The Parasitic Octopus

by Robert Kalebra, ©2026

(Feb. 16, 2026) —”Government has no authority over the governed except by consent.” – The Declaration of Independence; See also United States ex rel. Polansky v. EXECUTIVE HEALTH RES, 143 S. Ct. 1720, 599 US 419, 216 L. Ed. 2d 370 – Supreme Court, 2023.

This foundational principle stated in the Declaration of Independence embodies the essence of self-governance: that authority arises from the unequivocal consent of those being governed. Yet, as we navigate the complexities of modern governance, we find ourselves ensnared in a system that often forgets this fundamental truth.

At its core, all law is a contract, requiring informed consent from the parties involved. Just as in any contract, consent can be granted or withdrawn at any time, with potential penalties for breach. However, how informed is our consent when it comes to the government’s vast array of laws and programs? The Supreme Court’s assertion that “consent to be governed is implied” (McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 US 316, 404,  4 L. Ed. 579, 1819 US LEXIS 320 – Supreme Court, 1819) is a misrepresentation of constitutional and contract law reality. True legal consent requires engagement and understanding, not mere acquiescence.   The individual has the right to be informed, and whereas government is purportedly in fiduciary relationship to the people, including the individual, the duty to disclose all matters affecting one’s legal interests must be full and complete, or it is fraud.  Read correctly, the holding in McCulloch suggests that while states, by applying for statehood and engaging in the constitutional process, are under implied consent to be governed, individuals maintain the autonomy to choose whether or not to consent to that governance. This dual framework of consent—both at the state and individual level—establishes a more democratic and participatory foundation for the authority of government, affirming the notion that legitimate governance must always be rooted in the explicit consent of the governed.

According to the Constitution, the mechanism for granting consent is clear: one must register to vote. In doing so, individuals provide their explicit consent to be governed for that election cycle. This consent remains valid only as long as one’s name is on the voter registration roster. Yet, despite this structured form of consent, we witness an insidious encroachment of government authority into every corner of our lives.

Take, for instance, government programs like Social Security. These initiatives are often thrust upon individuals from the moment they are born, with no comprehension of the contracts they are entering into. We are but infants, unaware of the legal chains binding us to a system that claims to protect us while simultaneously extracting from us. It is alarming to consider that the very structure of these programs behaves like an octopus with its tentacles entwining around our financial futures, forcing us into a banking scheme that many argue amounts to defrauding the very beneficiaries it purports to help.  Such programs are parasitic to the individual. 

The reality is that government has no authority to compel anyone to participate in a government-sponsored retirement plan. Your money is your property, and as such, you may dispose of it as you see fit.   Such coercion not only infringes upon personal freedom but also sets up a false promise; the odds are stacked against beneficiaries who may well be deceased before they see any return on their contributions. Thus, what is touted as a security net becomes a deceptive extortion trap, ensnaring individuals in a system that seeks to devour rather than nourish.

The metaphor of the parasitic octopus extends further: government, with its sprawling, uncontainable appendages, continues to grasp and pull everything into its orbit—taxes, regulations, mandates—while evading the consequences of its actions, much like Houdini escaping from shackles. As citizens, we must begin to question this power and the contracts that bind us; we must reclaim our consent, understanding fully that true authority and governance arise only from the will and knowledge of the governed.

The time has come for us to acknowledge the tentacles of government that have extended far beyond their rightful reach. Only through informed consent and a clear understanding of the contracts we enter can we hope to hold this octopus at bay, ensuring that it serves us rather than consuming us. It is time to redefine our relationship with government, one that recognizes consent as an ongoing dialogue rather than a one-time agreement dictated in silence.

Author’s Note: The best example of Government as a parasitic octopus was illuminated by Edward Snowden. Based on what he disclosed to the world, the government has unfettered access into your social media, your phone, laptops and tablets, even your TVs and even inside your cars’ communications systems without a warrant, all in the name of “national security.”

That’s the thing about most parasites. They usually secrete an enzyme that prevents coagulation so they can continue to feed on the host until they have their fill or until the host removes the parasite or is dead. Americans are being bled of their individual and even collective constitutional rights, and, at the same time, government sucks every penny it can from the individual.

Once you consent by registering to vote, your inalienable rights mentioned in the Declaration of Independence become privileges that are subject to Government’s discretion as to whether you have them or not.

Examples every American has seen of public officials escaping criminal prosecution by and through selective prosecution are Hillary Clinton, Hunter Biden, Barack Obama, Joe Biden, Bill Clinton, Federal Judge James Boasberg, Federal Judge Sharon Gleason and the named defendants in the Loy Brunson v Alma Adam’s et al. petition SCOTUS shelved, just to name a few.

A more recent example of the parasitic octopus draining the host is the USAID fraud uncovered by D.O.G.E. The parasite fed off every American while simultaneously threatening every American with prosecution for tax evasion if the taxes which were adversarial to each American’s legal and financial interests to fund the interests of foreign governments and their citizens were not paid.

How is that not treasonous against Americans? How is that not a scheme to defraud every US citizen? How is that not criminal coercion and criminal extortion? Simply because it’s “Them?”

The hardest honesty one undertakes in Life is to admit to himself that he has allowed himself to be fooled his entire life.