The Steve Bussey Radio Experience will broadcast live from the Rockledge, FL Classic Car Show from 2 to 4 p.m. (EST) on 1300wmel.com - AM 1300 WMEL locally in Brevard County, FL.

Today we’ll wrap conversation on the Florida GOP primary and then talk cars – the demise of the old station wagons and the shade tree mechanic and why. We’ll talk about how government has forced changes on the auto industry and you.

The Steve Bussey Radio Experience live at 2 p.m. on 1300wmel.com and your phone calls at (321) 631-1300.

Come join us and say hi!

Steve

As a conservative myself I sometimes get a chuckle out of the tortured logic occasionally used by some Republicans and conservatives to justify their support for a particular issue or candidate, and I feel tortured logic is the case with a recent Ann Coulter opinion piece in Human Events wherein she compares apples to oranges.

Ms. Coulter, of course, has chosen to support Mitt Romney for the Republican presidential nomination, which means she has to explain away or overcome any conservative objections to Romneycare in Massachusetts. Romney himself claims Romneycare is perfectly square with the Constitution and conservative values due to the 10th Amendment and Ann Coulter goes even farther.

Here is the link to Ms. Coulter’s piece in Human Events and some excerpts with our commentary:

Three cheers for RomneyCare
by Ann Coulter
02/01/2012

If only the Democrats had decided to socialize the food industry or housing, Romneycare would probably still be viewed as a massive triumph for conservative free-market principles — as it was at the time.

Until Obamacare, mandatory private health insurance was considered the free-market alternative to the Democrats’ piecemeal socialization of the entire medical industry.
In November 2004, for example, libertarian Ronald Bailey praised mandated private health insurance in Reason magazine, saying that it “could preserve and extend the advantages of a free market with a minimal amount of coercion.”

A leading conservative think tank, The Heritage Foundation, helped design Romneycare, and its health care analyst, Bob Moffit, flew to Boston for the bill signing.

Romneycare was also supported by Regina Herzlinger, Harvard Business School professor and health policy analyst for the conservative Manhattan Institute. Herzlinger praised Romneycare for making consumers, not business or government, the primary purchasers of health care.

Huh? I thought the free market was a place wherein businesses developed the best product at the best price and competed for business by “convincing” potential customers to purchase their product. I didn’t realize that we free-market conservatives believed in government forcing people to buy products even if we still had a choice of products once the decision to buy “something” had been foisted upon we unsuspecting “free people” by an omnipotent government entity.

Don’t jump the gun here folks – wait for it … I’ll get there (car insurance) …

More from Ann’s column:

One difference between the health care bills is that Romneycare is constitutional and Obamacare is not. True, Obamacare’s unconstitutional provisions are the least of its horrors, but the Constitution still matters to some Americans. (Oh, to be there when someone at the Times discovers this document called “the Constitution”!)

That document places strict limits on what Congress can do, not what the states can do. Romney, incidentally, has always said his plan would be a bad idea nationally.

The only reason the “individual mandate” has become a malediction is because the legal argument against Obamacare is that Congress has no constitutional authority to force citizens to buy a particular product.

The legal briefs opposing Obamacare argue that someone sitting at home, minding his own business, is not engaged in “commerce … among the several states,” and, therefore, Congress has no authority under the Commerce Clause to force people to buy insurance.

No one is claiming that the Constitution gives each person an unalienable right not to buy insurance.

Oh, where to begin? Well, with respect to the last sentence, yes, I am making that argument – we all have an unalienable right not to buy insurance for our sole protection versus the protection of others like, say, your mortgage company that has a vested interest in your house.

Ann Coulter is mixing apples and oranges.

Ms. Coulter believes Romneycare to be constitutional, as she states, because the Constitution places limits on the federal government and not the states, a clear reference to the 10th Amendment that Romney uses. But there are at least two problems – if you read the entire 10th Amendment and not just the convenient part you’ll see that it leaves some things not just to the States, but also to the people. And then there’s the 9th Amendment.

The 9th Amendment states:

The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Just because the 10th Amendment did not put specific limits on the States against forcing the citizens to buy health insurance, or any other product, doesn’t mean the States can force us to buy health insurance. As the 9th Amendment says, we maintain unalienable rights even if they are not enumerated in the Constitution and your nose ends where mine begins.

You can make me buy homeowners insurance in order to protect my mortgage company. You can make me buy liability car insurance in order to protect another driver or pedestrian I may hit either by accident or through negligence. But you most certainly cannot force me to buy health insurance just to take care of myself.

