Actor Jon Lovitz Explodes At Obama: ‘What A Fucking Asshole’
Revere vs. Palin
Posted on June 7, 2011 by Brooks Bayne in Opinion
By now everyone in political circles has heard about Palin’s visit to Boston where she made the following statement about Paul Revere:
“He who warned the British that they weren’t going to be taking away our arms 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…”
Palin’s quote came from this video:
There are blogs, tweets, and Facebook wall posts galore claiming that Sarah was correct. And there are just as many social web opinions ripping her apart over her statements fitting the usual Palin-bashing.
But did Revere do the things Palin claimed? Here’s part of Revere’s own account:
“I observed a wood at a small distance and made for that. When I got there, out started six officers on horseback and ordered me to dismount. One of them, who appeared to have the command, examined me, where I came from and what my name was. I told him. He asked me if I was an express. I answered in the affirmative. He demanded what time I left Boston. I told him, and added 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 immediately rode towards those who stopped us, when all five of them came down upon a full gallop. One of them, whom I afterwards found to be a Major Mitchel, of the 5th Regiment, clapped his pistol to my head, called me by name and told me he was going to ask me some questions, and if I did not give him true answers, he would blow my brains out. He then asked me similar questions to those above.”
No mention about warning bells, warning shots, or arms, in this context, in Revere’s own story.
In “Paul Revere’s Ride” (by David Hackett Fischer) the author writes that there were 2 noted instances of gunfire, one singular shot first, and later, one volley of multiple guns, as the British approached Lexington Green. At this time, Revere had already been captured, and was traveling by horseback encircled by 10 British regulars who were also on horseback. Revere told his British captors that the first singular shot was a signal to “alarm the country”. Seeing that the British were troubled by this claim of Revere’s, Jonathan Loring, another captive held and traveling with the British, remarked about the bells they heard on their approach to Lexington Green, “The bell’s a’ringing! The town’s alarmed, and you’re all dead men.”
Words do mean things. Nothing in any account of Revere’s, or anyone else’s, has Revere firing shots, ringing bells, or even warning the British that they “weren’t going to be taking away our arms”, as Palin states. There were shots fired. There were bells being rung. There was what one could twist with tremendous liberty into a “warning”, but that was more an attempt on Revere’s part to intimidate the British than to warn them. However, history doesn’t match the word salad that Sarah served up.
What was Revere’s mission that historical night? ABC interviewed, Kristin Peszka, director of interpretation and visitor’s services at the Paul Revere House, which Palin visited Thursday, who was quote as saying:
“Revere’s assignment that night was to go to Lexington to warn Samuel Adams and John Hancock that British troops were moving in that direction from Boston.” (Peszka noted that Palin offered her convoluted account before touring the historic site.)
Finally, here’s Sarah doubling down on historical inaccuracies when asked about her original comments in another video recently:
“You know what? I didn’t mess up about Paul Revere. Here’s what Paul Revere did. He warned the Americans that “the British were coming, the British were coming.”
Guess who never said, “the British are coming”… you’d be correct if you guessed Revere.
Conservatism depends on the truth. Conservatism doesn’t rely on Palin being right or wrong, and I hope your conservatism doesn’t depend on defending “word-saladsmithing”. You can choose to learn, or you can choose to adopt false narratives to justify idol worship/over-zealous admiration of public figures.
Yeah, someone had to say it.
The Tragedy of Modern Life
Posted on January 12, 2011 by George Scaggs in Opinion
Unfortunately, it seems everything is political. In reaction to Saturday’s shooting in Tucson, Arizona in which six innocent people were killed and Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, among 12 others, was wounded, a familiar routine is quickly unfolding.
Any appropriate measure of solemnity in the face of a mass murder has immediately given way to mindless political rhetoric. Right on cue, media sources jumped to amazing conclusions about the motivations of the murderous shooter, Jared Loughner, and a feeding frenzy ensued.
