Freedom Line Blog

Roman Polanski lost Round 1 in his effort to continue evading justice, as the Swiss Justice Ministry rejected his petition to be freed on bail while awaiting extradition.  According to news reports, Polanski could actually remain in his Swiss jail cell for months while the process unfolds.  In a dry irony, Ministry spokesman Folco Galli said that, “we continue to be of the opinion that there is a high risk of flight.”  Really?  By a fugitive who has remained in flight for over 30 years?  You don’t say…  Regardless, it’s nice to see a victory for the forces of justice over the forces of celebrity.

As if the Obama Administration’s campaign to bureaucratize the Internet through Net “Neutrality” wasn’t absurd and dangerous enough, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) is now going to regulate blogging for the first time.  You read that correctly.

Under threat of $11,000 fine, injunction and other damages per each violation, online writers must now meticulously disclose any free product or other gratuity from any company whose products they have reviewed.  So before you decide to pick or pan some product from the comfort of your computer, you’d better ensure that you haven’t received some gift from the subject company.  

This obviously opens the door to any number of potential prosecutions by the new federal blog police, just as McCain/Feingold laws literally create the possibility of jail time for citizens who actually dare to criticize a candidate within 30 days of an election, First Amendment be damned.  So before you go on Facebook and speak positively of your new favorite brand of bubble gum, you’d better make sure that you didn’t receive it for free in your mailbox or as you exited the supermarket.

We at CFIF have noted before that death penalty opponents are unlikely to stop at the death penalty if their misplaced abolition movement succeeded.  Rather, we have long predicted that they would immediately move toward abolishing life imprisonment, using the same arguments that they use against the death penalty now.

Well, we didn’t have to wait long.  In two cases to be heard this term, the Supreme Court will determine whether life imprisonment for convicts under the age of 18 constitutes “cruel and unusual punishment” in violation of the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution.

In one case, Joe Sullivan was sentenced to life in prison in 1989 after committing 17 prior offenses that included assault, burglary and even animal cruelty, even though he was only 13 at the time.  In the second case, 16-year-old Terrance Graham was sentenced to life in prison for armed robbery after a similarly extensive criminal record.  People of reasonable minds can disagree on whether they would have imposed the penalty of life imprisonment for someone of that age, but that isn’t the question.  Rather, the question is whether judges should be prohibited in every case from imposing a penalty that can protect society against the criminal menace presented by some incorrigible criminals.

If soft-on-crime activists succeed, what is next?

In the landmark 2008 decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, the United States Supreme Court at long last affirmed that the Second Amendment protects an individual right of citizens to keep and bear arms.  Unfortunately, the decision technically only applied to federal jurisdictions such as Washington, D.C., and set aside the question of whether the 50 states were similarly prohibited from infringing on that critical right. 

Through an unjustified quirk of constitutional jurisprudence, courts over the past 150 years have picked and chosen which provisions of the Bill of Rights they consider “fundamental,” and therefore applied against state infringement.  Most provisions have received such recognition, and it obviously defies logic to contend that the Second Amendment, which was among the most important in the minds of the Founding Fathers, is somehow “not fundamental.”  Despite this, the left has creatively and dishonestly made that very assertion.

Today, however, the Court announced that it will hear the case of McDonald v. City of Chicago.   At issue in that case is a Chicago law broadly prohibiting handguns, taxing firearms generally, and various other infringements on the right to keep and bear arms.  Accordingly, the Supreme Court now has the opportunity to do the right thing and protect Americans’ Second Amendment rights against the ever-growing menace of government infringement.

Remember 2005, when global warming alarmists claimed that Hurricane Katrina proved the effects of climate change, and that Katrina-level hurricanes would occur with increasing frequency until draconian government climate legislation was imposed?  The years 2006, 2007, 2008 and 2009 apparently didn’t get the memo, judging by the dearth of major hurricanes.  Heck, remember the 1970s, when the fashionable climate-change hysteria was global cooling, not global warming?

Well, New York Times columnist Paul Krugman apparently has a short memory.

In his latest column, Krugman confidently instructs us that the sky is falling…  yet again.  For real this time.  He assures us that “I’m not engaging in hyperbole,”  but lacking any sense of irony or familiarity with recent history, he then asserts that “climate scientists have, en masse, become Cassandras — gifted with the ability to prophesy future disasters, but cursed with the inability to get anyone to believe them.”  You mean, sort of like the “gifted” alarmists who predicted global cooling in the 1970s and an coming onslaught of Katrinas in 2005?

Instead of writing a New York Times column, perhaps Krugman should instead join the city’s street vagrants and carry his own “The End Is Near!” sandwich board sign.

