Freedom Line Blog

It’s turning into quite a week for the Tory-Lib Dem coalition government in Britain.  After Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg’s sterling speech yesterday for more freedom and less centralized government, he and Prime Minister David Cameron released at 30+ page document called their “programme for government.”  (pdf)  In it, they tackle thirty one issues where they aim to put Clegg’s speech into practice.  They cover just about everything.

Importantly, the duo sees their work as an historic opportunity to govern as “a coalition in the national interest” – a paradigm they use to combine the Conservatives’ support for free markets with the Liberal Democrats calls for devolving political power away from London towards local governments and individuals.  (Or, as our Tenth Amendment puts it “to the States respectively, or to the people.”)

So far, the combination is resulting in an agenda that would make Margaret Thatcher smile.  From the forward:

We both want a Britain where social mobility is unlocked; where everyone, regardless of background, has the chance to rise as high as their talents and ambition allow them. To pave the way, we have both agreed to sweeping reform of welfare, taxes and, most of all, our schools – with a breaking open of the state monopoly and extra money following the poorest pupils so that they, at last, get to go to the best schools, not the worst.

We both want a Britain where our political system is looked at with admiration, not anger. We have a shared ambition to clean up Westminster and a determination to oversee a radical redistribution of power away from Westminster and Whitehall to councils, communities and homes across the nation. Wherever possible, we want people to call the shots over the decisions that affect their lives.

If a carload of Crip gang members shot up a Los Angeles Police Department bus killing 46 officers, every gang member involved would be convicted of murder and given the death penalty.  They wouldn’t be fined and given a stern warning.

So, why can’t that law enforcement approach be applied to rogue governments like North Korea who was identified as sinking a South Korean warship, an act that killed 46 South Korean sailors?  After all, “cop killers” are singled out for particularly harsh penalties precisely because they target the guardians of law, order, peace, and safety.  How can the mass murder of 46 military personnel aboard a sovereign nation’s vessel be any less of an attack on a nation’s security?

Sadly, that isn’t the tenor coming from South Korean officials and their allies.  They sound like they’re more interested in meaningless United Nations resolutions and economic sanctions.

The South’s president is vowing to “take strong resolute countermeasures against North Korea and make it admit its wrongdoing through strong international cooperation.”  Such cooperation includes calling the North’s attack “inexcusable” (Japan) and an “act of aggression” (USA), which are only slightly bolder than China’s declaration that the event is “unfortunate.”

The truly unfortunate reality is that we live in a world where terrorist groups and governments slaughter innocents under the guise of fictitious provocations, while so-called civilized societies let those who volunteer to defend their safety suffer the consequences of enlightened restraint.

Too bad Nick Clegg lives in England.  This morning, the United Kingdom’s new Deputy Prime Minister and leader of the Liberal Democrat Party made a powerful speech every American Tea Party patriot will instantly recognize as the words of a kindred spirit.

Unlike this country’s “hope” and “change” president, Clegg is very explicit on how he and Prime Minister David Cameron plan to pass Britain’s next “Great Reform Act.”

There are three main objectives of the Act.

First, repeal all of the intrusive and unnecessary laws that inhibit a British citizen’s freedom by ending the government “culture of spying on its citizens;” prohibiting an “ID card scheme;” regulating the pervasive use of CCTV cameras; and asking citizens which laws should be abolished.

Second, reform the political system to make it open, transparent, and decent by making the House of Lords an elected chamber accountable to the people, and presenting a referendum on adopting a fixed term parliament and equally balanced electoral districts.

Third, radically redistribute power away from the center, into local into citizens’ local communities, homes, and hands by loosening “the centralized grip of the Whitehall bureaucracy” and dispersing “power downwards” to citizens instead.

There isn’t enough space to elaborate on all of Clegg’s proposals, but suffice it to say that he understands that political authority comes from the bottom up, not the top down.  To wit:

I’m a liberal.

My starting point is always optimism about people.

The view that most people, most of the time, will make the right decisions for themselves and their families.

That you know better than I do about how to run your life, your community, the services you use.

So this government is going to trust people.

We know that, when people see a real opportunity to shape the world they live in, they take it.

