As much as we respect his intellect (usually) and support the vast majority of votes he’s cast in the South Carolina Senate, there’s a reason that State Senator Larry Grooms is still a fringe (and some say “Stepford”) candidate in the 2010 GOP gubernatorial race.

And no, we’re not just talking about the massive bank loan he had to take out in order to keep his sagging campaign afloat.

We’re actually talking about videos like this one, which would have you believe that ALL Americans must rally behind Grooms (and give him their hard-earned money) or doom and gloom will surely befall our great land …

Ummm … okay.

Somebody obviously needs to call the Goose Creek High School special ed AV club, people  … they’re going to want their announcer and video editor back.

Yikes.

Anyway, while this “money bomb” video (such as it is) isn’t directly affiliated with the Grooms campaign, it’s obviously reinforcing one of his core branding efforts – namely the he (and he alone) is the “Tea Party” candidate in the 2010 race.

Hmmm … we wonder if Grooms has shared this bit of his voting history with his fellow Tea Partiers?

Because they tend to be an “all or nothing” sort of crowd.

Again, though, we think Grooms is a great guy.  In fact, we spoke with him the other day on an incredibly complicated port-related issue and his immediate grasp of its fundamentals was impressive.  That’s a marked contrast to U.S. Rep. Gresham Barrett, who babbles incessantly about the state’s port system but clearly doesn’t have a clue what the hell he’s talking about.  Seriously, Barrett might as well be an inbred Yorkie yapping on command at the kennel club.

Assuming Grooms campaign is legitimate, though, we’d really like to see him start acting like it.

Anybody can yell. Where’s the substance, Larry?

Until then, we’re not ready to dismiss the whole “Stepford” argument …

By Jeff Duncan

The act of terrorism at Fort Hood reminds us all that regardless of what the Obama/Pelosi Team or the elite media call it we are at war with Islamic fascism. Americans must rise up and remind our elected officials, Republican and Democrat, that we will not sit idly by while they bow at the altar of political correctness. Americans must, because President Obama and Nancy Pelosi will not, demand that outrages such as the massacre at Fort Hood be labeled for what they are and treated for what they are—acts of terrorism in the war that radical Islam is waging on the United States.

The emerging facts of the Fort Hood case indicate that Major Hasan is a jihadist bent on killing Americans, particularly American service personnel, in the name of his religion. Reports have indicated that Hasan told colleagues at Walter Reed Hospital that non-Muslims are infidels condemned to hell who should be set on fire. We know Hesan communicated many times with radical cleric Anwar al-Awlaki who is tied to Al-Qaeda, and repeatedly exclaimed “Allahu Akbar” as he carried out his brutal attacks.

The facts are clear. President Obama and Speaker Pelosi, however, remain loathe to identify evil.  Instead, President Obama stated that, “We don’t know all the answers yet. And I would caution against jumping to conclusions until we have all the facts.” This denial of domestic terrorism stands in stark contrast to President Obama’s denunciation of an American police officer when he said, “not having been there and not seeing all the facts…the police acted stupidly.”

The mainstream media has denied the obvious to maintain their anti-war, blame-America-first agenda as well.

The initial reports of the terrorist act on NBC, CBS and in the LA Times all omitted the fact that Hasan is a Muslim.

• Bob Schieffer of CBS said that, “Islam doesn’t have a majority – or the Christian religion has its full, you know, full helping of nuts too.”
• CNN anchor Betty Nguyen asked, “Are the Ft. Hood shootings the action of someone who might have suffered from PTSD?”
• Pete Williams said on NBC that, “everything about his background is rock solid, and nothing extraordinary stands out about his background.”
• Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano vowed to use her agency to “prevent everybody being painted with a broad brush.”

These people and others like them who willfully ignore the obvious terrorist motive of Major Hasan, solidify in the minds of the American people that they have become either too gutless, too liberal, too arrogant, or all of the above, to stand up for Americans against all enemies foreign and domestic.

These, of course, are the same people who have given us TARP, stimulus, a budget resolution with a trillion dollar deficit, Cash for Clunkers, and a health care bill that will wreck whatever functioning economy we have left. Americans, if they did not know better, might think that our leaders are actually working against us.

