Submitted by Elaine Magliaro, Guest Blogger
I’m sure most Americans are aware that former Alaska governor Sarah Palin has been on a bus tour along the east coast of the United States. What is the purpose of her tour?
Only Palin knows for sure. She did, however, provide people with her reason for taking this tour of historical places on her Sarah PAC website.
It’s interesting when (for the 100th time) reporters shout out, “Why are you traveling to historical sites? What are you trying to accomplish?” I repeat my answer, “It’s so important for Americans to learn about our past so we can clearly see our way forward in challenging times; so, we’re bringing attention to our great nation’s foundation.” When that answer isn’t what the reporters want to hear, we’ve asked them if they’ve ever visited these sites like the National Archives, Gettysburg, etc. When they confirm that they haven’t, it’s good to say, “Well, there you go. You’ll learn a lot about America today.” (They usually don’t want to hear that either!)
Last Thursday, Palin stopped in Boston for a tour of three Revolutionary War sites. She said she was “getting goose bumps’’ from all the history she was glimpsing in Boston. She added, “You’ve got to know a lot about our past in order to know how to proceed successfully into the future.’’ And thanks to Palin we’re learning history anew as she provides reporters with her version of American historical events when she speaks to them on stops along her way.
After visiting the Old North Church in Boston’s North End, she hailed Paul Revere and what he did on his “famous ride.” Here is how Palin described that event: …he who warned the British that they weren’t gonna be takin’ away our arms, uh, by ringin’ those bells and, um, makin’ sure as he’s ridin’ his horse through town to send those warning shots and bells that we’re gonna be secure and we were gonna be free. And we we’re gonna be armed.
Got that? Revere warned the British! That’s news to me. And to think that I thought for decades that Paul Revere had been riding around on his horse warning certain American colonists about the British. The archivist at the Cambridge Public Library doesn’t know what really happened that fateful night either. The archivist wrote the following in a blog post: “Paul Revere and his famous midnight ride is so much a part of the collective memory of the American Revolution that it is often forgotten that Revere was just one of several men and one woman who alerted the Minutemen of the impending British advancement.”
I guess the History Channel got it wrong too. Following is what I found on the channel’s website. It includes no mention of bells.
By 1775, tensions between the American colonies and the British government had approached the breaking point, especially in Massachusetts, where Patriot leaders formed a shadow revolutionary government and trained militias to prepare for armed conflict with the British troops occupying Boston. In the spring of 1775, General Thomas Gage, the British governor of Massachusetts, received instructions from Great Britain to seize all stores of weapons and gunpowder accessible to the American insurgents. On April 18, he ordered British troops to march against Concord and Lexington.
The Boston Patriots had been preparing for such a British military action for some time, and, upon learning of the British plan, Revere and Dawes set off across the Massachusetts countryside. They took separate routes in case one of them was captured: Dawes left the city via the Boston Neck peninsula and Revere crossed the Charles River to Charlestown by boat. As the two couriers made their way, Patriots in Charlestown waited for a signal from Boston informing them of the British troop movement. As previously agreed, one lantern would be hung in the steeple of Boston’s Old North Church, the highest point in the city, if the British were marching out of the city by Boston Neck, and two lanterns would be hung if they were crossing the Charles River to Cambridge. Two lanterns were hung, and the armed Patriots set out for Lexington and Concord accordingly. Along the way, Revere and Dawes roused hundreds of Minutemen, who armed themselves and set out to oppose the British.
Tim Murphy—snarking little fellow—wrote this in an article at Mother Jones: “We don’t mean to nitpick—we just think that if you launch a major publicity tour on the subject of great moments in American history, it might make sense to brush up on the details first. We can only imagine how Palin might try to spin this: ‘Listen my children and you shall hear, of the midnight ride of Paul Revere. If the story doesn’t sound like what you read on Wikipedia, you know who to blame: the elite liberal media.’”
It’s just not fair! Tim Murphy and other members of the “lamestream media” love to make fun of Palin. I don’t understand why. She’s only trying to give us the scoop on what really happened in our country’s past—just like Representative Michelle Bachmann of Minnesota. Thank heavens we have women so well versed in American history that they can enlighten us today with their knowledge.
