His Economic Eminence celebrates free-market capitalism tomorrow, as he does every Saturday, via the nation’s most-fortunate airwaves, the happy conduit to Lorenzo’s gotta-gotta-listen syndicated radio show. Yep, The Larry Kudlow Show can be heard coast-to-coast from 10 a.m. to 1 p.m. Eastern via your local station, or on the Web (go here and click on “Listen Live,” and catch the show’s archives here) , and when you tune in – and trust me, you will – you’ll hear NR’s Economics Editor discussing the week’s big issues with the likes of NR’s own Robert Costa, James Pethokoukis,  David Malpass, Michael Darda, Michael Cuggino, Lee Munson, Conrad Black, Jennifer Rubin, and Steve Moore.

The Gang will be ruminating over Obama’s bum economy speech (promoting redistribution, not growth), his threatened government shutdown, Harry Reid’s tax-reform blockage, the Fed Chairmanship battle between Larry Summers and Janet Yellen, the IRS union’s opposition to Obamacare, Conrad’s take on America’s future, the six-year high for consumer confidence, and much more.

Three cheers for Ramesh’s piece in Bloomberg critiquing Chris Christie’s attack on Republican libertarians. Governor Christie’s attack was terrible politics, but — more important – it traffics more in caricature than substantive debate. To be sure, many of us who write about the war against jihadists — and in particular supported the war in Iraq — are familiar with the sneering name-calling of a small libertarian fringe, but I don’t know any serious foreign-policy-minded libertarian who endorses the pre 9/11 national-security infrastructure, and I’ve certainly never met any in the military (which, as I’ve discussed before, contains a strong libertarian element).

In reality, a more libertarian, less interventionist foreign policy may be in the cards whether Governor Christie likes it or not. Multiple constraints are driving America towards less intervention:

First, our military infrastructure is shrinking, rapidly. With the drawdown from Afghanistan, the end of the Iraq war, the sequester, and continued budgetary pressures, we may well see an Army of less than 400,000 active-duty troops. Large-scale interventions require large-scale forces, and the smaller size of all the major branches of the military will create its own limitations.

Second, there is little military or civilian appetite for nation-building. Nothing short of a direct attack on our country or a close ally (like South Korea) would currently motivate Americans to put substantial numbers of troops on the ground in harm’s way. There’s a reason why millions of Americans grew tired of our engagement in Afghanistan (and, before that, Iraq) that had nothing to do with pacifism or even ideology: quite simply, while they wanted to defeat our enemies, they were weary of attempting to transform near-medieval cultures. By late 2006 the Surge may have presented the best chance to defeat al-Qaeda in Iraq, but let’s not forget that the Surge was made necessary by many of our own military and diplomatic mistakes.

Third, we’re no longer naïve. We’ve spent decades throwing billions of dollars at ungrateful, brutal regimes. We’ve turned a blind eye to countless human-rights atrocities, and delivered pathetic platitudes about other nations, cultures, and religions — all in an effort to make sure that hostile nations (to paraphrase Sally Field) like us, really like us. Bill Clinton invited Yasser Arafat to the White House more than any foreign leader and the Second Intifadah was his gift in response. And can someone help me make sense of the administration’s bizarre embrace of the Muslim Brotherhood government in Egypt? There are good reasons why Rand Paul’s call to cut off most foreign aid strikes a nerve with Americans; most of the aid hasn’t worked, doesn’t work, won’t work, and still costs us billions.

Fourth, we trust the government less. It’s not just the corruption (IRS, Fast & Furious) or the political cowardice (Benghazi), it’s also the incompetence. Not even the most comprehensive security state in the world can survive incompetence. We have a distressing habit of identifiying and interviewing prospective terrorists — only to let them walk free and launch attacks. What if we’re not trading liberty for security but instead surrending liberty and privacy without getting a corresponding security benefit in return?