However, Americans are beginning to let the status quo and its defenders know that they have had enough. The recent gubernatorial elections in Virginia and New Jersey were to differing degrees referenda on the Obama/Pelosi agenda.

Voters in VA and NJ rejected the tax and spend programs of the incumbents or their parties. The voters in NY-23, moreover, rejected the oligarchic arrogance of Republican leadership by driving from the race their hand-picked pro-abortion and Acorn-endorsed Republican in favor of an independent conservative who nearly won after only a three week campaign. The message: no more business as usual.

The electoral uprising coupled with the absolute implosion of the mainstream media audience shines a ray of hope on an otherwise bleak landscape. Americans will no longer be treated as children who need the instruction and discipline of their intellectual and moral superiors. President Obama, Speaker Pelosi, the Congress, and the media better wake up soon or they soon will have all of the facts that they need – next election day.

Rep. Jeff Duncan is Chairman of the South Carolina House Agriculture, Natural Resources, and Environmental Affairs Committee. He is a life-time member of the NRA, and holds an A+ rating from the South Carolina Club for Growth. He is currently running for United States Congress in South Carolina’s Third Congressional District. www.JeffDuncan.com

EDITOR’S NOTE: Rep. Duncan’s oped was originally published on RedState.com.

We already knew that South Carolina was among the fattest states in America, but how much is all of that extra weight costing us?

According to a new report by our friends at the Partnership to Fight Chronic Disease, within the next decade 48.1% of South Carolinians will be obese, which means our state will spend $5.3 billion annually – or $1,500 per person – fighting obesity-related ailments.

That’s some expensive blubber y’all.

Nationwide, obesity-related spending will soar to $344 billion, according to the report, with an obesity rate of 43%.

“At a time when Congress is looking for savings in health care, this data confirms what we already knew: obesity is where the money is,” Emory University economist Ken Thorpe says. “Because obesity is related to the onset of so many other illnesses, stopping the growth of obesity in the U.S. is vital not only to our health – but also to the solvency of our health care system.”

A report released earlier this year showed that South Carolina ranked fifth in the nation in obesity, but did not assign a cost to that figure.

If you’re ready to shed some of those lbs, S.C. First Lady Jenny Sanford’s “Healthy S.C. Challenge” has plenty of helpful tips.

WEB EXTRA

Cost of Obesity SC Press Release

UPDATE: Ironically, on the week these results are released, South Carolina makes national news (again) with the sad story of Daniel Webb, a 550-pound (some say 800-pound) Greenwood man who died in his recliner after five months of immobility. Click here to read the story, written by the AP’s Jeffrey Collins.

Just like that, the on-again, off-again debate about the Confederate flag is back “on.”

Democratic gubernatorial candidate Mullins McLeod has poured gasoline on the highly-flammable subject by including the flag’s removal from the State House grounds in his jobs plan, which was unveiled Thursday.

“It is time for us to send a clear and unambiguous signal to the rest of the country, and the entire world, that South Carolina is better than what people see on the news, and that we are ready to make progress,” McLeod said in a statement announcing his plan. “By agreeing to move past this old argument once and for all, we will be telling the world that South Carolina is ready to lead again.”

McLeod wants to take the flag off the State House grounds and place it in a museum.

In 2000 – after a long and bitter debate – a bipartisan, multiracial coalition of state lawmakers agreed to remove the flag from the State House dome and place it behind a Confederate soldiers’ monument on the State House grounds.  The flag was also removed from the S.C. House and State Senate chambers as a part of that compromise, which included the creation of a Martin Luther King, Jr. and Confederate Memorial holiday.

Still, that wasn’t enough for the NAACP (or the NCAA), both of which are continuing to boycott South Carolina over the flag.

Flag supporters, by contrast, were largely pleased with the compromise, and printed up bumper stickers and T-shirts that read “Off the Dome and In Your Face.”

McLeod’s foray into the flag debate is noteworthy because it will likely force the other candidates in the 2010 governor’s race to take a position on the issue. For example, we can’t wait to see what GOP frontrunner Henry McMaster – who is a member of a “whites only” country club and debutante society – has to say on the subject.

The first serious push to remove the flag began in the mid-1990’s under the administration of Republican Governor David M. Beasley, who later claimed that God came to him in a dream and urged him to take the flag off of the State House dome.

