Saturday, August 7, 2010

Loyalist or Patriot?

Miss Calamity (our eleven year old daughter) stunned me the other day with an incredibly astute observation.  She informed me that ours is a family of Patriots.  Now that statement, in and of itself, may not seem earth shattering, but it got me thinking.  If we were patriots, what were the people who staunchly support the entrenched establishment?  After thinking long and hard, I came to the conclusion that the supporters of the status quo must be called "Loyalists".

Looking up the definitions of both Loyalist and Patriot, I made a startling discovery.  The definition of a loyalist is:   One who maintains loyalty to an established government, political party, or sovereign, especially during war or revolutionary change.   Conversely, here is the definition of a patriot:  One who loves and loyally or zealously supports one's own countryDo you see the difference?  One supports the established government and the other supports their country!  What a revolutionary idea!  Literally.

As I watch our State and Federal governments in action, I see a wholesale group of loyalists.  They are loyal to their programs, they are loyal to their pet projects and they are loyal to their pocket books.  Ultimately, they are loyal to themselves.  Nowhere do I see a loyalty to their country or their countrymen.

Patriots have become icons of terrorism.  They have been labeled as enemy combatants and dissidents.  They have been marginalized for their love of country and staunch support of the ideals on which this great country was built.  We, as Patriots have become the enemy.

We are a country divided.  The terms "Republican" and "Democrat" no longer apply.  We are either Patriots or Loyalists.  Lovers of government and tyranny or lovers of country and freedom.  We are being thrust into a new era, that is, in fact, but another chapter in the story of liberty.

As said by one of the Great Patriots:  Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace-- but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!

We stand on a precipice.  Patriot or Loyalist. Tyranny or Liberty.  Security (supposed) or Freedom.  We all make a choice, either consciously or passively.  Choose you this day who you will serve - the author of oppression or the Father of liberty.  Will you meekly serve your masters or are you willing to suffer and perhaps even die in the name of Liberty and Freedom.  Choose you this day.


  1. I love this post! The name of our homeschool is Patriotic Outpost Christian Academy, POCA for short. :) And we're getting ready to graduate our first. HOORAY!!!

  2. With humility, I put myself in the Patriot column.

    NoCal Gal

  3. Excellent post. I've long considered myself a Patriot, but without being able to explain exactly what that meant. This hits the nail on the head.

  4. Thank you for this great post. I have been going round and round with GOP loyalist over the need to vote out all incumbents in 2010. The usual reply is that we need the GOP right or wrong and we have to be loyal to them to defeat the democrats. These politicians of both side are cut from the same cloth, just one side soft and one side rough. We will never take back our country until we get the politicians under our thumb. Nothing says that better than voting ALL of those, from both parties, responsible out of OUR HOUSE. I am not loyal to the party that I support, the Constitution Party. If they don't follow the limits set forth in the Constitution of the United States I will oppose them.

    I am Loyal to only three things, in order: God, My Country, and my wife and family (if I know whats good for me ;-). ) Three things one and the same.

    Keep up your great work.


  5. I believe another difference would be in who you trust. I will not say all, but most Patriots realize that trust is not for government, but for God. Loyalists believe trust should be put in government. This is why you see so many people who think government rather than the Church should take care of those in need. This is also why you see so many more people willing to fight for their beliefs in government than fight for their beliefs in God.

  6. a wonderful post...from one patriot to another i salute you and yours.

  7. Thank you! What was once cloudy and hard to define is clear and understood!! After years of living in the dark with my head in the sand, I have come out of the dark, and also humbly, claim the title Patriot. I am encouraged to see the growing numbers of others who are standing up and proclaiming their allegience to this country - not the government.
    Keep up the great posts!!!

  8. Our Founding Fathers were NOT ‘revolutionaries’ and the war fought from 1775 to 1783 was a ‘War of Independence’ and NOT a ‘revolution’ or ‘Revolutionary War’. We didn’t overthrow our government, we declared our independence from it. Our Founding Fathers ‘seceded’ from the home country and its governmental control: our Founders were ‘secessionists’ who declared ‘independence’ from the King and their central (or ‘Federal’) government. Our Founders never made any attempt to overthrow the government of England, and therefore were not ‘revolutionaries’. The real ‘revolutionaries’ were in England, radically changing the way the central or federal government dealt with and treated the colonists in America. In declaring their independence and ‘seceding’ from the King and their government headquartered in London , the ‘American’ colonists, who were still technically British subjects, were branded ‘rebels’, ‘traitors’ and even ‘terrorists’. Many of our Founding Fathers literally had bounties on their heads. Death warrants were issued for them by the King, including George Washington and John Hancock.
    It is very important to remember that our Founders were not fighting the ‘British Government’ and the ‘British Army’ as ‘Americans’. WE WERE THE BRITISH!
    Our heroes of 1776 were not fighting a foreign invader or foreign enemy in the American colonies. Our Founding Fathers were British subjects and British colonists fighting THEIR OWN ARMY and THEIR OWN GOVERNMENT! On his famous midnight ride, Paul Revere did NOT exclaim, “the British are coming!” He awoke his fellow patriots by yelling, “The Redcoats are coming! The Redcoats are coming!” Everyone in the colonies knew the Redcoats meant the Federal Army – THEIR ARMY!
    The colonists (all those British subjects living in the 13 colonies in America) basically broke down into two groups: ‘Loyalists’ (also known as ‘Tories’) and ‘Patriots’. The ‘Loyalists’ wanted to remain subservient to the Crown and their government. The ‘Patriots’ were the ‘secessionists’: they wanted to dissolve all bonds and allegiance to the King and the central (federal) government, and be free and independent.
    Of interesting note: about 35% of colonists were ‘Loyalists’, about 35% were ‘Patriots’, and about 30% sat on the fence, refusing to take sides. Even more interesting is the fact that even though both factions had openly activist groups, underground movements and secret support networks, only about 2% of the entire population of the colonies actually took up arms and actively fought in the war.
    Once open warfare commenced, the ‘War of Independence’ was in many ways a ‘Civil War’ as ‘Loyalist’ militias battled ‘Patriot militias’ – the two opposing sides were composed of fellow ‘countrymen’ in the sense that they all came from or lived in the American colonies. Many militiamen came from the same town, county, or colony as the men they were shooting at. Even though they were all ‘American’ colonists, their politics were viciously divided. Their ‘visions’ differed greatly as to where the colonies’ rightful place in the ‘kingdom’ resided.
    Look up the “Battle of King’s Mountain”. It was a bloody battle where Loyalist militia fought Patriot militia; all but one of the participants involved were ‘Americans’. It was Americans killing Americans. (Colonel Ferguson, a Scotsman and British Army officer, commanded the Loyalist militia forces and was the only non-American that fought in the battle).
    The parallels with the present are alarming. The tyrannical behavior and methods of ‘our’ central (federal) government in Washington, D.C. greatly resembles ‘our’ former central government in London that we seceded and gained our independence from. Today the nation is bitterly divided and each faction has a ‘vision’ of where it wants to go, and where the rightful place of an individual, ‘free’ citizen rests in all of it.

