A hockey player’s view over the fiscal cliff

So the other day, Cato Institute’s Ted DeHaven compared Treasury Secretary Timmy Geitner to NHL commissioner Gary Bettman. DeHaven pointed out that the Obama administration’s opening proposal to avert the so-called “fiscal cliff”  trotted out by Geitner was about as ridiculous and insulting to congressional Republicans as the NHL owners first offer to players in the continuing NHL lockout was.

Seems to me the analogy is pretty accurate.

Weeks after Bettman’s offer to settle, I’m still stuck watching Russian Premier League hockey. And after Geitner’s little speech, we are still hurtling toward that fiscal cliff at high speed.

But as a hockey player, I think we can take the analogy further.

We have Republicans acting like Sean “the Turtle” Avery, or for some of you long-time fans, maybe Claude Lemeiux. You know, running their yaps, taking the occasional cheap shot,  generally stirring things up. But refusing to drop the gloves and really fight it out. Let’s be real here – the Republicans don’t have any more intention of actually dealing with the spending problem in D.C. than the Democrats do.

What the American people need is a real enforcer. A Bob Probert or a Tie Domi. You know, somebody who will drop the gloves and actually stand toe-to-toe and fight. Admit it, you would love to see Domi pull Geitner into the penalty box with him like he did to that Philly fan a few years ago.


Republicans for Big Government?

by Judge Andrew Napolitano

Do you know anyone who voted Republican this past election in order to further President Obama’s big government agenda? Or is it more likely that Republican voters sought to advance a smaller version of the federal government? And if they did, why are Republican congressional leaders offering to help the president spend us into oblivion?

I suspected that those questions might be asked when Mitt Romney was nominated to oppose Obama. My view of his campaign then and now has been that he presented a choice to the voters of big government versus bigger government, and bigger government prevailed. Romney argued during the campaign that he was at a disadvantage because the president had distributed federal tax dollars to persons and groups critical to his re-election. He has since argued that he lost the election because nearly half of Americans – some by chance, some by choice and some by force – are dependent on government for much of their income or subsistence.

His argument sounds harsh, but it’s true. A formerly working and now retired couple in their mid-80s who are receiving monthly payments from the Social Security Administration into which they were forced to make payments while they were working can hardly be considered slackers. But they can be considered dupes. All of us who have fallen for the government’s nonsense about it holding our money for our future use have been duped. The government doesn’t hold anyone’s money for him. It spends whatever it collects as soon as it receives it. When its entitlement bills come due, it uses current tax revenue, or it borrows money in order to acquire the cash to make the payments.

The president knows this. Congress knows it. The courts have endorsed it. In endorsing it, the courts have held


VIDEO: A Rousing Defense of the Constitution and Nullification

At a time when the Republican establishment is doing everything they can to alienate their constituents, and nullification measures are getting introduced around the country, it becomes more important than ever to step up and put our best foot forward when presenting our ideas to citizens desperately looking for a way to fight back against unjust federal power. Luckily, we have a shining example to follow in constitutional attorney KrisAnne Hall who gave an eloquent defense of ObamaCare nullification at the Florida Senate Select Committee on Monday, December 3rd.


“Some claim that [ObamaCare] must be submitted to as law of the land since the Supreme Court made its declaration from on high. This admits that we are not a Republic of sovereign states, but a monarchy. The supremacy clause declares the Constitution to be supreme, not the federal government,” Hall said in her stirring repudiation of the bill.


Will Texas Nullify Obamacare Mandates?

Representative James White (R-Luftkin) has prefiled House Joint Resolution 48 (HJR 48) in the Texas State House of Representatives.  The bill is designed to amend Article I of the Texas Constitution and would protect the rights of people there to decide for themselves whether or not to purchase health insurance. It states, in part:

“Each individual in this state has the right to choose or decline to choose to purchase health insurance coverage without penalty or sanction or threat of penalty or sanction.”

This bill essentially nullifies the requirement of individuals to purchase health insurance as described in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.  In Section 5000A of the PPACA, it states that individuals must have healthcare coverage, as well as their dependents in any given month.  If coverage is lacking, a penalty will be imposed, unless certain income requirements aren’t met. From the act:

‘‘(a) An applicable individual shall for each month beginning after 2013 ensure that the individual, and any dependent of the individual who is an applicable individual, is covered under minimum essential coverage for such month.

(b) (1) IN GENERAL.—If an applicable individual fails to meet the requirement of subsection (a) for 1 or more months during any calendar year beginning after 2013, then, except as provided in subsection (d), there is hereby imposed a penalty with respect to the individual in the amount determined under subsection (c).”

HJR48 would counter the insurance mandate by preventing any State employee or public official from helping effectuate the penalties for non-compliance:


NDAA 2013: Meaningless and dangerous at worst

The US Senate has voted in favor of an act that could imprison Americans. RT has been watching closely the discussions in Congress over the National Defense Authorization Act. Tangerine Bolen of Revolution Truth joins RT’s Kristine Frazao for more on what next year’s NDAA means and compares it to the current legislation, one that…


Bob Costas and Bill O’Reilly Agree: Gun Control is Needed

Bill O’Reilly agrees with Bob Costas.  America needs gun control.  At least, gun control regulated by the Federal Government.  This seems evident by the statements he made on his Fox News television show.