Funny, huh?

Beasley’s support for removing the flag cost him dearly, however, as a “Keep The Flag, Dump Beasley” movement quickly gained steam and helped contributed to his 1998 defeat.

The National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC) is running television ads targeting three veteran democratic lawmakers who voted in favor of President Barack Obama’s $1.2 trillion (some say $2.6 trillion) socialized medicine proposal – including S.C. Rep. John Spratt.

The other lawmakers targeted by the ads are Reps. Earl Pomeroy of North Dakota and Vic Snyder of Arkansas, according to a story published Wednesday by Congressional Quarterly.

From the CQ story:

Pomeroy, Snyder and Spratt all won re-election with relative ease in 2008 despite the fact that they each sit in districts that went for Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., in last year’s presidential contest. But as they look to spread the field ahead of what many expect to be a better environment for the GOP in 2010, the NRCC is putting pressure on several veteran Democrats.

It’s interesting that the NRCC has chosen three lawmakers to target – because that’s precisely the number of democrats who would have had to switch their votes in order to defeat the proposal, which passed the U.S. House earlier this month by a 220-215 tally.

The fourteen-term Congressman’s office confirmed to FITS Wednesday that he is “absolutely” seeking reelection – despite a popular revolt among independents in his district over his support of Obamacare and a controversial energy tax hike.

Meanwhile, sources in Washington tell FITS that Spratt was one of at least 60 democratic House members to request a pass on voting in favor of Obamacare, but that Speaker Nancy Pelosi rebuffed him.  Specifically, Pelosi is alleged to have threatened Spratt with the loss of his position as Chairman of the House Budget Committee if he failed to support the health care proposal.

Spratt is being challenged in 2010 by S.C. Senator Mick Mulvaney (R-York), who has already received the support of the SCGOP.

Here’s the ad …

S.C. gubernatorial candidate Mullins McLeod unveiled his big “jobs plan” Thursday.  Meanwhile, his campaign dodged rumors that he’s once again dating Brooke Gordon – the scorching hot former wife of NASCAR driver Jeff Gordon.

Sources tell FITS that McLeod was spotted Saturday night at a Charlotte, N.C. nightclub with Brooke, his ex-girlfriend, sitting at a VIP table.

“The two were quite close,” our source says. “I was under the impression they were dating.”

McLeod and Gordon were the only two people seated at the table, although several NASCAR executives reportedly dropped by to chat.

Gordon recently maxed out to McLeod’s gubernatorial campaign, incidentally, and the former Miss Sprint Cup is said to have “some interest” in becoming South Carolina’s next First Lady, to which we can only say, “va-va-voom,” people.

FITS founding editor Sic Willie – who was in the Charlotte area Saturday night – was originally thought to have been the source of this story, although it was later confirmed that he was in a redneck Karaoke bar a few miles south of the border on Saturday night.

They don’t let people like him in reputable establishements, people.

Anyway, we asked McLeod spokesman Lachlan McIntosh about the rumors regarding his candidate and Gordon and received a short, not-so-sweet reply.

“Yeah, so what,”  he said.

Allllrighty, then.

FITS first reported on the rumored relationship between McLeod and Gordon in this post (which includes a nice photo gallery of Ms. Gordon, in case you’re into that sort of thing).

Anyway, moving on …

McLeod’s jobs plan … riiiight.

Readers can click on the document below, but it does include one interesting component – a call to remove the Confederate battle flag from the grounds of the S.C. State House.

“The Confederate Flag debate continues to hold our state back,” McLeod says. “We are not going to compete in a 21st Century economy by prolonging 19th Century arguments.”

Non-symbolically speaking, McLeod’s plan promises “immediate” middle class tax relief, although it does not specify whether or not other taxes will be raised in conjunction with that promise.

WEB EXTRA

McLeod Jobs Plan (Press Release)

Keeping track of all the different left-of-center environmental advocacy groups currently pouring money into South Carolina on behalf of embattled U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham has become a full-time job lately …

It seems that every day, a new group with a radio or television ad is popping up praising Graham for his “strong leadership” or “bold vision” on climate change legislation.  Meanwhile, those of us who criticize Graham’s position are accused of being in the pocket of “Big Oil.”

