[tomder55]

Liberal myth exposed by Louisiana State Senator Elbert Guillory

Hello, my name is Elbert Lee Guillory, and I'm the senator for the twenty-fourth district right here in beautiful Louisiana. Recently I made what many are referring to as a 'bold decision' to switch my party affiliation to the Republican Party. I wanted to take a moment to explain why I became a Republican, and also to explain why I don't think it was a bold decision at all. It is the right decision — not only for me — but for all my brothers and sisters in the black community.

You see, in recent history the Democrat Party has created the illusion that their agenda and their policies are what's best for black people. Somehow it's been forgotten that the Republican Party was founded in 1854 as an abolitionist movement with one simple creed: that slavery is a violation of the rights of man.

Frederick Douglass called Republicans the 'Party of freedom and progress,' and the first Republican president was Abraham Lincoln, the author of the Emancipation Proclamation. It was the Republicans in Congress who authored the thirteenth, fourteenth, and fifteenth amendments giving former slaves citizenship, voting rights, and due process of law.

The Democrats on the other hand were the Party of Jim Crow. It was Democrats who defended the rights of slave owners. It was the Republican President Dwight Eisenhower who championed the Civil Rights Act of 1957, but it was Democrats in the Senate who filibustered the bill.

You see, at the heart of liberalism is the idea that only a great and powerful big government can be the benefactor of social justice for all Americans. But the left is only concerned with one thing — control. And they disguise this control as charity. Programs such as welfare, food stamps, these programs aren't designed to lift black Americans out of poverty, they were always intended as a mechanism for politicians to control black the black community.

The idea that blacks, or anyone for that matter, need the the government to get ahead in life is despicable. And even more important, this idea is a failure. Our communities are just as poor as they've always been. Our schools continue to fail children. Our prisons are filled with young black men who should be at home being fathers. Our self-initiative and our self-reliance have been sacrificed in exchange for allegiance to our overseers who control us by making us dependent on them. Sometimes I wonder if the word freedom is tossed around so frequently in our society that it has become a cliché.

The idea of freedom is complex and it is all-encompassing. It's the idea that the economy must remain free of government persuasion. It's the idea that the press must operate without government intrusion. And it's the idea that the emails and phone records of Americans should remain free from government search and seizure. It's the idea that parents must be the decision makers in regards to their children's education — not some government bureaucrat.

But most importantly, it is the idea that the individual must be free to pursue his or her own happiness free from government dependence and free from government control. Because to be truly free is to be reliant on no one other than the author of our destiny. These are the ideas at the core of the Republican Party, and it is why I am a Republican.

So my brothers and sisters of the American community, please join with me today in abandoning the government plantation and the Party of disappointment. So that we may all echo the words of one Republican leader who famously said, 'free at last, free at last, thank God Almighty, we are free at last.'

Elbert Guillory: "Why I Am a Republican" - YouTube

[speechlesstx]

Liberal myth exposed by Louisiana State Senator Elbert Guillory


Elbert Guillory: "Why I Am a Republican" - YouTube

Well said. He'll be "lynched" by the left any moment now.

[paraclete]

He should at least have had the decency to be an independent until he stood as a republican

[tomder55]

Difficult to survive the electoral process here as an independent... it's possible ,but very difficult.

[paraclete]

Sure but we are not talking about an electoral process but an elected member who has decided he wants to change allegiences, so the right thing to do is resign and face the electorate

[tomder55]

Maybe so ,but they don't here . They eventually face the electorate if they even want to run for reelection . But I can't think of a single case when someone resigned after changing party affiliation. This move probably doesn't impact the balance of power in Louisiana . But I can think of 3 recent times when Senators switched and one had a major impact. (btw in 2 cases they switched to independents )

Jim Jeffords served as a 10 year Republic Senator from Vermont ;and then switched in 2001 as President Bush and the new Senate was beginning their term. The Dems seduced him to switch and caucus with the Dems ,giving them the majority in the Senate until the 2002 mid-term elections .(Before that there was a 50-50 tie with VP Cheny being the deciding vote if needed ) So Bush started his term with a divided Congress and the Dems holding the majority in the Senate .

