nevermind.

Link here for anyone interested. It's a Facebook post, so nevermind if you so choose.

Not saying I hang with everything John Barcelona posted. I am simply offering a link to anyone who might be interested. It's a long post.

Andrew Frisardi:

I'm sorry if I've offended you, yet again. My post was aimed at my good friend Andrew M.

I wish I had seen what you posted before your edit.

But I was gadding about on Facebook. Regrets, regrets.

No, Bill, my "neverminding" of that post had nothing to do with feeling offended by anything, which I wasn't. I just thought twice about the content of the post, since I'm cautious about fake news these days and don't want to add anything to the thread that might be misleading.

Good idea. Slow and steady. Everyone, everywhere, must pay attention, and take heed.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mBGb5xNK9lU

Elton's song is not irrelevant to the thread. I could go line by line, word by word, and link to Biblical texts, just in this one song. But I won't. Just relax, have a beer, and take a listen.

I tried to listen to the song with lyrics as the focal point, but the Father of fathers directed me to this video. My headphones wouldn't work before, but suddenly, they are working.

Hmm.

Charlie, sometimes you might wish to take your "eye" from scriptures and glance around. But heaven forbid I should say the wrong thing. Like Paul said.

Keep watching.

The Watch-maker lives.

Charlie, this is a textbook example of the ad hominem logical fallacy. Instead of debating the merits of what Warren was saying, you attack her personally--with a racial epithet, no less. What on earth does Warren's racial heritage have to do with the substance of her concerns about Sessions' impartiality?

If you disagree with Warren's (and Coretta Scott King's) claims about Sessions' past intimidation of elderly black voters, please educate us. That's how civil discourse works.

If all you can do is sling insults, maybe it's because you can't counter the substance of Warren's objections--objections which seem highly relevant to Sessions's suitability for the job of Attorney General.

And the Sessions question raised by Warren isn't only a partisan issue. It's in the best interest of everyone, of every political persuasion, to be concerned about honesty and accountability in voting registration and procedures.

It's not alarmist to be alarmed about the erosion of the integrity of our election system, as this Nation article from two days ago attests.

Here's the opening paragraph:

Hi Juile,

If the suitability test wasn't administered to the occupant of the White House, do you think it's realistic to expect it to be imposed on those holding lower positions?

It's pretty easy to insult the Honorable Senator Warren, Julie. Corretta Scott King also praised Senator Sessions as a good man and a good senator. You won't hear that from the not so Native American Warren. She doesn't hold the moral high ground here quoting Mrs. King. Warren is a partisan Left-wing hack and a nut-job. If I claimed that I was a minority to get Gov't bacon to finish school when I had not a shred of Pow Wow in me, that would pretty much finish me as a wannabe politician, but the standard is different for Democrats. They embrace their falsity and their voters love them for it, or maybe not in Warren's case. She got caught with her knickers down about her heritage but she still makes the claim of being an Indian. Fake, fake, fake. She might not get re-elected next time. Hypocrisy, over and over again.


*Fauxcahontas* if you really take time to think about it, isn't a racial epithet at all. Just the opposite. It's calling out someone for pretending to be something they are not. Kind of like the Winter soldiers, Stolen Valor thing to my mind. Just sayin'.

More of Trump's necrophilous character's true intentions coming to light here.

As Publius, Anton is best-known for his September 2016 article, “The Flight 93 Election,” which argued that, like the passengers on the aircraft hijacked by al Qaeda on Sept. 11, 2001, Americans in 2016 needed to “charge the cockpit” and prevent Hillary Clinton from winning the election — or die. The article, which ran in the Claremont Review of Books, was circulated widely on conservative and white nationalist websites. The New Yorker declared it “the most cogent argument for electing Trump” but cited the responses by Ross Douthat of The New York Times that he’d “rather risk defeat at my enemies’ hands than turn my own cause over to a incompetent tyrant” and by Jonah Goldberg of National Review that its central metaphor is “grotesquely irresponsible.”

Greg

More on Bannon (Anti-Christ?)

https://www.yahoo.com/news/m/8c6dbdb...ieves-the.html

Actually, Charlie, what it reminds me of is Barack Obama's birth certificate. Are you seriously demanding that Senator Elizabeth Warren prove that her DNA test results confirm her family stories, before she's allowed to conduct Senate business, such as speaking at a Senate confirmation hearing?

