Gail and his Knights

This is very long but worth the Read if you care at all about the freedoms we are losing everyday!!!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Folks,
I'm making an unusual request. Naturally, you may grant or ignore it, but I must ask.

I have been cobbling together my "closing argument" against the present Socialized medicine bill now before the Senate for the past several weeks. I'll never be satsfied, but time is short, so I had to draw it to a close. The finished letter (which is inadequate and leaves out many, many important objections and their arguments) is lengthy, as you would expect from me. I spent over 6 hours e-mailing a custom copy to each INDIVIDUAL Senator Tuesday. It took that long to go to each of 100 websites and repeatedly enter my first name, last name, address, city, state, zip code, telephone number, e-mail address, title and cut-copy-paste (after inserting each individual name) the text of my letter 100 times.

Will it reach the Senators? That will be in God's hands; humanly speaking probably not. Will it change any of their votes? See the previous answer.

Is it a waste of time?

No.

It is never a waste of time to speak the truth. And someone at some level may read some of my letter. Like the young men and women to whom I speak on the phone when I call the Senators' offices. They aren't decision-makers; they're interns and aids. Powerless gophers. Why "waste", as I did, 30 minutes on the phone with a kid in Cleveland from Sherrod Brown's office? He can't help me. Here's why. He's an American. My countryman. He's not interning at Senator Brown's office because he plans to become a dentist or a bookkeeper. Evidently he has political ambitions and is there to learn the ropes of apprenticeship. He's a bright young idealist. Well-meaning. Wants to "help" people and confounds the impulse inexplicably with the government. One day he may well be your Senator himself, or your Congressman. And when he is, you won't have a chance of reaching him either. Any more than you could ever possibly hope to speak to Senators Voinovich or Brown now. So the time to reason with these pups is now. before they ascend Olympus to sit with the gods. While they're the office boy/girl. Flood their ears with principles and facts and concepts they aren't going to get at the university, on MSNBC or working for Sherrod Brown. Trouble their ease and discomfit their sleep. Introduce them to the concepts they won't encounter. The more they say "Huh. That's an interesting thought. I never thought about that", the better you're doing. Force thought. Break up the trancelike unquestioning go-alongism. Introuce accountability. Don't be bullied; demand intelligent responses, not pre-packaged fluff lines. They work for you; not the other way around. Ask questions and wait for the boy's answers. Don't let him evade the question. Ask it again. Be kind and patient, but earnest and passionate. Treat him with respect and be personable, but as unbending as granite. If it's his misfortune to be assigned the phones that day, make him arn his pay. You're paying him; get your money's worth. Tie up the phone line as long as possible; at least you might impede government that much. If you're going to "waste time", make it theirs.

I bother because I may well be talking to the next Senator while he's still in a larval stage and teachable. I sure wish someone had done this with a pubescent Sherrod Brown. For those of you who've read my Reset letter of a year ago, you know that I took the time and effort to write Dennis Kucinich thirty years ago while I was still in high school and he was just a kid mayor or Cleveland. Today he's a congressman in the capitol. Today I couldn't possibly reach him.

Now, for my request.

Below is my letter to each of 100 senators. I also sent copies to Walter Williams, Laura Ingraham, Ann Coulter, Glenn Beck, Judge Andrew Napolitano, Sean Hannity, G. Gordon Liddy, Michael Savage, Mark Levin, Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, John Stossel, Neil Cavuto, mjor newspapers, news magazines, the ACLJ, The John Birch Society, Michele Malkin, and assorted places on the web. Do I like or listen to all of these personalities? Nope. Do I endorse or agree with them all? Nope. but together they represent an audience of over 150 million Americans and you bet I'm going to aim for that, no matter how flat I fall. If you never pull the bowstring, the arrow can't hit anything at all.

I'm asking each of you to give the letter below more wings. If you don't it's not necessary to explain; delete it as you would any other junk mail. But if each of you will forward it to those you think may profit by or enjoy it most, I will be grateful. Somebody may know somebody who knows somebody who knows somebody with a louder voice than mine who may know somebody who can make a difference. If you don't agree with the letter, then kill it, of course. But if you believe it makes a good case or raises an important issue, please help get the word out (long as it is) while it may yet do some good.

The letter is long enough. Omit this preface, please and it's not necessary to include my name. the arguments should stand on their on merits, not the identity of their author.

