Sarah Palin revises the history of Paul Revere's Midnight ride.

[Pocketman]

When Paul made the famous ride, we were not yet Americans, so in fact he was warning British colonists that British loyalists were coming and were in fact intent on taking the armory to put down the impending rebellion.

Not "loyalists" - "regulars"

 

[mrjarrell]

• Did Paul Revere shoot a gun or ring bells while passing homes or villages? No, he was trying to avoid capture.


• Did Paul Revere warn the British "as he's riding his horse through town?" No, he gave them false intel after being captured.


• Did Paul Revere tell the British, after being captured, that the colonists would oppose the British soldiers? Yes. Was it a warning to the British? Not really. They already knew that the colonists opposed them and that the colonists were armed. The British were already on their way to seize illegal arms and munitions stored by the illegal colonial militias in Concord.


• Her statement implies that Paul Revere was riding his horse through towns, ringing bells and shooting his gun. Yes, there are articles that mention ringing bells in different towns, but I am yet to see one that says specifically Revere himself was riding, ringing bells, and shooting his gun.


• He did NOT ring bells with the intent of warning the British that they weren't taking our arms. He DID give them false intel after he was captured. Revere set out with the intentions of warning the colonists, not to look for British to warn. She says: "He who warned, uh, the British that they weren't gonna be takin' away our arms, uh, by ringing those bells,..." Palin's vision of the ride implies that Revere was riding around ringing his bells at the British and yelling "You're not gonna be takin' away our arms!"

Further proving this point, theamericanrevolution.org says: "Revere did not shout the famous phrase later attributed to him ("The British are coming!"), largely because the mission depended on secrecy and the countryside was filled with British army patrols;" Sooooooo he probably wasn't trying to make too much noise. Don't ya think?


She's wrong.

This makes vastly more sense than the revisionist history her supporters would have us believe.

 

[lpenni]

When you're right, you're right. Fools and schmucks voted the current guy in. I'm for whomever it takes to get him out.

 

[J_Wales]

Though she may not have explained it clearly enough for some, Palin's statement was in fact correct.....

Which is more than most of the bullsh0t coming out of fearless leader's mouth.

 

[mrjarrell]

When you're right, you're right. Fools and schmucks voted the current guy in. I'm for whomever it takes to get him out.

Not me. You could end up with something much worse.

 

[melensdad]

She's wrong.

This makes vastly more sense than the revisionist history her supporters would have us believe.

I'm not a Palin fan, but liberal media outlet NPR got a professor of history on one of their shows and he pretty much said that Sarah Palin got the story correct.

Linky => How Accurate Were Palin's Paul Revere Comments? : NPR

 

[spec4]

Not me. You could end up with something much worse.

Not to be argumentative, just curious; who in your opinion, running or possibly running GOP, could be worse than the empty suit?

 

[mrjarrell]

Not to be argumentative, just curious; who in your opinion, running or possibly running GOP, could be worse than the empty suit?

Santorum, for a start. He'd make the police state grow like a worse cancer than it already is. Romney is a tool who'd turn the US into Massachusetts and sign on to any anti gun legislation that came along. Someone like Santorum will insure an Obama victory. The majority of people in this country vote from the middle, not the far right and especially not the far religious right/social conservative stance.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

Santorum, for a start. He'd make the police state grow like a worse cancer than it already is. Romney is a tool who'd turn the US into Massachusetts and sign on to any anti gun legislation that came along. Someone like Santorum will insure an Obama victory. The majority of people in this country vote from the middle, not the far right and especially not the far religious right/social conservative stance.

Your last statement sounds like a political platitude to me. There is such a thing as "(blank) politician fatigue". You may or may not be old enough to remember that Nixon's troubles torpedoed Gerald Ford in 1976, which gave us four years of Jimmy Carter. Four years of Jimmy Carter gave us the "amiable dunce" Ronald Reagan whose "crazy warmongering policies" resulted in the collapse of the Soviet empire. Reagan didn't, in any sense, govern "from the middle" politically, yet he won reelection by a larger margin in 1984 than he won in 1980.

