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

16 Am  Jur 2d, Sec 177 late 2d, Sec 256:

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!