Governor Sarah Palin recently announced that she would not seek another term in office, and subsequently tendered her resignation, effective in approximately two weeks. Since this past Friday, speculation continues about the underlying reasons for her decision. Such speculation has ranged from concern for the well-being of her family, to accumulating legal debt, to stress caused by efforts to disparage and demean her, and her family’s character. All of these possibilities are credible within the context of modern day political rationale. Yet, none of these motives reflect the truth; nor are they relevant to Governor Palin, for one preeminent reason, to wit: Governor Palin is not a politician, but rather a citizen who happens to hold the title and duties concomitant with being her state’s chief executive. Unconventionally, Governor Palin is not self-identified or defined by the office she holds, but defined solely on the basis of her values and the content of her character; which is grounded in her demonstrable conviction of, and commitment to, Christian principles – an increasingly rare attribute, particularly among politicians. Whether anyone believes it or not, Governor Palin is honest and seeks to live in accordance with her convictions – regardless of any political consequence.

Sarah, as she prefers to be called, is a “common” woman. She is not motivated by political ambition, contrary to conventional wisdom. She strives to do that which is morally right in every aspect of life, and being Governor, albeit grand in responsibility and stature, is one aspect of her life, rather than life itself. Sarah has a self-imposed moral obligation to place the interests of her fellow citizens in Alaska, above what so many would consider her self-interests, generally defined by the political class as the need to advance one’s career in politics. The relevant factor overlooked in this perspective is that Sarah, from her standpoint, has no “political career,” but has sought to serve in public office only to promote the public good – seemingly an almost non-existent motive in today’s political system. As she said recently, in reference to her political future, “If I die, I die. So be it.” (Associated Press)

Governor Palin fully explained her rationale for the decision to resign. Anyone listening to her words should have little difficulty understanding her perspective. The people of Alaska are wrongfully suffering operationally and monetarily, as a result of the continual stream of ethics charges levied against their Governor. The Governor stated that 80% of her time, and that of many staff members, is now allocated to research necessary to answer such charges, and further that $2 million dollars of state taxpayer money has been expended thus far to meet the State’s obligation to defend the Governor. From Sarah’s standpoint, this is not only subverting Alaska’s interests, but diverting valuable time and money which would otherwise be used to pay teachers, provide assistance to Alaska residents, and repair infrastructure. Thus far, 15 ethics complaints have been lodged against Governor Palin. She has been completely exonerated. Yet, given the history of these complaints, and the apparent political motives underlying them, there is a reasonable expectation that they will continue as long as the Governor remains in office, an expensive probability contrary to the interests of Alaska citizens. While those of, and in support of the political class, may not find such an explanation plausible from their vantage point, it does not in any way alter its veracity. Yet, if her words are questioned, one may compare them with her actions in concert with the resignation.

Sarah, rather than to remain in office absent sufficient legislative support for any new initiatives, decided it would be best to depart at this time, while by virtue of transferring power to the current Lieutenant Governor who shares her policy positions, she has the ability to influence the public policy she believes is in the best long-term interests of her fellow citizens. The new Governor, who will serve the remaining 16 months of Governor Palin’s term, will gain the benefits of incumbency; and assuming he governs wisely, may well earn the respect, trust, and votes of the electorate as he seeks his own term. This act of Governor Palin affirms that she seeks to guard and promote the interests of Alaska citizens, before any self-serving political interests, or self-indulgent personal interests, at the citizens’ expense. In effect, Governor Palin decided, consistent with her moral convictions, that she would not stay in the Governor’s chair, for one day longer than she reasonably believed would be in the citizens’ best interests. She would not, as many politicians irresponsibly and unjustly do, use the gubernatorial office and title for purposes of self-aggrandizement. Sarah Palin, a woman of moral character, to the best of her ability, could not violate her Christ born convictions, any more than Abraham Lincoln could violate his. She has demonstrated her commitment to morality prior to this occasion by refusing to abort her new Down-stricken son. It is sad and tragic in today’s America, which reeks of perceived and actual political corruption, that the first instinct is to expect dishonesty, self-promotion, scandal, or personal instability, or some combination thereof, as the explanation for decisions of anyone in elected office. In Sarah’s case, none of these apply, and her actions have a just and reasonable basis, which she articulated in plain language.

