Select Page

NAFTA, “No Deal is Better than a Bad Deal.”

By Harold Pease, Ph. D

Much of why Donald Trump is president is because of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), which always has been disastrous for the trades. Democratically controlled unions and their politicians were for it when signed into law by President Bill Clinton and without union support it would not be law.

Big corporations and globalists (often Republicans) have been for it because through it they could manage the regulations and productions codes thus keeping their monopolistic empires in place—it limited trade. It has never been free trade. Free trade is the absence of production codes, government regulations, and trade boundaries, when the consumer alone picks the winners and losers by the high quality and low cost of their performance or products.

Many union workers knew their party had betrayed them at the time but almost all know it now. When Trump dubbed NAFTA as “the worst trade deal maybe ever signed anywhere, but certainly ever signed in this country,” they had experienced it as such and thus his appeal to them. And when he said, “I’m going to tell our NAFTA partners that I intend to immediately renegotiate the terms of that agreement to get a better deal for our workers…. If they do not agree to a renegotiation, then I will submit notice under Article 2205 of the NAFTA agreement that America intends to withdraw from the deal,” they cheered.

He also told them. “I see the carnage that NAFTA has caused, I see the carnage. It’s been horrible. I see upstate New York, I see North Carolina, but I see every state. You look at New England. New England got really whacked. New England got hit.” “NAFTA has been very, very bad,” Trump said in a speech in Kenosha, Wisconsin, speaking of dairy farmers being hurt by recent Canadian price changes that the farmers believed violated trade standards. “The fact is that NAFTA has been a disaster for the United States and a complete and total disaster.”

Union workers saw their jobs lost (six million the first 16 years of NAFTA) and factories moving to Mexico to take advantage of lower-waged workers. Whatever bad things their party and their media said about Trump, they knew he spoke the truth on this issue and that they would have a friend in the White House if he kept his promise. This is a major reason he won the old northwest and the election. And this is why he could lose the next election if he doesn’t return the jobs.

The problem with Trump’s call for renegotiation of NAFTA, rather than just pulling out, is that when the government negotiates regulations, productions codes, and trade areas it is not free trade and is never fair, even if well intentioned. Free trade has no restrictions on transactions, (not 1,000 pages as in NAFTA) and fair trade implies that both trade parties feel justice in the outcome. NAFTA is government-managed trade.

Trump cannot win this argument. Fair for him is if our existing corporations (who fund his next election) retain advantage over competing new entrepreneurs and foreign competitors are disadvantaged. If advantage is determined by natural law, one out performs, gives better service or products at lower cost but with higher quality, as when individuals make selections, it is both free trade and fair trade. Government can never do this because it can never account for all the variables involved and is impacted too much by the use of government to get advantage. Even Trump fell victim to this as a private citizen when he made political contributions to both political parties should he need advantaged in a business deal down the road.

In the renegotiation special interests seek to enhance governmental powers in their behalf. Michael Brune, the executive director of the Sierra Club, expects the renegotiated NAFTA to include more environmental protections and climate change measures.

Richard Trumka, president of the AFL-CIO, best represents the problem with government deciding winners and losers, “We will do everything we can to make this a good agreement and to hold the president at his word and make sure we get a renegotiation. If it comes out that it is not a good deal, no deal is better than a bad deal,” But what is a “good” deal? With no government intervention both seller and buyer get a “good” deal or a transaction is not processed.

Nancy Pelosi faults President Trump “for all of his rhetoric, President Trump looks to be sorely disappointing American workers on trade.” For Democrats it will never be fair because it is never enough. For Republicans it will never be free because it must be managed. Few from either major political party really believe in limited government or they would adhere to Article I, Section 8 of which most of NAFTA violates.

Congress expects to take up the NAFTA issue mid-August. The fairest and freest trade deal for all Americans is to allow natural law under the free market to rule. If negotiation does not respect these time-tested restraints, and the Constitution, Trump would be best served to work for Article 2205 and withdrawal as suggested by AFL-CIO president Trumka— “no deal is better than a bad deal.” And this, the sooner the better, or, he may pay a heavy price in 2020.

 

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.