If society is tied at the hip through health insurance and health care costs then untie us instead of making us buy health insurance. If people without insurance are overburdening emergency rooms then take away the mandates for emergency rooms to provide non-emergency care.

Make it easier for hospitals and doctors to sue deadbeats but do not infringe the rights of the many due to the irresponsibility of the few because that’s not freedom and it most assuredly is not a “free market” when consumers are forced into that market.

More from Ann:

There’s no obvious constitutional difference between a state forcing militia-age males to equip themselves with guns and a state forcing adults in today’s world to equip themselves with health insurance.

Excuse me? There most certainly is an obvious constitutional difference. Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution states:

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress (Emphasis added)

Did you notice how the clause begins? “To provide for organizing, arming …” That phrase alone gives Congress and the States, by congressional delegation, the power to have each able-bodied man buy a gun and remain available for service in the militia.

In her zeal to support the establishment Republican moderate candidate for president, Ann Coulter has betrayed her own conservatism with tortured logic and messaged her constitutional positions to fit the debate. I’m very disappointed.

The Steve Bussey Radio Experience and Stevebussey.com covered the Newt Gingrich town hall event today in Brevard County, Florida reporting for AM 1300 WMEL (1300wmel.com).

The Republican primary frontrunner currently locked in what some have characterized as a “bloody fist fight” with former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney for the presidential nomination said today in Cocoa, FL that his plans for the American space program are “very bold and very different and will make NASA officials very nervous.”

Gingrich then harkened back, as only a History professor can, to Abraham Lincoln stating the need for a transcontinental railroad even before the technology to cross the Rocky Mountains existed and having never seen a train himself, but had only read about them. Gingrich also pointed out that President Kennedy challenged America to send a man to the Moon and return him back to earth safely again before the end of the decade when manned space flight was still in its infancy and the technology did not yet exist.

The event was attended by approximately 1,200 Brevard County residents according to the local fire marshal with 700 to 800 people inside the conference hall and an overflow crowd of several hundred listening to loud speakers of the even outside.

Local law enforcement sources stated they did not expect any violence or disruptions as has been the case at least one Rick Santorum event, but they did have information that the Occupy Melbourne (Florida) group did attempt to recruit members on Facebook in order to protest the event. No such protest materialized.

During a press availability after the town hall meeting Newt Gingrich said in response to one question that Governor Mitt Romney’s accusations of lobbying for Freddie Mac were “laughable” considering that it has now been revealed that Romney owned stock in both Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, and a person the Romney campaign, or a Super Pac, hired to speak about the allegations against the former Speaker actually was a Fannie Mae lobbyist.

Also in response to a question, Speaker Gingrich said his ideas for the space program would require a complete review of the NASA bureaucracy because, in his words, “if they have the same size bureaucracy now when they’re not launching as they did when they were launching then something is wrong.”

Statements like that may be why he thinks his plans for the American space program will “make NASA officials nervous.”

Early primary voting has already started in Florida but the primary itself is scheduled for January 31st. Last year the Republican National Committee sanctioned Florida by taking away half of their Republican convention delegates, leaving Florida with only 50 delegates, because that state moved up its primary to January 31st. Florida will be the first large state to hold a primary, is the first winner-take-all primary and it is a closed primary – only Republicans will be able to vote for the Republican candidates.

Full disclosure: I’m a former cop and retired special agent so I do have some bias in this case and I understand any disagreements.

The Supreme Court unanimously decided that installing a GPS tracking device on a suspect’s car constitutes a search and therefore requires a search warrant, and I disagree and believe the Court used twisted and tortured logic to arrive at their conclusion.

As a rule I like it when courts reign in government in general and law enforcement in particular but I don’t like it when the courts use tortured logic, redefine words, make things up or rephrase our Constitution.

Here is some background from Theblaze.com:

Supreme Court Rules GPS Tracking Requires a Warrant

WASHINGTON (The Blaze/AP) — In a unanimous and precedent-setting ruling, the Supreme Court said Monday that police must get a search warrant before using GPS technology to track criminal suspects.

The GPS device helped authorities link Washington, D.C., nightclub owner Antoine Jones to a suburban house used to stash money and drugs. He was sentenced to life in prison before the appeals court overturned the conviction.

Associate Justice Antonin Scalia said that the government’s installation of a GPS device, and its use to monitor the vehicle’s movements, constitutes a search, meaning that a warrant is required.

“By attaching the device to the Jeep” that Jones was using, “officers encroached on a protected area,” Scalia wrote.

