You want to know why California is having these wild fires? Read This

The California wildfires are out of control. Well, there is a reason.

The Daily Caller explains the problem:

Former President Bill Clinton made a significant change to federal land management nearly 30 years ago that created the conditions necessary for massive wildfires to consume portions of the West Coast, according to one fire expert who predicted the problem years ago.

Shortly before leaving office in 2001, Clinton limited the ability of the United States Forest Service to thin out a dense thicket of foliage and downed trees on federal land to bring the West into a pristine state, Bob Zybach, an experienced forester with a PhD in environmental science, told the Daily Caller News Foundation. The former president’s decision created a ticking time bomb, Zybach argues.

“If you don’t start managing these forests, then they are going to start burning up. Thirty years later, they are still ignoring it,” said Zybach, who spent more than 20 years as a reforestation contractor. He was referring to warnings he made years ago, telling officials that warding off prescribed burns in Oregon and California creates kindling fuelling fires.

Such rules make it more difficult to deploy prescribed burns, which are controlled burns designed to cull all of the underbrush in forests to lessen the chance of massive fires, Zybach noted. Years of keeping these areas in their natural state result in dead trees and dried organic material settling on the forest floor, turning such material into matchsticks soaked in jet fuel during dry seasons, he said.

Wait, because there is more:

Shortly before leaving office, Clinton introduced the Roadless Rule that restricted the use of existing roads and construction of new roads on 49 million acres of National Forest, making it difficult for officials to scan the land for the kind of kindling that fuels massive conflagrations.

The move was part of the Northwest Forest Plan (NWFP), a resolution adopted by Clinton in 1994 to protect forests from being over-logged.

Ten years before Clinton’s rule, the Fish and Wildlife Service placed the northern spotted owl on the Endangered Species Act, forcing the Forest Service to adopt a new policy that resulted in a greater reduction in timber harvests. The amount of timber removed from federal lands plummeted, according to data accumulated in 2015 by the Reason Foundation.

An average of 10 million feet of timber was removed each year from Forest Service land between 1960 and 1990, the data show. Those numbers dropped between 1991 and 2000 and continued dropping — an average of only 2.1 billion feet of timber was removed from the land between 2000 and 2013, according to the data. That’s an 80% decline.

“They’ve gone and left hundreds of thousands of acres of burnt timber, a fire bomb waiting to happen, standing in place because the black back woodpecker prefers that habitat,” Zybach said. “It’s great for lawyers, but it’s bad for people who breathe air or work in the woods.”

“The prescribed burns are an ancient form of management for keeping the fuels down so these events don’t happen,” Zybach added, referring to Native American Indians who used controlled burns to ward away pests and prevent wildfires from licking their homes.

The Clinton administration’s plan to turn forests in the West into pristine land free of human interference risked fueling “wildfires reminiscent of the Tillamook burn, the 1910 fires and the Yellowstone fire,” Zybach, who is based in Oregon, told Evergreen magazine in 1994, when the NWFP came into effect.

Western Oregon had one major fire above 10,000 acres between 1952 and 1987, reports show. The Silver Complex Fire of 1987 snapped that streak after torching more than 100,000 acres in the Kalmiopsis Wilderness area, killing rare plants and trees the federal government sought to protect from human activities.

As always, the Democrats and blaming the wrong thing.:

Former President Barack Obama suggested in a tweet Thursday that California’s wildfires are a result of climate change.

“The fires across the West Coast are just the latest examples of the very real ways our changing climate is changing our communities,” Obama wrote in a tweet that included pictures showing how soot and ash from the wildfires are turning San Francisco’s sky bright orange.

Obama isn’t the only prominent Democrat tying the fires to global warming.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, a Democrat from New York, published a tweet Saturday that read: “The proof of the urgency of the climate crisis is literally in the air around us.” Schumer included a link to a Sept. 10 article from CBS blaming climate change for the fires.

