Thursday, November 28, 2019

Daniel Webster - America Rests Upon (Excerpt)

Daniel Webster: 

America Rests Upon Gratitude For Our Government 

Of And For The People


‘When, from the long distance of a hundred years, they shall look back upon us, they shall know, at least, that we possessed…gratitude for what our ancestors have done for our happiness.’


This excerpt from “The First Settlement of New England” by famed American orator and U.S. Sen. Daniel Webster is selected from the “What So Proudly We Hail” collection of Thanksgiving original documents and information about them. The collection introduces the speech: “In 1820, the bicentennial of the Pilgrims’ arrival at Plymouth Rock—well before Thanksgiving became a national holiday—the great statesman, orator, and United States Senator Daniel Webster (1782–1852) delivered this oration (excerpted) at the landing site.”

The online What So Proudly We Hail curricula, extended from a worthy book of the same name, includes videos, poems, discussion guides, and other excellent resources for families, schools, and civic organizations.

Standing in relation to our ancestors and our posterity, we are assembled on this memorable spot, to perform the duties which that relation and the present occasion impose upon us. We have come to this Rock, to record here our homage for our Pilgrim Fathers; our sympathy in their sufferings; our gratitude for their labors; our admiration of their virtues; our veneration for their piety; and our attachment to those principles of civil and religious liberty, which they encountered the dangers of the ocean, the storms of heaven, the violence of savages, disease, exile, and famine, to enjoy and to establish.

And we would leave here, also, for the generations which are rising up rapidly to fill our places, some proof that we have endeavored to transmit the great inheritance unimpaired; that in our estimate of public principles and private virtue, in our veneration of religion and piety, in our devotion to civil and religious liberty, in our regard for whatever advances human knowledge or improves human happiness, we are not altogether unworthy of our origin.

There is a local feeling connected with this occasion, too strong to be resisted; a sort of genius of the place, which inspires and awes us. We feel that we are on the spot where the first scene of our history was laid; where the hearths and altars of New England were first placed; where Christianity, and civilization, and letters made their first lodgement, in a vast extent of country, covered with a wilderness, and peopled by roving barbarians. We are here, at the season of the year at which the event took place.

The imagination irresistibly and rapidly draws around us the principal features and the leading characters in the original scene. We cast our eyes abroad on the ocean, and we see where the little barque, with the interesting group upon its deck, made its slow progress to the shore. We look around us, and behold the hills and promontories where the anxious eyes of our fathers first saw the places of habitation and of rest. We feel the cold which benumbed, and listen to the winds which pierced them.

Beneath us is the Rock, on which New England received the feet of the Pilgrims. We seem even to behold them, as they struggle with the elements, and, with toilsome efforts, gain the shore. We listen to the chiefs in council; we see the unexampled exhibition of female fortitude and resignation; we hear the whisperings of youthful impatience, and we see, what a painter of our own has also represented by his pencil, chilled and shivering childhood, houseless, but for a mother’s arms, couchless, but for a mother’s breast, till our own blood almost freezes.

The mild dignity of CARVER and of BRADFORD; the decisive and soldierlike air and manner of STANDISH; the devout BREWSTER; the enterprising ALLERTON; the general firmness and thoughtfulness of the whole band; their conscious joy for dangers escaped; their deep solicitude about danger to come; their trust in Heaven; their high religious faith, full of confidence and anticipation; all of these seem to belong to this place, and to be present upon this occasion, to fill us with reverence and admiration . . .

‘It Rests on No Other Foundation Than Their Assent’


The nature and constitution of society and government in this country are interesting topics, to which I would devote what remains of the time allowed to this occasion. Of our system of government the first thing to be said is, that it is really and practically a free system. It originates entirely with the people and rests on no other foundation than their assent.

To judge of its actual operation, it is not enough to look merely at the form of its construction. The practical character of government depends often on a variety of considerations, besides the abstract frame of its constitutional organization. Among these are the condition and tenure of property; the laws regulating its alienation and descent; the presence or absence of a military power; an armed or unarmed yeomanry; the spirit of the age, and the degree of general intelligence. In these respects it cannot be denied that the circumstances of this country are most favorable to the hope of maintaining a government of a great nation on principles entirely popular.

In the absence of military power, the nature of government must essentially depend on the manner in which property is holden and distributed. There is a natural influence belonging to property, whether it exists in many hands or few; and it is on the rights of property that both despotism and unrestrained popular violence ordinarily commence their attacks. Our ancestors began their system of government here under a condition of comparative equality in regard to wealth, and their early laws were of a nature to favor and continue this equality.

A republican form of government rests not more on political constitutions, than on those laws which regulate the descent and transmission of property. Governments like ours could not have been maintained, where property was holden according to the principles of the feudal system; nor, on the other hand, could the feudal constitution possibly exist with us.

Our New England ancestors brought hither no great capitals from Europe; and if they had, there was nothing productive in which they could have been invested. They left behind them the whole feudal policy of the other continent. They broke away at once from the system of military service established in the Dark Ages, and which continues, down even to the present time, more or less to affect the condition of property all over Europe. They came to a new country.

There were, as yet, no lands yielding rent, and no tenants rendering service. The whole soil was unreclaimed from barbarism. They were themselves, either from their original condition, or from the necessity of their common interest, nearly on a general level in respect to property. Their situation demanded a parcelling out and division of the lands, and it may be fairly said, that this necessary act fixed the future frame and form of their government.

