image

While I’m no fan of President Obama, and while I think his actions have at times pressed (and occasionally surpassed) the boundaries of his Constitutional authority – not to mention those of common sense and good governance – I’m not one to let dangerous, deceitful, and downright ludicrous allegations about this or any President go unchallenged.

It’s well past time that those of us with a non Liberal perspective stand up to say “enough” to conspiracy theorists and fear mongering when it comes to Obama. If folks present facts and a cogent argument against a President’s policies or his actions, I’m all there to hear them.

When accusations, smears and/or paranoia driven speculation are substituted for reason and a cogent argument, however, I want none of it.

There is a ‘movement’ afoot among many Republicans and Conservatives. They use innocuous statements by Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder to allege that the Administration has put a nefarious scheme in motion to disarm local police, the military and/or average citizens to reach the end goal of a police state that is either nationalist or, according to one version, globalist in nature.

Such ridiculously unprovable, outrageously insulting claims could ordinarily be brushed off as the musings of a paranoid, lunatic fringe. However, given the fact that the innocuous statements of the Administration which gave rise to these ‘theories’ were not made in a vacuum, but rather come as a result of well publicized and oft discussed allegations of police misconduct and racial bias in Ferguson, Missouri, New York City and elsewhere, many non lunatics – some with all honesty and good faith – have jumped on board the conspiracy bandwagon.

That the events in Ferguson, NY, and elsewhere are spun – correctly or not – as racially motivated or inspired makes the reactions from the Right to these allegations – claims which would otherwise be recognized as sheer nuttiness – telling. Their willing credulity should give honest, thoughtful people pause to objectively consider their biases and motives for swallowing whole the lunacy. That is not to say that these folks have unspoken or unrecognized racial bias, but rather that that due to their distrust of this President many have drawn unproven conclusions about his biases and his intent.

I’ll not be bothered to attempt to chase down each and every scream of “Obama is becoming a dictator”. Each variant has its base in the same set of premises. Refute those premises and it becomes unnecessary to go after each and every variant or story.

The theory as a whole consists of claiming that President Obama and his Administration have a secret agenda to disarm the police and the military and to replace them with a Federal force answerable only to the White House (or, in some versions, the United Nations).

The basic premises that the theory is built on:

—That the Obama Administration accepts the ‘social justice/white privilege/’war on blacks’ message of race hustlers and race obsessed ‘intellectuals’ and are willingly, knowingly promoting it in their policies and their statements so as to foment racial and class warfare.

—That race hustling allies of the Ferguson protesters – folks like Al Sharpton and Jessie Jackson – are the mechanism to convey the ‘disarm police’ message to the masses.

—That Ferguson related protests (and now the NYC protests) are the excuse they will use/are using to disarm the police.

—That existing (and planned) laws and Executive orders will be/are being used to achieve the end goal of a Federal police state.

Before we begin to consider these ‘facts’ I’ll happily ask that anyone who has accepted the conspiracy theory as true to correct me if I have made any errors regarding these basic premises. I’d not wish to be mistaken nor do I wish to be accused of misrepresenting their beliefs.

A disclaimer is needed before we proceed. Normally I’d not bother to offer such a disclaimer, nor would it be necessary under ordinary circumstances. However, these are not ordinary circumstances. Given our “assume and accuse first, ask questions later” social climate, this disclaimer is essential.

Many of the folks who believe in the “Obama is creating a police state” theory are friends and colleagues. They are people I both care about and respect. Most are not racist nor are they consciously interested in pursuing these ‘premises’ to their logical conclusion – which would be large scale civil unrest leading to literal, all out class and racial warfare. However, that IS the end result which will necessarily come of these premises. Moral culpability for such an end will be and SHOULD be placed primarily (though not exclusively) on the shoulders of those who promote this conspiracy.

This is the reason I choose to speak out.

A caveat: YES, there are racial agitators who would like nothing else but to see society collapse into chaos. YES, there are agitators who use cultural and political divisions to promote themselves and their own social/political agendas. YES, there are some on either side of the political divide who would benefit from chaos and who actively promote ideas which stoke the cultural flames. YES, there are some who seek to disarm the police and some who wish for a force answerable to the UN and the White House, and YES, there are many who see benefit from such an end goal.

