Mediaboss Marketing

Another righting of history can be seen in the fascinating new online exhibit, Women of the Revolutionary War, created by the Fraunces Tavern Museum.

Overlooked by historians, until a generation of feminist scholars uncovered their stories, many women beyond Betsy Ross and Abigail Adams were associated in some way with the Revolutionary War.

"The heroism of the females of the Revolution has gone from memory with the generation that witnessed it," wrote Charles Francis Adams, grandson of John and Abigail Adams, in 1840, "and nothing, absolutely nothing remains upon the ear of the young of the present day."

Ten women, including Native Americans and African Americans, and even one loyalist spy, are featured in the show.

Polly Cooper, a member of the Oneida Nation, led 40 warriors with 600 barrels of corn to a Patriot encampment. To deliver these desperately needed supplies, they traveled over 400 miles on foot in the middle of winter, from central New York to Pennsylvania.

Sarah Bradlee Fulton is credited with the idea of disguising the men of the 1773 Boston Tea Party as Native Americans, then waiting for them at her home where she removed their facepaint and disposed of their disguises.

There is also the story of Ann Bates, a Philadelphia schoolteacher who turned to spying for the British. Cunning, fearless and knowledgeable about weaponry, she was even able to penetrate Washingtons headquarters.

Included too is the more well-known story of Margaret Corbin who followed her husband to war. In a battle at Fort Washington in northern Manhattan, she took over the job of firing the cannon after he was killed.

The Maryland woman who printed the Declaration of Independence, Mary Katharine Goddard, further risked her life by including her name at the bottom. She was, in effect, the only woman to sign the document.

While you're on the museum site, take a detour to see Fighting for Freedom, about the estimated 5,000 Black people served as soldiers in the Revolutionary War.

Originally posted here:
'Women of the Revolution' Get Their Due - Tribeca Trib

Conservative social media network Parler asserted in a letter to a Democratic lawmaker that the platform warned the FBI of "specific threats of violence" days ahead of the January 6 Capitol riot.

The letter, addressed to Democratic Rep. Carolyn Maloney of New York on Thursday, said the platform reported these threats to the FBI more than 50 times, the Washington Post reported.

Parler, which advertises itself as a platform for unregulated language and "free speech," said it alerted the FBI to posts containing specific references to the Capitol, according to the Post.

One post, published December 24 on the platform, was from a user who "called for the congregation of an armed force of 150,000 on the Virginia side of the Potomac River to 'react to the congressional events of January 6th.'"

Another user allegedly wrote on the platform that a planned event on January 6 was "not a rally" and "no longer a protest," lawyers wrote in the letter, according to the Washington Post.

"This is the final stand where we are drawing the red line at Capitol Hill," one user allegedly wrote, according to the letter. "I trust the American people will take back the USA with force and many are ready to die to take back #USA so remember this is not a party until they announce #Trump2020 a winner ... And don't be surprised if we take the #capitalbuilding" [sic].

The Capitol riot left at least five people, including onepolice officer, dead. Members ofthe Proud Boys, which is classified as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center, were present, according to authorities.

Organizers wereemboldened by President Donald Trump's calls to protest the results of the 2020 election, despite Democrat Joe Biden's election victory. While members of Congress were meeting inside the Capitol to certify the results, supporters organized an attempted coupand stormed it.

Upon news that the riot breached the building, lawmakers began to shelter in place and many evacuated.

Parler, which has become a mainstay in alt-right communication, has been criticized and scrutinized for its alleged role in the Capitol riot.

As Insider's Jacob Shamsian reported, Parler's userbase is largely made up of far-right extremists. The Justice Department has previously said many of those extremists organized the violent events planned for January 6 using the platform.

And after former President Donald Trump's Twitter account was disabled, top conservatives began sharing their Parler accounts on the platform, encouraging their followers to gravitate there. Among them was Angela Stanton-King, a Republican QAnon supporter who ran in Novemberto represent Georgia's 5th Congressional District, the seat last held by the deceased Rep. John Lewis.

In the days following the Capitol riot, Apple and Google app stores blocked Parler for violating terms of service. Amazon Web Services also dropped it. These actions effectively took the platform offline.

In February, the company announced that site was up and running with a Tea Party co-founder serving as interim CEO. Mark Meckler, an attorney, political activist, and founder of the Tea Party Patriots, replacedformer CEO and co-founder John Matze, who was fired by the company's board.

Parler has previously shared information with the FBI during the DOJ's investigation into the Capitol riot.It's not clear whether Parler handed over information to the FBI after the Department of Justice issued a warrant or subpoena for it or whether the company gave the information over of its own accord.

Parler, Maloney's office, and the FBI did not immediately return Insider's requests for comment.

