In confronting the growing challenge of China, as with Japan in the 1980s and other challengers in the…
CFIF on Twitter CFIF on YouTube
Rubio: Beat China via Free Trade and Passing Trans-Pacific Partnership, Not Self-Destructive Protectionism

In confronting the growing challenge of China, as with Japan in the 1980s and other challengers in the past, the easy and simplistic response is to advocate protectionism.  But America remains the most prosperous and innovative nation in human history on the basis of free trade, not protectionism.  If closing borders to trade was the path to prosperity, then North Korea would be a global exemplar.

On that chord, Senator Marco Rubio (R - Florida), set to give a much-anticipated foreign policy speech on the campaign trail today, offers a refreshing commentary in today's Wall Street Journal entitled "How My Presidency Would Deal With China."  In his piece, Rubio advocates free trade and passing the Trans-Pacific Partnership as effective tools for confronting China, resisting the…[more]

August 28, 2015 • 09:52 am

Liberty Update

CFIFs latest news, commentary and alerts delivered to your inbox.
Jester's CourtroomLegal tales stranger than stranger than fiction: Ridiculous and sometimes funny lawsuits plaguing our courts.
“Operation Fast and Furious” – Obama Administration Endorses Guns for Mexican Drug Runners, But Not Lawful Americans Print
By Timothy H. Lee
Thursday, June 16 2011
So on the one hand, the sitting President of the United States denigrates law-abiding American citizens who “cling” to guns that he would prefer to outlaw. Meanwhile, his administration recklessly allowed smugglers serving murderous Mexican drug cartels to obtain firearms at will.


Professor John Lott, economic scholar and foremost authority on the deadly real-world consequences of gun “control” laws across the globe, labeled Barack Obama “undoubtedly the most anti-gun candidate ever nominated by a major party for President.” 

Well, that apparently depends on who possesses the gun. 

If you’re a law-abiding American citizen, the Obama Administration would prefer that you remain defenseless.  That’s particularly true if you live in one of America’s high-crime urban hellholes where restaurants refuse to deliver, police are overwhelmed, firearms are outlawed and self-defense in your own home constitutes a crime. 

But if you’re a potential gun trafficker with connections to Mexican drug cartels?  Then you’re in luck. 

That discrepancy became clear this week, as America witnessed the tragic spectacle of the Obama Justice Department’s “Operation Fast and Furious.” 

According to documents and testimony before Representative Darrell Issa (R – California) and the House Oversight Committee that he leads, leading officials within the Justice Department and its subsidiary Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives approved an ill-conceived operation to allow arms purchases by gun traffickers.  Officials planned to monitor those purchases and eventually construct a legal case against Mexican drug cartels. 

Like many Obama Administration schemes, however, things went awry.  The government didn’t possess sufficient ability to trace the firearms in question, so the operation quickly unraveled. 

According to the testimony of federal law enforcement agents, they received explicit orders to refrain from arresting suspects and allow the activities to proceed.  Sadly, two weapons purchased during the operation were later discovered in Arizona at the site where U.S. border agent Brian Terry was killed.  The testimony of Agent Terry’s mother and cousin was particularly wrenching, as they described the late-night telephone call informing them that he was murdered just ten days before Christmas, and how his gifts arrived by mail even after his death. 

During the same round of testimony, Assistant Attorney General for Legislative Affairs Ronald Weich smugly refused to answer Rep. Issa’s direct questions, including who authorized the operation itself. 

But don’t worry.  Mr. Weich assured us that Attorney General Holder “has said that he wants to get to the bottom of this.” 

Contrast the Obama Administration’s cavalier approach in Operation Fast and Furious with its extremist opposition to guns in the hands of law-abiding American citizens. 

Take the late Washington, D.C. gun ban, which effectively prohibited firearm possession even for self-defense in that high-crime capital.  As a candidate, the Obama campaign unambiguously stated to the Chicago Tribune that he, “believes the D.C. handgun law is constitutional.”  Obama repeated his support when questioned by local ABC News reporter Leon Harris.  If Obama supported the D.C. law, which was perhaps the strictest in the nation, it’s difficult to conceive of a prohibition that he would not support.  After the United States Supreme Court overturned that law in the famous 2008 Heller decision, of course, Obama conveniently changed his tune and bizarrely claimed to support that ruling. 

Also consider the city of Chicago, Obama’s own adopted hometown. 

Like Washington, D.C., Chicago effectively prohibited firearm possession even for self-defense in one’s own home.  Here is how the Associated Press described Obama’s position on guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens following a vote when he was an Illinois legislator:  “He also opposed letting people use a self-defense argument if charged with violating local handgun bans by using weapons in their homes.  The bill was a reaction to a Chicago-area man who, after shooting an intruder, was charged with a handgun violation.” 

Obama also supported a complete handgun ban in a 1996 candidate questionnaire, and embraced a 1998 proposal to ban all sales of semi-automatic weapons, which constitute the overwhelming majority of firearms sold in America.  He also supported a prohibition of firearm sales within five miles of any school or park, which effectively covers all gun sales.  After all, how many people live in an area that doesn’t have a school or park within five miles? 

When the Chicago gun ban came before the U.S. Supreme Court in the 2010 case McDonald v. City of Chicago, moreover, the Obama Administration defied tradition and refused to even file a brief.  So much for his alleged support of the individual right to keep and bear arms that he professed after the Heller decision in 2008. 

So on the one hand, the sitting President of the United States denigrates law-abiding American citizens who “cling” to guns that he would prefer to outlaw.  Meanwhile, his administration recklessly allowed smugglers serving murderous Mexican drug cartels to obtain firearms at will. 

It all makes for a  grotesque, tragic inconsistency.

Question of the Week   
A Louisiana second-grader wrote to First Lady Michelle Obama with regard to which one of the following school lunches that had changed under new federal nutrition requirements?
More Questions
Quote of the Day   
 
"Whether to approve the disastrous nuclear deal with Iran is the most important question to face Congress in years -- yet the president wants to stop the Senate from even debating it. He's pushing Democrats to use the filibuster rule to stop the question from making it to the Senate floor -- and Minority Leader Harry Reid's rallying the votes to do it. ... It's time for Senate Majority Leader Mitch…[more]
 
 
—New York Post Editorial Board
— New York Post Editorial Board
 
Liberty Poll   

Do you believe that Vice President Joe Biden’s willingness to consider a presidential run is because he knows more than the public knows about the content of Hillary Clinton’s emails?