“All gun crimes in America should be federalized and that includes illegal possession.   There should be mandatory federal prison time for any person convicted of having a gun illegally, and if you commit a crime with a gun, that mandatory should be ten years.”

The fact though, is that federal gun laws would be unconstitutional.  While O’Reilly seems to agree that the Federal Government cannot regulate the airwaves, giving them complete control over the right of citizens to bear arms seems just.  Talk about hypocritical.  

And he’s even advocating to give the Feds complete control regulating that which is supposed to protect citizens from government.  Talk about ignorant.  The point is apparent.  Whoever advocates federal gun control has no understanding of our Second Amendment, the intent of our founders, or the Constitution itself.   When it comes to guns, the real threat is not citizen ownership, but an ever increasing centralized power – and a complete disregard for our Constitution.

It seems simple.  “The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms….shall not be infringed.”  It’s the words from the Second Amendment.  What it does not say is, “The right of citizens to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, unless Congress – or Bill O’Reilly – deems it necessary.”  Or “The right of citizens to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, unless advances in technology allow for the prolific purchase and use of advanced weaponry.” Or “The right of citizens to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, unless the public safety requires their limitation.”


Why States Must Shun the Obamacare Medicaid Expansion

During the Obamacare case before the Supreme Court, the Independence Institute argued that the law’s provisions forcing the states to expand Medicaid were unconstitutional. Neither the Constitution nor case law, we pointed out, permits the federal government to use federal spending programs to coerce the states. Seven of the nine justices agreed with us, essentially adopting…


Republican Florida Senate President Calls for Hangings of Opponents?

I met Senate President Don Gaetz after speaking to the Senate Committee on Healthcare Exchanges.  I explained to him that I wanted to teach on nullification and why the Healthcare Act is unconstitutional.  He mocked the Founders of the this nation to my face, implying they are irrelevant to the interpretation of the Constituion.  He laughed at my support of Constitutional principles.  He then shouted out to me as he left the room that he wouldn’t read anything that I sent him.  This morning I sent him an email explaining the Founders’ position on State Sovereignty and nullificaion. 

After sending Senator Don Gaetz(R) my letter explaining the positions of James Madison, Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton on State Sovereignty, the Republican leader of the Florida Senate says that citizens who agree with the writer of the Declaration of Independence should be summarily shot and hanged.  Does that means Don Gaetz is in favor of shooting the many Catholic Bishops and other religious leaders who have said that they will not comply with this mandate?  Notice the double-speak in his email below.  He affirms his support for the Constitution and then demonstrates his utter ignorance of its meaning and purpose.

Here is a copy of his email:


With Purge, House GOP Leadership Reaches New Low

In December 2010, I wrote that “An indicator of the incoming House Republican majority’s seriousness about cutting spending will be which members the party selects to head the various committees.” The final roster ended up leaving a lot to be desired from a limited government perspective. For example, the House Republican leadership and its allies went with “The Prince of Pork” to head up the Appropriations Committee.

Two years later, the committee situation is about to get even worse now that the House Republican leadership has decided to send a message that casting a vote according to one’s beliefs instead of one’s instructions is a punishable offense. On Monday, four congressmen were booted from “plum” committee assignments for failing to sufficiently tow the leadership line. I suspect that the purge was motivated, at least in part, by Team Boehner’s desire to have the rest of the rank and file think twice before casting a “no” vote on whatever lousy deal is struckwith the White House to avoid the “fiscal cliff.”

Three of the purged Republicans are returning members of the 2010 freshmen “Tea Party Class”: Rep. David Schweikert (R-AZ), Justin Amash (R-MI), and Tim Huelskamp (R-KS). Over the past year, I have been keeping a loose record of how the freshmen voted on opportunities to eliminate programs and prevent spending increases. On seven particularly telling votes*, Schweikert and Amash voted in favor of limited government every time.


NDAA Nullification Bill Passes Michigan House, 107-0

LANSING, Mich. (Dec. 5, 2012) – The Michigan House of Representatives unanimously voted in favor of House bill 5768 (HB5768) today.  Representative Tom McMillin, who introduced the bill, showed his excitement for it’s passage, and his expectations for the State Senate.

“My bill opposing NDAA’s indefinite detention and taking away due process and prohibiting MI government from participating passed the House today. Onto the State Senate!”

Due to support from a wide coalition of grassroots activists across the political spectrum, including the Tenth Amendment Center and People Against The NDAA (P.A.N.D.A), the bill passed unanimously. The final vote was 107-0. HB5768 asserts that no State employee or agency will assist the Federal government – in any way – in the detainment of people under the 2012 NDAA. The Obama administration has aggressively argued in court that the executive branch has this power. The bill states, in part,