A long time ago, George Washington made a very dangerous and arrogant statement: “It must be laid down as a primary position and the basis of our system, that every citizen who enjoys the protection of a free government owes not only a proportion of his property, but even his personal service to the defense of it.”
So this alleged hero of the “Revolution” was not so revolutionary after all, it would seem. He felt perfectly comfortable establishing a “primary position” instantly applicable to everyone everywhere, in addition to “our” system. He was entirely ignorant that there were and would be no such thing as “citizens” (as anyone who has ever read Marc Stevens’ Adventures in Legal-Land will point out), and likely cared not that some might not wish to be availed of the “protection” this “free government” (which is like saying “alive dead” or “incorrect correctness” – it’s inherently self-contradictory) proposed to provide on a compulsory basis – and later ruled that it had no duty to do so. And of course, Washington even went so far as to state that an individual’s life and property are entirely secondary to this arrogant one-sided command and control philosophy.
Smash cut to Obama, 2009: In a recent speech delivered in Norway as he accepted the Nobel Peace Prize, this is how Ben Feller of the Associated Press characterized and quoted Obama:
“It was a jarring moment when Obama, in the midst of the ceremony, said of his troops in Afghanistan: ‘Some will kill. Some will be killed.’”
“He lauded Mohandas Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr., preachers of nonviolent action. But he added, ‘A nonviolent movement could not have halted Hitler’s armies. Negotiations cannot convince al-Qaida’s leaders to lay down their arms.’”
Note: It appears Obama has never read Carl Watner’s excellent essay, “Without Firing a Single Shot: Voluntary Resistance and Societal Defense,” available in the Non-Violence section of www.voluntaryist.com.
“’To say that force is sometimes necessary is not a call to cynicism, it is a recognition of history.’”
“The president laid out circumstances in which war is justified — in self-defense, to come to the aid of an invaded nation, on humanitarian grounds such as when civilians are slaughtered by their own government.
Further Note: Then Obama is okay with me using armed force in defending myself from the naked aggression of government agents? From the military or the BATFE or the DEA, who invade so-called “nations” (a specious concept)and slaughter people all the time in a most unhumanitarian manner, exclusively so as to do no more or less than to impose government will and pit it mercilessly against the will of the individual?
“At the same time, he also stressed a need to fight war according to ‘rules of conduct’ that reject torture, the murder of innocents and other atrocities.
“’We lose ourselves when we compromise the very ideals that we fight to defend,’ he said. ‘And we honor those ideals by upholding them not when it’s easy, but when it is hard.’”
What on earth does Obama call it when a cop tasers someone for something so simple as not moving fast enough? That’s torture in my book. And it’s more than obvious that the American government murders plenty of innocent people every day – both overseas, and here at home. The ideals Obama has in mind are bred of Washington’s of old: the arrogant domination of others’ lives and property under threat of lethal violence in order to advance the self-serving agenda of the State.
It is the hope of every anarchist to make enforcing such “ideals” not just hard, but ultimately impossible – by abandoning and then eliminating government altogether.