Whether the Blaze is right or Snopes.com is right, the validity of Elizabeth Warren's account of her racial heritage has absolutely no bearing on her duty to express concerns about what an Attorney General nominee's past actions indicate about his commitment to civil rights for all. This was a hearing to assess Sessions's character and competence, not Warren's.

No matter how much you hate her--and don't tell me that under all the personal vitriol you're spewing against the woman, there's a spirit of Christian charity, because the contemptuous name-calling says otherwise--she still has a duty, as a Senator, to express concerns about cabinet appointees. It's part of our system of checks and balances.

I'm surprised that so many people who call themselves conservatives seem opposed to conserving things like our system of checks and balances, and the principle that people should be regarded as innocent until proven guilty (not the other way around). Frankly, it makes me wonder what these conservatives think they are conserving. But I'm pretty sure it's not the honor and integrity of the Cherokee Nation, against impostors.

Thanks for sharing that article. Anti-Christ? I know you are jesting, Ralph, but if ever a man's eyes frightened me, it's Bannon's. I'm not joking.

Greg

Absolutely, Gregory. From this side of the pond, Bannon appears to be dangerously insane - especially if you happen to live in the area of destruction that would be caused by a nuclear strike on our hated nuclear submarine base in the Gairloch - and that includes about a third of the population of Scotland. The only hope we can see is that Trump gets a bad attack of narcissistic jealousy over Bannon's increasing exposure as the puppet master and sacks him.
Pia Guerra's cartoon of Trump as a dummy sitting on Bannon's knee needs tweeting to Trump's account as often as possible. If you haven't seen it you can find it at http://www.nationalobserver.com/2017...s-constitution

Geez, Julie, as usual, you miss the point. I don't care if Warren is related to Superman. She lied to further herself at taxpayer expense and used that to parlay it into a public position of Trust. when in fact, her racial heritage has been debunked. No one else that I am aware of is standing behind her claim of Native American status or ancestry. And, if she really cared about the truth and her honor and credibility, she would have an DNA test done. Obama didn't make an issue of his BC. Someone else did.Warren clearly made an issue out of hers before anyone else could. She's clearly a white woman. She's promulgated a lie to get ahead. Is that something you would teach your students to do to further themselves? Because of her own words, not mine, she cannot lay claim to any kind of moral superiority or high ground when it comes to a colleague in the US Senate whom she serves with day in, day out. She wasn't out there spewing her vitriol about him until he was nominated for AG. Again, hypocrisy, Julie. It can't be cut any other way.

I don't, as a Christian, hate her. I hate her politics which is a very different thing. As far as checks and balances are concerned, I never saw a single Democrat march against Senator Robert Byrd (God rest his soul) for his long association with the KKK, did you? I wonder what he would have classified Obama as? I never saw a single Democrat march against Senator Edward Kennedy for his Chappaquiddick encounter. Where was checks and balances in that instance? Were all the people who elected Byrd Klansmen, or were all the folks of Massachusetts who voted for Kennedy murderers? No, they were pretty much Democrats.

Duty? Really?

You didn't mention her politics, Charlie.

And, really? I mean, we have the polymorphously horrible Trump as president. And you bring this up? My my my.

Silliness.

Thanks for the link, Nigel. Very humorous. Very frightening. We'll all be dying laughing soon enough. (Sorry for the apocalyptic humor. I have to stop that).

Cheers,
Greg

Sure I did, James. She promulgated a lie to get ahead. That is her politics.

Ha! I wasn't talking about Trump. Or Hillary, who climbed on Bill's back to get where she got.

- from Wikipedia article on Robert C. Byrd.

Why should God rest this man's soul, Charlie?

Who does God want to keep company with in Heaven? And someone like Gandhi is in hell because he wasn't a Christian?

Bunk.

"Mr. Trump’s appointment of Bannon, Flynn and Sessions are the first steps in the project of taking America back."

--David Duke, former KKK bloke

See Duke's Twitter account with its prominent Fight for Western Civilization slogan. That's the stuff Steve Bannon's dreams are made on. With people like Duke and Bannon in charge, it will be very civilized, I'm sure.