Insider's Jacob Shamsian contributed to this report.

The rest is here:
Parler says it warned the FBI of threats ahead of the Capitol riot - Business Insider

AUSTIN Texas House GOP leaders have set a Monday hearing in a key committee on proposals to weaken the COVID-19 safety precautions the chamber approved in January, including a face-covering edict.

The scramble is underway because top lieutenants to Republican Speaker Dade Phelan are trying to handle a tea party-style freshmans push to eliminate not just the mask requirement but allowances of virtual committee testimony and voting via laptop from just off the House floor.

Earlier this month, newly elected Rep. Bryan Slaton, R-Royse City, introduced a resolution rolling back all of the chambers public-health mitigation measures. A bipartisan work group that Phelan named in November, shortly after announcing hed secured the votes needed to become speaker, crafted the pandemic safety plan.

Slaton, who opposed the provisions, refers to them in his resolution as allegedly necessary standards.

Gov. Greg Abbotts moves this month to rescind his July statewide mask mandate and virtually disable his other COVID-19 restrictions on businesses and public gatherings should prod the House to do likewise, Slaton argued in his preamble.

In accordance with Governor Greg Abbotts Executive Order for Texas to be 100% open, the Texas House should also be open 100%, it says.

Neither House Administration Committee Chairman Will Metcalf, R-Conroe, nor committee member Tom Oliverson, R-Cypress, immediately responded Saturday to requests for comment.

On March 16, eight days after Slaton filed his repealer, Oliverson introduced a resolution that only would lift mask requirements.

Under House rules adopted Jan. 14, members, staff and visitors must wear masks in committee meeting rooms and on the House floor and in its upstairs viewing area known as the gallery.

Exceptions were made when people speak into microphones, or members are separated by plexiglass screens installed in committee rooms.

The rules also allow state representatives to participate virtually in hearings, as long as two House members are present in the hearing room. Committee chairs can invite guests to testify virtually. And to promote distancing, members can vote on legislation from the House gallery and adjoining rooms through secure laptops.

Oliverson, a physician, was chairman of Phelans pandemic work group. Another committee member, Fort Worth GOP Rep. Stephanie Klick, is a registered nurse.

If both of the Republican health care professionals on the 11-member committee join its five Democrats in opposing Slaton and Oliversons measures, they would fail to pass.

Rep. Michelle Beckley, a Carrollton Democrat who stayed away from the Capitol on the sessions opening day because she viewed the public-health precautions as inadequate, said Saturday that many of Phelans committee chairs havent enforced the mask mandate.

Half the time, people dont have masks on the floor, she said. Its been a joke.

On the floor and in committees, Beckley added, They dont even wipe off the microphones between speakers.

The Senate has required members, staff and visitors to undergo COVID-19 testing in a tent set up outside the Capitols north entrance, and receive a negative result, before entering Senate meeting and office areas, unless they can show proof of vaccination, Beckley noted.

At least a half-dozen House members have tested positive since late last year, she said, though most of the House members I know are vaccinated already.

House leaders have arranged for the chambers staff members to begin receiving coronavirus shots Monday, Beckley said.

Its just continuing the mismanagement that the governors had, she said, referring to the pandemic and the rollback proposals before House Administration.

New cases and hospitalizations and deaths have declined sharply from records set in January, according to state data. However, fewer than 3.5 million of the states nearly 29 million residents have been fully vaccinated, according to the Department of State Health Services.

They want the pandemic to be over, Beckley said. Its not over. Europes having a third wave right now. And our vaccination rates are really, really low. So its exhausting [and] I dont know what to say anymore.

View post:
Push is on in Texas House by GOP member to remove mask mandate, relax COVID restrictions - The Dallas Morning News

The aim is to to host your own Big Virtual Birthday Tea on April 24to help all the nurses and frontline staff at the Fankerton facility to continue to care for all those who need them now and in the future.

A hospices spokesperson said: Get together virtually with friends, family or colleagues on April 24 and raise vital funds to support our services.

"Think Zoom, WhatsApp, Teams or Facebook. Think home-baking, bake-off style competitions, online quizzes or fancy dress.

"However you decide to host your Big Virtual Birthday Tea for Strathcarron, we are here to support you every step of the way.

The hospice can even help with virtual backgrounds you can use on Zoom and an 80s themed quiz you can download and play with friends, family or colleagues.

There will also be an afternoon of entertainment live on air from noon-6pm that day with Central FM.

They added: Sign up to host your own Big Virtual Birthday Tea now and help us to keep on caring. We need you now more than ever.

Hosting tea parties has always been a popular way of fundraising enjoyed by the hospices many supporters but during the past 12 months people have been unable to meet in each others homes.

