Boots & Sabers

The blogging will continue until morale improves...


Everything but tech support.

0814, 04 Jul 20

Declaration of Independence

In Congress, July 4, 1776.

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America, When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.–Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences

For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:

For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:

For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our Brittish brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.


0814, 04 July 2020


  1. Kevin Scheunemann

    It is unfortunate radical liberals snear at this today.

  2. Le Roi du Nord

    What is truly unfortunate is that it was the “radical liberals” of 1776 that wrote this document. How soon some forget our own history.

  3. Kevin Scheunemann


    Those were “classical liberals”, not the sick, twisted, modern day radical kind of liberals.

    Difference between good and evil.

  4. Le Roi du Nord

    Gee whiz, k, didn’t you ever take an American History class? The folks that threw the Boston Tea Party were the radical liberals of their time. Ditto the folks signing the above document. Just because you don’t understand history doesn’t mean you get to re-write it.

  5. Jason

    Leroy, just because they were labelled “radical liberal” but the British elite and ruling family over 200 years ago; that doesn’t mean that we all think today’s Radical Liberals are of the same mindset… right? Or do you really honestly think that? 2 for 2 on stupid today… want to reply and make it a hat trick?

  6. dad29

    Let the readers note that Jefferson invoked the Laws of Nature and Nature’s God–concepts which are totally foreign to the cultural revolutionaries currently trying to demolish the Judaeo-Christian foundation to which Jefferson referred.

    LeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeRoy, do I have to spell it out even more simply for you?

  7. Kevin Scheunemann


    I read history just fine.

    Does this you embrace the Christianity these founders vigorously embraced?

    Or do you maintain your modern day godlessness?

    Yet another difference between classical liberals and twisted modern day liberals.

  8. Le Roi du Nord

    Sure k, but Washington and Jefferson weren’t Christians. Another denier of history.

  9. MHMaley

    Thomas Jefferson ,James Madison , Thomas Paine , John Adams and Ben Franklin were Deists .
    The laws of nature and God concepts are not a part of specific religion nor did Jefferson specify them as such .

    And that Judeo Christian foundation in the US allowed slaves long after the Brits ( also Christians ) ended it and for 84 years more .

    It also allowed us to move and kill the folks here long ahead of us for our personal gain .

    That Judeo Christian foundation is a peach with some glaring and noteable exceptions.
    Carry on .

  10. Kevin Scheunemann


    There were other founders besides Washington and Jefferson.

    I find it funny that you get critical of when I question other Christians for preaching a Gospel other than Christ’s unmerited grace for redemption….that is me being judgemental. You just declare without argument, as an admitted godless atheist, that Washington and Jefferson are excluded from being Christian?

    What’s next in the Nord, hilarious, super ironic, judgement category? Maybe a Bill Clinton seminar on marital fidelity? Jeffrey Dahmer book on dietary tips? NBC book on how liberal media bias does not exist?

  11. Le Roi du Nord


    Can you read? You are just spouting nonsense that you make up rather than historical fact, or what other commenters had said. How truly awful, for a self-proclaimed “christian” to tell such lies.

  12. dad29

    Being a Deist is NOT the same as not being a Christian; Deists are, generally, Masons.  While Masonry is not compatible with Catholicism, most Masons are some sort of Christian, at least nominally.  So, in fact, Jefferson DID know and understand Natural Law and had a decent understanding of God, even though that understanding may have been eccentric.

    “Natural Law” is NOT part of a specific religious tradition.  That’s why it’s called “natural.”  Human nature, and all that….it’s not complicated.

    Arguing that immoral practices exist within society/(ies) is fatuous, as you should know from your allegedly-Catholic education.  Under your rubric, the Founders also allowed the Mafia, drug cartels, and child prostitution.  Care to take your “argument” any further?

    Yup.  Some parts of American history are ugly.  Live with it.  The Republic has recognized them for what they are and continually tries to improve, as you undoubtedly have, too.


  13. jjf

    Capital Letters.  Or as we say in the computer and engineering fields, “standards are great, that’s why everyone has one.”

  14. Mar

    “How truly awful, for a self-proclaimed “christian” to tell such lies.”
    How ironic Convicted Criminal Le Roi complaining about someone lying when in fact, Le Roi esther champion of champions of liars.
    Convicted Criminal and Liar Le Roi makes President Trump look like a cloistered nun in terms of lying.

