For some time now, Barack Obama and his apologists have trumpeted slowing healthcare costs as somehow…
CFIF on Twitter CFIF on YouTube
Sticker Shock: Healthcare Spending Spikes As ObamaCare Takes Effect

For some time now, Barack Obama and his apologists have trumpeted slowing healthcare costs as somehow attributable to ObamaCare.  Never mind that the declines predated Obama's election, and that even The Washington Post gave him three Pinocchios in its Fact Checker analysis of this claim on November 5 of last year:

Healthcare inflation has gone down every single year since the law [ObamaCare] passed, so that we now have the lowest increase in healthcare costs in 50 years - which is saving us about $180 billion in reduced overall costs to the federal government and in the Medicare program."

To illustrate how he played the role of rooster taking credit for the sunrise, healthcare cost inflation reached 7% in 2003, but plummeted to approximately 2% before Obama even took office.…[more]

July 31, 2015 • 10:02 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.
Jester’s Courtroom
A Lawsuit to Silence Critics, Yelp!
Wednesday, July 29 2015

A Colorado couple has spent $65,000 in legal fees after being slapped with a lawsuit following a critical review posted on Yelp; that's twice what they paid for the contractor's work.

Matt White and his fiancée, Amanda Jameer, of Jefferson County, Colorado, hired Footprints Floors to do some installation and repair work at their home. After deeming the work "deplorable," the couple posted a review on Yelp that described their experience with the company as "absolutely horrible." Footprints Floors, claiming White's Yelp review cost the company 167 projects and $625,000 in revenue between January 1 and August 1, 2014, filed a defamation suit. White and Jameer claimed that the suit is a blatant attack on free speech.

"Some of the other reviews were much more scathing than my review," said White.

"I feel like we're being bullied," added Jameer. "It's still unbelievable to me even though we've been going through this for a year."

Colorado State Senator Tim Neville worries such lawsuits are a way to censor critics, adding that he might introduce legislation next year that would make Colorado the 29th state to implement "Anti-SLAPP" legislation to protect consumers who post critical reviews.

"Opinions are opinions and sometimes we don't like someone else's opinion but the great thing about our country is that we have the right to exercise that opinion. That's free speech," Neville said.

White settled his case for $15,000, saying it was cheaper than going to trial, but he refused to sign a nondisclosure agreement.

Yelp weighed in as well telling news sources that, "Businesses that choose to sue their customers to silence them rather than address their comments, often bring additional unwanted attention to the original criticism. We frequently find that a better course of action, rather than suing your customers, is publicly responding to a critical review in the same forum."


A Fruity Case
Thursday, July 23 2015

A class action lawsuit has been filed against Nestle USA, Inc. alleging that images used on its Gerber Graduates Puffs are misleading.

In the lawsuit filed recently in California, attorneys for the plaintiffs claim the "vibrant" images of fruits and vegetables that appear on the labels of Gerber Graduate Puffs intentionally lead parents to believe that the product is healthy when, according to the lawsuit, it is "far from nutritious."

"Parents trying to buy healthy and nutritious snacks for their toddlers have trusted Gerber's reputation and package presentations, paid Gerber's premium prices based on that reputation, and, in exchange, unwittingly provided their toddlers with empty calories. Far from the healthy treat the labels and Gerber's reputation suggest, Puffs are little more than flour and sugar," the suit notes.

Nestle maintains that the suit is "frivolous" and "without merit."  According to news reports, a spokesperson for Nestle said Gerber is fully compliant with FDA regulations regarding product naming and labeling.

"We are committed to clear and transparent labeling practices. Gerber fully stands by its labeling practices and claims and will vigorously defend this lawsuit which it considers to be baseless and is confident it will be successful defending these allegations demonstrating that its product packaging and claims are transparent and in full compliance with all legal and regulatory requirements," the spokesperson insisted.


Double the Trouble
Thursday, July 16 2015

The restaurant caught in the crossfire of a biker-gang melee is now being sued by a neighboring restaurant.

