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.

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.

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

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.

I learned a new term at one of our subcommittee hearings on spending caps – professional enrichment. As you know, the spending caps may apply to local government as well as state government. This possibility has brought municipality representatives ( or munis pronounced m-yew-nees) out of the woodwork. We hear the usual whining how this cap would jeopardize public safety, law enforcement, blah blah blah. I just had to ask a muni this question: “we hear a lot about exorbitant traveling by government officials, doesn’t spending caps put these trips in jeopardy?”

I was informed that “professional enrichment” is an important part of public service and these expenses account for only a fraction of government spending.

Spin it how you may, but I don’t understand why the taxpayer should fork out their hard earned money for digs the average constituent could never afford.