Freedom Line Blog

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

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

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

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

Barack Obama, the mainstream media and the political left immediately sought to scapegoat firearms and exploit last week’s San Bernadino attacks on behalf of their endless campaign to limit Second Amendment rights.  In an encouraging bit of news, however, a new Rasmussen survey shows that by more than a 3-to-1 margin, the overwhelming majority of Americans aren’t buying it:

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 69% of likely U.S. voters believe that the shooting incident in California last week is primarily a terrorism issue.  Just 20% think the massacre is primarily a gun issue, while seven percent (7%) think it’s about something else.”

That confirms William F. Buckley’s adage of the wisdom of the governed more than those who seek to lord over them, it also demonstrates that we remain steadfast in our support of the timeless individual right to keep and bear arms.

President Obama addressed the nation Sunday night from the Oval Office on the threat of terrorism and America’s response in light of last week’s atrocity in San Bernardino, California. The speech was . . . not good. Clichéd. Condescending. Utterly uninspired and uninspiring.

And that’s not all.

Marc A. Thiessen, Washington Post: “Usually when a president delivers a prime-time address to the nation, he has something new to announce — like, say, a new military strategy. Not President Obama. Like a notorious Christmas ‘re-gifter,’ Obama did nothing more Sunday night than repackage his old, failing strategy in the shiny wrapping of tougher language.”

Jim Geraghty, National Review Online: “At this point in his presidency, Obama speaks with only one tone, the slightly exasperated and sometimes not-merely-slightly exasperated ‘adult in the room’ who constantly has to correct his fellow Americans, who are always flying off the handle, calling for options that ‘aren’t who we are,’ betraying our values, and so on. He’s always so disappointed in us.”

George Condon, National Journal: “His low point may have come when he in­sisted on veer­ing in­to gun con­trol. If the point of the speech was to unite the coun­try and bring an anxious na­tion to­geth­er, bring­ing up one of the most di­vis­ive do­mest­ic polit­ic­al is­sues is not a great way to do that—par­tic­u­larly when the ad­min­is­tra­tion has struggled to ex­plain how the usu­al items on their gun agenda such as gun-show re­stric­tions and bet­ter back­ground checks would have made any dif­fer­ence in San Bern­ardino.”

The president’s venture into the gun control debate was particularly inept when he took up the cause of barring people on the U.S. no-fly list from buying guns. “To begin with,” he said. “Congress should act to make sure no one on a no-fly list is able to buy a gun. What could possibly be the argument for allowing a terrorist suspect to buy a semiautomatic weapon?”

There are at least two arguments. First, the no-fly list is rife with error and devoid of transparency — which is why the ACLU sued in 2010. Among those on the list: a 4-year-old child, Stephen Hayes of the Weekly Standard, Ted Kennedy, and at least 72 Department of Homeland Security employees. (Incidentally, Kennedy managed to get himself off the list — no easy feat.)

Second, there is the nontrivial matter of due process of law. The U.S. Senate last week rejected an amendment by Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) that would have empowered the federal government to bar a person from buying a gun if “the Attorney General . . . determines that the [buyer] is known (or appropriately suspected)” to have been involved in terrorism-related conduct “or providing material support support or resources for terrorism,” and “if the Attorney General ‘has a reasonable belief that the [buyer] may use a firearm in connection with terrorism.’”

“Can a person be denied constitutional rights, not based on a past criminal conviction or even a restraining order issued in court under a ‘preponderance of the evidence’ standard, but based just on the government’s suspicion?” UCLA Law professor Eugene Volokh asks and offers an answer at the Volokh Conspiracy:

I can’t see how that’s constitutional. And though the bill would have let the buyer go to court to challenge the attorney general’s decision, the attorney general would simply have had to show by a preponderance of the evidence that the two elements were satisfied — that the attorney general appropriately suspected the buyer and that she had a reasonable belief about what the buyer may do. Plus the evidence supporting the attorney general’s position might never be shared with the buyer, which may make it impossible for the buyer to fairly challenge it, or aired in open court. . . .

