Kevin Bryant

We are still on H. 3427. A cloture vote failed, so Sen. Luke Rankin maintains the floor with his educational session (filibuster). There has been an interesting discussion on this topic, so join in! H. 3427, is a bill that states South Carolina will no longer recognize common law marriages. This debate has raised several questions from all political directions.
            
The Libertarian will ask why does a couple need to seek permission from government to get married? Why does a couple need a permit from big bro for marriage?
           
A flaming liberal will whine, why can’t we allow those that love each other to be married? One man & one woman, man & man, woman & woman, 2 men & 4 women, a house cat & a woman & her sister, 3 men and a cow…I don’t have the room on this site to give all of their perverted examples.
                       
A fiscal conservative is concerned with the burden common law marriage puts on our Probate and Family courts. For Example:  A couple cohabitates for 10 years and one partner dies. The part of the family with the most to gain claims them married. The side with the most to lose declares they were never married. Our probate courts are bogged down with these kinds of common law cases.
              
A social conservative will argue this point: Out of respect for the Creator’s most sacred institution, H. 3427 strengthens marriage, society’s foundational establishment. God even uses marriage to define the relationship with Jesus Christ and His church. Government must honor marriage as the union between one man and one woman.
             
Because of my fiscal & social conservative leanings, I plan to support H. 3427, but my Libertarian streak does agree with the points made by those opposed to it. Your thoughts? 

The list of holders of Concealed Weapon Permits is public knowledge. The state keeps a database of these CWP holders and is required to give this information out when a FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) request is given.
             
H. 3528 is a bill that will make the database of permit holders private.
                
Last week, The State Newspaper printed a list of Legislators that may carry a concealed weapon. Personally, I don’t mind my name being published, but the privacy should be protected of our citizens permitted to carry a handgun. H. 3528 passed the Senate with amendments last week.  Hopefully, the bill will get to the Governor’s desk for his pen.
                    
Legislators who can pack heat
                        
S.C. lawmakers who either have concealed weapons permits or can carry concealed weapons because they’re retired law-enforcement officers. This information was obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request.
          
House: Paul Agnew, D-Abbeville; Jimmy Bales, D-Richland; Bruce Bannister, R-Greenville; Robert Brown, D-Charleston; Alan Clemmons, R-Horry; Bill Clyburn, D-Aiken; Ralph Davenport Jr., R-Spartanburg; Jeff Duncan, R-Laurens; Marion Frye, R-Lexington; Laurie Funderburk, D-Kershaw; Mike Gambrell, R-Anderson; Chip Limehouse III, R-Charleston; Lanny Littlejohn, R-Spartanburg; Dwight Loftis, R-Greenville; Joseph Mahaffey, R-Spartanburg; James Merrill, R-Berkeley; Dennis Moss, D-Cherokee (retired S.C. Highway Patrol); Phil Owens, R-Pickens;  Michael Pitts, R-Laurens (retired law-enforcement officer); Ted Pitts, R-Lexington; Rex Rice, R-Pickens; Bill Sandifer, R-Oconee; Wallace Scarborough, R-Charleston; Bakari Sellers, D-Bamberg; Phillip Shoopman, R-Greenville; Gary Simrill, R-York; Garry Smith, R-Greenville;  Jim Stewart, R-Aiken; Mac Toole, R-Lexington; David Umphlett, R-Berkeley
                   
Senate: Kevin Bryant, R-Anderson; Chip Campsen, R-Charleston; Catherine Ceips, R-Beaufort; John Courson, R-Richland; Ronnie Cromer, R-Newberry; Jake Knotts, R-Lexington (retired law-enforcement officer); Glenn Reese, D-Spartanburg

Ya’ll may know my problems with Big Brother’s databases from previous posts.

To: Media
Re: Bryant announces re-election campaign & free reception

SC Senator Kevin Bryant (R-Anderson) announced today his intentions to seek re-election for second term. Sen. Bryant also offers an open invitation to a reception, free of charge. The re-election kick-off will be at the Corner Bagel Shop in Anderson at 6pm on Monday, March 17th . Those wishing to attend may RSVP at http://www.kevinbryant.com/kbarchive/

Bryant plans to continue his march toward reform. “We’ve seen some progress in Columbia over the last four years, but we’ve also seen a lot of resistance to change. The good-ole-boy system is a monster, and we’ve been rattling its cage.”

Bryant also made comments on some achievements. “I have been proud to contribute to victory on a number of issues such as defining marriage in our Constitution, getting tough with child predators, combating wasteful spending and returning more money to you-the folks who earned it in the first place.”

A high resolution portrait of Sen. Bryant is available at:

http://www.kevinbryant.info/media.htm

 

104-A North Avenue      *      Anderson, SC 29625      *      c.864.202.8394      *      kevin@kevinbryant.com

Paid for by Bryant for Senate

March 10, 2008
                                                 
Spartanburg, S.C. – BMW today announced it will invest an additional $750 million in its Upstate South Carolina factory to add 1.5 million square feet and 500 new jobs on site to produce three models and to increase production capacity to 240,000 units by 2012.
                   
The investment is the largest ever announced for the Spartanburg County factory, increasing investments of the BMW Group in its South Carolina operations to $4.2 billion.
                        
