Le·gal In·sur·rec·tion

Nice catch professor. And it wasn't only the left. Commentary and National review were prominently and sneeringly attacking Governor Palin over her Paul revere remarks.

It's not the first time either:

Leftist dullards mock Palin for correctly referencing Boston Tea Party

Clapped his pistol to my head, called me by name, & told me he was going to ask me some questions, & if I did not give him true answers, he would blow my brains out.

What, no screams about tortuous interrogation techniques?

Hateful little trolls, they are.

My comment on Mediaite this morning: http://tinyurl.com/3nyjnmj

“Revere became a regular messenger to help the revolutionary cause. He rode to Concord, Massachusetts, on April 16, 1775, to tell patriots to move their weapons. Two days later he took that historic ride to Lexington to inform the people that British troops would soon be there. The next day the Revolutionary War began. And because of Revere, the patriots were ready.”

http://www.biography.com/articles/Paul-Revere-192838

I appreciate the attempt to clear her name, but let's be honest... she wasn't referencing this particular footnote.

She mentioned Paul ringing bells and firing shots to alert the British - that did not happen. She either got flustered or just doesn't know her history. Either way, I think we can do better than her.

1. Iirc I commented that Palin's Boston Tea Party pseudogaffe was a deliberate trap for the Left and MSM.

I repeat that conjecture wrt Paul Revere.

2. It's a well played trick by the Palin people, but it doesn't follow that she doesn't make serious gaffes.

That's the difference between having just heard the historical presentation from a guide (which Palin did) and thinking that the few sentences read or heard in grade school or high school were the whole story. Isn't this why one takes those tours? To learn the whole story?

Apparently the press has not understood Palin's clear statement that she is going to these places to underline how we have gotten away from knowing and understanding our history. They're making the point for her in their own inimitable way.

Amazing hubris to think one knows the whole story without having done any real research. Unfortunately, that seems to be the Achilles heel of the press--especially political reporters.

Online: Collections Massachusetts Historical Society
Letter from Paul Revere to Jeremy Belknap, circa 1798

You, sir, are a partisan fool. The idea that Sarah Palin did anything more than mis-spoke is foolish. Just acknowledge that she mis-spoke for God's sake; it has no bearing on her qualifications for anything. Much like Obama dating that stupid book with 2008 says nothing about his abilities.

For to pass on this bs from her camp just sullies you even further as a lapdog. Grow a spine, Bill

Sarah probably had just come out of a history lesson by the National Park Service and repeated what she had heard. This is what I find to be so much fun in visiting these kind of sites. You always learn something that you didn't already know!

Palin plays the "gosh I'm just a hockey mom" routine brilliantly. All doubters will eventually see (much to their abject horror) that she is no dummy. Her non-traditional approach to just about everything is particularly brilliant, because her enemies will never, ever see her coming.

Heh, heh, heh.

I call BS on your post, counselor.

You say, "I've learned something new today, about Paul Revere." Let's assume--charitably--that ex-Gov Palin is as learned as you are.

So, in stumbling and bumbling through her almost incomprehensible 40-second soundbite, she inadvertently says something that might be true. Might be true, that is--

1. If one discounts "the popular version" (the version all of us--including you, by your own admission--remember) of the story and instead quotes a historical document that you had to do some digging to discover; and

2. If one concedes that the geyser of words that comprised ex-Gov Palin's statement was her attempt to express the idea in the historical document you cite.

Those are two ginormous "ifs." That all you got, counselor? If I were your client, and you offered that to a jury on my behalf, I'd sure have my toothbrush with me, 'cause no jury in the world is gonna buy that story.

I don't know which is sadder: that you were serious in offering this up, or that you made this effort on behalf of this annoying distraction from the 49th state.

--Walt @ WorkAvoidanceLog

To me, there are two very important parts missing in this video.

1. What was the question that elicited Palin's answer?
2. Was this 30-second sound byte part of a longer exchange between Palin and the reporter?

Some of you seem to think that Palin's answer didn't make sense, or was poorly worded, but unless you know the full content of the exchange, you can't fully understand the context.

Palin said, "He warned the British that they weren't goin' to be takin' away our arms".
The British weren't coming to take away anyone's arms, they were coming to Lexington to arrest Samuel Adams and John Hancock. Revere was sent to warn them. He was arrested after deciding to ride on to Concord(along with two other riders, William Dawes and Samuel Prescott), and after warning Hancock and Adams.
The above quoted paragraph describes the arrest, which took place after the famous ride.
Nice try, 2 points for the creative spin.

You, sir, are a partisan fool. The idea that Sarah Palin did anything more than mis-spoke [sic] is foolish.

For to pass on this bs from her camp just sullies you even further as a lapdog.

It's always amusing when someone who can't even write proper English chides someone else for being an idiot.

Anyway, as soon as I heard this clip I realized two things: she spoke fairly inarticulately, and the gist of what she was saying was completely true.

But hey, it's just easier to call her an idiot than to bother with the facts.

If one discounts "the popular version" (the version all of us--including you, by your own admission--remember) of the story and instead quotes a historical document that you had to do some digging to discover; and

So one of your reasons for showing that the professor's argument is bs is the fact that Sarah Palin knew something that other people didn't know, even after other people have already discussed the fact that Palin had just completed a tour where this nugget of history had been discussed? That seems. . . fair.

The British weren't coming to take away anyone's arms, they were coming to Lexington to arrest Samuel Adams and John Hancock.

Bullshit. Even the kiddies' version says they were coming to confiscate the colonists' arms.

"Grow a spine, Bill"

Grow a mind, timmah.

"Let's assume--charitably--that ex-Gov Palin is as learned as you are."

When someone is found to be saying something not generally known, that is found to be true, the logical conclusion is not that they're a lucky ignoramous, but that they knew something you didn't.

But you can't accept that, because Palin's a woman? Because she's not from NYC, DC, or LA? Or because you're a nasty little bigot?

"The British weren't coming to take away anyone's arms..."

I think that little maneuver is known as "stepping on your own d*ck". They were on their way to seize the magazines.

Don't any of you lefties remember "party like it's 1773"? She had the right year, you weasels didn't. You assumed that was because SHE was stupid...

And you've done the same thing AGAIN.

I hadn't heard anything about this supposed gaffe--nor did I know this tidbit of historical trivia. Thanks for reposting. You're right, of course, that the Lefties ought to be apologizing to Sarah Palin (nothing new there), but I wouldn't recommend anyone holding their breath until it occurs.

"The British weren't coming to take away anyone's arms, they were coming to Lexington to arrest Samuel Adams and John Hancock."

Sko,
See http://www.paul-revere-heritage.com/midnight-ride.html

"On Sunday April 16, Dr. Joseph Warren sent Revere to Lexington to warn John Hancock and Samuel Adams of the possibility of their arrest and to Concord to alert the population and the militia that they were coming to disarm them."

Palin has more knowledge about America in her little finger than the lamestream media has in its entire libtard body.

is this thing working?

I lived in Arlington for a while which was very near Lexington Green. There was a lot of literature available from the MA Historical Society, the National Park Service and other sources about local history. I think most people would be surprised at how little they know about our history. It is almost certainly different from what they think they know.

A very interesting and revealing little pamphlet I picked up a few years ago at Paul Revere's House was put out by the MA Historical Society and was a collection of the official testimony by the survivors of the first battle of Lexington-Concord. As tedious as it started out to be, it struck me that the testimony was very precise and that all men had obviously been coached to the point that their testimony was virtually identical.

When you study the war on a personal level and visit the actual site where events took place, history opens up. Most of what we think we know is very superficial. I don't mean that as a criticism because we are all victims of this.

You really get to appreciate what a miracle it is that America ever happened and that it lasted so long. How easily we are letting it slip through our fingers.

party like 1773- lefties "she's so dum" whoops, beclowns themselves.

inflation is here- lefties "she's so dum" whoops, beclowns themselves.

paul revere warned the British- lefties "she's so dum" whoops, beclowns themselves.

I see a pattern of dum and they are all obama voters

What Palin said (below) does not match up with the historical account you present. In the historical excerpt you present, Revere isn't ringing bells, firing warning shots, nor warning the British. Instead, Revere has been stopped and interrogated by the British.

Governor Palin: "He who warned, uh, the British that they weren't going to be taking away our arms uh by ringing those bells and making sure as he's riding his horse through town to send those warning shots and bells that we were going to be secure and we were going to be free and we were going to be armed."

Those are two ginormous "ifs."

Only if one assumes, as you obviously do, that Sarah Palin couldn't possibly know something you don't.

That has never been a safe assumption, and it's going to get a lot more precarious over time -- especially if she does run for president.

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha(breathe)hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah! OMG, please run, Sarah! Please! I need to see all the people in this thread continue to defend her for the next two years! Please, God in heaven, please hear my prayer.

One note about Sarah Palin the philo-semite and next president of the USA:
Let me tell you about Sarah Palin. She loves the Jews. But she loves the Jews because she wants them eventually dead. Dead, or converted.

As a Christian Zionist, Palin sees the Jews as ushering in the Second Lynching, er, Coming of Christ, HER supernatural Savior. And as part of this second lynching, er, coming of Joshua Ben Joseph means that the majority of Jews will be wiped out in Biblically-prophecized apocalyptic wars, with the remaining Jews converted to Jesushood.

Really. This is her worldview. Her religion. And get ready, because God has ordained that she is going to be the next President of the USA in 2012.

So yes, Sarah Palin loves the Jews. She wants them dead, converted, though. Later. Not yet, not now.

But that’s not LOVE, though. That’s New Testament antisemitism in the most ugly and vile form.

Sarah Palin grew up in Alaska. Ask her, someone, if she ever heard her Wasilla neighbors talk about “jewing someone down” at a weekend yard sale there. Ask her.

Anderson Cooper, ask her. Wolf Blitzer, ask her.

It’s a common Alaskan idiom. I know. I lived in Alaska for ten years in the 1980s. Heard this idion slur all the time. In Juneau, too. I even had a woman boss at local Juneau newspaper where I was the editor use the idiom in front of me while talking about an upcoming yardsale she was hoping to go to and ”jew down” the prices there.

So ask Sarah Palin if in her life in Alaska she ever used that phrase, or if her parents did or if Todd did, and if sher did hear such a terrible slur, if she ever spoke up and told her neighbors or Todd or her father that it was wrong to use such an expression in this day and age.

Ask her. Ask the first female president of the USA in the making.

She might have a good story to tell….

Our vote for President should not be based on which person is most likely to win Jeopardy or Who Wants to Be a Millionaire? or even $64,000 Question. At the end of the day there are two types of decisions: the deliberated decision and the spontaneous decision. The first comes with many meetings and a proposal for something big, like tax code reform or dealing with Social Security or Medicare. The second comes in the 3 o'clock phone call: when push comes to shove and a decision needs to be made will our leader make the best decision for our nation. This is about the leader's core values and priorities. Playing "gotcha" with trivia is not what selecting a President is about.


Reagan set Bush up in a debate in New Hampshire. The debate was going to be between just the two of them, but Reagan's people had asked others to come. When George objected, Reagan took the mic and said something like "I'm paying for this mic and I say they get to participate." That made a huge impact on national audiences: Reagan being Presidential.

Just stop. You make yourself look foolish.

Mainiac said...

What Palin said (below) does not match up with the historical account you present. In the historical excerpt you present, Revere isn't ringing bells, firing warning shots, nor warning the British. Instead, Revere has been stopped and interrogated by the British.

Governor Palin: "He who warned, uh, the British that they weren't going to be taking away our arms uh by ringing those bells and making sure as he's riding his horse through town to send those warning shots and bells that we were going to be secure and we were going to be free and we were going to be armed."


Paul Revere's Ride

The primary goal of the Brittish regulars was to apprehend the leaders of the opposition, Sam Adams and John Hancock. There secondary goal was, to disarm the populace along the way.

