I am writing today about the Freedom of Health Care Protection Act recently passed by the SC House and your possible reluctance, per the Investors’ Business Daily article I’m referencing, to sign the bill should it reach your desk.

As a graduate of the University of South Carolina from both the undergraduate and graduate schools and as someone whose parents still reside in SC I have a strong interest in your course of action.
I am also vehemently, adamantly, and strongly opposed to Obamacare and believe that the Supreme Court was absolutely wrong in allowing it to stand last year.

I write fairly regularly on RedState.com under the name DerKrieger and my diaries focus almost exclusively on federalism and reestablishing the constitutional balance of power between the federal government and the states. I have read your posts there and hope you will find time to read mine.

I have been hoping, praying, and nearly begging for just one GOP governor to stand up against the federal government and reassert state sovereignty. I believe that one brave governor can inspire others and that if enough governors demand that the federal government cease and desist all unconstitutional acts, it will have no choice. Only the states, in my humble opinion, are in a position to put the chains of the constitution back on the federal government but without a leader, those chains will remain unshackled. As Jefferson said, “In questions of power, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.”

One of your stated objections to the bill, per IBD, is that you believe it will be a distraction and largely symbolic. That could not be further from the historical truth.

As you are well aware the federal government is a creation of the states and when the Constitution was ratified the states ceded only their powers enumerated in Article 1, Section 8 of our Constitution. They, and We the People, retained all others as explicitly stated in the 9th and 10th Amendments. The states did not give up the right to determine the constitutionality of federal legislation. Only our cultural deference to the law has prevented states from challenging the belief that only the Supreme Court has the final say, even though that right is only asserted and is nowhere explicitly stated.

With regard to the symbolism of the bill consider the following quotes from James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, and John Marshall:

“With the respect to the words ‘general welfare’, I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators.” – James Madison, 1831

“The federal government is acknowledged by all to be one of enumerated powers. The principle, that it can exercise only the powers granted to it….is now universally admitted” – Chief Justice John Marshall, 1819

“The powers of the federal government are enumerated; it can only operate in certain cases; it has legislative powers on defined and limited objects, beyond which it cannot extend its jurisdiction.” – Thomas Jefferson, 1788

And with special regard to the ACA, aka Obamacare, “They are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose. To consider… {Otherwise}, would render all the preceding and subsequent enumerations of power completely useless. It would reduce the whole instrument to a single phrase, that of instituting a Congress with power do to whatever would be for the good of the United States; and, as they would be the sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they please…Certainly no such universal power was meant to be given them. It was intended to lace them up straitly within the enumerated powers and those without which, as means, these powers could not be carried into effect.” – Thomas Jefferson, 1791

In other words the federal government may not collect taxes for whatever purpose it decides it wants to spend money but may collect taxes only for the purpose of spending on its enumerated responsibilities such as defense. This is where Chief Justice Roberts was wrong when he used twisted logic to allow Obamacare to survive. Social Security is equally unconstitutional but is another matter.

Jefferson said in 1817 – “Our tenet ever was…that Congress had not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but were restrained to those specifically enumerated, and that, as it was never meant that they should provide for that welfare but by the exercise of the enumerated powers, so it could not have been meant they should raise money for purposes which the enumeration did not place under their action; consequently, that the specification of powers is a limitation of the purposes for which they may raise money.”

Congress has no constitutional authority, i.e. no such power is enumerated in Article I, Section 8, to implement the ACA, aka Obamacare, and thus cannot raise taxes to pay for it. Therefore the law is unconstitutional and the state of South Carolina is well within its rights to reject it in its entirety.

“If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions.” – James Madison, 1792

Governor, I hope you are the one who can and will stand up against the tyranny growing on the Potomac and be the inspiration for other GOP governors. I believe that if enough Red states, working together, refuse to follow unconstitutional legislation and demand that the federal government be reduced in size, scope, and scale to that which is necessary to execute their constitutional duties that we can defeat Leviathan and usher in a new era of American liberty.

Respectfully,

What we are seeing from the eruption of the TEA Party IRS scandal is the taxing power, or the taxing authority’s power, being used to destroy the political opponents not just of the Democrat party but of the federal government.