There is such a thing as a responsible and serious national-security libertarianism, and it’s simply a manipulative dodge to invoke the families of 9/11 victims to slander serious members of an opposing intellectual movement. I could just as easily invoke the families of those who died as a direct result of the utterly ludicrous political correctness that dominated many of our rules of engagement and targeting decisions in Iraq and Afghanistan to “rebut” nation-building and interventionism, but that would be just as much of a dodge. Let’s not play the victim card but instead grapple with the immensely difficult challenges presented by a hostile world, a decaying fiscal structure, and an increasingly incompetent and corrupt national government.

A group of College Republicans were denied admission to President Obama’s speech at the University of Central Missouri Wednesday, allegedly because of “security concerns.” A. J. Feather, Chairman of the Missouri College Republicans, filled in some more details today in an appearance on Fox News.

Feather, who was not a member of the group that day, reported that there were eight College Republicans total, six from the University of Central Missouri and two from the University of Missouri. They’d been protesting since about 2:00 p.m. in a small “public speech area” that was not visible or within earshot of Obama’s speech. They attempted to enter the speech at 3:40 and were turned away by security personnel (“they believe he was a police officer, he had ‘P.D.’ written on his hat,” Feather said) for “security reasons.”

Secret Service spokesman Brian Leary released a statement in the wake of the event saying that the event site was closed because the event site had reached maximum capacity. However, Feather said that the students were not told they were being turned away for that reason; in fact, the group had two extra tickets and met students who had left the event because of the heat.

Several of the College Republicans were reportedly wearing tea-party shirts, but Feather could only confirm that one student was wearing a “Mizzou College Republicans” T-shirt that had the national debt on the back, adding “I can’t imagine that [the shirt] was a security threat.”

Feather said he did not know if other students had been admitted at the same time the group was being turned away.

Once again, Paul Krugman appears to have buried his head, ostrich-like, in a pile of New York Times. On the heels of the Obama administration’s embarrassing admission that key parts of Obamacare won’t be up and running on time (despite the administration’s having had more than three years and three months to prep) — and in the wake of myriad polls showing support for Obamacare to be at or near an all-time low — Krugman writes, “Better-informed people on the right seem, finally, to be facing up to a horrible truth: Health care reform, President Obama’s signature policy achievement, is probably going to work.” To whom, one wonders, has Krugman been talking? David Frum? Bill Frist?

Krugman continues, “Although you’d never know it from all the fulminations, with prominent Republicans routinely comparing Obamacare to slavery, the Affordable Care Act is based on three simple ideas,” which he then proceeds to list.

“First, all Americans should have access to affordable insurance, even if they have pre-existing medical problems.” This is causing Americans’ insurance premiums to rise noticeably, rather than to drop by $2,500 as President Obama assured Americans they would.

“Second, people should be induced or required to buy insurance even if they’re currently healthy, so that the risk pool remains reasonably favorable.” This refers to the widely despised individual mandate, which the House just voted — by a margin of 77 votes (70 more than the margin by which Obamacare passed the House back in 2010) — to delay by a year. Twenty-two House Democrats bucked Obama and voted for this delay. That’s 22 more than the number of Republicans who voted for Obamacare back in 2010.

“Third, to prevent the insurance ‘mandate’ from being too onerous, there should be subsidies to hold premiums down as a share of income.” But in the wake of Obama’s lawless and unconstitutional decision to delay Obamacare’s employer mandate and its employer- and insurer-reporting provisions, Obamacare’s taxpayer-funded insurance subsidies will now be subject to rampant fraud — as eligibility to receive them will now be based on the “honor system.” Medicare and Medicaid already lose almost four times as much money to fraud as the nation’s ten largest health insurers (combined) make in profit. Taxpayers aren’t likely to be excited about being further fleeced just because Obama decided to empower himself with an after-the-fact line-item veto over the legislation that he spearheaded and signed into law.

Perhaps this blend of increased costs, undermined liberty, lawlessness in the executive, and surefire fraud helps explain why better-informed (or more sensible) Democrats seem, finally, to be facing up to the truth that Obamacare must go. As an ABC News/Washington Post poll found earlier this week, a plurality of “moderate or conservative” Democrats now oppose Obama’s centerpiece legislation.