The bottom line is that attaching a GPS device to your car in order to facilitate following you is not a search as the Court has now said it is, and I believe they have redefined the word “search.” But, here are some of my other problems with this ruling taking libertarian concerns for privacy into consideration:

A GPS device in this case simply acts as an extension of a police officer’s natural abilities to see and follow you and his department’s normal ability to dedicate costly resources to follow you such as multiple officers over an extended period of time. The GPS device does nothing that can’t be done another way.

And, a person has no reasonable expectation to privacy – the standard for search warrants – while moving about in public. You are seen and watched by normal citizens in your daily travels as well as government’s watchful eye in the form of traffic cameras, etc.

You have a reasonable expectation to privacy within your vehicle but not for where that vehicle is going and how.

Albeit more difficult, several police officers can work in shifts to conduct a physical surveillance of you day and night for weeks on end without a warrant, and a GPS device simply removes the need for those costly resources and aids in officer safety during a “rolling” or moving surveillance.

Police can watch you through scopes and binoculars and even use parabolic microphones in order to listen to you at long distances without a warrant because all of those things are simple extensions of their natural senses and abilities. They can run undercover officers against you and you might even invite them right into your house without a warrant while they are legally lying to you about who they are and what they’re doing.

Now, if the GPS device was placed inside a locked car or the trunk of the car as opposed to being attached under the outside of the car then that still is not a “search” in the traditional definition but it is more intrusive. There are GPS devices that attach under the vehicle and can be hidden quite effectively.

Here are more excerpts from the article at Theblaze.com:

All nine justices agreed that the placement of the GPS on the Jeep violated the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable search and seizure.

Greg Nojeim, director of the Center for Democracy and Technology’s project on freedom, security and technology, said in an interview with The Blaze that the Supreme Court’s decision was “landmark”.

“It signals their willingness to protect privacy in the face of advancing technology,” Nojeim said.

Scalia wrote the main opinion of three in the case. He was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Sonia Sotomayor.
Wired has more from Scalia:

“We hold that the government’s installation of a GPS device on a target’s vehicle, and its use of that device to monitor the vehicle’s movements, constitutes a ‘search,’” Scalia wrote.

In a footnote, Scalia added that, “Whatever new methods of investigation may be devised, our task, at a minimum, is to decide whether the action in question would have constituted a ‘search’ within the original meaning of the Fourth Amendment. Where, as here, the government obtains information by physically intruding on a constitutionally protected area, such a search has undoubtedly occurred.”

Nojeim also said that majority opinion of the Supreme Court placed an emphasis on that it was the pervasiveness of the tracking that stimulated the need for a warrant — not only the trespassing. Using this sentiment, he thinks that this could open the door for the potential of requiring a warrant on tracking cellphones as well, although this was not discussed by the high court.

First of all, what was searched? You tell me, what was searched? In actuality it wasn’t even a person that was tracked but a vehicle and anyone who may have been driving it at the time, but nothing was searched. I applaud Justice Scalia for accurately stating the Court’s role in this matter but disagree with his conclusion for the reasons I stated.

Notice what Mr. Nojeim said, “…that majority opinion of the Supreme Court placed an emphasis on that it was the pervasiveness of the tracking that stimulated the need for a warrant — not only the trespassing.”

Well, I’m sorry but pervasiveness does not equal a search. And I admit I don’t know all of the specific details of the case but do we know law enforcement trespassed? Or, did they place the device on the car while it was parked in a public area? That’s what I would have done and did during my career.

Before you call me a big government neo-con or fascist, I oppose red light cameras, body scanners and believe in a strong and vibrant 4th Amendment. I believe that it was courts and defense attorneys that made me a better cop and special agent during my law enforcement career – they made me do my job better. But, I oppose an activist Court that changes the Constitution and the meaning of words and phrases even when dealing with new technologies and tactics.

I believe the Court got this one wrong even if their decision was unanimous.

For months now former Speaker Newt Gingrich has fielded allegations that he was paid $1.6 million by Freddie Mac for lobbying efforts, trying to tie him to the housing collapse and subsequent 2008 “Great Recession.” In last night’s debate, however, his answer was somewhat different than usual.

When faced with the $1.6 million – Freddie Mac – allegation from Mitt Romney last night Newt Gingrich said, paraphrasing, that he was not paid that money. He had a company with three offices that was paid $1.6 million and his income from that was only about $35,000 per year, the implication being that some of the money went to office/company overhead and the rest went to staff. He then looked at Mitt Romney and asked the gross income of Bain Capital and if that was considered his, Mitt Romney’s, income. The answer was clear.

If all of Gingrich’s answer last night was true, it was the perfect political sandbag over the past 6 months.