Here's the whole story of Paul Revere's ride:

Revere confronted 2 British regulars manning a road block as he headed north across Charlestown Neck. As he turned around, the regulars gave chase and he eluded them. He then continued on to Lexington, to the home of Jonas Clarke where Sam Adams and John Hancock were staying. There, his primary mission was fulfilled when he notified Adams and Hancock that "The Regulars are coming out!" (he never exclaimed, "The British are coming". This would have made no sense at the time since they considered themselves British).

Revere and Dawes then headed for Concord and came across Doctor Prescott who then joined them. They decided to alarm every house along the way.

Just outside of the town of Lincoln, they were confronted by 4 Regulars at another road block. They tried unsuccessfully to run their horses through them. Prescott, who was familiar with the terrain, jumped a stone wall and escaped. Revere and Dawes tried to escape and shortly into the chase they were confronted by 6 more regulars on horseback. Revere was surrounded and taken prisoner. Dawes got away as they were taking Revere into custody.

The British officers began to interrogate Revere, whereupon Revere astonished his captors by telling them more than they even knew about their own mission. (HA!) He also told them that he had been warning the countryside of the British plan and that their lives were at risk if they remained in the vicinity of Lexington because there would soon be 500 men there ready to fight. Revere, of course, was bluffing.

The Regulars had Revere remount his horse and they headed toward Lexington Green, when suddenly, they heard a gunshot! Revere told the British officer that the shot was a signal "to alarm the country!". Now the British troops were getting very nervous (hehe).

A few minutes later, they were all startled to hear the heavy crash of an entire volley of musketry from the direction of Lexington's meeting house and then the Lexington town bell began clanging rapidly! Jonathan Loring, a Lexington resident captured earlier, turned to his captors and shouted "The bell's a' ringing! The town's alarmed, and you're all dead men!"

Palin basically got through with listening to a guides lecture. We now know that Revere was actually stopped and interrogated. Palin mangled the explanation, as she sometimes does, but I think she gets a pass for being a tired tourist.

Good in all 57 states, imho.

I just want to know if Revere got waterboarded or was put in any stress positions by his interrogator, Color Sergeant Cheney.

Why don't you jackasses on the Left stop worrying about what Palin said about Paul Revere and start explaining to us why three years of Obama has given us:
- $14 trillion in deficits
- skyrocketing gas/food/clothing prices
- three endless wars, one with a record death toll
- a government that raids the public pension fund to avoid the debt ceiling
- a southern border still unguarded
- an economy in shambles
- 1 in 4 mortgages under water
- record unemployment, record bank failures, record foreclosures, record trade deficits
- Obama's own Democrat Party losing 800+ seats under his leadership
- record number of golf games played by a President
- ignoring the War Powers Resolution to keep the Libyan war going
- GTMO still open, secret wiretaps still on, Executive Order used to assassinate Americans overseas
- Government takeover of the auto industry, much of the banking industry, the student loan industry and health care

And while you're at it, name ONE THING this administration has done that has moved America forward. Bin Laden was a screwup too, so don't go there.
TEA!

Right. So you're telling me Sarah Palin reads or is aware of obscure Paul Revere autobiographical text? Nice stretch.

I took her statement that Revere "warned the British" to be more metaphorical: By communicating the route the British were taking, he assured that a goodly number of Minutemen were ready to stop them from disarming the Colonists and stomping on their freedom. The Battle of Concord and Lexington was the warning, and without Revere, Dawes, Prescott, and Cheswell that warning could not have happened.

I often find that when others seem bewildered by something Palin said, it's because they aren't thinking on a high enough level to appreciate the big picture, and are bogged down in minutiae with which they can quibble.

"Sarah Palin grew up in Alaska. Ask her, someone, if she ever heard her Wasilla neighbors talk about “jewing someone down” at a weekend yard sale there. Ask her."

I've heard that expression! Here in Southern California!

Spoken by Jews.

Got any other paranoid anti-Evangelical rants?

To think Palin actually did any research to make such a fine point makes you look more ridiculous than her Prof.

Van Halen: We still do not have an NCAA College Football Championship Playoff. One more unkept promise. Put that on your list! (Although the Justice Department is looking into it.)

At least they have expanded the NCAA Men's College Basketball Championship Tournament to include more teams.

Chuck, she's right more often than she's wrong. Which puts her ahead of the current President.

The point she was making is a political one, not an historical one. The point is that Revere's actions were in open resistance to the British, a warning to them that they weren't going to take away our freedoms without a fight.

But you can't expect a talking head to actually, y'know, think beyond the teleprompter and understand the political point. Not when he can play a shallow game of gotcha.

Jewing someone down? My late grandfather (born 1912) used that expression in Arkansas 50 years ago. dan, you're insane.

Who screwed up and let someone besides Greta or Klannity ask her a question? If that rambling bit of verbal diarrhea she unleashed was the result of the close reading of historical texts, I'll donate my life's savings to al Qaeda.

How is it possible to take Republicans seriously if this woman gets within 8 parsecs of the nomination? She makes Tim Pawlenty look like Winston Churchill.

All media told her to read up on her history..

They all failed and she didn't.

How Damn embarrassing.

LOL. Now go find where Revere was ringing bells or preaching to the British how we wanted to be armed. Seriously, your excuse is like that of a bad student who got a D on an exam and is trying to scrape up a few extra points for a C+.

good grief....there is a plan afoot to destroy the electoral college!!!

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2729634/posts

No American should have to look this stuff up. Of course they skip it in school nowadays; one must work a bit to compensate for the wretched standard of the history curriculum. But those with any grasp of American history will know that the facts of Ms Palin's statement are clearly far more right than wrong (no research or even Googling needed - this is easy stuff), and her critics are revealed as ignorant and arrogant buffoons ... yet again.

As for extemporaneous speaking, no need to worry, the teleprompters in Washington are being kept well exercised by the current POTUS, and I imagine that his successors will use them from time to time. Keeping the teleprompters warm may end up being O.'s major contribution to American politics.

As usual, the significant thing about the current dustup is that it illustrates the old problem once again - Leftoids, in the face of all evidence, are religiously certain that they're smarter than everybody else. This is due not so much to a chronic lack of knowledge as simple intellectual immaturity. Lack of knowledge can be rectified; hubris, not so much.

Are you kidding me? I was born in Concord, MA. I was raised in neighboring Acton, MA -- our Minutemen were the first to face the Redcoats at the Old North Bridge, and beneath our Town Green is buried the first officer casualty of the entire Revolutionary War (Capt. Isaac Davis). My neighbor growing up was in the local Minutemen Corps, and our town is the only town in America to celebrate Fifer's Day. And what Palin said offended me for reasons you haven't come close to sussing out. Partly because you're focusing on the wrong part of what she said.

1) Revere didn't "ring any bells." Ever. Not literally, not metaphorically. 2) He didn't "ride his horse through town" (she was in Boston when she gave that interview), he largely road through the countryside and several villages and in fact, as everyone knows, was not the only rider doing that work that night anyway. 3) He didn't "send any warning shots" (what the hell was she talking about? Is she stating that the Minutemen on the Battle Green were the first to fire? Does she realize how controversial a statement it is to state that the Colonists started the Revolutionary War, when this has been hotly debated among historians for centuries, and most red-blooded GOPers would absolutely insist it was a Lobsterback infantryman who fired first?). 4) Neither Revere nor the Minutemen on the Battle Green intended to send a message that "we were going to be secure and we were going to be free"--no one knew at that time what was going to happen, the only thought was to keep the Redcoats from the local arsenal. There was no declaration of an intention to be free from British rule until later. Frankly I don't have a problem with her saying Revere "warned the British" because obviously she didn't mean he was a traitor, she didn't mean that he was aiding the Redcoats--even she's not that brain-dead (frankly even if she believed he was a traitor she wouldn't say so, it might cost her votes or speaking-fee dollars)--she meant that he was playing a role in events which he absolutely did not play, did not intend to play, and which he frankly _could not have played_ because Palin dramatically misunderstands what was actually happening that night, even though the way she has positioned herself on the landscape of American politics absolutely requires her to be _more_ knowledgeable about and _more_ careful as to these historical points than everyone else. She didn't say this at a state fair, kids -- she said it as part of some benighted Patriotism Tour.

So consider an apology to Palin officially _not_ given.

And P.S. As for making possible (through the loss of our blood and treasure) the birth of the nation we now all enjoy, me and my fellow largely-Democratic Massachusetts folk offer you a hearty, "You're welcome."

The thing is, the goal of "Paul Revere's Ride" was to warn the Minutemen that the British regulars were on the way. If someone asked you about Paul Revere, you wouldn't say he rang bells and told the British the Americans were waiting to kick their asses. That's like describing Star Wars as the movie where a giant dog man plays chess with a robot.

@Ken: On the contrary, after the "1773" incident, anyone who would leap to belittle Palin's ignorance is the fool. Palin may not be the sharpest knife in the drawer, but it's obvious she's getting a fair bit of mileage out of trolling her detractors with these nuggets of feigned missteps.

The Monster.. I hope thats satire.. You're basically saying he warned the Americans, who then defended themselves against the British.. which kind of was like a warning to the British.. so he like indirectly warned the British.. yah.. If shes thinking that way, that's pretty convoluted. A good leader has to be able to communicate a little bit better than that. FAIL. Its not our failure to understand; its her failure to either understand or communicate. My opinion is she fails at both.

By the way, I think its hilarious that after calling liberals dumb, etc for not knowing that Palin is a secret genius.. you guys start to admit in the comments that maybe, even with this more obscure information.. shes still just as wrong. Are you guys gonna apologize now? Didn't think so. :D Tim easily and quickly pwned you with them pesky facts.

@dan I love you dearly. 20 years in Wright's church and people bought the 'I never heard that' excuse. An excuse regarding something he likely _did_ hear. And you think it's a real stinger to ask Palin if she's ever heard anyone she knows say something and then if she said anything about it. World class blinders you've got.

@dickweed dan - How many wrong things can you fit in one post?

You apparently know so little about religion that you wouldn't even be qualified to be an atheist. And that's coming from my perspective as an atheist who didn't get that way by aping a lefty college prof.

Palin's church is what people with a clue refer to as "non-denominational christian" (NDC for the sake of brevity here).

To the extent that NDC churches share any common ideology, they reject BOTH the catholic spin and the protestant/reformation spin on the bible's content, mostly because they feel both groups have screwed up by focusing too much on the rituals, details and stories laid out in the bible, at the cost of totally missing the object lessons behind the words in the bible.

The main focus of NDC churches is learning the object lessons behind the words in the bible, and conducting one's own day to day life in a manner consistent with those lessons, it's not about taking 2,000 year old prophesies as fact, only being religious when it's convenient, or Obama/Wright's "collective salvation."

(Side note: If you don't know what an object lesson is, google "boy who cried wolf," "tortoise and hare," etc.)

So, not only is Palin NOT not a bible literalist as you and most lefties frequently claim, but her entire church and similar churches everywhere actually REJECT using a literal interpretation of the bible.

As for your erroneous belief that the idiom "jewing somebody down" was invented in Alaska by a Palin-led cabal, it was used globally long before Palin was even born, even before Alaska was a state, by jews and gentiles alike, with no ethnic/religious offense intended or taken, at least until liberals started poisoning discourse with their PC scheming.

The reason that Palin and any other sane people are pro-Israel, or Zionist to use the lefty term, is because Jews have lived in Israel continuously since they showed up there with Moses several thousand years ago, NOT to fulfill some obscure prophesy that few christians are aware of, much less believe.

I could go on poking holes in the false dogma you've parroted from your lefty college professors, but I have a limit to the time I'll spend dealing with idiots, and you've sucked up all of today's budget.

"To think Palin actually did any research to make such a fine point ..."

Unnecessary. It's all basic history - no fine points involved - and clear enough to anyone whose knowledge of that night doesn't end with Longfellow's poem. The key to the historical events is that Revere was captured. No "research" is needed to know that. So who did the captured Revere warn about the impending attack? Not the rebels he had been planning to warn. As a captive that was no longer one of his options. The people he warned were, of course, his captors. He was hardly betraying any great secrets by doing so; the British already knew that they were going to try to confiscate the arms and, more importantly, the black powder stored at Concord.

