Freedom Line Blog

Yet another scandal at the Obama/Holder Department of (in)Justice.  I heard about this more more than a year ago, but regret that I never followed up personally, having not been able to figure out how to find the relevant documents without outrageous rigmarole. All credit to Chuck Neubauer of the Washington Times for getting the story, and to Sen. Chuck Grassley for pursuing the truth:

[N]ow it’s a Justice Department official using taxpayer funds to “facilitate a physical relationship with a woman in Florida.”… Sen. Chuck Grassley, in a Sept. 28 letter, asked Mr. Holder to explain why the supervisor, Darryl Foster, apparently did not have to reimburse the government for money he spent on trips to meet with the Miami woman, including hotels and rental cars…. Sources said Mr. Foster made more than 10 taxpayer-paid trips to Miami in 2008 alone. His female friend was identified only as the president of an organization. Mr. Grassley called the relationship a possible conflict of interest because Mr. Foster was able to approve government contracts for the woman’s organization.

Here’s a new piece of information; I hesitate to report it because it is not quite adequately sourced by ordinary journalistic standards (even though, from my understanding of how DoJ works, the info seems almost certain to be true)…. so I’ll phrase it as a question: Is it true that the supervisor who approved Foster’s trips or refused to discipline him for them, or both, was Steve Rosenbaum, who is the same, court-disciplined, ideological crusader who, along with the now-departed Loretta King, was most directly responsible for forcing the dismissal of the famous voter-intimidation case against New Black Panthers?

And a second question, and two more after that: After Foster was caught with his hand in the muffins, so to speak was Civil Rights Division chief Thomas Perez –that notorious dissembler — responsible for deciding on Foster’s job status going forward? If so, why was Foster still allowed to continue as an official at DoJ? And what, if anything, was Loretta King’s role in advising on the decision or non-decision to do anything about Foster? (Remember that King served in an acting capacity in Perez’ job before Perez was confirmed by the Senate.)

The other candidates running for the Republican presidential nomination could learn a lot from Texas Congressman Ron Paul. During his 2008 presidential bid, Paul was essentially Tea Party before Tea Party was cool, delivering a principled defense of the constitution and limits on federal power. That’s all for the good, and it seems to be a growing sentiment throughout the Republican base.

Where Paul is deeply problematic, however, is in his fundamentally flawed understanding of foreign policy. As the Daily Caller reports today, Paul’s latest misstep is his condemnation of President Obama for allowing the drone strike that killed Anwar al-Awlaki, the Yemeni-American cleric who was one of the leading public faces of Al Qaeda:

Speaking to a group of reporters at Saint Anselm College in New Hampshire on Friday, Rep. Paul said that American leaders need to think hard about “assassinating American citizens without charges.”

“al-Awlaki was born here,” said Paul. “He is an American citizen. He was never tried or charged for any crimes. No one knows if he killed anybody.”

Writing in the Wall Street Journal, my friend and podcast partner (and frequent guest on “Your Turn”) John Yoo sets Paul and his sympathists to rights:

Today’s critics wish to return the United States to the pre-9/11 world of fighting terrorism only with the criminal justice system. Worse yet, they get the rights of a nation at war terribly wrong. Awlaki’s killing in no way violates the prohibition on assassination, first declared by executive order during the Ford administration. As American government officials have long concluded, assassination is an act of murder for political purposes. Killing Martin Luther King Jr. or John F. Kennedy is assassination. Shooting an enemy soldier in wartime is not. In World War II, the United States did not carry out an assassination when it sent long-range fighters to shoot down an air transport carrying the Japanese admiral Isoroku Yamamoto.

American citizens who join the enemy do not enjoy a roving legal force-field that immunizes them from military reprisal.

Lest this be oversimplified to a libertarian vs. neoconservative argument (a caricature of both Congressmal Paul and Professor Yoo), I should note that Richard Epstein — perhaps the leading libertarian legal scholar in the country — happens to agree with John Yoo. If you’re interested in hearing more, you can hear professors Epstein and Yoo hash this issue out on the newest episode of Ricochet’s Law Talk Podcast (hosted by yours truly and available by subscription).

