A Time For Choosing Plus Elbert Guillory

Just to remind us all why we’re not liberals:

After that, let’s take a look at a new ad from Elbert Guillory:

We are still in the same battle the Reagan rallied us for in 1964 – the names have changed, a little, but the guilty are still the same, and the principals to be fought for are the same.

10 thoughts on “A Time For Choosing Plus Elbert Guillory

  1. Retired Spook October 28, 2014 / 7:55 am

    One can sort of forgive each new generation of Liberals for thinking that theirs will be the first generation to actually make Leftist polices and ideas work. After all, Conservatives have abdicated our responsibility to educate them otherwise, and we’ve allowed them to re-write history to make the whole deja vu meme possible, but what the Left has done to the black community has been deliberate and malicious. I can’t help but think that eventually a black leader will arise that will lead them out of the wilderness. I just hope it’s a peaceful journey.

    • Cluster October 28, 2014 / 8:48 am

      Could that new black leader be Charles Barkley?

      “There are a lot of black people who are unintelligent, who don’t have success,” Barkley said. “It’s best to knock a successful black person down ’cause they’re intelligent, they speak well, they do well in school, and they’re successful. It’s crabs in a barrel. … We’re the only ethnic group that says, ‘hey, if you go to jail, it gives you street cred.”

      I have also mentioned this before and that is that I know several current day “progressives” and they are not that concerned with actual results. They are only focused on “intent”, and that is why they are so easily duped. For example, when a conservative states that they want a smaller government with lower taxation, a progressive will take that to mean that the conservative doesn’t care about poor people – period. End of thought process. The progressive can not connect the dots that a smaller, more efficient government allows a private sector the room to grow, and for greater individual liberty, while at the same time still having the means to actually serve our citizens who are truly in need.


      • Amazona October 28, 2014 / 5:50 pm

        Cluster, allow me to expand a little on your comment, if you please. Correct me if you don’t agree.

        When we say “…..a smaller government with lower taxation…” we make the mistake of stopping right there, which allows Liberals (who are not known for their dedication to thinking things through) to assume that we mean ALL government will be reduced to very limited levels.

        As a conservative, I personally think that all government SHOULD be stripped down to the basics, but when I talk about smaller government I am always talking about the FEDERAL government, because that is the only government referenced in the Constitution. I am willing to accept the possibility that my state might vote, as a state, to have a large and expensive welfare agenda, whether I like it or not—-but at least it would probably happen within the restrictions of the Constitution, unlike the Federal expansion we see now.

        I think we need to start being more careful in how we phrase things, so in talking to a Lib we are letting him know that we are not wanting to automatically strip all the goodies provided for by our tax dollars—-we are merely stating that according the Constitution these programs have to be voted on and administered at the state level.

        That simple expansion of the original thought calms most Libs down, and furthermore it moves the discourse out of the emotional arena into one about governance, which is where we want it to be. When we allow the discourse to be about FEELING issues, such as “caring for the poor” and so on, we are going to be trapped in a situation where the hyper-emotional Lib can simply dismiss anything we say as cold, heartless, uncaring, greedy, etc. But if we accept the goal of the Lib to CARE, and merely want to talk about the best way to show that caring, we have removed much of the resistance, and we have redefined the problem. Now it is not whether we SHOULD care for the poor, for example, but the best way to do so.

        From here it is not that hard to reach some agreement on the fact that a state program which addresses the problems of the poor in that state, and the specific contributors to that problem which may be unique to that state, is going to be more efficient than a One Size Fits All program administered from thousands of miles away. Just the simple math of eliminating a huge Federal agency, to cut the costs of a program, makes sense even to a Lib. And the logic of having better administration at a more local level, where the citizens have more oversight and the administrators have more insight, is more acceptable when it acknowledges the desire to have a program in the first place, instead of letting the perception that we want to abolish the program taint the discussion.

        Yes, a vibrant economy will allow people to care for themselves, but at the same time talking about making dependent people start to become independent is easy to spin into a desire to simply abandon them.