Personally, we’re opposing Graham on this issue because we don’t want to pay as much as $4,000 a year in increased energy costs, which is what President Barack Obama’s own Treasury Department has said the “Cap & Tax” proposal could cost each American family.

We’re also not 100% sold on global warming, but even if we were – Obama’s proposal wouldn’t make the slightest dent in the global emissions problem.

So what’s the point?

Anyway, we’ve already exposed the main thrust of the left wing’s pro-Lindsey campaign (here, here and here), but last week we uncovered no fewer than three additional efforts to prop up the RINO Senator – all of them involving some element of misdirection.

“(We) are seeking your involvement and good name for (another) SC newspaper ad thanking Sen. Graham for his strong stance on climate & energy and seeking a bi-partisan arrangement for this critical national and global issue,” reads one of the many emails we were forwarded. “Environmental Defense Action Fund will pay for the ad and we will seek a South Carolina host.”

Wait … they will “seek a South Carolina host?” How Borg-like.

In another email obtained exclusively by FITS, S.C. Coastal Conservation League president Dana Beach implores several of South Carolina’s “business leaders” (a.k.a. these people here, here and here) to get on board with another ad.

“We are putting an ad together thanking Lindsay Graham for his leadership on climate change,” Beach’s email reads. “Duke Energy is paying for it and we are hoping to have the 70 most influential people in the state sign it.”

Beach’s email may have been referring to an ad that has already been published – although we don’t recall seeing the Duke Energy name on the required “paid for” tag.

A third radio ad praising Graham – ostensibly paid for by a group called the South Alliance for Clean Energy – raises additional questions.

This group adamantly opposes offshore drilling and nuclear power – i.e. the very two issues Graham is trying to use as leverage to forge a compromise on climate change legislation.

“Nuclear power is an extremely risky and expensive way to boil water to generate electricity” the South Alliance website claims, urging its members to “fight against new nuclear power plant proposals here in the Southeast.”

Same thing with respect to drilling.

“We can’t drill our way to lower prices or energy independence, but we can drill our way to a climate disaster,” the South Alliance website claims. “As we look for ways to address climate change, increasing our addiction to fossil fuels with more offshore drilling will only add to the problem.”

Just yesterday, Graham praised the use of nuclear power in France – which derives 80% of its electrical power from nuclear power plants.

“Surely we can be as bold as the French,” Graham told reporters in Washington, D.C., where he is being feted as a “climate change powerbroker in the U.S. Senate.”

Similarly, Katon Dawson – one of the GOP dinosaurs trotted out to defend Graham on the climate change kerfuffle – specifically referenced Graham’s efforts to insert an offshore drilling provision within the “Cap and Tax” bill.

“At the end of the day, what we are looking for is offshore drilling for natural gas and Lindsey got that in the bill,” Dawson told the Columbia (S.C.) Free Times.

Hmmmm … last time we checked, groups didn’t run ads in support of elected officials who stood against two of their central provisions.

The only question, then, is “who’s taking advantage of who?”

S.C. Gov. Mark Sanford committed “several” violations of state ethics law, according to the undisclosed findings of a three-month investigation into his administration conducted by the S.C. State Ethics Commission.

The Commissioners – all of whom were appointed by the governor (and several of whom have contributed to his campaign) – refused to release the preliminary ethics report outlining the nature and scope of Sanford’s offenses, however, even though the S.C. Supreme Court recently granted them the authority to do so at their discretion.

Having found “probable cause” that ethics laws were broken by the governor, the commissioners must now schedule a hearing on the alleged offenses, which are believed to focus on travel and campaign finance violations.

It will be up to Sanford whether or not to make that hearing public, although the governor has already broken a previous pledge to allow the commission to conduct its business in the open.

Indeed, details of today’s preliminary report were not released by the commission – which conducted its day-long meeting behind closed doors.  That means the public has no idea what compelled them to recommend that the governor be brought up on formal charges.

So much for transparency, right?

Sanford’s administration started coming under intense scrutiny earlier this year when the governor took a secretive trip to Argentina to see his Latin lover, Maria Belen Chapur.  After being caught lying about his whereabouts, Sanford later confessed to the affair.

