If one was looking for fiery, crowd pleasing, political rhetoric from former Speaker Newt Gingrich as he addressed CPAC today, they were likely disappointed. What Gingrich did do was run through a litany of policy solutions he claimed he has committed to implement immediately upon taking office in January of 2013.

Contrasting an America that can versus an America that can’t, Gingrich compared America’s speed and might in winning WWII versus her current inability to seal its own border. In a lighter moment, the former Speaker contrasted the efficiency of package tracking by Federal Express with the government’s inability to track illegal immigrants, suggesting sending each one a package may be the best way to apprehend the latter.

He also mentioned repealing Obamacare, Dodd Frank, and Sarbanes Oxley on his first day in office. He stated his desire to be a “paycheck president” versus a “food stamp president,” a term he used to denigrate Barack Obama.

Calling for a Fall campaign focused on substance, Gingrich also mentioned eliminating the Capital Gains tax and implementing 100% expensing for all new equipment written off in one year to help get the economy growing. Additionally, he called for a modernization of the workforce, proposing that unemployment compensation be linked to business training programs to avoid paying people for 99 weeks “for doing nothing.” (more…)

As 2012 approaches, answers that would-be candidates on both sides of the aisle give to even the most random questions matter. And that’s because those answers – especially to random, unpredictable questions – don’t spring from briefings with staff as much as from raw conviction.

We were reminded of this on Monday as Gov. Rick Perry sat in front of group of South Carolina citizens and was asked: “Are you for gun control?”

The audience howled with laughter that the question was even asked, but Perry answered dutifully: “I am actually for gun control.” (At this point you could hear the laughter nervously diminish.) Then Perry added, “Use both hands.”

Ah, the howling of laughter and thunderous applause returned.

While it was obvious that Gov. Perry enjoyed the opportunity to demonstrate again his absolute love of the 2^nd Amendment, something we should all be noticing by now is that Perry loves freedom – period. His love of freedom is not an extension of his love for guns rather, his love for guns an extension of his love for freedom.

I’m not trying to over-parse things here. I just can’t help but notice how Gov. Perry’s unmistakable defense of the 10^th Amendment over the last few years has already given him the reputation of a defender of something bigger than the 2^nd Amendment alone. In other words, he’s literally been a defender of freedom itself.

(more…)

In the words of our President: “Let me be clear,” Missouri’s Prop C represents a victory for individual freedom, not “states’ rights.”

I am not sure why I have to keep repeating this, but there is NO SUCH THING AS STATES’ RIGHTS!  And people that use that term, or the term “nullification,” do not help our cause.

States have powers, and while those powers diminish in the face of the progressive-statist attack upon our Constitution, powers run contrary to individual rights.  So let me break it down:

1) Prop C places a duty on the state of Missouri to defend its citizens from the IRS enforced individual mandate.

2) Prop C denies the federal government state resources to enforce the individual mandate.

Anyone with an ounce of constitutional knowledge knows that neither of those aspects of Prop C conflict directly with the Supremacy Clause. (more…)

Repealing Obamacare via Article V is a means of last resort, or rather a threat to the national bureaucratic government should those in Washington not jump on board.  In the meantime, states, those individual laboratories of liberty, are attempting a number of remedies.

States have filed lawsuits, but my legal background makes me wary of relying on the judicial branch to make the ultimate decisions on policy.  Marbury v. Madison established the Supreme Court’s role as the ultimate arbiter in conflicts involving the Constitution, but that does not guarantee that correct decisions will result.  So first we will examine the legislative solutions.

Many states across the country are either introducing laws or revising constitutions to protect Americans from the tyranny of Obamacare.  The progress of these Health Care Freedom Acts or Amendments are being tracked by various groups.  Most of this legislation is fairly simple to read and understand.  Basically, states are refusing to enforce or enact Obamacare, which is perfectly reasonable under the present legal understanding of federalism.  The national government cannot force states to enforce unfunded federal law.  A perfect example of this is the increasing decriminalization of marijuana in communities across America.  Local police are handing out tickets (much better for revenue than throwing people in jail). (more…)

The Hysteria of the political establishment and the media that covers it is incredible. I’m not a politician and I don’t talk like one .On March 23rd ,I went on the Curtis Sliwa Show on 970AM the Apple in New York City to discuss my opposition to Obamacare.

