Before Politico broke the sexual harassment story they spent 10 days repeatedly trying to get the Cain campaign to respond directly about whether he ever faced allegations of sexual harassment when he was at the Restaurant Association. The campaign was  also asked about specific reports confirming there were financial settlements in two cases in which women leveled complaints.

Not only did the campaign refuse to answer the questions, but even more disastrous is they had a ten-day-lead to figure out a strategy to address the charges and did absolutely nothing. When the charges were made public, Cain bungled his answers and evaded the questions.

Cain said he has “had thousands of people working for me” at different businesses over the years and could not comment “until I see some facts or some concrete evidence.” His campaign staff was given the name of one woman who complained last week, and it was repeated to Cain on Sunday. He responded, “I am not going to comment on that.”

He was then asked, “Have you ever been accused, sir, in your life of harassment by a woman?”

He breathed audibly, glared at the reporter and stayed silent for several seconds. After the question was repeated three times, he responded by asking the reporter, “Have you ever been accused of sexual harassment?”

(more…)

BILL DALEY: You shouldn’t have used the phrase “leading from behind” last spring when you spoke off the record about Libya, Mr. Vice-President.

BIDEN:  Well, I didn’t, Billy boy.  I said Hillary was leading with her behind.  Or maybe I said the whole NATO operation was like the blind leading the blind.  I don’t remember.  But the guy misquoted me.

OBAMA:  No lasting harm.  Research and Destroy knocked that off the front pages fast with the Cain revelations.

DAVID PLOUFFE:  Oh, Mr. President, the Smithsonian taxidermist just delivered Gaddafi’s head.

OBAMA:  Okay.  Tell Housekeeping to mount it above the mantel in the Residence, next to bin Laden’s.  And remind them to leave room for Baby Assad and Boehner.

VALERIE JARRETT:  Sir, the Libya bump is fading since Fox reported diehard Islamists have seized control of the country and Gaddafi’s massive stock of surface-to-air missiles.

BIDEN:  Damn Ailes, trying to make people think we shoulda known that could happen. (more…)

President Barack Obama’s call yesterday for “restraint on all sides” as defenseless Coptic Christians were attacked and murdered in Egypt in a government-supported Islamic pogrom was typical of his administration’s response to attacks by states against civilians.

Though he has, in some cases, come around to criticizing and even toppling regimes, Obama’s first instinct is to treat the perpetrators and the victims as equals.

The sole, and repeated, exception is Israel, which the Obama administration criticizes and condemns for legal activities such as construction within the municipal boundaries of Jerusalem. By contrast, the administration coddles the unrepentant, terror-promoting Palestinian leadership–a fruitless effort, greeted with contempt rather than gratitude.

The same tendency is apparent in Obama’s newly-uncovered attempt to apologize for the atomic blast at Hiroshima, which the Japanese, appropriately, rejected. Obama has had trouble, especially early in his presidency, distinguishing defense from aggression–especially when that defense is on behalf of western democracy.

That is worse than moral equivalence; it is “immoral equivalence,” because it destroys the moral distinction between freedom and tyranny. (more…)

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

Download Podcast | iTunes | Podcast Feed

On today’s edition of Coffee and Markets, Brad Jackson and Ben Domenech are joined by Francis Cianfrocca to discuss how the upheaval in Libya and the Euro Bond debate will effect the markets. Then we’ll ask Francis when the next recession will hit, and oh yeah, Brad and his wife had a baby boy last week.

We’re brought to you as always by BigGovernment and Stephen Clouse and Associates. If you’d like to email us, you can do so at coffee[at]newledger.com. We hope you enjoy the show.

Related Links:

US Diplomat: Gadhafi’s whereabouts not yet known
Euro Bond: Wrong Answer or Critical for Europe?
Merkel Says She’ll Resist Pressure for Euro Bond
Economist Jeffrey Sachs Hits Obama: “There’s Never Been A Plan”
Obama faces worst-case 2012 scenario

Follow Brad on Twitter
Follow Ben on Twitter
Follow Francis on Twitter

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

Download Podcast | iTunes | Podcast Feed

On today’s edition of Coffee and Markets, Pejman Yousefzadeh is joined by Mustafa Akyol to discuss the seeds of liberalism within Islam, how those freedoms were trampled in Muslim countries, and how the Arab Spring and the Green Movement in Iran might restore that personal liberty.