Not to be disrespectful, Charlie, but I really think your views are based on regionalism, being provincial. Nothing at all to do with Jesus. Islamic terrorism much the same. I think Warren, whether or not she has Native American blood for God's sake, certainly follows Christ more than Ted Cruz, Mike Pence, or any other such people who in fact should hope there isn't a god.

"Love the sinner, hate the sin," eh? Hmmm. I'm having some trouble delineating where the hate stops and the love begins. Something about the nasty nicknames makes it feel more personal than just political to me.

I don't think "checks and balances" means what you think it does, Charlie. Most people use the term to refer to the separation of powers among the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government. As when, say, the Senate is supposed to vet and vote on the President's cabinet nominees.

Finally, something we can agree on. You're right, Charlie--I'm missing the point.

Before, I didn't understand why you were replacing a relevant confirmation hearing question (namely, whether Jeff Sessions did or did not abuse his power in his home state to disenfranchise elderly black voters) with a seemingly irrelevant question (namely, whether or not Elizabeth Warren did or did not enjoy an unfair employment advantage due to her claims about the ethnicity of one of her great-great-grandfathers.)

Now, I don't understand why you are replacing a relevant confirmation hearing question (namely, whether Jeff Sessions did or did not abuse his power in his home state to disenfranchise elderly black voters) with a question that is even more irrelevant (namely, whether or not former Democratic Senators Robert Byrd and Ted Kennedy had significant character failings).

Silly me. I thought the whole point of a Senate confirmation hearing was to determine things like whether the Attorney General nominee under consideration was likely to promote equal justice under the law.

You seem to be saying that Elizabeth Warren, as Democratic Senator, had no right to raise a question about that, because nobody's perfect, and Democratic Senators have character failings, too.

Have I got it now? Is that the point? "Let the Senator who is without fault cast the first stone"?

Wow, I hope not, or no Senator of any party will be able to question any of Trump's nominees.

Sen. Warren did not attack Sessions personally, didn't call him names, insults, mutter half-truths and disparaging words. She was stating her opinion based on facts vociferously but within the bounds of what we all know as civil discourse.

Trump is his own worst enemy. Someone please -- give him enough rope.

I'm with Julie et al. on this one. Sessions has been AG for mere hours and already he's joined the Faustian fold, the alt fact universe:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.065ddc993e87

No, Julie, you still missed the point. I know very well what checks and balances and advice and consent are for. I did get a little lernin' in skool.

The only reason Fauxahontas stood up to deliver her soliloquy was to besmirch, smear and demean her own colleague, which she was rightfully shut down for. She is a parody of what a US Senator should be. I saw Senator's Byrd and Kennedy do the same to several Supreme Court nominees. You don't find Republican Senators in the modern era doing such things to SC nominees.

SInce it can't be proven that AG Sessions ever abused his power to disenfranchise any voter, black or white, it's kind of like asking him when did he stop beating his wife. That's one point. The second point is that Ms. Wampum Fawn knew he was going to be confirmed regardless of what she said, but by God, she was gonna say it come Hell or high water. It was a useless exercise. Defending her disengenuousness is disingenuous. Her politics is Statism. I hate her Statism, Julie, because it is Godless and goes against everything I believe as a Christian. It doesn't mean I don't pray for her.

I am all for raising legit questions about a nominee's qualifications and character, but not from the likes of someone who has no fidelity to fairness or prudence, and in fact, would destroy not only that nominee, but any Republican put forth by the President. It's what I hate about politics. It's gotcha' all the time.


Let the Senator who is without a stone cast the first fault.


James B. Since you don't know Cruz or Pence, especially Pence, I don't see how you can qualify Warren as any more or better of a Christian than either of them. She is a Statist, which separates her from Christian ideals. Christians usually give free testimony of their beliefs, James. Cruz and Pence have. I haven't seen Warren's testimony, have you?

The fact that your target is mostly white doesn't make your racial rhetoric any less offensive, Charlie. Knock it off.

You know full well that you're flirting with Eratosphere infraction territory for uncivil discourse, and it will give me no pleasure to say, "He had appeared to violate the rule. He was warned. He was given an explanation. Nevertheless, he persisted."

It also incidentally sounds a lot like Trump. Charlie, you're a poet, don't emulate our linguistically challenged bigot-in-chief.

I really don't see why Charlie's discourse is uncivil. These people are politicians and judges are they not? No words can be too bad for them. Leastways that's the way it is over here.