But the problem would be even more serious when we’re dealing with the denial of an explicitly guaranteed constitutional right, and not just the denial of the admittedly very important ability to fly on airplanes. If you have a constitutional right to do something, the government has to do more than just provide the attorney general’s suspicion and speculation as a basis for denying you that right. This isn’t a supposedly modest, limited gun control measure. It cuts to the heart of the constitutional right itself.

The president and congressional Democrats are demagoguing this question. They haven’t been able to achieve the sort of “common sense” gun control they’ve long sought through conventional political means — good, old-fashioned persuasion — so they’re left to exploit a terrorist attack in order to subvert the Constitution. Again. “What could possibly be the argument”? Constitutional rights shouldn’t be subject to the whims and caprices of a craven political class, that’s what.

In an interview with CFIF, James Phillips, Senior Research Fellow for Middle Eastern Affairs at the Douglas and Sarah Allison Center for Foreign Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation, discusses how the Paris terrorist attacks underscore the expanding threat posed by ISIS, the evolving ISIS strategy, forming a U.S. response to ISIS and what it means for Russia to “have skin in the game.”

Listen to the interview here.

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

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

Barack Obama, the man who once dismissed ISIS “junior varsity” and labeled it “contained” mere hours before Friday’s deadly attacks in Paris, held a press conference this morning while attending the G-20 summit in Turkey.

It is worth watching in its entirety, if for no other reason than that he was forced to confront reporters challenging him about his pronouncements regarding ISIS and his anti-terrorism policies.  Most notable, however, is the fact that Obama, as usual, maintains a listless, detached, dispassionate, cold demeanor when discussing radical Islamic terrorism and the acts it undertakes.  But note his sudden change in tone, how animated and forceful he becomes when he shifts his focus toward fellow American political figures whom he accuses of anti-Islamic bigotry.  Would that Obama demonstrated the same hostility toward America’s overseas enemies as he does fellow Americans who happen to hold different political points of view.

It’s increasingly difficult for anyone to deny that Obama directs his disgust more toward fellow Americans than he does foreign terrorism.

In an interview with CFIF,  Caitlin Poling, Director of Government Relations at the Foreign Policy Initiative, discusses Boko Haram, Nigeria’s failure to respond to actionable intelligence, security issues and human rights violations. 

Listen to the interview here.

In an interview with CFIF, Steven Bucci, Director at the Douglas and Sarah Allison Center for Foreign and National Security Policy at The Heritage Foundation, discusses U.S. attempts to build a coalition to defeat ISIS, whether ground troops are necessary to destroy the terrorist organization and President Obama’s UN Security Council presence.

Listen to the interview here.

In this week’s Freedom Minute, CFIF’s Renee Giachino discusses the worldwide threat posed by ISIS, the Obama Administration’s response and the need to act urgently and decisively.   

In an interview with CFIF, Chris Griffin, Executive Director of the Foreign Policy Initiative, discusses some of America’s most pressing foreign policy concerns, including ISIS and Iraq, Israel and Hamas, and Russia and Ukraine, and why it is imperative for the United States to improve its credibility in foreign policy.

Listen to the interview here.

In an interview with CFIF, Caitlin Poling, Director of Government Relations at the Foreign Policy Initiative, discusses terrorism in Africa, the kidnapping situation in Nigeria and why in 2012 then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton decided Boko Haram did not warrant a foreign terrorist organization designation.

Listen to the interview here.

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

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

As regular readers know, I’m something of a collector of asinine punditry. In the past, Tom Friedman, Joe Klein, and Gail Collins have all secured their place in my pantheon. But look out for the Daily Beast’s Michael Tomasky, who has been breaking land speed records for inanity of late. Here’s an excerpt from his latest, defending U.N. Ambassador (and likely Secretary of State nominee) Susan Rice:

… Are [Republicans] really considering filibustering the president’s choice to be the nation’s leading diplomat? That would constitute, among other things, an interesting form of minority outreach from the party that now says it’s so serious about winning over people of color. That party’s only two targets right now are Rice and Attorney General Eric Holder. Gee, what might they have in common, d’you think?

A couple points:

• Ignoring professional incompetence on the basis of race is not a form of ‘minority outreach.’ It’s a form of moral cowardice.

