Jan 31 2008

mistaken of age defence removed!

S.C. House approves revisions to sex offender law
By Robert W. Dalton, Spartanburg Herald
Published: Thursday, January 31, 2008 | Updated: 9:48 am ARTICLE OPTIONS

The state House, in a surprise move Wednesday morning, struck down one controversial provision of Jessica’s Law and altered another. Gone is the “mistake-of-age” defense, which prosecutors said could allow adult offenders to have sex with preteens and escape punishment if they could convince a jury they believed the child was older.
The House also changed the “Romeo clause,” the provision that made it legal for people age 18 and younger to have sex with children as young as 14. It is now a misdemeanor punishable by up to three years in prison, but it does not require inclusion on the state’s sex offender registry.

Rep. Murrell Smith Jr., R-Sumter offered the amendment

By Kevin Bryant • Uncategorized •

Jan 31 2008

S. 714 gets gutted

To my great surprise, the Senate adopted a strike and insert amendment today to practically gut the S. 714 I blogged about a few days ago.  Below is the amendment:
PERFECTING AMENDMENT by Sen. Vincent Sheheen (D-Kershaw)
Senator SHEHEEN proposed the following amendment (714R003.VAS):
Amend the committee amendment, as and if amended, on page [714-1] by striking lines -40 and inserting:
/ “Section 2-17-16. A political action committee organized by or on behalf of the Governor, the Lieutenant Governor, any other statewide constitutional officer, a member of the General Assembly, a director or deputy director of a state department appointed by the Governor is prohibited. Any political action committee prohibited by this section in existence on the effective date of this act must distribute all unexpended contributions in the manner provided for in Section 8-13-1370(C).” /
Renumber sections to conform.
Amend title to conform.

I’m uncertain if I want to outlaw elected officials from forming PACs, but this isn’t nearly as dangerous as the original bill as drafted.

By Kevin Bryant • Uncategorized •

Jan 31 2008

Sen. Jim DeMint on recent pork barrell spending

For Immediate Release
January 28th, 2008
Contact: Wesley Denton (202) 224-6121

PRESIDENT, CONGRESS ALLOW EARMARKS TO CONTINUE AS USUAL
Says Tough Choices Are Needed to Cut Wasteful Spending

Washington, D.C. – Today, U.S. Senator Jim DeMint (R-South Carolina) responded to reports that President Bush has decided to accept over 10,000 wasteful pork barrel earmarks for Fiscal Year 2008 when he had the authority to stop them. Senator DeMint made the following statement:”I’m disappointed the President missed this historic opportunity to stop thousands of wasteful earmarks under pressure from big spenders in Congress.”

“The President was right last year to call on Congress to stop putting earmarks in secret reports, but the Democrat Congress ignored him and now the President is going to let them get away with it. The proposed executive order will only stop secret earmarks in future bills, but it protects over 10,000 non-binding earmarks requested for this year.

“Earmarks exploded under Republican watch but Democrats proved last year they like the earmark favor factory just as much. In fact, they broke their own promise to cut earmarks in half. This is a bipartisan earmark addiction and the President should have taken the bottle away. Instead, he chose to accept another round of earmarks and give lawmakers another round of drinks.

“Americans are fed up with the corruption and waste in Washington and no issue better symbolizes the decay than earmarks. Congressmen are in jail today for taking bribes for earmarks yet Congress and this President are allowing thousands of special interest projects this year for bike paths, museums, baseball parks, and golf charities while our economic growth is slowing.

“Congress continues to fail to make the tough choices our country needs. It keeps adding new spending but never cut the waste.

“I am glad the President is pledging once again to veto spending bills that don’t cut earmarks in half, but it may be too late since Congress may not send him many spending bills this year. I am also glad the President is going to stop future earmarks that are not written in our bills, but delaying action could give big spenders time to find ways to get around his rule.

“Washington is broken and the Democratic Congress has broken its promise to fix it. President Bush has taken some modest steps toward reform, but it will take bold action by Republicans to end the congressional favor factory and restore trust with the American people.”

