Greenville Tea Party First in South Debate and Freedom Rally

Read More......

Amazon Backroom Deal Goes Down in House

This link from Talbert Black shows how our House Representatives voted. More importantly, it decimates the argument that the Legislators had to vote for the back-room deal or the State, "would break its promise." It appears that in actuality it is Amazon that broke the promises of the the incentive agreement with South Carolina. It broke its word and is now pulling out of South Carolina. Amazon is leaving because many courageous the House of Representatives stood for the free market and refused to give Amazon a special exemption.

Amazon is taking its toys and going home.

A business can make up whatever business model it wants to make up. However, the Amazon model, like the models for many large corporations, is to wheedle its way into special government favors. Amazon's business model is part of the crony capitalism problem in the United States, and very specially in South Carolina where many of our elected leaders love the secret deal. Thank goodness we had some people who saw this Amazon shakedown for what it was and voted the right way in the House.

Some argue that giving Amazon a special deal would create jobs. That is an assumption that may not be true. The special deal would have given Amazon a competitive advantage over existing South Carolina brick and mortar businesses. The harm to competing business would actually cause a net reduction of jobs. In all probability, the only real beneficiaries in the deal are Amazon, and the cronies that helped make the deal happen, including political cronies.

Read Chapter 7 of Unleashing Capitalism, South Carolina's Tax Incentives: Costly, Inefficient and Distortionary, Peter T. Calcagno and Frank Hefner for a full explanation of the anti-free market idea Amazon supporters are selling.

My representative, Tommy Stringer (R), voted against the free market. I have written him for an explanation for his odd and disturbing RINO-like vote. Maybe he has a good excuse. I will give him the benefit of the doubt until I give him time to explain.

Read More......

Hayek v. Keynes Round Two Video--Great!

Read More......

RP's Statement on Federal Reserve's Press Conference

Statement on Federal Reserve's Press Conference

Read More......

Another Reason for Paper Backups to our Electronic Voting Machines

Read More......

interesting video on open source hardware

Here is a link to the wiki site.

Global Village Construction Set

Read More......

SCGOP First in the South Presidential Debate Date

Happy Easter. God bless you.

The Greenville Tea Party pre-debate rally is shaping up nicely. The First in the South Republican Party Debate is now scheduled for May 5, 6pm – 10pm, at the Peace Center, 300 South Main Street, Greenville, SC 29601.

A Tea Party gathering at the Hyatt in Greenville of Constitutional conservatives beforehand and a march to the Peace Center are in order.

Here are some links for information if you want to join the Tea Party.

Facebook Event Link.

South Carolina Hotline

Biased May 5 Debate and Tea Party Information

Read More......

Actual Inflation Versus Government Propaganda

Graph courtesy of Shadow Stats.

Read More......

Hostage Crisis: Should We Give In to the Ransom Demand?

This is from the Tea Party Patriot website:

"What President Obama is really saying:

"Pay the ransom (allow us to continue massive government spending) or we stop paying the military!"

"Pay the ransom (allow us to continue massive government spending) or we won't mail you your IRS refund check!"

"Pay the ransom (allow us to continue massive government spending) or we will ruin the tourists' vacations who are going to DC for the Cherry Blossom Festival!"

"Pay the ransom (allow us to continue massive government spending) or we will close the National Parks and ruin family vacations!"
Keep Reading for Friday's First Action Item

Should we give in to their ransom demands? Should we reward them for making this kind of threat? Should people like this be in
charge of our entire country?!!"

Read More......

State Committeeman Campaign Flyers

I am running for Greenville County State Committeeman. My campaign flyer and platform are linked below. Thanks for visiting.

Here is a link to my platform.

Read More......

RINO Preservation Statute: The Judge Got it Wrong

The South Carolina Republican Party filed an action in federal court seeking relief from an unconstitutional South Carolina election law that forces Republican voters to elect Republican leaders for elective office in an open primary.