SOURCES
Palin hits town to pick her spots, take her shots (Boston Globe)
Just passing through (Boston Globe)
Reminding Reporters, too, of America’s Foundations (Sarah PAC)
Sarah Palin’s Reasons for Bus Tour Misguided (Yahoo)
Paul Revere’s Ride, Reimagined by Sarah Palin (Mother Jones)
The Other Paul Revere: William Dawes’ Midnight Ride through Cambridge (The Cambridge Room)
Revere and Dawes warn of British attack (History.com)
I once knew a gal nicknamed Sweet Lips who was a repeating breach loader, but that’s another story for another time.
I think what was meant by repeating rifle was actually the Ferguson rifle. Invented by Major Patrick Ferguson who was killed by sixteen year old Robert Young at the Battle of Kings Mountain on October 7, 1880. Young named his long rifle, “Sweet Lips.”
Young’s commanding officer yelled to Young, “There’s Ferguson! Shoot him.” Robert Young yelled back, “I will try and see what Sweet Lips can do,” as he drew sight on Ferguson, discharging his rife. Major Ferguson fell from his horse, either dead or mortally wounded. A volley of rifle shots ensued and several rounds struck Ferguson’s body. Several claimed the kill, but Robert Young got official credit. The rifle, ‘Sweet Lips’ was named for the teenager’s girlfriend.
But I digress. Mike A. can clarify what he meant, but I think he meant ‘breech loader’ rather than ‘repeating.’
Billy B.:
I thought my sarcasm obvious, but I was apparently too subtle.
Billy B.,
“I also notice that none of the “historians” who ostensibly read your post did not comment on these important points.”
Are you attempting to write in Palinese?
*********
kderosa must have been a student of Professor Irwin Corey, the world’s foremost authority.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RHlLmYVCzKY&feature=related
Mike Appleton:
“especially given the fact that he didn’t have access to a repeating rifle ( the Tea Party having dumped the most recent shipment into Boston Harbor).”
I will assume this is a Palinism, given the fact that repeating rifles were not introduced until some time shortly before the civil war and the repeating pistol was created in around 1835.
I will assume you knew this fact and just had a lapse of focus. In addition the tea party was in 1773 not 1775. I will assume you were being tongue in cheek but if you werent, well Palin was more accurate than you were and hers was off the cuff.
I also notice that none of the “historians” who ostensibly read your post did not comment on these important points. I therefore wonder how knowledgeable any of them are about colonial history in general.
I would have to say case closed and good job kderosa.
kderosa,
Do you have a deposition from Paul Revere that tells of his involvement and actions on the night of April 19, 1775 that comports with Palin’s (fallacious) account of those events?
If not, while you are entitled to your own opinions you are not entitled to your own facts.
If not, then your opinion that Palin was correct are contrary to the facts of the matter regarding Paul Revere’s actions on the night of April 19, 1775 as evidenced by his testimonial deposition to the Massachusetts Provincial Congress.
While you are entitled to your own opinions, you are not entitled to have everyone accept your opinions as true opinions absent sufficient evidence to support them.
Since you lack sufficient evidence to support your opinions and evidence of the highest quality available (absent Revere returning from the dead to tell you his actions that night himself) has been presented and not refuted by any relevant non-hearsay evidence of an equal or better quality, then your opinions remain simply your opinions and not factual statements supported by the best evidence. The facts of Revere’s actions are in the best evidence of his own words.
I do not begrudge you a wrong opinion, however, you have consistently tried to rewrite history as a factual assertion. That is a lie in action. Just as we don’t suffer fools gladly around here, we’re not known for suffering liars either. If you wish to retract your assertions that Palin was factually correct and substitute that it is your opinion that she was correct but that your evidence for her being correct is based upon hearsay and not the best evidence of the facts of the matter historically, I would have no objection. But as long as you want to say she was right (and by extension, you are right) as a matter of evidentiary historical fact? I’m going to keep calling you out as a liar.
lie \ˈlī\, v., v.i.,
1: to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive
2: to create a false or misleading impression
liar \ˈlī(-ə)r\, n.,
: a person who tells lies
Like a liar who says that a woman who claims ““He who warned the British that they weren’t going to be taking away our arms by ringing those bells and, um, making sure as he’s riding his horse through town to send those warning shots and bells that, uh, we were going to be secure and we were going to be free” is telling the truth when Revere’s own words in sworn testimony admissible in court says he did nothing of the sort other than he did ride a horse until Major Mitchel’s patrol took it from him.