By Kevin Bryant • Uncategorized •

Jan 31 2008

real id: Sen. Larry Martin

SC chose not to partisipate in the Federal Real ID.  This resolution was sponsord by Sen. Larry Martin (R-Pickens). REAL ID is a nationwide effort to improve the integrity and security of State-issued drivers licenses and identification cards, which in turn will help fight terrorism and reduce fraud. REAL ID refers to minimum standards for state-issued driver’s licenses or personal identification cards that will allow you to board a federally regulated airplane, access a federal facility or nuclear power plant. These standards are part of the requirements of the REAL ID Act of 2005, which Congress passed to make it more difficult to fraudulently acquire a drivers license or ID card, as part of the effort to fight terrorism and reduce fraud. The 9/11 Commission endorsed the REAL ID requirements, noting that for terrorists, travel documents are as important as weapons … All but one of the 9/11 hijackers acquired some form of identification document, some by fraud. Acquisition of these forms of identification would have assisted them in boarding commercial flights, renting cars, and other necessary activities.
REAL ID is not a national identification card yet standards that must be in place if state issued identification will be an accepted by entities of federal jurisdictions. South Carolina chose to not participate in the REAL ID standards for several reasons. One of those reasons is that REAL ID provided no funding, so the state would have to decide whether to fund the extra expenses from the taxpayer or increase the costs of the application for a drivers license.
Since a regular SC drivers license is not an acceptable form of identification we may suffer delays due to the requirement for enhanced security screening. The time table has been extended by the Federal Government, but those of us that desire to fly commercially, we may be required to keep an updated passport. Although this may be an inconvenience, this required is better than forcing the same inconvenience on all South Carolinians that wish a drivers license.

By Kevin Bryant • Uncategorized •

Jan 30 2008

Why We Whisper, a book on free speech by Sen. Jim DeMint

“As one whose career is rooted in the First Amendment, I know how government imposition can strip Americans of our precious freedom of speech. Big government liberalism and a decline in our culture must be stopped. For ammunition in the fight ahead, read Why We Whisper.” Rush Limbaugh

     “I hope you have had the opportunity to read our book because it will give you the information you need to join the battle for our culture in America. Why We Whisper gives many examples of how our own government is promoting costly and destructive behavior. By encouraging and protecting destructive behavior by our citizens, our government has made it “right” to act in ways that hurt our culture and our country. Effectively, our government has taken away our right to say that some things are “wrong.” This is a clear violation of the freedom of speech for Americans who hold traditional views. And this is why we whisper when we say that some things are just plain wrong.
     Our book suggests a number of solutions, including encouraging Americans to speak out when government or their surrogates try to muzzle our freedoms. One recent example of an American standing up and speaking out was Andrew Larochelle, a 17-year-old Eagle Scout from Ohio. Andrew asked that a flag be flown over the U.S. Capitol in honor of his grandfather. He also requested that the accompanying certificate read, “This flag was flown in honor of Marcel Larochell, my grandfather, for his dedication and love of God, Country, and family.”
     When Andrew received his flag, he was alarmed that “God” had been omitted from the certificate. Instead of whispering, Andrew and his Congressman, Michael Turner, took on the government. When the dust settled, Andrew was in Washington presenting the flag and the corrected certificate to his grandfather in front of a national media audience. And the government changed their policy about censoring “God” and religion from flag certificates.
     That’s just one of thousands of stories of the government, the ACLU or other para-government groups trying to intimidate Americans with traditional values. WE WANT YOUR STORY. Please use the website to log your story of intimidation or of Americans fighting back against intimidation. We will share many of these stories regularly on this website.” Sen. Jim DeMint

