|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
REAL CHANGE? OR THE STATUS QUO....by Don Bright
This entry was posted on 4/6/2008 12:49 PM and is filed under Presidential Candidates,Political Parties-the 2 headed snake.
REAL CHANGE?
Or the Status Quo.
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:
All three candidates running for the 2008 nomination for President (Barrack
Obama, Hillary Clinton and John McCain.) have been singing from the oldest
hymnal in the church of liberalism since the beginning of the campaign.
"We need change." they sing. 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.)
Do any of the three candidates I have listed above truly want
change? On a comparative test the only answer would of course be
“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.
McCain: By and large, John has very socialist longings. His disdain
for our Constitution … specifically freedom of speech (McCain-Feingold Campaign
Reform Act) and religion (he refers to religious leaders as “agents of
intolerance.") …, his call for more government control of our property and
activities through the use of global warming scaremongering, his pursuit of
governmental designation of marital status, his pre-emption of the
congressional power to declare war and his one-worldism (elimination of nation
state sovereignty through open borders and bowing to United Nation dictates.)
are significant proof of a socialist bent. He calls that change. I
call it the status quo.
Ironically, true change would be returning the United States to the original
intent of the freedom-fighters – our founding heroes. After all, it was
an escape from the policies of the three liberals above and their ilk that was
the cause – indeed, the reason - for the United States and its
enlightened revolution.
Probably the most often repeated phrase in human history is “the struggle
for freedom”.
And that does not mean the freedom from individualism. It means the
freedom from collectivism. In other words, the struggle has been freedom from
government and the historic record of its innate evils.
In order to secure this enlightened thought of the proper form of government –
that of a contained government – our forefathers were intelligent enough to
realize that a historic anti-government contract between the governed and the
governing was necessary and thus the greatest document in the annals of humanity
was written; the Constitution of the United States. Today, those of us
that still honor the incontrovertible rational of this noble document are
called “anti-government”…well duh! I proudly wear the title of
“anti-government”. I could name a whole list of other “anti-government”
heroes but it would take to much time and space to do so. My suggestion,
if the reader wants a partial list of these enlightened anti-government men, is
for the reader to turn to the signers of the Constitution.
For Clinton, Obama and McCain, then, to harbor a desire for the maintaining of
our present paradigm of slavery to a megalithic despotism and call it “change”
is a grotesque abuse of the word.
In the words of the writer, Philip K. Dick “The basic tool for the manipulation
of reality is the manipulation of words. If you can control the meaning of
words, you can control the people who must use the words. ( “What’s a
Word Worth?)
Don Bright is a radio talk
show host, poet and editorialist. He can be contacted through his
website: Brightremarks.com .
|
|
|
|
|
|
