Posted by
JayPeriod on Monday, September 15, 2008 12:05:02 PM
Recently I had a discussion with some college students about the coming election. They couldn't believe I could support McCain/Palin. They couldn't believe I didn't think we need change in America. They just kept using that word change, as if it was some magical word.
I reminded them that change is not always good. Changing for the sake of change can get you in more trouble than not changing, sometimes. In 1917, the Russians got change. Looking at history, that's change they could have done without.
They were amazed that I would use that example of change. I didn't find it so far-fetched. It's the same kind of change the Comrade Obama is calling for. As you listen to his speeches about the wealthy and their need to pay their fair share and his talk of tax cuts for the poorest workers, most of which pay zero taxes to begin with, and his class-warfare branded speeches, it isn't really that far-fetched to make the connection.
Lenin incited the Russians in 1917 by bringing the idea of an elite class, those who benefited off the backs of the people. He realized that class warfare gets to the basest of emotions; fairness and greed. When we see others with things we want, we feel we are being cheated or they obtained such things through questionable methods. We want someone to make it fair. All we need is a great savior to tell us that he can level the playing field. Enter Comrade Obama.
As we enter the election, we need to look at the change being bandied about. Do we really want, or need, that kind of change? Has that kind of change been shown to be successful, historically?
Do we need change? No, doubt. We need someone to change the way we do government. We need someone who will reduce the size of government. We need someone to look out for our dollars, as individuals not collectively. I don't believe Comrade Obama has the type of change we need.