Losing an illusion makes you wiser than finding a truth.
~Ludwig Börne

It’s time to give up on the concept of rights. Like republics, democracies, and any other concept man have devised to only grant him partial freedom, they have outlived their usefulness. It’s time to recognize them for what they have been, stepping stones on the bumpy road to liberty.

Throughout history, men have fought and died for the rights that we have today; these rights have not come easily, and they are lost much easier than they are gained (or more accurately, recognized). Men have demanded they have rights to limit the tyranny brought upon them by those claiming “authority” either by God, blood, or vote. When really examined, it has been a great injustice that men have had to plead with other men just to be left alone. It’s hard to look at documents like the Magna Carta, the Declaration of Independence, and the Bill of Rights as triumphs of human rights when to this day we spend most of our time just trying to hold on to a fraction of the rights those documents proclaimed we have. We feebly hold up these pieces of paper with our hands trembling hoping to break the waves of tyranny, but alas, the tide of evil can only be held back for so long.

Rights have become tools of the State. The basic human rights our forefathers fought for are now the very chains of our enslavement. The State has successfully co-opted a concept that was once a good thing, but this is a common tactic of all tyrannical governments. They are the proclaimed protector of these rights supposedly granted to you by your creator. They are allegedly “inalienable”, these rights of ours. Just so that we are clear, here is the definition of inalienable.

in·al·ien·a·ble > – adjective 1.  not to be taken away or transferred

Now that we are all on the same page, does anyone of you still believe this? Or, did you ever believe it!? It does not matter if your rights are God-given, Natural, or Inalienable; they are non-existent! I will make a radical claim here, but I will attempt to prove it. You have no rights!

Humans created the concept of coercive governments, and then humans created the concept of rights to protect themselves from coercive governments. Huh?!?! Does anyone get the logic here? As long as you lend any kind of legitimacy to an entity that systematizes coercion you won’t have rights, you merely have a piece of paper, NOTHING MORE. The only way rational animals can truly have rights is when those rights are recognized by other rational animals. That’s it. If an entity is based in violence, by its very nature, that entity is an enemy of your rights. The two concepts cannot exist together. One is born of reason, one is born of force.

The government cannot be protector of your rights; it is the one true violator of them. The government is the reason we need to claim rights in the first place. As the brilliant Marc Stevens says, “If the government was really the protector of life, liberty, and property, they wouldn’t be the first ones to try and take it.” Life and liberty by law has been a failure, although not a complete failure. Our forebears efforts were not all in vain, some gains were made, but our enemy, the State, has found a way to capitalize on the gains that have come out of bloodshed, and sacrifice. These sacrifices were made by men yearning to be free in the hopes their children, and their children’s children might live a more peaceful life. It was the best way they knew at the time, and I stand ready to make similar sacrifices; however I would like to enter the battle on my terms, not the State’s. We have enumerated our rights, and the State has successfully picked them off one by one. What a brilliant strategy, any young officer worth his salt would see the opportunity to divide and conquer here. Go for the weak ones, and then we regroup for the rest. This strategy is not working anymore. It is time for us to claim one right, the right to life, and all that goes with it. I no longer claim anymore rights, but one. Let us level the battlefield a bit.
> If they want my rights, fine, they can have them, but know this; I keep my life, and all that comes with it. I have the right to live my life how I see fit, to do whatever I see fit, as long as I live my life non-aggressively. I claim freedom, every bit of it. From here on out, it’s all or nothing. They cannot have any of it, no more concessions. I no longer claim the Bill of Rights, because rights do not exist, they are nothing but fluff to make citizens feel good about their immoral governments. Government is not reasonable or rational, it is force. Therefore, it does not recognize my “rights”. These two concepts cannot exist in the same context, which one will you choose? I choose the right to life, not the wrong of government.

As long as humans choose coercive governments, their rights will not exist; when humans finally decide to be rational about organizing society, they won’t need their rights.

“The mere fact that an individual argues presupposes that he owns himself and has a right to his own life and property.” -Hans-Hermann Hoppe

Copyright © 2011 by zerogov.com

“The direct use of force is such a poor solution to any problem, it is generally employed only by small children and large nations.”

-David Friedman

Anarchists, libertarians, socialists, environmentalists, monarchists, Democrats, democrats, Republicans, republicans, Flemish nationalists and Maori separatists can all see problems in the world. Any group of a hundred human beings selected at random might even be able to reach a consensus as to which problems are gravest; a group selected based on geography, ideology or age is likely to reach a stronger consensus much more quickly. Some such groups might even reach an accord as to the best solution to these problems.

