Author Archive
June 13th, 2018 at 3:01 pm
In Good News for Consumers, Federal Judge Rejects DOJ Attempt to Block AT&T/Time Warner Merger
Posted by Print

In a decision that came as no surprise but nevertheless merits celebration, a federal judge yesterday rejected the Justice Department’s needless lawsuit attempting to block AT&T’s acquisition of Time Warner.

Whenever federal bureaucracies seek to disrupt functioning markets by prohibiting mutual agreements between two willing parties, they carry a heavy burden of proof to establish impending consumer harm.  In this case, the opposite was true – the federal government’s needless interference, not the proposed acquisition, would result in consumer harm.  Accordingly, Judge Richard Leon ruled that Justice’s allegations “do not come close to answering the question before the Court.”

So why is yesterday’s ruling important going forward?  Hopefully, it provides federal bureaucrats an abject lesson against future destructive campaigns of a similar sort.

As one immediate example, consider the proposed merger between T-Mobile and Sprint announced recently.  Although the T-Mobile/Sprint proposal involves characteristics unique to it, it offers the consumer market similar sorts of benefits.

Namely, T-Mobile/Sprint prospectively offers an enhanced array of consumer services in comparison to what is available today.  For example, the two current companies’ differing but complementary assets would create a new network with enhanced capacity, wider coverage and more effective wireless performance for customers than currently exists.  It also promises network upgrades, lower prices and job creation.  In particular, the proposed merger offers significant potential benefits through deployment of the first 5G wireless network in the U.S.

Through that $40 billion investment in 5G, consumers will enjoy data delivery at a lower cost, and the incentive for competitors to similarly lower prices to consumers.  That will also prompt market competition to expand spectrum in rural areas in addition to urban centers, as well as capacity improvements for consumers.

That’s how market competition works.  A T-Mobile/Sprint merger and its 5G deployment would also mean billions in new private infrastructure investment and countless new jobs.  In contrast, the absence of a T-Mobile/Sprint merger would mean slower deployment of a 5G nationwide network, and the absence of a market competitor of greater scale.  Ultimately, that means consumers would lose.

The Trump Administration has demonstrated to date how deregulation can turbocharge the economy and benefit American consumers.  That logic applies with added potency to the ever-evolving telecommunications market, and the Justice Department should learn its lesson and refrain from future needless interference that will only cost consumers and trigger embarrassing legal defeats.

April 3rd, 2018 at 12:42 pm
Mike Bates in Pensacola News Journal: Florida’s New 2nd Amendment Restrictions Shamefully Unconstitutional
Posted by Print

Writing in the Pensacola News Journal, WEBY 1330 radio host Mike Bates offers potent commentary regarding Florida’s new Second Amendment restrictions:

Although well intended, the law’s exemption that permits 18- to 20-year-old military personnel to buy firearms is an outrageous provision.  Does the government of Florida really believe that military personnel deserve special constitutional rights that are denied to civilians?  Should constitutional rights be earned through military service and denied to those who do not serve?  That’s what the new Florida law does.”

He concludes with a stirring call to action and citizen involvement:

If we are not steadfast in defense of our liberties, the politicians and judges will destroy our constitutional rights.  It won’t occur through outright repeals;  it will happen by rendering our rights meaningless through unconstitutional laws and court rulings.  It is an obligation of all decent citizens to prevent that.  The government of Florida has already shown it will not.  It’s disgraceful.”

Read the entire piece here.

December 19th, 2017 at 6:16 am
CFIF Joins Coalition Urging Strong IP Protections for Any Renegotiated NAFTA Deal
Posted by Print

In a letter sent to Ambassador Robert E. Lighthizer, United States Trade Representative, the Center for Individual Freedom joined with a coalition of 25 organizations to urge strong intellectual property protections for any renegotiated NAFTA deal.

The letter, which was organized by the American Conservative Union, can be read by clicking here.