Easy. Shoot, I know that stuff, and I've never even taken the guided tour.

Wow, the Soros Squad is out in force. Palin lives rent free in their heads.

More Proof Revere 'Warned' the British Officers

"At last the [British] officers began to feel the full import of what Paul Revere had been telling them. His words of warning took on stronger meaning when punctuated by gunfire. The sound of a single shot had suggested to them that surprise was lost. The crash of a volley appeared evidence that the country was rising against them. As they came closer to the Common they began to hear Lexington's town bell clanging rapidly. the captive Loring, picking up Revere's spirit, turned to the officers and said, 'The bell's a'ringing! The town's alarmed, and you're all dead men!'" [Paul Revere's Ride by David Hackett Fischer, pp. 135-6].

Why do so few people know the story of Paul Revere? From the publisher ...

One of the most interesting parts of the book is a historiographical section on "Myths after the Midnight Ride." Perhaps the most compelling is Hackett Fisher's treatment of Longfellow's Myth of the Lone Rider. "The Midnight Ride of Paul Revere" was written by Henry Wadsworth Longfellow and published in 1861. Hackett Fisher says Longfellow was "utterly without scruple in his manipulation of historical fact" when he wrote the poem that's arguably the main reason for Paul Revere's popular fame.

http://www.amazon.com/Paul-Reveres-David-Hackett-Fischer/product-reviews/0195088476/ref=cm_cr_pr_redirect?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=0

Is "Jewing someone down" an exotic statement?

I heard it about 35 years ago from a Brooklyn Jew. I've never used the phrase myself; being descended from a long line of Scots tightwads, I realize how vulnerable I would be to verbal counterattack on that topic. But my Brooklyn friend seemed to consider it colorful rather than offensive.

I'll admit that she was trying to reference actual and not-very-well-known historical details (that she had probably just heard from a tour guide).

But it remains glaringly obvious that she got the essence, the theme, and the most salient facts of the story completely wrong, and that she had no clue what Revere was actually up to or why. And (from her stupid forking "Oh ship! What the funk am I going to say next? Oh what the hell, I'll just keep going for it!" facial expressions) it's also clear that she KNEW VERY WELL that she had no idea, and yet decided to continue trying to score unrelated-to-the-story political points, rather than keeping her comment as brief and detail-free as possible.

And now I will leave you with one of the more carefully composed comment-section replies I've ever read. I wish I could take credit for it, but I only read it on another site and thought it needed a wider audience.



From "lizinlacrosse":

Listen my children and you shall hear
Of the midnight ride of Paul Revere,
To warn the Brits, or what? Oh, dear
I cannot think, it’s not quite clear…

I have it now! And I will tell:
He rode, he shot, he rang the bell,
He told the Brits to go to hell
Defiant, proud and shooting swell.

Through the country dark he rode
Through fair New Hampshire, so we’re told,
Through field and street, he was right bold
His rifle clutched, a vise-like hold.

“We armed, we’re armed!” he shouted wide,
He rang that bell as he did ride,
He shot the dark from side to side,
Uh, wait, I think that, uh, I lied.

Even without that little-known factoid about Paul Revere being captured and interrogated by British soldiers after his famous ride, the statement by The Alaskan Goddess is technically correct in another respect. Paul Revere's ride took place in 1775, which obviously predates the Declaration of Independence in 1776. So, the townsfolk and other colonists he alerted that night were not Americans, because the colonists had not yet declared their independence from Great Britain. Instead, the residents of Concord, Lexington, etc were still officially British subjects.

Therefore, for Sarah Palin to say that Paul Revere "warned the British" is technically correct even if we are just talking about the alerting of the townsfolk during his midnight ride.

For what it's worth, I learned at an Appleseed event about the Revere incident when he was captured, and assumed that it was what she was talking about when I saw people talking about it on a lefty blog.

I think what Palin said got lost in the translation from the original Austrian. Palin makes gaffes, but we've also witnessed quite a few whoppers from the semi-educated guy who presently occupies the Oval Office on alternate Tuesdays between golf games.

good post... nice to be reminded of the fight in the patriot bellies in the example of Paul Revere - and good to learn something new about his great American story

GO SARAH!

Restore America 2012
Energize America's Future 2012

I'm voting for Palin because I WANT her good judgement as president AND I want to piss off the kn0w-nothing Leftist idiots here and out there!

As a history student of one of Bernard Bailyn's (Harvard's most famous American revolutionary era historian), PhD students, let me add that in this era, armies still faced each other in uniforms, in close battle, arranged with precision, and practiced a gentlemanly code of conduct.

Although the earlier French and Indian War saw the rise of new guerrilla tactics - because of Indian and colonials made war used surprise, ambush, hiding behind trees - it was still considered honorable and necessary to engage in war with great honesty, NOT deception. It is no surprise to me that Palin would mention a detail about Revere consistent with this code of conduct.

People - guerrilla war -- in which deception, hiding and lying to the enemy is normative -- did not emerge until AFTER the Revolutionary War was fought; and only in the twentieth century did it become a typical national liberation tactic. Before then and during the American Revolution, guerilla tactics were still yet to come, well after Paul Revere's ride. The Boston Tea Party was only an early tactical use of guerrilla practices to advance dissent with British state tax policy, where tea was tossed into the harbor in Indian costume, for instance.

YES, the idiocy of the Left of military history is on parade here, and in that local story above. And the East Coast code of Leftist supremacy and paternalism of the Right! GET A GRIP, people! (google "drsanity" for your complete diagnosis.) The Past is complicated, but its significance obvious to patriots like the Tea Party - Give us Liberty or Give Us Death! To Hell with you ****ing fascists!!! Tar and feather and oot to Canada with you - you agents of evil oppression!

Van Halen: Not that I'm a lefty (although I am a southpaw), nor am I trying to defend President Obama's record, I merely believe that if one is going to criticize the President, one must get one's facts straight.

- $14 trillion in deficits

You should look up the words "deficit" and "debt"--they are two different things. The forecasted deficit for 2011 (that the difference between what we will likely spend and what we will likely take in) is in the range of $1.56 trillion. The $14.35 trillion figure you refer to is the national debt (the total amount of money the government owes). And you should further be aware that the national debt was $10.63 trillion on January 20, 2009 when President Obama took office.


- three endless wars, one with a record death toll

I'm not sure that we can call our involvement in Libya a war--a military action, surly, but not a war. The two actual wars we are involved in were both started by President Bush. These wars are tar babies of the worst kind.

- an economy in shambles
- 1 in 4 mortgages under water
- record unemployment, record bank failures, record foreclosures, record trade deficits
- skyrocketing gas/food/clothing prices

The economy collapsed in 2008--under President Bush. There are lots of factors that contributed to it, but the overriding cause is 30 years of fiscal policy based on supply side economics, the deregulation of the financial sector, and free trade policies that have shipped middle class blue collar jobs to countries that don't have pesky labor laws. All right-wing initiatives, if I remember correctly.

- Government takeover of the auto industry, much of the banking industry, the student loan industry and health care

None of these things happened.

"Sarah Palin grew up in Alaska. Ask her, someone, if she ever heard her Wasilla neighbors talk about “jewing someone down” at a weekend yard sale there. Ask her."

I've heard the expression down here in deep blue Maryland. Not often, but it's not obscure, either. I've also heard people say "There's a nigger in the woodpile", an expression that goes back to the 1860 election. Since I am a native Marylander, am I to be branded as owning these colloquial and bigoted phrases? I don't use them myself, I find them to be distasteful and racist, but going by what I could parse from your disjointed and incoherent rant, I'm just as guilty as the people who said these things because we share a common geographical local. Does that make any sense to anyone?

Text books have been be so "rearranged" that the indoctrinated left have NO clue about history....sad for them! GO SARAH!!!

I Jewed down one of my female friends. She was smiling for a week.

OMG, please run, Sarah! Please! I need to see all the people in this thread continue to defend her for the next two years! Please, God in heaven, please hear my prayer.

Funny thing. I was praying for the same thing. But I did go a little farther. I pray she gets elected.

But I would settle for 3 or 15 debates with the ∅. TJ doesn't do unscripted well. The entertainment value alone would be worth it.

I read David Hackett Fischer's book on Revere et al. and your catch is right on the money. I don't think that Sarah would be the best GOP candidate, but since Paul Ryan ain't running and Romney is barely better, being a cigar-store indian in his charisma department, I do think Palin livens things up.

Her greatest asset lies in her God-given ability to reveal the lamestream MSM to be the largest collection of bigoted lying racists in the American political scene. AND the most clueless. ALSO the least self-aware, in that they're woefully underequipped in self-knowledge, humility, and professional ethics.

The splitting of the atom can't hold a candle to the ferocity of energy released by the splitting of the mainstream media narrative.

While we're blowing the dust off old documents, let's take a little trip down memory lane to Ellis Island where you'll find a simple search reveals that "Biden" was originally "Blooper."

And to think this genius was put on the ticket to lend it "gravitas." That says it all, really.

To those who parrot the mindless media meme that Obama is brilliant, I ask you to name one or two things he's done that will have me sit back and close my eyes and a few minutes later open them again and, a bit wiser, admit, "Yes, that is indeed brilliant once you're able to grasp it." Just name me one thing, please.

That being said, I don't think he's stupid. I just seriously doubt there's much difference in IQ between Obama and Palin. Maybe a little difference, either way, but nothing that really makes any difference. I'd say from what I've observed, they're both moderately above average ... nothing really distinguishing.

But ... when did IQ by itself become this worshipped trait to the diminishment of what I believe are far more important traits in a leader?

A person with an IQ of 120 who thinks America is part of the problem of what's wrong with this world .... vs. a person with an IQ of 115 who believes in American exceptionalism?

I'm no dummy. In that match-up, give me #115 any day of the week.

A person with an IQ of 140 who thinks Israel is the problem with the Middle East ... vs. someone with an IQ of 130 who thinks Israel is what's right with the Middle East?

Give me #130, please.

Top-down, big government, redistributionist 160 IQ vs. pro-capitalist, small government 140 IQ?

You're smart enough to know my answer to that.

When it comes to Obama and Palin, there's hardly a dime's worth of difference in their thinking abilities .... but there is a huge difference in their world views. Huge difference. And that is game, set, match for Palin.

To think Palin actually did any research to make such a fine point makes you look more ridiculous than her Prof.

You mean like taking a tour?

I swear, this Palin-hatred kills off more braincells than binge drinking.

I studied a lot of history and I know something about the popular version of these events and the more complicated truth...but Palin still sounded silly. I am not a liberal, I am a conservative, but I am getting tired of constantly trying to defend Sarah Palin and the things she says. If it is not her grammar and syntax then it is her "version" of history. If she did not want to called on this,she should have done a better job of explaining it herself so the rest of us would not have to. Again.

Friend, only a lawyer could torture the language far enough to come up with this rationalization.

You have managed to inflate the asterisk while shrinking the chapter to the size of a flyspeck.

Brava! [sic]

The MO of the hysterical Progressives:

Strain strain strain ... strain those gnats!
Then fling 'em out, see if they'll stick
From wherever you're at ...
As you swallow camels of dysfunction
'Till your belly's fat ...
Strain strain strain ... strain those gnats!

Poor Governor Palin. She is never allowed to be less than clear EVER AGAIN. For if she is, even once, then an army of people will descend on her and declare the end of the world is coming and she is the cause. Her enemies and even her so called friends will attack her with boundless energy. She should know that anyone who opposes socialism and statism must NEVER EVER stumble over any word or concept, even if they talk impromptu without a teleprompter several hours a day, day after day.

Obama one the other hand, well who cares? Websites have been regularly keeping a record of his gaffes, fumbles, and outright lies for years now. They number in the hundreds. Ho hum.

Serious dittos to Milwaukee. Was President "Me, myself, I and me again" selected for his ideas, his Greek columns? If you believe the person is the deciding factor, then why not Oprah? Jason Bieber? Lady Gag-me? Pick the prettiest candidate...? Here's a tangential trick question. Richard Wagner was a horrific anti-Semite. Should his music be burned?