The popular question now is what does the future hold for Sarah Palin? Anyone other than the Governor can only speculate. Notwithstanding, there is one assurance – Sarah Palin will continue to abide by her moral sense of right and wrong. Many wonder whether she will seek the presidency in 2012. Governor Palin has already answered this question, in stating that if the door is open she would not want to miss it. The operative word is “if!” She will only seek higher office if she has a conviction that it is the right course of action, not for herself, but for her fellow citizens, and that will be based on her priority framework, namely and in this order, God, family, and country. She abides by one characterization of leadership; not “self-serving,” but rather “servant” leadership – intuitively an attribute and perspective most Americans would prefer all politicians personified. Could she win? A few years ago not many believed that a young former community organizer, and two-term state senator, who spent most of his short two years in the United States Senate running a campaign, would become President of the United States.  

John Adams incisively stated, “We have no government armed in power capable of contending in human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other.” Accounting for this prophetic truth, there is one superseding reason for the economic crisis America confronts today, that being, moral corruption; and the consequent colossal failure to heed the economic and financial principles of Scripture.

Specifically, there are three principles that Federal and State government leaders, industry leaders, members of the workforce; and American consumers continue to violate. These principles relate to debt; integrity; and accountability.

Total Federal Budget debt is currently at an historic high, and growing. The Federal Deficit for 2008, originally projected at $455 billion has ballooned to a massive $1.2 trillion, before the economic $787 billion economic stimulus legislation, the allocation of the second installment of the $350 billion TARP fund, and any additional bailout money being contemplated by Congress and the Administration. These additional Federal expenditures will increase the 2009 Deficit to over $2 trillion. The inclusion of Federal unfunded liabilities such as Social Security, and Medicare, raise the real Federal Deficit to a staggering $5.1 trillion. Total US debt currently stands at $65 trillion. In addition, combined US State budget deficits over the next 30 months are estimated at $350 billion. As a consequence of borrowing money to finance the Federal Budget Deficit through the sale of US Treasury Securities, the US Government, is in effect, bankrupt. The initial shock of this reality raises the question of how this occurred. The simple answer is that elected representatives, at both the federal and state levels, incessantly spent more money than tax revenues provided, by borrowing on behalf of taxpayers. Herein lies the first Scriptural violation; the relevant precept stating, “Owe nothing to anyone.” The Federal Government’s inability to limit spending to available tax revenues, has led to fiscal disaster. The harsh consequences of violating the Scriptural principle to avoid debt, are now reflected at both the Federal and State government levels in America.

Operating in tandem with the violation of the Debt principle is the decline of personal integrity and discipline among elective office holders, industry executives, and millions of consumers. Greed, selfish ambition, and deception resonate as motives throughout the nation’s ruling class, and the culture at large. Distinguished New York University Economics Professor Nouriel Roubini is correct in his assessment about the seismic nature of the current economic situation. However, he errs in one point, to wit: that “there’s nothing wrong with greed per se.” On the contrary, the Scripture declares greed, which is idolatry, selfish ambition, and lying as sin. It defines the moral law as loving one’s neighbor as oneself; and the Golden Rule, as treating others as you wish to be treated. Moreover, it admonishes individuals to do nothing from selfishness or conceit, but rather to regard others as more important than oneself; and to not merely guard one’s own personal interests, but also the interests of others. Over the past several years, five Governors, and a US Senator, have forfeited their offices due to corruption. A US Justice Department task force established in 20002 to combat corporate fraud has yielded 1,236 corporate fraud convictions, including among them 214 CEOs and presidents, 53 CFOs, 23 corporate counsels, and 129 vice presidents. The culture is replete with examples of deception through the use of steroids among professional athletes. Major League Baseball’s problem is so profound that the league Commissioner is considering re-instating Hall of Famer Hank Aaron as the Home Run King.

