Wednesday, 08 June 2011

He May be a Dog, but Weiner Will be a Winner in 2012

Written by 

New York Congressman Anthony Weiner’s sexual impropriety sure does make titillating copy. I mean, take his zipper-like stature, the nature of his transgressions, and combine that with his name, and you have the perfect running joke. And we can add to this a touch of irony. The following is still found on Weiner’s website:

"Protecting Children On the Internet — In early 2007 my office did a study that found that over 85% of registered sex offenders in New York City live less than five blocks from schools, and 670 sex offenders live within just two blocks. Some offenders are even closer, permanently residing less than 500 feet away from unwitting parents, educators and children. Along with several colleagues in Congress, we introduced & passed the KIDS (Keeping the Internet Devoid of Sexual Predators) Act of 2007."

Now, a fellow journalist who used to reside in Weiner’s neighborhood informs me that the congressman’s home “is about two blocks (less than 100 yards) from Our Lady Queen of Martyrs (Catholic) School and about five blocks (less than 300 yards) from Public School 101” and asks, “Does this mean that Anthony Weiner — by his ‘own’ law — will have to register with the police?”

I have no idea. But here’s something I do know: After Weiner is done being a punch-line for nighttime comedians, he’ll survive with his political career intact.

You can bank on it.

Weiner has said that he won’t resign. And why should he? Accountability is only for conservatives. In the liberal world, transmitting lewd pictures is just a form of recreation. I mean, c’mon, these people have already moved on to pushing transgender training in kindergarten. Do you really think Weiner’s extracurricular activities will raise their eyebrows?

And a recent poll bears this out: 51 percent of New York City residents want Weiner to remain in Congress while only 30 percent believe he should resign. And this was taken right after the congressman’s admission that he not only created and sent the sexual material, but also lied about it. In a year’s time, the story will just be another in the liberals-will-be-liberals file.

And that file is thick. In 1989, it was found that a homosexual prostitution ring was being run out of Massachusetts Congressman Barney Frank’s Washington apartment.

He’s still in office.

Next we have late Senator Ted Kennedy. In 1969, in the midst of his serial adultery, he got drunk, drove his car off a bridge on Chappaquiddick Island and killed poor Mary Jo Kopechne. And, writes Politics Daily’s Carl M. Cannon, “His actions that followed — not summoning emergency personnel who might have saved her life, the cover-up of the facts, not even reporting the accident until the following morning — likely would have landed a man without political connections in prison.”

In Kennedy’s case, it landed him in the Senate for 30 more years — until his death in 2009.

Then, former Louisiana governor Edwin Edwards (D) once boasted that the only way he could lose a state election was to “get caught in bed with a dead girl or a live boy.” But don’t puff up your chest too much, Eddie. In 1983, it was revealed that Congressman Gerry Studds (D-MA) had had a sexual relationship with a 17-year-old boy — and he was re-elected until his retirement in 1997.

Interestingly, that same year, Illinois Republican Dan Crane was found to have had a relationship with a 17-year-old girl but was voted out of office by his conservative district in the next election.

And while there was a lot of Republican accountability in-between (the media make sure of that), we can fast-forward to 2006 and find six-term Congressman Mark Foley (R-Fla.). He voluntarily resigned from office after it was disclosed that he had sent explicit sexual Internet messages to a 16-year-old male page.

Then, in 2009, we had Republican South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford. In the wake of revelations about marital infidelity, he resigned as Chairman of the Republican Governors Association, was pressured by fellow Republicans to resign from office, and had impeachment resolutions brought against him that were blocked by Democrats in the state legislature. Needless to say, he didn’t run for re-election and wouldn’t have won had he done so.

And what is the reason for this double standard? It’s simple:

Liberals are generally amoral people.

Oh, I know what’s coming. But don’t slam me for blind partisanship, but just consider what liberals themselves say. This is the set that talks about how “I have my truth, and you have your truth,” how “Everything is a matter of perspective” and how moral pronouncements constitute “imposing your ‘values’ on others.” They wrote (and live – when it’s convenient, that is) the book on moral relativism. And, I’m sorry, you can deny moral reality if you want, but you don’t then get to turn around and complain, with credibility, when people call you on it. I’m simply stating in plain terms what liberals have made abundantly clear about themselves.

And this moral relativism is truly the heart and soul of heartless and soulless liberalism. Why? Well, when people have a strong urge to deny moral reality, it’s always for the same reason:

They want to justify behavior that is condemned by it.

And since virtually everything liberals advocate — sexual libertinism, statism, socialism, militant feminism, radical environmentalism, etc. — is contrary to Truth, their agenda cannot prevail in a climate in which Truth is acknowledged. Its suppression is required whenever you seek to advance lies.

This is why liberals cling to relativism. It is why leftist comedian Bill Maher once said on his old show Politically Incorrect, “The concept of Absolute Truth is scary.” It is what enabled a liberal to passionately say to me many years ago, when justifying Bill Clinton’s Monika Lewinsky affair, “He did the right thing.”

And it’s something the Weiner’s constituents, I can assure you, will provide more evidence for in 2012.  

...