Every American angry at the state of our politics should read Clegg’s speech in its entirety.  Print it out if you have to; fix it to the refrigerator door so your family can read it too.  The second most powerful man in Britain’s new coalition government of Conservatives and Liberal Democrats is calling for more power to the people.  As we prepare for the November midterm elections, and the next presidential contest, it would do we the people well to take Clegg’s challenge and make it a litmus test for candidates seeking our support.

This is a sterling way forward.  Three cheers for Nick Clegg!

With apologies to Texas, Don’t Mess with Arizona!  One of the state’s utilities commissioners sent an open letter to the Mayor of Los Angeles in response to the City Council’s resolution to boycott Arizona businesses in order to, as the mayor said, “send a message” that L.A. officials disapprove of Arizona’s tough new illegal immigration law. (pdf)

Commissioner Gary Pierce’s letter is short and powerful. (pdf)  My favorite excerpt:

“I received your message; please receive mine.  As a state-wide elected member of the Arizona Corporation Commission overseeing Arizona’s electric and water utilities, I too am keenly aware of the ‘resources and ties’ we share with the City of Los Angeles.  In fact, approximately twenty-five percent of the electricity consumed in Los Angeles is generated by power plants in Arizona.

If an economic boycott is truly what you desire, I will be happy to encourage Arizona utilities to renegotiate your power agreements so Los Angeles no longer receives any power from Arizona-based generation.  I am confident that Arizona’s utilities would be happy to take these electrons off your hands.  If, however, you find that the City Council lacks the strength of its convictions to turn off the lights in Los Angeles and boycott Arizona power, please reconsider the wisdom of attempting to harm Arizona’s economy.”

Like the well-heeled college students protesting capitalism on spring break, it’s time for Los Angeles officials to put their principles where their sanctimonious mouths are.  We’ll see who backs down first.

What Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan lacks in the way of academic writing, she (apparently) more than compensates for with her lawyerly output during her time in the Clinton White House Counsel’s Office.  Recalling that former President George W. Bush shared over 50,000 pages of material associated with now Chief Justice John Roberts’s time as a lawyer in the Reagan White House, Byron York of the Washington D.C. Examiner reports which way precedent points in divulging Kagan’s work product.

“There is now a precedent that a White House lawyer’s materials will be produced,” says Bradford Berenson, an associate counsel in the Bush White House. “I think it will be very difficult for the Obama administration, given everything they’ve said about transparency and openness, to withhold these documents.”

Before anyone starts salivating over the thought of reading thousands of legal memos, remember that the current Oval Office occupant is not inclined to share information.  Unlike President Bush, Obama can’t be bothered to take a single question from the press after signing the Freedom of the Press Act.

Constitutional controversy over executive privilege, anyone?

From California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger’s press conference unveiling his budget proposal amidst a $19.1 billion deficit:

“California no longer has low-hanging fruits – we don’t have any medium-hanging fruits, and we also don’t have any high-hanging fruits,” Schwarzenegger said, explaining the cuts Friday at a news conference in Sacramento. “We have to take the ladder from the tree and shake the whole tree.”

And no, he wasn’t making a Steve Miller Band reference.  (At least, I hope not.)

Though Sacramento’s spending commitments must be addressed, it’s interesting that the governor targeted eliminating the welfare-to-work program known as CALWorks, along with certain child care funding.  For their part, Democrats are wailing for a delay in scheduled corporate tax breaks.  As if further depleting business capital is the answer to balancing the state’s budget.

There are no easy, “comprehensive” answers for reforming California’s budget crisis.  But there is a better place to start the discussion: suspend AB 32, Schwarzenegger’s signature global warming bill.

In fact, that’s the name of a group making the case that since California is responsible for – at most – 1.4% of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions, AB 32’s severe, self-imposed restrictions amount to a jobs killer.  The group estimates that when fully implemented, AB 32 will cost the state 1.1 million jobs, the average family $3,857, and each small business $49,691.

The net result?  “Devastated budgets of California social services agencies through massive losses in tax revenue.”

Granted, suspending AB 32 would be largely symbolic, but if Schwarzenegger took the ax to his prized “green” bill, he could chalk it up to serious times calling for serious budgets.  When times are good, economies can afford to absorb major public investments on microscopic returns.  These are not those times.  Californians have needs and wants; it’s past time the state’s nutty politicians understood the difference.

It’s official; CFIF has a collective man–crush on New Jersey Governor Chris Christie.  After watching this video, it’s easy to see why.