Accountability for one’s actions, meaning to accept responsibility and to be answerable for behavior, seems increasingly rare in today’s society. Perhaps the epitome of this trend is the fact that the United States Government is $65 trillion in debt, a financial circumstance caused by decisions among elected representatives – and virtually no one raises the specter of accountability. In effect, irresponsible conduct, short of illegality, portends little, if any, consequence; a development representing a further violation of God’s principles. The Scripture states that whoever does wrong will receive the consequences of the wrong he or she has done; and the consequences are to be applied without partiality. Each individual is to bear his or her own load. Yet in today’s society, wrong behavior is ignored, minimized, rationalized, and even approved of; and the imposition of consequences is often delayed, or truncated. A financial “bailout” of private enterprises, and consumers, at the taxpayers’ expense is unjust; effectively condoning wrong behavior, and promulgating a policy which undermines moral order, the foundation of an upright society.

Is there hope for America’s economy? Yes; however any true hope begins with a return to moral principles, as the foundation of national economic policy; and any such return is wholly dependent upon the character of the American people, and whether they demand it. The venerable Mr. Adams is correct; there is no governmental system that can restrain irresponsible behavior, “unbridled by morality and religion.”

www.sheetanchor.org

Sources: WorldNetDaily
US Dept. Justice
Fox News
Wall Street Journal

I am curious, and plead for an answer to this question, to wit: why are members of the Democratic party so politically aggressive and forceful, and members of the Republican party so politically timid? I am neither a Democrat nor Republican, and have been a registered independent for 20 years.  

It seems that Democratic politicians will say virtually anything to accomplish their political objectives, which are generally to remain in office, pursue higher office, and enrich themselves personally. For example, during the Bush presidency, Mr. Bush was continually accused of lying to the American people to engage in a war in Iraq. Mr. Bush never lied, and based his decision on the same intelligence information available to every member of Congress prior to voting on a war resolution authorizing the use of force in Iraq. Congress authorized war in Iraq by almost a 70% majority. In addition, the UN Security Council agreed in its entirety that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction (WMD). Every credible intelligence agency in the world believed that Iraq possessed WMD. Yet despite these facts, somehow Mr. Bush was accused seemingly without end by Democratic politicians of lying to the American people to engender support for war in Iraq. Moreover, Mr. Bush was even accused of having prior knowledge about the attack on September 11, 2001! He finally was compelled to defend himself against such accusations in a speech at the Air Force Academy.

Mr. Bush has been accused of authorizing the “torture” of high value terrorists captured after September 11, 2001. Such “torture” amounted to water boarding a few terrorists, causing no permanent injury but rather scaring the individual to compel him to provide intelligence information. While the images of water boarding may appear intimidating, it is certainly no more threatening than when we routinely bomb a terrorist encampment with a hellfire missile, killing everyone inside, including the target’s innocent family members. Yet no one seems to utter a complaint about those innocent individuals being killed! Moreover, leaders and members of Congressional intelligence committees from both political parties were fully briefed on all of the aggressive interrogation techniques used by the CIA, and no one objected to the employment of those techniques eventually interpreted as torture, particularly by Democratic politicians. President Bush was accused of erroneously proclaiming “mission accomplished” after American forces seized control of Iraq, yet a transcript of his speech from the USS Abraham Lincoln reveals that he said no such thing, but rather quite the contrary, stated that there was much work to be done.  Nonetheless, because of a banner intended to convey to the Commander in Chief that the officers and crew of the Lincoln had indeed accomplished their mission, Mr. Bush was unjustly lambasted and ridiculed by Democratic politicians during most of the 2004 election season.

Democratic politicians were relentless in attacking Mr. Bush during his presidency both personally and on policy matters. Recall that the Majority Leader, Senator Harry Reid, said prior to and during the “Surge” operation, that the war was lost. This statement was made before the “Surge” forces had even been deployed, let alone executed the new strategy – which succeeded. Mr. Bush was accused of betraying his country, being mentally unstable, and not listening to other views by Democratic politicians. He was accused of stealing the election in 2000. Yet all of the research conducted in the aftermath of the election clearly indicated that Mr. Bush won the state of Florida, even applying the most liberal standards in recounting all of the State’s votes. Vice President Dick Cheney was characterized as the most dangerous vice president in American history by a Democratic politician. Mr. Bush was accused of wrongfully terminating several US Attorneys. How can one wrongfully terminate someone when one has the right to terminate him or her at any time, with or without cause? Yet Mr. Bush was accused of doing so by Democratic politicians. Hearings were held on the matter. Recall, that the Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee conducted sub-committee hearings about the possible impeachment of Mr. Bush.