  15. Le Roi du Nord

    Now you claim I’m a convicted criminal? That surely is a false claim. A little early in the day for mind altering drugs, don’t you think?

  16. Mar

    Well Convicted Criminal Le Roi, you say you were affiliated with law enforcement for 32 years.
    But based on your constant lying and dishonesty here, there is no way a law enforcement agency would tolerate you.
    So, the only other alternative is that you were a guest in a state of federal prison for 32 years and that is your connection to law enforcement.
    Perhaps if you were a little dishonest and didn’t lie so much, we wouldn’t be having this conversation.

  17. Le Roi du Nord

    Wrong again, mar. Are you familiar with the defamation laws in WI. A Class A misdemeanor may not look so good on your resume, not to mention the penalty. Maybe you should rethink your position.

  18. Mar

    So now, Convicted Criminal Le Roi, you’re a jailhouse lawyer now?
    Too funny.
    Too bad you don’t know the law.

  19. Le Roi du Nord

    You willing to take a chance?

  20. Jason

    Hahaha, Leroy I think you’re a real peice of shit. Your reputation here is already in the gutter, good luck showing damage.

  21. Le Roi du Nord

    Always the classy guy, j.

  22. Jason

    Ask your lawyer if you can say that Leroy.

  23. dad29

    C’mon, man.  He needs to recover that $6K that Walker “stole” from him.

  24. Jason

    And those airline tickets he couldn’t get refunded. Speed dating with the cousins is much better in person!

  25. Mar

    Go for it Le Roi. The discovery process will be fun to do.
    Do you really want me to dig into your background?

  26. Jason

    Dont forget Mar, he’s proclaimed that he is an elected official so his burden of defamation is much higher than the average Leroy.

  27. Merlin

    Y’all are having way too much fun with this.

  28. Mark Hoefert

    @ Leroy: Wrong again, mar. Are you familiar with the defamation laws in WI. A Class A misdemeanor may not look so good on your resume, not to mention the penalty. Maybe you should rethink your position.

    As I recall, Mar worked in education, so it should not make any difference on his resume – maybe he could get a big raise.  This Boots & Saber troll (“Observer”) made $85,000 as an educator in the 2019 school year, 12 years after posting school safety-related anonymous threats on this site and getting arrested for a misdemeanor.

    Still marvel at how easy it was for Owen to give up the guy’s internet information to allow for a quick identification & arrest by the police.  Owen was “up Nord” deer hunting at the time and was able to handle it from the “comfort” of his tree stand.

    To enhance Mar’s comment, discovery can be a bitch.  For you, Leroy.

    Kind of curious, Leroy, your handle seems to be a pseudonym.  To claim defamation, you would have to prove that you are known by that name.



  29. Le Roi du Nord


    I’m glad you guys are having fun with this. The truth of the matter is that I am not a convicted criminal. That is easy to prove, and unassailable. What mar intends to prove is that he is a fool.

  30. jjf

    What, no one’s going to ask Dad29 for an example of how he’s improved over the years?  Has he ever recognized he was wrong about something and changed his ways?

  31. Jason

    >I’m glad you guys are having fun with this. 

    You’re the infant making stupid and idle threats of “legal action”.  Sack up and don’t be a little bitch Leroy, or no one will ever take you seriously.   You’ll be ignored just like little johnny fousty.

  32. Mar

    Gee, jjf, have you improved over the years? Have you gotten rid of your KKK garb? Have you stopped getting in the way of Black and Brown going to school like your hero, Gov. George Wallace?
    Have you stopped worshipping things who destroy things and kill innocent children and others in the inner cities?
    Just asking for a friend.

  33. Mar

    If we do a discovery on Le Roi we might find out th e following:
    Le Roi and jjf are really conjoined twins. Unfortunately for Le Roi, his nose is stuck in jjf’s butt and cannot be removed.

  34. jjf

    Le Roi, I’m enjoying watching the dogs chase their tails.

  35. Le Roi du Nord


    It is certainly amusing, but also a little bit of a sad commentary on the far right of today. I have been accused of all sorts of things by the peanut gallery on this site: murderer, pedophile, child molester, convicted criminal, fascist, communist, drug addict, etc., none of which are true. What perverted sense of accomplishment do these folks get from stating such obvious falsehoods? Perhaps that is the only thing that winds their clock. What small and petty lives they lead.