We’re brought to you as always by BigGovernment and Stephen Clouse and Associates. If you’d like to email us, you can do so at coffee[at]newledger.com. We hope you enjoy the show.

Related Links:

Islam without Extremes: A Muslim Case for Liberty
Islam Will Find Its Own Way to Freedom
The Forgotten Liberalism Within Islam
Mustafa Akyol on the Basic Compatibility of Islam with Free Market Economy

Follow Pej on Twitter
Follow Mustafa on Twitter

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

Download Podcast | iTunes | Podcast Feed

On today’s edition of Coffee and Markets, Brad Jackson is joined by Pejman Yousefzadeh and Elizabeth Blackney to discuss Hillary Clinton’s latest comments about Syria’s Resident Assad and ask, is Syria the next Libya?

We’re brought to you as always by BigGovernment and Stephen Clouse and Associates. If you’d like to email us, you can do so at coffee[at]newledger.com. We hope you enjoy the show.

Related Links:

Clinton: Syria’s Assad has lost legitimacy to rule
Clinton to Syria: Implement Reforms Now
A Moral Adventure
Obama’s Speech On Libya: ‘A Responsibility To Act’

Follow Brad on Twitter
Follow Pej on Twitter
Follow Elizabeth on Twitter

Well, here we go again. Republicans scratching their heads, watching the Democrats run circles around them. It seems The Grand Old Party is always waiting for the chance to turn tables on the Democrats, and, it just never works out. When Democrats were in the Majority, the Press Loved the Democrats, so it was assumed when Republicans took over in 1994, that they would have the same close relationship. (Whoops.) Such naive trust is the kind, that loses great fortunes to Nigerian Princes.

When Republicans held the majority, they were civil with Democrats. They would give them important seats, seek their council on policies, and pass through every Democrat judicial nominee with respect; hoping that when they were in the minority again, they will be shown the same respect. (Whoops again.) No wonder Conservative ideas never gain any traction. They are as helpless as red-coated soldiers marching into the forest with pipes and drums blaring.

Now that Republicans have the majority back, and the President has initiated force in Libya, there was a futile hope that a Democrat President will respect the War Powers Resolution. (Whoops cubed. Fool me one time, shame on you; fool me twice, let’s go for three!) It was a mistake of perception. Despite the antiquated notion of equal treatment under the law, the War Powers Resolution wasn’t written for Democrat Presidents –it only applies to Republicans.

It all boils down to our differing views of law. While we see the Constitution as an inflexible document that outlines the sole authority under which the Federal Government can legally exist, the Democrats see it as six pages of enormous loopholes. To us, laws are inflexible orders that apply to everyone, regardless of their position in society; to Democrats they are nothing more than handy tools for leveraging a campaign donation out of a stingy donor. The Health Care waivers are good examples of this double standard; another is Al Gore’s private jet.

(more…)

As Barack Obama announces the beginning of troop withdrawal from Afghanistan, a far bigger issue – one that goes to the heart of American history and government – remains unaddressed.

“That the President has the right to start a war at his pleasure is just completely divorced from the original meaning of the Constitution,” says constitutional scholar Gene Healy.

President Bush declared a war on terror that could theoretically extend into any country accused of harboring terrorists, including the United States itself. President Obama not only expanded the war in Afghanistan soon after taking office, he decided to bomb Libya without consulting Congress.

(more…)

How did he get out again? He should have been sitting in a padded room wearing  one of those nice trench coats with the long sleeves that tie into a knot around the back. But somehow the  slug from the Nation of Islam, one of the biggest purveyors of hateful venom in the world Louis Farrakhan, must have escaped again.

The Muslim leader who was recently quoted as saying America will be bathed in blood, and told Al-Jazeera that 9/11 was planned by the US because “America was looking for a New Pearl Harbor.”