Mr. Bush continues to be attacked since he left office. President Obama has been repeatedly, in effect, apologizing for America’s arrogance, and alleged foreign policy mistakes, making references to the Bush Administration. He apologized in Europe, and most recently in Latin America. It seems that Mr. Bush was at least successful in his most important responsibility as President, that being to protect the American people. Yet, his posture in doing so is construed as arrogant.

Since Mr. Obama has been in office one could easily cite errors, beginning with the appointments of cabinet officials who do not pay their taxes, to the DVDs given to the British Prime Minister, and cancellation of the customary joint press conference during his state visit; to the IPOD given to Queen Elizabeth; to consideration of requiring veterans to pay the cost of medical treatment for wounds suffered during military service from private insurance, to characterizing in a general manner returning veterans as threats to the homeland, to threatening real consequences, which never materialized against North Korea for their missile test, to reducing missile defense, to having Russia threaten to land strategic bombers in Venezuela without a public response; to the policy of closing the prison facility at Guantanamo Bay without any plausible alternative to keep these terrorists away from America, to the decision to reveal CIA interrogation techniques to the nation’s enemy; not to mention the trillions of dollars of new federal spending, through borrowing money from foreign governments, and bowing to the Saudi King. Given these acts one could wonder whether President Obama actually likes America.

In consideration of the foregoing factual summary, it seems that Democratic politicians are aggressive and relentless in promoting their political interests, while Republican politicians patently refused to defend their own President, and their policies, against lies, distortions, and mischaracterizations repeatedly asserted by their Democratic counterparts. Hence the question is, are Republican politicians scared? Are they political cowards? Are they naively thinking that the American people will discern the truth, and thus there is no need for them to aggressively respond to false assertions by Democratic politicians?

It seems that a few talk show host such as Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, and Mark Levin defend the Republican party positions more than the Republicans who are actually in elected office. Talk show hosts? If the Republican party is dependent upon talk show hosts to aggressively articulate, promote, and defend their positions and their elected officials, then perhaps role reversal is in order, and the talk show hosts should run for public office as Republican candidates.

It seems that Republican politicians with a few exceptions, are as politically motivated as Democrats, but that the Democratic politicians are more ruthless in pursuing their interests. Democratic politicians seem to “play the game” with the same spirit as Hall of Fame Green Bay Packer Linebacker Ray Nitchke, who played the game with “wreck-less abandon.” Indeed, Democrats will engage in, and justify, bad behavior for political reasons, and Republicans not only tolerate it, but often support it. For example, how many House Republicans voted to impose a 90% tax on the AIG bonuses, a measure that any lay person with basic knowledge of the US Constitution knows is unconstitutional? Half! It seems that Republican politicians are willing to engage in irresponsible behavior due to fear; or incredibly, they actually lacked basic knowledge of the US Constitution.

Republican politicians appear to be in fear of standing for principles. For example, there were Republican politicians who did not support the “Surge” in Iraq, including a Republican Senator, and Republican Congresswoman from my state. They offered no alternative to the “Surge” in declaring their position on the matter. Our military leaders, and the courageous men and women under their command, never wavered; never gave up; never gave in. They were the ones taking the risks and the casualties in the war. Yet some Republican politicians, facing no guns, no bullets, no RPGs or IEDs, displayed political cowardice when our troops needed to know we would always be with them, as long as they believed victory could be achieved. Are Republican politicians so fearful that they will not even today use the term “victory” in Iraq, and give our fighting men and women the recognition they have earned for their monumental achievement?

