know each other previously and their meeting that day was random, thus, there was no premeditation and planning from the woman. From murder, we turn to Manslaughter.                    Manslaughter comes in two categories, Voluntary and Involuntary.                                                                                                              Voluntary manslaughter involves a category of killings under "Passion Crimes" where criminal intent culpability is reduced that was caused by intense provocation, that was adequate and the person did not have enough time to cool down (using a reasonable person's standard), a crime like this is the same and like when a husband find his wife having sex with someone else.  Here, the encounter between the boxer and the woman is not from heat of passion and not this category of manslaughter. Thus, we examine "Involuntary" Manslaughter.  Note, Voluntary manslaughter does not require "Negligence" (Duty).                                                                                                                  Involuntary Manslaughter, as a rule, always involves "negligence" (when one recalls that, murder has been reduced to manslaughter because there was no "intent" to kill), however, we start with the basics of "Negligence" including causation (both legal and proximate) and from there, we examine the big time requirement, called "Duty". This is the biggest test for "Negligence", duty. It asks whether the party who has caused the harm, owes the other party duty, not to cause the harm,  Duty generally in law usually in Contracts, Torts, and Crimal Law may require some relationship between two parties, here in this case, since there is no known contractual, employment or familial relationship between the boxer and woman, thus we will examine the concept of "General Duty Of Care" which is a Torts concept, which every person owes another, not to cause harm to the other. Sure there was provocation, after several blows to the head but the boxer could have stopped after the first blow since the woman did not show any resistance and she was unable to fight back because of the boxer's superior athleticism, and after several blows and the woman lost all hopes thinking that the boxer was going to kill her, she took out her gun and shot the boxer, and as a result the boxer died. Thus, the woman did not owe the boxer any duty. As a result, she is not guilty of manslaughter. This is it, and no Jury anywhere could ever convict the woman of manslaughter, and her claim for self defense, holds. 

Woman's death (from the video) from the injuries she suffered from the boxer (and the boxer better prays very hard that nothing happens to this woman in the future and for the next one year and she does not die from all the blows she got or else, she is going straight for manslaughter). Here, we start with the basics, causation (see infra), both legal and proxinate with the but for test, shows the boxer was responsible for the woman's death. Next, we examine "Duty" from "Negligence". From (supra) above, we apply the same "General Duty" of care that everyone owes another, not to cause harm to the other. The boxer landed over 12 vicious blows to the head of the woman, every single blow was very fatal and powerful enough that could break the woman's jaws and cause severe blood heamorage to the brain or cause some brain damage. The question everyone is asking is, why did the boxer not stop at the first or second blow after the woman was not responsive and could not fight back? Was the third, forth, 5th, 6th all the way to the 12th blow absolutely necessary?  Because the woman could not fight back after the second blow, the boxer was required to stop any further blows and because she did not stop, the boxer owed the woman duty of care not to cause harm. Under the circumstances, manslaughter conviction of the boxer by the Jury is guaranteed in any jurisdiction.                                                                                                                                                                                             Self Defense Rules    XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

The law everywhere allows every one to be armed and carry a gun for protection and self defense, and if used properly (ruling out homicide with murder), the end result will only be involuntary manslaughter with no criminal culpability or conviction because it falls under “excusable” and “justifiable” homicide. Further analysis explained between murder and manslaughter while claiming self defense. If you have a gun for self defense, you cannot use it for murder. An example, if you have some beef with someone and you know their movements when and where they go shopping at the grocery store or their favorite bar they eat and drink, and you go over there, waiting for them to arrive and immediately they arrive, you approach them and start a fight and when they retaliate, you shoot them dead. This is murder, first degree  as such because it involves malice (stalking and premeditation). Again, this is not self defense but clearly murder. On the otherhand, manslaughter must not have intent and no premeditation and the meeting of the two individuals must be random and by happenstance chance. Here two individuals meet for the first time and with human nature, an argument starts from provocation, that results into “assault” and “battery” that could cause grievous bodily harm and injury, and where the other party possesses more powerful assault weapon (much bigger or stronger physically or some weapon) to justify proportionality, then it is perfectly OK to pull out the gun and shoot in self defense. Any homicide here is excusable and justifiable as self defense. Note, there are rules to self defense. If you want to claim self defense, you cannot be the aggressor and you cannot be the first to start a fight and you cannot draw your gun at the other party at the beginning of the argument unless  you have been hit first (although this requirement varies and depends on the surrounding circumstances and situation). The use of the gun must happen during the assault and battery, and cannot be after the assault, and you cannot shoot in retaliation after the assault / battery has  stopped. Example, the threat of assault and battery requires two individuals to face and see each other, and the battery actually takes place when the two are facing and seeing each other, this is when, you can shoot. It is OK to shoot at any stage of the assault and battery  because it is normal for the aggressor to rest for a few seconds and then continue the assault and  battery. However, if the  aggressor stops hostility and they turn their back on you and if they are walking away, it means hostility has stopped and there is no longer any battery, then the threat of assault has also stopped, at this point, you cannot shoot because there is no assault (threat). You cannot claim self defense if there is no assault.  If you shoot while the aggressor is walking away and there is no assault, this is “retaliation” and it becomes murder, that is second degree murder because you formed the intent to kill in retaliation. Retaliation is the same as “Motivation” to do an act which is often guided by “Reward” , example a wife who kills the husband to collect the insurance money, and in this case, the motivation to kill the aggressor  is the reward from anger. Thus, it might seem like there are two ways between “Intent” and “Motivation” to examine a crime in Criminal Law. However, there is no competition and Criminal Law does not use motivation and instead, only “intent” is used as the requisite element of a crime, and intent itself has two elements, mens rea (criminal thoughts) and actus res (the act), mens rea must always occur first before the act, and both occur at the sametime the crime takes place. It is also a fact that, there is no minimum amount of time required to form intent, it could be as little as a few seconds between manslaughter (shoot during the assault) or murder (shoot after the battery has stopped and the aggressor turned his back walking away). There is a thin line between each and all the categories of homicide from first degree murder, second degree murder, manslaughter, and criminal negligence, it is  like every musical instrument that has several ranges of note in the same family group of instruments and the highest is  a “Soprano” or “Piccolo" version (notably Trumpet (Piccolo, Trumpet, Flugelhorn), Saxophone (Tenor, Alto and Soprano) and Electric Bass Guitar (Piccolo), the difference between the highest version of the instrument to the next and further down the range and last version, is “half a step” in the note.  With homicide, it is also “half a step”. Some Jurisdictions demand retreat if possible to do so applicable under the “Castle” requirement if someone is at home, but most Jurisdictions prefer “Stand Your Ground” and no need to retreat. If street muggers knew they would be shot dead, they would stop attacking and beating up people. There was a video I saw on twitter, a guy was walking home peacefully and minding his own business when he was suddenly surrounded by 6 immigrants who called him “gay” and they beat the (holy) shit and (dirty) crap out of him, and immediately I thought “This is not right”. And in another video, there was an elderly guy who was walking his dog and minding his own business when he was suddenly surrounded by 4 immigrants, and they beat the hell and (dirty) crap out of him.

Limitations And FAQ

-1- How about the Police?                                                                                                                                                                                  Absolutely, nobody has any self defense rights against the Police.  It is also a fact that, some people may never have an encounter with the Police throughout their entire lifetime, some few law abiding citizens. However, that is not the way it works for most people even when you are law abiding, the reality in life is that (especially when you have neighbors), is either you call the Police because of someone, or someone will call the Police because of you, either way is guaranteed a visit by the Police for the personal one on one encounter experience with the Police. Driving also increases your chances of an encounter with the Police. Recall that, there must be an assault and battery that will justify self defense, since you have no reason to be fearful or apprehensive of the Police when they approach you (and usually in response to a distress call), and when the Police approach you, they do not approach you in a threatening manner that could create assault that makes you fearful and apprehensive, and the Police will never hit you (for no reason unless in self defense) hence, any self defense probability against the Police is automatically ruled out for the lack of assault. Next, the Police are symbols of the State and authority, if they come for you and you are under arrest for a crime, under the circumstances, you have no right to self defense against the Police. Also, anyone who has committed a crime does not have any right to self defense against the Police (or Law Enforcement generally). In a shoot out with the Police, the armed robbers who have just robbed a Bank cannot claim self defense as the reason they are shooting  back at the Police.

-2- And Night Clubs ?                                                                                                                                                                                          The situation at Night Clubs is dicey and it offers “conflicts” in two areas of Law between Torts and Criminal Law. Let us do the easy part first, the general analysis of self defense applies every where and including Night Clubs. You will have more arguments, provocations and fights in a Night Club than you would ever get in a Church. However, same rules of self defense applies, everywhere.  The difficult part comes about with Night Club Security who are usually armed and very big individuals as “Bouncers”. Bouncers are big guys with an average weight of 300 pounds or 350, and their job is to beat people up and anyone who does not obey Club rules. If you go to a Night Club and the bouncer beats you up, it is very likely that you are at fault for violating the rules, and under the circumstances, you may not have self defense rights against the bouncer. Under Torts as explained under Negligence defense “Assumption Of Risk”, everyone who goes to a Night Club has assumed the risk of assault and battery (of some kind) at some level, either with the bouncers or another type. Assumption of risk also invokes the ultimate defense in Torts and Criminal Law which is “Consent”. Anyone going to a Night Club has consented to whatever risks they might encounter there (as it concerns the bouncers).

Requirements and essential components of every modern State Constitution.                                                                                            Provision for military intervention when absolutely necessary.                                                                                                                Governance in every State in the 21^st century should always be with a combination of hard and soft or Yin and Yen approach, both embedded in the Constitution and to be applied accordingly when the situation demands for it. The “hard” approach to governance is usually temporary and the purpose is to take care of a particular problem the “hard way” which appears to interfere with smooth running of government or has caused law and order to break down in society.   For the West where Democracy is the choice of governance, it is a “soft” form of governance that is prone to abuse by anyone who is familiar with the weaknesses in the system. Anyone who is familiar with the weaknesses in a democracy can destroy the system. To repeat one million times, democracy has inherent weaknesses.  A State will fail and collapse when its governance system has been destroyed. To counterbalance and prevent State failure when and if it appears that democracy is going to fail, the Constitution must provide an alternative that provides transition to Plan “B”, military intervention, and also, the Constitution provides the guidelines of their “intervention” and what they must do and after that, they must go. The military restores law and order and their stay in government is temporary and they will leave after the problem has been removed. Both “soft” and “hard” types of governance exist side by side and both are legitimate, however, no State Constitution in any country has recognized the provision of military intervention for the governance of a country. This oversight or mistake, is showing why several countries in Europe are currently failing the “stress-test” caused by the problems of mass immigration and the Islamization of Europe. To back track on the use of the military in any country to restore law and order, a distinction exists between a regional part of a country (State within a State) where law and order has broken down and the Federal Government can use the federal military might to restore law and order in that particular region of the country, this is currently applicable in every country and infact, is reflected in every Constitution. However, the issue here is, when law and order has failed or is about to fail entirely in the whole country, and the Federal government does not exist, the question is, who is going to deplore the military to intervene to restore law and order in the whole country?

Operations of both soft and hard (democracy and military) cannot be concurrent at the sametime and they are mutually exclusive of each other, usually the military trails democracy and can only come into governance when called for and when law and order has broken down or is about to break down in the entire country. This arrangement is possible with the provision in the Constitution.

When compared to “Martial Laws”, military intervention is a little bit similar, but with limits to a sectional area of the country where law and order has broken, down and martial laws may not apply to the country as a whole. In contrast to voluntary intervention by the military, without a Constitutional arrangement providing for the transition of governance from democracy to military, anything else and intervention by the military will be “involuntary”. Some scholars may say it is unconstitutional, however, if the purpose for the incursion could be justified and particularly, if the incursion is well grounded on national security and existence of the State, then, the intervention is perfectly legal. Usually, when the military makes an involuntary incursion into governance, they always give their reason to justify what they have done.                      CONSTITUTIONAL CONSTRAINTS UNDER THE ARRANGEMENTS.                                                                                                              One must always recall that, the purpose of the Constitution is to limit the powers of Government and as applied here, under the voluntary arrangement where the Constitution specifically provides for the “voluntary” part in which there is transition between democracy and the military, then, the military is “bound” by the Constitution during their temporary stay in and exit from power. However, if there is no Constitutional provision and the military made the incursion on their own initiative and volition, then this is “involuntary” arrangement, and here, they are not bound by the Constitution and as a matter of fact, the first thing they do under the circumstances when they are in power, is to suspend the Constitution. However, under both instances, the country is governed under military rule, and all civil liberties and rights are suspended, and even more so, under the “involuntary" arrangement.                                                                                                            IS THE CONSTITUTION A POLITICAL SCIENCE OR LAW (LEGAL) DOCUMENT ?

The relevant question often asked is, between the subjects Law and Political Science, which one is more relevant to the Constitution?   While there is no grey area or YES or NO answer, the answer is found in the processes from the formation (acquisition) and use of the document. The formation process requires Political Science to acquire the document via political representation in a democracy, and the second process involves how to use the document with which it is a legal document defining how the Government should be run and organized, then, this part is Constitutional Law. First part which is acquisition from democracy is Political Science, and the next part on how to use the document, is Law (Constitutional Law).

Russia/Ukraine: Proposed  “End of the war” meeting between Vladimir Putin and Volodymr Zelensky.                                                  Any meeting between these two guys is absolutely unnecessary. For what ? The 10th most junior Secretary to the Secretary of the Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs for each country can meet instead and wrap up the end to the stupid war. This has been a stupid war right from the start that has resulted into unnecessary deaths of many young men from both sides. While Russia has been complaining for over 10 years about the depletion of birth rate and the fertility rate in the country, this war will certainly make things get worse and Russia will be paying for this war for the next 100 years with the low birth rate.