The character of their political institutions was determined by the fundamental laws respecting property. The laws rendered estates divisible among sons and daughters. The right of primogeniture, at first limited and curtailed, was afterwards abolished. The property was all freehold. The entailment of estates, long trusts, and the other processes for fettering and tying up inheritances, were not applicable to the condition of society, and seldom made use of . . . .

‘Every Feeling of Humanity Must Forever Revolt’


I deem it my duty on this occasion to suggest, that the land is not yet wholly free from the contamination of a traffic, at which every feeling of humanity must forever revolt,—I mean the African slave trade. Neither public sentiment, nor the law, has hitherto been able entirely to put an end to this odious and abominable trade.

At the moment when God in his mercy has blessed the Christian world with a universal peace, there is reason to fear, that, to the disgrace of the Christian name and character, new efforts are making for the extension of this trade by subjects and citizens of Christian states, in whose hearts there dwell no sentiments of humanity or of justice, and over whom neither the fear of God nor the fear of man exercises a control.

In the sight of our law, the African slave trader is a pirate and a felon; and in the sight of Heaven, an offender beyond the ordinary depth of human guilt. There is no brighter page of our history, than that which records the measures which have been adopted by the government at an early day, and at different times since, for the suppression of this traffic; and I would call on all the true sons of New England to cooperate with the laws of man, and the justice of Heaven.

If there be, within the extent of our knowledge or influence, any participation in this traffic, let us pledge ourselves here, upon the rock of Plymouth, to extirpate and destroy it. It is not fit that the land of the Pilgrims should bear the shame longer.

I hear the sound of the hammer, I see the smoke of the furnaces where manacles and fetters are still forged for human limbs. I see the visages of those who by stealth and at midnight labor in this work of hell, foul and dark, as may become the artificers of such instruments of misery and torture.

Let that spot be purified, or let it cease to be of New England. Let it be purified, or let it be set aside from the Christian world; let it be put out of the circle of human sympathies and human regards, and let civilized man henceforth have no communion with it . . .

‘The Voice of Acclamation and Gratitude’


The hours of this day are rapidly flying, and this occasion will soon be passed. Neither we nor our children can be expected to behold its return. They are in the distant regions of futurity, they exist only in the all-creating power of God, who shall stand here a hundred years hence, to trace, through us, their descent from the Pilgrims and to survey, as we have now surveyed, the progress of their country, during the lapse of a century.

We would anticipate their concurrence with us in our sentiments of deep regard for our common ancestors. We would anticipate and partake the pleasure with which they will then recount the steps of New England’s advancement. On the morning of that day, although it will not disturb us in our repose, the voice of acclamation and gratitude, commencing on the Rock of Plymouth, shall be transmitted through millions of the sons of the Pilgrims, till it lose itself in the murmurs of the Pacific seas.

We would leave for consideration of those who shall then occupy our places, some proof that we hold the blessings transmitted from our fathers in just estimation; some proof of our attachment to the cause of good government, and of civil and religious liberty; some proof of a sincere and ardent desire to promote every thing which may enlarge the understandings and improve the hearts of men.

And when, from the long distance of a hundred years, they shall look back upon us, they shall know, at least, that we possessed affections, which, running backward and warming with gratitude for what our ancestors have done for our happiness, run forward also to our posterity, and meet them with cordial salutation, ere yet they have arrived on the shore of Being.

Advance, then, ye future generations! We would hail you, as you rise in your long succession, to fill the places which we now fill, and to taste the blessings of existence where we are passing, and soon shall have passed, our own human duration.

We bid you welcome to this pleasant land of the fathers. We bid you welcome to the healthful skies and the verdant fields of New England. We greet your accession to the great inheritance which we have enjoyed.

We welcome you to the blessings of good government and religious liberty. 
We welcome you to the treasures of science and the delights of learning. 
We welcome you to the transcendent sweets of domestic life, to the happiness of kindred, and parents, and children. 
We welcome you to the immeasurable blessings of rational existence, the immortal hope of Christianity, and the light of everlasting Truth!


New Ben Shapiro-Enabled Amazon Echo Can Automatically Own Your Liberal Relatives This Thanksgiving

Babylon Bee 🐝


SEATTLE, WA—Tech giant Amazon has a new update for their voice-activated smart speaker, the Echo. Users can now integrate the voice of Ben Shapiro—along with Shapiro-based artificial intelligence—to automatically own your liberal relatives at Thanksgiving. 

"We didn't just want this to be a gimmicky enhancement that shouts out 'facts don't care about your feelings' at random," said project-leader Arnio Clemson. "We wanted it to be as if Shapiro was really there, inside your house, engaging your relatives on all of their logical fallacies." Clemson says that the program—entitled "Auto-Shapiro"—even has advanced kosher programming for commenting on the foods being served and will regularly remind those it engages with that its wife is a doctor.

"With Auto-Shapiro, my liberal son-in-law starts in on his government-run health care nonsense and the tech just takes over from there. I just sit back, eat turkey, and enjoy the added saltiness of a few liberal tears to my meal," said early product-tester Errol Remus. 

While early testing has been mostly positive, Amazon has issued the warning to be careful if using the technology with any body-building trans relatives present. "We had a couple of people get choked out," Clemson warned. "The little guy seems to really like to provoke transexuals. Just be careful."

Amazon Echo with Auto-Shapiro integration is now available with free overnight prime shipping.

