Freedom Line Blog

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.

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

Senik:  Five Good Ideas from Conservative U.S. Senate Candidates
Lee:  “Net Neutrality” Regulation: Obama’s Imperious FCC Shifts to Plan B  
Ellis:  The Facts About the Failed Times Square Bomber: Why the Liberal Establishment Can’t Face Reality
CFIF Staff:  I Read the News Today, Oh Boy!

Freedom Minute Video:  Then They Came for the Internet
Podcast:  Author Discusses How Afghan President Hamid Karzai Came to Power
Jester’s Courtroom:  Man Sues Goldman Sachs for Giving Good Advice

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 video, CFIF’s Renee Giachino discusses the latest scheme by Obama’s Federal Communications Commission to circumvent a federal court ruling in an effort to regulate the Internet.

On May 13, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton pledged that the U.S. would not abandon women’s rights and women’s opportunities if there is Afghan reconciliation with the Taliban to end the war.  “We will not abandon you, we will stand with you always,” she said.

Hey lady, why don’t you say that standing in your Oscar de la Renta pantsuit in the middle of Kandahar?  No?  We didn’t think so.

Come next January, a bevy of new Republicans in Washington are going to face the question that dogged Bill McKay, Robert Redford’s character in “The Candidate”, after finally winning office: “What do we do now?”

The Obama agenda leaves so little room for compromise with the center-right that the GOP has found it both politically expedient and ideologically consistent to throw up a wall of opposition. But when they have at least partial control of the reigns of power, that dynamic will change.

Conservatives searching for a role model when it comes time to lead should look to New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, who in only a few months has demonstrated the precondition of effective leadership in this age of runaway government: a spine of steel. Per a story in today’s edition of the Hill:

As the United States watches a debt crisis in Greece like a fiscal oil spill, waiting to see where it will spread first and when it will make landfall on our shores, Christie is tackling the nation’s worst state deficit — $10.7 billion of a $29.3 billion budget. In doing so, Christie has become the politician so many Americans crave, one willing to lose his job. Indeed, Christie is doing something unheard of: governing as a Republican in a blue state, just as he campaigned, making good on promises, acting like his last election is behind him.  

Upon taking office Christie declared a state of emergency, signing an executive order that froze spending, and then, in eight weeks, cutting $13 billion in spending. In March he presented to the Legislature his first budget, which cuts 9 percent of spending, including more than $800 million in education funding; seeks to privatize numerous government functions; projects 1,300 layoffs; and caps tax increases.

Much like Rudy Giuliani’s quest to rescue New York City from its own excess in the 1990s, Christie’s crusade shows a politican willing to sacrifice his career in order to save his constituents.  It’s a model for politicans from Greece to California. And soon it will be a model for the entire nation.

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?

Demonstrating again that transparent government was a hollow campaign promise, the White House has released a video of its own “interview” with Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan.  The Solicitor General sat down with White House bloggers to share some life background and general thoughts on the law peppered with White House talking points, including my favorite, that she understands how law affects “ordinary people.”

The lack of media access to this critical nominee should not come as a surprise, as Obama himself has not conducted a live solo press conference since last July.  The kicker is the way the administration seeks to manipulate media through such transparent antics as the Kagan interview.  This lack of accountability to the public has even got the folks at CBS riled up:

“This White House has taken its use of the web to a new level with this move,” said CBS News White House correspondent Peter Maer. “The ultimate unfiltered message. Kagan ‘in her own words’ without anyone else’s words.”

Adding:

Doing so allows the administration to better control its message – and, in this case, avoid any uncomfortable questions for their Supreme Court nominee.

CBS should be careful.  Obama doesn’t take kindly to dissenters.

In one of the more bone-chilling videos I’ve watched in a long time, a member of the Muslim Students Assocation (MSA) at UC San Diego tells Jewish conservative commentator David Horowitz that she supports genocide against his people.   The video posted on The Daily Caller shows Horowitz asking a simple question of the young woman:

“The head of Hezbollah has said that he hopes that we [Jews] will gather in Israel so he doesn’t have to hunt us down globally. For it or against it?”

The student coolly replies:

“For it”

This is at an American university, coming from a very American sounding voice.  UC San Diego is actually in La Jolla, CA, one of the ritziest zip codes in the country.  Where did this young woman learn to hate Jews with such intensity?

Obama’s foreign policy has consisted of traveling the globe, apologizing to the Muslim world and scolding Israel.  Anyone noticed all the love we’ve been getting back?  Instead, we’ve spawned our own Jihad Janes.  Continuing down this path only emboldens radical Muslims and their sympathizers, some where we’d least expect them.

According to politico.com, Florida Governor Charlie Crist, who started running for the U.S. Senate as a Republican, then switched to Independent when it became clear he would be trounced by Marco Rubio in the primary, has now made “official” that he will not return campaign contributions made to him by Republicans when he was running as a Republican.  A number of significant donors have asked for their money back.

