Select Page

Trump Attack on Syria Violated International Law

By Harold Pease, Ph. D

Please understand, I am no fan of the United Nations, the globalist pipe dream for world government supported by every president since its inception except Ronald Reagan and possibly Donald Trump. Still, it was created in San Francisco, is housed in Rockefeller donated property in New York City, and we were signatories of its charter which prohibits what Trump just did to Syria. This begs the question.

Is an attack warranted under international law on a sovereign nation that has not attacked the United States and, if not, why shouldn’t we be viewed as an aggressor nation by our initiating one?  A giant irony is that we punished Syria for violating international law by our also violating international law.  Who says two wrongs do not make a right?

Consider the following United Nations Charter violations by the United States when we attacked Syria:  Article 2, Sec. 4, “All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state….”  Even our threat of the use of force is a violation.  The only exception to the use of force is self-defense as stipulated in Art. 51. “Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security.”

Donald Trump made no case to the United Nations prior to attacking the sovereign country of Syria.  He has not, and will not, because he would have to justify such action on the basis that Syria had first shown actual aggression toward the United States necessitating our responding in self-defense.  This he cannot do.  Were U. S. citizens gassed we could respond in self-defense but we were not.  Such acts of aggression justifying self defense must immediately be provided to the UN Security Council who then decide “such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.”

Other United Nation Charter rules also need satisfied.  Article 39 stipulates that “the Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with Articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore international peace and security.”  Even before this takes place Article 40 must be satisfied which reads: “In order to prevent an aggravation of the situation, the Security Council may, before making the recommendations or deciding upon the measures provided for in Article 39, call upon the parties concerned to comply with such provisional measures as it deems necessary or desirable.  Such provisional measures shall be without prejudice to the rights, claims, or position of the parties concerned.  The Security Council shall duly take account of failure to comply with such provisional measures.”  So we see that in order for a state to use force in self-defense, it or some other state must have suffered an armed attack.  Such has not been demonstrated with respect to Syria.

There exists other complications; even had the UN ruled Syria an aggressor nation, which it has not, and sanctioned a coalition force against Syria, the President sought the support of no other countries to bomb with him.  The Syrian offense had already occurred so the mission was to punish the perpetrator, clearly not self-defense.  Syria had signed only one of two treaties prohibiting the use of gas and it contained no enforcement provisions and no one made the United States the policeman of the world.  Finally, although there is no doubt that chemical weapons were used on Syrians, the source of such, although presumed, has not been definitively proved.  Everyone remembers the “proof” presented to the United Nations by Colin Powel, that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction when it did not.  Assad maintains that his own men were gassed as well.

The Assad regime may well have gassed her own people, which Assad aggressively denies, but he has not attacked another country.  We, on the other hand, did just this when we bombed Syria.  Had the U.S. attacked, Russia or China either would have retaliated with immediate war and asked the United Nations to define the United States as the aggressor nation and insisted they define Donald Trump a war criminal.  That could have been followed by a “call upon the parties concerned,” the United States especially, “to comply with such provisional measures as it deems necessary or desirable,” which could include economic sanctions as has been used on other nations.

Did we think when we signed the UN Charter, creating the “world government,” that the rules did not apply to us, that we could just bomb whomever, whenever, and wherever we wished as with our drone strikes on multiple countries under President Obama.  Unfortunately for President Trump, but fortunately for us, the U. N. Charter does not allow a military attack on a sovereign nation just to punish them.

Someone needs to save the president from his ignorance of international law before he does a preemptive strike on North Korea. Another option, if we are not going to be subjected to world law, is to pull out of the United Nations, a move that I have long supported.
 

Dr. Harold Pease is a syndicated columnist and an expert on the United States Constitution. He has dedicated his career to studying the writings of the Founding Fathers and applying that knowledge to current events. He has taught history and political science from this perspective for over 30 years at Taft College. To read more of his weekly articles, please visit www.LibertyUnderFire.org.

Trump Defies the Constitutional Separation of Powers with Syrian Attack

Harold Pease, Ph. D

Even though President Donald Trump believes it proper to bomb Syria, a country that has done us no harm, he has no constitutional authority to do so. Because weak Congress’s have not punished previous presidents, both Democrat and Republican, when they did the same, it does not make it constitutional. Despite compelling humanitarian reasons justifying the action, the gassing of children with sarin gas, presumed by President Bashar al-Assad of Syria, we lack the treasure and ability to be the policeman of the world. Where would it end? Most of the world has dictators and tyrants as leaders. We would never be able to stop bombing someone.

