Browse By

Sarah Palin Uses Anagram Powers to Find God in the Constitution

Mediaite has tipped me off to the latest in Palinisms. In an interview with Bill O’Reilly, 2012 presidential contender Sarah Palin makes an attempt to set a new world record in sentence length:

Sarah Palin Explaining the part of the Constitution that talks about God and Judeo-Christian values, May 2010Bill O’Reilly: So why do you think America is a Christian nation?

Sarah Palin: I have said all along that America is based on Judeo-Christian beliefs and, you know, nobody has to believe me, though, uh, you can just go to our founding fathers’ early documents and see how they crafted a Declaration of Independence and a Constitution that, um, allows that Judeo-Christian belief to be the foundation of our laws, and our Constitution of course essentially acknowledging that our unalienable rights don’t come from man, they come from God, so that document is set up to protect us from a government that would ever infringe upon our right to have, um, freedom of religion, and to be able to express our faith freely, so it’s ironic that here on the National Day of Prayer, you know, there’s so much controversy about whether or not we’re a nation that’s built on Judeo-Christian beliefs and whether or not we can even talk about God in the public square, and that’s outrageous nonsense what we’re hearing.

At first I had no idea what Sarah Palin was talking about when she referred to “our Constitution of course essentially acknowledging that our unalienable rights don’t come from man, they come from God”. The U.S. Constitution does not contain the notion of “unalienable rights,” or of their origin from a god. In the Constitution — which is the basis of law in the United States — some rights are enumerated and others are said to rest with the people. The word “God” does not appear in the Constitution, and there are only two references to religion in the Constitution. The first reference is the declaration of Article VI that religion shall not be used as the basis for a public trust or for a person’s ascension to public office. The second reference is the declaration of the First Amendment that the government shall not be used to establish religion.

So how can Sarah Palin possibly characterize the Constitution as “acknowledging that our unalienable rights don’t come from man, they come from God”? I didn’t see the answer at first, but then it occurred to me that The Lord often speaks in mysterious ways. Now look at Article VI again:

“no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”

What’s the real message here? I think Sarah Palin has used the power of anagrams to find the answer, a tweet from above if you will:

“Devil? ’tis bad. O yea, the USA sure shalt require God, atrocious enfant terrible Palin. Constituent ruse: quit l’office!”

Sarah Palin is if nothing else a faithful follower.

25 thoughts on “Sarah Palin Uses Anagram Powers to Find God in the Constitution”

  1. deep thinker says:

    I think there was a slight pause after ‘Constitution’ and before ‘of course’ which would be the logical place to place a comma in verbal communication, because it, uh, separates, you know, different thoughts, and would therefore, kind of, like, make a different sentence that would have naturally existed if the comments had, you know, been written down instead of spoken, like when you use indefinite clauses, as if you were like speaking forever to fill a time slot, but you know, it’s hard to tell when you are not sure if she understands, because he thoughts don’t always flow, like down hill…

    Hence, it should read “…foundation of our laws, and our Constitution. Of course essentially acknowledging that our unalienable rights don’t come from man, they come from God, so that document is set up to protect us from…”

    1. Jim says:

      Nice try. I watched the video again and stand by my transcription. She’s referring to a single document — “that document is,” not “these documents are” — in her next phrase. She’s referring clearly to one document, the last document that she referred to: the Constitution. And she’s clearly wrong, unless you subscribe the God as Anagrammer theory.

  2. Amy says:

    To Deep Thinker:

    LOL! So the proper use of a comma (or period) after the word “Constitution” is all that separates Ms. Palin from a rational, thoughtful wingnut to a freakishly delusional one. I like it.

    However, in my opinion, Sarah Palin is neither; neither here, nor there, just a blink of history. She is an anomaly, a product of the rough-and-tumble election year 2008 that saw so many things possible–the possible election of the first African-American, or the first woman, or the election of what could arguably be referred to as a very angry and cynical elderly white guy going for the gold by selecting a relatively unvetted and utterly unprepared female running mate.

    I feel a LITTLE sorry for her now, being an ignoramus going down in history as a very big joke. Her kids are going to pay for it, sad to say (even though they haven’t fallen far from the tree). At least she made a buck or two, *in this great country of ours.*

    HOWEVER. I detest what she has done to honest and intelligent discourse in politics. Even though that road was paved for her by the likes of Limbaugh, Beck, Hannity, et. al, she put a pretty face on it, had pioneer-woman appeal, mentioned God a few times, and was gobbled up. As a woman, I detest her for setting women back in the political arena as untested and unsubstantial. I am doing my best to understand national and international issues, and while I’m no genius about them, I’M SURE that the uninformed lather she’s whipped up in this Tea Party base is going to haunt the country for a long time.

