Category Archives: Georgia

BooHooing and Finger-pointing in Senate 14

1 Reply

crying babyUPDATE: 12:21 P.M.
The Georgia Campaign Finance et.al has removed the ‘fines owed’ for Bruce Thompson and Matt Laughridge.

—-

Cherokee sure does have a knack for lying candidates.  Or those that leave out a large portion of the facts.
Matt Laughridge has put out a hit piece video of the sort of resembles something a democrat would do. Read below and you too will feel the irony.

Don’t try to fool us, Mr. Laughridge. ALL 5 (4 REPUBLICANS and 1 Democrat) CANDIDATES in the Senate 14 race outstanding fines.
If you’re asking if it upsets us, the answer is yes. We want all candidates to pay their fines and file their paperwork in a timely fashion but since you haven’t either, let’s call it a wash and move on. What is not included in that ‘wash’ is the sneakiness of trying to exclude himself from claims of ethics fines. So I present to The People, Exhibit A:

Mr. Laughridge, in his video attacking Dwight Pullen and Bruce Thompson, also said “Both claimed to be Republicans but their voting records don’t support the claim.” I present The People Exhibit B which shows a  few points:

  • Bruce Thompson has NOT voted Democrat in any election dating back to 2004.
  • Dwight Pullen did pull the lever on the Democrat side in the 2010 primary.
  • Both Thompson and Pullen have voted MORE TIMES than Mr. Laughridge who seems to be new to this whole voting thing as a whole. He is young, so maybe he voted out-of-state at college or something (I would like to know where he was in 2008, but I digress), but his claims about his opponents are disturbingly inaccurate.

SD14_Voter_History_1179x155                                                                                   (h/t to Bartow Politics for the most excellent graphic from the Georgia voter database)

What this says to me is that Mr. Laughridge is grasping for straws…probably because of a last-minute poll showing him in 3rd place and not headed to a run-off. That’s just speculation but all the other candidates are out there working to meet voters and Mr. Laughridge is stomping his feet and pressing videos that evoke the same emotion of the anti-Big Bird videos from the Romney election.  I have confidence that the voters in Senate District 14 have enough common sense to see past this ridiculous unsubstantiated video that was clearly produced out of desperation.

There’s a nice little voter guide from Bartow Politics here.
I’ll also note that this video was produced by that same ol’ company that was dissolved by the pesky Secretary of State.

I’m No Accountant, But That’s A Lot of Dollars, Sir.

1 Reply

Baby-Piles-of-Money

So, I started a little controversy on my Facebook page (which usually leads me to post a blog) last night after discovering that Matt Laughridge, who is running for State Senate in district 14 to fill Barry Loudermilk’s vacated seat, spent $73,873 on one consultant, M.C. Collier Productions Inc., after paying two other consultants $10,000.00 and $1,100.00. Now, I’m no accountant, but that’s a lot of money! $84,973 on ‘general consulting’ fees in a shortened special election.

I can’t really appreciate that someone may or may not be purchasing other items (like billboards, mailers, pens with his name on it, coozies, jar openers or customized Laughridge boxers) through the ‘consulting fees’ because when it’s not broken down by expense, that leads many of us to believe Mr. Laughridge is paying for something other than ‘general consulting’. I fail to see why further information is not provided in a district/county/area-what have you that emphasizes ethics and transparency. If not, that’s one hell of a strategy plan and kind of sounds like a slam dunk in the district, no? I guess we’ll see.

I also can’t really appreciate that M.C. Collier Productions is no longer licensed through the Secretary of State to conduct business and hasn’t been since dissolution in 2002. I don’t know about you but when I fork out cash to various organizations, I do a little research to find out who I’m paying and what their background is. Paying that kind of money to a company that was dissolved over 10 years is unacceptable and smells a tad fishy to me.

Regardless, at least it’s mostly his own money.

That is all. Discuss.

A Picture Worth 1,000 Words/Dollars/Haters

Leave a reply

photodogs(A puppy mug shot, because they really are guilty)

Something I’ve struggled with a for a long time? Internet mug shots.