These folks, however, are irrelevant. They’ve neither the political authority, power or influence to achieve their ends. Morally and politically, they are completely neutered. They do, however, have a trump card. That trump card is the folks who believe these agitators have either moral or political power. This trump card exists on both sides of the aisle. Those who would oppose cultural chaos and war have the most to lose from such chaos. Yet they are doing and saying the very things which are most likely to cause such a war. Such folks, wherever they are, will bear the bulk of moral culpability if such chaos occurs, as they are in the best position to prevent it. Indeed they are the only ones who can.

Let’s now consider the ‘evidence’ the theorists offer for the first premise.

1) that President Obama has met ‘in secret’ with Al Sharpton and other civil rights leaders and with sundry other unidentified Ferguson protesters, so he clearly must agree with their ‘race baiting’ agenda.

2) that Attorney General Holder has announced a plan to ‘deal with’ incidents of alleged ‘racial profiling’ and thus, conspiracists argue, they intend, as one Conservative website puts ever so succintly, to “green light black crime”.

3) that Obama said if he had a son he would “look like Trayvon (Martin)”, so he clearly agrees with those who think that Martin was killed because of his race and Obama must, therefore, be subtly attempting to fan the racial flames.

4) that because the President said that police ‘acted stupidly’ when a white officer in Cambridge, Massachusetts arrested a black professor in his home the President is once more sending race hustlers a ” I’m with you” message.

Leaving aside for now the Trayvon and Cambridge comments, and leaving aside also that #2 is clearly a veiled attempt to provoke fear of ‘black criminals run amok’, let’s look at #1.

Has President Obama met ‘in secret’ with race hustlers and Ferguson protesters? Snopes.com fact checked this alleged ‘secret meeting’ . Verdict: “mostly false”. Snopes found that the story derives from a well reported on meeting the President had with Al Sharpton, and leaders of the NAACP & the Urban League. The meeting was NOT a secret and did not include any of the Ferguson protesters proper. If one seeks to hide one’s motives or disguise a meeting the purpose of which being to ‘stay the course’ towards civil unrest, one does not hold the meeting in the open, nor does one release the fact of said meeting to the media.

Let’s look at the supposed move to ‘green light’ crime committed by blacks which Holder is allegedly prepared to provide.

As the video above shows, Attorney General Holder was discussing Federal review of allegations of racial profiling. He was specifically discussing a review of Federal cases, which is of course well within his purview as head of the Justice Department. That being said, the notion that reviewing allegations of racial profiling or streamlining federal rules on racial profiling is tantamount to a ‘free pass’ for black criminals requires a leap of logic that is nearly comical if it weren’t such a dangerous, racially tinged notion.

Just how exactly a review or streamlining of the rules on how, when, and under what circumstances the FBI (or indeed any ) police agency may profile suspects based on race equates to giving black criminals ‘the green light’ to commit crimes is a question best put to those who make such an argument. Why would someone attempt such a leap in logic and moral reasoning? Ask the conspiracy theorists, cus I got nothing.

We come finally to the ideas that a black President publicly relating in a personal way to a young black kid is a coded attempt to drive a racial agenda, or that because the President jumped to erroneous conclusions (legal or moral) about the arrest of his friend that he is pushing an anti police narrative. Please.

The only way to make such a mental leap would be to believe one knows what is in the mind and heart of another, even if he himself does not. Acts of psychogizing have no place in public discourse – or indeed in any interpersonal behavior. Actions and words alone are appropriate things to judge a persons motives. Presumed, secretly hidden thoughts are not. Guessing at secret motivations that, conveniently, fit precisely with one’s own political assumptions and biases is not proof of one’s argument but is instead a moral crime.

Let us now entertain the premise that race hustlers are the mechanism by which the Administration would disseminate the “disarm the police” message.

Sniperhunter2012 grants the facts that folks like Al Sharpton and Jessie Jackson are race hustlers and they do indeed have a race inspired, disarm the police social justice agenda. Their words and actions – past and present – adequately confirm these facts.

Sniperhunter2012 has dealt with the Ferguson problem and the goals of the race hustlers elsewhere. What evidence do the conspiracy theorists offer to show that the Administration supports these goals or believes Ferguson is emblematic of the rightness of said goals? What evidence have they provided that the Administration intends to use Ferguson or the race hustlers to achieve – anything? The only ‘evidence’ which has thus far been offered is the fact that the President met with the race hustlers – which we’ve covered already – and statements made by the Administration about the Ferguson situation which reiterated what any rational person would insist: that people remain calm, that violence and crime are no way to achieve justice, and that those who protest peacefully have every right to do so.

