Wednesday, July 1, 2009

Not My President- Larken Rose

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

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.

No comments: