The everyday heroes

“The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena;
whose face is marred by sweat and blood;
who strives valiantly;
who errs and comes short again and again because
there is no effort without error and shortcoming;
who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotion,
spends himself in a worthy cause;
who at best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement;
and who at worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly,
so that his place shall never be with those
cold and timid souls
who have never tasted victory or defeat.”

--Theodore Roosevelt (American President, 1901-09)


Here's to those in the local arena who are willing to be bloodied while standing up for the just causes of the little guy ...

... who are not afraid to question authority ...

... who never waver from their principles ...

... who are not blinded by power, money, and influence.

My hat is off to all of them ... and the battle goes on.

Sarah Palin's principles versus the power grabbers

Many thanks to Concrete Bob at United Conservatives for the heads-up on this American Thinker article about Sarah Palin by Stuart Williamson.

So much of the article jumped out at me that it's difficult to pare it down. You have got to read the entire thing, whether you're a Sarah Palin supporter or not, because it touches on the real issue of what is wrong with politics: Those who are in it for principles are squashed out by those who are in it for power.

Mr. Williamson begins with Gov. Palin stepping down from her post as governor of Alaska and then continues:

True to form, Sarah Palin, her Governorship behind her, clearly and forthrightly declared her intent: to take up arms against the forces dedicated to tearing down our Constitution, destroying our principles of government, disparaging our history of defense of democracy and free enterprise, weakening our military, and saddling generations to come with oppressive debt and entitlement programs. She did so in the same inspirational, forceful manner that won her immediate and enthusiastic acclaim when she joined John McCain on the Republican ticket in ‘08.

Her words, her dynamic style, her good humor and high spirits, as well as her clear dedication to the traditional values of Middle America, have created a great wave of euphoria among conservatives across the country, in the Tea Party movement as well as those who embraced her last fall.

Sounds to me as if Sarah is an American first and foremost. The article continues:

Those ... who have criticized her for being a quitter, a political weakling, doomed forever as a loser, are about to get their first lesson in Palin 101: The word "quit" is not in her vocabulary. She is not a reactive defender. She is a fierce and fearless attack machine. She earned her nickname Sarah Barracuda, on the basketball court. She polished those skills in the rough and tumble of the frontier politics of Alaska.

Hear, hear! Sounds like my political allies.

She is unswervingly honest. She hates liars and cheats.

Amen.

What she says, she means. She makes no idle promises.

Amen again.

This honesty is what brought her into politics in the first place. She ran for mayor of Wasilla because she questioned the motives of the favored candidate. She cleaned up local government. Her integrity is what propelled her to high approval ratings as she rose to the governorship. Her honesty is transparent, it shines through. It resonates with voters, differentiating her from run-of-the mill opportunistic professional politicians.

Honesty ... integrity ... principles. I have seen leaders in the local area with those qualities who were driven out of office by the power grabbers.

The truth is: Sarah Palin is not really a "politician." She did not get into politics to seek power or wealth. She bears no resemblance to the typical politician, who graduated in Law specifically to enter politics; or to the successful businessman who runs for office to gain profit advantage or status; or to the mediocrities who rises through nepotism or dynastic ambition like a Kennedy or a Gore. Or to any party hack out of the Chicago machine.

Principled Republicans who are slashed by Democrats and stabbed in the back by Republicans.... Mr. Williamson has written the most in-depth article about Sarah Palin's motives that I have read. This one should be shared.

Miss California: "God was testing me"

"This happened for a reason. By having to answer that question in front of a national audience, God was testing my character and faith. I'm glad I stayed true to myself." -- Carrie Prejean

Miss California Carrie Prejean, 21, stayed true to herself and her principles at the Miss USA Pageant held over the weekend when a judge, Perez Hilton, asked if she believed in gay marriage, according to The Fox Nation.

It reminds me of those bracelets that say, "WWJD" ... "What Would Jesus Do." We all know what we'd like to do when tested ... the real test is when we are actually confronted with it and how we respond. Ms. Prejean's answer to what many think was a set-up question:

"I think that I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman. No offense to anybody out there, but that's how I was raised."

When someone suggested her answer may have cost her the crown (she came in second place), she responded:

"... you can never compromise your beliefs and your opinions for anything."

And what of Perez Hilton? Apparently a well-known openly-gay celebrity gossip blogger (I had never heard of him), he went on a video rant on his blog after the Miss USA Contest and slammed Ms. Prejean:

“She lost not because she doesn’t believe in gay marriage, she lost because she’s a dumb bitch!”

That's classy.

Note to Miss USA Pageant: Find a less controversial judge. Note to Ms. Prejean: You passed the test.

Batman ... Bush ... and other principled leaders?

Both my kids saw the new Batman movie, "The Dark Knight," on opening night, and they loved it. On Friday, Rush was talking about the article by Andrew Klavan in the Wall Street Journal that compared Batman with George W. Bush, both going to the defense of a people in need.

I asked my kids if the movie seemed to be a conservative message and if they could see a comparison with the President. They both agreed with Mr. Klavan's conclusions:

There seems to me no question that the Batman film "The Dark Knight," currently breaking every box office record in history, is at some level a paean of praise to the fortitude and moral courage that has been shown by George W. Bush in this time of terror and war. Like W, Batman is vilified and despised for confronting terrorists in the only terms they understand. Like W, Batman sometimes has to push the boundaries of civil rights to deal with an emergency, certain that he will re-establish those boundaries when the emergency is past.

Batman is a box office hit right out of the gate and is generating talk nationwide especially among the young 20- and 30-somethings. Hollywood flops when it makes anti-moral/anti-America movies ... conservatives flock to theaters when offered movies of hope and moral clarity with good winning over evil. Klavan asks:

Why is it then that left-wingers feel free to make their films direct and realistic, whereas Hollywood conservatives have to put on a mask in order to speak what they know to be the truth? Why is it, indeed, that the conservative values that power our defense -- values like morality, faith, self-sacrifice and the nobility of fighting for the right -- only appear in fantasy or comic-inspired films like "300," "Lord of the Rings," "Narnia," "Spiderman 3" and now "The Dark Knight"?
...
Doing what's right is hard, and speaking the truth is dangerous. Many have been abhorred for it, some killed, one crucified.

When we find someone, even within our ranks, who holds a moral compass that points to right over wrong, they are often vilified much as the President has been vilified for doing what he knows is right to preserve the freedoms and, indeed, the very lives of the citizens in the country he loves.

The true complexity arises when we must defend these values in a world that does not universally embrace them -- when we reach the place where we must be intolerant in order to defend tolerance, or unkind in order to defend kindness, or hateful in order to defend what we love.

When heroes arise who take those difficult duties on themselves, it is tempting for the rest of us to turn our backs on them, to vilify them in order to protect our own appearance of righteousness.

Mr. Klavan draws the following conclusion that closes his WSJ piece:

... when our artistic community is ready to show that sometimes men must kill in order to preserve life; that sometimes they must violate their values in order to maintain those values; and that while movie stars may strut in the bright light of our adulation for pretending to be heroes, true heroes often must slink in the shadows, slump-shouldered and despised -- then and only then will we be able to pay President Bush his due and make good and true films about the war on terror.

Maybe not heroes ... but we have knights amongst us who take up the pathway of morality and principles, and who face ridicule and contempt by those who do not understand....