mr peters speaks about charlie;

 

It is coming up on a year since Charlie Kirk was assassinated – the right word, since this was not merely a murder. We do not use “assassination” to describe ordinary murders, as for example when a thug breaks into someone’s home and murders the people within. Assassination are done for political reasons, not economic reasons.

Charlie Kirk did not hold any office but he was the leader of a movement and – had he not been assassinated – it is very possible he might have run for office (and won). This was perhaps the plan for him, before he began to deviate from it. His assassination occurred, curiously enough, in near congruence with his public questioning of that which he had previously never questioned; i.e., the nature of the “special relationship” between the state of Israel and the United States. It is a term of a piece with “peculiar institution” in the antebellum South in that it is meant to soft-voice a thing that ought to be discussed more openly and forthrightly. That is what Charlie did and it is probably what got him assassinated. He had to go because his questioning of the “special relationship” was causing his millions of young followers to question it.

Charlie is gone, but the questioning remains. If anything, it has gotten louder and more demanding. Why is the political leadership of the United States – of both parties (as if there weren’t just the one) – so beholden to this “special relationship”? What do the American people get out of this “special relationship,” other than taxes and war and lectures about how they are “anti-Semites” if they question any of it? These are the kinds of questions Charlie was asking shortly before he was prevented from asking such questions ever again. It does not mean we can’t ask them...........more...........