Friday, July 4, 2025

Treasure Your Inheritance This Independence Day


Two hundred forty-nine years ago, a series of events culminated in America’s Declaration of Independence from Great Britain.  On June 7, Richard Henry Lee of Virginia put forth a resolution for independence before the Second Continental Congress.  On June 10, Congress postponed consideration of Lee’s resolution for three weeks as members struggled to build a consensus.  Despite this uncertainty, more vocal proponents for independence persuaded Congress on June 11 to appoint a committee to draft a formal declaration. 

That committee — consisting of John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, Roger Sherman, and Robert R. Livingston — worked from June 12 to June 27.  Or, more accurately, Jefferson worked on the Declaration, while Franklin and Adams provided several meaningful edits.  On June 28, a draft of the committee’s work was read in Congress.  After much debate and cajoling among representatives, the colonies officially severed ties with Great Britain on July 2.  (This is the date that John Adams believed would be celebrated as an American holiday.)  

With additional revisions to Jefferson’s work, Congress unanimously approved the final wording of the Declaration of Independence on July 4 and ordered it printed.  After the printing of about two hundred broadsides from John Dunlap’s Philadelphia print shop, The Pennsylvania Evening Post became the first newspaper to publish the Declaration on July 6.  Finally, Colonel John Nixon is credited as having given the first public reading of the Declaration to a crowd on July 8 in the Pennsylvania State House Yard (now Independence Square).

In honor of that last event, park rangers from the National Park Service hold a re-enactment of the Declaration’s first public reading outside Independence Hall (formerly the State House) on July 8 each year.  It is a grand spectacle and well worth attending.  It is also most likely an incorrect commemoration of history.  The July 8 reading definitely occurred, but there was an earlier reading on July 4 that was lost to history for two hundred years.

In a 1992 academic paper entitled “From the Here of Jefferson’s Handwritten Rough Draft of the Declaration of Independence to the There of the Printed Dunlap Broadside,” historian Wilfred J. Ritz provides evidence of a public reading on July 4, 1776 — the day Americans actually celebrate as their country’s birthday.  Ritz highlights the eyewitness testimony of Charles Biddle, who wrote in his autobiography, “On the memorable Fourth of July, 1776, I was at the Old State-House yard when the Declaration of Independence was read.  There were very few respectable citizens present.”

Ritz also notes the personal diary entries of Quaker historian Deborah Norris Logan.  Logan describes the Declaration’s reading on July 4 thusly:

It took place a little after twelve at noon and they then proceeded down the street, (I understood) to read it at the Court House.  It was a time of fearful doubt and great anxiety with the people, many of whom were appalled at the boldness of the measure, and the first audience was neither very numerous, nor composed of the most respectable class of citizens. 

The accounts of Biddle and Logan are significant because they both describe the gathering as filled with less than “respectable” citizens.  In other words, those Americans who first heard the Declaration of Independence were most likely common laborers and artisans — and not the wealthier Philadelphians who attended the festive official ceremony on July 8.  

In a research paper published four years ago, scholar Chris Coelho provides additional testimonial evidence that the July 4, 1776 reading took place and argues persuasively that the likely orator was either the secretary of Congress, Charles Thomson, or his senior clerk, Timothy Matlack.  Coelho produces enough circumstantial evidence for a reasonable person to conclude that the revolutionary firebrand Matlack was the man who first publicly declared America’s independence from Great Britain.  

Matlack was a delegate to Pennsylvania’s constitutional convention, a colonel in Philadelphia’s fifth militia battalion, and a well known public orator.  As Congress’s established penman, Matlack penned several petitions to King George III; George Washington’s formal commission as commander-in-chief of the Continental Army; and the signed, engrossed parchment now recognized as the official Declaration of Independence.  In other words, Matlack likely created and delivered a clean copy of the Declaration to the print shop of John Dunlap.  And Matlack was likely the speaker who addressed local Philadelphians on July 4, 1776 and read the Declaration of Independence publicly for the first time.

Why is it important to get this little bit of history right?  As Coelho argues, “the people who gathered outside Independence Hall” on July 4, 1776 “were the ones who drove the revolution in Pennsylvania.  Led by radicals including Timothy Matlack, the ‘lower sort’ forced Pennsylvania’s elite to accept independence.  Thanks to the pressure they applied in their colony, Congress was able to adopt the Declaration of Independence unanimously.”  What happened outside the Pennsylvania State House around noon on July 4, 1776 is much more than an esoteric footnote to a forgotten moment in history.  It rightly realigns that moment in history back to the common Americans, whose uncommon achievements birthed the United States.

