Hysterical Women’s Studies...
A Shyster, A Socialist And A Man Of Color|
January 28, 2008
The current crop of Democrat candidates for president
is a testament to America’s recent obsession with form over substance. Each candidate
represents a façade totally at odds with the qualities and character required to
be an effective leader.
Let’s start with John Edwards. By any measure, he qualifies as a shyster. A smooth
talking, totally persuasive individual who has made his enormous fortune by fooling
people into acting on their emotions rather than the facts. This has become a hallmark
of the left, even outlined in a DNC memo a few months ago.
By ‘channeling’ a dead girl, Edwards persuaded numerous juries to award multi-million
dollar settlements against doctors by blaming cerebral palsy on medical care during
delivery. This argument has since been
debunked but only after many doctors have been sued out of existence and
thousands of patients have lost their health care. Thanks to John Edwads.
Edwards has chosen the proven strategy of class warfare to advance his political
fortunes. He claims to be a champion of the downtrodden middle-class. The only problem
is, this too, is a false argument, as Thomas Sowell points out in his article
Dangerous Demagoguery: Part 2
Edwards promises to “ban all lobbyists from the White House staff." Not from the
White House, not from Congress, but from the staff of the White House. Americans
may now rest easy knowing the White House chef won’t be persuaded to vote for specialized
Edwards got into this race knowing he had no chance. His motive, however, was to
accrue power and influence. It’s worked. The media now refers to him as a 'king-maker,'
and he has both Hillary and Obama promising him the world for his endorsement.
Robert Novak reports that Obama has offered him the post of Attorney General.
Hillary has to top that. Scary stuff. Oh, I almost forgot. What kind of man enters
a campaign he knows he can't win, as his wife and the mother of his children is
dying of cancer?
Barak Obama, however, is even more dangerous than Edwards. Obama presents as a totally
sincere, articulate (can I say that?) educated, savvy and very smart politician.
To his credit, he has not played the race card, probably understanding that he already
has the ‘white guilt’ vote sewed up.
Obama’s façade is presidential, no doubt about it. It’s only when you scratch the
surface that one realizes his radical underpinnings and total lack of experience.
A glaring example was Obama's off the cuff statement that he would "invade Pakistan."
I don’t doubt his sincerity. I’m just horrified by his naivety.
Two years in the Illinois state senate does not qualify one to be president. Since
he has no track record which would indicate how he would govern, Americans are left
to analyze his past actions and past associations for a clue. Obama’s mentor and
pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, is an active adherent of black separatism and a devoted
follower of Farrakhan. The fact that Obama has chosen this guy as his mentor, his
pastor, and as the man who married Obama to his wife, is a red flag. Another red
flag is the fact that Obama has not renounced him.
Also worth mentioning is Obama’s attendance at an Islamic
school as a child. Obama’s father was a Muslim and Obama’s middle name is Hussein.
These factors gain in importance when coupled with the picture of Obama not pledging
allegiance, his hand conspicuously by his side as others place it on their hearts.
I only hope someone manages to get a picture of him smoking. I daresay that would
lose him more votes on the left than his Muslim background.
That leaves Hillary. Ahhh, Hillary... National Review stated that Americans know
everything there is to know about Hillary. I totally disagree. Even Hillary states
she has been ‘thoroughly vetted.' Not so.
I was one of the three Americans who actually
investigated the Vince Foster
supposed suicide. A funny thing happened on the way to publishing
my findings. Even conservative publications wouldn’t touch them. Hard, documented
evidence of Hillary's
complicity in myriad nefarious and illegal dealings never got released
to the public. Any writer who dared investigate this woman immediately got consigned
to the ranks of ‘Clinton-hater’ or a member of the vast right wing conspiracy. That
remains true to this day.
When Bill ascended to the White House, all US attorneys were immediately fired,
putting a halt to the many ongoing investigation of the Clintons. Hillary calls
this vindication. I call it obstruction of justice.
As with all the Clinton shenanigans, the complexity surrounding them makes it impossible
to describe in sound-bite language. Having investigated the hundreds of scandals
whirling around this couple, I can state unequivocally that Monica wasn’t the real
scandal. It was a red herring designed to draw attention from the Chinese cash which
enabled Boy Clinton to be re-elected in 1996. And also allowed China to have access
to our nuclear technology. This same Chinese cash may well enable Hillary to become
our next president.
With Hillary, as with the other two Democrats vying for the presidency, I can only
shudder. And marvel that so many people have been so fooled. Decent, hardworking,
sincere, patriotic Americans have been fed information totally at odds with reality.
And fully half of all Americans have fallen for it.
Nancy Morgan is a columnist
and news editor for conservative news site RightBias.com
She lives in South Carolina