    1. deep thinker says:

      In no way am I attempting to defend Mrs. Palin. I was mocking her grammar; attempting comic relief by explaining away in foolish manner her dismemberment of English. I often find people with college degrees, assuming themselves educated, who think she adds constructively to the discourse of the nation. I try to understand why they feel so passionate about her and I have come to the conclusion that it’s the old ‘enemy of my enemy is my friend’ reasoning.

      She seems to provide an explanation for the negative things in the world, and by that is able to gain followers. I don’t agree that she will be remembered as a joke. Whether I like it or not, there is a growing movement in this country that is being motivated by libertarian and conservative personalities. My desperate hope is that it will break toward supporting individual liberty and not the other direction, which is my fear. She, and some of the others you mentioned, are pulling out all the stops to try and influence the biggest landslide in off-year election history. If they pull it off, I think we will see a destructive collision between the executive and legislative branches of government.

      I say that because the tea party crowds are not all the same. Some are more upset at agency rules, some spending, some social considerations like abortion, some national security focus, and each may help select candidates with agendas that don’t easily fit within a republican platform. I have zero confidence the current Republican leadership can contain those disparate interests, and only slightly more in the Democratic leadership that gets a few tea party candidates. Then my fear takes hold.

      The biggest commodity any government has is trust. Once that is destroyed, governments lose the support of the people. There-in to me lies the trouble of movements like the tea party. Are they capable or destroying the public’s trust in government? I hope not.

      1. Jim says:

        Thanks for writing back, dt.

        I have a complicated set of feelings regarding the Tea Party entities, partly because there are a lot of Tea Party entities, from Tea Party LLC corporations and Tea Party PACS and Tea Party Republican shill machines down to local grassroots Tea Party groups and individual people attending Tea Party events for various reasons. I think the tendency to think of the last two as “The Enemy” by liberals is something being whipped up by some groups strongly associated with partisan Democratic Party activity. If liberal Americans focus on grassroots Tea Party participants as an enemy, then maybe they won’t notice the myriad ways that Democratic Party politicians are dropping the ball on all the promises they made during the Bush years. I don’t like that attempt to drive focus onto individual Tea Party protesters as an enemy, even if I strongly disagree with individual Tea Party movement participants, because I think it’s missing the boat.

        The boat being missed, I think, is the use of a Tea Party brand by some very comfortable and powerful interests to push partisan politics in the direction of the defense of rich GOP fatcats. Everybody from the Republican Party to the always leechlike American Family Association is slapping “Tea Party” onto everything they do in an effort to co-opt people’s anger and manipulate it to their own ends. That really pisses me off, which is why I’ve been peeking at the records of the”Astroturf” Tea Party LLCs and PACs, and the records of the candidates those frontgroups have been calling their “heroes.”

        As for Sarah Palin? Well, Amy says she’s put back women’s progress in politics, but I’ve noticed politics has progressed to the point that Sarah Palin is being made fun of for being stupid, not for being a woman. Palin tried to use her gender, casting victimhood about herself like a cloak, but people aren’t buying it, largely because she is the one putting herself out there. Sarah Palin continues to maintain political aspirations and to milk the airwaves and to insert herself into political issues of the day and to sell herself for six figures a speech, so her positions and statements are definitely fair game. I don’t put it past the American people to listen more to the folksy tone of her voice than to the content of what she’s saying. That happened with George W. Bush, and look what those 8 years brought us.

        Then there’s

        1. Amy says:

          Hi Jim:

          I agree she’s being made fun of as stupid, not as a woman. The only problem is that trying to get a woman to be taken seriously as a front-runner in the future could be difficult, because some folks (especially men in the Republican arena) generally think that women don’t have what it takes emotionally (like Sarah) and intellectually (like Sarah). I could go on for hours about this and even cite stuff, but I think you may understand me now. Thanks.

          1. Jim says:

            I definitely agree with you that there are a lot of people who unfortunately feel that way. One of my earliest political memories was Don Regan explaining that women wouldn’t be interested in an upcoming Soviet summit because they weren’t “going to understand throw-weights or what is happening in Afghanistan or what is happening in human rights.”