Getting Out of the United Nations

By Harold Pease, Ph. D

I remember when grade schools promoted UNICEF (United Nations International Children’s Emergency Fund) by asking students to raise money while Trick-or-Treating every Halloween. In fact, looking back the UN was always treated favorably in school. I never heard a negative comment in my university experience either. Out of school, when I controlled what I read, the literature on the subject was quite different—even opposite. I came to realize that I had to undo some serious programing.

But getting kids to deny themselves candy for UNICEF programing was universal. Prior to 2012, U. S. Trick-or-Treaters had contributed $157 million and Canadians $91 million. If parents, or bullies, took candy from children it would be frowned upon but if the UN does it, approved—even commended. If an organization targeted children for a political outcome it would be unacceptable. Apparently UNICEF money was also used to produce cartoons promoting children’s rights, so political is the organization.

U.N. involvement in education, especially espousing globalism, world government if you prefer, is not new. Even last year their “Global Education Monitoring Report” dubbed “Policy Paper 28,” called for textbooks to include heavier doses of “global citizenship,” and the viewing of environmental problems as global issues requiring global solutions requiring global government. It also wanted textbooks to increase favorable coverage of sexual diversity including: homosexuality, homosexual parenting, bisexuality, and transgenderism.

In a UN summit for youth, held January 30, 2017, UN General Assembly President Peter Thomson, referred to the UN Agenda 2030 “Sustainable Development Goals,” as the “master plan for humanity.” But the master plan presented to the youth always leaves problem solving with the UN and increases planetary economic controls and wealth redistribution, each of which eventually destroys national sovereignty and liberty.

But amid these efforts to radicalize our youth in favor of globalism emerges the evidence that the UN is also the world’s leading governmental sexual abuser of children, its peacekeepers repeatedly raping children, some as young as ten. In an Associated Press Report, April 13, 2017, U. S. Ambassador to the U.N. Nikki Haley, gave a graphic depiction of U.N. peacekeepers sexually abusing homeless children. She disclosed one boy, in 2011, being “raped by peacekeepers who disgustingly filmed it on a cell phone.” UN Sri Lankan troops raped a 15-year-old boy over 100 times. One girl was raped, sharing later, “I did not even have breasts.” Between ages 12 and 15 “she was raped by almost 50 UN peace troops.”

But it is not just an occasional rape. The Report alleged some 2,000 allegations of rape, pedophilia, and sexual abuse of civilians in a little over a decade and it is assumed that the number is vastly under-reported.

But even this is not new. The United Nations has a long history of the same. Prostitution almost always increases wherever UN peacekeeping troops are stationed. Such was so in Cambodia, Mozambique, Central Africa, Sudan, “Bosnia, and Kosovo after UN, and in the case of the latter two, when NATO peacekeeping forces moved in.” Amnesty International disclosed, “A Kosovo victims support group reported that of the local prostitutes, a third were under 14, and 80% were under 18. The victims were routinely “raped ‘as a means of control and coercion’ and kept in terrible conditions as slaves by their ‘owners’; sometimes kept in darkened rooms unable to go out.”   In 2004, they reported, “that under-age girls were being kidnapped, tortured and forced into prostitution in Kosovo with U.N. and NATO personnel being the customers driving the demand for the sex slaves.” A simple reference to Wikipedia documents these and similar reports

Much of the information on corruption in the UN (child sexual rings and etc.) come from whistleblowers such as Povl Bang-Jensen, Anders Kompass, and Rasna Warah who appear to have no other motive than to right wrongs against humanity. The latest book on the subject is by Rasna Warah, “UNsilenced: Unmasking the United Nations’ Culture of Cover-ups, Corruption and Impunity.” As the title indicates, along with the revelation of sexual exploitation of children, it reveals corruption, abuse of power, and criminal activity for the last 15 years.

The revelations of this column are important. Globalism is the process of transcending into a world government with the United Nations, created by the globalists, to be the new government and in time the only “real” power on earth. The United States would be as a state, like South Carolina, in a bigger union. Government schools have propagandized for it since my youth. Innocently I was conned into helping them by raising money while Trick-or-Treating. There was never another side presented. But the real history of the United Nations, where they have power, is that of indoctrination, corruption, cover-ups and sexual abuse of children. Why should I expect it to be any different in this country when world government is in place and they have all the power?

