When the time changes in the spring and fall, the clocks need to be changed.  If you don’t like what is on the television, the only relief is to turn it off or change the channel.  If you don’t want to be a Democrat any longer, you can change and become an independent.  If you are overweight, you can change your diet and activity level.  There are endless examples of real changes that are needed, but change just for the sake of change is usually pointless.  If you have four new tires on your car, would you change them just because?

 

      Even when someone decides to change the color of his bathroom, it is done for a reason.  He is tired of the old, chipped paint and wants a new color.  Yet, watch any political speech or rally and there are people standing, holding signs with the message, "We want change!"  Do they need a five dollar bill?  Is that the change they need?  With moronic smiles glued on their faces they chant about wanting change.  What is it they want to change?  No one ever explains what "change" they want.

 

      Then, in the background, you hear a presidential candidate making the profound statement, "I see the sunlight through the clouds," (said to the cadence of "I have a dream...") and all the robotic, grinning, sign-holders cheer.  Is it rain they want to change?  Perhaps, they don’t like clouds. While the sun peeking through on a cloudy day is quite pretty, on a political level, it is pure drivel.  The statement means nothing.  Instead of cheering, people should be asking, "What the heck are you trying to say?"

 

      Hillary Clinton became teary-eyed for the media when talking about how badly she wants to save America for "the children."  What does she want to "save" the children from?  She spoke of how hard she is working to make everyone’s life better--to "keep America from falling backwards."  That statement is pure rubbish.  Hillary is getting teary-eyed because she is afraid she might lose the presidential nomination she has paid so much money to have and fully expected to have handed to her on a silver platter.  The usual bag of dirty tricks hasn’t been working.  The Clinton machine will have to make a "change" and skip Plan B and go straight to Plan C--and cheat.

 

      What drastic changes does America need to make?  Why is it that the liberal media, hand-in-hand with the socialist-leftists-progressives, spend every waking minute trying to convince Americans that our lives are a living hell?  Would America’s "falling backwards" to the days of cherished independence and self-reliance be all that bad?  Would ridding America of the welfare state be a bad change?  Would total dependence on the government be a good change?

 

      The unemployment rate is an enviable 5%.  Is that the change leftist Americans want?  Do they want higher unemployment?

 

      Then there is the "evil rich" in America.  Leftist politicians are continually saying that they will "change" the tax laws so that the rich pay "their fair share."  The top 1% of Americans already pay 37% of the revenue collected by the IRS.  In fact, 85% of all the money collected by the IRS is paid by 25% of income-earners.

 

      When the "tax cuts for the rich" were enacted by President Bush in 2004, the "rich" actually went from paying 83% to 85% of the taxes. There was no tax cut for the rich at all, but the Democratic candidates will say it over and over again.  It’s the old, "If you repeat a lie often enough, people will believe it," part of the Democratic platform.

 

      Class warfare is just one of the weapons in the leftist arsenal that is inflicted on an uneducated American population.  Perhaps the leftists would like to "change" the tax code so that the "rich" just turn over all their money to them to be distributed to the masses?  What will they hand out when there are no longer any rich?  What "change" will they devise then? Who will they blame when the economy crashes and unemployment reaches high numbers because the "rich" no longer exist and are no longer creating jobs?  Don’t people remember the days of Jimmy Carter as president when interest rates hit 20%?

 

      We are also told that the stock market is ready to crash around us. Unless some Saudi sneezes, which is all it takes to make Wall Street hysterical, the market seems to be doing just fine.  The "dot-com" bubble, ignored by the Clinton administration, caused havoc when it all came tumbling down.  The only thing that stopped a recession in America was the "change" President Bush made when he cut the taxes.

 

      The housing market is on a down-slide!  Liberal hysteria is everywhere.  Has it occurred to anyone that perhaps housing was over-priced to start with?  For every seller not making money hand over fist when he sells, there is a buyer getting a fair price.  What is wrong with that?  It’s a natural correction in an over-inflated market.  Would liberals be screaming recession about a drop in food prices?

 

      There is no doubt that liberals/progressives like to change history. Hillary Clinton was wooing the African-American voters by telling them that is was a Democrat, Lyndon Johnson, who got the civil rights laws passed.  Indeed, Johnson was president at the time.  Kennedy refused to even attempt it out of fear of losing the southern vote. Johnson, being from Texas, had no such fear.  But history is being changed when Hillary Clinton says it was the Democrats who passed the laws.  Senators Al Gore, Sr. (D-Tenn.) and Robert Byrd, (D-W. Va.) filibustered in the senate to stop the laws from passing.  Democrats didn’t seem to want "change" then.  It was the Republicans who stopped the raging racists within the Democratic Party and got the laws passed.  Do liberals have the right to "change" history too?  Do the American people really want history changed to suit the desires of the leftists?

 

      Then there is battle against Islamic terrorists in Iraq. America and the Iraqi people are winning in Iraq.  The terrorists are either fleeing or being killed and yet, leftists want a "change."  Does this mean they want to lose to the terrorists in Iraq?  That’s what it seems.  Just as America and her allies are on the brink of a democratic and stable Iraq, the Democrats want to pull the rug out from the Iraqi people just to get even with George Bush.  How is that "change" good?  Would a wholesale surrender to Islamic terrorists be a good change?

 

      If someone needs to change her baby’s diaper, by all means, do so.  If you want to change the channel on the television or radio, go for it. But please stop trying to "change" America.  Americans have been doing pretty well all these years making changes only when change was absolutely necessary.

 

      "Change" as a campaign slogan is a lame and lazy way to not to have to explain what a candidate’s plan really is.   Chanting it is a lame and lazy way to choose a candidate to support.  There is very little thought expended and very little research required.  Perhaps the new slogan should be, "I will vote for change because it requires no thought at all, but it sounds good and I like that!"