Well, Sarah Palin Just Lost *My* Vote…

Looks like Governor Sarah Palin was using taxpayer money to fund her own faith back in Alaska:

Since she took state office in late 2006, the governor and her family have spent more than $13,000 in taxpayer funds to attend at least 10 religious events and meetings with Christian pastors, including Franklin Graham, the son of evangelical preacher Billy Graham, records show.

On a weekend trip from the capital in June, a minister from the Wasilla Assembly of God blessed Palin and Lt. Gov Sean Parnell before a crowd gathered for the “One Lord Sunday” event at the town’s hockey rink. Later in the day, she addressed the budding missionaries at her former church.

“As I’m doing my job, let’s strike this deal. Your job is going be to be out there, reaching the people – (the) hurting people – throughout Alaska,” she told students graduating from the church’s Masters Commission program. “We can work together to make sure God’s will be done here.”

Palin and her family billed the state $3,022 for the cost of attending Christian gatherings exclusively, including visits to the Assembly of God here and to the congregation they attend in Juneau, according to expense reports reviewed by the AP.

Palin also is one of just two governors who channeled federal money to support religious groups through a state agency, Alaska’s Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives. Palin has made it a priority to unite faith communities, local nonprofits and government to serve the needy, bringing her high marks – and $500,000 – from the Bush administration.

Still, a state worker who directs an Anchorage-based group that advocates for church-state separation, Lloyd Eggan, said Palin’s administration hasn’t done enough to assure voters that government money doesn’t support ministry.

“That sort of thing is exactly what courts have said is barred by the First Amendment,” Eggan said.

Damn liberal media.

We all know Palin would never do anything unethical

"> LOL. There's literally an international scholarly journal that's titled "Journal for the Study of ..."

No, Outraged Christians, Alexa Doesn’t Call ..."
"OK, OK, Liberty Counsel, if that is what you want: Merry Fucking Christmas to you. ..."

This is Why Liberty Counsel’s “Naughty ..."
"It's shocking, really, but don't get all amped up."

For a Moment, Let’s Sympathize With ..."
"Laws tell us what to do ALL THE TIME.... Laws tell parents to ensure the ..."

Here’s Why the Fertility Clinic “Dilemma” ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Pseudonym

    While I agree that Palin crossed the line here, I don’t see a problem in principle with spending government money on sending a public official to meet some community leader, or visit a public event, whether religious or otherwise, so long as the money only covers the expenses of the public official.

    I also have no problem with spending money on a visit from the Pope or the Dalai Lama. Franklin Graham is a bit of a stretch, though.

  • mikespeir

    First I’ve heard of this. I’d like to know more. Specifically, I’d to know if this report might be slanted so as to make things look worse than they are.

    Don’t misunderstand me. Palin is the reason I won’t be voting for McCain. Still, the kind of captiousness she had been subjected to irks me. There are those out there who drool like Pavlov’s dog anytime there’s so much as a rumor that she might have taken a misstep.

  • Jeff Satterley

    I don’t understand how one report can say that she violated ethics laws, but that her actions were not unethical.

    What the f%&@ is the point of ethics laws if they have no bearing on ethics?!

  • http://barefootbum.com The Barefoot Bum

    Sarah Palin just lost your vote? :-O

  • http://www.banalleakage.com martymankins

    The federal money for helping with the poor and needy is fence-sitting and line-hugging. I could see that, but for her to bill the state for personal trips to see ministers? That jumps the fence and crosses the line.

  • Miko

    “Your job is going be to be out there, reaching the people – (the) hurting people”

    Are we sure that the “the” should be added there? Maybe “hurting” wasn’t intended as an adjective (describing “people”) but in its more standard role as gerund (describing “your job”).