However, Strathcarron is determined not to let this stop people helping them.

Further information from the fundraising team on 01324 826222 or fundraising@strathcarronhospice.net.

View original post here:
Host a virtual tea party to mark Strathcarron Hospice's 40th anniversary - Falkirk Herald

Shenger Zhou is a resident of Shanghai and an undergraduate student of politics and history at Boston University.

With the second Trump impeachment concluded, the (first) Trump presidency is officially confined to history. How should history understand the Trump presidency? Right now, we would be hard-pressed to find anyone who disagreed with the contemporary consensus that Trump shattered the norms of the presidency itself. Hovering like a specter over historical analysis, that consensus obscures other significant innovations that Donald Trump brought to the presidency. Understanding his political strategies will help historians and political scientists generate further insights into the nature of power inherent in the office of the President and the structures that enabled him.

We know that Trumps presidency was consequential. He single-handedly changed the presidency in several ways, from altering relationships with the press, to hollowing out bureaucracies, and garnering unprecedented media attention from all over the world. What makes Trump different however is the unusualness of his style and methods. Take his use of social media as an example, effective as it was in boosting his own political standing by stirring chaos through entertaining and inflammatory remarks on Twitter. His Twitter account ultimately did not serve the interest of the country (as Twitter itself determined in the wake of the January 6 attacks on the Capitol, with the controversial decision to suppress the Presidents access to the platform). And yet no doubt future presidents might adopt similar strategies to more traditional ends (whats without controversy is to hope they use the Twitter pulpit to pursue national interests rather than personal ones.)

Another controversial president who could demonstrate the unprecedented nature of the Trump presidency is George W Bush. Although few people draw comparisons between the two, Bush like Trump - was plagued by historical low approval ratings and controversies, from his decision to invade Iraq in 2003 to his handling of the US economy in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis. Are both presidents destined to be remembered horribly?

The Bush and Trump presidencies could not have been more different, as Bush, though awkward in conducting foreign policies, more plausibly rooted his intentions in what he believed was the morally righteous thing to do. By contrast, Trump was a tactician who applied unconventional methods in fulfilling his own political gains regardless of the nation. Concerning Bush, it was his policies that were out of touch with reality. He was simply not savvy enough to understand the political and military complexity of invading the Middle East. Though he perhaps had a point in assuming the danger of terrorism, given the shock that the nation endured with 9/11, his false judgment in invading Iraq, a nation with no credible evidence of preserving weapons of mass destruction, was of his own making. Like Trump, he handicapped himself by politicizing his own intelligence bureau, and the nation paid the price. Unlike Trump, Bush also paid the political costs.

Bush was often depicted as a war criminal for the destabilization of the entire Middle East. In retrospect, at least it seems that Bush was reacting to a truly national emergency. Based on his course of actions, we can assume that Bush was simply inept. The nation suffered from the opposite problem with Donald Trump, who apparently never acted in the interest of the nation but who was so adept at controlling media narratives that he remains king of the Republican Party (where is George Bush, these days?). By repeatedly calling the news media fake news, he discredited negative stories. This tactic is effective in a rational choice framework if we were to disregard the implications of it all.

If we were to use the criteria that presidents should be judged by how they employ the most rational choice and effective strategy in fulfilling their political interest within a set of limited options, it should be noted that while Bush did react out of proportion to the crises that he inherited, he did not necessarily use those crises to his own advantage. Bush used the resources of his office in a more traditional sense, though at the time of his presidency many thoughts about his tactics ranging from the opening up of Guantanamo Bay to the invasion of Iraq are approaching the borderline of the power of the American presidency. Though many might argue that his winning of reelection in 2004 indicated the successful selling of his wartime president status, this victory prolonged the festering of the existing crisis he manufactured himself in Iraq.

More money and time were wasted in the Middle East, creating a financial drain on the country that cemented his status as a controversial president or war criminal by the time he left office in 2009. As it should also be noted those were arguably bad political tactics; though Bush won reelection in 2004 as a wartime president, he left office with low approval, and saw his own party move away from his leadership through the Tea Party. Trump, on the other hand, while unsuccessful in winning reelection, used a new method of conducting the presidency that made every scandal conducive to his own personal interest, retaining the loyalty of his base and command of the Republican Party.

Compared to Bush, Trump played the role of presidency unconventionally by being able to manufacture crises to his own advantage, completely changing the way presidency is conducted and, possibly, basic expectations about its function. However much controversy Bush stirred, his controversial legacy nonetheless pales in comparison to Trumps. And yet, the Trump presidency might be the point of inflection for the country, and a moment for historians to recalibrate how they judge future presidents.

Read more here:
Is History Ready to Judge the Trump Presidency? - History News Network (HNN)