      2. Amy says:

        Hi, Deep Thinker:

        I don’t want to interrupt you and Jim, as you have a great discussion going, but I quickly want to clarify something. I have a college degree, yes, and I “assume” myself educated. However, you and I have been in complete agreement. I totally understood your goof on her. I don’t take her seriously in any way shape, or form, other than the damage she’s inflicted. So, I worry about the same things you do (but would never be able to articulate them that well, so, thanks.)

        I still think when all is said and done, we will all get one helluva a laugh about Sarah Palin, the PERSON, and she will become a huge joke. She’s a source of endless fodder already and she ain’t even finished yet, you betcha.

        1. deep thinker says:

          Thanks Amy, I thought we might agree but it’s often hard to tell at first. Probably we agree on a lot more than we know. 🙂 Mrs. Palin fascinates me. As a public personality, she has time and time again over-come media revelations that would crush others. As my father used to say, the cream may rise to the top, but so does the scum. I put another post down below on Mrs. Palin. I hope you read it and give me your thoughts. thanks.

          1. a_green_new_yorker says:

            “As a public personality, she has time and time again over-come media revelations that would crush others.”

            Yes, and this is what confounds me about her. Why? How? Is it because she’s a woman that she gets a pass? Is crying victim somehow more believable because of her gender, and because, she is, I suppose, attractive? (If you can stand those big glassy zealot eyes.) Considering that white males rule the GOP, I suppose that’s part of it, but still…

    2. Idolina says:

      Why are you so full of hate for her and her children. may god forgive you

      1. F.G. Fitzer says:

        Idolina, I hope that Marduk agrees to overlook your failings.

  3. DEO says:

    Ok, $arah let’s go back to using the laws of the Bible and 10 commandments…I think YOU and your unwed mother daughter would have been stoned to death by now.

    $arah Palin/Tonya harding 2012!

  4. dlbvet says:

    Thank you “deep thinker” for your thoughts. That is precisely what scares the s-t-u-f-f out of me (trying to not use profanity when speaking about Mrs. Palin). I had a friend tell me “she has so much positivity…I listen to her whenever I can.” ?!@?!?@ I’m not sure which word out of Mrs. Palin’s mouth has ever been positive, but I am trying to be objective.
    The other part of scary is the millions of people who think like my friend. How is that rational? How can people, who think Mrs. P hung the moon, listen to comments such as above (that our country’s law should be based on the 10 Commandments)…and still think she knows what she’s talking about?!?!? I am baffled. Truly baffled.

    1. Green Man says:

      Well, dlbvet, when Sarah Palin chants drill baby drill, she’s positively insane. Does that count?

    2. a_green_new_yorker says:

      I guess if you remain bubbly and cheerful with a big friendly grin on your face while spewing the most vile filth, combined with narcisism mistaken for a general optimism, it still comes off to some people as “positivity.”

  5. Tom says:

    Sarah Palin as a viable political leader is a reflection of our dumbed-down, totally distracted, uncaring, fat-slob electorate, and further – of how far humanity has fallen over the centuries from science-based technological thinkers to complete idiots, greed-bags, corporate apologists, lazy, careless polluters of the entire planet.

    We’re toast.

    1. Chucklenuts says:

      I agree with you Tommie. It’s similar to the way dumbed-down people voted for a different inexperienced placater, when they confused the word “change” with something positive.

  6. deep thinker says:

    So much has been said Mrs. Palin already, so please forgive the length of the message.

    Looking over her history some things stand out. She was successful in small town local politics. She was attractive and athletic in school, popular and involved in the community. There is nothing wrong with any of that and most of us hope that our daughters will pursue similar interests; learning to make a positive difference. In Alaska, which has been described as a big state with a small town familiarity, mostly politically homogenous, it isn’t surprising that someone like her would be able to rise so the head of state. I would think every state would have experienced something similar. The ‘local boy does good’ type of situation. It is a more complicated question, but basically, that doesn’t prepare you for the national stage does it? It shouldn’t. It might fit exactly what that state needs at the time, but that is usually as far as it goes. (Federalist 10)

