Wednesday, July 01, 2009
Not My President, Either Way
By Larken Rose
http://www.larkenrose.com
I like saying things that are so anti-statist that they even rile up those in the freedom movement. I suspect this will be one of those times:
Who cares if Obama is eligible to be President?
There has been much speculation, conjecture, and assertion about whether Barack Obama is a "natural-born citizen," and therefore Constitutionally qualified to be President of the United States. My response is, "Who cares?" He's not my president, either way, nor is he yours. Nor is anyone else.
To get slightly Monty-Python-esque here, suppose that a neighbor of yours claimed the right to rule you, based on the claim that the Lady of the Lake happened to fling a certain scimitar (Excalibur) at him. You might, for very good reason, dispute his account of things. But ultimately, who cares? Whoever was or was not distributing swords whilst lying in ponds, what does that have to do with the right to rule you? Not a thing. Likewise, whether or not Obama fit the criteria laid out in the Constitution, he has no right to rule me. Period. To argue over procedural technicalities implies that, if he did meet all the criteria, then he would have the right to rule me. He wouldn't.
You see, as radical a concept as this may seem, pieces of parchment cannot make men into gods, any more than farcical aquatic ceremonies can. Neither wig-wearing dudes who died two hundred years ago, nor lots of people pushing buttons in booths, nor all manner of other pseudo-religious political rituals, can bestow super-human rights upon a mere human being.
The Constitution asserts that the bunch of crooks calling themselves "Congress" have the right to forcibly confiscate money from people. Sorry to all you Constitutionalists, but that's utter bull poop. Yes, the Constitution puts various limits and restrictions on the power to "tax," but it's still the power to forcibly take money from someone who earned it--a right no mere mortal has, and a right which therefore no one could ever give to anyone else.
And so it is with all "government" power, constitutional or otherwise. How did Obama, or any of the other god-complex crooks in D.C., acquire the right to do anything which you don't personally have the right to do? Assuming they are humans--which gives them a benefit of the doubt they might not deserve--they weren't born with such rights. And since you and I never had such rights ourselves, they couldn't have gotten them from us. So what's left? From whom, and by what means, did the politicians acquire extra rights??
Yes, I know it's almost universally accepted that "government" is legitimate, that we should respect its "laws," and that obedience to "authority" is a virtue. But, universally accepted or not, it's all bunk. I have as much moral obligation to obey my cat as I do to obey all the politicians in Washington combined. And no political document or ritual will ever change that.
If tomorrow, Barack Obama produces not only a certified birth certificate from Hawaii, but also holds aloft Excalibur, it won't make one shred of difference to me. He is not my President. No one is my President. I, and I alone, own myself. And you, and you alone, own yourself. Once you grasp that, you'll probably stop arguing over the citizenship of one narcissistic megalomaniac.
Larken Rose
http://www.larkenrose.com
P.S. Notwithstanding all of the above, I must admit that it's sometimes entertaining to watch the tyrants' own rules being used against them, and to watch them squirm when caught in a lie. That's what the 861 evidence was all about. But never let them lying about their own rule books make you forget that their entire game, top to bottom, is 100% bogus.
P.P.S. If some of the verbiage above sounds really weird, you might need to go watch "Monty Python and the Holy Grail." Here's the short version:
Editor's Note: What Larken means is a clip sometimes called "The Annoying Peasant"from the film "Monty Python and the Holy Grail." I have substituted the longer version as it ends better and is only a few seconds longer. Also, here is one of the best quotes out of the clip.
"Listen, strange women lying in ponds is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses not from some farcical aquatic ceremony! ...You cant expect to wield supreme executive power just cause some watery tart threw a sword at you!..I mean if I went round saying I was an emperor just because some moistened bint lobbed a scimitar at me, they would put me away!"
http://www.larkenrose.com
I like saying things that are so anti-statist that they even rile up those in the freedom movement. I suspect this will be one of those times:
Who cares if Obama is eligible to be President?
There has been much speculation, conjecture, and assertion about whether Barack Obama is a "natural-born citizen," and therefore Constitutionally qualified to be President of the United States. My response is, "Who cares?" He's not my president, either way, nor is he yours. Nor is anyone else.
To get slightly Monty-Python-esque here, suppose that a neighbor of yours claimed the right to rule you, based on the claim that the Lady of the Lake happened to fling a certain scimitar (Excalibur) at him. You might, for very good reason, dispute his account of things. But ultimately, who cares? Whoever was or was not distributing swords whilst lying in ponds, what does that have to do with the right to rule you? Not a thing. Likewise, whether or not Obama fit the criteria laid out in the Constitution, he has no right to rule me. Period. To argue over procedural technicalities implies that, if he did meet all the criteria, then he would have the right to rule me. He wouldn't.
You see, as radical a concept as this may seem, pieces of parchment cannot make men into gods, any more than farcical aquatic ceremonies can. Neither wig-wearing dudes who died two hundred years ago, nor lots of people pushing buttons in booths, nor all manner of other pseudo-religious political rituals, can bestow super-human rights upon a mere human being.
The Constitution asserts that the bunch of crooks calling themselves "Congress" have the right to forcibly confiscate money from people. Sorry to all you Constitutionalists, but that's utter bull poop. Yes, the Constitution puts various limits and restrictions on the power to "tax," but it's still the power to forcibly take money from someone who earned it--a right no mere mortal has, and a right which therefore no one could ever give to anyone else.
And so it is with all "government" power, constitutional or otherwise. How did Obama, or any of the other god-complex crooks in D.C., acquire the right to do anything which you don't personally have the right to do? Assuming they are humans--which gives them a benefit of the doubt they might not deserve--they weren't born with such rights. And since you and I never had such rights ourselves, they couldn't have gotten them from us. So what's left? From whom, and by what means, did the politicians acquire extra rights??
Yes, I know it's almost universally accepted that "government" is legitimate, that we should respect its "laws," and that obedience to "authority" is a virtue. But, universally accepted or not, it's all bunk. I have as much moral obligation to obey my cat as I do to obey all the politicians in Washington combined. And no political document or ritual will ever change that.
If tomorrow, Barack Obama produces not only a certified birth certificate from Hawaii, but also holds aloft Excalibur, it won't make one shred of difference to me. He is not my President. No one is my President. I, and I alone, own myself. And you, and you alone, own yourself. Once you grasp that, you'll probably stop arguing over the citizenship of one narcissistic megalomaniac.
Larken Rose
http://www.larkenrose.com
P.S. Notwithstanding all of the above, I must admit that it's sometimes entertaining to watch the tyrants' own rules being used against them, and to watch them squirm when caught in a lie. That's what the 861 evidence was all about. But never let them lying about their own rule books make you forget that their entire game, top to bottom, is 100% bogus.
P.P.S. If some of the verbiage above sounds really weird, you might need to go watch "Monty Python and the Holy Grail." Here's the short version:
Editor's Note: What Larken means is a clip sometimes called "The Annoying Peasant"from the film "Monty Python and the Holy Grail." I have substituted the longer version as it ends better and is only a few seconds longer. Also, here is one of the best quotes out of the clip.
"Listen, strange women lying in ponds is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses not from some farcical aquatic ceremony! ...You cant expect to wield supreme executive power just cause some watery tart threw a sword at you!..I mean if I went round saying I was an emperor just because some moistened bint lobbed a scimitar at me, they would put me away!"