My mother and father used a truism that I will never forget, when they told me not to pass judgement on people at first glance. They said:"You can't judge a book by it's cover"! What they meant, was to like or dislike people by observing their words and actions, not by how they looked , what clothes they wore or the color of their skin.
It takes a while to determine the quality of a man or woman, and their actions and record of their actions speak volumes about what kind of person they are. This can be translated very easily into the judgement of whom a person would like to lead his/her Country. What have they done to warrant the position of leadership, what do they stand for: not what are they promising, should influence your choice. In the prelude to the Presidential election we have been deluged with articles about the campaign promises, and little has been said about the actual records of the three major candidates still in the race. Today's Patriot Post has an excellent article about the two Democrat candidates that are full of promises for what the government will do for those who vote for them. In his article Cal Thomas points out the fallacy of the policies and programs that both Hillary Clinton and Barrack Obama promise during their campaign speeches. The important issue is that what they promise is unlike many other campaign promises. They will deliver if elected, not promise and forget! The italics are added by me for emphasis. “[Barack] Obama [has said] the top priority of the next president should be the creation of a more lasting and equitable prosperity than achieved under Presidents Bush and Clinton. Obama apparently missed the class that teaches government doesn’t create prosperity; people do. During [a recent] debate with Hillary Clinton, Obama said he would pay for his proposed new programs, including mandatory health insurance, by imposing higher taxes on ‘the wealthy’ and raising the tax on Social Security wages. He added, ‘What we have had right now is a situation where we’ve cut taxes for people who don’t need them.’ Logically a greater tax burden should fall on those with the most ample resources, but should government determine how much money people ‘need’? This is Marxism: ‘from each according to his ability; to each according to his need.’ Sen. Clinton expressed similar sentiments on ABC’s ‘This Week’ when she said if people refuse to buy health insurance under her plan she might garnish people’s wages. One reason this socialistic mind-set resonates favorably with many is due to the shift in the last half-century from promoting hard work, self-sufficiency, marriage, personal responsibility and accountability and living within one’s means, to a mentality that (be it a poor person, a CEO or a corporation) I am entitled to the fruits of other people’s labor.
The taker mentality is exemplified at the top of society and at the bottom... a welfare client or a millionaire CEO are just as likely to have a claim on the average worker's pocket. That used to be called robbery before government and mega-corporations started doing it more than a century ago. How many politicians today talk about looking out for one’s self, not relying on government?” How many corporate leaders walk their talk about financial responsibility? How many will part with a fraction of their perks and raises to keep the American dream of middle-class prosperity moving forward? — Cal Thomas
Both Democrats are advocating a shift in this Country's government toward socialism. Does the senior body politic want their hard earned social security benefits taxed to help pay for the hordes of illegals that will surely pour into our Country if the Democrats win? Does the average worker who makes over 30 thousand dollars a year realize that in the minds of Socialists like Hillary and Obama they are the rich from whom they intend to take more of the honestly earned income either by increased taxation or if Hillary has her way by garnishment? Don't people realize that Senator Clinton is talking about invoking ,if necessary, a deed which is a corner stone of anarcy! Confiscation through garnishment to make her Socialized health plan work, is nothing less than advocating the begining of anarchy. It takes more than a village to live through what she will bring to government if elected to the oval office. Obama is mimicking Hillary"s Socialist agenda, and has little to show for his two years in the US Senate. He has sealed his record in the Illinois Legislature, so that is not available for scrutiny. But his selection of a Church with a radical anti-white Pastor is of concern, not only to me but his handlers, who keep him away from the campaign. He is a handsome smooth talker, but is this what we want to stake on the future of Our Country? I think Not!