8chan/8kun QResearch Posts (4)
#12169496 at 2020-12-25 15:20:12 (UTC+1)
Q Research General #15537: A People Free To Choose Will Always Choose Peace Edition
https://piedmonttrails.com/2020/01/30/early-settlements-surnames-of-tennessee-1756-1780/
Fort Loudon began as a British fort located in present day Monroe County. During the year of 1756, it's construction was modest but as the months went by, the fort grew to a great barrier among the wild elements of the landscape. The relations between the occupants and the Cherokee were civil but grew to despair during the year of 1758. By August of 1760, the Cherokee attacked the fort and was able to force the surrender of Captain Raymond Demere and others. Records indicate as many as 24 individuals were killed in the raid. Those who were unable to escape were captured by the Cherokee and the fate of these souls remain unknown. Today, the fort has been preserved and rebuilt. The original plans and the placement of the buildings and their functions have been restored as a state park. Many artifacts have been discovered all through the years. As the fort stands today in remembrance of those long ago, let us remember the people who dreamed of a fort to establish trade and growth in the lands known today as Tennessee. Names associated with Loudon Fort are James Glenn, John William De Brahm, William Henry Littleton, John Elliott, John Stuart, William Richardson, Lt. James Adamson, William Richardson Davie, Henry Timberlake, Thomas Sumter and more whose names have been lost for now. The fort also housed at least sixty women and children during the years of 1756 to 1760.
Watauga Settlement
Following the demise of Fort Loudon and the creation of the Royal Proclamation of October 7, 1763, a new settlement emerged along the banks of Boone Creek in 1769. Settlers were now able to travel to the area legally in accordance to Royal law. Captain William Bean and his wife settled the area and welcomed the birth of their son, Russell during that first year. Other families followed such as Samuel Masenngill, Henry Masengill, Julius Dugger and Andrew Greer. Many of these families arrived from both the Carolina area and the Virginia area. These lands were not purchased but leased as it was illegal to purchase lands from the Cherokee. James Robertson and John Sevier were known to lease lands from the Cherokee however, I've not been able to locate a written source for such documents which would prove this theory. Jonathon Tipton, John Carter, Charles Robertson and Zachariah Isbell all arrived in the area prior to the year ending in 1771. Jacob Brown, Robert Allison, Leonard Hart, Jacob Womack, Jesse Walton and Benjamin Gist were among these as well. It is known that the family of John Carr arrived from the South Carolina area and is believed that other South Carolina families made their way to this area during the years of the American Revolutionary War.
#8932877 at 2020-04-27 02:08:20 (UTC+1)
Q Research General #11433: The Signal Fire Is Set. The Lamps Are Lit. Watch The Water Edition
>>8932822
Historical flags of the Customs Service
I thought I might further share with you some information I've been gathering about this subject. The images below are conjectural images may all be found at www.uscg.mil/history/flagindex.asp. Please note all these images are from the as-yet unpublished, Early American Maritime Flags & Signals by Ray S. Morton (c) 1999
These images are reconstructions and have never been verified by either surviving examples or by any other source. They may be found on the US Coast Guard website, but when I inquired I was told that the images were all provided and not generated by them.
Further these US Treasury Department flags and ensigns were not standardized until the American Civil War; each Collector of Customs was responsible for acquiring flags and ensigns for their districts, leading to many variants in both construction and details of insignia.
We have flags in the collection which do not comply with these images; and we have reports of others. Research on this is complicated by the fragmentary nature of the US Treasury archives due to two disastrous fires at the Treasury (one British and one American!). These is no single volume reference work on this subject, and my personal visits to the USCG museum in New London, CT, and the Customs Archives in Washington, D.C. have only scratched the surface.
I would advise caution before we accept these as accurate.
Jim Ferrigan, 1 November 2008
"Responding to the urgent need for revenue following the American Revolutionary War, the First United States Congress passed and President George Washington signed the Tariff Act of July 4, 1789, which authorized the collection of duties on imported goods. Four weeks later, on July 31, the fifth act of Congress established the United States Customs Service and its ports of entry. On August. 1, 1799, the (Customs) ensign was formally adopted, making it the first official flag of a U.S. government agency, and the customs ensign originally was designed to mark those American ships that helped collect the bulk of the young nation's revenue.
A law, the Customs Administration Act, was passed in the spring of 1799 requiring that "revenue cutters", as they were known, should have a banner of their own. The need for the banner was simple: the cutters needed a visible sign of their authority to stop and inspect ships. Indeed, the cutters by law were given permission to fire on other ships that did not heed their calls to stop upon flying the new banner.
Why 16 stripes and not 13? At the time, Congress initially had adopted a practice of adding both a new star and a new stripe with the addition of new states, and it had changed the national flag to 15 stars and 15 stripes in 1794. Since that time, Tennessee had joined the Union as the 16th state, so Secretary of the Treasury Oliver Wolcott included a 16th stripe.
Why were the stripes vertical? It is believed that Wolcott turned the stripes to more readily differentiate the customs ensign from the national flag.
Customs officials around the country hired local flag-makers to make the ensigns, a process in place until the 1860s, when the Treasury Department began issuing standardized versions to customs houses nationwide.
The ensign was only designed to be flown on the revenue cutters, but shortly after its adoption, it also flew above many customs houses around the country - a tradition formalized in 1874 by Treasury Secretary William Richardson, who ordered the flag be displayed next to the U.S. flag at customs locations during business hours.
The flag flew with few changes until 1915, when the newly-formed U.S. Coast Guard, which was born from the revenue cutters, adopted the ensign for its use by adding an emblem in the flag's field, though the flag used by customs vessels and on land at customs facilities was unchanged.