A little background on those behind the Palin character assassination.

Think Progress

"Think Progress is a "project" of the American Progress Action Fund (APAF), a "sister advocacy organization" of the John Podesta-led Center for American Progress (CAP) and CAP's entities such as Campus Progress. It also draws freely on the resources of the George Soros-funded Media Matters website edited by David Brock.

Think Progress is an Internet blog that "pushes back, daily," by its own account, against its conservative targets, and supports the APAF agenda: to transform "progressive ideas into policy through rapid response communications, legislative action, grassroots organizing and advocacy, and partnerships with other progressive leaders throughout the country and the world." Think Progress promotes an agenda identical to that of the left wing of the Democratic Party."

Think Progress

I guess this is what "clinical law professors" do -- Teach people how to twist one statement into another. In court, there's another lawyer to point out the absurdity of the reconstruction and hopefully the jury isn't too confused.

Again: Palin said Revere rode to warn the British and did so by firing shots and ringing bells. In the historical record, Revere was stopped by the British and told them to be afraid of more people than were actually there. The shots and bells were not meant to warn the British officers but to alert the rebellious colonists.

Not only are Revere's actions not the same. The motives are completely different.

As a Jew, I love Sarah. PERIOD. She is part of the tribe. When I see her wearing the Star of David, it gives me hope. How many other candidates would so visibly associate themselves with the Jews and Israel? Other than Herman Cain, none.


The argument that the British moved to Concord John Hancock and Sam Adams is false. It is a myth spread by anti-liberty Marxists. At the time, the British thought Hancock and Adams were hidden in Boston. They snuck out but the British didn't know it.


The British marched on Concord to confiscate the PRIVATELY OWNED arms of the Colonists. When Sarah said that Revere told the British that can't take our arms, she was right. Revere told the British that if they move on Concord that Colonist would defend their Right to Keep and Bear Arms.


The Right to Keep and Bear Arms existed in America prior to our Constitution. Its a God given right (aka inaleinable) and was protected in the English Bill of Rights of 1689.

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/17th_century/england.asp

"That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law;"


Documented proof of the gun-banning intent of the British's movement to Concord can be found in General Gage's own orders:


http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?document=864


"you will March with a Corps of Grenadiers and Light Infantry, put under your Command, with the utmost expedition and Secrecy to Concord, where you will seize and distroy all Artillery, Ammunition, Provisions, Tents, Small Arms, and all Military Stores whatever.."


Following the battle, British Lieutenant Colonel Smith's wrote to General Gage the following.


http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?document=868


"In the obedience to your Excellency’s commands, I marched on the evening of the 18th inst. with the corps of grenadiers and light infantry for Concord, to execute your Excellency’s orders with respect to destroying all ammunition, artillery, tents, &c, collected there."


The first battle of the Revolutionary war was fought to defend American Gun Rights.


If you support gun control, you are on the side of the British.

Palin just came out of a touring some historical site. No doubt, she was told the history by the tour guide, so she simply repeated it to the media who jump all over her for being wrong.

I have a very difficult time believing that Revere, in 1775, actually used the phrase "blow my brains out." Not exactly in keeping with late 18th century manners of speaking, is it?

But I guess if conservatives4palin posted it, it must be pure and unaltered, right?

Oh, pardon me, 1789. At which point English vernacular clearly included such phrases.

"[C]andidates need to get their message out via the news social media, be a fair and balanced reporters who will just allow the facts to get out there. Don't even participate in that goofy game that has been played now for too many years with the leftist lamestream media trying to twist the candidates' words and intent and content of their statements."—Palin in an interview on Fox News' Hannity, May 18, 2011

One of the worse things one can do to Palin, and by proxy her supporters, is to quote her accurately.You have been both dishonest and disingenuous Professor Jacobsen. If one of your students tried this kind of revisionism there would certainly be a flaming F across the top of the page. Serious question, no snark intended - When you engage in this kind of dishonesty is it because you really believe it or because you feel that all is fair in the name of partisanship. You have not swayed anyone except the true believers. Are you familiar with the psychology of self-justification. In instances such as this where you weave what you believe to be some plausible tap dance around the truth. It is a nasty immoral habit to get into. One you share with Palin.

Its nice to see someone who might run for the top job of our nation take an interest in that nation unlike someone who chooses to vacation in a foreign country as many times as possible and thinks America has 57 states plus one more to go. Palin is not beholden to any of the major bank/corporation/media conglomerates. She just might spill the beans on them when she gets a chance. I'll take that chance.

I just love the amount of ignorance and partisanship displayed here. The Right gets more hysterical and funny daily as they contort themselves justifying their bumbling politicians. And the amusing statements of their supposed leaders - hilarious.
And conservatives complain about liberals rewriting history.
I am going to buy a box full of popcorn and just turn on the radio and TV for entertainment for the next two years.
And, in answer to the question posted at the top of the screen, not on your life you silly twit.

Consider these two quite different versions of what happened:

A) Revere's goal was to quietly deliver a warning to Hancock, Adams and the other Americans.

B) Revere's goal was to loudly deliver a warning to the British.

A is true. B is not. The story told by Palin's word salad is B.

I think we can argue the historical facts over and over. What also needs to be done is watch her body language in context to the question. Its obvious she feels uncomfortable with the question and is flailing in trying to provide an answer. You can apologize for her all you want and try to prove she is correct, but we can all see she is not that clever..

i have made an observation, that would explain gov. palins unique interactions with the press. if you are an objective observer you will watch her on the couric interview and on hannity or beck, and weigh them EQUALLY. i find that when presented with a mainstream media representative, she is very standoffish, very hesitant, very suspicious if you will, that they are all about to GET HER, (which they are!). while on more friendly shows she is the palin we know from her speechs.
to say that she is dumb is to say that you are dumb, because anyone with an i.q. even marginally above average should be able to discern between a lack of intelligence and reservation. gov palin comes from alaska where there is no beltway, or gotcha journalism, so if i were in her shoes i would also keep the media at arms length. her answers to couric seemed to carry a level of contempt and displeasure with the manner of their interaction, much like the gibson interview where he seemed to look down on her and her apparent lack of concern for media catch phrases, like the "bush doctrine" (i am a news hound watching up to 5 hours a day, and the bush doctrine could mean many things even to me). do you not realize that everytime she steps out her front door there is someone there with a camera or microphone, in her face waiting to trip her up, could, would YOU do any better? i doubt it. so stop belittling her intelligence, because that only makes you look like a democrat (ignorant) and if you disagree, deal with issues, not your personal opinions of her. i am convinced if the media were to examine most people with the constant, magnification that they do of her, most of us would have already lost it. people like me would like to really know if she is presidential material, and that process is obscured by this incessant childish banter about her "dumbness". i deal in facts and details, not conjecture and hyperbole, you should as well.

on a lighter note,
• recent studies have shown, that there are segments of the population that are at high risk of contracting Palin Derangement Syndrome. there are common risk factors that contribute to the spread of this horrendous disease around the globe. patients usually present with the following;
1. poor critical thought processes
2. usually a deficiency in civility
3. an acute oral type diarrhea
4. ironically a seizure of the sphincter muscle often accompanies the above #3
4. 98% of patients have a severe congenital leg deformity causing the patient to lean to the extreme left
this condition is at epidemic levels and continues to affect nearly 30% of those exposed.
usually a patient will experience a sense of complete dissatisfaction, bordering on profound vitriolic resentment all over the body centering in the enlarged frontal lobe. there will be noticeable decrease in the corners of the mouth and substantial tightening of the extremities resulting often in to a clenching of the fists. the teeth will show some a bit of rabidity and the patient might need sedation to control the symptoms.
the only treatment for this disease shown to have any effect is an intense program of rehabilitation and reeducation where the patient is taught to reuse the right side of the brain, where most higher functioning is is performed.
good luck and help us to stamp out this horrendous disease.

@ dan = How many wrong things can you fit in one post?

You apparently know so little about religion that you wouldn't even be qualified to be an atheist. And that's coming from my perspective as an atheist who didn't get that way by aping a lefty college prof.

Palin's church is what people with a clue refer to as "non-denominational christian" (NDC for the sake of brevity here).

To the extent that NDC churches share any common ideology, they reject BOTH the catholic spin and the protestant/reformation spin on the bible's content, mostly because they feel both groups have screwed up by focusing too much on the rituals, details and stories laid out in the bible, at the cost of totally missing the object lessons behind the words in the bible.

The main focus of NDC churches is learning the object lessons behind the words in the bible, and conducting one's own day to day life in a manner consistent with those lessons, it's not taking 2,000 year old prophesies as fact, only being religious when it's convenient, or Obama/Wright's "collective salvation."

(Side note: If you don't know what an object lesson is, google "boy who cried wolf," "tortoise and hare," etc.)

So, not only is Palin NOT not a bible literalist as you and most lefties frequently claim, but her entire church and similar churches everywhere actually REJECT using a literal interpretation of the bible.

As for your erroneous belief that the idiom "jewing somebody down" was invented in Alaska by a Palin-led cabal, it was used globally long before Palin was even born, even before Alaska was a state, by jews and gentiles alike, with no ethnic/religious offense intended or taken, at least until liberals started poisoning discourse with their PC scheming.

The reason that Palin and any other sane people are pro-Israel, or Zionist to use the lefty term, is because Jews have lived in Israel continuously since they showed up there with Moses several thousand years ago, NOT to fulfill some obscure prophesy that few christians are aware of, much less believe.

I could go on poking holes in the false dogma you've parroted from your lefty college professors, but I have a limit to the time I'll spend dealing with idiots, and you've sucked up all of today's budget.

(mod, please excuse double post and delete first version.)

This post is representative of what's wrong with our politics on both sides of the aisle.

The lengths some people will go to in order to offer cover to politicians, whether it's Palin or Obama, who actually deserve the ridicule they're receiving at the moment.

- Taylor Marsh
http://www.taylormarsh.com

I don't get the hoopla. It was obvious by her statement; at least to english speaking persons;that she meant that the ringing of the bells was a symbolic warning to the limeys. Now they would know "it's on"the Americans were going to be up in arms, so "come get some"...

Interesting cross-section of leftist drivel posing as commentary/attacks. We have the guy who's favorite American history was authored by Howie Zinn, yet un-ironically slams someone else for 'believing/making up facts'. There's the guy who produces a 'field guide' of his political opponents, reducing them to subhuman status. Of course we have the ubiquitous, has been/never was 'journalist/screenwriter'. In between these low-lights, we also have all the ones who aspire to their fellow travelers' depths, but apparently lack the modicum of intellectual horsepower necessary to reach even that low ground. Tell you what kids, go do some of that thar book learnin' and then come back into the grownup room. Fat, dumb and whoring yourself for George Soros is no way to go through life.

If she did make a gaffe, it only raises her qualification to be president, you know.....57 states, et al.....

You're a lawyer? How did you miss the part you highlighted where it says "I had alarmed the Country all the way up"? In other words, he had ALREADY warned the colonials that the British were coming.

I'm not a liberal, or an American, and Revere's defiance is certainly there in the text, but I can't believe you've misread this.

That was an awkward response to an awkward question in and awkward environment. The lady was palinly distracted by the kids, the setting was noisy as she attempted to extemporize some kind of answer. I believe if you were to examine her words closely, she was trying to say Revere's role had the effect of saying to the British that they would face opposition to further imposition of their rule. I think she might have been angling for a comparison in modern times of the conflict in modern America between the people and the elitist power structure, but she never got the fully formed idea across, in that brief, preoccupied snippet.

Gary, you say: "The Right gets more hysterical and funny daily as they contort themselves justifying their bumbling politicians. And the amusing statements of their supposed leaders - hilarious."

I respectfully disagree and offer a somewhat different perspective:
The extreme Right and far Left get more hysterical and unfunny daily as they contort themselves justifying their bumbling politicians. And the amusing statements of their supposed leaders - not hilarious, but downright scary as one reflects on the capabilities and ideas of those who do and will in large part determine the future direction of our republic.