On June 15th Farrakhan  joined such “luminaries” as Ramsey Clark and the always-crazy former Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney in a press conference near the UN to speak out against the US action in Libya.  No, Farrakhan is not suddenly  concerned with the constitution and/or the war powers act, his concern was that no one knows Moammar Gadhafi like he does and the Libyan tyrant is a real nice guy (he didn’t mention it but I bet Gadhafi calls him mom every day).

Farrakhan gave a speech that lasted more than an hour, praising Libya and bashing the West.

(more…)

“It’s an uncomfortable fact that sending a message of solidarity with our NATO allies is more important than sending a message to President Obama.”

It’s tempting to cut off funds immediately for President Obama’s ill-conceived Libya offensive.  But it’s not the right course.  For the sake of our allies, Congress needs to be patient in using the power of the purse to correct Obama’s misadventure.

The policy is indeed a mess.  Even if the ongoing air attacks chased Muammar Qadhafi from power, he might be replaced by a radical Islamist regime.  We have no good intelligence on what the rebels would establish if they took over.

Obama’s ham-handed approach has been an insult to Congress’ constitutional role “to define and punish . . . Offences against the Law of Nations,” as specified in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution.  Obama failed to make any meaningful consultation with Congress before he committed American forces, much less obtain any type of actual approval.

Yes, it’s tempting for Congress to “teach him a lesson” by voting to cut off U.S. funding immediately for Libyan operations.  The power of the purse is their strongest counter-balance to the President’s role as commander-in-chief.

But the countervailing argument is that our NATO allies—a key component of America’s national security—have been pulled into the Libya fray based on assurances and urgings from the Obama Administration.  Those may have been improvident, but they are real.

(more…)

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

Download Podcast | iTunes | Podcast Feed

On today’s edition of Coffee and Markets, Brad Jackson and Ben Domenech are joined by John Yoo, former Department of Justice official under President George W. Bush to discuss how enhanced interrogation techniques lead to Osama bin Laden’s death, how Bush administration policies have helped the war on terror, and what missteps lie ahead for Obama.

We’re brought to you as always by BigGovernment and Stephen Clouse and Associates. If you’d like to email us, you can do so at coffee[at]newledger.com. We hope you enjoy the show.

Related Links:

Robert Gates on America’s Role in the World
Robert Gates: ‘If America Declines to Lead in the World, Others Will Not’
John Yoo: Tough interrogations worked
From Guantanamo to Abbottabad
Libya and the War Powers Abdication
John Yoo’s Book – Crisis and Command: A History of Executive Power from George Washington to George W. Bush
John Yoo at AEI

Follow Brad on Twitter
Follow Ben on Twitter

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

Download Podcast | iTunes | Podcast Feed

On today’s edition of Coffee and Markets, Brad Jackson is joined by Pejman Yousefzadeh and Elizabeth Blackney to debate whether or not Obama should have intervened in Libya, what the real reasons for our involvement are, and who’s to blame when the operation goes awry.

We’re brought to you as always by BigGovernment and Stephen Clouse and Associates. If you’d like to email us, you can do so at coffee[at]newledger.com. We hope you enjoy the show.

Related Links:

Remember That Timely Debate About Libya Policy That We Never Had?
Between Sudan and Libya, Critics See U.S. Inconsistency
How the Arab Spring remade Obama’s foreign policy

Follow Brad on Twitter
Follow Pej on Twitter
Follow Elizabeth on Twitter

Recent developments in the Middle East seem to have a new or unique quality. For the first time, “ordinary” people appear to be rising up against oppressive and even tyrannical regimes. This is, of course, desirable on a number of levels. Somewhat distressing, however, is the little-discussed fact that many (though certainly not all) of these “ordinary people” have clear and unmistakable ties to America’s most bitter enemies, the Muslim Brotherhood and al-Qaeda.

Whatever U.S. policy is—and currently, it appears that even the President, the Secretary of State, and the Secretary of Defense cannot get on the same page, let alone develop a united strategy with allies—it needs to be guided by only one thing: what is in the security interests of the United States of America? Our Founders, both in the Constitution and in their actions governing the early Republic, spoke clearly on how to deal with such overseas adventures. While the threats may be current, they are neither new nor unique.