March 29th, 2010 at 12:16 pm
Video: Liberty Lost
Posted by Print

In CFIF’s most recent Freedom Minute video, CFIF’s Renee Giachino discusses how with the passage of ObamaCare, Americans are being forced to sacrifice fundamental liberties and the nation’s character.


October 12th, 2009 at 9:43 am
Medicare for All, Except the Mayo Clinic
Posted by Print

President Obama loves the Mayo Clinic.  President Obama loves Medicare.  But the Mayo Clinic doesn’t love Medicare.

The Arizona Republic reported on Friday that,

One of the Mayo Clinic’s two family-medicine practices in Arizona soon will stop accepting Medicare, leaving thousands of patients to pay out of pocket for routine doctor’s visits or find a new physician. … Hospital officials called the new policy a ‘two year pilot program’ and said Thursday that the changes are necessary because of low Medicare reimbursement rates.”

Does anyone recall that one of the provisions of “health care reform” is to reduce Medicare reimbursements to doctors even further?  Medical insurance that doctors won’t take just doesn’t seem like a healthy reform.

October 12th, 2009 at 9:33 am
The Country the Nobel Peace Prize Committee Forgot
Posted by Print

It’s name is Honduras.  It’s tiny and impoverished.  It hasn’t had an easy time becoming a democracy.  It’s president was recently thrown out in a “coup.”

Well, that’s what President Obama and a bunch of his South American thug-buddies say.  And Obama’s sticking to his story, come hell or the Honduran Constitution or responsible legal interpretations of it by people who, you know, have actually read it and have determined that the ouster was legal.  Those interpretations have been published.

Well, never mind, the President has his own legal opinion, written at the State Department.  It hasn’t been published.   It’s secret, as if written in the invisible ink that has become a hallmark of this administration’s “transparency.”

U.S. Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC), a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, went to Honduras on a fact-finding mission.  He published his impressions over the weekend in The Wall Street Journal.

The U.S. Ambassador to Honduras urged Demint to read the State Department legal analysis.  He tried, before and after his trip.  His request has been refused.  Did we mention that he’s on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee?  Did we mention that President Obama and his South  American thug-buddies have not exactly contributed to the internal peace of Honduras, following the ouster?

Honduras is a tiny country, from which a major U.S. foreign policy blunder is emerging.  Its impact on the world?  Not so much.  It’s impact on the history of U.S. foreign policy regarding South America?  Add it to a long list of sad and sordid tales.  This one is President Obama’s.

October 8th, 2009 at 6:51 pm
The Wheels of Justice Grind Slow… House Ethics Not So Quickly
Posted by Print

The U.S. House Ethics Committee unanimously voted  today to expand its investigation into the finances and reporting thereof by Charlie Rangel, Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee.

Well, that’s good, all of you who believe that corruption by public officials is an important issue (the most important based on a Rasmussen Poll that got little notice last week) might say.

Maybe.  But the Ethics Committee investigation has been going on for a year already, and the House Democrats, led by Speaker Nancy Pelosi, have made it abundantly clear that there will be no move to  remove Rangel from his Chairmanship until the investigation is complete, and he has no inclination to voluntarily step aside.

That investigation will now take longer.  Much longer.

Due process and thoroughness are important, but one sometimes wonders, particularly with Congressional ethics investigations, if those worthy considerations are actually the motivations driving the ship.  The investigation will now take longer.  Much longer.

October 8th, 2009 at 5:29 pm
Census Bureau Hires Criminals? (This Isn’t an ACORN story)
Posted by Print

According to The Hill, criminals may have been hired to conduct door-to-door census canvassing, based on a GAO report.

Hi.  I’m here to take your census.  Oh, that’s a nice watch you’re wearing.  Is your wallet handy so I can check your identification?

October 8th, 2009 at 5:23 pm
The Taliban Aren’t al-Qaida; You Didn’t Understand That?
Posted by Print

Earlier this week, we got an Afghan Taliban press release courtesy of the Associated Press.  It assured us that all the Taliban want is “independence and establishment of an Islamic system” and don’t want to harm other countries or any other bad stuff if only all of us would simply go away and leave them alone to do with the indigenous people as they will.  (Perhaps you are familiar with how the Taliban go about establishing an Islamic system.)

