Posted by pickensc on 01/31/09
Last updated 02/01/09

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090201/ap_on_go_co/stimulus_gop_governors

"The most outspoken critic has been South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford, who has warned for months of a steep spike in inflation and a severely weakened dollar if Obama's plan passed. His state is on track to receive $2.1 billion of the stimulus money; Sanford has not yet said whether he would accept it.

It's incumbent on me as one of the nation's governors to speak out against what I believe is ultimately incredibly harmful to the economy, to taxpayers and to the worth of the U.S. dollar," Sanford said in an interview. "This plan is a huge mistake and is going to prolong and deepen this recession."

Sanford outlined his concerns in December when the then-president-elect met with governors in Philadelphia to discuss the stimulus proposal. Sanford said he had heard nothing from the White House since then.

Associates say Sanford, who recently was elected chairman of the Republican Governors Association, has been disappointed in how few of his GOP colleagues have joined him in speaking out against the size and scope of Obama's plan"

"But states are coping with severe budget shortfalls and mounting costs for Medicaid, the health insurance program for the poor. So governors, including most Republicans, are counting on the spending to help keep their states afloat."

Which is how the government keeps the states indentured to the federal govt...by way of making them abide by onerous federal regulations and laws....I don't know 100% about Governor Sanford to make a formal endorsement of him, but from what I know of him, I like it and I hope he thinks about 2012...

Posted 02/01/09 Sarabeth Rudd Johns Island, SC

I think he's great!

Posted 02/03/09 rainingsunshine okatie, SC

I really like him.

Posted by pickensc on 01/29/09
Last updated 01/29/09

Event: Charleston County GOP Executive Committe Meeting

Date: Monday, February 9th Time: 7-8:30

Place: North Charleston City Hall Council Chambers 4900 Lacross Road, North Charleston, SC 29406

Charleston GOP: http://www.charlestongop.org/

Lin Bennett (County Chairman) said that they were going to be talking about precinct reorganization.

Posted 01/29/09 Talbert Black Jr Lexington, SC

Way to go Charlie! This is the most important thing we can be doing to influence the GOP. This is really big and we cannot afford to miss this one y'all! I hope y'all have it posted on your Charleston County C4L page as a calendar event!

Posted 01/30/09 pickensc Charleston, SC

Good call. Forgot about that...

Posted by pickensc on 01/26/09

Here's the link, but I'm guessing you can already figure it out... :-/
/>http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?
congress=111&session=1&vote=00015

Posted 01/26/09 Sarabeth Rudd Johns Island, SC

Well I know for sure it wasn't DeMint... Hmmmm....I wonder...

Posted 01/26/09 Talbert Black Jr Lexington, SC

Boy, that was NO surprise!!!

Posted 01/29/09 Remember Jefferson Pelion, SC

Surprise surprise. Can someone remind me why he was re-elected?????

Posted by pickensc on 01/23/09
Last updated 01/23/09

Hey, everyone, I just wanted to give a quick (hopefully, anyways) blog entry on the "American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan" aka Stimulus Package Part II. Here's a link to the Pelosi's blog about it: http://speaker.house.gov/blog/?p=1646 I'm sure you've all heard about it and you know about how economically unsound it, and if you don't know why it's unsound, shoot me an email and I'll be more than glad to tell you why. Basically, I saw her on television the other night and she said that she was going to make sure to have a vote on it by the President's Day Holiday or, "they'll be no holiday" (her quote). President's Day is on Monday, February 16th, so that gives us about three weeks to get in contact with your rep. I call Henry Brown's office, and although I don't think much of him as an upholder of the constitution, hopefully, he'll vote it down each and every time it comes up for a vote (I believe he voted against the first bailout for the first vote but then voted for it once it got "pork-barreled up" and came back from the Senate). I'm optimistic because he opposed the release of the release of the 2nd 350 billion due to the fact that "We cannot continue to injecting government into the free market. It is time for our business and banks to begin to stand on their own two feet rather than borrowing and spending taxpayer funds without any clear plan to foot the bill." (his website). In essence, hopefully he'll be our "fair-weather friend" on this issue and vote against Obama Stimulus Part 2. His office said that he'll have a statement specifically for this issue within the next week or two, so I'll keep y'all up to speed. So please contact your congressperson and urge them to turn off the printing press and vote against this new bailout. thanks

PS- If you're reading this constitutiongirl, I know how you feel when it comes to political parties and, especially, the GOP, but once I get another free moment, I'll give you my 2 cents as to why I don't think it's still too early to abandon Dumbo...

Posted 01/23/09 Sarabeth Rudd Johns Island, SC

I look forward to reading your response :)

Posted by pickensc on 01/11/09
Last updated 01/11/09

Here's a link to the article that brought this about. In case it doesn't exist anymore, allow me to give you the gist of it from the Yahoo article:

After he was charged with hitting his girlfriend in the face, career criminal Michael Brillon sat in jail without bail for nearly three years, going through six public defenders before being tried for assault.

The delays paid off — for Brillon: A Vermont court threw out his conviction and freed him from prison last spring, saying his Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial had been violated.

Now, the U.S. Supreme Court is taking up the case this week, trying to decide if delays caused by public defenders can deprive a criminal defendant of that right. In particular: Whether governments can be blamed for such delays since they're the ones who assign and pay the lawyers for indigent defendants.

Now I'm not a constitutional law expert, but to have the situation evolve the way it did in this scenario, through mismanagment on the state's part and to have the state complain for not upholding it's part of our social contract is unacceptable. Don't get me wrong because I believe that this man should go to jail a long time for what he has done, but don't let what he has done cloud the real issue: the right to a speedy trial.Why punish the citizen when the state is unable to enforce its many and onerous laws? Pretty soon the states will ask for a bailout in order to fund its public defenders. This is, again, another example of the state allowing real criminals to go free because they are too busy wasting their times on issues that they have no reason to be involved with, namely the War on Drugs (I'm not here to give a philosophical view on the War on Drugs, but just learn why Prohibition was really repealed, and I believe that'll give you some insight on where on coming from). Perhaps, instead of complaining of more time to enforce its numerous and unnecessary laws, the state should take a long hard look at what laws are unnecessary (and many times unenforceable) and spend more time on convicting rapists, murders, and others who wish to only cause bodily harm to others.

With the Bush Administration already showing you it's true constitutional colors in the case of US citizen Jose Padilla and with Obama now, all of a sudden, saying that closing Gitmo is "a challenge", despite the fact that he said, I believe, he would close Gitmo during his first 100 days in office, there seems to be no check on government's ever growing encroachment on our civil liberties. I'm just glad I can look at our Constitution and country and be happy with what civil liberties we have left, such as my right to bear arms (oh, wait) or having the ability to send my future children to any school I want (oh, wait).  Well, it's not like they'll ever do something like, oh...I don't know, bring back slavery again, right?  Well, at least I've still got my health...oh, come on!

Posted 01/11/09 Haystacks Calhoun NEW YORK, NY

It doesn't seem right that he was held without bail for three years does it..

Posted 01/11/09 Remember Jefferson Pelion, SC

Personal rights?! What a selfish idea comrade! Three years is just absurd. Why do we have trials to begin with? Because charging is not the same as conviction; it is the duty of the state to prove their case first. Think of the people charged who truly are innocent that we let rot away in jail for years...

Posted 01/11/09 Talbert Black Jr Lexington, SC

Three years is not a speedy trial, by any stretch of the imagination!