        When I have gotten the discussion shifted away from whether or not we should have such-and-such a program, by saying “I think if the voters want this kind of program we have the right to vote for it, but I just think we have to be careful to do it in a way that doesn’t violate the Constitution, which means doing it at the state level instead of the Federal level”, I have found the emotional temperature of the discussion to drop dramatically. Now the whole discussion is moved away from a feeling to a thought process, which is a lot more productive.

        At this point, or soon after, the objection is always that “my state can’t afford to pay for ______” which is a great opportunity to come back with “It could, if the Federal government only had to pay to take care of the duties assigned to it” Then the Federal tax rate could be less than half it is now, and the states could tax according to what the state citizens wanted to provide.” Even when this leads to discussion and even argument, it is still about government and not about the merits of certain programs.

      • Cluster October 28, 2014 / 6:18 pm

        I agree 100%, but remember, if you’re for states rights then you’re a racist – :-). Seriously though that is the best way to have that debate.

        On another note, where in the hell has Harry Reid been lately? Normally I wouldn’t care but it does seem odd that just 7 days out of potentially losing his power he is suddenly AWOL. I think the Dems are starting to panic a bit which is also strange considering that they have all of Obama’s successes to run on ……. oh wait.

  2. Retired Spook October 28, 2014 / 7:21 pm

    A caller to Rush today made one of the best comments I’ve ever heard. He asked how white Democrat politicians can run as fast and as far away as possible from the first black president, while at the same time,publicly decry that they can’t win unless they mobilize the black vote. Too funny.

    • M. Noonan October 28, 2014 / 10:55 pm

      It is difficult, and it may prove impossible for Hillary (or Warren, if it comes out like that) in 2016. Right now, there is a perfect opportunity for the GOP to go to the black community and ask them, “are you better off than you were before Obama?”. By almost every measure, black Americans are worse off than they were on January 20th, 2009. If the Democrats under our first black President can’t deliver the goods, then perhaps it is time for them to re-think? Remember, if a mere 20% of African-American votes had gone to Romney in 2012, we’d be complaining about his response to ebola rather than Obama’s. 60-40-20 is the key – 60% of the white vote, 40% of the Latino vote, 20% of the African-American vote – do that, and there won’t be another Democrat President in our life time; while Democrats still might be able to scratch out a bare win in California (though that is in doubt if 40% of Latinos go GOP), they won’t be able to win Pennsylvania, Florida, Ohio or Michigan. Check mate. Game over. And Democrats who know are fearful of just this sort of outcome…two years ago, they had visions of the Latino vote turning Texas blue, now they worry that it will turn Florida red.

      But we on the GOP side have to exploit the opening. We have to go into the African-American and Latino communities and present a plan which will actually appeal to them…which will move them towards support of the free market and small businesses against support for Big Government and welfare. If we do that, we win – if we don’t, we lose.

      • Retired Spook October 29, 2014 / 8:25 am

        It sounds like the time is ripe to at least get an audience in the black community. Hopefully the video in this article will go viral.

      • Cluster October 29, 2014 / 9:43 am

        And don’t forget, the unions are not pleased at all over the Dems reluctance to move forward with the Keystone pipeline. Hopefully this game of pandering to targeted sub groups of Americans, rather than doing what’s best for the country, is coming to an end.

  3. dbschmidt October 31, 2014 / 9:36 am

    Aside from the ongoing push to convene a Constitutional Convention of the States—the time has come to return this country towards what the founder’s intended and a good start would be to repeal the 17th amendment which gave direct vote on Senators.

    Today’s low information voters do not even recognize a picture of the vice-president and we allow them to select Senators? If they cannot name the vice president—I seriously doubt they know that the original system was set up to allow people to be represented by electing Representatives; however the States would select their Senators from each State’s capital to represent the State.

    I am pretty sure that the low info have no idea that is why the Representatives are numbered according to the population while there have always been 2 Senators from each State. It would be a giant step forward towards “term limits” as well as get the over $100 million spent here in NC (mostly outside money) on the Senate race out of the picture as well.

Comments are closed.