In recent months CFIF has highlighted the danger of relying upon Russian rocket technology, and the…
CFIF on Twitter CFIF on YouTube
Analysis: SpaceX Cuts Rocket Launch Costs for USAF

In recent months CFIF has highlighted the danger of relying upon Russian rocket technology, and the need to leverage the U.S. private sector in providing effective, lower cost, domestic rocket engines for space launches.

Now, a new analysis reveals how much one of those private sector entities, SpaceX, can save the U.S. Air Force.  Previous cost estimates occurred when Air Force launch vehicles consisted entirely of United Launch Alliance (ULA) rockets, but the Government Accountability Office (GAO) complained that ULA's rendered accurate cost assessment and price negotiation impossible.  Then, new rocket enterprise SpaceX began offering launch services at lower prices, and cost comparison has become more feasible.  And it's already apparent that SpaceX significantly undercuts launch…[more]

June 23, 2017 • 01:44 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.
Government-Sponsored Food Fights Are Liberalism’s Version of School Reform Print
By Ashton Ellis
Wednesday, December 22 2010
By prohibiting sodas and sweets – and in one case, second helpings – public school districts across the country are succumbing to the demands of Nanny-state regulators.

Never let it be said that liberals refuse to reform the public school system.  Or even, for that matter, that they oppose school choice.  While conservatives often push for changes that affect the classroom, liberals are setting their sights on a different battleground: the cafeteria. 

In what could be spun as alternative definitions for the terms “school choice” and “abstinence education,” the left is waging a nationwide war on fatty foods.  By prohibiting sodas and sweets – and in one case, second helpings – public school districts across the country are succumbing to the demands of Nanny-state regulators.  As usual, the goal is more control for the state and less options for those it supposedly serves. 

Earlier this year, the Flagstaff, Arizona school district started measuring elementary students during gym class using the body mass index (BMI) scale.  Those who scored too big were sent home with a note to their parents stating the risks of being overweight.  Among them are the possibility of impending obesity, diabetes and perhaps an early death.  In effect, the school’s policy is, “pinch an inch, then get snitched.”  And all in front of an entire gym class filled with adolescents.  Liberals: making bullies’ jobs easier with every intervention. 

Another inanity worth mentioning is San Francisco’s ban on toys in Happy Meals.  The ordinance was so off-target the city’s mayor, Gavin Newsom, was against it.  Not to be outdone, New York City’s Health Commission compared soda drinks to liquid fat.  Is applying the term “food terrorism” to the fast-food industry far behind?

More recently, the St. Paul, Minnesota school district decided to prohibit all sweets from campus.  Like their counterparts in Flagstaff, the St. Paul administrators say they’re concerned with the spike in overweight kids.  Though the majority of hefty students come from poor and minority families, the school doesn’t have much success changing the eating habits of parents.  So instead, they’ll deprive the children.  

Speaking to a reporter for the local Star Tribune, 10-year-old Misky Salad summarized the consensus of her peers: “All my friends say, ‘This really sucks.’”  The “this” Misky referred to was not only the ban on candy, but also on second helpings.  The precocious youth then incorporated an argument the liberal establishment no doubt wants to avoid, saying, “A lot of us feel it should be up to us to determine what we should do with our bodies.” 

I wonder which leftist indoctrination class gave Misky that idea.  Could it be that a fifth grader taught to believe that her unquestioned discretion extends to any type of behavior she or her sex-ed curriculum can conceive – but not to the kind of food she can eat – senses a disconnect?  After all, what good is freedom of choice if it only lets a person treat herself like candy, but not to it? 

Misky’s confusion throws some light on the deplorable state of public education.  Straitjacketed by political correctness, schools are tempted to turn a blind eye toward real problems in favor of solving cosmetic ones.  Certainly, the dramatic rise in the occurrence of childhood diabetes is cause for alarm, but so too is the anything-goes-mentality espoused by students like Misky.  What’s lacking in both cases is the failure to form a child’s conscience to avoid evil and seek the good. 

But that doesn’t fit into the liberal worldview.  Far better to have students legally required to attend a school where their clothing, diet and curriculum are pre-selected.  For liberals, reforming education means creating an environment of uniform diversity.  Everyone is free to choose – so long as it’s the same choice the school already made. 

Question of the Week   
Under which branch of the U.S. government does the Federal Reserve fall?
More Questions
Quote of the Day   
 
"Events are turning me into a radical skeptic. I no longer believe what I read, unless what I am reading is an empirically verifiable account of the past. I no longer have confidence in polls, because it has become impossible to separate the signal from the noise. What I have heard from the media and political class over the last several years has been so spectacularly proven wrong by events, again…[more]
 
 
—Matthew Continetti, Washington Free Beacon Editor in Chief
— Matthew Continetti, Washington Free Beacon Editor in Chief
 
Liberty Poll   

Based on analyses you have read or heard, do you support or oppose the Senate bill to replace ObamaCare?