Arnold Trebach spent four years working for the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights back when that body was at the vanguard of securing rights for American blacks. Like Ted Kennedy awardee Bartle Bull before him, Trebach is now on the record, at Pajamas Media, saying that the Obama/Holder Justice Department has thoroughly corrupted the law by jettisoning race-neutral enforcement in favor of a racial spoils system — and worse. Indeed, he calls the gang at Holder’s Civil Rights Division “racial racketeers.” This isn’t just a matter of turning the law on its head, although that is bad enough. It also has real-world consequences:

Like many other officials, I confronted white racists who were terrorizing innocent black citizens. We have not yet succeeded in completely halting such awful practices, but the election of an African American to the White House by a majority white electorate, including me, is proof of just how far we have come in the proper direction.

What outrages me is that despite our country’s wonderful successes, too many seek to gain and hold power by cynically perpetuating and exploiting racial grievances. These racial racketeers seek to convince minority members that nothing will help them improve their lives unless they buy into the myth of racial helplessness and continuing victimhood.

As I noted here yesterday, whistleblower J. Christian Adams is out with an extremely powerful new book detailing all of the Obama/Holder abuses. Adams will be the guest on my weekly radio show, “Hillyer Time,” on Thursday night from 8-9 Central time, with strong radio signal on 106.5 FM from Gulfport to Pensacola along the Gulf Coast, and also a terrific online signal at the station’s web site. Do listen in. And do read Adams’ book. It will make you seethe with righteous anger against the lawless goons running our Justice Department.

On Saturday, the Washington Post ginned up some controversy by running an unnecessarily long-winded investigative piece alleging that the Texas hunting camp owned by Governor (and now presidential candidate) Rick Perry, along with his father, possesses a racially-offensive name (involving the most common — and jarring — epithet for African-Americans).

The piece made for good election cycle copy, but bad journalism. In essence, the name far predated the Perrys’ acquisition of the property and never seems to have been used by them — in fact, they actually painted over a rock that included it (and eventually just turned it over). In addition, the Post never made clear what it means to say that the offensive name is what the property “is called,” apart from the fact that the name had been used by previous owners and the rock still remains on the land.

If the WaPo had any journalistic sense, it would have left the story there. Instead, they’ve now published a follow-up piece by Amy Gardner claiming to examine Perry’s “complicated record” on racial issues. Like recent stories wondering what Chris Christie’s weight says about his potential mettle as president, this was an example of journalism that was long on space to fill and short on meaningful analysis.

In truth, Perry’s record couldn’t be less complicated. He appointed the man who became the first black chairman of Texas A&M’s board of regents, had an African-American chief of staff, and hired two black general counsels. According to the story, however, his views on race are questionable because he (A) supports the Tea Party (B) believes in the Tenth Amendment (C)  ran a campaign ad in 1990 featuring his opponent with Jesse Jackson and (D) once had misgivings about a piece of hate crimes legislation (which he eventually signed).

While there’s no evidence to suggest Perry is actually a racist (and, in fact, plenty of evidence showing exactly the opposite), don’t expect that to prevent the formation of a meme on the left. We fully expect to see the Perry-as-racist shtick on parade in Bill Maher’s next monologue. Perhaps some of the Washington Post‘s writers would feel more comfortable on Maher’s staff — at least there the belief that facts are immaterial is explicit.

Tracy Schmaler, top spokesman at the Eric Holder (in)Justice Department, has a hair-trigger temper that doesn’t even seem to need a good reason to go off. At The American Spectator today, I described my first encounter with her.  It didn’t even end with her yelling at me on the phone; it almost started that way.