With Crist, it’s always risky to pronounce his dishonorable act of the day so early, but it’s really tough to see how he can top this one by Margarita Time.

For the first time in 44 years, Communist North Korea has qualified for the World Cup finals, joining 31 other teams in South Africa this summer for the biggest spectacle in sport. Entering the tournament ranked 106th in the world, the lowest of any team competing, the team is not expected to finish with any points, particularly since it has been drawn in a group with the best in the world, Brazil, and the immensely talented Portugal and Ivory Coast.

Then again, very little is known about the team sent by Kim Jong Il.  The Wall Street Journal has dubbed it The International Team of Mystery.  The last time the North Koreans competed in the Cup, equally underestimated, they managed to force a draw with Chile, then stunned perennial powerhouse Italy, winning 1-0 and advancing to the quarterfinals.  For this tournament, they had to navigate a qualifying season of 16 games, which included past Cup finalists, South Korea, Iran and Saudi Arabia.

But as the WSJ explores, the most interesting thing about this team is the insight we can gain about the most closed culture on the planet.  Only a handful of its players have ever played professionally outside of North Korea, and those that have play in neighboring Russia and Japan.  They provide the only glimpse we have of these athletes’ lives.  One such player, Choe Myong Ho, told Russian media about his training ethic amid reports he did not own a TV or refrigerator:

“What is a refrigerator for? It allows you to get cold drinks in the summer… And if you do that, you could catch a cold and not be able to train.”

Really?  Is that what Glorious Leader told you?  According to the players, Kim Jong Il personally monitors the team’s progress and development.  This includes sending an agent to monitor Hong Young Jo for six months as he joined the professional Russian side FC Rostov.  Mr. Hong leads a quiet life in an apartment next to the stadium.  He has no car.  The joke in town is that he has no idea what his salary is because it all goes to Pyongyang.  The local paper has quoted him saying, “All my thoughts are on football and the party.”

Hopefully, for the sake of competition the North Koreans are able to come out and put on a good show and not be the doormat that everyone expects.  But more importantly, as the team steps into a rare spotlight, hopefully the world is reminded of the oppression of communism.

Former Attorney General Michael Mukasey pens a chilling recall of some terrorist history in today’s Wall Street Journal.

An excerpt:

In November 1990, Meir Kahane, a right-wing Israeli politician, was assassinated after delivering a speech at a Manhattan hotel by El-Sayid Nosair, quickly pigeonholed as a lone misfit whose failures at work had driven him over the edge.  The material seized from his home lay largely unexamined in boxes until a truck bomb was detonated under the World Trade Center in 1993, when the perpetrators of that act announced that freeing Nosair from prison was one of their demands.

“Authorities then examined the neglected boxes and found jihadist literature urging the attacks on Western civilization through a terror campaign that would include toppling large buildings that were centers of finance and tourism.  An amateur video of Kahane’s speech the night he was assassinated revealed that one of the 1993 bombers, Mohammed Salameh, was present in the hall when Nosair committed his act, and the ensuing investigation disclosed that Nosair was supposed to have made his escape with the help of another, Mahmoud Abouhalima, who was waiting outside at the wheel of a cab….”

The entire piece is yet another reminder, as if another were needed, that the organized, concentrated Islamic jihadist threat against this country cannot be wished away or denied, nor will it fade away.  The political lives of our leaders are measured in years.  Jihadists measure their cause in centuries.

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)

Following up on Ashton’s excellent post yesterday, one of the most salient facts about President Obama’s new Supreme Court nominee, Elena Kagan, is her total lack of a track record. This is not to indict Ms. Kagan for her lack of judicial experience –– more than a third of the justices in the Supreme Court’s history have come from outside what Patrick Leahy refers to as the “judicial monastery” (a phrase too sterling to have been coined by a U.S. Senator — at least in the era since Daniel Patrick Moynihan’s passing).

Rather the issue is — apart from Harvard Law’s ROTC scandal while she served as dean– that Kagan doesn’t seem to have an observable opinion on anything. As CNN and New Yorker legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin — a friend of Kagan’s since law school — observed upon news that she would be the nominee:

Judgment, values, and politics are what matters on the Court. And here I am somewhat at a loss. Clearly, she’s a Democrat. She was a highly regarded member of the White House staff during the Clinton years, but her own views were and are something of a mystery. She has written relatively little, and nothing of great consequence.

What Toobin regards as personal anecdotage, however, the New York Times’ always interesting (and often perplexing) David Brooks sees as pathological. As he says in the coda of today’s column:

What we have is a person whose career has dovetailed with the incentives presented by the confirmation system, a system that punishes creativity and rewards caginess. Arguments are already being made for and against her nomination, but most of this is speculation because she has been too careful to let her actual positions leak out.

