Is lying the real offense in Weinergate? 3

By Tom Quiner

Some liberals claim that the scandal of Anthony Weiner is that he lied about what he did.

Oh, really.

Suppose he came forward on day one and said something like this:

“As embarrassing as this all sounds, I took photographs of my private parts and sent them them to young women I had never met. I began doing this a month after marrying my beautiful wife, who by the way, is pregnant. I did this on a number of occasions.”

If Mr. Weiner had done this as soon as Andrew Bretibart had broken the story, are the liberals telling us that everything would be okay?

Had he “confessed” from the git go, and because he hasn’t broken any laws, are liberals saying that would have made everything okay?

Is morality never an issue with liberals?

Really, answer me.

We know it is an issue with liberals when it’s a Republican who do nasty things. But is morality ever an issue with the party of Jefferson when it comes to their own members?

The House of Representatives has a code that calls for members to conduct themselves in …

“a manner that shall reflect creditably on the House.”

Has Congressman Weiner done that? If he hasn’t, shouldn’t he be expelled?

Americans are repulsed by Mr. Weiner. If this isn’t grounds to remove an official from public office who has humiliated himself and his office, then what does it take?

If we let it go, we humiliate ourselves.

Why men in power have more sex scandals than women in power 3

By Tom Quiner

The late historian, Stephen Ambrose, understood why powerful men succumb to sex scandals

The list of political sex scandals is long: Mark Foley, Larry Craig, Eliot Spitzer, Thomas Jefferson, Italian Prime Minister, Silvio Berlusconi, Gary Hart, Bill Clinton, former Israeli President, Moshe Katsav, Bob Packwood, Wilbur Mills, to name a very few.

The unfortunately-named Anthony Weiner now joins the list.

It seems that women in positions of power are able to keep their nose cleaner than men. Why is that?

Perhaps the late historian, Stephen Ambrose, nailed it with his droll assessment of the problem:

“God created man with a penis and a brain and gave him only enough blood to run one at a time.”



What’s the difference between Republican and Democratic scandals? 3

By Tom Quiner

Republican Congressman Chris Lee was caught sending shirtless photos of himself to someone who was not his wife.

The mainstream media (MSN) was all over the story. Mr. Lee resigned.

Republican Senator Larry Craig was arrested for lewd conduct in an airport restroom. The media gave the story extensive coverage. Senator Craig was pressured to “retire” at the end of his term the following year after facing ethics charges.

Republican Congressman Mark Foley was caught sending suggestive messages to an underage male page. The media covered the story extensively with 152 stories the first twelve days. Mr. Foley resigned.

Democrat Congressman Barney Frank consorted with a male prostitute who subsequently brought his clients back to Mr. Frank’s apartment.

The media went easy on him, as exemplified by this sympathetic reporting in Time Magazine:

“Frank can debate and speak extemporaneously better than almost anyone else in the House, and he tackles some of its more complex problems like immigration and housing.”

Mr. Frank not only did not resign, nor was he pressured to do so by his party, he is still in office today some twenty years later.

Democratic Congressman Gary Studds had a homosexual affair with an underage male subordinate. He was not forced to resign and was subsequently re-elected to office five more times. The House voted to censure Mr. Studds, who showed his contempt for his colleagues by turning his back on them during the vote.

Former Democratic Senator and presidential candidate, John Edwards, engaged in an illicit affair with a campaign worker, with whom he fathered a love child. The MSM chose not to cover the story until National Enquirer exposed the sordid details. The National Review Online’s reporter, Bryon York explains why:

“If news organizations had thrown a lot of resources at the story in an attempt to confirm (or disprove) the Enquirer’s allegations, it’s likely some of them would have come up with something in the two and a half weeks since the Enquirer reported the story on July 22. Instead, there has been nothing.

Is that the result of a group sentiment among journalists? Or have they been under explicit orders not to mention the story? We’ve heard about one such directive, at the Los Angeles Times website. But there are probably others out there. In today’s news environment, executives have to take more explicit steps than in the past if they want to rein in stories. Journalists have multiple platforms; they might mention a story in a newspaper article, a web piece, in a blog, on video, on television, or on radio. For news executives to make sure the Edwards story does not appear on any of an organization’s several platforms, they have to make sure that tight controls are in place. The Edwards story is not invisible by accident.”

The reporters who wouldn’t go after the Edwards story were the same ones who did pursue a story (without merit) that Senator John McCain was having an affair with a beautiful lobbyist.

That leads us to the current scandal featuring Democratic Congressman Anthony Weiner. It took some digging by a conservative website to uncover Mr. Weiner’s indiscretions. Will Mr. Weiner be forced out?