Well, good to know and thanks for sharing, we thought.

Then we got a UPI story, which led with, “U.S. officials say al-Qaida is seen as a greater threat than the Afghan Taliban in the emerging war strategy formulations of President Barack Obama. … After the president met with top advisers Wednesday for three hours, officials said the new strategy may focus more on a campaign against al-Qaida in Pakistan than on the Taliban in Afghanistan.”

And then, sure enough, we got another Associated Press story that began, “President Obama is prepared to accept some Taliban involvement in Afganistan’s political future and appears inclined to send only as many more U.S. troops as needed to keep al-Qaida at bay, a senior administration official said Thursday.”

You do see what is happening here, with President Obama’s “War of Necessity,” don’t you?  If not, don’t worry, you soon will.

October 6th, 2009 at 9:09 am
Doctors for Liberal Politics
Posted by Print

It occurred to us yesterday that we should request the names and affiliations of the 150 doctors in white coats (some hastily provided by the White House costume department) who appeared at President Obama’s latest ObamaCare infomercial.

Then, as if by providence, The New York Times provided us with one sentence that told us all we really need to know about these people who are going to fan out across the countryside to sell, sell, sell: 

Many are members of Doctors for America, a new grass-roots organization that has advocated a health care overhaul and is an outgrowth of Doctors for Obama, which worked to help elect the president.”

Since the President said nothing new yesterday, we must assume that they’re going to sell the same old “hope and change” they were peddling before the election.  That isn’t medicine, and it surely isn’t how to pay for it.

October 2nd, 2009 at 5:22 pm
Obama’s Mayo Sandwich
Posted by Print

President Obama has frequently cited the Mayo Clinic as an example of excellent health care at affordable prices.  In July, Mayo criticized part of House “health care reform” plans.  Now, Mayo’s CEO, Dr. Denis A. Cortese, tells The New York Times that “he is disgusted with the way Washington is approaching an overhaul of the nation’s health care system.”

In an interview with Reed Abelson, Cortese said, “Look at all the time we’re wasting.  It’s pretty heartbreaking to watch.”


Citing Medicare’s track record, Dr. Cortese said he would urge Congress to create a national package of health insurance options modeled after the Federal Employees Health Benefits plan.

“That program allows civil servants to choose from a wide range of insurance offerings, with dozens of health insurers participating.  If people want more generous coverage, they have to pay more.  The plans are vetted by the government, which also restricts the amount of profit the insurers can make on the basic policies.”

To read the brief article online, which is slightly different from the print version, go here.

October 2nd, 2009 at 9:01 am
In Re: The Matter of Roman Polanski
Posted by Print

It did not come to our attention until yesterday that it is compulsory for every writer and commentator in America – regardless of more pressing concerns such as the bankruptcy or national security of said country – to publicly express an opinion on Roman Polanski, non-compliance punishable by loss of writing or commentating license, or both.

But what if one’s opinion is unprintable, and one’s solution, involving 13 mastiffs, is unacceptable to contemporary society?

Such a one is left with but a single line:  “Forget it, Jake.  It’s Chinatown.”

October 1st, 2009 at 1:24 pm
Senate Democrats Screw States. Reid Screws Other Democrats (and Their States). Democrats Complain. Reid Makes Campaign Speech. States Still Get Screwed.
Posted by Print

When we posted commentary this morning regarding the imposition of ginormous new Medicaid mandates on the states if “health care reform” passes, we briefly alluded to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, in an attempt to ease his dismal re-election chances, getting 100% reimbursement for Nevada, while sticking other states with their share and part of his also.

Our point was to motivate governors (who well understand the problem) to oppose this travesty.

Manu Raju of wrote on another aspect of Reid’s sweetheart deal – the grumbling of other Senate Democrats – and the piece is priceless.