I may be over-moderating, and I'll ask Jayne and Alex if I am, but it seems to me that deliberately offensive name-calling based on race and ethnicity is not conducive to civil discourse here or anywhere else, regardless of whether the target is a politician.

I have no problem with Charlie's expressing his opinion that Warren enjoyed some sort of race-based advantage to which she was not entitled.

I do have a big problem with the Native American-themed mockery of Warren, because it seems to me that there's a very short step from there to mocking Native Americans in general.

John, is anti-Semitic language about Benjamin Disraeli not anti-Semitic because he was a politician?

There was never any doubt that Disraeli was racially a jew, albeit a Christian one. There does seem doubt about this woman's native-American status. Or is there, Julie?

Elizabeth Warren, like a lot of kids, grew up with family stories of a native heritage back some generations. Children believe the stories they hear of their ancestors. She didn't politicize it, her opponent in a Senate race dug it out of her past. There is no real evidence that she gained from it or even thought much of it when she wrote it down, once, in college. The college used it because they were so damn white they would use anything like that.
She claims it, on the maternal side I think, which is heard to nail down genetically. Paternal line can show haplogroup C or Q3 but even that wouldn't prove anything one way or another. She was naive and a bit foolish, as a million Americans are, to romanticize the story. She was young and her take on it lacks certain understandings about the Native experience. She may very well be 1/32 Cherokee regardless. Her answer to the demands for a test from a politicized jackal should be the same as the birther bullshit. F&*k off.

She is smart woman. A strong woman. A common theme in your silliest vitriol Charlie. She would mop the floor with both the geniuses aping Trump on this thread who get their geopolitical vision from Spengler's waste basket and carefully placed bubble gum wrappers.

A woman who has been here 21 years, who came here at 14 was deported to Mexico yesterday, a place she has no history or shelter in. Her community laid down in from of the ICE buses to try and stop it. Her children watched her dragged off through the bus windows. And Charlie, finds it important to ape President Schmuckstick. Anybody that is quiet about the deportation while it digs into the Republican shit pile to fill its hands with their excrement to throw at one of the few voices in the State taking a hard stand against what is going on here is a collaborator.

And if anybody finds my language more disturbing than the constant subtle rooting for the policies now taking form that cheerfully destroy lives to secure power, than you no longer need to look at the history books and wonder "how did people let that happen?".

The Birther BS was about where Obama was born not what his race was. It was obvious that he was of mixed race. So, let's throw that one out the window.

Had Ms. Warren not applied as an "woman of color" Native American heritage 1/32 Cherokee, there would be no issue involved at all. Ignorance is bliss, I guess. There are obvious and simple ways to prove that her high cheekbones either were or were not Indian inspired. Since she was so proud of her heritage, it would seem likely that proving it when she became an adult would have been prudent and very helpful on her part. In some places, being as little as 1/64th Native American gives one tribal status and a check every month from good ol' Uncle Sam. No one begrudges that. Native Americans (real Native Americans) have earned that right and distinction for all that they have suffered at the hands of whites. Whatever they are paid, it isn't enough.

And if bragging about being a Native American when one either does not know or is speculating that one is an Indian until BS is called makes one smart enough to become a US Senator, the bar is set pretty low, not withstanding the political jackal, whoever he/she might be that exposed Ms. Warren. Seems one would want to sew up the Native American vote if one was related to an Indian tribe. She couldn't explain it enough to convince Geronimo's Great-Grandson and others. They won't vote for her and are either mad about it or are laughing their collective butts off and mocking her. (Liawatha) and such with her Pow Wow Cookbook. Hell, I'm related to some English Kings, but I ain't claimin' the Crown Jewels. Oh, I can prove my heritage. There was a blood test.

Kids believe myths all the time. That doesn't make it so. Sooner or later one has to grow up. Having an adolescent in the Senate isn't conducive to good governance. Give her a headdress and a Bigwheel and she'll play ball.

I'm sure myself and the other genius here on this thread could use all the help we can get mopping the floor. I, for one, would welcome it. Floor mopping is no longer exclusively women's work. Perhaps it never was. I hope Ms. Warren is a good strong woman.

About that Hispanic woman; if she is the same one I heard about yesterday, she stole someone else's identity to get a job and was convicted of a felony some time ago. I guess she is being deported back to Mehico not very far away where her children are free to join her. It's not like we have the Berlin Wall along our southern border. People can go back and forth as long as they have the proper documents or a really good Coyote.