  9. Anonymous above is obviously a Loyalist. Enjoy your chains....

  10. Our government has a job to do, as defined by the Constitution. We Patriots will love our government as long as it does what it was intended to do and nothing more! As long as it does not try to take away our rights, freedoms and liberties we will love and respect it. When government gets out of control and IS NO LONGER ANSWERABLE TO ITS PEOPLE, then it's time to put government back in its place, just as you would an undisciplined child. Without rules and discipline -- checks and balances -- government (and liberals) are exactly like spoiled, unruly, demanding children. The only ones who are truly "stupid" are those who can't see this and blame others for their own ignorance! No doubt Enola Gay has read more about the Founding Fathers than the first "anonymous" above ever has or ever will. She understands perfectly. The first "anonymous" is nothing but a blind, ignorant trouble-maker, out to try to stir things up. Come down off your high-horse and for once in your life stop being a puppet and think for yourself, instead of just repeating the liberal lies you hear every day.

  11. I love the 'anonymous' post above clarifying some early historical facts! If a nation or people have no common culture or agreed upon definition of morality, then there can be no 'right' or 'wrong'. That is why illegal immigration and multi-culturalism will both lead to anarchy: the government supports and uses both to divide and conquer the people. "We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion: where government is free to do anything it pleases while the citizens may act only by permission."(Ayn Rand) By 'embracing' this madness, we will all lose every last bit of our freedom in the end; and the road to total slavery will be very painful.

    "If you once forfeit the confidence of your fellow citizens, you can never regain their respect and esteem. It is true that you may fool all the people some of the time; you can even fool some of the people all the time; but you can't fool all the people all the time." Abe Lincoln (He would know, having been a tyrant!)

    "If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear." "In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act." George Orwell

    "He who dares not offend cannot be honest." Thomas Paine

    "The men the American people admire most extravagantly are the most daring liars. The men they detest most violently are those who try to tell them the truth." H.L. Mencken

    "A liberal is a socialist in denial. A communist is a socialist in a hurry. A 'progressive' is a communist masquerading as a liberal."

    "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for dinner. Freedom is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote." (Why we're a Republic)

    "If the public are bound to yield obedience to laws to which they cannot give their approbation, they are slaves to those who make such laws and enforce them." 'Candidius' writing in the Boston Gazette, 1772!! (Think about it - this is where we're at today!)

    "When injustice becomes law, then rebellion becomes duty!" Thomas Jefferson

  12. 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.

  13. ZAROVE obviously works for the government.

  14. ZAROVE apparently works for the BRITISH government. Such bilge! WHO is "demonising" your ancestors? Americans were also British subjects, but Americans were being treated even worse than you Brits. No one has said Redcoats were "cowardly" and "evil." Those are your words. No doubt the Redcoats hated tyranny, as well, but it was too late for them to do anything about it. Go back to your tea and crumpets, ZAROVE, and remember this: Loyalists are loyal to their programs, their pet projects and their pocketbooks. Ultimately, they are loyal to themselves. Enjoy crouching down and licking the hands which feed you, subject of the Crown!

  15. A Patriot's Faith is in God and His eternal principles of morality. A Politician's (Loyalist's) faith is in Reason. That was and is the difference between the American and French Revolutions. Patriots are loyal to the principles of our Sacred Consitution (Yes Sacred), Loyalists see such principles as foolishness compared to their "Reason". They are blinded by their own brilliance and won't be in Hell 3 seconds before they realize "Morality sees further than Intellect".
    Peter F Boyce - Consitution Party Candidate for Congress 2nd Dist. NJ

  16. I received this excellent description of a "Loyalist" and a "Patriot" from a true Patriot, a wise lady to be sure, and that I have not seen in over twenty five years. I totally agree with Enola Gay's interpretation, and I have lived as a patriot of Canada my whole life. Due to my continued outspoken Patriotism since the early '80s, I have paid the price gladly. It is time that more Americans and more Canadians to WAKE UP or our FREEDOMS will continued to be lost to our treasonous governments. Visit my website if you really wish to be alerted to where we are headed in North America:

  17. How is it that a Patriot loves God and a Loyalist Loves Reason, and not God, and in the end their own Pocket book when the Loyalists often lost all they owned fighting the Revolutionaries? And how can you claim God is on your side when the Bible forbids Revolution?

    Read the Scriptures sometimes, and tell me where in the passages of the Bible it ever promotes Rebellion as good.

    1 Samuel 15, verse 23.

    For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry. Because thou hast rejected the word of the Lord, he hath also rejected thee from being king.

    You may also say this is Anti-Monarchy and this as aimed at a King, but was it really just the king he spoke of? Would God Favour a Revolution? What of Paul? Living it the Pagan and evil Roman Empire, he must have said that God wills a Revolution. Oh wait, no he didn’t.

    Paul said we are to obey those in Authority over us, and to live under them. He never once said we need to Rebel.

    Romans 13

    1. Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.
    2. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.
    3. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:

    Christ himself said that we should Render unto Caesar, and said we are to obey the Lawful Rulers of our Time in Mathew 22:21, and told his Apostles he would not ride in to overthrow the Roman Empire. Never did Jesus appeal to a Rebellious Spirit in man, praise this Rebellious Spirit, and claim it was good to overthrow our Government.

    Meanwhile, the godly and Saintly American Founding Fathers include a man who edited the New Testament because he didn’t like Miracles. His name was Thomas Jefferson. Jefferson Castigated Traditional Orthodox Christian Teachings. Thomas Paine wrote a Book called “The Age of Reason”, in which he out his Faith in Human Reason, and said of Christianity that it was an abominable Lie that corrupted men’s Souls.

    Yet I am to believe that Paine and Jefferson were godly, and they out their Faith in God, not Reason, and I as a Loyalist put my Faith in Human Reason. I also only love my Programmes. That’s rich, I don’t really rely on any. Nor did any exist in the 18th Century.

  18. Do you really think the Kings Subjects were receiving a Monthly Stipend? That all of the loyalists were on welfare in the 18th Century? Do you realise how absurd that notion is?

    Those who rejected Christ’s Divinity and elevated Human Reason above all as a Justification for everything they did are seen as those who pout their Faith in God whilst the loyalists Fighting for God and King are only init for the money how?

    Jefferson again Said, I remind you, “Question everything, even the Existence of God. “ Meanwhile the godless King George attended Church weekly and Prayed Regularly, and tried to live by his Christian Oath as a Christian King. I think your reversing the roles.