As for Ukraine, as soon as the war is over, Zelensky  must step down as President and allow someone new to take over, he has performed his best under the circumstances and it’s time to go. This war MUST end immediately, mankind, humanity and evolution cannot afford any more losses. These two Secretaries who most likely are females, when they meet for the first time, there is only one thing that unites both of them, their gender, they are both females and at this point, they will forget about their nationalities about who is Russian or who is Ukraniane. Next, they will weep and cry about their losses and senseless loss of lives young men that cause irreversible depletion of fertility and birth rates in both countries, and their discussion will shift to “men”, and the only thing men have ever done was to cause wars that kill men which in turn deplete the fertility rate. In both countries at the moment and worse in Russia, the ratio of men to women is 50 females to one male.

As a rule, women rarely migrate and nobody is suggesting that foreign males and brown/black skins foreign males come over to Russia to replenish the lost white male genes, thus, Russia will pay for the next 100 years the consequences of this stupid war. Look, let us focus on Russia on the impact of wars on the fertility and birth rate. Between the first World War and WWII, and when you add the Purge by Josef Stalin that killed fellow 2 million fellow Russians, in the past 100 years, on a fair estimate from all accounts, Russia must have lost at least 30 million viable young  white male genes in their prime of primes, to wars. Even if we decide to deliberately ignore the truth about the amount of the staggering losses in these wars, however, the effects are clearly visible today with the depleted fertility and birth rate and as a matter of fact, evolution has kept all the records (some people / scientists believe that the Earth is alive and infact is a conscious being and keeps records and tabs on everything occurring on the planet, this is true with Russia), that fact remains that, Russia has never recovered from all the staggering losses from these two World wars. As if to rub salt and pepper on an open flesh wound, here comes another war and this present war Russia Versus Ukraine, resulting in further deaths and losses of viable white genes in their prime of primes.

If these two female Secretaries were well versed on the subject “Evolutionary Biology”, it would make it easy for them to understand the roles of males and females in the process of evolution from the various programs and platforms, which brings about one inescapable truth. The survival of the species depends "only" on females (when you consider the fact that the program on females has put all the entire burden of the reproductive process on females, and caring for the young), and with the exemption of biological necessity of fertilization, males play no roles whatsoever in the survival of the species. Does it make sense now that the only thing men can do is to cause wars that destroy the work of evolution and the survival of the species? It is because evolution (Evolutionary Biology) has not assigned anything at all (absolutely nothing) to the males of the species that will contribute to the survival of the species. Since the entire reproduction process was almost complete with the reproductive burdens on females, it is not clear why evolution did not complete the entire process by assigning fertilization also to females and why evolution had to create males separately simply only for the purpose of fertilization! One would have assumed that evolution wanted to conserve some energy  and could have concentrated the entire reproduction process on females alone and no need to create males. The argument is strongly divided among the scholars of Evolutionary Biology whether or not evolution made the various creations with intelligence and wisdom, and where evolution has made a serious error in any particular creation, it throws into serious doubt the rationale behind that particular creation. Specfically with humans, scholars have agreed that the creation of humans was the worst error by evolution, and infact, it is categorized as "manifest error" of the highest egregious level because humans are destroying every work that eveolution has ever created, scholars have blamed evolution for failing to ancipate the coming and arrival of humans at the late hour of creation. Also with humans, as already analyzed, the creation of males among the human species, is equally a manifest error when evolution could have put the entire burden of reproduction only on the females. 

While no particular species is "qualified" to judge the wisdom of evolution creating another species, look but however, when that particular species wrecks havoc  and woeful destruction on every path that it takes for survival, as this is the case with humans, and rightfully, evolution must be querried about this particular species. Scholars are overwhelmed about the descructive impacts of humans on other species and generally on the environment. Where the males of the human species have been identified as the main problem because evolution has not given them anything to contribute to the survival of the human species apart from fertilization, it is a fair assessment to say that, all the males in the human species exist only for that purpose of fertilization, and ordinarily, fertilization is simply sex. With no prejudice and absolutely no direct insult to anyone, but simply put, all the males in the human species exist only for food and sex. Look, to evaluate the existence of the survival of the species as evolution puts it, the males in the human species exist only for food and sex. 

In the academics and often, it is nearly impossible to find a subject that exists all alone 100%, rather, at some point, that subject will have to reach out and branch out to a different but relative subject often called "interdisciplinary", depending on the level of explanation required to explain “something”. Thus, Evolutionary Biology requires assistance from the subject Anthropology to explain the hypothesis from Evolution, why the males of the species play no "useful" role in the survival of the species . What Evolutionary Biology “Evolution” explains is that, with the exemption of the biological necessity of fertilization, males of the species are useless to the survival of the species otherwise, the survival of the species depends only on females. This is a general provision for all species including plants and animals. However, Anthropology is a subject about humans “Anthro”,  and it explains in details the concept about humans and wars. Because all the wars in history have been conducted only by men (which has decimated human population growth and almost to the verge of destroying the entire human species), hence, Anthropology confirms the hypothesis from “Evolution” that, specifically with humans, men who are the males of the species, are inherently useless to the survival of the species, and men do not contribute to the survival of the human species. During the times of trouble and in serious crises, some people turn to their Gods, but for us, we will turn to Science and knowledge for assistance because that is all we have, the proven results that are substantially backed up with evidence. Who or what humans are today, has been programmed 7 million years ago when human ancestors first appeared in Africa, and with the modern human appearance 400,000 years (also in Africa), the transformation process that formed the basis of human thought and cognitive processes today, was fully established, and nothing has changed since then concerning the predictable human behavior and reaction to situations. The knowledge we have is divided along the various academic subjects that are very much accurate about humans, subjects including Biology from which Evolution and Ecology are prime, Anthropology is equally a formidable subject (also contains Evolution and Ecology), and while not too distant and neither far away is the subject "Human Physiology / Anatomy" which explains the wiring of the human brain (based upon million years of evolution) which forms the phisical basis and explanation of certain human behavior. Physiology / Anatomy, is also a branch of study in Biology. 

Several times during the conflict, and in response to provocations from Keir Starmer (England), Emmanuel Macron (France) and  Friedrich Merz (Germany) who are urging Ukraine to strike deep into Russia with long range missiles, Putin insisted that, he has set up the "Oreknische" nuclear missiles to London, Paris and Berlin. Whether or not it was a joke, but it was very close to reality that the use of any nuclear bomb in this conflict would mean the end of civilization and life on Earth. With the end of life on Earth, the work of evolution that started almost 4 billion years ago, finally comes to an end, because of humans. Again and again, the error by Evolution that failed to intervene and intercept the coming and arrival of humans into the evolutionary process (even at the very late hour of the process) is an egregious "manifest error".  Now to decide if the problem is entirely a human species problem or  (men) the males of the human species are the problem, is to reverse the situation and let the females and women leaders decide the fate of the war in Ukraine. Was the war worth killing several thousands and destroying the gene pool of young white males in their primes thereby causing shortage of males in the population that would make a bad situation worse by increasing the ratio of males to females 1 male to 50 females? Would women leaders have gone to war over Ukraine? The answer is absolutely NO. Women think differently than men, and they see things differently. Men, just as these guys Putin and Zelensky and others did not bother, because causing wars (for no reason) comes very easy to men, and all the unnecessary deaths that will follow, that factor is never taken into account. And whether it causes a shortage of males in the population, men will laugh ha,ha,ha "And so what?" they will fire back at you. The next generations of women in Russia and Ukraine for the next 100 years, must know their history.   

If you are fascinated on the topic "Evolutionary Biology" or you seriously doubt any of the evolution analyses here, Stanford has a great Grad School Program and if you have any questions about the evolution analysis here  you can contact the Professors  for more insights and they can help you with better understanding and explanations https://biology.stanford.edu/research/department-subgroups/evolution/ . "Evolution" is a concentration/field under the Department of Biology https://biology.stanford.edu/people/biology-department-leadership/ .  Because you also need "Anthropology" to asnwer your quetions, here you go!  https://anthropology.stanford.edu/academics/graduate-program/ , however, I don't know how this works but the Grad School in Anthropology, also has "Evolution" as a concentration/field! Maybe, it is the same guys from the Biology Faculty but clearly, the two subjects Biology and Anthropology are academically related interdisciplinary.

The truth about Grad School ! 

The difference between a Masters degree and a PhD degree, depends on the amount of research involved, while a Masters thesis is a small PhD dissertation, that is the preparation for a greater work in a PhD dissertation. A Masters thesis can require between the maximum of 40 to 60 pages and while a PhD dissertation is usually between 80 to 120 pages of materials. The Masters program exposes the student mostly to the various theories in the subject and with a research background that includes the Masters thesis. However, a PhD degree is entirely research and far gone past the stage of theories, and the scholar is now focused 100% on research. While both degrees are considered to be “Research degrees”, however, the PhD degree is far superior in research to the Masters degree. The PhD degree holder is more of a “Specialist” and a Master’s degree holder is an “Analyst”, both from the subject. When required or called upon, it is mandatory that both must be able to present the subject matter fluently, lucidly, intelligently, and be prepared to force the issue into research if absolutely necessary.

The absolute truth is that, Grad School is absolutely required after the Bachelor’s program, between the highest order PhD and Masters  degree level, it is a must to get one, otherwise, it is only in Grad School that you know something or anything about your major, and usually, every Grad School program is a research degree program (at least in the Social Science subjects Sociology, Economics, Political Science and even Law).  A Graduate degree globally is considered to be a “Research degree” and  It is because of research that Graduate degree is meaningful, otherwise, any Grad program that does not have research, is fundamentally worthless and meaningless. A Grad School program that is based upon only on theory and without research, the theoretical basis lacks application and cannot be applied or logically extended intuitively.  The ability to apply the theories from Grad School to any given situation, is the fundamental and function of a Graduate degree, and this could only be achieved through research.  Because there are several types of Graduate programs out there including research and non-research (MBA and Business degrees), however, in the Social Sciences, the proper Graduate degree must be a research degree also known as “Research Masters degree. A typical Research Masters degree program is scheduled for 2 years and 4 semesters, and out of the schedule, one year (2 semesters) is for the theory part , the other year / 2 semesters is for research with one semester for Research Methods classes and Research Methods seminars for one semester . The last semester is for writing the Masters thesis which is an application of the research methods  to the theory (a topic you have selected that has been approved by your Supervisor and the topic must have been developed from all the courses learnt so far from the subject), thus, the Masters thesis is the ultimate part of the research in a Masters program and with a successful completion and from here henceforth, you are an independent thinker, you know the truth and you can find the truth on any matter from the subject based upon research. Research enables you to be able to think further from the classes you have been taught in the program. With research, there are several ways to find the truth and extend knowledge further through qualitative and quantitative methodologies. It is research that confirms the validity of any theory from any text someone has read. For example, during my Grad School in Political Science and as everyone knows, you must be prepared to read and read like crazy to survive the program with thousands of pages of texts and materials to read. There was one particular text that my Comparative Politics Professor assigned to be read, this text looked very ugly and very ancient, and probably written well over 1,000 years ago but it was about 15 pages long compared to the regular text that is 30 to 35 pages long. What they say and warn everytime  about is that, you never judge a book by its cover. While preparing for the Master’s examination (the final part to graduate after passing your Master’s thesis), grudgingly, I forced myself to read this ugly text (the fonts alone must have been hieroglyphics from the ancient Egyptians. The main concept in this text as it concerns the subject Comparative Politics was the argument that, between a group of local robbers and foreign robbers (as this is the case of politics, and Government corruption that involves looting of public treasury), the questions was, which of the two groups would the people allow to govern them? The local or foreign robbers?. Usually when Professors assign texts, the texts are to be read and they are not for entertainment but one can sympathize with the student who has to read over 1,000 pages of texts to prepare for an exam, and the Professors will not tell you exactly where the questions for the exam will come from, out of the 1,000 pages. For the Masters exam, I beefed up on the popular topics of Comparative Politics covering “Democracy” and differences between the British Parliamentary system and the US Presidential system, all the texts for these topics are modern, with fine fonts and prints and a great pleasure to read. That I thought, the Professor was likely to select her questions from, for the exam. However, I also read the ugly text. Would you believe it? Lo and behold, the Professor did not ask about “Democracy” , and instead, she asked about the ugly text. She goes “What does the text say?” , and “How can you apply the theory from the text in any modern system of governance?” . I froze and died right there, while the exam was on Zoom (during COVID in 2021). To be able to apply the text which did not say explicitly that the theory was about theft and the looting of public funds by Politicians in a system of Government corruption, but that was the application. Between the local and foreign robbers, the people would prefer local robbers to govern them because they know the local robbers very well and the robbers are their own people such as the case that “the devil you know is better than the devil you don’t know”. And also, the local robbers would rob them much less than the foreign robbers. However, the people will not allow foreign robbers to govern them because they are foreign and they do not know them and they will run away with all of their money . The foreign robbers would rob them more than local robbers.  In application, the text was about Government corruption, theft and looting of public treasury by Politicians.  I passed the exam and I graduated. However, in real life situation in applying that text to a modern system of Governance, one must think about US President Trump. During his first time / term in Office, he was new to the process, and he  did not know anybody or anyone he could trust but only his family and blood relatives.  When US President Trump first took Office, he appointed his children (Ivanka and her husband Jared) and close family relatives into Cabinet posts, this is despite the fact that, there has always been a law about such appointments of family relatives into “cabinet” posts or on “Contracts” basis, the law is called “Conflict of Interests” and it is present in almost system of Governance), was this in clear violation of the law Conflict of Interest?. Thus, while the first question could be a research question that addresses “Does the appointment of family relatives by Politicians into cabinet posts violate the conflict of interest laws if Politicians can only appoint people they know very well and trust ? . This will be a “Qualitative Research Methodology” that requires “survey” with questioners generated among the public to be able to find out how the public feels about the issue. The second research question is clearly resolved with “Quantitative Research Methodology”, the hypothetical assumptions requires a causal affect showing relationship between the violation of conflict of interest laws and the drastic elimination of thefts and looting of public treasury by Politicians when Politicians are allowed to appoint only the people they know very well and trust.