President Trump makes unannounced visit to US troops in Afghanistan

US President Donald Trump has made an unannounced visit to American troops in Afghanistan.
Speaking to troops at Bagram Air Field, Mr Trump said the US was "substantially" drawing down its troops in Afghanistan, without giving specific numbers.
The visit comes a week after a prisoner swap with the Taliban aimed at restarting talks with the group.
He also met President Ashraf Ghani.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-50594943

Nation's Progressives Give Thanks That They Have So Much To Be Angry About This Year

Babylon Bee 🐝


U.S.—In honor of Thanksgiving week, the nation's progressives have begun to give thanks that they have so much to be angry and offended about this year.

"Thank you, unspecified deity who may or may not exist, for giving us so much stuff to be outraged about," said Staci Walder, 42, of Portland, as she prepared her vegan, kale-wrapped turkey. "I'm truly humbled that you've blessed me with the Trump presidency, the patriarchy, the laws of economics, and biological facts to rage against."

"Every year, it's important to pause and recognize how much we have to be angry about."

"A lot of people struggle with gratitude, but I'm deeply thankful that the universe has given us a veritable cornucopia of things to be mad about," agreed Mary Wallace, 27, of New York. "I know that I come from a place of privilege, and when I think about those poor people who have absolutely nothing to be mad about, I utter a prayer of thanks to goddess."

Many progressives partake in an annual tradition of writing down all the things they're thankful to be mad about:
  • White people
  • Pronouns
  • Personal responsibility
  • Satire that does not affirm their viewpoint
  • Billionaires
  • Old tweets
  • 32-ounce sodas
  • Plastic straws
  • People who hold a steady job
  • Appropriating other cultures
  • Excluding other cultures
  • Bush
  • Obama
  • Trump
  • Babies
  • Kanye West
  • America
"If we'd all just remember to count our outrages, we'd have a much worse attitude all the time," Wallace said as she looked over her own list of offensive things that dare to exist.

"We should live our lives as though it's Outrage Thanksgiving every day."


Obscure Holiday Known As 'Thanksgiving' Apparently Celebrates Obsolete Custom Called 'Gratitude'



U.S.—With so many different cultures melting in the pot, it's hard for Americans to keep track of all the different customs and holidays everyone celebrates.

But a little-known holiday celebrated this Thursday apparently celebrates an obsolete, archaic custom called "gratitude."

"Apparently, people used to be thankful for things," said Dr. Fred T. Mann, who wrote his dissertation on the obscure holiday. "They would say what things they were happy to be blessed with, thanking some kind of deity or outside force for giving them things. It's unclear why. There's not much to be thankful for. And who are we supposed to thank, anyway? Everything good in our lives is our doing, while everything bad in our lives is someone else's fault, obviously."

Mann believes we've evolved past the need to give thanks, and so the holiday fell out of favor. "You can still see some people practice gratitude once in a while, but these people are backward and obviously privileged."

According to researchers, Americans would gather around a table, eat food, talk with family members, and carry out a strange tradition called "prayer" where they would thank somebody named "God" for "blessings" in their lives.

The holiday was eventually replaced with our more advanced, cultured holiday known as Black Friday, where we beat people to death to save $20 on a television set.

Fascinating Interview – Presidential Historian Doug Wead Discusses His Book About The Trump Presidency


Presidential historian Doug Wead was given unprecedented access to the White House and people associated with the Trump presidency for his book “Inside Trump’s White House: The Real Story of His Presidency.”  Mr. Wead discusses the experience.  

This is a must watch interview

Trump Should Absolutely Not Cooperate With The Judiciary Hearings



Democrats, having run byzantine hearings in basement bunkers and on live television in the House Intelligence Committee, are set to move on to Judiciary Committee hearings. The purpose of this set of hearings is to craft Articles of Impeachment to be voted on by the entire House. One difference from the previous hearings that Democrats are touting is that in the Judiciary the White House can participate. It absolutely should not.

According to the resolution that launched the impeachment inquiry, passing without one GOP vote, the White House may have lawyers present and able to ask questions in the Judiciary hearings. Democrats point to this as fairness in the process, citing the fact that many Republicans complained that the White House had no representation in the Intelligence committee hearings. Now they will claim the White House is being inconsistent if it does not participate with the new hearings.

This is nonsense. Pointing out the obvious unfairness of one part of this process does obligate those complaining about it to jump on board with another part of the process. Further more the participation is conditional. Chairman Jerry Nadler has wide latitude to restrict such participation if, for example, the White House fails to provide witnesses. Since we already know that administration officials are exerting executive privilege Nadler will have an excuse at the ready to shut down White House efforts at any time.

But even beyond the question of fairness, it makes no sense for the White House to legitimize the impeachment by playing a role in it. It is important to understand that Trump’s position, and that of most Republicans is not that Trump did not commit the crime, but that no crime ever occurred. To send lawyers to the hearings would send the message that there is something to get to the bottom of here, when there just isn’t.

As has been the case since Trump released the transcript of his July 25 phone call with Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky, there is no substantial disagreement among any of the parties of the basic facts of the case. Everybody agrees Trump wanted investigations into Hunter Biden linked Burisma, 20016 election interference, and more robust aid to Ukraine from Europe. Everyone agrees he told Zelensky that. Everyone agrees that the administration delayed military aid to Ukraine; everyone agrees that that aid was eventually released.

Democrats must show that something happened in the process of the aid being released that is bribery, or abuse of power, or whatever focus group tested nefarious term they wind up using tomorrow. Thus far they have done no such thing. There is absolutely no reason that the White House should participate in a fishing expedition for a crime that doesn’t exist.