First, it is critical to understand that virtually all of the Founders had served in the military at one time or another and most of them had actually seen combat. These were not wild-eyed dreamers, nor pacifists. They knew blood; they knew struggle. Washington, Madison, Hamilton, Knox, Livingston, Greene, Randolph, and many more had seen war up close, and none of the Founders believed in disarmament. Their only disagreements came over whether militias could be whipped into shape quickly enough to defend the nation. Jefferson, one of the last to come around, finally admitted the need for a U.S. military academy to train officers.

Second, while the phrase “entangling alliances” is commonly thrown out by some conservatives as a warning against any alliances, the fact is that the U.S. had benefitted greatly from an “entangling” alliance with France. Washington’s warning, in his Farewell Address, warned against “permanent, inveterate antipathies against particular nations.” Put simply, he believed people were capable of change. But then Washington made clear that Europe had different interests than our own—and that, indeed, the U.S. did have national interests. He argued for a standing army to protect those interests. It is all the more odd, then, that Washington (and John Adams) paid tribute, or bribes, to the Barbary Pirates to prevent them from seizing our shipping. But in the meantime Adams began construction of our first blue-water navy, which was completed in time for his successor, Thomas Jefferson to use it. When the Bey of Tripoli engaged in the time-tested declaration of war (back then, cutting down the U.S. flag), Jefferson did not hesitate a moment to send the entire U.S. fleet—without a declaration of war—to not only eliminate the Bey himself, but to take out any of his allies whether those states had declared war on the U.S. or not!

(more…)

When the President ordered the attack on Libya without Congressional authorization, he crossed a very bright Constitutional line that he himself recognized in 2007 when he told the Boston Globe “The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.”

The reason the American Founders reserved the question of war to Congress was that they wanted to assure that so momentous a decision could not be made by a single individual. They had watched European kings plunge their nations into bloody and debilitating wars and wanted to avoid that fate for the American Republic.

The most fatal and consequential decision a nation can make is to go to war, and the American Founders wanted that decision made by all the representatives of the people after careful deliberation. Only when Congress has made that fateful decision does it fall to the President as Commander in Chief to command our armed forces in that war.

The authors of the Constitution were explicit on this point. In Federalist 69, Alexander Hamilton drew a sharp distinction between the American President’s authority as Commander in Chief, which he said “would amount to nothing more than the supreme command and direction of the military and naval forces” and that of the British king who could actually declare war.

To contend that the President has the legal authority to commit an act of war without Congressional approval requires ignoring every word the Constitution’s authors said on this subject – and they said quite a lot.

(more…)

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

Download Podcast | iTunes | Podcast Feed

On today’s edition of Coffee and Markets, Brad Jackson is joined by Matt Lewis to discuss Obama’s Libya speech, Tim Pawlenty, Newt Gingrich and more.

We’re brought to you as always by BigGovernment and Stephen Clouse and Associates. If you’d like to email us, you can do so at coffee[at]newledger.com. We hope you enjoy the show.

Related Links:

Obama’s Libya Speech: What Worked; What Didn’t
Tim Pawlenty Winning The ‘Matt Lewis Primary’
Newt Gingrich’s ‘Lake’ Analogy Doesn’t Hold Water
Matt Lewis’ Blog at the Daily Caller

Follow Brad on Twitter
Follow Matt on Twitter

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

Download Podcast | iTunes | Podcast Feed

On today’s edition of Coffee and Markets, Brad Jackson is joined by Francis Cianfrocca to discuss Libya, Washington’s boom town status and a key court decision against the Fed.

We’re brought to you as always by BigGovernment and Stephen Clouse and Associates. If you’d like to email us, you can do so at coffee[at]newledger.com. We hope you enjoy the show.

Related Links:

Will Mideast’s Upheavals Put Extremists In Power?
In contrast to media industry’s struggles, a boom for those who cover Congress
Fed’s Court-Ordered Disclosure Shows Americans’ ‘Right to Know’

Follow Brad on Twitter
Follow Francis on Twitter

In 1986, President Ronald Reagan announced to the American people that the United States had begun bombing Libya. In his statement, President Reagan referred to Libyan dictator, Muammar al-Qaddafi, as a “monstrous murderer.” Here, he described Qaddafi’s heinous crimes against the Libyan people, Americans, and citizens of other countries.

