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]

 …[more]

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 EU Ambassador Sondland's Testimony Before the House Intelligence Committee:
 
 

"President Trump personally informed Sondland: 'I want nothing, I want nothing. I want no quid pro quo.'

"The ambassador confirmed this exculpatory statement Wednesday. It was nearly identical to what he said in his earlier deposition when he testified that the president told him: 'I want nothing. I don't want to give them anything and I don't want anything from them.' Sondland then elaborated by stating: 'He (President Trump) kept repeating no quid pro quo over and over again.'

"Yet, throughout his testimony Sondland seemed to oscillate wildly from contradiction to confusion to vacillation. He conspicuously omitted from his lengthy opening statement what proved to be the most stunning revelation of all. He told the committee: 'I never heard from President Trump that aid was conditioned on an announcement' of investigations."

 
 
— Gregg Jarrett, Fox News
— Gregg Jarrett, Fox News
Posted November 21, 2019 • 08:00 am
 
 
On Week Two of the Televised Impeachment Hearings:
 
 

"If coup-coup Nancy Pelosi has a panic button, now would be a good time to lean on it. With signs that Americans are tuning out the impeachment hearings, the clock is ticking on Democrats' chance to make their case.

"Pelosi is clearly worried, telling fellow Dems it's a 'weak response' to 'let the election decide' whether President Trump should be removed.

"'That dangerous position only adds to the urgency of our action, because POTUS is jeopardizing the integrity of the 2020 elections,' the speaker wrote in a 'Dear Colleague' letter to her House members.

"The letter seemed strange enough when it became public Monday, but Tuesday's hearing more than justified her fear and desperation. With her party now having failed to hit anything close to pay dirt after three long days of public testimony, she is trying to keep her members on board the impeachment train, lest the whole effort crash in failure and disgrace.

"Alas, Tuesday wasn't much help. As they did in the first hearings last week, Dems again failed to make the Ukraine issue the crime of the century or even of the Trump presidency. Their hyperbolic descriptions are not even close to the pedestrian evidence they're producing."

Read entire article here.

 
 
— Michael Goodwin, New York Post
— Michael Goodwin, New York Post
Posted November 20, 2019 • 08:10 am
 
 
On Elizabeth Warren's 'Medicare for All':
 
 

"The clear loser of the Democratic primary is 'Medicare for All.'

"First, it demonstrated the unreliability of Kamala Harris out of the gate, when she endorsed it before quickly backing off. Now, it has blunted the momentum of Elizabeth Warren, made a mockery of her claim to be an uber-wonk and shredded her implicit appeal to Bernie Sanders supporters as an equally committed left-winger without the baggage.

"Under pressure for weeks to cough up details related to her version of the proposal, Warren has now backed all the way down to promising to pass Medicare for All by the end of the third year of her presidency.

"This is an implicit concession that she won't do it at all. No presidential candidate ever pledges to do something important in Year 3. That's when, if history is any guide, a president has suffered a midterm drubbing and lost all legislative momentum. Warren wants us to believe that this would be the opportune time for her to pass perhaps the most sweepingly intrusive government measure in American history."

 
 
— Rich Lowry, National Review Editor
— Rich Lowry, National Review Editor
Posted November 19, 2019 • 08:02 am
 
 
On Restoring and Preserving Our Founding Principles:
 
 

"One of the ironies of today is that those who oppose this President constantly accuse this Administration of 'shredding' constitutional norms and waging a war on the rule of law. When I ask my friends on the other side, what exactly are you referring to? I get vacuous stares, followed by sputtering about the Travel Ban or some such thing. While the President has certainly thrown out the traditional Beltway playbook, he was upfront about that beforehand, and the people voted for him. What I am talking about today are fundamental constitutional precepts. The fact is that this Administration's policy initiatives and proposed rules, including the Travel Ban, have transgressed neither constitutional, nor traditional, norms, and have been amply supported by the law and patiently litigated through the Court system to vindication.

"Indeed, measures undertaken by this Administration seem a bit tame when compared to some of the unprecedented steps taken by the Obama Administration's aggressive exercises of Executive power -- such as, under its DACA program, refusing to enforce broad swathes of immigration law.

"The fact of the matter is that, in waging a scorched earth, no-holds-barred war of 'Resistance' against this Administration, it is the Left that is engaged in the systematic shredding of norms and the undermining of the rule of law. This highlights a basic disadvantage that conservatives have always had in contesting the political issues of the day."

Read entire speech here.

 
 
— Attorney General William Barr, Remarks at the Federalist Society, November 15, 2019
— Attorney General William Barr, Remarks at the Federalist Society, November 15, 2019
Posted November 18, 2019 • 07:53 am
 
 
On the Real Ukraine Controversy:
 
 

"The first time I ever heard the name of U.S. ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch was in early March of this year. It did not come from a Ukrainian or an ally of President Trump. It came from a career diplomat I was interviewing on background on a different story.

"The diplomat, as I recall, suggested that Yovanovitch had just caused a commotion in Ukraine a few weeks before that country's presidential election by calling for the firing of one of the prosecutors aligned with the incumbent president.

"The diplomat related that a more senior State official, David Hale, was about to travel to Ukraine and was prepping to be confronted about Yovanovitch's comments. I remember the diplomat joking something to the effect of, 'we always say that the Geneva Convention is optional for our Kiev staff.'

"The Geneva Convention is the UN-backed pact enacted during the Cold War that governs the conduct of foreign diplomats in host countries and protects them against retribution. But it strictly mandates that foreign diplomats 'have a duty not to interfere in the internal affairs of that State' that hosts them. ...

