CFIF has joined a broad coalition of fellow conservative and libertarian free-market organizations in…
CFIF on Twitter CFIF on YouTube
Image of the Day: Peril of a "Buy American" Medical Mandate

CFIF has joined a broad coalition of fellow conservative and libertarian free-market organizations in opposing any proposed "Buy American" mandates on medicines, because they would place unnecessary sourcing requirements upon medicines and medical imputs purchased with federal dollars.  That is the last thing that Americans need at the moment, not least because it doesn't single out China in the way that some falsely assume, and the just-released coalition letter is worth reading in its entirety here.

In that vein, however, this image helpfully illustrates some of the logic behind the letter:

[caption id="" align="aligncenter" width="574"] The Peril of a "Buy American" Order[/caption]


April 07, 2020 • 11:04 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.
Notable Quotes
On House Speaker Pelosi's Sham Impeachment:

"Dripping with derision, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi exulted that President Trump has 'been impeached forever.' 'They can never erase that,' she intoned. If Pelosi had a football nearby, she would have spiked it.

"Her celebratory remarks crystallized what the impeachment of Donald Trump is all about. Pelosi, D-Calif., doesn't care about facts, evidence or what constitutes an impeachable offense under the Constitution. She cares only about bludgeoning the president for the electoral harm it might cause him in November.

"This has been Pelosi's intent all along. Impeachment was her political cudgel. She crowed about it like a pro wrestler who body slams an opponent and then celebrates by prancing around the ring. It was all staged, of course.

"No one should be fooled by Pelosi's shameless antics. She has wanted to impeach Trump since he took office. She admitted it during a televised forum last month. It was a moment of uncommon candor for a speaker who routinely traffics in duplicity. ...

"As the Senate hurtles toward an impeachment trial that will likely conclude with an acquittal, Americans should remember that it was Nancy Pelosi who set this national nightmare in motion. It is an abuse of power driven by arrogance and for political gain.

"Pelosi bears the responsibility . . . and the blame."

— Gregg Jarrett, FOX News Legal Analyst
— Gregg Jarrett, FOX News Legal Analyst
Posted January 16, 2020 • 07:27 am
On Gun Control and the 2020 Elections:

"Amid a growing national drive in some 20 states to provide 'gun sanctuaries' in areas where calls are increasing for new controls, gun policy has become the second most 'extremely important' issue in the 2020 elections.

"In the latest Gallup survey, gun policy is tied at 34% with terrorism and national security as the second issue voters call 'extremely important.' Healthcare barely edges gun control out as No. 1, with 35% calling it 'extremely important.'"

— Paul Bedard, Washington Examiner
— Paul Bedard, Washington Examiner
Posted January 15, 2020 • 07:45 am
On Replacing the JCPOA Between Iran and World Powers:

"British Prime Minister Boris Johnson said in an interview Tuesday that he welcomed replacing the Obama-era Iran nuclear deal with a new agreement negotiated by President Trump.

"'If we're going to get rid of it, let's replace it and let's replace it with the Trump deal,' Johnson told BBC, referencing the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) nuclear deal between Iran and world powers. ...

"Johnson's remarks came amid mounting pressure from Parliament to side with Trump and abandon the nuclear deal after Iran allegedly violated international law by detaining the British ambassador in Tehran for several hours over the weekend. Iran accused British ambassador Rob McGuire of participating in anti-government demonstrations that broke out across the city after Tehran admitted 'in error' it shot down a Ukrainian jetliner last week, killing all 176 passengers and crew aboard. Of the dead, three Britons perished."

— Danielle Wallace, FOX News
— Danielle Wallace, FOX News
Posted January 14, 2020 • 08:08 am
On Population Projections and the 2020 Election:

"According to an Election Data Services analysis of the Census Bureau report, 'The population projections point toward a ten [congressional] seat change over 17 states across the nation by year 2020.'

"Seven states are projected to gain one or more congressional seats after the 2020 election; 10 states are projected lose one seat.

"The red-state leader is Texas, with a projected pickup of three congressional seats following the 2020 census -- and that after gaining four congressional seats after the 2010 election. Florida will pick up two seats, and Arizona, Colorado, Montana, North Carolina and Oregon will each gain one, according to the analysis.

"All 10 losing states -- Alabama, California, Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island and West Virginia -- lose only one seat.

"Of the seven states gaining seats, five voted for Donald Trump in the 2016 presidential election. Of the 10 states losing seats, five voted for Trump and five for Hillary Clinton."

Read entire article here.

— Merrill Matthews, Institute for Policy Innovation Resident Scholar
— Merrill Matthews, Institute for Policy Innovation Resident Scholar
Posted January 13, 2020 • 07:44 am
On the Democrats' Impeachment Plan:

"The impeachment inquiry, investigation, votes, and ultimate refusal to transmit articles are not about removing Trump from office. Rather, it is a tacit acknowledgment he will be re-elected in November of 2020. The plan now is to use impeachment to neuter that second term with a Democrat-controlled Senate.

