Introduces a New Sequester Bill
He will prove that Oblamer is all “show” and no “go”…

The list is simple, uncomplicated and easy to absorb, even for the liberals and Marxists.

From the article, linked here:

Not only is Senator Rand Paul (R., Ky.) calling out the Obama administration’s “dishonest” doom-mongering on the sequester, he also put forward his own plan, released today, to replace the impending cuts with alternative savings, and to do so “without layoffs,” according to a release from the senator’s office.

Paul’s bill would reduce federal spending by more than $85 billion annually by directing the government to:

Stop Hiring New Federal Employees ($6.5 billion per year)

More than 60,000 people left the federal workforce in 2011. This provision would end the practice of hiring new employees to replace them.

Bring Federal-Employee Pay in Line with Private Jobs ($32 billion per year)

The Congressional Budget Office estimates that federal-employee compensation is 16 percent higher compared with the private sector. This provision would reduce federal salaries to a more commensurate level.

Reduce Federal-Employee Travel by 25 Percent ($2.25 billion per year)

The federal government spends about $9 billion on travel, according to the General Services Administration, which ironically was the center of a recent scandal for its exorbitant spending on travel and conference costs. Paul bill’s would rein in such expenses.

Focus Military Research on Military Needs ($6 billion per year)

Paul’s office cites research from Senator Tom Coburn (R., Okla.), which found that the Defense Department spent $6 billion on research that had little or nothing to do with military needs.

Require Competitive Bidding for Government Contracts ($19 billion per year)

This provision would repeal prevailing-wage requirements under which employees are often paid higher wages to work on federal projects, and end the practice of awarding federal contracts without a competitive bidding process to ensure the government is contracting work at the lowest price possible.

Cut 50 Percent of Foreign Aid ($20 billion per year)

It is consistently one of the only portions of the budget Americans actually want to cut.


Egypt Denies US Investigators Access to Captured Benghazi Massacre Suspects

Comments Off on Egypt Denies US Investigators Access to Captured Benghazi Massacre Suspects

Egyptian Islamist Muhammad Jamal al-Kashef, AKA Abu Ahmed, is thought to be behind the attack on the US consulate that killed Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans.  Abu Ahmed was released from jail during the Arab Spring but was later recaptured and is being held in Egypt.

The al-Marsad News Network, an Egyptian media organization, posted a “rare” video interview with Muhammad Jamal al-Kashef AKA Abu Ahmed, who reportedly led the attack on the US consulate in Benghazi, Libya, on September 11, 2012. (SITE)

The Al-Marsad News interviewer concludes the discussion by congratulating him, according to SITE’s translation. “A thousand congratulations, Sheikh Abu Ahmed, a thousand congratulations, Muhammad Jamal Abu al Kashef. Peace be upon you O Sheikh!”

So far the Morsi government in Egypt has denied access to US investigators to the terrorists linked to the Benghazi massacre on 9-11.
The Long War Journal reported:

The US has not been granted access to the senior members of the so-called “Nasr City Cell” who were arrested late last year, according to several American officials familiar with the case. The Nasr City Cell is an al Qaeda-linked group that reportedly plotted acts of terrorism inside Egypt, the Sinai Peninsula, Libya, and Mali.

The cell has also been tied to the Sept. 11, 2012 terrorist attack in Benghazi, Libya, during which four Americans, including US Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens, were killed.

Egyptian authorities first detained members of the cell during a raid in the Nasr City neighborhood of Cairo on Oct. 24, 2012…

…The senior cell members in Egyptian custody include Muhammad Jamal al Kashef (a.k.a. Abu Ahmed), a longtime jihadist who corresponded with al Qaeda emir Ayman al Zawahiri in 2011 and 2012, and Sheikh Adel Shehato, a senior Egyptian Islamic Jihad (EIJ) figure who has openly proclaimed his allegiance to al Qaeda’s ideology.

And yet the Obama Administration continues to send this regime millions in aid.

Gateway Pundit

Breaking: Obama Campaign Caught In Major NC Vote Fraud Scheme

Comments Off on Breaking: Obama Campaign Caught In Major NC Vote Fraud Scheme

North Carolina’s Civitas Institute has revealed that the North Carolina State Board of Elections and the Obama campaign conspired to register at least 11,000 people via the internet in violation of state law. This has been confirmed through records requests filed with all of North Carolina’s 100 counties. The counting is not yet complete.

