Club for Growth endorses a Dem (Have they not heard of the Sec. of State project?)

That’s the first thing I thought of when I saw this headline/read this article in

Conservative group endorses a … Democrat!

The S.C. Club for Growth has made history, endorsing its first Democratic candidate for statewide office.

The political action committee – a fiscally conservative group that focuses on lower taxes, smaller government and free enterprise – is backing Ginny Deerin of Sullivan’s Island in the race for secretary of state.

Deerin is running against GOP incumbent Mark Hammond of Spartanburg for the post, which pays $92,000 a year.

S.C. Club for Growth chairman Dave Ellison said the group is backing Deerin because she wants to cut the budget for the secretary of state’s office, and cut fees and regulations.

Read this Redstate diary from 2010Don’t let Soros and the “Secretary of State Project” take over your state

In 2010, The Secretary of State Project is so far targeting Michigan, California, Iowa, South Dakota, Ohio, and Minnesota. This post is Michigan specific, but look at the list of donors to a state level Michigan downticket race. Chances are this is happening in your state too.

You know, comrades,” says Stalin, “that I think in regard to this: I consider it completely unimportant who in the party will vote, or how; but what is extraordinarily important is this — who will count the votes, and how. – Boris Bazhanov’s Memoirs of Stalin’s Former Secretary

Some of the most overlooked and ultra important positions in this state are those who run the elections. Those are the County Clerk, Township/City Clerk, and the Secretary of State’s office.

Some people don’t like it when their boys don’t make the rules of the game. First and foremost is the benefactor of the democrats, convicted insider trader George Soros, the man who broke the Bank of England. Much like his counterparts at Goldman Sachs, he makes a killing off of speculating, and what better way of doing that than by controlling elections.Other rich leftist democrats also wanted to get their people elected in their attempt to control our lives.

There project is called the Secretary of State Project. It’s goal is to get their type of democrats in charge, and then look the other way when ACORN and PIRG to commit voter fraud rigging the election for the democrats.

How about this article at Ballotpedia

The SOS Project, or the Secretary of State Project, was an independent 527 political organization founded in July 2006 under the premise of advancing ‘election protection’ measures. Members believed that the only way in which to accomplish such a goal was to devote all efforts and resources toward helping get Democrats elected to the offices of Secretary of State in selected swing, or battleground, states, specifically those whose margin of victory in the 2004 presidential election contest was 120,000 votes or less.

The Secretary of State Project originated due to the culmination of frustration, anger, bitterness and overall resentment Democrats felt towards Republicans in the wake of President George W. Bush’s re-election in 2004. Still plagued with memories of Katherine Harris and Florida from the 2000 presidential contest, Democrats placed the blame for Senator John Kerry’s loss squarely on the head of former Ohio Secretary of State Kenneth Blackwell, who ruled that provisional ballots in the state would not be counted if they were submitted in the wrong precinct, a decision upheld by the United States Court of Appeals. Bush’s victory in the state – a relatively slim 118,000+ votes – gave him the necessary electoral votes (twenty) to cross the victory threshold of two hundred and seventy.

Democratic founders of the SOS Project saw conspiracy in Blackwell’s decision, insisting that those individuals who were elected on the principle of upholding and enforcing election laws were, in fact, political operatives. But rather then push for reform so that the offices of the Secretaries of State reflected a level of neutrality, perhaps making it so holders of those positions were elected on a nonpartisan basis, they instead sought to implement an aggressive agenda exactly the same in nearly every respect that they had just accused Republicans of performing. Through the strategic process of placing specific candidates, ones that met a certain liberal or progressive criteria set down by the organization, in positions of power that oversaw and administered state elections, the Democratic Party would be “better positioned than in the previous elections to advance traditional Democratic interests,” particularly when it came to the administration of election laws.

I have to conclude that the SC Club for Growth has lost sight of how to win. Not how to win elections, but how to win the argument. You don’t support someone whose choice of party lets us conclude they are pro-abortion, anti-gun, anti-free market, etc. in order to fight ” a bloated bureaucracy that wastes taxpayers’ money and makes doing business in our state more cumbersome”

You do it by fighting for the platform which promotes conservative, free market principles. And if you do not like the Republican incumbent YOU RAISE UP A REPUBLICAN CANDIDATE AND RUN A COMPELLING CAMPAIGN TO DEFEAT HIM/HER!

You don’t support the platform of death and tyranny to make a political point.

Is anyone still donating to SC Club for Growth? Now may be the time to reconsider. Are they speaking with your voice? Representing the values of your family with this endorsement?