Over the last few years, the explosion of private companies posting mug shots on the internet has been devastating for almost every one who has been arrested. These companies post your ever-so-flattering photo with your charges with the only remedy being your contacting them to have it removed by paying a fee. Problem is, there are handfuls of companies doing this, making a fortune and the cost of ‘clearing your name’ can end up costing thousands of dollars. Another problem arising from this ‘public information’ is the name recognition on Google. An employer searches your name, your photo comes up with charges, yet the charges were dismissed/nolle prosequi/dead docketed, and suddenly it looks as if you lied. (I recognize there are plenty of arguments regarding pending charges and disclosing that in a job interview but most applications inquire about convictions. I also recognize that some counties make their court calendars available online, but this usually doesn’t come up on Google)

When I worked at the Capitol, we received call after call asking for legislation banning the companies that do this and/or help in rectifying false information. At first, I thought it was pretty crappy on the part of the company, and maybe it is, but the Liberty in me says there is nothing you can do. Is this a path we want to start walking down? Banning entrepreneurial companies? The idea is brilliant and a perpetual gold mine. When folks are desperate to get those photos down, they’re going to pay whatever is necessary. Especially those folks who weren’t convicted.

So here is where I’m at now:

  •  We do not need any more legislation, mostly because the issue does not stem from the companies. It’s coming from the police agencies
  • I’m all for public knowledge and private entities. After all, it is public information and it’s often times printed in the paper (but I’m not really on board with that concept either). Do we REALLY need mug shots of pending charges? I understand that companies will remove the photo, however, we are circumventing the whole ‘presumption of innocence’ thing.
  • We are supposed to operate under the notion that you are ‘innocent until proven guilty’, so why are we exploiting people’s charges and photos when things are still in the “allegations” stage? Why are we not pressuring law enforcement agencies to only publish records of the ‘guilty’ ones. There’s a reason the Sex Offender Registry is just for the convicted folks. (#liability)

I don’t want restriction or regulation, I just want to see our police agencies focus on punishing those who are convicted of a crime instead of tarnishing those who have the unfortunate privilege of wading through the justice system. Everyone knows someone who has been a victim of our legal process so we can’t say these things are rare occurrences. I am real tired of people associating charges with guilt. And most of them won’t change their mind unless they are under the gun (pun intended) and charged with a crime they did not commit.

Picking & Choosing in the Republican Party

4 Replies

I have many different ‘kinds’ of friends in politics. I spend time with a nice spread of Republicans, conservatives who won’t classify as Republicans, liberty-conservatives, libertarians, anarchists, and maybe 1 or 2 (gasp!) liberals.

Post-convention, though, it seems that not only am I coming down from a political overload, I’m also recovering from the pressures of a social quandary. Everyone has an opinion on who you should talk to, who you should ignore, who you have to introduce yourself to and who you can’t be seen with.  This tends to come from their own personal interactions with the people they’re ‘warning’ you about. I’m guilty of it, too. We all create our own ‘haters’ by working in the party. I even have ‘friends’ that I coddle just because I’m a tad bit intimidated by the idea of being on their bad side. But just because you don’t have a positive relationship with someone, doesn’t mean the next person won’t. (There are a few stop sign runners who may be exempt from this, but we’re speaking generally here.) And let’s be honest, I don’t really do well when someone tells me not to do something. I’ve already befriended half of the Republican outcasts. I also tend to believe that everyone can bounce back from bad decisions in politics. My first campaign was for John Albers, for Heaven’s sake.

Besides, you run into the predicament of running out of people to talk to. If everyone has at least one hater and you have a substantial networking circle, eventually you won’t be chatting, or working, or seen with anyone. You’ll be the guy with the lollipop in the corner. No one wants to be *that* guy.

I’ll continue to think and learn for myself. I’m a watcher. If someone is a bad-news-bear, I’ll figure it out. It may be naive, but I’ll hold off on blackballing someone until they personally screw me. And not in the manner that Seth Harp referenced at the Cobb YR debate.

What To Do If Everyone You Know Used to Be a Democrat

1 Reply

At the Chairman’s debate over the weekend, there was some heckling because a candidate for a state party position voted for Obama in 2008. We hear this time and time again. It’s been going on for years. And as much as it rattles my nerves and makes my stomach churn, I know plenty of people who have ‘switched’ parties after an election.

Let’s recall a few ‘well-known’ Republican power players who used to be democrats.

  1. Ronald Reagan, the precious inspiration to many Republicans today
  2. Sam Olens
  3. Governor Deal
  4. Herman Cain
  5. Condoleezza Rice
  6. Sonny Perdue
  7. Half of the gosh darn Georgia legislature. Before the “turnover” not that long ago, many of them were moderate liberals.

Heck, handfuls of our elected officials who are supposed conservatives do liberal things all the time. Everyone is mad at Rubio, Paul, and just about every other Republican in D.C. right now for some reason or another.