I support current House bill, the American Sovereignty Restoration Act, bipartisan legislation to remove the United States from the UN. Proposed every year, it has more support now than ever. I find no good reason to continue Trick-or-Treating, or anything else, for an organization that undermines our sovereignty, the Constitution, and molests children.

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.

Merging Globalism and Climate Control

By Harold Pease, Ph. D

The first billionaire in U.S. History was John D. Rockefeller. He and J. P. Morgan dominated late 19th and early 20th Centuries economic and political history, more especially after they teamed up to create The Council on Foreign Relations in 1921—quickly becoming the most powerful political special interest group in U.S. History. Recently we published a column showing John D. Rockefeller’s grandson David, as the most influential individual in post World War II America and perhaps in the world.

Most U.S. History textbooks show how oil baron John D. Rockefeller worked ruthlessly to monopolize 90% of the oil industry in the United States but few have given focus to David’s working to demonize the fossil fuel industry of his grandfather in favor of alternative energy dominance wherein the Rockefeller family is now heavily vested. But first he had to popularize a myth—fossil fuels change the climate and thus must be managed at the world level. The myth insures their place of wealth with alternative energy and creates a need for a world government that they, because of their wealth, would manage, as they have the U.S. government.

What has been known by those who specialize in special interest group politics, is now more fully explained in a 24 page report by the Energy and Environmental Legal Institute called The Rockefeller Way: The Family’s Covert ‘Climate Change’ Plan, released December 2016. They concluded: “Since the beginning of their philanthropic endeavors, the Rockefellers have used social causes to amass influence in policy areas of their choosing. Since the 1980s, their cause of choice has been the climate change agenda (originally called global warming). Their crusade to collapse the fossil fuel industry in favor of renewable energy is well-documented, from their involvement in major global climate treaties and organizations—the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in 1992 to the 1997 Kyoto Protocol—to spending hundreds of millions to advance the renewable energy industry. Through their Sustainable Development Program, the Rockefellers continue to promote their self-serving ‘clean energy’ policies throughout both the federal government and general public.”

Their point, As the most prolific benefactors of the climate activist movement, the Rockefellers’ impact on the energy industry sees no bounds, as the family’s objectives permeate throughout federal and state energy policy, as well as international social engineering globalist compacts such as Agenda 21.”

So how has the public been convinced that global warming is real? This they accomplished, “through the Rockefellers’ web of family foundations, universities, and institutions, as well as huge grants to other charities….” As a result of this web, “they have gained unprecedented influence in healthcare, pharmaceuticals, agriculture, energy, and the environment. Their highly complex integration of hedge funds, interlocking boards positions, and non-profit organizations has steered public policy on these issues and provided them with foreknowledge of emerging markets and access to the developing worlds’ natural resources.”

Conditioning Americans to accept their views has progressed through multiple generations affecting most areas. The report continues: “Since the beginning of their philanthropic endeavors, the Rockefellers have used social causes to amass influence in policy areas of their choosing. Since the 1980’s their cause of choice has been the climate change agenda (originally called global warming).” When global warming could not be proved they changed terminology to climate change that can be shown to change over time somewhere on the globe.

When one side of an issue receives much greater funding than the other the resultant public support or non-support becomes predictable. Catastrophic science (the world is coming to an end) has always been more easily funded. When the Rockefellers want something they fund those “proving” the need, as with Columbia University’s Journalism School’s Energy and Environmental Reporting Fellowship Project, then Rockefeller media outlets such as The New York Times, the Washington Post and Time magazine publicize the findings of the Rockefeller financed studies. It’s really quite simple.

It is no wonder the Rockefeller Brothers Fund (RBF), created in 1940 by John D.’s five grandsons: John, Nelson, Laurence, Winthrop, and finally David, to advance international governing bodies, “boast of being one of the first major global warming activists” institutions. Certainly funding attests to the boast: the formation of the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in 1988 and the establishment of the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change in 1992. RBF funded the global adaptation of the Rio Treaty reducing greenhouse gas emissions to 5.2 % by 2012 and in 1997 “helped promote and orchestrate the Kyoto Protocol with Japan.” In Europe the RBF “donated $10 million to fund an alliance of local, state, and federal leaders in the United Kingdom and Germany to address the issue.”

