Freedom Line Blog

Not only is North Korea responsible for the unprovoked sinking of a South Korean warship, the American intelligence community concludes that the government’s supreme leader, Kim Jong-Il ordered the attack.  It’s difficult to fathom any government other than North Korea’s being able to kill 46 members of another country’s military personnel by executive fiat, and be threatened with – at most – a United Nations sanction.

Since North Korea’s “Dear Leader” has it in his power to kill other people’s sailors at whim and expect almost no response, maybe he is the powerful man in the world.  If not, wait ‘til he gets a nuclear bomb.

Republican Charles Djou appears to be closing in on the special election victory CFIF highlighted months ago.  If he does become the congressman from President Barack Obama’s Hawaiian hometown, not only will the Aloha State be sending a staunch fiscal conservative to the House of Representatives, it will mean Djou will have the power of incumbency in the fall.  Assuming he wins, it will be interesting to see how he uses his voting record to maintain his conservative credentials while not alienating a majority of voters in a heavily Democratic district.

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

Senik:  The Unbearable Lightness of Being Eric Holder
Ellis:  Feds Unveil a “Friends & Funding” Program for American Islamist Mosque
CFIF Staff:  Just Shut Up about Arizona, Mr. President

Freedom Minute Video:  California Dreaming on Arizona’s Immigration Law
Podcast:  Interview with Ellen Fitzpatrick on her new book, Letters to Jackie: Condolences from a Grieving Nation
Jester’s Courtroom:  No More Free Doughnuts and Coffee

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 this week’s Freedom Minute, CFIF’s Renee Giachino discusses the temper tantrum being thrown by the City of Los Angeles over Arizona’s new immigration law and the idea of taking border security seriously.

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.

No, I’m not referring to the recent precipitious decline in global stock markets (though there may be a connection). Instead, I’m talking about the tidal wave of state pension obligations that threaten to put the country’s entire economic infrastructure in peril. From a story in today’s Financial Times:

Joshua Rauh, associate professor of finance at the Kellogg School of Management at Northwestern University said that, without reform, some state pensions might run out within the decade. By 2030, as many as 31 states may not have the money to pay pensions. And, if these funds exhaust their assets, the size of payments for the benefits they have promised will be too large to cover through taxes, putting pressure on the federal government for a bail-out that could potentially cost more than $1,000bn, he says.

For those of you not accustomed to the British rendering, that last number would normally be referred to stateside as a jaw-dropping “trillion” .

But how could this scenario have ever gotten this far? The FT piece explains:

Estimates put the unfunded liabilities at between $1,000bn and $3,000bn after years of states promising benefits but not contributing enough in both good times and bad to cover them.

Many states base their calculations on an 8 per cent annual return and use an accounting method called smoothing, which staggers gains and losses over several years, two factors that some observers warn could mask the size of the shortfalls. The problem has come to the fore with the financial crisis and recession. Pension funds, like most money managers, suffered losses. The tax revenues that fund annual contributions to pensions, along with essential services such as healthcare and education, have plummeted, leaving little room to reimburse the losses.

Assuming that governments can get themselves out of this morass before it’s too late, the only way to prevent a reoccurence is to switch public-sector pensions from “defined benefit” plans to “defined contribution” plans. Mort Zuckerman did a good job of showing why over at U.S. News and World Report earlier this week:

[New York City] pensions are “defined benefit” plans, which are more expensive since they guarantee specific benefits on retirement.

On the other hand, private sector workers in the survey were mostly in “defined contribution” plans, which means that, unlike their cushioned brethren in the public sector, they do not have a pre-determined benefit at retirement. If New York City were to require its current workers to pay contributions toward health insurance equal to the amounts paid by the employees of local private sector firms, the taxpayer savings would approximate $628 million a year. In New Jersey, [Governor Chris] Christie says government employee health benefits are 41 percent more expensive than those of the average Fortune 500 company.

We know when the next bubble is coming.  But with the coming attractions provided by belligerent bureaucrats in Greece, which American politician will be the first to throw himself in front of the union gravy train?

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.

Eric Holder may be unwilling to identify radical Islam as a driving force behind the recent surge in terror threats to the United States, but American special forces aren’t so hesitant.  The Economist reports that the American military is engaging in joint operations in the west African countries of Burkina Faso, Mali, Mauritania, and Senegal to combat the growing presence of “Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb” (AQIM).

