Centuries ago, just after America won its War of Independence versus King George III, two Europeans giants again battled over liberty versus tyranny. This struggle between Britain and France certainly involved military control of the Continent. But it was also a fight which would determine the nature of global commerce and religion.
Horatio Nelson, history’s greatest admiral battled Napoleon Bonaparte, most acclaimed general of the age. Nelson believed he fought for Christianity, free trade and liberty. Contra, Napoleon openly stood for atheism, tyranny and a globally directed economy. Symbolically, Napoleon never blinked at death and carnage, believing victory justified any human sacrifice.
Today, centuries later, Americans and the world face a similar struggle for liberty, capitalism and religious freedom, unbelievably under America’s own deranged POTUS. First, Barack has committed acts which have made defense of America’s most sacred rights harder. The rights Thomas Jefferson so memorably outlined in the beginning of his immortal Declaration of Independence:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.—That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,—That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
To state the obvious, all of Obama’s horrifically ill-advised decisions cannot be a coincidence. Therefore, Barack must be removed before he does even worse. This will be achieved by patriotic Americans, via impeachment, or some other removal strategy, based upon Anglo-American doctrine called Resistance Theory, once used to break off ties with England during the American Revolution. Yes, folks, it has come to that!
Or, as John Locke observed:
For when the people are made miserable, and find themselves exposed to the ill usage of arbitrary power…The people generally ill treated, and contrary to right, will be ready upon any occasion to ease themselves of a burden that sits heavy upon them. They will wish, and seek for the opportunity, which in the change, weakness and accidents of human affairs, seldom delays long to offer itself.
The argument of this essay is that Barack Obama is committing treason through his actions, inaction and statements, because they are designed to cripple America and force us into involuntary socialism.
A few things to note here. First, as the commander in chief, Barack is supposed to uphold the Constitution and all the laws of the land, and yet he regularly flouts the law. Second, Obama is to especially protect the rights of Americans, specifically those in the Bill of Rights, and most supremely those mentioned in the Declaration—Life, Liberty, and Property (Happiness).
Third, internationally, Barack is a one-man wrecking crew. The smug martinet helped cause the Middle East to become a tinderbox through his bizarre decision making. Meanwhile, he inexplicably shrinks the military. Fourth, Obama has helped make a sieve of the border, as tens of thousands of illegals pour across the border, daily—quickly whisked to the kinds of accommodations America’s homeless could only dream of. With a 94% crossing success rate, logic dictates some of these must be Islamic militants. Our economy is contracting, never recovering after 7 years of recession. American energy policy is a joke, with the government attempting to shutter coal production, and undermining the Keystone Pipeline. Meanwhile, the government itself is spying on and clamping down on everyday Americans. And the hits just keep on coming!
So, Barack must be held accountable by removal as soon as possible.
Treason is defined by Dictionary.com as:
Technically, Treason is measured under US law by whether a person is aiding the enemy during war. But even by that marker, Obama aids Al Qaeda and the Taliban by unreasonably reducing American presence in the Middle East, and thereby helping a terrorist state to arise. Further, he released 5 top Taliban generals without a rational reason, thereby aiding their war against America.
In every important sense, Barack has fulfilled the above definition. The best possible defense of his actions is that, in his utter brilliance, he knows that the US must suffer a revolution so as to enter into a new golden age of socialism or Marxism. But certainly that is unreasonable, to say the least.
The obvious problems with the idea of Barack being a noble and selfless Marxist revolutionary, out to save the world are innumerable. First, Obama swore to uphold out Constitution when he entered office. Therefore, regardless of his motivations, he has rejected his oath, and therefore is a scofflaw rebel, and must be removed. Second, the entire premise of America is based upon liberty, including economic freedom. Socialism, by its very nature, demands economic subjugation of the populace, and so could never work here.
Third, if Barack wanted to make an argument that Marxism offers a better life, on the whole, for Americans, he could have done this before unilaterally acting out to sabotage us. Instead, working as a rogue, he is obviously attempting to undermine and destroy the US Constitution. Therefore, Obama is engaged in rebellion against the foundation of the American government, the legal system, society, history, our Founders, and the broad opinion of the US population. In other words, Barack is fostering an enormous act of sedition and revolt every bit as abominable as Benedict Arnold’s and Aaron Burr’s and so must be stopped by any legal means available.
