Debunking Theories

Derek Johnson Files, Claims 1 thru 4

Debunking Theories: Insights from 17th SOG

For the past year, the 17th Special Operations Group (17th SOG) has been diligently engaged in debunking a variety of theories. Our initial project, the 'Reconstitution' series, focused on scrutinizing and ultimately debunking the theory of devolution. This effort marked the beginning of an expansive journey where we consistently provided irrefutable evidence to challenge misconceptions and misinformation.

In addressing the claim of devolution's plausibility, we employed comprehensive research encompassing policy, doctrine, laws, acts, regulations, and programs. This thorough analysis allowed us to convincingly counter the theory, underscoring the robustness of continuity in operations, government, and constitutional governance.

Our methodology in this endeavor has been all-encompassing, involving the production of articles, videos, and engaging in extensive discussions to educate and clarify.

As we progress in our mission, I aim to share with you some key indicators to consider when assessing any theory. This is particularly vital in an era where misinformation can proliferate unchallenged.

Following this, I will present concrete evidence against the assertion that former President Trump retains the role of Commander-in-Chief. Our evidence delves into the specifics of declarations of war, national emergencies, and addresses the claims made by Derek Johnson in this context. The information we have gathered is both straightforward and compelling, effectively debunking a theory that has, surprisingly, found notable support.

However, my concern extends beyond just countering individual theories. It's about addressing the susceptibility to gullibility among the American populace and their reluctance to rigorously verify claims. This mindset is crucial and must be transformed. We advocate for a culture of stringent verification in all realms, including government communications, as vividly exemplified by the spread of misinformation during the COVID-19 pandemic.

By cultivating a mindset of inquiry and skepticism, we empower ourselves to effectively navigate and counter the challenges posed by unverified theories and misinformation. Here are six signs that can indicate deceit or the lack of legitimacy in theories, particularly when authors are reluctant to show their references:

1. Overreliance on Anecdotal Evidence: Theories that are heavily based on personal stories or isolated incidents, rather than well-researched data or scientific evidence, can be a red flag. Anecdotes can be misleading and do not necessarily represent a broader truth or pattern.

2. Use of Vague or Ambiguous Language: If a theory is presented with language that is intentionally unclear or uses a lot of jargon without clear explanations, this can be a tactic to mask a lack of substantive evidence or to confuse the reader.

3. Ignoring Contradictory Evidence: A credible theory should account for or at least acknowledge existing evidence that contradicts its claims. If a theory dismisses or ignores such evidence without a reasonable explanation, it may be a sign of deceit.

4. Lack of Peer Review or Academic Scrutiny: In the academic and scientific communities, peer review is a crucial process for validating research. Theories that have not undergone this scrutiny or are published in non-reputable journals may lack credibility.

5. Consistent Refutation by Experts: If recognized experts in the relevant field consistently refute the claims of the theory, especially if they cite a lack of evidence or methodological flaws, this is a strong indication that the theory may be unfounded or deceptive.

6. Unusual or Conspiracy-Oriented Sources: Reliance on sources that are known for promoting conspiracy theories or that lack credibility in the academic or scientific community can also be a red flag.

Before we delve into debunking the three claims made by Derek Johnson, I want to remind you of the role 17th SOG has played over the past year. Our focus has been on addressing theories that undermine the effective involvement of 'we the people' in local governance. In doing so, we do not initiate attacks, yet we often find ourselves on the receiving end of vehement opposition because of the theories we challenge. I urge you to pay close attention to these responses. More importantly, I encourage you to independently examine these claims. Remember, whether it's 17th SOG or anyone else presenting a claim, it is crucial to be equipped with solid evidence to refute or rebut. You'll likely notice that the responses, particularly from adherents of these theories, are often devoid of evidence and comprise mainly of attacks. This pattern is something I want you to observe and consider carefully.

Just to give you an idea of how Derrick Johnson thinks of the American people, let me just first go into this claim that he made on video most recently.

Derek Claim 1: 54% of the American population has a 6th grade education level. 

The claim that 54% of the American population has a 6th-grade education level is not supported by recent data. The educational attainment in the United States, especially among those aged 25 and older, is significantly higher. As of 2022, about 9% of the U.S. population aged 25 and older had less than a high school diploma or equivalent, 28% had high school as their highest level of education completed, and 15% had some college education but no degree​​. Additionally, in 2021, 35% of the population aged 25 and over had attained at least a bachelor's degree​​. These figures indicate that the majority of the adult population in the U.S. has an education level beyond the 6th grade, contradicting the claim that 54% have only a 6th-grade education. Furthermore, as of 2017, 90% of the American population aged 25 and older had completed high school or higher levels of education, marking a significant increase from past decades. 

Derek Claim 2: Separation of Military and Civilian Courts: Derek asserts that the Military Justice Act of 2016 has;

1. Established or reinforced a separation between military courts and civilian courts. 

2. Separation of the Roles of President and Commander-in-Chief: The author suggests that the President's role as the head of the state (President) is distinct and separate from their role as the head of the Armed Forces (Commander-in-Chief). 

3. Separation of Article II (Commander-in-Chief) from Article III (Federal Government): The author claims that Article II of the U.S. Constitution, which establishes the President as Commander-in-Chief, is separate from Article III, which pertains to the federal government, implying a division between the military command role of the President and their role in the broader federal government structure. 

