Thanks largely to Wiki Leaks, the 2016 Presidential election campaign has brought to massive pubic attention the corruption of the Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and the Clinton Foundation.
Add to this the exposure, Hillary Clinton’s perjury-laden testimony illuminated by the pointed questions of Congressman Trey Goudy, the Chairman of the House Committee investigating the State Department’s conduct in the Benghazi fiasco.
Now, in view of the damaging public exposure of Clinton by Congressman Gowdy and Wiki Leaks, how is one to explain Clinton’s lead over Trump in the 2016 presidential campaign?
No doubt many factors have produced Clinton’s lead in several national polls.
However, it’s obvious that Hillary’s official conduct, involving several acts of political corruption, is not enough to terminate her quest for the Presidency.
Therefore, without ignoring the preponderant weight of the Democratic vote in this or in any recent election, I conclude that we are entrapped in a “culture of corruption” of such depth and magnitude that the corrupt acts of this or that politician have become virtually irrelevant in the minds of American voters!
Of course, politics has a long and well-established reputation of being “dirty.” But I think something has been added to the 2016 presidential election to render a politician’s sullied reputation more or less impervious to massive public exposure via the Boob Tube.
What has been added in our time, in contrast to previous generations, is the unprecedented corrosive influence of cynicism produced and magnified by the university-bred doctrine of moral relativism, a doctrine that has permeated every level of education in America since the World War I, a doctrine, therefore, that has corrupted the minds of 3 generations of college and university graduates.
These graduates are the well-educated individuals who dominate not only the opinion making media, but also the mentality of the policy makers and decision makers of the legislative and executive branches of Government, as well as the mentality of Supreme Court Justices, as witness Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, 2 Obama appointees who, like this “post-American” President, are multicultural moral relativists who would subordinate American Constitutional Law to International Law, or the United Nations.
And 3 Justices may be appointed by Hillary if she wins the White House.
Therefore, at stake in the 2016 election is the National Sovereignty of the United States and the cardinal principle of Government by the Consent of the Governed as enshrined in the American Declaration of Independence.
If Hillary Clinton wins this election, it will consummate the revolutionary change which Barack Hussein Obama alluded to in his 1st presidential election campaign, whose slogan was “Change,” by which he meant, unknown to the American people, “Regime Change”!
This is what is at stake if Hillary Clinton wins the 2016 election.
I humbly suggest that this article receive the widest publicity as soon as possible.
By Professor Paul Eidelberg
Paul Ebeling, Editor