Just when you thought no one could top John Edwards, the Terminator unveils a 10-year maidcapade that has dramatically increased Pepto-Bismol™ sales nationwide. While Edwards is a callous, despicable human being, Arnold Schwarzenegger is simply a mentally disturbed individual.
All of a sudden, Eliot Spitzer and Bill Clinton don’t seem quite as disgusting as they once did. After all, Clinton was merely a serial fondler and alleged rapist. And Spitzer’s biggest crime is that he’s such a creepy-looking guy, he probably tarnished the reputation of “Ashley Dupré,” his $1,000-an-hour prostitute.
Of course, any person with an ounce of wisdom knows it’s never a good idea to cast stones, so I shall refrain from moral pontificating. Stones aside, however, one can’t help but be curious about politicians who push the sex envelope to the death-wish limit. The age-old question that always arises is: Should voters assume that if a politician is unfaithful in his marriage, he will be dishonest when he’s in public office?
In that regard, I think one has to ask himself what would cause a politician to be unfaithful to his wife in the first place. There could be many reasons — a number of them that come quickly to mind are stupidity, arrogance, recklessness, narcissism and, above all, a lack of self-discipline.
So even if we adopt the relativist’s attitude that boys will be boys and refrain from casting stones, we still have to wonder if such people deserve our votes. And the best way to answer that is to ask yourself a simple question: Are you OK with voting for a guy who is stupid, arrogant, reckless, narcissistic and lacking in self-discipline? What terrific qualifications for someone whom you’re going to rely on to protect your life and property.
In any event, the truth be known, the rash of political sex-scandals are nothing more than diversions from the truly serious problems America faces. The real enemy we should be focusing on — the sworn enemy of liberty — is progressivism.
Unfaithful politicians won’t bring our nation down as a result of their indiscretions, but progressivism is capable of accomplishing that feat by placing the “collective good” above individual liberty. For without individual liberty, the America most of us knew growing up will most certainly perish.
Marcus Tullius Cicero had a bead on this in the 1st century B.C. when he said: “A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men.”
Cicero’s words make me think not only of the radical progressives in the Democratic Party, but, worse, of progressives in the Republican Party who pose as conservatives — for whom Lindsey Graham is the poster boy. In his latest interview outburst, Graham said: “I am willing to take the bruises and stand by (President Barack) Obama to engage countries like Egypt and Tunisia and stay involved in Libya and finish the job in Iraq. I am willing to take American dollars at a time when we’re flat broke, go back home and suffer the consequences of sending aid to Egypt at a time when South Carolina has 10 percent unemployment because I believe the Egyptian revolution is about a new way of doing business that’s better for us.”
Graham supports sending aid to Egypt at a time when South Carolina has 10 percent unemployment because he believes “the Egyptian revolution is about a new way of doing business that’s better for us.” Really? He went on to say he thinks Obama “did a really good job” in his speech advocating that Israel commit suicide by returning to the pre-1967 borders. With conservatives like Graham, who needs progressives?
Fortunately, Graham isn’t running for president. Neither is his uber-progressive buddy, John McCain. And, best of all, Mike Huckabee isn’t running — at least this time around. That saves me from having to write a series of stop-Huckabee articles, a project I was not looking forward to.
Now, along comes someone who apparently is going to run for president, Jon Huntsman. I don’t know much about this guy, except that it appears he plans to make “civil discourse” his campaign theme. In a recent interview with John King, Huntsman said, “I believe in civility. I believe we ought to have a civil discourse in this country.”
All this sounds admirable, to be sure, except for one problem: The enemy neither advocates nor engages in civil discourse. On the contrary, progressives practice the Saul Alinsky strategy of relentless attack, stealth encroachment, isolating and ridiculing the enemy, creating chaos and more.
Civil discourse is fine, provided you are dealing with civil people. But progressives are not civil. They lie, cheat, deceive, vilify, ridicule and fearmonger… to name just a handful of the foul tactics they employ. Nothing — absolutely nothing — is out of bounds for them.
At the end of the day, words and phrases that people like Huckabee, Huntsman, Mitt Romney, John Boehner and other progressive Republicans and RINOs love to babble about, such as “compromise,” “reach across the aisle,” “cooperation,” “bipartisan consensus,” “adult conversation” and “civil dialogue” are nothing more than code for going along with progressives and their anti-liberty, big-government agenda.
Now, here’s the scary part. These people usually try to hide their progressive tendencies behind jumbled, conservative double-talk. Such was the case with Newt Gingrich, who was starting to impress me with his seemingly hard-core comments about what the far left is doing to our country.
Then suddenly, he turned on the say-whatever-you-have-to-say-to-get-elected switch in his brain and blurted out: “I don’t think right-wing social engineering is any more desirable than left-wing social engineering. I don’t think imposing radical change from the right or the left is a very good way for a free society to operate.”
What the hell is right-wing social engineering? It was the most outrageous statement I have ever heard from a Republican in my lifetime. It was not just a “bad choice of words,” as some polite pundits would like us to believe. On the contrary, it confirmed what Gingrich apparently told those closest to him (according to a confidential source of mine) — his strategy from the beginning was to run as a mainstream candidate and try to pick up as many independents and moderate Democrats as possible.
Thus ended Gingrich’s political career, but it’s still scary to think he had a lot of people fooled. And, apparently, he still does.
Just to come full circle, I should close by saying all the sexual sickos I named at the outset of this article happen to be progressives. However, honesty compels me to admit that not all progressives are sexual sickos — dangerous, but not sick.
Progressives are the enemy from within that is moving quickly to destroy what is left of America, so it’s important that you and I not be distracted by the political tabloid stuff. Our focus must always be on our loss of liberty, not Schwarzenegger’s libido.
And with that, you’ll have to excuse me while I reach for the Pepto-Bismol™. It’s going to be a long and disgusting 17 months watching charlatans grovel for votes.