Has Barack committed High Treason? The Heritage site states:
High treason involved a breach between subject and sovereign, a betrayal of (or neglect of duty or renunciation of allegiance to, in word or deed) a sovereign to whom a subject owes allegiance by birth or residence. Sir Edward Coke, Baron de Montesquieu, Sir Matthew Hale, and Sir William Blackstone considered treason the highest of crimes and declared that it must be precisely defined to prevent its abuse by governmental authorities.
Originally the Constitution defined Treason as waging war against the US, or giving aid and comfort to its enemies, with Congress to later address the punishment. In 1790, the subject of Treason was addressed:
If any person or persons, owing allegiance to the United States of America, shall levy war against them, or shall adhere to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States, or elsewhere, and shall be thereof convicted on confession in open Court, or on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act of the treason whereof he or they shall stand indicted, such person or persons shall be adjudged guilty of treason against the United States, and SHALL SUFFER DEATH; and that if any person or persons, having knowledge of the commission of any of the treasons aforesaid, shall conceal, and not, as soon as may be, disclose and make known the same to the President of the United States, or some one of the Judges thereof, or to the President or Governor of a particular State, or some one of the Judges or Justices thereof, such person or persons, on conviction, shall be adjudged guilty of misprision of treason, and shall be imprisoned not exceeding seven years, and fined not exceeding one thousand dollars.
In Federalist 43, James Madison, creator of the US Constitution, wrote:
As treason may be committed against the United States the authority of the United States ought to be enabled to punish it: but as new tangled and artificial treasons have been the great engines by which violent factions, the natural offspring of free governments, have usually wreaked their alternate malignity on each other, the Convention has with great judgment opposed a barrier to this peculiar danger by inserting a Constitutional definition of the crime.
Madison’s statements are well-designed to note the various, and often hidden ways a person, toiling against their own state, could undermine it. Obama does this daily, even admitting it was his goal to work outside of Congress, like some deranged, would-be, neo-modern emperor, in making irrelevant our immigration system.
While one might argue Obama has not levied war against America, even on this technicality, his actions in abandoning Iraq allowed radical Muslims to reassert their hegemony in the region. ¬†His gift of returning the Taliban generals, were also a godsend to our enemy, and were wholly avoidable. Further, George W. Bush generally declared war against “Radical Islam,” and in particular the US is currently warring against radical Islam in Afghanistan. Whereas SCOTUS in Cramer v. United States, stated that aiding the enemy must be intended to help them wage war against the US, which is easily inferred.
Another law Obama has broken is that against sedition. Certainly his enticing adults and kids across the border would violate this law. This is from US Code 18 U.S.C. § 2384: Seditious Conspiracy:
If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.
Resistance Theory, or resisting unjust authority in a moral manner, is one of the most revolutionary ideas in history, and a tentacle of Natural Law reasoning. It is generally understood that at some point, any leader can be removed for cause, if he or she goes too far in their actions, or inaction. This would include any elected leader, and even a pope, for doing things revealing a lack of fidelity to the state, and also actions which put the state’s existence in grave peril.
Quentin Skinner, in The Foundations of Modern Political Thought, traces Resistance Theory back deep into Luther’s battle with the Church in the mid-1500s, as articulated in a remarkable tract called Confession and Apology of the Pastors and Other Ministers of the Church at Magdeburg. While under siege, pastors of Madgeburg outlined the right to resist rulers doing unjust things. Also, Francis Oakley, in The Conciliarist Tradition: Constitutionalism in the Catholic Church 1300-1870, traces this right to resistance against unjust rulers to the fight in the Catholic Church against the antinomian (anti-law) pope Urban VI, which lead to the Great Schism of 1378 to 1418.