Thankfully, the REAL expert is not buying into the Climate Change lie:

Zybach is not convinced. “The lack of active land management is almost 100 percent the cause,” he told the DCNF, noting that climate change has almost nothing to do with fire kindling gathering across the forest floors. Other researchers share his skepticism.

“Global warming may contribute slightly, but the key factors are mismanaged forests, years of fire suppression, increased population, people living where they should not, invasive flammable species, and the fact that California has always had fire,” University of Washington climate scientist Cliff Mass told TheDCNF in 2018.

Mass’s critique came as Mendocino Complex Fire was spreading across California on its way to becoming the largest wildfire in the state, engulfing more than 283,000 acres.

So, while the Democrats in California and in Washington D.C. play the Climate Change fiddle, California burns.

Hillary Clinton goes on speaking tour

I would say that this is a sign that she is not running in 2016. But, these days, who knows? She could be doing the speaking tour to warm up for a political run in 2016. 

EXCLUSIVE: Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will hit the paid speaking circuit this spring (likely April or May) and has selected the Harry Walker Agency, which represents President Clinton, as her agent. Industry officials expect that she will be one of the highest paid speakers in the history of the circuit, with fees well into the six figures in the United States and abroad.  Secretary Clinton will likely do some speeches for no fee for causes she champions, and expects to occasionally donate her fees for charitable purposes. Clinton, who will maintain her homes in Washington and Chappaqua, is also beginning to make decisions about the book she has said she will write, an account of her four years as secretary of State. Non-profit work will be another component of her new life, perhaps through her husband’s foundation or one of her own. — HILLARY CLINTON UNVEILS FIRST PHASE OF NEW LIFE -POLITICO.com

Either way, I wish her the best. I think it would be interesting to see Hillary Clinton and a Republican woman run for President. It would make for some interesting debates, especially on Abortion. If anything at all, it would be fun to see who could out-harpy the other. You know, two feminists, screaming at each other as to whom was the more self-important. It would, if anything, make for some very funny TV. 

Just my opinion. 

Drop in voter registration in Ohio

Despite what has happened locally here and how I feel about it; I must continue on writing and blogging about what I consider to be important.

It seems that in Ohio, there has been a decline in voter registration, especially in Democratic Party strongholds. This is also signaling a national trend. Here is the Story and Video via Fox News Channel:

The Video:

The Story:

“Don’t boo, vote,” President Obama often says in his stump speech whenever crowds boo a Romney plan.

The off-hand call to vote may be by design. It comes amid a precipitous decline in Democratic voter registration in key swing states — nowhere more apparent than in Ohio.

Voter registration in the Buckeye State is down by 490,000 people from four years ago. Of that reduction, 44 percent is in Cleveland and surrounding Cuyahoga County, where Democrats outnumber Republicans more than two to one.

“I think what we’re seeing is a lot of spin and hype on the part of the Obama campaign to try to make it appear that they’re going to cruise to victory in Ohio,” Cuyahoga County Republican Chairman Rob Frost said. “It’s not just Cuyahoga County. Nearly 350,000 of those voters are the decrease in the rolls in the three largest counties, Cuyahoga, Hamilton and Franklin.”

Frost points out that those three counties all contain urban centers, where the largest Democrat vote traditionally has been.

Ohio is not alone. An August study by the left-leaning think tank Third Way showed that the Democratic voter registration decline in eight key swing states outnumbered the Republican decline by a 10-to-one ratio. In Florida, Democratic registration is down 4.9 percent, in Iowa down 9.5 percent. And in New Hampshire, it’s down down 19.7 percent.

“It’s understandable that enthusiasm is going to wane a little bit from that historic moment (in 2008),” says Michelle Diggles, the study co-author and senior policy adviser for Third Way. “You can only elect the first African-American president of this country once.

Of course, there are other reasons why people are just not happy anymore with the Democrats:

One Democratic Party consultant told Fox News that independents in Ohio may be leaning Democratic – an effect that may be tied to the bailout of Chrysler and GM. One of eight people in Ohio work in businesses directly tied to the auto industry. The state has been carpeted with Obama ads that point to his bailout of the industry and it’s managed bankruptcy.

