Freedom Line Blog

Thank goodness WikiLeaks founder and diplomatic saboteur Julian Assange is getting a taste of his own medicine.  In his first interview since being “confined” to a nine-bedroom English mansion while he awaits an extradition hearing to Sweden on sex assault charges, the man who wants more transparency from governments and businesses is less inclined to turn the spotlight on himself.

Speaking from the English mansion where he is confined on bail, the 39-year-old Australian said that the decision to publish incriminating police files about him was “disgusting”. The Guardian had previously used him as its source for hundreds of leaked US embassy cables.

Mr Assange is understood to be particularly angry with a senior reporter at the paper and former friend for “selectively publishing” incriminating sections of the police report, although The Guardian made clear that the WikiLeaks founder was given several days to respond.

Mr Assange claimed the newspaper received leaked documents from Swedish authorities or “other intelligence agencies” intent on jeopardising his defence.

“The leak was clearly designed to undermine my bail application,” he said. “Someone in authority clearly intended to keep Julian in prison.”

How amusing it is to see Assange angered by others’ “selectively publishing” a “leak…clearly designed to undermine (his) bail application…”  I’ll bet there are hundreds of career diplomats similarly peeved at the well-connected Casanova’s preoccupation with his comparatively minor legal problems while they labor to repair his inestimable damage to world order.

No one is better than George Will at puncturing the self-serving equilibrium of excessive political correctness.  His most recent column is no exception.  Taking aim at a confab calling itself “No Labels” and for an end to partisanship, Will fires back with this defense of partisanship:

No Labels, its earnestness subverting its grammar, says: “We do not ask any political leader to ever give up their label – merely put it aside.” But adopting a political label should be an act of civic candor. When people label themselves conservatives or liberals we can reasonably surmise where they stand concerning important matters, such as Hudson’s ruling. The label “conservative” conveys much useful information about people who adopt it. So does the label “liberal,” which is why most liberals have abandoned it, preferring “progressive,” until they discredit it, too.

For the entire column, click here.

Maybe it’s the fatigue of waging an under-the-radar campaign for the 2012 GOP presidential nomination for two years, but outgoing Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty sounds like he may be second guessing opting for higher office.  Telling a Duluth newspaper that he regretted not running for a third term now that Republicans are poised to run the state legislature, Pawlenty wouldn’t be saying that if his sights were focused exclusively on running for president.

I heard Pawlenty speak at this year’s CPAC, and he seems like one of the best people to run for president in awhile.  But with the 2012 campaign about to kick into gear over the next three months, this statement of public reluctance is not what I would want to hear as a donor or staff member.

If the Wikileaks State Department cables are ever compiled into a book, one of the chapters should contain the rise and fall of Fidel Castro’s affinity for President Barack Obama.  It’s hard not to smirk when reading this article from The Guardian outlining the Cuban despot’s excitement that the candidate of “hope” and “change” would take America in a leftward direction.

Considered “obsessed” with Obama by U. S. diplomats stationed in Havana, Castro wrote several op-eds in a state-run newspaper praising the president for his speech in Cairo, Egypt.  The dictator also liked Obama’s stance on global warming.  That is, until The One broke the dear leader’s heart at the Copenhagen Conference.  (Apparently, wanting some concessions from China before handing over climate reparations went too far for Latin America’s oldest communist.)

Get in line, Fidel.  You and Che Guevara-sporting American Left will have to content yourselves “only” with the first critical step towards socialized medicine (Obamacare), and unprecedented nationalizations of the finance and auto industry.

Could it be that a loaded gun passing unnoticed through a TSA checkpoint isn’t the only foreign object slipping under the radar of Secretary Janet Napolitano’s Department of Homeland Security (DHS)?  Reports are surfacing that an unmanned drone aircraft belonging to the Mexican government crashed near a residence in El Paso, TX.  In a move that can only be explained as an attempt to confirm the suspicions of Area 51 types, DHS returned the drone before other U. S. agencies could inspect it.

