There are a lot of legitimate reasons to impeach Donald Trump. The trouble is, why now? It’s not like Trump has started something new with his unconstitutional abuses of authority. Presidents, and congressmen for that matter, seem to think the so-called general welfare clause in the Constitution obliterates the rest of the document.

The $110 billion arms sale to Saudi Arabia is enough of a reason to impeach the man. I’d even call it treason.

With the constant drumbeat of Iran being the world’s biggest exporter of terrorism, we forget that almost all of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudi. Most of the 61 groups that are designated as terrorist organizations by our state department are Wahhabi inspired and Saudi funded. Their declared enemies are the West and Iran. Iran has a relatively minor presence on the list; not that I would favor a presidential blessing on arms sales to that country either. Saudi Arabia sponsors thousands of “madrassas” (religious schools) across the world teaching children jihad. And the “Podesta emails” confirmed Saudi support for ISIS.

Being a free-trader, am I guilty of hypocrisy in calling for a ban on trade with Saudi Arabia? Technically, yes. But then enter Trump. How do you think the friends and families of the 9/11 victims feel about their president schmoozing with Saudi royalty? Besides that, is it the job of a president to spur economic development for any industry?

Remember the 28 pages? That was the part of the congressional report on 9/11 that President Bush had sealed. It was big news a year ago when those pages were released to the public. However, almost anything of substance in the report was redacted (blacked out). It is common knowledge that many Saudi nationals were spirited away by jet following the 9/11 attacks just before all air travel was grounded.

As a free-trader I have no problem with industry in the U.S. doing business in the Middle East. As Bastiat said, “When goods fail to cross borders, armies will.” But when the president goes around promoting these alliances and business deals with terrorist governments, that’s a problem, especially when Mr. Trump owns property there.

In fact, any time our federal government, as my agent, is being friendly with a foreign government in any military matters, it ought to directly involve defense of these United States, not business interests abroad. Who can count the number of U.S. servicemen maimed or killed with arms acquired through careless disposal of or direct sales of hardware like this? ISIS is almost totally armed with U.S. weapons.

It is easy for politicians to act as if they have our best interests at heart, while their actions leave us vulnerable. They are surrounded by a vast security infrastructure. The children in Manchester, England were not protected in the same way as Prime Minister Theresa May. The runners in Boston did not have hoards of secret service surrounding them. The politicians and war profiteers don’t feel the cost of their interventions so their decisions are not guided by the risks shouldered by ordinary people.

The luxurious lifestyles of the Saudi and U.S. presidential royalty is built on the blood of our servicemen, productive people minding their own business, and the children.

Our government should heed Trump’s original slogan to put America first and exit the Middle East today. To remain there is treasonous.

Visiting the biggest exporter of Islamic terror, Saudi Arabia for a $110 billion arms deal. (it’s Iran? What BS) Visiting Israel, Why go there when they are already here? Visiting The Vatican, residence of the most powerful communist in the world.

Note: Josef Stalin (FDR’s pal) first coined the tern American exceptionalism.

Dear Editor,

Juliana Geran Pilon’s claim that “Our Constitution is the Longest-lasting in the world today…” has not been true in my lifetime. A literal reading would reveal almost every bit of federal spending as unconstitutional. Congress’s whims replaced The Constitution as the law of the land with such examples as Social Security or fuel mileage standards without so much as a whimper.

The American exceptionalism she is writing about would more likely mean constitutional restraints “except” for all these programs that are destroying the founders’ vision for a government that simply enables private property as a path to prosperity.

Love, Fritz