The Carolina Patriots, a non-profit, non-partisan group, invites you to our next meeting on Wed Oct 22nd from 6:00-8:00 pm. Please note that this is not our regularly scheduled day of the week.
There is no charge and it is open to the public.
The Carolina Patriots, a non-profit, non-partisan group, invites you to our next meeting on Wed Oct 22nd from 6:00-8:00 pm. Please note that this is not our regularly scheduled day of the week.
There is no charge and it is open to the public.
The Carolina Patriots will meet on Thursday, September 18 from 6:00 – 8:00 pm at the Fire Station #6, 970 38th Avenue North, Myrtle Beach, A 29577.
Our guest speaker will be Allen Page with Freedom Works. Allen and other Freedom Works’ volunteers spent many hours in Mississippi working on the campaign for Chris McDaniel.
Bring a friend and come here what happened in Mississippi and the latest information on the pending court case.
Mark Collins, with his snowy white hair and 6’4” frame, bears a remarkable resemblance to our Founding Father, George Washington. Having the same build and general appearance as the famous statesman, has proven to be fortunate for Collins. He has been asked to portray Washington in both Television and in Film, most recent-y in “National Treasurer: Book of Secrets.” Mark’s skill however, is not limited to this.
He has portrayed Washington, sans script, in a number of speaking engagements and for a diverse set of audiences including military schools, churches and parades. Whether on the movie or TV screen, or from the stage or pulpit, Collins’ talent for captivating an audience through his powerful speech translates across all audiences. The historical precision of his presentation combined with his moving performance transports his listeners across time, to an era on the verge of a great revolution.
by Drew Mckissick
Some believe that all political activity is out of bounds and would put that status at risk. Wrong.
Of course a lot of this confusion is generated by liberals who don’t want to see churches dominated by conservatives get more politically involved, (go figure). As a result, most of what pastors and church members hear about it being legally “taboo” is garbage.
The problem is that a lack of knowledge leads to fear…and that leads to inactivity and ineffectiveness.
The thing to know is that there is a LOT that churches can do that most of them currently don’t do.
Church based groups do have some limitations when it comes to political advocacy however. In order to be more effective, (and avoid any problems), it is important to know what type of activities can and cannot be conducted in or by a church.
The bottom line is to avoid any partisan preferences in any activity done on behalf of the church itself.
However, what people do on their own time is their own business. Once they are registered to vote, or receive information that educates them on how various candidates stand on important faith and family related issues, it probably won’t take them long to figure out who to support.
Encourage your church to do what it can do and get engaged!
The Carolina Patriots will meet on Thursday, August 21 from 6:00 – 8:00 pm at the Fire Station #6, 970 38th Avenue North, Myrtle Beach, 29577.
We are pleased to announce that we will have 2 great speakers.
Jordan Pace with Americans for Prosperity will introduce the latest technology to reach out to voters. Americans for Prosperity is a non-profit political advocacy group with a stated mission to educate citizens about economic policy and mobilizing citizens as advocates in the public policy process. Visit their site for additional information.
Tom Ervin – Independent Candidate for Governor will speak to the group and then take some questions. Below is information on Tom.
Born in Honea Path, Tom Ervin is a life-long South Carolinian who takes pride in our state and our people. His understanding of how government should work for the people and deep appreciation for the rule of law stem from his 14 years on the bench as a state circuit judge. Tom also is a former SC Legislator.
As a small business owner, Tom understands what it means to make payroll. He also understands the importance of fair wages and believes there’s no reason so many South Carolinians should be living in poverty. While government doesn’t create jobs, he certainly believes it’s responsible for creating an atmosphere of opportunity. But state government should not be picking the winners and losers.
Tom understands the importance of a quality education. He attributes his success in life to a combination of hard work and to the public school teachers and coaches who gave him access to a quality education. As Governor, Tom will make sure every child has access to a world class STEAM education. Tom will work to expand pre-K statewide and to cap college tuition for incoming freshmen at our state universities for four years to make college more affordable for our young people.