1. John Calvin on Principled Resistance
John Calvin, perhaps the most influential mind of the last 450 years, allowed removal of tyrants. His Institutes, Chapter 20, on Civil Government, Section 31 states this:
But whatever may be thought of the acts of the men themselves, the Lord by their means equally executed his own work, when he broke the bloody sceptres of insolent kings, and overthrew their intolerable dominations. Let princes hear and be afraid; but let us at the same time guard most carefully against spurning or violating the venerable and majestic authority of rulers, an authority which God has sanctioned by the surest edicts, although those invested with it should be most unworthy of it, and, as far as in them lies, pollute it by their iniquity. Although the Lord takes vengeance on unbridled domination, let us not therefore suppose that that vengeance is committed to us, to whom no command has been given but to obey and suffer. I speak only of private men. For when popular magistrates have been appointed to curb the tyranny of kings…So far am I from forbidding these officially to check the undue license of kings, that if they connive at kings when they tyrannise and insult over the humbler of the people, I affirm that their dissimulation is not free from nefarious perfidy, because they fradulently betray the liberty of the people, while knowing that, by the ordinance of God, they are its appointed guardians.
Development of modern Resistance Theory is aided by Reformed theology, as discussed in David VanDrunen’s Natural Law and the Two Kingdoms: A Study in the Development of Reformed Social Thought, Chapter 4: Natural Law in Early Reformed Resistance Theory. VanDrunen writes,
Reformed resistance theory…has generated a large amount of literature from scholars exploring the development of Western political thought, many who identify it as a key source for the emergence of revolutionary thinking, constitutional democracy, and modernization more generally.
1. John Locke
We already know that John Locke opposed the foundation for tyranny by crown as he powerfully refuted Robert Filmer’s support of Divine Right of Kings. Resistance Theory is presumed by Locke’s rejection of divine rights, noted in Julian H. Franklin’s John Locke and the Theory of Sovereignty: Mixed Monarchy and the Right of Resistance in the Political Thought of the English Revolution.
2. Locke on Resistance: Right to Revolution
Franklin states Locke developed a theory of the community, as legal entity, which creates a legislature which it vests with its authority, until the power is abused. Then the authority of the community vested in the legislature reverts back to the community. According to Locke, in Two Treatises on Government, where the people have been oppressed by tyranny, they have the right to a revolution. This should not be a one time act, but according to Franklin,
Revolution is appropriate where a people are confronted by a calculated design to subvert its constitution and reduce it to a state of servitude. The king, by repudiating law in general, now forfeits not only the law confers, but all of the authority derived from it. The consequence is the entire dissolution of the government and a state of war between the king and the community.
John Locke’s own comments:
But if any one should ask, Must the people then always lay themselves open to the cruelty and rage of tyranny? Must they see their cities pillaged, and laid in ashes, their wives and children exposed to the tyrant’s lust and fury, and themselves and families reduced by their king to ruin, and all the miseries of want and oppression, and yet sit still? Must men alone be debarred the common privilege of opposing force with force, which nature allows so freely to all other creatures for their preservation from injury? I answer: Self-defence is a part of the law of nature; nor can it be denied the community, even against the king himself: but to revenge themselves upon him, must by no means be allowed them; it being not agreeable to that law.
Now Obama has shown his hand, revealing all his “mistakes” were Marxist subterfuge, America must settle on the best way to remove him from office, legally. Given the foundation of Right of Resistance, we shall examine next week Impeachment as a specie of resistance. Until then, pray God restrain evil in America until this progressive monster can be exposed, identified, de-fanged, and removed.
Kelly O’Connell is an author and attorney. He was born on the West Coast, raised in Las Vegas, and matriculated from the University of Oregon. After laboring for the Reformed Church in Galway, Ireland, he returned to America and attended law school in Virginia, where he earned a JD and a Master’s degree in Government. He spent a stint working as a researcher and writer of academic articles at a Miami law school, focusing on ancient law and society. He has also been employed as a university Speech & Debate professor. He then returned West and worked as an assistant district attorney. Kelly is now is a private practitioner with a small law practice in New Mexico. Kelly is now host of a daily, Monday to Friday talk show at AM KOBE called AM Las Cruces w/Kelly O’Connell
Pursuant to Title 17 U.S.C. 107, other copyrighted work is provided for educational purposes, research, critical comment, or debate without profit or payment. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for your own purposes beyond the 'fair use' exception, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. Views are those of authors and not necessarily those of Canada Free Press. Content is Copyright 1997-2017 the individual authors. Site Copyright 1997-2017 Canada Free Press.Com Privacy Statement