The making and funding of war were clearly denied the president in the U.S. Constitution because he, as Founder James Madison argued, “had the most propensity for war.” The Constitution reads: only Congress has the right “to declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water.” War requires the blood of our young warriors, and this requires the permission of the people who are required to be the fodder for such. Only the people’s representatives can “provide and maintain a navy or make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces” and for “calling forth the militia…to repel invasions.” Only the people’s representatives can “provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States….” Congress is directly responsible for any acquisition of property for military use. All of this is in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution and belongs to the legislative branch alone.

The Constitution does not use the words “national security” but “common defense,” defined by eight parameters, clauses 10-17, just noted, with the word defense primary. Not a single Founder would have approved of our turning “common defense” into “common offense.”

Funding for war is yet another constitutional check and is entirely left with the House of Representatives. The Constitution says: “no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years.” Two years is the designated time that a member of the House is elected and authorized to represent his people. So, neither Presidents Barack Obama nor Trump can expend monies for military activity without congressional approval. Article I, Section 7 requires that “all bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives….” This clause is how the people, through their elected representatives, control a war happy president.

The only war power a president is allowed to have in the Constitution is as “Commander in Chief of the army and navy of the United States, … when called into the actual service of the United States,” which is done only by Congress, not by himself. No president has constitutional authority to engage in war without a declaration of war—even if done by other presidents before him. To commit our young to potential death unilaterally is not a presidential power, and doing so should be an impeachable offense. If the Executive Branch can effectively remove this power from Congress, giving it to itself, we are close to losing the rest of the Constitution as well.

In the Obama Administration, Congress was not consulted when American planes bombed Libya (2011, 2015), or his authorizing drone strikes in several middle-eastern countries (2013-2016) killing designated individuals—all such have traditionally been considered acts of war. Certainly these would be treated as such were they perpetrated on U.S. soil by another country. The Syrian chemical use in their civil war had already occurred, so the Trump bombing strike was to punish the perpetrator, clearly not self-defense.

The last four presidents, two of each major political party, have bombed the following 10 sovereign nations (some multiple years): Somalia 1993, 2007-2008 & 2011, Bosnia 1994-1995, Sudan 1998, Afghanistan 1998 & 2001-2015, Yugoslavia 1999, Yemen 2002 & 2009-2011, Iraq 1991-2015, Pakistan 2007-2015, Libya 2011 & 2015, and Syria 2014-2016 & 2017. None of these were preceded by a declaration of war. Most of these American attacks had no specific congressional authorization. They were all justified under national security. Probably only Afghanistan can be viewed as self-defense. Where do we get authority to bomb other countries at executive will, certainly not from the Constitution?

To protect the Constitution, the House of Representatives in March of 2012, attempted to place President Obama on short notice that the next disregard of their power would be grounds for impeachment. We might wish to give Trump the same warning. Concurrent resolution H. Con. Res. 107 read, “Whereas the cornerstone of the Republic is honoring Congress’s exclusive power to declare war under article I, section 8, clause 11 of the Constitution: Now, therefore, be it Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That it is the sense of Congress that, except in response to an actual or imminent attack against the territory of the United States, the use of offensive military force by a President without prior and clear authorization of an Act of Congress violates Congress’s exclusive power to declare war under article 1, section 8, clause 11 of the Constitution and therefore constitutes an impeachable high crime and misdemeanor under article II, section 4 of the Constitution.”

Dr. Harold Pease is a syndicated columnist and an expert on the United States Constitution. He has dedicated his career to studying the writings of the Founding Fathers and applying that knowledge to current events. He has taught history and political science from this perspective for over 30 years at Taft College. To read more of his weekly articles, please visit www.LibertyUnderFire.org.

Globalist Influence in the Trump Administration

By Harold Pease, Ph. D

The most globalist and influential political action organization in the United States is the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). The Donald Trump Administration is the most clean of CFR influence in many decades, perhaps since Calvin Coolidge. Traditionally this organization claims either the president or the vice president in every administration, and always the Secretary of State, and ambassadorships to the United Nations, Russia and China. Under Trump it claims none of these posts. Moreover, CFR members largely fill the majority of presidential cabinets. Normally, they have highly placed members in both major political parties and thus for almost 100 years they win every presidential election.