    Heck, the only reason we HAVE Socialist wealth Redistribution programmes, and for that matter Barrack Obama as President, is because we live in a Republic. Socialism was about creating a Society of Equals that abolished the Class distinctions, not about helping enrich an Aristocracy, and Obama’s elevation to the Highest office in the land came because he was just so gosh darn Popular that people just had to vote for him with his “Yes we can“ and “Change we can believe in“ Rhetoric. Is it really that Logical to blame Loyalism and Monarchism on Obama and Socialist Policies? I mean I’ve been frequently compared to a Communist or Socialist for these views but don’t you think that, even though you hate both sides, you can be retinal enough to know they are nothing at all alike?

    If there is a next post, and it is seemly, Ill go into detail. But to claim the Revolutionaries followed God and were GodFearign and Loyalists follow Reason ( Not really bad, Proverbs 4) and claiming they didn’t care for Gods Promoting is just Gross Negligence with the Realities of the world we live in.

    By the way, Obama would never hire me. I’m a Conservative. I have been outspoken in opposition to Abortion and think it ought to be rendered Illegal and have said it was Murder. I oppose Same Sex Marriage and See Homosexuality as a Moral Wrong. I find no pleasure in Governmental Interference and believe in a Decentralised State, in which most Authority is Local.

    It was a Republican mind that Brought Beurocracy to us.

  19. Also To the above, how can the French Revolution be characterised as different from the American Revolution if the difference between patriot and Loyalist is he Loyalist outs his Faith in Reason? Are you actually saying the French Revolutionaries were Loyalists? Doesn’t that seem to be contradictory to the fact that they were Revolutionaries? And again, didn’t both Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Paine support the French Revolution?

    And how could the American Patriots have stood up for the Sacred Principles of the Constitution when it did not yet exist? It was Drafted in 1788, and Implemented in 1789. The Revolutionaries had no actual Constitution to speak of.

    Worse, many of the Revolutionary Heroes opposed the Constitution, including Patrick Henry and Thomas Jefferson. Were they Loyalists then?

    Its this sort of posting that makes this sort of discussion meaningless. You are taking Modern Values and what it means o be an American to you, and projecting it onto the past, rather than trying to understand what these men actually understood at the time.

    The Loyalists were by and large Christian, by the way, not adherents to the Enlightenments Philosophy. Meanwhile, the whole of the American Philosophy was informed BY the Enlightenment.

  20. One last, yes the American Colonists had it way worse. They had the Lowest Taxes in all the British Empire, had virtual unlimited Autonomy, and generally Supported themselves. They had the protection of the Worlds mightiest Military that, until the King wanted to impose a Tax on a few things, largely they didn’t pay for. They had a good code f Common Law. They had it Rough, I tell you…

    Also, I don't actually like Tea.

  21. One last not to be too bad.

    But your wordplay on the definitions is not wisdom. You basically say a Loyalist is Loyal to Government and a Patriot to their country, but the definitions aren’t really contrasting. One cannot be a Patriot to America without first being Loyal, thus a Loyalist, to its Constitution which defines it, and thus to its Government.

    You’re essentially just using the labels from 1776 to create a synthetic distinction that really doesn’t exist. In 1776 the Patriots gave themselves their name, and much like how the Enlightenment named itself, this shouldn’t be taken as evidence of much. The fact that the name was generally used by both sides to describe a side doesn’t mean a lot either. You can’t say that the Loyalists, because they fought the Patriots, weren’t Patriots in the Dictionary Definition sense of the word, just as the Patriots actually fit the definition you supplied to the word “Loyalist”. The Patriots were devoted less to their Countrymen and more to other Patriots, their confederates who fought for the same Cause. They were of the Whig political party, and were Loyalists in terms of strict adherence to this, and to the Revolutionary Cause they were Loyalists.

    The terms were just used to label sides in a war, and its silly to think that there is this huge distinction.

    Especially since your filtering it through a sort of Ideological Filter.

  22. >>One cannot be a Patriot to America without first being Loyal, thus a Loyalist, to its Constitution which defines it, and thus to its Government.

    That assumes the Government is loyal to the Constitution, that its officers actually uphold their oaths of office.

    Given that assumption, I would agree.

    But given the obvious falsehood of that assumption, the conclusion does not stand.

  23. Daniel Wilson, my origional point still stands too. The Dictionary Definitions presented are beign abused. The fact that "Country" and "Countrymen" arent mentioend int he Dictionary Definition of "Loyalist" doesn't mean that Loyalists are Loyal to Tyranny and Oppression, not their COuntry and COuntrymen. The Loyalists of 1776 weren't Loyal to the King and not their Country, but were Loyal to both. The Phrase "King and Country sums up their principles. They stood for their Country against those who wanted to Seize Power, enemies both Forign and Domestic. They saw the Patriots as "Domestic" Threats. Modern Americans may find that hard to beleive but just because soemone did not agree with the Founders course of asction didn't mean they didn't also Love their Country, or their Countrymen. Being Loyal to the King and his Government didn't mean they didn't give a toss about their Countrymen or their Plight, either. The Loyalists in 1776 were simply of the beleif that the "Patriots" as they styled themselves were Traitors to their country, and supportign them woudl mean betrayign their countrymen. The whole line of thought here is simply wrong. I know that Americans want to depict current events in light of the Revolution to show Solidarity but its simply not fair to present people who wanted to preserve their way of life as if they were not Patriotic in their own right.

    Its also unfair to try to depict them as godless heathens interested only n their own wealth, especially if you want to peddle the lie that Americas Founders were the best of Christians. The Revolutiion was helped alogn by Thomas Paine who wrote the Age Of Reason for cryign out loud.

    Worse, the peopel on this site are Consevatives so Imagine the Revolution was about Conservative Values, so the Loyalists must have been Liberals. But the Loyalists resisted the Radical ideas of their time and clung to the Conservative Principles of their Time. They were nothing like Barrack Obama and his Flunkies. They not only didnt beleive in Wealth Redistribution, or even Big Governemnt (Birtain didnt have Big Government at the time) but largly beleived in the Bill of Rights passed in England in the 1600's, a beleif even the American patriots shared. Meanwhile Americas Founders were radicals who embraced Liberalism.

    To use them as a proxy and metaphore for those who support Obama and the general Socialist agenda carried by him, or those who like Big Government, is simply illegitimate.

    Especially as Obama is the Product of a Republican Government, and is, in fact, the natural end result of the American Revolutionary Principles. His power comes from we, the people. You may not have Voted for him but enough did for him to be YOUR President. His Mandate is based upon this Election, all by we, the people. He pushes an Agenda of Equality, Diversity, and Wealth Redistribution which comes straight out of the Enlightenments thinking of all peopel being Equel, not out of a Monarchists position of a class system. He is, like Marx, the natural result of Democratic thinking.

    Yet his following are the Loyalists? Come on...

  24. zarove - We get it. You are an unapologetic (and mostly confused) "loyalist" and proud of it. Good luck with that.