I do not mean to toot my own horn; but in this case, I must. I predicted that stuff like this would happen on my old blog. When the bailouts happened, and when the healthcare bill was pushed through. The truth is Independents are simply running away from Obama. Another thing too that this report did not cover; is that some Democrats are simply not happy with the Obama Administration. This is for a number for reasons: The continuation of Bush’s polices on the war on terror and the war is one. The failure to close the prisons in Gitmo is another. The continuing of the war in Afghanistan is another. Also too, Ohio is also a union State and when Obama’s chief of staff at the time, said “F*** the big three!”, many in Ohio heard about that too. This all makes for a unpopular President.

Also too; the economy in Ohio, here in Michigan; and nationally, just plain sucks. There are many small businesses in Ohio, many of whom are faithful Democrats; and they are just looking at their bottom lines and are looking at this President and wondering, “What on earth are they doing to us?” To be fair, it is not all of Obama’s fault. The Federal Reserve with it’s QE1, QE2 and now QE3 is not helping the situation at all. When the fed prints more money, inflation happens, which drives the prices of everything up and this, in turn, hurts businesses. Which, in turn, hurts the economy. Bill Clinton learned this lesson early on, and made adjustments. Jimmy Carter and this President, did not. For that, they are paying a price at the polls.

I should also mention that this current foreign policy debacle in Libya, and Egypt and the rest of the Arab World is also weighing heavy on the minds of people as well. As it was in 1979, with the Iran hostage crisis. Now, Iran is being a problem again. Which is very ironic.

History has such a strange way of repeating itself.

The Federal Reserve Bank continues to screw America into the ground

Here is the Fed chairs announcement:

The Story via CNN.COM:

NEW YORK (CNNMoney) — The Federal Reserve announced plans to unleash more stimulus Thursday, in its third attempt at a controversial program to rev up the U.S. economy.

The policy, known as quantitative easing and often abbreviated as QE3, entails buying $40 billion in mortgage-backed securities each month. The end date remains up in the air, as the Fed will re-evaluate the strength of the economy in coming months.

The Fed is wasting no time. The purchases begin Friday and are expected to add up to only $23 billion for the remainder of September.
The bond-buying policy “should put downward pressure on longer-term interest rates, support mortgage markets, and help to make broader financial conditions more accommodative,” the Fed’s official statement said.

Meanwhile, the Fed will continue its existing policy known as Operation Twist. Together the two programs will add $85 billion in long-term bonds to the Fed’s balance sheet each month.

Now what effect will this have on our money supply?

Ryan W. McMaken writing over at Lew Rockwell’s blog correctly observes:

The effect of this will be:

  1. Even less saving going on than is happening now. Why do the lending institutions need more liquidity? Because there are no real life loanable funds in the first place. No one is putting money in depository institutions, for example, because interest rates are at rock-bottom levels, but also because people have no excess money to save. So, the Fed is creating fake loanable funds through the purchase of the MBSs. Much of this will probably be newly-created money.
  2. It will maintain the focus on consumer spending rather than investment. The idea is to keep people spending on real estate. Thus, less will be spent on business investment.
  3. People will incur more debt.

We’ve heard for years from some incorrigible economists that what we need is the Fed to pump up the real estate market to get people spending again. Their answer is: more debt, more spending, less savings and investment.

This is what has been happening for years to no avail, of course, and the Fed is now just turning it up a notch. I’m sure recovery is right around the corner.

The definition of insanity/Keynesianism: Doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.

A-farking-men. This is what happens, when you elect the same very idiots, who screwed the housing markets squarely into the ground.  People that voted for this sort of Government, get exactly what is coming to them and the sort of Government that they voted for. Who the heck ever heard of printing money, that you do not even have to print? It is the textbook case of utter insanity.