After 9 years of Bush-bashing, the country was ready for a change and we got Obama, who, just like his predecessor, Jimmy Carter, has mismanaged the economy and been largely disastrous as a national representative to the rest of the world. If the economy continues to languish - which it shows every sign of doing - it really won't matter if the Republican candidate is "moderate" or "far right", the nation will still want a change. The only difference will be that a Republican candidate must be willing and able to go after the current President on his record and must not be afraid to speak directly to the American people, no matter the fallout from the mainstream media. Like her or not, Sarah Palin has shown that she, at least, among potential Republican candidates, is not afraid to speak out and take her case to the people. So screw you and your intellectualism.

 

[dross]

First, I don't think Palin is electable. That said, intelligence in a President is overrated. In fact, I don't think you want the President to be the smartest guy in the room, and he rarely is. Perhaps Clinton was most of the time, and maybe Nixon a lot of the time (though he had Kissinger) and neither of them were the best Presidents.

I think regular old above average intelligence combined with a solid philosophy and adherence to principle is what you're looking for. Reagan was bright, he had a philosophy, and he stuck by principles - as much as you can in that job.

I actually think Palin would make a decent President, I just don't think she can get the job.

I think Bush was an excellent foreign policy President, but his economic philosophy and principles were not good.

The other mistake we make as a country is equating speaking ability with all kinds of other abilities. Think of the people you know in your workplace. Are the best speakers and communicators usually the most grounded, productive or competent people? In our daily lives, we rarely trust the slickest speakers. But these are the people we are drawn to in politics.

Before television, we had many Presidents who were terrible speakers. They say Jefferson spoke so quietly and in a monotone so as to be barely understandable. He'd never get near elected office today. Lincoln supposedly had a terrible speaking voice and he was ugly. (Not that Lincoln is an example of a good President.)

If I could choose anyone at all to be President, I'd choose one of the conservative thinkers out there - someone like a Thomas Sowell - someone who was thoroughly grounded in principle and philosophy. You can hire experts in anything you need. As President you have to be able to sort through conflicting advice and choose what makes sense based on your principles. Unfortunately, these are not the qualities of most politicians.

Keep in mind, however, that whoever is chosen must first be electable, otherwise it's just a sophisticated and not particularly effective method of protest.

 

[.45 Dave]

Ya know, I wonder if, while we've been debating whether or not Sarah misspoke, anyone has calculated the amount of debt that has accrued. Is it the hundreds of thousands, millions, billions?? I am told by many that there is little that we as individuals can do, but I do, in spite of that, wonder when OUR Paul Revere is going to arise.
I also wonder how, on a website that cherishes the Second Amendment and our right to defend ourselves, that there are people who still support, or at least defend, a man who is actively destroying the country and the foundations that we hold dear in a way that even the British government of colonial America would have found distasteful? A man who supports the UN small arms agreement which would place us square under the thumb of a gaggle of international Marxist/Communists! Ironically, we could end up like modern Great Britain where our freedom (and gun ownership) is forever lost! No answer is necessary. I just wonder when we are going to stand our ground like our forefathers? These are just things that I ponder and have no answers for.

 

[J_Wales]

Ya know, I wonder if, while we've been debating whether or not Sarah misspoke, anyone has calculated the amount of debt that has accrued. Is it the hundreds of thousands, millions, billions?? I am told by many that there is little that we as individuals can do, but I do, in spite of that, wonder when OUR Paul Revere is going to arise.
I also wonder how, on a website that cherishes the Second Amendment and our right to defend ourselves, that there are people who still support, or at least defend, a man who is actively destroying the country and the foundations that we hold dear in a way that even the British government of colonial America would have found distasteful? A man who supports the UN small arms agreement which would place us square under the thumb of a gaggle of international Marxist/Communists! Ironically, we could end up like modern Great Britain where our freedom (and gun ownership) is forever lost! No answer is necessary. I just wonder when we are going to stand our ground like our forefathers? These are just things that I ponder and have no answers for.

Well said Sir.