  25. Dennis C Hendricks Sr.August 16, 2010 at 10:30 PM

    When ¨The Government¨ Betray´s ¨We The People¨
    by surpassing the authority that has been vested to them by the ¨Law of The Land¨ other wise known as ¨The Constitution of The United States of America¨ What are we to do but ¨Revolt Against That Government¨that is ¨No Longer Our Own¨. Don´t try to tell me about Democracy or Who Won a Election. The IS A REPUBLIC and NOT A Democracy. The Rule of Law Applies to ¨The Government¨even more so than any individual. Because the Rule of Law (COTUSOA) makes that Government Legitimate or Not. And to Hell with kings and tories all.

  26. Zarove,You are a long-winded, pompous,Loyalist.Loyal to hearing your own drivel spill forth in an endless stream ofcrap.

  27. It is nice to see other Patriots posts even among Loyalists.
    we are everywhere

  28. Oh, king eh? Very nice. And how'd you get that, eh? By exploiting the workers. By hanging on to outdated imperialist dogma which perpetuates the economic and social differences in our society.

    Strange women lyin' in ponds distributin' swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony.

    You can't expect to wield supreme executive power just because some watery tart threw a sword at you.

    If I went 'round sayin' I was Emperor, just because some moistened bint lobbed a scimitar at me, they'd put me away.

  29. “The accumulated filth of all their sex and murder will foam up about their waists and all the whores and politicians will look up and shout, “Save Us!”….and I’ll look down and whisper, “No”
    - The Watchmen

    “One man with courage makes a majority.”
    - Andrew Jackson

    First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a communist;
    Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist;
    Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a trade unionist;
    Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew;
    Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak out for me.
    - Pastor Martin Niemöller

    “Men do not differ much about what things they will call evils; they differ enormously about what evils they will call excusable.”
    - G.K. Chesterton

    “It’s not that we don’t have enough scoundrels to curse; it’s that we don’t have enough good men to curse them.”
    - G.K. Chesterton

    Tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions.
    - G.K. Chesterton

    The best defense against usurpatory government is an assertive citizenry.
    - Thomas Paine

    “It is the duty of every patriot to protect his country from its government.”
    - Thomas Paine

    And that is all I have to say.

  30. IF we love Quotes so much, why not this one from C. S. Lewis.

    “Monarchy can easily be debunked, but watch the faces, mark well the debunkers. These are the men whose taproot in Eden has been cut: whom no rumour of the polyphony, the dance, can reach - men to whom pebbles laid in a row are more beautiful than an arch. Yet even if they desire mere equality they cannot reach it. Where men are forbidden to honour a king they honour millionaires, athletes or film stars instead: even famous prostitutes or gangsters. For spiritual nature, like bodily nature, will be served; deny it food and it will gobble poison.”

    Saying I am a Socialist and a Communist may make you feel good, but like the Author of this blog, and like the people on WND who nowadays find it Fashionable to contrast today’s Struggle to the Past Revolution for Emotional Reasons rather than Reason, what your saying makes no sense. How can I be a Socialist or Communist if I am a Monarchist? You do realise that, even if you see them both as Great Evils, they aren’t’t Compatible Philosophies. One believes in the Establishment of a Class system, relies upon Tradition, and is designed around Ancient Rights and Duty to God. The other is about rejection God in Favour of the rule of men, about Abolishing all Class distinctions, and about the abolition of Tradition in the name of Endless Progress. You cannot simultaneously be a Traditionalist and a Progressive, and you cannot simultaneously claim all men are Equals and there shall be no distinction, and want a society broken into Lords and Commons. This makes no sense whatsoever.

    I am not a Socialist. I don’t believe in Wealth Redistribution. I don’t believe in Equality, Fraternity, Liberty as the French Revolution taught, nor even the American. I see only a Divided Society as a Result of our Republicanism, and as Plato wrote long ago, Republics deteriorate into Democracies. Obama is still the result of an election, still produced by the Constitution, and still ultimately came to power base don Populism. If I were as you said, I would support him of course, but I’d speak of Democracy lovingly not in a condemnatory way.

    Instead, I oppose not only Obama but the entire process that brought him about. HOW can you honestly say that I am like Obama then when I am basically saying he has no legitimacy to be President?

  31. All that said, I also believe that people should have unqualified right over their own property, including the abolition of Property Taxation. People should have the absolute right over that which is their own, and be able to control it. I believe all Speech restrictions should be stricken down, and I believe that people should have the right to their own Business and associations. I don’t see how all this makes me a Socialist.

    Can anyone explain this reasonably?

    That said, why is it that you think Obama and his followers can rightly be associated with those how remained Loyal to the King in 1776 when they, like me, rejected the Populism that made him what he is today? it’s not like I supported Obama. But you did, implicitly, by supporting a system of Governance that sets at variance all of society in order to create endless strife and division, so as to make them easier to control and less likely to rebel. This is madness.

    Elections are by nature Divisive, and ungodly.

    By the way,. Chesterton was a Monarchist, so quoting him to get at me makes no sense either. May as well Quote Lord Acton. Paine rejected Christ, though, so is it really the godly Christian who cites him and his words?

    That said, you also show how godly you are by your insults to me. You are willing to lie about me too. Does God say it is proper to curse our Enemies, to lie about their beliefs, and to harbour such bitterness? Thomas Jefferson did, but Hatred, anger, and revilement is not of God.

    It is written that we should Love even our Enemies, and it is written that we should only be Truthful, and to be wise, and to get all sides. This is something none of you will do, for you are too tied up with your own interests and the love of your own heart to seek Truth, Wisdom, or the will of God, which also confirms the Scriptures.

    A fool hath no delight in understanding, but that his heart may discover itself.- Proverbs 18:2

  32. One Last, Dennis, most Monarchies ae not British, and even the British Monarhcy dopesn't derive from King Arthur. The Preasent Monarhy came about as a result of a long series of exchanges of Power. The Present Hanovarian Dynasty rules because of the events of the last part of the 17th century and firts part of the 18th.

    All that said, consider this, you claim rightful powr is derived form the Masses. I ask Why? Does this mean Majority Rule? if so, if the only Legitimate Claim to rule is Majority Vote, then we must conclude the Majoriry is usually right, which its not. You shoudl bow to Obama which you dont. Populism is only your voice when you get your own way, and te Masses turn on eaxhch other easily.

    Meanwhile, thinklign of ourselves in such grand terms we reject others who disagree Politically and create not but strife. We are Barbarians who fancy ourselves Princes when we're really just a Horde.

    There is no Logic to Majority Rule.

  33. SORRY but, I also just thought of this minor problem. A lot of you seem to think calling me a Communist or Socialist makes a good deal of Sense, as I am a Loyalist. The Author of this blog likely agrees. But in addition to how absurd this is considering what Communists believe in, one other minor point emerges. Communism is Revolutionary. I am a Reactionary. Perhaps the blog owner will look that word up in the Dictionary, along with Revolutionary.

