Robert Ringer

Barack Obama and Justified versus Unjustified Treason

By Robert Ringer - Wednesday, June 27, 2012

Now that everyone other than Jay Carney and Alan Colmes realizes that Barack Obama has no intention of upholding the Constitution or enforcing laws with which he does not agree, while at the same time ignoring Congress and the Supreme Court and inventing his own laws, the T word — treason — is being whispered behind closed doors.

Nevertheless, treason is a harsh word that most politicos are skittish about using.  Treason has numerous definitions, but the one that comes most often to mind is “an attempt to overthrow the government.”  No doubt about it, overthrowing the government is an extreme act.

But let us not forget that the Founding Fathers were guilty of treason when they overthrew the British government that ruled them at the time.  Thus, if we are to be intellectually honest, those of us who believe in freedom would have to concede that treason can be either justified or unjustified.

The key is whether it is based on an attempt to overthrow tyranny or freedom — or, the corollary, whether it is based on an attempt to achieve tyranny or freedom.  From whence comes the adage, one man’s terrorist is another man’s patriot.

Thus, it would have been justifiable treason had black slaves, on their own, taken up arms against the federal government in an effort to achieve their freedom.  Ironically, however, the treason committed by the Southern states in violating their allegiance to the federal government was also justified, for two reasons.

First, the Southern states felt as though they were being treated as second-class citizens, with the federal government favoring the North on numerous economic issues.

Second, the federal government does not have a natural right to force any of its creators — i.e., the states — to remain a part of its union.  If a state and its inhabitants are chained in perpetuity to the federal government, they are not free.

Which brings us to Barack Obama.  His own words during his campaign — the desire to “fundamentally transform America” — make it clear that it has, from the beginning, been his goal to overthrow the United States’ current system of government.  Further, long before he ran for president, he lamented about the fact that the Constitution did not make allowance for “redistributive change.”

But none of Obama’s words would have mattered had he not acted on them.  In a rapidly accelerating fashion, he has ignored the Constitution that he took an oath to uphold.  And the America we have today is clearly not the America we had when he came into office — though, no question about it, it was pretty far down the road toward socialism even before Barack Obama appeared on the scene.

It is Obama’s actions — not his words — that would appear to rise to the level of unjustifiable treason, because they lessen individual freedom.  In fact, when you use the term “social justice” as an excuse for your actions, you are guaranteeing that you are going to infringe on the natural rights of a segment of the population.

As things continue to unfold over the next four months — with illegal immigration, the indiscriminate use of executive privilege, the Fast and Furious scandal, undeclared wars, and, one way or another, universal health-care shenanigans, it will be interesting to see if the country’s number-one outlaw, Barack Hussein Obama, moves ever more boldly toward actions that are brazenly and unjustifiably treasonous.

It is clear that Son of Saul remembers well one of his guiding light’s most important messages:  When you run into pushback, never retreat.  Instead, push back twice as hard.

Foul and Furious Obama may have been a joke as a community organizer and a guest lecturer at the University of Chicago, but give the man credit where credit is due.  No far-left zealot — not even the would-be queen of one-world government, Hillary, has had the nerve to push the constitutional envelope not just to the edge of the table, but over the edge.

None of us has ever witnessed the kind of dictatorial actions Barack Obama will be taking over the next four months, actions so bold that they will even scare of some of his most loyal hopey-changey goons.  But don’t despair.  After all, none other than MittMush has assured us that the presidential pretender is “a nice guy.”  Whew!  What a relief.

Just what Obama needed — another cheerleader.

To preorder Robert Ringer’s new book, The Entrepreneur: The Way Back for the U.S. Economy, Click Here.

You have permission to reprint this article so long as you place the following wording at the end of the article:

Copyright © 2019 Robert Ringer
ROBERT RINGER is a New York Times #1 bestselling author and host of the highly acclaimed Liberty Education Interview Series, which features interviews with top political, economic, and social leaders. He has appeared on Fox News, Fox Business, The Tonight Show, Today, The Dennis Miller Show, Good Morning America, The Lars Larson Show, ABC Nightline, and The Charlie Rose Show, and has been the subject of feature articles in such major publications as Time, People, The Wall Street Journal, Fortune, Barron's, and The New York Times.

To sign up for his one-of-a-kind, pro-liberty e-letter, A Voice of Sanity, Click Here.

Respond to Writer

Comment Policy: We encourage an open discussion with a wide range of viewpoints. Make your case passionately, but please keep your comments civil and to the point (maximum of 1500 characters). Obscene, profane, abusive, or off-topic comments will be deleted. Repeat offenders will be blocked.

