Evidence Karen Handel is Not Bipartisan

Evidence Karen Handel is not bipartisan can be found in a Lugar Center and Georgetown University’s McCourt School of Public Policy report.

The study found Karen Handel to be one of the least bipartisan House lawmakers. She was 435 out of 438 in terms of her ability to reach out to others that think differently.

This is important because in my humble perspective, since she only won the District 51% to 48%, she should be more bipartisan.

This evidence suggests Handel is not the right candidate for the 6th District.

Click here to see the report if your interested in the details

Of course, selective perception, confirmation bias, and motivated reasoning affects what conclusions one can draw from the evidence.  Here is a sampling of the conclusions one might draw, given your tribal leanings.

  • Dems would conclude:
    • Handel is indeed a Trump Tool and will do whatever Trump supporters tell her to do.
    • She believes compromising with anyone to her left is a bad thing, not because of any reasonable policy differences, but simply because leftists are bad and you must not compromise with them.
  • Trump Supporters would conclude:
    • It does not matter what the evidence is because Georgetown is a liberal academic center.  Anything they put out is biased, and anything biased from the left has to be completely ignored.
    • Even it is true, even if, in fact, Handel is not bipartisan, well that is a good thing.  We don’t want compromise with the Lefties because they are destroying America and we need to make America Great again, like in the 1950s.  For Trump supporters the ends justifies the means.  Winning is the goal.  Getting their agenda is the goal.  Compromise is not the goal.  If fact, they believe compromise got us to this terrible place to begin with.
  • Libertarians would conclude:
    • The faction within Libertarians that believe in individual freedom and understand Hayek’s writings on Central Planners, would probably agree the evidence is valid and Handel is not bipartisan.  And that should disqualify her in their eyes.  (This faction would follow James Maddison’s advice in Federalist Paper #10 about “factions.”  Madison wrote, “By a faction, I understand a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or a minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adversed to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community.”   I would think Libertarians would want bipartisanship.
    • The racists faction within the larger Libertarian community, who don’t want the Government giving money to blacks, or having blacks in government, would say that Handel lack of bipartisanship is a badge of honor.  The ends justifies the means and Handel should not compromise with those lefties, commies, socialists atheists.

Looking at the report we, the Georgia 6th District, think the report is credible enough to believe it is correct.  We conclude Karen Handel is not “bipartisan.”  And we further think this is a negative.  We think our Representative should have the 6th District top of mind, not GOP, Dem, or Libertarian.

If there are Trump Supporters or Karen Handel supporters that want to help provide evidence that either Karen is bipartisan and the report is wrong, or it is better that she is not bipartisan, here are our questions for Karen Handel:

  • Does she consider the report valid?  Would she say that they missed all the bipartisan things she has done?
  • Would she consider herself bipartisan?  If so, what examples can she provide?
  • What has she done in our Community to reach out the 48% that voter against her?
  • Does she think the ends justify the means?

Of course getting honest answers from Karen, her supporters or Trump Supporters, is not likely.  She/they would lie about this stuff.  She is a politician, after all.

Nydia Tisdale’s Criminal Trial Provides Example of How to Use “Blockchains” to Combat Fascism

The case of Nydia Tisdale, a Georgia citizen journalist, illuminates the power of the State to force behavior.  But, while they may be able to force behavior, they cannot control information.  Once the guilty verdict was announced it was posted on the Internet.  Then the “blockchains” began.  Me, and many others, copied the storied, added value to it, send it others for them to store on their servers.  Now there are copies of the facts of this case that can be verified.

Fact:

On Monday afternoon a Dawson County jury unanimously found self-described citizen journalist Nydia Tisdale guilty of a misdemeanor charge of obstruction of an officer for resisting arrest by former Capt. Tony Wooten of the Dawson County Sheriff’s Office.

Conclusions:

Apparently in Georgia one can be found guilty of misdemeanor obstruction of a law enforcement officer simply because they want to.

It’s All About Information!

The great thing about this Case is, is we live in a 21st Century world, not a 1st Century world. This is now a pubic legal case. This is information. And, as much as they would like, they cannot stop information.

It’s About the “Blockchain.”

They may be able to physically stop a citizen journalist from recording reality, but once it is recorded it is distributed using a “Blockchain” through the world. This is called the Internet.

They may be able to stop a citizen journalist, but the Internet prevents them from stopping information.

Each of us can record this discussion and store it on our servers. This is a great example of a “Blockchain.”