    Marx taught that the Proletariat had to rise up against the Oppressive Borsuasie, and seize power by force of arms. In order to create the Socialist Government, and eventual Communism that would naturally result when we overthrew the ruling elite, there had to be a Revolution.

    Marx believed the Kings of the Earth and the Aristocracies had to be cast down. To him, the Capitalists were no different than the Lords. They were wealthy men who had power over other men because of the wealth they had accumulated. To him, this Power, which extended into Politics, was just as wrong as the fact that they were allowed to horde wealth by exploiting others.

    So, to have a Just society, the Ruling Elites would be overthrown, and the wealth seize din the name of the People.

    To think of the Loyalists of the 18th Century as the same as Communists and Socialists today, you’d have to take forces opposed to Revolution and say they are the same as those who want Revolution, which is Logically inconsistent. The Loyalists were not Communists, and a Monarchist today can’t by definition be.

    Does that sound like the position of a Reactonary? Does that sound like the Loyalists of 1776? They opposed “Change we can believe in”, and sought to preserve their way of life. They were conservatives. They bore no ill will against those in Authority, and in fact sought to preserve their Traditions and way of life.

    Refusing to fight a revolution, or joining the armed forces to quell rebellion, is not the Antithesis of Patriotism, it is an example of it, and in this way, the Loyalists were themselves Patriots. The only reasons we refer to the American Revolutionaries as Patriots are because they called themselves patriots, and because they won. Had they lost, we’d think of them not as Valiant Patriots fighting for their country, but as traitors to their country who tried to seize power for themselves. Then people like me would have to dispel the same myths only in reverse about their motives and what caused them to do as they did.

    Its not that they were the only ones in this war with true Patriotic Sentiment, and that the Loyalist only loved Government and not their country, its that the Patriot movement used the Country as a rallying point. It was impossible to use anything else as they were rebelling against Parliament an this had already turned into a full scale rebellion against the whole Government including the King.

    They could no longer rally behind both King and Country, but still wee able to claim to rally behind “Their Country”. In the same way, the real Second American Revolution did in 1861.

    The Civil War, by the way, was the real Second American revolution. Southerners rallied behind their Country. You can hear them say this explicitly on Youtube if you listen to the Confederate Battle Anthem. “South men hear your country callin’, up lest worse than death befall ye, to arms, to arms, to arms for Dixie”.

    They were secessionists. They wanted to break from the evil, tyrannical Government in Washington, DC, and from the Despotic Tyrant Abraham Lincoln. If your not use to Lincoln the Great hero being called a Tyrant, and if you’d protest this, then consider how the British Loyalists would feel against the so-called Tyrant King George the Third.

  34. ZAROVE, Enola & all:

    May I try to clarify the controversy ?

    Your quote by CS Lewis was on the mark: if men cease to honor a King, they will revere some other authority in his place - a celebrity, a congressman, a rock star, or a shallow, but charismatic president.

    So the issue then, isn't

    'Will we have a King ?', as much as:

    "What (or whom) shall we have as King ?"

    Can we agree on that ?

    Keep in mind, the Colonists - reading the Declaration of Independence, for context - didn't deny the King's right to be King - their specific complaint was he, by his usurpation of God given rights, had by his many unlawful actions become "unfit to be a ruler of a Free People."

    In short, the King must be a Righteous King, to be a 'fit ruler of a Free People.'

    That was their standard, and the King George III of England, had violated it willfully & repeatedly.

    ZAROVE, are you in agreement on this Principle ?

    I sure can't speak for Enola - the hostess of this blog & author of this post, "Loyalist or Patriots ?" but my sense is that this essential point the post makes -

    "When the government disregards the Law, the Patriot must disregard the government."

    The colonists would simply have rendered it:

    "When the King (repeatedly, willfully) disregards the Law, the Patriot must disregard the King."

    For Christ & Liberty,

    Samuel Adams, Jr.

  35. I of course cannot agree. For numerous reasons.

    1: There never was a King George the Third of England. England has not had a Monarch since 1701. Does no one realise that its now the United Kingdom? Not just England? Back before 1801 it was "The Kingdom of Great Britain" not "The Kingdom of England". Too often Americans think we broke from England, and have this odd Animosity towards England alone, but a deep love of the Scots, the Welsh, and the Irish who were just as much a part of the Kings forces as anyone else.

    By the way a lot of the Redcoat Army were also Americans. The idea that they were too cowardly to fight comes up a lot too but they did fight, just not for the Revolutionaries.

    2: Having read the actual Declaration of Independence, I actually side with the King on a lot of those complaints. One of the Complaints the Colonists had against the evil, tyrannical King was that he allowed Catholic in Quebec to continue to be Catholic, and allowed the Catholics to hold Public office. This is what they meant by Powers and Customs Foreign to us. The bit about Savages being permitted free reign was a reference to the fact that the King had issued a decree that the Colonies would not expand Further past the Appalachians, and the land held by the Blackfoot, Cherokee, and Iroquois would be preserved for the Indians themselves. Am I suppose to think the Anti-Catholic hatred felt by Early American Rebels was good, and proof the king was a Tyrant? Am I to think that the king was wrong and Tyrannical for wanting to preserve the Indians in their land?

    While I do think the Colonists had some legitimate complaints, not all of them were Legitimate nor did most of them really warrant the reaction that they got. The Declaration of Independence was designed to rile the passions of the day, which is why it’s not specific, as everyone then knew what was referenced. Today it seems so inaccessible that people just sort of accept it all without trying to figure out what was being discussed. However, when looked at in Historical Context the Declaration played on peoples Passions, fears, prejudices, and self interest in order to foster a sense of hatred and by such motivate them to rebel. It was no more Sacred or Morally sound than a modern Political Pamphlet, and filled with the same Rhetoric and Polemic standards. "Vote For Me because my opponent worships Satan and Eats Babies" comes to mind.

    It may not be a Popular thing to think about, and certainly I'll have another round of "Your a Communist" for denying the underlying premise of the Revolution despite the fact that Communism itself emerges from a Revolution and is based on the same basic principles, but I don't think I am going to sit here and unquestioningly agree that the king had become a Tyrant and it was thus right for the Colonists to break off from him. Exactly why should I? Because the Rebels themselves said so?

  36. 3: I am still bound by Scripture. Even if I did agree that all of their complaints were Legitimate, nothing in either the Old or New Testament declare that it is our Duty to overthrow Tyrants. Nothing in the Scripture remotely hints that our Duty is to take up arms against our Government, or that True Patriotism is to disregard the Government if the Government acts uncouthly. We are of course to not obey a Government commandment that goes against Scripture, but not to openly Rebel. This is not what is Taught in Romans 13, and the Christians then lived in an age when the Sanhedrin and the Roman Senate had both issued persecutions against them, and several Local Governors had allowed them to be killed or asked they be suppressed. If anyone in History can claim they had a right to Revolution because of how the Government treated them it was the Early Church, or the Church in the first 300 years After Christ, but they never Rebelled, never formed a Revolution. They were commanded to obey their Emperor and the local Authorities, and they did. Revolutions were forbidden as Sin.