Despite that, ideologically compatible groups seem to spend more time quibbling over minor disagreements than they do attempting to solve the problems they can both recognize. The anti-war Socialist Anarchist and anti-war Anarcho-Capitalist choose to spend time and effort arguing over private property while their tax dollars are used to purchase flying robots to murder Pakistanis. The Libertarian and the environmentalist are liable to start a cat fight over logging and mining rules, disregarding their near-complete agreement on US drug policy. The advocate of free markets and the advocate of free health-care almost certainly share an opposition to the Federal bailouts of large and powerful corporations, but they freely choose to argue with each other about doctor’s bills.

I make two assertions:

  1. That continuing wars of empire are the single greatest threat to human freedom and well-being; and
  2. That a concentrated effort by those who oppose war is more likely to be effective than half-hearted occasional lip service offered by those who spend most of their time arguing about political theater on the internet.

Based on these assertions, I conclude that the best thing a bright, active and motivated lover of humankind can do to improve the overall condition of our species is to loudly, publicly and peacefully take a stand against foreign wars.

Right now, people I respect and frequently agree with are up in arms over undeserved disability payments, appropriate vocabulary, and milk. Meanwhile, we edge ever closer to a declared war with Pakistan and continue to spend money we don’t have building sexy-looking fighter jets we don’t need.

I realize that universal agreement is neither practical nor desirable. But while these wars continue, aren’t they a bigger concern than big-screen televisions for the undeserving, or whether Ron Paul goes to church?


“I’m not against the police; I’m just afraid of them.”

– Alfred Hitchcock

The Bench

No one who reads this blog expects police fetishism to evidence itself and yet another reason for the growing alienation between the police and the citizen emerges from an Indiana Supreme Court ruling allowing not only further trashing of expectations of privacy but opens the door even further to justify the killing of citizens who resist a raid on the wrong address.  Not only is American jurisprudence simply a rubber stamp on police depredations on the subjects they rule but resistance to the armed tax-eaters is now.  This may even create a cottage industry of miscreants who pose as cops to ensure compliance with their attempts at unlicensed criminality (as opposed to the organized crime sanctioned by the state in the conduct of its everyday affairs).

The Ephors aver:

“We believe … a right to resist an unlawful police entry into a home is against public policy and is incompatible with modern Fourth Amendment jurisprudence,” David said. “We also find that allowing resistance unnecessarily escalates the level of violence and therefore the risk of injuries to all parties involved without preventing the arrest.”

Please examine this last sentence carefully.  This is a declaration of war.  This means that any government sanctioned initiated aggression, even if it results in the maiming and murder of innocents, must be allowed to proceed.  In fact, it will most likely get the police perpetrators a paid administrative time away from work while the department waits to bring the thugs back aboard.  This codifies the license to kill that cops have had all along.  A cops ability to get away with murder has quite literally been given government approval.  For every cop who murders on the job and is convicted for an unjustified killing, there are thousands in the ranks who get away with it.

The hubris of the robed government employees never ceases to increase over time.  We all know the Constitution is the water-carrier for this kind of police over-reach.  The Judge might as well have quoted the Tele-Tubbies or episodes of Gilligan’s Island as precedent or advice on law.  The government injustice system serves one primary purpose – control and cowing of a citizenry to ensure compliance to the ocean of laws on the books and a free pass for the police forces and “law enforcers” plaguing the American landscape.  Imagine if every police officer from local to Federal were held personally responsible for their actions instead of the taxpayers for payment of damages resulting from their misbehavior.  The system is perverse now because the taxpayer quite literally foots the bill for his own oppression (along with the unborn burdened with the absurd debt pyramiding at all government levels).

I don’t want to curb cop misbehavior and violence against the innocent.  I want ALL departments disbanded and private justice instituted.  As with all things statist, incentives are perverse and the behavior is violent in so many respects that it begs the question of who is being served.  This ruling is illuminating because, at last, it unveils the state in all its glorious bloodletting and shows that in the end, everything justifies the means to achieve the end state they seek – complete subjugation of all residents in a given tax jurisdiction the whims of the government cattle ranchers.

Resistance is futile, slave.  Get over it.

The Enforcers for the Bench

“Under democracy one party always devotes its chief energies to trying to prove that the other party is unfit to rule—and both commonly succeed, and are right… The United States has never developed an aristocracy really disinterested or an intelligentsia really intelligent. Its history is simply a record of vacillations between two gangs of frauds.”