Qaddafi has continued his reign of terror throughout the past 25 years, yet, as of March 1st- just a few weeks ago- the United Nations’ Human Rights Council was set to adopt a report which praised Libya for its human rights record. UN Watch, a nongovernmental organization based in Geneva, documented the path of the report, and ultimately urged the Council to reject it. The organization exposed the words of praise for Libya, in the report, from countries such as North Korea, Venezuela, and Cuba, among others. However, in his review of the report for the Wall Street Journal, James Taranto sarcastically recommended that the council “ignore UN Watch’s advice and approve the report praising Libya. For it tells us a lot about the U.N. Human Rights Council.”

Indeed, UN Watch Director, Hillel Neuer, observed that while the Human Rights Council was praising Libya, the U.N. Security Council was simultaneously approving a tough set of sanctions against the Libyan regime.

As the various councils of the United Nations operate at cross-purposes, so, too, does the current United States President, who holds the organization at the highest level of esteem. So much so, in fact, that President Obama has involved the nation in a third Mid-Eastern war, with no clear mission and no exit strategy. Yet, these serious deficits seem lost on the American president who would prefer to have the permission of the U.N. over that of the United States Congress to utilize the nation’s human and financial resources in an act of war.

(more…)

A week ago President Obama, without Congressional approval, committed our armed forces to an international conflict in the nation of Libya.  Today Congressman Amash (R-Mich) and I are introducing the RECLAIM Act to reclaim Congressional authority to declare war that is so clearly proscribed in Article One, Section Eight of the Constitution; we urge all members to join our effort.  Under the guise of the War Powers Resolution of 1973, President Obama claimed the United States must intervene to “prevent a humanitarian catastrophe and address the threat posed to international peace and security by the crisis in Libya.” While those aims are laudable, we cannot intervene everywhere we find injustice.  Constitutionally, it is indisputable that Congress must be consulted prior to an act of war unless there is an imminent threat against this country. The President has not done so.  Approval from the Arab League, the EU, and United Nations does not mean the American people approve.

The RECLAIM Act does two simple things:  ceases the use of force in, or directed at, the country of Libya by our Armed forces and halts all use of funds used in the force against the country of Libya.  This bill DOES NOT allow an open-ended conflict.  It DOES NOT leave us vulnerable to a “Tonkin Gulf”, “Nueces Strip” or a “Black Hawk Down” situation, meaning, it does not leave the United States armed forces in a vulnerable situation to be attacked, thus forcing our hand to retaliate.  We’ve already come too close, with one plane having crash-landed—what if those pilots had died or ended up in enemy hands?

Not only are these actions unconstitutional, they are unfathomable when we are facing a $14 trillion debt.  The first night of this attack, we fired 112 Tomahawk missiles. Each of these missiles can cost up to $1.5 million. That’s $168 million for one night’s assault. Libya is more than four times the size of Iraq; we spent $2.1 billion a year enforcing a no fly zone there.  Estimates to maintain the no-fly zone can cost $100 million to $300 million per week.  We cannot afford another open ended conflict overseas.

(more…)

March 23, 2011

The Honorable Barack Obama
President of the United States
The White House
Washington, D.C. 20500

Dear Mr. President:

I have read your letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate dated March 21, 2011 concerning your order that United States Armed Forces attack the nation of Libya. You cite the authority of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973 and your “constitutional
authority to conduct U.S. foreign relations and as Commander in Chief and Chief Executive.”

The Constitution clearly and unmistakably vests Congress with the sole prerogative “to declare war.” Your letter fails to explain how a resolution of the United Nations Security Council is necessary to commit this nation to war but that an act of Congress is not.

The United Nations Participation Act expressly withholds authorization for the President to commit United States Armed Forces to combat in pursuit of United Nations directives without specific Congressional approval. The War Powers Resolution states that the President’s power to engage United States Armed Forces in hostilities “shall not be inferred . . .from any treaty heretofore or hereafter ratified unless such treaty is implemented by legislation specifically authorizing the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities…”

(more…)