    Similar to Sec. Clinton speaking slowly to walk her audience down the path, Mrs. Palin is keeping her message very basic. By not deviating from that basic message, she can say almost anything about most issues by reducing them to ‘thou shalt not covet’ kinds of issues. As you learn in any public speaking class, a simple and clear message, based on basic truths, is most easily understood and gets the broadest reception. This is not amateurish, it is a studied and calculated approach. No wonder she smiles so much. Regardless what we think of her, we shouldn’t be lulled into thinking she can be easily dismissed by saying anything that her followers can construe as personal. The left tried that on Pres. Reagan, continually falling for his simple rhetoric and portraying him as an out-of-touch old man. They used all their bullets on him, strengthening him until he was known as the Teflon president. He did what Jesus said to do, turned the other cheek, said so, spoke as though they were attacking American values and ideas, charted a more hopeful course, and he was loved. See where I’m going? It’s pretty well documented. My poli-sci professor hated him and admired him. I believe Mrs. Palin is trying the same approach. Her followers won’t usually understand how her approach works, but will, and have, slowly began to imitate it on her behalf.

    Over half of America describes themselves as Christian. Whether they agree with her politically or not, she is speaking their language; the language of the Bible, the language of small towns, the language of catch phrases, the language of the common people and it is working. It’s worked for other candidates in the past and should work for her. And if you drink enough kool-aid at the tea party, get influenced by other more technical speakers, and surround yourself with the flags, Hannity’s great Americans and ‘patriots,’ most people will wind up finding themselves agreeing with something. Take me to the ballot box where we settle disputes in America.

    Does she manipulate for 6 figure speeches? Absolutely. Is she inserting herself into politics for her own self-interest? Absolutely. Is she devious to the point of attacking like a pit bull only to draw out an administration counter-claim that can be painted as against American interests? Does a bear crap in the woods? Absolutely. Jim, you have it nailed, but I think many people underestimate Mrs. Palin. Keep peeking and poking and shining the light on the roaches, which is an intrinsic value of bloggers. But is she a dumb joke as others suggest? I can’t agree. My husband thinks she is and we go around and around on this. He dismisses her with the wave of a hand, calling her tomorrow’s ancient history. But he won’t watch and see and discuss with her followers.

    I think she is convinced that the more she is attacked and she can successfully paint it as another example of how personal, partisan and anti-American her opponents are and the more she can grow her own Teflon suit. Already among her followers, she has an air of fragility, but correct and right and good. You can not deny she comes across as well-intentioned, familiar with every-day life, it’s good and bad points, a mother of a soldier, etc. It’s a tough mix, and I feel she is getting stronger.

    She won’t be defeated by emotions. She will win every time when her opponents take that approach. You must get her in the arena of ideas. That is where she is weakest and only by clearly articulating ideas with facts and evidence will work against her. And good luck on that! If I may summarize Jim’s bazillion posts on the tea party, ‘long on emotion and short on reason.’ It’s insidious.

  7. Amy says:

    Deep Thinker:

    Thanks for your insight, and right you are. I called her a “dangerous woman” right out of the gate, two days after her acceptance speech, in an editorial to our city paper. No question. The ghost of Reagan blew right past me. Also, I was sitting in a campus pub the night Reagan famously quipped “…there he goes again …” in the standoff with J. Carter, and you could HEAR A PIN DROP in that room. In hindsight, all of us in the room saw it for what it was — the grinning, self-effacing doofus approoach, the “everyman” approach, what have you. Birth of the sound-bite, birth of celebrity in politics. No question!

    The thing of it is, I think, is that Ms. Palin has already been ridiculed for her lack of knowledge, and it is not sticking, because the emotional appeal has hijacked a SMALL group who are getting BIG press. Facts are being completely twisted and even made up, not just by Palin, but the very party she is most closely connected to. Problem is, she can and does memorize the *facts*, which is probably why she can’t be bothered right now — she’s just having too much fun.

    What could? I think:
    1. Repubs abandon the monster they’ve created (I’m thinking relatively central Bennett going down to TPers)
    2. TPers begin to abandon her because of her *betrayals* — like Carly F of CA.
    3. TPers start connecting the dots … money and support come to those who back the winner … ??
    3. She bolts from being a *kingmaker* and decides to go for it in 2012, and then gets SOUNDLY defeated in debate, by which time MSM will surely be on board. They don’t like her. I don’t think O’Reilly or Limbaugh like her very much, either.

    The real Palin fanatics seem to be angry white guys in their 30s, 40s, 50s, 60s (let’s face it, angry white guys, period.) Angry white guys come and go, and cooler heads will prevail. I believe, as grim as it looks right now, this country will NOT allow her anywhere near any political position of true power. BTW, have you ever seen the movie “Being There,” with Peter Sellers? If yes, is it not perfect???? Otherwise, rent this thing!

