Just to be sure I knew what I was talking about before I wrote this column, I looked up the word “demagogue” in the dictionary. Here’s how it defined such an individual: “a person, esp. an orator or political leader, who gains power and popularity by arousing the emotions, passions and prejudices of the people.” To “demagogue” an issue is to capitalize on the emotions of the populace and use them as leverage to pursue a political agenda.
The issue known euphemistically as “gun control” is one that just naturally lends itself to demagoguery. Every time there is an incident involving the abuse of firearms in this country, the President renews his call for “stronger gun legislation.” At the same time, this Administration has been loath to enforce the 22,000 gun laws that are already on the books. So what if the Congress votes for more and stronger gun laws that will, like the present ones, not be seriously enforced? What’s the point of the whole exercise?
Clearly, the process of preying on the emotions of a distraught populace in the wake of each gun incident will continue apace. Yet the Administration’s goal cannot be not to put in place laws that will “work” since there is no serious effort by the Feds to enforce the laws that are already in place. Attorney General Janet Reno recently gave a speech in which she stressed prevention over enforcement. We must then ask the question, is prevention the job of the top law enforcement officer in the country? If I understand it correctly, it is the rightful role of the Attorney General to enforce existing laws, not to prevent them from being broken.
Using common sense and logic, what can we conclude from these facts? Follow the numbers below:
The present Administration is serious about adding more and more laws to the existing body of gun legislation now on the books.
It is just as unlikely to enforce these new laws as it has existing ones.
At some point, the Administration is likely to suggest that all of the thousands of gun laws that are in place are “not working” – Draconian measures are therefore warranted.
The Administration will, contrary to the Second Amendment of the Constitution, eliminate the Right to Bear Arms.
The goal must therefore be the disarming of America.
The only other serious possibility is that the President is trying to create the illusion that he has “done something about” gun violence in this country without actually doing anything about it.
Now, just for the sake of argument, let’s return to the idea that the President really wants to disarm American. What would this possibility imply? Why would any Administration want to render the US population helpless? Surely not to “save the lives of our school children who could be killed in gun violence.” If that were the objective, then the Feds would vigorously enforce all existing gun laws. They’re not doing it. So there must be some other purpose.
Okay, now this is the part where I wax paranoid. I think it’s because there are plans in the works to transform America into a post-Constitutional socialist state. If the US is to take its place in the New World Order, it will have to pursue a “Third Way” – the way of socialism. That means more and more power for an increasingly authoritarian government, and less and less power for an increasingly subjugated people.
This would explain why the Establishment is incrementally demonizing every kind of Constitutionalist, Traditionalist, patriot, political Conservative or conservative Christian in this country. These are the people who stand in the way of its achieving the Socialist/Globalist agenda. In his State of the Union speech, the President characterized the Senate as “facing down the gun lobby and standing up for the American people.” Those American citizens who believe in their Constitutional Right to Bear Arms” have now been reduced to “the gun lobby.” The Establishment that opposes them has become “The American people.” This clever sleight of nomenclature is highly Clintonian. It is also very revealing. It seems to tell us something of the direction in which this once great country is headed.
The process of globalization is well underway and probably beyond the point of no return. Anymore, one does not have to be a conspiracy theorist, or a member of the John Birch society to recognize this. Even Establishment authors are saying matter-of-factly that globalization is the one thing that defines the post-Cold War world. Writes Thomas L. Friedman, Foreign Affairs columnist for the Left-leaning New York Times, “Globalization is not just a phenomenon. It is not just some passing trend. It is the overarching international system shaping the domestic politics and foreign relations of virtually every country, and we need to understand it as such” (The Lexus and the Olive Tree, p. 7).
Those of us who insist on maintaining traditional values, supporting the Constitution of the United States, and living by and advocating the sexual morality of Scripture are swimming against the tide. The Right to Bear Arms and the implementation of a police state are mutually exclusive. Alas, the American public is like the proverbial frog in the pot – blissfully unaware that it, along with truth itself, is being cooked.