I will say this; if Mitt Romney loses this election and the way recent events have turned out, he just might lose —- and this Nation goes into the crapper, because Conservatives and the Republican Party decided to pick a safe candidate. Then the Republican Party should be shut down for good and a new Conservative Party formed. Others have said it, I know and they are absolutely correct.

This stuff right here is the very reason why I hung it up with the Democratic Party and stopped voting for them and supporting them. I am not a millionaire or even someone with any sort of money at all. Hell, I have been unemployed for 8 damned years. However, I do know stupidity, when it see it; and it is on full display here.  Only insane people would do stuff like this, and try to rev up the economy. The solution is to let the free-market work and do its job, not stick a statist finger in it.

Also too; as much as I am not a big fan of weaving ads into my blog postings. I believe this one is important. This would be a good time as any to get into Gold, Silver and other metals. I deal with two companies that sell the stuff. Their banners are below and they both come highly recommended.

They are:


GoldSilver.com

and…:

Buying Gold

Current Prices:




It would be absoutely insane not to get into at least some sort of Gold or other precious metal investment.

 

Others: Michelle MalkinNewsyGuardianLewRockwell.com Blog and Real Time Economics — Blogger Roundup at Memeorandum.com

Chuck Baldwin minces no words about Paul Ryan

I have to like Chuck Baldwin, he does not mince words:

It has happened again. We go through this every four years, and every four years the vast majority of “conservatives” fall for it. This is such a broken record. What did Forrest Gump say: “Stupid is as stupid does”? And wasn’t it P.T. Barnum who said, “There’s a sucker born every minute”? Well, here we go again.

Neocon RINO George H.W. Bush picks “conservative” Dan Quayle. “Conservative” G.W. Bush picks neocon RINO Dick Cheney. Neocon RINO John McCain picks “conservative” Sarah Palin. Now, neocon RINO Mitt Romney picks “conservative” Paul Ryan. As long as there is one “conservative” on the ticket, mushy-headed “conservatives” across the country will go into a gaga, starry-eyed, hypnotic trance in support of the Republican ticket. I’m convinced that if Lucifer, himself, was the GOP Presidential candidate, he would get the support of the Religious Right and Republican “conservatives” as long as he selected a reputed “conservative” to join his ticket. And, by the way, the notable “conservative” wouldn’t think twice about joining such a ticket, either, I’m convinced.

Let’s just get this on the record: since 1960, there have only been two Presidential nominees (from the two major parties) who were not controlled by the globalist elitists. One was a Democrat, John F. Kennedy; the other was a Republican, Ronald Reagan. Kennedy was shot and killed; Reagan was shot. Every other President, Democrat or Republican, has been totally controlled, which is why none of them have done diddly-squat to make a difference in the direction of the country. On the issues that really matter, Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan are just more of the same!

via Chuck Baldwin — Paul Ryan: More Of The Same.

He goes on to say that Ron Paul is the only one; and I disagree with that. However, I will say this; he is right about Romney and Ryan. Which is I am voting for:

Goode/Clymer in 2012

He will not win the election

But voting for anything else is simply Anti-American

Click here to Donate

 

 

Special Comment: When facts become passé

Unless you have been living under a rock somewhere, you most likely know about the tragic events that have taken place out in Aurora, Colorado on Friday June 21, 2012. The magnitude and scope of this horrific event have not even begun to settle in with the Nation, not to mention the world. The families of the dead are just now being notified, and the crime scene is still gone over by the police department and the FBI, ATF and many others. This horrific tragedy will forever be associated with this Batman Movie. Because of the tragic events in Colorado; no one, not matter who they are; myself included, will never be able to walk into a movie theater and feel safe ever again.

As many of you know, I once was a Democratic Party voter. I voted for that party from the time I was eligible to vote, until 2008. I am 40 years of age, so that should give you an idea of how long I have been voting. So, when I see someone who is supposed to be a respected movie reviewer, exploiting this horrific and tragic event to further his own political agenda — I have to wonder, has the left gone that mad?

