Freedom Line Blog

Taking a bit of time off from his day job as Iran’s Centifuger-in-Chief, the ever lovable and always insightful Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has confided to ABC’s equally cuddly George Snuffleupagus that he’s been hearing Osama bin Laden is living in Washington.

At least it’s not Lindsay Lohan or John Edwards. 

Someone please tell Janet Napolitano to send a memo suggesting that Osama be kept off White House guest lists.  Since she’s having so much trouble over other lists, she may have missed that potential embarrassment.

Just last month, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit held unanimously that Obama’s Federal Communications Commission (FCC) doesn’t possess authority to nationalize the Internet via so-called “Net Neutrality.” And in the court of public opinion, the American electorate opposes this destructive scheme to dictate Internet traffic flow by a 2-to-1 margin.

So how is the hyper-politicized FCC choosing to respond?  By reverting to decades-old New Deal-era laws to shoehorn the Internet into statutes drafted for 1930s landline telephones. Since the advent of the Internet era in 1996, Congress, the courts and the FCC have rightfully designated the Internet an “information service,” and therefore subject to different rules than archaic early telephone lines.

But according to news reports, FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski will announce today his reckless “damn the torpedoes” approach.  Just as Obama, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid reverted to every available scheme to impose ObamaCare on an unwilling public, the FCC will apparently adopt the same approach to federalize Internet service, one of the few sectors that has maintained its dynamism during the economic downturn.  With its humiliating Court of Appeals defeat to one side and looming November elections on the other, yet another Obama Administration arm thus prefers hyperpartisanship over compromise and reasonability.

As always, American consumers and our economy will pay the price for this component of the Obama Agenda, since it will stifle the private investment and broadband buildout necessary to keep pace with ever-increasing Internet use.  Fortunately, this scheme will ultimately meet the same result handed down by the Court of Appeals last month, but only after years of costly litigation, regulatory limbo and acrimony.

Justice will prevail and we will win this battle, but it’s going to take another good fight.  The stakes are too high to relent.

As Goldman Sachs is reeled into court for potential securities fraud, a bigger fish is still swimming free and wreaking havoc on the public.  Freddie Mac, one half of the not-so-dynamic duo of government-backed mortgage peddlers, took another massive hit during the first quarter of the year.  The company, which is largely owned by the federal government after the 2008 bailouts, is set to ask for an additional $10.6 billion in “federal aid,” aka more bailouts.

With assistance and pressure from Washington to make housing affordable for all, one can see how Freddie Mac thinks that money grows on trees.  Unfortunately, all of us in the real world, from whom the government is funded, should be concerned how “We the Taxpayers” are going to come up with another $10 billion to flush down the toilet.  Not to mention why.

More troubling, while Goldman Sachs is getting grilled at congressional hearings, financial reform legislation, which unleashes a broadside against banks, but not a single provision addressing the troublesome Fannie and Freddie, will soon be ushered to a vote.  The Kansas City Star’s E. Thomas McClanahan stated it well:

“Wall Street’s excesses sent the markets and the economy off a cliff, but the seeds of the debacle were planted by politicians and richly fertilized by their creations: Fannie and Freddie…”

The shenanigans on Wall Street may or may not have brushed up against the law, but the opportunity and incentive would not have existed had the federal government and its lending arms, Fannie and Freddie, not insisted on giving mortgages to folks who could not afford them.  Congress should remember as they point a finger at Wall Street that four fingers are pointing back at them.

From the people who gave you Syria and Zimbabwe on the Human Rights Commission, comes the latest piece of evidence that the UN is an institution dedicated to the social promotion of vice: Iran’s elevation to membership on the United Nations Commission on the Status of Women.

Though press coverage of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s speech at Turtle Bay on Monday largely focused on nuclear policy, Iran’s benevolence towards the fairer sex did come up yesterday. Per Fox News:

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Tuesday appeared to defend his country’s recent re-election to a seat on the U.N. Commission on the Status of Women, arguing that Iranian women are “highly respected” in his country while 70 percent of European women are physically abused.

Speaking at a news conference in New York, Ahmadinejad said that a “woman is the symbol of beauty of God” in his country while there is “no dignity left for women in Europe.”

And how precisely is that dignity maintained in Persia? Just ask Tehran’s top cop:

Brig Hossien Sajedinia, Tehran’s police chief, said a national crackdown on opposition sympathisers would be extended to women who have been deemed to be violating the spirit of Islamic laws. He said: “The public expects us to act firmly and swiftly if we see any social misbehaviour by women, and men, who defy our Islamic values. In some areas of north Tehran we can see many suntanned women and young girls who look like walking mannequins.