I am proud that I could collaborate with the previous post so that 2 sides might be presented of an important issue. It ain't Woodward and Bernstein, but it'll do.

Mr. Trump will be vindicated soon enough. That's why 60 million people voted for him. All of them bigots, of course.

I find your style in prose somewhat opaque, Charlie - but your drift would appear to be that the serious content of a Senator's critique of the Trump Presidency's Executive Orders and of his Cabinet nominations are to be vitiated becasue she may have gained minor political advantage (though your latest post seems to undermine that point) through some uncorrected romancing some years back about her family's origins.

If that is all, I do not see that you have made any relevant points at all.
The weakness of your position is only emphasised by the manner in which, to alien eyes, you appear to be making it.

Nigel, I was pointing out the hypocrisy of the left/democrats in general, and the fact that Ms Warren didn't give a rip about Sessions qualifications or his possible failings, they would most certainly try to destroy any politician with an R beside their name. More specifically, and to the point is that Sessions hasn't been caught in a lie as Ms. Warren has. And if the moccasin were on the other foot and Ms. Warren were being vetted by the Senate, the Republicans would not have treated her that way. It seems that none of you care about any of that, you only wish to destroy your own countrymen and ours wish to destroy our own countrymen for no good reason apparent other than you hate May and our 50% hate Trump. It's a difficult way to govern. Ms. Warren's native American claims are indicative and the proximate cause of this, in a nutshell. Like I said earlier, I don't care if she's related to Superman. It's all about the Left's hypocrisy. Why is that so hard for you to understand? Weak? Nope.

This a waste of time. I say poetry should be the arbiter here. This struggle is a century in the making. Bring the poetry of both sides out and see what rings hollow. I will go first posting a poem of resistance to the Right then Charlie or maybe John can post something for the Republican/Brexit sort of dreamworld Maybe some Pound from one his radio broadcasts might work?
Of course there is always some stuff over at Counter Currents that will do if you lads get in a pinch.

To Federico García Lorca

I.

He was seen walking among rifles,
down the long street,
leaving for the cold of the countryside
with the morning stars still bright overhead.

They killed Federico
at the break of day.
The assassins never dared
to look him in the face:
each of them had his eyes shut tight.
“God won’t save you!” they shouted,
and Federico fell dead—
blood on his clothes, lead in his back . . .
Let it be known that the crime was done in Granada
--poor Granada--in his Granada.


II. The poet and death

He was seen walking alone with her,
unafraid of her sickle.
--The sun was already lighting the towers;
hammers were sounding--striking and clanging in the forges.
Federico spoke to her,
playing up to death. She was listening.
“You’ve made my verses ring, my dear,
with the clapping of your dry hands.
You’ve put ice into my song and honed
my tragedies on your scythe of silver,
so I will sing to you of the flesh you don’t have,
the eyes you have lost,
the hair that the wind took away,
the red lips where you used to kiss.
Today, as always, oh Gypsy, my death,
how good to be alone with you
in these breezes of Granada, of my Granada!"


III.

He was seen walking . . .
friends, let us make
a monument for the poet in the Alhambra
out of stone and dreams
above a fountain where the water grieves
and says to anyone who hears it:
the crime was done in Granada, in his Granada!

Antonio Machado, 1936
Translated by Frank Beck

What does Pound have to do with this and who is Counter Currents? I suppose you already know. Please elucidate.

I can understand the Senate having a rule that you shouldn't attack your fellow Senators. This makes sense when, as is true 99.99% of the time, the subject of the debate isn't precisely the question of the whether a given Senator has the requisite character and qualifications to be confirmed. It strikes me as bizarre to say during a debate about a Senator's qualifications that criticism of that Senator is out of bounds. Senate collegiality ought not to mean that the Senate should automatically confirm the nomination of anyone who happens to be a Senator at the time of his nomination, right? And if you agree, I don't see how you can use rules of Senate collegiality to prohibit extreme criticism of a nominee.

I'd also note that the letter that Warren wanted to read was a letter that was already in the official Senate record from an earlier confirmation hearing in which the Senate rejected a prior Sessions nomination on a bipartisan basis.

You are probaly right, Andrew and the effort is hardly worth making, however....