As Marxist academics cemented their control over American universities in the 1960s, a wave of historical revisionism swept across the land.  More interested in “narratives” that supported their obsession with “class struggle,” professors rewrote the American Revolution as an almost meaningless contest between British aristocrats and American plantation masters over which elites would rule North America’s slaves and peasants.

Because the strong defense of individual liberty and inalienable rights directly conflicts with the Marxist prerogative of subsuming an individual’s will to that of the collectivist State, America’s cross-class, populist revolution remains historically inconvenient for today’s intelligentsia-in-name-only.  It is far easier for Marxist ideologues to argue that eighteenth-century colonists suffered from “false consciousness” than to recognize that poor and wealthy Americans fought together for individual freedom, national self-determination, and independence from tyrannical government.  As such, historians for a half-century have reframed the American War for Independence as largely an economic squabble between wealthy patricians on both sides of the Atlantic and ignored or outright erased the multitudinous efforts of common Americans to create a new country.  

While the lives of the Founding Fathers are examined for evidence that America’s first leaders lacked the “woke” pieties necessary for modern leftists’ respect, the lives of the farmer, soldier, mariner, craftsman, tavern owner, mother, wife, and patriot are hardly examined at all.  Today’s leftists topple statues of the Founding Fathers.  They vandalize monuments commemorating the world historical significance of the American Revolution.  But they also delete from our common historical memory the daring acts of defiance orchestrated by regular American colonists who considered themselves Sons and Daughters of Liberty.

For every John Hancock whose name was indelibly linked to America’s struggle for independence, there were a thousand men and women seeking freedom whose names can be found only in old town records or faintly chiseled on weathered gravestones.  These were the people who witnessed that July 4, 1776 reading of the Declaration.  It is they who turned that declaration into reality.

Freedom cannot be handed out.  Self-government is not cheaply earned.  Independence from tyranny is never a participation trophy.  Important ideas must be chased, grasped, fortified, and defended.  Revolutions don’t succeed because leaders decree they must.  They succeed because the beating hearts of a country’s people align together in common cause.  The Declaration of Independence is a glorious political document.  But America’s independence came from the accumulated actions of an untold many.  It was their sacrifice that built the foundations of these United States.

Whether you are a brand-new American citizen or the descendant of American revolutionaries, my advice is the same: Treasure your inheritance this Independence Day.



The Real Meaning of Independence Day


It's the 249th birthday of the United States. And as Americans begin to prepare for our nation's grand semiquincentennial celebration next year, it is worth reengaging with the document whose enactment marks our national birthday: the Declaration of Independence.

The Declaration is sometimes championed by right-libertarians and left-liberals alike as a paean to individualism and a refutation of communitarianism of any kind. As one X user put it on Thursday: "The 4th of July represents the triumph of American individualism over the tribalistic collectivism of Europe."

But this is anything but the case.

We will turn to lead draftsman Thomas Jefferson's famous words about "self-evident" truths in a moment. But first consider the majority of the text of the Declaration: a stirring enumeration of specific grievances by the American colonists against the British crown. In the Declaration's own words: "The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States."

One might read these words in a vacuum and conclude that the Declaration indeed commenced a revolution in the true sense of the term: a seismic act of rebellion, however noble or righteous, to overthrow the established political order. And true enough, that may well have been the subjective intention of Jefferson, a political liberal and devotee of the European Enlightenment.

But the Declaration also attracted many other signers. And some of those signers, such as the more conservative John Adams, took a more favorable view of the incipient America's inherited traditions and customs. These men thought that King George III had vitiated their rights as Englishmen under the Glorious Revolution of 1688 and the Bill of Rights that passed Parliament the following year.

It is for this reason that Edmund Burke, the famed conservative British statesman best known for his strident opposition to the French Revolution, was known to be sympathetic to the colonists' cause. As my Edmund Burke Foundation colleague Ofir Haivry argued in a 2020 American Affairs essay, it is likely that these more conservative Declaration signers, such as Adams, shared Burke's own view that "the Americans had an established national character and political culture"; and "the Americans in 1776 rebelled in an attempt to defend and restore these traditions."

The American Founding is complex; the Founders themselves were intellectually heterodox. But suffice it to say the Founding was not a simplistic renouncement of the "tribalistic collectivism" of Britain. There is of course some truth to those who would emphasize the revolutionary nature of the minutemen and soldiers of George Washington's Continental Army. But the overall sounder historical conception is that 1776 commenced a process to restore and improve upon the colonists' inherited political order. The final result was the U.S. Constitution of 1787.