Now comes Sharyl Attkisson of CBS News to tell a similar story:

In between the yelling that I received from Justice Department yesterday, the spokeswoman–who would not put anything in writing, I was asking for her explanation so there would be clarity and no confusion later over what had been said, she wouldn’t put anything in writing-…. Well the DOJ woman was just yelling at me. The guy from the White House on Friday night literally screamed at me and cussed at me. [Laura: Who was the person? Who was the person at Justice screaming?] Eric Schultz. Oh, the person screaming was [DOJ spokeswoman] Tracy Schmaler, she was yelling not screaming.

I’m not sure what the difference is between yelling and screaming, but either one is highly unprofessional, especially coming from a press secretary.

I’ve heard a number of similar stories about Ms. Schmaler. She gets furious awfully fast. I guess that’s what happens when you don’t have the truth to rely on.

Don’t bother me with the facts; we’re trying to save the world here!

That’s essentially what Patrick Michaels of the CATO Institute says the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) did when it decided that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases endanger the environment and must be regulated.

The problem for EPA is that its own Inspector General recently stated that the process EPA used to justify its decision violated both federal law and scientific integrity.  According to Michaels, federal law requires any endangerment finding that is “highly influential” to be rigorously peer-reviewed to ensure that economy-altering regulations are based on the best science available.

EPA violated that standard when it based its endangerment finding on a facially biased United Nations report favorably reviewed by at least one federal climatologist who worked for EPA – a clear conflict of interest.

The stakes are high.  EPA’s endangerment finding is the legal basis for the agency to dictate energy regulations down to the kind of light bulb Americans can use in their homes.  By cooking the books that authority rests on, EPA has destroyed any credibility it may have had.

Let the legal challenges begin (again).

It certainly looks like U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder lied to Congress when he said on May 3^rd of this year that “I’m not sure of the exact date, but I probably heard about Fast and Furious for the first time over the last few weeks.”  The most generous accounting would limit Holder’s knowledge of the international gun scandal to no earlier than the beginning of 2011.

Not so reports CBS News.

Yet internal Justice Department documents show that at least ten months before that hearing, Holder began receiving frequent memos discussing Fast and Furious.

Specifically, memos dating from July, October, and November of 2010.  Spinners at Holder’s Department of Justice are trying to cover their boss by saying he misunderstood the question about when he first heard about Fast and Furious and its criminally negligent gun-walking element.

Spare us the feigned stupidity, Mr. Attorney General.  Among your many derelictions of duty, the gun-walking scandals offer the strongest rationale for your resignation.  Failing that, it may be time to consider impeachment proceedings.

Below is one of the latest cartoons from two-time Pulitzer Prize-winner Michael Ramirez.

View more of Michael Ramirez’s cartoons on CFIF’s website here.

Join CFIF Corporate Counsel and Senior Vice President Renee Giachino today from 4:00 p.m. CDT to 6:00 p.m. CDT (that’s 5:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. EDT) on Northwest Florida’s 1330 AM WEBY, as she hosts her radio show, “Your Turn: Meeting Nonsense with Commonsense.”  Today’s guest lineup includes:

4:00 (CDT)/5:00 pm (EDT):  Representatives from the Pearl Harbor Survivors Association, Chapter #138 – Regarding the 70th Anniversary of the bombing of Pearl Harbor;  

4:30 (CDT)/5:30 pm (EDT):  Sally Pipes, President, CEO, and Taube Fellow in Health Care Studies at the Pacific Research Institute – Regarding ObamaCare and the split between doctors and the AMA;

5:00 (CDT)/6:00 pm (EDT):  Timothy Lee, CFIF’s Vice President of Legal and Public Affairs – Regarding the U.S. Supreme Court’s October 2012 Term and Labor Controversies within the Obama Administration; and

5:30 (CDT)/6:30 pm (EDT):  Tod Lindberg, Hoover Fellow and Editor-in-Chief of the monthly journal “Policy Review” – Regarding Military Interventionalism and Presidential Candidates.

Listen live on the Internet here.   Call in to share your comments or ask questions of today’s guests at (850) 623-1330.