The three-year construction project includes a new 1.2 million square foot Assembly facility north of the existing factory to accommodate the next generation BMW X3 Sports Activity Vehicle.  In addition, the Paint Shop will expand by about 80 percent or 300,000 square feet. The existing Body Shops will be renovated.
                         
The additional investment will prepare the factory to increase production from 160,000 units to 240,000 units.  The expansion of the Spartanburg plant also means a bigger purchase and export volume in and from the NAFTA region, which will contribute considerably to the company’s natural hedging position.
                      
After the expansion, the Spartanburg plant will manufacture the BMW X3, X5 Sports Activity Vehicle and X6 Sports Activity Coupe and their respective variants for world markets.  “Centralizing our know-how for BMW X models in Spartanburg will enable us to work more efficiently, thus supporting our long-range corporate strategy. In addition, it was a logical step for the BMW Group as a global player to increase production capacity in its largest market,” said BMW Board Member Frank-Peter Arndt.
                                
A highlight will be the production of a diesel X5 Sports Activity Vehicle for the United States market starting later this year.
                  
“The boost in the production capacity at BMW Manufacturing will positively impact the logistics, supplier and distribution networks that support the manufacturing processes,” said Josef Kerscher, President of BMW Manufacturing.   While the supplier network may grow, existing supplier companies will ramp up operations to provide automotive parts for the higher production levels, doubling parts container traffic and significantly increasing exports through the Port of Charleston.
                              
When BMW Group announced in 1992 that it would build its first full manufacturing facility outside of Germany in South Carolina, the company pledged to invest $600 million, to employ 2,000 associates by the year 2000, and attract at least nine suppliers to the state.
                         
By the year 2000, BMW had grown to more than 3,000 BMW associates and by 2004 that number grew to more than 4,600 associates.  Within that same timeframe, in order to provide greater flexibility, BMW began to employ contract workers to primarily provide specialty and administrative services.  As BMW entered 2008, the number of on-site workforce, including BMW associates and contract workers grew to more than 5,400 with a total payroll of more than $450 million annually.  In addition, BMW has a contingency workforce of about 900 workers with an average annual payroll of more than $50 million.
                     
Today BMW has invested $3.5 billion in its South Carolina operations, more than 5,400 people work on the site. Fifty-two suppliers are located in the Palmetto State, and 40 of those 52 suppliers have chosen to place new North American operations in the state to partner with BMW.  And BMW’s North American supplier network has grown from 22 in 1992 to 194 companies today.
                     
To meet growing customer demand, vehicle production at BMW Manufacturing has grown from 429 units in 1994, which was the first year of production to 157,530 units in 2007.  In the same period the sales volume in the United States increased from 65,000 to 335,000 units in 2007.
                     
BMW Manufacturing Co. is a subsidiary of BMW AG in Munich, Germany.
               
Its website address is http://www.bmwusfactory.com/.In addition to the South Carolina manufacturing facility, BMW North American subsidiaries include sales, marketing and financial services operations in the United States, Canada and throughout Latin America; an information technology consulting and systems integration firm in South Carolina; and a design firm and technology office in California.

By Hilary White

LOS ANGELES, March 5, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Thousands of homeschoolers in California are left in legal limbo by an appeals court ruling that homeschooling is not a legal option in the state and that a family who has homeschooled all their children for years must enrol their two youngest in state or private schools. Justice H. Walter Croskey in a written opinion said, “California courts have held that under provisions in the Education Code, parents do not have a constitutional right to homeschool their children.”

The sweeping February 29th ruling says that California law requires “persons between the ages of six and eighteen” to be in “public full-time day school,” or a “private full-time day school” or “instructed by a tutor who holds a valid state teaching credential for the grade being taught”.

The two youngest of Phillip and Mary Long’s eight children must be enrolled in a state approved school. Phillip Long told WorldNetDaily, “We just don’t want them teaching our children. They teach things that are totally contrary to what we believe. They put questions in our children’s minds we don’t feel they’re ready for.”

Mr. Long cited the state curriculum’s inclusion of sex education, including its promotion of homosexuality as a normal lifestyle. “When they are much more mature, they can deal with these issues, alternative lifestyles, and such, or whether they came from primordial slop. At the present time it’s my job to teach them the correct way of thinking,” he said.

The Los Angeles-area family was targeted by Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services after one of the children reported “physical and emotional mistreatment by the children’s father,” according to documents submitted to the court. 

The 2nd Appellate Court in Los Angeles agreed with the trial court decision that had found, “keeping the children at home deprived them of situations where they could interact with people outside the family”.

“There are people who could provide help if something is amiss in the children’s lives, and they could develop emotionally in a broader world than the parents’ ‘cloistered’ setting,” the ruling said.

Michael Smith, president of the Home School Legal Defense Association (HSLDA), said in a March 3 statement that the organization “strongly disputes this interpretation of California law” and is studying the decision.

The group called the ruling “a very bad decision” saying, “the opinion holds that homeschooling is not a legal option in California.”

“If the opinion is followed, then California will have the most regressive law in the nation and homeschooling will be effectively banned, because the only legal way to homeschool will be for the parent to hold a teaching certificate. Parents should not have to attend a four-year college education program just to teach their own children.”

Smith added, “California is now on the path to being the only state to deny the vast majority of homeschooling parents their fundamental right to teach their own children at home.”

Read related LifeSiteNews.com coverage: