Consumer spending accounts for approximately two-thirds of the U.S. economy, so Joe Biden's crushing…
CFIF on Twitter CFIF on YouTube
Image of the Day: "Bidenomics" Crushes Consumer Confidence

Consumer spending accounts for approximately two-thirds of the U.S. economy, so Joe Biden's crushing impact on consumer confidence helps resolve his apologists' confusion over Biden's economic disapproval.  After inheriting an economy rebounding from the Covid shock, Biden's policies quickly drove consumer confidence back downward, where it continues to stagnate.  No wonder he finds himself in such electoral hot water.

[caption id="" align="alignleft" width="849"] Bidenomics Crushes Consumer Confidence[/caption]

 …[more]

May 08, 2024 • 12:39 PM

Liberty Update

CFIFs latest news, commentary and alerts delivered to your inbox.
Home Jester's Courtroom No Talking Turkey in This Court
No Talking Turkey in This Court Print
Wednesday, December 09 2009

Following a four-year legal battle, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit recently ruled that plaintiffs did not have standing to sue the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) over the slaughter practices for poultry.

The lawsuit, which was filed in San Francisco just days before Thanksgiving in 2005 by the Humane Society of the United States, contended that the USDA’s position that the Humane Method of Slaughter Act of 1958 did not apply to poultry leads to shoddy slaughter practices and jeopardizes food safety.  In the lawsuit, the Humane Society alleged that without legal protection, poultry is subject to “extreme and unnecessary pain and suffering.”

Calling the lawsuit “unnecessarily distracting,” Joel Brandenberger, president of the National Turkey Federation, added, “They’re trying to create an issue where there is none. They’re out trying to create a false impression of what’s going on in the industry.”

Following oral arguments, U.S. District Judge Marilyn Hall Patel ruled in favor of the USDA, saying it was not Congress’ intent to include poultry in the phrase “other livestock” contained in a half-century old congressional act on humane slaughter.  On appeal, a three-judge panel decided that the plaintiffs did not have standing to sue, vacated the lower court’s ruling and sent it back to be dismissed.

Jonathan Lovvorn, an attorney for the Humane Society said a decision whether to appeal has not been made.

—Source:  The Los Angeles Times

Notable Quote   
 
"I didn't expect debates in 2024. It seemed to me that there was too much risk involved for both Biden and Trump. Nor is there a mandate of heaven for presidential debates. But the two candidates calculate risk differently -- that's probably why they are presidents. In their view, the potential upside of watching your opponent melt down is greater than the risk of tripping up. If you do implode, you…[more]
 
 
— Matthew Continetti, Washington Free Beacon
 
Liberty Poll   

Do you believe televised debates between President Biden and former President Trump will actually happen or will fall apart for many potential reasons?