 North Carolina does not allow online voting, but according to Civitas, SBE staff authorized an Obama campaign website,, to use a web-based registration program. The SBE’s chief lawyer responded to the charge with a plainly disingenuous 1984-newspeak answer:

Wright repeatedly denied that the SBE allowed online voter registration, insisting that it was “web-based voter registration”[ii] instead, as if there could be a “web-based” process that wasn’t online.

The technology from Allpoint Voter Services uses remote-control pens to transmit “signatures” over the Internet, according to[iii]. After entering voter information in an online form, the citizen “signs” it with a stylus or a finger. The Allpoint technology records the signature and then transmits it to one of two autopens – one in California, the other in Nevada[iv]. One of the pens transcribes the signature on to a paper voter registration form. Allpoint then mails the documents to local election boards – or is supposed to, a point we’ll come back to.

To say this is not “online” registration but “web-based” is like saying a certain vehicle is not a car, it’s an automobile. The point of having a “wet signature” – one in ink – is to provide a universally accepted way proving that a prospective voter is affirming in person all the facts on the form. To have an auto pen inserted at one point in this long computerized process is a far different thing. Even the Obama campaign called it online voter registration. Because, no matter how you twist words around, that’s what it is.

Read more at By James Simpson.

Tennessee Senator (R) Brian Kelsey- The Ignorant Expert on the History of Nullification

Comments Off on Tennessee Senator (R) Brian Kelsey- The Ignorant Expert on the History of Nullification

You can read the UPDATE on this bill here……You just can’t make this stuff up. While trying to educate the author of SB 250 (Tennessee gun control act) on the history of nullification, he shows his ignorance on this issue. Tennesseans need to continue calling and emailing this man. I don’t understand what the problem is with the “Supremacy Clause”, we got the Tennessee Healthcare Freedom Act passed to protect us from Obamacare and they weren’t worried about the Supremacy Clause then, so what is the problem now? My guess would be Governor Haslam is the problem now. Kelsey refers to Tariff nullification being struck down by the court as his example. States can’t nullify tariffs which are authorized by the Constitution. Kelsey used a terrible example of nullification being struck down, that Mae Beavers wasn’t familiar with.

South Carolina nullified the protective tariff of 1828  which led to Andrew Jackson’s call for the Force Act to compel South Carolina to obey. The state legislature rescinded the nullification of the tariff, but then nullified the Force Act. Neither Congress nor the Courts stepped in to dispute this action by South Carolina, thus establishing a legal precedent.

Tennessee SB0250 is a bill that would declare federal violations of the 2nd Amendment to be illegal within the state. The bill also provides for criminal penalties for federal agents who attempt to carry out such violations. Earlier this week, the bill was up for a hearing in the Tennessee State Senate, where Brian Kelsey sits as chair. (you can view the entire hearing at this link)

(About 17 minutes into the video Kelsey talks about Andrew Jackson. Make note as you watch this video Senator Kelsey uses the nullification of Tariffs being struck down as an example of nullification not being allowed, then toward the end of the video when Senator Mark Green (R) Clarksville,  calls Kelsey’s  hand on that example (@30:32 into video)  and says it was struck down because tariffs are allowed to the Federal Government under the Constitution, Kelsey agrees he knows they are. So to me this discredits Kelsey and exposes him as being against this bill of Mae Beavers from the beginning. )

The bill will be heard again on Wednesday, 02-27. Tennessee residents are urged to support the bill.
(urgent action items at this link)

The following is a detailed response to Kelsey’s many distortions, misstatements, and historical inaccuracies. Whether you live in Tennessee or not, this article will be extremely valuable to you. Virtually every state has a “Brian Kelsey” of their own – someone who holds a position of power, who speaks and acts authoritatively about a subject they know very little about.

During a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on SB0250 earlier this week, Tennessee state Senator Brian Kelsey played the role of historian and constitutional expert. He lectured bill sponsor Sen. Mae Beavers, fellow committee members and the large crowd gathered in the chamber on the history of nullification and the structure of the Constitution itself.

