13 Social Studies Facts Sarah Palin Got Wrong

During President Obama's second State of the Union address, on January 25, 2011, he referred to the present era in America as a "Sputnik moment." The comparison was meant to highlight the need for Americans to get serious about investing in biomedicine, information technology and clean energy in order to remain competitive globally. Palin, in a discussion with Greta van Susteren on Fox News the following night, took issue with the President's reference to the infamous Soviet satellite that became the first manmade object launched into orbit back in 1957. Calling it a "WTF moment," she argued that Obama "needs to remember that what happened back then with the former communist USSR and their victory in that race to space, yes, they won, but they also incurred so much debt at the time that it resulted in the inevitable collapse of the Soviet Union." Not EXACTLY a good counter to Obama's argument, which didn't say America should exactly emulate the Soviet Union of the 1950s. But fair enough. Except that Sputnik didn't come even close to bankrupting the Soviets. In fact, they didn't get into serious debt trouble until 30 years after Sputnik, and even then it was more a result of excessive military - not technological - investment.

During her 2011 "bus tour" across America, Palin stopped in the city of Boston, where she took in some of the local historical sites. Included in the tour was a stop at Paul Revere's shack. While there, Sarah explained to local TV cameras the significance of Revere's famous 1775 "midnight ride," undertaken just before the battles at Lexington and Concord. Unfortunately...she sort of got the entire thing backwards. According to Palin, Revere rode on horseback and "warned, uh, the British that they weren't going to be taking away our arms, uh, by ringing those bells..." As most American school kids are probably already aware, Revere actually rode from Boston to Lexington warning the COLONISTS that the British Army was marching in their direction. (He specifically was hoping to give advance notice of the Army's movements to John hancock and Samuel Adams, who would have likely been arrested by the Redcoats upon their arrival.)

Back when she was campaigning to be the Vice President in October of 2008, Palin gave an interview to local Colorado TV station KUSA-TV. At the end of the interview, she participated in the station's patented "Questions from the Third Grade" segment. (This was her first mistake...) When discussing the job of the US Vice President - you know, that job she was actively trying to get - she said that the VP is "in charge of the United States Senate," and could "get in there with the Senators and make a lot of good policy changes." Now, granted, the Constitution does state that the Vice President of the United States is "President of the Senate..." But if you keep reading the rest of that very same sentence, it also says "but [the VP] shall have no vote, unless they be equally divided." So there's that. Also, in practice, the VP's job has become more and more ceremonial in the Senate. During his entire tenure as VP, the not-exactly-power-shy Dick Cheney only cast eight tie-breaking votes. So far, Joe Biden has cast exactly none.

In May of 2010, Palin appeared on Fox News' "The O'Reilly Factor" to talk about the controversy over the "National Day of Prayer." During the discussion, she boldly announced that the US should base its laws on The Bible, just as the Founding Fathers intended. The full quote: "I think we should keep this clean, keep it simple, go back to what our founders and our founding documents meant. They’re quite clear that we would create law based on the God of the Bible and the 10 commandments, it’s pretty simple." One would think that if the Founding Fathers were "quite clear" on basing their laws on the 10 Commandments and the Bible, that would have included mentioning any of these concepts in the actual legal document they were preparing. Also, one would think that Thomas Jefferson might not have said things like this, if he had set up a government based on The Bible: "elieving with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.

While running for the governorship of Alaska back in 2006, Palin - along with all the other candidates - was asked to fill out a questionnaire about some of her basic political beliefs. One of the questions asked if she was offended by the use of the phrase "Under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance. Palin responded: "Not on your life. If it was good enough for the founding fathers, its good enough for me and I’ll fight in defense of our Pledge of Allegiance." But, of course, the Pledge wasn't "good enough" for the Founding Fathers. It was not written until 100 years AFTER the Revolutionary era, in 1892, by a man named Francis Bellamy. Plus, the phrase "Under God" wasn't part of Bellamy's original work, and was inserted into the Pledge in 1954.

In a Facebook post in support of New Hampshire Senate hopeful Kelly Ayotte in July of 2010, Sarah Palin remarked that she and her family were getting ready for a trip to Alaska's Kodiak Island. She wrote: "As we work and sightsee on America's largest island, we'll get to view more majestic bears, so now is a good time to draw attention to the political equivalent of the species." Kodiak Island, while quite large, does not actually win the title of America's Largest Island. That honor goes to Hawaii, which is about 500 square miles larger. But don't worry about Kelly Ayotte. She went on to win the election anyway and is now the Junior Senator from New Hampshire.