 

[04DarkShadowGT]

Ya know, I wonder if, while we've been debating whether or not Sarah misspoke, anyone has calculated the amount of debt that has accrued. Is it the hundreds of thousands, millions, billions?? I am told by many that there is little that we as individuals can do, but I do, in spite of that, wonder when OUR Paul Revere is going to arise.
I also wonder how, on a website that cherishes the Second Amendment and our right to defend ourselves, that there are people who still support, or at least defend, a man who is actively destroying the country and the foundations that we hold dear in a way that even the British government of colonial America would have found distasteful? A man who supports the UN small arms agreement which would place us square under the thumb of a gaggle of international Marxist/Communists! Ironically, we could end up like modern Great Britain where our freedom (and gun ownership) is forever lost! No answer is necessary. I just wonder when we are going to stand our ground like our forefathers? These are just things that I ponder and have no answers for.

A lot of those who oppose Obama, were also supporters of Bush. What is the difference? Both spent, spent, spent, and spent some more.

We wont have another Paul Revere, politicians have no convictions, morals, or sense of the better good. They are all concerned about getting elected the next go around. Well at least the ones the people will elect. We as a whole are too stupid for our own good. We would never elect someone based upon their ideas, we have to elect someone who is slick, smooth, or just looks distinguished.

 

[flagtag]

Have any of you considered Herman Cain? Please check him out.

 

[J_Wales]

Have any of you considered Herman Cain? Please check him out.

Great guy.

 

[Bubba]

We aren't lacking a Paul Revere. Thanks to the magic of the internet there are a thousand midnight rides every day. Alarms raised over this legislation, or that court case, or those politicians. What's lacking is the unified base to take the alarm and act. Maybe it's precisely because of the endless stream of dire predictions that people can't unite behind a single one. Revere's alarm was the only one being given and had been ongoing for months (ok, there were several rides, and several alarms between September 1774 and the famous "midnight ride". There were even some false alarms, but they were all on the same topic: Royal authorities stealing gunpowder widely considered to be owned by the colony as a whole and not subject to military authority).

I wonder if another critical difference lies here: the preservation of liberty vs. reclaiming liberty. Liberty in its classical, pre-Hobbesian meaning was more like what we think of as privileges today. Following the word back to the Roman libertas and the Greek elutherios, liberty was a limited concept where one in authority might grant certain freedoms to a subordinate as a reward for faithful or exceptional service. All liberty flowed from the king/emperor to his nobles, who in turn granted liberties to their men, and so on down to the slave who had no liberties at all. Many of our founding generation viewed liberty in this manner, and saw the war for independence as a social revolution to preserve liberty while separating the source of that liberty from a monarch and instead make liberty a birthright instead of a conferred condition.

Today, as I see it, we have already given up many of the liberties enjoyed by our founders. Instead of preserving liberty any future efforts must be to recover it.

Have you ever had your cable shut off? Medical bills, poor college student, it doesn't matter why. When you miss a payment or two and you get the annoying phone calls you worry quite a bit. Maybe you buy some canned soup for lunch instead of splurging on fast food - a token effort but not enough to pay the bill. Then the cutoff date approaches, and you realize you have to choose between gas in the car and your TV turning off. Drastic action may be required, but with the appropriate priorities and sacrifice you can keep the TV on. That's where our founders were when Revere rode - taking drastic action to preserve what they already had. We're beyond that. The cable's been shut off, we've lost interest in our favorite shows and we're semi-contentedly watching our DVD collection for the Nth time. Drastic action can still be taken. We could skip the weekly Pizza Hut and pay the cable bill, but we aren't really sure that it's worth the effort. We seem to be doing ok without, and we just can't bring ourselves to pick up the phone and do it.

Rather than screaming and shouting about individual issues, perhaps we could focus on reawakening the American interest in Liberty as Birthright before participation in government returns to being a privilege? Don't stop sharing information certainly, but rather than scaring the masses inspire them! Remind your friends and children of the time when government was small, our leaders were accessible (remember the anecdote about the wagon driver who, on the way to market in DC, stopped at the white house to give Old Abe a piece of his mind and was actually allowed in?), and we grew this nation from a squabbling, bankrupt passel of farmers playing at government to one of the mightiest nations on earth in 150 years flat. Champion whatever causes your conscience dictates but participate!

 

[.45 Dave]

A lot of those who oppose Obama, were also supporters of Bush. What is the difference? Both spent, spent, spent, and spent some more.