For every crisis, there is an opportunity:

As part of the June budget agreement, the state will transfer to the 58 counties responsibilities for managing low-level offenders, as well as providing mental health, substance abuse and child protective services. It’s a Reaganesque approach – the idea that we can deliver better service at less cost by moving government decision-making closer to the people. Or, as Gov. Jerry Brown described Thursday, “It’s a bold vision of a new relationship between the state and local governments.”

It’s also a bow to fiscal reality.  Here’s to more (forced) bold thinking that gives local officials the power to best serve their neighbors.

According to Roll Call, it’s official: there will be at least one incumbent Republican senator having to defend his record against Tea Party criticisms next year.  The Tea Party Express, a group known for helping challengers Sharron Angle (NV), Joe Miller (AK), and Christine O’Donnell (DE) win Republican primaries, is backing Indiana State Treasurer Richard Mourdock’s bid to replace Senator Richard Lugar.

Though Mourdock presumably appreciates the support, he probably wants a better finish then the three mentioned above.  All lost in the general election.

In an interview with CFIF, Jason Stverak, President of the Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity, discusses how technology has made the line between citizen journalists and mainstream media less defined, and how citizen journalists are doing their part to hold government officials accountable to the people.

Listen to the interview here.

This week’s edition of the Liberty Update, CFIF’s weekly e-newsletter, is out. Below is a summary of its contents:

Hillyer:  The Feds Criminalize Ordinary Life
Lee:  New Polls: As Obama Doubles Down, Americans Move in Opposite Direction
Senik:  White House Jobs Bill: Killing Incentives to Hire
Ellis:  Paul Ryan Would Replace ObamaCare with Patient-Centered Reform
Ellis:  On Israel, Romney and Perry Sound Presidential

Freedom Minute Video:  Trio of Scandals Hits the White House
Podcast:  Interview with Jason Stverak on the Role of Citizen Journalists
Jester’s Courtroom:  Camera Causes Grande Problem for Starbucks

Editorial Cartoons:  Latest Cartoons of Michael Ramirez
Quiz:  Question of the Week
Notable Quotes:  Quotes of the Week

If you are not already signed up to receive CFIF’s Liberty Update by e-mail, sign up here.

In a remarkable new interview with an NBC affiliate, Barack Obama smirks and lectures that Americans have “gotten a little soft.”  Take particular note of his expression as he utters those words.

According to Obama, you see, it’s never a problem with himself or his policies.  It’s that he somehow didn’t explain himself often enough to the rest of you ungrateful rubes – never mind that he has done little else in his presidency than give cliche-saturated speeches or golf.  Or now, that you people have “gotten a little soft” for his tastes.

From maligning Americans who supposedly “cling” to their guns, xenophobia and religion, then later to ambivalence toward American Exceptionalism and now this, Barack Obama just oozes adoration for this country, doesn’t he?

Ever since his victory in last weekend’s Florida straw poll, Herman Cain is getting a lot more attention from political pundits who had previously considered him nothing more than B-level fodder for the Tea Party. This works out nicely for Cain, who may reap financial dividends in addition to electoral ones because of the upcoming release of his book, This is Herman Cain! My Journey to the White House (it’s out next Tuesday).

Reviewing the book over at Pajamas Media, Pajamas CEO Roger L. Simon makes it abundantly clear why Cain — despite some previous gaffes — is a deeply attractive candidate. As Simon writes in his opening:

The secret of Herman Cain is that he seems — at least to me — genuinely to be a mentally healthy human being.

This is no small thing, particularly in the world of politics — even more so presidential politics, where large dollops of nearly clinical narcissism are necessary to propel the ambition needed to run for this most powerful of offices.

As most of us know by now, Cain leavens his narcissism with generous jolts of humor — much of it self-deprecating — that make him, at this moment anyway, the most engaging figure on the political scene.

Then there’s this impressive digest of Cain’s resume:

This is the same man who put himself through Morehouse College majoring in math, got a masters in computer science from Purdue (while improving academically), plotted rocket guidance for the Navy, started in business at Coca-Cola, then went on to turn around the fortunes of Philadelphia’s Burger King franchise, take over the aforementioned Godfather’s Pizza chain, become the head of the National Restaurant Association, be appointed to the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City, and host a radio show into the bargain. And, of course, he defeated the Big C.