The income tax is supposed to serve a single purpose; to raise revenue for the federal government so that it has the funds to execute its constitutional obligations. The IRS was established to manage the raising of these revenues.

Since the passage of the 16th amendment that established the income tax, the tax code has morphed into a means for government to control, manipulate, punish, reward, coerce and drive the social changes desired by Washington elitists. It is an abomination.

But unfortunately for us it is also the primary source of Washington’s power, power they will not voluntarily relinquish. For all the whining that Nancy Pelosi and the Left do over the Citizens United decision, the tax code is the real source of the problem.

Would lobbyists exist if not for the tax code? Unfortunately yes, but in much smaller numbers I believe due to Congress’ other source of power; regulations.

But without the tax code being used to reward and punish there would be little need of lobbyists and the mountains of cash they spend in DC to influence Congress. Lobbyists exist to seek favors, exclusions, waivers, etc. for themselves or punishment for their enemies via the tax code or regulations.

For all their protestations to the contrary, Congress loves the money that lobbying rains on them as it allows them to run for election and reelection in perpetuity. They are drunk with the power the tax code allows them to exercise over individuals, corporations, and as we’ve recently discovered, non-profits.

We have no need for the current tax code. It could be replaced in its entirety with a flat tax, fair tax, or national sales tax administered by an IRS a fraction of its current size. There is no need for the multitude of taxes (income, Social Security, and Medicare) and their multitude of collection, audit, enforcement, and management bureaucracies. There is no need for corporate income taxes or the tens of thousands of corporate tax departments and tax specialists required to comply with the ever changing tax laws.

But nothing will ever change because of Congress’ lust for power. In addition to Congress, what other special interests are too invested in the current tax code to permit it to change? The 150k members of the powerful National Treasury Employees Union (NTEU), tax attorneys orgs like the National Association of Tax Professionals (NATP), tax software companies (TurboTax), Tax preparation companies (H&R Block et al).

As we’ve seen over and over again, it doesn’t matter much anymore what We the People want, it only matters what the special interests want. So, the IRS and the current tax code are here to stay.

Environmentalists are on record supporting abortion and demanding that people reduce their consumption of resources in order to “save the planet”, so it only makes sense that they would oppose the immigration fueled growth of the US as detrimental to the environment. But they don’t.

Below is a letter I wrote to the Sierra Club just last week asking them their position on the current immigration bill. I wrote the letter as if I were an enthusiastic supporter of the SC and their co-religionists.

Good afternoon,
I’m writing to you in regard to your position on the pending immigration reform bill making its way through Congress. As someone who is a strong supporter of population stabilization as a means of reducing resource consumption, environmental degradation, increased deforestation for parking lots, homes, retailing, et al, I am strongly against giving amnesty to those here illegally and would like our government to end all immigration.

It is very frustrating for me when I hear environmental groups I support, such as the SC, challenge us to reduce our consumption of fossil fuels, increase the use of renewable, etc. all in the important effort to save the planet but refuse to oppose immigration fueled population growth. With the western US already struggling with water shortages how can we possibly bring in more people who will place further strain on our very fragile and limited water resources? How can we import more people who will drive the expansion of corporate farming, increased farm runoff into our waterways, increased fossil fuel usage, increased congestion, etc? How can we wage our battle to improve our environment one person at a time while you remain silent on a bill that would inundate us with people who will exponentially exacerbate the problems we face? I’ve seen estimates that the immigration bill, as drafted by the senate, will bring in as many as 30 million new immigrants over the next 20 years. It makes me want to throw in the towel on even trying to be a good steward of our nation and planet when faced with the threat of 30 million more consumers and destroyers.

I am concerned that the SC et al have placed supporting the Democrat party agenda ahead of our environment and the silence from the environmental community so far is validating my concern.
I urge you to speak out in opposition to this environmental catastrophe in the making.

Thank you,

And below is the response I received this morning:

Dear,

Thank you for contacting the Sierra Club.

The Sierra Club Board of Directors has adopted a position in favor of a legal path to citizenship for America’s undocumented immigrants (DerKrieger note: notice the use of the accepted Liberal language here). As you probably know, the Sierra Club’s board is all-volunteer and is elected by our membership.