Tom’s approach to governing is centered on his faith in God and on common sense and character
For more information on Tom Ervin visit the site below.
Come join us and bring a friend or neighbor.
But the truth is that no single person or even a few individuals really “run” things, (despite the delusions of some presidents or judges). But at the “macro” level of American politics, it is true that a fairly small group of Americans (relative to the total population) do collectively “run” things.
Here are some American political participation numbers from Pew and the Census that give you an idea of just how many (or few) people are actually pulling which strings:
Percent of eligible Americans who typically register to vote: 63%
Percent who usually vote in presidential years: 58% (of course only a little over half of them vote for the “winner”)
Percent who usually vote in non-presidential years: 41% (meaning about 21% vote for the winner)
Cast ballots in typical local elections: less than 15% (meaning about 8% vote for the winner)
Vote in party primaries for major elections: less than 15% (that’s both parties added together…meaning about 5% vote for the winner of either primary!)
Sign petitions: 32%
Lobby or communicate with elected officials: 30%
Attend political meetings of any kind: 24%
Contribute to candidates: 18%
Join groups to try to influence public policy: 15%
Attend political rallies or speeches: 12%
Send letters to the editor: 10%
Work for political campaigns or parties: 8%
Attend organized protests: 4%
Are part of the official structure of the two major political parties: as low as .002%
A decent percentage of Americans (about 2/3′s) do at least one of these things on a regular basis. 34% did one or two of these activities within the past year; 16% did three or four, while 13% did five or more.
These are the people who are really running things.
They have the most influence over the system in general. They register, they vote, they organize. They are the political party machinery, they pick the nominees that everyone else gets to choose from in November, they fund the campaigns, they work on the campaigns, they elect the politicians from the school board on up to the president, and they speak out to elected officials about public policy – and they are more likely to be heard when they do.
Their only qualification for “running things” is that they decided that they want to.
Are you one of them? Are your friends? Do you know any fellow conservatives that need to “decide” that they want to run things too?
Pass this along and tell them how.
Read more: firstname.lastname@example.org
The man has, in my view and that of many others, committed multitudinous impeachable offenses, and we need to strenuously object and bring it to the public’s attention every chance we get. The idea of turning our heads and looking the other way is repugnant.
Yes, the elections are too close for Republicans to risk impeachment proceedings at this point, unless it became clear that the majority of Americans have the political will for that action — as Andy McCarthy eloquently explains in his book “Faithless Execution.”
But my concern is that many of those who are so dismissive of impeachment are the same ones who always argue caution in opposing Obama. They tend to throw in the towel before the fights even begin, scared of their shadow and forever banking on that next election.
Though it may not be the opportune time for impeachment, I am very concerned about what Obama’s unchecked usurpations of power have done to the balance of power in the federal government and the overall integrity of the Constitution and the rule of law. Seeing as we have not taken any formal action against this president for his egregious transgressions, what will the next president be allowed to do on his own should he choose to operate outside his authority to the same extent Obama has?
But to me, impeachment really isn’t the issue when it comes to the various factions within the Republican Party and the conservative movement. I have long contended that the differences between tea party conservatives and the so-called establishment are far deeper than “tactics”; they also involve policy disagreements.
On that point, let me ask you to consider what will happen if Republicans do end up with control of both the House and the Senate. What will the prudent and cautious advocate then? Will they say not to oppose Obama too much for fear that he’d successfully demonize Republicans as partisan saboteurs and ensure the election of a Democrat as president in 2016?
Let’s go further. Let’s say Republicans then win the presidency and retain control of Congress in 2016. Then what?
I suspect that many of them have come to accept a large, “energetic’ federal government and believe that Republicans should just accept it and instead devise original and creative yet “conservative” policy solutions within the big-government framework. In other words, we should throw in the towel on our founding principles, accept the liberal narrative that Reagan conservatism is extremism, and do the best we can within the new paradigm.