The May special election for the seat Rep. John Murtha (D-PA) vacated when he died in February is nearing its conclusion, setting itself up as a potential bellwether for the November 2010 midterm elections.  The main issue is spending.  Loyal readers will recall CFIF’s earlier commentary on the race; specifically the focus on Murtha’s legacy for creating jobs with pork barrel spending.

His former aide and Democratic hopeful Mark Critz continues to promise more of the same.  If elected, he’s promising to “keep important economic development initiatives moving forward.”  At some point, the district’s voters must realize that jobs funded by other peoples’ tax money aren’t free, or unlimited.  If Republican challenger Tim Burns can convince the people of Johnstown, PA, to vote for fiscal sanity, then Democrats nationwide are in for a world of hurt in November.

He is if he’s guilty of pre-judging the constitutionality and effect of Arizona’s new immigration law, Senate Bill 1070, before even reading it.  When asked at a House Judiciary Committee hearing whether he’d read the law he’s criticized repeatedly, the U.S. Attorney General responded, “I have not had a chance to – I’ve glanced at it.”

Granted, reading 17 pages of legislation is a bit dry; so if the AG is looking for a Cliff Notes summary moved along by some punchy writing, I humbly suggest this piece.

H/T: Fox News

And I don’t know if I like it.  Usually, the younger, more effete version of John McCain likes to flash his maverick status all over controversial domestic policies by siding with Democrats on cap-and-trade, immigration reform, and civilian trials for (some) terrorists.  Today, though, he reminds America that, yes, he is still a Republican.

In a blinding moment of clarity, the other Senator from South Carolina concisely – and correctly – identified the proper route for Ninth Circuit judicial nominee Goodwin Liu.

“I’m in the camp that you can be an active Democrat … and still sit on the bench,” Graham said. “But this guy’s a bridge too far for me. He should take those views and run for office.”

This from a Republican who voted for Supreme Court Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor!  To be fair, perhaps if Sotomayor where on record as identifying constitutional rights to “education, shelter, subsistence, health and the like, or to the money these things cost,” or imposing perpetual racial quotas, maybe Graham would have voted no on her too.

Graham’s criticism is a perfectly stated counterargument for the Leftist lawyers and judges who think the courts are where laws are made.  They’re not.  Reading the Constitution, Article I, clears that up.  If Professor Liu really wants to “change” America through law, he should saddle up and challenge Senator Diana Feinstein when she’s up for reelection.  Otherwise, stick to writing academic thought pieces at Berkeley.

Kudos, Senator Graham; who knew you had it in you?

No, President Barack Obama’s Supreme Court nominee is not moonlighting as a shill for the latest John Grisham novel.  Instead, a law review article of hers peddles the notion that federal courts should try to divine a government’s “intent” when deciding whether a regulation on speech is constitutional.

According to CSNEWS:

In her article, Kagan said that examination of the motives of government is the proper approach for the Supreme Court when looking at whether a law violates the First Amendment. While not denying that other concerns, such as the impact of a law, can be taken into account, Kagan argued that governmental motive is “the most important” factor.

In doing so, Kagan constructed a complex framework that can be used by the Court to determine whether or not Congress has restricted First Amendment freedoms with improper intent.

You’d probably need a complex framework to figure out the single intent of a law that results from a process including hundreds of people, all with different backgrounds, educational levels, and points of view.  Indeed, the exercise is a legal fiction whose use stretches back to the New Deal Court where justices poured over legislative histories, committee reports, and floor statements in the vain attempt to arrive at one, definitive purpose.  Discovery of that purpose enabled the enlightened justice to then judge whether that purpose was proper.

You can see the potential for abuse.  If judges signal they will go beyond the plain text of a law to discern its intent, then members of Congress and the President will do everything they can to shade the law’s meaning their way.  Vapid floor statements, detailed presidential signing statements, even carefully worded statements of purpose in sub-committee reports suddenly become more important than the actual words that everyone agreed to.

And who gets to pick the “right” document for finding the government’s intent?  None other than an unelected, un-consulted judge.  Nice work if you can get it.  We’ll see if Elena Kagan does.

