The American Revolution was a sin. And now we are punished by having Trump

[jimmyjimmy]

I think anybody of God should be preaching JESUS 2016 not any man or woman. They are clearly not to be trusted.

Is Jesus running as a third party candidate?

 

[jimmyjimmy]

The US constitution is, probably, the only thing holding your country back from a faster fall into a godless mess. That peice of paper is the wall that you politicians cannot knock down. No matter how much they would like to, that document saves you from your arrogant political leaders.

You are correct, and there are many on the Left who hate that piece of paper.

As for Trump..... He is a worry, however, what are you going to do? You have a felon, Hillary, who scares me more than any legitimate political candidate as of yet. Face it, Trump is not a politician, Hillary is a puppet of the system and placed there to do as she is told.

Well said. Most Canadians, and few US citizens don't understand these facts, so I'm pleased to see you do.

 

[redleghunter]

If you do come back to us America, please don't bring John Oliver with you, he can stay somewhere else.

We were already heartbroken when you sent back Piers Morgan. Please don't break our hearts again.

LOL you are on a roll.

 

[Archivist]

Were not the Pilgrim Fathers very devout?

Of course those "devout" Pilgrams wrongly had some of their neighbors executed for witchcraft, something that was also done by Christians throughout Europe.

Oh, and Massachusetts wasn't the only place in America where people were executed for practicing witchcraft. "Witches" were also executed in Connecticut, New Haven, Maryland and Virginia.

 

[redleghunter]

Christ said that we are to resist religious authorities that are unfaithful (the scribes, the pharisees, the Sanhedrin) and it is on those grounds that Luther and the early protestants resisted the Pope.

But he also clearly said, and Paul also, that we are not to rebel against secular authorities ('Caesar'). Otherwise, we are not better than the zealots and their chief representative in the gospels: Barabbas. Who do you want: Jesus or Barabbas?

Finally, it should be noted that "tyranny" is never mentioned in the scripture as a thing we are to rebel against. This word denotes a Greek concept which has nothing to do with the New Testament.

If we are going to get technical then we did rebel against religious authority. You cannot separate (at least back then) the crown from the Church of England.

I would highly recommend reviewing again the Declaration of Independence and the preceding peaceful appeals from the colonies to resolve her issues with the crown.

Which the response was to send the king's navy and army across a huge ocean. Now the Christian thing to do would be to not put those American subjects under military occupation. But, no George III had to get back those hicks and their wilds waaaay over that big ocean. Not one drop of blood would be shed if George just kept his troops home and did not engage in military adventurism.

Now on a serious note. Given 17th and 18th century modes of travel and communication, ruling and governing from thousands of miles away across a big ocean is not efficient government. It is not responsive to the people. Frankly impractical. That led to local government becoming independent of the slow course of decisions from central government.

So from a practical and efficient stand point the DoI was right on. George III and Parliament blew it. They could have had a peaceful resolution and the American colonies still loosely affiliated with the crown. Instead they sent troops. Then those troops came to specifically grab the guns of the local militia and therefore you have the 2nd Amendment.

 

[Vicomte13]

You are bankrupt, financially

We can't go bankrupt, ever, because the government has the power to print money.

What we can do is have hyperinflation, which means that the money becomes worthless, but the debts always get paid, and when the debts get paid with the money of their terms, that's not bankruptcy.

Which is better, to default on debt, or to print the money to pay it? In the first case, you're bankrupt. In the second case, you're not bankrupt, or even insolvent. You've merely created hyperinflation.

And hyperinflation can be stopped cold by changing the currency, which a sovereign may also do.

The Germans had huge war reparations. So they printed Reichsmarks by the truckload and "paid" their debts, in hyperinflated currency. Of course this made the money worthless. So they flipped over to a new currency and the hyperinflation ended within a few months. Sovereigns can do that.

We can never go bankrupt in the true sense of the word, because our government has the power to create money.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Of course those "devout" Pilgrams wrongly had some of their neighbors executed for witchcraft, something that was also done by Christians throughout Europe.

