According to the Herald Journal, the SC State House agreed to a measure today to extend the ban on the sales of alcohol on Thanksgiving and Christmas. This bill, H. 3385 should now move to the full committee before going to the full house.
Rep. Moss claims the bill should be viewed as a public safety measure and the bill would cut down on the binge drinking that leads to domestic violence.
Rep. Moss, you should go ahead a propose an outright prohibition on alcohol if that is your true reasoning for banning alcohol sales on the holidays.
What is going to stop the individuals from building up their Holiday stash on the day before? What is going to stop the residents of Cherokee County (Moss is from Cherokee) from driving 10 miles across the state line to make their purchases. Any of the border counties for that matter?
This is another example of South Carolina Republicans trying to legislate morality and their personal preferences on the people in the name of safety. Lets address the real issues like equal funding for our students, reducing the size and scope of the state government, implementing pro business policies that encourages development instead of discouraging it and designing practical budgets the state can live on with out depending on the federal government.
2011-04-14 H.3385 Text
Who do you support to be South Carolina’s republican nominee for governor?
The runoff is between State Rep. Nikki Haley and Congressman Gresham Barrett and the vote is next Tuesday, June 22nd. Here’s our two cents, take it for what it is worth.
Haley won the initial primary collecting almost 49% of the vote, even after multiple allegations (2) that she had extra-marital affairs. She received the endorsement of Sara Palin and is the beauty of the SC Tea Party.
I personally have liked Haley for several years. Especially on her transparency and reform initiatives. Of course, even some of that has come into question recently. In particular, The State newspaper is calling her out over contradicting stimulus votes.
My biggest fear with Haley? I’m afraid she’ll run into the same issues as Mark Sanford had. That is, not being able to work with the legislature to get the key reform initiatives passed.
Our biggest complaint with Barrett is that he first voted against TARP, then voted for it. That, and in my opinion, he campaigns to heavily on his Christian credentials.
Most recently, he was questioned by a political activist concerning a “miss-statement” in one of his campaign ads claiming he was retired. The activist confronts Barrett and he agrees that there was a mistake, but the activist was trying to tie this mistake to our friends in Connecticut. In particular, the activist is referring to Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal who had been lying about his service record, claiming to have been in Vietnam.
My biggest fear with Barrett is he’ll flip flop on key issues.
So who will win this race and who are you supporting? Here’s your chance to make the best case for your candidate.
Back in the summer of 2008, I began looking intently to June 8th 2010. I was tired of Inglis’ politics and wanted change.
I began doing the research to see what it would take to mount a serious campaign against Inglis. This is no secret to the congressman, I had been one of his most vocal critics since 2007. Needless to say, during this research, I soon realized I didn’t have the resources at my disposal.
I was approached by members of Jeffrey’s (not Christina or family) camp in November 2008 and was asked to consider not running and backing her. I responded with a quick no. It was nothing personal against Jeffrey, I had many conversations with her and felt like she was a great person, but my gut said no.
During early months of 2009, I was able to interview most of the candidates and developed my personal opinions on who I liked in the race.
I decided that Andrew Smart was the way to go in April. He was young, intelligent, energetic and I liked his positions on the issues. Unfortunately, that didn’t work out quite like I had hoped.
So here’s my personal thoughts on each of the candidates.
The incumbent. My disagreement over policy has long been an issue. Unfortunatley, I began to discover that leadership was not a strong quality of Mr. Inglis either.
I say this because he spent tax payer money to research immigration, and develop his 5 points on immigration that he still talks about, but has never stepped up to he plate to introduce a bill. During many of his Let’s Talk forums, he gave the impression he supported amnesty, but was spared voting on it when it died in the Senate.
He claimed he was going to introduce an alternative health care bill, but never did. But he did introduce a “Repeal It” bill.
Inglis’ votes to limit the freedoms of individuals (He voted to extend the Patriot Act and warrantless wire tapping), unfunded mandates like the Real ID that was embedded into the Tsunami Aid Bill, TARP, and his energy policies which have created many questions in itself.
Again, it is nothing personal against Inglis, it is about his positions. I hope he and his team understand this.
I was honestly surprised to see Gowdy jump in this race, probably just as much as Inglis was. Most of our sources and rumors indicated that Gowdy would be making a run for Attorney General. Gowdy would have made an excellent AG and I probably would have supported him 100%.
Gowdy was one of the candidates we were never able to settle down on an interview. And it wasn’t his fault. I had consulted with the campaign and discussed opportunities, but I was never able to work it into my work schedule. My apologies to Gowdy up front and my readers.
All along, one of my concerns, drawbacks on Gowdy was his support of McCain in the 2008 primaries. I understand and respect Gowdy’s reasoning, but it was of concern. Gowdy is a prosecutor and I’m not sure how effective that will translate into working for votes in Congress.
Christina Jeffrey talks all the right points to attract a Tea Party activist or even a Ron Paul supporter. What bugged me through the election cycle is her mannerisms and the several lies she was caught in. The biggest of which was who she supported for President in 2008. In a debate, she said she voted for Duncan Hunter, and when questioned on it later, she stated she voted for Huckabee and even worked for Rudy Giuliani. A wild stretch considering her “most conservative” candidate monicker.