They are the moneyed elite capable of bringing to candidates the millions of dollars that are needed to win. They are in both political parties and they own the major media outlets. Thus their influence over presidential candidates for a hundred years is never really covered, but all presidential candidates know of their influence and power. No candidate for president gets to office without CFR approval, until now.

Over the decades they have been called the shadow government, the secret combination, the moneyed establishment, the eastern establishment and now just the establishment. They have hated only two presidential party nominees Barry Goldwater in 1964 and Donald Trump in 2016. The first they destroyed, the second they seek to remove or destroy.

President Woodrow Wilson was the first president to reference a secret influence over politics at the highest level. In his The New Freedom (1913) he wrote of his experience with a hidden force: “Since I entered politics, I have chiefly had men’s views confided to me privately. Some of the biggest men in the United States in the field of commerce and manufacture, are afraid of somebody, are afraid of something. They know that there is a power somewhere so organized, so subtle, so watchful, so interlocked, so complete, so pervasive that they had better not speak above their breath when they speak in condemnation of it.”

A hundred years later, Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, identified the CFR as her source of direction when she addressed them in their new D. C. “sub-center down the street.” She told them: “I am delighted to be at these new headquarters. I have been often to the mother ship in New York City but it is good to have an outpost of the Council right here down the street from the State Department. We get a lot of advice from the Council so this will mean that I won’t have as far to go to be told what we should be doing and how we should think about the future.”

In the presidential campaign the establishment media portrayed Donald Trump as a joke—certainly not a serious candidate, not a real conservative, a flip-flopper on the issues, anti-women, anti-immigration, insulting to everyone, a braggart, only into himself, least likely to beat Hillary Clinton, only attractive to white males, and not in touch with reality with respect to the Middle East, and more. They were wrong. A third of these charges would have easily destroyed previous candidates. As president they work to obstruct everything he does. He is vilified in virtually every national press outlet.

Unfortunately Trump’s CFR record, although the best ever, is no longer pure. CFR Lieutenant General H. R. McMaster replaced General Michael Flynn as National Security Adviser and Neil M. Gorsuch as U.S. Supreme Court justice, is imminent. Gorsuch was first listed as a CFR member in the 2007 Annual Report and thereafter for five years. He is not currently listed. Gorsuch must be questioned regarding this affiliation. Membership in the CFR is by invitation only following a period of observation making certain that your loyalty to the values of the organization are impeccable. Those values are empowerment of the United Nations, internationalism, world government, nation building and eradicating national borders—each out of harmony with the Constitution as created by the Founders.

Gorsuch may be promoted as an originalist on the Constitution but as a member of an organization that sees the Constitution as an obstruction to the New World Order, which the CFR promotes, the Senate must know which loyalty is primary and if not the Constitution he must be rejected by all Senators. Should a decision come before him that forces him to choose between two loyalties, internationalism and U.S. nationalism, which will he endorse?

Another concern surfaces; Ruth Bader Ginsburg also has CFR membership and thus two of the nine justices of the highest court in the land could have a higher loyalty. She has made no secret that she views international law (UN law) as constitutional. In fact her loyalty to the Constitution came into question in 2012 when the Egyptian government sought her advice in the writing of a new constitution. She recommended the South African or Canadian models and could not recommend the U.S Constitution. Two of nine justices who may have a higher loyalty than the Constitution is two too many.

Trump would be better off to avoid all globalist organizations and members in his administration. There are plenty of experts available without globalist sympathy. Still, he has done well in reducing globalist influence in those who advise him.

Dr. Harold Pease is a syndicated columnist and an expert on the United States Constitution. He has dedicated his career to studying the writings of the Founding Fathers and applying that knowledge to current events. He has taught history and political science from this perspective for over 30 years at Taft College. To read more of his weekly articles, please visit www.LibertyUnderFire.org.

