The Anderson TEA Party does not endorse candidates. The information provided herein is for your information only; you should weigh all options and make your own choice. Ginny Deerin is the Democrat candidate for SC Secretary of State and is challenging incumbent Republican Mark Hammond.
Let me be up front: if you are a single-issue pro-life voter, stop reading. Ginny Deerin is not your candidate. If, however, you are willing to look at the whole picture and weigh all the options, keep reading.
Ginny Deerin presents a bit of an enigma for many conservative SC voters. The first ever Democrat to be endorsed by the SC Club for Growth, the SC Libertarian Party, and numerous Republicans and conservative activists, Ginny is running on a compelling platform of cutting waste out of the SoS office and providing better customer service. Her ideas for customer service go way beyond answering the phone with “It’s a great day in South Carolina;” she has a very detailed 10-point plan, complete with success metrics. Ginny knows what to do with the SoS office, period.
Yet, as you might expect for a Democrat, she is very much a leftist on issues like healthcare, abortion and marriage. She is also a spokeswoman for Ready for Hillary PAC to elect Hillary Clinton in 2016. Everyone knows this. Every conservative who is willing to even look at Ginny is already past this.
There is another sinister possibility that has some folks worried about what Ginny might be up to. The Laurens Tea Party Candidate Vetting Committee reported:
We note that the issues [with Ginny] probably have a low impact on the actual job of the Secretary of State. However, the Secretary of State is the one who certifies the Electoral College votes for Presidential elections in each state, and therefore does play an important role in close elections.
It was concern enough to deny her the Laurens Tea Party endorsement. Karen Martin of the Spartanburg TEA Party likewise suggested an ulterior motive in her post “Club for Growth endorses a Dem (Have they not heard of the Sec. of State project?).” The concern, simply put, is that she might throw the 2016 Presidential Election in favor of the Democrat (presumably, Hillery) and that organizations like the Club for Growth are either short-sighted for not seeing this, or are rashly self-serving for ignoring it.
Their concerns are not unfounded. The Secretary of State Project (SOSP) was launched in 2010 and funded by none other than George Soros. It worked, too, in Minnesota:
A notable achievement of the Secretary of State Project was the election of Minnesota Secretary of State Mark Ritchie in 2006. Ritchie played a pivotal role in adjudicating the 2008 Senate race between Al Franken and Norm Coleman, by examining disputed absentee ballots during the Minnesota Senate recount. (Wikipedia)
Decisions on who to vote for should be based on fact, not on fear. As I have turned these concerns over in my mind, personally trying to decide who to vote for, some holes began to surface. Please consider the following in your decision when you vote tomorrow.
- South Carolina was not a target in 2010. In fact, Soros’ SOSP project died after the 2010 election cycle. The idea was revived in late 2012 and the Secretary of State for Democracy PAC (SOSDPAC) was created, but SC isn’t one of the nine target states for 2014.
- South Carolina was not targeted because is simply is not a swing state. The other possible target states are mentioned not because of insider knowledge of SOSDPAC, but because they are swing states. Even if a SOSDPAC candidate was elected in SC, that candidate is not likely to ever have a close race that could be “thrown.” SC has for years been a Republican stronghold for Presidents, Senators, and Governors. This is not likely to change in 2016. SOSDPAC knows this.
- Ginny Deerin has not received any money from SOSDPAC or George Soros. In fact, she has not received a dime from any PAC at all, not even the SC Club for Growth. The 59 out-of-state donations that she received all appear to be family and personal or professional connections of hers, each one $100 or less, totaling $5,085 of the $49,722 which she raised. The largest contributions Ginny received all year were two $500 contributions from in-state donors. If there were a Soros connection, we should see it here.
- Neither SOSDPAC nor Ginny Deerin have mentioned each other.
In light of the complete absence of any connection between a Soros-funded project and Ginny Deerin, I personally have to conclude that there’s as much evidence that Republican incumbent Mark Hammond would “throw” the election in favor of a Republican as there is that Ginny Deerin would “throw” the election in favor of a Democrat.
Besides, even if I’m dead wrong and Ginny Deerin managed to “throw” a Federal race in SC to a Democrat, it would not change the Federal state of things! The only way we will turn this country around is by rebuilding the ideological foundations of freedom by individually returning to “our Creator in the days of our youth” (Ecclesiastes 12:1) and training the next two generations to do likewise; by becoming financially independent of the Federal government, and by nullifying unconstitutional Federal laws while we appeal once again to the authority of the “laws of Nature and of Nature’s God” to which our Founders appealed.