I await the appearance of true leader who will rise above the nonsense. Fortunately, some "potentials" are out of the picture now --- John Edwards being the most recent example, and Al Gore, et. al., soon to be followed by a parade of others from both major parties. But their eager understudies wait in the wings, unfortunately.

It seems as if balanced and thoughtful people need not aspire to national leadership. And that's scary, in my opinion.

Interesting catch. Falls under the category "Even a broken clock is correct twice a day."

Good lord. Professor, you can do better than this.

Revere didn't warn the British - he told the British he had already warned the Americans of their approach. There's a difference - the tone of the conversation referenced above is that of Revere trumpeting his successful effort to screw the British.

Professor you're playing the role of a Palin apologist.

"So yes, Sarah Palin loves the Jews. She wants them dead, converted, though. Later. Not yet, not now.

But that’s not LOVE, though. That’s New Testament antisemitism in the most ugly and vile form."

Nope. YOUR WHOLE STATEMENT is anti-Christian in its ugly and vile form.

When the Apostle Paul (a favorite whipping boy for assorted malcontents) said in his letter to the Romans, "Israel shall be saved", he didn't mean "just a few chums." He meant all of Israel. Every Evangelical Christian wants to see Jews alive, well and thriving, because there is a blessing from God for those who bless Israel, and a curse for those who hate them. So, Evangelicals will rather take God seriously. That is only a "death sentence" for those who hate Israel.

When Sarah Palin visited Jerusalem's Old City recently, she didn't go there with a pernicious agenda. In fact, when she was told that they had to be in the ready because of the Palestinians and other assorted enemies, she asked the one question that every single Evangelical Christian asks Israel: "Why do you have to apologize all the time?"

The ones who want to see people "dead or converted" are radical Islamists - not Sarah Palin. Heck, radical Islamists want to see dead Jews and Christians - including Sarah Palin.

As for you, I'm very sure God will see it that you learn your lesson.

Bigot.

A minor quibble: Revere and the colonists were British. He may have warned his fellow British colonists that the "regulars", "redcoats", or "King's men" were coming, but he almost certainly never said "The British are coming!"

Professor, I appreciate your efforts to set the record straight.

And I also appreciate Nicole Coulter's effort to bring the subject of the legends around Paul Revere, the facts and the misrepresentations of history that have been going on ever since. Even the whole George Washington's cherry tree legend has been believed to be true. That's the power of myths, even in American history.

Yet, you must understand, Professor, that those who hate Sarah Palin will think of her as wrong every single time, even if she says or does something right.

She gives life to a child with Down Syndrome - wrong.

She supports her daughter's bearing her child, however the origins, setting her own way in this world to support said child, participating in Dancing with the Stars, etc - wrong.

Being married to the same guy for over twenty years - wrong. (She should have taken cues from Sex and the City.)

Having to defend herself amidst false accusations and even "blood libel" (the correct term here), against her person and dignity - Wrong.

Having to give up a political position because her enemies were about to bankrupt her, her family, her staff and her state - Wrong.

Heck, Sarah Palins very existence - SO WRONG!!!!

This little bit is nothing. She can have a full History faculty correct the record and even give her credit, however minimal - and she'd still be totally wrong. If Paul Revere had a bathroom break while riding the horse and she mentioned it, she'd be given back a "How Dare You!" and put on a woodshed for months - not hours or days at a time. Heck, they'd resurrect Cotton Mather to have her tried, convicted and executed for "witchcraft"!

Heck, she can even state the Copernicus theory, mention that Saturn has 64 moons, Pluto is now considered a minor planet after the discovery of a bigger minor planet, and even that sunlight can be partitioned into all the colors of the rainbow, as Sir Isaac Newton proved - and she'd be called a "heretic" and burned at the stake.

Everything she says or does is Wrong, including uttering the words "A" and "the".

They will NEVER apologize to her, even if she were right about something - anything. Simply because they hate her.

So, I'm not going to wait for anyone to say, "I apologize", because that would mean giving up their damned pride - something they will never do for this "damned snow-billy", this "redneck", even if their very lives depended on it. Nope. To them, Sarah Palin is a subhuman being - nay, maybe even a non-human - who should be a candidate for extinction, along with her entire family.

That is why my instinct tells me that if she's ever close to being the GOP nominee, or even close to being elected President, someone will seek to destroy her so utterly (maybe even an attempt against her life and limb) that she will have to live in the streets and scavenge on garbage dumps for the rest of her life.

I think she, her family and her closets associates see what's going on. If she's disgusted at the whole thing, why blame her?

"dan" above sez: "She loves the Jews. But she loves the Jews because she wants them eventually dead. Dead, or converted."

This Christophobic slander is beyond the pale. Don't believe me, believe Dennis Prager who has addressed this specific slander on his show many times and who has met with Palin.

The Left hates Israel and works to drive a wedge between it and some of its greatest non-Jewish supporters; what better way then to demonize the motives of the Gentile supporters?

Let's cut through all the crap. Whether you love her or despise her, Palin is just plain not presidential. How you are supposed to glean any meaning from that garble she spewed is beyond me. Our president needs to at least be able to communicate simple, cohesive thoughts. Furthermore, a president needs to be able to communicate with the media, foreign dignitaries and world leaders whether they make her/him uncomfortable or not. No excuses, we are not electing a prize pig at the county fair, we are electing the leader of the most powerful country in the world-- and Sarah, bless her heart, ain't it, ya' know.

"warn" vs "warn" vs "warn" - the verb can either mean
1) to give notice of danger i.e. raise an alarm -- such as when accuweather give out an "excessive heat warning"
2) to give caution as when the cop says "I'm letting you off with a warning this time instead of a ticket"
3) to admonish or exhort, as when we regularly warn N. Korea that x action against S. Korea will be met with y action.
Revere warned the militia that the redcoats were coming AND he warned the redcoats that they would be met by resistance if they continued.

Btw, more than 100 comments on Paul Revere? I bet these commenters think Barbara Fritchie really did wave the Union flag in Stonewall Jackson's face too.
:D

Doug Hardy

"To warn" doesn't just happen when addressing people one cares about. You can also warn an enemy of the consequences of their continued behavior.

Or didn't your English teacher do a better job than your History teacher?

Palin articles really seem to bring out the fear in leftists. Amazing!

@Doug: "Good lord. Professor, you can do better than this.

"Revere didn't warn the British - he told the British he had already warned the Americans of their approach. There's a difference - the tone of the conversation referenced above is that of Revere trumpeting his successful effort to screw the British."

And by telling the British, he warned them.

@Roland: "Our president needs to at least be able to communicate simple, cohesive thoughts."

Without a teleprompter. (And no, mine was not a jab at Palin.)

And while we're cutting through the crap, let's not forget that this thread is not about Palin's qualifications to be president. It's about the left's knee jerk and very uncharitable characterization of her Revere comments as dumb and uniformed, when in fact, she was spot on or at least closer to the mark than her critics.

Garbled as her comments were (she appeared distracted to me), she was correct that Revere warned the British, and she was spot on in her reference to bells and gunshots, according to David Hackett Fisher (did you read what he wrote at Google Books?). No, Paul Revere may not have actually rung the bells and shot the guns, but he and his fellow riders "triggered" the system of warning bells and gunshots.

Meanwhile, Palin's critics on the left are still reciting Longfellow.

Yeah, Terrye was the "conservative" who spent 2008 telling us how conservative "McLame" is.

Pull the other one.

"Our president needs to at least be able to communicate simple, cohesive thoughts"

Obviously you don't listen to The One when he goes off-teleprompter

"Furthermore, a president needs to be able to communicate with the media"

Ok, I give you that the current Media is Obama's poodle (to put it nicely), so we just keep electing people the Media picks out for us so we can meet your requirement?

"foreign dignitaries and world leaders"

I wonder how many times a President Palin would be bowing to dictators?

"whether they make her/him uncomfortable or not."

and I wonder how many times President Palin would betray our allies and make them take the backdoor out of the White House?

"we are not electing a prize pig at the county fair"

Oh, no, Obamaian slip there!

"we are electing the leader of the most powerful country in the world"

Obama certainly doesn't act like he knows that.

I understand that Palin's statement that Revere was riding to "warn the British" can be understood to mean that he was warning the colonials, given that they likely still considered themselves British citizens. On that point, fine--Paul Revere warned the British. I can live with that as a possible explanation for her seemingly incorrect statement. Except that it doesn't make any sense at all if you consider it in context with the rest of her statement. Here's the rest of that thought: "[Paul Revere] warned the British that they weren't going to be taking away our arms."

It's clear from her words that she considers "the British" to be the same people that were coming to confiscate the colonists' arms. Therefore, when she uses the phrase "the British" she's not referring to the colonists, but to the British army--the regulars.

So what she's saying is that Paul Revere went out to warn the British army. That's patently false. Revere was riding to warn Hancock and Adams, as well as people in the countryside generally, that the British were coming--although he didn't use that phrase. He was delivering a warning to the colonists, NOT to the British army.

The fact that Revere was captured later doesn't really help. It's clear from the historical record that Revere didn't want to get caught and that he in fact wanted very much to avoid contact with the British. The fact that, after his plan to evade the British failed, he said some things that could be construed as a warning doesn't mean that his purpose when he set off was to warn the British army--it's clear that that was the exact opposite of this goal at the time he started riding.

There's no saving Sarah Palin's statements, and this feeble attempt to do so by a respected law professor (I'm an attorney myself) is appalling.

@Greg said...

@Roland: "Our president needs to at least be able to communicate simple, cohesive thoughts."

Without a teleprompter. (And no, mine was not a jab at Palin.)


Maybe if she spoke Austrian the lefties would forgive her.

Now, this is a real scandalfor real journalists. Not that silly Weinergate story.

Intelligent Americans do not enable insanity and ignorance.

Are you intelligent? Do you seek higher education?

Sarah is ignorant. Hate me for knowing that, but the majority of us agree. The republicans need a candidate that will pull votes from both sides to win over Obama. Sarah is not that person.

LOL. Nope, not apologizing.

She seems to think Revere shot his gun and rang bells. He was both unarmed and had no bells, at least as far as the historical account goes (although some pictorial depictions of him do show him ringing what looks like a teacher's school-bell, so it's hard to tell for sure). But by all written accounts, it was the people he warned that shot the guns and range the bells, not himself.

And I knew he'd been detained by the Brits and warned them of the colonists being ready for them (I will agree that the laughing response to that from folks means THEY didn't know that bit of history); that's a little different than embellishing it with him telling the British that "we're going to be free" and "they weren't going to be taking away our arms".

Although he was either a member of or sympathetic to the Sons of Liberty, which contained many people who wanted independence from Britain, most of them simply wanted self-determination under British rule. So while I'm no scholar of Revere, there's a good chance Revere no more wanted independence from the Crown than most of the colonies in 1775. Up until this time, in fact, they were sending delegation after delegation to Britain petitioning to allow the colonies representation in Parliament, hardly the actions of people who hated the Crown so much they wanted complete freedom.

It wasn't until AFTER the battle at Lexington that most colonists realized that the Brits were going to ruthlessly put their foot on the Americans and thus began the first serious discussion of real independence rather than self-determination took shape, leading to the Declaration of Independence a year later.

The best resource for Revere comes of course from his own accounts as well as those of his companions (most people forget that he had two others riding with him). The website for Revere House is here: http://www.paulreverehouse.org/index.html

Years ago my school district, in a never ending effort to promote multiculturalism, had a Black speaker address the staff. I wish I remembered his name. He told us how his poker-playing pals were sure O.J. didn't murder his ex-wife Nicole and Nicole's-boyfriend. Of course, the speaker said, O.J. did it. Ex-husbands or ex-boyfriends are always the prime suspect when a woman is murdered, standard police operating procedure. But of his poker-playing pals he said "When a person reaches a conclusion with something other than logic, only something other than logic will get them to change."

The Sarah haters are so blind in their rage they have become incoherent. We should be concerned that in their irrational anger they would do something, well, irrational and maybe dangerous.