Major Rockefeller tax-exempt foundations are The Rockefeller Foundation, The Rockefeller Brothers Fund, The Rockefeller Family Fund, and Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors Inc. All four have “poured tens of millions into major green activist groups.” Indeed without them the global warming or climate change issue comparatively would be non-existent. For the Rockefellers it does not matter whether true, only that it is the vehicle that sustains their wealth and power over the United States and their best argument to expand that power, through their New World Order, over the whole world. In the late 1800’s John D. Rockefeller did not have the power to veil his influence over America, today the Rockefeller family does.

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.

The Most Influential Man in Post-World War II History

By Harold Pease, Ph. D

The most influential individual in post-World War II history had a hand in creating the United Nations, even donating the property for the building in 1946. No one had greater claim to influence since. By the mid-seventies he owned dominating interests in The New York Times, CBS, NBC, and ABC (Senate Document 93-62, Disclosure of Corporate Ownership, 1974). He was also chairman of the 50 year-old Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), the most powerful special interest group in U.S. history from which both major political parties always selected their Secretary of States, Ambassadors to Russia, China, the United Nations and a third of all cabinet posts. In the last fifty years, (until Donald Trump) either the president or the vice president was an open CFR member. Members also held leadership positions in the vast majority of major media outlets in the U.S.

Those following his life the last 50 years know him as the one individual in U.S. history who could phone the White House, day or night, and expect the occupant, Democrat or Republican, to come to the phone. He was a confidant of many world leaders. He was powerful enough to persuade President Jimmy Carter to allow his friend, the extremely controversial, despised and deposed Shah of Iran, to come to the United States for medical treatment, disregarding intelligence warnings of retaliation if he did so. This resulted in the U.S. Embassy takeover and the Iranian Hostage Crises of 1979-1981.

In 1973 he created the Trilateral Commission, the most powerful special interest group in the world, designed to dominate the economies of Japan, North America and Western Europe. His thinking was that dominating these three geographical areas would allow him to indirectly dominate the world. His two notable lieutenants, one Henry Kissinger, influenced Republican administrations, the other Zig Brzezinski, influenced Democratic administrations, both became household names, the first more so with Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford, the latter with Jimmy Carter and Barack Obama. There might be some differences in what became “his” contending political parties, but in things that affected foreign policy and the interests of the establishment there were few.

Although not a founder of the Bilderbergers, a world government confab of the super rich of the western world, founded in 1954 by Prince Bernard of the Netherlands, he came to have membership and great influence in this group as well. It is here, behind closed doors, that he was most candid about his world government aspirations. In a 1991 meeting he spoke of his control of the American press. “We are grateful to the Washington Post, the New York Times, Time magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost 40 years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subjected to the lights of publicity during those years. But the world is more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of and intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national auto-determination practiced in past centuries” (The New American, April 17, 2017, p 42). Twenty-six years have passed since he boasted of his influence over the press and most Americans remain blind to the control over them. What is known, as the “Establishment Press” is “his” press.

By now most who read more than just the establishment press or their tributaries, who downplay all the above, know that the most influential person in post World War II era, and the one to whom we have referred is David Rockefeller, grandson of oil baron John D. Rockefeller.

To the ignorant who still insist that they are not dodo birds, and almost as though to test the level of his ability to manipulate them, he confessed everything.   In his published autobiography Memoirs, 15 years ago, he wrote. “For more than a century ideological extremists at either end of the political spectrum … attack the Rockefeller family for the inordinate influence they claim we wield over American political and economic institutions. Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as ‘internationalists’ and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure—one world, if you will. If that’s the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it” (p. 405).

His fingerprints are all over all free trade agreements especially NAFTA, FTAA, CAFTA, and SPP. He Founded the Council of the Americas, the Americas Society, the forum of the Americas, the U.S. Council of the Mexico-U.S. Business Committee and the Institute of International Economics to accomplish these economic/political unifications.

Still, even after his death on March 20, 2017, at age 101,“his” press did not share the extent of David Rockefeller’s decades long control over both major political parties. How is this possible with the level of greatness he acquired? Because the control remains in place? A quiet death with little acclamation does not bring attention to the “secret combination” for economic world power that he waged so successfully. Today his organizations advocating a new world order, including the U.N., are as strong and determined as ever, and remain mostly undetected.

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 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.