The research question is developed “Is there any violation of conflict of interest laws by President Trump appointing his daughter Ivanka as a Cabinet member if it eliminates and reduces theft and the looting of public treasury? “ This research will require large data with similar instances that seek to establish causal effect and relationship between causation and outcome from the hypothesis assumptions in the research question.   

In conclusion, it is essential that everyone who holds a Bachelor’s degree in any subject, must go further and go to Grad School for either the Masters or PhD degree. Apart from some programs like Business Administration which by nature the MBA graduate degree cannot be done by research, however, all other subjects and particularly those in the Social Sciences (Law, Sociology, Political Science and Economics) are all do-able by research, and the graduate program is always a Research Masters degree or a PhD degree. It is research that enables the extension and application of the various theories from every particular subject to fit every practical life situation that requires critical analysis. Without research, it is impossible to extend or apply any theory.

In addition, a Graduate degree enhances better job prospects and it is like every job these days, employers are asking for a Master’s degree. That is why I already did two separate Masters degrees programs (Political Science and European Union Studies) and I’m doing my third Masters degree program in Economics, to be able to have an advantage in the job market over someone with only just one Master’s degree. Having a Bachelor’s degree these days is like having a High School Diploma 40 years ago, everybody has it and the value has depreciated and the competition for a job is very tough.

Personal Growth And Development                                                                                                                                                            SPECIAL ANNOUNCEMENT:                                                                                                                                                                              I will be enrolling in the SOCIOLOGY Masters degree program at JKU Linz September next year (actually, I'm undecided yet which one out of the 3 Sociology Masters programs at my alma mater University of Salzburg, JKU Linz, and University of Zurich). I have always wanted a Graduate degree in SOCIOLOGY and as a matter of fact, I did apply for my PhD degree in Sociology at the University of Salzburg 3 years ago but my application was rejected because my Masters degree requirement for a PhD was not satisfied. The requirement for a PhD admission is that, the application must be supported with a Masters degree from the same subject. I was not allowed to use my Masters degree in Political Science to apply for the Sociology PhD program and they demanded for a Master’s degree in SOCIOLOGY.  JKU Linz has a great Master’s degree program in Sociology.   Someone once asked me the question, what are you acquiring all these Masters degrees for? . Then I thought, sure, why not? . The acquisition of 5 Masters degrees (Economics, Political Science, Sociology, European Union Studies and Law ) reflects the opportunities available in my current location, Europe. It would have been impossible for me to do this anywhere else in the whole world but only Europe, currently the world’s greatest land of opportunity. It is possible I may start taking some Sociology graduate classes starting in 3 months in October this year and I don’t have to wait for 14 months until next year before I start taking classes. With my current enrolment in Economics, I can take any class from any subject in the University system.  With my 5 Masters degrees in all of the main subjects of the Social Sciences, this will make me the KING of the Social Sciences.  

Obituary and bye, bye forever to my US JD Law School applications:  See below                                                                                      I look forward to getting my Law degree here in Europe, Switzerland/University of Zurich or here in Linz/Austria at my current University JKU.

-1- Status of my current Masters MSc Economics program.                                                                                                                        My graduation is going to be delayed for one more year until 2027 because I failed almost half of my lecture classes after completing my third semester in the program. It’s a 2 year 4 semesters research Masters degree program, and typical of a great program that it is, it is often very difficult to complete a great Masters program on schedule in 4 straight semesters / 2 years according to my experience from my two previous Masters degree programs in Political Science and European Union Studies. What is normal and on the average because of the level of difficulty of the Graduate level courses (especially, the Research Methods classes) it may take at least 4 or 5 semesters to complete the lecture classes, and then finally, a whole semester and usually the last semester is reserved exclusively for writing the Masters thesis. Hence, it is reasonable to budget 3 years (6 semesters) to 4 years (8 semesters) to graduate and finish the program. Clearly no doubt, some classes will be tough and they present some challenges but that’s Grad School for you, and if you fail a class, you will have to wait another whole year to be able to repeat that class as classes are not available every semester but only once a year.  I still consider it to be a great dream and privilege for me to be in the program and out of the three Masters programs I have undertaken, the Economics Masters program has the greatest depth in Research Methods classes and fully embedded in all kinds of research and software applications including R, Stata and SPSS.                                                                               

  -2- Goodbye forever to my US JD Law School Applications:                                                                                                                         I will do my Law Bachelors degree either here in Linz at JKU or at the University of Zurich, Switzerland. My first JD application to a US ABA Law School was in 1987, and my last application was March this year, and in between 1987 and 2025 I must have applied almost every year to different ABA Law Schools. My rejection this year from 2 ABA Law Schools, I consider it to be an insult their decision they said I was not qualified, even with 2 different Research Masters degrees. In addition, I also had prior US Law School matriculation, having completed one year of US Law School classes in Torts, Criminal Law and Contracts. These two accomplishments should compensate for the low LSAT score. It is only in the US that Law Bachelors is a Graduate degree program that requires another Bachelors degree to get into the program, in all other places and everywhere else, a Bachelors degree in Law remains a Bachelors degree program. One must understand the history of Standardized Testing in the US from which the LSAT has evolved, and it started with the recruitment of soldiers for the US Army during the First World War when nearly all the applicants turned out to be idiots, dirty idiots! That was the beginning of Standard Testing for every thing and every profession in the US, the main function that it serves, is being an effective “weeding-out” process that unjustly removes some candidates from others without any probable evidence. The LSAT has done that very well, it is a “weeding-out process” that removes some candidates from others without any justifiable evidence. There is no evidence that LSAT is a predictor of performance in Law School and as we say in the Social Sciences Research Methods, our biggest problem in any theory has always been the “Confounder” 3^rd variable which is the “unobserved variable” which is correctly known as “Omitted – Variable bias”, inasmuch the objective of the LSAT has a cut-off score threshold of mostly high scores on the test above 70% which all the ABA Law Schools apply, but, as our Confounder 3^rd variable (the unobserved variable) that has never been studied nor observed, are the applicants below the cut-off threshold, and if whether or not, someone with a score of 30% or even much lower, could do well in Law School and graduate. This confounder unobserved variable has never been proven and no one has attempted to observe candidates with low LSAT score could do well in Law School, and if we can expand further on the confounder with an experiment. Since the first degree Law program in US is considered to be  “Graduate” program, the experiment is this, if we brought all the law classes to Europe either to JKU Linz or University of Zurich where the Bachelors law degree is from a Bachelors degree program, all the undergraduate Law students in Europe would pass all the US “Graduate” law classes easily, and one must recall that Europe does not use a weed-out process like the LSAT. Thus, if an undergraduate from Europe  (without a Bachelor’s degree) could pass all the US JD courses, why could’nt someone or anyone already holding a Bachelor’s degree pass the same law classes?  Since I have completed one year of US Law School, I’m competent enough to be able to compare the level of difficulty between all the 4 Graduate programs I have attempted including Law, Political Science, European Union Studies and Economics. It is going to be a tie between Political Science and Law for having almost the same level of difficulty in intuition, logic and reasoning, however, at the top of the 4 subjects and with no competition whatsoever in logic, intuition and reasoning, is the subject Economics. Economics is the hardest ever in all the Social Sciences subjects, the Masters Research program in Economics will certainly make any Law program look like a child’s play toy. The amount of the level of logic, intuition and reasoning in Economics are far superior to anything from Law. I passed all my Law classes after my first year but in Economics, I failed half of my classes after my first year, there is just no comparison between Economics and Law or any other subject in the Social Sciences. In addition, Economics has the deepest and largest amount of Research Methods available in the Social Sciences that all the other courses in the Social Sciences including Sociology, Political Science and Law, must borrow the research methods from Economics. Since I will never apply again to any US Law Bachelors degree program, however, if my intention remains to practice law as an American trained Lawyer, I will have to make a back-door attempt to get my US State Law license without my legal education from the US. This is possible through the reciprocity of licensing procedures between all the 50 US States Bars that allow foreign Lawyers and foreign Law graduates outside the US to take their State Bar exams for licensure to practice in a particular State in the US.  Infact, many ABA Law Schools offer a one year Masters Law degree program that prepares foreign Law graduates to take the State Bar exams in most US States Bars, most likely, I will not take this route for my law license. Upon my admission to the State/Canton Bar in Switzerland or Austria, I will apply directly to take the State Bar exams of some US States I’m interested in, including California and Pennsylvania, and many others. Every State Bar covers certain subjects for its State Bar examinations, and they are almost identical for all the 50 States. California State Bar has 12 subjects, out of which, they test only 6 subjects every year for the exam. My plan is, starting rom my first year of Law study in Switzerland/Austria, I should go into turbo-charged “self-taught” mode on all the 12 subjects, and between 3 to 4 years of law study to  my admission to the Bar in Europe, I’m ready to take the State Bar exam in California or Pennsylvania. I already have 3 out of the 12 subjects (Contracts, Torts, and Criminal Law), so I have only 9 subjects to study and  be “self-taught” (Constitutional Law, Properties, Wills and Trusts, Probate, Family Law, Corporate Law and others)  

Comparative Politics and comparison of the systems of Governance in China, Russia, the US Presidential system and the UK Parliamentary systems: Which is the best? And which one responds fastest and best to internal crisis with the approach “nip it in the bud”?

Going back to Grad School once again on this topic of Comparative Politics which is a concentration in my Political Science Masters program.

While everyone has been urged to go to Grad School however, what if to everyone’s surprise that, first of all, Grad School does not teach you “everything” you need to know about the subject; or -2- Grad School does not teach you anything you need to know about the subject. However, there is a clear distinction between these two instances.  In the first instance, it is impossible for any Graduate program to teach you “everything” you need to know in a subject because the purpose of Grad School is not to “babysit” you but to make you to be an “Independent Thinker”, thus, a few theories from the subject and including a solid research background, are sufficient enough to produce the Independent Thinker. In the second instance, although it is very rare, however, it is possible.  Not every subject has “Universal Values” and while some subjects have “Universal Values”. Subjects that do not have universal values, there is no graduate school and there is no point, and grad school in this instance will not teach you anything in the subject, and in this category, Grad School is not even available. Subjects that have universal values, Grad School will eventually fall into the first category where “Grad School does not teach everything you need to know in the subject”. Universal values accrue to a particular subject where the values to the subject remain the same consistently globally and cross-culturally across the different cultures, for example in the Social Sciences, the subject Economics has universal values, every culture on the planet must submit to the laws of demand and supply, hence, every University every where on the planet teaches the same theories in Economics and the Economic theories in Europe are the same in Africa, South America, Asia, North America and Australia.   From the same Social Science family subjects group, the subject Political Science does not have universal values and the values are different across the cultures globally, hence Universities apply different theories depending on their location

As it concerns this topic of the Comparative Systems of Governance between Russia, China, US and the UK, the subject Political Science does not have universal values. Depending on your location, that will determine what you will study and know about the particular system of governance from your area and your Grad School will not teach about any other political system outside your area. If you are from the West (US, Canada, Europe, Australia, and parts of Africa) you will learn “Comparative Politics” only about “Democracy/ US Presidential System and UK Parliamentary system” from Grad School and you will never learn about the systems of governance from Russia and China. Equally, Political Science Grad Schools in China and Russia do not teach about anything about the West and Democracy. However, democracy and political representation in China and Russia as it is reflected in their systems of governance may be apparent, but their “properties” may not have the samething as the “adversarial” and “competition” formula found in the West in the UK Parliamentary and US Presidential systems of governance. Finally, in this analysis, I'm all alone by myself on how to do it and God help me because Grad School did not teach me anything about the systems of governance in Russia and China, I was taught only about the US and UK systems of governance. I think it is going to work out in the end to determine which of the systems is the best in terms of policy formation that nips any emerging bad social issue in the bud, and my gut feeling points to China. 

Specifically with China, the political system of this country deserves attention for research purposes . Every powerful economy in the world must be supported by a powerful political system that is instrumental in the massive economic development, for example the US. China currently, is the second most powerful economy in the world, after the US. Again to reiterate, China’s rise to economic recovery to being the second most powerful economy on the planet would not have been possible without the political system of governance that made it possible.  Or in the alternative and instead of studying the political system of governance in China, one should study the history of China and if China had had the potentials for greatness firmly embedded in its past which eventually produced the system of governance and the economic transformation.  

As Chairman Mao Zedung said in 1954 in confrontation with the US that “China has existed for over 5,000 years” seems credible, and over the years, it seems that China has the most advanced civilization in the world, far superior in knowledge to the West. “Advanced” as used here means “knowledge” and not “going back in time”. While the West will not admit it, and even if one goes back in time to be able to make the word “advanced” have its full meaning, China possessed knowledge that was far superior to the West, making China the most advanced civilization on the planet. Gun powder was invented in China and had been in China for over 800 years before it was discovered in the West. Papyrus, the material for making and printing paper was invented in China and had been in China for over 700 years before it was discovered by the West. Many other several inventions occurred in China that the West would not admit. However, when one talks about China as an advanced civilization, one must always remember Japan, also from the East, and Japan seems to track China effectively in civilization, history and knowledge.