Charlie, one minor, alleged and hypocritical act, somewhat remote in time from the current dispute, does not make any case at all of alleged general applicabiliy. Your assault on Warren does not address any of her critique of Sessions. It is simply mud-slinging - and the ripeness and/or reality of irrelevant mud does not elevate it above that.

I would be interested where you find that I desire to destroy anyone, let alone my "countrymen" - whether, Scots, British or European. If you cannot identify such a place, I would appreciate it if you would withdraw the accusation.

May, however, is busy on a project which, as a matter of economic fact, is set to have seriously negative consequences for millions of my fellow "countrymen", measured in terms of any of these three groups. That is one of the reasons - among many more, all open to rational debate - why I detest what she is doing and why I will work flat-out when the new independence referendum comes to break free of a UK, of which I was once, many decades ago, so proud, and which she and her party are dismantling. The 'destroying' of its "union" is, ironically, very much at the centre of the, doubtless unintended, consequences of her actions.

I don't consider it an accusation, Nigel. I have seen John Whitworth castigated, mocked and ridiculed for his opinions. You and others are quick to say he is a wonderful poet, but...

You are free to do that as long as John doesn't mind, and John seems to handle his business with much aplomb. But it does get old. One would think that a contemporary poet of John's caliber would be more respected all around.

If it is all in good fun between you, then certainly, I withdraw my remarks. I maintain that such repeated acts does have at least a residual effect on ones reputation and possibly their book sales. And John has yet to stand for an political office. Imagine if he did.


I agree with you Bob, 100%. Extreme criticism is different than demeaning a colleague with whom you've worked for some years and likely haven't had the balls to accuse him to his face at any time prior to.

The problem with the letter is that there are accusation that cannot be confirmed, only denied. That's a nasty business to my mind. Attorneys at Law have a code to live by too. I have found that the majority of attorneys violate their pledge when they wake up in the morning. How to pick a good one for the SC? I don't know.

But Charlie, if hypocrisy is the new integrity the Trumpkins are way out in front.

Take the b.s. they're slinging about the Yemen raid. Spicer says:

Yet by Trump's own standards--having said during the campaign that McCain wasn't a true war hero because he got caught--Ryan Owens must be a real loser because he got killed.

Shamelessness is the new pride, and the Trumpkins are proud to show it.

Btw, about your doubt that millions of people might be bigots or at least tacitly support blatant bigotry and racism: you betch'ya it can happen, bit by bit little by little the laws and institutions can be tailored to fit the "alternative truth." And before long, people are lining up for the stuff. Try Fascist Italy. It happened, it really did.

Charlie, I'll leave the vitriolic accusations based on Trumpian "alternative truth" to you. I prefer to try to determine the facts.

"In April 2012, the Boston Herald sparked a campaign controversy when it reported that from 1986 to 1995 Warren had listed herself as a minority in the Association of American Law Schools (AALS) directories. Harvard Law School had publicized her minority status in response to criticisms about a lack of faculty diversity, but Warren said that she was unaware of this until she read about it in a newspaper during the 2012 election. Scott Brown, her Republican opponent in the Senate race, speculatedxtthat she had fabricated Native American heritage to gain advantage in the job market. Former colleagues and supervisors at universities where she had worked stated that Warren's ancestry played no role in her hiring. Warren responded to the allegations, saying that she had self-identified as a minority in the directories in order to meet others with similar tribal roots. Her brothers defended her, stating that they "grew up listening to our mother and grandmother and other relatives talk about our family's Cherokee and Delaware heritage". In her 2014 autobiography, Warren described the allegations as untrue and hurtful. The New England Historic Genealogical Society found a family newsletter that alluded to a marriage license application that listed Elizabeth Warren’s great-great-great grandmother as a Cherokee, but could not find the primary document and found no proof of her descent. The Oklahoma Historical Society said that finding a definitive answer about Native American heritage can be difficult because of intermarriage and deliberate avoidance of registration."

So it seems evident that Elizabeth Warren has good reason to believe that she has Cherokee blood - or do you think that the mention of a marriage license application (even if the primary document can't be found) listing her great-great-great-grandmother as a Cherokee was a lie planted many generations earlier in case the as-yet unborn Elizabeth might find it useful some day?

On reflection, knowing you, you're probably able to convince yourself that that's exactly what happened.