I thought one of the goals of the GOP was to explain to members of the party why conservative principles are so important? Aren’t we in the time of ‘recruiting’ and reaching out? How can someone join our party if we set rules like ‘You need to be a volunteer republican for this long and then we will accept you’? If we ever want to attract anyone, we may possibly have to get over the fact that they may not have always been a bleeding red elephant. If we are looking for new party members, which by default means these people are either in another party or no party at all, and other party people are not acceptable, where are they going to come from? Why are we faulting people for ‘seeing the light’? How long are we going to shun them?

I’ve said time and time again that there is no perfect candidate…for any office. We are going to find faults in everyone. But is it really appropriate to annihilate someone who is dedicated to conservative principles and defending liberty now? In a time when there really are RINO’s, I don’t think we should be crucifying those who are beating the liberty drum. I think the GOP needs to take a long, hard look at how they are coming off to potential transferees. One thing’s for sure: they need to make moves sooner than later.

your note welcome

Let’s get this over with…

4 Replies

I’ll go ahead and say it. We all knew it was coming. Edward Lindsey has been announcing that he’s going to be ‘announcing something’ for about 3 weeks and now he’s officially in. But saying ‘no’ from the get-go.
You see, I used to be in his district. I wrote him an email voicing my concerns about students and campus carry and his office he sent me an ever-so-long and pretty painful, 6 page email about Sandy Hook, what some professors have said about mental health, some studies related to Newtown, “A quick look at the Constitution” (ironic, eh?), and then some ‘suggestions’ on where we should go. After tracking through the nonsense with my weed whacker, I was left with his propositions:
This is a direct copy-paste from his email regarding his stance on the 2nd amendment. Any bolding was done on my part.

  1. How do we strengthen the established public policy prohibiting individuals with dangerous mental disorders and criminal records from possessing firearms?
    1. Standardize and expand the screening of gun purchasers.  We have gaping holes in our screening process to identify individuals who are barred from owning guns either because of mental health problems or past criminal conduct.  An estimated 40% of gun purchases occur through private sales and 80% of criminal acts involving guns occur from a weapon procured in a private transaction.  Therefore, all sellers of firearms – including sellers at gun shows — should be required to screen purchasers.
    2. Gun manufacturers, who profit from the sale of their product, should bear greater responsibility for monitoring and insuring that retailers who sell their product are doing so in compliance with the law.
    3. Toughen laws against anyone who knowingly or negligently allows someone who is not permitted to possess a gun from obtaining one and committing a crime.  This includes going after so called “straw purchasers” and requiring that the lawful owner of a gun report any theft promptly to the police.
    4. Enforce existing gun laws.  Each year, thousands of individuals are found to be attempting to purchase a firearm who are barred under law from being allowed to so; however, only a tiny fraction are ever prosecuted.
    5. Reform our approach to mental health to better assist the sufferer, and protect society by identifying those individuals who should not be allowed to possess a firearm.
  1. How do you promote safe firearm use, possession, and storage?
    1. Require purchasers of semi-automatic rifles demonstrate an understanding on how to safely handle and store such rifles.  This can be done by demonstrating evidence of having completed an approved gun safety course, passing a gun proficiency and safety test, or being in the active or reserve military or law enforcement.
    2. Require that purchasers of ammunition and magazines for semi-automatic rifles to show identification and the above evidence when purchasing these items.  This requirement would ensure over time that already existing owners of these weapons also pass the safety course.
    3. Similarly, laws already granting permits to carry a concealed weapon should also include a requirement that applicants take and pass a gun safety course in which he/she demonstrates an understanding on how and when to safely use the weapon, and where a concealed weapon can legally and safely be carried.  A concealed weapon may be valid protection but before carrying one into a public place someone should demonstrate that they are proficient in handling the weapon – including when not to use it.  We require a showing of safe handling of automobiles before one can drive on public roads, carrying a weapon in public should be no different. There are also locations where a concealed weapon cannot be legally carried and the permit holder needs to be aware of those locations.

Bless your heart. All I see are a bunch of proposed regulations on a God-given right. I guess that ‘quick look at the Constitution’ was quicker than originally thought? And please don’t try the ‘well you have to get a driver’s license to drive a car!’ argument. Blah blah blah. Driving a car is a privilege. Owning and carrying a weapon is a fundamental right.

I’m sorry, sir. The correct response to my initial email should have said: “I support the 2nd amendment unconditionally.”

Your Liberty Drum’s Not Loud Enough

1 Reply

Dear Georgia House of Representatives Members (who voted ‘yea’),

I thought it would settle. I thought it would stop irritating me. But it hasn’t.