By Kevin Bryant • Uncategorized •

Jan 29 2008

S. 714 requires permission before speaking

             I believe the words of Winston Churchill that, “democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried.” The most fundamental tenet of democracy is that anyone and everyone enjoy the right to speak their mind at any time, in any place and on any subject. The important part of free speech, moreover, is not the “speech” part but the “free” part. Americans must never be subjected to government restrictions on their speech, particularly their political speech.
     The South Carolina Senate, to my great chagrin and disappointment, will soon consider a piece of legislation that will require individuals that band together in order to engage in political speech to register with the government. Senate bill 714, if enacted, would require anyone supporting an advocacy group by donating $100 or more to that group to give the government their name and address.
      The idea that a non-profit organization that gathers the collective voice of concerned citizens on a particular subject should be forced to give over the names and addresses of their supporters smacks of the sort of oppressive government that Americans have spent the better part of two centuries fighting against, both at home and abroad.
     The bill would require a businessman in Anderson who donates to a non-profit organization that supports lower taxes and spending limits to give his name and address to the government. It would require a mother in Lexington who donates to a non-profit organization that advocates school choice to tell the government who she is and where she lives. It would require a pastor in Beaufort who supports with his own resources an organization that advocates traditional marriage to register with the government, like a felon has too (and if he does not he could go to jail, just like a felon).
     This bill eviscerates advocacy efforts on both ends of the political spectrum. A doctor who donates to a group that lobbies for universal health care must inform the government that he did so. People who give money to a group that seeks a ban on public prayer or greater gun control must put their personal information on a list to be held by the government. I disagree with these particular initiatives, but I repel at the suggestion that people should have to fill out forms and have a file with the government before they can express themselves.
     The only explanation for gagging speech is fear of the message. I do not know what message the proponents of this legislation fear, but I do know that once we thwart the constitution by limiting speech, the rest of our rights will fall like dominoes.
The pity of this attempt is that it reveals the desire of too many elected officials to avoid open debate and hard decision-making. It mirrors the so-called “campaign finance reform” at the federal level which many observers correctly labeled the “incumbent protection act.” The McCain-Feingold Act prevents political speech critical of someone running for office within 30 days of the election. The passage of S. 714 foretells such preventions here in South Carolina. If the government succeeds in forcing you to sign up before allowing you to speak, they can just as easily stop you from speaking altogether because once a right is removed from the status of “inalienable” there are no limits to its abrogation. As Thomas Jefferson noted, “law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.”
     We, as free citizens, should demand that government listen to the people instead of requiring us to register before we speak. We, as free citizens, should expect our public officials to endorse or reject our hopes and expectations, not use our desire to speak as a weapon against us. We, as free citizens, must preserve our freedom to speak to our government and not allow our government to become the arbiters of when and where and how we can speak. Once we allow government to suspend one of our rights, the next ones will go more quickly.
     Thomas Jefferson further proclaimed that, “The force of public opinion cannot be resisted when permitted freely to be expressed. The agitation it produces must be submitted to. It is necessary, to keep the waters pure.” Senate bill 714 highjacks our most basic freedom, that of free speech. I will fight the contamination of our politics by the usurpation of our right to speak. I hope you will join me.

update

update

update

By Kevin Bryant • Uncategorized •

Jan 27 2008

Ben Stein movie takes on free speech suppression in academia

Ben Stein, in the new film EXPELLED: No Intelligence Allowed

His heroic and, at times, shocking journey confronting the world’s top scientists, educators and philosophers, regarding the persecution of the many by an elite few. Question Darwinism and your freedom of speech is squelched!

Coming to a theater near you Spring 2008

Ben travels the world on his quest, and learns an awe-inspiring truth…that bewilders him, then angers him…and then spurs him to action!

Ben realizes that he has been “Expelled,” and that educators and scientists are being ridiculed, denied tenure and even fired – for the “crime” of merely believing that there might be evidence of “design” in nature, and that perhaps life is not just the result of accidental, random chance.
To which Ben Says: “Enough!” And then gets busy.