Since its first hoisting, the flag's most significant change occurred in 1951, when government experts realized that the flag had a glaring error. It was supposed to contain the Arms of the United States, a design that can be seen on the back of a $1 bill as part of the Great Seal. The emblem used in the original ensign's union was essentially a very rough approximation of the arms' design, with the most obvious error being that 13 stars were arranged in a semicircle around and above the eagle, as opposed to the "constellation" design actually called for in the arms. That change brought about the customs flag that now flies at CBP headquarters, ports of entry and other facilities nationwide. The flag even continues in its role as an ensign, flying on some of CBP's marine vessels.
https://www.crwflags.com/FOTW/FLAGS/us%5Ecust.html
#7779952 at 2020-01-11 04:13:41 (UTC+1)
Q Research General #9957: Night Shift Sets the Cruise Control Edition
Rep. Jackie Speier: Why I'm voting for impeachment Dec. 17, 2019
(In her own words)
It is not just that Donald Trump has committed serious crimes, violated his oath of office and threatened the constitutional structure of our government; the overwhelming factor demanding impeachment is that he is a continuing threat to the integrity of the 2020 election. The facts are clear. The memo that President Trump released of the July 25 telephone call unquestionably reveals that he asked Ukraine to interfere in our election and damage a potential political opponent. The president then invited Russia and China to investigate his political opponents. There is also no question that President Trump wanted Ukraine to investigate a fairytale that a previous Ukrainian administration, not Russia, had interfered in the 2016 election. This story has been thoroughly investigated; and one thing, only one thing, about it has been proven: it is a lie, a Russian lie. It would be bad enough if the president simply wanted to cheat by inviting foreign interference. That itself would be impeachable. But the president went further. The White House withheld money to Ukraine while it was under attack from Russia. The president still refuses to host a White House meeting with President Zelensky.
What is lost in translation is the fact that he undermined an ally in a time of war and sent a dangerous signal to Russia that our support for Ukraine's fledgling democracy is soft, all for his own political benefit. It is unconscionable conduct. If President Trump were innocent, he would insist that members of his administration testify and clear his name. Rather, he exhibits outright contempt for the rule of law. He essentially acknowledges his guilt by ordering his administration to defy Congress, conceal documents, and refuse to testify. He undermines the checks and balances between the branches that have been hailed as hallmarks of our constitutional structure for more than 200 years. Does President Trump show any remorse for his conduct? No. He says it was perfect. He confirms his guilt by repeating obvious lies. In fact, he wages a war on truth.
His actions represent a clear and present danger to our democracy. The problem we face as a nation is that the president wants to cheat in our upcoming election. Or he wants to turn a blind eye while foreign countries cheat on his behalf. The president needs to be impeached not just for his past crimes, which are clear, but also to remove from office a man who has demonstrated that he will not defend our democracy from attack. Those who claim that the decision to remove should be made by the people on election day 2020 ignore this risk of a rigged election. As William Richardson Davie argued at the Constitutional Convention in 1787, a president that could not be impeached "will spare no efforts or means whatever to get himself re-elected"- eerily foreseeing Trump's electoral rigging. Trump welcomed pernicious foreign interference in 2016, was caught asking for it again in 2020, and I am afraid only impeachment will stop him from employing other corrupt means to win in 2020. Members of both parties have taken the same oath of office. That oath of office does not just require us to protect the Constitution when the votes are easy. We swore an oath to protect the Constitution when it's hard. Millions of men and women have given their lives for the democracy we cherish. It is not too much to ask that an elected official cast a vote to protect our Constitution even if that vote costs him or her a seat. It is our duty.
President Trump has never been able to accept our nation's foundational idea that no one is above the law, and especially not the president. He would surely flunk high school civics if he wrote in that Article II gives him "the right to do whatever I want as president," though he has said just that publicly. If he bothered to read, he would find that Article II requires the president to "take care that the Laws be faithfully executed" and swear to "protect and defend the Constitution." Because I swore that same solemn oath to "protect and defend the Constitution," and because President Trump violated it and trampled our Constitution and laws, I will vote to impeach him. Jackie Speier represents California's 14th District in the U.S. House of Representatives.
https://www.sfchronicle.com/opinion/openforum/article/Rep-Jackie-Speier-Why-I-m-voting-for-14914698.php
She really does a good job of telling on herself in this piece..What does she have going on in Ukraine, China, & Russia?
#3135041 at 2018-09-22 05:42:39 (UTC+1)
Q Research General #3967 We Will Remain Here Edition
>>3134964
Howard Jonas 141 Relationships Chairman of the Board Rafael Holdings, Inc. 62
James Courter 32 Relationships Vice Chairman Genie Energy Ltd. 77
William Perry 29 Relationships Member of the Board of Directors EGL Resources, Inc. 61
Allan Sass 12 Relationships Member of the Board of Directors Genie Energy Ltd. 79
Alan Rosenthal 12 Relationships Member of the Board of Directors Genie Energy Ltd. 64
Keith Murdoch AC 200 Relationships Member of Advisory Board News Corporation 87
Nathaniel Rothschild 63 Relationships Member of Advisory Board RIT Capital Partners plc 82
Richard Cheney 21 Relationships Member of Advisory Board Genie Energy Ltd. –
Michael Steinhardt 271 Relationships Member of Advisory Board WisdomTree Asset Management, Inc. 78
Lawrence Summers 133 Relationships Member of Advisory Board Digital Currency Group 63
William Richardson III 236 Relationships Member of Advisory Board New Mexico State Investment Council 71
Mary Landrieu 24 Relationships Member of Advisory Board CenturyLink, Inc. 62
Robert Woolsey Jr. 108 Relationships Member of Advisory Board BioDefense Corporation 77