John Lott, our favorite economist at least in the arena of criminology and Second Amendment scholarship…
CFIF on Twitter CFIF on YouTube
Stat of the Day: Everywhere Guns Are Banned, Murder Rates Increase

John Lott, our favorite economist at least in the arena of criminology and Second Amendment scholarship, cogently summarizes the actual, real-world, data-based sociological effect of "gun control" laws:

. While gun bans (either a ban on all guns or on all handguns) have been imposed in many places, every time guns have been banned, murder rates have gone up.

One would think that one time, just out of simple randomness, murder rates would have gone down or at least stayed the same.  Yet in every single case for which we have crime data both before and after the ban, murder rates have gone up, often by huge amounts."

. It's almost as if more guns mean less crime.…[more]

October 20, 2017 • 11:58 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.
Home Press Room CFIF Urges Congressional Republicans to Reject Senate Democrats’ Call for a Federal Bailout of Puerto Rico
CFIF Urges Congressional Republicans to Reject Senate Democrats’ Call for a Federal Bailout of Puerto Rico Print
Wednesday, July 01 2015

Disguising Chapter 9 bankruptcy legislation as a path forward, Senators Schumer and Blumenthal join President Obama and Nancy Pelosi in advocating a Chapter 9 bailout of Puerto Rico

ALEXANDRIA, VA – The Center for Individual Freedom (“CFIF”) today issued the following the statement in response to the announcement by Senators Charles Schumer (D-NY) and Richard Blumenthal(D-CT) that they will introduce special legislation granting Puerto Rico a Chapter 9 bailout:

“Senators Schumer and Blumenthal have chosen to promote special Chapter 9 bankruptcy legislation for Puerto Rico rather than tackling decades of fiscal mismanagement, cronyism and corruption on the island. Senate Republicans should not be fooled: Chapter 9 bankruptcy is a misguided federal bailout for Puerto Rico.  It provides no incentive for the Island’s leadership – led by the Kirchner of the Caribbean, Governor Alejandro Garcia Padilla – to make sound economic and fiscal policy decisions moving forward.  We urge Congressional Republicans to reject the Chapter 9 bailout, and instead support a Congressionally mandated and managed control board over the Island providing Puerto Ricans, and all Americans, with a more sustainable, fiscally sound future.”

Chapter 9 would hurt thousands of hardworking Americans on the mainland and in Puerto Rico who have invested savings in Puerto Rican bonds.  And longer-term, it would do nothing to reform a broken Island.  Furthermore, a Chapter 9 bailout flies in the face of principles for which Republicans are supposed to stand:  limited government, fiscal responsibility and the rule of law. 

American taxpayers should not be saddled with yet another bailout and force Americans saving for retirement to take a financial hit.  Instead, Congressional Republicans should guide Puerto Rico into doing the right thing: trim spending and taxes, stand up to unions and undertake badly-needed fiscal, governance and economic reforms.  The time is right for a Congressional control board.


Related Articles :
Question of the Week   
Which one of the following battles effectively ended the American Revolutionary War?
More Questions
Quote of the Day   
"History will record that the Islamic State caliphate -- a bizarre pseudo-state founded on illusory goals, created by a global horde of jihadis, and enforced with perverted viciousness -- survived for three years, three months and some eighteen days. The fall of Raqqa, the nominal ISIS capital, was proclaimed on Tuesday by the U.S.-backed militia that spearheaded the offensive, a coalition of Kurdish…[more]
—Robin Wright, Contributing Writer
— Robin Wright, Contributing Writer
Liberty Poll   

What is your family’s reaction to this week’s statement that the NFL would like for players to stand for the national anthem, but will not force them to do so?