So far, no one with knowledge is saying why an aircraft similar to the drones the U. S. military uses to kill insurgents in Afghanistan was flying almost a mile into American airspace.  Even more incredible is the acknowledged failure to inspect the vehicle to make sure it actually belongs to the Mexican government and not one of the sophisticated drug cartels it’s battling.

Feeling safe about that southern border yet?

After the public death of the omnibus spending bill and a retreat on opposition to tax cuts, why in the world won’t the Democrats running the U. S. Senate simply go home for the holidays?  It’s obvious that a majority of Americans are just plain tired of them, and want to move on.  Yet, here we are on the precipice of another bitter policy fight as Democratic Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) readys two more contentious bills for floor votes.

The DREAM Act promises to give backdoor amnesty to tens of thousands of illegal immigrants in exchange for getting a college degree.  The other bill would repeal the military’s ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ policy regarding homosexual service members.

Really?  With nearly double-digit unemployment and a trillion dollar budget deficit, these are the kinds of evergreen, polarizing issues the Senate needs to pass judgment on before it takes a three week vacation?

Forget the shenanigans.  The Senate should extend the continuing resolution to fund the government and get out of town.  We could all use a break.

H/T: The Daily Caller

Hats off to CNN for continuing to push the format boundaries of presidential debates.  True, the network’s “You Tube” Democratic debate is remembered best (or is it worst?) for relaying a question from a talking snowman, the recent alliance with Tea Party Express to host a GOP presidential debate is intriguing.  According to CNN’s press release the debate will occur over Labor Day weekend in 2011 in Tampa, FL, site of the 2012 Republican National Convention.  For fiscal conservatives, this debate should be an interesting contest between candidates to prove how much they like reducing government.

It’s one of the ironies of modern judicial interpretation that textbooks and master theses masquerading as court opinions go to great lengths to unearth vague notions of ‘legislative intent’ in arcane statutes, but brush aside the plain meaning of rules like residency requirements to run for public office.  Which poses the question: do all the laws matter except those that apply to candidates  running for office?

For example, there is precious little required to run for Mayor of Chicago.  A candidate must be:

• 18 years old
• A registered voter
• A resident of the city of Chicago
• Without any debt, unpaid tax, lien or other obligation to the city of Chicago
• Without a felony conviction or conviction for any infamous crime, bribery or perjury

Candidates must also produce a minimum of 12,500 signatures and file at the Board of Election Commissioners between November 15 and November 22, 2010.

Note that a candidate doesn’t have to be married, literate, employed, able to speak English, or competent to read a budget.  One presumes that the reasons for the requirements that are listed is to ensure that a person running to become the most powerful local official: 1) has reached the legal age to contract, 2) demonstrates a current political stake in the community, 3) isn’t running to dodge a public debt, and 4) hasn’t been convicted of criminal dishonesty.

If a candidate for mayor cannot meet these slight – but important – criteria, he doesn’t deserve to run.  Everyone knows that Rahm Emanuel has not been a resident of the city of Chicago for the last year because he was living in Washington, D.C. with his family while working at the White House.  If the requirement is to have any validity, Emanuel shouldn’t be allowed to run for mayor until he reestablishes his residency.  The rule of law and common sense demand it.

Christine Erickson at Free Enterprise Nation has a chilling analysis of Judge Henry Hudson’s ruling that Obamacare’s individual mandate is unconstitutional:

The idea behind the individual mandate is that it is a way to achieve universal coverage through the private market, rather than through a government-sponsored plan. When considering the regulations placed on insurance companies by the reform law, the individual mandate is necessary because it brings healthy individuals into the insurance pool. Under a major provision within the law, insurers can no longer deny policies to people with preexisting conditions. If this regulation is put in place without the individual mandate, a healthy individual can go without insurance, knowing that he or she can purchase coverage after having been diagnosed with a serious medical problem. For insurance companies that sell to the individual market, this would shift the makeup of their policy holders to the point where they would spend much more on claims than they make in premiums, leaving them with the decision to drastically raise premiums (15% to 20% by CBO estimations) or exit the individual market altogether. Once private insurers are forced out of the individual market, it is almost guaranteed that the government would step in and create a government-run plan.

