Saturday, August 14, 2010

Give my regards to the Queen

A reader graced my blog with this comment in regards to my post Loyalist or Patriot.  She felt that she was wasting her time but  I thought that I would share it with all of you, so this she would not feel that she had commented in vain.  I left the comment in tact - spelling and all.

 I am sorry to have offended you and your ancestors, you might want to consider moving back to Mother England, and please. do give my regards to the Queen.

Very sincerely yours,

Enola Gay

Not to interfere, and in the full knowledge that I am wasting my time, but the post isn’t that wise at all. I mean, do you really think that Modern-Day Liberals are analogous to the Loyalists of 1776?

Think about it for a few minuets.

A Loyalist, of which I am actually descended from, and who I strongly Sympathise with being a Monarchist, is someone how is Loyal to their Legitimate Government, not necessarily someone who always agrees with it. They certainly aren’t in the end only Loyal to themselves.

Its also a bit silly to think that Loyalists aren’t Loyal to their Country or Countrymen. Of coruse the Loyalists were Loyal to their Country, that why they fought he Rebel Traitors who had abandoned the Rightful King and stood firm by their Laws and Traditions!

If someone tried to overthrow the US Government, would you say they are Patriots or Loyalists? In truth, by today’s Definitions they’d be both. One can deeply Love your Country and still be a Loyalist. In fact, one would have to Love your Country in order to be a Loyalist.

How is it that someone who is Loyal, by definition, to their Government and Proper Sovereign is classified in your mind as someone who doesn’t love their Country? That’s a Rather odd contradiction in terms. Its rather like saying that someone who refuses to obey the United States Constitution, the Sovereign Law of the Land, Loves the United States.

Revolutionaries are far less in love with their Country, and more with their own Agendas, aren’t they? They want to topple the existing Power so they can replace it with themselves.

Say what you will but, every single Revolution in History was always about grabbing power for oneself over someone else, not over Love of Country. That includes the Much storied American Revolt of 1776, which I may remind you was over Taxation without Representation, not Socialism and the Nanny State.

The Loyalists were not men of Cowardice who only loved themselves, or handouts they got form the King, but those who loved their Nation and Traditions, their people and way of life. They risked their lives by Donning the Red Uniform and fighting an Open Rebellion against their King and their Homes. Many of the Loyalists had their land seized, and were Tarred and Feathered, or Lynched. Many lost their lives even if they were Civilians.

Yet they should somehow be seen as those who did not Love their Country and were Loyal only to themselves?

Because they refused to Rise up against their Rightful King?

Don’t you think this sort of post, which plays off of American Patriotic Love for the Founding of this Nation, is going a bit too Far? Why is it a popular Trend nowadays to think of our Struggle as Identical to that of 1776, and to pretend that the Tory’s would all vote Obama if alive today? I mean, the Tory’s were Conservatives, and Modern-Day Monarchists are typically a Highly Conservative Bunch.

I also know of o Monarchist then or now who endorsed Tyranny. King George the Third, by the way, was not really a Tyrant.

So why demonise my Ancestors and me personally with this sort of Dreary Hitpeice that basically takes advantage of a desire to see History as Clear Cut with plain good guys who lived their Country and Freedom and those evil Cowardly Redcoats who Loved Tyranny?

Its not really Fair at all.


  1. Yikes, that post is so screwy that it's hard to know where to start rebutting it. So, all I can say is this: that post was written by someone who is a prime example of the failure of our public school oh so many ways.

    NoCal Gal

  2. This particularly caught my eye:

    "That includes the Much storied American Revolt of 1776, which I may remind you was over Taxation without Representation, not Socialism and the Nanny State."

    Oh, the Irony. "Remind" us does she.

    Forcing me to buy health care I don't want -- which is blatantly unconstitutional -- by buying off enough votes in a Congress that blatantly ignored the will of its constituents, using thugs to physically attack Tea Partiers, using thugs to intimidate voters at polling places, using courts to steal private property for the benefit of another private party by pretending the Constitution says something it clearly does not say, or mean -- Kelo -- the outright confiscation of GMAC’s bondholders’ money by the Federal Government....

    All of these things and many more are the same as, and worse than Taxation Without Representation. It's government forcing things on us that we clearly said we don't want.

    Finally, I CANNOT resist. You wrote:

    "Think about it for a few minuets."

    HAHAHAHAHA!! Spoken like a true monarchist!

    Bill Smith

  3. My comment for the "Loyalist" letter is this. Have you ever been to Africa and seen starving refugee's with you own eyes. Have you ever traveled outside the United States and seen the long term results of "Colonialism". I have, and now I appricate more than ever what my ancestors in the Revolutionary army fought for.

    God Bless the Constitution, Bill of Rights and America.

    A Gulf War Veteran.

  4. Pet peeve #1 of mine--when people capitalize words that don't need to be capitalized. Pet peeve #2--when people deliberately choose not to understand analogies.