Republicans on the committee like Doug Collins and Jim Sensenbrenner are more than capable of mounting a defense of Trump in public hearings. The very simple argument that the president used his legitimate power to delay the aid, that this was proper use, not abuse of power, does not require a team of legal experts to explain. Meanwhile, the Democrats convoluted theories about what the timeline implies, and their parade of pissed off diplomats who nobody elected, is about as simple Twitter’s algorithms.

The best thing the White House can do both politically and tactically is to ignore the hearings. Politically it makes sense because it mocks the impeachment, shows Trump isn’t worried about it, and lets him continue to stay focused on the nation’s business while Democrats tie Washington in knots to get to a suicide mission in a Senate trial.

Tactically it makes sense to refuse participation because just as clearly as there can be only one predetermined outcome in a senate trial, there is only one predetermined outcome to the impeachment inquiry in the House, unless polling pushes the Democrats onto the off ramp of censure.

The only possible upside to sending lawyers for the White House is the possibility that they can score enough points to further erode support for impeachment, but that’s an awfully long shot. Impeachment poll numbers have solidified somewhere in the neighborhood of the president’s job approval numbers. Jesus Christ could come down and make a speech on the House floor and those numbers probably wouldn’t move much. 

Sitting the hearings out is the only play here. When and if the time comes, Trump’s lawyers can fight on ground of their own choosing in a Senate firmly in the hands of his allies.

Coulter: Real Americans Honor Indians And The Courageous Pilgrims Who Civilized America

 Article by Ann Coulter in "The Daily Caller":

As every contemporary school child knows, the first Thanksgiving took place in 1621, when our Pilgrim forefathers took a break from slaughtering Indigenous Peoples to invite them to dinner and infect them with smallpox, before embarking on their mission to fry the planet so that the world would end on Jan. 22, 2031. (Copyright: Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez)

Consider this description of the Pilgrims’ treatment of the Indigenous Peoples:
“They were the worst of conquerors. Inordinate pride, the lust of blood and dominion, were the mainsprings of their warfare; and their victories were strained with every excess of savage passion.”

You’ve probably guessed — unless you are an American college student — that that’s not a description of the Pilgrims’ treatment of Indigenous Peoples at all. It is a description of some Indigenous Peoples’ treatment of other Indigenous Peoples, provided by Francis Parkman, the world’s foremost Indian scholar.

It was Indians, not Pilgrims, who let out the “Mohawk war-cry” that made the blood run cold.

This is why the Wampanoag had a lot to celebrate that first Thanksgiving. They were delighted to have such excellent (European) allies against the terroristic Iroquois and Narragansett.The Pilgrims also had much to be thankful for. Of more than 100 passengers aboard the Mayflower, only 44 survived the first winter, felled by scurvy, malnutrition and the bitter cold. Even the ones who made it did so largely thanks to the friendly Wampanoag, who shared their food with the Europeans and taught them how to till the land. 

The Puritans, who came soon thereafter, so loved their Indian compatriots that the great missionary John Eliot translated sermons for the Algonquians in their own language. Indeed, the very first Bible printed in the Western Hemisphere was Eliot’s Massachusett-language Bible, published in 1663, titled “Mamusse Wunneetupanatamwe Up-Biblum God.”

(For those interested in Coulter arcana, Eliot was an assistant of Rev. Thomas Hooker, the same Puritan minister that my ancestors followed to the New World.)

The warm relations between Pilgrims and the (mostly) gentle Algonquins doesn’t fit the White Man Bad thesis that is the entire point of all history taught in America today. In fact, as any sane, reasonable person can probably surmise: Some white men were kind, and some were cruel. Some Indians were neighborly — and some were bloodthirsty killers.

Parkman describes a typical Iroquois celebration that would cap off a war raid on their fellow Indigenous Peoples:

“The village was alive with sudden commotion, and snatching sticks and stones, knives and hatchets, men, women and children, yelling like fiends let loose, swarmed out of the narrow portal, to visit upon the captives a foretaste of the deadlier torments in store for them …. [W]ith brandished torch and firebrand, the frenzied multitude closed around their victim. The pen shrinks to write, the heart sickens to conceive, the fierceness of [the captive’s] agony … The work was done, the blackened trunk was flung to the dogs, and, with clamorous shouts and hootings, the murderers sought to drive away the spirit of their victim.”

The Iroquois, he writes, “reckoned these barbarities among their most exquisite enjoyments.”

[ASIDE: Compare Parkman’s thrilling passage to droning cliches like, “While America’s indigenous population at large is underrepresented in politics and popular culture, Native women are even more marginalized” (a current Harvard offering) — and you’ll understand why the kids don’t like to read anymore.]

And here’s an Iroquois practice that university professors might want to steal and ascribe to the White Man — don’t worry, your students aren’t bright enough to figure out that you’re lying to them.

After killing “a sufficient number of captives,” Parkman says, the Iroquois “spared the lives of the remainder, and adopted them as members of their confederated tribes, separating wives from husbands, and children from parents, and distributing them among different villages, in order that old ties and associations might be more completely broken up.” JUST LIKE TRUMP!!!

Here’s one for the Womyn’s Studies Department: Having completely conquered the Lenape, the Iroquois humiliated the survivors by making them take women’s names.

Before the first European stepped off Mayflower, the Iroquois’ genocidal wars against their fellow Indians had already depopulated large parts of New England. Their murderous raids had scattered the farming tribes in all directions, often to their demise. “Northern New Hampshire, the whole of Vermont and Western Massachusetts had no human tenants but the roving hunter or prowling warrior,” Parkman writes.

The irony of the moron’s version of Thanksgiving is that the brave and honorable attributes of the American Indian are drained from all the PC stories. In the made-up history, Indians are only pathetic.