By Kevin Bryant • Uncategorized •

Jan 26 2008

special order: call for constitution convention

Immigration law is primarily governed by federal statutes and regulations. Congress has tried to pass immigration reform measures, however, neither the House nor the Senate has been able to get anything passed. No state has the authority to enforce the borders, deny access to immigrants, or make rules about who may or may not remain in this country or in any state therein. Federal statutes governing illegal immigration cannot be enforced by states, either. State law enforcement authorities can arrest suspected illegal immigrants, however, they must immediately turn them over to federal authorities unless the suspected illegal alien has committed a violation of state law that the law enforcement personnel have the authority to enforce. Finally, federal statutes and regulations prohibit states from passing laws to control and/or limit access to certain benefits (public education, medical care, law enforcement protection, food stamps, WIC benefits, etc.).

Therefore, the illegal immigration problem in SC and across the nation continues to get more serious as more illegal aliens enter our states, and the federal government is not adequately addressing the problem.

S. 856 calls for a constitutional convention, but it limits the issues to those relating to illegal immigration and grants the convention the authority to amend the Constitution to give states more power to regulate illegal immigration within their borders, to regulate benefits as they see fit, and to arrest and deport suspected illegal immigrants out of the state.

The fear of some constitutional scholars is that once a constitutional convention is convened, it is unlimited in its scope and it could take up any issue and amend the Constitution. There are two protections in place in this situation that further ensure that the convention would not stray from immigration reform and take up other constitutional provisions that we would not want it to discuss.

First, the concurrent resolution (S. 856) states that the convention called must be limited to illegal immigration reform issues explicitly stated in the resolution. If the convention takes up other matters, then our vote for the convention – through language in the resolution itself – makes our original request for the convention void from the beginning.  This void ab initio would theoretically remove SC as one of 2/3 of the states who called for the convention as if we never supported the call to convention in the first place. Second, even if the convention is held and it proposes amendments to the Constitution other than those specifically enumerated in our resolution, no amendment proposed by the convention can become law unless 3/4 of the states approve it. Approving substantial changes to the Constitution in areas other than illegal immigration reform is unlikely to pass 3/4 of all the states in the country.

By Kevin Bryant • Uncategorized •

Jan 24 2008

Cindy Wilson and Company come to Columbia

Council-lady Cindy Wilson, local talk show host Rick Driver and numerous members of the Real Anderson County Taxpayers’ Association came to Columbia on Wednesday 01/23.
The visit was primarily for a Supreme Court hearing. The case between Ms. Wilson and our administration is over what financial information falls under the Freedom of Information Act and what is exempt. There as been an ongoing battle over this issue for quite some time. We can expect a decision in a few weeks.
Summary: This case involves a county council member’s attempts to access certain information from the county administrator. The trial court granted the administrator’s motion for summary judgment on the council member’s action for a writ of mandamus that sought to require the administrator to disclose the information.
After the hearing, they toured the Statehouse and observed the Senate debate from the balcony. It was great to see so many of my constituents as I (along with Sen. O’Dell and Rep. Bowen) was privileged to take the floor and a introduce them. Anderson Independant Greenville News

By Kevin Bryant • Uncategorized •

Jan 23 2008

s.857 english only set to special order

S. 857 requires all state agencies to provides services in English. S 857 was put on “special order” in the Senate on Tuesday. Though English became the official language of South Carolina in 1987, decisions about whether state taxpayers will pay for multilingual services like welfare and driver’s license applications are currently made by state agencies, defying the actions intended by the legislature. Numerous studies have shown that excessive language assistance makes it less likely that immigrants will learn English. S. 857 will fulfill the intent of the earlier law, requiring government agencies to conduct official business in English and to promote English learning among immigrants. The legislation is carefully drawn to comply with federal law and legal precedent, and leaves agencies the flexibility to address emergencies and the needs of the justice system. I’m a cosponsor of this legislation for 2 reasons: 1-This policy will encourage immigrants to learn English as they transition into our society. 2-Offering other languages creates a big problem as to deciding which ones to include in the services.

By Kevin Bryant • Uncategorized •