If you will, cut-copy-paste and forward the letter below this line. Thank you all! SWD
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Fellow citizen,

The Founding Fathers staked the maintenance of the entire republic on an informed citizenry. They wanted and expected that liberty should be so precious that every individual citizen---whatever his class or status---would shoulder his duty to preserve in peace what they had by blood won in revolution. The following letter was written by a simple blue-collar Ohioan, making under $30,000 per year. He holds no degree but a high school diploma. He isn't rich, famous, educated or remarkable in any way. He's simply an American who understands that liberty is each citizen's responsibility. This letter was sent to each of 100 senators. Whether any of them read a word of it, who can say?

Whether you agree with every point or not, shouldn't we all be asking our representatives our own questions? And demanding answers? This lengthy read is less about insurance and more about liberty. If you find it thoughtful, pass it along.



Dear [Ohio] Senator [Sherrod] Brown,

I am uninsured by choice and will not be insured by any individual, not by any employer, not by government, federal or otherwise. This is a personal decision and is no one’s prerogative to interfere therewith. I do not recognize the authority of the United States government to legislate personal attitudes or personal consumer purchases.

My reasons for reaching this conclusion are my own and not subject to review or judgment by any employee of the government at any level. Government’s need to know begins with my conclusion, not with the thinking processes behind it. It is enough for government to know my decision and to respect it. I owe no one an accounting for any decision I reach. Americans do not submit their independent choices to their servants at Washington for their mean approval.

While I owe no discussion of my reasons, I choose to present a few of them to you because so little thinking is being done at Washington about the right of individual citizens to reach differing conclusions about the issues of the day without molestation from the State. Freedom is, after all, the ability to say no without adverse repercussions. When a citizen of this republic can no longer make independent choices without being disadvantaged at law or without punitive consequences, the liberty of every American (whatever his views on this or any other given issue) is lost.

First, Senator Brown, the United States Constitution nowhere authorizes the Senate (or the general government at all) to so much as discuss, on the clock, the personal spending choices of citizens on health expenses or any other.

The Constitution is not a document empowering the Congress over the liberties of the People it serves and to whom it is answerable; it is a limitation of the Congress by the People to an express list of enumerated powers. Not only does not the Constitution authorize this intrusion by Congress into the personal finances and affairs of the individual citizen, it can not. The Preamble establishes that the Constitution is a legal grant of express powers by “We the People” to their servant, not a license for government to permit its superior, the People, to act in certain ways and not in others. It is, in short, not the People’s mail; it is yours. The People are not answerable to the Constitution they wrote; its addressee, the general government, is.

"No legislative act…contrary to the Constitution can be valid. To deny this would be to affirm that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid." - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist 78

Senator Brown, you are my representative, my servant, my deputy and I your principal and master, not the reverse. Constitutionally you may not do what I have not authorized and you most certainly shall not do what I have forbidden. Is that clear?

Legislation of the type presently before the United States Senate regarding the imposition of insurance upon citizens under financial and incarcerative penalties is a coercion and usurpation nowhere express or implicit within the grant of limited powers ceded you by the People in our Constitution.

Article I, Section 8, reads, “The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States…”

That is, only three ends are authorized for the laying and collection of taxes, duties, imposts or excises: (1) to pay the debts of the corporate States, united, (2) to provide for the defense of the corporate States, united and (3) to provide for the general welfare of the corporate States, united. Clearly the health care bill before the Senate today fails the test of the first two ends as no one argues, or can maintain, that its purpose is either to retire the national debt or to secure the United States against foreign attack.

The entire pretext for the dubious constitutionality of the present bill hangs by an interpretation of the general welfare clause the Founders manifestly did not intend.

The Father of the Constitution, James Madison, in a letter to James Robertson addressed this very misreading: "With respect to the two 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."

Thus we have the probable author of the clause in question on historical record stating that “general welfare” is never to be interpreted as literally general in an unlimited sense and is never to be considered in exclusion from the limited powers that are its very context.

Madison elaborated further in Federalist 45, "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined…to be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce." That is, the few powers enumerated as delegated to Washington by the People are defined and unambiguous. Further, the general government at Washington is empowered mostly as a defensive force field of the People’s 50 sovereign republics, commissioned to act as their joint mouthpiece to the outer world at large. By no torturous construction can this be imagined to mean that the People may be jailed for not choosing an insurance company to pay for their appendectomy, can it, Senator Brown?