By contrast, the true story told by Parkman shows both the savagery and superstition, but also the courage and honor. Thus, for example, the Hurons “held it disgraceful to turn from the face of an enemy when the fortunes of the fight were adverse.” As the Indian captive of the Iroquois was being tortured alive, Parkman reports, he raises his voice in “scorn and defiance.” How’s that for machismo?

That’s the reason we name our sports teams and military armaments after Indians. It’s a tribute to their honor, intelligence and bravery. It’s why Americans love to boast of having Indian blood — even when it’s not true (and not only in order to land a professorship at Harvard).

But that’s not the image the left wants for Indians. Oh, no. They want to re-brand Indians as loser victims, in need of liberals’ tender ministrations.

Real Americans honor Indians and also honor the courageous Pilgrim settlers who brought Christian civilization to a continent, a miraculous union that we celebrate on this wonderful holiday. Happy Thanksgiving!

https://dailycaller.com/2019/11/27/coulter-indians-pilgrims/


 shutterstock_252135307

Schiff Needs to Worry That Trump Might Release a Dozen Document Troves




Investigative journalist John Solomon has dropped some tantalizing news, that there are still “wide swaths of documentation kept under wraps inside government agencies” like the State Department that could have a big effect on the current impeachment proceedings in the House.


Here are some of the tranches of documents which Solomon listed. You can see his further questions here. 

1. Daily intelligence reports from March through August 2019 on Ukraine’s new president Volodymyr Zelensky and his relationship with oligarchs and other key figures. 

2. State Department memos detailing conversations between former U.S. Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch and former Ukrainian Prosecutor General Yuriy Lutsenko. 

3. State Department memos on U.S. funding given to the George Soros-backed group the Anti-Corruption Action Centre. 

4. The transcripts of Joe Biden’s phone calls and meetings with Ukraine’s president and prime minister from April 2014 to January 2017 when Hunter Biden served on the board of the natural gas company Burisma Holdings. 

5. All documents from an Office of Special Counsel whistleblower investigation into unusual energy transactions in Ukraine. 

6. All FBI, CIA, Treasury Department and State Department documents concerning possible wrongdoing at Burisma Holdings.

7. All documents from 2015-16 concerning the decision by the State Department’s foreign aid funding arm, USAID, to pursue a joint project with Burisma Holdings. 

8. All cables, memos and documents showing State Department’s dealings with Burisma Holding representatives in 2015 and 2016. 

9. All contacts that the Energy Department, Justice Department or State Department had with Vice President Joe Biden’s office concerning Burisma Holdings, Hunter Biden or business associate Devon Archer. 

10. All memos, emails and other documents concerning a possible U.S. embassy’s request in spring 2019 to monitor the social media activities and analytics of certain U.S. media personalities considered favorable to President Trump. 

11. All State, CIA, FBI and DOJ documents concerning efforts by individual Ukrainian government officials to exert influence on the 2016 U.S. election, including an anti-Trump Op-Ed written in August 2016 by Ukraine’s ambassador to Washington or efforts to publicize allegations against Paul Manafort.

12. All State, CIA, FBI and DOJ documents concerning contacts with a Democratic National Committee contractor named Alexandra Chalupa and her dealings with the Ukrainian embassy in Washington or other Ukrainian figure

The first obviously deals with why there may have been questions/delays in cutting aid to Zelensky until they made sure he was trustworthy, given the corruption history of so many Ukrainian officials. The second relates to why one might not feel comfortable with Yovanovitch in that position and/or think it was a better idea to remove her. 

There have been stories about the question of US Aid being involved in giving aid to Soros groups in other European countries. For awhile, Republican senators were looking into it. But the nothing further was heard about it. Solomon says that the Ukrainians were looking into whether the aid was spent properly but that the U.S. Embassy pressured them to stand down. Why? 

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) is already looking into the fourth group. He’s requested information from the State Department on those contacts. Solomon raises a simple question – was there any official determination ever made to justify Joe Biden’s threat to withhold the billion in aid? If it was because of corruption and not because of the prosecutor looking into Burisma, Hunter Biden’s firm, then where’s the official assessment on it? 

George Kent testified he stopped a project with Burisma because of his concerns about corruption. So as Solomon raises in seven, what was the project and who was behind it? Were the Bidens involved in it at all? 

What if anything did the State Department or other agencies do when Ukraine began looking into Burisma? And what did any of the agencies do in regard to questions of Ukraine meddling in the 2016 election? 

Sounds like this document drop would definitely give Schiff the triggering of all time. 

HT: Twitchy

Understanding the Roots of the War on History

Article by Richard Winders in "PJMedia":

"Our first contribution is one of omission. The time-honored stories of exploration and the biographies of heroes are left out." Charles A. and Mary Beard, The History of the United States (1921)

I am a historian by trade. One of the most important moments I experienced in my graduate training was when a professor explained that her doctorate was in the “philosophy of history,” not history itself. It is an important distinction because people equate history with mastering historical trivia. The possibility that there is a philosophy of or a way to think about history is rarely raised.

Actually, there are several different philosophies of history—often at odds with each other—not just one universal philosophy. During the early years of the American republic, history helped create a national identity and instill positive virtues in the public. Parson Mason Locke Weems turned to George Washington’s famous cherry tree-chopping incident to invent a memorable fable to teach children honesty. Other contemporaries agreed with this approach. Early feminist educator Emma Willard wrote in The History of the United States, Or, American Republic that “The most important advantage of the study of history, is improvement in individual and national virtue . . . [especially in] the history of the American Republic.” These authors presented the Founding Fathers and military heroes as role models. The fact that white males dominated the nation’s early historical narrative reflected society as it existed at that time. Nevertheless, the pursuit of republican ideology, conveyed by words like liberty and freedom, was believed to be the engine that drove the United States toward a new enlightened age.