• These rabid right-wing bigots are masters of disguise. Tea Party enthusiasm for the likes of Allen West, Mia Love, and Herman Cain was obviously an elaborate misdirect. And we should probably add Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, and Susana Martinez to that list, since the hatred must extend to brown people as well.

The rest of Tomasky’s analysis has to be read to be believed.

He defends the choice of Rice to be the Administration’s public face on Benghazi (despite the president’s concession that she had nothing to do with the issue) by noting that “Secretary of State Hillary Clinton should have been the one to do those shows, and she was asked first, but she said no.” Oh, well, that explains that. Of course, why wouldn’t the Secretary of State be indisposed to respond to a security disaster involving American diplomats?

Defending Rice’s complete misrepresentation of what happened in Benghazi, Tomasky trots out the Administration’s excuse de jure: “David Petraus has confirmed that while he knew or sensed from the start that it was a terrorist attack, America’s 16 intelligence agencies weren’t ready to say that publicly, mostly for fear of tipping off the bad guys. So Rice said what she was told to say.”

It doesn’t matter if it came from Petraeus or not — this is an incredibly stupid excuse. You worry about tipping off terrorists when you have intel before an attack and think that keeping it quiet could thwart the plot and/or bring the terrorists to justice. You don’t do it after an attack, when said terrorist group is telling you they did it. Acting like you don’t know who’s responsible at that point doesn’t make you calculating; it makes you an idiot. And if the Administration wants to claim that it knew what was going on all along, then it behooves them to explain why they chose an affirmative lie rather than a policy of relative silence.

The upshot for Tomasky: ‘Benghazi … was a terribly sad tragedy, but the kind of thing that, in a dangerous world, happens.” A man who responds to avoidable homicide with fatalistic detachment. That about says it all.

Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham preempted President Obama’s East Room press conference this morning by announcing that they would attempt to block — through use of the filibuster, if necessary — the potential nomination of U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice to replace Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State.

Their rationale: Rice was directly responsible for propogating the Administration’s now completely-disproved contention that the Benghazi terrorist attacks were the product of an angry mob that spontaneously turned to violence. Whether Rice is guilty of incompetence or deception (there’s really no other plausible alternative), McCain and Graham argued, no one who was party to the Benghazi debacle should be expecting a promotion.

That stance led to the president attempting to go all alpha male in his remarks at the White House:

“When they go after the U.N. ambassador, apparently because they think she’s an easy target, then they’ve got a problem with me,” Obama said. “And should I choose, if I think that she would be the best person to serve America in the capacity at the State Department, then I will nominate her.”

“Then they’ve got a problem with me?” Obama might as well have gone with “Nobody puts baby in a corner.”

No one is actually afraid of this president. Which is why Graham’s response was so perfect:

Mr. President, don’t think for one minute I don’t hold you ultimately responsible for Benghazi.  I think you failed as Commander in Chief before, during, and after the attack.

Just so. The White House is going to need more than bluster to dodge accountability for what happened in Libya.

Mark my words: if Barack Obama is reelected, he will be thrust into scandal perhaps before he even takes the oath of office for a second time. Though the media — with Fox as virtually the only exception — is studiously avoiding the scandal of Americans being abandoned during the terrorist attack in Benghazi, the implications are far too sweeping to be suppressed for long (particularly if, as Newt Gingrich has suggested, there is a damning paper trail floating around out there). The most concise reading of this development — and, in my judgment, the most accurate — is this one from John McCain:

This president is either engaged in a massive cover-up deceiving the American people or he is so grossly incompetent that he is not qualified to be the commander in chief of our armed forces. It’s either one of them.

Just so.

I have a slightly different take on last night’s debate than Quin. Like my colleague, I thought that Romney’s performance was serviceable, though I won’t go so far as to say he ‘won.’ Truth be told, I don’t think either candidate did much to improve their standing with the small slice of the electorate that still remains undecided, as that group tends to prize style over substance and the constant sniping between the two candidates probably left the swing voters cold to the political process as a whole (that tendency also worked at cross-purposes with both campaigns’ efforts to win over female voters, who are notoriously averse to that kind of incivility).