If your comment does not appear, it is likely because it violates the above policy or contains links or language typical of spam. We reserve the right to remove comments at our discretion. Thanks for your participation.

26 Responses to “Barack Obama and Justified versus Unjustified Treason”

  1. reunion says:

    "treason", like "citizen", is merely a rule/ruling within the institutionalism of "states". which is also why it can be parsed "either/or". victors are "founding fathers"; vanquished are "southern rebels". board game, word game, nonsense.

    implicit in "citizen" & "treason" is the ownership interest imposed by states. on the overtly marshal side, "g.i.joe" is known, recognized, as "state property". no less true for being covert is that the other-uniformed "citizen" is, too. (and it is only the complicity of denial – cowardice – on the part of "citizens" that has those matrix denizens feign incredulity at their indictment.)

    individuals absent property rights in themselves are called slaves. absence of property rights defines "the commons". tragedy follows. pine bark beetles & raging/consuming wildfires are a metaphor for "citizenship".

    • BH says:

      There is a bit of a difference. Treason applies to those who have taken an oath of loyalty and then broken it. Unlike "citizen", which is typically imposed, "treason" requires personal choice.

      So Southern officers were treasonous in the civil war if they went from being Union officers to Confederate officers, but not otherwise.

      • reunion says:

        "So Southern officers were treasonous in the civil war if they went from being Union officers to Confederate officers, but not otherwise."

        because "oath of loyalty" to "the union" represented subordination, to property status, of those officers. secession is a natural law right; life indenture is not even supposedly "legal" – but legality, being merely rules, can be absolutely anything.

  2. Paul says:

    I've been waiting for some of our "Statesmen" or the watch dogs in the media to call him on this. I am very afraid for the republic.

  3. Steve says:

    Watch dogs in the media? Oxymoron when it comes to the left.

  4. Pete DiOrio says:

    I don't think that overthrowing an illegitimate regime is "justified treason," or treason at all.

    • reunion says:

      and so the present regime (from at least 1865 forward), which crushed the legitimate southern effort to walk away (not "overthrow"), is what?

      • Pete DiOrio says:

        Only as legitimate as the citizens are willing to accept?

        • reunion says:

          is legitimacy subjective? not from a natural law (reality), or reason, perspective.

          • Pete DiOrio says:

            What is logical and well-reasoned (natural rights) is not subjective. What is "legal" is.

          • reunion says:

            yes. natlaw, rights, are discovered – and not by lawyers. legality is contrived. and the black heart of legality is manipulation, aggression. that's what is meant by "under color of law".

            "You say you haven't been the same since you had your little crash

            But you might feel better if they gave you some cash

            The more I think about it, Old Billy was right

            Let's kill all the lawyers, kill 'em tonight

            You don't want to work; you want to live like a king

            But the big, bad world doesn't owe you a thing"

            ~ "get over it", the eagles

  5. Naura Hayden says:

    I believe it would be a good idea, Mr. Ringer, for you to make an appointment to meet "MittMush" (how could he turn down a great writer — he won't!!) and tell him he must get more conservative and less "mushy" to win. And please remind him that Adolf Hitler was a charmer and kind to babies but was not a nice man, and Obama, who is also a charmer and kind to babes, is also not a nice man. Obama is a foreigner in a country which ignorantly voted him president, and he's doing his darnndest to ignore our Constitution and force his own socialist agenda on all of us, against our will.

    • Gill O’Teen says:

      Kind of depends whether or not those babies are still-in-the-womb. our emperor certainly hates the preborn.

  6. Rocketman says:

    If Romney wants to win then he needs to make the differences between him and Obama as stark as possible. I would go on the offensive telling the American people that if elected I will totally turn around everything that Obama has accomplished since he has been president. Obama got in because people were sick and tired of GW Bush and Romney will win if they think he's the anti-Obama.

  7. Lawrence says:

    What is worse; the devil we know or a new devil?

    • reunion says:

      lesser of two evils is perfectly analogous to plea bargaining with the political operatives (agents of state) known as cops & prosecutors. a sentence is “reduced”, but the rooks can’t put it together that the paragraph that constitutes their lives is one sentence after another, running sequentially, not concurrently. so the actual sentence works out to life…even as the number of syllables per sentence is shaved to low, low "payments" by the company store…."rent-a-center", now that's a metaphor.

