Obama Pushing The “Dictator Button” to destroy “his (***)” country. (*****)
(***) No evidence he is a natural citizen. No b.c. No docs.
(*****) Apologies to Wistar rats which are fully documented.
Posted on 02/14/2010 1:27:20 PM PST by snoopy 'n linus
Today we have a Congress and President upset with the teaparty movement. At stake are historic freedoms handed down since the Magna Carta. They say those who are ignorant of history will repeat it. A similar example may exist with British history.
Charles I had succeeded his father James VI and I (he was first king of Scotland and then of Britain). James had successfully united England, Scotland, and Wales and was working at Anglicizing the northern part of Ireland through devious means. Religious events led to another war with Spain for which James had put the nation in serious debt.
It was 1626. Charles placed a great deal of trust in the Duke of Buckingham; an individual that was a total klutz. The last straw was when Buckingham had set out a naval expedition with scaling ladders 15 feet too short to start their mission. It would be as if Eisenhower had launched the armada with equipment too short to scale the cliffs of Omaha Beach. Having wasted 200,000 of the 267,000 pounds Parliament had authorized, the legislative body demanded that Charles fire Buckingham. He didn’t. Charles came to Parliament asking for more funds. They said no deal unless the klutz was gone. Without sanctions from Parliament, Charles used a funding method that had been outlawed about 150 years earlier. This immediately triggered constitutional questions whether the king had exclusive right to judge when an emergency existed. Charles became paranoid, thinking those who opposed him were conspiratorial rabble-rousers in orchestrating popular uprising and misrepresenting the loan from the treasury as an illegal confiscation.
The degree of outrage spread across the kingdom and startled Charles. His plans, such as they were, disintegrated before his eyes. It wasn’t just the usual individuals with whom he disagreed, the basis of the disagreement regarding the loans came from the nobility and gentry – the political community that formed the stable constituents upon whom the king relied. It wasn’t just one isolated shire, it seems as if every corner of the realm was in an uproar. This was too much for Charles. Dissent must end. Ultimately several earls were among the more than 70 gentry imprisoned in the Tower of London. This only fueled the citizens’ outrage in seeing THEIR members of parliament silenced. ‘If it [the loan] goes forward,’ wrote one Lincolnshire knight, ‘we make ourselves and our posteritye subject to perpetual slavery without any recovery to be taxed at pleasure without any limits.’
New elections followed within two years as the forced loan was the number one issue held against the incumbents. Violence broke out in hotly contested districts. One laborer who had been jailed for resisting the tax ran for parliament and was elected to the frustration of Charles. As Schama noted : “Many of the names that would become a fixture of parliamentary ideology and local political organization in the early 1640s — Francis Rous in Cornwall, John Pym at Tavistock — had their first political blooding in these elections, which were unlike anything that had yet been seen in English political life.”
The king had his supporters who voiced their outrage regarding the “unprecedented militancy” demonstrated by the hooligans. Those on the other side demanded an end to usurpation of their common law by royal decree. Canterbury’s member of parliament, Thomas Scott, repudiated his minister’s sermon that demanded obedience to the king by saying subjects must, no are required, to resist the actions of an illegal monarch.
Judges ultimately overturned legal grievances. That should have ended the matter. It didn’t. Soon after evidence appeared showing that the attorney-general, with prior knowledge of Charles, falsified documents related to the loans’ legality. This was a blow to those who had supported the king up to then. Opponents had a field day during subsequent hearings. What previously had been an argument over the one specific issue of loans for an emergency became a broad based Parliamentarian principle setting down the Petition of Rights that stopped illegal non-parliamentary taxes, ended the king’s imprisonment without trial for unspecified reasons, and restricted martial law and forced billets. Furious at this defeat, Charles went into seclusion, canvassing the documents to discover loopholes that would maintain his royal powers over every item not expressly specified in the Petition. The king viewed his reviews as self-evident truths of his sovereignty as he continued to refer to himself as God’s ‘lieutenant on earth’ and he intended to fulfill God’s mission.
The following year the few moderates who still supported the king were called into his chambers to discuss any means to recover from the disaster. Charles further fueled the fire by suspending Parliament. Militants in the House of Commons demanded a right to be heard. On March 2, the House Speaker attempted to adjourn but was shouted down by members who said the king’s order had no relevance and the Speaker was a servant of the people, not the king. Unknown to the Speaker, someone had locked the doors to the chambers and hidden the key. Members were locked inside. Worse yet, the Speaker was physically restrained in his seat while the opposition read resolution after resolution decrying : “the taking and levying of subsidies not granted by parliament (as) a capital enemy of the kingdom and Commonwealth and every subject voluntarily complying with illegal exactions a betrayer of the liberties of England and an enemy to the same.” Ultimately, the Beefeaters were able to force entry into the chamber. Nine members were hauled off to the Tower and Parliament was dissolved, not to appear until 1640.
What grew out of these events was the birth of public opinion. Parliamentary debates had been the exclusive reading by lawyers and a few noblemen. A few newsletters existed that reported on politicians’ indiscretions but they weren’t widely read. The above events had an explosive impact. Suddenly Britain, the entire island, became engrossed in London political events. Prior the 1628-9, there were no newspapers recognizable in modern context. The battle between Charles and Parliament changed the face of public interest and participation. News became not a daily event discussed over radio and television but was dispatched to the byways and countryside via cheap tabloids. Britannia had undergone a peaceful revolution. Parliament now had greater expression and increasingly its members came from average citizens who had their predecessors to thanks for greater freedoms.
And now you know the start of the story.
I’d for France’s Charles the Simple who gave away Normandy to the Vikings among other questionable acts...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_the_Simple
Comparing Obama to Charles I is REALLY unfair to Charles I.