Presently, Republicans must select leaders in open primaries unless a huge majority (probably at least 80 percent) of delegates to the State Convention vote for the only statutorily allowed alternative, “nomination by party.” The problem is that the RINO-infected Legislature has imposed such a high threshold (see S.C. Code Section 7-11-30) that Republicans' ability to opt out of an open primary is practically impossible. See my blog post here and a YouTube video here for more details.

The lawsuit argues that South Carolina election laws violate the Constitution's First Amendment right of association because open primaries force Republicans to associate with moderate independents, third parties, progressive voters, and Democrats to elect the Republican standard bearer for a general elections. The forced association with moderates and progressives in an open primary waters down the message of Republican leaders and confuses the message of conservatism.

On March 30, 2011, U.S. District Court Judge Michelle Childs, an Obama-appointee, issued an Opinion and Order that shot down the Republican Party's lawsuit stating, “any burden that may be imposed on a party by the limitations contained in the convention nomination statute is only slight, at best.”

In Miller v. Brown, 503 F.3d 360, 368. (4th Cir. 2007), a U.S. Court of Appeals court for our region (4th Circuit) struck down Virginia's election statute. Citing and quoting Supreme Court precedent, the Miller decision (authored by Greenville's Billy Wilkins) stated, in part, as follows:

"Further, the [Supreme] Court recognized that, 'the inclusion of persons unaffiliated with a political party may seriously distort its collective decisions—thus impairing the party’s essential functions —and [therefore] political parties may . . . protect themselves from intrusion by those with adverse political principles.'"

Judge Childs' Opinion and Order overlooks the terrible distortion that a forced open primary system imposes on the South Carolina Republican Party.

In a case called California Democratic Party v. Jones, 530 U.S. 567 (2000), the Supreme Court made crystal clear that a State's unconstitutional imposition on the association rights of political parties has a devastating impact on the ideas that a political party stands for:

"Representative democracy in any populous unit of governance is unimaginable without the ability of citizens to band together in promoting among the electorate candidates who espouse their political views. . . .

. . . .

In no area is the political association’s right to exclude more important than in the process of selecting its nominee. That process often determines the party’s positions on the most significant public policy issues of the day, and even when those positions are predetermined it is the nominee who becomes the party’s ambassador to the general electorate in winning it over to the party’s views."

The idea of constitutional conservatism is the core and central ideal of the Republican Party. The harm caused by an attack on our core belief is not just "only slight, at best." The Legislature's attack on our ideal is devastating. It deals heavy blows to our political philosophy.

Republicans have tried nominating candidates using South Carolina's present system of election laws. The result is continuing selection of moderates and RINOs who gain the nomination as the Republican standard bearers by campaigning for the votes of independents, progressives, and Democrats. These so-called Republican leaders, whose message is often muddled and incoherent, cause confusion among the public about what Republicans really stand for, and actually greatly benefit Democrats in general elections.

The message of constitutional conservatism is a message of freedom and liberty. The message of the moderates, progressives and Democrats is crony capitalism, tyranny, collectivism, and oppression.

The idea of principled constitutional conservatism is the thing that binds together South Carolina Republicans. If we would be permitted to control the process of how we pick our own leaders, then we could put forward leaders who will articulate a message of true conservatism. That message would be powerful indeed.

If Judge Childs thinks the harm caused by the State's unconstitutional tinkering in how our party picks its leader is just “only slight, at best,” it must be because she does not understand what the Supreme Court said in cases like Jones, nor what the majority said in Miller.

The State of South Carolina has no business meddling in the process of how Republicans pick leaders.

If the State wants to impose an open primary law as the only means for a political party to pick candidates by election, that is their right. However, by the same token, the State has no business interfering with the process of how a political party opts out of such an odious choice.

Here, S.C. Code Ann. Section 7-11-30 effectively precludes Republicans from choosing nomination by party as a viable alternative at the State convention. It precludes us from picking the best leaders because it makes us nominate Republican candidates in open primaries. It keeps us from picking the best nominee, one who would clearly and forcefully express constitutional conservatism as a political philosophy.

The Judge got it wrong. The State got it wrong. The South Carolina election law is unconstitutional.

Read More......