    Am I to think somehow the Revolution of 1776 was not Sin? All because the king was a Tyrant?

    Worse still, King George was not really a Tyrant and, again, all the talk of how horrible he was had been manufactured to create Antipathy towards him. It was Propaganda, no different from the Communist Propaganda against Saint Tzar Nicolas the Martyr. ( Because as much as I am a Communist who hates Americas Revolution because of its Freedom and thus must love the Communist Revolution, I find it Sin too.)

    This compounds the problem for they were Rebelling against a really moderate King who they could have resolved their differences with much more peacefully. The Hanover King was not unreasonable, and had shown interest in negotiations with them until the Sons of Liberty began burning down Governors mansions after looting them, and killing Royal Officials. Was the king wrong to oppose Mob Violence?

    It is written, we should fear God, and Honour the King.

  37. 4: At the end of the Day the Human Species is geared toward Monarchy. It is our Nature. Republics are ultimately run as Elective Monarchies. George Washington himself viewed the Presidency as an Elected Monarchy. Even if he had not and it was not intended to be, people now focus so much on the President as Leader he gets to be one regardless. The difference is we have a Political contest and now the only king who will rule us is on who is Ambitious and willing to compromise for power.

    5: Democracy is a horrible form of Government, and Republicanism always leads to Democracy. The Theory it is Founded upon violates the Principles of Law it is suppose to Safeguard.

    If all Power is vested in we, the people, then it is not in God and not to God whom we look, it is "The People."

    Worse, who are "We, the People"? I hear constant criticism of the US Government. For Eight Year sunder "King George" as Liberals called President Bush to insult him, they insisted that he was shredding the Constitution, Violating the Laws, and acting as a Tyrant. The True Patriots, to them, were the Liberals who stood in Opposition to Bush. Naturally they said that We, the People opposed him, but not all did did they? Now we live in the Age of Obama, the Liberals no longer claim Tyranny is in the White House, but Conservatives do. King Barrack sit son the Throne of a Tyrant, Shredding the Constitution, and Violating the Laws. He is a Dictator. Same song with only one new Lyric. Naturally they Imagine that "We, the people" oppose him.

    The Truth is, We, the People aren't United in this matter. Some support Obama, and others don't. a little over Half that voted Voted for him. This is why he is President.

    Now this Blog claims those how support Obama are Loyalists, and those who resist are Patriots.

    This of course becomes a Problem. If the people here are the True Patriots, then the Liberals aren't. This must mean the Patriots don't need to defend their rights, and if another Revolution comes can freely kill them. This happened in 1776 when the Patriots slaughtered Civilian Loyalists, and in France, and in Russia. The same thing of course would happen if Liberals formed a Revolution.

    Somehow, to a Conservative, the Liberals in the Untied States rent part of We, the People. They Imagine America as a Solidly Conservative Nation, just as Liberals imagine it as a Liberal Nation. Its really a Nation of Divided peoples following Diverse beliefs. There has never been a General Will of the People. There never will be. We don’t come together in a big room to elect the President or any other official, and it is not Consensus that selects who hols office, its a Popularity contest.

    Whoever gets the most votes Wins, and then claims to represent "The Will Of The People" as he has a Democratic Mandate.

    This ensures that our society is perpetually divided. Factions vying for power will form coalitions with other groups to gain greater votes, and will attack coalitions that oppose their agendas.

    In the end its about getting enough votes to push an agenda onto everyone else, all in the name of "Freedom".

    Is this less a Tyranny that the Constitutionally Limited Monarchy of 1776?

  38. 6: In our system, we teach ourselves to be selfish. We vote for what we want. The theory is we vote for the best candidate for the Job, but we don’t. We vote Tribally, in accordance with the general Party we assign ourselves to and whose believes we have adopted as our own. Thus why if someone is a Registered Democrat you can predict he will vote Democrat and the same is true of Republicans.

    The people who run for office are those how seek power and more often than not are those seeking either prestige or to impose an agenda. They are not, on average, well meaning people who just want to help. Even if they were, our system is designed so that those who wish to secure office must cater to the crowds, as a result compromise, and the Politician finds himself making deals with large united groups in order to secure their support, and saying whatever rhetoric will generate the appropriate emotional reaction to his base so they will support him.

    This breeds corruption, and all but ensures that men of Character are weeded out of the process, and no Humble man will ever win high office either. Only those willing to compromise, adapt, and tell people what they want to hear will.

    Even then they aren’t free, and must still present an image to maintain support, so often just create a false persona around themselves and lie it, thus causing themselves distress, not to mention embarrassing scandals.

    The people in this system become corrupt too, as they vote along the lines of personal desires, interests, and whims. Every impulse, every whim becomes a right, and a right denied if there is some law against it.

    We, the People becomes I, the People, and we try desperately to attach some high minded words to our personal predilections to make sure we can bully others into giving us our way. And the Masses divide further, and further, until the two sides cease to be people who disagree on Politics and Society, and becomes two or more groups of people who hate each other, are alienated form one another, and who don’t even think of the other group as "Real Americans".

    Yet this breeds Freedom? This Breeds Morality? This Breeds Unity?

    We have nothing in common but a mutual desire to get our own way. We have gobbled Poison.

  39. It should also be aid that the "Patriots" only turned on the King later. The Sons of Liberty were origionally Monarchists, who saw the King as a hero. It was Parliment who they saw as the villain, for thye understood the King had no real power to grant them representation, only Parlient did, and it was Representation in Parliment they sought.

    Only when the King sided with Lord North the Prime Minister did the Rebels turn on him too. Bu today too many Americans think he had sweeping powers, when he didn't.

    He also turned on the Colonists, whom he was origionally sympathetic towards, when they turned to Violence.

  40. Another well thought out, reasoned argument against my idiocy and insanity, by such a brave person they go anonymous.

    Seriously do any of you even have he temerity to even discuss what I've actually written? Or why its all wrong and I',m a crackpot?

    I f my arguments are flawed, if the Truth is that the Patriots were called this because they loved their country and God and the Loyalists hated God and favoured their one ideas, and loved Big Government, if all I've said is simply false, wouldn't evidence prove me wrong? Or am I shown wrong by mere decree?

  41. What you appear by your actions to be, is a man with two mouths, and 1/2 an ear !

    And one who hates dialogue - allow others to interact with your points, if you are confident they have merit.

    This shows precious little desire to follow the highest Law, to "Love God with all your heart, soul mind & strength and to LOVE your neighbor as yourself."

