Political analysis
A Shyster, A Socialist and a Man of Color
- By Nancy Morgan
- January 29, 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, he 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 Edwards.
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 earmarks. Whew.
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 now 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 facade 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 ‘suicide’. A funny thing happened on the way to publishing my findings. Even conservative publications wouldn’t touch it. Hard, documented evidence of her 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.
-
Rate it!
Let us know what you thought of this article. Your feedback drives the quality of our content. Plus, it’s easy!
Rate this article -
Socialize it!
We greatly appreciate you adding us to your favorite social network.
Spread the word
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.
After 7 years of your mildly retarded ‘effective leader’ I would guess everyone is looking for different qualities than the current administration, which has no quality whatsoever.
Let’s start with John Edwards. By any measure, he qualifies as a shyster.
Original meaning: “disreputable Jewish businessman and criminal.” according to the dictionary. I didn’t know Edwards was Jewish. (he is not, if it really matters). How do you “qualify” to be a shyster??
I think this was lifted nearly verbatim from a Rush Limbaugh program of a couple weeks ago. Where is your attribution? are you a PLAGARIST??
The half-racist smearing of Obama is more of the same. Fox “news” called him “Osama” for a while and claimed he was schooled in a Madrassa. This is patently false, like your statement:
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.
The idea that you’d cut and paste these false or misleading “red flags” is proof enough that “conservatives” cannot debate the issues, but MUST rely on character assassination and outright lies to try and win elections. Too bad the republican party has degenerated from Lincoln to Cheny/Bush.
And you, my favorite plagarist
The rest is really more of the half honest intellectually lazy talk radio slime regurgitated as original work. Really shameful.
296 days ago by scumby
OMFG!!! I forgot to respond to this:
I was one of the three Americans who actually investigated the Vince Foster ‘suicide’. A funny thing happened on the way to publishing my findings. Even conservative publications wouldn’t touch it. Hard, documented evidence of her 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.
Well, Nance, I am a Clinton hater, and I’d like to see “hard, documented evidence,” and I’d like a shot at seeing what you can REALLY write. Why don’t you publish your fearless and blinding truths right here?
I thought so.
My guess is that you put as much into the Vince Foster story as the rest of your “work”. Cut and paste, Rumor and innuendo. A legend in your own mind.
Yawn
295 days ago by scumby
Where are these unpatriotic non-pledges of allegiance to the flag photos? I’ve googled my heart out with no luck. Is this true or urban legend?
295 days ago by Born with a Raised Fist
Here you go:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/anthem.asp
Don’t make too much of it, I’m a Vietnam veteran and sometimes I don’t put my hand over my heart during the national anthem. On the 4th of July, I salute.
295 days ago by scumby
Factcheck.com: photograph was taken during a “steak-fry” for Sen. Tom Harkin of Iowa on Sept. 16, 2007. What is pictured is the singing of the national anthem.
No getting around the fact that Obama disdained pledging the flag, the anthem and the US
295 days ago by Nancy Morgan
SO: Nancy –
I agree that what is pictured is the singing of the national anthem, not reciting the pledge of allegiance. No one salutes the national anthem unless a flag is present. That’s because the flag is what is saluted, not the song.
At snopes.com – my link above – you will get to see with your own eyes the video tape that the photo was taken from.
What the hell are those people onstage looking at? The only flag seems to be onstage behind them, yet none of them are facing the flag as per the U.S. Flag Code. (from snopes.com).They seem to be looking in a couple different directions….
One more time, half truth, innuendo and outright fabrication to make a fictitious point.
If you go to the snopes link above, you can see Obama with his hand over his heart at least three times, reciting the pledge of allegiance in the senate. I see no disdain anywhere for the flag or his country of birth, The United States of America.
Unlike Nancy here who has an obvious disdain for the truth. Your ignorance and your prejudice are precisely what is wrong with my country. I want it back.
BY the way:
Factcheck.com is nothing more than a set of links, sending you to websites that might have nothing to do with the truth. It makes sense to see where Nancy gets her information. She gets it from “who knows??” and Fox News.
294 days ago by scumby
On the other hand:
Factcheck.org might be what Nance was actually referring to…..but I might be wrong about that……;~)….
In any event she could have found the same stuff I found with a simple Google search….but I guess the WHOLE truth doesn’t matter….
294 days ago by scumby
Nancy –
I went looking for your source on Obama and his church, on factcheck.org – and lookee here –
Did you read what you cited?
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/sliming_obama.html
I’ll be leaving this alone, now. I think the number of falsehoods and misrepresentations speak for themselves.
294 days ago by scumby