Oh, and Massachusetts wasn't the only place in America where people were executed for practicing witchcraft. "Witches" were also executed in Connecticut, New Haven, Maryland and Virginia.

Some people believe that happened.
Some people don't.
If interested in "the rest of the story" (like that famous radio guy said)
- look into the history of midwifes for further clarification.
Remembering that "the love of money is the root of evil". (hmmm now who said that? )

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

If we are going to get technical then we did rebel against religious authority.

re "get technical" ..... "we" were not even alive.

They could have had a peaceful resolution and the American colonies still loosely affiliated with the crown.

footnote to look into: did the American Companies ever stop paying taxes to the crown ? (not as far as I know)(yes, it was a surprise to find out)

We can't go bankrupt, ever, because the government has the power to print money.

The untied states went bankrupt decades ago.
Not just monetarily , but in many ways.

 

[redleghunter]

Of course those "devout" Pilgrams wrongly had some of their neighbors executed for witchcraft, something that was also done by Christians throughout Europe.

Oh, and Massachusetts wasn't the only place in America where people were executed for practicing witchcraft. "Witches" were also executed in Connecticut, New Haven, Maryland and Virginia.

Yes there are bad eggs in every society. For the most part the Pilgrims were humble folk just wanting to work the land and go to church every 45-60 mins day.

Some people forget, a generation or two down the road, just what your forbears were running from and then re-establish it dashing their hard work.

 

[redleghunter]

I believe that every country has some "sin" in it's past and present.

I live in Canada and would not know of any other country that I would move to if things got really bad here.

However, we have our issues with corruption in politics, government, police and military too.

I kinda chuckled when I read your post because the US is just the leader or big brother to Canada on a lot of issues.

I don't believe your forefathers are to blame here. The US constitution is, probably, the only thing holding your country back from a faster fall into a godless mess. That peice of paper is the wall that you politicians cannot knock down. No matter how much they would like to, that document saves you from your arrogant political leaders.

As for Trump..... He is a worry, however, what are you going to do? You have a felon, Hillary, who scares me more than any legitimate political candidate as of yet. Face it, Trump is not a politician, Hillary is a puppet of the system and placed there to do as she is told.

Lord help the USA, I have no words to describe my concern for your country. You are bankrupt, financially but it just hasn't become apparent. The US will not recover from it's debt. Your leaders have an agenda, like all people in power do, and it's not "for the people".

It was not the revolution that was the sin that is doing you in. It's simple, you are supposed to be a nation "under God". Your money says "In God we Trust" Yet you have taken God out of everything. The ACLU is militant against anything to do with God.

Your nation may have started as "one nation under God" but it is not moving but rushing, toward "one Nation who rejects God". A nation which opposes God.

Canada is not much better. We, in Ontario, have a majority Liberal government with a criminal, corrupt, egotistical leader who has a personal agenda and a chip on her shoulder, being a Lesbian, who plays the "homophobe" card to anyone who opposes her whacked ideas that are killing our Provence on many levels.

Our Federal government is also a majority Liberal governing party. Our Prime minister is a boy who is in love with himself and has no experience. He runs around, shirtless, taking "selfies" with all these people and leaning heavily on the legacy of his fathers past as an icon Prime Minister.

We are taxed to death. We pay more than 50% of our earned dollars, in one way or another, into the governments pocket as one type of tax or another. If I was to pay all my tax dollars to the governments, Provincial or Federal, up front, I would give them all my wages from January 1st to June 7th. The US was April 27.

It's not just the US that is in trouble. It is the entire world that is in disarray.

The end is near. The one world government is coming, Come Lord Jesus....

Maranatha.

There is so much I want to comment on but where to start. So.....



or better yet....

 

[Widlast]

Look up any biography of Washington, Jefferson, Ben Franklin etc.

The fact that they were able to deceive many Christians among those who signed the early documents does not change a thing. The leaders were corrupt and the deed was a vile sin. Christians do sin, by the way ...