  5. i enjoyed husband comes from a long line of of his great greats was a kings' attorney. then another one of his greats sold and trained a horse named truxton to president andrew jackson-it was a great race by the way, and then another great great fought in the civil war and i believe another was a carpet bagger. if we look-and i meanreallly look at our own personal histories i think we would all be surprised that not everyone in one family line shares the same opinions and politics but hopefully we learn something from the successes and the mistakes. right now we have a federal government that the american people put into power with their votes and if anything comes from this at all it should indeed be a learning experience that should we survive we will never ever forget the lessons it has brought us.
    best to you...caryn n.e.mississippi

  6. "Rightful rulers"?

    What, the divine right of kings?

    There are not rights to rulership.

    There are those elected to exercise limited powers delegated to them by the States in the Constitution.

    The highest title in THIS country is:

    Senator, Representitive, President?
    Employees all and demonstrably not the best sort of employees - not honest, wise or honorable.

    The "Loyalist" needs a long and complete application of a cluebat. I suggest reading the Declaration - TWICE. Same with the Constitution... And complete sessation of reading at HuPo and Daily Kos...

  7. A loyalist believes that the function of government is to protect the ruling class, who have more rights than the 'masses'.

    A united States patriot believes that the function of government is to protect the rights of all individuals, each of whom has the same rights as any other person, no more and certainly no less. Patriots in the late 18th century forced the Federalists to include a Bill of Rights in the US Constitution, and Patriots today will enforce that selfsame Bill of Rights.

    This post is a significant advance in the war of ideas, the conflict of memes, that will determine which side ultimately wins. "Patriot" is a name that brings all sorts of good baggage along with it.

  8. Rex Lex or Lex Rex ?

    Enola, Your original post was great !

    I grasp some of ZAROVE's admiration of Monarchy - but it calls out for a Just Monarch, not just a Monarch ! (pun intended...)

    Our culture has a hard time relating to the thought of a King, but the Bible declares Jesus to be King of Kings & Lord of Lords.

    These are titles of political authority are they not ?

    That is why the colonists, if you examine their organic statements, will sound like Monarchists, but if a different sort than their British brethren:

    The colonists, the Sons of Liberty (under Samuel Adams) and the Committees of Correspondence, all declared:

    "No King, but King Jesus"

    "Restore the Crown Rights of King Jesus"

    They knew the fallible nature of man, due to sin.

    "Power corrupts, absolute power absolutely corrupts."

    They knew from the Scriptures the clear lesson that only Kings limited by God's Word could bring peace:

    Proverbs: "Thrones are established for Righteousness; it is an abomination for a King to commit wickedness."

    Principle: Kings are NOT absolute; they must give account to God, the real KING. They must not enslave their subjects.

    Read the entire chapter of Deuteronomy 17:14-20 - it states the rules for a King:

    - Must be one of his brethren - no foreigner

    - Must write the Law in his own hand - read it every day - keep his copy on his person to refer to his duty

    - His heart must NOT be lifted up in pride

    - He may not multiply wives (entangling foreign alliances) or horses (symbol of military might - no militaristic empire building) or gold & silver - no money corruption & theft via economic means.

    America today, (via the Executive Office of President),and Britain during the Colonial era - was in total violation of these Biblical Principles - is that not clear as crystal ?

    Both Republican and Democrat presidents have equally violated these Principles....

    Truly, there is nothing new under the sun !

    The doctrine of the Divine Right of Kings ruled Britain, until over tuned by the movement spawned by the groundbreaking book, "Lex Rex" !

    Wherein Pastor Samuel Rutherford expounded these Principles of a Christian King, not autonomous, but limited strictly by Law.

    Prior, assumption was "Rex Lex - The King is Law"

    Rutherford re-proved : "Lex Rex" - The Law is King"

    See the difference ?

    These Key Principles animated our Founders:

    1) God given, Inalienable Rights of Citizens - Liberty, under the Law

    2) Government established by God, entrusted to a self-governing 'we the people' to hold rulers accountable to them, so they could be accountable to Him.

    3) Government's sole purpose: To secure the rights of the governed. Included the right to abolish & re-establish new forms of governance, if & when needed.

    This became the new Standard in America, and America became the wonder of the World, as God poured our His blessing upon the new nation that Honored Him.

    Truly, America, in her early days, said:

    "No King, but King Jesus."

    May we Christian Patriots rediscover the secret to self-government, under Him who alone is King, so that the nascent Tyranny, that is growing by leaps & bounds in our day, may be arrested.

    May our eyes be opened to the corruption of both parties that are used to divide us, so that we are not easily misled by shallow & self serving men !

    May we both equally desire to find & desire to be men of pure conviction & character - as were the best of our Founding Fathers.

    "The LORD is our Judge; the LORD Is our Lawgiver, the LORD is our King; He will save us."

    Isaiah 33:22

    Your servant, for Christ & Liberty,

    Samuel Adams, Jr.


  9. Rex Lex or Lex Rex, Part II


    Sorry that was a bit long -

    There are so many misconceptions that we labor under, like layers of an onion, and to unwrap them fully is no simple matter.

