Moose of Reason

In his first State of the Union address, President Jefferson notified Congress that he had deployed frigates to the Mediterranean “to protect our commerce from the threatened attack.”  However, Jefferson made clear the limits placed on his war-making powers by the Constitution.

To this state of general peace with which we have been blessed, one only exception exists. Tripoli, the least considerable of the Barbary States, had come forward with demands unfounded either in right or in compact, and had permitted itself to denounce war on our failure to comply before a given day. The style of the demand admitted but one answer.

I sent a small squadron of frigates into the Mediterranean, with assurances to that power of our sincere desire to remain in peace, but with orders to protect our commerce against the threatened attack. The measure was seasonable and salutary. The Bey had already declared war. His cruisers were out. Two had arrived at Gibraltar. Our commerce in the Mediterranean was blockaded and that of the Atlantic in peril.

The arrival of our squadron dispelled the danger. One of the Tripolitan cruisers having fallen in with and engaged the small schooner Enterprise, commanded by Lieutenant Sterret, which had gone as a tender to our larger vessels, was captured, after a heavy slaughter of her men, without the loss of a single 1 on our part. The bravery exhibited by our citizens on that element will, I trust, be a testimony to the world that it is not the want of that virtue which makes us seek their peace, but a conscientious desire to direct the energies of our nation to the multiplication of the human race, and not to its destruction. Unauthorized by the Constitution, without the sanction of Congress, to go beyond the line of defense, the vessel, being disabled from committing further hostilities, was liberated with its crew.

The Legislature will doubtless consider whether, by authorizing measures of offense also, they will place our force on an equal footing with that of its adversaries. I communicate all material information on this subject, that in the exercise of this important function confided by the Constitution to the Legislature exclusively their judgment may form itself on a knowledge and consideration of every circumstances of weight.

 

“Members of the banking committee, decked out in their ‘I heart Bernanke’ t-shirts, are waving incense in front of him,” said Thomas Woods, PhD, at the Rally for the Republic in September 2008.  “Ron Paul, on the other hand, looks him in the eye and says, ‘You are stealing from the poor!’”

The rest of Woods’ speech here and here.

Paul looking Bernanke in the eye and calling him a thief here.

Woods explaining the Austrian Business Cycle Theory here.

Speaking earlier tonight at a $10,000-per-plate fundraiser in one of Senator Kerry’s (D-MA) homes, Vice President Biden accused Republican presidential candidates of being out of touch with the concerns of middle class Americans. But considering the policies Biden and his running mate advocate, perhaps the shoe belongs on the other foot. In The Law Frederic Bastiat sums up the Bidens of the world

When a politician view society from the seclusion of his office, he is struck by the spectacle of the inequality that he sees. He deplores the deprivations which are the lot of so many of our brothers, deprivations which appear to be seven sadder when contrasted with luxury and wealth.
Perhaps the politician should ask himself whether this state of affairs has not be caused by old conquests and lootings, and by more recent legal plunder. Perhaps he should consider this proposition: Since all persons seek well-being and perfection, would not a condition of justice be sufficient to cause the greatest efforts toward progress, and the greatest possible equality that is compatible with individual responsibility? Would not this be in accord with the concept of individual responsibility which God has willed in order that mankind may have the choice between vice and virtue , and the resulting punishment and reward?
But the politician never gives this a thought. His mind turns to organizations, combinations, and arrangements–legal or apparently legal. He attempts to remedy the evil by increasing and perpetuating the very thing that caused the evil in the first place: legal plunder. We have seen that justice is a negative concept. Is there even one of these positive legal actions that does not contain the principle of plunder?

Biden doesn’t have to admit to being wrong.  However, he–and everyone else–should always ask himself, “What if I’m wrong,” especially if they hold a position of power.

In a recent poll, CNN asked whether each candidate’s policies favored the rich, the middle class, or the poor. 52% of respondents decided that Representative Paul’s (R-TX) would benefit the middle class, compared with 40% for President Obama.

CNN hosts seemed surprised themselves when announcing the poll results.

Expressing her opposition to rescinding the rule requiring religious organizations to provide birth control in their insurance policies, Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) warned of possible mission creep.

Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., said Blunt’s proposal could lead to effects far beyond contraception. “If I believe that prayer should cure all disease, that’s my belief, and I’m an employer, I can deny coverage for any life-saving intervention,” Boxer said at a news conference on Tuesday.

This is a far cry from last March, when Boxer staunchly defended President Obama’s decision to go to war with Libya without congressional authorization. It couldn’t possibly set negative precedence for the President to usurp the war-making authority carefully vested in the legislature and for Congress to do nothing, could it?

A donut hole, you might say.

The 2006 election swept scores of Democrats into office.  The Washington Post analyzed its effect on lobbyists, and it would seem that the pharmaceutical lobby was one of the hardest hit.