"This impeachment exercise is most assuredly about removing someone from office. It's just not about removing Trump from office. It's about removing Cory Gardner, Martha McSally, Thom Tillis, Susan Collins and Joni Ernst from their senate offices.

"A Democratic Senate would make the assemblage of a Cabinet next to impossible, end the filling of judicial vacancies, paralyze the country should there be a U.S. Supreme Court opening and ensure that both the House and Senate spend their time investigating the executive branch.

"If you think the country made little to no legislative progress with a Democrat-controlled House and a Republican president, just wait until there is a Democrat-controlled House and Senate and a Republican president. ...

"Whatever Senate Republicans ultimately do, they should be ever mindful this 'trial' is not about removing Trump from the presidency. It is about removing at least 5 incumbent Republican senators from the U.S. Senate."

Read entire article here.

— Trey Gowdy, Former Prosecutor and Congressman from South Carolina
— Trey Gowdy, Former Prosecutor and Congressman from South Carolina
Posted January 10, 2020 • 08:17 am
On Speaker Pelosi's Impeachment Extortion:

"House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's brazen attempt at extortion appears to have failed.

"Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., has announced he now has the necessary votes to begin the impeachment trial of President Trump in the Senate without capitulating to Pelosi's shakedown that witnesses must be called in a trial of her choosing.

"It is now up to Pelosi, D-Calif., to transmit the two articles of impeachment adopted by the House of Representatives. The longer she delays, the more her waning credibility devolves into utter irrelevancy. ...

"The framers of the Constitution never envisioned that a future House would vote to impeach a president but then maneuver to halt an impeachment trial in the Senate. Who could have foreseen a House speaker like Pelosi whose disdain for the Constitution is exceeded only by her thirst for absolute, unfettered power?

"Pelosi has made a mockery of impeachment and debased her high office. The Senate must act to disabuse Pelosi of her pretensions and restore some semblance of constitutional order."

— Gregg Jarrett, FOX News Legal Analyst
— Gregg Jarrett, FOX News Legal Analyst
Posted January 09, 2020 • 07:37 am
On Iran's Missile Attack on U.S. Bases in Iraq:

"Should the missile attack on Iraqi bases housing U.S. troops turn out to be the extent of Iran's response, then the operation to kill Iranian terrorist leader Qassem Soleimani will turn out to be a major victory for President Trump.

"Though the Pentagon has yet to release a full damage assessment, preliminary reports suggest that Iran's action resulted in no U.S. casualties. After days of tough talk and chants of, 'Death to America,' Iranian officials are now claiming that they have no interest in further escalation if the United States does not retaliate. This could be it.

"If this is indeed the case, there is no doubt that the U.S. dealt a far more devastating blow to Iran than it absorbed in return. Soleimani was one of the most important figures in Iran and the architect of its regional strategy to extend the regime's influence from Tehran to the Mediterranean Sea. He directed global terrorist attacks, targeted U.S. troops in Iraq, aided Bashar Assad in the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of his own people, supported the terrorist group Hezbollah, and fueled the civil war in Yemen by supporting the radical Houthi movement. ...

"The early indications are that Iran blinked. The regime dramatically launched ballistic missiles toward U.S. troops and made a big show of it to the world, but it also chose targets where it knew Americans were expecting an attack and would be able to take preparations to reduce or avoid casualties. It was telling that even the threats Iran issued tonight, that if the U.S. retaliates, Iran will attack Israel and Dubai, suggest an unwillingness to engage the U.S. were it to risk actual casualties."

— Philip Klein, Washington Examiner Executive Editor
— Philip Klein, Washington Examiner Executive Editor
Posted January 08, 2020 • 07:16 am
On Democrats' Revisionist History:

"During his Friday presentation, Schiff tried to shame Republicans by playing a clip of the late Sen. John McCain talking about the threat that a democratic Ukraine posed to Putin's vision for the region. Yet he neglected to show the speech in which McCain described the Russian takeover of Crimea as 'the ultimate result' of Obama's 'feckless foreign policy where nobody believes in America's strength anymore.'

When Russia first invaded Ukraine in March 2014, Schiff tried to deflect blame away from the Obama administration and onto the intelligence community. That same month, the California congressman cautioned against a tough response to Russia's aggression, warning that 'the challenge is, we do need to have some kind of working relationship with Russia. And while we can impose these costs and take these steps, we've got to be mindful of the fact that they can impose their own costs on us.'

The impeachment case does not hinge on substantive arguments about U.S. policy toward Ukraine. The question is whether Trump abused power by delaying aid to Ukraine appropriated by Congress in an effort to pressure Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky into announcing an investigation into Trump's domestic political rival.