In making its unanimous decision, the Board felt strongly that establishing a just path to citizenship for the 11 million undocumented immigrants living in America today would empower those in our society who are most vulnerable to toxic pollution. This would allow today’s undocumented immigrants to fully participate in our democracy, fight back against polluters and demand public health protections and clean energy solutions.

The Sierra Club continues to support women’s rights and empowerment, access to family planning (DerKrieger note: a.k.a. abortion), human rights and environmental protection in people’s countries of origin. We also continue our opposition to the construction of the border wall.

For more information, please read President Allison Chin and Executive
Director Michael Brune’s blog post

http://sierraclub.typepad.com/michaelbrune/2013/04/immigration.html

For the Club’s official position on Immigration, please visit us at:

http://www.sierraclub.org/policy/conservation/immigration.pdf

If you would like to contact the board regarding this policy, you can
email them at the following:
board.liaison@sierraclub.org

Your support of the Sierra Club is greatly appreciated. Please let us
know if you have any additional questions or concerns.

Explore, enjoy and protect the planet

Best Regards,

Carrie-Michelle Matteucci
Sierra Club Information

There is so much in this statement that is just crap. They are clearly only supporting amnesty because it will further empower the Democrat party and the environmental agenda.

Let’s take this statement as an example,

This would allow today’s undocumented immigrants to fully participate in our democracy, fight back against polluters and demand public health protections and clean energy solutions.

I haven’t met a lot of illegals but I would be willing to wager that the poor, illiterate/semi-literate, low-skilled/no-skilled people who have come here to work aren’t much concerned about the environment. I’ve seen photos of the trash they leave in the desert when sneaking into the country. Amnestied illegals will take absolutely no interest in the environment as that is only a luxury of the well off and comfortable. I also doubt we’ll see a groundswell of illegals demanding more windmills and solar power plants once they’re legalized.

The environmental Leftists need to be called on this because their twisted logic is just an excuse to support the Democrat party and through them advance their Utopian agenda.

Does anyone have any idea on what we are spending all this money?

The right thinking public is frustrated and alarmed by the massive federal budget, debt, and deficit but have idea where to direct our ire.

In my home I am the breadwinner and my wife manages the family budget. When she tells me that we’re running out of money before I am scheduled to get paid again and I get mad about it, she tells me to turn on the computer, open up Excel and look at each expenditure that we’ve made. When I do so the anger turns to understanding, frustration, and eventually, conversation about how we can do better to stretch our money between paydays. Without this transparency managing our family finances would be very difficult and likely lead to a lot more fighting between us.

So, in this day and age where electronic banking and all manner of financial transactions are conducted routinely online by individuals and businesses alike why can we not demand that the federal government put the entire budget of the United States online for all of America to review?

The budgets of every single agency, office, and bureau save those involved in national security, should be online down to the paperclip so that We the People know where our money is being spent and can start to have some say so in where we believe we can cut back.

I strongly believe that if we had such detailed transparency that the public would 1) be outraged to find out where much of their hard earned money was being wasted and 2) that we could find hundreds of billions in spending that we could demand be eliminated. Whole cottage industries would sprout up around various agencies highlighting their waste, bloat, and spendthrift ways.

It would also be very educational for the uninformed voters who believe that defense rather than wealth transfers consumes most of our federal budget.

I think this should be a top goal for the GOP and for anyone serious about reining in the spending in Washington.

I want to tell you how such a database can be created without your knowledge.

Back in 2007 I briefly worked for a data company, Acxiom Corp. Acxiom’s primary customer was the consumers of customer data such as banks, retailers, and marketers of all stripes. Ever wonder how that junk mail seems to follow you when you move?

To provide its customers with high quality data Acxiom is also a consumer of massive quantities of data from its customers, governments, the post office, and other large data holders.

With enough data it is possible for them to know just about anything about you; including whether or not you own a weapon and even what kind without you having to provide them with the information.

So, how would the federal government use this data to create a stealth gun registry?

