January 30 is the anniversary of a significant event in American History. Actually, it's a significant event in English history, with a tremendous influence on the American Revolution. It is the anniversary of the beheading of King Charles Stuart, or Charles I of England.
An excellent analysis of the event is an essay entitled, "When a King Is Not a King," by Scott T. Whiteman at the TheAmericanView.com. The ACLU would consider this an extreme right-wing organization.
But then, the ACLU would probably consider America's Founding Fathers to be right-wing extremists. The Founders' reaction to the beheading of Charles I was largely sympathetic. One very influential pastor (and the ACLU has no conception of how influential pastors were in the American Revolution -- see here and here), Jonathan Mayhew, discussed resistance to tyrants like Charles I in a widely-published sermon, “A Discourse Concerning Unlimited Submission and Non-Resistance to the Higher Powers.” I have analyzed that sermon here.
The beheading of Charles I was a mortal blow to the idea of "the Divine Right of Kings." That idea was eventually replaced in America by the idea of "the Consent of the Governed."
As a radical libertarian, I do not accept the legitimacy (to say nothing of the "divine right") of kings. I do not even accept the legitimacy of those who in our day rule over a majority with the "consent" of a minority. So I can agree with the criticisms leveled against tyrants like Charles I.
As a radical libertarian, "I do not believe in or advocate the initiation of force as a means of achieving political or social goals." I also do not believe in vengeance, or reciprocal force. The beheading of Charles I and the American Revolution against George III were unChristian and unBiblical. I have explained this here:
The Bible says to pay your taxes and pray for the king, not to kill him or his "redcoats." Beheading tyrants sows and waters the seeds of tyranny.
America's violent past may resurface again, as the political forces behind the assassination of JFK and RFK may set their sights on Obama.
Monica Guzman notes that the phrase "assassinate Obama" has appeared on a list of the top 100 Google search terms. When I saw Ted Kennedy endorse Obama, my first thought was that the Kennedy-haters would soon be springing into action. Whoever they are. The aftermath of such an event would make the Rodney King riots look like a picnic. (I was born in L.A. and was in L.A. when the verdict was handed down. The next day I drove down a nearly vacant Harbor Fwy to San Pedro to pick up a van load of surplus food, passing smoking cars and buildings on the way. A truly eerie experience.)
I've never been a fanatic student of the JFK assassination. If you disagree with my theories, I welcome your informative corrections. I've heard a few reports that make JFK sound like Ron Paul, with opposition to the Vietnam "police action" and the federal reserve making him a likely target. RFK strikes me as more Obama-like, or vice versa. 1968-2008. Hmm.
But as I noted yesterday, Obama is an establishment-approved Clinton clone, and not really a threat to those who thought the two Kennedys were a threat.