A Short History of U.S. National Anthems

Though it did seem kind of funny for me, or for anyone for that matter, to pledge an allegiance to a flag, or a loyalty oath while addressing a flag, singing the Star-Spangled Banner didn't seem like an inspiration for glory or lyricism.  It was sung at baseball games, basketball, football, and hockey games, so that context helped to seal its refrain as a of tradition but not one that actually connected me to the origins of this country.  It connected me to the traditions of the post-war U.S., and not to the traditions or origins of the 200+ year history of the country.

The chronology looks like this:

1745, "God Save the King."

1789, "Hail Columbia," the official national anthem for America from 1789-1931.

1812, "Hail to the Chief," a personal anthem exclusive to the president.  Adopted in 1954.

1831, "My Country 'Tis of Thee," or "America."

1931, "Star-Spangled Banner."

I don't think I've ever heard "Hail Columbia," 1789.  I like it. Lyrics are here.  Wikipedia explains that the anthem was composed by Philip Phile, a German-American.

The music was composed by Philip Phile in 1789 for the first inauguration of George Washington and titled "The President's March". It became the song "Hail, Columbia" when arranged with lyrics by Joseph Hopkinson in 1798. The song gained popularity during the XYZ Affair and subsequent Quasi-War with France. The song was used in the United States as a de facto national anthem throughout the 19th century. However, the song lost popularity after World War I until it was replaced by "The Star-Spangled Banner" in 1931.

It was the personal anthem of George Washington until that was replaced by "Hail to the Chief," published in 1812, and adopted in 1954.  This gets played at any event or ceremony where the president physically appears.

This Country 'Tis of Thee" has an interesting history.  Wikipedia explains that 

"My Country, 'Tis of Thee", also known as simply "America", is an American patriotic song, the lyrics [that] were written by Samuel Francis Smith. The song served as one of the de facto national anthems of the United States (along with songs like "Hail, Columbia") before the adoption of "The Star-Spangled Banner" as the official U.S. national anthem in 1931. The melody used is the same as that of the national anthem of the United Kingdom, "God Save the King".

Give it a listen.  Our national hymn, "My Country 'Tis of Thee," is sung to the melody of Britain's "God Save the King."  What happened!  

"My Country 'Tis of Thee" sounds like the most gentle, heartfelt phrase that I could develop a love for, because saying that this country is of thee, means that it is our country and therefore we have a responsibility to preserve its principles and values.  It almost sounds like a church hymn.  Here are the lyrics.

My country, 'tis of thee,
sweet land of liberty,
of thee I sing:
land where my fathers died,
land of the pilgrims' pride,
from every mountainside
let freedom ring!

My native country, thee,
land of the noble free,
thy name I love;
I love thy rocks and rills,
thy woods and templed hills;
my heart with rapture thrills
like that above.

Let music swell the breeze,
and ring from all the trees
sweet freedom's song:
let mortal tongues awake,
let all that breathe partake;
let rocks their silence break,
the sound prolong.

Who is the author of "My Country 'Tis of Thee"? 

Samuel Francis Smith wrote the lyrics to "America" in 1831 while a student at the Andover Theological Seminary in Andover, Massachusetts. The use of the same melody as the British royal anthem can be described as a contrafactum which reworks this symbol of British monarchy to make a statement about American democracy

Peter Hotez Won't Debate RFK, Jr. Because Peter Is Deep into Gain of Function Research. And RFK, Jr. Would Pin Him and Embarrass the Fauci Narrative that No GoF Was Done by the U.S.

This is why Peter Hotez won’t debate. https://t.co/mW7nJXDC93

— Steve Kirsch (@stkirsch) June 19, 2023

Also, he has been wrong about almost everything involving COVID. 

3:22. What other aspects of this case would you like to highlight?

3:27. Katherine Watts.  I would like to highlight the significance of the turning point that was Pfizer's motion to dismiss that they filed an April 2022 because that gave the world the first window into the military aspect,  the military control of the whole project.  And if Brooke had not filed her case at all, then Pfizer would not have had to do a motion to dismiss and we would not have known at that time that it was a military program under military Contracting provisions and other military laws.  And right now, now that I've seen the order, it's giving us another little bit of a window.  It sucks that we have to keep doing all this stuff by reverse engineering because they've been lying from the beginning about what they're doing and that it is a chemical and biological warfare program, not a pharmaceutical project.  But, having said that, the order is pointing more attention to the Defense Production Act and how that relates to conAitact law, antitrust law, and a few other things.  So those are the things I found most interesting about the order so far.  4:52. 

4:55. Sasha, were you surprised by the outcome of this case?  Why, or why not?

5:00.  Latypova.  Ultimately I wasn't surprised, as Catherine said, we looked . . . we started paying much more attention to it when they revealed in "motion to dismiss" that this is a military program, and I since then have done a lot of research into . . . using publicly available documents from the Department of Defense, Operation Warp Speed, BARDA, and DARPA contracts that became available for all the COVID countermeasures not just vaccines.  But I read these carefully, and after doing all this research and analysis, it became very clear that this program that suing pharmaceutical manufacturers under False Claims Act was kind of a fool's errand.  But, you know, while it was extremely valuable, as Catherine said, and we applaud Brooke, and, of course, her attorneys, they all tried and they brought the truth out through this process. so the truth won.  So far, the case has been dismissed.  I think they're going to appeal but it wasn't surprising because we knew that Pfizer was doing what the government told them to do.  In fact, in the motion to dismiss, they were claiming that you know, "we didn't do anything wrong . . . the government ordered us to produce prototypes and demonstrations [meaning fake], so we produced fake, you know, like the government told us to do."  So that was their defense.  It was in fact a valid defense, and it wasn't surprising that these perverted legal structures were upheld by this federal court, and so the result was as we expected it to be.  6:47

6:49. Katherine what do you think was done well in terms of the strategy or the drafting of the papers?

6:57. One thing that was done really well, and can be seen in retrospect,is that Brooke and her lawyers started off by thinking that, one, the rule of law still applied, and thinking that federal drug regulations were applicable, and thinking that Federal Contracting Law was applicable, and that was a good assumption for them to make because it has drawn out the response that actually THE RULE OF LAW IS NOT FUNCTIONING ANYMORE, contract law is not applicable to this program, and drug relation is not applicable to this program.  And the other thing I think was really good about her case as distinct from somebody other American federal cases is that it was entirely based on her own observations when she got there at the end of August she was there for about 3 weeks.  She saw what was going on.  She knew from her own experience that everything that was happening was completely wrong and irregular and dangerous to patients, dangerous to the clinical trial investigators, and she knew all that from her own observations; whereas in a lot of other Federal cases about this particular project, people have had to speculate because we don't know actually what's in the vials we don't know exactly when and how the intellectual property has been transferred from the DoD to the manufacturing plants.  There's so much that we don't know that people had to build their cases on speculation. But she knew.  She saw it. She documented it. She took pictures, and that was what was the core of her complaint when she filed originally in January 2021.  Also, when she notified the DoD that she was going to file in December 2020, all of this material or evidence from her own directed experience that was extremely valuable. 

8:57.  Before we go into analyzing the judgment, a little more on the strategy, Sasha what do you think would have  been done differently. 

9:10. No I'm not a lawyer so it's difficult for me to advise on the legal strategy I think knowing what we know now through this experience in this case

If the signatures match, why is Arizona threatening criminal prosecution to those who show them to the public?

If the signatures match, why is Arizona threatening criminal prosecution to those who show them to the public? https://t.co/WNwscEJelB

— Robert Barnes (@barnes_law) June 20, 2023

COPS BASKING IN THE RAINBOW