Apparently, for the conspiracy crowd, acknowledging the reality of Ferguson is tantamount to using Ferguson to push an agenda. For the conspiracists, the apparent agenda of the President as perceived by most – acknowledge Ferguson, calm folks down, and condemn the looters and thugs for the criminals they are – is a false perception. For the conspiracists, these public statements are not to be judged on their merit. For the conspiracists, remain calm = act out, criminals = noble protesters, and acknowledgement of reality by this Administration is an attempt to subvert reality.

We come then to the premise that the anti police protests will be used as an excuse to disarm the police. While Sniperhunter2012 acknowledges that this Administration (and Liberal Democrats in general) is no fan of guns, and while Sniperhunter2012 will also grant that the Administration has not exactly been shouting to the rooftops their praise of police officers, to argue that they intend to disarm the police requires that an individual making said argument provide supportive evidence. The conspiracy theorists have provided not a single shred of evidence save one, which brings us to the final premise. We have the idea that the Federal Government will use/is using existing law, along with hypothesized future Executive Orders, to establish the police state they desire.

The conspiracy theorists maintain that the current discussion in the United Nations regarding the ownership of guns, along with the existence of a little known Federal Law dating back to the early sixties, is proof positive that the Adminstration, at the behest of the UN, intends to disarm the general populace, the police and the military.

The “Obama is building a police state” crowd face two barriers to demonstrating the reality of the premise they’ve accepted.

One: the President’s own words and his well established beliefs on the subject

and

Two: their own ignorance of the source of their dearly held premise.

The President, and his party, are on record repeatedly railing against the militarization of the police. On this issue, Libertarians, Liberals, and Conservatives alike all claim that they oppose this militarization. All maintain that it is at best a barrier and at worst a direct threat to freedom. All maintain that they seek as much as is possible to keep police matters at a local level and to prevent local and state police forces from morphing into mirrors of military forces. All claim they wish to prevent the police from rolling down main street with rocket launchers and tanks. Presumably, all mean it.

Here we have the President discussing the subject:

Opposition to the militarization of the police is a deeply held premise of Liberalism. So we then have a dilemma.

How could the President possibly support Federalizing local police if he opposes the militarization of said police? Concentrating Federal power in the municipalities and the states necessarily would mean providing them heavy weaponry. To believe one premise necessarily means one must reject the other. Either the President is lying about opposing militarization, in which case he must be consciously rejecting a core Liberal value, or he DOES oppose it, in which case his support for a Federalized police force would be a laughable contradiction in values and terms.

This paradox is not the fault of a conflicted President but rather belongs to a Right wing who’ve failed to think through their own argument. They’re so convinced of the truth of their own assumptions and biases that they fail to consider the contradictions.

This brings us to the primary problem with their argument, the issue of ignorance.

Those who believe the Federal Government is hatching a plot to disarm people maintain that a little known law, signed by President Kennedy in 1961, will be implemented and enforced to disarm the police, civilians and the military. They argue that the law eliminates our autonomy, transferring our government’s authority over to the United Nations. They maintain that indeed this was the intended purpose of that law. They offer into evidence the current debate in the UN about guns as proof that such a scheme is in motion. These theorists are either ignorant of the nature of the UN debate and the law they reference, are deliberately evading the nature’s of both, or are intentionally deceitful – pulling one over credulous though possibly paranoid supporters.

If the Federal law in question or the United Nation’s Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) currently under discussion dealt with gun ownership, or if the 1961 Federal law in fact did turn over our autonomy, one might be persuaded. However, as John Adams said, “facts are stubborn things”. ATT deals not with gun ownership but with international gun trade. Never mind that it has yet to be ratified or acceded to by Congress. Congress is unlikely to sign on, as there is currently bipartisan opposition to it.

We finally come to what the theorists believe to be, if you’ll excuse the pun, the smoking gun of their conspiracy, PL87-297 Arms Control and Disarmament Act, a law they argue is the linchpin of a ” Globalist Plan To Disarm America”.

Despite the implications of rantings by bloggers who merely repost (word for word) identical instructions to ” go to your librarian and ask to see”, etc., – the implication being that said information has been somewhat hidden from public view – one can easily find the application segments of the law (and its various amendments) published online in the US code, as well as the law’s definitions for “disarmament”.