Joe Lieberman switched to independent in 2006 after the Dems of Connecticut primaried him and ran someone else. He ran as an independent and won. But he still caucused with the Dems

Arlen Specter switched from Republic to Dem when it became clear the Republics were not going to run him for reelection (he was going to lose the Pat Toomey in the primary ). He announced he'd run as a Dem ;but lost to Joe Sestak in the Dem primary.

[paraclete]

Hi Tom they don't resign here either although they rarely switch party allegiance. They become independents. I can't remember a case of a Senator switching but then the way we elect them is different so they have to be deep in the party to be on the ticket. We have the odd case where the big red box has had a sitting Senator disendorced so she can put an indigenous candidate on the ticket. I expect she thinks this is affirmative action. I think it is just cronism. Just one more reason to get rid of this rotten government

[talaniman]

Vote them out if they are so bad. Unless you are like the republicans here who vote in the local loony's and wonder why they lose the national elections.

[paraclete]

We will get our chance in September, Tal, unless the Labor Party commits Hari Kari and changes leader, in that case an immediate no confidence vote should bring on an election maybe in August. I think everyone is saying what's the rush at this point unless it is to shorten this abismally long campaign period

[speechlesstx]

In the category of liberal myths, fracking is bad for the environment. Oh wait, that's science you say? Nah, that libs love science is another myth (see global warming, abortion, etc.) but let's be specific here.

EPA Won't Finalize Wyo. Fracking-Pollution Study

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has dropped plans to have outside experts review its theory that hydraulic fracturing may have played a role in groundwater pollution in Wyoming, and the agency no longer plans to write a final report on its research that led to the controversial finding a year and a half ago.

Instead, the EPA announced Thursday that state officials will lead further investigation into pollution in the Pavilion area in central Wyoming, including ways to make sure people there have clean drinking water.

"We think this is the most pragmatic, quickest way to help the residents of Pavillion. We're going to work hand in hand with the state to make sure this investigation moves forward," said EPA spokesman Tom Reynolds in Washington, D.C.

Industry officials who have been doubtful about the EPA's findings since they were announced praised the change as confirmation of their view that the science wasn't sound.

"EPA has to do a better job, because another fatally flawed water study could have a big impact on how the nation develops its massive energy resources," Erik Milito, from the Washington, D.C.-based American Petroleum Institute, said in a news release.

EPA officials insisted they're not backing away from their draft report on Pavilion. They said they reserve the right to resume the study and an assessment by independent experts, known as a peer review, at any point.

Even so, EPA efforts to find potential pathways for pollutants from deeper areas where gas is extracted to shallower areas tapped by domestic water wells have been inconclusive.

So what we have here is the EPA, not one to shy away from pursuing predetermined outcomes in spite of the science is refusing to let someone check their research and give us a final answer on it.

Now why would they not want to give us a definitive answer on such an important issue? And don't tell me you really believe that they're just deferring to the state on this.

[tomder55]

The EPA has been making law by fiat... as an example ,the emperor makes it very clear that he doesn't think he needs any legislation at all to act on carbon taxes since SCOTUS has given him the go ahead to act unilaterally ,by affirming that bs that carbon dioxide is a pollutant.

[speechlesstx]

The EPA has been making law by fiat... as an example ,the emperor makes it very clear that he doesn't think he needs any legislation at all to act on carbon taxes since SCOTUS has given him the go ahead to act unilaterally ,by affirming that bs that carbon dioxide is a pollutant.

Funny you should mention that. In light of the continuing revelations that the "settled science" isn't settled at all and the alarmists are in near panic over the potential damage to their agenda, Obama said in Berlin that climate change is the “global threat of our time”... while the most transparent administration ever tried to pull a fast one on us at home.

GOP senators slam ‘significant change’ to carbon costs

Senate Republicans say they are “troubled” by the Obama administration's move to increase the economic benefits of carbon regulations and fear the new formula will be used to justify climate change rules.

