We take no position in the ongoing Taylor Swift versus Kanye West divide.  But as perhaps surprisingly…
CFIF on Twitter CFIF on YouTube
Taylor Swift: Intellectual Property and Anti-Counterfeiting Champion

We take no position in the ongoing Taylor Swift versus Kanye West divide.  But as perhaps surprisingly featured in a Wall Street Journal opinion this week, we do applaud her strong stance in defense of intellectual property (IP) and against the scourge of counterfeiting:

Pop star Taylor Swift has been feuding in recent days with rapper Kanye West and his wife, Kim Kardashian.  The details of the drama are lurid and complicated, but young aficionados of Snapchat and Instagram have been following it all intently.  If only the same were true for other Taylor Swift feuds that have received less attention.  Namely, those the 26-year-old songstress has fought in defense of a principle often scorned by fellow celebrities and the social-media generation generally:  the value of intellectual…[more]

July 22, 2016 • 01:09 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.
Time to RESTORE Presidential Restraint Print
By Quin Hillyer
Tuesday, October 23 2012
The Obama team long has had particularly cozy ties to BP, with BP-related entities and employees donating huge sums to Obama’s campaigns, and with ABC News reporting that Obama before the disaster had given BP a “categorical exclusion” from a “detailed environmental impact analysis” for Deepwater Horizon well itself.

With even The Daily Beast now focusing attention on the breathtaking scope of Barack Obama’s abusive expansions of presidential power, Gulf Coast lawmakers wisely are rallying opposition to The One’s latest attempted end-run around Congress. Not only is the Obama administration reportedly trying to seize control of BP oil-spill payments from state committees assigned by law to dispense the money, but it also seems poised to give the well-connected energy scofflaw a huge tax break.

In short, the Obama outrages continue to pile up.

First, as background: Despite a lot of claptrap about supposed Republican obstructionism, The Daily Beast eventually got around to describing this:

…an extra-constitutional arms race of sorts: a new normal that habitually circumvents the legislative process envisioned by the Framers. On one side of the aisle, Republicans are providing a blueprint for minority parties to come, demonstrating how it is possible, and politically advantageous, to use procedural tricks to incapacitate a president they oppose. On the other side of the aisle, Obama is drafting a playbook for future presidents to deploy in response: How to Get What You Want Even If Congress Won’t Give It to You. “Obama is the first president to use his unilateral powers so routinely, especially in the domestic sphere,” says University of Virginia presidential scholar Sidney Milkis, a self-described moderate Democrat. “And in some ways, that may be more insidious than what came before.” And so the question now is not whether the presidency has changed Obama. It’s whether Obama is changing the presidency…. [Obama now has] his new governing (and messaging) strategy: if a legislative proposal fails, find an executive order or administrative directive to replace it.

The article provided copious examples of these extra-constitutional power grabs: extensive military action in Libya with no congressional authorization; “recess appointments” to regulatory boards even when the Senate wasn’t in recess; amnesty for young illegal immigrants without congressional approval; multiple Environmental Protection Agency power seizures (some of which already have been halted by the courts) contrary to congressional intent; waivers from the requirements of No Child Left behind, and manifestly illegal waivers of welfare work requirements, to name just a few.

Now comes perhaps an even worse abuse. In those other cases, Obama did things Congress had refused to pass laws to do. In the new BP issue, in contrast, Obama reportedly is close to directly contradicting the manifest intentions of a law he himself signed.

On July 6, Obama signed a bill containing the RESTORE Act, which “requires the Secretary of the Treasury to deposit in [a special trust fund] 80% of all administrative and civil penalties” resulting from the BP disaster. That fund would be distributed specifically to special committees set up by each Gulf Coast state, according to a formula established in the bill.

Now, though, several news outlets report that the administration is negotiating with BP to send the money not to the states, but instead to purposes of the administration’s own devising, via something called a Natural Resource Damage Assessment (NRDA).

Alabama, Mississippi, Texas and the Florida Panhandle would be especially short-changed if this happens, because NRDA would focus relief only on environmental damages – in other words, mostly the marshes of Louisiana – rather than on ameliorating major economic damages caused to tourism, fishing and other industries.

Gulf Coast senators and House members of both parties have vociferously objected, with U.S. Rep. Jo Bonner, R-AL, accusing the administration of trying to use the money for “Chicago-style vote buying.”

In what some might consider a supreme irony, funds sent through NRDA are partly tax-deductible, while those controlled by the RESTORE Act would not be. Therefore, this administration which so often has blasted “tax breaks for oil companies” would itself be responsible for giving an entirely unearned tax break to the oil company that created the biggest man-made environmental disaster the U.S. Gulf Coast has ever seen.

Maybe this should be no surprise: The Obama team long has had particularly cozy ties to BP, with BP-related entities and employees donating huge sums to Obama’s campaigns, and with ABC News reporting that Obama before the disaster had given BP a “categorical exclusion” from a “detailed environmental impact analysis” for Deepwater Horizon well itself. BP in turn had contributed heavily to “green energy” initiatives favored by the Obama administration.

Whatever the motive, the simple fact is that the president himself signed the RESTORE Act. Failure to abide by its spirit would represent another step towards not just the proverbial “imperial presidency,” but towards a dangerously unaccountable one. Obama is betting, as the Daily Beast noted, that “it’s probably impossible to persuade most voters, and most courts, that the president of the United States is regularly breaking the law.”

But that’s what he’s doing. He must not be allowed to get away with it.

Question of the Week   
In which one of the following years was Secret Service protection afforded to major candidates for President and Vice President of the United States?
More Questions
Quote of the Day   
 
Philadelphia -- Could the presidential election be decided by two competing 'October Surprises' based on leaked information?One from WikiLeaks could involve the deleted e-mails from Hillary Clinton's private server and could be related to the FBI's ongoing investigation of the Clinton Foundation. Another could involve the leaking of confidential tax-return information regarding Donald Trump, who has…[more]
 
 
—John Fund, National Review OnLine National-Affairs Correspondent
— John Fund, National Review OnLine National-Affairs Correspondent
 
Liberty Poll   

Following the Republican National Convention, how do you now rate Donald Trump’s chances of winning the presidency?