And I bet no one suspected Charles of being born in Kenya either. /s
Biden similar to King Charles II of Spain.
...So...what happened....?
Obama Similar to King Charles I?
No. Obama is too arrogant to see which way the wind is blowing.
Possibly it is unfair to Charles I, but I also recall reading that Charles was referred to as the “most educated fool in Christendom.” Something else they have in common?
Plus the belief in their divine right to rule.
Actually, England and Scotland remained two countries which just happened to have the same king till 1707. Wales was legally a part of England. James and Charles were also Kings of Ireland.
That was his dad, James I, and it was "the wisest fool in Christendom."
Nobody ever called Charles wise in any sense.
Charles I = Obama
Duke of Buckingham = Larry Sinclair
Well I certainly pray we don’t get a Cromwell to replace him.
King Charles continued to be a complete noodlehead until he got his head chopped off by a swamp-dwelling, ugle as sin, hillbilly harda$$ named Oliver Cromwell.
Louis XV is a better analogy. Louis was oblivious to the coming revolution and also had a haughty wife, Marie Antoinette.
Cromwell was a big improvement over Charles I. Charles was caught red-handed conspiring with the King of France to bring a foreign army in to subdue his own people. Kind of like if Obama were caught red-handed conspiring with globalists to destroy American sovereignty.
Cromwell had a chance at establishing a British free republic, but blew it by gutting parliament when he found it difficult to work with.
A big problem with establishing a British free republic was the class of effete aristocrats who stood in the way - they were kind of like today's liberal elite who feel entitled to rule because they consider themselves superior to people who cling to guns and religion.
Obama Pushing The “Dictator Button” to destroy “his (***)” country. (*****)
(***) No evidence he is a natural citizen. No b.c. No docs.
(*****) Apologies to Wistar rats which are fully documented.
Not true!
He knows it blows from his own arse and is aimed at you and me.
It was Louis XVI who married Marie Antoinette and got his head chopped off.
Louis XV, on the other hand, was a lavish-living, huge deficit-spender who said "after me, the deluge" and the comparison with Obambi fits in terms of pure ego.
Patrick Kennedy won't seek reelection Friday, February 12, 2010 12:18:40 PM · 168 of 218 Agamemnon to ricks_place; LS
The Bush dynasty (old money, Dutch-English roots - nominally "Protestant") outlasted the Kennedy dynasty (new money, Irish roots, nominally "Catholic").
It was a 100 Years War of sorts (not a completely perfect illustration in every detail but a model nonetheless): Henry VIII to Charles I (1527-1649). Kennedy vs. Bush (1915-2011).
Yes, Obama is the nominated titular "5th Kennedy (step)- brother" and with this model one might envision the possibility of a deposed "ruler" in 2011 and the institution of a "Protectorate" of sorts -- a caretaker President (Boehner rising from Speaker to President with a deposed and shamed Obama-Biden-Reid-Pelosi axis.)
Followed by an American version of the "Glorious Revolution" in 2012 led by (?), who restores Constitutionalism, at the same time overthrows, and banishes Progressivism.
Yet another "100 Years War" pitting Conitutionalism vs. Progressivism (1912-2012) comes to an end.
Just speculating, not necessarily predicting...
All that aside in this clash of Titans, the Bush's are the family left standing.
FReegards!
Kinda’ interesting in a National Enquirer sort of way, but Mary Queen of Scots, was red headed and 6’ tall, married to Englishman Lord Darnley (a 6’ blond fop), and “their son” was born suspiciously short and very dark with a speech impediment much like Mary’s male secretary, Rizzio, who got stabbed to death by Mary’s husband at the much pregnant Mary’s feet. A book I was reading said for several hundred years no pictures were painted of these Kings because they were so UGLY and coarse, and the impedient caused spittle to run down their faces when they ate. Several hundred years later pictures were painted of these Kings after the fact by an artist, and he painted them all with the same, ordinary looking face, just to fill in the blank spots on the wall, I guess.
So more than one King probably wondered “who was Daddy?”
Kinda’ interesting in a National Enquirer sort of way, but Mary Queen of Scots, was red headed and 6’ tall, married to Englishman Lord Darnley (a 6’ blond fop), and “their son” was born suspiciously short and very dark with a speech impediment much like Mary’s male secretary, Rizzio, who got stabbed to death by Mary’s husband at the much pregnant Mary’s feet. A book I was reading said for several hundred years no pictures were painted of these Kings because they were so UGLY and coarse, and the impedient caused spittle to run down their faces when they ate. Several hundred years later pictures were painted of these Kings after the fact by an artist, and he painted them all with the same, ordinary looking face, just to fill in the blank spots on the wall, I guess.
So more than one King probably wondered “who was Daddy?”
It is debatable whether Lord Darnley was an Englishman, as his father was a leading Scottish lord with some claim to the throne, and lived many years in exile, where LD was born. The aristocracy of the time was remarkably cosmopolitan, and many Brits owned estates in both Scotland and England.
I’m always amused by those who trace their ancestry back many hundreds of years, with the assumption that every single child born to a married woman had her husband as the bio-dad.
When control of huge estates or kingdoms was in danger, it is also likely a child “ringer” was sometimes brought in when there was a stillbirth or infant death.
Shades of McClellan's canal boat pontoons that were 6" too wide during the Civil War.
***It was 1626. Charles placed a great deal of trust in the Duke of Buckingham; an individual that was a total klutz. The last straw was when Buckingham had set out a naval expedition with scaling ladders 15 feet too short to start their mission.***
Meanwhile, in other news, Mooroccan pirates were rading the coastal towns of Ireland taking Irish and English citizens to Moorcco and North Africa to be sold as slaves...
Check out the history of the raid on Baltomore, Ireland.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.