Judging by his delivery, with his occasional condescending chuckles while “educating” people during the hearing, you’d think that Kelsey had spent years studying these important subjects and was some kind of expert. But based on the substance of his arguments and the endless litany of historical errors in his statements, it’s seems he might as well have learned about the Constitution in Chicago…from a certain lecturer named Obama.

I actually have to give the guy some credit for his ability to stuff so many misstatements and historical untruths into such a short amount of time.


To start, our expert chose President Andrew Jackson as his historical mouthpiece to imply that states cannot make determinations about the constitutionality of a federal act. Why he would choose Jackson over James Madison, the man considered “the father of the Constitution,” or Thomas Jefferson, the author of the Declaration of Independence, remains a mystery. Probably because both Jefferson and Madison insisted state legislatures DO have the authority to determine the constitutionality of a federal act, and that inconveniently undermines his position.

Or perhaps Kelsey simply doesn’t know what he’s talking about. ( I might add here Andrew Jackson wasn’t a founding father (March 15, 1767 – June 8, 1845))

TRUTH 1. Brian Kelsey 0.


Things start to clear up a bit the moment he opens his mouth and claims, “When this issue first came to a head in the United States… 1832 it was over the tariff.”

This represents a common viewpoint held by lawyers who simply never learned the history.

And it’s dead wrong.

The issue first came to head in 1798 when John Adams signed the Alien and Sedition Acts. Thomas Jefferson and James Madison responded by drafting resolutions that were passed by the Kentucky and Virginia legislatures respectively. Jefferson’s draft asserted that when the federal government exercises undelegated powers, a state has the right to “nullify of their own authority all assumptions of power.” Madison asserted that in case of a deliberate, palpable, and dangerous exercise of other powers, not granted by the Constitution, states “have the right, and are in duty bound, to interpose for arresting the progress of the evil.”

Time limitations prevent me from covering in any detail the nullification efforts that resisted military conscription in the early 19th century, or the Ohio effort to use nullification against the Central Bank.

TRUTH 2. Brian Kelsey 0.


Kelsey pressed on and further demonstrated his loose grip on historical facts.

He claimed the South Carolina legislature passed a resolution nullifying the “tariff of abominations.” It did no such thing. A convention of special delegates of the people passed the Ordinance of Nullification. Sure, this is nitpicking a bit, but when you’re dealing with a guy who acts like an expert, he better expect to be hammered on every little error he makes.

TRUTH 3. Brian Kelsey 0.


Kelsey then asserted that the Supreme Court ruled the tariff constitutional. It did no such thing. There’s no such case. It never happened. Generally, lawyers are pretty good at citing cases. In fact, that’s all they do. Most lawyers never even study anything before 1803. They don’t know a thing about the framing of the Constitution or the state ratifying conventions which gave it legal force. They only know case law. So for Kelsey, a lawyer, to just make up a supreme court case like this is such a big error on his part that I’m going to dock him an extra point.

But if he’s got a case that I don’t know about, I’m happy to give him a point.

TRUTH 5. Brian Kelsey 0.


Kelsey would have you believe that this is how the nullification crisis was resolved.

After South Carolina attempted to nullify, Andrew Jackson convinced congress to pass a force bill, threatening to attack South Carolina if they didn’t give in. Then, South Carolina caved.

This is so wrong that it’s hard to chalk it up as ignorance. It’s totally made up.

Here’s what really happened (the short version). After South Carolina passed the nullification ordinance, Jackson first responded by saying that existing laws would be enough to put down the nullification. But South Carolina did not relent. So then, Jackson wanted to turn it up a notch. Jackson did in fact work with congress to introduce a force bill regarding South Carolina. But that bill was stalling in DC, and South Carolina wasn’t backing down.

Influential people were helping create a negotiation between Jackson’s supporters and the Nullifiers. Congress finally passed the Force Bill, but a reduced tariff, the Compromise Tariff of 1833, which was acceptable to both South Carolina and the Federal Government, was also passed.

It was only after a reduced tariff was passed by congress, that South Carolina finally reconvened their convention and repealed the Nullification Ordinance. At the same time, though, the convention also nullified Jackson’s force bill – to make clear that they felt that the reduced tariff was caused by the resistance of a single state.

That sure doesn’t sound like Kelsey’s version – a scared people backing down under threat. Sounds to me like they were giving a little Molon Labe message of their own. That’s what most people would call victory for nullification.