In 1792, Madison again expounds, “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."

That is, Senator Brown, Madison himself says that if you interpret the general welfare clause to mean that Congress may do at its whim and unfettered discretion whatever it thinks best, you turn the Constitution on its head, pull it inside-out, and make mockery of the very concepts of limited government and enumerated powers which are plainly the design, purpose and very grain of the Constitution. A constitution that distills down to “Government may do as it pleases” is no constitution and is the foundation not of a republic but of despotic tyranny.

In the event, Senator Brown, that James Madison’s express definition is lost on you, Thomas Jefferson in 1798 relieved any lingering confusion that may yet cloud your understanding: “Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated." In the plainest possible language, your third President and the author of the Declaration of Independence stated categorically that Congress (this means you) has no power to provide for the general welfare that is not specifically spelled out and named within the Constitution. If the Constitution does not expressly state that the government has authority to propose and enact legislation mandating health insurance in those exact words, IT IS ILLEGAL and those who are party to that enaction ARE CRIMINAL.

This was no single ephemeral mood of Jefferson’s. He had expressed the identical position seven years prior: “The Constitution allows only the means which are ‘necessary,’ not those which are merely ‘convenient,’ for effecting the enumerated powers. If such a latitude of construction be allowed to this phrase as to give any non-enumerated power, it will go to every one, for there is not one which ingenuity may not torture into a convenience in some instance or other, to some one of so long a list of enumerated powers. It would swallow up all the delegated powers, and reduce the whole to one power, as before observed."

Like Madison, Jefferson understood the simple truth that if “general welfare” may be understood as a free pass to legislate outside the listed powers, it can be wrested unnaturally to license any clever scheme anyone can conceive; some fool may even come along some day and suggest that Congress may imprison citizens who do not remit a monthly extortion fee to the Nationwide Insurance Company. Such tyranny would quickly convert delegated and limited government into all of the ills and abuses of totalitarianism; this false construction turning a constitutional republic into one more autocratic regime. Not the rule of law, but of lawyers.

To this Alexander Hamilton added unreserved agreement in Federalist 83. Referring to the 18---and only 18---enumerated powers of Article I, Section 8: "This specification of particulars evidently excludes all pretension to a general legislative authority, because an affirmative grant of special powers would be absurd as well as useless if a general authority was intended." In Hamilton’s view, the twisting of the general welfare clause by the present Senate is “absurd” because the very fact that 18 (and not 17 or 19) powers were enumerated is an open and evident proof that the clause means Congress may do nothing not specified in the list of 18. If government may do whatsoever it conceives as beneficial, the point of enumerating eighteen---and eighteen only---powers is absurd and contradicted. Hamilton holds for a particular and not a general interpretation and brands any contrarian view as a “pretension”. In other words, Senator Brown, Congress hasn’t a constitutional leg on which to stand with this unlawful act.

Government’s only “just powers” are “derived from the consent of the governed”, as observed the Declaration of Independence. And those few, enumerated powers are delegated down to government from the People through their legal instrument, the Constitution. Nowhere does the Constitution authorize Congress to treat citizens as subjects by mandating consumer purchases as is presently under illegal consideration on the Senate floor. The authors of that Constitution have made explicit the fact that the general welfare clause is no refuge for those who would wrest from the document any such interpretation. And any other pretensions are presciently precluded by the iron door of the Ninth and Tenth Amendments respectively.

AMENDMENT IX.

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

AMENDMENT X.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited to it by the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

If the plain text of the Constitution itself does not expressly authorize health care legislation, which it manifestly does not, Congress has no power to enact it. Neither I nor my State have relinquished our rights and powers to Washington to act in our behalves in this area. I made and make no such delegation.

I stand on my First Amendment right to “petition the government for a redress of grievances”; on my Fourth Amendment right “to be secure in my person, house, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures”; on my Fifth Amendment right “not to be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law”, nor shall my “private property be taken for public use without just compensation”.

My grievance is the unconstitutionality of the usurpations by the Senate of my sovereign right to make my own health care choices and consumer purchases and I do demand that these grievances be redressed. Whether I do or do not have insurance is not the concern of the general government at Washington and to assess my compliance with this unconstitutional intrusion by attachment to the income tax form is an unreasonable search of my house, papers and effects; to jail me for non-compliance with illicit “law” is a blatant violation of my right to be secure in my person against unreasonable seizure. Nor may Congress deprive me of life (time in prison), liberty (imprisonment) or property (my income or savings) without due process of law, and no law is superior to the supreme law of the land, the Constitution of which this Bill of Rights is an integral part.

