We were purchased as a territory because a member of President Abe Lincoln’s cabinet, William Seward, providentially saw in this great land, vast riches, beauty, strategic placement on the globe, and opportunity. He boldly looked “North to the Future”. But he endured such ridicule and mocking for his vision for Alaska, remember the adversaries scoffed, calling this “Seward’s Folly”. Seward withstood such disdain as he chose the uncomfortable, unconventional, but right path to secure Alaska, so Alaska could help secure the United States.
I find it peculiar she would use this example in such a fashion. After all, Seward absolutely mimics Sarah Palin herself. This is the first time, but not the last time, you will hear the “uncomfortable and unconventional” being mentioned.
And you know me by now, I promised even four years ago to show my independence… no more conventional “politics as usual”.
Certainly her resignation is unconventional. But how so?
And we made common sense conservative choices to eliminate personal luxuries like the jet, the chef, the junkets… the entourage.
How many of the power mad obsessed narcissists in this world would have been able to do as she did? How many? You? You think you could have refused to be corrupted by privilege, power, and the taxpayer’s wealth? Like physical courage, nobody knows until they get there. And Sarah got there, and I witnessed her refusal to be corrupted. And the Demoncrats will fault me for my loyalty. As if anyone truly loyal to the United States Constitution, a government by the people for the people, would be an enemy or even lukewarm supporter of a leader like Sarah Palin. What is the point of the US Constitution except to promote people like her so that everyone is uplifted to such standards? A government by the people, for the people, cannot be sustained by idiots, cowards, or lambs. A republic, if you can keep it, isn’t sustained by soy milk and vegetarian diets. It is nurtured by the blood of patriots and tyrants.
I’ve seen leaders and I’ve seen followers. I’ve led and I’ve followed. I’ve been put into situations where obviously nobody wanted to lead, which left me, the inadequate person, to be the best one at the job. And it is tiresome. It is annoying. It is leading and micromanaging a bunch of children who have to be told what to do, when to do it, and what not to put in their mouths. You, the leader, take ultimate responsibility because you have the ultimate power over these children. People are stupid, as I have said before, because they are so easily manipulated. Not because they lack the inability to solve the problems in front of them, they are not slow. They are just lazy. They follow the course of least resistance. They take the easy path. They take the convenient path. And they are corrupted by it. A little bit at a time. Good work ethics turns into laziness, into procrastination, into self-delusion and self-deception. “Oh, I’ll do it sometime later”. And when sometime later comes on, then people say, “Oh, I still got some more time”. And if this is easy to do because it is a bad habit, how much more easy does the power mad and the greedy sociopaths in Congress have in being corrupted by wealth and power? You think they haven’t been taking the path of least resistance and shaving a little bit off the top every day of the week, every month of the year, for every year that they have been in power? Of course they have. And even if they were elected not to do so, even if they wanted to resist, they were taken down one way or another. Chased out of politics, destroyed personally, like Jack Ryan against Obama, or corrupted by the system in “playing along to get along”. How long can you work with the likes of Ted Kennedy or Chicago politicians, while being prevented from simply eliminating them outright, before you start thinking a compromise with the corrupt would be a good idea? But are deals with the Devil really good ideas? Will they give you what you sought or will it taint forever the purpose to which you originally sought. I already know the answer to that. Democracy doesn’t work when you have to compromise between the lamb’s right to exist and the tiger’s right to a meal. Bush tried with No Child Left Behind. McCain tried with Feingold. Epic fails. And not very constitutional either.
And the Lt. Governor and I said “no” to our pay raises.
That alone qualifies her over 99% of our elite ruling aristos. Including the greedy American people talking about greedy Wall Street Crooks. They only want to put those people in jail because certain Americans want their money for themselves.
So much success in this first term – and with this success I am proud to take credit… for hiring the right people! Our goal was to achieve a gasline project, more fair oil and gas valuation, and ethics reform in four years. We did it in two. It’s because of the people… good public servants surrounding the Governor’s office, with servants’ hearts and astounding work ethic… they are Alaska’s success!