“We are not going to tolerate this situation and will first warn those found in this manner and then arrest and imprison them.”

It’s a wonder that every feminist in the Western world isn’t a neoconservative.

With the Obama Administration and congressional leadership scrambling to find new revenue to pay for their big government agenda, there is increasing speculation about the imposition of a new Value Added Tax (VAT).  In his latest cartoon, Pulitzer Prize-winner Michael Ramirez illustrates what a VAT would mean for the average American.

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

That was the topic taken up by two of the nation’s finest economic journalists over the weekend.

Newsweek’s Robert Samuelson, one of the few legitimate talents left on that particular sinking ship, says yes:

… What’s missing [to promote a global economic rebalancing] is a sizable revaluation of China’s currency, the renminbi. Fred Bergsten of the Peterson Institute thinks the renminbi may be 40 percent undervalued against the dollar. This gives China’s exports a huge advantage and underpins its trade surpluses. Other Asian countries fear altering their currencies if China doesn’t change first. “They’ll lose ground to China,” notes Hensley. The European Union, Brazil and India all feel threatened by the renminbi. President Obama wants U.S. exports to double in five years. That’s probably unrealistic, but it’s impossible if the renminbi isn’t revalued.

Samuelson is rarely deserving of a public refutation, but gets one (though it’s not targeted at him) from a recent column by the always-insightful Steve Forbes, who lays the China hysteria to rest:

… A decade and a half ago China fixed the yuan to the dollar. If there had been any mistake in the exchange rate it would have been flushed out in trade patterns fairly quickly. Again, to simplify: If you sell a bottle of wine for four loaves of bread but suddenly notice you’re getting only two loaves, you’ll adjust your price pretty quickly to ensure you’ll get those four loaves again.

 By fixing the yuan to the dollar Beijing outsourced its monetary policy to the Federal Reserve. And for this “manipulation” Washington politicians and policymakers are in a lather of outrage. This fixing of a measure of value has enormously facilitated commerce–and thus prosperity. During the last 15 years U.S. exports to China have increased 650%, China’s exports to the U.S. almost 670%.

As I noted in my criticism of Obama’s exports fetish in this year’s State of the Union, a focus on so-called “trade deficits” is meaningless. Forbes gives an excellent explanation:

The notion that a trade deficit or surplus indicates anything about an economy’s health is also mistaken. The U.S. has had a trade deficit with the rest of the world for some 350 years out of the 400-plus since Jamestown was settled in 1607. Focusing on deficits and surpluses ignores equally important flows of capital, as well as the phenomenon of supply chains and the intracompany trade that crosses borders.

Americans will survive Beijing’s economic policies intact. Whether we can say the same about Washington’s is another question altogether.

Amidst the endless onslaught of regulatory aggression by the Obama Administration, it’s nice to receive some potentially good news every now and then.

On that note, reports are surfacing that Obama’s Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and its Chairman Julius Genachowski may be abandoning their effort to regulate the Internet via “Net Neutrality.”  According to sources, Genachowski has smelled the coffee following the D.C. Court of Appeals decision rebuking the FCC’s power grab:

The sources said Genachowski thinks ‘reclassifying’ broadband to allow for more regulation would be overly burdensome on carriers and would deter investment. But they said he also thinks the current regulatory framework would lead to constant legal challenges to the FCC’s authority every time it attempted to pursue a broadband policy.”

That is precisely correct.  “Net Neutrality” would have an effect 180 degrees opposite of what its name implies by increasing governmental interference over the heretofore free Internet, and would trigger a flood of litigation and regulatory limbo.  Ultimately, the FCC would meet a judicial rebuke similar to the one it just suffered in the Court of Appeals.

“Net Neutrality” isn’t dead yet, and this is certainly no time to rest.  Those of us who believe in individual freedom and limited government must keep up our pressure and efforts to stop this big government boondoggle.  Still, it’s nice to receive potentially positive news once in a while to see that our efforts are having a positive effect.

Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said Monday that the White House will put its “boot on the throat of BP” to make certain the oil company takes all necessary measures to control the spill and minimize its effects in the Gulf.

The image evoked by Mr. Gibbs is one of the harshest I’ve seen used by the White House against a private organization. Not even Wall Street has been so rebuked. Come to think of it, this administration hasn’t used such language against a sworn enemy like Iran. Stop and think about the image Mr. Gibbs invokes. The boot belongs to the party in power, the White House, while the choking and gasping wind-pipe belongs to BP.

