Freedom Line Blog

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.

After an erratic end to last week’s trading filled with ‘typos’ and frozen stocks, the Dow and markets all over the world are rallying on news that the European Central Bank will create a trillion dollar fund to buy government and private debt to keep lending liquid.  With the help of the IMF and the Euro-using nations, the fund will prop up troubled governments.

The response of surging stock markets does not mean this is a wise and sound policy.  Investors merely feel the momentary comfort that there will be enough stability in the short term for money to be made.  But this plan is little different from the $50 billion rainy day bailout fund batted around the debate for financial reform here in the United States, other than the sources of funding.

Such measures create perverse incentives for market actors, whether a country like Greece, or private firm like Goldman Sachs, saying, “Go ahead, and continue to take big risks.  Don’t worry about the consequences.  We’ve got your back.”  Why should Greece tackle its massive public sector union crisis?  Why wouldn’t Wall Street firms go out on a limb for a big potential gain, if there were a multi-billion dollar bailout fund to catch them if they fall?

Markets are all about incentives.  Rainy day bailout funds create the wrong incentive.

“Beware Greeks bearing gifts,” the Iliad-inspired saying goes.  Perhaps now we should amend it to add “especially those bought with on sovereign credit.”  Fresh off a visit to ground zero in Athens, Bill Frezza makes his contribution on how to handle Greece’s imploding debt crisis:

Throw Greece out of the European Union. Let them default on their debts. Teach buyers to beware before they invest in sovereign bonds. Dare Greece to print Drachmas by the wheelbarrow. Put the whole country on the public payroll then challenge them to demonstrate what a truly egalitarian society looks like. Maybe a dramatic spectacle of what a workers paradise looks like under the media’s glare will teach us what’s in store if we don’t change our ways.

Democracy is broken. You can’t mix Freedom and Free Lunch. One or the other has got to go.

Like the Trojans, it’s time for the Greeks to reap the consequences of some very poor decisions.

H/T: RealClearMarkets

Admit it; the headline isn’t impossible to believe.  It’s even less surprising to realize that all of the major criticisms of the Manchurian Candidate-turned-President – lacks relevant experience, a paper trail, or any notable accomplishment aside from self-promotion –are being lodged against his most recent Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan.  Sure, as an Assistant White House Counsel, former Harvard Law dean, and Solicitor General she’s held some important positions.  But a light scrubbing of that parchment is revealing almost no key accomplishments with any of them.

After reading all of Kagan’s scholarly publications in two decades as an academic – three law review articles, two small essays, and two brief book reviews – law professor Paul Campos makes this observation about its quality in The Daily Beast:

At least in theory Kagan could compensate somewhat for the slenderness of her academic resume through the quality of her work. But if Kagan is a brilliant legal scholar, the evidence must be lurking somewhere other than in her publications. Kagan’s scholarly writings are lifeless, dull, and eminently forgettable. They are, on the whole, cautious academic exercises in the sort of banal on-the-other-handing whose prime virtue is that it’s unlikely to offend anyone in a position of power.

How Obama-esque.  Until, that is, ultimate power is achieved and the offending can begin in earnest.

Two weeks ago, in a commentary entitled Obama’s Big Fat Greek Bailout, we noted the alarming parallels between Greece’s meltdown and America’s trajectory.  Following years of unsustainable welfare-state spending, Greece’s deficit stands at 13% of gross domestic product (GDP), and its cumulative debt stands at 110% of GDP.  Unfortunately, America isn’t far off, with a deficit approaching 11% of GDP and cumulative debt under Obama heading toward 90% of GDP.

Well, other observers are beginning to draw the same parallel we did.  Robert Samuelson notes his commentary The Welfare State’s Death Spiral that “virtually every advanced nation, including the United States, faces the same prospect.”  Pat Buchanan echoes our observation in his commentary The End of La Dolce Vita:

For the nations of Europe have made commitments beyond their capacity to keep, given their growing debts and aging populations.  And America is not all that far behind.  While the federal deficit is not 14% of GDP, it was 10% in 2009 and may reach 11% in 2010.  Trillion-dollar deficits are projected through the decade, bringing the public debt – held by citizens, companies, foreign governments and sovereign wealth funds – close to 100% of GDP.  And the unfunded liabilities of Social Security, Medicare and federal pensions rival those of Western Europe.  States like California and New York, larger than Greece, look a lot like Greece.”