But Democrats pushing the idea that Trump's delay in sending aid endangered U.S. national security doesn't pass the laugh test. Given the Obama legacy, Democrats presenting themselves as enduring agents of support for Ukraine and defenders of global security is plainly ridiculous."

— The Editors, Washington Examiner
— The Editors, Washington Examiner
Posted January 08, 2020 • 00:53 am
On Precedent for President Trump's Elimination of Iranian Gen. Qassem Soleimani:

"The United States has long had a policy of using targeted strikes to kill enemy leaders. After the 9/11 attacks, the Bush administration launched a program of drone strikes and Special Forces attacks to kill leaders of al-Qaeda and insurgent groups in Iraq and Afghanistan. Not only did Barack Obama continue these policies, he also launched an air war against Libya that sought as one of its goals to kill its leader, Moammar Qaddafi, in order to trigger regime change. Few, if any, Democratic officials criticized Obama for engaging in illegal assassination or for launching strikes in Libya or, later, in Syria, without congressional approval. ...

"Whether killing Soleimani amounted to valid self-defense would raise difficult factual questions if the United States were acting in a purely anticipatory manner. The United States and other countries have recognized that a nation can use force to preempt an imminent attack by an enemy. President Kennedy, for example, stretched the doctrine of anticipatory self-defense perhaps to its limits when he imposed a naval blockade during the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis to prevent Soviet deployment of nuclear missiles on an island just 100 miles from Florida. Whether the United States could attack Soleimani in anticipatory self-defense would depend on the facts: whether Iranian forces under his control were planning or in the middle of an attack on U.S. forces or installations.

"But in this case, the events of the last few weeks make Trump's legal case all the easier. Iran had already begun attacking U.S. personnel. It supported militias that had already shelled a U.S. base in Iraq, an assault that killed one defense contractor and injured several U.S. soldiers. It had ordered its militias to storm the U.S. Embassy. With access to extensive electronic and human intelligence, the Trump administration could conclude that Soleimani and his associates were planning yet further attacks on American forces. Soleimani had, after all, planned the devastating campaign against U.S. forces during the Iraq occupation, provided support for Hezbollah and other terrorist groups that have lethally attacked American troops in the Middle East, and devised the Iranian drone strike on Saudi Arabia's oil facilities.

"President Trump could choose to make public the intelligence to prove that Soleimani and his associates were continuing further attacks on Americans. But he need not, as the immediate historical record already reveals the Iranian general's intentions to harm American personnel and installations. Instead of worrying about his constitutional authority, Trump would do better to explain to the American people the broader strategy toward Iran and how the killing of an old, implacable enemy in Soleimani will succeed in deterring, rather than triggering, a broader war with Iran."

Read entire article here.

— John Yoo, University of California at Berkeley Emanuel S. Heller Professor of Law, AEI Visiting Scholar and Hoover Institution Visiting Fellow
— John Yoo, University of California at Berkeley Emanuel S. Heller Professor of Law, AEI Visiting Scholar and Hoover Institution Visiting Fellow
Posted January 07, 2020 • 08:00 am
On Eliminating Iranian General Qassem Soleimani:

"The calendar turns and a decade begins, but there is nothing new under the sun in Washington. Even the killing of an Iranian mass murderer is cause for more partisan strife.

"In a sane country, which America used to be, there would be shared sober satisfaction over the elimination of Gen. Qassem Soleimani. Yet Democrats apparently outsourced their reactions to robots, whose script called for conceding that the departed was a very bad man, but prohibited approval of President Trump's decision to take him out.

"Instead, the quibblers' chorus raised questions of timing and expressed fear of escalation and retaliation. In the context of Iran's military aggression and Soleimani's bloody hands, there is another word for that fear: appeasement.

"Or, as defense specialist Michael Doran wrote in The New York Times, the fear of war 'ignores the fact that Mr. Soleimani has been waging war on America and its allies for years.'

"The latest example was the attack on our embassy in Baghdad, carried out by groups allied with Iran. That is the sort of dirty work Soleimani specialized in -- getting Arab Muslim proxies to fight and die for Iran's goal of regional dominance."

Read entire article here.

— Michael Goodwin, New York Post
— Michael Goodwin, New York Post
Posted January 06, 2020 • 08:03 am
Question of the Week   
In which one of the following years did Grand Central in New York City open to the public?
More Questions
Quote of the Day   
"In promoting national vote-by-mail legislation, Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her caucus of radical House Democrats are following the advice of Rahm Emanuel, who famously said while Obama chief of staff, 'You never want a serious crisis to go to waste. And what I mean by that [is] it's an opportunity to do things that you think you could not do before.'Pelosi recently announced that she will try to insert…[more]
—David N. Bossie, President of Citizens United
— David N. Bossie, President of Citizens United
Liberty Poll   

Based on local news reports and what you hear personally, is your state adequately handling the coronavirus influx of unemployment claims?