Tuned-in Americans understand that in places like Somalia, radical Islam has found a fertile breeding ground for creating converts out of oppressed, deprived young men and women disgruntled with their lot in life.  It is logical that a place so close to the Middle East, only a short boat ride from Yemen, and so lacking in governance is a training ground for terrorists.

But American intelligence has been keeping an eye on the Sahel for some time.  The Sahel is a stretch of grassland that runs just south of the Saharan Desert, through the aforementioned west African countries.  It is an area subject to extreme drought and is only sparsely populated by tribal people.  Away from the attention of governing authorities, terrorist organizations from countries like Algeria have been able to set up training camps and are attempting to unite a coalition of jihadist organizations that have become increasingly problematic in the region.

Our support goes out to the American servicemen charged with the difficult task of training local forces to combat this growing threat to the security of free people.

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.

… comes courtesy of the Heartland Institute’s Ross Kaminsky over at Human Events.

In a piece with the wonderfully direct title “Can Kagan be Trusted to Defend the Constitution?”, Kaminsky takes the would-be justice to town on her record as Solicitor General and as a legal academic.

The whole piece is worth reading (especially for two extended quotes in which Chief Justice Roberts excoriates Kagan’s legal reasoning from the bench). But what may be most provocative is this little nugget:

Kagan’s hostility toward the plain meaning of the 1st Amendment is nothing new. In a 1996 paper (PDF) for the University of Chicago Law Review (she was a professor at the University of Chicago at the same time that Barack Obama was a lecturer there), Kagan suggested that the government’s motives in restricting speech should be important factors in whether those restrictions are upheld by a court. She wonders aloud, in eye-opening Socialist language “what view of the 1st Amendment accounts for the court’s refusal to allow, by means of restrictions, the redistribution of expression?”

You read that right; she said “redistribution of expression.”

She continues: “The question remains, however, why the court should treat as especially suspicious content-neutral regulations of speech—such as the regulations in Buckley—that are justified in terms of achieving diversity.” You can already hear her ruling in a sure-to-come challenge to the re-imposition of the Fairness Doctrine meant to muzzle talk-radio conservatives in the guise of increasing “diversity of opinion”.

Similar to her argument in Stevens which implies a government arbiter of speech, Kagan makes this remarkable statement in her paper: “If there is an ‘overabundance’ of an idea in the absence of direct governmental action—which there well might be when compared with some ideal state of public debate—then action disfavoring that idea might ‘unskew,’ rather than skew, public discourse.”

Be afraid, America. Be very afraid.

Those words, spoken by Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal, the runaway Democratic candidate for the Senate seat being vacated by Chris Dodd, invoke a powerful sense of respect for one who has put his life on the line in service of our country, if only they were true.  The NY Times report, published today, traces a long history of uncorrected misleading statements and outright falsehoods about Blumenthal’s military service record.

A statement from his campaign asserts:

“(Blumenthal) voluntarily joined the Marine Corps Reserves in 1970 and served for six months in Parris Island, S.C., and six years in the reserves.”

Even that service is to be commended, although the Times reports that Blumenthal received up to five deferments prior to his enlistment.  More important, the statement is utterly inconsistent with recorded evidence in speeches made by the candidate himself.  In 2008, Blumenthal spoke to a veterans’ group in Norfolk saying (video):

“We have learned something important since the days that I served in Vietnam…And you exemplify it. Whatever we think about the war, whatever we call it — Afghanistan or Iraq — we owe our military men and women unconditional support.”

The same year, at another event in Bridgeport:

“When we returned, we saw nothing like this…Let us do better by this generation of men and women.”

Nothing Blumenthal says at his press conference today can explain away statements like those.  The words he used clearly convey, and were intended to convey, that he was physically in Vietnam, which is simply untrue.

What was once a very comfortable campaign for Blumenthal to assume the liberal throne in Connecticut now is very much back in play, if he does not do the honorable thing and withdraw.

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.

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.

Today, in an opinion written by Justice Stephen Breyer, the Supreme Court issued a ruling in the case of US v. Comstock, which held that Congress has the power to civilly commit sex offenders beyond the period of the sentence received for their crime.  As Cato’s Dr. Roger Pilon points out:

The problem, as Breyer grants, is that Congress has only certain enumerated powers, and the only power it has to criminalize conduct, beyond the three crimes mentioned in the Constitution, is pursuant to one of those enumerated powers — in particular, through the last of its 18 enumerated powers, its power to enact laws that are “necessary and proper” for “carrying into execution” one of the previous 17 enumerated powers or ends. In other words, Congress can criminalize conduct only if doing so is necessary and proper for carrying out one of its other constitutionally authorized powers.