The White House phone bill might be ticking sharply north this month because, lo and behold, it turns out there are more politicians in desperate need of President Obama’s perpetual insistence to “act boldly.”  On the heels of reports that he cajoled German Chancellor Angela Merkel into forsaking her voters and bailing out Greece comes this breathless update: Obama is twisting arms in Spain!

Spain is one of the “PIGS” countries, a group of economic basket cases including Portugal, Ireland, Greece, and Spain.  Like the others, Spain is suffering from extreme budget deficits caused by rampant government spending to prop up unsustainable social welfare programs.  Obama called to convey some tough love:

Mr Obama’s call yesterday to Mr Zapatero added an American voice to European pressure on Spain.

Mr Zapatero has so far shied away from structural reforms opposed by trade unions but is now facing new calls from EU leaders to slash spending again and tackle his country’s economic crisis.

If it’s true that Obama is urging Spain to cut spending, then three cheers for fiscal sanity!  Unfortunately, there are no indications that approach is being seriously considered on this side of the pond.  As proof, the Obama Administration is holding out a curious example for Europeans to follow: the Bush era’s Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP).

American officials urged that Mr Sarkozy and Mrs Merkel recall the U.S. lesson of 2008-2009 when the Bush administration persuaded a reluctant Congress to approve a massive $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program.

While politically unpopular, the U.S. rescue plan convinced markets that authorities were serious about keeping banks afloat.

Or it convinced those who play in the markets that the American government wasn’t serious about letting the invisible hand apply the rules of risk and reward to credit default swaps.  If anything, TARP is a monument to the kind of taxpayer funded subsidy for bad behavior that should be avoided by other countries because it socializes the risk yet personalizes the reward.

If European leaders want to speed the decline in trust for economic “experts” by all means, TARP away – just don’t whine when China buys chunks of real estate for pennies on the Euro.

H/T: Daily Mail (UK)

“Beware Greeks bearing gifts,” the Iliad-inspired saying goes.  Perhaps now we should amend it to add “especially those bought with on sovereign credit.”  Fresh off a visit to ground zero in Athens, Bill Frezza makes his contribution on how to handle Greece’s imploding debt crisis:

Throw Greece out of the European Union. Let them default on their debts. Teach buyers to beware before they invest in sovereign bonds. Dare Greece to print Drachmas by the wheelbarrow. Put the whole country on the public payroll then challenge them to demonstrate what a truly egalitarian society looks like. Maybe a dramatic spectacle of what a workers paradise looks like under the media’s glare will teach us what’s in store if we don’t change our ways.

Democracy is broken. You can’t mix Freedom and Free Lunch. One or the other has got to go.

Like the Trojans, it’s time for the Greeks to reap the consequences of some very poor decisions.

H/T: RealClearMarkets

Admit it; the headline isn’t impossible to believe.  It’s even less surprising to realize that all of the major criticisms of the Manchurian Candidate-turned-President – lacks relevant experience, a paper trail, or any notable accomplishment aside from self-promotion –are being lodged against his most recent Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan.  Sure, as an Assistant White House Counsel, former Harvard Law dean, and Solicitor General she’s held some important positions.  But a light scrubbing of that parchment is revealing almost no key accomplishments with any of them.

After reading all of Kagan’s scholarly publications in two decades as an academic – three law review articles, two small essays, and two brief book reviews – law professor Paul Campos makes this observation about its quality in The Daily Beast:

At least in theory Kagan could compensate somewhat for the slenderness of her academic resume through the quality of her work. But if Kagan is a brilliant legal scholar, the evidence must be lurking somewhere other than in her publications. Kagan’s scholarly writings are lifeless, dull, and eminently forgettable. They are, on the whole, cautious academic exercises in the sort of banal on-the-other-handing whose prime virtue is that it’s unlikely to offend anyone in a position of power.

How Obama-esque.  Until, that is, ultimate power is achieved and the offending can begin in earnest.

Sports and politics have once again collided.  Responding to a protest of sorts by the NBA’s Phoenix Suns, Arizona Governor Jan Brewer penned a special to ESPN.com disputing misinformation about SB 1070.  The governor took the unusual step because of calls for boycotting Arizona-based sports events, among other venues.

Along with a few purple prose moments with sports metaphors, Brewer lays out the hard facts about the federal government’s failure to enforce immigration laws.  In 2009, there were 316 kidnappings in Phoenix, making it the nation’s kidnapping capitol.  Today, there are approximately 6,000 prisoners in Arizona who are foreign nationals costing state taxpayers roughly $150 million a year.