As a rule in Political Science with a universal value on this particular rule is that, a stable polity is  required for economic development, China got this right.  Another universal rule in Political Science and more so in Economics is that, economic development responds positively and ultimately to the various government intervention policies. Once again, China got this right (notably the one child per family policy). Now briefly is to examine the system of governance in China. The country operates a one Party system in which there is no opposition party. Party leadership is by selection through a system of hierarchy, the current President is Xi Jinping    IN PROGRESS 

The EU and the migrant /jihad crisis!                                                                                                                                                            The Jihad Crisis demands Ministerial level of intervention at the Council of Ministers requiring that every member State has surrendered their “Core State Powers” to the EU. Failure of the EU to act, there will be a Military Intervention in one or more Member States within the next 4 years. Any Military intervention in any EU member State will initiate the irreversible process of EU disintegration with 100% certainty. For the EU to act, the process requires the EU at the Commission to designate a new Cabinet post with a Commissioner to tackle the crisis for example, the Commissioner of EU Values, Culture and Civilization, while every member State has a corresponding Minister of EU Values, Culture and Civilization, and they meet once every month in Brussels at the Council to tackle the crisis requiring coordinated efforts by everybody.

Israel and Iran: (After the regime change) Does the Shah want to come back? And what he must do

Israel and Lebanon : Could these two countries merge?

Israel, Lebanon, Iran : Could these 3 countries merge after the regime change in Iran?

How about Israel, Lebanon, Iran and Iraq ? Could these countries merge (after the change of regimes in Iran and Iraq) ?

Los Angeles Riots : Who is control of the National Guards between the President and State Governor?

Regional Integration : Could the State of California merge with Mexico? And thereafter, California “reapplies” and “resubmits” application for re-admission into the US ? Or, in the alternative, request for a Constitutional Amendment that allows California (States) to sponsor Mexico into the Union! Political possibilities  and Legal constraints examined. 

Why is Quatar paying several hundreds of billions of dollars every year to the elite US Universities to acquire the Intellectual Property and Sole Ownership Rights to the Masters and PhD Dissertations from these Institutions?  University of Texas, Austin recently got 5 Billion dollars! Harvard, Stanford, Yale, Cornell, Columbia, University of Pennsylvania, University of California, Berkeley, University of California, Los Angeles, University of Chicago and others, have all been bought and sold! Totally disgraceful and very shameful!

The battle between the global North and global South, the rich North versus the poor South: Pull and push factors of illegal/legal economic migration from the South to the North: Case studies examples between the US and Mexico on the one hand, and Europe and Africa on the other had. In Europe, economic migration push factors confounder as a factor for Jihad in Europe with opportunistic interventions for chaos and anarchy by Jihadists.

Islam in the US, and the expected predictable decision of the US Supreme Court

President Trump’s birth-right citizenship argument: Is it justifiable under proper and adequate parameters and not the one size fits all Trump’s argument under tourism birthright ?.

EPIC City Update :

Ireland, Scotland and England: Triangular axis of massive voters fraud : The EU must investigate and if any electoral violations are not consistent with the EU standards and best international practices, the elections in 16 cities in the UK with Muslim Mayors should be nullified as illegal because of voters fraud.

“Adesanya’s Law”,                                                                                                                                                                                              Just like Murphy’s Law in Physics, I have created my own Law in International Relations with this concept, called “Adesanya’s Law” for its application from the concept of The League of International Constitutional Order Trust “LICOT”. Countries that subscribe to this concept will be using “Adesanya’s Law”.

Current state of the world and Jihadism: Issues in Moscow

The truth about God! Comparative analysis between Science, and Christianity/Islam 

President Trump’s newly acquired deportation powers is an over-reach that amounts to “expulsion-powers” that allows the President to deport US born American citizens. Is it legal and Constitutional? Since African Americans and blacks are the only target group for expulsion, does it amount to ethnic cleansing? And, where are the Reparations Activists?

Syria: Hello, excuse me! What is going on in Syria about the Druze issue ?                                          https://x.com/realMaalouf/status/1946584259684081951                                                                   https://x.com/DanBurmawy/status/1946545292691787852/                                                     https://x.com/MarinaMedvin/status/1946942466692685900

NEW UPDATES 4/26/2025

What is the next step for Sweden?                                                                                            (Ireland, Denmark, Germany, England, Netherlands, Italy in the ball park) and                 African perspectives!

Because of my exams coming in next week, I will have to study and there will be a momentary pause in my updates at this website. I have to graduate anyhow possible.

The Swedish Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson has admitted recently in 3 months ago (January 2025) that he (Government) has lost control over violence in Sweden https://www.yahoo.com/news/sweden-multi-cultural-dream-went-055041254.html/  because of illegal mass migration with fundamentalists muslim Jihadists in control of almost half of the geographic territory of Sweden. https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/swedish-pm-says-integration-immigrants-has-failed-fueled-gang-crime-2022-04-28/  . It appears that Sweden is not alone but this problem is  a typical EU problem that affects every country in Europe, and some countries are more affected than others. For the countries that are critically affected, this essay offers some solutions to the immigrant crisis that has now emerged as possible subversion of constituted authorities of the various States governments in Europe.

Before I start with this analysis, it is time for some grammar games, it is interactive, I will give my take and you may have other ideas. This “appetizer” is needed for the reader to be able to make a well informed decision if the problem in Sweden and other European countries, have been self-inflicted and if it has been self inflicted, this will end all empathy  consideration for Sweden on the matter. However, if the problem is not self inflicted, all efforts will be made to allow Sweden recover from the crisis, and the intention of this essay.

OK, the first question is: What is the difference between “Mistake” and “Bad Judgment”? , Q2 is, Which one between “mistake” and “bad judgment” can you recover from?”, Q3 Which one comes with “regret” between “mistake” and “bad judgment”

For the answer, it is possible to find the answer to all the 3 with the correct answer to Q3 alone but I think Q2 is straight forward, if you can’t recover or you are dead, there is nothing to regret, right?. For Q1, it may require some illustrations and contradictions when we can not find the words for the definition. OK, so if you fail an exam, is that a mistake or bad judgment. I think, an exam is about ability and you can always try again, so failing an exam is neither a mistake nor bad judgment. Again to back track to Q1, suppose on a 400 mile trip from Los Angeles to San Francisco, a journey that normally  takes 8 hours of driving, so while driving, you end up behind a very long lorry and the trip encounters a long winding road and you cannot see the front of the lorry for you to overtake the lorry, and you must spend one to 2 hours behind this lorry. So what do you do? Do you overtake the lorry despite the fact it is dangerous to do so? If you overtake the lorry, you cause an accident and hit the car coming in the opposite direction, and as a result, you die in the accident! What is this? Is this a mistake or bad judgment? My take is, this is bad judgment and it is not a mistake. Which also answers Q2, you cannot recover from bad judgment but you can recover from a mistake. This also answers Q3 concerning regret, as explained before, if as a result of bad judgment, you die, it means there is no recovery and thus, there is nothing to regret, a dead person has nothing to regret in life when the battle is over. Also, if it is only mistake that comes with regret, a mistake that was borne out of kindness and whose original purpose was to do good, can never be regretted. It was the good and goodwill in the purpose and beginning of the kindly act that matter and not necessarily the outcome.

OK, here is the second game, What is the difference between being “nice” and “kind”. I think both are the same, and it depends on the degree and level of empathy that is involved, I think being kind, requires greater empathy than being nice.

What’s the problem ?

Because of mass “illegal” immigration from third world countries into Europe accumulative since the past 40 years, Sweden and other European countries have been invaded by foreigners who have failed to adapt to the laws of Sweden and have turned the country into being ungovernable, and in most European countries, these new foreign invaders are demanding for the overthrow of government and the constituted government authorities in these countries with their demand for the implementation of Sharia laws in the European countries. In addition, the new immigrants are causing lots of violence, murders, rapes and gangster violence all over the country. The government has lost control over half of the territorial integrity of the country to Islamic jihadists.  Also, in many instances, and since the past 30 to 40 years because of the EU immigration policies, Sweden and other European countries were forced against their wishes to absorb the mass flow of immigrants. As it is, the mass immigration is causing lots of problems in the countries involved, and nearly all the countries in Europe are affected, and with their demand for the implementation of Sharia, it appears that the takeover of these European countries by foreigners is fast approaching and very imminent. While mass immigration has often been thought to be illegal considered to be people coming from the desert or by boats, however, most of mass immigration have always been "legal" through a loop-hole in the immigration laws of most countries in the West, the loop-hole is called "Family-Reunion" and it allows a migrant who has attained the legal status of "Permanent Residence" in a country to bring into the country their spouses and children by filing for their visa applications. On a conservative estimate, one person can bring in an entire village or about 100 people into the country who will arrive in the country as "Permanent Residents". Thus, 1,000 permanent residents can bring in at least one million people. (Legal but highly illegal). If you imagine the Scandinavian countries who did not play along with the EU immigration policies and they rejected the EU immigration quota for them, regardless, there must be an alternative explanation on how the migrant population has increased exponentially in these countries. Mass immigration (legal or illegal) can cause disruptions in the voting patterns of the countries involved and can actually wreck the system, where it appears that, the large importation of aliens into the country is for voting purposes and simply to alter the trajectory and direction of votes, and this what appears to be the problem in Ireland. And in the UK, the Mayors of the 16 largest cities (including London) are Muslims (mostly from Pakistan), and their numbers are increasing in Parliament! Is the Muslim population that large? Or, are the elections held on different days which allows muslims to travel from city to city to vote for their candidates? Are there voting requirements by every city, and  requirements including  local residential address registration, Government issued identification and UK citizenship ? It takes someone who knows the defects in a system to be able to wreck that particular system. Anyone who is familiar with the weaknesses in the voting system in the UK, can easily wreck the system and also, the UK has been a big disappointment for the lack of fool proof mechanism “sophistication” required in these matters.  

Impact of WW1 and WW2 on Europe’s fertility rate

While the rapid growth rate of the foreign invaders have increased exponentially within a short   period of time, and it might look like with their population growth, the subversion and take over of these European countries were imminent, however, this is incorrect. The fact remains that, Europe has never recovered from the genetic population growth rate losses from the two World Wars (WW1 and WW2) that Europe fought. A fair estimate was that, 200 million Europeans died in these two wars. This alone destroyed Europe’s fertility  rate. Without the 2 wars, and with almost 4 generations already, Europe’s population by now should be at least One.Five billion people (same population with China instead of the current 750 million  people). Also, starting from the 1970s, Europeans and generally the entire West, went to “Nuclear” family planning with at most 2 children per family from the previous 5 to 8 per family, which also added to the population depletion in Europe. In countries like England, there were clear signs of mass immigration of foreigners into the country as far back 60 years ago in the 1960s, and clearly, there were red flags then in Britain and France.  The EU migration crisis of the 1980 exacerbated the problem for all the countries in Europe.

Sweden’s Act of kindness

The EU immigration crisis occurred with many third world countries mostly from Africa, and Middle East, all of whom happened to be muslims, and the EU apportioned by force on every member State to absorb millions of these foreigners into their countries. Sweden and all other EU countries complied with the EU policy by absorbing these foreigners who were fleeing their homelands for one reason or the other. Generally, Sweden and all these EU countries did so, as an of kindness, and to help those in need and the migrants who have fled their homelands because of persecution, wars and internal displacement. The purpose behind this act of kindness was to give the migrants the chance of a better life in Sweden. It is amazing how different people from different areas mostly in Africa and Middle East who fled their homes to come for a better life in Europe, and once they got comfortable in Europe, they got together for the purpose of destroying the European countries that have been nice to them. The immigrants have failed to adjust and adapt to the laws and culture in their new environment in the the host countries in Europe, and instead, they remained adamant to their old culture which they brought from their countries, and with which they want to spread jihad and Islamization in the host countries. This supports the popular saying that, you can take a child out of a village, but you can never take the village out of the child, the immigrants have failed to adapt to their new environment and went back to their old ways of life. 

Global outlook on the problem

Quite often, issues in international politics are very similar to the social sciences and how people relate to one another, locally within a village or city or town or even a country. People are very quick to perceive the relevant issues and when a problem arises between two parties, they bring on their thinking cap to determine who is right or wrong between the two parties. Globally, everyone has seen the predicament of Sweden and all other EU countries in similar situations that, the migrant problem was forced upon them by the EU, and they had complied with the EU policy out of kindness. Also, the whole world has seen how the migrants are trying to pay back kindness with evil, by failing to adapt to the new homeland, and refusing to obey the laws of the countries in Europe, and also committing crimes and making the country ungovernable with lots of murder and violence.

Clearly, between the two parties (Sweden and the mass immigration problem) the world has been able to decide who is right and who is wrong, which gathers empathy for Sweden. The country’s  act of kindness  does not deserve to be paid back with violence and chants for subversion for the destabilization of the government of Sweden with the migrants demands for Sharia law government. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=plXeyVhC3Cs/ 

Sweden’s only solution option

Suspension of the Constitution

All the rights everyone and including citizens, enjoy in a country are enabled by the federal Constitution. The opposite is true when the Constitution ceases to exist or suspended, all the rights evaporate and absolutely, nobody has any rights any more unless, it is discrete. When it is discreet, when the Constitution is suspended, all civil liberties and freedoms are equally suspended, the Courts vanish and the Supreme Court disappears, however, amidst all of these, even some rights are not deniable including those belonging to citizens when compared to foreigners who can be discriminated against (at will). Without the Constitution, it allows the Government to be discriminatory and arbitrary at will against foreigners who are in the country with a privilege and not as a right, the privilege that aliens use to stay in any country can be removed at any time, and more so, and absolutely so, when the Constitution is suspended. Again, once the Constitution is suspended, the Supreme Court equally disappears, and without the Courts, the government is able to be arbitrary and discriminate at will against anybody and against any group of people, particularly foreigners.