The search I conducted from the National Defense Authorization Act did not provide any direct information regarding the three specific claims Derek made. The document did not explicitly address the separation of military and civilian courts, the distinction between the roles of President and Commander-in-Chief, or the separation of Article II (Commander-in-Chief) from Article III (Federal Government) in the context of Dereks claims. In fact, Commander-in-Chief was not mentioned one time in the entire Defense Authorization Act. It wasn't mentioned in any way, shape, or form, whether you put it CIC or lowercase commander-in-chief, or capitalized Commander-in-Chief or without the dashes. Nothing yielded any search results, which I find quite alarming.

Separation of Military and Civilian Courts: The U.S. legal system generally maintains a clear separation between military and civilian courts. Military courts, governed by the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), handle cases involving military personnel, while civilian courts deal with cases involving civilians and non-military matters. This separation is a long-standing feature of U.S. law, though certain exceptions and areas of overlap do exist.

Separation of the Roles of President and Commander-in-Chief: The U.S. Constitution assigns the President two distinct roles. As President, they function as the head of state and the executive branch of the federal government, responsible for domestic and foreign affairs. As Commander-in-Chief, the President has supreme command and control over the U.S. armed forces. While these roles are distinct, they are both vested in the same individual.

Separation of Article II (Commander-in-Chief) from Article III (Federal Government): Article II of the U.S. Constitution establishes the executive branch, including the role of the President and Commander-in-Chief. Article III establishes the judicial branch, including the Supreme Court and other federal courts. These Articles create separate branches of government, each with distinct powers and responsibilities, as part of the system of checks and balances.

Derek Claim 3: War in National Defense and National Emergencies:

The claim is made that under 50 U.S. Code Title 50, titled "War in National Defense," a President can declare war by national emergencies. Donald Trump’s signing of 11 executive orders with national emergencies is cited as an example.

1. 50 U.S. Code Title 50 - "War in National Defense" and Presidential Authority to Declare War:

• Accuracy: Title 50 of the U.S. Code does deal with national defense and emergency powers, but the power to declare war is constitutionally granted to Congress, not the President (U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 8). Title 50 contains laws related to war and national defense, including the President's emergency powers, but it does not authorize the President to declare war. The President's emergency powers under Title 50 and other statutes are broad  in terms of managing national emergencies but do not equate to a war declaration.

2. President's Authority to Declare War by National Emergencies:

• Accuracy: The President does not have the authority to declare war by declaring a national emergency. While the President can issue executive orders related to national emergencies, these are distinct from a formal declaration of war, which is a power reserved for Congress. The President's ability to declare national emergencies and issue executive orders under such circumstances is well-established, but this is not the same as declaring war.

Derek Claim 4: Donald Trump as a Wartime President:

The claim is made that Donald Trump became a wartime president on March 27, 2020, based on 50 U.S. Codes Section 1621, which allows a president to declare war via national emergency.

1. 50 U.S. Code Section 1621 and Presidential Authority:

   • Content of 50 U.S. Code Section 1621: This section of the U.S. Code pertains to the declaration of national emergencies by the President. It grants the President the authority to declare a national emergency, but this is distinct from a declaration of war. The power to declare war, as per the U.S. Constitution, is vested in Congress (Article I, Section 8).

   • Does it Allow a President to Declare War?: No, 50 U.S. Code Section 1621 does not provide the President with the authority to declare war. It allows for the declaration of a national emergency, which can activate certain emergency powers, but these do not include the power to declare war.

2. Donald Trump’s Status as a "Wartime President":

• Context of the Claim: The context in which this claim might have been made likely relates to President Trump's response to the COVID-19 pandemic. On March 27, 2020, President Trump may have referred to himself as a "wartime president" in the context of fighting the pandemic, which is a metaphorical use of the term, not a legal or constitutional status.

• Legal and Constitutional Status: Being a "wartime president" in a legal or constitutional sense would imply leading the country during an officially declared war. There was no formal declaration of war by Congress during Trump's presidency, and thus, legally, he was not a wartime president in the traditional sense. The claim conflates the declaration of a national emergency under 50 U.S. Code Section 1621 with a declaration of war. These are separate legal concepts with different implications.

Title 50 of the U.S. Code, which deals with national defense and emergency powers, outlines specific sections related to the President's emergency powers, but, as you noted, it does not grant the President the authority to declare war. This power is constitutionally reserved for Congress under Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution. Here are  key sections in Title 50 that are relevant to the President's emergency powers:

1. Subchapter II - Declarations of Future National Emergencies (§§ 1621 – 1622):

• § 1621. Declaration of National Emergency by President: This section authorizes the President to declare a national emergency, requiring the declaration to be published in the Federal Register. However, it does not equate to a declaration of war​.

• § 1622. National Emergencies: This section details how a national emergency declared by the President can be terminated. Termination can occur through a joint resolution enacted by Congress or by a proclamation issued by the President. Additionally, it specifies that any powers or authorities exercised due to the emergency shall cease after the termination date, except for actions or proceedings that began before the termination​.

2. Automatic Termination of National Emergency (§ 1622 (d)):

• This part of § 1622 stipulates that any national emergency declared by the President shall automatically terminate on the anniversary of its declaration unless the President publishes a notice in the Federal Register and transmits to Congress stating that the emergency will continue beyond the anniversary date​.

These sections emphasize that while the President has the authority to declare national emergencies, this is distinct from the power to declare war, which remains a Congressional prerogative. The provisions in Title 50 are primarily designed to regulate the process of declaring, managing, and terminating national emergencies, ensuring a balance of power and oversight between the executive and legislative branches.

References:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/chapter-34/subchapter-II#:~:text=1,National%20emergencies%E3%80%91

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/1622

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/1621

Written by SpartanAltsobaPatriot