Dumping TPP Placed Kink in Globalist NWO Plans

By Harold Pease, Ph. D

Many still do not understand the significance of Trump’s Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) pullout. It was the most serious blow to the globalists in 100 years. In the political literature of the last 100 years internationalism, world government, new world order (NWO), world order and globalism are synonymous. They suggest a progressive transfer of national sovereignty to a higher level of government such as the United Nations. The idea of the 1950’s and 1960’s was to increasingly enlarge the UN until it was the recognized world government with total power. When possible this process continues.

Since countries have been slow to forfeit their national sovereignty to the UN, proponents next encouraged regional governments—uniting countries into geographical units, as for example the European Union, then later, when peoples and nations get used to this power transfer, unite them then into a single political unit. Since countries will never initially unite into a single political unit, the plan was to begin with economical unity then progress to the political unity desired, precisely as was successful in the E U. The unification of Europe into a regional government processed through the following five stages: European Coal and Steel Community, Common Market, European Economic Community, European Community, and finally European Union when political unity was possible.

The USSR, after the fall of communism in 1989, transformed itself into the Commonwealth of Independent States Free Trade Area (CISFTA)—a regional government of nations still under the control of Russia. The world has since been divided into other regional governments each following the European Union model and free trade agreements (economic persuasion) have been the favorite tool. Currently there are 23 such regional agreements each at a different stage in the unifications of the countries in their regions and most still saddled by the necessity of using the somewhat deceptive “free trade” terminology. In time the plan is to reduce 206 countries to less than 20 regional governments turning these countries into mere states of regional countries—a much more manageable world, globalists believe.

Some of these perspective regional governments have progressed beyond the need to keep the “free trade” terminology when they describe themselves as for example, the African Economic Community and the Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa (COMESA), both uniting large sections of Africa. The Council of Arab Economic Unity (CAEU) uniting northern Islamic Africa and the Middle East is another. South America is to be united by the Southern Cone Common Market, frequently referred to as Mercosur. It has progressed to the point that it now has a Joint Parliamentary Committee, which is a final step toward political unification. But most still need these words. Central Europe is to be united by the Central European Free Trade Agreement (CEFTA). The South Asian Free Trade Area (SAFTA) exists to unite countries from Afghanistan to Sri Lanka.

In the United States The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) was to gradually unite Canada, the United States and Mexico into one regional government as had the European Union united Europe. A real border was never to be implemented because in time we were to be the North American Union complete with open borders of the people within and with an amero dollar to match the euro dollar. To globalists national sovereignty is the enemy. The Declaration of Independence, Constitution, and Bill of Rights, that depend on and protect national sovereignty, cannot be allowed to obstruct the move to a world government.

The main reason that the U.S. was not to have an effective southern border prior to the political unification of the three countries was because Mexico was so far behind the other two countries in economic development and it needed time to elevate itself. Mexicans flooding the U.S. for better paying jobs and many sending a portion of their money back to families in Mexico or opting to retire in their homeland with pensions acquired in the U. S., helped in Mexico’s economic elevation.

Some trade agreements also intentionally interlaced with other trade agreements. The three countries in NAFTA also are signatories of the 5,600 paged Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP), just ended by President Trump. Had it been implemented it would have governed 40 percent of U.S. imports and exports and 26 percent of the world’s trade. It would have been the law of the land for the United States and 11 other countries in the Asia-Pacific region regardless of what the U.S. Constitution might say.

Its sister trade deal the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), called for by President Barack Obama in his February 12, 2013 State of the Union Address, would have economically merged the European Union and the United States much more closely with respect to market access, specific regulation and broader rules. Secret negotiations on the TTIP are expected to continue through 2020 and remain classified so the extent of this merger is unknown.

Trumps opposition to illegal immigration and his pulling out of the TPP negotiations are the most serious blows to the globalists in 100 years and will never be tolerated by them. They will continue to spew hate for him. His announced objective to renegotiate NAFTA as well and his probable pull out of TTIP too, may make him the most influential president rescuing us from world government.

Dr. Harold Pease is a syndicated columnist and an expert on the United States Constitution. He has dedicated his career to studying the writings of the Founding Fathers and applying that knowledge to current events. He has taught history and political science from this perspective for over 30 years at Taft College. To read more of his weekly articles, please visit www.LibertyUnderFire.org.