America will never be retaken by electing Republicans to Federal office. There simply is much more that is wrong with this country than who controls the Senate or who the President is.
If you agree, let’s think about giving Ginny a chance to clean up the SoS office. Maybe, just maybe, it will generate more jobs and non-profit organizations in our state. That would be a good thing, right? If we don’t like what we get, as sometimes happens, we’ll get a do-over in 2018.
November 3, 2014 No Comments
Election Day: June 10th, 2014
The Anderson TEA Party does not endorse candidates. We have provided the information below as a resource, so you can make an informed decision on who to vote for. If you know of any voter guides or relevant news articles or blogs that we can include, please post a comment below.
You can find your Sample Ballot here.
Local candidates (Anderson County)
Televised SCETV Debates (covering State Superintendent of Education, US Senate, and Lt. Governor debates)
Hannah Hill’s blog series on Senate Candidates
I am sometimes asked, “who are you voting for?” This is my personal take:
US Senate: Lee Bright. He’s the only one who has done the job and has a record, and he is a fighter.
SC Lieutenant Governor: undecided, leaning toward Ray Moore. Also looking at Pat McKinney. As the president of the Senate, the Lt. Governor has a key role in the state legislature. Moore supports nullification and school choice.
SC Superintendent of Education: undecided, strongly leaning toward Sheri Few who is the strongest opponent of Common Core. Also looking at Meka Childs, endorsed by Sen. Kevin Bryant and the SC Club for Growth. This race is critical, because the next Superintendent will be tasked with re-writing many of our standards since we’re pulling out of Common Core. We need a Superintendent who will not simply re-brand Common Core, while retaining the substance of it.
SC Treasurer: Brian Adams. From my observation, the incumbent, Curtis Loftis, has been narcissistic and plays the victim too often. His has made some questionable decisions, such as settling with the Bank of NY for chump change and then locking SC into a 10-year contract with the same bank.
SC Adjutant General: Bob Livingston. Yes, he is an incumbent but has achieved rank before taking office, unlike his opponent. His opponent also opposes making this an appointed position, which I support.
SC Secretary of Agriculture: Joe Farmer. The incumbent has held office for more than 8 years, and Farmer has good ideas on how to generate state revenue from state property which is currently unused.
Note that the County Council and Probate Judge races are very important. If you need help getting in contact with any of these candidates, please email me at email@example.com with your contact information and which candidates you want to talk to.
June 4, 2014 No Comments
Fellow Tea Partiers,
Every two years, grassroots gather statewide in their communities to re-organize the Republican Party. In light of the outspoken animosity toward TEA Party activists like you from moderates and liberals within the GOP, now is the time to have your say in the values and activities of the South Carolina Republican Party for the next 2 years.
The Anderson County Republican Party is re-organizing at 6:30 PM on Monday, 3/17 at a community center near you. A list of meeting locations is at the bottom of this message. Check your voter registration card if you don’t know what your precinct is.
If you are unable to attend, there will be a make-up session for any unorganized precincts at 5:00 PM on 4/1 at the Anderson County Library Main Branch.
Call Dan Harvell at 864-221-1221 or Jonathon Hill at 864-287-4401.
How does it work?
This video explains it all, but in a nutshell you simply need to show up, bring a few friends to vote for you, and become the Executive Committeeman and also become a Delegate for your voting precinct.
The Anderson County Republican Party Executive Committee meets monthly at 6:30pm on the 3rd Monday of each month at Concord Community Church located on Concord Rd in Anderson to conduct official business, pass resolutions, and hear from conservative speakers and candidates. The Anderson County Republican Party Convention meets every two years to choose ACRP officers and delegates to the state convention. The convention will be held on April 15 at 6:30 PM at T.L. Hanna High School.
Where to go for precinct re-organization
Listed below are the community locations where you will need to go to re-organize your precinct.