There are two ways the Constitution can be suspended, either voluntary or involuntary.

When the Constitution is suspended voluntarily, the situation in the country is very dire with a particular internal social problem that requires draconic and drastic measures to resolve, which cannot be resolved with a smiling face, and it may require some raw ruthlessness, and some dirty underhanded ruthlessness with all forms of unusual cruelty and punishment allowed (which no Government is allowed to do when operating a Constitution). The process and transfer of power has to be negotiated between the incumbent government and the incoming government. The incoming government acts as a caretaker with specific instructions for a short period of time to take care of the particular problem, usually between 6 months to a year.

When the Constitution suspended is involuntary, it has no negotiation between any parties, rather, it is the overthrow of Government by the military, and everytime this occurs, the first thing the military do, is to suspend the Constitution. When the military come in to solve a problem, they are not bound by anyone and they owe no explanation to anyone for their actions. Any social problem in the country that requires their attention will be dealt with raw ruthlessness never seen nor heard of before. In a situation like this, the military operates on their own timetable to stay in power to finish the job.

Which one is better for Sweden under the current situation?                                                Voluntary or involuntary suspension of the Constitution

The problem of lawlessness, chaos, violence, anarchy, destabilization of government chants, and demands for the implementation of Sharia that has been a huge problem for successive Governments in Sweden for over 18 years, could be solved by the Military, in a matter of days, few days and not even up to one week. The military https://www.forsvarsmakten.se/en/ (scroll down) are trained differently and when the survival of the country as a nation depends on their efforts, thus they are very reliable and will deliver the goods as promised. If the military will have to kill as part of their ruthlessness in order to achieve their goals for the sake of the country, and that is what they will do.  All foreign enemies will be declared as enemies of the State, and it is war. When the military comes in, it means the same as the “declaration of war”, nothing more and nothing less, again and again, if the military were ever to come in Sweden and the Constitution is suspended, it is a declaration of war. For the alien invaders who are also hardened emboldened Jihadists who believe that they are doing God a favor by invading and destabilizing a country that was kind to them, and  if they fail in the process, that they are ready to die in martyrdom and their reward is in heaven, but however, in comparison, the Swedish military is ready to kill in defense of the country because the country is officially at war, the question has always been, how will the ICC handle a case like this when millions of people are crazy and suicidal en massse?  When foreigners have invaded a country, this whole thing about Islamization and Sharia law implementation in any country that has a written Constitution and also with a legally constituted government authority, sure is crazy and looks like suicide en-masse for millions of muslims who want to die for no good reason, as it is expected that, the Swedish military will not allow anyone or any foreign invasion to destabilize their government https://www.forsvarsmakten.se/en/ . This is a confrontation that is made from hell and sure as hell, the military will never back down (See the statement from their website). if millions of people are suicidal and mentally sick with some psychiatric disorder that they want to die in martyrdom to spread the jihad to implement Sharia Law that will overthrow and destabilize a constituted government authority in Sweden, if they are crazy and suicidal and really want to die, well fuck yeah, and so be it, fuck it. 

Clearly no doubt, the military will solve this problem once and for all in a matter of days. To start with, the military can permanently delete for up to the past 50 years (or even 100 years) from the State records the names and lists of millions of people who are trouble makers, and without their names, identity and records in the State registry, it means they have never been inside Sweden because the government does not have their records, and the military may have other plans for them after that. If I were the Commanding Military Officer, after the total round up of all the migrants and all of them are in prison waiting for instant expulsion and deportation en masse, I would request the countries where most of the migrants are from to send planes to pick up their citizens from Sweden within 48 hours, if they don’t show up, all of the migrants will be dropped off in their millions in Antarctica. In Antarctica, they are free to chant and demand for Sharia law implementation. It is not wise trying to attempt to destabilize a government that is in control of your personal records, visa and identification when you have to go back to the same government every year to renew your visa and ID cards. Clearly, the Swedish military may have other dangerous and dirty, underhanded, ruthless, unethical, egregious, and extremely dirty and devious methods (all of which are allowed in war) at their disposal in solving the crisis, very fast too. Also imagine, currently, the Prime Minister has to wait for legislation that will allow the government to detain 12 year olds gang members who are heavily armed and killing people every where. With the military, the game will change (with the suspended Constitution) because the military does not need permission from anybody and any 12 year old with a rifle is free game and the same as an adult enemy combatant in a regular war and the military will react accordingly.

Caution and warning about the military. If ever, notice the word “ever” were to come in and the Constitution is suspended, it is war. They are there for a reason to “permanently” clean up the system otherwise, it is too late for anyone to repent or change their evil ways after they have appeared and until their mission is accomplished that will result into en mass expulsion and deportation, and that will be the only time they will leave. It is not like the military will be playing hide and seek with anybody or beg anyone to behave when their job is to permanently remove and expel trouble makers once and forall. Basically, the military has 2 tasks to do, first, their main task is to round up people and put them in prison for deportation en masse, and then deport en masse. Next, all the Swedish territories that were lost to Islamic Jihadists (over half of the total landmass of Sweden) in the occupied 100 “No Go zones” areas, must be recovered (yes, It is, an Order). To recover the lost territories, the military will give all the occupants notice and warning to vacate and leave the area within 5 days (and also, they must get out of Sweden), after that period, massive aerial bombings from the sky will start that will level up, destroy and razed down every single building, structure, mosque to the ground in rubbles, ashes and dusts. At the same time the military issues this warning, they will bomb and destroy the electricity and water infrastructure to these areas cutting off electricity and water supply. At the end of the 5 days ultimatum, the entire area will be bombed relentlessly till kingdom come from the sky by the Air Force, after the aerial sky bombing, then the ground assault troops will finish the job when the Army goes in with tanks and artillery to mop up and raze down the entire area into rubbles, ashes, dusts and fine particles.

Some will argue and particularly human rights groups, that, the massive bombings of unarmed civilian areas was excessive and not proportional. While the Military does not owe anybody an explanation for their action but if it makes anyone very happy, an explanation is provided. First of all, it is the sovereign right of the Government to recover its land back from anyone, and at will too. Next, no casualties were expected as everyone was given adequate warning and notice to vacate the area. Finally the reason the Government lost these lands to the Jihadists was that the occupants had firearms and fire power more powerful and superior to the Police, that the Police could not go into these “No Go Zone areas”. Since the occupants had firearms greater than the Police, the greater superior firepower by the Government to bomb down the entire area was justified. These areas could not be considered to be “unarmed” when they were fully armed to their teeth and the Police could not go there.  Further, Government had to take precaution that, anyone still remaining on the premises after the end of the ultimatum might be part of an insurgency group that is defiant and planning an act of subversion against the Government with the demand for the implementation of Sharia Law in Sweden. That is the explanation. Are you happy now?. Immediately after the recovery of the lost lands, the military will now focus on the main population to round up illegal aliens and Jihadists for mass deportation, and in this location too and where it is safe to do so, all illegal and unauthorized structures, buildings and mosques will be razed down to the ground in rubbles, ashes, dusts and fine particles, while the military continue to round up people for mass deportation.

Anything other than the military may not solve the problem, because voluntary Constitution suspension negotiation may require the country to use “martial laws”, and the process may be headed by civilians (and not the military), and the civilians will be smiling as usual and they will not achieve anything.  Under the present circumstance, Sweden’s best bet is the military, they will deliver the promise and ruthlessly too.

Constitutional limitations for involuntary suspension of the Constitution

Europe has a unique characteristic in that several countries are governed by Monarchs and the sovereignty of these countries is with the King/Queen, and they are called “Constitutional Monarchy” and the arrangement is that, the King shares power with an elected government and the King usually is the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces. A distinction between the term “Absolute Monarch” and “Constitutional Monarchy”, in absolute monarchy, the King does not share power and there is no elected government and the King does everything. Sweden is one of those countries that have “Constitutional Monarch” and the sovereignty of the country lies with the King, King Carl XVI Gustaf who has been the King for over 52 years and since 1973, to reiterate, the King is the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces. Also, in Political Science, leaders of a country are categorized as either President or Head of State. If a leader is democratically elected, the title of President comes along and if the leader is not elected, the title of Head of State is applied. Thus in Sweden, https://www.kungahuset.se/english/the-monarchy-of-sweden#h-Swedensformofgovernment (scroll down) King Carl Gustav is the Head of State, all Monarchs are usually Heads of States.

Now, in application to the previous concept of “involuntary suspension of the Constitution” with which the military can come into government on their own initiative and sack the government as in a military coup, from which they can suspend the Constitution, this may not be possible with a country that has a Constitutional Monarch as Head of State who is also the Commander in Chief of the Military and Armed Forces. Never say never but it is not going to be easy to sack the King, who is expected to command 100%  loyalty from all the senior Officers in the military who will prevent the King from being sacked, and also from their nature generally, the military owes obedience and allegiance to the King. Thus, it is safe to say that King Gustav is safe and OK! Several governments may come and go for several decades, but the sovereignty remains with the King. Thus, in application, countries that are have Constitutional Monarchs, any suspension of the Constitution will have to be negotiated with and approved by the King. There are several arrangements that are possible and the Constitution does not have to be suspended because the question has always been what to do with the King if the Constitution were suspended, that means the King must also be suspended with the Constitution. Another possible arrangement is the emergence of a hard-line politician whose purpose for running for the Prime Minister was to clean the system and solve the illegal mass immigration problem with mass deportation, and with the support of the King, this guy can come in as the next Prime Minister to do the job. In another possible arrangement, the King could turn himself into an “Absolute Monarch” only for a short period of time (1 or 2 months maximum) to solve an impending crisis, and appoint an efficient Minister of Defense to do the job for him

Application to Germany, Ireland, Italy, Finland, France, Poland

These are countries without “Monarchs” and here, everything goes, either involuntary or voluntary suspension of the Constitution is applicable. The military can come in at anytime and sack everybody, take on the job for one month and leave. Again and again, the Constitution does not have to be suspended and it could be solved with early elections and a Political Party with the will to solve the problem can come in, for example in the last Chancellor election in Germany, this was Alice Weidel’s theme to run for the Office using mass deportation, and also, other countries in Europe have efficient Politicians who can solve the problem, France has Marine Le Pen, and the Netherlands has Geert Wilders. Clearly no doubt, each of these countries in Europe reserves absolute right and at will at any time to expel millions of undesirable foreigners from their countries. Contrary to what most foreigners are saying that, when their population exceeds the population of the natives in the host countries in high numbers, that is when they will strike, take over the host country and implement Sharia law in Europe and other areas. This is total non-sense and very absurd. Infact, the population ratio could be as high as one million to one person, as long as the State has monopoly and control over violence in the country, and the State can round up foreigners in their millions for expulsion to be expelled, and this seems to be the direction Europe is going, and Ireland and Sweden will take the first shot at this.

However and with comparison later, large numbers have worked for the spread of Islam historically, right from the recent times in the 1970s in Lebanon and Iran, when the muslim population outgrew the Christians, and with majority, they killed everybody. And also, right from the beginning when Mohammed first started the religion, he got together a large crowd and went to Mecca where he overthrew the Kingdom, and ever since, the spread of Islam in South East Asia and Africa through the Sahara was with numbers, and it was by force, you either convert or you die, and people had no choice. However, Europe is different, numbers are irrelevant here. When compared to all other areas where Jihadism had occurred and succeeded in history, it will fail right here in Europe, and why?. In all other areas of Islamic conversion, there was nothing to fight for, but only empty and completely useless barren lands. In modern times, Europe is the financial capital of the world, with assets worth thousands of trillions of dollars and euros, the largest banks in the whole world are in Europe. Would all the money in Europe change over into the hands of muslims with their Islamic conquest? The answer is "Hell No" and infact, make that an emphatic "FUCK NO". Furthermore, Islam is fatally incompatible with Western values and the morals of Europe, the idea of a 6 or 9 year old girl getting married and having sex (The video that was here has been removed because it seemed to be digitally altered)  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=60MC3bVFG6s&rco=1

is barbaric to Europe, and then, for you to kill and murder everyone you don't like, that idea is not right, here in Europe. So for two things essentially that Europe will die fighting for are, the western values and morals, and of course, all the money.  

To go back to the opening statement of this essay that, the concept of suspension of the Constitution is only an option of the last resort, when all other options have failed and national danger is imminent and national security is highly threatened. Everyone has seen how President Trump did it in the US with over 8 million people deported, and it did not involve any Constitutional changes, every country in Europe is capable of doing the samething, and it does not have to involve the Constitution. However, the Constitution serves a relevant reference point for educational purposes for those who are ignorant about the sources of power and legal authority of the Government to take a particular action (including mass deportation to deport millions of people all at once)  and also, it provides a great education where the rights of the citizens come from and,  how foreigners in a country are residing in the host country as a matter of privilege and not by right, otherwise, the rights of citizens and foreigners are not equal in the Constitution because citizens have more rights, or perhaps, it is only citizens who have rights in the Constitution and foreigners have no rights in the Constitution.