You folks are HIlarious. The lengths you will go to to excuse this self-promoting fool. In no way was she referring to that incident. IN. NO. WAY. Listen to the words that are coming out of her mouth. Warning the British that they would not be able to take away our arms. Please. It not so bad that she misstates history. Everyone does that from time to time. It's that she misstates history with such a blatant distortion toward her political messaging.

Oh, I love it that the "Smirking Heads" all got it wrong, and Sarah Palin got it right!!!

I am going to do a poem on this too.

Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter

I'm so thankful I didn't get into Cornell Law School right now.

Have we wandered into some kind of leftist gathering here?

I find this tit for tat between left and right about the supposed significance of bloopers tediously boring. I can't believe this is important to some people.

However; I do understand how the people of a certain small European country find this silliness very seriously important. As they say in that country:

"Wir Österreicher sind so dankbar, dass Präsident Obama für die Schaffung des österreichischen Sprache für uns. Vor seiner Rede, konnten wir nur grunzen. Jetzt können wir reden!"

A very rough translation can be found by clicking here.

Andrew I. Martinez writes, "I understand that Palin's statement that Revere was riding to 'warn the British' can be understood to mean....", conceding one of the more ludicrous attempts by a commenter to explain Palin's remarks.

Then he quotes Palin, "[Paul Revere] warned the British that they weren't going to be taking away our arms."

Having now setup his strawman, he then seeks to demolish it with his "logic".

But Palin never said that Revere "rode to warn the British", as his quoting of her clearly shows. So, rather than destroying Palin's logic, Andrew has destroyed his own, and in the process revealed exactly how the left works to discredit people - quote them, reinterpret what they said to some ridiculous construction that is easily ridiculed, and then set about to, with the most paternalistic concern for her lack of intelligence, to show how incredibly stupid she is.

This comment has been removed by the author.

"The British weren't coming to take away anyone's arms, they were coming to Lexington to arrest Samuel Adams and John Hancock."

No, they weren't. (Dr. Warren thought they were, but he was mistaken.) The plan was for Revere and Dawes to continue to Concord and warn the colonists there, after warning Hancock and Adams.

Congratulations, Professor! You made the points first and best.

You're linked all over the place. I've been sent to this post from about 10 different major twitter sources. Though I read it first here because, well, that's one reason I follow your blog.

I guess this tops your Weiner posting. :-)

http://legalinsurrection.blogspot.com/2011/05/ive-figured-out-blogging.html

booradley said...
You're a lawyer? How did you miss the part you highlighted where it says "I had alarmed the Country all the way up"? In other words, he had ALREADY warned the colonials that the British were coming.

I'm not a liberal, or an American, and Revere's defiance is certainly there in the text, but I can't believe you've misread this.

I'm not a Liberal?

You're a progressive troll.

We have a saying in some parts of Massachusetts... "The voters are coming! The voters are coming!"

The ultimate proof the left is wrong...

stink eye

The Battle of Bunker Hill was fought on Breed's Hill. :)

Come on apologists. Her face alone say it all ("Uhhh, ummmm, wtf do I say!?") ... You apparently have no clue how silly you look trying to defend this one.

AT http://legalinsurrection.blogspot.com/2011/06/so-now-all-these-people-will-apologize.html?showComment=1307190937567#c5080705691538829550

"Meatless Runner" suggests that the phrase "blow my brains out" is anachronistic and may not have been in the original letter.

One can view a hi-res image of p. 4 of the actual letter here:
http://www.masshist.org/database/img-viewer.php?item_id=99&mode=large&img_step=4&tpc=&pid=#page4

About half way down, "blow my" is at end of one line, and "brains out" is at the beginning of the next.

Fine--for the sake of argument, let's concede that Palin is familiar, off the cuff, with the historical nuances of Revere's ride as confirmed in the letter so ably explicated by the Professor. So why has she so carefully concealed her encyclopedic knowledge of American History? What subtle strategy has led her to be wildly incorrect on hundreds of previous assertions? How do you explain her bizarre and ridiculous statements regarding the Bill of Rights? (Her routine conflation of the Declaration and the Constitution is understandable since that is standard practice among Jesus-freak wingnuts to the point that it has entered the catalogue of falsehoods that y'all simply pretend are true). Or is that yet another construct of the Lame Stream Media, that all-powerful Oz?

Waiting.

ice9

Don't know what exactly you're referring to, David. What statements about the Bill of Rights? When does she conflate the Declaration of Independence with the Constitution?

Let me get this idea Palin is promoting: Revere warned the British. Wouldn't that mean Revere was a traitor? Am I missing something here? Paul Revere rode to warn the Colonialist that...the British were coming. Whose spinning whom?

Gee Jerry... glad you cleared that up,.. now run back to huff n puff where the heavy lifting of distortion and hateful partisan slander is really done.

you never bothered to read the text of Revere's own account did you?

He did tell them, he was trying to get them to turn back out of fear that the 500 militia he mentioned would be ready for them... Revere was trying to get them to avoid a fight,.. wouldn't you?

You miss that? or so blinded by partisan hate, you just don't care whether you spread a lie or not?

My God you Palin haters are incredible.. you can't be this ignorant naturally, you must really work hard at being a dunce.

This blog needs to spin harder. Being interrogated isn't the same as riding around guns blazing like Yosemite Sam while threatening the British.

Dig! Dig deeper! Anything we might be able to spin wildly into a limpwristed defense of a joke of a politician is as good as gold on the right-wing blogosphere!

Dan,.. reality is perception, only if you believe there is no such thing as objective truth.

Typical for a progressive, they haven't been guided by reality for a very long time, and if a shallow surface perception is all that matters to you, have fun defending Obama, because the erception of his reality, is he's not half as smart as advertised, he's cold, and he's awfully cavalier about having nearly 10% unemployed.

He can kiss off Ohio, we're at 12% unemployed and find his snake oil awfully hard to run a car on..

Go hump someone elses leg.

I don't know which is sadder, Palin's incoherent ramblings about Paul Revere, or your attempt to prove that they actually reveal a understanding of American history so subtle and nuanced that only a law professor could grasp it. Come on, guys. I know she's a lot of fun because she pisses liberals off, but as mom used to say, "it's all fun and games until someone gets hurt." There's a remote chance that all this fun might end up giving us a president who's a former governor of a tiny state who quit halfway through her one and only term because she wasn't making enough money. Do you really want that? Really???

Your quoted passage itself demonstrates that the primary purpose of Paul Revere's ride was not to inform the British of the amassing colonists, even if he did, in fact, inform six British officers of that fact. The very passage states that he told those officers that he "had alarmed the Country all the way up"--i.e., his purpose was to alert the colonists, not the British.

I was wrong. Apparently going through life fat, dumb and whoring for George Soros is perfectly acceptable to a large section of the more logic-challenged heroes on the left.

Good lord, I decide to stop by and see what the Howard Zinn "educated" Lefties with PDS are up to and here, yet again, a whole cadre of ilk who want to crow about how intelligent they are but who have no grasp on how the word "warn" is used.

Go back to your 57 states of denial.

I just knew somebody was going to post this video on Facebook today. Most of my Facebook "friends" are from my school days. It's an extremely liberal area.

I try to give everyone the benefit of the doubt ... I try to be friends and remain friends with everyone. But the lefties have to bring politics into everything. And they always have to make things ugly. It's been me alone against a horde of people on that Facebook thread. It gets really ugly ... not from me. I just try to make my points in an entertaining fashion ... but so many on the other side make it so personally insulting.

Has my wit eviscerated the witless lefties? Yes. Do I feel good about it? No.

I can't understand this vile hatred for Sarah Palin. And it is vile. I don't hate any politicians on the left. I may find them absurd or insufferable ... but I certainly don't hate them.

Now the conventional wisdom from all my classmates will be that I'm a right-wing wacko. (I'm from an extremely liberal area). I could just imagine going to my high school reunion and being avoided like the plague. I can't believe my generation has grown to be so childish.

Is it true it's almost impossible to close a Facebook account once you've started one?

LukeHandCool (who will now have a half-dozen or so too many drinks with dinner in a superhuman attempt to feel better ... but who may just stop following politics ... who feels like one day soon he will wake up and have no friends left ... that every single classmate from his school days will have ostracized him ... and who is too old to make new, close friends like one can in childhood ... and who, frankly, can't believe he's feeling this way ... oh, well, drinks before dinner tonight!)

LukeHandCool,

1. My brother cancelled his Facebook account. Don't worry!

2. Move on from high school. I have never been to my high school reunions. You have changed and so have they. Why bother?

3. "I can't understand this vile hatred for Sarah Palin. And it is vile."

And this is why I worry for her safety.

I have a bad feeling that her very life will be in serious danger if she ever comes close to the GOP nomination, to say the least. Someone will try to "get even with her" because of all the stuff said and done against her, however unjust and cruel.

Worse yet: someone would probably have the idea that he needs to "avenge the Congresswoman's shooting" or some sh** like that - even though everyone knows she had no influence whatsoever over the wacko gunman's actions.

If she runs for the Presidency (which I think she will not), she will have to take with her everywhere a security detail worthy of Benjamin Netanyahu. Eight bodyguards for at least three people to protect: imagine protecting seven people, including minors. The vigilance around her would be a strategic nightmare.

Ohhhhhhhhh, boy, you struck a nerve!

@David: "Fine--for the sake of argument, let's concede that Palin is familiar, off the cuff, with the historical nuances of Revere's ride as confirmed in the letter so ably explicated by the Professor. So why has she so carefully concealed her encyclopedic knowledge of American History?"

Hey you twit. Put the goal posts back where they were.

I ran into this just yesterday, at a party. Palin's name came up, some leftard said "Can you believe that people are actually considering voting for someone who is too stupid to know anything about Paul Revere?" I said "Actually, I don't think she was that far off, historically. When Revere was captured, he did warn the British.." and she started SCREAMING at me about how stupid Sarah Palin is. I, damn my black Irish temper, yelled back at her. We had quite the row. It was uncomfortable for the other people at the party, to say the least, and yea, I know I should have been the big man and walked away, but damnit, she was flat out WRONG on the facts and wouldn't listen or discuss the points I was trying to make, and I'm just plain tired of backing down to PDS. It wasn't even about Palin as far as I was concerned, it was about historical fact. I have a degree in American history, for Christ sake, I DO know a little bit about what I'm talking about. She tearfully left the party because "She wasn't used to being treated like this, SHE, you understand, has no problem talking to people whom she disagrees with politically, but I was just so mean and unreasonable...."etc, etc. This kind of thing is going to happen a lot more over the next year and a half, and I need to find a better method of responding, but I'm no longer going to roll over and show my belly just because some lib is spouting off. I feel bad for yelling because I AM better than that, but she called the tune, and when that happens, I'm going to dance. I plan to give back that exact level of decorum that I receive. No more retreating for politeness sake, 2012 is too important for that.

Sorry, Greg. Too nuanced. For you:

"How come she's really smart on Paul Revere, but stupid on just about everything else?"

That is to suggest that she isn't really smart about Paul Revere but that she gave her supporters enough to spin. Then the blind supporters, such as yourself, can run their binary logic routine and conclude that, since Palin was right after all, everybody else must be wrong. From there it's only a short leap to be reconfirmed in the belief that Harvard Law Review Editor Barack Obama is, in fact, stupid, a stuttering fool without his teleprompter.

Revere was riding a harley across New England taunting the British with the impending ratification of the second amendment. Those goal posts?

Touched a nerve, did she?

My previous post got swallowed in the attempt to log into WordPress, so I'll summarize:

Those on the right who claim Palin is not electable or not "presidential" need to educate themselves on the definition of the word "presidential" (from Dictionary.com):

pres·i·den·tial
   [prez-i-den-shuhl]
–adjective
1. of or pertaining to a president or presidency.
2. of the nature of a president.

Clear as mud. Let's remember, the MSM said Reagan wasn't electable, nor was he "presidential," either (and this was in comparison to Jimmah Carter).