Drug companies are particularly hungry for Democratic help, including the industry’s trade association. “We woke up the day after the election to a new world,” said Ken Johnson, spokesman for the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America. “We’re going to have tough days ahead of us.”

A post-election e-mail to executives at the drug company GlaxoSmithKline details just how tough. “We now have fewer allies in the Senate,” says the internal memo, obtained by The Washington Post. “Thus, there is greater risk over the next two years that bad amendments will be offered to pending legislation.” The company’s primary concerns are bills that would allow more imported drugs and would force price competition for drugs bought under Medicare.

The defeat of Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) “creates a big hole we will need to fill,” the e-mail says.

It would seem that the two of them had a cozy relationship, and whether or not you already had reason to be grateful that Senator Santorum left office, this is a good one.

Lieutenant Colonel and author Anthony Shaffer spoke with Fox News’ Jonathan Hunt about Iran and the Strait of Hormuz. Watch the whole thing, remembering to pay attention around the 2:30 mark when he mentions a certain Republican presidential candidate.

Speaking on the House floor on February 8, 2001, Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX) warned of the “Potential for War” in the Middle East and noted the hypocrisy in our foreign policy. Regardless of whether you largely disagree with Paul’s policy prognostications abroad, he makes a very salient point.

“We continue to support Turkey with dollars and weapons. We once supported Iraq with the same. Now, we permit Turkey, armed with American weapons, to kill Kurds in Iraq, while we bomb the Iraqis if they do the same. It makes no sense.
“Selling weapons to both factions of almost all the major conflicts of the past 50 years reveals that our involvement is more about selling weapons than spreading the message of freedom. That message can never be delivered through force to others over their objection. Only a policy of peace, friendship, trade, and our setting a good example can inspire others to look to what once was the American tradition of liberty and justice for all. Entangling alliances will not do it. It is time for Congress and the American people to wake up.”

Established in 1956, the Defense Science Board advises the Department of Defense on scientific and technical matters. In 2004, the Board was commissioned for a study on “Strategic Communication.” The following is but one conclusion reached.

The information campaign — or as some still would have it, “the war of ideas,” or the struggle for “hearts and minds” — is important to every war effort. In this war it is an essential objective, because the larger goals of U.S. strategy depend on separating the vast majority of non-violent Muslims from the radical-militant Islamist-Jihadists. But

American efforts have not only failed in this respect: they may also have achieved the opposite of what they intended.
American direct intervention in the Muslim World has paradoxically elevated the stature of and support for radical Islamists, while diminishing support for the United States to single-digits in some Arab societies.

• Muslims do not “hate our freedom,” but rather, they hate our policies. The overwhelming majority voice their objections to what they see as one-sided support in favor of Israel and against Palestinian rights, and the longstanding, even increasing support for what Muslims collectively see as tyrannies, most notably Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Pakistan, and the Gulf states.

• Thus when American public diplomacy talks about bringing democracy to Islamic societies, this is seen as no more than self-serving hypocrisy. Moreover, saying that “freedom is the future of the Middle East” is seen as patronizing, suggesting that Arabs are like the enslaved peoples of the old Communist World — but Muslims do not feel this way: they feel oppressed, but not enslaved.

• Furthermore, in the eyes of Muslims, American occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq has not led to democracy there, but only more chaos and suffering. U.S. actions appear in contrast to be motivated by ulterior motives, and deliberately controlled in
order to best serve American national interests at the expense of truly Muslim self-determination.

• Therefore, the dramatic narrative since 9/11 has essentially borne out the entire radical Islamist bill of particulars. American actions and the flow of events have elevated the authority of the Jihadi insurgents and tended to ratify their legitimacy among Muslims. Fighting groups portray themselves as the true defenders of an
Ummah (the entire Muslim community) invaded and under attack — to broad public
support.

• What was a marginal network is now an Ummah-wide movement of fighting groups. Not only has there been a proliferation of “terrorist” groups: the unifying context of a shared cause creates a sense of affiliation across the many cultural and sectarian boundaries that divide Islam.

• Finally, Muslims see Americans as strangely narcissistic — namely, that the war is all about us. As the Muslims see it, everything about the war is — for Americans — really no more than an extension of American domestic politics and its great game. This perception is of course necessarily heightened by election-year atmospherics, but nonetheless sustains their impression that when Americans talk to Muslims they are really just talking to themselves.

Thus the critical problem in American public diplomacy directed toward the Muslim World is not one of “dissemination of information,” or even one of crafting and delivering the “right” message. Rather, it is a fundamental problem of credibility. Simply, there is none — the United States today is without a working channel of communication to the world of Muslims and of Islam. Inevitably therefore, whatever Americans do and say only serves the party that has both the message and the “loud and clear” channel: the enemy.

Seven years later and few people seem to have taken the Board’s findings seriously, lest they be accused of “blaming America.”