It is disgraceful, and pathetic on the part of any politician, Democrat or Republican, to refrain from publicly acknowledging the US military victory over Al Qaeda in Iraq. Our brave soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines were relentless in pursuing these dangerous killers who wear no uniforms, target innocent men, women, and children, engage in real torture, sever heads, and would kill every one of us, and your children as quickly as possible by any means available to them. Yes, our men and women in uniform, were and are, the only hope for Iraq, and for us. These brave American patriots, who would, and have, sacrificed all for our security, are the only force standing between us and destruction by a heinous enemy. These are the same brave men and women who would, as President Kennedy said, “pay any price, bear any burden, and meet any challenge,” to protect you and me from anyone trying to do us harm. They do not run; they do not hide; and they do not cower to anyone on earth. These just warriors have, and continue to do all that our nation ask, deserving of all we can provide, yet expecting nothing in return. If we asked them to rescue our fellow citizen being unjustly held in Iran, they would do it as soon as they knew her location, simply because she is one of us, and we do not leave anyone behind, uniformed or not. They came after our Captain, held hostage on the high seas, because he is one of us. The men and women of the US military were, are, and always will be the best and most noble among us. I wish I could have served with them; I wish I could have known them; I wish I could know where their courage comes from; whether they are from the 82^nd, or the 101^st, the 3^rd ID, or the 4^th; or the 1^st Marine Expeditionary Force; or the eagles in the F-15s and F-16s, or our hard-hitting sailors and aviators aboard ships named Washington, Lincoln, Roosevelt,  Truman, and Reagan; or US Special Forces – Seals, Rangers, Green Berets, Delta, Air commandos, and Marines, no matter what unit they are from, these devoted Americans will never run from a fight, and never leave us, nor forsake us. Shall our politicians not even proclaim their victories? Shall they not honor such men and women as these? I dare say no one is more deserving of public acknowledgement and respect than the defenders of our liberty.

Governor Sarah Palin was lauded by Republican politicians, until she had a few poor interviews, partly as a result of being a state governor, who every politically astute person knows do not generally address national issues, and partly due to liberally-biased journalists seeking to undermine her political stature. Governor Palin is a competent executive based upon her record as Governor, Ethics Chair of the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, Mayor, Councilwoman, and business owner. She demonstrated her competence during her debate with Senator Biden. She also engaged, and performed admirably, in a debate during her gubernatorial campaign. Yet, because of a few poor interviews, and the loss of the election, many Republican politicians are seeking to diminish her stature. Why? Objectively, she appears to be as competent in performing her responsibilities as any other Republican or Democratic governor. There are currently 39 states with budget deficits. Alaska is not one of them. Sarah’s problem, for many Republican officials, seems to be that she is a self-made woman, and not from among the political establishment. Considering her popularity with ordinary Republican voters, many politicians might prefer to have her problem. Republican politicians may be overlooking the reason for her popularity, namely, that she is not viewed as a “politician;” or one of “them;” but rather as, one of “us;” a trait so desperately lacking among politicians today. Sarah is a woman of demonstrable moral conviction, which explains why she is despised by at least half of the nation’s voting populace, which generally subscribes to moral relativism and patent disregard for Christianity. Other than Sarah, and I do not know her, but undoubtedly she would not mind anyone referring to her in familiar terms, how many Republican politicians would dare mention “Christianity” today? It is interesting that one nationally admired Republican was a Christian; and on one occasion when he was asked about it responded by stating:

“When I left Springfield I asked the people to pray for me. I was not a Christian. When I buried my son, the severest trial of my life, I was not a Christian. But when I went to Gettysburg, and saw the graves of thousands of our soldiers, I then and there consecrated myself to Christ. Yes, I do love Jesus.”

 President Abraham Lincoln

(The Lincoln memorial: album-immortelles (1882), p366. Author: Oldroyd, Osborn H. (Osborn Hamiline), 1842-1930, ed; Lincoln, Abraham, 1809-1865; Simpson, Matthew, bp., 1811-1844. [from old catalog]; Arnold, Isaac Newton, 1815-1884. [from old catalog] Subject: Lincoln, Abraham, 1809-1865 Publisher: New York, G. W. Carleton & co.; [etc., etc.])

So, I ask, have Republican politicians been scared into political timidity and silence?