Waco's Twin Peaks is being sued by Don Carlos Mexican Restaurant for $1 million in lost business and property damages. According to news reports, the lawsuit argues that Don Carlos's more sedate guests were "caught in the crossfire" of the gang fight, as bullets struck cars and police hid on the patio. Don Carlos further claims it was forced to close for three days and is concerned about whether business will rebound at the "former crime scene."

Calling Twin Peaks' owner, Peaktastic Beverage, a "grossly negligent" franchise operator, Don Carlos's lead counsel Tony Buzzbee opined, "Twin Peaks didn't just add gas to the fire, it threw the match. Inviting armed rival gangs to a place where alcohol is served is not only unwise, it is reckless. All of the neighboring businesses are damaged, and Twin Peaks needs to be held accountable."


Lawsuit Backfires
Monday, July 06 2015

A Brady Campaign-backed lawsuit has backfired on the parents of a victim who was killed in the Aurora, Colorado, movie theater attack.

In a recently released opinion, federal Judge Richard P. Matsch dismissed the lawsuit brought against online merchants who sold the perpetrator various items used in his crime. Ultimately, the court simply refused the plaintiffs' request to rewrite settled law to their liking and against the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act.

"To grant such relief this court must conduct hearings and make policy decisions that are within the authority of the political branches of government responsive to the people under our constitutional structure of representative government," Judge Matsch wrote. "The defendants' motions to dismiss must be granted because this court does not have the authority to grant the relief requested."

In addition to ruling in favor of the defendants, the court awarded defense costs and attorneys' fees totaling $203,001.86. "It is apparent that this case was filed to pursue the political purposes of the Brady Center," Judge Matsch stated, "and, given the failure to present any cognizable legal claim, bringing these defendants into the Colorado court where the prosecution of James Holmes was proceeding appears to be more of an opportunity to propagandize the public and stigmatize the defendants than to obtain a court order which counsel should have known would be outside the authority of this court."

Just who will ultimately foot the bill is unknown, but Judge Matsch also noted the close relationship of the named plaintiffs to the Brady Campaign itself.

The fee award is being appealed.


More Than They Bargained For
Wednesday, June 24 2015

A Maryland couple is suing the sellers of their new home, claiming they knew or should have known that it was snake infested.

Jody and Jeffrey Brooks got more than they bargained for when they bought their house in Annapolis, Maryland, for $410,000 and later found that it was infested with snakes.  The Brooks have sued the former owners for $2 million in damages, claiming the sellers knew or should have known of the snake infestation.

Shortly after purchasing their property, the Brooks found a snake skin in the home. Then, their four-year-old son saw a snake emerging from the house. Not long thereafter, they realized there were snakes everywhere. According to news reports, a contractor and snake inspector deemed the house snake-infested, noting that there were “highways in the basement walls that the snakes use to traverse the home.”

The sellers had been renting the house, not living there, and claimed they had no knowledge of the snakes. The Brooks dispute their response, noting that a tenant had previously raised the issue of a snake and therefore the sellers should have known there might be a problem.


Question of the Week   
Which one of the following Obama Administration officials stated in April 2015 that under the nuclear deal with Iran, “you will have anywhere, any time 24/7 access as it relates to the nuclear facilities that Iran has”?
More Questions
Quote of the Day   
"[Trump's] rise is not due to his supporters' anger at government. It is a gesture of contempt for government, for the men and women in Congress, the White House, the agencies. It is precisely because people have lost their awe for the presidency that they imagine Mr. Trump as a viable president. ...Mr. Trump's supporters like that he doesn't in the least fear the press, doesn't get the dart-eyed,…[more]
—Peggy Noonan, The Wall Street Journal
— Peggy Noonan, The Wall Street Journal
Liberty Poll   

On August 6, Fox News will televise two debates with the Republican presidential candidates, at 9 p.m. with the top 10, and at 5 p.m. with the rest of the field. Do you plan on watching one or both?