Even as the new age dawned, others lamented that only a few groups really prospered.

Industrialization showered wealth on those who controlled capital but what about those who worked the machines and tilled the fields as well as the women and minorities who had even lower status?  There could only be prosperity and justice when society shared its treasure with all its members. To these early critics, economic factors—not ideology—motivated human actions. Karl Marx became the spokesperson for this emerging philosophy—Marxism.

In the early 20th century, a group of historians connected with the progressive movement declared war on traditional history. In 1921, husband and wife Charles A. and Mary R. Beard co-authored a high school textbook simply titled The History of the United States, a work that detailed the progressive movement’s plan to revolutionize teaching history. An online version of this important work can be found here. The volume’s introduction stated: “If the study of history cannot be made truly progressive [or organized] like the study of mathematics, science, and languages, then the historians assume a grave responsibility in adding their subject to the already overloaded curriculum.” Their approach expunged “The time-honored stories of exploration and biographies of heroes” and “all descriptions of battles” as unnecessary and even detrimental.

The Beards listed seven changes to the traditional narrative approach to history. First, their curriculum was topic-based. Second, these topics revealed how each had contributed to the nation’s development. Third, their approach “dwelt fully upon the social and economic aspects” of American history. Fourth, the causes and results of wars and the problems of financing and sustaining armed forces replaced military strategy. Fifth, discovery and exploration were omitted to make room for citizenship. Sixth, although recognizing America’s uniqueness in some areas, they believed attention must be paid to diplomacy, foreign affairs, world relations, and the influence of other nations. And seventh, they claimed that their approach would stimulate students to think and analyze, resulting in graduates ready for the modern world. Like Weems, the Beards believed historical instruction could mold the character of future citizens. We heard the fruit of the Beards' philosophical approach in Barrack Obama’s famous Berlin speech, where an American president declared himself a citizen of the world.

Other progressive historians reinforced this view of history in which economic factors drive history. In particular, the Marxist notions of property and class struggle began to gain favor. These authors and their works shaped several generations of students, who would, in turn, become authors and teachers. While the Beards and most progressive historians have largely been relegated to historiographic reading lists, their influence on the modern history profession cannot be overstated. The popularity of Howard Zinn’s A People’s History of the United States demonstrates how widely accepted and entrenched the progressive interpretation of history launched by the Beards has become.

This economic approach to history has been popular on campuses and in textbooks for years. Examples are familiar: the American Revolution was a war for economic independence; the Founding Fathers were rich white men who established a government to protect their own interests; the nation was built by the labor of workers who toiled for the benefit of slave owners and industrialists; the Westward Expansion stole land at the expense of Native Americans and Mexicans; and women and minorities endured a menial and minimal existence. Words such as liberty or freedom masked bigotry and greed. Heroes were not the misguided men who fought for kings and capitalists on faraway battlefields but those who struggled in factories and fields against oppression. It was a world that cried out for fairness and change as well as a world, too, in which the individual triumphed only if assisted by the power of the government, the basic tenet of progressivism. The case can be made that all historical interpretations have a political agenda at heart. However, progressive historians created a world view designed to help politicians reconstruct society.

Victimhood is key to the progressive interpretation of history. Basically, if someone gains then someone else loses. Thus, history becomes a scorecard for identifying winners and losers. Those with wealth and power use it to oppress others. The goal of progressive history is not to understand the past but to identify guilty parties. Assigning roles of oppressor and oppressed (i.e., victim) signal which past wrongs must be righted. Since the guilty culprits are dead, the responsibility to make things right rests with their progeny. The beneficiaries aren’t the original victims but their descendants. An economic redistribution of wealth is usually suggested to demonstrate contrition.

To modern progressives, no narrative can exist other than the claim that powerful groups oppress less powerful groups, which supports the moral, legal, and political implications that history’s victims deserve restitution. Progressive history strikes at the very root of the early American republican historical narrative by rejecting the notion of American exceptionalism. Rather than acknowledge and celebrate the Founding Fathers and other early heroes, progressive historians denigrate them and work to remove them from the public discourse. Look no further for an explanation of what is happening to statues deemed offensive and guilty of some past injustice.

Why do historical interpretations matter? The boundary between history and politics is razor-thin and too many practitioners claim to be historians when in fact they are political operatives. I am not referring to just the academic voices in the classroom crying for social justice but the advocational historians who strive to maintain their group heritage and/or identity. Both can be extreme in their own way, picking the historical “facts” that support their view of the past. Moreover, the struggle for control of the historical narrative has made the field unappealing to the public in general and students in particular. It is an unhealthy situation for both the profession and the society it professes to serve.

We have all heard the well-worn rejoinder, "Those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it." Nevertheless, many in our society go about their daily lives with little or no regard for history or those who write it. It is enough to beg the question, "Is history obsolete?" The answer, of course, is no. However, it is time that those in the profession reevaluate how we present history to the public and adopt strategies to address the problem of societal disinterest. If no remedy is found, it is historians themselves who face becoming irrelevant.