Anderson: TL HANNA HIGH SCHOOL
W1/P1, W1/P2, W2/P1, W2/P2, W3/P1, W3/P2, W4/P1, W4/P2, Anderson 5/A, Anderson 5/B, W6/P1, W6/P2, Appleton-Equinox, Bowling Green, Broadway, Centerville A, Centerville B, Cox Creek, Edgewood A, Edgewood B, Green Pond, Hammond, Hammond Annex, Hopewell, Lakeside, Town Creek
Belton/Honea Path: BELTON HONEA PATH HIGH SCHOOL
Barkers Creek, Belton, Broadway, Chiquola, Craytonville, Friendship, High Point, Honea Path, Neals Creek, Rock Springs, Shirley Store, Toney Creek, Wright School
Pendleton: SANDY SPRINGS WATER COMPANY
Bishops Branch, Denver-Sandy Springs, Five Forks, LaFrance, Melton, Mt. Tabor, Pendleton
Powdersville: WREN HIGH SCHOOL
Brushy Creek, Concrete, Hunt Meadows, Piedmont, Piercetown, Powdersville, Mt. Airy, Simpsonville, Three & Twenty, White Plains
Starr/Iva: STARR FIRE DEPARTMENT
Center Rock, Flat Rock, Gluck, Grove Hall, Homeland Park, Iva, Jackson Mill, Mountain Creek, Rock Mill, Starr, Varennes, West Savannah
Townville: TOWNVILLE FIRE DEPT
Fork 1, Fork 2, Townville
Williamston: CALVARY BAPTIST CHURCH, WILLIAMSTON
Cedar Grove, Pelzer, West Pelzer, Williamston, Williamston Mill
March 17, 2013 No Comments
Guest post from Harry Kibler of RINO Hunt.
I have talked with some elected officials and have been told “I stand with you on principle, but….” The question is, will you stand with me in the implementation of principle? If South Carolina is a Sovereign State, and if the federal government is limited in its power, and if the 10th Amendment really means something, then several questions must be addressed.
What are the limits on the federal government?
The limitations can be found in the U.S. Constitution.
- Article 1 Section 8 limits the powers of Congress to specific powers.
- The Ninth Amendment assures the un-enumerated rights of the people.
- The Tenth Amendment reasserts the enumerated power of the Federal Government and the reserved power of the states.
Who is responsible for enforcing the limits on the federal government?
History has taught us it is not:
- The U.S. House of Representatives,
- The U.S. Senate,
- The President,
- or the U.S. Supreme Court.
The reason none of these bodies can/will enforce limitations of power is because they are all the same body: the Federal Government. Asking the Federal Government to limit itself is like asking an unsupervised child to limit how many cookies they eat.
The Federal Government was never a party to the contract (Constitution); it was the object of the contract. Only the States were party to the contract and only the states can be counted on to enforce limitations on the Federal Government.
Who has enforced the limits in times past?
- Virginia and Kentucky – Resolutions of 1798 in response to The Alien and Sedition Acts
- South Carolina – nullified the Federal Tariff of 1832
- Main, Vermont, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut, New York, Maryland, Washington, Iowa, and D.C. – nullified the Defense of Marriage Act
- Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Main, Massachusetts, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington and D.C. have nullified Federal Drug Law concerning the possession and use of marijuana.
- The following cities have decided to not follow Federal law concerning illegal immigration: New York City, Los Angeles, Chicago, San Francisco, Santa Ana, San Diego, San Jose, Salt Lake City, El Paso, Houston, Detroit, Jersey City, Minneapolis, Miami, Denver, Baltimore, Seattle, Portland, New Haven, Somerville and Cambridge. These Cities have adopted ordinances banning city employees and police officers from asking people about citizenship status.
- In 2005 the Real I.D. Act became Federal law. By 2009 the following States nullified the Federal law: Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Montana, Arizona, Minnesota, Missouri, Oklahoma, Louisiana, Alaska, Maine, New Hampshire, Virginia, Georgia, South Carolina
- In 2011 South Carolina introduced H-3735 known as the Incandescent Light Bulb Freedom Act. This legislation would nullify Federal law requiring the phasing out of incandescent light bulbs.
If not now, then when?
We have witnessed the unchecked power of the Federal government for nearly 100 years. We’ve witnessed the expansion of federal power concerning energy, education, environment, firearms, housing, banking and much more.
- In 1977 President Jimmy Carter signed into law the Department of Energy Organization Act. The stated purpose was to reduce our energy dependence from foreign sources.
- 35 years later, we are more dependent on foreign sources than before.
- February 3, 2011 – Federal Judge holds Obama administration in contempt over drilling moratorium.
- March 2011 – While holding to the Obama administration’s ban on offshore drilling in the United States, President Obama told Brazil “We will finance your offshore drilling and be your best customer.”
