• Text smaller
  • Text bigger

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 is simply a mentally disturbed android.

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 rapist, and Spitzer’s biggest crime is that he’s such a creepy looking guy that he probably tarnished the reputation of “Ashley Dupre,” his $1,000-an-hour prostitute.

Of course, any person with an ounce of wisdom knows that it’s never a good idea to cast stones, so I shall refrain from moral pontificating. Stones aside, however, one can’t help but to 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 an unfaithful spouse, he will also 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, and 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 rash of political sex scandals are nothing more than diversions from the truly serious problems facing America. It would be a far more productive use of our time to focus on the sworn enemy of liberty – progressivism.

After all, 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. And when I speak of progressivism, I’m referring not only to the radical progressives in the Democratic Party, but, worse, progressives in the Republican Party who pose as conservatives.

Which brings me to Jon Huntsman. I don’t know much about this guy, except that he apparently plans to make “civil discourse” his presidential 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 does not engage in civil discourse. On the contrary, progressives practice the 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, they cheat, they deceive, they vilify, they ridicule, and they fear monger … to name just a handful of the foul tactics they employ. Nothing – absolutely noting – is out of bounds for them.

At the end of the day, words and phrases that people like Jon Huntsman, Mitt Romney, Lindsay Graham, 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 discourse,” are nothing more than code for going along with progressives and their anti-liberty, big-government agenda.

Now, here’s the scary part. The really clever pseudo-conservatives often succeed in hiding their progressive agendas behind seemingly hard-core conservative rhetoric. Such was the case with Newt Gingrich, until, in an impulsive slip of the tongue, he turned on the “say-whatever-you-have-to-say-to-get-elected” switch in his brain and, in response to a question about Paul Ryan’s budget plan, 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) – that his strategy from the beginning was to run as a mainstream candidate and try to pick up as many disillusioned independents and moderate Democrats as possible.

Thus ended Newt Gingrich’s political career, but it’s still scary to think that he had a lot of people fooled – and, apparently, still does.

Just to come full circle, I should close by saying that all of the sexual sickos I mentioned 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 enemies from within who are moving fast 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 Arnold’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.

  • Text smaller
  • Text bigger
Note: Read our discussion guidelines before commenting.