Trump Commits an Act of War - Between Rounds of Golf

by Pa Rock
Citizen Journalist

Donald John Trump, the aging blowhard who became President not through a majority vote of the American electorate but rather through a quirk in the Constitution, might do well to sit down and carefully read that fragile old document which propelled him to the highest office in the land.  It is the Constitution, after all, which defines how our government must operate.  It grants authority for each of the three branches of government to do certain things, and it sets strict limits on the powers of those same three branches.

One thing that the Constitution is quite clear about is who has the authority to declare war.  Our founding fathers did not want that awesome responsibility resting with just one individual, someone who might let petty vindictiveness overpower reason and sound judgment.  James Madison the other good fellows who penned and ratified the Constitution gave the power of starting wars to Congress – and Congress alone.

Congress will occasionally defer and give the President latitude in pursuing war policies, such as they did with the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution in the 1960’s that gave LBJ the authority to pursue a war in southeast Asia, and more recently when it allowed George W. Bush to use his best judgment to retaliate for 9/11 by chasing his demons across the Middle East.  But at no time did Congress give up its Constitutional power and prerogative to initiate a war.

What is a war?  War happens when one sovereign nation deliberately and with malice aforethought attacks another nation.  Last night Donald John Trump committed an act of war when he ordered the bombing of an air base in Syria.  Trump would argue, one suspects, that he did not take our country into war because his intent was that the bombing would be strictly a one-time thing in retaliation for Syria using chemical weapons on its own people.

One could also argue that the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor was a one-time thing, but it quickly escalated to war throughout the Pacific.

No one is saying that the President doesn’t have the right to retaliate whenever our country is attacked, because clearly, as Commander in Chief, he does.  But Syria attacked its own people – not the United States of America – and if that chemical attack warranted a fighting response from us, then clearly it should have been as a result of a deliberative process in the appropriate body – Congress.  If the bombing of Syria was that critical and necessary, then Congress should have had the opportunity to weigh in on the matter and to make the ultimate decision.

Bombing a sovereign nation is an act of war.  If the intricacies of the Constitution are going to prevail in an election over the clear will of the people, then the demands of the Constitution should also take precedence when our nation lets loose its bombs on another country.

We did not elect a king, regardless of how His Nibs views the matter.  The powers of starting a war rest with Congress, not with some posturing aggressor who has the temperament and emotional stability of a junior high bully.

Congress, do your job!

Next question:  If we, as a civilized people, are so outraged at the idea of Syria gassing and killing civilians, including women and little children, why the hell are we so steadfastly refusing to grant these targets of genocide refugee status in America?   Would that not be the ultimate act of unfettered Christian charity?

If the situation is so horrendous that it calls for an act of war on our part, then certainly the tragedy befalling the people of Syria merits our country opening its doors and its hearts and accepting those who are fleeing the carnage.

God bless Justin Trudeau and the good people of Canada for showing the rest of us what Jesus would do.

And meanwhile, back at Mar-a-Lago, more golf, more steaks, and more luxury living - all on the public's dime.