I also saw a missed opportunity last night, but it wasn’t Obamacare (where I think Romney is unavoidably uncomfortable); it was Libya, where he completely botched an opportunity to call Obama out on his administration’s meandering, thumbless response to the attack in Benghazi (damage that was compounded by moderator Candy Crowley inappropriately — and incorrectly — intervening to agree with Obama that he had framed the assault as a terrorist attack from the beginning).

After the first debate, sources inside the Romney campaign made it known that they had encouraged the candidate to speak in a natural tone — as if he were addressing a group of investors — rather than memorizing sound bites and talking points. It worked for Romney as long as the topic was the economy, where he is in his element. But I hope that the team in Boston encourages a little more thoughtful planning as we head towards Monday night’s foreign policy debate.

Romney has never shown a particularly deep interest in — or understanding of — foreign policy, a trait which I’ve noted in the past could be a potential liability (though his instincts are, of course, far preferable to Obama’s). While I think next week’s debate will easily be the least consequential of the three (both because it’s last chronologically, and because foreign policy will not be a central issue of this campaign), Romney still can’t afford to be as lost at sea as he was at the end of last night’s town hall. Time to hit the briefing books.

It’s not an overstatement to say that the Heritage Foundation has done the nation a service with its new video chronicling the Obama Administration’s deceit and incompetence regarding the fatal attack on our consulate in Benghazi:

I’d love to see this turned into an ad aired during the presidential debate on foreign policy at the end of this month.

Over the last 20 years or so, the conservative movement has undergone a renaissance in its posture towards the news media. The right has become more aggressive about flagging bias when it sees it, and the proliferation of cable and online news sources has created the market conditions for conservatives to counterprogram big media’s overwhelmingly liberal agenda.

During that time, many of us have developed a pretty thick skin for media malpractice. We know it’s there and we try to get it the public shaming it deserves, but we also take it is a given. But even those of us anesthetized to the practice have been taken aback by how badly the mainstream media has dropped the ball on foreign policy coverage over the past month or so — a practice exemplified by the press’s obsession with Mitt Romney’s (totally justified) reaction to the violence in the Middle East, even while the Obama Administration was proving itself to be at best clueless — and at worst, intentionally dishonest — about what was happening in the region.

Through that prism, it’s all the more remarkable that it took the Washington Free Beacon, a relatively new conservative investigative outlet to unearth this story:

Hackers linked to China’s government broke into one of the U.S. government’s most sensitive computer networks, breaching a system used by the White House Military Office for nuclear commands, according to defense and intelligence officials familiar with the incident.

One official said the cyber breach was one of Beijing’s most brazen cyber attacks against the United States and highlights a failure of the Obama administration to press China on its persistent cyber attacks.

…

According to the former official, the secrets held within the WHMO include data on the so-called “nuclear football,” the nuclear command and control suitcase used by the president to be in constant communication with strategic nuclear forces commanders for launching nuclear missiles or bombers.

The office also is in charge of sensitive continuity-of-government operations in wartime or crises.

The former official said if China were to obtain details of this sensitive information, it could use it during a future conflict to intercept presidential communications, locate the president for targeting purposes, or disrupt strategic command and control by the president to U.S. forces in both the United States and abroad.

Pretty jarring, right? But this ought to soothe your nerves:

… Officials said President Barack Obama was not notified about the cyber attack—which was traced to China when it was first discovered—but was informed about the incident later.

… [White House Press Secretary Jay Carney] sought to play down the significance of the incident and declined to provide specifics when asked if the attacked computer network was located within the White House Military Office. That office is in charge of presidential communications, travel, and the nuclear command and control suitcase known as the “football.”

“Let’s be clear: this is an unclassified network,” Carney said. “These types of attacks are not infrequent, and we have mitigation measures in place.”

“In this instance, the attack was identified, the system was isolated, and there is no indication whatsoever that any exfiltration of data took place,” he said, adding that the attack “never [had] any impact or attempted breach of any classified system.”

So no worries — the Chinese military was just trying to break into our most sensitive computer systems. They didn’t actually get anything.

Sleep tight, America.

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

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