Source: CATO Institute

Here is what I actually said:

“This day, the day that that bill was passed, will be remembered just as 9/11 was remembered from history. It was an attempt by these people in Washington to defy the Constitution it is clearly in conflict with all of the basic precepts of the constitution.”

Within minutes liberals were insisting that  this madman from Buffalo had compared the passage of Obamacare with the tradgedy of 9/11. Why would reporters willfully misrepresent what I said and political hatchetmen like Congressman Jerrold Nadler attack me when I made no such comparison? Why would they smear me?

Any fair-minded person could see that I merely said both days would be widely remembered like JFK’s murder or the Space Shuttle Crash or the1929 stockmarket crash. Why would the pundits and commentators twist my words and seek to make me out an insensitive rube from upstate?

The political class in Albany and New York City know the taxpayers are finally fed up and a reform revolution that returns power to the people is rising. They want to discredit me before voters get a chance to learn my  common sense platform or my record of always doing what I say I’m going to do in business and civic life.

Congressman Nadler dismissed my criticism of the constitutionality of the Health Care Bill passed by Congress noting that he is the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee. That does not make him the final authority on this flawed law.

(more…)

Right now the battle over government-run health care is centered in Washington D.C. Numerous protests have been held at the Capital, including the massive 9.12 Project march, where hundreds of thousands traveled from all over the country to protest excessive spending, bailouts, and big government proposals for reforming healthcare. Another ten thousand showed up in November for a “House Call” protest, arranged on very short notice, specifically targeting healthcare legislation pushed by Democrats. These same activists are also burning up the phones before every major vote. Despite the unprecedented strength of this small government uprising, we must face the very real possibility that, while these protests will no doubt keep participants motivated leading up to the next election, they may not be enough to stop passage of ObamaCare. Depending on the outcome of today’s fight, tomorrow’s could very well be at the state level, and eventually in the courts.

According to the American Legislative Exchange Council, lawmakers in 24 states have at least pledged to introduce legislation modeled after their Freedom of Choice in Health Care Act, which nullifies an individual mandate to purchase federally approved health insurance. This amounts to a bold reassertion of the 10th Amendment, that long ignored protection of state sovereignty against federal infringement. Thirteen of these states have already filed or pre-filed constitutional amendments to protect the rights of individuals to make their own healthcare decisions.

(more…)

Congress is moving closer to enacting a law requiring all Americans to purchase health insurance. House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer says that this is “like paying taxes.”

He’s right about that. But Hoyer made this statement as part of an effort to justify the health-care mandate on constitutional grounds. Here he indicates that he doesn’t understand the Constitution that he took an oath to support.

When asked what power the Constitution gives to Congress to enact this legislation, Hoyer claimed that it came from the Constitution’s “general welfare” clause.

Article One, section eight says that Congress can “lay and collect taxes… to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States.”

But what defines the “general welfare”?

(more…)

As the federal government continuously churns out ideas and policies that drive our nation deeper and deeper in debt, citizens and taxpayers are right to be worried. From federal “stimulus” bills that force state governments to change laws, raise taxes and increase spending, to cap and trade proposals that will run our energy industry into the ground, to emerging plans for an unprecedented and unsustainable expansion of government health care, it is clear that the swollen river of our federal government has overflowed its banks.

 Washington is increasingly out of step with folks out here in flyover country who do not share the inside-the-Beltway belief that a benevolent, all-knowing government can expand and encroach without limit, because individual Americans simply cannot be trusted to make right choices.

This mindset has driven the explosive growth of the size, spending and intrusiveness of the federal government. Our founding fathers would be appalled at the way their successors are ignoring individual liberties, contemplating more tax increases and interfering further into private enterprise.

Washington bureaucrats must be reminded that America is not some windowless laboratory where they can tinker with theories with no regard to consequences. Real harm is resulting from policies that are disastrous for America’s future, bankrupting our country, and mortgaging our children’s future. Fear of this emerging future and frustration with an administration run amok are fueling the resurgent interest in the 10^th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. “We the people” are standing up and demanding an audience.

(more…)