subscribe or follow us:                    

Prison For your Political Views: UPDATE

2 comments

Posted by PunkJohnnyCash on Feb 10, 2010 in Libertarianism, Police State | 2 comments

UPDATE: It appears the facts of this story are in fact about 30 years late.  This bill may be in the process of being repealed.  The law is reality, only it has been an existing law since the 70′s, so this is nothing new or recently passed as assumed in the article.  The facts of the law are all still relevant and true.

Yes! You can be placed in prison for your political views in South Carolina.  The strength of the Police State continues to grow. The future looks grim.  Independent Institute pointed out an article on The Raw Story: No joke: South Carolina now requires ’subversives’ to register. South Carolina did it. They are demanding that Anarchists and others register with the state. Let’s see you oppose the state so the state says you should register with them. To do what? To exist? To think? Let’s see:

They are calling it the Subversive Activities Registration Act. It is found under Title 23 Law Enforcement and Public Safety Chapter 29. Apparently they feel that law enforcement is on par some how with public safety; this could not be further from the truth. Now your political views are seen as some sort of menace to public safety? It is our views and philosophy that will have a future impact on the existence of the State. Yes, the truth threatens their control and ability to take from us or force themselves upon us.  The Oppressor must maintain it’s power over the oppressed.  The state sees a growing threat.  Freedom can not be tolerated by the state.

The bill defines a Subversive Group as:

“Subversive organization” means every corporation, society, association, camp, group, bund, political party, assembly, body or organization, composed of two or more persons, which directly or indirectly advocates, advises, teaches or practices the duty, necessity or propriety of controlling, conducting, seizing or overthrowing the government of the United States, of this State or of any political subdivision thereof by force or violence or other unlawful means;[sic]

The goal to live in a stateless society that I hold may reject the idea of violence but “unlawful means” can become almost anything the state wishes it to be. It seems especially concerned with “foreign governments” and groups. What about complete opposition to government? Well we covered any opposition to the existing regime there.

The law goes on to exempt The backbone of the Patriarchy, by excluding certain Unions and Religious groups. So don’t worry too much if you support the Republicrats you have little to worry about. So your “Change” and “Tea Parties” are in the clear I am assuming.

According to section 23-29-50 Gives a time period:

within thirty days after coming into existence in this State. [sic]

It mentions educating as one function of a group. What if myself and another (the two needed) begin a website promoting anarchist and minarchist philosophies to educate the masses of the tyrant state? Would I then be mandated to register? What about Gonzo Times? I educate. It is really just myself here but I have had guest writers. All we do is education through the internet. The law makes a statement that it will not hinder freedom of speech, but would I be legally required to register through the state because Gonzo Times teaches people about the evil of the government and democracy?

so we get to Section 23-29-90

Any organization or person who violates any of the provisions of this chapter shall, upon conviction thereof, be punished by a fine of not more than twenty-five thousand dollars or imprisonment for not more than ten years, or by both fine and imprisonment.

So, in short if your views oppose working within this tyrant system you are essentially denied that by law or you shall face imprisonment.

You can read the law here.

We truly are human cattle and the governments see us as a threat to be controlled. They must have control over us or we just may obtain the freedom from a government we seek.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

UPDATE:

It seems this law is nothing new. I am being told it was passed some time during the Cold War and is a left over devastation of freedoms left over from McCarthyism. I am unable so far to find anything besides some comments and posts, but I will be looking to find out when this was passed. When it was passed is irrelevant. The fact that this legislation exists somewhere is dangerous.  Hopefully I will have more soon.

UPDATE:

It appears there is a bill in to repeal Chapter 29 Title 23 and it appears to be from 1976 See Here.  If and when this bill is repealed I will leave the article intact. This is simply because the bill did and does exist.Because someone passed this out of fear of Communism does not excuse the fact that this law existed. It does illustrate the danger of the state is nothing new.

NOVEL IDEA: New Ohio teachers’ 401(a) plan promises a 7.75% rate of return; Defined benefit plan would fund any asset shortfall.

Pensions & Investments June 11, 2001 | Kennedy, Mike; Jacobius, Arleen COLUMBUS, Ohio – When executives at the Ohio State Teachers’ Retirement System unveil their new 401(a) plan July 1, some participants will be offered a guaranteed 7.75% annual rate of return backed by the defined benefit plan.