Instead, Kelsey wants you to believe something completely different.

TRUTH 6. Brian Kelsey 0.


Then Kelsey claimed, “The issue has not really been raised again since then, to my knowledge, to the extent of actually arresting federal officers and/or having confrontation between the federal and state officersobviously other than the United States Civil War.”

Apparently our armchair historian has no knowledge of northern states passing Personal Liberty Laws to resist federal agents intent on capturing black people and shipping them back south into slavery during the 1840s and 1850s. In fact, many of these laws were passed in direct defiance of an actual Supreme Court ruling. He never learned that abolitionists used the arguments of South Carolina nullification architect John C. Calhoun to support their actions. And he has no clue that the Massachusetts Personal Liberty Act of 1855 did indeed include provisions for arresting federal officers.

Or, maybe he just doesn’t want you to know about it. Because if you did, he’d have a hard time arguing on the same side as the slave owners.

TRUTH 7. Brian Kelsey 0.


The litany of errors continues. Kelsey said: “It was Daniel Webster who was leading the effort to nullify the tariff…you know one of the leading orators and members in United States Senate history who was pushing the issue at the time.”

Actually, Webster was a leading opponent of nullification. So, did Kelsey make an honest mistake and just get one word wrong?  Who knows, but at this point he’s made so many errors; he doesn’t get any more gimmes.

TRUTH 8. Brian Kelsey 0.

While we’re on the subject of Webster, here’s another historical tidbit that Kelsey probably doesn’t know – or doesn’t want you to know. The revered Massachusetts senator supported states using interposition to resist unconstitutional acts when the feds tried to conscript soldiers during the War of 1812. (this is one of those times where nullification came up prominently prior to 1832)

“The operation of measures thus unconstitutional and illegal ought to be prevented by a resort to other measures which are both constitutional and legal. It will be the solemn duty of the State governments to protect their own authority over their own militia, and to interpose between their citizens and arbitrary power. These are among the objects for which the State governments exist.” [emphasis added]

TRUTH 9. Brian Kelsey 0.

Having demonstrated Kelsey’s utter ineptitude as a historian, how can we depend on him to tell us whether Tennessee has the authority to nullify an unconstitutional federal act today? Well, you might argue, perhaps he has a tighter grasp on constitutional issues than he does history.

He doesn’t.


Kelsey offered up one of the most bizarre and convoluted constitutional constructions ever. And I’ve heard some pretty weird ones.

“The Tenth Amendment does not apply to the supremacy clause.  The supremacy clause overrides the Tenth Amendment.”

Clearly, Kelsey doesn’t have a clue.  The Tenth Amendment doesn’t override any part of the Constitution, and no constitutional clause or provision overrides it either.  The Tenth Amendment is actually a “rule of construction.” As a lawyer, you’d think that Kelsey would understand that.  A legal rule of construction simply tells us how to view the document.  The Tenth Amendment, along with the Ninth, defines the Constitution as in instrument delegating specific, enumerated powers to the federal government, leaving the bulk of authority to the people of the states, where it was already vested prior to ratification. It makes it clear that the federal government may not exercise powers it was not delegated.

On the other hand, the supremacy clause is a “conflict-of-laws rule,” specifying that a federal act in pursuance of the Constitution take priority over any state acts that conflict with it. Laws “in pursuance” of the Constitution constitute those enacted by the federal government within the scope of its enumerated powers. Acts claiming power outside of those delegated powers are not laws at all. They are usurpations of power, by definition unauthoritative and of no force. That would be the exact opposite of “supreme.”

During the hearing, Beavers pointed out that only those laws made in pursuance of the constitution stand supreme. It seemed to go right past Kelsey. Either he actually believes that the federal government can do whatever it wants, no matter what; no limitations, no questions asked, or he’s intentionally ignoring the truth.

TRUTH 10. Brian Kelsey 0.


Kelsey claims he supports the Second Amendment. But his comments in the hearing make it clear he does not. He said the supremacy clause “seems to override the particular issues that may or may not be brought up.”

Again our Obama-style expert doesn’t understand the most basic constitutional construction. The Bill of Rights was ratified to further limit the power of the federal government. The preamble to the Bill states clearly that it existed:

“in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of [the federal government’s] powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.”