Sorry fellow, you have a very childish view of history. The "leaders" dealt with a very ugly issue, the abuse of colonists by the British authorities, in the only way available. If you enjoy living with a tyrants boot on your neck, go for it.
Others prefer some sort of liberty, and were willing to die for it.

 

[Vicomte13]

If we are going to get technical then we did rebel against religious authority. You cannot separate (at least back then) the crown from the Church of England.

I would highly recommend reviewing again the Declaration of Independence and the preceding peaceful appeals from the colonies to resolve her issues with the crown.

Which the response was to send the king's navy and army across a huge ocean. Now the Christian thing to do would be to not put those American subjects under military occupation. But, no George III had to get back those hicks and their wilds waaaay over that big ocean. Not one drop of blood would be shed if George just kept his troops home and did not engage in military adventurism.

Now on a serious note. Given 17th and 18th century modes of travel and communication, ruling and governing from thousands of miles away across a big ocean is not efficient government. It is not responsive to the people. Frankly impractical. That led to local government becoming independent of the slow course of decisions from central government.

So from a practical and efficient stand point the DoI was right on. George III and Parliament blew it. They could have had a peaceful resolution and the American colonies still loosely affiliated with the crown. Instead they sent troops. Then those troops came to specifically grab the guns of the local militia and therefore you have the 2nd Amendment.

The affiliation with the English Crown did not even really need to be that loose. The actual constitutional issue, in the British sense, of the American Revolution was this:

Each colony had its own elected legislature, and had a tradition of that dating back to settlement. So, the legislatures of each colony were all a hundred or more years old, 160 years old in Virginia's case. There was a long, thick, established tradition in the Americas of local lawmaking and local rule. Common Law of English speaking people (not "The Common Law of England" - the distinction is very important) was applied by elected judges and courts in America for a century and a half before independence. The colonies had charters, which established, after a fashion, a chief executive in the form of a Royal Governor, but within the English system, the governor, as representative of the crown, had the same basic authority as the Crown vis-a-vis Parliament. That evolved in Britain during the colonial period, and it evolved in America too.

The colonists did not start out hostile to the King. The problem was that Parliament, the ENGLISH Parliament, started passing laws after the French and Indian War, that imposed direct taxes on the American colonists. There were always trade restrictions, which came out of Parliament, but historically they had not been enforced. Starting in the 1760s, they started to be really enforced (England needed money for war debt).

The Americans objected to these taxes because they were not represented in Parliament, and "taxation without representation is tyranny". We all know that. What is generally not understood is that the American colonists argument did not end there. The colonists did not argue that they should be represented in Parliament. Not at all. In fact, they argued that the colonies were much too far away to be ABLE to represented in Parliament.

Rather, the colonists argued that each colonial legislature WAS ITSELF a Parliament. So, the American argument was, in essence, that the King was the monarch over a SERIES of Parliaments, each supreme within its own realm - the British Parliament in Great Britain, the Virginia Parliament in Virginia.

The English Parliament was acceded certain privileges regarding the monarchy itself, BUT the English Parliament was NOT competent to legislate for the Americas. The colonial Parliaments were each the legislature for their colonies, with the King as monarch.

This was the 17th Century concept of parliamentary supremacy applied in the colonies, at the time of their founding and forward. It confronted the philosophy of Parliamentary supremacy over the Empire, which developed in the 18th Century in England but not in America. King George had a choice. In essence, he could choose to be King of the British Empire, with its supreme legislature being THE Parliament of London, or he could be King of the United Kingdom with its Parliament, and King of Virginia with its House of Burgesses, and King of Massachusetts with its General Assembly, and King of New York with its Assembly, etc.

English constitutionalists of the time of the American Revolution sided firmly with the constitutional view of Parliament as supreme, not just over the monarch, but over all OTHER English-speaking "parliaments", but the view of Lord Coke a century earlier, in the English Civil War period, was the view of the American colonists.