Thomas Jefferson wrote that “Whensoever the General Government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force”. Therefore, should the present Senate pass and the President sign any health care legislation, it is inherently unconstitutional and will be regarded as illegitimate, unauthoritative, void and of no force and shall be duly ignored as such. I cannot legally be found in violation of a law that has no legal force nor is it criminal to disobey an illegal edict, whether from a tyrannical British king or a tyrannical American Congress. Jefferson himself would have ignored this bill should it become “law”.

Furthermore, I stand on my Eighth Amendment right against “excessive fines [being] imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted”, as any fine or penalty for simply living the life I have heretofore lived in these United States would evidently and openly be. I surrender my liberty to no tyrant. I refuse to be fined for living.

I likewise stand upon my Ninth and Tenth Amendment rights, “retained” and “reserved” because neither delegated to, nor denied or disparaged by Washington.

These sovereign rights are secured both by my Constitution and my Bill of Rights as well as the plain and unambivalent universal testimony of the Founders. To secure these very rights “governments are instituted among men”, according to the Declaration of Independence. That---and only that---is the single purpose of government; protecting my life, liberty and property. No government professing to be “of the people, by the people and for the people” has any ground in logic or in law for fining and imprisoning those people for differing with one or another transient administration about health insurance or any other fleeting issue of the day.

The Declaration of Independence so firmly establishes this as the one justifiable excuse for instituting government at all that it states fearlessly, “That whenever any form of government becomes destructive of this end, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it.” If the government at Washington turns from securing my rights to life, liberty and property to destroying those rights, Senator Brown, I retain my right to alter (election and amendment) or to abolish (revolution) such government. What is crystal clear from any cursory reading of the Founders or their documents is that the People of America are to rule their government and alter it to suit them, not to be subjugated by it and penalized for independent thought or political dissent.

As your very job as my representative in Washington is entirely contingent upon your having sworn, “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God”, that duty is to confine all of your activities, within that trust, to the letter of the supreme Law of the land. If you are unwilling or unable to perform this duty, please have the character to vacate the office you refuse, or are incompetent, to fulfill. I do not answer to you; you answer to me. No law you pass is binding upon me unless it is in accord with the spirit and the letter of the Constitution that is your only justification for election or service. Your vote in favor of the Socialist, unconstitutional bill now before the Senate shall be regarded as proof of violation of your oath and I shall hold you in contempt of the Law. You have no right to legislate this bill.

Now, as the entire matter is unequivocally unconstitutional, all other objections really are academic, aren’t they? But that is not to reduce them in importance. The constitutionality being the sum and end of the matter, I will not belabor the following points by exploration. A summary will suffice.

Second, then, this Socialist bill is a European construct alien to our American system of government and the free enterprise system and is unconstitutional on grounds other than those already sufficiently discussed to bury it. Article IV., Section 4 says, in part, “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government…” This bill flies in the face of federalism altogether and imposes upon the States a national mandate in full violation of the States’ Ninth and Tenth Amendment rights through violation of Article IV., Section 4.

Third, even if the bill were neither wrong nor illegal, this government has no funds to undertake paying all the medical expenses of 300,000,000 citizens. The Senate, as much as any party of the national government, is responsible for bankrupting the United States.

Fourth, since the insolvent government at Washington has no funds for underwriting this program, it will necessarily turn to taxation. As I hold insurance to be gambling; to have a vitiating effect upon the character of individuals, upon the health care profession generally and upon the population at large; to be an unlawful protection racket that should be prosecuted under the R.I.C.O. Act rather than institutionalized and established by the federal government, I cannot permit myself either to be insured or to be penalized for making this free personal choice. Uninsured, I will not be represented by the program should the bill become “law” and must therefore not be taxed nor otherwise fined for its support. Thomas Jefferson was clear on this point as well, “To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.” I will not be taxed to support what I regard a sinful vice and I refuse to be tried by my servant or to otherwise give account to insolent underlings for holding any view I please. Any mandate that I spend my earnings in any directed way is a negation of private property and a repudiation of the Declaration of Independence for which I will not stand.