The government could pass a bill, or Obama could issue a decree Executive Order, that required data companies, including banks and credit card companies, to turn over certain consumer data to some seemingly harmless government agency like the Census Bureau. They would only need a few bits of data from the banks and from companies like Acxiom: all sales data from all authorized firearms dealers including the SKU of the item sold and the credit card number of the buyer. The SKU info will tell them what was purchased, i.e. ammunition, accessories, et al and from that they can determine at least the caliber of your weapon. The credit card information will tell them who you are and where you live. They can use companies like Acxiom to check the quality of the address data to make sure they get the right house before busting down your door.

And you won’t be able to avoid being registered by using a gift card instead of a credit or debit card if that gift card was bought with a debit or credit card because the ID numbers of each are linked in the purchase transaction. It would just require an extra step in the data mining to ID you.

I may be paranoid but I wouldn’t put it past the Left to do such a thing as I’ve described. With today’s IT systems it’s laughably easy to do.

The best way to avoid a stealth registration is to only buy with cash if possible.

Thank you for taking the time to express your thoughts on the future of the House Republican leadership team. It is good to hear from you.

On November 14, 2012, the House Republican Conference selected its leadership team for the 113th Congress. Speaker of the House John Boehner, Majority Leader Eric Cantor, and Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy were all re-nominated for their current positions, and Cathy McMorris Rodgers was nominated as chairman of the Republican Conference.

While I respect your opinion, I believe it is important to point out that Speaker Boehner has a tough job. Like you, I want to reform entitlements, reduce spending, and re-energize our economy. But House Republicans are becoming our own worst enemy. Instead of bolstering Speaker Boehner’s negotiating position with Democrats and allowing him to bargain from a position of power, we are putting up roadblocks at every turn. Ultimately, this puts us in a weaker position and will prevent us from getting the best deal possible. The reality is, President Obama was re-elected, and the Democrats gained seats in the Senate. House Republicans are the only line of defense. However, to be effective, we must come together as a conference and demonstrate that we are unified behind the speaker.

Thank you again for contacting me. Please continue to keep me informed of the issues important to you and be sure to visit my website, www.womack.house.gov , for more information and to sign up for my newsletter.

God Bless and Happy Holidays!

Slowly that path is breaking into mainstream conservative thought. Jonah Goldberg writes about a return to federalism today at National Review and Hot Air even posted it under the headlines.

Now all we need is for some RS front page writers to join the chorus.

We all know though that the system is unsustainable as the number of workers per retiree has plummeted since the program’s inception and will be at its lowest ratio ever as the Boomers begin retiring.

The unfunded liabilities of the system for those of us still in the work force run into the tens of trillions of dollars. It’s well past time for some changes.

I have what I believe to be a modest proposal to over time, retire the system, prove the Democrats claims about the program’s popularity to be false, and to reduce drastically the program’s unfunded liabilities.
Now of course I haven’t done all of the math but my proposal seems rational to me and has a little something for everyone.

1. Make participation in Social Security optional. This is among other things a moral issue. Why should any American be forced to participate in any government program? Are we not free citizens? Is our income not our property? Are we not largely adults responsible enough to plan for our own retirements? Participation in Social Security is government coercion.

2. Those that opt out will have to forgo all previous contributions. This will keep many, if not most, middle-age workers in the system. It will depend on their doing the analyses to determine what would be best for them financially. This also eliminates those that opt out as future liabilities.

3. Require employers to continue funding their portion of the FICA tax until all participants have passed away. Yes, we all know that the employer contribution is really an employee’s salary that he is never paid but this provision should garner some Democrat support due to the continuing program funding.

4. Ideally we’d also raise the retirement age and in a bow to fiscal reality, implement a means test so younger workers aren’t subsidizing grandma and grandpa’s vacations to Maui.

That’s it! Let’s test the Democrat’s theory on how popular Social Security is. With only 34% of those between 18 and 34 expecting to ever receive any benefits I guarantee most if not all younger workers will opt out immediately. Their investment in the system will have been low so the choice to opt out for them would be a real no-brainer? I suspect that many higher earning workers over 34 will also opt out and divert their FICA taxes to their 401ks, IRAs or even extra appending. I’m 46 and I’d opt out immediately and divert my money to my 401k.

The Democrats don’t really care about the financial well being of Americans, what they really crave is control and the ability to use Social Security as a tool to drive voting.

