Since there is no essential ethical or moral difference between the oath one takes in marriage, and the oath of office, it is proper to ask questions about the political qualifications of one who has repeatedly violated his oath to be faithful to one woman, "in sickness and in health," "till death do us part."
Nobody contests the accusation that Newt Gingrich was not faithful to his first two wives. Constitutionalists like Ron Paul will charge that Newt has consistently promoted government programs which are not authorized by the Constitution, thus repeatedly violating the oath of office he has taken many times.
Now Newt wants to take an oath that will make him the most powerful human being on the planet, and subject him to those powerfully corrupting influences.
Does anyone seriously believe that Newt "Mr. Globalism" Gingrich can remain faithful to a sickly 224-year old hag called the Constitution when the opportunity to run off with a rich young New World Order presents itself?
1 comment:
O, here we go. Yea, this is very insightful and all the while a very common sense conclusion. I just hadn't heard it put that way yet.
Post a Comment