Mere days ago, Barack Obama stabbed our Polish and Czech allies in the back by scrapping plans to locate missile defenses on their soil (on the 70th anniversary of the Soviet Union’s invasion of Poland, no less).  Jan Vidim, a Czech legislator, reacted by saying that “if the (Obama) Administration approaches us in the future with any request, I would be strongly against it.”  Obama’s transparent rationalization was that his intelligence showed Iran’s long-range missile capabilities were not as advanced as previously thought.

Now, however, we receive word that Iran has test-fired its most advanced missiles yet, which are capable of reaching Europe.  Among other concerns, the missiles stand as a technological breakthrough because they are propelled by solid fuel, which allows for greater accuracy and potency than Iran’s liquid-fuel older models.   This comes on the heels of disclosure last week that Iran has been operating a covert nuclear enrichment site, despite a 2007 National Intelligence Estimate report stating that Iran halted its pursuit of nuclear development in the fall of 2003.

In other words, Obama the geostrategic genius has again threatened American security in his pursuit of personal popularity amongst global thugocracies.

In a historic election result, German voters this weekend turned toward tax cuts, free markets and labor reform, and sent the leftist Social Democratic Party (SDP) to its worst-ever performance.  What made this election historic wasn’t the reelection of Chancellor Angela Merkel and her center-right Christian Democratic Party (CDP), but rather the unprecedented success of the free-market Free Democratic Party (FDP) and Germans’ rejection of socialism.

The FDP platform calls for reduced taxes, deregulation, moderation of Germany’s suffocating labor laws and strong ties with the United States, and its leader Guido Westerwelle confidently called for tax simplification and lower rates during his victory speech.  German business also welcomed the results, with German Chambers of Industry and Commerce spokesman Heinrich Driftmann confirming that “the election result is a clear vote for courageous reforms.”  Although Chancellor Merkel was elected in 2005, her slimmer victory margin forced her to enter a governing coalition with the socialist SDP, which threw a wet blanket on her market-oriented agenda.  With the FDP’s remarkable showing, Germans expressed their desire to finally implement that freedom agenda.

This result sends a clear signal to Americans as Obama attempts to impose his own socialist model upon the United States.  Germans have seen that model first-hand during this global economic downturn, and soundly rejected it to provide a welcome example for American voters.

In an interview this morning on Fox News Sunday, Senator Dianne Feinstein (D – California) gave Americans cause for concern by demonstrating a less-than-razor-sharp familiarity with a rudimentary element of national and global security. Senator Feinstein, who chairs the Senate Intelligence Committee, stumbled immediately out of the blocks when she appeared unfamiliar with the term “centrifuge,” a mechanism that plays an essential role in uranium enrichment and Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weaponry.

Chris Wallace:   Let’s start with Iran, and the disclosure that it has been building a secret nuclear enrichment facility.  Let me start with you, Senator Feinstein.  How strong is the evidence that this is to provide fuel for a bomb, and how sure are we that there aren’t other secret facilities in Iran?

Senator Feinstein:   Well, the evidence is strong that there was, that there is, such a facility, that it’s capable of about 3,000 various…  umm…  oh, what’s the word…

Chris Wallace:   Centrifuges.

Uh-oh…

As we’ve often noted, Google is one of the biggest corporate lobbyists for Net Neutrality, by which federal regulations and bureaucrats would do to the Internet what they’ve done to public education. This is corporate welfare of the worst kind, as Google seeks to cement its business model of free-riding on telecommunications infrastructure through government dictate.

But it raises the question – why not attach “Search Neutrality” amendments to any Net Neutrality legislation that it advocates?  After all, Google justifies its lobbying on the ground that Internet service providers are somehow ready to spring their sinister plan to block consumer access to various websites.  Never mind that we’ve gone two decades without any substantive problem in this regard, and never mind that the marketplace would punish any service provider that actually attempted to block consumer choice in that manner.  But even accepting its rationalization at face value, isn’t Google just as capable of blocking sites in its search results?  What is to stop THEM from suffocating consumer access?

Accordingly, we propose that if Google is serious, how about adding a “Search Neutrality” provision to any Net Neutrality bill that it advocates?  Paraphrasing your own motto, Google, don’t be evil.

The $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) is set to expire on December 31, and approximately $130 billion remains unspent.  Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, however, now wants to keep those unspent billions and convert TARP into a permanent federal bureaucracy.

Has this administration no sense of shame or propriety whatsoever?