Let’s push ideas like this that increase our freedom of making our own life’s choices and to break the back of the Democrat party’s demagoguery.

It’s interesting, frustrating, and annoying that the federal government can take over part of the private sector, incur a large ongoing expense after doing so, and then make the claim that their takeover somehow saves money.

Why do we accept this nonsensical premise?

Let’s accept for a moment that Obamacare saves the federal government, aka taxpayers, money.

Now by way of analogy I’ll demonstrate how it’s a false notion.

Let’s assume that in 1980 the federal government nationalized the manufacture of clothing thus incurring the cost of design, manufacture, distribution, etc of said clothing. The government went from having zero liability for clothing to having say, $1 Billion in liabilities.

Fast forward to 2012 and the national clothing expenditure has risen to $10 billion. So the government decides it needs to save money. There are two choices, return the clothing business to the private sector where it rightfully belongs and eliminate immediately $10 billion in “expenses” OR eliminate all choice in clothing and only sell one style and one color of clothing thereby reducing government expenditures to only $8 Billion.

Which choice have the socialists made regarding our healthcare?

In other words, Obamacare only “saves” the government money IF you first accept that health care spending is a legitimate function of government.

It is not.

Since the election though I have become despondent and I have come to believe that not only have we lost the last battle but that we have lost the war and that the Left, after decades of effort if not actual planning, has utterly defeated us.

It’s not a matter now of if we become a European style country but when.
The long march through the institutions that the Left embarked on a century ago is nearly complete; as is our destruction as a nation of free people. Conservatives by our nature are reactionary, that is we act only acted upon. We conservatives prefer to be left to our own devices and private associations; seeking help within our communities and organizations.

So while we slept, or rather while we worked, tended to our families, and generally minded our own business, the enemy has conquered us. While we slept the Left has taken over the government, the media, entertainment, the courts, and all the major levers of power. They have indoctrinated rather than educated our children. And we let them. They have pushed propaganda at us via television and movies for decades. And we let them. They have ridiculed our beliefs. And we let them.

I think it is with conservatives in mind that Thomas Jefferson wrote

“…all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.”

It is only after the abuses become insufferable that we conservatives rouse ourselves to do something about it. The question is then, what are we going to do about it and when?

The divide between Left and Right is a vast, unbridgeable chasm. Our differences are over the fundamental question of the proper size, scope, and role of government and our beliefs couldn’t be farther apart. There simply is no room for compromise.

In my opinion there are only two options remaining; dissolution of the nation into two separate countries or the creation of a Red State Redoubt, a conservative fortress, bolstered by muscular implementation and practice of federalism. If we do not dissolve the union we must act as though we have and start treating the Left as enemies and not as nice people with whom we have some minor disagreements.

We can already see that Blue states are becoming bluer and Red states redder. The risk of not dissolving the union is that Red states go the way of North Carolina, a former solidly red state turned purple due to its success in creating a welcoming, conservative, business-friendly state. We aren’t able to keep the plague of Liberalism at bay as long as we are a single nation. The locusts eventually lay waste to our states.

The dissolution of the union while a long term possibility isn’t a strategy to pursue. Instead we must use our perhaps temporary supermajorities in solidly red states to make them into hostile territory for Liberals and Liberalism. We need to drive them out.

As I alluded to at the beginning of this post, I think we’ve lost the war, our only option is to secure what remains of the conservative ‘homeland’ and prepare to fight for our survival against our would be masters.

Feel free to try and talk me down off the ledge.

Centralizing authority in a federal Leviathan which is no longer in any sense limited, has caused elections to grow more corrupt and increasingly contentious. Federalism lights the path to domestic tranquility.

I was listening to his Friday radio program and he said that we can no longer depend on or look to the federal government so solve our problems. He said he has no faith in the likes of Boehner or McConnell to have the backbone to do what is necessary. Nor frankly do conservatives have the numbers at the federal level to turn back the statists.

He also made a point I’ve made repeatedly, that we can’t depend on federal GOP legislators to support federalism because they won’t willingly give up their power. That’s why I use language like seize when discussing what will be necessary to restore power to the states.