Collaboration with Finland, Norway and Denmark

Historically, expulsion of undesirable sets of people or foreigners from Europe is nothing new, since the past 1,000 years, there must have been at least 100 major expulsions that changed the demographic structure of the continent, and it appears that every European has inherited an "Expulsion" genetic trait from their ancestors. When Europeans are tired of your shit and problems, you must go, and they have never failed any attempt to expel any group of people, and Europeans have a 100% success rate with expulsion of undesirable people from Europe. Also, in those days, powerful Emperors and Kings organized those expulsions. The next mass expulsion in Europe is just around the corner, and it appears that, it must be coordinated among several countries that have the same geographical proximity, so as to avoid any spill-over of refugees from the country doing the expulsion into the neighboring country, which may create a "sudden" problem for the neighbor. In the case of Sweden, all the 3 countries that border as neighbors will have to be informed of the exercise, and if possible, they too, can initiate their own expulsion simultaneously at the same time. Norway is Sweden's neighbor to the West, Finland to the East and Denmark, South. Every expulsion from Sweden is to leave Europe and it is not that, they can escape from Sweden to any of the neighboring countries where they can hide for a short while and then come back again to Sweden at a later date, otherwise, if this were the case, it would defeat the purpose for the expulsion right from the beginning.

Perspectives from Africa

Over half of the entire mass deportation from Europe will end up in Africa, and it seems there is an eternal connection between Africa and Europe, and also, it appears that Europe will never have peace if Africa does not develop. Looking at all the various videos that I have seen about immigrants demanding for Sharia, people of Africa descent are very rare on those protests videos, and the people on those videos might have been from somewhere else. However, abject poverty in Africa remains the main push and pull factor driving illegal mass immigration to Europe. Previously for several decades, a politically stable Northern Africa provided a buffer zone between Africa and Europe concerning mass illegal migration until the Arab spring crises of the 2010s which affected Tunisia, Algeria, Libya, Egypt and Morocco and the political destabilizations of these countries prompted massive push factors that sent illegal migration from Africa to Europe. While it is also correct that, Europe was also bombarded with illegal migration from the Middle East as well largely from Syria and Turkey. To tackle abject poverty in Africa, the focus must be on regional integration and which is a process that political integrates African countries (possibly into one country) along the current Economic Communities existing in the various regions on the continent, a process similar to the current system applied by the European Union. The basic idea behind this project is that, several African countries are failing as States and cannot satisfy all the economic burden requirements that a modern State needs to survive and exist as a State.

Among many other defects, most African countries suffer from misgovernance (having the wrong type of government, that wastes lots of money and resources) or bad governance (government corruption), and all of these defects will be corrected from the Regional Integration project. A potential barrier to this project is religious fanaticism by the people of Africa. Fanaticism requires a subjective definition, here we want to know the exact driver or what motivates people into extremism and fanaticism to religion, if not for the social welfare benefits that a Church or Mosque provides the people, and which the countries cannot provide because they are not welfare States. A confounder is the fact that, it is not that the people of Africa are religious and they are not attracted to any particular religion because of their love for that particular religion, however, many people are drawn to Churches and Mosques because of their social welfare benefits and financial support system. In several parts of Africa, it is normal to find thousands of people who go to Churches and Mosques at the sametime to be able to collect money and welfare benefits from the two religions. The main purpose of the “Regional Integration Project” is to eliminate abject poverty in Africa and will operate to reduce the dependency of the people on the social benefits from the religions which in turn reduces fanaticism and extremism, as everyone can focus on the common good that the project can provide for everyone. Thus, your support is needed for the project “Regional Integration Project”. If Europe plans to repatriate millions of people back to Africa, it must be an Africa that is prosperous economically (or that part of Africa that is prosperous economically, which demands that, Europe must focus and fast-track the economic development of any particular region of Africa) , otherwise, an Africa that is economically poor and impoverished, any repatriation and deportation of millions of people from Europe will cause massive political destabilizations in the area, or Europe can simply say "Fuck You" and "Go to hell" and repatriate and deport millions of people back to Africa regardless.   

To find out more about the project REGIONAL INTEGRATION PROJECT, and if you would like to participate, contact me at info@ademolaadesanya.at , use Regional Integration Project, as your subject. Basically, the project wants to identify a stable part of Africa among the current several Economic Communities with which to initiate the project, and it starts with a Qualitative Research using thousands of surveys among the citizens of the 15 or 17 countries about the feasibility of a Central Government that will be an upgrade of the present Economic Community in that area, the new Government will provide an Army (Armed Forces) and Foreign Service to all the countries. Instead of 15 different Armed Forces and several hundreds of useless Embassies abroad that was a complete waste of money previously, there is only one,  the money saved will be used to create millions of jobs in the countries. A blue print of the political division of the countries is available, basically, all the countries can retain their current structures and they will be like "States" or "Regions" under the geographical territory of the 15 member States. Within the States, there will be divisions of Local Governments, which makes the system Federal, States and Local Government. Based upon the evaluations from the survey, and the general sentiments of the people in the chosen area, the project will be implemented in that particular part of Africa. This project will require grants and Sponsors are required. Contact me to discuss how you and your Organization can participate info@ademolaadesanya.at . If you are a Sponsor , use "Project Sponsor" as the subject on your email. 

ENGLAND  / THE UK

It is required that, one must soften tone on England / the UK and allow the country to resolve the migrant crisis problem and Islamization of the country, and all things being equal, it appears there will be solutions within the next few years, and definitely, any Administration after the present PM Keir Starmer will tackle the problem head on and provide a solution. At the moment, it seems like Keir Starmer is not serious about the problem of mass immigration, and the soft Jihad Islamization of the UK (he goes about calling it "Islamophobia", however, whoever comes in after him will tackle and solve the problem.  The next general PM election in the UK is in 2029 and the competition will be between Kemi Badenoch and Nigel Farage. While not a whole lot is known about Farage at the moment, however, he has started working assiduously on his election campaign issue and chosen "problem set" which is mostly about the mass illegal immigration and Islamization of the UK. All the reports I have seen and read about him show his seriousness to tackle the problem head on, and he has gone ahead to do several personal research on several dimensions of the problem. He has said that, if he becomes the PM, he will remove the UK from the European Council of Human Rights. This is huge !! It means his solutions will involve something  under-handed, wicked, egregious, totally evil, un-ethical and lots of stuff that will violate human rights and that is why he does not want anyone to interfere with his evil plans to solving the problem. And what exactly are Farage's plans to solve the problem that he does not want any Human Rights Organization to interfere? Is he planning to kill people, right? Or is he planning to build gas chambers and torture chambers ? OK, bad joke! Ha, ha, ha, ha, I'm sorry and I apologize. It is generally an accepted fact that, the process of mass deportation will by default, also include some "unintended consequences" that will include human rights violations, applicable not to the sovereign right and duty of the Government to carry out mass deportation but it may be petty stuff like, lack of food and water and without any sleep for several weeks while waiting for the arrival in your deportation destination. Clearly, if the elections were held today, Farage would win.

However, his opposition Badenoch has to match Farage equally and it is perfectly OK for both candidates to use the same issues to campaign, Badenoch can support what Farage is saying, but she can insist that, she has a better plan to execute the solution. Clearly, the issue for the next PM election is the illegal mass immigration and Islamization of the UK. Badenoch must start right away doing her own research on the matter and offer the public, that her solutions are better. While the next election is officially 4 years away, however, Keir Starmer cannot be trusted, he may quit at anytime and dissolve Parliament, which will result into an early election. If Starmer quits tomorrow or in the next year, Farage will clearly win the election because he has already done his homework and election ready and he is ready for the next election. With the amount of tremendous personal research Farage is doing on his selected campaign issue (mass immigration and soft Jihad Islamization of the UK), there seems to be a conspiracy between Starmer and Farage, that Starmer will quit very soon and anytime very soon, making it easy for Farage to win the election because Farage has already done his homework on the issue for his election campaign. Badenoch will be misguided if she thinks that Starmer is going to stay until 2029 and if she does not make proper preparation for the relevant campaign issue for the next election, and to be election ready at anytime in case if and when Starmer quits. Meanwhile, it appears Badenoch's current preoccupation is to find faults with everything Starmer is doing which appears to be a waste of time because Starmer is only a decoy for Farage and he may quit "suddenly" at anytime, meanwhile Badenoch has wasted all of her time on him and failed to develop cogent and salient election issues (against Farage) when Starmer could quit suddenly at anytime. I will give a free hint to both Badenoch and Farage concerning the plan for mass deportation, it will require that the Constitution MUST be suspended, and in the case of the UK that does not have a written Constitution, it requires that, all other forms of Laws that the country is using for governance MUST be suspended, otherwise if not, mass deportation will be impossible.

Once the Constitution is suspended, it means that all civil rights and liberties are suspended,  and it also effectively removes the Courts from the process. Most important, with the suspended Constitution, it allows the Government to do anything "arbitrarily" Government can move, change and even remove the goal post at will, from where the immigration laws will be amended and changed arbitrarily, tons of data and records of foreigners will be deleted (for the sake of national security) that will discriminate against foreigners and identify those who are to be deported in their millions. Once the Courts are eliminated from the process, it means that, Lawyers are excluded from the process. Without the suspension of the Constitution, mass deportation will not work because of Lawyers who will stall and delay, and even obstruct the process by filing endless suits and injunctions in the Courts. As for Badenoch, I'm available for consultation and I have an election issue I want to give her, which she can use in addition to the mass deportation issue. It is going to be based upon the rule of law. When someone sees England, it is impossible to miss the prevalent chaos, anarchy and lawlessness all over the place, and it appears like the UK does not have laws. My consultation fee is 2 million euros, with a discount. Contact me at info@ademolaadesanya.at , use "UK PM Elections" as the subject.

 

NEW UPDATES 3/22/2025

Implementation of Sharia Law in the U.S!                                  Is it possible?  Two answers, YES / NO !                                      Relevant Research Interests Areas:                                              Constitutional Law and Political Science

Source of motivation for this article

Just like everything else we do in the academics including correct and proper citations of sources whenever it is required, I felt obligated to include the source of motivation for this article  https://x.com/TheThe1776/status/1902520674339713126 for her courage to come outside and shout it out and she will be encouraged, to do more. For everyone else, if there is any issue or problem in your community that needs further attention, please come outside and speak up, and shout it out, loud and clear. You never know who is passing by or scrolling down on twitter or LinkedIn or even Instagram, who is also a Graduate student in MSc Economics, who is temporarily free without any exams and homework assignments and with plenty of time in his hands, and who also has a website to amplify and highlight your concerns at his website, ademolaadesanya.at . After I gave my reply on twitter, I thought the issue deserved more, and here it is.

The recent development in the State of Texas concerning “Epic City” which some Muslims are planning to build some miles away from Dalla. According to the plan, the planned city will be governed only by Sharia Law, and the planners have insisted that US Laws, US Constitution and Texas State Constitution and laws do not apply to them because of Sharia Law. This topic is interesting as it includes several of my research interests including Constitutional Law and Political Science. And yes, it is correct that in the US, several communities and cities with Islamic Sharia law background are being gradually developed and gaining grounds in several States including Texas and New Jersey. To answer the question, is this Epic City proposition that US Laws will not apply to them because they are governed only by Sharia Law?

The answer is emphatically NO, in all the 50 States all over the US, it is impossible for Sharia law to be implemented as the governing law in any part of the US. To start with the analysis, we will start with the subject Political Science which examines the political science under which the US is governed that includes Federal, State and Local Governments. Out of these three entities, two of them are “Sovereigns” which are “Federal” and “State” governments, and each one has a Constitution under which the power of their sovereignty is embedded, it is the Constitutions that define the separation of powers between the two governments, and the Federal Government being the larger government (from the collective unit of all the 50 States) and the Federal Constitution has an embedded clause “supremacy clause” which makes the Federal Constitution superior to a State Constitution, thus, the Federal Constitution is the supreme law of the land in the US, nothing else under the Sun shall compete with the US Constitution as the governing law all over the US. The Federal Constitution is much smaller in scope than the State Constitution and infact, the two Constitutions are different in their functions with the exemption of the fact that, every State Constitution tracks the main provisions of the Federal Constitution for example, the popular first 10 Amendments and other Amendments including free speech, freedom of religion, right to bear arms, unreasonable search and seizure, due process (fair notice and hearing) unusual punishment, and others. Later the civil rights Amendments followed. The State Constitution is bigger in scope because of the various functions it serves in meeting the needs of the people at the State level, for example concerning education, this is a State function and not a federal function. However, despite its sheer size, the State Constitution must comply with the “few” provisions of the Federal Constitution and any violation is an infringement of the “supremacy” clause of the Federal Constitution. The third form of Government is local Government that operates with a Charter and is not a sovereign, and it has no Constitution, and its existence under the arrangement is tied down and controlled under the sovereignty of the State Constitution. Thus the pecking order is that, the local Government (Charter) follows and tracks the State (Constitution), and the State tracks and follows the Federal (Constitution).

Under this arrangement concerning their separate sovereignties, the arrangement is often called “A sovereign within a sovereign”, a smaller sovereign (State) inside a larger sovereign (Federal). Both Constitutions are the sources of legal authority that are used for the implementation of all the laws in the US relative to their functions in a vertical and horizontal implementation format.  To distinguish vertical implementation under the doctrine of separation of powers between the two sovereigns, the Federal Constitution does not implement a State Constitution, rather, it is only the supremacy clause of the Federal Constitution that requires consistency between the two Constitutions in their various applications. Also, States are allowed to have certain rights that are not listed under the “Amendments” of the Federal Constitution but all the same, must be consistent with the Federal Constitution. Horizontal implementations of laws between the two Constitutions exist in which at the Federal level, the federal Constitution is used to implement the laws of Congress in forms of Statutes (US Statute) and the Regulations which all the Federal Agencies use to perform their daily operations. At the State level, the same applies with vertical implementation of laws (hierarchy between State and local Government) and the horizontal implementation controlling the Regulations State Agencies use for their daily operations. Thus, the source of legal authority that implements all State laws and Statute (including Local Government Charter), is the State Constitution.

 This background analysis is required, which explains the impossibility of the implementation Sharia law in any part of the US.