– HL Mencken

Copyright © 2011 by zerogov.com


Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.

– Romans 13:1 (KJV)

Jesus Christ serves as an exemplar of peace. Holding ultimate authority and command of a large number of men, he allowed himself to be arrested, tortured and killed. Many of his followers did likewise, allowing themselves to be martyred by the powers that were rather than fighting to protect themselves. Indeed, the entire 13th chapter Paul’s letter to the Romans is dedicated to the idea that Christians should submit to legitimate authority and allow Caesar to maintain peace and prosperity in the Roman empire.

It’s difficult, therefore, to reconcile opposition to government with Christian faith. On one hand, we say that The State does evil and that we ought to oppose its advances strongly. On the other hand, we have Paul telling us that God has ordained the powers that be, and that we ought not to stand against them.

One of the great difficulties facing all sorts of scholars is the importance of context. Religious scholars are particularly hard-pressed by this; centuries of history and human interpretation and seemingly contradictory directions from on high mean that reading a single verse or passage of a religious work is unlikely to give a clear picture of the author’s intent. If we read John 11:35, “Jesus wept,” and nothing else, does that mean that Christ’s example is to cry endlessly and openly? certainly not.

The context of Paul’s letter to the Romans, and the 13th chapter in particular, is important to understanding its meaning. Indeed, in the 12th chapter, Paul writes:

Recompense to no man evil for evil. Provide things honest in the sight of all men. If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men. Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord. Therefore if thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him drink: for in so doing thou shalt heap coals of fire on his head. Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good.

– Romans 12:17-21

So Paul recognizes that there are evil men in the world, and that Christians can have enemies. But he advocates peaceful, non-violent resolutions to conflict. He recognizes the best method to “heap coals of fire upon” the enemy’s head: to do kindness despite persecution.

Furthermore, Romans 13 imposes duties upon Caesar, upon states and governments:

For rulers are not a cause of fear to good conduct, but to evil. Do you wish to have no fear of authority? Then do what is good and you will receive approval from it, for it is a servant of God for your good. But if you do evil, be afraid, for it does not bear the sword without purpose; it is the servant of God to inflict wrath on the evildoer. Therefore, it is necessary to be subject not only because of the wrath but also because of conscience. This is why you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God, devoting themselves to this very thing.

– Romans 13:3-6

And God frequently strikes down kings and nations throughout the course of the Bible. The Babylonians, Ahab, Saul, and the Beasts in Revelation are all recognized authorities, ordained by God, and they are all brought low by Him. Indeed, just before the establishment of the Hebrew monarchy, Samuel warns the children of Israel:

And Samuel told all the words of the LORD unto the people that asked of him a king. And he said, This will be the manner of the king that shall reign over you: He will take your sons, and appoint them for himself, for his chariots, and to be his horsemen; and some shall run before his chariots. And he will appoint him captains over thousands, and captains over fifties; and will set them to ear his ground, and to reap his harvest, and to make his instruments of war, and instruments of his chariots. And he will take your daughters to be confectionaries, and to be cooks, and to be bakers. And he will take your fields, and your vineyards, and your oliveyards, even the best of them, and give them to his servants. And he will take the tenth of your seed, and of your vineyards, and give to his officers, and to his servants. And he will take your menservants, and your maidservants, and your goodliest young men, and your asses, and put them to his work. He will take the tenth of your sheep: and ye shall be his servants. And ye shall cry out in that day because of your king which ye shall have chosen you; and the LORD will not hear you in that day.

– 1 Samuel 8:10-18

Overall, I think it safe to say that God is not a statist. Paul is not advocating the existence or the actions of Caesar’s office or his empire: he is denouncing violence as the solution. Paul is advocating a peaceful church, not a complacent church. A Christian Anarchist is not a contradiction in terms, unless he engages in violence.

Governor Schweitzer,

As you wrote, House Bill 271 would allow anyone “eligible to possess a handgun under state or federal law” to carry a concealed weapon, without a permit. You fail to note, however, that carrying a concealed weapon without a permit is already legally permitted in much of the state: Montana’s concealed carry laws apply within the official boundaries of a city or town or the confines of a logging, lumbering, mining or railroad camp. In these cases, law enforcement is already deprived of the opportunity to make any determination regarding the suitability of responsible adults to make their own decisions regarding firearms.