    If your arguments are True, Balanced & Scriptural - then you should make them point by point, then pause & allow others to respond.

    Yes, you make a valid point here & there.

    But oft times getting at the Truth means balancing points of truth - like the Spirit & Letter of the Law.

    I know it's easy to gush forth all of 'what seems right in our own eyes' - I have to FORCE myself to make a point & pause. You haven't done that.

    The HTML character limit per post is a good clue - if one goes past that, shorten your post & wait for others to respond.

    This is known as "Neti-quitte", a Victorian English fancier like yourself should make the point that it's a social grace to be observed on the Web.

    By the way, to the point of the on-going discussion:

    Can you imagine a point at which a KING goes awry so far, that he HAS become an evil Tyrant ?

    Or are you positing the 'Doctrine of Unlimited Submission to Earthly Kings' ?

    What are Christan citizens of good conscience to do when their King (or congressman, or president, or governor or mayor) goes wild, drunk with power & begins using the power of government to deny or destroy their Life, Liberty & Property ?

    What then, ZAROVE ?

    Or does a government drunk with unjust power & abusive of it's citizens rights NOT concern you ?

    What work do you do ? Just curious.

    Do you work in some Government agency ?

    Thou doth protest too much...

    Samuel Adams, Jr.

    PS: One man's rebel is another man's Patriot !

  42. Why is it that, whenever I take an opposing view I am somehow easily seen as a Villain who doesn’t care what others think? Imputing on me evil motives is easy, and fits with the rest of the post above, which imputes on the Loyalists evil Motives. We also tend to lump all evils into he same Category, so wee the Loyalists as the opposite of the Patriots thanks to the American Revolution, and assume that the word :Loyalist” always means someone is not a Patriot. The fact is, though, that Loyalists often see themselves as Patriots. The song “Will You Stand” is a Loyalist Song written for Northern Ireland, and calls upon people to “Join the Ulster Volunteer force in a Patriotic Band”.

    The Author of this blog, however, can’t Imagine a Loyalists as being a Patriot thanks to that Bias. Meanwhile also accusing the Loyalists of loving their Government, not their Country. Others take this up and accuse me as being a Communist, despite the fact that Communism is clearly not compatible with Monarchy. Its just easier to take things you don’t like, such as Communism and Monarchy, Loyalists and liberals, and imagine them as the same thing, and its easy to imagine me as some sort of evil monster too.

    But, I’m not.

    I may make long posts but, I do write for a living. And not for the Government. I am also one given to scholarly tendencies. Before we jump on the Liberal Academic bandwagon keep in mind that everything I’ve thusfar said is the exact opposite of what a Liberal Academic would say. Liberals are Socialists, who Favour Democracy, and push for the Abolition of Tradition. Does that really, really sound like where I’m headed with my posts?

  43. However, I do want to make the case for the Loyalists. They have recently been defamed. It seems people want to Draw upon the American Revolution as inspiration for the current Struggle, and to that end I am perfectly accepting, and say nothing.

    However, when you go beyond generalities to actually depict the Loyalists as exactly the same as Modern Liberals, and the Patriots as exactly the same as Modern Conservatives, when you speak of the Patriots as fighting for Gods eternal Moral Law, and the Loyalists as rejecting God in favour of their own ideas, when you se the Loyalists as in the end only interested in themselves and their own welfare and the Patriots as driven by Pure Motives, you cease to conform to any standard of Truth and corrupt your own stance, whilst slandering the memory of those who stood up for their way of life, and who pout their own lives, property, and sacred honour into a cause they believed in every bit as firmly as the Rebels did.

    The Loyalists of course didn’t believe in Big Government, most even thought reform was needed to help accommodate the Colonial Concerns. Most saw a sort of Colonial Continental Parliament being built, to raise Taxation, as a good model to follow.

    They simply drew the line at Treason.

    When you look beyond the Rhetoric of the Revolutionaries, and at the actual deeds of the Tyrannical King George you soon realise his actions were much less Tyrannical than we are lead to believe. You shouldn’t trust the Propaganda from the Revolution as if its presenting 100% accurate information, and as if there is no other side to the story at all.

    Reading other perspectives often helps. From Canada, you can find these examples which depict the Loyalists as victimised Heroes, not Villains as often shown in the United States.


    Then there is this.

    It is from an American Perspective.

    And then there is this.

    And this.

    If you read the works of Loyalists like James Chalmers, Joseph Gallaway, and William Smith, you soon realise that they were far from the self interested Liberals looking for Big Government as depicted here, as well. George Campbell’s Sermon against the Revolution, with its theme of “Meddle not with those given to Change”, provides a stark contrast to today’s Obama Administration which came to power on “Change we can believe in”, and to Jefferson’s own Progressivism which saw a never-ending sea of Change in Humanity.

    And, as this posting started with the definitions of Loyalist and Patriot, it should be again noted that the root of the word “Loyalist” is “Loyal”, and since when was Loyalty ever sinful?

  44. We transform it to sin of course by saying they were in the end Loyal only to themselves but this is clearly not the case. They had their lands taken form them and often were subjected to brutality by angry mobs of so-called Patriots. They had to flee their homes, and all they had, all because of this. This is the dark side of the Revolution, in which the Patriots were far from the Sanitised Saints we like to imagine them as.

    War is a Hellish, Detestable thing, sometimes needful, but always bad. Revolutions are always Sin. They always attack the Legitimate Government in Favour of replacing it with a new one, just so one group can seize power another has.

    This Revolution is no different.

    While I would argue that all Kings must be subject to Laws, I would also contend that King George the Third did not truly deserve the label of Tyrant he is given, and his Tyrannies were mainly just people disagreeing. Often those who disagreed had their own motives, such as personal enrichment. Yes I said personal Enrichment. The American Founders weren’t driven solely by Pure and godly motives.

    That said, your Hypothetical, in which you ask what a Christian Citizen should do if their rulers become Drunk with Power and begin to abuse it. If I answer they have a right to remove him you will point to the American Cause as just this, even though the King was not abusive. Is that Fair? Worse, if I say they have no such right, you will label me a Big Government Liberal, who, of course, works for the Government.

    Nevertheless, I shall Answer the Fool according to his own Folly, as it were, and simply say this. It is the duty of a Christian to live within the law of his land, unless the law expressly contradicts the teachings of God. It is the Law of God we place above all. We also are not to Rebel against those in Authority over us.

    So, while I would not burn a sacrifice to Zeus, I would, as did Saint Serge and Saint Bacchus, submit to my fate. They were Roman Soldiers, who had converted to Christ, and upon this being discovered, refused to recant and offer Libation to Zeus. For this, Bacchus was tortured to Death and Serge beheaded. And how many died at the hands of the Emperor Decius? Did they ever form a Rebellion?

