Freedom Line Blog

Amidst President Obama’s quixotic pursuit of a nuclear-free world, Jonah Goldberg makes an interesting observation over at The Corner:

Ultimately, when and how a country uses its nuclear weapons does not depend on treaties. It depends on the Commander-in-Chief. Sure, worries about violating a treaty might — probably would — make using nukes more “costly” in a president’s cost-benefit analysis. But at the end of the day, using nukes is such a huge deal that I think most presidents, most human beings, would make the decision based on their core values and instincts. And, suffice it to say, I don’t think Barack Obama would ever use nuclear weapons under almost any remotely plausible circumstances. He’s even less likely to use nukes than the president in Independence Day, and that Bill Pullman character first needed to mind-meld with one of the aliens to be extra-super-sure that they were evil conquerors.

Depressing, but true. Read the whole thing here.

There’s a great article by Ned Ryun, courtesy of Red State, about the need to get conservatives and the movement they animate focused on taking back control of America, one local election at a time.  On a day when the Heritage Foundation is announcing a nationwide campaign to flex its muscles with members of Congress, Ryun’s American Majority is training candidates for school boards and state races.  We need both; especially when it comes to putting our principles into action.

All politically/financially/culturally destructive things must end, and so it is that the chief of the Service Employee International Union (SEIU), Andy Stern, will be stepping down soon.  Ostensibly, it’s because he helped shepherd comprehensive health care “reform” into law, one of his key legislative goals.  But as the New York Times points out, he didn’t achieve passage of the Employee Free Choice Act (aka “card check”), which eliminates the secret ballot in unionization elections.  Hard to believe that after 14 years at the helm, Captain Ahab Stern is jumping ship before landing the biggest prize for organized labor.  Could it be he’s being groomed for bigger things than a radical, labor version of a community organizer?

Merely weeks after the passage of ObamaCare, experts are already sounding the alarm:  The nation doesn’t have enough doctors!

Suzanne Sataline and Shirley S. Wang of The Wall Street Journal report:

At current graduation and training rates, the nation could face a shortage of as many as 150,000 doctors in the next 15 years, according to the Association of American Medical Colleges. …

“The greatest demand will be for primary-care physicians. These general practitioners, internists, family physicians and pediatricians will have a larger role under the new law, coordinating care for each patient. …

“A shortage of primary-care and other physicians could mean more-limited access to health care and longer wait times for patients.”

Read the full piece here.

Pulitzer Prize-winning cartoonist Michael Ramirez sums up President Obama’s nuclear deterrence policy…

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

Recall the flimsy, grand promises that candidate Barack Obama used to get himself elected in 2008:

We’ve been living beyond our means, and we’re going to have to make some adjustments.  Now, what I’ve done throughout this campaign is to propose a net spending cut.”

Obama made that promise during the third presidential debate in October 2008, well after the onset of the financial crisis that he now uses as an all-purpose alibi.  Accordingly, Obama’s apologists cannot claim that current realities were unforeseen when he made that statement.  Indeed, Obama himself pronounced during that same debate, “I think everybody understands at this point that we are experiencing the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression.”  One wonders whether Obama thought for even a moment about what would happen if he ultimately won and was forced to make good on his “hope and change” promises.

Regardless, the collision between Obama’s frivolous promises and reality continued this week.  The Treasury Department has announced that March 2010 marked a record 18th consecutive month in which the federal government posted a budget deficit.  This despite the fact that federal “bailout” spending has declined, meaning not even that can be scapegoated by the Obama Administration.  March’s $65 billion deficit also exceeded the Congressional Budget Office’s projected $62 billion deficit, and the first half 2010 fiscal year deficit now stands at $717 billion, only slightly below last year’s $781 billion first half deficit.

We’re witnessing “change,” but certainly not of the “hopeful” variety.

The numbers don’t lie: Californians are voting with their feet when it comes to protecting their pocketbooks…all the way to Texas.

Though it’s hard to believe that more taxes don’t create more jobs, it’s down right shocking to realize that taxpayer financed commercials like this one are failing to draw people to the Golden State.

To answer the Governator’s question: as soon as Sacramento adopts a tax and regulatory regime WAY more friendly to businesses.

H/T: Reason.tv

Hopefully, Charles Djou (R-HI) will be throwing a luau for all the GOP heavies weighing in on his race to replace the retiring congressman, Neil Abercrombie (D-HI).  The May 22^nd special election is getting Djou plenty of face time with CFIF and National Review.  Now, he can claim endorsements by former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, and outgoing Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty.

Pray tell, could fiscal conservatism be set for an electoral comeback?