September 22, 2014  Tags: , , ,   Posted in: Uncategorized  One Comment

Sen. Shane Martin attempted Registration by Party Legislation last session

A message from Senator Shane Martin:

I tried to get this amendment passed since they ruled me out of order in Judiciary Committee. I am all for this and hope we get it done next year. Just want people to know that I tried this year.


Appreciate this effort, hope the rest of the Spartanburg Delegation will fight for this! (Fight … not just vote for/against if it crosses their desk. You all know what I mean)

Amendment No. 3
Senator SHANE MARTIN proposed the following amendment (866R003.SRM), which was ruled out of order:
Amend the bill, as and if amended, page 5, line 1 by adding an appropriately numbered new SECTION to read:

/ SECTION 1.A. Section 7-5-110 of the 1976 Code is amended to read:
“Section 7-5-110. (A) No A person shall be allowed to may not vote at anyan election unless he shall be is registered as herein required by the provisions of this chapter.
(B) A person may not vote in a partisan primary election or partisan advisory referendum unless he has registered as being a member of that party.

(C) The provisions of this section do not apply to a partisan presidential preference primary.

(D) The State Election Commission shall assist the county entities charged by law with registering electors with capturing the data and maintaining a list of all electors registered by party affiliation. To expedite the registration of electors, the county entities shall allow electors to register by party, if they wish, at all partisan primary elections conducted before June 2012.

(E) After the first primary is conducted under the provisions of this section, the entity charged by law with registering qualified electors shall contact the qualified electors of that county, by whatever method it determines to be appropriate, informing them of partisan primary voting procedures as provided in this section.

(F) The State Election Commission shall provide a format for absentee voting registration to comply with the provisions of this section.”

B. Section 7-5-170 of the 1976 Code, as last amended by Act 265 of 2012, is further amended to read:

“Section 7-5-170. (1) Written application required. A person may not be registered to vote except upon written application or electronic application pursuant to Section 7-5-185., which shall become That application becomes a part of the permanent records of the board to which it is presented and which must be open to public inspection. However, the social security number contained in the application must not be open to public inspection.
(2) Form of application. The application must be on a form prescribed and provided by the executive director and shall must contain the following information: name, sex, race, social security number, date of birth, residence address, mailing address, telephone number of the applicant, political party affiliation, if any, and location of prior voter registration. The applicant must shall affirm that he is not under a court order declaring him mentally incompetent, confined in anya public prison, has never been convicted of a felony or offense against the election laws, or if previously convicted, that he has served his entire sentence, including probation and parole time, or has received a pardon for the conviction. Additionally, the applicant must shall take the following oath: ‘I, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I am a citizen of the United States and that on the date of the next ensuing election, I will have attained the age of eighteen years and am a resident of South Carolina, this county, and of my precinct. I further swear (or affirm) that I am a member of the …… political party. I further swear (or affirm) that the present residence address listed herein on my application is my sole legal place of residence and that I claim no other place as my legal residence.’ AnyAn applicant convicted of fraudulently applying for registration is guilty of perjury and is subject to the penalty for that offense.

(3) Administration of oaths. Any A member of the registration board, deputy registrar, or any a registration clerk must be qualified to administer oaths in connection with the application.

(4) Decisions on applications. Any A member of the registration board, deputy registrar, or registration clerk may pass on the qualifications of the prospective voter. In case of a question of an applicant being refused registration, at least one member of the board shall pass on the qualifications of the voter. A concise statement of the reasons for the refusal must be written on the application.”

C. Section 7-9-20 of the 1976 Code, as last amended by Act 245 of 2010, is further amended to read:

“Section 7-9-20. (A) The qualifications for membership in a certified party and for voting at a party primary election include the following:

(1) the applicant for membership, or voter, must be at least eighteen years of age or become so before the succeeding general election, and;
(2) must be a registered elector, and a citizen of the United States, and of this State.; and
(3) has registered as a member of the certified party.

(B) A person may not belong to a party club or vote in a primary unless he is a registered elector and a member of that party. The state convention of anya political party, organization, or association in this State may add by party rules to the qualifications for membership in the party, organization, or association and for voting at the primary elections if the qualifications do not conflict with the provisions of this section or with the Constitution and laws of this State or of the United States.

(C) The entity charged by law with conducting a primary shall allow an elector to change his political party affiliation by executing an affidavit not later than thirty days before the primary. During that time, an elector may execute an affidavit declaring that he desires not to be affiliated with a political party. The affiliation with a political party or as a nonpartisan is valid until changed by the qualified elector pursuant to the provisions of this section.
(D) When a qualified elector presents himself at a polling place to vote in a primary election, the entity charged by law with conducting the election or its representative shall require the qualified elector to sign an affidavit affirming that he is a member of the party conducting the primary. If the qualified elector does not sign this affidavit, he is declared to be nonpartisan and he may not vote in a partisan primary election.”