And to claim she "abdicated" the governorship of Alaska shows a blatant disregard for the facts. Go look up the circumstances of her resignation, and the fact that SHE WAS RIGHT to do so! Ever heard of "retrenching?" Only a fool would rush into a battle that he knows he would lose, unless ordered to do so by a superior (read the historical facts behind "The Charge of the Light Brigade" - don't rely on Tennyson solely).

Those of us who support Palin do so unapologetically, and we know that she, like everyone else, is human. "To err is human, to forgive divine." Christ died for us so that we would learn forgiveness. If the Lord can forgive us our sins, who are we to be unforgiving for a simple verbal gaffe?

To the lefties who scream PALIN IS AN IDIOT at the top of their lungs: Get some facts, learn how to debate with them, otherwise STFU. Stop simply gainsaying an argument (go Google the Monty Python "Argument Clinic" for a perfect example of what I mean) or deflecting the discussion with some arcane discussion about the meaning of the word "warn" (sounds Clinton-esque) or moving the goalposts regarding the intent of her statement. And don't rely on "perception," because PERCEPTION ISN'T TRUTH! Only the TRUTH is the truth; perception is how we muddle the facts to suit our worldview. Go back to the corner until you learn to behave like an adult. I'm sick of you.

Palin is one of those people who believe that if something is worth preserving (like our liberty), it's worth fighting for.

And I'm ready to fight.

@VanHalen
How much of the deficit is due to BUSH's TWO wars he started?

Do you know what the medical (and economic) bills will result for this country because up to 35% of our veterans come home with PTSD (post-traumatic stress disorder?) (do the math) - it's a HUGE problem.
source: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/09/090914151629.htm

Those wars and those medical bills (and the economic devastation of removing those soldiers from the workforce).. do the math.

So now we are to believe that the comment was not a bumbling misremembrance of the tale, it was an astute analysis of several recondite academic sources? Occam? Meet razor.

"...go Google the Monty Python "Argument Clinic"..."

Or rather, Google "bring out your dead." I'm convinced that's the actual basis of Palin's confused bell recollection.

@newton

Thanks for the wise points lovely lady!!

It just dawned on me last night that I don't really have any friends left.

My best childhood friend seems to have written me off, too.

He de-friended me on Facebook and hasn't spoken to me in many months. I was joking one day just as I've always done ... I jokingly called him a self-hating Jew (and it was 100% obvious I was kidding ... just like he and I had always kidded each other for a few decades). And, now that he's become a vegetarian (after he used to mock vegetarians when we were teenagers) I kidded him about that ... I posted something about making my world-class hamburgers for him as a teenager and watching him gobble them up ...

He sent me a message asking me to stop insulting him, etc.

I was shocked, to say the least. He lives up in the San Francico area now. I sent him a message back saying something to the effect of,

"Whatever group of lefty friends you're hanging around with up there now ... they sure did a job on your sense of humor. If you ever find your sense of humor again and stop taking yourself and life so seriously ... feel free to contact me ... no hard feelings, I'll always let bygones be bygones."

Haven't heard back from him and doubt I will. Like other lefty friends, in these rancorous partisan times he's moving further left ... and with each step in that direction there is a simultaneous loss of sense of humor.

My male friends are all gone.

One girl, who I've known since elementary school, divulged to me on Facebook that she'd had a crush on me her entire life and would write diary entries about me daily for years !!!

We've corresponded a lot since getting in touch via Facebook. She was such a sweet girl in school. (I had no idea in school she liked me.) She is now a lawyer representing abused and neglected children ... doesn't surprise me, she has always been the salt of the earth.

As much as I cherish our friendship ... she's just a girl : )

The worst part about last night when a wave of sadness swept over me? Well, in the ninth grade, a gorgeous new girl came to our school. All the boys we're crazy about her. One day her friend approached me and told me this girl liked me and wanted "to go steady." We did ... for two weeks ... until she broke it off because I was too shy. Although outside of school things were fine, she was angry that I wouldn't go near her at school (because all the other boys' eyes watching constantly made me so uncomfortable).

I still have her up on a pedestal (and she is still gorgeous).

But last night, because of all the furor over the Sarah Palin post, which she couldn't see because she's not friends with the person who started the post (but she is friends with a number of people who contributed lefty talking points to it) I actually sent her a message, knowing she'd be hearing from people saying I had become a right-wing wacko and was foaming at the mouth (the foaming part being complete projection on their part).

In the message I pleaded my case, assuring her I was completely civil in my postings and that anything she would be hearing to the contrary was only sour grapes and simply not true.

A few minutes after I sent the message, I thought, "What the heck am I doing? How pathetic I'm acting. I feel like I'm in high school again with all the insecurities. This is how they've gotten under my skin and worn me down."

Well gotta go ... I need to find that list of friends and acquaintances and scratch her name off, too!!

Isn't life funny?

Well, this was not the explanation she offered to Chris Wallace, as noted by Crooks and Liars:http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/david/palin-i-didnt-mess-about-paul-revere

Dang! I was really looking forward to her trying to convince us she was familiar with those obscure texts.

So a woman who was flummoxed by the question of what newspaper she reads every day is reading obscure historical works on Google Books? Is that the story you are trying to sell here, Professor?

Sounds good! Now what's the price again on that bridge in Brooklyn?

The refusal of Palin's critics to admit she was right is astonishing. The simple facts are as follows:

1. Palin said that Revere warned the British.
2. The MSM screamed: no, idiot, Revere warned the *colonists(!
3. We now know that Revere *did* tell the *British* that approximately 500 Americans colonists would be waiting for them.

I consider "warn" a correct verb for that action. But no, Palin's critics continue to insist, she couldn't have been right. She's too dumb. It was a lucky mistake.

But HOW she got it right is not at issue. The MSM said she got it wrong. SHE GOT IT RIGHT. So be quiet.

One more point: Logic 101: when your premises, logically followed, lead you to incoherent conclusion, you might want to reconsider your premises.

So a woman who was flummoxed by the question of what newspaper she reads every day is reading obscure historical works on Google Books? Is that the story you are trying to sell here, Professor?

So a woman who knows American history in detail was flummoxed by the question of which newspaper she reads? Is that really the story you genuinely believe?

Let me recap things:

1. Palin says something.
2. People who hate her say she's wrong and stupid.
3. She's not wrong.
4. People who hate her say she didn't know it wasn't wrong, and therefore is still stupid.

And how do they know she didn't know this? Because she's stupid, of course. No, that's not circular at all.

We get it. You hate Sarah Palin. That's not an excuse to pounce on every little thing with no regard for its veracity because it fits the narrative you've bought into. When you do that, it betrays the fact that your position has become emotional, rather than rational.

Get a GRIP, people. You're allowing a politician you don't like to turn you into a bunch of crazies.

What she said was still wrong.. He wasn't riding around, shooting his gun off, to warn the British. Instead, at gunpoint, he told the British that the colonists were coming.. He didn't go out on his ride planning to tell the British. He wasn't going around warning the British. And he wasn't shooting his gun off. Shes still completely wrong.. oh.. and sorry guys, but Palin didn't use this explanation for what she said..

It's called a narrative. She wasn't giving a detailed analysis of each anecdote: the causes, the results, etc. She was restating the story to make a point.

From what I hear, all the details are right: bells went off, shots were fired in the air, and REVERE WARNED THE BRITISH. She is foreshortening the causal connections (apparently Revere didn't ring the bells or fire the shots, or literally ride through town) TO TELL A STORY. The point of the story is that Revere WARNED THE BRITISH that the colonists would not have their arms taken away.

I'm a college teacher, and I do it all the time. I usually alert my students that I am reshaping the facts for narrative purposes, but then I don't have to worry that my description will be taken out of content on the 6 o'clock news.

@David: "How come she's really smart on Paul Revere, but stupid on just about everything else?"

For me? Little me? How kind of you.

First, let's clear a few things up: I am not a Palin supporter. I am anti-smug however. Oh, and I'm not a big fan of the labels "stupid,"or "dumb" either, though they rank right near the top, just under the word "racist" of the deck of cards the left uses. Unfortunately, they're so worn and bent out of shape as to be of no use any more in the political game.

Now to your question: Stupid in everything else? As in the picayune gotchas you guys are so fond of? I know she's "stupid" enough that she has the press at her beck and call. She's "dumb" enough to--how do they say it--live rent free in the minds of her critics. She's so much of an "idiot" that she ran for office twice (three times?) and won, has parlayed a brief stint as a vice presidential candidate into a fortune, and has you wasting your time deriding her on an obscure blog (sorry Ann). Is that what you mean by stupid?

Oh and to repeat: garbled as her statement about Paul Revere was in that snippet, she was more correct than her Longfellow wielding detractors. (By the way, how comfortable would you be having your life, your intelligence judged by snippets of video? Unless you stood there with your lips sealed, I could make you look like a blithering idiot, leaving your best lines and most important insights on the editing floor. In the end, Sarah Palin may be "stupid," but in the morning she won't wake up uncharitable. Her critics will.)

As to Mr. Obama: I've never said he was stupid. I did quip that he's not so good without his teleprompter. And he's not. With teleprompter at the ready, he's an inspiring man. Without it, not so much. That says nothing about his intelligence.

Now I'm off. I won't be responding to anything else.

Palin is dumb as a stump and everybody knows it.

What a clusterfuck. As a MA native and a history major, I can see all sides of this story. Sure, Revere warned Adams and Hancock that they were due to be arrested. Sure, Revere warned the British soldiers that the populace was getting ready to resist. As with any historical event, many different takes are possible, and all hold some small kernel of truth. And sure, Palin pretty much misspoke. Let's just get that out of the way. The mumblejumble of crap that spewed out of her mouth was in no way comprehensible. It neither proves that she's an abject moron nor that she's an over-educated mastermind spinning the "libtards" into a frenzy as a distraction technique. It just IS. Let's move on, shall we?

Let's move on to the fact that no matter how you slice it, that woman is in no way qualified to be president of these United States. IN NO WAY. She couldn't handle the governorship of Alaska, and she (co-)ran a ruinous campaign for president. No thinking person could seriously consider her a candidate, and yet here we all are, listening to this inane drivel and talking about it ceaselessly.

Her family vacation and the garbage that continues to come out of her mouth while that vacation is being endlessly covered by the media is taking attention away from reasonable candidates, candidates who should be getting our undivided attention as we go into yet another campaign season. We have more important things to worry about and comment on than the ill-chosen words of one American moron. Let's listen to ALL the ill-chosen words of ALL the morons running for president, and with any luck, pick the best of a bad bunch. What say you?

Quoting Palin, "He who warned, uh, the…the British that they weren’t gonna be takin’ away our arms, uh, by ringin’ those bells and um by makin’ sure that as he’s ridin’ his horse through town to send those warnin’ shots and bells that uh we were gonna be secure and we were gonna be free…and we were gonna be armed."

Did she say he was riding to warn the British? That that was his purpose? No. Yet some have insisted that’s what she was saying and it was therefore stupid. The stupidity is on the part of the hearers, who don’t listen. They conflate his ride, which actually had two purposes, to warn Adams and Hancock and also to alert the countryside and villages with her statement about his encounter with the British.

As for the shots and bells, she used a synecdoche, a common figure of speech, that puts the part for the whole. No, Revere didn’t literally ring the bells, pound the drums and fire the warning shots. But, by warning all who did, he can be said to have done it. And the figure of speech synecdoche is used in precisely that way.

When you only have ten seconds to answer a question, you can’t expound upon the subject. Her point is quite clear to those whose judgment isn’t clouded by a hatred of Palin or by having been so thoroughly corrupted by the media’s portrayal of her as stupid that you can no longer think for yourself.

Some have even argued that he never rode through a town, only villages, and therefore Palin is stupid. If you can’t see how strained that attempt to defame her is, your vision is obscured.

The larger point is that had anyone else said this, there would have been some scratching of heads until those with knowledge confirmed the accuracy of her statement. Because it’s Palin, the alarm bells go off instantly and the full force of PDS rises up to damn her. Yet she just keeps chugging along like nothing has happened.

