As we approach Thanksgiving, you may have heard (or personally experienced) that the cost of Thanksgiving…
CFIF on Twitter CFIF on YouTube
Stat of the Day: Thanksgiving Costs Up a Record 20%, but Prescription Drug Prices Decline

As we approach Thanksgiving, you may have heard (or personally experienced) that the cost of Thanksgiving dinner this year is up a record 20%.

Meanwhile, guess what's actually declined in price, according to the federal government itself.  That would be prescription drug prices, which declined 0.1% last month alone.

Perhaps the Biden Administration should focus on helping everyday Americans afford Thanksgiving, rather than artificially imposing innovation-killing government price controls on lifesaving drugs, which are actually declining in price and nowhere near the inflation rate afflicting other consumer costs.…[more]

November 17, 2022 • 11:48 AM

Liberty Update

CFIFs latest news, commentary and alerts delivered to your inbox.
Jester's Courtroom Legal tales stranger than stranger than fiction: Ridiculous and sometimes funny lawsuits plaguing our courts
“Operation Fast and Furious” – Obama Administration Endorses Guns for Mexican Drug Runners, But Not Lawful Americans Print
By Timothy H. Lee
Thursday, June 16 2011
So on the one hand, the sitting President of the United States denigrates law-abiding American citizens who “cling” to guns that he would prefer to outlaw. Meanwhile, his administration recklessly allowed smugglers serving murderous Mexican drug cartels to obtain firearms at will.


Professor John Lott, economic scholar and foremost authority on the deadly real-world consequences of gun “control” laws across the globe, labeled Barack Obama “undoubtedly the most anti-gun candidate ever nominated by a major party for President.” 

Well, that apparently depends on who possesses the gun. 

If you’re a law-abiding American citizen, the Obama Administration would prefer that you remain defenseless.  That’s particularly true if you live in one of America’s high-crime urban hellholes where restaurants refuse to deliver, police are overwhelmed, firearms are outlawed and self-defense in your own home constitutes a crime. 

But if you’re a potential gun trafficker with connections to Mexican drug cartels?  Then you’re in luck. 

That discrepancy became clear this week, as America witnessed the tragic spectacle of the Obama Justice Department’s “Operation Fast and Furious.” 

According to documents and testimony before Representative Darrell Issa (R – California) and the House Oversight Committee that he leads, leading officials within the Justice Department and its subsidiary Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives approved an ill-conceived operation to allow arms purchases by gun traffickers.  Officials planned to monitor those purchases and eventually construct a legal case against Mexican drug cartels. 

Like many Obama Administration schemes, however, things went awry.  The government didn’t possess sufficient ability to trace the firearms in question, so the operation quickly unraveled. 

According to the testimony of federal law enforcement agents, they received explicit orders to refrain from arresting suspects and allow the activities to proceed.  Sadly, two weapons purchased during the operation were later discovered in Arizona at the site where U.S. border agent Brian Terry was killed.  The testimony of Agent Terry’s mother and cousin was particularly wrenching, as they described the late-night telephone call informing them that he was murdered just ten days before Christmas, and how his gifts arrived by mail even after his death. 

During the same round of testimony, Assistant Attorney General for Legislative Affairs Ronald Weich smugly refused to answer Rep. Issa’s direct questions, including who authorized the operation itself. 

But don’t worry.  Mr. Weich assured us that Attorney General Holder “has said that he wants to get to the bottom of this.” 

Contrast the Obama Administration’s cavalier approach in Operation Fast and Furious with its extremist opposition to guns in the hands of law-abiding American citizens. 

Take the late Washington, D.C. gun ban, which effectively prohibited firearm possession even for self-defense in that high-crime capital.  As a candidate, the Obama campaign unambiguously stated to the Chicago Tribune that he, “believes the D.C. handgun law is constitutional.”  Obama repeated his support when questioned by local ABC News reporter Leon Harris.  If Obama supported the D.C. law, which was perhaps the strictest in the nation, it’s difficult to conceive of a prohibition that he would not support.  After the United States Supreme Court overturned that law in the famous 2008 Heller decision, of course, Obama conveniently changed his tune and bizarrely claimed to support that ruling. 

Also consider the city of Chicago, Obama’s own adopted hometown. 

Like Washington, D.C., Chicago effectively prohibited firearm possession even for self-defense in one’s own home.  Here is how the Associated Press described Obama’s position on guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens following a vote when he was an Illinois legislator:  “He also opposed letting people use a self-defense argument if charged with violating local handgun bans by using weapons in their homes.  The bill was a reaction to a Chicago-area man who, after shooting an intruder, was charged with a handgun violation.” 

Obama also supported a complete handgun ban in a 1996 candidate questionnaire, and embraced a 1998 proposal to ban all sales of semi-automatic weapons, which constitute the overwhelming majority of firearms sold in America.  He also supported a prohibition of firearm sales within five miles of any school or park, which effectively covers all gun sales.  After all, how many people live in an area that doesn’t have a school or park within five miles? 

When the Chicago gun ban came before the U.S. Supreme Court in the 2010 case McDonald v. City of Chicago, moreover, the Obama Administration defied tradition and refused to even file a brief.  So much for his alleged support of the individual right to keep and bear arms that he professed after the Heller decision in 2008. 

So on the one hand, the sitting President of the United States denigrates law-abiding American citizens who “cling” to guns that he would prefer to outlaw.  Meanwhile, his administration recklessly allowed smugglers serving murderous Mexican drug cartels to obtain firearms at will. 

It all makes for a  grotesque, tragic inconsistency.

Quiz Question   
The first U.S. oil-producing well was founded in 1859 near which of the following towns?
More Questions
Notable Quote   
 
"New York politicians are slapping a badge on my chest. A law going into effect Saturday requires social-media networks, including any site that allows comments, to publish a plan for responding to alleged hate speech by users.The law blog I run fits the bill, so the law will mandate that I post publicly my policy for responding to comments that 'vilify, humiliate, or incite violence against a group…[more]
 
 
—Eugene Volokh, Co-founder of the Volokh Conspiracy Blog and a Law Professor at the University of California, Los Angeles
— Eugene Volokh, Co-founder of the Volokh Conspiracy Blog and a Law Professor at the University of California, Los Angeles
 
Liberty Poll   

Congress is debating adding $45 billion more than requested to defense spending for 2023. Considering a fragile economy and geopolitical threats, do you support or oppose that increase?