I will also allow for the possibility that you are simply stupid. You cannot claim ignorance though as Revere’s complete testimony has been presented for all to see. The facts of Revere’s testimony contradict Palin’s retelling and your inadequate defense of Palin’s retelling. If you want to say it is merely your opinion that Palin is correct and Revere is wrong about his actions on the night in question? Please, by all means do so.
However, until you present evidence of equal quality – namely a sworn deposition from Paul Revere – that comports to Palin’s retelling? The facts stand as presented and the facts of the matter according to Revere himself say Palin’s retelling and your opinion that it is a correct retelling are factually wrong. You are free to have a contrary (and wrong) opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts. And the fact is that Paul Revere himself is THE expert on what Paul Revere did as a matter of fact on the night of April 19, 1775. Again, the facts of Revere’s actions are in the best evidence of his own words.
Carry on.
Either state that your stance is merely opinion or continue in your obvious lie and irrational defense of said lie in order to help save face for a woman you allegedly care nothing about.
Either way, I do not care.
Other than I find tormenting liars amusing.
Billy B.
Anyone who ever uses the terms “libs” show themself to be a stupid, blind follower of the Cons. Cons is a much more accurate description of certain political believers, who are corrupt, traitorous and lack any notion of what this country is about. Now the correct term Conservative, speaks of a coherent political philosophy that has valid points to make about the ordering of societies. Unfortunately, very few true Conservatives are around today and the term has been hijacked by the corrupt Cons and those that stupidly follow them, like yourself.
“Ms. Palin’s precise description of Paul Revere was “…he who warned the British that they weren’t gonna be takin’ away our arms, uh, by ringin’ those bells and, um, makin’ sure as he’s ridin’ his horse through town to send those warning shots and bells that we’re gonna be secure and we were gonna be free. And we we’re gonna be armed.” An ordinary person hearing those words will conclude that the esteemed Mr. Revere was riding through villages ringing bells and firing shots, a serious testament to his multi-tasking skills,”
Mike A.,
You sum up the nub of this discussion, yet again though I and others have said the same, Palinista’s continue to try to distort history to protect their savior, or as I and others contend to get paid. Nevertheless I’ve learned much from the history discussion even though it bears no real relevance to Palin’s comments, which were complete distortions. As to her defense here, some may call it spirited, but I call it ridiculous. Thanks for reintroducing Sen. Hruska’s hilarious comment, to those who might be too young to have heard of it.
As to her defenders here and elsewhere LK provides great analysis:
“She is a religion to a certain class of intellect and nothing, not even the first-person testimony, the best evidence quoted verbatim is sufficient to shake the faith- a BS analysis that supports the faith is preferable to to plain language of the only witness that counts.”
Unfortunately, any belief that demands total faith as a central tenet, is a blind one. It becomes a very dangerous one when applied to politics.
“Mike, I doubt psychotic unless somebody shows me some concrete evidence.”
OS,
I wasn’t implying Palin was psychotic at all. It was just that the article was on my mind since my wife mentioned it late the night before. She in my eyes is a perfect Borderline.
She has some hazy overall goal in mind, but jumps hither and yon in the service of it. She is given to unexpected rages, followed by unexpected kindness, followed by shrewd tactics, that are then blown apart by stupid ejaculations. To her family, “manly”
husband included she must be a terror, with everyone walking on eggshells around her and a disordered family life that would seem chaotic to the worst of trailer park denizens. Her narcissism lets her believe delusionally in her own capability, while also
serving as a rationale for not doing any homework, which is why she utters stupidities for which she is unashamed. I would think she has at least an average intelligence, but lacks the curiosity to put the effort into informing herself on anything.
I know some find her attractive, but back in my single days if I was approached by someone looking like her, with that manic facial expression and overly dramatic demeanor, I would have run as fast as I could. Actually let me rephrase that. At about the age of twenty three I would have run, because prior to that I had some brief experiences with her type and I was smart enough to learn from them.
@Buddha, don’t stop now you’ve almost hit bottom. Ride it out to the bitter end.