The TARP program was dishonestly sold to the American people one year ago as a “temporary” intrusion to keep our financial system afloat until the economic seas calmed.  Markets have long-since stabilized as they naturally do, and an enormous portion of TARP funds either remain unspent or were spent in ways totally unrelated to troubled assets.  Independent auditors also remain unable to verify the program’s success, and the Obama Administration and Pelosi/Reid Congress have us hurtling toward unthinkable levels of deficit and debt.  Despite this, but unsurprisingly to anyone with even a modest understanding of how government constantly erodes our individual freedoms, Geithner & Co. seek to make TARP permanent.

Time for another tea party at Geithner’s office.

“We have to perform well, or we lose our charter.  It makes us step up our game.”

Those are the words of Stacey Gauthier, principal of a New York City charter school, explaining why charter schools have so significantly outperformed public schools in a study released this week. 

The study, by economics Professor Caroline Hoxby of Stanford University, demonstrates that poorer, inner-city students who spent their elementary school years in charter schools excelled compared to counterpart students in New York’s public system.  Remarkably, these charter students’ achievement scores even matched those of more affluent suburban students. 

The reason that Professor Hoxby’s study is particularly enlightening is that critics of charter schools and vouchers typically argue that their students are somehow selected from “the cream of the crop.” According to these apologists for public teachers’ unions, more ambitious students and families are the ones who selectively gravitate to charters.  But Professor Hoxby compared only students who were similarly-motivated: those who actually attend charters versus students who were motivated to seek entry to charters but were denied random lottery applications to do so.

Imagine how much public schools could improve if faced with the choice described by Principal Gauthier – perform well or lose your charter.

In his weekly descent into leftist frivolousness today, Wall Street Journal token columnist Thomas Frank argues that Democrats have remained far too…  get this…  “civil” in contemporary political debate.  Frank absurdly claims that in response to conservative activism, Democrats “pine for civility, pretending that the argument comes down to the scary rhetoric issuing from the right.”

On what planet is he living?  As noted by Tony Blankley in his most recent commentary, Democrats have met citizen activism by labeling them “evil” (Senator Harry Reid), “un-American” (House Minority Leader Steny Hoyer), “racist” (Jimmy Carter)  and accusing them of employing “Nazi” tactics (House Speaker Nancy Pelosi).  In contrast, Republican leaders have maintained a professional, restrained, rational tone, as illustrated by Senators Mitch McConnell and Jon Kyl, and Representatives Paul Ryan and Eric Cantor.  Frank proceeds to unfurl his usual litany of anti-capitalist tirades and bogeymen, but that’s nothing new.  Asserting that Democrat leaders have somehow taken the rhetorical high road, however, is remarkably silly even for him.

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has done Americans a big favor by posting a crystal-clear graph illustrating the dramatic impact of Obama’s deficit on the nation’s economy.  What immediately stands out is that the nation’s budget deficit as a percentage of gross domestic product (GDP) during the past 45 years has essentially remained in the +/- 5% range.  Although politicians from both parties and political pundits from all perspectives have famously used the federal budget deficit as a bludgeon during that 45-year period, the CBO’s graph shows that it’s fluctuations have actually remained fairly moderate.  Those Bush deficits for which he was justifiably criticized?  They actually remained within post-World War II averages, and were headed on an improving trajectory.  In contrast, Obama’s deficit trajectory shows an new, alarming, dramatic deterioration.

Obama ran on a slogan of “change,” but who suspected that this is what he would deliver so soon?

Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Chairman Julius Genachowski today laid the groundwork for formal imposition of so-called Net “Neutrality” rules upon the telecommunications sector in a speech before the Brookings Institution, and the usual chorus of nanny-state activists quickly applauded this potential intrusion.  The Free Press trumpeted that Chairman Genachowski’s speech was “a breath of fresh air in a Washington policy environment that has long stagnated under the influence of a powerful phone and cable lobby.”  So let us get this straight…  The Internet is the most innovative and thriving sector in American life, but Net “Neutrality” advocates are under the illusion that it has somehow “stagnated?”

Among other things, Genachowski contended that, “if we wait too long to preserve a free and open Internet, it will be too late.”  As if the Internet has somehow been constrained and closed to date?  Tellingly, Genachowski later slipped into an admission when he said that we should “take steps to preserve Internet openness” (emphasis added), acknowledging that it has been, and remains, open.  He later said that, “we will do as much as we need to do, and no more, to ensure that the Internet remains an unfettered platform for competition, creativity and entrepreneurial activity.”

In other words, even according to Genachowski, the Internet is “an unfettered platform for competition, creativity and entrepreneurial activity,” but federal government intrusion is suddenly and mystically vital to its survival? It all obviously recalls Ronald Reagan’s adage that the most terrifying words are, “I’m from the government, and I’m here to help.”