D. This SECTION applies to all primaries conducted after June 2014. /
Renumber sections to conform.
Amend title to conform.

September 22, 2014   Posted in: Uncategorized  No Comments

Rep Eddie Tallon … he’s okay with Dems voting in our Republican primaries

On the heels of the Spartanburg Republican Party voting on this issue just a few days ago, Lynn Isler is wondering about something … From the Spartanburg Tea Party FB page …

Boy, oh boy, do I need someone to explain something to me!? Yesterday, at the monthly Methodist Men’s Prayer Breakfast in Cross Anchor, State Rep. Eddie Tallon was the speaker. According to someone in attendance, he spoke quite a long time and one of the topics he covered was the bill that has now been introduced that would require registration by party here in SC. Mr. Tallon said he does not support it because apparently, according to him, people down in the low country, who are Democrats, don’t know that they are voting for Republicans in their Primaries down there. They just know they grew up with candidate X and they like him, so they go on to the polls in June and cast a ballot for him without EVER realizing they are voting Republican.

Can someone please tell me how that happens? Here in the Upstate, when we vote in Primaries, we have to declare, up front, which ballot we want–Democrat or Republican. Then, we have to sign a list for that party–a red one for Republican, a blue list for Democrats. Do they have different rules for the Primaries down in the low country? Do they only hire poll workers with telepathic powers who know, without you having to tell them, which party’s Primary you wish to vote? How is it that these poor Democrats down in the low country end up voting in the Republican Primary without even realizing it?

Someone in attendance at this Prayer Breakfast objected to Mr. Tallon’s assertions and said that the trouble with open Primaries is that liberal Republicans game them and recruit Democrats to cross over and vote for the liberal as the Republican candidate. This person mentioned the Mississippi Primary, specifically, as an example of the dirty dealings that go on. To this, Mr. Tallon replied, “Yes, but this is SC, not Mississippi, and we don’t do anything like that here.”

September 21, 2014  Tags:   Posted in: Uncategorized  5 Comments

Flag Rally in Woodruff

Thanks and appreciation to Jean and Tom who represented the Spartanburg Tea Party at today’s Flag Rally in Woodruff, hosted by WORD Radio! I drove over to give them our flag and banner, and stayed just long enough to greet the BEST Representative in SC, Bill Chumley, and hear Bill’s grandson sing the National Anthem. Check out this shot from WSPA website story:

CLICK HERE for the video news story.

September 19, 2014   Posted in: Uncategorized  No Comments

Spartanburg County Republican Party supports Registration by Party Legislation


For Immediate Release – 09/19//2014
Contact: Nic Lane
Chairman, Spartanburg County Republican Party

Spartanburg County Republican Party supports Registration by Party Legislation

Spartanburg, SC – The South Carolina Republican Party (SCGOP) is made up of citizens who share values of limited government, balanced budgets, lower taxes and free enterprise, and wish to choose candidates who reflect those values. As the majority party in the state of South Carolina, the SCGOP is vulnerable to those who wish to assume affiliation with our party to run for office, but do not support our principles. The current South Carolina election laws permit any citizen to vote in the primary election of any political party.

The SCGOP supports efforts to promote the integrity of the election process. The SCGOP believes political parties have the right to choose their own nominees. The SCGOP supports allowing voters to designate a political party on their voter registration application, as well as primaries that are open only to registered voters of that political party.

Therefore, the Spartanburg County Republican Party calls on Representatives Rita Allison, Doug Brannon, Bill Chumley, Derham Cole, Mike Forrester, Eddie Tallon and Donna Wood, Senators Lee Bright, Tom Corbin, Shane Martin, and Harvey Peeler to pre-file legislation in the 121st General Assembly, beginning January 2014 and ending June 2015, that provides for the registration of voters by the political party of their choice; and for those voters to participate only in the primary elections of the party for which they are registered. Additionally, we call on Governor Nikki Haley to sign the aforementioned party registration and closed primary legislation into law by June 2015

For more information, please visit

Approved by Spartanburg County Executive Committee 9/18/2014

September 19, 2014   Posted in: Uncategorized  No Comments

One thing for Jay Lucas

Jay Lucas seems to hold a lot of votes for SC Speaker.

Two elected officials who I respect and trust have told me “He’s the guy. He’s the real deal.”

So… let’s do a thing here. Using your best common sense and appreciation for actually asking for something doable … what ONE THING in ONE SENTENCE would you like to ask Jay Lucas to implement if he were elected SC Speaker. Keep it brief, just make your point without soliloquy.