      • Alice In Wonderland says:

        I agree.

        Voting for the "lesser of two evils" is voting for evil, period. Voting for evil is at best condoning evil; at worst, partnering with it. Almost daily, I hear and read the rationalizations for supporting (voting) evil into power, yet few are honest with themselves as to what they are actually doing.

        A prime example is Rand Paul supporting Romney, i.e. the lesser of two evils, of course. Another fine example is when Ronald Reagan said "I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism;" That's like saying the heart and soul of atheism is christianity.

        Oil and water doesn't mix naturally; neither does good and evil; neither does classical liberalism and conservatism.

        Libertarian-based conservative is an oxymoron.

        • reunion says:

          libertarianism is vital. strongly associated with youth. and idealism, principles. conservatives, and their stop signs, want to feel that vitality. or at least rub up against it. so some of them claim kinship. others merely want to pragmatically merge as many blocs as possible in an effort to win elections – of conservatives, not libertarians.

          some smart women in here, it turns out. or are you in drag, alice? lol

          • Alice In Wonderland says:

            "pragmatically merge"

            "Pragmatically" merging a true classical liberal with a conservative would be like pairing a Hominidae with a homo sapien; the two could physically have intercourse; however, intellectual intercourse would be impossible.

            Pairing a classical liberal with a conservative would be like pairing Ayn Rand with Mitt Romney; merging as such with conservatives would be philosophically and morally obscene. Merging with the lovers of the welfare-warfare-homeland-security state (aka Wonderland) dirties the human spirit, i.e. the "heart and soul."

            Compromising the individual and merging her with a collectivist only grows the collective.

    • BLH557 says:

      What is worse? A man who will be "free to move" after the election… Yes, I think so.

  8. Michael Rael says:

    While technically you are right about treason, Robert, about 1/2 the country approves of his actions, treasonous or not.

    I don't see him being impeached since you need more than 50% of the senators going for it. That cannot happen at this time.

    As I have stated here a number of times, folks who love personal liberty have to got to be standard bearers for Rand's ethic of rational self-interest. You have said in the past that a

    person is "heroic" who helps create jobs and stimulates the economy, while making money. Not true, Robert. You need to go for rational self-interest as the *only* qualification to be

    good and heroic. The reason is that, historically, when ethics is opposed to economics, almost always ethics wins out. That is the reason Obama talks again and again about

    social justice. His speeches occasionally mention Keynesian economics, but mainly he appeals to a sense of fairness that almost all of us have, at bottom.

    • reunion says:

      headcounts and majority rule and…rand's ethic? i detect a misreading (misranding?). you seem to be trying to use rand to justify collectivism…and to characterize that as "rational".

      ethics opposed economics? if there is a misalignment between these, then it's due to "economics" – keynesianism, as you mention, for one example.

      social justice? redundant. what other kind is there? of course, what the orwellians who cobbled this pair mean is some slip-sliding definition for a guaranteed baseline, or outcome, for various of their pet collectives. nothing "fair" about that. and no individuals to be seen.

      "The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities." ~ Ayn Rand

      or "social" collectives of minorities, either.

  9. topeka says:

    Good to know Rombama is cheerleading for obambam…

    … guess it's just another of those many jobs no American would do…

    … bah da bah da bah da da dum

  10. Tom D. says:

    I'd recommend anyone to read the book THE GUIDE TO THE PERFECT LATIN AMERICAN IDIOT. What's illustrated in that book is now happening here. (And Obama is a perfect example of that "idiot.")

  11. 極上ブログ!作家志望のための 何かありますか?私自身の起動に|私は望んで計画してよすぐにウェブサイトが、私はすべてで失わ少しだ。有償オプションのためのWordpressやジョギングのような無料のプラットフォームで始まるあなたは か? 私は完全だという、そこに混同そう多くはありませ..でも提案? それを感謝!
    フェリージ バーゲン$~-77sl.asp

Leave a Reply

To Receive Free Daily
Articles Via E-mail
Click Here

Featured Columnists

The Problem:
A Government-Created Depression
The Solution: Set the Entrepreneur Free to Create Wealth!

Click here to learn about Robert Ringer's landmark new book, The Entrepreneur:
The Way Back for the U.S. Economy
, that is shocking the establishment.

Liberty Education
Interview Series

Robert Ringer interviews top political, economic, and social leaders on today's most vital and controversial issues.

Dr. Benjamin Carson Interview

Featured Interview:
Dr. Benjamin Carson

Audio file loading...

More Interviews