More and more I am reminded of Honor Harrington who also had a strong team. Her successes were often not due so much to her own individual talents, but the pooled talents of her loyal (loyal, not backstabbing like McCain’s people) circle. If you wonder why else I mention her, ask a question. If you have read the series, I am sure some other things may have come to mind already.
We are doing well! I wish you’d hear more from the media of your state’s progress and how we tackle Outside interests – daily – special interests that would stymie our state. Even those debt-ridden stimulus dollars that would force the heavy hand of federal government into our communities with an “all-knowing attitude” – I have taken the slings and arrows with that unpopular move to veto because I know being right is better than being popular. Some of those dollars would harm Alaska and harm America – I resisted those dollars because of the obscene national debt we’re forcing our children to pay, because of today’s Big Government spending; it’s immoral and doesn’t even make economic sense!
This ties in with the uncomfortable and unconventional theme she mentioned before. As an analyst I find this particularly interesting. Because, of course, we do know that Obama is forcing the states to take money that they don’t necessarily want nor need. I suppose this is a foreign idea to a mobster like Obama. Sort of like when stores won’t pay the mob’s protection racket, except in this case the racket is Obama redistributing other people’s money in such a way that it becomes normal. In such a way that it corrupts others into taking it, using it, being an accessory to the theft. To what level did this affect her decision? Was she successful in resisting the dollars? Did she veto it but was overridden due to the unpopularity of her stance? Does she know the damage that will do, and thus wants to get inside the enemy’s OODA loop so that the Governorship of Alaska will finally be able to put actual time and effort into preparing the state for this catastrophe? Questions, but I have no data sources or informants to supply the answers. That will take time.
Some say things changed for me on August 29th last year – the day John McCain tapped me to be his running-mate – I say others changed.
And I say that the Demoncrats just showed their true colors. After all, after I had discarded the popular conception that Democrats were opposing the war because of personal conscience issues and personal policy differences, I had to settle on another interpretation of Democrat attacks on the Iraqi people, the US military, and their commander in chief, George W Bush. What was that interpretation, you may wonder? It was that the Democrats are more ruthless than the Republicans. That the Democrats, when they attacked Republicans for allowing security to fall down, was being extraordinarily ruthless to their domestic enemies and to the Iraqi people. Some of this was part of history. FDR and certainly Truman’s decision to drop two A-bombs. This interpretation also uses the fact that Democrats were responsible for America entering two, not just one, World Wars. They are not exactly warmongers, but they do not lack ruthlessness when they believe they have something they can gain. This was, of course, extraordinarily counter-intuitive. For the most popular conception of the day, in 2004-6, was that Democrats were milquetoast people (Doves) that didn’t want to get their hands dirty in Iraq. While certainly that is true, it didn’t tell the whole story. The Demoncrats didn’t help out in Iraq, not because they were cowards, but because they saw the insurgents and the terrorists as allies of the Demoncrat attempt to overthrow American exceptionalism. Not because they lacked ruthlessness. Do you think the operatives of Obama and the Demoncrat party who could plan out such an attack on Bush and Sarah Palin would bat any eye at hanging Saddam Hussein or his Republican Guard gestapo? Of course, not. They didn’t help America win the war, they didn’t support it, because of the same reason why Obama supported the mullahs and Chavez and the dictator wannabes (while bowing to the already dictators, the Saudis). Obama the megalomaniac doesn’t lack ruthlessness. He just lacks an interest in helping liberty and human rights succeed against his pals, Chavez, the Saudis, and the Iranian Revolutionary Council.
Political operatives descended on Alaska last August, digging for dirt. The ethics law I championed became their weapon of choice. Over the past nine months I’ve been accused of all sorts of frivolous ethics violations – such as holding a fish in a photograph, wearing a jacket with a logo on it, and answering reporters’ questions.
