TWO OMINOUS DANGER SIGNS

I have long warned that our government-- by which I do not mean simply the Bush Administration-- is moving toward totalitarianism. Recently there have been two ominous danger signs that that the final step toward fascism is about to be taken. The first concerns the break-down of our two-party system, one of the unwritten "checks and balances" which has worked very well to keep any one political group from amassing too much power. Of course that break-down has been on-going for some time now, but it has recently reached new heights-- or one might better say new depths-- in the marked preference that Hilary Clinton has shown for the probable Republican nominee, John McCain, over her opponent for the Democratic nomination, Barack Obama. I wrote in my last blog that the presidential elections offer us little choice, but I confess that I am beginning to feel sorry for Obama, whom Clinton has treated viciously. And I am beginning to think that he might indeed be willing to restore the Constitution if elected, although he won't come out and say so openly as did former Candidate Senator Chris Dodd, who has now thrown his support to him. After all, that strategy did not work for Dodd, and Obama cannot be blamed for concluding that it won't work for him. But unfortunately we will never know if he would have restored the constitutional liberties that the Military Commissions Act has taken away, for Obama has no chance of obtaining the Democratic nomination. Gary Hart has written that by saying that only she and McCain are capable of being Commander-in-Chief, Clinton has broken the "last rule in politics" by betraying her own party. That is true, but she has done more than that. She has signaled, in her abominable contempt for her fellow Democrat, that whatever the people think, whomever we want to be president, she has absolute confidence that she will win the Democratic nomination because the VIPs who really control this country-- the intelligence establishment and STRATCOM above all-- have decided that the only people they would accept as Commander-in-Chief are McCain and Clinton, and thus Obama has been ruled out. Along with the total spinelessness of Congress in failing to repeal the Military Commissions Act, and (so far) the unwillingness of the Supreme Court to strike it down as unconstitutional, this removes one of the few barriers to the concentration of power which the Founders feared, and thus to tyranny.

The other danger sign is the increasing number of hints the Bush Administration is offering that it opposes the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. As a avid conservationst, I of course know of the numerous ways that it is giving increased license to hunters. This is certainly bad news for endangered species such as the Yellowstone wolves, but it has even more ominous implications for the American people. Being knee-jerk opponents of gun rights, most liberals cannot see the obvious implications. The National Rifle Association is a powerful lobby, which has often protected those rights in the past. But I know, having been a member, that it is composed primarily of hunters. Its main concern is not self-defense or defense against tyrannical government, but the preservation of the right to hunt. Having heard of these pro-hunting measures I wondered, could the Administration (and hence the real rulers, for whom it is a mere mouthpiece) be "throwing a bone" to the NRA in preparation for the introduction of legislation banning handguns? I did a net search. And sure enough, it turns out that the Bush Administration is taking a stand on gun control which is unprecedented for a Republican Administration. According to the Second Amendment rights group Gun Owners of America, it has filed a brief before the Supreme Court in the case of D.C v. Heller, arguing that any gun ban-- no matter how sweeping-- could be constitutional if some court determines that it is "reasonable". To quote Larry Pratt, president of GOA, "What the Bush Administration has done is to, on the one hand, say the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms, but on the other hand, courts can make of it what they will... they can use 'lawyerese'-- they can call it 'reasonable security'-- which means they can play with the constitution any which way they want." (http://www.onenewsnow/Legal/Default.aspx?id=65462).

What does all this mean? It means that the right-wing hunters who dominate the NRA will still be able to hunt-- even endangered species-- which will defang the the most powerful opponent of gun prohibition. Knowing the NRA as well as I do, I suspect that it may raise a feeble voice when the Administration introduces a measure to ban handguns alone, but since such a ban would not touch the rifles and shotguns that most of its members care most about, its ability to block the measure will be greatly reduced. The real victims will be the people who need handguns for self-defense against criminals-- for instance women who for any reason must live alone-- especially mothers-- and those who oppose our government's policies in other areas. And why is the Administration taking this stance? Because it has such a commitment to the protection of human life? Can one possibly believe that of a government that is pursuing policies of genocide around the world? Of course not. It is because it is aiming to do exactly what the Second Amendment was enacted to prevent-- remove any possibility of its opponents being able to defend themselves against incursions upon their liberties. Unfortunately the mindless anti-gun mentality of the otherwise progressive forces in this country will leave it helpless to do anything to retain this last bastion of liberty, as the Administration well knows. And with the NRA essentially mollified, there will be no barrier against the banning of handguns, which has always accompanied the rise of dictators everywhere.

Thomas Jefferson, who was passionately pro-gun, must be wracked with torment in his grave at this latest step toward tyranny.