Showing posts with label Loyalist. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Loyalist. Show all posts

Thursday, June 4, 2026

250th anniversary of the United States? Not at all.

Americans love to take quotes out of context rather than look at the whole picture.

Also, the period between 1775 (and maybe earlier) to 1790 is not much of anything since the Articles of Confederation were what was running the show. It also means that the "United States" didn't really exist until the Constitution was 
ratified. That's another section of ignorance in US history which needs much greater study. 

In fact, thinking about it the early republic wasn't in too hot a condition with a low level civil war that finally broke out into a full scale one in the 1860s.

Perhaps, rather than pretend that the war for independence created a country, we should look at what it was actually created by war. The US should look at how its bellicose nature has put it into the current mess it is in.

This is a real case where war is not the answer and the real one needs to be found. 

Saturday, October 25, 2025

'Wha’ll be king but Charlie' - Scottish Jacobite Song

There's a lot of irony here in using a Jacobite song: especially since the movement is pretty much dead. Unless you're a septic or out of touch with the world. 

On the other hand, the current King is Charles, which was a poor choice for a name since Kings named Charles haven't had good runs so far.

He should have gone with Arthur.

But, the first Charles did rule during the start of the English Civil War, which is similar to the Civil War that is brewing in the US. One where the Constitutional power will be divided up to put paid to the myth of three equal branches. 

Any Parliamentary system needs to have the power in the legislative branch with a weak executive head of state.

Otherwise, it does seem appropriate since Trump isn't very much of a leader. He's the cartoon villain. The heel of World Wrestling Entertainment kayfaybe. 


Monday, October 20, 2025

The fallacious thinking of the "No Kings" anti-Trumpers

 It’s nice to say ignorant things like « no kings » when Canada has a king and things are much better. The even more important aspect of that is that Canada IS BRITISH NORTH AMERICA!

Anyway, your tweedledum-tweedledumber two party system is responsible for the issues you decry: not just Donald Trump.

As is the US Constitution, which gave you the first Trump administration through the electoral college.

And for that matter, you might want to look up the history of the insurrection act and how that « trumps » posse comitatus. 

So, you need to work to destroy the oligarchs and the two party system if you seriously want to get the power in the hands of the people.

Only a real multi party democracy will do that.

A Canadian view on "no kings"

Just remember that Canada is British North America and you don't need to take a guess about alternative history.

And you would be having new elections if you were like Canada and still had a king.


 

Saturday, October 18, 2025

The fallacious thinking of the "No Kings" anti-Trumpers

They are ignorant of the fact that you would be having new elections if you still had a king because you would be under the Westminster system. Failure to pass a budget bill requires that the government disolve because of Loss of supply, which implies a loss of confidence in that system.

Toss in that Prince Andrew has been stripped of his titles and honours (except that of prince) because of his association with Epstein by King Charles.

Think about that when you say ignorant things about having a Constitutional Monarch.

Also, realise that the taxes levied by Britain on the Colonies were the bill for the war caused by George Washington. I'm sure things could have come to a screeching halt had the British asked for money up front instead of letting things slide during that conflict.

Just look up Benjamin Franklin's Albany Plan of Union for how the British could have stopped any seeds of independence arising.

Because you might be living under a French system where militarised police (Gendarmes) are the norm had the British not funded the defence of the colonies.

Think about that.

There's a reason this man is looking so smug.