The issue of enumerated powers is at the core of our rapidly declining liberty.  Today’s decision is merely the latest in a long line of rulings that concedes to Congress powers that cannot be found in the text of the Constitution.  In dissent, Justice Thomas joined by Justice Scalia notes:

No enumerated power in Article I, §8, expressly delegates to Congress the power to enact a civil-commitment regime for sexually dangerous persons, nor does any other provision in the Constitution vest Congress or the other branches of the Federal Government with such a power.

Free from constitutional restraint, there is seemingly no end to Washington’s reach.  Sure, today they’re locking up sex offenders, but maybe the next decision validates ObamaCare, which also lacks a constitutional basis for congressional action.

There are a variety of other constitutional ways in which states can ensure the public is protected from dangerous criminals.  So while many might be inclined to cheer a court decision that extends the lockup of some of the country’s most despicable and habitually dangerous criminals, the endless expansion of federal power is a crime against our freedom.

That’s how Samuel Johnson defined a second marriage. But it applies with equal force to nearly every pronouncement that the international diplomatic community makes about Iran.

With news that the Islamic Republic has struck a fuel-swapping deal with Turkey, the hallelujahs are coming fast and furious. However, the subtle undercurrent for those who pay attention to such things is that this will only chink away at UN efforts to impose harsh sanctions (not that there’s much hope there — but even failure on such an incremental step redounds to Iran’s favor).

The less subtle upshot, however? Well, I’ll let the Iranians tell you themselves:

“There is no relation between the swap deal and our enrichment activities … We will continue our 20 percent uranium enrichment work,” said Ali Akbar Salehi, head of Iran’s Atomic Energy Organisation.

On a good day, the West’s diplomatic strategy towards Iran is “pray”.  On a bad day, it’s “duck and cover”.

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.

Of course, they’re not framing it that way.  Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA) and other Democratic Senators have proposed an amendment to the financial reform package to cap customer ATM fees.  But CNNMoney reports, “some experts suggest that capping fees might result in more harm than good for consumers.”

I realize the free market is too difficult for Senators to understand, but do we really need an “expert” to explain what the consequence of this would be?  ATM’s are a convenience because we’re too busy or lazy to walk inside our bank.  I know my bank doesn’t charge me to use their ATM’s, but other banks will charge me for the convenience of using theirs.  Banks provide more ATM’s because they know that people will go to the closest ATM in a pinch, even if it’s not their bank’s machine.  Customer gets convenience.  Bank makes a few bucks.

By capping these fees, banks will have far less incentive to provide extra ATM’s.  So the next time you are strapped for cash, there may not be a cashbox right around the corner.  And guess what?  Not only will competitor banks cut back their ATM’s, but so will your own bank where, if you’re like me, you can withdraw your cash for free.

Stop trying to help, Congress.  You’ve done far too much already.

Yesterday, the UN General Assembly announced the results of the election for the open seats on the Human Rights Council.  There were 14 seats available and 14 member-states seeking election, automatically demonstrating how much of a sham this institution is.  A report by Freedom House indicated that of those 14 nations, an incredible nine have human rights records that are questionable or simply not qualified.

The UN Resolution establishing the Council states among other things that:

…the Council shall be responsible for promoting universal respect for the protection of all human rights and fundamental freedoms for all, without distinction of any kind and in a fair and equal manner…

…the Council should address situations of violations of human rights, including gross and systematic violations, and make recommendations thereon…

…Make recommendations to the General Assembly for the further development of international law in the field of human rights…

This organization will now be guided by the enlightened leadership of Libya, Angola, Mauritania, Qatar and Malaysia, the five new members with human rights records of “Not Qualified”.  What makes one unqualified to be a leader in the field of human rights you ask?  According to Freedom House, here’s just a taste:

Angola: “Lengthy pretrial detention is common, and prisoners are subject to torture, severe overcrowding, sexual abuse, extortion, and a lack of basic services”

Libya: “Political parties have been illegal for more than 35 years and organizing or joining anything akin to a political party is punishable by long prison terms and even the death sentence”

Malaysia: “Religious freedom is restricted in Malaysia, as practicing a version of Islam other than Sunni Islam is prohibited”

Hypocrisy of this magnitude has always been rampant on the international scene.  This is but a reminder of the level of compromise required for everyone to get along.  Read the Freedom House report and remember why America is exceptional.