We wont have another Paul Revere, politicians have no convictions, morals, or sense of the better good. They are all concerned about getting elected the next go around. Well at least the ones the people will elect. We as a whole are too stupid for our own good. We would never elect someone based upon their ideas, we have to elect someone who is slick, smooth, or just looks distinguished.

I hope you are wrong. I remember from my history that the American Revolution happened in part due to the rich aristocracy who were willing to pledge their fortunes to the fight. But the fight itself came as much, if not more, from the common man. There were then, as now, governors and town magistrates who opposed the concerns that eventually became the revolution, but there also were many who were willing to risk their fortunes to fight beside the common man. Many were career politicians, and many were idealistic upstarts that were belittled (even by some patriots) because they didn't fit the picture of leadership for the time (like Sarah Palin today).
(We might remember that even Benjamin Franklin's son remained a loyalist and was once arrested by the Provincial Congress of New Jersey, so even family wasn't necessarily a deciding factor in whose side one chose.--just thought I'd throw that in.) The point is: Enough politicians and rich patriots arose to stand along side the common man and were united in the common desire for liberty. Will we see that again in this day and age? I truly hope so. And I hope soon.

 

[.45 Dave]

We aren't lacking a Paul Revere. Thanks to the magic of the internet there are a thousand midnight rides every day. Alarms raised over this legislation, or that court case, or those politicians. What's lacking is the unified base to take the alarm and act. Maybe it's precisely because of the endless stream of dire predictions that people can't unite behind a single one. Revere's alarm was the only one being given and had been ongoing for months (ok, there were several rides, and several alarms between September 1774 and the famous "midnight ride". There were even some false alarms, but they were all on the same topic: Royal authorities stealing gunpowder widely considered to be owned by the colony as a whole and not subject to military authority).

I wonder if another critical difference lies here: the preservation of liberty vs. reclaiming liberty. Liberty in its classical, pre-Hobbesian meaning was more like what we think of as privileges today. Following the word back to the Roman libertas and the Greek elutherios, liberty was a limited concept where one in authority might grant certain freedoms to a subordinate as a reward for faithful or exceptional service. All liberty flowed from the king/emperor to his nobles, who in turn granted liberties to their men, and so on down to the slave who had no liberties at all. Many of our founding generation viewed liberty in this manner, and saw the war for independence as a social revolution to preserve liberty while separating the source of that liberty from a monarch and instead make liberty a birthright instead of a conferred condition.

Today, as I see it, we have already given up many of the liberties enjoyed by our founders. Instead of preserving liberty any future efforts must be to recover it.

Have you ever had your cable shut off? Medical bills, poor college student, it doesn't matter why. When you miss a payment or two and you get the annoying phone calls you worry quite a bit. Maybe you buy some canned soup for lunch instead of splurging on fast food - a token effort but not enough to pay the bill. Then the cutoff date approaches, and you realize you have to choose between gas in the car and your TV turning off. Drastic action may be required, but with the appropriate priorities and sacrifice you can keep the TV on. That's where our founders were when Revere rode - taking drastic action to preserve what they already had. We're beyond that. The cable's been shut off, we've lost interest in our favorite shows and we're semi-contentedly watching our DVD collection for the Nth time. Drastic action can still be taken. We could skip the weekly Pizza Hut and pay the cable bill, but we aren't really sure that it's worth the effort. We seem to be doing ok without, and we just can't bring ourselves to pick up the phone and do it.

Rather than screaming and shouting about individual issues, perhaps we could focus on reawakening the American interest in Liberty as Birthright before participation in government returns to being a privilege? Don't stop sharing information certainly, but rather than scaring the masses inspire them! Remind your friends and children of the time when government was small, our leaders were accessible (remember the anecdote about the wagon driver who, on the way to market in DC, stopped at the white house to give Old Abe a piece of his mind and was actually allowed in?), and we grew this nation from a squabbling, bankrupt passel of farmers playing at government to one of the mightiest nations on earth in 150 years flat. Champion whatever causes your conscience dictates but participate!

It is a matter of complacency--at least in part, and a matter, perhaps, of cultural amnesia. We've forgotten what it really means to be free. I think (I hope) we ARE rediscovering it now. A very well thought out reply!