I am of course, referring to Roger Ebert, of whom, at one time, I actually respected as a film reviewer — posting an opinion piece in the New York Times, which is supposedly the paper of record, on this event in Aurora, Colorado. In this piece, Roger Ebert condemns the right, condemns those who own guns, and dismisses the notion that anyone really should own a gun at all. This is typical boilerplate progressivism and liberal Democrat gruel from people like Ebert and I usually do not get bothered by such things.

However, when I see Ebert and people like him, actually resorting to the distortion of fact, I really have to wonder. Case in point, Ebert writes the following in his piece:

That James Holmes is insane, few may doubt. Our gun laws are also insane, but many refuse to make the connection. The United States is one of few developed nations that accepts the notion of firearms in public hands. In theory, the citizenry needs to defend itself. Not a single person at the Aurora, Colo., theater shot back, but the theory will still be defended.

Okay, this is where I actually have to correct a man, who is supposedly a respected writer and film critic. Here is the truth from the media:

Via USA TODAY:

James Eagan Holmes, 24, legally bought the four weapons he allegedly used. Police said he opened fire in a suburban Denver theater with four sold-out showings of the premiere of the Batman movie Dark Knight Rises. He was dressed head-to-toe in black bullet-proof gear, including helmet, vest, leggings and a groin and throat protector. He wore a gas mask, goggles, and black gloves.

You see, Roger Ebert omitted the fact that this man was wearing armor to protect himself from being shot at in the theater. Therefore, it would not have mattered at all, if someone would have shot back at him or not — that is unless someone was shooting armor piercing ammunition, which is generally not available to the public, unless someone happens to have an old stash of it. This is because of our over reactionary Government decided to outlaw those types of bullets after the North Hollywood Bank shootout that happened in 1997. This resulted in the outlawing of automatic assault rifles and armor piercing bullets. The ban on the assault rifles expired, but the ban on armor piercing bullets never did. This would leave someone unable to defend himself or herself against an attacker wearing body armor.

I do not believe this attempt to cover this little known fact up is an isolated incident. I believe as time goes on, the fact that he was wearing body armor is going to be buried by the media for a reason. The United Government does not want the American people to know that if someone in that theater, had been armed with armor piercing bullets, this killer could have, and would have been stopped dead cold in his tracks. Not to sound like an devotee of the “Alex Jones school for mental awareness” or anything; but, the fact is that we are living in a bit of a police state, where even the simplest of calls for things like domestic violence can get a swat team sent to someone’s house.

I believe this not to be an accident, our Government wants to have an upper hand on its citizens, and they are doing this by restricting access to those kinds of bullets. Because logic would tell one, that if an law enforcement officer knew that someone had this sort of ammunition, that they would be less inclined to perform some of the unconstitutional acts against the citizens of this Country that has been documented on various websites, including this one here.

This is what, we as Constitutional Conservatives, must fight against, the seizing of our freedom to own and possess a firearm. If left unchecked, laws that diminish our freedoms will be passed. If it were left to the “Liberal left” in this Country, we would be much like Europe, where there are no guns at all; and the only ones who own them would be criminals. This is our mandate going forward, even if Mitt Romney is elected, we must fight against those who would pressure the President to restrict gun ownership.

As Conservatives, we all know that love for this great Country of ours is imperative. However, blind, child-like trust of our Government is a futile mistake —– just ask Randy Weaver.

Living proof that liberals are classless human beings

Before we begin, a little music….:

For your reading pleasure:

DEAD ANDY BREITBART IS NOW ROMNEY’S TOP CAMPAIGN STRATEGIST
DougJ / Balloon Juice:  Bad like Jesse James
BooMan / Booman Tribune:   Welcome Back to Palinville  —  I think Steve M. is right.

Go read that stuff and come back here. I’ll wait.

