On behalf of over 300,000 of our supporters and activists across the nation, CFIF has written the following…
CFIF on Twitter CFIF on YouTube
CFIF to U.S. Senate: On Drug Prices, Say "NO" to Mandatory Inflation Rebate Proposals

On behalf of over 300,000 of our supporters and activists across the nation, CFIF has written the following letter opposing any use of Mandatory Inflation Rebate Proposals when it comes to the issue of addressing drug prices:

We believe that market-oriented solutions offer the optimal solution, and resolutely oppose any use of mandatory inflation rebate proposals – which would unfairly penalize a drug’s manufacturer with higher taxes whenever that drug’s price rises faster than inflation - that will make matters worse, not better. Among other defects, such a government-imposed penalty would undermine Medicare Part D’s current structure, which uses market-based competition to mitigate drug costs. Part D currently works via privately-negotiated rebates, meaning that no specific price…[more]

July 15, 2019 • 02:48 pm

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.
Does Barack Obama Even Comprehend "Climategate?" Print
By Timothy H. Lee
Thursday, December 03 2009
Climate-change alarmists' favorite weapon was the allegation of a 'scientific consensus' in their favor. So much for that. Over the past two weeks, that allegation has been exposed as an utter fraud.

"A man should look for what is, and not for what he thinks should be." 
~Albert Einstein 

In their longstanding effort to squelch objective debate, climate-change alarmists’ favorite weapon was the allegation of a “scientific consensus” in their favor. 

So much for that. 

Over the past two weeks, that allegation has been exposed as an utter fraud.  Of course, those familiar with the ongoing debate knew all along that this “consensus” claim never held validity, because thousands of scientists whom the alarmists sought to marginalize maintained a contrary view. 

But now the alarmists’ pretense has been documented for the entire world to see. 

On Thursday, November 24, over 3,000 emails and documents from the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at East Anglia University in Britain were anonymously exposed on the Internet.  These documents between global-warming activist researchers reveal nothing short of a prolonged, concerted effort to conceal data that undermined their agenda, to shamelessly blacklist other scientists who sought to test their hypotheses or challenge their agenda and even to “redefine what the peer-review literature is” in order to advance their worldview. 

A sampling of the more damning communications includes the following: 

“The fact is we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty we can’t.” 

“I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.” 

“If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the U.K., I think I’ll delete the file rather than send to anyone…  We also have a data protection act, which I will hide behind.” 

“Try and change the received date!  Don’t give those skeptics something to amuse themselves with.” 

“I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report.  Kevin and I will keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!” 

So why are these revelations so significant? 

Because the CRU has served as a primary data source for the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which seeks to impose the costly global-warming agenda upon the entire world.  And here in the United States, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has in turn based its extremist environmental agenda and proposal to regulate carbon dioxide upon the IPCC’s reports. 

In other words, these so-called “scientists” are the unstable sand upon which much of the global-warming house is built. 

Even climate-change activist George Monbiot has admitted that these revelations “could scarcely be more damaging,” and that, “I’m dismayed and deeply shaken by them.”  And according to Megan McArdle of The Atlantic, “the CRU’s main computer model may be, to put it bluntly, complete rubbish.” 

As a result of these revelations, the University of East Anglia announced that Phil Jones, the CRU’s director, “is stepping down pending an investigation into allegations that he overstated the case for man-made climate change.”  Similarly, Penn State University has announced that it is investigating Dr. Michael Mann, one of the prominent participants in the email exchanges.  And in Australia, their Senate suddenly rejected a proposal to impose a carbon cap-and-tax legislation similar to a bill now contemplated by the Pelosi-Reid Congress. 

It appears, however, that Barack Obama remains the last person blissfully oblivious to these ground-shaking revelations. 

How else to explain the fact that he still plans to attend next week’s IPCC-sponsored UN climate summit in Copenhagen?  The explicit goal of the summit is to advance the discredited global-warming agenda, despite the fact that its underlying research has been exposed as corrupt to the entire world. 

In his typical head-in-the-sand manner, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs defended Obama’s boondoggle by mindlessly claiming, “climate change is happening,” and that “I don’t think that’s anything, that is, quite frankly, among most people, in dispute anymore.” 

Somebody apparently needs to send the White House a newspaper subscription or Internet connection as a Christmas gift. 

We can only conclude that the White House is better at shielding Obama from unwelcome news than it is at preventing uninvited guests from entering White House black-tie dinners.  But either way, we can thank whoever exposed these documents for helping move the world closer to rejecting the fraud that is the man-made global-warming agenda.

Question of the Week   
Which one of the following was the longest-serving U.S. Secretary of State?
More Questions
Quote of the Day   
 
"Months of bleak polling couldn't stop the parade of lower-level Democrats crowding into the presidential primary.But bankruptcy might.Eleven Democratic presidential candidates -- nearly half of the sprawling field -- spent more campaign cash than they raised in the second quarter of the year, according to new financial disclosures filed Monday. Eight contenders active in the spring limped forward…[more]
 
 
—David Siders, Zach Montellard and Scott Bland, Politico
— David Siders, Zach Montellard and Scott Bland, Politico
 
Liberty Poll   

Do the "politics of personal destruction," now rampant across the political spectrum and amplified by the media, make you more or less inclined to personally participate in political activity?