 Image result for pictures of removal of historical statues"

MAGAnomics: Winning the Trade War

Chinese State Councillor Wang Yi: “There is no way out for the zero-sum games of the United States. Only win-win cooperation between China and the United States is the right path”

I can’t stop laughing…. just too darned funny.  CTH has long outlined how President Trump has taken the decades-long panda-mask game/approach of Beijing and mirrored it right back upon them.  Nov 23, Chinese Councilor Wang Yi, while delivering a strongly worded statement to G20 ministers, is positively verklempt in his open admission therein.

Our President Trump is the only person who could have delivered this wonderful outcome… well done.  Beijing is very angry about how a U.S. President is disrupting a new world economic order that China has so artfully manipulated for the past two decades.
It is simply beyond delicious.
(Reuters) – The United States is the world’s biggest source of instability and its politicians are going around the world baselessly smearing China, the Chinese government’s top diplomat said on Saturday in a stinging attack at a G20 meeting in Japan.
Relations between the world’s two largest economies have nose-dived amid a bitter trade war – which they are trying to resolve – and arguments over human rights, Hong Kong and U.S. support for Chinese-claimed Taiwan.
Meeting Dutch Foreign Minister Stef Blok on the sidelines of a G20 foreign ministers meeting in the Japanese city of Nagoya, Chinese State Councillor Wang Yi did not hold back in his criticism of the United States.
[…]  The United States has, for political purposes, used the machine of state to suppress legitimate Chinese businesses and has groundlessly laid charges against them, which is an act of bullying, he added.
“Certain U.S. politicians have smeared China everywhere in the world, but have not produced any evidence.”
The United States has also used its domestic law to “crudely interfere” in China’s internal affairs, trying to damage “one country, two systems” and Hong Kong’s stability and prosperity, he added.
[…] “There is no way out for the zero-sum games of the United States. Only win-win cooperation between China and the United States is the right path.”  (more)
How’d ya like ‘dem apples:
.
.
.
.

Report: 3 women accuse EU Amb. Sondland of sexual misconduct

OAN Newsroom
UPDATED 5:24 PM PT — Wednesday, November 27, 2019
EU Ambassador Gordon Sondland is facing several allegations of sexual misconduct. On Wednesday, ProPublica reported three women have accused Sondland of “unwanted sexual contact” in a business setting.
One woman said the ambassador exposed himself during a meeting and she fell over the back of a couch trying to get away from him. The report said Sondland engaged in “professional retaliation” against his alleged victims after they rejected him.
The reported incidents spanned over a seven year period; the most recent case happened nearly a decade ago.
Ambassador Sondland denied the allegations and has since issued a statement.
“In decades of my career in business and civic affairs, my conduct can be affirmed by hundreds of employees and colleagues with whom I have worked in countless circumstances,” stated Sondland. “These untrue claims of unwanted touching and kissing are concocted and, I believe, coordinated for political purposes.”
The ambassador’s lawyer, Jim McDermott, said these accusations came from individuals who “pursued Ambassador Sondland for financial and personal gain.” McDermott suggested they may be retaliating because the ambassador declined their business proposals.

Why Is Black Friday Called..

Fee.org

Why Is Black Friday Called Black Friday?

Despite the holiday’s popularity, most people have no idea why Black Friday is called Black Friday.

I’ve never understood Black Friday. Hoards of people scrambling to buy stuff on the busiest shopping day of the year? It sounds dreadful. Instead of lazing in gratitude with a belly full of turkey and pie, people descend on stores in the wee hours to consume more.

No thanks.

Still, there’s no denying Black Friday is a big deal. Last year 165 millionAmericans—half the population—shopped on the weekend of Black Friday, according to the National Retail Federation. Shoppers spent a record $6.22 billion in online sales alone. Total sales usually range from $50 to $60 billion.

Despite the holiday’s popularity, most people have no idea why Black Friday is called Black Friday.

When I started researching for this article, I was a bit fuzzy on Black Friday’s origins myself. Turns out I wasn’t the only one. My wife had no idea. I asked one wicked smaht friend. He was clueless. One young person I asked said he’d heard Black Friday stemmed from the slave trade. (For the record, that’s a myth.)

So what’s the truth? And why do so few people know the origins of a popular holiday?

First, this isn’t the only Black Friday. Several historical events were dubbed Black Friday, including the Panic of 1869, which involved the Grant Administration releasing a large supply of gold to spite speculators trying to corner the market. That’s the official version, anyway. All you really need to know is that gold prices tanked, fortunes were lost.

That has nothing to do with Thanksgiving or shopping, but it’s one reason people are confused about Black Friday. The bigger reason though is the origins of this Black Friday are organic and hazy. In fact, there are at least three competing explanations for why we call Black Friday “Black Friday.”

Black Friday as National Hooky Day

The first record we have of anyone referring to the day after Thanksgiving as “Black Friday” is found in an obscure magazine from the 1950s. It was a reference to Americans playing hooky—skipping work—on Friday so they’d have a four-day weekend.

The article, titled "What to Do about Friday After Thanksgiving," appeared in Factory Management and Maintenance, a periodical for engineers and factory managers. It talked about the problem of people not showing up for work after Turkey Day.
"Friday-after-Thanksgiving-itis" is a disease second only to the bubonic plague in its effects. At least that's the feeling of those who have to get production out, when the "Black Friday" comes along. The shop may be half empty, but every absentee was sick—and can prove it. What to do? Many companies have tried the standard device of denying Thanksgiving Day pay to employees absent the day before and after the holiday. Trouble is, you can't deny pay to those legitimately ill. But what's legitimate? Tough to decide these days of often miraculously easy doctors' certificates.