The most heartening insight, however, may be this one:

This Is Herman Cain also includes an appendix spelling out the candidate’s stands on the issues. Its final section — My Candidacy, Against the Odds — contains the following in bold face:

1. I don’t claim to know everything:
2. I don’t pander to groups;
3. I am terrible at political correctness.

Not bad for starters.

Cain still has a very long way to go to prove that he’s got presidential mettle. But if it turns out that he does, it will be a beautiful thing.

In this week’s Freedom Minute, CFIF’s Renee Giachino points to the mounting scandals – Solyndra, Fast and Furious, Lightsquared – hitting the White House to refute claims that the Obama Administration has been “scandal free.”

One of the very first people to argue that Obamacare was unconstitutional was the Heritage Foundation’s excellent Director of the Center for Legal and Judicial Studies, Todd Gaziano. In light of this weeks decisions by all sides of the 11th Circuit anti-Obamacare decision to appeal all or parts of the decision to the Supreme Court — a dramatic development that makes it likely the high court will rule on the law before next year’s election — I have offered, and Todd has graciously accepted, an invitation to be my guest tonight on my weekly radio show on the Gulf Coast. You can listen in here, with excellent online reception, from 9-10 Eastern time. Please check it out; every Thursday night, Welcome to Hillyer Time.

(cross-posted from The American Spectator)

At the University of Mobile’s twelve23 project, I assess House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan’s great speech earlier this week on health care. My final note therein deserves more elaboration:

Give the health care vouchers or credits directly to consumers, and let them, not bureaucrats, search for the best deal for their individual needs.

This idea is nothing new. Back in the 1990s, several leading Democratic senators – among them Bob Kerrey of Nebraska and John Breaux of Louisiana – agreed with Republicans on a Medicare Commission appointed by President Bill Clinton on exactly this approach to the problem. Alas, when Clinton (and Congress) became embroiled in the Monica Lewinsky scandal and subsequent impeachment effort, the political well was so poisoned that the commission’s recommendations fell by the wayside.

What bears repeating is that this idea is bipartisan and nothing radical at all. Indeed, although at different spending levels, the concept was embraced (or re-embraced) as recently as last winter by Alice Rivlin, former director of the Office of Management and Budget under Bill Clinton and later Clinton’s appointee as vice chairman of the Federal Reserve. A number of other top-ranking Democratic economic-policy folks have endorsed the concept in whole or in part.

As I also noted, this is essentially the system used in the Medicare prescription drug program — an unaffordable new entitlement, but happily far less unaffordable than originally expected, precisely because competition has worked to keep down costs for taxpayers and consumers alike while providing services with which the consumers are mostly happy.

If Barack Obama wants to stop pretending to be pushing “ideas both parties agree on,” and actually accept an idea that has been bipartisan for 15 years, he would adopt Ryan’s approach. But that won’t happen. Obama isn’t for anything that takes power away from government.

Below is one of the latest cartoons from two-time Pulitzer Prize-winner Michael Ramirez.

View more of Michael Ramirez’s cartoons on CFIF’s website here.

So how many times must Barack Obama be wrong – flatly, indisputably, wholly, precisely wrong – before he withdraws from American political life out of pure shame?

Today provided another example.  In selling ObamaCare, his cornerstone “achievement,” to the American people, Obama promised on March 8, 2010 that his bill “reduces most people’s premiums.”  So what is actually happened in just the first year since he made that assurance?  The Kaiser Family Foundation and the Health Research and Educational Trust report that health insurance premiums rose 9% this year.  Employers’ average yearly premium for families climbed from $13,770 last year to $15,073 this year, and from $5,049 to $5,429 for individuals.

Perhaps this explains why Obama’s Justice Department curiously didn’t seek to delay United States Supreme Court review of ObamaCare this week – maybe even Obama suddenly wants it overturned as quickly as possible.