Furthermore, I find the assertion that this bill would “greatly imperil the work and safety of Montana’s lawmen” juvenile and ridiculous. Indeed, under current law, county sheriffs are responsible for issuing concealed weapons permits, and it is unsurprising that they and the associations which represent them would oppose efforts to cede this authority. However, those who would imperil the work and safety of Montana’s lawmen are unlikely to be overly concerned with laws regarding the carrying of concealed weapons. This bill would not put guns into the hands of dangerous scofflaws: such people will choose to carry regardless of the laws in place.

HB 217 would not, as you say, remove the Sheriff’s authority and discretion to issue or deny concealed weapons permits. Under Montana Code Annotated 45-8-321, county Sheriffs retain their authority to issue permits to carry concealed weapons. Nor does HB 217 dismantle any “reasonable regulations” or void Montana’s reciprocity agreements with other states that recognize concealed carry permits, or void the laws that allow Montana permit-holders to forgo the background checks required for firearms purchases. As is the case in Arizona and Alaska, Montana would continue to issue permits to carry concealed weapons specifically for purposes of continuing Montana CCW permit holders to enjoy the benefits of reciprocity and to continue to forgo background checks as they do now. These permits would be issued by county Sheriffs, as they are now. In fact, HB 217 leaves 45-8-321 completely unchanged!

In closing, you urge the sponsors of the bill to “consider the absurdity of the standard set forth in HB 217.” This standard does not, would not and should not apply to driver’s licenses, pilot’s licenses, building permits, or hunting licenses. Nor is the standard of personal responsibility ‘absurd.’ What is absurd is your lack of understanding of the relationship between HB 217 and 45-8-321, your blatantly false statement regarding the peril of Montana’s lawmen, and the false equivalence you draw between HB 217 and driver’s licenses.

Governor Schweitzer, you disappoint me, and you have lost my support forever.


Kaiser Leib


I will be a guest on Ernie Hancock’s show today live from 1200 to 1400 AZ Time.  You can tune in here:


Ernie is the creator of the Ron Paul Love-alution logo and has been a prominent liberty Freddom Fighter for over two decades.  I have the pleasure of his friendship and we have even been to the Range together (that is Church in certain partsd of the Inland West).

While I am a mote in the Liberty universe, he is a force of nature there.  -BB

And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand? . . .”

– Alexandr Solzhenitzyn “The Gulag Archipelago,”

There is no larger tangible threat to liberty and freedom than police.  During the “Arab spring” around the world this year and last, the dictators and rulers always sent their police and security forces after protesters and citizens alike to “restore order” which is a nice way to say retighten the cuffs and fetters in the feedlot.  People often talk of the political threat to freedom and liberty as the sin qua non of the entire fetid system of government.  The usual suspects gripe about the absence of responsible statesmen and politicians.  Much like limited government, these people have not and will never exist but the police forces are the “law enforcers”.  They are the water carriers and virus transmitters for the government meme that has enslaved and maimed and killed millions in the last few centuries.  The police at every level from local to state to federal fulfill one primary goal – to threaten, fine, cage, maim and kill free citizens.

A quick aside:  Malum in se laws are the acknowledged evil of initiated aggression against person or property such as rape, murder or theft.   Malum prohibitum are the majority of laws in tax jurisdictions (nation-states) around the world.  These are characterized by the War on Drugs, tax compliance and a myriad of other forms of armed robbery and abuse the government has institutionalized.  The lion’s share of what cops do support the latter and very little of the former.  By its very nature, police forces don’t prevent crime and for the most part are historians who arrive at the scene of a crime after the fact.  Police forces in these united States serve two primary functions: first, assessment of fines for non-crimes like speeding and drunk driving to increase revenue to the state above and beyond the dozens of taxes imposed on the citizens and second, the snaring and capture of subjects who have violated one of the hundreds of thousands of laws and regulations that darken the American dream every day.  The increased militarization of police forces, the self-selected bullying archetype attracted to the job and the propagandized cop fetishisms that are vomited out of the government-media-education complex on an hourly and daily basis make for a wicked brew of brutality, sadism and a systematized revulsion of individual rights. All police and “justice system” functions will only be effective if divorced from the government and privatized.  Which brings us to officer safety.

This is the notion that in any police encounter in America, the citizen’s rights are always subservient to that of the cop.  As a matter of fact, the citizen’s life is of less value in the court system and the cops will overwhelmingly be vindicated by the state apparatus and the robed government employee in the courtroom.  The courtroom is that special place in America where the only private citizen other than the defendant may be his attorney if he hired one; otherwise, it is an isolated cocoon of idolatry to the state where the worship of government power is at its most pure.  It is the junction of force and self-satisfied sanctimonious self-congratulation on keeping civilization intact.  That is the story-book version when in reality it is the kingpin of the barbarism and unbridled savagery of the government.  The sanctified hall where “justice” is meted out to the unlucky five million plus (jailed, on probation and parole) presently ensnared in the prison-industrial complex the government is so proud of.