Rick Santorum was asked if increased drilling off Florida’s coast was worth the potential loss of tourism dollars in the event of a “BP-style oil spill” and he went off on some energy filibuster without actually answering the question.

The correct answer was, “there are over 4,000 oil platforms in the Gulf of Mexico, how many spills have you ever heard about? What if an asteroid hits earth tomorrow?”

Folks, as my regular readers know I have a new talk radio show on AM 1300 WMEL based in Cocoa, FL but broadcasting internationally on 1300wmel.com every Saturday from 3 to 5 p.m. (EST). Although we are a local show and cover some local topics I always try to make the correlation to national and international issues and philosophies and use the issues to talk about the Constitution, the American founding philosophies and the American ideal.

If you believe, as I do and polls routinely prove, that government in America has lost the consent of the governed and the so-called mainstream media is in the tank for big government liberalism then it is imperative that we all support local alternative conservative media and their advertisers. It is important to patronize local advertisers and let them know what show or station you heard about them on.

If you are one of those people who constantly and consistently finds yourself throwing pillows at your television and yelling at your radio then please – please tune into live-local radio. And, if you’re frustrated that you can never get in touch with one of the major syndicated radio programs remember that you can almost always call your local conservative talk show host and voice your opinion and vent your frustrations locally! Rush Limbaugh takes very few calls in his three hours and it is extremely difficult to get through to Hannity and Beck. Don’t forget your local guys!

Like me, I bet you are frustrated with the state of our nation, state and federal government, and the half truths and outright lies from the mainstream media so jump in the water and participate with your local guys. But remember, in order to stay on the air they have to sell advertising so visit their sponsors and let those sponsors know where you heard about them and why you are patronizing them.

The battle to save our great nation is going to be fought and won at the local level.

Thank you and everyone please have a blessed day,

Steve

Newt Gingrich does what I have wanted national level Republicans to do for the past thirty years – fight back! I am sick and tired of the GOP’s inability to communicate and fight back – failing to defend the Party and the rank and file.

Remember, I was a Rick Perry supporter from the day he announced his campaign in South Carolina last August, and I have not yet decided between Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich although I like and dislike both. But, unlike Glenn Beck who drones on and on about the former Speaker being a dangerous Progressive, I have no problem supporting Newt Gingrich.

I, of course, know about Newt’s adultery and ethics violations. I know about the television commercial with Nancy Pelosi on the couch. I know about Freddie Mac and the $1.6 million.

But I also know that it was Newt Gingrich that pulled our nation back from the abyss during the Clinton Administration and at least bought America some time. You think Barack Obama is bad? Clinton was going to be every bit as bad as Obama.

Remember, Bill Clinton had a two-phase economic plan and he implemented phase one before the Republican Revolution in 1994. Phase one included raising taxes on the poor with gas taxes, the elderly by increasing the amount of taxes on Social Security recipients who made outside income, the middle class and the inheritance tax and he made his tax increases retroactive.

Newt Gingrich was instrumental in pulling Clinton kicking and screaming by the necktie into fiscal sanity and he was fearless in doing it. Did Newt have whacky ideas of his own that had to be kept in-check by other Republicans? No doubt, but that’s the beauty of our system. A key is that Gingrich had the ability to listen and compromise, unlike Obama.

I remember the ethics violations filed against Newt Gingrich and from what I remember, they had to do with his book deal and were political payback for Gingrich participating in bringing down former Democrat Speaker of the House Jim Wright (D-TX) for his book deal, but there was a major difference.

Jim Wright’s book didn’t sell so a union bought larger numbers of copies as political payoff and stored them in a warehouse. Gingrich’s book, on the other hand, sold and the accusation was that he was trading on his position as Speaker by landing the book deal. I have no problem with that at all.

According to the Huffington Post:

Eighty-four charges of ethics violations were filed against Gingrich in 1997, resulting in his being reprimanded by the House of Representatives and fined $300,000. The ethics investigation led to his eventual resignation from Congress.

Speaking Sunday on CNN, Gingrich said he was completely exonerated of the charges, and that the $300,000 penalty he paid for ethics violation was actually a ‘reimbursement’ for the cost of the investigation.

I also remember that $300,000 “fine” and it was reimbursement for the ethics investigation. I remember and participated in the debate way back then.

But, having said all of that, while gaining the White House is important due to the draconian rule making authority available in the various executive branch departments, I don’t think it’s the most important thing at all.

The most important thing is increasing not just Republicans in the House and gaining control of the Senate, but increasing tea party-backed conservatives in those legislative chambers. We’ve seen the somewhat small tea party caucus in the House and Senate rebuff even Republican leaders this past session and I believe they could certainly keep any of Gingrich’s “progressive tendencies” in check and that’s why I can support him.