It is both sinful (wrong) and tyrannical (illegal) to tax Christians to pay for abortions we abhor and which we believe to be sin. I shall not render unto Caesar that which is God’s. No Christian can be compelled by law to support medical remedies for conditions that result from the personal profligacy of others who abuse their bodies through smoking tobacco, marijuana, the use of illicit drugs or illicit use of medicines, the use of alcohol or indulgence in high-risk behaviors such as adultery, fornication, serial monogamy or perversions unfit for public discussion. Responsible citizens must not be taxed for the irresponsible choices of other individuals whose behavior should rain its consequences on their own heads alone. No justification can be made for taxing non-smokers to pay for the cancers of smokers, non-drinkers to underwrite the lifestyles of alcoholics or families to pay for AIDs treatments of those who refuse not to frequent homosexual bathhouses, for but a few examples.

Further, Senator Brown, I have a responsibility to place my money behind causes in which I do believe; something I cannot do if first robbed of it for causes I abhor. I am and must be morally free to sanction companies and organizations I support---or to impose economic sanctions upon those I disdain, at will. If an insurance (or other) company defines two (or more) cohabitating males (or females) as a “couple” or “family” this is abhorrent to me and I will not support that company financially. To compel me to do so against my conscience is neither the Senate’s right nor interest. My accountability is to God, not to any bureaucrat who thinks he is. I cannot permit---and neither must you expect to compel---myself to be put in the position of supporting (either through taxation, fines or other extortive means) any cause or entity my conscience approves not. I have a divine accountability for how my monies are spent and it is not transferable nor subject to any senate, king or pope who ever sat in usurped judgment over the minds and hearts of free men.

Why should Jehovah’s Witnesses who abhor blood transfusions be taxed to pay for mine? Nearly 200,000 Amish Americans believe that having insurance is founding one’s life on fear, not on faith in God. Do you propose to herd all the Mennonites into cattle cars and ship them off to concentration camps? Simply being Jewish became a capital crime overnight under the Nazi incarnation of this thinking, Senator Brown.

Many American Anabaptists, German Baptists, Mennonites and Amish, for example, hold to The Schleitheim Confession of February 24, 1527, which states, in Article IV.: “Since all who do not walk in the obedience of faith, and have not united themselves with God so that they wish to do His will, are a great abomination before God, it is not possible for anything to grow or issue from them except abominable things. For truly all creatures are in but two classes, good and bad, believing and unbelieving, darkness and light, the world and those who (have come) out of the world, God's temple and idols, Christ and Belial; and none can have part with the other. To us then the command of the Lord is clear when He calls upon us to be separate from the evil and thus He will be our God and we shall be His sons and daughters. He further admonishes us to withdraw from Babylon and earthly Egypt that we may not be partakers of the pain and suffering which the Lord will bring upon them. From this we should learn that everything which is not united with our God and Christ cannot be other than an abomination which we should shun and flee from…which are highly regarded by the world and yet are carried on in flat contradiction to the command of God, in accordance with all the unrighteousness which is in the world. From all these things we shall be separated and have no part with them for they are nothing but an abomination, and they are the cause of our being hated before our Christ Jesus, Who has set us free from the slavery of the flesh and fitted us for the service of God through the Spirit Whom He has given us.”

Senator Brown, you need not hold to this confession, or to understand it or to agree with it. Respect it, however, you shall. Whether you or I hold to the various creeds and confessions of men of conscience or whether we do not, as Americans---as men---they have every right to live by the light of their own revelation and conscience, answerable to their own God. Neither the Amish, the Jehovah’s Witnesses, nor even secular atheists are under any obligation to submit their personal beliefs to you or to any body for approval. It shall not come to this in America! It shall not!

Among other things, insurance itself is an irreconcilable substitution of limited liability for the direct liability taught by the law of Moses, as given by God, in Exodus 21:28-36---Scriptures held sacred by all Christians, Catholics, Protestants, Jews and Muslims. Will you be rounding us all up for internment?

Many Americans would argue against my reasons why insurance is immoral; believing as strongly that it is immoral for reasons I do not share. That business is their own; not mine. They may go their way and I shall go mine. America was the first place and the last where a man had a right to look at the facts of a case (or not to), to draw his own conclusions, and was free to act in accordance with his principles; to be right, or to be wrong; to be eccentric, or ignorant or stupid and to suffer the consequences of our own stupidity.