Let's next consider the most famous line of the Declaration: the proclamation that "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." We ought to take this claim at face value: Many of the Declaration's signers did  hold such genuine, moral human equality to be "self-evident."

But is such a claim self-evident to everyone -at all times, in all places, and within all cultures?

The obvious answer is that it is not. Genuine, moral human equality is certainly not self-evident to Taliban-supporting Islamist goat herders in Afghanistan. It has not been self-evident to any number of sub-Saharan African tribal warlords of recent decades. Nor is it self-evident to the atheists of the Chinese Communist Party politburo, who brutally oppress non-Han Chinese ethnic minorities such as the Uyghur Muslims of Xinjiang.

Rather, the only reason that Jefferson -- and John Locke in England a century prior -- could confidently assert such moral "self-evidence" is because they were living and thinking within a certain overarching milieu. And that milieu is Western civilization's biblical inheritance -- and, specifically, the world-transforming claim in Genesis 1:27, toward the very beginning of the Bible, that "God created man in His image; in the image of God He created him."

It is very difficult -- perhaps impossible -- to see how the Declaration of 1776, the 14th Amendment of 1868, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, or any other American moral ode to or legal codification of equality, would have been possible absent the strong biblical undergird that has characterized our nation since the colonial era.

Political and biblical inheritance are thus far more responsible for the modern-day United States than revolution, liberal rationalism or hyper-individualism.

Adams famously said that Independence Day "ought to be solemnized with Pomp and Parade, with Shews, Games, Sports, Guns, Bells, Bonfires and Illuminations from one End of this Continent to the other from this Time forward forever more." Indeed, each year we should all celebrate this great nation we are blessed to call home. But let's also not mistake what it is we are actually celebrating.



🎭 π–πŸ‘π π““π“π“˜π“›π“¨ 𝓗𝓾𝓢𝓸𝓻, π“œπ“Ύπ“Όπ“²π“¬, 𝓐𝓻𝓽, π“žπ“Ÿπ“”π“ 𝓣𝓗𝓑𝓔𝓐𝓓

 


Welcome to 

The π–πŸ‘π π““π“π“˜π“›π“¨ 𝓗𝓾𝓢𝓸𝓻, π“œπ“Ύπ“Όπ“²π“¬, 𝓐𝓻𝓽, π“žπ“Ÿπ“”π“ 𝓣𝓗𝓑𝓔𝓐𝓓 

Here’s a place to share cartoons, jokes, music, art, nature, 
man-made wonders, and whatever else you can think of. 

No politics or divisive posts on this thread. 

This feature will appear every day at 1pm mountain time. 


In 1976 We Celebrated America’s Bicentennial By Painting Fire Hydrants, And It Was Magical

We have reason to feel hopeful this Independence Day, as we are intentionally remembering our history. It mattered in 1976, and it matters now.



In 1976 I was young enough to spend an afternoon digging in the backyard making mud pies, but old enough to learn the United States was celebrating its 200th birthday.

I knew because around town someone was painting the fire hydrants in patriotic red, white, and blue designs. Some hydrants were clever folk-art versions of the stars and stripes. Others depicted minutemen, and one hydrant near my grandfather’s house was a musket-toting dalmatian ready to defend the nation or put out a house fire. It was my favorite.

As we traveled for summer vacation, we learned that other towns in many states were painting patriotic fire hydrants too. We loved to point them out while riding loose, in the way-back of the station wagon. (Yes, 50 years ago, children were not legally required to be strapped down in a car.)  

Decorative fire hydrants were a close-to-home reminder of our bicentennial, and they stimulated teachable moments when a parent could explain who Betsy Ross was, or what the minutemen did, or that they did not know if dalmatians had a role in the Revolutionary War.

Bicentennial was everywhere in 1976. Everyone got into it. 

In school, we memorized “Paul Revere’s Ride” by Henry Wadsworth Longfellow. Our elementary school gave out red, white, and blue T-shirts with stars and stripes on the shoulder. They were printed in white with the name of our school and the slogan of the day, “The Spirit of ’76.”

Adults gave us bicentennial quarters, warning us to keep them: “That’ll be worth something someday, kid.” A compelling argument, but we soon broke down at the corner store, splurging on Everlasting Gobstoppers or Tootsie Rolls.

