For many South Carolinians – including a lot of die-hard Gamecock fans like me – the early morning hours of Jan. 10 won’t soon be forgotten.
No matter your thoughts on a very divisive 2016, we’d all be wise to listen to the words of Rev. Curtis Johnson.
The country has seen a visible spike in mass protests and riots over the past couple of years, sparking hateful rhetoric from many Americans.
We need to do it because children who don’t get a decent education drag down our whole state.
Once they get over their post-election pout (and even if they can’t, and don’t), the Democrats must choose a new chairman of the Democratic National Committee. The two top contenders, Rep. Keith Ellison of Minnesota and Secretary of Labor Tom Perez, represent that great distinction without a difference.
The constitutional conundrum South Carolina will face if Nikki Haley is confirmed as UN ambassador is evidence of at least one thing: Its legislators take a casual approach to the rule of law.
This special editorial “Is There a Santa Claus?” is reprinted from the Sept. 21, 1897, edition of The New York Sun. In the spirit of the Christmas season, we hope you enjoy this read and that you have a very Merry Christmas.
Over the last week or so, the same basic story has appeared in all the major newspapers around the state: economists have projected that we as a state (i.e. the legislature) will have an additional $446 million to spend over the next fiscal year.
Every year at Christmas, it’s common to see the bell ringers all over town standing at the red kettles of the Salvation Army. According to Major Randall Davis, there is a standard operating policy that applies to every community pertaining to donations and distribution.
Gov. Nikki Haley asked us all to pray for South Carolina, which has faced and continues to face significant challenges. Today, we all need to pray for Gov. Haley, as she prepares for a very different and very difficult challenge.
Ethics laws in many states frown on elected officials working for lobbyist principals – and for good reason. There’s something fishy about a lawmaker taking money from an organization that employs lobbyists for the purpose of convincing the lawmaker to vote for or against certain bills.