  8. deep thinker says:

    Amy: Saw “Being There” when it came out and love the Chauncy Gardener expressions and anaologies. No question but it was a slap at Reagan. But I think he too was mis-characterized. Reagan had a long history and vast political writings dating to the early 1960’s. In 1989 I had to write a paper on Ronald Reagan and Conservatism in America for that same poli-sci professor who at-once hated and admired him. He was very studied and calculating too.

    I think the Repubs are eager to dump her, but if she seems to be chosen by the people, they will embrace her. It’s not the Repub leadership that concerns me tho, it is the myriad uncontrollable other TPers elected that are the wild card. Reference my fear that they will be elected in the largest off year election landside in history.

    Here in AZ, TPers saw her support of McCain for senator as a necessary evil for his choosing her as a running mate. They call it loyalty and give her a pass. I’m not convinced they will abandon her for betrayals, but more likely to assume she has some insight they lack. They don’t have to agree with everything she says, just the basic message. So connecting the dots might be it, but there are so many other technically better speakers connecting the dots for them who support Palin. She has good friends in the TP movements.

    2012? Big elephant. Does she bet it all? I don’t know, but she clearly wants it. Bigger IF’s to be answered before that landscape shapes up and I think that is why she is trying so hard to shape it now. What if a cataclysmic fight ensues between a conservative, for lack of a better word, Congress and the President and federal beauracracy. The whole landscape will change between now and then.

    I’m not sure how much the other mouthpieces like or don’t like her, because I can’t listen to them for long, especially Hannity because he rants continuously. But my husband has foxnews on a lot and she sure shows up there.

    Angry white guys…hmmmm. There is anger and it is a powerful motivator, and there is some sex appeal as well. She is pretty. I don’t want to hit on this too hard, but her attractiveness gets people’s attention, not just sexually, and you know exactly what I’m talking about. When we’ve got it going on, we can get attention. She is good at it and I can see exactly what she is doing with her body language, moving her feet, playing her laugh thru the smile and shaking her hair a tad with exagerrate head movements; even though I think she lets it show a little too much. And the cameramen fall for it. They pull back and show all of her and she takes advantage of it. Most men don’t even seem to notice but I know it gives her more traction and people will listn to her. I’ve seen it and have learned to use it myself. Enough said.

    I think the demographics you listed are in her pocket for several reasons, but it’s the other mom’s I know that concern me. She speaks our language and I couldn’t help identifying with her on some things like her family, the way she was set up, the way she was misquoted and made fun of by Tina Fey. All in all, I hope you are right in general about the people not allowing idiots into positions of real power, but remember, many people right now are under the firm conviction that idiots are already in charge.

  9. Amy says:

    Thanks for all of your insights, DT. I’m learning a lot, hope to continue to learn a lot, and if I stop learning a lot, may someone shoot me dead!

    As she fascinates me/frightens me and so many others, I hope bloggers such as yourself don’t let up. If you haven’t already, check out a couple of sites: Palingates and Immoral Minority. The can get a little over the top at times, but if nothing else, they can be interesting reads that provide some well-researched Palin material.

    Here’s to elections 2010 & 2012! and may they allow us to breathe easier.

  10. deep thinker says:

    If I have one gripe with this site, it’s that Jim posts so much that it’s difficult to keep good conversations going before something else crops up.

    We are all learning, I know I am. I’ll look for you here on this site. Living in AZ I recently have been able to see cutting edge news and politics develop first hand. I’ve attended two of the TP’s and went and watched the hispanics march on the capitol grounds. I talked with quite a few people to try and understand why they feel motivated to show up. I get to listen to an office full of professionals discuss the merits and pitfalls of many positions. From global warming, immigration, economy and H1N1 to Tiger Woods and Dancing with the Stars, I get to hear and discuss it all. Great discussion.

    1. Jim says:

      When we stop learning, time stops for us, huh?

      As a way of trying to keep the discussion going while The Green Man and J. Clifford and I get prolix with our posts, we’ve changed the way recent comments are posted over to the right. Now they’re organized by post, so that more ongoing conversations can keep from slipping off the front page.

      Does that help?

      1. deep thinker says:

        I like it Jim. I’ll be giving it a test drive over the next few week. Thanks! Would that my IT guys were so prompt with my gripes here. And yours was a little gripe.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Psst... what kind of person doesn't support pacifism?

Fight the Republican beast!