I want a person with that level of intestinal fortitude and peaceful inner strength to be my President. If she is the nominee, I will gladly cast my vote for her. What will you do? Vote for Obama?

If you vote for Obama after what he's done and is doing to this country, then give up calling Palin stupid, because you just won that prize yourself.

@Jennaratrix:
"Palin pretty much misspoke..." but...but..but...she did NOT misspeak The essential fact under dispute is true.
"The mumblejumble of crap that spewed out of her mouth was in no way comprehensible."
It was perfectly comprehensible to me.

"the fact...that woman is in no way qualified..."That is not a "fact". It is an opinion. As far as I know she meets the essential qualifications: age, natural born citizen, etc.

She "handled" the governorship so well that she resigned when it became clear that her political enemies were going to investigate her into administrative stasis.

Finally, the VP candidate does not "co-run" the campaign. Never.

I'm a college teacher. I think that qualifies me as a "thinking person." I would seriously consider her as a candidate. So you are wrong when you say "no thinking person."

Those darned liberals are so frustrating, relying on facts and reality, etc. But where they can never beat us is in our ability to spin a yarn, to twist those facts into something that may seem bizarre, but if we pretend it's not bizarre, after a while it's almost like it was true! So, don't give up, Sarah, no matter how wrong or inaccurate you are, we are standing by to "set it all straight!"

@Yikes So, libs are going to rely on facts and reality now? Wow. That'll be a refreshing change, what brought that on, someone take away your raaaaacism card?

Angela Marie said...

Palin is dumb as a stump and everybody knows it.

Says the stump.

Yikes' post is amusing, because liberals in this comment section are now taking both positions: that she was technically wrong, and that she was technically right, but-who-cares-because-she's-still-stupid. You can even have fun pretending that they're arguing with each other!

Very interesting. Good job on this post about Palin and Paul Revere!

"On the same day at about 10 pm, Dr. Warren sent Revere and William Dawes, a shoe maker, to Lexington where Adams and Hancock were staying. They took separate routes in case one of them was arrested; they had to make sure the message would get to its destination. Dawes was sent through land while Revere embarked through the Charles River. As he was getting ready to board, he realized that the oars would make too much noise and would alert the British. Finally a boatman provided him with a petticoat from his girlfriend which he wrapped around the oars to muffle the sound."

This was written by the Paul Revere Heritage Project and the graduates at Boston University History Club.

Please note that Revere had ABSOLUTELY NO INTENTION of warning the British of anything, let alone signaling he was near.

http://www.paul-revere-heritage.com/midnight-ride.html

I can't wait to see what the left comes up with when she recounts the history of the "COME AND TAKE IT" flag. I bet they'll claim it's not a cannon, but a...use your imagination.

Mr. Jacobsen: Are you kidding me!!!!

We all know there is absolutley NO WAY Palin ever read Paul Revere's obscure 1789 letter. Even if she did, why minimize the aspect of Revere's ride that changed our nation's history i.e. his warnings to colonists?

Palin didn't describe the legend of Paul Revere, nor the actual historical events. She screwed up the facts and now defenders such as yourself are digging up an obscure story not even relevant to the history itself and holding it up as though Palin knew what she was talking about. This is insane.

Yeah, you sure learned something about Paul Revere. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. The man was an American patriot who spent his ride trying to avoid the British - he even escaped a chase once - before his eventual capture. This is the problem when you put politics ahead of truth.

you know they will not apologize http://nabacar.com

"...he largely road through the countryside..."

Good thing this is a history lesson and not an English lesson ;c)

There sure are a lot of stupid people on the left. They can't read. They don't understand the English language at all. They clearly don't understand that words can have more than one meaning. They can't grasp how anachronistic interjection alters the meaning of a story, don't grasp what a figure of speech is and aren't aware that regional speech patterns can influence the meaning of words as well as phraseology.

For example, Tony Matias (and numerous others) completely misses the meaning of the word "warn" (as in "threaten, admonish, caution") which Revere most certainly did when captured by the British. Yes, it was a ploy designed to win his release, and yes, it involved a bit of false bravado, but he warned the British nonetheless.

For Tony, warn can only have one meaning - alert - and he simply can't grasp why Revere would have warned the British when he was trying so hard to avoid them.

Either we are to believe that, or we must accept the fact that Tony knows exactly what warn means in this instance but, for partisan reasons, refuses to acknowledge it, preferring instead to mock Palin for something she never said.

Others want to insist that Palin couldn't possibly have suddenly boned up on the minutiae of Revere's letters, completely forgetting that she had visited the museum that day and probably heard the story from a museum guide. I suppose it's because they never go to museums and so have no idea what kind of information one can learn there. Yet that was, in part, the purpose of Palin's trip.

For them, if something is incomprehensible to them it is incomprehensible to all. The idea that someone else might comprehend something that they cannot comprehend is, well, incomprehensible to them.

Still they insist on lecturing others on the meaning of words, sentences and paragraphs and how people think as if their knowledge and comprehension knows no bounds.

It would be pitiful if it weren't so dangerous. Once we have restored freedom to America, we should find a special place for such people, a place where they can babble incoherently without doing any more damage to the nation.

1) Palin had no idea what Revere was about until the next day after her handlers helped her out 2) the ride was obviously over if he was captured 3) once caught, he didn't "warn" the British Regulars, he "taunted" them and "boasted" 4) some townspeople in some towns rang the bells and shot their guns, but he didn't and he didn't tell them to.

Did she perhaps mean there were no "Americans" yet, as there were no United States? They were all British subjects, but no one's made that argument that I've heard, certainly no one from the Palin camp. 

What's this unaccomplished anti-intellectual quitter going to call her third party? "Know-nothings" is already taken. 

You just can't stand it, can you, TheFooshShow? "He only taunted them! He didn't warn them!" LOL.

Revere had ABSOLUTELY NO INTENTION of warning the British

Until he did.

Uh, logic?

1) Whether or not he INTENDED to do it doesn't change the fact that he did.

2) Oh my. Big laugh at the "he didn't war them, he haunted them."

The parsing that's going on here is tremendous. If these are the lengths you have to go to prove that someone's dumb, you're clearly beyond the low-hanging fruit, people. I'll say it again: GET. A. GRIP.

Here are a few things: First, The British were coming, in part to take arms, not every colonist's personal arms, but the supply cache of weapons in Lexington and Concord. Second, they were also coming to arrest Samuel Adams and John Hancock. Third, Paul Revere's job was to warn Adams and Hancock of the British's intent to arrest them and to warn the colonists of the British forces. Fourth, Paul Revere was not tasked with warning the British soldiers that the Colonists were not going to let them take away their arms and would fight them, they already knew that was the feeling among a lot of the Colonists. When he was captured, he did inform the British soldiers again of the Colonists intent.

Bottom line, Sarah Palin's answer to a simple question, "What have you seen here (Boston) today and what will you take away from today?" was inaccurate and jumbled. I do not believe her misstep was the result of ignorance of American history, but rather she was surprised by the question and was trying to give an answer that would remain on message. My biggest complaint is that she refuses to say, "Oops, I misspoke."
www.canigetawordin.com

Another idiot joins the fray. "It wasn't the colonist's arms, but a supply cache of weapons." Who do you suppose those weapons belonged to moron? And do you suppose they might have referred to them as "our" arms?

No one has ever said that Revere was "tasked with warning the British" except for the boobs like you that can't read. I know this might be hard for you to grasp, but sometimes people end up doing things they weren't tasked to do. Work on understanding that. It might help you in the future.

OK political numbnuts let's look at the real history, not what a poet wrote close to 100 years after the fact, or what other historians wrote 200 years after the fact.

1) The colonists were British in April of 1775. They were not fighting for freedom from the British Empire, but to be Free Englishmen with the ability to govern themselves. The Declaration of Independence was not ratified until the next year, 1776. Although some radicals might have wanted separation from England sooner "the cause of liberty" from England had not yet been adopted by the Continental Congress which was the defacto government of the rebellion.

2) If you look at the Orders of General Gage to the commander of the military expedition to Concord, Lt Col Francis Smith, dated April 18 1775 (found online at: http://tinyurl.com/6ebs4b4), Gage does not mention Samuel Adams or John Hancock, NOR does he mention Lexington at all. The colonists, though knowing in advance of the expedition, did not know and only speculated that Adams and Hancock were targeted.

3) Paul Revere. When Revere was stopped en route to Concord by Maj Mitchell and party and then questioned, Revere lies. He tells then that the troops intended for Concord had been stopped by some 500 militia in Cambridge. This is not warning the "British", this is lying to unnerve a small group of mounted officers on horseback, 10+/- miles away from safety, in the middle of a chilly April night. (Side note: when Revere appears a couple weeks later, he puts in to the Committee of Safety for the Cost, Care and Feeding of the horse he lost on his ride. He bill is paid by the Committee. However, the horse did not belong to Revere, but to Deacon John Larkin of Charlestown and Deacon Larkin never saw a penny of that money. If Revere sped through the night to warn the countryside, would he have stopped to feed the horse along the way? If you want o read more abo0ut Revere's character look into his exploits on the Penobscot Expedition of 1779. The man if not an idiot was a complete Douche!

4) Colonial Arms. The stock pile of arms, munitions and military supplies which were the focus of Gen Gage's orders were not targeting people's personal property, but were the property of the Colony of Massachusetts. What colonist would have a 12-lb cannon for his own personal protection??? The Colony of Massachusetts was owned by England. If the Colony is owned by England, and the munitions and arms were property of the Colony of Massachusetts, you do the math, who owned them??? They were supplies originally supplied by or stolen from the Government of Massachusetts and therefore property of not the colonists but the Government. Not one order was given to target individuals in their homes and abscond with their personal Fowler or musket.

Please notice I have not commented on Sarah Palin, her politics, or the Tea Party movement. I have posted only to set straight historical inaccuracies which have been vomited all over this blog.

I wanted to quote from David Hackett Fischer's book "Paul Revere's Ride" , Oxford Press 1994. Taken from the chapter"The Capture" pp.135-136. "At last the (British) officers began to feel the full import of what Paul Revere had been telling them.His words of warning took on a stronger meaning when punctuated with gun fire (from the colonist).....As they (the British) came closer to the Common they (the British) began to hear Lexington's town bell clanging rapidly"

@Antimedia

You said, "No one has ever said that Revere was 'tasked with warning the British' except for the boobs like you that can't read."

No one except for Sarah Palin in her interview with Fox News. She said, "Part of his ride was to warn the British that were already there."

@riasgt, it was common for individuals, groups and towns to own cannons in America until the late 1800's. A group of whites used a cannon to slaughter some blacks in South Carolina shortly after the civil war. In 1873 in Louisiana, a group of whites used a cannon to kill 80-150 people, mostly black, in what is known as the Colfax Massacre. Three years later, in South Carolina, a cannon was used again to slaughter blacks in what is known as the Hamburg Massacre.

So the idea that the colonists wouldn't own a cannon is rather silly and doesn't square with the historical facts.

It's a lame attempt to argue that the arms to which Palin referred were not the arms that the British wanted to capture and reveals a willingness to parse words in the extreme to arrive at a preconceived conclusion.

Furthermore to argue that the arms belonged to the Massachusetts Colony and therefore not the colonists is to argue that the colonists were not the Massachusetts Colony. The Colony is apparently some disembodied entity that has no relation to its inhabitants. This kind of thinking makes a mockery of Lincoln's words "of the people, by the people, for the people".

The argument about lying not warning doesn't even deserve a response it's so ridiculous.

@Steven Kippel, first of all, the quote you cite was from a later interview and has only a tangential relationship with Palin's comments that engendered such derision from the uninformed and which are the subject of this post.

Furthermore, even that quote does not say that the purpose of his ride was to warn the British. I know you think it does, but you clearly don't get the Palin vernacular. If you read it, it's actually true. Although it wasn't the reason he was sent out, it turned out to be part of his ride.

I don't expect Palin's critics to ever concede a single point. It's not in their DNA. But as long as you keep making these ridiculous assertions in vain attempts to denigrate Palin, I will keep responding with facts.