Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

So Now All These People Will Apologize to Sarah Palin About Paul Revere, Right?

So Now All These People Will Apologize to Sarah Palin About Paul Revere, Right?

As with most people, I simply took at face value the popular version that Paul Revere warned that the British were coming, the British were coming. 

Not having any real reason to look into it any deeper, Sarah Palin’s statement that Revere warned the British that the colonial militias were waiting seemed odd.

But it appears that the popular version is not complete. 

In fact, as pointed out at Conservatives4Palin, Revere did in fact tell the British that the colonial militias, who had been alerted, were waiting for them.  Here is the original historical text written by Revere (spelling in original, bold added):

I observed a Wood at a Small distance, & made for that. When I got there, out Started Six officers, on Horse back,and orderd me to dismount;-one of them, who appeared to have the command, examined me, where I came from,& what my Name Was? I told him. it was Revere, he asked if it was Paul? I told him yes He asked me if I was an express? I answered in the afirmative. He demanded what time I left Boston? I told him; and aded, that their troops had catched aground in passing the River, and that There would be five hundred Americans there in a short time, for I had alarmed the Country all the way up. He imediately rode towards those who stoppd us, when all five of them came down upon a full gallop; one of them, whom I afterwards found to be Major Mitchel, of the 5th Regiment, 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. He then asked me similar questions to those above. He then orderd me to mount my Horse, after searching me for arms

Palin’s short statement on the video was less than clear; that sometimes happens but the part of the statement which has people screaming — that Revere warned the British that the colonial militias were waiting — appears to be true.

I’ve learned something new today, about Paul Revere.

The leading lights of the left-blogosphere have made fools of themselves, as have people who are not of the left-blogosphere.  I presume they all will be apologizing.

Update:  Aaron Worthing at Patterico has a round-up of all the hyperventilated left-blogospheric reaction, including by Think Progress, which writes:

It’s hard to imagine why Revere would warn the British of anything, or why he’d do it with bells and gun shots.

This account in “Paul Revere’s Ride” by David Hackett Fischer (Oxford University Press 1994), may be of interest to Think Progress and all the others laughing because they purport to be so much better informed than Palin:

“A townsman remembered that ‘repeated gunshots, the beating of drums and the ringing of bells filled the air.’…. Along the North Shore of Massachusetts, church bells began to toll and the heavy beat of drums could be heard for many miles in the night air.”

It’s available on Google Books.

Update 6-4-2011: “I’m not a potted plant. I’m here as the blogger. That’s my job.”

——————————————–
Follow me on Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube
Visit the Legal Insurrection Shop on CafePress!
Bookmark and Share

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments


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.

@timb

You sir, are an ignorant fool. This blog quotes and links to an account from PAUL REVERE HIMSELF affirming her statement, but SHE misspoke? Ignorant.
http://www.masshist.org/database/img-viewer.php?item_id=99&img;_step=1&tpc;=&pid;=&mode;=transcript&tpc;=&pid;=#page1
[bottom of page 4]

"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.

finlay wexstrung | June 3, 2011 at 10:46 pm

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+.

Huskers-For-Palin | June 4, 2011 at 12:43 am

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. 😀 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.

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.

Dan:

You are a vile little turd, aren't you?

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

She must just scare the absolute crap out of you as a presidential possibility. I mean, why else would people who are smart enough to know how to turn on a computer convince themselves that typing those words would accomplish anything except making them appear too stupid to live?

"Jew ya down" was as common as polack jokes when I was a kid. That was back in the good old days, when we could keep people like you hidden away in the sanitorium until you "got better."

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.

I really feel sorry for your students, "Law professor".
you are a shame to all Jews around the world being such an idiot

"[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."