The Bill of Rights further restricts federal powers. In essence, the Second Amendment says, “Hey federal government – even while exercising legitimate powers, such as regulating interstate commerce, you still may not infringe on the right to keep and bear arms.”

TRUTH 11. Brian Kelsey 0.


Ironically, at one time Kelsey supported a bill defying federal power on firearms. In fact, he bragged about it during the hearing.

“I was a supporter of the bill, the original bill that you passed in here a couple of years ago that upheld the Second Amendment rights of Tennesseans for firearms and ammunition that were produced in the state of Tennessee and did not leave the borders of Tennessee.  So I am on record as having supported that,” he said.

Yes indeed. And the 2009 Tennessee Firearms Freedom Act clearly defies the 2005 Gonzales v. Raich decision broadly defining federal power to “regulate commerce between the states,” certainly to the extent that it would allow for regulating firearms within the borders of Tennessee. So, doesn’t that mean Kelsey’s OK with the state conflicting with the feds?  What’s his issue with SB0250?

When you boil it all down, it seems Kelsey simply wants an excuse to avoid moving forward with the bill. He said he wants to “receive an Attorney General opinion on that issue so we would have clarity, or perhaps not clarity, so that we could have a better idea as to what the law has been throughout the history of the United States regarding the interplay of the supremacy clause and any Second Amendment issues.”

Well, we already know that Attorney General Bob Cooper is the kind of guy that will omit three words from the Constitution when issuing a constitutional opinion, completely distorting the truth. He already did this in his opinion on the Tennessee Health Care Freedom Act. Which, by the way, the Tennessee legislature passed anyway.

Michael Maharrey, Lesley Swann and Kelli Sladick contributed research for this article.

Tennessee Tenth Amendment Center

A phone call will hold a much higher value than an email.  But take whatever action you’re able to.  Or do both – CALL and EMAIL. It’s a good step to make calls over the weekend or in the evening too. Leave a message so their offices know first thing the next AM that a large number of people support SB0250 and HB0248. In your voicemail, make sure to ask that they call you back so that you can speak to the legislator or staff directly.

1. Please Contact the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee
Senator Kelsey: (615) 741-3036 or email:
Politely thank him for scheduling the hearing and allowing the bill to be debated and voted upon.  Encourage him to vote YES on SB0250 to move it to a full debate in the Tennessee Senate.

2. Please Contact the rest of the members of the Senate Judiciary Committee
Strongly, but respectfully, let each of them know that you want them to vote YES on SB0250.  You want them to allow the full State Senate to be able to debate the merits of this bill.  You want them to have the courage to stand up for the Constitution.  Remind them that they swore an oath, and it’s their duty to stand help you preserve your right to keep and bear arms.

Sen. Doug Overbey
(615) 741-0981,

Sen. Stacey Campfield
(615) 741-1766,

Sen. Mike Bell
(615) 741-1946,

Sen. Lowe Finney
(615) 741-1810,

Sen. Ophelia Ford
(615) 741-1767,

Sen. Todd Gardenhire
(615) 741-6682,

Sen. Mark Green
(615) 741-2374,

Sen. John Stevens
615) 741-4576,

3. Attend the public hearings.
Be prepared to attend the committee meetings to show your support for the bill if you are in the Nashville area, or even to take off work and travel to Nashville to be present. We need a strong showing at both committee meetings.

Wednesday, February 27, 2013. (11:00 AM Central) – Senate Judiciary Committee
Wednesday, February 27, 2013 (3:00 PM Central) – House Civil Justice Subcommittee

4. Call the members of the House Civil Justice Subcommittee. Strongly, but politely urge them to vote YES on HB0248.
Rep. Jim Coley, Chair
(615) 741-8201,
Rep. Mike Carter
(615) 741-3025,
Rep. Vance Dennis
(615) 741-2190,
Rep. Andrew Farmer
(615) 741-4419,
Rep. Sherry Jones
(615) 741-2035,
Rep. Jon Lundberg
(615) 741-7623,
Rep. Mike Stewart
(615) 741-2184,
Rep. Rick Womick
(615) 741-2804,


Learn more about SB0250

Nullification in One Lesson

Understanding the Supremacy Clause

The 2nd Amendment doesn’t “grant” you rights. You already had them.