I certainly hope I’m overstating the case, but I’ve seen how timidly Republicans have operated on domestic and social issues when in power, and I’ve read the commentary of many establishment-oriented pundits about “compassionate conservatism” and similar tautologies.
Conservatives have been warning for years about the unchecked explosion of entitlements, runaway deficits and debt, the destructiveness of the welfare state, the enormous problems with federal control of education, the evils of socialized medicine, the growth-smothering effects of federal taxing and spending policies, the freedom-smothering metastasis of the federal regulatory leviathan, and the danger to the republic from unchecked, rampant illegal immigration.
Will Republicans, if they regain power of both political branches, have the political will to begin to unravel the nightmares caused by an abandonment of our founding principles, or will they just nibble around the edges with insignificant modifications because they no longer believe in either conservative principles or their ability to convince the people that our ideas are still superior?
You see, my real concern is not about impeachment. It’s that too many of us have given up on the ideas that made America great — other than to pay meaningless lip service to them. I’m worried that too many of us have given up the fight. We have watched as liberals have overtaken our cultural and educational institutions and successfully vilified the American idea — even to the point that they have many on our side convinced.
Well, I’m not among those convinced, and I don’t believe that the majority of the American people are, either. But I do think that we need leaders who will articulate conservative ideas unapologetically and that conservatives need to engage in the culture war and try to make progress toward reversing this illusion that limited government, capitalism and traditional morality are wrongheaded and extreme.
I just want us to get back in the fight. We face a tireless, relentless foe in liberalism, and if we’re not up to the challenge, we might as well kiss America goodbye, irrespective of whether we win or lose the next few elections.
But I am praying — and choose to believe — that we can and will turn this around because our ideas are superior and the majority of people still instinctively understand that. But we need to begin acting and talking as though we believe it.
EDITOR OF REDSTATE
I can confirm that the attack ads in Mississippi run by “All Citizens for Mississippi” were funded by Senate Republicans, including Senators Mitch McConnell, John Cornyn, Rob Portman, Bob Corker, and Roy Blunt. It appears our Senate Republican leaders are willing to risk losing a Senate majority so long as they can get their own re-elected. Yes folks, it is true. I can confirm what we all suspected.
The advertisements attacked Mississippi State Senator Chris McDaniel and painted conservative Republicans and tea party activists as racists. According to documents filed with the Federal Elections Commission, All Citizens for Mississippi received funding from a Haley Barbour backed group called Mississippi Conservatives.
Mississippi Conservatives, in turn, was funded in part by Sally Bradshaw of the RNC’s Growth and Opportunity Project, former RNC Chairman and Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour, the United States Chamber of Commerce, and the political action committees created for Senators Mitch McConnell ($50,000), John Cornyn ($50,000), Rob Portman ($25,000), Bob Corker ($25,000), and Roy Blunt ($5,000).
Interestingly, Sally Bradshaw and Henry Barbour (Haley Barbour’s nephew) worked on the autopsy of the 2012 GOP loss.
It wasn’t an easy day Tuesday in the state’s top court for S.C. Attorney General Alan Wilson and one of his top prosecutors.
Creighton Waters, an assistant deputy attorney general, was grilled by the S.C. Supreme Court in the state grand jury case of House Speaker Bobby Harrell, who was among a crowd of at least 150 who packed the small courtroom and overflowed into the lobby of the courthouse, located across the street from the State House.
Most of the questioning of Waters during the hour-long hearing came from Chief Justice Jean Toal and Associate Justice Donald Beatty, both of whom are former House members. Their questioning centered on whether the judge overseeing the state grand jury in Harrell’s case had the authority to order that the investigation be stopped and was justified in doing so.
Wilson, who sat with Waters, did not speak during the hearing.