Trump Saves U.S. from the Trans Pacific Partnership

By Harold Pease, Ph. D

For readers who do not understand the international trade deals of the last 25 years, notably NAFTA, GATT and TPP, you will never fully grasp what President Donald J. Trump has just done for the Constitution and against the proponents of globalism. In his first day in office, pulling the United States out of the proposed Trans Pacific Partnership, he has done more to return us to constitutional integrity and to international free market economics than the last four presidents combined. Space permits our confining ourselves to the threat averted to the Constitution.

International trade deals have historically been a mix of oxymoron’s: Republicans for and Democrats against, with the actual trade deals finalized and implemented by Democrat presidents Bill Clinton and Barack Obama. Unions, considered left, and Tea Party folks, considered right, have been consistent opponents, as have constitutionalists. Thus, Senators Elizabeth Warren and Rand Paul are on the same side, the former yelling in opposition to the TPP, “No more secret trade deals!” And, “No more special deals for multinational corporations!!”—Both accusing Obama of selling us out.

In 2013, the Washington Post was the largest newspaper to print some of the “secret” parts of the TPP observing that by then, after nearly a decade of negotiation and 19 secret meetings, had become a regional government document of a hefty 5,600 pages. “Which when finished, will govern 40 percent of U.S. imports and exports” and “26 percent of the world’s trade.” It will be the law of the land for the United States and 11 other countries in the Asia-Pacific region—without the input of a single member of Congress. This in violation of Article I, Section I of the U.S. Constitution that mandates that all legislative powers reside in the House and Senate and in no other body. In fact, until 2015 members of Congress had not been allowed to even see the treaty whereas privileged corporations had no problem with access.

The paper continued, “The treaty has 29 chapters, dealing with everything from financial services to telecommunications to sanitary standards for food,” demonstrating the wide variety of areas believed to be affected by it, but again, it is the secretive nature of it that is most offensive. Apparently TPP participants signed “a confidentiality agreement requiring them to share proposals only with ‘government officials and individuals who are part of the government’s domestic trade advisory process’.” That excluded you, the media, Congress, and me.

The Post acknowledged that the agreement “encompass a broad range of regulatory and legal issues, making them a much more central part of foreign policy and even domestic lawmaking.” Such is curious. The Constitution requires the approval of your two U. S. Senators and your House member for every regulation upon you. There exists no language in the Constitution that any other individual or body—especially an international body—can perform this function. And, international law should not affect “domestic lawmaking.” You have the right to know that these three have read every rule emanating from the federal government upon you. The admission that the TPP will influence foreign policy is interesting as only the U.S. Senate may influence foreign policy as per Article II, Section II.   Giving a “more central part of foreign policy” to an international agency would have virtually voided the Constitution in this area.

The Post identified “60 senators (who) have asked for the final agreement to address currency manipulation.” Senators Elizabeth Warren and Ron Wyden, both Democrats, have been especially vocal about the Obama “Administration’s refusal to make draft text available.” Wikileaks published the chapter on intellectual property raising “many questions about copyright protections.” Obviously this treaty, while billed as just a trade agreement, included music, film, books, the Internet and appeared to restrict everything in the industry. And this was but one of 29 chapters.

The implementation procedure of the globalists was to gain consensus among the countries signing it, all had by February 4, 2016, then present it Fast Track and without debate to both branches of Congress for a simple up or down vote.   Again, this procedure flies in the face of the Constitution. Treaty making, an agreement between two or more countries, is a shared power between the president and the senate. The president “shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate to make treaties, provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur.” President Barack Obama did not seek Senate advice; indeed he has not even allowed the Senate to read his treaty prior to November 5, 2015, even then he accepted no changes in it. Then he presented it to both houses for a simple majority vote instead of only to the Senate for a two-thirds vote as constitutionally mandated.

Law by a single man excluding Congress is unconstitutional. International law imposed by an army of unelected bureaucrats is not freedom. The Trans Pacific Partnership would have siphoned decision-making power from the elected to the non-elected in a foreign land and would have affected every American. A signature by any member of Congress or by a president would have violated his oath of office “to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” Thank God Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell did not present it to the Senate when finished and President Trump took it off the table entirely.

Dr. Harold Pease is a syndicated columnist and an expert on the United States Constitution. He has dedicated his career to studying the writings of the Founding Fathers and applying that knowledge to current events. He has taught history and political science from this perspective for over 30 years at Taft College. To read more of his weekly articles, please visit www.LibertyUnderFire.org.