The recent revelation of South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford’s marital infidelities is tragic and it reveals something about the character of our country. Each political party has its “who’s who” of moral and ethical failures. Each scandal is quickly seized upon for political gain yet the greater story is found in matters of the heart. To be a public success but a private failure is to place image above character. One often neglects to measure the ripple affects of moral and ethical trespasses. The following are 10 tragic consequences for a public figure’s private failure:

1. The shattered heart of a spouse.

2. The vulnerability of the children.

3. The sense of betrayal in a staff.

4. The loss of moral authority.

5. The jeopardizing of a future.

6. The message sent out to the next generation.

7. The damage done to a constituency.

8. The embarrassment to a political party.

9. The undermining of trust in one’s future decisions.

10. The inability to reconcile public convictions with private actions.

Where Governor Sanford is concerned, healing and hope will begin with repentance and reprioritization. Family values are not at the mercy of any public official. The lesson learned is that failure is not found in having values but in failing to honor the same. It can be said that the greatest failure can be found, not in those who hold values and fail, but in those who embrace no values and succeed.

Bill Shuler is pastor of the Capital Life Church in Arlington, Virginia.

Cash-strapped states have used federal stimulus dollars to close short-term budget gaps and avert major tax increases but generally have not directed the money toward long-term expansion, according to a new report released on Wednesday. For more on this story, click here.

YOU DECIDE:  Is the stimulus working? Share your thoughts, first vote in our poll and then click on “Leave a Comment” below.

This is not a scientific poll.

A New York congressman says Michael Jackson was a “pervert” and calls on society to stop “glorifying” the late entertainer in a YouTube video.

Rep. Peter King said Jackson — whom he called a “low-life” — is being glorified in the days after his death while society ignores the efforts, of teachers, police officers, firefighters and veterans. In the two-minute video, King claims the “day in and day out” coverage of Jackson’s death is “too politically correct.”

“Let’s knock out the psychobabble,” King said in the video taped outside an American Legion Hall on New York’s Long Island. “He was a pervert, a child molester; he was a pedophile. And to be giving this much coverage to him, day in and day out, what does it say about us as a country? I just think we’re too politically correct.” For more on this story, click here.

YOU DECIDE: Is Rep. Peter King right or wrong. Share your thoughts. First, vote in our poll and then click on “Leave a Comment” below.

This  is not a scientific poll.

On July 3 Alaska Governor Sarah Palin announced that she will step down from her post later this month.

YOU DECIDE: Did Mrs. Palin make a smart move or a bad decision? Share your thoughts — first vote in our poll and then click on “Leave a Comment” below.

This is not a scientific poll.

By Ken Klukowski
Fellow and Senior Legal Analyst, American Civil Rights Union

The Supreme Court’s decision in the New Haven Firefighters’ case shows that the Court—and the nation—are at a turning point in racial preferences. This could not come at a worse time for President Obama’s nominee, as Judge Sotomayor apparently holds a view of race that the country rejects and the Constitution doesn’t allow.

On June 29, the Supreme Court decided Ricci v. DeStefano. In Ricci, white and Hispanic New Haven firefighters sued when their test scores for promotion were discarded when the city decided that not enough black test-takers received high scores. The Court held that it violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act for a city to throw out test scores for promotions simply because of the racial makeup of the results.

More important, however, is Justice Scalia’s concurring opinion. The firefighters argued that the city’s actions violated both Title VII and the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution. Courts only make constitutional decisions when there’s no other way to decide a case. Since the Title VII issue resolved this case, the Court didn’t tackle the constitutional question.

Justice Scalia, however, said that the day is coming when the Court must answer whether the Constitution forbids laws that divide people on the basis of race. He makes the point that since the law forbids governments (like cities) from discriminating based on race, then government cannot pass laws like Title VII requiring employers to consider race in making employment decisions. Making race a factor in decisions is discrimination.

This is like the Voting Rights Act case decided last week, NAMUDNO v. Holder, where the Court looked at the federal government’s supervising parts of the South on their voting laws. The Court there, too, suggested that it needs to consider whether harsh and burdensome laws on racial issues are still necessary.

Such laws are a thing of the past. The Civil Rights Act was signed in 1964, and the Voting Rights Act passed in 1965. Those were days of militant racism and the systematic oppression of blacks and other minorities.

Today things couldn’t be more different. A black man sits in the Oval Office, and minorities are governors, senators, top Cabinet officials, and Supreme Court justices. As Justice Scalia writes, the Court needs to consider whether all these laws in which government puts its thumb on one side of the scales of justice because of race are now unconstitutional. In other words, the Court needs to recognize that the time has arrived to judge people on the content of their character, not the color of their skin.

It’s a big question as to where Judge Sonia Sotomayor stands on these things. She went the wrong way in Ricci, and today the Supreme Court reversed her decision. She has described herself as “an affirmative action baby.” She credits racial preferences with her success in getting into Princeton and Yale to launch her career.

Does Judge Sotomayor realize that America is past all that? Does she realize that a new day has dawned, or does she embrace a victimhood mindset that minorities can’t get ahead in life unless government tilts the scales in their favor?

The Ricci case was a 5-4 decision, and so was last week’s NAMUDNO decision. Clearly, the Court is split on this issue and one vote makes all the difference.

The Senate needs to decide whether Sonia Sotomayor will have one vote on the Supreme Court when these important questions are finally decided.

Ken Klukowski is a fellow and senior legal analyst with the American Civil Rights Union.