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

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

Activists who favor so-called “Net Neutrality,” which would actually make the federal government suddenly non-neutral in overregulating the Internet, possess a natural advantage in the battle for public opinion simply because the term “Net Neutrality” sounds so innocuous.  After all, people unfamiliar with the issue might think to themselves, “what could be so bad about ‘neutrality?'”  Consequently, it became very important for Americans to realize the true nature of this toxic agenda currently being advanced by the Obama Administration, his Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and the political left.

For this reason, the results of a new Rasmussen poll are extremely encouraging.  By a two-to-one margin (53% to 27%), Americans oppose governmental “Net Neutrality” efforts to regulate the Internet in the same way the government seeks to regulate the airwaves via the “Fairness Doctrine.”  Most impressively, this means that public support for “Net Neutrality” has plummeted some 22% since June 2008.  Notably, among those who use the Internet either every day or nearly every day, opposition to “Net Neutrality” rises to 63%.  In other words, those who are most familiar with the Internet and use it most often oppose “Net Neutrality” even more strongly.  They know that “Net Neutrality” advocates’ constant doomsday predictions have been proven nonsense.  Opposition also increases among investors, who realize that “Net Neutrality” would undermine the incentives to continue investment and network expansion, which will be necessary for future Internet growth in America.  That speaks volumes.

The fight isn’t over, despite public opposition and a Court of Appeals decision last week rejecting the FCC’s alleged authority to impose “Net Neutrality.”  Obama’s FCC responded to the Court’s decision in Nancy Pelosi-like fashion, indicating that it will attempt to impose “Net Neutrality” by any means necessary.  Nevertheless, these are encouraging signs in this important battle.

In the newest round of praise for Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) and his “Roadmap for America’s Future,” The American Spectator draws attention to the Democrats’ well organized attack of the plan and Republicans’ tepid endorsement.

In the wake of the uproar, Republican leaders tried to distance themselves from the proposal, emphasizing that while it contained good ideas, Ryan’s plan wasn’t the official Republican budget. In an election year during which the GOP is poised to make big gains, Republicans don’t want to give Democrats an easy opportunity to paint them as the party keen on destroying Social Security and Medicare. But if Republicans are to regain any credibility as a party that wants actually to limit government (as opposed to just talk about it when in the minority), then they can’t shy away from this debate. The looming fiscal crisis is too severe, it’s approaching too soon, and it’s far too big of a threat to the American way of life.

Thanks to the angst of a fretful nation, Republicans will probably regain control of the House and perhaps the Senate this November.  What they need, however, is a governing mandate.  The only way they can claim one is to have a clearly defined set of principles and goals that they can run on and win with this cycle.  The 1994 “Contract with America” worked.  So could Ryan’s Roadmap.  Getting specific on the best way forward to secure America’s future is a fight worth having.

In these week’s Freedom Minute, CFIF’s Renee Giachino discusses the Obama Administration’s education policy.  While the president has taken some steps in the right direction, there are still other, more troubling aspects of the policy that need to be addressed.

How interesting that the Age of Obama is bringing about the demise of “centrist” Democrats.  The flurry of retirements from the House of Representatives this session come almost completely from the South and Midwest, once the cradle of Democratic congressional leaders.  Now, members like Marion Berry (D-AR) and Bart Stupak (D-MI) are retiring from politics after years of finding their social conservatism unwelcome in an increasingly secularist Democratic Party.

Many Americans outside Stupak’s congressional district were surprised to find an ardent pro-life Democrat still getting elected to public office.  Even more startling was his stance on ObamaCare: he wants a single-payer system; he just doesn’t want federal funding for abortions.  With his retirement announcement today, America isn’t likely to see another high profile Democrat willing to risk curtailing the growth of leviathan for what amounts to a religious conviction.

Then there is Associate Justice John Paul Stevens.  His retirement, along with former Justice David Souter’s last year, will probably be the last to involve a court member of one party leaving the bench so that a president of the other party can appoint his replacement.  Make no mistake; had Senator John Kerry (D-MA) won the presidency in 2004, neither Souter nor Stevens would have waited this long to leave.

So with Stupak and Stevens exiting Stage Left, there are now two more examples of the sharp, rigid partisanship that President Barack Obama has brought to our politics.  After all the election spin about post-partisanship, the only change he gave us was a historical dividing line between politics as people with ideas, and politics as parties with agendas.

This week’s edition of the Liberty Update, CFIF’s weekly e-newsletter, is out.  For those readers who don’t receive it in their e-mail inboxes or if you haven’t had a chance to read it yet, below is a summary of its contents:

CFIF Staff:  Here Come the VAT, the Mother of All Taxes
Ellis:  The GOP’s ‘Doc Fix’ to ObamaCare: Doctors as Congressional Candidates
Lee:  Thwarting the Aggressive Obama Agenda: Appellate Court Quashes FCC’s “Net Neutrality” Scheme
Senik:  Deconstructing America, One Industry at a Time

Freedom Minute Video:  Professor Obama in the Classroom
Podcast:  Florida Senate President Discusses Need for Federal Balanced Budget
Jester’s Courtroom:  Can You Hear Me Now?

