Today our nation is facing perhaps the most critical situation it has faced since 1776 when our nation declared our Independence! Our very Constitution is being attacked by a man who has taken an oath of office to, “…preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States,” and also by those who have taken an oath to "support and defend" that same Constitution. Yet, some elected representatives find it in their best interest to refuse to honor their Oath of Office. We, the people, had sent these senators and representatives to their office with the idea that they would be trusted with our Constitution. But instead, they betray the very principles of their office. Some lay claim that this is an act of treason. With this in mind, let us look at just what treason is defined as.
Treason is defined by Webster's online as:
1. the betrayal of trust; 2. the offense of attempting by overt acts to overthrow the government of the state to which the offender owes allegiance or to kill or personally injure the sovereign or his family.
The 1828 Webster's Dictionary, which many would use to define words pertaining to the Constitution and the Founding Fathers defines Treason as:
Treason is the highest crime of a civil nature of which a man can be guilty. Its signification is different in different countries. In general, it is the offense of attempting to overthrow the government of the state to which the offender owes allegiance, or of betraying the state into the hands of a foreign power. In monarchies, the killing of the king, or an attempt to take his life, is treason. In England, to imagine or compass the death of the king, or of the prince, or of the queen consort, or of the heir apparent of the crown, is high treason; as are many other offenses created by statute.
Understanding what the definition of treason is, let us see just what our elected officials in Washington are doing with the Second Amendment and see if whether they are in fact committing an act of treason.
Second Amendment of the Constitution of the United States:
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
Now this has been determined to mean many things to many people, but the only definition that really matters is what the Founders intended when they wrote it. Some senators and representatives have taken a stand that they have the right to destroy this very important piece of our Constitution. Under the definition provided above, they have taken actions which fall into the category of becoming an act of treason towards the very Constitution they took an oath of office to support and defend. Instead, they are moving in a way that shows very clearly that they are in fact, not doing any of the things outlined in the oath, but rather the opposite of it.
Hhow can "We The People" even think of stopping these type of treasonous actions by the people we elected to serve? We as a nation must come to understand the true attempts that are now being made upon our nation by those sworn to support and defend our Constitution. We as a people must and should do all we can to ensure that the Constitution is not destroyed.
Even Attorney General for the United States, Eric Holder, has made statements that are contrary to his oath of office.
In a 1995 address to the Woman's National Democratic Club, Holder announced the launch of a public campaign to "really brainwash people into thinking about guns in a vastly different way."
"What we need to do," he explained, "is change the way in which people think about guns, especially young people, and make it something that's not cool, that it's not acceptable, it's not hip to carry a gun anymore, in the way in which we changed our attitudes about cigarettes."
Holder added that he had already asked advertising agencies to produce anti-gun ads rather than commercials "that make me buy things that I don't really need"; that he had urged local newspapers and television stations to devote prime space and time, respectively, to anti-gun themes; and that he had asked the local school board to make the anti-gun message a part of "every day, every school, and every level."
Today, Eric Holder has taken the stand to support gun control which by itself is an act of treason as so defined above! Yet, the Attorney General, the President, and many others have found it right to become individuals that use acts of treason to accomplish what cannot be done through legal or normal means.
During his tenure as Deputy Attorney General in the Clinton administration from 1997 to 2001, Holder was a strong supporter of restrictive gun-control legislation. He advocated federal licensing of handgun owners; a three-day waiting period on all handgun sales; limits on handgun sales to no more than one per month; a ban on the possession of handguns and so-called "assault weapons" by anyone younger than 21; a law authorizing the federal government to shut down all gun shows; and a national gun-registration mandate.
Attorney General Eric holder does not stop here though, He goes on with even more suggestions.
Holder also advanced the notion that “Every day that goes by, about 12, 13 more children in this country die from gun violence”—a statistic that would be true only if one classified 18-year-old, gun-wielding gangsters as “children.” In the wake of the 9/11 attacks, Holder wrote an opinion piece for The Washington Post calling for a new law that would give the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms “a record of every firearm sale.” He also advocated that prospective gun buyers be checked against the secret “watch lists” compiled by the government.
At present, Holder has made many statements to enforce some sort of gun control that would obstruct American citizens from owning weapons of any stature for his home protection and use to hunt with.
Even the Vice President Joe Biden made very serious statements that are not at all reasonable when he stated, “You don’t need an assault rifle to stop an intruder, you just need a double barrel shotgun with ammunition, the assault weapon is not as accurate as a shotgun.” (Or words to that affect.) Here it seems that Biden has never been in a situation where the so-called, “assault weapon" was used against several people attacking a single individual where that individual overcame the number of people attacking them.
Eric Holder holds the title of Attorney General, a title that is directly tied to the enforcement of laws and the Constitution. Yet, are his comments that counter the Second Amendment not treasonous?
In 2008, In Holder argued that “the Second Amendment did not protect an individual right to keep and bear arms,” but only protected government militias’ rights to guns. Scholar and political commentator John Lott writes that he “can’t find even one gun control law that Holder has opposed.”
“On every gun control regulation [Holder] has discussed,” says Lott, “he has been supportive, including: bans, raising the age that someone can possess a gun, registration and licensing, one-gun-a-month limit on purchases, and mandatory waiting periods.”
Let us list those officials that have now committed acts of treason by their actions and words: President Barack Obama, with his signing of unconstitutional executive orders contrary to the Constitution, Vice president Joe Biden, with his words making an attempt to change opinion of the Constitution, and Attorney General Eric Holder, with his words and his strong statements against the very oath he took. We cannot forget Senator Diane Feinstein (D-CA) and her deliberate attempt to classify weapons that are now legal under the Constitution. But all that these people have and will do cannot be enforced due to the Constitution itself. Here we must present some idea of why "We The People" do not have to abide by any laws made which are in direct conflict with the Second Amendment and State laws.
Unconstitutional Official Acts
The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any statute, to be valid, must be In agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows:
The General rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of it's enactment and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.
Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it.....
A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law. Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the lend, it is superseded thereby.
No one Is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.
Here it becomes very clear that those who present Un-Constitutional laws do not hold up to the very Constitution they swore and oath to support and defend. In doing so, all those who take a stand counter to the Constitution are people committing treason and making laws that cannot be upheld because they are unconstitutional. This must stop and these people must be held accountable for what they have done.
God help us all before it is too late!