Officer safety is not only the mantra of the police but all their cheerleaders in the government education system and the media.  How many old ladies and gentlemen, pregnant women and children do we have to see brutalized to finally come to our senses and see the crimes committed for what they are?  How many times have we heard the cop say he felt threatened?  How many times has the wonderful technology of cameras shown that cops lie a lot?  Those of you who have had the misfortune of being pulled over for a revenue violation on the highway see that the cops are quite literally dressed to kill yet are in one of the safest professions in the country.  Fisherman and loggers are far more likely to die on the job than cops and a significant number of cops die in high-speed pursuits along with the people they kill during the chases.  So the noises about the dangers of the job are highly overrated.  There have been many explanations for why cops can literally get away with murder.  Search the ‘net and watch the thousands of videos of police mistreatment and brutality visited on citizens every day.  For every cop behind bars, thousands roam the streets with impunity despite documented records of brutality.  Even in England.


The keenest explanation is none of the above.  The reason they get away with the wonton and rampant misbehavior and brutality is that without them the government would collapse.  Every institutional bias in the state speaks to the protection and coddling of the Praetorian Guard that keeps them afloat.  Without the violent armed men in official costumes, no one would comply with the manifest and malicious foolishness of government interferences in their lives on a daily basis.  If it weren’t for cops and tax collectors, America and, for that part, the world would be free.  The Thin Blue Line is actually the Thin Red Line, the demonstration project that all objection and resistance to government occupation and force will be met with extreme violence and mayhem.  The Red Line also signifying the Keepers of the Collectivist Flame maintaining the sacred order of government force and coercion.  This is why the police are insured the sacred protection that allows them to maim and kill if they “feel” threatened and get away with it.

Officer safety is the reminder that government officials are more equal than others.  All professions come with risks but the police are a special case because without their warrant for the use and initiation of force against others, our government and governments around the world would collapse because citizens would be able to ignore malum prohibitum laws with impunity.  Civil disobedience would have a real effect and non-compliance, a peaceful endeavor, could not be stopped with bloody violence.

Every time that armed state official walks up to your car in pursuit of raising revenue for his masters, he is poised to maim and kill you if he wishes.  Whether using the trumped up charges of  “a furtive movement” or “resisting arrest”, the departments will find a way to keep their costumed & armed tax-eaters protected.  They will be back on the streets to terrorize and cow more citizens into submission.  That is their charter. The apprehension and detention of real criminals (malum in se) is but a small part of the enterprise.

To protect and serve, indeed – the government.


“I believe that liberty is the only genuinely valuable thing that men have invented, at least in the field of government, in a thousand years. I believe that it is better to be free than to be not free, even when the former is dangerous and the latter safe. I believe that the finest qualities of man can flourish only in free air — that progress made under the shadow of the policeman’s club is false progress, and of no permanent value. I believe that any man who takes the liberty of another into his keeping is bound to become a tyrant, and that any man who yields up his liberty, in however slight the measure, is bound to become a slave.”

– H. L. Mencken

Copyright © 2011 by zerogov.com

He’s noble enough to know what’s right
But weak enough not to choose it
He’s wise enough to win the world
But fool enough to lose it
– Rush

Is it safe to go out and be Americans again?

This morning I woke up to hear that the man that kept my family and I in a constant state of fear is dead. Osama Bin Laden was killed during a commando raid somewhere in Pakistan. Hooray! We got him! Finally, after all of these long years, living in a perpetual state of terror is over! Does this mean we can check out at Wal-Mart without Janet Napolitano lecturing us? Does this mean that we can travel without being molested by government agents? Does this mean some patriotic country singer will try and capitalize on this good news? Man, I sure hope so!

I had a voice mail when I woke up this morning, it was my brother. He is ten years younger than I am, and does not think the way I do. He said, “Chris, check the news, it’s about Bin Laden! WE killed his ass!” I thought to myself that “we,” well, that implies me, and I killed no one. I mentioned the word “we” in the first paragraph quite a bit, because it just seems to be engrained in our minds. Exactly what does “we” mean? When my brother said “we” he was referring to the US Government. I am not part of the US Government, and neither is he. Sure, agents claiming to be from the Government steal our money to fund themselves, but does that make us a part of it? If some gang of thugs came to your home and robbed you, would you say “we” robbed my house when you reported the crime to the police? Of course not! So why does everyone use the word “we” when referring to the US Government, or any branch of the Government, including the Army?