This novel investment option, suggested by the system’s investment staff, will be available only to employees with less than five years of service and to new participants.

About 40% of eligible participants are expected to choose the Total Guaranteed Return Choice. Those who do will get a portfolio with an asset allocation parallel to that of the system’s $55 billion defined benefit plan. They will, however, have to leave their money in that option for five years to be guaranteed the 7.75% return, said Herbert Dyer, executive director. web site defined benefit plan

“It’s clearly intended this choice is to be a long-term investment,” said Robert Slater, deputy executive director.

If the system is unable to reach its goal, the defined benefit plan will fund the shortfall, said Mr. Dyer.

If the STRS Total Guaranteed Return Choice exceeds its projected 8% return (7.75% plus 25 basis points for administrative costs), the excess assets will be placed in the defined benefit plan, Mr. Slater said.

Attorneys inside and outside the system have examined the plan and approved of the idea, he said.

No formal studies Executives at the Columbus-based fund chose the 7.75% guarantee after the investment staff predicted the system will earn an 8% compound annual return over the next five years. No formal actuarial studies were conducted, he said.

Participants who elect this option in subsequent years may get a guaranteed rate of return higher or lower than 7.75%.

Asset allocation will parallel that of the defined benefit plan. Currently, the allocation is 46% domestic equities; 20% global fixed income; 20% international equities; 12% real estate; 1% alternatives; and 1% cash.

And, like the defined benefit plan, the option with the guaranteed return will be internally managed.

If a participant withdraws from the option before the five years, a 10% penalty will be charged. At the end of the five-year period, participants will be able to decide if they want to stick with the allocation in effect at that time or if they want to create their own allocation from the options available.

For participants choosing the guaranteed-return option, only their contribution for the first year will be allocated automatically to that option. In subsequent years, their contributions can be allocated to the guaranteed option or to any of the other eight options the new 401(a) plan offers. go to website defined benefit plan

Those options, all managed in-house, are: money market; indexed bonds; stock funds indexed to the Standard & Poor’s 500 and the S&P 400; a large-capitalization growth fund; a large-cap value equity fund; a real estate investment trust fund; and an international equity fund indexed to the Morgan Stanley Capital International Europe Australasia Far East index.

There are risks Consultants say no other 401(a) plan offers such a guarantee.

“I have not seen anything exactly like this,” said Steve McElhaney, consultant with William M. Mercer Co Inc., New York.

“There’s some risk to the system in that if the actual return is less than the guaranteed amount, the system would have to make it up from somewhere else,” he said. “The fact that the money would stay for five years mitigates that risk because volatility risk is more over the short term than over the long term.” Participants, meanwhile, won’t have to make investment decisions. “From a participant’s view, it sounds pretty attractive,” Mr. McElhaney said.

Some public funds offer variations of Ohio’s program.

Oregon, for example, has a money purchase arrangement in which all of the assets get the rate of return that the pension plan gets without a minimum guarantee, Mr. McElhaney said. It’s not a separate defined contribution plan but a subaccount within the defined benefit plan.

Washington state’s two 401(a) plans, with $1.7 billion in assets, have a fund mirroring the defined benefit plan that has received mixed reviews. One problem: The mirrored portfolio (called the Total Allocation Portfolio) is valued monthly, whereas the remainder of the options offer daily valuation. It is managed in-house by the Washington State Investment Board, Olympia. Assets in the portfolio will be commingled in a pool with assets of the $42 billion Washington defined benefit retirement plans. A new 401(a) for all state employees to be launched in 2002 also will contain the TAP option.

About 50% of the participants are invested in the TAP option, more than any other single fund, said Scott Huntley, legislative and communication coordinator for the Washington State Investment Board. However, that portfolio is the default option.

The biggest challenge was the pricing of the TAP fund because it contains investments such as its 16% allocation to private equity and 8% allocation to real estate that are not meant to be in defined contribution plans, Mr. Huntley said.

Kennedy, Mike; Jacobius, Arleen

Comments

Powered by Facebook Comments

  • http://www.facebook.com/becky.chandler Becky Chandler

    This is not true–you need to do a retraction http://bit.ly/bVrOGE

  • http://www.facebook.com/becky.chandler Becky Chandler

    This is not true–you need to do a retraction http://bit.ly/bVrOGE