 

Both Lincoln and the Confederacy Were Awful

[et_pb_dcsbcm_divi_breadcrumbs_module hide_homebreadcrumb=”off” separator=”sep-raquo” hide_currentbreadcrumb=”off” homebreadcrumborientation=”left” fontsbreadcrumbs_line_height_tablet=”2″ fontsseperator_line_height_tablet=”2″ fontsbreadcrumblinks_line_height_tablet=”2″]

Home » 

[/et_pb_dcsbcm_divi_breadcrumbs_module]

This is interesting coming from the Libertarian Media. His conclusion – the confederacy was awful for wanting slavery and Lincoln was awful for wanting a strong Federal Government. Interesting. Clearly wanting slavery and willing to go to war to support slavery is awful. However, I am not convinced that wanting a strong Federal Government is awful. But, I could be wrong and am willing to discuss it.

Americans sympathetic to the Union generally believe the war was fought to end slavery or to “rescue the slaves” from political kidnapping by the slave states, that seceded from the Union to avoid impending abolition.

“No,” say those sympathetic to the Confederacy. The states seceded over states’ rights, particularly their right not to be victimized by high protectionist tariffs, paid mostly by southern states, but spent mostly on what we’d now call corporate welfare and infrastructure projects in the north.

The declarations of South Carolina, Mississippi and Texas don’t mention taxes or economic policy at all.

That the states seceded for a different reason than the war was fought seems to elude everyone.

States’ Rights, Tariffs, or Slavery?

There is plenty of secondary literature presenting evidence on both sides, which is why Americans are still arguing this tired point over 150 years after the war ended. But there is a pretty simple way to clear the air. Just read the primary sources and take everyone at his word.

Many of the Confederate states published declarations explaining their reasons for seceding from the Union. The problem for those making the tariff argument is only a few of these declarations even mention the tariff, and then only in passing. The declarations of South Carolina, Mississippi and Texas don’t mention taxes or economic policy at all.

But what all the declarations state loud and clear is the seceding states’ objections to the federal government not fulfilling its constitutional duty to execute fugitive slave laws, the election of a president who campaigned saying the Union could not survive “half slave and half free,” and their belief that the Republican Party’s determination to keep slavery out of new territories would eventually lead to abolition of the institution in their own states.

The passage which is perhaps most damning to the tariff theory comes from Georgia’s Declaration, which reads:

The party of Lincoln, called the Republican party, under its present name and organization, is of recent origin. It is admitted to be an anti-slavery party. While it attracts to itself by its creed the scattered advocates of exploded political heresies, of condemned theories in political economy, the advocates of commercial restrictions, of protection, of special privileges, of waste and corruption in the administration of Government, anti-slavery is its mission and its purpose. By anti-slavery it is made a power in the state.

The passage is accurate. The Republican Party was indeed comprised of a coalition between abolitionists and former members of the Whig Party, like Lincoln, who still sought to implement Henry Clay’s “American System” of protectionist tariffs, “internal improvements” (viz. “infrastructure”) and a central bank. But the Georgia Declaration dismisses this as merely an incidental observation and emphasizes the party’s opposition to slavery. One cannot help but conclude that Georgia, while objecting to the American System, was willing to tolerate it, but would not tolerate any threat to slavery.

Arkansas cited the Union’s attempt to coerce it into making war on the seceded states as its reason for leaving.

There is no reason to doubt Lincoln’s personal, philosophical opposition to slavery, but it wasn’t the reason he fought the Civil War. We know this because he said so, repeatedly. And it is by no means a leap, based on his lifelong political beliefs and what he said himself during his first inaugural, that the reason it was so important for him to “save the Union” was because he couldn’t pursue his big government agenda without the seceding states’ taxes. That’s quite a poor reason to start a war in which 600,000 to a million Americans are killed by their fellow Americans.

21st century Americans shouldn’t pick a side in the Civil War. Much like the brawl between the White Supremacists and Antifa in Charlottesville, Va., it was fought by two tyrannical powers for mostly evil purposes. The best we can do today is understand what really happened and work to rehabilitate the bedrock American principles of limited, decentralized government and the natural right of secession, good ideas given a bad name by Lincoln and the Confederates alike.

We’re fighting the Civil War again. Whenever both major parties drop any pretense of addressing the real problems facing American taxpayers, their constituents revert to having at each other in “the culture wars.” And no culture war would be complete without relitigating what should now be settled history: the […]

New Study: 58% of Republicans say Colleges and Universities are Bad for Our Nation

The facts reported in this new study are absolutely the most important facts that have come across my desk in awhile.  The facts I’m talking about come from a new study by the Pew Research: Sharp Partisan Divisions in Views of National Institutions.  Republicans increasingly say colleges have negative impact on U.S.

The study reported that 58% of Republicans, and 65% of Conservatives, believe colleges and universities have a negative effect on the country.  This is very important to understand.

Why do they believe that colleges and universities are bad?  Easy, Colleges and Universities produce new learning, and for this 58% that is negative, because they believe the Bible is the last word and no new learning is necessary.  And, in fact, any new learning that counters the Bible is negative.