Why do terrorists and mass murderers use our laws, respect for human life, and obedience of the rules of war against us? Because it works. Why does the Demoncrats use the politics of personal destruction? Cause it works. Why do I favor execution and violence as an effective solution to Gordian Knot type problems? Cause it works. And until people stop allowing it to work, until they defeat such users or methods, they don’t have a stool to stand on when they start spouting off about “how torture doesn’t work” or how “the politics of personal destruction are bad”. Of course it became their weapons of choice. For the ruthless and those without a conscience, they have no reason not to use your own beliefs against you. That’s what being ruthless means people. And I’m not against being ruthless. I’m just against the Left using it to destroy America in order to enrich themselves.
And what about the people who offer up these silly accusations? It doesn’t cost them a dime so they’re not going to stop draining public resources – spending other peoples’ money in their game.
She hates corruption. She could not resist it without that emotion, a direct consequence of her philosophical beliefs. But could she stop it if she was in office? If she believed that she couldn’t stop those attacks, what would she do?
And one chooses how to react to circumstances. You can choose to engage in things that tear down, or build up. I choose to work very hard on a path for fruitfulness and productivity. I choose not to tear down and waste precious time; but to build up this state and our country, and her industrious, generous, patriotic, free people!
Since the attacks won’t stop, it seems she is going to do something else, something pro-active. Something that makes the enemies react to her, rather than the other way around. That is strategically valid, although the details remain yet to be seen.
And there is such a need to build up and fight for our state and our country. I choose to fight for it! And I’ll work hard for others who still believe in free enterprise and smaller government; strong national security for our country and support for our troops; energy independence; and for those who will protect freedom and equality and life… I’ll work for and campaign for those proud to be American, and those who are inspired by our ideals and won’t deride them.
Still more hints. No details, of course.
And so as I thought about this announcement that I wouldn’t run for re-election and what it means for Alaska, I thought about how much fun some governors have as lame ducks… travel around the state, to the Lower 48 (maybe), overseas on international trade – as so many politicians do. And then I thought – that’s what’s wrong – many just accept that lame duck status, hit the road, draw the paycheck, and “milk it”. I’m not putting Alaska through that – I promised efficiencies and effectiveness! That’s not how I am wired. I am not wired to operate under the same old “politics as usual.” I promised that four years ago – and I meant it.
It’s not what is best for Alaska.
I am determined to take the right path for Alaska even though it is unconventional and not so comfortable.
Unconventional and uncomfortable. Is she ducking out of the Governorship because the campaigning she needs to do before the 2010 elections will make her look like a “conventional politician” if she has the governorship? If she had to make a decision to not seek a second term, do you think she had time to give to Obama? Two years? What do you think Obama would have done in two years? How much has he done in Six Months? Perhaps you think he is going to slow down, eh?
The “hell yeah” sealed it – and someday I’ll talk about the details of that…
Those details should be interesting.
I do not want to disappoint anyone with my decision; all I can ask is that you trust me with this decision – but it’s no more “politics as usual”.
I do not care what God you believe in, Sarah. So long as you believe. It matters not to me whether your God exists or not. So long as you believe. It will be enough for me.
Yes, I was disappointed. Disappointed that a strong leader could be taken down by the attacks of my enemies. Just as I was disappointed at the fall of Rhodesia to UN and Carter based attacks. Just as I was disappointed at the Fall of Saigon. At the Bay of Pigs.
I was never disappointed with Sarah Palin’s decision. I am loyal to her because she is loyal to the US Constitution. The country I still love. The country I am willingly to kill for. To die for. Sarah says that she isn’t retreating. If that is true, I will support her. If it comes to be that it isn’t true, I will understand. For I too have often wanted to abdicate the responsibility of leadership. But if she believes, if she truly believes, she will have the strength to go on. And so will we.
To whatever god or entity of power you believe in, pray that Obama’s erosion of American justice and strength can be stopped.
Background reading. ()