With Judge Hudson’s ruling, as well as two other recent rulings that the mandate falls within Congressional limits, healthcare reform supporters now see two likely outcomes to a Supreme Court challenge: the law will be upheld in its entirety, or the individual mandate alone will be overturned. If the Supreme Court decides the latter, the country could be immediately set on a path towards a government-run, single payer system.

Oh, dear…

For those CFIF readers looking for intellectually stimulating Christmastime reading, I heartily recommend Walter Russell Mead’s extended blog post titled “The Crisis of the American Intellectual.”  Picking up and expanding on Alan Bloom’s thesis in “Closing of the American Mind,” Mead issues a frontal attack on our nation’s intellectual elites, a group Mead faults as failing to adapt to a changing world.  Himself a Democrat, Mead argues that intellectuals – the best credentialed, most influentially placed people in our society – across the political spectrum owe it to the people and causes they champion to get serious about constructing a workable, sustainable government.  Here is a too brief sample:

Right now, too many intellectuals try to turn this into a left/right debate rather than one about the past and the future.  There is a liberal case for the radical overhaul of our knowledge industries as well as a Tea Party one.  People who want to extend government protections to more groups need to be thinking how government can be radically restructured so it can be more effective at a lower cost.  People who want more education to be available for the poor need to think about deep reform in primary and secondary education, and they need to think up ways to reduce the spiraling costs of university education.  Those who like the public services provided in troubled blue states like New York, Illinois and California need to redesign state government and find alternatives to the tenured civil service bureaucracies built one hundred years ago.  Those who want more access and more equal access to education, to legal services and to medical care need to think about how we can use technology to radically restructure the way we organize and deliver these services — and the more you care about the poor the less you can care about the protests of the guilds.

Governor Chris Christie (R-NJ) is challenging the public education guild (i.e. teachers unions).  Governor Mitch Daniels (R-IN) challenged the bureaucratic leviathan and won key reforms.  Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) is challenging the unsustainable structure of the Great Society.  Ryan once worked for Jack Kemp as a speech writer during the latter’s stint as Bob Dole’s vice presidential running mate.  Kemp challenged liberal statists and libertarian anarchists with his vision of an “Opportunity Society,” an approach to government policy that injected economic opportunity down into the roots of the welfare state.

The debate about government spending will dominate our politics for the foreseeable future.  Hopefully, policy entrepreneurs like Christie, Daniels, and Ryan will gain the attention – and the success – their ideas deserve.

Who knew that a week beginning with liberal howling about President Barack Obama’s “tax deal” with congressional Republicans would end with bitter disagreements between conservative stalwarts about whether the deal is actually good?  Charles Krauthammer thinks it’s the biggest Keynesian stimulus in American history.  Jonah Goldberg disagrees.  So does Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI), arguing that pro-growth tax policy is the key first step towards jumpstarting the economy (spending cuts are next).

For his part, President Obama prefers to outsource his public communications duties to predecessor Bill Clinton.  After Clinton started taking questions at a joint press conference, Obama excused himself to attend the White House Christmas party; as if the sight of him leaving Clinton to speak on behalf of the administration didn’t matter.  Either Obama doesn’t care that he looked like the impatient junior partner to Clinton’s elder, me-first statesman, or he failed to appreciate the optics of his televised abdication.

Hopefully, we can chalk up all this confusion to it being a Friday at the end of a long congressional session.  Otherwise…

Amid solid recommendations to put Medicare and Medicaid on a sustainable financial path, Obama Debt Commission member and Roadmap author Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) staked out very defensible ground for today’s conservative leaders to Roll Call’s Mort Kondrake:

And the incoming chairman of the House Budget Committee described himself as having been mentored by the late Rep. Jack Kemp (R-N.Y.), believing in “a prosperous opportunity society built atop a solid safety net.”