Note how the other Democrats oh so seriously want their states to be treated “fairly,” not once acknowledging that they are about to screw all of them, in varying degrees.

Note how Reid uses the argument to make his campaign speech to Nevadans, which seems to say, “I’m going to pass this bill that screws you, but less than others.  Don’t you want to keep me?”

Note how none of these worthies recognize how ridiculous they sound.

September 30th, 2009 at 11:44 am
Florida Congressman the Latest to Eat Live Worms in Public
Posted by Print

It’s happened again.  Rep. Alan Grayson (D-FL) electrified the House floor last night with one of those stunning arguments for which Members of Congress are becoming unchallenged public intellectuals.  It can be summed up by his visual aid:  “The Republican Health Care Plan:  Die Quickly.”

Wouldn’t the country be better off if Jeff Probst (host of “Survivor” for those of you who only watch C-Span) were to become House Speaker?  He’d introduce better production values, reality-show suspense and, most important in a culture that resists the significant public value – not to mention entertainment – of throwing people to lions, weekly banishment from the island.

Properly medicated readers might wish to read “Grayson’s greatest hits” compiled by Josh Kraushaar at

September 27th, 2009 at 9:39 pm
RomneyCare, a Major Political Problem for Mitt Romney
Posted by Print

Andy Barr, at, outlines a major political problem for former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney.  A former and presumably future Republican candidate for President in 2012, Romney was front-and-center in pushing through and heralding unprecedented health care insurance expansion in the state.


Romney can rightfully boast that he got much what he aimed for, since less than three percent of Massachusetts citizens are currently uninsured.  But critics insist that the cost of Romney’s program has far exceeded the governor’s estimates and have targeted the plan as a prime example of what not to do on the national level.

“Even in Massachusetts there are signs of discomfort with the plan:  A June Rasmussen Reports poll found that only 26 percent of Massachusetts voters thought the state’s health care reform was a success.”

From our periodic scans of Massachusetts media regarding the growing problems with RomneyCare (and its similarities to national proposals), we think he’s got an awful tough row to hoe (as in garden tool, not hip hop slang, can’t be too careful these days) to win the Republican nomination if he just keeps defending the problematic plan, as he seems wont to do.

Still, we think Romney is a smart and honorable man.  And wouldn’t it be refreshing (not to mention unique) if he just stood up and said, “look, this was the problem and this is what we tried and it hasn’t worked, and it’s certainly not going to work on a national scale”?

September 27th, 2009 at 8:28 pm
ACORN and The New York Times
Posted by Print

Clark Hoyt, Public Editor (ombudsman, sort of) of The New York Times, today analyzes the Times’ “slow reflexes” on the ACORN story. 

No bias or ideology there, a bunch of editors told him, they’re just too busy covering “health care, two wars and the deep recession,” in the words of Dean Baquet, Washington bureau chief. 

Managing Editor Jill Abramson, managing editor for news, blamed “insufficient tuned-in-ness to the issues that are dominating Fox News and talk radio,” undoubtedly forgetting that when “the New York City Council froze all its funding for Acorn and the Brooklyn district attorney opened a criminal investigation, there was still [no story].”

But just wait, conservatives.  Abramson and Executive Editor Bill Keller have now appointed an editor to “monitor opinion media and brief them frequently on bubbling controversies.”  The editor will be anonymous, so he doesn’t get, in Keller’s words, “a bombardment of e-mails and excoriation in the blogosphere.”

We have one point:  Most conservatives just want newspapers that cover news (like when the local district attorney opens a criminal investigation of a major national organization) with factual, unbiased reportage, not more he said/she said babble on “bubbling controversies.”  The bubbling controversies already have outlets (such as Fox News and talk radio), which seem to be doing a lot better than the Times.

We have one question:  Is an anonymous editor anything like an anonymous source?  It’s just a journalistic concept with which we are unfamiliar.

Tags: ,
September 27th, 2009 at 11:10 am
Krugman Goes Postal
Posted by Print

There is something distinctly undignified when a Nobel Prize-winning economist goes postal, but then no one has accused Paul Krugman of dignity in some time.