Here’s mine.

Jay Lucas, no more monies from House coffers in any fashion to the re-election campaigns of incumbents, let the people decide their primary candidate without financial interference.

Okay, what do you have? Reply in comments, I’m going to capture these One Sentence requests/advice.

September 19, 2014   Posted in: Uncategorized  10 Comments

We didn’t have to pay $71Million but we do have to pay $8,818.08

Yes. For that ridiculous attempt to reach into our pockets to build a football stadium and repair peeling paint chips, which we repelled strongly, we are still going to have to pay. Below is the invoice for what it costs School District 5 – We The Taxpayers – for their decision to hold this vote on a tax increase on the obscure date of September 9 instead of a regularly scheduled election date, either primary or general.

had enough yet?

September 18, 2014   Posted in: Uncategorized  2 Comments

After Harrell: The Greatest Corruption of All

Must read by House Representative Elect Jonathon Hill of Anderson County.

CLICK HERE to go to Jonathon’s website and get on his email list. Heck, this article may even warrant a donation!

Read here but really DO go to the link. Jonathon has links in his article with tons of backup info that I didn’t translate here.

YOUR MISSION: Every House Rep will be voting on the new Speaker. Have a conversation with your Rep about your perspective of the previous office holder, your concerns about the structure of our SC government, and your vision for what good governance is in SC, beginning at the position of Speaker.


A Challenge for the Next Speaker of the House

Sometimes, I’m a pretty embarrassed South Carolinian. Though we could be described, at least here in the Upstate, as “the buckle on the Bible Belt,” we have a way of frequently making unpleasant political headlines.

It started with a former Governor, now Congressman, who said he “hiked the Appalachian trail” when he was actually visiting his “soul mate” who was not his wife (a saga that is still playing out like a soap opera), to a Lieutenant Governor forced to resign in disgrace after multiple campaign finance violations (in the private sector, this is known as “embezzlement”), to 8 Sheriffs in the last 4 years indicted or investigated for a variety of fraudulent behavior, including racketeering and bribe-taking, finally climaxing in the indictment of Speaker of the House Bobby Harrell just days ago for violations that dwarf those of former Lieutenant Governor Ken Ard.

But what you won’t hear in the media is the greatest corruption of all: our very system of government is compromised.

Oh, we make a show of the three-branch balance of power that our founders bequeathed to us. Yet, as Lawrence Lessig put it, “We inherited an extraordinary estate. On our watch, we have let it fall to ruin.”

Republic, Lost

The truth is that South Carolina more closely resembles an oligarchy than a republic.

As far back as the Civil War, the Palmetto State’s ruling class loathed the idea of a black governor, so they divested the governorship of most executive functions. Who were the recipients of this power? They were, of course–the legislators.

“Are you suggesting that the legislature does the work of two branches of government?” you ask. Of course not! That would be hard work. Instead, the legislature appoints a confusing and sometimes redundant array of hybrid, unelected board and commissions. Some of these are entities unto themselves; others perform executive oversight of entire state agencies, such as the Department of Transportation.

And one of these picks our judges.

The Judicial Merit Selection Commission

You’d think the Governor would appoint our judges. She technically does, but here’s the catch: she only gets to nominate a judge from the pool of “approved” candidates who have the blessing of the Judicial Merit Selection Commission, effectively neutering her ability to exercise her best judgement if it diverges from the wishes of the Ruling Legislature. Her nomination isn’t final, either: a judge isn’t appointed until the General Assembly (a combined committee of all state Representatives and Senators, each with one vote) elect the said judge.

By contrast, the President of the United States and many other state Governors unilaterally appoint judges, who must then be confirmed by the respective Senate bodies. South Carolina is the only one out of fifty states with such an odd system.

As Rep. Kenny Bingham, a candidate running for Speaker of the House, put it to me: “We can’t give the Governor that much power.”

Thus is the mentality of many of our lawmakers. It’s their power, and no one else should have it. No matter that it’s a bastardization of the Republic that our founders gave us so many years ago.

Tracing the ties of power

Five of the ten members of this board are directly appointed by the Speaker of the House. The other five? Appointed by the Senate.

Now, imagine a scenario where the Chief Justice of the SC Supreme Court is up for re-election, and the Speaker of the House appoints House members to the Judicial Merit Selection Committee who are beholden to himself for their coveted House committee assignments, and also appoints his own brother. Let us further imagine that the Speaker is indicted for charges which could easily be appealed to the SC Supreme Court.

