An American Oliver Cromwell, it is time

It established, in practice though not immediately in theory, that the King of England was not above ~~the law~~ sectarian kangaroo courts.

It is bizarre that Protestantism is thought to have gained by the unprecedented regicide of the Christian king who sponsored the King James Bible. The native English King was murdered by lawless, foreign-financed, proto-Bolshevik revolutionaries.

The KJV was sponsored by his dad, not by Charles I. Which is why it's called the King James Bible, not the King Charles Bible.

Charles was not particularly "native English." His father was a Scot, and his mother was Danish. He married a Frenchwoman. Throughout his life he spoke with a thick Scottish accent.

The regicides were of course lawless. They were revolutionaries, who by definition operate outside the legal system. Since Charles collected taxes without legal authority, and ignored the laws in other ways, he certainly wasn't guiltless of lawbreaking.

Which foreign groups financed Parliament? If you want to defend the Stuart dynasty, it's not a good idea to go bringing up foreign financing. If you catch my drift. Several Stuart kings sold foreign and religiouis policy to the highest foreign bidder, usually the French.

Some of the revolutionaries were indeed proto-bolshevik, notably the Levelers, although they can equally be considered forerunners of the American idea of political equality for all. However, the Levelers were squashed very thoroughly by Cromwell himself. The Protectorate made no attempt to change social or economic relationships.

Charles was not an evil man and probably had no real desire to by a tyrant. However, his execution was fully justified from a moral standpoint and furnished the best possible evidence that English kings were not absolute.

Since the advent of fire arms based warfare, the most essential person in any war is the banker, not the general.

This has always been the case. Firearms just made the necessity for money to fight a war more extreme.

The general dominance of England over France in their 1688 thru 1815 wars was largely due to England's more efficient system of finance. Thru all of this period France was much more populous, and during most of it inherently wealthier and more powerful. But it was unable to convert that wealth into the sinews of war due to an inefficient financial system.

Washington's Cavalier ancestors fought for the Scots-English Stuart kings and Washington opposed the banker-controlled usurper dynasty of the Dutch William of Orange.

Taxes were levied upon the Colonials to pay banker's interest instead of for the consented, common good. The Massachusetts Assembly had declared such taxes "against the Magna Carta and the natural rights of Englishmen." Colonials fought to defend those traditional rights.

Cavaliers representing freedom. That’s a laugh.

That depends on what you mean by freedom. Does freedom of speech mean unrestricted pornography combined with PC hate laws or job-loss for political speech? Does freedom of the press mean monopoly ownership by a few giant media corporations? Does property rights mean skewing the law to dispossess farmers and tradesmen in favor of banks and corporate socialists?

Cavaliers were proto-type Christian Nationalists defending the traditional British system. That system was not perfect but it included the Magna Carta and resulted in small government with low taxes. The successor Bank of England system brought a huge increase in government debt, size, and taxes.

without the Bank of England, it is highly doubtful the industrial revolution would have taken off as it did in Britain

America started from nothing but grew much faster without the high taxes, corporate socialism, or Oliver Twist pauperism of Britain.

Soon after the Bank was founded, Isaac Newton put Britain on the gold standard in 1717, providing a stable and honest currency, which the rest of the world eventually followed.

Isaac Newton impelled the industrial revolution with his physics discoveries but did not control the privately owned Bank of England. Newton was a celebrity hero rewarded with a cushy government slot that served to distract from the private control of the British money system. In America today, the appointed Fed Chairman distracts from the private ownership of the dollar-creation monopoly.

American did not succumb to the Bank of England system until the IRS and Federal Reserve were imposed in 1914. Americans experienced Bank of England style mass starvation for the first time 17 years later. Since then most real property ownership has been tied up in bank mortgages.

We need to rekindle the inherited independent spirit of the Founding Fathers to break free of the bankster tyranny.

Its also worth bearing in mind that reports of Cromwell’s atrocities would have been heavily exaggerated for political reasons, both contemporaneously and long after the event.

Yeah, and the Holocaust didn't happen either. Which network do you spin for?

