You are exactly correct, my friend from Down Under.

If people would just stop for a minute and read what Revere himself wrote of the events…

http://www.masshist.org/database/img-viewer.php?item_id=99&img_step=1&tpc=&pid=&mode=transcript&tpc=&pid=#page1

it would seem quite clear that Mrs. Palin is indeed correct.

Not many politicians expose themselves to impromptu questions because the gaffe risk is so high. Palin took that risk dozens of times during her bus tour.

One thing I think this shows: Fear, even power, has been transferred. Maybe transferred is the wrong word because fear never influenced Palin to begin with. I’ve said that Palin has a genius but genius is not quite the right word either. Maybe it is integrity. She’s one of the few that has nothing to hide anywhere anyhow. And what a sorry testament to our ruling class that is.

Perhaps there is something to tell us in the story of Gideon and his 300 men who caused the enemy such confusion that they turned on themselves. This seems to be the case with the media’s own awareness that somehow this stupid woman is outsmarting them.

In Paul Revere’s own words, he was captured by the enemy, and an officer held a gun to his head. Revere told them the Militia were coming. Put yourself in his position — he wasn’t being a traitor: the bells were already ringing and people firing their guns in warning, excitement and as a threat. The British soldiers knew something was happening (after all they were there for a very express purpose, to try to head off a rebellion by confiscating weapons), and Revere, who no doubt expected to be shot at any moment (gun to his head), was taunting them. He was defiant, playing on their confusion and uncertainty, their fears, as the one honourable option he had left (as opposed to begging for his life). He stuck it too them at a time of incredible vulnerability, and it worked, because he was able to get away. And far from being helped by the information, the British were more likely spooked, which is no doubt what Revere intended.

Many Americans don’t seem to like that story because it hints of betrayal by Revere, which is clearly not the case. It was defiance. Whether it was smart or not is a different matter, but it worked out well enough for Revere’s side, and lets face it, considering he had a gun to his head, it was remarkably brave. A bit more empathy, and more commentators would be able to see it from that angle.

I’m from Australia, and I know the details of what happened, so why is it a stretch that Sarah Palin, who has shown an inclination to delve into historical detail, wouldn’t?

The reality is Palin is playing mind games with the press and the Left. She knows they will massively overreact to her smallest gaffe, so she is giving them “gaffes” that aren’t mistakes at all (and in the process highlighting their ignorance: the message is these people aren’t really that smart after all). They go over-the-top, and then get egg on their face. It is the psychology of the booby trap — they need to assume she is trapping them, and that means they have to be a lot more careful in reacting to her. Palin slows her enemies down, and the prime moment slips away.

Its almost cruel, and remarkable in how effortlessly Palin is slapping the press and Left around, while at the same time taking the wind out of her Republican rivals sails without needing to attack or criticise them directly. I don’t know if Palin can keep this up, but so far what we are seeing is political brilliance. And the Left are so busy convincing themselves what an imbecile Palin is, they can’t see what is happening.

Yes, I think she intended to make a point about the second amendment, and why we have the right to bear arms..but it got all mixed up in who did and did not warn who.

I don’t think it was a plot..I just think people did not understand what she said.

She’s smarter that the media think, and The Won much less so.

Misunderestimating Sarah; that ain’t smart. But it is the party line.

[Paul Revere] 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 and we were going to be armed.

The way the sentence is constructed shows an awareness that Paul Revere actually warned the British, but her subject isn’t Paul Revere and his activities; it is more likely the connection between freedom and the right to bear arms. She had two thoughts swirling around in her head.

“Palin appears to be referring to a part of the story which is not in Henry Wadsworth Longfellow’s poem but is described elsewhere in historical accounts, in which Revere is detained by the British and warns them, while at gunpoint, that 500 American militiamen awaited in Concord.

In her initial comment and on Sunday, Palin seemed to blend this aspect of the story with Revere actually riding around to warn the Americans that the British were coming. She described Revere warning the British by riding through town, firing warning shots and ringing bells. Warning shots and bells are not included in historical accounts of the ride, either.

“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 said to a local TV reporter.”