CHANGE?

All the Candidates are calling for it…but from what to what?

By Don A. Bright

My Microsoft Bookshelf dictionary defines “change” in the following way:  Change: 1. a. To cause to be different: b. To give a completely different form or appearance to; transform:

The four most prominent liberal candidates running for the 2008 nomination for President (Barrack Obama, Hillary Clinton, John Edwards and Mike Huckabee) have been singing from the oldest hymnal in the church of candidacy since the beginning of the campaign.  This piece of political rhetoric has been around since voting began.  Let’s take a closer look at what is really the status quo in the United States and what would truly “cause (our government) to be different”.

Just so we know we’re on the same page as to “change” and “status quo” I will add here the same dictionary’s definition of “status quo”:  status quo: noun  The existing condition or state of affairs.

Currently in the United States our status quo is socialism.  (a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done. - Merriam-Webster online dictionary).  “Change”, then, would consist of a transposition from “a stage in government theory of socialism to capitalism, distinguished by freedom, private property and equal rights for all and pay according to productivity. – Bright’s on demand Common Sense Dictionary.)

How many of the four liberals I have listed above are truly wanting change?   On a comparative test the only answer needed is “none of the above”.  Let’s take a look at who’s calling for what kind of change:

Clinton:  Hillary is campaigning on promises to socialize our entire medical system (1/6 of our economy) by putting it under the control of mindless bureaucrats which will triple the cost and reduce the quality of the system.  She will work to grant immunity from prosecution for such organizations as the Black Panthers, Weather Underground, (which she championed during the sixties) Cair, and Moveon.org.  She also promises to raise taxes and place more and more commerce under the heavy hand of government with further regulation and corporate taxes.  Hillary calls this change…I call it the status quo.

Obama:  Barrack is running on promises to expand racial quotas, government controlled wages based on racial and gender, giving Gestapoist agencies of the federal government the sole power to define individual thought through “hate” crime legislation, remove children from parental guidance by dictate and put the government in charge of children at birth, (read his “0 to 5” plan for early brainwashing on the glories of government dependency) and the banning of the Pledge of Allegiance and National Anthem.  (He turns his back on the flag when either is in play.)  Barrack calls this change…I call it the status quo.

Edwards:  John wants to regulate and tax business out of…well, business.  He also promises high paying jobs provided by the taxpayers (apparently he thinks that is doable.)

He wants to increase taxes and promises wage and price controls.  He defines American patriots as those wanting war.  He wishes to socialize higher education through government caps and free government tuition.  Oh, and another thing:  on his website he calls for more respect for our Constitution (The fact that respecting the Constitution would make every promise he makes an illegal act shows his disrespect for the Constitution.)  John calls this change…I call it the status quo.

Huckabee:  Where do I begin?  In the first place I will opine that the word “change”, when used by Huckabee, must mean replacing a dirty diaper with another dirty diaper.

For one thing Huckabee is very John Edwards like when it comes to the Constitution.  Perhaps it’s his lack of higher education that prevents him from understanding that the Constitution is his to ignore at will.  I have had two personal incidents with Mike during which he categorized private property as privilege which the government can retract on a “case by case” basis.  Hardly an educated understanding of the very form of government we live under, if you ask me.

Mike also claims to be a “defender of the 2^nd Amendment”, yet he made no effort at all to challenge any unconstitutional gun control measure in the state.  He wanted more felons on the street (through his liberal pardons) than he wanted self protection in the home. 

Mike claims to be for “free” enterprise and privacy for persons and private property and yet he dictated what private business owners could do on their own property by ramming statewide no smoking bans on that private property.

One of the first things Mike did when he took office was to add to the sales tax burden on the citizens of Arkansas.  As part of the dedication of this increase in taxes he created a new government agency.  Mike raised the taxes on Arkansas citizens by at least $500,000,000 during his reign.  He, of course, denies that using for one excuse the fact that he raised “fees” not taxes.  Only a dedicated liberal could claim that dispossessing citizens of their income under the police power of the state is not a tax.

Mike fooled the people of the state of Arkansas into voting for “cap” on property taxes for the elderly.  The “cap” was easily movable by the state for undefined conditions.  During the process of ramming this Trojan Horse down the wallets of Arkansans he kept very silent about one part of his “gift” to the people of Arkansas; that was the fact that the initiative raised their state sales tax level 1/2%.

Completely ignoring our Constitution was more Mike’s rule than exception.  The reader may not believe this, but Mike traveled to a foreign country (Mexico) and personally arranged for the establishment of a Mexican Consulate in Little Rock Arkansas as a magnet for drawing criminal aliens to the state to work for slave wages. (It may serve the reader well to be apprised of the fact that Mike was propped up by support and financial help by several corporate tycoons who stuffed their wallets with profits made off the backs of captive exploited labor.)  Mike apparently thinks repeating this kind of governance from the oval-office is change…I would call it the status quo on steroids.

At this point I need to make a correction.  I listed above the four most liberal candidates for the president’s office in the following order:  Obama, Clinton, Edwards and Huckabee.  I wish to change that order to Huckabee, Obama, Clinton and Edwards

So when you hear candidates promising “change” consider that “change” it as desirable as a dirty diaper.

Don Bright is a radio talk show host, poet and editorialist.  He can be contacted through his website:  Brightremarks.com.