History shows us that Democrats don’t get too worked up about this sort of thing, so he may be able to weather the storm. We know the MSM won’t go after him like they would a Republican.

If he were a Republican, he’d already be out the door.

Day 769 in Democrat’s refusal to pass a budget 1

By Tom Quiner

The Senate is supposed to pass a budget each year. Harry Reid’s Democrats have refused to do it for over two years.

There’s a reason why: you’re going to have to take some political heat when you actually put your fiscal blueprint down on paper.

Some people think you’re spending too much money here; others are upset because you’re not spending enough there.

The law calls for it.

The very notion of political leadership calls for it.

Harry Reid refuses to do it. What political cowardice.

Democrats have to defend 23 Senate seats in the next election compared to only ten for Republicans. Mr. Reid’s political calculation is simple: by stonewalling, he’s hoping that Republicans, who have provided a detailed budget, will take all the political heat. His party’s view is: let’s make the debate about their ‘heartless’ plan instead of ours’.

Will the public take the bait and re-elect Democrats so demonstrably lacking in leadership? California Senator Diane Feinstein is clearly concerned. She said:

“On the budget front, I’m not a happy camper around here. I think we need to have a budget that we stand by.”

Arkansas Senator, Mark Pryor, said not having a budget …

“makes it harder to do things that we just need to do — there are people talking about an education bill, a highway bill — a lot of other things you just don’t know how much you have to spend.”

You just don’t know how much you have to spend. Think about that statement. The world’s most powerful deliberative body is making life and death budgetary decisions without a budget. They don’t know how much they can spend! And they’re doing it anyway!

We’re at 769 days and counting since the Senate passed their last budget.

Barack Obama is okay with this. I’d like to encourage you to ask the Republican candidates filing through Iowa these days this simple question: should you be elected President, will you demand that the Senate present a budget?


Should we legalize suicide? 2

By Tom Quiner

A writer to the Des Moines Register, Otto Knauth, proposed a solution to the “population” problem last week as follows:

“There is a simple but agonizingly difficult solution to mankind’s overpopulation problem. It is legalizing suicide after a certain age, say 70, and making it easily available.”

The writer is looking for a solution where there’s no problem, for there is no population problem in the U.S.  The graph below prepared by the Congressional Research Service puts this myth to rest with a single glance:

U.S. birth rates have been in decline since the early sixties

Not only are birth rates declining, thirty-five states have birth rates that have dipped below replacement level. Iowa is one of the worst. Most of the population growth in the U.S. comes from legal and illegal immigration. So we know Mr. Knauth is either mis-informed, or has another agenda.

He goes on to say:

“No, wait, don’t just condemn it out of hand. This is a serious proposition worthy of serious thought. There are millions of people out there who are condemned to useless lives, helpless in bed, entirely dependent on others for their very existence. There is every reason to believe that given a rational choice, free of religious dogma and superstition, they would choose suicide over their present condition.”

Mr. Knauth shares a similar philosophy with pornographer, Larry Flynt, that certain human life is disposable. As I wrote last week [The Pornography of Abortion], Mr. Flynt thinks we should get rid of Downs Syndrome Children because they are not sufficiently human according to his standards. On the other hand, Mr. Knauth would like to make it easier for dependent people like the paraplegic Mr. Flynt to end their lives once they hit seventy or so.

Their key idea is that human life is disposable.

He goes on to say:

“Think of the immense burden we now bear to support these citizens in their meaningless lives. An easy suicide would be a blessing for them, their families and society as a whole.”

In other words, he seems more concerned about the burden dependent people put on society than about the dependent people themselves. This is but one danger of assisted suicide: could those who are dependent be coaxed or pressured into ending their lives by those in charge of their care?

And who says their lives are meaningless anyway?

As the world watched the physical decline of Pope John Paul II on the world stage over a period of years, we were struck by the dignity of his life.

I have a unique perspective. My 87 year old mother-in-law lives with me and has for a decade. I have watched her physical powers slip. Five years ago, she had to give up driving. Over the past few years, she is rarely up to going to Mass, which is her favorite thing to do.

Today, she has been in bed most of the day, because she just doesn’t have any energy.

She has lost weight and is so very frail.

Is her life meaningful? It is more than meaningful. It is precious. To me. To my wife. To all of her kids … and grandkids … and great grandkids.

She is teaching me and those around her valuable lessons about the beauty and dignity of life, regardless of the stage of life.

Mr. Knauth’s leftist philosophy is dangerous. The old and dependent make the rest of us better people, because they make us think beyond our own selfish selves.

That’s when we see the dignity, the beauty of life.

Life is precious, not disposable.