Of course BP is worthy of a tough reprimand and should be held responsible for its role in the Gulf disaster. It’s just unnerving when those in power use such intimidating language when talking about a civil matter.

And it’s the Tea Parties that are accused of over-the-top language?

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 is it with Barack Obama and his habitual slurs against police, anyway?

Speaking about Arizona’s new immigration law during one of his “perpetual campaign” rallies in Iowa, Obama employed his usual caricature of Gestapo-like American police officers:

You can imagine if you’re a Hispanic American in Arizona, your great-great-grandparents may have been there before Arizona was even a state.  But now, suddenly, if you don’t have your papers and you took your kid out to get ice cream, you’re going to be harassed.  That’s something that could potentially happen.”

“You’re going to be harassed?”

Well, if you’re living in Community Organizer-in-Chief Obama’s world, anyway.  Recall that he descended into the same anti-police slander when he accused Cambridge, Massachusetts police of acting “stupidly” during the Officer Crowley-Professor Gates incident.  It turned out, of course, that Officer Crowley behaved professionally, just as almost all of our nation’s officers do on a daily basis.

Well, at least we know now that Obama was paying attention during Reverend Jeremiah “G-d Damn America” Wright’s sermons.

Thank goodness for people like Anne Meagher Northup, a commissioner on the federal Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC). Writing on her blog this week, Commissioner Northup provides an insider’s first-hand perspective on how big government bureaucracy suffocates small businesses unable to satisfy the sheer regulatory costs and testing burdens heaped upon such harmless everyday products as children’s toys.

What’s that you say?  You haven’t heard about the pandemic of American children suddenly dropping like flies after playing with their plastic dolls?

That hasn’t happened, of course.  But what has happened is the CPSC imposing unmanageable costs of testing and compliance upon small businesses.  To illustrate, Commissioner Northup discusses the example of a Kentucky doll maker who suddenly faces testing costs of $1500-$4500 per doll:

Last week we selected several more products to eliminate from our product offerings. The products are safe, do not violate any of the CPSIA standards and have been around for over 50 years, but they are too complicated and have too many different parts. Therefore they are too costly to have tested and retested over and over again to prove they are safe. I hope some small companies and some decent product selection can survive in this new world where all products are presumed to be guilty. The only survivors will be the ones that are safe and can also afford to prove they are safe.

The group of items that we decided to discontinue are several kinds of dolls that have lots of different colors and accessories and some plastic to test for phthalates. We would have an average about $1500/doll each time we had to test due to a batch change. If we order them 3 times per year it would be $4500/doll in testing costs to be certain that nothing had changed from any of the suppliers that provide the raw materials that make up the doll parts and/or colors and accessories. With 26 different types of dolls, that would come out to $117,000 per year we would spend on testing. Based upon our sales volume we would lose money every time we order the doll.”

Big government may not be doing much to reduce unemployment or stop destructive Ponzi schemes, but it’s certainly adept at crippling small businesses and removing harmless children’s toys from store shelves.

Last week, the governor of Florida and candidate for Senate jumped the GOP ship and embraced all the rhetoric one expects from an independent. Having broken his partisan shackles, Crist no longer supports Republican ideas or Democratic ideas, just what he says are good ideas in the best interest of Floridians. He has even gone so far as to go on the record as being undecided as to whom he would support for leadership or with which party he would caucus, if any.

But whom does he think he is kidding? Had he entered this race throwing party affiliation to the wind, then perhaps many would have given him points for courage. The reality is he chose to run as a Republican. When continuously pressed by Fox’s Chris Wallace about the possibility of an independent run, he reasserted his Republican candidacy. Only in the waning hours before a filing deadline facing certain primary defeat at the hands of Marco Rubio did Crist rebuke his entire career as a Republican. As GOP strategist Brett Doster told Politico:

Charlie should get as much credit for his courage and boldness in making this move as the Titanic passengers did for boarding the lifeboats.”

This move represents what is really riling the public about politicians, a lack of integrity. With Obama and the Democrats promising the world and delivering little, Americans are tired of politicians saying one thing and then doing another. They are tired of leaders who look out for themselves first and the people second.

The GOP ship has sailed away from Charlie Crist. In the next few weeks Crist will begin to see just how hard it is to navigate a lifeboat to the shores of victory without his paddle (party organization), his wallet (party fundraising), but more importantly without his integrity.