Mike Appleton,
Well said sir.
Everyone should read Mike Appleton’s last post and learn from his fair, reasonable and not-unhinged criticisms of Palin that he wisely couches in opinion language. I diasgree with some points, but that is only my opinion.
Again, trying to blame me for your misunderstanding of the Rules of Evidence is simply not going to work. The Rules clearly show that hearsay and the exception for depositions works as described – by the black letter law alone if you don’t want to take my word for it. The Rules prohibiting the admission of hearsay do not, however, work the way you wish they would work.
Unless you have a deposition in Revere’s own words that tells his role in the events of the night of April 15, 1775 that comports with Palin’s fictional account of said events and his role in them?
You have still lost.
Not that I expect you to STFU any time soon.
That would be a tacit admission to your bosses that your tactic failed both in choice of tactic and in deployment. It’s a tough job market out there. Even for propagandists. But especially for an incompetent propagandist such as yourself.
But rest assured, in this forum, your tactic will continue to be dismantled and diluted and your Big Lie exposed for all to see.
Blame me for your failure to persuade anyone all you like. You were failing miserably well before I decided to club you like a baby seal. The initial failure resides in your tactic of choice. It was madness to think that tactic would work here. It shows a total lack of knowledge of the forum and teh audience and knowing the forum and the audience is critical in formulating effective propaganda. Madness is like gravity. All it takes is a little push and a little push was all I provided. Your failure is yours. It is rooted firmly in you poor choices.
Enjoy.
I sure am.
BTW, nutters, there are at least two minor historical “errors” in Palin’s statements, see if you can identify them and then see if you can explain exactly why they are errors.
I have no idea whether kderosa is a troll. I had never heard that term until I started visiting this site. You could have told me that trolls were male trollops. What I do know is that this topic has generated 700 comments. The defense of Ms. Palin’s take on Paul Revere has been nothing if not persistent and the motivations for that defense are ultimately immaterial. But while I learned some things that I did not know before, and appreciate the serious research efforts undertaken by a number of people, especially Elaine, Buddha and, yes, kderosa, my view remains that Ms. Palin’s statements fit a pattern we have observed for three years, a lethal combination of mangled facts and mangled syntax delivered in a folksy style intended to suggest genuineness, but hiding a complete lack of substance.
Ms. Palin has a tendency to explain her public embarrassments as products of off-the-cuff answers to “gotcha” questions, the explanation she provided in this case on Fox News the day after the event. But the Paul Revere comments came in response to a reporter’s request for her observations following her tour of Boston historical sites. I wouldn’t exactly equate that to a presidential press conference.
We ascertain the meaning of a person’s statement through the words that are used and the order in which they appear. We interpret words with reference to their ordinary meanings in common usage. Ms. Palin’s precise description of Paul Revere was “…he who warned the British that they weren’t gonna be takin’ away our arms, uh, by ringin’ those bells and, um, makin’ sure as he’s ridin’ his horse through town to send those warning shots and bells that we’re gonna be secure and we were gonna be free. And we we’re gonna be armed.” An ordinary person hearing those words will conclude that the esteemed Mr. Revere was riding through villages ringing bells and firing shots, a serious testament to his multi-tasking skills, especially given the fact that he didn’t have access to a repeating rifle ( the Tea Party having dumped the most recent shipment into Boston Harbor). Mr. Revere’s subsequent capture and his statements to British officers are not referenced in Ms. Palin’s statement, so whatever “warnings” he may have given to British soldiers has no bearing on one’s interpretation of Ms. Palin’s words. I stand by my fictional Pearl Harbor analogy.
Now I also understand that many supporters of Ms. Palin resent what they perceive to be unfair attacks on her intelligence by pointy-headed liberal intellectuals and snooty elitist snobs. This defense reminds me of the confirmation battle over Richard Nixon’s nomination of G. Harrold Carswell to the Supreme Court in 1970, during which Sen. Roman Hruska of Nebraska offered the following on Judge Carswell’s behalf: “Even if he were mediocre, there are a lot of mediocre judges and people and lawyers. They are entitled to a little representation, aren’t they, and a little chance?” That defense is no more effective for Ms. Palin than it was for Judge Carswell. I don’t want mediocre people on the Supreme Court or in the White House. If that makes me an “elitist,” I stand convicted.