“I am not a laissez-faire, Hobbsian libertarian,” he told me. “I believe in a circumscribed safety net, one that helps people get back on their feet and is there for people who can’t help themselves. But I believe in a pro-growth, limited-government, free-enterprise society that encourages people to make the most of their lives.”

Anyone else for a one-on-one debate between President Barack Obama and Rep. Ryan on healthcare reform next January?

In a wide-ranging piece, The Daily Caller explains the continuing mainstream media bias against Andrew Breitbart and anyone else who dares to shine a light on government corruption.  Breitbart’s castigation during the Shirley Sherrod episode spurred him to research liberal claims he only spotlighted Sherrod’s discriminatory comments to an NAACP crowd as a quick gimmick.  After four and a half months of interviews, Breitbart is in the early days of a multi-stage release on the depth and breadth of the Pigford settlement scandal that so far has cost taxpayers over $2 billion.

Since President Barack Obama has a direct link to the newest $1.15 billion funding the Pigford II settlement round, don’t be surprised if the White House comes under continuing pressure to defend itself for its legislation-for-votes deal-making.

Here’s chairmen list for next year’s House committees:

Agriculture – Frank D. Lucas of Oklahoma
Appropriations – Harold Rogers of Kentucky
Armed Services – Howard P. “Buck” McKeon of California
Budget – Paul Ryan of Wisconsin
Education and Labor – John Kline of Minnesota
Energy and Commerce – Fred Upton of Michigan
Financial Services – Spencer Bachus of Alabama
Foreign Affairs – Ileana Ros-Lehtinen of Florida
Homeland Security – Peter T. King of New York
Judiciary – Lamar S. Smith of Texas
Natural Resources – Doc Hastings of Washington
Oversight and Government Reform – Darrell Issa of California
Science and Technology – Ralph M. Hall of Texas
Small Business – Sam Graves of Missouri
Transportation and Infrastructure – John L. Mica of Florida
Veterans – Jeff Miller of Florida
Ways and Means – Dave Camp of Michigan

Of particular interest will be how Hal Rogers of Appropriations and Fred Upton of Energy & Commerce handle federal spending and repealing ObamaCare, issues that fall under their committees’ jurisdictions.

H/T: New York Times

Sarah Palin’s decision not to seek the chairmanship of the Republican National Committee is smart politics.  Palin rightly notes that the job is mainly fundraising, something that doesn’t get the Mama Grizzly’s blood moving quite like making speeches and endorsements.

Good for Palin.  She’s right about the RNC job, which should go to someone with a proven track record for raising money and get out the vote support from all branches of the Republican Party.  Of course, it would be great to see a conservative at the helm, but it probably should be someone who is much more adept at party building than movement leading.

Yuval Levin notices an interesting trend in the various plans coming out of the Obama Debt Commission.  When the proposals are added together there seems to be a consensus building towards overhauling federal healthcare entitlement spending.  If done correctly, it could be a moment for conservatives to inject market principles like choice and opportunity into the system.

There is growing agreement in American politics that the challenge of our time is cleaning up the horrible mess created by the Great Society—the mess that is our approach to domestic discretionary spending but above all the mess that is our health-care entitlement system. That is the essence of our debt and deficit problems.

The question is whether we can deal with that mess by keeping the basic structure of the Great Society entitlements while trimming significantly elsewhere and massively raising taxes, or whether we must deal with it by fundamentally reforming those Great Society entitlements while trimming significantly elsewhere and spreading the tax burden more widely but less heavily to encourage growth and innovation. The latter is fairly obviously the answer to that question—given demographic and economic realities, and given the kind of country the American public wants to live in—but it will take a little time before that really sinks in. It is a very good thing, though, that the question is now being asked.

Reforming (or rather, transforming) the Great Society into a fiscally sustainable, free market-guided, consumer-driven system would be the kind of bipartisan project worthy of the era President Barack Obama and his congressional counterparts find themselves.  Solving that puzzle would establish the president’s sought for legacy while enacting the kind of policy changes the Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) and other conservative intellectuals champion.