If I have to hear another one of you put yourself on a pedestal because you voted in favor of a bill that was a) dropped on a Thursday night (12 a.m. for the general public to read), b) scheduled for a hearing that following Monday and c) flown through the House by Crossover day the Thursday of the same week, I may just toss my cookies.
2nd amendment issues have been a concern since the before the legislative session began. (Hence the reason a couple other legislators introduced legislation much earlier). Why was there a need to push it all through so fast? Then we’re left with: Republicans who voted in favor of the bill because they didn’t want to be anti-2nd amendment and Democrats who voted against the bill because they didn’t want to be pro-2nd amendment. What happened to HB 28 & 29? Doesn’t anyone have any guts to make a true statement around here?!?!

Let me make this very, very clear. HB 512 is lousy and watered down. You completely ignored a group of citizens that needed immediate assistance and an immediate remedy and you manipulated wording of a lobbyist-backed bill (which is fine, but did you read it?) to make it seem all lovely. Put your liberty drum down. It’s not loud enough. You address bars and churches, but the very group that needed help now was ignored. I thought legislation was supposed to address the needs of citizens? Every student who attends a university in Georgia, every law student, every graduate student, every urban student in Metro Atlanta…you failed them. Each and every one of them. We see how gun-free zones have worked across America and we know how to fix the situation. HB 512 was nothing short of a publicity stunt to make gun owners think the Georgia Assembly supports students. I am not falling for it. As a student and a LICENSED PERMIT HOLDER, I cannot take my gun into university housing, on a university bus (this is crucial for students at Georgia State and Georgia Tech who walk and take school transportation depending on location and time) or into the classroom. Or how about the students at nontraditional campuses?

A ‘Yea’ vote makes it very clear that you place the ‘student’ status before ‘American’ status. Get off your soap box and sit down. You failed.

zip-it

Reflection of the Campus Carry Hearing

6 Replies

So it’s been a couple of days since the hearings and I’ve had some time to ‘reflect’. I was genuinely impressed by how many people turned out for the hearings -in the middle of the day- in support of HB 28 & HB 29. Georgia Gun Owners, Georgia Carry, Students for Concealed Carry, students from various Georgia universities and many private citizens. It’s clear from the people who attended, with the exception of one student who had no argument and the University System of Georgia representative, who is so out-of-touch with what it’s like to be a student and what it means to be an American, there was overwhelming support for both bills.

I’ve also had the opportunity to reflect a bit regarding a conversation I had with a police chief from a private institution after the hearing. (Oh, the irony…me having a conversation with a police officer who would like to see unarmed citizens.)  I told him that I had attended Georgia State University, and he saw my testimony (seen here), as well as other students from the Atlanta area. His response was ‘Well, you don’t HAVE to go to those schools. You can choose to go elsewhere.’. I found this extremely amusing for a couple of reasons: First, this is coming from a liberal gentleman who wants everyone to have access to education but now he’s telling me that students shouldn’t attend Georgia State or Georgia Tech because of the of the “danger”. This is also coming from a public safety officer who is supposed to be protecting students, keeping campus safe. He should know he can’t, and his officers can’t, be everywhere at the same time. I asked him what he would tell his daughter who had to walk across the campus of Georgia State at 8p.m. in the dark after an evening class. He responded that he would ‘never send his daughter there’. Ah.. okay. So 1) you’re on a higher socioeconomic status than many of us (more than 30,000) students who attend GSU and 2) you’re so aware of the violence on campus that you would not send your own daughter there but you still don’t think that students should exercise their second amendment rights on campus.

I’m not following the logic, because there is no logic.
At this point, I extended my hand, thanked him for his service and said ‘have a nice day’. Before I turned my back, he said, “Well, if I went to Tech or State, I guess I would understand why you feel that way”.

But let me go on the record and explain something to you, sir, because you seemed to have missed a giant component of both HB 28 & HB 29. These bills, while they target the second amendment, are more about property rights. They would grant each university, private or public, the ability to regulate campus carry rules. It would be on an individual basis. So, Chief, if you think your campus is so safe so as not to need students to carry, it would be the institution’s right to deny that on campus. It would allow Georgia State support second amendment rights WHILE you folks at unnamed private institution, {cough- Agnes Scott- cough} deny them. The same concept applies to the bill for places of worship. Each individual church, synagogue, etc.  would have the ability to determine whether or not the parishioners could exercise their right in that particular place of worship. It’s a novel concept- actually. It removes the government from the decision. Kind of how Taco Mac won’t let you conceal carry in their bars. It’s an individual organizational choice. I believe you are private university for many reasons, many of which include funding, resources, and meddling from other organizations/government. And surely you understand the concept of ‘property’, as a law enforcement officer.