The Nerve in February reported that Harrell actively campaigned for Toal for her re-election then in the General Assembly to her chief justice seat. Toal declined several requests by The Nerve to say whether she would recuse herself from Harrell’s case.
South Carolina and Virginia are the only two states in which their legislatures play primary roles in electing judges.
On May 12, Richland County Circuit Judge Casey Manning, the administrative judge overseeing the grand jury investigation of Harrell, canceled the investigation – despite impaneling the jury, according to the Attorney General’s Office – ruling that Wilson “failed to offer or present to the Court any evidence or allegations which are criminal in nature.”
Manning ruled that because the allegations were civil, not criminal, the House Ethics Committee, which can’t investigate criminal allegations against House members, had jurisdiction in the case. Wilson appealed to the Supreme Court, which ruled that the grand jury investigation could continue pending a final ruling by the five-member court.
When the high court will rule is unknown, though longtime court observers say a decision likely will be issued within weeks.
In February 2013, the South Carolina Policy Council – The Nerve’s parent organization – filed a complaint against Harrell, asking Wilson’s office to investigate allegations that Ashley Landess, the Policy Council president, noted in a letter accompanying the complaint “could be plausibly seen as a pattern of public corruption that would be out of the jurisdiction of the House Ethics Committee to investigate.”
Landess has contended the House Ethics Committee shouldn’t handle Harrell’s case because of multiple inherent conflicts of interest. The state grand jury has the authority under state law to investigate public corruption.
The Policy Council’s allegations involve Harrell’s reimbursement of campaign funds for the use of his private plane, the use of his office in connection with a pharmaceutical repackaging company he once headed, and his appointment of his brother to the state Judicial Merit Selection Commission, which nominates judicial candidates to the General Assembly.
Wilson turned over the Policy Council’s complaint to the State Law Enforcement Division, which, after a 10-month investigation, presented its report to Wilson, who in January announced that it had been referred to the state grand jury for further investigation.
Harrell, who has been the House speaker since 2005 and was first elected in 1992, has denied doing anything wrong, and he has not been charged with any crimes.
Landess attended Tuesday’s hearing, sitting in the same row, but on the opposite end, as Harrell. More than 50 Policy Council supporters walked as a group from the Policy Council’s office several blocks away to the Supreme Court to attend the hearing.
‘Repeated Allegations of Criminality’
During the hearing, Beatty, who served five years as a House member before moving to the circuit court, Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court in 2007, questioned Waters whether there is criminal evidence in the Harrell case to warrant a state grand jury investigation.
“I’m at that point where Judge Manning says … ‘You have not presented any evidence of a crime; therefore, you are not pursuing the purpose of the impanelment of this grand jury.’ Now that’s what I want to see.”
“This investigation has gone on for quite awhile,” Beatty continued. “You had more than allegations by Miss Landess. You had a SLED investigation. You had turned it over then. Didn’t you have something that you could have given the impaneling judge to keep your investigation before this grand jury going?”
“If you look at the Landess complaint – and we’ve detailed through there the repeated allegations of criminality,” Waters responded. “We established that Ethics Act violations can be criminal, and it is necessary for the grand jury to look at that information to determine whether or not it rises to a level of criminality.”
Bobby Stepp, one of Harrell’s lawyers, said during the hearing that no record of the SLED investigation was presented to Manning, who held public hearings on the Harrell case on March 21 and May 2, though Waters pointed out that Manning had signed the order impaneling the state grand jury.
At that start of the hearing, Waters said the issue in the case is whether the attorney general and state grand jury “need permission from the House Ethics Committee before they have jurisdiction to do their job.”
“We think that the (S.C.) Constitution, the case law and the statutes make it very clear that they do not need that permission,” he said.
Toal cited a 1994 state Supreme Court ruling, known as the Thrift case, that said the “absence of a complaint to the Ethics Commission will never operate as a limitation upon the state’s independent right to initiate a criminal prosecution.”