Now, did you read that? Let me ask you this; what if we Conservatives mocked a dead liberal like that? Just a note: Andrew Breitbart did say some nasty things about Ted Kennedy, which is why I was not a huge fan of his. But, still, what if we Conservatives mocked a dead liberal blogger, or public figure who was liberal? We would be poo poo’ed from one end of spectrum to the other!  Not only this, but if someone said something as nasty as what this “no more Mr. nice blog” said and it was about a liberal; the Non-Fox media would be all over it. However, because it is a liberal blogger, and a nasty son-of-a-bitch one at that, not a word is said about it.

My friends, this right here; along with a good deal of other issues, is why this skeptical left-of-center, American populist kind of a guy simply walked away from the Democrats in 2008 and has not looked back since.  They have nothing anymore, nothing that this skeptical person wants to buy anymore. All they have is nastiness, like this; class warfare, and racial resentment. They have no solutions, they have nothing for the middle class and the working man. They are the party of the minority and the identity politics crowd; the part of hand outs and freeloaders.

It is truly a sad thing to behold, all the years of work done by great statesmen, like Roosevelt, Truman and many before them; is being squandered by people who simply hate this Country, its morals and its legacy. These are the ones who gave us LBJ and his disastrous “great society.” They are the ones who gave us Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton and now this disastrous neo-leftist Barack Hussein Obama.

The Democratic Party, which President Ronald Reagan referred to as the “Honorable Party” has given way to the neo-leftist party.  They proved that to me, when the Obama campaign basically used Chicago-style tactics of death threats and dirty pool against a fellow Democrat. This is why I left them; because the honor left that party long ago. Not only that, but the Democrats scheme to bring down our capitalist system though the passage of a clause of to a bill, which turned out to be a rather benign piece of legislation into a ticking time bomb.

Yes, that my friends, is the party that I made the horrible mistake of voting for until 2008, when I finally stopped making excuses for them and realized that party had finally become — and that is a cesspool of hate, racial resentment, class warfare, murder (of babies), God denial and more. I simply had enough and switched to the side that honors God, America and the individual. No, I do not mean the Republican Party — I mean the side of Conservatism.

It is a choice that I do not regret.

Update: Apparently one of the liberals objects to my linking to him. Two words: Tough rocks. He also seems to have a bit of reading comprehension problem; which is typical of the left.  He also sent one of his sock puppets to argue with me. Sorry, I don’t argue with idiots, and ya’ll bunch of idiots. But, thanks just the same for the traffic. 😀

 

As much as I hate to admit it, Libby Spencer has a point

…and no I don’t mean the one on the top of her head either…. 😉 😛

As you know, I am not a big fan of the previous President. In fact, his stupidity got me to start blogging — That was in 2006 — 8 Years ago. WOW. Makes me feel old. 😯

Anyhow, reacting to the news today and Nancy Pelosi’s reaction to it, Progressive blogger Libby Spencer says:

To which one can only reply, “Why the hell didn’t you do it?

Talk is cheap. If Pelosi’s Congress had actually pursued charges against the very real criminality in the Bush White House and had Rove’s pudgy ass frogmarched down Capitol Hill, it might have made the thieves and scoundrels think twice before embarking on their next caper. And even if it didn’t stop the GOPers, it would have at least made clear Democrats were as willing to fight as hard against the GOP agenda as the left did to put them into a majority.

That they didn’t is at least partly why they’re struggling right now to recapture the enthusiasm of the base.

via The Impolitic: Contemptible Congress.

I have to give the woman credit, when she is right — she is right. The no-nothing Democrats, during Bush’s term is why there was a good deal of lackluster support of the Democrats, during the era of Bush. This is why Obama shot forward, because the Democrats knew that if they did not pick someone like Obama, that they would lose to the Republican again in another election.  This is sort of the problem that they have right now; just like during the Clinton era — their President is in trouble and the bench is empty.  Except, back then they did have Gore, and Edwards and Hillary and Kerry. Now…. they have nobody at all.

