When the G8 major economies convened at Camp David last weekend, the continuing crisis of the euro, common currency of 17 European Union (EU) members, dominated the economic discussions. The agonies of Greece, badly divided in recent parliamentary elections, and forced to vote again on 17 June, were at the forefront.

In the run-up to this weekend's G-8 summit at Camp David, journalists have unfavorably compared European "austerity" with Barack Obama's economic policies.

Punishing political enemies? So Nixonian, so last century. Yet, 40 years later, the Obama administration found a good government way to pursue the same objective.

Following a defeat in Citizens United, the Obama administration is making an unprecedented assault on free speech through a proposed executive order requiring federal bidders to disclose their political giving during the previous two years.

Ask Americans what they think the First Amendment protects, and they will tell you “freedom of speech.”  But few will think of the amendment’s third protection: “freedom of assembly.” In his provocative new book, “Liberty’s Refuge, The Forgotten Freedom of Assembly,” Washington University School of Law professor John Inazu implores Americans to keep in mind the importance of this protection.

So, David Sanger had a piece in the NYT last weekend wondering whether there’s a “Romney doctrine.” Of course, he wasn’t really wondering; he knew from the get go what he thought. And luckily for Sanger, he had plenty of Romney advisers to help along his theory.

Today President Obama is ignoring the lessons of the civil rights era he claims to revere. The only purpose of the executive order is to dangle the specter of retaliation (by losing her contracts) and harassment (from political opponents).

The Obama administration refused to defend me against the lawsuit filed for José Padilla. Now even the liberal Ninth Circuit agrees the suit was frivolous.