  36. Mar

    Then Le Roi, why do you lie so much? Day after day, you lie. You do not stop lying. And when you lie, you are not man enough to admit. Then to make matters, once you tell 1 lie, you keep building on that lie.
    It is a sad state of affairs that you feel the need to lie.
    Does make you feel better to lie?

  37. jjf

    Well, Le Roi, in defense of some B&S commenters, can’t we say that “not all” are like the worst of them?  Just some.

    But in critique of those B&S commenters, they also aren’t speaking up against the hilarious antics of the Others.

    For a group that loves authority and social conformity and compliance, you’d think they speak up against the misbehavior… but like we see with Trump, they’re hesitant to criticize anyone they think might be on their side.

  38. Mar

    Gee. jjf, are you doing your Helen Keller impersonation today?

  39. Le Roi du Nord


    It’s like they have no self control.

  40. Jason

    >It’s like they have no self control.

    Says the last word freak who has to monitor Kevin’s opinion.  Ironic.

  41. Jason

    >What, no one’s going to ask Dad29 for an example of how he’s improved over the years?

    Hey Johnny, while you’re waiting, can you come up with some lists of how things have improved in the weeks of BLM riots, protests, lootings, and statue/monument destruction?  KTHNXBI

  42. jjf

    Dad29 wrote:

    Yup.  Some parts of American history are ugly.  Live with it.  The Republic has recognized them for what they are and continually tries to improve, as you undoubtedly have, too.  Right?

    What’s changed for you, Dad29?  What have you realized about yourself over the years that was wrong, and that you corrected?  And how did you improve?

  43. Jason

    Hey Johnny, while you’re waiting, can you come up with some lists of how things have improved in the weeks of BLM riots, protests, lootings, and statue/monument destruction? KTHNXBI

  44. Randall Flagg

    Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law.

    Source: Letter of Thomas Jefferson to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814.

    In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own.

    Source: Letter of Thomas Jefferson to Horatio G. Spafford, March 17, 1814.

    History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes.”

    Source: Letter of Thomas Jefferson to Alexander von Humboldt, Dec. 6, 1813.

    The clergy, by getting themselves established by law and in-grafted into the machine of government, have been a very formidable engine against the civil and religious rights of man.

    Source: Letter of Thomas Jefferson to Jeremiah Moor, 1800.

  45. jjf

    “Domestic insurrections” was code for slave rebellions.

    And those Indians!  What do they think they’re doing when they defend their land and people and property?

  46. Kevin Scheunemann


    Jefferson also said:

    “God who gave us life gave us liberty. and can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the gift of God?   That they are not to be violated but with His wrat?Indeed, I tremble formy country when I reflect that God is just; that his justice cannot sleep forever.”

    —-1781 Statement in Query XVII of his Notes on the State of Virginia.  These words are also engraved on the Jefferson memorial if you disgusting, godless, anti-American, radical liberals have not torn it down yet!

    I have sworn upon the alter of God eternaly hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of men”.

    —Sept 23, 1800 letter to Dr. Benjamin Rush.   Clearly predicting the coming radical leftist woke movement in America.

    My views…are the result of a life of inquiry and reflection,and very different fromthe anti-christian system imputed to me by those who know nothing of my opionions.   To the corruptions of Christianity I am, indeed, opposed; but not to the genuine precepts of Jesus himself.   I am a Christian in the only sense in which he wished anyone to be; sincerely attached to his doctrines in preference to all others…”

    —April 23, 1803 letter to Dr. Benjamin Rush

    You godless libs should be careful misconstruing Jefferson.

  47. Pat

    “I have sworn upon the alter of God eternaly hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of men”.

    —Sept 23, 1800 letter to Dr. Benjamin Rush.

    That’s why I oppose the tyranny of Trump and the weak minded of men who follow him.

  48. Jason

    Trump is a tyrant in your mind?

  49. Mar

    Right Crazy Pat, President Trump is a tyrant.
    Yet you are free to criticize him with you bizarre rants.
    So, exactly, Crazy Pat, how has President Trump harmed you?

  50. jjf

    Pat:  Note that he didn’t ask if Trump had harmed anyone.  He asked if you felt you’d been harmed.  That’s how it works.

  51. Mar

    Right jjf.
    If President Trump is such a tyrant, that answer would be easy to answer.
    Now, I can say that President Obama and his policies hurt me personally.
    Le Roi says Governor Walker policies hurt him personally.
    So, it is quite possible Trump did hurt Pat.
    Otherwise, he is not much of a tyrant.