Basically, Black Friday was the 1950s equivalent of Monday after the Super Bowl. Everyone just called in sick. As a result, productivity tanked. Nobody really knew what to do about it, which is probably why many companies just started giving workers the day off.

Black Friday as Chaos and Exploitation


I’d never heard the hooky version of Black Friday. I’d always assumed that the name had something to do with the holiday’s craziness. Something like this…

If you think I’m joking, consider that since 2006, a dozen people have diedduring the shopping craze and more than a hundred have been injured. When people assume this is why we call the holiday Black Friday, they’re not exactly wrong.

Since everyone was playing hooky in the 1950s (see item #1), I guess they had to do something. For many Americans, this meant buying stuff. This turned Black Friday into one of the busiest shopping days of the year—the busiest in some cities, including Philadelphia.

Not long after the phrase “Black Friday” appeared in Factory Management and Maintenance, Philadelphia law enforcement started to use the term Black Friday to refer to the floods of shoppers who descended on the city between Thanksgiving and the Army-Navy football game on Saturday.

In this narrative, Black Friday is chaos, consumerism, traffic congestion, and worker exploitation.
This was creating all kinds of headaches for cops, and we see in this origin story the first seeds of labor discontent associated with the holiday. The long hours and high stress strained public resources. Cops were forbidden from taking off.

"It was a double whammy," Bonnie Taylor-Blake, a neuroscience researcher at the University of North Carolina, told CNN in 2014. "Traffic cops were required to work 12-hour shifts, no one could take off and people would flood the sidewalks, parking lots and streets. The cops had to deal with it all and coined the term."

Though the term was mostly used in Philly, some New Yorkers were also complaining about “Black Friday.” A report from 1961 mentions New Yorkers waiting in traffic “through 13 changes of a single traffic light” and bus drivers on strike.

In this narrative, Black Friday is chaos, consumerism, traffic congestion, and worker exploitation.

Black Friday as Merchants Getting into the Black


It’s no surprise retailers hated this big shopping day associated with such dark imagery. Let’s face it, the term Black Friday sounds rather ominous.

To solve this problem, some stores out east got together in the early 1960s to rebrand Black Friday “Big Friday.” Great idea, right? Well, it didn’t take.

In fact, nearly a quarter century later, Philadelphia department stores were still resisting the term, which media had attached to.

"Black Friday is a phrase that's sinful and it's disgusting,” one local department store chairman told the Inquirer in 1985. "Why would anyone call a day, when everyone is happy and has smiles on their faces, Black Friday?”

Though the term was not yet popularized nationally, the phrase had taken on a life of its own. Perhaps realizing they were stuck with the Black Friday label, stores began to talk about Black Friday putting them “in the black.” (Historically, stores recorded losses in red ink and profits in black ink.)

This explanation suited retailers and matched their reality.

“It’s a misnomer, but 20, 30 years ago, people did view Black Friday as the day that retailers started to be ‘in the black’ after a year of not being in the black,” Ray Hartjen, a retail analytics expert at RetailNext, told Vox. “All the volume through the holiday season made them profitable retailers.”

The earliest known reference to Black Friday as a day when stores are finally making profits comes from a 1981 Philadelphia Inquirer article.
How the day got its name is a matter of debate. Shoppers contend that it is derived from the enormous crowds that make shopping somewhat unpleasant. But merchants say it has to do with the fact that the level of sales before Christmas can mean the difference between losses for the year—or red ink on a retailer's ledger—and profits—or black ink.

In the late 1980s and 1990s, as more and more retailers began to see Black Friday as the season when they finally covered their expenses—rent, payroll, benefits, legal fees, taxes, etc.—they began to embrace the name, giving rise to its popularity.

The Black Friday Debate


The historical narratives of Black Friday compete with one another today in large part because they are part of a larger political narrative.

Some see Black Friday as a day when greedy corporations exploit workers for long hours to profit from the consumer hoards. Others see Black Friday as a day when businesses make a killing by offering blowout deals, and consumers get to buy the next greatest thing.

In recent years, retailers raised the stakes by opening stores earlier and earlier.

In 2003, stores like Walmart, Kmart, and (the recently bankrupt) Sears offered pre-dawn sales for the first time. That same year Black Friday became the most profitable shopping day of the year in the US for the first time ever, according to the International Council of Shopping Centers.

Encouraged, retailers began opening earlier and earlier. What started as 5 a.m. openings became 2 a.m., and then midnight. In 2011 many stores opened on Thanksgiving for the first time.

Barbara Kahn, a marketing professor at the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania and author of The Shopping Revolution, told Vox that Black Friday “creep” is the natural outcome of free-market competition.

Consumerism may be vulgar, but it beats hunger and poverty seven days a week.
“When someone is offering 50 percent discounts from 10 to 11 on Friday, you can offer 51 percent from 9 to 10 on Friday,” said Kahn. “That competitive response will cause the creeping behavior—it getting earlier and earlier—because you want [customers] to buy from you instead of the competition.”

Basically, retailers are competing with one another to offer the best deals before their competition. Many see low prices and high profits as a win-win, but others see workers pressured into working the holiday season.

Whether one sees Black Friday as good or bad will depend on the person. People who view the world through the lens of exploitation and see consumerism as decadent or crass probably won’t like it. People who love good deals or appreciate the benefits of free-market capitalism likely will view Black Friday differently.

I may never step into a department store on Black Friday, but I know enough history to be grateful to live in a country so rich and free that literally half the population rushes out to buy stuff—after eating a massive feast.

Consumerism may be vulgar, but it beats hunger and poverty seven days a week.