So just a little while ago I noticed a post on the Christmas Ho's
Facebook page about a recent interview with Newsbusters. And my first thought was "Hell I don't have to post about this, it's almost Christmas!"
But then I gave
the article a quick perusal just to assure myself it was the same old tired crap she has been vomiting forth for weeks now, and something just seemed off.
Like this response to this quote in her book, “An angry atheist with a lawyer is one of the most powerful persons in America:”
PALIN: This takes a little explaining about how our rights are normally protected, about why and who can sue a city, county or school. I go into this deeply in the book, but here’s the bird’s eye view.
Normally, a person can’t sue a public entity for a violation of constitutional rights unless he or she has a concrete injury. In other words, someone would have to show how the action of the public institution harmed his legally protected interests. For example, if you’re told not to speak, your right to free speech is violated. If you’re prohibited from holding a Bible study, your right to free exercise of religion has been compromised. In these examples, the power of the state is forcing you into silence or subjection.
But there’s a double standard at work. If someone is offended by a religious expression or speech in a public setting, then courts have allowed that offended person to sue -- even if they weren’t censored, made to pray, or coerced into compliance with a different belief system, and even when they have a right to speak out and try to change public policy. Not only can people sue over hurt feelings, many times they’ve won.
This means people can silence their fellow citizens for no other reason than the fact that they were offended. This should stop.
Okay when this did this lunatic go to law school?
So it dawns on me that one of two things has happened. Either Newsbusters sent her the questions ahead of time, and she had her ghostwriter answer them after doing research. Or the interviewer took her crazed word salad and added some editorial Prozac to it to make it seem rational.
My money's on the first one, as the Palin camp probably wants to convince interviewers she is not a dipshit. (Too late.)
However what is crystal clear is that Palin did NOT answer these questions without a substantial amount of help.
So let's see if she had enough help to make her seem reasonably coherent throughout the entire interview shall we?
Here was her response to a question about a portion of her book in which she identifies her favorite scene of Linus reciting from Luke 2 8-14 during the "A Charlie Brown Christmas:"
PALIN: Mostly, I love when Linus recites the Scripture from the book of Luke, explaining to Charlie “what Christmas is all about.” It packs a punch. When he gets to the words “Fear not,” I love how he drops his blanket. It’s almost like he realized where his true security rests.
But then to a simple followup question as to when she first noticed that scene she says this:
PALIN: To be honest, I’d seen it many times before – just like you had – without noticing that part. I think sometimes different parts of movies or books jump out at you during different times of life. This is a pretty scary time in our nation’s history, so I guess it makes sense that this would jump off the screen a little more vibrantly than it would’ve back when I watched it in previous years.
Seriously? That is perhaps one of the most iconic moments in the special (Along with the ugly little tree that suddenly turns beautiful when everybody pitches in to decorate it.), how could a self proclaimed Christian have not had it "jump off the screen" during their first few viewings?
I noticed it and I am an Atheist since around the age of seven.
That struck me as more than a little weird.
Then Palin is asked about this quote, “Atheism’s track record makes the Spanish Inquisition seem like Disneyland by comparison.”
Palin mentions a book she "read" by Christoper Hitchens' brother Peter, about the supposed moral collapse he saw in Russia with the closing of the churches. She (Her ghostwriter) then made this statement:
The history of the twentieth century is a sad compendium of atheism’s murderous track record – from Mao’s China to Pol Pot’s Cambodia and on and on. But we can go back even further in history to the French Revolution, which I also mentioned in the book. The Jacobins hated traditional Christianity and openly persecuted the Catholic Church. They imprisoned and murdered priests and nuns who wouldn’t be puppets for the state. They demolished or closed churches. At one point they were even changing the street names to remove references to the saints! As I wrote in “Good Tidings and Great Joy,” their hatred of Christianity didn’t lead to utopia. It led to the guillotine.
What her ghostwriter fails to recognize however is that the French Revolution was, in part, a response to the corruption of the Catholic church and to its influence over the French nobility.
The anger toward religion was also fanned by Christian opposition to the Enlightenment and had been instrumental in the imprisonment, torture, and beheadings of those identified as Atheists or who spoke out against the church.
There were atrocities on both sides, however first blood was not drawn by the irreligious.
Of course when you are pimping a book defending Christmas and Christians against the scourge of atheism it doesn't pay to tell both sides now does it?
She was also questioned about her response to the Marti Bashir comments:
PALIN: I was out on my book tour meeting some amazing and inspiring Americans when this crap hit the fan, so I had more positive things on my mind than what another far left liberal spewed about me. Got to be honest though, I felt MSNBC’s tacit agreement with Bashir’s call to action encouraging that physical attack was downright gross and enormously demeaning. I hate, hate, hate that such an attack could have ever been punishment for any slave during that blight on America’s historical record. I’m so sorry for that chapter in a new nation’s life.
Yeah right.
On the Megyn Kelly Santa Claus ethnicity brouhaha:
PALIN: Honestly, I’ve never given it much thought. I didn’t know Santa’s race was a controversial topic.
On the fact that Kelly's comments received more media attention than did Bashir's:
PALIN: If that turns out to be true, then I think that reflects skewed priorities. It’s just bizarre. I mean, seriously? We’re going to get all “outrageously outraged” over the supposed racial makeup of a mythical figure?
Must be killing her to realize that people care more about that "mythical figure" than they do about her. Though come to think of it she is just about as mythologized as St. Nick these days.
After reading through all of this I am dead certain that Palin had substantial help with the questions and undoubtedly received them in the mail well in advance of publication.
That's okay though, even with careful editing and research she still comes off as historically ignorant, self centered, and a person who continually plays the victim.
Besides if ever anybody thinks she might be getting any smarter, just wait for an actual TV interview and you can see the stupidity in all its brain cell killing glory.