I also believe that most of the change in this country, as I’ve written for a very long time now, is going to come by Republican governors and state legislatures pushing back against the federal government and forcing that change and not from Washington itself.

I can be completely comfortable with Gingrich as the GOP nominee.

We had a fantastic time on the debut of our new radio show this past Saturday – The Steve Bussey Radio Experience. We interviewed Florida State Senate President Mike Haridopolis, Brevard County Republican Executive Committee Chair Barbara Davis and Melbourne, FL City Councilman Mark LaRusso.

And remember, we don’t just talk about local or Florida issues but national and internation issues of importance to all Americans. So, if you’re frustrated at not being able to call the big boys during the week call us at (321) 631-1300!

Here are some video clips from behind the scenes, but we weren’t able to get caller audio in the video yet – we’re working on that … and remember, you can listen live every Saturday from 3 to 5 p.m. (EST) at 1300wmel.com.

And, we’ll take calls from around the world at (321) 631-1300 …

As President Obama and his Democrat cabal arrogantly attempt the “fundamental transformation” of our great nation narcissistically believing they know better than men such as Adams, Madison, Washington, Jefferson and others, there is a silent revolution afoot.

Even during the Bush Administration I was arguing that the 50 sovereign States that comprise America needed to push back against federal usurpations of the 9th and 10th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, as well as Article 1, Section 8. I even wrote an article and emailed it to the Republican Governor’s Association and asked them – cajoled – begged even – to begin the push back.

Well, the movement has begun, slowly, but has begun nonetheless.

As you are no doubt well aware:

At least 26 States are suing the federal government over Obamacare.

South Carolina and Texas have passed an intrastate light bulb law exempting incandescent light bulbs made and sold in their States from federal intervention.

Montana has passed a similar gun law exempting guns made and sold in Montana from the Interstate Commerce Clause in the Constitution.

Several States, led by Arizona, have passed their own laws enforcing American sovereignty by attempting to control illegal immigration.

But, did you know about the silent energy Revolution?

The big news this week was President Obama canceling the Keystone XL pipeline. He blamed Republicans, of course, for setting an arbitrary deadline even though the final environmental impact studies were completed last year, and Canada now appears to be negotiating oil and gas sales to Asia while Americans lose somewhere between 20,000 and 100,000 jobs.

Additionally, according to the Heritage Foundation,

gas and oil production on federal lands is down by more than 40% from 10 years ago while Obama disingenuously boasts that oil and gas production are up under his administration.
This is where the silent energy revolution comes in.

Gas and oil production are up, according to Heritage, on private lands where Obama and the EPA have not yet lowered the federal boom in states like North Dakota, Alaska and Texas offsetting the drop in production on federal lands.

The bottom line is that energy production is occurring in spite of, and not due to, Obama’s actions because freedom and free markets will always find a way to survive and thrive. Obama is the anti-freedom, collectivist, centralized control president and the States, as well as the people, are pushing back on several fronts as I hoped and recommended years ago.

Remember, gas prices are at historic highs for this time of year and nearly double from when President Obama took office despite decreased demand. Can you imagine where prices would be if Obama was not trying to force “green energy” down our throats over our objections if production on federal lands had not decreased and production on private lands was still increasing?

There is some hope for America yet as States and individuals slowly begin to reclaim their God-give, unalienable rights. But there is much work to do.

Well, as I announced the other day we finally did it – we’re back on the air delivering your weekend talk radio political fix!

The inaugural edition of the Steve Bussey Radio Experience will air this Saturday, January 21, 2012 from 3 to 5 p.m. on AM 1300 WMEL – The Talk to Me Station – in Brevard, Indian River and Orange Counties in Central Florida!

Our readers around the world can listen live by visiting 1300wmel.com, or listen to the pod cast later right here!

Our inaugural show includes interviews with Florida Senate President Mike Haridopolis, Brevard Republican Executive Committee Chair Brenda Davis and Melbourne, FL City Councilman Mark Larusso.

We’ll be discussing the drop in the Florida unemployment rate since Governor Rick Scott took office, Florida budget issues, the upcoming Florida GOP Primary and if it appears to have been worth losing 50% of our convention delegates to move the primary date, and how the state and federal governments tie the hands of local governments – and your calls at (321) 631-1300!

So join us live on AM 1300 WMEL – The Talk To Me Station – or at 1300wmel.com – If you’re thinking about it then we’re talking about it before the big boys even have a chance to script it for their Sunday talking head shows!

Thank you and God bless you all …
Steve