And today, we wake up to the news that Fannie Mae seeks yet another $8.4 billion federal lifeline.  Fannie was originally rescued by the federal government in September 2008, but at least that bailout was capped at $400 billion.  Last year, however, the Obama Administration agreed to remove even that limit, pledging unlimited loss coverage. Fannie’s total now stands at $83.6 billion, with Fannie Mae’s and Freddie Mac’s cumulative bailout costing American taxpayers $145 billion.

But just like Greece, whose original bailout estimate of $45 billion has now risen to $1 trillion, there is no end in sight for Fannie, Freddie or the United States.  Who knows how many more bailouts will be sought by Fannie and Freddie, not to mention other dysfunctional states like California and industries dominated by unions whose bosses are on Obama’s speed dial?

Can you hear the Greek wedding music growing louder?

Sports and politics have once again collided.  Responding to a protest of sorts by the NBA’s Phoenix Suns, Arizona Governor Jan Brewer penned a special to ESPN.com disputing misinformation about SB 1070.  The governor took the unusual step because of calls for boycotting Arizona-based sports events, among other venues.

Along with a few purple prose moments with sports metaphors, Brewer lays out the hard facts about the federal government’s failure to enforce immigration laws.  In 2009, there were 316 kidnappings in Phoenix, making it the nation’s kidnapping capitol.  Today, there are approximately 6,000 prisoners in Arizona who are foreign nationals costing state taxpayers roughly $150 million a year.

Getting back to the boycott issue, Governor Brewer makes an assertion no one can reasonable disagree with:

A boycott that would actually improve border security would be to boycott illegal drugs. Dramatically less drug use and production would do wonders for the safety of all our communities.

We’ll see how that goes over.

Apparently, President Obama’s penchant for dithering is contagious.  Solicitor General and potential Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan has failed to respond to the Court’s request for a brief describing the Administration’s view on another Arizona immigration law.  (This one fines employers for hiring illegal immigrants.)  Now that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce is fast-tracking an appeal of the Grand Canyon State’s newest attempt to enforce federal law, Kagan very likely won’t be able to ignore taking a side.

Surprisingly, though, the former Dean of Harvard Law School has written or said scarcely anything about law in her two decades as a legal academic.  From the L.A. Times Supreme Court reporter David Savage:

She does not have a record as a judge or legal advocate, and she did not write widely on legal topics, potentially making it difficult for Republicans to oppose her if she is nominated.

Shouldn’t such a statement knock her out of contention?

So far, all we know about Kagan is that she has establishment Ivy League credentials, holds fashionable elite positions, knows the right people, and is a member of a favored Democratic minority group.  Apart from a vague reputation as a “consensus builder” at Harvard, she barely has a year under her belt as an appellate advocate.  Isn’t it a little early to promote her?

C’mon; it’s not like she’s running for President of the United States – this is important!

According to a book review she wrote back in 1995, Supreme Court short-lister Elena Kagan wants to judicial nominee hearings to get back to the good ole’ days of Robert Bork.  As reported by ABC News:

Kagan argues that the Bork hearing should be a “model” for all others, because even though it ended in the candidate’s rejection, the hearings presented an opportunity for the Senate and the nominee to engage on controversial issues and educate the public.

“The real ‘confirmation mess’ ” she wrote, “is the gap that has opened between the Bork hearings and all others.”

“Not since Bork,” she said, “has any nominee candidly discussed, or felt a need to discuss, his or her views and philosophy.”

“The debate focused not on trivialities,” she wrote, but on essentials: “the understanding of the Constitution that the nominee would carry with him to the Court.”

At bottom, Kagan called for an open, “educative” process that put differing constitutional philosophies under the microscope.  I’m all for it; so too are most conservatives.  It will be interesting to see if and when Kagan is nominated by President Barack Obama to fill the next vacancy if she still thinks that way when it’s her turn to defend her views.

After all, Bork was the last nominee to make it to the hearing room and not be confirmed.

If you’re looking for a pick-me-up amidst the travails of the Gulf oil disaster, Greek riots, and technologically crazed financial markets, check out Ted Nugent’s recent commentary praising the Tea Party movement.

This glorious experiment in self-government is not supposed to be a spectator sport as it has been reduced to for so long. As the boss of government, we the people were supposed to stay in touch with politics and politicians, making sure our will was the force behind policies and law making.