Waters said to his knowledge, there is no pending House Ethics Committee complaint against Harrell connected with his state grand jury case.
He also said there are misconceptions about the role of the state grand jury.
“I think everyone been treating the impanelment of a grand jury as if it were like an indictment or even a warrant,” Waters said. “But a grand jury is not that. A grand jury is there to determine whether or not there is probable cause in the first place.”
Toal, the court’s senior justice who served 13 years as a House member before going straight to the high court in 1988, asked Waters whether a judge who impanels a state grand jury has the authority to question whether the jurors are complying with the grand jury law after they are impaneled.
“I take it you would agree … that the impaneling judge has some responsibility for ensuring that the statewide grand jury is not pursuing something that it is not empowered to pursue” Toal said.
Waters said there would have to be “extraordinary circumstances where serious abuses are being shown” to justify a “pre-indictment” review of a state grand jury investigation by the judge who impaneled the jury. Otherwise, he contended, the grand jury would be “unduly burdened and the search for truth would be thwarted with the delay of motions after motions after motions and mini-trial after mini-trial before the grand jury could get to its work.”
Toal also questioned whether the judge overseeing the state grand jury could determine whether prosecutors assigned to grand jury cases had conflicts of interest or other issues under the “normal rules of the road.”
“That hadn’t been decided yet,” Toal noted about an alleged conflict-of-interest issue in the Harrell case. “We still haven’t had a hearing on that matter.”
At the March 21 hearing – before Manning on his own brought up the issue of whether Wilson’s office should have jurisdiction over the Harrell case – Brad Wright, Harrell’s chief of staff, alleged that Wilson had threatened him in a closed-door meeting last year at the Attorney General’s Office over pending ethics legislation. Wilson denied the accusation, while Harrell’s attorneys argued that he should be removed from the case.
Manning didn’t rule on that matter, though he conceivably could do so in the future, depending on what the Supreme Court decides.
During Stepp’s presentation, Toal took a dig at Wilson’s public statements that the SLED report had been referred to the state grand jury, noting, “I find it curious that we know all that because frankly, I never heard of having press conferences to announce that you’re going to submit something to a grand jury – ever.” Stepp claimed Harrell has been “severely prejudiced” by Wilson’s public statements on the case.
In his opening statement, Stepp said the main issue in the case is “whether the attorney general, under the guise of a criminal investigation, can usurp the exclusive statutory jurisdiction of the House Ethics Committee over an ethics complaint made by a private citizen,” contending that the complaint filed by Landess alleged “what I considered to be civil violations of the Ethics Act.”
Stepp said a ruling by the Supreme Court in favor of Wilson would violate the court’s ruling last year that “investigations of violations of the Ethics Act are within the exclusive purview of the legislative branch to the exclusion of the courts.” The Supreme Court in that case upheld an earlier ruling by Manning.
In that case, John Rainey unsuccessfully sought, through a lawsuit, a court declaration that Gov. Nikki Haley had violated the Ethics Act while she was a House member, though the House Ethics Committee in 2012 twice had cleared her of all charges.
Under questioning by Associate Justice Costa Pleicones, Stepp said he didn’t “see any difference” between the Rainey and Harrell cases, though Pleicones pointed out that the Rainey case was brought initially in the Court of Common Pleas, which handles only civil cases at the circuit level.
In the Rainey ruling, Beatty wrote that the Attorney General’s Office on its own could have investigated any allegations of criminal ethics violations against Haley. Waters said the Ethics Act has both civil and criminal provisions, adding, “I think that’s what the trial judge failed to perceive” in Harrell’s case.
The Nerve in April reported that under a loophole in state law, the House Ethics Committee can’t consider allegations older than four years, which would bar it from considering many of the allegations in the Policy Council’s complaint if the matter were referred to the panel.
Reach Brundrett at (803) 254-4411 or email@example.com. Follow him on Twitter @thenerve_rick. Follow The Nerve on Facebook and Twitter @thenervesc.