In one of his harangues on behalf of the Waxman-Markey bill (you know, otherwise known as cap-and-tax) to supposedly prevent some future tropical creature’s diet from including boiled people, Krugman makes the argument that in 2020 the bill would cost the average family “roughly the cost of a postage stamp a day.”

Krugman did not originate the line, around a while now, one of those analogies invariably conjured up by elitists to explain to us plain folks in plain language why we can afford to fund this or that government program.

With regard to this one, we would never stoop so low as to ask what the Postal Service, yet another already bankrupt government service, will do when all those average families, who really must live within their budgets, have to sacrifice just that one postage stamp a day (and that’s if you accept Krugman’s and the government’s math).  Do Nobel Prize-winning economists ever address the idea that resources which are not infinite cannot be infinitely taken?

No, we want to be positive by urging President Obama to begin selling ObamaCare by saying it’s only going to cost every senior citizen just two-and-a-half Depends diapers a day.

September 25th, 2009 at 10:32 pm
Message to Newspapers: Not Even Congress Cares About You
Posted by Print

Yesterday there was this Joint Economic Committee hearing on “The Future of Newspapers:  The Impact on the Economy and Democracy.”

So how many of the 20 House and Senate members showed up?  Three, according to Joseph Curl of The Washington Times, including the Chairwoman, Representative Carolyn B. Maloney (D-NY), who wasn’t even there part of the time.

Maloney and Senator Benjamin Cardin (D-Md) have introduced a bill to allow newspapers to become non-profits, since most of them can’t make a profit, having run off most of their subscribers.  No vote has been scheduled.

In a Sacred Heart University poll of attitudes about the media (mentioned on this blog yesterday, in another context), “70.4 percent said they believe the national news media are not responsive to ‘consumer preferences and market desires.’  Nearly 68 percent said they agreed with the statement: ‘Old-style, traditionally objective and fair journalism is dead.’”

What would it take to resuscitate it?  We doubt if it is possible, because most of those running today’s newspapers are too arrogant to think the opinions of readers are of value.

September 25th, 2009 at 10:48 am
Oh How Hard It Is To Represent the People
Posted by Print

From Mike Soraghan,

“Politically vulnerable Democrats say Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other House leaders aren’t offering them the protection from tough votes that they did in the last Congress.

“Conservative Democrats fear that dozens of members could be swept out of their districts in the midterm election next year, and that fear has been intensifying in recent weeks.”

So why don’t they take an easy vote?  The Democratic House Caucus decides who will be Speaker.  We’d be willing to bet that just about anyone voting to remove Pelosi could have their seats in perpetuity.

September 25th, 2009 at 10:21 am
Wacky World Leaders and the Mainstream Media that Back Them. Oh Goodness, Let’s Go for $5000 on This One, Alex
Posted by Print

Yesterday, we remarked briefly and pointedly on the paranoid delusional loon who is the (appropriately) deposed former President of Honduras, one Manuel Zelaya.   By President Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton (not to mention the Organization of American States), the tiny country has been threatened with economic ruin if it does not return the guy to power.

But what of the mainstream media that also supported Zelaya’s return.  Well, at least the Washington Post read that Mr. Zelaya now claims to have been “bombarded with radiation and toxic gases by ‘Israeli mercenaries.'”

So what does good old WaPo write now?  “Such behavior ought to deter any responsible member of the Organization of American States – starting with Brazil – from supporting anything other than a token return by Mr. Zelaya to office.  The Obama administration has backed such a restoration (as have we)…”

We’re much too busy to go back and parse words, but we just can’t seem to remember the emphasis on “token” by any of the aforementioned in the past.

Based on some pretty solid understanding of the Honduras Constitution and the circumstances of Zelaya’s removal by people who actually know something about the country, we think he was removed from office legally and by the book.  And now we also know, from his own mouth, that he’s certifiable.

Would a “token” return to office be in a straight jacket with Nurse Ratchet on duty?