“Ma” Ferguson, who served as the first female governor of Texas way back in the 1920s, is alleged to have once explained that if English was good enough for Jesus, it’s good enough for Texans. Whether or not she ever actually said such an amusing thing is subject to debate among Texas historians; if she didn’t, then the prize for historical inanity among prominent politicos must rightfully go to Sarah Palin, whose response to a question put to her on the use of the term “God” in the Pledge of Allegiance is so strangely similar to Ferguson’s alleged remark that I would suspect her of having cribbed it if it were not for the fact that Sarah Palin doesn’t know enough about history to steal it.

A 2006 Eagle Forum questionnairethat went out to Alaskan gubernatorial candidates in 2006 asks respondents to answer the following: “Are you offended by the phrase ‘Under God’ in the Pledge of Allegiance? Why or why not?

Palin respond thusly: “Not on your life. If it was good enough for the founding fathers, its good enough for me and I’ll fight in defense of our Pledge of Allegiance.”

The Pledge of Allegiance, of course, did not exist in the time of the founders, it having not occurred to any of them that such a pledge was necessary for the health of our republic. In fact, the framework of the pledge was written in 1892 by a socialist Christian minister, ironically enough. And the bit about the nation owing its allegiance to God as opposed to, say, the Constitution or the Enlightenment or universal ideals of something-or-other was not added until the 1950s, when it was deemed necessary to supplement the nation’s nuclear arsenal with just a pinch of mysticism in order that we might fend off the communists. Personally, I think the nukes probably helped more, but your mileage may vary. At any rate, this may still be the most intelligent response that has ever been given to a question put forth by The Eagle Forum.