Do you think said Speaker will get a fair trial? Maybe a little too fair, if you get my drift?

Perhaps all 5 of Harrell’s appointees are good people. Corrupt systems often employ generally decent people. As Lessig writes in his book, “Republic, Lost:”

“[C]orruption does indeed wreck our democracy. Not a corruption caused by a gaggle of evil souls. On the contrary, a corruption practiced by decent people…people working extremely hard to do what they believe is right, yet…extraordinary bad gets done. This corruption has two elements…the first element is bad governance, which means simply that our government doesn’t track the expressed will of the people…on this account, [democracy] seems to a show or ruse; power rests elsewhere. The second element is lost trust: when democracy seems a charade, we lose faith in its process.”

Lost trust. Funny choice of words. (Look up “Operation Lost Trust” if you don’t know what I’m talking about.)

Oh, and did I mention that many South Carolina lawmakers are also attorneys, who, in their own law practices, will stand before the very judges they elect? Is it not enough that the lawmakers write the law? Must they also choose the judges?

Can we trust such a system?

After Harrell

“There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root.” Henry David Thoreau

Literally moments after Speaker Harrell’s indictment was announced, Representatives of ambition began scrambling to line up votes for themselves. Amidst the melee, a call to change House procedures went out. Rep. Tommy Stringer wrote:

“At a minimum, the new Speaker should lead the reformation of House Rules to limit the number of terms a member can serve as Speaker, to limit the number of terms a member may serve as a committee chairman, and to expand the number of standing committees so that the State may benefit from the talents of the broadest number of Representatives as possible. I will not vote for any member running for Speaker who does not, at a minimum, strongly support and act to achieve these reforms.”

A few days later, Interim Speaker (and Speaker candidate) Rep. Jay Lucas appointed a “Special House Rules & Procedures Review Ad Hoc Committee” presumably to draft and propose potential rule changes.

This sudden move to reform House procedure was described by Rep. Nathan Ballentine as “a signal of a new day in the House…a breath of fresh air.”

I, for one, agree there is a need for things like term limits on the Speaker. However, I cannot help but be skeptical, and wonder if this could prove a diversion from a much greater problem: judicial dependence.

To the current Speaker candidates, Reps. Jay Lucas, Kenny Bingham, and Jim Merrill, hear me:

If you wish to rise above the previous speaker, to restore faith and trust in the SC House, and do more than whitewash a corrupt system, you MUST amend the SC Constitution to achieve judicial independence, which means, at a minimum, completely abolishing the Judicial Merit Selection Committee, divesting yourself of the inordinate power which you should never have had over this process and allowing the Governor the full power to appoint Judges with the advice and consent of the Senate, as our founding fathers (who were all much smarter than any of us) intended.

Only then will we begin to strike the root of the greatest corruption of all.

September 18, 2014   Posted in: Uncategorized  2 Comments

VIDEO! Spartanburg County Council meeting September

thanks to Roger Nutt!

Cleveland Park Update, Term Limit Repeal for Boards and Commissions, History Lesson…..and The Pledge of Allegiance. Bring on the Apple Pie!

September 18, 2014   Posted in: Uncategorized  No Comments

Mike Lee to Take Over Conservative Senate Group

This is good news!

Melissa Quinn reporting at

In what is being billed as a reason for conservatives to be encouraged, Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, has been tapped to head the Senate Steering Committee, a conference of Republican lawmakers working to advance a conservative agenda.

Lee will take the helm from Sen. Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania, chairman for the past two years.

In a prepared statement, Lee said:

The Senate Steering Committee will continue to develop and promote conservative solutions and facilitate vigorous discussion and debate on the issues that matter most to the country. I look forward to leading this effort and very much appreciate the support of my colleagues.

The Utah Republican will take over in January with the start of the 114th Congress.

“Mike Lee is a knowledgeable and principled movement conservative, and he has done a terrific job as vice chairman of the Steering Committee this Congress,” Toomey said. “I’m pleased to hand the gavel to him.”

Lee and Toomey both were elected to the Senate in 2010, when a wave of tea party conservatives won seats in both the House and the Senate. Since then, Republicans have billed the two as champions of the conservative movement.

“Conservatives all over America will cheer the selection of Mike Lee to lead the Senate Steering Committee,” said Heritage Foundation President Jim DeMint, a former senator from South Carolina who also chaired the Steering Committee.

DeMint added:

Mike is one of the most dedicated, sincere and passionate public servants I’ve ever had the honor of working with. He’s leading the fight for conservative reform within Congress and heading the steering committee will give him a platform to ensure conservative ideas are part of the national conversation.

September 18, 2014   Posted in: Uncategorized  No Comments