- Cost of a gallon of gas in 1977 – $0.62
- Cost of a gallon of gas using the U.S. Inflation Calculator today should be $2.36
- National average price today – $3.28
- With modern technology and opportunity for domestic energy production, some estimates show our cost per gallon could be less than $2.00 per gallon. What would $2.00 per gallon gas do to improve our economy and job creation?
- In 1979 President Jimmy Carter signed into law the Department of Education Organization Act. The stated purpose was to increase test scores and decrease the drop-out rate.
- 33 years later would you want to make the argument that our children are better educated
- Burst of the “Housing Bubble” and Federally manipulated Banking
- In 1992 the Housing and Community Development Act was signed into law. The stated purpose of this law was to assist home ownership to the underserved and low income individuals.
- In 1995 the Community Reinvestment Act was signed into law. The stated purpose was to “encourage federally regulated financial institutions to help meet the credit needs of the local communities. To enforce the statute, federal regulatory agencies examine banking institutions for CRA compliance, and take this information into consideration when approving applications for new bank branches, mergers and acquisitions.
- In other words, force banks and mortgage lenders to make loans to low income borrowers.
- Federal regulations are enforced by preventing new bank branches, mergers and acquisitions if the lenders do not comply.
In another 20 years we will hardly recognize the United States or what is left of our Constitution. Delaying the hard decisions and actions will not make it easier in the future. Delaying hard decisions and actions will make it more difficult to reverse the unconstitutional actions taken by our Federal government.
Nullification is a form of discipline toward the Federal government. Discipline is not enjoyable and is rarely welcomed, but it is necessary if the object of the discipline is cherished. One day we will have to explain to our children and grandchildren why we delayed preserving their liberty and freedom.
If not you, then who?
Contrary to the Main Stream Media and the Wizards of Smart, nullification is the right and useful remedy for usurpation of unconstitutional authority.
- Nullification by states places checks on the authority of the Federal government.
- Nullification has been used dozens of times.
- Nullification is not a regional response (i.e. a Southern theory, concept or idea).
- Individual citizens cannot nullify Federal law. They do not have the authority or the resources to resist the Federal government.
- States have an obligation to interpose their authority to defend citizens of their state.
“That this Assembly doth explicitly and peremptorily declare, that it views the powers of the federal government, as resulting from the compact, to which the states are parties; as limited by the plain sense and intention of the instrument constituting the compact; as no further valid that they are authorized by the grants enumerated in that compact; and that in case of a deliberate, palpable, and dangerous exercise of other powers, not granted by the said compact, the states who are parties thereto, have the right, and are in duty bound, to interpose for arresting the progress of the evil, and for maintaining within their respective limits, the authorities, rights and liberties appertaining to them.”
– James Madison’s Virginia Resolution
January 5, 2013 4 Comments
When you vote today, be sure to cast an informed vote, and I encourage you NOT to vote straight-party. There are a number of good, conservative petition candidates on the ballot statewide that are worth consideration. As personally affected as they were by politics-as-usual, you can bet they will be driven to clean it up.
Regarding the Constitutional Amendment that is on the ballot, here is some information you may want to consider, from a friend of mine, Evert Headley:
“Although I would like to see a change in the SC Constitution on this issue, I believe the price this amendment is asking of us is too high. If we pass this amendment, the office of Lt. Governor will have all power and authority stripped from it. Since the President of the Senate (the presiding officer) would then have to be elected from within the Senate, one of two problems will happen:
- The Senate President could follow typical parliamentary procedure and not cast a vote unless he is breaking a tie. This means that (unless there is a tie), that senator’s district would lose its voice and its vote. A presiding officer does not usually speak to an issue.
- They could permit the Senate President to vote on every issue. However, this would then give that senator an opportunity to vote twice—once as a member and again as a tie-breaker. That senator’s district would then have a double vote.
“I understand that the purpose of this amendment in theory is to strengthen the Governorship by allowing the Governor to choose his/her running mate. However, this would be hollow if the Lt. Governor’s office is stripped of its authority. We do not need to strip the Executive Branch of any existing power only to hand it over to the Senate. There are plenty of good people on both sides of this debate. Many of our House and Senate members support state restructuring and voted in support of this bill and Randy Page supports this change. On the other hand, Doug Wavle, Jim Lee and I all oppose this version of the amendment, although we support the principle idea behind it (of a joint ticket). While I would love to see the office of the Governor strengthened, I believe this amendment will instead further strengthen the State Senate.”
November 6, 2012 No Comments