Happy Birthday, Grover Cleveland!

Today marks the 175th anniversary of the birth of Grover Cleveland, America's 22nd and 24th President. Like all our presidents, Cleveland was far from perfect, but he towers far above even the best of the rest of our chief executives. Along with Jefferson, Cleveland is one of my favorite presidents. And even better than Jefferson, Cleveland did an outstanding job of standing for sound money, sound foreign policy, and the principles of a free society.

If you are unfamiliar with this great patriot or just want a good refresher, The Foundation for Economic Education offers a great rundown covering the man and his accomplishments.

Once again, happy birthday, Mr. Cleveland. May a our generation come to revere the principles for which you fought.

A Blow to the President's War in Libya

On Friday, the US House overwhelmingly rejected the Obama Administration's military action in Libya. This comes days after Secretary of State Clinton openly voiced frustration over members of both parties' refusal to go along with the President and months after the White House first entered into this unnecessary and unconstitutional new war.

The New York Times reports:

Over the last few months, there has been increasing hostility toward the Obama administration in the House among both Democrats who oppose the war and many Republicans, who cite Constitutional issues, over the president’s refusal to seek authorization from Congress for the operations in Libya. They say such authorization is required by the 1973 War Powers Resolution.

Speaker John A. Boehner has repeatedly warned President Obama that the House considers the situation untenable and would seek to intervene through resolutions and its power of the purse.

The House then quickly moved to debate a second resolution, sponsored by Representative Thomas Rooney, Republican of Florida, that would prohibit the use of money for military operations in Libya, allowing financing only for support operations like search and rescue, aerial refueling, operational planning, and intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance — essentially requiring an end to direct American combat activity like missile strikes. The measure, which has the support of Republican leadership, was intended to severely limit America’s role while not completely leaving NATO allies in the lurch.

The Senate, controlled by Democrats, is not expected to pass such a measure and therefore it is unlikely to have any practical effect on the Libyan operations. Still, the measure would send a strong signal to Mr. Obama that he lacked full Congressional support, reflecting in large part a nation weary of war.

While there is still much to be desired in the effort to end the wars we wage, this is a positive action. We are finally seeing actors in both parties standing up and saying "enough is enough," opposing the warfare state. We who have long been part of the conservative/libertarian anti-war movement, should welcome those who are now seeing things our way and hope we can once again be peaceful nation that seeks national defense over military adventurism. We must, if we are to long endure.
 

Rand Paul and Mike Lee on the Unconstitutional Libyan War

Yesterday, Sen. Rand Paul took to the Senate floor, championing the constitutional requirement for congressional authorization before military action and calling out the hypocrisy of the Obama administration. It was a rousing speech and a great moment for my favorite young senator.

Nasty Attacks Are Nothing New

When I hear folks ranting about how "politics have become so dirty," I always point to the election of 1800 as proof that things have been bad since the beginning. In fact, things may have become more civil. Take a look at this great video from Reason that gives us a taste of what was said in our nations first competitive presidential election in the form of would-be ads from 1800.

Sestak and the Obama Administration...The Proper Move

ABC News reports:

In a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder today, all seven Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee "urge the appointment of a special prosecutor to investigate Congressman Joe Sestak's claim that a White House official offered him a job to induce him to exit the Pennsylvania Senate primary race against Senator Arlen Specter."

Though it may appear to be an act of political opportunism, the actions of the GOP committeemen are quite proper and should be encouraged. Sadly, we are dealing with a possible high-profile political crime carried out by the White House. If the Mr Sestak's claim--that he was offered a position in the administration to bow out of the PA Democratic primary--is true, there's been a major breach of the law that must be prosecuted.

Treating federal jobs like thank you cards is bad enough, but using them to intervene in electoral politics is even worse. Not only does it allow for political manipulation and the ability of the executive branch to pick the legislative players, it is illegal. If we are to be a nation of laws, we cannot have the White House leading the pack in the violation of those laws.

All that said, we should be careful to let the eveidence speak for itself.

No one should be too quick to call the president a liar, side with Sestak, and cry foul. The jury is still, out and I will not pass judgment until more evidence is available. Until the facts are in we should give the chief executive the presumption of innocence.

Moreover, even though I despise the president's policies, I hope he is innocent. The ramifications of the White House manipulating elections by offering jobs on this level would be a huge step back in a time that we don't need more trouble. If the allegations are true, however, I hope those responsible will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. None should be spared.

Ron Paul's Transition Plan

Here is a great video compiling Dr. Paul's words on what his transition plan would look like.

What Would a Ron Paul Presidency Look Like?

Putting the Constitution Back into the Oval Officeby Ron Paul

Since my 2008 campaign for the presidency I have often been asked, “How would a constitutionalist president go about dismantling the welfare-warfare state and restoring a constitutional republic?” This is a very important question, because without a clear road map and set of priorities, such a president runs the risk of having his pro-freedom agenda stymied by the various vested interests that benefit from big government.

Of course, just as the welfare-warfare state was not constructed in 100 days, it could not be dismantled in the first 100 days of any presidency. While our goal is to reduce the size of the state as quickly as possible, we should always make sure our immediate proposals minimize social disruption and human suffering. Thus, we should not seek to abolish the social safety net overnight because that would harm those who have grown dependent on government-provided welfare. Instead, we would want to give individuals who have come to rely on the state time to prepare for the day when responsibility for providing aide is returned to those organizations best able to administer compassionate and effective help – churches and private charities.

Now, this need for a transition period does not apply to all types of welfare. For example, I would have no problem defunding corporate welfare programs, such as the Export-Import Bank or the TARP bank bailouts, right away. I find it difficult to muster much sympathy for the CEO’s of Lockheed Martin and Goldman Sachs.

No matter what the president wants to do, most major changes in government programs would require legislation to be passed by Congress. Obviously, the election of a constitutionalist president would signal that our ideas had been accepted by a majority of the American public and would probably lead to the election of several pro-freedom congressmen and senators. Furthermore, some senators and representatives would become “born again” constitutionalists out of a sense of self-preservation. Yet there would still be a fair number of politicians who would try to obstruct our freedom agenda. Thus, even if a president wanted to eliminate every unconstitutional program in one fell swoop, he would be very unlikely to obtain the necessary support in Congress.

Yet a pro-freedom president and his legislative allies could make tremendous progress simply by changing the terms of the negotiations that go on in Washington regarding the size and scope of government. Today, negotiations over legislation tend to occur between those who want a 100 percent increase in federal spending and those who want a 50 percent increase. Their compromise is a 75 percent increase. With a president serious about following the Constitution, backed by a substantial block of sympathetic representatives in Congress, negotiations on outlays would be between those who want to keep funding the government programs and those who want to eliminate them outright – thus a compromise would be a 50 percent decrease in spending!

While a president who strictly adheres to the Constitution would need the consent of Congress for very large changes in the size of government, such as shutting down cabinet departments, he could use his constitutional authority as head of the executive branch and as commander in chief to take several significant steps toward liberty on his own. The area where the modern chief executive has greatest ability to act unilaterally is in foreign affairs. Unfortunately, Congress has abdicated its constitutional authority to declare wars, instead passing vague “authorization of force” bills that allow the president to send any number of troops to almost any part of the world. The legislature does not even effectively use its power of the purse to rein in the executive. Instead, Congress serves as little more than a rubber stamp for the president’s requests.
(Read the rest here.)