Here's her latest bizarre quote, from today:
Palin told WMAL-AM that her criticism of Obama's associations, like those with 1960s radical Bill Ayers and the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, should not be considered negative attacks. Rather, for reporters or columnists to suggest that it is going negative may constitute an attack that threatens a candidate's free speech rights under the Constitution, Palin said.
"If [the media] convince enough voters that that is negative campaigning, for me to call Barack Obama out on his associations," Palin told host Chris Plante, "then I don't know what the future of our country would be in terms of First Amendment rights and our ability to ask questions without fear of attacks by the mainstream media."
Dear Sarah:
All I'm going to say about your continuing screed about "Obama's associations" is this: you're married to someone who was a member of a political party that wanted to secede from America.
So, you know, shut up, Sarah.
But as for the Constitution (the document that you wrongly think would give you the power, as Vice President, to be "in charge" of the Senate) — well, lets go to the text again….
No, no! Don't go anywhere Sarah. It only takes about ten seconds to read. I promise.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Now Sarah — I know there are a lot of multi-syllabic words, and no accompanying pictures, but really — a Vice Presidential nominee should be able to parse the First Amendment and discern its meaning.
Just try. Try real hard.
*sigh* Okay, I'll help.
You see, the First Amendment protects your (and my) freedom of speech from acts of Congress. Meaning that Congress cannot pass laws that abridge your freedom of speech. That's what the words "Congress shall make no law…." mean!
The First Amendment doesn't limit the "press" at all. It does not say, for example, that the press can't beat up on you for making stupid comments. And it certainly doesn't protect your (or my) "ability to ask questions without fear of attacks by the mainstream media".
In fact, you've got it backwards, hon. The "freedom of press" clause specifically recognizes and protects the right of the press to call you an idiot for the embarrassing crap that comes from your mouth. Or my mouth.
Sarah, can you name a country – past or present — that attempted to stifle the press from being critical of those in power?
Ok. Never mind. I was going to say Communist Russia. You see, the First Amendment is what keeps us from being like Communist Russia. But you apparently believe that the First Amendment not only does, but ought to, stifle a free press.
Sarah, my love — THE CONSTITUTION is the document that, when you get sworn in as Vice President, you take an OATH — on the BIBLE — to uphold. Don't you think you might want to — oh, I don't know — learn what the thing SAYS?????
UPDATE… Greenwald echoes me:
According to Palin, what the Founders intended with the First Amendment was that political candidates for the most powerful offices in the country and Governors of states would be free to say whatever they want without being criticized in the newspapers. In the Palin worldview, the First Amendment was meant to ensure that powerful political officials such as herself would not be "attacked" in the papers. Is it even possible to imagine more breathaking ignorance from someone holding high office and running for even higher office?
UPDATE… BUT IN ALL SERIOUSNESS FOLKS….
Yeah, I'm a lawyer, who writes and occasionally specializes in constitutional law. And no, she's not. (She just has a journalism degree — a degree for a profession which is engaged in finding out the truth).
So yeah, I get worked up over this.
But it should be a concern to everybody. Because this woman purports to be a "real American" who "loves America" and who supports wars which send young Americans overseas, ostensibly to protect our Constitution.
Shouldn't a person who claims to have those "pro-American" characteristics and values have at least a rudimentary understanding of the very document upon which America is based? I'm not talking about a presidential candidate; I mean any person. Shouldn't a self-professed "real American" have an inkling about the ideals of America?
The Constitution. What we're talking about here isn't abstract Americana history; what we're talking about is the ideological foundations upon which this country still stands.
How can a person love America, if they can't even articulate correctly what the fundamentals and ideals of America are?
That's not patriotism; that's faux patriotism.
Immigrants seeking to enter this country have a better understanding of these things than Ms. Palin. As do 6th grade civics students.
And yet, she wants to be elected to a position which is one 76-year-old, cancer-stricken heartbeat away from the presidency. She could conceivably appoint judges to the Supreme Court who will "strictly interpret the Constitution", even though that's a document with which she clearly lacks any passing acquintance. She wants to raise her right hand and swear an oath to God to uphold a document that she is absolutely clueless about.
That is simply frightening.