  52. Randall Flagg

    To the corruptions of Christianity I am, indeed, opposed; but not to the genuine precepts of Jesus himself.

    Thanks for sharing this one especially Kevin. He, like I, realize Christians have (and still do) corrupt Christianity.   For example, they corrupt the writings by “translating” them for political or control purposes:


    Now, let us look at the analysis of come critical Bible verses which have been edited in the context of contemporary views on abortion:


    … That brings us to the text I want to highlight here as another example of politicized distortion via translation: Exodus 21:22-25.

    Here is how Exodus 21:22-25 read in the New American Standard Bible’s 1977 revision of its 1971 original translation:

    “And if men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she has a miscarriage, yet there is not further injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman’s husband may demand of him; and he shall pay as the judges decide. But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.”

    You can see how this fits in the context of the chapter. Here is another category of victim for which another set of punishments for violence is given. If a pregnant woman gets struck “so that she has a miscarriage,” but is not herself injured, then the man who struck her must pay a fine. But if the woman herself is injured, then the same rules and punishments for striking any other (non-slave) person apply — “life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, etc.”

    But here’s the same passage in 1995 in the updated current version of the NASB:

    “If men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she gives birth prematurely, yet there is no injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman’s husband may demand of him, and he shall pay as the judges decide. But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.”

    “So that she has a miscarriage” has been replaced with “so that she gives birth prematurely.” [emphasis added]

    Wait… what?  Why the distinction between miscarriage and premature birth with no injury (presumably to the fetus/baby)?  Because this change in the text fits with the new view on abortion which started to pervade U.S. politics starting in the late 1970s:

  53. Pat

    Mar wins at being today’s “Big Richard”.

  54. Mar

    And Crazy, Lying Pat cannot answer the question or come up with something orginal.
    So, Lying Pat is lying again.

  55. Pat

    Sucks, doesn’t it Mar. You couldn’t answer my easy question, so you don’t have the right to ask one of me.

  56. dad29

    Some opine that Jefferson and many other Founders were Calvinist, or heavily influenced thereby.  No matter.  J. specifically refers to “laws of Nature and Nature’s God”.

  57. Mar

    Umm, Crazy Pat, you didn’t ask a question.

  58. Pat

    I asked it at Renaming The Pettus Bridge. All you could come up with was a feeble attempt at an insult instead of a answer.

  59. Kevin Scheunemann


    You show your shocking understanding of christianity by positing that.

    Exodus, Levitucus and Deuteronomy, list the civil and ceremonial LAW of Israel.

    The covenant of OT was belief in promise of a Savior from violating the LAW.  The NT covenant is Christ comng to fullfill the Law by the covenant of grace.   We are no longer subject to the civil and ceremonial Law of Israel, but subject to grace.

    Romans 6.   Romans 8.  Read entire book of Galations when certain Jews tried to bring back civil and ceremonial Law.   when you are done with that bible study, then we can have a cohesive discussion about how the Law no longer applies to believers in Christ, but does apply to godless unbelievers.

  60. jjf

    Randall, it’s more of Kevin’s Game.  The Bible means whatever he wants it to mean, and there’s always a verse that should be ignored and there’s always another verse that means exactly what he wants it to mean.

  61. Randall Flagg


    Furthermore, Kevin’s post did not address the point, which was the wording change between versions.  The point was not who the law applied to.  It’s almost as if he replies to posts without reading them.

  62. Kevin Scheunemann

    If you 2 want to purposely misunderstand the basics between Law And Gospel, that is on you.

    I was just indicating the Law you quoted no longer applies to believers living under grace.

    If you want to false witness the basic Gospel message that is your godlessness at work.

    Don’t talk about Christianity in the future if you choose to purposely reject the Gospel to smear it as an agent of Satan.

  63. Randall Flagg


    You didn’t understand the first two times, but I am typing this slowly in case you may be able to understand it on #3.

    My point has nothing to do with who the Law applies and does not apply to.  As I stated twice, it is the clearly political-influenced change of has a miscarriage, to gives birth prematurely, yet there is no injury

    If you do not agree that the change was politically-motivated, feel free to provide another explanation for the wording change with well thought out reasoning.

    If you want to address other topics (thus using the red herring technique) you may, but your avoidance of the quesiton shows you have no rebuttal for my point.

Pin It on Pinterest