It’s time to delay Obamacare from going into effect — and then, in 2017, to repeal it.

— Jeffrey H. Anderson is executive director of the newly formed 2017 Project, which is working to advance a conservative reform agenda.

Vowing to stay in the race for New York City mayor, Anthony Weiner tried in an impromptu press conference to shift the focus of his campaign to the middle class, but reporters continued to press him on the sexually-explicit correspondences he carried on with several women after his resignation from Congress in 2011.

Weiner responded to House minority leader Nancy Pelosi, who called his behavior “reprehensible,” telling reporters that she won’t be casting a vote in the upcoming election. He also decried the media’s ongoing attention into his private life, arguing that New York City voters “want to talk about their future and not my past.”

During the press conference, Weiner declined to take a question from a New York City public school teacher, saying he would address her after, though he did not. National Review Online’s Will Allen caught up with her, though. Peg Brunda, who calls herself a Democrat, said, “It bothered me that he is talking about middle class, middle class, middle class. Anybody who is an employee of New York City is middle class, how can he represent them?”

Brunda was also critical of Weiner’s wife, Huma Abedin. “I feel sorry for her,” she told Allen, “but she’s in a position where she’s making some decisions that I wouldn’t have made.”

Bob Filner, the mayor of San Diego, announced today that he will enter “intensive counseling” to deal with his sexual misconduct.

To date, seven women, including a retired Navy admiral, have revealed that they were sexually harassed by Filner. At today’s press conference, Filner expressed regret for his past actions, but did not announce that he would step down, saying instead that he intends to enroll in therapy for two weeks. “I am responsible for my conduct, and I must take responsibility for my conduct by taking action so that such conduct can never happen again,” said Filner, who continued: “Beginning on August 5th, I will be entering a behavior counseling clinic to undergo two weeks of intensive therapy.” 

While in therapy, Filner will continue to receive daily briefings on the city, but he will not be involved with the day-to-day administration of the city.

Several weeks ago, Filner first acknowledged that he had engaged in “inappropriate and wrong” behavior toward women but blamed it on “the generation” he came from.

Since then, the San Diego Democratic Committee has voted for Filner to resign, joining the calls of Republicans and Democrats across the country.  

Filner concluded with a commitment to become a better person and to earn the people’s forgiveness, pledging: “When I return on August 19th, my focus will be on making sure that I am doing right by this city by being the best mayor I can be, and the best person I must be.” 

Several lawmakers are asking the Internal Revenue Service about the actions it has taken against employees implicated in the agency’s targeting of tea-party groups. “Was [former commissioner of the Tax Exempt and Government Entities division] Joseph Grant asked to resign, and if so, on what grounds?” congressmen Darrell Issa and Dave Camp asked in a letter to the IRS’s acting administrator Danny Werfel. The lawmakers are also inquiring about the status of the agency’s former director of Exempt Organizations, Lois Lerner, and its former director of Rulings and Agreements, Holly Paz. “Were these individuals asked to resign, and if so, who requested their resignation and on what specific grounds? Do these individuals have access to IRS systems (including electronic mail), documents, or physical property?”

Iowa senator Chuck Grassley has also demanded information on Lerner’s employement status. In response, Werfel produced two charts outlining the various “adverse actions” federal agencies can take against senior officials. The documents, though, have not shed light on the issue: “We’re still not clear on Lerner’s status,” a Grassley spokeswoman tells National Review Online.

Lerner and Paz were placed on paid administrative leave in the wake of the scandal. National Review Online reported that Lerner was accessing the agency’s computer system through her IRS laptop weeks after she was put on leave but that, on June 13, the agency disabled both her account and that of Paz at the request of a lawyer in the chief counsel’s office. 

Camp and Issa asked Werfel to respond to them by August 7. 

As calls for him to resign increase, including from local and national Democratic leaders, San Diego mayor Bob Filner may instead seek to take time off for therapy, according to sources in city hall. KGTV 10 reports that a press conference today is possible.

