Change America Can Really Do Without!

Democrats are noted for some real catchy slogans during campaigns. In 1960, John Kennedy ran under “A time for greatness.” By 1964, his successor, Lyndon Johnson used “All the way with LBJ.” In 1976 Jimmy Carter used, “A Leader, For a Change.” What a canard that one proved to be.

In 1984 we heard “America Needs a Change” from the failed candidacy of Walter Mondale. By 1992 Bill Clinton won with “Don’t stop thinking about tomorrow” followed by another win with “Building a bridge to the 21st century” in 1996.

Nancy Pelosi ran under “A New Direction for America” in 2006 and as we all know, former community agitator turned first term Senator, Barack Hussein Obama is running with another variant of the Democrats constant drone for “change” with “Change We Can Believe In.”

If B HO’s “change” is anything like the “New Direction” we were promised when Democrats swept both Houses of Congress in 2006, we really don’t need any more of that. As we all know, since Democrats took control of the House and Senate, America has made a sharp turn for the worse almost everywhere except the Iraq Theater of the War on Terror. Even that has been threatened with failure time and time again by political maneuvering of Democrats as the give us “change.”

Since Democrats took us in this “New Direction,” we have seen consumer confidence plummet, gasoline prices rise dramatically, unemployment begin rising and the stock market begin a downward spiral that has us on the brink of financial ruin. We have also seen the approval rating of Congress plummet to historical lows.

In spite of years of Democrats whining, “don’t challenge our patriotism,” Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi recently labeled Republicans as unpatriotic for their not bowing to Democrats demands on the financial bail out.

Listening to B HO in his speeches, whenever he brings up his “change,” can we not see that it is really little more than the same we have been brought since 2006? In fact, his “change” appears to be even further away from American ideals than even Pelosi’s crowd took us.

Obama has now grabbed ALL credit for the proposed Wall Street “bail out” agreement, granting credit to none but himself.

I must wonder, if, as many think, this “bail out” ends up causing more harm to middle America, will Obama, either as President or Senator, accept all blame for the failure and plunging us into a deep recession or depression? Somehow, I doubt he would do that.

Of late he has been saying that “several” are to blame for this fiasco, but when he lists those he blames, I don’t hear a single Democrat name mentioned, although their fingerprints are all over this mess.

Is this an example of the “change” or a return to the Clinton era “the buck never got here” attitude?

For some time now, expressions of free political speech have moved decidedly venomous, especially towards President Bush. He isn’t the first to receive this treatment, but the portrayals and rants against him have been the nastiest I have seen in my 60 years. Even a movie depicting the assassination of President Bush was defended and only drew tacit denunciation, at best. Effigies of President Bush have been hung, burned or otherwise desecrated with little or no outcry.

Yet, recently, an effigy of Barack Obama was found hanging from a tree and we hear of “sadness” and “outrage” over it. Police are investigating the act and have notified the Secret Service, even though they admit, “it's not clear yet whether the act was a crime.”

If it is “political free expression” to ‘burn our flag” or “denigrate President Bush,” why does a single act of hanging Obama in effigy merit a Police investigation? Shouldn’t it also be “free political expression?”

It would appear “ending free expression” may be one of those “changes” Obama says he will bring.

This is supported by the cabal of attorneys the Obama campaign has unleashed to threaten television stations that air ads against Obama that they deem “lies,” even though the very liberal New York Times reveals that B HO’s campaign is airing several ads of his own that even they see as “dubious.”

Can we ignore Obama’s call for supporters to “get in their face” of ones who aren’t supporting him and argue” them into submission? Is this an example of the tone of “civility and unity” he promises to bring to Washington D.C. and the nation?

There is something eerily familiar and unsettling in hearing of Camp Obama and the Obama Youth Movement. I seem to recall in history not too long ago of another charismatic leader that exploited the youth of his country and plunged the world into the bloodiest war in modern history.

Little attention has been paid to B HO’s long time connection to ACORN, a group claiming “non-partisan status,” yet promotes only Democrats and has been continually tied to voter fraud and remains receiving taxpayers money to help operate.

ACORN, contrary to what many believe, is not a helpful quiet community group, but grew out of more radical socialist anti-capitalist movements of the late 1960’s and early 1970’s.

Obama himself proved to be a quick study and effective user in the style advocated by noted Chicago leftist agitator, Saul Alinsky, who gave a very revealing interview with Playboy Magazine, shortly before his death in June 1972.

Is that really what we want to leave for our children and grandchildren?

Obama does promise “change,” but if we desire to remain a free people responsible for ourselves, it is “change that America do without!”