H/T: National Review Online

There are two kinds of licensed professionals you don’t want to see the word “creative” describe: accountants and lawyers.  Unfortunately, the top lawyer at the Obama Labor Department just released a to-do list that could double as a well-conceived strategy memo for business-hating bureaucrats concerned they may not have enough power.

In Wall Street Journal columnist John Fund’s recent article the solicitor at Labor proposes the following actions to increase the regulatory burden on private enterprise:

• Identify a public affairs liaison in each Regional Office to send stronger, clearer messages to the regulated community about DOL’s emphasis on litigation.
• Engage in enterprise-wide enforcement. (A euphemism where multiple sites of a business are visited by surprise on the same day by more than one enforcement agent.)
• Engage in greater use of injunctive relief (i.e. litigation and court orders), while also identifying and pursuing test cases to “stretch the meaning of the law.”

With the workforce experiencing 9.8% unemployment, this kind of strategy – and heaven forbid, enforcement – will only make matters far worse.

Not even former President Bill Clinton could sway the hearts and wallets of the voters who shunned the United States in favor of Russia and Qatar to host the 2018 and 2022 World Cups.  Apparently, the ad-lib prone ex-president deviated from the script, plugging his eponymous global initiative instead of making America’s case for hosting the world’s most popular sporting event.

Instead, that honor will be enjoyed by Vladimir Putin’s Russia and the desert Muslim emirate of Qatar.  Coming on the heels of the Olympic Committee’s rejection of the Obama Administration’s push to bring the Summer Games to Chicago that means the two most recent Democratic presidents (by definition, acceptable citizens in the international community) have failed to turn their supposed popularity into victories for their countries.
Oh well; wait ‘til next, next decade…

Jerry Brown, the once-and-future governor of California, has precious little time to shore up his legacy.  Next month, he’ll retake office and be at the center of the nation’s worst state government budget crisis.  Most think he’s in the pocket of the public employee unions who spent millions supporting his campaign.  California’s Victor Davis Hanson posits a different possibility.

If the liberal Brown were to now take on out-of-control public spending, he would be immune to the charges of callousness that destroyed multimillionaire outgoing Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and would have likewise smeared Republican billionaire gubernatorial candidate Meg Whitman had she won. Perhaps given that California already has the highest sales, income and gas taxes in the nation, Brown could shrug and say that any more tax increases would set off an even greater stampede out of the state.

And at 72, the once overly ambitious Brown — who ran for the presidency three times — can forget about leapfrogging into the White House. The question now is Brown’s final legacy, not his next career move. We know from the implosion of the European Union that unchecked big government inevitably leads to public insolvency. But does it also ensure, Brown might ask, moral bankruptcy?

In a postmodern world of omnipresent cheap consumer goods and all sorts of government-subsidized cradle-to-grave perks, can “small is beautiful” Jerry Brown teach Californians not just that too much stuff is no longer affordable or sustainable, but, at a deeper level, that our out-of-control excesses, appetites and dependencies are no longer good for our souls?

Before he chose politics Jerry Brown spent time in a seminary discerning whether he had a vocation to the priesthood.  If he wants to be remembered as one of the state’s greatest leaders perhaps he would do well to remember that being fiscally responsible isn’t just good politics, it’s also good morals.

Leave it to a Las Vegan to gamble on a high stakes vote with almost no pay-off.  Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) is reportedly going to schedule a “test vote” on the DREAM Act to see if he can cajole enough senators into supporting the legislative mechanism that swaps American citizenship for a college degree or military service.  Not a bad deal if you’re an illegal alien looking for a way to stay, right?

The cynical part about Reid’s stunt is that making senators take a record vote on the DREAM Act won’t pass it.  It’s a “test” vote because it only gauges the amount of support the bill might have if it gets to final passage.  However, if Reid gets close to the 60 votes needed to overcome a filibuster, he may think he’s passed the “test” and go for final passage.  Since (most) politicians are loathe to vote for something before voting against it, Reid may think he has enough “aye” votes to be close.

That, or he’s trying to convince Latino voters he did everything he could, but just fell short.  Either way, it’s desperate.