Just hours prior to the terrorist massacre in Paris, Barack Obama foolishly claimed that ISIS was "contained…
CFIF on Twitter CFIF on YouTube
"Contained?" ISIS Captures First City Beyond Iraq or Syria

Just hours prior to the terrorist massacre in Paris, Barack Obama foolishly claimed that ISIS was "contained."  This morning, we awoke to more bad news, and additional refutation of Obama's assertion.  Namely, ISIS has now captured Sirte, Libya, meaning that it now controls its first city beyond Syria or Iraq:

Even as foreign powers step up pressure against Islamic State in Syria and Iraq, the militant group has expanded in Libya and established a new base close to Europe where it can generate oil revenue and plot terror attacks.  Since announcing its presence in February in Sirte, the city on Libya's Mediterranean coast has become the first that the militant group governs outside of Syria and Iraq."

So much for "containment." What has become undeniably clear is that Obama's foreign policy…[more]

November 30, 2015 • 03:56 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.
Press Releases
CFIF Joins Broad Coalition Urging States to Fight Back Against EPA's Coercive Clean Power Plan Print E-mail
Thursday, December 04 2014

In a letter sent today to state elected officials, the Center for Individual Freedom joined with a broad coalition of free-market and conservative organizations to urge states to fight back against the Environmental Protection Agency's coercive efforts aimed at forcing them to adopt destructive anti-energy policies under the guise of the so-called Clean Power Plan.

The letter, which was organized by American Commitment, can be read below.



Dear State Legislators, Attorneys General, and Governors:

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is attempting to coerce states into adopting expensive, destructive, unlawful regulations, possibly including cap-and-trade, on greenhouse gas emissions – under the threat of even more draconian direct federal regulations.

We urge you to fiercely resist any attempt to appease the EPA's demands. EPA’s so-called Clean Power Plan (CPP) is illegitimate, an affront to both federalism and the separation of powers.

When Congress enacted and amended the Clean Air Act, it did not authorize EPA to restructure state electricity policies. If at any time during the past six years, a U.S. senator or congressman had introduced legislation containing the CPP’s emission-reduction requirements, the bill would have been dead on arrival.  Indeed, even when Democrats had a supermajority in the Senate, they chose not to consider House-passed cap-and-trade legislation.

Moreover, the CPP is unlawful and almost certain to be overturned. EPA stretches the pertinent statutory authority, section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act, beyond all recognition. This obscure, seldom-used provision was designed to set technology-based emission standards for “particular sources,” aptly defined as “designated facilities” in EPA’s 1974-1975 implementing regulations. In the CPP, EPA illicitly treats the entire electric power sector of a state as a “particular source,” and illicitly sets emission standards based not on technologies specific to coal power plants but on the agency’s wish list of ‘green’ energy policies.

The Supreme Court recently cautioned EPA against interpreting the Clean Air Act in ways that “would bring about an enormous and transformative expansion in EPA’s regulatory authority without clear congressional authorization.”

Evidently, EPA still cannot control its appetite for power.

Instead of trying to bargain with EPA, leaders like you should send a clear message to the federal government that if it insists on pursuing the regulatory equivalent of punitive energy taxes, it must promulgate and implement that policy itself -- and be held solely accountable for the disastrous consequences that will follow.

These regulations will destroy thousands of jobs and break the household budgets of millions of American families struggling to make ends meet -- even if states undertake their best efforts to blunt their impacts.

There is simply no feasible or responsible way to implement these greenhouse gas regulations without undermining economic growth.  Moreover, any attempt to do so would have zero environmental benefit as other countries will more than offset any decrease in U.S. emissions.

Worse, these heavy-handed regulations will render the United States less competitive in a global economy, sending more energy-intensive manufacturing facilities abroad in search of more affordable electricity. American workers jobs will be lost, and businesses and consumers will face higher prices.

You will never regret saying no and forcing the federal government to implement its own destructive agenda.  States that chose to implement their own health care exchanges learned this the hard way, as federal bureaucrats micromanaged every aspect of the exchanges and state-level politicians ended up being held responsible for the program's many failures.

Resistance to these regulations is not futile!

The 114th Congress will undoubtedly vote to overturn them, their prospects in court are dismal, and the next presidential election could bring an end to EPA’s war on coal.

State-implementation would entail buy-in from state policymakers and the creation of special interests in state capitals that would benefit from regulation at the expense of your constituents.  State actions may therefore persist even after the federal rule is rescinded.  A plan imposed by the EPA will be inherently easier to resist and reverse.

You have a responsibility to your constituents not to acquiesce in the face of the EPA's threats, but to fight vigorously against them.  We urge you to do so.


60 Plus Association
American Commitment
American Encore
American Energy Alliance
American Values
Americans for Limited Government
Americans for Prosperity
Americans for Tax Reform
Association of Mature American Citizens
Center for Civic Virtue
Center for Freedom and Prosperity
Center for Individual Freedom
Civitas Institute
Club for Growth
Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow
Competitive Enterprise Institute
Energy & Environmental Legal Institute
Family Business Defense Council
Frontiers of Freedom
Heartland Institute
Heritage Action for America
Independent Women’s Forum
Independent Women’s Voice
Institute for Liberty
Maryland Taxpayers Association
National Center for Public Policy Research
National Tax Limitation Committee
National Taxpayers Union
Restore America’s Voice
Restore America’s Mission
Revive America PAC
Rule of Law Committee
Taxpayers Protection Alliance
Tradition, Family, Property, Inc.
United for Missouri


Page 15 of 114
Question of the Week   
What was the name of the ship which brought the Pilgrims to America in 1620?
More Questions
Quote of the Day   
"Washington's debate over refugee policy assumes an unmet American obligation to the world. It is as if we were not already doing and sacrificing far more than every other country combined. It is as if there were not dozens of Islamic countries, far closer than the United States to refugee hot-spots, to which it would be sensible to steer Muslim migrants. Yet, there is nothing obligatory about any…[more]
—Andrew C. McCarthy, National Review Institute Policy Fellow
— Andrew C. McCarthy, National Review Institute Policy Fellow
Liberty Poll   

Does your family have political discussions during Thanksgiving Dinner?