Seven woman have come forward in the two weeks since he issued an apology video for having “failed to fully respect the women who work for me and with me.” Earlier today, Democratic National Committee chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz called on Filner to step down after the San Diego Democratic party did so as well.

Senator Rand Paul’s spokesman has responded to the shots that New Jersey governor Chris Christie took yesterday at libertarianian stances on national-security taken by Paul and others.

In remarks at a forum of Republican governors in Aspen, Colo., Christie called the “strain of libertarianism that’s going through both parties right now” a “very dangerous thought,” and criticized what he referred to as “esoteric, intellectual” debates over civil liberties.

A senior adviser for Paul, Doug Stafford, lit into the governor, telling the Washington Times that “if Governor Christie believes the constitutional rights and the privacy of all Americans is ‘esoteric,’ he either needs a new dictionary, or he needs to talk to more Americans, because a great number of them are concerned about the dramatic overreach of our government in recent years.”

Stafford continued his defense of his boss, arguing that defending the country “can and must be done in keeping with our Constitution and while protecting the freedoms that make America exceptional.”

The adviser even quoted “Long Walk Home” by Bruce Springsteen, of whom the governor is a big fan, saying, “You know that flag flying over the courthouse? Means certain things are set in stone: Who we are, what we’ll do and what we won’t.’”

Paul, for his part, Tweeted out his own response: 

Christie worries about the dangers of freedom. I worry about the danger of losing that freedom. Spying without warrants is unconstitutional.

— Senator  2013Rand Paul (@SenRandPaul) July 26,

Donald Trump has long resisted calls for him to run for president. But now, at age 67, he tells me he’s considering a bid.

“I’m looking,” Trump says. “I have a large following of people who are tired of seeing this country ripped off, and taken advantage of [by] everyone who does business with us. We used to be the smart one of the block, and now we’re the dummies on the block. They want to see me, and I want to see them.”

Trump cautions that it’s early. But for the first time in his life, he’s preparing to potentially put his business work on hold. Behind the scenes, he’s examining how his family could manage his operations on an interim basis, should he decide to run.

“From a business standpoint, I have fabulous children who I’ve taken into the business,” Trump explains. “They know what they’re doing. So the business wouldn’t be the thing that stops me.”

That’s a big change from two years ago, when Trump was riding high in the Republican presidential primary polls. Looking back, he says it was his corporate and television work that stopped him from jumping in; he wasn’t ready to take a leave of absence.

This time around, Trump’s mulling process is slower and more deliberative. The real estate mogul says he has already put $1 million toward researching how he could win the nomination.

“It’s very difficult for me to make a commitment, with The Apprentice and so many things,” Trump says. “It’s harder for me than some politician who says, ‘I guess I’ll run.’ So that’s the thing I have to keep looking at. I want to watch what happens with the 2014 elections, and then make a final decision after those elections.”

In early August, Trump will travel to Ames, Iowa, the home of the Iowa Republican straw poll, where he’ll speak at an evangelical gathering hosted by Bob Vander Plaats, an influential power broker in the Iowa politics. Beyond Iowa, he has recently spoken to conservative groups in Michigan and Washington, D.C.

“I’m a Presbyterian, and pro-life and for traditional marriage,” he says. “Bob is a good friend, and I’ve always had a connection with the evangelicals. I’m very friendly with many of the ministers and pastors, and I’ve had a great relationship with the group.”

As he considers a path, Trump believes he could occupy a unique space in the GOP field — a tough, pro-growth conservative who focuses on U.S. trade policy and jobs.

“When I see China ripping this country, when I see OPEC ripping this country, when I see other nations laughing at us because we’re being too stupidly and foolishly led, it’s infuriating,” Trump says. “People don’t like to see that happening to our country, but that’s what happening. We’re not making things anymore, the jobs are outside of the country, people recognize that, which is why I have a very, very big base.”

“I really don’t think it’s a popularity contest; I think they like what I’m saying,” he adds. “We’ll see what happens. People want to see this nation be great again, and I think it’s an important part of what I’m all about.”