Jeffrey claims she not the political establishment and she’s different because she’s a constitutional scholar. She’s also been a community organizer by her own accounts, working on multiple campaigns with Get out the Vote efforts and working in the county party. Lastly, according to her profile, she’s never been in a position of authority. All of her experience is in the classroom teaching constitutional theory. She has not managed budgets or personnel. All of this sounds to much like our current president, Barack Obama, and most of us agree all of these supposed great attributes have failed horribly.
With all due respect to Sen. David Thomas, when he announced, I choked. His claims to be the conservative choice and a jobs congressman were all laughable. He then goes on to say that when elected, he will establish a commission with leaders across multiple states to determine a solution to the nations financial problems. I’m really rolling on the floor now, Why?
In the spring of 2009, Thomas and 4 other leaders held a press conference in Spartanburg telling people they were going to roll up their sleeves and fight the stimulus. Unfortunately, Thomas didn’t keep he sleeves up long, as he rolled over and voted to take all of it. Sources tell us he was even instrumental in getting votes to take the money.
And in regards to fixing the nations problems, what has he done to reduce the size of SC’s $21 billion dollar budget and not raise fees and taxes on its citizens?
When speaking with each of the candidate, Lee came across as the most candid. He also spent the most time with us, 3 hours in our interview, and he didn’t beat around the bush when answering questions. Jim has been very humble and appreciative of the support he has received and he doesn’t belittle his opponents or critics.
Jim is a supporter of the enumerated powers act and also provides a solution for the social security crisis. Jim supports the enforcing of our existing immigration laws to solve the illegal immigration crisis and believes the private sector can solve the health care crisis, developing a patient centered patient led system.
Jim has the experience of managing projects and budgets and has a history of working with teams to find the best solution. He can be influential too, which is also a great quality.
Jim is the only veteran, so he understands the needs of our servicemen, and he has the real world experience some of the others do not.
I voted absentee today, casting my vote for Jim Lee. I encourage you to do the same, voting for a candidate who will listen to his constituents and will not talk down to you. Voting for a candidate who has ran a clean campaign on the smallest budget. A campaign for “We the People”. A candidate who is candid and will fight for you in D.C.
By Carl Clegg
I received an email yesterday from Brian Frank, a Christina Jeffrey supporter. In the email he called Candidate Jim Lee a Nazi and posted an out of context video of Jim answering a question as proof. Like me, Jim has sworn to uphold the Constitution and served his country honorably in the Air Force for many years and I take personal offense to this kind of pathetic, last ditch effort by one of Jeffrey’s minions.
Gutter Politics will not be tolerated! The irony here is that Jeffrey was once the victim of gutter politics when she was wrongfully and publicly accused of anti-Semitism.
I am now calling on Christina Jeffrey to publicly denounce this vicious rhetoric and the public embarrassment that is Brian Frank.
Carl Clegg is Republican Activist from Greenville, SC
Things are bad enough and it seems we get a daily dose of change we’d prefer not to believe in. So how are we supposed to fight back? At the ballot box? Is that enough? Not any more, which is why Tea Party groups have been popping up all over the nation.
Many now rely on these groups to provide us with information and to help organize us. Unfortunately, many of these groups have become self-serving, looking to make a profit on those who follow, or to push a hidden agenda or candidate on us.
This is why those who are in leadership positions must work to maintain credibility. They must step up and represent us at a time when many of us feel we have completely lost our representation in government. When our Tea Party leaders lose credibility, then where are we left to turn?
Unfortunately, I find myself in that position as our local Tea Party group lost credibility some time ago. They continue to push a “friend” as a candidate even though the candidate is a career politician who has run for nearly every electable position imaginable and cannot win at any level.
As if pushing a bad candidate is not enough, now they are pushing bad information on people. It’s like this; people are frightened, and for good reason. There is nothing good about the Health Care Bill, but if we have any hope of fighting back on this stuff, we need to be well-informed, not misinformed.
To take frightened people and push bad information on them, frightening them even more is just completely irresponsible. This is not how a proper leader behaves and one must wonder if these scare tactics are not just designed to help push their “friend” the candidate. Engineered to make those following feel so helpless, they can do nothing, so they must vote for who they are being told to vote for.
Even though this Tea Party has largely lead people to believe everyone must be micro-chipped in the next three years, this language does not exist in the Bill. The language they point to is this:
“The Secretary shall establish a national medical device registry (in this subsection referred to as the ‘registry’) to facilitate analysis of postmarket safety and outcomes data on each device that … is or has been used in or on a patient…”
Guess what? There are already medical registries. Bunches of them. Cardiac devices are one example of medical devices which are tracked in a registry by groups like the American College of Cardiology. There are many states that also have registries. This is how they know how effective a regular cardiac stent is compared to a medicated stent for example.
Maybe the government is planning to micro-chip us all in three years, but if they are, it is not in this Health Care Bill. Time for new Tea Party leadership as we desperately need credible folks willing to arm us with the facts, not serve their own interests or that of their “friends.”