In a chapter of Palin's book "America by Heart: Reflections on Family, Faith and Flag," she discusses her views on feminism and attempts to tie them in with the views of well-known American activists Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony. Palin wrote: "Susan B. Anthony saw the fight for the rights of the unborn as part of the broader fight for women’s rights." This echoes a frequent argument made by anti-abortion activists, who often claim Susan B. Anthony as one of their own. (One anti-abortion committee actually calls itself "The Susan B. Anthony List.") Unfortunately, it's not really accurate. Anthony had nothing to say about abortion in any of her personal or political writings, even though it was relatively common during her lifetime. Many have suggested an anonymous commentary from the time opposing abortion - signed only by "A" - was written by Anthony, but this has never been proven.

During a speech at a Right to Life fundraising banquet in Wisconsin in November of 2009, Sarah Palin discussed the redesign of US coins. Specifically, she took issue with a decision to move the phrase "In God We Trust" to the very edge of the coins. "Who calls a shot like that?," she asked. "Who makes a decision like that? It's a disturbing trend." The implication was clear - Democrats and the Obama Administration were to blame for the decision, part of a recent "trend" de-emphasizing the importance of God in America. The argument echoed a common conspiratorial e-mail that had been circulated among conservatives for years. It turns out, the new coins with the moved slogan were not the work of fiendish anti-God Democrats, but were commissioned by Congress back in 2005...when it was controlled by Republicans. Also, President George W. Bush had signed off on the redesign.

In 2009, Palin resigned from her position as Governor of Alaska amidst a variety of scandals and ethical complaints. She claimed to be acting in the best interests of her State, allowing the public's business to continue without the distraction of all this controversy. This, of course, raised the question of what she would do as President, should a similar situation arise. (A President Palin certainly wouldn't be the first sitting Commander-in-Chief to face an ethics investigation.) When the question came up on "Good Morning America," Palin told ABC News' Kate Snow: "I think on a national level your department of law there in the White House would look at some of the things that we've been charged with and automatically throw them out." There is no such thing as the White House Department of Law.

During the 2008 campaign season, Palin did an interview on conservative talk radio station WMAL. At the time, Palin had been criticizing presidential candidate Barack Obama for associating with radicals like the Reverend Jeremiah Wright and former Weatherman Bill Ayers. Specifically, she said the following: If [the media] convince enough voters that that is negative campaigning, for me to call Barack Obama out on his associations then I don't know what the future of our country would be in terms of First Amendment rights and our ability to ask questions without fear of attacks by the mainstream media. It's a bit complicated. Let's unpack. Basically, the media is trying to convince everyone that Sarah Palin is running a negative campaign, for the sole reason that she is running a political campaign, and is being relentlessly negative. (Unfair!) But the media's portrayal of her campaign is not just unfair...it is making her afraid to speak her mind, such that it is equal to a violation of her Constitutional right to free speech. But the First Amendment doesn't protect Americans from being criticized for speaking. (And thank goodness, as that would make "The Daily Show" far less entertaining.) All it does is say that the US government can't make certain kinds of speech illegal. (Obviously, there are limits to even this principle, such as the famous "yelling fire in a crowded theater" example, but for our purposes, this is how it works.) And since no one is threatening to make it illegal to imply that Obama consorts with terrorists from the '60s, there is no immediate threat to Sarah Palin's First Amendment rights.

Is it unfair to include this error, which could easily be just a slip of the tongue rather than a pernicious misstatement or a falsehood borne of ignorance? Probably. But it's a geography fact, and Sarah Palin got it wrong publicly. Plus I like 13 list items more than 12. So it stays! During a 2008 campaign stop in Laconia, New Hampshire, Palin elicited some boos and jeers from the crowd when she referred to the Granite State as part of America's "Great Northwest."

At a fundraiser in San Francisco in October of 2008, Palin paused to praise and honor the US troops currently deployed in Afghanistan. She said, "They are also building schools for the Afghan children so that there is hope and opportunity in our neighboring country of Afghanistan." As she was presently in San Francisco, as opposed to, say, Islamabad, one can be forgiven for assuming she was referring to the United States. Which clearly does not border Afghanistan, unless Mexico and Afghanistan decided to quietly switch places and not tell anyone.

Palin had her first significant sit-down interview after accepting the VP nomination with ABC News on September 11th, 2008. During the interview, she was asked about meeting foreign heads of state. Palin responded that she was just one of many VP candidates who had never met a foreign head of state before running on the presidential ticket: "I have not, and I think if you go back in history and if you ask that question of many vice presidents, they may have the same answer that I just gave you." It turns out, this is not just false, but spectacularly so. In the last 32 years, EVERY vice president had met with a foreign head of state before taking office. Every one. In fact, since WWII, the only VP likely to share Palin's lack of familiarity with meeting heads of state was Spiro Agnew. And we all know how well HIS tenure as VP worked out. Well, maybe Sarah Palin doesn't. (Sarah, he resigned from office after pleading no contest to not reporting 1967 income to the IRS!)