It’s been just over two weeks since San Diego Democrat mayor Bob Filner issued a video apologizing for sexually harrassing female employees, saying, “As someone who has spent a lifetime fighting for equality for all people, I am embarrassed to admit that I have failed to fully respect the women who work for me and with me, and that at times I have intimidated them.”

But it’s only today that Democratic National Committee chairwoman Representative Debbie Wasserman-Schultz saw fit to call on Filner to resigner.

“The misconduct Mayor Bob Filner has been accused of is reprehensible and indefensible,” she said in a statement today.

 “For the good of the City of San Diego, I call on Mayor Filner to resign,” Wasserman-Schultz added.

Apparently, a Democrat mayor accused of sexually harrassing female employees is only a cause for concern and calls for resignation when news story’s been ongoing fifteen days.

Secretary of State John Kerry referred to the Palestinian Authority as a country while speaking last week at the United Nations.

Talking to journalists last Thursday, Kerry said: “It’s my hope that that will be able to happen as procedures are put in place by both countries in order to empower that.”

The comments sparked speculation that the administration was changing its foreign-policy views on Israel. A spokesman for the State Department dismissed the speculation, explaining that Kerry simply misspoke. When asked by a journalist to clarify the comment, Kerry responded: “Did I say that?”

Palestinian statehood has become a major issue at the U.N. in recent years. When the question came up for a vote in the General Assembly last November, the U.S. was one of only a handful of countries that voted against giving Palestine “non-member observer state” status.

The Economist reports:

On July 5 the mufti of Trabzon gathered with other citizens for the first Friday prayers of the holy fasting month of Ramadan, not at a mosque but at an ancient Byzantine church. The gathering was a symbolic re-enactment of the conquest in 1462 of this ancient Greek Black Sea port by Mehmet II, the Ottoman sultan who had wrested Constantinople from the Byzantines in 1453. He marked his victory by converting the Haghia Sophia cathedral of today’s Istanbul into a mosque.

Haghia Sophia’s sister of the same name in Trabzon is less grand. Yet with its dazzling frescoes and magnificent setting overlooking the sea, the 13th-century building is regarded as one of the finest examples of Byzantine architecture. As with other Christian monuments, the Haghia Sophia in Trabzon has become a symbol in the battle between secularists and Islamists. It was converted into a mosque around the 16th century and, after other incarnations, became a museum in 1964. But the Islamists won the last round in 2012 when a local court accepted the claim by the General Directorate of the Pious Foundations, the government body responsible for Turkey’s historic mosques, that the Haghia Sophia belonged to the foundation of Mehmet II and was being “illegally occupied” by the culture ministry.

The decision provoked surprising anger in a city notorious for its ultra-nationalist views. “It’s about erasing the Christian past, reviving Ottomanism,” says a local historian. “There are enough mosques in Trabzon, half of them empty, what was the need?” chimes in Zeki Bakar, a neighbourhood councillor. A lawsuit has been brought to undo the conversion.

Even so, the mildly Islamist Justice and Development (AK) government carried out the conversion in time for Ramadan. A red carpet now obscures exquisite floor mosaics. Shutters and tents beneath the central dome shield Muslim worshippers from “sinful” paintings of the Holy Trinity. Shiny steel taps with plastic stools for ablutions clutter a once-verdant garden filled with ancient sculptures….

“Mildly”.

Channeling the iconic image of King Kong straddling the Empire State Building, next week’s New Yorker cover offers a brilliant take on the Anthony Weiner sexting scandal:

Yesterday, Texas state senator Wendy Davis, famous for her 13-hour filibuster of a ban on abortions after 20 weeks gestation, participated in an online townhall meeting via Twitter. People could use the Twitter hashtag #AskWendy to submit questions. This townhall was sponsored by the Lone Star Project, a politically liberal advocacy group based in Texas. Many people took part, and the hashtag #AskWendy was trending for much of the afternoon. Pro-lifers effectively used the AskWendy hashtag to both pose tough questions about abortion and disseminate information about the pro-life position.