@Buddha, I see you are once again out of substantive points and have reverted to old ways. Repeating your points over and over doesn’t make them any less wrong. And citing FRE 804(b) doesn’t mean you understand it.
“never allow the public to cool off; repeat it frequently”
See pot, kettle, black.
“Then you are disagreeing with the FRE and FRCP and not just me, dumbass.”
No, sumbass, I am only disagreeing with your interpretation of the FR and FRCP. As, we see from above your anterpretation skills are subpar at best.
never leave room for alternatives; never accept blame; concentrate on one enemy at a time and blame him for everything that goes wrong
“Federal Rules of Evidence – Article III – Hearsay
Rule 801 (c ) – ‘Hearsay’ is a statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted.
Rule 802. Hearsay Rule
Hearsay is not admissible except as provided by these rules or by other rules prescribed by the Supreme Court pursuant to statutory authority or by Act of Congress.
804 (b) – Hearsay exceptions.
The following are not excluded by the hearsay rule if the declarant is unavailable as a witness:
(1) Former testimony. Testimony given as a witness at another hearing of the same or a different proceeding, or in a deposition taken in compliance with law in the course of the same or another proceeding, if the party against whom the testimony is now offered, or, in a civil action or proceeding, a predecessor in interest, had an opportunity and similar motive to develop the testimony by direct, cross, or redirect examination.”
There are the Rules proper. It doesn’t take an interpreter to see that you were wrong unless you don’t speak English. Fortunately for you, as evidenced by your language skills, there is a case to be made that you indeed do not speak English as either a primary, secondary or tertiary language.
“The proof for the reasonable non-propagandists is in the comparison of Palin’s statement to the deposition of Paul Revere – the only legally admissible evidence of the events in Paul Revere’s life on the night of April 19, 1775.”
I continue to disagree.
never admit a fault or wrong;
You continue to be wrong then. See above citation of, oh, what’s that thing called again . . . THE LAW
“You can bleat to the contrary all you want.”
My bleats are in response to your bleats.
never allow the public to cool off; repeat it frequently
No. Your bleats are part of your broken tactic. And as I said . . . fully expected.
“The argument has been won already.”
Is this on the theory that if you say it enough timee it must be true? Your propgandic ways ares showing again.
concentrate on one enemy at a time and blame him for everything that goes wrong;
“I know you are but what am I” doesn’t work any better now than it did last week when you were in the third grade. It’s not my fault that you are bad at your job of spreading the Big Lie. It’s only my fault that I pointed it out for everyone to plainly see. The argument has already been won. That you cannot see this is either a direct result of your choice in tactics (the Big Lie says you must never admit a fault or wrong, never leave room for alternatives, never accept blame, concentrate on one enemy at a time and blame him for everything that goes wrong and repeat yourself frequently) or it is a direct result of your stupidity. Of course, there are those who would argue that your even attempting to utilize the Big Lie in a forum like this is prima facie evidence of your stupidity, but I digress . . .
“Reasonable, evidentiary based thinkers see the proof and know this is true.”
I think the judge wants to see you in chambers for your lesson on what evidence is and isn’t, 1L.
Then that judge wants to get overturned on appeal. The FRE is clear in stating what hearsay is and what the exceptions to the rule are. Revere’s deposition is admissible evidence. What you offered as evidence is not admissible as it is hearsay not covered by an exception.
You have a nice day gyrating, propaganda troll.
Otteray,
We play with our food when the offerings are tripe and re-hash.
😉
OS see Billy B’s post above. Feel shame and embarrassment. The advanced credentials you seem so proud of do not make you the smart, knowledgable person you seem to think you are. Your comments on this post show just the opposite and poor judgment to boot. A smart litigator would find and use these insane ramblings of yours to impeach you the next time you are deposed as a forensic expert. Good luck with that.
My, my, my…..
Projection much there Skippy? It is you who are so easily skewered. You who keeps trying to defend the indefensible. We have had trolls that went on for well over a thousand comments and they never made any headway either. As the Green One said, we kind of like to play with our food. It keeps us entertained. Do you have something substantive to say, or is it back to ad hominems and evading the issue?