My colleagues have brought a few things to my attention upon reviewing the epilogue; thus, inspiring The Undisputed Champion for Liberty 3.5, and the epi-epilogue. First, I must address the elephant in the room: and, no, I am not talking about Governor Whitmer; I am speaking of an overwhelming consensus by those whom see and/or are kind enough to give feedback on my work before it goes up stating the depiction above makes her look fat. I want to be clear on this point: I did not make her fat; I made her hot. Yes, I like curvy women (not that I discriminate). It is also possible my subconscious attraction to “powerful women”, as my mother (I am only speculating) did not discipline me enough on the account of feeling guilt for the trauma I experienced at the hands of her ex-husband as an adolescent; or, as an associate of mine who studied psychology in college whom decided to psychoanalyze this odd fetish put it, I “need a spanking”, influenced an exaggeration of said curves. Her cuteness is difficult to deny. Of course, there is also the campaign commercials with that thick Michigan accent: “We’re gonna fix these darn roads!” What Michigander could resist that? Of course, as a libertarian, public roads are the bane and nemesis of any and every anarchocapitalist libertarian argument: “Who will maintain and make roads?!” Yes, dromophilia runs rampant among Americans: As a matter of fact, just as a fun experiment, ask people why we need taxes, and I bet 9 out of 10 times they will bring up the roads. Nothing, and I mean nothing, can get you cancelled like being dromophobic. So, I recognized the brilliance of her campaign slogan immediately. Say what you will concerning this piece of art and opinions thereof, but do not say that the figure depicted was exaggerated to make this femme fatale temptress look unappealing because it simply not true.
2. It was thought that an enumeration of executive orders would be beneficial for readers as the read through the ad hominem argument above to follow along with what was being said, but here’s the thing: there is a reason written law and three branches of government were formed. Checks & balances: this phrase pertaining to our form of government should be familiar to most people and (as far as I know) still infused into the most elementary of descriptions concerning the three branches. Libertarians know better than anyone the logical fallacy associated with evoking mainstream teachings and slogans of the zeitgeist to appeal to people as true, but, if a person is unfamiliar with the basic concepts of the branches of government to where I should have to cite and reiterate the idea this country is founded and ordered on principles of checks and balances, they truly have no business involving themselves with any political philosophy whatsoever. Stare decisis is a natural evolution in any legal processes, but now we are dealing with Supreme Court Justices who are re-writing decisions already made to change law in effect. Of course, they won’t redo the Dred Scott case, but let’s not get too off the subject: all I mean to say is the authors of legislation should be relegated to the legislative branch.
It is strange how the founders of this country referred to “the constitution” before it was made. It’s almost like the first time you run across Jesus talking about “the gospel” in the New Testament: even the greatest of evangelicals have to agree the gospels were written a couple years after the fact, no? Anyway, the “constitution” was the traditional and customary way of carrying out business, and when the King would arbitrate arbitrary edicts disrupting this process, he was hence “violating the constitution.” So, what is the problem with capricious edicts decreed by one person lacking in all due process and rooted in some misunderstood emotion on behalf of the queen? Well, if one does not find for themselves the answer right in the question, I doubt I could help them understand. An example, possibly: Pretend, for the sake of this discussion, there is a wicked and wretched woman elected to the governor position presiding over some state (let’s say Michigan) and this despot just starts making peoples’ professions “nonessential” and doesn’t allow them to work and makes others’ “essential” (for instance, people who sell marijuana (currently, of course, as two years ago they were being locked behind bars) whereas barbers who cut hair are jailed), and she makes all these arbitrary rules (without any regard for the consequences, let alone the law) including closing down lakes for boat access. Then, her own husband gets caught launching his boat illegally, claiming he did not know about the law.
Again, this is just an example, it is not my fault if it sounds exactly like something that happened in Michigan, but, to the point, not even the de facto king can keep up with her dictates. (This was written before Pelosi’s non-masked haircut, Lightfoot’s haircut, but not Cuomo’s trip to the gym, but I believe I’ve made my point.)
We have to hear this propagandist rhetoric about “supporting our troops” because they’re across the world fighting against dictators and/or otherwise evil people that want to end our freedom, meanwhile we got dictators in our own country virtually ending our freedom… I honestly don’t know what else to say. Queen Whitmer cannot just make laws—there is really no argument to be had here.
3. Finally, it was brought to my attention my epilogue was lacking its usual savior flair (sic). There was disappointment because I showed a bit of insecurity there and did not come back with the arrogant wit (for lack of a better term, it’s said in sarcastic jest meant to be comedic, or at least amusing, rather than braggadocious —those part of the Hip Hop community may call it “flexin’”) which seemed like an accurate and relevant critique. Hence, the ad hominem argument revisited:
Why should you believe me over the “same [said] people who…”? Because I’m a proponent of monarchomachism: I study under Juan de Mariano and an advocate of legalizing tyrannicide. That’s why. Because I would rather be cast into Gehenna, where there is burning of the flesh and gnashing of the teeth, than spend one day under the rule of some vicious tyrant. As the less eloquent Zapata put it: “Rather die on my feet than live on my knees.” I hope the pestilence of this virus turns tyrannicidal and wipes the whole government out. End government and you end societies problems. And that’s a period you say too (e.g., end government and end societies problems, period.) End of Story.