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, sign up here.

Many Americans unfortunately view elections in too limited a perspective, assuming that mistakes can simply be reversed at the next election cycle.  Today’s announcement by United States Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens that he will retire reminds us that elections can be far more consequential and long-lasting than many voters assume.

Less than halfway into his tenure, Barack Obama will already have nominated almost one-quarter of the Supreme Court.  That is an enormous impact for the most radical President in American history.  Last year, his “empathetic” nominee Sonya Sotomayor saw her most notable ruling, the New Haven firefighter “affirmative action” decision, embarrassingly reversed by the Supreme Court in the midst of her confirmation process.  Yet she was nevertheless confirmed.  The fact that these are lifetime appointments makes this fact all the more alarming.

Our collective task in the upcoming months is to ensure that:  (1) the dangerous judicial philosophy of Obama’s nominee is fairly and thoroughly illuminated, (2) that we stand up for the principles of individual freedom and Constitutional fidelity just as strongly as we stood against ObamaCare in nearly stopping it despite overwhelming Democrat majorities, and (3) that Americans’ eyes are opened to the way in which Obama seeks to alter America for decades into the future.  This important battle now begins.

Congressman Bart Stupak (D – Michigan), whose “I voted against the bill before I voted for it” sellout proved pivotal in foisting ObamaCare upon America, now announces he will not run for reelection this November.

So tell us, Congressman – was it all worth it?  You initially took a principled stand against ObamaCare, but then sold out your own cause on the basis of a promise from Barack Obama to issue an executive order, which doesn’t carry the force of Congressional law.  This is the same Barack Obama who promised during his campaign to abide by public campaign finance limitations, then changed his mind when that became politically inconvenient.  The same Barack Obama who opposed Hillary Clinton’s healthcare proposal because it imposed an individual mandate, but whose ultimate bill included that same individual mandate.

Now, even Politico comments that “without Stupak on the ballot, the seat becomes an immediate pickup opportunity for Republicans.”  In other words, even Nancy Pelosi now knows how it feels to be blindsided by Bart Stupak.

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

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

In an interview with the Center for Individual Freedom, Florida Senate President Jeff Atwater dicusses out-of-control federal spending and the need for a Constitutional amendment to require a balanced federal budget.

Listen to the interview here.

A new Gallup poll previews “Nightmare on Nancy’s Street” for the upcoming midterm elections.

Several excerpts: 

A record-low percentage of U.S. voters – 28% — say most members of Congress deserve to be re-elected.  The previous low was 29% in October 1992.”

Additionally, 65% of registered voters – the highest in Gallup history, and by far the highest in any recent midterm year – now say most members of Congress do not deserve re-election.”

Voters anti-incumbent mood is like nothing Gallup has seen in the past four midterm election cycles.  While that could have a negative impact on incumbents from both parties, the greater exposure of the Democrats by virtue of their majority status means greater risk for their candidates.”

So here’s our question:  If you are a Democrat Congressperp and voted for ObamaCare, Stimulus I through XXIII, Bailouts, Cap and Trade and the Kick Your Constituents’ Dog Bill, would you go near your doctor’s office…your bank…your service station…or even that proverbial Main Street, USA?

Well, actually it’s been in for a few hours, but we were busy feeding the goats, who like to eat while listening to the exhaust of the V-12 just sitting there idling.

We’ve been told for years that we shouldn’t eat red meat, which is really tasty and harder to kick than Oxy, because red meat on the hoof emits methane gas, which is supposedly bad for the environment.  Of course, since dead red meat don’t emit nothing but eating pleasure (and shoes not made in a chemical factory), we’ve not been able to understand why we shouldn’t just eat as much as we can, keeping the herds properly thinned and methane-managed.

At any rate, according to the Telegraph, this researcher named Klaus Butterbach-Bahl of the Karlsruhe Institute of Technology in Germany went over to Inner Mongolia and watched Inner Mongolian cows eat some Inner Mongolian grass.  Dr. Butterbach-Bahl then allowed as to how there were more nitrous oxide emissions (judged to be the third most noxious greenhouse gas after carbon dioxide and methane) when the cows weren’t eating.  All about microbes in the soil, don’t you know.  So it’s okay to have cows eating grass, at least in Inner Mongolia, which is surely better than them eating the Inner Mongolians.

Not to be politically incorrect while scientifically accurate, Dr. Butterbach-Bahl said that his “study does not overturn the case for cutting down on red meat.”

We now return you to your regular programming, although unless you are watching an NCIS marathon, it’s just full of bad stuff that Dr. Butterbach-Bahl hasn’t studied yet.