While the structure of the sites where the law can be found makes reading the law cumbersome, a simple reading (rather than paranoid absorption of ominous sounding oft quoted passages ) provides these three take aways:

1) The law does not provide for actual disarmament of anyone, be they private citizens, military personnel, or armed forces as a whole. Rather than practical implementation of arms reduction/elimination measures, it provides the structure and funds for the study of a potential disarmament, as well as relevant studies of the question of whether such disarmament is practical from either an economic or national security angle. 2) nowhere within the law does it turn our security over to anyone. 3) the law has zero – zero – effect on private gun ownership, it refers only to arms held by the United States government.

How then did a seemingly intricate theory about a global plot to disarm America develop and take hold in the psyches of otherwise rational, clear thinking and thoughtful people?

Much like the understandable fear and paranoia surrounding the (almost certainly unconstitutional) powers vested in the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) in the event of a “national emergency”, people’s natural, rational fear and distrust of Government power and authority – along with a lack of knowledge or understanding of the particulars of law – mix well with dislike and distrust of a particular Administration.

Fear and distrust of government power and authority is, of course, the primary reason our Founders designed our government as they did, diffusing control and power while vesting in the people themselves the power and autonomy necessary to keep and maintain freedom. They knew, however, that power corrupts. When folks think a particular official or leader is corrupt, they fear the worst even when that leader or official has said or done little to warrant said fear.

{On a personal note, this writer believes that this particular Administration has said and done enough things to warrant heavy skepticism about his motives and intent. However, on the particulars of this specific fear, this writer remains in doubt.}

Here’s the rub: as mentioned at the beginning, if civil unrest over, say, allegations of racially motivated abuse of authority, leads to nationwide chaos and the inevitable government intervention to follow, the bulk of the blame for the anger and chaos will and should be placed on those who, deliberately or not, fan the flames of that anger. Those who choose to either dismiss the anger or to fan its flames will be to blame. Both have the power of moral authority necessary to prevent such chaos, yet both continue to be mired in their own biases and assumptions.

Sniperhunter2012 calls on his friends and colleagues of the Right, be they Conservative, Republican or Libertarian, to recognize that not every story about this President’s alleged sins, errors, or crimes are accurate or true. The rantings of a few zealots notwithstanding, Barack Obama is neither devil nor saint, but merely a man with difficult, often monumental decisions to make. He is, however, just a man. Errors are possible even to him. Before authority fell on him via his election by the majority of his state and, ultimately, the nation, he was merely a guy who sought to do what he believed was right, not unlike you or I.

Unless one wishes to claim omniscience, one cannot know his intent or his reasons for a given choice he makes unless he himself states it. Ditto members of his Administration, his colleagues in government, and his supporters.

Sniperhunter2012 calls on folks to stop falling for every item or headline they come across claiming the worst about the man. Think before you speak or share. Rather than jump on the bandwagon and express outrage at a headline screaming out alleged moral or political crimes, perhaps you might instead think clearly enough to read the articles. Rather than simply scan the buzzwords of a headline, learn the facts. Often the headlines have zero to do with the actual contents and are merely designed for maximum shares. Perhaps also you might consider first the biases of the article’s author before you accept it as gospel. Often these items make disingenuous claims which fail the sniff test of logic.

Fact check. Research. Confirm. Verify.

President Reagan’s advice to “trust, but verify” applies equally (if not more so) to the claims of those with whom we’d normally agree.

Most critically, at a time when resentment and suspicion is at an all time high, it is critical that each of us know who the real enemies are. We must recognize who it is that has the most power to harm our cause. It’s past time that we cease giving quarter to those whom our political enemies would point to to as proof that opposition to the President is based on his race. The bigots among us are the largest barrier to convincing anyone of the rightness of our political and moral positions.

Racists are, by nature, irrational. We have nothing to gain from them.

Sniperhunter2012 strongly recommends that when these morons pop off with racist nonsense we immediately deal with them. If confronted with them online we should block them from disseminating their garbage. We challenge them loudly when dealing with them face to face. Many of us currently have online ‘friends’ who share or post racial trash or make racist comments. We know who they are. Time to trim our ‘friends’ list.

These people are not part of our cause, they are it’s most effective enemy.

In our defense of liberty, Capitalism, the Constitution and the United States we have reason and reality on our side. Our political opponents have a failed ideology and smears. It’s time we begin to see the power and moral authority we actually have. If we continue to fall for false flags (especially those from within), for paranoid assumptions, or for wolves in sheep’s clothing, reason and reality will be the final arbiter of our cause.

If we continue to accept nonsense as Truth we will fail.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s