There’s about to be a backlash against the Ivy League lock on the court. I have to confess my first impression of Kagan is a lot like my first impression of many Organization Kids. She seems to be smart, impressive and honest — and in her willingness to suppress so much of her mind for the sake of her career, kind of disturbing.

As Ashton mentioned yesterday, the same criticism could be equally applied to the pre-presidential Obama. But this isn’t just the provenance of the left. John Roberts presented much the same sort of blank slate prior to his elevation to the Court. And those already clamoring for a Marco Rubio presidential bid are running the same risk.

Consent of the governed is a meaningless concept when the governed aren’t told what they’re consenting to. If the Kagan nomination is a further indication that we’re living in an age of empty political vessels, the country will be worse off for it.

Today, a White House report brought more news from the Government War on the American Diet.  The First Lady, who has made fighting childhood obesity a signature project, discussed the findings of the report.  Despite administration protestations that they would rely on “bully pulpit” pressure when working with the food industry, suggestions for new federal regulations are being discussed.

The Task Force on Childhood Obesity, which released the report, is the muscle behind Mrs. Obama’s otherwise toothless awareness campaign.  The working group, comprised of the Secretaries of Health and Human Services, Agriculture, Interior and Education, as well as senior White House staff, has several regulatory designs in mind.  Just like the Santa Clara Co., California ban on “Happy Meal” toys, the task force recommends that popular media characters only be used to market healthy food.  Coming to a McDonald’s near you, The Ironman Veggie Platter! As CBS News reports:

“If voluntary efforts fail to limit marketing of less healthy products to young viewers, the task force suggests the FCC should consider new rules on commercials in children’s programming. It also challenges food retailers to stop using in-store displays to sell unhealthy food items to children.”

This type of persuasion is akin to a robber pointing his gun at you through his coat pocket.   The robber says, “Give me your money,” but implicit is, “or else I’ll shoot!”  When it comes to government, the “give me your money” option is always on the table.  The report also calls for an analysis of sales taxes on unhealthy food.

This is just another example of the European-style paternalistic state the Obamas have in mind.  Never mind freedom of choice, they’ll choose for us because Father-Government knows best.  Cass Sunstein, Obama’s Regulatory Czar, believes government can nudge the people to make the right decisions for themselves.  But those who wield the power of government know full well if the people don’t budge, they can be coerced.

A remarkable event is brewing in President Obama’s old childhood stomping grounds (see CFIF’s Ashton Ellis reporting here).  The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee has cleared the path for Republican Honolulu City Councilman Charles Djou and his congressional bid for Hawaii’s open seat by pulling all of its resources from his opposition.

In a May 22 special election, the candidates for the seat vacated by Democrat Neil Abercrombie are running without a primary.   Djou could win, with two candidates splitting the Democratic vote.  The DCCC ad pull follows recent polling showing Djou with an 8-point margin over the leading Democrat.

Djou would be the first Republican to represent Hawaii in Congress in twenty years and would be only the third member of the GOP to serve as a representative in the island state’s history.

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.

If you need proof of the wisdom of the Founding Fathers, there’s no better contrast than a comparison of the current political climates in the U.S. and our mother country, the United Kingdom.

In a wonderful essay entitled “Thunder on the Mountain”, RealClearPolitics political savant Jay Cost writes today:

D.C. might shine brilliantly to the eyes of some, but it is still just reflected light. For all their posturing, the establishment still works at the pleasure of the people. It just so happens that the people usually choose to renew their tenure.

Yet this year, it looks like the people are set to deliver a historic rebuke to the establishment. The portents of the coming reprimand are all around us.

This follows on an earlier passage where Cost observes:

… the people do indeed rule. While their power is limited, it is nevertheless unconditional where it exists. Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi need the assent of the people of the United States to govern this country. But the people don’t need any such thing. In the limited sphere where they rule, they are supreme.

Cost’s point is well-taken. During their terms in office, America’s elected officials are only limited by whatever constitutional strictures the judiciary sees fit to apply. But come election day, the gloves are off. Americans get the politicians they vote for.

Compare that to Great Britain, where today’s dominant story was the resignation of Prime Minister Gordon Brown as leader of the Labour Party. With Brown stepping down, it looks as if Labour and the Liberal Democrats may be forming a left-wing government; this despite the fact that the Conservative Party came within hailing distance of an outright majority. The UK may be about to get saddled with a government made up of its second and third choices, with the first place caucus left out in the cold.

This is the poverty of the parliamentary system, which makes the executive branch a function of legislative majorities. In addition to ignoring America’s important emphasis on checks and balances, it can also invite this sort of legerdemain aimed at usurping the will of the people.

Count your blessings, America — one of which was ending up on this side of the Atlantic.