Driving liberals, dhimmis and illegal alien apologists absolutely insane since 2005...
video production in Manassas and Prince William County

Gerry Connolly Tells Conservatives How To Win

By Greg L | 22 September 2011 | Gerry Connolly | 2 Comments

On occasion Congressman Gerry Connolly is prone to moments of honesty that are instructive for conservatives, and it’s important to pay attention when they happen.  If we can ignore for a moment the ridiculous mischaracterization of the issue he was dealing with at the time, this is the absolute blueprint for defending liberty in Virginia - be active, be intense, and scare the bejeezus out of the liberals in doing so.  They’ll give up when you do.

As reported on the quite lefty Blue Virginia:

The other calculation is intensity, what mobilizes people? Let me take my district. Poll after poll in my district says we favor reasonable gun control. But is anybody in my district sufficiently intense about that issue that this is dispositive for them, and they’re going to show up and so forth?

I once sponsored a hearing in Fairfax, and it was simply to amend our ordinance so that it would be illegal to drive around in the county with a loaded shotgun on the back of your car. That’s all. We advertised the hearing, it was televised. I show up…and we have 500 seats in the auditorium at the government center, every single seat was filled, and there was a waiting line to get in, every single person seated was wearing camouflage and had their NRA notice. Not a single citizen on our side of the issue, not one, in a county with 1 million people, showed up, not one good guy even strayed into the room.

Now, what was the lesson? We had a majority on the board to vote for this ordinance change until that happened. And they looked and saw it, and they thought, I may do the right thing, and people might in theory agree with it, but they’re never going to vote on this issue. THEY are, but our people aren’t. And we had to withdraw the amendment, and that’s the last we ever talked about it.

Intensity matters, what moves people to vote. I know, on the other side, many of them it’s a single issue and it’s going to move them to vote, and I’d rather not rile them up. And I know I’m not going to rile you people up…We have to change the calculus and the dynamic; if we do, you’re going to see a significant shift in public opinion and in legislative action in America.

My take-away on this is that citizens care more about defending their liberty and freedoms than liberals care about taking it away from them.  As long as that continues, we can successfully defend liberty as intensity seems to be the only thing they respect.  When we cease to care so much about an issue that involves fundamental liberties, liberals will successfully attack it, and they can only succeed when we don’t care enough to defend those liberties.  You, reader, are the bulwark against “progressives” robbing us of our freedoms and nothing stands in their way more than the intensity of your passions.

If you stand up in force to assaults on your freedom, liberals don’t just tuck in their tails and slink away, they do it for a long time.  Straight from the mouth of one of the biggest proponents of socialism, here’s your recipe for victory against them.

Don’t forget this.



The opinions expressed here are solely the views of the author, and not representative of the position of any organization, political party, doughnut shop, knitting guild, or waste recycling facility, but may be correctly attributed to the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy. If anything in the above article has offended you, please click here to receive an immediate apology.

BVBL is not a charity and your support is not tax-deductible.

You can follow the discussion through the Comments feed. You can also pingback or trackback from your own site.

2 Comments

  1. LostInFairfax said on 23 Sep 2011 at 12:11 pm:
    Flag comment

    I have attended several hearings but I can’t remember
    one that was devoted to carrying a loaded shotgun in
    a car. Maybe I missed that one but Gerry is hallucinating
    if he saw 500 people wearing camouflage. Usually, we
    would have a hand full doing so but the group I attended
    with had a policy of wearing business dress, Jacket
    and tie recommended and no running shoes or backpacks.
    We were mindful of press photos. Gerry was also seeing
    things if he thinks the audiences in these hearings was
    lopsided to such a degree. There were always people
    attending who would stare daggers at anyone identifying
    themselves as being pro-2nd Amendment. One other
    thing I used to notice is how many cars in the parking
    lot had Maryland and D. C. tags. Many of them were
    sporting Violence Policy Center stickers. Talk about
    stacking the deck. :)

  2. Cromagnum said on 23 Sep 2011 at 12:16 pm:
    Flag comment

    To energize a group, just show how your rights are being infringed.

    The real key is to defend private property, and the liberty to use private property.
    And private property and the individual’s use thereof (pursuit of happiness) is ultimately what a large government wants to take away.
    Therefore those who love liberty must defend property.

    GK Chesterton said it better about big government and private poperty in his book
    “Eugenics and Other Evils” -written in 1922 in Great Britain. The following is an excerpt, the whole book can be read at http://www.gutenberg.org/files/25308/25308-8.txt

    Part II Chapter 7 THE TRANSFORMATION OF SOCIALISM

    Socialism is one of the simplest ideas in the world.

    It has always puzzled me how there came to be so much bewilderment and misunderstanding and miserable mutual slander about it. At one time I agreed with Socialism, because it was simple. Now I disagree with Socialism, because it is too simple.

    Yet most of its opponents still seem to treat it, not merely as an iniquity but as a mystery of iniquity, which seems to mystify them even more than it maddens them.

    It may not seem strange that its antagonists should be puzzled about what it is. It may appear more curious and interesting that its admirers are equally puzzled.

    Its foes used to denounce Socialism as Anarchy, which is its opposite. Its friends seemed to suppose that it is a sort of optimism, which is almost as much of an opposite.

    Friends and foes alike talked as if it involved a sort of faith in ideal human
    nature; why I could never imagine.

    The Socialist system, in a more special sense than any other, is founded not on optimism but on original sin. It proposes that the State, as the conscience of the community, should possess all primary forms of property; and that obviously on the ground that men cannot be trusted to own or barter or combine or compete without injury to themselves. Just as a State might own all the guns lest people should shoot each other, so this State would own all the gold and land lest they should cheat or rackrent or exploit each other. It seems extraordinarily simple and even obvious; and so it is. It is too obvious to be true. But while it is obvious, it seems almost incredible that anybody ever thought it optimistic.

    I am myself primarily opposed to Socialism, or Collectivism or Bolshevism or whatever we call it, for a primary reason not immediately involved here: the ideal of property. I say the ideal and not merely the idea; and this alone disposes of the moral mistake in the matter.

    It disposes of all the dreary doubts of the Anti-Socialists about men not yet being angels, and all the yet drearier hopes of the Socialists about men soon being supermen. I do not admit that private property is a concession to baseness and selfishness; I think it is a point of honour. I think it is the most truly popular of all points of honour. But this, though it has everything to do with my plea for a domestic dignity, has nothing to do with this passing summary of the situation of Socialism.

    I only remark in passing that it is vain for the more vulgar sort of Capitalist, sneering at ideals, to say to me that in order to have Socialism “You must alter human nature.” I answer “Yes. You must alter it for the worse.”

    /end of block quote

Leave a Reply



Views: 808