To reiterate from above, if we recall the third form of government in the US, the local Government, which is not a sovereign and without a Constitution under the arrangement. However, the local Government is firmly embedded under the sovereignty of the State Constitution. Local Governments, otherwise Counties or Cities in the US, use Charters or Ordinances as laws to operate, and the Charter a City uses to operate as the law is issued by the State Government under the implementation authority of the State Constitution as part of its horizontal implementation. This Charter from the State Government contains certain commands on the city of absolute compliance with and obeyance to the State Constitution and it also contains prohibitions of what the City laws cannot do, and every action taken by the City must be consistent with the general provisions of law under the State Statute which is controlled by the State Constitution. The existence of a city cannot be in a vacuum in any State in the US, rather, every City is required to register and incorporate with the State Government  with an incorporation application to the Secretary of State to be able to obtain a Charter, and if approved, the City can operate. Again and again, approval of a Charter demands compliance with the State Constitution and all State laws under every particular State Statute governing every action, for example, the Criminal Statute that governs crimes and punishment and the social laws statute, and among many State laws. On their application to the State of Texas for a Charter, if the organizers of Epic City would have informed the State Government that they would not comply with Texas State Constitution, laws and Statutes,  or they have Sharia law as their source of authority and governing law, lo and behold, it is impossible and the State would never in the next one million years approve their application for a Charter.

Under a similar circumstance and in all the 50 States, no State Government would ever approve a Charter for any city that operates Sharia law which in essence is a direct affirmation of noncompliance and total disregard for the State laws and the State Constitution and invariably, the US Constitution. If the State Constitution cannot implement Sharia law or give Epic City the right in the Charter to operate Sharia law as the governing law, thus, Epic City cannot exist as a city in Texas. On crimes and punishment under Sharia law, it is death and beheading for every crime, or amputation of legs and hands for a traffic ticket failure to stop at a stop sign and jay-walking. Sharia allows adults to have sex with children, girls who are 5 and 9 years old are ready to have sex and available for marriage, also, Sharia allows a man to have more than 5 wives. And there are other nuances with sharia that in all the 50 States in the US, no State will ever approve a Charter. Put simply, Sharia law is fatally inconsistent and incompatible with US and State laws.  The organizers of Epic City have also said that, their city is a “No Go” zone to anyone else . There are several red flags why the State of Texas should never approve their Charter application and notably, noncompliance with and total disregard for the State Constitution of Texas, which invariably is a total disregard for the US Constitution because the Texas State Constitution tracks the US Constitution in substance, and also their claim that Sharia law is the only law they recognize which violates the supremacy clause of the US Constitution over any other law in the US. The “No Go” zone is a violation of federal laws where it concerns direct access of the FBI on every square inch of the US soil when it concerns federal criminal investigation, and even if the State Government approves a Charter, it will still be in violation of several Federal Statutes on other grounds.

If the answer is YES and despite all the “impossible” analyses above, and against all odds Epic City gets their Charter approved by the State Government, the reason available is corruption, in essence, government corruption.  The State Governor, Secretary of State, Lawmakers, County Mayors must have been bribed heavily with several billions of dollars to approve the application.

Solution

If approved, this approval is illegal and unconstitutional, and Texas citizens have standing to sue in the Federal Court (US District Court) because of the violation of the supremacy clause of the US Constitution, or in the alternative, Texas citizens can use a Statewide Referendum to vote on the matter that prohibits the implementation of Sharia law in any part of the State because the implementation violates the State Constitution.

Lessons from Europe

If out of ignorance and government corruption, Texas approves the implementation of Sharia, the injury will be “self inflicted” when the repercussions will come up between the next 10 to 15 years, if we estimate from the same results from Europe, Canada and Australia. While most countries in Europe had no choice in the matter as mass illegal immigration was forced upon them by the EU 20 years ago, and on the otherhand and as a matter of fact, some European countries like England, Ireland and France have made direct mistakes in the past concerning Sharia law by insisting that they wanted diversity. However and as the results have shown, diversity without a common limit of understanding between the host countries and the new foreign settlers, will not work and does not make any sense, as the new foreign settlers have refused to comply with and obey the laws of the home country, and instead they have insisted on importing their own laws and even imposing their own laws on the home country. Speaking of which, the entire UK is a lost cause and in a few years or 10 years perhaps, England will become an Islamic State under Sharia law, and the thought of the country with the 3rd largest nuclear arsenal in the whole world to be an Islamic State, makes everyone shiver with fear and cold sweat. Meanwhile, the elites in the UK are very naive, and unusually very naive for a country that does not even have a "written" State Constitution as we speak in the 21st century, they don't want to talk about the effects of mass immigration on the country, they call it "Islamophobia" https://x.com/LizaRosen0000/status/1904193102358675574/ ,

 and how they want diversity with shared values. "Shared values" without a common limit of understanding between the parties concerning the exact value of the values being shared, will always fail and will never work and this seems to be the upside down path the UK is following to becoming an Islamic State of England. France is equally on the verge of becoming an Islamic State, France also has nuclear weapons and infact, the 4th largest nuclear power in the world.  In Sweden, there are over 100 areas that are designated “No Go” zones under Sharia law equal about 40 percent of the entire geographic territory of Sweden that are under the control of Sharia law, to the extent that, the Swedish government is heavily frustrated and these areas have been called “Parallel Societies” where the daily experience includes serious crimes, 12 year old boys gangsters killing people everywhere, lots of killing and beheading of individuals, adults having sex with little children and all kinds of behavior abhorrent to Western civilization, and the Swedish Police dare not even go to any of these areas. Samething in the Netherlands, and in Germany, they are demanding the country to be an Islamic Caliphate. In Australia, the “No GO” zones are creating similar problems with their control under Sharia law and the Police are afraid to go there. Thus, in terms of benefits to society and its utility, the results in Texas will be the same as Sweden, Netherlands and Australia, absolutely zero. If under Sharia law, several Texas citizens are getting maimed with their limbs cut off and walking around with only one hand and one leg, you can look no further which part of the State they are coming from. It's going to look like something from a horror movie in Texas, the first time you commit a traffic offense and jay-walk, they will cut off your right leg, and the next time you jay-walk again, then, they will cut off your other leg, and since you cannot walk again because you have no legs, you will learn your lesson not to jay walk again. And if you drive, when they cut off both of your hands and you can't drive again, you would have learnt your lesson to always stop at the stop sign.

This is a case of “two wrongs don’t make a right” as the question concerns money and where the organizers of Sharia communities in the West are getting their funds from https://x.com/amjadt25/status/1904514187037917568/  and while on the otherhand, politicians from the West who know better and instead turn the other cheek, take the money and allow the establishment of these communities in their midst. It is a lot of money involved in the amount of several billions of US dollars. Where the amount of money is in billions of dollars, certainly, it is big enough to corrupt every politician, and in the case of Texas, billions of dollars will corrupt the State Governor, all the State Lawmakers, City Mayors, and they will take the money and allow a big trouble to be established in their areas. Where the amount of money involved is very large in the billions of dollars, absolutely nobody can be trusted and even President Trump cannot be trusted. All of Trump’s big Advisers need lots of money, Elon Musk’s business is not doing that well, his rockets cannot launch and even when they did, almost half of them have exploded on short orbit distance after launching wasting several billions of dollars, and a Sharia project such as this that brings lots of easy money in several billions of dollars, allows him to recover some money from his personal business losses. And infact as a matter of fact, Elon Musk has strong financial ties to Saudi Arabia, over half of the 44 billion dollars that he used in buying twitter, came from other billionaires from Saudi Arabia. 

When Trump met Saudi Arabia’s Crown Prince at the beginning of his second term last month, and he demanded that Saudi Arabia should invest more money in the US economy, and the Crown Prince promised to invest 600 billion dollars in the US economy, this made Trump very happy. However, there was no discussion of the type of investment Saudi Arabia was going to do in the US with the 600 billion dollars, also considering the fact that, the Saudi Prince knows absolutely nothing about the US and cannot make an informed educated decision about the type of investment along the line that will bring long term progress to US. However, if anyone knew Saudi Arabia very well, and for several decades and over 40 years, the country has been the source of funding for all Sharia communities https://x.com/visegrad24/status/1781445829217124464/  in Canada, Australia and all over Europe, from Italy, Netherlands, France, Ireland, Denmark, Germany, and all the way to England. The explosive vast expansion of Sharia communities in Europe is the “soft jihad” from Saudi Arabia providing the funds in several billions of dollars to these Sharia communities for the establishment of their “No Go Zone” Sharia communities. Thus, the 600 billion dollars investment from Saudi Arabia in the US economy will go to bribe US and State government officials to allow the establishment of Sharia communities in the US, and very recently all over the US particularly the State of New Jersey (often described as the Mecca in the US) and Texas, Sharia communities have been thriving more than ever before.

If I may digress on a personal note about the country Saudi Arabia (the country does not have any development goals  and yet the country has lots of money because of oil), whose agenda is the global soft jihad by providing funds for Islamic agenda world wide, this is bad news for Africa and Africa will never develop with so much incomprehensible immersion of the people on religious fundamentalism and the soft jihad from Saudi Arabia. Recently last week, the Crown Prince asked the leader of Burkina Faso Ibrahim Traore (who is also Muslim) that he wanted to build 200 mosques in Burkina Faso, which the Burkina Faso leader politely rejected this request, and he said that Burkina Faso already has enough mosques, and he requested the Crown Prince to use the money to build schools and hospitals instead, which the Crown Prince rejected. In Nigeria, in 1998 after the return of the country back to democracy  after several decades under military rule, and the debate was, what type of democracy should the country have, the entire Northern parts of the country whose populations were mostly Islam, vehemently demanded for Sharia law. in the South that were Christians, those ones wanted normal democracy, including a Parliament, Judiciary and Executive. If anyone wants to have confusion in politics, that confusion is Nigeria, the North is Sharia and the South, something else. In terms of development, Nigeria is doomed for ever with this confusion. The Burkina Faso leader is highly commended and a forward thinking leader, for those of us who have projects with the focus on Africa's development (Social Economic Development) and elimination of abject poverty, the elimination of religious fanaticism of every kind is very crucial, for our projects to succeed. Personally, I have a project "Regional Integration Project", and the blind religion fanaticism and fundamentalism by the people might impede this project. In the alternative, I'm looking at any particular part of Africa that has the least religion fanaticism to do my project. If we remove religious fanaticism and corruption from the equation in this project, this part of Africa is ready to develop and with several billions of dollars to be invested in the area, and the creation of millions of high paying jobs (The billions of dollars saved on my project will be used for creating jobs). My project will provide a blueprint of the "Regional Integration Project" that will be compelling for international development investment of several billions of dollars in that part of Africa. The people of Africa have two choices, either they continue to suffer in abject poverty by continuing with their obsession and fanaticism with religion (as that is the only thing religion has ever given Africa for over 100 years, abject poverty and lots of poverty) or, they drop their obsession with religion, and my project will re-define a new geographical boundary map for Africa that will be compelling for international development to invest billions of dollars to this part of Africa with my project, and this part of Africa will develop in my lifetime. 

 

GERMANY 2025 CHANCELLOR ELECTIONS RESULTS, CONGRATULATIONS TO FRIEDRICH MERZ

 

Congratulations to Friedrich Merz, and wishing him great success in Office as the new Chancellor! This is to let Mr Merz know that my Research NGO is available for consultation to advise him how Germany can generate several billions of euros yearly from a new source of Internally Generated Revenue "IGR" and it is not taxation. The Chancellor can contact me by email at : info@ademolaadesanya.at, or by phone at +4366493216108.  My consultation fee is 2 million euros, plus Austrian 20% tax, and cash only.  January 24, 2025

US AND GREENLAND PURCHASE

This idea is possible and it requires the greatest elements of persuasion possible and not the current arrogant approach by the US. The US has cited security reasons. My consultation fee is 10 million US dollars, plus Austrian tax, and in cash only. Sorry about the typo error, my consultation fee is 20 million US dollars. 

Once again, I apologize for the miscalculation of my consultation fees, and this time, in addition to my personal service and delivery, now added, thus, my total fee is 2 billion USD “B” as in “Boy” (2 Billion dollars), payable in cash only, plus Austrian 20% tax.  The recalibration of my fee has been prompted by some "heuristic” reasoning of the so called security concern the US has justified to buy Greenland.

If the geographic position of Greenland is strategic enough to counter balance the effectiveness of the US against Russia and China, and if this would have been the security concern of the US, then, there was no necessity for me to have increased my fee from the previous amount. And while I have not been personally consulted by President Trump or Secretary of State Marco Rubio to find out the exact frame of the security concern, I had to put 2 and 2 together using heuristic approach and as if reading the minds of the US officials involved, and to formulate an educated guess about the exact security concern, and I found it.

First, Trump had attacked Canada, calling Canada (the second largest country in the world, with over half of the entire Arctic region in its backyard) the 51^st US State and often referred to PM Trudeau as “Governor” Trudeau (same level as a US State Governor which is an insult when considering the fact that Trudeau is a PM and leader of a country)), next, he has been aggressive with Denmark on the Greenland matter. I finally found it and know the security concern they are talking about, based upon some observations since the past 20 years. 

However because I have no patents or copy rights to my ideas which means, anyone can use them, and also, my consultation with US Government will have some externality effects, and many other countries who have not paid me, can use my ideas and will benefit from my ideas, so the best way is to charge US one billion dollars for my consultation fee. Next, since Trump has made the people of Denmark very angry on the Greenland matter, no one expects any direct negotiation between the US and Denmark concerning Greenland, and I’m willing to do the negotiation on behalf of US with Denmark as a third party, a neutral third party, and this service which I call “personal” delivery service is one billion USD.   So the total cost for the consultation and delivery is, 2 billion “American”  US dollars.  I will have some other alternatives for the US to buy land, including Russia (south ward expansion of Alaska into inland Russia), and even Africa (it would mean an expansion of Liberia).