What was interesting is that during the course of the entire Twitter townhall, Senator Davis failed to answer even one question dealing with the issue of abortion. Senator Davis answered twelve questions on a range of topics including infrastructure, payday lending, and college-tuition benefits. However, abortion was never once discussed.

This was doubtless calculated. As Senator Davis considers her political future, she realizes that it may not be shrewd to be so closely identified with support for late-term abortion. Indeed, this Wednesday a Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll showed that 44 percent of Americans support a 20-week abortion ban, while only 37 percent are opposed. This is the third national poll in less than a month showing that such bans enjoy plurality support. As such, it should come as no surprise that Senator Davis is making an effort to emphasize her views on other issues.

— Michael J. New is an assistant professor of political science at the University of Michigan–Dearborn, a fellow at the Witherspoon Institute, and an adjunct scholar at the Charlotte Lozier Institute. Follow him on Twitter @Michael_J_New

President Obama had a few words of praise for long-deceased Vietnamese leader Ho Chi Minh yesterday.

In otherwise bland remarks made after his first bilateral meeting with Vietnamese president Truong Tan Sang, President Obama said the meeting concluded with a discussion of “the fact that Ho Chi Minh was actually inspired by the U.S. Declaration of Independence and Constitution, and the words of Thomas Jefferson.”

This is factually true. President Obama was likely trying to be polite to a visiting head of state – one who shared with him a letter written by Ho Chi Minh to Harry Truman in which Minh “talks about his interest in cooperation with the United States,” according to Obama. 

Nevertheless, was it really necessary tacitcly to praise a man who killed approximately half-a-million people in an effort to consolidate his power, or to concede ideological similarities between the founding of the United States and modern Vietnam? In Sang’s translated remarks, the Vietnamese president doesn’t mention Minh at all and doesn’t hint at any remorse over his actions. Instead, he noted that he and Obama ”touched upon the war legacy issue, including human rights” and that the two “still have differences on issue.”

So there I was, catching up on a back issue of The Economist, reading an article about the Indian state of Tamil Nadu. Then I come to a paragraph about possible opposition to the ruling party.

It began sedately enough:

Those looking for a mainstream alternative will struggle.

But then:

The opposition DMK is run by an 89-year-old playwright and four-times chief minister, M. Karunanidhi, and his son, Stalin.

The governor has picked a fight without a strategy.

Texas attorney general Greg Abbott claims Eric Holder and the Obama administration are “using the Voting Rights Act for partisan, political purposes” by pushing the state to seek preapproval for changes to its voting laws. Holder asked a court to require Texas to go back under “pre-clearance” status following last month’s Supreme Court decision that struck down that provision of the law.

Abbott said that Holder’s requirement was the latest in a string of efforts by Democrats to flip the solidly red state to a blue one. Along with the president’s national field director visiting the state for that purpose, Abbott also pointed out that the Department of Justice is working with and joining Texas’s Democratic party in a lawsuit against the state under the Voting Rights Act.

“This is an affront to that Supreme Court decision; it’s a direct assault on the United State Constitution,” he said on Fox News this morning.

Holder announced his plans at the National Urban League conference yesterday, claiming the state’s laws discriminated on the basis of race. Abbott, who recently announced his candidacy for Texas governor, immediately responded to the news on Twitter, vowing to “fight Obama’s effort to control our elections.”

If it were possible to use the “continuing resolution” that Congress will soon have to pass to keep the government funded to stop Obamacare, I’d be for it. But I think this is a strategy that cannot work and will likely inflict some damage on conservatives–and maybe the country too. I explain why in a new Bloomberg View column. My main point: While the politics of Obamacare are generally bad for Obama and the Democrats, this particular way of fighting it will play to their strengths.

One point I did not make in the column: Even if there were a way to get a continuing resolution that has no funding for Obamacare, which I don’t think there is, it’s not clear that it would stop the administration from continuing to implement the law. You’d have to have very strong legislative language to keep the administration from moving money around to get what it wanted–and I think we have now gotten a pretty good sense of how resourceful it can be, at least in this regard.