As we’ve said on multiple occasions, Net “Neutrality” is a supposed solution in search of a problem.  Doesn’t the federal government have enough on its plate right now without adding spoliation of the Internet?

Leftist author and weekly Wall Street Journal columnist Thomas Frank called CFIF out by name in his commentary last week, entitled “The Left Should Reclaim ‘Freedom.'”

Continuing his Wednesday morning habit of superficial analysis and juvenile critique, Frank attacked the previous weekend’s taxpayer march on Washington, D.C. that drew hundreds of thousands of everyday Americans.  The opening sentence of Frank’s denunciation summarizes his angst well, as he stated, “[t]here are few things in politics more annoying than the right’s utter conviction that it owns the patent on the word ‘freedom.'”  Nothing torments Frank more than the reality that everyday, middle-class Americans disfavor his leftist political agenda, so the taxpayer march had to be particularly painful for him.

He then identified CFIF by name in his futile attempt to justify reclamation of the term “freedom,” and engaged in his typical straw-man argumentation when he asserted, “that our ancestors could ever have understood freedom as something greater than the absence of the state would probably strike protesters as inconceivable.”  First, Frank should take a moment to contemplate the difference between anarchists, who seek “the absence of the state,” and conservatives.  And second, which “ancestor” does he cite as proof of his assertion?  Thomas Jefferson?  James Madison?  Abraham Lincoln?  John Locke?

No.  Norman Rockwell.  Now, we love Rockwell’s artistry as much as anyone, but one would think that even Frank could do better than that.

Paraphrasing Winston Churchill, we at CFIF can take pride in counting Thomas Frank amongst our antagonists.

Barack Obama isn’t going to “tax” Americans earning under $250,000 to help subsidize his healthcare overhaul – he’s merely going to “penalize” them, which is apparently something altogether different and palatable.

During this morning’s Obamapalooza tour of the Sunday talk shows (intentionally ostracizing Fox News Sunday, in a most un-Presidential fit of spite), a prevaricating Obama bizarrely insisted that his healthcare reform’s penalty provisions for those without insurance somehow do not amount to a “tax” on Americans earning under $250,000, but rather a justifiable “penalty.”  Throughout a large portion of his interview with ABC’s George Stephanopoulos, the two battled over this topic, with a visibly frustrated Obama even reproaching Stephanopoulos for reading Merriam’s definition of “tax” – “a charge, usually of money, imposed by authority on persons or property for public purposes.”

Instead of honestly explaining why his plan doesn’t meet this simple definition, Obama descended into pettiness and replied, “George, the fact that you looked up Merriam’s Dictionary, the definition of tax increase, indicates to me that you’re stretching a little bit right now. Otherwise, you wouldn’t have gone to the dictionary to check on the definition.”

The reason that Obama resorted to this contortion of logic is that he solemnly and repeatedly promised throughout his campaign that he wouldn’t raise taxes on Americans earning under $250,000 by a single dime.  Knowing that he cannot afford his own version of President George H. W. Bush’s “read my  lips – no new taxes” broken pledge, Obama will apparently stop at nothing in his Orwellian campaign of distortion.

Is he lying?  Or is he honestly confused?  Who knows anymore.  But uninsured Americans earning under $250,000 can rest assured that the money they’ll be forced to pay under ObamaCare isn’t a “tax,” it’s just a “penalty.”

It appears that Obama’s Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is ready to formally commence its invasion of one of the few frontiers that it has not yet commandeered – the Internet.  After months of concerned anticipation and speculation, the Wall Street Journal reports that FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski will officially propose codification of “Net Neutrality” rules that have heretofore remained unadopted.  He will rationalize his takeover initiative in a speech this coming Monday, according to the report.

So what is wrong with “Net Neutrality?”  Very simply, it isn’t “neutrality” at all.  Rather, it means that the federal government will impose its corrosive presence into the Internet, which has remained the most vibrant and innovative sphere of contemporary American life precisely because the federal government has kept out.  “Net Neutrality” will reverse that.  In this age, continued Internet innovation demands flexibility and freedom on the part of Internet service providers to experiment with different delivery and pricing models to prevent increasing gridlock and maintain consumer quality.  By imposing a one-size-fits-all business model upon private entities, however, federal bureaucrats will stifle that flexibility and freedom to operate and experiment with different models.  Ultimately, continued Internet innovation and consumer quality will be the casualty.

After all, what sectors has the federal government improved after imposing its heavy hand?

Perhaps the best manner of illustrating “Net Neutrality” is that it is the Fairness Doctrine of the Internet.

We don’t need the federal government controlling our healthcare, we don’t need it controlling our airwaves and we certainly don’t need it controlling the Internet.