BOTH sides actually had a constitutional view rooted in British tradition. The American view - their their legisatures WERE their Parliaments, with the King as monarch, was the view of Lord Coke and the 17th Century. The view of Parliament in London as THE Parliament, supreme legislature of the empire, and supreme over the monarch, was the view of England in the 18th Century.

In the English Civil War, the concept of Parliamentary supremacy over the Crown was established (and confirmed in the Glorious Revolution of 1688), and in the American Revolution, the concept of national parliaments in faraway colonies being "Parliament" for constitutional purposes was established for the Americans (America was, for all practical purposes, the "British Empire" of that period - it was only after losing America that the British went out and captured the familiar 19th Century British Empire.

Who was right? Well, they both were right according to their principles. In such things, might makes right, and the Americans won. So that settled it, for America. Canada followed the other model: Dominion. Local legislative rule, distant monarch with local Royal Governor. Essentially, from the American experience the British realized that they could not hold onto English speaking European colonies abroad with a concept of British Parliamentary superiority. When Canada and Australia, New Zealand and South Africa (and later the other countries) became sufficiently developed, their own parliaments became sovereign and the authority of the British Parliament ended, but the Crown remained.

It's a pity that the Americans and British couldn't come to that circumstance peacefully in the 1770s, because the world would have been very different indeed, and probably better, had the English-speaking peoples remained united.

Men become stupid and violent over theories of political power, however. The "Dominion of America" would have been great.

 

[Vicomte13]

The untied states went bankrupt decades ago.
Not just monetarily , but in many ways.

Not monetarily at all. It is impossible for the United States to go bankrupt. The sovereign can always print money to pay all of its debts. If you pay your debts in the currency of the instrument, you're not bankrupt.

 

[redleghunter]

The affiliation with the English Crown did not even really need to be that loose. The actual constitutional issue, in the British sense, of the American Revolution was this:

Each colony had its own elected legislature, and had a tradition of that dating back to settlement. So, the legislatures of each colony were all a hundred or more years old, 160 years old in Virginia's case. There was a long, thick, established tradition in the Americas of local lawmaking and local rule. Common Law of English speaking people (not "The Common Law of England" - the distinction is very important) was applied by elected judges and courts in America for a century and a half before independence. The colonies had charters, which established, after a fashion, a chief executive in the form of a Royal Governor, but within the English system, the governor, as representative of the crown, had the same basic authority as the Crown vis-a-vis Parliament. That evolved in Britain during the colonial period, and it evolved in America too.

The colonists did not start out hostile to the King. The problem was that Parliament, the ENGLISH Parliament, started passing laws after the French and Indian War, that imposed direct taxes on the American colonists. There were always trade restrictions, which came out of Parliament, but historically they had not been enforced. Starting in the 1760s, they started to be really enforced (England needed money for war debt).

The Americans objected to these taxes because they were not represented in Parliament, and "taxation without representation is tyranny". We all know that. What is generally not understood is that the American colonists argument did not end there. The colonists did not argue that they should be represented in Parliament. Not at all. In fact, they argued that the colonies were much too far away to be ABLE to represented in Parliament.

Rather, the colonists argued that each colonial legislature WAS ITSELF a Parliament. So, the American argument was, in essence, that the King was the monarch over a SERIES of Parliaments, each supreme within its own realm - the British Parliament in Great Britain, the Virginia Parliament in Virginia.

The English Parliament was acceded certain privileges regarding the monarchy itself, BUT the English Parliament was NOT competent to legislate for the Americas. The colonial Parliaments were each the legislature for their colonies, with the King as monarch.

This was the 17th Century concept of parliamentary supremacy applied in the colonies, at the time of their founding and forward. It confronted the philosophy of Parliamentary supremacy over the Empire, which developed in the 18th Century in England but not in America. King George had a choice. In essence, he could choose to be King of the British Empire, with its supreme legislature being THE Parliament of London, or he could be King of the United Kingdom with its Parliament, and King of Virginia with its House of Burgesses, and King of Massachusetts with its General Assembly, and King of New York with its Assembly, etc.