It should be a lesson to them, overreach, when it suits your own political interests is never, ever a good idea. Yes, I know the Republicans have done it too and they paid for it in elections too. Now, it is the Democrats turn. I predict that this election coming in 2012 is going to be a wake up call for the Progressive community and to the Democratic Party. They are going to have to make some tough decisions about the future of that party. Because America is not happy with them, neither is their base. The old way of doing things in that Party is not going to work anymore. They need new ideas. The Democratic Party needs to come back to center and start over. This far-leftist way of doing things as failed and failed badly.

It is time for that party to change, and quickly, before that party is relegated to the dustbin of history.

Artur Davis writes one of the most honest articles I have read in a long time

If I ever had the chance to meet this young man, I would thank him for his bravery. This man gets it, and he sees that the Democratic Party is totally broken. I saw it in 2007 and decided that I just could not support them any longer. This was way before the huge economic melt down of 2008. After that, the deal was sealed for me. Never again would I vote for that party.

So, my hats off to this man for seeing that too:

And the question of party label in what remains a two team enterprise? That, too, is no light decision on my part: cutting ties with an Alabama Democratic Party that has weakened and lost faith with more and more Alabamians every year is one thing; leaving a national party that has been the home for my political values for two decades is quite another. My personal library is still full of books on John and Robert Kennedy, and I have rarely talked about politics without trying to capture the noble things they stood for. I have also not forgotten that in my early thirties, the Democratic Party managed to engineer the last run of robust growth and expanded social mobility that we have enjoyed; and when the party was doing that work, it felt inclusive, vibrant, and open-minded.

But parties change. As I told a reporter last week, this is not Bill Clinton’s Democratic Party (and he knows that even if he can’t say it). If you have read this blog, and taken the time to look for a theme in the thousands of words (or free opposition research) contained in it, you see the imperfect musings of a voter who describes growth as a deeper problem than exaggerated inequality; who wants to radically reform the way we educate our children; who despises identity politics and the practice of speaking for groups and not one national interest; who knows that our current course on entitlements will eventually break our solvency and cause us to break promises to our most vulnerable—that is, if we don’t start the hard work of fixing it.

via A Response to Political Rumors | Official Artur Davis.

I have to agree with the man; he is right. The Democratic Party used Barack Obama to get elected, because they had no one else. They threw off Clinton, because they chose identity politics over experience.  You see, I remember 2000 and 2004. In 2000, the Democratic Party used a elitist out of touch buffoon, who could not get elected Mayor of a City; much less a President. Al Gore might have been from the south, but he lacked Bill Clinton’s likeability. In 2004, The Democratic Party ran a out of touch, elitist, limousine Liberal who, again, was seen by most as stiff and not of the people. Which he really is not, John Kerry is an incredibly wealthy man.

So, in 2008, the Democratic Party basically had Clinton, Edwards, Biden and yes, Obama. There were people in the Democratic Party, who did not want the Clintons back in the White House at all. So, the party rallied behind Obama for a number of reasons. Yes, race was one of the bigger reasons. Also too, I tend to believe that there were people, who Clinton “did dirty” back during his term in office and they wanted revenge; and revenge they got.

It was with the election of President Barack Obama that the Democratic Party went from being a party of the “New Left” to being a party of the “Neo-Left.” That was the whole changing of the guard within the Party. Saul Alinsky’s dream was finally realized. This is the change that Artur Davis is referring to and it is one that is only going to drive more and more people away from the Democratic Party and I do not mean just white people. Minorities, including blacks, are going to wake up and see that they being played like fiddles in that party. The quicker the better, if you ask me.

All what I wrote above, Reagan knew, long ago — he saw the changes that were happening behind the scenes and promptly changed his political stance. Mainly because he saw what was coming down the pike. Reagan saw that the Communists were changing tactics and embracing “social justice” as opposed to party loyalty. So, he left and embraced his Midwestern upbringing. The truth is Reagan did not change; The Democratic Party changed and they have since gotten totally worse.

Again, Kudos to Mr. Davis and I hope he comes to embrace what he knows to be right.