The administration quietly raised the figure for the "social cost" of carbon — which assigns a monetary value to health, property and other damage associated with carbon pollution — in May to $36 per ton of carbon dioxide emitted, up from $22. Officials cited new information on extreme weather and rising sea-levels as among the reasons for the change.

GOP members of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee said the increase should have been debated thoroughly in public before being implemented.

“This is a significant change to an already highly controversial estimate, and as such requires transparency, open debate, and an adherence to well-understood and previously agreed-upon rules,” the GOP senators, led by committee ranking member David Vitter (R-La.), wrote in a letter to the Energy Department, White House Office of Management and Budget and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

The GOP senators requested responses on the process behind revising the social cost of carbon by July 2.

The updated cost estimate, in essence, increases the benefits of potential carbon regulations, and comes as President Obama is ready to undertake more ambitious climate measures.

Read more: GOP senators slam

By hook or by crook...

[talaniman]

In the category of liberal myths, fracking is bad for the environment. Oh wait, that's science you say? Nah, that libs love science is another myth (see global warming, abortion, etc.) but let's be specific here.



So what we have here is the EPA, not one to shy away from pursuing predetermined outcomes in spite of the science is refusing to let someone check their research and give us a final answer on it.

Now why would they not want to give us a definitive answer on such an important issue? And don't tell me you really believe that they're just deferring to the state on this.

Its consistent with other investigations into contaminated water and land in other states, and a good example is in Michigan where they had a pipe rupture that has contaminated land and water and entire neighborhoods and the states attorney has ordered an independent review into not only the rupture but the clean up efforts all paid for by the oil company.

Local authorities and governments have a vested interest in keeping a close watch on things as the frakking issue has more glitches in more areas than have previously been reported in other place like Ohio, Pennsylvania, and New York.

And hurry and build that pipeline to Texas, and HOPE they don't mess up like the Canadians did. The science and technology is far from perfected and safe as it should be.

[tomder55]

Bottom line is that energy from fracking and the continued development of methane hydrate.. the world's largest and cleanest source of hydrocarbon energy will make us energy independent for the next century . Maybe by then the greenies can work out the many kinks in the development of those renewables .

[talaniman]

I think better casing technology should be a priority. Those oil pipe line buried in the earth disturbs me more than a bit also.

[speechlesstx]

Speaking of energy, the senate has joined the house in a bipartisan effort to repeal the renewable fuel standards act, hopefully putting an end to the mythical benefits of ethanol.

[tomder55]

About time ! That was a no brainer !

[speechlesstx]

After abandoning a previous study, mentioned here earlier, preliminary results from another federal study are in...

Study finds fracking chemicals didn't pollute water: AP

A landmark federal study on hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, shows no evidence that chemicals from the natural gas drilling process moved up to contaminate drinking water aquifers at a western Pennsylvania drilling site, the Department of Energy told The Associated Press.

After a year of monitoring, the researchers found that the chemical-laced fluids used to free gas trapped deep below the surface stayed thousands of feet below the shallower areas that supply drinking water, geologist Richard Hammack said.

Although the results are preliminary -- the study is still ongoing -- they are a boost to a natural gas industry that has fought complaints from environmental groups and property owners who call fracking dangerous.

So, try as they may study after study keeps vindicating the producers. We have massive stockpiles of clean natural gas, whose increased use has a direct connection to lower carbon emissions and your water isn't going to become a flame thrower in spite of some jerk's film hoax. What are waiting for?

[NeedKarma]

What are waiting for?

Don't know. Seems like a no-brainer.

[talaniman]

Fracking depends on the extractors having safeguards in place to solve the problems of casing and transmission lines failures, and leaks in aquifers that contaminate rural drinking water. For the EPA's part, they are exchanging litigations in court for agreements to test, evaluate, and remedy the situation. That's a good move so far.

You can pursue new energy sources safely, and responsibly. Lets not forget the lessons of big oil, and Exxon Valdez, and the BP gulf spill.