Before God I have a sacred duty to remain a free moral agent, Senator Brown. That is, I must keep my conscience free from entanglements with other parties whose convictions may vary from my own. I must never allow myself to become a party to any union, pool, group or body from which I cannot take free exception and voluntarily withdraw. Any group or society for which I must check my convictions for admission is one my conscience forbids me to join. My allegiance is first to God and I cannot permit myself to be folded in to any collective that may chart a course at odds with the adoration and service I owe Him alone. Collectivism (Socialism, Marxism, Unionism, etc.) is wrong on these grounds alone before the many other grounds that condemn it. The language of Romans 14:12 is personal and individual: “So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God”. The individual has a direct and personal accountability to God and will not be judged in combination with anyone. As my accountability is in the singular, you will not enroll me into any collective or group program.

I hold wholeheartedly with Margaret Thatcher who wisely noted, “Too many people have been given to understand that if they have a problem, it's the government's job to cope with it. 'I have a problem, I'll get a grant.' 'I'm homeless, the government must house me.' They're casting their problem on society. And, you know, there is no such thing as society. There are individual men and women, and there are families. And no government can do anything except through people, and people must look to themselves first. It's our duty to look after ourselves and then, also to look after our neighbor.”

Our Bill of Rights was expressly adopted to safeguard the individual’s private interests against society. That is the antithesis of the political kudzu of Collectivism which invariably seeks to dissolve the individual under an ever-expanding parasitic canopy of universal standardization. I choose not to join in any reindeer games. No stone soup for me, thank you. Collectivism is the antonym of independence. One cannot be independent and codependent at the same time.

Founded on the right of each man to have his own mind, till his own field, raise his own family and live his own way on his own acre, this Republic is rapidly degenerating into a fascist monocracy with only ein volk, ein reich, ein führer. There is but one "right" point of view about socialized medicine---the Administration’s. All opposed shall be fined or arrested.

That isn’t America, Senator, and you know it.

Not only will I not be benefited by passage of this onerous bill, I will materially be disadvantaged by it as it will hamper my ability to maintain good health. Either the purchase price of insurance or the penalties for choosing not to purchase insurance are a positive hindrance to my actual health care by virtue of depriving me and my family of the disposable income to purchase the natural (not chemical) means I choose of preventing and treating illness. That is, the high cost of paying for others’ insurance will enfeeble my own ability to pursue the alternatives I choose: diet, nutrition, supplements and vitamins. The price of these methods of treatment will be taken from me to pay for pharmaceutical means I will refuse. Therefore, Congress (no less!) means to make me ill by denying real health aids through extorting taxes and penalties under pretense of “helping” me. Spare me such favors.

I do not owe you these explanations and I have not come to plead in your court for the right to live my life as I please. You have no right to grant it, just as you certainly have no right to deny it. I have chosen to reveal some of the weighty considerations I do not hear being discussed in relation to this bill, but which are, nevertheless, the real principles at stake behind the facile application of “health care”. While you likely disagree with me about insurance as an evil---which is certainly your right as an American---I hope you will understand that so much more is at risk. We are forfeiting our right in this country to make personal choices. It must stop and I draw my line here. I dare say you would not want me making your health care choices for you; under what delusion dare you presume to dictate mine?

My objections are certainly not limited to those herein expressed, nor are my arguments limited to those herein presented. The simple bottom line is that Congress has no authority to undertake this unconstitutional usurpation of rights never delegated. It is a violation of every founding principle that made America different from the Europe we came to a savage Wilderness to escape. No American interest is served by this endeavor and no real American will submit to it. In any case, I shall not. As I said at the beginning, freedom is the ability to say no without adverse repercussions. Am I free or not, Senator Brown? Well? Am I?

I expect you to cast your vote against this un-American intrusion into the personal lives of the citizens you represent. Further, I call upon you to contact me for further discussion of this topic in a timely fashion. I have not once mentioned party or partisanship. The stakes are so much higher than any such trivia. We are talking about the very core principles that define what the United States is about. I should like to think your commitment to that is deeper than to any agenda, party or other consideration.

The oath you swore to uphold our Constitution is an oath you took before God and before God you will stand in judgment for whether you lied to Him. You cannot uphold a document you never read. And you cannot uphold a document you violate. I call upon you to govern in accordance with the Supreme Law of the Land. I am a law-abiding citizen. Should you vote in favor of this unconstitutional bill, it is you who will have broken both the law of the land and your word to God.

Sincerely,

Sherwin W. Dillard, Jr.