UPDATED: This is a textbook reason why I stopped voting Democratic Party for good

Back before I ran my old blog, which was called “Political Byline”; I used to run a blog called “The Populist.” Well, that blog was hacked, either by some people, who call themselves Conservatives or by foreign entities. I suspect the former, but I tend to think it was the latter. Either way, by the time all that happened; I had become totally disillusioned with the Democratic Party. To be fair to myself; I never much did care for the Democratic Party establishment, this especially after the idiotic Clinton Administration’s nonsense. especially during his second term. Plus, as a Christian; I had not forgotten about the Waco incident.

Anyhow, one of reasons for this disillusionment was the Democrat Party’s treatment of our Military. It has been tepid at best. Proof of this, can be seen right here: (H/T NewsBusters)

Quoting this tool:

CHRIS HAYES: Thinking today and observing Memorial Day, that’ll be happening tomorrow.  Just talked with Lt. Col. Steve Burke [sic, actually Beck], who was a casualty officer with the Marines and had to tell people [inaudible].  Um, I, I, ah, back sorry, um, I think it’s interesting because I think it is very difficult to talk about the war dead and the fallen without invoking valor, without invoking the words “heroes.” Um, and, ah, ah, why do I feel so comfortable [sic] about the word “hero”?  I feel comfortable, ah, uncomfortable, about the word because it seems to me that it is so rhetorically proximate to justifications for more war. Um, and, I don’t want to obviously desecrate or disrespect memory of anyone that’s fallen, and obviously there are individual circumstances in which there is genuine, tremendous heroism: hail of gunfire, rescuing fellow soldiers and things like that. But it seems to me that we marshal this word in a way that is problematic. But maybe I’m wrong about that. 

I don’t write this to trash Chris Hayes, but to pose a question to the Conservative Democrats that actually read this blog and yes, I happen to know that a few of you that do, in fact, read here. Could you imagine a Democrat President giving a speech like this here?:

Not only can I not see a Democratic Party President giving a speech like this; but I would tend to believe that FDR would be chased out of the Democratic Party as a warmonger today! This is my issue with the modern-day Democratic Party; it is as if they are “Brothers-in-arms” with those who crashed those planes into the trade center buildings in 2001. The Liberal Democrats in this country have the attitude that the United States of America is the “great capitalist Satan” of the world and somehow or another deserved the attacks on 9/11. Who else has this attitude about America? oh yes! It is the Islāmic terrorists!

This is the reason Chris Hayes cannot call our Military dead Heroic men and women. Because it goes against his entire leftist DNA. Because the left hates our Military, hates the values that our Military stands for and quite frankly hates this Country for what it truly is.

That is the Democratic Party of the 21 century and I want zero to do with it, at all. 😡

The really sad thing is; is that Ron Paul and most, if not all, of the Paleo-Conservative right agree with this guy and his furry Progressive friends.  Which is why Ron Paul never, ever be President of the United States.  Ron Paul and the Paleoconservatives want to take us back to prior to World War 2 and leave the Jews to Hitler and put the WASP’s back in charge. Sorry guys, we lost that battle. We have to come to the 21 century. The quicker the better, I say.

Others Covering: Wizbang, Right Wing News, Booman Tribune, The Right Scoop, The Daily Caller, American Power, Examiner, The Gateway Pundit and Fire Andrea Mitchell! — via memeorandum

Update: This liberal blogger comes right out and says it. Hey, at least he is honest about it. Although, I tend to suspect that the irony of what he wrote is lost on him. It is because of the deaths of soldiers past; on battlefields domestic and abroad, he is free to even write that sort of tripe. Again, just another perfect example of why I told the Democratic Party to piss off and voted my principles — and no, I do not mean Republican either. Hell, the Republican Party has not been a true, small Government Conservative Party since Reagan left office and the Neoconservatives took power. Even Reagan was not truly a small Government Conservative either. He believed in small Government; when it was convenient.

Update #2: Chris Hayes has given a half-assed, non-apology apology.