Cavaliers were proto-type Christian Nationalists defending the traditional British system. That system was not perfect but it included the Magna Carta and resulted in small government with low taxes. The successor Bank of England system brought a huge increase in government debt, size, and taxes. When Jefferson and Adams visited England after the war of Independence, they gave a lecture to the locals extolling the virtues of the Parliamentary cause at site of the Battle of Edge Hill. They did not see virtue in the Cavalier cause, despite who their ancestors might have fought for. America started from nothing but grew much faster without the high taxes, corporate socialism, or Oliver Twist pauperism of Britain. America had almost unlimited land to settle, and America's industrial progress was heavily financed by British investment and trade (which would not have existed as it did without the BoE). Isaac Newton impelled the industrial revolution with his physics discoveries but did not control the privately owned Bank of England. Newton was a celebrity hero rewarded with a cushy government slot that served to distract from the private control of the British money system. In America today, the appointed Fed Chairman distracts from the private ownership of the dollar-creation monopoly. Sir Isaac Newton was the Master of the Royal Mint, and he was effectively responsible for putting Britain on the gold standard in 1717. How this situation is comparable to the private ownership of a dollar creation monopoly is a mystery, considering that by its very nature, a Gold Standard means you cannot simply create money out of thin air the way the Fed does today... We need to rekindle the inherited independent spirit of the Founding Fathers to break free of the bankster tyranny. On this point, I can sympathise, but not all bankers are, or rather, were greedy, self-serving inflationists. Up until shortly after World War One, the BoE made it a sacred principle to engage in responsible financial management to ensure that the Pound Sterling remained as stable and unchanging as possible. Then they came off the gold standard in 1931, and the bankers and politicians discovered that debauching the currency by making it fiat and then inflating it over the years was very much to their advantage (by stealing its purchasing power without physically taking it from people's pockets), and that by careful management, they could postpone the most unpleasant consequences of this until long into the future, a future which is perhaps, going to dawn on us in spectacular and terrible fashion within the next few years...

There is plenty of objective, documentary evidence for the holocaust. Not so much for Cromwell’s atrocities. The evidence for which is mostly second and even third hand accounts written from a biased perspective...

You simply hate the Irish, as most typical Brits do. Why not just be honest and say so, you know, the big chuckle you got from Princess Margaret’s “Irish are pigs” comment.

The evidence for which is mostly second and even third hand accounts written from a biased perspective...

A Brit claiming bias! How ironic.

Mate, I don’t hate the Irish. Being English and living in close proximity to Ireland, I probably know a lot more Irish people than you do. My sister certainly does, and half her friends are Irish.

But Cromwell fought for a just cause. He wasn’t a perfect man, but thank god that he existed. Otherwise monarchical absolutism might still be the most common type of government the world over.
Cromwell engaged in typical 17th century warfare against the Irish Confederates, who allied themselves with Charles and the Monarchical Absolutism he represented, when they weren’t trying to ethnically cleanse the protestants of Ulster, and for that, Cromwell fought and defeated the Confederates the way he defeated the Royalists in England, and for that, he was always going to be a bogeyman in the Irish nationalist imagination.

When Jefferson and Adams visited England after the war of Independence, they gave a lecture to the locals extolling the virtues of the Parliamentary cause at site of the Battle of Edge Hill.

Jefferson had also approved of the French Revolution but changed his opinion as he grew older. In his later years, Jefferson would say that bankers are more dangerous than standing armies. Washington had always disapproved of the French Revolution.

America had almost unlimited land to settle, and America's industrial progress was heavily financed by British investment and trade (which would not have existed as it did without the BoE).

Britain had a world empire that included unlimited lands of Canada, Australia, and Africa. The British invested in many places but America did not allow the BoE to dominate until 1914.

How this situation is comparable to the private ownership of a dollar creation monopoly is a mystery, considering that by its very nature, a Gold Standard means you cannot simply create money out of thin air the way the Fed does today.

Calling the original BoE system a "gold standard" does not change the nature of fractional reserve banking. Fractional reserve bank notes (and ledger entries) are loaned into existence--created out of thin air as principal to be paid back with interest. The notes were theoretically backed by gold but at any given time there were far more notes circulating than "reserve" gold available for redemption. The Bank of England cartel required member banks to cover the scam by never demanding redemption of notes and checks from other cartel members. Whether the "reserve" is in dollars or gold doesn't much matter if reserve notes come to be treated as real money. Fractional reserve is really fictional reserve.

In BoE/Fed systems, economic growth depends on hyping ever-increasing loads of debt until the central bank decides to stop the music. At that point, the cartel banks stop making new loans and call in old loans. There is not enough cash in the economy to pay off the principle and interest of all the outstanding loans and there is an immediate cash shortage such that purchasing decreases, investments are delayed, and workers are laid off. This is known as a business cycle "recession" or "depression." The economic hindmost are unable to repay loans and go into default.

After farms, homes, and factories are transferred to the banksters from the newly impoverished bankruptees, the central bank restarts the music by ordering cartel banks to start making new loans again for the business cycle "recovery."

Central banksters pre-plan the business cycle to affect elections and rig investment. Obama won election by the September surprise that crashed the markets. Connected banksters know when to sell high and buy low from the suckers who do not have such foreknowledge. Much of the middle class has lost its 401K savings and is now under water with home mortgages. That is why Fed Chairman Bernanke is resisting Ron Paul's demand for access to Fed records.