    I also entirely left out of my refutation / explication of ZAROVE's Monarchist missive the key tenet that sets American political Truth apart from British - namely, that it's Christian Principles applied to each individual in their Conscience, by the individual, that leads them to obey Higher Law, thus not needing or requiring strong authoritarian political structures ie: Tyranny.

    I suppose you could call this the:

    "Doctrine of The Self-Governing Christian."

    Some quotes illustrate:

    "A Republic, if you can keep it..." - Ben Franklin, in response to a question about our type of government.

    "You must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place, oblige it to control itself."

    Where an excess of power prevails, property of no sort is duly respected. No man is safe in his opinions, his person, his faculties or his possessions. "

    "We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We have staked the future of all of our political institutions upon the capacity of mankind for self- government; upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God."

    — James Madison

    These quotes & many,many more can be cited to support the notion that America & her colonies were not to be governed by elites, but by the common citizen, themselves governed internally by a Godly Conscience, in line with eternal Principles.

    Though the origins of Christian self-government certainly are rooted in the English Common Law, their most developed form was transplanted to thrive in the New American Colonies.

    The Colonial citizens drive for Independence was, therefore, no sort of 'rebellion' (as ZAROVE has termed it), but rather reverting to the best impulses developed in England & her Common Law, but were stifled by either Popery (church dominance) or Divine Right of Kings (Political dominance); finally allowed to come to full fruition during the Pilgrim migration here beginning in 1620.

    Those Pilgrims & their generations, were the Founding Fathers, founding fathers. From 1620 -1776, an interval of 156 years, they developed a structure of Liberty under Law - with free flowing of Christian Principles amongst the citizenry - not locked up within a Priestly class or Royal class, as in England.

    This is our heritage of Liberty !

    It's coming into it's own again as many individuals, families & church groups study this through to find "the ancient paths to walk in & find rest for our souls."

    As we see certain parts of our nation becoming more addicted to Statism (both left-Statists & right-Statists), we feel driven to ask the LORD:

    Show us where the truth is, lest we fall to this idolatrous deception. Show us Your ways, O LORD !

    One primary focus of our Homeschool as been on these Principles of Liberty I've tried to articulate here - it's wasn't until your excellent post & ZAROVE's impassioned response that I felt compelled to write out what we have been studying.

    ZAROVE had quite a bit of extra material they wrote in the various comments, that you summarized in "Give my regards to the Queen", I was addressing those, too.

    Thanks for the stimulation ! - Samuel Adams, Jr.

  10. Even when God set up the kings of Israelites it was a punishment upon them for wanting someone else besides Himself to tell them what to do. And it was the departure of the kings from God that led the people astray that led to their overthrow and captivity.

  11. Thnks for the apology,I did not notice it before, and even if its a backhanded one Ill accept4 it.

    To the rest, I'm afraid I dint learn any of his at Public School, and noen of you seem to really grasp what a Constitutional Monarhcy is all about. EG, King George he Third was not really the one levyign he Taxes. It wsns't "Divine Right of Kings" and he didn't realy have the sort of sweeping authority you seem to assume he had.

    Also, the Taxes levied by Parliment were beign raised to maintain colonial defence. That was actually qyiet legitimate. As to Africa and Colonialisation, don't you think the two wren't really compatable? For one thing, a lot of Racism existed int he 18th Century, and America didn't treat the Africans too well either. Slavery ended in America after it ended in Britain, by the way.

    That said, Colonisation is blamed for a lot of the prblems but much like most other things thats an oversimplification. (And, beore Im accused, Liberals blame colonisation, too.)

    Really what caused the problems in Africa wasnt so much colonisation, but the favt that the colonisaiton ended rapidly and the natiosn were taken ovr by Communists.

    Rhodesia was actually better off than Zimbabwe is now. Unless yu think Mugabe is a great guy...

    Kristy, I've heard the argument that God sent a Kign to Israel as a Punishment before, but it doesnt work. The assumption that God hates Monarhcy is misguided, especially if yoi think God prefers a republic. If God prefers a republic, why did he not create one in Israel? It was a Theocracy, not a republic, and the poitn was not that they wanted a Kign instead of begn Free as an AMerican tends to unerstand it, its that they wanted to replace their King, GOD HIMSELF, for a Human Monarch.

    Israle was always a Monarchy in Biblical Times, and the sin was not in wantign a King (Which certainly want s Punishment, it was givign them wht they wanted) it was wantign a Human Government instead of God personally guiding and protectign them.

  12. Not to break my one last, but, an addendum to wha Kristy Said.

    The Kings of Israle were also not absolute Monarchs. Its not liek the peopel of Israel set up a King so he coudl tell them what to do, and the King didn't realy hav that kind of Power. Ultimatley Saul, David, Solomon, ect, they all were subordinate to the Law of Moses, which was a sort of written Cnstitution for want of a better term. The King cudln't just sit and make ne Laws, and he coudlnt amend the existign Laws. The King was entuirely dependant upon the Law of Moses, and could not Violate it.

    The Kings coudlnt just make Laws randomly. Nor coudl the Kings of the Middle Ages.