I’d also like to go on the record and thank Rep. Charles Gregory. As I said in my testimony, I’ve been writing my legislators for some time now regarding students and their right to carry. Rep. Gregory has really stepped up to the plate and gone to bat for all students who walk their campus in the dark or at night or have to go to their car in a bad part of town. But what’s amazing is that he didn’t introduce the bill for any of those reasons. The reason was liberty. The reason was the Constitution.
Thank you for recognizing that I am a citizen first, and a student second.

Atlanta Hates Republicans: Political Correctness Bans Candy

9 Replies

Yesterday I joined the Atlanta Young Republicans in a community outreach of delivering candy to fire stations for Valentine’s Day and as an expression of gratitude for all their hard work. We divided up in teams, mostly ladies, to divide and conquer the 41 stations across the City of Atlanta. When we arrived at a station, our schpeel went a little like this:
“Hi my name is ________ and this is my friend _______ and we’re from the Atlanta Young Republicans. We just came out today to share our appreciation and deliver this bucket of Valentine’s Day candy. We are really grateful for all that you do.”

At most of the stations, this opened the door for casual conversations about how we got involved, what other stations we had already been to and general friendly conversation. A couple of the stations gave us a tour, showed us some of their equipment or shared funny stories and pictures. It was a really great opportunity to meet real public servants and make them feel appreciated. At one point, my car partner and I even discussed how much we’d like to do MORE for our local fire fighters on a regular basis because of how kind they had all been to us.

That was, until, we were turned away because of political affiliation. Apparently one of the chiefs was concerned about accepting candy from a Republican group because they did not want to appear partisan. This prompted an email to a supervisor that resulted in a city-wide candy delivery shut down. I’m sorry, sir, but when did accepting candy from young professionals who wanted to solely express gratitude become a political statement? Would you have done the same thing from the Young Democrats? How about if we had been handing out steak dinners with baked potatoes and pecan pie? I’m calling you out, because I don’t think you would. It’s interesting that the further south we went into the city, the less receptive people became. (I thought liberals liked free stuff???) I could understand if we were bringing around voter registration information or pushing a certain candidate, asking for donations or had something to gain from our actions…but delivering candy? What the heck has the world come to?

You can bet that the next time I deliver a meal to an Atlanta fire station, on my own time of course, (because I won’t punish them all for a few cranky snobs), I will wrap it in elephant print saran wrap and tie Ronald Reagan quotes to each individual tray. I’ll deliver it in my ‘Friends Don’t Let Friends Vote Democrat shirt’ while playing ‘God Bless the USA’ on my iPhone.

One final thing I ask you, City of Atlanta fire personnel….what have the Democrats done for your lately?

8 Reasons Not to Vote for Brian Laurens- HD 21

1 Reply

laurens

Let’s keep it short and sweet.

8. He has a history of lying about people in the press. He attempts to discredit journalists, bloggers and the like.

7. He told a Cherokee constituent that ‘sometimes legislators have more information than constituents’ and in those cases, you have to vote against what the majority wants, majority meaning the constituents.

6. He can’t keep his composure. He was escorted out of last year’s mass precinct meeting, showing Georgians he is incapable of conducting himself in an appropriate manner when tensions are high.

5. His mentor is Chip Rogers.

4. As blogger and a constituent of the State of Georgia, I was dismissed by Mr. Lauren’s on Facebook because I did not live in is district. He implied that my stance on issues was irrelevant because I live in Fulton County, not Cherokee. I believe once you’re at the Gold Dome, you represent your constituents, but you’re also working towards a better Georgia, no? That hasn’t seemed to halt his donations from outside the district, though.

3. He forged a mailer that was delivered this past Friday in which he stated he was endorsed by GA Conservatives in Action. This was a lie and the organization has since asked for a retraction. Of course, no comment from the Laurens camp.

2. Brian Laurens attempted to throw his weight around with a police officer during a traffic stop in front of his house. After stating that he missed the stop sign because his baby was crying, he went on to say he’d have the mayor “fix it”. He left and returned to the scene to inform the officer and a superior that he would remove the sign that he in fact failed to observe. He now denies this… However, it’s all on tape here and here.

1. A combination of numbers 2-8. A deceiving, swindling, loose cannon candidate who seems to feel he is above the law, above his prospective constituents, and accountable to no one who learned his tactics from one of Georgia’s biggest deceivers.

That is one of your House District 21 candidates, folks. You can choose him, or you can vote for the other guy. Scot Turner. It seems pretty easy to me.