"Standing armies consist of professional soldiers who owe their livelihood and income to the government. Unlike civilians who render periodic service in local militia, professional soldiers do not own property and therefore do not have any source of income other than the government’s military paymaster. Thus, they are more likely to serve the government’s interests, regardless of whether its leaders are dishonest and corrupt or not. In fact, standing armies may even promote rapacious foreign or domestic policies if such policies enrich the army. In contrast, arms bearing, property owning citizen militiamen have a stake in the health of the republic as a whole and can be trusted to act in the republic’s best interests, whether those interests call for action in support of or against the political leadership of the nation." ~ Anthony Dennis
Obama, Where's the Contract?
Column by Alex R. Knight III
Exclusive to STR
Of course, the more popular question these past three years or so has been, “Where’s the birth certificate?” – so much so that Barack felt obliged to produce a Hawaiian “long-form” piece of paper alleging his 1961 birth took place there. Others contend that this is a forgery, and that the president poseur still hails from either Kenya or Indonesia. Further, many hold that Barack Hussein Obama’s real name is Barry Soetoro, and that his parents had numerous CIA connections. I have a copy – though to date have not yet had the opportunity to read – Jerome R. Corsi’s book, Where’s the Birth Certificate?: The Case That Barack Obama Is Not Eligible to Be President (WND Books, 2011), though I expect it will be interesting.
If there is any truth to any of these allegations – to wit, that Barack (or Barry, as you prefer) is not a “natural born Citizen” as mandated by the Constitution and therefore ineligible to be president – this is certainly yet another gross demonstration of how callously government ignores its own “laws” whenever it serves as an impediment to politicians and bureaucrats both doing and doing to all of us anything they damn well please while holding you and I accountable for the most minute infractions of their dictums. Government is replete with such duplicitous conduct at every level.
Still, where Obama (or Soetoro) is concerned, this is by no means the most important or relevant issue.
Where this individual was born pales to almost total insignificance, in fact, when contrasted against from whence he allegedly derives his authority? This is to say, where is the individually signed and consented to contract that supposedly allows him to control and wage war on the lives, liberty, and property of 305 million or so Americans . . . much less those of people overseas who are having an ever-increasing series of wars and police actions waged against them? Who explicitly consented to this obscene arrangement? Any takers?
Certainly no one who didn’t vote in 2008 can be construed as having consented to his governance. It might even be argued that no one who didn’t vote for him specifically ever consented to Obama’s rule, though it can just as quickly be maintained that the very act of voting at all, for anyone, implies consent to the overall process, regardless of the outcome – like gambling in Atlantic City or Vegas. But surely, those who did vote for Barack in ’08 have consented to be ruled thusly, no?
In the final case, it’s a tough position to refute. Obviously, the safest and most moral position in this entire equation is to not register, and not vote. But remember still that at the end of the day, a vote is still not a contract. A vote cast for a particular politician does not in any way whatsoever bind that same parasite to any particular position or course of action. Again, the voter is analogous to a gambler – throwing the dice and hoping for a certain end result. In no way is it a guarantee, even if the candidate in question gets into the office they’ve made a bid for, that he or she will do as they allegedly promised during the election campaign, or for that matter, even try to do so. As I’ve written elsewhere in the past, a vote is little more than buying into a con-game.
One of the fundamental alleged precepts of American government is that it requires “the consent of the governed” in order to possess legitimacy. To pretend that this “consent” can simply rest on a generalized implication, or becomes automatic upon a person’s birth (even Obama’s) due to the supposed existence of some specious “social contract” is just so much hollow and long-winded rationalization. Consent must be individual and explicit in order to be valid. It’s that simple, and that true.
Having demonstrated that, at day’s end, I’m not much concerned about the current president’s birthplace (okay, maybe you don’t want to call him president, I’m cool with that; whatever). Not nearly as much, at least, as I am as to whether or not he can show me where I signed on the dotted line, consenting to have my life and property dominated by him and his minions.
But I already know the answer to that, of course. What does Obama think – that I was born yesterday?