Image CreditU.S. Mint

My brother and I rarely got pop, but we begged for 7Up because of the company’s Uncle Sam cans. Like a mullet, it was business in the front and a party on the back of the can, each printed with part of a puzzle piece. Collect all 50 states, and it was said to make a picture of Uncle Sam. We kind of knew we would never get enough pop to complete the puzzle. Especially after we discovered Jolly Good pop had a joke printed inside on the bottom of every can. We dropped 7Up for the Jolly Good laughs.

Then, on another summer trip, we peered out the back window of that station wagon and saw a two-pump, country gas station with the entire Uncle Sam puzzle set up in its window.

“Dad! Stop!” 

He did. We marveled at the pyramid of cans from the front and back. This was before cell phones, of course, and it was not important enough to spend a shot of film on, but trust me, it was thrilling. 7Up came out with another series in 1979. It was a map of the United States, but by that time, a lot of moms had purchased so much 7Up that the whole country may have said, “We’re not doing that again!” or put in modern terms, “Too soon!”  

From the bicentennial coloring books to the parades and the most incredible fireworks display, my understanding of this country was seeded with the trappings of the 1976 bicentennial birthday celebration.

Now we are looking toward the semiquincentennial, aka, America’s 250th birthday. I’m glad because in 1976, I was pretty sure I would not live to see the tercentennial, and it made me sad.

Our nation has been through a lot in the last 50 years. But nothing like the generations before us, who boldly fought to write or preserve the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

Like every country, ours was a hard-fought victory. Some squares on our unchangeable historic quilt are not pretty, but our potential for beauty is unlimited, for we are free. We need to teach children all of it. 

We have reason to feel hopeful this Independence Day, since we are intentionally remembering our history again. It mattered in 1976, and it matters now.  

President Donald Trump kicks off the year leading up to the 2026 semiquincentennial celebration at the Iowa State Fairgrounds on July 3, 2025.  

The U.S. Semiquincentennial Commission has planned many events that invite youth and everyone else to get involved, like America Gives, an effort to boost volunteerism, and the Great American Road Trip, which highlights not only historic sites, but also modern points of interest to explore in every state.

What will today’s children remember of the semiquincentennial 50 years from now? Let’s show them why  America’s liberty, in all her fragility and resilience, is worth celebrating, all year long.



Freed US Hamas Hostage Tells Trump Moment He Knew the President Had Won Election


Katie Jerkovich reporting for RedState 

Freed hostage Edan Alexander, the last living American hostage held by Hamas, spoke to President Donald Trump at the White House and revealed that he knew Trump had won the election when his captors started treating him much better.

During a visit to the Oval Office on Thursday, Alexander and his parents were greeted by Trump and First Lady Melania Trump. Alexander, who was held in captivity for nearly 600 days before being freed on May 12, said that Trump's victory in November resulted in an immediate change by his Hamas captors.

Someone off-camera asked Alexander to "tell the president what happened when they announced that he had won the presidency, how the treatment was. It changed."

"It [became] a good place," Edan replied. 

Trump responded, "So they treated you bad," and Edan Alexander nodded in agreement.

The same person off-camera interjected, referring to Trump, "Because you were coming in, and they were afraid of you."

Edan agreed before Trump responded, "They weren't too afraid of [former President Joe] Biden." 

"So, they did immediately when we won, they gave you better treatment, you could see it," Trump added. 

Alexander spoke to members of the press following his visit, and said the reason he came to see the president was to "thank the person responsible for saving my life."

"I was deeply moved to be in the White House, the same place where my parents had fought for my release so many times, but this time together with them," Alexander told reporters.

"I told the most powerful man in the world what I went through, what my friends are enduring, and asked him to continue doing everything in his power," he added.

"I shared with the president my fear that continued fighting endangers the hostages," Edan continued. "I hope he can achieve another historic breakthrough—a comprehensive deal to free all 50 hostages. I told him I am confident he is the person who can make it happen. I'm deeply moved that I could celebrate my own freedom on the eve of Independence Day."

Alexander, a dual U.S.-Israeli citizen, had been held captive in Gaza since being captured in the massive October 7, 2023, Hamas terrorist attack on southern Israel before being freed May 12 -- 584 days after being captured.

On June 19, Edan was finally able to return to his New Jersey home and received a hero's welcome by his small town, RedState reported.

Hundreds of people lined the streets of his hometown in Tenafly, with massive crowds of supporters cheering for the 21-year-old as he was driven through the streets on his way home.

Supporters chanted, carried signs that read "Welcome Home Edan," and waved both Israeli flags and American flags during his return, according to reports:

Following Alexander's release in May, heartwarming videos and pictures surfaced on X showing him embracing his family, and their faces say it all.

The happy reunion occurred at the Israel Defense Base before he was sent to a medical facility to undergo additional treatment. An Israeli official reportedly said Alexander was in poor condition, but now he can finally get some real care, and they said he was "smiling" that he was coming home, RedState reported. 


One Ping Only Vasili


You guys know the background.  You know the context. You know the history.  You know all the nuances and Machiavellian manipulations that have brought us to this very specific moment.

Now, you are President Donald Trump and you are in a conversation with Vladimir Putin; a geopolitical ‘adversary’ whose current status was created by the same intelligence system operators that created your defined ‘enemy’ status within your own country.  You and Putin were both targeted by the same intelligence system, the CIA.

President Putin is essentially ambivalent to your targeted position, but defines his adversary as your Central Intelligence Agency.  You want to cut the Gordian knot, change the geopolitical world, create a strategic alignment; but to do that you need Putin to accept you do not view him as the enemy.  You also need to prove you have control over the apparatus he views as a threat.  How do you prove you have control over the agency?

Perhaps President Trump instructs the CIA to send one public message.  A message that: #1) outlines the CIA’s dual targeting of Trump and Putin; #2) that simultaneously proves your control over the CIA silo.

Was this the motive for the timing of the message from CIA Director John Ratcliffe?

As a singular datapoint a message to Putin through the CIA proving control sounds crazy.

However, when added to the timeline and overlaying even more events today, its not so crazy.

After the House sent the BBB to the Senate, President Trump went completely quiet about Russia-Ukraine conflict.  However, as soon as the Big Beautiful Bill was completed, President Trump notes a call with President Putin.

On the other side of the dynamic, Vladimir Putin said this:

Vladimir Putin does not view Americans as his enemy. Vladimir Putin views the CIA as his enemy.

Let’s look at the timeline with new datapoints to add.

.

If the CIA announcement was the ‘one ping‘ message to Putin proving control, it would make sense Putin and Trump would speak immediately thereafter.

This timeline does not appear to be coincidental.



Trump Reveals How His Latest Phone Call With Putin Went, and It's Not Good


Bonchie reporting for RedState 

President Donald Trump spoke to Russian President Vladimir Putin on Thursday, and things didn't go well. Standing beside Air Force One on the ramp at Joint Base Andrews, Trump told the press that he's "not happy" while decrying a lack of "any progress" regarding the war in Ukraine. 

None of this suggests a peace deal is on the horizon. 

Just before the call, Putin left the stage at a conference, claiming that he didn't want to keep Trump waiting. That led some large right-wing accounts on X to claim it was a sign of respect. Given how the call turned out, that obviously wasn't the case, and I'm going to be direct about this issue in a way that may tick some people off, though hopefully not. 

Here's the hard truth: Putin does not respect Trump, and he does not respect the United States. At some point, even the most anti-Ukraine parts of the right are going to have to come to terms with that. There is no magic bullet here, and Putin can not be relied on as a rational partner in peace. Does that mean we should go to war with Russia? Of course not. There's simply no justification for American military involvement given the localized nature of the war and the risks involved, specifically regarding Russia's nuclear arsenal. 

But being skeptical of military and even financial involvement in the war in Ukraine does not mean one has to be naive and blind to who Putin is (or worse). He is still a scumbag with delusions of grandeur who wants to return to some semblance of the Soviet era. He's given multiple speeches since the start of the war expressing that specific motivation. In other words, this is ultimately an ideological battle for Putin, not a practical one, and that is why a practical resolution has proven so elusive despite the huge number of Russian casualties. 

Trump clearly understands that. He's been publicly criticizing Putin for several months now, including threatening increased sanctions. It's time to pull the trigger on those, but they will likely not change the current trajectory of the war. So what's the answer? There may not be one. Sometimes life doesn't leave any good options, and Putin doesn't have any reason to end the war absent any internal pressure. What that looks like for the United States, barring some type of miraculous turnaround, is likely more of the same. 

In the meantime, Republicans, including the commentary class, should not be lured into a false binary between Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and the Russian president. Whatever one thinks of the former, the latter is still Vladimir Putin.



♦️𝐖³π πƒπšπ’π₯𝐲 𝐍𝐞𝐰𝐬 𝐎𝐩𝐞𝐧 π“π‘π«πžπšπ

 


W³P Daily News Open Thread. 

Welcome to the W³P Daily News Open Thread. 

Post whatever you got in the comments section below.

This feature will post every day at 6:30am Mountain time.