The mainstream media is now reporting there might be some “terrorist” retaliation due to the killing of their mastermind, Osama. I’m a little confused here. When he was alive we had to constantly be in fear for our lives, but now that he is dead, it might be worse? Well shoot, maybe “we” should not have killed him. It seems “we” are damned if “we” do, and damned if “we” don’t.

I wonder something: will the same people that say “we” when referring to the killing of Bin Laden, still claim “we” when referring to “collateral damage”? Will these same people that group themselves in with murderers and thugs, still take responsibility for killing children, and other humans? Will they take responsibility for the fact that “we” have made many more “terrorists” with the killing of innocent humans? Those that group themselves in the “we” category, ask yourself this question. If an occupying force killed your family, what would you do?

I will not give any details about Osama Bin Laden’s killing. I am not a MSM reporter, and I will leave the propaganda up to them. I am only a country boy with an opinion. I will leave you with this thought: those that say “we got him!” should go to your computers, use your favorite search engine, and type in Middle East collateral damage, then look at the pictures and say to yourselves: “WE shot them!”

To all of those that say “we,” know this: you do not include me.

“If we are to fight, we are a few. If we are to die we are many.”
–Crazy Horse (Teton-Lakota)


Publisher’s Note: Kaiser has penned an elegant and abbreviated jeremiad on why the production of Obama’s BC is not only irrelevant but in the end more distraction from the real problem.  Whether Obama or whatever his name is hails from Hawaii, Palookastan or is a Manchurian candidate from the Soviet Union’s last political gasp; it simply does not matter.  The real question is how the office retains any legitimacy whatsoever.  The President is nothing more than the Tax Collector-in-Chief for his tax jurisdiction.  The pomp and circumstance that surround the office and all the tentacled bureaucracies has one objective:  maintenance of power through the vampiric expropriation of wealth and means of its subjects coupled with a government media complex to provide psychic cover for mass theft and extortion.  Citizenship is not a privilege, it is the means to establish that poor sap’s eligibility to be fleeced, fined, jailed, maimed and killed by his tax jurisdiction.  The very locus of the entire controversy, the birth certificate, is nothing more than a government registration of a taxpayer at birth.  A brilliant but diabolical system. -BB

Barack Obama has released his long-form birth certificate. You should download it as a historical curiosity, if you are interested in such things.

What you should not do is dissect that birth certificate, looking for errors. What you should not do is to insist that the darkened numeral ‘1’ or the PDF inconsistencies or the color of the background offer proof, or even suspicion, that Mr Obama should not be permitted to hold the office of President of the United States of America.

You should not do these things because they do not matter. Barack Obama’s citizenship or lack thereof is a moot point. In the last decade, there was talk of amending the constitution so that citizens born in other countries could be president; the intention was that Arnold Schwarzenegger would make an ideal Republican candidate.


The Terminator Movie Poster
Above: Presidential Material


In the last election, John McCain’s legitimacy as a presidential candidate was also in doubt. McCain was born in Panama, which is not a State of the Union. Congress declared him to be an acceptable candidate despite this, with the reasoning that the founders would never have intended to prevent the children of servicemen born abroad from holding office. They made no statement as to the founders’ intentions regarding the presence of servicemen abroad to produce such children.

Every one of these men, and every other born in history, has exactly as much right to rule as you and I do: none. Whether Obama or Schwarzenegger or McCain or Queen Elizabeth happened to be born on this continent, within some arbitrary geographic boundaries, has absolutely no bearing on whether it is right for them to decide whether how you ought to live.

In days of old, there were rules regarding the taking and keeping of slaves. Today, we recognize slavery as an unnecessary wrong, and those rules have no bearing. It’s not that we take slaves and then treat them according to certain rules: it’s that we simply don’t take slaves any more, because slavery is wrong. The prospective slave owner’s legal claims are meaningless, because we recognize that no individual can own another.

The office of President, and the existence of government, are similarly legitimate. The debate over Obama’s birth certificate, or McCain’s, or the amendment for Schwarzenegger, is akin to arguing over when a slave may be bought or sold and how he must be treated. Whether existing laws are changed, or President Obama was born in Honolulu or Kenya or Moscow, whether the founders intended that people like John McCain ought to be allowed to be President, is meaningless, if we agree that the government itself is completely illegitimate.