One Hundred Fifty-Five years before the invasion of Iraq, Abraham Lincoln had this to say on the subject of pre-emptive war and where the power to make war resides in American government:
“Allow the President to invade a neighboring nation whenever he shall deem it necessary to repel an invasion, and you allow him to do so whenever he may choose to say he deems it necessary for such purpose, and you allow him to make war at pleasure. Study to see if you can fix any limit to his power in this respect, after having given him so much as you propose. If to-day he should choose to say he thinks it necessary to invade Canada to prevent the British from invading us, how could you stop him? You may say to him, â€” ‘I see no probability of the British invading us;’ but he will say to you, ‘Be silent: I see it, if you don’t.’
“The provision of the Constitution giving the war making power to Congress was dictated, as I understand it, by the following reasons: Kings had always been involving and impoverishing their people in wars, pretending generally, if not always, that the good of the people was the object. This our convention understood to be the most oppressive of all kingly oppressions, and they resolved to so frame the Constitution that no one man should hold the power of bringing this oppression upon us. But your view destroys the whole matter, and places our President where kings have always stood,” – Abraham Lincoln, in a letter to William H. Herndon, Feb. 15, 1848.
H/T: Andrew Sullivan
Senator Mitch McConnell on the absurdity that is public campaign fianancing:
Those who support a candidate are free to contribute to his or her campaign. They always have been. But the idea that those who don’t support that candidate should also contribute to his or her campaign is worse than nonsense: It’s a coercive use of taxpayer funds.
H/T: Club for Growth
“I am an economic, a fiscal, a social and a compassionate conservative,”
—Sam Brownback giving limited government voters yet another reason to oppose him, January 6,2007.
Some people simply believe that a mercantilist state awash in rent-based revenues derived from renationalization of oil resources, attempting to monopolize energy markets through a state-owned firm, in an attempt to recreate an empire, is no different from a private firm in a free market. Such people call a scholar with detailed knowledge of the system who has been quite publicly critical of mercantilism, protectionism, and socialism an “alleged libertarian.” The Lew Rockwells and Justin Raimondos have long since given up any claim to be serious friends of liberty, indeed, to be serious in any sense of the word.
— Cato Institute fellow Tom G. Palmer responding to an attack on Cato Institute fellow Andrei Illarionov by Antiwar.com editor Justin Raimando, December 29,2006.
I am passionate about my commitment to limited government and freedom. I simply know that you can not have unlimited opportunity and unlimited government. Although today I view the terrorist threat from this radical strain of Islam to be the greatest threat to my country and my family, I frankly view the second greatest threat as a federal government that has grown too large, too intrusive, too powerful and too expensive. Since I’ve got into the daddy business 4½ years ago, I’ve spent a lot of time thinking about the next generation. And we know if we don’t reform the big three entitlement programs, the next generation is going to face a rather nasty fiscal fork in the road. The bottom line is, for all intents and purposes, there will be no federal government in one generation except Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security or we’re going to have to double taxes. I find both of those untenable.
–Texas Congressman and incoming chairman of the Republican Study Committee Jeb Hensarling in an interview on December 18,2006.