Remember that? The Tea Party Americans do, and we are demanding its return immediately. The New Deal was a raw deal and the Great Society was for losers. A hand out creates the curse of dependency. A hand up is nationalism at its finest.

This tribute to liberty is required reading for anyone in search of some good, rock-ribbed conservative truths told as only a Great American like Ted Nugent can.

H/T: Human Events

Only in Washington, D.C. does the title of this post make any sense.  When gauging the state of jobs in our country, most look to the figure produced by the Bureau of Labor Statistics referred to as “unemployment.”  That number rose last month from 9.7 to 9.9 percent.  Yet the economy added 290,000 non-farm jobs to payrolls.

Obama is upbeat about the numbers as 290,000 people who were not working last month are today.  The silver lining of the unemployment figure is the assumption that some people who gave up on job searching are back at it and thus are counted in the unemployment number again.

But there are plenty of reasons to be skeptical about any assertions the jobs market is rebounding.  Since Obama came into office, Washington has exploded with public sector jobs.  The most illusory job creator is the Census Bureau, which balloons every ten years with temporary positions to complete the national survey.  Of the jobs created last month, the Census created 66,000, building up to the expected 1.2 million temporary jobs at the Bureau, which will not exist next year.

Furthermore, the underemployment rate, which also includes the unemployed who have quit job searching or have taken part-time work because they can’t find a full-time position, continues to climb.   Underemployment has risen from 16.5 percent to 17.1 percent since the beginning of the year.

And Obama has the gall to keep telling us the stimulus, the emergency $787 billion porker that if passed would prevent unemployment from rising above 8 percent, is working.

Lost amidst reports of the attempted bombing of Times Square, the Greek economic implosion, the massive oil leak in the Gulf, the ricocheting stock market, and the British elections this week was a heart-wrenching story from America’s heartland: the city of Nashville is underwater.

After 14 inches of rain fell in only two days, at least 29 are dead in the Southeast and economic damage in Nashville alone is estimated to have easily reached at least $1 billion. Huge swaths of the city have been without water or power. And the mainstream media has yawned.

In the interest of full disclosure, I should mention that I spent half a decade living in Nashville and consider it be one of America’s slices of perfection. The city’s reaction to this tragedy — particularly in light of the scant press — has proven me right. As a good friend said to me in a message earlier this week, “everyone’s pulling together — it’s not New Orleans.”

A story in this morning’s USA Today drives the point home. How many other American cities could be expected to responed with this much grace and dignity?:

“The people who were flooded need somebody to watch their kids while they’re tearing their houses apart, and we have a lot of stay-at-home moms,” Chastity Mitchell says. Others are doing laundry for families that now need every item of clothing they own washed. Dinner on Tuesday was 60 chickens donated by the Publix grocery store.

 The view from Riverwalk includes a limestone bluff that rises hundreds of feet on the far side of the Harpeth, yet the rural feel is just a 15-minute drive from downtown. The neighborhood of $200,000-$400,000 homes celebrates its proximity to the Harpeth with street names such as Bending River and Wide Water. 

Mitchell says he has spoken with only one person who has flood insurance. He says the eligibility rules must be re-evaluated.

“You just don’t expect something like this,” he says. “There’s no villain. There’s no bad guy. Some of the parts of Bellevue that have been flooded, you’d never expect the little Harpeth River to do that.” 

He adds, “We really don’t have time right now to point fingers at anyone. It’s time to come together and help your neighbors and make sure your neighbors have food, shelter and clothing.”

Three cheers for Nashville. And a prayer for its people.

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

Lee:  Democrats Exempt Big Labor Benefactors from Legislation Abridging Freedom of Speech
Ellis:  Who Is Kris Kobach and Why Should Proponents of Illegal Immigration Fear Him? 
Senik:  The Country – Not the GOP – is Moving to the Right
Groff:  The Government War on the American Diet

Freedom Minute Video:  Ten Lessons From the Age of Obama
Podcast:  Florida Attorney General on the Legal Battle Over Health Care Reform
Jester’s Courtroom:  Message in a Bottle: Don’t File Phony Lawsuits

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 an interview with CFIF, Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum discusses the lawsuit brought by at least 20 states challenging the constitutionality of ObamaCare and why the new law’s unprecedented mandates are an affront to individual freedom.

Listen to the interview here.