Getting back to the boycott issue, Governor Brewer makes an assertion no one can reasonable disagree with:

A boycott that would actually improve border security would be to boycott illegal drugs. Dramatically less drug use and production would do wonders for the safety of all our communities.

We’ll see how that goes over.

Apparently, President Obama’s penchant for dithering is contagious.  Solicitor General and potential Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan has failed to respond to the Court’s request for a brief describing the Administration’s view on another Arizona immigration law.  (This one fines employers for hiring illegal immigrants.)  Now that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce is fast-tracking an appeal of the Grand Canyon State’s newest attempt to enforce federal law, Kagan very likely won’t be able to ignore taking a side.

Surprisingly, though, the former Dean of Harvard Law School has written or said scarcely anything about law in her two decades as a legal academic.  From the L.A. Times Supreme Court reporter David Savage:

She does not have a record as a judge or legal advocate, and she did not write widely on legal topics, potentially making it difficult for Republicans to oppose her if she is nominated.

Shouldn’t such a statement knock her out of contention?

So far, all we know about Kagan is that she has establishment Ivy League credentials, holds fashionable elite positions, knows the right people, and is a member of a favored Democratic minority group.  Apart from a vague reputation as a “consensus builder” at Harvard, she barely has a year under her belt as an appellate advocate.  Isn’t it a little early to promote her?

C’mon; it’s not like she’s running for President of the United States – this is important!

According to a book review she wrote back in 1995, Supreme Court short-lister Elena Kagan wants to judicial nominee hearings to get back to the good ole’ days of Robert Bork.  As reported by ABC News:

Kagan argues that the Bork hearing should be a “model” for all others, because even though it ended in the candidate’s rejection, the hearings presented an opportunity for the Senate and the nominee to engage on controversial issues and educate the public.

“The real ‘confirmation mess’ ” she wrote, “is the gap that has opened between the Bork hearings and all others.”

“Not since Bork,” she said, “has any nominee candidly discussed, or felt a need to discuss, his or her views and philosophy.”

“The debate focused not on trivialities,” she wrote, but on essentials: “the understanding of the Constitution that the nominee would carry with him to the Court.”

At bottom, Kagan called for an open, “educative” process that put differing constitutional philosophies under the microscope.  I’m all for it; so too are most conservatives.  It will be interesting to see if and when Kagan is nominated by President Barack Obama to fill the next vacancy if she still thinks that way when it’s her turn to defend her views.

After all, Bork was the last nominee to make it to the hearing room and not be confirmed.

If you’re looking for a pick-me-up amidst the travails of the Gulf oil disaster, Greek riots, and technologically crazed financial markets, check out Ted Nugent’s recent commentary praising the Tea Party movement.

This glorious experiment in self-government is not supposed to be a spectator sport as it has been reduced to for so long. As the boss of government, we the people were supposed to stay in touch with politics and politicians, making sure our will was the force behind policies and law making.

Remember that? The Tea Party Americans do, and we are demanding its return immediately. The New Deal was a raw deal and the Great Society was for losers. A hand out creates the curse of dependency. A hand up is nationalism at its finest.

This tribute to liberty is required reading for anyone in search of some good, rock-ribbed conservative truths told as only a Great American like Ted Nugent can.

H/T: Human Events

Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) is continuing his one-man assault on government corruption by calling out the Treasury Department for helping GM lie its way back to respectability.  Apparently, GM paid off its debt to taxpayers with money from a government (i.e. taxpayer) escrow account and claimed it was free and clear.  When the Treasury Department parroted the nationalized car company’s line, Issa, the Ranking Republican on the House Oversight Committee, demanded proof.  What he got was a document from Treasury stating it “never” endorsed GM’s claim, accompanied by an attached press release headlined – no kidding – “GM REPAYS TREASURY LOAN IN FULL.”

You can’t make this stuff up.

H/T: The Daily Caller

But if you want a flavor of some immigration laws that are, check out this list put together by Foreign Policy.  In Italy illegal immigrants can get up to 6 months in jail.  Japan offers to pay Latin American immigrants of Japanese descent to go home.  And if a referendum passes later this year, Switzerland could start deporting entire families.  Suddenly, being asked for ID doesn’t sound so bad.