"I dutifully checked out my source's story. And sure as day, Yovanovitch did give a speech on March 5, 2019 calling for Ukraine's special anticorruption prosecutor to be removed."

Read entire article here.

 
 
— John Solomon, Award Winning Investigative Journalist and The Hill Executive VP
— John Solomon, Award Winning Investigative Journalist and The Hill Executive VP
Posted November 15, 2019 • 07:35 am
 
 
On Day One of the Televised Impeachment Hearings:
 
 

"Is that it? Is that all they got?

"Day One of impeachment was not exactly must see TV. Sure, it was interesting and substantive at times, which would be compliments if this were a graduate school seminar about the lonely lives and confusing experiences of far-flung diplomats.

"But this was a congressional hearing to determine whether to file charges against and ultimately remove the president of the United States. By that standard, the Adam Schiff show was a flop.

"I would call it a sensational flop, except that would suggest a sense of drama the day never produced. A five-hour slog that doesn't hit pay dirt or end up anywhere meaningful can't be sensational.

"The Schiff show was more of a quiet, methodical flop. Imagine a slow leak in a big balloon and you'll get the picture."

Read entire article here.

 
 
— Michael Goodwin, New York Post
— Michael Goodwin, New York Post
Posted November 14, 2019 • 08:03 am
 
 
On Fundraising Through Whistleblowing:
 
 

"EXCLUSIVE: A newly filed complaint to the Intelligence Community Inspector General (ICIG) alleges that the whistleblower whose allegations touched off House Democrats' impeachment inquiry may have violated federal law by indirectly soliciting more than a quarter-million dollars from mostly anonymous sources via a GoFundMe page.

"The complaint, which was filed last week and obtained by Fox News, alleged the donations from roughly 6,000 individuals 'clearly constitute' gifts to a current intelligence official that may be restricted because of the employee's official position pursuant to 5 CFR 2635.203 and other statutes. To date, the GoFundMe has raised over $227,000. ...

"Tully Rinckey PLLC, the law firm representing the individual reporting the allegations, is closely guarding the identity of their client, though Fox News is told the individual is the holder of a top-secret SCI security clearance and has served in government.

"'I have not seen anything on this scale,' Anthony Gallo, the managing partner of Tully Rinckey PLLC, told Fox News, referring to the fundraising. 'It's not about politics for my client -- it's whistleblower-on-whistleblower, and [my client's] only interest is to see the government ethics rules are being complied with government-wide.'"

Read entire article here.

 
 
— Gregg Re, Fox News
— Gregg Re, Fox News
Posted November 13, 2019 • 07:32 am
 
 
On Impeachment Inquiry Questions:
 
 

"Joe Biden needs to explain why his threats to withhold aid to Ukraine, about which he publicly boasted, were legitimate, while Trump's were somehow an impeachable offense. He should also be asked what should be done to stop others from behaving as corruptly as his son did.

"Any president has the right to ask questions about American involvement in corrupt acts abroad. That's true -- even if Joe Biden was innocent of wrongdoing and if Hunter is only guilty of being a lame grifter.

"Asking Biden about Obama's use of aid as leverage to get its way in Ukraine puts Trump's actions into context. Nor is it irrelevant to point out that Obama's assistance fell far short of what Kiev needed to defend its territory against Moscow's aggression. It matters that it was only after Trump took office that lethal military supplies began to flow from Washington to Kiev.

"You also don't have to approve of Trump to understand that American administrations use aid to pressure foreign countries all the time and do so for a variety of reasons, not all of which are high-minded.

"Merely asking these questions undermines the entire notion that Trump has committed an impeachable offense."

Read entire article here.

 
 
— Jonathan Tobin, JNS.org Editor-in-Chief
— Jonathan Tobin, JNS.org Editor-in-Chief
Posted November 12, 2019 • 08:12 am
 
 
On Pursuing Impeachment at the Expense of Governing:
 
 

"Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) doubled down on his defense of President Trump amid the ongoing impeachment inquiry, arguing there's 'nothing there' in the call between Trump and Ukrainian leaders to suggest the president did anything wrong.

"'You make your mind up about the phone call. I made my mind up. There's nothing there,' Graham said in an interview Saturday with KCCI, a Des Moines CBS affiliate.

"'I'm trying to let the House know, "You're dividing America for no good reason." We got a lot of things we should be doing, like lowering drug costs and getting a trade deal with Canada and Mexico,' he added."

 
 
— Rebecca Klar, The Hill
— Rebecca Klar, The Hill
Posted November 11, 2019 • 07:45 am
 
 
On Top Anti-Trump Witness Not Being Present During POTUS Call With Ukraine:
 
 

"A key Democratic witness against Trump admitted in congressional testimony last month that he was not part of the July 25 phone call between the U.S. and Ukrainian presidents, that he didn't see a transcript or readout of it until late September when it was declassified and released, and that he has never even spoken to President Donald Trump.

"William Taylor, the charge d'affairs of the U.S. Embassy in Kyiv, Ukraine, told lawmakers in secret testimony two weeks ago that his opinions about an alleged quid pro quo demanded by Trump were formed largely from conversations with anti-Trump staffers within the diplomatic bureaucracy."

Read entire article here.

 
 
— Sean Davis, The Federalist Co-Founder
— Sean Davis, The Federalist Co-Founder
Posted November 08, 2019 • 07:40 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?