Shortly thereafter, the governor refunded several thousand taxpayer dollars that went to fund a prior “economic development” mission to Argentina, a trip that now appears to have been set up solely for the purpose of facilitating a liaison between Sanford and Chapur.

Multiple additional travel and campaign finance violations have been alleged, some of which may have exposed the governor to a tax liability.

The governor’s office did not immediately return calls seeking comment regarding the commission’s findings.

Sanford and his attorneys have steadfastly insisted from the beginning of the scandal that the governor broke no laws, a claim that now seems dubious at best.

Developing …

In a stroke of good luck for S.C. Senator Mick Mulvaney, he’ll be going up against the “devil he knows” in next year’s Fifth District Congressional race.

Despite considerable speculation to the contrary, U.S. Rep. John Spratt will run for a fifteenth term in 2010, his office said Tuesday.

“Oh yeah,” Spratt spokesman Chuck Fant told FITS when asked whether or not Spratt was running for reelection.  “Absolutely.”

Spratt, 67, has come under fire for his controversial vote to pass a $1.2 trillion (some say $2.6 trillion) socialized medicine proposal – the top priority of President Barack Obama.  He has also been criticized for supporting Obama’s proposed energy tax hike, known as “Cap & Tax,” as well as numerous other fiscally reckless federal legislation, including both of the recent federal bailouts.

Although the Fifth District boasts a democratic majority, Spratt’s recent leftward bent had him on the ropes even before he cast the Obamacare vote, according to polling data shared with FITS.

There’s anecdotal evidence to support that contention, too, as Spratt’s constituents strenuously voiced their objections to Obamacare during a series of town hall meetings earlier this year (here and here) – public hearings at which the Congressman appeared dazed and confused.

Sources in Washington tell FITS that Spratt was one of at least 60 democratic House members to request a pass on voting in favor of Obamacare, but that Speaker Nancy Pelosi rebuffed him.

Specifically, Pelosi is alleged to have threatened Spratt with the loss of his position as Chairman of the House Budget Committee.

Sen. Mulvaney was not immediately available for comment regarding Spratt’s decision, although he has previously criticized Spratt’s “Pro-bamacare” vote.

Had Spratt decided against running, other democrats who were considered as possible options for this seat included former Gov. Jim Hodges and current State Superintendent of Education Jim Rex, who is currently running for governor.

Despite S.C. Gov. Mark Sanford’s efforts to quash its release, the public could get a look at the preliminary findings of a State Ethics Commission investigation into his administration on Wednesday.

At the very least, South Carolinians should know Wednesday whether the Commission is moving forward with charges against the governor or dismissing the case against him.

Sanford’s administration came under intense scrutiny earlier this year when the governor took a secretive trip to Argentina to see his Latin lover, Maria Belen Chapur.  After being caught lying about his whereabouts, Sanford later confessed to the affair.

Shortly thereafter, the governor refunded several thousand taxpayer dollars that went to fund a prior “economic development” mission to Argentina, a trip that now appears to have been set up solely for the purpose of facilitating a liaison between Sanford and Chapur.

Of course the Ethics Commission has been investigating a veritable host of offenses that became public knowledge following Sanford’s shocking confession.

S.C. Rep. Greg Delleney has already introduced an impeachment resolution against the governor, but House Speaker Bobby Harrell ruled the resolution out of order during a recent special session of the S.C. General Assembly.

Harrell – who initially resisted calls within his Caucus for the governor to resign – later leapfrogged his fellow Republicans and called on Sanford to step down.

Since then, however, he has resumed providing political protection for the governor.

“Unless the investigation contains new information about serious crimes or serious misconduct by the governor,” Harrell said Wednesday, “the information we have to date does not rise to a level to remove him from office.”

Commission members – all of whom are appointed by the governor (and several of whom have contributed to his campaign) – are meeting behind closed doors in Columbia Wednesday morning to review the findings of the Commission’s preliminary investigation.

Sources have provided FITS with vastly divergent accounts of what’s contained in the preliminary report, which earlier this month was the subject of a fierce legal battle before the S.C. Supreme Court.

Ultimately, the Court ruled that the Commission had the prerogative to release the report to state officials as it saw fit.

We’ll start to see how they handle that responsibility today …