Mark wouldn’t elaborate or explicitly say he was going to start discussing federalism until he thought it through more, but I don’t know what else he could be talking about. I will continue to listen and provide updates.

When the states ratified the Constitution they didn’t agree to become subservient to the federal government. States still retain the rights and powers per the 10th Amendment even though those powers have been severely weakened from lack of exercise.

It is time for all of us to start contacting our governors, state legislators, and as many TEA Party organizations as possible to enlist their help in reestablishing federalism.

Today I sent the below letter via snail mail to all GOP governors:

Dear Governor,
I am writing as a deeply patriotic American, a veteran, a husband, a father, and someone who loves this country too much to give up on it.

I, like many conservatives, am extremely disappointed in the outcome of the election; I believe if conservatives don’t act to stop the president we will emerge from his last four years as a socialist country with only a thin veneer of free market capitalism and individual liberty remaining.

Having become quite intimate with the Constitution over the last several years I believe our ‘salvation’, if you will, is the 10th Amendment and a return to federalism.
The Founders, as you well know, didn’t seek to establish an all-powerful central government with the power to dictate how we free citizens manage our lives, and I refuse to submit to such a government. I demand to retain my God given right to take care of myself. I will not become a subject whose life is directed from cradle to grave by a smothering nanny state.
The Founders, in their infinite wisdom, included the 10th Amendment in the Constitution to explicitly state that those powers not specifically enumerated to the federal government were to remain with the states and the people.

Since the Wilson era, and possibly since the end of the Civil War, the federal government has usurped more and more of the states’ rightful powers and over time reduced the states to little more than administrative units of the central government. This centralization more than anything is responsible for much of the gridlock and acrimony in DC as the liberal and conservative world views clash over how large and intrusive the federal government ought to be. The Liberal agenda of redistribution, ‘fairness’, equality of outcome, et al cannot succeed without the centralization of power.

So much of what comes out of the federal government today and since the New Deal is grossly unconstitutional and well beyond their enumerated powers.
Obamacare is perhaps the best, most recent example of unconstitutional legislation; in spite of the SCOTUS ruling.

Now that Obama has been reelected Obamacare is likely to become permanent until such time it, and other programs, collapses the welfare state. Since Obamacare is without a doubt unconstitutional, I believe that it is well within the 10th Amendment powers of the states to reject it and to prevent its implementation within their borders. Without cooperation from the states it cannot survive.

I believe that it is well past time for the states to reassert their constitutional powers to rein in the federal government, protect their citizens from the rapacious predations of the socialists that have taken over the Democrat party, and to seize back those powers that have for so long been usurped.

The beauty of federalism is that it allows the states to compete with each other to limit government, limit taxation, and allow states’ residents to mold their state governments to best suit their needs. With the usurpation of so many states’ prerogatives that system has broken down. Now the impact of Nevada electing a Harry Reid has serious repercussions to me as a citizen or Arkansas. It wasn’t supposed to be this way.

I am writing to all GOP governors, the Republican Governors Association, and as many TEA Party groups as possible in the hope that I can get someone, anyone, to take up the banner of conservatism, Americanism, the Constitution, and the reestablishment of self-determination and liberty through the use of the 10th Amendment. I hope that We the People can count on you to be one of the leaders of this movement.

I hope all readers will help save our republic and our liberties by helping in this cause.

http://news.yahoo.com/mo-rep-akin-failed-report-state-pension-161955166–election.html

Is Dick Lugar really so much of a sore loser that he’d sacrifice the Senate seat to a Democrat? I hope the Senate leadership calls him on the carpet and tells him to stop pouting and help save the seat. If we lose this seat because of Dick Lugar’s pettiness he needs to be roundly denounced.

No doubt coincidentally but it’s refreshing to see nevertheless.

It’s turning out to be a great day for federalism!

This movement is finally getting the attention it deserves. As I’ve said before, the federal government is not the final arbiter of constitutionality. The states, who created the federal government, retained the right to determine constitutionality.

Disgusted with the GOP in DC? Then stop putting all your eggs in that broken basket and work to elect constitutional conservatives to state offices. 30 Red states working together to oppose socialism are far more powerful and effective than a GOP caucus that is only 50% conservative.