English constitutionalists of the time of the American Revolution sided firmly with the constitutional view of Parliament as supreme, not just over the monarch, but over all OTHER English-speaking "parliaments", but the view of Lord Coke a century earlier, in the English Civil War period, was the view of the American colonists.

BOTH sides actually had a constitutional view rooted in British tradition. The American view - their their legisatures WERE their Parliaments, with the King as monarch, was the view of Lord Coke and the 17th Century. The view of Parliament in London as THE Parliament, supreme legislature of the empire, and supreme over the monarch, was the view of England in the 18th Century.

In the English Civil War, the concept of Parliamentary supremacy over the Crown was established (and confirmed in the Glorious Revolution of 1688), and in the American Revolution, the concept of national parliaments in faraway colonies being "Parliament" for constitutional purposes was established for the Americans (America was, for all practical purposes, the "British Empire" of that period - it was only after losing America that the British went out and captured the familiar 19th Century British Empire.

Who was right? Well, they both were right according to their principles. In such things, might makes right, and the Americans won. So that settled it, for America. Canada followed the other model: Dominion. Local legislative rule, distant monarch with local Royal Governor. Essentially, from the American experience the British realized that they could not hold onto English speaking European colonies abroad with a concept of British Parliamentary superiority. When Canada and Australia, New Zealand and South Africa (and later the other countries) became sufficiently developed, their own parliaments became sovereign and the authority of the British Parliament ended, but the Crown remained.

It's a pity that the Americans and British couldn't come to that circumstance peacefully in the 1770s, because the world would have been very different indeed, and probably better, had the English-speaking peoples remained united.

Men become stupid and violent over theories of political power, however. The "Dominion of America" would have been great.

Vic thank you for the great post. It is always interesting to view your historical posts. God Bless.

 

[Archivist]

Some people believe that happened.
Some people don't.
If interested in "the rest of the story" (like that famous radio guy said)
- look into the history of midwifes for further clarification.
Remembering that "the love of money is the root of evil". (hmmm now who said that? )

No one can deny that it happened without ignoring history. We even had one witch trial in Pennsylvania. Fortunately William Penn understood that it was actually an effort by greedy neighbors to get the valuable land owned by the so-called "witch".

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

William Penn understood that it was actually an effort by greedy neighbors to get the valuable land owned by the so-called "witch".

No one here is denying it happened.
It just wasn't "witches" that were the subject or the object, but greed.
The so-called 'victors' and/or historians(I guess; whoever) re-wrote it in lies.

 

[redleghunter]

No one can deny that it happened without ignoring history. We even had one witch trial in Pennsylvania. Fortunately William Penn understood that it was actually an effort by greedy neighbors to get the valuable land owned by the so-called "witch".

Times march on, the tactics change but it is the same ol' stuff going on today. Instead today instead of a witch trial, social media and MSM is used to demonize people.

 

[Archivist]

No one here is denying it happened.
It just wasn't "witches" that were the subject or the object, but greed.
The so-called 'victors' and/or historians(I guess; whoever) re-wrote it in lies.

Yes, I know that. That was the point I was making. And the historians changed noting--these women (and a few men) were accused of being witches.

You were the one who said "Some people believe that happened. Some people don't." The trials happened. They can't deny that without ignoring history.

 

[alsughasoughaiuyfygh]

.

 

[JacksBratt]

We can't go bankrupt, ever, because the government has the power to print money.

Do you really believe this? If that was the case, every country would just keep printing money. The more money you print the less value your dollar has. The US dollar is soon to lose it's position as the world currency. You cannot just keep printing money. Your debt is so large you cannot recover. Other countries will not accept your dollar as payment for debt to them as it will be worthless. Many countries, even now, are demanding gold as payment. The US and Canada, no longer have gold. Well, Canada has 700g of gold, that's it. As for the US, Fort Knox is empty.