A majority of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents (58%) now say that colleges and universities have a negative effect on the country, up from 45% last year. By contrast, most Democrats and Democratic leaners (72%) say colleges and universities have a positive effect, which is little changed from recent years.

Wide partisan differences over the impact of major institutions on the country

Across educational groups, Republicans give colleges & universities low ratings

SaveSave

SaveSave

SaveSave

SaveSave

Jay Caruso Offers Up A Textbook Case of Garbage, Biased Journalism

Jay Caruso, in this post on RedState, attempted to smear Liberals by using a Washington Post story.

The Headline of the Washington Post story is “In Alexandria shooter’s hometown, rage-filled radio host channels middle America’s inner frustration.”  The Headline for Jay Caruso’s story is “The Washington Post Offers Up A Textbook Case Of Garbage, Biased Journalism.”

Jay Caruso read this story and here was his takeaway.

The Washington Post story is a textbook example of garbage journalism. Peter Holley should be ashamed of himself for writing it and whoever his editor is, should be ashamed for allowing it to get published. Strip all the information about Hodgkinson, and it’s an interesting story.

As it stands, it’s a story that attempts to link James Hodgkinson to Bob Romanik as the source of Hodgkinson’s influence for shooting Steve Scalise and three other people in Alexandria, Virginia on June 14, 2017.

But, look what he has done here.  Caruso says, “Strip all the information about Hodgkinson, and it’s an interesting story.”  Yet, Caruso is unable to “strip” all the information about Hodgkinson.  From Caruso’s perspective any mention of Hodgkinson infects the entire post.  Caruso, apparently, choses not to pay attention to anything, that even he admits “is interesting” because the author made a connection that Caruso would not have made.

Why would Caruso do this.  The answer is easy, it supports his narrative that anything a liberal says is biased.

My response to Mr. Jay Caruso is first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.

It is an example of focusing on what divides us, rather then focusing on what unites us.

It also is a great example of Selective Perception.

SaveSave

SaveSave

SaveSave

Two Questions About Trump and Republicans that Stump Progressives

George Lakoff has a lot of important insights into our current civil disfunction.

His theory, which I happen to fully agree with, says liberals like the Nurturing Mother world view, while, conservative like the Strong Father world view.

For liberals, the community exists to establish a safety net so the more in the community have opportunities for success.  Conservatives, on the other hand, think God is they need, and the community actually gets in the way.  Gay marriage being a great example.

In any case This is a great read.  I hope you enjoy it.

Conservative moral values arise from what I call the Strict Father Family.

In this family model, father knows best. He decides right and wrong. He has the ultimate authority to make sure his children and his spouse do what he says, because what he says is right. Many conservative spouses accept this worldview, uphold the father’s authority, and are strict in those realms of family life that they control.

In this moral worldview, it is his moral duty to punish his children painfully when they disobey. Harsh punishment is necessary to ensure that they will obey him (do what is right) and not just do what feels good. Through physical discipline they are supposed to become disciplined, internally strong, and able to prosper in the external world.

What if they don’t prosper? That means they are not disciplined, and therefore cannot be moral, and so deserve their poverty. In this conservative view, the poor are seen as lazy and undeserving while the rich deserve their wealth. Responsibility is thus taken to be personal responsibility, not social responsibility. What you become is only up to you, not society. You are responsible for yourself, not for others.

The strict father logic extends further. The basic idea is that authority is justified by morality (the strict father version), and that, in a world ordered by nature, there should be (and traditionally has been) a moral hierarchy in which those who have traditionally dominated should dominate.

Why do conservatives love Trump (who harms them) and hate healthcare (which helps them)? It makes more sense when you consider the conservative moral hierarcy.

The Conservative Moral Hierarchy:
• God above Man
• Man above Nature
• The Disciplined (Strong) above the Undisciplined (Weak)
• The Rich above the Poor
• Employers above Employees
• Adults above Children
• Western culture above other cultures
• America above other countries
• Men above Women
• Whites above Nonwhites
• Christians above non-Christians
• Straights above Gays

Most Trump supporters have Strict Father morality. It determines their sense of right and wrong. They see Trump as bringing America back to their values in a powerful way, making their values respectable and in line with the way the country is being run. Trump’s presidency has given them self-respect. Their self-respect is more important than the details of his policies, even if some of those policies hurt them. On the whole, they like the way he has restructured the government and what he is doing throughout the government.

Strict Father morality insists on a particular notion of self-responsibility. Being taken care of by “the government” is seen as immoral because it gives the government an authority above strict father principles. The care of the Affordable Care Act in itself violated the moral sense and the very identity of conservatives – even those who benefit greatly from it.