Obama Administration Threatens Business for Not Hiring Ex-Cons

Comments Off on Obama Administration Threatens Business for Not Hiring Ex-Cons

Just when you thought you’d hear everything….Even though it violates state law to hire convicted felons at a nuclear power plant, Obama’s EEOC sues the power plant. With unemployment this high and so many law-abiding citizens out of work?

From Lonely Conservative:

The EEOC wants to make it illegal for employers not to hire ex-convicts because that would be raaaaacist!

The Obama administration’s Equal Employment Opportunity Commission says it should be a federal crime to refuse to hire ex-convicts — and threatens to sue businesses that don’t employ criminals.

In April the EEOC unveiled its “Enforcement Guidance on the Consideration of Arrest and Conviction Records,” which declares that “criminal record exclusions have a disparate impact based on race and national origin.”

The impetus for this “guidance” is that black men are nearly seven times more likely than white men to serve time in prison, and therefore refusals to hire convicts disproportionally impact blacks, according to a Wall Street Journal opinion piece by James Bovard, a libertarian author and lecturer whose books include “Freedom in Chains: The Rise of the State and the Demise of the Citizen.”

Most businesses perform background checks on potential employees, but the EEOC frowns on these checks and “creates legal tripwires that could spark federal lawsuits,” Bovard observes.


Under the proposed rules, an employer’s background check on a potential hire turns up prior convictions, that employer would have to prove that it has a “business necessity” not to hire the convict. The EEOC has already sued employers. The article goes on to note that a nuclear power plant was sued for not hiring a twice convicted thief, even though it’s against state law to hire former felons at nuclear plants.  It’s insane

Read more

Even with sequester, federal govt will spend more next year than last

Comments Off on Even with sequester, federal govt will spend more next year than last

The Obama administration is whipping up hysteria over the sequester budget cuts and their impact on the economy, the military, first providers, and so forth and so on. Armageddon. But if you climb into the CBO numbers for 2013, you see a much lighter and easier picture than all the worst-case scenarios being conjured up by the administration.

For example, the $85 billion so-called spending cut is actually budget authority, not budget outlays. According to the CBO, budget outlays will come down by $44 billion, or one quarter of 1 percent of GDP (GDP is $15.8 trillion). What’s more, that $44 billion outlay reduction is only 1.25 percent of the $3.6 trillion government budget.

So the actual outlay reduction is only half the budget-authority savings. The rest of it will spend out in the years ahead — that is, if Congress doesn’t tamper with it.

And please remember that these so-called cuts come off a rising budget baseline in most cases. So the sequester would slow the growth of spending. These are not real cuts in the level of spending. (Not that a level reduction is a bad idea.

Looking at the sequester in this light, it’s clear that it won’t result in economic Armageddon. In fact, I’ll make the case that any spending relief is actually pro-growth. That’s right. When the government spending share of GDP declines, so does the true tax burden on the economy. As a result, more resources are left in the free-market private sector, which will promote real growth.

The Wall Street Journal editorial page points to the Reagan 1980s and the Clinton 1990s, when domestic spending as a share of GDP fell significantly and the private-sector economy boomed. Ditto for the post-WWII period, when spending declines as a share of the economy were quite substantial and the private economy came back strong.

And I would point to the new book from Amity Shlaes, Coolidge. Silent Cal was a manic budget cutter who slashed the level of the budget. And he presided over a tremendous U.S. economic boom. In fact, Coolidge’s budget cuts and Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon’s tax-rate cuts were a one-two punch that serves as an example of how to fix our ailing economy today.

Continue reading

assault rifle vs sporting rifle

Comments Off on assault rifle vs sporting rifle

The media and the anti-gunners are trying to tell Americans that “assault weapons” need to be banned for public safety. The problem is, assault rifles were banned in 1986. What they want to ban now are semi-automatic sporting firearms. The firearms they want to ban account for less than 1% of the firearms used in crime. We need to stop this mindless attack on our Constitutional rights. ( A note here, I understand Australian gun-grabbers are now targeting one shot and bolt-action rifles, stating that it only takes “one bullet” to kill somebody. So this never stops folks!…..”shall not be infringed”)


Older Entries