The oft repeated drill is a reactionary broad-brush approach of smearing anyone or anything on the political right by associating them with the violent perpetrator de jour.
As one among many examples of the tactic, the Associated Press reported on Sunday, “…after her (Giffords) office was vandalized, she referred to the animosity against her by conservatives, including Sarah Palin’s decision to list Giffords’ seat as one of the top “targets” in the midterm elections.”
“For example, we’re on Sarah Palin’s targeted list, but the thing is, that the way that she has it depicted has the crosshairs of a gun sight over our district. When people do that, they have to realize that there are consequences to that action,” Giffords said in an interview with MSNBC. “
From what we know about this kid Loughner thus far, there are no indications that he is a Sarah Palin supporter, nor a consumer of Fox News or Limbaugh or anything else remotely smacking of conservatism for that matter. Even if he were, people cannot be held responsible for the impressions of a mad-man.
With scatter-shot precision, the AP continued, “Giffords is a moderate Democrat who narrowly won re-election in November against a tea party candidate who sought to throw her from office over her support of the health care law.”
While tying in the health care battle, AP conveniently scooped up the Tea Party in the process. By the end of the day, the internet was rife with inferences that somehow they, too, bore responsibility in the crazed actions of a disaffected dope-smoking loner.
Contrary to the accusations of commentators, politicos and their followers, ultimately, it is the scumbag killer who is responsible for his actions, not anyone else, certainly not Palin, Beck, Limbaugh or any other popular target of the left.
But the absurdity goes far beyond left-wing finger pointing and delves into the bizarre when the Communist thug Fidel Castro’s utterances on the matter are given weight. By Sunday evening, AP obviously found the Cuban dictator’s views relevant, reporting that he also denounced the attack.
“Even those of us who don’t share at all the politics and philosophies (of the Obama administration) sincerely desire that no children, judges, legislators or citizens of the United States die in such an absurd and unjustifiable way,” Castro said in an opinion piece titled “An Atrocious Act,”
The vaunted AP didn’t bother to point out the irony of such a point of view, given that it comes from a man who is responsible for imprisoning, torturing and killing political dissidents for over five decades.
In sum, Big Media’s coverage of the massacre and the accompanying leftist responses throughout the blogosphere and comments boards are telling.
The left’s accusations always reveal their methods and perspective. As in many previous instances, the left’s denouncements of “hate speech” from the right are full of mindless invective that sounds an awful lot like hate to everyone else. One can only imagine what they’re slinging around at places like The Huffington Post, the Center for American Progress or MoveOn about now.
As for Big Media itself, it is a curious thing. Their leftist tilt has been obvious for so long, their decline in both public esteem and wealth so steady, that their insistence in staying their chosen path seems to defy all logic.
Having observed this phenomenon for some 30 years, and having lived different phases of my life both within and outside the media’s sphere of influence, I have come to believe that there are, in fact, two worlds; one universe in which reality rests and then another one parallel to it.
In that parallel universe, perspective is shaped by AP, The NY Times, The Washington Post, all the major networks and 24-hr cable news outlets (just about anything consumed through television), most of what comes out of Hollywood, probably everything created by HBO, etc.
These outlets distribute a brand of “conventional wisdom” that is created and supported by leftist think-tanks, political operatives, unions, propaganda mills and government officials. Collectively, they constitute most of what Angelo Codevilla correctly deemed as “The Elite Ruling Class” in his prodigious essay on the subject.
Too many times now, I have stood and witnessed events with my own eyes and ears (including physical assault) only to find others perceive that something completely different took place. I have come to count on that opposing “point of view” always being the one propagated by the Elite Ruling Class.
In this modern age, it seems life is the accumulative experience of being continually marketed to. Whether it’s a product or service, a brand or fashion, an ideology or a candidate, it’s really all the same. The story of the mindless massacre in Arizona is no different. We are being marketed to.