US, MASS DEPORTATION

The adage that I have developed for my analysis here is almost a tautology and it goes like this “Just because you can do something, does not mean you can, and when infact, you can’t”. The recent mass deportation by President Trump has been observed by several neutral observers to the various policies by the Administration that, the mass deportation scheme, has been motivated by racism and not just ordinary racism but racism filled with malice and hate. Over 11 million people were targeted for removal and almost 100% of those to be removed are brown skins and people from Mexico and Latin America. Some observers are saying that the motivation for targeting brown and black skins for mass deportation is because of the pending demographic change in the next 40 years among the various dominant ethnic groups in the US in which the Mexicans/Latinos will become the largest ethnic group, and blacks will be the second largest group, while white people will become the minority. The mass deportation of 11 million brown skins will delay and slow down the process of demographic change in the US. Meanwhile, there are no deportation schedules to Europe, and while most people have bee asking why there are no deportation schedules to Europe, the answer is simple. Europeans stopped coming to the US since the past 40 years and Europeans are satisfied and very happy with their fortune in Europe.

The concept of mass deportation had been around for 50 years when it was first noticed in the 1970s of the increasing population movement from Mexico into the US. When Mexicans arrived in the US, they worked mostly on farms and because they were undocumented without papers, they were paid cash and under the table and usually at minimum wage or even below minimum wage. With their work on the farms, Mexicans permanently changed the composition of the structure of the labor force by making farm work, the very lowest of the jobs available in the US and the job required no skills whatsoever, the job was very strenuous and tedious and under brutal conditions working under the summer heat from sunrise till sunset. The US economy benefitted from the arrangement, with immigrants and Mexicans doing farm work, Americans moved up to a different sector of the economy and for poor Americans, they got monthly welfare checks. Clearly, immigrants contributed to the economy.

When the agitations for mass deportation first started, President Ronald Reagan in 1984 issued the “Amnesty” program that protected immigrant farm workers from deportation. I remember I tried to apply for this program when I was a student in California at the time. President Reagan sought special protection for immigrant farm workers because he knew about their contribution to the economy. First of all, it is impossible to find American citizens who can survive working on the farm under brutal conditions for peanuts, when they can easily collect welfare benefits instead. Next overall, the work on the farm made food prices very cheap and affordable. This has been the pattern that has been consistent with the US economy for 50 years and since the 1970s. The current mass deportation that lacked hindsight and foresight by including immigrant farm workers will have consequences that are very unpleasant and uncomfortable because it will bring about uncontrollable inflation when food prices go up and rise astronomically. Trump has violated the very important rule in Political Science by failing to provide food security and failing to make food production and access available to the citizens as the saying goes that “A hungry man is an angry man”, even the worst dictators ever, have always complied to this rule.

At the backbone of every welfare State is food security, and the first basic intervention by the State prior to issuing any cash benefits, is to issue food vouchers which a recipient can use to buy only food and nothing else. Poor people everywhere including poor Americans, are not overly ambitious as long as there is food, they will be satisfied and placated with content. The way things are going, Government will not increase the food voucher benefits to compensate for inflation, and when a monthly food voucher is only 400 dollars for a person, and the actual food cost is 1,000 dollars because of inflation, there is going to be lots of trouble for Trump. When food prices go up and poor people cannot buy food, or, they have to spend their entire welfare checks or meagre paychecks on buying food because of high inflation, Trump is going to be in some serious trouble because it will generate endless protests all over the country, and it may even cause his impeachment or removal from Office. People must remember that most Americans are very poor and infact, most Americans live and exist everyday from hand to mouth in abject poverty. When a loaf of bread that used to be 3 dollars is now 10 dollars, it is almost guaranteed that Trump will be in serious trouble and the US is now comparable to Cuba and Venezuela with chronic food shortages. However, the problem of food scarcity in US has been self inflicted with the mass deportation.

While the immigrants have left, the impact of their absence is not yet felt and it will take some time between now and the next 6 months and up to one year from now before some heavy protests will capture the entire US. In order to avoid trouble, Trump must fill the gap on the farms left behind by the deported immigrant workers, and Trump can do this in several ways, he can either deploy the US military, the Army, the Navy personnel to work on the farms. Or in the alternative, he may use Federal prisoners to work on the farms and equally, all the prisoners in every State can be deployed to work on the farms.  In addition, Trump will have to compensate American farmers for their income losses because of the mass deportation or it is going to be a different story that is very dirty and straight out dirty and dirty from hell, if the farmers quit. The American white elites who hated brown skins and Mexican people and just because they could deport Latinos immigrant workers, should not have done it, and there will be severe economic consequences. Trump dare not ask poor Americans to go and work at the farms when they could rather collect welfare checks instead, farm job is for immigrants and this has been the arrangement / agreement since the past 50 years and nothing (absolutely nothing) is going to change that, and besides, poor Americans have their pride / dignity and even though they are poor otherwise, even a dog knows when it is being kicked, collecting (free money) welfare checks is a better option to the back-breaking, harsh,  tedious, lowly, strenuous, dirty and dirty, oppressive, cold-blooded, heartless, cruel, obdurate, bone-crushing, shameful, indignation, disgraceful, deplorable, and menial dirty job on the farm . 

Personally, I think Trump is OK and often hell bent on his personal convictions to do what he thinks is right, however, it is also a fact that his advisers are not good or, widely and largely uneducated, otherwise, it appears there are substantial gaps or total lack of knowledge of scientific social science methodology that only individuals with PhD degrees (or perhaps, someone with a Masters degree) could provide and which, Trump did not have the support for his policies. Now, as the subject Political Science teaches us at the "Advanced" level, that, the essence of governance and very fundamental for any Government to acquire, is the systematic control of the citizens through the system of "Conquer and Divide" which makes friends and enemies among the citizens and which prevents the citizens from ever being united for a "common" cause and purpose, and a Government under no circumstance at no time ever, thread on any issue in which the citizens are united, this situation must be avoided at all costs. When citizens are united on any issue, this the danger spot for popular uprisings and large scale protests, which history has proven, to have resulted into the end of several Governments that failed to abide by the "Divide and Conquer" Rule. Relevance here, is food. Food is a factor that unites all Americans, rich and poor, black or white, Americans love food and Americans love to eat. I found out about Americans love for food after my first semester at the University in 1983 in California (California State University, Chico "Chico State"). I had neighbors who were very fat and they would go to the grocery store "Safeway" to buy tons and tons of food, each one bringing home several carts of food, this was once a week and being someone from Africa, I could not understand the craving for so much food, the food in just only one cart, could last me a whole year, meanwhile, each of these guys could finish all the food in two carts within a week. Trump has violated the rule, he has united the citizens on a "common cause" with a volatile purpose, that is food shortage. For the poor who are on food stamps, they will not be able to buy food, and for the rich, they will spend a fortune to buy food. The worst case of all is that, there is no food! Only time will tell or how soon the popular uprisings and protests will start, and how long it will last, and the effects on the Trump Administration. 

INVITATION TO ITALIAN PM GIORGIA MELONI

The Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, is hereby respectfully invited for an interview on this website to discuss matters concerning EU and Italy, Italy and Africa, illegal immigration from Africa, her suggestions for development and regional integration in Africa. January 1, 2025

DID THE UK MAKE A BIG MISTAKE WITH BREXIT?

All of the current social problems in every country in Europe, are best resolved at the EU level by the EU. The “free ride” mechanism allows a member State to “free load” from the initiatives of other members on matters in which the member State is a minority, and when the initiative becomes an EU law, it is a “Regulation” which every member must enforce via domestication through the local laws.  The UK left the EU 4 years ago because of two meaningless reasons, according to the UK Brexit movement group, they insisted on controlling the UK borders and for financial reasons. The first reason does not make any sense because the UK border has been lost since the past 20 to 30 years at least and there is nothing left to control. On the issue of finances, it was short sightedness. Right now with all the social problems all over the UK, the UK cannot claim to be in Europe while looking more or less like a third world country. Does the UK have laws? The amount of egregious acts of freewill flagrant lawlessness prevalent all over the place boggles the mind, and the UK slips under into the third world level every day. I’m available for consultation. My departure point is that the UK rejoin the EU, and from the EU, the laws generated by the EU will be used to clean the rotten system in the UK. My consultation fee is 2 million euros (plus Austrian 20% tax), and cash only.  

In the alternative to the EU since this is a political solution, a legal solution is equally available. Currently, the UK does not have a (Federal) Constitution as a State. It is only the Constitution that can effectively undo the bad effects of the past on the society. Among other things, the Constitution determines the immigration laws, asylum and refugee matters, allocates the rights to citizens, it determines who is a citizen, it pronounces if foreigners have the same rights as citizens, it can firmly determine the State only religion and prohibit others, and most important, it can certainly prohibit (anything  and even if it affects free speech which is not an absolute right alone by itself) and proscribe certain activities in society to be illegal and those with criminality elements. Anyhow the Government decides to use the Constitution to address the current social issues at hand, any action taken by the Government must be authorized and approved by the Federal Supreme Court for the State Act to be legal and Constitutional.  January 3, 2025

 

IS THE PLAN IN SWEDEN OK ?

About 2 weeks ago, Sweden (Government) announced the plan to carry out mass deportation of foreigners who have obtained Swedish citizenship by birth and other means, but failed to conform to Swedish and Western values. This is illegal and unconstitutional as hell if the Swedish Supreme Court does not authorize and approve the plan. The only person who can authorize mass deportation is the Supreme Court of the country. On the face of this proposal by the Government, it appears the Swedish Government out of anger, is attempting to shift and even remove the goal post. There is a Constitutional right involved in this plan, citizenship rights, which the government is trying to strip away to be able to deport a citizen, otherwise ordinarily, a citizen cannot be deported. It is unequivocal that it is only the Courts and the Supreme Court that can strip someone the right of citizenship because it is a Constitutional matter that can only be resolved by the Supreme Court. In order for the Government to present this matter before the Swedish Supreme Court, it must arrive before the Supreme Court as a matter concerning the Swedish Constitution, and it requires the interpretation and adjudication by the Court. In a Constitutional template format, it requires that  the Swedish Federal Constitution must be amended and approved by the people via a referendum, and the amendment will include this new Government proposal which must be carefully worded and its purpose which will assist the interpretation and adjudication by the Swedish Supreme Court, otherwise the Court may reject the plan as illegal and unconstitutional if the law does not make sense. For purposes of national security and not national anger, the matter could be fast tracked by the Supreme Court.  A State cannot and does not act in vacuum, and every action the State makes must be supported by a higher authority that implements that particular State action, and the only source of authority that implements every State action, is the Constitution.                              Whereas, if the issue at hand arises directly from the Constitution itself, the ultimate and only “Decider” on the matter, is the Supreme Court. https://www.domstol.se/en/supreme-court/justices/ , scroll down.  If I may digress from Sweden, here is the Federal Constitutional "Supreme" Court in Germany.  https://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/EN/TheFederalConstitutionalCourt/Justices/justices_node.html scroll down, sooner or later, Germany will be the next topic (Knowing fully well that, every German is very angry at the recent events in the past few weeks and many are calling for mass deportation. However, before anyone attempts the idea, the Justices of the German Federal Constitutional Court must be consulted first to determine the legality and Constitutionality of the idea as the issue may involve German citizens who may be deported. The entire Swedish analysis is also applicable to Germany).  

The Swedish Government should be open to disappointment from the Supreme Court of Sweden because the Justices are unpredictable and while it is true that they are Swedish citizens themselves and with the expectation that they sympathize with the Government from all the current events and approve the Government plan. However, the Court may have other pressing constraints on the matter, by looking outwards for the best international practices on the matter, absent war when all Constitutional liberties and freedoms are suspended and in peace time, Sweden would be the first and only industrial nation in modern times in the whole world to deport its own citizens. It is not a slam dunk matter with the Supreme Court, again and again, the Justices are unpredictable which way they will make their decision on the matter, it is 50/50 it could go either way. Rather, the Government should prepare a two pronged attack, amend the Constitution that it prohibits all the activities that do not conform to Swedish and Western values, and with 10 to 20 years retroactive implementation and application ex ante (which means, all those currently in violation, are going to prison immediately right now). The Section on “State approved only religion” will designate the only religion allowed by the Government, free speech or freedom of religion does not apply here, when you are in Rome, you behave and act like a Roman, anyone who does not like it should stay away from Sweden. All other religions are prohibited. Next, the section on “Cultural and Social values”, this will prohibit polygamy, it is illegal for a man to have more than one wife, and since the culture in Sweden is one man and one wife with the nuclear family, thus only 2 children are allowed per family. All efforts must be made in Sweden to eliminate the extreme danger of uncontrollable exponential population growth of the population of the foreign culture where a man can have up to 10 wives and have 100 children, as the events in Lebanon in the 1970s have taught the whole world, if this happens, they will become majority and impose their values and start killing everybody else. In addition, all other most dangerous venoms observed in the foreign culture that are fatally incompatible with the Swedish and Western values will be articulated distinctively and separately in the Constitution, and the Constitution prohibits each one. In Sweden, a man cannot marry a girl who is 6 or 9 or 12 years old! Are You Crazy ? !!! Violation of anyone of the provisions will result in 20 to 30 years or even life in prison. Some of the venoms in the observed foreign culture deserve life in prison or even public execution. It is not by force, anyone who is not prepared to obey the laws of Sweden must not come to Sweden. With the prohibition of these activities by the Constitution, one can find cooperation from the Supreme Court Justices as the laws are within the authority of the Government to make and there is no direct conflict with any other Constitutional provision.  January 5, 2025