    While I think that Obvious evil can be removed, it must be Obvious Evil and those who remove it must, absolutely must, be fighting purely for the removal of that Evil, not to seize power for themselves. When Boenhoffer attempted to assassinate Hitler, his motive was not Revolution, he did not seek to take over Germany to remake it under his own Rules, but only to Halt the evils he saw around him. Meanwhile the egregious tyranny of King George the Third where what? He would not let them expand into Indian Territories? That sounds pretty reasonable to me. He allowed The French Colonists to keep their Religion and French law? This also sounds reasonable, as it was not imposed on all other colonies, and later America did the same for Louisiana. That he quartered Troops in peoples homes? While today this seems odd, even outrageous, it was common practice for the time.

    Even the Tax issue was overblown. The Bulk of the Taxes imposed had been repealed as soon as the Colonists complained, and the last Tax, the Tea Tax, had been created after the King had Consulted with the Colonists and attempted to levy a tax they would find Fair. It even won the Approval of none other than Benjamin Franklin.

    It was a Tax on Imported Tea, and one they did not have to pay if they drank locally produced Tea.

    The Taxes themselves were being Raised to fund the Colonial Defence.

  45. The concerns the colonists had could have been worked out peacefully by political means, and did not require a Rebellion against a Just and Lawful Authority. There was simply no legitimate cause for the war.

    Well, unless you agree that all Monarchy is evil and only a Republic is Just, which was a large part of why the war was fought. But why should I embrace Republicanism? I have listed my faults with it already.

    The King was not committing Genocide. He did not order the wholesale destruction of peoples property. He had not began a systematic persecution of Minorities an in fact seemed intent on protecting the rights of Minorities. The issues were purely political, and could have been resolved another way.

    But even if you disbelieve this, even if you still ardently support the Patriot cause of 234 years ago, bare only this in mind, the real cause of my presence here. The Loyalists did not live in our modern times, and were Loyal to heir country, not the United States of America, which at the time did not exist.

    All, in the end, I asked here was that their memory not be so defamed, and they not be classified as something they weren’t’. They weren’t Selfish and self interested cowards whose only loyalty was to themselves, they weren’t fighting the Revolution because they believed in Big Government and Wealth Redistribution. They even believed Reform was needed by and large. They simply fought for their King and their way of life, and wanted to remain a part of the Empire.

    They were also Conservatives.

    It is wrong to then see them as the Natural Allies of those pushing a socialist vision, for they were not Socialists. Its wrong to deny that they had Faith in God, when they did. Its wrong to claim them as supporters of Moral Depravity when often they had stronger moral ethics than did the Patriot leaders.

    They did not want to rob Peter to pay Paul, they didn’t believe in Wealth redistribution. They didn’t believe in the Dissolution of Traditional Marriage. They didn’t support Abortion-on-demand. They didn’t support large, sweeping Bureaucracies. All that you as conservatives stand opposed to today they would gladly join you in, and all that you oppose they oppose, in terms of the moral and social evils.

    Yet they are made to be the Liberals of their era because you fight Liberals today? Is that Fair?

  46. On that note, you ask if its ever right to rebel, and seem to assume it is. But, if this is the case, and if the American Colonies were right to rebel against a monarchy to create a Republic, let me ask this then: Would it ever be right to rebel against a Republic, like the current United States, and to Create a Monarchy? Or, if we have a “Second American Revolution” should we Overthrow the corrupt and evil Republic only to replace it with a form of Government exactly like it, only with new people more to our liking? Would the restoration of Monarchy be seen as offensive to you? IF so, why? If the King is Just and good, what is the flaw? If the only reason we have a right to rebel is injustice, then a Just monarchy would be just as good as a Just Republic, wouldn’t it?

    But I somehow doubt it. Somehow the Tyranny of a King proves monarchy is a Dangerous and bad idea, but the Tyranny of a Republican President like Obama would never prove Republicanism bad, only that he has betrayed its Principles.

    And this is Hypocrisy.

    That said, I also don’t think I’ve hindered anyone from getting a word in edgewise. They are as free as I am to post, I should think. They can also, if they would like, do the research and write as long a post in condemning my words, my insane, stupid, moronic words which just can’t be true, can’t they?

    And how would I stop them?

  47. PS, I don’t accept Moral Relativism, so I don’t think one mans Rebel is another mans Patriot. We ought look truthfully at all matters, and take all sides in each matter.

  48. LOL, I stand by my characterization of you, Zarove. You ARE a crackpot. You claim to make your living through writing. Writing what? Your writings ramble and your grammar is horrible and your keystrokes are worse than any other's I've seen anywhere. You make a living writing? Please, whom do you think you're kidding?

    I use a screen name, that's my perogative. You use the name Zarove. Is that any more identifying than mine? I think not. So, please don't whine about my anonymity. If Zarove be your name, I frankly can't even tell if that's male or female. Not that I care.

    Please come right out and state exactly in which country you reside. You have discussed the USA, Canada, England, Ireland, and I'm sure there are others but I didn't read all of your posts because they are too long and too many.
    Where do you live? I don't need specifics but I'd like to know which country you call home and where you are originally from. You seem to think you are such an expert on American history, particularly American Revolution history. I got news for you, friend, you know as much about American Revolutionary history as I know about the history of Jupiter - which ain't much. You put 2 and 2 together and come up with 5 when it comes to American history. I guess where you're from that's OK. Where I'm from, it's typical liberal crackpot ideology trying to corrupt and change historical accuracy. It's revisitionist history. I'm not buying it. Peddle your baloney elsewhere.

    You don't like being called names yet you attacked Enola Gay right out of the gate, so who started this, Zarove? Answer: YOU did!

    As I said earlier, get your own blog. You have a lot to say, but don't know how to get your points across. You continue to ramble and dominate with one post followed by another, despite the advice given you by Samuel Adams, Jr. Why don't you take his advice? More people might read your posts if you got to the point and stopped defending the indefensible. You have repeated yourself ad nauseam. It's time to move along.

    NoCal Gal

  49. I have never seen so many people act like five year olds. I understand how you all defend your side,but that is no reason to bite each others heads off. I hate how people tend to take their lives and mix them with nothing but politics. You all need to learn how to be respective of other peoples opinions and try to understand that persons point. I hate having to tell a bunch of adults this when i'm 15 years old.

  50. "I hate why people tend to take their lives and mix them with nothing but politics." That has to be the wisest thing I've read on this blog. By a child too.

    I also think people are over complicating the motives of 18th century settlers on the American frontier & why they stood up with arms against their federal government that neither represented the American colonies locally or federally, but simply inslaved them thougth tax legislation.

  51. Hiya very cool site!! Guy .. Excellent .. Amazing .. I'll bookmark your website and take the feeds also? I am glad to find a lot of helpful information here within the submit, we want develop extra techniques in this regard, thanks for sharing. . . . . .

    Here is my site; kredit trotz negativ schufa